Rivermead Central

John R Smith

Western Thunderer
That said, it cannot always be the case that an historic artefact must be used as intended to be fully appreciated and understood. I can see such an approach would present insuperable legal and moral difficulties for a museum of arms and armour, for example.

Yes, very droll and a point well made!

So, do you know if there are best practice guidelines or similar on how to approach the conservation of mechanical objects?

Well, there probably are such guidelines, specifically I can imagine there might some be for important clocks and watches, for example. In our modern era there are motor museums and aircraft museums which must wrestle with similar philosophical debates.

Sadly, I can't be of much help in this area of mechanical objects, as my experience has been mostly in the recording and conservation of historic buildings (like Perran Foundry in Perranwell amd Harvey's Foundry in Hayle) - and more broadly, extensive sites. For example early tramways and railways, as in Cornwall I was part of the team responsible for the development and management of the Camel Trail, along the line of the old Bodmin and Wadebridge Railway. In terms of really big buildings, I was responsible for the management of the Treffry Viaduct in the Luxulyan Valley on behalf of the Cornwall Heritage Trust between 2013 and 2021. I also was involved to some extent in the conservation of archaeological finds while part of the Cornwall Archaeological Unit, but only incidentally, and with the archiving and storage of cartographic and photographic material (acid-free boxes, climate control etc). But I am afraid none of this has much relevance to our model trains - except perhaps suitable storage conditions, which might be worthy of consideration.

But I think that we all know the basic rules for the storage of historical tinplate trains. If not acid-free boxes, then at least no boxes with metal staples. No bubble wrap or plastic foam - corrugated cardboard and tissue paper only. No direct sunlight on tinprinted finishes. And a storage area with controlled, low humidity.

I would argue that a vintage clockwork loco is only truly the object it was designed to be when running. It wasn’t made for static display. It only has the clockwork mechanism so it can pull trains along a track. To appreciate the object properly it must be run as intended.

I really liked this reply of yours, it is an excellent statement of principle with which I think we can all concur!

John
 
Last edited:

John R Smith

Western Thunderer
Martin

Thinking a little more about this topic, I realised that in fact I have been quite deeply involved in the restoration and conservation of vintage mechanical objects - once professionally, and on several other occasions in a hobbyist role - but each time there was a significant difference between them and the current clockwork engines dilemma. The various objects were, in sequence, Ducati small capacity motorcycles, Hasselblad cameras, Omega wrist watches, and Italian racing bicycles (I know, I know, but I have a restless and inquiring nature). The big difference was that in all those cases there was extensive documentation, with each having full lists of parts (with identification drawings), spare part numbers, and a developed and extensive network of parts suppliers and service facilities.

All of which is pretty much lacking for Bassett-Lowke (and has been since 1965) and really non-existent for the clockwork mechanisms in particular. Even the Basset-Lowke Society seems to have little to offer in this respect. Like you, when stuff does come up on eBay I tend to grab it if I think will come in useful, but (for example) when mainsprings for the clockwork motors appear I let them pass by, because how can I tell (with no part numbers) whether they would fit any loco I might have?

So I do run my engines, and they do not live in display cabinets. But I do so holding my breath somewhat, and hoping nothing horrible is going to go wrong. Because unlike my motorbikes, cameras, watches and bicycles above, if my Bassett-Lowke clockwork engine conks out I know that I can't fix it. And I don't at this point in time know a man who can. Nonetheless, I am inspired by the fact that my oldest engine, the Bing Precursor (which is now over a hundred years old) has been running today and is still rather sprightly -

Bing Precursor Box 01.jpg

I would be very interested to know what E F Carter has to say in this book of yours about the servicing and maintenance of clockwork engines, and in particular whether it is more explicit and detailed than the very basic instructions provided by B-L.

John
 
Last edited:

40057

Western Thunderer
Martin

Thinking a little more about this topic, I realised that in fact I have been quite deeply involved in the restoration and conservation of vintage mechanical objects - once professionally, and on several other occasions in a hobbyist role - but each time there was a significant difference between them and the current clockwork engines dilemma. The various objects were, in sequence, Ducati small capacity motorcycles, Hasselblad cameras, Omega wrist watches, and Italian racing bicycles (I know, I know, but I have a restless and inquiring nature). The big difference was that in all those cases there was extensive documentation, with each having full lists of parts (with identification drawings), spare part numbers, and a developed and extensive network of parts suppliers and service facilities.

All of which is pretty much lacking for Bassett-Lowke (and has been since 1965) and really non-existent for the clockwork mechanisms in particular. Even the Basset-Lowke Society seems to have little to offer in this respect. Like you, when stuff does come up on eBay I tend to grab it if I think will come in useful, but (for example) when mainsprings for the clockwork motors appear I let them pass by, because how can I tell (with no part numbers) whether they would fit any loco I might have?

So I do run my engines, and they do not live in display cabinets. By I do so holding my breath somewhat, and hoping nothing horrible is going to go wrong. Because unlike my motorbikes, cameras, watches and bicycles above, if my Bassett-Lowke clockwork engine conks out I know that I can't fix it. And I don't at this point in time know a man who can. Nonetheless, I am inspired by the fact that my oldest engine, the Bing Precursor (which is now over a hundred years old) has been running today and is still rather sprightly -

View attachment 261028

I would be very interested to know what E F Carter has to say in this book of yours about the servicing and maintenance of clockwork engines, and in particular whether it is more explicit and detailed than the very basic instructions provided by B-L.

John
Hi John

What’s in the book:

D0BAAFC5-224D-4694-9BE8-DE0C735AA834.jpeg

4BEC0E80-4AFC-4B94-B091-A1EA1760BB26.jpeg

Martin
 

John R Smith

Western Thunderer
I can only find one copy currently for sale searching on the Net. And that is about ten times the price it ought to be, so not recommended.

Martin

Great minds think alike - and I found only the same copy. But thanks for looking, anyhow, it is appreciated.

John
 

40057

Western Thunderer
An update on wooden mineral wagons.

Firstly, this one — made by Leslie Forrest/Windsor Models — repaired last year:

13F1F550-589A-4AED-84F8-A0F9BB652125.jpeg

I said at the time (post #311) that I believed this wagon to be from the Sherwood Section railway belonging to Norman Eagles. I have now found the coal load that came with the wagon and which I had forgotten about:

32498834-BB7F-452C-B8C9-9B53B219A9CF.jpeg

Home made, clearly. I have no idea what has been used to represent coal, but it certainly isn’t real coal. Anyway, underneath it says:

0FC45949-719C-4061-8571-FBDDF8F58B22.jpeg

So the wagon is definitely ex-Sherwood. Provenance established.

Next, this wagon by A.W.H. Pealling, repaired early in 2024 (see post #57 et seq.):

435E2ABF-49E6-4F58-981D-1D04010F4413.jpeg

My only Pealling mineral wagon — until now. I have just acquired another one:

29705E61-783D-407E-A1F4-40E93636EA15.jpeg

A few interesting points about this one. Only the solebars are wood. All the rest of the bodywork is laminated card. Post-WW2 Leeds Model Co. (LMC) alloy wheels one of which is disintegrating. Also LMC alloy buffers, the very elongated heads being a device to prevent buffer-locking on small radius curves.

Although in generally excellent condition, I shall have to give the wagon replacement wheels. The back-to-back on the LMC wheel-sets is too wide for Bassett-Lowke points, and one wheel is falling apart. There appears to be enough room between the W-irons for fitting Bassett-Lowke post-WW2 wagon wheels. Also the whole wagon body is twisted. I can’t correct this but if I make a snug-fitting (but removable) coal load I can probably hold the body square to allow the wagon to be run.

I’m pretty sure the Pealling Stephenson Clarke wagon was made pre-WW2. The Fox wagon I would date to the 1950s or ‘60s. I’m fairly confident of that because it was offered for sale along with about 15 other Pealling wagons several of which had dates painted on the solebars. The dates ranged from 1952 to 1966. Most of the wagons had bodies entirely built of wood and card, in the usual Pealling style. However, for some of the wagons Pealling had used a post-WW2 Hornby tinplate wagon chassis, added detail, and built a wood/card body on top. A couple were enhanced LMC Bakelite wagons. One looked to be based on using two Triang Big-Big Train mineral wagons to produce a GWR 20-tonner. The collection of wagons as a whole show great ingenuity by a commercial rolling stock builder using what little 0 gauge was otherwise available to produce excellent models. Curiously, several of the wagons in the collection were unfinished, specifically without lettering. It seems unlikely they were sold in this condition, so I wonder if these remained in the maker’s possession, but have somehow now emerged on the market.

I have bought an open merchandise wagon, a covered van and the Fox mineral wagon from this collection of Pealling’s work. That will do for me. A representative selection from the work of a well-known and much-admired wagon builder.

These Pealling wagons will look entirely in keeping mixed with Bassett-Lowke’s post-WW2 wooden wagons, but add variety.

There is one other important point about these Pealling models. Virtually all my wagons are contemporary with the prototype represented. And nearly always the model is of one the latest, most modern types of wagon, or at least in the contemporary livery. In the ‘30s and before, modellers generally wanted an up-to-date railway following the latest exciting developments on the real railways. But these Pealling wagons from the 1950s and ‘60s depict vehicles from a past era. They demonstrate the emergence of historical railway modelling as a much more mainstream activity.

Martin

PS Most of the Pealling wagons referred to above are still being offered for sale over the Internet, but not identified as Pealling by the vendor. They should go to a good home! If anyone wants to know how to find them, please PM me.
 

Attachments

  • 6C5BC2E4-EA7D-4DA9-8D1A-BC863D77FE13.jpeg
    6C5BC2E4-EA7D-4DA9-8D1A-BC863D77FE13.jpeg
    377.3 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:

John R Smith

Western Thunderer
Hello Martin

I like these Pealling wagons. One thing which appeals to me is the incredibly neat hand lettering and numbering. The same goes for Windsor models too, from the examples that I have seen. I nearly bought the FOX (Derby) wagon myself, but you got there first!

One thing which I have found tricky is using three-link couplings in combination with the usual coarse scale drop-links. Not a good match, in my experience. My vans, in particular, are all mixed up with both types fitted. So propelling a rake through 3' radius points is a bit of a gamble.

John
 

40057

Western Thunderer
Hello Martin

I like these Pealling wagons. One thing which appeals to me is the incredibly neat hand lettering and numbering. The same goes for Windsor models too, from the examples that I have seen. I nearly bought the FOX (Derby) wagon myself, but you got there first!

One thing which I have found tricky is using three-link couplings in combination with the usual coarse scale drop-links. Not a good match, in my experience. My vans, in particular, are all mixed up with both types fitted. So propelling a rake through 3' radius points is a bit of a gamble.

John
Hi John

Variation in buffers and couplings is a nuisance, but I guess inevitable if collecting wagons made at different times by different makers.

On the tinplate side, it’s easier. The buffers are always cosmetic and the drop-link couplings used by Hornby, Carette, Bing and Bassett-Lowke couple together with no difficulty. Not all combinations are possible because both Carette and Bing often fitted wagons with a drop link at one end only. I presume this was either to save on manufacturing cost or to avoid having ‘spare’ hanging drop-links touching the third rail (which might be at 220 V, depending if the railway was running off the mains). The wire loop of Hornby automatic couplings will generally sit comfortably in the hook of tinplate-type drop-link couplings. The problem on the tinplate side is the Marklin coupling. The Marklin drop link will sometimes fit over the hook of a Bing or similar coupling, but not always. So again, in mixed pool of tinplate wagons, not everything will couple to everything else. For proper railway operation, that is obviously most unsatisfactory.

I have yet to resolve this issue in my own mind. Because, as a show-case for vintage vehicles, I might also want to run, say, a train of Carette-made Bassett-Lowke wagons pulled by a Bassett-Lowke locomotive from the same era. This was the train you could buy from Bassett-Lowke in 1910. Which would make an interesting comparison with, say, the equivalent Bassett-Lowke goods train assembled from the range sold in 1935.

On the more scale, usually wooden, wagon side, there is as you say the additional complication of three-link and single rigid link couplings. And thus fully functional buffers and ones not expected to be much used, so scale sized buffer heads and large oval buffers, sprung and unsprung buffers. So again, some wagons don’t couple readily together, or at least cannot be safely propelled through small radius curves.

I guess, for operating, there will just have to be some wagons I know not to couple together and contrive to try to avoid such combinations. I am still unclear the extent to which in practice I will operate block trains. I have, for example, just about enough empty wooden mineral wagons (with various couplings and buffers) to make up a train. These might be left coupled together semi-permanently, and then I can ensure couplings and buffers are compatible throughout. Perhaps keep one or two ‘loose’ empty mineral wagons which could go in mixed freights but be added to the ends of the empty-mineral-wagon rake, to convert the rake’s end couplings between single-drop-link or 3-link, to suit different locomotives.

Martin
 

John R Smith

Western Thunderer
I guess, for operating, there will just have to be some wagons I know not to couple together and contrive to try to avoid such combinations. I am still unclear the extent to which in practice I will operate block trains.

Martin

I suppose that, if like youself, we are talking about a large and extensive layout then block trains are indeed a feasible option. Come to think of it, that is pretty much what we did at the club in Devon many years ago. All our wooden wagons were LMC paper litho examples and they were all fitted with 3-link couplings and LMC buffers. We also had a fair number of Bassett-Lowke tinplate wagons with drop-link couplings, and we just kept the two batches of wagons completely separate. The coaching stock was all drop-link, as I recall, so no problem there. My father and his fellow conspirators had no interest whatsoever in shunting or anything other than running live steam engines as fast as possible with a heavy load, so block trains suited them just fine.

My little effort is at the far opposite end of the spectrum, of course. So it is a shunting layout and not much else, primarily concerned with the beginnings and ends of journeys, not the bit in between. My coaches (and passenger rated stock) all have drop-link couplings - but even here there can be problems, as the links on some of the Exleys are rather narrow and will not drop over the B-L couplings on the engines. Now that I have retired the tinplate wagons, my wooden bodied fleet has roughly 50-50 3-link and drop-link couplings, which can cause some problems for the shunter! And then there are the awkward outliers - just one of my engines has 3-links, and likewise just one of my coaches. I think that they may be scheduled for a bit of attention in the shops . . .

John
 

40057

Western Thunderer
I have decided on an addition to the south end of the length of wall currently under construction. Essentially, this is to keep my options open for what I make next to cover the west wall of the room, south of the current build. If I wanted to make a low-relief building, for example, abutting the wall I am making, I would need to remove the overhang from the coping at the end of the wall. So rather than decide on the next structure now, I am going to attach a short ‘infill’ length of sleeper-built fence:

62D38045-F3BE-4687-A9BD-CAE65E67239E.jpeg

This still needs a couple of horizontal rails attached. There is a 1.5 mm diameter nickel silver rod running right through the sleepers to keep them in line and projecting on the right side. The projecting length of rod will go into a corresponding hole drilled in the wall to keep the fence upright and in position.

I have cut the tops of the sleepers into points just so my sleeper-built fences are not all exactly the same.

I don’t want to over-do the amount of sleeper built fencing, but it is a very efficient way of covering the wall at the back edge of the layout. By ‘efficient’, I mean length of wall covered per hours of time spent to make the structure. So more fence, means quicker progress and more time available for other essential work on the layout.

Martin
 

40057

Western Thunderer
At last, I am content with the look of the brick-work on the current wall. It got a final very light spray with sleeper grime and matt black during suitable conditions outside earlier today:

F3DE9D70-F5A3-4E41-84A2-2B700D78E892.jpeg

And this is the appearance of the brick-work:

B9A0B210-D6B5-4260-95F2-236A26FD28E3.jpeg

763FF1C9-7612-494A-A2DB-A6C2FDCB9E50.jpeg

I think this will pass for an old wall that might have been built at the same time as the railway was under construction.

Next, adverts …

Martin
 
Last edited:

John R Smith

Western Thunderer
I think this will pass for an old wall that might have been built at the same time as the railway was under construction.

Martin

I think that this wall looks very good. A nice, neutral backdrop for your vintage rolling stock. And because you made it, rather than using a printed backscene, it is unique to your layout and will give it a special sense of place.

John
 
Top