Atlantic's works: Portable layout update

[Atlantic 3279]

I haven't seen that specific combination in a train, but the Barnums seem to have appeared post-grouping with other stock in all sorts of combinations.

[Jim de Griz]

I would also be interested as they would contrast with my existing Gresley and Howlden coaches. Would they have been seen with the ex ECJS clerestory composite dining car after it was cascaded to the GC section?

Steve Banks discusses the use of Barnum's quite a bit

https://www.steve-banks.org/gcr/339-gcr ... -carriages

I think it would be fair to say you could excuse including them into pretty much anything, pretty much anywhere on LNER metals. I've added a pair to an excursion train for exactly the reasons you allude to, they make an interesting contract to the Gresley's in the rest of the formation.

Jim de Griz

[Atlantic 3279]

Some useful examples in that link. Hard to know whether all students / enthusiasts would agree on the train formation "general rules" that are stated / suggested.

[iainkirk]

Now this is an interesting development.
Certainly would have a interest here as they seemed to have a long life and ended up all over the place in their dotage...

[Atlantic 3279]

PMs containing contact details have now been sent to all of those who have expressed an interest in the Alan Rose 3D printed Barnums that I illustrated on here ten days ago. Back to the matter of track for the time being:

With the proven scope for bending Peco OO bullhead points slightly, I had no need to contemplate hand-building any more than one point for my intended new section of layout. That had to be a single slip in order to suit my scheme. I had decided not to wait for the Peco item to become available, partly because of the likely price, partly because of my dislike of the almost inevitable Unifrog arrangement, and partly because the slip has to fit in a restricted space with all three possible routes through the point lying on curves. I actually planned out most of the geometry of the point four years ago (or so I thought) so even if it was some years before that when I last built a point on a copperclad base I saw no reason to expect any difficulties. Construction commenced.

Presumably in consequence of my lack of recent practice and my excessive self-confidence I actually encountered plenty of difficulties, ranging from unexpected doubts about the best places to put some of the timbers, loads of trouble getting my previously successful over-centre spring arrangement to keep the tie-bars and blades firmly over against one or other stock rail, and finding quite a bit of adjustment to gauge and check rails necessary after construction in order to get trouble free running - and that was despite keeping curves as smooth as possible, making plenty of use of track gauges, and filing nice tapers on the blades.
Anyway, after time and trouble had been taken I was able to demonstrate that a variety of propelled wagons and various locos would pass through the point without trouble, and despite the other problems I had I was convinced that I made the right decision to tin all of the copperclad strips and the foot of all of the rail before starting assembly. That made it easy to solder rails to sleepers using just flux, a hot clean iron and hardly any additional solder. Rather than having blobs of solder where the chairs ought to be, I therefore have clear spaces into which cosmetic chairs can be glued.
Some additional difficulty arose when I needed to make the final arrangements to fit the slip into the available space, not only because the slip has to sit immediately adjacent to a board joint which is not square to the line of the rails, but also because I realised rather belatedly that I really wanted to locate the slip and its adjoining points about 20mm further along the "main" line compared to the original plan. That meant that the angle of the slip was no longer quite correct, but I certainly wasn't going to start all over again! What I've actually done to make it fit is to depart (locally) very slightly from the previously planned spacing of parallel tracks, trimmed or extended the adjoining points by various amounts, and made sure that all rail ends at the baseboard joint are securely soldered onto copperclad bases which in turn will be screwed down securely on the baseboards.
To my great relief a final test assembly of the whole junction on a single temporary board this evening proved that it all works...

[billbedford]

Steve Banks discusses the use of Barnum's quite a bit

https://www.steve-banks.org/gcr/339-gcr ... -carriages

I think it would be fair to say you could excuse including them into pretty much anything, pretty much anywhere on LNER metals. I've added a pair to an excursion train for exactly the reasons you allude to, they make an interesting contrast to the Gresley's in the rest of the formation.

Jim de Griz

Mr Banks has a few, let's say, blind spots, so it's wise to use his information with caution. As regards the Barnums, I think the following need to be taken into account:

Dukinfield works closed in 1939 and the ex-GC carriage stock was distributed to Stratford, Doncaster and Cowlairs, with a few vehicles going to York. As far as I know, there is no record of where specific coaches ended up. This means that Barnums could possibly have been seen anywhere on the LNER system post-war.

The majority of railway photographs, dated before the late 50s, were taken on summer Saturdays. So no real inferences can be made about the make-up of trains at other times.

The SB site contains a number of dubious stock identifications, for example, the two leading vehicles on the train in photo 7 of the Barnum page are open carriage trucks, and so their use in a passenger train cannot be considered to be in any way unusual.

[S.A.C. Martin]

The criticism of Mr Banks' books seems somewhat unfair. If there are issues, he has a page on his website for corrections and (from what I can see) welcomes corrections.

All sources should be carefully analysed, particularly secondary sources. However can we cut him a bit of slack? Writing a book is no mean feat and writing one without mistakes nigh on impossible, IMO!

[iainkirk]

Hear, hear...

[65447]

The criticism of Mr Banks' books seems somewhat unfair. If there are issues, he has a page on his website for corrections and (from what I can see) welcomes corrections.

All sources should be carefully analysed, particularly secondary sources. However can we cut him a bit of slack? Writing a book is no mean feat and writing one without mistakes nigh on impossible, IMO!

The criticism was of Mr Banks website, the books were not mentioned, so perhaps you should revisit and revise your post.

Mr Banks is known to stray into wild imagings in the belief that he must be right: a classic example is of the origins and genesis of the LNER Dia. 86 General and 87 Milk Vans... https://www.steve-banks.org/images/hist ... _pdf_9.pdf

And we won't mention pigeons will we...?

[Atlantic 3279]

Maybe best continued, if at all, in a separate new "Banks, right or wrong" thread??

[S.A.C. Martin]

The criticism of Mr Banks' books seems somewhat unfair. If there are issues, he has a page on his website for corrections and (from what I can see) welcomes corrections.

All sources should be carefully analysed, particularly secondary sources. However can we cut him a bit of slack? Writing a book is no mean feat and writing one without mistakes nigh on impossible, IMO!

The criticism was of Mr Banks website, the books were not mentioned, so perhaps you should revisit and revise your post.

I can't see where the distinction was made, and the criticism was clearly specific to the author, whose book and its information forms the backbone of the website. I stand by my views: we could do with being a bit gentler on the author, book and if you like, website too.

Mr Banks is known to stray into wild imagings in the belief that he must be right: a classic example is of the origins and genesis of the LNER Dia. 86 General and 87 Milk Vans... https://www.steve-banks.org/images/hist ... _pdf_9.pdf

And we won't mention pigeons will we...?

By all means explain why he is wrong and then provide the references/evidence required to confirm your views. I think the personal rather snidey commentary to be unfair and disrespectful and quite unbecoming of a forum member.

Maybe best continued, if at all, in a separate new "Banks, right or wrong" thread??

For my part I have no interest in continuing this further and would prefer to discuss your modelling as per usual.

[Horsetan]

Maybe best continued, if at all, in a separate new "Banks, right or wrong" thread??

Yes, but looking from here as a completely disinterested observer, it seems to me that both parties are only interested in one side of the story: their own. I'm not sure that's going to resolve any disagreements....

[Atlantic 3279]

I think my words "if at all" may cater, in part at least, for the probable futility of further discussion of the matter. Nothing further on the subject here now please.

[Atlantic 3279]

After an interruption for a holiday I've been able to resume track laying activity so I can show some progress on the nine feet or so that will form the principal scenic part of my dual-purpose "loft branchline / portable exhibitable" section of layout. I'm combining SMP plain track that I bought many years ago for this eventual purpose, with the (now modified) Peco large radius bullhead points that I bought four years ago. Peco's decision to use timber spacing that doesn't match SMP and which is elongated to something like literal 4mm scale rather than proportional to the narrowed gauge of OO has been causing some annoying problems where sleeper ends have to interlace, but I still don't consider it worth buying new Peco plain track in the hope of having an easier time. The two types of track have to sit on slightly different thickness of trackbed too, on account of different sleeper depths...
Anyway, I intend to temporarily lift most of this track again as part of the ballasting process so much of the track shape is going to be locked-in by the insertion of soldered copperclad sleepers at intervals, in addition to which virtually all rail ends at baseboard joints will be firmly soldered to well- anchored copperclad strip. I don't have any faith in simply gluing down the plastic-chaired track at the baseboard ends, nor in leaving rail ends floating and needing to be connected by fishplates across baseboard joints. I think code 75 bullhead rail is simply too easily damaged if not substantially supported.
At this stage I have not profiled the front edges of the baseboards to my planned final curved form, I have done nothing to make space for a certain amount of scenery below track level, and there is no framework supporting the baseboard tops. It may seem an odd way to do things, but I intend to add the framework only when I'm more certain of where all of the wiring and mechanical linkages need to go.

The single slip, as I may have mentioned elsewhere, is custom built to suit the location.

[Atlantic 3279]

About two weeks ago I also had the pleasure of taking possession of a free locomotive, very kindly delivered to me by Andrew Burchell on his not-very-direct rail journey to the Headingly test match, on the day between two rail strikes. In view of his kindness I think he deserved the surprisingly smooth journey, decent weather for the test, and a satisfying win for England over NZ.
The new loco is a whitemetal Ivatt 0-8-0 Long Tom, the Q2 type I believe, going by the extension covers for the piston valves showing below the smokebox door. I've treated it to a new wheelnut for the leading left wheel which had no nut and was wobbling all over the place (I only noticed that when I tried to run the loco), thorough cleaning of all wheels and pick-ups (which certainly needed it), all round oiling, have made tight the loco-tender electrical connections (which were so loose that they didn't work) so twelve wheel pick up is now available, and I've removed the ugly, full-size Triang metal roo-bar coupling from the front of the loco. After running to distribute the new lubricant the loco has settled down to smooth behaviour, although with what appears to be the final type of small K's open-frame motor it has to be run with the feedback option "on" on the KPC handheld controller, otherwise its speed varies too much on even the slightest gradients.
As delivered, there seemed to be only a rear body-to-chassis securing screw for the loco too, the front of the chassis just flopping around under the body. When I investigated, I found the front screw, too short to be of any use, glued into the right hole in the chassis, and a brass nut fitted topside of the running plate, below the smokebox, exactly where a longer screw should have gone through. When I extracted the useless, short glued screw, and supplied the necessary longer screw I found that it would not go through the nut! It lined up well enough, and was the right 8BA size, but the upper part of the nut thread was blocked solid with very hard glue and/or solder, but a 1.8mm drill then an 8BA tap, both used gently for fear of detaching the nut, eventually sorted out the problem. To my relief the running did not deteriorate when both ends of the body and chassis were firmly screwed together, so it would appear that nothing is twisted!
It would need a lot more tidying up to bring it up to full cosmetic standard of course. The whistle is broken off, the handrails and ejector pipe are attached by somewhat clumsy split pins rather than handrail knobs, and the body sits a little high on spacers added to the chassis by the original builder who ought really to have trimmed material from the insides of the splashers instead to make more wheel clearance. I don't know whether to attempt any trimming now, as I'm sure the body is only glued together in most places and the running plate has little support to stop it from distorting if I start scraping away a little heavy-handedly inside the splashers. The tender is clearly not long enough either, is too wide, and has rather "approximate" frame shapes and axlebox details.
It all appears to exactly match the parts in an un-built Cotswold kit that I have. A typical kit loco "of its time" I suppose - early 1970s? It saves me the need to build one, for the time being anyway, and I could easily replace the tender with a better one if I choose. The un-started Cotswold kit can perhaps be converted to a Q3 if and when I eventually build it.