James' workbench- ex-GC locos and stock in OO

[Atlantic 3279]

I seem to remember reading that something (possibly the presence of the leading radial truck and the necessary springs) on the MS&L / GC 2-4-2T locos required the bases of their smokeboxes to be much more markedly "waisted in" than it was on the Parker / Pollitt 0-6-2T, 0-6-0, and Class 2 (D7) 4-4-0 types. If I remember rightly that had consequences for the suitability or otherwise of the "Standard No1 boiler" in the case of the 2-4-2T locos. Nonetheless, the general appearance was otherwise very similar.

[earlswood nob]

Good morning all

You're very right, Atlantic, comparing the F1 and N5 in the green books and Yeadons, show the waisting well.

A few minutes with a very small file could correct this as there's plenty of metal on the smokebox mounting.

It would need a scratchbuilt chassis, as I think the Bachmann model may be too long between the rear driver and rear radial truck.

Earlswood nob

[Atlantic 3279]

Yes, I read the two relevant chapters in the green books again. The F1 and F2 required a variant of the GC standard No1 boiler, termed standard No2, the only difference being the shape of the front tubeplate, which I presume sat on the cylinder and valve chest casting thus forming the lower extension of the rear of the smokebox too.
I was interested to see the wheelbase figures too, Only 1/2 inch difference between the F classes and the N classes (also the J 9, 10, 13) in respect of the distance from leading axle to driving axle, identical from driving axle to rear coupled wheel set, but then the 2-4-2Ts had the rear radial axle a foot further back than the 0-6-2Ts. Maybe the additional flexibility of the 2-4-2T with radial trucks at both ends made it desirable to extend the wheelbase a bit to steady the ride, maybe the logic was the other way around and the 0-6-2T need the shorter wheelbase to give it ability to cope with track in yards, collieries etc, or maybe weight distribution for the 2-4-2Ts was the key consideration?

I agree it should be a simple matter to file the model's smokebox base to the correct appearance.

[James Harrison]

Many thanks to Graeme for the info for the 3D printed Barnum kits. I'm the proud owner of three of them now (two saloons and a brake) and this is what I've done so far.



I took the view that it will be easier to paint whilst it is in pieces, so the main body print has been teaked (Humbrol satin 133 over matt 46), the roof painted gloss white (I'll be weathering this down) and the ceiling painted cream.

Ham-fisted oaf that I am I managed to slice through the carriage side whilst removing some of the- what do you call the extraneous bits of a 3D print?, but luckily (very luckily) I was was able to repair this and it doesn't show now it is painted. More care needed in future!

The kits get a thumbs-up from me.

[73082gibbers]

James, that kit looks absolutely phenomenal! Nice paintwork on it too! Can't wait to see the finished article!!!!

Nathan..

[James Harrison]

Thanks!
At the moment I'm still slowly working my way through painting. There's an awful lot of surface area that needs it, especially as I'm finding that the print ideally needs to be painted on both sides otherwise you get an odd sort of luminescence going on. So I've had to teak inside and out, paint both ceiling and roof, and now I'm onto the bogies and the chassis. Hopefully a few more days and I'll be in a position to start screwing and gluing the lot together.
Still, it's quicker than the semi-scratchbuilt ones I did a few years ago that these will be replacing.

[Atlantic 3279]

Maybe the combination of Halfords red primer and then a mid brown base-layer for my "teak" killed off any chance of light penetration through the examples I'm painting James? But,,, the roof of one at least had only very light overspray from the primer on the inside, and a single coat of sprayed Humbrol matt white outside, and I've not noticed any strange effects of the light so far. Where your examples, like mine, printed in a grey material with no obvious sign of translucency in the raw state?

[James Harrison]

The one that I'm currently working on is printed in a slightly translucent white material, I found that if I painted one side only of a component I could see the paint through the print from the other side. I think actually this might be a positive, because now that I've painted both sides of all the parts the finish has become deeper and more lustrous, almost as though the paint on the one side of the component is acting as a base layer of sorts for the finish on the other side.

[NZRedBaron]

So, would they have been finished solely in varnished teak in pre-war LNER days, or could I get away with slapping a plain brown paintjob on them?

[Atlantic 3279]

Presumably some experimentation with choices of materials has been continuing, in addition to changes of detail design and print orientation.