Page 2 of 2

Re: The burning question

Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2020 1:08 am
by lindsay_g
Hi all,

A busy night on the Cowans Sheldon crane front from me this evening elsewhere on our Forum but I've moved on! As my post-script to this thread, the bookstall for Barnton has moved on to completion despite anything to go on other than the length and width of "something" shown on a single plan. So, now that it is complete, the chances of photographic evidence being produced has increased dramatically. And here it is :

Barnton bookstall.jpg
Barnton bookstall.jpg (64.21 KiB) Viewed 1363 times
Thanks to John P for providing some images of Oban (I'd forgotten just how similar the valance was to Barnton (in design but not overall dimensions)). I had to go for something a bit less flamboyant in view of restricted height and dimensions, and to produce something in keeping with the fabric of the main buildings, and then the way bookstalls seemed to be littered with hanging items. All might be well off the mark, but it's only a wee box within a building at the end of the day. However, the periodicals on sale are, believe it or not (and yes, very sad, I know!), all from the Victorian period so well worthy of a read if you have an electron microscope on the workbench (first one to spot that one is a USA magazine wins the nearly-new Swann & Morton blade used to cut them all out! How's that for a challenge worthy of pursuit, huh?).



Re: The burning question

Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2020 8:11 pm
by WCML55.68
Theres only one word for that wee bookstall, fantastic. As with all the other work on the station. ;)

Re: The burning question

Posted: Fri Jan 31, 2020 8:24 am
by dunalastairv
You're really going to hate me for this, but didn't John Menzies and W.H. Smith paint their bookstalls in their own house colours - often green in Smith's case - rather than them being done in the actual railway company's colours? It is my understanding that the booksellers were liable for the maintenance of their stalls and therefore chose to paint them in their own distinctive livery. Sorry...

Re: The burning question

Posted: Fri Jan 31, 2020 11:52 am
by lindsay_g
I'll not hold it against you nor hate you.

Everything about the structure is conjecture other than the footprint (as are the arrangement of all windows and doors under the canopy). Whether anything existed there in the early 1900's is open to question as the plan I took that from had no indication as to its date. History of Menzies is limited on the web. I took time to look at images of Victorian Menzies outlets (any station not just CR) mainly to get an idea of signage but I didn't come across the same wording and font in any 2 images. I also found in the process that there was no uniformity to their structure or colouration but I couldn't tell whether they were in keeping with other station architecture. So, I decided that they weren't big on portraying a corporate image in these days and bashed ahead.

Harking back to the heading and original point of the thread - 'tis now attached to the concourse floor and will remain there until photographic evidence comes to light, at which point I'll have a decision to make. However the bookstall didn't take long to construct and could be the least of my worries. Chances are that the canopy would also appear in any such image and that internal construction of it is also complete conjecture on the model.


The Burning Question ....and the Answer is?

Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2020 10:07 am
by lindsay_g
A few posts ago, I expressed what would be deciding factors in correcting known faults – I didn’t think that I’d have to face that prospect quite so soon afterwards!

As part of a Scalefour Society challenge during lockdown, I’m presently building a Class 488 Well Tank from a Decent Models etch (body parts only) produced a good few years ago. As far as reference material goes we really only have a handful of images, a drawing from which the etch was based, and a Neilson’s spec. The last item only gives a few lengthwise and even fewer height dimensions. Having checked the etch against these sources all seemed well and build progressed. It got as far as this :

Build to 27-4.jpg
Build to 27-4.jpg (69.28 KiB) Viewed 1026 times
Don’t be alarmed by parts not meeting or looking crooked, other than the footplate being attached to the chassis everything is just balanced in place for the photograph. Having got to this stage, I trial fitted cast springs but even after thinning one down somewhat there was no way that they would fit between boiler and splasher/sandbox. Everything is supposedly to scale, so why not? Having anguished for a day or so over where I’d gone wrong I realised what the problem was – the etched parts have the boiler oversized compared to the vertical areas at the bottom of the smokebox and firebox. But, with not a lot to go on, which dimension was out, and what would I do about it? Three options :
- Do nothing. Just thin the springs down further or omit them and later work out how the Westinghouse pump might sit against an area not high enough to accommodate it vertically.
- Increase the vertical areas at the smokebox and firebox – but they would then be well beyond the width of the chassis which the firebox normally sits within.
- Reduce the boiler diameter.
The last is the least attractive involving desoldering all of the boiler assembly, making a new smokebox front, rear of the smokebox and front of the firebox, fettling or replacing the cab front, turning down the smokebox door, changing the diameter at the foot of the three boiler top fittings. Reassembly of the boiler wasn’t going to be easy as the area for the motor/gearbox has already been cut away (and will require further alteration). Unfortunately, my gut feel was that this was where the problem had to lie.Using the best image available to attempt to work out correct dimensions, I came up with this sequence (which I’ll not try and explain), but the outcome is that the boiler diameter is the problem. The offending smokebox etch is shown for comparison (but not to scale).

Right and Wrong.jpg
Right and Wrong.jpg (15.19 KiB) Viewed 1026 times
Aaaagh, a rather major setback. So decision time - turn a blind eye to it, bash on, or what - that’s the Burning Question? And the logic towards the answer is : I know that smokebox profile is completely wrong, the boiler is too big and rests too low, the springs and Westinghouse are compromised. I’ll see it every time I look at the engine. Someone else may comment, so what do I say – I didn’t know or just bashed on regardless? So, a no-brainer really but it did take me a few days to finally decide that the rework had to be done. OK, completion of this within lockdown is compromised big style but, what the heck. Demolition has taken place, reconstruction will now commence.


P.S. I have another Burning Question but will post a question to the Forum before having to make a decision.

Re: The burning question

Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2020 4:52 pm
by Alan K
Hi Lindsay

For what it's worth, I think you've taken the right decision. I've had some similar agonising moments and ended up being ruthless and started again and always found that it was the best way to go in the long run. And funnily enough sometimes I've found that the 'extreme remedy' turned out to be not quite as time-consuming as I had first thought! Let's hope that will be the case for you...


Re: The burning question

Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2020 5:30 pm
by jimwatt2mm
I suspect we've all been there and done that.
I had an experience recently where I designed some artwork for a trial etch and then found when I got it back I had made a mistake in a dimension. :oops: Fortunately I was still able to assemble it with a bit of bodging and fettling, so it wasn't a total waste. Needless to say the artwork was immediately corrected for a further trial etch.

Jim W