Rivermead Central
- Thread starter 40057
- Start date
simond
Western Thunderer
Thanks,
yes, I see what you’re saying, it’s just that when spraying “normally” I think we tend to try to get the droplets to coalesce into a uniform layer, and you’ve managed to achieve a most convincing effect by precisely not doing that!
cheers
Simon
Another nice (dare I say ‘spring’?) day, so I have been outside using the spray cans on the Benham’s office building — making the grey paint look more like concrete:
I can now join the wall section to the main building. A test fit earlier today before applying the spray paint:
Spraying done, windows can be fitted. I will do a little further weathering applied by brushing. Railings in front of the doorway. Then install on the layout.
I can now join the wall section to the main building. A test fit earlier today before applying the spray paint:
Spraying done, windows can be fitted. I will do a little further weathering applied by brushing. Railings in front of the doorway. Then install on the layout.
The Benham’s office building is now in one piece, with all the main parts permanently joined. I have fixed the wall section to the north end of the office this evening using glue and a couple of wood screws. I will put in some more fastenings tomorrow after the glue has set over-night.
The two parts joined this evening were a gratifyingly good fit:
Everything true and straight and square, better than I could have hoped.
The two parts joined this evening were a gratifyingly good fit:
Everything true and straight and square, better than I could have hoped.
I have finished painting the Benham’s office building. Some weathering — not much, actually — applied by brushing. Another pass with the spray can of matt varnish. Done and ready for windows.
This is not a detailed building like some of the wonderful models shown on WT. But it’s not meant to be. I go right back to my first post in this thread. The building is, I believe, ‘fit for purpose’, so I am happy with it.
Windows and railings are all that’s left to do.
This is not a detailed building like some of the wonderful models shown on WT. But it’s not meant to be. I go right back to my first post in this thread. The building is, I believe, ‘fit for purpose’, so I am happy with it.
Windows and railings are all that’s left to do.
First window in:
Just held in the right place by dabs of slow-set epoxy at the corners of the glass. Once that has cured (tomorrow), more glue to make sure the window stays in the right place. I usually fasten small pieces of wood (from coffee stirrers) overlapping the edges of the glass.
Just held in the right place by dabs of slow-set epoxy at the corners of the glass. Once that has cured (tomorrow), more glue to make sure the window stays in the right place. I usually fasten small pieces of wood (from coffee stirrers) overlapping the edges of the glass.
I mentioned in my post #233 (16 January this year) that the planned track layout at Cavendish Goods requires a 3’3” radius right hand point — and that the one I have needed the rails cleaned to remove corrosion. This will be the first turnout at the entrance to the yard — nearest the tunnel — and is for the head-shunt:
Given its location, not much track can be laid at Cavendish Goods without this turnout. I have been gradually cleaning it since mid-January. Removing corrosion from the rails is a tedious job, so I have been doing a few inches at a time and finished last week. Yesterday, in warm weather, I washed the turnout under the outside tap.
On Bassett-Lowke points, the transverse brass strips to which the rails are attached near the crossing, and the soldered joints, are always painted matt black. Yesterday evening, I made good the damage to the matt black paint caused by cleaning the rails.
So now my 3’3” radius right hand turnout is ready to use and looking pretty much like brand new:
Given its location, not much track can be laid at Cavendish Goods without this turnout. I have been gradually cleaning it since mid-January. Removing corrosion from the rails is a tedious job, so I have been doing a few inches at a time and finished last week. Yesterday, in warm weather, I washed the turnout under the outside tap.
On Bassett-Lowke points, the transverse brass strips to which the rails are attached near the crossing, and the soldered joints, are always painted matt black. Yesterday evening, I made good the damage to the matt black paint caused by cleaning the rails.
So now my 3’3” radius right hand turnout is ready to use and looking pretty much like brand new:
I am not sure how much interest there will be in the subject of this post, but since I was measuring the item this morning, I photographed it and will share it here.
It’s a Lowko Track diamond crossing:
It illustrates a couple of general issues.
Firstly, life must be tough for anyone who is a completist and a Bassett-Lowke collector. The above crossing is not listed in any Bassett-Lowke catalogue I have ever seen though I can’t rule out the possibility it was included in some pre-WW1 catalogues. It certainly wasn’t listed after WW1 when I think the one I have was likely made. I am sure this is an ‘official’, factory-made, piece — not home built using Lowko Track parts. Everything about it, from the quality of the construction to the use of transverse tinplate strips nailed to the sleepers, is in accordance with usual Northampton practice. Additionally, I have a friend who has a similar crossing in Gauge 1. Whether these crossings were made just to order, or just not catalogued, I can’t say. But this does show a real difference from model ranges such as, say, Hornby Dublo. It would be theoretically possible to get an example of every Hornby Dublo model ever made. Not so Bassett-Lowke. As well as uncatalogued models, Bassett-Lowke would build ‘one-offs’ commissioned by well-to-do customers and repaint or modify catalogued models to order. Various models were made by rebuilding standard products (e.g. Bing LNWR George the Fifths overpainted and detailed as ‘Queen Mary’, Royal Scots converted to SR ‘Lord Nelson’) or just overpainting (e.g. post-WW2 LMS Compounds hand-painted LMS black over the lithographed finish). Just how many different 0 gauge models were sold by Bassett-Lowke will never be fully known.
From a personal perspective, in relation to Rivermead Central, I obtained this crossing because it was offered together with the buffer stop illustrated in my post #185 — and I wanted the buffer stop. Effectively, the crossing was ‘by-catch’ and cost nothing. The crossing is in poor condition, filthy dirty, with heavily corroded tinplate rails. One arm has been shortened (bottom right in my photo), presumably to make it fit on a layout. So quite a bit of work needed if I wanted to use the crossing somewhere on Rivermead Central. I don’t have anywhere obvious to use it, but it’s an interesting piece which I would like to use if possible. Since someone else has already sawn the end off one arm, I wouldn’t feel too bad about further shortening if needed.
I shan’t spend any time renovating the crossing for now, but I have it and if there is an opportunity to use it, I very likely will. I took measurements and drew a full size plan on some clean paper this morning. So I can test possible locations on the layout as track laying continues.
It’s a Lowko Track diamond crossing:
It illustrates a couple of general issues.
Firstly, life must be tough for anyone who is a completist and a Bassett-Lowke collector. The above crossing is not listed in any Bassett-Lowke catalogue I have ever seen though I can’t rule out the possibility it was included in some pre-WW1 catalogues. It certainly wasn’t listed after WW1 when I think the one I have was likely made. I am sure this is an ‘official’, factory-made, piece — not home built using Lowko Track parts. Everything about it, from the quality of the construction to the use of transverse tinplate strips nailed to the sleepers, is in accordance with usual Northampton practice. Additionally, I have a friend who has a similar crossing in Gauge 1. Whether these crossings were made just to order, or just not catalogued, I can’t say. But this does show a real difference from model ranges such as, say, Hornby Dublo. It would be theoretically possible to get an example of every Hornby Dublo model ever made. Not so Bassett-Lowke. As well as uncatalogued models, Bassett-Lowke would build ‘one-offs’ commissioned by well-to-do customers and repaint or modify catalogued models to order. Various models were made by rebuilding standard products (e.g. Bing LNWR George the Fifths overpainted and detailed as ‘Queen Mary’, Royal Scots converted to SR ‘Lord Nelson’) or just overpainting (e.g. post-WW2 LMS Compounds hand-painted LMS black over the lithographed finish). Just how many different 0 gauge models were sold by Bassett-Lowke will never be fully known.
From a personal perspective, in relation to Rivermead Central, I obtained this crossing because it was offered together with the buffer stop illustrated in my post #185 — and I wanted the buffer stop. Effectively, the crossing was ‘by-catch’ and cost nothing. The crossing is in poor condition, filthy dirty, with heavily corroded tinplate rails. One arm has been shortened (bottom right in my photo), presumably to make it fit on a layout. So quite a bit of work needed if I wanted to use the crossing somewhere on Rivermead Central. I don’t have anywhere obvious to use it, but it’s an interesting piece which I would like to use if possible. Since someone else has already sawn the end off one arm, I wouldn’t feel too bad about further shortening if needed.
I shan’t spend any time renovating the crossing for now, but I have it and if there is an opportunity to use it, I very likely will. I took measurements and drew a full size plan on some clean paper this morning. So I can test possible locations on the layout as track laying continues.
Last edited:
I have mentioned before how keen I am to start laying the post-WW2 Scale Permanent Way at Cavendish Goods. The Lowko Track laid previously has been lifted. The part of the base board nearest the entrance to the yard has been repainted (though another coat of paint is still needed). I have made the transition piece of track to join the Scale Permanent Way to the Lowko Track. The points required for the entrance to the yard are all cleaned and ready to use.
I could start laying the Scale Permanent Way this week. The trouble is, the more I think about it, the more I realise that it would be sensible to do some other things first. Working on the sidings behind Cairnie Junction station brought home to me how much more difficult it is to work at the back of the layout if the track has already been laid nearer the front of the base-board. There is a particular job required at Cavendish Goods that I know I should do before I start laying the Scale Permanent Way.
Although I am lucky enough to have a good sized room to build my layout, my choice of 0 gauge using vintage track means there is no spare space if I am to have sufficient sidings, long enough loops etc. to run the railway I want. Because space is so tight for the southern station approach at Cairnie Junction and for the yard entrance at Cavendish Goods, a section of base-board has never been installed. It has got to be exactly the right size to accommodate the necessary tracks at BOTH the high and low levels. I know roughly what size and shape the missing base-board needs to be. If I make it a little larger, there will be more space for the tracks heading into Cairnie Junction station from the south — but less space at the yard entrance at Cavendish Goods. If I make the new section of base-board slightly smaller, conversely there will less room at the high level and more room at the low level.
We’re looking at the position of the wall separating the low level (in pink below) from the high level (uncoloured) close to where the Cavendish Goods branch emerges from the tunnel under Cairnie Junction station:
In more detail, this is the proposed track plan for Cavendish Goods:
The high level tracks are at the top (but not shown) in the above diagram. The wall separating the two levels is indicated by the red line. The dotted part is fixed in place and appears in many previous photos in this thread with various items of rolling stock posed in front of it. The solid red line is the wall I need to install. The vaguely kite-shaped area hatched blue is the missing section of base-board.
I started constructing the missing section of wall years ago, but laid it aside pending knowing for certain how much room I need at both levels. I got the partly constructed wall out yesterday from where it had been stored in an outside shed:
It’s a heavy and unwieldy structure due to my tendency to over-engineer everything. As it happens, it’s 4’ 8 1/2” long. The visible face of the wall is constructed of vintage brick-effect wood, as with the section already built and installed. The bricks are considerably over-scale for 0 gauge as only one size was produced to be used for gauges 0, 1 and 2. This is the material as listed in the Bassett-Lowke catalogue:
(From the 1924 catalogue, but first offered in 1911).
The equivalent model building materials today, of course, are laser-cut plywood or MDF. The ‘bricks’ are now correct scale size. Try ordering a 10’ length though from any modern day supplier! As an aside, note that scenic model railways were well established by 1911. Ten years before, affordable, small-scale models, accurately depicting real trains, were completely unknown.
I think I need to proceed in this order:
1. Cut the missing section of base-board to size, check it provides the necessary space at both levels and fix in place.
2. Lay the high level track (Lowko Track) on and behind the new section of base board.
3. Establish the position of anything requiring an electrical supply on the new section of base-board and drill holes and install wiring accordingly. (I have some 1930s colour-light signals which I am minded to use for the southern approach to Cairnie Junction station).
4. Install the wall between the high and low levels in front of the new base-board (making it impossible to install more electric wiring).
5. Lay the track at Cavendish Goods.
Whether I will have the self discipline to hold off laying track at Cavendish Goods until the rest is done remains to be seen. It would do no harm, surely, to lay the first couple of pieces leading out of the tunnel …
I could start laying the Scale Permanent Way this week. The trouble is, the more I think about it, the more I realise that it would be sensible to do some other things first. Working on the sidings behind Cairnie Junction station brought home to me how much more difficult it is to work at the back of the layout if the track has already been laid nearer the front of the base-board. There is a particular job required at Cavendish Goods that I know I should do before I start laying the Scale Permanent Way.
Although I am lucky enough to have a good sized room to build my layout, my choice of 0 gauge using vintage track means there is no spare space if I am to have sufficient sidings, long enough loops etc. to run the railway I want. Because space is so tight for the southern station approach at Cairnie Junction and for the yard entrance at Cavendish Goods, a section of base-board has never been installed. It has got to be exactly the right size to accommodate the necessary tracks at BOTH the high and low levels. I know roughly what size and shape the missing base-board needs to be. If I make it a little larger, there will be more space for the tracks heading into Cairnie Junction station from the south — but less space at the yard entrance at Cavendish Goods. If I make the new section of base-board slightly smaller, conversely there will less room at the high level and more room at the low level.
We’re looking at the position of the wall separating the low level (in pink below) from the high level (uncoloured) close to where the Cavendish Goods branch emerges from the tunnel under Cairnie Junction station:
In more detail, this is the proposed track plan for Cavendish Goods:
The high level tracks are at the top (but not shown) in the above diagram. The wall separating the two levels is indicated by the red line. The dotted part is fixed in place and appears in many previous photos in this thread with various items of rolling stock posed in front of it. The solid red line is the wall I need to install. The vaguely kite-shaped area hatched blue is the missing section of base-board.
I started constructing the missing section of wall years ago, but laid it aside pending knowing for certain how much room I need at both levels. I got the partly constructed wall out yesterday from where it had been stored in an outside shed:
It’s a heavy and unwieldy structure due to my tendency to over-engineer everything. As it happens, it’s 4’ 8 1/2” long. The visible face of the wall is constructed of vintage brick-effect wood, as with the section already built and installed. The bricks are considerably over-scale for 0 gauge as only one size was produced to be used for gauges 0, 1 and 2. This is the material as listed in the Bassett-Lowke catalogue:
(From the 1924 catalogue, but first offered in 1911).
The equivalent model building materials today, of course, are laser-cut plywood or MDF. The ‘bricks’ are now correct scale size. Try ordering a 10’ length though from any modern day supplier! As an aside, note that scenic model railways were well established by 1911. Ten years before, affordable, small-scale models, accurately depicting real trains, were completely unknown.
I think I need to proceed in this order:
1. Cut the missing section of base-board to size, check it provides the necessary space at both levels and fix in place.
2. Lay the high level track (Lowko Track) on and behind the new section of base board.
3. Establish the position of anything requiring an electrical supply on the new section of base-board and drill holes and install wiring accordingly. (I have some 1930s colour-light signals which I am minded to use for the southern approach to Cairnie Junction station).
4. Install the wall between the high and low levels in front of the new base-board (making it impossible to install more electric wiring).
5. Lay the track at Cavendish Goods.
Whether I will have the self discipline to hold off laying track at Cavendish Goods until the rest is done remains to be seen. It would do no harm, surely, to lay the first couple of pieces leading out of the tunnel …
Last edited:
The Bassett-Lowke ‘bricks’ are approximately 6.6mm x 2.8mm, though it is difficult to be sure exactly where the edges of the bricks are supposed to be and so how wide the mortar is. Real bricks of the period were 9” x 3.5”. So the Bassett-Lowke size is close to 1:32 scale (slightly short on the long dimension), i.e. Gauge 1.
I don’t think Bassett-Lowke ever changed the size of the bricks. Gauge 1 would have been the logical choice when the material was first made.
Other manufacturers (for example, Mills Bros) later made similar brick effect wooden building materials. Some of the later material from different makers has bricks more correct in size for 0 gauge.
Starting in the 1930s, the complete buildings offered by Bassett-Lowke went over to a modern style finished to represent concrete construction. So no more bricks, of any size.
I don’t think Bassett-Lowke ever changed the size of the bricks. Gauge 1 would have been the logical choice when the material was first made.
Other manufacturers (for example, Mills Bros) later made similar brick effect wooden building materials. Some of the later material from different makers has bricks more correct in size for 0 gauge.
Starting in the 1930s, the complete buildings offered by Bassett-Lowke went over to a modern style finished to represent concrete construction. So no more bricks, of any size.
Treasure hunts are fun. Undeniably, searching for vintage trains — or the parts to repair them — is essentially a treasure hunt. You never know what is going to turn up, or when, or where. There is always the possibility that something sought for many years will be found. Maybe today.
Today, indeed. Treasure in the post this morning. Four sets (i.e. four axles) of wagon wheels bought for £11 a few days ago in an internet auction. But not just any wagon wheels — the type fitted to the tinplate wagons sold by Bassett-Lowke starting in 1909 and made by Carette.
As previously discussed, the wheels for the wagons Carette made for Bassett-Lowke are almost invariably out of true and often eccentric as well. The axles are usually bent. I’m pretty sure these problems are manufacturing faults, not subsequent damage; the wheels were never right. Many — most, I would say — surviving Carette for Bassett-Lowke wagons have replacement wheels. If my theory is right about the poor quality of the original wheels as made, replacement wheels might well have been fitted by the first owner of the wagon soon after purchase.
Most of the small number of Carette for Bassett-Lowke wagons I have either have later replacement wheels, no wheels or original wheels that are so out of true the wagon is unuseable. I have persuaded myself I can accept later Bassett-Lowke wheels on some of my Carette wagons. But I really want correct, original-type wheels for my best examples. Hence, I am delighted with the wheels in this morning’s post.
The wheels received today are the type fitted to the Carette for Bassett-Lowke wagons when this series of models was introduced in 1909. These wheels are pressed tinplate, whereas the wheels on the later Carette for Bassett-Lowke wagons were cast lead. My working hypothesis is the change in the type of wheels occurred in 1911. The two types of wheel are shown here:
The earlier wheel set, with the pressed steel wheels, is nearest the camera. The boss that attaches the wheel to the axle is cast lead. The axles are splined to hold the wheels in position. These wheels have five ‘spokes’. The later cast wheels, on the wheel set behind, are included here for comparison. These have six spokes and were, presumably, simpler and cheaper to make.
All four wheel sets received this morning need some attention because of loose or out of true wheels, or bent axles. But I am confident two or three sound wheel sets can be made from the four axles as received. Even three useable wheel sets would enable me to complete two wagons as I have a wagon needing just one good wheel set.
Today, indeed. Treasure in the post this morning. Four sets (i.e. four axles) of wagon wheels bought for £11 a few days ago in an internet auction. But not just any wagon wheels — the type fitted to the tinplate wagons sold by Bassett-Lowke starting in 1909 and made by Carette.
As previously discussed, the wheels for the wagons Carette made for Bassett-Lowke are almost invariably out of true and often eccentric as well. The axles are usually bent. I’m pretty sure these problems are manufacturing faults, not subsequent damage; the wheels were never right. Many — most, I would say — surviving Carette for Bassett-Lowke wagons have replacement wheels. If my theory is right about the poor quality of the original wheels as made, replacement wheels might well have been fitted by the first owner of the wagon soon after purchase.
Most of the small number of Carette for Bassett-Lowke wagons I have either have later replacement wheels, no wheels or original wheels that are so out of true the wagon is unuseable. I have persuaded myself I can accept later Bassett-Lowke wheels on some of my Carette wagons. But I really want correct, original-type wheels for my best examples. Hence, I am delighted with the wheels in this morning’s post.
The wheels received today are the type fitted to the Carette for Bassett-Lowke wagons when this series of models was introduced in 1909. These wheels are pressed tinplate, whereas the wheels on the later Carette for Bassett-Lowke wagons were cast lead. My working hypothesis is the change in the type of wheels occurred in 1911. The two types of wheel are shown here:
The earlier wheel set, with the pressed steel wheels, is nearest the camera. The boss that attaches the wheel to the axle is cast lead. The axles are splined to hold the wheels in position. These wheels have five ‘spokes’. The later cast wheels, on the wheel set behind, are included here for comparison. These have six spokes and were, presumably, simpler and cheaper to make.
All four wheel sets received this morning need some attention because of loose or out of true wheels, or bent axles. But I am confident two or three sound wheel sets can be made from the four axles as received. Even three useable wheel sets would enable me to complete two wagons as I have a wagon needing just one good wheel set.
Last edited:
The first window installed in the Benham’s office building is now firmly glued in place and a few tiny gaps around the window frame filled in:
I have put on a backing of plywood painted black inside so the blue wall of the railway room will not be visible through the window. Hence the black interior apparent in the above photo.
Painting the window frames for the two large arched windows is underway:
And now for something completely different.
The Hornby 0 gauge range manufactured by Meccano Ltd has not often featured in this thread. In the 1920s and ‘30s, Hornby trains were unashamedly toys intended for boys. Nothing wrong with that, of course; toys are important, part of life and learning. Vintage and antique toys, including Hornby trains, are often charming and historically interesting. I can absolutely see why people study and collect them.
I have chosen to try to create a vintage model railway using models that were aimed at adults. I have to acknowledge though that the line between toys and models is somewhat blurred. In the late 1920s, there were a few years when Meccano Ltd added some notably more elaborate and realistic items to the Hornby 0 gauge range. In particular, four different 4-4-0s were introduced that were good representations of their prototypes. An objective assessment of the Hornby and Bassett-Lowke LMS Compounds would be hard-pushed to identify either one as, overall, the better model. The Hornby version was far more detailed and was painted. The Bassett-Lowke version (first offered in 1928) was plain, lithographed but had a better motor and, for example, turned nickel-plated buffers, not lead castings. The four ‘true-to-type’ Hornby 4-4-0s (their terminology) certainly found their way onto model railways built by adults (including for example Cecil J. Allen and O.S. Nock) — as shown by accounts and photographs in the contemporary model railway press. The Bassett-Lowke range of 0 gauge tinplate coaches did not include Pullmans, but the top-of-the-range Hornby Pullmans, though absurdly short, don’t look out of place mixed with Bassett-Lowke rolling stock. Again, photographs of notable model railways in the 1930s show Hornby ‘No.2 Special’ Pullman cars being hauled by Bassett-Lowke locomotives.
So some items from the Hornby 0 gauge range could be — and were — used on ‘serious’ model railways, in part to increase the variety amongst the rolling stock. I also plan to have a few Hornby items running on Rivermead Central for exactly this reason. Specifically, goods vans. In the 1930s, there were around twenty-five different tinplate-construction goods wagons sold by Bassett-Lowke. This was fewer than half the number of different wagon models offered pre-1914. There were, for example, no vehicles for fish traffic made after WW1 — but the 1930s Hornby range did include vans for specific uses, including for fish. Since, I would like to run an express fish train, I need to look to manufacturers other than Bassett-Lowke for some suitable vans. I have just acquired this Hornby example:
It’s intended to be a direct replacement for an identical van I bought some years ago in a local auction. It’s just the newly purchased example is in better condition, so I shall sell the perfectly respectable but not perfect one obtained previously. The new van has come in its original box and appears to have hardly been used.
A few comments about the above van. I think there were around twelve different lithographed vans offered by Hornby in the 1930s. Compared with Bassett-Lowke tinplate vans of the period, the Hornby under-frame and running gear is crude with coarse embossing to represent the leaf springs and no axleboxes. Wheels are pressed tinplate not castings with spokes. The Hornby ‘automatic’ coupling is unnecessarily large and, I would say, ugly. The Hornby lithography is less detailed and lacks the shadows and highlighting that made the printed detail on Bassett-Lowke vehicles appear three-dimensional. For all that, the above van is an LNER fish van, instantly recognisable as such, and there was no similar vehicle offered by Bassett-Lowke. I can run the Hornby fish van with Bassett-Lowke LNER refrigerator vans as the basis for an express fish train. And this will be entirely in line with model railway practice during the 1930s.
I have put on a backing of plywood painted black inside so the blue wall of the railway room will not be visible through the window. Hence the black interior apparent in the above photo.
Painting the window frames for the two large arched windows is underway:
And now for something completely different.
The Hornby 0 gauge range manufactured by Meccano Ltd has not often featured in this thread. In the 1920s and ‘30s, Hornby trains were unashamedly toys intended for boys. Nothing wrong with that, of course; toys are important, part of life and learning. Vintage and antique toys, including Hornby trains, are often charming and historically interesting. I can absolutely see why people study and collect them.
I have chosen to try to create a vintage model railway using models that were aimed at adults. I have to acknowledge though that the line between toys and models is somewhat blurred. In the late 1920s, there were a few years when Meccano Ltd added some notably more elaborate and realistic items to the Hornby 0 gauge range. In particular, four different 4-4-0s were introduced that were good representations of their prototypes. An objective assessment of the Hornby and Bassett-Lowke LMS Compounds would be hard-pushed to identify either one as, overall, the better model. The Hornby version was far more detailed and was painted. The Bassett-Lowke version (first offered in 1928) was plain, lithographed but had a better motor and, for example, turned nickel-plated buffers, not lead castings. The four ‘true-to-type’ Hornby 4-4-0s (their terminology) certainly found their way onto model railways built by adults (including for example Cecil J. Allen and O.S. Nock) — as shown by accounts and photographs in the contemporary model railway press. The Bassett-Lowke range of 0 gauge tinplate coaches did not include Pullmans, but the top-of-the-range Hornby Pullmans, though absurdly short, don’t look out of place mixed with Bassett-Lowke rolling stock. Again, photographs of notable model railways in the 1930s show Hornby ‘No.2 Special’ Pullman cars being hauled by Bassett-Lowke locomotives.
So some items from the Hornby 0 gauge range could be — and were — used on ‘serious’ model railways, in part to increase the variety amongst the rolling stock. I also plan to have a few Hornby items running on Rivermead Central for exactly this reason. Specifically, goods vans. In the 1930s, there were around twenty-five different tinplate-construction goods wagons sold by Bassett-Lowke. This was fewer than half the number of different wagon models offered pre-1914. There were, for example, no vehicles for fish traffic made after WW1 — but the 1930s Hornby range did include vans for specific uses, including for fish. Since, I would like to run an express fish train, I need to look to manufacturers other than Bassett-Lowke for some suitable vans. I have just acquired this Hornby example:
It’s intended to be a direct replacement for an identical van I bought some years ago in a local auction. It’s just the newly purchased example is in better condition, so I shall sell the perfectly respectable but not perfect one obtained previously. The new van has come in its original box and appears to have hardly been used.
A few comments about the above van. I think there were around twelve different lithographed vans offered by Hornby in the 1930s. Compared with Bassett-Lowke tinplate vans of the period, the Hornby under-frame and running gear is crude with coarse embossing to represent the leaf springs and no axleboxes. Wheels are pressed tinplate not castings with spokes. The Hornby ‘automatic’ coupling is unnecessarily large and, I would say, ugly. The Hornby lithography is less detailed and lacks the shadows and highlighting that made the printed detail on Bassett-Lowke vehicles appear three-dimensional. For all that, the above van is an LNER fish van, instantly recognisable as such, and there was no similar vehicle offered by Bassett-Lowke. I can run the Hornby fish van with Bassett-Lowke LNER refrigerator vans as the basis for an express fish train. And this will be entirely in line with model railway practice during the 1930s.
Really, each of these windows is a pain:
I have glued the frame to the glass for one of the arched windows in the Benham’s office. I used slow-set epoxy. The glass is another of my late father’s microscope slides. The frame is from LCUT Creative along with the brick-effect wall panels. It is a tricky job gluing the window frame to the glass. Too much glue and a shiny line appears adjacent to the frame, not enough glue and the frame won’t be securely attached. The frame has to be positioned so that the glass fits in the recess for it behind the wall AND the window frame fits in the window aperture. And the position of the frame can’t be adjusted without leaving smears of glue on the glass. So the frame has to be placed on the glass in the right position and with the right quantity of glue applied.
The benefit of using slow set epoxy is that it allows several attempts. Just clean the glass and try again.
Two down, one to go.
Sincere apologies for the first line above. Just had to use it.
I have glued the frame to the glass for one of the arched windows in the Benham’s office. I used slow-set epoxy. The glass is another of my late father’s microscope slides. The frame is from LCUT Creative along with the brick-effect wall panels. It is a tricky job gluing the window frame to the glass. Too much glue and a shiny line appears adjacent to the frame, not enough glue and the frame won’t be securely attached. The frame has to be positioned so that the glass fits in the recess for it behind the wall AND the window frame fits in the window aperture. And the position of the frame can’t be adjusted without leaving smears of glue on the glass. So the frame has to be placed on the glass in the right position and with the right quantity of glue applied.
The benefit of using slow set epoxy is that it allows several attempts. Just clean the glass and try again.
Two down, one to go.
Sincere apologies for the first line above. Just had to use it.
Last edited:
