The Heybridge Railway, 1889 to 1913

[Rob R]

Richard,
My F class is one of the first batch, pre-ordered at the Christmas 87 Manchester show if I remember correctly.
I think it stacks up quite well for a nearly 40 year old kit. It would certainly be unfair to compare it to a 2020's product, Finney 7 for example and expectations should be set accordingly.
You have produced a lovely model and learnt a lot on the way.
Win win.
Well done.
Rob

 

[Rob R]

I seem to recall the both the MW kits ( F and K) were taken in by Slaters from elsewhere before they were produced so may well not represent Slaters normal design practices.
Usual disclaimers apply etc etc.
Rob

 

[Richard Gawler]

. . .

View attachment 222965

As for that last photo, all the parts play a supporting role in the end result - a good photo of a decent cameo. Welldone.

Graham thanks for this.

I have rather made a rod for my own back by choosing a fairly bleak and open location in "Heybridge Basin". I have tried to show an open sort of a place in this composition, and this may become harder as I add details like fences and the backscene.

I want to come back to this one day on my layout thread, after I have worked out what to do and maybe done some of the necessary modelling too.

 

[Richard Gawler]

I have bought a wide-angle lens, this is my first attempt for WT. Used with care, it ought to make a scene look larger than it is.

Nellie and Lady Marion are the two locos belonging to the fictional foundry railway nearby and lent to the Heybridge Railway from time to time. E H Bentall had a tramway at Heybridge, but I think it was narrow gauge and man- or horse-powered.

Nellie is a shade too tall for the usual loading gauge, but she can run along the whole line as long as I imagine the railway crossed Colchester Road on a level crossing and not under a bridge.

 

[Richard Gawler]

Lady Marion had her first long test run today, this was on the club's SM32 track. There is a chunky wheel drop on the pointwork, but nothing bad enough to hinder progress.


I chaperoned her for the first lap to remove twigs and berries.


I think the sunlight brings out a new depth of colour in the paint.


Industrial background!

There were no derailments, she never stalled, and perhaps above all she didn't try to bind to someone else's radio gear. A fine day out.

 

[Osgood]

Admit it - you only photographed her on that jumbo track so we wouldn't notice her overscale flanges.

 

[oldravendale]

I wish there was an applause button, Richard, but a thumbs up will have to do!

Brian

 

[Richard Gawler]

Admit it - you only photographed her on that jumbo track so we wouldn't notice her overscale flanges.

Not at all!

Rather, the code 200 rail here scales up to 8.7 inches, about 221 mm. In the context of outdoor model railway track, this is a fair representation of AREMA 141RE rail (191 mm), and the placement of Lady Marion illustrates how HS2 might look given funding reductions caused by [insert reason of your choice].

(I cannot find the spec of HS2 rail but it must surely be at the high end of the examples in the attachment)

 

[Richard Gawler]

I wish there was an applause button, Richard, but a thumbs up will have to do!

Brian thank you for your kind words.

I am still painting the model, trying to bring out some of the detail on the chassis. It seems to be responding to small applications of Humbrol gunmetal and steel metalcote, and yet more photos will follow if I think it looks better.

 

[NHY 581]

A nice loco, Richard. I rather like the ding in the cab sheet. Adds character.

Rob

 

[Richard Gawler]

Conclusions?

. . .

The loco will be useful on the layout and it was well worth building, but I will try a different brand next time.

To me, conclusions are ideas that arise from considered thinking.... so what lead you to think "I shall try a different brand next time"?

Richard,
My F class is one of the first batch, pre-ordered at the Christmas 87 Manchester show if I remember correctly.
I think it stacks up quite well for a nearly 40 year old kit. It would certainly be unfair to compare it to a 2020's product, Finney 7 for example and expectations should be set accordingly.

Graham and Rob, I think, I will be better to try a different style of kit next time. This might be a more modern kit, but this is not vital. I think I will be happier with a kit where the major parts fit together; and I can choose to do such additional work I fancy. I already have a MW K class, and so (knowing Slater's do only an F and a K useful on my layout) my next loco will be a different brand by default.

As it happens, I have a Connoisseur J79 with wheels and motor/gearbox and a set of Slater's hornblocks all set aside to build as Heybridge Railway locomotive number 3 a hired-in locomotive. I also have some wagon kits. It's over a year since I built a wagon, so maybe one of these first.

In the meantime, here is 'Lady Marion' with the Minerva K I bought three years ago and which, as a single purchase, became responsible for this entire project.


I often notice the daylight through the frames of Lady Marion, and really this is the only obvious difference between the standards of the two models.


I don't have a problem with having them together on the layout. The main weakness might be at a show, if visitors see only the products of MW.

 

[John57sharp]

We have similar head-on meetings betwixt red and blue in Town most weekends…

John

 

[timbowales]

Graham and Rob, I think, I will be better to try a different style of kit next time. This might be a more modern kit, but this is not vital. I think I will be happier with a kit where the major parts fit together; and I can choose to do such additional work I fancy. I already have a MW K class, and so (knowing Slater's do only an F and a K useful on my layout) my next loco will be a different brand by default.

As it happens, I have a Connoisseur J79 with wheels and motor/gearbox and a set of Slater's hornblocks all set aside to build as Heybridge Railway locomotive number 3. I also have some wagon kits. It's over a year since I built a wagon, so maybe one of these first.

In the meantime, here is 'Lady Marion' with the Minerva K I bought three years ago and which, as a single purchase, became responsible for this entire project.

View attachment 223202
I often notice the daylight through the frames of Lady Marion, and really this is the only obvious difference between the standards of the two models.

View attachment 223203
I don't have a problem with having them together on the layout. The main weakness might be at a show, if visitors see only the products of MW.

There's nothing wrong with having just Maning Wardle locos on a layout? Some companies preferred to stick to one makers locomotives, made life easier for the fitters

 

[Richard Gawler]

As the Heybridge and Langford Light Railway developed, trains became too heavy for the two Manning Wardles and indeed the foundry could only lend out 'Lady Marion' on an occasional basis. I am imagining, the railway gained the use of a NER class H2 (LNER J79) or something similar around 1898. This loco needs to be built and past performance suggests this will take me another year.

Looking for a quick fix, I have indulged myself in a Dapol Terrier. For me, this represents one of the surplus locomotives sold off by the LB&SCR in 1902 and subsequently exported to South America, and with a fictional placement in between. The cylinders are much the same size as the H2, and it fits the layout and the period. Indeed, I can usefully suppose the H2 returned to the NER when the Terrier arrived. I don't have room for more than two locos at a time, and even this is a squeeze.


Here are the innards of a Dapol Terrier. This model runs really well, but I think they all do.


I have removed the firebox glow feature and the Westinghouse brake hoses, added some coal, and fitted three-link coupling chains.

I bought a yard of this chromed steel chain. It seems to blacken by heating to cherry red and quenching in oil, but the camera still finds the chrome. The links are overscale too, but if it proves easier to use than scale links I might standardise on it.


The Terrier is HLLR no.4.

 

[Richard Gawler]

For completeness, I think I should mention my Dapol Terrier came in a box labelled with their part number 7S-010-015 and the wording "0 gauge Terrier A1X Plain Black". I have found a few of these models advertised secondhand, and the part number tallies.

These models have the bunker, smokebox and front sandboxes of an A1 (not an A1X), and the more I look I am convinced it is an A1. This is fortunate for me, because an A1 suits my period. The lack of condenser pipes suggests a loco with 14 inch cylinders.

Bradley Fig. 125 (*) shows the loco "Stepney" (as no. 655) in a similar condition, complete with wooden brake blocks but with an additional protuberance in front of the spectacle plate.

It is going to take me a long time (if ever) to identify a specific candidate for my no. 4, but it's still a nice-looking model.

(*) Bradley D L, "The Locomotives of the London Brighton & South Coast Railway" volume 1, published by the RCTS in 1969.

 

[Richard Gawler]

I have repainted and highlighted some of details of No.4, especially the cab floor and the brake gear. I treated myself to a tin of Humbrol Metalcote "Gunmetal" (this colour suggested by @Yorkshire Dave earlier) and this is appearing in all kinds of places on my locos.


The loco had her first run at NEEGOG today. This was the first time she had pulled a train, and all went splendidly. The running seems to be faultless, well done Dapol. I am not a great fan of RTR (especially at exhibitions) but it is difficult to abstain when it is this good, costs so little and is such a decent choice for the railway.

 

[spikey faz]

So you don't fancy converting the Terrier into one of Stroudley's 'Lochgorm' tank locomotives?

Mike

 

[Rob R]

So you don't fancy converting the Terrier into one of Stroudley's 'Lochgorm' tank locomotives?

Mike

They are close but not that close
Maybe the North British version?

 

[Richard Gawler]

So you don't fancy converting the Terrier into one of Stroudley's 'Lochgorm' tank locomotives?

Maybe the North British version?

No!

On the bright side, I have decided upon the four locomotives to have belonged to the railway:

• No. 1 ‘Blackwater’ (the MW class K)
• No. 2 probably ‘Kingfisher’ (a different small industrial)
• No. 3 ‘River Pant’, not modelled
• No. 4 (the Terrier)

In addition there would have been the two foundry locomotives ‘Nellie’ and ‘Lady Marion’; a NER H2 hired in to cover for the failing ‘River Pant’, and locos from the neighbouring GER including a Y14 and something smaller.

Obviously a fictional history is a flexible feast but when it has been sketched out like this, I can see how the railway developed and prospered before vanishing without trace. This leaves me three locos to build.

 

[Richard Gawler]

I have spent over a year thinking about how to add the coal to my Y14. The quandary being, how to extract the power socket and the toggle switch if I want to change the battery pack. Ideas for a lift-out coal load got more and more involved and less and less likely to work.

I have finally accepted that the battery pack is specified for 500 charge/discharge cycles, and I am managing barely five a year. The battery will probably outlive me, and so I’ve decided, whoever gets the loco after I'm gone can have the fun of chipping out the coal to do the rebuild, and then topping it up later.


I put masking tape over the “RF inlet ports”, painted the chrome fittings in black, and then glued in the coal.


To my complete surprise, the bright chrome toggle switch barely shows up. The chrome is reflecting the coal all around it.

I don't need black sleeving over the toggle or other skullduggery.