Locos for Tyneside in the BR era. Kerr Stuart Victory.

[mikemeg]

Thanks, Mike, - good advice, as always.

 

I'm annoyed with myself for forgetting the reversing lever, which doesnt come as a casting from DJH, but was easy enough to fabricate and fit from scrap etch.

 

Incidentally, if this picture is your 62396, I think it had lost the windjammer by BR days.

 

Best wishes

 

John,

 

You're not wrong. Certainly by 1957 the windjabber on 62396 was gone. T'will be out with the file and t'will be removed.

 

If you are fitting the reversing lever, then don't forget the weighshaft and counterweights which were very visible at the top of the mainframes on these D20's.

 

Cheers

 

Mike

Edited August 16, 2018 by mikemeg

[rowanj]

The photo illustrates the major issue with the DJH tender. The part below is the correct shape, from the Dave Alexander 3900 gallon kit. He now only has 1 left, if anyone wants one.

 

As I understand it, the shape of the cut-outs changed to the DJH version from 1915 (/) and the drawings DJH used showed the then new shape. However the D20 tenders were actually built using the original semi-oval. 

 

I assume the DJH tender could be used for some ex-NER locos, but I'm unsure which. J27, perhaps? 

 

 

Re weighshafts, etc, I did make a stab at this on my Q7. It's too late for this D20, as the cast footplate is solid between the frames, and to fit the inside motion would mean cutting this away prior to fitting the boiler It could be done though, if built into the planning stage early enough.

Edited August 17, 2018 by rowanj

[mikemeg]

John,

 

The lower side frame, in the photo above, is certainly the pattern used on the 3940 gallon tenders for the D20's.

 

Worth noting that these tenders were originally built with water scoop, water dome and tank breathers, which were all removed by the LNER, so that by the 1950's none of these locos had any of this equipment still fitted.

 

Also worth noting that the spring hangars did not impinge on the cut outs; see attached photograph.

 

Cheers

 

Mike

Edited August 18, 2018 by mikemeg

[rowanj]

A "proving" picture of the loco with the Alexander tender shows the ride height needs adjustment. This was , in part. as a consequence of the live wire from motor to chassis pushing up the rear, and this will be resolved when I complete the chassis- exterior brake linkage and balance weights. The tender has a sub chassis which will allow some modest adjustment to bring it level with the loco.

 

One thing missing from the tender kit is the very large and prominent air tank behind the buffer beam. It looks as though this lasted through to withdrawl so I'll have a stab at that. I'm afraid altering the springs, though, Mike, is a step too far.

 

John

Edited August 19, 2018 by rowanj

[rowanj]

D20 on test. Getting it balanced took a while and the photos expose some watermarks which I'll tackle when I weather it. The loco was painted at Hull when it came out of store for the summer season, finishing its' life in 1957 on Alnwick-Newcastle stoppers, so I doubt it got too scruffy. The late crest was fitted after re-painting. None of the D20's were lined under BR, according to Yeadon.

 

The outside brake linkage was fitted in LNER days and is very prominent on all photos, so had to be fitted.

 

In summary. - replacement Alexander tender, with ex.Westinghouse air tank fitted behind buffer and short vacuum pipe going through plate behind the tender rear.

 

Extended smokebox and buffer beam.Lamp irons fitted.

 

Pipework, brakes and linkage and reversing lever, Safety valves and whistle re-sited to fit BR 1957 condition.

 

For all its' challenges, I've enjoyed getting the kit up to my version of "layout standard". Now to look at the A8......

Edited August 30, 2018 by rowanj

[Jon4470]

D20 on test. Getting it balanced took a while and the photos expose some watermarks which I'll tackle when I weather it. The loco was painted at Hull when it came out of store for the summer season, finishing its' life in 1957 on Alnwick-Newcastle stoppers, so I doubt it got too scruffy. The late crest was fitted after re-painting. None of the D20's were lined under BR, according to Yeadon.

 

The outside brake linkage was fitted in LNER days and is very prominent on all photos, so had to be fitted.

 

In summary. - replacement Alexander tender, with Vacuum tank fitted behind buffer and short vacuum pipe going through plate behind the tender rear.

 

Extended smokebox and buffer beam.

 

Pipework, brakes and linkage and reversing lever, Pop valves and cab resited to fit BR 1957 condition.

 

For all its' challenges, I've enjoyed getting the kit up to my version of "layout standard".  Now to look at the A8......

Hi John

Glad you enjoyed the build in the end and the loco is looking good. I’ve been watching this with interest as I have one of these to build - you ( and the other contributors) have given me plenty of useful hints and guides.

 

Thanks

[micklner]

If its the DJH A8 its reputation for not liking curves is well known. I suggest a 52F Chassis may make life easier .

[rowanj]

Classic ex-NER scene at Little Benton South. The B16/1 probably wouldnt have been on a fitted freight but the D20 is hauling a typical  Alnwick - Newcastle SO working, though the Buffet car in the consist will have surprised the punters. The stock is made up of Hornby Gresley s, a couple of which were modified using Comet or Bedford etch sides.

 

I started the thread to try to show that loco building is not a dark art, and even if I can't reach the level of construction I might wish for, I have a collection of locos now which run well, which look OK from a normal distance, are authentic for the period modelled, and are unlikely to appear as RTR any time soon.

 

Off on a modelling-free break for September. Any good model shops in Wiltshire?

 

John         

[rowanj]

I have just caught up with the fact that the Mainly Trains range is now available on the Wizard Models site. I've ordered the J71 conversion etch, and the J72 detailing etch with a view to converting the Bachmann J72 to a J71, while I wait for ArthurK to produce a new batch of his excellent kit.

 

I'm sure many modellers have done this conversion before, but I cant find a description. Yeadon is ordered, I've bookmarked Mikemegs J71 build, and I have the Hoole book, but I'd appreciate any pointers to the conversion which I should know.

 

I suppose the other obvious conversion is to a short-bunker J72, just in time for the Bachmann release....

 

Thanks in advance

 

John

[jwealleans]

I've done the J72 - J71. If you search the forum for "mainly trains J71" it's the only thing which comes up.

[rowanj]

Thanks, Jonathan. I've tried the search but no luck so far. I'll keep trying. There is a fantastic photo of J71 68273 from Dec 1956 at Blaydon MPD in Steam Memories Vol13 by Booklaw Publications.

 

John

[PenrithBeacon]

I've done the J72 - J71. If you search the forum for "mainly trains J71" it's the only thing which comes up.

Just out of interest, I put the query into Bing (I've never been able to get the RMweb search engine work satisfactorily) and got a number of results including http://rmweb.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16464&sid=f9712bb226564a0026c10b87613c0055&start=25

 

I don't have the necessary Yeadons, can somebody tell me the difference between a J71 and a J72, please.

 

Regards

[jwealleans]

Starts at this post, John.

 

Seems odd - if I search normally, only this thread comes up, but if I go into the advanced search and ask it to return posts, it does come up.

 

I think if you Google it, the same thread on the LNER forum comes up. They're the same photographs.

Edited November 5, 2018 by jwealleans

[MartinWales]

Just out of interest, I put the query into Bing (I've never been able to get the RMweb search engine work satisfactorily) and got a number of results including http://rmweb.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16464&sid=f9712bb226564a0026c10b87613c0055&start=25

 

I don't have the necessary Yeadons, can somebody tell me the difference between a J71 and a J72, please.

 

Regards

J71 NER Class E-4'7'' wheels/J72 Class E1 4' 1' wheels and adopted as the standard NER shunter. Good enough a design to have been built in various batches from 1898 all the way through to BR in 1951! Most boilers interchangable though.

[rowanj]

Thanks for the posts. I assume, Jonathan, that you shortened the bunker on the J72 body, in which case it looks a very tidy job. This and the wheel sizes/splashers are the obvious visual differences between the J71 and the later build J72 as modelled by Bachmann , as I understand it. But I plan to go as far as possible in detailing my J71 and J72 models, as per your and Mikemeg's examples. I imagine a PM to Arthur Kimber will be in order once I identify which parts are required,

 

Thanks again

 

John

Edited November 5, 2018 by rowanj

[mikemeg]

Just out of interest, I put the query into Bing (I've never been able to get the RMweb search engine work satisfactorily) and got a number of results including http://rmweb.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16464&sid=f9712bb226564a0026c10b87613c0055&start=25

 

I don't have the necessary Yeadons, can somebody tell me the difference between a J71 and a J72, please.

 

Regards

 

Not just the difference in driving wheel diameter. The  Class E / J71 and the first twenty Class E1 / J72's both had the same sized bunker. However, the later Class E1's / J72's all had an extended bunker; lengthened by 5 1/2". It is this longer bunkered version which Bachmann model and have modelled. So the body of the Bachmann J72, even if the splashers are changed, is not accurate for the J71 unless slightly less than 2mm is taken off the bunker length.

 

Also, the sanding system, on the front sandboxes, was changed when the British Railways batch of J72's (690xx) was built. Again, the J71 had visible sanding operating rods, as did the majority of the 686xx and 687xx J72's.

 

The safety valve housing might also be different depending on which J71 and when it is modelled, as the British Railways batch of J72's, on which the Bachmann model is based, were built with 'trumpet' safety valve housings..

 

Cheers

 

Mike

Edited November 5, 2018 by mikemeg

[ArthurK]

It is commonly believed that, apart from wheel diameter, the J71s and J72s were identcal but there were a number of subtle, less obvious, changes. Of these the most important was the increase in cylinder size. The stroke was increased to  24" on the J72 with longer connecting rods. To accomodate this change centre driving wheels were moved two inches to the rear and were now not the same as the J71. The overall wheelbase remained the same. On the J72 the cylinder block was dropped three inches  because of the smaller wheels but it was also moved forward by one inch. The latter change had a snowball effect. The front frames were lengthened by one inch taking with them the somebox, boiler and splashers. This left the boiler rear ahead of the cab front sheet so that was moved by the same amount. Thus the J72 cab became one inch longer than the J71. It took me some time to figure that one out!

I don't know what the instructions with the conversion etches are but at the rear the longer bunker did not have extended frames so that it sat on top of th rear buffer beam rather than ahead of it.

The first twenty J72s (short bunkers) had frames very similar to the J71s with large cut-outs between the driving wheels. The rest of the J72s had flat bottomed frames.

 

I might add that the first of my J71 kits will be available by the end of this month. There is a waiting list for these but those at the top of the list will be hearing from me in the next couple of weeks. I will place a further orrder but because of the festive period I expect delivery will take about two months.

 

ArthurK

Edited November 5, 2018 by ArthurK

[Pebbles]

J71 wheel base 6ft 6ins + 7ft 2ins. and the J72  6ft 8ins + 7ft.0ins. As the total wheel base in both classes comes to13ft 8ins, and the front driving wheel is in approximately the same relative position, this difference is of no real concern. As far as I can make out there was no difference in the length of the frames. This point is important, as the extension in the length of the bunker - between the initial and subsequent batches - was located over the rear sandwich buffer beam. This is evident  from photos, where it can be seen that the shorter bunker is inset. So; the bunker needs to be shortened whilst preserving the rear length of the footplate. This can be achieved by making the appropriate vertical and horizontal cuts to remove the rear of the bunker and shorten it by approximately 2mm. As the J71 didn't have a rear sandwich buffer beam, the existing buffer beam also requires to be thinned to represent a steel buffer beam.  

Before any surgery is attempted it is advisable to glue vertical and horizontal reinforcements in place.

As for me; I'm going to wait for Mr Kimber's kits. 

[rowanj]

The J71 Conversion kit and the J72 Improvement kit arrived today from Wizard - really fast delivery. Magic, perhaps?

 

Both are Iain Rice products, and are essentially chassis kits. The instructions are comprehensive, and construction seems traditional. The J71 etch includes the new splashers, buffer beams  an etch to produce a cab interior, and a balsa plug for the Bachmann boiler bottom. Alan Gibson NER taper buffers are included in the J71 kit, but not in the J72 . In this kit, the "upgrades" are restricted to the chassis etch, which includes the aforementioned cab and buffer beams.

 

The small difference in wheelbase between the 2 locos is reflected in the chassis etch, but, strangely, the instructions make no reference to the shorter bunker on the J71 and early J72 locos. The J72 chassis has the larger cut-outs between the driving wheels referred to in Arthur's post, so the short-bunker J72 is really more appropriate to the kit.

 

I'll post  few photos when I get round to a build, but at the moment, an A8 awaits...

 

John

[jwealleans]

One or other of them has an error in the brake rods, which won't fit. I can't remember which it is, but you'll know when you try to assemble it.

[PenrithBeacon]

My innocent query seems to have opened up a can of worms!

[Worsdell forever]

I remember reading somewhere that the J72 chassis was designed for the short bunker, so that is what I did, or thereabouts.

 

Starts here - http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/3252-worsdell-forevers-workbench-loads-of-north-eastern-stuff/?p=1722291

[rowanj]

My innocent query seems to have opened up a can of worms!

 

I'm no expert on the locos of other Companies, but I am here to tell you that the detail differences between NER locos of the SAME class, never mind similar classes like J71 and J72's are sent to try us modellers, I suppose there were 2 locos which were alike, but tracking them down is another story....

 

It all adds to the fun

[mikemeg]

One or other of them has an error in the brake rods, which won't fit. I can't remember which it is, but you'll know when you try to assemble it.

 

I think it is the J71 kit which has the error.

 

I did both the J71 and J72 'conversion' using the Mainly Trains kits and was quite satisfied with the results. Then High Level Models produced a far more detailed chassis kit for the J72, and so the Mainly Trains chassis' were both replaced with these kits, which are an 'order of magnitude' improvement. Then Arthur produced the test etches for his J71 and has now released the production kit, which totally eclipsed the J71 conversion.

 

I also test built both versions of Arthur's J72 kits so I'm now 'awash' with North Eastern 0-6-0 tanks. My excuse for this 'plethora' of shunting tanks is that in mid 1950, the time setting of the layout, Hull could muster some forty 0-6-0 tanks, across its four loco sheds, as well as some twenty odd 0-6-2 tanks. But that is nothing compared to the combined allocations of the Newcastle area and Durham area sheds in 1950.

 

Lots of locos around in 1950, but then there was a whole lot of shunting going on!!

 

Cheers

 

Mike

Edited November 6, 2018 by mikemeg

[rowanj]

Mike ( and Arthur if he reads this) knows that I have nothing but admiration for Arthur's kits, which are both state of the art and can be assembled by amateurs like me. I also use High-level gearboxes almost exclusively these days. So it's obvious that a better model will be made using these parts than from a 40 year old body and 13 y.o chassis kit. Like Mike, I can't have too many shunters, and the only problem with Arthur's kit,and this is NOT a complaint, is availability. Because they are produced in small batches,I have been on the J71 list for a year now, and will still not make the Top 10 for the current run. That's just the way it is.

 

So for now,its the Mainly Trains option, and in time,I'll have 2 J71's. There will be sufficient detail differences to make it worthwhile, and in the meantime I'll do some old style modelling, carving up plastic bodies.

 

 

John

Edited November 6, 2018 by rowanj