locomotive kits 30368's Workbench SR Loco's with a bit of LNER

[30368]

2 hours ago, Keith Turbutt said:

Also I'd like to add my apologies for the digression

 

Keith and Mike,

 

No need to apologise, great images - all those Q6s on Tyne Dock shed, wonderful. I was there in 1963 and 64. The J27s and Q6s were still very busy in the North East at that time. I seem to remember a few Q7s still about too. I also had a Saturday visit to Darlington Works in December 1963 guided by a fellow apprentice whom I met again some twenty years later in my railway career.

It may sound strange but to a Southerner it all seemed magical - all those engines with numbers that started with a 6 instead of a 3!

 

Happy days!

 

B16/1 continues...

 

 

Kind regards,

 

Richard B

[30368]

On 06/03/2023 at 18:42, Michael Edge said:

The cylinder’s definitely look too low in that last photo. The piston rod should be pointing at the driving axle centre, it is well below in this photo.

 

I have carefully checked the cylinder height and I agree Mike, they are too low. As ever thanks for your help.The cylinders are now 1mm higher than they were and after a few other checks on the crossheads and slidebars the setup runs much more smoothly. I also have a little space to extend very slightly the flat area above the round section of the cylinders. The edge of the front footsteps close to the slide bars was also further chamfered to clear the crosshead at the ende of its stroke.

 

The chassis with bogie fitted now goes around my tightest curves with no shorting or fouling.

 

More running in.

 

 

 

Kind regards,

 

Richard B

[t-b-g]

2 hours ago, 30368 said:

 

I have carefully checked the cylinder height and I agree Mike, they are too low. As ever thanks for your help.The cylinders are now 1mm higher than they were and after a few other checks on the crossheads and slidebars the setup runs much more smoothly. I also have a little space to extend very slightly the flat area above the round section of the cylinders. The edge of the front footsteps close to the slide bars was also further chamfered to clear the crosshead at the ende of its stroke.

 

The chassis with bogie fitted now goes around my tightest curves with no shorting or fouling.

 

More running in.

 

 

 

Kind regards,

 

Richard B

 

I still think something is quite well adrift with the cylinders. It may be my eyes or the angle of the photos but the piston rods should be in alignment with the centre of the leading driving axle and they look to be still below by some way. Could it be that the cylinders are too steeply inclined? They don't look as if they will go up any further.

[micklner]

My DJH C7 is just as bad, the Footplate is like armour plating it is so thick. Very "old design kits"covers the problems nicely.

[Mallard60022]

Richard, something has happened between you posting this pic and the latest ones. The Piston angle looks spot on in this shot. can you figure out what happened between pics? Some sort of difference between Frame and Body? Cylinders, as mentioned, have changed angle? Apologies for continuing the spot the weird look discussion.

Phil 

[t-b-g]

13 minutes ago, Mallard60022 said:

Richard, something has happened between you posting this pic and the latest ones. The Piston angle looks spot on in this shot. can you figure out what happened between pics? Some sort of difference between Frame and Body? Cylinders, as mentioned, have changed angle? Apologies for continuing the spot the weird look discussion.

Phil 

 

I would agree. That looks a much better alignment.

[30368]

The cylinder/piston rod issue...

 

I think a large part of the problem is the camera angle and, it must be said, the very poor camera man.

The cylinders are now 1mm higher than they were in the shot above. The piston rods are now pretty much aligned with the leading axle centre although it is true that the RH cylinder slide bars are at a steeper angle than the left. I am gently coaxing these back into position. I have more work to do around the cylinders after I have completed lining and numbering. It will be 61412 because I have more images of that loco than any other.

 

I am though pleased with the running qualities of the chassis.

 

Kind regards,

 

Richard B

 

 

 

 

[30368]

I am now satisfied that the chassis works very well after extended running in on my layout, no fouling of the bogie was experienced.

I have added a thin brass strip to the top of the cylinders to bring the shape of the cylinders closer to the prototype. I thiink it works well and looks a lot more like the B16/1 cylinder. The slide bars on the RH cylinder have now been corrected.

 

The cylinders extend beyond the running plate by 0.5mm. I will need to extend the mainframes above the leading bogie wheel!

 

 

Kind regards,

 

Richard B

Edited March 11, 2023 by 30368

[mikemeg]

Richard,

 

I don't know if this photo is of any use to you but, strangely, this is the best one I have of a B16/1 late in its life. As you can see the external condition of this loco is appalling though, by this time, many of them were in similar states. The loco carries the later LNER designed boiler, identifiable by the dome position, and various other details are visible on the photo.

 

I assume that your model will not replicate the condition of this loco.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

 

Edited March 12, 2023 by mikemeg

[30368]

56 minutes ago, mikemeg said:

I assume that your model will not replicate the condition of this loco.

 

Many thanks Mike.

This is a great image, indeed, it almost shows me the plumbing for the, I think, exhaust steam injector! I can't find a decent image of the injector plumbing. The light is just right to show a lot of detail on the firemans side.

I do attempt such filth sometimes but 61412 will be ex Works + a few weeks/month or two OR very filthy but recently cleaned I haven't decided yet. It will be modelled around 1956/7.

 

Kind regards,

 

Richard B

 

[30368]

Now at the detail stage - glazing windows etc. I like to fit the window to the cab window frame, takes a time, the second one is much easier......

 

Most of the boiler backplate fittings are complete and the backplate fixed. I am very happy with the Alan Gibson oil boxes which are quite a feature on the B16/1. Those fitted to the firebox are high mounted so some brass wire was added.

 

These close up shots are merciless! Every imperfection is emphasized. Please don't try to read the builders plate!!!

 

Kind regards,

 

Richard B

Edited March 12, 2023 by 30368

[Chas Levin]

2 hours ago, 30368 said:

These close up shots are merciless! Every imperfection is emphasized. Please don't try to read the builders plate!!!

 

It looks superb, Richard!

 

The whole 'close-up' thing that digital photography and the internet has brought us is a double-edged sword, isn't it?

I recently fitted loco plates that I'd had made to 3mm/1ft scale, because the only ones with suitable wording I could find in 4mm/1ft were too high to fit the place where they needed to be... but reducing them by 25% rendered them illegible. So, I could have used ones that fitted the space but had the wrong wording, as it would have been equally illegible at normal viewing distance.

Those plates look fine and that's what counts, I think! 🙂

[Michael Edge]

7 hours ago, mikemeg said:

Richard,

 

I don't know if this photo is of any use to you but, strangely, this is the best one I have of a B16/1 late in its life. As you can see the external condition of this loco is appalling though, by this time, many of them were in similar states. The loco carries the later LNER designed boiler, identifiable by the dome position, and various other details are visible on the photo.

 

I assume that your model will not replicate the condition of this loco.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

 

I think this photo demonstrates why you were unable to get the right appearance of the vertical part of the cylinder clothing - your cylinders are simply too far apart as is usual with almost all DJH kits.

[30368]

1 hour ago, Michael Edge said:

I think this photo demonstrates why you were unable to get the right appearance of the vertical part of the cylinder clothing - your cylinders are simply too far apart as is usual with almost all DJH kits.

Yes Michael you are correct even though I made sure that the castings were cleaned up and fitted well they are still too wide. Having said that, my changes have made my model a little closer to prototype and its still rewarding to build up and, if possible, improve on a very old kit design. I must get around to building your V4 etch...

 

 

Kind regards,

 

Richard B

[micklner]

At a guess, a poor attempt to give more room for the Bogie to swing.

[Michael Edge]

I don’t think it’s just for bogie swing, the only DJH kit I’ve built with the cylinders in the right position was a 7mm A4 - they couldn’t really push those out. There is one kit where  I’ve left the cylinders wide (normally I narrow them, there’s usually a mark on the casting where the pattern has been packed out), the BR 2-6-4T which is too wide all along and so matches the cylinders.

[30368]

I have checked again the cylinder centre lines and the way I have fitted them has resulted in them being wider than prototype by just under 1mm so that is part of the problem for sure. I would add though that the running plate is just under 1mm too deep and that is perhaps a more significant error than the cylinder location. MickLNER commented on that earlier in the thread. I was not prepared to either replace the running plate with a scratch built version or attempt to file it back. In the end, most 4mm 00 model locomotives are a compromise.

 

Again, thanks to everyone offering advice and tips, it has certainly helped me a lot.

 

A little more to do on the loco - water and sand plumbing and the cylinder drain cocks and operating levers and lastly the buffer beam. I will now start on the tender.

 

Kind regards,

 

Richard B

 

[t-b-g]

18 minutes ago, 30368 said:

I have checked again the cylinder centre lines and the way I have fitted them has resulted in them being wider than prototype by just under 1mm so that is part of the problem for sure. I would add though that the running plate is just under 1mm too deep and that is perhaps a more significant error than the cylinder location. MickLNER commented on that earlier in the thread. I was not prepared to either replace the running plate with a scratch built version or attempt to file it back. In the end, most 4mm 00 model locomotives are a compromise.

 

Again, thanks to everyone offering advice and tips, it has certainly helped me a lot.

 

A little more to do on the loco - water and sand plumbing and the cylinder drain cocks and operating levers and lastly the buffer beam. I will now start on the tender.

 

Kind regards,

 

Richard B

 

 

I think what you have done already to the kit is a real "tour de force". It was always going to be an uphill struggle and your work has certainly made a difference but sometimes you have to accept that there is only so much you can do without reaching a point where you would have been better off not using the kit at all.

 

The finished result may not be a perfect model but it will be a lot better than the kit built as intended straight out of the box.

 

To me, the worst thing on the DJH kit was always the smokebox saddle and the resulting boiler height and gap under the boiler, which looked awful. You really have done some good work to make that aspect look right.

 

Not long until this one is finished and I look forward to seeing what you get up to next.

 

Seeing what you have achieved with what is really quite a poor kit has encouraged me to dig out (yet again) my old Millholme GCR 4-6-0 kit, which is probably of a similar quality!

[mikemeg]

Richard,

 

A few more B16/1 photos for you to peruse. I don't have a photo of 61412 but these two (61413 and 61414) might give you some further help with the model.

 

Looking at your model v the side on photo of 61443 shows that the gap between the cylinder front and the footplate curve on the photo is larger than this gap on the model. So, either the cylinders on the model are longer or the footplate is shorter. I think someone did comment that the kit footplate is 2 mm short; perhaps this shows where the shortening has been done.

 

These locos have always been a favourite with me especially as they were always so closely associated with Summer specials to Bridlington and Scarborough. There is a record of over thirty of the class being seen, in one weekend in Scarborough, during the early 1950's.

 

Hope the backhead drawing is useful.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

Edited March 13, 2023 by mikemeg

[30368]

3 hours ago, mikemeg said:

Hope the backhead drawing is useful.

 

Mike,

 

Thanks again for two great images, 13 is particularly useful given that the tender is next.

 

Backhead drawing is really useful - many thanks.

 

Kind regards,

 

Richard B

 

 

[30368]

A few state of play images.

 

I removed the original cab roof rain strips and replaced with plasticard.

 

My largely scratch built ex LSWR S11 4-4-0 gets in the background.

 

 

 

 

KInd regards,

 

Richard B

Edited March 13, 2023 by 30368

[mikemeg]

Richard,

 

Here's another photo which might help you with the tender. This photo, though not directly referenced as a B16 tender, is a North Eastern 4125 gallon tender and is lined in mixed traffic livery, so can only be from a B16. I also have supporting drawings for the 4125 gallon tender which I will forward to you on a PM.

 

Hope these help.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[micklner]

Re the Tender I recommend ( if you are not aware) the attached Etched underframe  much much better detail, and running. He also does a useful  Step etch on the accessories page.

 

https://www.52fmodels.org/mk3-ner-tender-chassis

 

 

 

 

Edited March 14, 2023 by micklner

[Pebbles]

2 hours ago, micklner said:

Re the Tender I recommend ( if you are not aware) the attached Etched underframe  much much better detail, and running. He also does a useful  Step etch on the accessories page.

 

https://www.52fmodels.org/mk3-ner-tender-chassis

 

 

 

 

I may be wrong, but from memory the DJH wheelbase isn't 6' 4" x 6'4". 

[30368]

2 hours ago, Pebbles said:

I may be wrong, but from memory the DJH wheelbase isn't 6' 4" x 6'4". 

 

Looks ok to me having just checked it. I will though have a good look at the 52f underframe.

 

Thanks Mick/Pebbles.

 

Kind regards,

 

Richard B

 

PS Tried to buy the 52F chassis but no 00 chassis available, pleasant chat though. Liked the look of the A5 kit....

Edited March 14, 2023 by 30368