Farish Jinty, 4F, Ivatt 2MT - 2FS & DCC/stay-alive. NGS Hunslet Industrial. Farish B1

[Izzy]

1 hour ago, Chris Higgs said:

 

I could at least etch the valve gear parts, coupling and connecting rods as I did get all of those drawn.

 

Chris

If you could Chris that would be great, thanks for considering it. It would of course make things an awful lot easier. 
 

Bob

[Izzy]

 

With consideration to all the help and suggestions that have been made since my last post of the B1 conversion I have found the time to try and bring things up to the current state of play.

 

The new B1 build

 

I decided to use the experience gained from producing the Royal Scot to help make the loco and tender chassis that were needed to suit the Farish B1 bodies. I started off with the tender to prove to myself that I could manage it by copying the general design arrangement of the tender weight hanging on the back of the loco to aid traction. A loco with a plastic body is still going to weigh less even with lead ballast stuffed in every spare bit of space. I have been surprised how much weight even a small loco body made using thin brass adds to the mix and the difference that it makes.

 

All the main parts were cut from a sheet of K&S 1/64” brass and filed to shape as needed. By cut I mean scored to outline size with a scalpel and then worked, bent back and forth, until they snapped at the scored line. This is a very crude way of working I know but comes from a time when having anything but the most basic of tools and ways of working were unknown to me. I have never used such as a piercing saw. As such I still work in these crude self taught ways simply because I find them quick and easy to do. The spacers were the 7mm wide PCB strip the 2mm association provides. With the PB bearings filed down on the outside face this combination seems to produce enough sideplay in the wheelsets to allow a loco such as this to get around curves down to around 18” which is very useful.

 

 

 

 

 

Because the original plastic footplate and underframe was used rather than a thinner metal replacement the chassis couldn’t be as deep as with the Royal Scot and combined with the smaller disc wheels means it shows a bit at low viewing angles. It just wasn’t possible to shape it to match the outer frames as regards frames shape and cut-outs as there wouldn’t have been much left. This is a shame, but is what it is. At this stage I hadn’t woken up to the fact that the etched chassis for the Farish J39 that is available through shop 3 would have provided both the chassis and the footplate/outside frames along with the basic coupling rods for the loco. However it’s still miles better than with the original tender drive in place which looked truly awful side on at low angles thanks to the very deep keeper plate with moulded brackets.

 

 

This chassis is composed of two main parts. The chassis with the wheels, and the pivoting plate on which the tender body/underframe and motor are mounted. This rests on the loco drawbar and thus so does all the weight of the tender. The plate is two layers thick for strength, so 1/32". This is beneficial as the whole tender body sits on/is screwed to it.

 

 

 

Before fitting the motor in the tender I decided to tackle the loco chassis so I could work out what the height of the drive shaft would need to be and so where the motor needed to be placed to match. Again I used the 1/64” brass for the frames. I used the combination of the drawing by Roche and measurement of the original chassis to work out the shape needed to fit the body, where to fit the spacers for body fixing and mounting of the cylinders etc. Once the drawing was correctly scaled to 1-148 the Farish loco seemed to accurately match it which was very helpful.

 

 

At this stage I had to work out what gearing arrangement I would use. With the Royal Scot a single stage 1-38 reduction was fitted. This was fairly simple to get meshed and running but in subsequent use I have thought that even with the use of a Zimo decoder a higher reduction might have been better given the large driving wheels involved and my requirement for gentle slow speed performance on the small distance layouts I have.

 

I worked out that using two stage gearing with a 38 tooth worm gear followed by a 14/22 spur gear stage would give 59-1 and could be fitted within the body length and still leave room so the U/J drive joint didn’t protrude too far into the cab. About half the cab length in the end but being low down, and with crew fitted on both sides, I doubt it will be seen. This is driving on the middle axle. Using the back axle would bring it all too far to the rear. I always prefer to drive off the middle axle whenever possible as it helps to even out the thrust forces of the coupling rods.

 

Fitting this second stage gearing proved interesting because I set my self the goal of not having the shaft or bearings showing in the chassis side frames, which it would do with this particular loco. Somehow I had to come up with an arrangement that slid down inside the frames and was then fixed into place. That would enable the correct meshing to be obtained before permanent fixing in place. What I didn’t think about at this point was that the first stage 38t worm wheel would show beneath the chassis frames between the wheels, it just never occurred to me. Using a 30t instead would have been less obvious, but only give 47-1. This itself might have given an acceptable improvement over 38-1 but I thought I’d try for as high a ratio as possible. Raising the first stage gearing so it didn’t show would have made the drive shaft far too high so there were no easy answers here.

 

Logically, at the end of the day all that I am doing just involves time and effort rather than costly materials so if I choose to change things not much is lost but often much is gained in terms of experience which can come in handy in the future. I hope painting the side of the worm wheel might make it not to obvious. The second stage spur gear of course sits behind the driving wheel so isn’t seen. I’m also hoping the brakes and rigging might further draw attention away from it. Time will tell. (This does all now seem to be working out as hoped).

 

Anyway I decided to make a u shaped bracket that could take PB bearings and slide down inside the frames, so 7mm outer width, with a PCB strip vertically at the rear with a brass bearing for the drive shaft. This PCB strip along with the brass strip could be cut through after soldering up to insulate the sides from each other, crucial with a split chassis loco. The bearing would be isolated from both with another cut.

 

When this had been made and the gears added on the muff, which itself was reduced in width to fit the narrower space, the assembly could be slid down and moved around until it all meshed nicely and then the rear section soldered to the main chassis making sure solder got nowhere near the front section with the bearings and lay shaft.

 

 

 

 

 

It worked out far better than I had anticipated which was a relief. To get the worm meshed properly I made a simple front bracket with another brass bearing so it could be moved around and adjusted before soldering it all up. It all looks what it is, crude and simple, but works well which is the important part.

 

 

 

As already mentioned the cylinders needed 2mm removing from the centre of the cross member to reduce their overall width. Once glued back together they were then mounted onto a piece of PCB and glued to it with superglue. This spacer was then drilled and tapped 14ba to enable them to be mounted and held in place on the chassis with a 14ba screw. I managed to angle the frame spacer so the cylinder assembly sits at the right inclination to match the Farish cylinders.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The bogie was made up from the etched one on the standard class 5 motion etch from shop 3. I got this etch in the hopes some of the motion parts might suit the B1. I have other motion etches, well odd parts of them, and will try and make something up that fits, taking odd bits from any of these where they are of use. Some bits may also need making from scratch out of spare scrap etch. The Farish motion isn’t too bad, quite decent for N gauge, but perhaps rather hefty in comparison with that fitted to my Ivatt 2MT and Royal Scot and made from the nice motion etches from Nigel Hunt, so I want to replace it with something a bit finer if I can.

 

 

A problem I encountered with the bogie was that there wasn’t the space for a vertical bolt fixture into the chassis for it. Above the bogie is where Farish positioned the front body fixing point. So I have made a bracket for it that fixes to the middle spacer using a 12ba bolt in order that it can be fitted and removed after the chassis is fixed to the body. It has the same general U-shaped PB wire spring arrangement I fitted to the Royal Scot to ensure the bogie wheels stay on the rails.

 

 

 

The basic chassis under test.

 

 

So this is where it has currently got to. It's looks a bit messy because the wiring won't be sorted until the last. A more robust braket assembly for the front worm bearing is also being looked into. All of this is being developed 'on-the-fly' so changes are inevitable where they are needed.

 

The coupling rods were made up from sets on the basic etches the association supplys, cut & shut jobs, but there is now the prospect of some proper rods along with nice correct motion if Chris Higgs is able to work his magic. As such the project is now going to be 'parked' until such times as they become available and I will concentrate on bringing to a finished state those winter projects that are waiting in the wings for completion.

 

A further update in due course.

 

Bob

 

 

[65179]

4 minutes ago, Izzy said:

 

With consideration to all the help and suggestions that have been made since my last post of the B1 conversion I have found the time to try and bring things up to the current state of play.

 

The new B1 build

 

I decided to use the experience gained from producing the Royal Scot to help make the loco and tender chassis that were needed to suit the Farish B1 bodies. I started off with the tender to prove to myself that I could manage it by copying the general design arrangement of the tender weight hanging on the back of the loco to aid traction. A loco with a plastic body is still going to weigh less even with lead ballast stuffed in every spare bit of space. I have been surprised how much weight even a small loco body made using thin brass adds to the mix and the difference that it makes.

 

All the main parts were cut from a sheet of K&S 1/64” brass and filed to shape as needed. By cut I mean scored to outline size with a scalpel and then worked, bent back and forth, until they snapped at the scored line. This is a very crude way of working I know but comes from a time when having anything but the most basic of tools and ways of working were unknown to me. I have never used such as a piercing saw. As such I still work in these crude self taught ways simply because I find them quick and easy to do. The spacers were the 7mm wide PCB strip the 2mm association provides. With the PB bearings filed down on the outside face this combination seems to produce enough sideplay in the wheelsets to allow a loco such as this to get around curves down to around 18” which is very useful.

 

 

 

 

 

Because the original plastic footplate and underframe was used rather than a thinner metal replacement the chassis couldn’t be as deep as with the Royal Scot and combined with the smaller disc wheels means it shows a bit at low viewing angles. It just wasn’t possible to shape it to match the outer frames as regards frames shape and cut-outs as there wouldn’t have been much left. This is a shame, but is what it is. At this stage I hadn’t woken up to the fact that the etched chassis for the Farish J39 that is available through shop 3 would have provided both the chassis and the footplate/outside frames along with the basic coupling rods for the loco. However it’s still miles better than with the original tender drive in place which looked truly awful side on at low angles thanks to the very deep keeper plate with moulded brackets.

 

 

This chassis is composed of two main parts. The chassis with the wheels, and the pivoting plate on which the tender body/underframe and motor are mounted. This rests on the loco drawbar and thus so does all the weight of the tender. The plate is two layers thick for strength, so 1/32". This is beneficial as the whole tender body sits on/is screwed to it.

 

 

 

Before fitting the motor in the tender I decided to tackle the loco chassis so I could work out what the height of the drive shaft would need to be and so where the motor needed to be placed to match. Again I used the 1/64” brass for the frames. I used the combination of the drawing by Roche and measurement of the original chassis to work out the shape needed to fit the body, where to fit the spacers for body fixing and mounting of the cylinders etc. Once the drawing was correctly scaled to 1-148 the Farish loco seemed to accurately match it which was very helpful.

 

 

At this stage I had to work out what gearing arrangement I would use. With the Royal Scot a single stage 1-38 reduction was fitted. This was fairly simple to get meshed and running but in subsequent use I have thought that even with the use of a Zimo decoder a higher reduction might have been better given the large driving wheels involved and my requirement for gentle slow speed performance on the small distance layouts I have.

 

I worked out that using two stage gearing with a 38 tooth worm gear followed by a 14/22 spur gear stage would give 59-1 and could be fitted within the body length and still leave room so the U/J drive joint didn’t protrude too far into the cab. About half the cab length in the end but being low down, and with crew fitted on both sides, I doubt it will be seen. This is driving on the middle axle. Using the back axle would bring it all too far to the rear. I always prefer to drive off the middle axle whenever possible as it helps to even out the thrust forces of the coupling rods.

 

Fitting this second stage gearing proved interesting because I set my self the goal of not having the shaft or bearings showing in the chassis side frames, which it would do with this particular loco. Somehow I had to come up with an arrangement that slid down inside the frames and was then fixed into place. That would enable the correct meshing to be obtained before permanent fixing in place. What I didn’t think about at this point was that the first stage 38t worm wheel would show beneath the chassis frames between the wheels, it just never occurred to me. Using a 30t instead would have been less obvious, but only give 47-1. This itself might have given an acceptable improvement over 38-1 but I thought I’d try for as high a ratio as possible. Raising the first stage gearing so it didn’t show would have made the drive shaft far too high so there were no easy answers here.

 

Logically, at the end of the day all that I am doing just involves time and effort rather than costly materials so if I choose to change things not much is lost but often much is gained in terms of experience which can come in handy in the future. I hope painting the side of the worm wheel might make it not to obvious. The second stage spur gear of course sits behind the driving wheel so isn’t seen. I’m also hoping the brakes and rigging might further draw attention away from it. Time will tell. (This does all now seem to be working out as hoped).

 

Anyway I decided to make a u shaped bracket that could take PB bearings and slide down inside the frames, so 7mm outer width, with a PCB strip vertically at the rear with a brass bearing for the drive shaft. This PCB strip along with the brass strip could be cut through after soldering up to insulate the sides from each other, crucial with a split chassis loco. The bearing would be isolated from both with another cut.

 

When this had been made and the gears added on the muff, which itself was reduced in width to fit the narrower space, the assembly could be slid down and moved around until it all meshed nicely and then the rear section soldered to the main chassis making sure solder got nowhere near the front section with the bearings and lay shaft.

 

 

 

 

 

It worked out far better than I had anticipated which was a relief. To get the worm meshed properly I made a simple front bracket with another brass bearing so it could be moved around and adjusted before soldering it all up. It all looks what it is, crude and simple, but works well which is the important part.

 

 

 

As already mentioned the cylinders needed 2mm removing from the centre of the cross member to reduce their overall width. Once glued back together they were then mounted onto a piece of PCB and glued to it with superglue. This spacer was then drilled and tapped 14ba to enable them to be mounted and held in place on the chassis with a 14ba screw. I managed to angle the frame spacer so the cylinder assembly sits at the right inclination to match the Farish cylinders.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The bogie was made up from the etched one on the standard class 5 motion etch from shop 3. I got this etch in the hopes some of the motion parts might suit the B1. I have other motion etches, well odd parts of them, and will try and make something up that fits, taking odd bits from any of these where they are of use. Some bits may also need making from scratch out of spare scrap etch. The Farish motion isn’t too bad, quite decent for N gauge, but perhaps rather hefty in comparison with that fitted to my Ivatt 2MT and Royal Scot and made from the nice motion etches from Nigel Hunt, so I want to replace it with something a bit finer if I can.

 

 

A problem I encountered with the bogie was that there wasn’t the space for a vertical bolt fixture into the chassis for it. Above the bogie is where Farish positioned the front body fixing point. So I have made a bracket for it that fixes to the middle spacer using a 12ba bolt in order that it can be fitted and removed after the chassis is fixed to the body. It has the same general U-shaped PB wire spring arrangement I fitted to the Royal Scot to ensure the bogie wheels stay on the rails.

 

 

 

The basic chassis under test.

 

 

So this is where it has currently got to. It's looks a bit messy because the wiring won't be sorted until the last. A more robust braket assembly for the front worm bearing is also being looked into. All of this is being developed 'on-the-fly' so changes are inevitable where they are needed.

 

The coupling rods were made up from sets on the basic etches the association supplys, cut & shut jobs, but there is now the prospect of some proper rods along with nice correct motion if Chris Higgs is able to work his magic. As such the project is now going to be 'parked' until such times as they become available and I will concentrate on bringing to a finished state those winter projects that are waiting in the wings for completion.

 

A further update in due course.

 

Bob

 

 

 

Before you do anything else, bin the Roche drawing! Too many B1s have ended up unnecessarily poor because of that drawing.  Fortunately you aren't having to make your own body so the main error to worry about is the wrongly positioned motion bracket and all the follow on errors that results in.

 

Simon

[Chris Higgs]

49 minutes ago, 65179 said:

 

Before you do anything else, bin the Roche drawing! Too many B1s have ended up unnecessarily poor because of that drawing.  Fortunately you aren't having to make your own body so the main error to worry about is the wrongly positioned motion bracket and all the follow on errors that results in.

 

Simon

 

I used a combination of the Isinglass drawings and those in Model Railways of November 1976.

 

Chris

[65179]

One or two pipe and rod drawing extracts on this page: https://www.scalefour.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=6875&start=75

 

also including the speedo mount fitted to some B1s.

 

Simon

[Caley Jim]

1 hour ago, Izzy said:

All the main parts were cut from a sheet of K&S 1/64” brass and filed to shape as needed. By cut I mean scored to outline size with a scalpel and then worked, bent back and forth, until they snapped at the scored line. This is a very crude way of working I know but comes from a time when having anything but the most basic of tools and ways of working were unknown to me. I have never used such as a piercing saw.

This is the way I cut all metal below around 20 thou.  Using a piercing saw on such thin metal can be quite tricky.  You need a very fine blade and even then have to cut at quite a shallow angle to avoid the teeth snagging.

 

Jim

[Izzy]

1 hour ago, 65179 said:

 

Before you do anything else, bin the Roche drawing! Too many B1s have ended up unnecessarily poor because of that drawing.  Fortunately you aren't having to make your own body so the main error to worry about is the wrongly positioned motion bracket and all the follow on errors that results in.

 

Simon

 

Thanks Simon, good of you to point it out, very grateful. As I was originally just using it for general guidance I didn't bother to check too deeply but had thought something didn't quite seem to square up.  Thank goodness I hadn't started to make any motion using it. Just checked it against the Doug Hewson drawings done for 5" gauge, and the Farish model and parts. Clearly see the issue. Thankfully it seems Bachmann/Farish got it right as both the motion and bracket location matches the 5" drawing exactly as does the rest of the loco body.

 

Bob

[Izzy]

2 hours ago, 65179 said:

 

I forget which one, but when the Farish and Dapol B1s came out, one of the railway modelling mags had a rather unfortunate review stating that the Farish B1 was wrong, as the running plate narrowed to the bufferbeam, on the basis of the Roche drawing.

 

Simon

 

Don't really understand that Simon. As far as it goes the Farish is correct in that aspect, narrowing from the base of the curve, and so is Roche. Are there some that have a straight one? I know Roche drawings have to be watched in that some do contain the wrong mix of bits when differences exist between batches built and so forth. And some just plain wrong for no account, as per the B1 motion bracket postion you've highlighted. But no single drawing can hope to cover all the variations sometimes exisiting through a loco types entire life span. Skinley drawings were the same if I remember correctly. I've got caught out once or twice with them......

 

Thanks for all the insight. What a minefield this modeling lark can be at times.....

 

Bob

[65179]

2 hours ago, Izzy said:

 

Don't really understand that Simon. As far as it goes the Farish is correct in that aspect, narrowing from the base of the curve, and so is Roche. Are there some that have a straight one? I know Roche drawings have to be watched in that some do contain the wrong mix of bits when differences exist between batches built and so forth. And some just plain wrong for no account, as per the B1 motion bracket postion you've highlighted. But no single drawing can hope to cover all the variations sometimes exisiting through a loco types entire life span. Skinley drawings were the same if I remember correctly. I've got caught out once or twice with them......

 

Thanks for all the insight. What a minefield this modeling lark can be at times.....

 

Bob

 

I've obviously mis-remembered the detail about the article/one of the drawing errors then. That will teach me to post without checking the details.  As you note the Farish loco has the correct narrowing.

 

Misleading post now deleted!

 

Simon

 

[Chris Higgs]

On 03/07/2024 at 14:30, Izzy said:

 

With consideration to all the help and suggestions that have been made since my last post of the B1 conversion I have found the time to try and bring things up to the current state of play.

 

The new B1 build

 

I decided to use the experience gained from producing the Royal Scot to help make the loco and tender chassis that were needed to suit the Farish B1 bodies. I started off with the tender to prove to myself that I could manage it by copying the general design arrangement of the tender weight hanging on the back of the loco to aid traction. A loco with a plastic body is still going to weigh less even with lead ballast stuffed in every spare bit of space. I have been surprised how much weight even a small loco body made using thin brass adds to the mix and the difference that it makes.

 

All the main parts were cut from a sheet of K&S 1/64” brass and filed to shape as needed. By cut I mean scored to outline size with a scalpel and then worked, bent back and forth, until they snapped at the scored line. This is a very crude way of working I know but comes from a time when having anything but the most basic of tools and ways of working were unknown to me. I have never used such as a piercing saw. As such I still work in these crude self taught ways simply because I find them quick and easy to do. The spacers were the 7mm wide PCB strip the 2mm association provides. With the PB bearings filed down on the outside face this combination seems to produce enough sideplay in the wheelsets to allow a loco such as this to get around curves down to around 18” which is very useful.

 

 

 

 

 

Because the original plastic footplate and underframe was used rather than a thinner metal replacement the chassis couldn’t be as deep as with the Royal Scot and combined with the smaller disc wheels means it shows a bit at low viewing angles. It just wasn’t possible to shape it to match the outer frames as regards frames shape and cut-outs as there wouldn’t have been much left. This is a shame, but is what it is. At this stage I hadn’t woken up to the fact that the etched chassis for the Farish J39 that is available through shop 3 would have provided both the chassis and the footplate/outside frames along with the basic coupling rods for the loco. However it’s still miles better than with the original tender drive in place which looked truly awful side on at low angles thanks to the very deep keeper plate with moulded brackets.

 

 

This chassis is composed of two main parts. The chassis with the wheels, and the pivoting plate on which the tender body/underframe and motor are mounted. This rests on the loco drawbar and thus so does all the weight of the tender. The plate is two layers thick for strength, so 1/32". This is beneficial as the whole tender body sits on/is screwed to it.

 

 

 

Before fitting the motor in the tender I decided to tackle the loco chassis so I could work out what the height of the drive shaft would need to be and so where the motor needed to be placed to match. Again I used the 1/64” brass for the frames. I used the combination of the drawing by Roche and measurement of the original chassis to work out the shape needed to fit the body, where to fit the spacers for body fixing and mounting of the cylinders etc. Once the drawing was correctly scaled to 1-148 the Farish loco seemed to accurately match it which was very helpful.

 

 

At this stage I had to work out what gearing arrangement I would use. With the Royal Scot a single stage 1-38 reduction was fitted. This was fairly simple to get meshed and running but in subsequent use I have thought that even with the use of a Zimo decoder a higher reduction might have been better given the large driving wheels involved and my requirement for gentle slow speed performance on the small distance layouts I have.

 

I worked out that using two stage gearing with a 38 tooth worm gear followed by a 14/22 spur gear stage would give 59-1 and could be fitted within the body length and still leave room so the U/J drive joint didn’t protrude too far into the cab. About half the cab length in the end but being low down, and with crew fitted on both sides, I doubt it will be seen. This is driving on the middle axle. Using the back axle would bring it all too far to the rear. I always prefer to drive off the middle axle whenever possible as it helps to even out the thrust forces of the coupling rods.

 

Fitting this second stage gearing proved interesting because I set my self the goal of not having the shaft or bearings showing in the chassis side frames, which it would do with this particular loco. Somehow I had to come up with an arrangement that slid down inside the frames and was then fixed into place. That would enable the correct meshing to be obtained before permanent fixing in place. What I didn’t think about at this point was that the first stage 38t worm wheel would show beneath the chassis frames between the wheels, it just never occurred to me. Using a 30t instead would have been less obvious, but only give 47-1. This itself might have given an acceptable improvement over 38-1 but I thought I’d try for as high a ratio as possible. Raising the first stage gearing so it didn’t show would have made the drive shaft far too high so there were no easy answers here.

 

Logically, at the end of the day all that I am doing just involves time and effort rather than costly materials so if I choose to change things not much is lost but often much is gained in terms of experience which can come in handy in the future. I hope painting the side of the worm wheel might make it not to obvious. The second stage spur gear of course sits behind the driving wheel so isn’t seen. I’m also hoping the brakes and rigging might further draw attention away from it. Time will tell. (This does all now seem to be working out as hoped).

 

Anyway I decided to make a u shaped bracket that could take PB bearings and slide down inside the frames, so 7mm outer width, with a PCB strip vertically at the rear with a brass bearing for the drive shaft. This PCB strip along with the brass strip could be cut through after soldering up to insulate the sides from each other, crucial with a split chassis loco. The bearing would be isolated from both with another cut.

 

When this had been made and the gears added on the muff, which itself was reduced in width to fit the narrower space, the assembly could be slid down and moved around until it all meshed nicely and then the rear section soldered to the main chassis making sure solder got nowhere near the front section with the bearings and lay shaft.

 

 

 

 

 

It worked out far better than I had anticipated which was a relief. To get the worm meshed properly I made a simple front bracket with another brass bearing so it could be moved around and adjusted before soldering it all up. It all looks what it is, crude and simple, but works well which is the important part.

 

 

 

As already mentioned the cylinders needed 2mm removing from the centre of the cross member to reduce their overall width. Once glued back together they were then mounted onto a piece of PCB and glued to it with superglue. This spacer was then drilled and tapped 14ba to enable them to be mounted and held in place on the chassis with a 14ba screw. I managed to angle the frame spacer so the cylinder assembly sits at the right inclination to match the Farish cylinders.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The bogie was made up from the etched one on the standard class 5 motion etch from shop 3. I got this etch in the hopes some of the motion parts might suit the B1. I have other motion etches, well odd parts of them, and will try and make something up that fits, taking odd bits from any of these where they are of use. Some bits may also need making from scratch out of spare scrap etch. The Farish motion isn’t too bad, quite decent for N gauge, but perhaps rather hefty in comparison with that fitted to my Ivatt 2MT and Royal Scot and made from the nice motion etches from Nigel Hunt, so I want to replace it with something a bit finer if I can.

 

 

A problem I encountered with the bogie was that there wasn’t the space for a vertical bolt fixture into the chassis for it. Above the bogie is where Farish positioned the front body fixing point. So I have made a bracket for it that fixes to the middle spacer using a 12ba bolt in order that it can be fitted and removed after the chassis is fixed to the body. It has the same general U-shaped PB wire spring arrangement I fitted to the Royal Scot to ensure the bogie wheels stay on the rails.

 

 

 

The basic chassis under test.

 

 

So this is where it has currently got to. It's looks a bit messy because the wiring won't be sorted until the last. A more robust braket assembly for the front worm bearing is also being looked into. All of this is being developed 'on-the-fly' so changes are inevitable where they are needed.

 

The coupling rods were made up from sets on the basic etches the association supplys, cut & shut jobs, but there is now the prospect of some proper rods along with nice correct motion if Chris Higgs is able to work his magic. As such the project is now going to be 'parked' until such times as they become available and I will concentrate on bringing to a finished state those winter projects that are waiting in the wings for completion.

 

A further update in due course.

 

Bob

 

 

 

A set of B1 motion parts has been prepared and will be on my next etched sheet.

 

Chris

Edited July 25 by Chris Higgs

[Izzy]

1 hour ago, Chris Higgs said:

 

A set of B1 motion parts has been prepared and will be on my next etched sheet.

 

Chris

 

Oh that's great. Thank you very much Chris, really appreciated, I'll look forward to getting some once they arrive. Do I take it they might be available through shop 3 as a stock item, or just a one off run direct from yourself? Put me down for a couple if the latter please!

 

Bob

[Chris Higgs]

1 hour ago, Izzy said:

 

Oh that's great. Thank you very much Chris, really appreciated, I'll look forward to getting some once they arrive. Do I take it they might be available through shop 3 as a stock item, or just a one off run direct from yourself? Put me down for a couple if the latter please!

 

Bob

 

I suspect likely demand will not warrant this becoming a shop item.

 

Chris

[65179]

10 minutes ago, Chris Higgs said:

 

I suspect likely demand will not warrant this becoming a shop item.

 

Chris

 

In that case put me down for 4 Chris.

 

Thanks,

Simon

[Matthew W]

My thanks too Chris - my attempts to cure the locking problem failed again on its trip round Copenhagen Fields so I too would be on for a couple of sets !

 

Matthew

[DuncanFogg]

How similar is the B1 valve gear to other 4-6-0s, 4-4-0s or 4-6-2s, to the extent that it is noticeable in our scale? I wonder if it could be a stock item as generic Walschaerts valve gear, excluding the coupling rods, and be used on, say, an A4 or a Schools?

 

Duncan

[65179]

36 minutes ago, DuncanFogg said:

How similar is the B1 valve gear to other 4-6-0s, 4-4-0s or 4-6-2s, to the extent that it is noticeable in our scale? I wonder if it could be a stock item as generic Walschaerts valve gear, excluding the coupling rods, and be used on, say, an A4 or a Schools?

 

Duncan

 

There are already a reasonable number of replacement valve gear sets in shop 3, including a specific one for the Schools (3-213) in addition to the general etch provided with various coupling rods.  Others are or have been available through other suppliers. 

 

Whilst valve gear, particularly within a particular company's locos, may share a number of features, the fact that at a minimum coupling rod, connecting rod and eccentric rod lengths are/can be very wheelbase dependent limits the general usefulness of this sort of thing. That said Chris might be able to comment on how much of the B1 gear would be useful for other LNER locos like the B17.

 

Simon

[Chris Higgs]

37 minutes ago, 65179 said:

 

There are already a reasonable number of replacement valve gear sets in shop 3, in

As I recallcluding a specific one for the Schools (3-213) in addition to the general etch provided with various coupling rods.  Others are or have been available through other suppliers. 

 

Whilst valve gear, particularly within a particular company's locos, may share a number of features, the fact that at a minimum coupling rod, connecting rod and eccentric rod lengths are/can be very wheelbase dependent limits the general usefulness of this sort of thing. That said Chris might be able to comment on how much of the B1 gear would be useful for other LNER locos like the B17.

 

Simon

 

As I recall (given it was a number of years ago I did the research), the B17 is very similar, and a number of components are also shared with the Thompson O1. As you mention, its quite likely that later LNER types like the K1/K4 also have items in common.

 

But a word of warning - the B17 and B1 have the same coupled wheelbase (7'3" + 9'0"). However, when N wheel overscale flanges mean this cannot be achieved, then Bachmann tend to make the wheels smaller to keep the scale wheelbase, whereas Dapol tend to adjust the wheelbase to keep the scale wheel diameter. That's what they did on the A3, and might have on the B17 as well. 

 

 Chris

Edited July 26 by Chris Higgs

[Chris Higgs]

As an example of commonality, here's another set I have ready to go:

 

[Chris Higgs]

As an alternative for B1 drawings, I just came across this: modelengineeringwebsite.com/LNER_B1_drawings.html

Edited July 26 by Chris Higgs

[65179]

19 minutes ago, Chris Higgs said:

As an example of commonality, here's another set I have ready to go:

 

 

Are these planned to be a Shop item or will these just be from you too Chris? I'll certainly be in the market for a couple of sets.

 

Thanks,

Simon

[65179]

1 hour ago, Chris Higgs said:

As an alternative for B1 drawings, I just came across this: modelengineeringwebsite.com/LNER_B1_drawings.html

 

Yes, these are the Doug Hewson drawings that Bob/Izzy referred to upthread. A helpful set of drawings.

 

Simon

Edited July 26 by 65179

[CF MRC]

6 hours ago, 65179 said:

 

Yes, these are the Doug Hewson drawings that Bob/Izzy referred to upthread. A helpful set of drawings.

 

Simon

These may be accurate, but model engineers are far from infallible. For LNER locos, Isinglass drawings are a pretty good starting point. 
 

Tim

[Chris Higgs]

17 hours ago, CF MRC said:

These may be accurate, but model engineers are far from infallible. For LNER locos, Isinglass drawings are a pretty good starting point. 
 

Tim

 

Indeed there are some significant discrepancies of the motion parts between the Hewson drawing and that published in MR in the 1970s. I've left my Isinglass drawing in the Netherlands, so cannot immediately check with which it agrees, or indeed if it simply presents a third opinion.

 

Chris

 

[65179]

In the end it just needs to look something like this:

 

 

 

 

bearing in mind the compromises necessary for our scale (or 1:148 in this case!) and our ability. Thanks Chris for drawing up this set of motion.

 

Anyone got any thoughts on how best to produce a representation of the electric lights? Even on the Farish models fitted with lights the light on top of the smokebox is missing.

 

Simon

Edited July 27 by 65179

[Chris Higgs]

42 minutes ago, 65179 said:

In the end it just needs to look something like this:

 

 

 

 

bearing in mind the compromises necessary for our scale (or 1:148 in this case!) and our ability. Thanks Chris for drawing up this set of motion.

 

Anyone got any thoughts on how best to produce a representation of the electric lights? Even on the Farish models fitted with lights the light on top of the smokebox is missing.

 

Simon

 

Well, both versions look something like that. The question is, which one measures exactly like that. A full broadside photo of a B1 would come in handy as I can compare the lengths of the connection rod, eccentric rod and valve rod with the known coupling rod lengths.

Edited July 27 by Chris Higgs