Pebbles

Not altogether sure about the J21, best to wait as Arthur's daughter has promised to publish a list. It must be appreciated that her time is limited, just hang in there!

Mike, as you have indicated, yours was a very much pre-production etch, and who knows where the master is. There remained a significant number of issues to be resolved. The slide bars had been sorted, but quite apart from a representation of the internal valve gear, a master for the cast middle cylinder and various other masters had yet to be addressed. Arthur had evolved a fold up etch incorporating the valve cover together with the smokebox saddle, this had always been a problem. Any production etch would have incorporated this together with alternative boilers. Arthur also wanted to address the tender and changes to the etch were required, as well as various masters produced. Time had run out, and the F8 will most likely remain the last of the line. The Q7, as with the C6, will, again, most likely remain unfinished projects. We should be grateful for what Arthur has produced.

I can assure you that the Chivers D20 did exist and that Arthur, as was the case with the Q6, had a hand in it. They both had a 1940gal tender. The D20 was very innovative, in that like the McGowen D9, etched overly were added to a core cast body structure.

Self adhesive heat resistant aluminium foil tape. Looks like you can also get copper tape that may take solder.

Some time mid or late 80's I was in Bournemouth on a course. One evening I found the small workshop where they made ?assembled the Airfix or whatever motors. as an aside, Airfix at some time had a range of slot cars that used the 1002 version. Anyway, there was one individual on site who was spraying the armatures with insulation. I managed to purchase a number of armatures and also some pole pieces which I switched for the Triang/Hornby version. I believe that many years ago the late Iain Rice pointed out the the 1001 armature in a Hornby frame gave a smoother motor, with less power, than a pure 1001. Turning to the Romford axels, I once encountered a Romford axle that had been made with two pieces. Was this a KX bodge?

John had set himself a quite massive undertaking, not just the drawing, but the research. Maybe he his aim was to cover all types in the RCTS green books. From what I remember he wanted to complete the GN 0-6-0s, both tender and tank and then maybe the GE tanks. It is eye watering to think of the cost buying a full set of his drawings.

Is this not an Ace Models kit?

You will find reference to this drawing on Mikemeg's Workbench 28th February 2021. You may remember, as you commented on it at the time. Should you obtain a copy I'm sure we will all be grateful for any feed back.

Mikemegs posting of 21 February 2021 points to fact that the drawing for the NER version predated that for the GCR version. Bearing in mind that both types of tender had roughly the same wheelbases, they could both have the same weight distribution. The only caveat would be that the larger diameter wheels of the GCR type would mean some modification to the lower part of the tank. As the LNER group standard tenders were essentially developments of the NER self trimming 4125 gal tender, I would have thought that this would have been carried through to the re-tanking. In the interests of standardisation I doubt if any real consideration would have been given to significant deviation. Turning to modelling, the only usable parts of Arthur's etchings would be the running plate, frames. and chassis. This would rather ruin a usable tender kit. The running plate and frames could be scratch built using Arthur's etches as patterns; the tanks would in any case have to be scratch built. It is possible that Arthur could provide a set of tender casting. The chassis, (this would need to be adapted ), and many other parts could be sourced from 52F.

I should clarify my previous posting. My observations of differences only apply in the context of the Isinglass drawing of the re-tanked Ex GCR tenders. My supposition being that the replacement tanks for the NER 3940 gal tenders were very similar, but their fronts altered to suit the cabin widths of the engines they were to be coupled to. Drawing 404 clearly indicates a 8ft 6inch width for the replacement tanks, i.e. a NER 4126 gal tender width. The small indents at the front locating the hand rails were presumably to match the 8ft width of the 3940 gal non-self trimming tender. My conclusion is that, other than any reclaimed material, the replacement tanks were new, being loosely based on the NER 4125 gal self trimming tender in both tank width and height. They may of course have differ in their internal details. I can't see what of Arthurs 3940 gal tender etch you can effectively utilise.

Isinglass Drawing 404 has the ex GCR iteration of the re-tanking. There are possibly differences due to the difference in tender wheel diameter those of the GCR intruding into the tank. However, as far as can be established for modelling purposes. only the front of the tenders would be different to suit the various locos.

Mikemeg was exploring building this type of re-tanked tender some years ago it might be worth contacting him.

Many years ago, and predating anything that is currently available, a layout at Warley operated a 4mm B7. Now where did that come from?

This was included in their D11 kit and I believe compiled by Rod Neep.

From what I remember the distance between the first and second driving wheels on the Finescale King Arthur were fractionally more than 28mm and I would suspect that the GWR engines possibly followed suit.

John Edgson scratch rebuilt a W1 and Streamline B17 that he use to display. He also built an A4 and somewhere I have a rather scruffy photocopied photo of this. With regards the Finecast Rebuilt W1 this was mastered by Ron Gault using their A4 as a basis

The A4 shape is a bit of a poser. When John Edgson draw the rebuilt W1 many years ago he quoted a height immediatley to the rear of the chimney of 12ft 6inches. From what I remember John's drawing didn't reflect this giving a rather more pointed shape to the from end. John' W1 drawing also quotes other dimensions which would indicate that the front end of the W1 and A4s differ possibly as a result of the W1's bogies having a longer wheelbase. All subsequent drawings of A4s appear to be very similar to John's W1 profile. I should add that when John eventually came to the A4s he appears to have corrected this. I have been told that when Finney came to produce his kit he had obtained drawings of the A4 cladding, making his plastic boiler shape far more dependable. I would think that the Hornby shape was as result of scanning the prototype.

Whilst based in Eastbourne, my patch extended to Camberley. One day, in about 1977/78, after keeping my appointment I took the opportunity of visiting EAMES. A real Aladdin's cave of a shop. This story comes from my wife. Many years ago, at one of her club meeting, she met the wife of someone who was connected to EAMES. This woman claimed that after EAMES had closed she "inherited" ( my wife's description), a garage full of ex EAMES stock that she still had. This story could of course be one of those Rosebud Kitmaster A3 moments.

John didn't draw a J11. Many years ago there were drawings in a Model Railway Constructor, that included the J11/3. I think there was also a drawing in a 1950s Model Railway News.

As with all empires reaching a zenith they decline.

Many years ago I was contemplating building masters for a S15, at the time the only drawing I had was by Iain Beatie in Railway Modeller. After completing the footplate I ran into a problem, I therefore got me a copy of D L Bradley's -Urie class locomotives. From drawings in Bradley I concluded that the Beatie drawing, with regards to the footplate, was wrong the centre section of the footplate being to high relative to the buffer beam. It was a long time ago, and maybe someone else would like to check it out. If I'm correct this could explain the problems with the location of the cylinders.

I believe that the Micro Metal Smith arrangement could have been helical.

This is merely a question. Escap is a Swiss manufacture of coreless motors. Was the Escap description in Portescape referring to this manufacture and if so were these high quality motors capable of absorbing end thrust. If this were not the case it would explain why Micro Metal Smith's motor had a reduction gear box remote from the final drive.

I am in accord with Mikemeg that this thread has been highjacked. If I have had a problem with a kit producer I have contacted them to resolve. It would only be if I found them unwilling to address the problem would I then raise the issues elsewhere. Very simply if there is a problem resolve it at the time! Daddyman; simply as clarification how long ago did you have this issue?

Axle boxes of all pre grouping companies that were incorporated within the LNER are a bit of a nightmare. That said this appears to have also been the case with other items, just think about the variety of smoke boxes on the B1s. The quite sound policy appears to have been use existing stocks to exhaustion then adopt a group standard item. Axle boxes alone could start a whole debate.