Mikemeg's Workbench - Building locos of the North Eastern & LNER

[micknich2003]

One more 'anomaly' was J77 68440. This was a complete one-off, with Fletcher cab sides, square windowed cab front and back, a Worsdell style roof, though of a shallower radius than the others. No external front springs and the combined front splasher and sandbox of the J71's and 72's. Can't see what the mainframe profile was.

 

And just to complete the 'oddballness' of this loco, the photo shows it derailed!!!

 

This one can't be built from Arthur's kit!! But hey, you know what? This was allocated to Hull Alexandra Dock in mid 1950!!

 

And the photo? Why Mick Nicholson; who else?

 

Cheers

 

Mike

Mike, a nice picture but not from my collection. It's not taken at Alexandra Dock, J94 to left of picture, no J94's in Hull at that date, also LMS engine behind.

[ArthurK]

Amazing photo, not only an odd loco, but how did it end up so deeply imbedded in the ballast? Did it hit the loco in front and bounce, or did it derail for what ever reason and the panicking driver open up the regulator and desperately try too claw the engine back on to the rails digging it further in? Or is it the rails themselves that look to be curved upwards under the loco. Fascinating stuff. Or did the loco in front reverse into it pushing it off the rails. Who knows?

 

The last three BTPs to be rebuilt had shallow frames at the front and these three received underslung frames and integral splasher-sandbox above the front wheel. One engine was rebuilt at Gateshead (138) and the other two at York (290 & 305). I believe that 138 retained the Fletcher cab profile making that engine unique. The other two received an arc profile cab roof similar to the Worsdell cab. Both retained the rectangular cab windows.

138 was withdrawn in 1944 without being renumbered. 305 became 8441 but was withdrawn in 1948 without receiving the '6' prefix. 290 become 68440 in June 1946 and lasted until 1954.

Interestingly although being one on the last to be rebuilt 290 carried the class name before becoming J77 under the LNER

 

ArthurK

[mikemeg]

Mike, a nice picture but not from my collection. It's not taken at Alexandra Dock, J94 to left of picture, no J94's in Hull at that date, also LMS engine behind.

 

Apologies Mick. I checked on the shed allocation of 68440, in mid 1950, and it was 53C (AD) - Alexandra Dock. So I assumed, clearly wrongly, that the loco was there prior to that date though obviously 1946 or later. Your observational abilities are better than mine for I didn't recognise the J94 to the left and therefore didn't make the connection that the presence of a J94 precluded the location being Alex Dock.

 

Cheers

 

Mike

Edited August 1, 2017 by mikemeg

[billbedford]

68440 was located to York in 1946, as were 11 J94s. It may even been at Normanton, which was a sub-shed of York, and a joint LNER/LMS shed.

[Porcy Mane]

 

Amazing photo, not only an odd loco, but how did it end up so deeply imbedded in the ballast? Did it hit the loco in front and bounce, or did it derail for what ever reason and the panicking driver open up the regulator and desperately try too claw the engine back on to the rails digging it further in? Or is it the rails themselves that look to be curved upwards under the loco. Fascinating stuff. Or did the loco in front reverse into it pushing it off the rails. Who knows?

Looks like the track is narrowing to a point under the poor things rear drag beam? Maybe that LMS thingy shoulder charged it whilst fighting over the same bit of track?

 

 

The driver of the J94 (being an LNER man) would never had tried propelling it onto an ever narrowing piece of track!  

 

P

 

Edited August 1, 2017 by Porcy Mane

[mikemeg]

 

Looks like the track is narrowing to a point under the poor things rear drag beam? Maybe that LMS thingy shoulder charged it whilst fighting over the same bit of track?

 

 

The driver of the J94 (being an LNER man) would never had tried propelling it onto an ever narrowing piece of track!  

 

P

 

 

 

Sounds very plausible to me; especially given the totally unbiased references to the different companies' locomotives in the vicinity at the time. Even more plausible given the enormous disparity in size; a case of bullying or just a case of 'feeling a bit down so gone off the rails'?

 

Cheers

 

Mike

Edited August 1, 2017 by mikemeg

[micknich2003]

Amazing photo, not only an odd loco, but how did it end up so deeply imbedded in the ballast? Did it hit the loco in front and bounce, or did it derail for what ever reason and the panicking driver open up the regulator and desperately try too claw the engine back on to the rails digging it further in? Or is it the rails themselves that look to be curved upwards under the loco. Fascinating stuff. Or did the loco in front reverse into it pushing it off the rails. Who knows?

Possibly, and oweing to rotten sleepers and no maintainance, the road "Spread" under the weight of the engine, a onetime common occurence.

[clecklewyke]

Ohhh are you doing a LRM G5 I have done the main bits but I have never been confident on the chassis set up... I will look forward to that!

 

The chassis is brilliantly designed, easy to build and works well (at least in P4). My G5 is just about the best performer on Humber Dock, so fear not - you'll be fine.

 

Ian

[Steve Taylor]

The chassis is brilliantly designed, easy to build and works well (at least in P4). My G5 is just about the best performer on Humber Dock, so fear not - you'll be fine.

 

Ian

 

Any further details on your suspension choices would be most welcome (sorry to hi-jack)

[mikemeg]

The G5 (or any 0-4-4) looks an interesting one from the standpoint of balancing.

 

At first sight it would seem almost impossible to achieve a centre of gravity between the two sets of driving wheels or even over the rearmost pair of driving wheels, which means that the loco will tend to 'lean back' on the trailing bogie. Thus this rear bogie becomes load bearing and must therefore be capable of bearing some of the loco's weight, while continuing to function in guiding the loco, especially while travelling in reverse.

 

So I shall endeavour to do two things with this bogie :-

 

1) Equalise it so that all wheels are always in contact with the rails. I think the kit provides for this anyway.

 

2) Spring the bogie, around its pivot point with the loco superstructure, so that the loco is balanced and level. I would guess that the kit makes some provision for this also.

 

This may seem like stating the obvious; this is probably because this is stating the obvious but experience with 4-4-0's (D20's) and 4-6-0's (B15 and B16) which have the same problem but reversed - they lean forward on their bogies - has taught me that this needs to be considered from the very start of the build.

 

At the very least I shall try and get the weight in the smokebox/boiler as far forward as possible, whereas on the 4-4-0's and 4-6-0's the opposite is true; trying to get the weight as far back, towards the firebox, as possible.

 

Cheers

 

Mike

Edited August 5, 2017 by mikemeg

[Daddyman]

Mike,

I have a G5 in the rountuit pile. You're right that balance needs to be considered early on. My plan was to do the same as on my scratchbuilt D20 (the one which appeared in the NERA Express, if you're a member) - that is, use the method described in Geoff Holt's book. A piece of tube is soldered to the stretcher between the frames at the centre point of the bogie. Inside the tube is soldered a thinner tube. The hole drilled in the bogie stretcher is of a size that does not allow the thicker tube to pass through, but does allow the thinner to do so. The thick tube, then, acts as a "stop" to the bogie, preventing it rising - or to put it another way, to prevent the front end of the loco dipping. Compensation beams can then be added to the outside of the bogie frames; these allow the wheels to move up and down, but the centre of the bogie always remains at the same height. The LRM bogie comes with these beams already.

 

This is all a lot simpler when Mr Holt describes it! 

 

Both tubes can be seen in the first photo. The thin tube acts as a securing point, passing through the bogie stretcher and being secured with the bent piece of wire seen in the second photo. 

 

 

I could see no other way of balancing a loco with this wheel arrangement. I've tried a spring in the past and found it hard to source, hard to cut, and hard to get adjusted right. Of course, the thicker tube in my method has to be cut to exactly the right length to put the body over the bogie at the correct height. Too long and the closest driving wheel to the bogie will rise; too short and the body will dip. 

 

I hope this helps! 

 

[mikemeg]

David,

 

Many thanks for the posting above. I have used a similar arrangement on those models with four wheel bogies though, sometimes, with the addition of a spring which, using your example above, would have slotted over the thinner, inner tube but inside the wider tube and born down on the top of the bogie stretcher.

 

On my arrangement, your inner, thinner tube is replaced by 8 BA studding. The 8 BA studding has an 8BA nut fixed to it and some 4 - 6 mm from the top of the length of studding, which acts as the fixing of the chassis to the loco body, using another 8BA nut soldered to the footplate and hidden in the smokebox.

 

The spring bears against the bottom of the 8BA nut which sits tight up against the underside of the footplate. The bottom of the spring bears on the top of the bogie stretcher and is contained by the wider tube which is the 'stopper', preventing the loco from 'collapsing' onto its bogie and holding the loco level, as your arrangement does. The studding also passes through the bogie stretcher, which allows another 8BA nut to be used to retain the bogie.

 

The only advantage of springing the bogie lies in preventing one or more of the driving wheels from being 'pivoted' off the track due to any unevenness, though with compensation on the two sets of loco driving wheels, then this shouldn't happen.

 

In fact, if the loco driving wheels are compensated, then springing of the bogie should be unnecessary though compensating of the bogie wheels is still an advantage.

 

Very similar principle just using slightly different materials.

 

That D20 really does look 'the business'. What gauge is this built for? I notice that the mainframes, on this model, have bogie wheel cutouts.

 

Regards and thanks

 

Mike

Edited August 5, 2017 by mikemeg

[micknich2003]

Purely for interest only, here is the leading bogie of the realthing. 1147, Hull Dairycoates.

[Horsetan]

.....The thick tube, then, acts as a "stop" to the bogie, preventing it rising - or to put it another way, to prevent the front end of the loco dipping. Compensation beams can then be added to the outside of the bogie frames; these allow the wheels to move up and down, but the centre of the bogie always remains at the same height. The LRM bogie comes with these beams already.

 

.......The thin tube acts as a securing point, passing through the bogie stretcher and being secured with the bent piece of wire seen in the second photo. 

 

1a 20170312_142649small.jpg

1a 20170805_102546small.jpg

 

I could see no other way of balancing a loco with this wheel arrangement. .....

 

In other words, no pretence at secondary suspension.

 

I've always wondered why kit design allows the whole bogie frame to rise and fall when the real thing doesn't; only the wheels/axles do.

 

...That D20 really does look 'the business'. What gauge is this built for?....

P4?

[Daddyman]

Thanks Mike, both for the compliment and for the advice. I think compensation on the drivers is a very good idea - and indeed the LRM G5 has this built it. 

 

The D20 was built for 00 as I don't have a layout so it has to run on my dad's. Plus, I sort of built it for him. I can't really progress to P4 until I have my own layout. However, I pushed the frames out as far as I dared - 13mm I think. Here's a picture of it (if you don't mind) - not bad for a first scratchbuild, I suppose. 

 

 

The front frames have the same cut-outs as your own build of the D20 from Arthur's kit - from what I can see of them in your posts. The cut-outs are - I suppose - to clear the bearings rather than the wheels. The frame shape on both mine and - I'm sure - Arthur's were taken off the GA. That was a priority in the build - I didn't want any unprototypical daylight in that area. 

 

 

 

Mick: super photo, thanks! 

[Horsetan]

^^

The shadowing on the photos does a good job of hiding the flanges; it actually does look like P4 from here!

[N15class]

With 4-4-0 and 0-4-4's I prefer to compensate using the bogie pivot as the point of the triangle. This gives you at least two thirds of the weight on the drivers. I have yet to try it attached to side beams to one of the drivers with the second driver being the point of the triangle and on a central pivot.

[ArthurK]

Why all the fuss about balancing 4-4-0s. Copy the real thing. set the bogie at the correct running height. Allow the bogie to rock. Compensate both pairs of driving wheels and the bogie. Result all wheels in contact with the track at all times.

 

Cram as much weight into the body and ashpanas you possibly can but not too much ahead of the leading drivers. the results in about 25% of the loco weight resting on the bogie. What better way is there for achieving good road holding. You can also transfer some of the tender weight to the back of the loco.

 

0-4-4s are similar but in reverse. My first scratchbuild (indeed my very first build) was a G5 with an X04 pointing backwards into the cab. The balance problems of that arrangerment can be imagined. After failing to get enough lead into the boiler I upended it and poured molten lead into  it with a damp cloth around it to prevent all the solder melting. It worked! Don't  try that at home with 'elf n safety' looking on. Now about 55 years on it still runs although it has been 'shopped' a couple of times.

 

Below Is a Chivers D20 built to P4 gauge and below that my very first - the G5 mentioned above.

 

 

 

ArthurK

[mikemeg]

Thanks Mike, both for the compliment and for the advice. I think compensation on the drivers is a very good idea - and indeed the LRM G5 has this built it. 

 

The D20 was built for 00 as I don't have a layout so it has to run on my dad's. Plus, I sort of built it for him. I can't really progress to P4 until I have my own layout. However, I pushed the frames out as far as I dared - 13mm I think. Here's a picture of it (if you don't mind) - not bad for a first scratchbuild, I suppose. 

 

1a 20170324_155230 small.jpg

 

The front frames have the same cut-outs as your own build of the D20 from Arthur's kit - from what I can see of them in your posts. The cut-outs are - I suppose - to clear the bearings rather than the wheels. The frame shape on both mine and - I'm sure - Arthur's were taken off the GA. That was a priority in the build - I didn't want any unprototypical daylight in that area. 

 

 

 

Mick: super photo, thanks!

 

I'd say very good for a first scratchbuild and beautifully weathered. I never did understand why these locos were only ever in unlined black, in BR days?

 

Yes, looking at a GA of the D20, from 'The Engineer' of 1899, the mainframe cut outs looked to be to clear the bogie wheel bearings as they were too small and the wrong profile to clear the bogie wheels themselves; the narrowing of the mainframe spacing was the device designed to allow lateral movement of the bogie wheels.

 

Many thanks for the postings and the photos.

 

Cheers

 

MIke

Edited August 7, 2017 by mikemeg

[Daddyman]

I'd say very good for a first scratchbuild and beautifully weathered. I never did understand why these locos were only ever in unlined black, in BR days?

 

Yes, looking at a GA of the D20, from 'The Engineer' of 1899, the mainframe cut outs looked to be to clear the bogie wheel bearings as they were too small and the wrong profile to clear the bogie wheels themselves; the narrowing of the mainframe spacing was the device designed to allow lateral movement of the bogie wheels.

 

Many thanks for the postings and the photos.

 

Cheers

 

MIke

Thanks, Mike - kind of you. 

 

Yes, I think we're all working from the drawing in The Engineer. Agree on the narrowing of the frames. 

 

Perhaps the unlined black was due to a short life expectancy? 

[Worsdell forever]

Perhaps the unlined black was due to a short life expectancy? 

 

Which makes it strange for BR to line A6s...

[mikemeg]

Just by way of something entirely different, a few years ago, while recovering from a bout of illness, I built a few aircraft models; the ones we built as kids but never did them justice. Anyway, I did my best, this time around, to do them justice.

 

I was reminded of this when I visited the Yorkshire Air Museum, earlier this week, and stood under a real Halifax, in all of its awesome glory.

 

So I set one of the models up to try and get an atmospheric photo, though it needs a better background.

 

Anyway, the photo is called 'Waiting for Dusk'.

 

Cheers

[mikemeg]

I'm reasonably well on with Arthur's long bunker J72 and I was intending to complete this before embarking on the short bunker version of the J72.

 

However, as a dry run for the 'batch build' of the G5's, rather than build the two J72's serially, I thought I would complete them in parallel. So the short bunker version has been started and will be brought up to the state of completion of the longer bunker version, after which both will be completed 'in parallel'.

 

I'm trying to get into a batch building mindset for the three G5's i.e. doing every operation three times, on three separate models; largely the same!

 

Well that's the plan!!

 

Cheers

 

Mike

Edited August 15, 2017 by mikemeg

[JaymzHatstand]

Very nice indeed! Getting even more of an idea of the basic skeleton of the loco as well, readying myself for the forthcoming J71!

 

Cheers

 

J

[mikemeg]

Very nice indeed! Getting even more of an idea of the basic skeleton of the loco as well, readying myself for the forthcoming J71!

 

Cheers

 

J

 

The J71 and J72 kits are very similar, as the prototypes of the two classes were similar. The principal difference lies in the wheel size (4' 7 1/4" v 4' 1 1/4") and the depth of the front splasher/sandbox, which is deeper on the J71.

 

So the 'basic skeleton' of the J72 is very similar to that of the J71.

 

Cheers

 

Mike