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

[mikemeg]

LONDON ROAD MODELS LNER B16/1

 

My God, a thousand postings to the thread, covering almost three years and quite a few locomotives.

 

Anyway, as I finish the three G5's so now time to at least start the thinking and planning for the next one.

 

John Redrup and Jol wilkinson, of London Road Models, have now completed the additions to the old Steve Barnfield B16/1 kit, to allow the different boiler options and different splasher options to be covered. This means that this kit can now be built to represent the entire lifespan of these locomotives from their initial state when introduced as the North Eastern Railway Class S3 through to their final state, under British Railways, as the B16/1, and all stages between.

 

So the next one will be another B16/1; this one with the later LNER 49a boiler, plain splashers and a few other detail differences. I will be writing the instructions for this kit so the construction might be delayed a little while this is done.

 

So for the start of the second thousand of postings to the thread, a couple of photos of these locos. One in its initial state as built for and by the old North Eastern and another in LNER days and a final one in its last years.

 

I guess, by now, I don't need to specify where these photos came from; my old mate Mick Nicholson.

 

Cheers

Edited May 14, 2018 by mikemeg

[micklner]

Nice, more expense 

[Horsetan]

Looking at the broadside proportions, the B16/1 looks as though it would have made into a decent 2-8-0, with a slight reshuffle in the chassis department.

[mikemeg]

Nice, more expense 

 

Mick,

 

Yes but well worth it!! This kit does/will build into a lovely model of a very useful engine.

 

Regards

 

Mike

[mikemeg]

Looking at the broadside proportions, the B16/1 looks as though it would have made into a decent 2-8-0, with a slight reshuffle in the chassis department.

 

Yes I can see why you would say that.

 

In fact, arguably, it did make a very impressive 0-8-0 (NER T3/LNER Q7) or perhaps this 0-8-0 made an impressive 4-6-0. The boiler(s), on both classes, were identical - 49 (original) and 49a (later LNER) - and the footplate profiles also very similar, though lacking the splashers on the Q7.

 

Either way, the family likeness is quite aparent.

 

And yes, Mick Nicholson again! Where would we be without that fabulous photo collection?

 

Regards

 

Mike

Edited May 14, 2018 by mikemeg

[Horsetan]

Yes I can see why you would say that.

 

In fact, arguably, it did make a very impressive 0-8-0 ....

 

I might have asked this before but - adhesion apart - was there any particular reason why the NER went for 0-8-0s instead of 2-8-0s?

[mikemeg]

I might have asked this before but - adhesion apart - was there any particular reason why the NER went for 0-8-0s instead of 2-8-0s?

 

I can't answer that question, though the NER started building 0-8-0's in 1901 with the classes T and T1 (same loco; some built with piston valves, others built with slide valves). Ninety in all were built up to 1911 which later became LNER Q5. Apparently the design of these 0-8-0's owed much to the early NER 4-6-0's of classes S and S1 - later LNER B13 and B14.

 

The 0-8-0 wheel arrangement was then used on the NER T2 and T3 classes, which became LNER Q6 and Q7 respectively. Why the NER never did see fit to add a front pony truck I don't know; perhaps Arthur may have the answer?

 

Certainly the T3's - LNER Q7's - were introduced quite close to the grouping so the building of 0-8-0's lasted for over twenty years.

 

Regards

 

Mike

Edited May 14, 2018 by mikemeg

[Compound2632]

Presumably the weight on the leading axle wasn't thought excessive even on the superheater engines. The diagram of a T2 in Hoole, An Illustrated History of NER Locomotives (OPC, 1988) gives working order axle loadings of, front to rear, 17 ton 12 cwt, 16 ton 12 cwt, 17 ton 12 cwt, 14 ton 2 cwt. In contrast, the LNWR eight-coupled 4-cylinder compound engines, which were fitted with leading radial trucks (rater than bissel trucks), took a total of 19 tons between the leading axle and the leading coupled axle - these were lighter engines overall, with 14 - 15 tons on the other coupled axles (class F; the smaller-boilered class E weighed a bit less) - Talbot, An Illustrated History of LNWR Engines (OPC, 1985). It was the more massive cylinder block casting for the compound that tipped the balance, so to speak. I don't have much on Great Western engines - what was the weight distribution of Churchward's 2-8-0s? What I do know is that their cylinders were very similar in volume to those of a T2, so one would have thought the castings would be of similar weight though of course the 2800's were outside.

[Buhar]

I might have asked this before but - adhesion apart - was there any particular reason why the NER went for 0-8-0s instead of 2-8-0s?

 

I wonder if it might have been turntable length constraining the wheelbase.

[Compound2632]

I wonder if it might have been turntable length constraining the wheelbase.

 

Also a consideration. One reads of generations of enginemen complaining of the very short footplate on LNWR 0-8-0s.

[MarkC]

Could it also have been that the 0-8-0s were never expected to run at particularly high speeds, where a leading pony truck helps guide the locomotive into curves? If not necessary, why go to the expense of fitting one? The NER mineral traffic requirement was for plodders, not fast runners. Just something else to be considered.

[mikemeg]

LONDON ROAD MODELS LNER G5's

 

So now there are three, all pretty well at the same level of completion. So now I can finish the detailing on each, in turn, before priming, painting and then adding the lining and markings to them.

 

Anyway, a 'family' photo.

 

Cheers

 

Mike

Edited May 19, 2018 by mikemeg

[mikemeg]

LONDON ROAD MODELS LNER G5's

 

One of the things I often do with etched kits, is slim down the brake linkage. The exceptions are Arthur's kits where the brake linkage is etched very finely. The 7 mm drawing of the G5, contained in the kit, shows the thickness of the brake linkage quite well, so each etched section is thinned a little by draw filing the two edges.

 

The two rear pull rods had a tubular portion which is represented by a thickened section on the etches. This was filed off and the rod cut mid-way along this now thinned section. Then a 3 mm long tubular portion, formed from turned down 1/16" brass tube, was inserted to represent this section of the pull rod.

 

Yes, I know, quite a lot of work but it does improve the appearance of the brake pull rods.

 

The photo shows the modified rods on the left; the unmodified rods on the right. I'm not sure if the slight difference in thickness is apparent?

 

Cheers

 

Mike

Edited May 23, 2018 by mikemeg

[billbedford]

Wouldn't have been easier to put a saw cut along the tube and slip it over the rod? You wouldn't have needed to cut the rod and you would have only needed to file down one side of the rectangular thickening.

[Dave Holt]

Mmm. Good idea from Bill, assuming the width of a saw cut allows insertion on the etched rod. However, Mike, the result of your work looks effective and all the rods do look slimmer than the original etches, so achieve your objective.

Dave.

[Blandford1969]

Are you going to be test building the final version of Arthurs C6 and Q7s for us to see?

[mikemeg]

Are you going to be test building the final version of Arthurs C6 and Q7s for us to see?

 

I have test built the Q7, around three years ago. At that time there were still parts requiring finalising; most notably the internal motion on the Q7 and some castings for the 4125 gallon tender fitted to these locomotives. Once Arthur has finalised these parts then they will be added to the test build. One aspect, which the initial etches or the test build did not cover, was the two different boilers fitted to the Q7's - LNER pattern 49 (original) and 49a (later alternative).

 

So, if Arthur wants the final pre production etches checked out, then another test build can and will be done.

 

The C6 is, as far as I know, still under development, so no etches have yet been produced. The original plan was to produce two versions of the C6 kit, to represent the two externally different versions of this class. The principal difference lies in the width of the splashers which extended to the edge of the footplate on one version but were narrower and some distance inboard from the edge of the footplate on the other version, with corresponding differences to the splasher and footplate profiles. There may well have been other differences between the versions and Arthur can be much more definitive on any other variations.

 

Cheers

 

Mike

Edited May 25, 2018 by mikemeg

[ArthurK]

The Q7 requireS masters for the outside slide bars, crossheads cylinder end covers. Of the inside motion the slide valves are clearly visible as the centre slidebar with crosshead and connecting rod, The droplinks to the valvee rods are also be seen behind the motion plate.then we must consider the various eccentric rods (six of those)! All of this takes time.  

 

There will be both boiler styles included in he kit.

 

The tender is undergoing minor revjsion and silll requires  a fewr addional castings.

 

Once I have the Q7 out of the way I will concentrate my attentiont on the C6, In fact I have already test built the V09 version. Some of you may have seen this at Scaleforum North in 2015. I don't have any photos to hand but i will post some on my own thread.

 

Both versions will appear as separate kijs too many differences to include both versions in the one kit. 

 

A new tender (not currently in my range) is required for this. It is the4125 gallon, none self-trimming, tender as used on the D21s and early C7s. These  tenders were cascaded to Q6s and J39s so anyone requiring something different behind the Bachman J39 or Q6 may find this useful. I don't believe this one is available elsewhere, The body is 5" narrower than the later self-trimming version.

 

ArthurK

 .

Edited May 24, 2018 by ArthurK

[Blandford1969]

The Q7 requireS masters for the outside slide bars, crossheads cylinder end covers. Of the inside motion the slide valves are clearly visible as the centre slidebar with crosshead and connecting rod, The droplinks to the valvee rods are also be seen behind the motion plate.then we must consider the various eccentric rods (six of those)! All of this takes time.  

 

There will be both boiler styles included in he kit.

 

The tender is undergoing minor revjsion and silll requires  a fewr addional castings.

 

Once I have the Q7 out of the way I will concentrate my attentiont on the C6, In fact I have already test built the V09 version. Some of you may have seen this at Scaleforum North in 2015. I don't have any photos to hand but i will post some on my own thread.

 

Both versions will appear as separate kijs too many differences to include both versions in the one kit. 

 

A new tender (not currently in my range) is required for this. It is the4125 gallon, none self-trimming, tender as used on the D21s and early C7s. These  tenders were cascaded to Q6s and J39s so anyone requiring something different behind the Bachman J39 or Q6 may find this useful. I don't believe this one is available elsewhere, The body is 5" narrower than the later self-trimming version.

 

ArthurK

 .

I will look forward to the Q7 kit and C6 for its fittings for my C7 - if anything like the D20 they will be well worth waiting for

[mikemeg]

Once again from the photo collection of Mick Nicholson, which is rapidly becoming a very important source of photographic information, a couple of photographs of ex-NER Atlantics which became LNER Class C6. The photos show the two different styles of driving wheel splashers and the correspondingly different footplate profiles.

 

Look at the buffer beam on the first photo, even the end of this buffer beam is lined out!

 

These locomotives really were majestically handsome things.

 

I wonder who the two guys were, posed on and by No 705, in the first photo?

 

Cheers

 

Mike

Edited May 26, 2018 by mikemeg

[Rob Pulham]

Superb photos Mike/Mick,

 

I wonder if you could use a B16 kit as the basis for a scratchbuild. Without doing any research on dimensions the cab and boiler/smokebox look similar albeit a completely new footplate etc. would be needed. - Something to ponder on as they were handsome looking locos

[ArthurK]

Once again from the photo collection of Mick Nicholson, which is rapidly becoming a very important source of photographic information, a couple of photographs of ex-NER Atlantics which became LNER Class C6. The photos show the two different styles of driving wheel splashers and the correspondingly different footplate profiles.

 

Look at the buffer beam on the first photo, even the end of this buffer beam is lined out!

 

These locomotives really were majestically handsome things.

 

I wonder who the two guys were, posed on and by No 705, in the first photo?

 

Cheers

 

Mike

 

Lining the end of wood sandwich buffer beams was normal practice at Darlington.

 

ArthurK

[Blandford1969]

Once again from the photo collection of Mick Nicholson, which is rapidly becoming a very important source of photographic information, a couple of photographs of ex-NER Atlantics which became LNER Class C6. The photos show the two different styles of driving wheel splashers and the correspondingly different footplate profiles.

 

Look at the buffer beam on the first photo, even the end of this buffer beam is lined out!

 

These locomotives really were majestically handsome things.

 

I wonder who the two guys were, posed on and by No 705, in the first photo?

 

Cheers

 

Mike

Would you like some more C6 images as i have a few negatives from JJ Cunningham in my collection?

[Rob Pulham]

Would you like some more C6 images as i have a few negatives from JJ Cunningham in my collection?

 

Yes please!

[Blandford1969]

Yes please!

Ok, I'm away for a few days, but will dig them out next weekend.