Building kits for Tyneside in the BR era. J24 and PDK D49/2

[rowanj]

Here is my "Fatty" with lining applied. As usual, the photo accentuates the errors, which I'll correct where I can and try to hide where I cant.

[mikemeg]

John,

 

"Fatty's" coming along nicely. This recent sequence of postings could have been written by the Rev. Audrey - 'Fatty' sat on his shed road, steaming. How dare you call me that, he huffed!'

 

On the A6, where the lining around the cab cut out is not symmetric, one side actually follows the radius of the cut out. There is a series of curves of 5.0 - 5.5 mm radius on the HMRS sheet, which I used for this part of the lining, an arc of which would just about fit the curves, around the cab cut out, on the A8.

 

Regards

 

Mike

Edited January 17, 2019 by mikemeg

[ArthurK]

If the kit had been designed with both boilers in mind it would have been simply a matter of supplying alternative cab fronts. The idea of passing the boiler through the cab front is not feasible with the early boilers as the cladding edges sat on the tank tops. I have not seen a photo of the cab innards but it is possible (indeed probable) that the hole in the cab front  was for the firebox only with thinner cladding, in which case it would be the same size as the later boilers.

 

At the tank front there was a 2" curved angle to secure the cladding to the tank. At least one (69886) retained this angle when the slimmer boiler was fitted,

 

To give the crew a better toe hold, from 1942 an additional angle was added along the length of the tanks and bunker, but not over the the cab door access.

 

The cab windows were  not changed when the later boilers were fitted. A few had 'one piece' windows without the vertical divide. This was a feature of the original H1s, but many of those lost this before grouping. I am not sure how long these lasted but 69855 still had this in its BR days.

 

ArthurK

[rowanj]

The idea is the A8 is work-stained but not filthy, just ahead of its 'visit to Darlington where Hardy will become Laurel.

 

The main additions were to the bunker rear, - lampirons, handrail, steps.--piping under the tanks, and a pair of fittings on the saddle-lubricator feeds? I had a go at the draincocks below the cylinders.The crossheads in the kit are whitemetal, and one rod broke while I was fiddling, and was replaced with wire - the same as I used on the (not supplied steampipe. It just needs coaled, plus anything else I can easily do, and that's it. 

 

The cab is horribly empty and I wish I had spent more time fitting an interior, though the driver helps the disguise. I also missed the fact that the con rods should be inside the coupling rods. If I ever need to remove the leading drivers, I'll try to correct this, but the faff to get the leading bogie to clear the cylinders means I hope I never have to do so. 

[rowanj]

I have begun the 3rd PDK B16 kit, which will become the Gresley re-build B16/2. While I managed, after a bit of a struggle, to get the B16/1 and /3 versions to run, I am risking the cost of a replacement chassis to see if this one will be easier.

 

The only real issues with the kit are the long wheelebase and lack of space under the cylinders which affect bogie swing and the loco's ability to go round curves. This is exacerbated  by the chassis design, which is a fold up assembly. Of course, in itself this is great as it pretty much ensures a square chassis. However it also produces a very little wheel sideplay, at least in OO, especially when bearings are fitted. I build my chassis' rigid, so this may not be an issue if the chassis is compensated, and may even be an advantage in EM. However, for normal OO, the result is , at least for me, a loco which wont go round bends, and a bogie pretty intolerant to any problems in the track.

The bogie design is the swing-arm method, and the bogie itself is a simple etch, which is very light, and therefore adds to the potential to derail.

 

I am aware that plenty of folk have built the kit without modifying the chassis/bogie design, and I tip my hat to them. I have got both my existing kits running well, but only as a result of a fair bit of fiddling at the front end, not easy when the cylinders and bogie have been fitted, In both cases, I replaced the swing arm with a bogie pivot bar, and used an RTR bogie of he same wheelbase as that in the kit. I'll do the same for this B16/2 , removing metal prior to assembly where possible, and build the chassis narrower to get a bit more wheel play..

 

I'm risking £45 or so, having checked with PDK that they will supply a replacement if I totally cock it up.

 

John

[rowanj]

So here is the destuction to date ( and some construction). I narrowed the chassis by using the broken off tabs turned through 90*. Only 2 were necessary, placed where the pick-ups will be fitted. I checked at this point that a Highlevel Compact Gearbox would still fit, and it does. I then cut off a piece between the bogie arches at the front of the chassis, as well as a substantial amount from the cylinder block. These are the areas prone to causing derailment and shorting.

 

The chassis normally builds up into a very strong and stable unit, with 5 etches in total slotting into etched slots on the chassis top and lying level across the chassis . In addition , the cylinder block and 2 other spacers add security. I fitted the one at the rear , but a large piece which sits just behind the cylinder block has been left for now until I get the bogie fitted and tested. As the chassis is narrower than was intended by PDK,most of these fittings need filing to make them sit properly within the chassis carcase. The front end ahead of the cylinder block is prey flimsy at the moment, as is the block itself where the metal has been removed, I'll be happy when id have finished the heavy lifting at that end.

 

However the basic chassis has now gone together, is all square and dandy and goes round 3rd radius curves. Next stage is to fit the pivot plate and bogie to check clearances.

Edited January 21, 2019 by rowanj

[rowanj]

One last photo - the bogie under the chassis front, which shows how little room there is, and how far forward the bogie sits. 

[micklner]

The only PDK kit I have ever built was the Great Northern A1/1 with exactly the same problems with the chassis . I couldn't even get the axles to clear each side let alone side play. The brass axle  bushes  were filed virtually flat to give a minute clearance. I did get it to work but I was never happy with it, and sold it once I built a Graeme King resin and etched version on a Hornby chassis , this actually worked much better and much better all-round quality too.

 

The valve gear in the photo of the B16 looks strange, with a very large spacing around the parts? 

[46256]

Good evening John just read in detail the previous couple of posts. The issue of Sideplay is one I have encountered many times with my own chassis construction. The main RTR manufacturers allow a lot in their creations, to replicate this in kit or comet has meant me filing down bearings as described by Mick. The width of the chassis is obviously decided in model form by a number of factors...spacer , frame and outside bearing width...the other factor the ability to fit a gearbox within that area. Then there is that law that means you can construct two chassis apparently in exactly the same way...one runs like a sewing machine....the other ..in any event always enjoy your models best wishes Brian

[mikemeg]

The only PDK kit I have ever built was the Great Northern A1/1 with exactly the same problems with the chassis . I couldn't even get the axles to clear each side let alone side play. The brass axle  bushes  were filed virtually flat to give a minute clearance. I did get it to work but I was never happy with it, and sold it once I built a Graeme King resin and etched version on a Hornby chassis , this actually worked much better and much better all-round quality too.

 

The valve gear in the photo of the B16 looks strange, with a very large spacing around the parts? 

 

Mick,

 

I seem to remember that Michael Edge produced an etched sheet for the motion of the B16/2 and /3 for a commission build which he did. I don't know if those etches are more generally available or if they were a 'one off'.

 

Cheers

 

MIke

[Michael Edge]

We still have plenty of those etches.

[mikemeg]

John,

 

Just looking at the various photographs of the B16/2 can I ask? The footplate is curved under the front of the cab but the mainframes don't follow the profile of that curve; they have a right angle at the change of levels. How does the kit deal with this difference in profile? Are there pieces attached to the underside of the footplate to close this apparent gap?

 

Cheers

 

Mike

Edited January 22, 2019 by mikemeg

[rowanj]

This is Mike Edge's B16/2 build, It is so comprehensive that I see no value in showing my effort other than if I hit a snag. It was only the chassis amendment which I thought worth posting.

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/61851-lner-b162-from-pdk-kit/

 

The photo on the box does the model no favours, in my opinion. My B16/3 valve gear looks OK, though clearly not in the same class as Mike's'.

 

I'll need to check Mike's query. At the moment, the footplate is just lying on the chassis, and any gaps are highlighted before it is screwed down. I don't remember addressing the gap between the straight edge of the chassis and the curve of the footplate on the B16/3 build, but I'm getting on and it was a while ago....

 

Edit - there is nothing in the kit to convert that right angle to a curve. To be fair, when the footplate and valance are fitted, along with the rear driving wheel, the eye is not drawn to it in the way the photo shows, and the cab sides also help to hide it, However I see no reason why it cannot be easily filled with a couple of pieces of scrap etch.

Edited January 22, 2019 by rowanj

[rowanj]

I'm probably in danger of teaching Granny to suck eggs, but here are 3 boring pictures illustrating the bogie pivot, and showing what needs to be done to the pieces which slot into the chassis tops when using narrower spacers.

 

The Wizard/Comet pivot has 2 pieces on each etch, and is thin and flexible. This is good when setting the adjustment of the bogie on the track, but also means it distorts easily when handling. The slot also distorts and I find it essential that the shouldered screw moves smoothly through the slot. So, I'm going to reinforce the long bar, probably simply bey soldering a length of scrap etch along it once I have the bogie pivot fixed in the correct position.

 

I've illustrated the main motion bracket to show what I meant when I tried to describe what needs to be done to the central tab, which needs to sit inside the chassis in order that it sits level wth the chassis top where it meets the loco footplate. I wont solder this in yet, as the ends are easy to break off if handled carelessly once the half-etched bends are made. In the interest of full disclosure, I need to confess that I didn't twig that that the tabs needed to be narrowed, so as a consequence, the 2 rear footplate supports are shorter than they should be. C'est la vie.

Edited January 22, 2019 by rowanj

[rowanj]

The modifications look as though they will allow the B16 to get round at least 3rd radius curves, with a bit to spare.  While it's not absolutely certain, what is left to do on the chassis should not effect it, so I'm quietly confident.  certainly, it all moves at lot easier than the first 2 builds.

 

Mike pointed out that the con rod on the A8 should be inside the coupling rods. I had already soldered mine, but was irritated by the mistake, so have corrected it. I will also fit the lining to the valances, and then proceed to hide it with grot !

 

John

[MarkC]

The loss of Little Engines kits was a real shame. I wasn't building when they were around, but they seem to have a good reputation. My only knowledge of the A8 kit is from a conversation with Peter Stranger, who said the DJH version was too short and the Little Engines too long. I'll be interested in following your build, Mark, when you get round to it. Feel free to post here if you don't want to start your own thread.

 

Hi John. I'll bear that in mind when I get started.

 

Cheers

Mark

[rowanj]

It may not be necessary, but I wanted to do a final check on clearances with the coupling rods fitted. All seems OK and the rest of the chassis construction should be "bog-standard". The boiler and cab roof have not ret been attached but I find I need to check for irregularities at almost every stage with etched brass kits. Once the smokebox saddle and boiler are fitted, the valances will be tidied up. I have removed it from the RH side only, and wont dress the visible perforations until the LH is removed. It is necessary however, to do the valance trimming at least as the distance from the buffer beam to behind the cylinder block, otherwise the footplate cannot be tested on the chassis top with the cylinder block in place.

 

I did have to drill a hole in the cab floor, and another on a spacer at the chassis front to provide body/chassis fixing points., as a consequence of the chassis narrowing work. with a bit of foresight, this probably would have been unnecessary, but is no big deal, as both points are hidden when the cab floor and smokebox saddle are assembled.

 

I hope the photo also shows that the footplate curve/chassis straight edge issue mentioned earlier  is hidden when the wheels and cab are fitted, though a design which put the curve on the chassis too would have been better.

 

Now I'll dismantle the chassis, add brakes and complete the cylinder block and paint it all. On my earlier build, I needed to remove metal from the boiler to get a 1420 motor to slide through, so that is the next task for the body. As per good practice, I will also assemble the tender chassis to check that it sits level to the rear curve on the footplate. But, not having a heated workshop, that may take a while, as it's perishing up here - I had to put on a long-sleeved T-shirt.

 

John

[Pebbles]

Maybe Its a trick of the light but I was of the view that the boiler and smokebox were of a similar diameter.

[rowanj]

On ‎1‎/‎27‎/‎2019 at 4:23 PM, Pebbles said:

Maybe Its a trick of the light but I was of the view that the boiler and smokebox were of a similar diameter.

They are.. The smokebox on the photo is just pushed over the boiler front ,Pebbles The difference on the final version will just be the thickness of the etch,and should be hidden by the boiler band..a trick I took from Mike,s build.

John

 

Edit - just had a look at the boiler and, where the smokebox etch slips over, it is thinner than the rest of the boiler, and the smokebox etch rests against a ring around the boiler. I'd forgotten that from my B16/3 build. I filed the ring down to flatten it, and it becomes the boiler band. When I get to that part, I'll take a photo on the basis of a picture/thousand words

Edited February 1, 2019 by rowanj
Added

[rowanj]

My first entry for "Best Director"  At least it shows some of the kits described here running,

 

The locos in question...

J77 North Eastern Kits

Q7 Dave Alexander

N5 SEF

North Tyneside MPV  Dave Alexander

B16/3 PDK

A8 DJH

J25 London Road Models

[rowanj]

I've been picking away at the B16/2, and now have the chassis carcase complete. The valve gear will just be the normal Walchaerts  fight. Other than completing the work around the cylinder block and fitting pick-ups. that will be that.

 

the motor is my last Mashima 142o matched with a Highlevel Compact+. As the photos show, I'm going to need to remove dome metal from below the boiler to get it to fit. I hope it wont be too visible once the loco is painted, but we shall see. I also completed the tender sub-chassis and footplate to check relative ride height,

 

Finally, another photo shows how the boiler design  allows the smokebox etch to be fitted maintain the same diameter over the full length.

[micklner]

Maybe the photo ?

 

The Footplate appears to be rising either side of the curve where the Cylinders will sit. A little tweak will make if level in both directions.

[rowanj]

You are right, Mick . penalties of taking a photo with the footplate just sitting on the chassis top, The PDK and Crownline kits provide 2 sturdy etches which incorporate the loco valances, pierced to include, below the long series of holes which will be the valance bottom edge, more metal to provide reinforcement. The instructions tell you to leave this intact while assembling the footplate-- good advice as they allow you to make accurate footplate curves and keep the footplate rigid while working on the loco superstructure.

 

However the valance etches are so long that they wont fit over a cylinder block or clear crankpins on wheels, so if you want to build the chassis, loco body and tender roughly simultaneously, which I think is good practice as it allows you to check fits, etc. the metal below the pierced holes needs to come off a bit sooner . Once the boiler is fitted, the footplate becomes reasonably rigid again, and as Mick says, can be gently tweaked.

 

In my case, as I'd assembled the LH valve gear and fitted it, all bar the last soldered part to the driving wheel, I actually screwed down the footplate and it looks OK. There will be some final tweaking when the boiler goes on, as this will pull the cab slightly forward.

 

I've more or less decided that, rather than cut the bolt coming up through the smokebox saddle, that I'll drill a hole in the smokebox/boiler and add a second nut just for extra security. The instructions all show the fixing bolts going down and then the nuts fixed from underneath, but I prefer the other way with the nut soldered to the loco body. I suppose the kit's way means there is less chance of gumming up the threads with solder.

[micklner]

I suggest don't rely on the screw pulling everything down, as the body will always be under stress as a result. Tweaking so that the footplate laying correct before the Boiler is fitted will ensure the Cab also lines up much easier with the Firebox as well, on fitting. If you fit the Boiler before ensuring the Footplate is straight , you will never be able to bend the body enough with the Boiler soldered on as both Boiler and Footplate  will be in wrong elevations, and will stop any movement occurring.

 

I can understand your reasoning re removing the support etch , personally I leave then on until everything is fixed down. I would rather adjust the chassis to fit the body as much easier (normally !!!).

Edited February 6, 2019 by micklner
updated info

[rowanj]

 I took Mick's advice and tweaked the footplate. On the photo, it looks like the cab is leaning slightly, but, for the life of me, I cant see it in the flesh. I'll keep an eye on it as the body construction continues.

 

Anyway, the LH side of the chassis is almost completed, and the RH just needs the bits and bobs around the cylinder block finished. The balance weights were a problem, as no 2 rebuilt locos seem to have the same pattern, I found a photo in Yeadon which I used as the basis for my model, but it meant I couldn't use one of the etches on the PDK fret. 

 

I now try to use stiff rod from the motor to chassis when the chassis is live, as this one is. Apart from giving the return to the track, it Prevents the gearbox flopping around. In this case, I used a small length from the rod supplied for the vacuum ejector pipe, which I think, in any case, is a bit underscale.

 

I've tested the loco on the layout and it does what I'd hoped on all my curves. Whether this is a result of narrowing the chassis, or just that I'm getting better at this loco building malarkey, I don't' know. But the additional work doesn't take long, and re-assembling the sides is no harder than any conventional etched chassis kit.

Unless I hit any further snags, I'll wait until the loco is in glorious grey primer before posting again.

 

John

Edited February 8, 2019 by rowanj