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

[Headstock]

52 minutes ago, Portchullin Tatty said:

 

Fox bogies were widely used in the pre-grouping companies in the later 19th/early 20th century era.  I have seen them in use on LSWR, LBSC, GE, GN, NER, HR, Caledonian, NB, ECJS and I suspect that the list is quite a lot longer.

 

I haven't seen an increased depth on 4 wheeled bogies, but you may well be right if there was a perception that the loads were greater.  The Caledonian 6 wheeled bogies do, for example, have deeper channels between the axleboxes, but the same depth as the 4 wheeled bogies for the sections at either end.

 

All the 4 wheeled bogies that I have seen have clasp brakes on all wheels and the Caley 6 wheeled bogie (which I have drawn up as a future product if anyone is interested) has them on all wheels too.  Not saying there isn't room for some that didn't though!!

 

 

 

Evening Mark,

 

It was a very long list indeed, stretching across the globe from India to Argentina. As you will probably know, Samson Fox/Leeds forge created the Fox bogie. Leeds forge definitely advertised differently proportioned versions of the bogie kit, dependent on weight to be carried. I believe that the type common to UK modelers was guaranteed to support 120 ton without failing. As you mention with the 6 wheel bogie, it also seems to be normal practice with heavy duty 4 wheel bogies for the side frames between the axle boxes to be deeper and the ends to be untouched

 

With regards to brakes or lack of, I was talking about the model kits that are available rather than the real thing. As far as I know, all real 4 wheel Fox bogies had eight shoe clasp brakes. As they were sold as a kt, I suppose individual Railway companies could theoretically use different types of brake shoe as was the case with the axle boxes etc. 

[rowanj]

A couple of photos as to why I build kits, even though I'm not particularly good at it. This thread was always about trying to encourage folks to have a go, on the basis that you can usually finish up with something usable.

 

I love the LRM J25 - a lovely kit of a lovely loco. It probably is an anathema on coaching stock, but it looks the part on the ex-NER stock, turned into the loop to allow something faster to get through. I had help through this thread on the loco build, and the paintwork and details of the coaches. This is what on-line modelling should be about, in my view.

[rowanj]

I imagine many will already be aware that some of the Chivers kits are being re-introduced under the Five79 banner. I wanted a straightforward job to do in-between the more difficult stuff, so bought the Gresley "Pigeon Van" BY. Excellent and fast service saw the kit arrive within a few days.

 

I'll build it more or less as it comes. I have an isinglass version, which contains a drawing, and will use this to supplement the rather vague instructions in what is nevertheless a simple kit to build. I'll add electric jumper cables and vacuum pipes, which aren't supplied, and I would have fitted a better guards lookout if I'd had one. 

 

The handrails are very neatly moulded, to the extent that I didnt bother to carve them off other than where I drilled holes for the wire replacements.

 

For a quick and reasonably accurate kit, this one is to be recommended.

 

Progress to date as illustrated.

[micklner]

MJT do a cheap ducket etch. Personally I removed all the handrails (which was a bit of a pain to do) and the handles as well.

[rowanj]

8 hours ago, micklner said:

MJT do a cheap ducket etch. Personally I removed all the handrails (which was a bit of a pain to do) and the handles as well.

If I had a better casting than the one in the kit, Mick, I would certainly have used it. The plastic one is acceptable, but that's about it.

 

I decided to build the Isinglass version at the same time as the Chivers one. The 3d prints are very good, and the fit of parts is excellent. I think the roof is superior. I managed to get the 3D W-irons to work, but I'm not convinced of their robustness.

 

As an alternative to the Chivers model, this one will be the later (according to the Isinglass drawing) version, with only 3 ventilators and short footboards under the doors. There are parts to be sourced not with the kit, with one omission being brakes, 

 

I'm also going to have a first go at scruffy teak on the Isinglass version, with the Chivers on in unlined maroon. With only 59 built, one might claim having 2 of them is a bit extravagant.

Edited August 15, 2020 by rowanj

[rowanj]

The Chivers Pigeon van on test,. I need to fix transfers, do some weathering and pick out the door handles. An easy kit and fun to build, but I may try to get a roof from Isinglass next time I order from them - the one on their 3D kit is a better fit.

 

 

[rowanj]

Here is the Isinglass Pigeon Van in my first attempt at worn teak. Must do better, but it looks OK in the rake , I think. I'm not entirely persuaded by the 3D W-irons, and can see them being replaced by etches, but, surprisingly, it all ran through my pointwork without a derailment.

 

[rowanj]

And here are the pair of Pigeons together. I wanted the teak one to represent a one painted just before the switch to crimson, or at least having been through works and only requiring "touching up" to get the BR markings. How realistic this assumption  is, I don't know.

 

The only differences between the kits that I can spot are the Isinglass teak version has the later 3 ventilators and short footboards under the doors, rather than 4 vents and full length boards on the Chivers kits. The sides and ends look the same, as do the handrail positions.  

 

Now for the D&S 6 -wheel ex-NER version.

Edited August 19, 2020 by rowanj

[30368]

Sorry to interupt the van flow but if I may I will post a few pictures of 60523 "Sun Castle" which is now complete. It is a DJH kit with coreless motor and gearbox from High Level. A truly great combination and a pleasure to build.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kind regards,

 

Richard B

 

 

[rowanj]

This is the chassis for the 6-wheel Ex NER Brake. It is the first I have attempted of this type, and I am still a bit nervous about getting it to run properly. The kit is designed with the rear pair "fixed", the front pair "rocking", and the centre pair "floating". I'm afraid I cheated, and have fitted smaller diameter wheels on the centre pair. I hope the photo shows that this isn't really noticeable, and the chassis runs OK so far even on my dodgy trackwork.

 

I'm building the kit as the later build with electric lighting, and hence the split lower footboards. The suggestion is that this was to give access to the battery boxes, though the drawing in the instructions doesn't show their location on the underframe. the instructions, which only illustrate one side, say the gap was in the same position on each side. I assume this means there were 2 boxes immediately opposite each other, rather than diagonally. Can anyone confirm this. please?

 

 

 

[micklner]

8 minutes ago, rowanj said:

This is the chassis for the 6-wheel Ex NER Brake. It is the first I have attempted of this type, and I am still a bit nervous about getting it to run properly. The kit is designed with the rear pair "fixed", the front pair "rocking", and the centre pair "floating". I'm afraid I cheated, and have fitted smaller diameter wheels on the centre pair. I hope the photo shows that this isn't really noticeable, and the chassis runs OK so far even on my dodgy trackwork.

 

I'm building the kit as the later build with electric lighting, and hence the split lower footboards. The suggestion is that this was to give access to the battery boxes, though the drawing in the instructions doesn't show their location on the underframe. the instructions, which only illustrate one side, say the gap was in the same position on each side. I assume this means there were 2 boxes immediately opposite each other, rather than diagonally. Can anyone confirm this. please?

 

 

 

I have a couple of the 6 wheel coaches. I added a bit of lead to the centre wheels , never had a problem with using the correct size wheels.

 

There is this on NER Battery boxes.

 

https://www.lner.info/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=8834

 

6 wheel chassis , I havent tried this

 

https://www.mousa.biz/info/2011/10/six-wheeled-coaches/

 

 

[Paul Cram]

2 hours ago, micklner said:

I have a couple of the 6 wheel coaches. I added a bit of lead to the centre wheels , never had a problem with using the correct size wheels.

 

There is this on NER Battery boxes.

 

https://www.lner.info/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=8834

 

6 wheel chassis , I havent tried this

 

https://www.mousa.biz/info/2011/10/six-wheeled-coaches/

 

 

I have also built 2 and added lead to the centre pair. Runs fine wit P4 wheels.

[Portchullin Tatty]

I am advocate of sliding axles; I developed Bill Bedford's idea slightly and worked out a fairly easy way of making them.

 

See this blog post:

 

https://highlandmiscellany.com/2018/02/20/sliding-axles/

 

 

[Daddyman]

I'm also building one of these kits at the moment - currently trying to make the spring hangers look more 3-D, which I think is going to involve rebuilding them from scratch. I'm also trying to talk myself out of removing the steps from the end as they don't seem to have been common. But does anyone know if there is a correlation between late (steel ducket) and early (wooden ducket) build, and end steps and/or discontinuous footboards? 

 

There are some useful views on the Transport Library website, by the way, codes LSDC1295 and  LSDC0487. 

 

Is it fair to assume from the above posts that the D&S 6-wheel system isn't reliable in traffic? Or does weight on the centre rocker cure all problems? 

Edited August 24, 2020 by Daddyman

[jwealleans]

I have problems with shorting on Dan's centre axle setup (to be fair, I'm usually using slightly large Hornby wheels).

 

I discard it and just use a piece of tube on a .45mm wire, bent so it presses slightly down on the track.   Never had a problem with that arrangement.

[micklner]

58 minutes ago, Daddyman said:

I'm also building one of these kits at the moment - currently trying to make the spring hangers look more 3-D, which I think is going to involve rebuilding them from scratch. I'm also trying to talk myself out of removing the steps from the end as they don't seem to have been common. But does anyone know if there is a correlation between late (steel ducket) and early (wooden ducket) build, and end steps and/or discontinuous footboards? 

 

There are some useful views on the Transport Library website, by the way, codes LSDC1295 and  LSDC0487. 

 

Is it fair to assume from this the above posts that the D&S 6-wheel system isn't reliable in traffic? Or does weight on the centre rocker cure all problems? 

The D&S design (of the ones I have built) simply lets a light brass etch and a wheel hang off a piece of 0.45mm wire , it just needed some weight to hold it onto the rail.

 

p.s I use Alan Gibsons on mine.

[rowanj]

Here is the answer to my query about split lower footboards, courtesy of Headstock/Andrew. Thanks for all the posts on the NER BY/BG.

 

the cutouts in the stepboards were directly opposite one another, at the end of the van with the four end windows. If you are looking at the van side on, with the cutaway towards the left, the side closest to you would display the dynamo. The dynamo was positioned backwards to the usual arrangement, with the belt on the outside facing back to reach the far axle at the left hand end, the drum  containing the gubbins was thus inboard. The single battery box was on the opposite side were it could be accessed via the other cutaway footboard.

 

I hope that helps.

[Daddyman]

5 hours ago, rowanj said:

Here is the answer to my query about split lower footboards, courtesy of Headstock/Andrew. Thanks for all the posts on the NER BY/BG.

 

the cutouts in the stepboards were directly opposite one another, at the end of the van with the four end windows. If you are looking at the van side on, with the cutaway towards the left, the side closest to you would display the dynamo. The dynamo was positioned backwards to the usual arrangement, with the belt on the outside facing back to reach the far axle at the left hand end, the drum  containing the gubbins was thus inboard. The single battery box was on the opposite side were it could be accessed via the other cutaway footboard.

 

I hope that helps.

Thanks, John. One of the Transport Library photos I linked to shows the dynamo visible through the gap in the footboards. 

 

No one has any info on the ends (handrails and lack thereof)?  

 

Didn't know there was one preserved (well, sort of preserved). The first photo shows some handrail detail (for later vehicles?):  

https://www.geograph.org.uk/stuff/list.php?title=North+Eastern+Railway+131+Six-wheel+(TZ)+Full+Brake&gridref=TM1265

[rowanj]

This was the photo Andrew posted of his model, David. No handrails on the visible end.

 

[Daddyman]

13 hours ago, rowanj said:

This was the photo Andrew posted of his model, David. No handrails on the visible end.

 

 

Thanks, John - but there are handrails on the model, curving from a point beside the end windows to the two handrail knobs below the roof line. None of the vans in the prototype photos I've seen have these curved handrails - not in NER condition with full footboards, in late LNER or in BR. The D&S box is the only place I've seen them, though admittedly I have a limited number of photos, and the relevant person in the NERA isn't answering emails. (Incidentally, re the model pictured, if the curved handrails were a feature then they'd be accompanied by grab handles on the roof. ) Problem is, it's very difficult to build the kit without these handrails, as the end in question has the vertical part of the steps (the reason for the handrails) etched on, making them hard to remove. 

 

Edited August 26, 2020 by Daddyman

[Daddyman]

(duplicate post)

Edited August 26, 2020 by Daddyman

[jwealleans]

To be clear, David, you're saying that the vans in your pictures have neither handrails not steps?

[rowanj]

David. Yes, of course there are handrails on Andrew's model - I should have gone to Specsavers.  Andrew visits this thread, so he may comment on his source for fitting the handrail. 

Though it doesn't prove anything, on the drawings on the instruction sheet, the handrail is shown at one end of the early version of the carriage but not on the later one. Could it have been fitted to give access to the gas lamps, but was obviously redundant for electric -lit vehicles? 

[Daddyman]

37 minutes ago, jwealleans said:

To be clear, David, you're saying that the vans in your pictures have neither handrails not steps?

Yes, Jonathan, that's right. The Transport Library ones have neither steps nor handrails and there's one at Masham in this thread: 

 

25 minutes ago, rowanj said:

Though it doesn't prove anything, on the drawings on the instruction sheet, the handrail is shown at one end of the early version of the carriage but not on the later one. Could it have been fitted to give access to the gas lamps, but was obviously redundant for electric -lit vehicles? 

 

That was what I thought at first, but one in NE Record 2 (p. 37) has no handrails and is gas lit. 

 

[Headstock]

By George it's a handrail. I forgot to fit the roof grab handles, I figured I have a couple of years until the next exhibition.

 

Edited August 26, 2020 by Headstock