BR and Industrial diesel shunters

[Ruston]

I quite fancy one of those rod-drive Sentinels myself now. I don't understand why Hornby have never issued one in the factory livery themselves.

 

I built the Mercian Hudswell in 7mm and it was a right PITA, so well done with that one.

[pete_mcfarlane]

I built the Mercian Hudswell in 7mm and it was a right PITA, so well done with that one.

Yes, I read your posts on it whilst building mine. Luckily the 4mm version seems to have rods and frames that match (although perhaps I should keep quiet, and I've yet to finish the chassis.....). 

[pete_mcfarlane]

Some more Husdwell progress (finally). 

 

The motor and gearbox have been fitted in to place (excuse the mess from the excess bath sealent, it doesn't show when the body is on). The wheels have been fitted, and the jackshaft has been partially assembled by Loctiting one crank in place. 

Hopefully I should be able to test it with the rods on in a day or so, which is the moment of truth when I discover whether the slightly iffy etched rods supplied actually work. 

Edited June 13, 2018 by pete_mcfarlane

[pete_mcfarlane]

As i suspected, the rods were slightly out compared to the frames (I seem to remember Ruston having similar issues with the 7mm version). They were too flimsy to open the holes out in the usual way, so I've done what I should have done from the start, and made my own replacements out of brass strip. These are much more heavy duty compared to the original, and I can replicate the usual configuration of the prototype, which actually has 3 separate rods per side rather than forked joints. 

This is the current state of progress, with the centre sections made and the fly cranks fitted in place on their axle (using Loctite). 

 

Edited June 13, 2018 by pete_mcfarlane

[Guest Isambarduk]

... I can replicate the usual configuration of the prototype, which actually has 3 separate rods per side rather than forked joints.

 

Pete,  Not all the Hudswell Clarke 0-6-0DMs were the same; many had conventional pin joints in the rods themselves - just look at some photos online. 

 

For example (links given to attribute):

 

https://photos.smugmug.com/Industrial/Ind-DE/i-PdSGxgZ/1/7b823428/L/0000huds-L.jpg

 

http://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/img/s11/v36/p1048846977-3.jpg

 

David

[pete_mcfarlane]

This begs the question of why there's a difference between the two types of rod. 

[Guest Isambarduk]

This begs the question of why there's a difference between the two types of rod. 

 

Well, there's no doubt that the 'conventional' pin jointed rod is preferable from the point of view of not increasing the bending moment on the crankpins (which is why it became the convention) but there is an argument that jointing the rods on the crank pins is a simpler design, even if the crankpins have to be heavier to cope with the increased bending moment.  If the connecting rods also have to join on a crank pin that is also a joint for the coupling rods, then the crank pins would be rather too long.

 

It's in the paint shop at present but I recently completed a Hudswell Clarke 0-6-0DM, making use of many of the parts from the Mercian Model Rail 7mm kit.  It will be NCB ‘David No. 58’ because my wife bought me one of the prototype’s nameplates as a birthday present so, to build a 7mm model to go with it, seemed like a good idea …

 

 

 

David

[pete_mcfarlane]

A bit more progress - the rods have been made and fitted, which involved quite a lot of cursing (and several discarded attempts). It now runs smoothly, with no slop. So I've cracked the dreaded jackshaft problem. 

Break gear is now soldered up. I copied the arrangement I used on my P4 High Level Andrew Barclay 0-6-0T, by using copperclad sleeper strips for the brake pulls and soldering the pickups to them. There are gaps for the cross shafts with jumpers over them. None of this really shows when the loco is on the track, and it makes attaching pickups easier to small wheeled/deep framed locos easier. Obviously there was a moment or two when I wished I'd used plunger pick-up, I may try these again sometime. 

(Sorry for the poor photo, but all of that shiny brass, copperclad and solder doesn't like my very basic photography skills)

So from now on it;s downhill. Paint the brake gear, wire up and test, and finally make some sandboxes to fit in between all of that gubbins. There's not much space from them between the brakegear and jackshaft. 

Edited August 19, 2018 by pete_mcfarlane

[Guest Isambarduk]

Coincidently, I finished putting my loco back together again on Friday, after all the painting and lining (not one of my best skills … and I don't appear to be getting any better over the years).  I used  Slater's wheels, a Fine Scale Brass motor/gearbox and a fair number of scratch-built additional and replacement components, including flycranks, air cylinders and sandboxes.  Here are a couple of images:

 

 

 

 

David

[pete_mcfarlane]

Now that is really nice. I chickened out of lining mine, but it is much smaller.....

[pete_mcfarlane]

And finally finished, with the underframe finished and painted. It's posed on the beach tramway part of my layout, which is currently a moonscape of unpainted track and filler. 

 

I chickened out of doing the front set of sand pipes, which come very close to the crank. Hopefully this isn't too obvious.

I'm quite pleased how well this turned out. As I said before, the kit is a bit of a curate's egg. Each individual part is lovely, they just don't always fit together. This hasn't put me off Mercian kits, as I have one of his Andrew Barclay 0-4-0DMs in the to do pile for a year or two. 

 

 

 

. 

[doilum]

And finally finished, with the underframe finished and painted. It's posed on the beach tramway part of my layout, which is currently a moonscape of unpainted track and filler. 

 

I chickened out of doing the front set of sand pipes, which come very close to the crank. Hopefully this isn't too obvious.

IMG_20180925_204620.jpgIMG_20180925_204630.jpgIMG_20180925_204637.jpg

I'm quite pleased how well this turned out. As I said before, the kit is a bit of a curate's egg. Each individual part is lovely, they just don't always fit together. This hasn't put me off Mercian kits, as I have one of his Andrew Barclay 0-4-0DMs in the to do pile for a year or two. 

 

 

 Important that one problematic kit does not condemn a manufacturer . I have built Hunslet austerity and 50550 from mercian kits successfully. The austerity came with a choice of brass and nickel silver etches for the frames. The spare etch brought to life a scratch built body that had spent ten years in the "round to it" box. Santa is now sitting on a Peckett which will become Ackton Hall #3.

Mercian are currently updating their etches and existing stock is available at very reasonable prices.

.

 

[pete_mcfarlane]

That's very good point. Despite the problems, this is still a buildable kit.

[John Tomlinson]

In view of the helpfulness of this thread, I thought it might be worth adding a few comments about the BR version of the Hudswell Clarke 0-6-0DM's.

 

I'm currently working on the Mercian 7mm kit for one of these, my first 7mm loco build. First up, it seems that the BR version had 3' 6'' wheels compared 3' of some if not all industrial versions. Isambarduk points this out in his dedicated build thread. The impact is to raise the running plate on the BR ones, confirmed by looking at the position of the buffers relative to the running plate and buffer beam. The bonnet sides on the BR version sit higher relative to the cab, looking at the horizontal riveted band relative to the cab, and the bonnet top above this band is somewhat less tall. The Mercian kit appears to be a bit of a mish-mash of the two versions in terms of these heights, and certainly the running plate/ bonnet/ cab relationship has more in common with the industrial version than the BR one.

 

I'd be interested to hear from anyone who has done a BR version. Being relatively inexperienced in the larger scale I'm reluctant to start hacking etches about in a probably vain and possibly destructive attempt to get a more accurate outcome.

 

John.

[Guest Isambarduk]

9 hours ago, John Tomlinson said:

Isambarduk points this out in his dedicated build thread.

 

... which I have collated on a page on my website: David No. 58 - Hudswell Clarke 0-6-0DM

 

David

[John Tomlinson]

Thanks David, your thread has been extremely informative on a number of matters to do with these locos, and I've bookmarked it for other projects that may arise in future!

 

I've done some more digging today and eventually found some dimensioned drawings for the BR version. They confirmed my supposition that the bonnet parts of the kit really are for industrial variants, as well as the horizontal riveted strip being too low, the doors are too small. I think I'll complete the kit as is, and have it as a notional industrial version. The two photos of real locos you posted above are interesting, clearly some industrials had a rear bunker (the green one) whereas others did not.

 

An interesting introduction for me to 7mm loco modelling!

 

John.

[pete_mcfarlane]

My next shunter project is D2554, the Isle of Wight shunter from the late 1960s to early 1980s. This is of very little actual use to me, but I've wanted a model of the loco for many years (again after seeing a photo in the Brian Haresnape book on shunters). 

 

This is another Judith Edge kit, and a very nice one too.

It caters for the different detail differences between these locos, as D2550-7 have a lower bonnet than D2558 to 73. And the first 4 had different manhole covers on the engine casing, so D2554 to D2557 are different from any of the others. The kit caters for all of these variations, but doesn't include the cut down cab roof that D2554 gained (presumably to get through Ryder tunnel). That was cut from nickle silver sheet and rolled on my GW model rollers (which are turning in to one of my favourite tools, as I use them rarely but they make rolling stuff incredibly easy).

 

The other variation from the kit is to allow me to drive the rear axle, so I can use the provided compensation on the front two without having to have a floating gearbox. I've built a couple of compensated P4 locos, and want to see if it's worth it in OO. This involves removing a small section of the cab floor, footplate and rear bulkhead. I'm also trying one of those cheap Chinese Mitsumi motors, with a High Level RoadRunner gearbox, again as an experiment. So far it runs OK under bench tests, which is good. 

 

Other than having to read the instructions a few times to work out what detail parts I need, it's a pretty good kit. I did struggle a little with the bonnet fit on to the formers, but I suspect that might be down to me being hamfisted. After a bit of filing of the formers it all seemed to go OK. 

Edited April 13, 2020 by pete_mcfarlane

[pete_mcfarlane]

D2554 is now ready for the paintshop. It took longer than I expected because I made a bit of a mess with the compensation beams, introducing too much slop in the pivot. This caused the wheelbase to vary under load, which I initially though was due to binding in the rods and so opened them out. Once I'd traced the problem, made the pivot a tighter fit (and made new rods, as the kit ones were now too sloppy) it runs beautifully. The Mitsumi motors do seem very good, as others have noted. 

 

All of this took a while, but at least I can write it off as a learning experience (despite not having similar issues with the two P4 steam locos I'd built compensated). The compensation does seem to help with the smooth running, so future 00 locos will probably also be built compensated, and all the problems are basically down to me rather than the kit itself.  

 

the last couple of days were spent adding details - thinks like air tanks (some came with the kit, plus a small scratchbuilt one that seems specific to the first few locos).

 

The lamp irons are very fragile, and I'm not sure how they'll stand up in use. Oh and the real 2554 seems to have acquired a non-standard sandbox filler on one side, so that was made out of tube and wire. It's now drying ready for a coat of etch primer. 

[pete_mcfarlane]

Now primed (with a spray can of etch primer from Halfords), rubbed down to remove a few stray blobs of glue and solder that got missed, and ready for a wash and second waft of the primer can.

[pete_mcfarlane]

Ends now sprayed with Precision yellow, and the bufferbeams red. I'm planning to use the Railtec wasp strip transfers to do as much of the ends as possible, although the grille will need a bit of brush painting. 

[newbryford]

Just caught up with this thread.

Brings back my time of building Edge kits.

 

Here's my take on the Hunslet.

 

 

The first Edge kit I built was the 165DS.

It was featured in the Railway Modeller - sometime around 2002.

 

 

 

[pete_mcfarlane]

The 05 is now sprayed blue, with the wasp ends added using Railtec transfers (and a bit of hand painting for the fiddly bits at the top were it curves in 3 dimensions).  The other transfers are HMRS. It's now waiting for the final detailing - a few handrails and the marker lights. One thing I can't add at the moment are the Hunslet works plates on the cab door - these will need to wait until I order them from Narrow Planet. 

Oh and I've not missed the cloth part of the vacuum pipe, I'm just waiting until after I've varnished the loco before I paint it (very) matt dark grey. 

[JeffP]

Reminds me of a day out via a Merrymaker excursion to the Isle of Wight. Me and a mate took our young, then very trusting, wives.

When we spent most of the allocated time on the IoW first finding, then travelling to see, then photographing 05001 as it then was, leaving time for a cuppa but nowt to eat, they weren't too trusting again.

 

In fact I think that was the last time either of them accompanied us. The little blonde is my wife, sadly, now wheelchair bound.

[John Tomlinson]

One golden beach and posh restaurant are much like any other, so I think your partners were very fortunate in being shown something out of the ordinary!

 

John.

[pete_mcfarlane]

I like the missing 1 in the TOPS number.

 

I did debate whether to give 2554 the slightly wonky numbering on one side, but decided it would look like my numbering was slightly wonky. One thing I did model was the different number of electrification flashes on each side of the bonnet (not that they were really needed on the IoW).