Jump to content
 

LNWR London Road - Locomotives and rolling stock


Recommended Posts

I haven't added the brakes, etc. to the 2-4-2T frames yet but decided to get out the bits for the D71 to see what is involved.

 

The Worsley Works etches for the sides and ends are at the bottom. Above these is the London Road Models 42ft underframe etch and top right is the Brassmasters 8ft compensated bogie etch. Top left is an assortment of items from one of the LRM LNWR 42ft carriage test etches from the kits I designed for John Redrup. There are some useful bits such as door hinges which aren't included on the WW etch. I separated the two long strips from some LRM test etch sides, as these will provide the lower body side stiffening and support strip that i'll solder to the WW sides and which sits on the underframe.

 

1902394258_D71etchedparts.jpg.2a839feb2060966bbf1a375a43e4fc18.jpg

 

 

Looking at the WW bits, the first thing that became evident is that there is no way to locate the  brake end (with the windows) onto the sides. I think I'll have to make up a interior partition using the non brake end as a pattern, then make up a box with the sides and the end, with the partition somewhere in the luggage area before lining up and soldering the brake end in place.

 

The sides are 168.0 mm long which is correct for the carriage. However, adding the brake end onto the end of the sides will increase that by .3 mm. Not a problem really, but I'll need to check the width of the ducket sides to see if they are correct or if I'll have to take .3 mm, off the sides at the brake end.

Edited by Jol Wilkinson
Additional text
  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit more progress. 

 

The coach body has been assembled, with a partition at the end of the brake compartment section and a "spacer" half way along it. That was initially located  next to the guards door to hold the sides the correct distance apart while I fitted the brake end. The duckets have yet to be added. I didn't shorten the sides but it would have been better to remove 0.3 mm at the brake end as the duckets are only just wide enough to fit. I may add a bit of extra support inside the ducket "ends".

I added hinges and door drop lights  (which have hinges incorporated) from a LRM 42ft carriage test etch. The WW sides etch includes drop lights but not the hinges.

The LRM 42ft underframe is the correct width for a 8' wide carriage but 2.0 mm too narrow for the 8' 6" D71. I cut the u/f along the centre line (roughly) with a coping saw and spaced the two sections 2.0mm apart with bits of fret from the surround of the LRM test etch. I always design these 2.0 mm wide, lucky wasn't it. I soldered extra strengthening plates on the top at the ends. The Brassmaster bogie supports (centre front) will fit into the locating grooves under the u/f and provide more rigidity.

The cast coupling unit (front right) will need further modification to the mounting plate when I've trail fitted the bogies to check ride height and for clearance for the coupling. LNWR bogies were mounted with very little clearance behind the buffer beam.

 

1892082665_D7123-3.jpg.522f3f998284cb4332d5fbda2be3ff37.jpg

  • Like 11
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Craftsmanship/clever 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Jol, may I enquire:

 

1. What is your method for forming the tumblehome?

 

2. What is the source of your cast coupling unit?

 

Apologies if these questions have been answered earlier.

Stephen, 

 

the lower body curve (there is some debate that it incorrectly called tumblehome) wasn't easy to form.  In  discussion with a friend, he suggested that the brass used for WW etches is harder than most. I used a piece of wooden dowel about 12mm in diameter against a  piece of firm rubber sheet to roll the curve. Soft rubber such as track underlay didn't work, although it has with other coach sides. I have also formed the curve on other coaches over a bigger wooden former simply by applying finger pressure, sliding along the coach side. It depends on the brass hardness.

 

The cast coupling is, IIRC, an old Brassmaster casting. The one they supply now, as shown on their website,  is slightly different. I remove the mounting bolt "bush" and replace it with a piece of folded brass plate to clear the end of the LNWR bogie. The pin is long enough to go up into a hole in the coach floor behind the buffer beam but I usually form a piece of brass strip to form a  Omega shape and solder that behind the buffer beam.

 

There used to be castings for corridor and non-corridor screw type couplings, but the BM site now only shows corridor screw and buckeye types. Bill Bedford used to do an etched design with cast pipes for rigidity. I  never bothered to build the sample I bought, the cast unit being better in my view.

 

I think John at LRM has been considering introducing a non-corridor cast version (probably because he wants some), but hasn't got around to it yet..

 

Jol

Edited by Jol Wilkinson
Additional text
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, MJI said:

Out of interest what is your connection to LRM as I am wondering about one of their loco kits.

I help John Redrup at some shows, design some of the LNWR  and other kits and bits, edit/maintain the price list, do some of the magazine PR and act as a "business consultant".

 

I'm not involved in the manufacturing, etc. side of thing (we live about 100 miles apart), so any enquiries should be made directly to John at LRM through the website contact button or londonroadmodels@btinternet.com

  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Thanks Jol

 

Looks like a good first steam loco kit for me. Now depends on if I can get decent station plans, if so I get the loco.

 

Also tempted to try EM with this new Peco track.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

The WCJS D71 brought up a bit of a problem when finishing off the body. The ducket etches were a bit narrow and the panelling was incorrect. Fortunately I had some spares from a LRM test etch which were  a better fit. This rather out of focus shows the differences, the WW version on the left.

 

387641150_Ducketvariations.jpg.1baecaec19180fadd5d030a936249ee0.jpg

 

The LRM test etch version was marginally too wide and tall, but adjusting the ducket side in the slot in the carriage side and trimming the top got a reasonable result.

 

1357772276_Ducketfinished.jpg.44c23a9c59ca7523c744d6c63ecad6fa.jpg

 

More to follow.

Edited by Jol Wilkinson
Spelling/grammar
  • Like 4
  • Craftsmanship/clever 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, some more work got done on the 4' 6" 2-4-2T. The frames/chassis was finished, although the crankpin nuts still need replacing with the AGW turned steel versions. I am also looking into fitting dome crankpin bushes that are a closer fit on the threaded steel crankpin than the Sharman brass type. The sloppy fit makes setting up the rods accurately more difficult. Unfortunately the  black paint makes it difficult to photograph  the details clearly.

 

Chassis completed.jpg

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

The 2-4-2T is now ready for painting, after I get some fresh PPP 2 part etch primer at the York MRS. I'll solder the roof on with the RSU to get it sitting correctly, after a final clean up. I've omitted the steam heat valve from the right front corner of the roof as these were often removed during the summer months (for overhaul?).

 

780416093_Pre-paintRH.jpg.7e4fe1abaef127be28256edeeb09cb0d.jpg

 

 

  • Like 6
  • Craftsmanship/clever 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

And finally the WCJS D71, loosely fitted together for  photography.  This will go into the "paint booth" together with several other models including the 2-4-2T. The Exactoscale wheel rims proved resistant to Casey's Gun Blue (which works well on other steel tyre rims), despite cleaning with a glass fibre brush and de-greasing with white spirit.

 

 

94250291_Pre-paintcompside.jpg.7cc62a6dc9f71318c2ffc218c4dbdc12.jpg

 

1568370654_Pre-paintcorridorside.jpg.5dd27c2739ac212f4c9aff3ab49cf12e.jpg

 

The LNWR corridor connection gangways are made up from LRM test etches, which I'll paint black and attach when the carriage body is painted and lined. They are "sprung" with .33mm brass wire representing one of the scissor arms. When painted this deceit is not apparent. The design is based on some I concocted by adapting parts from the LRM "fixed" etched gangways and the Stevenson Carriages ones that are sprung with foam strips and I found too stiff. The adapted ones have worked satisfactorily on London Road so I designed these to go with the 45ft Clerestory Roof Family Saloon I have designed for John Redrup. They should be available in September.

 

1835401908_Gangwaystestetch.jpg.8edefb16063362258364afa85e97c3ea.jpg

  • Like 8
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Craftsmanship/clever 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
On 23/03/2019 at 17:21, Jol Wilkinson said:

The LRM 42ft underframe is the correct width for a 8' wide carriage but 2.0 mm too narrow for the 8' 6" D71.

 

 

This has been bugging me. I'm surprised that the solebar spacing should be different for the two body widths. I've been through all the LNWR/WCJS carriage books I have but haven't found convincing evidence one way or the other.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am away from home at present so can't check but think it may have been somewhere in the HMRS WCJS book that I read it. When I offered up another 8ft underframe from another kit, the "overhang" looked too great, so I searched for verification. 

Edited by Jol Wilkinson
Spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites

Back from my travels and now had time to look at West Coast Joint Stock, published by the HMRS. Last sentence of page 29 (cont'd on p 32) states that the solebars were set at 7' 5" apart over the outside faces when the body width was increased to 8' 6". Previously they had been 6' 8-3/4"" apart on the inside faces according to the drawings on pages 28 and 30, although that isn't very clear and the text says to the outside faces. 

 

The difference is 8 -1/4" or less but I settled on 2mm (I can't remember why!).

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Thanks - all is now clear, having re-read the chapter on 8-wheel underframes. What I was thinking of were the radial underframes, where the width is determined by the journal centres of the fixed axles; of course for a bogie carriage there is no such limitation. The radial underframes for the 8'6" wide stock had those extra body supports sticking out.

 

I got a bit worried by Baldry's rule but came to realise that there's an error in the text: the dimension calculated is not the radius of the arc on which the radial truck swings but rather the distance of the centre from which that radius is struck, from the radial axle.

 

What I still don't understand is the cross-section of the so-called bulb-iron angle solebars - none of the drawings seem to show this clearly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

What I still don't understand is the cross-section of the so-called bulb-iron angle solebars - none of the drawings seem to show this clearly.

 

Me neither. I have always assumed that they were either more like a piece of BH rail in cross section, with a flat top and bottom face. Either that or the top and bottom flanges weren't a crisp right angle but had a more rounded profile (if you see what I mean).

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a discussion about bulb-iron solebars on Tony Wright's thread that produced some drawings.  I can't work out how to quote from one thread in another, but the discussion is around page 436.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
19 minutes ago, Buhar said:

I can't work out how to quote from one thread in another, but the discussion is around page 436.

 

Like so. But that's a Gresley bulb - I think. The trick is to click on the "Share this post" icon (the triangly thing top right next to "Report post", copy the url and past it into your post in the usual way. It helps to have the other thread open in a second window).

Edited by Compound2632
Close bracket!
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

 

Me neither. I have always assumed that they were either more like a piece of BH rail in cross section, with a flat top and bottom face. Either that or the top and bottom flanges weren't a crisp right angle but had a more rounded profile (if you see what I mean).

 

There you go, simples really:

 

 

 

Bulb_Angle_Steel_Section.png

Edited by billbedford
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
51 minutes ago, billbedford said:

 

There you go, simples really:

 

 

Is this the actual bulb iron section as used by the LNWR or just a generic example? Also, which way up? The implication in the WCJS Register is that the bulb was on the outside at the bottom, so usually hidden by the footboard. In which case, the wider flange must have been on the inside at the top. It certainly can't have been at the bottom as the point of using bulb iron rather than channel was to give more clear width between the solebars for bogie swing on the 45 ft and 50 ft carriages.

Link to post
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, billbedford said:

 

There you go, simples really:

 

 

 

Bulb_Angle_Steel_Section.png

I didn't realise the LNWR did their drawings in millimetres.

 

That isn't the right way up, the bulb normally being on the lower edge and hidden by the foot-board as Stephen points out. The body sat on small rubber "plates" presumably about 3"square as the standard frame channel was 3-1/2" wide, so the wider edge would need to be uppermost.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...