East Barnet Joint Stock - a workbench

[Chas Levin]

2 hours ago, Daddyman said:

Well, that's one of the "issues" - I really don't appreciate the irony of having to use Rice's work-arounds for dodgy kits on one of his own kits! For example, in the book he complains about single-ply coupling rods, but what did I find in the kit but... single-ply coupling rods! Then there's the footplate, made of an underlayer with fold-down valances and a top layer, but none of the holes and slots in the two layers line up!

Hm, I can see how these issues might be a little trying.... I know he revised some - perhaps all - of the kits quie substantially, as I came across mention of this in his columns in early issues of MRJ: is it possible that you had an early release of the kit and might some of these issues have been put right later on? Actually, thinking about that, if you're looking at the LRM re-release, I imagine that's not likely to have ben the case.

2 hours ago, Daddyman said:

It's the kit on which I learnt never again to rely on slots and tabs; instead, all my tank engines and tender bodies get a 15 thou baseplate (Judith-Edge-style) bolted to the footplate, with all tank sides and cab sides soldered to the edge of that. That way, you're sure to avoid wavy tank sides and to get a consistent distance between footplate edge and tanks/cabs.   

That's very interesting; I'll file away that system for future use.

My current C12 build is the kit on which I've learnt the absolutely critical importance of total accuracy at every stage. Unlike a WM kit where substantial assemblies are pre-moulded, I've learnt that on an etched kit where you're making every part by hand, a fraction of a millimeter's error early on in one place - which might at the time seem insignificant - can lead to considerable problems further along in the build! And two such errors, tiny in themselves, can lead to ten times the problems...

It's one of those things you can read a hundred times (which I probably have done) but it's only when you do and see it yourself that it really sinks in.

[Paul Cram]

14 hours ago, Daddyman said:

Well, that's one of the "issues" - I really don't appreciate the irony of having to use Rice's work-arounds for dodgy kits on one of his own kits! For example, in the book he complains about single-ply coupling rods, but what did I find in the kit but... single-ply coupling rods! Then there's the footplate, made of an underlayer with fold-down valances and a top layer, but none of the holes and slots in the two layers line up! 

 

It's another model I finished, primed ... and then immediately took to pieces again! Too many "issues" adding up to an unsatisfactory model. I've since cut out a new footplate and valances and am working up from there. I've only really got new tanks to do but it's got shunted down the queue a bit. It's the kit on which I learnt never again to rely on slots and tabs; instead, all my tank engines and tender bodies get a 15 thou baseplate (Judith-Edge-style) bolted to the footplate, with all tank sides and cab sides soldered to the edge of that. That way, you're sure to avoid wavy tank sides and to get a consistent distance between footplate edge and tanks/cabs.    

 

Happy to let you (or anyone else) see photos of models in private but I have a rule about not posting photos of completed models on RMWeb. 

 

I would be interested to know what the issues were. i bought a J65 kit off the second hand stall at S4um that has been started. It has double thickness coupling rods and the footplate doesn't appear to have tabs other than the front lamp irons.

[Daddyman]

9 hours ago, Paul Cram said:

I would be interested to know what the issues were. i bought a J65 kit off the second hand stall at S4um that has been started. It has double thickness coupling rods and the footplate doesn't appear to have tabs other than the front lamp irons.

I have no experience of the J65, Paul - I was referring to the D51.

 

Will L is building a J65 from that kit on the S4 forum, and will no doubt mention if there are any issues. See his "Buckjumping on mass" (sic.) thread. 

 

 

[Chas Levin]

23 hours ago, Pebbles said:

Before starting the J65 get the GER Society/ John Gardner drawings. 

Hello, thanks again for the suggestion, drawings have been bought, along with a few others that looked interesting. Have you built a J65 yourself?

[Chas Levin]

1 hour ago, Daddyman said:

Will L is building a J65 from that kit on the S4 forum, and will no doubt mention if there are any issues. See his "Buckjumping on mass" (sic.) thread.

Highly recommended: I found that thread (and the others linked to it) hugely informative - and copiously illustrated - on almost every aspect of kit building, loco suspension, chassis fettling, detailing etc - there's also a separate 'Index' thread because the main one has so much info it's difficult to know where to find specific topics...

[Pebbles]

1 hour ago, Chas Levin said:

Hello, thanks again for the suggestion, drawings have been bought, along with a few others that looked interesting. Have you built a J65 yourself?

The answer is not yet, as I have currently other commitments. Many years ago I sought to solve the problem of the two versions of the J65. This met with little success as I was told that drawings of the first batch - the E22- hadn't been found. When I questioned Iain Rice on where he obtained a J65 drawing, he told me that it was a Skinley.  This didn't re-assure me, that said the Skinley drawing isn't totally bad, its prime error being excessive height above the tank - you can check this out. I did try advising individuals building the LRM kit of this, and to obtain the John Gardner drawing before commencing any build. I'm not sure that any advice was taken up.

There was for a period another J65 kit in 4mm from Connoisseur Models this being nearer to the later B32 batch.

Turning to LRM, John has been a great asset to the hobby but, as the origins of some of his kits stretch back many years, from a number of designers, his range should not be judge on the experiences with one kit.  

[Paul Cram]

11 hours ago, Daddyman said:

I have no experience of the J65, Paul - I was referring to the D51.

 

Will L is building a J65 from that kit on the S4 forum, and will no doubt mention if there are any issues. See his "Buckjumping on mass" (sic.) thread. 

 

 

Ok I misunderstood.

[Chas Levin]

Having busied myself with other things for a couple of days, to allow my brain's Background Processing to come up with some other ways of locating the fixing holes... and having come up with nothing whatsoever, I decided to press ahead and do it by eye, ovalising holes as needed!

Some experimenting established the optimum length of hooked end for the 0.4 mm fixing wires - a curved section of about three quarters of a millimeter. Drilling of the holes into the tube was preceded by filing a very shallow flat - using the thin edge of a rectangular file - to give an area to start the drill. A little fiddly, especially the 0.8mm but not too bad and a fresh drill helps:

 

Too long a hook and you can't wiggle it into the hole and along the tube a little, sufficient for the main length to return to the perpendicular; too short and there isn't enough to hook it in. It so happens that the 0.9 mm tubing I'm using has thicker walls than the 0.8, which therefore has a fractionally larger inner diameter, so while the larger tubing is easier to drill, the smaller is more accommodating of the wire hook: swings and roundabouts. But, it can be done:

 

And with a little solder (188, so that 145 can be used on the other end behind the valance) we have a pretty strong fixing, easily strong enough with the other three for this job:

 

Here are the two lengths; the wires are purposely left long at this stage to aid locating and handling:

 

Initial installation tests showed that even though the copper strip forming the strapping is only 4 thou thick, because the fixing wires can pull the full run of the piping right back against the valance, it was being held those 4 thou away from the valance surface by the pieces of strapping and the bare piping could be seen bending ever so slightly inwards towards the valance in between: not something I had expected!

 

Easily solved by filing the strapping flat to the tube surface on the back, end elbows likewise:

 

With the piping positioned in place, the fixing wires are then bent back (not so heavily as to weaken the in-tube joints) against the back of the valance, prior to soldering them in place with 145:

 

And here's the final result:

 

Still some cleaning up to do - and I'll try and straighten the rear vertical end piece while joining it to its next section - but overall I'm very pleased with this so far. I'd been very unsure of my ability to fix this piping sturdily enough to withstand future handling by going in from the front, not to mention the mess I might make of its appearance. It's supposed to look as it those pieces of strapping do actually hold it in place, so blobs of solder underneath or around them would ruin the effect.

 

I am now totally converted to this method of using pins into the back of things (thank you again David for the suggestion) and only wish I'd found out about it before .

Edited May 15, 2022 by Chas Levin

[Jol Wilkinson]

23 hours ago, Pebbles said:

The answer is not yet, as I have currently other commitments. Many years ago I sought to solve the problem of the two versions of the J65. This met with little success as I was told that drawings of the first batch - the E22- hadn't been found. When I questioned Iain Rice on where he obtained a J65 drawing, he told me that it was a Skinley.  This didn't re-assure me, that said the Skinley drawing isn't totally bad, its prime error being excessive height above the tank - you can check this out. I did try advising individuals building the LRM kit of this, and to obtain the John Gardner drawing before commencing any build. I'm not sure that any advice was taken up.

There was for a period another J65 kit in 4mm from Connoisseur Models this being nearer to the later B32 batch.

Turning to LRM, John has been a great asset to the hobby but, as the origins of some of his kits stretch back many years, from a number of designers, his range should not be judge on the experiences with one kit.  

 

Getting accurate information for designing kits isn't always straightforward.  I have designed eight loco kits in 4mm for LRM, for which GA's were used whenever possible as the start point. GA's didn't exist for three of them. One was a rebuild from a compound to a simple with a different boiler, new cab, etc. so drawings of the individual items existed, but no GA. The other two were of much earlier locomotives but fortunately contacts through the relative line Society (of which I am a member) including the author of the definitive, detailed book on the type, provided sufficient information. At no time did I use any "model drawings" as I wasn't confident in their accuracy.

 

Despite doing a lot of research, it is still possible to trip up. One loco, designed as a 2-4-0 and later converted to 4-4-0 had a small splasher above the leading carrying wheel. This was shown on the GA side elevation only as a small "box" but not on the front elevation of in any photos or books I had. It wasn't clear whet the "box" was or where it fitted in or on the loco. On the first day of the show  that the kit appeared for sale a customer asked if I had included the small splasher and produced a photo in which it was just visible. Not a box but a very low curved splasher. Too small to produce as an etched item, a pattern for a cast brass piece was quickly produced.

[Pebbles]

2 hours ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

 

Getting accurate information for designing kits isn't always straightforward.  I have designed eight loco kits in 4mm for LRM, for which GA's were used whenever possible as the start point. GA's didn't exist for three of them. One was a rebuild from a compound to a simple with a different boiler, new cab, etc. so drawings of the individual items existed, but no GA. The other two were of much earlier locomotives but fortunately contacts through the relative line Society (of which I am a member) including the author of the definitive, detailed book on the type, provided sufficient information. At no time did I use any "model drawings" as I wasn't confident in their accuracy.

 

Despite doing a lot of research, it is still possible to trip up. One loco, designed as a 2-4-0 and later converted to 4-4-0 had a small splasher above the leading carrying wheel. This was shown on the GA side elevation only as a small "box" but not on the front elevation of in any photos or books I had. It wasn't clear whet the "box" was or where it fitted in or on the loco. On the first day of the show  that the kit appeared for sale a customer asked if I had included the small splasher and produced a photo in which it was just visible. Not a box but a very low curved splasher. Too small to produce as an etched item, a pattern for a cast brass piece was quickly produced.

Jol,

 

I detest raising issues that are not germane to this thread but, could you confirm that you had works drawings of the Dia 49A boiler for the B16.

[Jol Wilkinson]

3 hours ago, Pebbles said:

Jol,

 

I detest raising issues that are not germane to this thread but, could you confirm that you had works drawings of the Dia 49A boiler for the B16.

 

I was referring to loco kits whereas that was an addition to a Steve Barnfield designed kit. I did have a scan of a GA from the February 1923 issue of Engineering, but it wasn't too helpful. That isn't uncommon with GAs which are sometimes difficult to "read" and don't always have all the detail needed for a model design. I have found I have to get together a collection of books, photos, etc. to compliment GAs and component drawings. 

 

The majority of the information for the Dia. 49A boiler was supplied by Mike Megginson, who also test built the etches.  In this case I was able to rely on Mike, with his knowledge of NER locomotives. 

 

 

Edited March 18, 2021 by Jol Wilkinson
Additional text

[Chas Levin]

On 18/03/2021 at 17:40, Jol Wilkinson said:

 

I was referring to loco kits whereas that was an addition to a Steve Barnfield designed kit. I did have a scan of a GA from the February 1923 issue of Engineering, but it wasn't too helpful. That isn't uncommon with GAs which are sometimes difficult to "read" and don't always have all the detail needed for a model design. I have found I have to get together a collection of books, photos, etc. to compliment GAs and component drawings. 

 

The majority of the information for the Dia. 49A boiler was supplied by Mike Megginson, who also test built the etches.  In this case I was able to rely on Mike, with his knowledge of NER locomotives.

I'm still trying to resist the urge to buy the LRM B16...😅

I saw Mike's test build on his thread; fine looking loco; didn't help my resistance very much...

Edited May 15, 2022 by Chas Levin

[Chas Levin]

Main SH piping run done on the LH side:

 

I'm not sure why but doing this plumbing stuff is particularly satisfying. It does seem to enhance the look of the loco quite considerably and even though it involves quite a bit of work, it's very enjoyable .

Edited May 15, 2022 by Chas Levin

[Chas Levin]

19 hours ago, Pebbles said:

Jol,

 

I detest raising issues that are not germane to this thread but, could you confirm that you had works drawings of the Dia 49A boiler for the B16.

Actually, I don't see anything wrong in raising issues not directly germane to the main thread - this thread should be a place to discuss anything to do with railway modelling (or other sorts of modelling or mdoel engineering, come to that) so please feel free to range far and wide in your tangential discussions, as it's all interesting and useful knowledge .

 

In this case for instance, I find the processes behind designing etched kits fascinating, as I'm full of admiration for the way 2D 'plans' are designed in such a way that they can be made into 3D objects. The planning of individual parts to be cut out and used is one thing, but the visualising and successful incorporation into the etch of flat sections to be folded up into 3D objects is a clever thing to me.

 

Discussions about the commercial side of kit production and manufacture are interesting too, for the light they shed on this hobby and on human nature generally - why do people buy what they do, what aspects do they most value and so forth...

[Chas Levin]

On 12/03/2021 at 07:04, Daddyman said:

David, I meant to ask about the vac pipe visible in this photo, as it looks quite different to what I would think of as the 'standard' type, where there's a much taller rigid rod up to the height of about the middle of the smokebox door, with the flexible hose curving downwards from that to just below the level of the top of the footplate: is this an earlier type, or is it a type peculiar to the NBR - or perhaps both?

[mikemeg]

17 hours ago, Chas Levin said:

I'm still trying to resist the urge to buy the LRM B16...

I saw Mike's test build on his thread; fine looking loco; didn't help my resistance very much...

 

Chas,

 

I actually test built two B16/1's. The first was using the kit as originally supplied by Steven Barnfield with the original NER designed boiler, later designated Diagram 49 by the LNER. The second build utilised the additions to the kit, made by Jol for LRM, which included :-

 

Provision for the later LNER designed boiler Diagram 49a

Plain unbeaded splashers as carried by the last fifteen locos to be built.

A modified footplate with better clearances, especially for P4 gauge.

 

I'm now completing a build (was a test build) of Arthur Kimber's North Eastern Kits B15, which was the NER's forerunner to the B16; North Eastern Classes S2 (B15) and S3 (B16).

 

But then I find it hard - nay impossible - to resist building any of the NER's locos!! I still have the Class S (B13) and Class S1 (B14) to build, not to mention the Raven Pacific and a host of others!!

 

Cheers

 

Mike

 

Edited March 19, 2021 by mikemeg

[Daddyman]

36 minutes ago, Chas Levin said:

David, I meant to ask about the vac pipe visible in this photo, as it looks quite different to what I would think of as the 'standard' type, where there's a much taller rigid rod up to the height of about the middle of the smokebox door, with the flexible hose curving downwards from that to just below the level of the top of the footplate: is this an earlier type, or is it a type peculiar to the NBR - or perhaps both?

Hi Chas, 

It's not a vacuum pipe, but a Westinghouse. I was originally modelling 10458 just for the name it used to carry - "Roxburgh" - though that was long gone by the 1930s. However, I may change it to one of the Lauder locos, most of which seem to have had VB. 

 

But you've drawn my attention to the clumsiness of the casting, and on locos built since I've tended to make my own W/house hoses from - you guessed it - bits of tube! The photo hasn't really bought out the handle on the cock/collar at the top, but it's there, honest. Somewhere I have a series of step-by-step photos that I did for the Express and never used, but I can't find them! If I do, I'll post (if you're interested). 

[Chas Levin]

6 hours ago, Daddyman said:

Hi Chas, 

It's not a vacuum pipe, but a Westinghouse. I was originally modelling 10458 just for the name it used to carry - "Roxburgh" - though that was long gone by the 1930s. However, I may change it to one of the Lauder locos, most of which seem to have had VB. 

 

But you've drawn my attention to the clumsiness of the casting, and on locos built since I've tended to make my own W/house hoses from - you guessed it - bits of tube! The photo hasn't really bought out the handle on the cock/collar at the top, but it's there, honest. Somewhere I have a series of step-by-step photos that I did for the Express and never used, but I can't find them! If I do, I'll post (if you're interested). 

Ah, I see: thank you for explaining, that fills in a gap in my knowledge. I'm sorry though if I've caused you to become unhappy with that casting, though if you replace it with an improved homemade version I'm sure that will please you very much!

I'd observed the different type of pipe in various photos (and models) but I hadn't realised it was a different type of braking system, I just assumed it was a different iteration of a normal vac pipe. I have a few in my spares box that I shall now separate out .

That's a very good photo for comparing the two types, thanks for posting it and yes, I'd be very interested to see step-by-step photos please, should you find them.

[Chas Levin]

7 hours ago, mikemeg said:

 

Chas,

 

I actually test built two B16/1's. The first was using the kit as originally supplied by Steven Barnfield with the original NER designed boiler, later designated Diagram 49 by the LNER. The second build utilised the additions to the kit, made by Jol for LRM, which included :-

 

Provision for the later LNER designed boiler Diagram 49a

Plain unbeaded splashers as carried by the last fifteen locos to be built.

A modified footplate with better clearances, especially for P4 gauge.

 

I'm now completing a build (was a test build) of Arthur Kimber's North Eastern Kits B15, which was the NER's forerunner to the B16; North Eastern Classes S2 (B15) and S3 (B16).

 

But then I find it hard - nay impossible - to resist building any of the NER's locos!! I still have the Class S (B13) and Class S1 (B14) to build, not to mention the Raven Pacific and a host of others!!

 

Cheers

 

Mike

 

Hello Mike, yes, I thought I remembered more than one B16 on your thread and I just looked them up again. You're right there too in what you say about photographing from a lower angle: I must experiement with that myself.

 

It's a fine looking loco and I suspect a very enjoyable kit to build. I'm really GNR when it comes to pre-grouping, but I also like a bit of variety so various others do creep in. The problem is justifying adding another 'to-build' kit to a pile that will already, in its present state, keep me busy for some few years... Mind you, as I get better, I'll build faster: I now build a wagon in a fraction of the time it used to take me, so as that process gradually happens with locos too, perhaps the stash won't last as long as I imagine...

 

I have one of Arthur Kimber's A6 kits to build: big, powerful tank engines always appeal to me. He was a very nice chap to deal with, very friendly and helpful, which always makes the buying and building of any kit more enjoyable . I'll catch up on your latest B15 postings too...

[Pebbles]

On 18/03/2021 at 17:40, Jol Wilkinson said:

 

I was referring to loco kits whereas that was an addition to a Steve Barnfield designed kit. I did have a scan of a GA from the February 1923 issue of Engineering, but it wasn't too helpful. That isn't uncommon with GAs which are sometimes difficult to "read" and don't always have all the detail needed for a model design. I have found I have to get together a collection of books, photos, etc. to compliment GAs and component drawings. 

 

The majority of the information for the Dia. 49A boiler was supplied by Mike Megginson, who also test built the etches.  In this case I was able to rely on Mike, with his knowledge of NER locomotives. 

 

 

Thank you for that Jol; Isinglass No 421.

[Chas Levin]

The front ends of the piping runs are now connected to the SH and vac standpipes and the GNR-style tall lamp-irons is on; working on the loco now is like trying to handle a small brass cactus:

 

By some odd effect of geometry that I haven't quite worked out yet, when viewed from any angle other than dead front and eye-level, the front part of the vac connection looks level and perfectly in line with the lower edge of the buffer beam - as I hope these photos show. When viewed however at eye-level and from straight in front, it's evident that there is a very slight incline in the pipe, running upwards towards the standpipe, with the valance end of the short front horizontal run about 1/4 mm lower.

It's something to do I think with the lateral twist in the run and its relationship to the straight buffer beam: the valance-end elbow of this short front piece sits behind the buffer beam and the standpipe-end elbow sits in front of it (viewing the loco in overhead plan form), causing the horizontal section itself to run at an angle relative to the vertical plane of the buffer beam. When you view it as seen in the photos above therefore (which represent something like a normal viewing angle for a 4mm model) you're actually looking at the interaction of the buffer beam's lower edge, the crossing of that vertical plane by the pipe run and the pipe run's vertical alignment.

I'm inclined (no pun intended) to leave it as it is, partly because it looks so right from all the viewpoints from which I'll usually see it and partly because I suspect that if I drop the standpipe end of the horizontal piece by even a fraction, while it may then look dead level from the front, it will no longer look properly aligned from other angles; I think there will then appear to be too large a gap between the buffer beam and the standpipe-end of the horizontal run. It took quite a lot of careful soldering and fettling to get it to this point, so I'm not meddling unless I have to; I might experiment though - with a piece of scrap tubing and some plastic card to represent the piping and the buffer beam - to see if I can predict what would happen if I move things.... I've spent quite a lot of time lately studying prototype photos of this piping, but those that show the piping at the front are almost all taken from the same classic 3/4 front angle which doesn't quite elucidate the question. One thing that is evident though is that these piping runs were frequently quite uneven so I'm not too worried at this point.

 

Having now got started in modelling them, as I look at these features, I find myself marvelling that I've looked at so many locos - and photos of them - over the years and simply 'filtered out' the smaller and less glamorous pipes, tubes, bolts and levers. It must be a very common effect - we see the big wheels, the moving motion, the smoke, the escaping steam and the smiling driver waving and we skim over the less exciting and less pretty parts. It's not just locos of course: I wonder how many of us could describe the shape of the caging on the observation deck of the Empire State Building for instance, or whether the Mk III Spitfire had 3 or 4 propeller blades (trick question: they might be seen with either!). To paraphrase Conan Dyle, we see, but we do not necessarily observe .

Once seen however, they leap out! I realise of course that as I've been thinking about and working on this piping for a couple of weeks - and on similar features for a while before that - they're bound to seem disproportionately prominent to me, just as I now notice these things in prototype photos too, often before other much more significant features. I think it's an interesting aspect of how our minds work, the way we train ourselves to notice things...

Edited May 15, 2022 by Chas Levin

[manna]

G'day Folks

 

So you have an A6 to build (one day) I've often thought one of those loco's should have been allocated to Kings Cross, for use on the ECS trains out to Bounds Green & Hornsey. That may have been interesting.

 

manna

 

[Chas Levin]

Well, after a good night's sleep and in the cold grey light of an early Sunday morning, there was no escaping the simple fact that if something on the front of a loco looks crooked when it's viewed from a straight, eye-level perspective, there is only one correct conclusion to be drawn: it is crooked!

I took some time to arrange a supporting jig that restricted the downwards movement of the higher (standpipe) end of the horizontal piece, so that by exerting gentle downwards force on that end with ceramic tweezers whilst carefully softening the joint, the horizontal piece would move downwards - thereby leveling up the run - but only by the right amount. I was determined to avoid that situation where you try to move something and move it too far, so you try to move it back, move it too far again and before you know it, solder and swearwords are flying round the room!

Here's the result, and it was definitely the right thing to do:

 

I was right that it now means the gap between the standpipe end of this horizontal run and the lower edge of the buffer beam looks larger when viewed from normal overhead or overhead-plus-sideways angles, but that must have been the case on the prototype and I knew i couldn't live with it looking wrong from the front, even though I very rarely get down to eye level on my layout.

Measured with calipers, there is now only 0.05 mm difference in the distance from the top of the footplate front corner to the underside of the associated pipe elbow on each side. Which pleases me .

I also had to do some remedial work underneath the footplate, where my method of mounting the SH pipe had left part of its casting protruding back from the rear of the buffer beam to the extent that it just fouled the bogie's front wheels on tight curves - the sort of thing that might only happen occasionally but wouldn't necessarily be obvious to track down once everything had been painted and (supposedly) finished!

Edited May 15, 2022 by Chas Levin

[Chas Levin]

9 hours ago, manna said:

G'day Folks

 

So you have an A6 to build (one day) I've often thought one of those loco's should have been allocated to Kings Cross, for use on the ECS trains out to Bounds Green & Hornsey. That may have been interesting.

 

manna

 

G'day Sir! I hope this Sunday is treating you well, over there in sunnier climes

 

They're fine looking locos, aren't they?

 

May I ask, what is it about them that makes you particularly recommend them for Kings Cross outward bound ECS duties?

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Chas Levin said:

May I ask, what is it about them that makes you particularly recommend them for Kings Cross outward bound ECS duties?

 

Presumably they'd done the inward bound ECS so were on hand...