Jump to content

East Barnet Joint Stock - a workbench...


Recommended Posts

Ok, we're in business: my first elbow joint, in 0.9mm tube:

 

645447613_LRMC1220210302(2).jpg.beafa01661cfbad6a6a14f0a85bfce16.jpg

 

As you said David, difficult to get decent focus!

I've left the wires deliberately long at this stage as it was easier to hold and clean up that way. The difficult part is setting the second piece of wire in and straight, because it can't go right through the elbow like the first one does.

 

Actually, having said that, can it? Have you tried, after soldering the first piece of wire through the elbow, drilling right through the elbow again the other way, including through the first piece of wire inside the tube (where it will have been flooded with solder anyway), so that the second piece can also poke right through and be easier to solder?

 

Also (sorry, lots of questions!), did you bother using 188 degree solder on the first joints in case things melted a little when doing later parts (especially when securing the whole assembly to the loco body) or was that not a problem?

 

I'm assuming by the way that your technique involves constructing the entire pipe run - including vac standpipes at both ends - and then fixing that to the body, which is what your pictures suggest. I thought that would probably work best as it would allow the making and dressing of each joint, but I did think about fixing at least the two vac (or steam) standpipes in place first, then making the rest of the pipe run to fit between them: any mileage in that? I was considering that partly in case the heat necessary to fix the standpipes in place might dislodge the joint nearest to the standpipe (hence also my thoughts about 188 solder): has that been an issue for you?

 

On the strapping front, Phil at Hobby Holidays was very helpful and said it was only out of stock because he hadn't yet cut some more pieces, which he very kindly did, so some is on the way :).

  • Like 2
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Chas Levin said:

Ok, we're in business: my first elbow joint, in 0.9mm tube:

 

645447613_LRMC1220210302(2).jpg.beafa01661cfbad6a6a14f0a85bfce16.jpg

 

As you said David, difficult to get decent focus!

I've left the wires deliberately long at this stage as it was easier to hold and clean up that way. The difficult part is setting the second piece of wire in and straight, because it can't go right through the elbow like the first one does.

 

Actually, having said that, can it? Have you tried, after soldering the first piece of wire through the elbow, drilling right through the elbow again the other way, including through the first piece of wire inside the tube (where it will have been flooded with solder anyway), so that the second piece can also poke right through and be easier to solder?

 

Also (sorry, lots of questions!), did you bother using 188 degree solder on the first joints in case things melted a little when doing later parts (especially when securing the whole assembly to the loco body) or was that not a problem?

 

I'm assuming by the way that your technique involves constructing the entire pipe run - including vac standpipes at both ends - and then fixing that to the body, which is what your pictures suggest. I thought that would probably work best as it would allow the making and dressing of each joint, but I did think about fixing at least the two vac (or steam) standpipes in place first, then making the rest of the pipe run to fit between them: any mileage in that? I was considering that partly in case the heat necessary to fix the standpipes in place might dislodge the joint nearest to the standpipe (hence also my thoughts about 188 solder): has that been an issue for you?

 

On the strapping front, Phil at Hobby Holidays was very helpful and said it was only out of stock because he hadn't yet cut some more pieces, which he very kindly did, so some is on the way :).

Well done, Chas. Looks fine to me. 

 

These all seem like good ideas - drilling through the first wire for the second one, and using 188. To be honest, I hadn't really thought about fixing it to the loco as it will be the last thing to go on. But the fixing points on the kit (actually the 5-thou brackets - there are slots in the valance for them) are far enough away from the soldered bits of the pipe so that that doesn't happen, or I could use the RSU. Alternatively, just make sure you go in "quick and hot" with a shiny bit and lots of flux, and maybe clamp parts already soldered. Incidentally, I started at the standpipe, as lost wax castings generate a lot of heat. 

 

Re separate standpipes, I don't know why I do them all as one unit. Maybe to give the vac standpipe some strength. However, I don't do the steam heat pipe that way - I do them separate as you suggest as the union between pipe and connection hose is less visible. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Daddyman said:

Well done, Chas. Looks fine to me. 

 

These all seem like good ideas - drilling through the first wire for the second one, and using 188. To be honest, I hadn't really thought about fixing it to the loco as it will be the last thing to go on. But the fixing points on the kit (actually the 5-thou brackets - there are slots in the valance for them) are far enough away from the soldered bits of the pipe so that that doesn't happen, or I could use the RSU. Alternatively, just make sure you go in "quick and hot" with a shiny bit and lots of flux, and maybe clamp parts already soldered. Incidentally, I started at the standpipe, as lost wax castings generate a lot of heat. 

 

Re separate standpipes, I don't know why I do them all as one unit. Maybe to give the vac standpipe some strength. However, I don't do the steam heat pipe that way - I do them separate as you suggest as the union between pipe and connection hose is less visible. 

I can confirm that it's fine drilling through the first soldered wire and on through the second side of the elbow and it makes fixing the second wire much easier.

Here's today's crop:

 

426555851_LRMC1220210303(1).jpg.45570f55b21d36613b0e3dd188efbb32.jpg

 

I used 188 on two, which will be the ones attached to the standpipes, but for the rest I stayed with 145 because your point is a very good one David that the fixing points for the whole assembly should be far enough away from the elbows to avoid problems. I did one extra elbow while I was set up, in case of accidents of carpet losses: no use searching for one of these with a magnet, which trick has located many a ferrous escapee before now!

And yes: soldering bits are always shiny, flux is always plentiful, temperatures always high and contact as brief as possbile:good:.

 

I've used 0.4 mm wire because the id of the 0.8  tubing is 0.4; it means a little careful seating in these elbows but things will inevitably move during assembly of the whole run and need adjustment anyway.

 

I've also come to the conclusion that the 0.6 mm tube looks too thin; I now plan to do the steam pipes in 0.7 with elbows in 0.8, so there will still be a difference between the two sides, albeit very small, but I think that reflects the prototype photos.

 

Yes, I take your point about the steam standpipes' join being below stairs and therefore easily done separately, but I'm still inclining towards mounting the vac pipes individually first too, because of the need for them to be absolutely accurately placed. I'm thinkign that once they're exactly where they need to be, the piping run can be tweaked to meet them...

 

It's very enjoyable fabricating something a little more ambitious to add to a kit; I'll have to watch it, or I'll start thinking about full-on scratchbuilding... :nowink:

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Chas Levin said:

It's very enjoyable fabricating something a little more ambitious to add to a kit; I'll have to watch it, or I'll start thinking about full-on scratchbuilding... :nowink:

Nowt wrong with that, Chas! 

 

Your elbows look very neat. 

 

Good to have confirmation of 0.4, thanks - I forgot what I used. Also good to know that drilling with the first wire in place presents no problems - you're right that it will make the wire less likely to move during soldering. 

 

Sorry, I also forget to tell you I tried 0.6 for the S/H pipe on the C16 and it looked wrong, so I went for 0.7. But there are no visible elbows on the pipe as it is mostly hidden behind the RH valance, and just comes in and out of view below it, so I have done it as a piece of wire. However, the C12 definitely needs elbows and fixing points, doesn't it? It's a very different (and visible) arrangement. 

 

My standpipe is drilled in its rear for a pin of 0.4 (or so) wire, which accurately places it on the b.beam (in which I've drilled a 0.4 hole). That might make it easier for you to join things up accurately, but it's a long job getting the horizontal piece from the last elbow to the standpipe elbow right - just a question of cutting approximately to length, checking, filing a tiny bit, checking, filing, checking, etc.    

  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Daddyman said:

Your elbows look very neat.

Thank you: your system for making them is excellent and once I'd got the hang, I got it down to about 20 minutes.

8 hours ago, Daddyman said:

Sorry, I also forget to tell you I tried 0.6 for the S/H pipe on the C16 and it looked wrong, so I went for 0.7. But there are no visible elbows on the pipe as it is mostly hidden behind the RH valance, and just comes in and out of view below it, so I have done it as a piece of wire. However, the C12 definitely needs elbows and fixing points, doesn't it? It's a very different (and visible) arrangement.

Yes, the C12 has prominent elbows (there's a 'Yes Minister' line or two about having policitcal elbows that keeps hovering just out of recall, on the edge of my memory...).

Can I just check something though: you say the S/H pipe is under the RH valance on the C16, but it's on the LH side on the C12 (I'm assuming we're both using the same convention of sides being determined as if we were standing in the cab, facing forwards?). Were they on different sides between the C12 and C16?

8 hours ago, Daddyman said:

My standpipe is drilled in its rear for a pin of 0.4 (or so) wire, which accurately places it on the b.beam (in which I've drilled a 0.4 hole). That might make it easier for you to join things up accurately, but it's a long job getting the horizontal piece from the last elbow to the standpipe elbow right - just a question of cutting approximately to length, checking, filing a tiny bit, checking, filing, checking, etc.    

Yes, that's a good idea, thank you - the locating pin in the rear of the standpipe, I think I'll do that. It also needs it's own piece of strapping making up as there's none on the vertical stretch, so the pin can be hidden behind that.

Yep, I can see that the joins each end will be careful jobs. I may skip the elbow on the rear standpipe, because the standpipe I'm using (a nice crisp one that came with the kit and has strapping at the right height) has a curve at it's base that takes it under the drag beam (where the join isn't visible from normal viewing angles in the way that it is at the front) so it could in theory be joined straight to the 0.8mm piece, or perhaps the two might be joined by a short, stright piece of 0.9 - have to see how it looks.

This was the state of play this morning, getting the length of the piece for the main long run:

 

 

LRM C12 20210304 (1).jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Chas Levin said:

Can I just check something though: you say the S/H pipe is under the RH valance on the C16, but it's on the LH side on the C12 (I'm assuming we're both using the same convention of sides being determined as if we were standing in the cab, facing forwards?). Were they on different sides between the C12 and C16?

Looking good. 

 

I'd guess the pipes are on different sides because C12s (judging by the fact that the blower valve is on the RHS) were RH drive, whereas C16s were LH drive. Not sure if that was always true for C12s as GN engines seemed to go either way, if N2s are anything to go by. 

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/02/2021 at 14:41, Chas Levin said:

A couple of questions, if I may: if a 90 degree filed nick for elbow bending is better that 60 degrees, can that be done using a square file instead of a triangular, or does that give an incorrect profile to the cut in some way?

Definitely much better with a square file, Chas! - tried it this morning. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Daddyman said:

Definitely much better with a square file, Chas! - tried it this morning. 

Excellent: I'm glad I suggested something you found useful, having been the recipient of so much useful help from you! :)

 

Here, the piping continues its slow and careful course:

 

290415303_LRMC1220210305(1).jpg.f231fc782c25632525f344fd74b222da.jpg

 

Not fixed yet, partly because I want to assemble all the parts before fixing anything, partly because the Hobby Holidays' 4 thou strip is on the way. It certainly encourages slow and careful working, dealing with things on such a small scale: the difference beween filing the right amount and filing too much is too tiny to allow going at it with any speed, not to mention the recurrent challenge of holding, manipulating and working on such small workpieces.

 

I'm also dealing with the front lamp-irons at the same time, as it occurred to me that fiddling with them after the front vac standpipe's in place might lead to disaster. I've drilled 0.4 through the standpipe (not fun!) to fit a locating pin through the buffer beam and it occurred to me to do something similar with the lamp irons, partly to aid location during fixing (I find fixing that type of small item accurately to a much larger flat surface quite trying), partly to guard against possible movement when fixing other things nearby and partly to aid future robustness: photos in due course...

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Chas Levin said:

Excellent: I'm glad I suggested something you found useful, having been the recipient of so much useful help from you! :)

Thanks for the tip! 

 

2 hours ago, Chas Levin said:

Not fixed yet, partly because I want to assemble all the parts before fixing anything

Yes, I'd fix it as late as possible, Chas - as you say you have the lamp irons to get on first. 

 

3 hours ago, Chas Levin said:

I've drilled 0.4 through the standpipe (not fun!) to fit a locating pin through the buffer beam and it occurred to me to do something similar with the lamp irons

Pinning things is always a good idea, yes. To drill tubes or rods (as on the standpipes), it always helps to nick the back first with a triangular (or square!) file - the nick will be filled with solder later. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Daddyman said:

Pinning things is always a good idea, yes. To drill tubes or rods (as on the standpipes), it always helps to nick the back first with a triangular (or square!) file - the nick will be filled with solder later. 

I filed a small flat to help the drill start, but also using a fresh sharp drill makes a difference. I have a tendency to try to keep using things to make the most of them, but doing that with small, cheap drills is not a good idea so I'm prioritising getting the job done and if that means using a up a drill or two more...

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, a quick detour from piping to do the front lamp irons (as mentioned above because I didn't fancy doing them with the vac standpipe in place), using 0.4 mm pins - my new Secret Weapon :D. First, the holes are drilled:

 

1607062828_LRMC1220210306(2).jpg.f444422e05d0bc488121ae4d4c79b212.jpg

 

I got the front four almost perfectly aligned: three are 3.25mm from the front edge of the footplate, one is 3.15 - I can live with that ^_^.

Then, 0.4 mm wire up from underneath and nipped off at slightly longer than the thickness of the lamp irons' etch material (with a generous amount soldered flat under the footplate to anchor them and prevent them dropping out while soldering the irons in place:

 

1908157350_LRMC1220210306(3).jpg.e2d14ada14199564fc865bee47486763.jpg

 

And finally, lamp irons in place and most of the cleaning up done:

 

1097268538_LRMC1220210306(4).jpg.afa159d5858edbbf2a64988e940f4ba2.jpg

 

The fifth pin, visible behind the leftmost iron, is for the extra long GNR-type lamp iron, which will go on as one of the very last things as it'll be particularly vulnerable. If it were something hanging down below the footplate I'd strengthen it with some wire, but that would look totally wrong here so it'll just have to be treated with great care, once it's on. These shorter once seem fairly rigid though, and reasonably out of the way of general handling. Hopefully...

 

In order to prevent the rear lamp irons getting bent back against the rear wall of the bunker (which happened a couple of times), I gave them a coat of thin cyano, which helps strengthen them, and I put in place this temporary brace - it's not fixed, it just sits behind them and tucks inside the cab-side handrails:

 

1119421511_LRMC1220210305(2).jpg.2b95a1467b1fd620abcd70af3a1771bb.jpg

 

WIth hindsight I'd have fitted them later, but for some reason I can't now remember I got the bit between my teeth and they went on a little while ago :rolleyes:.

  • Like 1
  • Craftsmanship/clever 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 04/03/2021 at 17:45, Daddyman said:

I'd guess the pipes are on different sides because C12s (judging by the fact that the blower valve is on the RHS) were RH drive, whereas C16s were LH drive. Not sure if that was always true for C12s as GN engines seemed to go either way, if N2s are anything to go by. 

That's very interesting - I hadn't thought about some locos being LH and some RH drive and how that would affect things. It's got me wondering though: the C12 was an Ivatt GNR and I see the C15 and C16 were Reid NBR designs - did those two men favour opposite sides to drive, or is the difference down to GNR and NBR practices? And if N2s were LH, was that a Gresley preference? And if so, was the Ivatt N1 (on which the N2 was based) originally RH drive?

Something for future reading, I think...:read:

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Chas Levin said:

That's very interesting - I hadn't thought about some locos being LH and some RH drive and how that would affect things. It's got me wondering though: the C12 was an Ivatt GNR and I see the C15 and C16 were Reid NBR designs - did those two men favour opposite sides to drive, or is the difference down to GNR and NBR practices? And if N2s were LH, was that a Gresley preference? And if so, was the Ivatt N1 (on which the N2 was based) originally RH drive?

Something for future reading, I think...:read:

 

My understanding is that RH drive was the earlier practice, with LH drive being adopted in the 20th century as larger boilers made sighting signals from the RH side more difficult. For example, Midland engines were RH drive but the LMS standards based on them were built LH drive - although the first batches of LMS standard 4F were RH drive. RH drive gives a right-handed fireman a more natural shovelling position, or so I have read.

Edited by Compound2632
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

My understanding is that RH drive was the earlier practice, with LH drive being adopted in the 20th century as larger boilers made sighting signals from the RH side more difficult. For example, Midland engines were RH drive but the LMS standards based on them were built LH drive - although the first batches of LMS standard 4F were RH drive. RH drive gives a right-handed fireman a more natural shovelling position, or so I have read.

Very interesting, thank you Stephen, makes a lot of sense. Is it also the case that signals in general decreased in size over a similar period? I have the impression that earlier signals were taller, with more repeating posts, but were gradually scaled down and subsumed into the landscape somewhat...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the world of piping (sounds like a discount plumbing store :biggrinclear:) and the front vac standpipe. First, the components:

 

898438721_LRMC1220210307(1).jpg.041803fa05f44b8998f1039b3b3e6ac9.jpg

 

The small rectangular piece of NS 0.5 mm etch is to bulk out the difference between the vertical plane of the buffer beam and the footplate's front overhang, so the pipe can sit against the edge of the footplate and on this piece and be vertical.

The L-shaped piece of 0.4 mm wire will provide the pin to hold that piece of etch and the pipe in place. The longer piece of 5 thou etch with the kink in it will be the strapping over the pipe. It's 1 mm wide and comes from the very handy Mainly Trains etch which contains various widths from 1 up to several mm, that I ordered the other day before I knew I'd be getting the Hobby Holidays 4 thou 0.62 mm one - very handy to have in the spares box.

This business of pinning things before soldering makes thing so much easier: a bit more prep required, but during soldering, you're only having to worry about the piece moving through one plane (swivelling about the pin) instead of it losing position altogether. Here, the pin's in place (with a decent pength firmly soldered to the rear face of the buffer beam) and the NS piece is about to be fixed - in this case, I was able to put a tiny wood shim (cut from a coffee stirrer) between the piece and the underside of the footplate which even eliminated the swivelling:

 

1277392645_LRMC1220210307(2).jpg.6f904bf06e255b4c87505834d4604f72.jpg

 

Next is the actual pipe; I found stability wasn't as good as I'd hoped (there was a tendency for the lower part, below the NS piece, to move) so I've added a 'pipe-joint' made from a piece of scrap etch):

 

112904531_LRMC1220210307(3).jpg.aa5fe6a47b43c32eab95290879c34620.jpg

 

Next, the piece of strapping over the pipe, that on the prototype actually holds the pipe in place but here is essentially cosmetic. I left the piece long to aid handling; it's held at the right distance from the buffer beam surface by a piece of card and some pieces of Kapton tape (another very useful item):

 

1660600817_LRMC1220210307(4).jpg.d790ad8ce70c0a5b2e85d17a699d76af.jpg

 

And finally, after some of the cleaning up's been done, the finished item, with the first elbow of the connected piping popped in place just to check clearance:

 

2045655955_LRMC1220210307(8).jpg.9e2c629602fb20ad026383a70f5505d2.jpg

  • Craftsmanship/clever 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice work, Chas. Rather than there being a spacer, I wonder if the front of the footplate was nicked to allow the pipe to sit closer to the b.beam? I can't tell one way or another on the Transports of Delight pictures though. 

 

By the way, here's the arrangement of steam and vac. pipes around the rear b.beam of the preserved N2. The photos go in order anticlockwise from the rear LH to the rear RH corner: 

 

 

P1350531.JPG

P1350532.JPG

P1350533.JPG

P1350534.JPG

P1350535.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Daddyman said:

Nice work, Chas. Rather than there being a spacer, I wonder if the front of the footplate was nicked to allow the pipe to sit closer to the b.beam? I can't tell one way or another on the Transports of Delight pictures though.

Thanks!

I did thnk about nicking the footplate, but I've never seen that done on any loco (though to be fair I don't routinely look out for it) and it looks / feels wrong to me. Looking at just a few this morning, none had anything interfering with the line of the footplate's front edge as far (as I could see, given the limitations of the photographs) and several definitely didn't, plus no RTR locos seem to have that, so on the whole, I decided not.

Many locos of this sort of era were I believe built before these pipes - and the new-fangled 'vacuum brakes' were in use and they were added later (let alone such unnecessary modern luxuries as heating!), plus they might have been moved, re-located, renewed etc, which I'd suggest also mitigates against any inroads into the footplate edge, as they'd have needed to fill in old ones and makes new ones from time to time. It's also one of those things that looks very prominent when viewed in larger than life photos and while being discussed on here, but on the finished model I don't think it'll look too bad.

Looking at photos of C2s and C12s of various ages from c.1898 to well after WWII there seem to have been various changes in the pipework (have you noticed for instance those slightly later BR-era ones where the elbow under the right-hand front corner of the body has some sort of larger diameter extension straight downards, rather than just being a right-angled elbow - a sort of drainage or connection point, perhaps?) so I think I can get away with an extra joint or support here and there...

 

5 hours ago, Daddyman said:

By the way, here's the arrangement of steam and vac. pipes around the rear b.beam of the preserved N2. The photos go in order anticlockwise from the rear LH to the rear RH corner:

Thank you very much for these photos! You must be telepathic... before I stopped work on it this morning, at which point I'd got to here...

 

1239955954_LRMC1220210308(1).jpg.6bb407b2be9a48ca9e66d48da1c3a857.jpg

 

...I had a look at the rear end and realised that it'll be a little more complicated and that I didn't know what happens on this - or any other - prototype to these piping runs once they meet under the drag beam, so those photos are very well timed:).

 

The pipes will have to cross over, as the vac pipe run is on the same - right-hand - side of the buffer beam as the valance down which it runs but on the drag beam it's on the left-hand side, with the same reversal for the SH pipe. Not too much of a problem though, as the crossover will be almost entirely out of sight for normal viewing.

 

More of a problem is the fact that the rear lifeguards and frame ends are part of the chassis and must be able to lift away from the underside of the body, so I can't feed any pipes through holes in them, as is done on that N2. Ironically the corresponding front frame ends and lifeguards are soldered to the front end of the underside of the footplate, so I could have breached them with piping, but at the front it's routed in front of them :rolleyes:. If only it had been the other way round.

 

Unless... instead of holes, they were slots, extended up to meet the foot plate underside...?:scratchhead:

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Chas Levin said:

I did thnk about nicking the footplate, but I've never seen that done on any loco (though to be fair I don't routinely look out for it) and it looks / feels wrong to me.

I agree that none of the C12s seem to have it. I think it's quite common, though - RTR don't do it because they have thick plastic collars on their pipes which space them off the footplate edge. Here it is on the D40 (I suspect the standpipe was moved back during the 1950s restoration): 

20170930_143002.jpg.8a7092cc1eb231cb9bcd5367082daa89.jpg

 

3 hours ago, Chas Levin said:

have you noticed for instance those slightly later BR-era ones where the elbow under the right-hand front corner of the body has some sort of larger diameter extension straight downards

Yes, lots of D20s and other NER passenger locos have a D-shaped dangly thing on the S/H pipe just before the bend to the b.beam. Some sort of anti-something thingummybob, I suspect... 

 

3 hours ago, Chas Levin said:

Thank you very much for these photos! You must be telepathic... before I stopped work on it this morning, at which point I'd got to here...

Yes, and I telepathesise that you're going to need a tip for the smokebox door dart soon... 

 

3 hours ago, Chas Levin said:

Unless... instead of holes, they were slots, extended up to meet the foot plate underside...?:scratchhead:

 Yes! I was going to suggest slots going backwards but upwards is even better. But also have a look at Will's Buckjumper thread on the S4 site as he recently had a similar problem.   

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Daddyman said:

I agree that none of the C12s seem to have it. I think it's quite common, though - RTR don't do it because they have thick plastic collars on their pipes which space them off the footplate edge. Here it is on the D40 (I suspect the standpipe was moved back during the 1950s restoration): 

20170930_143002.jpg.8a7092cc1eb231cb9bcd5367082daa89.jpg

Well, I stand (sit) corrected on that one Sir! :) I bet this will be like yellow cars: you think there are almost none around but once you start looking, they appear everywhere... I'll be keeping an eye out.

2 hours ago, Daddyman said:

Yes, lots of D20s and other NER passenger locos have a D-shaped dangly thing on the S/H pipe just before the bend to the b.beam. Some sort of anti-something thingummybob, I suspect...

Yes, I thought that's probably what it was :nowink:

2 hours ago, Daddyman said:

Yes, and I telepathesise that you're going to need a tip for the smokebox door dart soon...

Well actually, the cast brass one that came with the kit doesn't look too bad without having given it a really close look, but I also have some three-piece ones from Markits - one of which I used on the DJH J9 - which look quite good. Did you have something better in mind though?

2 hours ago, Daddyman said:

Yes! I was going to suggest slots going backwards but upwards is even better. But also have a look at Will's Buckjumper thread on the S4 site as he recently had a similar problem.   

Ah, thank you, I'll have a look at that thread (which I'd already bookmarked for future reading, as I have one of those ex-Riceworks LRM buckjumpers in my pile) because the upwards slot idea may not be as practical as I thought, due to the chassis construction at that point and also the clearance requirements for the rear coupling.

I also need to change things a little at the back of the chassis, so a bit of planning of work order is due I think... :read:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive my lack of knowledge but why are both the steam and vacuum pipes on the rear left hand side of the N2?

 

Jon

 

PS Chas - I think that the smokebox dart involves more brass tube:)

Edited by Jon4470
Typo
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Chas Levin said:

Did you have something better in mind though?

I certainly do! 

 

38 minutes ago, Jon4470 said:

PS Chas - I think that the smokebox dart involves more brass tube:)

It certainly does! 

 

39 minutes ago, Jon4470 said:

Forgive my lack of knowledge but why are both the steam and vacuum pipes on the rear left hand side of the N2?

 

I was wondering the same thing! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Jon4470 said:

Forgive my lack of knowledge but why are both the steam and vacuum pipes on the rear left hand side of the N2?

I think we all lack knowledge on this one, but I think the other pipe visible there must be something else because the N2 seems to have the same arrangements as the C12 - vac pipe along the RH valance, SH along the left. There are lots of clear, modern colour photos of the preserved 1744 showing it.

There is some other pipework under the LH side of the cab (which I'm not going to include on this model) so perhaps the other piping is part of that...

 

1 hour ago, Jon4470 said:

PS Chas - I think that the smokebox dart involves more brass tube:)

 

Not a problem: I now have a variety of tubing in stock and am getting reasonably proficient at handling and working with it. You may well be right...

 

27 minutes ago, Daddyman said:

It certainly does!

 

You are right! ;)

 

I think David has something else in mind though...

 

28 minutes ago, Daddyman said:

I certainly do!

 

He does :D

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Daddyman said:

 

 

I was wondering the same thing! 

 

I’m glad it’s not a daft question!

 

Anyway I couldn’t resist a bit of research....so out came the RCTS green book. The section on details states that the brake cylinders (2)  are  under the cab floor. I wonder if one of the pipes connect to them?

 

Other than that there was a great photo of an N1 in Bradford... the vacuum pipe running under the front beam was angled down at about 30 degrees from the outside corner to the standpipe. Looks like the standpipe had dropped down by 9” or so.......prototype for everything!

 

Jon

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Over the weekend, I did a spot of RTR TLC on a star performer from my youth, which has sat in a cabinet to my certain knowledge for over 30 years:

 

1900710904_Tri-AngRocket20210308(1).jpg.436902936bd3c3e668deac834de8ecfa.jpg

 

A quick strip down of the initially unresponsive model revealed a commutator absolutely black and encrusted, but after a good clean (which can be done by moving one brush out of the way) the chassis runs very well, quite smoothly from slow to far too fast, with a good smooth start:

 

781794404_Tri-AngRocket20210308(2).jpg.3797ef80217fa5e83e720125f3c0b2d6.jpg

 

And with everything back on, and the brushes settled in again, I still think it makes a very nice retro Tri-Ang item:):

 

1945283051_Tri-AngRocket20210308(3).jpg.235ac272a043c883e344faf25f3f3816.jpg

 

But 'where's the detail' I hear you cry - 'where's the piping?!'

Well, I do plan to update it - and the three coaches - with some additional detail in due course, so some piping might make an appearance... ;)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Jon4470 said:

 

I’m glad it’s not a daft question!

 

Anyway I couldn’t resist a bit of research....so out came the RCTS green book. The section on details states that the brake cylinders (2)  are  under the cab floor. I wonder if one of the pipes connect to them?

 

Not a daft question at all and your research is very interesting, thank you Jon - the brake cylinders are under the cab floor on the C2/12 too, so I'd guess some of that other piping must be to do with braking.

 

26 minutes ago, Jon4470 said:

Other than that there was a great photo of an N1 in Bradford... the vacuum pipe running under the front beam was angled down at about 30 degrees from the outside corner to the standpipe. Looks like the standpipe had dropped down by 9” or so.......prototype for everything!

 

Jon

Yes, there's a considerable variety of pipe angles on the C2/12s too. Some are very close indeed - and parallel to - the lower edge of the buffer beam, pretty much touching; others are several inches lower and some - as on the N1 you mention - are at noticeable angles. The same is true of the rear connections too, though they seem to be more consistently lower than the drag beam.

I'm giving robustness a reasonably high priority and the front pipe is going to run very close to and parallel with the buffer beam - I figure it'll be less vulnerable that way.

 

I'm also planning some sort of pinning of the whole of each piping run under the valances... :scratchhead:

Edited by Chas Levin
  • Like 1
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
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.