NORTHEASTERN KITS

[ArthurK]

7 hours ago, 30368 said:

Arthur,

 

Sorry to interupt the flow!

Do you have etches for a G5 0-4-4T? Sorry if you have been asked this too many times already. I plan to build one for a MR Club. I am aware of the London Road Models version but thought I'd ask you too.

 

Kind regards,

 

Richard

 

No doubt the G5 would go down well but there is one available from LRM,

 

The G5 (what else) was the very  first loco that I scratch-built. With an generic X04 motor filling most of cab it was incredibly  difficult to achieve a balance. I ended up pouring molten lead into the boiler with a damp cloth around it to prevent bits that I had soldered coming adrift!

Then, George Norton  brought out his etched version which I couldn't resist. That kit is the one in the LRM range. This is mine, There is a lot of scratch-build in the finer detail.

 

As is now well known I am bringing out a kit for for the F8 in the New Year. It is worth mentioning 

that, apart from the height of the tank sides, the super-structure of the G5  is identical with that of the F8, to the extent that they shared boilers.

 

ArthurK

Edited December 8, 2020 by ArthurK

[RichardT]

 

2 hours ago, micklner said:

Look on page 11 halfway down. Arthur also sells castings from the kits ,very good service

Thank you!  I was obviously so distracted by the pictures of that beautiful Tennant 2-4-0 that I scrolled right over it...

 

Best,

Richard

[MarkC]

18 hours ago, ArthurK said:

 

No doubt the G5 would go down well but there is one available from LRM,

 

The G5 (what else) was the very  first loco that I scratch-built. With an generic X04 motor filling most of cab it was incredibly  difficult to achieve a balance. I ended up pouring molten lead into the boiler with a damp cloth around it to prevent bits that I had soldered coming adrift!

Then, George Norton  brought out his etched version which I couldn't resist. That kit is the one in the LRM range. This is mine, There is a lot of scratch-build in the finer detail.

 

As is now well known I am bringing out a kit for for the F8 in the New Year. It is worth mentioning 

that, apart from the height of the tank sides, the super-structure of the G5  is identical with that of the F8, to the extent that they shared boilers.

 

ArthurK

Lovely G5, Arthur - pity I can't justify an LRM kit, as I have 1x Alexander & 2x Nucast models already... (The Alexander one is streets ahead of the Nucast version, by the way - but that was to be expected, given the vintage of the Nucast models).

 

Really looking forward to the F8 now

 

Best wishes

Mark

 

[Riverside]

I'm not sure if Arthur will thank me for this (as I know he has his hands full with loco kits) but I thought I'd post some pics of the NER bow ended gangway coaches I am completing from some test builds Arthur kindly made available for me. I am attempting to model the Newcastle - Liverpool express in North Eastern days and had some Bill Bedford kits purchased 30 years ago. The body shells on these kits were formed as a single section with the roof and I found it hard to get them into shape. Fortunately I had some even older Trevor Charlton etched zinc sides which came to the rescue for three of the vehicles I required. Arthur was able by sheer good luck to be able to provide the first class accommodation I needed - Dia. 154 2 compt. brake first and Dia. 152 corridor first shown here.

 

Arthur had intended to produce a whole range of these elegant carriages and may well do so. I certainly hope so as they build into very attractive vehicles. I now have all the carriages built (apart from an open third) using underframes from Bill Bedford which are excellent, a combination of Trevor Charlton parts and Arthur's test builds for the bodies and roofs formed from LNER sections and ends obtained from MJT. The painting, lining and finishing of these coaches is taking quite some time and finding information on details like the roof fittings has been tricky. Several members of the NERA have been very helpful in that respect.

 

All I need next is one of Arthur's long-promised V class Atlantics to pull the train. 

[ArthurK]

3 hours ago, Riverside said:

I'm not sure if Arthur will thank me for this (as I know he has his hands full with loco kits) but I thought I'd post some pics of the NER bow ended gangway coaches I am completing from some test builds Arthur kindly made available for me. I am attempting to model the Newcastle - Liverpool express in North Eastern days and had some Bill Bedford kits purchased 30 years ago. The body shells on these kits were formed as a single section with the roof and I found it hard to get them into shape. Fortunately I had some even older Trevor Charlton etched zinc sides which came to the rescue for three of the vehicles I required. Arthur was able by sheer good luck to be able to provide the first class accommodation I needed - Dia. 154 2 compt. brake first and Dia. 152 corridor first shown here.

 

Arthur had intended to produce a whole range of these elegant carriages and may well do so. I certainly hope so as they build into very attractive vehicles. I now have all the carriages built (apart from an open third) using underframes from Bill Bedford which are excellent, a combination of Trevor Charlton parts and Arthur's test builds for the bodies and roofs formed from LNER sections and ends obtained from MJT. The painting, lining and finishing of these coaches is taking quite some time and finding information on details like the roof fittings has been tricky. Several members of the NERA have been very helpful in that respect.

 

All I need next is one of Arthur's long-promised V class Atlantics to pull the train. 

 

I am very please to see these two as they were intended. Better than having them rotting away in a box,

I must admit that I regret not finishing the range that I had intended.

 

I have concentrated on the loco kits. With a bit of luck you may even get the V class to pull them this year.

 

Thanks for showing them.

 

ArthurK

[mikemeg]

Earlier in the thread, Arthur posted a photo of the part completed D20 test build. I hope he doesn't mind if I post another photo of that same build, much nearer completion. I never did build the 3940 gallon tender for this loco during the test build, though I have now. So, before this model is primed and then painted, here's a last photo of it in the 'naked' brass state.

 

This one is intended to become 62378, which was based at Selby in mid 1950.

 

Cheers

 

Mike

 

Edited February 9, 2021 by mikemeg

[mikemeg]

Then there was the version which had Raven mainframes. These had a visibly different upper profile from the mainframes as built. This one was built from a 'production' version of the kit and has now acquired its proper tender. The model will represent 62396 - allocated to Hull Botanic Gardens in mid 1950 - which became the last survivor of this class and the only one to carry the later BR totem on its tender. This loco also retained its North Eastern buffers and smokebox door until the very end.

 

Cheers

 

Mike

 

Edited February 9, 2021 by mikemeg

[mikemeg]

I'm not sure whether this forum and thread are the right place to post this request but, given that this thread is read by some very knowledgeable NER devotees, then here goes. During the lives of the D20's, the LNER rebuilt the tenders of ten of them. This rebuild utilised the original tender frames, axleboxes, etc. but placed a completely new tank and coal space on the original underframes. From photographs, these new tender tanks closely resembled the LNER group standard 3500 gallon tender but there do seem to have been differences.

 

Does anyone have any drawings or information on these rebuilt tenders or, perhaps, know where such information may be found? 

 

The photo, below, shows a D20 with one of these tenders and also shows that these were tender rebuilds rather than new tenders.

 

Edited February 10, 2021 by mikemeg

[Daddyman]

36 minutes ago, mikemeg said:

I'm not sure whether this forum and thread are the right place to post this request but, given that this thread is read by some very knowledgeable NER devotees, then here goes. During the lives of the D20's, the LNER rebuilt the tenders of ten of them. This rebuild utilised the original tender frames, axleboxes, etc. but placed a completely new tank and coal space on the original underframes. From photographs, these new tender tanks closely resembled the LNER group standard 3500 gallon tender but there do seem to have been differences.

 

Does anyone have any drawings or information on these rebuilt tenders or, perhaps, know where such information may be found? 

 

The photo, below, shows a D20 with one of these tenders and also shows that these were tender rebuilds rather than new tenders.

 

Given that they were rebuilt at the same time as the D49s, Mike, clues might be had from the latter - though of course the leading edge of the side plating was altered on the D49 rebuilds to match the loco cab profile. Isinglass do a drawing of the rebuilt GC tender. The usual warning with any Isinglass drawing of "do not scale" applies: the curves depicted by the drawing itself are nothing like the ones on the real thing, but Isinglass do at least supply the radii for the curves as a corrective. There's a top and front view on the drawing too, and the front is essentially the same as a low-front GS type. I have placed a Dave Bradwell etch over the drawing but the curves are so badly rendered on the drawing it's hard to see if there's any relationship. The rebuilt GC tender is longer than the 3500, as is the Bradwell tender I have behind my D20. 

 

To be honest, I'm not sure if it's worth getting the drawing: you could just take the radii of the cutouts from a Bachmann tender, and assume that those cutouts occur in one of the usual GS places. 

[mikemeg]

Dave,

 

Many thanks for that posting. I have a few photos of these D20's with the rebuilt tender and it appears that the rebuilt tender top is slightly shorter than the original NER top i.e. there is more projecting tender footplate to be seen at the rear. This could suggest that these tender tops were not designed specifically for this rebuild but were adapted from a more generic design i.e. the GS 3500 gallon tender. Who knows?

 

I do have an Isinglass drawing for the J39/1 which was the variant with the LNER Group Standard 3500 tender so I can check the overall dimensions of this tender against the NER original.

 

Once again, Dave, many thanks for the reply.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

[Daddyman]

25 minutes ago, mikemeg said:

Dave,

 

Many thanks for that posting. I have a few photos of these D20's with the rebuilt tender and it appears that the rebuilt tender top is slightly shorter than the original NER top i.e. there is more projecting tender footplate to be seen at the rear. This could suggest that these tender tops were not designed specifically for this rebuild but were adapted from a more generic design i.e. the GS 3500 gallon tender. Who knows?

 

I do have an Isinglass drawing for the J39/1 which was the variant with the LNER Group Standard 3500 tender so I can check the overall dimensions of this tender against the NER original.

 

Once again, Dave, many thanks for the reply.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

Mike I'm not sure that there'd be much wiggle room that would allow the NER body to be longer, as the vacuum pipe seems to go behind the buffer beam and is therefore hard up against the body in both cases (rebuilt and unrebuilt). Interesting that they left the Westinghouse stand pipe (obsolete since 1928-ish) on when they rebuilt the tenders, even though it had no connecting hose attached. 

 

Having looked at the rebuilt tenders more closely, the radii of the cutouts are much greater than on a GS tender. Isinglass seems to list all four radii as 1' 3", with the total length of the curved part of the cutout (i.e. from start to finish of the s-curve) measuring 2 foot 3-and-a-half inches both front and rear.  

  

David. 

[Retro_man]

On 09/02/2021 at 07:41, mikemeg said:

Earlier in the thread, Arthur posted a photo of the part completed D20 test build. I hope he doesn't mind if I post another photo of that same build, much nearer completion. I never did build the 3940 gallon tender for this loco during the test build, though I have now. So, before this model is primed and then painted, here's a last photo of it in the 'naked' brass state.

 

This one is intended to become 62378, which was based at Selby in mid 1950.

 

Cheers

 

Mike

 

 

Hello Mike,

 

What motor/gearbox did you use in the D20s please?

 

Thanks in advance,

Steve

Canada

[mikemeg]

21 hours ago, Retro_man said:

 

Hello Mike,

 

What motor/gearbox did you use in the D20s please?

 

Thanks in advance,

Steve

Canada

 

Steve,

 

The motors used in both D20's were Mashima 1420's. The gearboxes were High Level Loadhaulers 60 : 1 ratio. This drive train was used before Mashima announced their withdrawal from building small motors and before High Level revised the ratios of their gearboxes. Drive on both models is to the leading set of driving wheels with the motor facing backwards

 

The Loadhauler, which is a multi stage gearbox lifted the motor sufficiently to sit horizontally and far enough forward to clear the backhead yet still remain within  the confines of the boiler cutout, as supplied. The 1420 effectively sits midway between both sets of driving wheels.

 

The photo, below, was taken before the rear motor shaft was cropped off using the Dremel. Without this cropping of this shaft, then the backhead positioning would be compromised.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Cheers

 

Mike

 

 

 

Edited February 11, 2021 by mikemeg

[mikemeg]

22 hours ago, Daddyman said:

Mike I'm not sure that there'd be much wiggle room that would allow the NER body to be longer, as the vacuum pipe seems to go behind the buffer beam and is therefore hard up against the body in both cases (rebuilt and unrebuilt). Interesting that they left the Westinghouse stand pipe (obsolete since 1928-ish) on when they rebuilt the tenders, even though it had no connecting hose attached. 

 

Having looked at the rebuilt tenders more closely, the radii of the cutouts are much greater than on a GS tender. Isinglass seems to list all four radii as 1' 3", with the total length of the curved part of the cutout (i.e. from start to finish of the s-curve) measuring 2 foot 3-and-a-half inches both front and rear.  

  

David. 

 

David,

 

The final paragraph of the posting above. Does this mean that there is an Isinglass drawing of this specific tender rebuild for the D20 or does the final paragraph relate to the 3500 gallon GS tender?

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

[Pebbles]

22 hours ago, Daddyman said:

Mike I'm not sure that there'd be much wiggle room that would allow the NER body to be longer, as the vacuum pipe seems to go behind the buffer beam and is therefore hard up against the body in both cases (rebuilt and unrebuilt). Interesting that they left the Westinghouse stand pipe (obsolete since 1928-ish) on when they rebuilt the tenders, even though it had no connecting hose attached. 

 

Having looked at the rebuilt tenders more closely, the radii of the cutouts are much greater than on a GS tender. Isinglass seems to list all four radii as 1' 3", with the total length of the curved part of the cutout (i.e. from start to finish of the s-curve) measuring 2 foot 3-and-a-half inches both front and rear.  

  

David. 

I'm of the view that they are 4125gal self trimming tender tanks with a revised coping .

[mikemeg]

1 hour ago, Pebbles said:

I'm of the view that they are 4125gal self trimming tender tanks with a revised coping .

 

The 4125 gallon tender tank was slightly longer than the 3940 gallon version, so 4125 gallon tanks on 3940 gallon underframes wouldn't have worked. Was the 4125 gallon self trimming tender produced with the half moon frame cut outs prior to using the later oval cut outs; I don't know, though I've never seen a photo of a 4125 gallon self trimming tender with the earlier half moon frame cut outs?

 

Certainly, the rebuilt tenders on the D20's all had the half moon cut outs, as opposed to the later oval cut outs.

 

Cheers

 

Mike

 

Edited February 11, 2021 by mikemeg

[mikemeg]

So, as a last posting on this D20 tender rebuild query, here's a photo of models of an NER 3940 gallon tender against a model of an LNER 3500 gallon group standard tender, just to see how things line up (or not). The LNER tender is one of a batch of three which I scratch built in plasticard, about ten years ago.

 

Cheers

 

Mike

 

[Pebbles]

Well what are we to believe? all non self trimming 4125gal tenders on C6 Atlantics had half moon cut outs, same with D21 tenders  and if I recall so did the tenders on the original C7s. Then we have revised framing under late J27s, it would appear to be just a change of style, or possibly shape that better resisted fatigue fractures. If I recall the 3940 and 4125 tenders were the same length the increase in capacity came from the 6 inch or so increase in height. There possibly was a slight increase in weight between the two varieties of 4125 tender but it could not have been relatively much. 

[Daddyman]

1 hour ago, Pebbles said:

I'm of the view that they are 4125gal self trimming tender tanks with a revised coping .

I'm for complete new builds from the footplate up myself; I'd say they squeezed one or other GS design onto the footplate available. The side plates on the rebuilt GC tenders were 20' 6" - 82mm in 4mm; my D20 tender footplate is 87mm, as is my GC tender footplate - suggesting that when BR came to rebuild the NER tenders, they had a ready-made design from the GC tender rebuilding that they could transfer across.   

Edited February 11, 2021 by Daddyman

[mikemeg]

Thanks for that. I remember talking to a kit producer, a few years ago, about the variations to be found in NER tenders, as he was trying to establish some 'definitives' for his kits. The conclusions of discussion that echoed the first sentence of the posting above - 'what are we to believe'. Like many engineering practices of the pre-grouping railways, it seems to have been confusing!!

 

Cheers

 

Mike

 

Edited February 11, 2021 by mikemeg

[Pebbles]

Maybe there is no problem, but the GC tender had larger diameter wheels that presumably would intrude into the tank area and that any rebuilds on GC tender frames would have had to take this into account. I have been down this path before. In view of the fact that all NER Atlantics were withdrawn shortly after nationalisation there could/would possibly have been a number of serviceable components available including complete tender tanks. I believe it is worth remembering that the late forties and early fifties were periods of austerity and generally nothing was wasted! In the specific case of D20s would it be envisaged that they would see many additional years of service sufficient to warrant significant sums of money being spent on them.

[Daddyman]

9 minutes ago, Pebbles said:

Maybe there is no problem, but the GC tender had larger diameter wheels that presumably would intrude into the tank area and that any rebuilds on GC tender frames would have had to take this into account. I have been down this path before. In view of the fact that all NER Atlantics were withdrawn shortly after nationalisation there could/would possibly have been a number of serviceable components available including complete tender tanks. I believe it is worth remembering that the late forties and early fifties were periods of austerity and generally nothing was wasted! In the specific case of D20s would it be envisaged that they would see many additional years of service sufficient to warrant significant sums of money being spent on them.

Highly unlikely, I'd say. It's not just that every source calls them "rebodied tenders" (Yeadon says "a new body put on to the existing frame and wheels") rather than "fitted with new coping plates". A further argument against Atlantic tenders is that the rear end on the rebuilt tenders bears no resemblance to an NER tender, with all fittings of the GS style and in GS positions - why would they change all the steps, lamp irons and handrails if they were using a second-hand tender? Finally, I'd question whether the coping plates would need replacing on a tender body but not the tank - surely it's the tank that's more likely to wear out first? To me the only thing that makes sense is a complete new body to a hybrid GS design. 

[mikemeg]

I hope Arthur will not mind if I add a further posting  on his thread regarding these ten rebuilt/modified tenders attached to D20's. My thanks must be expressed to David Addyman and to 'Pebbles' for their contributions and, for at least one of those two contributors, it seems they could, quite rightly, say 'told you so!!'

 

So two questions were asked :-

 

a) Were these tenders rebuilds on the original tender underframes, as originally built for these D20's?

 

b) What was the extent of the rebuild/modifications to these tenders?

 

These tender rebuilds/modifications seem to have been done some time in the 1940's. One of the contributors to this believes that the rebuilds were the entire tank, from the footplate upwards, based around a tank pattern already used on some ex Great Central tender rebuilds and using the original tender underframes. Another contributor believes that these were re-used North Eastern 4125 gallon tenders, as attached to ex NE Atlantics, merely with modifications applied to their tender coping plates.

 

So some things to consider :

 

1) Many of the ex North Eastern Atlantics had a 'stay of execution' due to World War II, such that they survived beyond 1945. Hull Dairycoates shed had as many as sixteen ex-NE Atlantics from 1943, which were drafted in to replace more modern freight locos, which were then released to more 'main line' LNER sheds. These locos were used principally on freights, made possible by the very flat nature of the lines in East Yorkshire. Some of these locos actually survived into Nationalisation, based at Dairycoates, Gateshead - one only - or Scarborough. They would have been equipped with 4125 gallon tenders.

 

2) The ex North Eastern 4125 gallon tenders were some six inches wider than the 3940 gallon tenders, over the tender tank, and the tender tank was higher than the 3940 gallon tender tanks as originally fitted to the D20's. The 3940 gallon tender tank was exactly the same width as the cab of the D20, so the 4125 gallon tender must have been six inches wider than the cab of the D20's - QED.

 

3) From the photos of the D20's with these 'rebuilt' tenders, one of which is reproduced below, it appears that a plate was added to the front of the tender tank to support the tender cab side handrail, inboard of the tender tank side.

 

So it looks as though D20 tender rebuilds were actually 4125 gallon tenders with modified front handrail fixings. So what about the differently shaped coping plates? It's reasonable to assume that the tender tops, measured over the coal rails, were also six inches wider on the 4125 gallon tenders, so possibly impeding the view of the loco crew rearwards, on the narrower cabs of the D20's, when the loco was travelling in reverse. 

 

Anyway, the conclusion to all of this - I believe - seems to be that these were 'rescued' 4125 gallon tenders, from withdrawn LNER C6 or C7 Atlantics, with the original flared coping plates and coal rails replaced by a 'flush' design based on standard LNER practice with an additional plate to support the cab opening handrails on the tender fronts.

 

Phew!!

 

Cheers

 

Mike

 

[Daddyman]

I most strongly disagree, Mike, for three reasons: 

1. Every source (including Yeadon, who knew a thing or two about a thing or two) describes them as "a new body". 

2. All the details at the rear are GS pattern not NE. 

3. Why replace the coping plates only on these supposedly repurposed s/h tanks? What NER tender in history ever needed its coal rails replacing? OK, perhaps they did, but long after the tank needed replacing: it's highly unlikely that a tender would have its tank in good enough condition to repurpose, and yet need new coping plates to replace worn out coal rails. 

 

I don't think we're ready for "I told you so" yet as no new evidence has been presented. In fact, the evidence keeps adding up for these being rebodies to the rebuilt GC pattern: another argument in favour of that thesis is that those tenders (the GC rebuilds) are exactly the same width as the Atlantic tenders - 7'10" - so would need the same handrail-on-a-plate arrangement at the front.  

 

 

Edited February 25, 2021 by Daddyman

[mikemeg]

Hi Dave,

 

If Arthur's tender models are correctly proportioned, then the footplate of the 4125 gallon tender was actually 6 inches wider than that of the 3940 gallon tender. The relative widths would seem to be c 31.3 mm (3940 gallon) - 7' 10" v c 33.3 mm (4125 gallon) - 8' 4". Drag beams and buffer beams were similarly of different widths to match the footplates.

 

So locating a 7' 10" wide tank on a 7' 10" wide footplate of an original 3940 gallon tender would leave no footplate protruding beyond the tank sides. Arthur might know the actual footplate widths of the two different tender types?

 

Perhaps both propositions are partially correct, in that the tender underframes and footplate used were  the 4125 gallon, as they were 6" wider, thus allowing the wider 7' 10" tank to be accommodated?

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

Edited February 25, 2021 by mikemeg