Bath Queen Square

[Compound2632]

2 minutes ago, Rowsley17D said:

Hard to believe those are only 2mm scale models, 

 

O for a kit for an M in 4 mm scale!

[chrisveitch]

On 05/12/2021 at 13:49, queensquare said:

 

Since finishing the Kirtley Ive build another loco based on a David Eveleigh etch - the M class 0-6-0. Again its based on a picture of the prototype at Bath. Like the Kirtley, the etch is not without its issues but overall it went together pretty well and Im pleased with the finished model. She was mostly built at my little bench in the front room, mainly because its a pleasant environment and more sociable than sitting down my shed all evening!

 

 

It looks like an ideal setup which I'm much like to emulate. However I'm still trying to work out a convincing account of how I've ensured that the carpet would be protected from soldering iron burns. 

Edited December 7, 2021 by chrisveitch

[Donw]

1 hour ago, chrisveitch said:

It looks like an ideal setup which I'm much like to emulate. However I'm still trying to work out a convincing account of how I've ensured that the carpet would be protected from soldering iron burns. 

 

If you use a resistance soldering unit the the is only hot when you apply power. I found it was also useful when I had to watch out for a parrot climbing down my arm. Foot off the button and he power was off.

 

Don

[bgman]

1 hour ago, Donw said:

I found it was also useful when I had to watch out for a parrot climbing down my arm. Foot off the button and he power was off.

 

Blimey Don ! 

 

I didn't know you did modelling demo's at Coombe Martin Zoo ! 

[St Enodoc]

13 hours ago, Donw said:

 

If you use a resistance soldering unit the the is only hot when you apply power. I found it was also useful when I had to watch out for a parrot climbing down my arm. Foot off the button and he power was off.

 

Don

I'd have left it on - just once. The parrot wouldn't have done it again...

 

(No parrots were harmed during the writing of the above comment)

[GER_Jon]

The M class is a neat loco also used on M&GN which I might want, so what are the issues with the build? Are there differences between SDJR/ MR / M&GN?

Jon

[Compound2632]

12 minutes ago, GER_Jon said:

The M class is a neat loco also used on M&GN which I might want, so what are the issues with the build? Are there differences between SDJR/ MR / M&GN?

 

They all started off identical. One could argue that the five Derby built S&DJR engines were the prototypes, built in 1896, of the whole M series, all the rest of which were built by the trade.

[bill-lobb]

On 10/12/2021 at 19:06, GER_Jon said:

The M class is a neat loco also used on M&GN which I might want, so what are the issues with the build? Are there differences between SDJR/ MR / M&GN?

Jon

 

As the possessor of one of these sitting in my gloat box I'd be interested to know too before I start on it. Are they similar to the Kirtley kit?

[queensquare]

Hi Bill, Jon,

 

yes the issues with the M are in many ways similar to the Kirtley. The majority are fairly minor errors which are easily worked around - parts that don't quite fit, cab roof too big, builders plate on wrong splasher etc. The major fault is that the fold up, self jigging chassis don't work and are too wide. On the M this is both loco and tender - thankfully on the Kirtley it was just the tender, the loco went together very well although you do have to remove about .5mm from the top of the frames in order to get them to sit at the correct height - Ive written a full account for MRJ (Pt 1 was in 285, Pt2 will be in a couple of issues time). This should really have been picked up at the test build stage but is not too difficult to get around. I simply separated the frames and assembled them using the Association chassis jig and 1.5mm axle steel, not a problem for an experienced builder but possibly so for a newcomer. Ive attached a picture of the Kirtley frames being assembled,

 

HTH, Jerry

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 2, 2022 by queensquare

[Compound2632]

On 10/12/2021 at 19:24, Compound2632 said:

They all started off identical. One could argue that the five Derby built S&DJR engines were the prototypes, built in 1896, of the whole M series, all the rest of which were built by the trade.

 

But see the expert discussion here:

 

 

[queensquare]

 

SDJR 0-4-4T No. 54 passes the colliery on a frosty December day with a train load of Christmas revellers heading for the bright gaslights of Bath. Kimberley is busy sorting out some troublesome trucks in the colliery yard - in my experience she'll soon have them whipped into shape!

 

As we have done for the last few years, in lieu of sending cards we have donated to the wonderful Forever Friends charity at the RUH in Bath who do great work and were brilliant when our youngest Grandson Archie arrived a little earlier than expected a couple of years ago - see the link below

 

https://www.ruh.nhs.uk/get_involved/forever_friends/index.asp

 

Merry Christmas one and all

 

Jerry

 

ps. I'd like to take credit for the clever photoshopery to produce the electronic card but nobody would believe me! Other  than making the models, it's all the work of that clever Andy York chap.

Edited April 2, 2022 by queensquare

[Doncaster Green]

Merry Christmas to you and Kim, Jerry and, hopefully, by the time Larkrail comes around meeting and chatting will be back on the menu.

 

Regards

John

[Caley Jim]

And a very Merry Christmas (or at least as merry as it can be) to you and Kim too.

 

Jim

[bill-lobb]

22 hours ago, queensquare said:

Hi Bill, Jon,

 

yes the issues with the M are in many ways similar to the Kirtley. The majority are fairly minor errors which are easily worked around - parts that don't quite fit, cab roof too big, builders plate on wrong splasher etc. The major fault is that the fold up, self jigging chassis don't work and are too wide. On the M this is both loco and tender - thankfully on the Kirtley it was just the tender, the loco went together very well although you do have to remove about .5mm from the top of the frames in order to get them to sit at the correct height - Ive written a full account for MRJ (Pt 1 was in 285, Pt2 will be in a couple of issues time). This should really have been picked up at the test build stage but is not too difficult to get around. I simply separated the frames and assembled them using the Association chassis jig and 1.5mm axle steel, not a problem for an experienced builder but possibly so for a newcomer. Ive attached a picture of the Kirtley frames being assembled,

 

HTH, Jerry

 

 

 

Thanks, Jerry

 

Bill

[Ian Morgan]

 

 

[Donw]

Just brilliant.

 

Don

[David Eveleigh]

I was alerted a little while ago to this thread where Jerry had said there were certain issues with the Midland Rly. 0-6-0 loco kits I had sold him.   I had built the test etches several years ago and found no problems.   Now that Jerry has come forward with details of what he says is wrong, perhaps I can attempt to answer the apparent issues.

 

Instructions

In his article in MRJ about the Kirtley 700 class Midland Rly. 0-6-0 Jerry stated that the instructions were ‘minimalist’.   It is a matter of taste as to how comprehensive instructions should be with a kit.   I personally do not like it when they consist of several pages of close written text because that gives the impression that building the kit is a big job and that can be off-putting, but if you want to include everything that a beginner will need then there will be a lot to wade through.   I would not recommend someone start with the 700 class loco unless they have a certain amount of experience.

The 2mm page of my website is still under development (I have had other priorities, I am afraid.), but anyone can PM me and I will be happy to send them a copy of the instructions for any kit.   You can see in the 4mm section on my website there are print-out instructions (in the same style) and there are also illustrated build sequences giving a comprehensive picture of my methods and what is needed to build my kits.   See http://eveleighcreations.com/ger-compartment-coaches/

When I send someone a kit I also say ‘let me know if you have any problems’ and have, a few times, engaged in useful discussions with people.   In the light of those I modify the instructions where necessary.

Adam Barstow, in a recent issue of the 2mm Magazine where he reviewed the building of my L&Y birdcage goods brake van said, and I quote, ‘Many thanks to David Eveleigh for his help and encouragement while building these kits.’

 

Frame spacers

I made a mistake with the tender chassis to the Kirtley kit.   I had decided, with the two Johnson tenders (2950 gall. and 3250 gall.) and the Kirtley tender, to space the frames half a millimetre further apart as I felt the normal spacing left too much slack behind the wheels.   I adjusted the spacers wider by half a millimetre on all the kits and the spacing of the frames by the same amount, but unfortunately forgot to include the Kirtley frames in this adjustment.   You can see the dimensions in the pictures of the etch I have included.

 

 

                                   

Kirtley tender spacer and inside frame measurement showing 0.5 mm error.   (Frame spacer is supposed to fit within 2 * 0.125 mm deep half etched grooves.)

 

I found this error when I built the test etches several years ago.   It was irritating, but all I had to do was to file one edge of the rectangular spacer down by 0.5 mm and then it fitted in place perfectly, taking a total of about 30 seconds.   To say that this was an ‘issue’ is an exaggeration.   Filing the edge of a rectangle back a little until it fits is a skill that anyone building a locomotive in 2mm scale might be expected to be able to cope with.   I must admit I had forgotten it was even a problem when I came to write the instructions, but added a comment on this when I was reminded.

 

I am intrigued by Jerry’s claim that the error was continued with the M class Johnson loco kit – it was not.   You can see that the loco frames are designed to fold to a dimension of 7mm inside, and with a thickness of 0.25 mm that brings the outside frame measurement to 7.5 mm.   The tender frames are set to 7.5 and 8 mm respectively.   (This is fairly close to the back of the wheel bosses, but I prefer there to be little play behind the valances and with the dimension over flanges compared with the gauge of the track taken into account the tender is designed to cope with a track radius of as little as 400 mm.)   The frame spacers are of width 7.25 mm for the loco and 7.75 mm for the tender because they fit into half etched grooves (2 x 0.125 mm) in the frames.

 

 

                                                      

 

Johnson tender frame spacer and inside frame measurement showing there is no error in these.

 

 

                                                             

 

 

M class loco inside frame measurement and spacer width showing there is no error with these.

 

 

 

 

Tender and loco frames with spacers clipped in place and ready for soldering  - no need for any adjustments.

 

Oversized parts

Bob Jones alerted me to the fact, years ago, that when you design a part which is half etched, the edge may receed a little due to over-etching, so it is as well to allow a little extra.   Rob Parry at Photo Etch Consultants confirmed this, saying that producing sheets of etch is not as exact a science as you would like.   Therefore, with the half etched cab roofs I allow a little extra all around.   So, yes, I allow the kit builder to dress the edges back a little as they are building the kit.   This is normal practice and the sort of thing that any reasonably experienced builder should expect.   It is not a mistake with the etch.

 

Tender bearings

It is my practice to design these as three layers of etch and have people drill them out to size after laminating, to give a smooth edged hole.   The design of the kits allows people to open out the holes and fit Association phosphor bronze bearings if they prefer, but I am a little mean and I prefer not to have to do this with tender chassis.   The reason is that the tender axles are not subject to lateral loads from the drive and coupling rods, and the wear that this causes.

 

Builders plates

Apparently these were put in different positions on different locos of the same prototype.   Here is part of the photo I worked from with the builder’s plate on the front splasher.   It is from Plate 1 on page 117 of ‘The Midland and Great Northern Joint Railway and its Locomotives’ by Bob Essery.   In the text he states that identical locomotives were supplied by the same makers to the Midland Railway.   Obviously different makers were likely to afix plates of different designs to each other, maybe to different splashers and different to those fitted to locomotives built at Derby.   The locomotive I designed the kit for was from a batch by Nielson & Reid & Co.   Others were built by Kitson.

 

                                                         

 

 

Valance/bufferbeam tabs and slots

Whether these fit or not can sometimes depend on how much solder you have applied when tinning parts.   It looks fine on the screen, but when you assemble the kit you find you need to make adjustments (or file the tab off and locate by eye).   This is not an ‘issue’ – merely a part of building things sometimes in this scale.

 

I have an email from Jerry saying that he would show me the script to his article in MRJ before publication.   It is a shame he didn’t do that, because I could have explained to him about some of these design decisions so he wasn’t so much in the dark when he wrote his article and his assessment of my kits.

Edited December 22, 2021 by David Eveleigh

[NHY 581]

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you all, Jerry. 

 

Best festive wishes, Rob. 

[queensquare]

8 hours ago, David Eveleigh said:

I was alerted a little while ago to this thread where Jerry had said there were certain issues with the Midland Rly. 0-6-0 loco kits I had sold him.   I had built the test etches several years ago and found no problems.   Now that Jerry has come forward with details of what he says is wrong, perhaps I can attempt to answer the apparent issues.

 

Instructions

In his article in MRJ about the Kirtley 700 class Midland Rly. 0-6-0 Jerry stated that the instructions were ‘minimalist’.   It is a matter of taste as to how comprehensive instructions should be with a kit.   I personally do not like it when they consist of several pages of close written text because that gives the impression that building the kit is a big job and that can be off-putting, but if you want to include everything that a beginner will need then there will be a lot to wade through.   I would not recommend someone start with the 700 class loco unless they have a certain amount of experience.

The 2mm page of my website is still under development (I have had other priorities, I am afraid.), but anyone can PM me and I will be happy to send them a copy of the instructions for any kit.   You can see in the 4mm section on my website there are print-out instructions (in the same style) and there are also illustrated build sequences giving a comprehensive picture of my methods and what is needed to build my kits.   See http://eveleighcreations.com/ger-compartment-coaches/

When I send someone a kit I also say ‘let me know if you have any problems’ and have, a few times, engaged in useful discussions with people.   In the light of those I modify the instructions where necessary.

Adam Barstow, in a recent issue of the 2mm Magazine where he reviewed the building of my L&Y birdcage goods brake van said, and I quote, ‘Many thanks to David Eveleigh for his help and encouragement while building these kits.’

 

Frame spacers

I made a mistake with the tender chassis to the Kirtley kit.   I had decided, with the two Johnson tenders (2950 gall. and 3250 gall.) and the Kirtley tender, to space the frames half a millimetre further apart as I felt the normal spacing left too much slack behind the wheels.   I adjusted the spacers wider by half a millimetre on all the kits and the spacing of the frames by the same amount, but unfortunately forgot to include the Kirtley frames in this adjustment.   You can see the dimensions in the pictures of the etch I have included.

 

 

                                   

Kirtley tender spacer and inside frame measurement showing 0.5 mm error.   (Frame spacer is supposed to fit within 2 * 0.125 mm deep half etched grooves.)

 

I found this error when I built the test etches several years ago.   It was irritating, but all I had to do was to file one edge of the rectangular spacer down by 0.5 mm and then it fitted in place perfectly, taking a total of about 30 seconds.   To say that this was an ‘issue’ is an exaggeration.   Filing the edge of a rectangle back a little until it fits is a skill that anyone building a locomotive in 2mm scale might be expected to be able to cope with.   I must admit I had forgotten it was even a problem when I came to write the instructions, but added a comment on this when I was reminded.

 

I am intrigued by Jerry’s claim that the error was continued with the M class Johnson loco kit – it was not.   You can see that the loco frames are designed to fold to a dimension of 7mm inside, and with a thickness of 0.25 mm that brings the outside frame measurement to 7.5 mm.   The tender frames are set to 7.5 and 8 mm respectively.   (This is fairly close to the back of the wheel bosses, but I prefer there to be little play behind the valances and with the dimension over flanges compared with the gauge of the track taken into account the tender is designed to cope with a track radius of as little as 400 mm.)   The frame spacers are of width 7.25 mm for the loco and 7.75 mm for the tender because they fit into half etched grooves (2 x 0.125 mm) in the frames.

 

 

                                                      

 

Johnson tender frame spacer and inside frame measurement showing there is no error in these.

 

 

                                                             

 

 

M class loco inside frame measurement and spacer width showing there is no error with these.

 

 

 

 

Tender and loco frames with spacers clipped in place and ready for soldering  - no need for any adjustments.

 

Oversized parts

Bob Jones alerted me to the fact, years ago, that when you design a part which is half etched, the edge may receed a little due to over-etching, so it is as well to allow a little extra.   Rob Parry at Photo Etch Consultants confirmed this, saying that producing sheets of etch is not as exact a science as you would like.   Therefore, with the half etched cab roofs I allow a little extra all around.   So, yes, I allow the kit builder to dress the edges back a little as they are building the kit.   This is normal practice and the sort of thing that any reasonably experienced builder should expect.   It is not a mistake with the etch.

 

Tender bearings

It is my practice to design these as three layers of etch and have people drill them out to size after laminating, to give a smooth edged hole.   The design of the kits allows people to open out the holes and fit Association phosphor bronze bearings if they prefer, but I am a little mean and I prefer not to have to do this with tender chassis.   The reason is that the tender axles are not subject to lateral loads from the drive and coupling rods, and the wear that this causes.

 

Builders plates

Apparently these were put in different positions on different locos of the same prototype.   Here is part of the photo I worked from with the builder’s plate on the front splasher.   It is from Plate 1 on page 117 of ‘The Midland and Great Northern Joint Railway and its Locomotives’ by Bob Essery.   In the text he states that identical locomotives were supplied by the same makers to the Midland Railway.   Obviously different makers were likely to afix plates of different designs to each other, maybe to different splashers and different to those fitted to locomotives built at Derby.   The locomotive I designed the kit for was from a batch by Nielson & Reid & Co.   Others were built by Kitson.

 

                                                         

 

 

Valance/bufferbeam tabs and slots

Whether these fit or not can sometimes depend on how much solder you have applied when tinning parts.   It looks fine on the screen, but when you assemble the kit you find you need to make adjustments (or file the tab off and locate by eye).   This is not an ‘issue’ – merely a part of building things sometimes in this scale.

 

I have an email from Jerry saying that he would show me the script to his article in MRJ before publication.   It is a shame he didn’t do that, because I could have explained to him about some of these design decisions so he wasn’t so much in the dark when he wrote his article and his assessment of my kits.

 

Many thanks for your response David.

 

I do not propose to get involved with any lengthy debates, suffice to say that I stand by everything I said in both my MRJ articles and my posts here. Most of your criticisms of my comments are about semantics. The etches do contain errors and issues but as I pointed out most are fairly minor and easily got around and the end result is a nice model. 

 

The instructions are very minimal, not a criticism but a fact. Not a problem for me as I have built many locos but someone with less experience may find this a problem. Anyone who wants to see a model set of instructions need look no further than a Bob Jones or Nigel Hunt kit.

 

I found that the fold up frames on  the M were too wide for the standard Association PCB strip. Again, not a problem as I simply separated the frames and assembled them using the Association jig. Could you post pictures of your completed test builds please and also report on how they run on curves with your frames set slightly wider than normal Association practice.

 

Builders plates. I haven't found a picture of any Midland locos with the builders plate on the front splasher, was that exclusive to the M&GNR examples. Again, not a big issue, I will either grind it off or simply ignore it.

 

I look forward to seeing pictures of the test builds. Has anyone else built any of Davids loco kits, I would love to hear how they got on. I have one of the Johnson 4-4-0 kits still to do which will be built in saturated form with an H boiler. Before that though I intend to build a pair of Nigel Hunt483 4-4-0s.

 

Jerry

 

 

Edited December 22, 2021 by queensquare

[Compound2632]

@David Eveleigh, builder's plates:

 

Looking through photos in R.J. Essery & D. Jenkinson, Midland Locomotives Vol. 4 (Wild Swan, 1989), the builder's plates of Ms from Sharps, Neilson, Kitson, and Vulcan are all on the middle splasher. I haven't found a photo of a Dubs M but their J / J2s have the distinctive diamond plate on the middle splasher. I don't have many photos of the S&DJR photos but a photographic grey photo of No. 66 shows the Derby works plate also on the middle splasher. It would, I think, be reasonable to assume that the Neilson engines had their builder's plates in the same place as on the Midland engines built to the same order. But I'm sure Jerry has multiple photos of all ten S&DJR engines! For the M&GN engines, the only photos I have to hand are in R.H. Clark, An Illustrated History of M&GNJR Locomotives (OPC, 1990). Both are Neilsons works grey officials of No. 59, works no. 5033 of 1896. Plate 70 shows a group of Chinese visitors in front of the locomotive, with Hyde Park Works in the background. In this photo, the builder's plate is on the middle splasher. Plate 70 is the "official photograph" with background whited out. In this, the builder's plate is on the leading splasher, with the M&GN coat of arms on the middle splasher. 

 

I'm pretty convinced that shows that the leading splasher position for the builder's plates was an anomaly confined to the M&GN engines, on account of the coat of arms going on the middle splasher. In much the same way, the builder's plates on Midland tank engines were moved from their original bunker-side position when the 1905 livery was adopted, the Midland coat-of-arms going in that position.

Edited December 22, 2021 by Compound2632

[Dunsignalling]

13 hours ago, Ian Morgan said:

 

 

If the modern view is accurate, it's surprising how little the trackbed has been encroached upon. Until you get to Shepton Mallet......

 

John

[2ManySpams]

On 21/12/2021 at 22:58, Ian Morgan said:

 

 

 

Thanks for posting, that's very well done. Must have taken a while!

[GER_Jon]

On 22/12/2021 at 10:54, queensquare said:

 

 

 

I look forward to seeing pictures of the test builds. Has anyone else built any of Davids loco kits, I would love to hear how they got on. I have one of the Johnson 4-4-0 kits still to do which will be built in saturated form with an H boiler. Before that though I intend to build a pair of Nigel Hunt483 4-4-0s.

 

 

 

 

Hi Jerry

just noticed this and I have seen GER locos built by Bill Blackburn and others from the Darkest Essex group and my J69 chassis worked perfectly and was the first 2mm loco I built plus my tram engine chassis also works fine. I have not yet finished the bodies.

cheers

Jon

[queensquare]

On 02/01/2022 at 14:32, GER_Jon said:

Hi Jerry

just noticed this and I have seen GER locos built by Bill Blackburn and others from the Darkest Essex group and my J69 chassis worked perfectly and was the first 2mm loco I built plus my tram engine chassis also works fine. I have not yet finished the bodies.

cheers

Jon

 

Hi Jon, would be great to see some pictures of your  locos when they are finished - the fact they are GER isn't a problem, I don't mind a bit of thread drift although I am still keen to see some more of the MR etches people have built and hear their experiences with them. My M is going through the paint shop at the moment, I will post pictures when it's finished.

Currently  on my little front room bench are more David E etches, a rake of MR arc roof coaches which will form a Bath, Bristol local. These have made up very nicely, vac pipes, couplings and interiors to go - painting can wait!

John Aldrick has kindly sent me some samples of his generic coach floor pans and ends in readiness for another mainline rake but before that I'm etching to have a go at a pair of Nigel Hunt 483s.

 

Jerry

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 3, 2022 by queensquare

[Lacathedrale]

Jerry, you must have a wall of stock at this point!