Wright writes.....

[Michael Edge]

I'm not surprised if you built the S15 as it comes in the kit, the whole boiler is pitched too high.

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, Michael Edge said:

I'm not surprised if you built the S15 as it comes in the kit, the whole boiler is pitched too high.

 

That's interesting, with regard to the S15. There doesn't seem to be much room to reseat the boiler. The chimney looks ginormous though, camera distortion? I notice that the boiler handrails almost  line up with the smokebox handrail on the preserved locomotive, To achieve that on the model, the boiler would have to be pitched higher, perhaps the deflectors are too tall?

Edited July 26, 2020 by Headstock

[Barry Ten]

1 hour ago, Michael Edge said:

I'm not surprised if you built the S15 as it comes in the kit, the whole boiler is pitched too high.

 

At the time I tried superimposing the model over a drawing to get a sense of where any dimensions were seriously off.

 

 

But doing much about about lowering the boiler would have been beyond my skills. Keep in mind I'd never built anything

with valve gear prior to this loco, so just to get it running and pulling trains was more than enough of a challenge.

 

Al

[Barry Ten]

12 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

That's interesting, with regard to the S15. There doesn't seem to be much room to reseat the boiler. The chimney looks ginormous though, camera distortion? I notice that the boiler handrails almost  line up with the smokebox handrail on the preserved locomotive, To achieve that on the model, the boiler would have to be pitched higher, perhaps the deflectors are too tall?

 

There's probably a number of different errors in the mix. I'm not sure about the correctness of the chimney, but the LSWR chimney (for an S15 as built) was even taller.

 

There's possibly camera distortion in mine, but Tony took a much better shot of it on Little Bytham, which I hope he won't mind me reposting here:

 

[65179]

On 25/07/2020 at 19:56, Atso said:

I would like to offer my current work in progress to the thread.

 

 

This is my interpretation of Hadley Wood's signal box. I say interpretation because information and photos regarding some of the details are apparently non-existent and some conjecture has had to be employed. The model (other than the bell off a Peco kit) is scratchbuild in 10 thou and 20 thou plastic sheet and strip. The roof tiles are sticky vinyl on top of a 5 thou support with another 20 thou support structure underneath that plugs into the building. The window frames were painted onto the glazing, having masked everything off - I'll be having another go at these though.

 

If you are not happy with the windows Steve have you tried either scoring lines in the glazing and filling them with paint or using a mapping pen? I know a number of 2mm modellers have use the former approach and Matthew Wald has used the latter for the latest of his masterpieces for Copenhagen Fields (he did an article on his most recent CF box for a recent 2mm Magazine).

 

Simon

[St Enodoc]

6 minutes ago, 65179 said:

 

If you are not happy with the windows Steve have you tried either scoring lines in the glazing and filling them with paint or using a mapping pen? I know a number of 2mm modellers have use the former approach and Matthew Wald has used the latter for the latest of his masterpieces for Copenhagen Fields (he did an article on his most recent CF box for a recent 2mm Magazine).

 

Simon

Gordon and Maggie Gravett use adhesive stationery labels, cutting the panes out so that the frames are left like a doily. Personally I tend to use a bow pen.

[Chuffer Davies]

7 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Many thanks for all the recent comments on GN Atlantics.

 

Some of the solutions promulgated with regard to good riding are quite sophisticated; beyond many, I'd opine.

 

At the risk of sounding something of a heretic, all my locos built with bogies/ponies up front, don't need them for good riding at all. They work just as well as four-, six-, eight or 10-coupled (apart from some four-coupled where the bogie is sprung to balance the body). In OO (and EM) I've never found the need for the bogie or pony to 'guide' the loco into curves (unlike the prototype). In fact, on some locos (built by others) which I've been asked to fix, I've found that complexities regarding bogies/ponies actually cause poorer running. I've thus junked the lot and soldered lead slugs into them, giving excellent running. 

 

I admit, I dislike carving bits off the backs of cylinders, but we are asking our locos to go round curves often intolerable in a colliery or dockyard. 

 

We cannot build 'scale' models, because some clearance will end up being negative if we tried, such are the close tolerances. 

 

I ask myself some simple questions when I've finished a loco...........

 

1. Does it 'near enough' look like the prototype?

2. Does it 'work' like the prototype? By that I mean will it pull prototype-length/weight trains, often at high speed, without derailment (around daft curves), stuttering or jerking?

3. Is it easy to maintain, adjust and dismantle if necessary (RTR manufacturers please note)? 

4. Is it the simplest solution for achieving points 1, 2 and 3? 

5. (subjective, I admit) Is it my work?

Hi Tony,

Many of the techniques I use now were both unknown to me and beyond my abilities 20 or 30  years ago.  Thanks to experts such as yourself who are willing to demonstrate techniques and share their ideas  (usually at exhibitions), with the knowledge so gained and with a lot of practice I have slowly developed as a modeller.   They say that necessity is the mother of invention and this has never been so true as my involvement in the Clayton project.    

 

My list is therefore slightly different to yours: 

For me:

1 - 3.  I agree with you.

4. Have I found the best way to overcome any challenges that I might have hit whilst building the model?  Keeping things simple is good but a slightly more complicated approach can on occasion deliver a better outcome.

 

5. Can I use a commercial model or the work of someone else to give me a jump start on my next model?   We need 30 locomotives for Clayton.  Some of these are having to be built from scratch and so to counter this using a commercial or 2nd hand model as a starting point can be an enjoyable alternative.   

 

I would then add to my list:

6. Have I built the model to the best of my ability?

And Ideally:

7. Have I been able to develop my skills whilst making the model?

8. Have I enjoyed the experience?

 

What would others put in their list I wonder?

 

Regards,

Frank

 

       

 

 

[Headstock]

2 hours ago, Barry Ten said:

 

There's probably a number of different errors in the mix. I'm not sure about the correctness of the chimney, but the LSWR chimney (for an S15 as built) was even taller.

 

There's possibly camera distortion in mine, but Tony took a much better shot of it on Little Bytham, which I hope he won't mind me reposting here:

 

 

Morning Barry,

 

it wasn't clear to me how it would be possible to lower the pitch of the boiler (if that was a problem with the kit) without it disappearing into the running board. It would look rather odd and prevent the opening of the smokebox door. I guess it is more that the whole body rides a little high? The livery is quite nicely executed though 

 

It's probably the result of some post lockdown syndrome but I'm sure the cylinders keep changing colour from one picture to another. 

Edited July 27, 2020 by Headstock

[LNER4479]

12 hours ago, jwealleans said:

 

Mr. King and I have both built the DJH version for Grantham.  I didn't realise how over height they are until we tried to run one under Red Leader's built-to-scale-clearance bridges.

There's a chunk out of the platform 1 canopy end piece to prove it.

 

I now have a 58mm tall block of wood clearance tester. If a loco fouls that then it's in excess of a whopping 14' 6" scale height.

[St Enodoc]

37 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

There's a chunk out of the platform 1 canopy end piece to prove it.

 

I now have a 58mm tall block of wood clearance tester. If a loco fouls that then it's in excess of a whopping 14' 6" scale height.

The MOT "Blue Book" recommended a clearance of 15' 0" above rail level for the structure gauge. More importantly, perhaps, so did Peco in "Starting in Scale 00"!

[jrg1]

1. Does it 'near enough' look like the prototype?

2. Does it 'work' like the prototype? By that I mean will it pull prototype-length/weight trains, often at high speed, without derailment (around daft curves), stuttering or jerking?

3. Is it easy to maintain, adjust and dismantle if necessary (RTR manufacturers please note)? 

4. Is it the simplest solution for achieving points 1, 2 and 3? 

5. (subjective, I admit) Is it my work?

 

Having just this minute finished dismantling and re-assembling a Heljan Class 15's bogies to fit Ultrascale P4 wheels, I can endorse point 3 unequivocally. 

[Michael Edge]

5 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Morning Barry,

 

it wasn't clear to me how it would be possible to lower the pitch of the boiler (if that was a problem with the kit) without it disappearing into the running board. It would look rather odd and prevent the opening of the smokebox door. I guess it is more that the whole body rides a little high? The livery is quite nicely executed though 

 

 

The bottom of the boiler is well below the raised running plates over the cylinders, don't forget these were only outside the frames, boilers often sit down between them. The original LSW height to chimney top was nearly 13'3" but in Southern days this was reduced to 12' 11 1/2" - i.e. a shade under 52mm in this scale. In my experience most modellers (and many kit designers) don't pay much attention to height or width dimensions.

[Adam]

6 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Morning Barry,

 

it wasn't clear to me how it would be possible to lower the pitch of the boiler (if that was a problem with the kit) without it disappearing into the running board. It would look rather odd and prevent the opening of the smokebox door. I guess it is more that the whole body rides a little high? The livery is quite nicely executed though 

 

It's probably the result of some post lockdown syndrome but I'm sure the cylinders keep changing colour from one picture to another. 

 

To give a sense of exactly what is wrong with the DJH S15 and the work required to get a loco that looks like one (a Maunsell example in this case) you could do worse than to take a look at Andy Avis's thread on his effort:

 

 

I remember talking to Andy about this before he started and even then we were of the view that it was a dog of a kit. Hats off for his persistence however.

 

Adam

[Jesse Sim]

A question if I may? 
 

I have a 25w soldering iron that is just fine for white metal, however I find it doesn’t quite have the get up and go for brass kits. Tony has told me that a 50w iron will be much better, but my question is, would a 70w soldering iron station be okay? Or would it be too much for the brass kits? 
 

I will still use my 25w for the white metal kits.

 

Thanks in advance

 

Jesse 

[Clem]

12 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Originally built by Allen Hammet for the late Steven Gradidge, it was acquired by Tony Geary who repainted it into BR condition. On its pick-up duties, it works superbly. 

Good Morning Tony. May I ask, what kit is the J39 from? The tender looks somewhere between a 4200 gallon and a 3500 gallon tender whicch tends to make me think it's the old Wills kit. It certainly has captured the J39 look about it, whatever the source was.

 

I love the way your crew of the J6 look so authentically busy. They really bring the model to life.

[Tony Wright]

6 hours ago, Chuffer Davies said:

Hi Tony,

Many of the techniques I use now were both unknown to me and beyond my abilities 20 or 30  years ago.  Thanks to experts such as yourself who are willing to demonstrate techniques and share their ideas  (usually at exhibitions), with the knowledge so gained and with a lot of practice I have slowly developed as a modeller.   They say that necessity is the mother of invention and this has never been so true as my involvement in the Clayton project.    

 

My list is therefore slightly different to yours: 

For me:

1 - 3.  I agree with you.

4. Have I found the best way to overcome any challenges that I might have hit whilst building the model?  Keeping things simple is good but a slightly more complicated approach can on occasion deliver a better outcome.

 

5. Can I use a commercial model or the work of someone else to give me a jump start on my next model?   We need 30 locomotives for Clayton.  Some of these are having to be built from scratch and so to counter this using a commercial or 2nd hand model as a starting point can be an enjoyable alternative.   

 

I would then add to my list:

6. Have I built the model to the best of my ability?

And Ideally:

7. Have I been able to develop my skills whilst making the model?

8. Have I enjoyed the experience?

 

What would others put in their list I wonder?

 

Regards,

Frank

 

       

 

 

Good morning Frank,

 

I thoroughly endorse your extra points, with one caveat; that of using the work of someone else. In my experience, apart from a few exceptions, by the time I've put right what was wrong with a model started by another (almost always mechanical), it might have been quicker (and easier) by starting from scratch.

 

I'd add one more, if I may? Can it be built very quickly? By that I mean, can something like a DJH Pacific be built in well under a normal working week? In fairness, that comes from my days as a professional loco-builder, where taking too long meant I didn't earn enough. 

 

30 locomotives for Clayton? I assumes that includes some spares? At any one time on Little Bytham (including the east/west bit), over 50 locos are required to work the sequence. I normally assume a spare capacity for locos of three for each job, but I've well-exceeded that, resulting in over 200 locos being available for service. This is 'nonsense', of course, but since building locos gives me the most enjoyment, then it satisfies point 8 on your list. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

16 minutes ago, Jesse Sim said:

A question if I may? 
 

I have a 25w soldering iron that is just fine for white metal, however I find it doesn’t quite have the get up and go for brass kits. Tony has told me that a 50w iron will be much better, but my question is, would a 70w soldering iron station be okay? Or would it be too much for the brass kits? 
 

I will still use my 25w for the white metal kits.

 

Thanks in advance

 

Jesse 

70W is even better, Jesse, as long as it's temperature-controlled...................

[Tony Wright]

4 minutes ago, Clem said:

Good Morning Tony. May I ask, what kit is the J39 from? The tender looks somewhere between a 4200 gallon and a 3500 gallon tender whicch tends to make me think it's the old Wills kit. It certainly has captured the J39 look about it, whatever the source was.

 

I love the way your crew of the J6 look so authentically busy. They really bring the model to life.

Good morning Clem,

 

I think it's an Anchorage kit; it's certainly not Wills because it's all sheet metal.

 

Strictly-speaking, it's more appropriate for an ex-GC main line, being Woodford-based. It was the pick-up loco on Charwelton, but such is its perfect running and natural looks that I'm happy to apply the modeller's Rule 1 here. 

 

As is known, all my locos are crewed (apart from the DMU!). Since over 200 locos mean in excess of 400 figures (including the occasional inspector), I tend to use the 'best' examples in locos with more-open cabs. In fact, on some of the Pacifics, the driver is little more than just a head, one arm and torso, having been 'butchered' so that he'll sit on one of the bucket seats. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[LNER4479]

6 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

The MOT "Blue Book" recommended a clearance of 15' 0" above rail level for the structure gauge. More importantly, perhaps, so did Peco in "Starting in Scale 00"!

I have high standards.

[dibateg]

Clem - yes - it's the old Anchorage kit.

 

Tony

 

 

[LNER4479]

46 minutes ago, Jesse Sim said:

A question if I may? 
 

I have a 25w soldering iron that is just fine for white metal, however I find it doesn’t quite have the get up and go for brass kits. Tony has told me that a 50w iron will be much better, but my question is, would a 70w soldering iron station be okay? Or would it be too much for the brass kits? 
 

I will still use my 25w for the white metal kits.

 

Thanks in advance

 

Jesse 

Hi Jesse,

 

Apologies if you know this already Jesse but brass is a very good conductor of heat and, particularly if you're working with quite a big lump, the heat goes away from the particular area where you're trying to make your joint to everywhere else where you don't want it to. Nickel silver is a (much) easier material to work with in that regard.

 

A decent, temperature-controlled iron is the way to go - advice I should follow myself!

[Clem]

30 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Strictly-speaking, it's more appropriate for an ex-GC main line, being Woodford-based.

You've only missed it by a year. It was a Colwick loco until October 1957 and as such may well have appeared quite frequently at LB. 

[Denbridge]

6 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

Hi Jesse,

 

Apologies if you know this already Jesse but brass is a very good conductor of heat and, particularly if you're working with quite a big lump, the heat goes away from the particular area where you're trying to make your joint to everywhere else where you don't want it to. Nickel silver is a (much) easier material to work with in that regard.

 

A decent, temperature-controlled iron is the way to go - advice I should follow myself!

I've always wished etched kits were made from Nickel Silver. It's far nicer to work with.

[Woodcock29]

9 hours ago, Barry Ten said:

 

There's probably a number of different errors in the mix. I'm not sure about the correctness of the chimney, but the LSWR chimney (for an S15 as built) was even taller.

 

There's possibly camera distortion in mine, but Tony took a much better shot of it on Little Bytham, which I hope he won't mind me reposting here:

 

A mate of mine built a DJH S15 some years ago. I recall his view was that for starters the boiler was too big in diameter (like the C1).

 

If I may add some comments that are I hope viewed constructively. Looking at photos of two preserved S15s I've ridden behind it looks to me that is certainly the case, also the smoke deflectors are indeed a bit too tall. That then means the boiler handrail is too high, it should actually be a bit below the bottom of the front spectacles in the cab - at a guess 4-5 inches say 1.5mm in 4mm scale (admittedly both S15s I have photos of are Maunsell versions - but I have also compared with a photo of a Urie S15 which has a different footplate as its lifted over the cylinders).  Also the body does look too high on the chassis and the tender in fact looks too low to me - compare with the height of the Thompson coach behind it - I'd suggest the centre of the tender buffers are certainly below the centre of the coach buffers. The height differential between loco and tender is quite significant - in the photo of the Urie S15 the top of the small side plate at the front of the tender lines up with the bottom of the cut out in the cab side. Raising the tender a bit shouldn't be too difficult - washers between the bogies and the tender base?

 

Andrew   

[St Enodoc]

1 hour ago, LNER4479 said:

I have high standards.

...but not quite high enough!