Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

47 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

 

My two penn'th on pick-ups, if I may?

 

When I made my first tentative steps into the world of chassis building nearly 40 (crikey!) years ago, I was either told or read (can't remember which) to try and aim for a rubbing rather than point contact for pick ups - dare I say (given its provenance) that the arrangement above looks like point contact on the tip of the flange?

 

I always try and arrange it so that the pick-up has a turned-up end and with it rubbing on the inside face of the wheel (as I know your locos do too, Tony). This gives a greater effective contact area, thus reducing the tendency for tip sparking which can quickly accumulate dirt and reduce efficiency. I also suspect that it (ie a rubbing contact as shown) reduces or eliminates any tendency for squeaking compared to a point contact.

 

For me, this has always worked well and I have never (to my knowledge) built a loco with squeaky pick-ups.

It is contact on the edge of the flange, Graham. A very small area of contact indeed.

 

When I was last over at Retford (last month), I had to adjust these type of pick-ups on a Roy Jackson-built B1, because of erratic running. The adjustment capability is minute.

 

Now, like you, given the provenance of the V2 chassis (and the B1) I'd never question RJ's work. Down the years his locos have proven to be fantastic, reliable runners. However, it's not a pick-up arrangement I'd ever use.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

I don't recall seeing it before, so I don't know. The J3/4 had all gone by the period of Retford and the mechanism being OO would suggest it was either one Roy was doing for somebody else, or alternatively somebody else had passed it to him with a " Is this any good to you?".

 

I have a vague recollection of Roy suggesting a J5 might be "close enough" in date at only 2 years out.

It had occurred to me Tony, that it might have been another 'J'. However, both footplates (why build two?) were for a J6. It couldn't have been a J1 (boiler too low) or a J2 (different spectacle plate), even those these ex-GNR 0-6-0s shared a similar footplate shape to the J6 (the J3, J4 and J5 footplates were dead straight throughout). Anyway, all had gone by Retford's period. 

 

Which bring me to the question of whether it's actually Roy's work. The marking out and the quality of soldering suggest this, but it might have been one he acquired or was building for someone else. Does anyone know? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, stewartingram said:

If pickups squeak, add a little Electrolube to lubricate. It is a conductive lubricant after all.

 

Stewart

However, beware. 

 

Especially around Romford/Markits drivers. They're insulated by the thinnest of paper rings between the outer edge of the wheel and the tyres.

 

I once had beautiful scratch-built 'Crab' to investigate which had been dosed with Electrolube (far too much, actually); to the extent that the fluid had soaked into the insulation and since it's conductive, the result was a dead short!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[micklner]

2 hours ago, Chuffer Davies said:

Hi MIck,

 

I've not been aware of these motors previously although I have used its bigger brother (16/20) in one of my 'motor in tender' builds.  Can I ask please is this motor strong enough to spin the wheels if the loco  attempts to pull a train that's too heavy for it?  

 

Also how have you mounted the bogie and what radius curves will this model negotiate?  

 

I've yet to build an 0-4-4 and am always interested to hear how others have gone about building them in the hope that one day I'll have an excuse to build one myself.

 

Regards,

 

Frank

     I have'nt tried to spin the wheels , nor would I.

     It has managed 8 Hornby Pullmans without spinning , the prototype pulled no more than 3 or 4 Coaches , towards its end they were used for two Push Pulls Coaches one at each end, as its whitemetal it is very heavy so good adhesion.

 

     Bogie is a 8BA screw passed through the frame spacer with a spring between two washers and a nut underneath the Bogie. A lot of adjustment is needed until you get the Loco sitting at the right height. I wouldnt try any curve below 30 inches . It has pick ups on the Bogie as the Drivers are not enough for current collection.

 

Not a wheel layout I would recomend, until a lot of other kits have been built . The 4-4-0 and 0-4-4 are the hardest wheel layout to get running well.  IMHO.

 

[Tony Wright]

Even more J6s................

 

 

 

This one has a resin body by Graeme King and he kindly gave it to me to try. I scratch-built a chassis for it, finished it, painted and weathered it, but was never entirely happy with it (my fault, not the model's). That being the case, I sold it on to a chap who's delighted with it! 

 

 

An old Nu-Cast one, originally started by Ian Wilson (gluing it together!). I dismantled it, rebuilt it, painted and weathered it. Strictly speaking, for later BR days this is the only member of the whole class to run with the tender provided. 

 

 

I built this J6 from the latest SEF/Nu-Cast kit, making a more-appropriate LRM tender for it.

 

I agree, the gearbox sides are evident underneath the boiler, though weathered along with the loco they're disguised a fraction. 

 

 

I know this will be too much for some, but it does run beautifully.

 

I know it's been mentioned before about J6s being high on wish-list polls (which I consider irrelevant, but, then, I would). Perhaps, one day, they'll be considered by the RTR boys (and girls).

 

 

[landscapes]

4 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

THanks Jonathan,

 

I'd forgotten about your building a J6.

 

It's a LRM 521 Series J6 I believe. Just like this one.............

 

 

An excellent kit.

 

 

Just visible is the gearwheel on the centre driver, despite the motor being 'under-slung'. 

 

 

Still, from 'normal' viewing angles, the drive is invisible.

 

More J6s later...................................

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

 

 

Hi Tony

 

A lovely looking locomotive and lots of fifties atmosphere in the last photo.

 

Regards

 

David

[pete55]

55 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

It had occurred to me Tony, that it might have been another 'J'. However, both footplates (why build two?) were for a J6. It couldn't have been a J1 (boiler too low) or a J2 (different spectacle plate), even those these ex-GNR 0-6-0s shared a similar footplate shape to the J6 (the J3, J4 and J5 footplates were dead straight throughout). Anyway, all had gone by Retford's period. 

 

Which bring me to the question of whether it's actually Roy's work. The marking out and the quality of soldering suggest this, but it might have been one he acquired or was building for someone else. Does anyone know? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Hello Tony,

I'm not sure it is Roy's work either. I do not recall him scratch building  anything like a J6 in all the time I knew him, unless it was a long forgotten job pre dating the LRM kit which I believe was a Malcolm Crawley design, but t-b-g will know for certain.

There were various bits of locos we found when sorting things out, many of which were not Roy's own work, but as you suggested, things that had been given him through the years.

 

Pete

[t-b-g]

The J6 was indeed a George Norton/London Road kit from the Malcolm Crawley drawing board.

 

One of the reasons why the spectacle windows jumped out at me was because I remember Malcolm commenting on closeness of the windows to the firebox as he was drawing it. He was concerned as the "undercut" in the etch process had to be spot on for half etched rebates and in the etching process it could vary slightly.

 

One of the last locos Roy built was a London Road J6 and he was really struggling with his hands and eyes. I ended up doing parts of it that he was about to lose his limited patience with. He reckoned the smokebox saddle would never work as designed.

 

I have certainly never laid eyes on the hybrid J6 before. Why Roy would have built a OO mechanism is a mystery. My instinct says that it wasn't his work. He tended to show us what he was working on, if only to moan about how bad the kit was!

 

Again, it is down to each of us to decide what we will accept or not on a model. I don't think I would be pressing on with the loco as it is but it isn't my problem to deal with!

 

 

[Michael Edge]

3 hours ago, micklner said:

     I have'nt tried to spin the wheels , nor would I.

     It has managed 8 Hornby Pullmans without spinning , the prototype pulled no more than 3 or 4 Coaches , towards its end they were used for two Push Pulls Coaches one at each end, as its whitemetal it is very heavy so good adhesion.

 

     Bogie is a 8BA screw passed through the frame spacer with a spring between two washers and a nut underneath the Bogie. A lot of adjustment is needed until you get the Loco sitting at the right height. I wouldnt try any curve below 30 inches . It has pick ups on the Bogie as the Drivers are not enough for current collection.

 

Not a wheel layout I would recomend, until a lot of other kits have been built . The 4-4-0 and 0-4-4 are the hardest wheel layout to get running well.  IMHO.

 

You should always check that the loco can still spin its wheels - this is an essential safety valve, prevents burning out stalled motors.

[Chuffer Davies]

3 hours ago, micklner said:

     I have'nt tried to spin the wheels , nor would I.

     It has managed 8 Hornby Pullmans without spinning , the prototype pulled no more than 3 or 4 Coaches , towards its end they were used for two Push Pulls Coaches one at each end, as its whitemetal it is very heavy so good adhesion.

 

     Bogie is a 8BA screw passed through the frame spacer with a spring between two washers and a nut underneath the Bogie. A lot of adjustment is needed until you get the Loco sitting at the right height. I wouldnt try any curve below 30 inches . It has pick ups on the Bogie as the Drivers are not enough for current collection.

 

Not a wheel layout I would recomend, until a lot of other kits have been built . The 4-4-0 and 0-4-4 are the hardest wheel layout to get running well.  IMHO.

 

Hi Mick,

the spinning the wheels question is based on advice from Mike Sharman many years ago when I was first starting to build models.  There were two bits of advice with regards to motors that I still remember.  The first was always to use the largest motor possible for the space available irrespective of what the model was intended to pull.  The second was to ensure that in the event the train stalls, to ensure against damage to the motor, the motor should be powerful enough to spin the wheels rather than itself stalling.  The explanation being that if you continue to pass current through a stalled motor it will quickly burn out the winding through which the current is passing.   We have since learnt on this blog that the load on the motor when the wheels slip is actually less than the load on the motor just before the wheels lose traction.

 

before I buy one of these motors it would be good to know from someone who has used one already whether they are easily stalled or whether they are powerful enough to slip the wheels.  Of course the heavier the loco the more the load before the wheels break free but it would be useful to know its performance in your specific model especially as you say that the loco's body is white metal.

 

I agree with you with regards the challenges of 4-4-0's and 0-4-4's.  I have built several 4-4-0's but as they have all had tenders I have been able to balance them by hanging the front of the tender on the draw bar. 

 

Thanks,

 

Frank

 

    

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, t-b-g said:

The J6 was indeed a George Norton/London Road kit from the Malcolm Crawley drawing board.

 

One of the reasons why the spectacle windows jumped out at me was because I remember Malcolm commenting on closeness of the windows to the firebox as he was drawing it. He was concerned as the "undercut" in the etch process had to be spot on for half etched rebates and in the etching process it could vary slightly.

 

One of the last locos Roy built was a London Road J6 and he was really struggling with his hands and eyes. I ended up doing parts of it that he was about to lose his limited patience with. He reckoned the smokebox saddle would never work as designed.

 

I have certainly never laid eyes on the hybrid J6 before. Why Roy would have built a OO mechanism is a mystery. My instinct says that it wasn't his work. He tended to show us what he was working on, if only to moan about how bad the kit was!

 

Again, it is down to each of us to decide what we will accept or not on a model. I don't think I would be pressing on with the loco as it is but it isn't my problem to deal with!

 

 

I think it's worth persevering with, even if there is the odd anomaly.

 

 

[t-b-g]

36 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

I think it's worth persevering with, even if there is the odd anomaly.

 

 

 

I am sure it is Tony. Such anomalies niggle me far more than they do most people. I used to drive Malcolm round the bend if I spotted something he hadn't got quite right. I would niggle away at him and he would say that he wasn't going to sort it out. Next time I went, it would have been miraculously put right by some sort of modelling faeries. I would say "I see you put XYZ right" and he would say "I haven't touched it. It was always like that".

 

He had some very odd solder did Malcolm. If a chimney wasn't quite straight, it was always because it had moved later because it was straight when he put it on!  

 

I have been giving it a bit more thought and I am now pretty certain that the earlier construction was not by Roy. He used to like to get the boiler in and then fit chimneys, domes, etc. and he wouldn't have drilled the holes for the handrails without having the body together and sitting level on a block, maybe even mounted on its wheels, scribing a line for the handrail holes with his height gauge.

 

It would seem most unlikely that he would change his well established methods just for this one.

 

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

 

I am sure it is Tony. Such anomalies niggle me far more than they do most people. I used to drive Malcolm round the bend if I spotted something he hadn't got quite right. I would niggle away at him and he would say that he wasn't going to sort it out. Next time I went, it would have been miraculously put right by some sort of modelling faeries. I would say "I see you put XYZ right" and he would say "I haven't touched it. It was always like that".

 

He had some very odd solder did Malcolm. If a chimney wasn't quite straight, it was always because it had moved later because it was straight when he put it on!  

 

I have been giving it a bit more thought and I am now pretty certain that the earlier construction was not by Roy. He used to like to get the boiler in and then fit chimneys, domes, etc. and he wouldn't have drilled the holes for the handrails without having the body together and sitting level on a block, maybe even mounted on its wheels, scribing a line for the handrail holes with his height gauge.

 

It would seem most unlikely that he would change his well established methods just for this one.

 

I wonder who built it then, Tony?

 

Nobody seems to know. 

 

I've already 'improved' it by enlarging the spectacles, so that their bottoms now 'kiss' the firebox top (weird or what?). Looking at prototype pictures, I'm surprised how large the J6 spectacles are.

 

I'll post more pictures tomorrow, especially now that this evening I've put on the 'face' - the smokebox door; from my spares box.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[Barry Ten]

8 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

One thing I have noticed is that, although Roy fitted the spectacle plate in the position for a 521 Series, the saddle arrangement is more akin to the 536 Series, with the smokebox not overhanging quite enough. How I'd extend the smokebox, I'm not sure; not without it showing.

 

 

 

 

 

I was faced with extending the smokebox on my Bird class. I'd used the City boiler, as supplied with the Airflix kit, but the Bird needed a superheated smokebox - a critical detail I didn't spot until the loco was already assembled (note handrails had already been fitted!).

 

I cut the smokebox vertically with a razor saw, then inserted an oversize disc of several layers of plastic card, to get the necessary extension:

 

 

Once set hard, the front of the smokebox was fixed back into place and then i trimmed the plastic spacer back down to the same diameter of the smokebox, followed by sanding and filling where necessary to eliminate a seam.

 

I think the end result ended up reasonably well - but I do still need to address that join in the smokebox saddle:

 

 

Obviously this was working with plastic as both the body and spacer material, so not necessarily applicable to brass, rolled boilers etc.

 

Al

[Barry Ten]

10 hours ago, Hollar said:

I'm a bit behind, but I couldn't resist asking about making scale models of imaginary prototypes.  Flawless modelmaking, but what happened to the old saw about never making models based on other people's models?

 

Tone

 

What, you're telling me it's not real???

[Barry Ten]

4 hours ago, Chuffer Davies said:

Hi Mick,

the spinning the wheels question is based on advice from Mike Sharman many years ago when I was first starting to build models.  There were two bits of advice with regards to motors that I still remember.  The first was always to use the largest motor possible for the space available irrespective of what the model was intended to pull.  The second was to ensure that in the event the train stalls, to ensure against damage to the motor, the motor should be powerful enough to spin the wheels rather than itself stalling.  The explanation being that if you continue to pass current through a stalled motor it will quickly burn out the winding through which the current is passing.   We have since learnt on this blog that the load on the motor when the wheels slip is actually less than the load on the motor just before the wheels lose traction.

 

 

 

 

    

 

I was surprised to find a Bachmann diesel (a class 20 ) wouldn't spin its wheels when driven up to an obstacle. It just sat there, stalled. Maybe there's some protection in the circuit board, though. i do feel happier of my locos (including the ones I make) can still spin their wheels.

[Atso]

37 minutes ago, Barry Ten said:

 

What, you're telling me it's not real???

 

It is real, it just hasn't happened yet!!!!! 

[Tony Wright]

47 minutes ago, Barry Ten said:

 

I was faced with extending the smokebox on my Bird class. I'd used the City boiler, as supplied with the Airflix kit, but the Bird needed a superheated smokebox - a critical detail I didn't spot until the loco was already assembled (note handrails had already been fitted!).

 

I cut the smokebox vertically with a razor saw, then inserted an oversize disc of several layers of plastic card, to get the necessary extension:

 

 

Once set hard, the front of the smokebox was fixed back into place and then i trimmed the plastic spacer back down to the same diameter of the smokebox, followed by sanding and filling where necessary to eliminate a seam.

 

I think the end result ended up reasonably well - but I do still need to address that join in the smokebox saddle:

 

 

Obviously this was working with plastic as both the body and spacer material, so not necessarily applicable to brass, rolled boilers etc.

 

Al

The disguise is complete, Al. Who would know?

 

Thanks for showing us.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

With regard to every loco I make, I always make sure that they'll spin their wheels when confronted with a load which is beyond their capabilities. It's an essential 'safety device', preventing cooked motors in the event of a stall. 

 

I've mentioned it before, but my approach to haulage ability is 'weight and see'. Though entirely unscientific, I ballast my locos with enough lead so that they'll haul the heaviest train expected of them (plus a couple more carriages or some more vans). Slipping on starting is expected (and prototypical?) but they must then be able to get the load under way and then run freely with it. If all they do is slip, I'll add more ballast until the balance is right. As I say, very unscientific, but it works. 

 

One thing I'll have to investigate is how the J6 with the stainless steel tyres performs. I wonder, could there be a greater coefficient of friction between steel and nickel silver than there is between nickel silver and nickel silver?

[Woodcock29]

19 hours ago, micklner said:

Talking of the NER again.

A question I read elsewhere recently did LNER pre war Black Locos have their Drivers lined in Red ? I dont know either way. The lovely B16 is only the second model I have ever seen with Red lining to the Drivers wheel edges, and around the axle area a first . The other one is the latest Bachmann J72 which also has Red Coupling Rods, which I believe are wrong ?.

I was the one who asked the question on red lining of driving wheels a week or so ago on the LNER Forum.

 

My belief is that this was not common and probably only on some J72s. Certainly the two re-painted J72s used as shunters at Newcastle Central in 1937, Nos 1720 and 2313 (the subject of Bachmann's recent release) had their wheels lined out in red as shown in Yeadon Part 43A. Also shown in Yeadon is J72 No 500, new from Doncaster in 1925 with lined wheels so it appears it wasn't just Darlington that might have done this. 

 

On the subject of red buffer shanks - this appears to have been standard practice at Darlington for many years in the LNER period for ex NE black locos but green locos appear to have had black buffer shanks. Although I do note a green liveried J72 and B1 in post war green had red buffer shanks as shown in LNER Locomotives in Colour1936-48 by White and Johnston.  There is also a J39 with red buffer shanks.

 

Also it is noted that a number of ex NE locos had red coupling rods and also connecting rods if having outside cylinders - again from the book mentioned above.

 

Andrew 

[Woodcock29]

I do love a J6.

 

I note that most of the J6 models shown over the previous few pages in BR livery all seem to have the earlier built up chimney (1'11 1/4") which was replaced in the period 1939-43 with a shorter cast version (1'7 1/2") when the class was brought within the LNER load gauge (source Yeadon/RCTS). The NuCast/SE Finecast kits do seem to have the later cast chimney though.  The LRM chimney is about 7.2 mm so scales at 1'9.6", so in reality its in between the two heights, albeit marginally closer to the earlier built up chimney height and is of the built up style.

 

Tony are you able to measure the height of the chimney on a NuCast/SE Finecast J6 please?

 

Andrew

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, Woodcock29 said:

I do love a J6.

 

I note that most of the J6 models shown over the previous few pages in BR livery all seem to have the earlier built up chimney (1'11 1/4") which was replaced in the period 1939-43 with a shorter cast version (1'7 1/2") when the class was brought within the LNER load gauge (source Yeadon/RCTS). The NuCast/SE Finecast kits do seem to have the later cast chimney though.  The LRM chimney is about 7.2 mm so scales at 1'9.6", so in reality its in between the two heights, albeit marginally closer to the earlier built up chimney height and is of the built up style.

 

Tony are you able to measure the height of the chimney on a NuCast/SE Finecast J6 please?

 

Andrew

'Tony are you able to measure the height of the chimney on a NuCast/SE Finecast J6 please?'

 

I am Andrew,

 

It's 6.5mm. 

 

A glance at Page 3 of Steam Memories: In Colour 1950's & 1960's Retford, by Keith Pirt, Booklaw, 2009 shows a J6 with a taller chimney than that (to scale).

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

17 hours ago, landscapes said:

Hi Tony

 

A lovely looking locomotive and lots of fifties atmosphere in the last photo.

 

Regards

 

David

Thanks David,

 

Yes, an everyday '50s scene at LB; a moment of quietness between the big stuff sweeping through.

 

Speaking of big stuff (Thompson big stuff), some fascinating Thompson Pacifics on your thread (which is excellent, by the way, and full of modelling). Interest in these keeps on recurring, doesn't it? They were mentioned on page 1 of this thread!

 

They certainly make fascinating models, and no ECML latter day steam depiction is complete without them. 

 

I note on Hatton's advert in the RM that the forthcoming Hornby A2/2s and A2/3s are offered at £171.00. I find that incredibly low, considering how complex they are as models and the amount of research that's gone into them. I haven't investigated what an equivalent kit would cost, but much, much more I'd surmise.

 

No doubt, when they arrive (early next year I'd guess), they'll sell like hot cakes. 

 

I'll take some new pictures of my Thompson Pacifics today. They always seem to generate interest.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[landscapes]

3 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks David,

 

Yes, an everyday '50s scene at LB; a moment of quietness between the big stuff sweeping through.

 

Speaking of big stuff (Thompson big stuff), some fascinating Thompson Pacifics on your thread (which is excellent, by the way, and full of modelling). Interest in these keeps on recurring, doesn't it? They were mentioned on page 1 of this thread!

 

They certainly make fascinating models, and no ECML latter day steam depiction is complete without them. 

 

I note on Hatton's advert in the RM that the forthcoming Hornby A2/2s and A2/3s are offered at £171.00. I find that incredibly low, considering how complex they are as models and the amount of research that's gone into them. I haven't investigated what an equivalent kit would cost, but much, much more I'd surmise.

 

No doubt, when they arrive (early next year I'd guess), they'll sell like hot cakes. 

 

I'll take some new pictures of my Thompson Pacifics today. They always seem to generate interest.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Hi Tony

 

Thank you, yes a lot of railway modellers are getting quite excited about their pending arrival including me, I have an A2/2 and A 2/3 on order.

 

I think without your input the products would never have got going.

 

For my own reasons I mainly have RTR  models but they have no comparison to when I pick up my only kit built model my PDK A2/1 you really feel the weight in your hands And the quality of the build.

 

incidentally  when I first placed my order with PDK about eight years ago it was for an A2/2 but  before Paul Hill started work I changed it to a A2/1 as Haymarket has three in the late fifties.
 

That was fortunate as the A2/1 along with the A1/1 are the only two Thompson Pacific’s not available in RTR.

 

It was model layouts such as your own Little Bytham and Eric Kidd’s Longdrem and  Pinkhill that got me started in the first place.

 

So I thank you both for that.

 

Regards

 

David

[MJI]

16 hours ago, Chuffer Davies said:

Hi Mick,

the spinning the wheels question is based on advice from Mike Sharman many years ago when I was first starting to build models.  There were two bits of advice with regards to motors that I still remember.  The first was always to use the largest motor possible for the space available irrespective of what the model was intended to pull.  The second was to ensure that in the event the train stalls, to ensure against damage to the motor, the motor should be powerful enough to spin the wheels rather than itself stalling.  The explanation being that if you continue to pass current through a stalled motor it will quickly burn out the winding through which the current is passing.   We have since learnt on this blog that the load on the motor when the wheels slip is actually less than the load on the motor just before the wheels lose traction.

 

before I buy one of these motors it would be good to know from someone who has used one already whether they are easily stalled or whether they are powerful enough to slip the wheels.  Of course the heavier the loco the more the load before the wheels break free but it would be useful to know its performance in your specific model especially as you say that the loco's body is white metal.

 

I agree with you with regards the challenges of 4-4-0's and 0-4-4's.  I have built several 4-4-0's but as they have all had tenders I have been able to balance them by hanging the front of the tender on the draw bar. 

 

Thanks,

 

Frank

 

    

Most load just before slipping is a technique used by Brush to get excellent traction on slippery track.

 

In the UK more useful than the USA traction improvement methods.