Wright writes.....

[cctransuk]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

The etched covers, good as they look, also make the coupling rods stand out further from the wheel, reducing clearances.

 

I wouldn't argue with any of that - I am fortunate in that I model to 16.5mm. gauge.

 

The Markits wheel centres really don't bother me - it's just that I am currently building a series of Kemilway kit chassis, and the etched covers are supplied.

 

I'm about to build the Kemilway valvegear for a BR Standard 3MT 2-6-2T; it will be interesting to see how the clearances work out, and if I have to remove the etched axle covers.

 

John Isherwood.

[Blandford1969]

Good morning Tony and all, 

 

With your knowledge of LNER kits in 4mm have you or anyone else seen or know anything about these etchings for a J38 and J39. There are no details with them, no name or reference numbers. Perhaps they were someone having a go, they certainly would need some work. The one thing not with them are boilers, although they would be easy enough to roll in brass.  If this is not allowed in the thread, please feel free to delete it. Many thanks in advance for any help, from anyone. 

 

Regards

 

Duncan 

Edited October 4, 2020 by Blandford1969
Forgot to add the photo (middle aged moment)

[Chuffer Davies]

3 hours ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

If they are available in a diameter, number of spokes and crankpin location that suits. Diameter and one of the other two is usually okay but for those that model the LNWR (and probably many other  pre-group railways) there is often nothing available from Ultrascale. That's why Sharman Wheels were usually the answer, even if it took some work to make them run acceptably.

 

Compensation (or springing/CSBs) provides other benefits, such as improved pickup and better adhesion, particularly for smaller, lighter locos.

Hi Jol,

Improved pickup - yes, better adhesion - no, we've been here before.  Improved adhesion is not supported by the maths, and has been demonstrated as incorrect by experiment.

Apologies,

Frank

[Jol Wilkinson]

1 hour ago, Chuffer Davies said:

Hi Jol,

Improved pickup - yes, better adhesion - no, we've been here before.  Improved adhesion is not supported by the maths, and has been demonstrated as incorrect by experiment.

Apologies,

Frank

I'll take your word for the adhesion Frank, but personally I feel that a surefooted, compensated loco  "works" better than one with a rigid chassis.

[Clem]

14 hours ago, Chuffer Davies said:

You may be interested in the following videos which I prepared to compare and contrast the look and ride characteristics of Gibson v's Ultrascale wheels.  When I recently built my J7's to test assemble the etches I had designed I fitted one of them with Gibson wheels and the other with Ultrascale. 

Good Afternoon Frank, 

It's quite eye-opening when you see them side by side (or should I say top by bottom). It's just a shame that with Ultrascale, the range is limited and the lead time between ordering and receiving them quite long, though it doesn't seem to be quite as bad as before. As a matter of interest, do you use a wheel press with them or do you hand fit and quarter them?

[polybear]

3 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

I still don't think that any of the wheels available to modellers tick every box. Each has its good and bad points.

 

A wheel that looks like an Ultrascale but fits like a Markits and has a price like a Gibson would do very nicely. A 4mm version of the O Gauge Slaters wheel would do the trick apart from perhaps on the price and I for one would worry about that least of all.

 

Until that time (very likely never), we all make our choices and work around the problems in our chosen ways.

 

I believe that Alan Gibson did have plans for wheels with self-quartering axles, though I've heard nothing since.

As to what the sad death of Brian Rogers recently may mean for the Ultrascale range is an unknown.

 

 

[gr.king]

I suspect the idea of self-quartering Gibson wheels has been dropped entirely. I enquired about the further prospects a few years ago, but formed the impression that the maker, perhaps for good reasons, had no enthusiasm for further development of the scheme.

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, polybear said:

 

I believe that Alan Gibson did have plans for wheels with self-quartering axles, though I've heard nothing since.

As to what the sad death of Brian Rogers recently may mean for the Ultrascale range is an unknown.

 

 

 

I did see the first samples of the self quartering wheels and one RMWeb member had them to try out on a loco.

 

My understanding was that there were problems getting the axles made in the right sorts of quantities for a sensible price.

 

I don't know how much Brian Rogers was directly involved in Ultrascale in recent times. I was led to understand that he had taken more of a back seat and that somebody else, possibly his son, was doing much of it.

 

A note on their website says that his passing may impact on lead times but it looks as if the products will continue to be available. 

 

It would be a great shame if his legacy in terms of such good quality products was to fall by the wayside but it doesn't look as if that is an immediate danger.

 

 

[Pebbles]

5 hours ago, Blandford1969 said:

Good morning Tony and all, 

 

With your knowledge of LNER kits in 4mm have you or anyone else seen or know anything about these etchings for a J38 and J39. There are no details with them, no name or reference numbers. Perhaps they were someone having a go, they certainly would need some work. The one thing not with them are boilers, although they would be easy enough to roll in brass.  If this is not allowed in the thread, please feel free to delete it. Many thanks in advance for any help, from anyone. 

 

Regards

 

Duncan 

 

[Pebbles]

Micro Metal Smith, I think that's how they called themselves. They also did their own gearbox.  

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, Pebbles said:

Micro Metal Smith, I think that's how they called themselves. They also did their own gearbox.  

Weren't they at Kirbymoorside? (if that's the correct spelling). 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

Just to prove I'm not habitually-lazy with regard to disguising Romford axle ends.....................

 

 

A DJH 'Britannia'. This was started by the late Bob Alderman and sold-on to me with the request to complete it. 

 

The chassis was up and running, but not entirely to my satisfaction, so I took the drivers off. The etched axle covers had been installed, so the crank pins had to come out as well (not a desirable situation in my view). I got it running really sweetly, after reinstating the covers but only on the rear drivers, figuring that the others would be hidden by the valve gear in the main. The 'dodge' (if it is one) was to snip off the bit through which the crank pin passes, rounded off the cover and fixed it with a tiny bead of superglue. The effect is better for having them on, of course, but they don't then move the crank pin out further. 

 

As can be seen, I finished the loco, and Ian Rathbone painted it. It's a memory of a good friend.

 

I did the same on completing an A1 which the late Geoff Brewin had almost completed on his death............

 

 

The covers can be seen in this shot. I finished it, painted it and Tom Foster weathered it.

 

Again, a memory of a good friend.

 

 

Of course, when most of the locos do this on Little Bytham, covering the axle ends is rather irrelevant. 

 

 

Another Geoff Brewin loco, which I completed - with axle covers. Geoff Haynes painted this one.

 

 

And another shot of Tony Geary's O4/3 (which he's numbered as an O4/1!), showing how he's filled the axle ends in.

 

Aren't I fortunate in having locos built by so many good friends who are (sadly, were as well) accomplished modellers?

 

Whose round is it (not who's!) Tonys? Probably mine! 

 

 

 

 

[Porcy Mane]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Weren't they at Kirbymoorside? (if that's the correct spelling). 

 

They were and still are. The linked model railway side of the business was at Tanfield in Co. Durham. Set up there to take advantage of the Gov. grants to encourage companies into the area following the closure of Consett Iron Works.

 

A few got their fingers burnt with that enterprise. Following the demise of the Model railway side of the operation I think most of Tanfield stuff fell into the hands of Slaters never to be seen again. The late Dave Alexander usually had a few spares from the J39 under his exhibition stand.

 

The etched J39 is not Micrometalsmiths. That made considerable use of brass castings including the boiler. A phot of much modified (and undergoing restoration) MMS J39 can be found in the below post,, along with another phot  (by Mr Wright) in tha post above it.

 

 

P

Edited October 4, 2020 by Porcy Mane

[gr.king]

22 hours ago, Chuffer Davies said:

Hi,

Don't know what the minimum radius you are aiming for is?  The way I arranged the bogie meant that there was no need to cut away the inside of the cylinders to allow for swing of the front bogie wheel in EM.  It will be even better with OO clearances.  The benefit of the control pin at the rear of the bogie is that it stops the main frames from swinging too far in either direction which is normally the case if  it is only the coupled wheels controlling the swing.  It also stops the rear bogie wheels touching the main frames.  I should add that I still needed the centre bogie pivot inserted  through a curved slot but only as a means of attaching the bogie to the frames, the pin was doing all the control work.

Cheers,

Frank 

 

 

I can see a good case for the effective lengthening of the rigid wheelbase of an Atlantic. I think perhaps there's scope for trying out a combination of the best features of two methods of bogie guidance. The central bogie pin, moving in its curved slot that eases the bogie forwards as it steers aside, obliging the front wheels to stay forward of the cylinder fronts, plus a pin as you have used keeping the rear of the bogie on the centre-line of the loco, but free to move a little in a slot along that centre line, thus accommodating the slight forward displacement of the bogie on curves.

[hongkongmike]

On 30/09/2020 at 23:26, St Enodoc said:

@hongkongmike You seen this?

you betcha!

[grob1234]

Evening All,

 

I discussed briefly my 'plan' (such as I ever have one) to just close the gap between the footplate and the chassis frame on the Trice/Comet V2 I'm in the process of making.

 

Here is the before (I could sometimes see the wheels behind the splasher tops)

 

 

And here is the after: 

 

 

In order to achieve this, I simply used some old bits of plasticard to fill the gap. Although the footplate on the V2 was largely flat, as far as I can discern, I'm happier with this result than if the frames were visible. Once it's all black it should blend in quite nicely. In my opinion a worthwhile but small improvement on a lovely model.

 

Here's the bones of the operation:

 

 

Sorry for the clutter and unprofessional phone pics! It's just the mess and chaos that I like to work in. Usually about 6 sqare inches.

[Tony Wright]

51 minutes ago, grob1234 said:

Evening All,

 

I discussed briefly my 'plan' (such as I ever have one) to just close the gap between the footplate and the chassis frame on the Trice/Comet V2 I'm in the process of making.

 

Here is the before (I could sometimes see the wheels behind the splasher tops)

 

 

And here is the after: 

 

 

In order to achieve this, I simply used some old bits of plasticard to fill the gap. Although the footplate on the V2 was largely flat, as far as I can discern, I'm happier with this result than if the frames were visible. Once it's all black it should blend in quite nicely. In my opinion a worthwhile but small improvement on a lovely model.

 

Here's the bones of the operation:

 

 

Sorry for the clutter and unprofessional phone pics! It's just the mess and chaos that I like to work in. Usually about 6 sqare inches.

A neat solution, Tom,

 

I certainly didn't go this far with the two I've done. They're being painted right now by Geoff Haynes and I hope shadows will hide most of the 'gaps'.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[grob1234]

29 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

A neat solution, Tom,

 

I certainly didn't go this far with the two I've done. They're being painted right now by Geoff Haynes and I hope shadows will hide most of the 'gaps'.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

I do like to try and make things difficult for myself sometimes! 

 

[Kirby Uncoupler]

If anybody's interested, here's a little update on my bubblewrap underlay trial. I'm sorry to disappoint those people who still nail their track down with track pins, but this method is a glue sandwich, no bubbles were harmed in the making of this layout.

        I have now added ballast to a few test sections, sprinkling on loose chippings, a fine spray of soapy water, then with diluted PVA wood glue (+ dash of detergent to diffuse the mixture and help it spread) dripped on. When I previously ballasted track on foam rubber, I had to omit the detergent, since the diffused mixture would otherwise perculate down into the foam, and make it solid! No such problems here, the smooth top of the bubblewrap provides a waterproof layer, though one slight snag is the drying takes longer, since there is no absorbent layer. Prototype for everything - when Western Region relaid the main line through Badminton in the 1970s, they encountered various wet sections of ground, which caused drainage problems, the cure was to lay the track and ballast on thick plastic sheeting (no bubbles).

     My layout will depict the line as seen in the 1960s, so there is a mixture of bullhead and flat-bottom, wooden sleepers, and one stretch of concrete cwr sleepering, as per the real location. The points and sleepers on the Peco Code 75 flat-bottom, have been cut and spaced further apart, to improve the overall look, and be a closer match to the ready-made bullhead.  I have placed an unaltered point alongside to show the difference. 

 

 

The crossover uses mixed track, the nearest track is bullhead, the second is flat-bottom.

 

The nearest pair of tracks are the Up and Down Main in flat-bottom, the next pair are Up and Down Relief lines in bullhead. Next time, I can start a new thread in Layout Topics, so as not to clog up Tony's thread here.

               Cheers, Brian.

 

 

Edited October 5, 2020 by Kirby Uncoupler
Added two words

[Dylan Sanderson]

Good morning everyone, I wonder if someone can help me out here.

 

I'm wanting to recreate 4488 in this pictured condition, but I'm unsure what type of tender is being used. Google says 4488 always had a corridor tender, but looking at this image, I'd say she hasn't got one?

 

Thanks in advanced,

Dylan.

[jwealleans]

Mel Haigh's account of what tenders were used where (accessible here) is reckoned to be authoritative: he states

 

Tender Nº5325 - 1928 Corridor Type.   A44488UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA17/4/193722/3/1948

 

Tender Nº5332 – 1928 Corridor Type.   The tender was retained at Doncaster Works, and was attached to Class A4 Nº60009 UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA (in for a General Overhaul 16/7/1963 to 6/11/1963), 6/11/1963 to withdrawal 1/6/1966, when the Tender was not scrapped but was purchased by Alan Pegler and converted into the water carrying second tender for the preserved Class A3 FLYING SCOTSMAN.

 

Tender Nº5484 – 1928 Corridor Type.   The tender remained with Nº60004 until withdrawal on 17/7/1966. Again the tender did not go for scrap but was transferred to Class A4 Nº60009 UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA (it having lost its tender Nº5332 to FLYING SCOTSMAN) 17/6/1966 into preservation 10/9/1966.

 

Tender Nº5591 – Streamlined Corridor Type.  A4  60009  UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA  14/5/1948   16/7/1963

 

Tender Nº5636 – 1936 Non Corridor Streamlined Type.   A460009UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA5/5/194814/5/1948

 

According to that, the only time 4488/60009 did not have a corridor tender was for two weeks in May 1948.

 

Is your photograph dated?

 

After all that, Tony can probably tell just by looking anyway.

 

 

[Woodcock29]

Dylan

It looks like a 1928 corridor tender to me as its got beading on the front and top edges of the sides.

Andrew

[Dylan Sanderson]

Thanks chaps, that's very annoying as my donor model has a non-streamlined tender! Oh well... back to eBay. I'm pretty certainly my donor model will make a nice representation of Capercaillie, so I'll have a crack at her. 

 

The photo is captioned as LNER 4488 Union of South Africa suitably illustrates the new livery at York Shed during 1938.

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, Dylan Sanderson said:

Good morning everyone, I wonder if someone can help me out here.

 

I'm wanting to recreate 4488 in this pictured condition, but I'm unsure what type of tender is being used. Google says 4488 always had a corridor tender, but looking at this image, I'd say she hasn't got one?

 

Thanks in advanced,

Dylan.

It's a 1928 corridor tender, Dylan - ex-A1/A3. 

 

No non-corridor A4 tenders had beading.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Iain.d]

18 hours ago, Kirby Uncoupler said:

If anybody's interested, here's a little update on my bubblewrap underlay trial.

I think this looks quite good, interesting to see if the stock movement will alter the placement of the track.

 

Because of your original post the other day, on my way home from work tonight I went to our local stationery shop (Officeworks) and got a big roll of bubble wrap, thinking I might give it a go. When I got home I asked my partner what I should do with the roll I'd bought. She said 'pop it in the corner'. It took me ages.

 

Kind regards,

 

Iain

Edited October 6, 2020 by Iain.d
typo