Wright writes.....

[46444]

20 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening Mark,

 

I think by BR days (certainly towards the ends of the locos' lives) most, if not all, D49s got the GNR-style of smokebox door (as did most other surviving NER-built locos). This was usually a slightly larger diameter than the original NER-style smokebox door, and much more-bulbous.

 

It can be seen on both these D49s...........

 

 

Shire, with ex-NER tender.

 

 

Hunt with GS tender.

 

Some time ago I was asked by Ben Jones when he was Editor of BRM if I'd do a conversion of a Hornby Hunt into a Shire in 'the simplest possible way'. It was for his dad's birthday. I was provided with the RTR Hornby Hunt (loco-drive) and a Bachmann GC tender. I wrote about it in BRM.

 

One of the things which needed changing was the smokebox door.........

 

 

This was the original (plastic) NER-style smokebox door (with the inner handle in that position, the smokebox would not have been airtight). 

 

Now, I know this is not much help to you, because I looked in my spares box for a suitable alternative.........

 

 

And found one. As to its origins, I have no idea. What was also needed was a brass disc to represent the front ring of the smokebox (this came from EAMES many, many years ago. It was part of the Jamieson range). 

 

And thus.............

 

 

 

It was fixed in place.

 

Quite a bit of surgery was also needed to the loco's body, as can be seen.

 

 

 

As I say, it was a simple conversion, retaining much of what Hornby supplied. To keep costs down (it was being given to a Yorkshireman from a Yorkshireman!), I painted it. 

 

Ben was delighted, his dad was delighted and I was pleased. 

 

The smokebox door dart is a bit chunky (origin unknown) and I'd have chucked the valve gear away and replaced it with something much finer, but the brief was................ However, I did replace the horrid bogie wheels with the correct, 12-spoked type. 

 

The PDK D49 has been mentioned..........

 

 

 

I can't recall who brought this beautiful model to Little Bytham, but I think it was built/painted by PDK. It has the original smokebox door. If PDK does the later-style one, I don't know.

 

I have another cast smokebox door and brass ring, so, if you'd like them, please PM me. If you do, I'll post them to you and you can make a donation to a charity of your choice. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

 

Thankyou Tony for your in depth reply and that of other posters who have shared their knowledge of D49/1's and their tenders. The Dunn book lists tenders attached to class members. 

 

With Ben's father's model Tony has essentially the same starting point I have. I have the same ROD tender but I also have a D49/1 bodyshell. 

 

Tony has expertly removed the D49/2 adornments cleverly to convert it to a D49/1. He has added in the extra pipe runs as well. 

 

The face of the loco captures the prototype nicely with the new smoke box door. I'll PM you Tony re: your kind offer. 

 

Out of interest Tony did you alter the cylinders by putting an overlay on them with rivet detail?

 

Also can you remember how you coupled the loco and tender and did you manage to retain the tender pick ups. 

 

Hopefully my take on a D49/1 will capture the essence of the prototype like Tony's model within the limitations of the donor model. 

 

Thanks to all especially Tony. 

 

Cheers, 

 

Mark 

[thegreenhowards]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Our pleasure Geoff,

 

The final cock-ups, of course, were mine. 

 

There was one 'layout' hiccup if you recall? Where that A1 on the 'West Riding' stalled on leaving the fiddle yard?

 

This one, on one of its other usual Bytham duties......

 

 

It was one I acquired part-built from the estate of a deceased modeller. He'd made the chassis (minus valve gear) as a runner and part-built the body. I completed it and Geoff Haynes did his usual superlative painting job. 

 

The builder had installed plunger pick-ups (which I'm not a fan of), which seemed to work OK, until recently (hence the stalling?). Now, as you know, I cannot tolerate dodgy locos, so, as as matter of urgency, I've investigated the problem.

 

Here comes the cautionary tale. Never make assumptions! 

 

I cleaned the plungers as best I could (thin blade and some clean Kleenex), and it seemed to be improved, yet, it still wanted to stall (not as much, but still irritating). 

 

I then tried the crocodile clips (which should have been my first port of call). Yes, with a clip attached to the frames (this loco is live to one side), then touching all the insulated wheels in turn with the other clip, no problem. What was the problem then? 

 

I then tried touching each 'live' wheel at a time. One was dead! Why? It was an insulated driver! 

 

How this loco has worked so well up to now, is beyond me. Electrically, it was a 4-5-2! It's obvious that the plungers had been working fine, but with a bit of dirt............ I was looking for the solution in the wrong place. 

 

It's not a problem now. Why not?

 

 

 

By drilling a hole between the centre of the wheel and the tyre, through the insulation, then pressing in some brass wire with an interference fit, then soldering it behind the tyre, I've made the errant wheel non-insulated. 

 

I suppose it's a testament to how flat Bytham's track is that the model has worked so well for the past four/five years, but I'd never have first-guessed that that was the problem. There is no problem now. 

 

The moral? Never assume anything.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

I’ve had one like that which I bought off ebay. It also took me a while to figure out what was wrong!
 

Even weirder, I bought one loco which was correctly fitted with live drivers on one side, but the builder had also put pick ups to all the wheels including the live ones. Why?!!!

[t-b-g]

5 hours ago, 45609 said:

 

This is a rather odd GS look-i-like that was built onto the top of a GCR underframe

 

 

Also some evidence of modification of a GCR or ex ROD tender in BR days behind a D49. Note curved rear coal plate

 

 

Not found a photo yet of a D49 in revenue service that has front vertical handrails the same as Morayshire.

 

Cheers...Morgan

 

Thanks Morgan. Most interesting. The curved back coal plate is a feature of pre Robinson period tenders, so I wonder if that is how this one started life. It would explain the round filler cap too, which is Pollitt/Parker period. If the GCR section was being asked to give up tenders for use on D49s, I can understand that they may have shuffled the pack and passed on older tenders rather than newer ones. The GCR never had a "pool" of spare tenders like some other railways, so the available tenders are likely to have been from classes withdrawn in or around the early 1940s and they would likely have been things like J10s, D6s or suchlike.

 

Very few Robinson tender locos had been withdrawn by then and although tenders did get swapped, I can imagine Gorton hanging on to the newer ones if the opportunity arose. 

[t-b-g]

2 hours ago, ScRSG said:

 

Does this help the Morayshire tender debate?

 

 

(No idea about copyright holder, will delete if necessary)

 

Chas

 

That also looks to me to be a Parker or Pollitt tender. Robinson had a deep dislike of visible rivet heads and that row attaching the rear flare isn't something I have ever seen on a Robinson tender but they do appear on the earlier ones. It probably had visible rivets all over the side too at one point but these may have been replaced/ground off flush during Robinson's tenure on a works visit. The ill fitting upper side sheets suggest that they may have been added later and were not on the tender from new. I think all Robinson tenders were built with them.

[Theakerr]

1 hour ago, thegreenhowards said:

I’ve had one like that which I bought off ebay. It also took me a while to figure out what was wrong!
 

Even weirder, I bought one loco which was correctly fitted with live drivers on one side, but the builder had also put pick ups to all the wheels including the live ones. Why?!!!

Because it self centers the wheels.

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, 46444 said:

 

Thankyou Tony for your in depth reply and that of other posters who have shared their knowledge of D49/1's and their tenders. The Dunn book lists tenders attached to class members. 

 

With Ben's father's model Tony has essentially the same starting point I have. I have the same ROD tender but I also have a D49/1 bodyshell. 

 

Tony has expertly removed the D49/2 adornments cleverly to convert it to a D49/1. He has added in the extra pipe runs as well. 

 

The face of the loco captures the prototype nicely with the new smoke box door. I'll PM you Tony re: your kind offer. 

 

Out of interest Tony did you alter the cylinders by putting an overlay on them with rivet detail?

 

Also can you remember how you coupled the loco and tender and did you manage to retain the tender pick ups. 

 

Hopefully my take on a D49/1 will capture the essence of the prototype like Tony's model within the limitations of the donor model. 

 

Thanks to all especially Tony. 

 

Cheers, 

 

Mark 

Good evening Mark,

 

I've put all the D49 rebuild-sequence pictures on here. 

 

They should be axiomatic.........

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I didn't alter the cylinders, but retained the tender pick-ups on the Bachmann tender; by by-passing the DCC encumbrance in the loco's original wiring. The new 'drawbar' arrangement can be seen.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

I’ve had one like that which I bought off ebay. It also took me a while to figure out what was wrong!
 

Even weirder, I bought one loco which was correctly fitted with live drivers on one side, but the builder had also put pick ups to all the wheels including the live ones. Why?!!!

Good evening Andy,

 

I've never come across it before (though I have seen a 'mysterious' short corrected by making sure that the three insulated wheels were on one side and the three (or more, or fewer) non-insulated were on the other. 

 

I have seen examples of pick-ups on the backs of the non-insulated wheels, which could help in keeping the wheels centred. This might be necessary where tight curves are required (with consequent huge amount of slop in the axles), but where reasonable curves are present (3' or more) then there's no need for 'pressure pads' for centring, since only the middle axle on a six-coupled can move from side to side. That's how I arrange mine for the main line on LB, though six-coupled locos on the MR/M&GNR bit have more sideplay. That said, despite their only having pick-ups on one side, there's no need for centring.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Jesse Sim]

9 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Jesse,

 

I didn't know what type of van it is, but, whatever it is, it's a most-natural model. So, thanks again.

 

All our phone calls are in jest, as you know I know, that you know, that I know, that you.............

 

What the model did (and it will run on the M&GNR bit) was set my mind thinking as to what I was building when I was your age, 50 years ago. Certainly not anything to the standard you've just produced.

 

I have no photographs to show what I was making 50 years ago, and anything from that time has long gone; either being given away, sold (to anyone with a white stick and a dog!), hopefully lost or destroyed. 

 

What was I doing? Motorising Kitmaster/Airfix locos, those still in production. I fitted a Tri-ang 2-6-2T chassis underneath a Kitmaster 76XXX Mogul by cutting the rear of the chassis off. I seem to recall fitting Romford wheels to it at the time, considering myself a 'scale' modeller, especially as I then fitted a Tri-ang 0-6-0 Jinty chassis beneath a BEC J11 I'd made (with Araldite!!!!!!), fitting Romfords as well. Where are these models now? Please, please, if anyone has them, please, please keep them a secret. I never want to ever see them again!

 

The oldest example of my work on Little Bytham is this superannuated K's O4, built in the early/mid-'70s, so getting on for 50 years old.

 

 

There is a wall in a bedroom in a house in Stafford which has an imprint of this loco's chassis embedded in the plaster, after I'd hurled it at the wall, with a volley of vituperative exclamations! It can't be seen right now (I assume still) because I filled that imprint with Polyfilla, but distant archaeologists might one day ponder what it represents. 

 

Foolishly, I built it with what was supplied, including the K's drivers! In time, I chose more-wisely and fitted Romfords to the frames (which, amazingly, were still useable). I'd fitted the K's motor, but that's long-gone. 

 

I keep this model as a curiosity piece, more to tell me how poor were my standards back then. However, on a layout, at more than three feet away? 

 

Other models from the same time include...........

 

 

This old Wills A2, running on a Tri-ang Britannia chassis fitted with Romfords. At least I eventually replaced its dome and made a DJH tender for it. Again, more of a curiosity piece. 

 

In my later-20s, I'd (hopefully) moved on.........

 

 

To my first scratch-built loco, this O1 (though fitted with a Ks tender). 

 

Not a patch on the RTR Hornby one, but 'mine' in a unique way. 

 

 

And building Jamieson kits. 

 

 

Even a hand-cut Jamieson kit, built when I was 29. 

 

What's the point of this rambling missive? If nothing else to assure you that you're on the road (well on the way, in fact) to becoming a very high-standard modeller. You've asked the right questions of the right people, taken on board what's important to you and are prepared to 'have a go', making things yourself rather than just being a purchaser/commissioner. 

 

I look forward to seeing even greater progress.

 

Thanks again, Jesse.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

You’re most welcome Tony, I wanted to trial it out, the weathered beaten down look. So I thought I’d try it with your wagon, if it didn’t look right, who cares it’s going to you and I won’t see it again!!  

 

Work smarter, not harder! 
 

Now, I know that you knew that I know that you did in fact know… forget it

 

Thanks for the humble words Tony, all of my wagon building is down to Jonathan, he’s really been the most help. I’ve stuck to him like glue, I swear he gets over all my messages! 
 

Now, either I'm going to jump for joy, or turn and run with my tail between my legs…..but you have replied with: “You've asked the right questions of the right people” shouldn’t it be “off” not “of”?

 

Thanks again Tony, hope she behaves herself. 

[thegreenhowards]

1 hour ago, Theakerr said:

Because it self centers the wheels.

 

35 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening Andy,

 

I've never come across it before (though I have seen a 'mysterious' short corrected by making sure that the three insulated wheels were on one side and the three (or more, or fewer) non-insulated were on the other. 

 

I have seen examples of pick-ups on the backs of the non-insulated wheels, which could help in keeping the wheels centred. This might be necessary where tight curves are required (with consequent huge amount of slop in the axles), but where reasonable curves are present (3' or more) then there's no need for 'pressure pads' for centring, since only the middle axle on a six-coupled can move from side to side. That's how I arrange mine for the main line on LB, though six-coupled locos on the MR/M&GNR bit have more sideplay. That said, despite their only having pick-ups on one side, there's no need for centring.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Thanks both,

 

The self centering had never occurred to me but I suppose it makes sense. I stripped it out with no problems that I remember - I can’t even remember which loco it was now!

 

Andy

[micklner]

The last reissue of the Hornby  D49 a conversion from 2012. The photos of the completed loco have disapeared off the forum. I will do a couple of the finished Loco tomorrow . I believe she now has a Bachmann GS Tender .

 

[polybear]

1 hour ago, Jesse Sim said:

Now, either I'm going to jump for joy, or turn and run with my tail between my legs…..but you have replied with: “You've asked the right questions of the right people” shouldn’t it be “off” not “of”?

 

Sorry Jesse - time to start running.......

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, Jesse Sim said:

You’re most welcome Tony, I wanted to trial it out, the weathered beaten down look. So I thought I’d try it with your wagon, if it didn’t look right, who cares it’s going to you and I won’t see it again!!  

 

Work smarter, not harder! 
 

Now, I know that you knew that I know that you did in fact know… forget it

 

Thanks for the humble words Tony, all of my wagon building is down to Jonathan, he’s really been the most help. I’ve stuck to him like glue, I swear he gets over all my messages! 
 

Now, either I'm going to jump for joy, or turn and run with my tail between my legs…..but you have replied with: “You've asked the right questions of the right people” shouldn’t it be “off” not “of”?

 

Thanks again Tony, hope she behaves herself. 

Good question, Jesse, 

 

One might say ' I've got the right answers 'off' so and so, but it's better to say 'from'. 

 

More grammatical twists and turns.

 

Anyway, the wagon runs just fine, once I fitted it with wheels!

 

Best regards,

 

Tony. 

[45609]

3 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

Thanks Morgan. Most interesting. The curved back coal plate is a feature of pre Robinson period tenders, so I wonder if that is how this one started life. It would explain the round filler cap too, which is Pollitt/Parker period. If the GCR section was being asked to give up tenders for use on D49s, I can understand that they may have shuffled the pack and passed on older tenders rather than newer ones. The GCR never had a "pool" of spare tenders like some other railways, so the available tenders are likely to have been from classes withdrawn in or around the early 1940s and they would likely have been things like J10s, D6s or suchlike.

 

Very few Robinson tender locos had been withdrawn by then and although tenders did get swapped, I can imagine Gorton hanging on to the newer ones if the opportunity arose. 

An interesting thought Tony and one that I hadn’t considered. That might also explain the GS style rebuilding of the tank in a few cases. Actually 10 after checking. The original tender tank being so rotted out that it was easier and more economical to build a completely new one.

 

Cheers…Morgan

Edited January 11, 2022 by 45609
Add more detail

[Dylan Sanderson]

Some of you may know I’m building a model based on Escrick. It’s not that far away for me so I decided to travel up to measure up the bridge that still exists, so I can draw it in CAD and turn it into a kit.

 

I took this photo to show how much the location has changed in 70 years…

 

It’s crazy how quickly time can swallow up history!

[Woodcock29]

The discussion on the GC tenders attached to D49s has been most enjoyable. All who have contributed have had something to add.

 

When I posted the photos on the previous page of Morayshire's tender in 2008 I queried the presence of the rearward fire iron bracket. Tony Gee has pointed out the row of rivets at the base of the rear tender flare on Morayshire's tender in the BR period photo above suggesting it may well have come from a Pollitt or Parker loco. If that is so that would most likely explain the presence of the second fire iron bracket unless of course it was added in preservation days for convenience. Such a row of rivets is also visible on a tender attached to 62705 at the top of page 30 In Yeadon Vol 10.  I suspect some of the tenders could be from D6s as the side coping plates have the curved ends. On J10s they normally had squared off ends. We'll probably never know. I only wish I had checked the front coal plate on Morayshire's tender to see if the tender number plate was present. If it was this would tell us which loco it was originally attached to. Does anybody have photo of the front of the tender or access to look?

 

Andrew

[65179]

45 minutes ago, Woodcock29 said:

The discussion on the GC tenders attached to D49s has been most enjoyable. All who have contributed have had something to add.

 

When I posted the photos on the previous page of Morayshire's tender in 2008 I queried the presence of the rearward fire iron bracket. Tony Gee has pointed out the row of rivets at the base of the rear tender flare on Morayshire's tender in the BR period photo above suggesting it may well have come from a Pollitt or Parker loco. If that is so that would most likely explain the presence of the second fire iron bracket unless of course it was added in preservation days for convenience. Such a row of rivets is also visible on a tender attached to 62705 at the top of page 30 In Yeadon Vol 10.  I suspect some of the tenders could be from D6s as the side coping plates have the curved ends. On J10s they normally had squared off ends. We'll probably never know. I only wish I had checked the front coal plate on Morayshire's tender to see if the tender number plate was present. If it was this would tell us which loco it was originally attached to. Does anybody have photo of the front of the tender or access to look?

 

Andrew

 

Yeadon lists all 23 tenders attached to Scottish D49s as Robinson tenders. The other 5 attached to D49s as Robinson/ROD. The GC tender D49 shots in this thread all show the tell-tale valance and steps combo of a Robinson tender. None show the Pollitt arrangement previously discussed on here in the context of J10s. Changes made to the tender/tenders at works other than Gorton (for example, think of the range of tank fillers fitted to ex-NER tenders at Darlington) pre-preservation (plus other changes post-preservation) look like a stronger contender for an explanation of the differences shown in the various posted photos than changes made to Pollitt or Parker tenders both above and below the running plate (note even those rebuilt with GS style tender tops seem to have retained the original steps/valance).

 

Regards,

Simon

Edited January 11, 2022 by 65179

[t-b-g]

21 minutes ago, 65179 said:

 

Yeadon lists all 23 tenders attached to Scottish D49s as Robinson tenders. The other 5 attached to D49s as Robinson/ROD. The GC tender D49 shots in this thread all show the tell-tale valance and steps combo of a Robinson tender. None show the Pollitt arrangement previously discussed on here in the context of J10s. Changes made to the tender/tenders at works other than Gorton pre-preservation (plus other changes post-preservation) look like a stronger contender for an explanation of the changes shown than changes made to Pollitt or Parker tenders both above and below the running plate (note even those rebuilt with GS stylectender tops seem to have retained the original steps/valance).

 

Regards,

Simon

 

I don't have the relevant volume as I always used to borrow it from the late Malcolm Crawley when I needed it but there is, if my memory serves me correctly, a full list of all the GCR tenders by number with a list of the numbers of the locos they ran with in Appendix 2 of LNER Locos by Willie Yeadon.

 

Anybody with access to that could probably settle all the speculation and conjecture! As Woodcock29 has said, the tenders were given the same number as their first allocated loco and kept the number throughout, so if the tender number is the same as a Robinson loco, it is a Robinson tender. If the tender number is that of a Pollitt loco, it is a Pollitt tender.

 

It is fascinating to see just how many times some locos did swap tenders. I recall looking at the preserved O4 to see whether it should have an ROD or a GCR tender in 1957 and it had been paired with (from memory) 6 or 7 tenders over its working life.

[45568]

With your permission Tony, the D49 has always been a favourite class of mine, although I never saw any 'back in the day', I was fortunate to see 'Morayshire' at the GCR in 2014.

My take on the Hornby D49 as follows:

 

 

I have also modelled 62717 with an ex-N.E. tender and 62723 with an attempt at the re-bodied G.C. tender. I have since found evodence that this should tow the flare-sided 4200 gal. G.S. type. I have plans to model 62742, with its unusual large red-backed nameplate, plus at least two other 'Shires'! So little time, so much to do!

Cheers from Oz,

Peter C.

[65179]

1 minute ago, t-b-g said:

 

I don't have the relevant volume as I always used to borrow it from the late Malcolm Crawley when I needed it but there is, if my memory serves me correctly, a full list of all the GCR tenders by number with a list of the numbers of the locos they ran with in Appendix 2 of LNER Locos by Willie Yeadon.

 

Anybody with access to that could probably settle all the speculation and conjecture! As Woodcock29 has said, the tenders were given the same number as their first allocated loco and kept the number throughout, so if the tender number is the same as a Robinson loco, it is a Robinson tender. If the tender number is that of a Pollitt loco, it is a Pollitt tender.

 

It is fascinating to see just how many times some locos did swap tenders. I recall looking at the preserved O4 to see whether it should have an ROD or a GCR tender in 1957 and it had been paired with (from memory) 6 or 7 tenders over its working life.

 

That's what I was quoting from Tony. It only gives the initial allocation of GC tenders for the D49s without a separate list of tenders per loco. I started to play hunt the D49 amongst the tender list, but didn't spot it beyond its first tender. As I said above, no Pollitt tenders were in the list of 28. The data should be take  with a pinch of salt given the various heath warnings in the book.

 

Simon

[t-b-g]

1 minute ago, 65179 said:

 

That's what I was quoting from Tony. It only gives the initial allocation of GC tenders for the D49s without a separate list of tenders per loco. I started to play hunt the D49 amongst the tender list, but didn't spot it beyond its first tender. As I said above, no Pollitt tenders were in the list of 28. The data should be take  with a pinch of salt given the various heath warnings in the book.

 

Simon

 

I am still pretty certain that some of those photographed with D49s are not Robinson pattern GCR tenders unless they have been altered. I have never seen a Robinson era GCR tender with a round filler cap like those. The only GCR pattern tenders I know of with such a filler cap are either ex ROD or pre Robinson types and only the Pollitt/Parker type has the curved rear coal plate and the square end to the dragbox end plate (good spot Mike Edge).

 

Still, I don't know as much about GCR tenders, especially Pollitt/Parker period ones, as I would like to so I am always willing to learn more. This discussion is certainly increasing my knowledge!  

[Jesse Sim]

9 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

 

Anyway, the wagon runs just fine, once I fitted it with wheels!

 

 

 

 

The last wagon I built you said you’d fit the wheels, so I assumed you would again….

 

Note to self, supply Mr Wrights wagons with wheels. 

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, Jesse Sim said:

The last wagon I built you said you’d fit the wheels, so I assumed you would again….

 

Note to self, supply Mr Wrights wagons with wheels. 

Good morning Jesse,

 

It's not a problem, my fitting the wheels. 

 

What impressed me was that it ran perfectly once the wheels were in. Did you build it without wheels? If so, well done because I don't think I'd have got everything square and true without building a wagon around its wheels in place, at least for part of the time - checking on a piece of mirror glass during the build, for instance.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

8 hours ago, 45568 said:

With your permission Tony, the D49 has always been a favourite class of mine, although I never saw any 'back in the day', I was fortunate to see 'Morayshire' at the GCR in 2014.

My take on the Hornby D49 as follows:

 

 

I have also modelled 62717 with an ex-N.E. tender and 62723 with an attempt at the re-bodied G.C. tender. I have since found evodence that this should tow the flare-sided 4200 gal. G.S. type. I have plans to model 62742, with its unusual large red-backed nameplate, plus at least two other 'Shires'! So little time, so much to do!

Cheers from Oz,

Peter C.

Good morning Peter,

 

Thanks for posting these. Very nice work.

 

And, you don't need my permission to do anything.

 

Just one point; nit-picking, perhaps - if you can, fit 12-spoke bogie wheels. Yes, I know, in motion, who can count the smokes? However, many locos had distinctive features; including the number of spokes in their wheels. Anything NER/ex-NER-designed/built, which had carrying wheels, seemed to have 12 spokes in them (apart from the B1s). Thus, the B17s and D49s (both Grouping-built) had these wheels. 

 

It's the same with locos like the 'Princess Coronations', which had only nine-spokes in their bogie wheels (something passed on to the BR Standards). DJH used to supply Romford/Jackson wheels in their kits, with ten spokes in the 12mm carrying wheels and 12 spokes in the 14mm ones, regardless of what the kits represented. 

 

At the risk of being more of a hypocrite than usual, many of my earlier-build LNER 6' 8" Pacifics have two too many spokes in their driving wheels - older-fashioned Romford/Markits 26mm with 22 spokes rather than 20! They're staying, and, anyway, they're not so easy to count the spokes in as in bogie wheels.

 

Fortunately, I saw some Hunts/Shires, mainly at Doncaster, where little attention was paid to them. They'd usually come in with portions of trains from the likes of Hull, which were then added to full expresses in the station. One could usually be seen sitting in an engine spur adjacent to Doncaster's North 'box, waiting to take the Hull portion of an express, which it picked up after the main portion had departed for York. All were filthy in my memory. The last time I saw one (other than MORAYSHIRE) was at Hull Paragon, over 60 years ago, performing pilot duties, right at the end of its life. Can you imagine a loco being called THE CRAVEN today? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

Edited January 12, 2022 by Tony Wright
to add something

[Jesse Sim]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Jesse,

 

It's not a problem, my fitting the wheels. 

 

What impressed me was that it ran perfectly once the wheels were in. Did you build it without wheels? If so, well done because I don't think I'd have got everything square and true without building a wagon around its wheels in place, at least for part of the time - checking on a piece of mirror glass during the build, for instance.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

I always knock up the basic shell first, with just a blob of solder on all four ends, fit the W irons, then check with wheels if it’s all good. Twist and bend if necessary, Then solder the body together completely. 

One thing I have trouble with is Parkside kits, the W irons and solebars are one and you have to glue them facing outwards so the wheels run freely. One thing I did do recently was use brass fittings to enhance the Parkside kit, what I might try on the next conflat I have to build is use brass W irons. 
 

 

[Woodcock29]

6 minutes ago, Jesse Sim said:

I always knock up the basic shell first, with just a blob of solder on all four ends, fit the W irons, then check with wheels if it’s all good. Twist and bend if necessary, Then solder the body together completely. 

One thing I have trouble with is Parkside kits, the W irons and solebars are one and you have to glue them facing outwards so the wheels run freely. One thing I did do recently was use brass fittings to enhance the Parkside kit, what I might try on the next conflat I have to build is use brass W irons. 
 

 

Jesse

Just a small point. On the conflat above the brake lever needs to be shortened so that the bracket is centered more or less on the right half of the W iron.

Andrew