Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

10 hours ago, petrovich said:

Thank you for the reply.  Tony is kindly forwarding some top hat bearings and I have the workshop equipment to make them fit nicely so hopefully all will be well. I will post progress updates and hopefully will not have to dismantle as you have done.

Good luck and keep us updated.

 

Regards

 

Peter

I'll send you the bearings Peter, though I still need your address. I have it somewhere, but where?

 

As with all these top hat bearings, it's unlikely (very!) unlikely that they'll drop into the holes in the frames first time. Those holes have to be broached/reamed - not drilled! The best practice is to do that BEFORE the frames are assembled, but it can be done afterwards. Most current bearings supplied (the ones I'll be sending, and the ones usually supplied in current kits) need a fair bit of 'meat' taking out of the frame holes, because the bearings' wall thickness is substantial. The original one eighth Romford top hat bearing had a much thinner wall size (I have a precious few left, though I think you can still get them), and needed less taking out from the frames. Markits' code for them is MRAXFB32 - 1/8" (3.7o/d x 2mm). I buy them by the hundreds! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

[stewartingram]

11 hours ago, New Haven Neil said:

There was also at least one Jinty that received its crest and number in NE style on the tank, not the bunker,  IIRC after repair at Darlington.  I have a copy of one photo but can't post it for copyright reasons.  There's a few around the place though.

Are you thinking of 47482? I have a photo which I can't post for copyright reasons, but it was overhauled then returned to Crewe South shed, very late on on 1966/67 I believe.

 

Stewart

[Mallard60022]

Tony, may I just ask about the reaming of the bearings? Many years back Geoff B (RIP) suggested that it could be worth giving a tiny amount of clearance* in the vertical plane in the centre and possibly the rear driver sets? What's your thinking on that please? I still tend to do it on the few kits I put together (and rarely finish.....). Thanks.

Phil

 

* Really only a fraction of a mill; just enough to allow a little movement.

[Barry Ten]

14 hours ago, glo41f said:

Mention has been made above of the Schools class named "Harrow". This Schools was the subject of one of the original Kitmaster kits and I like thousands of others, purchased the kit under some sort of delusion that you could make it work. Notwithstanding that, those economic kits enabled me and many others I suspect actually build something that looked like what it was supposed to be though the paint job was dreadful. Did anyone ever make a Harrow actually work? Did anyone succeed in getting the Peco "Perfecta" motorising kits to produce a working model?

 

Thank you for triggering another nostalgia gallop.

 

Martin Long

 

Hi Martin - this is my motorised Harrow, which Tony very kindly offered me as a project, including a Craftsman chassis and all wheels, motor etc.

 

 

As I think I mentioned elsewhere, not long after I took this photo the model suffered a catastrophic drop from about five feet onto wooden floor boards, leading to complete destruction of the whole cab and spectacle plate. The good news is that it's now virtually rebuilt and just going through some final touch-up work, so it should be back in running order before long. The chassis itself came away unscathed.

 

I wanted to finish testing the model thoroughly before painting the wheels malachite, but they'll be attended to in due course, as well as the remaining lining around the deflectors, footplate and so on.

 

Due to the high-pitch of the Schools boiler, there is a reasonable amount of room to add weight, without making the nose nose-heavy. Mine will take eight coaches without slipping which is as much as it needs to on my layout.

 

Al

[petrovich]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

I'll send you the bearings Peter, though I still need your address. I have it somewhere, but where?

 

As with all these top hat bearings, it's unlikely (very!) unlikely that they'll drop into the holes in the frames first time. Those holes have to be broached/reamed - not drilled! The best practice is to do that BEFORE the frames are assembled, but it can be done afterwards. Most current bearings supplied (the ones I'll be sending, and the ones usually supplied in current kits) need a fair bit of 'meat' taking out of the frame holes, because the bearings' wall thickness is substantial. The original one eighth Romford top hat bearing had a much thinner wall size (I have a precious few left, though I think you can still get them), and needed less taking out from the frames. Markits' code for them is MRAXFB32 - 1/8" (3.7o/d x 2mm). I buy them by the hundreds! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

Sent you a pm, I will also email you Tony.

 

Regards

 

Peter

[ScRSG]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

I'll send you the bearings Peter, though I still need your address. I have it somewhere, but where?

 

As with all these top hat bearings, it's unlikely (very!) unlikely that they'll drop into the holes in the frames first time. Those holes have to be broached/reamed - not drilled! The best practice is to do that BEFORE the frames are assembled, but it can be done afterwards. Most current bearings supplied (the ones I'll be sending, and the ones usually supplied in current kits) need a fair bit of 'meat' taking out of the frame holes, because the bearings' wall thickness is substantial. The original one eighth Romford top hat bearing had a much thinner wall size (I have a precious few left, though I think you can still get them), and needed less taking out from the frames. Markits' code for them is MRAXFB32 - 1/8" (3.7o/d x 2mm). I buy them by the hundreds! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

 

Tony et al, 

Was it not the case that on these original DJH chassis the thickness of the frames was enough to give a bearing surface and what appears to be bearings on the drawing were, in fact,  just spacing washers to set the wheels out from the frames to avoid any shorts? The frames will be drilled 1/8th for the axles. So, theoretically, no top hat bearings are required.

Chas

[Staffordshire]

   Any excuse to add a photo of a Schools class,  here is my 30927  Clifton  before coaling ,   constructed from a PDK kit ......

 

   I am currently having  30912 Downside built with the  8-wheeled  Lord Nelson tender,  something different !

 

Edited March 28, 2019 by Staffordshire
Added an extra comment ....

[petrovich]

4 minutes ago, ScRSG said:

 

Tony et al, 

Was it not the case that on these original DJH chassis the thickness of the frames was enough to give a bearing surface and what appears to be bearings on the drawing were, in fact,  just spacing washers to set the wheels out from the frames to avoid any shorts? The frames will be drilled 1/8th for the axles. So, theoretically, no top hat bearings are required.

Chas

Hi Chas

 

That is what is implied in the kit I have but the fit of the axle within the chassis is in my view not what I would expect. There is a small amount of lateral movement in the planes as against a nice rotational fit, as previously mentioned I could be totally wrong so my apologies if that is the case. I am very conscious that getting the chassis correct and alignment within limits is the best scenario for a smooth running model.

 

Regards

 

Peter

[The Fatadder]

 

Hi Tony

Thanks to your advice I have managed to get the wheels working a lot better, it turned out that it was the axles causing the problems as you suggested. 

 

Unfortunately I wasn’t able to source a replacement Mitchell chassis for my Manor, so instead have used the Comet product.  After test fitting the completed frame assembly under the body the wheels were fouling the tops of the splashers / the underside of the cab.  Closer inspection showed they are a lot shorter than the Mitchell frames. 

My solution was to use the detail overlays from the Mitchell kit (which were included on one of the body etches), which were tacked in place using the brake mounting holes as a guide.  This resulted in the ride now being far too high (along with a big gap above the cylinders & front frames which are not covered by the overlay.

 

I have a similar Mitchell chassis under a 2nd hand 43xx, so popped a Markits wheel in there for a comparison, looking at the distance between top of the wheel and top of the frame the Manor has approx 1mm while the 43xx has twice that.   Further investigation shows that the axles are mounted lower on the Comet chassis.  So I either need to cut out each axle and mount it 1mm higher, or remove 1mm from the top of the frames.   Hopefully then I can finally get body and chassis to work together!  

 

I feel that fixing the axles is probably the “right” thing to do, but doing so still leaves a huge gap above the top of the cylinders & forward frames.  At least if the frame overlays were reduced in height, the amount of material needing to be added to the forward frames is less.  I am a little worried that my next build is also a case of bodging a chassis to work with something that it was not designed for (Perseverance chassis under a Wills Saint. )

I would welcome the feedback of those far more experenced. 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 28, 2019 by The Fatadder
Edit to match text and photos

[cctransuk]

59 minutes ago, The Fatadder said:

 

Hi Tony

Thanks to your advice I have managed to get the wheels working a lot better, it turned out that it was the axles causing the problems as you suggested. 

 

Unfortunately I wasn’t able to source a replacement Mitchell chassis for my Manor, so instead have used the Comet product.  After test fitting the completed frame assembly under the body the wheels were fouling the tops of the splashers / the underside of the cab.  Closer inspection showed they are a lot shorter than the Mitchell frames. 

My solution was to use the detail overlays from the Mitchell kit (which were included on one of the body etches), which were tacked in place using the brake mounting holes as a guide.  This resulted in the ride now being far too high (along with a big gap above the cylinders & front frames which are not covered by the overlay.

 

I have a similar Mitchell chassis under a 2nd hand 43xx, so popped a Markits wheel in there for a comparison, looking at the distance between top of the wheel and top of the frame the Manor has approx 1mm while the 43xx has twice that.   Further investigation shows that the axles are mounted lower on the Comet chassis.  So I either need to cut out each axle and mount it 1mm higher, or remove 1mm from the top of the frames.   Hopefully then I can finally get body and chassis to work together!  

 

I feel that fixing the axles is probably the “right” thing to do, but doing so still leaves a huge gap above the top of the cylinders & forward frames.  At least if the frame overlays were reduced in height, the amount of material needing to be added to the forward frames is less.  I am a little worried that my next build is also a case of bodging a chassis to work with something that it was not designed for (Perseverance chassis under a Wills Saint. )

I would welcome the feedback of those far more experenced. 

 

 

 

 

 

Have you got an accurate drawing of the Manor chassis? Where should the axle centres be? How high above the axle centres should the top of the frames be?

 

Get these dimension correct - making allowance for the thickness of the running plate if necessary - and everything else should follow OK.

 

That said, Comet chassis are usually pretty accurate, in my experience; just be aware that they are designed to go under a thickish RTR plastic body, rather than a thin sheet metal one.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Edited March 28, 2019 by cctransuk

[Tony Wright]

9 hours ago, ScRSG said:

 

Tony et al, 

Was it not the case that on these original DJH chassis the thickness of the frames was enough to give a bearing surface and what appears to be bearings on the drawing were, in fact,  just spacing washers to set the wheels out from the frames to avoid any shorts? The frames will be drilled 1/8th for the axles. So, theoretically, no top hat bearings are required.

Chas

You're probably right Chas,

 

Though I've always fitted bearings to DJH chassis.

 

The only ones I've never fitted bearings to (no need) were Jamieson chassis.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

10 hours ago, Mallard60022 said:

Tony, may I just ask about the reaming of the bearings? Many years back Geoff B (RIP) suggested that it could be worth giving a tiny amount of clearance* in the vertical plane in the centre and possibly the rear driver sets? What's your thinking on that please? I still tend to do it on the few kits I put together (and rarely finish.....). Thanks.

Phil

 

* Really only a fraction of a mill; just enough to allow a little movement.

Geoff was right, Phil,

 

In a six-coupled chassis, I always open up the centre holes for the bearings just a 'twitch' more than the others, so they're no longer such a snug fit but a tiny bit loose for the bearings. I then solder in the bearings with the iron pushing them 'northwards'. That way, one never encounters the dreaded see-saw effect on any track undulations. It doesn't affect the coupling rod holes at all.  

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Theakerr]

ScRSG, I think you are correct but on mine even the non reamed holes were much larger than the Romford axles, so really I had no choice.  In any case I would have fitted bushing because I can run by hand a quality 1/8 drill bit through them and this seems to give just enough 'slop' that the wheels run smoothly.

[jamie92208]

I may have found the answer to the question of Midland Locos at York.   In Summerson Volume 3 (Midland Locomotive the Johnson Classes Part 1) on Page 181 it states :-

"47239 and 47254 were transferred to York in 1958, the first Midland engines allocated to that city since the 1930's. The improbable spectacle of a Midland station pilot was therefore to be relished rubbing shoulders with LNER Pacifics and the rest. Johnson would have liked it, or George Hudson."

These were members of the 2441 class and as far as I can tell would have been 1F's. Both were withdrawn in October 61.

 

Jamie

[Engineer]

Just an aside on a recent off-topic discussion that I’ve noticed on page 1335, then I’ll vanish.  I apologise that it isn’t modelling [mine or others] or steam and I aim not to stir a discussion that's in the past, simply to put a relevant fact on record for posterity.

 

My colleague posted on page 1335 a picture of a station sign “ St James’s Park ”, on the Outer Rail or Westbound platform, one of the sixteen station name signs at that site.  SJP is a nice station with some moderately interesting heritage features, especially for those interested in studying variants in tiling [see image].  Also, SJP was [apocryphally] the place where the bullseye or roundel station sign was first tested, over 100 years ago. 

 

Another of the SJP platform signs on the Inner Rail or Eastbound platform is an anomaly, evidence of an alternative use of the apostrophe or of a sense of humour.  The two direct images of the sign were taken this evening, with no alterations made after the exposures.

[Headstock]

Just catching up with the thread, what and erudite collection of subjects. Colour coded tractors by year of build, mine is grey. When roped on a lowfit and medfit, shouldn't the wagons have vac cylinders Tony? Tractors on wagons are the new buses on bridges. Alternative and puzzling ways of chassis construction and LM locomotives at York, my Father witnessed the Garratts on the old LM shed before the war and after.

 

What a shame that East coast modellers are so fixated on the southern end of the ECML, the racing stretch south of York was full of interest. The LM drivers must have enjoyed the opportunity to give it some welly. The link below is of Jubilee 5717 Dauntless, departing York with an express for Liverpool.

 

https://transportsofdelight.smugmug.com/RAILWAYS/LOCOMOTIVES-OF-THE-LONDON-MIDLAND-SCOTTISH-RAILWAY/LONDON-MIDLAND-SCOTTISH-RAILWAY/i-MMNJQLg/A

[Buhar]

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

In a six-coupled chassis, I always open up the centre holes for the bearings just a 'twitch' more than the others, so they're no longer such a snug fit but a tiny bit loose for the bearings. I then solder in the bearings with the iron pushing them 'northwards'. That way, one never encounters the dreaded see-saw effect on any track undulations. It doesn't affect the coupling rod holes at all.  

Hi Tony, 

I understood the Comet six coupled chassis is designed with the centre axle a smidgeon higher than the other two to protect against see-sawing.  When you put a Comet chassis (or one where you've edged the centre bearing "northwards") on a sheet of glass, do you get a tiny gap under the centre driver? If you do, it obviously impacts neither on running nor on haulage as several hours of video attest.

Alan

[96701]

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Geoff was right, Phil,

 

In a six-coupled chassis, I always open up the centre holes for the bearings just a 'twitch' more than the others, so they're no longer such a snug fit but a tiny bit loose for the bearings. I then solder in the bearings with the iron pushing them 'northwards'. That way, one never encounters the dreaded see-saw effect on any track undulations. It doesn't affect the coupling rod holes at all.  

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

I seem to recall Geoff telling me that he drew the centre axle ever so slightly higher than the other two on a six coupled chassis to avoid the rocking on centre drivers.

Edited March 28, 2019 by 96701
Beaten to it by Buhar above.

[The Fatadder]

5 minutes ago, 96701 said:

I seem to recall Geoff telling me that he drew the centre axle ever so slightly higher than the other two on a six coupled chassis to avoid the rocking on centre drivers.

That is good to know, I had wondered if I had made an error when j noticed this was the case on the Manor.  But was happy to ignore it given the rods worked and if avoided the rocking centre axle issue.  Now I know it was designed that way makes me feel better about my work 

[Tony Wright]

11 hours ago, Buhar said:

Hi Tony, 

I understood the Comet six coupled chassis is designed with the centre axle a smidgeon higher than the other two to protect against see-sawing.  When you put a Comet chassis (or one where you've edged the centre bearing "northwards") on a sheet of glass, do you get a tiny gap under the centre driver? If you do, it obviously impacts neither on running nor on haulage as several hours of video attest.

Alan

Good morning Alan,

 

The Comet six-coupled chassis might well have its centre bearing a smidgen high, but I give it the slightest tweak more. 

 

On a really flat surface, this results in the tiniest of gaps between the centre driver and the surface (fag paper thickness?), but, as you surmise, its only impact on the running is positive. 

 

On some six-coupled chassis I've built (not Comet), despite my raising the centre bearings slightly, the centre drivers have still been too low. This situation is anathema to good running, producing the 'see-saw' effect. What to do? Though this will cause apoplexy in engineers' circles, I file away at the tops of the insides of the bearings with a mouse-tail file. Carefully, just a stroke or two at a time, checking bit by bit, until a sliver of paper can be placed underneath the centre drivers without the chassis rocking. Is this the crudest form of compensation? Providing the drive is via a gearbox, then it works, and there's no rocking. There must be NO filing 'east/west'! If you watch GREAT NORTHERN's progress and MONS MEGS' progress through LB on the recent DVD, you'll note (I hope) really smooth-running, despite (or because of?) their centre drivers being able to move up and down a little. With just a straight worm/gear drive, it doesn't work, and one must resort to taking out the centre bearings and enlarging the holes in the frames even more, so that the bearings can migrate 'northwards'. Not recommended! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited March 29, 2019 by Tony Wright
typo error

[Tony Wright]

11 hours ago, Headstock said:

Just catching up with the thread, what and erudite collection of subjects. Colour coded tractors by year of build, mine is grey. When roped on a lowfit and medfit, shouldn't the wagons have vac cylinders Tony? Tractors on wagons are the new buses on bridges. Alternative and puzzling ways of chassis construction and LM locomotives at York, my Father witnessed the Garratts on the old LM shed before the war and after.

 

What a shame that East coast modellers are so fixated on the southern end of the ECML, the racing stretch south of York was full of interest. The LM drivers must have enjoyed the opportunity to give it some welly. The link below is of Jubilee 5717 Dauntless, departing York with an express for Liverpool.

 

https://transportsofdelight.smugmug.com/RAILWAYS/LOCOMOTIVES-OF-THE-LONDON-MIDLAND-SCOTTISH-RAILWAY/LONDON-MIDLAND-SCOTTISH-RAILWAY/i-MMNJQLg/A

Vacuum cylinders, Andrew?

 

Where? I'll ask the guys who've produced the wagons. As I've said many times, the wagon fleet on LB is really not my work (though it is my responsibility).

 

I doubt if any LMR locos' drivers had the chance to give their steeds any 'welly' south of York on the ECML, because they'd leave the main line proper at Chaloners Whin Junction, just to the south of the city. They might get going south from there, but not on the (old) ECML formation, which veered off towards Naburn, Escrick, Riccall and Selby.  

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[jamie92208]

Hopefully one last comment on the shed at York.   I've just looked up the Midland York Shed in the Hawkins and Reeve Book on LMS Engine Sheds V2.  Apparently it closed in the 30's and the last locos were transferred across the main line to the L & Y shed which was near the old museum.   That was later closed and they all got transferred back to York South.   The Midland Roundhouse was apparently demolished as late as 1963.   It was Number 27 in Midland days, then 19F under the LMS.   The two 0-6-0 T's carried 50A plates.   Among all the erudite ECML  info on this thread I hope that some information about the other railway has been of interest.

 

Jamie

Edited March 29, 2019 by jamie92208

[Headstock]

32 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Vacuum cylinders, Andrew?

 

Where? I'll ask the guys who've produced the wagons. As I've said many times, the wagon fleet on LB is really not my work (though it is my responsibility).

 

I doubt if any LMR locos' drivers had the chance to give their steeds any 'welly' south of York on the ECML, because they'd leave the main line proper at Chaloners Whin Junction, just to the south of the city. They might get going south from there, but not on the (old) ECML formation, which veered off towards Naburn, Escrick, Riccall and Selby.  

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Good morning Tony,

 

Chaloners Whin Junction, a perfect location for a model railway. Trains to Doncaster going south via the ECML. Trains to Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool, to the south and west via Church Fenton and trains to Swindon, Bristol, Swansea and Bournemouth straight on south through Church Fenton. Come to think of it, the Church Fenton line would be a little cracker, I have made many a fast run with steam in that local over the years. Evening Star, Green Arrow and City of Wells stand out as particularly memorable runs south from York.

[jamie92208]

15 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Good morning Tony,

 

Chaloners Whin Junction, a perfect location for a model railway. Trains to Doncaster going south via the ECML. Trains to Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool, to the south and west via Church Fenton and trains to Swindon, Bristol, Swansea and Bournemouth straight on south through Church Fenton. Come to think of it, the Church Fenton line would be a little cracker, I have made many a fast run with steam in that local over the years. Evening Star, Green Arrow and City of Wells stand out as particularly memorable runs south from York.

Colton Junction, which I suppose is the modern replacement for Chaloners Whin, is still a great place to watch trains.  Two overbridges, over the Leeds and Doncaster Lines, separated by a little area with a parking spot.  Views of both lines in both directions and an elevated viewpoint.   I've spent several hours there over the years. It's also the only junction in the UK with 125 mph facing points as far as I know.  Moving frog as well.

 

Jamie

[Headstock]

A nice bit of action at Colton.