Jump to content

Please use M,M&M only for topics that do not fit within other forum areas. All topics posted here await admin team approval to ensure they don't belong elsewhere.

Wright writes.....


Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, micklner said:

Looks like a 3500 gallon Tender, judging from the apparent length of the cutouts on the top.

 

Lovely work. How did you re wheel the Bachmann chassis ?

 

It also shows how good the Bachmann body still is, a great shame Bachmann decided to not produce a new chassis for it.

'Looks like a 3500 gallon Tender, judging from the apparent length of the cutouts on the top'.

 

I don't think it's a smaller-capacity GS tender, Mick.

 

Those behind J38s had asymmetrical cut-outs, front and rear.

 

363029030_J3865907ThorntonJunction30_07.5583F4.jpg.4ffa61ea0555f00406301def7032dbd0.jpg

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

  • Agree 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening Andy,

 

Impressive workmanship, but might it be better to use .45mm nickel silver wire for the handrails? Far less chance of their bending.

 

I did use 14mm bogie/pony wheels, but new ones with RP25 profile flanges. The ones on your C2 seem to be the old-style 14mm Romfords - too large a flange, and two too many spokes as well. Please change them.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

Your obviously right about the handrails looking at the photo - next time?

 

The finer profile might help. These were robbed from the cartezzi trucks of a couple of A1 kits in the roundtuit pile, so will need replacing anyway.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chuffer Davies said:

Hi Andy,

 

Congratulations on a beautiful looking model.   With regards the problem you are experiencing with negotiating curved track I have recently had to consider the same problem with a replacement chassis that I've built for a Bachman C1.  I suspect that this is too late for you to consider for your model but for anyone else thinking of building one of these in the future my approach has been to extend the fixed wheelbase of the loco by anchoring the rear of the bogie to the main frames  directly above the rear axle of the bogie.  This does not extend the wheelbase significantly and my model will easily negotiate 36" radius curves (in EM).  This approach has several benefits these being:  There is no need to provide clearance in the frames for the rear bogie wheels.  By effectively making the loco behave more like a 2-6-2 it reduces buffer swing and the risk of buffer locking.  The bogie helps to steer the locomotive through the curves. 

 

The following photo of the  completed frames should help to illustrate how this was achieved.  The vertical pin that can just be seen directly above the rear bogie axle is inserted through a plate soldered between the frames and it is this that allows the back of the bogie to control the movement of the frames through the curves.  

 

IMG_2100.jpg.b2867fe2cd0378277afe4efcd213786b.jpg

 

Regards,

 

Frank

Thanks Frank,

 

I did wonder about pivoting the bogie from above - what is the advantage of pivoting from the rear axle rather than the centre point?

 

I think I’ll try the RP25 profile wheels first. If that doesn’t work, some more major surgery like you suggest might be necessary.

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, great central said:

Mentioned earlier, I have looked for my MTK standard 5 but it's being rather elusive at the moment, I have stock split between the garage and small bedroom (dump!) in the house.

While looking I remembered I'd posted a picture of it before somewhere in the MTK thread in the collectable/vintage section so hopefully I've copied the picture across.

The proportions look a bit off but I think it looks better in the metal than the picture, anyway it was built getting on for 40 years ago.

The big gap where the firebox should be is actually an XO4 motor, hint don't take low level photos of your toy trains!

 

image.png.21dbd02ea1203eacb5bb97c274389127.png

Well done for actually making it - you're a better man than I........................

 

However, it illustrates many of the reasons why I abandoned mine. The boiler is nearer in diameter to the BR Standard 4 4-6-0, and the drop down from the central running plate to the front is  too deep, resulting in the front buffer beam being too low. I did think of opening out the boiler and soldering a wedge in the bottom to get nearer the correct diameter, but gave up. You've also illustrated another reason why I got no further than some soldering and much swearing - the relationship between the cylinders and the bogie. The cylinders should be equidistant between the bogie wheels. 

 

I also had a bash at the tender (bash being an appropriate term), but it came out too tall, resulting in the buffers not matching the height of my stock. 

 

It's not my intention to deride your model. Indeed, I applaud you for making such a good job, but the MTK kit was way beyond my capabilities in making it look accurate. 

 

I'm very fortunate in that my current BR Standard Five running on Little Bytham is a product of the work of Geoff Kent and the late Roy Jackson.............

 

942507066_73XXX73069.jpg.6ad227948af46fb1dba079218402428f.jpg

 

It's built from a DJH kit. I replaced the motor and fitted correct, nine-spoke bogie wheels.

 

2129763255_Shap15.jpg.1de471bc01b71ea8a9124650467398f6.jpg

 

It's also seen use on Shap. 

 

1015185279_BRStandard73XXX.jpg.458f8c398d4203a0a87d75eefbbc3550.jpg

 

Another DJH BR Standard Five. I can't recall the builder/painter of this, but he belongs to the Metropolitan Junction crew. It was brought and given a run on LB when the chaps visited last year. Though the group models mainly in EM, this one (obviously) is OO.

 

I say again, please don't think I'm having a 'pop' at your laudable effort; I'm not, but the MTK's kit's inaccuracies at source rendered it beyond my capabilities. 

 

I've built a few DJH Standard Fives down the years, but none for me. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

 

 

  • Like 10
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, robertcwp said:

Thanks, that looks like an interesting tool to have. However, the problem here is a different one. Here is a view of the bogie:

 

50151914073_96755bb3d1_c.jpgP1080776am by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

The metal inside already give an excellent pinpoint bearing. Taking this out would make the spacing even wider, and too wide for 26 mm axles even with new bearings. The Bachmann wheels, which are split axle, have a point to point distance of a bit over 26 mm. When I put a Romford wheelset in, it rattled about. I don't know if that is because Romford's 26 mm was a bit on the short side or whether it is because the spacing is too wide. Before going any further, I shall try some Gibson EM wheelsets, when I have some. 

 

The image also illustrates the other problem with these bogies with their original wheels. Because wheel is not insulated from bearing, the metal electrically links the two wheels on one side of the bogie. This is a real pain with a DC layout as the bogies then bridge section breaks. On my existing fleet, I have had to modify each bogie to eliminate this whilst keeping the original wheels, which run fine. The same issue applies to porthole stock and Mark 2f stock.

You can get the same issue with a single wheelset, and surprisingly often under certain circumstances. On a friend's large layout we got so fed up with checking where the problem was on his storage loops, which each hold two short trains or one long, that we re-laid the middle part with the joints staggered by half an inch. Any problem now, and we know it's the Wickham Trolley. :jester:

 

Admittedly it wouldn't help with those, but we don't "do" lighting (other than Hornby Pullmans which pick up differently) and would cut the things if they gave trouble. One suggestion would be to replace the Bachmann metal with normal bearings but pack them inwards with M2 washers to match the axle length.

 

 

John

Edited by Dunsignalling
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, thegreenhowards said:

Thanks Frank,

 

I did wonder about pivoting the bogie from above - what is the advantage of pivoting from the rear axle rather than the centre point?

 

I think I’ll try the RP25 profile wheels first. If that doesn’t work, some more major surgery like you suggest might be necessary.

 

Andy

Hi again,

If you pivot at the bogie centre, unless you allow some side to side movement at the pivot, the model will be far more limited as to the radius it can negotiate.  But allowing side play reduces the ability of the bogie to guide the model through point work.   In my approach the bogie is actually playing a role  in controlling the locomotive rather than just being along for the ride. 

 

This is the second time I've used this approach the previous time being on a C12 tank, and both times I've been very pleased with the way the locomotive glides through point work which I believe is the outcome you want to achieve.

 

It does need a bit of thought, and the front bogie wheels need something to keep them down on the track.  On my C12 I used a light spring  threaded over the centre retaining bolt as there was plenty of ballast in the front of the boiler.  With the plastic bodied C1 balancing the locomotive was a more fiddly and rather than a spring I ended up weighting the front of the bogie with lead.

 

Best of luck,

 

Frank   

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JamieR4489 said:

Well I hope this post shows that at least one young modeller is prepared to actually make something.

IMG_4877.jpg.b030f16f6c1f51bd0671b2b2bbc3b6db.jpg

 

This is one of Mike Trice's new V2 bodies and it'll go on an updated Bachmann chassis.

 

Inspired by Graeme King's cut'n'shuts of Margate teaks a few years ago, I've started a pair of my own.

IMG_4879.jpg.9373ffd35a58c02fa19ab119cde1cb96.jpgIMG_4880.jpg.8d2b978efa1f90ad450ebd6a60c417c4.jpg

This will be a D25 TK...

IMG_4882.jpg.1268fec51542a787e73acb316c710cf3.jpg

...and this will be a D149 BFK.

 

Neither of these will be perfect models of the real carriages, but it's a quicker and cheaper way of getting more coaches than building full metal kits (I do have some to build in the future).

 

On a different note, this may be of interest to Tony:

IMG_4859.jpg.96684c31c5236d57bbea1c0a3565927e.jpg

It's a DJH kit and it's been glued together (not by me!). The paint finish is quite nice so I'm tempted to leave the bodies alone but I'd like to rebuild the chassis as it's got a tight spot and the valve gear sometimes catches (plus the Portescap whines). I've tweaked the motion with pliers and a soldering iron but it really needs a full rebuild to sort it out. I know the model isn't entirely accurate (60147 was named after GWR green had been applied and the chimney should be plain for this livery) so I may try to make the necessary modifications.

 

Regards,

 

Jamie

Am I considered young as well? 
 

If so, then I’ve been scratchbuilding as well, although I haven’t progressed to coaches yet, I did scratchbuild three LNER dolphin wagons. Only one pictured here, but you get the gist. 

 

78602AA4-0652-4A2E-9D76-2F00F5106781.jpeg.02bdf8b89f2dd88687f16116819b45fb.jpeg
 

And I’ve started a scratchbuild P1, which will have it’s discrepancy’s  but will look the part. 
 

00C25057-93A5-4A89-9708-5473949D8692.jpeg.e47737382f8dbde17cb9c85fa3de85f4.jpeg

 

I think the way your progressing Jamie, you’ll over take me in no time. 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Gentlemen,

Less than 24 hours after my original post two pages of entries have gone by!

The B2 61639 was fitted with a B1 bogie in the 1950s which it carried to the end, the tender was an ex-NER 4125 gallon example from a C7 with the coping plates cut off behind the coal space. 61615/32 towed the 4,700 gallon ex-P1 tenders.

 Having completed this one more as a test to see whether it was feasible, I am gathering the parts for 61616, which I remember from my 'Ladybird Book of British Locomotives'! It will feature 12 spoke bogie wheels and an NER tender with full coping plates. I am hoping to chronicle this build with photos and put in the relevant section of RMWeb when finished.

The J38 was a scrapbox parts build using a Bachmann J39 body and chassis and Bachmann 57xx pannier wheelset. The tender should be a swb 3500 gallon type, but searching photos online and Colour-rail showed 65904/21 towing 4200 gallon variants of the type modelled, (not the one Bachmann attached to the J39). This one is a Hornby example from a D49 Hunt, which was also spare. I considered buying an SEF 3500 gal. tender, but the idea was to build without expense if possible. A quick note to Clem..this model won't concern you, I don't think one of them ever trundled through Daybrook on empties to Colwick!

 Thanks to all for the comments, I hope the above answers any queries. Incidentally, does anyone know of a source for a brass/whitemetal casting for a B17 chimney?

Cheers from WestOz,

Peter C.

Edited by 45568
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

Your obviously right about the handrails looking at the photo - next time?

 

The finer profile might help. These were robbed from the cartezzi trucks of a couple of A1 kits in the roundtuit pile, so will need replacing anyway.

Good morning Andy,

 

One other thing I should have mentioned was that I had to file a considerable amount off the inside of the cylinders, both at the front and the rear. Otherwise, even the finer bogie wheels fouled on curves. Bachmann, of course, got round this on their RTR C1 (which, give or take, shares the same chassis configuration) by fitting smaller bogie wheels. 

 

The filing-away can just be seen in the lower picture................

 

832153278_JesseSimcompleteC201.jpg.ceef898c02f3e726a0d5a76f38678a61.jpg

 

422888174_JesseSimcompleteC202.jpg.39583bdc311ba11fdffac76a9a0ce96f.jpg

 

Tony Gee is correct in that the top slidebars should be tucked in behind the valance (though they are just discernible on the real thing), but, having a white metal footplate, this loco doesn't really have a valance - it's full thickness. The cylinders do protrude above the front footplate.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, JamieR4489 said:

Well I hope this post shows that at least one young modeller is prepared to actually make something.

IMG_4877.jpg.b030f16f6c1f51bd0671b2b2bbc3b6db.jpg

 

This is one of Mike Trice's new V2 bodies and it'll go on an updated Bachmann chassis.

 

Inspired by Graeme King's cut'n'shuts of Margate teaks a few years ago, I've started a pair of my own.

IMG_4879.jpg.9373ffd35a58c02fa19ab119cde1cb96.jpgIMG_4880.jpg.8d2b978efa1f90ad450ebd6a60c417c4.jpg

This will be a D25 TK...

IMG_4882.jpg.1268fec51542a787e73acb316c710cf3.jpg

...and this will be a D149 BFK.

 

Neither of these will be perfect models of the real carriages, but it's a quicker and cheaper way of getting more coaches than building full metal kits (I do have some to build in the future).

 

On a different note, this may be of interest to Tony:

IMG_4859.jpg.96684c31c5236d57bbea1c0a3565927e.jpg

It's a DJH kit and it's been glued together (not by me!). The paint finish is quite nice so I'm tempted to leave the bodies alone but I'd like to rebuild the chassis as it's got a tight spot and the valve gear sometimes catches (plus the Portescap whines). I've tweaked the motion with pliers and a soldering iron but it really needs a full rebuild to sort it out. I know the model isn't entirely accurate (60147 was named after GWR green had been applied and the chimney should be plain for this livery) so I may try to make the necessary modifications.

 

Regards,

 

Jamie

Splendid work, as always Jamie. Well done!

 

The A1 does interest me, and its typical of umpteen glued-together (often badly) DJH A1s I've come across.

 

In time (not long!), even though you think the paint finish is 'quite nice', you'll become dissatisfied with it. The things which will militate against it are the 'upright' cab with no rake-in at the top of the sides, the mismatch of the horizontal handrail on the boiler/firebox, the out-of-line handrail on the smokebox door, the too-low vacuum ejector pipe and the incorrect bend on the smoke deflectors (the nameplate's crest should not be bent over and not be behind the handrail. It looks to be the nameplate supplied by DJH; if so, it's too big). 

 

It simply won't be up to your rapidly-improving standards. May I suggest an overnight bath in Nitromors, taking it back to a kit again? Then you can build it 'properly'.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited by Tony Wright
to add something
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

MTK... Yes - the thread moves on at a clip, another 2 pages on! The first MTK kit I built was the class 24 None of the body castings fitted each other and roof was a solid lump! I managed with strips of plastic card and filler ( car body I think in those days ) of some sort to get it together, and eventually did get it painted and running. Eventually it was sold on. Yes - it was possible, but not easy.  I only purchased the Cravens set as it was 'etched' brass, I never liked working with aluminium body shells and I have a lot of respect to those that do and create perfectly good models from them. A lot of the castings were iffy, so I think most of the underframes and bogies were Hornby. The end castings were not too bad I suppose. So, possible but not easy. They were of their era.

 

Years later, I've built a JLTRT class 24 - and of course, it is a world apart.

DSCF2074.JPG.76ce5e2c8ae9e848cae7567c8dbd7948.JPG

 

Regards

Tony

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologise for diverting this live thread from its natural flow by going back to posts yesterday on BR 5MT models.  I recognised a number on one model and I think it's worth sharing a copy of an image [watermarked] that I believe is the prototype, 73069.  The orginal image is by my father on 29th July, 1961 using his Rolleiflex 3.5F.  He was taking a few pictures in the closing era of the Metroplitan's electric locomotives and he had just enough time to form a reasonable composition.  I was there, very small and with mother, probably sitting on the platform tailwall.  Years later he made a 20" x 16" print and it was a favourite, though his hobby tended to concentrate on architecture photography.  The print is one of my most treasured items.

1961 07 29 cal 73069 watermark.pdf

Other than riding the DMUs to school, I took little note of the main line trains until recently, as an adjunct to my ongoing research on the electric locomotives, now almost at their centenary.  Though slightly unclear in the image, the apparent number is consistent with shed allocations and other GC route pictures of the time - I am happy to withdraw if there's expert opinion that's different.  I'm minded to create a 4mm diorama to replicate the scene, but only once I've completed the Met loco research and done some overdue tram modelling!

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Engineer said:

I apologise for diverting this live thread from its natural flow by going back to posts yesterday on BR 5MT models.  I recognised a number on one model and I think it's worth sharing a copy of an image [watermarked] that I believe is the prototype, 73069.  The orginal image is by my father on 29th July, 1961 using his Rolleiflex 3.5F.  He was taking a few pictures in the closing era of the Metroplitan's electric locomotives and he had just enough time to form a reasonable composition.  I was there, very small and with mother, probably sitting on the platform tailwall.  Years later he made a 20" x 16" print and it was a favourite, though his hobby tended to concentrate on architecture photography.  The print is one of my most treasured items.

1961 07 29 cal 73069 watermark.pdf 585.07 kB · 4 downloads

Other than riding the DMUs to school, I took little note of the main line trains until recently, as an adjunct to my ongoing research on the electric locomotives, now almost at their centenary.  Though slightly unclear in the image, the apparent number is consistent with shed allocations and other GC route pictures of the time - I am happy to withdraw if there's expert opinion that's different.  I'm minded to create a 4mm diorama to replicate the scene, but only once I've completed the Met loco research and done some overdue tram modelling!

 

South end of Harrow on the Hill station when 73069 was a resident of 14D Neasden Shed

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

As we're sharing our lockdown projects, here is one of mine. It started in life as a Bachmann V2.

20200715_153419.jpg.85666557e6fd9d1a5a1d4d5b9cbe9a84.jpg

Which almost immediately had it's rather deformed boiler chopped off and replaced with an A3 boiler and smokebox.

20200718_192432.jpg.3768efd97ae43412df9233b2f01efb88.jpg

After detailing was added, it was primed and painted.

20200722_180802.jpg.fdd9738a44bcd5635c2a8a850b7c35c2.jpg

It still needs to be lined and weathered, but is nearly done. When finished, it'll be a model of York allocated V2 60981 in early 1960s condition. It's rather different to the copper capped engines I'm used to, but its been fun to work on nonetheless.

 

Regards

 

Harun

20200719_194108.jpg

Edited by B661Sutton
Added image that wasn't meant to be there
  • Like 12
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Andy,

 

One other thing I should have mentioned was that I had to file a considerable amount off the inside of the cylinders, both at the front and the rear. Otherwise, even the finer bogie wheels fouled on curves. Bachmann, of course, got round this on their RTR C1 (which, give or take, shares the same chassis configuration) by fitting smaller bogie wheels. 

 

 

 Thanks Tony,

 

It's that sort of wheeze that I was thinking about. Although I think that most of my problems come from the guard irons rather than the cylinders at the moment.

 

Having done a bit more research, I think lack of sideplay in the coupled wheels is also a problem. I have fitted my pick ups vertically up behind the drivers from a copper clad plate underneath. Once shrink wrapped for insulation they reduce the sideplay considerably but I didn't think this would be a problem on a four coupled loco. This was to avoid the spring detail which was ready fitted. Did you do your normal trick and lopp off the spring detail to allow horizontal pick ups?

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Engineer said:

I apologise for diverting this live thread from its natural flow by going back to posts yesterday on BR 5MT models.  I recognised a number on one model and I think it's worth sharing a copy of an image [watermarked] that I believe is the prototype, 73069.  The orginal image is by my father on 29th July, 1961 using his Rolleiflex 3.5F.  He was taking a few pictures in the closing era of the Metroplitan's electric locomotives and he had just enough time to form a reasonable composition.  I was there, very small and with mother, probably sitting on the platform tailwall.  Years later he made a 20" x 16" print and it was a favourite, though his hobby tended to concentrate on architecture photography.  The print is one of my most treasured items.

1961 07 29 cal 73069 watermark.pdf 585.07 kB · 11 downloads

Other than riding the DMUs to school, I took little note of the main line trains until recently, as an adjunct to my ongoing research on the electric locomotives, now almost at their centenary.  Though slightly unclear in the image, the apparent number is consistent with shed allocations and other GC route pictures of the time - I am happy to withdraw if there's expert opinion that's different.  I'm minded to create a 4mm diorama to replicate the scene, but only once I've completed the Met loco research and done some overdue tram modelling!

 

73069 went on to become the last standard 5 in service and worked specials in the last few weeks of service

  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Andy,

 

One other thing I should have mentioned was that I had to file a considerable amount off the inside of the cylinders, both at the front and the rear. Otherwise, even the finer bogie wheels fouled on curves. Bachmann, of course, got round this on their RTR C1 (which, give or take, shares the same chassis configuration) by fitting smaller bogie wheels. 

 

The filing-away can just be seen in the lower picture................

 

832153278_JesseSimcompleteC201.jpg.ceef898c02f3e726a0d5a76f38678a61.jpg

 

422888174_JesseSimcompleteC202.jpg.39583bdc311ba11fdffac76a9a0ce96f.jpg

 

Tony Gee is correct in that the top slidebars should be tucked in behind the valance (though they are just discernible on the real thing), but, having a white metal footplate, this loco doesn't really have a valance - it's full thickness. The cylinders do protrude above the front footplate.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

The reason I mentioned it was that if it is the cylinders that are too low, it will add to the clearance problems with the bogie wheels. Raising the cylinders would give a bit more room for the wheels and correct a fault. It would need some possibly difficult modifications to the footplate over the cylinders and the smokebox saddle so I can understand if a modeller would rather leave it alone. It is the sort of fault that would niggle me until I did something about it.

 

If it is the footplate that is too high then the clearance problems won't be helped.

 

Looking at it in photos, I cannot tell which bit is adrift but the height of one or the other, perhaps both, is wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Jesse Sim said:

Am I considered young as well? 
 

If so, then I’ve been scratchbuilding as well, although I haven’t progressed to coaches yet, I did scratchbuild three LNER dolphin wagons. Only one pictured here, but you get the gist. 

 

78602AA4-0652-4A2E-9D76-2F00F5106781.jpeg.02bdf8b89f2dd88687f16116819b45fb.jpeg
 

And I’ve started a scratchbuild P1, which will have it’s discrepancy’s  but will look the part. 
 

00C25057-93A5-4A89-9708-5473949D8692.jpeg.e47737382f8dbde17cb9c85fa3de85f4.jpeg

 

I think the way your progressing Jamie, you’ll over take me in no time. 

Thanks Jesse but I think you’ll surpass me in terms of quality, even if I overtake in quantity

 

Great work as always. I’m looking forward to seeing your P1 finished.

 

Jamie

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Splendid work, as always Jamie. Well done!

 

The A1 does interest me, and its typical of umpteen glued-together (often badly) DJH A1s I've come across.

 

In time (not long!), even though you think the paint finish is 'quite nice', you'll become dissatisfied with it. The things which will militate against it are the 'upright' cab with no rake-in at the top of the sides, the mismatch of the horizontal handrail on the boiler/firebox, the out-of-line handrail on the smokebox door, the too-low vacuum ejector pipe and the incorrect bend on the smoke deflectors (the nameplate's crest should not be bent over and not be behind the handrail. It looks to be the nameplate supplied by DJH; if so, it's too big). 

 

It simply won't be up to your rapidly-improving standards. May I suggest an overnight bath in Nitromors, taking it back to a kit again? Then you can build it 'properly'.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Thanks Tony,

 

I’d noticed most of those faults, only the ejector pipe’s position had passed me by.

 

I hope to rebuild the engine one day although as it’s not suitable for my main time period (summer 1938), it’s not anywhere near the top of the roundtuit pile.

 

Regards,

 

Jamie

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, t-b-g said:

Looking at those DJH Atlantics, something didn't quite seem right, so I have had a look at the real thing and compared the two.

 

There seems to be a dimensional problem at the front end that spoils the look.

 

On the real thing, the top slidebar is invisible, hidden behind the valance. The top front curve of the cylinder is visible above the front footplate. Even allowing for a thick whitemetal footplate, are the cylinders too low or the footplate too high? It looks to be a fault in the kit rather than the assembly as it is the same on every one I have seen.

Tony (G) you are absolutely correct about the look of the DJH Atlantics. The issue is that they are significantly out in a number of dimensions, the look of the footplate and cylinder relationship is just the start. Basically because of the closeness of the driving wheels on the prototype, in order to be able to fit driving wheels close to the correct diameter (26mm instead of 26.7mm) the models have a driving wheelbase that is significantly too long. This has been translated into a number of other dimensions that are oversize. However, there is no consistency in this.

 

I built a DJH C2 nearly 20 years ago, knowing there were some issues but without identifying all the issues at the time, something I regret. I shortened the footplate by about 2mm, it's still 2mm too long. I also narrowed the footplate by 1.5mm by taking that out of the centreline. What I should have done in particular was to reduce the height of the tender frames and trailing wheel frames on the loco. They are at least 2mm too deep and hide too much of the wheels.  This is obvious actually when you look at how much space there is above the springs. The loco sits about 1-1.5mm too high as well at buffer height.  The boiler is also a bit oversize but that's more difficult to correct. These amounts don't sound very much but they are significant.

 

For many years I've had an unbuilt DJH C1, I'm not sure what I'll do with that as I have two of the C1s made by Bachmann for the NRM which are superb models. The main compromise Bachmann made is that the driving wheels are undersize but given the large splashers and the footsteps between the driving wheels its not that obvious.

 

I might use some of the DJH C1 to make C1 3279 or I might use some of an old dismantled Ks C1 I built in 1976 for that project?

 

Andrew

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Woodcock29 said:

Tony (G) you are absolutely correct about the look of the DJH Atlantics. The issue is that they are significantly out in a number of dimensions, the look of the footplate and cylinder relationship is just the start. Basically because of the closeness of the driving wheels on the prototype, in order to be able to fit driving wheels close to the correct diameter (26mm instead of 26.7mm) the models have a driving wheelbase that is significantly too long. This has been translated into a number of other dimensions that are oversize. However, there is no consistency in this.

 

I built a DJH C2 nearly 20 years ago, knowing there were some issues but without identifying all the issues at the time, something I regret. I shortened the footplate by about 2mm, it's still 2mm too long. I also narrowed the footplate by 1.5mm by taking that out of the centreline. What I should have done in particular was to reduce the height of the tender frames and trailing wheel frames on the loco. They are at least 2mm too deep and hide too much of the wheels.  This is obvious actually when you look at how much space there is above the springs. The loco sits about 1-1.5mm too high as well at buffer height.  The boiler is also a bit oversize but that's more difficult to correct. These amounts don't sound very much but they are significant.

 

For many years I've had an unbuilt DJH C1, I'm not sure what I'll do with that as I have two of the C1s made by Bachmann for the NRM which are superb models. The main compromise Bachmann made is that the driving wheels are undersize but given the large splashers and the footsteps between the driving wheels its not that obvious.

 

I might use some of the DJH C1 to make C1 3279 or I might use some of an old dismantled Ks C1 I built in 1976 for that project?

 

Andrew

 

I hadn't realised that they were out all over the place like that. Something just looked wrong and comparing with a photo of the real one, the cylinders were the first thing I spotted but they looked about right compared to the driving wheel centre. That being one datum point that should be the right height if the wheels are the right size.

 

By the time you had finished altering things, you must have been wondering if it was a wise move to build it but there is a great amount of satisfaction in taking a bad kit and making it better. Roy Jackson would have approved. He often said that all kits had faults and all modellers made mistakes (his language was a bit more colourful).  He reckoned that the difference between a modeller and a good modeller was in the effort they put in to correcting those faults.

 

Malcolm Crawley scratchbuilt 3279 many years ago. An unusual but very attractive one off rebuild.

 

Edit to add it was 3271 Malcolm built, with two inside cylinders. Memory let me down.

Edited by t-b-g
To correct detail
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Andy,

 

One other thing I should have mentioned was that I had to file a considerable amount off the inside of the cylinders, both at the front and the rear. Otherwise, even the finer bogie wheels fouled on curves. Bachmann, of course, got round this on their RTR C1 (which, give or take, shares the same chassis configuration) by fitting smaller bogie wheels. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Hi Tony/Andrew,

You may have identified a further benefit of the approach I have taken to building my C1 chassis that I had not previously recognised.  I experienced no issues with bogies wheels fouling against the cylinders despite using the correct diameter wheels.  I think this must be due to the fact that unlike a bogie linked to a chassis by a bar, on my chassis the bogie has no fore or aft movement relative to the main frames.   

 

Another feature of the DJH kit which has been overcome  by Bachman  is that they have provided a rebate in the casting of the footplate to clear the top slide bar allowing the valance to partially obscure it.

IMG_2097.jpg.f1cd4a48f0993e0d9aeec4c78404331b.jpg

 

This photo of the prototype on display at Locomotion illustrates the relationship of the upper slide bar with the valance. 

 

SG101477.JPG.5cda51223900127cc0480826e2fbaecb.JPG

 

Andrew you were asking Tony about the need for side play on the front driven axle.  All I can say is that because of problems with clearances between the back of the foot steps and the connecting rods on my model I had to eliminate all side play on the driven axles.  Even so, as previously stated, my model happily negotiates 3ft curves so in my experience you won't need any side play.

 

Regards,

 

Frank   

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Jesse Sim said:

Am I considered young as well? 
 

If so, then I’ve been scratchbuilding as well, although I haven’t progressed to coaches yet, I did scratchbuild three LNER dolphin wagons. Only one pictured here, but you get the gist. 

 

78602AA4-0652-4A2E-9D76-2F00F5106781.jpeg.02bdf8b89f2dd88687f16116819b45fb.jpeg
 

And I’ve started a scratchbuild P1, which will have it’s discrepancy’s  but will look the part. 
 

00C25057-93A5-4A89-9708-5473949D8692.jpeg.e47737382f8dbde17cb9c85fa3de85f4.jpeg

 

I think the way your progressing Jamie, you’ll over take me in no time. 

 

A little tip Jesse. If you are using the wheels as a temporary setting up aid, put the old Romfords at the front and the back and the newer Markits in the two middle positions. Otherwise the different flange sizes may make the model not sit level and tilt down at the front and it will also rock on the larger flange on the third axle. If the model sits down on the deck with different wheels, it will almost certainly not when you put all the same sort of wheels in.   

  • Informative/Useful 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...