Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

12 hours ago, Theakerr said:

A couple of info note re my experience of changing the front bogie wheels.   With the exception of diamond crossings and single slips, all my track-work is Code 100  (code 75 wasn't available when I started) and wheels on all my rolling stock have been replaced with metal sets.   Back to the front bogies, back to back setting is absolutely critical and spacing washers between .25 and .5mm on both sides are also necessary.  The latter may not seem important but I without them there is so much side play that they will de-rail pretty well on any curved section of a point.  I have also found it necessary to add a 10 thou shim on the inside of the check rail the pulls the wheels into a curve in some track configurations.

All the fiddle yard(s) trackwork on Little Bytham is Peco Code 100. Though inaccurate in appearance, it's robust and reliable.

 

I agree entirely that setting the back-to-backs to the correct dimension is critical (many RTR wheelsets as supplied are tight on this), and it's a good idea to put spacing washers to restrict the movements of the wheelsets in the ponies/bogies. 

 

One of the reasons I prefer Markits/Romford pony/bogie wheels over other types is that they have a slightly wider tread and slightly deeper flange than other 'finescale' types. This means that they're far less likely to derail and don't drop down into the 'V's of the Code 100 points. If this sounds like hypocrisy (having criticised the 'over-chunky' RTR pony/bogie wheels) then so be it, but the difference is nowhere near as much.

 

I've not found the need to fit any shims. 

 

I think it must also be stated that the latest Peco Code 100 pointwork is nowhere near the crudity of the old 'universal' range, with its all-plastic frogs and huge flangeways. 'Universally-bad' is what I'd call it. Having used Code 75 points on the fiddle yard of one exhibition layout some years ago, and having so many fail through excessive use, the robustness of Code 100 won! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Chas Levin]

12 hours ago, Erichill16 said:

Evening Chas,

Sorry for the delay but called into work at extreme short notice.

The model was originally power by an Anchorage D13 motor.

The replacement is fitted with the motor in the firebox and the gearbox further forward driving the centre axle. Though I only did it a few months ago I’m not 100% regarding how much metal I removed from the boiler but not much I think.

Picture will be on next posting!

The first picture is an old one and shows the original motor and it’s approximate position before refurbishment commenced.

the other two show where the motor/gearbox is exposed now.

Regards Robert 
Regards Robert

Morning Robert, many thanks for the details and for the pics in your subsequent post, very interesting to see how the Anchorage was positioned before you refurbished.

It looks from your description as if we mounted our modern DJH drive units opposing ways round and that's why I had to remove so much more material from inside the front end of the boiler.

Here are some pics of my J9/10: the first one's been posted on this thread before but it's the only one I have to hand which shows the visibility of the drive unit:

 

And here are a couple of pics of the current build, an LRM GNR/LNER C12:

 

 

I've ended up following a slightly unorthodox assembly order with the C12: I started with the body because I was taking longer than planned to learn about compensation and related chassis topics, but then discovered that decisions about added weight in the body couldn't be taken without a basic running chassis, so I took the body up to the stage of multiple sub-assemblies you see in the first picture and then turned to the chassis.

Actually, I can recommend one aspect of this assembly process and that's the building of multiple sub-assemblies. Usually, like most people I imagine, I build up one basic assembly, adding bits to it (except where there's an obvious need for separation, for instance coach bogies, loco boilers etc), but in this case I've ended up doing all the cutting out, cleaning up, fettling, fitting and cleaning up again and I now have a collection of units that fit together quite quickly and easily, so I'm anticipating that the final assembly will suddenly produce a loco body in a quick and satisfying manner... though I'm sure various aspects will actually take longer and proceed less smoothly than hoped .

 

The J9/10 was my first white metal loco, the C12 is my first etched one (having built rolling stock in both materials before), as I wanted to try out each type to learn about their pros and cons. I know this is well-trodden territory but doing things yourself results in a different sort of learning process to reading about others' work. I thought I'd prefer one to the other - and in general I think the precision and accuracy of brass is more to my liking - but actually they're both very enjoyable materials to work with, for different reasons... not to mention plastic, of course 

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, Chas Levin said:

Morning Robert, many thanks for the details and for the pics in your subsequent post, very interesting to see how the Anchorage was positioned before you refurbished.

It looks from your description as if we mounted our modern DJH drive units opposing ways round and that's why I had to remove so much more material from inside the front end of the boiler.

Here are some pics of my J9/10: the first one's been posted on this thread before but it's the only one I have to hand which shows the visibility of the drive unit:

 

And here are a couple of pics of the current build, an LRM GNR/LNER C12:

 

 

I've ended up following a slightly unorthodox assembly order with the C12: I started with the body because I was taking longer than planned to learn about compensation and related chassis topics, but then discovered that decisions about added weight in the body couldn't be taken without a basic running chassis, so I took the body up to the stage of multiple sub-assemblies you see in the first picture and then turned to the chassis.

Actually, I can recommend one aspect of this assembly process and that's the building of multiple sub-assemblies. Usually, like most people I imagine, I build up one basic assembly, adding bits to it (except where there's an obvious need for separation, for instance coach bogies, loco boilers etc), but in this case I've ended up doing all the cutting out, cleaning up, fettling, fitting and cleaning up again and I now have a collection of units that fit together quite quickly and easily, so I'm anticipating that the final assembly will suddenly produce a loco body in a quick and satisfying manner... though I'm sure various aspects will actually take longer and proceed less smoothly than hoped .

 

The J9/10 was my first white metal loco, the C12 is my first etched one (having built rolling stock in both materials before), as I wanted to try out each type to learn about their pros and cons. I know this is well-trodden territory but doing things yourself results in a different sort of learning process to reading about others' work. I thought I'd prefer one to the other - and in general I think the precision and accuracy of brass is more to my liking - but actually they're both very enjoyable materials to work with, for different reasons... not to mention plastic, of course 

Beautiful workmanship!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Theakerr]

Re the LRM C12, after my J6 it is probably my next build.  Was the boiler pre-rolled?

[Chas Levin]

41 minutes ago, Theakerr said:

Re the LRM C12, after my J6 it is probably my next build.  Was the boiler pre-rolled?

Hello, yes it was: it's a beautifully cut pattern and comes pre-rolled to exactly the right diameter, with a generous overlap underneath, half-etched each side: very easy to use. The smokebox wrapper needs rolling but it's a very thin piece and was easy to do, using the smokebox front piece as a pattern. Altogether it's been a very enjoyable build so far and I've nothing but praise for the design and materials of the kit (usual disclaimers - no connection, just a happy customer ).

[Chuffer Davies]

34 minutes ago, Chas Levin said:

Hello, yes it was: it's a beautifully cut pattern and comes pre-rolled to exactly the right diameter, with a generous overlap underneath, half-etched each side: very easy to use. The smokebox wrapper needs rolling but it's a very thin piece and was easy to do, using the smokebox front piece as a pattern. Altogether it's been a very enjoyable build so far and I've nothing but praise for the design and materials of the kit (usual disclaimers - no connection, just a happy customer ).

I concur, I enjoyed building the LRM C12, it went together very nicely indeed.  The thing to be aware of is that the LRM kit is for the square cornered tank of which I believe only twelve existed.  The majority of the C12s had rounded corners so pick your prototype carefully.  
Frank

[Jol Wilkinson]

Just to confirm, all LRM kits with an etched boiler come with it ready rolled. The bottom seam is an half etched "overlap", which provides a strong joint when seam soldered. Some kits, mainly the ex Riceworks GER and NBR tank locos and a few of the LNWR locos have a brass tube boiler, which is turned to length.

 

Rolling "long," parallel boilers really requires a set of rolling bars, which few modellers possess.

 

As Frank points out, the LRM C12 kit is of the square cornered tank version. When the LRM kit was designed, the round corner version was still available from Craftsman Models, who have unfortunately since sunk without trace.

[Tony Wright]

53 minutes ago, Chas Levin said:

Hello, yes it was: it's a beautifully cut pattern and comes pre-rolled to exactly the right diameter, with a generous overlap underneath, half-etched each side: very easy to use. The smokebox wrapper needs rolling but it's a very thin piece and was easy to do, using the smokebox front piece as a pattern. Altogether it's been a very enjoyable build so far and I've nothing but praise for the design and materials of the kit (usual disclaimers - no connection, just a happy customer ).

Good evening Chas,

 

Again with the usual disclaimer, the ten or more LRM loco kits I've built have all been excellent (apart from my having to make new coupling rods for the K2 - which wasn't difficult).

 

The LRM K2 in question.............

 

 

An early shot, with it working on the M&GNR bit. 

 

 

And its more common work; on the main line with a parly. It was painted beautifully by Ian Rathbone. 

 

What a difference the correct girder bridge makes. 

 

 

And my LRM 521 Series J6.

 

 

And Tom Rance's lovely LRM C12.

 

I've just started an LRM J3, for the M&GNR bit of LB.  

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited November 4, 2020 by Tony Wright
to add something

[Erichill16]

Chas,

Thats a very nice model. 

I like the cab detailing, I was thinking of painting the interior cream but wasn’t sure if this was correct. I asked the question on here but didn’t get a positive answer so  decided to leave it black but may paint it after seeing yours. 

I also like the works plates, an after market addition? I notice the number you’ve chosen is close to mine, both shedded in Sheffield in the 30s, is that where your layout (if you’ve got one) is based? 

I once had a Craftsman C12 given but sold it as I didn’t fancy lining it but subsequently bought a Nucast C13 (or is it a C14?).  I’ve only ever made one brass kit but that was a bit of a cheat as it had a resin boiler/smoke box. Its the Hunslet 16inch seen earlier this year. I have a Kerr  Stuart Victory class on the go but it’s stalled at soldering the boiler stage. I’ve had advice from learned readers here but still not found the motivation to test my soldering skills. The chassis runs quite well.

I have a Little Engines J11 to remotor so I’m tempted to do that next.

Robert

[Chas Levin]

14 minutes ago, Chuffer Davies said:

I concur, I enjoyed building the LRM C12, it went together very nicely indeed.  The thing to be aware of is that the LRM kit is for the square cornered tank of which I believe only twelve existed.  The majority of the C12s had rounded corners so pick your prototype carefully.  
Frank

Yes, according to the Isinglass drawing's notes it was only the first ten that had square cornered tanks; they were also non-condensing and had tall plain chimneys and tall domes. The kit came with a choice of chimneys but only one height of dome, the smaller one (though the difference is minor: 2' 7 1/4" vs 3' 1"); I asked about different domes and John Redrup very kindly found a suitable one for me to use as the taller type - again, I have nothing but good things to say of LRM and their products!

It was always my intention to model an early one of the class and I had considered painting it in GNR livery. The sheer ease of LNER unlined black is very appealing though and there's quite a lot of lining and cutting in for GNR... haven't quite made up my mind on that one yet ...

[Chas Levin]

56 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening Chas,

 

Again with the usual disclaimer, the ten or more LRM loco kits I've built have all been excellent (apart from my having to make new coupling rods for the K2 - which wasn't difficult).

 

The LRM K2 in question.............

 

 

An early shot, with it working on the M&GNR bit. 

 

 

And its more common work; on the main line with a parly. It was painted beautifully by Ian Rathbone. 

 

What a difference the correct girder bridge makes. 

 

 

And my LRM 521 Series J6.

 

 

And Tom Rance's lovely LRM C12.

 

I've just started an LRM J3, for the M&GNR bit of LB.  

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Good evening Tony, very nice locos all; I'd found a few C12 photos on this thread whilst researching for my current build, including Tom's one shown there.

 

Sorry if you've told us this before and I've forgotten, but why did you have to make new rods for the K2?

Edited November 4, 2020 by Chas Levin

[Chas Levin]

51 minutes ago, Erichill16 said:

Chas,

Thats a very nice model. 

I like the cab detailing, I was thinking of painting the interior cream but wasn’t sure if this was correct. I asked the question on here but didn’t get a positive answer so  decided to leave it black but may paint it after seeing yours. 

I also like the works plates, an after market addition? I notice the number you’ve chosen is close to mine, both shedded in Sheffield in the 30s, is that where your layout (if you’ve got one) is based? 

I once had a Craftsman C12 given but sold it as I didn’t fancy lining it but subsequently bought a Nucast C13 (or is it a C14?).  I’ve only ever made one brass kit but that was a bit of a cheat as it had a resin boiler/smoke box. Its the Hunslet 16inch seen earlier this year. I have a Kerr  Stuart Victory class on the go but it’s stalled at soldering the boiler stage. I’ve had advice from learned readers here but still not found the motivation to test my soldering skills. The chassis runs quite well.

I have a Little Engines J11 to remotor so I’m tempted to do that next.

Robert

 

Thanks Robert .

The thorny question of cab interior colours...

I too found a lot of different answers on that one but in the end, I went with the cream option because quite honestly I just love the look of it against the black loco body! There seems to be quite enough evidence that it was used some of the time to mean it doesn't look really un-prototypical...

The figures are Modelu - they're doing some superb looking drivers and fireman currently.

The works plates are indeed after-market, from Modelmaster. They're brass etches, wonderfully detailed and accurate (again, I have no connection with any of these suppliers!); they come as a plain brass etch, so a quick coat of primer and a wipe of the raised typeface surface with kitchen roll, overnight drying and the same routine with Halfords matt black and they really look the part. I put them on with the tiniest spot of semi-thick superglue, sufficiently small that it doesn't emerge from the edges to cause marks or blooming. Calls for a steady hand as the setting time is so fast: jobs like that are best done mid morning I find, when breakfast and at least two coffees have done their work, but before lunch...

I do have a (small) layout but it's an entirely fictitious location and the running numbers on all the rolling stock I've built have been chosen more for aesthetic reasons than for specific historical location. Period wise it's fairly fluid too, and can be running at various different times depending on which stock I feel like running, but the default time is the early 30s...

 

I actually find soldering brass easier than soldering white metal, as there's no danger of melting the work so you can use a good hot iron and make a really strong join; with WM I'm more conscious of the need not to linger too long .

Edited November 4, 2020 by Chas Levin

[Chuffer Davies]

48 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

And Tom Rance's lovely LRM C12.

 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Hi Tony,

I think Tom will confirm that his C12 is the Craftman model in white metal with rounded corners to the tanks.  Tom’s done a beautiful job of it so it is hard to tell.

 

 I’m hoping that LRM will bring out a round cornered version at some point because I need a couple for Clayton.

Frank

[cb900f]

8 hours ago, Chuffer Davies said:

Hi Tony,

I think Tom will confirm that his C12 is the Craftman model in white metal with rounded corners to the tanks.  Tom’s done a beautiful job of it so it is hard to tell.

 

 I’m hoping that LRM will bring out a round cornered version at some point because I need a couple for Clayton.

Frank

Frank,

I stand to be corrected but all my Craftsman C12s are brass with whitemetal fittings. The white metal C12 was produced by Wills.

 

Pete

[grob1234]

Morning all.

 

I have to in fact confirm that the C12 is of white metal construction and comes from South Eastern Finecast. The chassis is nickel silver I believe.

 

The only LRM kit I’ve made so far is the J69 which has Iain Rice heritage.

[Chuffer Davies]

11 minutes ago, cb900f said:

Frank,

I stand to be corrected but all my Craftsman C12s are brass with whitemetal fittings. The white metal C12 was produced by Wills.

 

1 minute ago, grob1234 said:

Morning all.

 

I have to in fact confirm that the C12 is of white metal construction and comes from South Eastern Finecast. The chassis is nickel silver I believe.

 

The only LRM kit I’ve made so far is the J69 which has Iain Rice heritage.

Thanks for clearing that up Tom. I knew it wasn’t an LRM model but hadn’t realised that there was a third manufacturer of C12 kits.  As I said earlier,  you’ve turned out a very nice model.  
Regards,

Frank

[Chuffer Davies]

18 minutes ago, cb900f said:

Frank,

I stand to be corrected but all my Craftsman C12s are brass with whitemetal fittings. The white metal C12 was produced by Wills.

 

Pete

Hi Pete, yep I was wrong.  I’d not been aware of the SEF kit so by default if it wasn’t an LRM model I had assumed it must be a Craftsman model. So many choices.  But for me there is something about the quality of the LRM kit that sets it apart from the others.  I might have a go at modifying an LRM kit to produce a round cornered tank version. I wonder what other material differences there were between the square and round cornered prototype C12s? 
Frank

 

[Tony Wright]

44 minutes ago, grob1234 said:

Morning all.

 

I have to in fact confirm that the C12 is of white metal construction and comes from South Eastern Finecast. The chassis is nickel silver I believe.

 

The only LRM kit I’ve made so far is the J69 which has Iain Rice heritage.

Morning Tom,

 

Yes, I was muddling up the origins of the kits you brought to LB which you'd made. 

 

Nonetheless, your C12 is still a beautiful model. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[t-b-g]

32 minutes ago, Chuffer Davies said:

Hi Pete, yep I was wrong.  I’d not been aware of the SEF kit so by default if it wasn’t an LRM model I had assumed it must be a Craftsman model. So many choices.  But for me there is something about the quality of the LRM kit that sets it apart from the others.  I might have a go at modifying an LRM kit to produce a round cornered tank version. I wonder what other material differences there were between the square and round cornered prototype C12s? 
Frank

 

 

I had a chat with the designer of the LRM square tank C12 recently and he is presently at an advanced stage in designing a round cornered version. That doesn't mean it will be out in a few weeks or even months but there is one in the pipeline.

[Tony Wright]

10 hours ago, Chas Levin said:

 

Good evening Tony, very nice locos all; I'd found a few C12 photos on this thread whilst researching for my current build, including Tom's one shown there.

 

Sorry if you've told us this before and I've forgotten, but why did you have to make new rods for the K2?

Good morning Chas,

 

I'm sure it's been mentioned before, but the supplied coupling rods in the LRM K2 kit didn't match the bearing holes in the frames - not by much, but enough to result in 'sausage'-shaped holes in the rods. I believe it occurred through a mistake in the etching process, not on the part of the kit's designer. 

 

As designed, the first and second driven axles are configured to be beam-compensated (or sprung?). I'm told that that system would have nullified the 'odd' rods' 'imperfections', but to employ it meant (according to the designer's instructions) fitting all the valve gear/motion in one go, along with the coupling rods.

 

Since my preferred method is always to produce a free-running, rigid and quiet 'inside-cylinder' chassis, whatever the final wheel-arrangement might be, before any 'twiddly bits' are added, then this 'exposed' the problem. I'm sure others have successfully built the kit 'as-designed', but I'd still like the rods to match the frames, whatever the methodology. In this case, it seems that the 'compensation' was compensating for an inherent inaccuracy. 

 

Making new rods was a doddle. I just sweated together two pieces of over-long Code 75 nickel silver bullhead rail (SMP), took dimensions from the wheel-centres using spring dividers, transferred those dimensions to the new rods, dot-punched their positions and drilled pilot holes using a pillar drill. The pilot holes were then enlarged to size using a broach. 

 

The rods were then cut to the right length and their ends rounded. They were then separated and tested on the chassis. Once happy, the oil boxes/bearings were cut from the old rods, and soldered in place on to the front of the new rods - any 'ovality' (a new word) being filled with solder. After final cleaning up, they were tested again and, once happy, fixed to the crankpins with soldered-on washers. 

 

The result, a really sweet runner - the opposite of the original stumbling thing.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Jol Wilkinson]

12 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

I had a chat with the designer of the LRM square tank C12 recently and he is presently at an advanced stage in designing a round cornered version. That doesn't mean it will be out in a few weeks or even months but there is one in the pipeline.

Tony,

 

I had a chat with the owner of LRM on Tuesday and he hasn't heard from said person for some time.

 

There is also the question of a MR  0-6-0 which has/had been under development for many years and had many test etches (at considerable expense to LRM) and in which he has effectively lost interest. I began the tender design to put some momentum behind it, but stopped after about thirty hours of research and  initial design as it had no effect on getting the project started again. Unfortunately designs from the design software he uses won't open correctly in the mainstream programmes such as CorelDraw or Illustrator so it isn't possible to develop those.

 

There is/was also a GNR 0-4-4 tank loco he started under the guidance of Malcolm, which again never got past a couple of test etches.

 

So I wouldn't hold your breath.

 

Jol

[Compound2632]

10 minutes ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

There is also the question of a MR  0-6-0 which has/had been under development for many years and had many test etches (at considerable expense to LRM) and in which he has effectively lost interest. I began the tender design to put some momentum behind it, but stopped after about thirty hours of research and  initial design as it had no effect on getting the project started again. Unfortunately designs from the design software he uses won't open correctly in the mainstream programmes such as CorelDraw or Illustrator so it isn't possible to develop those.

 

That's a great shame as there's pent-up demand, if it's the right sort of MR 0-6-0.

[t-b-g]

3 minutes ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

Tony,

 

I had a chat with the owner of LRM on Tuesday and he hasn't heard from said person for some time.

 

There is also the question of a MR  0-6-0 which has/had been under development for many years and had many test etches (at considerable expense to LRM) and in which he has effectively lost interest. I began the tender design to put some momentum behind it, but stopped after about thirty hours of research and  initial design as it had no effect on getting the project started again. Unfortunately designs from the design software he uses won't open correctly in the mainstream programmes such as CorelDraw or Illustrator so it isn't possible to develop those.

 

There is/was also a GNR 0-4-4 tank loco he started under the guidance of Malcolm, which again never got past a couple of test etches.

 

So I wouldn't hold your breath.

 

Jol

 

I am not surprised to hear that.

 

I wasn't going to mention at all it as I know his past history well but he told me that after having made little progress with things for a while he was "back in the swing of it" and making good progress, especially with the C12 which was "nearly there". He has just finished the GCR self trimming tender which he started with me 8 years or so ago to go with the B3.

 

After Malcolm died, he tried to enlist me as a less well qualified substitute but I soon realised that my working methods and his didn't combine well!

[Chas Levin]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Chas,

 

I'm sure it's been mentioned before, but the supplied coupling rods in the LRM K2 kit didn't match the bearing holes in the frames - not by much, but enough to result in 'sausage'-shaped holes in the rods. I believe it occurred through a mistake in the etching process, not on the part of the kit's designer. 

 

As designed, the first and second driven axles are configured to be beam-compensated (or sprung?). I'm told that that system would have nullified the 'odd' rods' 'imperfections', but to employ it meant (according to the designer's instructions) fitting all the valve gear/motion in one go, along with the coupling rods.

 

Since my preferred method is always to produce a free-running, rigid and quiet 'inside-cylinder' chassis, whatever the final wheel-arrangement might be, before any 'twiddly bits' are added, then this 'exposed' the problem. I'm sure others have successfully built the kit 'as-designed', but I'd still like the rods to match the frames, whatever the methodology. In this case, it seems that the 'compensation' was compensating for an inherent inaccuracy. 

 

Making new rods was a doddle. I just sweated together two pieces of over-long Code 75 nickel silver bullhead rail (SMP), took dimensions from the wheel-centres using spring dividers, transferred those dimensions to the new rods, dot-punched their positions and drilled pilot holes using a pillar drill. The pilot holes were then enlarged to size using a broach. 

 

The rods were then cut to the right length and their ends rounded. They were then separated and tested on the chassis. Once happy, the oil boxes/bearings were cut from the old rods, and soldered in place on to the front of the new rods - any 'ovality' (a new word) being filled with solder. After final cleaning up, they were tested again and, once happy, fixed to the crankpins with soldered-on washers. 

 

The result, a really sweet runner - the opposite of the original stumbling thing.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Good morning Tony, thanks for the explanation, very interesting. Given what I've seen so far of LRM products (and I have a few in the t-build pile so I've examined more than I've built) I'd imagine that's a very rare occurrence.

 

Although I'm a relative beginner in loco construction the idea of starting by producing a "free-running, rigid and quiet 'inside-cylinder' chassis" seems a very good plan to me and when I tackle my first loco with anything going on beyond simply coupling rods that's exactly what I intend doing!

 

I like 'ovality': is that like Ovaltine? Is it caused by Ovaltineys getting onto the etch? 

[Chas Levin]

3 hours ago, grob1234 said:

Morning all...

...The only LRM kit I’ve made so far is the J69 which has Iain Rice heritage.

Hello Tom, I have that J69 in my pile: how did you find the build?