Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Always unable to really decide between 2mm (for space) and 4mm (because I can see it properly), I am thinking of building a layout in each. I think that my choice for 4mm will be based on the North London because it will enable me to run various locos and stock that I like. My earliest railway memories are of Willesden so perhaps something subliminal going on???

 

Anyway, a quick question, as I don't have any books to hand. Was the four-rail electrification applied to all tracks between Camden Rd and Highbury & Islington? Or just to one pair of tracks?

 

Only just found this thread, so apologies that this is a long time after the question... In answer, the fourth rail was applied only to the southernmost pair of lines between Camden Road and Dalston Western Junction, although a photo from the '30s shows the up (eastbound) of the other pair electrified, apparently because of major PW work going on at the time. Likewise, it was only the westernmost pair of lines between Dalston Junction and Broad Street which were electrified. This has interesting ramifications for services and station stops, as in the cases of Shoreditch, Haggerston and Maiden Lane, it was the non electrified lines which had platforms on both sides. The up electric line had platforms for emergency use at Shoreditch and Haggerson, but I don't believe that they were in regular use

 

I hate to confess, but I can never remember which were the No 1 and which were the No 2 lines. I think it was the No 1 lines which were generally electrified, and the No 2 lines which were not, but I stand willing to be corrected. I have just done a Google search to help me out, but even the great fount of all knowledge that is Wikipedia doesn't seem to know!

 

(Edited to admit that I have just found I had it the wrong way round... The electric lines were the No.2 and the non electric were the No.1. Apparently the short section of electrified up No.1 line at Maiden Lane mentioned above was not due to extensive engineering works as we were once led to believe. It was electrified as an up relief line to ease projected congestion caused by up goods trains accessing Maiden Lane yard.)

Edited by L49
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Diagram books tended to quote the internal dimensions of a wagon.  Remember, they were produced for the benefit of the railways operating employees, so that they could specify a suitable wagon for the load in hand.  CR wagon diagrams include both external and internal dimensions.

 

Jim

That makes sense. The staff would need to know what sort of wagon would be required to carry a given load. The minute detail, would be of zero interest to them. The modeller, might like to know what type of buffer, or whether spoked or split spoked wheels were fitted, but someone trying to load it, on a wet, cold night, simply wouldn't care with such trivial matters.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very nice - details please, chassis, assembly. Will the body be available for sale?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jeff,

 

She comes in five bits. The chassis, slidebars, motion brackets, and smokebox/cylinder assembly come as one part. The boiler, tanks and cab come as another, while the cab roof, bogie and the pin to secure the bogie are all separate, although contained on the same sprue.

 

Rods and crossheads are separate, simply because they have to be printed either in stainless or in brass.

 

She requires wheels, motor, gearbox and pickups to complete, plus a few detailing bits which would be too fine to 3d print, such as handrail knobs and the smokebox door dart.

 

I would also recommend top hat bearings for the driving wheels. The holes in the frames are printed slightly undersized so you can open them up to fit, and to ensure that the driving wheel centres match the crankpin centres of the rods.

 

There are two variants on Shapeways:

 

narrow cab

https://www.shapeways.com/product/9ZA5HQF6M/n-l-r-outside-cylinder-440-tank-loco-small-cab?optionId=60019181&li=shop-inventory

 

and wide cab

https://www.shapeways.com/product/GRYFNC38P/n-l-r-outside-cylinder-440-tank-loco-wide-cab?optionId=60023613&li=shop-inventory

 

And the rods are available from

 

https://www.shapeways.com/product/EQ68HUFKN/nlr-440t-rods-and-crossheads

 

And finally, here is the promised in focus photo!

 

post-8704-0-27968100-1491597893_thumb.jpg

 

  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That looks very good but I do have a question. The bit of the frames that stick up above the buffer beam in front of the smoke box, how does the width of this compare to the prototype frame with? I assume you narrowed the frames for OO but did you narrow this as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This would be a challenge in P4 but I'm sure do'able(?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That looks very good but I do have a question. The bit of the frames that stick up above the buffer beam in front of the smoke box, how does the width of this compare to the prototype frame with? I assume you narrowed the frames for OO but did you narrow this as well?

 

Yes, I had to as there is no running plate to provide a visual break between what might be described as the 'working' frames and the 'cosmetic' frame. It would be possible to widen the frames for P4 if you can give me the overall width required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I had to as there is no running plate to provide a visual break between what might be described as the 'working' frames and the 'cosmetic' frame. It would be possible to widen the frames for P4 if you can give me the overall width required.

16mm is a good target. With a 0-6-0 a slightly narrower frame might be better, but there shouldn't be any problems with side play with a 4-4-0.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One comment if I may on your model. It looks like you've used BR mixed traffic grey and red lining. The LNWR used similar lining, but the NLR didn't. It should be yellow and red, and the red line is very thin, a third or quarter the width of the yellow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll have a go at re-setting the frames for P4, and put it on Shapeways as a Beta test so you can give it a go.

 

I won't say what I thought of producing that lining, as I don't want to use rude words online! It is actually cream, blue, cream, black and red, in that order from the outside. It was copied from a well known contemporary coloured engraving of No.88. The trouble was, after printing, varnishing, applying and varnishing again, the cream, blue, cream has all gone into a bit of a blur. It is there when you look at the model VERY closely, but when I get her sister done, I will beef up the cream. I think the plainer yellow black red lining came in to use closer to absorbtion into the LNWR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One comment if I may on your model. It looks like you've used BR mixed traffic grey and red lining. The LNWR used similar lining, but the NLR didn't. It should be yellow and red, and the red line is very thin, a third or quarter the width of the yellow.

I expect that is what I used on No.113 as shown in post #13, from Modelmaster I believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must admit to being completely ignorant of 3d printing but would like to attempt one of these (probably the later wide cab) in P4. It should be straightforward enough to compensate the main drivers on double beams and let the front rest on the bogie with a little side play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must admit to being completely ignorant of 3d printing but would like to attempt one of these (probably the later wide cab) in P4. It should be straightforward enough to compensate the main drivers on double beams and let the front rest on the bogie with a little side play.

 

In that case, would it be helpful to P4 modellers if I slotted the driving wheel bearings and pre-drill the centre point for compensating beams? I have been toying with this idea on my GER 2.4.2 and 0.6.0 tanks, but I've never got on very well with building compensated chassis myself, so I have shied away from taking this step on a kit in case I get it wrong.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I think that would be helpful. The slots need only be about plus and minus 2mm. It looks as though the centre frame spacer will get in the way of parallel beams so maybe springing would be a better option.....

 

What is the frame thickness?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ordered the Narrow Cab version, plus con rods.  One of my favourite locos ever!  Now to source some number plates!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In that case, would it be helpful to P4 modellers if I slotted the driving wheel bearings and pre-drill the centre point for compensating beams? I have been toying with this idea on my GER 2.4.2 and 0.6.0 tanks, but I've never got on very well with building compensated chassis myself, so I have shied away from taking this step on a kit in case I get it wrong.

 

 

Yes, I think that would be helpful. The slots need only be about plus and minus 2mm. It looks as though the centre frame spacer will get in the way of parallel beams so maybe springing would be a better option.....

 

What is the frame thickness?

 

Here's something I drew up quickly in Solidworks a while ago. It's exaggerated, but shows what shape slots need to be. If the slots are vertical, but the axles are expected to rotate, then nothing will move.

2015-12-21_zpsgdmypuzm.png

 

Vertical slots can work, if you used hornblocks and have the beams resting on the tops of the hornblocks. But for this design I think having a top hat bushing in the beams and curved slots for them to run in would be the best way of doing it.

 

Here are the frames for my Inside Cylinder NLR 4-4-0 with the same arrangement.

IMG_7363_zpsffim868d.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ordered the Narrow Cab version, plus con rods.  One of my favourite locos ever!  Now to source some number plates!

I had Narrow Planet produce some for my 51 classes. They don't list them as a style, but an email may do the trick. I need to order some for my Park tanks and now these 1-10s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless your trackwork is impressively bad, +/- .5mm should be enough allowance for axle movement on a four coupled wheelbase like this. So +/- 1.0 mm would be adequate for the slots and wouldn't weaken the frames too much although I don't know what strength 3D frames would have (all my experience has been with designing and building etched kits). Would it be possible to increase the height of the frames above the axle slots to increase their strength, something they usually did on the prototype.

 

Most locos with compensation/springing have horn blocks in vertical guides. If you had excessive vertical movement then there might be a problem with the coupling rods - moving through an arc - causing the horn blocks to stick.  However, that's not something I've experienced or seen. 

 

The real thing probably had frames that were 4ft apart, and about 1" thick. So, for 4mm 16.0 mm overall frame width would be close. Depending on the thickness of the frames and beams plus the clearance between, would this leave enough room for the motor/gearbox?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just couldn't resist posting a few photos of our new wee beastie from Bow. This is the first prototype from Shapeways, which needed quite a bit of fettling, especially where clearances were extremely tight, and the prototype had quite fine tolerances which didn't translate very well for Romford wheels!

 

After some digging and filing out, and (rather embarrasingly) having to cut out and move the backhead back to clear the motor (I'm sure I had measured this, but somehow I had got the calculations wrong), she went together very nicely, and runs like a dream.

 

Apologies for the slight camera shake. We couldn't get the tripod over far enough, so had to balance the camera on the adjacent trackbed.

 

attachicon.gif88 Copley St headshunt.jpg

 

attachicon.gif88 Copley St by coal stage.jpg

 

I'll try to get some clearer pictures and post them later.

 

Can we have a drool smiley/ emoticon please?  (Completely off-piste to my modelling interests but just so tempting....)

 

Incidentally, there are a couple of North London tanks on Ebay at the moment, if anyone's looking for an outside cylinder 0-6-0 or inside cylinder 4-4-0. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The lining on the loco was drawn-up in Adobe Illustrator then printed out to create waterslide transfers. Details were taken from the coloured frontispiece in the August 1902 edition of the Railway Magazine, but was slightly simplified around the cab, as the fine outer edge of the top section would have been difficult to create satisfactorily with this type of printing.

 

The outer section of lining on the tanks and bunker was pale yellow/blue/pale yellow as per the colour plate. However, when placed on the loco, the different colours were inclined to merge, so, in the photos particularly, it does look as if I used BR mixed traffic lining!

 

The NLR loco lining of course varied over the years. According to E.F. Carter, 4-4-0T No 101 was the first to appear in lined black when she was outshopped from Bow in 1883. In this case the tanks had light blue with a fine white line inside, followed by another light blue line and a white line on either side, whilst inside all this was a red line.

 

Carter records that in 1901 Nos 104, 111, 115, 116, 119, 121 and 122, were painted with fine double lining in vermillion round the tanks, bunkers, boiler, bogie frames and tool boxes. Otherwise the standard lining, introduced in 1889, comprised a broad outside band formed of pale blue and yellow lines, with a narrow vermillion line inside. 

 

Another variation came in 1902, when lining became a wide white line and a thin red line inside. Coupling rods were red and cab interiors were in 'stone'.

 

Of course, we only have Mr Carter's word for all this, but one of the variants certainly seems to tally with the RM colour plate.

 

Incidentally, I had the number plates etched when I was drawing-up the 'South Bromley' and 'Old Ford' canopy valances for the latest incarnation of Harford Street. The awning behind the loco in one of the photos is formed from one of these.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

A very nice model of a difficult prototype. Wonderful stuff this 3D printing. Completely beyond me I am afraid. Old school brass and solder is my limit.  Many years ago I produced a set of brass patterns for GEM for a white metal kit of this loco. I had earlier done the patterns for the 0-6-0T and one or two patterns were interchangeable.  Roy Dock was in charge at GEM at the time and something of a perfectionist.  We had done pre production castings and built prototypes but could not decide on the best approach to the visible front frames and narrower 00 chassis.  We had two versions one with visible 00 spacing frames and one with scale where I had "lost" the difference behind the cylinders . We were unsure of what was best but Roy was not really happy with either compromise and was prepared to write off his investment rather than release something he was not happy with. The kit was never released. I don't know what drawings and details were available to you now but all we had in the 1970s was a copy of the GA drawing from I believe the Engineer Magazine from when the prototype was new, an LMS diagram and a few photographs. My colleague Pete Westwater produced working drawings from these of which I still have the 4mm scale pencil original.

best wishes,

 

Ian

post-15427-0-33996000-1491773113_thumb.jpg

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a few thoughts on frame width. I have found in some etched chassis kits that the EM spacers are more suitable for P4. P4 ones seem a bit tight. My suggestion regarding the 3D chassis revision would be to dimension it for EM - this would also probably appeal to a wider market.

 

A question about cylinder spacing; is this accurate to prototype dimensions or has it been narrowed for OO. I hope accurate!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all for your thoughts, and a special thank you to Ian for the drawing. I will have a go at P4/EM ing the kit after Easter, and keep you all posted as it goes. This week might be a bit busy!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you had me at E&WYUR

 

just browsing some threads and came across a wagon local to me, 

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.