Mikemeg's Workbench - Building locos of the North Eastern & LNER

[mikemeg]

Just in time to get wheels and drivetrains on the Christmas list!

 

It's looking very nice indeed and I'm looking forward to seeing the rest of the chassis progress. Have you had any thoughts as to what motor/gearbox combination you're going to use Mike?

 

Cheers

 

J

 

J,

 

Many thanks for the kind words; they are very much appreciated.

 

As to drive train, I shall follow the recommendations for the earlier J24 kit - Mashima 1020 (I will try and squeeze in a 1024 or even a 1220 perhaps) with the Roadrunner Compact Plus gearbox driving on the rear axle.This will likely be the 60 : 1 option - used to be 54 : 1 until High Level changed the final drive gear wheel to a grub screw fixing.

 

I do have a 'stock' of Mashima motors, which I bought when I first heard of their impending closure, which includes the 1020,1024 and 1220, so I can check them all out for fit inside that firebox and show the results of those checks on this thread. This will be done in the next few days.

 

Cheers

 

Mike

Edited October 13, 2017 by mikemeg

[billbedford]

In general the 12 series motors are less powerful than the 10 series, because the latter are fitted with neodymium magnets

[Jol Wilkinson]

Looks good, Mike. Better than the George Norton offering by miles - correct cab-side window shape, proper step down from firebox to boiler, etc. Really captures the look, which the older kit never did for me. 

I am no expert on NER locos so would like to know what other "errors" the George Norton kit has. I don't understand the reference to "step down" between the firebox and boiler, surely the cladding followed a straight line along the boiler/firebox top and sides. Or are you referring to the smokebox/boiler joint with the "quarter round" brass cladding?

[mikemeg]

In general the 12 series motors are less powerful than the 10 series, because the latter are fitted with neodymium magnets

 

Bill,

 

Thanks for this. I didn't realise that this was the case but it will certainly ease the choice of motor.

 

Once again, many thanks.

 

Cheers

 

Mike

[mikemeg]

Anyone who reads the thread will know that, from time to time, I go 'off topic' just for a posting or two. So, here's another digression, though this one is pretty big and pretty awesome. The Air Refuelling Tanker conversion (K2) of the Handley Page Victor bomber.

 

The photos were taken during a very recent visit to the Yorkshire Air Museum at Elvington. This thing actually flew into the Air Museum, landing on the near two mile long runway before taxiing to its resting place.

 

For anyone interested, then I did take a lot more pictures, including the only complete Halifax bomber, anywhere in the world.

 

Cheersm

 

Mike

Edited October 13, 2017 by mikemeg

[rowanj]

Mike - the J25 is looking really good, and is a credit to Arthur's design and your craftsmanship.

 

Your posts will be very helpful when I begin my "inferior" LRM/Norton version. It should be self-evident that a kit produced today will be superior to one over 20 years old. However I hope that mine will look suitably authentic pulling its' wagons through Little Benton Sidings, if and when both are ever completed.

 

John

[Horsetan]

....Or are you referring to the smokebox/boiler joint with the "quarter round" brass cladding?

 

I think that's what he means.

[ArthurK]

Anyone who reads the thread will know that, from time to time, I go 'off topic' just for a posting or two. So, here's another digression, though this one is pretty big and pretty awesome. The Air Refuelling Tanker conversion (K2) of the Handley Page Victor bomber.

 

The photos were taken during a very recent visit to the Yorkshire Air Museum at Elvington. This thing actually flew into the Air Museum, landing on the near two mile long runway before taxiing to its resting place.

 

For anyone interested, then I did take a lot more pictures, including the only complete Halifax bomber, anywhere in the world.

 

Cheersm

 

Mike

Going off topic gives a welcome break in proceedings. I will add my own break showing the Victor at Farnborough in 1957. Along with the Valiant and Vulcan these three formed the V-Bomber trio.

 

Sorry about the quality but it's better than none. The lower photo shows that it was not a very nice day!

 

 

ArthurK

Edited October 13, 2017 by ArthurK

[Porcy Mane]

Victors looked so good. I always thought their noses looked like something out of Flash Gordon.

 

Way, way, of topic but ITP of Rugby that manufactures co-ordinate measuring tables/machines for aerospace, F1 industries and the like named their first measuring machines, Valiant, Victor & Vulcan.

 

P

[mikemeg]

Victors looked so good. I always thought their noses looked like something out of Flash Gordon.

 

Way, way, of topic but ITP of Rugby that manufactures co-ordinate measuring tables/machines for aerospace, F1 industries and the like named their first measuring machines, Valiant, Victor & Vulcan.

 

P

 

Porcy,

 

No not way, way off topic at all. Strangely, one of the volunteers who works at the Air Museum and who has a particular role with the Victor made exactly the same comparison - like something out of Flash Gordon.

 

Anyway before I go back on topic a couple of photographs which might resonate with Arthur, just a little.

 

The Tornado, in the photograph, is the aircraft which was used as the prototype for the latest upgrades of that aircraft to the GR4 mark.  This is the aircraft type which gave its name to 60163, the new Peppercorn A1. The Buccaneer, behind the Tornado - one of three at the Museum - is in flying condition and is in the desert livery which it carried while on active service during the Gulf War.

 

The Lightning is an F6 and clearly in need of some external restoration which it will receive in due course.

 

I guess this place is one of the equivalents, in aviation terms, to the heritage lines. Though actually running the exhibits is, perhaps, a little more involved and much more difficult.

 

The museum does hold a few 'rolling thunder' days when some of the exhibits are taxied (at speed) up and down that near two mile runway and, I am told, the sights and especially the sounds, on those days, need to be experienced to be desribed.

 

The hangar, visible behind the Tornado and Buccaneer, is an original wartime RAF T2 hangar, which was dismantled and then brought to the Museum site where it was re-erected.

 

Don't you just love this British passion for preserving the very best of our engineering heritage?

 

Cheers

 

Mike

Edited October 14, 2017 by mikemeg

[Daddyman]

I think that's what he means.

Thanks, Ivan - that's what I meant yes. 

 

I am no expert on NER locos so would like to know what other "errors" the George Norton kit has. I don't understand the reference to "step down" between the firebox and boiler, surely the cladding followed a straight line along the boiler/firebox top and sides. Or are you referring to the smokebox/boiler joint with the "quarter round" brass cladding?

 

As I've said to you on this site before, Jol, I sent John Redrup my account of all the mods I had to do to the LRM J25 in order to make it look something like. He accepted all my points. There are some fundamental shape errors (boiler/smokebox relationship; cab-side windows wrong shape; tender flare over large), and then most of the other problems just came from the fact that the kit only supplies one option for things like coal rails, bufferbeam, safety valves, dome, s.box door. Here's my reworked model: little more than the tender underframe, cab front and footplate survived from the LRM kit: 

 

[Jol Wilkinson]

 

As I've said to you on this site before, Jol, I sent John Redrup my account of all the mods I had to do to the LRM J25 in order to make it look something like. He accepted all my points. There are some fundamental shape errors (boiler/smokebox relationship; cab-side windows wrong shape; tender flare over large), and then most of the other problems just came from the fact that the kit only supplies one option for things like coal rails, bufferbeam, safety valves, dome, s.box door. Here's my reworked model: little more than the tender underframe, cab front and footplate survived from the LRM kit: 

 

I don't recall your previous posting, but then my memory isn't what it was.

 

I am surprised that the ex George Norton kit was so wide of the mark. Yes, his products were early examples of etched kits and were hand drawn before the advent of CAD programmes. His LNWR locos - at least the ones I have built - have not displayed the sort of inaccuracies you have described, although he made little or no allowance for P4 wheels in his designs. That may have been because he modelled in EM or perhaps because P4 wasn't so well established when he produced his designs. His instructions sometimes left something to be desired, but any comment to that effect was usually met with a blunt Yorkshireman's response. 

 

John Redrup possibly accepted your criticisms at face value as, like me, he probably doesn't have your level of knowledge of NER locos. The J21 and J25 have been popular kits since they were introduced by GN. Perhaps those that bought and built them were less dissatisfied with the models the kit created, or simply accepted that they were fairly accurate. When kits like the J25 were introduced, the alternatives were usually cast whitemetal and quite often poor quality too. Most modellers, in my experience, tend to accept that a kit has been adequately researched and correctly designed. While there have been some kit suppliers whose products seem to show that is not the case, most designers put a lot of effort into getting it right, within the practical constraints of the manufacturing processes involved and at a reasonable price.

 

However, as Arthur has now designed what will probably be the definitive J25 4mm kit, problem solved.

[Daddyman]

I think you're probably right, Jol - the LRM kit has been good enough for many. It's possible my view is that of an extremist and nutter.... 

Edited October 14, 2017 by Daddyman

[ArthurK]

In defence of the George Norton kits (I regarded him as a very good friend) at the time that they were produced they were very good kits and I believe pretty accurate. I built several of his kits (G5 and N8) and have just disposed my second G5 to Mike as I was never likely to build it myself. I never got as far as the J21 or J25 so I cannot comment on those (I had already scratch built both). I have heard rumours that these two were not completely George's work. Perhaps Jol can comment on that?

 

However I was very pleased with my efforts. This is the G5.

 

 

 

ArthurK

[Paul Cram]

The origins of the J21/J25 were 07 models which George aquired.He did replace the turned boiler with an etched one which I used on my J25. The windows look OK to me.

[Horsetan]

...It's possible my view is that of an extremist and nutter....

Have you not joined us in the Scalefour Society yet?

[mikemeg]

I can't comment on the LRM/George Norton J25 kit but, as has been alluded to elsewhere, I do have three examples of George Norton's G5 kit to build, which will be started after this J25 and the two J72's are completed. So until then I can't join this debate and, even then, not on the George Norton J25.

 

I can't believe that the basic build sequence is that different so, perhaps, this series of postings may help those in the throes of, or about to start, building the LRM J25. And there is nothing to stop anyone, building the LRM J25, from updating it wih some of Arthur's castings!!

 

Cheers

 

Mike

Edited October 15, 2017 by mikemeg

[Daddyman]

Have you not joined us in the Scalefour Society yet?

Yes, Ivan, but only recently so they can't be blamed...

 

I agree that the George Norton G5 looks fine and I may end up getting round to mine at the same time as Mike. Unfortunately, though, the superbly shaped dome shown on Arthur's model is not the one currently supplied with the kit - it's the one seen on my J25. 

[Jol Wilkinson]

Yes, Ivan, but only recently so they can't be blamed...

 

I agree that the George Norton G5 looks fine and I may end up getting round to mine at the same time as Mike. Unfortunately, though, the superbly shaped dome shown on Arthur's model is not the one currently supplied with the kit - it's the one seen on my J25. 

Was it a w/m dome? The current LRM domes are lost wax brass and , judging by the one on Paul Cram's model, have less taper.

 

GN used originally to supply turned domes IIRC, but supply of these ceased, possibly before LRM took over George's kits. My first GN LNWR kits, a Whitworth and a Cauliflower both had them.

[Daddyman]

Was it a w/m dome? The current LRM domes are lost wax brass and , judging by the one on Paul Cram's model, have less taper.

 

GN used originally to supply turned domes IIRC, but supply of these ceased, possibly before LRM took over George's kits. My first GN LNWR kits, a Whitworth and a Cauliflower both had them.

The dome on Paul Cram's looks OK, but has more - not less - taper than the one on Arthur's G5. The tapered dome seems to have given way to a parallel-sided one later in the locos' lives.

 

The current default NER dome in LRM kits is the far-from-convincing one (lost wax) that my J25 above sports, and which my G5, bought a couple of years back, also comes with. I alerted John to the shape issue, and sent him a drawing of the correct shape, which he requested, but I suppose he's been too busy with other things. 

[Rob Pulham]

Apologies for the slight digression Mike.

 

I have just received and LRM kit for a J21 (7mm and now with Gladiator via Fourtrack, indeed mine must be from the cross over period because although the box has LRM branding there was a small note inside saying that the range had been taken over by Fourtrack) for my birthday and wondered whether it originated with Steve Barnfield or George Norton? 

[ArthurK]

This is the Gorge Norton N8/9. In this case an N9. Chimney is definitely by GN but I am not sure about the dome as it has a hole in the top. I sometimes do this and add the pip separately. The kit went together very well although I scratchbuilt a lot of the added detail.

 

 

ArthurK

[mikemeg]

The chassis is now largely complete, just the brakes and brake linkage to add once the wheels and motion are fitted. To drive this loco on the rear axle, which is the only way that the drive train and motor will remain invisible, means that the central frame spacer needs some surgery to make space for the gearbox. It also means that the compensation beams, if fitted, need to be individually pivotted, for each side, for the same reason, to leave clearance for the gearbox.

 

The gearbox will be the High Level Roadrunner Compact Plus (60 : 1 ratio) with a Mashima 1020 motor mounted vertically.

 

Again, the chassis is checked under the loco superstructure to ensure an unimpeded fit. In this instance, the front brackets on the mainframes were impeded by the spigots of the buffers protruding beyond the back of the bufferbeam. These were filed flush with the rear of the bufferbeam to cure the problem.

 

If I keep emphasising this checking before final fixing, it is because I find that errors can be much more easily rectified by checking before fixing!! In truth, this discipline is essential when dealing with etchings, fittings, etc. which have not yet been tried against each other. Thus the discipline becomes an integral part of any build.

 

The edit, on this posting, was again to correct a 1 degree error in the perpendicular of the second photo. These builds can only be judged by the photographs. If they are perceived to be wrong, then the build is perceived to be wrong. And there is something on that second photo - small piece - which I perceive to be wrong and which will be removed and done again!!

 

Cheers

 

Mike

Edited October 18, 2017 by mikemeg

[mikemeg]

To prove that this model has two sides, then a photo taken from the other side.

 

The reversing rod and lever have been assembled and fitted. I did look at photos of the protoypes to see how the two parts of the reversing mechanism appeared at the joint. So I used a piece of .7 mm diameter (.028") brass rod and turned it down to .3 mm diameter (.012") in a pin chuck, leaving a tiny .7 mm diameter shoulder. This was then parted and fitted to the forked union between the reversing rod and lever. After soldering from the back the protruding part of the pin was filed back flush with the rear of the joint and the front shoulder was reduced to a scale thickness.

 

Where the rear of the reversing rod fits into a tiny slot in the front of the cab then I tapered the rod very slightly, in both planes. The taper is only around .010" (ten thou) deep but it does allow the rod to sit into the slot without moving.

 

Hopefully it looks correct?

 

I should/(edit = did) receive the wheels today, so the model can then abandon its 'packing piece'.

 

Once the test build is satisfactorily done and the model grey primed, ready for painting, then I am tempted to scratch build the internals to complete it. I've done this on other models so I know it can be done. Of course, before any of that is done I need to build a tender for this loco. In the photos, the tender, though the correct type, has been borrowed.

 

Cheers

 

Mike

Edited October 21, 2017 by mikemeg

[Compound2632]

I am tempted to scratch build the internals to complete it. I've done this on other models so I know it can be done.

 

Firebox and boiler tubes? impressive...