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

[mikemeg]

 NORTH EASTERN KITS LNER J25

 

 

That's a really useful photo of the cab interior, Mike, and a credit to the kit builder and designer. I'm currently working on the LRM version, which,as far as I can tell, provides only the backhead. Though I doubt I'll go as far as you, it certainly needs seats and the vey conspicuous reversing lever.

John

 

John,

 

Thanks for the kind words.

 

One of the great beauties (and potential drawbacks) of doing these test builds is that everything etched has to be checked, which means it has to be assembled. So in doing these test builds then I've probably gained much more experience than had I just 'built kits'.

 

What Arthur has done, with this kit, is give the builder the option as to how far they wish to go with the detailing. But 'going the whole hog' is well worth it!!

 

Cheers

 

Mike

Edited January 11, 2018 by mikemeg

[micklner]

Arthur

   Might have castings for the cab if needed. 

[Compound2632]

I can't speak on skill but I can say that I do have a modicum of patience.

 

I did ask Arthur the same question and his answer was 'yes, they were very tall; simply to achieve the necessary leverage.'

 

Have to confess though that it does look tall.

 

Cheers

 

Mike

 

I should have checked back with the photos at post #590 first!

[mikemeg]

Looking through the PC's picture folder of B16 pictures, which contains eight photos of various B16's, almost every one has some deformation of either the front footplate section or the front bufferbeam. Here's a photo, taken in 1931, when this B16 was no more than eight years old, showing a very out of line front bufferbeam.

 

This loco was one of the last fifteen (LNER Nos 1371 - 1385) of the thirty two built by the LNER in 1923/24 and has the plain, unbeaded splashers common to those last fifteen. Notice also the lack of the lower set of washout plugs which were an LNER addition from around 1934 onwards. The Westinghouse pump doesn't do a lot for the aesthetics of this loco; certainly they looked better after that pump's removal.

 

I wonder why these locos seem to have taken such a bashing on their front ends?

 

Cheers

 

Mike

Edited December 13, 2017 by mikemeg

[Dave Holt]

Mike,

That one looks like a rough shunt or collision whereas the previous example looks like it was hit from above, somehow, as the buffer beam appears undamaged.

 

I'm intrigued by the double or split balance weights. I've never noticed that arrangement on any other locomotives although Royal Scots had some odd shapes due to additions during service. Were all B16/1 like that?

Dave.

[mikemeg]

Mike,

That one looks like a rough shunt or collision whereas the previous example looks like it was hit from above, somehow, as the buffer beam appears undamaged.

 

I'm intrigued by the double or split balance weights. I've never noticed that arrangement on any other locomotives although Royal Scots had some odd shapes due to additions during service. Were all B16/1 like that?

Dave.

 

Dave,

 

I can't say whether all B16/1's were like this but all of the photos of B16/1's, which I have, show these split balance weights but there are slight differences in the arrangements of these weights. The Isinglass drawing for the B16/1 does not show this split arrangement of the balance weights at all.

 

The inside cylinder drove the leading axle, as did the two outside cylinders, so this might explain the balance weight arrangement on the leading drivers, with a lot of reciprocating mass on that axle.

 

Cheers

 

Mike

Edited December 13, 2017 by mikemeg

[ArthurK]

I wouldn't have the skill, patience to detail a cab to that level - possibly I'd struggle with eyesight too - so please excuse an armchair question: is the reversing lever really supposed to be that tall?

 

The NER reversing levers were, as far as I can ascertain, all alike. They were 5' from hinge point to the tip of the handle so if I got the artwork correct and the hinge in the right place then Mike's build should be correct. The top of the lever reached almost to the top of the window arch. I will check.

 

Just checked. Everything looks OK.

 

ArthurK

Edited December 13, 2017 by ArthurK

[Compound2632]

The NER reversing levers were, as far as I can ascertain, all alike. They were 5' from hinge point to the tip of the handle so if I got the artwork correct and the hinge in the right place then Mike's build should be correct. The top of the lever reached almost to the top of the window arch. I will check.

 

Just checked. Everything looks OK.

 

ArthurK

 

Sorry to have caused trouble! I hunted for some cab photos of similar Midland engines - round-topped boilered 2Fs - where the top of the reversing lever is about level with the top of the boiler - about 5'6" above the footplate, with the pivot at about footplate level. Altogether more massive than I had appreciated. I suppose my mental picture was that the driver would stand in relation to the reversing lever much as a signalman did to his levers - whereas in fact he must have been reaching up to about face height. One learns something new every day - thanks!

[billbedford]

 

I wonder why these locos seem to have taken such a bashing on their front ends?

 

 

 

 

I suspect the cylinder tail rods prevented the fitting adequate brackets between the frames and the buffer beams.

 

But then I do wonder how good the brakes were.

[Portchullin Tatty]

 

I wonder why these locos seem to have taken such a bashing on their front ends?

 

 

A clumsy b*gger keeps dropping them off the baseboard?

[Daddyman]

Hello Mike

I've made a start on an LRM G5 (a kit you said you'd be tackling soon), and I have a question that you (or your readership) might be able to answer. 

 

Put simply, it's this: how far below the tank sides and front should the tank top sit? On the kit, the tank top height is governed by the spectacle plate, and when the top corners of the spectacle plate are lined up correctly with the top corners of the cab sides, and the tank top inserted, the latter sit only half a mill below the tank sides. I feel it should be a bit lower, but maybe just from looking at Palitoy J72s for years. 

 

The drawing from The Engineer in Ken Hoole's book is no help, and I can find no photos that show the locos from above. However, a view in Darlington Scrapyard 1948-1964 shows the tank of a bigger ex-NER loco (not a G5) lying on its side on the floor, and seems to suggest the half mill is about right. 

 

Grateful for any help. Oh, and Happy New Year! 

[micknich2003]

Dear David, here's a part GA Drawing of a J73, you can see the tank top is not far down, you can possibly work out the exact dimension.Best Wishes, Mick.

[micknich2003]

I posted the wrong drawing in error, I may have an actual G5, I will look later.

[Daddyman]

Good of you Mick thanks! 
 

[micknich2003]

Good of you Mick thanks! 

 

Dear David, I'm only too pleased to help.

 I have blown up my original photo', the inside of the tank is 1! 13/4" above the boiler C/L.

Yours, Mick..

[Daddyman]

Dear David, I'm only too pleased to help.

 I have blown up my original photo', the inside of the tank is 1! 13/4" above the boiler C/L.

Yours, Mick..

Thanks 

again 

Mick. Is that one foot one and three quarters? 

[ArthurK]

Hello Mike

I've made a start on an LRM G5 (a kit you said you'd be tackling soon), and I have a question that you (or your readership) might be able to answer. 

 

Put simply, it's this: how far below the tank sides and front should the tank top sit? On the kit, the tank top height is governed by the spectacle plate, and when the top corners of the spectacle plate are lined up correctly with the top corners of the cab sides, and the tank top inserted, the latter sit only half a mill below the tank sides. I feel it should be a bit lower, but maybe just from looking at Palitoy J72s for years. 

 

The drawing from The Engineer in Ken Hoole's book is no help, and I can find no photos that show the locos from above. However, a view in Darlington Scrapyard 1948-1964 shows the tank of a bigger ex-NER loco (not a G5) lying on its side on the floor, and seems to suggest the half mill is about right. 

 

Grateful for any help. Oh, and Happy New Year! 

 

The tank tops of NER tank locos was 2" (0.67mm) below the tank side.There is only one photo that I know of showing the G5 from above. It was taken at Beverley and is of the left side rear.

 

ArthurK

[Daddyman]

The tank tops of NER tank locos was 2" (0.67mm) below the tank side.There is only one photo that I know of showing the G5 from above. It was taken at Beverley and is of the left side rear.

 

ArthurK

Thanks, Arthur. Very helpful! 

[micknich2003]

Thanks, Arthur. Very helpful! 

Arthur, is this the picture? Late C T Goode.

[micknich2003]

Thanks 

again 

Mick. Is that one foot one and three quarters? 

David, yes 1ft,  1 3/4in. I must buy a new key board, many of the letters etc are worn away.

[micklner]

Arthur, is this the picture? Late C T Goode.

S22 BEVERLEY.jpg

 

G5 ? with a Vent on the Tank ? It looks like the unique G5 with stretched tank at the front ?

[ArthurK]

Arthur, is this the picture? Late C T Goode.

S22 BEVERLEY.jpg

 

Yes that is the one. It is obviously 67340, The one with the extended tanks as based at Botanic Gardens.

 

ArthurK

[micknich2003]

I had other views of this engine, but they have diserpered.

[Daddyman]

Thanks, chaps. 

 

I notice that the loco's boiler handrail appears to stretch all the way to the cab (seemingly kinked ahead of the hand holes). That surprised me, but then of course it makes sense: it has to go all the way to the cab as it contained the reach rod for the blower valve (is that the right word?). I'd always assumed that G5 handrails started ahead the tanks, and was puzzled at the LRM instructions, which set out the positions for handrail knobs all the way back to the cab. However, the photo shows that the rod is unsupported by knobs for the length of the tanks - doesn't it? But do standard G5s have full length handrails, and on both sides? 

 

The instructions also exhort the builder to fit tank and bunker top beading, saying, "Extreme care is needed in fitting and soldering these parts, but it is well worth the effort." But no G5 had beading there, did it? - which suggests it's the opposite of "well worth the effort"!  

[Jol Wilkinson]

I cannot comment from any knowledge of the prototype, but contrary to what the photos show, a beading on the tank side top would seem logical, rather than leave a "sharp" exposed edge. The LNWR applied beadings which extended to provide the vertical handrail support.

 

However, the two prototype photos show cab side beading quite clearly  but not along the tank sides. A look at some of the G5 images on the web (invariably in LNER or BR days) also supports the lack of beading. It'll make the build a bit quicker too.

 

This photo of a model built from the LRM kit, courtesy of John Brighton who ran Sheffield Steamline, shows a Class O with the beadings applied.

 

 

By contrast, this model (apologies, I don't know who built it) shows a Class O without the beadings.

 

 

Edited to add that the boiler handrails are also different.

Edited January 10, 2018 by Jol Wilkinson