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

[Pebbles]

It is a life time ago that I was involved with photo etching of any kind; that said cannot "tools" - and by this do we mean the negatives - be used to generate copies?

[Jol Wilkinson]

It is a life time ago that I was involved with photo etching of any kind; that said cannot "tools" - and by this do we mean the negatives - be used to generate copies?

You could photo copy a tool but turning that into artwork is very time consuming. You could even photocopy an etch and try to do the same. I have tried that for a manufacturer who had acquired the right to some kits but where the tooling contained some redundant items for other kits. It was easier to draw new artwork than try to copy and adapt the artwork use software (I have Corel and Adobe), although that added to the manufacturer's costs.

 

I wish it were that easy as I have access to some 98% finished artwork for a loco kit done by someone for a supplier that needs finishing, testing and possibly amending to get the kit into production. It's been generated in some obscure cheap/free software, then exported to another format for the etcher and although I can open it with CorelDraw, the various components have been designed or are presented in such a way I can't make sense of it. Another example of it being easier to start again.

 

The main etchers for our hobby no longer accept hand drawn artwork. Most have no disposed of their special equipment for photographic reproduction, printing straight from CAD files..One specialist company can still do this work, so if you could get the originals to amend, you can still get the tooling produced. However it adds another link in the process, adding more complication, time and possibly cost. I've learned all this from about twenty years of first hand experience.

[mikemeg]

As an aside, another potential apology. Earlier in this thread I referred to 'the late Stephen Barnfield' with the obvious implication that Mr Barnfield was no longer with us. However, someone did PM me asking if I was sure of this (which I am not), as a Mr Stephen Barnfield was on the list of exhibitors at two upcoming Model Raiway Shows.

 

If I have prematurely, inadvertantly and wrongly 'terminated' Mr Barnfield, then my profound apologies.

 

Cheers

 

Mike

[Horsetan]

As an aside, another potential apology. Earlier in this thread I referred to 'the late Stephen Barnfield' with the obvious implication that Mr Barnfield was no longer with us. However, someone did PM me asking if I was sure of this (which I am not), as a Mr Stephen Barnfield was on the list of exhibitors at two upcoming Model Raiway Shows.

 

If I have prematurely, inadvertantly and wrongly 'terminated' Mr Barnfield, then my profound apologies.

 

I'm sure reports of his death are greatly exaggerated    .....pace Mark Twain

[Pebbles]

You could photo copy a tool but turning that into artwork is very time consuming. You could even photocopy an etch and try to do the same. I have tried that for a manufacturer who had acquired the right to some kits but where the tooling contained some redundant items for other kits. It was easier to draw new artwork than try to copy and adapt the artwork use software (I have Corel and Adobe), although that added to the manufacturer's costs.

 

I wish it were that easy as I have access to some 98% finished artwork for a loco kit done by someone for a supplier that needs finishing, testing and possibly amending to get the kit into production. It's been generated in some obscure cheap/free software, then exported to another format for the etcher and although I can open it with CorelDraw, the various components have been designed or are presented in such a way I can't make sense of it. Another example of it being easier to start again.

 

The main etchers for our hobby no longer accept hand drawn artwork. Most have no disposed of their special equipment for photographic reproduction, printing straight from CAD files..One specialist company can still do this work, so if you could get the originals to amend, you can still get the tooling produced. However it adds another link in the process, adding more complication, time and possibly cost. I've learned all this from about twenty years of first hand experience.

This all becomes rather complicated. Firstly to the best of my knowledge Steve was involved in producing the B16 to three scales. Initially I believe he produced it for the 3mm society, his 4mm version appearing in about 1993/4. However, there was a review in I believe BRM in about 1995/7ish of a 7mm build. So this has been scaled up and down with, I would assume, commercial consequences as to who owns what. If I have it correct there are two issues here; correcting/modifying the existing etch and adding additional etches.  As a first port of call, does Steve still hold the original art work which presumably he drew to 12mm to the foot. In the absence of this I would not propose a photocopy but a negative - I assume in view of the age of this kit it would be a negative - to generate hard copy, in this case twice full size would possibly suffice . As an aside many years ago a friend did produce a negative of an etch, whilst this didn't include any half etch indicators - indeed the original etch didn't have any - it did occur to me that using "stone age" technology this could be possible. As it appears that programmes exist that allow scanned text to be modified, I will go back to one of my original questions which was are there suitable programmes that allow scanned drawing manipulation. Failing this the hard copy route and a drawing board for the modifying/correcting; which is exactly what I did some time ago in modifying the art work of an existing chassis to remove the X04 cut out. Big joke; the art work for supplementary etches in this case were produced using a photo copier and a Pritt Stick!  

[Jol Wilkinson]

This all becomes rather complicated. Firstly to the best of my knowledge Steve was involved in producing the B16 to three scales. Initially I believe he produced it for the 3mm society, his 4mm version appearing in about 1993/4. However, there was a review in I believe BRM in about 1995/7ish of a 7mm build. So this has been scaled up and down with, I would assume, commercial consequences as to who owns what. If I have it correct there are two issues here; correcting/modifying the existing etch and adding additional etches.  As a first port of call, does Steve still hold the original art work which presumably he drew to 12mm to the foot. In the absence of this I would not propose a photocopy but a negative - I assume in view of the age of this kit it would be a negative - to generate hard copy, in this case twice full size would possibly suffice . As an aside many years ago a friend did produce a negative of an etch, whilst this didn't include any half etch indicators - indeed the original etch didn't have any - it did occur to me that using "stone age" technology this could be possible. As it appears that programmes exist that allow scanned text to be modified, I will go back to one of my original questions which was are there suitable programmes that allow scanned drawing manipulation. Failing this the hard copy route and a drawing board for the modifying/correcting; which is exactly what I did some time ago in modifying the art work of an existing chassis to remove the X04 cut out. Big joke; the art work for supplementary etches in this case were produced using a photo copier and a Pritt Stick!  

I spent some hours at Photo Etch Consultants going through the "Steve Barnfield" photo tools on behalf of John Redrup of LRM to identify which were the 4mm tools for the kits to which LRM had bought the rights. Although SB had been paid some many months in advance he had done nothing about it. As far as I know, he never made the original artwork drawings - even if he still has it - available to LRM. I know that the 3mm Society were in some way involved and therefore may hold the rights to the original artwork.

 

Having a hard copy of the original artwork, or a positive or negative produced from both parts of the tool, then leaves the task of converting this into a CAD software file that you can work with. While this may be possible - I have Corel Capture software - I haven't found it easy with even simple drawings. The simplest and most cost effective way is to design any new/replacement parts that may be needed - and given that the kit has been available in three scales and presumably successfully tested and built - and produce a supplementary tool. Redesigning the original tool to incorporate any additional parts may be impractical depending on how it's laid out. 

 

The other two kits LRM bought, the BTP and M/Q 4-4-0 went straight back into production. Only because a well know modeller suggested that the B16 could be "expanded" as a kit was it with-held while he researched what could be done. He didn't complete what he started by which time the kit sort of fell into a hole. I have been nagging John Redrup to get it back into production to recover his investment and Mike generously volunteered to test build one to see what was needed. That's where it stands at the moment. 

[billbedford]

 I will go back to one of my original questions which was are there suitable programmes that allow scanned drawing manipulation. 

 

 

The answer to this is yes but...

 

Scans tend to pick up edges and reduce  thin areas to lines, to it is often quicker to use a scan as a template and redraw over the top. It doesn't help that every draughtsman has his own convention of how his drawing is put together, so converting from one convention to another can seem to take an inordinate amount of time.

[mikemeg]

The history of this kit is very fully described above, so requires no further amplification.

 

Also, unlike many test builds, this kit came with one and a half sets of instructions - one and a half I hear you ask? Steve Barnfield produced a full set of instructions and a very comprehensive set of prototype notes; the well known modeller then produced some amended/updated instructions but not a complete set.

 

Knowing a little about these locomotives, then it was fairly obvious from looking at the etches what could be improved (not a lot, actually) what was missing (principally the wrapper for the alternative 49a pattern boiler) and some other comments.

 

Now, from experience I always approach test builds, not from the bottle half full or half empty, but from there being no bottle at all. So :-

 

Nothing is the correct size and must be measured.

Nothing fits first time (and sometimes not second or third time) and must be checked and, perhaps, made to fit.

The kit designer was obviously a supremely skilled builder and much better than me.

 

That way, any of the above which are confounded i.e. this is the correct size and/or fits very well and/or goes together easily evinces such feelings of unbounded joy that I am encouraged to continue. Shouts of 'golly gosh (or some such which the expletive checker might recognise); something the right size or that fits well or was easy' resound around the work bench as another step is achieved.

 

Anyway, enough of this nonsense; to the photos and some brief descriptions.

 

Cheers

 

Mike

Edited February 16, 2017 by mikemeg

[Pebbles]

Sorry to intrude but I've now found that the coal rails in the kit are in the region of 3mm too long. I've arrived at this conclusion by using the self-trimming diagram on page 203 of Ken Hoole's "An Illustrated History of NER Locomotives" and using reduction figure of 58%. This diagram is of a type where the coal rails terminate vertically just forward of the water dome. On the bases of photographic evidences I assumed that coal rails with the symmetrical curves terminated just to the rear of the water dome. My calculations do seem to accord with the Isinglass Drawings.

 

My solution is to cut the coal rails at their mid point - there is a tab at this point to help with fixing to the top of the tender flair - remove 3mm and solder the two halves together using a higher melting point solder. The resulting joint can be re-enforced by soldering a strip on the rear to replace the lost tab.

 

Something entirely different. Having seen your builds and seen how clean they are, do you have a special soldering iron to get inside the tanks of Arthur's kits, or how do you do it? Any advice would be helpful.

[mikemeg]

Sorry to intrude but I've now found that the coal rails in the kit are in the region of 3mm too long. I've arrived at this conclusion by using the self-trimming diagram on page 203 of Ken Hoole's "An Illustrated History of NER Locomotives" and using reduction figure of 58%. This diagram is of a type where the coal rails terminate vertically just forward of the water dome. On the bases of photographic evidences I assumed that coal rails with the symmetrical curves terminated just to the rear of the water dome. My calculations do seem to accord with the Isinglass Drawings.

 

My solution is to cut the coal rails at their mid point - there is a tab at this point to help with fixing to the top of the tender flair - remove 3mm and solder the two halves together using a higher melting point solder. The resulting joint can be re-enforced by soldering a strip on the rear to replace the lost tab.

 

Something entirely different. Having seen your builds and seen how clean they are, do you have a special soldering iron to get inside the tanks of Arthur's kits, or how do you do it? Any advice would be helpful.

 

Yes, the coal rails are around 3mm too long. As yet I haven't modified them; like you I checked them against the Isinglass drawing and also against Arthur's 4125 gallon tender. In both cases, there was a 3 mm discrepancy.

 

As to soldering iron, I use an Antex 50 watt variable temperature with a 2mm wide bit. But a few things I do :-

 

On tank locomotives, where the tanks are a fold up assembly I superglue lead sheet into the tanks as weighting. If this is done carefully, then the superglue will actually fix the tank sides without the need for soldering. Yes, I know it's a fiddle but it does result in a very 'clean' assembly.

 

Minimise the amount of soldering I do on the outside of the model

 

Where I do solder on the outside of the model, I clean the joints up, first with a scraper and then with a glass fibre brush as soon as the joint is cool.

 

Cheers

 

Mike

Edited February 22, 2017 by mikemeg

[mikemeg]

I've got a PDK B16/1 in my 'to build' pile, and once my LRM J21 is up and running, it could well be the next loco into the erecting shops!

 

The quality of, and number of etched parts in the J21 kit which I think is like the LRM B16 an ex-Barnfield item, far exceeds those in the PDK box. There are some very nice castings in the PDK kit, and all the basics are there and it looks to have the potential of being a decent build but may require a bit more tweaking than the LRM one.

 

What motor/gearbox combination have you used? There's no sort of suggestion in the PDK instructions, but from other builds I've seen of it a HighLevel box seems to be the norm which is what I would probably lean towards normally.

 

Cheers

 

J

 

Well I've now received the gearbox from High Level which is the Roadrunner Compact + (60 : 1 gear ratio). I always gear my locos at quite high ratios (the shunters are all 108 : 1) as it gives a much better haulage performance at low speeds.

 

High Level have re-engineered their range of gearboxes so that they all now use a final drive gear with a grubscrew. This has resulted in the ratios increasing by around 12% due to this final drive gear having more teeth than the final drive gear in the older boxes. There are other changes to the gearbox assembly which has made them far more of an engineering product though there is no increase in complexity of assembly.

 

I tried various motor outlines, using card templates, on this and was able to get a Mashima 1426 into the model. The motor will be mounted laterally i.e. using the side fixings on the gearbox and driving the centre axle. The motor is inclined at around 30 degrees within the firebox and both the gearbox and motor are invisible from the outside of the model and the motor does not interfere with the backhead.

 

Once I have finished the installation of the drive train, then I'll post a photo or two of the final drive arrangement.

 

Cheers

 

Mike

Edited February 22, 2017 by mikemeg

[JaymzHatstand]

Excellent, thanks for that. I look forward to seeing them.

 

I do suspect that I'll end up mounting my gearbox on the rear drivers, but vertical space will be the same roughly.

 

Cheers

 

J

[mikemeg]

LONDON ROAD MODELS LNER B16/1

 

Yes I know, it's early in the morning, but I am awake so a good opportunity to do a few things before tiredness kicks back in!

 

The motor has had one end of the drive shaft cropped flush with the bearing and was then fixed to the gearbox. With the side fixing holes now present on the gearbox cage, which allow the motor to be ftted laterally and therefore, can be subsequently removed/refitted from/to the assembled gearbox, then this trial fitting is now possible. From some measurements made with templates, then the rear of the motor can stand up to 25 - 26 mm above the footplate before it touches the inside top of the firebox.

 

For added protection against the motor terminals touching the inside of the firebox or the rear firebox former, the top of the firebox and the inside of the firebox rear former will be lined with .010" plasticard, just in case the calculations are awry.

 

So, my hope that a Mashima 1426 would actually go into the model is realised - phew!!

 

The first photo shows the gearbox and motor positioned in the chassis to check clearances. The next two photos show how, by rotating the final drive carriage, the orientation and positioning of the motor can be adjusted.

 

Cheers

 

Mike

Edited January 12, 2018 by mikemeg

[mikemeg]

LONDON ROAD MODELS LNER B16/1

 

The motor is now pretty well at the correect angle allowing space between the motor and the firebox top and between the motor terminals and the rear firebox former. The motor is supported on a plasticard 'block' (laminated from .030" sections) which was gradually built up until the correct angle and position was reached.

 

The cylinder rears/slide bars, crosshead and connecting rod assemblies were done off the loco as separate sub-assemblies. These were then fitted to the locomotive chassis once they were completely free running over their full length of travel. For the articulated coupling rods and for the small ends (the union between the crosshead and the connecting rod) I turn up small steel shouldered pins nominally 0.8 mm diameter over their shaft

 

This is actually done by hand in an old pin chuck which is slowly revolved in the fingers and filed around until the correct diameter(s) are reached. The holes in the rods are opened out with a broach to a marked position on the broach to ensure consistency of diameter. The pin is then just tested against the hole, as it is being turned, until the pin will go into the hole with a reasonably tight fit. It took me quite a time to develop this technique to the required level of accuracy but now it pretty well works every time. Of course, soldering up these pins without soldering up the entire thing does still require some care. I use the cigarette paper (though a long time non-smoker) method to prevent the ingress of solder into the articuated joint.

 

A lot of care and adjustment was used to ensure the correct angle on both the cylinders and the slide bars. Failing to get this angle correct and consistent will stand out like the proverbial sore thumb!!

 

So with the motion now fully assembled, then the footplate can be checked for clearance of the motor. This model is still a number of sub-assemblies not yet fixed together. Much easier to rectify any problems than if it were fully assembled.

 

Now we have a rolling chassis. Next step, after the running is checked, will be the assembly (and fitting) of the brake gear. All of the brakes are assembled so now need fitting along with the brake linkage. After that then the whole thing can be assembled prior to the final detailing.

 

Cheers

 

Mike

Edited January 12, 2018 by mikemeg

[mikemeg]

LONDON ROAD MODELS LNER B16/1

 

And then we pop the boiler assembly on just to ensure that the calculations and checking with templates were all correct. Everything seems ok; the motor sits happily inside the firebox and touches nothing that it shouldn't touch.

 

This photo also serves to check the level of the boiler. The daylight strip, under the boiler, should show as a consistent width! It does seem to.

 

Without the cab, this looks a little like something going through Darlington on heavy overhaul!

 

Simple things, weren't they; just a kettle on wheels with a coal scuttle behind (Eric Treacy's words, not mine); but oh they were lovely!!

 

Cheers

 

Mike

Edited January 12, 2018 by mikemeg

[mikemeg]

LONDON ROAD MODELS LNER B16/1

 

When I started on this I really didn't know if this kit could be built; at least could it be built without some significant reworking? The answer is clearly that it can be built, though there are a few thngs which have had to be changed but not very much.

 

Now for the final assembly, the detailing and then the painting, lining and lettering. I still don't know which B16/1 this will be; probably one of the ones allocated to York in 1950 (yes, I know, they were all alocated to York in 1950).

 

Cheers

 

Mike

Edited January 12, 2018 by mikemeg

[Daddyman]

Thanks for sharing this with us. 

 

Some thoughts if I may - critical, yes, but given in the spirit of helping developing the kit: 

 

B16s are not a class I know at all, but the dome looks unrecognisable - I can't tell if it represents a G/S or the earlier type. 

 

The s.box door looks a bit suspicious too, but it's hard to tell. How does it compare to a Bradwell (if you have any lying around)? Bradwell has consistently managed to get NER and LNER s.box doors right. 

 

What's your impression of the cab-side window surrounds? They look OK, but it's hard to tell from your pics. This feature (along with domes and s.box doors) makes or breaks a model in my opinion - and has broken a good few B16s: the ones on the 7mm Barnfield are dreadful, and if there's shared parentage then there's a potential problem there.

 

All these areas (dome, s.box door and cab-side window surrounds) have not been strong points on other LRM NER releases. I know Jol is listening, and I hope this doesn't cause offence; they are issues I've raised with John Redrup on the J25 and J21, and he has accepted my criticism. I know the J25 and J21 were Norton, but as I said the parentage of this B16 worries me. 

 

Finally, nitpicking in the extreme: the cylinder retaining bolts below the s.box are inclined too high; they should start lower and rise at a shallower angle. 

 

I hope this is of some help. 

[MarkC]

Lovely work, Mike. Am enjoying this thread

 

How is the bogie swing/control arranged there? If you could put up a couple of photos, it would be much appreciated. Thanks.

 

Best

Mark

[mikemeg]

 LONDON ROAD MODELS LNER B16/1

 

Thanks for sharing this with us. 

 

Some thoughts if I may - critical, yes, but given in the spirit of helping developing the kit: 

 

B16s are not a class I know at all, but the dome looks unrecognisable - I can't tell if it represents a G/S or the earlier type. 

 

The s.box door looks a bit suspicious too, but it's hard to tell. How does it compare to a Bradwell (if you have any lying around)? Bradwell has consistently managed to get NER and LNER s.box doors right. 

 

What's your impression of the cab-side window surrounds? They look OK, but it's hard to tell from your pics. This feature (along with domes and s.box doors) makes or breaks a model in my opinion - and has broken a good few B16s: the ones on the 7mm Barnfield are dreadful, and if there's shared parentage then there's a potential problem there.

 

All these areas (dome, s.box door and cab-side window surrounds) have not been strong points on other LRM NER releases. I know Jol is listening, and I hope this doesn't cause offence; they are issues I've raised with John Redrup on the J25 and J21, and he has accepted my criticism. I know the J25 and J21 were Norton, but as I said the parentage of this B16 worries me. 

 

Finally, nitpicking in the extreme: the cylinder retaining bolts below the s.box are inclined too high; they should start lower and rise at a shallower angle. 

 

I hope this is of some help. 

 

No, your criticisms are accepted as constructive comments on the kit, so let me try and deal with the points you raise.

 

The kit contains two domes, the original North Eastern pattern dome and the later LNER dome. The later LNER dome was fitted to both the original boiler (pattern 49) and the later LNER boiler (pattern 49a) as these boiler types were interchanged at overhaul. Similarly the kit contains two chimney castings, again to represent the original chimney to the NER 13' 3 loading gauge and the later LNER chimney to the LNER composite 13' 0" loading gauge. The difference was largely the height of the capuchon, though the body of the chimney did have a slightly different profile. The Q7's went through the same process.

 

The smokebox doors on these locos, originally a quite flat profile, were replaced by a much more bulbous LNER pattern door (10' 0" radius dishing) during the 1930's, though some locos retained their North Eastern smokebox door quite late in their lives.

 

The cab surrounds are on the heavy side and really need some 'slimming down' to be made to look more realistic.

 

The cylinder retaining bolts are etched onto the frames so, short of filing them off then re-drilling and inserting pieces of wire to a modified profile, I left them as is.

 

I have added, deleted and changed a few things on this kit but I have stopped short of wholesale changes which would entail significant changes to the kit. The original artwork for this is not available so any changes must be made by the provision of additional etches, as replacement parts, which will affect its price and may compromise other parts which do not require changes.

 

I think the real measure of this kit is how does it compare to any other kits available for this prototype and I can't answer that as I have never built any of the other offerings for the B16/1. There are a few dimensional inconsistencies and a couple of errors which lead me to believe that this kit was never fully 'debugged' prior to the rights being acquired by LRM, hence the delay in its introduction.

 

Once again, any thanks for your comments.

 

Cheers

 

Mike

Edited January 12, 2018 by mikemeg

[Horsetan]

....The original artwork for this is not available ...

...and that, really, is the killer.

 

At least there's an existing photo tool, unlike the one for the Mitchell "Manor" which went missing at the time that David Geen was granted the rights to produce the 4mm range so, unless it turns up by some miracle, there'll be no more Mitchell "Manor" kits.

[Daddyman]

Thanks for your reply. Glad it was taken the right way.

 

I'm aware of the s.box door change - it's a familiar story with ex-NER locos - but my question was how well the one in the kit represented it; it's hard to see from your photo. Same with the dome: I don't have pictures of the earlier dome, but I suspect this one is supposed to represent the later type, which it doesn't do at all well. It should be much more... well... Bradwell-shaped.  

 

I think the real measure of this kit is how does it compare to any other kits available for this prototype and I can't answer that as I have never built any of the other offerings for the B16/1. There are a few dimensional inconsistencies and a couple of errors which lead me to believe that this kit was never fully 'debugged' prior to the rights being acquired by LRM, hence the delay in its introduction.

 

I respectfully disagree there. The real measure of the kit is how well it compares to the prototype. Is the purpose of your build to debug it? Or are you saying it can't be debugged because the original artwork is not available? My comments on the possible or apparent flaws were all made in the belief that changes were possible, but maybe I misunderstood?  

Edited February 25, 2017 by Daddyman

[Daddyman]

...and that, really, is the killer.

 

At least there's an existing photo tool, unlike the one for the Mitchell "Manor" which went missing at the time that David Geen was granted the rights to produce the 4mm range so, unless it turns up by some miracle, there'll be no more Mitchell "Manor" kits.

My fondest dream: a world with no GW kits... 

[Horsetan]

My fondest dream: a world with no GW kits... 

 

Keep dreaming. 

[Worsdell forever]

My fondest dream: a world with no GW kits...

Replaced with more north eastern, a 398, 1001, F, I & J...

[Pebbles]

Maybe because of issues I have raised I'm seen as the fly in the ointment. Firstly I have the highest regard for John and I cannot see him releasing a kit that requires

"modification" by the builder. I have spoken about the boiler and the tender coal rail problems - does this mean new etches for these parts? I fear this is the tip of the iceberg,as an example I have a strong feeling that the cab vertical handrail holes need relocating. More importantly, EM and P4 modellers may find the width between the splashers rather on the tight side and with the limited permitted movement of the bogie this is important. How generally good are the fit of the parts? from Mikes photos it would appear that he has encountered problems in this area. If the kit can be brought up to scratch then so be it. However, I feel the issues relating to finding ways of amending the artwork/tooling without incurring excessive cost remain valid.