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

[RBAGE]

....which is surely how it should be? I'm not aware of entire loco bogie structures lifting and falling - others may know different - and thought it was just the axles and wheels that did that.

Yes, of course that's how it should be but it's not always so simple to copy the movement of the prototype (impossible).

Do you have some examples of your bogie mountings that I might learn from.

All empirical demonstration would be gratefully received. Theoretical interpretation of how it should be doesn't really help when you are building in 4mm scale. 

Edited February 23, 2018 by RBAGE

[billbedford]

Yes, of course that's how it should be but it's not always so simple to copy the movement of the prototype (impossible).

 

 

It's perfectly possible

 

As for the bogie pivot. The best way i've found for these is to use a 2mm ID top hat bearing and a 10BA (M2) nut and bolt with the nut soldered to the upper face of the loco frame spacer.

[RBAGE]

Thanks for that Bill but even this is a mechanism to simulate the action not to reproduce. As is indicated, leaf springs and eye clamps aren't available in 4mm scale.

 

So, for a contributor say that "surely this is how it should be" or "I'm not aware of an entire bogie structure lifting and falling", doesn't really help.

 

However, this bogie assembly is very interesting and well worth investigation.  

[billbedford]

Leaf springs may not be available in 4mm, but the can be simulated by spring steel wire, so that all the degrees of freedom that the original bogies had can be reproduced in the model.

[PenrithBeacon]

Leaf springs may not be available in 4mm, but the can be simulated by spring steel wire, so that all the degrees of freedom that the original bogies had can be reproduced in the model.

Are hysteresis loops scaleable? I'd be most surprised if they are.

[billbedford]

Are hysteresis loops at all relevant to 4mm modelling?

[micknich2003]

Slightly off topic, but I see TMC/Bachman, have plans a foot for a Ready to Run G5. As yet no price or delivery date.

[mikemeg]

Slightly off topic, but I see TMC/Bachman, have plans a foot for a Ready to Run G5. As yet no price or delivery date.

 

Mick,

 

Thanks for that. Given the spread of the prototype - across the old North Eastern and beyond - then probably no surprise that one of the r-t-r guys would produce one.

 

It is quite interesting, this apparent 'conflict' between an r-t-r model and an etched kit of the same prototype, perhaps exemplified within Arthur's own range with the J72. Arthur introduced these kits (two different kits for the two versions of the J72) only quite recently, since which time Bachmann have revised their own model.

 

I have done two conversions of the Bachmann J72, using the High Level Models etched chassis, and have built three (well almost!) of Arthur's J72 kits and there is really no comparison but then there really shouldn't be. Where the etched kit wins out is in the fineness of detail, which is down to individual choice, and in the use of near scale thickness materials.

 

But I would never decry the r-t-r models which continue to get better and better. And their level of finish is generally superb. And in the final analysis, while an etched kit may attract thirty or forty sales over time, the same r-t-r model will atrract many times that number.

 

Cheers

 

Mike

Edited February 26, 2018 by mikemeg

[mikemeg]

LONDON ROAD MODELS LNER G5

 

As with the first build, on the second build the boiler/smokebox has been primed in order to allow the drawing of guide lines for the various drillings in the boiler/smokebox - chimney, dome, safety valves, whistle, handrail stanchions, vacuum pipe. The primer will be rubbed off, once all of these drillings are done, to allow the soldering of the boiler bands to be done.

 

The photo also shows where the brass castings need a little fettling to remove casting marks!

 

Cheers

 

Mike

Edited February 26, 2018 by mikemeg

[mikemeg]

LONDON ROAD MODELS LNER G5

 

And with all of the various drillings marked and then drilled, the boiler and smokebox can be returned to shiny brass ready for the fitting of the boiler bands and washout plugs. The casting marks on the chimney and dome have also been dealt with.

 

The chimney, dome, smokebox front/splasher assembly, boiler/firebox assembly and the bunker cage are not yet fixed but just resting against each other to check the fit.

 

I confess that I do keep all of the brass and the nickel silver very clean throughout the build. And any solder which 'escapes' and alights on the outside is hastily 'recaptured'. Costs me a fortune in refills for the glass fibre brush!!

 

Cheers

 

Mike

Edited February 27, 2018 by mikemeg

[Daddyman]

I managed to get a LRM NER dome to a decent shape with the Dremel, Mike. It's far too tapered as it comes. 

 

Fibre-glass brushes are very easy, aren't they, but I was told by one of the big boys that I should use a scraper more. He also recommended a suede brush as a kind of intermediary between scraper and FGB. Saves a fortune! 

[mikemeg]

I managed to get a LRM NER dome to a decent shape with the Dremel, Mike. It's far too tapered as it comes. 

 

Fibre-glass brushes are very easy, aren't they, but I was told by one of the big boys that I should use a scraper more. He also recommended a suede brush as a kind of intermediary between scraper and FGB. Saves a fortune! 

 

David,

 

Agreed on the taper of the brass dome casting.

 

However the other problem with this dome casting is that the flared portion is too large in diameter at its extremity and the transiion radii, from the tapered sides into the flare, are also too large and should be much smaller. This makes the flared portion, of this casting, far too prominent.

 

The white metal dome, fitted to the first build, is correct in respect of the flare and the transition into this flare but is too tall, perhaps by 1 mm.

 

Colin Foster's drawing, supplied in the kit to 7mm / 1 ft, shows the dome as being 17 mm tall, from the top of the boiler, which equates to 9.71 mm in 4 mm scale.

 

This is the best photo I can find which shows the side view of the dome on the prototype, which will be uploaded as soon as the current issue is resolved.

 

Your suggestions re alternatives to expensive FGB refills are very welcome, though I must also confess to using some very old and very worn needle files quite extensively for cleaning up the model. They don't so much file as burnish, being so worn, but they work very well.

 

Cheers

 

Mike

Edited February 28, 2018 by mikemeg

[Daddyman]

Yes, agreed, Mike - it's the flare and transition which is really wrong, and that's where I used the Dremel. But with your over-tall dome, you could cut and shut it. I did that on a Bradwell medium J27 dome to extend its height for my Q5, but there's no reason it wouldn't work the other way (removing a section). I cast the heightened dome in resin for future use at the weekend, possibly on the G5, but have just tried it against Colin Foster's drawing and it's slightly too short. However, now I have it in resin, it will be even easier to cut and shut. 

[Jol Wilkinson]

Would the dome for the NER G1 be the same? My books are in the workshop at the top of a snowy garden so I can't check at the moment. The photo in post 103 here shows a LRM G1 with the cast brass dome as supplied other than removing a very fine mould line. It looks less tapered than that in the G5 photo. Perhaps a later casting form a newer master pattern?

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/14518-lnwr-4mm-rolling-stock-for-london-road/page-5

[mikemeg]

Would the dome for the NER G1 be the same? My books are in the workshop at the top of a snowy garden so I can't check at the moment. The photo in post 103 here shows a LRM G1 with the cast brass dome as supplied other than removing a very fine mould line. It looks less tapered than that in the G5 photo. Perhaps a later casting form a newer master pattern?

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/14518-lnwr-4mm-rolling-stock-for-london-road/page-5

 

The dome on the NER G1 does look much more like a G5 dome than the casting supplied with the kit.

 

I shied away from using the Dremel to do the re-profiing, doing it much more slowly if somewhat painstakingly.

 

Anyway by reducing the diameter of the flared section and then thinning the flared seating and by reducing the radii of the transition from the tapered sides into the flare, the actual tapered sides of the dome are effectively lengthened. This then allows the taper to be reduced without impinging on the overall diameter of the body of the dome, if that makes sense.

 

No doubt some will ask "what's the problem; looks fine" but the problem is it doesn't look fine.

 

I had the same issue on a B16/1 dome which looked quite unlike any dome which the B16/1's actually carried.

 

Cheers

 

Mike

Edited February 28, 2018 by mikemeg

[Daddyman]

Would the dome for the NER G1 be the same? My books are in the workshop at the top of a snowy garden so I can't check at the moment. The photo in post 103 here shows a LRM G1 with the cast brass dome as supplied other than removing a very fine mould line. It looks less tapered than that in the G5 photo. Perhaps a later casting form a newer master pattern?

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/14518-lnwr-4mm-rolling-stock-for-london-road/page-5

It looks better, yes, Jol, but still suffers in the transition area, which is too beefy, making the flange rather too thick. 

 

The dome on the NER G1 does look much more like a G5 dome than the casting supplied with the kit.

 

I shied away from using the Dremel to do the re-profiing, doing it much more slowly if somewhat painstakingly.

 

Anyway by reducing the diameter of the flared section and then thinning the flared seating and by reducing the radii of the transition from the tapered sides into the flare, the actual tapered sides of the dome are effectively lengthened. This then allows the taper to be reduced without impinging on the overall diameter of the body of the dome, if that makes sense. but

 

No doubt some will ask "what's the problem; looks fine" but the problem is it doesn't look fine.

Agreed, and it sounds like you've gone about it the same way as I did, just with different tools. However, the result isn't 100% - there's still too much taper - and it's a faff, and nerve-wracking, so I think I'll persevere with my cutting and shutting and resin experiments. 

[mikemeg]

LONDON ROAD MODELS LNER G5

 

It looks better, yes, Jol, but still suffers in the transition area, which is too beefy, making the flange rather too thick. 

 

Agreed, and it sounds like you've gone about it the same way as I did, just with different tools. However, the result isn't 100% - there's still too much taper - and it's a faff, and nerve-wracking, so I think I'll persevere with my cutting and shutting and resin experiments. 

 

As a last comment on this, almost all 4 mm dome castings, whether white metal or brass, have this problem with the flared seating - it is too beefy; chimneys too.

 

After working on this G5 dome and getting the seating to a tolerably realistic thickness, it is now very fragile with thin edges and could easily be deformed in handling. If the seating were cast at this thickness - assuming that it could be - there is no way it would stand up to normal handling in separating from the sprue, packing, etc.

 

My own approach to this is to fix the chimney or dome in place and then feather the edge of the flared section as much as I dare before it starts to break up. This feathering is done with these same well worn and, as far as effective filing goes, almost useless files.

 

But being almost useless as files they do prevent the job from being rushed; touch of the understatement there!!! The final touch uses the inevitable fibre gass brush, especially on white metal castings; much less so on brass castings where fine emery paper is used, as here.

 

I believe the prototype dome covers were effectively panel beaten by very skilled metal workers and were almost 'feathered' into the boiler top.

 

Photo (uploading now seems to work) shows what I hope is the finished article - dome that is;  the chimney has been similarly treated! Posting #835, above, shows this dome prior to any of this work.

 

It should also be mentioned that both this G5 (build #2) and the last (build #1) represent these locos with the 69a boiler, where the dome was placed further back than on their original boilers. The Colin Foster drawing shows the loco in this later state.

 

I hope build #2 is now starting to look like a G5.

 

The dome in this photo looks like white metal; it is not, it is brass!!!

 

Another one to add to the list of modifications!!

 

Cheers

 

Mike

Edited February 28, 2018 by mikemeg

[Daddyman]

As you say, Mike, probably as good as it gets starting from the LRM dome. Looking much better!  

[mikemeg]

As you say, Mike, probably as good as it gets starting from the LRM dome. Looking much better!  

 

David,

 

Thanks for the encouraging words and I'm now reasonably satisfied with the dome. Are you going to implement the various modifications and amendments, identified so far, in your build or have you done some of them already?

 

We'll get there on these G5's, ere long!!

 

Cheers

 

Mike

Edited February 28, 2018 by mikemeg

[Daddyman]

Those I haven't done already I will implement, yes, Mike. Your build has helped me clarify some things - thanks!

 

I don't know when I'll get back to it, though. February was NER month, so March will be NBR - scratchbuilt Y9. Hopefully in April I'll get the G5 done. 

[Compound2632]

Mick,

 

Thanks for that. Given the spread of the prototype - across the old North Eastern and beyond - then probably no surprise that one of the r-t-r guys would produce one.

 

It is quite interesting, this apparent 'conflict' between an r-t-r model and an etched kit of the same prototype, perhaps exemplified within Arthur's own range with the J72. Arthur introduced these kits (two different kits for the two versions of the J72) only quite recently, since which time Bachmann have revised their own model.

 

I have done two conversions of the Bachmann J72, using the High Level Models etched chassis, and have built three (well almost!) of Arthur's J72 kits and there is really no comparison but then there really shouldn't be. Where the etched kit wins out is in the fineness of detail, which is down to individual choice, and in the use of near scale thickness materials.

 

But I would never decry the r-t-r models which continue to get better and better. And their level of finish is generally superb. And in the final analysis, while an etched kit may attract thirty or forty sales over time, the same r-t-r model will atrract many times that number.

 

Cheers

 

Mike

 

A thread like this is invaluable for those such as myself who have pre-ordered the TMC G5* or have the J72* and really want to understand what these engines should look like - kit designing and kit-building evidently force you to think hard about all these details. You're performing a public service!

 

*I try to insist on saying Classes O and E1 but as you're modelling BR condition I'll go with the flow!

[mikemeg]

A thread like this is invaluable for those such as myself who have pre-ordered the TMC G5* or have the J72* and really want to understand what these engines should look like - kit designing and kit-building evidently force you to think hard about all these details. You're performing a public service!

 

*I try to insist on saying Classes O and E1 but as you're modelling BR condition I'll go with the flow!

 

Thank you, though I'd never considered that I was performing a public service.

 

I think that it is the combination of kit building and test building which has been the inspiration for more accuracy and more detail. Arthur Kimber, whose kits I test build, is something of an authority on NER locomotive design and engineering practice so does keep me straight on those issues. And then there are some excellent (and sometimes justifiably critical) modellers on here, who will not baulk at pointing out anything which they consider 'below par', which all helps.

 

I suppose, also, that I do enjoy developing techniques and approaches, like the coupling rod mods or reprofiling the dome, to help in the quest for accuracy.

 

Whether G5 or O or J72 or E1, they're the locomotives of the old North Eastern and, almost without exception, they were efficient and often quite beautiful machines.

 

Regards

 

Mike

[Worsdell forever]

I think the old NER classifications were used well into BR days by some railwaymen and I don't think the 6 was ever acknowledged...

[MarkC]

I think the old NER classifications were used well into BR days by some railwaymen and I don't think the 6 was ever acknowledged...

Former LMS men didn't acknowledge the 4 either

[Compound2632]

Former LMS men didn't acknowledge the 4 either

 

... and management wasn't so foolish as to try anything on the Western Region men!