Building kits for Tyneside in the BR era. J24 and PDK D49/2

[Blandford1969]

12 hours ago, Daddyman said:

The drawing shows the "outer" tender side (for want of a better term) extending to the front edge of the footplate, and the handrail attached to it, whereas in reality I think the side stops short of the front footplate edge to reveal an "inner" section of side on which the handrail is mounted. The drawing also shows a straight diagonal leading edge to the front cut-out, when in reality it has an S-shaped double curve.

 

Clicking on the photo below allows it to be blown up. 

 

 

 

Thanks for that photo and detail. Its always the way where you draw something and then somthing else comes out. One of those cases where I will be happy to redraw. That piece seems as you say to come right to the very front of the drawbar. 

[rowanj]

These 2 photos from Jon4470 of a different loco to the one in Daddyman's post seem to confirm what happened re. the tender rebuild. i.e that the coal rails and the curve on the sides were cut away and a replcement skin fitted to what remained , As Pebbles suggested, there is nothing to suggest that the tender top and front was altered in any significant way,

David and Jon's photos, along with Blandfords drawing, will allow me to have another stab at fabricating new sides, My current thinking is to build a pair of tenders, one of the original and one rebuilt .

I trust Jon wont mind me posting his photos, but if so, just let me know and I'll delete them.

Edited January 29 by rowanj

[Pebbles]

I should clarify my previous posting.

My observations of differences only apply in the context of the Isinglass drawing of the re-tanked Ex GCR tenders.  My supposition being that the replacement tanks for the NER  3940 gal tenders were very similar, but their fronts altered to suit the cabin widths of the engines they were to be coupled to. Drawing 404 clearly indicates a 8ft 6inch width for the replacement tanks, i.e. a NER 4126 gal tender width.  The small indents at the front locating the hand rails were presumably to match the 8ft width of the  3940 gal non-self trimming  tender.

My conclusion is that, other than any reclaimed material, the replacement tanks were new, being loosely based on the NER 4125 gal self trimming tender in both tank width and height. They may of course have differ in their internal details. I can't see what of Arthurs 3940 gal tender etch you can effectively utilise. 

 

[Daddyman]

9 hours ago, Pebbles said:

I should clarify my previous posting.

My observations of differences only apply in the context of the Isinglass drawing of the re-tanked Ex GCR tenders.  My supposition being that the replacement tanks for the NER  3940 gal tenders were very similar, but their fronts altered to suit the cabin widths of the engines they were to be coupled to. Drawing 404 clearly indicates a 8ft 6inch width for the replacement tanks, i.e. a NER 4126 gal tender width.  The small indents at the front locating the hand rails were presumably to match the 8ft width of the  3940 gal non-self trimming  tender.

My conclusion is that, other than any reclaimed material, the replacement tanks were new, being loosely based on the NER 4125 gal self trimming tender in both tank width and height. They may of course have differ in their internal details. I can't see what of Arthurs 3940 gal tender etch you can effectively utilise. 

 

I'd go along with that. I've always argued that the bodies were new, and I think you're right on the width. Yeadon says the rebodies were 3900, though, so some capacity is clearly lost somewhere. Possibly necessitated by spring strength? 

 

That bodge at the front is weird, though, especially when they had an elegant design for the D49 rebodies, with the tender sides curving in at the front to match the cab width.

 

I briefly wondered if they'd kept everything from the front bulkhead forwards, including a section of the old tender sides supporting the handrail. However, your 8'6" width argues for a new front bulkhead, so those handrail plates are unlikely to be part of the old tender sides. That then raises the question of what pattern bulkhead - NER or GS? I'd go for GS given that the tender rear followed GS pattern. 

[Pebbles]

Mikemegs posting of 21 February 2021 points to fact that the drawing for the NER version predated that for the GCR version. Bearing in mind that both types of tender had roughly the same wheelbases, they could both have the same weight distribution. The only caveat would be that the larger diameter wheels of the GCR type would mean some modification to the lower part of the tank.

As the LNER group standard tenders were essentially developments of the NER self trimming 4125 gal tender, I would have thought that this would have been carried through to the re-tanking.

In the interests of standardisation I doubt if any real consideration would have been given to significant deviation.

Turning to modelling, the only usable parts of Arthur's etchings would be the running plate, frames. and chassis. This would rather ruin a usable tender kit. The running plate and frames could be scratch built using Arthur's etches as patterns;  the tanks would in any case have to be scratch built. It is possible that Arthur could provide a set of tender casting. The chassis, (this would need to be adapted ), and many other parts could be sourced from 52F.

[Blandford1969]

21 hours ago, Pebbles said:

Drawing 404 clearly indicates a 8ft 6inch width for the replacement tanks, i.e. a NER 4126 gal tender width.  The small indents at the front locating the hand rails were presumably to match the 8ft width of the  3940 gal non-self trimming  tender.

 

 

Does that mean drawing 404 is of one of these tenders?

[Blandford1969]

12 hours ago, Daddyman said:

That then raises the question of what pattern bulkhead - NER or GS? I'd go for GS given that the tender rear followed GS pattern. 

The small bits we can see do look more GS than NE. Unless there is a drawing we will never know for sure.

[Pebbles]

12 hours ago, Blandford1969 said:

The small bits we can see do look more GS than NE. Unless there is a drawing we will never know for sure.

You will find reference to this drawing on Mikemeg's Workbench 28th February 2021. You may remember, as you commented on it at the time.  Should you obtain a copy I'm sure we will all be grateful for any feed back.

[rowanj]

These last few posts from Daddyman and Pebbles have really caused me to hesitate about how to proceed, While how the tender top was built or rebuilt is fascinating _ I do really enjoy these research-t ype activities- the main issue, for me, is whether I get build a tender with the new sides without spoiling Arthur's kit.

I have got to the point of almost completing the tender sub- chassis and the footplate and basic tender top, sides and back. The latter is a one piece etch with 3 folds. You really need to put this together, as one uses the slots to get the 2 -layer footplate valance  soldered together accurately. So, whatever I decide, I've gone ahead and completed the basic tender structure.

Just as an experiment, I've posed the 3600 side I cut out against the kit, leaving the "bodged" front as seen in the photos. The shape is wrong, but, when stuck behind my DJH kit, I think it gives an impression of what it might look like if my very rusty scratchbuilding skills can produce a decent side, It would ne simple to solder the new side to the part in the kit, and I'm going to at least have a go at cutting out a pair of sides and do some more testing.

[Blandford1969]

11 hours ago, Pebbles said:

You will find reference to this drawing on Mikemeg's Workbench 28th February 2021. You may remember, as you commented on it at the time.  Should you obtain a copy I'm sure we will all be grateful for any feed back.

I did look Drawing 16694 is the self trimming tank to suit  GC frame referening D49 rebuilds. However 16940 is a self trimming tender for the D20 from March 1947, which does tie in with when the changes were made. I will have a punt and try to fin out how much it would be to get a copy of the drawing. This is the only one in the Darlinton catelogue which is for a D20 tender. 

[rowanj]

Just for fun, here are the latest cuts for a re-sided D20 tender. I used the variuos photos I've either got, or have been sent, and Blandford's drawing, I was talking to Andy Edgeson yesterday bemoaning the lack of a D20 drawing in the Isinglass range, her told me his father had only mangaed to get through 50% of his planned drawings  before his death.

 

Anyway, even before a final tidying  up, these are not quite there. The rear cutout looks a bit short, They look a bit tall, but then so were the real things, Nevertheless, I may "shave" them if I go ahead with this , At the moment, they are just stuck to the kit side with  a small blob of blacktack.

 

Even if I get them looking right, I must say that the revised sides , in my opinion, ruined the look of the locos- I think they looked much sleeker with the original NER tenders.

Edited February 1 by rowanj

[Pebbles]

49 minutes ago, rowanj said:

Just for fun, here are the latest cuts for a re-sided D20 tender. I used the variuos photos I've either got, or have been sent, and Blandford's drawing, I was talking to Andy Edgeson yesterday bemoaning the lack of a D20 drawing in the Isinglass range, her told me his father had only mangaed to get through 50% of his planned drawings  before his death.

 

Anyway, even before a final tiying, these are not quite there. The rear cutout looks a bit short, They look a bit tall, but then so were the real things, Nevertheless, I may "shave" them if I go ahead with this , At the moment, they are just stuck to the kit side with  a small blob of blacktack.

 

Even if I get them looking right, I must say that the revised sides , in my opinion, ruined the look of the locos- I think they looked much sleeker with the original NER tenders.

John had set himself a quite massive undertaking, not just the drawing, but the research. Maybe he his aim was to cover all types in the RCTS green books. From what I remember he wanted to complete the GN 0-6-0s, both tender and tank and then maybe the GE tanks.

 

It is eye watering to think of the cost buying a full set of his drawings.

[mikemeg]

John,

 

You seem to have reached the same conclusion as I did viz These rebuilt tenders didn't enhance the look of the D20's at all; the very reverse being the case; they detracted from their look.  The coupling of these locos to their original 3940 gallon NER tenders produced a very aesthetically pleasing combination, so I left it at that.

 

By the end of their lives, there were a number of variations to the locomotives themselves with some having the original mainframes, others having the Worsdell frames and then the various smokebox doors carried, etc. so I left it at that. Two examples with enough visual differences but with many similarities but with both of them retaining the pre-grouping elegance of these 4-4-0's.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

 

Edited February 2 by mikemeg

[rowanj]

Though the photo makes it look "as rough as the roads", I'm showing this to show my solution to building a resided NER 3940 tender while, hopefully, having the capacity to undo the work and build the NER version supplied in the kit, I'm doing it this way for a number of reasons, I'm working largely from photos, and without a scale drawing, it is easy to get some dimensions wrong, I think the rebuild makes the loco look ungainly, and may decide I just can't live with it, A drawing may turn up, and I'll have another go at a truly accurate version, 

 

 As far as I can tell, the tender top is much closer to a GS than to the NER version, and I suspect the bulkhead was quite different too compared to the original, I really didnt want to mess around with Arthur's tender top, with its slots and etches for the NER fittings, In any case, I don't have a decent top down view of the rebuild., so I used what I could see from photos and from GS tenders, The new sides and back- of which there is a good photo in Yeadon- are just tack soldered to the tender top, and a false floor built which will just sit on top of the one in the kit, I decided to leave the front bulkhead alone, though I was tempted to see if a whitemetal one I had from a Wills K3 would work.

 

I'll now tidy up the tender top, which is largely just tack soldered, re-solder the top of the sides where there are gaps where I soldered wire along all the top edges , then see how it all looks after a spray of Halfords Etch Primer, then Halfords Matt Black. Then I'll probably hate it and dismantle the lot, and grovel apologies to Arthur for messing up his kit.

 

A final issue was fitting the Westinghouse air tank, This is very prominent behind the rear buffer beam. and was usually left in place even when the Wesinghouse train braking was removed in LNER and BR days. Incidentally, the standpipe for the brake was usually left in place too, cut away at the top,, and I have replicated this. There is a nice whitemetal casting in the kit, but where to fix it? I decided that it should really slip between the frames of the sub-chassis, and on test, this looked right, The problem is that in blocks the slot where the rear fixing screw goes, and also is fouled by the protuding dummy coupling hook, My solution, which seems to have worked, is to cut the casting in half, on the basis that only that part next to the buffer beam would be seen, and the screw would pass unhindered.  It  has worked up to a point, but still makes getting the body and chassis together a bit of a fight, so I'll probably refit the tank after the tender is assembled. It is a force fit beteewn the frames, and a dab of Blacktack should keep it sufficiently firmly in place,

 

 

[Daddyman]

11 hours ago, rowanj said:

Westinghouse air tank ... behind the rear buffer beam ... blocks the slot where the rear fixing screw goes, and also is fouled by the protuding dummy coupling hook

 

Looks quite a heroic bit of modelling, John! Re the tank, I wonder if you might be causing yourself more problems by putting the tank too far forwards. In reality it protrudes rearwards beyond the bufferbeam. It shouldn't be anywhere near the coupling hook either, so I suspect you have it too high as well. On my Bradwell tender I think I mounted the tank on a "stilt" of wire (0.6 or thicker) with one end drilled into the tank and the other into the underside of the footplate - or in your case the chassis stretcher.  

 

[rowanj]

I'll double-check the location for the Westinghouse tank. I shoulld have made it clear that the interference happened whenit hit the back of the coupling hook where it protrudes into the tender,

 

I remember an office inspection where the overall rating was "not entirely unsatisfactory", and I think that about sums up my attempts at the tender. There is something odd going on at the front corner which the photo has exposed, and needs investigation, I need to fit buffers, transfers and coal it up. To do the latter, I've taken a tip from Wallsrail on Youtube to use the foam packaging which seems to come with everything these days as a base, to which I add real coal. Quick and simple, and can be removed if required.

 

I'll finish the tender, and stick it behind the DJH D20 and see what the overall effect looks like.

Edited February 6 by rowanj

[Daddyman]

2 hours ago, rowanj said:

I shoulld have made it clear that the interference happened whenit hit the back of the coupling hook where it protrudes into the tender,

 

Yes, that's what I understood, and it shouldn't be near the hook, even the rear part of it: 

[rowanj]

Well, perhaps my first dip into scratchbuilding turned out better than I expected. Posed against the DJH loco, the tender looks the part, I think I still don;t like the tender, but a few of the last D20's used on the Alnwick-Newcastle turns had them, so it makes a change. Now I only have to build the loco!  While the DJH kit was being used, I decided to do a bit of weatheing to the rather bland overall matt black. Still a bit more to go.

 

As an aside, flushed by my moderate success, I now have the Isinglass drawing of a J24, and have made a tentative start at what will be an almost wholly scratcbuild loco and chassis with a kit-build tender. No promises of success, Does anyone produce 8ft x7ft 9in coupling rods?

Edited February 7 by rowanj

[micklner]

I used Gibson universal rods on my J24 Falcon Brass version.  I quickly decided I did not like them at all. Much easier and far quicker to mix two sets of Gibson Rods etches to get the correct two lengths needed. I found it far too easy to get the exact lengths wrong on the Universal etched version, then try to correct.

 

Is there any reason why you appear to added a "bar/strip " 2/3rds up on from the bottom of  the side of the D20  Tender.

LNER G.S Tenders had a additional thin cover on the whole of the Coal plate area, no more than 0.5mm or less thick in all the models I have ever seen. The D20 version looks no different in photos to the normal G.S version?.

[rowanj]

Hi Mick- good to hear from you. Like your A2, by the way.

 

It's a few years since I tried using the universal coupling rods, and I didn;t get away with them. I'm going to search through the spares box to see if I can cobble anything together, Ideally, I would prefer a rigid set, rather than articulated ones, as I would use them to set the axle spacings on the scratchbuild chassis.

 

Re the tender strip, it is there on all the rebuilt tender sides. The sides seem to have been cut in two parts, then welded together with the external strengthening plate. Although these tenders are almost always referred to a "like the LNER 3500 GS" they are actually dimensionally quite different,( as I discovered when I used a drawing to cut one out!) and I would not recommend using a GS kit as the starting point. I'll repost a photo which shows the strip in place.

 

[Daddyman]

1 hour ago, rowanj said:

Re the tender strip, it is there on all the rebuilt tender sides. The sides seem to have been cut in two parts, then welded together with the external strengthening plate. Although these tenders are almost always referred to a "like the LNER 3500 GS" they are actually dimensionally quite different,( as I discovered when I used a drawing to cut one out!) and I would not recommend using a GS kit as the starting point. I'll repost a photo which shows the strip in place.

I'm afraid I have to agree with Mick there: there's no strip on the real thing; what you're seeing is the lower edge of the lap-jointed upper part of the tender, which most GS tenders have. If you have certain RTR locos they will have this lap joint, though not all of them - the K1 (correctly) doesn't.  

[rowanj]

13 hours ago, Daddyman said:

I'm afraid I have to agree with Mick there: there's no strip on the real thing; what you're seeing is the lower edge of the lap-jointed upper part of the tender, which most GS tenders have. If you have certain RTR locos they will have this lap joint, though not all of them - the K1 (correctly) doesn't.  

Oh well- too bad now. Back to the modelling kindergarten.

Edited February 8 by rowanj

[rowanj]

I am annoyed with myself about that bar on the tender, but these things happen. I debated what, if anything to do about it, as I suppose the best way to represent an overlap would be to build the tender that way, Could I live with what I had? Obviously, because I was obsessing about it, I couldn't, but, equally, I couldn't stand the thought of dismantling everything and cutting out new sides.  So I have compromised, and removed the offending part and rubbed the side down where the bar was fitted, It is currently in the paintshop, and I believe I will be left with a thin line which will suggest the join on the tender sides.

Thanks to Mick and David ( honestly, chaps) for pointing this out. This is the best of BRM- help from the experienced for the less knowledgeable.

Edited February 8 by rowanj

[Daddyman]

37 minutes ago, rowanj said:

I am annoyed with myself about that bar on the tender, but these things happen. I debated what, if anything to do about it, as I suppose the best way to represent an overlap would be to build the tender that way, Could I live with what I had? Obviously, because I was obsessing about it, I couldn't, but, equally, I couldn't stand the thought of dismantling everything and cutting out new sides.  So I have compromised, and removed the offending part and rubbed the side down where the bar was fitted, It is currently in the paintshop, and I believe I will be left with a thin line which will suggest the join on the tender sides.

Thanks to Mick and David ( honestly, chaps) for pointing this out. This is the best of BRM- help from the experienced for the less knowledgeable.

Sorry I didn't point it out before, bit it was painted by the time I saw it, by which time I didn't want to criticise your work. What about doing it with Sellotape? - cover the relevant part of the sides with tape and trim it around the top edge of the tender side.  Then paint over it. 

 

[rowanj]

As long as it's constructive, I hope folk will criticize away. How else do we learn?

I'm intrigued by the sellotape  suggestion, and will investigate. Very thin styrene or photo quality printer paper may be another option. I need to be confident it will stick and stay stuck.