Jazz 7mm Workbench

[N15class]

Looks good Ken. I found that the Slater's motor fitted in well too.

[ozzyo]

Hello Jazz,

 

before you start throwing paint on the loco and tender please have a look at the footplate heights, as the tender footplate looks to be about 6" above the loco's. Most locos and tenders tended to have the footplate at the same hight, plus or minus a 1/2". But not 6".

 

OzzyO.   

[Miss Prism]

Most locos and tenders tended to have the footplate at the same hight, plus or minus a 1/2". But not 6".

 

There is ineviably some variation according to the wheel wear on the loco and the loading of the tender, but for straight-framed Bulldogs, I disagree. See, e.g.:

http://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrkd121.htm

http://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrt354.htm

[daifly]

And Pershore Plum herself

Dave

[jazz]

I agree that the tender/footplate heights are considerably different. (I was perplexed at first). After studying many photos in a few actually showed the fall plate climbing up to the tender. So I reckon it's just about right.

[3 link]

No Health and Safety in those days.

 

Martyn.

[Sandy Harper]

The 'shoveling plate', is that the correct term? appears to have been adjusted by Swindon on these 'Standard' tenders to suit the footplate height of the loco. I seem to remember that it was mentioned in the instructions on one of these 4-4-0 kits that I have built and you needed to reduce the 'shoveling plate' supports to get it to the right height.

 

Regards

Sandy

[jazz]

Hi Sandy.  The shovelling plate is just 2" above the loco floor (just about what many photos show.)  It looks worse on my model as the fall plate has slipped down giving an exaggerated 'climb up' look. I am going to modify the hinge design before priming tomorrow. I think it's worth the effort of dropping the shovelling plate 1.9mm. Especially as I'm going to insert thin card between the loco chassis and the body as I feel the whees are a tad too close to the splashers.

[Sandy Harper]

Hi Ken, Good plan! I also had to increase the height of my locos but more to give the bogie a little extra clearance for un-even track!

 

See you at Guildex? I'm on the demo stand again!

 

Regards

Sandy

[Sandy Harper]

Just looked at your photo more closely and I now see what you mean. The front of the fall plate should, in reality, sit on the footplate of the loco. Yours appears to be a mill or two below, which is causing the rear of the footplate to be too high. The height of 'shoveling plate' looks to be about right, according to the posted photos, with the loco footplate being about half way between the tender footplate and the top of the 'shoveling plate'.

Sandy

Edited August 24, 2017 by Sandy Harper

[Miss Prism]

The 'shoveling plate', is that the correct term? appears to have been adjusted by Swindon on these 'Standard' tenders to suit the footplate height of the loco.

 

I'm not sure what the correct term for it is either, but yes, that was normal practice, to ensure the loco fallplate was reasonably level. 'Adjusting' the box structure however was not trivial, which is why, depending on what was in 'the tender pool', locos were often re-united with the tender they came into the works with.

 

 

 

[jazz]

Hi all.  I did have time today to modify the fallplate.  I had already raised the cab floor 2mm anyway.  So I think all is well with it now. (I hope).

 

 

Have to say, it all looks very grotty close up before polishing up for priming.

Edited August 24, 2017 by jazz

[jazz]

Sandy, forgot to mention, I will look for at Telford on the Sunday.  Ken

[Sandy Harper]

Sandy, forgot to mention, I will look for at Telford on the Sunday.  Ken

Look forward to seeing you again Ken

Sandy

[jazz]

All now completed and ready for final painting etc. Looks a lot better cleaned up I think. 

 

 

[Pete Harvey]

Nice rework on the Airfix kit Ken.

[jazz]

Thank's Pete. It was a pleasant change for me.  It took me back to the 1960's. The Airfix kits are just the same as back then.

[ozzyo]

There is ineviably some variation according to the wheel wear on the loco and the loading of the tender, but for straight-framed Bulldogs, I disagree. See, e.g.:

http://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrkd121.htm

http://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrt354.htm

The variations due to tire turning would amount to about 3" max. new tires on the loco and old tires on the tender. Or the other way around.

 

And Pershore Plum herself

IMG_0523.JPG

Dave

 

 

I'm not sure what the correct term for it is either, but yes, that was normal practice, to ensure the loco fallplate was reasonably level. 'Adjusting' the box structure however was not trivial, which is why, depending on what was in 'the tender pool', locos were often re-united with the tender they came into the works with.

 

shovelling-plate.jpg

Names of parts of a loco are quit important as some of them may sound as thought they are the same but are not.

The running plate is the "flat" or not so flat part of the loco above the driving wheels, this is also the same name on the outside of a tender (apart from the tender not having any driving wheels in most cases).

 

The shovelling plate is the part of the tender hopper that the coal drops down to and then the coal is shovelled into the firebox. 

 

The footplate is the part of the loco that is inside of the cab-side sheets.

 

The engine depending on the overhaul would nominally take longer than the tender so it's (?) tender would go back into traffic before the engine and on a different engine of the same class. Or a class of engine that could take that type of tender.

 

Please note that I'm saying engine and not loco, as a loco is a full system that can work.

 

OzzyO.

 

PS. tank locos are different in all respects to the above. 

Edited August 30, 2017 by ozzyo

[jazz]

Quite a topic, I think. Thanks for all the comments and info, all very informative.  As regards the model, what's done's done as they say.

[jazz]

A little light relief building this 6 wheel LNWR coach from the Northstar Design Kit. A simple little build too, very satisfying.

 

 

 

 

[jazz]

Hi all. At last I was able to get on the WB this week.  Tackling the Warren Shephard 45xx kit. I reckon this is not a kit for the beginner at all.  With a bit of patience it can be built into a nice representation of the prototype.

 

There is fairly basic instructions backed up with a lot of photos on the supplied CD. This include instructions, photos of the model under instructions and prototype photos including detail photos. All very useful.

 

The hardest parts of the build is the curve around the bunker to mate up with the rear panel. That took a fair bit of time with a small hammer and steel rods.  The other tedious part was the punching out of the rivets. There are printed sheets to past on the backs and then punch out the rivets on the dots.  Very difficult to get straight rows of rivets.

 

The castings are very nice, all are lost wax. The con rods and coupling rods are from Premier Components.

 

Still got the beachhead to do and the pipework behind the cab steps.

 

I am undecided wether to finish it in BR black of green. I will have the early BR crest which ever colour it will end up in.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 22, 2017 by jazz

[Simond]

Warren's kits are excellent, IMO, but quite hard work.

 

Not for beginners, but you're not a beginner...

 

The photos above bear witness to that!

 

Best

Simon

[jazz]

I can agree with that about Warren's kits Simon.   They turn out well.

[PAD]

Hi Ken,

I did one on here last year. Mine's in BR lined green but I need to complete the weathering. A Gladiator L1 and Duchess distracted me.

 

There are some shortcomings in the etchings but they are more than compensated for by the excellent brass castings. The only one I changed was the water level gauge in the cab,for one from Hobbyhorse.

Cheers,

Peter

[jazz]

Hi Peter. Yes, I have that build on my PC and found it very useful in my build. I am also doing BR lined green livery as my layout is around 1948/1950.