More Pre-Grouping Wagons in 4mm - the D299 appreciation thread.

[Northroader]

Cut a small piece of brass foil curved to go inside the curve at the top, or perhaps even hold the tender upside down whilst applying your iron.

[Compound2632]

4 minutes ago, Northroader said:

Cut a small piece of brass foil curved to go inside the curve at the top, or perhaps even hold the tender upside down whilst applying your iron.

 

I did try the latter. Not sure I've got any half-etched offcuts - i.e. thin enough. Could try inserting triangular slivers?

[Northroader]

Terribly fiddly. Old tin can, but don’t let your better catch you using the kitchen scissors.

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, Northroader said:

Terribly fiddly. Old tin can, but don’t let your better catch you using the kitchen scissors.

 

Thanks. I have a pair of nail scissors I use as tin snips. The curvature often comes in handy.

[Crimson Rambler]

@Compound2632 wrote:-

 

"Now, there's not currently a kit for the M (which would also do for the Neilson Goods). London Road Models do do a Johnson 0-6-0 but it's 4'11" mineral variety, the Derby-built 1698 class of the 1880s."

 

Just to pontificate if I may please Stephen, the boiler in the Class M was pitched (in round figures) at 7ft 2ins whereas the Neilson Goods retained the earlier dimension of 7ft - 0ins (again rounded).  I know RJE/DJ in their Midland locomotive book Vol IV say they were the 'same' but they hadn't referred to the drawings - vide the table on pp26-7 which was produced from original drawings.  The 7ft 2ins boiler pitch appeared with the Dubs/Kitson Class J series of 1891/2 - Nos 2023-2092

 

Incidentally, the Class B had their boilers pitched at 6ft 10ins above the rail because their platform was 2ins lower than the later standard introduced in the Dubs class H. The lower platform results in these engines having deeper splashers than the 1698 class even though both classes had 4ft 10.5ins wheels.

 

I think 'straight link' in L&NWR parlance referred to Allan valve gear while 'curved link' was Stephenson gear.

 

 

Crimson Rambler

 

 

[Jol Wilkinson]

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I did try the latter. Not sure I've got any half-etched offcuts - i.e. thin enough. Could try inserting triangular slivers?

 The flared corners are a pain on the LNWR tender.  I use Northroader's idea using very thin brass from a KS metals Shim Pack. A different solder might stay in place between the flared fingers. 70 degree seems to be "thicker and might work.

 

For the LRM LNWR 2500 gallon tender I designed the corner flare the other way around, a separate part with tapered fingers below the top beading. When curved in both directions the fingers close up and it fits into between the end and side flared edges.

[Compound2632]

2 hours ago, Crimson Rambler said:

"Now, there's not currently a kit for the M (which would also do for the Neilson Goods). London Road Models do do a Johnson 0-6-0 but it's 4'11" mineral variety, the Derby-built 1698 class of the 1880s."

 

Just to pontificate if I may please Stephen, the boiler in the Class M was pitched (in round figures) at 7ft 2ins whereas the Neilson Goods retained the earlier dimension of 7ft - 0ins (again rounded).  I know RJE/DJ in their Midland locomotive book Vol IV say they were the 'same' but they hadn't referred to the drawings - vide the table on pp26-7 which was produced from original drawings.  The 7ft 2ins boiler pitch appeared with the Dubs/Kitson Class J series of 1891/2 - Nos 2023-2092

 

Incidentally, the Class B had their boilers pitched at 6ft 10ins above the rail because their platform was 2ins lower than the later standard introduced in the Dubs class H. The lower platform results in these engines having deeper splashers than the 1698 class even though both classes had 4ft 10.5ins wheels.

 

Your ex cathedra pronouncement is welcomed with rejoicing by the faithful.

 

So, if I'm reading this correctly, with my nose in pp. 26-27, the 1142 / B Class and the 1357 / H Class are identical above footplate level, barring possibly some subtle differences in boiler mountings (which I suspect were smoothed out down the years as boilers were changed); the 1357 sits 2" higher simply because it's got wheels 4" greater in diameter. Looking through photos, the most visible consequence of this is that the buffer beam is deeper - the buffers on the 1327 are visibly below centre-line, as indeed they are on all subsequent classes. 

 

Summerson treats all engines from the ten Derby-built engines of O.713 onwards as a single class, which he denotes 1798 Class, whereas Essery & Jenkinson divide them up into 1798, Neilson Goods, J/J2, and M, respecting the detail dimensional differences you mention. From a purely locomotive point of view, they weren't initially all the same, as boiler pressure was increased from 140 psi for the 1798 Class to 150 psi for the Neilson Goods and ultimately 160 psi for the final batches of Ms - a 14% increase in nominal tractive effort. 

 

This raises a side-question. The 16 engines built for the M&GN were pukka Ms (the Kitson ones having works nos. between their two batches of Ms and the Neilson ones between their first and second batches) as were the second five built for the S&DJR (which were on the end of the final Neilson batch) but the first five S&DJR engines, built at Derby Jan - Mar 1896, sit inbetween the Derby-built Ms of O.1353, built Oct 1894 - Jan 1895, and the first batch of Neilson Ms, Sept 1896 onwards. (Noting that these came after the very first Ms, the Sharps batch built Aug - Dec 1892, concurrently with the Dubs J2s). So it seems to me most likely that the first batch of S&DJR engines were "like O.1353". But was O.1353 "like O.713" or "like Sharps Class M"?

 

None of which really helps much with the goal of building a Saltley M, other than illuminating the pitfalls!

Edited December 18, 2021 by Compound2632
bracket

[Compound2632]

13 minutes ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

 The flared corners are a pain on the LNWR tender.  I use Northroader's idea using very thin brass from a KS metals Shim Pack. A different solder might stay in place between the flared fingers. 70 degree seems to be "thicker and might work.

 

For the LRM LNWR 2500 gallon tender I designed the corner flare the other way around, a separate part with tapered fingers below the top beading. When curved in both directions the fingers close up and it fits into between the end and side flared edges.

 

If @Crimson Rambler is the Pope of Derby, does that makes you the Caliph of Crewe? (Or some Moon-worshiping sect, anyway.) I consider your advice equally infallible!

 

I am using Carr's 145° C solder so far, as I usually do for brass. I think I'll try your low-melt suggestion first but only once I've done the rest of the brass-work. (This is also called moving on and ignoring the problem for now!) I did experiment with the lid of a sardine tin (probably aluminium anyway so no good); the difficulty is that the corner piece needs to be a saddle - curving opposite ways in orthogonal directions.

 

 

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Crimson Rambler said:

I think 'straight link' in L&NWR parlance referred to Allan valve gear while 'curved link' was Stephenson gear.

 

Aha. No Joy whatsoever. I think that came in with the Cauliflowers.

[Northroader]

How about this, then, Stephen. You’ve probably got some brass rod in the kit for handrails and so on, hopefully there’s a surplus. (I keep a stock of rod I get from Slaters, as I find it useful for any number of jobs) Polish up a bit with emery paper and cut two lengths off. Then bend these to a curve same as the tender top corner flange in plan view. Tin them, and solder on top of the flange. With these in place, it should be possible to persuade the solder in the vees to flow right up to the top, with plenty of solder to fill the curve, which you can file to shape later. Finish off any other soldering close to, such as tank top or maybe beading. Then just file the rods down level to the top with a flat file. If you’re fitting coal rails don’t go too close to the corner with your soldering iron.

[Crimson Rambler]

Further to @Compound2632 - So, if I'm reading this correctly, with my nose in pp. 26-27, the 1142 / B Class and the 1357 / H Class are identical above footplate level, barring possibly some subtle differences in boiler mountings (which I suspect were smoothed out down the years as boilers were changed); the 1357 sits 2" higher simply because it's got wheels 4" greater in diameter. Looking through photos, the most visible consequence of this is that the buffer beam is deeper - the buffers on the 1327 are visibly below centre-line, as indeed they are on all subsequent classes. 

 

Yes, starting with the Dubs Class H effectively the whole engine was jacked up as you describe Stephen. There were a number of other changes - mostly these concerned items between the frames. Incidentally, had the platform remained at its original height then the larger wheeled 0-6-0s would have required crank throw splashers a la 0-4-4Ts and SWJ's earlier GER 0-6-0s. The buffer beams remained 1ft 3ins deep with the buffers dropped in the later classes - buffer centre height above the rail in the 'B' being 3ft 4ins and 3ft 5ins in the 'H'.

 

Having standardized on the higher platform position, the 1698 class was a Class H with the lower edge of the frame dropped by 2ins for the smaller driving wheels. The lower profile of its frame finishing 1.25ins above axle centre height - the well known drawing by Ken Woodhead recording curved profiles between the wheels is incorrect in this respect. 

 

Starting with the 1698 class the boiler was pushed forward by an inch. The motion etc essentially was unaltered but longer piston rods etc were fitted and the back of the cylinders revised. This was later accompanied by widening the cab upper side sheets by 3ins - first appearing in the 1798 class.

 

The J and J2 were essentially Neilson Goods but with the vacuum brake omitted and the boiler pitched 2ins higher - they also marked the introduction of cast steel wheels wheels on goods engines.

 

The Class M, comprises two frame designs - all had deeper frames wherein the extra bit appeared above the platform between the leading and driving wheels. However apart (I think) from the first batch Nos 2093-2132 (built by Sharp Stewart in 1892/3) enhanced depth was added in the later engines to the frame where it passed over the crank axle. However this was strengthening not visible externally.  RJE/DJ (Midland Locos Vol IV) state the first batch of Class M 0-6-0s had shallow frames (p65) but this is incorrect as inspection of the two Class M photos on p24 will confirm. There were odd detail differences between the batches so modeller beware - examples being deeper outside frames on some, cranked reach rods.

 

Midland engines are fun, while tenders are another story!

 

 

Crimson Rambler

 

 

[Izzy]

I hope I can be forgiven but might I ask a very basic question please since I no longer have any MR/LMS books to refer to. Were these M class locos generally classified as class 2 goods (later 2F). It’s just that I have seen reference somewhere to the M&GNR or S&DJR classifying them 3F which puzzles me since I have always thought that this only occurred when they were later given either H (round top) or G7 ( belpaire) boilers. 
 

Bob

[Compound2632]

5 hours ago, Izzy said:

S&DJR classifying them 3F which puzzles me since I have always thought that this only occurred when they were later given either H (round top) or G7 ( belpaire) boilers.

 

D. Bradley & D. Milton, Somerset and Dorset Locomotive History (David & Charles. 1973) pp. 202-4: the resident locomotive superintendent, R.C. Archbutt*, introduced a power group scheme in 1913, using roman numerals. This was changed to a scheme based on the Midland scheme at some date around early 1923. This scheme had the refinement of the suffix letters P and G for passenger and goods, subsequently adopted by the LMS though with F for freight. In this scheme, the G7-boilered Johnson 0-6-0s were initially 4P3G, later 3P3G. The list given doesn't give the small-boilered engines, though the second five were in early 1923 as yet unrebuilt, getting G7 boilers between Nov 1923 and Oct 1925.

 

The formula used to determine power class must have differed from that used by the LMS since the three standard 2Ps delivered in 1928 arrived as 2P but were immediately reclassified 3P2G.

 

*Not R.M. Deeley's brother-in-law, who was Leonard - some relation of his?

Edited December 22, 2021 by Compound2632
typo

[Izzy]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

D. Bradley & D. Milton, Somerset and Dorset Locomotive History (David & Charles. 1973) pp. 202-4: the resident locomotive superintendent, R.C. Archbutt*, introduced a power group scheme in 1913, using roman numerals. This was changed to a scheme based on the Midland scheme at some date around early 1923. This scheme had the refinement of the suffix letters P and G for passenger and goods, subsequently adopted by the LMS though with F for freight. In this scheme, the G7-boilered Johnson 0-6-0s were initially 4P3G, later 3P4G. The list given doesn't give the small-boilered engines, though the second five were in early 1923 as yet unrebuilt, getting G7 boilers between Nov 1923 and Oct 1925.

 

The formula used to determine power class must have differed from that used by the LMS since the three standard 2Ps delivered in 1928 arrived as 2P but were immediately reclassified 3P2G.

 

*Not R.M. Deeley's brother-in-law, who was Leonard - some relation of his?

Many thanks. That clears my confusion over what locos were being discussed size-wise. 
 

Bob

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Izzy said:

Many thanks. That clears my confusion over what locos were being discussed size-wise. 

 

Typo. The G7-boilered 0-6-0s were initially 4P3G the 3P3G.Corrected in post.

[John-Miles]

Was there a better looking loco than a Midland 2F in original form?  Don't discuss just agree!!!

[Dave Hunt]

The difference in power classification on the S&DJR may have been because the LMS system was solely based on tractive effort at given speeds whereas the Southern also took into account braking effort. That's just a suggestion as I don't have any definite proof.

 

Dave

[Miss Prism]

1 hour ago, John-Miles said:

Was there a better looking loco than a Midland 2F in original form?  Don't discuss just agree!!!

 

Even as a GWR fan, I have to admit the Midland 2Fs were very nicely proportioned.

 

[Compound2632]

38 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

Even as a GWR fan, I have to admit the Midland 2Fs were very nicely proportioned.

 

They are the closest approximation to the Platonic Form of a 19th century 0-6-0. William Dean came close, too. Both types suffered from disfigurement through the 20th century's need for more steam.

[Northroader]

???????? Applying Socratic reasoning, though, we get:

[Compound2632]

 

[Embedded link to Midland Railway Study Centre Item 18368.]

[Annie]

And a Merry Christmas to you as well Stephen.

[Mikkel]

Merry christmas Stephen, may all your D299s run true. 

[Dave Hunt]

And a merry Christmas to all inhabitants of this forum. May the 299 fleet move serenely on.

 

Dave

Edited December 25, 2021 by Dave Hunt

[jamie92208]

Yes, 2F's, lovely locos.  Here's my attempt at making a Mercian 7mm kit.

Lovely looking locos.   I've a London Road one to finish off as well.

 

Joyeux Noel.

 

Jamie

 

Jamie

Edited April 20, 2022 by jamie92208