Brightsparks Workbench thread- DJH S15

[brightspark]

Prepare yourself for tales of woe, reckless bravery, love, tragedy, betrayal and some confusion about a five pound note.

Yes, here begins a tale of building a DJH S15 kit.

 

 

But first dear reader have a look at my last loco build the DJH Class 5 in the loco build challenge. Especially the comment by N15 at post 68 on page 3.

It is at this point the story starts.

 

I have an elderly DJH kit of the S15 and have already held it up against the drawing. Sorry N15, your advice came too late.

 

The model is to be to EM gauge principally for running on Swaynton,

 

More to follow.

 

Andy

 

PS does anyone have the weight diagram for the S15?

 

pps this is going to be a slow build as I have several other projects on the go. 

 

ppps. Do not remind me that the Hornby S15 body would be a better place to start.

 

 

Edited December 21, 2023 by brightspark
Added a picture of the box.

[Horsetan]

....ppps. Do not remind me that the Hornby S15 body would be a better place to start.

You don't need to go to those lengths. A spare boiler casting from the SEF N15 kit will do. It is the correct length.

[Michael Edge]

Prepare yourself for tales of woe, reckless bravery, love, tragedy, betrayal and some confusion about a five pound note.

Yes, here begins a tale of building a DJH S15 kit.

 

But first dear reader have a look at my last loco build the DJH Class 5 in the loco build challenge. Especially the comment by N15 at post 68 on page 3.

It is at this point the story starts.

 

I have an elderly DJH kit of the S15 and have already held it up against the drawing. Sorry N15, your advice came too late.

 

The model is to be to EM gauge principally for running on Swaynton,

 

More to follow.

 

Andy

 

PS does anyone have the weight diagram for the S15?

 

pps this is going to be a slow build as I have several other projects on the go. 

 

ppps. Do not remind me that the Hornby S15 body would be a better place to start.

 

The most glaring fault in the DJH kit is the boiler pitched too high, it should be 8' above rail. Weight diagrams (SR ones are better than most) are all in Jim Russell's "Pictorial record of Southern Locomotives" - a very good book if you can find one.

[hayfield]

Before I reading a few posts on here, I thought the DJH kits were the top of the range within whitemetal loco kits, the kits being highly detailed scale models. I can understand that going back into the 60's when loco bodies were adapted to fit existing RTR chassis, certain models had the wrong wheelbase, Also the much maligned Keyser kits which in some cases like the 14xx  where the footplate was too short, but its a surprise given the reputation of this range to find these issues

[N15class]

Before I reading a few posts on here, I thought the DJH kits were the top of the range within whitemetal loco kits, the kits being highly detailed scale models. I can understand that going back into the 60's when loco bodies were adapted to fit existing RTR chassis, certain models had the wrong wheelbase, Also the much maligned Keyser kits which in some cases like the 14xx  where the footplate was too short, but its a surprise given the reputation of this range to find these issues

They do build straight from the box but not all are accurate. Which is a shame as they're just has easy or hard to manufacture the right size.

[Horsetan]

The most glaring fault in the DJH kit is the boiler pitched too high, it should be 8' above rail. ....

 

And that's before you realise the boiler is about six scale inches too short, as is the footplate.....

 

I had a DJH S15 once. I got rid of it PDQ.

[Michael Edge]

And that's before you realise the boiler is about six scale inches too short, as is the footplate.....

 

I had a DJH S15 once. I got rid of it PDQ.

 

Well at least they match....

[Horsetan]

Well at least they match....

Small mercies.

[brightspark]

Since the last post, I have been working away on the chassis. I will post more on this later.

However I have also been pondering the various comments on this and other threads on the DJH S15.

 

 

The most glaring fault in the DJH kit is the boiler pitched too high, it should be 8' above rail. Weight diagrams (SR ones are better than most) are all in Jim Russell's "Pictorial record of Southern Locomotives" - a very good book if you can find one.

Mike, can you check and confirm that it is 8' please? I think it is 9', but didn't I read somewhere that the earlier boilers were lower? 

 

And that's before you realise the boiler is about six scale inches too short, as is the footplate.....

 

I had a DJH S15 once. I got rid of it PDQ.

Hi Horsetan.

Thanks for the PM and the link.

I am not finding a six inch error on the footplate. Is it the overall length or just the well at the front for the smokebox door/boiler front?

 

In the past year or so since I obtained the kit, I have obtained various bits of paper. Including copies of the relevant sheets from Jim Russell's excellent book. I had just forgotten where I had hidden it all. I also purchased a copy of the S15/H15 book by Peter Swift, but it has been borrowed.

There is also a low resolution drawing on the Hornby website. This is works drawing No E M14760 "Rod Pipe & Brake Arrangement" that is handy in that it gives a good front, back, side and plan section view. You can make out some of the dimensions and fill in the rest from other sources. One can then start the rather dodgy business of scaling from a known dimension to an unknown one to estimate the size.

 

Assuming that I am correct in that the footplate is the right overall length and that the CL of the boiler is at 9' then I only have to worry about the height and length and....

I make only the front too high the firebox end seems ok. But I am willing to be corrected on this.

The length. I can cut it in half and fill the gap or take up the suggestion of a SEF replacement. Possibly? But I would like to measure one first as there is another error so far not spotted.

That is that the boiler is a bit anorexic. The smoke box should have a radius of 2'11⁷/₁₆" giving a diameter of 5' 10 ⁷/₈" which should be about 23,68mm. The DJH smokebox is 22,4mm so a good 1mm or  generous 3"s too narrow. An option here is to slice open the belly of the smoke box and boiler and pull them out to size. Therefore I wonder what the diameter of the SEF part is?

I have manged to check a Hornby body and this is, rather annoyingly, spot on.

One thing to look out for, and this is shown on the works drawing is that the centre line of the boiler does not run through the centre line of the smoke box door. The latter being about 2 to 3 inches lower. This may have led to some confusion about the CL position in the past.

 

There are other errors that have been noticed, including a very obvious one.

Well, it is now obvious to me since it was pointed out.

 

Cheers

 

Andy

 

ps once again, please don't remind me that using the Hornby body would be the simplest solution.

[Horsetan]

....

I am not finding a six inch error on the footplate. Is it the overall length or just the well at the front for the smokebox door/boiler front?...

I found my PDK S15 kit, but not the N15 (which must be in a different box!).

 

From memory, the DJH error is all in the boiler/firebox barrel, not the smokebox. Unfortunately that means the corresponding section of footplate underneath is also wrong/short. That's why I got rid of the DJH kit in favour of the PDK one.

 

You could start with a Hornby body (if you can find one) or, if you're feeling particularly tough, you could graft the DJH smokebox to the SEF N15 boiler barrel, which would also preserve the useful weight you need. The footplate, however, is something else.

Edited December 3, 2017 by Horsetan

[Michael Edge]

8'0" boiler pitch must have been me hitting the wrong key - SR built locos quoted at 9'0" as you say but earlier LSW S15s a little lower at 8'7 3/4".

[brightspark]

8'0" boiler pitch must have been me hitting the wrong key - SR built locos quoted at 9'0" as you say but earlier LSW S15s a little lower at 8'7 3/4".

Thanks Mike. I thought that it was better to check than to find I have gone wrong.

 

Andy

[brightspark]

I found my PDK S15 kit, but not the N15 (which must be in a different box!).

 

From memory, the DJH error is all in the boiler/firebox barrel, not the smokebox. Unfortunately that means the corresponding section of footplate underneath is also wrong/short. That's why I got rid of the DJH kit in favour of the PDK one.

 

You could start with a Hornby body (if you can find one) or, if you're feeling particularly tough, you could graft the DJH smokebox to the SEF N15 boiler barrel, which would also preserve the useful weight you need. The footplate, however, is something else.

Thanks Horsetan. By the way what is the diameter of the PDK smoke box?

 

I didn't spot an error with the firebox, but thats no reason why I can't have another look.

I am sure that I saw an S15 body at Tolworth. However your comment about preserving the weight is a thoughtful contribution and perhaps gives a raison d'etre for persuing with this build.

 

Andy

[Horsetan]

Thanks Horsetan. By the way what is the diameter of the PDK smoke box?

23.8mm dia.

 

I didn't spot an error with the firebox, but thats no reason why I can't have another look....

Possibly because most of the error is in the boiler section.

 

EDIT: if the DJH S15 smokebox is undersized, then that means my idea of grafting it to the SEF N15 boiler will not work.

Edited December 6, 2017 by Horsetan

[brightspark]

23.8mm dia.

 

Possibly because most of the error is in the boiler section.

 

EDIT: if the DJH S15 smokebox is undersized, then that means my idea of grafting it to the SEF N15 boiler will not work.

So bang on the money then. That's handy to know.

 

I have done some more measuring and.....how about if I said that the boiler is the right length? 

Well it is, however there is a but!

 

That is the boiler is the correct length, but some fool at DJH decided that the tab for fitting into the cab should be cut off the back of the boiler instead of adding a bit on. This accounts for part of the boiler length being too short. At the front there is a casting representing the front of the smokebox and the smokebox door. This fits rather uncomfortably onto the front of the boiler and if it wasn't for the tab at the rear, would make the whole boiler and smokebox assembly the correct length. 

The error of the tab has been passed along the length of the casting, so moving forward from the cab, the boiler bands, whistle dome etc are all in the right place. Continuing forward it all starts to go wrong with the smokebox. With the front casting attached the smoke box is the correct length, but is pitched too far back so cuts back into where the front covers of the boiler should be.

Then there is the height. Measuring to the top of the boiler and smoke box, suggests that these are at the correct height. The problem is that the boiler is far too narrow as stated in previous posts. This is why the centre line of the boiler appears to be pitched too high.

 

With all that sorted I think I have a plan for using the existing boiler casting. Although the SEF option is still to be explored.

 

Andy

[brightspark]

I have been pondering the errors on the boiler casting. I can see how the casting became too short in length, a simple error in placing the tab in the wrong place. But the reason for the narrow diameter of the boiler had me puzzled. Then I realised that there may have a been a logic behind it. Going back to the time that this kit was designed, RTR manufacturers were still feeling pretty pleased with themselves that not only had they got over the technical difficulties that tied them to three rail but they had also started to get obtrusive motors out of cabs. Well on tender locos anyway. The next big challenge at that time was to get some daylight under the boiler. I wonder if someone at DJH had decided that it would be good marketing to ensure that not only was the cab space vacant, but there had to be daylight under the boiler.

 

Anyone got any other theories?

 

Andy

[brightspark]

First of all some photos of the DJH smoke box being measured.

 

The diameter of the smoke box and the length is 5' with the front casting. Its not cleaned up properly so is now a little oversize.

 

My current plan is to file down the rear of the smoke box down to diameter of the boiler. At the same time removing the rear few mm of the saddle. This will correct the boiler length.

Then split the boiler on the underside and pull it out the mil or so to get the correct diameter. I then plan to add a smoke box wrapper out of thin nickel silver sheet. The smoke front could be made from the original with filler or make up a new front also from NS using the DJH door. 

The problem with the front casting is that although it is nicely detailed it seems to have got too long and extends below the buffer beam. It is also too smaller diameter. But the door is really nice.

 

Now that we have sorted the boiler, there is another rather obvious flaw. Now I am rather surprised that it does not seem to have been mention on the other threads about this kit.

It is the cab.

Now I didn't spot it , it was pointed to me, but once seen it just shouts out at you.

 

For those that have completed their Maunsell locomotives (S15 and N15) look away now.

 

Its the cab corners. On the DJH kit the roof profile follows the windows. One the prototype this doesn't happen.

 

Here is the offending part on the drawing.

 

 

Note that the cab sides make up the full and correct width. Unfortunately they follow the same profile as the front.

There will be work with the nickel silver sheet here as well.

 

Hornby got this bit right as well.

 

Hmm I wonder if instead of the fret saw how practical would it be to etch these components.

There are some notes about this process in S4news 197. (Over to you Mike?)

 

Andy

 

edit: to try and correct the two flipped images without success.

edited again. Success!

 

 

Edited December 21, 2023 by brightspark
repost the photos that were lost.

[N15class]

This is the point where my DJH S15 loco turned into a scratch build. Most of the kit was not used.

The cab was the bit that made me finally decide to get out the nickel silver.

[brightspark]

I have been continuing to ponder the errors on the boiler and I would like to retract part of my previous findings as I have now had further information. That is some more drawings and notes.

 

I will start with the boiler again and what I have done is drawn onto it the correct position of the various fittings.

As the front of the thing is so awful I have taken as the datum point the intersection of the cab front.

There are two views, the left hand side and the top.

[Photos lost]

 

Starting at the cab and moving forward we find

• the rear boiler band. I am not exactly sure that this butts right up to the cab. But I assume it does at this point.
• the whistle and the two steam manifolds appear to be in the correct place.
• The rear handrail and the mud plugs are in the right place
• The hole for the safety valve casting is too far back. I have drawn three lines here with the middle one showing where the centre of the casting should be. The hole appears under the rear safety valve.
• 2nd handrail knob slightly too far abaft, but forgivable.
• Boiler band, too far back by about a band width. This was moved back to compensate for the boiler length.
• The dotted line is the firebox front. This is a key dimension and is in the right place.
• Dome position too far back. and the handrail knobs have gone awry.
• Boiler band, very far back.
• Handrail knob and clack valve too far back.
• The long line shows where the smokebox should be, but we already know that this was pushed back.
• This obviously puts the chimney in the wrong position

I placed the casting for the front of the smokebox into the correct position. You can see how much higher than the boiler this sits. Is this why some models have the boiler too high?

Finally I took a look at the smoke deflectors. These are lovely castings but are too long. This is purely down to the stupidity of the smoke box being pushed back. The marks show how much to take out the middle if shortening is the option.

[Photo lost]

 

Finally, finally, the tender sides.

I guess that in an attempt to make up for the shortness of the boiler, the designer at DJH thought that he could redeem himself with the 8 wheel bogie tender. This he (or it could be a she) did by making the tender extra long.

[photo lost]

 

To have any hope of making this into an acceptable model, I find that I have growing pile of parts that will only be fit for the melting pot. I have already started on the scratch built chassis, so making a boiler, cab and smoke deflectors and shortening the tender....?

I see that one made up example in OO has just sold on ebay for £150.00. And another sold for £200. Is that the way forward with this?

Or do I just continue to have a crack and make up the shortfall on the kit. Do I really want to try and make a silk purse out of a sows ear?

 

Stay warm

 

Andy

 

 

Edited December 21, 2023 by brightspark
edit to correct a photo. edit for typo. Note added that photos lost.

[Horsetan]

Unless you're a complete madman like me, I really think you might want to obtain the PDK kit and start again. 

 

Either that or see if you can obtain the smokebox, boiler barrel and footplate of the SEF kit, or Hornby N15 body (this does pop up on eBay, suitably wrecked), then shorten the smokebox and footplate (from which the splashers should be removed). In the case of both the SEF and Hornby N15s, the boiler and smokebox plug into each other, so you can disconnect them and work on the smokebox separately. The cabs are more or less alright for no.s 823-837, but will need smaller cabside openings for 838-847.

[brightspark]

Unless you're a complete madman like me, I really think you might want to obtain the PDK kit and start again. 

 

Either that or see if you can obtain the smokebox, boiler barrel and footplate of the SEF kit, or Hornby N15 body (this does pop up on eBay, suitably wrecked), then shorten the smokebox and footplate (from which the splashers should be removed). In the case of both the SEF and Hornby N15s, the boiler and smokebox plug into each other, so you can disconnect them and work on the smokebox separately. The cabs are more or less alright for no.s 823-837, but will need smaller cabside openings for 838-847.

Ah nuts.

I hadn't looked at the cutouts only the awful front profile. The Tender supplied with the kit is the overlong flat sided 8 wheeler. The only candidates for Swaynton are 838, 839 and 840 all on shed at Feltham and all wanting the smaller cutout . Conveniently the kit has in it the number plate for 838 so this is/was the candidate.

 

Your right only an idiot would even consider continuing. A sheet of NS from Eileens sits on my bench, cost £1.50.

 

Then I saw this on ebay. I don't even need to build it well or include a motor. 

 

Andy

[Horsetan]

.... I saw this on ebay. I don't even need to build it well or include a motor. 

 

....and it includes all of the mistakes you were thinking of correcting, at no extra cost!

 

Actually, looking at the eBay example, I've got it the wrong way around - the DJH cab looks closer to 838-847, which means you would have to enlarge the cutouts for 823-837...but then you would have to change the tender for the Urie-type 5000 gallon one.

Edited December 23, 2017 by Horsetan

[brightspark]

....and it includes all of the mistakes you were thinking of correcting, at no extra cost!

 

Actually, looking at the eBay example, I've got it the wrong way around - the DJH cab looks closer to 838-847, which means you would have to enlarge the cutouts for 823-837...but then you would have to change the tender for the Urie-type 5000 gallon one.

I wonder if they sell it at the price? I did find an earlier listing with the same MK I chassis that I have that sold for £200.

It seems nuts to me as you can buy a decent Hornby for £90. I have heard that there is a market for these kits. Hmmm do I need to find a DS10 to put in it?

 

I have overlaid the cab side onto the Russell drawing (SR74A) page 293. Aligning it to the footplate profile the cut out is a lot smaller. It matches perfectly to the other drawing showing the older 8 wheel tender. So I think that you may have been warmer first time around.

 

Andy

[brightspark]

After the last post, the “kit”, resided where most kits reside, on a shelf to join the SABLE collection.

My plan was to potter around with this at demonstration tables at various shows. Assuming that I am invited and can attend. As it is, I don’t get invited to as many shows and those were I was, I couldn’t attend.

However, every so often I would open the box and do a little bit of pottering.

Suddenly I found that I had made a lot of progress so here are some updates.

So back in August the status was that the frames had been erected.

 

Here is the chassis assembly roughly assembled. Note that I have discarded the frames supplied by DJH.

 

 

These are the usual brass sheet cut to the profile from one of the scaled drawings found in various publications and shaped to fit the underside of the cast footplate.

 

I am trying a different means of compensation on this build.

If you recall, the Class 5 was powered on the rear axle which was fixed. The two front drivers were compensated to each other and these were linked by a beam to the front bogie.

The effect of this was to distribute the weight of the loco equally between the rear axle and the rest of the axles. That is that the rear wheels were effectively carrying half the weight of the loco.

Now in the model press, there have been some thoughts expressed as to the best way of transferring the weight of the loco through the wheels. Iain Rice is of the opinion that replicating the weight distribution as per the prototype would yield the best results. There is another theory that the bulk of the weight should be on the axles at the extreme end of the chassis. Ie the leading bogie and the rear wheels. So if the latter theory is correct I got it half right with 73018.

The only trouble that I had with that loco was when I raised the tender height and lifted the rear of the loco so losing the effective traction. So I wonder how effective that method is.

 

So on the S15 I have tried to change the weight distribution. The leading driving wheel is connected by beam to the front bogie. The two rear driving wheels are linked with two beams with the gearbox driving the centre axle which is free to articulate. This should give equal distribution of the weight across all wheels. It also means that all the wheels are free to move vertically.

The drag pin for the tender is already in place as is the rear drag beam. This means that I can remove the loco body with the tender still in place. Hopefully this should make life easier for maintenance.

The motor mount is also interesting. Normally with the driving wheel in a fixed bearing, the motor is solidly mounted. But as the driving wheel are now in hornguides the motor and gear box has to move with the axle and be solidly anchored. To facilitate this, I made up a mounting that sits on the pivot of the compensating beam with the motor mounted on a second pin. This will allow the motor out put shaft to move up and down by rotating around the pivot mounted to the frames and to also rotate around the centre line of the loco.

The next stage is to paint the chassis. This is Halfords black on the outside and Mars Red on the interior.

 

So here is a picture of the assembly stripped down and ready to paint.

 

 

I managed to mess up the assembly of the rear set of wheels. The axles wasn’t quite square in the GW wheel press and before I realised the axle had pushed through the wheel. So another pair of wheels have been ordered and are on their way.

Further updates to follow.

Meanwhile I will be taking this along to the Southampton show this weekend. So you can see how far it has come on.

Edited December 25, 2023 by brightspark
missing word added. "mess". Reattached photos.

[brightspark]

The tender

 

After putting the chassis together and scrapping a set of wheels, I thought it best to start work on the tender.

My logic being that if I mess up any other wheels I can cover my loss on one order.

 

The tender assembly consists of a cast footplate onto which sits the box that forms the body. All of this sits on two bogies each made up of three cast pieces and are fixed to the chassis with two screws that also act as pivots for the bogies.

The only real problem that has already been identified here is that the tender is too long. The tragedy is that you can see where DJH have extended the footplate, from good to bad, as there is a clear mark in the casting.

 

The photo is of the underside the rear buffer beam mounting point to the right.

The groove shows the DJH extension. The pencil marks are where I am planning to make the cut.

 

As with any cut and shunt it is best to avoid having individual joints adjacent to each other. As each is a potential weakness. 

 

Starting with the footplate, the DJH extension is on the rear where the buffer beam attaches. This area is quite nice and would be difficult to reshape by trying to remove the extra material that has been added. I therefore removed approx. 4mm in the area above the rear pair of wheels as the pitch between the two bogies is correct.

This will require the removal of some metal to clear the rear pair of wheels when the bogie rotates. The two sides were next and were corrected by a cut around the area where the reservoir tanks sit. This is little way forward of the chassis joint.

 

The top was cut and spliced somewhere under coal. This plate also needed reshaping to match the drawing and once again the cut was well away from the other two joints.

 

This was all bonded with araldite with support pieces strengthening the joint. In this case cocktail stick and wooden coffee stirrers.

 

With that complete the sides were filled, flattened and the body assembled.

 

Before assembly though I made sure to bond in the two 12BA screws that the bogies are mounted onto.

 

The bogies are made up of three parts. The two sides and the centre bearing/ spacer. I took care here to ensure that the mating faces were flat and that there was clearance for the EM wheelsets.

It’s the centre beam that needs the most adjustment and this is easy as the wheels can be assembled and dropped in.

I didn’t see a need for washers to be fitted behind the wheels as the boss of the wheel touches the side of the frame casting first and there is little risk of electrical shorting.

 

I also saw no need to fit any additional bearings as there is not too much slop in the slots provided and I don’t believe that these will wear significantly in the expected life of the model. A more exotic bearing choice may also force the builder to consider another design of bogie and create yet even more work in the build of this kit.

 

I have no need of the fixings for the Hornby style coupling so this was removed and the front coupling or drawbar to the loco was replaced with a bent paperclip to get the correct distance between loco and tender.

 

The only thing lacking from below the waterline is the brake gear and I will add this later.

 

With the tender body assembled it was time to think about some detailing.

 

The flat sided square corner tenders had three reservoirs on top on top aft of the coal bunker. The moulding provided in the kit measures up ok. But it will need to be sat on top of some risers and will need pipe work added. I made the risers from plastic strip so that the tops of the cylinders are just above the coal wall and the pipework was made from 0,5mm brass wire, suitable soldered. This disappears into a hole I drilled in the tender top. Refer to the drawing and photos of the prototype on the web for position.

 

 

The platform was also assembled with the brake standard, trimmed to fit, painted and put to one side.

And here the work stops as the kit appears to have been robbed of footsteps.

 

Next- the loco body.

Edited December 22, 2023 by brightspark
put the photos back. The second photo, may not be the one on the original post, but shows what is described.