Bath Queen Square

[Izzy]

I know it's down to individual choice but I do prefer the larger Johnson tender with them rather than the Fowler.

 

Bob

[Compound2632]

24 minutes ago, Izzy said:

I know it's down to individual choice but I do prefer the larger Johnson tender with them rather than the Fowler.

 

I don't think the locomotives actually had any individual choice in their tenders?

[Izzy]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I don't think the locomotives actually had any individual choice in their tenders?

Didn’t phrase that very well really. Given that I don’t think - not sure - whether tenders got swopped around at all, that 2P’s only had Fowlers, and 483’s Johnsons, I’d always plump for a 483 when given the choice. 
 

Bob

[Compound2632]

8 minutes ago, Izzy said:

Didn’t phrase that very well really. Given that I don’t think - not sure - whether tenders got swopped around at all, that 2P’s only had Fowlers, and 483’s Johnsons, I’d always plump for a 483 when given the choice. 
 

Bob

 

I agree with you - the tender is the most obvious but there are other subtle differences that to my mind make the Midland engines that bit handsomer than the LMS Standards.

[Compound2632]

10 hours ago, queensquare said:

The LMS used 2P for all of them.  Just to confuse the issue, the S&D referred to them as a No.4 class or 4P - see table below from the 1927 working timetable.

 

That's new to me, since Bradley & Milton give the 1923 classification as the final version. In this, the superheated 4-4-0s - 483-likes - were initially 4P 2G, revised to 3P 2G, and the three Standard 2Ps of 1928 - after that WTT - were given the same 3P 2G classification. That classification gives the "Big Goods" as 5P 4G which matches that WTT but the 2-8-0s are 5P 5G, not 6P. All very confusing!

[queensquare]

8 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

That's new to me, since Bradley & Milton give the 1923 classification as the final version. In this, the superheated 4-4-0s - 483-likes - were initially 4P 2G, revised to 3P 2G, and the three Standard 2Ps of 1928 - after that WTT - were given the same 3P 2G classification. That classification gives the "Big Goods" as 5P 4G which matches that WTT but the 2-8-0s are 5P 5G, not 6P. All very confusing!

 

Morning Stephen, the evidence from the WTTs would suggest its the other way round.

The 1914 edition gives 70 and 71 (483s) as Class 3 engines and the big goods (7Fs) 80-85 as class 4.

 

 

By the time of the 1920 edition 70 and 71are class 4. I don’t have a freight WTT for 1920 but suspect the big big goods (7Fs) would have been reclassified 5G with the arrival of the Armstrong’s (4Fs) in 1922.

 

Jerry

 

 

Edited January 24, 2022 by queensquare

[Compound2632]

Interesting that pigeon specials are considered worth mentioning even if lumped in with ECS. (Wasn't there some discussion of racing pigeon traffic upthread?)

[queensquare]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

Interesting that pigeon specials are considered worth mentioning even if lumped in with ECS. (Wasn't there some discussion of racing pigeon traffic upthread?)

 

I believe there was. A pigeon special is on my list of trains to build, they ran regularly over the S&D throughout the lines history. Id love to see a picture of one on the line from my period. I have a couple of early shots of a pigeon special on Weymouth quay which consists largely LNWR stock. I don't know if it travelled down over the S&D or GWR but it would certainly make a very attractive train.

 

Jerry

[Sithlord75]

36 minutes ago, queensquare said:

 

I believe there was. A pigeon special is on my list of trains to build, they ran regularly over the S&D throughout the lines history. Id love to see a picture of one on the line from my period. I have a couple of early shots of a pigeon special on Weymouth quay which consists largely LNWR stock. I don't know if it travelled down over the S&D or GWR but it would certainly make a very attractive train.

 

Jerry

I'd love to see the shots - and any ideas on the LNWR stock.  How far did they take pigeons to race them back?  Could be scope for an eclectic train - or if the train is made of "home" stock an excuse to run some unusual vans which may have come some distance.

[queensquare]

2 hours ago, Sithlord75 said:

I'd love to see the shots - and any ideas on the LNWR stock.  How far did they take pigeons to race them back?  Could be scope for an eclectic train - or if the train is made of "home" stock an excuse to run some unusual vans which may have come some distance.

 

The images can be found about halfway down the page on this really interesting thread which I had forgotten about. I have 2mm etches for a 19" goods and a Prince of Wales in my stash -  how about one of those arriving at Bath with a lengthy pigeon special made up of an assortment of vans. I would of course put three men in the cab to include a Midland pilotman!

 

Jerry

 

 

 

 

[65179]

17 hours ago, queensquare said:

 

The images can be found about halfway down the page on this really interesting thread which I had forgotten about. I have 2mm etches for a 19" goods and a Prince of Wales in my stash -  how about one of those arriving at Bath with a lengthy pigeon special made up of an assortment of vans. I would of course put three men in the cab to include a Midland pilotman!

 

Jerry

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for adding that link Jerry. I've now got a picture in my head of you producing thousands of roosting 2mm pigeons for Bath to go with the empty stock off your late-running Dudley pigeon special!

 

Simon

[2mm Andy]

4 hours ago, 65179 said:

 

Thanks for adding that link Jerry. I've now got a picture in my head of you producing thousands of roosting 2mm pigeons for Bath to go with the empty stock off your late-running Dudley pigeon special!

 

Simon

 

Shapeways is your friend ; 

 

https://www.shapeways.com/product/836AQ58X4/n-scale-1-160-pigeons-set-of-121

 

Andy

[David Eveleigh]

On 22/12/2021 at 11:24, Compound2632 said:

@David Eveleigh, builder's plates:

 

Looking through photos in R.J. Essery & D. Jenkinson, Midland Locomotives Vol. 4 (Wild Swan, 1989), the builder's plates of Ms from Sharps, Neilson, Kitson, and Vulcan are all on the middle splasher. I haven't found a photo of a Dubs M but their J / J2s have the distinctive diamond plate on the middle splasher. I don't have many photos of the S&DJR photos but a photographic grey photo of No. 66 shows the Derby works plate also on the middle splasher. It would, I think, be reasonable to assume that the Neilson engines had their builder's plates in the same place as on the Midland engines built to the same order.

...

 

On 22/12/2021 at 11:24, Compound2632 said:

 

 

I'm pretty convinced that shows that the leading splasher position for the builder's plates was an anomaly confined to the M&GN engines, on account of the coat of arms going on the middle splasher.

 

 

Thank you for the information about the builder’s plates on the Johnson 0-6-0 locomotives.   I did not know that.   The kit that I designed is correct for the M&GN locomotive I wanted to build.   (Excuse my clumsy attempt at editing the quote - I don't really use RmWeb much.)

 

I have since decided to build the loco in its Midland version as well.   Anyway, it is a very quick job to score the folds and remove the splasher sides, then swap them over.   (Lots of kits have the splasher sides separate anyway rather than as a fold up.)

 

I was perplexed by what Jerry wrote as being the main faults with the kit:-

 

On 20/12/2021 at 12:19, queensquare said:

The major fault is that the fold up, self jigging chassis don't work and are too wide. On the M this is both loco and tender - thankfully on the Kirtley it was just the tender, 

 

 

There are four items in question which I can denote A, B, C and D:

 

A  Kirtley locomotive   7.5mm frame spacing

B  Kirtley tender   7.5 mm frame spacing but with jig spacers needing to be filed 0.5 mm narrower

C  Johnson locomotive  7.5 mm frame spacing

D  Johnson tender  8 mm frame spacing.

 

You can see that A, B and C are identical.   (In fact this is my standard frame spacing which I have used for all my locomotive kits.)

According to Jerry, A is OK;  B, C and D are all at fault.   How can that be?   If he says A is correct, then B and C are as well.

 

Here is my set of frames for 'C', the M class 0-6-0, with the fold up self jigging chassis built exactly as I designed them to be built.

 

 

I   

 

 

The Association standard regarding frame spacing is as follows (quoted from the 2mm Assoc website) :-

 

                                         

 

As you can see, the maximum frame spacing works out at 6.4 + (2 x 0.7) = 7.8 mm.    Compare this with my set of frames for the new M class 0-6-0 assembled exactly as I designed them to be with the fold down spacers.   You can see that the spacing actually comes out at 7.6 mm according to the vernier scale.

 

Please Jerry, explain exactly what it is you are telling everyone is wrong with my kits as regards frame spacing.

 

Edited January 28, 2022 by David Eveleigh

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, David Eveleigh said:

The kit that I designed is correct for the M&GN locomotive I wanted to build. 

 

Fair enough!

[queensquare]

3 hours ago, David Eveleigh said:

 

I was perplexed by what Jerry wrote as being the main faults with the kit:-

 

 

There are four items in question which I can denote A, B, C and D:

 

A  Kirtley locomotive   7.5mm frame spacing

B  Kirtley tender   7.5 mm frame spacing but with jig spacers needing to be filed 0.5 mm narrower

C  Johnson locomotive  7.5 mm frame spacing

D  Johnson tender  8 mm frame spacing.

 

You can see that A, B and C are identical.   (In fact this is my standard frame spacing which I have used for all my locomotive kits.)

According to Jerry, A is OK;  B, C and D are all at fault.   How can that be?   If he says A is correct, then B and C are as well.

 

 

 

Sorry David but by your own admission this is not the case.

 

A. Kirtley loco. As I’ve said on here and in my MRJ article this goes together perfectly and is spot on.

 

B. Kitley tender. Chassis spacers too wide resulting in the need to either file half a mm off or assemble using Association jig. I chose the latter.

 

C. M class loco. May we’ll be right but as two of the three I had done by that time were wrong  (I always build the tender first)I simply went straight for the Associstion assembly jig. My apologies if my comments are incorrect.

 

D. As you say, makes up to 8mm width - too wide for Association jig and standardised, milled PCB.

 

If you bother to read my full posts you would realise that I have said many positive things about your etches and the fact that very nice models can be made from them. I resisted posting anything about the builds for a long time as I new what your response was likely to be to anything I said. I have tried to be fair and offer constructive criticism so that anyone else wanting to build a loco from one of your etches would be aware of what to look out for.

If you wish to sell your etches to the public, particularly at your prices,  you need to be able to take constructive criticism in the spirit in which it is offered, a friendly and hopefully useful account of my experience.

I have built numerous kits by Nigel  Hunt and Bob Jones ( as well as well into three figures in other scales for customers). Both Nigel and Bob actively seek feedback on their kits and see this as positive, not some sort of personal attack.

 

I have one more etch of yours to build but will almost certainly not comment on it other than post a picture, I really can’t be bothered with this sort of response. Anybody else wishing to build one of your etches will have to work out the best way to go about it for themselves without the benefit (or otherwise) of my experiences.

 

I look forward to seeing progress on your build of the M and how it runs - I’ve yet to see any other completed builds of one of your Midland etches other than my own. That said, I’d be grateful if you started your own thread on the build, I don’t want it on here.

 

Jerry

Edited January 28, 2022 by queensquare
Spelling

[queensquare]

3 hours ago, David Eveleigh said:

...

 

I have since decided to build the loco in its Midland version as well.   Anyway, it is a very quick job to score the folds and remove the splasher sides, then swap them over.   (Lots of kits have the splasher sides separate anyway rather than as a fold up.)

 

 

I look forward to seeing it (in its own thread). The problem with cutting off the splashers and reversing them - in addition to the fact that re-fixing them is a tricky operation - is that you would loose the nicely half etched beading. I opted to grind the unwanted builders plate of by carefully grinding with a small burr in my mindrill.

 

Jerry

[queensquare]

Back to the Nigel Hunt 483s which are proving a joy to build.

The chassis went together beautifully. Nigel uses the same method Mike Raithby pioneered on his 4F kit, namely etched fold up spacers soldered to double sided PCB pads. Its more time consuming the the normal milled PCB spacers but gives a very rigid result which I think is probably easier to keep square and free of twist. It has the added advantage that it leaves more space between the frames, particularly useful on a 4-4-0 where I will be able to get a pretty hefty lump of lead in the firebox/ashpan area - low down between the drivers where it will do most good. These little 4-4-0s will be expected to take six brass coaches up a curving 1in70!

I fitted my preferred style of bogie pivot which is a bit of 1.6mm tube tapped 12BA. This will have a spring around it bearing down lightly on the bogie stretcher. The only mod I had to do was carefully open out the slot in the stretcher to take the tube. The tube projects about 5mm below the spacer and is held in place, over length, with one of those really useful mini clothes pegs whilst being soldered in.

 

 

I added a couple of additional details to the frames, namely sand boxes which are just lumps of brass bar with a hole in the bottom to take the sand pipe and the cylinders for the bogie brakes which these locos were fitted with up to the early 1930s. I will have a rummage in my stash of left over bits from wagon kits to see if there is anything that could be used to represent the brakes themselves which could be glued in after painting but, if I'm honest I probably wont bother - the brake cylinder being enough to suggest their presence.

 

The various chassis bits were then given a good scrub and mounted on cocktail sticks ready for painting - etched primer followed by matt black. The wheels had 'Maskol' applied to the tyres and were mounted in their own bit of holey balsa - these will be red.

 

 

 

 

Jerry

[Compound2632]

2 hours ago, queensquare said:

The wheels had 'Maskol' applied to the tyres and were mounted in their own bit of holey balsa - these will be red.

 

See G. Dow & R.E. Lacy, Midland Style (HMRS, 1975) p. 83.

Edited January 29, 2022 by Compound2632

[Nig H]

1 hour ago, queensquare said:

Back to the Nigel Hunt 483s which are proving a joy to build.

The chassis went together beautifully. Nigel uses the same method Mike Raithby pioneered on his 4F kit, namely etched fold up spacers soldered to double sided PCB pads. Its more time consuming the the normal milled PCB spacers but gives a very rigid result which I think is probably easier to keep square and free of twist. It has the added advantage that it leaves more space between the frames, particularly useful on a 4-4-0 where I will be able to get a pretty hefty lump of lead in the firebox/ashpan area - low down between the drivers where it will do most good. These little 4-4-0s will be expected to take six brass coaches up a curving 1in70!

I fitted my preferred style of bogie pivot which is a bit of 1.6mm tube tapped 12BA. This will have a spring around it bearing down lightly on the bogie stretcher. The only mod I had to do was carefully open out the slot in the stretcher to take the tube. The tube projects about 5mm below the spacer and is held in place, over length, with one of those really useful mini clothes pegs whilst being soldered in.

 

 

 

 

 

I added a couple of additional details to the frames, namely sand boxes which are just lumps of brass bar with a hole in the bottom to take the sand pipe and the cylinders for the bogie brakes which these locos were fitted with up to the early 1930s. I will have a rummage in my stash of left over bits from wagon kits to see if there is anything that could be used to represent the brakes themselves which could be glued in after painting but, if I'm honest I probably wont bother - the brake cylinder being enough to suggest their presence.

 

The various chassis bits were then given a good scrub and mounted on cocktail sticks ready for painting - etched primer followed by matt black. The wheels had 'Maskol' applied to the tyres and were mounted in their own bit of holey balsa - these will be red.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jerry

Hi Jerry,

 

Thanks for the comments, and good to see its going well so far. The bogie pivot method you use is interesting so thanks for showing that aspect. I really like the above pic too- almost like some piece of modern art.

 

Nigel Hunt

[queensquare]

5 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

See G. Dow & R.E. Lacy, Midland Style (HMRS, 1975) p. 83.

 

Indeed, thanks Stephen. The wheels will get the black tyres but I don't think I will be bothering with the yellow lining on the inside! In fact the black tyres is really handy as with the wheels painted Crimson I can colour in the tyres with my black Sharpie pen at the end of the build to cover up all the paint I've chipped off in handling!

 

Jerry

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, queensquare said:

 

Indeed, thanks Stephen. The wheels will get the black tyres but I don't think I will be bothering with the yellow lining on the inside! In fact the black tyres is really handy as with the wheels painted Crimson I can colour in the tyres with my black Sharpie pen at the end of the build to cover up all the paint I've chipped off in handling!

 

Jerry

 

The wheels were black, not red - end of first paragraph on p. 83.

[Oldddudders]

On 28/01/2022 at 11:16, queensquare said:

I have built numerous kits by Nigel  Hunt and Bob Jones ( as well as well into three figures in other scales for customers).

As a client of Jerry's, I can confirm that the OO scale LRM kit he built and painted for me was simply excellent in both appearance and running quality. It was also delivered ahead of the promised timescale!

[queensquare]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

The wheels were black, not red - end of first paragraph on p. 83.

 

Ah, I only read the start of the paragraph where it said they were red........ that’ll teach me to skim read!

 

The wheels are currently Rover Damask red. Do I repaint, ignore or give a coat under-frame grot at the end and hope nobody notices!

 

Jerry

Edited January 29, 2022 by queensquare

[Gilbert]

17 minutes ago, queensquare said:

 

Ah, I only read the start of the paragraph where it said they were red........ that’ll teach me to skim read!

 

The wheels are currently Rover Damask red. Do I repaint, ignore or give a coat under-frame grot at the end and hope nobody notices!

 

Jerry

I can sell you a Rule 1 (2mm version) concession Jerry....

Chris

[Compound2632]

It's up to your conscience...