mikemeg Posted July 5, 2012 Author Share Posted July 5, 2012 Time for a check on whether all of this actually fits; not the design but the making of it. I've also added the brass safety valve cover and fixed this in place just to make the fitting of the final boiler bands that much easier. I found that the profile of the firebox section was slightly wrong when compared to the rear of the front splashers so a little judicious bending was called for. I've now soldered up the front splashers into the running plate so now a quick check to see where there are any gaps and what more adjustments need to be made. They're quite different, these Victorian locomotives, as each of the curved parts exactly matched those against which they sit - at least that's the prototype situation; can we reproduce this matching on the model - well nearly! Must crack on, semi-finals tomorrow so another major distraction. Cheers Mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemeg Posted July 6, 2012 Author Share Posted July 6, 2012 Time for a very silly photograph. This is the checking of the curve on one of the cabside splashers against the footplate. This after having fitted the brass beading. Easier to do any adjustments now, with this piece in the flat. Did the NER really have a thirty odd foot loading gauge? As this is the building thread, does anyone have plans for a large wooden ship; might be the only way out of the village if it continues to rain. All we need now are some Arkwrights! Oh, and those curves seem to match - lucky eh! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 ..... All we need now are some Arkwrights! "I'm not fer-fer-fer-faffin' about...." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemeg Posted July 6, 2012 Author Share Posted July 6, 2012 "I'm not fer-fer-fer-faffin' about...." I've got to relate this, re the above comment. For a few years I lived 'darn Sarf' and in our town we had one of those old fashioned hardware shops; kind of place which sold everything. I wanted a new soldering iron so, instead of visiting one of the 'big DIY sheds' I checked in said hardware shop. They had quite a selection of soldering irons, lurking in the back of the shop, including Amtex. The then proprieter of this shop was the living embodiment of Arkwright - he wore shiny brown shoes, collar and tie and an immaculate tan overall and, he was obviously from somewhere up North. Anyway I told him what I was after and he asked 'Does tha know much abart solderin', to which I replied 'Not a lot, but a little.' 'Tha'll be wantin someat basic, then' he offered by way of professional advice. 'Well I was more thinking of something with variable temperature control and a selection of different sized bits', I continued as I sought to clarify my requirement, pointing at a suitable Amtex product. 'That should do, won't it,' I further ventured. 'Well it might,' he said 'But it'll likely be wasted on thee.' What can you say; priceless. Cheers Mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 .... in our town we had one of those old fashioned hardware shops; kind of place which sold everything..... What, even fork handles? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemeg Posted July 6, 2012 Author Share Posted July 6, 2012 What, even fork handles? Aye, and o's (o's, o's, for mon repose) and even bill hooks. Stop it, this could run and run. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium ArthurK Posted July 6, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 6, 2012 Just to add a bit of interest here are three photos of the preserved Tennant No.1463. The first was taken at the old Queen street Museum at York. The others were at Darlington North Road Museum. There is just not anough space to get a better angle. As you will note it is a very pretty little thing. ArthurK Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemeg Posted July 7, 2012 Author Share Posted July 7, 2012 Having now completed the footplate, footplate steps and front splashers, as a sub-assembly and the smokebox and boiler as another sub-assembly - though these sub-assemblies are not yet fixed to each other - now comes the last sub-assembly on the loco body, the cab. The seating of the front driving wheel splasher, against the boiler, has also been adjusted and is now better. The cab sheeting is a single etching with, again, a recess for the brass beading, which is provided as a seperate component and which must be soldered to the sheeting before the cab is formed. Similarly, the brass beading on the rear splashers should also be soldered onto the sheeting while this piece is still in the flat. The instructions detail how the two different radii are formed - the one of 6 mm diameter for the transition from cab side to roof and the other a very gentle radius to follow the cab front. So having formed the cab up, and before any further parts are added to the cab assembly,a check on whether it sits properly on the footplate and the sides are parallel. The gaps visible between the bottom of the firebox and the footplate are simply because the whole smokebox/boiler assembly is just resting on the footplate and is not yet fixed. Cheers Mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Cram Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 It is certainly an interesting looking loco. I have a large framed photo of one on the wall in my study. Number 1240. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium ArthurK Posted July 7, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 7, 2012 It is certainly an interesting looking loco. I have a large framed photo of one on the wall in my study. Number 1240. Sorry Paul 1240 was class 1238. Very similar but a little earlier. Some had a cab very similar to that of the Tennant but other(s?) had a cab not unlike the McDonnell profile with separate arc roof. They was a rebuild of the later S&D 4-4-0s Nos. 1238-1241. There was a number of classes 2-4-0s with a very small number in each. The best known of these was the 901 class (910 is preserved). Also of note is the 1440 class not unlike the Tennant but without the sandbox on the splasher and riding on 6' 0" driving wheels. ArthurK Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Cram Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 Ah I had always thought it was a Tennabt but then again I hadn't checked. I also have a photo of 901 on the wall although for some reason it is without a tender. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemeg Posted July 9, 2012 Author Share Posted July 9, 2012 After a weekend of watching tennis (could any player have lived with Federer in those third and fourth sets?) and now that Wimbledon is over for another year, I can get back to this Tennant. The final sub-assembly left to do, is the cab. Now I have to confess that I do like to make each sub-assembly as a discrete item, so that all of the sub-assemblies can then be finally assembled. Comes from working in an engineering environment, many years ago - though I actually worked on I.T. within that engineering environment. Nonetheless the methodology stuck. Anyway what all of this waffle is leading up to is that on this Tennant model I couldn't make the cab as a discrete assembly, free standing. The cab splashers actually wrap around the firebox and the cab front is positioned with respect to the boiler rear, so the whole thing had to be assembled while the cab was assembled. The safety valve lever is not yet fixed but, like Arthur, there are times when I just can't resist locating one or more details just to see how they look. What was it Arthur wrote, as an accompaniment to his photographs of the preserved example - pretty little thing; so it is. Cheers Mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemeg Posted July 11, 2012 Author Share Posted July 11, 2012 Jonathan (Wealleans), Good to see that you've also discovered just how good Arthur's brass castings are; they certainly look very fine on your J72, which is turning out to be a very fine model. On this Tennant, Arthur has sent through the various white metal and brass castings for the loco body and tender so I've added the smokebox door, chimney and dome. Arthur's brass castings are exceptional but his white metal castings are not half bad either. So now the model begins to take on that 'essence' of the prototype - it's always the chimney and dome which make that transformation. Cheers Mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemeg Posted July 11, 2012 Author Share Posted July 11, 2012 One of the afflictions, which I suffer from, is that of being a perfectionist - at least striving for it if I not attaining it. So when I first fitted the brass safety valve cover, which was actually from the set of castings for the J73, I first looked at it and thought, yes that looks ok. But, a few minutes after, that little voice on the shoulder just popped up and queried 'You sure, looks too high to me?'. So I consulted the prototype photographs and photos of Arthur's own model of the Tennant. 'No, it's the viewing angle which just makes that safety valve appear to be too high' I reasoned with the little voice and it shut up. This morning, after fitting chimney and dome, the little voice piped up again. 'Chimney and dome look fine, but that safety valve cover is 1.0 - 1.5 mm too high; it's higher than the cab roof. Clincher, the little voice is right! So off came the safety valve cover (it was only araldited on, so a hot iron soon loosened it without damage) and a few minutes of examination followed, as to how I could shorten it. Finally 'biting the bullet' I sawed the top off, just below the lip, with a very fine piercing saw. The body of the cover was then carefully filed down by around 1.0 mm, after which the top portion was re-attached with superglue. If the fit was good enough, then this join would be barely visible, being in the shadow of the lip of this cover. Anyway, I've now done it, slightly re-profiled it just to adjust for the slight difference in angle just below the lip, and tried it on the firebox top, with the operating lever attached; nothing fixed as yet. I'm now waiting for the little voice to comment. If it doesn't (for it never comments favourably; always critically) within the next hour or two, then I've got this right. I wonder if anyone else thought the same? One of the great things about this site is that everyone is so complimentary about models, so I guess no-one's actually going to say 'That safety valve cover is wrong'. Would have been useful if they had, though! Cheers Mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium eldavo Posted July 11, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 11, 2012 ... I wonder if anyone else thought the same? One of the great things about this site is that everyone is so complimentary about models, so I guess no-one's actually going to say 'That safety valve cover is wrong'. Would have been useful if they had, though! ... Of course it could simply be that the folks reading this thread aren't familiar with the prototype and don't have drawings and photographs to hand. Nah, that's too simple. Cheers Dave P.S. Gonna a be a pretty little thing when it's done. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemeg Posted July 11, 2012 Author Share Posted July 11, 2012 Of course it could simply be that the folks reading this thread aren't familiar with the prototype and don't have drawings and photographs to hand. Nah, that's too simple. Cheers Dave P.S. Gonna a be a pretty little thing when it's done. Might be too simple but it's right. I don't look that critically at other threads unless something absolutely shouts out. Even then you're always reluctant to be critical of other folks' models. Hopefully might be, but a way to go yet before the model qualifies for that description 'pretty little thing'; but I'm sure as hell not looking forward to the paint job on this one. Cheers Mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium ArthurK Posted July 11, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 11, 2012 Mike I had no problems with mine and I used the same casting. I think the only change that I mades was to lower rthe actual safety valve lever casting so that the lever was only just proud of the base which is where it should be. Are you sure that the safety valve casting canme from the J73 and not the A6. The latter is indeed higher. Having had another study of the photo the hole in the top has parallel sides whereas the oneI used (same as J24/J73 &J77) is elliptic in profile. Surely yours came from the A6. ArthurK Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemeg Posted July 11, 2012 Author Share Posted July 11, 2012 Mike I had no problems with mine and I used the same casting. I think the only change that I mades was to lower rthe actual safety valve lever casting so that the lever was only just proud of the base which is where it should be. Are you sure that the safety valve casting canme from the J73 and not the A6. The latter is indeed higher. Having had another study of the photo the hole in the top has parallel sides whereas the oneI used (same as J24/J73 &J77) is elliptic in profile. Surely yours came from the A6. ArthurK Yes, I think it must have come from the A6, Arthur. My mistake. Cheers Mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwealleans Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Thank you for that, Mike; more and more I think that the next time I order anything from Arthur, I'll have to have a pair for the J73 as well as they just show up my poor effort. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemeg Posted July 13, 2012 Author Share Posted July 13, 2012 Having located and fitted the correct safety valve cover, more detailing has now been done. I still have the cab handrails to do plus the fitting of the clack valves and the lubricators. I did do some checking to ascertain which of the three sizes of Alan Gibson handrail knobs gave the correct positioning of the boiler/smokebox handrail. So the smokebox uses the short versions; the boiler the medium length versions. Using the long versions, on the boiler, positioned the handrail too far from the boiler. Cheers Mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemeg Posted July 17, 2012 Author Share Posted July 17, 2012 While I await the wheels, motor and gearbox for this Tennant, I turned the attention to the tender. This tender is, I think, unique to this prototype within Arthur's range of kits being a 2,651 gallon tender. Construction follows Arthur's normal methods of designing and etching these, with a fold-up box forming the tender superstructure and a fold up footplate/buffer and drag beams, onto which are added separate layers for the tender footplate and the tender rear and top. These overlay layers contain the detail. The coal space and tender front are composed of seperate pieces which fit inside the tender top and are located on the footplate by tabs. Last time I built one of these tenders, for the Q5/2, it took about three days to do the basic superstructure; this one took about four hours. The only 'tricky' bit of the assembly is the forming and soldering of the flare; I used a piece of 1/8" brass rod and teased the flares to shape around it. The matching of the side flares and the rear flare does need some care as it is easy to deform these pieces with needle files, even when they are soldered to the superstructure. That tender is almost as long as the locomotive. Now for a day or two at the Q5/2 (painting, numbering and lettering) and the two A6's (completing the two chassis, painting, lining, numbering and lettering). Cheers Mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemeg Posted July 19, 2012 Author Share Posted July 19, 2012 A little bit more has been done to the tender with the side frames and steps now fitted. I had originally set the tender up for the two rail coal rail, largely because I found a photograph of a Tennant, in LNER days, with such a tender. However, it seems likely that this locomotive may have received a tender from another class as most of the Tennants had tenders with four coal rails with the coal space plated over, so I've replaced the top tender bulkheads with the taller variety, correct for the four coal rails. I've now received four quite large driving wheels (7' 0") and two carrying wheels (4' 6") from Alan Gibson so, once the catching up on other builds is done, I can get on with the loco and tender chassis. Tom F, York had some of these though only up until 1929, when the last was withdrawn from that shed. Mind you perhaps the one preserved in the NRM might have ventured into 50A's yard; there again it might not have! Cheers Mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemeg Posted August 9, 2012 Author Share Posted August 9, 2012 Now back to this Tennant after a few days lay off. The first job is the fitting of the High Level hornguides and axleboxes; the driving wheels using the standard 1/8" axleboxes, the leading wheels using 2 mm axleboxes which slide in a specially designed etched component. The compensating beams are attached to the frames with 1 mm diameter steel pins, turned down in the pin chuck from panel pins. Just the final detailing of the mainframes to do before the chassis is assembled and the drive train fitted. Cheers Mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemeg Posted August 9, 2012 Author Share Posted August 9, 2012 In between a flurry of hedge trimming, border weeding and harvesting things from the vegetable patch, I've now managed to assemble the chassis, with all spacers fitted, soldered up and then cleaned up. This chassis being quite short, does go together very well, especially as there are some seven spacers to ensure squareness and parallelism of the mainframes. Couldn't then resist the urge to put the wheels on their axles and just mount the body on the chassis. Cheers Mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemeg Posted August 14, 2012 Author Share Posted August 14, 2012 Most of the design of Arthur's kits does lend itself to ease of construction, however, the representation of the Stephensons valve gear on this Tennant is fiddly. Since these test etches were done, Arthur has redesigned the valve gear to make assembly much simpler. This valve gear is made more difficult by virtue of the prototype having the weigh shaft under the valve gear, necessitating the lifting links being attached both at the top of the eccentric and at the ends of the balance levers at the bottom of the valve gear, while threading them onto the weigh shaft. The dummy valve gear does not project behind the motion plate as this area is completely obscured by the front sandboxes and splashers. Anyway, it was a challenge and, with some judicious (that's a euphamism for me not risking soldering this already soldered assembly into the chassis) use of superglue, it was accomplished. Now for the eight slide bars and some dummy crossheads, piston rods, and connecting rods. I did mange to insert quite a bit of 1/16" lead sheet into this chassis, especially in the space between the driving wheels, as can be seen in the photo below, and in the firebox bottom and ashpan, though care has to be taken not to foul the compensating beams.This extra weight should make the balancing of the loco a lot easier. Still a real joy to build. I've got to say that the performance of this system, since the move to the new servers, is massively improved; removing all of the frustrations associated with the previous servers. Cheers Mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.