Grantham - the Streamliner years

[LNER4479]

Thanks for comments guys

Absolutely superb job on the signal box, cannot wait to see it finished and painted up.

I can't wait to see it finished and painted either, Nelson! There's rather a scarily long queue of things waiting workbench space between now and next February

 

Blimey, you've been cracking on a bit by the look of it! I do like that fusion of Knightwing with D&S, and I agree that the Knightwing box just as it comes is quite nice anyway. I'd never really noticed them until I was struck by the "plausibility" of one on Mercator II's layout a couple of years ago.

Cracking on indeed - there is a public appearance to get ready for you know!

My Dad had previously used the Knightwing kit and 'donated' the already built one that I have been using up till now. Likewise, it was only when I lined up Danny's etch against it that I too was struck by what a good basis it was for a GN box (even though the kit merely describes itself as a 'typical' steam era signalbox) You can order them direct from the Knightwing website (which was what I did). Recent searches in model shops drew a blank. It comes in a lovely sturdy box - ideal for storing 15ml paint tinlets )

[61070]

Robert - when the Yard Box is finished take a break, pull up a chair by the stove, make yourself a pot of tea and enjoy a nice sandwich before the next job - oh, I see signalman Jock Drummond's beaten you to it!  

http://www.lner.info/forums/download/file.php?id=3491

(16th April 1964)

John

Edited October 22, 2013 by 61070

[LNER4479]

More excitement on the loco front...

 

Had a delightful visit to Little Bytham, to work on the signal mechanisms for Tony Wright's layout (see latest posting in the 'Wright Writes' thread), my part of the bartering arrangement for the C12. Waiting for me, to my delight and surprise, was this little beauty:

 

 

 

This is destined to become No. 7384, which was allocated to Grantham in the 1930's for shunting purposes (there is a picture of her on Grantham shed in the Cawston book). I plan for her to have a swift trip through the paint shop, so stand by for further pictures soon.

 

Meanwhile, my part of the bargain is to build (and install) the final mainline signal for LB. Sounds like a good deal to me...

Edited October 27, 2013 by LNER4479

[Barry O]

It would look very nice in lined blue......  runs for the nearest trench....

[Markeg]

Looks great and runs sweetly too I would think.

 

How are you going to paint the driver and fireman?

 

Mark

[Nelson Jackson]

 

How are you going to paint the driver and fireman?

 

Mark

Don't forget about the cab detail as well, such as the boiler backhead etc..

Is the cab roof removable?

[LNER4479]

How are you going to paint the driver and fireman?

 

very carefully....

 

Loco got its black coat and red buffer beams last night. Humans got their flesh colour, as the first of several different colours to be applied.

 

Cab roof is removable but alas no backhead - being a smallish loco, motor plus flywheel sticks out into the cab. The crew are there largely to hide these from view!

 

Pix to follow once complete...

Edit - Tony has just kindly sent these pictures to illustrate. Some more info about the build also being posted on the 'Wright writes' thread...

Edited October 30, 2013 by LNER4479

[micklner]

Nice build ,however if he had used a smaller motor it would have been much easier to build !!

[gr.king]

He has probably made sure that it has enough beef to make my P1 look silly again......

[Worsdell forever]

He has probably made sure that it has enough beef to make my P1 look silly again......

Looks like it will pull a P1 and it's train...

[LNER4479]

Tony has asked me to post the following explanation behind the size of the motor in the J69:

 

"In reply to Micklner's comments with regard the use of a smaller motor making the build of the J69 easier, I have to ask how? The instructions illustrate driving off the rear coupled axle, with the motor pointing backwards into the cab/firebox. Suggested motors are a small Portescap (RG4/1219) or a DS10 and Finecast's own mount. I did consider the smaller Mashima flat can motor and Finecast's own mount, which I used in the C12 illustrated earlier on this thread.

 

Since any six-coupled configuration is far better balanced if the drive is via the centre axle, that's what I opted for instead. Though it's transpired that the C12 will pull anything 'Robert' chooses to put behind her, I thought - why not go for broke in this one and fit the largest motor possible? Hence the choice of the 'fat' (16mm width) Mashima and a Branchlines 40:1 gear mount. Not only that, this motor revs a bit slower in all power ranges than most (ideal for a shunting engine) and it's far more suited to the addition of a flywheel. Why a flywheel? Because 'Robert' has some dead-frog crossings and the flywheel will assist in preventing stalling. Though the loco pulled 26 fish vans and a brake with ease on Little Bytham, unknown to 'Robert' I also hooked her up to 40+ wagons and off she strolled. 50 should present no problems. Perhaps he will let us know what she can actually handle on Grantham.

 

"All the above is explanatory but I have to ask again, how would the fitting of a smaller motor have made the build easier? With regard to the chassis, the only modification necessary was to omit the centre, right angle spacer, split it and use it for the supports for the pick-ups, the two halves being soldered at the base of the frames between the wheels. If I'd driven off the rear axle the centre spacer could have stayed, though where would the pick-up supports have come from? Even with a tiny motor, driving off the centre axle would have necessitated removal of the centre spacer. Absolutely no alterations were needed to the body. This is an old kit, so no backhead was supplied. With the crew installed, the roof on and the flywheel painted black it's almost impossible to see what's inside the cab, anyway. Look at any prototype pictures of J69s from most angles. Can you see inside the cab? As it was, the flywheel tended to make the loco more noisy, so it was removed, with no detrimental consequences to the running. Being slower-running, with this motor, even on a non-electronic controller (an old H&M without 'pulse power), this loco will crawl at less than a mile an hour. I'm convinced the bigger motor is partly responsible for this. Its duties on Grantham will be shunting at the south end I'm told. This might entail shifting whole trains. I assure you, no loco I've made is ever going to be shown up as lacking in power at an exhibition. 

So, at the risk of repeating myself, how does fitting a smaller motor make the build 'easier'?"

 

I can confirm the comment about slow running. Whilst we were 'playing' with the P2, Tony set the J69 in motion with the fish vans at no more than scale walking pace. It took about 10 minutes to do a circuit. What impressed me most is that the speed never wavered, ie it was the same with 26 fish vans on the straight as it was with them strung round a 180deg curve at the end of the layout.

Edited October 29, 2013 by LNER4479

[jwealleans]

I'm with Tony.  I've never looked at a loco I've built and thought "I should have used a smaller motor".  I note it's a 16 series - 16 by what, please?

[LNER4479]

Can you work it out from this picture Jonathan? If not, I'll have a look tonight.

 

Loco now has her identity 'LNER 7384' and the crew have their shirts on. Due to security at Stratford Works, no photographs are possible at the moment

Edited October 30, 2013 by LNER4479

[micklner]

      When I said "easy" perhaps it not the best word to use. I was refering to adding detail inside the cab only ,not to the running. I dont know the kit as GER based and not my area, hence didnt know that a backhead wasnt supplied anyway !!.

       I still stand by my comment re the use of the motor, if it is a shunter why do you need a such a large motor.  E.g a High Level box with a Mashima 1015 would have been adequate fully hidden using much lower ratio such as 108.1 could have been used for shunting purposes and scratch build a backhead and other cab detail if required. The Loco would then have looked much better from any angle.     Re the flywheel no idea if you could still fit one on that setup.

     Not many people need a shunter to haul such prodigous amount of wagons most only pottered around with three or four. Or is the Loco being built as a contestant in the current hauling Grantham contest anyway !!

      The comment you cant see the backhead so why bother, simply doesnt really hold water. If we all modelled to that theory,why does anyone bother fitting anything inside the cab on any Tank engine ?? .

    A crew both standing in the doors simply says they are hiding something inside !! and goes back to the bad old days of XO4 Motors  hanging out the back of old Hornby's etc    IMHO.

 

    Still a nice Loco and look forward to seeing it painted .

[jwealleans]

1624 or 1628 - if he doesn't say when he posts on his own thread I can ask him directly anyway.

 

I can see where you're coming from Mick, but a larger motor working less hard has to be better for the longevity of the mechanism - it may only shunt 3 or 4 wagons, but if it has to do it all day at a show, you're better off not thrashing it. In this case if it's moving 10-12 kit built bogies then it needs some grunt. On a tank engine backhead detail is all but invisible (and I say that with all the double standards of one who always puts mirrors and pictures in my coaches, but the windows are bigger) and so are the crew unless you have them hanging out of a door or window. It doesn't automatically say 'hiding the motor' to me, but so much the better if that's a side effect. I'd rather have the larger motor and the flywheel if at all possible and the backhead is a sacrifice I'm prepared to make.

[great northern]

"Shunting" covered a multitude of tasks. The C12's at Peterborough did everything from attaching single vans to bringing rakes of 11 coaches to and from the carriage sidings, not to mention banking trains of up to 13 bogies out of the Down main platform. Thus it is necessary that a loco is up to any task it may be called upon to perform. Tony always builds locos which will be up to the job, and sensibly makes sure that they will actually do even more. Even though it is a very early kit, 1960's I think, it has made up into a lovely little engine. I'd love one, as we had several at Lincoln, one of which was station pilot, but sadly the only one at New England in my period was just used for shed duties there. I bet it had to shift rows of dead Pacifics though!

[LNER4479]

More thoughts from Tony on the subjects of hidden detail, pulling power and footplate crews:

 

"I understand where Micklner is 'coming from', and, yes, all steam locomotive models, whether they be tender or tank locos, should have a representation of the firebox backhead. However, if it's almost impossible to see, even with an eye hard up against the cabside, then is it necessary? For a layout loco, I say a most emphatic 'no'. If he thinks that's taking things back to the 'bad old days' of X04s protruding into the cab then he's entitled to that view, though I don't agree with him. 

 

"When I worked with and for the late, great David Jenkinson, I was always drawn to his pragmatism. Nobody built better carriages than he; however, when taking pictures of one of his latest masterpieces one day, he declined from having some of underframe photographed. He stated that if the only way of seeing a detail was through the results of a train crash - a vehicle overturned or with body panels/underframe bits torn off, then why bother adding it? Isn't that analogous with having a J69's roof knocked off? I'm not putting myself in anywhere near the same league as such a master, but I do subscribe to pragmatism. 

 

"I've looked at probably 50 pictures of J69s - at work, at rest, on shed, out on the road, etc, and in none can I see the firebox backhead. Several have crews visible; indeed, the prototype picture I principally used has the crew standing in the cab entrance. I wonder what they're hiding? As for the 'trials of strength' implied, I wonder if Micklner has a copy of East Anglian Steam by Dr Ian C. Allen, OPC, 1976? If he does, then may I ask him to examine Plate 45? In that there's a J69 hauling 49 (yes, 49!) loaded coal wagons and a brake van. A crew member leans out of the cab (hiding what, I know not). There's even a pair of bicycles on the front! With regard to crews, I counted over 70 examples in that book where crews are clearly visible in the locos' cabs. Yes, a few were looking out for the photographer, but East Anglian drivers and firemen must have had many secrets!

 

"Finally, though the little loco was built as a result of horse-trading, I was still conscious of the time involved. In fact, a glance at my Wright Writes thread will explain how long the construction took. To have expended a further, say, four or five hours scratch-building a backhead (or a couple adapting one) would have been daft. Other than to know it's there (though it can't be seen), why bother?

 

"I rest my case. "

 

[LNER4479]

"Shunting" covered a multitude of tasks. The C12's at Peterborough did everything from attaching single vans to bringing rakes of 11 coaches to and from the carriage sidings, not to mention banking trains of up to 13 bogies out of the Down main platform. Thus it is necessary that a loco is up to any task it may be called upon to perform. Tony always builds locos which will be up to the job, and sensibly makes sure that they will actually do even more. Even though it is a very early kit, 1960's I think, it has made up into a lovely little engine. I'd love one, as we had several at Lincoln, one of which was station pilot, but sadly the only one at New England in my period was just used for shed duties there. I bet it had to shift rows of dead Pacifics though!

Thanks GN. My comment is that, although I am sure there were plenty of backwaters where such a loco could be seen pottering around with three or four wagons, there was (and will be) a wide variety of vehicles for the loco to shunt at Grantham. In fact, in my era, there were three shunting horses 'allocated' to Grantham, which dealt with the odd wagon or two that needed moving (now there's a modelling challenge!), leaving the J69, C12 et al to deal with rather more substantial loads.

[micklner]

      Interesting thoughts , sorry I dont do GER area as mentioned earlier so I have never seen that particular book mentioned by Tony. Everyone has their own ways of building Locos an good that it is that way.

     Personally I have never had a Mashima small or big fail but I dont do exhibitions either !!

     As to Shunting horses I love this picture at Grantham too !!

 

[Barry O]

Those J69s got around a bit - even Brunswick had one - seen below shunting the goods yard on Herculaneum Dock (Apologies for the photo but this is one I haven't  weathered ....yet!)

 

 

and it can pull the side of a house down!

[LNER4479]

Those J69s got around a bit - even Brunswick had one

 

Thanks Barry,

 

Yes, according to RCTS Vol 8A they did indeed 'get about a bit' - the CLC around Manchester and Liverpool certainly get a mention, so it comes as no surprise to find one at Brunswick. I did in fact let one slip through my hands 15 years ago, only subsequently finding that there was one (or two?) allocated to Trafford Park (Manchester) - I could have had it in and around Manchester Central on my previous layout   All the nicer therefore to have one now!

[Markeg]

Re; The horses for shunting.

 

An idea.

You could motorise a box van, fix the horse via rods, representing chains, to the buffer beam.  The horse would have to be elevated so as to clear the track.  Interesting idea and a novelty at an exhibition.

 

agree with the sentiments re backhead.

Mark in OZ

[LNER4479]

Hi Mark,

 

Yes - had thought along similar lines myself re the horses (the moving capstan vans on Leicester South are certainly an inspiration!). I have also thought of making a little wheel out of clear plastic and somehow attaching the horse's legs to simulate some movement. One drawback is that it's going to look a bit odd in reverse!

 

Not quite top of the priority list just at the moment though...

Edited October 31, 2013 by LNER4479

[Barry O]

Oxford club had a moving "horse" on Rewley Road - but the wagon was moved by a bar from underneath the baseboard.

 

Think this is one to think about compared to more immediate needs.. if you need any curtains for the front of the layout I have a quantity available ..

[LNER4479]

Certainly do, Barry - thanks for the offer.