Wright writes.....

[jwealleans]

David,

 

If you look at 'Dave's C & W works' on the LNER forum, there's a discussion between him and Mike Trice about the roof layout and (I think) drawings of the different pipework runs between the pre-1932 and post-1932 builds of D10C.  I may be slightly wrong about the 1932 date, but there is a cut off point at which they changed.

 

The problem I had building mine was finding a photo showing the side with the vac pipe running along the solebar.

 

Are those resin dynamos, Tony?

[davidw]

David,

 

If you look at 'Dave's C & W works' on the LNER forum, there's a discussion between him and Mike Trice about the roof layout and (I think) drawings of the different pipework runs between the pre-1932 and post-1932 builds of D10C.  I may be slightly wrong about the 1932 date, but there is a cut off point at which they changed.

 

The problem I had building mine was finding a photo showing the side with the vac pipe running along the solebar.

 

Are those resin dynamos, Tony?

Thanks Jonathan...

[coachmann]

Not sure if these are of any help. My early Gresley Diner that preceded the clipper sided/recessed door diners. MJT etched sides I think....

 

Don't ask me where I got details of the roof as I have forgotten....

 

 

Paired with an open diner third....

[PGC]

Phil, 

 

A very attractive looking loco, and my compliments. However, do you have a prototype picture to show the bunker-side numbers so low? Dependent on whether the bunker has one or two steps on its side, in all the pictures I've examined, the numbers are either almost level with the single step (thus just about half way up the bunker side) or between the two (thus a bit above half way). Figs 117 and 114 in the relevant RCTS green book show this. I've never seen an ER tank loco with its numbers quite that low. An observation, not destructive criticism. I mention the last point because someone else 'took exception' to a similar observation of mine in the past, and I've no wish to appear a nit-picker, nor cause offence. 

 

Hi Tony

 

Last night, while looking through some of my books, I found pictures of N7's on the North Woolwich branch. The pictures confirm that you are correct (does this surprise us?) about the positioning of the number so at some point in the future I will have to reposition the numbers correctly (unless you wish to undertake the task as penance for pointing out the mistake in the first place!   )

 

Phil

[jwealleans]

I don't seem to have taken a picture from directly above, but it's clearly a variation on the same theme:

 

 

This would be the earlier pattern, with turnbuckle trussing.

Edited October 20, 2018 by jwealleans

[Jol Wilkinson]

Thanks Jol,

 

The only L&NWR locos I've built were those made by Gem; years ago. I built a 2-4-0 in EM, and had to split the footplate on both sides and solder in two strips of 1mm brass bar, just to get clearances. I'm sure yours will be in a different league.

 

I'm generally a great fan of the 'better' etched-brass kits (of which London Road constitutes a large number), but the designs of several seem over-complicated to my simple mind. Take the London Road Models K2 for instance. Designed, I believe, by the late (great) Malcolm Crawley, and, as designed, it required all the cylinders/motion/valve gear to be made up and fixed onto the frames as the leading drivers were dropped into their horns. There was no way of testing it as an 0-6-0 beforehand (which I always make my six-coupled locos into to start with). Naturally, I altered the thing to suit and was promptly told off by him at the Nottingham show one year! Oddly enough, mine is the only one I've seen running at a show since. Please, all those out there with running-as-designed LMR K2s, please post on this thread. Other than that, the kit is brilliant.

 

Other irritants include frames which end up too wide for OO once the bearings are in (several etched kits I've made, including LRM). Do designers assume only Gibson, Sharman or Ultrascale drivers will be employed? Or, in the case of the 0-8-4T, frames which are too wide for EM (Markits wheels). The outside faces of the bearings have had to be filed right down. Not only that, I've had to take the splasher fronts off and move them out about .5mm to accommodate the wider Markits wheels. I know Gibson drivers are recommended, but many prefer the easier-to-use and more-robust Markits, even in EM. Another thing is the prescriptive path recommended for construction. Allan Sibley suggests fixing on the footplate valances AFTER most of the body construction has taken place. They're supplied as flimsy 'L' sections. Scale they might be, but a rigid footplate is a must for any subsequent superstructure construction in my view, so I soldered on strips of 1 mm brass bar BEFORE the upper-works were contemplated. Yes, I have to drill small holes for handrails through them but it makes a most rigid structure to start with, and it's impossible to tell that the valances are not an 'L' section.

 

In my view, loco kits should be designed with the simplest procedure as a start-point. The 0-8-4T is designed to be sprung-compensated. It has to be modified to be made rigid. Thus, articulated rods and sprung hornblocks are all supplied at source. This, in my view is the wrong way round. For those who like complications, let them do the modifications - aren't they the more competent to do this, anyway? Comet chassis allow for this - rigid at source, but capable of modification if so desired. SE Finecast frames allow the same. Thus, you can have rigid or jointed rods as you wish, or fixed or sprung/compensated bearings to your heart's content. PDK also allow rigid or compensated procedures, but the chassis are rigid at source. DJH give you rigid everything, of course.

 

I'm not suggesting a dumbing-down approach to loco-building. Mine have to work; reliably, powerfully, sweetly, quietly, slowly or quickly without fuss, failure or derailment. And, they do, as I hope visitors will testify.  

Hello Tony,

 

I know of your views on Malcolm's design for the K2. Designers all have their idiosyncrasies, some of which can make life a little more difficult.

 

There has been a K2 build thread here on RMweb;

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/65981-lrm-k22-61775-loch-treig/

 

Your and others comments about gauge considerations when designing a kit is interesting. Before the advent of the Mashima 10xx flat cans it was just possible to squeeze a 12xx motor between OO frames if you pushed them out to the maximum for the B2B. Keeping the frames close to the back of the wheel also improves the look of things, irrespective of gauge.

 

Most kit manufacturers design for all three 4mm gauges although some do seem to start at the 18.83 end and work backwards. I have a set of dimensions I use based on the S4 Society, EMGS and DOGA published standards. Nearly everything I have designed uses wheels only available from AGW or Sharman Wheels (London Road Models are able to obtain batches of specific "unique" wheel sizes from SW) so making allowance for Markits wheels wasn't realy relevant.

 

Sometimes the features of the prototype drives the design of the model. For example the LNWR Teutonic has "uncoupled" driving wheels behind outside Joy valve gear. The best way to deal with that is to make the wheelset "drop in" to the chassis.

 

 

On the other hand the LNWR 4-4-0 Jubilee has outside cylinders with inside valve gear so it was easier to make the cylinders, etc. removable for installation after the wheels were fitted. The first photo shows the OO test build, with the cylinder/slidebars/motion plate shown in the second.

 

 

I always design locos for John Redrup at LRM on the assumption that the majority will be built to OO or EM gauge, so they have rigid chassis with the facility to convert to compensation or springing.

 

I have also learned that, as a kit designer, you are damned if you do and damned if you don't.

 

Jol

[Andy Reichert]

I remember sitting opposite Malcolm as he designed the K2 artwork and I raised similar concerns as the design developed.

 

Every once in a while he would listen to my ideas and alter things but not this time!

 

In his words, it was designed to have the wheels removable using compensated or sprung axleboxes in hornguides and if anybody wanted to build it rigid that was their problem!

 

I have one stashed away and when I get around to building it, mine will be modified as Tony (W) has done. Malcolm didn't really approve of the idea that somebody might actually want to modify and even, dare I say it, improve one of his kits! He was good at many things and a great friend for over 30 years but admitting that he might have made an error never came easily to him!

 

I think I have seen one running in GNR livery on a layout and I have run Malcolm's model but there are not as many about as there would have been if it had been a bit more straightforward in design.

 

Tony (Gee)

I'm actually currently working on several designs for some coach and traction bogies for my HO and P:87 group (so same B-B clearances as for 00 and maybe even a cross scale usability potential). I can confirm that I spend aat least 10 times as much time and effort on trying to ensure first that the component count is minimal, and second that there is at least one straightforward sequence where all the interlocking parts can simply and correctly be assembled.

 

I haven't got around to a specific steam loco chassis design, although I do play round with many general ideas in my spare time. The one thing I note with having working traditional hornblocks, is that the coupling rod distance between wheels is actually going to change slightly as bumps are encountered, so that it is not just coupling rod joints that are needed between adjacent rods, but a small amount of permitted "sliding" elongation as well.

 

Andy

[Izzy]

Hi Tony,

 

Interesting, your tussle with the 0-8-4T. Having built the odd loco or two in a variety of scales I have over time come to the conclusion that the sectional coupling rod pivoting around the wheel crankpin is a flawed design, and I'm not at all surprised, especially with an eight-coupled chassis, that you hit problems even if the chassis has no vertical axle movement (VAM). Although it can work, all too often, aided by a small amount of play in the crankpins of the individual sections, it can allow the combined rod crankpin centres dimensions to vary continuously from that needed, so poor, erratic, and stuttering running per wheel revolution occurs. The solution I have found is either to arrange solid/fixed rods as you have used (they can still work with a VAM chassis), or ensure that the rods are pivoted as per the prototype by being pinned around the knuckle joint (sometimes you realise why certain things were done the way they were) so the rod dimensions remain constant.

 

Although I favour some form of vertical axle movement chassis for better electrical pick-up even if it's not needed for track holding (which I found fairly necessary for P4), it has to be said that a fixed axle chassis has many advantages on it's side, not least simplicity and ease of construction, and especially when easily demountable wheels are used (Romfords/Slaters). However if wheel sets that can't easily be removed from their axles are used (Gibson/Sharman etc) then being able to drop them out of the chassis by some means for easy setting of the quartering, b-t-b, and general fiddling is a great advantage, whether VAM is involved or not. This is a must for me as I rarely manage to get a chassis to run exactly right to my satisfaction first time.

 

Izzy

[Michael Edge]

Nothing wrong with coupling rods articulated on the crankpins, the LNW 0-8-4Ts were unusual in having knuckle jointed rods, most of the LNW 8 coupled locos had three separate rods. early Hunslet diesels had the same arrangement. If it works full size it works for a model.

With regard to frame width, using Romford/Markits wheels means you can take off the bearings flush with the frame face - there is a raised boss on the back of these wheels. To make this easier I usually fit top hat bushes from the inside. Markits wheels at EM gauge are actually overscale outside the wheel faces and this can cause problems. My kit designs start from the 00 width which is what the majority will be built at, wider gauges are provided for and clearances checked at least up to full size measurements.

[Jol Wilkinson]

I share Mike's view on this.

 

I have only built one 0-8-0 in recent years, a LNWR C class from a LRM kit with Sharman wheels. It has a "rigid" driven rear axle, sprung third axle and compensation on the leading pair. I used (what else?) LRM hornblocks and bearings. The wheels were assembled with a GW wheel press and it required only slight "fettling" on one coupling road hole to get it running smoothly. The coupling rods are all "separate" and jointed on the crankpins, as the prototype was

 

I don't put that down to any skill on my behalf, simply using good components, the right jigs/tools for the job and taking care.

 

Jol

[t-b-g]

I'm actually currently working on several designs for some coach and traction bogies for my HO and P:87 group (so same B-B clearances as for 00 and maybe even a cross scale usability potential). I can confirm that I spend aat least 10 times as much time and effort on trying to ensure first that the component count is minimal, and second that there is at least one straightforward sequence where all the interlocking parts can simply and correctly be assembled.

 

I haven't got around to a specific steam loco chassis design, although I do play round with many general ideas in my spare time. The one thing I note with having working traditional hornblocks, is that the coupling rod distance between wheels is actually going to change slightly as bumps are encountered, so that it is not just coupling rod joints that are needed between adjacent rods, but a small amount of permitted "sliding" elongation as well.

 

Andy

 

You are spot on with that comment and it is one of the reasons I prefer (personal choice - other variations and opinions are available!!) to build my locos rigid, as I don't think that anything else is necessary for working in EM.

 

I find the construction easier, checking clearances in splashers and for brake gear is easier if your wheels can't move up and down and you don't need any more than a minimum clearance in the crankpins. In many ways, you can build things with smaller clearances between wheels/splashers etc. if the wheels can't move about.

 

I tried to explain to Malcolm that it was not possible for the K2 to be built in the way that I normally work but all he said was that I should change the way I build things and do them his way instead!

 

I have some old spare Romford wheel that I use for assembly and testing and then I put the "final" wheels (usually Gibson nowadays but I do have a stock of Sharmans from way back when for some projects).

 

Building the K2 rigid with the cylinders on and then swapping the wheels would have been impossible, although a rigid front axle secured by a keeper plate would do the trick. That would need modification to the kit parts and I quite understand that many folk don't want to start doing that sort of work although it is not really that difficult to make a slotted bearing and a means of holding the axle in place.

 

I do feel that some kits have rather more parts than they really need and I often look and wonder why somebody didn't do a half etched detail overlay rather than put in 26 small detail parts to attach. It is almost as if some kit designers sometimes just like to show off just how small and neat they can draw things for an etch!

 

So I fully agree with your design aims!

 

Tony 

[Tony Wright]

The Gresley's look really good Tony. When I did mine I couldn't find any decent photo's of the RF's roof. I just wondered what your source you used?

 

Thanks 

David,

 

I used the MJT drawing and the Isinglass drawing. Both are different from each other, though neither shows longitudinal pipes running to the end on the roof. The Isinglass drawing shows no grab rails on the roof, but a short conduit off-centre on the corridor side. I've looked at prototype pictures and they just muddle the issue to some extent.

 

I'm afraid (hypocrisy rules!) that given the nature of the conversions that the overall detail is yet one more area where my sketch-book approach is to the fore. The RF used a Sleeper donor, which has turnbuckle underframes, dating the vehicle to pre-1934. So it could be a Dia 10C or Dia 144 dependent on body-width (is this right?). There were also detail differences in the window ventilators. The Sleeper donor gives four battery boxes outside the central trussing, so it's part right. Like the roof, my sketch-book approach to the underframe has resulted in some compromises.

 

The resin dynamos, as questioned by Jonathan, are from Dean Sidings or Kean Systems - I forget.

 

In defence (more hypocrisy), these really are 'layout' carriages, and the pair illustrated will function in an eleven car train. So, rushing by, who sees, who knows and who cares? All the above said, the finish will be as good as I can get and, I stress again, such conversions should be within the reach of the beginner/less-experienced. As long as they're prepared to have a go.

 

Finally, the choice of 'Masterclass' to describe these type of conversions in the current BRM Annual was not mine.  

[Tony Wright]

Not sure if these are of any help. My early Gresley Diner that preceded the clipper sided/recessed door diners. MJT etched sides I think....

WEB Gresley diner A.jpg

 

Don't ask me where I got details of the roof as I have forgotten....

 

WEB Gresley diner B.jpg

 

Paired with an open diner third....

WEB Gresley diner C.jpg

Superb work, Larry.

 

Many thanks.

[Tony Wright]

Hi Tony

 

Last night, while looking through some of my books, I found pictures of N7's on the North Woolwich branch. The pictures confirm that you are correct (does this surprise us?) about the positioning of the number so at some point in the future I will have to reposition the numbers correctly (unless you wish to undertake the task as penance for pointing out the mistake in the first place!   )

 

Phil

Phil,

 

Bring it up when you visit. It'll be my pleasure....................

[Mallard60022]

Quick question Tony, are there any Gresley TOs of an early enough Diagram to have Turnbuckle U Frames? They would need to have survived until mid 60s for my purposes.

If so, would you mind telling me if the sides are available as I don't have access to all sources of info? MJT D27A any good?

Thanks, Phil

Edited January 26, 2015 by Mallard60022

[davidw]

 

I used the MJT drawing and the Isinglass drawing. Both are different from each other, though neither shows longitudinal pipes running to the end on the roof. The Isinglass drawing shows no grab rails on the roof, but a short conduit off-centre on the corridor side. I've looked at prototype pictures and they just muddle the issue to some extent.

 

 

 

 

 

I glad I'm not the only one who was muddled.... Cheers

Edited January 26, 2015 by davidw

[Tony Wright]

Quick question Tony, are there any Gresley TOs of an early enough Diagram to have Turnbuckle U Frames? They would need to have survived until mid 60s for my purposes.

If so, would you mind telling me if the sides are available as I don't have access to all sources of info? MJT D27A any good?

Thanks, Phil

Phil,

 

After just the briefest of glances, Nick Campling writes that the Gresley TOs were built after 1934, so would be on angle trussing. 

 

The MJT Dia. 27A is a superb product - I'll show you when you next come down.

 

 

Just to pick up on some earlier comments about chassis and rods..........

 

 

Here's my London Road J6 chassis with replacement bullhead rail rods. I've soldered on the bosses from the originals. I just couldn't get the jointed rods to work.

Bearings had to be filed right down to give clearance, even for OO. 

 

 

Can you see that the rods are a 'cheat'?

 

 

I did the same with the K2, also making it a rigid 0-6-0 to start with. Poor Malcolm, he must have had apoplexy!

 

 

With the boss from the jointed rod soldered on, it looks all right to me.

 

 

As a layout loco, isn't this good enough? And it works really well.

 

 

Of course, with a Mr Rathbone paint job, my fudging is lifted beyond mediocrity.

 

 

And, as a layout loco, isn't it important that it works properly on the layout for which it was made? Rigid chassis, rigid rods but no derailing, twitching, lurching or stuttering. KISS, I think. 

[coachmann]

The D27 open third (MJT do it) as illustrated with my kitchen diner was built 1926-7 and has turnbuckle trussing. They had 2+1 seating but the larger seat would take three passengers for normal purposes and two when used for meal purposes. Some were actually branded as Restaurant Cars (not that I've seen pictures of such). Info from LNER Carriages....

 

[Mallard60022]

Thanks chaps. I did some 'digging' last night and the 'opens' used with Restaurant Cars/Kitchen/Parlour Cars seem to have been cascaded to X Country/Special/ Excursion duties late in life. Thus the D27 as Coach illustrates (beautiful by the way) and possibly the D27A mentioned by Tony (thanks mate) can be the candidates. It's just that I found my two Hornby Sleepers with Turnbuckle. They were spares in case I mess up my RCAF conversion (again thanks Tony - could be finished next week). If they stay as 'spares' they could be transformed and become part of the infamous Cleethorpes/Exmouth/Sidmouth........what fun.

P

[Tony Wright]

 

Current state of the art in O Gauge RTR, just photographed for BRM - Heljan's BG in WR livery. 

 

A full review will appear soon in the magazine.

 

 

Also being written up for the magazine, my progress so far with the Brassmasters 0-8-4T in EM. But, is this sort of thing 'suitable' nowadays for a mainstream model railway magazine? It always used to be, but with so much emphasis placed now on RTR excellence (take the carriage above), this sort of constructional article is very niche-market. I suppose, in a way, it always was, but talk of the necessity of 'specialist' tools like bending bars, rolling bars, pillar drills and the like can be as off-putting as they can be 'educational'. Or can they? I admit, I don't have the answer. On a personal level, this is 0-8-4T is much more up my street than my recently-completed Hornby 'Shire' conversion, but (I hope without appearing a smart-a***e), the latter is much more achievable for the beginner/inexperienced. 

 

To return to my question, with the inevitable demise of kit-building (cause and effect?) and the 'loss' of so many build-it-yourself products, won't the hobby be poorer? Certainly, I cannot see the likes of a Beames 0-8-4T ever being available RTR in my lifetime, or my children's, or my (not at the moment, anyway) grandchildren. So, if you want one, build this, pay someone to build it for you or wait for the forthcoming technologies. Anyway, by the time one might be possible (3D printing?), anyone who can remember them will probably be extinct. 

 

If you want to see progress so far, I'll be taking it to Stafford on Saturday (to be tested on Merthyr Riverside, its future home) and it'll be on my stand at Doncaster. Please come along and have a chat. 

[PGC]

Not sure what is causing the demise of kit building, but if it's happening, is there a way that something can be done to reverse the trend?

 

Last night SWMBO was watching the review of last years Sewing Bee and I happened to be in the room at the same time. The woman who won has now started a charity teaching children how to sew, and it costs them nothing to come along, they have material supplied, sewing machines etc.

 

I can't help but wonder if there's a template there that model railway clubs could modify to introduce youngsters to the joy of building their own kits etc.

 

Phil

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

I think to some extent the 'demise' of hand building (in any hobby) is an inevitable consequence of the elimination of practical skills as a desirable part of education.  I wish it were otherwise.

 

I suspect people of my age may well be among the last who had any tutored instruction in making things.  Many of those long past lessons serve me well now, I only wish I'd paid more attention in metalwork and consequently felt more able to build a kit.

 

I know I should be able to do it, but it would be nice to have some experience to build on before forking over a bundle of cash for something that may or may not fight me every inch of the way, and worse - end up not running.

 

When I am King, everyone who wants to will be given free lessons in kit construction and any other practical skills they wish!  I fear for a country of 'consumers' not 'producers'.

[coachmann]

Current state of the art in O Gauge RTR, just photographed for BRM - Heljan's BG in WR livery. 

It doesn't do it for me. I realise this comes over as the negativity usual on these pages, but the door windows do not appear to go high enough. The roof profile also looks suspect. As regards choc & cream, I just wonder how many full brakes were finished in this livery to (presumably) run in top line passenger trains

 

The Beames 0-8-4T is looking good. It shouldn't be too difficult 'cladding' a Bachmann G2 chassis and boiler with a slightly wider running plate, round-top firebox, tanks/bunker and cab in plastikard, for those who prefer to work in plastic. Otherwise, buy the etched body kit and bogie and do the necessary...

 

I have done most LNWR engines in the past using metal or plastic sheet, as I was fascinated by the variety produced by this company.

Edited January 29, 2015 by coachmann

[buffalo]

Of course it is suitable! If the practical articles in mainstream mags descend to little more than how to renumber an x or, at best, a lttle basic weathering. how will newer modellers ever discover that there is so much more to the hobby than opening boxes? Without articles about builds like your 0-8-4T, more and more will fall into believing that "no one needs kits because rtr is so good". When the rtr manufacturers start to give us scale thickness frames and inside motion (dummy will be good enough for most), maybe I'll start to believe it, but not yet.

 

As to the oft heralded "demise of kit-building", is it really inevitable? Even if supplies of new kits ever dries up, I suspect there are enough unbuilt kits out there to keep the second-hand market going for a generation or two. Similarly, kit shortages may well lead kit builders on to scratch building. After all, some build kits because their chosen prototypes are not available in rtr and others scratch build because they are not available in kits. Such folk have always been a minority, but that's no reason to exclude such work from the mags. As to 3D printing, remember that someone still has to do the design work.

 

Phil's point reminds me that there appears to be growth in many forms of craft skills, so surely they should be encouraged in railway modelling?

 

Nick

[corneliuslundie]

Agree about the BG on both counts.

 

On Tony's comments, I did much of my most successful kit and scratch building while abroad with very few tools and just a kitchen table. I do have some bending bars but no pillar drill or rolling bars and I certainly could not justify buying a pillar drill for what is after all a hobby. Very different for Tony of course. Like many others on here I learned my woodworking and metalworking at school and from my father. My electronics skills ceased to be useful when valves went out of fashion, though I used in my tens to knock up active mixers when one was needed for a recording session in our tape recording club (another extinct species). I hope I have passed on as many of these skills as I could to my son (and my daughter who could put together a Slaters wagon kit to a very respectable standard at the age of 12).

 

So I am a little concerned if it is felt that a comprehensive workshop is a prerequisite for serious modelling.

 

But my son was of the last generation who could tinker with the mechanical innards of cars and no-one would now knock up a mixer from discrete components.

 

That doesn't mean that kit or scratch building need die, though, but it may mean that kits have to be designed with the available skills in mind - and some of these are new skills which my generation probably doesn't have.

 

But don't despair. Look at the wargaming world where there is plenty of skill and artistry displayed by many enthusiasts. The question is how to make model railways popular with the young rather than being seen as nerdy.