Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

Hi Tony

 

Super model, if you don't mind me asking is it for yourself to run on Little Bytham, if so I look forward to seeing it running in its finished paintwork.

 

Regards

 

David

David,

 

I don't mind your asking at all. 

 

It's not for me (I already have three A2/2 models), it's for a friend - who'll happily run it on LB as well as his own layout. That's why 60505 was chosen - one of those I haven't got. 

, but not impossible to etch them upside down.

 

Mike.

But they weren't etched upside down.................

[Headstock]

Good evening Andrew,

 

My apologies for not replying to your question about the roof brackets on the triplet. I forgot!

 

I've now fitted the 'Kings Cross-Newcastle' destination boards. Since these more or less cover the brackets, my 'sketch-book' approach assumes there are brackets underneath. 

 

I have to say I'm not a great user of the Markits deluxe crankpins. I much prefer the old style, where (yet again!) soldering is needed to secure the crankpin washers. I used the deluxe type on this A2/2 because the holes in the rods are rather large (DJH used to provide special drivers for screw-in crankpins). They don't supply wheels any more with their kits, but the rods still have big holes, which the deluxe crankpins fit perfectly. 

 

A 2 2 15.jpg

 

At close-range, the crankpins are a bit obese, though they're easy to fit - and easy to shear off if too much pressure is applied with the Romford screwdriver!

 

 A 2 2 16.jpg

 

Now complete and ready for painting, with just a few detail bits and pieces to add. As for the 'pins at this range? It's a layout loco, and it's just taken 15 bogies around LB with no effort. With the motion eventually weathered down, the 'pins won't be too obtrusive. 

 

Thank;s Tony

 

it's been a while since I've built a DJH kit, I do recall the slop. I think that I will have probably re bushed the, rods and I certainly used a fair amount of Comet components. Despite my dislike of the 'deluxe' crank pins, the valve gear part of the A2/2  kit is quite reasonable and the motion bracket and slide bars look quite effective, better than that supplied in a lot of kits and any of the RTR locomotives. I wonder If the a three bar expansion link and lifting links would fit between the inner and outer face without adjustment to the bracket?

 

With regard to the triplet, nice to know that you had a plan on that one, not having any photographs of the later type, in the later era I wasn't sure if if that was a prototypical feature or not. As far as I recall, the streamlined stock  didn't receive destination board brackets until they were painted maroon, probably in conjunction with the introduction of the Talisman service. Unlike the stock for the Coronation and West Ridding services, the spare set did have destination board brackets. The reason for this was that it was not branded for a particular service and could stand in for the stock in either of the named trains. It makes the carriages quite easy to spot in photographs.

[Tony Wright]

Thank;s Tony

 

it's been a while since I've built a DJH kit, I do recall the slop. I think that I will have probably re bushed the, rods and I certainly used a fair amount of Comet components. Despite my dislike of the 'deluxe' crank pins, the valve gear part of the A2/2  kit is quite reasonable and the motion bracket and slide bars look quite effective, better than that supplied in a lot of kits and any of the RTR locomotives. I wonder If the a three bar expansion link and lifting links would fit between the inner and outer face without adjustment to the bracket?

 

With regard to the triplet, nice to know that you had a plan on that one, not having any photographs of the later type, in the later era I wasn't sure if if that was a prototypical feature or not. As far as I recall, the streamlined stock  didn't receive destination board brackets until they were painted maroon, probably in conjunction with the introduction of the Talisman service. Unlike the stock for the Coronation and West Ridding services, the spare set did have destination board brackets. The reason for this was that it was not branded for a particular service and could stand in for the stock in either of the named trains. It makes the carriages quite easy to spot in photographs.

Andrew,

 

There appears to be enough space between the inner and outer motion support brackets to fit twin expansion links either side of the radius rod at the die block. I never bother (though there should be two, I admit). When the lot's weathered, and bowling by at speed, nobody notices.

 

As I say, I only ever build 'layout locos', full of short-cuts and compromises, but they do go, which is the most important thing.  

 

I agree about RTR motion. Time was when it used to be hugely over scale (and stamped out). Now, it's too flimsy and just looks far too lightweight. During stints of loco doctoring, on quite a few occasions I've had current RTR locos with comments such as 'It's got a tight spot, or it's jammed up'. Often, this is attributable to someone having squashed the gear in picking the loco up. Though I don't pick my locos up by the motion, if I were to, the gear certainly wouldn't just squash in.

Edited December 7, 2017 by Tony Wright

[cctransuk]

, but not impossible to etch them upside down.

 

Mike.

 

Uhhh ???

 

If they're etched upside down - turn 'em over and they're the right way up !!!

 

You do get a pair, after all - one is bound to be the right way round, and the other is for the other side.

 

...... or am I missing something?

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[micklner]

Tony,

       Do you add washers to the Crankpins as they appear to all have a" very large" amount of slop, especially on the Con rod and Coupling Rod pin on the A2/2. I have never used the deluxe version , I don't think I will either in the future on seeing them fitted to a model.  I would bush or replace the coupling rods if the holes were that large personally. Are the frames still slab sided pieces of brass , they don't look like they are etched in the photos ?. If they are, DJH need to upgrade these kits .

 

    I have a DJH C7 which I have built, the chassis on the that was simply dire , cylinders too low etc etc. Their LNER A8/H1 and B16 are all well known as being impossible to make to go around curves as well as still supplied with slab side  frames, due to the front Bogie shorting on the cylinders.

 

      R.T.R rods are a a bit thin, especially on some of the Hornby coupling rods/motion, however what are r.tr makers to do ? if they were overthick , then there would still be complaints !! Compared to offerings from a few years ago we have never had it so good.

Edited December 7, 2017 by micklner

[Headstock]

Andrew,

 

There appears to be enough space between the inner and outer motion support brackets to fit twin expansion links either side of the radius rod at the die block. I never bother (though there should be two, I admit). When the lot's weathered, and bowling by at speed, nobody notices.

 

As I say, I only ever build 'layout locos', full of short-cuts and compromises, but they do go, which is the most important thing.  

 

I agree about RTR motion. Time was when it used to be hugely over scale (and stamped out). Now, it's too flimsy and just looks far too lightweight. During stints of loco doctoring, on quite a few occasions I've had current RTR locos with comments such as 'It's got a tight spot, or it's jammed up'. Often, this is attributable to someone having squashed the gear in picking the loco up. Though I don't pick my locos up by the motion, if I were to, the gear certainly wouldn't just squash in.

 

Tony,

 

the nice thing about your photographs of kits under construction is that they give a first rate account of what you are going to get. For people like myself who perhaps like to go further with the adding, altering or tweaking of bits on a kit your photographs are an excellent resource. My tweaking is not a criticism of either the kit or your build, more something that I get enjoyment out of. I have probably mentioned before, with only fifteen trains constructed, I don't really require a vast fleet of locomotives. I like to concentrate more on each individual engine rather than trying to provide a locomotive for each individual piece of rolling stock. This year I should get the chance to expand the fleet a moderate amount. I wouldn't want to go to crazy.

 

Tony,

       Do you add washers to the Crankpins as they appear to all have a" very large" amount of slop, especially on the Con rod and Coupling Rod pin on the A2/2. I have never used the deluxe version , I don't think I will either in the future on seeing them fitted to a model.  I would bush or replace the coupling rods if the holes were that large personally. Are the frames still slab sided pieces of brass , they don't look like they are etched in the photos ?. If they are, DJH need to upgrade these kits .

 

    I have a DJH C7 which I have built, the chassis on the that was simply dire , cylinders too low etc etc. Their LNER A8/H1 and B16 are all well known as being impossible to make to go around curves as well as still supplied with slab side  frames, due to the front Bogie shorting on the cylinders.

 

      R.T.R rods are a a bit thin, especially on some of the Hornby coupling rods/motion, however what are r.tr makers to do ? if they were overthick , then there would still be complaints !! Compared to offerings from a few years ago we have never had it so good.

 

.There's no point defending RTR valve gear and chassis Mick, both are pretty rubbish, in fact, compared to some of the advances in the presentations of the bodies they sit under. they are distinctly last century. Tony's efforts are superior in every respect.

[Barry Ten]

I used the De-Luxe crankpins on this pannier chassis:

 

 

That was because I ordered them by mistake, however I didn't find them too bad to use. I was a bit worried about the amount I had to open up the rods, compared to the usual type, but once they're fitted, I don't find them too obtrusive and they've certainly been fine in service.

 

Having just melted some Scale-Link wheels using the normal crankpins, by lingering too long with the iron, I'd certainly use the De-Luxe ones on any future Scale-Link wheels that I might have in the kit pile, since they seem very well suited to all-plastic wheels.

 

Alastair

[t-b-g]

I am sorry to say that I find most kit valve gear very disappointing too.

 

It usually looks OK whizzing round at a scale 65mph (a Tony Wright "layout loco") but comparing a model to a photo of the real thing often throws up a number of discrepancies and the DJH valve gear has its fair share of errors and compromises, which jump out at me in a still photo.

 

Modern RTR valve gear has improved over the years and the main problem is that it now seems to be almost too flimsy. It looks better but lacks "meat" in the thickness. Kit valve gear has stayed very much in the 1970s with the exception of kits like the Finney ones. 

 

If anybody wants to see what I mean, look up some Martin Finney LNER kit valve gear and compare it to the DJH.

[Enterprisingwestern]

Uhhh ???

 

If they're etched upside down - turn 'em over and they're the right way up !!!

 

You do get a pair, after all - one is bound to be the right way round, and the other is for the other side.

 

...... or am I missing something?

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

What you are missing is the fact that some brake hangers are etched complete with brake shoes/backing plates/frames as one sub structure, therefore you can't "turn em over".

Having had one kit with this fault, it is not impossible, despite the "experts" protestations.

 

Mike.

[cctransuk]

... some brake hangers are etched complete with brake shoes/backing plates/frames as one sub structure ...

 

 

I can't visualise this - are you saying that both the LH and RH brake hangers / shoes are all etched as a single piece?

 

I would under no circumstances describe myself as an expert - more a bodger who usually, eventually, manages to get chassis to work fairly smoothly.

 

Eg.  - the Impetus chassis for PWM652 currently on the workbench was, despite being built in a Poppy's jig, persistently tight at one point in the revolution. Not for the first time, close inspection of the crankpins in their holes revealed the necessity to slightly 'oval' one hole with a rat-tail file. That's a bodger's solution, not an expert's!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[LNER4479]

Modern RTR valve gear has improved over the years and the main problem is that it now seems to be almost too flimsy. It looks better but lacks "meat" in the thickness. Kit valve gear has stayed very much in the 1970s with the exception of kits like the Finney ones. 

From my observations, there is a difference between the two main RTR manufacturers here. Bachmann have gone to some trouble to make their connecting rods quite chunky (they look like castings) and the eccentric cranks similarly so they do indeed have 'meat'. Not so sure about the slide bars though. Hornby's meanwhile are all thin plate - there are stories of new Hornby locos with 'clicking' sounds which usual manifests itself in the conn. rod catching the motion pin on the front drivers, resulting in motion jamming and distortion. I've also suffered an eccentric crank fracture in the past - repaired by soldering a strengthener on the back. I can't imagine either of those two things happening with Bachmann locos.

 

Those kits where you have to sweat two pieces together to make a coupling or connecting rod at least result in some measure of thickness to the rods. I seem to recall that the Comet chassis I made for a HD 8F(!) used that technique and always thought that was a decent kit, valve gear wise in terms of the overall appearance when complete.

Edited December 8, 2017 by LNER4479

[Tony Wright]

Tony,

       Do you add washers to the Crankpins as they appear to all have a" very large" amount of slop, especially on the Con rod and Coupling Rod pin on the A2/2. I have never used the deluxe version , I don't think I will either in the future on seeing them fitted to a model.  I would bush or replace the coupling rods if the holes were that large personally. Are the frames still slab sided pieces of brass , they don't look like they are etched in the photos ?. If they are, DJH need to upgrade these kits .

 

    I have a DJH C7 which I have built, the chassis on the that was simply dire , cylinders too low etc etc. Their LNER A8/H1 and B16 are all well known as being impossible to make to go around curves as well as still supplied with slab side  frames, due to the front Bogie shorting on the cylinders.

 

      R.T.R rods are a a bit thin, especially on some of the Hornby coupling rods/motion, however what are r.tr makers to do ? if they were overthick , then there would still be complaints !! Compared to offerings from a few years ago we have never had it so good.

Mick,

 

I didn't add spacing washers to the pins, though, perhaps, I should have done. The deluxe pins do protrude a bit, and it would be better (in my opinion) if two lengths were sold - one for just securing the rod (short) and another where valve gear has to be anchored (longer). 

 

The A2/2 frames are etched, in nice thick brass. 

 

I agree about some of the older DJH kits, particularly those representing NER types, need an upgrade. However, when you say 'impossible to make go round curves', I assume you mean model railway curves. I once (with the help of a guy clever at maths) worked out what the minimum radius from the prototype - continuous check rail, only allowed in sheds, sidings, collieries, docks, etc - would be if scaled down to 4mm to the foot. It was something approaching 15'. On a main line, in a station, one could treble that! We're expecting our tight-cylindered locos to go round 30", which, I agree, is impossible. I've built umpteen NER types, and all I do is shave off the inside of the cylinders until there's no interference. Then, smear a bit of Araldite on, just to make sure. 

 

If you think 'we've' never had it so good with RTR, then I'm very happy, for everyone. That said, don't expect kit-builders to be particularly bothered, one way or another; except when a new RTR item renders an equivalent kit untenable.  

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

s 

If I ever needed inspiration to complete the 'Wolf of Badenock' that's it! Just a thought - would it be possible to see a photo of the smoke box wings and front profile? Thanks

Thanks David,

 

However, I'm not sure that posting a close-up picture of the wing deflectors and front profile is entirely a good idea. What you'll be doing is 'modelling a model', which, in my view, is not a good idea. I have no absolute proof that what I've done is right. It looks 'right' to me, because I've consulted dozens of photographs and two drawings. Modelling the prototype is the best advice I can give. 

 

I don't mind showing close-ups of valve gear parts for instance, because these are usually much-simplified and compromised. None-working body detail needs to be sourced from the real thing. 

[LNER4479]

I agree about some of the older DJH kits, particularly those representing NER types, need an upgrade. However, when you say 'impossible to make go round curves', I assume you mean model railway curves. I once (with the help of a guy clever at maths) worked out what the minimum radius from the prototype - continuous check rail, only allowed in sheds, sidings, collieries, docks, etc - would be if scaled down to 4mm to the foot. It was something approaching 15'. On a main line, in a station, one could treble that!

I think either the maths or the memory might have gone slightly awry there, Tony?

 

I once saw the curvature diagram for the entire ECML. The curve through York station is 11 chains radius; that scales down to about 9 foot radius in 4mm (give or take). A big pacific would typically be shown on its diagram as minimum 6 chains, 4-and-a-half dead slow.

Edited December 8, 2017 by LNER4479

[Enterprisingwestern]

I can't visualise this - are you saying that both the LH and RH brake hangers / shoes are all etched as a single piece?

 

 

Precisely that, I can't vouch for locomotive kits, but there a few wagon and coach kits using this method, not always correctly!

 

Mike.

[Tony Wright]

I am sorry to say that I find most kit valve gear very disappointing too.

 

It usually looks OK whizzing round at a scale 65mph (a Tony Wright "layout loco") but comparing a model to a photo of the real thing often throws up a number of discrepancies and the DJH valve gear has its fair share of errors and compromises, which jump out at me in a still photo.

 

Modern RTR valve gear has improved over the years and the main problem is that it now seems to be almost too flimsy. It looks better but lacks "meat" in the thickness. Kit valve gear has stayed very much in the 1970s with the exception of kits like the Finney ones. 

 

If anybody wants to see what I mean, look up some Martin Finney LNER kit valve gear and compare it to the DJH.

 

Like this? Though this was stationary for the picture, I actually wound it up to over 100 mph!

 

I agree that Finney kits are the 'top of the tree', but they'd be 'useless' on a layout like Little Bytham. Why? Because I'd have to live at least three times longer than the oldest recorded human being to be able to build enough locos from the kits. 

 

Martin once told me that his kits were 'by the far the best value on the market, even though they cost the most' (in 4mm scale). How come? 'Because they take at least five times as long to build, so your pound per hour rate is exceptionally good'. 

 

I was once asked to quote for building a Finney A3. Since, at the time, a DJH A3 built by me, painted by Ian Rathbone, would have cost the customer around £800.00, once I quoted (assuming I could build it), all I saw was dust! 

 

Compromised though the gear on my big (and small) engines might be, I cannot ever recall taking close note of the minutiae of detail in the (whirling) motion of a Gresley, Thompson or Peppercorn big engine as it belted past my viewpoint at Markham Moor, Eaton Wood, Retford, Botany Bay, Scrooby, Riccall, Thirsk or Darlington, or place in between where they went fast. 

 

Horses for courses, as has so often been said. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[Tony Wright]

I think either the maths or the memory might have gone slightly awry there, Tony?

 

I once saw the curvature diagram for the entire ECML. The curve through York station is 11 chains radius; that scales down to about 9 foot radius in 4mm (give or take). A big pacific would typically be shown on its diagram as minimum 6 chains, 4-and-a-half dead slow.

Probably both, Graham.

 

Taking your (much more accurate) figures, that still means something like six feet for the tightest radius (am I right?). That's at least double (and more) than what we live with on our model railways. Given nine feet, we'd go through that at a scale 90!

[Headstock]

I used the De-Luxe crankpins on this pannier chassis:

 

 

That was because I ordered them by mistake, however I didn't find them too bad to use. I was a bit worried about the amount I had to open up the rods, compared to the usual type, but once they're fitted, I don't find them too obtrusive and they've certainly been fine in service.

 

Having just melted some Scale-Link wheels using the normal crankpins, by lingering too long with the iron, I'd certainly use the De-Luxe ones on any future Scale-Link wheels that I might have in the kit pile, since they seem very well suited to all-plastic wheels.

 

Alastair

 

The knuckle of the coupling rod is completely obscured by the 'deluxe' crankpin thing. I'm not certain why something called 'deluxe' gives an inferior finish to the standard and cheaper product.

 

I am sorry to say that I find most kit valve gear very disappointing too.

 

It usually looks OK whizzing round at a scale 65mph (a Tony Wright "layout loco") but comparing a model to a photo of the real thing often throws up a number of discrepancies and the DJH valve gear has its fair share of errors and compromises, which jump out at me in a still photo.

 

Modern RTR valve gear has improved over the years and the main problem is that it now seems to be almost too flimsy. It looks better but lacks "meat" in the thickness. Kit valve gear has stayed very much in the 1970s with the exception of kits like the Finney ones. 

 

If anybody wants to see what I mean, look up some Martin Finney LNER kit valve gear and compare it to the DJH.

t-g-b,

 

You may wish to compare the motion, valve gear and their accoutrements on the DJH A2/2 to the nearest RTR equivalent. That would be the Bachmann V2 and K3. I remain confident that the RTR tag team haven't go a hope in hell in this particular contest. There are many excellent valve gears kits available from the likes of Comet or brass masters that wipe the floor with anything from the big RTR manufactures or that supplied in many kits. For my own part, I routinely replace the valve gear supplied in kits with something a little more deluxe from other manufactures.

 

In the RTR field, the other wise mostly excellent Hornby Billie Stanier is saddled with tinny cut out valve gear that hasn't moved forwards in its representation since the introduction of the Mainline standard class 4 back in the day. All the emphasis is placed on improvements in body detail, Even the paint finish has taken a massive step forwards with this model, the valve gear remains very much the poor cousin. How many locomotives can you watch at an exhibition waddling down the track in a drunken fashion because the return crank is facing in the wrong direction? A recent thread on this forum asked what improvements could be made to RTR locomotives, Valve gear wasn't mentioned once. Apparently more important suggestions were opening smokebox doors, flashing lights and firebox glows.

[grob1234]

A 2 2 17.jpg

 

Like this? Though this was stationary for the picture, I actually wound it up to over 100 mph!

 

I agree that Finney kits are the 'top of the tree', but they'd be 'useless' on a layout like Little Bytham. Why? Because I'd have to live at least three times longer than the oldest recorded human being to be able to build enough locos from the kits. 

 

Martin once told me that his kits were 'by the far the best value on the market, even though they cost the most' (in 4mm scale). How come? 'Because they take at least five times as long to build, so your pound per hour rate is exceptionally good'. 

 

I was once asked to quote for building a Finney A3. Since, at the time, a DJH A3 built by me, painted by Ian Rathbone, would have cost the customer around £800.00, once I quoted (assuming I could build it), all I saw was dust! 

 

Compromised though the gear on my big (and small) engines might be, I cannot ever recall taking close note of the minutiae of detail in the (whirling) motion of a Gresley, Thompson or Peppercorn big engine as it belted past my viewpoint at Markham Moor, Eaton Wood, Retford, Botany Bay, Scrooby, Riccall, Thirsk or Darlington, or place in between where they went fast. 

 

Horses for courses, as has so often been said. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

 

Yep, looks like a steam train to me!

 

Mind you I’m a fairly basic chap at heart!

[Tony Wright]

Precisely that, I can't vouch for locomotive kits, but there a few wagon and coach kits using this method, not always correctly!

 

Mike.

Mike,

 

Thanks for your comments.

 

The basic brake rigging on the A2/2 for both loco and tender is etched as seven pieces - three for the loco, four for the tender. There are half-etched lines showing where to bend the hangers down (on the inside). These make inverted square 'U's to be soldered to the respective frames. 

 

Since the standard practice is to fold the bits with the half-etched lines to the inside, it would require a great deal of effort (and lateral thinking) to solder the stuff upside down. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[grob1234]

Oh BTW I found that the deluxe crank pins required the parent hole in the wheel to be eased with a tapered tap, whereas the standard ones don’t, even though, having spoken to Mark, they are the same size. Anyone else had this problem?

[Barry Ten]

Oh BTW I found that the deluxe crank pins required the parent hole in the wheel to be eased with a tapered tap, whereas the standard ones don’t, even though, having spoken to Mark, they are the same size. Anyone else had this problem?

 

My wheels had already had the parent hole reamed out to accept the original Triang--Hornby coupling rods (in an earlier chassis) so I didn't run into that problem. I did have to seat the crank pins into epoxy resin and keep a careful eye on them as it set, to make sure they stayed parallel. I was a bit concerned that they'd work loose in service, but so far they've been fine.

[LNER4479]

Probably both, Graham.

 

Taking your (much more accurate) figures, that still means something like six feet for the tightest radius (am I right?). That's at least double (and more) than what we live with on our model railways. Given nine feet, we'd go through that at a scale 90!

Yup - that's about the top and bottom of it. As I tend to relate to Peco products for trackwork (as you know), a handy way of thinking of it is that a Peco large (ha!) radius point is roughly equivalent to that tightest radius on the real thing - and that's in depots and sidings!

[46256]

Billie Stanier, a contemporary of Nige, Ted and Artie?, or Billie of tennis fame?

Edited December 8, 2017 by 46256

[t-b-g]

A 2 2 17.jpg

 

Like this? Though this was stationary for the picture, I actually wound it up to over 100 mph!

 

I agree that Finney kits are the 'top of the tree', but they'd be 'useless' on a layout like Little Bytham. Why? Because I'd have to live at least three times longer than the oldest recorded human being to be able to build enough locos from the kits. 

 

Martin once told me that his kits were 'by the far the best value on the market, even though they cost the most' (in 4mm scale). How come? 'Because they take at least five times as long to build, so your pound per hour rate is exceptionally good'. 

 

I was once asked to quote for building a Finney A3. Since, at the time, a DJH A3 built by me, painted by Ian Rathbone, would have cost the customer around £800.00, once I quoted (assuming I could build it), all I saw was dust! 

 

Compromised though the gear on my big (and small) engines might be, I cannot ever recall taking close note of the minutiae of detail in the (whirling) motion of a Gresley, Thompson or Peppercorn big engine as it belted past my viewpoint at Markham Moor, Eaton Wood, Retford, Botany Bay, Scrooby, Riccall, Thirsk or Darlington, or place in between where they went fast. 

 

Horses for courses, as has so often been said. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

 

 

I wasn't writing about the kits in general, just the shape and size of the valve gear parts. If the DJH bits were designed to be assembled in exactly the same way as they are now but were the same size and shape as those in a Finney kit, it would be no more complicated to build but would look much better.