Wright writes.....

[polybear]

Does it run ok (on track) without the rods fitted, and all wheels sit correctly when on a truly flat surface?

Is the quartering spot-on?

[Tony Wright]

Aren't the numbers on the 9f slightly large? SUGAR  PALM looks the business!

I don't think so David,

 

For a time Darlington (and only Darlington with regard to the 9Fs) used the largest cabside numbers (as did St. Rollox when it shopped locos). 

 

Thanks for the comments on SUGAR PALM. 

[Tony Wright]

Help please.

Building the running gear for this loco. It freely runs if I spin the non motor fitted wheels, after easing the crankpin holes a little more it freely runs turning the motor fitted wheels, but sit has a spot it catches on if spinning wheels forwards. Any tricks, solutions I am missing?

 

IMG_5906.JPG

It is in position of tight spot.

Thanks

Richard

Richard,

 

It looks (from this side) as if the quartering is slightly out. Look very closely at the relative positions of the outside cranks against the crankpin holes in the drivers. The one on the left needs moving the slightest twitch clockwise.

 

Failing that, when are you next in England?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

oops! Moral of the story don't speed read on a mobile screen.

Thanks for that, David,

 

With regard to the 9F, I bought it in Chester about four years ago. It had been lying dormant (and very dusty) on a shelf at the back of the model shop for many a long year. It was complete, minus motor, and I paid £60.00 for it. Since Markits drivers are around £6.00 (and more?) now, I effectively got the loco body for nothing. I then made a 'profit' by subsequently selling the (WR) tender to Poly Bear! 

 

How does something like this compare with the Bachmann version? For a start its drivers have too many spokes (much more visible in static mode) and its drive is not so well-hidden. The Bachmann tender I used (which I got as part of a fee for supplying information) is superior to the DJH BR 1F one (the rear cut-out is too deep on the etched body), so it would seem the Bachmann RTR one is the winner. I'm not arguing with that, and if one wants a 9F, then the RTR one is the way to go. Or is it? 

 

It depends on a personal point of view. I now own a DJH 9F which I've personally made (though, I admit, I didn't paint it - though would have done had other imperatives not been there). Several other folk own DJH 9Fs I've built (both ordinary and Crosti), made well before the decent, non-tender-drive, RTR versions became available, but I'd never built one for myself - until now. Though I have two (modified/detailed/weathered) Bachmann 9Fs, they'll see very little service now because LB also has a 9F built by Roy Jackson (which also runs on Shap) and a 9F created by my elder son 20 years ago using a Kitmaster body on top of a Crownline chassis, towing a Dave Alexander tender. 

 

I'd like to think the one I've built has crisper, more robust detail. Certainly, the lost-wax/turned brass detailing parts from Comet for all the plumbing under the cab, the clacks and what have you are better, as is the turned-brass chimney (the only parts I actually bought, so to speak), and they certainly won't break off. As for performance, mine will haul more than the Bachmann ones. But so what? The one I built will haul over 100 wagons/vans (it's got extra weight in it), but since the Bachmann ones will take 60 (with just a bit of slipping), then that extra 'grunt' is no more than showing off.  

 

As alluded to, because of my fundamental philosophy in 'making things', and encouraging others (I hope) to do the same, I have a unique 9F, and that's always been more important (to me) than just owning any models. As I've said many times before; a personal point of view. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited June 8, 2018 by Tony Wright

[Clem]

If you have all four blades at each end attached to a single tiebar, that is probably at the root of the problem. However, you could try a tip given to me by Mike Edge which is to use thicker operating wires in the Tortoises. The wire they come with is a bit thin - try 0.8 mm or 1/32 inch.

 

Thanks. I'll give that a go. It's not a massive problem but definitely could do with fixing. I had thought that I'd have to replace with a servo motor but a new operating wire would be way easier! In future, I'll take your advice and use separate tie bars for each of the pairs of blades.

[Chuffer Davies]

Thanks. I'll give that a go. It's not a massive problem but definitely could do with fixing. I had thought that I'd have to replace with a servo motor but a new operating wire would be way easier! In future, I'll take your advice and use separate tie bars for each of the pairs of blades.

Hi,

There is a simple alternative to overcome the problem of attaching all four blades of the double slip to a single tie that we have used successfully on Clayton. The outside blades are attached as normal and keep the tie bar square, but the inner blades have fishplates so that their length can adjust in the fishplate. Whilst having a single tie bar is less prototypical it is much easier to connect up to a single point motor, and of course the prototype blades would be hinged using a fishplate so in a sense this does follow prototype practice.

 

Regards,

Frank

[Michael Edge]

Thanks. I'll give that a go. It's not a massive problem but definitely could do with fixing. I had thought that I'd have to replace with a servo motor but a new operating wire would be way easier! In future, I'll take your advice and use separate tie bars for each of the pairs of blades.

 

The wire supplied with the Tortoise is of minimal thickness, I've used .8mm piano wire on most of the facing points on Carlisle now (trailing aren't so important) and in some places up to .9mm. The switch   diamonds  are particularly stiff to drive with very short blades.

[davefrk]

I agree with Mike, I've had to replace some of the wires on Tortoises with 0.8mm piano wire because now the rails are painted they are a bit stiffer to close properly, yes I know, be more careful with the paint but also because of the baseboard thickness. The double slip at the yard exit on Wharfeside has one Tortoise for each end, these are mounted on Exactoscale mounts, the moving bar on the mount has two springy wires extending up to drive each of the tiebars so each set of blades are separately sprung, they all now close reliably and no longer need a glance to check before shunting over them.

 

Dave Franks

[great central]

Thanks for that, David,

 

With regard to the 9F, I bought it in Chester about four years ago. It had been lying dormant (and very dusty) on a shelf at the back of the model shop for many a long year. It was complete, minus motor, and I paid £60.00 for it. Since Markits drivers are around £6.00 (and more?) now, I effectively got the loco body for nothing. I then made a 'profit' by subsequently selling the (WR) tender to Poly Bear!

 

How does something like this compare with the Bachmann version? For a start its drivers have too many spokes (much more visible in static mode) and its drive is not so well-hidden. The Bachmann tender I used (which I got as part of a fee for supplying information) is superior to the DJH BR 1F one (the rear cut-out is too deep on the etched body), so it would seem the Bachmann RTR one is the winner. I'm not arguing with that, and if one wants a 9F, then the RTR one is the way to go. Or is it?

 

It depends on a personal point of view. I now own a DJH 9F which I've personally made (though, I admit, I didn't paint it - though would have done had other imperatives not been there). Several other folk own DJH 9Fs I've built (both ordinary and Crosti), made well before the decent, non-tender-drive, RTR versions became available, but I'd never built one for myself - until now. Though I have two (modified/detailed/weathered) Bachmann 9Fs, they'll see very little service now because LB also has a 9F built by Roy Jackson (which also runs on Shap) and a 9F created by my elder son 20 years ago using a Kitmaster body on top of a Crownline chassis, towing a Dave Alexander tender.

 

I'd like to think the one I've built has crisper, more robust detail. Certainly, the lost-wax/turned brass detailing parts from Comet for all the plumbing under the cab, the clacks and what have you are better, as is the turned-brass chimney (the only parts I actually bought, so to speak), and they certainly won't break off. As for performance, mine will haul more than the Bachmann ones. But so what? The one I built will haul over 100 wagons/vans (it's got extra weight in it), but since the Bachmann ones will take 60 (with just a bit of slipping), then that extra 'grunt' is no more than showing off.

 

As alluded to, because of my fundamental philosophy in 'making things', and encouraging others (I hope) to do the same, I have a unique 9F, and that's always been more important (to me) than just owning any models. As I've said many times before; a personal point of view.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

Sticking my neck on the block a bit and assuming the Model Loco one is the same as the DJH,there's something not quite right about the look of the front end to me.

When I was building a DJH one getting on for 20 years ago I spent ages trying to figure out what it was.

I finally settled on the front section of the footplate being a little short and giving the impression of the smoke deflectors being too far forward. My bodge was to move the deflectors back a couple of mm by opening out the slot the steam pipes pass through.

Also cut down rather than build up the wrong tender side sheets on the BR1F tender.

To me at least it looks in proportion now

[richard i]

Does it run ok (on track) without the rods fitted, and all wheels sit correctly when on a truly flat surface?

Is the quartering spot-on?

Thanks for the suggestions.

It has been All checked at all stages, ran as inside framed normal crank pin loco. Runs with these crank pins but without the crankpin washers on.

Cranks not perfectly quartered? How do I check other than by eye with the rods fitted during soldering to ensure spacing?

Richard

[richard i]

Richard,

 

It looks (from this side) as if the quartering is slightly out. Look very closely at the relative positions of the outside cranks against the crankpin holes in the drivers. The one on the left needs moving the slightest twitch clockwise.

 

Failing that, when are you next in England?

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

 

Thank you for the advice, whilst I trust your knowledge for what it might be, and will look into it. I don't understand why it would only manifest itself on turning one wheel one way, turn it the other it is fine, turn the second wheel either way and the whole motion is fine. How does it not impact those rotations? It is the same wheels, same rods following the same path?

Not a criticism, just my brain always wants to understand why something is the case.

Thanks

Richard

[N15class]

Thanks for the suggestions.

It has been All checked at all stages, ran as inside framed normal crank pin loco. Runs with these crank pins but without the crankpin washers on.

Cranks not perfectly quartered? How do I check other than by eye with the rods fitted during soldering to ensure spacing?

Richard

Do the outside cranks and the ones of the wheel have the same throw? If so you a screw through both to line up. It they are different, use a screw locked to the crank with a nut to line up by eye with the wheel crank pin hole.

[Headstock]

Thank you for the advice, whilst I trust your knowledge for what it might be, and will look into it. I don't understand why it would only manifest itself on turning one wheel one way, turn it the other it is fine, turn the second wheel either way and the whole motion is fine. How does it not impact those rotations? It is the same wheels, same rods following the same path?

Not a criticism, just my brain always wants to understand why something is the case.

Thanks

Richard

 

Richard,

 

there is obviously some distortion in the photograph. However, I would agree with Tony in that there appears to be a slight difference in the quartering between the driven and trailing axle. In answer to your question, your twiddling with the crankpin holes has probably got that paticular wheel working despite the potential misalignment, but in one direction only. In addition, when you rotate the different wheels/ axles by hand, you are effectively changing the driven axle. I would expect this to produce a different result in terms of running, one that can become readely noticeable if there is a misalignment.

[Clem]

Hi,

There is a simple alternative to overcome the problem of attaching all four blades of the double slip to a single tie that we have used successfully on Clayton. The outside blades are attached as normal and keep the tie bar square, but the inner blades have fishplates so that their length can adjust in the fishplate. Whilst having a single tie bar is less prototypical it is much easier to connect up to a single point motor, and of course the prototype blades would be hinged using a fishplate so in a sense this does follow prototype practice.

 

Regards,

Frank

 

Thanks Frank, that's a great idea for future builds. How's Clayton coming on?

 

 

 

The wire supplied with the Tortoise is of minimal thickness, I've used .8mm piano wire on most of the facing points on Carlisle now (trailing aren't so important) and in some places up to .9mm. The switch   diamonds  are particularly stiff to drive with very short blades.

 

 

 

Thanks Mike (and Dave). I'll go with the thicker piano wire (0.8mm or 0.9mm) for my problem ones as they're already in situ. Where do you normally source it? Don't tell me... a piano shop?. Do normal music shops stock it? BTW Carlisle looks magnificent!

 

Clem

[davefrk]

I got my wire from the local model shop, it's not railway though, mainly boats and aircraft models so the wire is presumably for servos.

 

Dave Franks.

[Tony Wright]

Sticking my neck on the block a bit and assuming the Model Loco one is the same as the DJH,there's something not quite right about the look of the front end to me.

When I was building a DJH one getting on for 20 years ago I spent ages trying to figure out what it was.

I finally settled on the front section of the footplate being a little short and giving the impression of the smoke deflectors being too far forward. My bodge was to move the deflectors back a couple of mm by opening out the slot the steam pipes pass through.

Also cut down rather than build up the wrong tender side sheets on the BR1F tender.

To me at least it looks in proportion now

Cut down rather than build up the wrong tender side sheets? Are you sure?

 

When Tony Geary built two DJH ER 9Fs for Stoke Summit, he built-up the sides, because the cut-out was far too deep as supplied. 

[great central]

Cut down rather than build up the wrong tender side sheets? Are you sure?

 

When Tony Geary built two DJH ER 9Fs for Stoke Summit, he built-up the sides, because the cut-out was far too deep as supplied.

I did say it was a bodge! Having read Tony's article I decided my skills weren't up to that level, but cutting a couple of mm off the top produced a similar look, well to my eyes anyhow. If I can dig it out I'll do a phone photo and post it later, been at work since 04.30 and now helping the wife setting up a church 'do' for tomorrow.

[Tony Wright]

Today, I've been glazing the carriages Geoff Haynes painted for me.............

 

 

 

These two were originally built by Dave Scott of the NE, from MJT kits. I completed them (interiors, roof detail and bogies, etc) and Geoff painted them. The bow pen lining is very subtle.

 

 

I built this Tourist Buffet from a set of etches given to me which were going to be part of a putative range (which was never marketed). 

 

 

I reported (in part) on building this D&S Pigeon Van in BRM last year. Geoff's made a very nice job of painting it. 

 

 

He requested a shot of two of my recent DJH builds which he painted, together. 

Edited June 8, 2018 by Tony Wright

[Chuffer Davies]

Thanks Frank, that's a great idea for future builds. How's Clayton coming on?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks Mike (and Dave). I'll go with the thicker piano wire (0.8mm or 0.9mm) for my problem ones as they're already in situ. Where do you normally source it? Don't tell me... a piano shop?. Do normal music shops stock it? BTW Carlisle looks magnificent!

 

Clem

Hi again.

As an alternative to replacing the wire you could do what we did on Hungerford and that was to strengthen the existing wire by soldering a length of code 75 rail to the portion of the wire between the operating arm and the pivot. This leaves a much shorter length of wire capable of flexing and we found this was sufficient to move the most reluctant of point blades.

 

Might be worth a try.

 

Frank

[Tony Wright]

 

DJH 9F deflectors too far forward? So, it would appear, Bachmann got it wrong as well? 

 

From front to rear - DJH, Bachmann, Kitmaster (etched deflectors and chassis). 

 

I suppose there are subtle differences, but my eyes aren't good enough to tell which is right (or wrong?).

[great central]

9F front ends.jpg

 

DJH 9F deflectors too far forward? So, it would appear, Bachmann got it wrong as well?

 

From front to rear - DJH, Bachmann, Kitmaster (etched deflectors and chassis).

 

I suppose there are subtle differences, but my eyes aren't good enough to tell which is right (or wrong?).

I've no idea which is right either Tony, anyway a couple of shots taken and posted from my phone

My 'cut down' take on a BR1F tender. To be a proper Annesley loco the filler should really be open, they didn't seem as if they were ever closed.

 

 

 

 

 

The front end showing the extended cut outs for the steam pipes

 

 

The tender in relation to the loco, I don't think it looks too bad. While studying many pictures of real locos I also realised that the rivet pattern isn't correct for a 1F tender anyway, not that I count the things but they are fairly prominent.

 

Edit, having looked at the pictures now, I've realised the valve guide must have come adrift. I have set it in forward gear but the radius rod shouldn't be at that angle

Edited June 8, 2018 by great central

[Tony Wright]

I've no idea which is right either Tony, anyway a couple of shots taken and posted from my phoneIMG_20180608_203004738.jpg

My 'cut down' take on a BR1F tender. To be a proper Annesley loco the filler should really be open, they didn't seem as if they were ever closed.

 

 

 

 

IMG_20180608_203100420.jpg

 

The front end showing the extended cut outs for the steam pipes

 

IMG_20180608_203233807.jpg

 

The tender in relation to the loco, I don't think it looks too bad. While studying many pictures of real locos I also realised that the rivet pattern isn't correct for a 1F tender anyway, not that I count the things but they are fairly prominent.

 

Edit, having looked at the pictures now, I've realised the valve guide must have come adrift. I have set it in forward gear but the radius rod shouldn't be at that angle

Thanks Neil,

 

Just a couple of points, if I may, please?

 

On your model the chimney doesn't look quite right (at least to me). Is it DJH's? If so, I replaced it on my model because I thought it was too tall. 

 

One very simple fix for greater fidelity to prototype is to fit nine-spoke pony wheels. I know yours, like mine, has too many spokes in its drivers (a Romford legacy), but that one fewer spoke in the pony does make a difference.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

[St Enodoc]

I got my wire from the local model shop, it's not railway though, mainly boats and aircraft models so the wire is presumably for servos.

 

Dave Franks.

...and model aircraft undercarriages.

[APOLLO]

Mucky old Nine Two'ers, my second favourite loco after the Britannia.

 

Here is one at Springs Branch (Fir Tree House Jcn - Whelley Loop). Just crossing the WCML and about to drop down the short but fierce grade to the St Helens line. Long Meg Anhydrite bound for USAC at Widnes. 1967.

 

 

 

92223 on Springs Branch again 1967

 

 

Of course the lair of the 9F at this time was Birkenhead shed. Wonderful place (as was the Gas works behind) !!

 

 

 

My trainspotting pals enveloped with steam from a pair of mucky 9F's

 

 

No need to super detail your 9F's - just add tons of filth !!

 

Brit15

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[great central]

^^^  I presume the fourth picture is distorted in some way otherwise the cab has taken a heck of a bash. The loco doesn't seem to be off the rails?

 

Pity you can't read the numbers on most, the top one could well be ex Annesley having a 1F tender, the bottom one has taken a knock around the front buffer beam as well

 

Lovely atmospheric photos, real giants of steam just as I remember them.

 

Being the biggest and most impressive locos I saw regularly, probably my favourites