Wright writes.....

[rowanj]

When you are offered good advice by a modeller like Tony, it behoves one to try and follow it. Here is the modified /corrected valve-gear as suggested. It looks much better,

 

On a more serious note, I started to look through the DJH D20 box today. As usual, I'll start with the chassis, but the instructions are hopeless. There are references to using a modern DJH motor/gearbox, and also a DS10, all interwoven in the instructions. Fair enough, but the kit includes 2 castings which I assume represent the frames above the bogie, but no indication of how to fit them. In fact, other than a reference to 2 x Part 51, described as Keeper Plates, there is nothing to help - parts 51 are conspicuous by their absence on the illustrated drawings.

 

Presumably the bogie parts could/should be fixed below the footplate. This may be easier said than done. It's pretty thick brass, and soldering it to whitemetal will be no joke. I suppose it could be epoxied into place, but would this give a strong enough bond? 

 

I've photographed the parts in question. The piece between the bogie sideframes seems to be the fixing plate for the open-frame motor, but the piece between the main chassis frames is a mystery.

 

I cant find a build of this kit anywhere. It's possible I'm just being thick, but this kit, so far, is re-enforcing why some folk avoid kit-building. surely it would not be beyond DJH to produce amended and accurate instructions. Anyone who knows better, pls let me know.

[richard i]

51 at bottom of picture under bogie. Does that help with build?

[micklner]

The Brass piece looks like a fitting part for a XO4 motor.

 

My old D20 has a WM castings attached to each side of  bogie which represents the front frames and swivels with bogie on curves. It sounds rubbish but it works fine. I can take a photo if needed.

 

The D20 Tender is very poor ,and I replace it with a much better Alexander Models version. IMHO.

[88C]

•  
• 
• Members
• 
• 4,606 posts

Posted Today, 09:09

Yesterday, I had the pleasure of visiting the Elizabethan Model Railway Society at the clubrooms in Sutton-in-Ashfield, to photograph Ambleside.

 

Thanks for all your efforts Tony, Gordon, Alan and myself thoroughly enjoyed the day. As you know there is still lots to do on Ambleside and the BRM is sub-titled 'a work in progress', that will be the case for a while yet!

 

If the photos that you have posted are anything to go by I'm sure that the others will be just as good.

 

Thanks again,

 

Brian.

[Tony Wright]

 

When you are offered good advice by a modeller like Tony, it behoves one to try and follow it. Here is the modified /corrected valve-gear as suggested. It looks much better,

 

On a more serious note, I started to look through the DJH D20 box today. As usual, I'll start with the chassis, but the instructions are hopeless. There are references to using a modern DJH motor/gearbox, and also a DS10, all interwoven in the instructions. Fair enough, but the kit includes 2 castings which I assume represent the frames above the bogie, but no indication of how to fit them. In fact, other than a reference to 2 x Part 51, described as Keeper Plates, there is nothing to help - parts 51 are conspicuous by their absence on the illustrated drawings.

 

Presumably the bogie parts could/should be fixed below the footplate. This may be easier said than done. It's pretty thick brass, and soldering it to whitemetal will be no joke. I suppose it could be epoxied into place, but would this give a strong enough bond? 

 

I've photographed the parts in question. The piece between the bogie sideframes seems to be the fixing plate for the open-frame motor, but the piece between the main chassis frames is a mystery.

 

I cant find a build of this kit anywhere. It's possible I'm just being thick, but this kit, so far, is re-enforcing why some folk avoid kit-building. surely it would not be beyond DJH to produce amended and accurate instructions. Anyone who knows better, pls let me know.

 

Well done, John,

 

One more suggestion, if I may, please? 

 

At the front end of the radius rod, where it connects to the top end of the combination lever, you appear to have it too low - the pivot point being below the valve guides, rather than just above it. Is it possible to raise it up? If you can, it'll make the angle of the union link better. 

 

The DJH kit you have is very old - from the early Banbury days I'd say. Such kits really are outdated now, and later kits from DJH are far superior. Not much help, I know, but worth persevering with. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[Tony Wright]

 

•  
•  
• 
• Members
• 
• 4,606 posts

Posted Today, 09:09

Yesterday, I had the pleasure of visiting the Elizabethan Model Railway Society at the clubrooms in Sutton-in-Ashfield, to photograph Ambleside.

 

Thanks for all your efforts Tony, Gordon, Alan and myself thoroughly enjoyed the day. As you know there is still lots to do on Ambleside and the BRM is sub-titled 'a work in progress', that will be the case for a while yet!

 

If the photos that you have posted are anything to go by I'm sure that the others will be just as good.

 

Thanks again,

 

Brian.

 

Thanks Brian,

 

They've all worked very well (though, for obvious reasons, I'll not be showing any more), and the processing should be finished by next week. 

 

Thanks for all your help yesterday, and thanks for bringing such a lovely selection of wagons. They complemented what Gordon brought perfectly. Much, much better for inclusion in the pictures than the previous just-out-of-the-box stuff. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[St Enodoc]

51 at bottom of picture under bogie. Does that help with build?

I agree. Parts 51 look as if they are supposed to be keeper plates for the bogie axles.

[Clem]

Just about finished my Parkside Toad E to go (not necessarily permanently) with the developing wooden wagon coal train. Here's a shot before it goes into service. Parkside produce very nice kits. They go together really well and look pretty well spot on.... and good value.

 

Thanks to previous links from Andrew and Jonathan, I've now got some Cambrian six and a half and seven plank wagons in to build, for a bit of variation. .... Mental note: must get back to the things I should be doing, i.e. the buildings and scenery.....

[Brit70053]

I built a DJH D20 as per the instructions and using only the parts supplied many moons ago and am interested to see that, like myself, John, rowanj is puzzled by the parts presumably supplied to represent the frames above the bogie. These are not parts numbered 51, correctly identified by Richard I and St Enedoc as the keeper plates for the bogie wheels.

Looking at the photograph of the instruction sheet provided by rowanj, I think the parts in question are the brass pieces attached to either side of the motor mount, placed on the top right corner of the sheet next to the DJH logo. I think they are described in the instructions as 'Frame Extensions.

From memory, these parts are made of very thick brass and when building my kit I concluded that if fitted ,these would severely restrict rotation of the bogie on its pivot, rendering the model unusable on the curves of my layout of the time. Additionally and as noted by rowanj, the instructions give no indication as to the intended location and fit of these parts, though I know this should be fairly obvious. Also, if the guard irons on these parts needed to be bent to shape, the thickness of the brass would present some difficulty.

I therefore simply omitted these from my model and have to admit, I haven't missed them.

micklner mentions that the tender supplied with the kit is poor, and I have read similar comment on RMWEB previously, but no one has ever gone into detail about the shortcomings so far as I know. If its not a list of faults as long as two arms, I'd appreciate knowing what the problems are should anyone be willing to elaborate. I'd also like to know which Alexander Models tender(s) have been substituted for the DJH offering.

 

Regards,

 

John

 

Edit for syntax error

Edited July 18, 2018 by Brit70053

[Headstock]

 

When you are offered good advice by a modeller like Tony, it behoves one to try and follow it. Here is the modified /corrected valve-gear as suggested. It looks much better,

 

On a more serious note, I started to look through the DJH D20 box today. As usual, I'll start with the chassis, but the instructions are hopeless. There are references to using a modern DJH motor/gearbox, and also a DS10, all interwoven in the instructions. Fair enough, but the kit includes 2 castings which I assume represent the frames above the bogie, but no indication of how to fit them. In fact, other than a reference to 2 x Part 51, described as Keeper Plates, there is nothing to help - parts 51 are conspicuous by their absence on the illustrated drawings.

 

Presumably the bogie parts could/should be fixed below the footplate. This may be easier said than done. It's pretty thick brass, and soldering it to whitemetal will be no joke. I suppose it could be epoxied into place, but would this give a strong enough bond? 

 

I've photographed the parts in question. The piece between the bogie sideframes seems to be the fixing plate for the open-frame motor, but the piece between the main chassis frames is a mystery.

 

I cant find a build of this kit anywhere. It's possible I'm just being thick, but this kit, so far, is re-enforcing why some folk avoid kit-building. surely it would not be beyond DJH to produce amended and accurate instructions. Anyone who knows better, pls let me know.

 

 

Morning John,

 

it looks like the combination lever has just dropped out of place, based on the previous image. It should also go up behind the valve spindle guide. Incidentally, you have the valve spindle guide on upside down.

[jwealleans]

As far as I recall with regard to the tender, the cutouts are the wrong shape. They can be either lozenge shaped or like a reclining 'D'. DJH have modelled what is shown on the GA, but what was built was the other shape (as shown on photographs). I can't recall which way round it should be, only that what's in the kit is wrong.

 

Dave Alexander's cast kits are much better quality than the usual DJH fare and Arthur Kimber's brass ones better again.

 

Edit - by happy coincidence, a collection of D20 pictures. Tender cutouts are the D shape.

 

https://railway-photography.smugmug.com/LNERSteam/Worsdell-locomotives/Wilson-Worsdell-Tender-Engine-designs/WWorsdell-Class-D20-NER-Class-R-4-4-0-Locomotives/i-6tDs2sZ.

Edited July 18, 2018 by jwealleans

[unclebobkt]

        As an ex fitter-gun (field) class 2 I have called my loco building thread Rough Engineering Made Easy, it is on my signature.     294 Cfn Mortimore.

 

         Dear Cfn.,  or may I call you '294..'?

 

  Having served in the RA. for a few years. I'm interest in the types of Field Guns on which you worked?

  While I was with 42. Field Regt., RA. we had 25pdrs.;  I never saw the reason to change to the Italian designed & NATO. standard  105mm. fld. guns.  

  Later on , as a civilian, I worked at RAE. Aberporth not long after extended trials had been carried-out on the 105mm. guns as, allegedly,  the shells became unstable when using charges that propelled them at trans-sonic speeds.

 

        

[unclebobkt]

        I suspect that it was only the 'sheltered' elite of Rugby, and other private-sector schools, who would NOT have understood the dubious connotations of the offending verb - it was certainly in the widest juvenile circulation when I was a lad.       Regards, John Isherwood.

 

          I was at RUGBY 1947-'51., possibly a few years earlier than you attended skool?

 

  I would hesitate to call RUGBY a shelter for the elite as we had many pupils from the town as well as pupils from the Empire,  notably Australia, New Zealand & South Africa.

  As one master at that time noted: ' Tom. Brown would still have felt quite at home in post-WW2. RUGBY;

 except for there being no Flashman & his clique, together with no Lamb-singing, roasting in front of the hall-fires and suchlike.'.

 

          

[Clive Mortimore]

         Dear Cfn.,  or may I call you '294..'?

 

  Having served in the RA. for a few years. I'm interest in the types of Field Guns on which you worked?

  While I was with 42. Field Regt., RA. we had 25pdrs.;  I never saw the reason to change to the Italian designed & NATO. standard  105mm. fld. guns.  

  Later on , as a civilian, I worked at RAE. Aberporth not long after extended trials had been carried-out on the 105mm. guns as, allegedly,  the shells became unstable when using charges that propelled them at trans-sonic speeds.

 

        

I trained on 105mm Abbot self-propelled guns and 105mm Pack Howitzers. A lot of the theory on artillery was done using a 25 pdr and a 5.5 inch. 

 

The army in their wisdom sent me to a field workshop where I done fitting and turning. I also done a lot of welding. I was sent on detachment to 1 RTR, Scorpion tanks and 4/7 Goons, Chieftain tanks. We then had a major modification to Scorpion and Scimitar tanks. A trip to Northern Ireland. Then on to Marchwood, more fitting and turning with the odd bit of work on a landing craft. I did get to check that the guns on some Centurion AVRE's had been stowed correctly for shipment overseas. Then on to 47 Fld Regt RA. By this time the army had issued the field regiments with the then new 105mm light gun. The more senior gun fitters showed me the basics of it but as each new fault/problem appeared we were teaching ourselves. By the time I went on the equipment familiarisation course I had more experience than our instructor. Thankfully he was someone who I got on with and was willing to learn from those of us working on the guns. I enjoyed being a gun fitter, and being part of a gun crew when they were short but not being a soldier.....well punk rock and the army were not friends in the late 70s.

[Black Marlin]

A quick question for the enlightened: can anyone advise me on colour-matching the dark grey roof of a Bachmann BR Mk1 Pullman? I have a white-roofed version I'd like to repaint to match the rest of the dark-grey-roofed rake. Can anyone tell me where to get a matching colour? A close-enough Halfords rattlecan would be ideal, but any suggestion would be most gratefully received.

Thanks,
Gavin

[jrg1]

I built a DJH D20 as per the instructions and using only the parts supplied many moons ago and am interested to see that, like myself, John, rowanj is puzzled by the parts presumably supplied to represent the frames above the bogie. These are not parts numbered 51, correctly identified by Richard I and St Enedoc as the keeper plates for the bogie wheels.

Looking at the photograph of the instruction sheet provided by rowanj, I think the parts in question are the brass pieces attached to either side of the motor mount, placed on the top right corner of the sheet next to the DJH logo. I think they are described in the instructions as 'Frame Extensions.

From memory, these parts are made of very thick brass and when building my kit I concluded that if fitted ,these would severely restrict rotation of the bogie on its pivot, rendering the model unusable on the curves of my layout of the time. Additionally and as noted by rowanj, the instructions give no indication as to the intended location and fit of these parts, though I know this should be fairly obvious. Also, if the guard irons on these parts needed to be bent to shape, the thickness of the brass would present some difficulty.

I therefore simply omitted these from my model and have to admit, I haven't missed them.

micklner mentions that the tender supplied with the kit is poor, and I have read similar comment on RMWEB previously, but no one has ever gone into detail about the shortcomings so far as I know. If its not a list of faults as long as two arms, I'd appreciate knowing what the problems are should anyone be willing to elaborate. I'd also like to know which Alexander Models tender(s) have been substituted for the DJH offering.

 

Regards,

 

John

 

Edit for syntax error

I discovered on my DJH kit that the can motor mount etch was too thick and the lugs broke off when bent; the frame spacer etches were too thin and flimsy, and the locating slots in the frames were around three times the spacer thickness-therefore useless.  Detailed etches, such as the front bufferbeam, were around 0.005"-wafer thin, and needed fabricated backing pieces-the supplied W/M piece was too thin.  The cab sides also need backing plates making up.  The cast bogie assembly and guard irons were discarded.  The crude cast footplate was utilised for ballast.

[rowanj]

I'm not going to clog up Tony's thread with tales of woe about the DJH D20. Thank you, everyone, who responded. How I get on actually building it will be described on my thread.

 

However, a couple of points are worth noting. This may be an old design, but my kit was bought for over £100 direct from DJH when they did a production run in February of this year. Had I taken up their offer of motor and wheels, the cost would have been over £200. I knew in advance that there were issues with the kit, but didnt expect that  the 9 pages of instructions hadnt been properly updated, and as a consequence, revised parts were inadequately described. The Frame Extensions ,for that is obviously whet they are, can only go in one place, but how to fit them there remains a mystery.

 

The chassis holes for the driving wheels, as supplied, are too small even for Romford axles, never mind bushes. The holes for the screws holding the spacers also need broaching, and will need countersinking to prevent the drivers catching and shorting. Pretty poor design work, I believe.

 

I stress that , up until now, I have had no issues with DJH - indeed their service in supplying this kit was excellent. I didn't expect it to be to truly modern standards, and don't expect kits to just fall together. But it's certainly as poor a kit as I've built recently, and will need some ingenious work to bring up to (even my) standard. But That's part of the fun, so they say, of kit building.

 

John

[St Enodoc]

I never saw the reason to change to the Italian designed & NATO. standard  105mm. fld. guns.

Perhaps there's a clue here?

[Clive Mortimore]

Perhaps there's a clue here?

The Luxembourg army rebarreled their 25pdrs  with 105mm barrels so they could fire the US Army Nato standard 105mm ammunition. The 105mm pack Howitzer also fired the US ammo, as does the M119 (L119 in British service) 105mm Light Gun. The Yanks tried several of their own designs to replace the M2 howitzer from WW2 before settling on the British 105mm light gun using their ammo. There was one British regiment that had the L119 and we borrowed a battery of their guns. To start with the old hands were glad to be playing with the pre-WW2 designed ammo as they had with the Pack How but the novelty wore off and when we got or L118s back they were happy with the British ammo.

 

For most standard Nato ammunition it is odd that the first users are the Americans, despite many European counties having developed something slightly better. Compare the US M14 rifle with the British EM2 rifle but we adopted the US 7.62mm round as the Nato standard, instead of a very advanced and good rifle. 

[Tony Wright]

Some interesting points about the DJH D20. 

 

I've never made one, though I did make the firm's D49 (a kit of the same vintage) many years ago, writing it up in the RM. 

 

 

This is the one I sold last month (builder/painter unknown). It's very pretty and ran sweetly (after I'd tweaked it at bit). 

 

 

Some little time ago, friend Ken Wilson brought the DJH D20 he'd made. This, too, ran well. 

 

 

The prototypes were very fine locos - reliable and long-lived. Sadly, I never saw one. Selby, 1955. 

[Hollar]

Does anyone know a source for a J72 chimney?  The attached photo is my first serious attempt at detailing a loco, and was taken as a check on how it was coming along.  And the moulded chimney is wonky.  So now, of course,  that will be the only bit of the engine I see. I've looked at the obvious sources and come up blank.

 

Any suggestions welcome.

 

Tone

 

PS  I know the rear sandbox isn't quite right, but it was the best I could find and I can live with it.

 

[micklner]

Try Arthur K on here or London Road Models, both do NER Locos.

[Lecorbusier]

Try Arthur K on here or London Road Models, both do NER Locos.

London Road Models is currently not trading ... John Redrup is I believe recovering from an operation .... hopefully back up and running towards the end of the year.

[Tony Wright]

Does anyone know a source for a J72 chimney?  The attached photo is my first serious attempt at detailing a loco, and was taken as a check on how it was coming along.  And the moulded chimney is wonky.  So now, of course,  that will be the only bit of the engine I see. I've looked at the obvious sources and come up blank.

 

Any suggestions welcome.

 

Tone

 

PS  I know the rear sandbox isn't quite right, but it was the best I could find and I can live with it.

Tone,

 

I'll rummage through my spares box and see what I can find. 

 

I have so many chimneys, there must be one that suits...........................

[Northmoor]

I’d love to see some of those images if possible, PRPC always has some excellent pictures, they are on Facebook where they put occasional images up.

Go on then, you've tempted me.  Rather than hijack Sir's thread, I've started a new one in the prototype section.  Please feel free to add your own shots, everyone.....