Obadiah Posted June 17, 2021 Share Posted June 17, 2021 The model of No13 is powered thus; a NWSL gearbox on two of the axles, connected by a layshaft with two flywheels, and connected by means of a universal joint to a large Mashima motor in one bonnet. The third axle just goes along for the ride. I also have a model of NER Bo-Bo No.5 powered by most of a Bachmann class 25 mechanism. 3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theakerr Posted June 17, 2021 Share Posted June 17, 2021 11 hours ago, Clem said: I think they started fitting the new arrangement about 1955. My recent K3 conversion (61833) has the later - and incorrect - version. I fitted about 1980 before I knew all the subtle differences you could find within classes. 61379 Mayflower was common as muck around Nottingham even though she was an Immingham engine but for some reason or another I always missed seeing her. I never did. I've heard she was a bit of a duff one. I had also heard that she was a bit of a Wally and that was why she was so often on the local pick-up goods and by default why I was able to cab her many times 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkC Posted June 17, 2021 Share Posted June 17, 2021 1 hour ago, Tony Wright said: I won't say, Mark, Because he's now died and it would be insensitive in the extreme. The 10,000 figure came up in conversation over dinner at a Chinese restaurant in St. Albans, several years ago now. All the others at the table just rolled their eyes. One of those moments when you know someone is rather bullsh!tting! Regards, Tony. Well understood, Tony. As you say, it's definitely a BS moment when numbers like that are bandied about though. A factor of 10 out, I would suggest. The sort of thing that is a result of electric soup making one confoozled... Mark 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNER4479 Posted June 17, 2021 Share Posted June 17, 2021 1 hour ago, Obadiah said: The model of No13 is powered thus; a NWSL gearbox on two of the axles, connected by a layshaft with two flywheels, and connected by means of a universal joint to a large Mashima motor in one bonnet. The third axle just goes along for the ride. Ah ... so it's really a 2-A-1-A-2. Or is it a 2-Bo-1-2? I think I prefer the latter - more fun to say 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Wright Posted June 17, 2021 Author Share Posted June 17, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, Michael Edge said: Thanks for showing the picture of No.13 - how is this one powered? The wheel arrangement was 2-Co-2, separate motors on each driven axle. I'm not sure Mike, but it's got a couple of hefty flywheels judging by how it rolls on when the juice is turned off. Perhaps the builder will tell us. Oh, he has done! The only 'problem' with its running was the pantographs just fouling the bridge at the south end, even though they were down. Regards, Tony. Edited June 17, 2021 by Tony Wright I should read all posts before replying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Wright Posted June 17, 2021 Author Share Posted June 17, 2021 Just now, Tony Wright said: I'm not sure Mike, but it's got a couple of hefty flywheels judging by how it rolls on when the juice is turned off. Perhaps the builder will tell us. The only 'problem' with its running was the pantographs just fouling the bridge at the south end, even though they were down. Regards, Tony. 1 hour ago, Obadiah said: The model of No13 is powered thus; a NWSL gearbox on two of the axles, connected by a layshaft with two flywheels, and connected by means of a universal joint to a large Mashima motor in one bonnet. The third axle just goes along for the ride. I also have a model of NER Bo-Bo No.5 powered by most of a Bachmann class 25 mechanism. A lovely day today, Ian, Thanks to you, Terry, David and Sandra for so much fun. I look forward to seeing what you can do with that damaged ex-GC 4-6-0 and ex-GN J6. Thanks also for your contributions to CRUK. Regards, Tony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Barry O Posted June 17, 2021 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 17, 2021 Quill drive in the real thing.. quills also used in Challenger tank drive system. Lovely locos.. I prefer Number 13 in lined BR steam loco blue... shame it was never used..no need for A1s, A4s etc. Baz 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Manxcat Posted June 17, 2021 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 17, 2021 Tony, Exacty two years ago today I visited your house and took the video of LB I now have on my YouTube Channel. Doesn't time seem to fly by sometimes. Arcvhie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Michael Edge Posted June 17, 2021 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 17, 2021 59 minutes ago, Tony Wright said: I'm not sure Mike, but it's got a couple of hefty flywheels judging by how it rolls on when the juice is turned off. Perhaps the builder will tell us. Oh, he has done! The only 'problem' with its running was the pantographs just fouling the bridge at the south end, even though they were down. Regards, Tony. It is quite high, should be 13ft 3 1/2in with pantograph down. Minimum wire height was 13ft 8in. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Ian Rathbone Posted June 17, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted June 17, 2021 This is one I painted for Mike many years ago. I can’t remember how it was powered, perhaps Mike can say. The prototype eventually became BR 26600 after being in store for most of its life. Ian R 16 17 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrg1 Posted June 18, 2021 Share Posted June 18, 2021 6 hours ago, Obadiah said: The model of No13 is powered thus; a NWSL gearbox on two of the axles, connected by a layshaft with two flywheels, and connected by means of a universal joint to a large Mashima motor in one bonnet. The third axle just goes along for the ride. I also have a model of NER Bo-Bo No.5 powered by most of a Bachmann class 25 mechanism. Mechanism photos and build description, please! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Michael Edge Posted June 18, 2021 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 18, 2021 7 hours ago, Ian Rathbone said: This is one I painted for Mike many years ago. I can’t remember how it was powered, perhaps Mike can say. The prototype eventually became BR 26600 after being in store for most of its life. Ian R I think this is one the first ones I built with a Mashima 10x24 and Branchlines gearbox on each outer driving axle, one of the motors is just visible in the nearest side window. The centre axle was unpowered on most of the ones I have built but I did add a chian drive to it in one model. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Tony Wright Posted June 18, 2021 Author Popular Post Share Posted June 18, 2021 (edited) Of possible interest, A few latest moving shots of Retford and Little Bytham................ The Retford footage reveals the B17 I fitted EM frames to (now complete), a similar V2 and A2 (the A3 and the A4 are Roy Jackson's work). The Little Bytham footage shows some of my latest locos in action. All images, both static and moving, always reveal any less-than-perfect aspects of models. On Retford, the V2 momentarily 'twitches' (I need to investigate) and on LB, the Black Five makes a 'groan' on passing over a point (its bogie-holding shouldered screw just caught on the point's actuating steel rod, protruding through the tie-bar); since fixed. Thanks to Howard Smith for editing this footage. Edited June 18, 2021 by Tony Wright to add something 23 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium MJI Posted June 18, 2021 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 18, 2021 12 hours ago, Ian Rathbone said: This is one I painted for Mike many years ago. I can’t remember how it was powered, perhaps Mike can say. The prototype eventually became BR 26600 after being in store for most of its life. Ian R I wonder what it would have been on TOPS? The SR Boosters got 70, a GWR Gas turbine got 80 as an electric. I think it is a very good looking locomotive. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Northmoor Posted June 18, 2021 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 18, 2021 23 minutes ago, MJI said: I wonder what it would have been on TOPS? The SR Boosters got 70, a GWR Gas turbine got 80 as an electric. I think it is a very good looking locomotive. As they were DC they would have been in the 70-series. I agree, an absolutely beautiful model. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obadiah Posted June 18, 2021 Share Posted June 18, 2021 No.13 or 26600 and BR livery. I expect that if BR had ever thought to repaint the beastie, going by the precedent of the Woodhead electrics it would have been black, lined red, and maybe as an express type a silver chassis as per EM2's. Now there's a thought, but perhaps one best not dwelt on for too long! The few interior shots of the loco reveal a real health and safety nightmare of exposed what nots. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Obadiah Posted June 18, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted June 18, 2021 No 13. and No.5. A snap of No.13's running units, and one of completed No.5 for comparison. 18 2 1 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrg1 Posted June 18, 2021 Share Posted June 18, 2021 26600 really did deserve to be preserved as a reminder of the NER's electrification policy-in fact on every consideration, technical, historical, and uniqueness, it should have been with us today. At least we have 26500. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post westerner Posted June 18, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted June 18, 2021 Thought you might like another look at 8749 15 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Wright Posted June 18, 2021 Author Share Posted June 18, 2021 (edited) A 'success' story............... I mentioned I'm now in possession of many 'wrecked' kit-built locos (and a few carriages as well). Yesterday, four went to new homes, with proceeds to CRUK. Some have been so smashed as to being beyond hope (other than salvaging things like motors/gears), but one only needed a bit of TLC to make it presentable again. This one......................... A Millholme Q1 in OO. Body damage repairs consisted of little more re-fixing steps and vacuum standpipes. However, though the mechanism was undamaged (other than, thankfully, the rubbish pick-ups coming away), it was so stiff in its running, despite having the heftiest Portescap I've seen in any 4mm loco. So, this morning, I stripped it down, opened out the holes in the rods, reassembled it, made new pick-ups, cleaned and oiled it. The result, a super-smooth performer! Why do some model-makers accept a 'tight-spot' (or spots), giving the (hopelessly-feeble) excuse of 'It'll run-in'? No, it won't. The motor is visible in the cab, of course, but matt black and a crew (one each side) will soon disguise this. A couple of friends are coming over over the weekend, so I'll offer it to them first (I hope they don't fight over it!). Both model the LNER so it could be of interest. If neither is interested, may I invite offers of interest, please? You might wish to, anyway. It's all in a most-worthy cause. Edited June 18, 2021 by Tony Wright typo error 11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lee74clarke Posted June 18, 2021 Share Posted June 18, 2021 19 minutes ago, Tony Wright said: A 'success' story............... I mentioned I'm now in possession of many 'wrecked' kit-built locos (and a few carriages as well). Yesterday, four went to new homes, with proceeds to CRUK. Some have been so smashed as to being beyond hope (other than salvaging things like motors/gears), but one only needed a bit of TLC to make it presentable again. This one......................... A Millholme Q1 in OO. Body damage repairs consisted of little more re-fixing steps and vacuum standpipes. However, though the mechanism was undamaged (other than, thankfully, the rubbish pick-ups coming away), it was so stiff in its running, despite having the heftiest Portescap I've seen in any 4mm loco. So, this morning, I stripped it down, opened out the holes in the rods, reassembled it, made new pick-ups, cleaned and oiled it. The result, a super-smooth performer! Why do some model-makers accept a 'tight-spot' (or spots), giving the (hopelessly-feeble) excuse of 'It'll run-in'? No, it won't. The motor is visible in the cab, of course, but matt black and a crew (one each side) will soon disguise this. A couple of friends are coming over over the weekend, so I'll offer it to them first (I hope they don't fight over it!). Both model the LNER so it could be of interest. If neither is interested, may I invite offers of interest, please? You might wish to, anyway. It's all in a most-worthy cause. Good Afternoon Tony, If your LNER mates don't go for the loco, please give me a shout. I would be looking to change into BR guise, which possibly seems a shame. Best Regards, Lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Michael Edge Posted June 18, 2021 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 18, 2021 2 hours ago, 313201 said: It's a huge pity the loco has not been restored to working order and a preserved line electrified at the relevant voltage,then we could see this unique loco back on the tracks in service. Were these the loco's that were powered at 1,500v dc just like the class 76 & 77 locos that ran on the Woodhead route All the NER electrics (apart from the two Quayside shunters and Bo+Bo No.11) were stored after the Newport - Shildon line was dewired. They remained until about 1951, the Bo+Bos were intended to be used on the Woodhead scheme, No.11 having been rebuilt as a banking loco. They always worked on 1500v DC but the intention had been to use 3rd rail in places such as Waverley station - to this end No.13 had shoe junction boxes (identical to the ones on the Quayside shunters) fitted, the shoe beams would have been on the bogies. No.11 survived into the 1960s as 26510/Departmental 100 at Ilford car sheds, never having worked on the MSW. Some of the technology from the Bo+Bos, including the articulated bogies, was perpetuated in the EM1s. The two Quayside shunters, one of which is the only survivor, were very different and had nothing in common with the mainline locos. They worked on 600v DC, 3rd rail or overhead and used the Tyneside electrified lines to get to and from the depots. They were essentially an American Westinghouse design, built under licence by Brush. 4 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Flintoft Posted June 18, 2021 Share Posted June 18, 2021 Afternoon , Tony , Many years ago I built a Bristol Models B.1 . It is very much a kit of it's time , but I don't remember having any real problems with it . It is basically accurate , but benefits from detailing & , like most whitemetal kits , having all the visible edges thinned down . As I remember , the chassis kit had to be ordered separately , & included thick brass frames & Eames valve gear . My model represents no. 61199 as running from York in 1966 , when she was in terrible external condition ( even by York standards !) but she was often turned out for the Red Bank empties & the fitted freight turn to Derby so was probably better then she looked . The model is powered by an old second hand X04 & runs well but sounds like a Tiger tank ! Ray . 16 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold toboldlygo Posted June 18, 2021 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 18, 2021 7 hours ago, Tony Wright said: Of possible interest, A few latest moving shots of Retford and Little Bytham................ The Retford footage reveals the B17 I fitted EM frames to (now complete), a similar V2 and A2 (the A3 and the A4 are Roy Jackson's work). The Little Bytham footage shows some of my latest locos in action. All images, both static and moving, always reveal any less-than-perfect aspects of models. On Retford, the V2 momentarily 'twitches' (I need to investigate) and on LB, the Black Five makes a 'groan' on passing over a point (its bogie-holding shouldered screw just caught on the point's actuating steel rod, protruding through the tie-bar); since fixed. Thanks to Howard Smith for editing this footage. Thoroughly enjoyed the video, your mini me made chuckle - as a client of mine got himself scanned and 3D printed by Modelu as Loco Crew (which I've painted). 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post LNER4479 Posted June 18, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted June 18, 2021 (edited) On 17/06/2021 at 07:42, Tony Wright said: Ever since DJH motor/gearboxes came out (25 years ago; more?), I've used them; not exclusively, but certainly for preference (originally, they were only supplied as kits). A drop-in, just like this; in the new B1 frames I'm making. Brand new and not having run more than a few feet, I'll let Graham Nicholas comment (if he wishes to) on how sweetly it ran. On 17/06/2021 at 08:27, dibateg said: An interesting discussion regarding gearboxes, the vast majority of mine are ready made - ABC or MSC. I've only made up a handful of kits where those motor/gearbox assemblies won't fit. I don't like doing them, which is curious, as I should be quite capable! Tony Before we drift off onto other topics altogether, I'm responding to the invitation above to comment - but perhaps not exactly as Tony (W) intended. I'm with Tony (Dibateg). I can usually 'do' gearbox assembly, but I always approach it with trepidation ... By sheer fluke - and the real reason for compiling this post, is that this afternoon's job was indeed to put together a motor gearbox, as part of this commission build. And look whose gearbox it is! (supplied by the client so I didn't choose this, although not to say I wouldn't have). The parts laid out in more detail. It's now 1315pm (ie a few hours ago) Now, what follows I wouldn't normally post, it's 'warts n all', contains lots of 'how not to do it's, features lots of inadequate facilities ... feel free to hoot with laughter if you wish but my point is to try and recreate what Mr Average loco builder is faced with and perhaps how some of the locos that come into Tony's hands might not have the smooth running gearboxes they should have. None of what follows is in any way a criticism of the HL product. It was excellent as always, beautifully engineered, but ... (PS - there were no instructions, they may have got separated en route to me? Either that or they're on the website. But I like to think I had a reasonable idea of what was required - even if I didn't do it in a textbook manner) First job is to fit the bearings, facing outwards. They don't fit at first time of asking so a small amount of metal needs to be removed, probably no more that the burr inside the hole from the etching process. Mr Average may well use a round file, as I am. I went VERY careful, no more than a couple of twists in the non-cutting direction at a time until the bearings popped in. Too much metal removal and there'll be slop in the fit and almost impossible to solder up central to the hole - the first of several potential sources of poor running. Very exaggerated, but to illustrate that it's perfectly possible to get these things NOT square and true to the mating surfaces. To minimise risk of the above, both bearings are placed into position, with some scrap etch supporting the end (to avoid soldering up a slight angle in the other direction). First job complete. It's now 1345. You don't have to do this stage with a drop in DJH gearbox. Next, fold up the sides to create the U shape housing we're after. By eye, it's unlikely we'll get that spot on 90 degrees. Mr Average needs a square to adjust it to get it spot on before introducing solder. Otherwise, the axle won't run true in the bearings - another potential source of poor running. It's now 1400. You don't have to do this stage with a drop in DJH gearbox. Next, the axle won't fit in the bearing at first time of asking. More gentle removal of metal, gradually, checking as you go. Eventually, the axle fits and a quick check with the wheels added - it all rotates freely and appears square (phew!). To be fair, there is an equivalent task at this stage with the DJH box, as Tony has alluded to. It's now 1405. Then the worm gear need fitting to the motor shaft. In this case, it's a push fit - not my preference but I was building the gearbox as supplied so no choice. Having scratched my head trying to think of the best way of doing this, I suddenly remembered the old vice so I used that. It's a very tight interference fit so there's no danger of it working loose - once it's on, it's on (so no ability to easily adjust it). To get it pushed on further down the shaft, then perhaps Mr Average might have used a small piece of tube like I did ... It's now 1425. You don't have to do this stage with a drop in DJH gearbox. As you might have already spotted, this is a two-stage gearbox, with an intermediate gear running on lay shaft. A one-stage gearbox is simpler. Nevertheless, to complete the story ... The layshaft provided in this pack is ridiculously long. Not sure why; maybe someone substituted something? Anyway, it's end was crudely cut and needed dressing - and it also wouldn't fit through the holes at first time of asking, so more careful opening out. But then, when I tried a first fit with the motor in place, it wouldn't turn but went all Bob Marley on me (just kept jamming). Now - I'm very embarrassed to show this next bit, but in the spirit of warts and all, and to perfectly illustrate the purpose of the post. Skoolboy error!! In using the collar to press home the worm gear, I've distorted the end of the gear (left hand end), with the result that the teeth of the lay gear were just catching on the deformed end of the gear. As the centre of the mesh is towards the middle, I was able to - carefully - dress back the damage with a combination of piercing saw and V-shaped files. Doh! Now assembled (you can see the 'repairs' to the worm gear). With the collar on the layshaft, there's still a gap. That's obviously why the adjacent washer is provided. Disassemble and, with about five pairs of hands, hold everything in alignment whilst slipping in the washer and trying to re-engage layshaft. It's now 1450. You don't have to do this stage with a drop in DJH gearbox. Finally(!), with the wheel axle introduced and some leads attached, it was time to test. And the only way to show this is by video. And - as I say on the video - this was genuinely the first time I tried it so you can see the result without any prior trials or adjustment. First at 1507; second at 1510 And still more work to do to fully finish (eg cut the lay shaft to length!) Conclusions? As demonstrated, it is - of course - perfectly possible to assemble a HL gearbox to run sweetly. BUT - there are equally several tasks along the way where errors CAN be introduced and I can easily see how Tony comes across locos with such gearboxes assembled by Mr Average that don't run sweetly. With the DJH box you're simply paying to bypass those stages, de-risking the thing in the process. I assemble perhaps two or three gearboxes a year and am probably (almost certainly!) doing so without recourse to all the proper / ideal tools. But at two or three a year (max), is it worth investing in the proper kit? The lady(?) on the DJH production line presumably has all the correct tools and fixtures to hand and is doing it day in day out. The above took just under two hours, albeit with some pauses for photography, particularly setting up the video at the end. Perhaps, without interruptions, I could have done that in 1hr 15 - 1 hr 30 mins? Overall, I 'get' where Tony is coming from. The range of HL boxes is a marvellous product range and worthwhile supporting if that's your preferred route. But it IS possible to c0ck-up the assembly and the alternative of paying more for a 'drop in' virtual guaranteed success (yes Tony, the B1 chassis did run perfectly smoothly ... but I never expected otherwise) has its own merits. Feel free to throw brickbats and tell me all the places where I went wrong if you really feel the need to. But that wasn't the point of the post and - as you can see - in spite of myself, I still ended up with a sweet running gearbox. Edited June 18, 2021 by LNER4479 18 1 4 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now