Wright writes.....

[Erichill16]

Sometimes I take shortcuts in my modelling and then wish I’d spent the extra effort in the first place. One glaring example is rushing a paint job and then regretting its later. I’m sure in the long run Tony will be glad he  had a change of heart.

Ive stated the refurb of the DJH J10 and will show pictures soon.

regards

Robert 

[Richard E]

OK, as for showing where we are with our modelling I have been very reluctant to add to this thread as the quality is so high but here goes!

 

Firstly apologies for the quality of the photographs as I'm nowhere near the level of the likes of Sir and many of these are from my mobile phone anyway. RTR stock in evidence at present but there are brass, white-metal and timber kits in the pile waiting for a round tuit to arrive.

 

All of this is work in progress at present. The track plan is based on Wooferton in Salop but with a dose of rule 1 in that there is going to be a much heavier GWR influence than in real life. The distance between bridges north and south of the station is to scale by the way. The goods yard differs slightly from prototype but that is due to space restrictions.

 

I couldn't quite get the track geometry that I needed by using standard track so I took a leaf out of the books of Graham of Grantham fame and did a bit of surgery on some standard track to produce this. The diamond crossings are where the work was needed, two sets were sacrificed (one second-hand) due to me being a bit ham fisted at first.

 

 

Then I needed to produce the girder bridges either end of the station. I started with a pair of laser cut wood kits for rail overbridges. First step was to narrow them as required and, for the southern end, alter it to a skew bridge. And this is the result.

 

 

The branch line disappears under a road and I've used a stone built bridge for that. I'm not sure if that is correct as nothing remains these days but I suspect in reality it was brick. weathering is yet to be done.

 

 

Did I mention that I'm working in 'N' and this is all in 11' x 7'?

 

[t-b-g]

 

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening Tony,

 

I assume (or at least I hope so) it's a version of parallax attributed to your camera which has caused your B3 to have the firebox sloping upwards towards the cab; and a taper boiler!

 

Speaking of fireboxes....................

 

 

My own stupidity even amazes me at times! Having built a D16/3 recently, using (in part) a Mallard/Blacksmith kit, I'd forgotten that parts for a D16/2 are also included; which means a GER Belpaire firebox. 

 

So, a moment's immersion in boiling water and the GWR firebox was gone. Luckily, the firebox front was present in the Crownline kit; this was used as a guide. And, with some modification, here's the result. Better? 

 

I've been so keen to exonerate myself that I've left the cleaning up until tomorrow. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

That does look a better shape Tony but it still isn't quite there. The D16 had a bigger diameter boiler than the J17 so the firebox is too wide now. It all depends on how good you want the model to be. If it is a quicky "layout loco" you will probably get away with it! 

 

My cheap camera in "macro" mode does produce some odd "straight" lines and the firebox and boiler on Valour are straighter than that in real life.

 

Hopefully it looks straighter in this side on view, taken a while ago. The L shaped strip at the side of the roof has been put straight since the photo was taken and the dome reshaped too. I hope the effort pays off when it is finished but I am trying very hard to put every bit of my experience and skill into "Valour". I want it to be my "flagship" loco, the one that I see as being the very best that I can do. So if there is anything I have missed or messed up, I would be happy to hear about it. On this occasion, the camera has made it look less than straight rather than my workmanship (I hope!).   

 

 

 

Edited May 17, 2020 by t-b-g

[St Enodoc]

5 hours ago, Headstock said:

fireboxgate

[Andy Reichert]

12 hours ago, Bucoops said:

I don't think I have been critical to anyone's work - but equally it has been a while since I have posted any of my work. Most of my stuff is at work, and I am not so I picked out Nick Easton's 7mm Drewry shunter to attack as my lockdown project. As ever I'm a very slow builder but this is how it is at present

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I did a double take on the chassis pictures.  I realise that it is not you I should be asking, but if you do know, what is the purpose of the beams that support the two LH axles.

 

Andy

 

 

[jwealleans]

They're to compensate the axles - to provide some vertical movement to cater for uneven track.  That keeps the wheels in contact with the rails and gives better pickup, so better running.  It's a recurring theme here......

[Tony Wright]

8 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

 

That does look a better shape Tony but it still isn't quite there. The D16 had a bigger diameter boiler than the J17 so the firebox is too wide now. It all depends on how good you want the model to be. If it is a quicky "layout loco" you will probably get away with it! 

 

My cheap camera in "macro" mode does produce some odd "straight" lines and the firebox and boiler on Valour are straighter than that in real life.

 

Hopefully it looks straighter in this side on view, taken a while ago. The L shaped strip at the side of the roof has been put straight since the photo was taken and the dome reshaped too. I hope the effort pays off when it is finished but I am trying very hard to put every bit of my experience and skill into "Valour". I want it to be my "flagship" loco, the one that I see as being the very best that I can do. So if there is anything I have missed or messed up, I would be happy to hear about it. On this occasion, the camera has made it look less than straight rather than my workmanship (I hope!).   

 

 

 

Good morning Tony,

 

It's probably the D15 firebox I used - there is a variety in the kit - which is right?

 

If it's too wide (as you imply), then the Crownline former is too wide, because that's how I obtained the shape. It's as wide as the boiler, so to make it narrower would result in the latter sticking out ahead of it (the diameter of the boiler is governed by the former at the front). My crude soldering gives the impression that the firebox is wider than the boiler - it isn't.

 

Thus, if this firebox is too wide, then (as noted) the Crownline firebox former is too wide and the smokebox/boiler former is too wide.

 

Stuff it - I'll scratch-build the bl**ding lot!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited May 18, 2020 by Tony Wright
to clarify a point

[Chuffer Davies]

2 hours ago, Andy Reichert said:

 

I did a double take on the chassis pictures.  I realise that it is not you I should be asking, but if you do know, what is the purpose of the beams that support the two LH axles.

 

Andy

 

 

 

1 hour ago, jwealleans said:

They're to compensate the axles - to provide some vertical movement to cater for uneven track.  That keeps the wheels in contact with the rails and gives better pickup, so better running.  It's a recurring theme here......

Hi,

The compensation scheme used in this model is unusual in that it breaks the rules.  Compensation is normally designed around the three legged stool principle but this design delivers four points of support which means that it still cannot guarantee to keep all wheels firmly planted on the track.  A twin beam configuration is normally paired with a central fixed  beam on the third axle.  

Potentially all the complexity of compensation without the benefits.  
 

To correct this the modeller would either need to replace the twin beams with a single central beam (I realise that this is not easy because of how the axle bushes are arranged) or compensate the third axle. 
 

Regards,

Frank

 

 

 

 

 

[Bucoops]

3 hours ago, Andy Reichert said:

 

I did a double take on the chassis pictures.  I realise that it is not you I should be asking, but if you do know, what is the purpose of the beams that support the two LH axles.

 

Andy

 

 

 

As Jonathan says it's for compensation - I've not built a loco with it before but as it came with the kit, I thought why not. I used Romford 4mm crankpin bushes as the bushes for it, with crankpin washers to close it off. I'm not sure if the wire is supposed to go the full width of the frames but it seems to work fine as-is. There is about 1.5mm of full deflection. The coupling rods are jointed.

 

There's 4 more of the 4mm crankpin bushes on the body too!

[jwealleans]

The D15 firebox should be right, Tony as the boiler diameters were the same.    The J17s were known as 'Goods Claud' because they had the same boiler on 0-6-0 frames. 

[t-b-g]

46 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Tony,

 

It's probably the D15 firebox I used - there is a variety in the kit - which is right?

 

If it's too wide (as you imply), then the Crownline former is too wide, because that's how I obtained the shape. It's as wide as the boiler, so to make it narrower would result in the latter sticking out ahead of it (the diameter of the boiler is governed by the former at the front). My crude soldering gives the impression that the firebox is wider than the boiler - it isn't.

 

Thus, if this firebox is too wide, then (as noted) the Crownline firebox former is too wide and the smokebox/boiler former is too wide.

 

Stuff it - I'll scratch-build the bl**ding lot!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Perhaps it is just the way the light is catching the join between the boiler and the firebox in the photo Tony. If it is a D15 firebox, that should be fine. It just looks as if you can see the front edge of the firebox all the way down past the boiler. The top corners of the firebox don't appear to follow the same curve as the cab front windows, giving the impression that the firebox is wider than it should be.

 

On the real thing, the firebox goes right up to the cab windows and you can't see much cab front between the window and the firebox, just the window frame.

 

So it gives the impression that something is not quite right somewhere but it would need measuring and a good drawing to know exactly what and it probably isn't enough to worry about.

 

It is difficult to tell from the photo and if I am wrong, I will be the first to put my hands up and admit it!

 

I have lifted his photo of the preserved loco from the web, so hopefully Copyright isn't a problem but it illustrates what I am trying to say about the relationship between the boiler, firebox and cab front.

 

Edited May 18, 2020 by t-b-g
To add photo

[Bucoops]

23 minutes ago, Chuffer Davies said:

 

Hi,

The compensation scheme used in this model is unusual in that it breaks the rules.  Compensation is normally designed around the three legged stool principle but this design delivers four points of support which means that it still cannot guarantee to keep all wheels firmly planted on the track.  A twin beam configuration is normally paired with a central fixed  beam on the third axle.  

Potentially all the complexity of compensation without the benefits.  
 

To correct this the modeller would either need to replace the twin beams with a single central beam (I realise that this is not easy because of how the axle bushes are arranged) or compensate the third axle. 
 

Regards,

Frank

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Frank - I'm no expert on compensation, this being my first. I believe Nick Easton is a known and accomplished kit designer however? Although the method of implementing the beams provided is my own.

 

This would appear to suggest a fixed driven axle with the remaining adjacent two axles being held by a beam to be acceptable? The example in the below uses hornblocks if that makes a difference?

 

http://www.clag.org.uk/41-0rev.html#figure38

 

I only have a short piece of O gauge track to run it on to can't really test it

 

 

 

[dibateg]

The ghost of an MTK Cravens DMU passes...…..

 

The picture of the J17 is deceptive - I had to look at it twice.... Perhaps clean some of that solder off Tony?

 

I'm still making track, it makes an interesting change from Locos... I can understand your sentiment Tony in to getting back to loco building after all that point rodding...

 

Only another 18 turnouts or so to make...…..

 

Regards

Tony

 

[t-b-g]

This J17 thing has me puzzled and I have had my thinking cap on. My eyes and brain sometimes work together and sometimes independently but once something like this crops up, I can't rest until I know he answer! 

 

Could it be the boiler rather than the firebox?

 

On the model, it is soldered to the splashers. On the real thing, the boiler is well clear of the splashers. Could it be too low and possibly too small a diameter? A larger diameter boiler, pitched slightly higher up, with the firebox raised up slightly as well, would sort out the relationship between cab, firebox and boiler.

 

Just a thought! 

[Beechnut]

49 minutes ago, Bucoops said:

 

Hi Frank - I'm no expert on compensation, this being my first. I believe Nick Easton is a known and accomplished kit designer however? Although the method of implementing the beams provided is my own.

 

This would appear to suggest a fixed driven axle with the remaining adjacent two axles being held by a beam to be acceptable? The example in the below uses hornblocks if that makes a difference?

 

http://www.clag.org.uk/41-0rev.html#figure38

 

I only have a short piece of O gauge track to run it on to can't really test it

 

 

 

It’s my normal method for 0-6-0 wheel arrangement too. Certainly works for me providing good pickup and traction.

I did try it on an 0-4-2, that wasn’t quite so successful what with the torque reaction of the motor/gearbox. Despite that it works ok on reasonable track, reasonable as in not too many undulations, especially on curves.

 

Brendan

Edited May 18, 2020 by Beechnut
Typo

[Beechnut]

The LNWR 0-4-2. Most will know this is the M&L Leisure kit which I think is now AGW, whether it’s available to purchase I don’t know. 
 

Brendan

 

 

[jwealleans]

Quote

On the model, it is soldered to the splashers. On the real thing, the boiler is well clear of the splashers. Could it be too low and possibly too small a diameter? A larger diameter boiler, pitched slightly higher up, with the firebox raised up slightly as well, would sort out the relationship between cab, firebox and boiler.

 

I think there might be a touch too much land below the spectacle plates, but if you did that you'd also need to raise the smokebox?

 

The boiler should be 4' 9", but assuming that doesn't include cladding then 5' 3" overall.  

 

I have the GERS drawings CD, Tony, if anything from that would be of use to you?

[Chuffer Davies]

43 minutes ago, Beechnut said:

It’s my normal method for 0-6-0 wheel arrangement too. Certainly works for me providing good pickup and traction.

I did try it on an 0-4-2, that wasn’t quite so successful what with the torque reaction of the motor/gearbox. Despite that it works ok on reasonable track, reasonable as in not too many undulations, especially on curves.

 

Brendan

Hi Brendan,

I have no doubt that your models run successfully, but from a electrical perspective the compensation scheme effectively delivers an outcome similar to a fixed axle 0-4-0 rather than a compensated 0-6-0.  To prove this try putting something under one of the wheels to represent uneven track and then rock  the chassis from side to side and you will discover that it does rock rather than being firmly planted.  Sir, and several others on this thread, see compensation as unnecessary and their fixed frame models run beautifully partly because they maximise the number of pickups on their models.  I compensate so that I achieve the same continuity of electrical collection with less wheels I.e. American system: loco wheels one side and tender wheels the other, and with tank engines I combine split frame with compensation.  I have a personal dislike of wiper pickups and do my best to avoid them on my own models, but if others want to use them then fair enough.....
 

I suppose what I am questioning is why go to the additional  effort of building compensation when it is done in such a way as to compromise the delivered benefit, that’s all?

Regards,

Frank

 

[micklner]

PDK photo of a finished current version of the J17 , sadly the photo is a bit dark.

 

 

 

[Dunsignalling]

7 minutes ago, micklner said:

PDK photo of a finished current version of the J17 , sadly the photo is a bit dark.

 

 

 

Is this any better?

[jwealleans]

Same one I built.   Was that a celebrity loco in the day?    I chose it because it worked the Ramsey branch.

[Headstock]

12 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

 

That does look a better shape Tony but it still isn't quite there. The D16 had a bigger diameter boiler than the J17 so the firebox is too wide now. It all depends on how good you want the model to be. If it is a quicky "layout loco" you will probably get away with it! 

 

My cheap camera in "macro" mode does produce some odd "straight" lines and the firebox and boiler on Valour are straighter than that in real life.

 

Hopefully it looks straighter in this side on view, taken a while ago. The L shaped strip at the side of the roof has been put straight since the photo was taken and the dome reshaped too. I hope the effort pays off when it is finished but I am trying very hard to put every bit of my experience and skill into "Valour". I want it to be my "flagship" loco, the one that I see as being the very best that I can do. So if there is anything I have missed or messed up, I would be happy to hear about it. On this occasion, the camera has made it look less than straight rather than my workmanship (I hope!).   

 

 

 

 

Good morning Tony,

 

As you are calling for comments, my eye is always drawn to that fascinating slide bar/step support bracket on the B3 and class B7. What stands out to me, that perhaps needs attention, is the arrangement of the crosshead and con rod, especially the way it connects via that distinctive knuckle. I include the best photo I have (collected for a hoped for future modelling project) for your consideration. Though it is of my own candidate for 'flagship' model status, class B7, the general arrangement is typical of the GC outside cylinder locomotives. I hope it is of some benefit, as it shows a wealth of other details.

 

 

[t-b-g]

2 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Good morning Tony,

 

As you are calling for comments, my eye is always drawn to that fascinating slide bar/step support bracket on the B3 and class B7. What stands out to me, that perhaps needs attention, is the arrangement of the crosshead and con rod, especially the way it connects via that distinctive knuckle. I include the best photo I have (collected for a hoped for future modelling project) for your consideration. Though it is of my own candidate for 'flagship' model status, class B7, the general arrangement is typical of the GC outside cylinder locomotives. I hope it is of some benefit, as it shows a wealth of other details.

 

 

 

Thanks Andrew. That is an area where I still have much to do. I have filed all the old detail off the cross head but haven't added the new. That is a brilliant photo for showing what it should look like. The David Andrew's O Gauge kit is a good helper too, as it has those levers for operating the cylinder drain clocks and I can shrink them down and copy them, like I did the valve gear. I do have a 90% finished B7 too. It was one Roy Jackson did but he never finished it. What powerful looking beasts they are.

[cctransuk]

14 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening Tony,

 

I assume (or at least I hope so) it's a version of parallax attributed to your camera which has caused your B3 to have the firebox sloping upwards towards the cab; and a taper boiler!

 

Speaking of fireboxes....................

 

 

My own stupidity even amazes me at times! Having built a D16/3 recently, using (in part) a Mallard/Blacksmith kit, I'd forgotten that parts for a D16/2 are also included; which means a GER Belpaire firebox. 

 

So, a moment's immersion in boiling water and the GWR firebox was gone. Luckily, the firebox front was present in the Crownline kit; this was used as a guide. And, with some modification, here's the result. Better? 

 

I've been so keen to exonerate myself that I've left the cleaning up until tomorrow. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Tony,

 

To my eye, the feature that stands out the most is the excessive width of cab front visible between the firebox and the windows. The prototypehas a 'hunched shoulders' look that isn't evident on the model.

 

In the absence of a drawing, the model itself and a scale rule, it's difficult to say where the discrepancy lies, but the cab does seem to tower over the rest of the model.

 

Could the kit that you acquired be a test etch containing errors?

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Tony Wright]

50 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

Tony,

 

To my eye, the feature that stands out the most is the excessive width of cab front visible between the firebox and the windows. The prototypehas a 'hunched shoulders' look that isn't evident on the model.

 

In the absence of a drawing, the model itself and a scale rule, it's difficult to say where the discrepancy lies, but the cab does seem to tower over the rest of the model.

 

Could the kit that you acquired be a test etch containing errors?

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Good afternoon John,

 

I doubt if the kit I acquired from Roy Jackson's estate was a test. However, judging by its condition, he'd had it a long time.

 

I find I'm getting mixed messages regarding comments. 

 

The firebox is too big.

 

The boiler is too small - or too big!

 

There's too much space between the spectacles and the firebox, or there's not enough.

 

One thing I would say is the cab on the J17 is commodious (a fact commented on in the established works), and it does tower over the rest.

 

I've fiddled with the model some more this morning, and added several bits......

 

After much un-soldering, swearing, re-soldering, pushing and shoving, more swearing, questioning folk's parentage and a final blast of profanity, this is the state so far. 

 

 

Because of the slots and tabs on several of the components, these dictate positions/height - the front of the smokebox, for instance.

 

In all honesty, I'm not prepared to invest much more time on this model. The observations of others have been most useful (more than one pair of eyes, etc.,), but it'll have to do from now on.

 

A Wright 'layout loco'!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 18, 2020 by Tony Wright
typo error