Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

15 minutes ago, Chas Levin said:

Hello, I hope I'm not talking out of turn here as I've only built one DJH kit to date, but I have several more to build so I've been able to examine them too and as Tony comments in reply to your post, there's clearly been some evolution. The one I built (J9/10) had some of these issues: the frames were more sophisticated than plain rectangular pieces but they, their associated parts and the instructions all catered for a much older motor and fitting the current AM10 motor and gearbox combo supplied with the kit called for some 'fettling'. Similarly the detailing wasn't the most exhaustive I've seen.

I can see both sides here: DJH are running a business and want to sell stock and recoup on their investments and I suspect that kit sales are far too low nowadays (sadly) to underwrite the various costs attached to substantial re-design.

On the other hand, being coy about such details as these may lead to disappointed buyers facing unexpected obstacles, which won't help sell more kits.

I wonder whether DJH might consider a compromise, by explaining in the notes accompanying some kits' online pages that they are of an older origin and may need additional modification to accommodate more modern drive systems, or to match the latest detailing standards? I realise that may sound counter-intuitive - a sales pitch that points out what some may see as defects - but it might have long term benefits.

Don't get me wrong: I'm a big fan of the company's products, I enjoyed building the kit enormously, viewed the mods as an interesting extra challenge and found that overcoming them enhanced my sense of achievement (and the AM10 drive unit was well worth the extra work to install, it runs beautifully). Extra detailing is more of a moveable feast I think, for the builder to indulge in to his or her own taste, but I realise these views are not to everyones' taste...

 

A wise series of observations, Chas,

 

Since DJH has not invested in producing any new 4mm kits for locos since their Brighton Atlantic (which I test-built and wrote the instructions for) nearly 20 years ago now, I cannot see the firm 'upgrading' some of the older ones. I'm not a spokesman for DJH but I have worked closely with the firm down the years. 

 

As has been pointed out, newer (and superior?) kits for B16s are now (or have been) available, so the choice is up to the modeller. I firmly believe that those older ones make-up into perfectly adequate 'layout locos'; viewed as part of a whole scene, not necessarily to be scrutinised by those 'in the know', especially under studio conditions. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[dibateg]

Yes - the DJH B16 was the only kit available at the time and when it was nearly completed and it just looked wrong. So I hacked it apart again! It was to do with the relationship between the coupled wheelbase and the body, if I recall correctly. I do remember taking all the splashers off and moving them from the original positions. They were too far forward I think. Given the choice, I'd have gone for a more accurate kit of course and it has been mentioned about the 'oo' look. One of the reasons I moved to 7mm! At the time, it was great, but yes, it probably doesn't stand up to comparison with newer better kits.

I'm trying to think about how long ago I built it, 15 years or more. I sometimes used to put the date underneath...

 

Regards

Tony

 

 

[ArthurK]

This is my scratchbuilt B16/1 built some 50 years ago. It is only as  accurate as the  Skinley drawing that it was  built from.  We all  know the reputation of those. It has seen a lot of service (and it shows).  It was shopped years ago and given a Portescap 1616. Now resting in its box where it will remain!

ArthurK

[great central]

Regarding DJH B16 kits. I bought one at the first  or second Nottingham show in the Victoria leisure centre (aka Victoria baths).

It was the rebuilt one able to be either a /2 or /3 version. If I could be bothered to dig the box out at this time of the morning I could check.

From very distant memory it was on offer and cost me around £10, this would have been about 1977-8, the third kit I ever built.

I did subsequently buy another two, both on offer at times, so I have one of each version. They haven't been out of the boxes in many years.

[Tony Wright]

10 hours ago, dibateg said:

Yes - the DJH B16 was the only kit available at the time and when it was nearly completed and it just looked wrong. So I hacked it apart again! It was to do with the relationship between the coupled wheelbase and the body, if I recall correctly. I do remember taking all the splashers off and moving them from the original positions. They were too far forward I think. Given the choice, I'd have gone for a more accurate kit of course and it has been mentioned about the 'oo' look. One of the reasons I moved to 7mm! At the time, it was great, but yes, it probably doesn't stand up to comparison with newer better kits.

I'm trying to think about how long ago I built it, 15 years or more. I sometimes used to put the date underneath...

 

Regards

Tony

 

 

Thanks Tony,

 

It's a bit older than 15 years. I took its picture on Charwelton at the turn of the century. 

 

Despite some recent observations, it still proclaims B16 to me. It looks just how I remember seeing them at Doncaster, York and Hull - dirty!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Clive Mortimore]

I have a DJH B16/2, secondhand off E-bay. When I first received it I swore I would never buy another secondhand kit built loco off the internet. It wouldn't run properly, and the body wasn't square. It did have real coal and a one crew member. I tried to get it to run better, it wouldn't.

 

I couldn't tell if it was soldered or glued as it was painted black on the inside of the body, so me being me gave the buffer beam a little tug. I had a buffer beam in one hand, the running plate in the other and the boiler bouncing off my toe. It had been glued. All the bits went back in the box. Most disappointed.

 

One night I pulled out the box and decided to give the chassis one more play to see if I could get it to run better. I did the run it in the dark and look for sparks. There were so many orange sparks it looked like a builders digger with its flashing light. They were coming from the rear bogie wheels coming in contact with the cylinders. Out with a file and I attacked the back of the cylinders. It ran better. I also added tender pickups which improved it over Peco points.

 

I looked at the body, straightened the running plate. Sat the boiler back on it. The cab was all wonky, luckily half was attached to the boiler and half to the running plate I realised if that was rebuilt I might get a nicer looking loco. I quickly abandoned any plans of returning to a kit of parts and soldering back together. Out came the super glue. It is going to be repainted from LNER to BR livery.

 

It seems to run better each time it has an outing on the layout.

 

 

It is now running a lot quieter.

[Tony Wright]

More on B16s..................

 

 

Roy Jackson's B16/1 was mentioned yesterday. Built from Steve Barnfield test etches, I believe. I fine model, indeed.

 

 

This B16/1 was built from a PDK kit by Paul Hill (PDK's proprietor), originally for Tom Foster. I acquired it via some barter, fitting the correct bogie wheels in the process, tweaked its running and subsequently sold it on. 

 

Part of the barter was my building another B16/1 from a PDK kit for Tom (he was changing era). Ian Rathbone produced the exquisite paint job. It's now the property of Jonathan Wealleans, and runs (disease-permitting) on Grantham. 

 

It's been seen before, but I think it's relevant here. 

 

 

This time a B16/2, built from a PDK kit by Mike Edge. Again, it came my way via barter from Tom Foster, but was in early BR unlined black livery. I replaced the motor/gearbox and repainted it, after which Tom weathered it. It's still my property....................

 

 

Yet another loco which belonged to Tom Foster, this time a B16/3; built from a PDK kit by John Houlden. I also acquired this via some bartering (building some GWR thingy - yes, Tom's changed his modelling geography, again!). I've since sold this on as well (one can have too many B16s for an ECML depiction south of Grantham). 

 

 

Despite this ancient Nu-Cast B16/3 being ghastly in comparison with the previous one, I keep it because this is all my own work (how many would admit to that?). 

 

It still runs well, however. 

 

 

Another Nu-Cast B16/3, but this one rather better (especially since my fitting of the correct-shaped balance weights). 

 

Roy Jackson had started this one - and then dismantled it! I 'rebuilt' it, making an OO chassis for it in the process (though, in retrospect, maybe I should have completed the EM one which Roy had started - it could then see service on Retford; perhaps, one day..................

 

 

Geoff Haynes then painted it for me.

 

 

DJH also made a B16/3 (and a B16/2?). I photographed this one on Biggleswade. I think it's either the work of Martin Lloyd or Richard Nice. 

[St Enodoc]

16 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

I have a DJH B16/2, secondhand off E-bay. When I first received it I swore I would never buy another secondhand kit built loco off the internet. It wouldn't run properly, and the body wasn't square. It did have real coal and a one crew member. I tried to get it to run better, it wouldn't.

 

I couldn't tell if it was soldered or glued as it was painted black on the inside of the body, so me being me gave the buffer beam a little tug. I had a buffer beam in one hand, the running plate in the other and the boiler bouncing off my toe. It had been glued. All the bits went back in the box. Most disappointed.

 

One night I pulled out the box and decided to give the chassis one more play to see if I could get it to run better. I did the run it in the dark and look for sparks. There were so many orange sparks it looked like a builders digger with its flashing light. They were coming from the rear bogie wheels coming in contact with the cylinders. Out with a file and I attacked the back of the cylinders. It ran better. I also added tender pickups which improved it over Peco points.

 

I looked at the body, straightened the running plate. Sat the boiler back on it. The cab was all wonky, luckily half was attached to the boiler and half to the running plate I realised if that was rebuilt I might get a nicer looking loco. I quickly abandoned any plans of returning to a kit of parts and soldering back together. Out came the super glue. It is going to be repainted from LNER to BR livery.

 

It seems to run better each time it has an outing on the layout.

 

 

It is now running a lot quieter.

Careful when you repaint it, the existing paint might be holding the rest of it together.

 

Nice silhouette across the window by the way - very Colin Gifford-ish.

[Roger Sunderland]

Thank you for the inspirational pictures of B16s and the various accounts. I will persevere with the DJH kit and hopefully use it as a layout engine. Certainly when compared to the PDK kit the boiler appears a little deficient which I think throws everything out of kilter. Attached is a pic of my PDK B16/3. Still awaiting buffers (supplier issues) and a proper whistle. It does run superbly though with a High Level box and one of their new coreless motors.

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Tony,

 

It's a bit older than 15 years. I took its picture on Charwelton at the turn of the century. 

 

Despite some recent observations, it still proclaims B16 to me. It looks just how I remember seeing them at Doncaster, York and Hull - dirty!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

I raised an eyebrow at the 15 years too! Thompson's End was extended to a through station and exhibited like that in the late 1990s and from memory, we had the Barnfield B16 then. So if the Tony Geary one was built before that came out, we must be looking at 20 plus years, maybe 25. How time flies.

 

I hope I didn't come across as saying that Tony Geary's B16 doesn't look like a B16. The work that he has done to it has transformed it and the fact that I wasn't even sure it was a DJH one when I saw the photo is a testament to the improvements he made. It is the sort of project that I really appreciate. Taking a poor kit and "doing a job" on it. Having toiled to achieve similar improvements with a McGowan GCR Atlantic and a Millholme Q4 I fully appreciate what he has done!

 

It was the out of the box unaltered DJH B16 that I thought didn't capture the look of the loco well. The version as modified by Tony did look much better but was still probably not quite as good as a Barnfield or a PDK around the smokebox saddle and the splashers.

[Pebbles]

I'm fairly certain that the Barnfield B16 was initially issued in about 1993, the DJH at least 12 to 14 years earlier. 

[MikeParkin65]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

More on B16s..................

 

 

Roy Jackson's B16/1 was mentioned yesterday. Built from Steve Barnfield test etches, I believe. I fine model, indeed.

 

 

This B16/1 was built from a PDK kit by Paul Hill (PDK's proprietor), originally for Tom Foster. I acquired it via some barter, fitting the correct bogie wheels in the process, tweaked its running and subsequently sold it on. 

 

Part of the barter was my building another B16/1 from a PDK kit for Tom (he was changing era). Ian Rathbone produced the exquisite paint job. It's now the property of Jonathan Wealleans, and runs (disease-permitting) on Grantham. 

 

It's been seen before, but I think it's relevant here. 

 

 

This time a B16/2, built from a PDK kit by Mike Edge. Again, it came my way via barter from Tom Foster, but was in early BR unlined black livery. I replaced the motor/gearbox and repainted it, after which Tom weathered it. It's still my property....................

 

 

Yet another loco which belonged to Tom Foster, this time a B16/3; built from a PDK kit by John Houlden. I also acquired this via some bartering (building some GWR thingy - yes, Tom's changed his modelling geography, again!). I've since sold this on as well (one can have too many B16s for an ECML depiction south of Grantham). 

 

 

Despite this ancient Nu-Cast B16/3 being ghastly in comparison with the previous one, I keep it because this is all my own work (how many would admit to that?). 

 

It still runs well, however. 

 

 

Another Nu-Cast B16/3, but this one rather better (especially since my fitting of the correct-shaped balance weights). 

 

Roy Jackson had started this one - and then dismantled it! I 'rebuilt' it, making an OO chassis for it in the process (though, in retrospect, maybe I should have completed the EM one which Roy had started - it could then see service on Retford; perhaps, one day..................

 

 

Geoff Haynes then painted it for me.

 

 

DJH also made a B16/3 (and a B16/2?). I photographed this one on Biggleswade. I think it's either the work of Martin Lloyd or Richard Nice. 

That top photo of 61422 is so striking - love it. 

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, Roger Sunderland said:

Thank you for the inspirational pictures of B16s and the various accounts. I will persevere with the DJH kit and hopefully use it as a layout engine. Certainly when compared to the PDK kit the boiler appears a little deficient which I think throws everything out of kilter. Attached is a pic of my PDK B16/3. Still awaiting buffers (supplier issues) and a proper whistle. It does run superbly though with a High Level box and one of their new coreless motors.

Lovely work, Roger,

 

Thanks for showing us.

 

Just one point, if I may? The rebuilt B16s had inside-admission valves, so you'll need to alter the angle of the return crank to leaning forwards (not backwards) at bottom dead centre. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Headstock]

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Lovely work, Roger,

 

Thanks for showing us.

 

Just one point, if I may? The rebuilt B16s had inside-admission valves, so you'll need to alter the angle of the return crank to leaning forwards (not backwards) at bottom dead centre. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Good afternoon Tony,

 

the valve gear is always a major let down on he kits produced of the B16 rebuilds, it often looks incomplete or too low slung. I have only seen one good build, I think it may have been a Michael Edge B16/3, on which he etched his own replacement valve gear. The PDK version makes for a pretty decent starting point overall, sans valve gear. The model in the above post seems to be lacking the valve spindle guides from the back of the cylinders, as well as the lifting link and also the tender brake pull rods are on back to front.

 

I very much enjoyed building the PDK B16/1, me being me, I made plenty of alterations and added additional detail. I would have done the same with the Barnfield version, the chimney and dome are not so good as the PDK version for example. Despite that, the foundations are solid on both kits.

 

Correction, it's a B16/2, even better! I wonder if the valve gear is available to buy?

Edited November 13, 2020 by Headstock
Update info

[thegreenhowards]

All this talk of B16 kits has got me worried. I have two DJH kits in my roundtuit pile - a B16/1 and a B16/3. Both were acquired cheap on eBay (£50-£60) but I’m now wondering whether it’s worth building them. As I’ve just splashed out more than the cost of the kit on a set of Markits wheels, I’m inclined to build at least one. 

 

Are they both as bad as each other?

 

Andy

[Ray Flintoft]

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Lovely work, Roger,

 

Thanks for showing us.

 

Just one point, if I may? The rebuilt B16s had inside-admission valves, so you'll need to alter the angle of the return crank to leaning forwards (not backwards) at bottom dead centre. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Yes , That B.16/3 is coming along very well . I found the PDK kit very enjoyable to build . The DJH B16/1 is a much older kit 7 requires a lot of work to get it up to modern standards . The backs of the cylinders need a lot of filing down to allow the bogie to swing freely , but to me they still look like a b16/1 (& as a York lad I saw plenty of them!) Anyway , two of my own , a PDK B16/3 & a DJH B16/1 .

                                                      Cheers ,

                                                               Ray .,

 

[Jol Wilkinson]

4 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Good afternoon Tony,

 

the valve gear is always a major let down on he kits produced of the B16 rebuilds, it often looks incomplete or too low slung. I have only seen one good build, I think it may have been a Michael Edge B16/3, on which he etched his own replacement valve gear. The PDK version makes for a pretty decent starting point overall, sans valve gear. The model in the above post seems to be lacking the valve spindle guides from the back of the cylinders, as well as the lifting link and also the tender brake pull rods are on back to front.

 

I very much enjoyed building the PDK B16/1, me being me, I made plenty of alterations and added additional detail. I would have done the same with the Barnfield version, the chimney and dome are not so good as the PDK version for example. Despite that, the foundations are solid on both kits.

 

Correction, it's a B16/2, even better! I wonder if the valve gear is available to buy?

Is that the original Barnfield version, or the LRM re-incarnation of the kit.

 

Quote from the LRM website,

 

"Based on the former Steve Barnfield kit, with various new fittings, the kit  contents will now additionally include the later Type 49a boiler and a footplate with separate splashers to model either the early beaded or late plain splashers. This footplate also provides more lateral clearance for the driving wheels, to readily accommodate EM and P4 wheels or more side play for tighter curves in OO."

 

This photo (courtesy of Mike M) is of  one of the  LRM test etches built by Mike Megginson.

[Headstock]

40 minutes ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

Is that the original Barnfield version, or the LRM re-incarnation of the kit.

 

Quote from the LRM website,

 

"Based on the former Steve Barnfield kit, with various new fittings, the kit  contents will now additionally include the later Type 49a boiler and a footplate with separate splashers to model either the early beaded or late plain splashers. This footplate also provides more lateral clearance for the driving wheels, to readily accommodate EM and P4 wheels or more side play for tighter curves in OO."

 

This photo (courtesy of Mike M) is of  one of the  LRM test etches built by Mike Megginson.

 

Good evening Jol,

 

It doesn't really matter, I'm not someone who usually builds kits as they come straight out of the box , or necessarily, slavishly believes everything a manufacturer has to say about a prototype, at least not without checking things for myself.

 

That doesn't necessarily make a particular kit  or manufacturer bad but it dose mean that a kit is  often only a starting point. For example, the boiler bands in the photograph of the B16/1 that you have posted, are massively overscale. I would have to change them for a more aesthetically pleasing and more accurate representation. It's not a deal breaker for myself, as far as purchasing the kit is concerned. Many would not be bothered, armoured plated boiler bands have proved immensely popular over the years but they are not for me.

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, Headstock said:

 

Good evening Jol,

 

It doesn't really matter, I'm not someone who usually builds kits as they come straight out of the box , or necessarily, slavishly believes everything a manufacturer has to say about a prototype, at least not without checking things for myself.

 

That doesn't necessarily make a particular kit  or manufacturer bad but it dose mean that a kit is  often only a starting point. For example, the boiler bands in the photograph of the B16/1 that you have posted, are massively overscale. I would have to change them for a more aesthetically pleasing and more accurate representation. It's not a deal breaker for myself, as far as purchasing the kit is concerned. Many would not be bothered, armoured plated boiler bands have proved immensely popular over the years but they are not for me.

Good evenng Andrew,

 

It puzzles me why folk solder on cladding bands of any description.

 

In the case of the etched B16s, I let the lining bands do their stuff. They represent the cladding bands perfectly, and, since for most of their lives, the B16s were lined, then perfect. 

 

For non-lined locos, I use self-adhesive insulation tape, cut to width.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

4 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

All this talk of B16 kits has got me worried. I have two DJH kits in my roundtuit pile - a B16/1 and a B16/3. Both were acquired cheap on eBay (£50-£60) but I’m now wondering whether it’s worth building them. As I’ve just splashed out more than the cost of the kit on a set of Markits wheels, I’m inclined to build at least one. 

 

Are they both as bad as each other?

 

Andy

I think it's been established that they're not the easiest kits, Andy. And, in some areas they're not accurate.

 

Yet, has been illustrated, they can be built into 'acceptable' models. Yes, the etched alternatives are superior, but you'll not get those for £50/£60. 

 

I'd just have a go, accept them for what they are and end up with a pair of locos which are very, very unlikely to ever appear RTR. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

6 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Good afternoon Tony,

 

the valve gear is always a major let down on he kits produced of the B16 rebuilds, it often looks incomplete or too low slung. I have only seen one good build, I think it may have been a Michael Edge B16/3, on which he etched his own replacement valve gear. The PDK version makes for a pretty decent starting point overall, sans valve gear. The model in the above post seems to be lacking the valve spindle guides from the back of the cylinders, as well as the lifting link and also the tender brake pull rods are on back to front.

 

I very much enjoyed building the PDK B16/1, me being me, I made plenty of alterations and added additional detail. I would have done the same with the Barnfield version, the chimney and dome are not so good as the PDK version for example. Despite that, the foundations are solid on both kits.

 

Correction, it's a B16/2, even better! I wonder if the valve gear is available to buy?

Mike Edge substituted much better valve gear on the B16/2 illustrated earlier, Andrew.

 

I hadn't noticed the incorrect brake pull rods which you commented on. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Headstock]

 

37 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evenng Andrew,

 

It puzzles me why folk solder on cladding bands of any description.

 

In the case of the etched B16s, I let the lining bands do their stuff. They represent the cladding bands perfectly, and, since for most of their lives, the B16s were lined, then perfect. 

 

For non-lined locos, I use self-adhesive insulation tape, cut to width.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Good evening Tony,

 

It was one of the first things I noticed about your locomotives back in the day, highly effective.

 

30 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Mike Edge substituted much better valve gear on the B16/2 illustrated earlier, Andrew.

 

I hadn't noticed the incorrect brake pull rods which you commented on. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

I'm a great admirer of Mike's B16/2, probably the finest that I have seen. I didn't realise it had been shown earlier, I shall look back up the thread. I wonder what happened to it, I believe it was produced for someone else?

 

Correction, 61437, lucky you!

Edited November 13, 2020 by Headstock
correction.

[thegreenhowards]

47 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

and end up with a pair of locos which are very, very unlikely to ever appear RTR. 

 

 

As unlikely as the A2/2s?!

[Headstock]

12 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

As unlikely as the A2/2s?!

 

Will you be adding the new RTR ones to your 'too cliched' (everybody's got one) list?

 

 That still leaves Cock o' the pointy cab and friends,  ex President and Earl Mumbles for special people.

[Michael Edge]

9 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

 

Good evening Tony,

 

It was one of the first things I noticed about your locomotives back in the day, highly effective.

 

 

 

I'm a great admirer of Mike's B16/2, probably the finest that I have seen. I didn't realise it had been shown earlier, I shall look back up the thread. I wonder what happened to it, I believe it was produced for someone else?

 

Correction, 61437, lucky you!

The B16/2 was built from a PDK kit but I didn't like the clunky motion provided, particularly the slidebars and crossheads. It was originally fitted with what was then standard equipment for this isze of loco, a Mashima 14x26 motor on a Branchlines gearbox (I now use High Level boxes and more powerful motors as a rule), when Tony acquired it he changed the motor - presumably for a definitely superior DJH one.

The slidebars are laminated from the components on the left, this gives the correct appearance of a wide top bar and two lower bars instead of the usual two bars seen on most models. The crossheads are built up from the next components , two sides locate in the top plate with the connecting rod in the middle. There are two laminations for the return cranks, not visble here but they are partly half etched on each side to give clearance without bending the crank. Two lengths of eccentric rod are included, there is an error somewhere in the PDK kit and the correct length doesn't give the right movement to the expansion link. The roller bearing covers are included, these should really be brass but most B16s were reasonably filthy in service. On the right are two laminations for the slidebar bracket - an essential item which most models seem to ignore. There was a design error in this and it does need some modification to fit the kit. I used the coupling and connecting rods from the kit.

We can still supply this etch for £8.