West End Workbench

[jwealleans]

Thnaks, Paul.   I'll let John have the time to reply before I say anything else publicly.   Gibsons use a slightly greater B2B than Romfords, don't they?

[Bucoops]

11 hours ago, jwealleans said:

What is the inside dimension of the frames on that, Rich?   This one was ~12mm (I have a manual Vernier), which when the frame thickness and the bearing shoulders were added on came to around 14.8mm.

 

Can't even find my verniers so mk1 eyeball and a steel rule...

 

Between 11.0 and 11.5mm between the frames, about 12.5mm over, not sure about with bearings as I've filed them right down. As I understand it, 12mm including bearings is about right for OO with R2 bends?

 

edit: I have Markits wheels for it.

Edited January 2, 2023 by Bucoops

[Paul Cram]

3 hours ago, jwealleans said:

Thnaks, Paul.   I'll let John have the time to reply before I say anything else publicly.   Gibsons use a slightly greater B2B than Romfords, don't they?

The back to back isn't fixed. I can't remember what I set it to as I normally model in P4. I think I used 14.5mm. The distance between the splashers is 23.4mm

[Jol Wilkinson]

Back to Back standards

 

P4 17.67mm - 17.75 mm (EMGS website)

 

EM 16.5mm   (EMGS website)

 

OO 14.8mm DOGA Fine

OO 14.4mm DOGA Intermediate

 

Various other sources quote 14.5mm for OO including DCC Concepts and other B2B gauge suppliers. C&L supply 14.5mm and 14.8mm gauges.

[Captain Kernow]

On 24/12/2022 at 13:51, 46444 said:

Lovely conversions on the Airfix BR Brake Van kits as well. Something I have done previously.

 

Out of interest how do you glaze the end windows? I have filed the window uprights for a better scale effect and glazed each pane individually.

Really like your brake vans, Jonathan, plus all your other work.

 

I'm currently working on my third upgrade of the Airfix BR brake van kit. The first one was done in OO almost 40 years ago, the second in P4 almost 20 years ago. Not sure when I'll do a fourth!

 

Can't recall (without digging it out from the Bethesda stock box) what I did for glazing on the first, OO version, but for the P4 one, I cut individual pieces of plastic glazing material and affixed them in place, including the guards look-out ducket.

 

The third one that I'm currently working on was acquired as a built up example many years ago. It had been rather crudely brush painted and some bits had fallen off. It has resided in my shoebox of wagon kits to be built in P4 for quite a long time now. I could have achieved better results from starting with a completely unbuilt kit, but that wasn't the point here.

 

The basic body shell and chassis were already assembled, so I didn't want to risk breaking things by prising them apart. I might just as well have started with an unbuilt kit, if that were the case.

 

So, I can't think of any other way that I can realistically glaze it, apart from repeating my efforts of almost 20 years ago. As such, I've dug out one of my unbuilt Airfix kits and will use the parts to measure for the glazing for this project.

 

 

Edited January 3, 2023 by Captain Kernow

[41516]

I've slowly acquired a pile of second hand brake vans that will hopefully yield enough parts to be reworked into a handful of finished items....one day.

 

One of them has had a neat scratch built improvement over the kit parts for the ends, with several thin layers laminated with a slot to hold the glazing.  Obviously unfinished, but it gives me an idea of how to try and go about the glazing in future.

 

 

Edited January 3, 2023 by 41516

[jwealleans]

Thank you both for your kind comments.   I've never really had the patience nor the accuracy to be able to easily produce individial glazing pieces and in this context I was trying to show how the kit can be both modified to a different prototype but also used for a beginner to learn and hone new skills.   By the time they want to be fitting individual glazing pieces (to the ducket, Tim?  Really?)  then I'll be learning from them rather than the other way round.  

 

That scratchbuilt end is very neat (was there a diagram with a single large window?) - the only potential drawback I can see is that the handrails can project into the window area.  It would be a tricky balancing act between enough handrail in the side to secure it properly against not enough to project beyond the thickness of the side piece.   I see one or two of mine have pushed in with handling.   It would be a fragile piece when you were making it, but once in place should be sufficiently protected and supported to survive.

[41516]

9 minutes ago, jwealleans said:

was there a diagram with a single large window?

 

No. I assume the original builder had baulked at the thought of being able to cut out the two or four smaller panes for the door from the thin overlay (as I would!) and was going to add them later, presumably alongside the door latch.

[Captain Kernow]

19 hours ago, jwealleans said:

to the ducket, Tim?  Really?

What can I say?

 

My fashion sense at the time consisted of a series of hair shirts.

 

I've since resumed the tablets and all is well!

 

Actually, it was blo*dy difficult and not helped by the fact that I had already assembled the sides. If I do it again this time, I will use an unbuilt kit as a template.

 

Mind you, on the first brake van I did 40 years ago, I didn't even glaze the windows at either end and didn't even notice until I checked the other night!

 

 

Edited January 4, 2023 by Captain Kernow

[Barry O]

The two I modified as cleaning sleds on Grantham have separate glazing pieces.. not sure any one noticed..

Baz

[billbedford]

On 01/01/2023 at 20:52, jwealleans said:

Quote

...perhaps the way forward is a one-off 3D printed master, which can be used for the resin-casting process.

 

Isn't this how Bill Bedford is producing his current range of wagon and carriage kits?

 

No mine are all printed, mostly in one piece, with only a few small separate pieces. 

[Bucoops]

On 02/01/2023 at 08:35, Bucoops said:

 

Can't even find my verniers so mk1 eyeball and a steel rule...

 

Between 11.0 and 11.5mm between the frames, about 12.5mm over, not sure about with bearings as I've filed them right down. As I understand it, 12mm including bearings is about right for OO with R2 bends?

 

edit: I have Markits wheels for it.

 

Ok found my Verniers :)

 

I notice the kit was designed by Paul Craig - is that perhaps @Paul Cram as you seem well versed on some of the LRM kits?

 

Anyhoo - 

 

11.8mm between frames

12.8mm over

13.1mm over the very thinned down bearings

 

It looks like the Markits wheels have about 0.2mm on their hub which gives a B2B of 14.5mm so I wouldn't want to remove anything from that.

 

 

 

[chris p bacon]

3 minutes ago, Bucoops said:

 

I notice the kit was designed by Paul Craig - is that perhaps @Paul Cram as you seem well versed on some of the LRM kits?

 

I don't think Paul Craig is a member here (stand to be corrected) but he can be found on LNER forum as 'John Coffin'

[Jol Wilkinson]

Paul Craig designed a number of kits for LRM. The earlier ones were done under the guidance of Malcolm Crawley. The test etches were usually assembled by someone other than Paul Craig and the required modifications reported back. The designs after Malcolm passed away were tested by others, usually with some knowledge of the model in questions, which is how I believe Paul Cram became became involved. He may be along later to confirm this.

 

[Bucoops]

On 02/01/2023 at 08:35, Bucoops said:

 

Can't even find my verniers so mk1 eyeball and a steel rule...

 

Between 11.0 and 11.5mm between the frames, about 12.5mm over, not sure about with bearings as I've filed them right down. As I understand it, 12mm including bearings is about right for OO with R2 bends?

 

edit: I have Markits wheels for it.

 

Thanks :) One thing I should add is I bought this kit second hand (the previous person had assembled the frames using the EM spacers and looks to have had similar issues as they had also filed the bearings down before giving in - I'm intending not to give in, and I'm very close to getting the rolling chassis to negotiate R2 s-bends, but mentioned it as it is similar to what's been mentioned above.

 

I am *not* expecting or requesting normal support as would be expected if I had purchased from the manufacturer (that may come when I pluck up the courage to tackle the K2 I bought however!).

 

 

 

[rowanj]

I'm currently building an LRM J21 and can report similar issues getting the wheels to turn. I'm using Romfords in OO.I have managed to get the chassis together, and to go round R3 curves after filing down the bearings..almost flat on the live side. All part of the fun as far as I am concerned, but the sort of thing which would frustrate newcomers to kit building. How I am slowly getting on is on my thread.

Best wishes

 

 

 

[Paul Cram]

Yes this was a Paul Craig design which I test built for LRM

[Jol Wilkinson]

5 hours ago, rowanj said:

I'm currently building an LRM J21 and can report similar issues getting the wheels to turn. I'm using Romfords in OO.I have managed to get the chassis together, and to go round R3 curves after filing down the bearings..almost flat on the live side. All part of the fun as far as I am concerned, but the sort of thing which would frustrate newcomers to kit building. How I am slowly getting on is on my thread.

Best wishes

 

 

 

John,

 

what radius is a R3 curve (or an R2 for that matter).

 

When I have designed etched loco kits I have aimed at 2ft minimum for OO, but it is  difficult to get below that without having to make drastic and unrealistic alterations to the design. With one exception they were LNWR locos, so shouldn't trouble those modelling the NER too much.

If you are using Markits wheels, removing the outer face of the chassis top hat bearing isn't a problem, as the boss on the rear of the wheel provides clearance for the rear of the wheel anyway.

[rowanj]

According to Hornby, their curves are

Radius 2 438 mm

Radius 3 505 mm

Radius 4 572 mm.

 

I use R3 on my test track, on the basis that this is tighter than anything on the layout, so if a kit will get round that....

I enjoy building LRM kits, and am the proud owner of an N8, N9 and J25. The J21 chassis is will go into the paint shop tomorrow.

 

Edited January 4, 2023 by rowanj

[MrWolf]

I just converted those to inches radius, I didn't realise that set track curves were still that tight.

Even the R3 is only 19.88in radius.

You're quite right, if it will go around that, I don't think you have anything to worry about.

[31A]

53 minutes ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

If you are using Markits wheels, removing the outer face of the chassis top hat bearing isn't a problem, as the boss on the rear of the wheel provides clearance for the rear of the wheel anyway.

Would it be possible to gain a bit of clearance by fitting the bearings the other way round to usual, i.e. with the flange on the inside of the frames rather than outside?  Might not work for the driven axle, I suppose.  Just a thought....

[Jol Wilkinson]

You could do that, removing the part of the bearing that projects outside the frames. However, fitting the bearing from the outside and removing the flange leaves a longer bearing surface.

 

However, bearing length doesn't need to be too long. From my engineering training days I recall that a ratio of 1:3 length to diameter was used for petrol engine crankshaft and con-rod bearings. These had much higher loads than we are dealing with. Fitting the axle bearing from the inside leaves the flange thickness (.25mm?) plus the frame thickness (probably .4mm), only giving .65mm bearing length. 1.0 mm - 1'2mm would be better,

 

[gr.king]

I often use 1/8" bore plain brass tube as bearings, especially if I'm out of top hat bearings as I always keep tube for its many possible uses. No external flange to get in the way of anything, any bearing length I fancy, up to the whole width of the frames occasionally, with an oiling hole or slot somewhere.

[Bucoops]

I'm aiming for compatible with R2 as my layout is as yet unbuilt - I'll be avoiding curves that tight in the scenery section but the available space means the fiddle area *may* need to go that sharp. Not ideal of course but needs must.

 

 

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Bucoops said:

I'm aiming for compatible with R2 as my layout is as yet unbuilt - I'll be avoiding curves that tight in the scenery section but the available space means the fiddle area *may* need to go that sharp. Not ideal of course but needs must.

 

The compromise that is 00 enables one to have a continuous run in a space where that simply wouldn't be possible if working to EM or P4 standards.