LNER Models in 4mm

[mikemeg]

Mick,

 

I found this photo in my 'archives' of the first of my 4125 gallon tender builds for the B16/1's. Note the Arthur's castings tool boxes and David Bradwell axle boxes, springs and spring hangars. I also have to admit to a lot of scratch building on this following the finding of a photo of the front of a 4125 gallon tender -  appended below - ex works, from a B16.

 

So the buffing gear on the drag beam is all scratch built, the footplate extension and ends of their supporting beams, as are some of the fittings  on the tender front.

 

As I said earlier, the kit was just the basis; the scratch building, hopefully, brings it up to standard.

 

As an aside, I've been puzzling for a year or two as to how to represent the rings on the firebox sheeting around the lower washout holes; finally cracking it and making about half a dozen, only last week. 2mm inside diameter .010" thick brass washers carefully file turned - inside and outside -until a .015" thick annulus is left around what becomes a 2.5 mm hole. Each one takes about 20 minutes to make but they don't half improve the appearance of the firebox sheeting! 

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 23, 2023 by mikemeg

[18131r]

15 minutes ago, micklner said:

Mike and Richard.

 

Only via Janet his daughter a few months ago, he was progessing well at that time . Hopefully, I have been contacted today re the Toolbox saga and hopefully he has some spare ones. 

Once I know re the Toolboxes I will then email Janet to see how Arthur is, at the same time as finding out if she has any castings. Janet said the last time I emailed her that she hope to keep the kits going.

Mick

 

Thank you

 

It is good to hear that Arthur was progressing, may he continue to do so.

 

Richard

 

 

[mikemeg]

Mick,

 

So, finally on this topic, a couple of photos from my archives, of the results of the first and second test builds of this B16/1 kit; the first with a North Eastern boiler; the second with an LNER boiler and unbeaded splashers. Both types of boiler continued to be interchanged at general overhaul, until the withdrawal of all of the B16/1's. Most locos carried both boilers at various times throughout their lives and many were withdrawn with an original North Eastern boiler carried after, earlier, carrying an LNER designed boiler.

 

The two models are identifiably different from the dome placing, splasher fronts, washout holes, etc. The second model (to be 61462) also retained its cylinder tail rods into BR days.

 

Each one embodies quite a lot of replacement, updating and scratch building and, at this stage, the models still lacked those rings around the washout holes and the piping for the steam reverser. The second photo was also taken before some other details were added.

 

For me, it's a constant search for better techniques, more accuracy, more realism! So, I guess I'll never be completely satisfied!!

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

 

Edited November 22, 2023 by mikemeg

[micklner]

3 hours ago, mikemeg said:

Mick,

 

I found this photo in my 'archives' of the first of my 4125 gallon tender builds for the B16/1's. Note the Arthur's castings tool boxes and David Bradwell axle boxes, springs and spring hangars. I also have to admit to a lot of scratch building on this following the finding of a photo of the front of a 4125 gallon tender -  appended below - ex works, from a B16.

 

So the buffing gear on the drag beam is all scratch built, the footplate extension and ends of their supporting beams, as are some of the fittings  on the tender front.

 

As I said earlier, the kit was just the basis; the scratch building, hopefully, brings it up to standard.

 

As an aside, I've been puzzling for a year or two as to how to represent the rings on the firebox sheeting around the lower washout holes; finally cracking it and making about half a dozen, only last week. 2mm inside diameter .010" thick brass washers carefully file turned - inside and outside -until a .010" thick annulus is left around what becomes a 2.5 mm hole. Each one takes about 20 minutes to make but they don't half improve the appearance of the firebox sheeting! 

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

 

 

 

Mike

      Re the Firebox bottom Washout plugs .

      Another strange omission from the kit, all the B16's had them from the early 1930's.  I have made mine from 2mm Brass axle bushes with the top flange filed as thin as possible. Markits do the actual Plugs in turned Brass slightly undersize for 2mm hole.  I cheated and superglued the plugs in place inside the bearing . I think soldering them in would have been very awkward to do,  keep them central inside the Bush would have been a real pain.

     Re the well known Tender photo above the kit says BR period, the same photo in NER Locos by Hoole states in use in 1939. I went for the simpler front on my Tender.

[mikemeg]

Mick,

 

Yes, the bottom washout plug surrounds is another omission, though without half etching them onto the firebox wrapper, I can't see how they could be easily etched.

 

Perhaps midway through the first of these test builds, I faced the dichotomy 'Do I build this kit, as is, or do I add / replace parts which have newer and much better representations'? I opted for the latter approach, hence the use of etched parts and castings from Arthur's and David Bradwell's ranges, as well as quite a lot of scratch building.

 

I didn't fail to recognise the omissions but I also did recognise that to provide for all of the omissions, and to correct one or two inconsistencies would result in an almost complete reworking of the masters for the etches. This would have rendered the original etched parts and many of the original castings redundant and would have entailed a completely new design, drawing and development phase, which was way outside of the brief to test build the kit.

 

I had hoped that I could illustrate that :-

 

a) The kit could be built and would work.

 

b) Many of the cast parts and some of the etched parts could be replaced by newer and much better alternatives.

 

c) That with some judicious scratch building the model could be further enhanced.

 

I will leave it to the reader(s) to judge, from the photographs above, whether some or all of those objectives were met. Also, as you yourself have surmised, there is, currently, no 'OO' r-t-r model of any B16 variation and given the layout and spacing of the wheelbase with the bogie 'swing' issue, probably never will be. The A8, D20 and certainly T1, all of which would surely be popular models, also have chassis characteristics which might deter the producing of an OO gauge r-t-r model!

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

Edited November 22, 2023 by mikemeg

[65179]

Slot was probably the wrong word for me to choose. Here's the shallow cutout in the bulkhead:

 

There's still a gap in the beading on the preserved Q7 tender where this should be, but no cutout any longer.

 

Something to add to your constructive criticism of the tender perhaps.

 

Simon

[Daddyman]

1 hour ago, mikemeg said:

result in an almost complete reworking of the masters for the etches. This would have rendered the original etched parts and many of the original castings redundant and would have entailed a completely new design, drawing and development phase, which was way outside of the brief to test build the kit.

Without detracting from yours and Mick's sterling work building the kit, surely this is the definition of flogging a dead horse, Mike? It's presumably not going to be sold any more cheaply as a reflection of its deficiencies in so many areas?

 

What's needed is precisely a complete new design, drawing and development phase, perhaps even taking advantage of 3D-printing technology to make sure fittings that should be round are round. And symmetrical. And the correct shape.  

[micklner]

26 minutes ago, Daddyman said:

Without detracting from yours and Mick's sterling work building the kit, surely this is the definition of flogging a dead horse, Mike? It's presumably not going to be sold any more cheaply as a reflection of its deficiencies in so many areas?

 

What's needed is precisely a complete new design, drawing and development phase, perhaps even taking advantage of 3D-printing technology to make sure fittings that should be round are round. And symmetrical. And the correct shape.  

Exactly and well said.

 

 

However some of the other obvious problems are :-

 

How many Loco and other  kits in 4mm are now sold nowdays ? If sales are low, a large amount of finance is therefore tied up for the seller. Thus preventing any other kits being made or improved for perhaps a considerable period, or even years in some cases.

The vast majority of kits for sale are from years ago, very few new kits are being produced . Very few ever appear to be updated either.

In LRM kits for example, it appears virtually all having been taken over by the current owner, from previous makers, some of those from many years ago. e.g ex Geo Norton kits 1970's or a even earlier era??. LRM claims that many of the kits are now made with  new castings etc being supplied , on how many of those kits I have no idea.

The ex Steve Barnfield  B16 kit  is from 30 years ago , as I now know very little has been done in the way of improvement in any way  in the kit I was supplied with this year. 30 years ago it was perhaps cutting edge in design , I have no idea of its status at that time.

 

Many things have moved on in 30 years, perhaps Railway Modelling needs a big shake up in methods , designs , quality etc etc.

 

Current improvements in r.t.r has realistically consigned many kits to the sales bin or low sales at best. This is not helped by the asking prices for wheels etc etc to complete the kits as well. Any kit is now scary money prices , when you actually add up the total cost . One of the obvious reasons ebay and the like are so succesful.

 

[Jol Wilkinson]

Of the London Road Models range of loco kits, 41 are LRM designs, although by several different designers, while 26 are from "absorbed" ranges including George Norton/Malcolm Crawley, Steve Barnfield and Iain Rice. Many of the absorbed kits had white metal casting of variable quality and were replaced with lost wax brass castings from new patterns.

 

As Mike Meggison has pointed out, many of these kits were produced some years ago from hand drawn artwork which has usually been lost (usually not returned by the etchers after creating the etch tooling), although the production etch tools are still available. To upgrade a kit therefore calls for a new design from scratch. As you point out sales volumes of kits is low  and relatively speaking always has been. So a new design for an existing kit is invariably not viable, the initial interest and sales having been when the kit was originally introduced.

 

Kits from various suppliers often are by different designers, usually because they have good knowledge/information of the prototype being modelled. So if anyone with the considerable knowledge of B16s being shown on this thread would like to design a new kit, I am sure John Redrup would be happy to guide them through the design/etch and casting pattern processes to get a kit into production. 

[mikemeg]

Thanks Jol,

 

I don't  want to hijack this thread but here is my 'decision chain' which is probably no different from anyone else's :-

 

1) Do I want a 4mm model of a B16/1?

     a) If yes, then next question.

     b) If no, then move on to a B17, start on the 'C' classes or just stop wishing.

 

2) Has any r-t-r company produced or announced their intention to produce a B16/1?

     a) If yes, then pour a glass or two of something red, wait perhaps years and save up to pay for it.

     b) If no, then move on to question 3.

 

3) Do I scratch build a B16/1 or kit build it?

     a) If scratch build, then disappear into the work room and pour a glass or two before starting!

     b) If kit build, then next question.

 

4) Do I wait for a 'next generation' kit to become available?

     a) If yes, then go back to 2a) above.

     b) If no, then next question.

 

5) Do I use a white metal kit or an etched kit?

     a) If w/m then purchase it and disappear into the work room, taking a swear box with you!!

     b) If etched, then decide from those suppliers who produce an etched B16/1 kit.

 

6) Do I accept the quality, omissions, inaccuracies of the chosen etched kit?

     a) If yes then do whatever is necessary to produce a reasonable model.

     b) If no, resort to the swear box and complain or

     c) Do both a) and b) above!!

 

Before I left the Information Technology 'coal face' to move into management, I was a Systems Analyst. The above sequence, which should have been drawn as a decision flowchart - I have no idea how do do that on here - was one of the methods by which we explored, charted and tried to solve problems, though the 'red wine' option was frowned upon and rarely charted; but often considered and quite frequently employed!!!

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

Edited November 23, 2023 by mikemeg

[micklner]

A short answer to the last post

 

6 A&B 

 

 

 

However

 

Part 6 in the modern world should'nt exist. Trade Descriptions & Sales of Goods Acts apply to this as a product , just the same as any other item we all pay money for.

 

 This kit is £175.00 . That is without buying all the missing parts, wheels ,gearbox , motor , paint etc. in the region of £300.00 in total.

 

It was'nt hard to actually build , but it was time consuming/frustrating . This applies to many other kits not just the B16 which are of the same era, or standard.

To actually identify the missing parts , poor description/instructions  or simply non existent description/instructions for how the kit could actually  be built should'nt be necessary . Most of this has been said already in this thread, and elsewhere on numerous occasions by many people. In this case the only reason I managed to build the kit was because I was kindly sent the 7mm version of the instructions  for the same kit, otherwise it would have never been built. Even today I have been caught out again over design defects/sizes  in the Tender etches. Yes the etches are wrong, therefore they should be redone before selling the kit . Obviously this increases the kit price I presume. Personally I would happily pay the extra up front, instead having the hassle  to buy from other suppliers. If you can even then you can find the needed parts.

It would again make it much easier to build a proper complete kit from the start, instead of a semi scratch builders version.

 

Any Kit should'nt be simply for sale when such known problems exist and in this case identified. Or the alternative is that are the known issues should all be listed in the actual advertisments for the product.

I have spoken to John at LRM re all the issues, he states he is considering extra etches, castings and better instructions for this kit.

 

[mikemeg]

Mick,

 

Ah, but my answer to what is now the last but one post was only 6a. Kits are always time consuming to build and are never comprehensive enough to satisfy every builder and the instructions always leave out something which needs to be explained.

 

I spent eight months on these two builds, including building the second boiler three times, as the etches evolved. We clearly have entirely different expectations of how to achieve the desired end result!

 

If the kit is to be extensively revised, then both you and I have succeeded in our endeavours and I will conclude this debate by your referring a photo of your build to those which I did for the test build.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

Edited November 23, 2023 by mikemeg

[Battledown]

If we are in pursuit of excellence with accurate fine detail, then even the best kits could be considered as just an aid to scratch building. I have even resorted to adding additional scratch built details to Martin Finney kits. Yes, the quality of kits varies greatly and some won't get me past Stage 4 of Mikemeg's decision chain, but I am grateful that LRM still has a good range that, with care and attention, build into nice models that can authentically replicate the original prototype in miniature - which is a good thing as I still have a few sitting on my to-do shelf!  

[micklner]

On 22/11/2023 at 15:43, 65179 said:

Slot was probably the wrong word for me to choose. Here's the shallow cutout in the bulkhead:

 

There's still a gap in the beading on the preserved Q7 tender where this should be, but no cutout any longer.

 

Something to add to your constructive criticism of the tender perhaps.

 

Simon

Some additional photos re the Fire Iron support. The bracket is clearly above the top of the Tender in all the photos. Obvious as not a lot of use if its lower and buried under the Coal. I only photo I have found of a slotted plate is also of a Q7 Tender. I have found photos where the  front plate is missing completly in that corner of the Tender.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All photos posted for research only use.

[65179]

3 minutes ago, micklner said:

Some additional photos re the Fire Iron support. The bracket is clearly above the top of the Tender in all the photos. Obvious as not a lot of use if its lower and buried under the Coal. I only photo I have found of a slotted plate is also of a Q7 Tender. I have found photos where the  front plate is missing completly in that corner of the Tender.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All photos posted for research only use.

 

Some variation then. My first image is an early BR B16.

 

Simon

[micklner]

3 hours ago, Battledown said:

If we are in pursuit of excellence with accurate fine detail, then even the best kits could be considered as just an aid to scratch building. I have even resorted to adding additional scratch built details to Martin Finney kits. Yes, the quality of kits varies greatly and some won't get me past Stage 4 of Mikemeg's decision chain, but I am grateful that LRM still has a good range that, with care and attention, build into nice models that can authentically replicate the original prototype in miniature - which is a good thing as I still have a few sitting on my to-do shelf!  

Yes I totally agree re accurate fine detail.

 

Sadly in the B16 case, the items already listed are missing or totally wrong , all are simply basic castings and small etches, other than the Side Coal plates which are larger and too long .Luckily the majority of the missing/wrong parts have been found or replaced with correct/better items from other suppliers.

[mikemeg]

51 minutes ago, micklner said:

Yes I totally agree re accurate fine detail.

 

Luckily the majority of the missing/wrong parts have been found or replaced with correct/better items from other suppliers.

 

Mick,

 

This is exactly what I had to do. Of course the kit should be up to date and should be complete, no one would argue against that. However, this kit was never really released until the alternative boiler and footplate/splasher upstands were added and this was some thirty years after its initial development.

 

Arguably, the kit's development was never really completed by Stephen Barnfield as it really only covered the North Eastern Class S3 and early years of the B16/1's but not the B16/1 locomotives in later life or the last twenty to be built.

 

In the intervening time between the kit's development and release, whole new ranges of etched and cast parts have become available (some have come and sadly gone) from Arthur Kimber, David Bradwell, David Alexander, etc.. That time lapse between development and release i.e. around thirty years, is probably unique among etched kits and is responsible for the disparity in quality between the original contents and what is now available.

 

Of course, doing the test builds then my expenditure was limited to wheels, motor and gearbox and replacing outdated castings. Even so the expenditure was not insignificant but was not the full price. My investment in terms of time was, however, very significant but still enjoyable.

 

Updating the etches is not possible, they would need to be completely reworked. Updating the castings might be possible but would involve multiple components from different suppliers and these would need to be 'bought in' by LRM which would expose them to an additional financial risk.

 

So the upshot of this is that this kit should probably be considered as the basis and a very significant basis to a more comprehensively detailed end point.

 

Regards

 

Mike

Edited November 23, 2023 by mikemeg

[micklner]

1 hour ago, mikemeg said:

 

Mick,

 

This is exactly what I had to do. Of course the kit should be up to date and should be complete, no one would argue against that. However, this kit was never really released until the alternative boiler and footplate/splasher upstands were added and this was some thirty years after its initial development.

 

Arguably, the kit's development was never really completed by Stephen Barnfield as it really only covered the North Eastern Class S3 and early years of the B16/1's but not the B16/1 locomotives in later life or the last twenty to be built.

 

In the intervening time between the kit's development and release, whole new ranges of etched and cast parts have become available (some have come and sadly gone) from Arthur Kimber, David Bradwell, David Alexander, etc.. That time lapse between development and release i.e. around thirty years, is probably unique among etched kits and is responsible for the disparity in quality between the original contents and what is now available.

 

Of course, doing the test builds then my expenditure was limited to wheels, motor and gearbox and replacing outdated castings. Even so the expenditure was not insignificant but was not the full price. My investment in terms of time was, however, very significant but still enjoyable.

 

Updating the etches is not possible, they would need to be completely reworked. Updating the castings might be possible but would involve multiple components from different suppliers and these would need to be 'bought in' by LRM which would expose them to an additional financial risk.

 

So the upshot of this is that this kit should probably be considered as the basis and a very significant basis to a more comprehensively detailed end point.

 

Regards

 

Mike

Mike

         No problem at all in what you have said. I do wonder at times why makers of similar kits do not get together, and agree to use one range of castings. This would save money and time for everybody.

 

This sadly is how the kit is listed on the LRM website.

 

http://www.londonroadmodels.com/locomotives_pages/ne_locomotives.php

 

Mine has about 1.5mm total sideplay on the drivers, this was only achieved by filing the axle bearings flush with the frames. I have serious doubts about how it will manage any curves at all . Do your models run ok on curves ?

 

According to LRM this below describes the new footplate etch.

 

"This footplate also provides more lateral clearance for the driving wheels, to readily accommodate EM and P4 wheels or more sideplay for tighter curves in OO."

 

Thanks for your responses.

 

Mick

[mikemeg]

Mick,

 

The problems of the B16/1 - well any of the B16 variants - is the distance between the front driving wheels and the bogie. This means that the deflection - the swing - on both the rear and especially on the front set of bogie wheels is quite large on curves. As the B16's all had bogie wheel cut outs, then the bogie wheels touching and shorting on the mainframes isn't an issue but there is an issue, especially on the tighter radius curves with the bogie wheels touching the cylinders. Indeed, on really tight curves the cylinders could impede the deflection of the bogie wheels, thus limiting the radius which can be traversed.

 

The original footplate etching, which was used on my first test build, does pose real problems for P4 in the very limited clearances available within the splashers. As you correctly surmise, this does limit the amount of sideplay on all of the sets of driving wheels which, in turn, will limit the radius of curves which can be negotiated. I actually lined the inside of each splasher with a 'crescent' of sellotape to act as an insulator if the wheel does touch the splasher.

 

The minimum radius which any of my locos must negotiate is 4' 0" or 1216 mm. Both of the B16/1's which I built will negotiate these curves, though I usually leave as much sideplay as properly spaced mainframes and properly gauged P4 wheel will allow. By that means, the point at which the loco chassis is at 90 degrees to the curve - the tangential point - is brought forward which does then reduce the deflection - the distance of swing - of the front bogie.

 

Re the bogie touching the rear of the cylinders, then OO gauge provides the largest space for the bogie to swing. As the bogie wheels are more widely gauged with EM and especially P4 so the space available between the mainframes and the rear of the cylinders  is reduced, thus limiting the amount of deflection which can be accommodated.

 

There is a real paradox with EM and with P4 in that as we approach the use of prototype clearances, scaled down, we still expect such models to traverse curves which the prototypes simply could not negotiate. 5 chains (a chain is 22 yards) was pretty well the minimum which the real thing would traverse; some slightly more, others slightly less. But at these prototype minimum radii 'negotiate' meant travelling very slowly with the wheels screeching very loudly and really 'stretching' the track.

 

Let me know how your build performs on curves.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

Edited November 23, 2023 by mikemeg

[micklner]

Thanks Mike .

My main concern is the Driving Wheels lack of sideplay. The Bogie appears to have plenty of space. I will post on here, I have about 3ft curves at best.

 

I forgot to ask , how have you set the Bogie up on your models?. It is not mentioned at all in the instructions . There is a large gap between the underneath of the Cylinders and the top of the Bogie. At the moment all there is a 10BA mounting screw sitting in the gap.

 

cheers

 

Mick

[Nick Lawson]

On 22/11/2023 at 19:29, Jol Wilkinson said:

hand drawn artwork which has usually been lost (usually not returned by the etchers after creating the etch tooling), although the production etch tools are still available. To upgrade a kit therefore calls for a new design from scratch

Jol, I know nothing about this, but is it not possible these days to scan the etch tool and reverse engineer a cad file? These days I almost expect there to be an app on my phone already...

[Jol Wilkinson]

1 minute ago, Nick Lawson said:

Jol, I know nothing about this, but is it not possible these days to scan the etch tool and reverse engineer a cad file? These days I almost expect there to be an app on my phone already...

Nick,

 

frankly I don't know. I don't think the etchers have scanning equipment. When CAD digital artwork became the norm, I believe that the etchers also disposed of their camera equipment used for hand drawn artwork as the special film was becoming rare .

 

The "standard" production etch tool used by  Grainge and Hodder, PEC, Micro Precision, etc. measures 18" X 12" with a useable area of 17" x 11" (tabloid size). I don't think the etchers have scanning equipment and that size is slightly larger than an A3 scanner. A quick search for scanning services turns up plenty who will scan documents, drawings and photos but no one that mentions scanning large negative/positive films. No doubt there is someone out there who can do it.

 

The front and rear images then have to be accurately located on the CAD pages. I use CorelDraw and produce front and rear images for the tools. So while that is straightforward from scratch,  getting two scanned images aligned accurately will take some care.

 

So it's possible but I don't know fully how to go about achieving it. Next becomes the question of what needs changing. It needs someone familiar with how the kit goes together and what the scaled prototype dimensions are. There seems to be no shortage of prototype information now available as it seems that more research has been done and the information published (across all railway information) in recent years. However, it needs someone who has ready access to that (my library of LNWR material wouldn't be much help here).

 

I still believe that a new kit from scratch might be easier. Of course that needs someone with the information, a relevant CAD programme, knowledge of the etch process, etc., experience of kit building and an understanding of the various compromises required to produce a 4mm kit to accommodate all three gauges.

 

Jol

[jwealleans]

Sorry if it's been discussed and I missed it, but there is a more recent B16/1 kit from PDK.   How does that measure up?   I have one, but I didn't build it so I don't know how much of the kit is still in the completed model.

[30368]

42 minutes ago, jwealleans said:

Sorry if it's been discussed and I missed it, but there is a more recent B16/1 kit from PDK.  

 

Hi Jonathan,

 

Yes agree, PDK sometimes overlooked. My experience of this supplier is good, producing kits that go together well and present a model that is ready for what might be called "superdetail".

 

I have built an H15 4-6-0 or two, a D15 4-4-0 and an original MN 4-6-2 all of which I am more than happy with. I still have an A2/1 kit to build. Paul at PDK is also very helpful and always ready to supply parts from kits. Recommended.

 

Kind regards,

 

30368

[billbedford]

2 hours ago, Nick Lawson said:

Jol, I know nothing about this, but is it not possible these days to scan the etch tool and reverse engineer a cad file? These days I almost expect there to be an app on my phone already...

 

Yes, sure, you can do that, but part way through you will start thinking, that it would have been much quicker to start from scratch and why, oh why, did the originator do it that way.