LNER Models in 4mm

[micklner]

PDK version

 

http://www.pdkmodels.co.uk/PDK 62. B16-1.html

[Pebbles]

1 hour ago, billbedford said:

 

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. 

I know of someone who attempted this. The feedback was that it was difficult mixing the precision possible with the graphic package with what had originally been drawn manually. Yes, start from scratch.

[Nick Lawson]

@billbedford Well, earlier @Jol Wilkinson was describing LRM's situation where they don't have digital artwork for their own range, so I was wondering whether they could get this without having to create it from scratch. If so, they would perhaps be in a position to consider tweaking some of their etches. From the sound of it, at the moment they can only do this by adding extra corrective etches, which presumably makes each set more expensive to produce. 

 

Of course, they might well still find themselves wondering why they had done something a particular way first time around🙂

[Pebbles]

37 minutes ago, Nick Lawson said:

@billbedford Well, earlier @Jol Wilkinson was describing LRM's situation where they don't have digital artwork for their own range, so I was wondering whether they could get this without having to create it from scratch. If so, they would perhaps be in a position to consider tweaking some of their etches. From the sound of it, at the moment they can only do this by adding extra corrective etches, which presumably makes each set more expensive to produce. 

 

Of course, they might well still find themselves wondering why they had done something a particular way first time around🙂

The problem is that some of the LRM range originates from a variety of sources and designers. 

[micklner]

Well LRM design woes are now nicely covered , thanks.

 

The B16 is at least now running well . A lot of lead has been added to the Boiler .Nothing screwed down at the moment. It had a mysterious short on running. The kit front steps were very thin and flimsy as supplied . I added 0.45mm behind the steps, which then made them much stronger. I then finally discovered the short was caused by the Con Rods  rubbing against the added wire, filed the wire  back and short was gone, I now know why the steps are made so thin , as there is almost zero clearance. As I said before how can this loco  be able to ever run with EM/P4 Wheels spacing ??? .

 

 

 

 

[Nick Lawson]

57 minutes ago, micklner said:

Well LRM design woes are now nicely covered , thanks

 

Um, yes apologies for hijacking your build.

[Jol Wilkinson]

2 hours ago, micklner said:

Well LRM design woes are now nicely covered , thanks.

 

Yes, it makes you wonder why John Redrup has bothered to keep those other designers ranges going, which would otherwise probably have sunk without trace.

 

Of course someone might have designed new kits from scratch had they;

1:Been motivated to do so.

2: Have had the information and CAD software to do so.

3: Learned about design and manufacturing etch kits.

4: Been willing to investing doing so, given that existing or previous kits would have taken up some of the possible market sales.

 

Sometimes a person will do design a new kit that duplicates an existing one, if they believe they can create a better product. If the supplier isn't too concerned about running a commercially viable operation (a retirement activity or w.h.y) then it is possible to do so on a break even basis.

 

Nick has apologised for hijacking your thread. I disagree, I believe it is important to understand what is going on in the marketplace, for the benefit of both the customer and the suppliers we rely upon.

[Jon4470]

4 hours ago, micklner said:

Well LRM design woes are now nicely covered , thanks.

 

The B16 is at least now running well . A lot of lead has been added to the Boiler .Nothing screwed down at the moment. It had a mysterious short on running. The kit front steps were very thin and flimsy as supplied . I added 0.45mm behind the steps, which then made them much stronger. I then finally discovered the short was caused by the Con Rods  rubbing against the added wire, filed the wire  back and short was gone, I now know why the steps are made so thin , as there is almost zero clearance. As I said before how can this loco  be able to ever run with EM/P4 Wheels spacing ??? .

 

 

 

 

I think all the effort was worth it!  It has resulted in a lovely looking model.

 

Jon

[mikemeg]

10 hours ago, Jon4470 said:

I think all the effort was worth it!  It has resulted in a lovely looking model.

 

Jon

 Mick,

 

Amen to this comment! Despite all of the setbacks you've done a great job and in my own thread, covering the two test builds of this kit, I never said it was easy!!

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

Edited November 25, 2023 by mikemeg

[micklner]

1 hour ago, mikemeg said:

 Mick,

 

Amen to this comment! Despite all of the setbacks you've done a great job and in my own thread, covering the two test builds of this kit, I never said it was easy!!

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

Mike

       Have you seen my comment re how the Bogie, how  is it supposed to be fixed to the chassis?? Nothing in the instructions !!🤪

[mikemeg]

7 hours ago, micklner said:

Mike

       Have you seen my comment re how the Bogie, how  is it supposed to be fixed to the chassis?? Nothing in the instructions !!🤪

 

Mick,

 

Yes, I've seen your comment and am in the process of photographing the arrangement. Basically, from a stretcher across the mainframes and between the cylinders, I fix a 12 mm  portion of 10 BA threaded rod. Over this rod is slotted a spring with a brass washer soldered onto its end. The springs which I use are a fairly snug fit over the rod, so not much play!!

 

The spring engages with the top of the bogie via the washer and the rod passes through the slot in the bogie and a10 BA nut is fitted under the bogie. As the nut is tightened, the spring is tensioned, so providing a degree of springing and equalisation on the bogie but, most importantly, the bogie now becomes load bearing and so starts to perform its proper function of guiding the front end through curves.

 

If this set up is properly dimensioned and adjusted (by slightly stretching or cutting the spring) - and like many modelling processes, this can take some time and patience to achieve the optimum level of springing - then all the nut does is to stop the bogie falling off, when the model is lifted.

 

I would add that this is my standard way of attaching front bogies, first developed on my first scratch build, twenty years ago and fitted to numerous of my models. I would also add that both the top of the bogie, where the washer engages, and the washer need to be free of paint and polished  (they are not in this photo) - so that the washer slides more easily over the bogie top.

 

Oh and the springs? They are standard springs as contained in most of the kits for 4 mm sprung three link or screw couplings. As I never fit these springs to my couplings, then I've collected, and kept, dozens of them.

 

* One other 'dodge', which I almost always use, and which was used on this chassis, is to reduce the size and radius of the bogie wheel cut out by adding layers - usually two or three - of nickel silver boiler band soldered into the cut out and then dressed off. This gives a much nearer scale appearance when used with P4 bogie wheels.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

Edited November 25, 2023 by mikemeg

[MarkC]

1 hour ago, mikemeg said:

 

Mick,

 

Yes, I've seen your comment and am in the process of photographing the arrangement. Basically, from a stretcher across the mainframes and between the cylinders, I fix a 12 mm  portion of 10 BA threaded rod. Over this rod is slotted a spring with a brass washer soldered onto its end.

 

The spring engages with the top of the bogie and the rod passes through the slot in the bogie and a10 BA nut is fitted under the bogie. As the nut is tightened, the spring is tensioned, so providing a degree of springing and equalisation on the bogie but, most importantly, the bogie now becomes load bearing and so starts to perform its proper function of guiding the front end through curves.

 

If this set up is properly dimensioned and adjusted - and like many modelling processes, this can take some time and patience to achieve the optimum level of springing - then all the nut does is to stop the bogie falling off, when the model is lifted.

 

I would add that this is my standard way of attaching front bogies, first developed on my first scratch build, fifteen years ago and fitted to numerous of my models. I would also add that both the top of the bogie, where the washer engages, and the washer need to be free of paint and polished  (they are not in this photo) - so that the washer slides more easily over the bogie top.

 

Oh and the springs? They are standard springs as contained in most of the kits for 4 mm sprung three link or screw couplings. As I never fit these springs to my couplings, then I've collected, and kept, dozens of them.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

Hi Mike

 

That's exactly how the bogie on my recently (finally bar painting...) completed A6 from Arthur K's kit is arranged. Obviously there's no outside cylinders to worry about on an A6, but the lack of side throw on curves, when compared to the Little Engines A6 with a more 'traditional' (ie a swinging arm, with pivot just in front of the leading driving wheels) arrangement is quite marked.

 

Mark

[mikemeg]

42 minutes ago, MarkC said:

Hi Mike

 

That's exactly how the bogie on my recently (finally bar painting...) completed A6 from Arthur K's kit is arranged. Obviously there's no outside cylinders to worry about on an A6, but the lack of side throw on curves, when compared to the Little Engines A6 with a more 'traditional' (ie a swinging arm, with pivot just in front of the leading driving wheels) arrangement is quite marked.

 

Mark

 

Thanks Mark,

 

That's exactly how the bogies are arranged on my A6's (all four of 'em; two of which were test builds of Arthur's kit) too!

 

* And the chassis 'dodge' described above was 'pioneered' on the first test build of Arthur's A6, though I have never highlighted or recommended this before. There is a limit as to how many of these 'dodges' builders will actually put up with!

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

Edited November 25, 2023 by mikemeg

[MarkC]

28 minutes ago, mikemeg said:

 

Thanks Mark,

 

That's exactly how the bogies are arranged on my A6's (all four of 'em; two of which were test builds of Arthur's kit) too!

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

It's a great arrangement, isn't it? OK, there's some faffing about getting the spring tension right, but after that, happy days!

 

Mark

[18131r]

2 hours ago, mikemeg said:

 

Mick,

 

Yes, I've seen your comment and am in the process of photographing the arrangement. Basically, from a stretcher across the mainframes and between the cylinders, I fix a 12 mm  portion of 10 BA threaded rod. Over this rod is slotted a spring with a brass washer soldered onto its end. The springs which I use are a fairly snug fit over the rod, so not much play!!

 

The spring engages with the top of the bogie via the washer and the rod passes through the slot in the bogie and a10 BA nut is fitted under the bogie. As the nut is tightened, the spring is tensioned, so providing a degree of springing and equalisation on the bogie but, most importantly, the bogie now becomes load bearing and so starts to perform its proper function of guiding the front end through curves.

 

If this set up is properly dimensioned and adjusted (by slightly stretching or cutting the spring) - and like many modelling processes, this can take some time and patience to achieve the optimum level of springing - then all the nut does is to stop the bogie falling off, when the model is lifted.

 

I would add that this is my standard way of attaching front bogies, first developed on my first scratch build, twenty years ago and fitted to numerous of my models. I would also add that both the top of the bogie, where the washer engages, and the washer need to be free of paint and polished  (they are not in this photo) - so that the washer slides more easily over the bogie top.

 

Oh and the springs? They are standard springs as contained in most of the kits for 4 mm sprung three link or screw couplings. As I never fit these springs to my couplings, then I've collected, and kept, dozens of them.

 

* One other 'dodge', which I almost always use, and which was used on this chassis, is to reduce the size of the bogie wheel cut out by adding layers - usually two or three - of nickel silver boiler band soldered into the cut out and then dressed off. This gives a much nearer scale appearance when used with P4 bogie wheels.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

Hello Mick

 

I also use this method with a few of variations.

 

The attached photo shows the main one which is the addition of a couple of straight n/s wires attached front to back either side of the slot in the bogie stretcher,the wires help to give some sideways control of the bogie movement and help to guide the driving wheels, I limit the sideplay on the bogie axles to give just a running clearence.

 

The other is that I add or remove thin washers above the spring to adjust the load carried by the spring rather than physically stretching or shortening it.

 

Regarding the sources of B16 kits DJH have one in their range in OO scale, if it can be built to EM or P4 gauge I do not know.

 

Richard

 

 

Edited November 25, 2023 by 18131r
grammar and to add something

[mikemeg]

20 hours ago, micklner said:

 

As I said before how can this loco  be able to ever run with EM/P4 Wheels spacing ??? .

 

 

 

 

 

Mick,

 

The short answer to this question, at least with regard to the first P4 test build using the original footplate etching, was that it was achieved with some difficulty, using an absolute minimum of sideplay on the driving wheels, thinning the splasher upstands as much as possible and mounting the front footplate steps as near the valance as the loading gauge would allow. Then very careful assembly of the connecting and coupling rods.

 

I also did quite a lot of measuring and dry runs on this to check clearances and make adjustments before any of the various sub-assemblies were actually fixed together. As I've said, above, that is the downside of P4; clearances are simply 'scaled down', they are not augmented by the reduction in gauge width!!

 

Allied to those steps, detailed above, was quite a lot of patience, a fair degree of determination and the occasional recourse to a glass of red, when patience and/or determination showed signs of flagging. These latter two characteristics are essential when  test building kits which no-one else may hitherto have built.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

Edited November 25, 2023 by mikemeg

[micklner]

6 hours ago, mikemeg said:

 

Mick,

 

Yes, I've seen your comment and am in the process of photographing the arrangement. Basically, from a stretcher across the mainframes and between the cylinders, I fix a 12 mm  portion of 10 BA threaded rod. Over this rod is slotted a spring with a brass washer soldered onto its end. The springs which I use are a fairly snug fit over the rod, so not much play!!

 

The spring engages with the top of the bogie via the washer and the rod passes through the slot in the bogie and a10 BA nut is fitted under the bogie. As the nut is tightened, the spring is tensioned, so providing a degree of springing and equalisation on the bogie but, most importantly, the bogie now becomes load bearing and so starts to perform its proper function of guiding the front end through curves.

 

If this set up is properly dimensioned and adjusted (by slightly stretching or cutting the spring) - and like many modelling processes, this can take some time and patience to achieve the optimum level of springing - then all the nut does is to stop the bogie falling off, when the model is lifted.

 

I would add that this is my standard way of attaching front bogies, first developed on my first scratch build, twenty years ago and fitted to numerous of my models. I would also add that both the top of the bogie, where the washer engages, and the washer need to be free of paint and polished  (they are not in this photo) - so that the washer slides more easily over the bogie top.

 

Oh and the springs? They are standard springs as contained in most of the kits for 4 mm sprung three link or screw couplings. As I never fit these springs to my couplings, then I've collected, and kept, dozens of them.

 

* One other 'dodge', which I almost always use, and which was used on this chassis, is to reduce the size of the bogie wheel cut out by adding layers - usually two or three - of nickel silver boiler band soldered into the cut out and then dressed off. This gives a much nearer scale appearance when used with P4 bogie wheels.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

Thanks Mike, very interesting. Luckily I have added the 10BA screw in the right place. Your comment re restricting side play does that apply to OO as well please ?. The LRM B16 Bogie spacer is very narrow there are about 2mm gaps on each side when assembled. As below.

 

 

I have seen a number of comments on other threads stating pivot the Bogie at the front , so far I have never seen the actual set up for that type of arrangement . Has anyone got photos ??.

 

 

thanks

[mikemeg]

Mick,

 

I didn't use this narrow spacer but used a wider one. In fact, the bogie on both test builds is equalised with inner frames and stretcher, which is 12 mm wide and then pivoted side frames carrying brass axle boxes at each end. The dimension over the axle boxes is around 16 mm, thus allowing some side play on each bogie axle within the bogie frame.

 

The photo showing the bogie mounting arrangement, in a posting above, also shows the bogie construction and profile but I'll photograph the bogie with and without wheels and confirm the measurements for you but not until the morning.

 

Regards

 

Mike

Edited November 25, 2023 by mikemeg

[65179]

I must admit I thought the usual advice with the outside cylinder NER types was to have the bogie pivot move in a slot with a slight arc, and to pivot it toward the rear of the bogie so that there is less sideways movement of the rear axle between the cylinders.

 

Simon

[mikemeg]

1 hour ago, 65179 said:

I must admit I thought the usual advice with the outside cylinder NER types was to have the bogie pivot move in a slot with a slight arc, and to pivot it toward the rear of the bogie so that there is less sideways movement of the rear axle between the cylinders.

 

Simon

 Simon,

 

I have assembled kits which did have the slight arc on the slot and they work fine. However, springing the whole bogie, in conjunction with equalising the bogie axle boxes tends to limit the deflection of the bogie at the slot, as the bogie actually does what it is/was designed to do - guide the locomotive front end into curves.

 

As MarkC remarked in a posting above, effectively partially constraining the bogie, by making it load bearing, significantly reduces the deflection within the slot, so renders the arcing of the slot unnecessary on all but the tightest curves.

 

Cheers

 

Mike

 

[mikemeg]

Mick,

 

Looking back through my postings and notes when the two test builds of the B16/1 were done, I've found that the castings used on the tenders, for the tool boxes, water filler and the tender springs, axle boxes and spring hangars, were actually all from David Bradwell's range.

 

David sells a complete 'castings kit' for North Eastern tenders, which includes everything except the spring hangars. These are available separately as the North Eastern used two different types of spring hangar, one type short and another type somewhat longer. The longer ones are appropriate for the later 4125 gallon tenders as fitted to the S3's / B16's.

 

Cheers

 

Mike

 

[Pebbles]

On 29/11/2023 at 05:38, mikemeg said:

Mick,

 

Looking back through my postings and notes when the two test builds of the B16/1 were done, I've found that the castings used on the tenders, for the tool boxes, water filler and the tender springs, axle boxes and spring hangars, were actually all from David Bradwell's range.

 

David sells a complete 'castings kit' for North Eastern tenders, which includes everything except the spring hangars. These are available separately as the North Eastern used two different types of spring hangar, one type short and another type somewhat longer. The longer ones are appropriate for the later 4125 gallon tenders as fitted to the S3's / B16's.

 

Cheers

 

Mike

 

In his original instructions Steve Barnfield acknowledged his lack of information regarding the 4125gal self trimming tender. As it is, comparing this tender with details found in Hoole's book made we reach for the scotch and a pistol. You were quite lucky in having the test build for Arthur's Q7 tender that would have given you a good way forward. It is a shame that you could not have used this etch, but then it would have defeated the whole purpose of doing the B16 test build.

Turning to NER tender axleboxes and springs this appears to be a minefield. Incorporating Dave's longer hangers does not resolve the problem, as the axleboxes are also incorrect for heavier NER tenders. 

[mikemeg]

Talking to Dave, only this last week, he did mention that the axleboxes for the larger tenders were different and not covered by his castings. And to add to the list of inconsistencies the wheels on the B16's were 5' 8" 20 spoke not 18 spoke as they are on both test builds.

 

I have to confess that I think the development of the Steve Barnfield kit was never really completed, as has been variously commented on throughout the sequence of postings covering Mick's build.  Nonetheless I have removed both test builds from the airtight tin and am now preparing them for the paintshop. Both are powered and both run well, including around my 4' 0" 'corners'.

 

And, in the final analysis, the kit plus some newer castings and etches and a fair bit of scratch building, does convey the essence of the North Eastern Class S3 / LNER B16/1. Like many of the pre-grouping designs, these locos simply exuded that aesthetic cleanness of outline and that sense of balance, though the B15's did that even better!!

 

These locomotives were always very special to those of us who lived in the East Riding of Yorkshire because of their association with those Summer Saturday or Sunday excursions to Bridlington or Scarborough - 'A day by the sea and a ride on the train'. And I can well remember my first spotting trip to York, one Spring Saturday in 1959. We saw nearly thirty B16's, that day; almost half of the class!

 

Cheers

 

Mike

 

 

Edited November 30, 2023 by mikemeg

[Pebbles]

The only suitable wheels were/are in the Sharman range, I believe these were listed as 5' 7". A further thought is that the LNER standard 4200 gal and 3500 gal tenders were most likely Darlington designs. Suitably modified the axleboxes of these tenders could be a way forward.

 

Edited November 30, 2023 by Pebbles

[micklner]

As already said why should any recently released kit have to have new castings , scratch building etc . These were expected kit standards 30 years or more ago . In this case the kit I consider is sold at a premium price of £175.00 plus the usual expected adds ons such as wheels etc. I did'nt expect to scratchbuild, alter/replace  parts and all the other issues at that price.

PDK sell a B16 kit for £120.00 I have never seen or built one , can it be any worse than the LRM version for £55.00 less I doubt it ??. I actually bought the Oil Box castings on my build from Paul Hill @ PDK as LRM supplied none.

http://www.pdkmodels.co.uk/PDK 62. B16-1.html

 

The kit market in general needs to up its game before it dies as R.T.R  are swamping the market or already have done so. Enough said re this kit and the excuses already written relating to this issue on earlier posts. Its all a very disapointing scenario to me at least.

 

 

Back to the B16 "kit", re the incorrect Toolboxes , they  have now been replaced with correct Brass ones sent to me via a very kind offer from Richard 30368 on here. I have done a bit of work on them, and they are now attached to the Tender ready for painting as below photos.

Re the other fault on the Tender, the Coal Tender sides being overlength by 3mm . They were already soldered to the main Body when the fault was pointed out to me, in a earlier post. They are staying as they are , I doubt they would have survived removal, the paint being removed ,being cut down to the correct size and then finally soldered again back onto the body.

As already said by Mike above. Dave  Bradwell castings , he  not only some sells excellent  castings , he also sells  his version of the Q6 NER Tender  and other NER/LNER size Tenders for  £60 complete other than wheels. This will I have no doubt will  be the correct sizes of parts, shapes etc and will build without any issues. LRM want £50 for their incorrect version as a seperate kit, without wheels .

The "towbar" on the front of the Tender is straight , no idea why the Camera has decided it has been on the Beer !!

 

 

 

 

Edited November 30, 2023 by micklner