LNER Models in 4mm

[Pebbles]

Dave's kit covers both 4125gal tenders both the self trimming and non-trimming: the tender is the weakest link in this kit. I attempted many years ago to caution about Steve's kit but as it was the only kid in the street people plug on. I feel extremely sorry for John, but he has started with a problem, there is little point in throwing additional resource in up grading. Yes the PDK kit is cheaper and of a much later vintage, but it has it's own issues; see Mike Edge's B16/3 build. 

[micklner]

16 minutes ago, Pebbles said:

Dave's kit covers both 4125gal tenders both the self trimming and non-trimming: the tender is the weakest link in this kit. I attempted many years ago to caution about Steve's kit but as it was the only kid in the street people plug on. I feel extremely sorry for John, but he has started with a problem, there is little point in throwing additional resource in up grading. Yes the PDK kit is cheaper and of a much later vintage, but it has it's own issues; see Mike Edge's B16/3 build. 

Any idea where the Mike Edge B16/2 build is . I remember him doing a better etch for the valve gear , no idea for which kit.

Nothing coming up on searches other than ones saying 1000 plus hits . Mikes thread has over 80 pages as well.

[Pebbles]

19 minutes ago, micklner said:

Any idea where the Mike Edge B16/2 build is . I remember him doing a better etch for the valve gear , no idea for which kit.

Nothing coming up on searches other than ones saying 1000 plus hits . Mikes thread has over 80 pages as well.

It was some years ago better ask Mike.

19 minutes ago, micklner said:

A

 

[micklner]

Just now, Pebbles said:

It was some years ago better ask Mike.

 

It probably has no photos either.

[Pebbles]

1 hour ago, micklner said:

It probably has no photos either.

From what I remember the footplate was one piece, so the bends are not acute/sharp. For some reason the tender flares are double thickness and Mike had problems in bending these.  I would guess that whoever did the design they used Isinglass information so may be more accurate? 

One very important point about the Barnfield kit was that it was designed for the 3mm Society; if this means 12mm gauge track it would explain the restrictive splashers. Whatever the case, to be viable, the loco needs to handle 2' 6" curves. 

 

 

[mikemeg]

3 hours ago, micklner said:

Any idea where the Mike Edge B16/2 build is . I remember him doing a better etch for the valve gear , no idea for which kit.

Nothing coming up on searches other than ones saying 1000 plus hits . Mikes thread has over 80 pages as well.

 

I believe that the Mike Edge B16/2 build is somewhere within his thread; I remember reading and commenting on it and it was illustrated with photos. I do know that Mike Edge's valve gear etch was intended for use with the PDK kit, which can produce the B16/2 and B16/3.

 

Externally, the B16/2 and B16/3 were very similar though the front bogie was moved 9" forward and the frames lengthened on the B16/2 to accommodate Gresley's derived  motion on the middle cylinder. The B16/3's, which were a Thompson rebuild used three sets of Walschaerts gear, including the middle cylinder, so the frame extension was probably not needed on these rebuilds.

 

I believe that the B16/2's had new cabs fitted and this must have extended to the B16/3's also. I also seem to remember that the driver's position differed between the B16/2's and B16/3's i.e. left hand drive or right hand drive. This was externally discernible by the position of the vacuum pipe from the cab to the smokebox.

 

Cheers

 

Mike

 

Edited November 30, 2023 by mikemeg

[Pebbles]

Gresley's "conjugated valve gear" only really had relevance where drive was on the middle axle or in the cases of the O2,P1and P2,  the second axle. It was not needed on the D49 and B17 where very cynically the only benefit was possibly patent payments.

 

The B16/2 and B16/3, as with the original B16, had the three cylinders on the same horizontal plain driving onto the leading axle, a very similar set up to the D49. The conrods on the B16/2/3 also appear to be of similar length to those on the D49.

 

I'm fairly sure that the overall lengths of both the B16/2 and B16/3 were the same.

 

Whereas the B16/2 had, as in the case of the D49, conjugated valve gear to no real benefit, the Thompson rebuild dispensed with the conjugated gear and had three sets of valve gear.

 

In modelling terms, there were some other fairly minor external differences between the Gresley and Thompson rebuilds.

 

I trust that this makes some form of sense.

[mikemeg]

6 hours ago, Pebbles said:

 

I'm fairly sure that the overall lengths of both the B16/2 and B16/3 were the same.

 

 

In the technical data for the B16 class, the overall lengths are given as :-

 

B16/1 and B16/3   62' 6"

 

B16/2                      63' 4"

 

On the B16/2, the bogie was moved forward by 9", necessitating a lengthening  of the mainframes, hence the difference in overall length, which was all forward of the cylinders.

 

Also,  the Gresley rebuilds - 7 locomotives - were converted to left hand drive; the Thompson rebuilds - 17 locomotives - remained as right hand drive.

 

Cheers

 

Mike

 

Edited December 1, 2023 by mikemeg

[65179]

13 hours ago, micklner said:

Any idea where the Mike Edge B16/2 build is . I remember him doing a better etch for the valve gear , no idea for which kit.

Nothing coming up on searches other than ones saying 1000 plus hits . Mikes thread has over 80 pages as well.

 

As suggested, no photos, but it's here:

 

 

Built using a PDK kit with his own improved parts for sidebars etc.

 

Some additional comments on it on Wright Writes at the bottom of this page:

The loco was built for Tom F, but is now Tony Wright's. See photo on this page:

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Simon

[micklner]

Good find well done. I see i suggested the thread as well !!

 

I have just ploughed through 50 pages of the normal Mike Edge thread, not many photos of anything theron !! A great shame.

 

cheers

[65179]

4 minutes ago, micklner said:

Good find well done. I see i suggested the thread as well !!

 

I have just ploughed through 50 pages of the normal Mike Edge thread, not many photos of anything theron !! A great shame.

 

cheers

 

The build pre-dates Mike choosing to start his own workbench thread. Yes, a real shame so many images are missing on Mike's threads and elsewhere.

 

When comparing the Barnfield and PDK B16s, one of the major differences is how the smokebox is treated. The PDK one produces a smokebox of noticeably larger diameter than the boiler. To me that always niggles as, if the smokebox on the real thing is of a larger diameter at all, it is only the width of the real boiler bands larger.

 

Simon

[Pebbles]

3 hours ago, mikemeg said:

 

In the technical data for the B16 class, the overall lengths are given as :-

 

B16/1 and B16/3   62' 6"

 

B16/2                      63' 4"

 

On the B16/2, the bogie was moved forward by 9", necessitating a lengthening  of the mainframes, hence the difference in overall length, which was all forward of the cylinders.

 

Also,  the Gresley rebuilds - 7 locomotives - were converted to left hand drive; the Thompson rebuilds - 17 locomotives - remained as right hand drive.

 

Cheers

 

Mike

 

Oh unhappy day!

 

First taking the B16/1 the figure for overall length of 62' 6" is for an engine with NER buffers. When Group standard buffers were fitted this figure became 62'11".

 

Overall lengths for Both the B16/2 and B16/3 were 63' 61/2".

 

Maybe it's better to quote the  more meaningful loco wheelbase.

 

In the case of the B16/1 this comes out at 6'9" + 6'9" + 7'8" + 6'6" = 27' 8" 

 

In the case of both the B16/2 and B16/3 this comes out at 6'9" + 6'6" + 8'5" = 6'6" = 28' 5"

 

Difference in wheel base = + 9" this increase being between the leading driving wheel and the trailing bogie wheel, not forward of the cylinders.

[micklner]

Looking at the B16/3 here

 

http://www.pdkmodels.co.uk/PDK 61. B16-2-3.html

 

The Smokebox is as said a major error, I have no intention of building any more B16's of any variation, the one I have nearly finished is more than enough for me.

Looking at the PDK instructions perhaps a new Smokebox could be made from thinner brass using the kits one as a pattern. The kits Valve Gear looks awful, and not helped by it not working correctly either.  I can see why Mike Edge did another etch at the time !!.

Edited December 1, 2023 by micklner

[mikemeg]

I feel I've made quite enough comments and postings on what is, after all, Mick's thread and Mick's build of the LRM B16/1. I still have some work to do on the two test builds of this kit, which long ago ceased to be test builds and have since become partial scratch builds in order to achieve the standard which I want to achieve, using all sorts of cast and etched components which have become available long after this kit was first developed; as well as a measure of scratch building.

 

I will continue to document and post the final stages of work on my two builds which are ongoing and now virtually complete but those postings will be made on my own thread.

 

I might even tackle the B16/2 and B16/3 using the PDK kit as a 'basis', in a similar fashion. But not yet awhile; I've another 'B' (and this one's ex Great Central) to complete!!

 

So, my thanks to MickLNER for his patience and forbearance while this debate was enacted on his thread and my compliments to him for making such a fine job of the building of the LRM B16/1 kit.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

 

Edited December 1, 2023 by mikemeg

[Daddyman]

3 hours ago, micklner said:

Looking at the B16/3 here

 

http://www.pdkmodels.co.uk/PDK 61. B16-2-3.html

 

The Smokebox is as said a major error, I have no intention of building any more B16's of any variation, the one I have nearly finished is more than enough for me.

Looking at the PDK instructions perhaps a new Smokebox could be made from thinner brass using the kits one as a pattern. The kits Valve Gear looks awful, and not helped by it not working correctly either.  I can see why Mike Edge did another etch at the time !!.

On the last PDK kit I bought, a D49, the two slides of the etch weren't aligned properly, so each component has a layered effect with a cusp running round the upper part of every edge on one side, and the lower part of every edge on the other side. If you file the cusps off, as I started to do, you lose critical dimensions and characteristic shapes. It's fit only for the bin. So that's yet another LNER kit-maker on the "never again" list... 

[micklner]

On 01/12/2023 at 12:44, Daddyman said:

On the last PDK kit I bought, a D49, the two slides of the etch weren't aligned properly, so each component has a layered effect with a cusp running round the upper part of every edge on one side, and the lower part of every edge on the other side. If you file the cusps off, as I started to do, you lose critical dimensions and characteristic shapes. It's fit only for the bin. So that's yet another LNER kit-maker on the "never again" list... 

I have only built one PDK kit a LNER A1/1 Great Northern, and not a pleasant experience.

The one piece Resin Boiler was impossible to add any weight too, as it was cast virtually solid, only a slot for the motor to sit in . Resin is nasty and messy stuff, no way was I grounding a larger hole out.

As with my current build the LRM B16,  the frames were also too wide. Even after filing the axle bushes flat against the frames, sideplay was barely minimal . Even worse, was that the PDK chassis was a one piece fold up design, and impossible to make narrower, I presume it was aimed at EM gauge !!

The A1/1 did run ok , it did'nt like any bends and I never bothered trying the haulage capacity as it was far too light. The kit had also poorly made/designed valve gear as on their B16/2. It was sold on very quickly via ebay.

 

Luckily Graeme King's lovely conversion kits of etched and resin parts  for Hornby and Bachmann Pacifics arrived at about the same time. Miles better results, as is shown in the below photo of the conversion of a Hornby A3 to A1/1.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 2, 2023 by micklner

[jwealleans]

Tony Wright built this B16/1 from the PDK kit for Tom Foster and I bought it from him when his interests moved away.  I don't think Tony made many (if any) changes to the kit as supplied.

 

 

(Photo Tony Wright)

[micklner]

JW

Does it go around corners ?? If so radius ?

 

cheers

 

Mick

Edited December 3, 2023 by micklner

[jwealleans]

Goes round Grantham (3' radius) and also through the short radius points in the fiddle yard.   Bogie just has a central pivot and soft spring which I think is the kit standard arrangement.

[Pebbles]

59 minutes ago, jwealleans said:

Goes round Grantham (3' radius) and also through the short radius points in the fiddle yard.   Bogie just has a central pivot and soft spring which I think is the kit standard arrangement.

If I could trouble you, please could you establish the width over the cylinders. The figure quoted is 8'8 1/4", so realistically about 35mm.  I also believe  that the model is built for 00 track possibly allowing greater side play to the drivers which helps. Whatever, the model catches the look of the prototype.

[micklner]

Looking at the instructions , it appears to be a very simple kit. One good thing is that does'nt have a fold up chassis.

 

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

[PDK Models]

On 01/12/2023 at 12:44, Daddyman said:

On the last PDK kit I bought, a D49, the two slides of the etch weren't aligned properly, so each component has a layered effect with a cusp running round the upper part of every edge on one side, and the lower part of every edge on the other side. If you file the cusps off, as I started to do, you lose critical dimensions and characteristic shapes. It's fit only for the bin. So that's yet another LNER kit-maker on the "never again" list... 

Hi Daddyman, Its a pity you didn't let me know about this as I would have replaced the etchings for you (I still can if you want). The etchers of that particular kit and others found it impossible to etch both sides evenly and I haven't used them for a number of years.  There is a much upgraded chassis in the D49 now, plus improved cab interior. The original kit wasn't designed by me, and needed some work to modernise.

 

Paul

[Mallard60022]

On 01/12/2023 at 12:44, Daddyman said:

On the last PDK kit I bought, a D49, the two slides of the etch weren't aligned properly, so each component has a layered effect with a cusp running round the upper part of every edge on one side, and the lower part of every edge on the other side. If you file the cusps off, as I started to do, you lose critical dimensions and characteristic shapes. It's fit only for the bin. So that's yet another LNER kit-maker on the "never again" list... 

Could have contacted PDK? Did you? (Ah, Paul just beat me to it...you didn't)

Phil

Edited December 4, 2023 by Mallard60022
Added a bit.

[30368]

2 hours ago, PDK Models said:

Hi Daddyman, Its a pity you didn't let me know about this as I would have replaced the etchings for you (I still can if you want).

 

Hi Paul,

 

Customer service up to your usual very high standard.

 

Kind regards 30368

 

PS How is the T14 kit going?

[PDK Models]

2 hours ago, 30368 said:

 

Hi Paul,

 

Customer service up to your usual very high standard.

 

Kind regards 30368

 

PS How is the T14 kit going?

Hi 30368, The T14 is going slower than I would like, but I should have a sample etch early next year.

 

Paul