Jump to content

Kitbuild Challenge- BR Standard Class 5-DJH kit- EM Gauge

Recommended Posts

I have just noticed this challenge and so I will also throw my hat into the ring. Hopefully it will give me the impetus to complete this before the close date.

I present to you yet another DJH kit. (I see that there are several others in this challenge) However this has not sat on my shelf for several years, it has sat on someone elses. More on that in the next entry.

Recently I have been building a couple of BR standard 4 2-6-0s based on the old Airfix / Kitmaster/ Dapol kit. So this is a bit of a departure as it is somewhat bigger and is (ahem) a complete kit.

The finished model will be EM gauge and will represent a locomotive running between Bournemouth and Southampton in 1960.

I have written a bit about this in my blog. But for the benefit of new viewers I will retell the story in the following entries as I record progress.



  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

The story so far.....Research.

I have never done a DJH kit, I never thought that I would be good enough, but here I am with such a beast. It was calling to me at this years Chris Kedgley Skills day held in West Byfleet. It was part of Ewan Crosswelliers estate (along with several other complete locomotives) and (as I understand it) the money raised will go towards funding future skills days.

Ewan had it seemed obtained the kit some years ago, the packing list is dated 1989, and it still had the original price tag on it £67.66p. Today this kit retails at £129 but I acquired it for £75.00 which seems to be the going rate for second hand kits and was a bargain because to my surprise the kit was not only complete but also had in it a set of Gibson wheels, an alternative front step as well as etches for the number 73052 and the shed 71G. In fact Ewan was so keen on modelling this particular loco that he had purchased the front number plate twice.

The first part of building any model is to check out the prototype and before purchase check that the desired model is appropriate for to the period and location. This latter point I didn’t do because of the limited time to purchase, or an impulse buy. The kit makes up into a BR standard class 5 with a BR1, BR1H or BR1G tender.
My intention is that the loco will run on Swaynton which if you are not aware is a layout based on the line between Bournemouth and Southampton in the first half of 1960.

The first thing to check out was 73052 and 71G. Here, at first, things didn’t make sense. According to my 1960 copy of Ian Allan loco-spotting book shed 71G is Weymouth but 73052 was based at Bath. Further reading found that she had spent her whole life at Bath but did run regularly down the Somerset and Dorset line to Bournemouth. Had Ewan got the shed code wrong? A little more research and I found that 71G was indeed Bath shed until the regional reorganisation in 1958 when Bath was transferred from the Southern Region to the Western and Weymouth shed was transferred from the Western to the Southern Regions. At the same this time that the shed codes changed and 71G code transferred from Bath to Weymouth. So Ewan’s plan was to make a Bath based engine, sometime before 1958. Ok so that leaves me with a wrong shed plate or a wrong loco for the chosen period of 1960. 73052 would have only worked into Bournemouth West and so in 1960 would not have gone east of that point and would have been unlikely to have found her way passing through Swaynton. So I can't use that number plate.

So on with the hunt for a suitable prototype to match the kit. That is a Standard Class 5 with either a BR1, BR1H or BR1G tender. Now I knew that class 5’s were based at Nine Elms and worked Waterloo Bournemouth expresses but they all had BR1B tenders that had a greater water capacity. This was required as the South West main line did not have any water troughs.

I found the website http://www.brdatabase.info/very helpful in this research and soon came up with a list of locomotives that had suitable tenders and had a strong chance of being in the location at the correct period. I ended up with 5 candidates all fitted with BR1 tenders and based at Weymouth. Well at least I have a shed plate for it. They were; 73018, 73020, 73022, 73041 & 73042.

The question now is, did they run east of Bournemouth?

Fortunately my local library has a large section of railway books and so I took anything that referred to Standard class 5s and also a copy of Goughs working timetables. He has published the WTT for the South-Western Mainline for 1966 which is not too far from 1960. I am still lacking a WTT for 1960 (can anyone help please?) but I can compare this against the passenger timetable for early 1960 and can make a good guess as to the workings. (There are slight variations in timings but the general working looks about the same.) The educated guess is that a Weymouth based Class 5 working turn 442 (as it was in 1966) would take the 3:55pm from Bournemouth Central to Eastleigh arriving at 5:19pm and returning on the 7:22pm (arrives 9:34pm). It also looks like that this is the only working east of Bournemouth for a Weymouth based class 5 as, apart from the workings west all the main movements seem to terminate at Bournemouth West and Central.

So I don’t need to hunt down a BR1B tender. Whew!

To back this up there is a picture of 73018 at Eastleigh in the “Standard Class 5” book by David Clarke. It has an early emblem and looks like it was taken in either 1959 or 1960. Either way with a photo like that I have a strong candidate for the model. The photo is a good study of the engine and rear of the tender. All I need now is a clear photo of the other side and the front.


There is also a photo on David Hays website of 73018 in the New Forest, carrying a Waterloo/ Bournemouth Head code with Blood and custard stock. http://www.davidheyscollection.com/page37.htmfurther evidence that this is a good candidate? It certainly places it in the late 50’s and in the correct location.

I have been hunting the web for other images and have started to piece together some of the detail changes for 73018 as she was in 1960. Currently I think she may have still been carrying the Lion Over Wheel emblem on the tender, that no speedometer was fitted and certainly no overhead warning flashes. The steps would have been fitted to the top rear of the tender. ATC would have been fitted and that requires a battery box, a pipe fixed to the running plate, contact shoe on the front bogie (I need a picture of this) and the circular fitting on top of the exhaust ejector. (Drawing or close up picture would be helpful or even if anyone does this as an after market fitting- can anyone help?).
So the next step is to happily hunt through the various photo collections seen at model railway shows and various books with photo essays featuring Weymouth Locomotives. Hopefully I can find some nice pictures 73018 or at least some of the other candidates in service at this date.



  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

On Opening the box.
While all the above activity was going on, the contents of the box were examined. As stated in some of the other entries in the competition, DJH kits show their age. Pete McFarlane’s entry Kitbuilt-SECR L class from the DJH kit


starts off addressing some of the problems that DJH kits generally have. Problems stem from an age where RTR offerings were limited and kits were marketed with more enthusiasm than technical ability. DJH were at the time regarded as being very good because they at least gave you a model of something that looked about right and more importantly actually did go together.

Anyway back to opening the box....actually before that lets have a look at the “professionally built” example illustrated on the front of the box, and for that matter the illustration on the DJH website, and ask ourselves if it looks anything like the prototype and if there anything there that rings little alarm bells?

First the box illustration.
Of note is the Kadee coupling on the tender. Perhaps built for an American customer?

The box illustration shows a similar view to that of 73018 in the BR Standard Class 5 book by Clarke. And I write this (bear in mind that I have made some progress with the kit) I can see that something appears to be wrong...very wrong. The view in Clarke is almost at the same angle but slightly lower and the bottom of the cab appears to be much lower. I would say that it should be about level with the bottom of the middle wheels counter weight when it is at TDC*. Also the top of the cab is towering over the tender when the picture in Clarke and GA show it be almost level.

The battery box is different, perhaps something to do with AWS / ATC differences. This is not a problem. Hmmm there is also a speedo fitted, there isn’t one in the box. Again not a problem as 73018 didn’t have one fitted in 1960.

In that view then everything seems to look in place and in proportion except for the cab.

Now to the front view as on the DJH website.

Here is the picture from that site.
post-4587-0-48746100-1432414516.jpg (Copyright DJH)
The best picture I found to match this is on Nigel Kennedy’s site of 73029 at Bournemouth


Both are at almost exactly the same angle.

There are a few things to note, that there should not be daylight above the front bogie, the cab front window looks too small. The awful gap between loco and tender (to get around tight corners) the plate between the drivers, I guess to try and cover the motor. The front step is also slightly different.
I have also been looking at the cab and wonder if perhaps it may look weird because the wheels are 00 and are not in the correct place. Either way as I progress the model I need to consider if there is a problem in this area.

Contents of the box.
The outside of the box proclaims that the kit comes with Romford driving wheels, these have long gone and Ewan has replaced these with some Alan Gibson wheels which is good as this is what I was intending to fit. The rest of the kit looks complete with neat sealed packets containing various white-metal castings, nuts, screws/bolts as well as some nice etches.
I started off by trying to identify the various parts against the parts list. There are some bits not identified, but all those are called up are all present. I also took this opportunity to examine some of the castings to assess if they required replacement. In the kit Ewan has also included some replacement etched steps.


Time to start the build.

The first task was straightening the white-metal running plate. It wasn’t too warped and can be easily formed into shape by gently easing it between fingers. The same was done with the boiler and firebox so that all fitted snugly together. The cab etch was then folded up and soldered together with the fixing nuts. At the same time I also started to assemble the tender.

This is the thing tacked together so that I can start to get an idea about motor fitting and other detailing.
In this photo though, things do not look so out of place. With the top of the cab level with the top of the tender all looks well although the firebox seems to be a bit low at the back. Cab windows look fine (perhaps the DJH photos show an older version of the kit with a cast cab?






*TDC = Top Dead Centre

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Cab windows look fine (perhaps the DJH photos show an older version of the kit with a cast cab?

This is certainly the case with their SECR E1 kit - the boiler that my (still unbuilt) one came with is the correct diameter but the one in DJH's photos has a weird undersized one.


As for the cab looking odd, I'd suggest it's a combination of the body is sitting a millimetre or two too high, and the lack of most of the injector pipework that snakes around the rear driving wheel. .

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the main problem with the photo and eventual reality in terms of the cab sitting high is potentially that the photo was taken with an incomplete kit. When building a kit for display or a photo session very little attention needs to be paid to making a working model. It would not surprise me if the model as photographed had no motor/gearbox or even if any great care was made making anything actually work. This is still the case today when a display model is the outcome rather than an fully functioning model. There is also quite a difference between expectations of prototypical exactitude. Many modellers still build or request to have built these DJH (and other manufacturer's kits) very much in the spirit in which they were designed and sold. Like many kits and RTR variations from the pure prototype image the materials, scale and gauge of the model imposes certain compromises.


Or to put it another way - I think you are being overly critical of the kit, while I appreciate you wishing to add to and improve upon the basic kit and look forward to observing how you resolve the differences.

Edited by Kenton
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to also remember that these difference may be due to DJH kits not often matching the prototype drawings. You may need to check against a drawing to see if you can do what you want without a major rebuild. Their S15 kit builds into a nice loco. But if you want one like the original lots need replacing.


What you have done so far looks great.


My temptation would be to build it as DJH designed it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

To back this up there is a picture of 73018 at Eastleigh

Just to add to 18 being the best candidate I've a pic of it at Vauxhall in 65, possibly a little late but shows they did get around.

The Std 5's replaced Weymouth's Hall locos, one reason why was that Halls weren't allowed east of Basingstoke due to clearance issues.




Edit for typo

Edited by lapford34102
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for comments guys.


Horsetan- The running plate was even more bent when I pulled it out of the box. It still needs a bit more tweeking.


Pete- I saw that you had problems with the body sitting too high. Its an area I will have to look at more closely. Yes it does look a little empty on the pipework front.


Kenton- I hadn't considered that the photo might be of an incomplete kit. And yes I am being overly critical of the kit. (In one of those business personality courses that I was sent on, I fell into the category of "Critical Judge". I don't know if that is good or bad. Either way I can't help it) I guess that by listing the faults I can then decide if it can be fixed or lived with.


N15- yes, I note some other posters have said that compromises have been made by DJH. No I can't make as DJH intended. For a start it is going to be EM and those frames are far too narrow. I also have the luxury of a generous minimum radius so that tender gap will close up. I will explain more in the next posting were I look at the chassis. I will say now that some of the white-metal castings are very good while others could be better. The other issue is that it has to be of the same consistent standard as the other stock that runs on Swaynton. At a minimum it has to match a converted RTR loco.

I need to get hold of a decent drawing. So far I only have the GA that shows basic dimensions that has been reproduced in the "Book of Standards". I guess that for starters I will have to scale from that drawing. (Rule##. Never ever scale from a drawing).


Hi Lapford. Yes they did get around in their later life. There are a few pictures of 18  on the web with what look like working to Waterloo. I wonder how these coped with the slightly smaller tender than that fitted to the Nine Elms engines. Perhaps they stopped more often?


Right having spent the day at Railex (where I failed to find any photos or published drawings that would help me) I had better get off the web and back to the bench.

Next entry...assessing the chassis.



Link to post
Share on other sites


...assessing the chassis.


You may wish to conclude that a complete replacement will be time better spent. DJH (remembering the era they were created in) are not known for their well designed chassis (probably part of the reason there are better examples out there Comet, et al). This becomes more of a truism when you attempt to build in EM. The rest of the drive train has been compromised for OO already and also for tight curves (another reason why there is no pipework). All this "extra" work will make it much more of a challenge than DJH ever dreamed it to be - but no doubt all the more worthwhile.
Link to post
Share on other sites

And here is a picture of those frames.
None of that "w#anky old tin" that other manufacturers use. This is mans stuff. (This is a phrase often heard from the foreman in my apprentice days).
And to here are the manly top hat bearings.
But to compensate the spacers are narrowed...
...giving a frame width of 11.5mm.

With top hat bearings gives a width of 12.5mm which seems incredibly narrow even for OO. Don't worry there are lots of washers provided in the kit, although the instructions do state that you don't need these if your curves are less than 3 feet radius.
I guess that the frames are so narrow so as to mount the motor onto the chassis. It certainly won't fit between them.
Also note that the squared off frames fit into the white metal running plate casting.
Actually I quite like this as it really is a snug fit and I will try and take advantage of this somehow. See DJH can do some good and accurate casting. However this no good to me as I like my frames to be as close to the wheel as possible and a lot further out than that provided in the kit.
I also like the screw together frame spacers, a neat idea and they work if you remove the burrs.
If you study pictures of the standards when the wheels have been dropped out, you can see where they have rubbed against the frame. Now this is normally noted as happening due to bearing wear, but this does show how tight that space is because bearings would not be allowed to wear very much.
There are four ways to go with the frames
1. put lots of washers behind the wheels and fit as is.
2. Make new frame spacers and fill in the gaps with .036" material.
3. Make new frames.
4. Buy a Comet Chassis, (other chassis kits available) as Horsetan suggested.
Option 4 I don't like as it means even more expense.
Option 1, It would look very strange.
Option 2. Iain Rice in his book "Locomotive Kit Chassis Construction in 4mm" suggests this and even has a picture of the result to a Craftman C12 chassis.
I only have to make a filler for the motor and above the front bogie. The advantage of this is that I don't have to try and find the centre of the axles.
Option 3. Possible if Option 2 fails and I could lark around with some kind of compensation.

So there you have it. At the moment option 2 is the plan.
Ian Rice suggests 13mm frame spaces for fat frames, that should give me 14mm+ frame width. I have some finer top hat bearings from Eileens as well as the normal ones from Gibson. The DJH ones can go into the spares box.
Oh yes, although I still haven't got a proper dimensioned drawing, I have done some checking against the GA drawing published in the various books. It looks like these are copies of BR drawing SL/5B/1 copied here from the net. (where it has been published in several places).
From this I reckon that the models dimensions seem about right. The cab position and the centre line of the boiler to the axles centre line is spot on. So the box illustration and the image on the website do not represent the model in the box. It is much better than that. So come on DJH post a better image as you are not doing yourself any favours!
The running plate was rechecked and it is straight. The apparent curve may be due to the camera lens or more likely that the boiler is not sitting flat against it. I don't think I can lower it without compromising a dimension. Perhaps some filler?
Thought is also being applied to the motor mount and position. Tempting as it is to fix an X04 with a 30:1 gear, I have acquired a Mashima 1426 and a Branchlines 40:1 gear box with a flywheel. I am thinking of mounting it in the same way as on my model of 76011 with the motor sitting right inside the boiler and driving down to the rear axle. This may make it a little fiddly to get the body off for maintenance, but that can be overcome with some forethought, the advantage is though that I can get a good motor set up.


Before I finish with the chassis there is the front bogie. This is a whitemetal affair and will require some modification. I also don't like the method of attachment. I have looked at the Comet offering, and wonder if this will be better. It has some form of compensation / springing that I like, but may need some cosmetic work to the side frame. Hmmm something to think about.


Meanwhile the wheels have been blackened and work on the tender is progressing. I will post up something about that soon.


Play safe






  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would make new spacers to get the outside of the bushes within 0.5mm of the EM back to back. Then for ease I would make an overlay for the frames from 0.010" brass sheet. or even plasticard. it can fit over the bearings and brake hanger wires etc. Saves lots of filling and things it can even have all the rivet detail added.


As for side play you only really need this on the centre driver never any more than about 0.75mm if more is need file the bush flanges down a little more.



Bogie pivot it at about the rear axle with a guide pin where it should be and it will work fine, looks and works more like the prototype.

Edited by N15class
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

The BR weight diagrams are reasonably accurate and quite well drawn, key dimensions can be trusted. As far as I know these DJH kits were never altered and always had the etched cab. All the ones I've seen include a Britannia firebox back casting which does look a bit silly inside the cab. They are fairly accurate if built carefully, the major "error" is that they always push the cylinders out (and in 7mm scale as well) by quite a large amount but this won't bother you since you will have to cut the mounting blocks down to suit EM frames. I would recommend paying attention to the width over cylinders dimension on the diagram though.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You obviously like a challenge ;) For EM, I am afraid I would have gone with a replacement (probably Comet). I only have two routes when it comes to kit building. They both involve the "least painful/shortest time" approach so it is either build exactly as it comes (in this case as OO) or buy the most suitable alternative (modern replacement). If I have to cut and compromise - it will probably just go back into the box.


  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

.....Ian Rice suggests 13mm frame spaces for fat frames, that should give me 14mm+ frame width.....


I used "EM" spacers (about 13.5mm or so) and found that these and the combined thickness of the DJH armour plate was sufficient to give an overall width that would work for P4. I also ended up snapping several piercing saw blades when sawing the axle positions out to fit Exactoscale hornblock guides. I was pleasantly surprised to find that when wheels and coupling rods were test-fitted, the whole lash-up would freewheel smoothly down an incline, so I must have done something right.


By contrast, when I did something similar to a DJH "DoG" chassis, it didn't work at all well, and I ended up throwing the frames away in favour of adapted Comet frames from their "Britannia" pack.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Gang,

Just a quick word.
Thanks for the kind and helpful comments.
First of all going back before my last posting

I'm not sure who decided that DJH frames should be 36thou thick, but I bet he originally worked on armoured ship designs!

Guy Williams states in his book "Model Locomotive Construction in 4mm scale" that for OO he (and Jack Newton) use 1/16" strip for side-frames. In EM 1/32" strip. Their thinking was that the chassis should be as solid as possible and both Guy and Jack subscribed to the "heavy chassis approach".
The chassis are spaced with Tufnol spacers, for OO 3/8" Tufnol spacers with 3/8" x 1/16" nickel strip for spacers and for EM 1/2" Tufnol spacers. He then comments that this is an advantage of EM as you can get the motor between the frames.
With that thinking 0.036" thick frames are lightweight.

I would make new spacers to get the outside of the bushes within 0.5mm of the EM back to back. Then for ease I would make an overlay for the frames from 0.010" brass sheet. or even plasticard. it can fit over the bearings and brake hanger wires etc. Saves lots of filling and things it can even have all the rivet detail added.
As for side play you only really need this on the centre driver never any more than about 0.75mm if more is need file the bush flanges down a little more.
Bogie pivot it at about the rear axle with a guide pin where it should be and it will work fine, looks and works more like the prototype.

This is exactly my thinking. Although I hadn't considered an overlay for the frames.
Using a guide pin for the bogie is something that I want to try out on this build. I am dissatisfied with the other loco's that I have (all RTR) that use the same arrangement as planned by DJH. That is an arm swinging forward and attached to the bogie at the centre between the wheels. The reason that I don't like it is that it seems to be the cause of most derailments. (Next time you at an exhibition and see a loco derailment have a look at what fell off the rails first. There's a good chance it was a flapping bogie). I saw some loco's fitted with a guide pin, as suggested, and had the bogie sprung to take some of the loco weight and also had side control springs. They seem to be much more reliable. My last loco build of 76009 although fitted with a pony truck was set up to do the same job and it runs very well.
So I want to do the same with this beasty.

The BR weight diagrams are reasonably accurate and quite well drawn, key dimensions can be trusted. As far as I know these DJH kits were never altered and always had the etched cab. All the ones I've seen include a Britannia firebox back casting which does look a bit silly inside the cab. They are fairly accurate if built carefully, the major "error" is that they always push the cylinders out (and in 7mm scale as well) by quite a large amount but this won't bother you since you will have to cut the mounting blocks down to suit EM frames. I would recommend paying attention to the width over cylinders dimension on the diagram though.

Thanks Michael, that adds confidence the scarce data that I have. And it is a "Weight Diagram", thanks again, the drawings do not get published with a drawing description so I was struggling for the correct term.
I have tried out the cylinders in the frames set in the OO position, and they are bang on to the drawn dimension. Even the angle that they are set at looks about right too.
(OH I don't seem to have picked up the other quotes)
Kenton- Yes I have considered a Comet chassis. But I think I can do something more challenging.
Horsetan- I am wondering about flexible chassis, but at the moment I am still thinking of a solid frame.
Hmmmm heavy chassis approach.
Somewhere else in this challenge....I can't find it now... there was a comment that DJH put a generic Boiler back head into the kit.
Here it is.
Looks nothing like a Std Class 5.
And here it is next to the offering by Alan Gibson.

This now gives me another problem. The standard DJH thing sort of fits but still needs some fiddling about with. The Gibson job looks good but it doesn't fit the cab.
For some reason the slope at the front of the cab starts some distance further back than it should. This is to clear the running plate that also has the angle too far back. Perhaps to clear think flanged wheels?
Picture of the cab made up. (sorry for the blurry photo)
Picture of cab fitting onto the running plate.


Actually I don't see this a much of a problem. I will make up a new plate and cut away the casting. There should be enough material left and the cab will for part of the structure.


Finally before I sign off for the night, I dug out MRJ144. Tim Shackleton wrote an article about building a pair of class 5's. One from the Gibson kit and the other converting a Bachmann model to P4. There are a few hints and tips there for me but there are also a few inspiring photos of reworked DJH kits. Particularly the model of 73073 by Dave Holt, page 184.

That's what I am aiming for.

Edited by brightspark
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

?..Guy Williams states in his book "Model Locomotive Construction in 4mm scale" that for OO he (and Jack Newton) use 1/16" strip for side-frames. In EM 1/32" strip. Their thinking was that the chassis should be as solid as possible and both Guy and Jack subscribed to the "heavy chassis approach".

The chassis are spaced with Tufnol spacers, for OO 3/8" Tufnol spacers with 3/8" x 1/16" nickel strip for spacers and for EM 1/2" Tufnol spacers. He then comments that this is an advantage of EM as you can get the motor between the frames.


With that thinking 0.036" thick frames are lightweight.....

You'll find that by the time Guy wrote his next two books on the subject ("The 4mm Engine", and "More 4mm Engines ") his views had changed somewhat, and he was scratchbuilding using noticeably thinner frames. Thinner than DJH.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhh, then he lost the faith. Still it gives us an idea as to where the thinking for those thick frames come from.
Meanwhile I have been studying the cab arrangement. It looks like my initial estimate was wrong, I am going to have to cut off the whole back end of the running plate. The cab will then fix somehow to the boiler. I also have given myself the problem of fitting a two stage gearbox into what is now looking like a too tighter space in the firebox. Especially as I want a fly wheel as well. At the moment it looks like the flywheel fits nicely into the boiler cavity. However my plan for removing the body from the chassis may not be as straight forward as I first thought. So back to planning on that one. Perhaps with a new fabricated cab I can buy some space and means of access. The constraints are to keep daylight under the boiler and not intrude into the cab. If I can't make it work then I will either have to ditch the flywheel or fit a shorter motor.
In the last post I also posted a picture of the cab. Foolishly I had rushed into this, partly to make some progress, but mainly to get an idea as to how this bit assembles. Note if you will, the cab doors. Now these fit into tabs on back of the cab, but I have now realised that these doors are intended for the BR1H/BR1G that has a longer type of door and that door should be mounted to the tender. Also compare against the illustration on the box, mine are fitted the way the instruction describes with the cut-out at the bottom. Oh well they require replacement or modification.
However some progress has been made.
The Tender.
There is some thinking that making the tender first is a good idea. First because construction tends to drag on after the excitement of building the engine and so get gets left, and also it eases the builder into the kit.
For me though it is the first thing that started to fall together.
Proportionally it looks quite good and seems to measure up ok to the few dimensions that I have.
The chassis is a whitemetal block with cut-outs for the axles. A brass plate carrying the brake rigging sits on this trapping the wheels. The only problem I had here was that the pre-tapped holes for the screws didn't have enough thread and soon stripped. I have glued in some short 2mm brass threads (the remains of shortened screws) into the holes after drilling them a little deeper and running a 2mm tap down them.
The side frames, buffer beam etc were glued on with araldite as I have still to master the art of soldering whitemetal. There is plenty of space for EM and even P4 wheels.
I just packed mine out with washers so that they sit in there nicely. The brake etch is spot on for EM which I found surprising as I had assumed that it would be set up to match OO wheel standards and that I would have to split them.
Electrical pickup was intended to be on one side only and using a bit of hard brass wire. I will use some phosphor bronze strip instead, but there isn't much room in there with that cast chassis so I will have to be a bit cunning.
Onto this whitemetal box sits a brass plate. It has a cut-out to for the lip that runs the aft above the buffer beam and at the front it is intended for the fold up etch for the steps to fit on. Above that will sit another whitemetal box that represents the tender tank etc. DJH intended to hold this together with nuts fixed into some bushes. But that looked a little too flimsy for me so I have made up a plate with two nuts on it that will eventually be fixed to the bottom of the tender box.
The only thing that I have found wrong back here is the rear step. There is a hole missing, possibly to allow you to fix it to the whitemetal lump on the side frame.
These will not be fitted, instead I shall use the Branchlines Etch. It has a full set of steps and a much better ladder than the rather two dimensional affair that is included in the kit.
The only other modification of note planned is making and fitting of the lamp brackets. This engine had both GW and SR pattern brackets fitted. So on the back of the tender alone there will be 10 brackets required.
With that thought in mind there may be a slight delay before the next post as my fingers may get a little numb from all that folding.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Here is the latest update....

The tender.

So as stated in the last posting I have decided to progress with the tender.
I made an error in my last posting. The step that I thought had a hole missing is the actually the front step that lives on the loco. The correct step is there on the etch. One thing to watch out for if you ever do this kit is that on the etch the second steps are not next to the step that they intended to fit onto. The very forward and rear steps use a small step plate. The middle step, the one that goes onto the front of the tender and provides access to the cab is the wider one.
Please Mister (or Missus) kit designers, please can I have guidance as to where on the etch each piece is please.

Anyway I have ended up using the steps in the kit as when I got to looking at the etches closely and thinking about locating everything, the DJH etched steps did the job.
Here is a picture of the front steps that help locate the main body and add depth to the front cross plate/beam. (Is there a name for this? I can’t find one)
And those at the rear
As stated above, I made up a plate to locate the body onto the chassis. The plan was to bond (glue) this to the inside of the tender box with the nut-plate that holds the body on. Under this is a plate that the steps are soldered too. I have departed from the instructions again in that instead of a white metal “plug” that is intended to have a wire (paperclip) wound round it for the drawbar I have fixed a 2mm rod that will act as the drawbar pin and will make up a flat drawbar.
Drawbar pin.

Now the plan was to have the chassis step-plate and body in three separate pieces. But when I glued the nut plate in...I also managed to glue it to the step plate as well. Not that this matters as the chassis still splits away.
Behind the rear step of the tender was a rather horrible block. I pointed this out in the last entry. So I removed this and now find I have an even more horrible hole, that I had created when I made some clearance at the back of the buffer beam for the sprung buffer. May be it won’t be a problem as the step is in front of it.

On the back of the tender are the lamp irons and handrails. The kit does provide some etches for the handrails. I gave these a miss too as I prefer bent wire. On top of the tender the handrails run through handrail knobs. Unfortunately those in the kit are all of the short type so I have used Gibson medium knobs as these match the photos and are a little finer. Also note that I have fitted the extra step. This is the square block that sits on the chamfered edge. This were not originally fitted to the tenders but were added to give the firemen a bit more former footing.
The etched handrails.

Then there are the lamp irons, there are none supplied in the kit however I don’t suppose that would have been much use to me anyway. After studying various photos I have come to the conclusion that the standard 5s based at Weymouth and possibly only them, catered for both Southern and Western lamps. The type fitted to the “other railway” had lamps with brackets on the side while the Southern had them on the back of the lamp and/or disc.
In the last post I was contemplating having to make ten lamp irons just for the back of the tender. But having found precious few photos of the back of tenders I decided to see what lurked on the front of the beastie. And here on Nigel Kendall’s web site http://www.steamweb.net/I found the answer and an intriguing question. He has a couple of pictures taken of number 18 but more interestingly has a few close up shots of number 20 that was also at Weymouth. This clearly shows the lamp iron bracket was single fixture that carried both styles of lamp fixing. Except well there is a question.
Go to his site and have a look at the pictures of number 73020, bear in mind that the Southern had a requirement for 6 lamp positions while other regions only had the need for 4. So why on the front of the loco is there fittings to display 6 positions of Western lamp? Keep in mind that the fittings on the back of the tender are what you would expect with the two extra southern only positions having rear only fittings. Anyone know the answer?
So here are the lamp brackets all made up and ready to fit (or get eaten by the carpet monsters)
and here are some notes on how I made them.
And fitted to the back of the tender.

The rest of the tender body went together as per instructions. The only other other deviation that I made was to arrange pick-ups on all the wheels rather than just one side. For this I soldered some phosphor bronze strip onto two lengths of brass wire. This was then glued to strips of card (for insulation) that were fixed to the chassis so that the strips rub gentle onto the back of the wheels.
Surprisingly none of this shorts outs. The two ends of the brass wire will have some arrangement for wires that will run to the loco.
At the back of the tender is a ladder. The one supplied in the kit is ok,

But I preferred to fit one from Branchlines. This is nice little N/S etch that folds up and solders together with 0,5mm wire rungs.

Finally at the front of the tender I have added the two handles (just bent brass wire) for the brake and water-scoop.

So this is now ready for paint.
While the glue is drying I guess that I can think a bit more about the loco and the loco chassis. (oh dear)




  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

So, the chassis.

The DJH frames in front of new frames or overlays...read on.

As proposed above (post 12) there are several options to choose from. I did seriously consider N15s suggestion of overlays. I was even thinking of using cardboard for this having seen the condition of some rolling stock dating back to the 1940’s made from this material and the deterioration of some of the plastic sheet I have in stock. It would have made for an interesting variation.

However, after considering the amount of work that I would need to do to get the original frames to work, it just seemed easier to make new frames from scratch. Now I will confess that I have never before scratch-built frames, so this is a new challenge for me. But isn’t that the point and the title of this competition.
I happened to have some .020” brass that I had rescued from a scrap bin many years ago. So with two bits of sheet brass in hand that are a little bigger than the finished chassis I set about making a chassis.
This basically breaks down into  tasks.

Task one; solder the two bits of brass together.

Task two; cover one side with black ink (Marker pen).

Three mark out the centre line of the driving wheel axles centres.

Four, mark out the outside edge.

Five drill holes and cut out etc.

Ok, so perhaps not so simple, especially at the fourth step.
With the high running plate and lots of light under the boiler getting the frames looking right is going to be tricky. However the basic method is much the same as everyone else is doing, that is basic sheet metal work.

By the way it also occurred to me that as I have to make a chassis from scratch I could also have a crack at making it compensated too. Well if you are going to take on a challenge you might as well make it challenging. So note the cut-outs for the horn-blocks.
New frames.

I started by basing the body mounting positions at the same points as the DJH chassis. The front end is going to sit on the same mounting point. The wider chassis will just fit. At the back end, I will have to be smart as I have decided that the cab floor is going to have to be remade. This means that the angle for the cab front is going to be further forward and the floor is going to be slightly higher than the current casting allows. This seemed to me to be the most critical part of the operation so each cut was taken very steadily and I made sure that they were square and parallel.
As the old saying goes, measure twice cut once.

I have recently obtained a copy of Ian Beattie’s book “BR Standard Locomotives to scale”. If you are not familiar with this series of books they do what they say on the title. But be aware that they may contain a few errors. One review of this volume suggests that the drawings range from very informative to very decorative. I must admit that I would prefer a few a few dimensions, as I don’t trust scaling from drawings. However sometimes you got to do what you got to do. The only problem that I have found so far is a half millimetre discrepancy along the driving wheel centres. But this can be adjusted out.

Beattie has a nice drawing of the frame and so I copied and cut this out and glued this onto the back of a copy of the main profile drawing. Cutting this out gave me a template for the frame outline and I used this to add on the bits that the DJH kit missed out on.

The next part of the process is to look at all the fitting that attach to the frame.
It seemed to make sense to use the castings provided by the kit manufacturer, so I have made the same cut-outs in the frames. As yet I have not made the cut-out for the cylinders because as was pointed out in the previous postings I need to keep a careful eye on the width which is currently correct for OO, but will require some work for EM.

The castings that go into those slots. They don't look too bad and seem to be there in the shadows of the pictures I have of Standard 5's.

At the moment I am measuring and pondering how much room I will have behind them and the valve gear for wheel clearances. Also how am I going to mount them onto the frames. Any thoughts on mounting cast cylinders anyone?

The cylinder is the perfect width, but for OO.
And the current method of mounting. Hmmmm I am sure that this can be improved.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

...Any thoughts on mounting cast cylinders anyone?


The cylinder is the perfect width, but for OO.



And the current method of mounting. Hmmmm I am sure that this can be improved.

Measure the overall width of the cylinders, i.e. the outsides, when mounted on OO frames. This will - or should - be the same regardless of the gauge you're running, and you make sure you keep that overall width. It's the insides, mounting directly to the frame, that you need to shave down to match the outer width of your EM frames.

Link to post
Share on other sites

....or to put it another way:


1. Measure the overall width of the frames with OO spacers put in.


2. Now do the same with your EM spacers installed.


3. The difference between the two, divided by two, is the depth of material that you need to remove from the mounting point of each cylinder. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I'm really glad you are doing this kit. I originally was going to do an EM version, however that layout will now not get a lot of use and so my effort will be OO for the next layout that probably won't get built.

Nevertheless your experiences will be/have been invaluable. 

May I copy your pics to my files for personal use for when I get around to starting mine, if I don't sell it on and just use the kit built/RTR 5s I already have?

Anyhow, looking good and if it's of any help, I almost always build the tender first as it sort of 'warms my mojo up' ( :scratchhead: )

Sadly I've started a SEF King Arthur recently and not my S5, built the tender and have not really got inspired as it is a bit lumpy compared to Hornby's magnificent effort.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Create New...