Pebbles

Maybe there is no problem, but the GC tender had larger diameter wheels that presumably would intrude into the tank area and that any rebuilds on GC tender frames would have had to take this into account. I have been down this path before. In view of the fact that all NER Atlantics were withdrawn shortly after nationalisation there could/would possibly have been a number of serviceable components available including complete tender tanks. I believe it is worth remembering that the late forties and early fifties were periods of austerity and generally nothing was wasted! In the specific case of D20s would it be envisaged that they would see many additional years of service sufficient to warrant significant sums of money being spent on them.

Well what are we to believe? all non self trimming 4125gal tenders on C6 Atlantics had half moon cut outs, same with D21 tenders and if I recall so did the tenders on the original C7s. Then we have revised framing under late J27s, it would appear to be just a change of style, or possibly shape that better resisted fatigue fractures. If I recall the 3940 and 4125 tenders were the same length the increase in capacity came from the 6 inch or so increase in height. There possibly was a slight increase in weight between the two varieties of 4125 tender but it could not have been relatively much.

I'm of the view that they are 4125gal self trimming tender tanks with a revised coping .

For the gears?

I believe that The Rolls Royce Peregrine - development of the Kestrel - performed very well in the Westland Whirlwind.

Sorry to intrude, but having thought about the problem I am coming to the view that any end float should be addressed at the non commutator end. Think Hornby X04, where the front bearing took both fore and aft thrusts, but with these smaller motors we are dealing with far less robust commutators, so the non commutator/ brushes end. At present I'm tied up with NER 4-4-0s, but time permitting I will try to fit one of the small ball races that Bertie Dog suggested.

This is not simple. The DJH kit has an extended wheelbase of 27mm x 27mm as apposed to the SEF correct 26mm x 26mm. I have no idea what simple course of action to advise. I would however ask why SEF find it possible to supple parts while other manufacturers have a problem.

Page 188 "An Illustrated History o NER Locomotives" by Ken Hoole. The photo is captioned " Author's collection"

Correct, that said I have not suggested something that I have not done myself, and I did say that the purists may not like the suggestion. I'm sure that an article also appeared, I think in MRJ. Part of the problem with any carbon brushes is that the grade of carbon is dependent on its application. I remember many years ago of individuals putting either car starter motor brushes into the dynamo or vice versa. because of the different hardness of the carbon for their applications commutators were wrecked. When I lived in Carshalton there was a factory producing raw carbon and I cadged a block of suitable grade which I still have. I should add that machining to size is very difficult and best achieved by holding a square section in a large pin chuck and gently filing to size.

I have no wish to be pedantic, but I think the motor is the smaller D11 and on mine the brush holders are both insulated from the main frame. The purists may not like the suggestion, but replacement brushes can be made from pencil lead of suitable grade. Both the D11 and D13 were high revving motors requiring relatively high gear reductions.

I wonder why you have a drawing of a B3/2? Possibly 6164 or 6166.

Small screws, or indeed those located in difficult place, can be temporarily fixed to the screwdriver with a very small dab of cheap super glue - easily separated afterwards. Nuts can be pushed into the grain end of soft wood - Balsa for example. For any nut soldered into place, as has been mention, thread onto a cocktail stick.

I believe this is the most acceptable arrangement.

Surely, the base line is a general comparison in prices and quality between Hornby and Bachmann.

On the D11 and D12 the brush holders in addition to being slotted had a small hole. I know that a number of these motors were returned - the cause being connecting wires being soldered to the brush holder and solder infiltrating through the hole and soldering the spring solid. Eventually the carbon brush would erode, initially causing a reduction in power and eventually stopping altogether. I would bit the bullet, remove the motor clean and examine the brush holders.

Yes it is mainly the radius on the corners of the cab cut out. If its any help, I understand that the F8 cab cut out is similar, if not identical, to that on both the GER 2-4-2s and the G5. I'm not a member but I think that they still do a ring file booklet of NER loco weight diagrams.

A better side view drawing of the F8 is on page 91 ln Vol 3 of the "North Eastern Record", the Railway Modeller drawing appears to have followed the weight diagram with regards to the cab cut out. The F8 RCTS quotes the tank capacities of the F4/5 and the F8 as 1241gals. As the GER 2-4-2 tanks and the F8 were very closely related, for modelling purposes the figure of 4ft (16mm) quoted on the GER Society drawing for the height of the tank side sheet from the footplate for the F4/5 would appear to be applicable to F8.

Sometime ago a contributor called "Bertie Dog" suggested using small ball races. I have just taken delivery of 20. Don't hold your breath as I have to address the problem of forcing the ball races onto the motor shaft without bending the shaft. Using the ball races will of course require dismantling and then reassembling the motor.

I'm a bit hazy on this, but didn't Proscale produce both cast and etched boiler versions of their B1?

It's quite simple, unfold the firebox etch and trace the outline, then invert the etch and after locating over the initial tracing trace the inverted outline using a different colour. It will then become clear where the discrepancy lies. Take the larger of the combined outlines as your pattern.

The problem with the V2 firebox is very much an old chestnut. From memory, the problem was first pointed up by the late Ron Goult - he of "Little Engines"- in the September/October issue of "Practical Model Railways". I remember buying the magazine whilst on holiday in Aldeburgh. From conversations I had Mr Proscale had already decided to quit before the Steve Barnfield/Tony Wright articles appeared.

If end float could be the cause, firstly establish in which direction the motor shaft is being pushed when the the model is moving forward - this on the basis that it works OK in reverse. Any end float can be reduced/contained by using a piece of tube and suitable washer externally rather than dismantling the motor.

I'm fairly certain that the Barnfield B16 was initially issued in about 1993, the DJH at least 12 to 14 years earlier.

Micro Metal Smith, I think that's how they called themselves. They also did their own gearbox.