Clem

Good afternoon Tony and all. I hope everyone is safe and well. I've been dipping in and out of my DJH WD construction and I have made a little progress but I must confess to being a little stuck on the valve gear and would welcome any advice. Usually, if building a loco with outside Walschaerts valve gear set in mid-gear (as most do), the radius rod is usually fixed at both ends, the front end to eliminate any up and down movement initiated by the movement of the combination lever. Having looked at the instructions, I can't see how this is done. Have I got this completely wrong? Do I need to drill out the valves and add a valve spinal? Any suggestions? Thanks in anticipation.

Commonly known as a pre-git (not to be confused with the lesser brained variety, the 'eegit' - with a soft 'g')

Thank you for the info. I'll continue my scratch built chassis in that case. Springing/compensation is a personal thing. Since I did a little P4 a few years ago, it was something that I brought into my EM modelling. It does take more time - particularly if you've got to work out new dimensions etc. - but I love the ride and sound of a sprung chassis going smoothly through point work, especially if, like me, you're not the best permanent way fabricator. You also get the added bonus of every wheel touching the track, ensuring perfect current collection. But, as already stated, it does take considerably more time. Wishing you and Mo good health and happiness, Clem

Tony, a quick question if I may? The DJH WD chassis.... Has it been updated at all over the years to accommodate other gauges and the possibility of springing, or is it still 1mm thick brass? It's just that if it's been updated, it'll save me a lot of time working out how to scratch build one for EM whilst making sure it is compatible with the cylinders and motion provided. Thanks in anticipation.

Doug, I've done 2 of his J39 chassis kits. I did buy them many years ago, though. Are you saying that he's now changed the design for the J39? If so I'd be interested in trying one again. Both of mine also run well but the EM one gave me a bit of trouble as the frames were still slightly too wide. I eventually sorted it with much fiddling and filing. I must say the Bachmann bodies do sit very well on the Bradwell chassis and the inside motion detail is brilliant.

Thanks for kind comments, Tony. Yes, the DJH WD is going together quite well. it's been an enjoyable experience so far. No progress so far today - i've been conscripted to the garden. Just got back in. Regarding your experience of the Dave Bradwell kit, I'm not surprised by your reluctance. From my limited experience and from heresy my understanding is that his kits produce very good and accurate models but massively labour intensive - extremely detailed and pretty fiddly. By the way, if you or anyone else is interested, I have a full set of Alan Gibson WD wheels for P4. I bought them with the kit, many years ago when I was still doing P4. PS The point rodding looks spot on!

Hi Doug. Yes. I have two to build. Bought a long time ago when I was earning well and was stashed away for a... well a time like just now. The chassis as provided probably builds into a decent OO rigid chassis, but I'm committed to springing/compensation. I have extremely tight curves for EM and I've found that a sprung/compensated chassis has better adhesion on tight curves. Also, it helps current collection if all wheels are in contact with the rails. The 'battleship' chassis is simply too hefty and takes up vital width. It does mean that I have to be very careful on my calculations with the cylinder mounts to get them at the correct width but also ensuring adequate clearance for EM. I'd love to have a go at the Dave Bradwell version but it would probably take me a year to complete and I'm not sure how well suited to EM it is. The Bradwell J39 chassis for instance doesn't easily go together in EM. I did one some years ago in P4 and found it much easier. Also I find Dave Bradwell's horn blocks dead fiddly. (now there's phrase I never thought I'd say!).

Morning Tony et al. I hope everyone is keeping well in these difficult times. Well this is day 32 of our self isolation. And we are getting one or two things done. Chris is doing her photography - in the house, in the garden and on the computer and she's producing some exquisite photos. Meanwhile, I have been tidying up and attempting to organise the workshop a bit. The (second) O4/7 is finished apart from coal and crew. But I will revisit it to get the cab/running plate join filled at some point (I find photography highlights flaws better than the forgiving eye). Also I've built an EM chassis for an old K's J50 I've dug out and I've converted one of the Hornby J50s to EM. I have to say, the Hornby J50 is a terrific model and runs fantastically well for a RTR. The K's J50 was one of the first kits I ever built (I think it originally had a Hornby Dublo R1 chassis) and, for the moment, suffers from lack of detail (various things have dropped off over the years). The new chassis isn't yet completed, most noticeably short of brakes. Finally a start has been made of a DJH WD. I'll be doing the body and tender first as I'll have to scratch build the chassis (based on the kit's chassis) in order to spring it.

Good afternoon, Andrew. Wow, that's a massive improvement. I have thought about giving it a go before, but chickened out. Both modifications massively improve the model and seeing them in practice is a great encouragement. I've said it before, but your O4/8 hits the nail on the head all round. Perfection. I'll have a crack at the next O4 I do and if all goes well the built ones will be retrospectively modified. I hope you're keeping safe and getting through this virus episode without too much inconvenience. Chris and I are both a bit obsessive with our hobbies (Chris with photography and me with the trains), so self-isolating is not too bad. Clem.

Another lovely sequence of shots Tony. Great atmosphere. 64747 is interesting. It was the last surviving J39 (how I wish it could have been preserved) and lasted until 1964 stored at Woodford Halse (was it used as a stationary boiler?). It was also a Colwick engine in my period (1955) before moving to Leicester Central, Gorton and finally Woodford Halse. That's a smashing model of it. Is it SE Finecast or Pro-scale?

Thanks for kind comments , Andrew. I missed the GW tool box on the tender. I'll try to deal with that before doing the weathering. I too have done one of the O4/5s and have another to do. I have similarly found problems with my paint finish and plan to return to it to see if I can cure it. On mine, it takes the form of a fine white crystallisation on the underside of the boiler. Although it's not unlike some of Colwick's hard water effects, it's not quite right and as such so will be revisited. I have 2 K's O4s, one of which is awaiting a new chassis (it's present chassis is P4) and 2 further ones awaiting building. The Bachmann conversions are a fairly easy win (although they do require a bit of effort). I've always liked the O4/7s and intend to build one or two more in the future (including one I remember well 63770 - although it will be out of my time period. I'll be doing that one out of pure sentiment). Later this year, I'll need to even up the O4-WD ratio on the layout with a DJH build and one or two Bachmann conversions. On the subject of the Bachmann O4 running plate, I am living with the wrong version on a couple of my O4s. I haven't figured out a way of reliably correcting it yet.

Hi Tony, thank you for the tips and the lovely, quite brilliant illustrations. I'll use your information as well as I can and will be well chuffed if I can build it anywhere near to the standard of the examples given. I hope you and Mo are keeping well. To be honest, we're finding this self-isolation lark not that bad. Chris has her photography and I have my workshop (which is next to the kitchen... and the kettle... ah... tea!). It's important we all stay vigilant against this horrible virus. PS. I've enjoyed the LB sequence photos very much. Keep safe. Clem

The conversation in our house often goes like this: Clem - "I think I'll have a cup of tea. Do you want one?" Chris - "No, you can have enough tea". Clem - "You can never have enough tea". and so it goes. Well, for a line like the ex-GN Nottingham-Derby line, you can never have enough O4s. So here's the latest Bachmann conversion using a Mousa Models body (O4/7). I wanted to see how using a Bachmann ex-GW ROD for a donor would turn out. Well there are some pros and some cons. Firstly the running plate is the correct shape and the reversing rod is the correct length. Against that, it has no mechanical lubricator, no steps attached to the motion bracket, round buffers at the front, extra steps from the running plate and rivets in the wrong places. So whichever way you choose, if you want to get it right, there is work to be done. I still need to do a little work neatening up the crankpins and painting the chassis (and painting the buffers black, Gorton style) and weathering the engine and tender. I think I will be taking on a DJH WD next not having tackled one before. Are there any pitfalls I should be looking out for?

Thanks Tony. Yes you certainly have attained the perfect 'look' for the wheels/motion on your chassis. You have the colouring quite right to my eye. But it did make me smile though when I read and realised that extra little bit of something is obtained by the application of actual oil. I have oiled around the crankpins before but not the whole she-bang. Thanks, I've learnt a little bit more today.

Morning Tony. Did Ian also paint the wheels and motion? It's often struck me how realistic (i.e. true to how I remember them) they look on your locomotives. They seem to have the right amount of oily gleam along with the perfect shade to represent well-maintained loco motion. I presume the shade is achieved by a mix of paint ingredients?

Hi Andrew, Yes, I've played around with replacing the platform and did it on one conversion. It's more time consuming that way, but it probably produces a better model. Also, that's the way Geoff Kent did his, I think. But I've compromised and used the existing platforms on most of the conversions I've done and in a rake it's hard to spot and just a bout passible. On the body I scribe a 2.8mm line away from the inside of one of the side stanchions and then make the cut right up against the stanchion. I then carefully use a pair of end cutters to nibble off the 2.8mm, nibbling off on the scribed line. When finished, I give it a quick file over both pieces and check the rejoin. Sometimes a little extra filing is required to make a neat fit and if really necessary a little filling. On the platform, you have to make 2 cuts after scribing a line 1.4mm from each of the stanchion bases. Again I use end cutters to nibble off the1.4mm each side and file them up to knit together. To be honest, it's a bit of a bodge but looks ok in the rake. Anyway, here are one or two photos of the real thing as preserved at Rutland Rly museum.

Hi Tony, I have made the decision not to attend the Nottingham show because of Covid-19. It's right my doorstep and would have gone. But my partner Chris is definitely more vulnerable than I am and I can't take the risk of bringing infection back and put her at great risk. But, as I was intending to go, I have emailed the show's organiser asking for a donation link so that I can donate the price of two tickets to the society to help their financial situation if they get a much reduced turnout.

Hi Andrew. I haven't photoed the conversion but Chris keeps saying she wants to photo a project and I'll be doing another one very soon. In the meantime, in words first... Basically it's a cut and shut for the body, two cut'n'shuts for the top of the underframe (running plate) and a complete replacement of the under frame with a Parkside 9'0" wb under frame kit PA08. The top of the underframe (running plate?) is far, far too deep making the model over a millimetre too high, so I skim off as much as possible from the underneath using a mini drill and mini milling cutter before filing it flat and smooth to take the sole bars. Slots have to be cut at each end to take the bottom door mechanisms and along each side to mimic and open underframe. I'll give more details later. Hope that helps for a start.

The wonky wagon (part 2).... The other one is the Charles Roberts type converted from a Bachmann.

Tony, am I right in thinking all the hoo-har about a loco standing the wrong side of signal was the King Arthur photo. Surely, there would be no problem if it was photographed in the process of backing the carriages into the station. That, unless I'm mistaken, is your 'get out' on that one.

Wonkiness I can do well! :-)

I finished (construction of) the LMS hopper. I'm afraid it's a bit of a pig's ear of a job, but it is got me back into doing some modelling and it will just about pass muster in a rake of hoppers or 'a layout wagon' as you would say, Tony. I wish they made 3.5mm plastic channeling to use for the sole bars. I've had to use 1/8", take off the bottom protrusion and add a new one out of 5 thou plasticard and to be honest it hasn't turned out that well. Also I find flexibility of evergreen channel not helpful in getting true square and rigid under frames. These wagons have open frames and the next one I do, I'll in plan a bit more subtle support to keep it more true. Building these wagons is very labour intensive, particularly getting all the strapping and riveting in place. I could make 10 from kits in the time it takes to scratch build one of these, but nobody does them (subtle hint to any kit designer out there :-) ). I'll get it painted, along with the Charles Roberts conversion later this week. One thing making life a little more difficult is an unsteadiness in my left hand (particularly my index finger) which is starting to hamper fine detail work and has become more substantial in the last year. I'm trying to find a way of controlling it better. My right hand seems as steady as always. Andrew, thanks for the information about the way the photo of Leicester South Goods and O1 was lit. I think sometimes a photo can capture that little something extra and I thought that picture had it. I had already noticed the significance of the directional lighting and it was one of the things which made a difference. I may be looking at a new camera sometime later on this year so I can take better photos. I'll need one that I can close the aperture right down to increase depth of field. I'll have to do a fair amount of research to see what's available unless anyone has any recommendations. I also have to look into stacking as I have never tried that. Tony, great photos as usual and plenty of interesting observations and conversations.

Hi Andrew. What an atmospheric shot! It just shouts 1948-50 . Great photo. What lighting do you use to get that daylight look?

Yes, I purloined Chris's pink jewellery pliers some time ago. She'll no doubt want them back at some time in the future. Can't seem to find them at the moment though..... ;-)

Yes, that's pretty much what I thought but it's just the demographic of a model railway exhibition has a much higher percentage of older people who are far more at risk. On the lighter side, I was imagining everyone turning up wearing their air brush respirator masks and the locals mistaking it for a Dr. Who convention.