Clem

Before anyone says it, I know. 'Keep up!', you'll tell me. I didn't realise most of the points I made had already been answered! It's just that this thread runs at a pace that is too quick for my legs. 

One other thing I should add to my original post: My layout, set on a very busy but secondary route, in general has smaller locomotives than many of the main line express layouts. This is where High Level come into their own.... for the locomotives where space is limited or where there is space under the boiler.

On 18/06/2021 at 17:58, LNER4479 said:

Feel free to throw brickbats and tell me all the places where I went wrong if you really feel the need to. But that wasn't the point of the post and - as you can see - in spite of myself, I still ended up with a sweet running gearbox.

Not throwing brickbats but a set of instructions - always sent from Chris Gibbon at High-level which consists of a general tips page (applying to all versions of gearbox) plus one specifically for the model of gearbox bought, really covers most of your problems.

First I carefully open out the frame holes for the axle bearings whilst still in the fret using a broach, checking as I go along to ensure that as soon as the holes are big enough to allow the bearings in for a push fit, no more metal is removed.

Secondly of all I don't force the worm on to the motor. I ream it out to 2mm which gives it a close but adjustable fit and fix in place with lock tight when at the specified place (lock tight applied from the outer end of the shaft to avoid any danger of getting the stuff in the motor). This avoids the use of a vice to force it on. If anyone wonders about the reliability of the worm on the shaft, I've done a good few without any failing.

Thirdly, when the frame is folded, to ensure it's square use a small engineers square and clip in the etched spacer for the bottom part of the frame. Once satisfied, solder a cross wire as instructed to keep it rigid whilst soldering the fold lines. Hey presto, a square, robust framework ready to add the rest of the gubbings.

Fourthly, the idler shafts are cut to the length (the width of the gearbox from plus a little) from the 2mm bar supplied using a carborundum (spelling?) disc before adding and fixing in with epoxy. (My personal theory is that Tony doesn't like them for this reason ). The reason why epoxy is used is obviously the gears are nylon.

Graham, I'm not wishing to criticise, but you have made the job more difficult than it needed to be. Referring to the instructions would have made the job so much easier. The only bit not included in the instructions is the worm fit, which is my own method as I've found his more recent worms far too tight to fit on without the kind of risky drastic action you described. The only other problems I've encountered with them are the motor fixing points on some models (high flier for example). In order to orientate the motor to give the narrowest body fit, I normally have to file the screw holes in the frame work (the ones at the sides to allow for motor replacement) towards the centre by about 0.5mm each. I do this before I take it out of the fret, checking the motor against it.

Once you've done a couple and got used to it, they really are a doddle and at less than half the price of the less flexible DJH models, they are surely worth a the extra bit of effort required? And if you build it with reasonable care, you get a sweet runner every time.

33 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

I'm not quite sure, but I must be beyond 500 locos built by now. Not as many as the renowned Mike Edge, of course, and nowhere near the 10,000 (yes!) claimed by one demonstrator at shows.

10,000!!! Building at one per day that would take getting on towards thirty years. I think he might have some trouble with numbers..... or a very active imagination.

9 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

think it's safe to state (or is it?) that any B1 in LNER days would have a tender with the coal division plate towards the rear, spanning the pick-up dome. 

I think they started fitting the new arrangement about 1955. My recent K3 conversion (61833) has the later - and incorrect - version. I fitted about 1980 before I knew all the subtle differences you could find within classes. 61379 Mayflower was common as muck around Nottingham even though she was an Immingham engine but for some reason or another I always missed seeing her. I never did. I've heard she was a bit of a duff one.

4 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

The point here is that (in all cases), they have to be made.

Fair point, Tony.

11 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

A very sweet runner (rather sweeter than the loco I showed you with a High-Level 'box in it - which I didn't build). I know this subject has been aired before, but I made the frames yesterday evening and painted them, leaving them to dry overnight. This morning, no more that ten minutes were spent installing the DJH combo; the result, perfect running. 'You pays your money and you takes your choice.............................'

I understand your preference Tony, but I've found that if you build a High-Level gear box taking care to follow the tips and instructions that come with it and ensuring it is square etc. it invariably results in very sweet running. They don't take long to knock up and the advantage of being able to be hidden more easily than the DJH boxes. The folk I've spoken to that use them - me included - swear by them (not at them!). As I said, I do understand your preference but it's only fair to have the case made for the other side of the story heard.

13 hours ago, ArthurK said:

If you spend enough time and effort it is possible to get a half decent result from Jidenco kits.

I have another two unbuilt but I am never going to build them now!

 Hi Arthur, 

If you need to find a home for those two LNE ironstone hoppers, I can give them a home... and I can promise you they would get built (that is, if you're sure don't want them).

Clem

1 hour ago, PupCam said:

It was the Post Office / BT training centre in the 70's.    One of my mates at the time trained there.

As I mentioned earlier, so did I. To be honest, I was only there for a week and don't remember too much about it, except that that it was about leadership in management and I actually really enjoyed it. It was part of a 6-week post grad management training course. The following week I was in Gornal (Dudley) with the pole erection unit. (great name for it!). What I remember of that was a bunch of local kids watching us replace a telegraph pole chattering away and asking us questions but I couldn't understand a word they said. The very heart of the black country accent and it might as well have been a foreign language for all I could tell. 

12 hours ago, westerner said:

Strangely enough, I trained as a teacher at Bletchley park

Snap! (not quite the same). I did my management training there for BT. 

11 hours ago, dibateg said:

At last my J6 staggers towards completion - nearly there. I know we were discussing J6's who knows how many pages ago!

That looks lovely Tony. I remember 64219 very well. It was the last J6 at Colwick and didn't arrive until March 1960. For a short while 64257 was still around but that went in the Summer of 1960 whilst 64219 lasted until November the following year if I remember correctly.

You certainly captured the look and feel of a J6 perfectly and I love the detail. If I was thirty years younger, 7mm wouldn't half tempt me!

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Just to prove (I hope) that I can build an A2/3 which looks like an A2/3...................

Ha ha! Yes, I was never in any doubt, Tony! 

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Here's a Millholme A2/3......................

 

 

I've never commented on a model in the way I'm tempted to at the moment....... I'll just say that it's even worse than my WSM J6 which is still in OO and rarely sees light of day. I can't help but adding that the proportions of cab and tender are just so yuck and the cab roof looks like a bomb shelter roof!

1 hour ago, Chuffer Davies said:

I got back into the club rooms yesterday for the first time in 62 weeks, it all felt a bit of a time warp. Everything was just where it had been left last time we worked on the layout albeit now under an amount of dust.  So yesterday I spent most of the day having a clean around and reminding myself where I’d got up to with testing the wiring.

As to LSGC it shares  the same floor space in the club room as Clayton so is currently stored along with Hungerford in a side room.  
I hope the council won’t feel the need to shut the building again now that this blessed Indian variant is starting to take hold on Bradford.  

Ah, it's so good that you are back into the clubroom. Are you making progress on the J2 at the moment?  This Indian variant is a bit of cause for concern, isn't it. It's a conundrum as at some stage I fear we'll all just have to go with the idea that the virus is here for good and return to a half-way house to normality whilst being on the alert for new variants. I understand there's also another new one, the Egyptian variant. The only thing we can do is get on with it at the moment and hope for the best.

2 minutes ago, Chuffer Davies said:

As always your loco’s run as smooth as silk.  Impressive..  

Good evening Frank. Thanks for the kind comments. To be honest,  I feel like a bit of a fraud. I really can't take credit for Chris Gibbon's High Level gearboxes and the smooth running of Mr. Mashima's motors, not to mention Stewart Hine's Pentrollers. But I suppose you work with what you learn to trust and a few years ago I set my stall out on that combination.

Are the club rooms open at Shipey MRS yet? If so how are the Clayton and Leicester SG gangs?

46 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

I've been invited to the (small) Bingham Show in my role as demonstrator.loco-doctor, later this year. I hope it goes ahead; it could set a trend towards smaller shows. 

 

Who knows what the future holds for shows?

Hi Tony, Bingham is just down the road from us (about 7 miles). Let me know when it is, and I'll make sure I go and come over for a chat.

3 hours ago, Headstock said:

another reboilered loco I'm afraid, it being 63851, so not underbuilt. I could actually get away with it in its 6299 guise but 63851 does roll of the tongue nicely, decisions, decisions. It did end up at Colwick though, I'm sure you have one, though I may be confused. 

Yes, you're correct Andrew, I have modelled 63851. And it's the next one due for the treatment! It's been converted to EM just by pulling the wheels out and it runs OK with a load but it clunks through point work in a most unprototypical way. The pony has been brought forward and reversing rod done but the rest of the mods necessary weren't attempted during the conversion. Having done 63829, this will need doing later in the year. A few other jobs on the layout are more urgent.

After coming to Colwick from Annesley it stayed along with another O4/5 until the big freight loco reorganisation of January 1956 when a significant number of Colwick's O4s went to Mexborough in return for WDs. The O4/5s stayed at Mexborough until withdrawal in 1959 when their boilers came up for renewal and the sub class was rendered extinct.

53 minutes ago, Headstock said:

I'm not too sure of the dome on the Bachmann model, I haven't looked at it too closely, as my engines are all reboilered variants. I'm sure it could look better but an original O4 expert may have more information. One thing that is worth adding, is the injector pipe work at the rear, it is quite prominent and fills in the gap. I include a screen shot, one of several I used when doing my locomotives.

Hi Andrew. I hope you are well. Are you getting access to your club's premises yet? I'm looking forward to when we can start having exhibitions again.

The O4 dome on the Bachmann looks to me to be close to being correct for a number of the unrebuilt engines but from the early 40s onwards the 'utility' dome was fitted and this is seen on the majority of the unrebuilt O4s in the 1950s. The utility dome has a flat top and is slightly conical in profile. I've been hoping someone would do an accurate casting (Graeme (King) do you do one?).

I only noticed when I looked at the side on still of the Bachmann dome that it starts to dip in the wrong place at the back. From the front it looks pretty good for that type of dome. 63829 was one of the very few O4/3s at Colwick to have one of these, most having the utility type as I've attempted to replicate on my K's O4/3 63638 below.

And I agree about the injector pipe - and also the brake pull rod. I used the Bachmann brake hangers and blocks on 63829 and they're actually too short and will need replacing. That's why I've not fitted the pull rod. 63638 also needs injector pipes and pull rods..

Putting it context, 63829 was a bit of an experimental stab in the dark - to see how easily a scratch chassis and motor could be readily made to fit the Bachmann body, and how difficult the task of removing the solid mass between the frames and the reprofiling of the running plate would be. I've also tried to alter the angle of the Bachmann cylinders and slide bars but that turned out to be quite awkward and I only achieved limited success.

Good to hear you're doing one of Annesley's unrebuilt O4s. Quite a few of Colwick's mid-fifties O4 allocation were at Annesley in your period, so I'm looking forward to seeing it when it's finished and finding out which it is.

22 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

Just one little criticism, which I hope you'll take as constructive.

 

I'm guessing the signal represents a real one, but you have "moved" the bridge to provide a scenic break. As modelled, the signal would not become visible to the driver until the train emerged from under the road bridge. Prototypically, it would either be "off scene" on the approach side of the bridge, or mounted on a tall straight post lifting it high enough to be sighted over the top. If the latter, it should also be tall enough to prevent vehicles using the lane potentially obstructing it. 

 

Other than that, just fabulously atmospheric work. Nice to see you back with modelling mojo reactivated.

 

John

Hi John, 

Thanks. GC had the same criticism. But I was uneasily aware of this. Two points: the first is the answer I gave to GC somewhere above whereby a banner repeater is used at the other end of the cutting as is the case at Kimberley. Secondly the signal may not be permanent there. It's been in my plans to replace it at some time,  by a scratch built example either the other side of the bridge or of the gallows type when other work is completed. But, for the time being, I can live with it.

1 hour ago, great central said:

 

Hi  Clem, I hate to be picky, given my total lack of modelling output for several years now, but can I just suggest perhaps that your (excellent) working signal seems to be rather awkwardly sited.

It appears as though it would be hidden from view to a driver until he came under the bridge, more likely it would be on the other side of the bridge probably with a sighting board. I understand that the constraints of your model have probably dictated it's position, so could either have a tall secondary arm which can be seen above the bridge or a gallows type signal as used at Nottingham Victoria which can be seen under the bridge.

It's also possible I've completely misunderstood and there's a banner repeater signal just the other side of the bridge!

Hi GC.

Yes. I had to think long and hard about this one. At Kimberley, the up home somersault signal was quite unsighted by Kettle Bank bridge (not unlike the bridge here). They seem to have got around it by putting a banner repeater on the up approach to the bridge. The hidden cutting is meant to be deep and hewn out of sandstone with little chance of having a signal on that side unless much further back, in which case a banner repeater that side would also be appropriate. Having said that, after it had been installed, I did look along the track and the signal can be seen under the bridge, much the same as the Kimberley home. 

But, your point is well founded, I'm pushing it a bit and really this should have been sorted out when I was planning the layout. I've always been a bit bull at gate with regrets at leisure.

50 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Magnifique Monsieur Clem, tres brien.

 

I notice you have used the correct shade of green on the eves of your A2/7 rebuild of 605O4/7 Kitten off Colwickanoch.

 

I Love the working grass.

 

P.S The mystery of the missing farmer will keep me occupied for months. Very 50's Quatermass.

Evening Andrew. 

Yes, you're quite correct. That is the very same Quatermass A2/7.... and the farmer's gone off to do his oats. I hope you're keeping well. Looking forward to being let out in the wide world again. Might even go to B&Q...  

22 hours ago, dibateg said:

Interestingly my J6 will also be 64219! I chose that one also as it was one of the last ones at Colwick.

 

Regards

Tony

It was *the* last one at Colwick, Tony, not arriving until March 1960. The only other J6 still surviving there by then was 64257 and that went in June1960. 64219 soldiered on alone until November 1961 and with its withdrawal brought to an end an association of the class with the shed of 50 years. That's  a terrific model of her!