rowanj

I built a DJH D20 recently, and enjoyed it. You can follow my build on the link, including the mods I made to fit my BR period. John

My first entry for "Best Director" At least it shows some of the kits described here running, The locos in question... J77 North Eastern Kits Q7 Dave Alexander N5 SEF North Tyneside MPV Dave Alexander B16/3 PDK A8 DJH J25 London Road Models

Class 40's were common at Little Benton, though the split-headcode versions tended to be to the West. I was going to dispose of this one until I saw it had been painted at the front to back-date the full yellow nose to the half -yellow version. As I'd been watching a Right Track DVD where Tom Wright used artists chalk for weathering diesels, I thought I'd have a go on this one - using Tamiya as the base. So the loco heads south on a fully-fitted freight from Edinburgh back to the Midlands.

They are.. The smokebox on the photo is just pushed over the boiler front ,Pebbles The difference on the final version will just be the thickness of the etch,and should be hidden by the boiler band..a trick I took from Mike,s build. John Edit - just had a look at the boiler and, where the smokebox etch slips over, it is thinner than the rest of the boiler, and the smokebox etch rests against a ring around the boiler. I'd forgotten that from my B16/3 build. I filed the ring down to flatten it, and it becomes the boiler band. When I get to that part, I'll take a photo on the basis of a picture/thousand words

I do so wish I could build an "average" layout as good as LB, or locos as "average" as Tony's. I suppose I'll have to settle for "adequate" with aspirations to reach the level of "pretty reasonable". In my next life,I'm going to aim for " unique " and "inspirational" In the last analysis, do these words really matter?Surely,if a layout interests,amuses,or inspires an individual, it has served a real purpose for the hobby. I put LB in that category, and am not willing to be accused of having low standards.. Average ..not to me.

It may not be necessary, but I wanted to do a final check on clearances with the coupling rods fitted. All seems OK and the rest of the chassis construction should be "bog-standard". The boiler and cab roof have not ret been attached but I find I need to check for irregularities at almost every stage with etched brass kits. Once the smokebox saddle and boiler are fitted, the valances will be tidied up. I have removed it from the RH side only, and wont dress the visible perforations until the LH is removed. It is necessary however, to do the valance trimming at least as the distance from the buffer beam to behind the cylinder block, otherwise the footplate cannot be tested on the chassis top with the cylinder block in place. I did have to drill a hole in the cab floor, and another on a spacer at the chassis front to provide body/chassis fixing points., as a consequence of the chassis narrowing work. with a bit of foresight, this probably would have been unnecessary, but is no big deal, as both points are hidden when the cab floor and smokebox saddle are assembled. I hope the photo also shows that the footplate curve/chassis straight edge issue mentioned earlier is hidden when the wheels and cab are fitted, though a design which put the curve on the chassis too would have been better. Now I'll dismantle the chassis, add brakes and complete the cylinder block and paint it all. On my earlier build, I needed to remove metal from the boiler to get a 1420 motor to slide through, so that is the next task for the body. As per good practice, I will also assemble the tender chassis to check that it sits level to the rear curve on the footplate. But, not having a heated workshop, that may take a while, as it's perishing up here - I had to put on a long-sleeved T-shirt. John

The modifications look as though they will allow the B16 to get round at least 3rd radius curves, with a bit to spare. While it's not absolutely certain, what is left to do on the chassis should not effect it, so I'm quietly confident. certainly, it all moves at lot easier than the first 2 builds. Mike pointed out that the con rod on the A8 should be inside the coupling rods. I had already soldered mine, but was irritated by the mistake, so have corrected it. I will also fit the lining to the valances, and then proceed to hide it with grot ! John

I'm probably in danger of teaching Granny to suck eggs, but here are 3 boring pictures illustrating the bogie pivot, and showing what needs to be done to the pieces which slot into the chassis tops when using narrower spacers. The Wizard/Comet pivot has 2 pieces on each etch, and is thin and flexible. This is good when setting the adjustment of the bogie on the track, but also means it distorts easily when handling. The slot also distorts and I find it essential that the shouldered screw moves smoothly through the slot. So, I'm going to reinforce the long bar, probably simply bey soldering a length of scrap etch along it once I have the bogie pivot fixed in the correct position. I've illustrated the main motion bracket to show what I meant when I tried to describe what needs to be done to the central tab, which needs to sit inside the chassis in order that it sits level wth the chassis top where it meets the loco footplate. I wont solder this in yet, as the ends are easy to break off if handled carelessly once the half-etched bends are made. In the interest of full disclosure, I need to confess that I didn't twig that that the tabs needed to be narrowed, so as a consequence, the 2 rear footplate supports are shorter than they should be. C'est la vie.

This is Mike Edge's B16/2 build, It is so comprehensive that I see no value in showing my effort other than if I hit a snag. It was only the chassis amendment which I thought worth posting. http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/61851-lner-b162-from-pdk-kit/ The photo on the box does the model no favours, in my opinion. My B16/3 valve gear looks OK, though clearly not in the same class as Mike's'. I'll need to check Mike's query. At the moment, the footplate is just lying on the chassis, and any gaps are highlighted before it is screwed down. I don't remember addressing the gap between the straight edge of the chassis and the curve of the footplate on the B16/3 build, but I'm getting on and it was a while ago.... Edit - there is nothing in the kit to convert that right angle to a curve. To be fair, when the footplate and valance are fitted, along with the rear driving wheel, the eye is not drawn to it in the way the photo shows, and the cab sides also help to hide it, However I see no reason why it cannot be easily filled with a couple of pieces of scrap etch.

Really nice work, Mike. I too enjoy seeing detail differences between ostensibly identical locos. Just like the real thing.. John

One last photo - the bogie under the chassis front, which shows how little room there is, and how far forward the bogie sits.

So here is the destuction to date ( and some construction). I narrowed the chassis by using the broken off tabs turned through 90*. Only 2 were necessary, placed where the pick-ups will be fitted. I checked at this point that a Highlevel Compact Gearbox would still fit, and it does. I then cut off a piece between the bogie arches at the front of the chassis, as well as a substantial amount from the cylinder block. These are the areas prone to causing derailment and shorting. The chassis normally builds up into a very strong and stable unit, with 5 etches in total slotting into etched slots on the chassis top and lying level across the chassis . In addition , the cylinder block and 2 other spacers add security. I fitted the one at the rear , but a large piece which sits just behind the cylinder block has been left for now until I get the bogie fitted and tested. As the chassis is narrower than was intended by PDK,most of these fittings need filing to make them sit properly within the chassis carcase. The front end ahead of the cylinder block is prey flimsy at the moment, as is the block itself where the metal has been removed, I'll be happy when id have finished the heavy lifting at that end. However the basic chassis has now gone together, is all square and dandy and goes round 3rd radius curves. Next stage is to fit the pivot plate and bogie to check clearances.

I have begun the 3rd PDK B16 kit, which will become the Gresley re-build B16/2. While I managed, after a bit of a struggle, to get the B16/1 and /3 versions to run, I am risking the cost of a replacement chassis to see if this one will be easier. The only real issues with the kit are the long wheelebase and lack of space under the cylinders which affect bogie swing and the loco's ability to go round curves. This is exacerbated by the chassis design, which is a fold up assembly. Of course, in itself this is great as it pretty much ensures a square chassis. However it also produces a very little wheel sideplay, at least in OO, especially when bearings are fitted. I build my chassis' rigid, so this may not be an issue if the chassis is compensated, and may even be an advantage in EM. However, for normal OO, the result is , at least for me, a loco which wont go round bends, and a bogie pretty intolerant to any problems in the track. The bogie design is the swing-arm method, and the bogie itself is a simple etch, which is very light, and therefore adds to the potential to derail. I am aware that plenty of folk have built the kit without modifying the chassis/bogie design, and I tip my hat to them. I have got both my existing kits running well, but only as a result of a fair bit of fiddling at the front end, not easy when the cylinders and bogie have been fitted, In both cases, I replaced the swing arm with a bogie pivot bar, and used an RTR bogie of he same wheelbase as that in the kit. I'll do the same for this B16/2 , removing metal prior to assembly where possible, and build the chassis narrower to get a bit more wheel play.. I'm risking £45 or so, having checked with PDK that they will supply a replacement if I totally cock it up. John

Re the posts on ex NER coaches in BR days. Yes, I should have said "non gangwayed" stock. My timescale is 1955 _61,or so, and I have plenty of photos of what seem to be NER coaches on local services..but none with clerestory roofs. My search for what be an appropriate first full kit built coach goes on, influenced by this thread. Dave Alexander intended to introduce the North Tyneside Electric Artic sets, but this now looks improbable. There are some on Shapeways but at a high price,in my view,for body only kits.

I don't know about clerestory carriages, ..were they still around in service after 1955 ?..but ex NER suburban stock would be good. I haven't located a suitable available kit as yet. John.

That rotten Mr Gresley (or actually Mr Thompson on the B16/3 iteration ) "improved" a couple of NER designs, and ,to be fair, certainly in the case of the A8, produced a better loco.Probably true of the B16 too. Whether they looked better than the originals is in the eye of the beholder. Pity they didn't think a bit more about Railway Modellers and leave a bit more room under the cylinder block for the leading bogie to swing... An A8 passes a B16/3 in a scene unlikely ever to be available in RTR. So it's kits or do without. No contest, really.

The idea is the A8 is work-stained but not filthy, just ahead of its 'visit to Darlington where Hardy will become Laurel. The main additions were to the bunker rear, - lampirons, handrail, steps.--piping under the tanks, and a pair of fittings on the saddle-lubricator feeds? I had a go at the draincocks below the cylinders.The crossheads in the kit are whitemetal, and one rod broke while I was fiddling, and was replaced with wire - the same as I used on the (not supplied steampipe. It just needs coaled, plus anything else I can easily do, and that's it. The cab is horribly empty and I wish I had spent more time fitting an interior, though the driver helps the disguise. I also missed the fact that the con rods should be inside the coupling rods. If I ever need to remove the leading drivers, I'll try to correct this, but the faff to get the leading bogie to clear the cylinders means I hope I never have to do so.

Sunderland had a couple of N5's, which i suspect they didnt want, and seem to have done little work before being despatched to Peterborough, where they were used for trip workings and station pilot duties. I had a SEF kit, which I was about to sell until I discovered the Sunderland connection. It built into a lovely little model. I dug it out today, and noticed some damage to the paintwork on the tank side, so took the opportunity to repair it, add some additional weathering, and a front dummy coupling. Here it is on its; test, held in the sidings waiting for an Up express. It's sods law that a loco I have little excuse to run is one of the prettiest and best runners I have.

Here is my "Fatty" with lining applied. As usual, the photo accentuates the errors, which I'll correct where I can and try to hide where I cant.

That's interesting, Mike. I appreciate that the 63C diameter is 3mm smaller, so that would need something done where it meets the tanks and spectacle plate, but is it enough to require a different kit?. I haven't a GA, but there is no evidence in Yeadon that major surgery, or indeed anything other than the tank strap, was needed for a boiler swap. Of course, Peter is a purist, but I'm surprised he couldn't offer a workable solution in a single kit. It also means many prototypes cant be built if they carried 63 or 63A boilers in a particular period. Having said that, if only one boiler type will be supplied, I'm glad it will be a 63C. Will you still have a go at fitting "fatty"? John

Well,one side,curves and all, has been done to the A8. I'm not wholly convinced, as the curves at the cab windows are much tighter than anything on the Model master sheet, and tighter than the A6 in Mike's photos. We shall see. I'll not line the boiler bands at this stage,as it will be as easy to add them if evidence arrives as to paint them over. There doesn't seem much consistency in the size of wheel balance weights, so I just used the best photo ow what I had matched to weights in the scrap box. None came with the kit. Photo to follow when the loft thaws out.,(And thanks again, Mike..great to talk to you yesterday, even if by accident !)

The loss of Little Engines kits was a real shame. I wasn't building when they were around, but they seem to have a good reputation. My only knowledge of the A8 kit is from a conversation with Peter Stranger, who said the DJH version was too short and the Little Engines too long. I'll be interested in following your build, Mark, when you get round to it. Feel free to post here if you don't want to start your own thread. I began lining my loco using Modelmaster transfers, The curves around the cab window are absolute sods, and really should be done with a bow pen, which I don't have and couldn't use if I did. No "Pencil Caesar "me (for fans of Ian Dury). I can see that part of loco getting weathered,,, I don't have many pictures in colour of BR A8's and those I do show pretty grubby locos. So I am unsure whether I should be lining the boiler bands. If anyone knows...???

Excellent news - my DJH A8 is therefore wholly prototypical in that regard...

Now and again,I'll post a photo here of the kits in action. Here is the Arthurk kit of the Worsdell J77 heading the LOCO coal past little Benton North and about to leave for the Blyth and Tyne route. John

The LOCO coal is now complete, though if I spot another Parkside kit, I probably wont be able to resist. I quite like these short trains, which ran round the outskirts of Newcastle either build up longer rakes or breaking them down from the yards around Tyneside. This train is heading north and will leave the ECML at Little Benton Quarry Junction and head up the Bltyh and Tyne, The splitting signal confirms this. The rake are all Parkside, other than the modified Airfix Brake van,backdated to the LNER version. The loco is the North Eastern Kits Worsdell-cab J77.