Tony Wright

Hello Tony,

Do you have one of Graeme's A2 to A2/3 conversions? They do look very good and I would like to have a crack at one, but knowing how damn clumsy I am, have not really looked into it too mcuh. Will have to contact Graeme for a few more details I think. Have seen various bits on forums, but I suspect Graeme has a lot more skill & patience than I do!

Slighly off topic, but stil ECML, can I ask you about the Anglo-Scottish Car Carrier, with the Newton Chambers coaches/wagons?

I know you have a rake, seen them when I have been lucky enough to view Bytham (I think behind an A4 from memory?), but I can't remember the formation? Is your complete train made up of them, or do you add other coaches?

There's a Noel Ingram photo on the net, on the up fast at the back of Bytham School, with 6 Newton Chambers (+ 4 other coaches which I can't identify) behind a 40. I am sure the more informed may know what they are, but I don't can't tell, other than most likely mark ones.

Stating the obvious maybe, but would the other coaches be for the passengers that had sent their cars in the Newton Chambers?

 

Kind Regards,

Lee

Good Evening Lee,

                               I will have a Graeme King A2/3 by the end of the week. Please pop in and see it.

I don't now have the 'Anglo Scottish Car Carrier'. It belongs to Dave Lewis of Southern Pride and, with the proposed selling of Stoke Summit, it will probably never run again.

The formation of the ASCC for the summer of 1963 was (Down) BSO, FK, RU, FO (all BR Mk.1s), then the six Newton Chambers car carriers. Note the preponderance of First Class accommodation, because it was a relatively expensive way to get the passengers and their cars to the north. Meals could be served at all seats, and yes, the majority of cars had their owners with them. There was space for 84 First Class passengers and 39 Second (33 on SO). One car carrier came off at Newcastle. Up to 192 tons of motor cars were carried, so fewer in number if they were Jags or RRs perhaps. I'm not sure how many cars could be carried in each carrier - I've an idea two small ones below and four above. Perhaps someone will let us know.   

Very nice indeed, Tony, especially given the starting point. Can I ask where you found the drawings shown in your pictures? Copies of these would really speed up my build if I were able to lay hands on them.

 

Adam

Adam,

          Thanks for the kind comment.

The drawings, and an article on the locos appeared in BRITISH RAILWAY JOURNAL, No. 2, winter, 1984. Thirty years ago!

With regard to the Bachmann C class, 2,000 Watts of light has a habit of differentiating between painted metal and plastic. It's probably far more noticeable in my picture.

Speaking of pictures, just a couple here to prove I've finished that awkward B&M 0-6-0ST. The Markits outside-cranks are beautifully machined and really finish it off. The quartering has to be set by eye, so it's best to solder them to the extended axles rather than use Loctite. That way, not only are they far more secure but adjustment is easy by merely re-introducing the iron and tweaking. Burnt fingers are the result but it now runs really sweetly.

A full report will appear in BRM.

If you want to see it, it'll be running on Merthryr Riverside at the Wigan Show next month.

Only difference on the Bachmann Tornado is the tender - for which they tooled up spoked wheels and a new tender body to match Tornado. The rest is standard Darlington A1 tooling.

Which in many ways makes the Hornby fully-decorated model the better, despite its having moulded-on handrails on the cab and tender and no glazing. It is cut-down, has circular keeps to the Cartazzi and tender axle boxes, the whistle is on the fireman's side (though neither model has the chime whistle inside the off-side deflector) and it only has one mechanical lubricator. It is an actual model of TORNADO, not a BR production A1 numbered and named as such. 

I haven't the least idea what happened to the last picture on my last post.

Here it is again.......

As I currently understand it, the A2/3 is to be 60515 Sun Stream as per the photo I was given for guidance on the details.

 

I suppose I should also confess that I've not added the twiddly oil pipes and anti-carbonisers low on the smokebox sides, but I know a man who makes a very good job of adding such details.

If it's the one I think it is, then yes, it's the filly which won the Oaks and 1000 Guineas in 1945. She was the last of the class to have the front numberplate high up on the smokebox door - up to 1958 I think and also had the earlier BR totem up until then. A splendid job, by the way, Graeme.

Anyway, enough for the moment about LNER post-Gresley Pacifics, though I don't think that BORDERER will be going far beyond the borders of South Kesteven.

Today I've been photographing some of the latest stuff from Bachmann, full reviews of which will be appearing soon in BRM. I think it all looks rather good.

I am grateful Tony for your full response to my levity re a RTR Thompson Pacific. At least we know where we are and the A2/3 will slip quietly to the back of my mind now. I have been following your account of the Peppercorn A1, and this in turn has sown a seed concerning a Bachmann model. I used to visit Leeds to see these beautifully balanced designs and so, using the modellers licence card, there is no reason why one could not have been trialled over Standedge in early BR days on Newcastle-Liverpool workings. The idea is definitely growing on me fuelled by your photos.... 

Good idea Larry, and why not? Though I have no actual evidence of West Riding or NE--based A1s working across the Pennines to Manchester or Liverpool, at times they could be seen on the WCML between Crewe and Glasgow, and to Edinburgh via Carstairs, and on the Settle and Carlisle, and on the G&SWR to Glasgow. 60114 worked a special through Preston once and at least one A1 was seen at Birmingham New Street on a NE-SW working. So, there appearances on former LMS lines is well-documented. I wouldn't be surprised if one got to Manchester by one route or another. Their appearances at Sheffield have been noted, so who knows? As you say, modeller's licence. I'd use it in this case.

Just as an 'aside', I've just realised that the 'real' 60163 has spoked tender wheels. Presumably they are easier to source from Markits than the disc type.

P

Phil,

        The real 60163 has spoked tender wheels because they were easier to manufacture than the disc equivalent. I was told this when I went up to Darlington to take pictures of the loco in preparation for my building of a model of her. I would have thought the opposite to be the case, but no.

Markits can supply either disc or spoked tender wheels (outside or inside bearing) with equal ease.

Just to prove (and I know no still picture can do this) that Mr Duck's A1 is up to the job, here she is romping through Little Bytham on the eleven-car 'Yorkshire Pullman' (a heavy mixture of Hornby/Comet/Trice/Keen modifications). Top speed's about 90 (Comet's comparative gearbox has a higher ratio than DJH's equivalent), but she just toys with these. Yes, a weighted Bachmann A1 will do the same, but it won't start so securely nor run so steadily. 

And yes, just to placate the pedants - what's a Tyneside-based A1 doing on the 'Yorkshire Pullman'? 

I am convinced, not for the first time(!), that the first manufacturer to produce a RTR Thompson Pacific (A2/3 hopefully) will find so much money flying into its coffers that it will have to open up a second production line to keep up with demand......

Larry,

          I'm afraid you're going to have to wait a bit of a long time, if my experience is anything to go by.

Though I hold no privileged position (nor should I), over the last few years I've 'assisted' the RTR chaps in a modest way in the development of new models with a leaning towards the east. These include lending O1 models to Hornby, O2 models to Heljan and a few models to Bachmann, as well as providing notes, photographs and drawings. Earlier this year I visited Bachmann's HQ, carrying several models of Thompson coaches and one of Graeme King's inventive and remarkably effective A2/3 conversions from the Bachmann A2. Since I'm partly privy to Bachmann's future plans, I cannot (and will not) say what the immediate future holds with regard to locomotives but I can say what's very unlikely to appear, and that's a Thompson Pacific from the firm. Despite already making the boiler, firebox, coupled wheelbase, bogie, cylinders and the complete tender (in the A2), the 'modification' costs are too high, especially in the current climate. Also, despite the apparent interest in Thompson's Pacifics on this and other threads, amongst enthusiasts in general (prototype and model) his big locos are derided. Yes, I make models of them because that's what I saw - they were very much part of the ECML scene of my boyhood/adolescence/early manhood - but as knowledge has complemented enthusiasm down the years, the shortcomings of them renders them less popular. Read Peter Townend's latest book from Irwell to give you an idea what many professional railwaymen thought of them. Just think, we've had a new A1 built and a new P2 is in the pipeline. How long will anyone have to live before a group decides to build a new Thompson Pacific? I'm not saying that a prototype loco has to have been very (or even partly) successful to make a successful model. Look at Heljan's myriad diesels. They don't even have to be built in numbers either - again Heljan's one-off prototypes spring to mind. 

I discussed the A2/3 during my visit, showing drawings, photographs and Graeme's model. There was also Graeme's kit of parts which I'd taken to Bachmann last summer. With 15 in the class to choose from, one might have thought it was a possibility. But, none could be produced in LNER livery without making another pattern for the boiler to incorporate a round dome (which is why all the A1 and A2 models from Barwell have a streamlined dome-only). 500 (and 511 initially) would have needed a new boiler, anyway. So, a choice of 15 (excepting 60500 until representative of the early-'60s because she (he) retained the four segment boiler up to then), all in BR green-only with a (possible) choice of chimney and BR totem/crest. It didn't stack up as far as the firm was concerned. Yes, I know there were only 15 A2s, but the commonality with the A1 model is much more and there is the greater choice of livery. 

As for the A2/2s and A2/1s, no chance. With regard to the former, at any time in their history only two of the six were ever alike (on occasions all were different) so the multi-tooling needed there was definitely out. Since DJH declined to do an A2/1 after successfully producing the A2/2 and A2/3 kits, I think we can see where that might go. I know Crownline/PDK and Nu-Cast did (still do?) kits, but no RTR manufacturer is ever going to touch the four 'orphans of the storm'. 

As for Hornby doing an A2/3, I don't know. Five years ago it was mentioned in conversation with Simon Kohler and we agreed that the majority of the names were splendid, but apart from his seeing one or two of my models it went no further.

So, in my opinion, an RTR Thompson Pacific is so far down the line as to not even be on the horizon. In my helping Heljan it's not even been mentioned, either. One then for the kit-makers and the modifiers to still have as their own. Personally (and selfishly) I'm glad because DJH will still have sales, as will PDK. And, where would we be without the 'genius' of Graeme King? Yes, 'I'm all right Jack' - I've got my three kit-built A2/3s and the picture Graeme's recently posted shows (I hope) the results of our horse-trading over the last couple of years. 

Having 'lit the blue touch paper' yet again, I await responses.

Well Tony

 

now you have finished it i had better start on mine - bought for beans on flea bay...

 

Problem then will be what to run it on??

 

Baz

Of course you saw it flying round, semi-nude last week.

Finish it, and we'll run it on LB next time you visit. 

A final thought from me on A1s (for the time being).

I've honestly forgotten how many DJH A1s I've made for myself and customers down the years - it's well into the 20s! Last year a friend told me that one I'd made (I always sign my work) came up for auction somewhere with a reserve of a £1,000. Is this right? Did it sell? I haven't a clue which one it was but does anyone know about this? It could be a wind-up, of course.

Then only advantage to buying an RTR Bachmann A1 (if you model the 1950s/60s, there is no point in buying Hornby's Tornado unless you are prepared to make a large number of modifications to the cab and other fittings) is the price and numeracy that the price allows. The Bachmann A1 requires some extra weight and even then won't pull anywhere near the train length and weight a kit built A1 will. I remember back in 2008, accompanying a renowned GCR modeller to Retford and watching some of the Retford kit built A1s pull some astonishingly weighty and lengthy trains. 

 

But what is clear to me as an inherent advantage to the kit built model over the RTR is the excellent chimney. Bachmann's split cap chimney ruins, in my view, the front end of an otherwise excellent RTR model and is the first thing I change when I buy an A1, with one of Graeme King's excellent resin creations. 

 

CIMG5251_1.png

 

The second change being, as can be seen on the loco in the background, the smokebox door which is one of my own resin casts. This particular A1 model started out in life as 60163 Tornado and was changed to become 60136.

 

CIMG5293_1.png

 

However, to my dismay, I discover that I have to make a further change to the tender lining, which was different Darlington to Doncaster apple green variants in addition to the rivets on the cab and tender sides.

 

I'm in awe of the kit build above. The overall bulk, face and detail of the Peppercorn A1 is spot on, whilst it could be argued the white metal details are not as fine as the plastic mouldings of the RTR, I sincerely doubt it could be argued that the brass sections and the chassis are not works of art in themselves.

 

My apologies for throwing a few bits of my own work into the fray Tony. Not to your standard but hopefully a talking point for the relative merits of kits to RTR. I do fancy taking up the challenge of a DJH A1 one day. I still have your BRM article on building Tornado in my scrapbook to remind me of a level to aim for.

Never apologise for 'throwing a few bits' of your own work in Simon. It's your work, and that's the most important thing - you did it , you're doing it and you're going to be doing more. If it's RTR improvements then it's part of a learning curve, but wait till you begin making loco kits yourself (if you haven't already done so), then you'll get the real 'buzz' about seeing an engine you've made bowling along. I commend you, and the likes of several others on this thread, for having a go, so well done.

My apparent ambivalence towards Bachmann A1s is rooted in their inability to pull equivalent A1 loads - 14 heavy bogies and more. They can be weighted, and that improves the adhesion, but they never really 'fly' like a DJH one. Years ago, when the first ones came out, I was taken to task by Bachmann because I wrote a review where I questioned the haulage capacity and the strength of the motor. I stuck ABERDONIAN on an eleven-coach, kit-built, rake on Stoke and it refused to start the train. Not only that, after several seconds of slipping the motor appeared to 'give up the ghost', until it cooled down. It was a tiny motor, quite unsuitable, in my opinion, for such a big engine and it had got very hot indeed. Too hot! 'Just because you've got a big model railway, doesn't mean everyone has as well' was the response. The rest, as they say, is history and every original Bachmann A1 was recalled to have a decent motor installed. One friend's A1 had the firebox collapse because the motor over-heated so much. Whether I was 'to blame' for the complete recall I doubt it - I'm not that important. 

Further 'dislikes' of them include the horrid bogie wheels, the wrong 'lean' to the return crank on one side (the opposite to Hornby) and the too low footplate below the cab which doesn't line up with the sole plate on the tender. The tender wheels also have too large flanges (they clout C&L chairs) and, because of the necessity to negotiate tight radii at source, they have a tendency to 'waddle' on straight track (just like the prototypes). All the above said, they can be made presentable - look at those on Peterborough North - but, in my view, they're not in the same league as a DJH one. But, they're egalitarian and it does allow the non-builder to own A1s. 

Personally I don't think that chimney quite captures the look of the original "rimless" chimney. Apart from the rim being a trifle overdone, the curve at the base is too sharp and the chimney too tall. Boiler fittings are never the easiest to get right and if it is just the angle of the shot, then you can come round and jump on one of my coaches...

Larry,

          I assume you're talking about Simon's chimneys, rather than the DJH one. The bottom picture on page 112 of Mr. Coster's book has much the same angle as my middle A1 picture, and I think the DJH one is spot on.

By the way, I agree with you about the resin chimneys, though they are superior to the original Bachmann ones. I much prefer cast metal double chimneys, anyway, but they have to be drilled - a real fag! 

I had hoped to post the following pictures and comments by last Sunday, but the sun has shone, presenting ideal opportunities to take out the 'rag-top'.

So here's Mallard60022's A1 complete. As already mentioned, Phil did most of the bodywork and I finished it off, making the chassis for good measure, though he'd already erected the frames. My original intention was to finish off the loco as 60121 SILURIAN, because the tender frames has been erected with spoked wheels. This DJH kit dates from the Banbury days and was probably one of the first ones, where old-fashioned Jackson/Romford wheels were supplied. Etched discs were (still are) provided for those who wished to alter the original 'stamped-through' spoked wheels. Today, proper disc tender wheels (to suit the majority of A1s) are readily available, as are proper bogie and pony wheels. The kit also had original-style Romford drivers with two too many spokes. I substituted Markits RP25 drivers with the right number of spokes. It also had an open-frame motor. This, and the old-fashioned drivers might well be appearing on ebay.

Why did I decide not to make her into 60121? Because Phil had started to fit the electric lighting gear and what was done was securely soldered on - rather neatly, too. SILURIAN lost her electric lighting by the mid-'50s. Which to choose, then? I decided (heresy, I know) to forget about the spoked tender wheels (they are hard to see from normal viewing angles) and go 'all the way' and make a roller-bearing example. Since I usually make models of what I saw, I had two to choose from; 60155 BORDERER or 60157 GREAT EASTERN. If either of these had spoked tender wheels, so much the better but also so what? Peter Coster's definitive Irwell book on the A1s clearly shows 60157 as having lost her electric lighting by 1953, so 60155 it was to be. That said, in Yeadon's Register on the class there's a picture of 60157 being towed for scrap, where she appears to have had it re-fitted. Has anyone noted anything like that before? Was any other A1 the re-recipient of electric lighting. Just as an aside, though Willie's knowledge of locos is unimpeachable, his knowledge of Brunel's ships is pretty 'rusty'. It was the GREAT BRITAIN, not the GREAT EASTERN which languished in the Falklands.

How does one represent a roller-bearing A1? Only one lubricator and a round-fronted keep on the Cartazzi and tender axleboxes. In choosing which lubricator to retain (both were securely soldered in place), I became aware that the sandbox fillers had been soldered in the wrong place (look at the previous picture). How Phil had got these wrong I don't know, but they were easily unsoldered and re-fixed in the right place. Apart from the rear one on the offside which had the electric lighting conduit securely soldered through it. Visions of melting major parts were apparent as it refused to budge, so I left it. The three quarter rear view shows this, and I'll have to live with it. The representation of the round keeps was easily achieved by soldering on Romford brass washers, plugging the hole at the same time. 

Phil had also run the AWS conduit down the nearside footplate valance, from the deflectors to underneath the cab. The very earliest examples of this apparatus in use had this configuration, but the style finally adopted by BR had the conduit appearing from behind the front section of valance, not running along it. So, off came Phil's carefully soldered-on bit of wire, to be replaced by 15Amp fusewire. This was lucky, because in removing the original (slightly wiggly) wire, part of the footplate lip was damaged and the new (straight) conduit is read by the eye as the footplate edge. By the way, it was the forward lubricator which was retained. 

And so, the conclusion. Normally, I heartily dislike taking on other folk's work to remedy/complete. Much is glued together - anathema in the extreme if it's brass, nickel silver, copper or white-metal - and the bits just fall apart in handling. Where it's soldered, it's often rough but, if bits are in the wrong place they can be un-soldered much more easily than things can be un-glued. As mentioned, some un-soldering was necessary (including the tender bulkhead detail, which Phil had soldered on too low) in this A1 but most of what was done was done well - well enough for my satisfaction in finishing it off. As to it's future, I'll probably buy it off Phil since he wasn't intending to keep it anyway. That said (I hope), it's more saleable now it's complete so we might split the eventual booty (this is not an advertisement, by the way!).

Here's the chassis complete, with Comet gearbox and fat Mashima motor - plenty of smooth power indeed. Normally, I drive off the centre axle in a six-coupled mechanism (it's mechanically better-balanced) but this 'box was sweeter in reverse. It wasn't un-sweet in forwards, but just a twitch noisier. The cure? Turn it round. I always solder scrap brass to cover the ends of the shaft for the intermediate gear, rather than tighten up the grubscrew. That way, the gearwheel always finds its natural centre and the shaft is held in place, and you don't get the whirr, whirr, whirr sound, so annoying when everything is visually sweet. The latest Markits LNER bogie wheels are a huge improvement on what's been available before. 

My apologies for the 'rough' look of the finished thing, since it's yet to be thoroughly washed. When I received this model it was pristine and clean, so any staining is down to my liberal use of flux. Prior to any washing and subsequent painting, I always give finished locos the most thorough of tests. If adjustments are needed, then the whole thing has to be handled again and again; so it has to be washed again. I still have yet to acquire an AWS battery box. I hope you can see how well Phil has made the loco, with just about everything straight and true as it should be. Sprung buffers (Markits in this case) are something I always substitute for cast-metal lumps - for their appearance more than their function.

The too-far-forward position of the rear sandbox filler is evident here, as are the round keeps. Still, without being told, most won't be aware of the former.

Since I go on and on about folk making things for themselves, I hope this A1 is a good example of that philosophy. Its performance far out-shines a Bachmann equivalent and, when painted properly (not by me) it should look superior, with sheet metal represented by sheet brass. I can't deny that were someone to buy a complete DJH kit for an A1 today it would be more expensive than a Bachmann equivalent, and it has to be made and painted. But, 'anyone' can own a Bachmann A1 (and they're good) as long as they can pay for it. This loco is a one-off, it's unique, it's the product of a modeller determined to make a good job. That I've finished it is merely out of convenience. Well done that duck! 

Tony , Re. Post 1234 , the A1 photo . Is the front footplate correct ? , or rather the back of it, where the middle cylinder valve cover is . It looks to be curved at the base . Sorry to nit-pick on a nicely built kit , but I thought it just looks a bit wonky .

 

Regards , Roy .

Roy,

        It's not the base of the casting that's 'at fault', it's the buffer beam that isn't quite parallel to it. It is now - it's amazing what can be done with a soldering iron and asbestos fingers!

Back from a very nice day with Tony  (and his other half!) having a drive with some Leeds MRS companions. 

 

The A1 above earned its keep and we managed to create havoc  have a very  enjoyable running session!

 

Thanks Tony.. we will be back if we didn't create too bad an impression.

Many thanks Barry and chums - the day was very enjoyable indeed.

I don't think it was any visitors who managed to 'create havoc' - any problems were caused by my inability to do two things (or even one thing!) at once - talk (waffle) and set roads properly. Still, with just one derailment in several hours of running (investigated and inexplicable) and one loco failure (muck in the commutator - cleaned and away she went), then I think I can say the layout 'works' as it should. Once a proper sequence is established, then I think operation will be as good as it can get, given that I only have a fraction of the trains needed to fully represent the 1958 summer workings. Still, at least it's a start.

Turning to other things, I'm glad I've been able (in some way) to stimulate other folk into having a go at making things for themselves. Many thanks to all those who've commented on this thread. At least I'm able once more to make things - a 'virgin' Jamieson V2 has just blinked at the light after years of dusty abandonment, and a D&S GE Restaurant Car has recently felt the warmth of the soldering iron. Thanks to Mr Duck, an LNER Dia.7 Bogie CCT will also be started soon. I'll report on progress as things develop.  

A veritable work of art! Sounds like it was a challenge - but no match for someone building their 401st kit(!)

I don't know about a work of art, veritable or otherwise, though some contemporary works of art mystify me as to how much talent the creators actually have. Can they draw? I wonder.

As for a match, it was a close-run thing. And, there are still those cranks to fit!

For students of Brecon & Merthyr locomotives, I put my hands up now as to the 'accuracy' (or lack of it) of this creation. Some of this is down to the kit - the spectacles are much too big and too high up, the dome is too squat, the cut-down safety valves I'm not sure about (the originals were way too high and inappropriate for the period modelled), the chimney might not be tall enough, the toolboxes I had to source from the scrap box (none was provided) and though sandboxes were etched, they were the wrong shape. These, too, came from the scrap box. The smokebox door, though, is not fitted as a mirror image - these locos had the hinges on the RH-side.

One to avoid? If you want a B&M outside-framed 0-6-0ST and you're not prepared to scratch-build one, then no.

As mentioned, a full report will be appearing in BRM.

That's enough of peripheral pieces of antiquity for now!

I'd agree with all of that - the boiler and saddle tank will be replaced on mine and the functional bits of the chassis used with severe modification. Not a good kit by any standard. 

 

Adam

 With regard to the Redcraft B&M 0-6-0ST, it's almost akin to scratch-building, but the parts have already been cut out for you. The problem is some of those parts don't fit properly - some too wide (bunker front on B&M version) and some not big enough (cab/roof section, also on B&M version). However, nothing was insurmountable and the rest of Friday, yesterday morning and a fair bit of today brought it to the level shown in the final picture of this post.

It's also very conveniently been designed for EM or P4. Users in OO will have to modify the splasher apertures and fill in the gaps! 

Though the boiler and smokebox wrappers are formed for you, that's all. Making that saddle tank was fun. According to the instructions, the formers for it should have been fixed to the boiler first - note the slots. How in heck were you then meant to solder the saddle on?

Putting the boiler formers together on an armature makes fitting them much easier.

Soldering together the smokebox wrappers. A cocktail stick ensures accurate alignment. 

Almost there, though adding cab and bunker beading (not supplied) and making provision for the vertical handrails (none made) will take a bit of time. Then there're the outside cranks to fit. Time so far? About 20 hours. Will another ten hours be enough? There's also a heck of a lot of cleaning up to do!

And then folk wonder why the price of RTR models is rising, especially where the highest level of detail is expected (and demanded). Anyway, if the RTR stuff gets too pricey, might we see a return to folk building models again? I wonder what the price comparison between a relatively 'inexpensive' kit such as this might be in comparison with an RTR equivalent (even though there isn't really one). 

Interesting, not least because, in the bottom of a box, I have one of the very same kits in its original incarnation, sold by C.J. Lester. An interesting looking loco (which is why I bought the kit) and a very similar Neath and Brecon railway machine lasted at Alnmouth with the NCB into the very early '60s, This is the proviso I will be using when mine gets built!The kit - based on my assessment of it at any rate, will provide for either as built or GW style cab/bunkers, while the boiler seems more suited to the GW replacements some of these received. That said, the smokebox door supplied is incorrect for that boiler and too thick for the dished version as originally fitted.

 

The advantage of the GW boiler is that items such as smokebox doors and the appropriate chimney (my kit only has one for the B&M version) can be had from Mainly Trains and Gibson respectively though the B&M round-topped cab is more elegant in my view. Happily at least one of these had both and that's the version I will produce. Yours will be long finished before that! Some were built by John Fowler of Leeds and many of their documents and drawings are in the Museum of English Rural Life at Reading. Some of the works photos certainly are but I haven't yet made time to go and have a look.

 

http://www.reading.ac.uk/adlib/images/nof/fowler/photos/tr_fow_ph2_2/223.jpg

 

Good luck with it.

 

Adam

Luck?

          It's lucky I've built over 400 locos down the years, otherwise this would have been impossible.

Burn the instructions - it's impossible to build in the way prescribed, at least in my experience and opinion. No datum marks are given for handrails on the saddle or smokebox - surely essential when the bits are supplied flat. You'll need rolling bars. bending bars and a vocabulary of profanity! 

The hard bits are now done and I'll post further pictures soon.

It's no gauge at the moment Larry!

 

C'mon Tony, this is killing me.....

It's a Brecon & Merthyr 0-6-0 Saddle Tank Class 1, being built in EM Gauge. The kit's by REDCRAFT and it should be an interesting project. The myriad variations amongst the 12 locos throughout their lives are just that - myriad! How many are catered for, I don't know yet. The instructions are basic and contain some 'inventive' spelling, syntax, punctuation and grammar.The parts list and identification drawings (from memory, and it's a long time ago) remind me of the offerings of 3C. It should be fun. All that said so far, the frames and rods (despite the need for 'specialist' tools) are very accurate and match exactly. A good omen?

When finished, it'll run on Rob Kinsey's Merthryr Riverside. Yet another example of horse trading................................. 

Yes, Michael!  There's a cracking photo of a similar loco in one of Ricey's books, which is what was in my mind.  It's enough to make you go pre-grouping......Llanastr sort of layout....oh noooooo!!!!

 

Checked - it's a Rhymney loco similar if not identical to your link.

Neil,

        You're very close!

something with outside cranks

Yes.

       I should have added that the frames are the strangest arrangement I've seen. Though 'dimples' are provided for bearings and coupling rods, every single 'hole' is blind (apart from those for the turned-brass spacers, which I'm not using anyway). Without a pillar drill it's a potential for disaster in my opinion.