Chas Levin

Very interesting, thank you - I haven't yet built a D&S NER coach but I'm going to be doing one so this is useful info...

Superb, they look really excellent!

Some more detail added to the chassis today - springs, ashpan and so forth: Progress on the MJT hornblocks is paused while I await the arrival of a 14BA tap: the instructions ask that one of the 14BA steel bolts to force a thread in the brass footings of the block, to hold the hornblock axle retaining straps, but I found this very difficult to do with such a small bolt, so rather than risk damaging the the assemblies I ordered a tap. Why is it that when you order something for which there's no hurry, it always arrives the next day, but when you order something you want immediately, you discover after ordering it that it won't arrive for at least a week? Never mind - plenty of other things to be doing in the meantime...

I've read that about the Kirk kits; I haven't built one but I have a Mailcoach one in the pile - there's a connection between the brands isn't there, and they're similar in things like detail level I think?

Just found this thread while looking for info on NER coaches, which then led me to the Kemilway downloadable instructions and I must say they're a marvellous (and I suspect not very widely known) resource. Some serious research clearly went into their production and they include a huge amount of detailed information and illustrations - highly recommended and I can quite see why you were using them for detailing info John! And on the subject of obtaining the company's products, I bought etches for two ECJS coaches and a wagon kit I think about the time of your last post and I certainly received the items, but it did take several months. Peter replied to my emails though and was quite open about etching delays, so I was quite happy...

Hello Tom, I have that J69 in my pile: how did you find the build?

Good morning Tony, thanks for the explanation, very interesting. Given what I've seen so far of LRM products (and I have a few in the t-build pile so I've examined more than I've built) I'd imagine that's a very rare occurrence. Although I'm a relative beginner in loco construction the idea of starting by producing a "free-running, rigid and quiet 'inside-cylinder' chassis" seems a very good plan to me and when I tackle my first loco with anything going on beyond simply coupling rods that's exactly what I intend doing! I like 'ovality': is that like Ovaltine? Is it caused by Ovaltineys getting onto the etch?

Thanks Robert . The thorny question of cab interior colours... I too found a lot of different answers on that one but in the end, I went with the cream option because quite honestly I just love the look of it against the black loco body! There seems to be quite enough evidence that it was used some of the time to mean it doesn't look really un-prototypical... The figures are Modelu - they're doing some superb looking drivers and fireman currently. The works plates are indeed after-market, from Modelmaster. They're brass etches, wonderfully detailed and accurate (again, I have no connection with any of these suppliers!); they come as a plain brass etch, so a quick coat of primer and a wipe of the raised typeface surface with kitchen roll, overnight drying and the same routine with Halfords matt black and they really look the part. I put them on with the tiniest spot of semi-thick superglue, sufficiently small that it doesn't emerge from the edges to cause marks or blooming. Calls for a steady hand as the setting time is so fast: jobs like that are best done mid morning I find, when breakfast and at least two coffees have done their work, but before lunch... I do have a (small) layout but it's an entirely fictitious location and the running numbers on all the rolling stock I've built have been chosen more for aesthetic reasons than for specific historical location. Period wise it's fairly fluid too, and can be running at various different times depending on which stock I feel like running, but the default time is the early 30s... I actually find soldering brass easier than soldering white metal, as there's no danger of melting the work so you can use a good hot iron and make a really strong join; with WM I'm more conscious of the need not to linger too long .

Good evening Tony, very nice locos all; I'd found a few C12 photos on this thread whilst researching for my current build, including Tom's one shown there. Sorry if you've told us this before and I've forgotten, but why did you have to make new rods for the K2?

Yes, according to the Isinglass drawing's notes it was only the first ten that had square cornered tanks; they were also non-condensing and had tall plain chimneys and tall domes. The kit came with a choice of chimneys but only one height of dome, the smaller one (though the difference is minor: 2' 7 1/4" vs 3' 1"); I asked about different domes and John Redrup very kindly found a suitable one for me to use as the taller type - again, I have nothing but good things to say of LRM and their products! It was always my intention to model an early one of the class and I had considered painting it in GNR livery. The sheer ease of LNER unlined black is very appealing though and there's quite a lot of lining and cutting in for GNR... haven't quite made up my mind on that one yet ...

Hello, yes it was: it's a beautifully cut pattern and comes pre-rolled to exactly the right diameter, with a generous overlap underneath, half-etched each side: very easy to use. The smokebox wrapper needs rolling but it's a very thin piece and was easy to do, using the smokebox front piece as a pattern. Altogether it's been a very enjoyable build so far and I've nothing but praise for the design and materials of the kit (usual disclaimers - no connection, just a happy customer ).

Morning Robert, many thanks for the details and for the pics in your subsequent post, very interesting to see how the Anchorage was positioned before you refurbished. It looks from your description as if we mounted our modern DJH drive units opposing ways round and that's why I had to remove so much more material from inside the front end of the boiler. Here are some pics of my J9/10: the first one's been posted on this thread before but it's the only one I have to hand which shows the visibility of the drive unit: And here are a couple of pics of the current build, an LRM GNR/LNER C12: I've ended up following a slightly unorthodox assembly order with the C12: I started with the body because I was taking longer than planned to learn about compensation and related chassis topics, but then discovered that decisions about added weight in the body couldn't be taken without a basic running chassis, so I took the body up to the stage of multiple sub-assemblies you see in the first picture and then turned to the chassis. Actually, I can recommend one aspect of this assembly process and that's the building of multiple sub-assemblies. Usually, like most people I imagine, I build up one basic assembly, adding bits to it (except where there's an obvious need for separation, for instance coach bogies, loco boilers etc), but in this case I've ended up doing all the cutting out, cleaning up, fettling, fitting and cleaning up again and I now have a collection of units that fit together quite quickly and easily, so I'm anticipating that the final assembly will suddenly produce a loco body in a quick and satisfying manner... though I'm sure various aspects will actually take longer and proceed less smoothly than hoped . The J9/10 was my first white metal loco, the C12 is my first etched one (having built rolling stock in both materials before), as I wanted to try out each type to learn about their pros and cons. I know this is well-trodden territory but doing things yourself results in a different sort of learning process to reading about others' work. I thought I'd prefer one to the other - and in general I think the precision and accuracy of brass is more to my liking - but actually they're both very enjoyable materials to work with, for different reasons... not to mention plastic, of course

Thanks Jonathan - in this case I should have the best of both worlds: a fixing point in the centre as well as at both ends! Do you have a good source for sensibly sized pieces of Paxolin, in terms of both thickness and sheet sizes?

I've now filled the under-seat voids at each end of the Mousa GNR resin coach with plastic card offcuts and drilled holes up through the floorpan / underframe assembly to allow four screws for fixing between the two parts: 2750Papyrus (and anyone else building one of these kits), did you do anything like this or did you stay with Bill's suggested single central screw? I realise I'm probably being over-cautious, but there is already the tiniest amount of bow in the floorpan / underframe assembly and although it sits flat with the slightest pressure (including with nothing more than the weight of the main body, as borne by the bogies) this seems worth doing...

Nice loco - I think you did a great job; I built one a little while back and they don't seem to have a very good rep so it's good to see another one. Did you have to remove material from inside the boiler to get the DJH motor/gearbox to fit? The instructions with mine - even though it was bought within the last few years - was for a much older, larger, longer motor (Anchorage, perhaps?) and I had quite a lot to do to accommodate the newer one. Which axle did you drive? I drove the middle one, with the motor pointing forwards. It left a very small amount of the gearbox visible towards the rear of the boiler, but painted black it's very unobtrusive.

Now dried out teabags is not something I'd have guessed: brilliant idea , they look really good!

Aha: that sounds like a challenge! In due course, I hope to be among the first to offer feedback on them...

Very nice work Jesse . May I please ask, what material have you used for the folded tarpaulins / wagon sheets?

Thanks Jol; I had the main Instructions sheet (John supplies it with the parts) but the second sheet with the etch I didn't have and the notes on which parts are which give added clarity. I've also now edited and re-posted my chart to include LRM's 14BA bolt option for adjustable mounting - I don't know how I came to omit that option, because the ability to adjust springing in that way was one of the things I had particularly looked for in the different systems! More haste, less speed. I'm surprised that you say the adjustable mounts would probably be omitted. I know I haven't yet actually tried building using them yet, but the idea of continuous adjustment using bolts seems to me to be a very useful option (which is why I'd particularly noticed it: Kean/Maygib, Gibson and LRM are the only systems that offer it). What happens if you need to adjust one axle relative to the others - in order to achieve a level footplate - to a height that lies between two fixed mounting points? I'll have a look at interchanging the LRM and HLK hornblocks: by my measurement (using good quality digital calipers but still of course subject to the usual human error) the grooves in the HLK are fractionally narrower (0.1mm) than the LRM, which I thought might make for a slightly tighter movement. As this loco's going to be simple compensation only, I'm probably going to keep both the LRM and HLK systems in reserve for when I build a CSB one, where I can properly try out the whole system; it seems counter-intuitive to use only parts of them as a first attempt. So, I'm currently making up and trying out the MJT FlexiChas etched guides, of which more later...

I'm finally at the hornblock stage . In the course of getting here, I became very curious about the different systems on offer and how they compared: which manufacturers' bearings have flared grooves (which I learnt was an interesting part of Mike Sharman's original FlexiChas spec); which ones allow dropping out of the bearings and axles; can parts be interchanged between different manufacturers - bearings with flared grooves used with another maker's hornguides, for instance? It got quite confusing, trying to juggle all the data in my head, so I made an Excel sheet, to be able to see at a glance which makers' systems include a particular feature. I'm not sure if it will be of use to anyone else, but in case it is I thought I'd post it here: And here's the original Excel sheet, in case anyone wants to use it themselves and add or edit things: Hornblock comparison 20201101-2.xlsx The only ones I haven't yet obtained and measured are the High Level Kits Miniblox, though if anyone knows of any other types I've left out please let me know. They all have individual points of interest and my intention is to build at least one loco using each type... I wonder how long that will take me?

More progress this week on the C12 - here are the frames with the trailing wheels' axle guide openings cleared, compensation beams holes drilled (the rear one is just in case I change my mind about the trailing wheel arrangements, or it may be used for a support to anchor a guide spring for the radial truck) and with the perforations around the rear fixed driving axle hole filled in (I know plenty of people leave these perforations clear but I thought I might as well fill in the gaps for added solidity!): A couple of days later and the frames are up: I've decided to go with the radial truck for the trailing wheels. I know it's totally un-prototypical but it'll be invisible unless you look underneath and with the taper I've introduced to the rear frame ends it allows some pretty tight curves. You can also see the radial truck guides in place at the rear, very handy little LRM etch - here's a pic of the etch as it comes, next one made up with test wheels inserted: I based my calculations of the taper required on Jol Wilkinson's discussions on another thread about using the LRM radial truck on an LNWR 2-4-2 'Mansion House', along with running some tests with the frames taped and blu-tak'd together - a delicate operation but achievable with care. Like the radial truck, while the taper is un-prototypical it won't be visible in normal running. I went for a double bend, in for the track guides (to 1.2mm at their C/L) and then out again, returning to the line of the main part of the frames, to minimise the visible narrowing when the loco is viewed from the rear, with the rear frame spacer filed down to fit the new profile. Finally, the frames with the horn guide opening removed on one side only (the bearing you see on the left is the opposite one, seen through the cleared opening of the frame nearest the camera) and a view of it on the jig, showing how this order of assembly will allow the first flexichas bearing to be fixed accurately:

Underframe details in place: The instructions suggest making sure the step supports are glued at the back as the steps are fragile (as it's noted they were on the prototype) but they don't seem that much more fragile to me than similar etched brass coach steps, though I realise these would break where brass will just bend (at any rate once or twice...). I didn't spend time worrying about the striations and remains of pips under the steps, as they won't be seen in running use.

Haha - never fear, not sadistic! On the contrary, interesting to see. Perhaps it was his perfectly understandable and justified pride in a reputation for producing beautifully finished products that prevented him from supplying it more widely in a less than perfect condition. As a substitute, I got an etched kit from Mousa of the M&GNJR Engineer's Saloon, currently in the to-build pile...

When I was first in touch with Danny of D&S a while back I asked about this kit and he told me he wouldn't be able to reissue it because of a technical reason, damage to the etches or patterns, I think - it was a while ago. I saw a couple come up on ebay a long time ago - several years, passed on them and now regret it!

As a few others have replied since you posted this, RTR folks do sometimes provide lamps. The last RTR loco I bought was Bachmann's J72 and it came with with some rather nice lamps that had a neatly done grip / groove in the back and fitted the brackets very well. But I agree that it's odd for that to be the exception rather than the rule...