mikemeg

LRM LNER B16/1 And then there were two, with the second build featured. This one carries the LNER designed boiler and the plain fronted splashers and represents one of the last twenty to be built, under the auspices of the LNER. This is the first time that both have been featured in the same photo. As can be seen, the second tender still needs a little more work, though the modifications to the coal rails have been done and the loco also needs a few details adding. The chosen prototype for the second build - 61462 - was unusual in that as late as mid 1950 (I have a photo of this loco dated mid 1949) and possibly beyond, it carried the very flat smokebox door, as originally fitted to these locos, but with an LNER designed boiler and it also retained its cylinder tail rods. Cheers Mike

LRM LNER B16/1 Some time ago I did a couple of test builds of a London Road Models kit, which LRM took over from Steven Barnfield, some years ago. The kit was actually drawn and developed over thirty years ago and was not fully released by LRM until four or five years ago. This after some additional etches were developed to allow the kit to represent the entire class of B16/1's, including the last twenty which had different splasher fronts (these were built by the LNER) and to cover the alternative LNER designed boiler which was fitted to most of the class at some point in their lives. In fact the original North Eastern boilers continued to be overhauled and fitted along with the later LNER designed boilers right up until the withdrawal of these locomotives in the late 1950's/early 1960's. As the original artwork no longer exists for any of the etches in this kit, no modifications can be made to those etches, so any errors or omissions can only be made good by the provision of additional etches. Anyway, two test builds were done on this kit, with both builds being taken to fully powered models, though not yet painted. There were, on both builds a couple of details missing and a known error on the tender in that the coal rails were some 3mm too long on the 4125 gallon tender. Prompted by another modeller building this kit - MickLNER - and documented within his thread, I decided to finish the detailing of these two builds, correct the error on the tender by removing a 3mm section out of the coal rails and then resolder and reattach them and then send both off to the paint shop. The photo is the first of the test builds, with the tender coal rails modified by reducing their length by 3mm and then re-attached. The tender has also now been primed. The raised plating rings around the lower washout plugs have also now been added leaving just the plugs themselves to be done. The steam reverser piping also needs to be done, which is the next job. So, the photo shows the state of the first build after a day spent working on it, representing a loco carrying one of the original boilers, though as the prototype would have appeared around mid 1950. Cheers Mike

I feel I've made quite enough comments and postings on what is, after all, Mick's thread and Mick's build of the LRM B16/1. I still have some work to do on the two test builds of this kit, which long ago ceased to be test builds and have since become partial scratch builds in order to achieve the standard which I want to achieve, using all sorts of cast and etched components which have become available long after this kit was first developed; as well as a measure of scratch building. I will continue to document and post the final stages of work on my two builds which are ongoing and now virtually complete but those postings will be made on my own thread. I might even tackle the B16/2 and B16/3 using the PDK kit as a 'basis', in a similar fashion. But not yet awhile; I've another 'B' (and this one's ex Great Central) to complete!! So, my thanks to MickLNER for his patience and forbearance while this debate was enacted on his thread and my compliments to him for making such a fine job of the building of the LRM B16/1 kit. Regards Mike

In the technical data for the B16 class, the overall lengths are given as :- B16/1 and B16/3 62' 6" B16/2 63' 4" On the B16/2, the bogie was moved forward by 9", necessitating a lengthening of the mainframes, hence the difference in overall length, which was all forward of the cylinders. Also, the Gresley rebuilds - 7 locomotives - were converted to left hand drive; the Thompson rebuilds - 17 locomotives - remained as right hand drive. Cheers Mike

I believe that the Mike Edge B16/2 build is somewhere within his thread; I remember reading and commenting on it and it was illustrated with photos. I do know that Mike Edge's valve gear etch was intended for use with the PDK kit, which can produce the B16/2 and B16/3. Externally, the B16/2 and B16/3 were very similar though the front bogie was moved 9" forward and the frames lengthened on the B16/2 to accommodate Gresley's derived motion on the middle cylinder. The B16/3's, which were a Thompson rebuild used three sets of Walschaerts gear, including the middle cylinder, so the frame extension was probably not needed on these rebuilds. I believe that the B16/2's had new cabs fitted and this must have extended to the B16/3's also. I also seem to remember that the driver's position differed between the B16/2's and B16/3's i.e. left hand drive or right hand drive. This was externally discernible by the position of the vacuum pipe from the cab to the smokebox. Cheers Mike

Talking to Dave, only this last week, he did mention that the axleboxes for the larger tenders were different and not covered by his castings. And to add to the list of inconsistencies the wheels on the B16's were 5' 8" 20 spoke not 18 spoke as they are on both test builds. I have to confess that I think the development of the Steve Barnfield kit was never really completed, as has been variously commented on throughout the sequence of postings covering Mick's build. Nonetheless I have removed both test builds from the airtight tin and am now preparing them for the paintshop. Both are powered and both run well, including around my 4' 0" 'corners'. And, in the final analysis, the kit plus some newer castings and etches and a fair bit of scratch building, does convey the essence of the North Eastern Class S3 / LNER B16/1. Like many of the pre-grouping designs, these locos simply exuded that aesthetic cleanness of outline and that sense of balance, though the B15's did that even better!! These locomotives were always very special to those of us who lived in the East Riding of Yorkshire because of their association with those Summer Saturday or Sunday excursions to Bridlington or Scarborough - 'A day by the sea and a ride on the train'. And I can well remember my first spotting trip to York, one Spring Saturday in 1959. We saw nearly thirty B16's, that day; almost half of the class! Cheers Mike

Mick, Looking back through my postings and notes when the two test builds of the B16/1 were done, I've found that the castings used on the tenders, for the tool boxes, water filler and the tender springs, axle boxes and spring hangars, were actually all from David Bradwell's range. David sells a complete 'castings kit' for North Eastern tenders, which includes everything except the spring hangars. These are available separately as the North Eastern used two different types of spring hangar, one type short and another type somewhat longer. The longer ones are appropriate for the later 4125 gallon tenders as fitted to the S3's / B16's. Cheers Mike

Simon, I have assembled kits which did have the slight arc on the slot and they work fine. However, springing the whole bogie, in conjunction with equalising the bogie axle boxes tends to limit the deflection of the bogie at the slot, as the bogie actually does what it is/was designed to do - guide the locomotive front end into curves. As MarkC remarked in a posting above, effectively partially constraining the bogie, by making it load bearing, significantly reduces the deflection within the slot, so renders the arcing of the slot unnecessary on all but the tightest curves. Cheers Mike

Mick, I didn't use this narrow spacer but used a wider one. In fact, the bogie on both test builds is equalised with inner frames and stretcher, which is 12 mm wide and then pivoted side frames carrying brass axle boxes at each end. The dimension over the axle boxes is around 16 mm, thus allowing some side play on each bogie axle within the bogie frame. The photo showing the bogie mounting arrangement, in a posting above, also shows the bogie construction and profile but I'll photograph the bogie with and without wheels and confirm the measurements for you but not until the morning. Regards Mike

Mick, The short answer to this question, at least with regard to the first P4 test build using the original footplate etching, was that it was achieved with some difficulty, using an absolute minimum of sideplay on the driving wheels, thinning the splasher upstands as much as possible and mounting the front footplate steps as near the valance as the loading gauge would allow. Then very careful assembly of the connecting and coupling rods. I also did quite a lot of measuring and dry runs on this to check clearances and make adjustments before any of the various sub-assemblies were actually fixed together. As I've said, above, that is the downside of P4; clearances are simply 'scaled down', they are not augmented by the reduction in gauge width!! Allied to those steps, detailed above, was quite a lot of patience, a fair degree of determination and the occasional recourse to a glass of red, when patience and/or determination showed signs of flagging. These latter two characteristics are essential when test building kits which no-one else may hitherto have built. Regards Mike

Thanks Mark, That's exactly how the bogies are arranged on my A6's (all four of 'em; two of which were test builds of Arthur's kit) too! * And the chassis 'dodge' described above was 'pioneered' on the first test build of Arthur's A6, though I have never highlighted or recommended this before. There is a limit as to how many of these 'dodges' builders will actually put up with! Regards Mike

Mick, Yes, I've seen your comment and am in the process of photographing the arrangement. Basically, from a stretcher across the mainframes and between the cylinders, I fix a 12 mm portion of 10 BA threaded rod. Over this rod is slotted a spring with a brass washer soldered onto its end. The springs which I use are a fairly snug fit over the rod, so not much play!! The spring engages with the top of the bogie via the washer and the rod passes through the slot in the bogie and a10 BA nut is fitted under the bogie. As the nut is tightened, the spring is tensioned, so providing a degree of springing and equalisation on the bogie but, most importantly, the bogie now becomes load bearing and so starts to perform its proper function of guiding the front end through curves. If this set up is properly dimensioned and adjusted (by slightly stretching or cutting the spring) - and like many modelling processes, this can take some time and patience to achieve the optimum level of springing - then all the nut does is to stop the bogie falling off, when the model is lifted. I would add that this is my standard way of attaching front bogies, first developed on my first scratch build, twenty years ago and fitted to numerous of my models. I would also add that both the top of the bogie, where the washer engages, and the washer need to be free of paint and polished (they are not in this photo) - so that the washer slides more easily over the bogie top. Oh and the springs? They are standard springs as contained in most of the kits for 4 mm sprung three link or screw couplings. As I never fit these springs to my couplings, then I've collected, and kept, dozens of them. * One other 'dodge', which I almost always use, and which was used on this chassis, is to reduce the size and radius of the bogie wheel cut out by adding layers - usually two or three - of nickel silver boiler band soldered into the cut out and then dressed off. This gives a much nearer scale appearance when used with P4 bogie wheels. Regards Mike

Mick, Amen to this comment! Despite all of the setbacks you've done a great job and in my own thread, covering the two test builds of this kit, I never said it was easy!! Regards Mike

Mick, The problems of the B16/1 - well any of the B16 variants - is the distance between the front driving wheels and the bogie. This means that the deflection - the swing - on both the rear and especially on the front set of bogie wheels is quite large on curves. As the B16's all had bogie wheel cut outs, then the bogie wheels touching and shorting on the mainframes isn't an issue but there is an issue, especially on the tighter radius curves with the bogie wheels touching the cylinders. Indeed, on really tight curves the cylinders could impede the deflection of the bogie wheels, thus limiting the radius which can be traversed. The original footplate etching, which was used on my first test build, does pose real problems for P4 in the very limited clearances available within the splashers. As you correctly surmise, this does limit the amount of sideplay on all of the sets of driving wheels which, in turn, will limit the radius of curves which can be negotiated. I actually lined the inside of each splasher with a 'crescent' of sellotape to act as an insulator if the wheel does touch the splasher. The minimum radius which any of my locos must negotiate is 4' 0" or 1216 mm. Both of the B16/1's which I built will negotiate these curves, though I usually leave as much sideplay as properly spaced mainframes and properly gauged P4 wheel will allow. By that means, the point at which the loco chassis is at 90 degrees to the curve - the tangential point - is brought forward which does then reduce the deflection - the distance of swing - of the front bogie. Re the bogie touching the rear of the cylinders, then OO gauge provides the largest space for the bogie to swing. As the bogie wheels are more widely gauged with EM and especially P4 so the space available between the mainframes and the rear of the cylinders is reduced, thus limiting the amount of deflection which can be accommodated. There is a real paradox with EM and with P4 in that as we approach the use of prototype clearances, scaled down, we still expect such models to traverse curves which the prototypes simply could not negotiate. 5 chains (a chain is 22 yards) was pretty well the minimum which the real thing would traverse; some slightly more, others slightly less. But at these prototype minimum radii 'negotiate' meant travelling very slowly with the wheels screeching very loudly and really 'stretching' the track. Let me know how your build performs on curves. Regards Mike

Mick, This is exactly what I had to do. Of course the kit should be up to date and should be complete, no one would argue against that. However, this kit was never really released until the alternative boiler and footplate/splasher upstands were added and this was some thirty years after its initial development. Arguably, the kit's development was never really completed by Stephen Barnfield as it really only covered the North Eastern Class S3 and early years of the B16/1's but not the B16/1 locomotives in later life or the last twenty to be built. In the intervening time between the kit's development and release, whole new ranges of etched and cast parts have become available (some have come and sadly gone) from Arthur Kimber, David Bradwell, David Alexander, etc.. That time lapse between development and release i.e. around thirty years, is probably unique among etched kits and is responsible for the disparity in quality between the original contents and what is now available. Of course, doing the test builds then my expenditure was limited to wheels, motor and gearbox and replacing outdated castings. Even so the expenditure was not insignificant but was not the full price. My investment in terms of time was, however, very significant but still enjoyable. Updating the etches is not possible, they would need to be completely reworked. Updating the castings might be possible but would involve multiple components from different suppliers and these would need to be 'bought in' by LRM which would expose them to an additional financial risk. So the upshot of this is that this kit should probably be considered as the basis and a very significant basis to a more comprehensively detailed end point. Regards Mike

Just to round off this series of postings around the cornering / bogie wheel deflection issue, a combination of maximising the sideplay, both on the rear and centre sets of drivers, coupled with increasing the pinching in of the fronts of the mainframes by an additional 0.5 mm per side has solved the problem. The unpowered chassis - though with the motor / gearbox mounted on the rear driving axle - will now traverse a 4' 0" curve without the front bogie wheel(s) actually touching the mainframe. Cheers Mike

Mick, Ah, but my answer to what is now the last but one post was only 6a. Kits are always time consuming to build and are never comprehensive enough to satisfy every builder and the instructions always leave out something which needs to be explained. I spent eight months on these two builds, including building the second boiler three times, as the etches evolved. We clearly have entirely different expectations of how to achieve the desired end result! If the kit is to be extensively revised, then both you and I have succeeded in our endeavours and I will conclude this debate by your referring a photo of your build to those which I did for the test build. Regards Mike

Thanks Jol, I don't want to hijack this thread but here is my 'decision chain' which is probably no different from anyone else's :- 1) Do I want a 4mm model of a B16/1? a) If yes, then next question. b) If no, then move on to a B17, start on the 'C' classes or just stop wishing. 2) Has any r-t-r company produced or announced their intention to produce a B16/1? a) If yes, then pour a glass or two of something red, wait perhaps years and save up to pay for it. b) If no, then move on to question 3. 3) Do I scratch build a B16/1 or kit build it? a) If scratch build, then disappear into the work room and pour a glass or two before starting! b) If kit build, then next question. 4) Do I wait for a 'next generation' kit to become available? a) If yes, then go back to 2a) above. b) If no, then next question. 5) Do I use a white metal kit or an etched kit? a) If w/m then purchase it and disappear into the work room, taking a swear box with you!! b) If etched, then decide from those suppliers who produce an etched B16/1 kit. 6) Do I accept the quality, omissions, inaccuracies of the chosen etched kit? a) If yes then do whatever is necessary to produce a reasonable model. b) If no, resort to the swear box and complain or c) Do both a) and b) above!! Before I left the Information Technology 'coal face' to move into management, I was a Systems Analyst. The above sequence, which should have been drawn as a decision flowchart - I have no idea how do do that on here - was one of the methods by which we explored, charted and tried to solve problems, though the 'red wine' option was frowned upon and rarely charted; but often considered and quite frequently employed!!! Regards Mike

Mick, Yes, the bottom washout plug surrounds is another omission, though without half etching them onto the firebox wrapper, I can't see how they could be easily etched. Perhaps midway through the first of these test builds, I faced the dichotomy 'Do I build this kit, as is, or do I add / replace parts which have newer and much better representations'? I opted for the latter approach, hence the use of etched parts and castings from Arthur's and David Bradwell's ranges, as well as quite a lot of scratch building. I didn't fail to recognise the omissions but I also did recognise that to provide for all of the omissions, and to correct one or two inconsistencies would result in an almost complete reworking of the masters for the etches. This would have rendered the original etched parts and many of the original castings redundant and would have entailed a completely new design, drawing and development phase, which was way outside of the brief to test build the kit. I had hoped that I could illustrate that :- a) The kit could be built and would work. b) Many of the cast parts and some of the etched parts could be replaced by newer and much better alternatives. c) That with some judicious scratch building the model could be further enhanced. I will leave it to the reader(s) to judge, from the photographs above, whether some or all of those objectives were met. Also, as you yourself have surmised, there is, currently, no 'OO' r-t-r model of any B16 variation and given the layout and spacing of the wheelbase with the bogie 'swing' issue, probably never will be. The A8, D20 and certainly T1, all of which would surely be popular models, also have chassis characteristics which might deter the producing of an OO gauge r-t-r model! Regards Mike

Mick, So, finally on this topic, a couple of photos from my archives, of the results of the first and second test builds of this B16/1 kit; the first with a North Eastern boiler; the second with an LNER boiler and unbeaded splashers. Both types of boiler continued to be interchanged at general overhaul, until the withdrawal of all of the B16/1's. Most locos carried both boilers at various times throughout their lives and many were withdrawn with an original North Eastern boiler carried after, earlier, carrying an LNER designed boiler. The two models are identifiably different from the dome placing, splasher fronts, washout holes, etc. The second model (to be 61462) also retained its cylinder tail rods into BR days. Each one embodies quite a lot of replacement, updating and scratch building and, at this stage, the models still lacked those rings around the washout holes and the piping for the steam reverser. The second photo was also taken before some other details were added. For me, it's a constant search for better techniques, more accuracy, more realism! So, I guess I'll never be completely satisfied!! Regards Mike

Mick, I found this photo in my 'archives' of the first of my 4125 gallon tender builds for the B16/1's. Note the Arthur's castings tool boxes and David Bradwell axle boxes, springs and spring hangars. I also have to admit to a lot of scratch building on this following the finding of a photo of the front of a 4125 gallon tender - appended below - ex works, from a B16. So the buffing gear on the drag beam is all scratch built, the footplate extension and ends of their supporting beams, as are some of the fittings on the tender front. As I said earlier, the kit was just the basis; the scratch building, hopefully, brings it up to standard. As an aside, I've been puzzling for a year or two as to how to represent the rings on the firebox sheeting around the lower washout holes; finally cracking it and making about half a dozen, only last week. 2mm inside diameter .010" thick brass washers carefully file turned - inside and outside -until a .015" thick annulus is left around what becomes a 2.5 mm hole. Each one takes about 20 minutes to make but they don't half improve the appearance of the firebox sheeting! Regards Mike

Mick, You're probably better placed to answer this than I as you have had recent dealings with Arthur's business. Regards Mike

Mick, And I dare not even list the number of changes and additions which I made to the LRM G5 kits (I built three together) when I built them. Certainly on the B16/1's, G5's, N8 kits I approached all of these builds on the basis that the kit was the basis (and a substantial basis) of a scratch or at least a 'hybrid' build. Having a detailed knowledge of Arthur's range of kits and his castings and knowing of the quality and contents of David Bradwell's range of castings, along with an acceptance that scratch building was always available, as a last resort, I was able to produce models which were, I hope, substantial improvements on the original kits. Of course what also comes into that equation is the massive improvement in the quality and accuracy of r-t-r models. Just look at the new Bachmann V2; it is simply wonderful!! Regards Mike

Mick, Re the 4125 gallon tender, as fitted to the North Eastern Class S3's / LNER B16's. Arthur does have the correct toolboxes in his range of white metal castings. These were done in conjunction with the development of the Q7, which were coupled to the 4125 gallon tender. Re the tender axle boxes and springs, as I stated in the postings for my test builds, I used David Bradwell castings for these. These castings allow for the different lengths of the spring hangars on the axle box springs as these hangars are a separate component. As for the coal side plates, during the test build someone (I seem to remember it was 'Pebbles') raised the issue of these being 3mm too long. On checking against a General Arrangement drawing, this was found to be correct; they are 3 mm too long. I therefore reduced the length of these plates by that amount - 3mm - by carefully slitting the plates with a piercing saw - 20 mm from their fronts - then removing 3 mm wide piece, again with the piercing saw. A 2 mm x 20 mm strip of .010" brass was then soldered on the inside of the plate at its lower edge to re-join the two parts of the plate, after which the join was filled with solder and then the joint very carefully cleaned up. Each plate took, perhaps, an hour to correct. The joining strip, on the inside of the coal guard plate, will be totally hidden by the coal load. The original 'brief' on these test builds was to check out the original kit as supplied and to then check out the etchings for the new boiler wrapper - representing the later LNER boiler- and the new footplate and splasher etchings representing the last twenty locos built, which were built by the LNER. The brief was very definitely not to identify all of the divergences or dimensional errors from the prototype as none of the original artwork was or is available, So any modifications to the kit could only be made by the provision of replacement parts, which could, conceivably, have involved a large proportion of the etched components i.e. virtually a new kit! I built a LRM N8 (a George Norton kit some thirty years old) but replaced the entire chassis using one of Arthur's J21 chassis etch sets - the N8 and J21 had exactly similar wheel spacing. Various other parts were also replaced or modified i.e. the LRM radial axle, Arthurs chimney, dome, ross pop valves, etc. The result is a very much updated (perhaps even unique) version of this kit build. Since these George Norton or Steve Barnfield kits were drawn and developed, there have been enormous strides made in the quality and accuracy of the etched kits and the availability of cast components. It is simply not possible to reflect these thirty plus years of improvements in those kits!! It is up to the builder to identify and then supplement those older kits to whatever level they consider necessary!!! Cheers Mike

Stephen, thanks for this. I actually revisited these calculations, just to double check. The revisit changes the game, for I had mis-read the result for the 80 mm separation and then did the calculation, again, for the 65 mm separation :- Deflection at 50mm separation = 1.03 mm Deflection at 65mm separation = 1.74 mm Deflection at 80mm separation = 2.64 mm Where separation is the distance between the centre of the front bogie wheel and the tangential point of the chassis on a 4' 0" radius curve. As can be seen, simply increasing the pinch of the mainframes to accommodate the 80mm deflection isn't a goer; they'll just look wrong. So, adding a measure of sideplay on the rear driving axle, to move the tangential point forward, in conjunction with increasing the pinching of the mainframes is the only way this will work and even then the frames may need to be pinched in by up to 1.25 mm as there is around 0.75 mm of play between the main frame and bogie wheel, each side. I hope this short dialogue hasn't bored any readers of this thread but even on 4' 0" radius curves, which are generous on most model railway layouts, not providing mainframe bogie wheel cut-outs does cause problems. And this would be the case for any 4mm gauge, OO, EM or P4. Cheers Mike