mikemeg

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

So, doing the maths - Pythagoras equation for right angled triangles - on the lateral deflection of the front bogie wheels, using the distance between the centres of the front driving wheels and the front bogie wheels (50 mm) gave a deflection of 1.03 mm; just within the profile of the pinched mainframes. Then, trying out the unpowered chassis on a 4' 0" curve, the front bogie wheels did touch the mainframes. So, something was wrong with the maths!! Then a eureka moment (Pythagoras and Archimedes in the same posting!). The point on the locomotive chassis which is truly tangential to a curve is not the centre of the front driving wheels, it is the centre of the middle driving wheels which, on this loco, are 80 mm behind the centres of the front bogie wheels. Redoing the calculation using 80 mm rather than 50 mm gives a deflection of 1.73 mm. So the pinching in of the front of the mainframes is not enough to allow 4' 0" curves to be traversed. So now a little rework of the front end of the mainframes will be done to increase the extent of the pinching in to allow the locomotive to traverse these 4' 0" curves. Cheers Mike

Thanks Bill. Seems that Mr Robinson, the CME of the Great Central, had the same clearance problems with the connecting rod and the front coupling rod journals on these locomotives. It is one of the inherent disadvantages of P4 that these clearances are simply scaled down without any augmentation through a reduced gauge (EM or OO), so require a great deal of care. Saving the odd 5 or 10 thou (0.125 mm or 0.25 mm) here and there, by using slightly thinned metal sections, becomes the order of the day. I've pretty well sorted the motion clearance issue and am now checking the extent of the lateral movement of the front bogie wheels. The model does provide for a 'pinching in' of the fronts of the mainframes but only by a small amount. My minimum radius curve is 4' 0" so I will need to establish this, mathematically, before I put it to the test. The B16/1 models had this issue, even more, due to the distance between the front driving wheels and the front bogie wheels; similarly the D20's. The obvious answer is to create bogie wheel cut outs in the mainframes but such an approach just 'goes against the grain'. Regards Mike

LNER B4 With a trial fitting of one of the coupling rods plus a connecting rod and crosshead, then the efficacy of my mathematics, in the posting above, can be checked out. Are the calculations correct or just so much rubbish? Seems that the measurements and suppositions in the above posting are about right. Phew!! I must extend my thanks to John Bateson from whom I bought the kit originally and who has since supplied so many new or revised components, as well as a wealth of advice and copious drawings. So another photo, a little more complete and a little more of that essence of the prototype. They were lovely things, these early 20th century locomotives! Cheers Mike

LNER B4 There are some days when, despite many hours of toil, there is precious little to see for all the effort. On other days, a few short processes and the model takes shape; it begins to live! So having fitted all of the mainframe springs and painted and weathered them - much easier to do without the wheels - then the wheels can be added. Suddenly the model, which has inhabited all sorts of containers and utilised various supports, can stand on its wheels and it begins to resemble a locomotive. Still quite a bit to do but the essence of a Great Central 4-6-0 is now clearly visible, though for this photo it's a 4-5-0 as the rear axle will contain the drive train so needs to be removable. Cheers Mike

LNER B4 At this point and before the coupling rods and connecting rods are fitted, time to do a little simple mathematics. For this I use a digital calliper and vernier gauge, which is accurate to around 0.02 mm. a) The ruling measurement for clearances is the distance between the two sets of slide bars, which is 26.2 mm. b) The overall width of a correctly gauged (P4) set of driving wheels is 22.8 mm over the outside bosses. c) Thus the maximum space available for the outside motion is 26.2 - 22.8 = 3.4 mm or1.7 mm per side at the slide bars. However, this dimension would give zero clearance between the slide bars and the motion. d) The thickness of the front journals on the two coupling rods is 0.85 mm. These were assembled without the journal overlays which were applied to the middle and rear journals. Thus, the crankpin nuts on the front journals must be fitted flush i.e. the reverse of their normal fitting, to preserve enough clearance between the front coupling rod journal and the rear of the connecting rod. e) The combined crossheads and connecting rods are assembled such that the connecting rod does not protrude beyond the crosshead and is, in fact, slightly inset. So the positioning of the connecting rod, within the crosshead, does not compromise the 1.7 mm of overall clearance and, in fact, adds a little to it; but how much? Conclusion is that with very careful assembly and attention to these clearances everything will fit and will rotate. Perhaps worth mentioning that on the prototype the footplate steps, initially fitted between the leading and middle sets of driving wheels, were removed because the connecting rods hit them when the locomotive was at maximum speed. So even the real things were very tight for clearance - too tight!! I had a similar problem on the two B16/1's which I built - also to P4 gauge - where the clearance between the connecting rod and the back of the front set of footplate steps was very tight < 0.4 mm or .015". However, on these B16/1 models, the clearance issue was made easier by virtue of the connecting rod being located on the front set of driving wheels. Cheers Mike

LNER B4 So after a long period of component assembly, now time to start the final assembly. Five of the six mainframe springs have been added to the chassis, with the remaining one assembled but not yet fitted. The etches for these springs are quite something to behold, with the sheet containing multiple layers for the spring hangars and the springs themselves with the outer layers having half etched detail. Thus the springs can be built to whatever thickness the builder desires; I used two layers on the spring hangars and three layers on the springs. Any more might impinge on the movement of the eccentrics around the centre driving axle. So after 'teasing into place' the various assemblies which sit on or surround the front driving axle and then supporting the inverted chassis on a suitable cardboard box to prevent the whole lot falling out, a quick photograph before I add the last of the front springs. The 'ubiquitous' cocktail stick - I use these things for all manner of jobs - is simply there in lieu of the middle driving axle. There have been a number of areas where I have diverged from the instructions, not least in the assembly of the internal valve gear. I actually soldered up all of the various joints on these two assemblies rather than leaving one unfixed, which meant that slotting them over the front driving axle was made much more complicated. This was a conscious choice to try and avoid those joints from later disintegrating. The brakes and brake linkage have all been assembled but are not yet fitted until the wheels and drive train are fully assembled and checked out. At last I can see the completion of this build approaching!! Cheers Mike

Mick, You have done an amazing job on this kit. Given its age (drawn and designed over thirty years ago) and given the known omissions, then the result is a real credit to you. As the original artwork is no longer available, then no changes could be made to the original etchings, so any errors in these etchings cannot be rectified. The introduction of additional options i.e. the later LNER designed boiler, the plain splasher fronts applied to those locos built by the LNER, etc. could only be made by adding new etches. Despite its problems, it's probably still the best offering for producing a model of a B16/1 or the original NER Class S3. Regards Mike

LNER B4 So after the brief interruption, to build a new chassis for a J72, it's back to the B4. I have started this phase with the gearbox, which is a High Level Models HiFlier - 60 :1 ratio. While I was in the 'gearbox department' I did take the opportunity to build a new gearbox for one of the A6's, this time using a High Level Models RoadRunner Compact Plus - 60 : 1 ratio. Both motors will have the non-business end of the drive shaft cropped off before the chassis' are fitted The B4 motor is a Mashima 1428; the A6 motor is a Mashima1424. Both of the Mashima motors are from my own stock of Mashimas which I bought some years ago, before Mashima ceased production. So the photos below show the two drive trains B4 (HiFier) and A6 (RoadRunner Compact Plus) with an end on view of the HiFlier to show the various gear stages between the motor and the final drive. Cheers Mike

Thanks Chas, Has to be said that I did use some of the parts from the first build of this chassis, described in the first page of this thread - coupling rods, gearbox, motor and wheels - so that allowed this build to be done more quickly. The sandpipes have yet to be painted and 'rusted'. I do often repeat the final photographs, as I have on the previous posting, as I find the magnification feature on the RMWeb postings does help to get the weathering right. So below is the latest iteration of the weathering process, with everything below the footplate getting a 'diluted' coat of muck and rust. Even so, the loco superstructure is still probably too clean for mid 1950, though a layer of 12" to 1 foot dust does help!! Regards Mike

LNER J72 Chassis The instruction set for this chassis kit does include various arrangement drawings including the profile and positioning of the front and rear sand pipes. So these pipes have been bent up from 0.4 mm wire and fixed into the chassis. On the last photo I noticed a tiny gap between the rear of the cab side sheet and the cab roof, which has now been filled. So apart from painting the sand pipes and a little more work on the weathering, that's about it for this build or rebuild. So for anyone with a spare Bachmann J72 body, with this kit and a few other additions, it can be made into a scale model. Cheers Mike