Denbridge

20 minutes ago, hayfield said:

No point in ordering one yet, as they must be out of stock. All the orders I have placed have arrived within a couple of days

Squires have quoted me around a month for chassis kits whilst they await etches.

2 minutes ago, DayReturn said:

One of the best threads on RMWeb and endlessly delightful photographs!  Thank you for sharing all your progress with us.

 

Please may I ask about your black Kirtley 0-6-0?  You said it is produced from the good bits of a Jidenco kit and judicious additions from scratch, I think.  I would like to see some pictures of it that might aid me with a project I haven't yet started.  I was waiting on John Redrup to release a London Road Models version, he had some workings on display 2-3 years ago but last time I asked him about it he said he was having difficulties (probably sorting out the tooling versions) - I forgot to ask him its provenance, e.g. George Norton.

 

Meanwhile I bought a pack of Falcon etches for the 700 class engine on eBay from "hatuk73".  I'm not sure of the background here but the seller seems to have a stockpile of leftover Falcon Brassworks kits' etched sheets (only).  I fully expected to be disappointed with what I got, and my expectations were largely fulfilled!  I have finished and unfinished Jidenco 800 class and 156 class 2-4-0s and am very comfortable with them after judicious fettling.  I understand from Tony Sheffield that the tooling artwork for these was done by Mike Peascod of significant reputation, so I had hoped that the 0-6-0 goods would have similar quality.  I don't believe they do have the same pedigree though.  So to cut to the chase, what did you manage to do with the Jidenco pieces and how did your black Kirtley Goods work out?  There are no instructions with the Hatuk73 offerings, but most people would agree that there were none to speak of with the originals either!  I can identify most of the etched parts, and I know enough about Jidenco's reputation not to try matching apparently adjacent pieces up to match joints!  The running plate appears the right length in plan view, which means it is clearly wrong after allowing for the running plate curves following the frame strengthening arcs, so that is clearly one fundamental piece for the scrapbox.  The fret comes without a boiler or firebox (! - designed for downhill running only?) and the smokebox wrapper half-etch leaves you with three-inch diameter rivet heads (though the same on the outer frames look more like passable bolt-heads).  And obviously I need to conjure up a full set of non-flat bits from scratch or leftover options from other kits or shopping around parts suppliers.

 

So, an interesting challenge, hence my curiosity about your machine. 

 

All the best

Mehmood

The ebay seller is Samantha, one of the current owners of Falcon Brass.

In the past I've soaked them in a good dose of WD40. 

2 minutes ago, 31A said:

 

You might be unsurprised if I go for York!  Buildings virtually unchanged; slightly fewer lines but still very busy, just more efficiently run with fewer loco changes, shunting etc.

 

Another vote for York. I'm not old enough to remember steam, but York simply oozes atmosphere

1 hour ago, Jack Benson said:

Hi and thanks,

An etched chassis is inbound, it may sound silly when I have two upgraded Hornby T9s with brass motor mounts but with a tiny collection of just six locos, the opportunity to complete the collection with a sixth all-metal loco just seemed appropriate.

 

As shown elsewhere, this is tatty T9 that was covered in spider's webs, my wife insisted on washing it in near boiling water (just in case) and only a couple of bits fell off. Nothing lost.

 

StaySafe

 

 

 

Squires keep telling me they are out of stock. Just last week they were saying at least a month before new etches arrive.

1 hour ago, Jack Benson said:

Mission improbable

 

Clearing the bookshelves revealed the 'lost' T9 hiding amongst the spider's webs, it is a very old SEF kit with a few bits missing. I wonder if it can be salvaged and paired with a 6W tender?

 

 

 

An etched SEF chassis will arrive soon, I have some wheels, axles, crankins somewhere and a better* tender. It will be painted plain black with BRITISH RAILWAYS on the tender, a rather special T9.

 

The total cost will be a joke in comparison to the Hornby model BUT it will not suffer from mazak failure and it will be the final loco of an all-metal collection.

 

*The redundant tender that was once paired to the BEC D15 built by DLT

 

StaySafe

Did you get your SEF chassis from Squires? They keep telling me they are out of stock.

The SEF T9 chassis kit is superb. I'm slowly replacing the chassis on some of my old T9's.

I've used portescaps in mine though the next ones will use high level gearboxes. I've driven both front & rear axles, depending on the motor used, my main priority is getting enough weight into the body. All I need is for squires to get some new stock. They've been oos with some chassis kits for ages .

28 minutes ago, gr.king said:

A brief look at the website a moment ago suggest to me that Scalelink wheels are still available. I'm well aware that they are generic, not esoteric, and have plastic spokes that do not flare into the rims, hence they simply won't be good enough for some with refined tastes, bottomless wallets, and a habit of using a lot of heat when soldering near the wheels, but they are self quartering, with a reasonably narrow tread and shallow flange, they fit Markits axles and they are easily tapped to take Markits crankpins. Having failed to develop any burning enthusiasm for Gibson driving wheels, and on account of the greatly increased and seemingly still increasing price of Markits wheels a couple of years ago, I stocked up on Scalelink wheels to cover my anticipated needs. I'm glad that I did, as they seem to have become less of a bargain to buy new since that time, and I'm not sure if long term continuing Scalelink production is assured.

He also turns around orders really fast. Every order I've placed recently has arrived within 2 or 3 days.

56 minutes ago, Roger Sunderland said:

Hi Tony

perhaps I could ask how you obtain your never ending supply of Markits wheels? I have been trying for 2 weeks now to get a set for a B1 (comet frames) but no one answers the phone, or rings back. I also need a set for a black 5. 
Like you I won’t use Gibson wheels, have always used Romford/Markits, but, sadly, no retailer stocks them now and I can’t get through to the manufacturer. Very frustrating! Wizard sometimes have certain types but won’t supply live/ insulated, just insulated. 
I fear that this issue may be having more of a detrimental effect on people’s ability to build kits than is realised.

Try Roxey. My experience suggests he can get supplies quicker than trying to order direct from Markits.

6 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Andrew,

 

Speaking from my own experience, I've always replaced RTR wheelsets, even with regard to the more-recent offerings from the likes of Bachmann (Mk.1s) and Hornby (wagons/vans), with Jackson/Romford/Markits equivalents; and, certainly RTR loco bogies/ponies. 

 

I've never found any problems with the three types I've mentioned, though that's not the case with others I've used.

 

Some little time ago, Andy Sparkes (The Green Howards) came round for some photography, and after I'd done this we ran some Bytham locos. 60113 was fairly belting round and then performed the most spectacular crash on a single slip! The reason? One of its Gibson bogie wheel tyres had come of its rim, jamming in the crossing 'V'. Those wheels must have been in place for near on a quarter of a century, but still came loose after all this time. Though the Gibson wheels are admittedly finer, any locos/stock fitted with them have been replaced with the Jackson/Romford/Markits types. I cannot put up with tyres coming loose and back-to-backs shifting. 

 

This is not a 'dig' at other wheels than Jackson/Romford/Markits, merely my own findings down the years of operating exhibition layouts and now Little Bytham. Performance is paramount. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

I've only had a tyre come off of a Gibson wheel once. Since then I've always put a couple of drops of cyano at the rear wheel/tyre interface. Seems to have cured that tendency. Personally I prefer to use Ultrascale wheels. But serious planning is required. The time between placing an order can be measured in months.

17 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

I would be a lot happier with trains topped and tailed if they've got those sort of limitations on what they can physically do.  nVarious other lines have done that over the years.  It's a good many years since I visited that line and my main recollection was a dislike for the arrangements at their northern end and assumed it was a work in progress.  I rather hoped with the southern section being so positive in recent years about uniting the two lines that the situation on the northern section had been improved somewhat.  If they've been shut done by the authorities, sadly it seems the opposite is the case.

The ultimate aim is to build a new chord so that trains can run direct into Ruddington without reversing as at present.

31 minutes ago, sandra said:

I’m not convinced that this is a Bulldog. It looks like one of the 6’ 8” 4-4-0s. Certainly 3361 was a Bulldog with 5’ 8” wheels but the wheels on this model look too large. To me it looks like an Atbara for it has the high-stepping appearance of these locos. The distinguishing feature is the height of the splashers. In a Bulldog the springs rise above the top of the splashers but on this model the top of the splashers are clearly above the springs because of the need to clear the larger wheels

 

The model is painted in the post first-war livery of plain green but it still has the small circular cab windows which I think may have disappeared pre-war.

 

I wonder what others think?

Having fired up my laptop, rather than looking on my phone, I think you are indeed correct. The wheels do look more like 6' 8" suggesting as you say an Atbara. Curious.

25 minutes ago, sandra said:

I’m not convinced that this is a Bulldog. It looks like one of the 6’ 8” 4-4-0s. Certainly 3361 was a Bulldog with 5’ 8” wheels but the wheels on this model look too large. To me it looks like an Atbara for it has the high-stepping appearance of these locos. The distinguishing feature is the height of the splashers. In a Bulldog the springs rise above the top of the splashers but on this model the top of the splashers are clearly above the springs because of the need to clear the larger wheels

 

The model is painted in the post first-war livery of plain green but it still has the small circular cab windows which I think may have disappeared pre-war.

 

I wonder what others think?

i thought the same at first glance, but think it is possibly the angle that suggests larger wheels. comparing against prototype photographs shows it is indeed a Bulldog. I agree that in the period depicted, the small round cab windows would probably be plated over.

10 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Geoff Haynes brought a couple of locos round for photography this morning.....................

 

 

He built and painted this S & D 0-6-0ST in P4.

 

 

And painted this O Gauge GWR 4-4-0. 

 

He did tell me which class it was....................

 

 

Hello Tony

3361 is a Bulldog. Originally named Edward VII until the plates were removed in 1927.

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Jeff,

 

Good to see you yesterday. I had a great time. Little Bytham, as you said, worked perfectly (as it always does). It's a pity I don't work quite so well!

 

I've removed the Portescap from your donated O1 (it's here for you when you visit again), and I've fitted a different drive (Mashima,etc). When I've tidied up what I've done (re-weathering the motion and so on), I'll put it up for sale for CRUK. Did you know it has a smoke unit in it?

 

Best regards,

 

Tony. 

Aside from testing it to make sure the RG4 was OK, I hadn't looked any deeper. I'm pleased you can make good use of it, it was too nice to simply serve as a doner engine. I bought if off Ebay purely for the portescap. The little H class I tried on LB is back on the bench. Hopefully I'll finish it before I next visit assuming my health issues permit.

2 hours ago, MJI said:

 

Knowing the haulage ability of Swindon 4-6-0s I hope we do see it romp away one day.

With only a short test track, I was unable to fettle her properly. Having been given the opportunity to finally test her on LB we identified the problem and this morning I've made a new tender drawbar and slightly modified the front bogie mount. I'm confident she will redeem herself in the future, though on the plus side I was very happy with how well she ran. The big surprise was the little A12. It romped away with most of that lovely pullman train with the T9 also putting in a fair performance.

The castle is a Mitchell kit built much more recently. It is pretty much built as per Malcolms instructions with a big portescap and incorporates working outside valves and the linkage from the inside cylinders. The paintwork and lining has been applied by a very good friend in exchange for my building some chassis for him.

Sadly, Windsor Castle rather let the Swindon side down yesterday. Despite being full of lead, she refused to haul Tony's heavy Pullmans. I think I've found the problem and hope to restore Swindons pride on a future visit.

3 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

The most accurate version is probably that wtritten by M KennethCook in his story of his time at swindon.  He was the Works Manager at Swindon at the time and notes that prior to submitting teh Building Programme to paddingtom Hawksworth had already been keen on the idea of having an enegine witha drumhead smokebox although Cook was against it for several reasons.  The Buildfing Programme was submittedwitha diagram of each class listed in the programme and sir James Milne (himself a past Swindon pupil in the loco works) saw the diagram and 'he said words to the effect that in this year of grace you cannot build a locomotive with a steam s dome'.

 

Cook expressed the opinion that Hawksworth didn't argue with Milne because he was in any event keen to go for a drumhead smokebox.  the result was the 94XX using the standard No.10 boiler.  and of course, as Cook relates, using that boiler had a number of undesirable consequences including one not related elsewhere (I think) f the greater difficulty in constructinga. taper boiler compared with eth imple Dean Goods type parallel boiler.

 

The wheel diameter, wheel spacing, cylinder size and basic engine part was exactly the same as the 57XX although overall the frames were longer because of the size of the boiler - in fact the front end overhang from the leading axle to the buffer faces was nearly a foot greater than that of the 2251 0-6-0  let alone being nearly 3 ft greater than that of the 57XX.   Apart from the over wide (and much disliked by Enginemen) cab which was a result of using the No.10 boiler the engine came out significantly heavier than the 57Xx which tended to restrict where it could be used.

I have GA and other drawings for both the 2251 & 94xx classes obtained with a view of building either/both in 7 1/4" gauge, which I still hope to do. I can thus assure people that in all essential areas, aside from the pretty bits we modellers focus on, the 2 classes are practically identical.

1 minute ago, Phil Bullock said:

Hopefully 4930 will be along before too long….

It still leaves a lot of halls either unrestored or out of traffic. That's one problem faced by preservation, the difficulty in raising money for a loco that has several surviving 'sisters'. People don't get excited enough to make donations.

3 minutes ago, Denbridge said:

Most importantly, there are plenty of "genuine" halls preserved. Had Maindy been unique I would agree with you, but it wasn't and I feel the GWS made the right choice. Had it remained a hall, it would probably still be in scrapyard condition especially since several of its surviving sisters are not restored or are out of service requiring significant injections of hard cash & labour.

In fact, of the eleven surviving halls only one (plus Lady of Legend) is currently in working order.

18 minutes ago, Barclay said:

I see this beautiful locomotive and I admire its lines. I admire the hard work and skill that have gone into its construction. But I do have mixed feelings about it. The 'donor' loco was a real GWR engine that had a working life, photo's were taken of it, part of history. This one has nothing - it's a beautiful new toy, nothing more. 

 

Now I understand all the arguments against this:

• Maindy Hall was bought specifically for this purpose and would likely have been scrapped otherwise.
• It's their money
• It's their hard work
• It looks fantastic !

So - I appreciate I don't have a leg to stand on, but It still doesn't feel quite right. New build is a different matter - no history, but nothing's been lost in the making.  I wondered if I am the only person who thinks this way? Just my personal views you understand.

Most importantly, there are plenty of "genuine" halls preserved. Had Maindy been unique I would agree with you, but it wasn't and I feel the GWS made the right choice. Had it remained a hall, it would probably still be in scrapyard condition especially since several of its surviving sisters are not restored or are out of service requiring significant injections of hard cash & labour.

Swindon standardisation. Those parts would have been on all manner of locos from various classes during their lifetime.

10 hours ago, john dew said:

 

I know they used the 2251 boiler but maybe that was because they wanted to eliminate the dome?

 

I notice that Locomotion refers to Sir James Milne, GWR General Manager ( not Chairman) "requesting" that the design be a modernised version of the 57xx class. I knew Hawksworth was responsible for the design. I think I was mistaken in assuming that the original request was directed to Collett. I had forgotten he retired in 1941. Thank you for commenting, I will amend my original post

Apart from lengthening the frames to accommodate a bunker everything "under the skin" is identical to the 2251 class. Sadly, these days, the NRM is the last place to rely on for accurate information. Their descriptions of the priceless collection are pitiful. 

2 hours ago, john dew said:

Ballasting and weathering the storage turntable continues. Meantime here are some shots of Granby's latest loco

Bachmann's 0-6-0 Pannier Tank.........here it is straight out of the box:



This news is not exactly hot off the press. The model was finally released in January, after an interminable wait. It took me a further 3 months to convince myself it was ok for Granby. Then summer etc intervened before I was able to start weathering and detailing. It was only last week that she was finally ready for service!

The 94xx class was designed as a replacement for the long serving 57xx pannier tanks. The design criteria included increased power along with a more "modern" appearance. Allegedly the GWR Chairman told Collet, the CME, to get rid of the "old fashioned" dome. 

Here is a comparison:

 

 

Although over 200 locos were produced only 10 were made before nationalistion. Of these, only 9408 ventured north of Watford...... to Oxley (Wolverhampton). There is no evidence it ever got to Chester or Wrexham, hence my hesitation about it being ok for Granby. The model received very favourable reviews so I decided it may have spent a week or so at Granby as the station pilot.

I then promptly ordered the wrong etched plates 9407.......so thats top of the to do list.

I have tried to make the weathering reflect less than a year in service



Light dusting of mud/rust below the running plates on brake pads etc.

Roof and running plates painted with matt black and light dusting of soot



Modelu Headlamps and crew added. It is great being able to slip the lamps directly on to their irons.
 

Smokebox painted matt black/steel mix

 

Touch of steel paint on some steps where paint has been pretend chipped off by Modelu boots.

 

 

Inside of bunker rusted. Fire Irons and real coal added.

DCC requires a Next 18 chip. Accessing the PCB involves removing the body which is very easy. I learned from the Youchoos install guide (a really useful resource) that there are easily accessible solder points on the PCB for a Stay Alive which was a big plus because you cant directly attach Stay Alive to the economy Zimo Next 18

Performance without Stay Alive was not great but once I squeezed a couple of Tantulums in and set CV 56 to 22 (its a coreless motor) it was stunning......very happy camper.

Its a gorgeous model. The detail is superb. Like the prototype its very heavy and handles long heavy trains with ease.

Regards from Vancouver

 

 

 

 

The real reason there wasn't an 'old fashioned dome' was that these locomotives were basically pannier tank versions of Collett 2251 tender engines. Incidentally, the 94xx was designed by Hawksworth after Collett had retired.