Nick Lawson

Probably builder's photo. Neat stack of wagon springs behind. Gleaming white-wall tyres. Looks like a Roberts plate.

Hensall Sand appears in Bill Hudson Vol 1, where photo shows a 1907-built 4 plank without end sweeps, slightly narrower than the dimensions above and more elaborate paint job, but also number 2.

Snafu of the week: The other night, having soldered pick-up wipers onto two of the loco's wheelsets, I couldn't resist popping the coupling rods on and seeing if it would run. I could not get the coupling rods to fit. The next day I had another go, attacking the rod bearings with a broach; got the rods on (tight); ran the power and the wheels were forced into a death rictus and everything jammed. I measured up and found my wheelbase is slightly undersized. Mortified I could not believe I had cocked up the setting up of the frames. However, I had set up the frames with Gibson coupling rods (plan A), but more recently acquired Brassmasters' nicer rods (plan B). Although I had done a cursory comparison on their arrival, looking more closely I find the Gibson rods are slightly undersized (~ 0.2mm). They do indeed fit my loco perfectly and the wheels turn as expected; so I will revert to plan A. Hopefully I will be able to salvage the other rods for another loco one day, provided I haven't oval-ed them excessively. "Drat, drat and triple-drat" (D. Dastardly)

@John-Miles I've seen discussions about this and opted for short lengths hopefully to minimise opportunities for wandering off the side of the wheel. In contrast the loco wipers (pics to follow) are longer ones bearing on the inside surface of the types. Your own 2F is looking good for 50. I'm glad it isn't only me whose pics randomly insist on being wrong way up.

@Buhar Well yes they are, but I had a length of that. I have other finer wire but only with bright-coloured insulation. I also struggle with an innate tendency to over-engineer stuff. I expect my second loco build will be a bit more relaxed in that respect. I hope so anyway! Also, adding the 0.3mm wiper wires really emphasised how butch the other stuff is. But I'm not changing it now!

Tender pick-ups Having cleaned the rust off my tender chassis assembly I turned my attention back to fitting electrical pick-ups to it. Given the available space in the tender I aimed to fit wires to wipe the tops of the wheels. I also decided to keep the tender electrically isolated and fit pick-ups to all wheels, rather than shorting out the wheels on one side. I set out to epoxy copper-coated board between the frames. However, this was hampered by the presence of the CSB springs and axlebox spring attachments. The board needed to be stuck to the top of the frames instead. However this in turn was hampered by the K's tender body fastening points that go transversely across the inside of the body, so I couldn't just fasten a single length of board down the centre. Instead I have ended up with three separate chunks of board, each with an isolating cut down the middle, and each side of the three wired together. The connecting wires had to duck between the frames to avoid the body and avoid the fastening screws in the middle and CSB wires further out. Counter-intuitively the wires to connect to the loco are attached at the rear of the tender as there was more space back there. I assembled as much of the wiring as I could before attaching to the frames, at which point I got epoxy on my fingers and then everywhere else. Putting the copper board on top of the frames and slightly ahead of the wheels had the benefit that I had quite a convenient point on which to fasten the wipers. I had acquired a pack of phosphor bronze wire, which some advocate for these wipers. I soldered chunks of 1mm brass rod outriggers onto the copper board and twisted up coils of PB to slip over them, soldering one end into the copper and leaving the other end riding on the wheel tops. This is my implementation of ideas I've seen in other people's work. If it was you - thanks! I have got solder splodged liberally over the copper, and my nicely primed frames are looking rather battered but otherwise it all seems fine so far. No doubt though there will be further heartache with the pick-ups when I get the loco moving!

On this subject, Peter Tatlow's LNER Wagons Volume 2, contains (P50) 2 pictures of NER diagram P4 10.5 ton hopper wagons. No. 6463, built Shildon 1915, has five planks. No. 53193, built Metropolitan C & W 1920, has six.

Ah I think you are at the wrong station. Back in the halcyon days of steam Pontefract Baghill had bay platforms in both directions. I think these are what @Jones the Steamreferred to.

@Jones the Steam Thanks for all the info. Something to bear in mind when I look into WTTs again one day. Thanks for the suggestion. 1. Where was Clifton carriage sidings? 2. D.L Franks book on the S & K divides passenger services into: a. express York-Sheffield which didn't stop at Baghill or any other intermediate stations. b. Semi-fast which stopped at Baghill only c. All stations. I liked the idea of modelling the interaction of an all-stations arriving and backing into a bay; the semi arriving, swapping passengers with the local and departing; the local trundling on its way. Sadly for me, this sort of working didn't seem to exist in 1922. 3. Thank you for the details about the Selby-Hull-Baghill working. I knew about the interaction of the Hull mail service with the up mainline (ex Newcastle) mail, but useful to get an idea of the size of the Hull train. Also in the 1922 timetable, the Hull mail, having transferred to the northbound bay waited for hours to meet the northbound mainline mail and do a similar exchange with that before setting off to Hull. 4. Most of the passenger services over the S & K were run by the Midland or GC. The Leeds-Baghill service would have been NER, but probably something smaller than a D20 which was still one of the bigger express engines in those days? But I intend to get a D20 in there somewhere possibly the mainline Mail. The two coach mail from Selby might have been run by an 0-6-0, but Selby shed in 1922 had Tennant 1472 and I have a kit in the stash even if I have to invoke Rule 1! Cheers.

I decided to proceed with my open-plan bunker. The first step was to saw the front edge off the whitemetal top and solder it to the top of the front. (Pics 1 & 2). This caused me to look more closely at this component and realise that the two moulded details on the top are actually handles rather than just the mounting brackets for the toolbox. (Possibly nature's way of telling me I'm overdue for another eyetest). Given their alignment with the coalhole, I wondered whether they were something to do with controlling the flow of coal through the hole. However, looking at the Midland Study Centre's diagram 77-11807, they appear to operate cranks reaching back under the tender. However, I may have misinterpreted the diagram; so, cutting to the chase, please will someone tell me what the function of these handles was? Also, assuming that they are correct for my period, should the toolbox be mounted between them or over the top of them? In other news: I described a while back faking up a tender buffer beam to replace a missing component. I had soldered Gibson sprung buffers to this brass strip before tinning the assembly for soldering to the tender. However, when looking to bring this all together I realised that the buffers align with the whitemetal tender chassis sides and I couldn't fix the sprung buffers without undoing my patent assembly or compromising the strength of the join, so regretfully I have superglued the heads in position sans spring. (pic 3)

@MarkC As a late response to your original question, I see from https://www.blunham.com/big/eng/YKS/NRY/Whitby/Whitby90Dry.html that in 1890 there was a Whitby Working Men's Co-op. and Industrial Society, Ltd., 4 Sandgate and 66 Baxtergate. Perhaps they would have received deliveries from the Cooperative Wholesale Society?

However, on a more positive note, here is something I didn't intend to do today: The kit tender top is flat - there is no coal bunker. (pic1) There is supposed to be a toolbox that sits on a bracket above the coal. This is missing from the second-hand kit, so I started cutting and glueing Plastikard to make a replacement. I found a relevant old thread and in particular @phil_sutters estimate of the toolbox size. This looks about right as the length corresponds with the brackets moulded into the font of the tender top. Having warmed up, and being unhappy with the flat tender top I thought it would be interesting to see what it would look like with a proper bunker, so I cut some more plastikard as a trial. I cut a piece of 1mm thick plastikard roughly the width of the whitemetal tender top, but a bit too long. (pic2) The thread above links to an article in the Jul 1964 Railway Modeller; in which a diagram shows the dip of the bunker start approximately in the middle between the front two wheelsets. I softened the plastic with Mekpak before bending, but with this thin card it wasn't really necessary, so I didn't bother for the other bend to bring the bunker flat at the coalhole. There was the inevitable filing and sawing to get the thing to fit, but the overall effect from this quick and dirty experiment is quite pleasing. (pics 3 &4) The plastikard template is too wibbly wobbly to use as-is. I will probably saw back the whitemetal component to make the flat top (and raised bulkhead) although this will need care to get level as it has no supports along the side, except at the back corners and the front it will no longer reach. I might then let in the front part of the plastikard to form the bunker, or use the remaining whitemetal offcut to form at least part of it. To get this to be worthwhile, the remaining issue is the chunky vertical front corner supports which are now visible. I may file down the upper parts of these a bit and see whether I can hide the rest under coal. The effect I would like to achieve is coal in the bunker, but with the toolbox riding clear above the coal. I'd need to salvage the front of the whitemetal top with the toolbox brackets and solder it to the top of the front as intended, - but may need to fudge more extensive brackets.

@Chas Levin @John-Miles@hayfieldThanks for your recent kind comments Sadly the next installment is a step backwards. I've been otherwise engaged for several weeks on some worthy-but-dull diy. Coming back to the bench yesterday I was dismayed to find a bad case of flux-induced rust affecting the tyres, axles and CSB springs of the tender. Wah! I dismantled this lot again and cleaned off the rust. I was going to oil it all to prevent recurrence, but it occurred to me that the sides of the tyres wouldn't have been shiny anyway. I have a small bottle of Mig Brown Oxide primer, which says vaguely that it is "multi-surface" so I tried brushing this onto the tyre sides. This matt finish accentuated the shiny black plastic wheel centres and the even shinier axle ends. I cleaned off the latter and primed them and will slap matt black over these and the wheel centres later. Pictures later when I've completed this manoeuvre.

Clear to your practiced eye anyway! Thanks Stephen. From my point of view this is the right answer as it minimises my fitting work.

I'm improvising brake rodding on a 4mm 5'2” wheeled Johnson 2F and am looking for information on how these were arranged. I understand the distinction between small-wheeled-with-external-pull-rods and large-wheeled-with-internal-pull-rods. In Essery & Jenkinson's “Illustrated Review of Midland Locomotives” vol 4, there is this comment on Plate 63, page 46: “... whereas the larger-wheeled locomotives had their brake pull rods on the centre-line of the locomotive behind the wheels.” I don't think this comment is universally true. The same volume, Fig 24, p166 reproduces the General Arrangement Diagram for the 4F, and this does indeed clearly show a centre-pull arrangement. However, plate 50 on p38 clearly shows a pair of pull rods, either side of the centre-line, between the leading and centre drivers of 1591. I had a quick search through the Midland Study Centre site and found a few other diagrams, particularly “General Arrangement of unidentified 0-6-0 Goods engine – possibly a Kitson built '1873' Class of 1899”. This diagram shows pairs of longitudinal rods articulating the three cross beams; with a triangular arrangement between the rearmost cross beam and the brake cylinder. Am I safe to assume that any of the “2F” family would have had this layout? Secondly, while I hope to get the right effect between the wheels, my kit doesn't actually have a brake cylinder and I may well not attempt to fake one. However, my curiosity has been aroused, so if anyone knows of a clear picture of the real thing I'd be interested.

I moved on to hang the brakes on the loco but when I offered up a hanger I could see it wouldn't clear the bottom of the firebox. I wondered if the Gibson plastic hangers were undersize but they matched some alternative Mainly Trains etched brass ones I have, so I concluded the holes were in the wrong position. I had known that the pre-drilled holes on the tender frames were in the wrong place as they were on the wrong side of the wheels, but these ones had looked about right. Another time I will try to remember to check these details while frames are still flat packed, as much easier to drill. I inspected some pictures and estimated positions for the new holes. Coincidentally, I see this morning that another parishioner has been similarly occupied on a different kit:

Another twist is where the partners worked cooperatively with each other but competitively against a third party. The Swinton & Knottingley was a joint committee Midland and North Eastern operation, but the Great Central had running rights and ran a rival pick-up goods.

Back to the tender: A while back I started to fiddle about with brake gear, combining plastic Gibson hangers, (flimsy but great insulators), with the Mainly Trains brake gear etch from Wizard. Having stopped the wheelsets slopping from side to side I have now completed this stage. The holes in the brake hangers are quite large, so I followed the common practice of inserting short lengths of brass tubing into them to slip over the wire mounting points. In fact, having lost the first length of tubing into thin air, I superglued the end of a long length into the hanger and sawed the required length off the tube afterwards. I started by soldering the metal components - a high risk strategy given a wavering hand and plastic components all too close - but eventually decided superglue was my friend ( this week at least!). The etch contains a variety of lengths of rodding, cranks, adjusters and what have you; so, "for the craic", I faked up the front end of the mechanism (pic 2). The prototypical mechanism was of course more complicated than this. The main cross rod was inserted by drilling a hole through one side of the whitemetal body and part way through the opposite side. The cranks were doubled up from the etch. The angle of the pulling cranks is wrong, but was determined by using the shortest length of rod unmodified. A better effect could have been achieved by shortening these rods and soldering on adjuster ends, allowing the cranks to be set round 90 degrees or so. The displayed result is actually my second attempt at assembling this mechanism. The first attempt was almost right until I started to "improve" it by small adjustments with a soldering iron. After cutting out the resulting mess and salvaging the cranks, the mk 2 model was assembled with superglue and much less bad language. The main consideration though was that while most of the rodding is attached by the hangers to the brass frames, the front end is attached to the whitemetal body via the cross rod. In order to separate body and frames the longitudinal rod ends can be unhooked from the cranks. They are only pushed on to the rather crude looking pins which I need to file down a bit. Pic 3 shows that you can just about see bits of brake gear here and there, so I feel it was worth the effort. I have added a representation of the external bearing plate for the cross rod on this side of the body. I need to do the same on the other side to cover the hole through which I inserted the rod.

No, well it was a long shot. Thanks Richard.

fair point. That issue it was an L & Y 20T fitted open

Hi Richard, I'm just catching up on this interesting thread. Your build prompts me to ask: I have an unbuilt DJH J10 but ideally would prefer to build a small tender version. I saw that rue d'etropal does an apparently suitable printed body, but then a warning elsewhere that that range tends to be dimensionally challenged. I wondered whether you happened to know whether this problem affects that particular product? ( I note the discussion earlier about non-standard standard GCR tenders!) Or is there a better way of achieving my aim? Looking forward to seeing which loco you build first.

A quick trawl of the Railway Modeller online index shows that the April 2016 edition includes: so perhaps Steam offloaded their collection to RM and then forgot?

Johnson 2-2-2 anyone?

@micklner Thanks Mick, now fitted as per your advice. The fibre washers were Comet rather than Peco because I had them. I had wondered about putting 1/8" dia washers on 2mm axles, but it seems fine. Tender no longer trying to do a Vin Diesel drift round the bends.

Nice to meet you both. Really enjoyed your layout...even if I didn't get to see the pig😁