Dave Holt

I've also got a SE Finecast K3 to do - they were seen on the O, A&GB line in Oldham, on holiday excursions. It's one of the upgraded kits suitable for P4 with a sprung chassis using the Brassmasters axleboxes and coil springs. The casting look to be of good quality and the chassis etchings on a par with good modern kits, although perhaps not to Bradwell standard.

Dave.

Mike,

An excellent choice, if I might say so. I'm looking forward already!

I have one of Dave's B1 chassis and plastic body to build, sometime (and a 9F chassis for when I feel really brave). These locos were quite regular visitors to the Manchester area and I always thought they appeared to be highly competent engines, if perhaps not quite as handsome as the Stanier locos.

Dave.

Better not try to model Saltley, then.........

Mike,

You make a very good point about the predominance of loco types in an area, based on traffic. Most modellers, myself included, fall into the trap of doing one of everything we find attractive instead of several of a restricted range. If I complete all the kits in stock, I will at least end up with several Black 5's, as befitting an ex-LMS location.

Looking forward to your next project.

Dave.

Yes, very disappointing to find a major dimensional error at a late stage in construction and possibly, as mentioned above, enough to put some people off. As someone who builds locos in P4, often from kits intended for "OO", checking cylinder centres and valve gear bracket widths before going too far has become second nature. Spacing out is quite common, including front foot steps, to get adequate clearances.

Dave.

Loco frames looking very neat, Jol. It looks as if the frames taper in either end of the coupled wheelbase, presumably to give clearance for the radial boxes to slide sideways on curves? If so, what is the difference in frame spacing between the wide and narrow sections and what minimum radius do you think it will traverse? I ask because I have a long term plan for an ex-LNER C13 and that has no frame cut outs for the carrying wheels, so tapered frames are in prospect.

Dave.

You're creating a wonderful scene there, John. As a matter of interest, where does the track go in the far corner, behind the industrial building scene blocker? Is it intended eventually to go in a bigger room?

Dave.

Right here.

 

 

It was a Darlington livery apparently.

Mmmm. It looks to me as if the model logo is somewhat over sized compared with the prototype. On this photo, the logo is about 50% of the tender tank height whereas the model scales at about 65%.

John,

It might be crude to you, but to my eyes it looks pretty convincing - not that I'm particularly familiar with GWR shed furniture.

Dave.

Nick,

I've been following this build with a feeling of admiration and steadily increasing awe at the level of detail and fidelity to the prototype that you are incorporating into the model. I'm quite familiar with these locos as a regular visitor to, and long term supporter of, the Ff & WHR, including several visits to the shed at Dinas where various parts of the locos have been on display during gala events. So I can vouch for the realism you are achieving.

In my opinion, you have elevated this work way beyond normal railway modelling to an exercise in engineering in miniature. Well done.

I'm very much looking forward to seeing the ongoing story of your model.

Dave.

Looks to be another very fine build under way which I look forward to following.

You're absolutely right when you say the arrangement of the injectors and associated pipe work on Bulleids is complicated. Believe me, it's no better in the full size (my experience is on a MN rather than the light pacifics) where the sequence of assembly is critical to getting all the flange bolts in and even then, getting access to tighten some of them is, well, interesting and warrants the creation of some modified spanners!

In case you don't have the information to hand, the pipe sizes are:

steam feed - 1.75" o/d

delivery to boiler clacks - 2.25" o/d, and

water feed and overflow pipes - 2.75" o/d.

Dave.

Never understood why a bolt wouldn’t do?

I believe the idea was to allow easy reversal of the bogies to protect AJ couplings from transport damage. You just pulled the bogies off and clipped them back with the couplings pointing in to the centre of the coach, safe from harm.

Dave.

Jeff.

It's coming along nicely.

For piston rods, I find nickel-silver rod [0,8 to 1 mm diameter, to suit the prototype] represents hem well. I turn down the wire to about 0,5 mm for the last 1 mm or so. This way, you only have to drill a small hole in the front of the cross head [think you called it the slider?] casting. Not having a lathe, I do the tuning by holding the n/s wire in a pin chuck and using a combined rubbing and twisting action along a fine file. As long as you progressively turn the pin chuck as you file, you end up with an acceptably round and central reduced shank, which can be carefully soldered [but could be glued] to the cross head. In my locos, the slide bars are far enough apart to do this assembly with the parts in situ, to ensure proper alignment. However, on your model, it looks like you would have to do it as a separate item, aligned by eye, and then carefully adjusted by trial fits until satisfied that a smooth fit has been achieved.

Dave.

I think you've got a bit of time to think about this aspect. There's the minor issue of building the layout first.

Dave.

And a bit of a contrast to your previous build!

Dave.

Very neat attention to detail, especially the push-pull gear. Super modelling.

Look forward to following further progress.

Dave.

Would you be able to send a pick of the pick up arrangement? I am currently building a Jinty using a 1620 motor with a Comet gearbox but having issues with pick ups. I assume you are analogue and not digital?

I'm fairly sure that DC vs DCC does not affect the pick-up arrangements on a model loco. After all, it's just a stream of electrons being transmitted from the track, through the wheel rims to something (the motor or input side of a chip) on the loco via the pick-ups. Many commercial models are supplies "DCC ready" which means they are analogue but can be converted easily to DCC by replacing a blanking plug on a circuit board with a DCC chip. There is no need to make any changes to the pick-ups.

Dave.

Ray.

The picture look just fine on my computer. The chassis looks to be coming along very nicely.

What is the purpose of the three small, fold-out tabs (the upper one at about 45 degrees) between the front and centre driving axles?

Dave.

The other thing that intrigues me is the support arrangement for the sand traps. In the upper frame (LH side?), the short LH support has a backing plate against the frame plate whereas none of the others has one. I also wonder why the support legs on the two frames are different lengths?

Dave.

A favorite of mine is the LNWR/LMS Delph branch 1851 - 1955 with the adjacent Bailey Mill.

I'm doing this, set in the 1950's (but under a different name), in P4. Track laid, station, goods shed and coal chutes done, but no mill, as yet. I post on my blog "Delph" on this site.

Dave.

John,

Looks and sounds like tedious, repetitive work. I'm sure the end result will be worth it, though.

Shed's looking good so far.

Dave.

Ray,

Looking very nice in primer and, as Western Star says, a very neat construction, aided no doubt by it being a well produced kit in the first place. As a 4 mm modeller, I'm quite envious of these superb 7 mm products.

I notice that there are three sets of slots visible inside the bunker. I imagine these are intended for the internal stiffening ribs. Have you omitted these because you intend a full coal load and they won't be visible on the finished model or are they not included in the kit?

Dave.

Looks like one of those jobs where failing to grow a third arm is a disadvantage. we all have moments like that. Well done for persevering and getting there in the end.

I've been eagerly following this thread and thoroughly enjoy seeing the build progress. However, I haven't commented before because I didn't feel I had anything to contribute, not because I'm not enjoying reading it or don't find it fascinating. I'm sure there are lots of others out there who feel the same. Please do keep on posting your progress, including the loco, in due course.

Dave.

Looking very much like a Jubilee and coming along so quickly.

I do think, though, that the support arrangements for the ejector exhaust pipe and the hand rail above, are not quite right. The three supports on the boiler barrel are flat, open cradles, as modelled. There is a narrow ring support (rather like an over-sized handrail stanchion) directly below the hand rail stanchion on the firebox and there was no pipe flange near this support. The three hand rail supports on the barrel should be conventional stanchions, with ball ends at the rail. Hope I'm not being too picky.

Dave.

Looks like the brake blocks are also missing?

Dave.