Kenton

Thanks, I was going by the third photo down - showing the brass tubes on the underside? of the cassettes. I couldn't see in any of the photos the tubes visible on the top surface (next to the track) which is more typical an arrangement.

I think I now understand how you are doing it though.

That looks good.

(what may seem a daft question)

I'm still a little confused on the brass rod connectors. if they are on the underside of the cassettes how do you connect them up as the cassette will be flat on the table, if the extend beyond the edge (like a plug) then they would prevent the cassette going back into their boxes?

It shouldn't be rusty or unloved, these are army locos (DLO now) and have always been pampered pets.

Michael Edge

Time to get the Duraglit and Brasso out then

Impressive piece of work. I particularly like the bends in the handrails and bonnet angle bends - a step I always have problems with.

The steps really are fine etches and keeping stray solder out of them is a must.

As so often with these kits it will be a shame to paint it - and an even bigger shame to weather it into a rusty unloved state.

I'm with you on the rivetting, see my first post on this blog (Hunslet bonnet + footplate).

Of course the ultimate in rivet pushing is the GW press - as this has a supporting angle and a vernier table it is easy to get precisely positioned rivets with no distortion - even on narrow strips of brass.

The only downside is that it is not cheap and unless you build lots of kits it is difficult to justify.

Hi Paul,

I've just caught up with this one - nice progress and looking nice and clean.

A small bit of advice if you will accept it on the fuel cap and ant other tiny little bits that are put on early (sometimes too early) in the build. Use a higher melt solder. I use a range of solders 138/145/179/212/ and an old one that must be well above 250 - if you plan their use it can be much easier to avoid the detailing bits sliding off when you heat something nearby.

Though in this case it sounds like the join was not a good one in the first place if it was broken by the action of a toothbrush in cleaning.

Good to see another JE kit going together.

Good to see this developing.

I too seem to have problems with cutting foamboard and then sticking the bits back together.

I use a scalpel but even so the foam seems very resistant to cutting clean and ends up tearing at corners. I also find it difficult to cut through square. All of which made me give up on the idea of using it for baseboards - even though others seem to succeed.

Of course if the edges are not square - gluing becomes a real problem as the edges do not meet flush or true.

Have you reinforced the Ikea "Snackbox"in anyway?

Just another thought -

This traverser is inset into the baseboard. ie the baseboard frame is the support for the table

That is not always the case and often the table is another board added at the end of main baseboard. In such a case I would still build a baseboard to adjoin the main board as if it was just another board with say 6 inches of baseboard and the tracks aligned to the adjacent board. Then add the traverser table aligned to that short length. This just avoids the added complexity of a baseboard join affecting the horizontal movement of the traverser.

It has sparked a question about the gaps involved. I have used 9mm MDF for my board, so if I put these runners under a piece of MDF, what is the gap between the MDF and the other board that the runners are mounted to?

Firstly I need to point out there are several different types of drawer runners available. In this case I have used the ones that are sold as a single unit - I can vouch for the fact that they can be taken apart but you end up with ball bearings rolling around and they are difficult to put back together. This single unit is good at it has a very finite size - and come so they run smoothly in each other.

But it is still critical to get them running parallel to each other and to the traverser - baseboard edge. Just a few mm out is enough to make them jam-up.

The reason I constructed them as a separate removable unit was not just space. I am not especially great when it comes to woodwork (some may say any work) where fine measurement is required. I could blame the tape measure ...

Build the baseboard first,

lie the baseboard face down on a flat hard surface (not carpeted),

lie the traverser table face down (and right way round) in the gap where it is to go (inset).

screw on the drawer runners (remember parallel with the edge and each other)

Note: I personally do not think 9mm is thick enough for anything longer than 2ft - this table is 18mm ply. If you have a really long board then use more runners. It is not really a weight/warping thing more of an issue of continuous use. This is one of the most important parts of the operation of the layout it will be used for almost every train move.

I then marked the runner locations on the traverser support board (yes it is upside down) and you need a short pencil and squishy fingers. (others might have more confidence in measuring)

remove the traverser table and support board - invert and screw the other side of the runners down to the board.

You now have (should have) a operational traverser unit - it should run freely - if it doesn't fix it now - it will never get any better through wear.

place the unit back in its inset and complete the baseboard frame around it and any support panels.

finally bolt the unit to the baseboard support panels and adjust the height (now with everything up the right way) so that the traverser table is flush with the baseboard. add washers/shims to the bolts as needed to level.

Doing it this way means that it does not matter how thick the runners are or indeed how thick the table and boards are.

I guess the more wood proficient would route out channels for the runners and even rebate a tongue and groove in the traverser to baseboard join.

I'll measure them when I next fight my way through the snow to the garage.

I don't think that the allocation history tells the full tale, many Eastfield Locomotives were stabled at Kipps (65E) during their life, there is a photograph in "Scottish Region Colour Album" by George C O'Hara that shows about five of them stabled there in October 1961.

 

Jim Howie

Thanks Jim.

The allocation history is really only "offical" allocations. There may have well been local reallocation to other sheds due to local requirements/space/use. Though have to say five seems quite a lot in one go. That would be an interesting photo - can you list the numbers ? Meanwhile, I will seek out copy of the book as it sounds as if it is worth adding to the library.

It is not just a story of words - it is the incredible dedication to the detail.

I have to keep telling myself the scale is not 1:1

The photography is pretty darn marvelous too.

Just a small comment - and I realise it is a personal thing - but the grass looks too green to me especially between tracks ... or is it going to be toned down?

I have to agree with Davi's comment above.

I cannot see why you should have a need to add omega loops to a Tortoise throw - it just doesn't make any sense unless you are just not installing them correctly.

In many cases one needs to increase the tension of the wire as the one supplied is often too easily bent.

Why is it that so many folk install a Tortoise incorrectly - failing to adjust the throw of the wire at the tiebar so that the motor would reach its stop just after the position when the the wire is applying a small amount of pressure on the switch rail against the stock rail.

Even if you are mounting the Tortoise remote and linking to the point with cams there will be more than enough movement in the wire to have a dampening effect.

Looks great .. I wouldn't muck it up with weathering

This Sketchup drawing programme is a good help, although it doesn??

I'm not fond of the thwack that you get with solenoid point motors

Then it has to be either Tortoise or servos ... I don't think you have much room for Tortoise so either servos or good old manual wire in tube

Ha! just read the other pages of the blog - so ignore my dumb questions and last comments

.... that's what comes from reading a blog upside down/back-to-front ....

Are you going to have room for the station as well ? I wouldn't have thought so.

Downings Maltings would make an excellent scenic break to the FY.

I guess you will have the viewing side along Station Street so having the plain backs of the terraced houses as the backscene. How far will you go to the west - the High Street crossing?

There was an office to the back of the shed and original coaling stage against the Maltings wall.

Actually to call the replacement a coaling stage was incorrect. It was a ramp - a simple raised track replacing the original coal road that was on the level - it looks to be level (counting bricks in the photo) for 3 wagon lengths than a very steep drop to the point - hence my comment about doing that in S7.

I am afraid I cannot help with narrowing down the date other than between 1937 and 1948.

There were two small "utilities" built as pretty low lean-to's against the yard wall both before the engine pit and water column. Only the furthest is shown on the 1900 OS map and matches the plan in LMS Engine sheds reference - which refers to it as a toilet - which is interesting because the 1900 OS mapp has a "urinal" clearly marked on the opposite side of the track at the end of the Maltings.

What a lovely compact and somewhat claustrophobic choice - definitely approve. A perfect excuse to use a 3-way point.

Are you intending to build it post LMS alterations to the coal stage - converting it to a ramp with a shelter? The track was raised slightly so should be a challenge in S7.

Excellent to see someone else venturing into the pleasures (and pains) of brass kit construction. You will often find it frustrating but hopefully also very rewarding. It is often the pleasure of the build rather than the end product that brings the most satisfaction.

I have one curiosity on the build - you mentioned using "low melt" solder - that is very unusual and I'm not sure that is what you meant to say. The term "low melt" is usually applied to 70' solder (which actually is not really solder) that is used for "gluing" white metal kits together. It does not stick very well to brass (you normally have to "tin" brass with normal solder to get it to stick). Did you just mean "lower" melt such as 145 solder?

Solders do come in quite a wide range. But again I would never recommend dropping to a lower melt solder until you get to the finer detail. There is nothing more infuriating when you are building a kit that just when you are putting a small detail on some other detail, usually an overlay, slips or drops off.

I guess I am the only one who thinks that is a step backwards.

It is surprising just how many shed had their turntables along the access roads. This was both practical and economical. When this was not the case the turntable was on an adjacent road or at the back of a trough road shed. It was generally the very large depots that had a turntable sited at the opposite end of the yard and then this would have been more unusual at the end of coaling/watering sidings.

Consider that turntables being round fit rather well on the inside of those curve that we tend to have to put on a model railway that do not occur in reality.

But, as always, it is your layout.

Hi Dave

I am often asked that question and it regularly comes up on RMWeb.

I have to warn at first, and it applies to all brass kits not just this or the JE kits in particular. Brass kit construction requires a different approach than white metal kits, the technique and the materials used are different. However, the confidence required is the same.

The JE kits are rarely suggested as first loco kits - the reason for that is, I think, the fact that they do not employ slot and tab design, and some of the parts are a bit obscure in the way they go together. The instructions, whilst far better than some, make many assumptions that you have other resources of information on the prototype, previous kit building experience and often lack the detail drawing just when you need it - and no exploded views.

However, I actually think that is not the full picture. The kits do come with the detailed CAD drawings (actual scale size), the parts nearly always are an absolutely perfect fit, requiring little or no further work. The instructions are detailed enough to make a reasonable attempt and, when asked, Michael Edge always seems happy to offer help and advice. Unlike some kit suppliers, he will have built it so has first hand knowledge. (even if his construction style is different to some - to quote his instructions: "The loco kits are designed to be built more in the manner of a full size loco than the usual modelling techniques"). When comparing value, the kits almost appear to be cheap by comparison to some of the, IMO, scratch aids sold at inflated prices by others, or what may be called the high end marketed kits. The range of kits is very good and still increasing, and where else do you get good shunter kits these days?

Fiddly, yes there are parts that are a bit mind blowing - almost microscopic, but often you don't have to put them on (as seen on the next blog page) but that is the nature of all kits including the good plastic ones.

I have built quite a few JE kits and this will certainly not be the last one. (I have another Sentinel and Taurus to do and will certainly get the other NBL at some point)

So why not go for it? Just don't rush it.

Thanks yet again Michael, that is at least a little clearer.

I am using the Alan Gibson sprung buffers as per recommendation, though would have anyway.

The gussets are going to be left off for now and will be reconsidered (along with a few other details) at the end of the build.

I hate to be a teansy bit critical but ...

was the horn usually that limp on an 03 ?

otherwise it looks great.

there was one at Dumfries so it's just about on my patch

you are in luck - there were three (D2731, D2738, D2761) all in 1966.