ArthurK

Some years ago I bought the 'O' gauge DJH A1. When I tried to assemble the boiler and smokebox I realised the the latter was smaller in diameter than boiler, so much so as to be unacceptable (to me). I complained and was duly sent a replacement boiler. That turned out to be no better than the first. Drastic action was called for so I split the smokebox along its bottom and forced it to a diameter the same as that of the boiler . A bit of filing and filling and the job was done. There were a few other problems including the fit of boiler and cab front which required attention. Most of the other casting were fine with one exception the valve rod slides bore no resemblance to the real thing. They were unceremoniously dumped and replaced by some of my own manufacture. Everything turned out fine eventually but I did not expect to have to do all that work. Arthur

This 'patch' was added to many NER locos (some were built with it). It was removed to provide access during visits to the works although sometimes removed at the shed for local maintenance. ArthurK

North Eastern Tenders are a minefield for modellers. I was wrong in one respect and, I quote from the green books "care was taken to remove the small 3038 gallon tender which has been put on in March 1941 and to replace it by one of the correct size from 1629". It also appears that the some at least of the tenders behind the D17s with 3940 gallon tenders did not have compensated outside pull rods. Perhaps the tender from 1629 was one on these. That makes another variant for the 3940 tenders. Early 3038 tenders did not have the compensated brakes. That came in with the J26/27s. in later years tender swapping was the norm and virtually any version of the 3038 tenders could be found on the classes J21/24/25/26/26/27. As far as I am aware all the 3940 gallon tenders had 'D' shaped cut-outs in the frames. Also I am not aware of any swapping of earlier tenders to Q6. I think that we can assume that all Q6s had the compensated brakes. The cab windows were 3' 9" above the footplate so we can judge from that. Of course a preserved tender is not necessarily at true measure of what was. Certainly the tender in your photo appears in extremely good condition. Surely some one out there knows if the tank has been replaced. ArthurK

Sorry to disagree but the tender behind 1621 is not of 3940 capacity. It did indeed have a tender of that capacity but it was removed to put behind a newly built J39. The tender currently behind 1621 has a capacity of 3038 gallons and does indeed have lower sides. Note also that it does not have the outside compensated brake rods that 3940 tenders had. On 1621 the pull rods on the tender run behind the wheels and the adjusters can be clearly seen in your photo. The heights of the side sheets were 3038 3' 9", 3940 4' 3" and 4125 (trimming and not self trimming) 4' 9". ArthurK

Early builds of the C7s had 4125 gallon tenders but were not self trimming. The later batches were attached to the 4125 gallon self trimming tenders the same as those fitted to the later Q6s, B16s and Q7s There were differences in some of these tenders notably the type of spring hangers used but all these self trimming type had essentially identical bodies except that the rails of the 1917 batch of Q6s were cut back at the end of the coal space. All these later tenders had the rails swept down at front and rear. The preserved Q6 is not fitted with one of these nor do I believe it to be self trimming none of the early 4125 gallon tenders were ever self trimming which is why those on the C7s were swapped with those from the Q6s. I believe 3395 to be attached to be the standard 3940 gallon, non self trimming style. It certainly was when it was initially bought for preservaton. In short if it has straight ended coal rails ending at the rear of the tender it is not self trimming. I never claimed that the tender behind 63344 was not self trimming, of course it is. The angle was change to six inch when moved to a C7. This angle was not changed back to three inch when it was subsequently put back behind a Q6. ArthurK

One definite example of Q6s sporting Atlantic tenders at the end of their days is 63344 at Tyne Dock on the scrap road, coupling rods removed. The give-away is the six inch footplate angle on its tender. Not all C7 tenders had the angle changed when passed on the Q6s although most that were switched in pre-war days did. No doubt when the C7s were scrapped useful tenders were retained for use on Q6s. At the end of days remaining Q6s had a motley of tenders from Q7s and B16s as well as from C7s. I doubt if many records were kept of these changes in the last days. ArthurK

I was under the impression that the tender on 63395 came from a Q5 (rumour has it 771). I certainly did not come from a C7. The latter were never fitted with 3940 gallon tenders. In am sure that when I saw 63395 in Tyne Dock shed (awaiting preservation) the tender was precisely the same as I believe it to have today (that is 3940 gallon). The J72 ahead of it is the less fortunate Departmental No. 58 (69005). ArthurK

KIT WAITING LIST I have a few names of customers requesting kits. The names are in some cases incomplete and I have no means of contacting them. In particular I have two requests for the D20 but no addresses. I you feel that you've been forgotten please send me a PM ArhurK

On NER locos the sanding rods were on the left under control of the fireman. The driver had control of the draincocks. NER locos were righthand drive. ArthurK

All of the Q6s were Steam Reverse. They were never changed. The rod highlighted in Porcy's post was the draincock rod. ArthurK

I have enough on my plate already with out adding more. And yes there is one out there by LRM. That is the one that Paul has built. ArthurK

The Clerestory roof was removed and replaced by a convention roof as on their counterparts the D17/1 (NER M class). The preserved loco 1621 was D17/1. I saw both of the remaining pair of D17/2 at York around 1947/8. Both had been renumbered to 2111 & 2112. Class Q1 (LNER D18) had a similar clerestory roof but they were both withdrawn in 1930. ArthurK

Yes the construction methods for the J71 are the same. The major difference apart from the Sandbox/splasher size is the cab innards which have had to be modified to cater for the splashers protruding into the cab. In the J72 I raised the front of the cab floor a little to clear OO wheel flanges. The J72 wheel splashers were concealed inside the tanks in the prototypes but even with P4 standards this is not possible in the model, hence the raised floor. ArthurK

Yes! These locos were paired with the NER standard 3940 gallon tenders. The two that lasted into BR (only just) ended there days with the smaller 3038 gallon tenders. ArthurK

NORTHEASTERN KITS J72 LONG BUNKER - THE BUILD BEGINS I decided that I really must start a test build from the etches that I recently received for the later builds of the J72. I have also decided that my test builds will in future be on this thread rather than on "Arthur's Workshop" so here goes! The raw etches shown are here. Not a good photo as the light bounces back from the shiny metal. I clipped out the footplate layers and the tanks from the fret then folded up the tanks. No clever stuff here, all done with the fingers but with the help of a couple of files to push the angles to 90 degrees. Then checked a fit to the two footplate layers. The lower layer only has two slots to take the tags on the front of the tanks. All the remaining tags on the tank sides and bunker locate in slots in the upper layer and rebates along the sides of the lower layer. Next step is to bend the 'half tags' inwards to hold the two layers firmly in place, so much so I will not bother to use 8BA bolts to hold the two layers together as is my usual practice. The are enough access holes in the lower layer to introduce solder. These are sufficiently far from the tags on the tanks not to cause problems with them being soldered inadvertently. The next step will be to dismantle the bits. to press up the rivets in the upper layer and the reassemble for soldering. I thought a view of the underside might help. The footplate angles solder directly to the protruding tags. There are two small fold down tabs to locate these at the front (not folded down in the photo). . ArthurK

NORTHEASTERN KITS FURTHER UPDATES Today more etches arrived this time updated etches for the early J72s (with the J71 style of frame and short bunker). These twenty locos of the original batch were all numbered 17XX which is an easy way of identifying them in LNER days. Also in these post was the first test etches for the later version with the longer bunker. These two along with the J71 are now awaiting white metal and brass castings. Most of the masters for these are complete. In the J71 kit I will include dumb buffers. These were needed when shunting ancient chaldon wagons which were abundant in NE collieries up to the late 1930s. Two J71s were still so equipped in1939. ArthurK

Tony Did you get my PM? Arthur

Yes they were. ArthurK

Year end with luck. ArthurK

I asked mike to build this for me as I thought that it would be nice to have one of my kits which actually ran. Whereas I always do an initial build myself I rarely ever finish one! The choice of the 'short bunker' J72 was inspired by modellers on this thread cutting up the Bachman J72 to achieve the earlier version. Basically the major external difference between the two was that the bunker was extended by 5 3/8"over the rear buffer beam. The frames were not extended when the change was made. The frames on the original batch (first 20) were very similar to their predecessors the J71s. The frames were cut away between the driving axles. The entire J71 cylinders and motion were dropped by 3" to compensate for the reduced wheel diameter. Apart from a change in piston stroke to 24" there very little other change. This did require the cylinder block to be moved forward by one inch. The front overhang of the frames was increased by the same amount. Another consequence was that the boiler was moved forward, also by 1". The cab front plate was kept in the same position relative to the boiler which meant that the cab side sheets became 5' 7" as opposed to 5' 6" on the J71. It took me a lot of detective work to sort that lot out. The photo shows how the bunker extension was achieved. The short bunker version will be followed by the longer version which will also build into the BR built J72s. The main differences on the latter are the group standard buffers and outside sandboxes on the rear frames. These two will complete my range of NER 0-6-0s, J71, J72 (2), J73 and J77(2). I am awaiting revised etches for the short J72 and also first etches for the long version. With luck these two kits and the J71 will be available in the Autumn. ArthurK

NORTHEASTERN KITS Special Cattle Wagons No doubt you will have seen Jonathan Wealleans' build of the test etches for both the NER and LNER versions of this on this forum and also on the LNER forum. This is an update on the present state of these etches. They were originally drawn by Roger Chivers and intended as part of his range of etched vans and wagons. He decided not to proceed with these and I acquired the artwork. I made a few small changes. In particular I changed the fixed/rocking axles to a sprung system and increased the depth of the recessed panelling. It was in this form that Jonathan built the test etches. Roger used the drawings published in Tatlow's book "Historic Wagon Drawings". It has since come to light that there are a number of errors on these drawings. In particular the windows in the doors and the attendant's compartment are not of correct size. Also the cattle doors on the NER version were 5' 6" overall whereas the LNER increased this to 6' 0". There are also differences from the Darlington GAs in some of the panel sizes. Because of this I am holding back the release of these until the errors have been corrected. I am awaiting copies of the GAs from the NRM. Sorry for the delay but I think that it will be worth it. I have made a list of those of you that have expressed an interest in these. I will get back to each of you when I can supply them. Any one else interested just PM me. ArthurK

These special cattle boxes were indeed the work of Roger Chivers. He decided not to proceed with these and passed the artwork to me. The only basic changes that I made to these were to replace the fixed/rocking axles with a sprung system. Roger thought the these kits looked rather 'flat' which was the main reason that they were not released. Looking at the photo I had to agree with this and I have attempted to add more depth by adding a half etched layer above the recessed panels to push them further back. The strapping being all half etched also looks a bit feeble and have added an under layer to these. I am not sure if Jonathan intends to use these. I will leave that to his judgement. This project was funded by a client who saw the original etches at Scaleforum North a two(or was it three) years ago. I would need his approval to proceed with further sales. If there are those who would like these the please get in touch. I am sure that we can come to some arrangement. ArthurK

I have only just been made aware of the comments recently posted on my thread and feel that it is time for me to try to justify my decision to proceed with the J25. I have nothing against the Norton kits and must confess to building several of those myself including the G5 and the N8/9. They went together without too many problems but there are several areas where the method of construction could be improved and/or simplified. I did modify the chassis of both the G5 and N8 to conform with my own preferences. My kits are aimed at a niche market made up from about 50/50 P4 and EM/OO modellers. They are built to satisfy those who want an accurate and easily built model. Whereas I agree with Jol that it might seem a little odd to be duplicating an existing kit I felt that there is scope for a second one which would in the main be attractive to my existing customers. The other fact is that I already have the J24 kit now reaching the end of its lifespan and as all the loco castings from the J24 are identical with those of the J25 and the fact that the tenders were also identical, it made economic sense to add an additional kit to my range for quite a small outlay. I never expect my kits to flood the market. If any one kit reaches a sale of more than twenty in total then I am more than happy. ArthurK

My last re-incarnation of Teesdale used Fulgurex point motors exclusively. I mounted these on a ply sub base and used the motion to drive a lever. This carried a 1/8" brass tube vertically. The top end of the tube protruded though the baseboard. At the top it was drilled to take a steel operating wire to drive the turnout. The track-work is not up to today's standards but we are talking about 25 years ago. I can only say that the Fulgurex motors were very reliable though I did once have one of the switch springs disappear into the blue. The loco is one of four NER goods locos that I scratch built a long time ago. This one is a J25. ArthurK

Already am! It's just that my mind is younger and still wants to do new things! ArtnurK