micklner

Same result for me.

Not a problem to me, kits should always be of a marketable standard. Unless any faults are made public , how would anyone ever know before buying,  what they are actually spending their hard earned on. It is also a good learning experience for new modellers, on how to make better models. The same applies to praise where deserved.

What I do not appreciatte however, is the recent totally unecessary and sarcastic remarks by one individual made towards a excellent modeller, who has helped me on a number of occasions. Nothing whatsoever to do with him, and he is not welcome on here ever again.

https://www.247developments.co.uk/

above is what works on my computer

G5 and Auto Coach here.

https://www.247developments.co.uk/loco_detailing.html

Brassmasters do detail kits

https://www.brassmasters.co.uk/lner_castings.htm

Looking at the instructions , it appears to be a very simple kit. One good thing is that does'nt have a fold up chassis.

http://www.pdkmodels.co.uk/PDK 62. Raven B16-1.pdf

JW

Does it go around corners ?? If so radius ?

cheers

Mick

https://www.lner.info/locos/L/l1thompson.php

Richard,

       Life would be much easier with a HL Box and Motor . Perhaps a alternative method, losing the flywheel would make the DJH one easier to shoehorn in ?

Good luck !!

Mick

On 01/12/2023 at 12:44, Daddyman said:

On the last PDK kit I bought, a D49, the two slides of the etch weren't aligned properly, so each component has a layered effect with a cusp running round the upper part of every edge on one side, and the lower part of every edge on the other side. If you file the cusps off, as I started to do, you lose critical dimensions and characteristic shapes. It's fit only for the bin. So that's yet another LNER kit-maker on the "never again" list... 

I have only built one PDK kit a LNER A1/1 Great Northern, and not a pleasant experience.

The one piece Resin Boiler was impossible to add any weight too, as it was cast virtually solid, only a slot for the motor to sit in . Resin is nasty and messy stuff, no way was I grounding a larger hole out.

As with my current build the LRM B16,  the frames were also too wide. Even after filing the axle bushes flat against the frames, sideplay was barely minimal . Even worse, was that the PDK chassis was a one piece fold up design, and impossible to make narrower, I presume it was aimed at EM gauge !!

The A1/1 did run ok , it did'nt like any bends and I never bothered trying the haulage capacity as it was far too light. The kit had also poorly made/designed valve gear as on their B16/2. It was sold on very quickly via ebay.

Luckily Graeme King's lovely conversion kits of etched and resin parts  for Hornby and Bachmann Pacifics arrived at about the same time. Miles better results, as is shown in the below photo of the conversion of a Hornby A3 to A1/1.

Looking at the B16/3 here

http://www.pdkmodels.co.uk/PDK 61. B16-2-3.html

The Smokebox is as said a major error, I have no intention of building any more B16's of any variation, the one I have nearly finished is more than enough for me.

Looking at the PDK instructions perhaps a new Smokebox could be made from thinner brass using the kits one as a pattern. The kits Valve Gear looks awful, and not helped by it not working correctly either.  I can see why Mike Edge did another etch at the time !!.

Good find well done. I see i suggested the thread as well !!

I have just ploughed through 50 pages of the normal Mike Edge thread, not many photos of anything theron !! A great shame.

cheers

48 minutes ago, Market65 said:

Good evening, everyone. Firstly, thank you, russ p. I’m not sure how long it would have survived in service after that photo’ was taken. I will look it up later on.
 

This evening we have a further four photo’s courtesy of knoxrj, on Flickr.

 

This first one is of class B17, 2832, Belvoir Castle, on the Banbury Fish (as far as Doncaster), at Ferriby, on the 12th August, 1933.

 

 

The second photo’ shows a class A5, at Willerby, on the H&BRlwy, on what appears to be a mid 1950’s excursion train.

 

 

The third photo’ is at Holtby cutting, on the York to Market Weighton line. It shows class D49/1, 62703, Hertfordshire, on a York to Hull service formed of seven Gresley corridor carriages, in what seems to be the late 1940’s.

 

 

Finally, we have a photo’ of class J28, 2418, on the 13.40 to Withernsea at Hull Paragon station, on the 8th July, 1933. 
 

Best regards,

 

Rob.

Nice Department Coach marked Joiners Van to the left of the J28. Presumably in Oxford Blue livery.

Just now, Pebbles said:

It was some years ago better ask Mike.

 

It probably has no photos either.

16 minutes ago, Pebbles said:

Dave's kit covers both 4125gal tenders both the self trimming and non-trimming: the tender is the weakest link in this kit. I attempted many years ago to caution about Steve's kit but as it was the only kid in the street people plug on. I feel extremely sorry for John, but he has started with a problem, there is little point in throwing additional resource in up grading. Yes the PDK kit is cheaper and of a much later vintage, but it has it's own issues; see Mike Edge's B16/3 build. 

Any idea where the Mike Edge B16/2 build is . I remember him doing a better etch for the valve gear , no idea for which kit.

Nothing coming up on searches other than ones saying 1000 plus hits . Mikes thread has over 80 pages as well.

As already said why should any recently released kit have to have new castings , scratch building etc . These were expected kit standards 30 years or more ago . In this case the kit I consider is sold at a premium price of £175.00 plus the usual expected adds ons such as wheels etc. I did'nt expect to scratchbuild, alter/replace  parts and all the other issues at that price.

PDK sell a B16 kit for £120.00 I have never seen or built one , can it be any worse than the LRM version for £55.00 less I doubt it ??. I actually bought the Oil Box castings on my build from Paul Hill @ PDK as LRM supplied none.

http://www.pdkmodels.co.uk/PDK 62. B16-1.html

The kit market in general needs to up its game before it dies as R.T.R  are swamping the market or already have done so. Enough said re this kit and the excuses already written relating to this issue on earlier posts. Its all a very disapointing scenario to me at least.

Back to the B16 "kit", re the incorrect Toolboxes , they  have now been replaced with correct Brass ones sent to me via a very kind offer from Richard 30368 on here. I have done a bit of work on them, and they are now attached to the Tender ready for painting as below photos.

Re the other fault on the Tender, the Coal Tender sides being overlength by 3mm . They were already soldered to the main Body when the fault was pointed out to me, in a earlier post. They are staying as they are , I doubt they would have survived removal, the paint being removed ,being cut down to the correct size and then finally soldered again back onto the body.

As already said by Mike above. Dave  Bradwell castings , he  not only some sells excellent  castings , he also sells  his version of the Q6 NER Tender  and other NER/LNER size Tenders for  £60 complete other than wheels. This will I have no doubt will  be the correct sizes of parts, shapes etc and will build without any issues. LRM want £50 for their incorrect version as a seperate kit, without wheels .

The "towbar" on the front of the Tender is straight , no idea why the Camera has decided it has been on the Beer !!

From Facebook today.

On 26/11/2023 at 08:55, micklner said:

I have no idea !! I will have a look today. GW Rollers are recomended go for the 10 inch version far more useful, the Wheel Puller however is dire!!

Had a look today at the Sentinel Tumblehome, no more than 1mm or even less and hardly noticeable under paint and varnish.

3 hours ago, Chas Levin said:

Thansk Mick; I'd already realised I'd need to go for the 10" rollers, because the Sentinel side is about 9" so the 6" rollers won't do at all!

I just read though that someone had recommended the 6" because the 10" flex a little in the middle, which it was claimed can affect the straightness of materials: have you - or @Jon4470 - ever found that?

 

The wheel puller is the only one I so far have and I have found it can work but it takes some very careful manoeuvering to keep the centre shaft central to the axle end while you start the axle extraction, until the end of the shaft is inside the wheel boss. I am on the lookout for pullers that are easier to use - any recommendations please?

Have a look on Ali Express very good prices for lotsa bits including Motors etc.

GW Rollers flexing? , never noticed any issues. Obviously the thicker/harder the metal is the more chance of it happening .

10 hours ago, Chas Levin said:

Actually Mick, the Nu-Cast castings I have definitely show the curvature to the lower section - I posted pictures showing it on page 45 of this thread. Are yours different and flat-sided?

I have no idea !! I will have a look today. GW Rollers are recomended go for the 10 inch version far more useful, the Wheel Puller however is dire!!

Hornby have a big problem, the competition.

The  sudden glut of new companies over the last few years producing the same in quality , or in some cases far better quality products,  again at the same/similar or even less prices. They need to look at the range(s) and decide what actually makes the money, and dump the rest as they are throwing good money at old goods/tat which no one wants anymore.

The NER/LNER  version used a Plate wagon.

6 hours ago, mikemeg said:

 

Mick,

 

Yes, I've seen your comment and am in the process of photographing the arrangement. Basically, from a stretcher across the mainframes and between the cylinders, I fix a 12 mm  portion of 10 BA threaded rod. Over this rod is slotted a spring with a brass washer soldered onto its end. The springs which I use are a fairly snug fit over the rod, so not much play!!

 

The spring engages with the top of the bogie via the washer and the rod passes through the slot in the bogie and a10 BA nut is fitted under the bogie. As the nut is tightened, the spring is tensioned, so providing a degree of springing and equalisation on the bogie but, most importantly, the bogie now becomes load bearing and so starts to perform its proper function of guiding the front end through curves.

 

If this set up is properly dimensioned and adjusted (by slightly stretching or cutting the spring) - and like many modelling processes, this can take some time and patience to achieve the optimum level of springing - then all the nut does is to stop the bogie falling off, when the model is lifted.

 

I would add that this is my standard way of attaching front bogies, first developed on my first scratch build, twenty years ago and fitted to numerous of my models. I would also add that both the top of the bogie, where the washer engages, and the washer need to be free of paint and polished  (they are not in this photo) - so that the washer slides more easily over the bogie top.

 

Oh and the springs? They are standard springs as contained in most of the kits for 4 mm sprung three link or screw couplings. As I never fit these springs to my couplings, then I've collected, and kept, dozens of them.

 

* One other 'dodge', which I almost always use, and which was used on this chassis, is to reduce the size of the bogie wheel cut out by adding layers - usually two or three - of nickel silver boiler band soldered into the cut out and then dressed off. This gives a much nearer scale appearance when used with P4 bogie wheels.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

Thanks Mike, very interesting. Luckily I have added the 10BA screw in the right place. Your comment re restricting side play does that apply to OO as well please ?. The LRM B16 Bogie spacer is very narrow there are about 2mm gaps on each side when assembled. As below.

I have seen a number of comments on other threads stating pivot the Bogie at the front , so far I have never seen the actual set up for that type of arrangement . Has anyone got photos ??.

thanks

Yes a great shame the Radiators were not added to the Roof for the Rails LNER version. I sent my one back for that exact reason and was refunded.

Rails were told at the time of announcement the LNER version was simply wrong as presented .

Looking at the photos available it would have been a very  simple matter of confirming the sizing , and then producing the Radiators and Exhaust system as a add on part . The buyer could then have fitted it , if they wished.

It would have been much better idea, than ignoring a very prominent feature .

11 hours ago, Chas Levin said:

 

I had a reply back from the builder of the Sentinel model pictured on Worsley's site, Mick: he confirmed that he didn't put a tumblehome or turnunder into the sides of that model at all, so the apparently flat sides in the photo really are flat. He said he didn't think it detracted noticeably from the appearance of the model and in all fairness, I think he's right to a large extent.

For those - like us, on here, discussing them - who look at details at this level, a missing body curve may seem like a significant omission but in the general scheme of things, it's a still beautiful looking model!

I will happily admit I have never even noticed any Tumblehome prior to you mentioning it. None on my Nucast version!!  and after painting will it be visible from any normal distance ?

Good luck with the build , a lot of interesting detail have been found , well done.