North Sunderland stock

[Daddyman]

Moral is look at the drawing first

Yes... It was in front of me all the time - part of Wright's drawing:

20230508_112204.jpg

I must be the last to spot that the brake hangers are upside-down with the pull rods at the top.

I was quite late in realising that too. I need to try to work out how to make them removable. I'm thinking of attaching them at the top as normal and having the lower cross rods as stays only, resting against the frames. But it seems slightly unsatisfactory. I know you'd favour tabbing the whole brake rigging to frame spacers, Dave, but it would still need stays or stops to stop it bending inwards.

Drg shows a water pump behind beam driven from crosshead - did Bamburgh have one? There's a valve on the RHS tank side on #61 which is possibly pump bypass valve.

Not sure... As far as I know, that drawing shows the loco as built... Might let myself off the pump...

[Daddyman]

I'm going round in circles trying to work out how to do the spring supports. The problem I'm having is to replicate the ends to the cross pieces between the vertical supports:

NS208802 edited.jpg

Now, the supports look like 0.6 or 0.7mm wide, and the cross piece perhaps the same in diameter. So drilling the uprights to take the cross piece is a non-starter - unless I pushed the supports out to 0.7 and the cross piece down to 0.5. But it would be an unpleasant job.

Another thing I've been trying is this:

20230508_122447.jpg

The two supports are made as one, in order to make things less likely to fall apart during soldering. And the cross piece is cut too long and soldered across the tops of the supports, allowing the ends to be trimmed down to represent the protruding end of the cross piece. Problem is the butt joint, especially given that the cross pieces are going to be filed, and the two supports cut free of each other, and then soldered to the frames - all of which could disturb the joint, even with step-soldering.

Another option is I solder the cross piece between rather than on top of the two supports (created as one again), which would give me a stronger joint, but no visible end to the cross piece - but this could perhaps be added as some sort of cosmetic thing, though I don't much fancy a blob of glue...

Any thoughts gratefully received!

[davebradwell]

Your cross piece is really part of rthe spring - perhaps the way the end is formed - so easiest to keep it that way and just solder the hangers on the sides. Do you know of a source of nice little cast springs - does Justin have anything similar? He could print you some buit you might have to wait.

Wondering if your brakes might come off upwards with discreet fixings under platform but valence is very narrow to hide such. Hangers would be notched to fit lower pivots.

DaveB

[Daddyman]

Your cross piece is really part of rthe spring - perhaps the way the end is formed - so easiest to keep it that way and just solder the hangers on the sides. Do you know of a source of nice little cast springs - does Justin have anything similar? He could print you some buit you might have to wait.

Wondering if your brakes might come off upwards with discreet fixings under platform but valence is very narrow to hide such. Hangers would be notched to fit lower pivots.

DaveB

Hmm. Printing might be a good way forwards - I can't see any way of soldering the supports to the springs and then the frames without unsoldering one or the other. I have springs from RT models - was hoping to save the springs proper and make new supports. Another thing that's puzzling me is that the springs are thicker than the frames on both the real thing and the model, so do the supports kink to narrow down from the spring width to frame width, or are they spaced off the frames at front and/or rear?

Anyway, I abandoned the springs temporarily as I wasn't getting anywhere. Here's progress:

20230508_164235.jpg

It might look to the untrained eye I've been sitting on my backside all day, but some jobs have been done. I now have two sandboxes rather than one, though these can't be fixed yet as there are some frame extensions to go ahead of the smokebox - and a nasty piece of work they'll be... There are also some valances, and I've finalised the screw fixing between chassis and smokebox, with "fences" on the underside of the footplate to keep the chassis central. And I've made a start on the angle iron attaching tank to smokebox - this has to be in three parts, a semi-circle attached to the tank front, and then the two parts on the smokebox top, which I can only imagine must split either side of the chimney on the real thing. Finally, I've made a new front spacer/cylinder front as the one from the chassis kit was not wide enough on the vertical part, so the frames could bow inwards; it was also too far back for an L Class. There's now also a joining strip on the cab roof - another feature missed off the MRJ drawing, but seen on the GA and in photos of other Ls.

Think I might relax with the saloon tonight...

[grovenor-2685]

Another thing that's puzzling me is that the springs are thicker than the frames on both the real thing and the model, so do the supports kink to narrow down from the spring width to frame width, or are they spaced off the frames at front and/or rear?

The drawing you have is somewhat incomplete but the fastenings of the spring hangers to the equalising beam is clearly shown and shows the hangers spaced off the beam so I would assume they are vertical. The short hangers on the other end of the springs are not clear as the plan/section is missing that info but the side view seems to suggest that they have a joint above the frame so the section below the joint may be solidly attached to the frame and widening takes place at that joint.

[grovenor-2685]

Your cross piece is really part of rthe spring - perhaps the way the end is formed

Not how I would envision it. I would expect the top leaf to be formed (curled) into eyes at the ends then a bolt passed through the two hangers and the eye, the visible end of the cross piece would be the forged head of the bolt. Or it could be a spindle forged both ends which would look the same.

[davebradwell]

That's what I was trying to say, Keith, but didn't do very well.

DaveB

[Daddyman]

An injector. 11 pieces here. Hope there isn't another one on the other side...

20230508_193903.jpg

[essdee]

David,

These really are beautiful creations - wonderful solder-free work. While preparing to order some Mike Clark Point Operating Cranks, from his catalogue, I wanted to search out an image; a search for 'Mike Clark cranks' produced three matches, one being your April 30th posting on this thread.

I thereby enjoyed a distracting wander/ponder, and am rather intrigued by your above reference to Mike in the context of a torque restraint for a motor? I cannot see such an item in Mike's catalogue No.19? I note that the latter proceeds from Section 3 to Section 6. There are no sections 4,5; shades of an old Monty Python sketch, I recall. Were these sections related to loco detailng/construction parts, I wonder?

Anyway, an enjoyable deviation from the task in hand; though loco building looms on the horizon again..

Kind regards,

Steve Duckworth

[Daddyman]

Been trying to get back to some of my North Sunderland Stock today. I started a second saloon to go with Bamburgh back in November; having built a clerestory bogie carriage made up of about 400 parts in a week, I thought a four-wheel saloon with only 200 or so parts would be a doddle. But I ended up a gibbering wreck and haven't been able to look a soldering iron in the eye since.

Regarding the saloon, I need two models of the same vehicle: one to run with the Y7 in 1951 condition, and one to run with Bamburgh in 1934 condition; the late-life version of the vehicle appears on page 1 of this thread. The model below represents it as running in the mid-1930s, when Bamburgh had been overhauled and the livery simplified - the condition I'm modelling it in. This is the same Connoisseur kit with BB spring units, scratchbuilt roof, modifications to the bodywork to represent the alterations done by the NSR in 1934 when the BoT demanded a separate guard's compartment. Whereas late in life the carriage had no lighting at all (well, a loco oil lamp hung on the partition between guard's and passenger accommodation), in the 1930s it still had gas lighting - hence the lamp tops, gas feed and end gas taps; it was also dual braked, though the NSR wouldn't have a VB loco until the late 1940s when the Y7 was converted.

Jeremy's photo from earlier in the thread of the real thing in 1934:

2.jpg

Comparison of the original late-life model and the new 1934-condition vehicle, at the point when I got gibber-y and wreck-y and put it to one side.

3.jpg

View of the nasty end with scratchbuilt gas taps (0.6 tube with a loop of 0.193 wire stuffed in each end; 0.6 tube filed flat on the outward-facing face, and the whole threaded through handrail knobs) plus the scratch VB and W/house hoses:

Screenshot (2655).jpg

So if I can find where I hurled the soldering iron in November I may get back to this tomorrow. But this evening I've been having a look at what needs doing to the Y7 to get it finished. I'd got to this point last May:

20230330_150435.jpg

However, there were always a couple of issues with the chassis. One was that I'd "smoothed" the outer, sliding edge of the High Level axle blocks with a bit too much gusto, resulting in slop. So this evening I've binned the original blocks and put new ones in, which are sliding without slop.

For the other problem, I need the help of the forum. The loco has CSBs, and because of the large cutout in the frames, the only way I could position the centre CSB fulcrum/anchor thingy was by having it about 15mm from the rearmost anchor, which made it 25mm from the front anchor. Obviously, this made the rear axle springing much stiffer than the front one. I was hoping I could overcome that with weight. It may be that one of you sanctions that, and that would be option 1. Option 2 would be: with a bit of jiggery-pokery I could probably move the centre anchor forwards and get the distances to about 18mm and 22mm respectively. Alternatively - option 3 - I could put a fourth anchor in ahead of the cutout in the frames, making the front spring as short as the other. Any thoughts on what would work best - if at all? Here's a photo which may help - anchors ringed in red:

Screenshot (2920) 2.jpg

[Winander]

The fulcrum doesn't have to be a handrail knob, just something with a 0.5mm hole in a handrail knob's worth away from the frames. With that in mind can you disguise it and put it where it's supposed to go which I suspect is in that huge hole. You will also have a wire crossing said hole.

Other contributors may ask for a wheelbase.

[Daddyman]

The fulcrum doesn't have to be a handrail knob, just something with a 0.5mm hole in a handrail knob's worth away from the frames. With that in mind can you disguise it and put it where it's supposed to go which I suspect is in that huge hole. You will also have a wire crossing said hole.

Other contributors may ask for a wheelbase.

Thanks Richard. I suppose I could put a strip across between the frames, and fix a handrail knob/anchor to that strip, so that it (the anchor) hangs from above at the point where it should be in the centre of the wheelbase.

[bécasse]

Perhaps I don't understand CSBs quite as well as someone who once trained as a physicist should, but I wouldn't have thought that on a 0-4-0 it would matter that the springs for one axle were effectively much stiffer than the springs for the other. Indeed, I have debated with myself, without coming to any definite conclusion, whether or not it might actually be an advantage.

Hopefully I have't stirred up too much of a hornets' nest but I would be interested to hear the opinion of the CSB experts, I would emphasise that this opinion only applies to an 0-4-0.

[Winander]

The fulcrum doesn't have to be a handrail knob

and fix a handrail knob/anchor

I see a vertical rod that could maybe moved to a central position between the axles. Solder a tab to that facing inwards and drill a hole in it - just ensure it is at the same level as the other fulcrums and the hole is the same distance from the frame as the handrail knobs. Who will notice that the 'pipe' is not in the correct place.

If you depart from the csb plot as you suggested you are just giving yourself problems.

[Will L]

I need the help of the forum. The loco has CSBs, and because of the large cutout in the frames, the only way I could position the centre CSB fulcrum/anchor thingy was by having it about 15mm from the rearmost anchor, which made it 25mm from the front anchor. Obviously, this made the rear axle springing much stiffer than the front one. I was hoping I could overcome that with weight. It may be that one of you sanctions that, and that would be option 1. Option 2 would be: with a bit of jiggery-pokery I could probably move the centre anchor forwards and get the distances to about 18mm and 22mm respectively. Alternatively - option 3 - I could put a fourth anchor in ahead of the cutout in the frames, making the front spring as short as the other. Any thoughts on what would work best - if at all? Here's a photo which may help - anchors ringed in red:

Fulcrum placement on 4 wheel CSB chassis is supposed to be easy. The fulcrums really ought to be symmetrical about the axles. The middle one should be central between the axles and the outer two the same distance away from their adjacent axle. The size of the overhangs at the ends isn't critical and the only reason you might need the spreed sheet would be to work out what thickness of wire you need for a given loco weight. The Loco CofG should be directly over the middle fulcrum or the loco wont sit level.

So what to do.

I have had the hole in the frames where I wanted to put a fulcrum point problem before. You can read more about my solution to the problem here viewtopic.php?f=96&t=2932&start=25#p47926

It is possible that you could weight the loco so the CofG is far enough toward the end with the short CSB segment to balance it out. You can use the spreed sheet to work out if there is an answer as to where the CofG should be for a given set of fulcrum placements. Good luck with that.

Putting in a 4th fulcrum point so the spring spans over each axle are the same would probably work quite well.

Alternatively, as I'm not convinced that retrofitting CSB fulcrums to an existing chassis is a practical approach, you could turn it in to a nicely compensated chassis. Fixing the hornblocks on the driven axle so it is rigid and providing a central pivot point over the other axle. This could be the easiest answer, and exactly what I did to my Highlevel Coffee pot when, having fitted it with CSBs I discovered that the body fitted so tightly round the motor any attempt to spring the axle with the motor on was futile.

One other thing, please can I request that people do their fulcrum position planning properly and don't guess. That way lies chassis that wont function properly and stories about how CSB chassis doesn't work as a result.

[davebradwell]

Getting worried about you, Will - compensation? Work of the devil (look at all the spillover from a failed S4N article) and turns the clock back on 50 years of improvements. As for "nicely compensated".....rigid axle too!

DaveB

[Daddyman]

Me too! Compensation? No way in hell!

I see a vertical rod that could maybe moved to a central position between the axles. Solder a tab to that facing inwards and drill a hole in it - just ensure it is at the same level as the other fulcrums and the hole is the same distance from the frame as the handrail knobs. Who will notice that the 'pipe' is not in the correct place.

Yes, I think that might be the winner. It looks like it's similar to Will's solution in the photos.

[sebring115]

Ref the mw there is a very similar loco on display outside the black country museum. It’s winston Churchill. Maybe it’s of use https://preservedbritishsteamlocomotive ... l-0-6-0st/

Mark

[Daddyman]

Ref the mw there is a very similar loco on display outside the black country museum. It’s winston Churchill. Maybe it’s of use https://preservedbritishsteamlocomotive ... l-0-6-0st/

Mark

Thanks Mark - a good tip. I have lots of screen grabs of it and they have been useful for injectors and such like.

[sebring115]

You may be able to get some castings off this kit as I was lead to believe this was a very similar loco https://cspmodels.com/abante/index.php? ... uct_id=125

[Will L]

Getting worried about you, Will - compensation? Work of the devil (look at all the spillover from a failed S4N article) and turns the clock back on 50 years of improvements.

Don't worry Dave, I was just suggesting pragmatic possible routs out of the hole DaveA had found himself in. I did take the opportunity to push the CSB party line while I was at it.

Offline I was also been trying to help the chap with the article to believe in what he'd worked out for himself and not necessarily be overly influenced by the loud voiced proponents of 4 point compensation. While we see what seem to be a rather strange, and flawed idea, when you look at what is driving those who believe in it, it does help if you take into account the practicalities of modelling in different scales and gauges. You know the "I understand that it appears to work in your circumstance but there could be a better way, and it may not fly in P4" approach. The whole thing does seems to come from a desire not to get mixed up with functional hornblocks.

As for "nicely compensated".....rigid axle too!

While I wouldn't do it myself by choice, a simple compensated 0-4-0s model rides about as well as the prototype. and I cant think of any way of doing it without a fixed axle.

[Daddyman]

You may be able to get some castings off this kit as I was lead to believe this was a very similar loco https://cspmodels.com/abante/index.php? ... uct_id=125

Thanks. I did look into that range but couldn't find anything. But I'm sorted for castings/turnings now thanks to Justin and Jeremy.

[BorderCounties]

No one has suggested 4 individual sprung axleboxes - appears to be enough space either side of the horn guides.

[davebradwell]

I've just noticed you appear to be short of a cylinder rear David - can't have the smokebox hanging in mid-air. The other essential is the motion plate but I suspect you have enough of this to suggest the rest.

DaveB

[Daddyman]

A bit of work today and I'm back where I was 24 hours ago, albeit with a slop-free chassis and gearbox (new bearings), and the middle anchor moved to a more central position - I added a full new cross member drilled at the appropriate points:

20240127_171237.jpg

Ironically, the loco now sits a bit low at the back! But that can be sorted with weight. No sign of the work that's gone on:

20240127_164718.jpg

The other work has been cosmetic. In its last days the paint on 68089 was wearing thin on the near side, and the old wartime "NE" and "986" were starting to show through in places. To represent this, I've added some bits of LNER transfers - part of an "E" and part of a "6" - then painted a white wash over them to fade them; next, they'll get some black on top of them, which will be rubbed through somehow or other. It looks b. awful at the moment and I've no idea if the plan will work:

20240127_173105.jpg

I now need to reattach some parts that have become dislodged (note the missing cab handrail above), re-plot the hanger wires for the brakes, restrain the motor and then see about wiring it up and putting it on some, cough, track.