36C studios development thread: an A7 tank and other updates regarding J27, 20, etc.

[Nova]

Hello,
In response to your question about future engines, I'd be looking at some of the other engines of the W.Worsdell. However I would avoid doing the G5 despite the fact that it hasn't been done, it probably will be done in the next 2 years. Otherwise please just do what you think will float and go for it.
Loch

The extended Worsdell fleet was a guarantee from the start, not least the 4-4-0s, not to mention that I'm extremely tempted by the large tank engines such as the pacifics and the 4-8-0 due to their largely similar designs (chassis differences notwithstanding) and their rather attractive appearance as far as steam locomotives go.

plus my main layout is going to be based in the ex-NER area, so that has somewhat influenced my choice of future models

[Pebbles]

Rather basing my thoughts on the fact that Hornby produce the J15 and B12/3 both based on the NNR; I cannot believe that Hornby didn't also scan the J27 whilst at the NYR.

[Nova]

One thing I intend to do, regardless of the model being produced, is a benchmark test, namely comparing reliability against an RTR equivalent.

seeing as the chassis will essentially be a solid piece similar to that of an RTR model, it will be expected to hold up to the same wear and tear as a mass produced model, have the same reliability, take the same curves, etc. obviously as it's a kit I won't be engineering it to be as tough as a railroad model, but you get the idea.

in order to set a benchmark for reliability I intend to at some point purchase a locomotive by one of the major manufacturers and test it from new till it fails, which basically involves setting it on a rolling road and leave it running at a steady speed, probably half-speed on the dial, and leaving it for a few weeks or even months, once that fails I'll calculate the total hours then set a chassis from an upcoming kit and leave it running till it also fails. if it reaches anywhere near the number of hours it'll count as a pass.

I'll also be experimenting to see if cold cast brass is any better or worse than standard resin.

consequently this will mean that it will take a while longer for any new model to finish development, as any alterations have to be made and subsequently tested, which could take months. however, I want to ensure that, in terms of the running characteristics, it's a good as possible with the manufacturing techniques available.

Rather basing my thoughts on the fact that Hornby produce the J15 and B12/3 both based on the NNR; I cannot believe that Hornby didn't also scan the J27 whilst at the NYR.

that's something I've been meaning to ask. I originally thought it was located at shildon, and my aim was to visit there to study it for any details that arent on any scale drawings. but then I read that it was at NELPG's shed located in the same building as the P2SLC undergoing boiler work.

any concrete confirmations of it's location and completeness would be greatly apreciated

[Nova]

First post for 2017, Happy New Year!

After much thought and consideration, I've decided that the Kit of the J27 will start with the following variation:
http://www.djhmodelloco.co.uk/product-p ... ig/346.jpg
you will have to excuse the use of DJH's model, but it serves the purposes of illustrating the variant I'm talking about.

as far as myself and the person doing the majority of the design work are concerned, it has the most well rounded look, at least in relation to how all the details line up, plus the fact that the above model is in BR means that it's most likely operated in LNER and BR days at least.

of course other variations will follow suite, starting with "as preserved", as non-standard as it is, and then followed by the original P2/J26 to cater to pre-grouping modellers, other detail variations will follow after.


again details as to the whereabouts of 65894 would be appreciated.

[teaky]

Some info. here: http://www.nelpg.org.uk/index.php?optio ... 8&Itemid=5

[drmditch]

I understand from following the 'News' Section on the NELPG webpage that the frames are at Hopetown (Darlington) and the boiler is at Crewe. The Tender tank is being rebuilt at Stockton!

Link ..... here... and scroll ('next') forwards.

Perhaps an NELPG member can say more.

[Atlantic 3279]

First post for 2017, Happy New Year!

After much thought and consideration, I've decided that the Kit of the J27 will start with the following variation:

Is that DJH J27 one that was put together by your very own hand? If so then it's exceedingly well done. If it is in fact DJH's very own factory built example then I hope they are not going to get ridiculously awkward about image copyright....

[65447]

I am always concerned when people are so dismissive of Isinglass drawings. I have checked many of the Late John Edgson's GNR drawings and found very few fundamental errors, they certainly relate well to the works drawings I have from Doncaster. More importantly without John having done the work, we would have very LNER Drawings available at all.

Unless you can offer real specifics, it is not good to dismiss out of hand the work. One major problem for almost anyone seeking to create NER models
is the lack of many of the end views. Unlike Doncaster, Darlington tended to put those drawings on separate sheets which do not often still exist.

Paul

I have provided specifics on here over the years - try the K4, J38 tender, one of the Thompson pacifics with one cabside a different height from the other - A2/3 was it? I'd far far rather have had no drawing at all than waste the money I have converting models to Isinglass sketches. "Very few fundamental errors" does not persuade me of their merits. And as I said in the last post, even without the errors, the general shoddiness of the lines makes trying to get a measurement nigh on impossible .

All the drawings which have appeared in the NERA Express and in Ken Hoole's books over the years (Colin Foster's, John Fleming's, my father's) were all done by hand too. Look how fine and straight their lines are.

What's not doing the hobby any good is drawings that aren't fit for purpose - and people defending them.

I have to agree with Paul ('john coffin') here and also refer to Dave's most pertinent post earlier in this thread.

John produced his drawings using only a ruling pen and bow pen compasses in Indian ink on starched linen - his lettering was done with the same pen with which he drew the lines. I used to wander along the corridor and watch him at work during lunch break; if he wasn't drawing then he was soldering up one of his well-detailed locomotives - tubes in the boiler, opening smokebox door, etc. at his drawing bench. He started the series of drawings in the early 1960s when the Pelikan nibs were new and not ideal - for one thing the ink dried very quickly in the wide nib and did not flow very well - indeed the finer nibs could cut through the linen if one was not careful and the width of the nib made it very difficult to start and finish at the exact point, before the advances offered by the later Rotring pens with tubular nibs, and continued to produce them by the same method. Linen needed full preparation of the surface, did not take kindly to grease, perspiration or any other wetting, and was unforgiving when any errors made required correcting. As Dave previously noted, the methods of print reproduction were all prone to affecting the dimensional accuracy of the copies and John produced his for direct dyeline printing - I still have a number of those early prints tucked away from exposure to the light.

Anyone who understands these things knows not to scale directly off the drawing but to refer to stated dimensions. If the draughtsman has provided a reference scale then that can be used to determine any un-dimensioned measurements by applying a corrective ratio. Other sources can supply additional reference data.

John produced a great number of drawings of LNER and constituent locomotives, tenders and coaching stock at the scale size for which they were intended; not a much larger scale original to be reduced for publication as most magazines and book publishers used and with the opportunity when creating the blocks to correct line thickness and so on. In fact one problem of too fine a line when reduced and reproduced is that the lines and details can fade almost to nothing and all too frequently did.

I do not have a count to hand but let's say John produced 200 drawings - you get picky about just 4 of them. The LNER world would be so very much poorer were it not for his extensive range of drawings but also for the amount of research that went into the inclusion of variations and the notes that accompanied them, at a time when access to such information was exceedingly difficult for the average modeller.

I have retained the drawings from the principal modelling magazines since c1960. In many instances there followed a couple of months later two types of correspondence; the first added information or detail to the published drawing and accompanying information whilst the other found some minor (although sometimes major) error or omission to rant about (one could compile a shortlist of individuals who always wrote something to demonstrate their erudition). Then about two months later there would be follow up correspondence that then either supported or countered that previously submitted. In such ways were the drawings put to public test. However for most modellers the existence of a drawing was manna from heaven; it's only today - 50 years later - in the interconnected information-rich understanding-poor world that we feel the need to pick on the minutae, forgetting to be thankful for those who undertook the difficult research that got us to this point.

You do not have the courtesy to state the name of your father so independent judgement can be made, but to state that John's drawings are 'not fit for purpose' is a base libel that cannot be justified, let alone proven, and I for one will robustly defend them. What's really not doing the hobby (big clue in that term) any good is people like yourself denigrating a wonderful man who gave LNER modellers so much but sadly is no longer here to answer you.

[mick b]

First post for 2017, Happy New Year!



Is that DJH J27 one that was put together by your very own hand? If so then it's exceedingly well done. If it is in fact DJH's very own factory built example then I hope they are not going to get ridiculously awkward about image copyright....

You are welcome to use any of these of a 4mm Bradwell version instead .

[Nova]

I understand from following the 'News' Section on the NELPG webpage that the frames are at Hopetown (Darlington) and the boiler is at Crewe. The Tender tank is being rebuilt at Stockton!

Link ..... here... and scroll ('next') forwards.

Perhaps an NELPG member can say more.

well there goes my plan of going to one location to examine the whole thing

I suppose I can still take advantage of the planned trip and examine any NER locomotives at York and Shildon, the D type is still at Shildon, I think, and I was planning to do that one in due course, as is the Bo-Bo Electric, though that is for way down the line I think.

at the very least the tender on the 4-4-0 should be the same type used on the J26/27. and the backhesd should have the same fittings unless I'm mistaken.

You are welcome to use any of these of a 4mm Bradwell version instead .

IMG_9284.JPG

IMG_9287.JPG

IMG_9285.JPG

IMG_9290.JPG

very much appreciated. Thank You!

Is that DJH J27 one that was put together by your very own hand? If so then it's exceedingly well done. If it is in fact DJH's very own factory built example then I hope they are not going to get ridiculously awkward about image copyright....

I very much wish it was one of my own, alas it was merely an example I found on the internet to demonstrate the variant I was referring to.

I've taken the hint and shall remove the DJH image once I've finished replying to everyone.

John produced his drawings using only a ruling pen and bow pen compasses in Indian ink on starched linen - his lettering was done with the same pen with which he drew the lines. I used to wander along the corridor and watch him at work during lunch break; if he wasn't drawing then he was soldering up one of his well-detailed locomotives - tubes in the boiler, opening smokebox door, etc. at his drawing bench.

That makes me rather curious as to where the both of you worked.

he seems/ed very much like a man of great talent

[Dave S]

You do not have the courtesy to state the name of your father so independent judgement can be made, but to state that John's drawings are 'not fit for purpose' is a base libel that cannot be justified, let alone proven, and I for one will robustly defend them. What's really not doing the hobby (big clue in that term) any good is people like yourself denigrating a wonderful man who gave LNER modellers so much but sadly is no longer here to answer you.

I understand from an earlier post his fathers name is J.F.Addyman.

I found John to be a decent Gentleman and don't think that the critiscm of him or his work here is in any way helpful.

[drmditch]

Re: Shildon and the M/D17.
I'm not sure that either the tender or the Cab details will be the same as a J26/27.

I think that perhaps NELPG are hoping to have the 'real thing' - whatever one means by that - re-assembled this year. With the Q6 now 'out of ticket' they will doubtless be keen to get another locomotive earning a living.

[Pebbles]

John Edgson was also a decent gentleman!

[billbedford]

Anyone who understands these things knows not to scale directly off the drawing but to refer to stated dimensions. If the draughtsman has provided a reference scale then that can be used to determine any un-dimensioned measurements by applying a corrective ratio. Other sources can supply additional reference data.

Scaling off drawing may cause problems in normal DO practice when the object being made is larger than the drawing in which case any drawing errors are magnified, but for model work scaling down from a larger scale drawing will diminish errors, hopefully to the point where they are below the tolerances of whatever manufacturing method is being used.

[2512silverfox]

Having colluded with John Edgson in both directions over many years in the production of both of our own carriage drawings, I can freely attest to the extent to which John went to make sure that what he produced was as accurate as possible. We all make mistakes, myself included, but without someone having a go, we would all be the poorer.

I agree with what Bill has said, but would add to it that any modeller who does not compare his model drawings with photos of the prototype and known dimensions has only himself to blame if things are wrong.

I do hope that John is not the subject of any further criticism RIP

Nick Campling