The LNER Encyclopedia

going by the general lack of locomotives by particular constituent companies (and not just those of the LNER), and the positive reception of Atlantic's kits of the Thompson Pacifics, J6 and K3 I've decided to pounce like the proverbial tiger from a bush (the cat, not the tank btw). To this end I'm officially announcing the Intention to begin the research towards a 4mm scale ready-to-assemble kit of the W.Worsdell J27


this will be a kit made in a similar vein to Atlantic's kits using 100% resin castings, bodyshell, chassis and all with motor, bearing axles and wheels being sourced by the builder. In fact I've already been in discussions with Atlantic about the matter. However, unlike Atlantic I'll be utilizing the advantages of CAD/CAM and 3D printing technologies, so a preliminary digital model can be made and easily altered if any inaccuracies become apparent before I commit to casting, and another version in a different scale, such as N or O wouldn't be too hard to achieve.

I'm not working alone either, I'll be working with and have been discussing with 7 other people from different countries, namely the UK and US, who share a similar interest in railways and wish to help me on this endeavour, one of whom is a lad called Chris from Washington state, USA who will be undertaking the 3D design work. In addition to kits, we'll also be embracing wider current consumer interests and releasing models as DLC for Simulators like Train Simulator 2017/18 and Train Sim World (as after the research costs are covered DLC sales are 100% profit) through a dedicated website.

I know in the past I've said comments to the effect of "if it looks right then it is", but that was for personal projects only and I can assure you that myself and everyone else involved will do everything in our ability to ensure what we produce is as accurate as possible. So in addition to utilizing Isinglass drawings to the full potential, in the spring/summer of next year I'll taking a "business trip" to York then Shildon to collect as much reference and resource materials on the J27 and some future locomotives (sorry, not telling yet ).


I think that's enough typing for an initial post, so I'll keep you guys posted as things progress and ask that you keep an open mind over the coming months as well as provide an information you may have, such as any detail differences worth including in the planned kit.

Thank you for your time - Nova

Nova wrote: to ensure what we produce is as accurate as possible. So in addition to utilizing Isinglass drawings to the full potential

Good luck with this. However, I'm concerned that you put the words "accurate" and "Isinglass" in such close proximity... I've no idea if they do a J27 in their range of sketches as I stopped buying anything from them after the errors in the various ones I had bought became apparent once I tried to build a model from them. Another poor drawing of this class to watch out for is the one published in the Railway Modeller in the past 18 months or so. To their credit, they did publish my letter pointing out all the errors in the drawing the following month, but no one buying a back issue would know that. So steer clear of that one too. As far as I know, the best drawing is the one done by my father - J.F. Addyman - published in the NERA Express magazine some years ago.

If you need any help on detail variations within the class, let me know - I've become, malgré moi, something of an expert on them having built two Bradwells.


On a related subject, I have been wondering for a while if it would help if we had a thread that catalogued the errors in LNER drawings?

Is there a drawing that's of any use as a basis in the Hoole book on NE locos? I realize that if present it is likely to show only the original condition (or intention) for one loco, but even if it happens to show a P2 (J26) rather than a P3 (J27) I presume the dimensions are likely to be reliable. Far better to rely on Dave's advice here though, this is not my speciality, if indeed I have a speciality.

What visual differences if any exist between the J26 and J27?

to my untrained eye they look largely the same except for perhaps differing washout plugs

maybe if the differences aren't too great I can work towards producing both

If we end up with a reasonable representation of one in original condition (or that could be easily back dated to that) then I could well be interested

Again I'm open to correction but I believe that neither the boiler fittings nor the shape of the cab spectacles reliably differentiate one class from the other, these being instead related to the period that the model portrays. It's mostly a matter of mechanical differences that may not be apparent in a 4mm scale model.

Atlantic 3279 wrote:Again I'm open to correction but I believe that neither the boiler fittings nor the shape of the cab spectacles reliably differentiate one class from the other, these being instead related to the period that the model portrays. It's mostly a matter of mechanical differences that may not be apparent in a 4mm scale model.

well that makes things much simpler

I suspect that if you were trying to cover as many versions as possible you would produce something that could have the cab spectacles either round or shaped, could have boiler bands, washout plugs and dome in optional positions, could be with or without a snifting valve behind the chimney and could have either a short chimney or a tall one, the latter with or without windjabber. You might even want to make it possible to vary the visible length of the firebox by approximately 2mm!

Graeme has just about covered everything. A lot of/most J26s got the shaped spectacles, and the 57A boiler from 1939. J27s, by contrast, got the 57A from 1937. This means you're stuck with the same dilemma as Hornby with the Q6 and "A" version boilers, plus all the smokebox door palaver. Even sticking to one variety of boiler, you still have safety valve, chimney, dome, s.box door, s.box wrapper and s.box front variations - and more probably. Graeme would know best if separate boilers could be cast.

I too was wondering if there was a drawing in the Hoole book, but I don't have a copy to hand - it lives at my dad's. There's certainly nothing in North Eastern Record Vol. 3.

Just checked the Hoole book, sadly very scant coverage of both types, only a couple of photos and no drawings in the 1988 copy I have.

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

Going by the sheer number of variations in the class, i will initially produce a kit of the J27 as it is represented by the preserved member located in Shildon, with parts to represent variations becoming available later.

Please also note that in addition to using Isinglass drawings, I will be intending to obtain copies of the original drawings from NRM York, so they should cover any... inaccuracies that may be present in the Isinglass drawing

It's not so much the inaccuracies in the Isinglass sketches (though there are many); more the general sloppiness of the draughtsmanship.

The preserved J27 is not a good loco to model as it has odd detail combinations - early medium dome, later chimney and door, 57A boiler, no plates behind the coal rails, vacuum ejector, riveted wrapper, etc. It's also de-superheated which means the more usual piano front is missing. I'm not sure if it carries a lubricator on the LH footplate or not.

I wonder whether you have ever tried to create by hand, using old style drawing pens, and compasses and so on, to the scale that you are going to reproduce it in.
John did all his drawings by hand in the specific scale, ie 4mm, 3 or 7, he did not have the advantage we have now for using a computer system and being able to output in thin or other special equipment, and any scale he wanted. I can and do draw my stuff fullsize, and am able then to output on a scaled basis. Even then there are line thickness problems inherent in any reproduction that can be seen.

The Guys at Doncaster, Darlington worked a 1in to 1foot or 1.5in to 1foot and even then as those of us who have studied them properly know, there are many flaws in GA's and in particular pipe and rod drawings which are often just guess work.

if you are going to offer general criticism then you are doing neither yourself nor the hobby any good, because people will not know what is right.

Paul

john coffin wrote: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.