Atlantic's works: Portable layout - Scenic details next

[Flying Fox 34F]

Graeme,

A lovely looking beast.
Two questions;
One, was the P1 at the Gilling Railway?
Two, as you have a 6 wheel drive Atlantic,
how about a 10 wheel drive Mikado?

Paul 4475

[Atlantic 3279]

Gilling East - yes.

Decapod Mikado - not for the foreseeable future - I'm sure the rear axle would still have to "steer" which makes any geared driving arrangements a little more complex.

Now an apologetic message which I hope will reach several people who have asked me about small resin parts in the last couple of weeks. I will get round to replying properly and to supplying the requested items but emphasis on getting locos and wagons ready for Grantham exhibition is delaying progress in other respects at present. Patience, if possible, will be rewarded.

[LNER4479]

Hangs head in shame...

[will5210]

Now an apologetic message which I hope will reach several people who have asked me about small resin parts in the last couple of weeks. I will get round to replying properly and to supplying the requested items but emphasis on getting locos and wagons ready for Grantham exhibition is delaying progress in other respects at present. Patience, if possible, will be rewarded.

No rush with my tiny order as I have now found a spare smokebox door in my bits box, but I'm still happy to go ahead whenever you're ready.

Will

[Atlantic 3279]

Sylmasta have just e-mailed me this link, which I find quite interesting, including the bit that reminded me of helping my mother to make jam tarts.
http://www.sylmasta.com/acatalog/How-To ... -428390169
I don't employ every detail of the method shown in the video, but it all looks like sound technique. The idea of swirling the mould and then back-injecting resin through the outlet hole could help in some situations, but careful thought about mould shape might be wise before trying that. A constant flow through of resin to carry air bubbles away might be more successful in some cases. Some resins don't leave you with enough time to pause and reverse when using an injection method anyway.

[Atlantic 3279]

A different twist on use of J6 castings

With a spare, slightly sub-standard J6 running plate and cab lying around, plus a generous donation of a partially stripped down Bachmann K3 chassis off the Little Bytham scrap line, my little grey cells had been teased sufficiently to make some sort of investigation of possibilities inevitable - especially as various people had been asking about use of RTR units under the J6 body. As the K3 mechanism has a suitable coupled wheelbase, albeit with wheel sizes an odd sort of intermediate between standard Doncaster figures, it might just be possible to ignore the oversize wheels and use the K3 unit as it comes for a J6 model, or fit a new set of wheels of the right size, sorting out the axle slop in the process. I was more interested to see if the Bachmann wheels would look convincing as part of a J2, making for interesting variety alongside the three J6s I already have. The axle slop should be amenable to treatment by the insertion of some simple shims as per my K4 conversion.

Study of photos and published dimensions (no J2 drawing to hand, and probably no need of one) told me that, compared to the Gresley version of the J6, apart from the J2 boiler being pitched 1mm higher, there seemed to be up to 2mm more overhang at the cab end of the loco (with longer cab sidesheets and a shallower cut out) and a similar reduction of overhang at the front, such that the tail rod covers for the pistons stick out a few scale inches from the buffer beam. With this in mind, offering the K3 chassis up to the J6 running plate indicated that some of the front of the chassis block would have to come off. It required shortening, plus narrowing and lowering of the slab that had supported the K3 cylinder stretcher.

It would be easier to cut this material off in more pieces, using straight cuts. I did it this way so that the pictures would show clearly what had been cut off. I broke several piercing saw blades turning the corners...

There was no need to trim the rear of the chassis, but in order to get the right effect the dragbeam needing moving rearwards relative to the rest of the running plate casting. A horizontal cut through the tops of bracing blocks that also support the rear steps allowed me to move the whole beam structure rearward and super-glue the lot back in place. A little bit of filing under the front edge of the cab floor area, and almost complete removal of the piece of running plate that would ordinarily sit under the smokebox was also necessary.

This allowed the running plate to sit at the proper height on the chassis, although if and when I get around to doing the job properly with a "good" running plate casting, the front overhang will need to be reduced. As the tail rod cover plate between the frames will also need to be raised to suit the J2, it should be esy enough to saw out a section of running plate mid way between the buffer beam and the smokebox front, and then use and extra slab of plastic between the fronts of the frames to bridge, brace and align the rejoined parts. The splashers will also need to be deepened by a couple of millimetres - the running plate is currently resting on the wheel tops!

Although the K3 chassis won't allow full prototypical space under the J2 boiler, which might not bother some modellers, I wanted to try to get as much daylight as possible and as I don't require any electronic garbage in the final loco I attacked the chassis again with piercing saw (and left hand aching from holding the the chassis firmly) cutting away another chunk.

The next challenges were to make the boiler fit and to reshape the cab spectacles. As well as cutting a slot in the base of the boiler to accommodate the gear housing, I had to widen that slot just in front of the firebox in order to take the front end of the motor. The lower sides of the firebox, which would sit on the running plate in the J6 had to go too as the cast ledges in the chassis under the motor cradle stick out too far to fit within the base of the firebox. For the spectacles I filed out all but the outer top quadrants of the existing round holes to produce square corners, then glued some pieces of 0.040" plasticard in place to get something like the correct final shape.

I'm not sure the final shape of the spectacles is quite right yet, and the cab so far won't go up fully against the rear of the boiler moulding because the rear of the motor cradle is about half a millimetre too far back. Once I create more space in the splashers I hope to be able to move the running plate rearwards a fraction more, allowing the cab to fit without any chopping. I'll also extend the sidesheets as required.

Some with excellent memories may recall that I had a problem when making the running plate mould for the J6, but I had put up with it initially owing to the urgent need to get the first three locos produced. There were also snags with the GN tender mould, leading to a high proportion of defective castings. I've been spending some time recently modifying and remaking parts of these moulds. results are beginning to look good, so more J6s, and K2s, should become a possibility in the not too distant future - providing I can find time to cast them!

It's funny (annoying?) what you learn by reading RCTS books that you didn't own when building past models, isn't it? As far as I remember nobody has challenged the number on my D2, although 4479 keeps calling it a D3. Well, although it carries No 4383 and I believe has 9 foot coupled wheelbase, putting it firmly in class D2, it turns out that it is wrong! Only Nos 4305 ( a D3 rebuild) and the first five true D2s (4321-5) ever had the straight running plate as per my loco, so it looks like it will have, for simplicity, to become No 4323 instead. At least it doesn't have a snifting valve, as none of the straight-plate D2s ever had superheat!

[will5210]

Wonderful work as usual!

[Atso]

That J2 really does look the business! I agree that it would be nice to be able to fully hide the gearbox but I think that your solution is more than acceptable for a layout loco. It is interesting to see just how closely related the J2 and J6 are, I know that the boilers, etc are the same but it really does show just how standardised Doncaster was at the time!

On the other hand D2s and D3s are a bit of a minefield! I've now got three different versions of the 'standard' D2 designed which mainly differ in regard to the chimneys, domes and smokebox. Admittedly one of mine is to be modelled in pre 1928 condition (not superheated) just so I've got an excuse to run one in lined green! I'm sure the economy measures imposed in 1928 would have taken several years to implement so hopefully a green D2 will not look too out of place on my 1930s (to be built) layout!

[manna]

G'day Gents

That's looking good, the J2 is a very rarely modelled loco.

The N2 had the same boiler as the J2, J6.

Just ordered new pick ups for my J1, may be able to get that running real soon.

manna

[Woodcock29]

Graeme

I'm really impressed with the work on the J2 - as I indicated to you in our personal emails a few weeks ago, I'll probably build one of your J6 bodies as a J2 and also one as a J1 which are the two that are directly related to each other - both having the same boiler, wheel base and driving wheel diameter. At this stage I do plan to use conventional brass chassis though.

Keep up the good work - your marvellous contributions are certainly appreciated by many of us.

Andrew

[earlswood nob]

Good morning all

The J1 & J2 are interesting locos as they were designed as mixed traffic locos.

I have recently bought a NuCast J6 to convert into a J2. This should be an easy conversion.

The J1 is a little more difficult as the sandboxes on the front drivers are not integral with the valve chest covers. Working in 00 gauge, this means that the sandboxes are thinner than the splashers.
The J1 boiler is also pitched slightly lower than the J6 (J1: 2mm lower than J6; J2: 1mm higher than J6).
Also, I seem to remember that the J1 is shorter than the J6 & J2. The part splashers at the front of the cab on the J1 are smaller than those on the J2 & J6.

Now to think about converting the old Kays J3 into a J4. Modified splashers and lower boiler will probably do a rough job, but it would be interesting to build one with a Stirling cab.

Earlswood nob

[Atlantic 3279]

The remarkably fine (so far) autumn weather has seen me seizing the chance to catch up on some outdoor jobs that got missed in the summer months during the preparations for Grantham-Grantham. Despite this leaving me with no time and energy for practical modelling, the little grey cells have continued to produce the occasional idea for improvement of the K2,J6 & GN tender in particular. More on that later perhaps.

Other conversations have seriously stirred my interest in the matter of track. As this is a better forum than the big one on which to ask questions that may attract relevant answers (rather than thread spoilers from gauge-war warriors and from supporters of the current mass produced pointwork for those blind to the true appearance of grouping-era track) then I'll see what comes forth:

Has anybody on the forum made a complete success of building any of the SMP plastic based point kits and enjoyed good running through same? Photographs of any nicely made ones in situ on a layout would be particularly interesting.

I tried one about twenty years ago when my soldering skills were very poor and I hadn't really got to grips with the matter of wheel standards. I made a mess of the crossing nose, the electrical bonding and a lot else besides. I can't remember what the designed-in flange way dimensions were. I'm tempted to think that I could make a far better job of it these days, so I'm tempted to try one again. Typically, I may even have a cunning plan for adaptation of the parts to produce points with different geometry.....

[Hatfield Shed]

I have made up a couple and done reliability testing for my own purposes. Work as well as the Peco Streamline medium and large radius points with standard kit wheels and modern RTR; essentially 100% reliable from the perspective of the combination of a good OO wheel standard and the point geometry. What wasn't wholly reliable was the tie bar. The soldered joint of rail to the grommet provided as anchorage in the tie bar will fail under the pounding of my main line traffic requirement.

So for my purposes I have passed this item as 'lightly trafficked yard only' for use where appearance is important, and am nowhere near building for this location on my own project. (My plans prioritise total reliability for intensive operation, all else is secondary.)

Those same tested point kits then got rebuilt to see what the possibilities for alteration were; separating the timbers between the tie bar and crossing to space them further and thus extend this section, making replacement rail parts and point blades to suit. The objective was to 'stretch' the point for better appearance, and something approximating the 60" radius soldered SMP point geometry could be replicated. The crossing angle is fixed to that of the original kit however.

At the time (about 2001 when Bach's WD and 16T mineral made me think that RTR OO was finally headed in the right direction!) it appeared possible to round up spare bases s/h enabling insertion of the extra timbers required for a cosmetically good result. Very simple really, if wasteful of parts; I might still feel inclined to do this when the time comes to build my 'nearside' yard, the one location where points will be right under my nose. (Most of the planned point locations are many feet from the favoured viewing positions, and I lean toward the 'impressionistic modelling' camp. Progress you may also gather is slow. 98% operating, 2% build a little more layout.)

[SAD Burdett]

Has anybody on the forum made a complete success of building any of the SMP plastic based point kits and enjoyed good running through same? Photographs of any nicely made ones in situ on a layout would be particularly interesting.

Graeme,, on a previous exhibition layout I had several and they were fine.
If you are knew to pointwork they are a great way to get started.
If you give them a go make sure you get a good set of SMP gauges to go with them.
I strengthened them up abit by soldering some of the key rails to brass pins as well,, if you are ballasting they just disappear.
Agree with the other reader comment that the tie bars can be a weak link but you can get round that copying Norman Solomons way of doing it as described on his trackwork CD
Your addiction to detail should make assembly relatively routine.

With the availability of TEMPLOT and all the different options that system gives you I think you will find having made a couple of the plastic based ones you will want to have a go at copperclad and from them on the ability to build proper trackwork takes you up to another level.

I have been building my own points for some time now and apart from the flexibility they offer they are also incredibly cost effective.
When ballasted you really cannot tell and with a bit of practice they become very routine,,,, a couple of hours per plain point is routine.
If you need any info just yell.

SAD

[Atlantic 3279]

Thanks for the replies. I probably should have mentioned that I've built a fair number of copperclad points, both to a simple standardized pattern on a basic jig, and on hand drawn plans to suit particular locations. I got the "art" of producing neat results and good running fairly well sorted by the time the last of my waves of track construction finished. I tried out a number of tie bar arrangements and built-in switching arrangements for the crossing polarity, plus latching or over-centre springing. My reason for revisiting the possibility of the SMP plastic based kits is the desire for chaired appearance without excessive expense and the tedium of adding all the chairs individually. I was looking at the Masokits etched chairplates for instance, and I think I worked out that use of those would ADD over £5 to the cost of a metre of plain track, not that I would build my own plain track of course, as SMP satisfies me fully. C & L chairs aren't particularly economical either, only being on sale in packs containing a large number and an awful lot more sprue than chair. I'm very encouraged to hear that at least one person has managed to stretch the SMP point geometry. I was wondering how much one could get way with in terms of altering the curved road through the point before angle changes significantly upset the gauge. I'll probably have a go at bending the overall geometry too - the forces of darkness on the shores of Lyme Bay manage to produced curved points as well as standard ones despite sticking to the same crossing angle throughout (12 degrees I gather, or 1 in 4.7). How hard can it be? Time will tell. Don't hold your breath in anticipation of resin copies of altered bases though. That might be beyond me.

Hatfield Shed: Any pictures of the results of your tinkering please?

NB: Not the first time I've floated this idea. Last time it sank without a trace, as well as drawing the oh so predictable and not helpful to OO gauge modellers gratuitous advocacy of a change to 18.83mm gauge. Really? With all the locos and stock that I have and no intention of spending a lifetime building a few yards of railway....
http://www.lner-info.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5361