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

[john coffin]

then try working off the real thing, or the copies that are now available, and you will discover the real facts of checking drawings.

I was always told never to trust the drawing and NEVER measure off it because paper stretch at the very least, and the quality of
the copying processes that were used mean most of them are only generic. If you have found problems then you have to check
other things. The question really is did you actually go an measure a J38 or its tender, and therefore, on what are basing your comments?

Paul

[Nova]

seems i've stepped on quite the mine field...

OK then, let's simplify things by asking what combination of sub-variations, IE snifting valve, variety of boiler, safety valves, size of dome and funnel, tender, cab windows, etc. were most common in LNER and BR days. what combination of parts was the MOST COMMON out of all the possible combinations, like how the preserved example has been deemed uncommon.

the vast majority of modelers here model those eras, and if the first model produced of the J27 is the most common example in the class then I'm less likely to come under fire for producing an inaccurate or uncommon example of the class.


as for drawings, seeing as Isinglass Drawings has been deemed inaccurate thus totally unusable, which issue of NERA Express contains drawings of that particular variation of J27 and where I might obtain said issue

[Pebbles]

Firstly I doubt if Isinglass is anymore inaccurate than others; anyone can pick holes! I would concede that John should have drawn to a larger scale - he actually drew to 4mm and his 7mm drawings are enlargements - but at least he quoted dimensions which is not the case with drawings in for instance the North Eastern Record. Isinglass drawings also list variations such as whether an engine was built with a superheater and when, as in many cases, this was removed; generally withdrawal dates are also listed. On the question of accuracy it is doubtful if any 4mm model is completely to scale as compromises have to be made. I would have thought that anyone contemplating a "commercial" model would at least have studied available books such as in the case of the J26/27 RCTS Part 5 and the wealth of photos in Yeadon's 47B. There would appear to be "standard" NER fittings such as cab windows, and there must be drawings of these in the NRM collection. It is difficult to understand why the LNER designated the 26s and 27s in the way they did as originally the prime difference was the rear horn stays and depth of the firebox; these were eventually brought into line. There is of course the old chestnut of the round and shaped spectacles. However, whilst all of the J26s were constructed at either Darlington or Gateshead, in the case of the J27s these were constructed by the NER, North British, Beyer Peacock and Robert Stephenson and one would assume some variations from these builders - after all the shop foreman often had the last word. Finally why not ask Dave Bradwell where he got his information from; he is a very helpful individual.

[D2100]

Chaps, carry on with this discussion by all means, but if I were the OP, i would not go near the J27. It's such an obvious prospect for an RTR model within the next year or three.

[Atlantic 3279]

It is true, as demonstrated not only (as I found) by puzzling results from measurement but also by scanning, mirror-imaging and superimposition that the Isinglass drawing of one of the Thompson Pacifics doesn't match in key areas on the two sides, but that doesn't in my view mean that the whole Isinglass range is useless. There's a lot of value in those drawings for a practical modeller without time and other means to do all of his own research from scratch.
If we want a reasonable model, as proposed, shouldn't we be looking at what we can agree on and what we can arrive at constructively, rather than arguing about whether a whole range of drawings is any good?
If only one configuration of the main features is considered feasible, is it true for instance to say that short smokeboxes and saturated boilers were far more common throughout the J26/J27 classes that the long smokebox superheated (or de-superheated in later years) boilers? What else can be agreed upon, or done in such a way that simple alteration by the end-user will give good results?

[Atlantic 3279]

Whilst recognising that the logic of simple economy never seems to apply in these matters, and that we are told that re-useable tooling for common parts of different loco models doesn't actually work out in practice for the big manufacturers, it seems to me more sensible for an RTR manufacturer to go for the vastly more numerous J21 and J25 classes before the (albeit preserved in one case) J27 option. The chassis from the small boilered locos, with a sufficiently small but powerful motor, would then suit the bigger J26 / J26 body without any further trouble.....

Tooling re-useable for different classes of loco may be of more value if sales volumes for individual types are reducing over the years.

[Nova]

Chaps, carry on with this discussion by all means, but if I were the OP, i would not go near the J27. It's such an obvious prospect for an RTR model within the next year or three.

you make a valid point, and I eagerly await an RTR model, but I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you about leaving it alone.

for one thing Kit manufactures are almost in a market of their own compared to RTR manufacturers, people will still build kits of locomotives despite RTR versions being readily available because it brings with it a sense of achievement, I aim to bring about that same sense of achievement whilst being simpler than let's say an etched kit, also it might help introduce individuals who might otherwise never consider kit building and allow them to cut their teeth on a relatively simple project that would (hopefully) require only the simplest of tools such as superglue and some decent quality files. And with a few planned additional detail pieces this kit will hopefully in time allow the modeler to create an example not represented by the RTR offering without resorting to butchering an expensive model

Plus the prospect of a RTR J27 means myself and everyone else involved in the project has the challenge of making sure it's as good, if not better than the RTR offering

[mick b]

Whilst recognising that the logic of simple economy never seems to apply in these matters, and that we are told that re-useable tooling for common parts of different loco models doesn't actually work out in practice for the big manufacturers, it seems to me more sensible for an RTR manufacturer to go for the vastly more numerous J21 and J25 classes before the (albeit preserved in one case) J27 option. The chassis from the small boilered locos, with a sufficiently small but powerful motor, would then suit the bigger J26 / J26 body without any further trouble.....

Tooling re-useable for different classes of loco may be of more value if sales volumes for individual types are reducing over the years.

I am sure Hornby with the J15 (so similar to the J21) and Bachmann with the SR C Class are fully aware of the sales potential of the NER J Class Locos already. Hopefully Hornby will jump on them soon , that way we might see in less than 5 or 6 years when any are announced

I have a NuCast and a Bradwell J27 the second version is a bit better than the first version!! I look forward to a third version !!

[Atlantic 3279]

Although this won't be one of my jobs anyway, on the question of the casting of different boilers as separate items I think it is very much a mixture of pros and cons. Separate boilers might remove the need for two (or more) complete master bodies for the possible different versions. Looking at the potential for air-bubble traps in various places, I'm tempted to think that the cab ought to be a separate piece too. The unsupported running plate will be flimsy in places and would benefit from stiff wire moulded in. What I do not know is whether sales potential reduces seriously once you get away from the almost-one-piece body concept.

[Nova]

I'm somewhat tempted to have a series of castings, Smoke box, Boiler & firebox, Cab, Backhead, dome, funnel, running board & additional fittings and the tender variants all cast as separate pieces with lugs to help with locating each piece (except for the Dome, as IIRC some have said they were in a multitude of positions).

The buyer then chooses the pieces they want on the website, essentially making it a "pick'n'mix" kit, if that makes sense. Meaning the world is your oyster in terms of the variations possible.

this also means that some parts such as the boiler, cab, smokebox, tender, etc. could be used for potential future projects (I won't say what locos, but I'm sure you have a pretty good idea), or even kitbashing existing models by other companies (ie the Hornby Q6 dilemma)

to help the less informed or beginners to kit building, a bundle will be put together, most certainly that of 2392/(6)5894 as it will be a locomotive somewhat familiar to them due to it being preserved

As Atlantic has rightly pointed out the strength of the running board as a separate piece could be an issue, and I trust him on this as he has much more experience with resin casting than I do, however (I hope) the average modeler should be careful enough to avoid breaking it until assembly is completed.

I do eventually intend to learn how to diecast, or even sand-cast in brass or aluminium, so in the long term anny issues with strength will hopefully be sorted.

[john coffin]

Those of us who remember the early hand drawn etched parts, know and understand the inherent problems in making things right in those days.
It is still not as easy as many think to create totally accurate work using the latest computers and programmes, not least because latest metals
cannot be guaranteed to be as uniform as previously thought.

Since so few locos still exist, we are reliant on things we can access, in which case, it is important to take the middle road, and utilise the dimensions
on Isinglass drawings rather than being pedantic about the sides being the same. It was ever thus on paper drawings, especially after copying, remember in the early days copies were wet and then plainly the paper changed its sizes when drying.

I must confess I am concerned about the number of mistakes you can make with your first attempt, by trying a tender loco rather than a much more saleable, probably, tank loco which has fewer places in which to make mistakes. Certainly my first couple of kits were such, leading on to my
quite successful GNR 4-4-0's for LRM. Learning your technique is easier with a tank loco, and ensures you do not ruin your potential by over promising.

Paul

[Nova]

something I've been mulling over, as per the "pick'n'mix kit" idea, is to have the majority of parts from a variety of different kits interchangeable, major-size differences notwithstanding, a standardised construction system if you will, with some generic parts thrown in for good measure, obviously I wouldn't go out of my way to make all the parts fit together on the same chassis, I mean you wouldn't be able to fit the boiler from a pacific on an 0-6-0 (Unless you were going for a long-boilered 0-6-0), but they would all feature a standardised locating system such as lugs and sockets. So the modeller could scratch build using standard components like the boiler from the J27....


the men in white coats can drag me away now


(seriously though, feel free to tell me your thoughts on the matter)

[Dave]

There are several points about drawings and there reproduction that make all copies at whatever scale inaccurate and
should not be scaled from.

In the 47 years I've worked in architects offices I've never come across an accurate print from a drawing.
All the drawings I've ever issued have in big bold letters "Do not scale off this drawing, use figured dimensions only".
When I started we drew on linen and tracing paper with printed copies on linen, paper and polyester, all these prints involved passing
the copy through a water based developer and hanging up to dry, this process stretched the linen and paper, polyester was not affected.
Polyester is affected by temperature and will expand and contract depending on how warm the office was, even ammonia vapour printing affected the paper.
Always when you finished for the evening you untaped your drawing and left it loose on the drawing board to move, if you did not your
drawing would have distorted overnight. Photocopiers are very inaccurate and will distort on the x or y axis depending on the machine,
inkjets make paper expand as the ink is wet, laser printers distort paper due to the heat. Scanners and photographs also distort,
plus scale rules expand and contract, so beware. All the above distortions and their degree in producing an inaccurate dimension from a
scaled dimension and not a figured one depends on the scale of the finished model, at 4mm an 1" is a 3rd of a millimetre
who will notice when it passing you on a layout, the traction engine wagon I'm building at the moment should have a 10thou deck and edge strips,
I'm using 20thou and it's still flimsy which is nearly 2" scale thickness (I think, if my maths is correct).
So if the scaling of a dimension is not bad enough then there is the old trick of not altering the drawing and altering just the dimension....now
you are in trouble, and I've found many examples of this on drawings at the NRM, usually you can see where they have been altered, but not always,
so you end up getting a GA drawing and lots of detail drawings, and the dims on the details can be different to the GA.
I hear people talk about using diagram drawings, never use these as a basis as they are small scale and notoriously inaccurate, always go for a GA.

Isinglass drawings have been referred to as sketches, this is a bit extreme, when talking to John many years ago he told me he drew most of them in his lunch break at his desk, now his drawings do have mistakes because he said he used diagrams where he did not have GA's. His quality of draughtsmanship is not bad, I bet most people could not draw a circle as small as some of his with a compass, and at 4mm drawing by hand a lot of small items must be done freehand. If you look at his drawings where a compass has been used you can see the point which is handy for centres. We would use a circle template for anything up to about about an inch, perfect every time. The drawings I got from him were photocopies so inaccurate to start with but they give you a very good guide to what went where.

I do my carriage drawings in cad now at fullsize and convert the imperial dims to metric so 1" becomes 25.4mm, ¼"=6.4mm, 98ft=29870.4mm etc, and this is not ideal and a degree of error creeps in.

So good luck to you Nova for sticking your head up above the parapet and putting your money where your mouth is so to speak and having ago
whilst us armchair modelers just think about projects. I would like a mid to late 30's version of the most numerous variant. I like several others who
badgered Simon Kohler several years ago at Hartlepool for a Q6 never bothered to ask for a specific type, we just wanted a Q6, I should have asked him for a mid thirties version, but as I'm more interested in carriages and wagons I did not know then, there were a multitude of variants.

[Nova]

Seeing as it's been established that I intend to produce a J27, I thought I'd announce the company itself and a few other products we intend to produce as a little Christmas surprise.

Due to my proximity to Scunthorpe-Frodingham shed, I'm actually down the road from Scotter Viaduct, I've decided to chose 36C Studios, 36C being the old shed code in BR days. The "Studios" label rather than "models" is because it will be more than just model railways, I've already mentioned that I'll be working with some friends to produce Downloadable Content (from now on in the thread referred to as DLC) for railway simulators.

I'm also tempted to make replica railwayana, though this will mostly be of the industrial variety due to being a lesser member of the Industrial Railway & Diesel Preservation Group (IRDPG), meaning it will be somewhat easier for me to gain access to actual locomotives in order either take full castings in silicone to then cold-cast in resin mixed with brass powder (which essentially gives it the properties of Brass without the associated risks of handling molten metal), though this is pending discussions with other members of the group.

I also intend to make a number of products to aid with modeling, the first of which being a guide to help mark the positions for buffers on a model, it'll be a solid piece, rather than an etched kit, this is pending designing.

I will also be taking suggestions from modelers on this forum for future kits like the J27

the final announcement in this post is that I will be intending to create a small selection of modular chassis to add some realism to Hornby-Railroad 0-4-0 shunters allowing the modeler to convert some of them, such as the freelance side-tank locomotives, to 0-6-0 configuration with outside cylinders to give them some extra flair.

and with that I'd like to wish a Merry Christmas and a happy new year to all from Nova and Co. at 36C Studios.

[Clock O' the North]

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