The LNER Encyclopedia

No sooner were they in the cabinet than they were out again!

Having tried but failed to give 247 Developments my nameplate business I rang the man at Fox who assured me that the A4 nameplates I needed should have a red background. Not so, I have it on good authority, (thanks mick b), that Woodcock, Golden Eagle and William Whitelaw should all be black!

I repainted some nameplates years ago by brushing them over and then gently rubbing the paint off the raised surfaces with wet and dry. T'was easier off the loco though!

Changing the subject for a moment, one of the many conversions of Graeme's that have inspired me, was the 4-8-2, and having collected a few spare parts chassis (is chassi the plural?), I decided to try a different method to Graeme.

This involved effectively splicing together 2 chassis, so the rear part would retain the existing Cartazzi arrangement (and I wouldn't have to do the clever brasswork/soldering/springing etc that Graeme did). I posted this picture some time ago, crudely indicating where I intended making the first cut:
Using a 3rd chassis as a guide to ensure correct wheel spacing, I cut the 2nd chassis to fit against the first:
I realised that I would need to allow for the sawcut, so I adjusted the position of the blade accordingly. As Graeme warned me, cutting though these chassis blocks is not easy. It wasn't so much the cutting itself because my old junior hacksaw coped with that, it was more a problem of holding the chassis block which is not totally uniformly flat in my Dad's old vice. Of course, if you can't hold your work still, you will not get a straight cut, and I certainly didn't!

Half expecting this however, I had allowed for it by cutting the rear chassis too large, and was then able to file the block to size.

The 2 blocks were screwed together with a hole drilled up through the 2nd chassis into the area just under where the motor sits in the first. I confess my surfaces were not perfectly flat against each other and there was a little movement on the single screw. Initially, I thought this might be a good thing with the long wheelbase, but then decided to glue the joint too.

With handling, the thin section of chassis where the rear motor support bracket is fixed, came adrift. I had cut it too thin, so referring back to the first photo, I would make the horizontal cut lower if I were to do this a second time. However this did not prove to be a major problem as you will see from subsequent pics.

Here are a series of shots with the chassis assembled, wheelsets and valve-gear added. Some parts of the latter require further straightening, but the spares chassis were sold as such because of some damage or other.
One advantage of this method was that I was able to utilise the brake gear from the 2 chassis.
More in a mo..

Sorry for butting-in Jim. It looks a neat result thus far. Chassis purchases from one "Flying Warship" by any chance? I noticed them advertised so many times on eBay that I began to imagine he had somehow obtained a ship-load of damaged or spares-raided chassis. I wonder where they came from.

Just one final picture for now, showing the underside of the combined chassis unit:
As you will see, I have not screwed the front plastic retaining plate down at the front or rear. This is because the correct size screws simply turn in loose, and I need to find slightly larger screws for the job.

Buying a bunch of used chassis has been an interesting experience because of the wide variety of faults such as missing parts, bent valve gear, broken Cartazzi, damaged pick-ups, and clearly enlarged chassis holes, etc, etc.

Back to the chassis, obviously I need to reconnect a motor, (and who knows if any that came with the chasis will work!), but the chassis runs quite happily along a straight stretch of track. I'm sure curves will be another matter!

As far as the body is concerned, I'm still considering the options. I think a lengthened A3 is one option but I would need a V-fronted cab for the engine proposed in 1939, or I could go down the 1946 Cock of the North-style route which strangely has a flat fronted cab, (line drawings in RCTS 10A). The latter would be the biggest challenge!

Lengthened A3 please! though if you follow the works GA diagram I've seen I don't think its quite that simple (From memory I think the running plate is higher with small splashers)

Great stuff so far.

Atlantic 3279 wrote:Sorry for butting-in Jim. It looks a neat result thus far. Chassis purchases from one "Flying Warship" by any chance? I noticed them advertised so many times on eBay that I began to imagine he had somehow obtained a ship-load of damaged or spares-raided chassis. I wonder where they came from.

No problem Graeme! Yep, it was indeed "Flying Warship"! I bought 4 red A4 fine-detail chassis from him. You could not make 1 compete chassis from them all but only due to missing front bogies.

Another fault I found with several of the driving wheels, was that the crankpin had turned itself round in the back of the wheel despite the elongated slot and rectangular shape to the back of the pin itself. Quite an education in chassis problems! I wish Hornby would use connecting pins or similar for the wiring to the motor etc - I hat having to cut wires to remove motors.

will5210 wrote:Lengthened A3 please! though if you follow the works GA diagram I've seen I don't think its quite that simple (From memory I think the running plate is higher with small splashers)

Great stuff so far.

Thanks will 5210! It probably will be a lengthened A3 and I will try to follow drawings, but as is clear in other RCTS guides such as Part 2A, there were normally several drawings produced in advance of production, so I feel there can be a legitimate amount of "poetic licence" without the need for too much justification!

very nice job there, and interesting idea, very tempted, might add it to the list of possible loco projects

So are you going to make a P2 with the bugatti nose? or a P1?

May I ask where you got your donor chassis from please?

Looking forward to seeing how this developes, thx for the photos

Brian

Mercator II wrote:very nice job there, and interesting idea, very tempted, might add it to the list of possible loco projects

So are you going to make a P2 with the bugatti nose? or a P1?

May I ask where you got your donor chassis from please?

Looking forward to seeing how this developes, thx for the photos

Brian

Thanks Brian, I think we all inspire each other!

It's going to be a 4-8-2, not a P1 or P2! As stated above there are drawings in RCTS Part 10A of a 1939 A3 style stretch with v-fronted cab, then a 1946 original Cock of the North style loco with a flat cab. There's also a 4-8-4 that looks very similar!

The chassis were from eBay seller "FlyingWarship". I paid £36 for 4 chassis!

doh!!! I should of looked closer, got blinded with the coupled drivers and didnt see the lead bogie was twin axle, not to mention that with A4 drivers @6'8'' would be too big for a 'P'

memo to self, look twice, type once!!!!

either way, I look forward to seeing how this progresses

Brian

Getting carried away as usual , I decided to create a second 4-8-2 chassis from the spares I bought.

This time I have made my cuts lower as I suggested I should in an earlier post.

1st chassis:
Cuts marked on second chassis after cut done on 1st:
Here is the second chassis assembled (apart from motor) with the RCTS Part 10A line drawing of the February 1946 4-8-2. After half a dozen attempts using the enlargement feature on my photocopier I was satisfied that I had a 4mm scale drawing to work off.

Copying mossie's work on his scratchbuilds, I have started with a double thickness Plastikard rectangle as the basis for the straight running plate, and I have butchered a damaged NRM Scotsman cab, just retaining the roof and the front, ready for new cab sides made from Plastikard, one of which has been cut and fixed. My technique for cutting the cab side was to cut out a square around the scale cab side in the drawing, "Pritt Stick" it to a suitable piece of Plastikard then cut along the lines. Easy apart from the windows of course! I see no reason why this technique should not work for other "flat items" such as the splasher sides.
The cartazzi needs to be stretched by 4mm as the distance between the trailing wheel and the back of the cab is 1ft longer than on the 4-8-2 proposed in 1939.

OMG what have I got myself into!

BTW the first 4-8-2 chassis (which ignores the 3" closer wheel spacing on the drawing) will eventually sport the 1939 "stretched" A3 body with v-fronted cab. Just waiting for an appropriate donor body tocome up on good old eBay!

What sort of front end will the second 4-8-2 have? Flattened Cock O' The North, or opened out Hush-Hush? Looks fascinating.

Manxman1831 wrote:What sort of front end will the second 4-8-2 have? Flattened Cock O' The North, or opened out Hush-Hush? Looks fascinating.

I believe the former would be more likely.

It seems strange in a way that the drawing office reverted to a "Cock of the North" style front end, but perhaps there was a view at that point in time, February 1946, that A4-style streamlining was unnecessary, but they still wanted a distinctive look which 2001/2 certainly had. I don't think the HushHush look would have been emulated because it was unique to the water tube boiler feature.

Of course by April 1946, streamlining was back in favour for the 4-8-4 proposed at that time.

I'm sure I'm a long way from completing these 4-8-4s, but I wonder what livery would have been applied in 1946?

4470/113 was of course turned out in the unique blue with red lining which it retained until May 1947 when outshopped in apple green. Would the 4-8-2 have been given the same livery? Obviously apple green was a strong possibility, but if the 4-8-2 took over the top-flight ECML services, then garter blue may have been considered too. As my donor chassis have red wheels, I'm tempted to go with garter blue! Your views would be most welcome!

Streamlined would be Garter Blue IMHO as post war only the A4's were streamlined. But if if you are modelling as per Cock O' the North front end then Green would look much better IMHO again.

At the end of the day try both colours in light coats and see what you prefer. Blue would be a lot simpler with not much lining to do which does have a big advantage !! including not changing the wheels !!.

Why not try the blue with red lining for one, and apple green for the other and see what YOU like? It is your model after all is said and done. Or maybe Hush-Hush grey just for devilment?