7mm Mickoo's Commercial Workbench
- Thread starter mickoo
- Start date
Pencarrow
Western Thunderer
Beautifully made Mick. With the broad gauge making the loco wider, the cab looks like it's too small/low, almost hiding behind the saddle tank. The tall rear bunker, and tall chimney, accentuate the illusion too. Needs a driver figure to reset the mental 'standard gauge' perception of proportions. Must have looked an absolute beast in real life.
mickoo
Western Thunderer
Yeah, they're big engines and I checked what little info there is and the cab is really that small. There's also variations in sandboxes, tool boxes etc.
Copyright unkown.
It also looks like it's fitted with 4mm buffers too: just part of the illusion! I guess that we are so accustomed to the ratios in standard gauge stock that anything else looks not quite right.
Stunning model though!
mickoo
Western Thunderer
Took a brief siesta from the Princess to get to grips with the next project, a JLTRT Fowler 4F but with a Stanier 'new' high sided 3500G tender, in reality they were pretty much Fowler tenders with extended sides.
Scratch built bulkheads and sloped coal space to suit which then gave a basis to draw up new etched sides, these'll take about two weeks to deliver so now I can get back to the Princess and park this to one side.
The front bulkhead is just tacked on with double sided tape so I'll bond that in tomorrow and seal all the visible gaps up, I'll also secure the rear division plate and 3D prints and add what little details I can. Hopefully it'll just be a few hours work to tack the sides on and add the beading to complete.
Scratch built bulkheads and sloped coal space to suit which then gave a basis to draw up new etched sides, these'll take about two weeks to deliver so now I can get back to the Princess and park this to one side.
The front bulkhead is just tacked on with double sided tape so I'll bond that in tomorrow and seal all the visible gaps up, I'll also secure the rear division plate and 3D prints and add what little details I can. Hopefully it'll just be a few hours work to tack the sides on and add the beading to complete.
OzzyO
Western Thunderer
Hello Mick,
three of Sir Williams finest?
First the one that was built to go to America with 6100 or was it 6152? Nice looking and well bulled-up, roller bearings, I think this set the start of the plan for the first three tenders under frames for the Lizzies I think the numbers were 6100,6101 & 6102
The start of the classic shape, plan bearings,
Starting to get the shape, but thank god he did not make too many of these, plain axel bearings welded construction of the tank, it's a bit odd on the back of the tender as it only has two lamp irons.
Copyright for all photos unknown, and posted only for reference,
Keep up the good work
ATB
OzzyO.
three of Sir Williams finest?
First the one that was built to go to America with 6100 or was it 6152? Nice looking and well bulled-up, roller bearings, I think this set the start of the plan for the first three tenders under frames for the Lizzies I think the numbers were 6100,6101 & 6102
The start of the classic shape, plan bearings,
Starting to get the shape, but thank god he did not make too many of these, plain axel bearings welded construction of the tank, it's a bit odd on the back of the tender as it only has two lamp irons.
Copyright for all photos unknown, and posted only for reference,
Keep up the good work
ATB
OzzyO.
mickoo
Western Thunderer
All good stuff 
The first tender is #9003 which was attached to Royal Scot for the USA tour, it was not the first but third of the three. It is the only one to have the extra lined panel at the front and vertical handbrake/scoop stands, the other two (#9000, 9001) had angled stands and no lined panel. It's a mute point which came first as all three were built at pretty much the same time, logically you'd think 6100 (Princess Royal) was first, but often tenders and even engines came out in odd sequences.
However the drawings state the tenders were designed for the Princess Royal and the third Royal Scot one was possible a spare, but quickly got seconded to Royal Scot.
The second is a batch of ten tenders built for Jubilees, these eventually got the classic Stanier high sided tender and the ten were then swapped around with Patriots, 4F's and 8F's. That picture is paired with a Jubilee by the look of things, possible 45568?
The last is a version of the second, rather than build new tenders they converted some older Fowler tenders, the division plates are the same height as the previous but they rolled in the side sheets to increase coal capacity.
There are four lamp irons on the last tender, the middle lower is hidden by the vacuum pipe glad hand and fixed fitting, the middle upper is just visible behind swan neck in the pipe at the top.
The first tender is #9003 which was attached to Royal Scot for the USA tour, it was not the first but third of the three. It is the only one to have the extra lined panel at the front and vertical handbrake/scoop stands, the other two (#9000, 9001) had angled stands and no lined panel. It's a mute point which came first as all three were built at pretty much the same time, logically you'd think 6100 (Princess Royal) was first, but often tenders and even engines came out in odd sequences.
However the drawings state the tenders were designed for the Princess Royal and the third Royal Scot one was possible a spare, but quickly got seconded to Royal Scot.
The second is a batch of ten tenders built for Jubilees, these eventually got the classic Stanier high sided tender and the ten were then swapped around with Patriots, 4F's and 8F's. That picture is paired with a Jubilee by the look of things, possible 45568?
The last is a version of the second, rather than build new tenders they converted some older Fowler tenders, the division plates are the same height as the previous but they rolled in the side sheets to increase coal capacity.
There are four lamp irons on the last tender, the middle lower is hidden by the vacuum pipe glad hand and fixed fitting, the middle upper is just visible behind swan neck in the pipe at the top.
Last edited:
OzzyO
Western Thunderer
Thanks Mick,
I would never have noticed the middle top lamp iron, but now you have mentioned it I can see it.
IIRC one of the three tender 6100-6102 went to 6202 and stayed with all it's life and then went behind an 8F. I can't remember if 6200,6201 kept the roller bearing tenders though and I don't have my books on the Lizzes to hand.
Keep up the good work,
OzzyO.
I would never have noticed the middle top lamp iron, but now you have mentioned it I can see it.
IIRC one of the three tender 6100-6102 went to 6202 and stayed with all it's life and then went behind an 8F. I can't remember if 6200,6201 kept the roller bearing tenders though and I don't have my books on the Lizzes to hand.
Keep up the good work,
OzzyO.
mickoo
Western Thunderer
Yes, it is hard to see, I only know it's there as I've just modeled it
A quick clarification, I wrote 6100-6102 above, no idea why as the actual tender numbers are 9000-9002......normal service is resumed.
Tender 9000 went with 6200, 9001 went with 6201, the third (9002) went to the Royal Scot.
The fourth tender (9003) is a bit convoluted, it has a standard nine ton Stanier body, records show it was standard Jubilee tender (9073) pulled from that order, had roller bearings fitted and renumbered 9003 (possibly due to the roller bearing fitting?). What isn't clear is if 9003 remained with 6202 after her rebuild, some say it went to an 8F; but the damage report notes both engine and tender were beyond repair and cut up. If the latter is true, then 9003 was moved on and 46202 had a different tender when the accident occurred.
Tender 9004 is the start of the standard nine ton production, going to the then brand new Jubilees.
Engines 6200 and 6201 lost their original tenders at the same time (1935) Turbomotive was put into service with 9003 tender, they exchanged them (again) for Jubilee tenders off that production run (9065 & 9066).
Going back to the original three, all were rebuilt in 1935 to the now standard nine ton specification, I believe they kept the chassis (maybe even the roller bearings) and were allocated to new Black Fives (5073, 5074, 5000).
LMS Review No2 has an excellent write up on Stanier standard nine and ten ton tenders as well as respectable record of tender numbers and initial allocations.
OzzyO
Western Thunderer
Hello Mick,
I have managed to get my hands on the book of the Princess Royal Pacifics by Ian Sixsmith. In that book he says . Tender No 9003 fitted 29/6/35 and then 15/8/52 (eventually went to 8F 48134.
I've always been of the understanding that 46202s tender was patched up after the accident I can understand why looking at this photo,
To be honest the engine doesn't look to bad when you see a photo of City of Glasgow
ATB
OzzyO.
I have managed to get my hands on the book of the Princess Royal Pacifics by Ian Sixsmith. In that book he says . Tender No 9003 fitted 29/6/35 and then 15/8/52 (eventually went to 8F 48134.
I've always been of the understanding that 46202s tender was patched up after the accident I can understand why looking at this photo,
To be honest the engine doesn't look to bad when you see a photo of City of Glasgow
ATB
OzzyO.
mickoo
Western Thunderer
Re 9003, in the 'Book of'.... yes it does, yet in the LMS Review it notes 9003 was heavily damaged at the rear and the frames were badly buckled and thus written off.
It doesn't say which frames mind, but being as the article is specifically about tenders and the note pertains to 9003, it's logical to assume they're talking about 9003 and not 46202.
I've just found a picture of 46202 a few weeks before the accident and it has roller bearing tender axle boxes, so 9003 was highly likely involved as well, what I need to find now are photos of 48134 after the date 9003 was supposedly repaired and fitted. If it has roller axle boxes then it'll be 9003, but there's every chance they were taken out and fitted with normal axle boxes, in which case, we'll never know.
mickoo
Western Thunderer
End of week update, more progress on the Princess Royal. The bogie chomped through the budget, out of the box it was woefully narrow. There are alternative ends to widen it and they're fine, but it's then all in four pieces, so quite the Octopus operation to hold it all in place and fabricate.
Of course, now being wider the side bearing plate no longer fitted (slots and tabs) so you need to hack a few things around to get that to fit, but once you do, it does look rather spangly.
The footplate and cab were all fine except for the front dropped section, the instructions would have you bend up the full width, that's never going to go well for such a small piece in 0.5 mm NS. On top of that the bend would then end up in the middle of the securing nut.
I made two cuts along the footplate under where the upper frame extensions sit and left the middle flat, the two outer pieces then formed up much easier.
That was all fine until I fitted it to the chassis, there was a big gap at the front end between the frames and footplate, long story short, the cylinder block is too high and the valances were hitting it.
I'd had a niggle before when doing the slide bars and motion bracket that something wasn't quite right but couldn't put my finger on it.
Of course, to then lower the cylinder block you have to lower the chassis fixing stay that defines the height, lollipop sticks, pegs, wooden wedges and a waft with a blow touch and the stay came out. Then the slots were deepened, the stay dropped back in and then the cylinder block...success, everything where it should be.
The firebox is the early non combustion chamber one and fits very well, the only niggle is that the rear face is not quite square to the rest, so the firebox kicks to the left at the front end, you need to take about 0.5 mm off the right side to square it up. There's still a few gaps when it butts up to the cab so I need to go back and dress the high points to get a nice tight joint, same for where it meets the footplate.
The next concern are the splashers, there's naff all clearance with S7 wheels, if it won't go around the 6' curve then I'm going to have to get sneaky and move the faces out about 0.5 mm and make new tops to suit the wider gap. That of course means finishing the test track....tomorrows task.
Of course, now being wider the side bearing plate no longer fitted (slots and tabs) so you need to hack a few things around to get that to fit, but once you do, it does look rather spangly.
The footplate and cab were all fine except for the front dropped section, the instructions would have you bend up the full width, that's never going to go well for such a small piece in 0.5 mm NS. On top of that the bend would then end up in the middle of the securing nut.
I made two cuts along the footplate under where the upper frame extensions sit and left the middle flat, the two outer pieces then formed up much easier.
That was all fine until I fitted it to the chassis, there was a big gap at the front end between the frames and footplate, long story short, the cylinder block is too high and the valances were hitting it.
I'd had a niggle before when doing the slide bars and motion bracket that something wasn't quite right but couldn't put my finger on it.
Of course, to then lower the cylinder block you have to lower the chassis fixing stay that defines the height, lollipop sticks, pegs, wooden wedges and a waft with a blow touch and the stay came out. Then the slots were deepened, the stay dropped back in and then the cylinder block...success, everything where it should be.
The firebox is the early non combustion chamber one and fits very well, the only niggle is that the rear face is not quite square to the rest, so the firebox kicks to the left at the front end, you need to take about 0.5 mm off the right side to square it up. There's still a few gaps when it butts up to the cab so I need to go back and dress the high points to get a nice tight joint, same for where it meets the footplate.
The next concern are the splashers, there's naff all clearance with S7 wheels, if it won't go around the 6' curve then I'm going to have to get sneaky and move the faces out about 0.5 mm and make new tops to suit the wider gap. That of course means finishing the test track....tomorrows task.
mickoo
Western Thunderer
Well the 'test' test track is done, it's a bit Frankenstein, dog with two heads, life of it's own to be honest, hence there will be a Mk II.
Initially I just wanted to check the Princess Royal on 6' radius curves, I'm led to believe it isn't possible/easy even with gauge widening. Sad to say, I must have done something wrong as it's all tickety boo and no shorts
The plan then was to do a separate broad gauge curve and whilst I'm here, an O Fine, just because I could; hence the extra sleepers (just scraps of copper strip I had) to extend the gauges.
The S7 is true 6' (1830 mm), the BG and O Fine centres are just over at 1838.5 mm and 1846 mm so the Mk II will bring them closer to 6' and the S7 will be a fraction under. Personally I wouldn't bother but there are some where ½" (OF) is really important.
All the curves are to gauge with no widening, if it'll go around this, then it'll go around those layouts that do gauge widen. Happily the BG Buffalo also goes around it's curve with a little wriggle room and the LNWR 2-4-2T around OF, both have next to nothing side play so I'm pleased about that. I was confident they would, but it's nice to actually know.
The MkII set up will be longer and have a straight bit before it feeds into the curves, that'll check any transition issues that might occur, on the Princess it'll be the trailing bogie wheel rims passing the leading brake hangers, but early indications are I might just get away with it. The new board is prepped ready in the shed and a bundle of copper clad strips are in the post.
In other news, I re did the Princess bogie frame top stringer/flange, it added an extra 1.75 mm to their width, sadly they then clouted the frames depressed bogie stay, so that's now been ripped out and a new one is being fabricated with revised 3D casting to match.
Initially I just wanted to check the Princess Royal on 6' radius curves, I'm led to believe it isn't possible/easy even with gauge widening. Sad to say, I must have done something wrong as it's all tickety boo and no shorts
The plan then was to do a separate broad gauge curve and whilst I'm here, an O Fine, just because I could; hence the extra sleepers (just scraps of copper strip I had) to extend the gauges.
The S7 is true 6' (1830 mm), the BG and O Fine centres are just over at 1838.5 mm and 1846 mm so the Mk II will bring them closer to 6' and the S7 will be a fraction under. Personally I wouldn't bother but there are some where ½" (OF) is really important.
All the curves are to gauge with no widening, if it'll go around this, then it'll go around those layouts that do gauge widen. Happily the BG Buffalo also goes around it's curve with a little wriggle room and the LNWR 2-4-2T around OF, both have next to nothing side play so I'm pleased about that. I was confident they would, but it's nice to actually know.
The MkII set up will be longer and have a straight bit before it feeds into the curves, that'll check any transition issues that might occur, on the Princess it'll be the trailing bogie wheel rims passing the leading brake hangers, but early indications are I might just get away with it. The new board is prepped ready in the shed and a bundle of copper clad strips are in the post.
In other news, I re did the Princess bogie frame top stringer/flange, it added an extra 1.75 mm to their width, sadly they then clouted the frames depressed bogie stay, so that's now been ripped out and a new one is being fabricated with revised 3D casting to match.
simond
Western Thunderer
My first fight with this kind of thing was my second 0 gauge loco, a Finney 47xx. Some may think this a brave choice but it was a good one. The bits fitted correctly with minimal fettling and the compensation works correctly. Learned a lot building it.
Given my lack of a layout at that time, I decided that to be able to run on others’ lines, it needed to negotiate a Peco crossover. Around the same time, I built the Greater Windowledge Railway, which incorporated a Peco facing crossover, and a copperclad & balsa trailing one as a test track and scenic schoolroom. The story’s on RMW, but the pictures were lost by spectacular incompetence of the service provider.
Getting the loco across these crossovers was more challenging than a 6’ plain radius, and took a while. Got there in the end…
EDIT. I was being a little unfair, most, but not all the photos were lost. Great Windowledge Railway where did those years go?
Given my lack of a layout at that time, I decided that to be able to run on others’ lines, it needed to negotiate a Peco crossover. Around the same time, I built the Greater Windowledge Railway, which incorporated a Peco facing crossover, and a copperclad & balsa trailing one as a test track and scenic schoolroom. The story’s on RMW, but the pictures were lost by spectacular incompetence of the service provider.
Getting the loco across these crossovers was more challenging than a 6’ plain radius, and took a while. Got there in the end…
EDIT. I was being a little unfair, most, but not all the photos were lost. Great Windowledge Railway where did those years go?
Last edited:
mickoo
Western Thunderer
I have a Peco crossover and these curves (previously just flexi track bent to shape) and if they go through those then (so far) they appear to go through everything past/present and hopefully future clients have/had.
There is a limit to what you can plan for on commission builds when it comes to track geometry.
Of all the models I've done so far I only struggled with one, a BLP around 5'-6" curves, 6' is bad enough and in all fairness the absolute limit, but 5'-6" required some modifications best left unspoken. Oh and one of the recent Castles is for 4', that actually wasn't as hard as the BLP.
There is a limit to what you can plan for on commission builds when it comes to track geometry.
Of all the models I've done so far I only struggled with one, a BLP around 5'-6" curves, 6' is bad enough and in all fairness the absolute limit, but 5'-6" required some modifications best left unspoken. Oh and one of the recent Castles is for 4', that actually wasn't as hard as the BLP.
dibateg
Western Thunderer
I found that most loco builds needed tailoring to work on a particular railway. The loco has to be matched to track and envoronment. I know that sounds daft and it should be universal, we've all got statndards and the great thing is that there is so many of them..
Things to consider are track gauge - some of us use 31.5mm gauge for the turnouts, clearances, minimum radii and control systems.
Yes - some locos will run on anything... others won't...
I found using the telescopic axles ok, but yes - you have factor in removable or pivoting brake gear, detachable cylinders and slide bars, all ok as long as you can plan ahead. To mount the motor/gearbox I removed the grub screw from the final drive, drilled a hole right through ( without damaging the threads in case of re-use ) . The retaining pin could then pass through final drive gear and the axle.
Everything I build for myself has Slaters wheeels ( aren't thay a price now ). Scraping the backs of the spokes to make a bevel on the inside makes them look more open. I got that from Steph Dale or Richard Lambert- can't remember now.
Anyway - thoroughly enjoying this build Mick - it's always inspiring to see what you are doing!
Cheers
Tony
Things to consider are track gauge - some of us use 31.5mm gauge for the turnouts, clearances, minimum radii and control systems.
Yes - some locos will run on anything... others won't...
I found using the telescopic axles ok, but yes - you have factor in removable or pivoting brake gear, detachable cylinders and slide bars, all ok as long as you can plan ahead. To mount the motor/gearbox I removed the grub screw from the final drive, drilled a hole right through ( without damaging the threads in case of re-use ) . The retaining pin could then pass through final drive gear and the axle.
Everything I build for myself has Slaters wheeels ( aren't thay a price now ). Scraping the backs of the spokes to make a bevel on the inside makes them look more open. I got that from Steph Dale or Richard Lambert- can't remember now.
Anyway - thoroughly enjoying this build Mick - it's always inspiring to see what you are doing!
Cheers
Tony
mickoo
Western Thunderer
I've been lucky in that all my commercial builds thus far have not required anything more than a Peco cross over and a client defined minimum radius; but I do concede your point, sometimes they need to be tailored to suit a specific situation. By sheer luck, more than skill, none have failed yet, which probably means most are still sat in their boxes or glass cases
Unless someone specifies a set criteria than all you can realistically do is aim for the middle of the road.
Removing grub screws and drilling thorough only works if the pin is already in a location to do that, I've had one that matched that, the others have had the axle pin in the middle of the teeth or gearbox bearings.
Very shortly the solution will be 3D printed wheels inside turned rims, there's already plenty of materials out there with the strength and durability, the only unknown is material stability and longevity but that will come and it will come very quickly I foresee.
I have a couple I've been dabbling with in the background, ironically planned for split axles but you could easily print the Slaters square end for quartering, in fact I might modify the design and do a set as a trial.
Clarence3815
Western Thunderer
Would 3D printed wheels be replaceable with commercial offerings if there was a problem with them?