!!

Not Registered?

Welcome!  Please register to view all of the new posts and forum boards - some of which are hidden to guests.  After registering and gaining 10 posts you will be able to sell and buy items on our N'porium.

If you have any problems registering, then please check your spam filter before emailing us.  Hotmail users seem to find their emails in the Junk folder.


Thanks for reading,
The NGF Staff.

Author Topic: LSWR Adams 395  (Read 3988 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ricardus Harfelde

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • N Gauge Society Number: 24996
  • Posts: 80
  • Country: gb
    • Awards
LSWR Adams 395
« on: January 07, 2016, 10:28:23 pm »
I've started a project to modify a Union Mills LSWR Adams 395 locomotive. The aim is to reduce the overall width & height and to reduce the thickness of any visible plate edges. I make the UM model around 1.5mm too high (using the rail top boiler top distance) and around 1.3mm (footplate width) too wide when compared with the dimensions implied by the drawing in LSWR Locomotives by Bradley. The differences seem to be caused by over thick footplates and cab/splasher sides respectively. The plan is to replace the footplate, cab sides & roof, and splasher sides with thinner nickel silver or brass sheet versions

Photos of the unmodified UM model can be seen here:
http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?topic=12749.msg133288#msg133288]
[url]http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?topic=12749.msg133288#msg133288

 [/url]

First step was to remove the existing footplate by sawing and scraping, and then sanding the bottom of the body flat by rubbing on a sheet of wet and dry paper



I then modified the chassis as shown. I used a strip of wide brass which was the ideal size to seal the chassis top and provides a good bearing surface. A pair of screws go into the 2 large holes in the strip, pass up through some spacers and the new footplate, and screw into the white metal of the body.



I then set about gouging out the splashers to allow the wheels to ride higher in them, I just kept going until holes started to appear in the splasher tops. I then made the footplate, using a length of 0.5 x 0.5mm L section for the valences. The result can be seen below, with the rear loco being the UM Drummond 700 which has the same size wheels and I'm assuming the same top of footplate height as the unmodified 395. I seem to have managed a height reduction of about 0.8mm. There may be scope for further increasing this as this still some spare room in the splashers, however the pinch point is where the coupling rods foul the footplate underside, the rods seem to be both over thick and also further from the wheel centre than on the prototype, I've filed off the oil boxes to alleviate this. Will see if a bit of filing here & there will do the trick.

I've also taken the chance to convert the model to represent a longer framed 1885-6 series loco



The following photo shows the effect of narrowing the footplate, the Drummond 700 being the same width as the unmodified UM Adams 395. Next step is to produce a new set of cab & splasher sides to narrow the body down



Richard






Offline newportnobby

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+52)
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • N Gauge Society Number: 21962
  • Posts: 24978
  • Country: england
  • Gender: Male
    • Awards
Re: LSWR Adams 395
« Reply #1 on: January 08, 2016, 10:38:37 am »
Not for the faint-hearted, Richard, but an excellent conversion. I look forward to seeing more as the 395 progresses.

Offline Ricardus Harfelde

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • N Gauge Society Number: 24996
  • Posts: 80
  • Country: gb
    • Awards
Re: LSWR Adams 395
« Reply #2 on: January 08, 2016, 08:26:09 pm »
Thanks. It's not quite so daunting now I've done the chassis & footplate. Having said that I've noticed from the photo that the rear of the valence is not seated properly, so will have to spot of scraping & re-soldering there. It's taken me a lot longer than I thought as ever

Offline Ricardus Harfelde

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • N Gauge Society Number: 24996
  • Posts: 80
  • Country: gb
    • Awards
Re: LSWR Adams 395
« Reply #3 on: January 28, 2016, 11:14:25 pm »
Have made some further progress on the above. I made new cab & splasher sides plus found that the curved tops of the centre & front splashers disintegrated when I tried to reduce the width of them so made new versions of these as well

The following photo gives an idea of the height reduction achieved as I assume that the loco footplate was originally the same height as the  tender "footplate". I make the reduction achieved about 1.1mm, with the top of the boiler currently still being about 0.9mm too high wrt the top of the rail. The main pinch point is the vertical clearance for the wheel flange in the front splashers, plus the coupling rods are nearly touching the underside of the running plate. I think replacing the splasher tops with thinner brass ones has helped, I also filed down the front wheel flanges to reduce them from 0.7 to 0.5mm without any apparent harm being done



The second photo shows the width reduction in which I have been able to reduce the running plate width, cab width
and distance between the splasher sides to correct values. The cab sides have been glued on as a temporary measure and haven't been correctly aligned yet.








Online Dorsetmike

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • N Gauge Society Number: 2365
  • Posts: 2631
  • Country: gb
  • Gender: Male
  • Grumpy old fart
    • Skype
    • Awards
Re: LSWR Adams 395
« Reply #4 on: January 29, 2016, 10:20:07 am »
Having just sawn a UM tender body in half to fit over a German tender drive (I'll fill the gap with lo melt solder) I was surprised at how thick the top is, even after gouging out a fair bit there is still about 4mm of "coal"  and about 3mm of the rear flat section with the filler cap.

When you attack the tender the most obvious error on the UM one is the lack of the large tool box, or whatever it was, at the back with the sloping top (image linked from Google)

Cheers MIKE


How many roads must a man walk down ... ... ... ... ... before he knows he's lost!

Offline Bealman

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • N Gauge Society Number: 23151
  • Posts: 11328
  • Country: au
  • Gender: Male
  • Whoops back we go
    • Awards
Re: LSWR Adams 395
« Reply #5 on: January 29, 2016, 11:04:44 am »
I am constantly astounded by the way forum members improve on Union Mills models.

A credit to you all!  :thumbsup: :beers:

George
« Last Edit: January 29, 2016, 11:06:25 am by Bealman »
Vision over visibility. Bono, U2.

Offline N-Gauge-US

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • N Gauge Society Number: 26208
  • Posts: 948
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
  • British N-gauge N-thusiast from the US
    • YouTube
    • Awards
Re: LSWR Adams 395
« Reply #6 on: January 29, 2016, 02:33:18 pm »
 :o

I have been trying to decide on which UM model to get first and am tempted by the Adams 0395, but don't have the stomach for quite this drastic of a conversion! Good work!  :greatpicturessign:
Check out Avondale - My heritage railway themed layout :)

http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?topic=29371.0

Online Dorsetmike

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • N Gauge Society Number: 2365
  • Posts: 2631
  • Country: gb
  • Gender: Male
  • Grumpy old fart
    • Skype
    • Awards
Re: LSWR Adams 395
« Reply #7 on: January 29, 2016, 02:58:37 pm »
If you are modelling Southern, then the best bet from UM is the class 700 0-6-0, only a few minor fettlings needed, the coupling rods are a bit thick, they can be filed down, fit vacuum pipes front and rear, to be a bit fussier then lamp brackets, 3 above buffer beam, one either side of smokebox and one at top of smoke box, some people like to fit wire handrails, I usually carefully scrape the paint off, I could go a bit further and paint the scraped  "handrail" with something like "oily steel, needs a steady hand, dunno where mine has gone!

The T9 is OK if you are modelling the eastern or central sections in the 1930s and a few into BR, they were the only ones normally fitted with the 6 wheel tender, the majority of the rest of the class had the 8 wheel Drummond "watercart" (as in my sig below) they also had a narrower cab and small splashers to clear the coupling rods. 2 of the "wide cab" ones 337 and 338 retained their 8 wheel tenders. As I doubt there are any SR rivet counters on your side of the pond you could probably get away with a 6 wheel tender ::) :whistle:

The 0395 was getting a bit long in the tooth and was usually relegated to secondary duties, local goods, shunting, station or shed pilot, the 700 still saw plenty of use into BR days.
Cheers MIKE


How many roads must a man walk down ... ... ... ... ... before he knows he's lost!

Offline N-Gauge-US

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • N Gauge Society Number: 26208
  • Posts: 948
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
  • British N-gauge N-thusiast from the US
    • YouTube
    • Awards
Re: LSWR Adams 395
« Reply #8 on: January 29, 2016, 03:58:22 pm »
If you are modelling Southern, then the best bet from UM is the class 700 0-6-0, only a few minor fettlings needed, the coupling rods are a bit thick, they can be filed down, fit vacuum pipes front and rear, to be a bit fussier then lamp brackets, 3 above buffer beam, one either side of smokebox and one at top of smoke box, some people like to fit wire handrails, I usually carefully scrape the paint off, I could go a bit further and paint the scraped  "handrail" with something like "oily steel, needs a steady hand, dunno where mine has gone!

The T9 is OK if you are modelling the eastern or central sections in the 1930s and a few into BR, they were the only ones normally fitted with the 6 wheel tender, the majority of the rest of the class had the 8 wheel Drummond "watercart" (as in my sig below) they also had a narrower cab and small splashers to clear the coupling rods. 2 of the "wide cab" ones 337 and 338 retained their 8 wheel tenders. As I doubt there are any SR rivet counters on your side of the pond you could probably get away with a 6 wheel tender ::) :whistle:

The 0395 was getting a bit long in the tooth and was usually relegated to secondary duties, local goods, shunting, station or shed pilot, the 700 still saw plenty of use into BR days.

I find myself once again in your debt, Mike! Excellent advice as usual :) I model whatever is steam, with a preference for pre-grouping and grouping locos. Pre-grouping really gets me going, but the offerings rtr are sparse (part of my drive to kit and scratch build!). I also tend to like GWR locomotives (especially the post-broad gauge, pre-grouping GWR locos).

 I have told myself I'm going to wait and see what the new liveries are for the Dean Goods (3 GWR and a BR) before I make my decision, which almost certainly means I'll end up getting a Dean Goods AND something else! Lol

I am very tempted by the Prince of Wales (Mark Twain in LNWR black) and by the Adams, but feel the Adams tender is simply too high. I like the T9 as well and the 2P in SDJR or LMS livery. The 700 is only presently available in BR black which I can't contionably buy when other liveries are available  (Sorry BR fans!)

Sadly I could do with a few more rivet counters in my life here, as I can never seem to interest American modelers in UK stock (I tell them I model British n gauge and they shut down and I show them pictures of the most stunning locos and get blank looks). I don't know what I'd do without the detail oriented and helpful modelers like you on here!
Check out Avondale - My heritage railway themed layout :)

http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?topic=29371.0

Online Dorsetmike

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • N Gauge Society Number: 2365
  • Posts: 2631
  • Country: gb
  • Gender: Male
  • Grumpy old fart
    • Skype
    • Awards
Re: LSWR Adams 395
« Reply #9 on: January 29, 2016, 04:46:34 pm »
700s were black in SR days as well, the crew's nickname for them was "Black Motors" so you only need to remove the BR logo and number and get Fox transfer (decal) sheet FRH2400, which just has SOUTHERN and loco numbers for tender and front buffer beam; whilst ordering from Fox, FRH2405 is for coach text and numbers.

When you get round to the dark olive green livery 1923-about 38  lining is not produced specifically for SR which is a black border with a thin white line inside it, nearest I've found is  LNER white/black/white I apply that and ink or paint over the outer white, or use as is for boiler bands; again Fox, and FRH2350 for straight lines and some curves, 2350/2 for straight lines only and 2350/4 for corners.

OOPS, just realised we're hijacking the 0395 thread, apologies Ricardus.
Cheers MIKE


How many roads must a man walk down ... ... ... ... ... before he knows he's lost!

Offline Ricardus Harfelde

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • N Gauge Society Number: 24996
  • Posts: 80
  • Country: gb
    • Awards
Re: LSWR Adams 395
« Reply #10 on: January 29, 2016, 11:02:30 pm »
Thanks for all your comments

No need to apologise Mike, I've got the T9 and 700 to detail as well so am glad to have stimulated a bit of discussion.

I certainly wouldn't recommend my above work on the 395 as a quick & easy exercise, it has taken me a lot of time, but I'm looking to do some scratch building in the future and thought it would be a good introduction to some of the issues involved

Not sure if it was a one off, but the coupling rods for my 395 are fluted on one side of the rod and plain on the other side of the rod, which makes thinning down difficult as you are losing a lot of stiffness when you file them down (My 700 has a plain rod which doesn't have this problem).

For the tender (when I get round to it) I'm tempted to just use the UM drive and build the body et al from scratch as I'm a bit fed up with forever gouging away at white metal. I'm hoping that the weight of the drive + any extra lead that I can fit in will still give me a reasonable amount of traction & wheel/track contact. I'm planning to adopt Mr TheBrighton's technique of replacing the 6mm UM wheels with 8mm Farish tender ones. If I do this I reckon the top of the motor will be 18.2mm above the top of the rail, whereas the top of the coal rails on the 395 tender should be 18.5mm above the rail top so I should be able to do it if I pile up the coal a bit.

Online Dorsetmike

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • N Gauge Society Number: 2365
  • Posts: 2631
  • Country: gb
  • Gender: Male
  • Grumpy old fart
    • Skype
    • Awards
Re: LSWR Adams 395
« Reply #11 on: January 29, 2016, 11:17:37 pm »
See my sig below for the T9, Langley S15 tender body, Fleischmann 716x tender drive. I also milled a few thou off the cab sides and splashers and added coupling rod splashers as nearly all the wide cab ones were not on the Western section in the 1930s. I think it would be a right PITA to narrow the cab using only a file or minidrill and burrs.

If you go to the lengths of buying an S15 kit for the tender, the loco is not wasted, get a BHE N15 tender body and use that with the UM drive from the T9 and add a pair of wheels, cut some bogie side frames and add some springs and axle boxes. I managed to get hold of some etched Urie tender bogie sides many years ago, I think it was Worsley Works did them for me, had to add the axle boxes and springs though.
Cheers MIKE


How many roads must a man walk down ... ... ... ... ... before he knows he's lost!

Offline Ricardus Harfelde

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • N Gauge Society Number: 24996
  • Posts: 80
  • Country: gb
    • Awards
Re: LSWR Adams 395
« Reply #12 on: February 21, 2016, 04:23:57 pm »
I have added a new cab front & smokebox front to the above. To my mind two of the main features of the prototype are the sloping smokebox front & the large cab windows and I felt I could emphasise these by replacing the original castings with sheet metal replacements.

I made the cab window spectacles from 0.4mm diameter brass rod, cut over length, soldered on, trimmed and then filed flat. I used a modified NBrass smoke box door (I think it was the one for the SECR C class) by reducing the length of the hinge brackets, the hinge spacings are incorrect though. The boiler & cab are only temporarily fixed on & I will fill all the gaps when they are permanently in place






Offline PGN

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • N Gauge Society Number: 7306
  • Posts: 101
  • Country: gb
    • Awards
Re: LSWR Adams 395
« Reply #13 on: February 21, 2016, 04:58:02 pm »
That's looking really good
Pre-Grouping: the best of all possible worlds!

Online austinbob

  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • N Gauge Society Number: 23835
  • Posts: 3767
  • Country: gb
  • Gender: Male
    • Awards
Re: LSWR Adams 395
« Reply #14 on: February 21, 2016, 05:10:41 pm »
That's looking really good
Certainly is. What is most impressive is that the photos are much larger than life and in reality that is such a small loco in N gauge and I imagine you need good eyes and a steady hand to get to that standard, Very impressive work.
 :beers:
Size matters - especially if you don't have a lot of space - and N gauge is the answer!

Bob Austin

 

Please Support Us!
July Goal: £55.00
Due Date: Jul 31
Total Receipts: £60.00
Above Goal: £5.00
Site Currency: GBP
109% 
July Donations


Advertise Here
anything