Len Cattley
Western Thunderer
Heather you put much better than me 
Len
Len
Stanier 8F in S7
- Thread starter DavidinAus
- Start date
warren haywood
Western Thunderer
Didn't know you two were golfersHeather you put much better than me
Len
Len Cattley
Western Thunderer
DavidinAus
Western Thunderer
I have to say that I feel a little foolish about this, but as a warning to others …. See if you could/would have made the same error.
Original Footplate etch
The frames of my model 8F in Scale Seven I have decided to make at 29mm outside width (see previous posts). The nice etch of the main footplate made by Modern Outline Kits is for their Finescale construction, so the inside edges of the footplate would be too narrow for my model, and would hang over the insides of the frames.
It might not matter too much, but I thought this should be easily corrected, so I decided to re-form the line of rivets which runs parallel to the inside edge, then cut back the edge wherever it shows. I don’t have a rivet-forming tool which can precisely measure out and positon the rivets, but by careful measuring and scratching marks on the underside of the footplate, I seem to have managed a reasonable job. I also scratched on the footplate the width of the frames, ready to cut back the inside edges.
So far so good. I thought.
Next I cut back the frame edges, carefully cutting (piercing saw) and filing straight edges.
Trial fit to frames: mistake exposed: what width should I have made the distance across the inside edges of the footplate?
NOT 29mm!
It should have been 29mm less twice the thickness of the frames – 27.5mm. So the footplate now ended just outside of the frames! This would look even worse than the overhang which I had decided to remove. What can I now do?
I found some 0.7mm nickel-silver wire which I had left over from a previous project, and carefully soldered it along the inside of the frames. Look carefully at the last picture and you might be able to spot the differences!
Oh, well!
Original Footplate etchThe frames of my model 8F in Scale Seven I have decided to make at 29mm outside width (see previous posts). The nice etch of the main footplate made by Modern Outline Kits is for their Finescale construction, so the inside edges of the footplate would be too narrow for my model, and would hang over the insides of the frames.
It might not matter too much, but I thought this should be easily corrected, so I decided to re-form the line of rivets which runs parallel to the inside edge, then cut back the edge wherever it shows. I don’t have a rivet-forming tool which can precisely measure out and positon the rivets, but by careful measuring and scratching marks on the underside of the footplate, I seem to have managed a reasonable job. I also scratched on the footplate the width of the frames, ready to cut back the inside edges.
So far so good. I thought.Next I cut back the frame edges, carefully cutting (piercing saw) and filing straight edges.
Trial fit to frames: mistake exposed: what width should I have made the distance across the inside edges of the footplate?
NOT 29mm!
It should have been 29mm less twice the thickness of the frames – 27.5mm. So the footplate now ended just outside of the frames! This would look even worse than the overhang which I had decided to remove. What can I now do?
I found some 0.7mm nickel-silver wire which I had left over from a previous project, and carefully soldered it along the inside of the frames. Look carefully at the last picture and you might be able to spot the differences!
Oh, well!
mickoo
Western Thunderer
David,
Before you panic even more, the correct gap between the running plates is 4' 3½" which in 7mm is about 30mm.
The running plate 'does NOT' rest on the frames, it is bolted to an angle which runs the length of the outside of the frames, the frames extend above the running plate for almost their entire length, at the firebox and smokebox saddle they are extend by some margin, I've not measured the GA but guessing at least 6", for the rest between these two areas the frames extend above the footplate by about 1/8 - 1/4 "
What ever distance you have over the outside of your frames, that is the gap you need between the two running plates, I'm trying to find a decent photo on the web to show this but can scan the relevant GA if it would ease your mind
Addendum, some Flickr shots, not the perfect one yet, but close.
Y'all have to excuse the gent in this one, but by his left elbow you can see the frames as they extend above the running plate and run between the oil pots.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/45555233@N07/8431764509/sizes/k/
However this is probably the best shot I can find at short notice
https://www.flickr.com/photos/78239740@N07/14697432622/sizes/o/
Enjoy.
Ahh, perfection this should explain all and allay your fears 
https://www.flickr.com/photos/45555233@N07/14146722430/sizes/k/
So, I think you can safely remove your 0.7mm additions and add some extensions to the frames so that they just poke up above the running plate.
Before you panic even more, the correct gap between the running plates is 4' 3½" which in 7mm is about 30mm.
The running plate 'does NOT' rest on the frames, it is bolted to an angle which runs the length of the outside of the frames, the frames extend above the running plate for almost their entire length, at the firebox and smokebox saddle they are extend by some margin, I've not measured the GA but guessing at least 6", for the rest between these two areas the frames extend above the footplate by about 1/8 - 1/4 "
What ever distance you have over the outside of your frames, that is the gap you need between the two running plates, I'm trying to find a decent photo on the web to show this but can scan the relevant GA if it would ease your mind
Addendum, some Flickr shots, not the perfect one yet, but close.
Y'all have to excuse the gent in this one, but by his left elbow you can see the frames as they extend above the running plate and run between the oil pots.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/45555233@N07/8431764509/sizes/k/
However this is probably the best shot I can find at short notice
https://www.flickr.com/photos/78239740@N07/14697432622/sizes/o/
Enjoy.
Ahh, perfection
this should explain all and allay your fears https://www.flickr.com/photos/45555233@N07/14146722430/sizes/k/
So, I think you can safely remove your 0.7mm additions and add some extensions to the frames so that they just poke up above the running plate.
DavidinAus
Western Thunderer
Thanks.
It's interesting because I had wondered about the fixation of footplate-to-frame, and a bracket supporting the footplate outside of the frame accounts for the line of rivets.
Back to my model, though. Undoing the additions to the inside of the footplate and then putting additional height onto the frames seems very difficult, so instead I have scribed a line along the inside edge of the footplate (easy to scribe into the solder holding the wire onto the inside edge of the footplate). This gives an acceptable appearance, representing the tiny amount by which the frames reach above the footplate in these areas.
I'm impressed by your ability to find the pictures that were required, by the way.
David
It's interesting because I had wondered about the fixation of footplate-to-frame, and a bracket supporting the footplate outside of the frame accounts for the line of rivets.
Back to my model, though. Undoing the additions to the inside of the footplate and then putting additional height onto the frames seems very difficult, so instead I have scribed a line along the inside edge of the footplate (easy to scribe into the solder holding the wire onto the inside edge of the footplate). This gives an acceptable appearance, representing the tiny amount by which the frames reach above the footplate in these areas.
I'm impressed by your ability to find the pictures that were required, by the way.
David
DavidinAus
Western Thunderer
Please could I have some more help and advice?
I may have made a mistake, which has exposed a difficulty/problem with the etches (not related to S7), and I also need to some advice/help about cab construction. I will attach some pictures.
The first part is probably only going to make sense to someone who has made or is making this particular kit. The first picture shows the overall basic construction from the front:
On the underneath of the cab is part no 362, which is curved upward to make the curved plates leading up to the footplate.
This shows that I may have put part number 362 on the wrong way up. I am guessing this because the three holes to take the damper levers have ended up on the wrong side. However putting it the other way up would mean that the fold for the panel at the front with three round gaps in it would be on the wrong side to bend it downwards - ie the bend would be away from the etched line. This is why I used it the way up which you can see in my pictures. Also the half-etched areas at the front on the curved plates I thought must be on the outside, because otherwise they would be completely hidden!
So, if my analysis is correct, either the three holes for the damper levers are on the wrong side, or the etched line to fold the front plate is on the wrong side.
Now, advice, please.
If you look at picture No.s 3 and 4, you can see that despite my care I have ended up with a gap between the cab-side etches and the curved part of part number 362.
On the right side this doesn't matter, because if I push the curved part upwards, it neatly fits behind etch number 367 (this is the front of the cab, immediately behind the whitemetal firebox I think). This allows the shiny (unetched) strip at the side of the curved part on 362 to line up with the shiny strip along the lower edge of part number 367. Fine, it looks made to do just that. There will then be no gap along the bottom of the cab-side etch. The trouble is that on the left side, the curved part on 362 just abuts the thicker edge of part number 367 rather than going behind it, and leaves the curved part on 362 with a gap between that and the cab-side etch. This could be cured by removing a mm from the upper edge of part 362, but I'm reluctant to do that without knowing that it really needs to be done. Also with the assembly done so far, it will be awkward to do. You see I have become used to the idea that all the parts in this MOK kit fit perfectly!
So if anyone knows the answer as to what I should do, I would be grateful for help, once again.
Now onto the next request!
While I wait for the S7 wheels (for them to be sent to Aus., I want the whole lot at once, and I gather Slaters haven't produced the pony truck wheels yet, although the others are ready), I have also been putting the details on the backhead.
It looks good so far, but it has been difficult to identify exactly where all the tiny lost-wax castings go. Could anyone point me in the right direction to find views of the inside of an 8F cab, showing the backhead? The "Locomotive Profiles" books have two, but one is of an oil-burner, and the other one doesn't seem to have the same components as provided in my kit. Mostly it is the same, but some parts are seemingly missing from the kit (the one described in the book as the "independent steam valve"), and doesn't appear to be a casting either for the "blowdown valve" or one which goes where the steam sanding valve should fit, between the left water glass and the brake handle. There is a casting which can be seen in my picture placed in position, but if fixed there it will obstruct the regulator handle.
So photographs would help immensely to sort this out. Presumably there were variations, and the one used by MOK is different to the one in the LP book.
The pictures that I found via Google images didn't help. One was RH drive (?!?!?! - perhaps not really an 8F?), and one didn't have the sand gun control valves either.
Thanks
David C
I may have made a mistake, which has exposed a difficulty/problem with the etches (not related to S7), and I also need to some advice/help about cab construction. I will attach some pictures.
The first part is probably only going to make sense to someone who has made or is making this particular kit. The first picture shows the overall basic construction from the front:
On the underneath of the cab is part no 362, which is curved upward to make the curved plates leading up to the footplate.
This shows that I may have put part number 362 on the wrong way up. I am guessing this because the three holes to take the damper levers have ended up on the wrong side. However putting it the other way up would mean that the fold for the panel at the front with three round gaps in it would be on the wrong side to bend it downwards - ie the bend would be away from the etched line. This is why I used it the way up which you can see in my pictures. Also the half-etched areas at the front on the curved plates I thought must be on the outside, because otherwise they would be completely hidden!So, if my analysis is correct, either the three holes for the damper levers are on the wrong side, or the etched line to fold the front plate is on the wrong side.
Now, advice, please.
If you look at picture No.s 3 and 4, you can see that despite my care I have ended up with a gap between the cab-side etches and the curved part of part number 362.
On the right side this doesn't matter, because if I push the curved part upwards, it neatly fits behind etch number 367 (this is the front of the cab, immediately behind the whitemetal firebox I think). This allows the shiny (unetched) strip at the side of the curved part on 362 to line up with the shiny strip along the lower edge of part number 367. Fine, it looks made to do just that. There will then be no gap along the bottom of the cab-side etch. The trouble is that on the left side, the curved part on 362 just abuts the thicker edge of part number 367 rather than going behind it, and leaves the curved part on 362 with a gap between that and the cab-side etch. This could be cured by removing a mm from the upper edge of part 362, but I'm reluctant to do that without knowing that it really needs to be done. Also with the assembly done so far, it will be awkward to do. You see I have become used to the idea that all the parts in this MOK kit fit perfectly!
So if anyone knows the answer as to what I should do, I would be grateful for help, once again.
Now onto the next request!
While I wait for the S7 wheels (for them to be sent to Aus., I want the whole lot at once, and I gather Slaters haven't produced the pony truck wheels yet, although the others are ready), I have also been putting the details on the backhead.
It looks good so far, but it has been difficult to identify exactly where all the tiny lost-wax castings go. Could anyone point me in the right direction to find views of the inside of an 8F cab, showing the backhead? The "Locomotive Profiles" books have two, but one is of an oil-burner, and the other one doesn't seem to have the same components as provided in my kit. Mostly it is the same, but some parts are seemingly missing from the kit (the one described in the book as the "independent steam valve"), and doesn't appear to be a casting either for the "blowdown valve" or one which goes where the steam sanding valve should fit, between the left water glass and the brake handle. There is a casting which can be seen in my picture placed in position, but if fixed there it will obstruct the regulator handle.
So photographs would help immensely to sort this out. Presumably there were variations, and the one used by MOK is different to the one in the LP book.
The pictures that I found via Google images didn't help. One was RH drive (?!?!?! - perhaps not really an 8F?), and one didn't have the sand gun control valves either.
Thanks
David C
Hello David
It looks to me like you have fitted part 362 upside down... I to had this dilemma first time I built one the grooves along the edges are for the skirt along the footplate and under the cab to fit into the curved part them fits up under the footplate not under the overlay. If you look at the photo of the one built at the beginning of your thread zoom in and you can just about make this out. I hope this answers your first question.
Regards
Mark J
Edit by Steve Cook for format (Marks reply was caught up in the quote).
Last edited by a moderator:
OzzyO
Western Thunderer
Most of the L.M.S. Reg. handles had a double bend in them to help clear some of the backhead fittings. As seen below, this is a Jub. cab but most of the fitting are the same. For an 8F.
One fitting that should not be on an 8F backhead (front plate) is the Manson valve (steam heat) not seen in (in this photo) but you can see the gauge for it.
OzzyO.
One fitting that should not be on an 8F backhead (front plate) is the Manson valve (steam heat) not seen in (in this photo) but you can see the gauge for it.
OzzyO.
DavidinAus
Western Thunderer
Mark J was absolutely right.
By e-mail I found out from MOK (Dave Sharp) that I had definitely put the base of the cab on upside down. As Dave said, the instructions are "carp" (anagram) at this point, and actually the drawing is downright misleading. This has all sorts of minor but annoying effects. One was the fact that the formers inside the base of the cab had been made to accommodate the etched plates which were meant to go inside the curved sections (making them invisible - they are there only to make curving these areas easier). So the formers made the curved plates have a larger diameter of curve. This might only be a larger diameter by half the thickness of the N/S sheet (about 0.3mm therefore!) but this led to the gap at the outer end, exactly where I had found one. See the pictures in my last post.
After much internal debate, I decided that I would never be happy if I did not do the job properly, so I pulled all the cab base apart using my 75 Watt soldering iron. Once back to the component parts I tried to clean all the solder off the nickel-silver, then I flattened the bottom plate completely (apart from the front plate) first with my fingers, then with a tap hammer on a piece of flat granite. The front plate (with three holes) is now bent upwards as it should be.
I then reformed the curves, fitted the formers back (now easier because the former correctly fitted onto the curved sections. At the point shown in the picture, my 25W soldering iron stopped working. So I have sent off for a replacement.
Whilst I wait for a new soldering iron, here is a picture of the completed boiler backhead.
I am quite pleased with it. Basically I followed what fittings I could see on photo.s of preserved and other engines, and then put as many pipes as I could on the brass castings to be realistic. I "painted" it using metal blackener, scraped some off the copper pipes and painted the dials and water gauges by hand. A thin covering of matt varnish to complete the work. The pipes going off elsewhere in the cab will be bent and shortened later, of course.
David
By e-mail I found out from MOK (Dave Sharp) that I had definitely put the base of the cab on upside down. As Dave said, the instructions are "carp" (anagram) at this point, and actually the drawing is downright misleading. This has all sorts of minor but annoying effects. One was the fact that the formers inside the base of the cab had been made to accommodate the etched plates which were meant to go inside the curved sections (making them invisible - they are there only to make curving these areas easier). So the formers made the curved plates have a larger diameter of curve. This might only be a larger diameter by half the thickness of the N/S sheet (about 0.3mm therefore!) but this led to the gap at the outer end, exactly where I had found one. See the pictures in my last post.
After much internal debate, I decided that I would never be happy if I did not do the job properly, so I pulled all the cab base apart using my 75 Watt soldering iron. Once back to the component parts I tried to clean all the solder off the nickel-silver, then I flattened the bottom plate completely (apart from the front plate) first with my fingers, then with a tap hammer on a piece of flat granite. The front plate (with three holes) is now bent upwards as it should be.
I then reformed the curves, fitted the formers back (now easier because the former correctly fitted onto the curved sections. At the point shown in the picture, my 25W soldering iron stopped working. So I have sent off for a replacement.
Whilst I wait for a new soldering iron, here is a picture of the completed boiler backhead.
I am quite pleased with it. Basically I followed what fittings I could see on photo.s of preserved and other engines, and then put as many pipes as I could on the brass castings to be realistic. I "painted" it using metal blackener, scraped some off the copper pipes and painted the dials and water gauges by hand. A thin covering of matt varnish to complete the work. The pipes going off elsewhere in the cab will be bent and shortened later, of course.
David
I was lucky David the penny dropped for me before I had soldered mine together so it was a lot easier to correct...
Mark J
DavidinAus
Western Thunderer
Well the cab rebuild is now complete.
The wheels are now available, so I have ordered a set from the S7 Stores, and hope that they are even now winging their way across the world.
So thoughts turn to the chassis and frames again.
I have planned to do split-axle pickups, for the first time. I bought two sets of Slaters insulated hornblocks, but can someone tell me the best way to use them?
In the original form the hornblocks are brass, with slots cut in the blocks to run in the hornguides. The Slaters insulated hornblocks do not have a groove to fit on the part of the hornguides parallel to the frames. The insulated blocks have too much height, but can easily be cut back (left of fig.1). I assume that a piece of wire is needed to carry current from the axle through the hornblock bearing to the motor (right of fig.1), soldered in place.
The block can then sit within the inside part of the hornguide (fig.2), but how can it be held in position?
There are no grooves cut into the plastic blocks of the insulated hornblocks. Should I cut these grooves? If so, how? It would be difficult to do without shorting out the brass bearing in the hornblock to the frame. Should I just leave the hornblocks on the inside of the frames (as seen in the picture, although the block is upside-down) , but hold them out in the right position against the hornguides with a piece of plastic tubing over the axle? Could I use very thin Plastikard to hold the hornblocks onto the hornguides?
Whatever I do, I cannot use pickups like this on the driven axle, so I think that I will have to have pickups on the front three sets of driving wheels, and I am guessing that this may not be enough. So perhaps put simple wheel-rim wipers on the tender wheels (I haven't worked out at all how to do this yet).
What do people think?
David
The wheels are now available, so I have ordered a set from the S7 Stores, and hope that they are even now winging their way across the world.
So thoughts turn to the chassis and frames again.
I have planned to do split-axle pickups, for the first time. I bought two sets of Slaters insulated hornblocks, but can someone tell me the best way to use them?
In the original form the hornblocks are brass, with slots cut in the blocks to run in the hornguides. The Slaters insulated hornblocks do not have a groove to fit on the part of the hornguides parallel to the frames. The insulated blocks have too much height, but can easily be cut back (left of fig.1). I assume that a piece of wire is needed to carry current from the axle through the hornblock bearing to the motor (right of fig.1), soldered in place.
The block can then sit within the inside part of the hornguide (fig.2), but how can it be held in position?
There are no grooves cut into the plastic blocks of the insulated hornblocks. Should I cut these grooves? If so, how? It would be difficult to do without shorting out the brass bearing in the hornblock to the frame. Should I just leave the hornblocks on the inside of the frames (as seen in the picture, although the block is upside-down) , but hold them out in the right position against the hornguides with a piece of plastic tubing over the axle? Could I use very thin Plastikard to hold the hornblocks onto the hornguides?
Whatever I do, I cannot use pickups like this on the driven axle, so I think that I will have to have pickups on the front three sets of driving wheels, and I am guessing that this may not be enough. So perhaps put simple wheel-rim wipers on the tender wheels (I haven't worked out at all how to do this yet).
What do people think?
David
Attachments
Last edited:
Steph Dale
Western Thunderer
David,
If you file off the flanges on the horn guide, the wheels will hold the plastic horn blocks in place when the chassis is assembled. Putting a split in a driven axle isn't too tricky and can be done on the bench.
I always fit split axles on tenders; that's why I now do an etched horn guide for the Slaters bearings.
Steph
If you file off the flanges on the horn guide, the wheels will hold the plastic horn blocks in place when the chassis is assembled. Putting a split in a driven axle isn't too tricky and can be done on the bench.
I always fit split axles on tenders; that's why I now do an etched horn guide for the Slaters bearings.
Steph
JimG
Western Thunderer
David,
Another method used to provide a contact from these axleboxes is to drill and tap for a small thread - say 12BA - but use a taper tap and don't tap all the way with this tap so that the thread in the bronze liner is tight. Then screw a brass screw in and finish off the end of the screw to get a smooth bore. You might have to experiment to get a tight fit for the screw, but it doesn't need to be too tight since the pickup wire soldered to the screw head will prevent it turning too much in any case. This method avoids trying to solder to the bronze bearing liner.
Jim.
Steph Dale
Western Thunderer
David,
Further to my previous reply I remembered I posted a set of links on another thread recently.
The posting is here: http://www.westernthunder.co.uk/index.php?threads/jlrt-45-55xx-build.4098/#post-108893
The page on modifying the Finney hornguides shows what I mean by 'file off the flanges'...!
Steph
Further to my previous reply I remembered I posted a set of links on another thread recently.
The posting is here: http://www.westernthunder.co.uk/index.php?threads/jlrt-45-55xx-build.4098/#post-108893
The page on modifying the Finney hornguides shows what I mean by 'file off the flanges'...!
Steph
mickoo
Western Thunderer
Shouldn't the plastic hornblock flange be on the outside of the frame and space the wheel from the frame or be trapped between the wheel and frame? Granted it may be a bit thick and require thinning, if the plastic flange is on the inside or removed what's to stop the horn block simply sliding along the axle as it rotates, which is what I think David is on about.
On my A1 tender I just cut a groove in the rear face of the plastic hornblock and bearing with a slitting disc and then with a really hot iron flashed some solder in to hold the cable in place. Then I filled the slot with double bubble (2 part epoxy glue) to glue the cable in the slot, when all dry I just gently filed and reamed the excess solder out and fitted it to the axle.
David, regarding pick ups, why would three axles not be enough? 0-6-0T and 0-4-0T have that and less, personally I'm tending away from loco pick ups and all the hassle of insulated horn blocks etc and going for split axles on all tender wheels where insualted horn blocks can be easily used and easily hidden. It does mean cables and some form of connection between loco and tender (though I will probably go with a fixed set up), as a safety net I might add one or two loco axles as pick ups but it'd be trailing wheels under fire boxes or ones that don't require a lot of work on the chassis. This all may come and bite me on the butt later though LOL.
On my A1 tender I just cut a groove in the rear face of the plastic hornblock and bearing with a slitting disc and then with a really hot iron flashed some solder in to hold the cable in place. Then I filled the slot with double bubble (2 part epoxy glue) to glue the cable in the slot, when all dry I just gently filed and reamed the excess solder out and fitted it to the axle.
David, regarding pick ups, why would three axles not be enough? 0-6-0T and 0-4-0T have that and less, personally I'm tending away from loco pick ups and all the hassle of insulated horn blocks etc and going for split axles on all tender wheels where insualted horn blocks can be easily used and easily hidden. It does mean cables and some form of connection between loco and tender (though I will probably go with a fixed set up), as a safety net I might add one or two loco axles as pick ups but it'd be trailing wheels under fire boxes or ones that don't require a lot of work on the chassis. This all may come and bite me on the butt later though LOL.
DavidinAus
Western Thunderer
That's a very good thought, putting all the pickups in the tender.
It would have the great merit of leaving the compensation mechanism of the locomotive unchanged from the way it was intended to run.
I will look again. The trouble is that the MOK tender has a compensation mechanism, not hornblocks, etc, and I'm not at all sure how I would use split-axles bearings in this context. Is it possible to get insulated top hat bearings like the ones used for putting Slaters driving wheels in frames without compensation or suspension?
David
ps.: I've even thought of using batteries and radio control, but I know of no-one who could help me set this up ....
It would have the great merit of leaving the compensation mechanism of the locomotive unchanged from the way it was intended to run.
I will look again. The trouble is that the MOK tender has a compensation mechanism, not hornblocks, etc, and I'm not at all sure how I would use split-axles bearings in this context. Is it possible to get insulated top hat bearings like the ones used for putting Slaters driving wheels in frames without compensation or suspension?
David
ps.: I've even thought of using batteries and radio control, but I know of no-one who could help me set this up ....
Dikitriki
Flying Squad
Hi David
When I built my 8F, I reckoned it was next to impossible to get plunger pick ups in the loco given the engine suspension and the risk of weakening a frame with any more holes. My solution was to use the American principle - engine live one side, tender the other - which has worked brilliantly, except when inadvertently buffered up to a loco the other way round. That short took some head scratching to sort out.
I turned some tufnol top hat bearings into which standard bearings fitted when refurbishing a Patriot, precisely to use split axle pick up.
http://www.westernthunder.co.uk/index.php?threads/dikitrikis-dark-side-wagons.100/page-24
Richard
When I built my 8F, I reckoned it was next to impossible to get plunger pick ups in the loco given the engine suspension and the risk of weakening a frame with any more holes. My solution was to use the American principle - engine live one side, tender the other - which has worked brilliantly, except when inadvertently buffered up to a loco the other way round. That short took some head scratching to sort out.
I turned some tufnol top hat bearings into which standard bearings fitted when refurbishing a Patriot, precisely to use split axle pick up.
http://www.westernthunder.co.uk/index.php?threads/dikitrikis-dark-side-wagons.100/page-24
Richard