Building an Ace Kits "K"

JimG

Western Thunderer
Secondly he builds with sprung hornblocks on all axles and prefers to drive the centre axle, assuming an axle hung motor is in use

Brian,

I remember having a discussion with Alan Gibson many years ago about powering his S scale S&D 2-8-0 kit and his opinion was that if the chassis was compensated with jointed rods then you should try to power on one of the central axles to minimise the cumulative effects of play on the joints on the rods and the crankpin bearings. I think I remember that he had tried powering his 2-8-0's compensated chassis from the rear axle and it regularly jammed up. I think I also remember that his cure at the time was to fit un-jointed rods. :)

So I would reckon that it's probably easier to get a compensated/sprung 0-6-0/0-8-0/0-10-0 chassis running smoothly if the driven axle is central. The locos I have built in S scale have had 0-6-0 compensated chassis with jointed rods and have been driven from the rear axle (RG4 in the firebox) and I can remember a small amount of fiddling to get everything running smoothly, but the locos have the rear axle fixed with the forward two being compensated. I might look at powering the central axle on the 1:32 0-6-0 tank loco I've started since I hope to use CSB suspension with all axles live and the side tanks will allow the drive to be hidden.

Jim.
 

oldravendale

Western Thunderer
Very interesting, Jim. I wonder if that's why DJH instructions always suggest driving from a middle axle? In fact a friend from many years ago with a Gibson 2-8-0 had the same problem with the motion sometimes jamming. I wonder if that was the reason. The "K" will have jointed coupling rods so it's looking as though that might be the way to go.

At the moment I'll stick with the traditional sprung hornblocks. I've read all the stuff I can about CSBs and I think that's a bridge too far for this one!

Thanks, Jim.

Brian
 

Ian@StEnochs

Western Thunderer
All my 0-6-0s are driven on the rear axle, all wheels are sprung and connected with jointed rods. I have not had any problems with the motion jamming up.

It is important to give the coupling rod bearings only enough clearance to be free without being sloppy. Remember too that the axleboxes only need a very little up/down movement to compensate for track irregularities. About 1mm is plenty and no fore and aft play.

Ian.
 

oldravendale

Western Thunderer
Thanks Steph and Ian.

It appears from all the info that there is no single correct way to deal with this, just ways which individuals have found will work. (As you know, Steph, it is my normal practice to join coupling rods on the nuckle. Also I've had no problems driving from the rear wheel set, witness the A3). However, this gives me the opportunity for a GRAND EXPERIMENT and I'll make the motor/gearbox convertible to drive either the rear axle or the centre axle. I'll be fitting sprung hornblocks on all axles.

I've just made up the etched coupling rods for one side and those for the second side are soldered together and waiting for filing down. They are taking longer than normal because they suffer from inaccuracies and differences in width which I'm dealing with as I file them.

Thanks to all for your advice.

Brian
 

oldravendale

Western Thunderer
The saga continues.

IMG_5401.JPG

Frames. These scale up from the drawings pretty well. They match, too, which is a help:). They have been marked up for cutting out ready for the sprung hornblocks. Apart from expecting to meet the challenge once again of over large holes there are only two basic problems with these. One is the springs which are pretty ugly - in fact the centre one is lop sided and all look as though they've been drawn free hand and the other is that the axle holes do not match up as central to the point where the frames drop slightly below them and above the springs, even though the springs are central to the axle holes. Once again this is amazing as the error is immediately obvious and would have been so even on the first drawing for the etches. However, dimensionally everything matches and this error will be difficult to see behind the wheels.

IMG_5403.JPG
These are the coupling rods which were provided as a separate etch inside the kit. They are set against the riginals which are supplied on the kit fret and you can easily determine the error in these. At least Mr Ascough has put this right! They are jointed, although the instructions give no description about how to accomplish this. The frets are supplied as a double thickness etch (according to the instructions "the coupling rods.....can be made double thickness for strength"!!) although the two etches don't match one another if they are overlaid using the bearing holes as the reference. That was fairly easily corrected using large amounts of solder along top and bottom edge and filing back to the profile of the top fret. Also the bearing holes need to be 2.4mm to take the bearings. Those in the rods are 1.2mm. Now, I'd far rather holes be undersized but that's not a straightforward hand ream to a good fit. Not a real problem as I set these up on the drill press, opened them up to 2.1mm with a drill and then hand reamed the final 0.1mm.

IMG_5405.JPG
These are the chassis spacers. The holes are intended to take soldered 8BA nuts above them for fixings of pony truck to chassis and chassis to body, drawbar, etc., but these holes are hugely too large as you can see from the 8BA screws and nuts laid on them. I've worked out a way of filling these if I need to, but it may well be quicker to simply fit larger screws and nuts. They'll await clearance tests when it is time to match parts. However, the good news is that the holes are in the centre of the etches and the tabs are also symmetrical although undersize for the slots in the chassis sides.

IMG_5407.JPG
There are two widths of spaces provided, the narrower one for clearance reasons. However the narrower one is not the same length as the wider ones! Two are side by side here for comparison. In fact there are enough of the wider spacers provided to create a narrower one if it's actually needed, or even make a new one, but again a basic error.

IMG_5410.JPG IMG_5411.JPG
So, the chassis went together like this. Problems: There are slots for the top spacers. However, although referred to in the instructions there are no slots for the bottom spacers. I therefore set the chassis up on a chassis jig and soldered some 3mm rod across the chassis through the holes for the plunger pick ups, which I won't be using. If these rods get in the way of anything I'll replace them with a couple of the spares in more appropriate positions. The rods will be removable by judicious use of a slitting disc, Of greater concern, however, is that, because there's no slot for the front lower spacer, and this is supposed to be the location for the pony truck there is no pony truck fixing. This will have to be judged based on the fitting of the cylinders and brake gear, together with the dimensions of the pony truck. Instructions also say that the brake hangers are attached to the cross wires of 24SWG through the top and smallest holes in the chassis sides. To start with 24SWG wire is something a bit over 0.5mm according to my conversion chart - this must be far too fine for attaching brake hangers - and also the holes in the chassis sides are (I bet you're ahead of me here) about 2mm diameter. In fact these holes are probably nearer to the size I'd like to use. The holes in the brake hangers are also about 2mm.
IMG_5413.JPG
Here are the two etches for the pony truck. They are pretty ugly! I have considerable trepidation about how this will turn out. More in my next posting about these.

Brian
 

oldravendale

Western Thunderer
Oh dear!! Here's proof that you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

IMG_5416.JPG IMG_5417.JPG

Firstly, these photos show the pony truck upside down and not as it fits to the loco. (Sorry, Roger. Have a look at yours!) It appears that it should fit as shown above but checked against the original drawings this is definitely wrong. The "drawing" :)) in the instructions show it in the correct orientation. Actually, with wheels fitted it looks a great deal better than it should.

Initially I made this up following the "half etched line on the inside of the bend" convention which the whole of the rest of the kit follows. In fact there's nothing in the instructions to say whether the half etched lines should be inside or outside the bend but as the rest of the kit follows the regular convention I assumed the pony truck would.

Wrong!

If folded in the conventional manner the spring detail, such as it is, ends up on the inside of the component. I was able to refold it with the spring detail on the outside without cracking any bits off and soldered the bends as they are now rather weak. However, as can be seen from the top photo where I've removed a wheel the design is appalling. The sides do not come together with the bottom of the pony truck frame (they didn't even when folded with the half etched line on the inside). All in all it's poor. However...... I've inspected it as assembled and it looks OK. I'll sleep on it but I think that, with a bit of beefing up at the front to match the look of the truck based on one of my prototype photos, and some work on the radius arm it will probably look OK by the time the cylinders are in front of it.

The saving grace with this sub assembly is that the bearing holes are just a bit smaller than the 3/16" top hat bearings which fitted perfectly with the holes reamed out a trice.

One thing which is totally missing in the instructions is any guidance about applying any springing to help guide the pony truck in to bends and, indeed, to keep it on the track. I'll probably set it up with a simple wire spring initially and try the loco out to see if it needs anything more sophisticated. As mentioned in my previous post I still have to find a way of connecting the pony truck to the main chassis but I suspect a piece of judiciously placed brass spacer will do the trick.

Next comes the brakes.....

IMG_5420.JPG

This is a pretty horrible collection of bits. The instructions say, helpfully, that "The brake hangers are attached at the top to 24SWG wire fed through the smallest holes in the frames after the brake blocks have first been fitted to the hangers. These hangers may be united at the bottom using the etched push rods provided (these have spacings to match the axleholes.)" There is no drawing. I mentioned the problem of the hole size in the frames, and you can see above that the holes in the hangers and brake blocks are also huge. These brake parts bear only a passing resemblance to the GA. In fact the long etch with the forked ends fits perfectly between the front and rear axles, but how is it meant to connect with the brake assembly associated with the centre axle? The other pair of etches with the adjustment holes at one end and a fork on the other don't appear to match any spacing associated with the brakes. I've also guessed that the cross beans with the funny angular set up each side are, in fact, associated with the brakes but I can't be too sure.

I'm now going to watch Ireland give France a good walloping. I'll come back to this braking conundrum when I've had some time to consider options. I actually believe it might be correctable to give a likeness to the real thing but will need another redesign of the supplied components.

Brian
 

oldravendale

Western Thunderer
The con rods are single thickness nickel silver etches. I spent this afternoon cutting out a couple of blanks with which to back them. Then I thought "Should these in fact actually be only a single thickness?" (The coupling rods are double thickness, laminated).

Brian
 

ianlbsc

Western Thunderer
That drawing I sent, coupling rods 2 inches thick overall with the central part inside the flutes being 5/8ths of an inch thick. 3 and 7/16ths of an inch thick at boss. The connecting rod was thicker overall at two and a half inches with the central part at 3/4inch. 3 and a half inches thick at the bossK Details.jpg
 

oldravendale

Western Thunderer
Thanks Ian.

Yes, I noted what the drawings said, but was really asking about "best practice" in the model environment. In this case I'll make the conn rods double thickness - the rods are a compromise anyway although there is an overlay to go on the boss which will give the required thickness.

I much appreciate your advice.

Brian
 

oldravendale

Western Thunderer
It's just under a year since my last post on this thread, but I'm now reopening it. Today I opened up the boxes and acquainted myself with the current state of the kit. I couldn't find my reference material because I'd put it in a safe place for our move. After an hour of searching I eventually found it - at least I'd had the sense to keep it all together and in a folder.

So, I now have the loco kit with frames well on the way, coupling rods complete and the start of the motion bracket and cylinders. The "instructions" are such that I'll need to study the stuff I've completed in order to work out what's next. As has been the case throughout this will be an intermittent build, not least because I'm doing this in parallel with restoration work on the "new" house. I'll also be painting and lining "Evening Star" which I built in 2015 and last year for our 7mm club layout which will interrupt the build of the "K".

There will be no new photos tomorrow as I'm taking daughter home to Brighton, but hopefully pics of where I've got to on Thursday.

B
 

FiftyFourA

Western Thunderer
Brian

I have 'built' a couple of Ace kits - an interesting experience both times :headbang:. The locos as they finally appeared had many bits replaced, well most actually. Then I go and buy another one - a K3 because no one else seems to do one and it will save me time scratchbuilding - hopefully!

As they say, "you don't have to be mad to work here but ......"

I shall watch this build with interest.

Peter
 

oldravendale

Western Thunderer
"An interesting experience", indeed Peter. As in "May you live in interesting times".

And as for awakening beasts..... this one's been snoring rather loudly for the last six months or so, and anyway I'm sure the absence my comedy soldering routines has left a gap in some lives.

The first trick will be to work out how to lengthen the slidebars which are LG castings for the H1/H2 Atlantic, so very good, but too short to fit between cylinders and motion bracket. I'm considering using brass angle to support the joint in the lower one, which won't be seen. The best I can think of for the upper one is a strengthening strip at the back, but the coupling rod boss is then likely to clout it - and the lower one come to that. In fact the slidebars for the K are not straight, top and bottom, so some form of shaped support to recreate the original may be an option, but it'll be quite a lot of work.

This is another opportunity for comedy soldering par excellence, so some photos tomorrow and a request for ideas will follow.

B
 

oldravendale

Western Thunderer
As promised I'll endeavour to post some photos tomorrow. However, having chewed over the question of lengthening the slide bars I reckon that may be possible by creating a halved joint. I reckon a high temp solder and maybe 5mm overlap will do it. I'm pretty sure I have some nickel silver.

B
 

oldravendale

Western Thunderer
Hi Peter.

It's good to hear from someone who's already been through the Ace Kits mill! However, your S15 is proof, if it were needed, that a really good representation of the prototype can be produced despite all the singed fingers and modified/replaced parts.

I went in to this with my eyes open as I've seen plenty of reports about Ace kits builds previously. This one is reasonable dimensionally, but as has already been recounted, with slots, tabs and holes either too large, too small or not there at all. Additionally some of the metal needs wrangling out of it's designed shape and corrected. As we've said previously on this forum, it's unfortunate that newcomers to 7mm kit building will be attracted to these kits because of their low price, and they are, after all, made of brass and nickel silver, and with castings so initially appear exceptional value for money. Regrettably it's not until they start trying to build the thing that they'll discover the problems inherent in the build, even if they have enough knowledge of the prototype to recognise where the kit is wrong. I'm very familiar with the "K" class and yet have still made several errors which have been corrected due to help on this forum.

If, perchance, this had been my first 7mm loco kit I'd not have tried another, of any manufacture. Fortunately I came in to this scale via a Connoisseur Jinty which gave a few problems because of my inexperience but made up in to a very passable model, and one which I still run today. Next was a JM 3F which came from a similar stable. I've come to the "K" via a number of builds, some easy, some not so easy. There have been ups and downs, but I feel confident about tackling a difficult and incorrect kit now. However, if I was building kits for a living I'd certainly reject any Ace Kit unless I could establish it's antecedants, and even then I'd be very cautious in case some Ace type modifications had been made.

For certain this loco will take significantly longer than a far more complex but properly designed kit and will cost the same or even more at the end of the day when the additional castings are taken in to account. I suppose the benefit is that the spend is over a much longer period!

Brian
 

Andrew

Active Member
Hi Brian (and other participants in this thread)

Reading your contributions I am constantly reminded of the gaffe famously uttered by Gerald Ratner: when asked 'how he could sell things at such a low price', his response was ' because it's total crap'! I can safely say that I will never purchase an Ace kit as long as I have breath in my body, but I do admire the tenacity of those that have and ultimately risen to the challenge. These kits should carry a warning - 'can seriously damage your health both mental and physical' from what I read.

Good luck to you all.

Regards,

Andrew
 
Top