Rob Pulham
Western Thunderer
Superb Brian, and well worth the time and effort in my opinion
Building an Ace Kits "K"
- Thread starter oldravendale
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 7mm kit building lb&scr locos
Steph Dale
Western Thunderer
True, true - like this...: DS 70183 - CE Water tender « Test Trains, Departmental railway stock & Internal Users - departmentals.com
Steph
oldravendale
Western Thunderer
Thank you Steph. Best photo so far of the tender front. Let's say that I'm not displeased with my version!
ianlbsc
Western Thunderer
Hi, Just looking at this for the first time. I have attached a photo I took at York of the motion. I can send in higher resolution if required - all measurements readable. As you can see, I stood on the library stool to take this!
Is it any use? You certainly seem to be getting on well with the tender!
Cheers, Ian
Last edited:
oldravendale
Western Thunderer
Hi Ian.
I've found throughout the build that additional data always helps, so yes please. I'll PM you away from this thread.
Many thanks for thinking of it!
Brian
I've found throughout the build that additional data always helps, so yes please. I'll PM you away from this thread.
Many thanks for thinking of it!
Brian
oldravendale
Western Thunderer
Well, it's finished. At least the tender is. It's only taken a year - started in January 2015.
Here are the general views. Details to follow.
This shot shows the filler and the post behind it. This, I believe Steph advised, was something to do with the pre-heater. I expected it to have been removed at some time in the loco's career but examination of the prototype pictures showed it to be present right to the end. The white metal part laying on the tender top is the Ace interpretation, and it's entirely wrong. So is the location hole in the tender top which the drawings show to be offset. I created the post from tube with a brass wire core and the assembly was filed to shape by hand to match the drawings.
Tender rear with lost wax pipework from commercial sources. The lamp irons are coach lamp irons from Laurie Griffin modified to match those of the LBSCR tender. Couplings, which will come from CPL have yet to be made up and fitted. The buffer heads will be polished smooth and chemically blackened.
The fire iron tunnel on the tender RHS has been modified to match the drawings. Then there's a lot in this shot which is not provided in the kit including the matching plating alongside the toolbox on the LHS, cut out from brass to match the drawings and photos. The tarpaulin hooks are from nickel silver strip. The tool boxes are much modified GNR ones from Laurie Griffin. The tool post is scratch built from tube with a brass rod core and wire to create a small ring at the top. The cross piece is another brass wire let in to a groove. (A more detailed photo of this later as it's tiny but, when tools are added will come in to it's own and is most obvious in shots of this side of the loco.) Then, behind the coal plate is a pair of levers in to the coal space, again scratch built. I've written previously about the tender doors and their fixings, all from scratch. The brake lever has been made using the central casting of the one in the kit but with everything else hanging off it from scratch. Finally the footsteps have been shaped to match the drawings. The steps themselves have been modified as the returned edges were far too high and had to be cut back. The corners of the drawbar beam (if that's what it's called!) were filed to an angle to match the steps.
This shot is a bit of self indulgence as it shows the delicate fire iron post in detail.
Last of all is the view underneath which will hardly be seen and again for which there are brake shoes and brake rods only in the kit. However, following the advice on this forum, for which many thanks, I've moved the pivot point forward and installed the Westinghouse brake and rodding which is probably nearer to the prototype. Unfortunately, because the inside frames get in the way the Westinghouse cylinder cannot be moved far enough out but when viewed on track the appearance underneath is much improved.
And that's it. Next up is the loco itself, the build of which will be much interrupted by the impending house move and lack of work shop for at least the next few months. I'll try to get the axles split and frames built before I shut operations down although even that may have to be abandoned at an early stage.
Brian
Here are the general views. Details to follow.
This shot shows the filler and the post behind it. This, I believe Steph advised, was something to do with the pre-heater. I expected it to have been removed at some time in the loco's career but examination of the prototype pictures showed it to be present right to the end. The white metal part laying on the tender top is the Ace interpretation, and it's entirely wrong. So is the location hole in the tender top which the drawings show to be offset. I created the post from tube with a brass wire core and the assembly was filed to shape by hand to match the drawings.
Tender rear with lost wax pipework from commercial sources. The lamp irons are coach lamp irons from Laurie Griffin modified to match those of the LBSCR tender. Couplings, which will come from CPL have yet to be made up and fitted. The buffer heads will be polished smooth and chemically blackened.
The fire iron tunnel on the tender RHS has been modified to match the drawings. Then there's a lot in this shot which is not provided in the kit including the matching plating alongside the toolbox on the LHS, cut out from brass to match the drawings and photos. The tarpaulin hooks are from nickel silver strip. The tool boxes are much modified GNR ones from Laurie Griffin. The tool post is scratch built from tube with a brass rod core and wire to create a small ring at the top. The cross piece is another brass wire let in to a groove. (A more detailed photo of this later as it's tiny but, when tools are added will come in to it's own and is most obvious in shots of this side of the loco.) Then, behind the coal plate is a pair of levers in to the coal space, again scratch built. I've written previously about the tender doors and their fixings, all from scratch. The brake lever has been made using the central casting of the one in the kit but with everything else hanging off it from scratch. Finally the footsteps have been shaped to match the drawings. The steps themselves have been modified as the returned edges were far too high and had to be cut back. The corners of the drawbar beam (if that's what it's called!) were filed to an angle to match the steps.
This shot is a bit of self indulgence as it shows the delicate fire iron post in detail.
Last of all is the view underneath which will hardly be seen and again for which there are brake shoes and brake rods only in the kit. However, following the advice on this forum, for which many thanks, I've moved the pivot point forward and installed the Westinghouse brake and rodding which is probably nearer to the prototype. Unfortunately, because the inside frames get in the way the Westinghouse cylinder cannot be moved far enough out but when viewed on track the appearance underneath is much improved.
And that's it. Next up is the loco itself, the build of which will be much interrupted by the impending house move and lack of work shop for at least the next few months. I'll try to get the axles split and frames built before I shut operations down although even that may have to be abandoned at an early stage.
Brian
Steph Dale
Western Thunderer
Good work Dad, but I find I'm troubled:
If everything else was such a problem, I find it hard to explain how the axlebox and spring castings are so good. And they're really good...
Steph
If everything else was such a problem, I find it hard to explain how the axlebox and spring castings are so good. And they're really good...
Steph
Jon Gwinnett
Western Thunderer
Bravo sir, courage in the face of adversity to date. I'm sure many less hardy souls, myself included, would have given up long ago.
Heather Kay
Western Thunderer
Like many models that make you wonder why you ever started them, once they are finished to your satisfaction it is a relief. I think the final result is superb.
oldravendale
Western Thunderer
Thanks for your kind comments. Yes, loadsa work to get there, but what a lot I've learned along the way.
And Steph - yes, those castings are superb and appear to be correct for the prototype! In fact most of the castings are pretty good, just not enough of them and most are wrong! In fact dimensionally this tender is pretty sound but it doesn't appear to have been thought through.
Brian
And Steph - yes, those castings are superb and appear to be correct for the prototype! In fact most of the castings are pretty good, just not enough of them and most are wrong! In fact dimensionally this tender is pretty sound but it doesn't appear to have been thought through.
Brian
demu1037
Western Thunderer
Funnily enough the P2 has tender axleboxes that are *spectacularly* better than the rest of the collection of parts alleged to be a P2
Peter Cross
Western Thunderer
The tender has come out well. Ace kits tend to be more hands on modelling rather than shake the box style.
topshed34a
Western Thunderer
Nice looking beast, and how nice in mixed traffic livery, I am building the C1 Atlantic, I would really like to paint it GNR livery but that is difficult. One went into nationalization so may be I could model the last one in BR black
oldravendale
Western Thunderer
Mixed traffic black it'll be, Steve. And hand lined.
It's a wonderful, understated livery. Far better than those garish blues (ducks to avoid flying brickbats).
I'll have to finish the loco first, though. Suggest you return to this thread in about 2018.
Brian
It's a wonderful, understated livery. Far better than those garish blues (ducks to avoid flying brickbats).
I'll have to finish the loco first, though. Suggest you return to this thread in about 2018.
Brian
oldravendale
Western Thunderer
We now start a new voyage of discovery.......
THE LOCOMOTIVE!!!
Frames are in nickel silver, so a good start. The springs and hangers are ugly and look as though they've been drawn free hand and, as part of the fret, they are also in only a single dimension. Any ideas about who may make lost wax LBSCR springs and hangers - I've no idea whether these are different from those employed on other railways?
The instructions refer to fitting two spacers at the top of the frames and one at the position of the slot at the bottom of the frames. The two top slots are present but the one at the bottom is not. This is not insurmountable but once again an issue of real sloppiness in design and instruction.
The spacers themselves do, however, fit within the slots with only sight slop horizontally on the front ones and the axle holes are not oversize for the bearings. You'll remember that the bearing holes for the tender axles were oversize. The central holes in the spacers are actually central too, again a considerable improvement on the tender. However, these central holes are intended to take an 8BA screw in to a captive nut. In fact even a 4BA is not a tight fit, so I'll either fill and redrill for 8BA or use a 4BA captive nut and screw - I can see no reason why not.
Here we come to the bit where I need some of the collective wisdom of the WT group. The instructions advise that the drive should be on the central axle, which should be fixed, and that if hornblocks are fitted these should be on the front and rear axles. That seems to me like a route to creating a rocking horse, although I accept that adjustment screws could alleviate the problem. In fact I'm using a Portescap motor/gearbox which I have in stock and if I drive the rear wheels the motor will fit in to the firebox. Would this be the preferred route or is there some benefit which I've failed to see in driving on the centre axle? Also (and bear in mind here that the tender has split axles and insulated hornblocks so that power will be collected via the tender) will there be any benefit in fitting split axles and plastic hornblocks to the undriven axles of the loco for additional current collection? I'd prefer to use brass sprung hornblocks which can be soldered in position.
Finally, is the received wisdom to make the driven axle bearings fixed with the other two axles sprung, or to spring all axles? The benefit of having one axle in a fixed position is that it provides a reference.
I don't trust the instructions at all, hence these questions. However, the frames are now cut out and the cusps filed down. Matched to the drawings these look to be spot on dimensionally. Spacers are ready to solder in place once I've decided on what to do about the over large holes and the cut outs for the hornblocks will take no time at all. Coupling rods, needed for the set up, are yet to be removed from the fret (in fact there are separate replacements as it looks as though those on the fret are the wrong length) and the two halves sweated together. For some reason there's a pair of replacement cylinder wrappers in brass and also a pair on the nickel silver etch. The only difference appears to be that the rivets need punching out on the brass whereas those on the nickel silver are etched. The sizes and number of rivets are identical. Curiouser and curiouser.
Brian
THE LOCOMOTIVE!!!
Frames are in nickel silver, so a good start. The springs and hangers are ugly and look as though they've been drawn free hand and, as part of the fret, they are also in only a single dimension. Any ideas about who may make lost wax LBSCR springs and hangers - I've no idea whether these are different from those employed on other railways?
The instructions refer to fitting two spacers at the top of the frames and one at the position of the slot at the bottom of the frames. The two top slots are present but the one at the bottom is not. This is not insurmountable but once again an issue of real sloppiness in design and instruction.
The spacers themselves do, however, fit within the slots with only sight slop horizontally on the front ones and the axle holes are not oversize for the bearings. You'll remember that the bearing holes for the tender axles were oversize. The central holes in the spacers are actually central too, again a considerable improvement on the tender. However, these central holes are intended to take an 8BA screw in to a captive nut. In fact even a 4BA is not a tight fit, so I'll either fill and redrill for 8BA or use a 4BA captive nut and screw - I can see no reason why not.
Here we come to the bit where I need some of the collective wisdom of the WT group. The instructions advise that the drive should be on the central axle, which should be fixed, and that if hornblocks are fitted these should be on the front and rear axles. That seems to me like a route to creating a rocking horse, although I accept that adjustment screws could alleviate the problem. In fact I'm using a Portescap motor/gearbox which I have in stock and if I drive the rear wheels the motor will fit in to the firebox. Would this be the preferred route or is there some benefit which I've failed to see in driving on the centre axle? Also (and bear in mind here that the tender has split axles and insulated hornblocks so that power will be collected via the tender) will there be any benefit in fitting split axles and plastic hornblocks to the undriven axles of the loco for additional current collection? I'd prefer to use brass sprung hornblocks which can be soldered in position.
Finally, is the received wisdom to make the driven axle bearings fixed with the other two axles sprung, or to spring all axles? The benefit of having one axle in a fixed position is that it provides a reference.
I don't trust the instructions at all, hence these questions. However, the frames are now cut out and the cusps filed down. Matched to the drawings these look to be spot on dimensionally. Spacers are ready to solder in place once I've decided on what to do about the over large holes and the cut outs for the hornblocks will take no time at all. Coupling rods, needed for the set up, are yet to be removed from the fret (in fact there are separate replacements as it looks as though those on the fret are the wrong length) and the two halves sweated together. For some reason there's a pair of replacement cylinder wrappers in brass and also a pair on the nickel silver etch. The only difference appears to be that the rivets need punching out on the brass whereas those on the nickel silver are etched. The sizes and number of rivets are identical. Curiouser and curiouser.
Brian
Steph Dale
Western Thunderer
Dad,
For castings start looking at the GNR castings available from Laurie Griffin, Hobbyhorse and Ragstone. These locos are built after Marsh turned up at Brighton with elements of the Doncaster parts bin...
Steph
For castings start looking at the GNR castings available from Laurie Griffin, Hobbyhorse and Ragstone. These locos are built after Marsh turned up at Brighton with elements of the Doncaster parts bin...
Steph
simond
Western Thunderer
Brian
The question of drive on loco axles comes up repeatedly.
There is no need whatsoever to have a fixed axle, given a self-contained gearbox, but of course, it is perfectly permissible to do so should you so desire. I would strongly advise that, if there is a fixed axle, it should not be a middle one, as this seems to be a route to a rocking horse or worse. I cannot imagine why anyone would recommend such an absurdity.
There are good arguments for fixing the front axle, given the likely lack of clearance between cross head and coupling rods, but that's not a fat lot of help unless you want the motor to be on show.
Brian Clapperton of ABC has written a treatise on the subject of springing & compensation - it's on their web-site. He makes an interesting point about bogie locos having a very narrow triangle of support, and it typically being too far back, thus making them prone to "tripping over" as they go into a curve.
My preference, having tried springing, is tending towards compensation again. In which case, I would suggest a pair of beams connecting the axle boxes on middle & rear axles, putting the base of the triangle somewhere near the front of the firebox, and either a rocking front axle, or a compensation beam between front axle & pony truck - the fulcrum for this will be further forward than the front axle, of course, so the triangle will be a bit longer. It should then be possible to weight the loco to get both stability and traction.
I still haven't built something with continuous springy wire beams. I have a 43xx mogul to build, maybe that one...
Best
Simon
The question of drive on loco axles comes up repeatedly.
There is no need whatsoever to have a fixed axle, given a self-contained gearbox, but of course, it is perfectly permissible to do so should you so desire. I would strongly advise that, if there is a fixed axle, it should not be a middle one, as this seems to be a route to a rocking horse or worse. I cannot imagine why anyone would recommend such an absurdity.
There are good arguments for fixing the front axle, given the likely lack of clearance between cross head and coupling rods, but that's not a fat lot of help unless you want the motor to be on show.
Brian Clapperton of ABC has written a treatise on the subject of springing & compensation - it's on their web-site. He makes an interesting point about bogie locos having a very narrow triangle of support, and it typically being too far back, thus making them prone to "tripping over" as they go into a curve.
My preference, having tried springing, is tending towards compensation again. In which case, I would suggest a pair of beams connecting the axle boxes on middle & rear axles, putting the base of the triangle somewhere near the front of the firebox, and either a rocking front axle, or a compensation beam between front axle & pony truck - the fulcrum for this will be further forward than the front axle, of course, so the triangle will be a bit longer. It should then be possible to weight the loco to get both stability and traction.
I still haven't built something with continuous springy wire beams. I have a 43xx mogul to build, maybe that one...
Best
Simon
richard carr
Western Thunderer
Brian
I agree with Simon, I would put a pair of beams between the middle and rear axles and probably go for the rocking front axle.
Equally though, a beam between the pony truck and front axle works well too.
Richard
I agree with Simon, I would put a pair of beams between the middle and rear axles and probably go for the rocking front axle.
Equally though, a beam between the pony truck and front axle works well too.
Richard
oldravendale
Western Thunderer
Thanks for your thoughts, Steph. I've been through the web sites and it looks possible, but there are very few photos so it's difficult to know. I'll probably wait until the next O Gauge exhibition to look at the wares on the three options you've suggested - unfortunately I won't be able to make it to Kettering. Fortunately, however, even if I build the chassis with the etched springs and hangers in place these are easily removable at a later stage if suitable cast alternatives are located.
Thanks too to Richard and Simon. I used compensation on all my locos up to bout four builds ago when i moved to split axles and sprung hornblocks. I've used these very successfully for a while now and like their total adjustability (at least, if I'm not using the new Slaters version!) I've just been discussing this issue with a professional model builder too. His suggestions have surprised me and give me pause for thought.
Firstly his view is that pick up from tender only, using sprung hornblocks and split axles is the method he's standardised and that, in his opinion, additional pick ups from the loco will be unnecessary. Secondly he builds with sprung hornblocks on all axles and prefers to drive the centre axle, assuming an axle hung motor is in use. He's also described his set up to ensure the reference point is maintained which involves scribing through the centre line of the bearing holes, but I expect everyone is familiar with that.
All in all I'm now more confused, but at a higher and more educated level than I was previously.
Brian
Thanks too to Richard and Simon. I used compensation on all my locos up to bout four builds ago when i moved to split axles and sprung hornblocks. I've used these very successfully for a while now and like their total adjustability (at least, if I'm not using the new Slaters version!) I've just been discussing this issue with a professional model builder too. His suggestions have surprised me and give me pause for thought.
Firstly his view is that pick up from tender only, using sprung hornblocks and split axles is the method he's standardised and that, in his opinion, additional pick ups from the loco will be unnecessary. Secondly he builds with sprung hornblocks on all axles and prefers to drive the centre axle, assuming an axle hung motor is in use. He's also described his set up to ensure the reference point is maintained which involves scribing through the centre line of the bearing holes, but I expect everyone is familiar with that.
All in all I'm now more confused, but at a higher and more educated level than I was previously.
Brian