Jump to content

Hendreladis

Members
  • Content Count

    65
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

348 Good

Recent Profile Visitors

181 profile views
  1. What Andy said. I used the 03 because I had made one up on a whim but had no real use for it. The chassis in the Judith Edge Hunslet kit is really close to the 03 but I may well have reversed it to make it fit??? As Nick points out you can make the 2mm pb bushes fit the frames in the kit but I wanted a quickie - primarily because I wasn't sure if building the kin 2mm was practicable (by me at least). Turns out it goes together really well and the others I have 'in progress' do use the original frames. Different approach to Nick's and, needless to say, far from elegant. Andrew
  2. It is the 03 chassis - bodged a bit. It is the same loco that appeared alongside my revision of another of your kits a while back. Still haven't changed the buffers . . .
  3. I just stuck a 2mm 03 diesel chassis under mine. It ain't pretty but you can finish the loco in a couple of days that way. Great kit by the way Mike. I enjoyed putting it together.
  4. Thanks. Good call on the clockwork key. Until now I've been fixating on Mickey Mouse.
  5. Thanks Michael. A few hundred locos to go then. . . I'd better crack on.
  6. Thank you so much Michael and yup, that's exactly what has happened. More questions I am afraid. So do you form the bends on a 'whole' sheet of footplate material, attach to the frames and then remove the necessary cut outs for wheels etc? Are said bends formed by pressing annealed sheet on to a hard former that matches the frame profile whereby the metal assumes the correct shape? Or are you reliant on the skills of a lifetime to use bending rolls or similar in such a way that you can accurately coordinate the various curves of the mating surfaces without having to do too much tweaking when it comes time to solder up? From a 2mm perspective this attempt will pass muster as a test model but I want to be able to do it better for some future projects. Hence the input of the more experienced is truly appreciated. I prefer to bodge rather than making jigs but, if that is what needs to be done, I'll bite the bullet. Andrew
  7. Some of you Midland modellers have produced curved frame locos over the years and I'd be interested to learn how you managed to form the footplates. I bodged a sub-optimal but, as far as this project is concerned, adequate one for the model in the picture but I'd be interested to learn how others do things. Do you create a solid former and then press the footplate to that or, as I did, anneal a strip and overlay it over the frames soldering, pressing and curving from one end to the other? Some of the bends haven't ended up as clean as I'd have liked.
  8. You've only got one gloat cabinet? And it is well organised? And you can actually find stuff? But that would make you productive. Wish I was able to work in a tidier way. Your approach sounds brilliant. Painted the J63 tonight. Another nightmare. Shame I can't re-run 'the horror, the horror' again. Now I remember why I never finish things . . .
  9. Exactly like those! Thirty minutes of gloat box rummaging confirms it.
  10. I had a Terrier chassis that I had built a few years ago. After finding a Judith Edge J63 in the gloat box I attempted a quickie caricature. It'll suffice as a colliery shunter to back up the Peckett. Didn't like the miserable little boiler on the J63 so jacked things up to allow space for a bit more lead. Despite the diminutive size it is heavier than a Farish pannier running on an association underframe. While not strictly correct it would be possible to use the association Terrier kit, 7mm wheels and a 7mm motor as basis for a proper J63 as wb is correct. The motor sits very low in the body. If I can now locate the rest of the terrier chassis bits I'll finish off the brakegear . . .
  11. Thank Simon. Really helpful. The problem becomes obvious when someone points out the flaw in my thinking! So presumably by failing to neutralise the active ingredient in the flux cooking it all up in an aggressive environment simply exacerbates the potential for corrosion. That explains the attack on the smaller joints presumably. The dishwasher liquid certainly does a good job of degreasing but lesson learned. Clean it all up as much as possible, rinse, neutralise the active ingredient, rinse, then degrease and rinse. Then put it all back in the gloat box for a few years and forget about it . . . In answer to your final point re a 'control' in water. Because I use the gungy flux water alone doesn't eliminate the residue in the nooks and crannies. All the displaced crud in the bath usually ends up sticking to it. Truly grateful. Andrew
  12. Thanks Argos. The copper tone is definitely deposition not just discolouration. The inside of the body in the immediate proximity of unexposed brass is significantly pinker and the layer harder to remove. A few experiments have revealed that the cleaning product does seem to attack the low melt solder in particular. Small joints around handrail knobs, for example, have gone completely. Curiouser and curiouser. Andrew
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.