High Level Kits

With EM North approaching, I was hoping to have a decent supply of Mashimas with me, based on the fact they were dispatched from Japan on the 14th of August. Unfortunately, UK Customs have stuck their oar in again, and the parcel has been resting at the Coventry hub since 16th of last month. Tried ringing them but, after listening to a series of inappropriate options from a machine, it hung up. They really are not an asset to this country. If anyone wants a motor at the show, I’ll take orders and will send it on post free.

There's bit of info on it here. Note the cut-down cab, and daredevil shunter!... http://www.railwaywondersoftheworld.com/diesel-shunters.html

Its a LYR Pug wheel, from Gibson.

Just completed, a pilot model built from test etches which will be on the stand for the next two shows, after which there will be an improved, production version which will include brass buffers and extra castings. The model of Armstrong’s D10 Demonstrator of 1932, is tiny, about 2 inches long and comes with an integral high-reduction gearbox, optional compensation and IllusoDrive for smooth running.

Thanks Doug, I'll keep an eye out.

Anyone interested in an etched chassis, click HERE Post #400

Many thanks to Jeremy C. I now have on loan, his 14’’ Barclay drawing so can make a start when myself and local historian Mr Porcy Main have figured out how to approach this kit for the best result. Key questions at this stage are: 1 What are the differences between the 14 and 16’’ real Barclays. There will probably not be a straightforward answer as locos were made to customers’ specifications so there are many possible variables, but there will also be things that are common to those sizes. 2 How have Hattons treated these differences on the models? If the real locos had significant dimensional differences (and at this stage we think the 16 was about 6mm longer with the possibility of bits above the footplate shuffled around as well) then is this reflected in the models, or have only cosmetic differences been modelled, like the chassis rails at the front, or the models produced in specific liveries with features which would identify them as 14 or 16’’? 3 If the two 4mm models do turn out to be similar, then are they closer to a 14 or a 16’’ I think things may clearer when the models are in circulation. Any comments or thoughts are welcome?....

Yes, that might help, thank you. Its also equally important to figure out how Hattons have treated the two variants.

Not yet. I'll post some when I have something decent. Yes, gathering info. Trying to figure out the differences between 14 and 16, in both model and real form?...

Test etches are now being produced for a replacement chassis for the Hornby J50. There are a number of frame options, and plain or fluted rods are included. Our approach differs from previous kits as there are less building options. Working on the assumption that all OO modellers will be happy with the model as it comes, it will be EM/P4 only. The frames come with hornblock cut-outs ready done, which saves a bit of work, and the model is designed around CSB suspension. Cutting down the number of options has greatly reduced the complexity of both the instructions and the kit itself, and has eliminated a number of compromises that would be necessary to allow so many options to co-exist. Because there is no rigid option the design incorporates drop-out wheelsets and removable (cosmetic) spring units. Also on test will be a very, cute little Armstrong Whitworth D10, which ran on The North Sunderland Railway. This weird-looking, tiny diesel electric had a transverse engine and central jackshaft, with open or closed cab options.

Many thanks Mr 50. I did that kit before the MiniBlox came out, which would now be the obvious choice for the trailing wheel.

Bevels won’t give much of a reduction, say 3:1, so that means bigger gears, or more gears, in the rest of the box, so it’s less compact. RG4s got away with it because the motor could handle the higher ratios. The bevel box was 7mm scale and so the box and gears, in relation to the loco, was much smaller, as was the motor. As I said, the O scale lot showed no interest. I had the thing on the stand for long enough, then gave up. I've found the formula of smallish gears and worms seems to work well in practice and is very flexible. I can motorise a tiny engine like the Hudswell Clarke with 108:1 reduction and a 1224, but also provide 34:1 with a big 1420 can for a pacific, both using standard components. There are other ways of doing things of course.

I'm going to revisit the motor bogies when I've decided on a range of motors to replace the Mashimas. I'll see how the land lies then - a lot depends on what RTR is available and what that runs like. It;s not like the old days, when it all ran like a bag of hammers.

Would you be willing to try CSB, if it was all sorted with anchors pre-drilled and all you had to do was put it together?...

I appreciate you asking Hayfield, I did dip my toe in the water, but decided against it in the end. Probably the best part of 10 years ago now, I touted an all brass bevel-driven box around the shows 4mm shows, trying to canvass opinion from the few 7mm modellers I bumped into, and some of whom were on 7mm layouts. It had milled sideframes, hand-cut cluster gears and was like the inside of a clock - it knocked spots off anything we'd seen. The 7mm people I showed it to couldn't have been more disinterested; the response was very disappointing. They seemed happy with a single worm and gear and pointed out how much cheaper this was and was more than good enough. I never got as far as going to any 7mm shows and maybe if I had they would've been more enthusiastic, but I ended up forgetting about 7mm altogether. The man who used to cut the final drive gears for the 4mm stuff designed this box at the request of Pete Waterman who, when it was finished, said he was buying from ABC instead. Another prototype was loaned out to someone and we never got that back.

J50 CHASSIS I’m designing a chassis to go under the Hornby J50 at the request of some P4 modellers. The brief is CSB suspension and removable wheelsets (in other words the springs) and the rest as per the usual High Level spec. Because this kit is aimed at a much narrower market (two P4 modellers up to now!!!) it can designed with specific features in mind from the word go. Hornblock cut-outs, for example, can be ready done, saving a fair bit of work. Beams and compensation gubbins can be left out, as can the springs which are normally etched as part of the sideframes. Up to now, I’ve drawn P4 parts only. I’ve ruled out the OO market altogether as the RTR model (so I’m told) runs fine and so can see no reason why anyone using 16.5 would want a chassis, but I’d be interested to know the views of EM modellers. Would you prefer to re-wheel the existing chassis, or build a new fully-spring one from a kit?...

Mike, have you a reference for this wheel, and a picture if possible?

Aww shucks!!

David, I appreciate your support and suggestions. I need to be able to offer the customer a chassis that, after investing money and time in, looks at least as good as the RTR one, and I just don't think etched spokes would achieve that. I know from talking to Colin that plastic wheels are not as easy to make as people might think. The interference fit of the plastic centre in both in the rim and on the axle, means there is considerable stress present in the spokes, and between them around the bore. This is asking a lot from the moulding material, and the sizes need to be right. I think I’d prefer to stick with the tried and tested methods... I can go ahead using the existing larger Barclay 3’8’’ wheel and hope Colin can find the time to sort the smaller one at some point.

Unfortnately the new gear as an extra 3 teeth on it so the centre distance is 0.6mm more. I appreciate that comment very much and I do like to think the kits give builders a fighting chance of success.

Yes, all this makes sense if I can get the wheels... Although they were a standard design, they were many variations to meet customers' requirements. As long as the bodies were more or less the same, I could incorporate as many as possible.

For the time being, the LoRiders are the same as ever. I'm hanging on until I can decide on which motor to use for bogies as an alternative to the 1420 which will eventually become unavailable. When this happens I'll need to redesign the bogies.

The Gibson 3' 8'' was made by Alan Gibson specially for my Barclay 0-6-0 when I first brought it out, and it really looks the part. I could use this for the larger wheeled versions, but it would be a stretch for the 3'5'' ones. Part of the problem is that I can't have situation where customers are shelling out money and investing their time only to end up with something that looks less prototypical than the RTR chassis does... and they've set the bar pretty high there.

I had a quick look at these and I'm not sure they have the same thick section spoke we're after. I may have been looking at the wrong one though...

To be honest David I don't know, nor do I know if these materials will stay stable over any length of time.