Hailstone Posted July 17, 2018 Share Posted July 17, 2018 Hi everyone, Today's iteration of the King cad/cam for your thoughts. I have a couple of thoughts regarding the firebox top edge slope back to the cab, but i'd welcome thoughts. cheers Dave I have looked at the CAD images and then at numerous photos and videos and have come to the conclusion that the upper row of washout plugs on the King boilers is offset to each side, that is to say that on the Driver's side there are 3 washout plugs forward of the cladding band in the middle of the firebox and 4 to the rear, but on the fireman's side it is reversed, with 4 plugs in front of the cladding band and 3 at the rear, so the that the CAD for the fireman's side is incorrect. I am not usually a rivet counter, but previous comments on this forum set me thinking Regards, Alex Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJM Dave Posted July 17, 2018 Author Share Posted July 17, 2018 I have looked at the CAD images and then at numerous photos and videos and have come to the conclusion that the upper row of washout plugs on the King boilers is offset to each side, that is to say that on the Driver's side there are 3 washout plugs forward of the cladding band in the middle of the firebox and 4 to the rear, but on the fireman's side it is reversed, with 4 plugs in front of the cladding band and 3 at the rear, so the that the CAD for the fireman's side is incorrect. I am not usually a rivet counter, but previous comments on this forum set me thinking Regards, Alex Hi Alex, Thanks for that and your mail didn't fall on deaf ears as we were already on it, along with the cab roof profile mentioned previously. If all goes to plan i should be showing the revised cad/cam tomorrow morning. Cheers Dave 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJM Dave Posted July 18, 2018 Author Share Posted July 18, 2018 Hi Alex, Thanks for that and your mail didn't fall on deaf ears as we were already on it, along with the cab roof profile mentioned previously. If all goes to plan i should be showing the revised cad/cam tomorrow morning. Cheers Dave Hi everyone, got the cad/cam revision but have asked for the smokebox door to be more curved. should have that tomorrow (wednesday) to publish here. cheers Dave 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJM Dave Posted July 20, 2018 Author Share Posted July 20, 2018 Hi everyone, Sorry it's a day late, but here is the latest incarnation of the early King model cad/cam. Changes on this one include front bogie hidden weight for tracking, Smokebox door curve, Washout plugs, cab roof rear 'lip' and others. Cheers Dave 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vacuum Posted July 20, 2018 Share Posted July 20, 2018 Hi everyone, Sorry it's a day late, but here is the latest incarnation of the early King model cad/cam. Changes on this one include front bogie hidden weight for tracking, Smokebox door curve, Washout plugs, cab roof rear 'lip' and others. Cheers Dave Dave, The roof looks better. Are you sure the curvature of the smokebox door is not overstated? I have just noticed that for an early King the casing over the inside cylinders is too squared off - see the photos in Karhedron's post no. 355. Sorry not to have pointed this out sooner but I was fixated on the cab roof! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karhedron Posted July 20, 2018 Share Posted July 20, 2018 I have just noticed that for an early King the casing over the inside cylinders is too squared off - see the photos in Karhedron's post no. 355. Sorry not to have pointed this out sooner but I was fixated on the cab roof! Hmmm, curvature on the casing looks reasonable tome I think. Maybe it is just the angle of the CAD. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vacuum Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 Hmmm, curvature on the casing looks reasonable tome I think. Maybe it is just the angle of the CAD. kingcover.jpg I should have blown up the CADs before commenting and I think you could be right! Sorry I set a hare running on this, Dave. The smokebox door looks a little bulbous to me, though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karhedron Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 The smokebox door looks a little bulbous to me, though. Here is a comparison shot. It looks close to me but what do others think? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Higgs Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 I should have blown up the CADs before commenting and I think you could be right! Sorry I set a hare running on this, Dave. The smokebox door looks a little bulbous to me, though. I don't have a GA of a King, but here is a comparison with a Castle smokebox door. The CAD King does bulge out more compared to its width, but not by very much, it's about 10% extra. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Higgs Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 Here is a comparison shot. It looks close to me but what do others think? kingdoor.jpg Handrail knobs on the smokebox are in different positions. Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris M Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 Looks like this project is getting to the limits of what you can do in N gauge and this is a good thing. I want an accurate model and it should be as accurate as possible but for me we can get too pedantic given the size of the model and the details that will be seen as it goes round an N gauge layout. For instance the photo and CAD above show that the handrail knobs are way too big but I expect there isn't much that can be done about that. It is of course the same for all N gauge steam locos and even with these oversize ones they are too easily damaged and extremely fiddly to put back in place if they fall out (I know from spending many happy hours doing just that). The important thing is to capture the look of the loco as it runs down the line and that the model works well. The older Farish locos were completely unacceptable and I couldn't bring myself to run one even if it was given to me. I find the Dapol Grange is a good level of model for my needs. I have no idea of how accurate the finer details are but it looks right to me compared to photos. If the King is up to this standard I will be very happy; it sounds like it will exceed this which is great. I like to run trains and so a model that works well and reliably is very important. This King needs to be a good working model and not just a shelf queen. I'm confident you will do everything you can to ensure that is the case. Just a few thoughts. The thin wires between the loco and tender are a source of continuous pain on my Dapol locos as they do keep coming adrift. I hope the King will have a better solution than the Dapol locos had. I have never had the connections on a Farish loco fail so could you look there for ideas please. Pick up on both driving and tender wheels is important for smooth running. I know you plan to have a pair of driving wheels with traction tyres and I hope you will stick to this. I see this as essential because the lack of traction on the Farish Castle spoils what would otherwise be an excellent model. One current problem with Dapol locos is that it is difficult to get spare parts, do you have any plans to keep a supply of spares? I accept it is very difficult to know what will be required but I think such things as motors and gears would be useful. Also spare traction tyres are essential. The issue of spares on such simple and obvious things as traction tyres is a real pain in the posterior on Dapol locos. I can't get any for on my 28xx which renders it pretty useless for long freights and therefore makes it more ornament than workhorse. One observation on the above photo - I dare say different kings had slightly different fixings but the rear handrail knob on the smokebox is in a different place on the CAD compared to the photo. The photo placing looks more logical. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
grahame Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 . . . . we can get too pedantic given the size of the model and the details that will be seen as it goes round an N gauge layout. However, models aren't just seen running around a layout. I'd suggest that for much of their time they are stationary either in a display case (especially for collectors) or parked up in a fiddle-yard siding. Even when operational there will be lots of time when they stopped; at a station, at signals, in a depot, and so on. And, of course, N gauge models are small and light and easy to hold in the hand close to the eye to inspect and appreciate. Consequently I would suggest that there is an opportunity (and possibly need) to include more details than those you can see while it is running around. I think the mantra about only needing details seen when a model is whizzing around a layout at a 'normal viewing distance' (whatever that is) serves no useful purpose and is an irrelevance. G Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris M Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 However, models aren't just seen running around a layout. I'd suggest that for much of their time they are stationary either in a display case (especially for collectors) or parked up in a fiddle-yard siding. Even when operational there will be lots of time when they stopped; at a station, at signals, in a depot, and so on. And, of course, N gauge models are small and light and easy to hold in the hand close to the eye to inspect and appreciate. Consequently I would suggest that there is an opportunity (and possibly need) to include more details than those you can see while it is running around. I think the mantra about only needing details seen when a model is whizzing around a layout at a 'normal viewing distance' (whatever that is) serves no useful purpose and is an irrelevance. G If I was a collector or wanted to stare at locos sitting in a depot I would model O gauge. Because I want to see locos pulling trains through scenery I model in N Gauge. Yes I want good detailed models that look like the real thing and it’s great that Dave is showing the CAD here to get the details right. So far as I am concerned such things as whether the front bogie shows the strengthening introduced in the 1950s on it or not is an irrelevance because I won’t be sitting checking out things like that. What is very relevant to me is that it runs well, pulls well and can be kept running with spare parts should they be required. There is the basis of a great model here but there has to be as much emphasis on how well it runs as there is on detail. A shelf queen ( or king in this case) would be of no use to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJM Dave Posted July 21, 2018 Author Share Posted July 21, 2018 Hi everyone, The smokebox is being altered as you read this, and i'm getting the handrail knobs reduced to something more akin to the Farish Castle in size. As for power transfer, it will not be wired, but Metal type wipers from loco to tender. This is used by others in UK design and seem to be no trouble. Here's today's big smokebox door bulge cad/cams. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
grahame Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 So far as I am concerned such things as whether the front bogie shows the strengthening introduced in the 1950s on it or not is an irrelevance because I won’t be sitting checking out things like that. That's fine and understandable for yourself as an individual. I don't have a problem with what is important to you and appreciate your approach. However, I guess thou there will be N enthusiasts for whom details like that are important and will check out such things. Railway modelling is a broad church and it's nice to try and accommodate everyone, regardless of their approach and preferred mantras. So I applaud Dave in listening to feedback concerning details and trying to incorporate them in the model. G Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalfytich Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 Hi everyone, The smokebox is being altered as you read this, and i'm getting the handrail knobs reduced to something more akin to the Farish Castle in size. As for power transfer, it will not be wired, but Metal type wipers from loco to tender. This is used by others in UK design and seem to be no trouble. Here's today's big smokebox door bulge cad/cams. Just one thing. The modified smokebox door is on an older version of the CAD. The washout plugs have reverted to three in front and four behind the band on the firebox Dave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Higgs Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 (edited) The important thing is to capture the look of the loco as it runs down the line and that the model works well. The older Farish locos were completely unacceptable and I couldn't bring myself to run one even if it was given to me. I find the Dapol Grange is a good level of model for my needs. I have no idea of how accurate the finer details are but it looks right to me compared to photos. If the King is up to this standard I will be very happy; it sounds like it will exceed this which is great. I hope its better than the Grange. Given that both that and the Hall have a boiler that is too small in diameter, being a stretched version of the Manor, rather than the same as a 28XX which is what it should be. I would certainly hope the detailing standard matches that of the new Farish Castle. Including the paint job, on which the Castle is a cut above that in the Manor, Grange and Hall. Chris Edited July 21, 2018 by Chris Higgs Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Higgs Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 (edited) One observation on the above photo - I dare say different kings had slightly different fixings but the rear handrail knob on the smokebox is in a different place on the CAD compared to the photo. The photo placing looks more logical. The handrail knob positions changed. In BR days some of them at least are in the positions that Dave has them on the CAD: http://www.railuk.info/gallery/images_search.php?offset=100&item=&choice=&string=&order=type,%20file_name&dir=Next Edited July 21, 2018 by Chris Higgs Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted July 21, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 21, 2018 The handrail knob positions changed. In BR days some of them at least are in the positions that Dave has them on the CAD: http://www.railuk.info/gallery/images_search.php?offset=100&item=&choice=&string=&order=type,%20file_name&dir=Next A study of photos suggests the change of position is consistent with the fitting of the four row superheater. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karhedron Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 (edited) Just one thing. The modified smokebox door is on an older version of the CAD. The washout plugs have reverted to three in front and four behind the band on the firebox Dave I don't think so. The washout plugs look to be in the correct position for a loco in later GWR days (which the CAD represents). Edited July 21, 2018 by Karhedron 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les1952 Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 Please, if going smaller on handrail knobs- not plastic. I got out of US N-gauge as handrails were getting to the stage where they were so fine they disintegrated if you breathed on them too hard. - and US hood units have a devil of a lot of handrail to fall apart.... Just a thought Les Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalfytich Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 I don't think so. The washout plugs look to be in the correct position for a loco in later GWR days (which the CAD represents). King Edward II had 4 washout plugs in front of the band and three behind when I saw it at the Severn Valley in April. Dave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NinOz Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 Hmmm, curvature on the casing looks reasonable tome I think. Maybe it is just the angle of the CAD. kingcover.jpg Comparing big green thing to B/W insert picture, the curve on the green does not extend as far down as in the photo. The doo-hicky above and linked to the two breasts is too high on the green. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Higgs Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 S1030006.JPG King Edward II had 4 washout plugs in front of the band and three behind when I saw it at the Severn Valley in April. Dave It's not the same on the two sides. That's quite typical for a Belpaire firebox. Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hailstone Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 (edited) Followin on from my last post, the reason that the washout plugs are "interlaced" for want of a better description is that when you are doing a washout the water will not be shot out the other side and instead clean not only the top of the inner firebox, but the space between the two fireboxes. Having washed out a few Western engines in my time I can tell you it is a cold and potentially wet job at any time other than high summer! finally the King boilers were not replaced as far as I know, so that the position of the washout plugs would be the same for their entire working lives. Regards, Alex Edited July 23, 2018 by Hailstone Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts