Whitemetal GWR Grange kit

[TechnicArrow]

Insert usual disclaimer about is this the right place to post, feel free to move topic, etc.

 

I recently remembered I have an old, partially-completed whitemetal kit of a GWR "Grange" class 4-6-0. I inherited it from my grandfather; I would now like to restore it in memory of him, even though we never met.

My initial plan was to restore it to full working condition. Given the poor condition of the motor, I've brought down my ambition to a working but static model. I have since discovered that it probably won't run around the trainset-origin curves on my layout, the front pony truck fouls the cylinders, and the whitemetal pistons and con rods look daunting. Therefore an entirely static model is now the likely outcome, but being able to shunt it around (or add a tender drive later) would be nice.

 

However, as I'm more comfortable with cardboard and plastic, I've only attempted one whitemetal kit in the past. That one model is still incomplete - and it's only a simple signal box interior. What advice can the internet provide for a novice whitemetal builder? A good place to start being what adhesive should I use?

 

(Some of the parts in the photos below might not belong to this kit, as the box was used to store miscellaneous loco running gear for a while)

[hayfield]

Nice locos but of their age, I am a great fan of K's kits and have quite a few. The main weaknesses is the chassis, wheels and motor. The good news is that you have the better motor (Mk1) and the self quartered wheels. Also looks like your farther never fitted the cylinders. If the loco runs OK as it is I would replaces the whitemetal connecting rods for etched nickelsilver ones and also the whitemetal  crossheads and piston rods for brass ones.

 

If it runs poorly then buy an etched replacement chassis. Many replace the drivers for Romford/Markit wheels (now an expensive option) and also replace the motor and gears

 

On the other hand if the chassis runs fine then it can be build as designed, just ensure everything fits smoothly 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

2 hours ago, TechnicArrow said:

...My initial plan was to restore it to full working condition. Given the poor condition of the motor, I've brought down my ambition to a working but static model. I have since discovered that it probably won't run around the trainset-origin curves on my layout, the front pony truck fouls the cylinders, and the whitemetal pistons and con rods look daunting. Therefore an entirely static model is now the likely outcome, but being able to shunt it around (or add a tender drive later) would be nice...

 

 

 

I note you characterise the motor as 'poor': I would bin it if the loco is going to be a push along. (There would be no difficulty dropping in a fold up gearbox with a modern can motor mounted on it onto the centre axle, provided that wheelset comes apart nicely to permit fitting.)

 

As suggested above, a modern chassis kit, new wheels and rods, motor and gearbox combination would be better yet if a runner is required, but there is more to think about.

 

There are very visible problems around the front bogie. It is already evident where the flanges of the front bogie wheelset are wearing through the paint to create a good location for short circuits. The fouling of bogie wheels onto the cylinders when running on curves is obvious. One good dodge that is now readily available is to use plastic cylinders from RTR. Usually made slightly underscale and often 'notched' to avoid too much bogie wheel fouling, and no risk of short circuits on plastic. Slightly undersize bogie wheels probably required for set track curves. 'Nudging' the cylinder position forward may help too.

[The Johnster]

The good news is that you have all the bits and most of the assembly is already done, to a good standard.  What remains is the cylinders and motion, i.e. the piston rod, crosshead, and connecting rod, along with presumably the vacuum pump on the rh side.  To be honest I would give up on it 'as is' as a working model on setrack curves; you might get away with it using 34's method but it'll be a lot of faffing.  If the aim is to do it in memory of your grandfather, it could be worth considering it as a mantlepiece display model, which seems somehow more respectful than a 'mere' shed lurker on the layout.

 

My initial thought regarding getting it to run would be simply to substitute a complete Hornby Grange chassis; once you've fitted the body to it and eliminated any points at which the Hornby mechanism fouls the body you should be up and running.  You'll also be able to put in some cab detail without the motor protruding into the cab.  Your grandfather's body work, which looks very good, will have a functional role to play on your layout, and you won't have to resort to tender drive, a thing I don't like; moreover, you can if you choose model the tender empty or nearly empty, not always an option with RTR.  There'll be brake blocks and rodding and other underframe detail not in the kit.  And the setrack curves will no longer be a problem!

 

I can recommend 'Glue and Glaze' liquid glazing for the cab windows (no connection, satisfied user); very effective and easy to apply.  When you apply it, it looks awful, a milky fogged glass appearance, but it goes off completely flat and crystal clear.  

 

I wonder what's wrong with the motor.  It might be worth test running it removed from the chassis to see if it's actually duff, and hanging on to if it isn't.  Problems could be down to gear meshing, pickup, or short circuiting, always a fiddle on these sort of kits.

Edited April 23, 2019 by The Johnster

[TechnicArrow]

Thanks all for the responses.

 

@hayfield - Options I hadn't considered, and if the running gear was the only issue then I'd certainly try it. The bogie issues push me away from that though.

@34theletterbetweenB&D - I'm relying on my memory of motor the last time I tried to run it, as I don't have a controller with me - I left it at Uni, 150 miles away! 

@The Johnster - Very useful, thanks. I was coming to the conclusion it will have to be a display model, but finding a Hornby (or any other) chassis might work too. I'll look into this one further. 

Plenty of ideas though. Either way the project has now been pushed to the summer holidays, rather than cramming it in over my remaining two weeks of Easter. Thanks again!

[Steamport Southport]

I would just replace the motion parts and bogie with the Comet versions. Possibly the whole chassis depending on how well it runs, if it works okay then I would keep it as it is. The rest looks fine.

 

Whitemetal motion is something I would totally avoid if possible.

 

Bogie is LS6.

Motion Pack is LM26

Cylinders LC2

Crosshead LS8

 

http://www.cometmodels.co.uk/

 

You must admit the Comet motion looks much better.

 

http://www.cometmodels.co.uk/modules/viewcatpic.php/2/1133

 

 

Funnily enough I've got a K's GWR 28xx where the builder got to a similar stage.

 

 

 

Jason

[hayfield]

The motor is not that bad for the age it is, granted a modern can motor with a decent gearbox (High Level) would be far better. But the issues with the motor may either be down to cleaning the communicator and a bit of oil on the bearings, or just the useless pickup system designed by K's 

 

The other issue with use on train set curves is the centre drivers having flanges

 

As you are a student I would build it as a working display model, using the parts in the kit, with the exception of the pickups. Fit a couple of printed circuit board (vero board is better) pieces either side of the gear wheel (cut an isolation grove down the centre of both pieces to stop short circuits) using 2 part epoxy to fix to the frames, using  PB wire not strip. Just have it run up and down a straight piece of track until you have a layout to use it on

[hayfield]

6 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

I would just replace the motion parts and bogie with the Comet versions. Possibly the whole chassis depending on how well it runs, if it works okay then I would keep it as it is. The rest looks fine.

 

Whitemetal motion is something I would totally avoid if possible.

 

Bogie is LS6.

Motion Pack is LM26

Cylinders LC2

Crosshead LS8

 

http://www.cometmodels.co.uk/

 

You must admit the Comet motion looks much better.

 

http://www.cometmodels.co.uk/modules/viewcatpic.php/2/1133

 

 

Funnily enough I've got a K's GWR 28xx where the builder got to a similar stage.

 

 

 

Jason

 

 

Jason

 

There are plenty of kit built locos where the body was built but the modellers struggled with the chassis building

[The Johnster]

I always built the chassis first, and didn’t touch any thing else until it was finished, painted, and tested.  I knew if I could do that the rest would assemble itself if I shook the box.  I always had more trouble with apparently simple block chassis than with fold up brass or nickel silver.  

 

Many years now since I’ve attempted anything like this, but a Southeastern/Wills chassis kit for an old Wills 1854 body kindly given me is in the offing!

 

[Steamport Southport]

To be fair the OPs grandfather has done that. The chassis is virtually complete. Just needs the cylinders attaching and connecting to the crossheads and con rods.

 

Maybe he considered using better quality parts but never got round to it. If you look at the rods they do look a bit shoddy.

 

 

Jason

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

6 hours ago, The Johnster said:

My initial thought regarding getting it to run would be simply to substitute a complete Hornby Grange chassis; once you've fitted the body to it and eliminated any points at which the Hornby mechanism fouls the body you should be up and running...

It's an invitingly straightforward potential path to a running loco, and the weight of a whitemetal body will bestow great traction.

 

Can you hear a 'but' coming? Hornby have often equipped their models with decent size motors, which fit inside thin walled moulded body shells which necessarily flex at footplate level to admit the motor. The whitemetal body is stiff by comparison, with wall thickness typically greater than a current RTR plastic bodied model.

 

It would be worth asking 'someone' with a Hornby Grange to measure the width over the motor can, and the position relative to the wheelbase over which this width applies, so that the potential for a fit through the aperture in the whitemetal body underside can be assessed. There may be quite a lot of internal carving required to admit the motor, and possibly to provide height clearance for the motor too.

[melmerby]

Comet do an etched motion set + cylinders which is designed for the Grange.

LM25 @ £11.00 for the motion.

LC2 @ £4.50 for the cylinders

Might be something useful there

Also do the complete chassis kit:

LCP60 @ £37.50

Get them from Wizard Models: https://www.wizardmodels.ltd/product-category/locomotive/?filter_2_railway_company=gwr-great-western-railway&filter_3_manufacturer=comet_models

 

[DCB]

I tried building K's and M&L Granges years ago with little success. The K's Grange kit always was a bit awkward and ugly and in many ways didn't really even measure up to the Triang Hall which preceded it.  The drive to the centre axle leaving a cab full of motor, the excessively high gearing and gutless motor and the questionable screw on wheels were all pretty naff. 

I don't think you can get it round sub 2ft radius curves without serious modifications, principally changing the wheels for flangeless centre drivers and changing the cylinders. You can get a 4-6-0 round 18" radius with all wheels flanged if you either drive the leading or trailing  coupled axle or drive the centre axle with a spur final drive, but you cannot have enough sideplay with a direct worm drive on the centre axle,  Take the flanges off and its fine, but you are into serious dosh if you fit Romfords and generic Romfords have a silly little crank throw.  I suspect Markits do a proper 30" throw wheels set if you can afford them. The various RTR 61XX wheels should be a better bet if you can quarter them.  My Grange runs Hornby Dublo 4MT Tank wheels!

Cylinders are ugly, spacing them out to clear the rods and insulating them from the frame is just about essential as is making sure the piston rods run in line with the frame not at an angle.   Airfix 61XX/  Hornby 28XX/ Hornby Grange cylinders should do,  The Mainine /Bachmann  Manor need more work as they plug onto a square block on the chassis each side. I make my own slide bars from N gauge rail as the plastic slide bars break so easily.  Bachmann Manor/ Airfix 61xx/Castle rods might be better than the K's but you are getting away from what Grandpa built.

The Cab windows are noticeably ugly and undersize, which can be fixed with a file but  The full size Grange cab sides don't overlap the spectacle plate like the Hall does.  I think Grandpa has the cab roof too far forward.

You can make a reasonable runner for trainset curves with a lot of work or stick it in the showcase until you have a layout with the big sweeping curves K's intended it for.  Personally  I would think about  a Tender motor and U/J drive to the loco a la Guy Williams of Pendon's earlier locos like the Pendon 28XX

Stuff the loco body with lead and watch it pull 2 X RTR LMS 4-6-0s backwards,  Bit Like Churchward claimed his locos could do!

[hayfield]

9 hours ago, melmerby said:

Comet do an etched motion set + cylinders which is designed for the Grange.

LM25 @ £11.00 for the motion.

LC2 @ £4.50 for the cylinders

Might be something useful there

Also do the complete chassis kit:

LCP60 @ £37.50

Get them from Wizard Models: https://www.wizardmodels.ltd/product-category/locomotive/?filter_2_railway_company=gwr-great-western-railway&filter_3_manufacturer=comet_models

 

 

 

The one trouble with this option would be the cost which does not stop at £37,50

 

A set of Markit drivers plus axles and crankpins is in excess of £40, a decent motor and gearbox set again over £30. As you can see an investment of over £100. Using Gibson wheels could reduce the cost by £20 but you have to quarter them, and for a student may well be a step too far

[hayfield]

3 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

I tried building K's and M&L Granges years ago with little success. The K's Grange kit always was a bit awkward and ugly and in many ways didn't really even measure up to the Triang Hall which preceded it.  The drive to the centre axle leaving a cab full of motor, the excessively high gearing and gutless motor and the questionable screw on wheels were all pretty naff. 

 

I think you are talking about the 80's series with the  HMP 2 motor and plastic centred wheels. Looking at the photo it is the earlier 70's series with the Mk 1 motor and pre-quartered wheels. The motor is fine especially if a flywheel is fitted, The wheels sometimes were supplied off square, which the older code 100 coarser standard could cope with. The main issues with this kit was the chassis side frames, as these were stamped out with a keyhole shaped axle holes they tended to to curve slightly. They need to be checked for straightness

 

3 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

 

You can make a reasonable runner for trainset curves with a lot of work or stick it in the showcase until you have a layout with the big sweeping curves K's intended it for.  Personally  I would think about  a Tender motor and U/J drive to the loco a la Guy Williams of Pendon's earlier locos like the Pendon 28XX

Stuff the loco body with lead and watch it pull 2 X RTR LMS 4-6-0s backwards,  Bit Like Churchward claimed his locos could do!

 

At the moment we do not know if the loco runs yet, and I doubt with what the OP has it could be made to run around train set curves.

I would advise him to rebuild the chassis one step at a time, by stripping the chassis down, then rebuilding the chassis testing it one step at a time. As I assume the grandfather was having issues with it

 

First is to check the straightness of the frames, then fit the drivers and coupling rods and adjust until you have a very free running chassis, un-assemble and paint the chassis and wheels then re-assemble

Secondly fit the motor into the chassis and adjust it till it meshes correctly

Now make and fit new pickups, test till (as an 0-6-0) it runs as sweet as a nut

Build and fit the cylinders, adjust where necessary and paint

Finally build, paint and fit the front bogie

 

May sound a bit drastic but if its not working well as it is better to start again and it needs un-assembling to paint anyway

 

[melmerby]

22 minutes ago, hayfield said:

 

 

The one trouble with this option would be the cost which does not stop at £37,50

 

A set of Markit drivers plus axles and crankpins is in excess of £40, a decent motor and gearbox set again over £30. As you can see an investment of over £100. Using Gibson wheels could reduce the cost by £20 but you have to quarter them, and for a student may well be a step too far

I did start with the motion which looks to be the least attractive part of the kit, however my only experience with K's 70s series kits (48XX & Trailer) is not good. I found the fit of the parts to be appalling, making it extremely dificult to get a decent model.

 

[melmerby]

3 minutes ago, hayfield said:

 The main issues with this kit was the chassis side frames, as these were stamped out with a keyhole shaped axle holes they tended to to curve slightly. They need to be checked for straightness

 

 

That was a big problem with my 48XX as the frames were different length each side with cutouts in different positions relative to each other.

[hayfield]

2 minutes ago, melmerby said:

That was a big problem with my 48XX as the frames were different length each side with cutouts in different positions relative to each other.

 

Sadly it was how it was with kits of this (1960's) era. I like the K's kits as they were the cheapest route into building decent locos as they were complete except paint & glue/solder

 

In 1967 a Dean Goods was £6.56 a J73 just under £5, a comparable Wills kit 4F  body kit £3.17 requiring a donor Jinty chassis which in those days meant buying a new loco for its chassis which was a real luxury, on this loco had the option of a special chassis still requiring motor, wheels and gears again far more expensive than a complete K's kit,

 

By the late 70's and the introduction of the 80's series the real cost of K's kits had come down, but sadly so had the quality

[melmerby]

I suppose I was spoilt when I built my first whitemetal kit. It was a Wills 94XX where everything fitted together nicely and made up into a nice (but wrongly proportioned) loco with a Jinty chassis. I even had the Airfix/MRRC 5 pole motor and Romford wheels.

I can't remember where the chassis came from as I never had a Jinty!

Next was the 48XX & trailer, which even to this day have never been finished due to the appalling quality of fit.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

40 minutes ago, melmerby said:

I suppose I was spoilt when I built my first whitemetal kit. It was a Wills ...

That's all very familiar. Wills N7 and then J39, and a K's J50 bodyline kit. Full of confidence. A friend pleaded with me to build a K's Dean Goods for him. Heartily sick of whitemetal kits by the time I had that finished, and never bought K's thereafter. Then I went for broke and attempted a Stephen Poole J15. Castings so thick there was no space inside loco or tender to actually fit the then available motors, and that was actually one of the easier problems to overcome...

 

Back on subject. Might be best to finish the OP's Grange as a non-runner using the supplied parts. Cheap, and any steam layout of any size needs a loco on 'shed day' out of steam.

[DCB]

2 hours ago, hayfield said:

 

I think you are talking about the 80's series with the  HMP 2 motor and plastic centred wheels. Looking at the photo it is the earlier 70's series with the Mk 1 motor and pre-quartered wheels. The motor is fine especially if a flywheel is fitted, The wheels sometimes were supplied off square, which the older code 100 coarser standard could cope with. The main issues with this kit was the chassis side frames, as these were stamped out with a keyhole shaped axle holes they tended to to curve slightly. They need to be checked for straightness

 

 

 

Sadly I was talking about the K's Mk2(?)  motor with "Square" magnets and no pole piece securing screws.   I have several Mk1s and a Mk2  and in my experience they need lower as in  60:1 gears to work nicely and then the loco has a limited top speed, 40 mph or so, fine for a partially fitted freight, but not for a Parcels or Milk.  The wheels look like D axle pre quartered with the 1/8th axle so changing the axle gear should be a doddle. Worms come off the MK 2 with difficulty,  Heat the worm and the motor falls apart, so beware.

[Steamport Southport]

If I was the OP I would finish it off as intended for now. I take it you have the instructions and if you need parts then post on here or PM me as I might have some of the K's bits spare. I've got at least one unbuilt Grange still in the sealed pack. I don't think I'll be using the motion parts. Free of charge of course.

 

Then in a few years when finances are better then I would consider a replacement Comet chassis. You could really go to town on it if you desire. Who know what layout you've got in ten years time? Train set curves could be a distant memory by then.

 

Please don't go down the tender drive or ancient Hornby Dublo/Triang parts route. They were outdated methods forty years ago and I don't know why people still recommend them. Notice that none of the manufacturers still use tender drive? There is a reason for that. It was terrible.

 

 

Jason

[hayfield]

David

 

I have enlarged the photo and I now think I can see the screw on the wheel of the plastic centred wheel, though its on the older chassis, I have seen these types of wheel work OK but many more which have been damaged beyond repair.

 

If they are the newer type and the chassis rolls freely I would leave them as they are

[Coach bogie]

I would like to suggest replacing the cylinder block with a plastic one to solve the shorting issues.

 

https://www.petersspares.com/Hornby-x9350w-grange-class-loco-cylinder-block-weathered.ir

 

I have been replacing both K's and Wills/SEF with Hornby spares for some time. You can also get replacement pistons and rods made from nickel rather than use the cast ones.

 

https://www.petersspares.com/Hornby-x9348w-grange-valve-gear-set-weathered.ir

 

Mike Wiltshire 

[The Johnster]

Wandering a little, but I had a K's 8750 back in the day which went together all right, and ran well enough; in fact it's cab survived until quite recently having been used in an 57xx to 8750 conversion of a Mainline pannier.  When I built it, it was my first whitemetal kit and I thought it was the mutt's nuts, and that I was as well for building it.  The sight of it hauling a rake of Ratio 4 wheelers around a 2 foot radius Peco Streamline curve confirmed that I was a proper modeller and had progressed beyond the train set stage.  

 

I subsequently, in the 80s, made a very good job of a Westward 64xx, a perfect runner until it went out of quarter.  But I had my share of whitemetal failures with dodgy chassis and poorly fitting parts, and have incomplete builds that'll never be completed as they are not required for this layout.  The K's A31 autocoach has been mentioned a couple of times in not very glowing terms; I picked up a bodyshell at the 'small' Cardiff show and am refurbishing it, but am not impressed.  The original builder has made a fair fist of the body with epoxy resin, but the construction, with no floor and half sides that are joined at the vestibule door, might have enabled the kit to be supplied in a smaller box but looks like a nightmare to assemble straight and square.  Glad I didn't have to do it!

 

Whitemetal is not the best possible material for a coach, as it makes the bodywork look far too thick and, to my mind, the cast detail is not up to the standards attained by even 1960s plastic toolings never mind the modern RTR miracles.  The end detail on my K's auto is very crude and will have to come off and be replaced on even this model, which is never going to amount to much in terms of fine scale appearance.  It is, for now, the most practical way of providing the layout with a panelled auto trailer, and is providing some enjoyable modelling, but like the OP's Grange, it is what it is and is never going to look better than an Airfix A28/30, never mind a Baccy A38 (about as good as RTR gets, as it should be at that price).  

 

I would only consider building a whitemetal kit if it was the only possible way of acquiring a prototype I needed for the layout's timetable; they often need a lot of work to complete to a decent standard, and we have moved on from the days when Wills 94xx on Triang Jinty chassis were considered 'scale' if they had Romford wheels.  Fold up or sheet chassis and gearboxes have made a successful running chassis a lot easier than in the old days, though.  

 

The K's stuff was mostly originally produced in the 50s and 60s, and the mindset was still being influenced by the 'traditional' view that, if you wanted finescale modelling, it was 0 gauge or no gauge and 00 was really for train sets, so standards could be justifiably compromised.  The K's 8750 was not at all bad for it's day, and if you compare the Triang version which was the best RTR could come up with you will instantly see the attraction, but it was knocked into a cocked hat by the Mainline 57xx which precipitated it's demise on my layout (except for the cab), but the general opinion in the 60s was that 00 was for people who didn't have the space for 0 gauge and were prepared to accept compromise.  

 

The likes of Iain Rice and Ian Pemberton, along with the arrival of EM and P4/S4 which opened a debate still continuing, opened our eyes to the real possibilities, but not until the 70s; K's and some Wills have looked a bit dated since those days.  The kit makers' reaction came with better quality kits from the likes of Westward, DJH, or Nu Cast, but they were costly.  Keyser, love 'em, never really caught up.