Jump to content

DLT's SR Locos - G6 Connoisseur Kit


DLT
 Share

Recommended Posts

Some progress to report with the DJH S15. Once a working chassis was achieved I carried on with the bodywork. One glaring error was the boiler shape; its pitched too high, the bottom should be flush with the footplate. All this needed was some attention to the smokebox saddle with a large file. The smokebox itself though needed a bit more work; the front end was splayed out like a trumpet, and it was egg-shaped in section with the sharp bit at the top. Some rather more careful filing got it to shape, but at the expense of the rivet detail. Hence the need for the new riveted brass wrapper. At the same time, a rivited overlay was produced for the plain whitemetal bufferbeam

 

post-5825-128287008085_thumb.jpg

 

post-5825-128287009576_thumb.jpg

 

When the photos were taken the smoke deflectors were only balanced in place; the handrails need fitting first, as the deflectors have to fit underneath, but just touching.

 

post-5825-128287011335_thumb.jpg

 

post-5825-128287013011_thumb.jpg

 

Also visible are the exquisite machined brass clack-valves from Romford/Markits, although I think the attachment holes in the boiler need to be a touch higher.

 

post-5825-128287014677_thumb.jpg

 

Thats all for the moment, rest of the boiler fittings to do, and then back to the chassis.

 

Bye for now,

Dave.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Once again some equisite work and puts my S15 to shame (although in my defence it did start off as a aprt built aquistiion) The lower boiler position although subtle does make a difference and it is amazing what a difference just the buffer beam overlay alone makes.

 

I agree that the machined clack valves from Markits are lovely and use them myself on all new builds these days. I can also recommend their machined crossheads too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again some equisite work and puts my S15 to shame (although in my defence it did start off as a aprt built aquistiion) The lower boiler position although subtle does make a difference and it is amazing what a difference just the buffer beam overlay alone makes.

 

I agree that the machined clack valves from Markits are lovely and use them myself on all new builds these days. I can also recommend their machined crossheads too.

 

Hi Graham,

 

Thanks for your comments. Its amazing what an improvement the boiler mods have made; it really did look odd stuckup in the air with a yawning cavity underneath. I've also made the boiler removable for painting etc. Easily done, as the rear end slots into the cab front, locating it nicely. All that was needed was one screw up through the footplate and a captive nut in the smokebox. I located this about 1/4inch behind the body/chassis fixing screw position (which comes up through the middle of the cylinder block, also to a captive nut in the smokebox)

 

I have been supplied with a set of Romford crossheads, and a superb bit of engineering they look too. Just as well, as the crossheads in the kit are (rather poor) whitemetal castings; Whitemetal moving parts are a bit of a no-no in my book. Having said that, the cylinder castings are excellent, and of an ingenious design.

 

Cheeers,

Dave.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought you were going to replace the whitemetal smoke deflectors with brass or n/s ones? blink.gif

 

That was an initial plan, but the cast items are fine, and they can be tapered down to a thin front edge. Once I'd tried this out I thought they looked perfectly allright, and saw no real need to replace them.

This loco is going to earn its keep pulling trains on a mainline layout, and in that situation I doubt if the thickness of the castings would be particularly noticeable.

 

Hope to have another update over the weekend.

 

All the best,

Dave.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The cylinder castings are some of the best I've seen; they're cleverley designed, well detailed, and the correct size and shape.

No need for excess amounts of filing to get them square!

 

The exquisite machined crossheads from Romford fit them perfectly. I will be replacing the slidebars though.

 

Dave.

 

post-5825-128359366033_thumb.jpg

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Belgian

The cylinder castings are some of the best I've seen; they're cleverley designed, well detailed, and the correct size and shape.

No need for excess amounts of filing to get them square!

 

The exquisite machined crossheads from Romford fit them perfectly. I will be replacing the slidebars though.

 

Dave.

 

post-5825-128359366033_thumb.jpg

I have to say how impressed I am with your work so far, especially the lowering of the boiler. However, I have always felt that DJH kits of Maunsell locomotives are let down most of all by their dreadful chimneys, domes and safety valves (all are too tall). Have you just positioned these at present for the photos and are you going to replace them later on?

 

JE

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say how impressed I am with your work so far, especially the lowering of the boiler. However, I have always felt that DJH kits of Maunsell locomotives are let down most of all by their dreadful chimneys, domes and safety valves (all are too tall). Have you just positioned these at present for the photos and are you going to replace them later on?

 

JE

 

Hi JE,

They are only lightly fixed in place. I've already given the safety valve mounting good re-shaping, but I thought dome looked reasonable.

Not sure if I can make any alterations to the chimney; I might look for a replacement, it depends what my friend wants me to do.

 

Can you recomend a source? There was a very nice chimney in the PDK kit, but I dont know if he does spares.

 

Thanks,

Dave.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Belgian

Hi JE,

They are only lightly fixed in place. I've already given the safety valve mounting good re-shaping, but I thought dome looked reasonable.

Not sure if I can make any alterations to the chimney; I might look for a replacement, it depends what my friend wants me to do.

 

Can you recomend a source? There was a very nice chimney in the PDK kit, but I dont know if he does spares.

 

Thanks,

Dave.

I think he might Dave. I once had a Bulleid MN kit and he supplied additional parts from other kits which I wanted to customise it. You can but ask! 247 models do a chimney but no dome, but South Eastern Finecast will definately supply them - see SE Finecast spares. Their revised King Arthur kits have what look like very nice boiler fittings and the Maunsell S15 had the same ones as the N15s.

 

Jeremy

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have really enjoyed reading this thread biggrin.gif Some fantastic work & certainly getting my own juices going. I'm going on the hobby holiday next month to start my path into building loco kits properly. I really like the 2-6-4 tank a very interesting prototype might even have a pop at one of those myself.

 

Keep us posted hopefully my wagon offerings soon to be on here will get some good feedback.

 

 

Simon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cylinders are assembled, with new slidebars, and Romford crosshead assemblies. Of course the usual problem with front-bogie logies appears, there isnt room for the bogie to swing between the cylinders.

Fortunately theres plenty of surplus whitemetal that can be removed from the back of the cylinders without adverse effect. Then the limiting factor for bogie swing will be the front footsteps.

It does look extremely odd without the bogie.

 

Cheers,

Dave

 

post-5825-079307800 1283898894_thumb.jpg

 

post-5825-004562500 1283898885_thumb.jpg

 

post-5825-031161700 1283898906_thumb.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

....South Eastern Finecast will definately supply them - see SE Finecast spares. Their revised King Arthur kits have what look like very nice boiler fittings and the Maunsell S15 had the same ones as the N15s.

 

SEF's spare parts department is excellent.

 

Funnily enough, Dave Ellis at SEF told me years ago that the S15 was something he was considering producing once the King Arthur had been improved. Wonder what happened to that......?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The loco is looking well. Pretty obvious are the casting feeds......right on the edge of the running plate on this loco! Why some manufacturers do that is beyond me as they are difficult to remove is such areas.

 

Quite so; and one of my least favourite aspects of whitemetal locos. Not only is that edge awkward to clean up, its very vulnerable to damage as well. Hence I normally leave finishing the edge until last.

 

Cheers,

Dave.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I've already said, the DJH cylinder castings are some of the best I've seen. They slide on to the outer ends of a cast "T" piece, and end up at the correct position and inclination.

As Horsetan has already said, the body of this kit is about 3mm too short, but it all looks in proportion (to me!) However this meant that the cylinders fouled the drop-footplate section, so I've moved them back a fraction by shortening the T-piece. Sawing through it and fitting it back together shortened it sufficiently, and explains the strip of brass thats re-inforcing it. This strip also fills the gap between T-piece and footplate, so when the body is screwed on, the assembly is properly clamped in place.

 

Motion brackets are "S" shaped, and looked a little delicate, so I've re-inforced them with extra strips soldered in vertically. The photos should make it clear.

 

Dave.

 

post-5825-000177000 1283972418_thumb.jpg

 

post-5825-091112500 1283972430_thumb.jpg

 

post-5825-067031800 1283972403_thumb.jpg post-5825-086509800 1283972443_thumb.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

.....Thoughts are turning to a U Class, DJH do one, but does anyone else?

 

Errm... Falcon Brassworks. Never seen one; never tried one. I did want to get hold of etches for the body (from their "N" kit) to provide a new footplate for the mazak one which disintegrated on my Bachmann "N" body, but will probably end up cutting my own :(

 

Secondly, the SEF "old kit" for the Maunsell Mogul is supposed to be adaptable so that you can build it as a "U". They do a pretty good etched "U" chassis (it's the work of the late Alistair Rolfe, so has lots in common with the Brassmasters LMS loco kit chassis), ref. FC105/U which I have a sample of - just needs a bit of correction to the expansion link / die block (should be 3-layer split, not a 2-layer open box).

 

What type of "U" do you want to build? New-build, or rebuilt "River"? Big differences between the two types, as you know, in footplate height and width, and cab width and shape, and these are areas which have never really been properly covered in the modelling press, despite Tim Shackleton's effort to list all the detail differences in MRJ (issue 112?) at the time that Bachmann released their "N". Size of footplate splashers were different, and I think boiler pitch was also different.

 

I've never been able to find definitive information on the cab widths and height measurements for both types of "U". Rebuilt "River" has wider cab, a legacy of its tank engine days. Cab front / spectacle plate also differed between the two - "rebuilt River" had a plate similar to that on the "N" (the cab of which is narrower).

 

This is a class that needs someone crawling over the preserved examples to record the data. Just to complicate matters, the sole surviving "rebuilt River", 31806, has the replacement front frames (with curved tops) fitted in BR days, which make the engine a few inches longer than previously.

 

If a "rebuilt River" it is you intend to build, then you may be looking at a kit hybrid project (with major parts coming from SEF).

 

The Roche "U" drawing has errors in it, although at least he got the driving wheelbase right!! He seems to want to depict the "new build" but then sticks in a number of "rebuilt River" features on the same engine which is just misleading. Beattie drawing has similar errors and no measurements on it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

What type of "U" do you want to build? New-build, or rebuilt "River"? Big differences between the two types, as you know, in footplate height and width, and cab width and shape, and these are areas which have never really been properly covered in the modelling press, despite Tim Shackleton's effort to list all the detail differences in MRJ (issue 112?) at the time that Bachmann released their "N". Size of footplate splashers were different, and I think boiler pitch was also different.

 

The Roche "U" drawing has errors in it, although at least he got the driving wheelbase right!! He seems to want to depict the "new build" but then sticks in a number of "rebuilt River" features on the same engine which is just misleading. Beattie drawing has similar errors and no measurements on it!

 

Yikes, now you're worrying me!

 

We havent got as far as thinking about the details; apart from the fact that its destined for a West of England mainline layout, and therefore most likely to be an Exmouth Junction or Salisbury based loco.

 

Thanks for all the info, most of which I was NOT aware of:( the U is not a loco that I've studied. Yet!

 

All the best,

Dave.

Link to post
Share on other sites

....Thanks for all the info, most of which I was NOT aware of:( the U is not a loco that I've studied. Yet!

 

By contrast, the "N" is very well covered, with GA drawings in MRJ 112, plus a very good 7mm drawing of it plus 3500 gallon tender in the long-defunct RailModel Digest, issue no.5

 

I think there are a few, me included, who would kill for a decent drawing of both "new-build" and "rebuilt River" versions, plus good clear measurement tables. The BR-modified ones with new (front) frames and cylinders (as well as chimneys from the BR Std.4) would also benefit from a clear drawing.

 

I've got some parts to go towards building a new-build "U", most of which are SEF's castings. These comprise:

 

- the Alistair Rolfe-designed etched chassis, ref. FC105/U, plus Gibson wheels

 

- complete boiler and firebox casting from their River tank kit, despite the noticeable oval smokebox, mainly because the moulds, being newer, are decidedly less tired than the ones for the old kit (ref. F105). This also includes castings for the dome. I'd like to buy the detail etches from the River kit as well, but it's a lot of money to pay if we're only using a few parts from it!

 

- front frames/curved front footplate section/buffer beam casting - again from the River kit, but modified to show the higher footplate of the new-build (this was a thankless sawing task which I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy :angry: )

 

- a home-cut brass copy of the one-piece cabside-and-roof wraparound etching found in the DJH "N" kit (I'm banking on the "N" and new-build "U" cabs being the same width, but I will have to saw out my own cab front, as the "N" cab front was different)

 

- a turned chimney (which I think originated from Crownline)

 

- turned safety valves (ancient J&M product)

 

That's it so far. Clear to me that the rest of the footplate will have to be scratchbuilt, but you do get the correct small splashers as part of the chassis kit!

 

They are lovely engines though, and just look "right". Six were assembled in Ireland as GSR Class K1a. That would be a nice broad-gauge project :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

The pivot arm for the bogie was a rather flimsy bit of bent whitemetal, so I've replaced it with a stronger length of brass strip.

 

While I was at it I added some light lateral springing, using fine 15thou nickel silver wire. Those at the back of the arm bear against the inside of the frames.

 

This prevents the bogie flopping around all over the place, and helps to guide the loco into curves, reducing the front footplate overhang

 

I see I've managed to break off one of the whitemetal guardirons, but I was probably going to replace them with brass anyway.

 

Dave.T

 

post-5825-068451900 1284415286_thumb.jpg

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice work Dave, though I'm surprised you kept the w/m bogie. I think I'd have rebuilt it from brass as I did with my SEF M7 to stop it looking quite so clunky.

 

 

I think there are a few, me included, who would kill for a decent drawing of both "new-build" and "rebuilt River" versions, plus good clear measurement tables.

 

You think you've got it hard, at least there's a couple of those still around to measure up. One of the signature engines we need for Eridge is the U1, and there seems to be even less info around for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice work Dave, though I'm surprised you kept the w/m bogie. I think I'd have rebuilt it from brass as I did with my SEF M7 to stop it looking quite so clunky.

 

 

Hi Mouse,

 

Replacing the bogie was considered, but the casting was pretty good; reasonably square and with axle slots parallel in all planes. (Unlike some I've seen) It could do with a bit of cosmetic attention to the front end and perhaps the sides (where visible under the cylinders) but nothing too drastic is needed.

Besides, the whitemetal gives it some much needed weight; always a plus point.

 

All the best,

Dave.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough about the weight thing, makes sense if the loco isn't sprung.

 

Just looking at your side control though, surely that's the wrong way round from the pivot to guide a loco into curves, at the moment as the front turns, it pushes the frames in the opposite direction. See a} below.

 

I think, (and am willing to be proved wrong ;) ), what you need is b}

post-6908-047880200 1284469593_thumb.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough about the weight thing, makes sense if the loco isn't sprung.

 

Just looking at your side control though, surely that's the wrong way round from the pivot to guide a loco into curves, at the moment as the front turns, it pushes the frames in the opposite direction. See a} below.

 

I think, (and am willing to be proved wrong ;) ), what you need is b}

 

Err... let me think about that one. It certainly pulls the bogie into line.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Secondly, the SEF "old kit" for the Maunsell Mogul is supposed to be adaptable so that you can build it as a "U".

 

When compared with drawings i found the the old SEF mogul kit was so adaptable that it didn't really match any of the 4 prototype classes very well! Instead i picked up a DJH half built kit of a U1 and had it completed by Geoff Cook of the Stafford club.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • DLT changed the title to DLT's SR Locos - G6 Connoisseur Kit

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...