Kernow Adams O2

[PaulRhB]

Rather than risk over oiling I would suggest that if its deemed necessary to oil that frequently you need to clean it out, plus any filings from running in, before re-lubricating. When I build locos or run in ones that are more 'engineering' grade than rtr I always strip and clean after running in as the tolerances are tighter so you get more gunk. Most rtr are effectively part run in already and just need to bed in the gears rather than the bearings too.

I've got two O2's that run beautifully and I suspect most issues are from the B to B but you will get an odd defective motor or part and then that's what the warranty is for.

Describe the 'not fit for purpose' fault in detail and contact Kernow so they can try to replicate it so they know the replacement or repair is ok before return

[ChrisG]

Not so much in hurry, would like like normal use.

 

Today, from 9-3pm both done 3 hrs, oiled every hour, so thats @ 7hrs use.  No improvement. In comparison my B/man 8500 pannier and others will move all of my total 17 cars:- (rake of 5 H/by maunsells, 4 maunsells, 3 maunsells, 3 bach Mk1, 2 bach dmu unpowered {centre and end}.  Have an old H/by GWR 0-4-0 from '80s can haul 4 cars.

 

This may not sound popular, but my opinion is increasingly that in normal RTR model locos, that the O2's are "not fit for purpose" for me, or various others on this site.  Others seem to have no problems, weird.

 

I have so looked forward to these, but apart from looks, have never been so dissapointed with something.  My poor wife is getting the brunt of all this.

 

The 0-4-4 wheel arrangement is notoriously difficult and I reckon Kernow have done a good job. It would have been better had the body been metal, of course. My kitbuilt O2s (whitemetal) will haul 6 of my heavy coaches pretty comfortably so it can be done. 

 

Your comment about RTR locos being "not fit for purpose" does chime with my thoughts to some extent. I have only started using RTR locos recently, and the first two Bachmann ones I bought had feeble pickups and needed a hand built set added before they would run reliably. The Kernow ones I reckon are a good step up from that - I've had no pick up problems, no derailments (another potential problem with 0-4-4Ts), and they run smoothly and quietly. I am prepared to persevere to see if I can improve the haulage. Generally speaking, I think modern models have an eye more to the display case than the hurly burly of running on a busy home or exhibition layout. Detail on Bachmanns is also very fragile and I am treating my Kernows as if they were made of eggshell.  Again - kitbuilt locos are well-detailed and resilient when built (one can't beat brass soldered to brass!).

 

Chris

Edited March 8, 2016 by ChrisG

[Guest]

The 0-4-4 wheel arrangement is notoriously difficult and I reckon Kernow have done a good job. It would have been better had the body been metal, of course. My kitbuilt O2s (whitemetal) will haul 6 of my heavy coaches pretty comfortably so it can be done. 

 

Your comment about RTR locos being "not fit for purpose" does chime with my thoughts to some extent. I have only started using RTR locos recently, .....Chris

My 1984 built WILLS kit is fine v/heavy. The H/by M7's very good to.

 

The b2b on O2's 14.5, must be simple reason why they now stall on 5ft radius, investigation required with magnifying glass methinks.

[mightbe]

Are the bodies for these available separately by chance? I would be interested in doing one in P4, but it looks like the chassis and mechanism is unusable.

 

Quentin

Edited March 6, 2016 by mightbe

[AJ'S]

Kernow exchanged mine for one with the body removed. Pipes cut etc. Some minor damage to the pipes.

I filled a length of brass tube with white metal. Machined to 14.5mm diameter and then sliced it into 7mm sections. These then drop into the smokebox from underneath and slide back into the boiler. This made the total weight 194grms. The loco could then pull 3 coaches up a 1/30 gradient without problem, except the motor in my opinion is to small and more suitable for N gauge. Running with a Zimo decoder (suitable for coreless) in the bunker the loco would slow for no reason. The loco would stall on the gradient with the motor still powered but not enough power to turn the wheels even on full power.

As I was now getting a bit fed up with all the hassle I changed the motor for a convential motor. I had to make a new mount and remove a small amount of metal from the weight over the motor. But I now have a loco that performs as good as it looks. I just need to repair some of the pipe work.

I would like to point out that is only my opinion on the motor, mine could have been faulty.

[bigherb]

As I was now getting a bit fed up with all the hassle I changed the motor for a convential motor.

Interesting I wanted to see if a conventional motor would fit but I was unable to get the body off mine it seems well glued, so I have left it on the back burner for now. Which motor did you use?

[AJ'S]

I fitted a circular Sagami motor only because this was the only spare motor I had and did not want to wait to order one. My motor of choice would have been a Mashima 1020.

[Ben Alder]

Any chance of a pic of your work? Sounds interesting.

[Guest]

......... But I now have a loco that performs as good as it looks. I just need to repair some of the pipe work.

How many cars can it now pull?

[john flann]

 

Anyone interested in this?

[Bluebell Model Railway]

Think 211 was one of the first O2's to come over in it's LSWR livery, 211 later became Shanklin (w20) Have another image in a book at Wroxall with Rigid 8 stock in tow.

[sc2016]

o2loco-1.jpg

 

Anyone interested in this?

 

The locomotive in the picture looks nice. Hopefully Kernow will make a LSWR version of the O2 Tank in the future.

[IWCR]

Picture  not  IOW

Background details  wrong.

Probably  ex  works at  Eastleigh  prior  to  delivery.

206  &  211 were  delivered  by  Admiralty  floating  crane  to  Ryde  Pier  Head  in  May  1923,  first  of  the  O2s  to arrive..

Both  repainted  in  the  new  SR livery  in  1925

Next  deliveries  were  by  barge  to  St  Helens,  later  ones  by  the  SRs  own  floating  crane  to  Medina  Wharf

 

Pete

[ChrisG]

Interesting stuff here about dismantling as well as EM conversion:-

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/109446-kernow-02-em-gauge-conversion/?p=2244880

[Horsetan]

Are the bodies for these available separately by chance? I would be interested in doing one in P4, but it looks like the chassis and mechanism is unusable.

David Jones said in passing that every part would be available from him as a spare. The problem is that he is currently away on business, so we don't know whether spares have been delivered to him or what the parts prices are.

 

I think SEF produce an etched chassis kit for the O2, which could be built in EM or P4.

[bertiedog]

Just got one of the O2's, and found the back to back was over the max limit, which means the flanges are tight on the rail sides. Although the chassis is basically an 040, the trailing bogie side to side movement stops the main wheels running easily through tight curves. It only took a few minutes to adjust the wheels, and it is freely running through all but the tightest set track curves.

 

Others query the coreless motor, and what it is......if you know a three pole motor of a conventional type, they have poles with coils around each arm of the rotor, wired to the brushes via a three section commutator.

 

The efficiency of the motor is limited by the small amount of wire than can be wound on each arm, worst on a five pole. They are simple and rugged, but have balance problems, and losses (heat) due to the iron cored armature.

 

The coreless motor addresses the issue, and the magnet is moved to the middle of the motor, with a structured coil set over the magnets. The coils are wound on a frame and then potted in resin, there is no iron in the armature. The coils are still feed by a commutator. The shaft goes through the magnet, or the shaft is attached to the magnet and drives it in some designs.

 

The lack of of iron in the coil increases efficiency with less loss and little heat. Each pole has more wire in the coil than a conventional motor.

 

The lighter weight of the coils means the armature is sensitive to any pulses in the supply, they are noisy on pulse or feedback controllers. Also the large back EMF they produce affects feedback types, unless they are adjusted to work.

 

They draw less current, and are generally better built than conventional motors. The higher inductance of the coreless coils also affects HF cleaners, which also make the coreless motors glitch a bit and increase noise. The HF problem and the feedback can be dealt with with capacitors added to the loco, 100uf reversible caps work, but you have to try out to get best value.

 

DCC can be problematic as well, but decent chips are done to suit coreless.

 

With any 044 the balance must be well within the driver wheelbase, the trailing bogie just goes along for the ride, gentle springing only. This is vital, as too much pressure and the rear drivers will lift off the track.

 

So any extra weight must be at the front, not in the cab or bunker on the O2.

 

So far the O2 hauls five coaches on the flat, with 3 foot radius. The coaches all have brass pin point bearings though, and run freely

 

hope this helps,

 

Stephen.

Edited March 28, 2016 by bertiedog

[bertiedog]

On conversion to EM or P4 this would be problematic with the wheels fitted to moulded axles with gears. I think a replacement chassis and Gibson wheels is the only way. However this allows a neat trick with 044 types, the chassis is doubled at the front then the driven part is floated on a cross pivot to allow it to rock around the pivot. This means all the drivers get the same pressure on the track, making an 044 pull properly. Works a dream with M7's.

 

The rocking chassis with the drivers bearing is put inside the actual profile frames, and the movement needed is only about 1/2mm. It is rather like having the bearings on compensation bars. The motor can ride on top, or be fixed to the chassis an a UJ drive used.

 

I am not bothering with P4 at the moment, the current RTR 00 is so good, especially as Peco are going to do Bullhead rail.....some time, long time away?  I also need easy to use models as I have health issues which make some model work difficult.

[Guest]

....

Others query the coreless motor, and what it is......if you know a three pole motor of a conventional type, they have poles with coils around each arm of the rotor, wired to the brushes via a three section commutator.

 

With any 044 the balance must be well within the driver wheelbase, the trailing bogie just goes along for the ride, gentle springing on;y. This is vital, as too much pressure and the rear drivers will lift off the track.

 

So any extra weight must be at the front, not in the cab or bunker on the O2.

 

hope this helps, 

Stephen.

Brilliant, helps very much.  Will move my lead from bunkers and cab floor into boilers tomorrow and re-test both of them. 

 

Re the B2B's, after borrowing a £150 gauge from work, the B2B's on both IOW models were 14.65 on drivers, 14.5 on my vernier.  Measuring all my other locos, Bach/Hornby, and two 1960 old triangs, they varied from 14.34 to 14.37, I have squeezed the O2's to 14.45 (and won't budge anymore) which has improved the the low (scale 30mph) drag on 5ft bends.  The bogies I can't budge and are 14.52. Hornby M7's 14.35 all wheels. Lesson for me don't rely on my £7.99 vernier form Aldi and the like.     

Edited March 27, 2016 by Guest

[JZ]

Can someone tell me the wheelbase of the bogie?

 

Edit. Just found out, 20mm, same as a T1. Might see if available as a spare.

Edited April 1, 2016 by JZ

[bertiedog]

Brilliant, helps very much.  Will move my lead from bunkers and cab floor into boilers tomorrow and re-test both of them. 

 

Re the B2B's, after borrowing a £150 gauge from work, the B2B's on both IOW models were 14.65 on drivers, 14.5 on my vernier.  Measuring all my other locos, Bach/Hornby, and two 1960 old triangs, they varied from 14.34 to 14.37, I have squeezed the O2's to 14.45 (and won't budge anymore) which has improved the the low (scale 30mph) drag on 5ft bends.  The bogies I can't budge and are 14.52. Hornby M7's 14.35 all wheels. Lesson for me don't rely on my £7.99 vernier form Aldi and the like.     

That vernier sounds very out, the B to B should be 14.5 + a bit at most on normal track. It should apply to all the wheels. 14.3mm in theory is very tight.

Stephen.

[Guest]

That vernier sounds very out, the B to B should be 14.5 + a bit at most on normal track. It should apply to all the wheels. 14.3mm in theory is very tight.

Stephen.

Doubt it, used a few more from work today and a neighbours at weekend, all similar results. Anyway for those who are interested, when cutting down the NEM pockets more for even closer coupling, I tried 'Calboune' without the rear bogies, (see pic 2) and 5g lead weight taped to front to balance.  Result - no slowing at low speed as it hits the 5ft radius curve pulling 3 cars!  My NON technical expert view is that compared to my Hby M7's on which the rear bogies pivot left and right and side to side, the Kernows just swivel left to right and this is what causes my issues at low speed.

 

Have also attached pics of the cut down pockets and connection of 'Ventnor' to Hby Maunsells.  Closer coupling has been a bug bear of mine since I was 20, and in the past used elastic bands on coaches, however ROCO couplings do the trick using tension lock on rake ends.

Edited April 4, 2016 by Guest

[bertiedog]

It was the Aldi cheaper vernier I was commenting on being out, and I am surprised it is so far out, as I have checked some cheaper plastic types and they are accurate enough for normal modelling and track work. Some of the better plastic types advertise themselves as graphite loaded plastic. 

Bogies generally should both pivot and move side to side, with side to side limited by springs if possible. the Hornby 044 M7 seems ok on pulling, and smooth running, but I did add a little lead to the front.

[john flann]

 

The O2 has been a favourite loco of mine ever since I saw them working the Portland Branch and having a footplate ride on 221 the length of it from Easton to Melcombe Regis.

 

So I was pleased to see this model introduced, yet I held back getting one for the Hintock Branch because I didn't want an IoW version and I didn't like the idea of paying for all that plumbing festooned  over the front end. But when it became evident Kernow would not be producing an unadorned mainland version I put my hand in my pocket, and paid up.

 

On arrival of it I was very disappointed. I admired all the clever engineering but first it only ran grudgingly and in appearance with all that fancy lining it looked to my eye more akin to a showman's engine. So I put it aside to think about it. Eventually I realized the lining, especially either side of the cab door was overdone along with the "chrome" finish around the cab opening itself. It too seemed the plumbing could be removed and in any event that side of the loco need not be on display.

 

Next, taking my courage in my hands I removed with snips,pliers and a razor blade the plumbing and associated tanks. So fas so good. I then tackled the excess lining with the razor blade and removed most of that which offended my eye. After adding coal and discs I gave it a light weathering of graphite/charcoal. I have not so far added a crew because getting that cab off and back on is asking too much of me. I'm thinking about cutting out the footplate door to gain access but I don't think it will happen as the absence of a crew is not really noticeable.

 

Now run-in it performs well enough and looks quite at home on Hintock as these photos demonstrate.

  .

 

 

 

Edited April 7, 2016 by john flann

[NHY 581]

There is something about these models that I just cannot put my finger on. They look the part but then again they do not.

I cannot quantify it but to me they just do not look right in my eyes. Tremendous detail alright but I agree with John about the plumbing. Looks wrong.

The main gripe I have are the coupling rods which still look oversize. In Johns lovely 2nd photo there appears to either slop or a quartering issue.

 

Normally I would have jumped at the chance of a L&SWR loco but I cancelled my order when I saw the first ones arriving.

 

I do not wish to be overly critical but the O2 is not for me I'm afraid.

 

Rob.

[john flann]

I quite agree Rob, but I managed to put that aside principally because of the sentimental value. I suppose I've got used to the definite droop in the coupling rods.

 

I also posted these images to show how much better the "improved" loco can look. Without them I wouldn't be running it.

 

And all that besides there is the very pertinent question of value for money. I get it each time with Bachmann-I'm not altogether sure here. I'm not being provocative, that's how I feel. In fact if return postage from the USA to UK wasn't so very expensive it would have gone back shortly after arrival.