Jump to content
 

Judith Edge kits


Michael Edge
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just wanted to add my thanks to Michael for his helpful support and information regarding a kit I was interested in. As a result of this I was able to purchase the kit which was sent very quickly.

 

I will look forward to building it.

 

thanks

Mark

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd also like to thank Mike for his help whilst I was building one of his North Brititish shunters as my first attempt at loco kit building. He answered my questions patiently, despite no doubt looking on aghast as I made a complete hash of his lovely kit!

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Which C14? This is a bit confusing, if you are referring to the LNER (GC) loco we should have had two available but there was an error on the etch and we could only sell one of the three. More on order for the end of this month or thereabouts and some replacement coupling rods for the two we have.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
15 hours ago, Michael Edge said:

Which C14? This is a bit confusing, if you are referring to the LNER (GC) loco we should have had two available but there was an error on the etch and we could only sell one of the three. More on order for the end of this month or thereabouts and some replacement coupling rods for the two we have.

 

Hopefully I can have my name down for a GCR C14 in 4mm scale too Mike.

 

No rush if you have customers queuing! I am happy to be further down the list.

 

Tony

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I've built up the second test etch of the Stone-Faiveley pantograph today.

584365689_2ndtestetch.jpg.fd547543e87222303418bc4d6e83eff8.jpg

One or two minor alterations were needed and some parts added, mainly the linkage to keep the head horizontal (not actually working but at least it's there) and the yoke from the air motor. There will be a moulding for the motor itself. Price will probably be the same as the cross arm pan.

This was built up as suggested on a block of wood, I don't have another 25kv loco to fit this one on.

There will be a 7mm version on the next test etch, it should eb quite a bit easier to assemble in the larger scale.

  • Like 10
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Craftsmanship/clever 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Edge said:

I've built up the second test etch of the Stone-Faiveley pantograph today.

584365689_2ndtestetch.jpg.fd547543e87222303418bc4d6e83eff8.jpg

One or two minor alterations were needed and some parts added, mainly the linkage to keep the head horizontal (not actually working but at least it's there) and the yoke from the air motor. There will be a moulding for the motor itself. Price will probably be the same as the cross arm pan.

This was built up as suggested on a block of wood, I don't have another 25kv loco to fit this one on.

There will be a 7mm version on the next test etch, it should eb quite a bit easier to assemble in the larger scale.

 

That looks good Michael! Is it robust enough to touch and rub along the contact wire on a moving model?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Michael Edge said:

I've built up the second test etch of the Stone-Faiveley pantograph today.

584365689_2ndtestetch.jpg.fd547543e87222303418bc4d6e83eff8.jpg

One or two minor alterations were needed and some parts added, mainly the linkage to keep the head horizontal (not actually working but at least it's there) and the yoke from the air motor. There will be a moulding for the motor itself. Price will probably be the same as the cross arm pan.

This was built up as suggested on a block of wood, I don't have another 25kv loco to fit this one on.

There will be a 7mm version on the next test etch, it should eb quite a bit easier to assemble in the larger scale.

I know where there is an AL1.. along with an AL5 and an AL6  which could be available for a trial fit...

 

Baz

  • Like 1
  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
8 hours ago, Barry O said:

I know where there is an AL1.. along with an AL5 and an AL6  which could be available for a trial fit...

 

Baz

I know where there's another AL1 just waiting for the pantographs before it can get built (after 35 years...).

  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
13 hours ago, Wagpnmaster said:

 

That looks good Michael! Is it robust enough to touch and rub along the contact wire on a moving model?

Yes, all our pantographs are surprisingly strong  - except possibly the weird thing on the ES1 which is almost impossible to make work. Many have survived being roughly handled or accidentally knocked sideways on exhibition displays.

There will be some in our next etch order, probably November.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • RMweb Premium

Apologies for this but following a discussion on the KR Models thread it does seem that I have made a mistake with the Fell cranks. In the absence of the relevant drawing at the NRM I drew the crank shape from a side on photograph, picking on one of the centre ones, and then simply repeated this without thinking. Looking at it again this morning the difference in size is very marked (they are thinner as well) so I've re-drawn them - we'll have to do a supplementary etch for this.

1407939426_ScreenShot2020-10-21at08_41_12.png.328aba788d8d7efccbe1c2fd98fb5216.png

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Barry O said:

With a file you could turn the driving crank into an outer crank no problemo.. I wonder if this is to do with reciprocating mass?

 

Baz

 

 

It is an interesting situation as I do wonder exactly what was being balanced by adding the extra weight to the driving crank.  Presumably there was no reciprocating mass to balance from the drive to the axle (as is the case with a steam engine) because the driving force was rotational.  So was the extra weight for 'damping' the changes to the rotational force?

(Sorry if this is too OT)

 

PS It is very pleasing to see  that some folk actually pay attention when a feature they might have missed during their original design work is brought to their attention.

Edited by The Stationmaster
  • Like 5
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

To my simple mind, it seems that the outer driving wheels only had coupling rods extending inwards, whereas the inner driving wheels had coupling rods extending both outwards and towards the other inner driving wheels. Therefore there was less weight to balance on the outer wheels than the inner. Of course, the coupling rods between the inner driving wheels were later removed. It would make sense to have replaced the inner balance weights with ones similar to the outer ones but I’ve no idea if it was done or not. Given the engineering expertise on the project, I’d be surprised if that wasn’t done. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

It is an interesting situation as I do wonder exactly what was being balanced by adding the extra weight to the driving crank.  Presumably there was no reciprocating mass to balance from the drive to the axle (as is the case with a steam engine) because the driving force was rotational.  So was the extra weight for 'damping' the changes to the rotational force?

(Sorry if this is too OT)

 

PS It is very pleasing to see  that some folk actually pay attention when a feature they might have missed during their original design work is brought to their attention.

That's puzzling me as well, given that the outer cranks are significantly thinner as well as smaller there would have been a big difference in weight. the cranks look exactly the same in all my photos, no modification appears to have been made - at least nothing visible on the outside. The driven wheels had quill drive so nothing inside the loco would be balanced by what was outside.

The photo just posted on the KR thread does (combined with another one I have) suggests that we have identifiable photos of each side - judging by 15227 coupled to 10100. This would mean there was originally a window on both sides, additionally in these photos at Eastbourne in 1951 there are cover plates over the recess where the 150hp engine's exhausts were fitted (but they aren't fitted in the official BR photo). It doesn't appear to have run very long in this condition before the additional grilles were fitted in the side doors and the numbers moved to the main body sides.

  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 13/10/2020 at 07:17, Michael Edge said:

Yes, all our pantographs are surprisingly strong  - except possibly the weird thing on the ES1 which is almost impossible to make work. Many have survived being roughly handled or accidentally knocked sideways on exhibition displays.

There will be some in our next etch order, probably November.

I would like three of the 7mm S-F single arm pantographs for my stable of 3x 309/1 (Maroon of course) EMUs please Mike

Edited by Arun Sharma
Link to post
Share on other sites

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...