Wright writes.....

[LNER4479]

'Prolific' ... not to be confused with paralytic.

Edited June 12, 2020 by LNER4479

[jwealleans]

He's Australian.   Isn't that their default state?

[Barry O]

On 10/06/2020 at 21:46, Barry Ten said:

On with the connecting rod, crosshead and drop link - on this side only. That's an evening's work for me and I've learned to quit while things are going well!

 

The cylinders are too low ..they should be hard up against the bottom of the footplate. I had the same problem with a B17. The chassis kits don't always fit the latest variant of RTR bodies unfortunately. 

 

On second inspection is the chassis not sitting at the correct height in the body?

 

Baz

Edited June 12, 2020 by Barry O

[St Enodoc]

29 minutes ago, jwealleans said:

He's Australian.   Isn't that their default state?

Oi! I resemble that remark!

[DougN]

Then again why do so many people take up dry July. Personally I am trying to regulate my weight a bit so I am going dry at the moment... been almost 2 weeks and have not missed the red wine one bit! being able to stop proves you don't have a problem! 

 

Any how as it is is a bit of a show and tell.... me 

 

yes other than the clutter around the phone... 2 V2's coming along. I have been looking at the mud holes a lot in photos to the sides of the fire boxes. It appears there was a revised layout with additional to the lower edge near the versions leavers. I am wondering if these appeared during the LNER period or later? Why is it looking at more photos turns up more questions? 

[St Enodoc]

3 minutes ago, DougN said:

Then again why do so many people take up dry July.

Possibly because they're all skint from buying stuff they didn't really need in the EOFY sales?

[Headstock]

23 minutes ago, DougN said:

Then again why do so many people take up dry July. Personally I am trying to regulate my weight a bit so I am going dry at the moment... been almost 2 weeks and have not missed the red wine one bit! being able to stop proves you don't have a problem! 

 

Any how as it is is a bit of a show and tell.... me 

 

yes other than the clutter around the phone... 2 V2's coming along. I have been looking at the mud holes a lot in photos to the sides of the fire boxes. It appears there was a revised layout with additional to the lower edge near the versions leavers. I am wondering if these appeared during the LNER period or later? Why is it looking at more photos turns up more questions? 

 

Good morning DougN,

 

I take it you mean reversing leaver? I can only comment on class A3, an extra one was added to the firebox corner in BR days but not until the1950s I think.

[Barry O]

49 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

Oi! I resemble that remark!

Even worse.. an English, Scottish Australian. What a mix!!!

Baz

[Barry Ten]

1 hour ago, Barry O said:

The cylinders are too low ..they should be hard up against the bottom of the footplate. I had the same problem with a B17. The chassis kits don't always fit the latest variant of RTR bodies unfortunately. 

 

On second inspection is the chassis not sitting at the correct height in the body?

 

Baz

 

Hi Baz

 

John Isherwood thought the cylinders might be too high. I'd already lowered them a smidge, by deepening the slots in the etch, but the main issue (I think) is that I need to file rebates into the underside of the footplate to get the body sitting just that little bit lower. The rear end needs to be packed up a bit, too, which will "see-saw" the front down fractionally. We'll get there...

 

Al

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, Barry O said:

The cylinders are too low ..they should be hard up against the bottom of the footplate. I had the same problem with a B17. The chassis kits don't always fit the latest variant of RTR bodies unfortunately. 

Baz

 

Good morning Baz,

 

looking at the cylinders, I think that it is also worth noting that they stuck out beyond the running board. They were also angled inwards from the top to the bottom edge, when viewed from the front.

[Headstock]

5 minutes ago, Barry Ten said:

 

Hi Baz

 

John Isherwood thought the cylinders might be too high. I'd already lowered them a smidge, by deepening the slots in the etch, but the main issue (I think) is that I need to file rebates into the underside of the footplate to get the body sitting just that little bit lower. The rear end needs to be packed up a bit, too, which will "see-saw" the front down fractionally. We'll get there...

 

Al

 

Good morning B 10,

 

the pitch of the boiler on a Fowler 4 was 8' 6'' from rail height.

Edited June 12, 2020 by Headstock
clarify a point.

[DougN]

26 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Good morning DougN,

 

I take it you mean reversing leaver? I can only comment on class A3, an extra one was added to the firebox corner in BR days but not until the1950s I think.

Thanks Andrew I think your right. I have been going through the irwell press book looking at the dates and noticed that they tended to turn up later in the 1950's but had yet to find anything definitive. 

[St Enodoc]

30 minutes ago, Barry O said:

Even worse.. an English, Scottish Australian. What a mix!!!

Baz

My paternal grandmother was Welsh. Make of that what you will.

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, DougN said:

Thanks Andrew I think your right. I have been going through the irwell press book looking at the dates and noticed that they tended to turn up later in the 1950's but had yet to find anything definitive. 

 

Afternoon Doug,

 

I don't recall off hand when they were fitted. I can recall having to file them off the DJH A3 body, for those locomotives in BR blue livery or earlier. 

[MarkC]

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

'With care, you can get them to run'

 

What's the saying? You're a better man than I..........................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Steady on there! But yes, I have managed, both the 'ordinary' wheels and the outside cranks on different models. However, unless I kept the locos in regular use, rust was lurking just round the corner...As an impecunious youngster, the luxury of buying sets of Romfords wasn't generally an option either.

 

I do wonder if rusting wheelsets was another factor in generating the jaded view that many people have of K's kits?

 

Mark

[DougN]

19 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Afternoon Doug,

 

I don't recall off hand when they were fitted. I can recall having to file them off the DJH A3 body, for those locomotives in BR blue livery or earlier. 

I will continue trying to find out more. I have collected a few books on the ,V2's. I have the Power of the V2's, the RCTS green book, the irwell press book, just off the top of my head! I am finding the observations and looking ATM the various details on the V2's is incredibly interesting. For example there is a boiler support just behind the smokebox on the underside. It has some very prominent bolts/ rivets on either side ! Never spotted it until early this week when I was trying to find the parts in the kit ! 

 

I have just checked out  the old Bachman version and it had an attempt at the bracket but it was a poor representation. 

Edited June 12, 2020 by DougN

[cctransuk]

2 hours ago, Barry Ten said:

John Isherwood thought the cylinders might be too high.

 

Al,

 

I didn't actually say that the cylinders might be too high - I suggested that some work to the running plate interface might help.

 

I could have been more explicit - I felt that the cylinders didn't fit as closely under the running plate as they should.

 

In such circumstances, I would be looking to remove material from under the running plate and, if necessary, from those parts of the cylinders that fit under the running plate.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Headstock]

33 minutes ago, DougN said:

I will continue trying to find out more. I have collected a few books on the ,V2's. I have the Power of the V2's, the RCTS green book, the irwell press book, just off the top of my head! I am finding the observations and looking ATM the various details on the V2's is incredibly interesting. For example there is a boiler support just behind the smokebox on the underside. It has some very prominent bolts/ rivets on either side ! Never spotted it until early this week when I was trying to find the parts in the kit ! 

 

I have just checked out  the old Bachman version and it had an attempt at the bracket but it was a poor representation. 

 

Not the best photo I'm afraid. However, 60863 and my other two V2's have the bracket that you mention, to the rear of the forward sandbox filler. All three are sans the extra mud hole door / washout plug, That would be correct for my time period. 

 

Edited June 12, 2020 by Headstock
add space

[jrg1]

15 hours ago, MarkC said:

They were indeed. With care, you can get them to run, but the tyres are/were mild steel, and will/would become rusty at the slightest opportunity... (Mind you, some AG wheelsets do that trick too )

 

Mark

Terrible things-D-shaped axles for quartering that wobbled; bearings that were pushed into the keyhole chassis and clamped the axle tight.  Motors that ran hot.  What else could go wrong?

[MarkC]

29 minutes ago, jrg1 said:

Terrible things-D-shaped axles for quartering that wobbled; bearings that were pushed into the keyhole chassis and clamped the axle tight.  Motors that ran hot.  What else could go wrong?

Oh, I agree completely - but back then, this was what you got. We are very fortunate these days - are we spoiled? In many ways, perhaps we are.

 

K's were of their time - but it could have been worse - and in some cases, such as Q Kits, they were

 

Mark

[t-b-g]

If you got lucky, you could get a set of Ks wheels that could make a loco run reasonably and even a Ks motor that was half decent.

 

There was a degree of luck involved with the D shaped ends. The older ones, pre assembled on the axles and put in the frames through a keyhole slot, were actually, if anything, a bit better than the later ones. I only ever built one or two locos with the original ones but the quartering was a very good "factory set" and they ran true. They stayed until I went to EM gauge.  

 

I think the motor depended on how it was put together.  If you got one where the armature was reasonably balanced and the bearings in line, they could be very good. It was just a shame that it was a bit of a lottery as to whether you got a good one or not. 

[gr.king]

I have no complaints about the D-axle wheels and the quiet, smooth running of the K's motor in my K's "J3", although whether its boiler dimensions are actually those of a J3 or a J4 is uncertain, as is the justification for its large, fairly late-type GN tender.

[t-b-g]

My memory may be playing tricks now as I bought very few Ks kits and have little experience but were there not two different types of wheels where you fitted them on the axles?

 

I have a vague memory of a seeing two different D shaped arrangements.

[Tony Wright]

4 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Good morning DougN,

 

I take it you mean reversing leaver? I can only comment on class A3, an extra one was added to the firebox corner in BR days but not until the1950s I think.

Or even reversing lever?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

Ah, K's kits...................

 

Either I was just unlucky, or wasn't prepared to persevere with the mechanics. 

 

None of the K's motors I had (half a dozen) was any good; they were noisy, prone to cogging and frequently ran hot. 

 

As for the drivers, I never had any success, either; whether they were 'ready-quartered' for fitting into keyhole chassis or the 'D' type, no sets I had ever ran true in my experience. Mind you, no sets of friction-fit drivers I've ever used have ever run to my satisfaction, either. 

 

I think the notion of K's kits was quite 'seductive' at the time. Unlike other contemporaneous white metal kits, they were 'complete'; only needing glue, paint and transfers to finish them. It didn't take me long to realise that that  'completeness' (in my experience) meant they were completely static!