Sandy Harper Posted July 11, 2016 Author Share Posted July 11, 2016 The Guild has looked at this issue many times over the years and has never come up with a satisfactory resolution. There just seems to be too many variables to make a workable system that is easy to understand and fair. To be fair, every kit on the market would need to be evaluated by a panel and given a rating. The cost in time and money would be huge and is unlikely to be endorsed by the Guild Council. The other way is for modellers who build the kits to rate them but they need to be honest in their own capabilities for their assessment to be of any value. This is unlikely to be very successful as most modellers like to build, not write, about what they have done. One way forward may be for a 'standard' form to be designed that is basically a 'tick box' exercise that builders can fill in after building which can then be 'evaluated' by a small team to give a fair evaluation of the quality and suitability of the model for purpose. Publication would be on the Guild website and of course challenges would be welcomed from other modellers who may have built the model but don't agree with the evaluators. These would be shown alongside the initial evaluation. This is just an outline of an idea and I appreciate that it would need a lot more work to make it usable. Any thoughts? Sandy 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim.snowdon Posted July 11, 2016 Share Posted July 11, 2016 Sandy,As you say, this is something of an old chestnut, although I think there is little doubt that something would be useful. All to often, reviews that have appeared in the press lack depth and gloss over problems by telling the reader that "with a bit of care/fettlling/etc." it will make a good model.There has, in the past been some discussion between myself and various members ofthe Guild over a simple scheme, not dissimilar to the approach you are advocating, where members can rate kits on a simple system over a limited number of categories. Looking back over the correspondence, what I had proposed was:-- Accuracy (of manufacture), ie did all the parts fit together- Buildability - easy or difficult- Quality of parts (especially castings) - good, bad or indifferent?- Complexity, ie was it a simple kit with few parts, or a complex kit with a great many detail parts?- Appearance - when finished, did it look the part (not was it dead accurate to the prototype)- Value for money - good, bad or indifferent? each scored on the basis of 1 - 5, ie 1=terrible, 5=really good. Any more than is liable to become too complicated and diluted by irrelevant data. The key, as you have identified, is reducing it to a exercise in box ticking, not writing; too many people find writing a chore and will fight shy of saying something that might be out of turn. There also needs to be a degree of anonymity, at least as far as anything that appears in the public domain is concerned.The one worry comes from the manufacturers themselves, who are frightened that one rubbish review (rating) from an inept builder builder will adversely impact on their sales. I think that that is a valid concern and had proposed that the rating for any particular kit is not made public until there are a minimum number of reviews, say, five, so that the effects can be averaged out. That is, after all, essentially the same as the system ebay use to rate sellers, based on buyer feedback.Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Harper Posted July 21, 2016 Author Share Posted July 21, 2016 I managed to throw some paint in the direction of the 'Tilbury Tank' yesterday. A couple of small blemishes to sort out on the body and a bit more on the chassis, where I had to cut off the rear and re-fit it 2mm narrower to accommodate enough throw for the rear pony truck to enable it to get around a 6ft curve. A test run on the club layout showed that all was now well with the rear pony truck and the modifications to the front bogie are working. The bogie changes were basically to move the pivot point to over the rear axle, and the addition of a goodly amount of weight. This prevented the rear wheels coming into contact with the crosshead/slide bars and did away with the need for a spring on the bogie. Detail painting is next. Regards Sandy 11 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
david.hill64 Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 Looking good Sandy. I always feel that locos with the con rod inboard of the coupling rod look a bit weird, but I guess it gave extra clearance to the cylinders. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Harper Posted July 21, 2016 Author Share Posted July 21, 2016 Looking good Sandy. I always feel that locos with the con rod inboard of the coupling rod look a bit weird, but I guess it gave extra clearance to the cylinders. Thanks David, There must be a good engineering reason for this and I'm sure one of the subscribers will soon let us know! I first spotted this on the preserved Midland Compound and was surprised at the length of the rear driver, crank pin spacer. I thought it a weak point and likely to bend! Sandy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim.snowdon Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 The good engineering reason for putting the connecting rods inside is to allow larger cylinders to be accommodated within the loading gauge. Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Harper Posted July 21, 2016 Author Share Posted July 21, 2016 The good engineering reason for putting the connecting rods inside is to allow larger cylinders to be accommodated within the loading gauge. Jim Now that makes sense. Thanks Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
N15class Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 Adams was one for inside con rods. Looks good in black. Is there going to be any lining. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Harper Posted July 22, 2016 Author Share Posted July 22, 2016 No Peter. Client wants it in late LMS condition, as he remembers it. Sandy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Isambarduk Posted July 22, 2016 Share Posted July 22, 2016 The good engineering reason for putting the connecting rods inside is to allow larger cylinders to be accommodated within the loading gauge. Jim Just so. Also, it may look weird but the net bending moment (bending 'force') on the leading crankpin at the wheel is actually rather less with this arrangement, even if that on the rear crankpin is greater (the shear forces will be nominally the same with either arrangement). Either way, the moments and forces are relatively easy to calculate and the crankpins designed accordingly. David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Harper Posted August 5, 2016 Author Share Posted August 5, 2016 (edited) LMS 2102 ready for a visit to the varnish shop. A couple of 'Official' photographs before departure Edited August 9, 2016 by Sandy Harper 10 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
N15class Posted August 5, 2016 Share Posted August 5, 2016 Very nice rebuild/finishing off. A lot of loco for the money if you can do it. Shame there is not a health warning with them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Harper Posted August 5, 2016 Author Share Posted August 5, 2016 Very nice rebuild/finishing off. A lot of loco for the money if you can do it. Shame there is not a health warning with them. Apart from a couple of issues with the chassis (easily resolvable with a jig (necessary) and the assistance of Laurie Griffin motion parts) I would say that the kit was value for the money asked for it. I certainly wouldn't direct a novice toward it, but a competent/experienced builder should have no trouble. Regards Sandy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Harper Posted August 8, 2016 Author Share Posted August 8, 2016 Moving on! A Mercian (ex Janick) Midland 4-4-0 Class 1327 A straightforward chassis build so far, apart from fitting some spacers to widen the chassis a bit. No indication where the brake pivots go so you have to figure these out for yourself. Odd looking cast brass horn blocks with round, tube, bearings and a recess in them so they slide up and down in the hornblocks, but no way of preventing them rotating?!? I will drill a hole and fit a spring wire in them as per normal. Drive will be on the rear axle. I have some plunger pickups supplied with the kit but don't think I'll fit them to the loco. Sandy 10 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
N15class Posted August 8, 2016 Share Posted August 8, 2016 Nice looking little engine full of charm. The horn guides look like the old Fourmost model ones, but they had square blocks as normal. I wonder if things had been swapped about. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Harper Posted August 10, 2016 Author Share Posted August 10, 2016 The brass etches on this engine is ever so soft even though it is .0018" and the footplate, after it was cut out was like lace! I clamped it down to a length of wood to stop it distorting so that I could attach the buffer/drag beam and valances. I started with the drag beam. Then I tacked the valances working forward leaving plenty of space between the tacks to prevent heat distorting the the thin valance When they were both attached, and square, I joined up all the tacks, again working randomly along the length to minimize heat distortion Finally the base buffer beam was attached followed by a riveted overlay. Test fit on the chassis. And finally, for this session, the smokebox saddle/valve chest (early version) was fitted and the sides, with the splasher tops attached, are just placed on the footplate for the moment. Sandy 18 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
drgj Posted August 11, 2016 Share Posted August 11, 2016 (edited) Very impressed by your work, Sandy. I will get a lot of tips for working on my dreaded Black 5 from this thread! I found a thread on a david Andrews Black 5 build by Grasshopper John which is also useful. Dave Edited August 11, 2016 by drgj Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Harper Posted August 11, 2016 Author Share Posted August 11, 2016 Thanks for all your 'likes' etc. Much appreciated. regards Sandy 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grasshopper John Posted August 27, 2016 Share Posted August 27, 2016 Very impressed by your work, Sandy. I will get a lot of tips for working on my dreaded Black 5 from this thread! I found a thread on a david Andrews Black 5 build by Grasshopper John which is also useful. Dave Hello Dave, It was my first 7mm kit and it turned out fine, Oh I had misshaps along the way but the good folk on here are always ready to help, dont be shy, get stuck in. What is it your worried about if you dont mind me asking. Regards Grasshopper J Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Harper Posted September 20, 2016 Author Share Posted September 20, 2016 It has been a while since I last posted on this build which has been mainly for two reasons, holidays and a difficult build! I have mentioned before about the thin and soft brass that the etches are made from which has caused all sorts of difficulties keeping everything square as the build progresses. The cab roof was a particular problem and I should really have scratch built it rather than use the parts supplied. It would have been quicker! When I came to fit the smokebox door casting it was found to be too small to fit the aperture in the front plate of the smokebox, so I needed to turn a brass disc to fit in the etched hole before attaching the door. Something also went wrong with the boiler as the etched holes for the handrails were not in the correct locations and had a distinct slope downward towards the rear of the boiler. A 1mm brass rod fitted the holes nicely and pieces were soldered in to fill the holes before cleaning up, measuring and re-drilling in the correct locations. A number of the castings have been upgraded to cast brass and the chimney, dome and safety valve cover are all very nice. I'll continue adding the detailing bits before starting on the tender. Regards Sandy 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
N15class Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 Some of these old kits have odd brass. Shedmaster ones are or were the same. Just had same problems with handrails on an Ace S15.b build looks very good so far. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
drgj Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 Hello Dave, It was my first 7mm kit and it turned out fine, Oh I had misshaps along the way but the good folk on here are always ready to help, dont be shy, get stuck in. What is it your worried about if you dont mind me asking. Regards Grasshopper J Thanks, John. I couldn't really afford a new kit, motor, wheels, etc, so I bought a cheap built up one which I have had to strip right down, unfortunately. I will post some pics of all the stripped down bits soon. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Harper Posted September 21, 2016 Author Share Posted September 21, 2016 Some of these old kits have odd brass. Shedmaster ones are or were the same. Just had same problems with handrails on an Ace S15.b build looks very good so far. HI Peter It is not very often that pre -etched holes align correctly and I wish designers would leave them out so that you can do them yourself, but filling and redrilling is not a big issue. Sandy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grasshopper John Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 Thanks, John. I couldn't really afford a new kit, motor, wheels, etc, so I bought a cheap built up one which I have had to strip right down, unfortunately. I will post some pics of all the stripped down bits soon. Your welcome Dave, Start a new thread with your rebuild, plenty of help available on RMW and lots of Pic's are a must Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
drgj Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 Sandy. that is a nice finish you got on 2102. Did you do it by airbrush? What paint did you use? Dave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now