What have you done with your Keyser kit

[hayfield]

Malcolm

 

Both those motors are the first type which is shown on a k's advert of Dec 1952 (see page 4 13/4/13) quite different to what I believed was the first motor

 

 

On page 2 dated 7/4/13 there is a page of a K's catalogue showing 3 not 2 motors, what I thought was the first motor may well be the "Super 1" model as per your initial post, or in another post an advert mentions a Mk3 motor

 

Looking through older adverts in this thread neither of the loc0s were in the 1958 add, the J72 is mentioned before the Caley

 

My earliest point of reference (W&H catalogue 10/67) shows both locos, I have in the back of my mind the J72 was an earlier release than the CR loco

[Jeff Smith]

On 30/06/2020 at 11:06, hayfield said:

Jeff

 

Have a look at the High Level chassis, its more detailed, and only needs a motor think it also comes with P4 frame spacers

 

http://highlevelkits.co.uk/deanpage.html

 

They come with a gearbox and hornbooks and have inside motion, saves you sourcing all the bits and may well be cheaper getting everything from the same supplier rather than sourcing all the parts separately

 

I use High Level gearboxes as first choice, I have also been told their hornbooks are one of the best about

 

While waiting for my kit to arrive I have been giving some thought as to how I build it.  I've now ascertained the relative wheel spacing,  Dean Goods 7'3" + 8 '3" = 15'6" , 2361 7'9" + 8 '0" = 15'9" ( I think this info was earlier in this thread).  So a 2mm difference between the leading and middle axles, then a 1 mm longer overall wheelbase......  Moving splashers and outside frame hornblocks, plus a custom chassis....  Perhaps not worth it considering the superstructure is wrong as well, but very similar!

 

So I think I will stick to the Dean Goods spacing.  However it will be compensated with P4 wheels, the chassis is well hidden so I might adapt the K's with fixed axle and simple central rocking beam for the others.  Perhaps I can use the Mk 1 motor as well.....

[hayfield]

7 hours ago, Jeff Smith said:

 

While waiting for my kit to arrive I have been giving some thought as to how I build it.  I've now ascertained the relative wheel spacing,  Dean Goods 7'3" + 8 '3" = 15'6" , 2361 7'9" + 8 '0" = 15'9" ( I think this info was earlier in this thread).  So a 2mm difference between the leading and middle axles, then a 1 mm longer overall wheelbase......  Moving splashers and outside frame hornblocks, plus a custom chassis....  Perhaps not worth it considering the superstructure is wrong as well, but very similar!

 

So I think I will stick to the Dean Goods spacing.  However it will be compensated with P4 wheels, the chassis is well hidden so I might adapt the K's with fixed axle and simple central rocking beam for the others.  Perhaps I can use the Mk 1 motor as well.....

 

 

Jeff

 

I am with you for the first bit, build the body as it is, perhaps updating some of the components, and keeping the wheelbase the same.

 

But I do draw the line at the motor and gearbox !! If you are going to all the trouble of P4 compensated chassis, then use a decent gearbox, High Level do take some beating, and a decent motor, again High Level do motors from £9.50, their coreless motors at £27 are superb, but I guess looking around others may be as good

 

These look very good and are quite low revving

 

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/12-x-15-mm-12-Volt-coreless-motor-1215S-single-shaft-micromotor-eu/153894944822?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&var=453949353331&_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649

 

or 

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/10-x-20-mm-12-Volt-coreless-motor-1020D-double-shaft-micromotor-eu/153958971576?_trkparms=aid%3D1110006%26algo%3DHOMESPLICE.SIM%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20131003132420%26meid%3D0dfb941077424e7e96ee176da08edacc%26pid%3D100005%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D9%26mehot%3Dpf%26sd%3D153894944822%26itm%3D153958971576%26pmt%3D1%26noa%3D0%26pg%3D2047675%26algv%3DSimplAMLv5PairwiseWebWithBBEV1Filter&_trksid=p2047675.c100005.m1851

 

To me reusing old inefficient motors and gears is false economy

[Jeff Smith]

Yes, using the motor is probably a bit of a stretch......  A bit of innovation with the chassis might be fun though!

[Brassey]

If you are building in P4 then you will probably already have an appreciation of accuracy.  Why not build it to the correct wheelbase and move the splashers.  If the K's chassis is anything like the one I had with my Dean Goods, it will just be a couple of strips of relatively thick stamped out metal with screw-in spacers that will be pretty useless for P4 as is.  So it would probably be easier to start from scratch.

[PenrithBeacon]

5 hours ago, hayfield said:

...

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/12-x-15-mm-12-Volt-coreless-motor-1215S-single-shaft-micromotor-eu/153894944822?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&var=453949353331&_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649

 

or 

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/10-x-20-mm-12-Volt-coreless-motor-1020D-double-shaft-micromotor-eu/153958971576?_trkparms=aid%3D1110006%26algo%3DHOMESPLICE.SIM%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20131003132420%26meid%3D0dfb941077424e7e96ee176da08edacc%26pid%3D100005%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D9%26mehot%3Dpf%26sd%3D153894944822%26itm%3D153958971576%26pmt%3D1%26noa%3D0%26pg%3D2047675%26algv%3DSimplAMLv5PairwiseWebWithBBEV1Filter&_trksid=p2047675.c100005.m1851

 

To me reusing old inefficient motors and gears is false economy

Agree with the last paragraph, but I'm not at all sure I would use those motors. The first has a very short shaft which might make worm/ worm wheel meshing an issue and the second has no fixing holes for a gearbox.

[hayfield]

David

 

In some ways these are fair points, I do have a couple of round can motors with these sized shafts and I keep meaning to buy a gearbox to try them out, I am not recommending these motors but recommending that we should look for modern superior replacements.

 

In these motors defense. they have sleeves to convert the 1 mm shafts to 1.5 mm shafts which also extends the shafts length, though I think the shafts length will not be an issue

Secondly these are both coreless motors which will give superior performance and rev at a decent rate for model railways rather than the more common higher revving ones which are far more common

 

As for fitting them to gearboxes, I bought some cheap motors from China, these stuck very well to gearboxes using industrial strength superglue, and certain respected modeler's of this parish are actually soldering the N series motors to the gearbox.

 

I personally think its worth a try and am going to buy a couple (mainly due to the postage)

[RodneyS]

On ‎01‎/‎07‎/‎2020 at 22:09, dunwurken said:

Attached is a photo of the 'original small K's motors' installed in PD's Douglass Models kit of 009 narrow gauge loco 'Angus' [built circa 1954] and also the 'somewhat battered K's job .... mounted vertically..' in Moira [built circa 1957/8] one of his scratchbuilt 009 locos.  Both locos and chassis survive in working order.

 

I mentioned this to Rod Allcock, the owner of Moira, and this is his reply:-

 

I don't know if you want to reply to Malcolm's post on Moira's chassis. I fitted a strap soldered across the top of the motor as the original frame had split where PDH had filed it down rather roughly. As for brushes for these motors, The Poole Farish brushes and springs fit reasonably well. In fact, the right hand side brush on Moira's motor sits in a holder I turned up and uses the Farish brush and spring. When I originally received this loco back in 1963 the brush on that side was mounted in a piece of brass tube with the end squashed and tack soldered to the motor body. The whole thing was, to put it mildly, something of a lash-up. Incidentally, although the chassis now has Romford 9mm diameter wheels, the wheels PDH had fitted it with were, despite what he has said in print, 8mm diameter brass of unknown origin. They were not K's products. They were fitted to Peco Insulaxles (hateful things) which very soon succumbed. The motor drives directly onto the rear axle using a worm and wormwheel which came from a Zenith motor bogie.

 

The chassis does run remarkably well, is pretty smooth and can run quite slowly. The large weight on the front came from a commercial N gauge chassis (can't remember what) and was just a temporary weight to enable the chassis to run without the body which is heavily weighted at the front end. The photograph was taken by me (I think) at the southern end of Corris station. If it's not my photo it must have been taken by Malcolm at the Rainford show three years ago.

[dunwurken]

John

According to the Forsythe book the J72 was introduced in Feb 1959 and the Caley tank in Sept 1961.  Due to this covid lockdown I have no access to the club library so am not able to undertake the usual thumb through the ads looking for info.  So thanks for the copy of the motor ad.

 

Rodney

The main focus of my attention in this thread is the standard gauge kits and it was more as an afterthought that I inserted the photos of Moira and Angus's chassis as I thought they might be of interest to the K's aficionados on this thread.   They run remarkably well for a couple of old timers and are a testament to their designer and manufacturer.

 

On checking I am not sure whether the photo used is mine or Rod's!    My apologies to Rod if it is his. 

Malcolm

[Jeff Smith]

7 hours ago, Brassey said:

If you are building in P4 then you will probably already have an appreciation of accuracy.  Why not build it to the correct wheelbase and move the splashers.  If the K's chassis is anything like the one I had with my Dean Goods, it will just be a couple of strips of relatively thick stamped out metal with screw-in spacers that will be pretty useless for P4 as is.  So it would probably be easier to start from scratch.

A not unreasonable approach but for just a few mm not worth the effort as, as mentioned above the superstructure is not accurate for a 2361 anyway.

My approach with this kit will be to use as much of the kit as possible but to innovate to accommodate P4 wheels (Gibson) and probably a new motor and g/b (Branchlines).  If useable the chassis sides can be spaced further apart and slotted to accommodate suitable sliding hornblocks.  I have done this before with a Wrightlines kit.  I'll know more when I get the kit on Monday.

[RodneyS]

Malcolm

I thought Rod's comments would explain the brass overlays and the bit about the brushes might be of interest in case anyone is trying to get an old K's motor going.

I was given an old assembled K's Terrier a while ago and was told it didn't run.  The motor had one jammed brush which was very difficult to remove.  In fact it came out in pieces.   Not having a Farish brush to hand I used a piece of pencil lead from a pair of draughtsman's  compasses.  It was a bit too small but it did prove the motor worked and ran quite well.  I'm not sure how it would wear though.

Those motors seemed to go on for ever !

Rodney

[Jeff Smith]

On 04/07/2020 at 16:28, Jeff Smith said:

A not unreasonable approach but for just a few mm not worth the effort as, as mentioned above the superstructure is not accurate for a 2361 anyway.

My approach with this kit will be to use as much of the kit as possible but to innovate to accommodate P4 wheels (Gibson) and probably a new motor and g/b (Branchlines).  If useable the chassis sides can be spaced further apart and slotted to accommodate suitable sliding hornblocks.  I have done this before with a Wrightlines kit.  I'll know more when I get the kit on Monday.

 

Well, I have now received this 40+ year old kit.  This is boxed and thus pre-dates the bubble/card packed ones like the 63xx I'm just finishing.  The approach was somewhat different than the later kits although I've no idea if K's changed the design for the later Dean Goods.

 

The pot of Humbrol GWR green is still useable, although not by me as I have some acrylic versions.

 

The chassis sides appear accurate, straight and seem to have been milled with keyhole slots not stamped.  Spacer holes have been drilled and countersunk.  The main wheels have been mounted on the axles with top-hat bearings in situe, and the gear on the driven axle.  Assembly was to slide the separate frame sides over the axles using the keyhole slots, then spacing them out engaging the bearings into the frames.  Each axle has one live and one insulated wheel.

 

The Mk 1 motor runs but I won't be using it!

[Jeff Smith]

I have created a new thread for this K's build.

 

 

[Coach bogie]

I have picked two wrecks of 2361/outside frame deans or what ever you wish to label them.

 

I have no issue with the motor and have many locos using them without issue.

 

The 2361/Stella and buffalo tanks all shared similar parts and were different versions of the same locomotive. If this worked for Dean, I thought I would have a go.

 

I rebuilt this one into a Stella. I made a new running plate as I did not fancy filling in the gap left by removing the font splasher. The tender, I gave up on as I have several spares from Bulldogs which had a larger tender attached. The challenge as with most 4 coupled locos, is it is nose heavy. This is cured by having a spring mechanism on the from wheel (attached using a piece of scrap brass that has some flex in it!) and by sitting the tender on the drawbar (just as Swindon did for real). This also reduces the wobble often seen of 4 coupled. The tender keeps the loco rear inline.

 

I got the Mesch, just right on this and is a very quiet runner, with no slipping happy hauling five heavy kit built coaches.

 

 

I did have a Finney on the shelf, where it stayed for many years as in my opinion, it is over engineered and I am not someone who gets his kicks spending six months building a loco. I only build to get the locos and coaches I want for the layout. The K's is less detailed but works and has the 'look' of a Stella I am looking for.

 

I also picked up a K's Duke. This was running and just needed added detail and the tender coupling sorted. Again I sat the tender on the draw bar and now it will actually haul a train. Added brake gear, bogie detail, front footstep moved back 2 mm so the bogie would turn ( it was this or shorten the bogie...just like Bachmann have with the Earl/City)and various other litlle bits and bobs that  add to the 'look'. It is going to get a topfeed. I was going to make one, but a friend has a spare which is on its way to me.

 

 

Mike Wiltshire

 

 

[hayfield]

Mike

 

A couple of lovely locos, the main issue with K's are the chassis parts. Certainly the locos perform better with Romford/ Markit wheels, Motors are quite variable, some good and some bad in both the early and later types, as you say gear meshing is important, but these locos can be transformed with well built chassis 

[Coach bogie]

6 hours ago, hayfield said:

Mike

 

A couple of lovely locos, the main issue with K's are the chassis parts. Certainly the locos perform better with Romford/ Markit wheels, Motors are quite variable, some good and some bad in both the early and later types, as you say gear meshing is important, but these locos can be transformed with well built chassis 

It is an area we will probably disagree on.

 

The brass frames, I assembled for the Stella are fine. Although I have Romfords wheels in stock, the existing K's wheels run true and are arguably more accurate as they do not have a surplus crank, so I tried them and they run fine. 'It aint broke so I am not fixing it!'

 

Do the etched frames look better - YES, Is it easier to fit brake gear etc - YES, but I do not find any improvement in running. I compare this to what many call a 'state of the art' Bulldog, I built,  with super detailed etched frames, which warp and twist the moment the body is attached. No wonder it recommended compensating.  This does not happen with rigid K's, Nucast, Jamieson etc frames.

 

Having built locos with both Milled and etched frames, the running has nothing to do with the frame material, it is how you assemble, test, adjust, retest etc before starting the body. I spend a long time getting the running right regardless of the origin of the parts. Apart from an 0-4-0 tank, non of my loco frames have any form of compensation - they do not need it.

 

I bought this Bulldog as a box of bits at the last Ally Pally show for £20. Luckily it had been evo stuck together so I boiled it up in water to return it to kit form. The frames had not been started. I built it as the kit, with K's motor, wheels etc. Tender is off a K's Aberdare. One of the tyres had come of a driving wheel so I just stuck it back on. I have had to do this with Gibson wheels so no improvement there. It is actually my best running Bulldog. Again, I spent some time playing with the gear mesch to reduce the noise. Runs quiet now. there was no point in replacing frames, wheels motor when I did not have to and having to be careful with my cash, I would not want to waste money on parts I do not need. It took an excessive amount of time to get my etched Bulldog to run as well as this one.

 

Mike Wiltshire

 

 

 

[hayfield]

Mike

 

I think its my bad writing the reply rather than we disagree, I said "these locos can be transformed with well built chassis " no where did I say etched chassis perform better. A badly built etched chassis is equally as bad as a badly built brass bar chassis.

 

Etched chassis do have the benefit of looking better, in 00 gauge there is more room between the frames for a greater choice of gearboxes and wider motors, compensated/sprung frames may give better electrical pickup and possibly better performance. But do not compare badly built etched chassis with well built ones. Twisted frames are a badly built chassis

 

I have a two or three brass bar K's chassis built to EM gauge, they work well. But in most cases they would certainly would look better with an etched chassis, performance would also improve with a modern gearbox and motor.

 

K's wheels are not very good, the early ones are very coarse and unless you get the new style fitted correctly they are easily damaged. (fitting Gibson and Sharman wheels are equally difficult)

 

The older K's motors are not too bad, but the newer HP2M more often than not are problematic.

 

The gears are on a par with older Romford's, but gear technology has moved on, with smaller worm drives and gearbox format, as has motor design

 

Yes I agree if you have a set of straight frames and the chassis is well built, it will work well, High Level do sell a gearbox which fits in between the frames and would allow you to use a modern motor, so I do agree with you "these locos can be transformed with well built chassis "

[Coach bogie]

1 hour ago, hayfield said:

 Twisted frames are a badly built chassis

 

Yes I agree if you have a set of straight frames and the chassis is well built, it will work well, High Level do sell a gearbox which fits in between the frames and would allow you to use a modern motor, so I do agree with you "these locos can be transformed with well built chassis "

 

My twisted frames are as designed/built from supplied components. They do not twist now as I have added additional strengthing (not supplied) to stop the twist. The point is I shouldn't have to and this problem does not occur with milled bar frames.

 

I have no issue with K's wheels for outside/double frame locos as they present the same challenges as alternatives in setting up and run on code 75. Most of my inside frame K's use Romfords, though I built a K's pannier, as the kit with D section wheels to prove point and win a bet - I won, and it is still running without any issues to this day (the Romfords bought to put on this loco are still in the parts drawer). As I have preached before, all my Panniers are K's as they are the only company who bothered to supply a 57xx with the topfeed as an extra.  Romfords to the left, K's to the right. Both run well.

 

Totally agree with High level boxes. He is local to me and Chris has supplied several over the years. The first gear boxes of his went in an Garrett. I was unsure of the use of nylon gears but he has convinced me as it still runs 20 years later. I have a Will's 2251 body that was given to me that will use his chassis.  His Pannier chassis has spacers everywhere, are etched in decent thickness/grade of nickel with enough strength to stay square. I have his No1 diesel shunter on the shelf to build.

 

I have a second wreck of an 'outside frame Dean goods' and a Beyer outside frame 0-6-0 to build at some point. I suspect the Beyer will appear as Pannier. That will get a set of Romfords as the steel wheels are rusted beyond use.

 

It is enjoyable hearing about alternatives.

 

Mike Wiltshire

 

[Brassey]

12 hours ago, Coach bogie said:

My twisted frames are as designed/built from supplied components. They do not twist now as I have added additional strengthing (not supplied) to stop the twist. The point is I shouldn't have to and this problem does not occur with milled bar frames.

 

 

Etched frames twist when they are screwed down tight to a footplate that is not flat/straight/square/true.

[5050]

12 hours ago, Brassey said:

 

Etched frames twist when they are screwed down tight to a footplate that is not flat/straight/square/true.

Frames/chassis do not need to be fastened tight.  'Adequately secure' is more than sufficient and 'slightly loose' can still work OK.  The body ain't going to fall off in service.

[Coach bogie]

28 minutes ago, 5050 said:

Frames/chassis do not need to be fastened tight.  'Adequately secure' is more than sufficient and 'slightly loose' can still work OK.  The body ain't going to fall off in service.

I my experience if the bolt is not tight, you find them in them between the sleepers. 

 

Mike Wiltshire

[5050]

Just now, Coach bogie said:

I my experience if the bolt is not tight, you find them in them between the sleepers. 

 

Mike Wiltshire

The bolt can be tight but, if it's the correct length (or possibly shouldered), the chassis can still be 'slightly loose'.  By this I don't mean flopping about but just allowing 'room for expansion' or, more likely, 'slight flexibilty',

[Michael Edge]

All plate frames can twist - including full size ones. Nearly all the torsional stiffness in a model loco is in the body, especially a steam loco with a circular boiler - just try twisting one if you don't believe me. Loose screws and nuts inevitably end up in the four foot eventually.

[Jeff Smith]

16 hours ago, Brassey said:

 

Etched frames twist when they are screwed down tight to a footplate that is not flat/straight/square/true.

Surely the answer is to ensure that the footplate is square.  As pointed out the footplate/body is going to be the most rigid part.  The chassis normally only touches the chassis at the fixing points so not a lot of work involved in shaving off a little white metal or brass.  When attaching the chassis there should not be any risk that it will be distorted......

[Brassey]

Not K's but an old Wills saddle tank: