Porth Dinllaen in 0

[Simond]

Thanks all,

 

I do agree, working signals are almost as important as working trains!

 

If anyone is interested, I have posted some details of my current layout at http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/80443-great-windowledge-railway/

 

enjoy!

SD

[unclebobkt]

and here's a couple of sensible ones...

close-ups are cruel !!!

 

 

 

 -- Looking-at the 2nd. photo.of this posting, the front end of the 4-6-0., and acknowledging that it is fraught to work from a photo., it looks as though the piston-rod is BELOW the HORIZONTAL centre-line of the coupled wheels - surely a 'No no!' for the GWR.?

 - Another thread, sorry can't remember its title, even though it was but yesterday that I read it, gave me to u'stand. that the GWR., with its large & outside cylinders, had to keep them above a MINIMUM height to avoid fouling the platforms' edges. 

Edited January 2, 2014 by unclebobkt

[Simond]

Hi Unclebobkt

 

Thanks for the note - I can confirm it is a trick of the light, or the angle, or something!

 

The loco is a Springside kit of a 49xx unrebuilt Hall, which I built as 5903, Keele Hall, built pretty much as the instructions.

 

As you can see in the rather poor photo below, the cylinder axis is dead in line with the axle centres, which agrees with all the drawings I have.

 

 

Best

SD

[Simond]

Further thoughts on this topic - the Halls and 28xx shared boilers and cylinder castings, amongst other things, and the shared them with quite a range of other locos too - the Moguls and Prairies particularly - Mr Churchward was very keen on standardisation, which was economically important for a number of reasons - reduced tooling costs, reduced drawing office costs, reduced spare parts counts, reduced test and development costs, amongst them.  He was a very able engineer, and supported at various points in his career by Messrs Stanier, Collet and Holcroft, none of which were intellectual slouches either.

 

 

The theory that the cylinders were placed above the wheel centre line to avoid fouling the loading gauge seems somehow spurious to me - the first reference I can find to it is in Jim Russell's book, "A pictorial record of GW Engines vol2", and whilst I hesitate to disagree with such an esteemed and respected historian & modeller, it doesn't make sense to me.  He writes, on page 34, referring No 98, "In order to avoid any possibility of fouling the low narrow part of the loading gauge, the centre line of the cylinders was 2 1/2" above that of the driving wheel centres".  He goes on to refer to numbers 97 (the forerunner of the 28xx's) and 99, (the large prairie), both of which also had the same cylinder castings and the same 2.5" offset between cylinder axis and wheel axis.  I suspect that this has become "an accepted fact" and part of the lore of our hobby and interest, but I think it's a wrong assumption.

 

Why don't I accept the "loading gauge" rationale? 

 

Simply because numbers 98 and 100 had 6'6" drivers, placing the cylinder centreline at 3' 5.5" above rail level with new wheels, and nominal weight, whereas, number 99 with 6' drivers, would have the cylinders 3" lower, and number 97, with 4'7" wheels would have the cylinders at 2'6" above rail level - nearly a foot lower!!!  So, whilst fouling the loading gauge might have been a problem for the small-wheeled freight loco, it certainly would not have been a reason to raise the cylinders on any of the larger wheeled locos.

 

And, to add to the entertainment, the wheels certainly got turned during the life of the loco, so they got smaller too, which lowered the entire loco.  And the springs sagged, so the cylinders would have got lower, relative to the wheel centreline as well.

 

Turning to the loading gauge itself, there appear to be two ways to foul it - I have not yet found a dated drawing of the GW gauge,  and to complicate matters, there are several; There is a "static" gauge for each specific vehicle, a "dynamic" (or "kinematic") gauge for all vehicles, and a "structure" gauge.  There has to be clearance between the dynamic and structure gauges to prevent collisions between vehicle and lineside furniture, and the dynamic gauge might be speed dependent (although I believe not, with the exception of cureve radii).   In principle, you could foul the gauge by dipping into the zone below the 6" line, or you could go outside the width.  The "low foul" would appear to be possible if the cylinders were low, and the drain cocks protruded below the line but even with the springs down an inch, the wheels down an inch (two on diameter) and the lowest cylinder centre line, the underneath of a cylinder of 26 inches diameter over its casings would be 15 inches above the rails - certainly leaving room for the drain cocks.

 

Width-ways, it is much more of an issue, particularly dynamically, as the loco has clearances between flanges and rails, between wheels and frames, and will also flex - all of which will vary from loco to loco, with loading and between locations.

 

Russell's book shows on page 41, a composite loading gauge diagram for the 4-6-0 locos, apparently a Swindon drawing reproduced, and this gives an 8'11" dimension over the cylinder casings, and that this dimension appears to be allowed from just above the bogie axle centreline - unfortunately no vertical dimension for this on the drawing - but this would certainly allow for the 2-8-0 lower cylinder centre line, right up to the 3'6" line, and 9' above..  This of course exceeds the current 8'8" dimension  but appears inevitable if you have outside cylinders - they have to be farther apart than the outside of the wheels, plus coupling rod thickness, plus bearings.  (strictly, you could put the connecting rods inside the coupling rods but this wasn't common on "big" engines).  I therefore conclude that the loading gauges were somehow different but I don't have access to dimensioned, dated ones.  Surely someone will!  Perhaps they can clarify.

 

Given the data I can find, I conclude that the reason for the offset cylinder centreline was not loading gauge, which begs the question of "why did they do it?". 

 

In a piston / crank assembly, it would be normal practice to start off with the axes aligned.  There might be some advantages in arranging a straighter "push" on the power stroke, thus offsetting one axis relative to the other to reduce side forces, thus friction and wear, and I am aware of some IC engines that do have offsets between bore and crank axes for precisely this reason, but a steam engine "pushes" and "pulls" - it's double acting, (a "one-stroke", if you like!) so what you would gain on a straighter line of action on one side, you would lose on the other stroke.  So that doesn't offer an immediate answer either.

 

I have Holcroft's books, which I will dip into again, perhaps there is some insight therein.

 

One theory I can suggest is that the cylinders needed to be at a minimum height to clear the gauge for the small wheeled locos and this may have been the deciding factor in setting the lowest cylinder axis relative to rail level. 

If the castings & boiler were common to both small and larger wheeled locos, the necessary clearance between wheels and boiler would locate the boiler relative to the wheels, and thus axles, given maximum wheel diameter, and given clearances.

I suspect that this sets the distance between the cylinder and wheel axes, calculating which might have been a drawing office exercise right at the beginning of Churchward's career.

 

 

Meanwhile, I remain curious!

 

best

SD

[Simond]

Further info; -

 

Page 62 of Holcroft's "Locomotive Adventure", he talks about his early work after transfer to the DO at Swindon - he was working on a scheme to rebuild the 80 single-wheeler locos into 4-4-0's - "he (Churchward) was prepared to see the cylinder centre lines pass 3 1/2 in. above the driving centre as against 2 1/2 in. in his standard types".  This was some time between 1906 when Holcroft transferred from Wolverhampton, and 1908 when they started to scrap the single-wheelers, so presumably, the "standard" was in place before 1906.  This would agree with Russell above.

 

Reading further in the Russell book, there is an interesting reference to the County tanks - page 60 - the final ten (2241-50) of these locos did not have the 2 1/2 inch offset between the axes.  These were apparently built to Lot 188 in 1912, and also had the curved drop to the front frames - which apparently was designed by Holcroft.  The same change appears to be the case on the County 4-4-0's the later (1912), curved frame, versions appear to have cylinders aligned with wheels, whereas the earlier (1906) versions have an offset.

 

The first of the 43xx class was designed and produced in 1910, and appears to incorporate the offset - it's certainly there in all the drawings of Moguls, and of their rather larger cousin, the 47xx, in Russell's book.  Holcroft merely reports that he used "a No.4 boiler and brought in all the standard parts he could" as instructed by GJC.  Holcroft moved to Ashford in 1914.

 

So, in large-wheeled engines, the offset between the cylinder axis and driving centre was discontinued in new builds after about 1912, but remained, for everything with smaller than 6'6" wheels.  Presumably, it worked, and they had all the jigs, and tooling, so perhaps a case of "why change it?"

 

The 4-cylinder engines (Stars, the Great Bear, Castles and Kings) all had the cylinders in line with the axles, and a quick inspection of the other drawings I have suggests all the inside cylinder loco's did too, although these were typically inclined.

 

 

One other speculation - perhaps it was an attempt to improve efficiency when running forwards, at the expense of it in reverse - the effective areas of the piston are different, by the area of the piston rod.  The offset, upwards on the cylinders, would favour the forward going piston, ie lower area, stroke.  Not impossible, but abit difficult to work out whether the effects cancel.  Unless someone knows, I leave it as a speculation!

 

best

SD

[Simond]

and just for the record, 28xx (scratch built) and 47xx (Martin Finney kit) both showing slight angle on connecting rod, confirming that the cylinder axis is above the wheel axis.

 

 

best

SD

[Donw]

One of the factors is the wear of the slide bars and crosshead. If the cylinder is slightly above the axles the action of the conroad would tend to push against the upper slide bar perhaps countering the weight of the crosshead and the con rod.

Don

[Simond]

Hi Don

 

You are right, of course, that there is a "side thrust" (in this case up and down) from any crank and slider mechanism, and this is reacted by the crosshead on the slide bars.

 

Going forwards, when the crank is "up", the steam pressure is on the back of the piston and the crosshead is pressed against the upper slidebar, and when the crank is down, the steam pressure is on the front of the piston, and the side thrust again is pushing the crosshead against the upper slidebar. The magnitude of the side thrust is determined by the angle of the connecting rod, which depends on its length, and the crank throw (and the angle of the crank and the steam chest pressure, of course), and any offset, such as the one we are discussing.

 

The bigger the offset, the bigger the side force, and so, the upwards offset would reduce the side force on the "pull" stroke, and increase it on the "push" stroke, which is what I was suggesting in the last paragraph of post 30. The friction that would exist between the bars and cross head slippers would be related to the instantaneous loading, so the thrust might have been more even in the two parts of the cycle as a result of the offset, however the wear is related to the average loading, and I don't think that the offset changes anything in this regard, as the reduction and increase would effectively cancel one another out, the average load on the upper (or lower) slidebar would be the same with them offset, either way, or central.

 

Your suggestion of this side thrust being countered by the weight of the parts is interesting. Clearly this is only going to work when the side thrust is upwards - which it clearly is when the loco is going forwards (irrespective of the offset).

 

There is another consideration. As the loco accelerates, the forces on the connecting rod are augmented by the inertial loads (sort-of-centrifugal force) caused by their sort-of circular motion. It's obviously possible to get the weights of the parts, and the dimensions & loco performance are also available. So it should be possible to work out all the forces, deduct the weights, and see whether we end up with a lower overall side thrust, thus lower friction & losses, and lower wear. All we need now is enough energy to sit down and do the calculations (which are not trivial or I'd do them!). That, or a couple of engineering students...

 

Of course, even if the calculations confirm that, at some reasonable speed, it all looks good, and would benefit the efficiency and/or longevity of the loco, it doesn't prove that this is the reason GJC did it...

 

Fun speculating though!

 

SD

[Simond]

Lovely bit of work! Always nice to see worky signals and the activation by arduino sounds interesting. I've seen mention of it in the MERG mag but never really investigated it. Keep up the good work!

Jon. F.

Jon, all

 

You'll find a link to Arduino control in my signature below

 

Hope it is useful

SD

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/82978-arduino-applications-and-programs/

 

Ok, link here, must have messed up again!

SD

[Simond]

Hi all

 

Little update, not sure if it should be the "new" layout thread or the "existing" one but here goes anyway

 

Last Christmas, I received an Ixion Fowler, courtesy of MrsD; it sat on the Greater Windowledge Rlwy for most of this year, but finally, I treated myself to a sound install from Paul at NGM.

 

Having regard for Paul's suggestion that he preferred to work on run-in, and un-weathered locos I took it to my pal, John's layout, two weeks back and gave it a bit of a run - certainly more than it could get at home.

 

Paul returned from his holidays and turned around the install very quickly. Unfortunately, in my eagerness to unpack it, I managed to catch the front buffer beam with the foam packing and it popped off, stretching the coupling spring. The other thing that was not quite perfect was that the loco had developed a slight "snick" when reversing. This hadn't been noticeable before the install, and talking to Paul, he hadn't noticed it when running the loco either. After careful checking of everything I could find, I ran a long taper broach in the shorter pair of rods, from both sides, and tried it out - problem entirely solved.

 

What about the sound - I just love it. I think everyone that has one (Paul mentioned in another post that he'd done about a third of them) is enthralled, I haven't heard a negative word. I've turned the volume down loads, as it's indoors, but it is great.

 

So, on to weathering. I initially painted the rods with Humbrol gloss red with a touch of white, and then over-washed with thinned Matt black. Fail... Was in the Midlands last week, so dropped by Howes and picked up some Railmatch signal red, and re-did them with that. Much better.

 

Soldered up a Phoenix driver with his hands on the levers, painted & installed with a pin up one leg, superglued in a hole in the floor. Painted the hanky in his hand red. My daughter asked why he was holding a lump of raw liver...

 

Lots of track-dirt and rust washes on the chassis, and very thin washes on the bodywork & footplate. Might do a bit more, with some talc to add "grittiness"...

 

Made some buffer stock flanges (not to David's sketch - impatient - might have another go...) and touched the buffers up with mixed oily steel & Matt black, as also applied to the wheel rims, and a touch of oily steel on the crankpins

 

Then I had a disaster. I put the chassis down on the wooden quayside bit of the layout, and I must have put the front wheels on one rail and the rear on another (there is a pair of crane rails in the quayside, and they are DCC-live) and the loco didn't work next time I put it on the track. Some root-cause analysis lead me to a fried & failed pick-up on one side. Now fixed, but a warning to anyone likely to be as careless as I am!

 

Conclusions. I love this little loco, and I am a total sound convert!

 

Photos...

 

Edit - spelling

 

Best

Simon

Edited August 23, 2014 by Simond

[81A Oldoak]

Hi all

 

Little update, not sure if it should be the "new" layout thread or the "existing" one but here goes anyway

 

Last Christmas, I received an Ixion Fowler, courtesy of MrsD; it sat on the Greater Windowledge Rlwy for most of this year, but finally, I treated myself to a sound install from Paul at NGM.

 

Having regard for Paul's suggestion that he preferred to work on run-in, and un-weathered locos I took it to my pal, John's layout, two weeks back and gave it a bit of a run - certainly more than it could get at home.

 

Paul returned from his holidays and turned around the install very quickly. Unfortunately, in my eagerness to unpack it, I managed to catch the front buffer beam with the foam packing and it popped off, stretching the coupling spring. The other thing that was not quite perfect was that the loco had developed a slight "snick" when reversing. This hadn't been noticeable before the install, and talking to Paul, he hadn't noticed it when running the loco either. After careful checking of everything I could find, I ran a long taper broach in the shorter pair of rods, from both sides, and tried it out - problem entirely solved.

 

What about the sound - I just love it. I think everyone that has one (Paul mentioned in another post that he'd done about a third of them) is enthralled, I haven't heard a negative word. I've turned the volume down loads, as it's indoors, but it is great.

 

So, on to weathering. I initially painted the rods with Humbrol gloss red with a touch of white, and then over-washed with thinned Matt black. Fail... Was in the Midlands last week, so dropped by Howes and picked up some Railmatch signal red, and re-did them with that. Much better.

 

Soldered up a Phoenix driver with his hands on the levers, painted & installed with a pin up one leg, superglued in a hole in the floor. Painted the hanky in his hand red. My daughter asked why he was holding a lump of raw liver...

 

Lots of track-dirt and rust washes on the chassis, and very thin washes on the bodywork & footplate. Might do a bit more, with some talc to add "grittiness"...

 

Made some buffer stock flanges (not to David's sketch - impatient - might have another go...) and touched the buffers up with mixed oily steel & Matt black, as also applied to the wheel rims, and a touch of oily steel on the crankpins

 

Then I had a disaster. I put the chassis down on the wooden quayside bit of the layout, and I must have put the front wheels on one rail and the rear on another (there is a pair of crane rails in the quayside, and they are DCC-live) and the loco didn't work next time I put it on the track. Some root-cause analysis lead me to a fried & failed pick-up on one side. Now fixed, but a warning to anyone likely to be as careless as I am!

 

Conclusions. I love this little loco, and I am a total sound convert!

 

Photos...image.jpg

 

Edit - spelling

 

Best

Simon

The Pauls have done a great job with the sound. I love the way the petrol starting motor keeps you guessing as to whether it well actually turn over the main diesel. We had thought about a sound button where the starter motor fails to do its job and as it splutters to a halt an old Anglo-Saxon curse could be heard from the frustrated driver. However, we soon realised that this would require an additional age rating on the box.

[Simond]

Somewhat frustrated. Been writing a "how to" on installation of KA caps since breakfast time and returned to my ipad to discover it gone.

 

As it was nearly finished, I'm not happy. No time to do it now, so later in the week, maybe.

 

Best

Simon

[Simond]

Ok, try again...

 

I started looking at keep-alive / KA / stay alive capacitors, in the spring of this year, probably due to some frustration with locos I was working on, and the odd moment of lack of contact on the GWR. I decided that I would like to install KA caps to my locos. My roster is, excepting a couple of oddities built for the kids, exclusively GWR, mainly kit built. The majority of the locos have Zimo MX61 decoders, however I have the 28xx and a part-built King with ESU Loksound V4 decoders fitted. I love sound so I will progressively add it to the fleet.

 

Loss of continuity with a normal loco can be downright annoying. With a sound-equipped loco, it can become ridiculous with the sounds restarting despite the fact that the loco stuttered, but wasn't stopped.

 

KA capacitors will prevent this, by providing a small store of energy that will carry the loco over a dirty patch of track, and which will keep the decoder from restarting.

 

The main culprit was the 28xx which was equipped with tender pickups only (split sprung axles) and current passed to the loco via sprung buffers to the loco drag-beam. When it went across a Peco cross-over, or various other spots on the layout, it stopped, particularly when going very slowly. I fixed the problem by fitting a 2-pin socket to the loco, and a plug on a wire from the tender, but still wanted to avoid the "dirty track stutter"

 

I tried to do this with a 2800uF capacitor, with diode and resistor as shown on page 26 of the ESU manual, but the effect was so minimal as to be entirely unnoticeable. I guess, precipitated by purchase of the sound system for the little Fowler, which is fitted with a very effective KA, and reading Paul's thread about the installation, I decided to have another go, but this time, using "supercaps".

 

These are available in staggering capacitances for those of us to whom 4700uF was enormous. (A "uF" is a microFarad, one millionth of a Farad). It is now possible to buy 1F capacitors, only 8.5 mm diameter and 11 mm long, but these supercaps have very low operating voltages, only 2.7V, which must be respected. This means connecting them in series to give a suitable operating voltage. I use 6 capacitors in series, giving 16.2V. Using 7 might be even better, and this is Zimo's recommendation.

 

The downside of this is that connection of capacitors in series reduces the capacitance - the total capacitance of a series string of capacitors is the reciprocal of the sum of the reciprocals of all the connected capacitors. In simple terms, if you have 6, one farad capacitors in series, the effective capacitance is one sixth of a Farad.

 

So far, I have fitted two locos with banks of 6 caps, the Fowler has only 5, giving a maximum voltage of 13.5V. This feels a little low to me, and I prefer the security of something over 16V, I may add a further cap to the Fowler in due course.

 

The ESU and Zimo sound chips have a "maximum run time" setting (cv113 on ESU, cv ?? On Zimo) which limits the time the loco will continue without a valid DCC signal. I have not yet found any reason to limit this.

 

Info is provided in both the Zimo (page 59) and ESU manuals for connection of the capacitors, with the addition of a diode and resistor in the positive leg. The resistor us there to limit the charging current of the capacitors, which would otherwise appear as a dead short to the DCC booster, particularly if a lot of locos were to be charged simultaneously, eg, when the layout is turned on.

 

More to follow...

Edited September 16, 2014 by Simond

[Simond]

OK, Instalment 2 of the KA saga.

 

Before setting to with a soldering iron on your £100 decoder, do bear in mind the the soldering points are small, and getting it wrong will probably wreck the decoder. I have noted what I've done, and provided some links to other sites, but I'm not recommending anything, and I'm not providing any guarantees!

 

Much of this has already been discussed in Chaz' Dock Green thread, but hopefully it will be useful if pulled together in one place. I'll add a link from the DCC forum too.

 

Some photos of bits.

 

 

here we have the kit of bits - a 100 Ohm resistor, a general purpose diode, and a 1F 2.7V capacitor. Caps are available at RS, but there are certainly other suppliers http://uk.rs-online....citors/7637750/

 

 

This is a couple of triplets of capacitors glued but not yet soldered together - there are several ways in which you can put the caps together to get them to fit the space you have;

 

 

herewith two of the logical layouts - a flat block with 3 in each half, or a "Toblerone" with two blocks of three - this fits nicely in a boiler.

 

Other ways of assembly would be 6 in a row sideways, or three and three to make a thicker, shorter block. When gluing (I use superglue) them together, plan so that the wires connect easily to put them in series. Please see the other attachment for dimensions of packs in different orientations.

 

The circuit diagram & various dimensions of different layouts of the capacitors are here;

 

 

As you can see from the photos, I have wrapped my caps in shrinkwrap. This is tough stuff and will protect them from shorting to the body of your loco - which would be something you do not want.

 

 

Ok, so, connection to the decoder. In principle, you want to connect the KA to the positive and negative bus bars inside the decoder. These are at the + end of the bridge rectifier, and conveniently, this is the blue common to the accessories / lights / etc in 99% of decoders, and a ground point. Some decoders make this easy, some don't, but please do not mix the ground up with the track connection (typically black) as that won't work and is likely to cost money. You can probe around for a ground point using a multimeter (see link to RMWeb below) but it will get more difficult to solder if there is no free pad to attach to, so beware!

 

 

The two easy ones are;-

 

ESU manual, page 26, section 6.11.2 shows connections for a Loksound V4 - download at http://www.esu.eu/en/downloads/instruction-manuals/digital-decoders/

 

Zimo manual MX Kleine page 59 & 60 shows connections for MX 633 - 634, 644, 621, 622, 648, 623 & 630. download at http://www.zimo.at/web2010/documents/MX-KleineDecoder_E.pdf

 

Less obvious ones are;-

 

http://www.zimo.at/web2010/documents/MX61E.pdf

Older Zimo decoders without sound - shows ground connection on page 11 - this, and the blue accessory common are what I used on my 1366 pannier which appears in the video below

 

http://www.railpage..../f-p1838210.htm

Do check out the video - apparently Coastal DCC offer TCS decoders

http://www.coastaldcc.co.uk/products/tcs/wow-sound

Or they are available in the US at Tony's Trains

http://www.tonystrains.com/products/tcs_wow_sound.htm

 

http://www.members.o...north/alive.htm

This site is mega-useful, gives all sorts of options.

 

http://www.rmweb.co....ay-alive-units/

I've linked back from there to here - see advice for connecting direct to the decoder without specific solder pads

 

http://www.sbs4dcc.c...5keepalive.html

Loksound V3.5 info

 

http://www.esu.eu/su...oksound-xl-v35/

Sorry, this one's in German!

 

http://www.esu.eu/fi..._connecting.jpg

Picture of the Loksound v3.5 XL with connection data

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/78328-ixion-0-gauge-fowler-diesel-loco/page-5

Credit where it's due - see post 103 for Paul's notes & pix re KA

 

Crappy video of my 1366 chassis with caps installed [/url]

 

Link to Chaz' K3 mogul Loksound V3.5 thread

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/90318-home-brewed-dcc-keep-alive-enough-capacitance/

 

 

I'll post more info when I have some!

 

EDIT 19 January 2015.

 

I have recently become aware of a potential issue with home-brew KA capacitor chains as described above. Due to tolerances in the manufacture of the capacitors, it is possible that a capacitor could become overcharged, despite "theoretically" there being sufficient voltage span available. Over-voltage will reduce life of the capacitor, and may result in leakage and failure. The simplest way to avoid this is to provide a resistor "ladder" in parallel with the capacitors, each resistor in parallel with one capacitor. Resistors of around 100k are suitable. More info to follow:

 

thanks

Simon

Edited January 19, 2015 by Simond

[Simond]

Progress this evening. Modelling mojo has been bit lacking, I don't know if "vicarious modelling by proxy" is actually a crime but I've been getting my fix with Chaz & Chris and a few others here on RMWeb, but tonight, I got my digit out and did some soldering.

 

Ejector, footsteps, hanging bar/valence , and injector pipes fitted. Thorough jiffing, doesn't look too bad.

 

 

Best

Simon

[2ManySpams]

Progress this evening. Modelling mojo has been bit lacking, I don't know if "vicarious modelling by proxy" is actually a crime but I've been getting my fix with Chaz & Chris and a few others here on RMWeb, but tonight, I got my digit out and did some soldering.

Ejector, footsteps, hanging bar/valence , and injector pipes fitted. Thorough jiffing, doesn't look too bad.

image.jpg

Best

Simon

My turn for modelling by proxy Simon - come on, get a move on ;-p

 

PS, why is the middle splashed wider? Does it have extra motion to clear??

[hartleymartin]

Perhaps the connecting rod?

[Simond]

Chris

 

as far as I can tell, it is to ensure that the name plate is outside the reverser reach rod.  I am not aware of anything else (apart from the top-feed pipe, black in first photo) which may be in the way. 

 

 

The front sandbox rods appear to go through the splasher.

 

 

edit - the one on the other side is the same as the rear one - they have the fire-iron tunnel through them and therefore are also much wider than the wheels

 

Photos of KGV at York in Sept 2012.  Isn't it funny, I took 53 photos, and there are still things I'm kicking myself for!

 

 

best

Simon

Edited September 23, 2014 by Simond

[Simond]

Ok, more progress

 

Top feed pipes on footplate, ditto lamp irons.

 

Fitted legs to name plates, they currently poke through the thoughtfully provided holes in the tops of the splashers. I'll finally fix them when it's painted.

 

 

 

Doesn't seem a lot of progress for about three hours' work...

 

And a question to anyone, particularly those who have built a Mitchell / JLTRT King, there is a casting for the motion bracket, which fits roughly where I have put it on the chassis.

 

 

It appears that I should have thought of this before building and part painting the chassis, because, as you can see from the other photo, I will have to cut and file a load of metal away to get it in. Is this right? There is an etched representation of said motion bracket in the footplate etch. This too will have to be cut away. It seems to me that the bracket is barely visible, and the etched one "will do" but I don't like it. Thoughts & suggestions welcome.

 

 

Best

Simon

[Donw]

I don't actually know about this one I do know that PW got Tony Reynaulds to make masters for some new castings one example being the water scoop. However Malcolm had originally only cast the visible bit whereas Tony did much more so there was a bracket on the etch which no longer did the job. This was probably corrected as it was flagged up to PW on a trail build. So it seems quite likely to me that the etched one is Malcolm original solution and the casting is an upgrade by JLTRT. I presume people choose which ever they want so it is not a big issue.

Don

[Simond]

Thanks Don

 

I think it'll be heading for a big issue to back up a few steps, and fit the casting!

 

Best

Simon

[2ManySpams]

Thanks Don

I think it'll be heading for a big issue to back up a few steps, and fit the casting!

Best

Simon

Simon, I think you should go for the most difficult option - why waste such a wonderful 'character forming' opportunity? !

[Simond]

thanks Chris,

 

in this case, I'll give up 0 gauge, and machine the loco frames from solid in Z, before forming the boiler and platework from 0.0001" brass, using my old gas soldering iron.

 

 

whilst standing up in a hammock

 

[2ManySpams]

thanks Chris,

 

in this case, I'll give up 0 gauge, and machine the loco frames from solid in Z, before forming the boiler and platework from 0.0001" brass, using my old gas soldering iron.

 

 

whilst standing up in a hammock

 

Blindfolded?

[Simond]

and wearing boxing gloves and roller skates