Connoisseur LSWR O2 for Pencarrow

[Worsdell forever]

Indeed Don, definitely chicken and egg. I suppose my egg is the nearly finished but not wired up O2 which runs nicely under finger power through all the turnouts.

 

There's also the RTR Heljan AC Railbus (which has a long wheelbase and dodgy wheelsets); the RTR Minerva 8750 pannier (which is my most recent acquisition); or the Ivatt 2-6-2 tank (built by Peter) which could be used to test the track under power.

 

So with that many eggs kicking around it was definitely time for the appearance of a chicken. I must admit I was worried that building my own track, including a very scary looking double slip, was a step too far. I didn't think I would be able to do it but, as with most things, the combination of helpful advice, studying various books and then plucking up the courage to have a go killed that fear.

 

I like the suggestion of test running stock on friends layouts, unfortunately I do have a slight issue in that respect...

 

rps20171119_071235.jpg

 

...they are all 4mm (OO, EM, P4) modellers!

 

Just goes to show a Q6 will pull anything hung on to it, although it looks like the driver is shaking his head.

[Trigger123]

Please please why do modelers make things so complicated it's a loco build as the chap who did the hard work and research and dollar intended it to be built. Yes by all means put your own stamp on your model but this compensation issue is not a problem if your track is good

[Trigger123]

Please please why do modelers make things so complicated it's a loco build as the chap who did the hard work and research and dollar intended it to be built. Yes by all means put your own stamp on your model but this compensation issue is not a problem if your track is good

[2ManySpams]

I think when you buy a kit you are free to complete it as you see fit incorporating your own preferences. Jim's kit is superb and his simple form of compensation is adequate but it's not true three-point compensation.

 

The model as built now has three-point compensation and rides very smoothly. Strictly speaking compensation is not required if your track is perfectly flat. The layout the loco is intended for has gradients and vertical transitions. Really satisfying seeing the O2 roll so smoothly over this track with the body steady as a rock.

 

Obviously if you buy your own kit you can build it exactly how you wish, I wasn't aware that there was a rule about deviating from the kit manufacturer's instructions.

[wagonbasher]

I think when you buy a kit you are free to complete it as you see fit incorporating your own preferences. Jim's kit is superb and his simple form of compensation is adequate but it's not true three-point compensation.

The model as built now has three-point compensation and rides very smoothly. Strictly speaking compensation is not required if your track is perfectly flat. The layout the loco is intended for has gradients and vertical transitions. Really satisfying seeing the O2 roll so smoothly over this track with the body steady as a rock.

Obviously if you buy your own kit you can build it exactly how you wish, I wasn't aware that there was a rule about deviating from the kit manufacturer's instructions.

 

Not all kits are perfect, in terms of research, prototype or design quality.

 

Most modellers will strive to improve, correct, adjust, trial, test or just personalise their model. The point is their model.. in a do what they want with their property sort of way

 

 

 

Andy

[2ManySpams]

Not all kits are perfect, in terms of research, prototype or design quality.

Most modellers will strive to improve, correct, adjust, trial, test or just personalise their model. The point is their model.. in a do what they want with their property sort of way

Andy

I would go so far as to say there are kits out there that are unbuildable or that just won't work. Horrors such as different axle spacing on opposite frames, parts missing, parts the wrong size or a construction sequence that isn't actually possible. There's kits and kits.

 

As you say not everyone finishes a model to the same level of detail. Not everybody uses the same motor/gearbox (price being a big issue). The possible variations are endless.

[Simond]

Please please why do modelers make things so complicated it's a loco build as the chap who did the hard work and research and dollar intended it to be built. Yes by all means put your own stamp on your model but this compensation issue is not a problem if your track is good

Wholeheartedly comprehensively and completely disagree.

 

In the case of Chris’ pannier it had “4-point compensation”, which, to put it bluntly, is bl**dy nonsense. And I well recall some of the other nonsense he had to deal with. That kit was appaling.

 

My 1366 came from another stable, and had a similar level of truly awful design, to the extent that it was not possible to build a working loco from the kit, as it was supplied. I made a new chassis, motion bracket, cylinder formers, and fitted full floating suspension. (And a load of details on the upperworks too)

 

Have a read of my Garratt thread, link below, and the links therein to Giles’ and Phil’s threads, referring to assymetric artwork, and other levels of unsatisfactory kit design work.

 

Or go on Western Thunder, and find Old Ravendale’s build of an Ace southern mogul. The stories go on and on!!!

 

And your track might be billiard table flat, but mine isn’t, (by design, and due to faults in manufacture, and movement in the wood from which it’s made) and the club tracks on which I may run the locos might also need compensation or suspension. And even it it is billiard table flat, if you’re using 32mm gauge, you will have wheel drop on the frogs of your points.

 

Need I go on?

 

And then there are those of us who consider the kit as a starting point to build something more personal, DLOS/IsembardUK being a prime contender in this department.

 

So, no, I don’t think so!

Best

Simon

[Trigger123]

Yes I know iam building my 2nd college models ivatt 4mt mucky duck and a acme A4 so I know that you all mean and yes there are no laws to how you build it. I was just looking through the index and came across Jim's kit and it was interesting as I know Jim's kits well as a personal home town friend and been in the kit market myself I just thought why make it hard for oneself. When someone as done the hard work and yes you are alright there's kits and there's a lot of mushroom growing material kits no offence ment

[Trigger123]

And yes I built a ace p2 once it whent in the scrap bin at the etchers lol

[2ManySpams]

I've previously said numerous times throughout the build thread that I think Jim has produced an excellent kit in the O2. Accurate etchings, crisp castings and superb instructions put his offering towards the very top of the pile, a smudge below Finney7.

 

I've met and talked to Jim at numerous shows and understand that this build thread has generated a number of extra sales for him. He's seen my build of his kit in the flesh and was complementary about it.

 

He fully accepted that modellers deviating from instructions is something that happens. If built as intended the loco would have had a rocking front driver, fixed rear driver and articulated rear bogie as per the instruction extracts below:

 

 

 

Before taking the plunge to deviate from the kit compensation I did a lot of reading and asking questions. The summary of the advice was:

~ 0-4-4 and 4-4-0 locos are notoriously difficult to get balanced and running smoothly

~ the most successful was of achieving this was to use three-point compensation with the tip of the triangle at the bogie pivot and the base between the leading divers.

~ Jim's compensation would improve running over an uncompensated loco but is not three-point compensation.

~ Running could be improved by introducing compensation beams or similar on the driving axles.

 

Nobody has said that Jim's simple solution wouldn't work, it's just that there's a better solution, all be it one that's more complex.

 

In building a kit we try things out, and based on our and other's experience make a decision on how closely we will stick to the instructions. Jim's kits are better than most and, without any deviation, would result in a good build.

 

There's always scope to improve though, but that's optional. I've just taken that option and am very happy with the result.

 

 

Based on the experience with this loco I am in the process of remaking the frames of an 0-6-0. That currently has a fixed rear axle and beams on the front two (as well as problems with the axles being too high in the frames and the frames being the wrong shape). That's not true three-point compensation either and the ride isn't as smooth as the O2.

[Focalplane]

Having built the Jinty and 4F without compensation I have to say that both 0-6-0s do the job intended. I wish Jim did more Models that are of interest to me and my layouts. He is up there with the best, providing relatively simple kits that go together well. And his instructions are really good.

 

Jim was very kind when he asked if he could post a photo my my Jinty on his website!

 

Paul

[avonside1563]

Please please why do modelers make things so complicated it's a loco build as the chap who did the hard work and research and dollar intended it to be built. Yes by all means put your own stamp on your model but this compensation issue is not a problem if your track is good

Sorry but that's a very narrow view to take. The whole point of developing your modelling skills beyond simply opening the box and placing it on a train set is to do what you feel works for you. If that means taking a kit or a rtr model and adding your own mark to it by whatever means then that's entirely up to the individual. Compensation is a very interesting subject with lots of views on how to do it and even if it is necessary. Even with perfectly laid track there will always be irregularities and at the tolerances some work to compensation is the only way to achieve smooth prototypical running. This hobby is about individualism and everyone is entitled to do what they want with their own models.

[PhilMortimer]

Please please why do modelers make things so complicated it's a loco build as the chap who did the hard work and research and dollar intended it to be built. Yes by all means put your own stamp on your model but this compensation issue is not a problem if your track is good

 

Totally disagree. All things can be improved. After all, car designers are supposed to have done all their research and development to build a particular vehicle, yet it doesen't stop some from modifying vehicles to a specific set of requirements and on the whole, we generally don't criticise those who do for doing so. And what about home improvement? Hopefully the architect, builder and inspector did their jobs well when building the house, but requirements change and most of us modify and upgrade our houses to some extent.

 

Kit and Model designers/producers are human and some are better at it than others. They produce models and kits to a price and are also constrained by their individual design skills and experiences, as well as their access to research materials. Some modellers may want to build these kits as designed and will be more than happy with them. Others use them as a base on which to make improvements for various reasons (improved fidelity to prototype, better running, etc.) Jim himself states about his kits "They are not intended to be state of the art kits, though those who wish to upgrade their model through the substitution of various fittings and by fabricating some of the smaller superdetail items, can lift it into the showcase class, in the firm knowledge that the kit forms an accurate and economical base on which to work" And his kits are pretty high up on the scale of things! Developing such skills can eventually lead to some scratch-building models for which kits and RTR are not available (e.g. such as those models by GeorgeT). Through the experience of building and modifying kits, a level of experince builds up that allows some modellers to tackle such projects and produce models that would otherwise not exist.

 

Many modellers will of course be happy to run RTR models straight out of the box and/or build the kits as intended by the designer without any deviation from the instructions. And there is absolubtly nothing wrong in that. I myself have a number of RTR models that I could never hope to kit-build to the same standard for the price or with the time available. And a number of kits are so well thought out that there really isn't much in the way of improvements that can be made. But others do need assitance to improve them, either by virtue of their age (e.g. older hand drawn kits are more likely to have errors than more modern CAD ones), lack of information available at the time of development, or just having errors that were not caught at the time of production. In addition some builders may have different design philosophies than the kit designer (who may not be aware of them) and so want to incoporate them into the models they build (Springing / compensation / running reliability, etc.). And nearly all models (RTR / kit built / scratch built) can be improved somehow (e.g. with weathering, addition of crew, etc.), no matter how good the manufacturer or builder of the model is. 

 

Modelling is a broad spectrum about creating. Like any hobby, it has different participant levels and some may want to develop additional skills. Many modellers will be perfectly happy using RTR models, track and scenic accessories to create a scene in which to run theirtrains. There is nothing wrong with this and it is how most of us start and how many continue to enjoy the hobby. Some may want prototypes that are not available RTR and so have to develop kit building skills to obtain their chosen prototypes. Still more may want to take that to another level and start improving kits and models according to their tastes. All of this is valid as a part of railway modelling.

 

Most of us like to follow build or improvement threads on forums (be it stock / layouts / scenery / etc). Very few of these are straight "follow the instructions" threads. Most involve some form of problem solving to get a better end result (be it assembly / painting and finishing / weathering). From such reports (the successes and failures), others can develop their own skills should they so wish. The reason that I have posted so extensively on my garratts is so that others can learn from my mistakes and how I overcame problems which may be useful to them, in the same way that I learned from others who went before me. However, just because I do things a certain way doesen't mean that it is the only or best way and others may have alternative and just as valid (or better!) methods.

 

So I celebrate those who go and do their own thing or go off the beaten path in search of improving models to their own satisfaction, as much as I also applaud those who do things as intended by the designers and make great models. After all, most of life is about problem-solving in a way, and it itself is a skill that needs to be constantly developed. So improving our models (or anything else) should be beneficial in developing our problem solving skills as a whole. And that can't be a bad thing.

Edited February 15, 2018 by PhilMortimer

[N15class]

Well said. Man has always been about improving what has already been done since the flint was knapped.

[Trigger123]

Flint Kanpped models thats got a nice ring to it for model company we could use for a banner for bad kits I know a lot I would put under in my opinion