One for the K's kit lover's (me) and detractors!

[Virgil]

Now here's a conundrum, one of my current projects is a built K's GNR Atlantic bought as a runner needing attention.

Initial testing on my rollers revealed it ran but in the opposite direction to all my other tested locos suggesting it had never been run or used on an operational layout.

So the motor connections were reversed and the loco's direction normalised, all seemed fine.

Tried on my test oval for the first time it refused to even look at the 3rd radius curves but ran fine on the straights.

Inspection revealed the the front bogie rear wheels were fouling the loco chassis frames which protruded halfway into the shaped cut outs for the wheels on the body.

I had to grind away and shape the front part of the chassis by around 10cm in order to allow the front bogie to swivel and not just allow straight line running only.

To me it begs the question, how did K's expect the kit to be completed and run with the supplied chassis, did they not test build them?

I have included a picture of  my loco with the modifications and also an unmade sealed kit recently sold on EBay which is a later issue to mine - having the HP2 motor and the frames are still identical to my unmodified frames!

Has anyone else ever built one of these Atlantics and run it successfully without modifying ?

Doug

Edited February 10, 2022 by Virgil
Additional thoughts

[Andy Hayter]

The instructions that came with the kit said something along the lines of it should negotiate a 5 ft radius curve (I may have got 5 wrong but it was big).  For tighter curves it would be necessary to take out sections from the inside of the cylinder covers.

[MarkC]

In fairness, even some later kit producers (I'm looking at you, DJH) released models which could prove problematic when negotiating even 4' radius curves without some radical 'tweaking', but this one is a real doozy!

[Andy Hayter]

Also thinking back I think the instructions said that even with the tweaks it would only negotiate 3 ft radius curves.  I seem to remember thinking that it would rule out the use of Peco curved points.

 

Equally in fairness the rtr version has a number of tweaks to let it round train set curves.

[Virgil]

To make the frame problem a bit clearer the close up of the modified frame may illustrate better the original design (or lack of it)!

The bottom of the frame continued straight across from the driving wheels and just above the bogie frame to over half way across the wheel cutout, then straight up in a 90 degree angle to the top of the frame at 90 degrees again.

The section removed included the front frame spacer, the screw holes for which can be seen on the original frames as pictured..

The available space for the bogie to swivel was limited by the difference between the outside of the frames and the wheel back to back, very limited.

Don't get me wrong I enjoyed the challenge and relish problem solving but problems such as this could well have defeated the beginner and even perhaps the average modeller of the time.

[Steamport Southport]

I've got one which was a recent purchase from Hattons. Looking at it now. Unbuilt but was a good price and I wanted a plain BR black one.

 

Nothing in the instructions about not being able to go around curves and on paper it shouldn't have any real problems with anything over about Radius 3 as lengthwise it's only about the size of a small 4-6-0 and not far off an eight wheeled chassis loco in it's wheel base.

 

I think you probably need to look at the bogie attachment as that looks like where the problem is, with it wanting to swivel rather than having any lateral movement.

 

Maybe try the pivot from Comet instead, or maybe replace the bogie with a Comet one of the correct size. I have a feeling that the GNR/LNER A1/A3 type should be correct - LS11 (check that though, LNER isn't really my thing, I just dabble in it). 

 

https://www.wizardmodels.ltd/shop/locomotive/ls73/

 

 

The Bachmann one had bent rods so that it didn't foul. That came in for a fair bit of criticism as well. Although the model itself is vastly better than I could manage, just let down with the slight bizarre arrangement with with rods.

 

https://www.world-of-railways.co.uk/reviews/bachman-gnr-ivatt-c1-atlantic-4-4-2-review/

 

 

 

 

Jason

[hayfield]

Please do not take this comment the wrong way, but this is a scale model kit designed 50 years ago. Firstly like many larger locos in the range its not designed for train set track. The manufacturers wanted to get away from the compromises ready to run stock needed at the time it was designed.  Had it been so the centre drivers would have been flangeless as you have shown the front bogie would have been designed differently. 

 

The chassis were very basic and followed the same practice which was first designed in the late 50's. In hindsight simple adaptions would have made it a bit easier/better to build, but the market it was designed for was not the table top tail chasers. Whilst its not in the same league, would you today expect a Malcolm Mitchel 4-6-0 to go round set track?  Even K's 0-6-0T locos had flanged centre wheels which limited their use on RTR track

 

Having rebuilt one of these many years ago without instructions, the previous builder had lots of issues building it and its not one for the faint hearted. But you are very right, in that there are several areas this and other kits could have been improved.  In my opinion the downfall of K's started when they  tried to modernise their motors and wheels and I am a K's collector, but realise a new chassis and its components is the way to get the best out of these kits

 

Edit

 

Wills kits at that time were seen as superior, however they were designed in most cases to fit on to RTR chassis. The builder had a choice , either use the chassis as is for use with set track or replace the wheelsets for scale wheels.  

Edited February 11, 2022 by hayfield

[Andy Kirkham]

26 minutes ago, hayfield said:

Please do not take this comment the wrong way, but this is a scale model kit designed 50 years ago. Firstly like many larger locos in the range its not designed for train set track. The manufacturers wanted to get away from the compromises ready to run stock needed at the time it was designed.  Had it been so the centre drivers would have been flangeless as you have shown the front bogie would have been designed differently. 

 

The chassis were very basic and followed the same practice which was first designed in the late 50's. In hindsight simple adaptions would have made it a bit easier/better to build, but the market it was designed for was not the table top tail chasers. Whilst its not in the same league, would you today expect a Malcolm Mitchel 4-6-0 to go round set track?  Even K's 0-6-0T locos had flanged centre wheels which limited their use on RTR track

 

 

From what I remember of contemporary magazines (early 70s) I don't recall anyone complaining about the quality of K's kits or suggesting that they needed any tweaking.

[Enterprisingwestern]

2 minutes ago, Andy Kirkham said:

 

From what I remember of contemporary magazines (early 70s) I don't recall anyone complaining about the quality of K's kits or suggesting that they needed any tweaking.

 

Aah yes, I remember those days when modellers were happy with their lot and just got on with doing some modelling if they weren't.

Where did we go wrong?

 

Mike.

[eldavo]

Had a couple of K's kits way back when.  Never managed to get any of them to run properly.  Where would the average modeller have documented their pain before the days of the internet?  I don't believe the magazines would have printed criticisms.

 

Cheers

Dave (who wasted considerable amounts of his pocket money)

 

[Les Bird]

I have a Stephen Poole kit for a GER 2-4-2T. As supplied, it will only run on straight track. It's effectively an 0-8-0 with no sideplay on the axles.

Edited February 11, 2022 by Les Bird

[hayfield]

15 minutes ago, Andy Kirkham said:

 

From what I remember of contemporary magazines (early 70s) I don't recall anyone complaining about the quality of K's kits or suggesting that they needed any tweaking.

 

The hobby was very different, I think it was far more polarised with adults wanting something more than what was offered by the RTR trade and weres happy with the shortcomings of what was available at the time, as they were still far better looking and more exotic than the RTR offerings 

 

Still hats off to the OP as they tackled a difficult to build kit, saw an issue and resolved the issue with a simple modification 

[hayfield]

7 minutes ago, eldavo said:

Had a couple of K's kits way back when.  Never managed to get any of them to run properly.  Where would the average modeller have documented their pain before the days of the internet?  I don't believe the magazines would have printed criticisms.

 

Cheers

Dave (who wasted considerable amounts of his pocket money)

 

 

Or learnt how to get over the issues, for all its ills the web is a wonderful resource for finding out how to do things

[hayfield]

8 minutes ago, Les Bird said:

I have a Stephen Poole kit for a GER 2-4-2T. As supplied, it will only run on straight track. It's effectively an 0-8-0 with no sideplay on the axles.

 

I think NuCast altered it to an 2-4-2 with pony trucks

[Steamport Southport]

2 hours ago, hayfield said:

Please do not take this comment the wrong way, but this is a scale model kit designed 50 years ago. Firstly like many larger locos in the range its not designed for train set track. The manufacturers wanted to get away from the compromises ready to run stock needed at the time it was designed.  Had it been so the centre drivers would have been flangeless as you have shown the front bogie would have been designed differently. 

 

The chassis were very basic and followed the same practice which was first designed in the late 50's. In hindsight simple adaptions would have made it a bit easier/better to build, but the market it was designed for was not the table top tail chasers. Whilst its not in the same league, would you today expect a Malcolm Mitchel 4-6-0 to go round set track?  Even K's 0-6-0T locos had flanged centre wheels which limited their use on RTR track

 

Having rebuilt one of these many years ago without instructions, the previous builder had lots of issues building it and its not one for the faint hearted. But you are very right, in that there are several areas this and other kits could have been improved.  In my opinion the downfall of K's started when they  tried to modernise their motors and wheels and I am a K's collector, but realise a new chassis and its components is the way to get the best out of these kits

 

Edit

 

Wills kits at that time were seen as superior, however they were designed in most cases to fit on to RTR chassis. The builder had a choice , either use the chassis as is for use with set track or replace the wheelsets for scale wheels.  

 

I would expect it to go around a reasonable radius though. Likewise DJH and with that Hornby/Bachmann/etc.

 

Guess what? They do. They are all designed for 30 inch / 750mm curves. Which is a five foot circle.

 

Even the much mentioned LNER A8 can manage that.

 

https://www.djhmodelloco.co.uk/prodpage.asp?productid=3251

 

 

Jason

[Virgil]

13 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

I've got one which was a recent purchase from Hattons. Looking at it now. Unbuilt but was a good price and I wanted a plain BR black one.

 

Nothing in the instructions about not being able to go around curves and on paper it shouldn't have any real problems with anything over about Radius 3 as lengthwise it's only about the size of a small 4-6-0 and not far off an eight wheeled chassis loco in it's wheel base.

 

I think you probably need to look at the bogie attachment as that looks like where the problem is, with it wanting to swivel rather than having any lateral movement.

 

Hi Jason, thank you for your thoughts on the subject.

I don't think the bogie can be held to be solely to blame as lateral movement is catered for in the design and it is sprung, see photo. The notch presumably is to enable self centring .

I tried reversing the bogie but  I've yet to try it on my test track after the chassis mods due to lack of time (decorating).

I see you have an unmade example, does it have the same chassis frames?

Doug

 

 

[Virgil]

3 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

I would expect it to go around a reasonable radius though. Likewise DJH and with that Hornby/Bachmann/etc.

 

Guess what? They do. They are all designed for 30 inch / 750mm curves. Which is a five foot circle.

 

Even the much mentioned LNER A8 can manage that.

 

https://www.djhmodelloco.co.uk/prodpage.asp?productid=3251

 

 

Jason, I have a DJH WD 2-8-0 with original kit chassis and fully flanged wheels that happily goes round my test track, without modifications! 

Doug

 

[Virgil]

6 hours ago, hayfield said:

Please do not take this comment the wrong way, but this is a scale model kit designed 50 years ago. Firstly like many larger locos in the range its not designed for train set track. The manufacturers wanted to get away from the compromises ready to run stock needed at the time it was designed.  Had it been so the centre drivers would have been flangeless as you have shown the front bogie would have been designed differently. 

 

The chassis were very basic and followed the same practice which was first designed in the late 50's. In hindsight simple adaptions would have made it a bit easier/better to build, but the market it was designed for was not the table top tail chasers. Whilst its not in the same league, would you today expect a Malcolm Mitchel 4-6-0 to go round set track?  Even K's 0-6-0T locos had flanged centre wheels which limited their use on RTR track

 

Having rebuilt one of these many years ago without instructions, the previous builder had lots of issues building it and its not one for the faint hearted. But you are very right, in that there are several areas this and other kits could have been improved.  In my opinion the downfall of K's started when they  tried to modernise their motors and wheels and I am a K's collector, but realise a new chassis and its components is the way to get the best out of these kits

 

Edit

 

Wills kits at that time were seen as superior, however they were designed in most cases to fit on to RTR chassis. The builder had a choice , either use the chassis as is for use with set track or replace the wheelsets for scale wheels.  

John, thank you for your response and comments.

The intent of my original post was to show that K's in this instance seemingly failed to address the problem of the frames fouling and preventing the front bogie from swivelling freely.

I don't know if this kit ultimately was provided with etched frames by K's which would presumably have corrected the mistake

But my example has the earlier fitment Mk 1 motor though with D axles and wheels but as the photos show a late example with shrink packaging and later HP2 motor still had the unusable unless modded frames.

The necessary mod is not difficult using a bench grinder, (thick brass) but removes the front frame spacer which also doubles as the front chassis to body mount as well, so not quite as simple as it would seem.

It hasn't changed my liking for the kits and I get that they were of their time but I remain surprised that they never saw fit to change such a major design flaw.

Doug 

Edited February 11, 2022 by Virgil

[hayfield]

48 minutes ago, Virgil said:

John, thank you for your response and comments.

The intent of my original post was to show that K's in this instance seemingly failed to address the problem of the frames fouling and preventing the front bogie from swivelling freely.

I don't know if this kit ultimately was provided with etched frames by K's which would presumably have corrected the mistake

But my example has the earlier fitment Mk 1 motor though with D axles and wheels but as the photos show a late example with shrink packaging and later HP2 motor still had the unusable unless modded frames.

The necessary mod is not difficult using a bench grinder, (thick brass) but removes the front frame spacer which also doubles as the front chassis to body mount as well, so not quite as simple as it would seem.

It hasn't changed my liking for the kits and I get that they were of their time but I remain surprised that they never saw fit to change such a major design flaw.

Doug 

 

Doug

 

I love the kits and even with the old brass bar chassis you can get a decent runner, I do ditch the wheels gears and motor though. The early wheels (pre- quartered and key hole chassis) are too course, the idea around the D holed plastic wheels was good but if anything before their time. The HP2M motor was a disaster. I know a few work but on the whole they just got hot and died. My first conversion was the 14xx, I used a Perseverance etched chassis, Romford wheels and gears, but I must own up to fitting a K's HP2M motor and it still just about works. I must get round to fiting a decent gearbox and motor 

 

The GNR Atlantic is a good loco, but the design of having the cylinders attached to the body rather than the chassis is a bit weird. The added issue of making them work around tight curves is just an added problem. I think the designers were happy if it went together and ran on a straight piece of track, one thing is getting to miss the chassis frame, the next is touching the rear of the cylinders. But when you consider what was available in RTR when it was designed (Hornby Dublo went bust) Triang was the other alternative. 

 

Do show us your build as it gives others encouragement to have a go, but I think there must always be a caveat that some kit built locos may struggle to work on set tracks

[Virgil]

32 minutes ago, hayfield said:

 

Doug

 

I love the kits and even with the old brass bar chassis you can get a decent runner, I do ditch the wheels gears and motor though. The early wheels (pre- quartered and key hole chassis) are too course, the idea around the D holed plastic wheels was good but if anything before their time. The HP2M motor was a disaster. I know a few work but on the whole they just got hot and died. My first conversion was the 14xx, I used a Perseverance etched chassis, Romford wheels and gears, but I must own up to fitting a K's HP2M motor and it still just about works. I must get round to fiting a decent gearbox and motor 

 

The GNR Atlantic is a good loco, but the design of having the cylinders attached to the body rather than the chassis is a bit weird. The added issue of making them work around tight curves is just an added problem. I think the designers were happy if it went together and ran on a straight piece of track, one thing is getting to miss the chassis frame, the next is touching the rear of the cylinders. But when you consider what was available in RTR when it was designed (Hornby Dublo went bust) Triang was the other alternative. 

 

Do show us your build as it gives others encouragement to have a go, but I think there must always be a caveat that some kit built locos may struggle to work on set tracks

John, valued comments, thank you.

I bought my Atlantic ready built but the builder had clearly never run it on a layout, (motor polarity and lack of bogie movement the give away) so my input is sorting it to run on a layout, I'm enjoying the challenge.

I did have an experience with an HP2M motor some years ago and ended up binning it. However I discovered that the motor had failed due to the brush coil springs getting overheated under load, softening, shortening and losing their springiness. In effect the fine wire coils were heating due to excess current flowing through them, a thicker gauge of spring wire would have allowed more current to flow without damaging the spring.

Another notorious motor to suffer the exact same problem was the original Mainline/Replica pod motor, there are probably others cursed with the same weakness of design.

So there we are, I still intend to use as much of the original kit as I can, financially it makes sense and as already stated I enjoy the challenge!

[hayfield]

26 minutes ago, Virgil said:

John, valued comments, thank you.

I bought my Atlantic ready built but the builder had clearly never run it on a layout, (motor polarity and lack of bogie movement the give away) so my input is sorting it to run on a layout, I'm enjoying the challenge.

I did have an experience with an HP2M motor some years ago and ended up binning it. However I discovered that the motor had failed due to the brush coil springs getting overheated under load, softening, shortening and losing their springiness. In effect the fine wire coils were heating due to excess current flowing through them, a thicker gauge of spring wire would have allowed more current to flow without damaging the spring.

Another notorious motor to suffer the exact same problem was the original Mainline/Replica pod motor, there are probably others cursed with the same weakness of design.

So there we are, I still intend to use as much of the original kit as I can, financially it makes sense and as already stated I enjoy the challenge!

 

Doug

 

I like your style, if you look carefully K's locos do come up with decent wheels and if you are very lucky a half decent motor, I have been known to buy a kit just for the wheels and or the motor, then resell the kit.

 

Motors are an interesting subject and at the moment I an trying out some cheap 12v Chinese coreless motors. I now use gearboxes from High Level, they also sell inexpensive 12v motors

[Virgil]

I received a few Bachmann parts from EKM Exhibitions this morning, one part being a GNR C1 Atlantic mainframe, bought out of curiosity and also as it was inexpensive (£2).

The idea being to compare Bachmann's take on the GNR chassis with K's already discussed on here effort.

The big surprise to me was the difference in coupled wheelbase between the two, Bachmann's frame measuring at 33.35mm and K's at 28.88mm.

I also have an unmade DJH LBSCR Atlantic which presumably shared its coupled wheelbase with the GNR C1 and that measures at 29.28mm.

The only drawing of a C1 that I could find showing measurements is on Wikimedia Commons, (GNR 4-4-2).

The coupled wheelbase shown (in meters) is 2.083 meters = 6.834 feet = 6 feet 10 inches.

Which in 1/76 scale I make 27.34mm coupled wheelbase.

So K's are closest at 28.88mm, DJH next at 29.28mm and Bachmann at 33.35mm seemingly 6mm out.

K's driving wheels scale out across treads at 6 foot 6 inches compared to the full size 6 feet 8 inches so are gratifyingly close to scale.

Not owning a Bachmann C1 I can't comment on the driving wheel sizes but I do wonder why the coupled wheelbase seems to be out so far, or am I missing something?

Edited February 12, 2022 by Virgil

[Andy Hayter]

Are you missing something?

 

Well yes.  The real C1 has driving wheels that are very close together at the flanges.  If you put the correct sized wheels on a model and then add 00 flanges then the wheels overlap.  So a compromise is required.  Smaller driving wheels.  Driving wheels spaced out more than they should be.  A combination of the two.

 

Just the sort of issue that a modelmaker / model designer has to handle every  day.

I did warn you above that Bachmann had had to make some tweaks - you are now beginning to find them.

Edited February 12, 2022 by Andy Hayter

[hayfield]

Doug

 

Good to see you are exploring the possibilities that Keyser kits can offer up.

 

The old mk1 or are they the mk2 motors go on for ever, the chassis are quite robust, but it looks like you have the dreaded D axle wheels, nothing wrong in principal but were a bit advanced for mam fisted modellers like myself

 

People keep going on about how good RTR stock is yet the likes of K's and DJH ( lets not forget DJH started in Banbury near K's and early kits had the k's HP2M motors and plastic inset  wheels in their early kits) having the correct size wheels and wheelbases, where as the RTR opted for the correct size wheels and larger flanges needing an altered wheelbase, no doubt to cope with RTR track of the time

 

The old dodge with Romford wheels which had larger flanges, was to use a size down which kept the wheels within the prototypes wear allowances

 

Next up in your explorations may be to look for simple to build etched replacement chassis

[Pebbles]

13 hours ago, Virgil said:

I received a few Bachmann parts from EKM Exhibitions this morning, one part being a GNR C1 Atlantic mainframe, bought out of curiosity and also as it was inexpensive (£2).

The idea being to compare Bachmann's take on the GNR chassis with K's already discussed on here effort.

The big surprise to me was the difference in coupled wheelbase between the two, Bachmann's frame measuring at 33.35mm and K's at 28.88mm.

I also have an unmade DJH LBSCR Atlantic which presumably shared its coupled wheelbase with the GNR C1 and that measures at 29.28mm.

The only drawing of a C1 that I could find showing measurements is on Wikimedia Commons, (GNR 4-4-2).

The coupled wheelbase shown (in meters) is 2.083 meters = 6.834 feet = 6 feet 10 inches.

Which in 1/76 scale I make 27.34mm coupled wheelbase.

So K's are closest at 28.88mm, DJH next at 29.28mm and Bachmann at 33.35mm seemingly 6mm out.

K's driving wheels scale out across treads at 6 foot 6 inches compared to the full size 6 feet 8 inches so are gratifyingly close to scale.

Not owning a Bachmann C1 I can't comment on the driving wheel sizes but I do wonder why the coupled wheelbase seems to be out so far, or am I missing something?

Sorry, but I have to question whether you actually have a Bachmann C1 Chassis. Looking at photos, taken at the time the model was released, it would appear that the Bachmann C1 drives off the rear axle, also photos taken from below show the wheel flanges within a whisker of each other.