Johnster's 44xx

[1466]

2 hours ago, DCB said:

I don't think you can get K's axle gears off K's axles without wrecking the gear or Axle or both. I have yet to succeed.

AFAIK The "P D Hancock" drive was to make the loco start with a jerk, like real ones do,  I saw a reference to it re a TT layout back in the 1970s as well. It used a worm and wheel and the worm wheel, not a bevel, a worm wheel like Triang which was a sliding fit on the axle. The worm wheel had a horizontal hole with a pin which engaged with a pin in a hole drilled through the axle.  It works well. I did it on my K's ROD. The gear needs shimming on the non pin side to keep it in line with the worm and the shims between pin and chassis and possibly worm wheel are also needed, obviously the one between worm wheel and axle pin has to be of a small diameter.  Main advantage is the worm wheel is a bit loose and self centres with a single set screw attachment a la Romford the gear often runs eccentrically.  I file flats on the axle and leave the screws slightly loose to avoid this, or some times drill right through the romford gear and the axle and secure with a pin or split pin.  It works.  So does the K's flywheel, the flywheel and gutless motor give smooth acceleration, I have a 43XX with a cab full of flywheel which makes a Dapol 43XX look very silly, especially on filthy track, sometimes it needs a bit of reverse to get it away,..

Thanks for your clarification and amplification, DCB .

I’ll stop looking , Johnster in the Modeller, unless you ask me to continue .

[DCB]

3 hours ago, 1466 said:

Thanks for your clarification and amplification, DCB .

I’ll stop looking , Johnster in the Modeller, unless you ask me to continue .

I can't find any mention of the pin drive in P D Hancock's Narrow Gauge Adventure, the story of the Ctaig and Mertonfordshire Railway, a Peco Publcation of 1975 reprinted in 1980 (Which I bought ex Library stock in 1992!    It mentions a lot of detail of his locos, double reduction gear drive for his NER 0-8-0  with H/D 8F chassis, and hacking about Essar and H/D chassis for other locos.

I think the reference came from another freelance Scottish standard gauge layout featured in Railway Modeller where they had an NB 0-6-0 with this type of drive, probably late 60s early 70s.   Most of the guys locos were kitbashed Triang TT with a lot of Airfix 00 0-4-0 L&Y pug bits and were in the livery of a fictitious company.  I remember it as a freelance standard gauge line was so unusual at that time, however it was 40/50 years ago,

See pic of my K's 44XX body with modified cab cut away,( and loose roof!)  it's too good to hack about to lengthen the bunker etc and spray Poundland black so its on eBay for £24! 
Also pic of well built K's 44XX showing awful cylinders and standard cab aperture.

 

Edited May 8, 2022 by DCB

[The Johnster]

16 hours ago, DCB said:

don't think you can get K's axle gears off K's axles without wrecking the gear or Axle or both. I have yet to succeed.

 

I've not attempted to take this chassis apart, and won't unless I run out of alternatives because I think that that way  lies disaster.  I don't fully understand what I am looking at with this chassis, which consists of two brass bars held together by round brass spacers, not apparently insulated from each other.  The axle bearings, if there are any, are hidden and the axles are housed in plastic tubes which revolve with the wheels.  The centre axle plastic tube holds the cog gear, which is clearly therefore of a type designed specifically to fit it, and I cannot see how one would possibly separate the metal (mild steel?) cog gear from the plastic axle housing.  AFAICS, you are absolutely right, there is no way to get K's axle gears off K's axles without wrecking the gear, or the axle, or both.  Moreover, as K's are no longer producing these kits, these components are irreplaceable.

 

So, the situation is that, in order to replace the motor, the worm gear has to be removed from the old motor shaft, because the cog gear must be left alone and only the K's worm wil engage with it TTBOMK.  So the replacement motor must use the K's worm, and the entire success or failure of the chassis is predicated on this setup.  As I say, I have not yet completely abandoned the old motor, but today was lovely and has been spend out on the patio instead of investigating motors.  I want to see if the motor will start reliably under no load at all, and it is currently half out of the chassis, hanging by a soldered wire betweent hte top terminal and the right hand brass frame.  This is where we get back to my lack of understanding of the finer points of how current is picked up on this model, as since the top terminal is connected by soldered wire to the rh frame and the frames are joined by brass spacers, the entire frame is live to the right had wheels.  But I can't for the life of me make out where and how the lh side wheels are insulated from the frame or how they connect electrically to the bottom motor terminal.  They obviously do, as the chassis runs after a fashion...

 

Had it started reliably, I might have been content to let matters lie, but the loco is not reliable enough for traffic in the actual condition it is in.  My first move was to cut out the fly wheel, thinking that it's inert mass was adding to the starting problem, which it probably was.  It was also making the chassis diffiuclt to control because, when slowing down to a stop, it was possible for the motor to stall and the flywheel manage to keep the loco moving for an inch or so, only for it then to stop dead before you have had the chance to react and giver her a burst of volts to keep her moving, said burst being delayed by the inertia of the flywheel, at least that's what I think was happening!  In any case, it amounted to 3 good reasons to cut the flywheel off; 1), to assist the motor to start under load by removing inertia, 2) to improve direct control,  and 3) to release space in the cab for correct daylight  and detail.

 

As things stand, I don't think it is possible to continue with this motor, and am only waiting to experiment with it running under no load to confirm this.  Compared to modern motors (or even an old Airfix prairie motor) it takes a hefty voltage to kick it into action, and clearly there is a lot of intertia, friction, and stiffness in it, not to mention the carbon brush wear suggests a pretty high mileage.  It's a bit like me, old, tired, and doesn't work all that well!

[The Johnster]

During my playing with the chassis trying to get it to start reliably, I sat the bodyshell on top to check clearances. and at the same time checked buffer height against a Bachmann wagon; it it spot on, but I agree that the loco in DCB's photo looks to be sitting a bit high, and this seems to be a common fault with these locos judging from eBay photos, along with splayed slide bars and the low set cylinders.  The running plate valance should hide the tops of the wheels from that angle, slighty above the running plate looking downwards at an angle of about 10 degrees.  Mine does, fortunately.  The cab cutout modification makes a big difference to the appearance, and I will probably do this; there seems little reason not to!.

 

The cylinders are a bit of an unknown quantity for now.  I've bolted the kit cylinders into place termporarily to allevieate the chassis' back-heaviness during testing, though there is less need now the flyweight has been removed.  I am ultimately planning to use Bachmann 45xx cylinders and motion, and am xing my fingers that they will sit with the piston centre line at the correct level with regard to the wheel centres, a very important part of the look of GW outside cyldiner locos. 

[The Johnster]

There is bad news and there is good news.  First the bad news...

 

Following attempts to run the motor with direct feed from the controller, I can now state that the motor is dead, deceased, it is an ex-motor, only there because it was attached to the loco frames.  Now the good news...

 

I found I was able to twist/pull the worm gear off the shaft, and will not have to use my vice, or drift/punch it out. 

 

So, once a new motor is found and the shaft sleeved to take what I think is a 1/16th inch bore, or a motor with a 1/16th dia. shaft sourced, it then becomes a matter of mounting the new motor so that the gears can mesh, which may require the construction of some sort of adjustable  cradle.  Once it's in and working, I can concentrate on the cylinders and motion, coupling rods first, then cylinder/slide bar assmebly, then mounting the crossheads, piston rods, and connnection rod attached to the central driver crankpin, and hope it works at each stage, but that'll be a few weeks off yet I reckon.   I may be able to find a useable motor in the 'come in useful one day' box, or have to buy something.  Because the cog is permanently fixed on the odd sort of plastic tube axle, I will not be able to use a gearbox to ensure meshing. 

 

I'm a little more hopeful this morning that there will be a functioning and tolerably credible 44xx running reasonably well and reliably on Cwmdimbath in the next few months!

[jamieb]

I'd say that the motor being dead falls into the good news category as you will now save yourself a lot of time and frustration trying to get it to work!

Cheap replacement motors are easily enough obtained online ,also worth looking at Hornby spares,I got a couple of M7 motors for £6 each a while back,the advantage of these is they have a thicker shaft which may well fit the existing worm

As for a mounting bracket,a strip of metal with a hole the size of the motor shaft,bulked up either side with a couple of washers,will double up as a bearing,as well as a securing bracket which can be fixed to the frames to keep the gears in mesh

[The Johnster]

Sounds about right, Jamie.  Dead motor is something that can be put in the out tray on the problems desk and forgotten about.  I'm currently looking at resuscitating an ancient Airfix prairie motor because it has a shaft compatible with the worm and ballpark the same size as the old one, but any of this older generation of motors will probably 'do' for my purposes.  It's probably easier than a modern motor, which will need sleeving on the shaft.  The worm is a push fit, and once in the right place can probably be secured with a dab of superglue or touch of solder. 

 

I was thinking of a plastic cradle that would hold the motor at the correct angle for meshing and prevent it from rotating around the axis of the centre axle, perhaps scewed to a mounting plate glued between the frames and held down from the top of the bodyshell by a piece of foam rubber, somewhat of a bodge but a method I've used before successfully.

[The Johnster]

Another possibility is a Bachmann motor and half-gearbox; one salvaged from a spare 57xx chassis and played around with earlier shows that, surprisingly, the first stage idler gear that is powered by the worm on this chassis engages effortlessly with the Keyser cog.  A possible drawback without the second stage of the Bachmann drive, the intermediate gear that engages with the cog on the axle of the pannier, is that the overall gear ratio might not be conducive to slow running.  But I am regarding the Bachmann option as a second string to my bow, and the current intention is to proceed with the Airfix 5-pole motor.

[The Johnster]

Not much done last week and have had problems with the flat over the weekend; leak from flat upstairs, ring mains out and living room lights unusable as water is cascading through them, bit of a ‘mare and going to be several days b4 sorted out I reckon.  Landlord’s contractors have to make holes in my ceiling (luckily not in railway room) and take floor up upstairs, so not much modelling took place!

[1466]

Bad luck . Hope it gets fixed soon and no lasting damage .

[The Johnster]

Tx.  Problem seems to originate from next door, and we are now waiting on their landlord’s people to see to it.  Oh, let joy be unconfined, o frabjous day, calloo callay…

[1466]

Not cromulent , then ?

[melmerby]

On 09/05/2022 at 02:01, The Johnster said:

There is bad news and there is good news.  First the bad news...

 

Following attempts to run the motor with direct feed from the controller, I can now state that the motor is dead, deceased, it is an ex-motor, only there because it was attached to the loco frames.  Now the good news...

 

I found I was able to twist/pull the worm gear off the shaft, and will not have to use my vice, or drift/punch it out. 

 

So, once a new motor is found and the shaft sleeved to take what I think is a 1/16th inch bore, or a motor with a 1/16th dia. shaft sourced, it then becomes a matter of mounting the new motor so that the gears can mesh, which may require the construction of some sort of adjustable  cradle.  Once it's in and working, I can concentrate on the cylinders and motion, coupling rods first, then cylinder/slide bar assmebly, then mounting the crossheads, piston rods, and connnection rod attached to the central driver crankpin, and hope it works at each stage, but that'll be a few weeks off yet I reckon.   I may be able to find a useable motor in the 'come in useful one day' box, or have to buy something.  Because the cog is permanently fixed on the odd sort of plastic tube axle, I will not be able to use a gearbox to ensure meshing. 

 

I'm a little more hopeful this morning that there will be a functioning and tolerably credible 44xx running reasonably well and reliably on Cwmdimbath in the next few months!

K's motors are 3/32" shaft, or at least the ones I have are.

 

 

Anything like these?

[The Johnster]

3/32nds, then.  The failed motor is the same as one on the right I think, and the middle one is what I think I remember from my first whitemetal attempt in about 1968 or 9, a K’s 8750, which ran well enough.  
 

So, I’ll need to put a sleeve on the shaft of whatever motor I source for 4404, or try to source a K’s motor, and the problem with that is that it’s likely to be yookered; AIUI these motors do not have good reputation.  Did any other motors use 3/32nd shafts?

Edited May 16, 2022 by The Johnster

[The Johnster]

They’ve found the leak and fixed it, and it’s the flat upstairs, not next door.  But the foam soundproofing above my ceiling is sopping wet, and it will be a few hours at least before the dripping stops.  Then the holes in the ceiling have to be made good and a dehumidifier brought in to rescue the carpet, so we’re not out of the woods yet, but there does seem to be a possible end to the misery…

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

3/32nds, then.  The failed motor is the same as one on the right I think, and the middle one is what I think I remember from my first whitemetal attempt in about 1968 or 9, a K’s 8750, which ran well enough.  
 

So, I’ll need to put a sleeve on the shaft of whatever motor I source for 4404, or try to source a K’s motor, and the problem with that is that it’s likely to be yookered; AIUI these motors do not have good reputation.  Did any other motors use 3/32nd shafts?

What are they worth?

I don't have a use for them and they all work, although the small one is totally gutless, the other two are still pretty good but have relatively high current consumption compared to modern ones.

I'll check them again shortly today.*

 

If I ever get around to making something of my K's 48XX it will have a different chassis and a more modern motor.

 

*I've just checked the two larger ones, hety needed a bit of a clean and lube but seem OK now.

At 12v DC the current is about 0.26A ,when stalled it is over 0.6A both very similar.

I didn't bother with the small one as I think the magnets are weak aand last time I tried it, some years ago it wasn't as good as the larger ones.

Edited May 16, 2022 by melmerby

[The Johnster]

PM sent, Kieth. 

 

[russell price]

Triang xo4 and many Romford motors are 3/32 shaft dia. 
I currently have a 44and 45xx on the workbench trying to sort them out,  the 44xx has gained a comet 38:1 two stage gearbox and power from a Hornby scalextric motor the one as fitted to 101 etc. runs a treat when the pick up s play ball, nice and slow running. There is plenty of room in those big side tanks for a big motor  to sit above the wheels and drive down. 

[russell price]

My best running 4575 is my old Lima example!! Always been a good one. 

[The Johnster]

On 16/05/2022 at 15:05, The Johnster said:

They’ve found the leak and fixed it, and it’s the flat upstairs, not next door.  But the foam soundproofing above my ceiling is sopping wet, and it will be a few hours at least before the dripping stops.  Then the holes in the ceiling have to be made good and a dehumidifier brought in to rescue the carpet, so we’re not out of the woods yet, but there does seem to be a possible end to the misery…

The worst is behind us touch wood (stop sniggering in the back you Americans); the leak stopped yesterday pm and I am starting to put back all the stuff that had to be moved so that the plumber, on the builders’ instruction, could knock unnecessary holes in the ceiling and make new drip spots.  Of course, this is the tv, hi-fi, tivo, computer (I use the tv as it’s monitor), which are all connected to each other.  Been at it since lunchtime and nowhere near done yet!

[melmerby]

On 16/05/2022 at 22:49, russell price said:

My best running 4575 is my old Lima example!! Always been a good one. 

I got rid of mine in favour of a Bachmann one. Much nicer.

[russell price]

1 minute ago, melmerby said:

I got rid of mine in favour of a Bachmann one. Much nicer.

indeed, that said my old lima is the exception and why it has survived, Currently battling with a couple of keyser examples so will be interested in where this goes, 

[Steamport Southport]

I tend to agree. My 4589 was the only Lima steam locomotive I had that was any good, despite the compromises. Still got it and it works fine.

 

The 94XX was okay. But the rest were pretty awful TBH, especially the dog's breakfast they made of the Crab. That's in pieces in the loft somewhere. I disliked tender drives at the best of times, that was woeful.

 

 

I've got a K's 4575 as well. Bought from eBay with the chassis already started but poorly made with no motor/gear. I had planned on replacing that with a Comet one anyway. The body is untouched but has a few minor parts missing. Worth the £20 or so I paid for it though.

 

I am keeping an eye out for an unbuilt K's 44XX to come up for a reasonable price. Not an essential, more a nice thing to have. I can't see any of the RTR manufacturers making one to be honest. 

 

Also got a body for a Bachmann 45XX needing a chassis and that will probably do me for small 2-6-2Ts.

 

 

Jason

[DCB]

On 16/05/2022 at 22:48, russell price said:

Triang xo4 and many Romford motors are 3/32 shaft dia. 

The Romford 5 pole armature fits the X04 if you shorten the armature, the K's often fail with bearing or brush issues yet the armatures are fine.

 

29 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

The 94XX was okay.

I must live in a parallel universe.  Mine would sit on its unpowered centre wheels with the end wheels spinning while running light engine. It grew extra leading wheels with crankpins in the centre position and extra holes in the rods, but it was still pretty awful,

My Lima 4575 just runs and runs, no attention for over 40 years, its worn the plating off its wheels, it looks OK until it encounters a K's or Bachmann one...

[Halvarras]

33 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

I tend to agree. My 4589 was the only Lima steam locomotive I had that was any good, despite the compromises. Still got it and it works fine.

 

The 94XX was okay. 

 

I bought BR black 5574 when they first came out, from a shop in Reading (not the one near the station) for £5.90 IIRC. It ran very well. The only modification I made was replacing the pony wheels before repainting it into BR lined green as 5552, the number chosen because of a picture of it shunting at Newham, Truro. Not long after during a visit to the fledgling Bodmin and Wenford Railway I was mighty surprised to find the real thing's rust-perforated hulk at Bodmin, I had no idea it had not only survived but was back in Cornwall. I was sufficiently impressed with Lima's effort to contemplate buying another and converting it into a 45xx, as others had done, but before getting a round tuit I sold the six steam locos I had at the time to concentrate on diesel hydraulics. Roll on to 2004 and Bachmann's announcement of the 45xx couldn't be ignored, so now I'm back up to a dozen  steam locos (mostly tank engines) relevant to Cornwall, one of which is a Lima 94xx on a Bachmann chassis which I think looks rather good. However I shied away from replacing all of the moulded handrails on this when I worked out it would require drilling 38 holes - heck no, the thing's black, it'll do!