Johnster's 44xx

[russell price]

Here is my Ks 44 xx chassis, mine has the D centred wheels which makes fitting different gearbox combinations easy. Mine is a comet 38:1 double reduction which tames the Hornby Scalextric motor down well giving good control at low speed and it isn’t a particularly fast top speed either. Then there is the 4575 chassis which I will persevere with the Ks motor for a bit longer yet.  Incidentally the main body of the chassis on the 44xx is shared with the 1361 dock tank kit. 

[The Johnster]

20 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

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. 

 

Nor me, though nothing's impossible!  There weren't many 1361s or 1366s either...  But I sort of hope nobody does produce an RTR 44xx, much as it would play into my hands, as I would rather see the effort and investment spent on a decent 2721 or 1854 to current RTR standards, or (not for me but for the market in general) a Metro or 517.

 

19 hours ago, Halvarras said:

The 94XX was okay

 

19 hours ago, Halvarras said:

Lima 94xx on a Bachmann chassis which I think looks rather good.

 

The Lima 94xx was ok above the running plate.  Lima could turn out a decent plastic moulding when they wanted to, and this one is reasonably detailed and to scale.  A minor drawback from my pov is the cover plate between the sloping frame ends above the running plate ahead of the smokebox, hiding the tops of the valve chests which otherwist peep over like barmaids wibblywobblies.  This restricts the model to representing the first, GW produced, locos 9400-10.  The BR-ordered locos, all build by outside contractors, did not have this cover plate.  Bachmann model this feature correctly according to the protoype, in both versions.

 

But below the running plate was a horror story.  The chassis was shared with the previously released J50, for which at least the axle spacing was correct IIRC.  But even on the J50, the solid backed wheel, lack of counterweights, and no crankpin on the centre set, then the gear visible on the rear driver; it was crude and toy-like.  We'll excuse the motor filling the cab given the fashion of the time and the date of release...  To use the already risible J50 chassis under a 94xx simply furthered the errors; the axle spacing of the 94xx is not the same as a J50, which meant that the otherwise acceptable bodyshell tooling had the splashers in the wrong places.  And of course the coupling rods should not have been fluted and parallel on a 94xx.

 

I also had a Lima 94xx worked up with a Bachmann pannier, with which I was reasonably happy despite the mismatch between the wheels and the splashers; it was not blindingly obvious unless you were viewing the loco dead broadside on.  A few other tweaks, such as replacing the silly little mushroom head buffers, glazing the spectacle plates, and real coal in the bunker made it a fairly acceptable model, but my chosen prototype was not a GW built example, and the cover plate over the barmaids wibblywobblies bothered me.  It ran well, as Baccy pannier chassis usually do, and enabled me to include some cab detail, but the Bachmann 94xx, when it eventually appeared, knocks it into the proverbial cocked titfer in every respect, a lovely model!

 

The Baccy pannier chassis that was under the LIma 94xx has gone back under the eBay 57xx that was the original chassis donor, which sort of defrayed the cost of the new Baccy 94xx.

 

20 hours ago, DCB said:

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...

 

Whatever else you might say about Lima mechs, they are pretty indestructable.  The Lima 4575 was IMHO their best steam loco, and so long as the wheels and pickups were clean could put in a pretty good slow running performance; the top speed was in the 'Smokey Joe' league!  Main problem is the firebox and cab, which are set too high in order to clear the motor.  The loco's appearance, already a bit 'gawky', does not IMHO benefit from this!  Again, the Baccy runs rings around it in every respect.

 

[Steamport Southport]

I think everyone is putting too much emphasis on the "okay" regarding the Lima 94XX. I meant just that, it's "okay".

 

Not good, not bad, just okay....

 

I don't think I've ran it properly for something like 40 years, the same as many of those models from that era. I'm not one for running old things and most are just kept for sentimental reasons.

 

But worth remembering Hornby still had some shockers still in their catalogue at the time it came out, including Sir Dinadan which must be close to being the worst model locomotive in recent memory.

 

So bad the publicity photos of it were shot in the dark!

 

http://www.hornbyguide.com/item_year_details.asp?itemyearid=37

 

 

 

The 1361 and 1366 have one thing going for them though. One each is preserved. You could also say they were pretty distinctive, long lasting and they definitely fall into the "cute" territory.

 

With the 44XX I doubt many people could tell the difference between one and a 45XX. 

 

 

 

Jason

[DCB]

58 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

With the 44XX I doubt many people could tell the difference between one and a 45XX. 

Jason

  That's the challenge of a 44XX getting the subtle differences between pre WW1 (4500-54) 45XX and 44XX right, the shorter buffer beams, the noticeably smaller wheels with notably fewer spokes giving a lower ride height and precious little else apart from the wheelbase doesn't give a lot of scope.   Its a bit like a 2721 and a 2021. they also look much the same until you see the two coupled together.   

[The Johnster]

1 hour ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

The 1361 and 1366 have one thing going for them though. One each is preserved. You could also say they were pretty distinctive, long lasting and they definitely fall into the "cute" territory.

 

With the 44XX I doubt many people could tell the difference between one and a 45XX.

 

Good point; existence in preservation is a good way to sell models.

 

As for the difference between a 44xx and a 45xx, there's nothing immediate to distinguish them apart at a distance except the driving wheels, which look ridiculously small on a 44xx (there is a very good reason for this; they are!).  TTBOMK this is the reason that only 10 44xx were built, and the design revised to the 45xx specification for further production; a 45xx is a lot less apt to get in the way on any job that has to traverse fast running lines, and has a greater range between tank fillings than a 44xx because the larger driving wheels go further for each piston stroke, making it a generally more useful locomotive.  Higher T.E. and even greater range between tank fillings can be achieved by enlarging the tanks, the 4575 version, at the cost of route availability. 

 

Nonetheless the 44xx found themselves a niche in the form of branches with sharp curvature and low line speeds, to which they were well suited; Princetown, Porthcawl, and Much Wenlock.  Not sure what Churchward was thinking with the 4'1" driving wheels; admittedly branch practice in those days used some very small wheeled saddle tanks, but the 517s were 5'2" diameter, and this seemed to be the standard for GW branch line passenger engines for the 20th century, with 14xx and 54xx following suit. 

 

4'1" was the sort of diameter used for mineral engines or light railway use, and those rarely exceeded much more than about 20mph in service.  I wonder what a reasonable top speed for a 44xx was considered to be?

 

Another point of visual distinction was that the 44xx boiler and firebox were set at the same height above the rail level as the 45xx and 4575, but the running plate was lower, as was consequently the top level of the tanks, so the boiler and firebox appear to be set higher compared to the tanks.  The difference is about 3" IIRC. not massive but enough to affect the overall proportions of the loco.

Edited May 20, 2022 by The Johnster

[DCB]

3 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Another point of visual distinction was that the 44xx boiler and firebox were set at the same height above the rail level as the 45xx and 4575, but the running plate was lower, as was consequently the top level of the tanks, so the boiler and firebox appear to be set higher compared to the tanks.  The difference is about 3" IIRC. not massive but enough to affect the overall proportions of the loco.

The J.H Russel book A Pictorial Record of Great Western Engines, has 2 X GW Diagrams of the 44xx and 2 X GW Diagrams of the 45XX with boiler centre lines of 7ft 6" for 44XX and 7ft 9" for 45XX.   

The R.A thing is a bit odd as the 44XX were uncoloured at under 14 ton and the 45xx yellow, despite being only 6 cwt heavier with a ton less on the trailing wheels.    The 45XX were capable of over 60 mph with 5ft 5" driving wheels so a 44XX ought to do at least 50 with 49"   It may well have been difficult to get enough balance weights into such small wheels for really smooth running.  The 4ft 1" saddle tanks were recorded working express trains so they couldn't have hung about  The 14XX were timed at 80 with 62" wheels but the last two were inside cylindered so ought to have been smoother.

J.F.Aspinall on the L&Y built 7ft 4-4-0s and found that the mileage between overhauls was greater for the 7fts than previous 6ft6"locos by almost exactly the proportion of the difference in wheel size, it was the number of revolutions not the mileage which was critical.  Churchward may have had similar thoughts, though he did design the (sole) 46XX 4-4-2T for passenger work with 62" wheels then used the 45XX instead.

[The Johnster]

The point about balance weights and small driving wheels is a valid one, and hadn’t occurred to me.  

[Steamport Southport]

Eleven built. The prototype and then a batch of ten.

 

I expect them to have been based on the locomotives they were built to replace. The Cornish 0-6-0Ts at St Blazey. Also used as passenger engines at the time despite it being called the Cornwall Mineral Railway and then rebuilt into the precursor of the 1361s. The 44XXs were originally allocated to St Blazey. Even had the same wheelbase.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornwall_Minerals_Railway

 

 

 

I think mentioning the L&YR 4-4-0s and 4-4-2s are a diversion. They were built for extremely heavy express trains at close to 100 MPH not piddling up and down country branch lines. One was timed at over 95 MPH with a Dynamometer Car behind it. 

 

GWR 4600? Got it. One of the first etched kits I built. Needs a bit of work as it's a bit "tired". If I can sort out some pictures I'll post them. BTW It had 5' 8" wheels which even my maths suggest is 68 inches.

 

 

 

Jason

Edited May 20, 2022 by Steamport Southport

[Steamport Southport]

Here's one of the few photos of it. Which I wish I had when I made mine. I think a revamp is on the cards.

 

https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrms1735.htm

 

 

 

Jason

[Coach bogie]

On 16/05/2022 at 14:59, 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?

I use the original K's motors in many of my original K's kits. I do have a number of spares

motors, some still in original K's packaging but they are back in the UK.

 

The long term challenge has been brushes, often the reason for a dead K's motor. Solved by using N gauge Graham Farish motor brushed which are a direct fit.

 

Long before the availability of the Bachmann, small tank 45xx, if you wanted one, the trick was to obtain a spare set of 4575 side castings from Banbury, cut away the 44xx bunker (different shape) and carefully solder in the 4575 bunker.

 

Agree cylinders are a nightmare. I soldered mine up as single unit and reshaped. With cylinder front being a separate casting you can fit it higher to allow the crosshead, etc to be inline.

 

For me, the weakness was the bogie castings which never seamed to want to travel in a straight line. I made new ones from  scrap brass and tube.

 

I look forward to seeing your finished 44xx

 

Mike Wiltshire

[dunwurken]

Just tripped across this topic and the reference to the work of P D Hancock.

 

The 'pin drive' you refer to was fitted to NBR 'C' Class 0-6-0 No.47 and details can be found on pages 112/3 of Narrow Gauge Adventure, 2nd Edition 1980, where it is described 'a delayed action' drive as described by K N McAldowie in the August 1948 Model Railway News.

 

It was also described in the Railway Modeller June 1978 pages 162/3.  Close up photo of the arrangement below.

 

Delayed action mech by Malcolm MacLeod, on Flickr

 

No.47 still exists, in working order, in the Edinburgh & Lothians MRC P D Hancock Collection.

 

Malcolm

 

 

[The Johnster]

Tx for the photo of this arrangement, Malcolm; I thought I'd visualised it correctly but hadn't, quite. 

 

The new motor arrived today so there might be some progress to report on in the nearish future...

[1466]

2 hours ago, dunwurken said:

Just tripped across this topic and the reference to the work of P D Hancock.

 

The 'pin drive' you refer to was fitted to NBR 'C' Class 0-6-0 No.47 and details can be found on pages 112/3 of Narrow Gauge Adventure, 2nd Edition 1980, where it is described 'a delayed action' drive as described by K N McAldowie in the August 1948 Model Railway News.

 

It was also described in the Railway Modeller June 1978 pages 162/3.  Close up photo of the arrangement below.

 

Delayed action mech by Malcolm MacLeod, on Flickr

 

No.47 still exists, in working order, in the Edinburgh & Lothians MRC P D Hancock Collection.

 

Malcolm

 

 

Thanks for tracking this down,Malcolm.It brought back great memories of P. D. Hancock’s ground breaking and inspirational work . He was such an influential power on me in my teenage years. It’s good to know his models are in good hands .

Ken 

[The Johnster]

Had a general examinatiotion of the situation earlier this evening, and have found that I was attempting to fit the motor the wrong way around, or rather trying to fit the body the wrong way on to the chassis.  The chassis has a whitemetal casting at what I thought was the front end but has proved to be the rear, and this explained why the motor wouldn't turn when I intitially try-fitted it; the way it sat in the frames meant that the armature fouled on the tops of the frames.  Reversing it has solved the problem.  This whitemetal casting is supposed to have a hole through it by which it screws to the body, and the rear of the brass chassis plates are supposed to solder to it, but it has broken at the screw, so will have to be superglued in.  This means that the chassis, when complete, will have to be very thoroughly test run and any problems ironed out before it is finally offered up to the bodyshell, as I will want it to be left undisturbed in there for as long as possible, since removing it to get at anything inside will require breaking the superglue joints.  To this end I will use pound shop superglue, a bodge but the only way I can see to fix the body to the chassis.

 

I also test ran the new motor, which runs well enough, perhaps not as smoothly as a modern can motor but the gearing is a much higher ratio on this chassis and starting & stopping should be pretty good, as should slow running.  It may of course improve a bit with running in and a bit of judicious lubrication (just like I like my women...).  Next job, during the week probably, will be soldering a wire connecting the rh side of the chassis to the top motor terminal.  Then, once another period of test running is complete, I can start to assemble the cylinders and motion, test running at each stage.

 

Studying the drawings shows that the wheels are a little too small on the model; the tops of the flanges should be hidden behind the bottom of the running plate valance, which clears it on the model.  I've decided I'm going to live with this as long as the buffer heights match my other stock.

Edited May 29, 2022 by The Johnster

[The Johnster]

Motor now fixed into frames and working.  It is lightly superglued in place at the front to maintain meshing, and strapped at the rear to ensure pickup from the lh side of the chassis.  Runs fairly well, driving wheel revolution about one per 4 seconds and improving already after a touch of lubrication, though I can't work out how to reverse the polarity to my layout standard; not the end of the world.  In fact, I still can't quite get my head around how this chassis works at all; there are no pickups so it is some sort of split current collection, but I can't see how one side of the chassis is isolated from the other, and it looks to me as it it should short out, but it doesn't, and unless it does I'm not going to pry too closely into it's business...       

[bécasse]

Mounting the motor with its other face uppermost should change the direction of rotation to your layout standard. Obviously, since you have applied superglue to fix it in place, you won't wish to do this at the moment but if it ever becomes unstuck, it might be worth trying. And talking of "unstuck", are you sure that the motor will run cool enough not to break the superglue bond, or are you using a glue that is impervious to at least low levels of heat?

[The Johnster]

No, I’m not sure about the heating effect on pound shop superglue, but it’s very impermanence is the attraction in this case. The idea is that the superglue, applied to the front of the motor frame where it sits in the brass frame plates, will hold the front of the motor in place to ensure correct gear meshing, but I’m not sure it is necessary.  If a plan b is needed, a piece of foam sponge glued to the top of the motor where it will be compressed by the bodyshell somewhere in the vicinity of the front of the firebox will do the do.  I’ll be happy if the superglue lasts until the end of the chassis assembly and testing phase. 
 

Reversing polarity is not quite as easy as you  suggest, because it is necessary to run a wire from the rh brass frame plate to the top motor terminal; can’t off hand see how to turn the motor upside down so that this terminal is at the bottom without causing a dead short, and one would have to provide a new wire from the lh brass frame to the other motor terminal tag. Any other solution is just a repeat of the current (sorry) situation.  This is going to be an ‘occasional visitor’ Rule 1 loco, and I’ll put up with the inconvenience rather than risk further potential problems.  AFAICS the kit is designed to be built like that, and I don’t want to rock the boat!

[The Johnster]

Ok, we've made some progress, sort of 2 steps forward and one step back, then another sideways and down a bit, but progress, in a stagger than the proper forward and irresistable march...

 

I have now re-assembled the coupling rods, connecting rod/xhead/piston assemblies, and fixed the cylinder assembly back on.  Dead short.  OK, try applying crocodile clips to the motor tags and see what happens; motor, wheels, and motion all run, rather well actually and not too noisily.  So, the short is somewhere between the railhead and the motor tags.  One is already connected by soldered wire to the rh side of the chassis, and the problem is to supply current to the other, bottom, tag.

 

Sitrep 00.15, 6/6/22 is that, as far as I can tell, the chassis will run with the coupling rods on but shorts when you attach the connecting rod/xhead/piston assemblies to the cylinders.  Pretty obvious really; there's no electrical isolation across the cylinder block, so current must be passing from the wheels through the motion and cylinder block to the motion and wheels on the other side, in other words, dead short.

 

I'm attempting a fix for this, can't say if it will be successful yet, which is to remove the lh cylinder (easy, it's a nut and bolt fixing) and insert an insulating shim between it and the cylinder block frame.  All will be defeated if the brass nut and bolt are replaced, so re-assembly will have to be by glueing; I am currently letting the glue go off before playing with it again, but placing the chassis on the track no longer results in a dead short.  Whether this will remain the case when the bottom motor tag is connected is another matter, but fingers, arms, legs, and everything else you can manage crossed and all is well, all will be well, and all manner of things shall be well...

 

This probably means that the body will have to be isolated from the chassis when it is mounted to it, but I've had this sort of issue before and know some workarounds.

 

If all else fails, the project will be put back in it's box until I can afford a Heljan 1361 or 1366 running chassis for it.  Apparently, the 44xx shared axle spacings with the 1361, which was in turn a development of Cornwall Mineral Railway engines.  The chassis was reversed for the 45xx and 4575 classes.

 

Nil illigitami Carborundum, as we used to say.

Edited June 5, 2022 by The Johnster

[1466]

6 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Ok, we've made some progress, sort of 2 steps forward and one step back, then another sideways and down a bit, but progress, in a stagger than the proper forward and irresistable march...

 

I have now re-assembled the coupling rods, connecting rod/xhead/piston assemblies, and fixed the cylinder assembly back on.  Dead short.  OK, try applying crocodile clips to the motor tags and see what happens; motor, wheels, and motion all run, rather well actually and not too noisily.  So, the short is somewhere between the railhead and the motor tags.  One is already connected by soldered wire to the rh side of the chassis, and the problem is to supply current to the other, bottom, tag.

 

Sitrep 00.15, 6/6/22 is that, as far as I can tell, the chassis will run with the coupling rods on but shorts when you attach the connecting rod/xhead/piston assemblies to the cylinders.  Pretty obvious really; there's no electrical isolation across the cylinder block, so current must be passing from the wheels through the motion and cylinder block to the motion and wheels on the other side, in other words, dead short.

 

I'm attempting a fix for this, can't say if it will be successful yet, which is to remove the lh cylinder (easy, it's a nut and bolt fixing) and insert an insulating shim between it and the cylinder block frame.  All will be defeated if the brass nut and bolt are replaced, so re-assembly will have to be by glueing; I am currently letting the glue go off before playing with it again, but placing the chassis on the track no longer results in a dead short.  Whether this will remain the case when the bottom motor tag is connected is another matter, but fingers, arms, legs, and everything else you can manage crossed and all is well, all will be well, and all manner of things shall be well...

 

This probably means that the body will have to be isolated from the chassis when it is mounted to it, but I've had this sort of issue before and know some workarounds.

 

If all else fails, the project will be put back in it's box until I can afford a Heljan 1361 or 1366 running chassis for it.  Apparently, the 44xx shared axle spacings with the 1361, which was in turn a development of Cornwall Mineral Railway engines.  The chassis was reversed for the 45xx and 4575 classes.

 

Nil illigitami Carborundum, as we used to say.

Just so , Johnster . My old school motto “Ad sum ard labour”.

Would nylon nut and bolts help to secure the cylinder block assembly? DM me , if so .

You are ahead of me ,no doubt , but tissue paper soaked in Araldite to insulate the body from chassis ?

[JimC]

8 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Apparently, the 44xx shared axle spacings with the 1361, which was in turn a development of Cornwall Mineral Railway engines.  The chassis was reversed for the 45xx and 4575 classes.

Not according to the weight diagrams in front of me. The 44s were 6' + 5'6 (45s 5'6 and 6') but the 1392s and 1361s 5' + 6'.

[The Johnster]

4 hours ago, JimC said:

Not according to the weight diagrams in front of me. The 44s were 6' + 5'6 (45s 5'6 and 6') but the 1392s and 1361s 5' + 6'.

That will be a ‘road not taken’, then; tx JimC. 

[Steamport Southport]

11 hours ago, The Johnster said:

That will be a ‘road not taken’, then; tx JimC. 

 

To be honest if you ended up with a Heljan 1361 or 1366 then I reckon you would want to keep it!

 

Fantastic little models.

 

 

Jason

 

Edited June 6, 2022 by Steamport Southport

[The Johnster]

Yes, I can see how that would be an issue.  But the classes never saw service in South Wales TTBOMK and certainly not at Tondu in the 50s!  Much as they are attractive little things and by all accounts good performers, it would be pushing Rule 1 a bit far for my taste! 

 

Not saying that 4404, allox TDU for the specific purpose of coping with the vicious curvature of the Porthcawl Branch and not AFAIAA ever taken north of Tondu into the mountain fastnesses, isn't a Rule 1 engine, but at least it was a TDU loco and the odd foray amongst the sheeps would have not been impossible, just unlikely.  After all, there is photographic evidence of TDU's 3100 (Collett 1938 class, not Churchward small prairie) at Abergwynfi, and this loco was specifically allocated to work the daily Porthcawl-Cardiff 'Residential' commuter service.

 

Suffered a setback this evening; one of the whitemetal connecting rods broke, hardly surprising, who makes connecting rods out of whitemetal...  This has necessitated Bachmann motion, which is in any case better looking than the Keyser stuff.  I have replaced the K's cylinder block with a Bachmann plastic one, which has sorted the shorting issue and provided me with motion brackets, but I had to remove some plastic from the inside of the cylinders to get the block to sit over the front of the K's chassis.  Then, as was obvious if I'd given it some thought, the slide bars were too high by the thickness of the block crosspiece, so I've cut the cylinders off it and will glue them to the front of the brass frames, possibly with a packing piece to ensure that there is sufficient clearance between the connecting rods & crossheads and the outside face of the leading wheel crankpins.  The finer cross section of the Bachmann motion will be of some assistance here; the coupling rods are hinged and a better shape as well!

 

Order to go to Barwell for motion spare parts, specifically connecting rod & crosshead assemblies, which means that work will shift to the bodyshell while I am waiting for them.  Or I could take one of my 4575s out of service termporarily as a parts donor, and restore it to running condition with the Baccy spares.  That would mean a non-auto loco filling in on it's normal duties, which will make the WTT a bit more interesting for a while...  Or I could use 4557 as the parts donor.  It goes against the grain to take running locos out of service but at the same time I want to keep the momentum of this project going.

[The Johnster]

Have removed the wheels and taken the K’s crankpins out prior to reaming the holes to take the Bachmann crankpins that I intend to use with the Bachmann notion. Have cleaned up the rear faces of the wheels to prevent any problems with rubbing on the side frames; all now rotate very freely and are clear of the frames.  If the Baccy crankpins do not successfully tap threads for themselves, I will ream a little more and glue them in with poundshop superglue, a very useful resource that does not provide a bond of such strength that it cannot be broken by force should the pin need to be removed for any reason in future. 

[The Johnster]

It worked!  Well, sort of; the Baccy motion is from a 4575 where it is held in position by raised bosses around the crankpin holes, but of course these are not present on the K's wheels, so there is far too much play and slop for smooth running.  Solution to this is to use the original Keyser coupling rods as backing pieces to the Baccy ones; the 0-6-0 chassis biw runs well enough, and I have been able to retain the better appearance of the fishbelly Baccy coupling rods, slop is eliminated, and a bit of slop in the connecting rod big end is not the end of the world and should be possible to deal with by bushing the big end bearing.  But all is not 100% well yet at Castle Johnster, as the Baccy crankpins are not long enough to accommodate  the Baccy connecting rods with the additional thickness of the K's coupling rod behind the Baccy one.  An alternative form of crankpin for the middle wheelset will have to be found; cocktail stick is doing the job temporarily for test running purposes.  A modified Markits crankpin may be suitable, but I have not investigated this as yet.

 

As the chassis rebuild is approaching it's endgame, I will have a look at the bodyshell later this evening, and possibly prep it for painting.  I've decided on unlined green very early BR livery with GW style Egyptian Serif lettering, based on a photo of 4404 in this livery at Tondu.  Not 100% certain it isn't black, as the photo is not in colour, but I reckon green is the most likely colour for this livery.  It will replace 4145, taken out of service as a donor for 3100 when I bought 4144, a current Hornby large prairie.  Will need to buy another GW loco lettering HMRS sheet!

 

I over-reamed one of the crankpin holes, and have had to resort to poundshop superglue on that wheel, fed in from the hole at the rear of the wheel.

Edited June 9, 2022 by The Johnster