Kirtley 700 class double framed goods 4mm

[k22009]

 

I've assembled a Roadrunner plus gearbox and attached a Mitsumi motor, the rear of the gearbox needed a sliver trimming from it to miss the rear firebox former but the whole thing sits snugly inside the boiler assembly.

 

 

I prefer to use etched cranks as i can solder the crankpins and retainers then, they are slightly undersized for 1/8" axles so need a light reaming to get a a nice tight fit onto the axles. They are made up from 4 parts the rear one has a slightly larger hole to allow a screwhead or to be filled with solder. 

 

 

I've also started the detailing with attention to the cab first. The backhead is a resin one that fits nicely, some of the pipes are a little oversized but it's fine in my eyes, it's all quite tight and needs doing before the roof goes on. 

 

An example from Hunt, Essery and Toms excellent Midland Engines series #4.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[lezz01]

Well it's coming on a treat Dave.

Regards Lez. 

[Tickplan]

Can I ask what gear ratio did you use?

 

I am watching with interest to see how you fix the outside cranks to the axles. I assume solder is out of the question so will it be one of those Loctite retaining fluids or just a good old interference fit? And then comes the thorny question of quartering. I am confident that you have a solution: just interested to see what it is.

 

That backhead is lovely by the way.

 

 

 

Bryan

[k22009]

1 hour ago, Tickplan said:

Can I ask what gear ratio did you use?

 

I am watching with interest to see how you fix the outside cranks to the axles. I assume solder is out of the question so will it be one of those Loctite retaining fluids or just a good old interference fit? And then comes the thorny question of quartering.

 

 

Hi Bryan, 

 

I used a 45:1 ratio as the Mitsumi motors are quite low revving.

 

The crank pins can be fitted by making a jig in a block of wood with an old slightly filed down axle sticking up so that the crank fits over it,  then with a suitably drilled hole 1mm diameter hole (if you're using 1mm crankpins) in the wood all 6 crankpins can be fitted in the same position. The length of each can be trimmed after fitting if necessary.

 

The crank axle holes as they come are too small and need slight reaming to enable a tight fit to be achieved on an axle, you need to ensure you ream absolutely perpendicular though and do both sides gradually, otherwise they'll go on slightly skewed. I fit the wheels first, the ones i had were a good tight fit and can be aligned later by hand (also remember the gearbox too). Then fit one side (all 3 cranks) with locktight onto the axle end, the other side i start with the driven axle and position the crank at 90 degrees by eye, fix it in position too, the other 2, i do the same but one at a time, centre axle first check the coupling rods before fixing over the crankpins, as they are a very tight fit it's possible to grab the axle in a pair of smooth pliers and the same with the crank just moving it very gradually until it and finally the front axle is quartered fixing each one as you get it positioned satisfactorily. You potentially could temporarily fix them before applying lock tight with superglue from the outside so that way you can thoroughly test the quartering. I'm sure others may do things differently, in the end if you buy Gibson wheels you can always use the plastic cranks that are supplied. 

 

[Miss Prism]

5 hours ago, k22009 said:

The crank axle holes as they come are too small and need slight reaming to enable a tight fit to be achieved on an axle, you need to ensure you ream absolutely perpendicular though and do both sides gradually, otherwise they'll go on slightly skewed.

 

I'll ream both sides for a running fit application, e.g. a coupling rod bore, but for interference fits on axles, I've always considered a rear-side reaming to give the best combination of perpendicularity and grip.

 

 

[k22009]

Thanks for all of the likes and comments etc through the build. it is much appreciated, every day is a school day.

 

Most of the detailing done, i still need to add the sanding rods at the end of the smokebox and salter springs both will be added after painting. 

I've used a few resin castings that i had but it really deserves a full set of lost wax ones from Colin at Gibson's, they would finish it off nicely. The buffer packers were too small on the etch so i will change those on the artwork, in the meantime i'll add a bit of plastic strip to bring them up to size, buffers are from Dave at Lanarkshire. Dart, door hinge, clacks, lubricators are all home brewed but most are available as castings.

 

 

 

 

I'll add this to the growing paint mountain waiting list, in the meantime i'll revise the artwork.

 

I've had a few members message me to ask about availability so if anyone is interested do the same and message me rather than ask on the thread please i can give you the details then, I'll wait a week or so before sending it off to the etchers.

 

Cheers

 

Dave

 

Edited October 11, 2022 by k22009

[Miss Prism]

2 minutes ago, k22009 said:

I've used a few resin castings that i had but it really deserves a full set of lost wax ones from Colin at Gibson's

 

Absolutely. Those resins (particularly the chimney) do not match the quality that you have reached with the body.

 

[k22009]

19 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

 

Absolutely. Those resins (particularly the chimney) do not match the quality that you have reached with the body.

 

 

Thanks, yes exactly no prizes will be won with those, they are only loosely secured on there until my order with Colin comes through.

 

[Blandford1969]

Wow, you not only seem to design them quickly but put them together even quicker. Another super build what's next something different like a NSR 0-6-4?

[k22009]

 

 

1 hour ago, Blandford1969 said:

Wow, you not only seem to design them quickly but put them together even quicker. Another super build what's next something different like a NSR 0-6-4?

 

Thanks that's very kind.

 

No plan's for anything else as yet. Getting drawings easily and then being able to buy the necessary castings are the main criteria i have that need to be filled before i start anything new. At the end of the day i design these and previous etches primarily for me and non of the R&D costs go into the etches i offer other members, it wouldn't be viable if i did that. I have a mountain of other kits that i'd like to start whittling down too but if the right locomotive appeared you can never say never.

 

Dave 

[Compound2632]

4 hours ago, k22009 said:

if the right locomotive appeared you can never say never.

 

A straight-framed Kirtley 0-6-0?

[lezz01]

Different wheelbase depending on which class but the rest of it was just about the same. Might get away with just a different running plate and splashers. 

Regards Lez. 

[lezz01]

So the straight framed Kirtley had 3 different WBs 7'9"-7'9", 8'-8' and 8'-8'3". Collectively known as the 240 class. Although they were 2 separate classes, the 230 series and the 270 series. As built they had square rear splashers and no cabs, they were later rebuilt with the narrow cab, because of the springs being above the running plate, and curved rear splashers similar to the 156 class but smaller as the 156 had bigger driving wheels. The straight frame Kirtley's are an even bigger minefield than their curve framed sisters. Would anyone really notice the difference if you built them with a standard 8'-8'6" without putting a rule on it? In 4mm scale it's only 1mm so maybe not but I wouldn't bet on it, rivet counters being what they are and all that. Given that the tie rods were riveted to the outside frames unlike the curved framed locos, which were cut from a single plate, they wouldn't be that hard to fabricate. In fact they would be easier to kit bash from a 3130 or M class kit than a curved frame would. They didn't last nearly as long as the 700 class but it would make an interesting project for sure. For full details see Midland Record issue 18. 

Regards Lez       

[Compound2632]

9 hours ago, lezz01 said:

So the straight framed Kirtley had 3 different WBs 7'9"-7'9", 8'-8' and 8'-8'3". Collectively known as the 240 class. Although they were 2 separate classes, the 230 series and the 270 series. As built they had square rear splashers and no cabs, they were later rebuilt with the narrow cab, because of the springs being above the running plate, and curved rear splashers similar to the 156 class but smaller as the 156 had bigger driving wheels. The straight frame Kirtley's are an even bigger minefield than their curve framed sisters. Would anyone really notice the difference if you built them with a standard 8'-8'6" without putting a rule on it? In 4mm scale it's only 1mm so maybe not but I wouldn't bet on it, rivet counters being what they are and all that. Given that the tie rods were riveted to the outside frames unlike the curved framed locos, which were cut from a single plate, they wouldn't be that hard to fabricate. In fact they would be easier to kit bash from a 3130 or M class kit than a curved frame would. They didn't last nearly as long as the 700 class but it would make an interesting project for sure. For full details see Midland Record issue 18. 

Regards Lez       

 

According to Summerson, Midland Railway Locomotives Vol. 2, 53* engines built at Derby in 1857-8 had the 8' 0" + 8' 6" wheelbase, those still on the books in 1907 being renumbered 2342-2365, as did a further 30 built at Derby in 1861-3, 1907 numbers 2387-2397 and 2459-2464. What isn't clear from Summerson is whether the batch of 30 built by Fairbairn in 1860-2 also had 8' 0" + 8' 6" wheelbase; 1907 Nos, 2366-2386, but this appears to be the case from @Dave Hunt's Midland Record No. 18 article. These engines had welded plate frames.

 

So although earlier batches showed considerable variation in dimensions, there is a large group of originally 111 engines**, of which 62 were still in service in 1907, that had the 8' 0" + 8' 6" wheelbase and by the 1890s were visually consistent - the frames being about the only visible Kirtley-era feature.

 

On the other hand, of the 17 straight-frame engines at Saltley in 1902, only three were from this group, the others being from earlier Stephenson and Kitson batches. 

 

*Including the two immediately sold to the OWW.

 

**I've not quite managed to get Summerson's and Hunt's quantities to agree but that's probably just defective counting on my part.

Edited October 12, 2022 by Compound2632

[Compound2632]

To confuse matters further, Dave Hunt's article states that some of the earlier straight-framed engines were rebuilt with 8' 0" + 8' 6" frames (still straight-topped) when given later Kirtley 5' 6"-long fireboxes or Johnson B boilers.

[Miss Prism]

And there's me thinking the GWR could get complicated...

[Compound2632]

Just now, Miss Prism said:

And there's me thinking the GWR could get complicated...

 

What did become of the two sold to the OWW?

[Miss Prism]

I've no idea. The Old Worse and Worse seems to be a bit of a black hole as far as the history books are concerned. I get the impression it survived on the scraps of its bigger neighbours.

[lezz01]

Like I said it's a total minefield. If you choose an engine that had an 8'-8'6" wheelbase then you could build one from a 2F kit with only the outside frames and new rear splashers to fabricate. Sounds simple but I'm willing to bet is won't be.

Regards Lez.

 

Edited October 12, 2022 by lezz01

[Compound2632]

33 minutes ago, lezz01 said:

Like I said it's a total minefield. If you choose an engine that had an 8'-8'6" wheelbase then you could build one from a 2F kit with only the outside frames and new rear splashers to fabricate. Sounds simple but I'm willing to bet is won't be.

 

Less than total, was my contention!

 

But you put forward and interesting thought.

 

To paraphrase Mrs Beaton, first catch your 2F kit...

Edited October 12, 2022 by Compound2632

[k22009]

On 12/10/2022 at 01:02, lezz01 said:

For full details see Midland Record issue 18.    

 

 

Cheers Lez, ive got a copy winging it's way to me so i'll check it out.

[lezz01]

So all of the Derby built engines from #187 onwards were built with 8'-8'6" wheelbase, two of the contractor built engines were rebuilt to an 8'-8'6" WB, lots of them were broken up before renumbering so you have to be careful what number you put on them. Indeed many of the contractor built engines were broken up before rebuilding with Johnson "B" boilers so once again you have to watch what number you use. Maybe a mini etch conversion kit to be used in conjunction with the LRM 2F kit would be a better option than a full kit.

Regards Lez.   

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, lezz01 said:

 Maybe a mini etch conversion kit to be used in conjunction with the LRM 2F kit would be a better option than a full kit.

 

The problem - frustration - with the LRM kit is that it is for a 1698 Class engine - a class of 60 built for mineral traffic, with 4' 10½" wheels, rather than any of the far more numerous 5' 2½" wheeled Johnson engines - all Kirtley's engines having 5' 2½" wheels (at least by the 1890s, tyre thicknesses having increased).

 

One also needs to watch out for the platform height, a dimension that changed and can alter the appearance of the engine considerably. The main visible difference between Johnsonised Kirtley 480 and 700 Class engines, all of which had curved frames, is that on the 700 Class the platform is set lower than on the 480 Class, with the result that the curved frames look curvier.

 

480 Class:

 

 

700 Class:

 

 

[Embedded links to Warwickshire Railways mrknpreg252 and mrknpreg245, both I think W.L. Good photos from c. 1922.]

 

Note also the position of the buffers on the buffer beam and the height of the tender platform relative to the engine.

 

My thanks to @Crimson Rambler for making me alert to this point (which is mentioned in Dave Hunt's article), although his particular example was Johnson's 1142 and 1357 Classes, which are the same engine but with different sized wheels - 4' 10½" vs 5' 2½" again, so the platform, boiler centre line, etc. of the 1142 all sit 2" lower than that of the 1357.

Edited October 13, 2022 by Compound2632

[Asterix2012]

Straight framed ones are interesting to me as well.

 

Just to add something else to the mix. What about the 700’s rebuild to 2f power rating with belpair boilers?

 

 Am sat in a parking space with no books to hand so cannot remember the boiler type

Edited October 13, 2022 by Asterix2012
Predictive text

[lezz01]

Some 700 class locos were rebuilt with D and E boilers and given Class 2 power classification. Of these some were later rebuilt with the G6 belpair boilers. I think they stayed in class 2 for power though.

Regards Lez.