A constructed MTK Class 41 locomotive came my way.

[teeinox]

Over the years, I have bought quite a number of interesting and enjoyable challenges from Elaines Trains, so when she had a MTK class 41 for sale, and I just had to have it.

 

I had a chat with Elaines Trains about it (One of the benefits of dealing with them; personal and knowledgeable service), so I knew I was buying a few challenges.  But I let my heart rule my head and it arrived, beautifully packed in a new box and cossetted in multi-coloured tissue paper.  Here is a three-quarters view.

 

 

It is beautifully spray painted.  It is even graced with etched plates; pity the name plates should have a red background, not black.  The lamp irons are very fine, too.  There are flush windows, though they have deteriorated through the years.  It even has working screw couplers.  Whoever put this kit together, very much cared about what they were doing.

 

The locomotive weighs a lot, almost 500 grams thanks to the white metal construction.  Both bogies are motorised.  Here is a shot of them.

 

 

They consist of MTK side frames glued on to a 5-pole mechanism of unknown manufacture.  I have no idea who made the mechanism, and when.  Can anyone shed light?

 

But reality soon dawned.  The main reveal is that the locomotive rides higher one end than the other.  By quite a deal, too, at least 2mm.  And that goes back to how the bogies are attached to the body.  Each bogie is equipped with a press-stud which engages into its other half which is glued onto a cross beam, itself cemented into the body.  It’s a clever arrangement which works surprisingly well.  The photo of the underside illustrates the arrangement.

 

 

And this is where the real problem lies.  Whoever put these beams into place, got into a real mess.  They are the wrong height, and one of them is a mile away from being level.  To get anywhere, I am going to have to remove and reposition them.  But how?  They are glued in place, but how do I cut that glue without damaging the white-metal body?  Advice gratefully sought on that one.

 

I got the bogies up and running.  They too, have their problems.  The motor is actually glued, not bolted, into the chassis.  Bad luck if I want to change the brushes.  And it is also a pity because on one of the bogies, the worm gear is not meshing properly with the (beautifully made) gear on the axle, and I cannot adjust it.  Power-wise they can just about shift the locomotive, but I have not come to a definitive conclusion of this because, despite there being a phosphor-bronze wire pick-up on every wheel, current collection is poor.  So do I retain these period-pieces, or try to re-motorise the beast?

 

Any advice and experience on how to take this forward will be gratefully received.

[Enterprisingwestern]

46 minutes ago, teeinox said:

Any advice and experience on how to take this forward will be gratefully received.

 

I think there's only one person to ask!!

 

Mike.

[Darius43]

Are the bogie support “structures” glued or soldered to the metal body?  To fix the ride height issue they should be removed and replaced with a new support structure, ideally a new chassis that supports the whole body with the bogies supported by that chassis, independently of the body.

 

The motorised bogies are nice but probably don’t have the power to adequately propel the heavy model and any attached rolling stock.  I would look into new motor bogies.  Two powered bogies would be essential, perhaps modified Class 37 motor bogies, which are available as spares.

 

Cheers

 

Darius

[teeinox]

Thank you for your advice.

 

In an idle moment, I decided to find our if I actually could remove one of the support structures.  Despite being a "heart in the mouth" moment, it turned out to be surprisingly easy.  There was enough gap to insert a Stanley knife blade, and it gradually worked along and freed it.  I am not sure how the structure was originally intended to be fixed.  There may have been an attempt to solder it (some evidence of flux on the knife blade, and then there was definitely the use of super-glue, now embrittled.  This is all good news, since my options widen!

 

As for the side windows, originally I thought that the glazing had deteriorated.  It turns out it was one of these liquid glazing products that was used.  Worked well on the very small windows, not so well on the cab side windows.  But the choice was limited.  The casting on the inside was so rough that it would have been impossible to fit glazing strip.

 

I still wonder when this model dates back to.  Late 60s?  early 70s?

 

In a way, I view this locomotive like an ancient building.  Do I replace the motorisation, whereupon it becomes something quite different from what it started life out as?  Or, now that i know I can adjust the ride-height, retain the original mechanism to conserve this period-piece in as original state as possible?  No, it would never be able to haul a decent load, but I have a Dapol Class 22 to help it out.

 

teeinox

Edited May 14 by teeinox

[Mol_PMB]

The motor bogie construction and press-stud mounting technology reminds me of Q-kits locos I tried to build as a teenager. I had similar difficulties with gear alignment and getting everything level, also with reliable pickups. 
As you suggest, there’s a dilemma - do you do a heavy mechanical rebuild with new mechanism to make a reliable loco, or conserve the old model?

My gut feel is that its appeal is in being unusual rather than a perfect showcase model. As such, it’s better if it’s running, and it will only run regularly if it’s reliable. 
 

 

[teeinox]

Levelling and the Motor bogies

 

At the last posting I was wondering how to take things forward.  Considering the replacement chassis option, this would mean removing the three strengthening bridging pieces, and while one did come out easily, the other two seem to be securely soldered.  Removing them could be traumatic, and possibly terminal for so old a model.  So my choice was to keep the model as close as possible to its original state and live with its limitations.  However, the locomotive had to be made level, and if possible, the performance of the motor bogies improved.

 

When it came to levelling, the one strengthening piece I had removed enabled this.  It was re-installed at a new height which enabled precise adjustment of the level with shims.  So the locomotive is now level and about the correct overall height.

 

As for the motor bogies, there is a fundamental problem with the wheel bearings.  On one bogie it showed up as wheel spin, a bizarre problem on so heavy a locomotive.  It turned out that the bearing on one of the carrying wheels (the “1” in the A 1 A configuration) was about 0.5mm too low, so that at any high spot in the track, the driving wheels were lifted off and therefore spun.  On investigation, what was revealed was that there is no through axle for the carrying wheels; they are supported by a stub axle on one side and by a pin-point bearing on the other.   This strange arrangement is shown in the photo:

 

 

There is no obvious way to change the height of these bearings, so the solution was to resort to a Tri-ang trick of yesteryear, replace the wheel with a fake non-operative one glued into place.  A nasty kludge, but wheel-slip has been banished and performance much improved.

 

On the other bogie, one final drive gear does not mesh properly with the worm.  Again, it is bearing mis-alignment, with the bearings, again, set too low so the gears do not mesh properly.  So the locomotive is driving on three, not four, axles.  Not good news for pulling power, and I was not looking forward to the results of the running trial.

 

But, with the H&M Safety Minor providing plenty of amps, after a slightly shaky start, off she went.  To get anywhere, she needs almost full power, and then is no rocket ship; more a stately D602 “Bulldog” than D600 “Active”!  As for pulling power, she was gradually loaded to 6 free-running Hornby super-detail coaches.  She hauled them without missing a beat, with only a slight drop in top speed.  And the motors remained cool with no hint of overheating.

 

This was a great success, far better than expected; such a success, indeed, that my husband insisted we have a glass of wine to celebrate!

 

So there we are with a fully working locomotive, and it is now onto detailing and cosmetic issues, spurred on by the arrival of lovely replacement name-plates from Shawplan.

[roythebus1]

Adrian Swain of ABS models used the press stud bogie fixing for his and Bec Models bogie tram kits in the 1970s.

[andyman7]

1 hour ago, roythebus1 said:

Adrian Swain of ABS models used the press stud bogie fixing for his and Bec Models bogie tram kits in the 1970s.

I've some across a few DMU kitbuilds that use press studs to retain the motor bogie. I quite like retaining the period features of vintage kits, I have a few built MTK DMU kits to rebuild (they have fallen apart over the years and been acquired as projects) and will be using Triang motor bogies in preference to more modern ones.

[NIK]

Hi,

 

I used a press stud mount for a Hornby class 25 motor bogie in the MTK 6S Hastings Unit that I built.

 

It worked ok on an exhibition layout called SE28 which had no curves but it derails on one curve on the layout that replaced it. This is partially due to the fine flanges on the Ultrascale wheels I fitted to the motor bogie.

 

When the load on the motor bogie changes it tilts front/back and tends to lift one wheelset more than flange height above the rail head.

 

I'm thinking of replacing that motor bogie with that from a second hand 4 CEP or a suitable post 2000 design of model loco (where the front/back tilt is more constrained due to the design of the bogie mount).

 

Regards

 

Nik

[russell price]

The motors are Anchorage DS10s, dating the model to the 80s. I believe they are still available from Branchlines. They are early Mashima motors but not sold as such. 

[teeinox]

10 hours ago, russell price said:

The motors are Anchorage DS10s, dating the model to the 80s. I believe they are still available from Branchlines. They are early Mashima motors but not sold as such. 

Thank you for the information.  It would suggest that the model is more recent than I had supposed.  The motors are powerful and cooling running; a tribute to Mashima quality.  The chassis, to which they appear to have been soldered, is, in contrast, a crude bit of blacksmithing.  Pity, since all of the components are of high quality.

[teeinox]

20 hours ago, andyman7 said:

I've some across a few DMU kitbuilds that use press studs to retain the motor bogie. I quite like retaining the period features of vintage kits, I have a few built MTK DMU kits to rebuild (they have fallen apart over the years and been acquired as projects) and will be using Triang motor bogies in preference to more modern ones.

You are so right; the period features need preserving.  This model is never going to compete with Kernow's offering: it's value and interest lie in that it is a "blast from the past"!

[5050]

 

I remember seeing the 'real' D600 as a young lad trainspotting at Taunton when it was brand new.  An impressive beast at the time and I never thought at that time that I would see models of it and 'her' sisters.  They were especially impressive blasting through non-stop on the 'Cornish Riviera Express' with a train of immaculate Chocolate and Cream coaches - and a headboard balanced on the front.

 

I also add that I have a couple of locos with DS10 motors and they run very well

Edited Sunday at 17:39 by 5050

[teeinox]

On 31/05/2024 at 23:20, NIK said:

Hi,

 

I used a press stud mount for a Hornby class 25 motor bogie in the MTK 6S Hastings Unit that I built.

 

It worked ok on an exhibition layout called SE28 which had no curves but it derails on one curve on the layout that replaced it. This is partially due to the fine flanges on the Ultrascale wheels I fitted to the motor bogie.

 

When the load on the motor bogie changes it tilts front/back and tends to lift one wheelset more than flange height above the rail head.

 

I'm thinking of replacing that motor bogie with that from a second hand 4 CEP or a suitable post 2000 design of model loco (where the front/back tilt is more constrained due to the design of the bogie mount).

 

Regards

 

Nik

Yes, this is a real problem with the press-stud fixing method; it provides no stability.  In my case, the result was that the locomotive would settle on its centre of gravity which was a lean of about 10 degrees out of true.  That was eliminated by creating a “platform” out of plasticard on one of the bogies.  This rests against the supporting structure, and successfully brought the locomotive back onto an even keel.  The photo illustrates:

 

 

Underneath the stud are the shims used to adjust the height.  The stud is actually wired into them, so there is not a total reliance on glue to hold it in place.  To the left is the platform that bears against the body support.

 

That did not entirely solve all problems with stability.  On the trial run there was a degree of lateral “shake”.  I am thinking of placing some rubber blocks around the other press-stud fastening to dampen this shake.  The technique works on coaches, so hopefully it will work here, though the strength of the momentum to be countered is much greater because of the weight of the body, so we shall see!

 

teeinox

[NIK]

Hi,

 

I think the MTK multiple unit kits I bought came with a steel swan neck to mount the bogie on. 

 

However the swan neck was only about 12mm wide and the design of the top of the Hornby class 25 motor bogie made it difficult to add something to give fore/aft stability.

 

Regards

 

Nik

[andyman7]

3 hours ago, NIK said:

Hi,

 

I think the MTK multiple unit kits I bought came with a steel swan neck to mount the bogie on. 

 

However the swan neck was only about 12mm wide and the design of the top of the Hornby class 25 motor bogie made it difficult to add something to give fore/aft stability.

 

Regards

 

Nik

All the early MTK kits used that form of motor mounting - a single 'swan neck' for MUs and a double one for locomotives.

[Halvarras]

Your D600 does appear to have been built to a standard not often seen with MTK kits - I do hope you can harness the potential of those motor bogies! Following with interest......

 

I built my MTK D600 Warship in 1993. By that time these kits were supplied as body kits only for fitting to an RTR chassis, as by then double-motoring a Hornby 'ringfield' chassis to cope with the weight was simplicity itself. However Yours Truly, Mr Awkward, had purchased a wrecked Tri-ang EM2 from Cheltenham Model Centre for £5 in 1977, with the intention of one day somehow building D601 'Ark Royal' on the bogies, employing the nameplates I'd purchased from King's Cross Model Shop in 1974, just after seeing the hulk of the real one at Barry (I had just managed to see all five in service). The 1980s came and went and by the early '90s my plans really needed a D600 so I bought the MTK kit then contacted Colin M to see if he could supply the 'swan neck' motor bracket and central cast box section to screw it to, 'old-school' style - he did, eventually (patience was always a virtue when dealing with Colin!)

However double-motoring wasn't required for my modest layout so, noting the thickness of the main roof panels and their reluctance to line up with the separate and lower cab roofs, I elected to assemble the sides, ends and cab roofs and then cut a spare Tri-ang Mark 1 coach roof to length and 'manipulate' it to fit between the cab roofs (I recall much end-to-end scraping with a Stanley knife blade), which of course saved a great deal of weight. This then required detailing with plastic strip and etched brass fan grilles, which at least we had by 1993, and yes, they are correctly diagonally off-set!

 

Headcode boxes weren't supplied so I made them from various thicknesses of plasticard - filing them to sit correctly on that curved and sloping nose was an 'interesting' exercise, although at least positioning was simplified by applying masking tape cut to the precise shape of the yellow warning panels-to-be. The gangway doors were unused items from a Craftsman 'Class 33-to-26' kit, and buffers also shortened Craftsman items as those supplied were comical:

 

The '2D' battery box castings were made 3D via 5mm wide thin brass sheet 'wrappers', which usefully hold the piece of grey foam which retains the inter-bogie wiring. The couplings - single-ended for my purposes - were soldered up from N gauge rail and Hornby metal bars:

 

As you can tell, I had a lot of 'fun' getting that swan-neck bracket into the required shape, so the bogie pivots were where I needed them to be (new hole at the trailing end) - over 30 years ago now but I'm sure a hammer was involved!

The miniature grey 2-pin plug was a 'round-the-pole electric flying' accessory which I found a small model shop in Truro around 1974 - I bought 3 or 4 but since wished I'd bought a couple of dozen!

Finally, the original armature wasn't in great shape (hardly surprising for a fiver) - in 1993, the same year I built this model, the Swindon Model Railway Club, of which I was then a member, moved location from a former Swindon Works building in London Road to a new home at the Swindon & Cricklade Railway, and during the move a brand new 'A1A' armature was unearthed in a box - nobody else wanted it so it was mine for a small donation to club funds. Howzat for a piece of luck?! And it still runs very nicely.

 

[41516]

That's a loco with a 'presence' that you just don't get with RTR. Lovely.

[Robertm3110]

Hi, can I ask what specific paint colours you used.  I have an O gauge kit on the go and can’t decide on which green. Period is when they were new, original disc headcodes.  Also the “grey” stripe on the lower body side. What sort of grey is it

 

Thanks.