Adrian Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 Might it have been easier to just start with a fresh piece of workable brass cut to the correct size? I know that breaks the "it is supposed to be a kit" principle !! but for such a simple scratch addition, possibly excusable. Or nickel which is soooo much easier to work with than brass. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 I am reluctant, Mike, to omit the boiler because it will give the model some traction? I suppose that when you are building it as a rigid 0-4-0 you need all the weight you can get. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Or nickel which is soooo much easier to work with than brass. But has the downside that it is more expensive, a little harder to obtain, and isn't it actually harder than brass? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 But has the downside that it is more expensive For the small quantities used the price difference is negligible, besides the time saved because it's easier to work with pays for itself handsomely. a little harder to obtain Freely available from all good suppliers - I've never had any problem getting nickel silver sheet. and isn't it actually harder than brass? It depends and can be a bonus. Hard nickel silver sheet is harder but when using thin sheets it's less likely to get damaged therefore a bonus in my view. 5thou nickel sheet will stay flat far easier than the equivalent brass. It depends because you can also get a half hard sheet which is as soft and as easy to work as brass. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 phew! I was worried I might be wrong about the hardness bit I'd be first to agree and support the use of n/s in chassis kits where the slightly harder n/s is a distinct advantage. But the problem, it appears, here with this kit is that the brass is too hard to punch rivet detail into. The problems with distortion on annealing is a side issue caused by the "fix" to the main problem. My experience, though limited, of n/s is that it is much harder to work with in every sense (cutting, bending and riveting). Hence my partly tongue-in-cheek suggestion of a scratch brass sheet substitution. It is interesting to know of the different grades of n/s. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metropolitan Posted January 28, 2011 Author Share Posted January 28, 2011 As Mike mentioned above the thing proved an absolute pig to wheel up and quarter on these 2mm axles. There were two main problems: 1) The final gear on the gearbox is an interference fit on the axle which means you cannot rotate the axle with the gearbox installed. You dare not tweak and fiddle with the axle in case the gear comes loose because there is no chance of using Loctite.to re fix it. 2) As Mike says the 1/8th" to 2mm reduction bushes are a loose fit on the axles. So the quartering job is a once only chance!! What I did was to superglue the bushes into the wheels and use Loktite to fix them on the axles. You have a narrow window of opportunity to get the quartering and back to back right!! Luckily all seems well. I've run it in for an hour each way and it runs well: I've sprung down the middle axle which ain't pretty but seems to work OK and started on the brake gear by which time I had had enough and thought I'd better do some paying work!! It's so addictive!!!! I'll clean it all up tomorrow when I've recovered from the strain!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metropolitan Posted January 29, 2011 Author Share Posted January 29, 2011 I'm starting to get quite fond of the old gilr! It should be quite straighrorward from now on: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike morley Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 Metropolitan I havent made much progress since starting work on the cab because everything has been of the one-step-forwards-one-step-sideways variety. There has also been a step backwards with the cab sidesheets that I thought I'd dealt with. The instructions go out of their way to tell you the cab entrance isnt very big. Okay, its a small engine so you expect the entrance to be small, but I've yet to see a picture of any Manning Wardle where the cab entrance is small enough to deserve comment. Then you install the cab sidesheets and find yourself looking at a Manning Wardle that certainly does deserve the size of its cab entrance commenting upon. I didnt get as far as installing the cab handrails (More of which later) but I reckon that if I had, the entrance would only have been about eight scale inches across! The kit's sidesheets (Or their replacements, if you reject the kit's ones in favour of Kenton's more bendable metal)need to be reduced in length by a good two or three millimetres. Now onto the cab handrails - or, more specifically, the bracket that is supposed to attach the upper end of the rear rail to the bunker. If you look at that sideways-on picture of Sharpthorns bunker that is proving so useful (Glad I took that one!) you can see the far bracket, that supports the top of the brake standard as well as the handrail. You can also see that it is attached to a ledge that runs around the inside of the bunker - a ledge the kit does not have. I thought that would be an easy problem to overcome but it is going out of its way to prove me wrong and a solution has not yet been found. Now onto the castings. First, the good news. They are of good quality and - unusually for lost wax castings - arent so hard they are nigh-on impossible to work. I suspect they are also not the set of castings that were being supplied when the kit's instructions were typed. This counts as good news because the instructions only mentions having one safety valve column (It actually says just "safety valve", but it means the column) when it now includes two - the very early, wonderfully archaic fluted version and later version, best described as a more curvaceous version of the Great Western product. It also two includes two tank fillers, although I'm not quite sure why. (Never turn down a free spare!) The not quite so good news is that it doesnt include the safety valves themselves. At least they are easy to scratchbuild. The bad news is that the firebox backhead is seriously undersize to the tune of over a millimetre all round. This shouldnt affect you and me too badly as both Brill Number 1 and Cambrian Railways number 25 (Which is what mine's hopefully going to become) had the biggest of the three choices of cab and no one ought to be able to get a good enough view from astern for the discrepancy to be apparent. Anyone going for the narrower medium-sized cab, like Sharpthorns, will have to cross their fingers and anyone nominating the early, basic weathershield will need to contemplate scratchbuilding a correctly-sized backplate. More bad news is that for reasons I cannot even begin to guess at the two sandboxes are totally different sizes. The smaller one looks to be correct while the bigger one brings gallon cans of Castrol GTX to mind! I think the ultimate test of just how workable this variety of lost-wax brass is will be whether or not it is possible to cut the GTX can down to resemble the sandbox. I'm spending the rest of the weekend with my brother, so there will be no more progress before Monday at the earliest. My brother lives quite close to the Bluebell Railway, but so far I havent managed to contrive another visit to Sharpthorn. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metropolitan Posted January 30, 2011 Author Share Posted January 30, 2011 Mike. All noted and agreed re the castings especially the different sized sandboxes!! (In fact I don't think they are the right shape as well)? Still, I think I am stuck with them. Also, I think you are quite right in that my cab 'doors' are too wide. But now Brill No1 begins to differ from the kit and it's instructions so I will be going by photo's more than anything. For a start Brill No1 had a round smokebox door ( which i have made from the bit I sawed off the boiler) and the sandboxes are fitted to the front of the footplate with actuating linkages back to the cab. I've made a start on all the pipework: Also on Brill No1 the brakegear is orthodox so I need to make some alterations to the chassis. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John M Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 I have been following this thread with interest as I built the Impetus version about 10 years ago. Both locos are really begining to look the part! I kind of anticipated Mike Morley with a horizontal motor in the boiler with a Branchlines Slimline gearbox in the firebox. As far as i remember despite the component size the assembly was straight forward with a cast whitemetal smokebox and a lost wax brass firebox saving a lot of work. In a similar manner to the Peter Kay I had to extend the cut out in the footplate and grind out the bottom of the backhead to fit the gearbox. The chassis is rigid with a split frame assembly with copperclad frame spacers, Branchlines 2mm split axles and plated brass wheels. The loco was always a bit tempremental and fast off the mark, I am not sure if it was the Sangami motor or a problem with a miss drilled crankpin. I suspect the Slimline gearbox and present motor may be replacements and an axle failed at some stage. Anyway after 5 years I dug the loco out last friday and it ran up and down a short piece of track. I am not sure whether to leave well enough alone and let the Sangami run until it buns out, or replace it with a small Mashima. Apart from the hogged running board I need to sort out the bottom section of the boiler and fit clacks, injectors and other plumbing. John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike morley Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Very nice too, John! Not long after starting mine I read an article in an elderly MRJ by someone who'd built an Impetus Manning Wardle. He struggled with the pick-ups because of the limited clearance between the bottom of the frames and the tops of the rails and reckoned split-axles would have been the better way to go. Was that why you went for split-axles or is that simply your preferred method of current collection? (To my relief and surprise, the entirely conventional pick-ups were one of the few things I didnt have trouble with!) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metropolitan Posted January 31, 2011 Author Share Posted January 31, 2011 Thanks for posting that John. I had always wanted an Impetus kit of this Manning Wardle! It looks as though the Impetus kit is better suited to Brill No1. We are beginning to build up a fair old fleet of these loco's on this thread!! A shame these kits are no longer available. I'm soldiering on but must admit that the micro soldering required with regard to the leaf springs left me needing a stiff Gin and Tonic!! Not my finest hour I am afraid. At least it is now starting to look like a loco!! Little and Large on the Met: To be honest I got a bit cross with it so should really put it aside for a week! Hopefully it will clean up OK. I have a question for which I would be very very grateful for a definitive answer: Dave's Brill No 1 shown earlier in this thread has an injector on the left of the tank with substantial pipework. My photo of Brill No1 (although I admit it is not good) does not appear to have any injector on the left of the tank?? Was there any injector mounted on the left hand side of the tank on Brill No1? Thanks in anticipation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Bigcheeseplant Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Is this side of the loco any help David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike morley Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 John I've got two pictures of Brill No. 1's left hand side. One is not brilliant, but is good enough for me to be certain it's not an injector. I'm fairly sure its a simple tap with a bulbous housing. The other picture has got someones head in the way of the crucial area but whatever is behind it cannot be an injector - its not big enough. Neither photograph has an even guesstimated date. The pictures I've got of the right hand side correspond exactly with Dave Bigcheeseplant's picture of the model above - one of them was even taken from pretty much the same angle! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John M Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Yes indeed we seem to be building up quite a fleet of Manning Wardles mine was intended for use on a mineral line that tended to gyrate between the East Midlands and the Shropshire. I choose to go down the spit frame road mainly because i dislike wiper pick ups and because of the tight clearances, I am reasonably happy with the result but the bearings need occasional flushing to maintain good contact. Intrestingly I purchased the kit at the Chatham Show 1999? shortly before Robin Arkinstall discontinued the Impetus range and and several extra sets of main frames and rods packed with the kit , if anone fancies scratchbuilding a superstructure. John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metropolitan Posted February 1, 2011 Author Share Posted February 1, 2011 Thanks all! Dave - Thanks for posting. The right hand view is indeed a help. I don't know what the angled bar on the side of the tank is though? Mike - That's what I thought and thanks for confirming it re the left side of the tank. It does beg the question however; where are the injectors or pumps?? John - Anyone who can produce a split frame/non pickup loco has my very great respect, especially one so so tiny!! How did you manage it with Gibbo wheels and this loco??? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John M Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Metropoliton I generally I will avoid wiper pick up if Ican, generally short out the axles on one side of a tender loco with the return through the tender American fashion. Assembling the split axles was the most fraught part of the Manning Wardle, the wheels and axles are by Branchlines, the wheels plated brass, the axles using stainless steel componts assembled in a simple perspex jig. The frame spacers are double sided PCB and the frames went together nice and square, not sure if I used an alignment jig! Branchlines did 3' & 3'6" Manning Wardle wheelsets, the main drawback was that it was necessary to drill out the crankpin holes which I did without a jig, probably the only thing I would do differently. Definitely need to replace that motor and level up the saddle tank. John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metropolitan Posted February 3, 2011 Author Share Posted February 3, 2011 This shot shows up a number correctable faults which I will do such as the tank filler lid and other wonky bits and peices. But there is one large error which I am loath to correct. The cab roof is too tall or too short! I don't know which. It may be the roof etch? It may be that the firebox is too long? Or, more probably, it's something I have done wrong! To correct it I would have to slice up the cab roof so i think I will just live with it. Still, apart from dealing with the brakes and sanding pipes that the easy bit done. Now I've got to paint and line the thing!!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metropolitan Posted February 4, 2011 Author Share Posted February 4, 2011 Metropoliton I generally I will avoid wiper pick up if Ican, generally short out the axles on one side of a tender loco with the return through the tender American fashion. Assembling the split axles was the most fraught part of the Manning Wardle, the wheels and axles are by Branchlines, the wheels plated brass, the axles using stainless steel componts assembled in a simple perspex jig. The frame spacers are double sided PCB and the frames went together nice and square, not sure if I used an alignment jig! John John. I am in awe of any one who can produce a split frame loco!. I still cannot get my head round how they work and how to do it?? Do you not have to split the axles, gearbox and brake gear as well together with insulating the motor, the body and goodness knows what? First painting stage is done: I have yet another question for which I would be eternally grateful: What colour would the cab roof have been? Plates have been ordered from the astonishing Guilplates to whom I bow low. Is there any steam loco for which they have not produced plates!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike morley Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 What colour would the cab roof have been? The same colour as the front and rear cab sheets. I'm having another break from mine. It had one of those very minor running promblems that you are convinced must be either a crankpin that isnt quite square or a set of wheels that are just a degree or so off quartered properly - only after stripping everything and rebuilding it twice its still exactly the same. I'm starting to suspect that one of the modifications I made to the chassis in order to compensate it might be the cause. John M; you know those spare Impetus chassis sides you mentioned having? I think I might have use for a set . . . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metropolitan Posted February 7, 2011 Author Share Posted February 7, 2011 The same colour as the front and rear cab sheets. I'm having another break from mine. It had one of those very minor running promblems that you are convinced must be either a crankpin that isnt quite square or a set of wheels that are just a degree or so off quartered properly - only after stripping everything and rebuilding it twice its still exactly the same. I'm starting to suspect that one of the modifications I made to the chassis in order to compensate it might be the cause. John M; you know those spare Impetus chassis sides you mentioned having? I think I might have use for a set . . . John Your chassis looks fine to me? What exactly is the problem? Have you tried another set of wheels? Regards Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metropolitan Posted February 7, 2011 Author Share Posted February 7, 2011 Preparing to bend the wiper pickuups down to the wheels. (For some reason they don't show up on the photo because they are sticking upright at the mo?) It ain't pretty but it seems to run OK. I've given it an hour each way. The chassis should clean up fine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike morley Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 John Whatever is causing the problem, its obviously extremely subtle. The symptoms are a very slight hesitation once per revolution, combined with a slight lifting of a wheel. That was why I suspected it was either a slightly wonky crankpin or quartering a fraction out. I removed the wheels twice to check the squareness of the crankpins (All were fine, both times) and I doubt very much if they went back on the same axles they came off, yet the problem stayed where it was. I now have a hunch that when I filed the axle-holes oval while compensating the chassis, one of the slots wasnt quite vertical. If that isn't the cause, I havent a clue what else it might be! If anyone makes 2mm versions of those spike-ended things you slide through the axle-holes to make sure the chassis and coupling rods are exactly the same, I havent been able to track them down. When I built the chassis I used pin-point wagon axles as crude alternatives - too crude, perhaps. Anyway, John M and I are already exchanging PM's regarding his spare Impetus frames, so the Mk II chassis is already being planned. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metropolitan Posted February 8, 2011 Author Share Posted February 8, 2011 John Whatever is causing the problem, its obviously extremely subtle. The symptoms are a very slight hesitation once per revolution, combined with a slight lifting of a wheel. That was why I suspected it was either a slightly wonky crankpin or quartering a fraction out. I removed the wheels twice to check the squareness of the crankpins (All were fine, both times) and I doubt very much if they went back on the same axles they came off, yet the problem stayed where it was. I now have a hunch that when I filed the axle-holes oval while compensating the chassis, one of the slots wasnt quite vertical. If that isn't the cause, I havent a clue what else it might be! If anyone makes 2mm versions of those spike-ended things you slide through the axle-holes to make sure the chassis and coupling rods are exactly the same, I havent been able to track them down. When I built the chassis I used pin-point wagon axles as crude alternatives - too crude, perhaps. Anyway, John M and I are already exchanging PM's regarding his spare Impetus frames, so the Mk II chassis is already being planned. Hi Mike. I know the trouble you are having all too well!!! I use an Avonside jig which comes with 2mm as well as 1/8th" axles. Dear, but worth every penny if you build a lot of loco's. Have you tried, (cue screams of horror from the purists) just easing out the coupling rod hole on the pin thats causing the problem? You can usually tell the culprit by finding where a rod goes rigid on the tight bit? I seems a bit drastic to start from square one? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 .....Plates have been ordered from the astonishing Guilplates to whom I bow low. Is there any steam loco for which they have not produced plates!! German steam engines, maybe? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.