Metropolitan Posted February 8, 2011 Author Share Posted February 8, 2011 German steam engines, maybe? I doubt it! Too many pipes. Too many domes and just too plain dog ugly to bother with methinks!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike morley Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 I've seen that done twice (Once by someone who candidly admitted that was what he had done, once by someoneone who wouldn't) and there's something a little bit odd about the way a loco runs that catches the eye. It's a bit hard to describe - the first time I saw it I thought the loco was in the final stages of unscrewing a crankpin. You might be able to get away with it on an outside-cylindered loco where the offending area is hidden behind slidebars and a crosshead but not anywhere that was in full view. And although I'm not an obsessive (And keep a clove of garlic handy to ward off those who are!) I do feel it would be a bodge too far. Mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metropolitan Posted February 9, 2011 Author Share Posted February 9, 2011 I've seen that done twice (Once by someone who candidly admitted that was what he had done, once by someoneone who wouldn't) and there's something a little bit odd about the way a loco runs that catches the eye. It's a bit hard to describe - the first time I saw it I thought the loco was in the final stages of unscrewing a crankpin. You might be able to get away with it on an outside-cylindered loco where the offending area is hidden behind slidebars and a crosshead but not anywhere that was in full view. And although I'm not an obsessive (And keep a clove of garlic handy to ward off those who are!) I do feel it would be a bodge too far. Mike Hi Mike If the wheels actually revolve with the motor under power then the one spot tightness can be cured with just a thou or two of extra play on the offending hole. I can't see how this can make any difference to to visual quality of running? It must be worth a try, surely, before you go to extreme of starting again? Either way, best of luck! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_Hughes Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 I know this sounds odd and quite unintuitive, but I've recently had a similar problem myself (also on a sprung chassis) and finally, after several hours of careful observation and tweaking, traced it back to the one thing that I was quite sure wasn't at fault, namely the High Level gearbox. With the final gear loose on the axle, everything moved perfectly smoothly; snug up the gear, and there was a nasty tight spot at odd times on each revolution - but not with the rods in the usual trouble-spots. Finally close inspection revealed that one of the gears had somehow got itself damaged, and seemed to be transmitting its fault all the way through the drive-train; even one of the rods was moving a tad unevenly, making it the obvious suspect though I couldn't see how it could be. When that nice Mr High Level replaced the failing gear for me free of charge, the problem disappeared completely. So, if everything moves perfect freely with the drive-train disconnected, then this is certainly worth a look. Good luck! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metropolitan Posted February 15, 2011 Author Share Posted February 15, 2011 I had terrible problems with the chassis when running in on the track. One of the rear Gibson drivers came loose on it's axle which knackered the quartering and was hellish to fix because I had oiled the working bits!! And fiddling around with these wheels is not a good idea as they get worse and worse and very wobbly! Still, in the end, I think I have a permanent fix and it seems to run OK thanks to Gel superglue and umpteen attempts!! Slow running is fine although I wish I had gone to the trouble of adding more weight. A day off work meant I could get on with the painting. Detailing still to do: It's no more than an educated guess. Fun though. The true trial is to come. Lining it!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_Hughes Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 Now that does look lovely! Well done! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metropolitan Posted February 19, 2011 Author Share Posted February 19, 2011 This is the bit of any loco build I like most!! A pleasant afternoon running in the loco on my layout. This loco potters about just fine. It'll push or pull half a dozen wagons which is all I want really: My build notes for any one with a notion to build one of these kits are as follows: 1) A HighLevel Micomiser fits but you need to mount the motor fat-ways on to the frame. In hindsight i would have gone for the 80 to 1 ratio rather than the 108 to 1 I opted for. 2) Add more weight to the saddle tank in addition to the solid brass boiler supplied. 3) The Gibson wheels with reduction bushes down to the specified 2mm axles are a nightmare but I know of no other option. Even though they are the correct size the loco, built as per the kit, sits too low. The body needs packing up by about 1.5mm on the chassis to get the buffers at the right height. 4) I think the kit must have been designed for early MW K's as you need to scratch a number of fittings to suit the later ones. All in all. A very enjoyable experience!! Recommended! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike morley Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 John, I'm staggered. You've achieved more with yours in three weeks than I have in three months with mine! My only excuse is that I found the kit so frustrating I frequently had to walk away and do something else (Usually aligator wrestling - its easier) It's interesting that you felt the 80-to-1 gearbox would be better. Mine has got the 80-to-1 box and I feel 60-to-1 would be better. I missed John Hughes' comments about the gearbox being the possible cause of my one's problems when he made it, but having now read it I shall investigate further. It might well explain why the problem was noticeably worse running backwards than forwards. Belated thanks to John Hughes. The current state of mine is that the chassis has been dismantled in anticipation of the arrival of the Impetus chassis from John M in New Zealand (Am I the only non-John involved in this thread?) The MkI chassis has not been allowed to retire as it's being used as the guinea pig to find out what can and cannot be done to make the MkII chassis even better. I'll let you know how I get on. Triplicated thanks to all Johns. PS. "An enjoyable experience"? You masochist! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_Hughes Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 (anipped) (Am I the only non-John involved in this thread?) The MkI chassis has not been allowed to retire as it's being used as the guinea pig to find out what can and cannot be done to make the MkII chassis even better. I'll let you know how I get on. Triplicated thanks to all Johns. PS. "An enjoyable experience"? You masochist! As Sam Goldwyn is said to have remarked, Every Tom, Dick and Harry is called John! It's a smashing job, isn't it! Wish I could do as well! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penlan Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 ..... (Am I the only non-John involved in this thread?).... I started work in an office at Worcester in 1973, with 8 people in it, they were all called John (first names, not rooms etc.,) I was the only one not called John, answering the phone as the newbie was problematic, not helped by them for a month or two. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John M Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 The lining really sets it off magnificent from one of the Johns . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Bigcheeseplant Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Is there any reason why the firebix seems to be painted copper? David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metropolitan Posted February 21, 2011 Author Share Posted February 21, 2011 Is there any reason why the firebix seems to be painted copper? David Yes. Because it was made out of copper. The firebox wasn't painted and the staff took great pride in keeping it polished and shiny. Actually, I've a feeling that the smokebox was also unpainted and polished. All the Met's loco's were kept in absolutely spectacularly pristine condition. Even the humblest such as this were fully lined out and polished up to a high degree on a daily basis. In fact the lining I have carried out is a pale shadow of reality. Wheels, sandboxes, splashers, buffer beams and buffer beam ends were all lined, Brass pipes, valve cover and fittings sparkled, the copper firebox gleamed and the coupling rods were probably red as well. Inside, the backhead would have received a similar amount of care and attention. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Bigcheeseplant Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 John I am not too sure where you got this info from, the inner firebox possibly was copper but I would have thought the outer wrapper would be steel sheet over lagging and painted just like any other loco, all the photos I have seen of both Brill No.1 or any other Manning Waddle K class seem to be painted, in fact a copper cover over a fire box would not be too good for insulation or the welfare of the crew as it would be very hot to touch being a good conductor of heat. David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metropolitan Posted February 21, 2011 Author Share Posted February 21, 2011 Hi David Unfortunately I cannot post any of the photo's I have of Brill No 1 but I am absolutely certain that the outer firebox (don't forget this loco was built in 1880 ish) was indeed polished copper. As per the copperknobs of earlier days. If it wasn't it was polished metal of some type. It would not have been steel but I suppose could have been Iron (unlikely)? So I presume copper? It was definitely not painted as the photo's I have make this plain to see. Regards Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Bigcheeseplant Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one, there is a good side photo of Brill No.1 page 135 in the history of the Metropolitain Railway volume Three by Bill Simpson, the light is reflected both off the top of the firebox and smokebox but this is the same on any picture due to the curved surfaces of these, although what is clear is there is a brass ring to the rear of the firebox and possibly to the front, which was practice on quite a few locomotives at the time including the GWR. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metropolitan Posted February 21, 2011 Author Share Posted February 21, 2011 I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one, there is a good side photo of Brill No.1 page 135 in the history of the Metropolitain Railway volume Three by Bill Simpson, the light is reflected both off the top of the firebox and smokebox but this is the same on any picture due to the curved surfaces of these, although what is clear is there is a brass ring to the rear of the firebox and possibly to the front, which was practice on quite a few locomotives at the time including the GWR. Hi David. Yes, I think we will have to disagree, The best shot I have of Brill No 1 in red is on page 60 of Frank Goudie's book. It leaves me in no doubt whatsoever. The brass dome contrasts with the shiny firebox which is an entirely different colour from the tank. There is no doubt in my mind that it is polished copper. If it isn't i cannot imagine what colour it could be as, as I mentioned, it is a completely different shade to the rest of the loco? The same applies to a shot of Manning Wardle 'Nellie' with it's fluted safety valve cover and very shiny firebox. If I am wrong so be it . Regards Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Bigcheeseplant Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 On page 113 of the Brill Tramway by Bill Simpson there is a photo of Earl Temple that was renamed Brill No.1 of the right hand side of the loco, it shows the firebox the same shade as the tank with a brass band to the front of the firebox ajacent to the tank then a inch or so black lining band with a narrower light lining (straw or yellow) next to the black before going to the loco colour. If you would like I can scan in and send over David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metropolitan Posted February 21, 2011 Author Share Posted February 21, 2011 On page 113 of the Brill Tramway by Bill Simpson there is a photo of Earl Temple that was renamed Brill No.1 of the right hand side of the loco, it shows the firebox the same shade as the tank with a brass band to the front of the firebox ajacent to the tank then a inch or so black lining band with a narrower light lining (straw or yellow) next to the black before going to the loco colour. If you would like I can scan in and send over David Hi David I have that shot of Earl Temple. I think what happened (according to Goudie) was this: Earl Temple was green originally when owned by the Oxford and Aylesbry. The Met inherited it in 1899. At some point, shortly afterwards, they fitted it with a new boiler at general overhaul and at the same time renamed it Brill No1 and repainted it with full lined Met red livery. It's firebox may well have once been painted over when named Earl Temple but I stick to my belief that when named Brill No1 the firebox was polished metal after the Met repaint and overhaul. Further proof can be found in various late shots of Brill No1 in Edwards/Pigram trilogy of Met books. I think the outer firebox was indeed copper. What fun! Regards Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Bigcheeseplant Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 I still don't think there would have been a copper wrapper and I think the shine is just a reflection if you are refering to the photo with five people standing or sitting on the loco there is another clear photo in Met days that shows the firebox the same colour as the tank. Another thing I noticed on both Brill No.1 & Wooton No.2 is the bulge on the left hand side at the base of the smokebox and behind the sandbox, I have no idea what it is but seemed to disapear later. David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jol Wilkinson Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Hi David Unfortunately I cannot post any of the photo's I have of Brill No 1 but I am absolutely certain that the outer firebox (don't forget this loco was built in 1880 ish) was indeed polished copper. As per the copperknobs of earlier days. If it wasn't it was polished metal of some type. It would not have been steel but I suppose could have been Iron (unlikely)? So I presume copper? It was definitely not painted as the photo's I have make this plain to see. Regards John, I think it is probable that the copperknobs had copper cladding on the fireboxes as it was easier to form to the shape than steel. For much the same reason some locos had brass "covers" over large stepped boiler/smokebox joins (e.g. some NER Worsdell locos). As it is more difficult to get paint to adhere to brass than to steel, they probably just polished it. I wouldn't have thought the Met (or especially the Brill Tramway) would have wanted the effort and manpower cost involved in polishing large areas of copper cladding. Jol Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metropolitan Posted February 22, 2011 Author Share Posted February 22, 2011 Hi David & Jol I think I am persuaded by you both and thanks for your help with this!! But there again, I wish you could see the various photo's I have though. The odd thing is: 1) I am sure the firefox is not the same colour as the saddletank, cab sides and roof. It just clearly is not. 2)The firebox appears very very very shiny and is a lighter shade than the red bodywork. It looks like copper? 3)There are no rivets and the wrapper looks to have been formed from a single sheet; tricky with iron. And so great was the legendary pride taken by the workforce in appearance (Both personal, infrastructure and machinery - there were annaul prizes awarded) on the Met I can well imagine the crew dedicated to this engine might well have polished up the firebox after its duty. If it is painted then it can only be black?? But if so why would this look lighter than the red in the B&W photos and how did they achieve such a remarkable level of shine? In one shot you can see what appears to be a reflection! Why would they have polished the black firebox to a much higher degree than the red saddle tank?? I don't know what to think! I really don't! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wagonman Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Hi David & Jol I think I am persuaded by you both and thanks for your help with this!! But there again, I wish you could see the various photo's I have though. The odd thing is: 1) I am sure the firefox is not the same colour as the saddletank, cab sides and roof. It just clearly is not. 2)The firebox appears very very very shiny and is a lighter shade than the red bodywork. It looks like copper? 3)There are no rivets and the wrapper looks to have been formed from a single sheet; tricky with iron. And so great was the legendary pride taken by the workforce in appearance (Both personal, infrastructure and machinery - there were annaul prizes awarded) on the Met I can well imagine the crew dedicated to this engine might well have polished up the firebox after its duty. If it is painted then it can only be black?? But if so why would this look lighter than the red in the B&W photos and how did they achieve such a remarkable level of shine? In one shot you can see what appears to be a reflection! Why would they have polished the black firebox to a much higher degree than the red saddle tank?? I don't know what to think! I really don't! According to the Manning Wardle records (as reissued by Fred Harman and F W Mabbott) both works no 1249 of Dec 1894 (Earl Temple, later Brill No 1) and w/n 1415 of Feb 1899 (Wotton No 2) were recorded as being painted in Midland Railway colours. The Midland was green before it went red, but I don't know when MW registered the change. Incidentally they were both fitted with governors to limit the speed to 12mph! If painted in Midland red, the firebox cladding would have been red as well. I have studied loads of photos of Manning Wardles as I'm planning to build a couple myself and am convinced they all had firebox cladding the same colour (tone) as the tanks, but they also had the brass ring front and back that David mentioned. I don't know about Coppernob, but most haystack fireboxes seem to have been clad in brass rather than copper. Smashing little model though... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozzyo Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 I don't know about Coppernob, but most haystack fireboxes seem to have been clad in brass rather than copper. Smashing little model though... F.R.3 "Coppernob" is clad in copper, copper is easier to work in to strange shapes than brass. I don't know about any other locos with the haystack fire boxes but all the F.R. ones had copper cladding, anyway brassnob doesn't sound right.The ones that may have had brass cladding also probably had less of a dome shape to the firebox top, eg. "Lion" IIRC. Met if I were you I'd go with the body colour for the firebox. Nice little loco. OzzyO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metropolitan Posted February 22, 2011 Author Share Posted February 22, 2011 F.R.3 "Coppernob" is clad in copper, copper is easier to work in to strange shapes than brass. I don't know about any other locos with the haystack fire boxes but all the F.R. ones had copper cladding, anyway brassnob doesn't sound right.The ones that may have had brass cladding also probably had less of a dome shape to the firebox top, eg. "Lion" IIRC. Met if I were you I'd go with the body colour for the firebox. Nice little loco. OzzyO. Hmm......... Thanks all! I'm still not 100% convinced. The photo's I have do not agree with the above in that the firebox was the same colour as the tank for the reasons I have outlined. The firebox was not the same colour as the rest of the bodywork. Looking closely at them again I am still minded to think that it was polished copper!! I guess, at the end of the day, we will never know. I'll probably give in and paint it black......Boo! It looks great in copper!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.