bertiedog Posted February 1, 2011 Author Share Posted February 1, 2011 The backhead from the ROD version of the 4300 at Didcot, I assume all the members of the Mogul class were similar. K's simply supplied nothing for the back head at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePipersSon Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Just to let you know that issue 76 of GWRJ has two pictures of the Mogul backhead. I will be watching this with interest, as I have done on previous projects. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bertiedog Posted February 1, 2011 Author Share Posted February 1, 2011 It looks from the instructions and check list, as though K's intentions were to fit 6x brass bushes to the frames as axle bearings, might have helped if they supplied them, and if they would fit the holes, which although oversized are not large enough to take bearings, and in the case of the middle axle simply does not exist! The brass frames have no countersunk holes for the countersunk frame screws either, so adding those tonight, and drilling the bearing holes with the milling machine. At least unlike an etched kit the frames are substantial in thickness, once built up very tough indeed. Stephen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bertiedog Posted February 1, 2011 Author Share Posted February 1, 2011 The frames are accurate despite Ks best efforts with turning a Mogul into a 240, with no middle axle hole. The casting at the front for the frame extension and cylinders support is quite accurate after cleaning up, and will be soldered in later. It bolts into place, but will be stronger after soldering as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bertiedog Posted February 1, 2011 Author Share Posted February 1, 2011 Some parts cleaned with an old suede brass brush to remove casting marks.All whitemetal will solder better if totally clean and shiny rather than matt grey. White metal is actually a bit porous, and not brushing and sealing the surface leads to problems with painting later on. Most of these notes apply to more modern pewter based whitemetal as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bertiedog Posted February 2, 2011 Author Share Posted February 2, 2011 The wheels clean up quite well, and seem accurate, the rust came off well in the rust remover, which also woks as flux for the low melt solder, being phosphoric acid. Stephen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bertiedog Posted February 2, 2011 Author Share Posted February 2, 2011 Serious error has come to light, the firebox has two left hand sides, so a new side will have to be fabricated in brass, quite a bit of work, with washout plugs to make in scale size. Fortunately the back is flat to give reference point for copy of shape of side, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Sidecar Racer Posted February 2, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 2, 2011 Stephen , 247 Developments do GWR backheads in three sizes , small ,medium and large . Picture below , a medium and large type . The small one I had is fitted to a K's Bulldog . Hope this is usefull to you . 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bertiedog Posted February 2, 2011 Author Share Posted February 2, 2011 Thanks for backhead references, in the meantime making firebox side to replace missing one..........anybody need a spare left hand side firebox, or have a right hand side spare?....!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bertiedog Posted February 2, 2011 Author Share Posted February 2, 2011 The brass replacement firebox in basic solid brass form, awaiting bands and the plugs and domes. The edges will be tinned with lead free to take the brass boiler bands, and tin it ready for low melt 70 degree to assemble late. Turned out to be easy to shape with a Dremel motortool and sanding drums, much quicker than filing! Stephen Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bertiedog Posted February 2, 2011 Author Share Posted February 2, 2011 K's would not have a had a happy customer on this kit, with the frame missing axle holes and two left hand firebox sides, but I suppose it was par for the course with Keyser, who had a knack of getting things wrong at times and then making it worst!! They always put things right when informed of such issues, and used to promptly replace the parts that were wrong. I have carefully checked the other parts and all is well, it was only after I looked at the Digital shots that I realised the parts for the firebox were not left and right handed, but identical. The fire box needs slight attention to it's shape anyway as the back taper is wrong, too steep by about 4 inches scale. just needs the joints adjusted on assembly. Most RTR have bad firebox shapes on GWR locos, a combination of assumptions about the shape, reliance on scanning, and stretching to cover mechanisms, all leading to some very curious shapes. Stephen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 I seem to remember the frame screws used to have a shallow flat head and were not countersunk. Two LH firebox sides was bad luck. Stephen, Is this a recently produced kit or is an ancient kit you have uncovered? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bertiedog Posted February 2, 2011 Author Share Posted February 2, 2011 A bit more on the firebox, now with bands, and tinned for whitemetal soldering. Awaiting some washout plugs and domes, then a row of rivets at the bottom. The kit is from the 1976 period, ex Ebay, shrink wrapped so as supplied by Keyser, the frames are not countersunk, and the screws are, Keyser changed to flat head to allow adjustment of the frames to line up!!. Many kits came with countersunk frames and flat headed screws. Consistency was never a strong point with K's, it all depended on the parts suppliers as to what was made, in house made stuff varied as well, like the wheels. Stephen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bertiedog Posted February 2, 2011 Author Share Posted February 2, 2011 Very sneaky....the reversing lever covers the row of rivets on the replacement side!! so leaving the plate plain, saves a lot of drilling and rivets being made from wire.......still needs washouts and dome covers though, these are next then a bit of assembly. Stephen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bertiedog Posted February 2, 2011 Author Share Posted February 2, 2011 Can anybody explain why the SVR Mogul, with a Collett cab, has a boiler with no washout plugs on the reversing lever side, whilst the Didcot Mogul has washouts on both sides? i would normally assume both sides had them in pattern or alternating pattern to give good coverage, but the SVR Mogul has none at all. Stephen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bertiedog Posted February 3, 2011 Author Share Posted February 3, 2011 Nearly there, just the domes to do on the top edges, and it fits the other castings correctly. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted February 3, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 3, 2011 Can anybody explain why the SVR Mogul, with a Collett cab, has a boiler with no washout plugs on the reversing lever side, whilst the Didcot Mogul has washouts on both sides? i would normally assume both sides had them in pattern or alternating pattern to give good coverage, but the SVR Mogul has none at all. Stephen. As far as I can trace the moguls had two different marks of boiler but photographs do not indicate any particular difference between them in respect of washout plugs on the basis of the locos they finally appeared on. What is readily apparent from studying a few dozen pictures is that the position of the top row varied with the lower variant position being very close to, or possibly even behind on some locos, the boiler handrail. The position of the two lower plugs also seems to have varied. So answer No.1 is the old advice of 'find a picture of the loco you want to model at the point in time at which you want to model it' because boilers were, obviously, swopped around. And there is a possibility that on the SVR loco the row of three plugs didn't show because of the angle the picture was taken from? The second possible answer is the thorny one of what has happened to locos in preservation. I would think it odd to plate over washout plugs for some reason - any reason - but the SVR is a (very) practical working railway which has modified locos for its operational convenience (a good example being the use of hopper ashpans on locos that never had them in BR days) so they might have done something for their own good reason? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Blandford1969 Posted February 3, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 3, 2011 I would be amazed if our boilersmiths altered a firebox in this way. I will see if i've got any photos, if not i need to go to Highley to measure the reverser spring bracket on 79 for 82045 so will take some photos. Might be next weekend though, not sure. Kind regards Duncan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bertiedog Posted February 3, 2011 Author Share Posted February 3, 2011 The boiler so far, with the brass replacement side to the firebox. All soldered with an ordinary 30 watt iron with 70 degree low melt solder, and Bakers fluid as flux. Some filling applied with 140 degree solder on back of joints where gaps existed. The domes on the top of the firebox are to be added, and can be soldered with the whistles etc Bakers was used as brass was involved, and it's a more aggressive flux than phosphoric acid. The joints have been soldered on the front as well as the back, no melting of castings at all. It is practice, I have done this for 40 years! Used lots of flux, and worked with pin point tip on the iron, tinned with ordinary lead solder at the start of the session. On the washout plugs there is a high definition shot on Wikipedia of the West Somerset Mogul with Collett cab, which unless some body has had it through Photoshop, shows no washout plugs on this side of the firebox, However the Didcot ROD Mogul has the correct plugs in place. The shape seems correct now, although the back of the firebox is a bit narrower than scale, only a slight amount, but difficult to correct, so left. The firebox is better shaped than the RTR Mogul, which has a parallel firebox base, and near vertical firebox sides. P4 conversion would be possible, although tight under the splashers. K's have set the overall height a touch high, but easy to adjust, on the chassis mountings.. Stephen 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bertiedog Posted February 3, 2011 Author Share Posted February 3, 2011 The missing washout plugs are on the West Somerset line Mogul, but this is a re-built 262 Prairie, may well be different as the boiler is smaller and an ex tank engine boiler.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Blandford1969 Posted February 4, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 4, 2011 Hi, I think it must have been a trick of the light, please see this photofor a photo clearly showing the RHS washouts at the top. Kind regards Duncan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bertiedog Posted February 4, 2011 Author Share Posted February 4, 2011 The Keyser made driving wheels have cleaned up quite well, and they test quite accurate on the axles. However the steel tyre is a bit rough in overall finish, so they will need smoothing in the lathe with abrasive finishing paper. The better the finish, the less likely to rust, and they will be blackened as well with gun black. The flange can also be filed to a nearer correct rounded tip form, reducing the flange height a bit. There will be some counter weights needed to attach to the driving wheels, made in metal and glued on. It will also need screw covers added on to the centre boss to hide the retaining screws that hold the wheels on the D shaped ends. Gibson Wheels will be ordered for the front bogie and the tender, as although accurate in manufacture, the K's ones have no insets for the spoke profile etc, and Gibson would improve the appearance generally. A new gear set will also be ordered, as the worm supplied is a bit out of true running. The gear wheel is OK, but straight tooth form, not really the best match to a worm. It is also an involute form, with normal pressure angle, not the correct shape and angle for a worm drive. I may get the Gibson rods sets to replace the side rods as the K's etched rods are solid and must be split for springing the loco. The cast white metal connecting rods can also be purchased from Gibson in nickel silver.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bertiedog Posted February 4, 2011 Author Share Posted February 4, 2011 It has been commented upon that I mentioned comparison with an RTR loco and it's firebox shape etc, and it is the Bachmann version, that has a firebox with nearer to vertical sides, and the bottom part is vertical, not waisted in as the real shape is. I do not know the history of the Bachmann version, but it may be an older design to cover a wide mechanism within the firebox, but the overall shape in the photos shows a curious look to the whole firebox in comparison with the Didcot and SVR examples. Also the reason for the replacement was K's miss supplying two left hand parts instead of a left and right hand side. The kit would date from the late 1970's, about 1978 I think from the parts supplied. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 I'm suprised you are fitting those gawd-awful K's driving wheels. In the 1970s most builders in the model trade routinely chucked them and fitted turned Romford wheels with nicket silver tyres both sides (we would short one side out and just have pick-ups on one side). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bertiedog Posted February 4, 2011 Author Share Posted February 4, 2011 The wheel are accurate and quarter correctly, and appearance is OK, Keyser's made far worse than these wheels, like the push on D axle version, the Bakelite wheels that crumbled, or the white metal ones with self detaching rims!! Pick-up may be restricted to the tender, easy to hide! If I was making it in the 1970's the wheels would be junked for Hamblings or Romford, but the appearance of the old Romford wheel range was pretty dire, although now improved by Markits. Even with modern Gibson's one side would have to be shorted or duel pickups fitted. I have not checked the spoke count, or the throw, but the wheels look better than Romford, and the profile looks similar to the current Gibson, which are going on the bogie and tender. The only slight addition is a steel sleeve over the brass crankpin, which is moulded into place, and being capped with a 14BA sized nut, is a bit delicate on it's own. K's etched rods have oversized holes any way, and the middle ones are bigger than the outer holes!..and K's say in the instructions to open them up with a needle file! As split rods will be needed, Gibson etched ones may be the solution, or home made nickel silver ones, Stephen Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now