jamieb Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Hi all At the Stafford show yesterday , I picked up a Jidenco kit for a 4mm Terrier which I couldn't resist at the princely sum of £12, off the members stand.I am well aware of the problems inherent in Jidenco (and Falcon)kits and don't want to get into a discussion on their overall quality.I've had a quick look at the etchings , which are tarnished with age, but they seem to be intact and workable.Her Outdoors has now removed the kit from my grasp to give me back on my birthday in 4 weeks time! Now I have 4 weeks to pluck up the courage to build it.Terriers are my fave locos, I have 3 already plus various odds and sods in the spares box and several reference books, however this will be my first etched brass loco.I'm not going down the superdetailed route as I want something to show ASAP.Having said that , I may build it as 82 Boxhill as running as a 2-4-0T in 1905 in Goods Green livery (one less set of wheels to quarter!) When I get the kit back, I'll take some photos plus some of any progress I may make, hence posting in this particular sub forum. So, does anybody have any direct experience of this kit and advice on any pitfalls (cos I bet they'll be a few) and perhaps if the person who previously owned this kit is reading this , what made them sell it! Jamie Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike G Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Jamie If you can get yourself a good set of drawings and all will be revealed. I would not trust any one part of their etching process as I'm finding out. But, having said that if you're determined enough to build it then you'll get what you wanted, depends on the trouble you want to go to. Best of luck Mike (Currently building an FBr, GWR County) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 This was one I had a go at. In the dim and distant past. If I remember it went together reasonably well but the instructions were more of a hindrance than of practical use. The brass, after you clean it up, will be thin and apt to bend in places you wish it didn't. Watch out in particular for the footplate. I think I managed to put a bend in mine that I could never get rid of - you will appreciate there is not much space. I think it was during my EM phase so had some fun there. It was yet another one of those non-runners. I wish you good luck with it - not my first choice for a starter by a long way but for £12 you have not spent too much on it though I would have expected wheels for that price. The tarnish will come off with a good scrub of Ciff cleaner. Do it on the whole etch on a flat surface - a tile is handy but take care not to catch any of the parts and bend them out of shape. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamieb Posted February 7, 2011 Author Share Posted February 7, 2011 Thanks for the replies guys Mike I'm not too concerned about accuracy vs drawings, more whether the parts fit to each other. In an engine as small as a Terrier,a small inaccuracy won't be as noticeable as it would be in a big pacific loco(ducks for cover!) Kenton I have no intention whatsoever of even looking at the instructions!I like to think I know my way around a Terrier enough to identify the different parts.The parts have dark marks on them which look like sellotape scars, is there anything to dip the etches in to remove these or is it just scrubbing with CIF.As for wheels, if I go for the 2-4-0 option, I have some old Dapol wheels which I can reprofile, if not Gibsons are cheap enough.Given the apparent age of the kit, it it did include wheels they'd probably have been old coarse type Romfords or if I was really lucky, some old K's rejects! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamieb Posted February 7, 2011 Author Share Posted February 7, 2011 The brass does seem very flimsy so will need to take care not to crease it.Thinking about the footplate, and the lack of tab and slot construction, I will try soldering a length of 1mm square n/s rod down each side which should hopefully provide strength plus a fixing point for the valences.Build will be to OO gauge, I assume the problem in EM was that it was designed for OO and thus too narrow?As there are no etched hornblocks on the chassis, I shall build it rigid as a four coupled unit with the front wheel sprung on a CSB type fixing.Another reason in favour of the 2-4-0. I have a mashima 1024 motor and gearbox which will hopefully fit, will have to dig out a drawing to check.I would imagine the drive to be to the middle (or in this case front) driving axle.May try split axle pick up off the front wheels through insulated hornblocks to prevent drag on a non-driven axle, or am I just making life too complicated? Jamie Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portchullin Tatty Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 The brass, after you clean it up, will be thin and apt to bend in places you wish it didn't. Watch out in particular for the footplate. I think I managed to put a bend in mine that I could never get rid of I second that. Do be careful with the thinness of the brass - on other Jidenco/Falcon Brass kits it is a real problem on the boilers where they half etch the main boiler barrell create the boiler bands. This brings the thickness of the half thickness metal down to around 7-8 thou and this is EVER so delicate. If this is the same on the Terrier you will want to start with the boiler and get an internal wrapper in there first - use a high melt solder and lots of heat, thereafter you will not find that everything springs open and you will have something strong enough to use. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 The brass does seem very flimsy so will need to take care not to crease it.Thinking about the footplate, and the lack of tab and slot construction, I will try soldering a length of 1mm square n/s rod down each side which should hopefully provide strength plus a fixing point for the valences.Build will be to OO gauge, I assume the problem in EM was that it was designed for OO and thus too narrow?As there are no etched hornblocks on the chassis, I shall build it rigid as a four coupled unit with the front wheel sprung on a CSB type fixing. Another reason in favour of the 2-4-0. I have a mashima 1024 motor and gearbox which will hopefully fit, will have to dig out a drawing to check.I would imagine the drive to be to the middle (or in this case front) driving axle.May try split axle pick up off the front wheels through insulated hornblocks to prevent drag on a non-driven axle, or am I just making life too complicated? Jamie If the Sellotape is still present remove the glue residue with Acetone BEFORE treatment with Cif. I think you are wishful in having enough clearance for 1mm square n/s maybe n/s angle would work. The issue here is the valence. and the distortion that can be imparted on the relatively long and very thin footplate as you solder the valance to it. The strengthening may just be the right way to go. Most of the FB kits were designed for 4mm and some even were supplied with both OO and EM spacers for the frames. If not, making EM spacers was a relatively simple step or you could simply buy them. I can't remember which motor and gearbox were used - probably one of the DS open frame (dirt collectors) types. I think you will have fun trying to get a 1024 in there off the middle axle without it protruding into the cab. But then there are some pretty small gearboxes around these days. As for hornblocks and split axles - technology way ahead of FB and the period in which I built it. do you really want to cut into the frames and weaken them even more? - and yes I think you are making it too complicated. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Jamie Firstly you got it at a good price, on Ebay they go for 3 ofd 4 times that. The wheels alone are more than the price you paid. The only Jedinco loco kit I have built is the SR 700 and some how I managed to build it. I have an 02 and a D15 which I brought from the same source but never built, the 02 has a set of Sharman wheels and the D15 has Romfords. My one and only worthwile tip is to get the chassis running well first, then as you are building the body check the clearances as you go along as these are very small locos I deceded to have a go at building 02 3/4 weeks ago, as there were only EM gauge axles with the wheels I rebuilt the chassis to EM gauge (no idea why the builder built the chassis to 00). The main body parts have been built and the boiler has been replaced with a brass tube, if you can get one it makes the whole body much more sturdy. I tried to solder up one of the front wheel splashers and around that time I brought a SEF 02 which came complete except it was missing 3 out of the 4 Romford drivers. I did think about buying some castings off SEF to finish it, but I just lost interest in it. I will keep the motor wheels and gears and put both locos on Ebay and let someone else with more time than me finish them off. As for the Terriers I recently finished building a K's one (equally dissliked by descerning modellers) and this week brought another built and painted in SECR livery, so I too like these lovely little locos. Good luck with yours Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Holliday Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 I am not sure whether it makes any difference, but I have a suspicion that the Terrier kit was originally produced by Loddon Models, so the design intent may be subtly different from a Jidenco original. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamieb Posted February 8, 2011 Author Share Posted February 8, 2011 Thanks guys for the encouragement. I've heard of Loddon Models somewhere Nick, but know nothing about them at all.If the original is one of theirs , it may be a GOOD THING given the Jidenco reputation, will have to see.The brass definitely looks to Jidenco standards when I compare it to a kit of theirs for a Cambrian brake van-flimsy and tarnished.Will try the tip about the acetone, I've got an ancient bottle of Carrs Metal surface conditioner somewhere but this may not be the right way to go. Good advice about building the chassis first.I know this makes sense but in my experience i tend to get bogged down with getting the running smooth and losing interest before tackling the body!But I know and I SHALL do it the proper way round......The hornblock issue isn't as complicated as it seems.I shan't be able to use the front axle hole so rather than try and redrill a lower hole for the carrying axle , I intend to strengthen the inside of the frame front with copperclad PCB and cut a sliding slot for the axle which can then be gapped to insulate.As there are no coupling rods involved, tolerances can be a little bit looser, providing the axle is still at right angles to the frame, or thats the theory.Really I need to get my hands on the chassis to see what tolerances are there and reinforcing where I can ,to stop the whole thing becoming a floppy mess.As for the motor, maybe it will fit the rear axle via a gear extender.We shall see! Jamie Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike morley Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 The Cambrian brake van was the first etched kit I ever built. For years I took it out of the box every so often, whimpered, then put it away again. When I finally plucked up the courage to build it, I discovered that it's not actually all that bad a kit. As has often been mentioned, the instructions are truly appalling, but the only real fault I found with the kit itself was that the half-etched fold lines were very few and far between and frequently in the wrong place. Fortunately, those that were in the wrong place were so far from where they ought to be the error was glaringly obvious. If the Terrier is of similar standard you shouldn't (fingers crossed) go too far wrong and, even if it does all go horribly wrong, £12 is a cheap first rung of the ladder. Good luck! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamieb Posted February 9, 2011 Author Share Posted February 9, 2011 Thanks for that Mike. I too have taken the brake van out a few times over the years, looked at it and put it back again, but am now thinking about building it up as a tester before tackling a loco.As for the Terrier I've dug out a drawing today and test fitted the motor which will just go.It may not be a 1024, been in the spares box for a few years now and lost all original packaging,Also the boiler is 15mm diameter, so a short length of copper pipe may provide a stronger alternative to the flimsy brass etch provided. Jamie Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GC Jack Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 I have managed a few etched brass kits, but the Falcon/Jidenco are a real challenge for anyone.....an aid for scratch building with some very nice lost wax brass fittings... but not a starter kit. If you build the boiler and firebox as directed with the formers, often there is no space for a motor. Perhaps the designer forgot about that bit!!! I would never now make any chassis without my Hobby Holidays jig. I attempted to build a Falcon W class chassis without a jig many years ago. It was completely out of true and never ran. The jig would have enable me to re-drill the axle holes and line them up... but would it be worth it? Easier to scratch build a chassis. Jack Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamieb Posted February 10, 2011 Author Share Posted February 10, 2011 . I would never now make any chassis without my Hobby Holidays jig. Unfortunately ,if I could afford one of those I wouldn't be scraping around trying to make a silk purse out of a sows ear for £12!!!! (Only joking) Jamie Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GC Jack Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 . Unfortunately ,if I could afford one of those I wouldn't be scraping around trying to make a silk purse out of a sows ear for £12!!!! (Only joking) Jamie Hi Jamie, Point taken, they are expensive but I have a limited time for modelling. I like buiding loco kits but they take me endless hours to complete, anything that reduces this is money well spent. I can make a sound chassis in an hour with this. Before it was hit and miss and many hours trying to sort it. I still have some kit locos that occasionaly de-rail because the chassis is probably slightly out. The jig has solved all that in my later builds. Best of luck with the Terrier. Jack Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 No doubt using these jigs etc makes life easier, however simpler tools like the Comet frame assembly jigs are a cheaper alternative for those of us on limited budgets. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Even cheaper are the old fashioned (but still perfectly functional) steel rods and graph paper. I think these jigs all have one big downside - they work but you don't get to understand why things don't work. When the price exceeds the cost of two decent kits (or 10 FB kits) you can soon see why they are regarded as toys for the seriously professional. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Even cheaper are the old fashioned (but still perfectly functional) steel rods and graph paper.... Have stuck to that method of erection with very few problems. I'd rather spend the money on kits. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamieb Posted February 12, 2011 Author Share Posted February 12, 2011 When the price exceeds the cost of two decent kits (or 10 FB kits) Very sharp! I shall be using my trustee Comet jigs which have always done the job in the past.Whilst browsing I came across this post where the OP (Stuartp) has used EM spacing for an OO 0-4-0 chassis, maintaining that it works better in this case as no side play is necessary or desired. http://www.rmweb.co....691#entry325691 Has anyone else experience of this and can they recommend it.With the thin frames on the Terrier it may be an option?Certainly make fitting a gearbox easier. Jamie Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Too much like scratch building for me - and as for mixing that plastic stuff, I've never found it easy to solder. To me a kit is a kit and it should be built as directed to give the model as intended. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach bogie Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 As said by earlier contributions, it is vital to get the chassis built and running first. The main reason being whether it isa brass (ex Loddon) or nickel (Falcon/Jidenco)chassis etch, the frames are not too strong. The most challenging I built were the Bulldog and D15 4-4-0 types as the frames are so short and thin, any distortions in the body caused the chassis to flex and not run true, and that is after adding strengtheners to the frames. Even with a six coupled frames, check the chassis is still square when attaching the body at every stage. An example of this was with the D15, all square until I attached the boiler to the front valve chest, and it twisted the frames. Took some time to pack and realign the boiler to ensure the wheels stayed on the track. The point about wheel sideplay is important. Most RTR have enough sideplay for sharp radii curves. I always check (regardless of kit manufacturer) that the chassis is not tight on my sharpest curve. There are many tricks. The Falcon come with shouldered bearings. Even a fraction of a mil filed away can give enough side play. All depends on your curves. Again, not wishing to get into the 'are Jidenco kits any good?' ( I am biased as I have built several and I see them for what they are, a basic starting point for protoypes no one else produces,as I said on a previous thread ' an etched jamieson') for £12, it is not a great loss if all does not go well. But why should things go wrong? It is brass, if a part does not look right, unsolder it and try again ( I did many times with the D15). Take your time. I usually limit myself to a maximun of an hour and a half an evening. It is amazing how a hopeless situation looks so different the next day. And most of all- enjoy the sense of achievement. Good luck Mike Wiltshire Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 I shall be using my trustee Comet jigs which have always done the job in the past.Whilst browsing I came across this post where the OP (Stuartp) has used EM spacing for an OO 0-4-0 chassis, maintaining that it works better in this case as no side play is necessary or desired. http://www.rmweb.co....691#entry325691 Has anyone else experience of this and can they recommend it.With the thin frames on the Terrier it may be an option?Certainly make fitting a gearbox easier. Jamie Not exactly (because I work in EM), but I have substituted P4 spacers for EM on occasion because all the spacers supplied (by Comet NOTE: Comet have amended their spacers now so that they're a sensible width) were rather too narrow. So long as the frames aren't in the way, there's no problem. Adam Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jol Wilkinson Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 As said by earlier contributions, it is vital to get the chassis built and running first. The main reason being whether it isa brass (ex Loddon) or nickel (Falcon/Jidenco)chassis etch, the frames are not too strong. The most challenging I built were the Bulldog and D15 4-4-0 types as the frames are so short and thin, any distortions in the body caused the chassis to flex and not run true, and that is after adding strengtheners to the frames. Even with a six coupled frames, check the chassis is still square when attaching the body at every stage. An example of this was with the D15, all square until I attached the boiler to the front valve chest, and it twisted the frames. Took some time to pack and realign the boiler to ensure the wheels stayed on the track. Mike Wiltshire Mike, you've hit upon what is probably the biggest, yet least well recognised reason, for poor running of kit built locos. The "body" is usually much torsionally stiffer than the chassis and when they are bolted together will cause the chassis to distort with consequent problems. It was probably less of an issue in the days of solid brass or whitemetal chassis (if you could get them running properly in the first place). My locos are now built with a screw fixing at one end and a "loose mounting" at the other. This can be a small "top hat" spacer which passes through the chassis spacer mounting hole, cut down so that it stops the mounting screw from clamping the chassis solidly to the body by leaving a very small amount of play. I sometimes use a locating "tongue" that simply goes under a spacer, if possible. It only requires about .25mm - .5mm "slack" to stop the chassis distorting. Jol Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_Hughes Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Of course, most of the problems of the rigid body causing the more 'bendy' chassis to twist and bind can be avoided by using springing or compensation; you may end up with a set of different problems as a result however! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 The "body" is usually much torsionally stiffer than the chassis and when they are bolted together will cause the chassis to distort with consequent problems. It was probably less of an issue in the days of solid brass or whitemetal chassis (if you could get them running properly in the first place). I think you are spot on there. That is almost certainly - on reflection - what may have been my problem with this kit. (and quite possibly others of the era) Thiugh in this case the footplate is so flimsy just soldering the valance to it is enough for it to take on a completely different shape. Once you start adding the rest of the superstructure it just gets progressively worse - then bolting another fairly rigid structure, the chassis, to it simply means there is no hope. I would perhaps argue that the footplate is a key component of the kit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.