Kenton Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 And you end up with a unique model. All my models are unique! Uniquely looking nothing like they were supposed to Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Garry D100 Posted March 8, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 8, 2011 All my models are unique! Uniquely looking nothing like they were supposed to Well as long as we are happy with them then thats all that matters. Now....how to get a sound chip in one mmmmm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 There might be a few useful images in this Flickr account http://www.flickr.com/photos/34938158@N02/page2/ Thanks very much - just goes to show that the differences between LA and LB were all internal - either that or some have been incorrectly identified or alterations were made post factory delivery. Overlapping roof - both LA and LB Air intake not on an LA - well just make a hole and stick a big lamp in it (another "to do challenge" for you DCC folk) plain axle covers - LA and LB Oh well, must get on with the Madge kit..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boscarne Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Here's one of Brian Madge's kits that I'm working on, fitted with a 6x10mm motor in place of the 8x16 as supplied. As you can see, cab intrusion is minimal. The etches are by Brian, who also supplies them to Rod Alcock as per the OP. The difference is in the chassis design, Rod uses gear reduction from the motor to the layshaft giving an overall reduction of 29:1. Brian Madge's chassis utilises a belt drive to the layshaft, this provides a reduction of approx 60:1 giving much better slow running. There was an article on these loco's in Roy Link's Review magazine issue32, including drawings of a late build LBT & LBU. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 A very nice build there Boscarne. What is the power like with the smaller motor? The etches are by Brian, who also supplies them to Rod Alcock as per the OP. I'm gathering the confusion I introduced by by hasty post at the start missed the fact that the OP was about a different kit by Rod Alcock. There are subtle differences in the etches used to produce the model in the OP and in the (BM) etches used by you and I to build our models. There was an article on these loco's in Roy Link's Review magazine issue32, including drawings of a late build LBT & LBU. I guess this has passed many by. One has to be first aware of the magazine and then to subscribe to it to have that information. But thanks, I can now go and see if I can find it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Garry D100 Posted March 10, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 10, 2011 Thanks for the picture and information. I sent Brian a mail last weekend but not heard back yet. I think I have a copy of NG&I 32 but would have to try and find it lol. Kenton, if I find it and you require any info from it let me know Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Garry D100 Posted March 10, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 10, 2011 Here's one of Brian Madge's kits that I'm working on, fitted with a 6x10mm motor in place of the 8x16 as supplied. ....Rod uses gear reduction from the motor to the layshaft giving an overall reduction of 29:1. Brian Madge's chassis utilises a belt drive to the layshaft, this provides a reduction of approx 60:1 giving much better slow running. On Brians site he states the bigger motor gave more power and better slow running. As far as the slow running is concerned I wonder then if its more to do with the gearing. In which case I would also be interested in your views on the smaller motors performance. Thanks. Garry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 NG&I 32 That itself is a help, I guess that is Narrow Gauge & Industrial which I have just Googled? It looks like Issue 32 goes way back and is out of print. I'll send off an email anyway in the vague hope. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boscarne Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 There are subtle differences in the etches used to produce the model in the OP and in the (BM) etches used by you and I to build our models. When I asked Brian Madge about the two kits, he didn't mention any differences in the etches. I have however added beading to the cab entrance and (incorrect) rainstrips to the roof. Rod's version looks as if the roof has fold down 'eaves'. Maybe thats the difference? On Brians site he states the bigger motor gave more power and better slow running. As far as the slow running is concerned I wonder then if its more to do with the gearing. In which case I would also be interested in your views on the smaller motors performance. The 6 x 10 motor admittedley has very little torque compared to the 8 x 16, Brian did advise me against using it. The critical factor is the tightness of the drive belt, I eventually settled on a 7.5mm dia from Nigel Lawton, too tight and it struggles to move at all and will quickly overheat, too loose and the motor spins away happily on its own... I did experiment with the larger motor first and the slow running is admittedley much better. However I really wanted to keep the cab clear. At least the smaller motor allows more space for ballast, I've managed to get the weight up to 22g, that's before adding a whitemetal driver and a coat if paint! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 When I asked Brian Madge about the two kits, he didn't mention any differences in the etches. I have however added beading to the cab entrance and (incorrect) rainstrips to the roof. Rod's version looks as if the roof has fold down 'eaves'. Maybe thats the difference? Looking at early images of the prototype there were both rain strips/gutters each side and beading to the entrance - so both in the BM kit are correct. The other difference is the plain vs star axle cover - very pronounced. But I'm now thinking that this is the difference perhaps between early and later etches. I'm also led to believe there are castings for the RA buffer blocks - as opposed to the multi-layer brass sandwich. I think that fold down would be a challenge with n/s, there is certainly not enough material on the etch I had. I have seen photos of one with hand rails added - but almost certainly post-factory alteration. The other thing that seems to vary is the side for the exhaust. The 6 x 10 motor admittedley has very little torque compared to the 8 x 16, Brian did advise me against using it. The critical factor is the tightness of the drive belt, I eventually settled on a 7.5mm dia from Nigel Lawton, too tight and it struggles to move at all and will quickly overheat, too loose and the motor spins away happily on its own... I'm beginning to get used to belt drives - and must say I haven't experienced such problems - yet. At least the smaller motor allows more space for ballast, I've managed to get the weight up to 22g, that's before adding a whitemetal driver and a coat if paint! I think the protrusion of the motor into the can makes it more prototypical. All the cab photos I've seen show that the gearbox occupied much of the floor space for the length of the cab. As awkward as this would have been for the driver. 22g is quite impressive and I'm wondering where I will be able to chuck some lead in. There is no room under the bonnet with the motor already touching, under the roof may offer some possibility but not much as it will be visible. I must add I don't like static crew but I'm probably going to have to give in on this one - still need to find something suitable or hack the body off something. Even so at 4g for the chassis and 10g for the body I have a long way to go. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boscarne Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 I think I've found the difference in the kits, on Brian's site he says that the early model shown was milled from 22thou N/S, not etched, I'm guessing the artwork different at that stage in the kit's development. I just wish that both kits had cast coupler pockets/ ballast weights, that would have made things easier than trying to solder up seven layers... Personally I think that the chassis block is a fair representation of the gearbox intrusion, just add a seat on top and the gear selector in front and it's pretty much the same; http://www.flickr.co...in/photostream/ Mind you, it helps if you fit an under-scale driver figure I was able to get an inverted 'U' of lead into the bonnet along with a sheet under the cab roof and below the rear window, I think I've crammed in as much as possible without it showing. If you're looking for a suitable driver, try Monty's Models / Dart Castings, they do several seated figures that shouln't need too much surgery. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Garry D100 Posted March 11, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 11, 2011 The 6 x 10 motor admittedley has very little torque compared to the 8 x 16, Brian did advise me against using it. The critical factor is the tightness of the drive belt, I eventually settled on a 7.5mm dia from Nigel Lawton, too tight and it struggles to move at all and will quickly overheat, too loose and the motor spins away happily on its own... I did experiment with the larger motor first and the slow running is admittedley much better. However I really wanted to keep the cab clear. At least the smaller motor allows more space for ballast, I've managed to get the weight up to 22g, that's before adding a whitemetal driver and a coat if paint! Thanks for the information Clive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Garry D100 Posted March 11, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 11, 2011 22g is quite impressive and I'm wondering where I will be able to chuck some lead in. There is no room under the bonnet with the motor already touching, under the roof may offer some possibility but not much as it will be visible. I must add I don't like static crew but I'm probably going to have to give in on this one - still need to find something suitable or hack the body off something. Even so at 4g for the chassis and 10g for the body I have a long way to go. Have you considered liquid lead? Its quite fine and fits into all sorts of nooks and crannies. Its suprising how quickly the weight can increase filling in little areas. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Have you considered liquid lead? Yes, The problem is there is no space whatsoever under the bonnet without fouling the belt or making it impossible to separate the chassis from body in the future. The problem of the live motor case touching the body still requires resolution. Space under the roof is tricky and very minimal - remember the Brian Madge kit has no overhang so there is only the curve of the roof before it spills out and becomes rather obvious. There is space inside below the back window for a small sliver but much that far back from the centre of gravity is going to lift the front wheels. The weight issue is a serious problem and leads to the conclusion that the smaller motor would be a better compromise - at least that will leave some space under the bonnet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 For cab images these are the best that I have come across so far: Too much detail for 4mm IMO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Garry D100 Posted March 11, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 11, 2011 The weight issue is a serious problem and leads to the conclusion that the smaller motor would be a better compromise - at least that will leave some space under the bonnet. But if you add weight whilst reducing power could that not cause haulage issues. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 But if you add weight whilst reducing power could that not cause haulage issues. There are also haulage issues if the wheels just spin on the track ... this is a problem with an all etched construction of such a critter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Garry D100 Posted March 11, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 11, 2011 There are also haulage issues if the wheels just spin on the track ... this is a problem with an all etched construction of such a critter. Then what about magnets? They would help traction if you could use magnetic force to grip the track. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
halfwit Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 I'm not sure which variation this is but someone might find these pics interesting; Taken last year at Irchester Railway Museum. Either 3' or more likely metre gauge. If you mess up the bonnet etch all is not lost... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Then what about magnets? They would help traction if you could use magnetic force to grip the track. How so? Where would you place a magnet? Because if you can find space for one on board I could use it for more lead. ... and am I imagining some sort of conflict as it passes over the uncoupling magnets (visions of opposite poles meeting and the Ruston going skywards) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Garry D100 Posted March 11, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 11, 2011 How so? Where would you place a magnet? Because if you can find space for one on board I could use it for more lead. ... and am I imagining some sort of conflict as it passes over the uncoupling magnets (visions of opposite poles meeting and the Ruston going skywards) I think I was thinking of magnetising the wheels. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 I think I was thinking of magnetising the wheels. But Peco track is nickel-silver? (and i have no idea what composition the wheels are) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Garry D100 Posted March 11, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 11, 2011 But Peco track is nickel-silver? (and i have no idea what composition the wheels are) I had not thought of that. I was just throwing ideas around lol Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 ... and there is even less space at the back of the cab than I first realised as I forgot those great big bolts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boscarne Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 The wheels are not magnetic, and don't appear to be plated, so I'm assuming they're Nickel Silver. That's magnetic assisance out then.... I think that getting reasonable performance is always going to be a compromise to some extent. At least the 'small motor-bonnet full of lead' option should help with power pick-up. Kenton, you have a PM from me . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.