The future of loco kit building

[N15class]

And if it is a scale 9 inches wide it is right.

 

Dimension form GA drawing as published in LMS locomotive Profiles, No14 The Standard Class 3 Freight Tank Engines, Hunt, Essey and Jennison, Wild Swan Publications, 2010.

If it protrudes 9 inches from the frame (3mm), the outside edge of it on a oo gauge frame will be the wrong distance from the edge of the running plate so in effect will be in the wrong place.

[Clive Mortimore]

If it protrudes 9 inches from the frame (3mm), the outside edge of it on a oo gauge frame will be the wrong distance from the edge of the running plate so in effect will be in the wrong place.

 

No they will be in the right place behind the coupling rods. Adrian's problem was they had been made over scale width owing to the distance from frame to coupling rod being too great. When he used a closer to scale wheel and frame arrangement they fouled the coupling rod.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LMS_0-6-0T_3F_locomotive,_16564_%28CJ_Allen,_Steel_Highway,_1928%29.jpg

[Metropolitan]

The answer is either to make the frames narrower, so that there is more side play on the axles. Or more prototypically use check rails on the problem curves.

 

 

Actually all you need to do in most cases is file back the bearing flanges. Do any Kit Instructions mention this? Do they hell.

[N15class]

No they will be in the right place behind the coupling rods. Adrian's problem was they had been made over scale width owing to the distance from frame to coupling rod being too great. When he used a closer to scale wheel and frame arrangement they fouled the coupling rod.

http://en.wikipedia....hway,_1928).jpg

From the frames to the coupling rod is far greater in oo than em and p4. so in oo it would still be wrong it would sit too far behind the coupling rod, instead of almost if not flush with the outside of the wheels. If you made it so it was correctly possitioned for oo it would be too deep for em and p4 hence the need for different parts.

[Clive Mortimore]

From the frames to the coupling rod is far greater in oo than em and p4. so in oo it would still be wrong it would sit too far behind the coupling rod, instead of almost if not flush with the outside of the wheels. If you made it so it was correctly possitioned for oo it would be too deep for em and p4 hence the need for different parts.

 

Hi Adrian

 

If it was a scale model then the sandboxes would be the right size irrespective of it being O or S7. Making things too big for appearance in one gauge and then building the model in another one is not a problem with the kit. If it was sold as buildable in both gauges then yes it is a problem.

 

Different castings are not required, may be a packing piece should someone want over width sandboxes for appearance sake.

Not all 00 modellers need to have a lot of side play as they do not use very tight curves.

 

I think you will find that most 00 modellers no longer use Tri-ang steam roller wheels.

 

 

Hi Peter

 

Any manufacturer reading this must be either worried he is never going to sell anything or laughing at us because he can give us any rubbish he wants to as none of us will build it as intended.

 

As we seem to be going round in circles I am out of here.

[Donw]

I have a GWR railmotor which was built by someone else some years ago. The valve gear had got rather worn and it jammed. The wheels had been adapted from wagon wheels (proper ones not readily available then) with a shaped piece of brass soldered on to make the crank. This came off on one side and I had to refix it I realised that the precise angle of quartering was not essential. However the precise throw was more critical. I lined the cranks up on the side needing fixing at 3 o clock with the one needing fixing on the left. A touch of flux and the iron and to my surprise it worked. I am convinced 0-4-0s are more forgiving than an 0-6-0 with respect to quartering.

Fortunately my friend Steve later took the Railmotor away and bushed all the valve gear so the problem could not re-occour

Don.

[t-b-g]

It all sounds a bit like - 'It's my trainset and I'll defy the laws of physics if I want'

 

I didn't realise that I had managed to defy the laws of physics! Wow!

 

I just thought I got an awkward loco round a too tight curve.

 

I will ask my daughter (the one with the physics with engineering degree) to expain why I only imagined that it works.

 

The one thing that I have learned about this hobby is that there is never just one way to achieve something and that anybody who tries to tell you that there is only one way (which is naturally "their" way) is not somebody I would want to take any notice of.

 

That is one of the joys of a good discussion like this on a forum like RMWeb. Apart from a few people who seem to think that they know better than everybody else, it is a wonderful platform to exchange views about the hobby.

 

One final point on quartering. I have always found a 4 coupled is the easiest to get right. Worst case scenario is the you have to adjust one wheel.

[tender]

 

yes the difference to the out side of the wheels between em an oo is about the same

 

Now I'm confused.

[t-b-g]

Actually all you need to do in most cases is file back the bearing flanges. Do any Kit Instructions mention this? Do they hell.

 

Nearly every kit I have built has frames so narrow that they need washers anyway. I have built several and used P4 frame spacers supplied for an EM loco and still had to use washers. The problem with increasing side play allowing wheels to catch on splashers still applies though.

[N15class]

Shouldn't this thread be re titled

The Future of Steam Locomotive Kit Buidling

 

 

See I didntssay kettle at all them...whoops

Aye, but you can't get a decent cuppa out o' one.

[N15class]

Now I'm confused.

From what I remember the em wheels are thinner than oo ones, so the difference in back to back measurements leads to the overall width being fairly close.

[N15class]

Over here in Brazil getting a cup of tea is hard. They have alsorts of coloured and flowery teas. The closest I have found is black tea that comes out a sort of beige colour.

[BG John]

From what I remember the em wheels are thinner than oo ones, so the difference in back to back measurements leads to the overall width being fairly close.

According to the BRMSB standards as shown in the Model Railway Handbook 7th Edition, from 1963/4 ish, 00 and EM wheels are exactly the same. It was the RTR stuff of the time, like Tri-ang that was much wider. However, my only 00 loco, a Triang Lord of the Isles from the 60s, is a fair bit wider over the wheels than the loco with EM Romfords I checked it against. I haven't got the latest standards to hand, so can't check what's happened over the last 50 years!

[colin penfold]

wouldn't it be a great opportunity for one of the mainstream magazines to commission “their” kit and run a number of articles on its design and construction?

 

I think you have a point. The nearest I ever got to having a go at scratchbuilding was when MRJ did their manning wardle project. Step by step in the magazine, easy packaged up supplies on sale. Come on BRM - articles in the mag talking us through, link up with some manufacturers and retailers to market the kit and other parts, and an RM Web challenge to showcase people actually doing it.

 

Might just convert a new load of kit builders......

 

 

 

 

edited to remove duplicate text

[billbedford]

P4 and EM wheels have similar dimensions over the front faces at around 22mm. OO wheels come out narrower at around 20 mm.

[tender]

P4 and EM wheels have similar dimensions over the front faces at around 22mm. OO wheels come out narrower at around 20 mm.

 

Thanks for the confirmation Bill, I'm just about to embark on my first non 00 gauge kit and thought I'd missed something.

Will be having a chat with the people on the EMGS and scalefour stands at Worley before deciding which way to go.

Ray

[N15class]

P4 and EM wheels have similar dimensions over the front faces at around 22mm. OO wheels come out narrower at around 20 mm.

Thanks Bill

It has been a few years since I made any 4mm models.. Think my mind is getting fuddled. I knew 2 where close I of coarse picked the wrong 2.

[t-b-g]

Not sure what thats got to do with owt......its often them with degrees that over complicate stuff in reality

 

She might be able to explain which laws of physics I broke and why my trains still run despite it.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Joseph,

 

that's the last thing we need, another bl**dy wishlist. We've already seen that many of the contributors to this thread can't agee on anything.

 

It needs one or more enthusiastic individuals to take up the challenge. That's how most of the "small suppliers" that provide the kits of all varieties got started, usually because they wanted something that wasn't already available and were willing to make the effort to get it.

 

Jol

 

I was being ironic.

[t-b-g]

Fair enough....But my old man could tell me them, and put em to some use, wi out a degree to his name.....there seems to be too much of this "i got a degree" idea" to me, better to "do"in academia than "think" how to actually do seems to be the thing these days

 

Couldn't agree more. An ounce of practical common sense is worth a ton of theory in my book. I can look at some stuff produced for model railways and wonder if we don't sometimes go a bit OTT. Massively complex calculations of spring positions, lengths etc. I bet that 99.9% of people never bother with such things and the 0.1% of people who do bother don't see any difference because they did!

 

I have seen sprung, beam compensated and rigid model railway locos and vehicles which work and also which don't work. It is more down to common sense and the correct application of the chosen system rather than any dogmatic "this is the best way" approach.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I think you have a point. The nearest I ever got to having a go at scratchbuilding was when MRJ did their manning wardle project. Step by step in the magazine, easy packaged up supplies on sale. Come on BRM - articles in the mag talking us through, link up with some manufacturers and retailers to market the kit and other parts, and an RM Web challenge to showcase people actually doing it.

 

Might just convert a new load of kit builders......

 

 

 

 

edited to remove duplicate text

 

An industrial might actually be the best choice. Since there were no easy-to-build (i.e. inside cylinder) BR Standard locos, there is nothing that ran on the BR network which would have universal appeal. An industrial just might as could be used on many layouts.

 

And most industrials don't have splashers, removing one of the "gauge war" issues so practitioners in all gauges could build it.

[Donw]

An industrial might actually be the best choice. Since there were no easy-to-build (i.e. inside cylinder) BR Standard locos, there is nothing that ran on the BR network which would have universal appeal. An industrial just might as could be used on many layouts.

 

And most industrials don't have splashers, removing one of the "gauge war" issues so practitioners in all gauges could build it.

 

That probably explains Ixion choice of 0 gauge loco.

Don

[James]

In fact I know P4 modellers who use tighter curves than I would.

 

We have 6" radius curves in P4

[MJI]

An industrial might actually be the best choice. Since there were no easy-to-build (i.e. inside cylinder) BR Standard locos, there is nothing that ran on the BR network which would have universal appeal. An industrial just might as could be used on many layouts.

 

And most industrials don't have splashers, removing one of the "gauge war" issues so practitioners in all gauges could build it.

 

0-4-0 T with side tanks would be a good idea, small, no panniers or saddles to form.

[coachmann]

From what I remember the em wheels are thinner than oo ones, so the difference in back to back measurements leads to the overall width being fairly close.

Regarding wheels and dimensions over the outside rim, one can occasionally convert a 00 gauge bogie to P4 wheels where EM gauge wheels would be a tight fit or not fit in at all. This is due to P4 wheels being much slimmer than EM wheels that are often 00 wheels spaced out to EM.

 

As regards kits, I would be in the market for a L&Y 3F & Tender bodyline kit to fit on the Bachmann MR 3F chassis. Doesnt matter to me whether its whitemetal, etched brass or resin.....Bodyline kits are a boon for those of us who find chassis building boring.