Wright writes.....

[salmonpastures]

It must have been a personal thing but a spitfire pilot that I knew who flew in Burma reckoned that the Packard Merlins were better than the R-R ones.  I'm not qualified to have an opinion.

 

Jamie

Neither am I Jamie and for sure taste is a very personal thing,,, can't be many USAAF types who didn't rate the Packard Merlins in various Mustangs,,,

 

SAD

[Clive Mortimore]

I have never yet seen a model suspension system that accurately replicates how the real things moved through pointwork simply because we cannot scale the momentum and mass. Plus we don't, as a rule, have the equivalent to the suspension between a bogie and carriage body. I remember watching real carriages going over track joints and marvelling at the way the track went down, the axleboxes moved in the bogie frame and the bogie rocked about under the carriage yet the body just seemed to glide along.

 

Edited

Hi Tony

 

I read this paragraph and started to think about the times I have been rocked all over the place as a train travels over the points......who is going to make model passengers that rock and roll when the train hits the point work. :dontknow:

Edited May 31, 2015 by Clive Mortimore

[APOLLO]

I suspect that the benefit of working in Factories without too much risk of getting a bomb dropped on yer 'ead probably helped somewhat.....

 

polybear

 

p.s. Not meant in a nasty way whatsoever.

 

No offence taken Polybear.

 

USAF Burtonwood was one of the largest military airfields in the UK in WW2 and was the target of several Luftwaffe "visits", Fairly risky spot to work at in WW2, though I don't know if it suffered any substantial air raid damage. Certainly nearby Liverpool suffered quite a bit.

 

Brit15

[Market65]

Hi. Regarding carriage suspensions. Back in January, 1979, I had a journey from Hull to York via Selby in a 2 car class 108 DMU. Sat behind the Driver, we reached Melton Halt. Here, in those days, was a diamond crossing, taking a track from the sidings across the up main. Well we passed over that diamond with a very great vertical jolt - both I and the Driver temporarily left our seats. Inspite of that we just carried on with the journey. I know that the class 108's were 'lightweight' units, and whether that would have had an effect upon the 'ride' that day I cannot really say, but I've certainly had some very lively rides in class 108 DMU's!  Maybe the single bolster type bogies used in the majority of 'first - generation' units would also have made it's contribution. The diamond crossing I'm not sure about since I recall very little about it, but maybe there was a 'roughness' about it.

 

So possibly a combination of track defects and suspension systems can lead to rough riding. Or maybe just the suspension  - i.e. classes 142/3/4!

 

All the best,

 

Market65.

Edited May 31, 2015 by Market65

[APOLLO]

My Hornby LMS 2-6-4T's with their solid cast chassis and dyslexic bogie and pony trucks bump and bang around on my equally unforgiving glued & ballasted track to the extent that the trucks literally leap off the track if joints aren't perfect. Alongside is a test length of Peco in sponge inlay and because of my laziness there is an almost half-inch gap on one rail. The 2-6-4T's float over the gap with barely an audible click! Uncanny.   Motto:  Spring your track and b*llocks to the chassis.....It's easier.

 

Have to agree Coach. My OO loft layout uses Peco code 100 track pinned to Peco foam underlay on 1/2" insulation board laid over 1/2" chipboard. Trains run very well, even long goods trains of 4 wheel mixed plastic / metal wheels. However my O gauge track is pinned directly onto 1/2" insulation board laid over 1/2" chipboard, ballasted loosely with bird grit / aquarium sand (not glued at all). Again the trains run fairly well on this rigid track which in places undulates a bit. All my "O" stuff is easy running N American outline bogie stock, and many have a "loose" bogie one end with a tighter fitting one on the other, a sort of compensation which helps to improve running. A lot also have sprung bogies (coil springs) and a few heavy metal cars also have secondary springing between the bogie and car frame. These track and run superbly.

 

Kadee couplings are also a boon, though not all my stuff is Kadee fitted, a long term project that will probably never reach completion. I've never modelled in UK O scale, the thought of 3 links, 4 wheel stock, rigid ballasted track and 20ft long trains coupled with my skill level - well, for me it would be problematic to say the least. (Yes it does work - I've seen many fine running UK "O" gauge at Exhibitions !).

 

It's not all perfect though - I have several "bad order" cars awaiting adjustments / repairs. And when I have a derailment it's usually a 15 minute clear up job, 20+ cars  in long tunnels, just out of reach etc, Most derailments are track joint / point related. A tweak or two and its fixed till the next time, hopefully somewhere else - usually out of sight. The layout running improves a bit though, year on year. 

 

Brit15

[Tony Wright]

As Tony Gee has said, we cannot scale the momentum or the mass of the prototype. So, we just aim for good running. In my view that's smooth starts, no jerking, no stuttering and no derailments. 

 

Today, I ran a pair of brand new solid chassis round Little Bytham. One was a J69, the other a C2, the former on the Up slow the latter on the Down slow. Including the fiddle yard points, the J69 had to negotiate ten points/crossings and the C2 eight in their respective circuits. Both were set to a very slow speed (a crawl, less than a scale walking pace). Both were so quiet that we (Ian Wilson was installing mock-up station buildings) wondered where they both were at times. I didn't time how long it took for each one to go around the 90 odd feet (how many CMEs were knighted for how slowly their locos ran?), but it certainly was some time. Neither stuttered, stalled, jerked or derailed. At one juncture I slowed the J69 to such a crawl that the wheels were only just rotating. Rigid chassis, jig-assembled, Romford/Markits all round and a DJH motor gearbox in the pair. Both had no more than their footplates fitted as ballast and the loudest noise was made by the C2's bogie wheels and pony wheels crossing gaps. I wish I could post moving footage. Springing/compensating both would have added time to the build for no advantage in running. I stick with what I know. 

[Andy Reichert]

It's not really a case of scaling down being impossible. Acceleration equals Force/Mass. So if your vehicles are heavier and you can also reduce the sizes of the forces acting on them, they are going to bump far less, move smaller distances and rock 'n roll more slowly. Gravity doesn't scale down, but much of the body movement has to do with the ratio of spring rates to mass, rather than gravity acting downwards as on a pendulum.

The model engineering work to help improve things can actually be quite simple. For example, the equalization of  bogie wheels will reduce the displacement of the body bolster going over a  short single bump or dip by a factor of 4. Then if you just put some body springing on the bolster itself, the bogie movement will be delayed as the spring takes up the slack until the force can move the body. If the vehicle is travelling faster, the force on the body may be reversed before the body even has moved enough to be noticed.

I think the issue with most traditional methods of assembling model suspension is that it is expected to be able to be put together with lots of metalwork hand craftsmanship. So the traditional model mechanical designs needed to control suspension movement actually require multiple instances of precision fitting and often fettling, and finally complicated assembly of a large number of tiny parts that when put all together must still end up with overall tight tolerances. That's where I believe that a few alternative manufactured parts and some different design approaches should be able make model suspension quicker and easy to implement, as well as far less expensive and consistently accurate
 

Edited May 31, 2015 by Andy Reichert

[Andy Reichert]

https://youtu.be/dzqtMK45ncY

 

Just noticed this video on the APT-E thread.

 

Some track instigated fast wobble at 0.28 s and 1.02 s.

[t-b-g]

Hi Tony

 

I read this paragraph and started to think about the times I have been rocked all over the place as a train travels over the points......who is going to make model passengers that rock and roll when the train hits the point work. :dontknow:

 

Perhaps I should have said that the carriage body appeared to be gliding along in comparison with what was bouncing about underneath!

 

Memories come back of attempts to carry drinks back from the Buffet car to a seat maybe three or four carriages away.

 

No wonder they put handrails down the corridors.

 

Are some of us (me included!) in danger of getting too precious about smooth running?

[AndyID]

It's all very well adding springs, but if you really want to follow prototype practice, you better include some sort of dampers to prevent "kangaroo" action.

[jrg1]

It's all very well adding springs, but if you really want to follow prototype practice, you better include some sort of dampers to prevent "kangaroo" action.

This brings back vivid memories of Leyland buses with the incredible Hydrolastic suspension-speed along, hit a bump, bounce for the next quarter of a mile.

[Clive Mortimore]

This discussion regarding fixed or sprung chassis seems to becoming from those in both camps that can build a chassis square and with the axles in the right place. Please spare a thought for those who do not have this skill.

 

What might be a good idea is a thread explaining all methods and how to achieve a chassis that will work. A thread where the modellers explain how they arrive at a working model not one where they say mine is the only way.

 

 

 

 

P.S. I find I cannot get kit chassis to run well but my home made hand built bodges will run in a fashion represeting almost smoothness.

[t-b-g]

This discussion regarding fixed or sprung chassis seems to becoming from those in both camps that can build a chassis square and with the axles in the right place. Please spare a thought for those who do not have this skill.

 

What might be a good idea is a thread explaining all methods and how to achieve a chassis that will work. A thread where the modellers explain how they arrive at a working model not one where they say mine is the only way.

 

 

 

 

P.S. I find I cannot get kit chassis to run well but my home made hand built bodges will run in a fashion represeting almost smoothness.

 

There have been plenty of articles and books written covering such things. I can recommend Roy Jackson's "Locomotives of Dunwich" articles in MRJ ()partly cos I helped him with them!). There have been two, covering rigid and beam compensated frames. A third was written on springing but hasn't appeared as yet.

 

The notion that it is easier to get a floppy chassis to run smoothly compared to a rigid one is something that had never even crossed my mind as my personal experience is quite the opposite. If your axles are not square across the frames, you may be in trouble whichever method you adopt.

 

I am not sure that anybody has been suggesting that there is only one way to make a loco run well. Just some different personal preferences. 

[coachmann]

In the equation, it is well to remember that real track is floating and flexible, not nailed of glued down to something unyielding.

[jrg1]

This discussion regarding fixed or sprung chassis seems to becoming from those in both camps that can build a chassis square and with the axles in the right place. Please spare a thought for those who do not have this skill.

 

What might be a good idea is a thread explaining all methods and how to achieve a chassis that will work. A thread where the modellers explain how they arrive at a working model not one where they say mine is the only way.

 

 

 

 

P.S. I find I cannot get kit chassis to run well but my home made hand built bodges will run in a fashion represeting almost smoothness.

 

LOCOMOTIVE KIT CHASSIS CONSTRUCTION IN 4MM   1 874103 10 0

 Iain Rice's Wild Swan book is an excellent place to start-very practical, informative and lots of information.  Guy William's collection of articles on locomotive building produced as an Ian Allan book some years ago I would also recommend.  What started me off appeared in the RM by Frank Crudass.  His description of a chassis for an SR 2-6-0 appeared in the sixties, and is just as relevant today.  The idea of the middle axle floating in a sprung tube was also described by Guy Williams.

I have tried using dummy axles setting centres with the coupling rods, but to really ensure alignment, I feel Chassis2Chassis is an investment worth considering.  

 

The easiest way to build a rigid chassis is to have a flat frame top parallel with the driving axle hole centres.  Set up the first hole in a drill press, and clamp a straight edge against the frame top.  Using a small pilot drill, drill the hole, move the frames to the next hole (Slide along the straight edge) and repeat.  Finally drill undersize, and then ream out for bearings.

 

As an aside, Queensland Railways permanent way deteriorated so much at one stage, that the solution adapted was..........deeper flanges.  Wonder if they had a contract with Romfords? 

[Clem]

Hi all,

I have been reading the chassis debate with interest. It is relevant to me at the moment. For the last couple of months, I have been struggling somewhat with the first rigid chassis build I've attempted in a long time (thanks for the Markits wheels, Tony - I'd have been doomed without them!). To be fair the loco in question is a Little Engines O4/8 with insufficient clearances for OO never mind EM, the gauge I'm building it in. The problems encountered have probably been much more to do with making a chassis work which was clearly not designed with EM in mind. However, with the debate in mind, the conclusions I've come to so far are:

1. It's all about confidence. Having spoken to people about this in the past, most find a method of construction they feel comfortable with and it's the confidence of following a proven routine that determines their preferences.

2. No method is right or wrong. The proof of the pudding etc. If it runs well then it's the right method. Certainly, in my experience both rigid and sprung/compenated have their advantages both in running and building. 

3. Choice of wheels for me would be the biggest factor in choice of chassis construction. I would worry much more about constructing a rigid chassis with Gibson or Ultrascale wheels than with Markits. Push-on wheels that require quartering generally don't take kindly to disassembling and reassembling but this is completely avoided using sprung compenated chassis construction as the wheel sets can simply be dropped out without having to take the wheels apart. So I would probably look at doing sprung or compensated for a chassis with these wheels, whereas for a rigid chassis Markits can be taken off and put back on as often as you want. (Believe me, that's happened a few times with the O4/8!). Of course, the need for removing wheels in a chassis build tends to be avoided when following one's usual, well-worn method.

4. My chassis construction skills are not the best!! 

 

Having said all the above, building this rigid chassis has been a good, if sometimes difficult experience. I've certainly felt outside of my comfort zone.  I'm sure I will build further rigid chassis in the future, but in the main, I suspect I will continue to be a non-rigid chassis builder. For me, it's the knowledge that I can simply get two strips of brass and after bolting together, without being super accurate, I can cut slots for the drivers without worrying that the axleholes are all in line and, when jigged up and spaced,  use the coupling rod jigs to solder in the hornblock guides pretty well guaranteeing the accuracy required for good running, knowing that, with the use of a small screwdriver,a little fine tuning will can be made to adjust to the correct ride height if required.

 

Post script:  I have found that I have a slight rock on the rigid chassis (a la Bachmann J11!). Not sure how it happended - checked for squareness early on. This makes it stall on some pointwork (particularly single slip). Possibly built in at the stage where the top hat bearings are soldered in. This is where a lack of experience in rigid chassis building has found me out. If it had been a sprung chassis I could have tweaked it in. As it is, because it runs ok, I'll cure it by adding extra pickups in the tender.

 

Here's a picture of my current nemesis! (btw I must say I do like Graeme King's O1 chimneys)

 

Clem

[jrg1]

 

Hi all,

I have been reading the chassis debate with interest. It is relevant to me at the moment. For the last couple of months, I have been struggling somewhat with the first rigid chassis build I've attempted in a long time (thanks for the Markits wheels, Tony - I'd have been doomed without them!). To be fair the loco in question is a Little Engines O4/8 with insufficient clearances for OO never mind EM, the gauge I'm building it in. The problems encountered have probably been much more to do with making a chassis work which was clearly not designed with EM in mind. However, with the debate in mind, the conclusions I've come to so far are:

1. It's all about confidence. Having spoken to people about this in the past, most find a method of construction they feel comfortable with and it's the confidence of following a proven routine that determines their preferences.

2. No method is right or wrong. The proof of the pudding etc. If it runs well then it's the right method. Certainly, in my experience both rigid and sprung/compenated have their advantages both in running and building. 

3. Choice of wheels for me would be the biggest factor in choice of chassis construction. I would worry much more about constructing a rigid chassis with Gibson or Ultrascale wheels than with Markits. Push-on wheels that require quartering generally don't take kindly to disassembling and reassembling but this is completely avoided using sprung compenated chassis construction as the wheel sets can simply be dropped out without having to take the wheels apart. So I would probably look at doing sprung or compensated for a chassis with these wheels, whereas for a rigid chassis Markits can be taken off and put back on as often as you want. (Believe me, that's happened a few times with the O4/8!). Of course, the need for removing wheels in a chassis build tends to be avoided when following one's usual, well-worn method.

4. My chassis construction skills are not the best!! 

 

Having said all the above, building this rigid chassis has been a good, if sometimes difficult experience. I've certainly felt outside of my comfort zone.  I'm sure I will build further rigid chassis in the future, but in the main, I suspect I will continue to be a non-rigid chassis builder. For me, it's the knowledge that I can simply get two strips of brass and after bolting together, without being super accurate, I can cut slots for the drivers without worrying that the axleholes are all in line and, when jigged up and spaced,  use the coupling rod jigs to solder in the hornblock guides pretty well guaranteeing the accuracy required for good running, knowing that, with the use of a small screwdriver,a little fine tuning will can be made to adjust to the correct ride height if required.

 

Post script:  I have found that I have a slight rock on the rigid chassis (a la Bachmann J11!). Not sure how it happended - checked for squareness early on. This makes it stall on some pointwork (particularly single slip). Possibly built in at the stage where the top hat bearings are soldered in. This is where a lack of experience in rigid chassis building has found me out. If it had been a sprung chassis I could have tweaked it in. As it is, because it runs ok, I'll cure it by adding extra pickups in the tender.

 

Here's a picture of my current nemesis! (btw I must say I do like Graeme King's O1 chimneys)

 

Clem

 

If you can get that far with a Little Engines kit Clem, you are doing very well!  Looks good, and no doubt will be an example of Colwick's finest?

[Tony Wright]

 

Hi all,

I have been reading the chassis debate with interest. It is relevant to me at the moment. For the last couple of months, I have been struggling somewhat with the first rigid chassis build I've attempted in a long time (thanks for the Markits wheels, Tony - I'd have been doomed without them!). To be fair the loco in question is a Little Engines O4/8 with insufficient clearances for OO never mind EM, the gauge I'm building it in. The problems encountered have probably been much more to do with making a chassis work which was clearly not designed with EM in mind. However, with the debate in mind, the conclusions I've come to so far are:

1. It's all about confidence. Having spoken to people about this in the past, most find a method of construction they feel comfortable with and it's the confidence of following a proven routine that determines their preferences.

2. No method is right or wrong. The proof of the pudding etc. If it runs well then it's the right method. Certainly, in my experience both rigid and sprung/compenated have their advantages both in running and building. 

3. Choice of wheels for me would be the biggest factor in choice of chassis construction. I would worry much more about constructing a rigid chassis with Gibson or Ultrascale wheels than with Markits. Push-on wheels that require quartering generally don't take kindly to disassembling and reassembling but this is completely avoided using sprung compenated chassis construction as the wheel sets can simply be dropped out without having to take the wheels apart. So I would probably look at doing sprung or compensated for a chassis with these wheels, whereas for a rigid chassis Markits can be taken off and put back on as often as you want. (Believe me, that's happened a few times with the O4/8!). Of course, the need for removing wheels in a chassis build tends to be avoided when following one's usual, well-worn method.

4. My chassis construction skills are not the best!! 

 

Having said all the above, building this rigid chassis has been a good, if sometimes difficult experience. I've certainly felt outside of my comfort zone.  I'm sure I will build further rigid chassis in the future, but in the main, I suspect I will continue to be a non-rigid chassis builder. For me, it's the knowledge that I can simply get two strips of brass and after bolting together, without being super accurate, I can cut slots for the drivers without worrying that the axleholes are all in line and, when jigged up and spaced,  use the coupling rod jigs to solder in the hornblock guides pretty well guaranteeing the accuracy required for good running, knowing that, with the use of a small screwdriver,a little fine tuning will can be made to adjust to the correct ride height if required.

 

Post script:  I have found that I have a slight rock on the rigid chassis (a la Bachmann J11!). Not sure how it happended - checked for squareness early on. This makes it stall on some pointwork (particularly single slip). Possibly built in at the stage where the top hat bearings are soldered in. This is where a lack of experience in rigid chassis building has found me out. If it had been a sprung chassis I could have tweaked it in. As it is, because it runs ok, I'll cure it by adding extra pickups in the tender.

 

Here's a picture of my current nemesis! (btw I must say I do like Graeme King's O1 chimneys)

 

Clem

 

Good stuff Clem. 

 

You must arrange another visit over here and I'll take a picture or two of the O4/8 if I may, please.

 

Carrying on with the debate regarding rigid and compensated/sprung chassis, perhaps the following pictures illustrate how I get my rigid chassis dead square and true.

 

 

This is the Brassmasters' 0-8-4T which I 'solidified' using the old dodge of passing lengths of one eighth steel rod through the bearings, shining a light on the whole thing and 'reading' the shadows and adjusting the bearings until everything is dead true and parallel. Then, a tack of solder, check, then another tack, and so on, finally soldering everything up neatly and tidily. As designed, in my opinion, the whole chassis was unnecessarily complicated, needing expertise far greater than mine to get it to go properly. 

 

 

Here's a Jamieson V2 chassis, held together using the firm's jig. Comet makes a similar device. One just clamps everything together, tightening the bolts against the turned aluminium spacers inside. Spacers are then inserted and soldered in place. Everything is automatically dead-square.  When complete, the jig is just removed.

 

 

 

The same device, minus the aluminium spacers, can be used to assemble a Comet set of V2 frames. 

 

All of these will form future articles in BRM. 

 

I agree, there is a danger in becoming 'obsessed' with good running, however it's described. All I'd say is, I'd derive no pleasure at all in having friends round where I was forever having to 'apologise' for things going wrong on my railway and, worse still, having to ask them to fix things for me all the time. As I said before, I stick with what I know works - for me, at least. 

[Clem]

If you can get that far with a Little Engines kit Clem, you are doing very well!  Looks good, and no doubt will be an example of Colwick's finest?

Thanks.  Yes, it's going to be 63873. I've been working from a picture taken at West Hallam in early September 1955 where she's clean, black, fresh out of works having just been converted from an O4/3. The kink in the sanding linkage above the long rear splasher was on the photo!

 

Good stuff Clem. 

 

You must arrange another visit over here and I'll take a picture or two of the O4/8 if I may, please.

 

Carrying on with the debate regarding rigid and compensated/sprung chassis, perhaps the following pictures illustrate how I get my rigid chassis dead square and true.

 

0-8-4T 03.jpg

 

This is the Brassmasters' 0-8-4T which I 'solidified' using the old dodge of passing lengths of one eighth steel rod through the bearings, shining a light on the whole thing and 'reading' the shadows and adjusting the bearings until everything is dead true and parallel. Then, a tack of solder, check, then another tack, and so on, finally soldering everything up neatly and tidily. As designed, in my opinion, the whole chassis was unnecessarily complicated, needing expertise far greater than mine to get it to go properly. 

 

Jamieson V2 02.jpg

 

Here's a Jamieson V2 chassis, held together using the firm's jig. Comet makes a similar device. One just clamps everything together, tightening the bolts against the turned aluminium spacers inside. Spacers are then inserted and soldered in place. Everything is automatically dead-square.  When complete, the jig is just removed.

 

King V2 05.jpg

 

The same device, minus the aluminium spacers, can be used to assemble a Comet set of V2 frames. 

 

All of these will form future articles in BRM. 

 

I agree, there is a danger in becoming 'obsessed' with good running, however it's described. All I'd say is, I'd derive no pleasure at all in having friends round where I was forever having to 'apologise' for things going wrong on my railway and, worse still, having to ask them to fix things for me all the time. As I said before, I stick with what I know works - for me, at least. 

Hi Tony. Yes, I'll come over with it when it's structurally finished. (Still working on the far side connecting rod/piston/slide bars :-)  .... Don't ask about the sequence of building - you'd be wringing your hands with disgust. But there have been reasons.... ) - Hopefully, I can get back on to the coach conversions later this week with any luck and pop over sometime after that if it's ok with you. 

[Porcy Mane]

It's all very well adding springs, but if you really want to follow prototype practice, you better include some sort of dampers to prevent "kangaroo" action.

Bill Bedford/Masokits et al type wagon suspension units have damping inherent in their design. It comes from the friction between the bearing carrier and the rear face of the W iron. The damping action works in a very similar way that the friction between individual leaves of a wagon spring smooth out oscillations.

 

P

[Michael Delamar]

Tony, just wondering if you or anyone here has built this kit before, a Westward T9.

 

I was asked to build it by a workmate but its proving to be a bit crud and some bits are missing, particularly parts for the tender and its chassis.

Its also very nose heavy.

 

[stewartingram]

As an aside, Queensland Railways permanent way deteriorated so much at one stage, that the solution adapted was..........deeper flanges.  Wonder if they had a contract with Romfords? 

 

I heard it was Lima

 

Stewart

[Theakerr]

On at least one Little Engines kit the centre wheels were a smidgen high.  This may sound like sacrilege to the experts here but I solved it by getting a round needle file and just taking a little out of the top of the top hat bearing.  Now it was 00, so it is a bit more forgiving than P4 or EM but it worked and still running well after 20+ years. 

20 years.tiff

[Tony Wright]

Tony, just wondering if you or anyone here has built this kit before, a Westward T9.

 

I was asked to build it by a workmate but its proving to be a bit crud and some bits are missing, particularly parts for the tender and its chassis.

Its also very nose heavy.

 

image.jpg

Michael,

 

Thanks for posting.

 

I've never built the Westward T9 but I've built one or two other Westward locos in the past. Lumpen, I'd say, and, if my memory serves, one or two had a solid milled-brass chassis with an XO4 cut-out. Hopeless for altering and impossible to solder brake rigging to! The best of luck..........

 

 

DJH are the best all-round kits in my view, similar to SE Finecast, though with more etched parts. This is the Klondike being built in EM for Paul Bason in exchange for his building of the Willoughby Arms. It's now been completed subsequent to my taking this picture, apart from the motion - that'll go on after painting. A mate grit-blasted it today (thanks Ray) and it came up beautifully - all the soldering/flux residue came off, making my work look unusually neat. It gives a good base for painting, too. I'm now well-on with the OO version for Grantham. 

 

 

Good though they are, beware the DJH pitfalls. Such as the tender having one too many coal rails. I merrily soldered all the rails on, then examined the prototype picture with Ian Wilson. Three coal rails are rare on the C2's tenders. So, out with the mini drill and slitting disc; heart in the mouth time!

 

 

 

This is Paul's progress so far. I know I've got the better end of this deal. 

Edited June 1, 2015 by Tony Wright

[Tony Wright]

On at least one Little Engines kit the centre wheels were a smidgen high.  This may sound like sacrilege to the experts here but I solved it by getting a round needle file and just taking a little out of the top of the top hat bearing.  Now it was 00, so it is a bit more forgiving than P4 or EM but it worked and still running well after 20+ years. 

Beautiful models, and my compliments indeed. 

 

When you say the centre (or inner?) wheels were a smidgen high, this is because the kit chassis was probably designed like this. It means the lowest points are at the treads of the wheels of the two outer axles, thus ensuring that there's no see-saw effect. Any rocking on the inner wheels is anathema to good running. Where I've had a lower set of inner wheels, I too have taken a mouse-tail file to the top of the bearings - only filing 'north', never 'east/west'. Sacrilege? Never - common sense in my view, and it works.