What have you done with your Keyser kit

[5050]

They also supplied the HP2M with the P2 kit.  I hope the 'new build(s)' guys fit something a bit stronger........................

[Ruston]

I definitely won't be using the wheels now. Partly from the comments about the quality but also because I've just measured the kit wheels at a scale 3' 6". The Taff Vale loco, which the kit is meant to represent, and Lord Mayor, a loco of the same type but new to Nuttall's for a contract to build the Trafford Park estate, had 2'9" wheels, which is a very noticeable difference on such a tiny engine.

[Devo63]

I definitely won't be using the wheels now. Partly from the comments about the quality but also because I've just measured the kit wheels at a scale 3' 6". The Taff Vale loco, which the kit is meant to represent, and Lord Mayor, a loco of the same type but new to Nuttall's for a contract to build the Trafford Park estate, had 2'9" wheels, which is a very noticeable difference on such a tiny engine.

I wonder if there was some packaging mistake with that one. Both of the models I built had 3' dia. (12mm) wheels included. I was always under the impression that no. 266 had 2'6'' drivers and no. 267 was fitted with slightly larger wheels but can't recall where I read that. Unfortunately I no longer have part 10 of the RCTS Locos of GWR so can't check on the sizes recorded there.

 

Dave R. 

 

Edit to add:  Locomotives at the Grouping No 4 lists no. 267 with 2'11" drivers. The copy of diag.M for 267/1342 in Russell lists a 5'6" wheelbase but the drawing as reproduced is 2mm short in this aspect. 266/1343 is slightly smaller in all dimensions from 267/1342 and appears to be printed correctly to 4mm scale. The chassis of the K's kit does seem to have the correct 22mm wheelbase for 267.

Edited December 28, 2017 by Devo63

[Paul Cram]

The North Eastern cab interiors were finished in an imiatation wood grained and edged in black and white.. As an economy measure they were later painted a reddish brown and unlined. Ref An illustrated histoty of NER locos, Hoole page 204

[Ruston]

I wonder if there was some packaging mistake with that one. Both of the models I built had 3' dia. (12mm) wheels included. I was always under the impression that no. 266 had 2'6'' drivers and no. 267 was fitted with slightly larger wheels but can't recall where I read that. Unfortunately I no longer have part 10 of the RCTS Locos of GWR so can't check on the sizes recorded there.

 

Dave R. 

 

Edit to add:  Locomotives at the Grouping No 4 lists no. 267 with 2'11" drivers. The copy of diag.M for 267/1342 in Russell lists a 5'6" wheelbase but the drawing as reproduced is 2mm short in this aspect. 266/1343 is slightly smaller in all dimensions from 267/1342 and appears to be printed correctly to 4mm scale. The chassis of the K's kit does seem to have the correct 22mm wheelbase for 267.

My mistake, they are 12mm in the kit.

 

I have tried to look up this loco on the interweb but have found nothing by searching for Taff Vale Railway S class, or by the running number 267, or even the GWR number.

Ronald Redman's book, The Railway Foundry Leeds 1839-1969 lists two 0-4-0STs for the TVR, one with 2'6" wheels and one with 2'9". The running numbers are given as 106 and 107.

 

W/n 159 ex-works 23/3/1876 2'6" wheels, 8"x15" cylinders - number 106

W/n 166 ex-works 6/12/1876 2'9" wheels 10"x16" cylinders - number 107

[John_Hughes]

John

 

Agreed, but they were of their time and worked on Peco track

 

But at the time they were introduced there was no Peco track as such; Peco made some very nice track components which they sold under the Individulay label, but the first (Code 100) Streamline range didn't come out until the early 1960s, whereas the 14XX appeared in the spring of 1957.

 

Does anyone else remember the fibre-sleepered Wrenn track with its strange universal points? Ghastly, but I suppose the 14XX would have run sort-of-adequately on it!

[Devo63]

 

 

W/n 159 ex-works 23/3/1876 2'6" wheels, 8"x15" cylinders - number 106

W/n 166 ex-works 6/12/1876 2'9" wheels 10"x16" cylinders - number 107

106 renumbered 266 by TVR then GWR 1343; 107 renumbered 267 then to GWR 1342. 267 was slightly larger in most dimensions & weights and had a higher tractive effort (by about 1500 lbs) than 266.

 

Dave R.

[hayfield]

But at the time they were introduced there was no Peco track as such; Peco made some very nice track components which they sold under the Individulay label, but the first (Code 100) Streamline range didn't come out until the early 1960s, whereas the 14XX appeared in the spring of 1957.

 

Does anyone else remember the fibre-sleepered Wrenn track with its strange universal points? Ghastly, but I suppose the 14XX would have run sort-of-adequately on it!

 

 

My comment was that the kits were compatible with the track standards of the day, Peco code 100 was about around that time with what we now consider coarse scale standards

 

I have some Peco fibre point kits and they have two cast common crossings in them, one much coarser than the other, in fact I think the Indvidulay allowed for finer standards that the Streamline products which followed, certainly I have a few lengths of Peco code 100 bullhead rail

[rope runner]

I would use the Gibson Hudswell Clarke 2'9'' or slightly larger Manning Wardle 3' wheels.

 

The HC wheel will be more accurate in terms of dimensions, but the spoke/counterweight pattern of the MW ones are more befitting a typical contractors tank loco. 

 

Paul A. 

Edited December 28, 2017 by 1whitemoor

[hayfield]

In one way Keyser kits have stood the test of time, what we should not do is to compare these with 21st century models. For example look at what Dave Ellis has done with the old Wills range. Even comparing the Wills Finecast models to Dave's products and its chalk and cheese. Also look how the chap in Bedford rejuvenated the GEM 4 mm models. Both proprietors have updated the kits and used better quality metal.

 

Going back to the Keyser kits, they were built to a budget, a complete kit (early models even included transfers) for about the same price of a Wills body kit. OK the chassis are not up to today's standards, but far easier to build than the Jamieson kits, which were the previous generation. Lots can be said about the wheels and motors, but remember the Wills and GEM kits were initially designed to fit Triang and Hornby Dublo chassis, the former having Pizza cutter wheels and the X03 motor. Look at some of the other kits of this era with poor castings and at least one company supplying thin whitemetal chassis frames (not a block) without brass axle bushes.

 

The k's original motor, then the mk 1 & 2 motors were a great step forward in size reduction from earlier larger motors, the HMP2 motor was a great idea in miniaturisation at that time, but was built too cheaply. The plastic spoked wheels again were ahead of their time, sadly in trying to reinvent the Romford axle design turned out to be unreliable but the later solid axle design was either a copy of, or developed better by the likes of Alan Gibson and Slaters

 

Whatever is said the popularity of k's kits is shown by sales on eBay, these kits must be about a third of the secondhand whitemetal kits available. Both built and unbuilt kits are popular and can/do fetch decent money. Equally though you can find real bargains, admittedly some can be a bit rough others real gems

 

Well there are moans about replacing the wheels and motor, but what modest priced kits come with wheels and motors? Looking at Southeastern Finecast a tank loco will set you back about £85, the wheels, motor and gears another £50+ . Just bear these costs in mind before complaining

 

If you keep your eyes open you can find built kits with replacement wheels and motor for £50 or less, you can always resell the body and chassis and be £'s in pocket, or just look out for wheels and motors being sold on their own, another source is to look for Triang or HD locos which have been re-wheeled. All ways of reducing costs

 

For years I wanted a Radial tank, those which came up were always bought for large sums. I found one which was exceptionally well built and had Romford wheels for £39, but was without a motor, I have a stock of spare motors including K's mk1's and have gears. How much would a RTR model cost me ? a lot more than £40 plus a couple of £'s for a motor. OK it may be better detailed, but when pick it up in my opinion the K's weight feels far superior. As it happens it will be receiving a can motor, Highlevel gearbox and converting to EM gauge (which is far easier than converting a RTR model) 

 

Back to the Taff Vale 0-4-4T  a set of Romford's would cost £24 with axles, Gibson's £12, I would really go for a decent Highlevel gearbox plus one of those tiny can motors. Adding these to the £30 paid by the OP is still a real bargain  

[Lecorbusier]

I like the K's kits because they provide a good base for a build (same with Nucast) ... I almost always buy in other parts such as handrail knobs/brass domes and whistles/smoke box darts etc and will use .4 wire for handrails, etch off cut for lamp irons etc etc. I normally find I can source a suitable chassis using Comet/Perseverance/Southeastern Finecast etc etc with brakes, springs and rigging - along with Gibson wheels and an appropriate gear box. I find with sufficient care they can build into very nice locos and the all in price is competitive. 

 

I suppose I look on them (like with most kits) not so much as a product with a given outcome,but rather as a starting point to create a specific loco ... so adaptation and improvisation is always required.

 

About half way down the page on this thread (not my work) https://www.scalefour.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3805&start=225 is an interesting build of a K's Kirtley 0-6-0 goods which I think illustrates what can be achieved.

[hayfield]

Tim

 

Totally agree with you, a kit for all. Can be built as intended, or you can add and or replace parts. Or use the basic model as a starting point for a model scratch building or replacing parts which are either wrong or poorly constructed

 

Buying a poorly made kit can also be a cheap introduction to kit building, as most were stuck together with epoxy glue and painted with enamels, both of which are easily removed with either paint stripper of boiling water, this also goes for their coach and wagon kits.

 

This 44xx Prairie tank looks like an earlier model with pre-quartered wheels and should have the Mk1 motor

 

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/4mm-OO-Keyser-Ks-GWR-44xx-Small-Prarie-Whitemetal-Kit-built-loco-good-runner/202153931789?hash=item2f1150340d:g:kTEAAOSwIGJaN8pb 

[John_Hughes]

I'm certainly not knocking the old K's kits - I've built quite a few, and most of them have turned out very well - with changes as necessary to match my improving skill levels and applying modern techniques that just weren't available 'back in the day.' In fact I'm in the process of rebuilding an old 14XX right now, and as far as the body goes I've had to replace virtually nothing, just removed some of the cast-on detail - such as the smokebox handles - and put on new finer bits; though those cab steps need more than a bit of refining if I can get down to it!

 

The wheels - which I certainly don't regard with scorn - were actually far more finescale than the Peco Code 100 track on which they were too often destined to run, and the motors worked decently with the controllers of the time. It's hardly the fault of 'Pop' Keyser that things have moved on quite a lot since then, but it's very much to his credit that sensible builders can still get a decent result from his kits.

[Dick Turpin]

I've got a GCR ROD 2 - 8 - 0 LNER Q4, superstructure built, and chassis assembled, but never finished. I was going to replace the chassis with something better and never even contemplated using the Ks gearbox motor. I also have a GCR 4 - 6 - 0, LNER B2 Sam Fay which is still in its box attached to cards. I remember talk of it being inaccurate in some way but haven't checked any of it against drawings. With a decent chassis and set of wheels it would look pretty decent in my opinion. 

 

The castings in my two all look and seem to be of a decent quality, though I remember being shown a few examples of some of Ks less impressive efforts, like a pannier tank with one side tank about 3mm thick, and the other only about 1/2 mm so the soldering iron went through and had to be refilled and sanded back. It also seems a shame they had wheels and motors when so many of us never gave a second thought to using them.

 

However, didn't DJH use Ks wheels in some of their kits at one time (with D shaped axles)? I remember doing a Q7 and using them with without problems, even taking them of a few times during building.

Edited December 29, 2017 by Dick Turpin

[hayfield]

I'm certainly not knocking the old K's kits - I've built quite a few, and most of them have turned out very well - with changes as necessary to match my improving skill levels and applying modern techniques that just weren't available 'back in the day.' In fact I'm in the process of rebuilding an old 14XX right now, and as far as the body goes I've had to replace virtually nothing, just removed some of the cast-on detail - such as the smokebox handles - and put on new finer bits; though those cab steps need more than a bit of refining if I can get down to it!

 

The wheels - which I certainly don't regard with scorn - were actually far more finescale than the Peco Code 100 track on which they were too often destined to run, and the motors worked decently with the controllers of the time. It's hardly the fault of 'Pop' Keyser that things have moved on quite a lot since then, but it's very much to his credit that sensible builders can still get a decent result from his kits.

 

The older type of chassis had the keyhole axle slots, which as they were stamped out curved the chassis slightly. Not too much of a problem on an 0-4-2. But simple to remedy to straighten them out though. The 14xx does suffer a footplate which is about 2 mm short, only an issue if fitting an etched chassis

 

Will be interesting to see how many other kits come back into circulation with the Nucast Partnership, however the likes of these and the pannier are two a penny on eBay, though at the moment we are still in the silly season for kits, with few to choose from and virtually all at high prices, give it a few weeks and we will be back to normal

[hayfield]

Whilst not a Keyser model but a Wills one of the same era, just as an example of what is out there and at what price, a SR / LSWR M7

 

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/4mm-OO-EM-P4-Wills-Finecast-LSWR-SR-BR-0-4-4T-Whitemetal-loco-body-Kit/202153931791?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649

 

Its an older model, Southeastern Finecast do an updated etched chassis (the footplate being a Wills will need a slight modification) and Dave will sell the updated cab parts as spares

 

The thing to remember a new kit with a chassis is £89.50 and is much better detailed

A replacement chassis is £32 but includes a few added body details

Chris Parish does a Perseverance chassis for about £20

 

Buy it at the correct price and its a good model

[Penlan]

Couple more photo's of my K's HC 0-4-0T.

The rear coupling chain looks to be far to short (even with 5 links), but the loco had spent some 30 years with AJ's fitted, and the chain was cosmetic. 

The colour was BMC Marina, or '1100' something, which seems very close to some of the Brighton livery I've seen recently on the Forum.

 

This is an old kit built etc., at the time it was first manufactured,

long before digital cameras made life hell.

 

The side view shows where I have opened up the chassis sides to let light through.

The front view is for another topic where some kits have the front plank level at the top and thus no chance to open the smokebox door.

 

 

 

I will get round to my K's Terrier, some time.

Edited December 31, 2017 by Penlan

[Penlan]

.... In fact I think my coupling should be like this one 

 

 

 

[Lecorbusier]

Couple more photo's of my K's HC 0-4-0T.

The rear coupling chain looks to be far to short (even with 5 links), but the loco had spent some 30 years with AJ's fitted, and the chain was cosmetic. 

The colour was BMC Marina, or '1100' something, which seems very close to some of the Brighton livery I've seen recently on the Forum.

 

This is an old kit built etc., at the time it was first manufactured,

long before digital cameras made life hell.

 

The side view shows where I have opened up the chassis sides to let light through.

The front view is for another topic where some kits have the front plank level at the top and thus no chance to open the smokebox door.

 

K's HC #1.jpg

 

K's HC - Front #1.jpg

 

I will get round to my K's Terrier, some time.

I love the moustachioed driver through the spectacle plate window.

[5050]

Did someone mention Wrenn track?  How about this beauty?

 

 

No instructions on how to wire it so I often wonder if anyone ever actually got these things to work properly?  Very course standards - even with the 'Universal' crossings - so again I wonder if the (relatively) fine K's wheel standards worked OK.

 

I had a mate who had a Marina in that 'baby poo' colour.  Vary fashionable BITD!

 

And the footplate on the K's model being short?  I think Pop used the Roche drawing which the K's body matches in this area.  It is noticabley different to the Airfix/Hornby body which was presumably measured from the prototype.

 

Somewhere I should have the main castings for a 43XX which I rather fancy having a go at (if I can find them!).  A decent chassis, gearbox etc. and it could be a go-er!

 

 

 

[John_Hughes]

What is a tad surprising with all those old cast kits is that none of the designers seem to have taken themselves off to actually look at the prototypes, which for the most part were still easy enough to find. So there were interesting little touches like the mongrel that Bob Wills advertised as a Buckjumper, and the K's Terrier with its entirely fictional arrangement of the cabside grabirons, among many others.

 

Roche, of course, was regarded as an unimpeachable source, so all his (many) errors just found their way straight into the kits. Odd that he didn't go and look at the prototypes a little more carefully too!

[cctransuk]

What is a tad surprising with all those old cast kits is that none of the designers seem to have taken themselves off to actually look at the prototypes, which for the most part were still easy enough to find. So there were interesting little touches like the mongrel that Bob Wills advertised as a Buckjumper, and the K's Terrier with its entirely fictional arrangement of the cabside grabirons, among many others.

 

Roche, of course, was regarded as an unimpeachable source, so all his (many) errors just found their way straight into the kits. Odd that he didn't go and look at the prototypes a little more carefully too!

 

Not really; travel was by no means as easy as it is now.

 

I don't know what the percentage car ownership was in those days, but it was a fraction of what it is today. Even if you did have a car, journeys took ages before the days of motorways - to get from Leicester to Cornwall by car involved an overnight stop.

 

Train travel wasn't cheap, either, and you needed to write off for a pass - by no means always granted - to get on railway property to measure up stock.

 

Ignorance was bliss - if it looked like a XXX Class, it was an XXX Class - and we didn't query the position of the lamp irons because there weren't any; (or brakegear for that matter).

 

Fortunately, there wasn't the internet, either - imagine the furore there'd have been when Hornby Dublo released their 'Deltic', or Tri-ang their 'Hall' !!

 

.... but we did have fun in the good old days.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[micknich2003]

Has said F Roache's drawings are noted for their errors, one does wonder from where he got hs source material.

[Prometheus]

I like the K's kits because they provide a good base for a build (same with Nucast) ... I almost always buy in other parts such as handrail knobs/brass domes and whistles/smoke box darts etc and will use .4 wire for handrails, etch off cut for lamp irons etc etc. 

 

Agree, but they can be a real trial sometimes. However, with a little work [and imagination], moderately good results can follow. This is a K's 57XX mated with parts of an adapted Bachmann cab to backdate it [i wanted circular windows at the front]. The chassis is pure K's but the wheels Gibson and the motor a Portescap. Sadly, the motor [or, rather, the gear train] is quite noisy at slower speeds.

 

{note - photo shows loco fitted with a DS10 - later changed for a Portescap]

 

 

 

Tony

Edited December 31, 2017 by Prometheus

[hayfield]

Did someone mention Wrenn track?  How about this beauty?

 

WrennCrossing.A.jpg

 

No instructions on how to wire it so I often wonder if anyone ever actually got these things to work properly?  Very course standards - even with the 'Universal' crossings - so again I wonder if the (relatively) fine K's wheel standards worked OK.

 

I had a mate who had a Marina in that 'baby poo' colour.  Vary fashionable BITD!

 

And the footplate on the K's model being short?  I think Pop used the Roche drawing which the K's body matches in this area.  It is noticabley different to the Airfix/Hornby body which was presumably measured from the prototype.

 

Somewhere I should have the main castings for a 43XX which I rather fancy having a go at (if I can find them!).  A decent chassis, gearbox etc. and it could be a go-er!

 

K's 43xx Mogul Parts.2.A.jpg

 

I have a couple of these, they do come up quite often I guess owing to both a decent RTR loco is available and the problems stated with the newer motor, gears and wheels. Also managed to get a plastic bodied loco with a Comet? chassis built and running, hoping to match the chassis with the K's body