Chris Higgs

As commented elsewhere, there are too many V hangers. The etch can build either a DC braked version, or the later 'standard' style of right hand brake levers and has the V hangers for both. You need to remove those not required for your version. Also the battery boxes represent a combination of many possible variants. The prototype Siphon in the photos seems to have a BR style voltage regulator that GWR built examples would not have had when new. It is a late built BR example (O62) - you can most easily tell from the extra side vents - and the voltage regulator might even have been added in departmental service or preservation. EDIT: I checked my references and found that the right hand brake levers are appropraite for the GWR wartime built examples and the later BR built ones. For the pre-war O33s, these had the DC style brakegear. You can see photos of both types on Paul Bartlett's site. Chris

As BR Loco Maroon (used on most of the Westerns except the very first) is a different colour from coach maroon you should not expect a match there. Chris

Love the photo at Ilfracombe with a Bulleid set Chris

Are there photos of the real thing anywhere? The ten itself looks good to me, but is it the right total height? Chris

There are many many models with this arrangement. However I have heard that the Lawton coreless motors being much cheaper do not have very robust bearings to resist end thrust. The Maxon is generally considered the strongest of all. The short shaft merely reflects the kind of application it is most used in, which is certainly not model railways. Chris

There have been reports of some being less good than others, but without really knowing exactly how extensive this is. There are a number of other motors available elsewhere in the same size. Chris

Yes, but in this case it is clearly just too big for the job. Perhaps fine in a nice tender. I have seen articles describing how to cut these things up to get them into such locos as a J72. Maybe necessary in its day but times and technology have moved on so we don't have to do that any more and there are far smaller motors that pack just as much torque. In the loco you illustrate, the motor only needs modifying in that manner because it is so large and can only fit in the cab, a smaller motor could have been mounted next to the worm in a more normal fashion. And surely if you have a smaller motor you can fit in lead around it that is going to more than compensate for any loss of weight. Chris

Well, you can use the new(ish) motor from the Association shop. It is 8mm over the flats (10mm high) and so will fit between the wheels (8.5mm BtoB) in its vertical position - which as a chassis designer I find a very useful feature as you can put it very low. 1mm shafts but you can solve that a number of ways. Or buy yourself a new controller! That first motor looks like it came out of the Ark. Chris

Sounds like a job for 3D printing to me. But whoever would do it would have to be pretty good at 3D CAD with all those compound curves.

How about 3D printing them at Shapeways? Probably very fragile in 2mm, but certainly do-able in larger scales. Chris

Having been at Didcot on Saturday, those central boxes are in fact labelled "Propane Gas" and may well date from departmental use or have even been fitted in preservation. I think they are spurious for almost all if not all stock in service. Chris

Almost certainly they will not be fine enough. The key dimension will be the the flange width. I believe when N-gaugers talk about RP-25 they mean RP-25 Code 72 - see the following http://www.nmra.org/standards/sandrp/pdf/RP-25%202009.07.pdf In the RP-25 wheel profiles the flange width (T) and depth (D') are pretty much the same (as it is on a real wheel), in this case 0.5mm (20 thou to our American cousins). Whereas for 2FS the flange depth should be 0.5mm, but the width only 0.3mm. So those wheels are going to get stuck in the checkrail gap, which is also 0.5mm. At the least you will need the back of the large turning down a bit. And as pointed out you will need to regauge the back-to-back. Chris

The photo also shows nicely the V hanger arrangement I have been discussing, as there is in this case no lower footboard to obscure it. Chris

Not the same as it happens. The roof and side profiles changed with every design, and this is from a few years later. Chris

The upper end steps were removed from BR Mk1s when the overhead electrication of the WCML came along, and I suppose this was done also to other stock still extant and likely to operate there - you can see the electrification warning flash on the photo. However I think many GWR coaches did not get that far and were withdrawn with their steps intact. Many coaches had steps, even when there was no obvious reason for them. K41s and others have handrails on the roof as well to help staff clamber along. I am now beginning to think the steps were on one end only of the K41s, certainly the official photo of 147 as built only has the accompaning handrails at one end.They appear to be at the guard's end. K42s are the same. The V hanger goes in front of the trussing. it is joggled so it can do this. Standard practice on GWR brake coaches and lots of photos in the Russell books show it. Most photos of the Didcot K41 seem to be of the other side however, as is this one. Chris

As an aside, this coach clearly has had the end steps removed. Chris

Here are what I believe are the dimensions (in 1:148) for the V hanger and cylinder positions on the two sides K41 V hangers.pdf Chris

Hi Ben, Looking back at post 90 which I think is the same coach, the gutter there does not look as wide as it does here. Only measurements would really determine it, and I wonder if you were able to do so, given in the absence of steps it would have taken 2 people and 2 ladders. Could it be that the cantrail is detached in your picture and is being held on by that industrial sized duct tape? Chris

Yes, the vacuum cylinder should be moved, and it lies inboard of the V hanger rather than outboard, I shall attempt to find some dimensions for this. The other 2 V hangers are missing from the underframe - they run 2/3rds of the way across the underframe. There are 2 large battery boxes to the right, these seem to be in the correct place, although, the CAD seems to have merged them into one super thick battery box, rather like Lima used to do. When built at least, the K41s did not have the 2 smaller battery boxes (actually voltage regulators I believe) in the center of the underframe, and instead had a single gas cylinder. There may be pictures which show if/when this changed later. I see it on the Didcot one - on one side at least. As to the side view, the windows and doors look correct, but the footboards do not align with them, looks like they forgot to reverse those. And the lower footboard should be below the guard's door. It is too far to the left, again this is different from the other side, as the guard's doors are not opposite each other. They also look to have modelled the steam pipe behind the footboards down this side as well, that should only be on the other side. I too am a litlle bit suspicious of the roof and end profile, looks at first sight as though it is modelled on the Riviera stock profile (used also for the E140 B sets) with a wide gutter between roof and side. You might want to check the dimensions here. Chris

Hi Ben, Is there also a CAD of the other side? Chris

Hi Ben, The brake V hangers don't look right. As far as I know on GWR brake coaches, including the K41s they are not symmetrical about the centre line, this is because of there being a brake lever inside the guard's compartment. The set on the right (as shown on the CAD) should be under the guard's door, and has a joggle in it to take it outside the Angle trusses. See for example figure 375 of coach 147 in the Russell Appendix book Vol 2 p158. Also is it your intention to model the coach with the end steps removed, as they seem to be in the CAD?

You cannot really tell if they sell well. What you can tell is if supply exceeds demand. I have picked up a number of Class 86s on ebay for 40 pounds or thereabout, which is a long way below the retail price. Which I would think is pretty much proof there are more about than people who want to buy them. Chris

Am I confused, or was the reason not explained in a very handy post a few pages ago? The PCB has no overload protection, so if you overload it, it blows. If that's the case, then you can try as many as you like, they will blow in the end. Only a redesign of the PCB will solve the issue - which is what seems to have happened for you. A DCC chip, on the other hand will have overload protection (or should have). So will not demonstrate the same fault. Which is why I intend to get a DCC chip into my Dapol 22 before I use it in anger. Chris

Well (with my pedant mathematician hat back on), if Richard has sampled 7 locos in a row and every one of them demonstrates the same fault, then statistically the chance of that being "just bad luck" is actually very very small. It does suggests that the next loco probably would have the same fault, at least if it comes from the same batch. It is not necessary to check all locos in a batch to verify such problems, as those who work in QA will testify. So you can draw some conclusions from such a sample. What Richard (D1030) did not really make clear is whether every loco he received did have a lighting problem, or whether it was just that each loco had some problem or other, which is a totally different matter. Also if it can be demonstrated by a simple test that shorting out the lighting board causes it to burn out in a consistent and repeatable manner when running on DC, as Trains4U suggests, then you can be pretty certain that every loco with the same design of circuit board will have the same issue sooner or later (provided it gets used at all). Chris

I'm one of the silent majority. However, my Dapol 22 has hardly been out of its box, awaiting a P4 conversion and my (limited edition) Western is still on it's way. So I am silent because I have not reached the point where I might detect any faults relating to derailing, overheating lighting circuits and so on. So far I am just happy because my models look good (which they certainly do). It is over-simplistic (and with my pedant mathematician hat on, logically wrong) to assume that just because thousands have been sold and their owners have not complained, that all of those models are perfect. Many are just 'status unknown'. Even the manufacturer cannot know just what proportion really are faulty. Chris