teeinox

I too have been faced with too much stock and nowhere to put it. But I took the decision to reduce the amount I had. This was my approach. The first was to look at the quality of each item. If it was below par in any way, for instance, badly painted, flawed, or a locomotive that had seen its best years, out it went. The second was whether the item meant anything to me; whether it still had any sentimental or emotional attachment. This is a technique used by “declutterers”. If the answer was “no”, it enabled me to unload stuff that I had collected on the way, but really didn’t have any real interest in any more. The third applied to train formations. If there was a lot of something, working out what formed a satisfying or prototypically correct train formation often yielded a surplus. The surplus went its way. Finally, make sure you have a destination for what is discarded - the bin, a charity shop or to be sold. Don’t leave it hanging round to tempt you to change your mind. It all requires a degree of single-minded ruthlessness, though. teeinox

As far as the train is concerned, they were vacuum only when built and stayed that way. My understanding is that the pipes were for connecting the air brakes of the locomotives together when they were working in multiple, which they could do with each other or with (some?) class 22s. All pictures show them from their earliest days with these pipes. teeinox

IT ALWAYS TAKES LONGER THAN YOU THINK I thought doing the finishing touches on the locomotive would be an easy canter to the end. Stupid boy! The bufferbeam detail on the class 41 is really complicated. It consists of the screw coupling, a back plate to said coupling, 6 hoses of various descriptions, the multiple-unit control cable (not prototypically attached unless in use, but since it was modelled, it has been left in-situ), and a pair of bizarre steps under the buffers. Apparently, they were an afterthought, and they look it. They also look as if they were unusable in practice, which possibly explains why they did not seem to have lasted long on the prototype. But, since they were there for the period being modelled, they had to be made. Of the 11 items involved, only 4 attach to the bufferbeam itself. The other 7 are mounted underneath, so I had to fabricate a frame to support them. Here is a photograph of the frame and its ironmongery, before painting: It looks nothing, but it took a week’s work to construct this minature feast of plasticard. All in all, there are 28 separate components; each step alone has 10 parts. Those steps were a pig to do, and I am not sure I got the proportions right. And you will be entertained to know that the air pipes are recycled from a Lima class 92. I wasn’t sure if the back plate to the coupling existed at all, still less what its exact proportions were. But one black and white photo showed it, and a colour photo suggested it was painted red, so red it is. Being regularly whacked by the coupling, I can’t imagine that it stayed pristine or even red for long. Here is a photo of the final effect: Despite the time involved, it was worth it to make the front end look more as it should. And if you look carefully, you can just see the driver in the cab; still don't know where the second man has disappeared to. Which just leaves the windscreen wipers, affixing the nameplates and patching the paintwork. Railmatch 300 BR loco green, since you ask; not a perfect match in colour or sheen, so used sparingly. Will I finish inside the 2-3 weeks remaining of my 3 months target time? Don’t count on it. teeinox p.s. The fact that the right-hand buffer looks higher than the left is because it is bent upward. It's a distortion in the casting. The added detail shows it up. That's white metal casting for you; part of the period charm.

COUPLING CONUNDRUM Well, work continues, with the next big challenge being couplings. The original ugly wire loop couplings had to go, though the leading end screw coupling was kept. As for the trailing end, since most of the coaching stock is equipped with Hornby/Roco close couplers, it seemed a good idea to fit a close coupler, which meant fitting a NEM socket, too. In addition, the coupling would be mounted on the body, not on the bogie: it just did not seem a good idea to put traction forces through the trailing bogie. A kinetic coupling arrangement would have been ideal, but that turned out not to be feasible: the clearances and distances required were just not there. So there had to be a simpler solution. As Hornby/Roco couplers form a rigid bar coupling, the coupling has to swivel. But, given the overhang of the body, the coupling pivot point needs to be as close to the bogie pivot point as possible or clearances start to become a problem. That point turned out to be 27mm forward of the bogie pivot, which is not too bad. In the event, an elaborate creation in Plasticard plus a butchered Hornby coupling drawbar to provide the NEM socket did the trick. It took days to figure out and make! So here she is, coupled to a Mainline BCK equipped with kinetic couplers and some particularly testing long shank buffers. Nice and close, isn't it? Of course, there had to be another test run to check everything out. This time she managed to haul a GWR/WR standard formation of 8 coaches, and the sound proofing I put in the roof reduced the noise level from excruciating to merely noisy. The coupling performed faultlessly. 2 months in, this is the end of the heavy engineering. Now, as the photo shows, I need to turn to more cosmetic things like the paintwork, as well as detail like steps, pipework and nameplates. teeinox

Useful indeed, thank you so much! It gives me quite a number of tasks. One is to paint the engine exhaust black: not so easy since it is an appalling bit of moulding. Then the there is the port for the turbocharger; totally missing. And the train heating boiler port: I would have to device something which will look "right" over the installed grille. That may not be so easy. As for the battery boxes, just hope my Railmatch loco green paint matches the old paint! Still, at least I have installed the cab interiors, one with a driver installed. The second man is not there: he must be "otherwise engaged". Once again, thanks for the info. teeinox

FUN WITH FANS Holiday over, it’s back to work on the body, starting with the roof. The MTK locomotive has some nice see-through grilles in the roof. Trouble is, they really are see-through, allowing one to see the motor bogies underneath. Kernow sell cooling group fans for a mere £3.50 each plus £4 postage. You’ve got to be joking; I made my own! But it does raise the issue of what should and shouldn’t be on the roof, because I suspect the MTK model is not right. So, here is an annotated photo of a section of, I think, a Silver Fox resin roof: I have marked each feature with a number, and ask the collective wisdom to advise me what it is. Bear in mind, that I am modelling “Active” in its earliest state. So: Item 1: There are two of these, and they look like the cooling group fans. !tem 2: What is this? On the MTK model there are two (very) token mouldings for this. Item 3: What is this? It doesn’t exist on the MTK model. Item 4: Just one of these. I assume it is the exhaust for the train heating boiler. On the MTK model it’s a grille, which might be wrong. But is it? And finally, another question. On a Kernow publicity shot of Active in original condition, they show the battery boxes painted green. Is this the case? I hope for illumination! Thanks, teeinox p.s. Here are the fans modelled. I am not sure they should have been painted silver, but I was determined they would be seen! The bizarre moulding to the right is supposed to be the engine exhaust port. Pathetic! I could not be bothered to even paint it black. I did contemplate drilling it out, but that might have risked collateral damage to an antique model.

I came across two articles about the Rhondda tunnel in the journal of the “Cylch Ymchwil Rheilffyrdd Cymru”/”Welsh Railways Research Circle”. The first article is in the November 2002 edition, Volume III, No. 6. It is called “The Closure of Rhondda Tunnel. Engineering vs Politics. An appraisal by Lee Holland”. It is an excellent article, and has a particularly useful diagram of a longitudinal section through the tunnel. The second article is in the May 2003 edition, “Strolling through the Rhondda Tunnel, by Graham Croad”. This is a reminiscence of a walk through the tunnel after it was closed but was still accessible. Whether it is possible to find these articles now, I do not know. They were published a long while ago. I found them in a pile of 50p magazines in a Severn Valley Railway shop. Ysgrifennir y dyddlyfr yn Saesneg yn unig./The journal is written only in English. teeinox

Many thanks for the suggestion: I have passed it on to the planner-in-chief!

Your D600 looks a fine effort. The MTK kits somehow really seem to capture the presence of the prototype, maybe because they share its immense weight! As for the motorbogies, I am wondering whether the original owner actually bought the motor, the gear train and wheels separately to build into a chassis he then built himself. The chassis is made of "L" shaped brass strip. It is, to put it politely, all over the place, as I really discovered when putting some detail on the bogies. Even the motors themselves are not mounted true. Anyway, I press on with detailing the bogies, and then there will be a pause for a holiday which will include a visit to the Vicinal Tram Museum near Charleroi. Then I shall return to the body. I have just got some cab interiors from Kernow: they seem to fit. And there is the vexed question of coupling arrangements. So there may be quite a while before my next post. teeinox

Yes, this is a real problem with the press-stud fixing method; it provides no stability. In my case, the result was that the locomotive would settle on its centre of gravity which was a lean of about 10 degrees out of true. That was eliminated by creating a “platform” out of plasticard on one of the bogies. This rests against the supporting structure, and successfully brought the locomotive back onto an even keel. The photo illustrates: Underneath the stud are the shims used to adjust the height. The stud is actually wired into them, so there is not a total reliance on glue to hold it in place. To the left is the platform that bears against the body support. That did not entirely solve all problems with stability. On the trial run there was a degree of lateral “shake”. I am thinking of placing some rubber blocks around the other press-stud fastening to dampen this shake. The technique works on coaches, so hopefully it will work here, though the strength of the momentum to be countered is much greater because of the weight of the body, so we shall see! teeinox

You are so right; the period features need preserving. This model is never going to compete with Kernow's offering: it's value and interest lie in that it is a "blast from the past"!

Thank you for the information. It would suggest that the model is more recent than I had supposed. The motors are powerful and cooling running; a tribute to Mashima quality. The chassis, to which they appear to have been soldered, is, in contrast, a crude bit of blacksmithing. Pity, since all of the components are of high quality.

Levelling and the Motor bogies At the last posting I was wondering how to take things forward. Considering the replacement chassis option, this would mean removing the three strengthening bridging pieces, and while one did come out easily, the other two seem to be securely soldered. Removing them could be traumatic, and possibly terminal for so old a model. So my choice was to keep the model as close as possible to its original state and live with its limitations. However, the locomotive had to be made level, and if possible, the performance of the motor bogies improved. When it came to levelling, the one strengthening piece I had removed enabled this. It was re-installed at a new height which enabled precise adjustment of the level with shims. So the locomotive is now level and about the correct overall height. As for the motor bogies, there is a fundamental problem with the wheel bearings. On one bogie it showed up as wheel spin, a bizarre problem on so heavy a locomotive. It turned out that the bearing on one of the carrying wheels (the “1” in the A 1 A configuration) was about 0.5mm too low, so that at any high spot in the track, the driving wheels were lifted off and therefore spun. On investigation, what was revealed was that there is no through axle for the carrying wheels; they are supported by a stub axle on one side and by a pin-point bearing on the other. This strange arrangement is shown in the photo: There is no obvious way to change the height of these bearings, so the solution was to resort to a Tri-ang trick of yesteryear, replace the wheel with a fake non-operative one glued into place. A nasty kludge, but wheel-slip has been banished and performance much improved. On the other bogie, one final drive gear does not mesh properly with the worm. Again, it is bearing mis-alignment, with the bearings, again, set too low so the gears do not mesh properly. So the locomotive is driving on three, not four, axles. Not good news for pulling power, and I was not looking forward to the results of the running trial. But, with the H&M Safety Minor providing plenty of amps, after a slightly shaky start, off she went. To get anywhere, she needs almost full power, and then is no rocket ship; more a stately D602 “Bulldog” than D600 “Active”! As for pulling power, she was gradually loaded to 6 free-running Hornby super-detail coaches. She hauled them without missing a beat, with only a slight drop in top speed. And the motors remained cool with no hint of overheating. This was a great success, far better than expected; such a success, indeed, that my husband insisted we have a glass of wine to celebrate! So there we are with a fully working locomotive, and it is now onto detailing and cosmetic issues, spurred on by the arrival of lovely replacement name-plates from Shawplan.

Thank you for your advice. In an idle moment, I decided to find our if I actually could remove one of the support structures. Despite being a "heart in the mouth" moment, it turned out to be surprisingly easy. There was enough gap to insert a Stanley knife blade, and it gradually worked along and freed it. I am not sure how the structure was originally intended to be fixed. There may have been an attempt to solder it (some evidence of flux on the knife blade, and then there was definitely the use of super-glue, now embrittled. This is all good news, since my options widen! As for the side windows, originally I thought that the glazing had deteriorated. It turns out it was one of these liquid glazing products that was used. Worked well on the very small windows, not so well on the cab side windows. But the choice was limited. The casting on the inside was so rough that it would have been impossible to fit glazing strip. I still wonder when this model dates back to. Late 60s? early 70s? In a way, I view this locomotive like an ancient building. Do I replace the motorisation, whereupon it becomes something quite different from what it started life out as? Or, now that i know I can adjust the ride-height, retain the original mechanism to conserve this period-piece in as original state as possible? No, it would never be able to haul a decent load, but I have a Dapol Class 22 to help it out. teeinox

Over the years, I have bought quite a number of interesting and enjoyable challenges from Elaines Trains, so when she had a MTK class 41 for sale, and I just had to have it. I had a chat with Elaines Trains about it (One of the benefits of dealing with them; personal and knowledgeable service), so I knew I was buying a few challenges. But I let my heart rule my head and it arrived, beautifully packed in a new box and cossetted in multi-coloured tissue paper. Here is a three-quarters view. It is beautifully spray painted. It is even graced with etched plates; pity the name plates should have a red background, not black. The lamp irons are very fine, too. There are flush windows, though they have deteriorated through the years. It even has working screw couplers. Whoever put this kit together, very much cared about what they were doing. The locomotive weighs a lot, almost 500 grams thanks to the white metal construction. Both bogies are motorised. Here is a shot of them. They consist of MTK side frames glued on to a 5-pole mechanism of unknown manufacture. I have no idea who made the mechanism, and when. Can anyone shed light? But reality soon dawned. The main reveal is that the locomotive rides higher one end than the other. By quite a deal, too, at least 2mm. And that goes back to how the bogies are attached to the body. Each bogie is equipped with a press-stud which engages into its other half which is glued onto a cross beam, itself cemented into the body. It’s a clever arrangement which works surprisingly well. The photo of the underside illustrates the arrangement. And this is where the real problem lies. Whoever put these beams into place, got into a real mess. They are the wrong height, and one of them is a mile away from being level. To get anywhere, I am going to have to remove and reposition them. But how? They are glued in place, but how do I cut that glue without damaging the white-metal body? Advice gratefully sought on that one. I got the bogies up and running. They too, have their problems. The motor is actually glued, not bolted, into the chassis. Bad luck if I want to change the brushes. And it is also a pity because on one of the bogies, the worm gear is not meshing properly with the (beautifully made) gear on the axle, and I cannot adjust it. Power-wise they can just about shift the locomotive, but I have not come to a definitive conclusion of this because, despite there being a phosphor-bronze wire pick-up on every wheel, current collection is poor. So do I retain these period-pieces, or try to re-motorise the beast? Any advice and experience on how to take this forward will be gratefully received.