drduncan

It's no fun if you don't rise to the bait....

D

Yes, it helps a lot. Thank you,.

Duncan

You don't fancy doing a couple of 1076 Buffalo chassis as csb and split axle do you? You mentiied best practice is to do multiples!!!!!

D

I don't suppose you have any info on the position or length of the rainstrips?

D

As kits go, this one was not that filled me with joy - hence my enthusiasm for off-loading it to poor Gareth - which is a shame because I love the GWR's outside framed locos. 

First among the problems was the fact that the drawings were not of the same type of boiler/smoke box as represented in the kit - the drawing showed a raised smokebox coming through the pannier top - just like the later 57xx - only the boiler/tank top was flat in the model.  Second, without the correct drawing the fact that the tank end had the wrong sized smoke box door completely passed me by.  Third, I have found the Alan Gibson sprung hornblocks extremely fiddly and a good way to lose interest in the hobby, so the decision was made to convert it to a flexichas.  Fourth, I found that the tank sides were longer by an appreciable margin than the tank top and bottom - something which did not fill me with confidence and meant a lot of filling.

I could go on, but it would be unfair to do so as of course, this kit is very old in design terms and has had a serious makeover since it was first issued by M & L ( I should confess I passed an original cast version of the GWR 850 to Gareth and he professed to be quite underwhelmed by it - he told me to contact Alan Gibson and get the **** etches like he'd done for his one, but I digress...)  Here in lies the problem, I think - it was a make over, replacing some cast parts with etched versions and I suspect it was not a complete re-design as such. 

Of course, the view from the cheap seats as someone who has never designed a kit is very different from the view from the kit designers position.  Compromises are inevitable (if only in the weight of the kit v the real thing - I don't think we'd be able to lift a tank engine if its weight was reduced at a scale of 1:76!), but while the Alan Gibson revisions are a distinct improvement in individual item quality over the cast parts of the original M & L (with the exception of those dammed sprung hornblocks), I feel more attention was needed during the redesign to the construction of the kit as a whole, for example building in methods to easily facilitate the use of sub-assemblies which would ease painting and lining as well as the general integration of the new etched components with the existing cast parts like the tanks and boiler assembly. 

But, moans apart, its better to have a kit, even one that is not quite perfect, than have to scratchbuild it, and its worth emphasising that this kit - even post Alan Gibson (the original one, not Colin) redesign - is an old kit.  I had this example since the early/mid 1990s if memory serves.... 

That said, I have the saddle tank version sitting in my 'to be built' drawer at home and I think that using a CSB chassis might avoid many of the admittedly self imposed snags with the kit's chassis.  As for the rest, we shall see....

drduncan

Well for me, it was the need to accurately predict the finished weight of the model (until Gareth undertook the mammoth and thankless task of explaining hard sums to a historian aka beating it into me with a heavy object at the MRC a few weeks ago). 

However, I am tempted to give it a go (or stand behind Gareth looking over his shoulder while making enthusiastic, if uncomprehending noises of approval while he does it) as I have yet another Alan Gibson 1076 lurking in the 'to be built' drawer - only this one's a saddle tank. 

drduncan

Hi Horsetan,

Thanks for the tip, I'll have a look at Springside, but I have a Gibson losr wax one on standby too.

Regards

D

Ian,

That's very kind of you. I'll be up today and will stop by.

Regards

Duncan

Thanks!

D

Hi Horsetan,

You're very lucky! Whenever I see a Finney kit on ebay (and its one I want) it always seems to go for at least the sum I would have paid the manufacturer!

drduncan

Yes!

Hi weaselfish,

Very well it seems (so far...) The frames supplied by the EM gauge society specify what kit or rtr body they fit. I'd be amazed if they did not have one for the K's Dean goods.

Have a go its easier than you may think! Also Iain Rice's book on etched chassis construction is a fantastic help.

drduncan

Hi Gareth and Mike,

Thanks! Managed to get some....isn't ebay wonderful?

D

I knew it would be my fault somehow...

But you are a demon with the piercing saw!

drduncan

Well, in that case we should blame the iniquitous job market that required me to abandon London for Portsmouth....

D

I hope to get a look at Mr Finney's Dean 3000 gallon tenders at Expo to see if he does one that matches 2811's

D

Hi Stefan,

Thanks for the note. I hope to modify the mainline tender, but we shall see as there will be a bit of work involved.

D

Seriously, Gareth has also reminded me that there is also a K's 26XX Aberdare in 1912 condition in the dark recesses of my workbench (he should know he cut out new frames from brass strip for me) and while trying to find some crank pins for the 28xx I also realised that there is also a Mainline 43XX + Perseverence chassis awaiiting completion (one with the extended/'normal' cab so 1914 batch, 4321 or similar) - its now gone to almost the back of the queue until I've made serious inroads into the pure frieght locos....

D

And I may one day accept that!

Regarding moving the track from the work boards to the layout proper, no real problems and yes it was an Iain Rice technique. His book, 'An aporoach to finescale track construction' was of great help. Of course there are lots of ways to get the same result, but Iain's method worked for us.