gr.king

Have the rejected, loathsome K's wheels, axles (and crankpins?) from the kit found a new home yet please Tony? If they are still rejects, I'll gladly take them off you hands if I manage to get to Spalding this weekend. At present I'm waiting to see whether I've now simply got a mild cold that doesn't last, or whether I need to stay away from the show this weekend to avoid having a miserable time as I cough and splutter my weary way around, infecting others as I go...

I avoid such frustrations as I hardly ever buy any of the magazines now. I'm simply not interested in viewing / reading material that has been prepared by, and for, the defective products of parenting styles and education that have in recent decades typically been deficient in insistence upon paying attention, and lacking in emphasis on the fundamental importance of literacy and the correct use of proper English...

Given the size of this well established and (normally) annual, well-attended exhibition, I'm very surprised that there seems to have been no mention of it on here prior to this. Further info available on the Spalding MRC website and in other places.

Or perhaps a new publication, devoted to the "accurate / logical" modelling of wholly imaginary rolling stock?

I like the better chimney, but I wonder if I'd have been tempted to file/rub down the back of the smokebox door, and trim the edges of the seating ring a touch, as it looks to me in that view a bit bulbous and possibly over-size compared to the imperfect boiler size.

Thanks Tony, you'll be glad to know that massive front coupling has already been removed for a year or more, and not before time. All this debate over the K's J3 has finally distracted me from planned activity to the extent of using my digital calliper to re-check various boiler dimensions for several of my models. These should all represent Doncaster designs with the same nominal 4' 8" diameter boiler (over the actual pressure vessel) plus presumably the same amount of lagging and clothing plates. It might be reasonable to assume similarity of smokebox diameters too. My resin J6 and J2 models, from home made masters made to match Isinglass drawings (and conclusions drawn from published dimensions) measure about 20.3mm over the clothed barrel, ~22mm smokebox dia. My Hornby, ex-Dapol, ex-Mainline N2 has 20.5mm colthed barrel dia, 22.1mm smokebox. A (Premier Kits?) D2 I have, which I didn't build, 20.6 clothed barrel dia, 22 to 20.2 slightly oval smokebox. Which brings me to my K's J3, which my modern measuring device now tells me is anywhere between 19.5 and 20.5 over the clothed boiler, which is oval and not parallel. The smokebox is about 21.7 horizontal diameter, possibly less than 21 vertically. Two decades or so ago, when I built the poor thing, I evidently either did not notice the ovality of the boiler until it was too late to correct, or I did not have / apply the necessary time, skill and force to sort it out without damage. Either way, the boiler clothing would appear to average 20mm diameter, which is not so seriously under-size as I had once thought. The biggest error therefore lies in the pitch of the boiler, maybe 1mm or more too low, which you have made efforts to correct in your latest budget build. On the matter of the tender, although the K's kit represents the final batch of locos that were built and later reboilered to become J3, the sandbox positions (plus Ivatt cab and shallow running plate angle iron) confirming this, it might be the case that one or more of these locos even in final large-boiler form ran for a period paired with one of Stirling's old wood framed tenders with concealed springs. If a suitable photo can be found to confirm such a pairing, then for anybody who is bothered by the massive Class B tender in the kit, who doesn't want to tackle an LRM etched tender, and who has access to any old Kitmaster remnants, the old plastic kit for the tender of the Stirling single can be hacked around and fitted with coal rails to produce a believable alternative tender...

At least as much as looks like a J3, and therein lies the dilemma.

Hmmm, this is all making me wonder whether, at a suitable time, I ought to consider altering the smokebox door, the front valve chest cover, the chimney, the dome and the safety valves on my K's J3. On the other hand, just as it stands it is a useable loco, not a complete eyesore, and a testament to one of my earliest successful loco kit building attempts, the result of simply cleaning up the parts, following the basic assembly instructions, and briefly checking the odd photograph as a guide. No such thing as a proper scale drawing was in my possession at the time, and even if I made the above alterations the boiler would still be of doubtful diameter and sitting a little low, all the handrail knobs rather too fat, and a host of other details not quite as refined as they could be. Since I certainly don't want to take the whole body back down to kit form then reassemble it with corrections it isn't easy to decide whether to interfere with the loco at all.

Do you have a simple calliper that can be used to gauge the boiler diameter and then compare it with a rule? My reason for asking if you had measured, rather than being a simple case of nit-picking, was simply to learn whether the undersize boiler and other faults were universally present in the K's J3 kits, or whether perhaps there were variations according to the state of the moulds at the time and I had been unlucky in getting a significantly under-size boiler and cab. You were probably well aware of the details of the tenders. I was providing information to cater for those who might not realise that the K's tender was unlikely to be the right type for many J3s. I hadn't spotted any earlier remarks to the effect that this was to be a minimum-cost, minimum effort project.

Did you try a Vernier gauge over the boiler cladding Tony, and compare results with good drawings, listed dimensions, or the LRM J3 and J6 which should be the same? Likewise, did you check cab dimensions? Does it turn out to be a J3 or a three-and-a-half? Is any adjustment to boiler pitch required compared to what the kit parts serve up? The K's tender might be the right general shape, but for the majority of J3s in LNER or early BR survival there's much more wrong with it than just the wheelbase as it seems to generally represent Ivatt's final version of the large Class B tender. Although some of the later J3s had such tenders as built, they were quickly appropriated for use behind larger locos and the J3s given a variety of lower-capacity and older types - unless of course the locos in question were those supplied new to the M&GN and reboilered at Melton Constable to become class Da Rebuilt, along with a variety of M&GN chimneys and smokebox doors. Some of the tenders provided for the J3s that stayed on the GNR and LNER did of course have the same size and shape of tank that the K's kit provides, but with different coal rails, front coal plates, water fillers and so on, as well as wheelbase differences.

It's coming along very nicely, judging by what I saw at Leeds show yesterday. One "off-stage" feature that impressed me was the hinged lifting section on the colliery curve, with extremely oblique rail joints at the hinge end and seemingly faultless running across those joints.

You say "probably better" - do you actually have experience of both types in order to be able to say for certain? Is the printed type sufficiently free of printing ridges for an ordinary painted finish to look perfect without a lot of preparation of the surfaces? Are the main dimensions, outlines, and both the positions and "weight" of the panel/beading lines correct? Are the prints totally free of any distortion and not in any way brittle? Would an Isinglass half-set and a Kirk half-set, both carefully built, be a genuinely satisfactory match?

Nothing in life is ever guaranteed. If you definitely want specific items and cannot possibly do without, or are happy to re-sell them privately if needs and preferences change, then order them while they're available. If you want to see whether prices fall later (for say second hand bargains or unsold new stock) and you're happy to do without if this fails, then hang on. It's a fairly simple choice.

Did the whole site fall over again relatively recently? My impression (rightly or wrongly) was that there had been some sort of update a couple of weeks ago (planned or otherwise) and that since then it has taken an annoyingly long time (again, as it has done after some past problems or updates) to get onto the site each time I try. Also noticed a few days ago lack/loss of ability to quote multiple previous posts in a reply - only one at a time seemed possible, limiting my ability to reply just once "in proper context".

I remember suggesting rebating the inner faces of the sides around the window areas in discussion with Andy Edgson 3 or maybe 4 years ago, in connection with an enquiry about getting printed sides (or complete body) for a particular ECJS 12 wheeled diner, to add to the two I was scratch-building. Although it sounded at the time as if he might be interested in producing what I wanted, subsequent further enquiry indicated that he was busy with other things and nothing further has ever happened about the matter. Unable to wait "at the ready" indefinitely, I've moved on to other projects now anyway, so any perceived urgency of need (if any need at all) for another ECJS diner has disappeared.

I'm yet to see any example of a 3D printed carriage with supposedly smooth surfaced panels (with or without mouldings / beading) which does not need fine scraping of all of those surfaces prior to any painting in order to create a genuinely smooth paint finish. Simply trying to bury the ridged texture, even if very fine, under layers of (filler) primer and paint doesn't do the trick in my opinion. Even if it looks just about okay when fresh, paint on a rough surface tends to continue to shrink / sink over time, revealing the roughness beneath. The two 3D printed GC Barnums I completed a couple of months back mostly escaped the scraping requirement because the matchboard sides and ends don't need to be free of texture.

Since this digital devilry won't apparently allow me to quote a series of posts from three preceding pages, I'll proceed without those, but... Whilst I acknowledge that set-track may have to be more robust to suit repeated handling, and I'm aware that Peco do, or did, offer something better looking for 12mm gauge modellers (if the stuff I saw on some sensible-scale TT3 layouts about 5-6 years ago is any guide, this looking far better in the sleepering department than any Peco OO offering at that time), I still don't see that any of that justifies the provision (yet again) of something cosmetically very, very, un-British in the Hornby trainsets, something that is likely to mislead new modellers regarding correct appearance and in some cases lock them in to the purchase of yet more incorrect track in order to match what they already have, should they wish to expand their layouts. .

The K's example that I built certainly turned out to be a J three-and-a-half. I didn't file prodigious amounts off the boiler to make a good fit, but the final diameter is in between the figures that would be correct for a J3 and the older, smaller J4 size. Likewise the cab height seems low for a "full" J3. I originally made the K's tender too, with which the loco ran for a decade or so until I bought and built a London Road Models kit for the far more period-appropriate Stirling (D type?) tender. I was told by another modeller that his K's example was not so lacking in boiler and cab sizes, so careful measurement of the parts may be in order before cheerfully soldering together and only then finding whether you've got quite what you hoped for.

If that's the actual track system on the demo layout then it's yet another example of hideously unrealistic "anything will do" stuff for the UK market, especially for the steam era. Rail section like huge girders and short spindly sleepers crammed far too closely together...

I can see the case for the flatness, transparency and scratch-resistance of real slide glass - or are we talking about slide cover slips? Set against that. free and readily available clear packaging is safer to handle, won't crack or shatter in situ, can be cut to any desired shape, can be given a fine trim if not quite right, and isn't too fussy about the type of adhesive used (if any) to hold it in place. Mechanical retention of the glazing has to be preferable to total reliance on glue.

Deeply unimpressed by the logic of this new version of UK TT scale, the illogical combination of offerings in the steam era range, the modern image content of the range, and by Hornby's selling policy which seems to go totally against the interests of vital, struggling local model shops.

I can confirm that 145C solder can be used on whitemetal. I carelessly picked up the wrong solder some years ago and had built half of a Little Engines J11 before I realised why I'd been having to use more heat than seemed usual in order to get the stuff to flow! Remarkably, I didn't destroy any whitemetal castings, but any mechanical cleaning up of rough joints was harder work than it would have been with the preferred lowmelt (73C?) product.

I don't see how you'll get that lot in your suitcase, and under the weight limit, for your trip to the UK next year.

My scratch-built East Coast clerestory diners, 60+ feet long, riding at scale height with full size OO wheels in bogies with an 11'9" wheelbase will go around a 2 foot radius curve, even though the solebars are "thick" plastic sections rather than thin metal, and I haven't deliberately set them ridiculously wide apart, merely nibbled bits out of the inner faces of the solebars where necessary. If kit built coaches are a problem does that indicate that the kit designer simply scaled down the real thing rather than making reasonable allowances for working models, and then building examples to test his own products? Alternatively, does it indicate that many builders simply build the kit per instructions rather than looking / testing for trouble (and for solutions to problems) at regular stages in the assembly?

Situation normal in many ways then? Too few hands trying to cover too much? Stressful / tiring. It won't be one of my conversions Simon, as none of my stock is there, but the roof might be one of my resin products.