Building an Ace Kits "K"

oldravendale

Western Thunderer
I'll be using Slaters 7845E 3'9" 12 Spoke.

No further progress to report although much behind the scenes work is done with axles cut ready for filling with epoxy, frame spacers fitted and hornblocks readied for epoxy cementing in place tomorrow. More to report when there's something worth taking a picture of.

B
 

oldravendale

Western Thunderer
Oh Sh ! I mean bug ! no, bother! But I didn't dream these wheels up. They must be the ones recommended in the instructions, but I'll check tomorrow.

I now know not to trust anything in this kit. Better look at the other wheels now......
 

oldravendale

Western Thunderer
Well, just when I thought it couldn't get any worse.......

The tender wheels recommended in the kit instructions are most definitely 3ft 9in. Amazingly the scaled drawing within the instructions shows the wheels to be 4ft! I've used the term "unforgivable" before, but this is truly beyond belief. At the moment I'll stick with these incorrect wheels and see what they look like - apart from anything else I'd already started to slit the axles so the packs were already opened and therefore not returnable.

I'll continue to persevere with the kit. However, having noted the defects as I've gone along with it I will contact William Ascough when I've completed the build as , without significant retooling, this kit should be withdrawn from sale.

Anyway, to business. The loco wheels recommended are 7843, 3ft 6in 10 spoke pony wheels and 7866LB, 5ft 6in 18 spoke driving wheels. Are these at least correct?

Again, today, nothing to show, but the frames have been drilled and tapped 12BA ready for screwing in the hornblocks which are now glued in to the frames and waiting for the epoxy resin cement to go off. The axles are slit and the epoxy is in the gap and the wheels have had the rims and centres drilled and a spoke on each grooved with a slitting disc to take the copper wire. See http://www.euram-online.co.uk/tips/splitaxle/splitaxle.htm for more details.

Tomorrow I hope I'll be able to make the final cuts on the axles and complete the epoxy-ing and also solder in the shorting wires on the rear of the wheels before using more epoxy on the backs of the spokes to hold the wires in place.

After that it's more metal cutting. I wonder what surprises are yet to come?

Perhaps it's time to go back to the 9F and try to finish that.

Brian
 

Steph Dale

Western Thunderer
3'6" pony wheel is correct.

Drivers should be 5'6", 18spk, with 12" crank throw between spokes.

The wheels you have are fine for an inside-cylindered Brighton loco (9" throw in line with spokes), such as D1, D3 or E5, but the crank throw is positively anaemic for the thumping great K.

However, Slaters don't do anything exactly correct. The closest is probably 7867, which is 5'7" wheel, but otherwise correct. It's entirely possible to sort out the wheels you have and make them perfect, but it depends how you feel about that; it involves a simple jig and a few blobs of Milliput!

For what it's worth the locos also have eccentric main crankpins so the connecting rod throw is 13" and the coupling rods 12". Again, it's possible, just depends upon how you feel about doing the necessary...

Steph
 

oldravendale

Western Thunderer
Thanks, Steph.

I'll give it some thought!! At least, as far as the loco wheels are concerned the suggested compromise is understandable. Whether it's reasonable or not is another question. We can consider this at the weekend?

As far as the eccentric crankpins are concerned, I can see how to achieve that, but I'll consider whether it's worthwhile on a kit that's going to be riddled with compromises.

Still, if it looks like a duck and swims like a duck it's probably a duck. Which is a hell of a disappointment as I definitely wanted a "K".

B
 

OzzyO

Western Thunderer
For what it's worth the locos also have eccentric main crankpins so the connecting rod throw is 13" and the coupling rods 12". Again, it's possible, just depends upon how you feel about doing the necessary...

Steph

Hello Steph,

do you have a drawing showing that? It just sounds so odd. I know that it can be done using an eccentric on the end of the crank-pin but it seem a lot of work to get 2" more travel from the cylinders.

On inside cylinder loco this is not a problem as they have there own cranks and eccentrics for the valve gear.

I've just had a look in the Sharman wheel book I know it's not always correct but he has both wheel throw and cylinder stroke the same at 26".

OzzyO.
 

Steph Dale

Western Thunderer
There are a great number of errors in the Sharman book; most of the type you mention. There are also a few instances of inside cylinder stroke being read as crank throw in the wheels. And I think it's also the source for the number of spokes in Slaters wheel for a Princess Royal...

I don't have a drawing which shows it clearly, but I recall an image on the Bluebell Railway's page for the Brighton Atlantic...

Oh, and the reason the approach is taken is to improve the leverage of the con rods to the coupling rods. As far as I know it's a feature of all the outside-cylindered Brighton locos.

Steph
 

oldravendale

Western Thunderer
Latest error on the instructions, noted by Ian (Railwaymaniac): I've just checked the actual wheels I purchased for the loco and the bogie wheels are 3ft 6in 10 spoke Ref 7842. So, another error in the instructions which refers to them as Ref 7843! 7843 is the 3ft 7in wheels - good job I didn't buy those as well!
 

OzzyO

Western Thunderer
Latest error on the instructions, noted by Ian (Railwaymaniac): I've just checked the actual wheels I purchased for the loco and the bogie wheels are 3ft 6in 10 spoke Ref 7842. So, another error in the instructions which refers to them as Ref 7843! 7843 is the 3ft 7in wheels - good job I didn't buy those as well!

It could have been that some of the wheels were not in production when the kit came out!
 

OzzyO

Western Thunderer

Railwaymaniac

Western Thunderer
It could have been that some of the wheels were not in production when the kit came out!
Could be, but I'm not very happy with the thought?..

For the (very few?) people on here that haven't spotted it, the last two numbers for Slaters '78xx' wheels is the DIAMETER OF THE WHEEL IN INCHES. So a '7842' wheel is 42 inches diameter - 3ft 6inches.
TBT, I've never gone through *all* of the wheels on the list, but I've not yet seen an exception to this - that's why Brian thinks it's a typo in the instructions ...

(I can now imagine 17,836 Western Thunderers simultaneously reaching for a pack of Slaters wheels and saying "ooh, yeah" ...) :)) :)) :))

Ian
 

Steph Dale

Western Thunderer
Paul,

It's the motion and frame brackets that will take the pounding from the coupling rods if anything. I think I'd go for the correct coupling rod throw as it increases clearances fore/aft and up/down around the crosshead and connecting rod respectively.

Steph
 

oldravendale

Western Thunderer
There's double trouble here with the coupling rod throw, one that the crank throw on the wheels is insufficient and also the crank pins add a bit more. I have to consider whether to adjust anything, or one or both options. I'll probably have a look at the wheels in place and decide from there.

Brian
 

OzzyO

Western Thunderer
Let's put this perspective we are only talking of 0.6mm throw or on the cross-head 1.2mm overall movement?
 

oldravendale

Western Thunderer
It's a while since I posted about this, but.....

Firstly please may it be noted that :)) is not an appropriate response to this tragic thread. Neither is "I told you so."

You know that noise you get when you run your fingers rapidly over your lips? Sort of "bluppabluppablubba" before they carry you away in the big white van to the funny farm? Well, "bluppabluppablubba".

So, to pick up approximately from where we left things I completed the tender frames using my scratch built spacers, split axles and Slaters sprung horn blocks.

IMG_5096.JPG IMG_5097.JPG

Here they are, complete with brake suspension wires. Unsurprisingly the holes for these in the frames were not the same size as the holes in the brake hangers. Fortunately this is not critical, so in view of the other issues this is hardly worth mentioning (but now I have, so there). I then made up the brake gear.

IMG_5088.JPG

Fairly obviously from this view the brake blocks themselves are a single etch thickness and need considerable beefing up. Of more concern is that the holes in the brake hangers and brake rods are all of different sizes. I took educated guesses on the sizes of the cross rods, but the forked ends of the brake rods are also of different sizes, so had to be filed out and matched to the rod size where the forks are not wide enough. These assemblies were made up on a temporary jig - so temporary that it's now in the scrap bin. Anyway, it all fits together in a fairly symmetrical manner and the wheels rotate. Smug grin.:D

Time to refer to the instructions so that I could fit these in the proper locations. The instructions say "Brake Rods (parts 98 and 99) complete this part of the assembly". That's all. So that's alright then. Fortunately young :)))) Steph (gave) sold me a set of drawings for the "K", so I could approximate the proper layout except that there's no brake cylinder for the tender to which I can attach the working end of the brake rods, hence they are not yet fitted. Does anyone know where a suitable brake cylinder may be had?

Nonetheless, I'm passably satisfied with the position I've reached with this part of the tender (please remember, I still have the loco to which I'm looking forward immensely:shit:) so moved on to the tender body.

I bet you're enjoying this, Pete. This demonstrates the standards with which you must compete.

So, some more instructions. "The tender body is built up on it's footplate (part 84) the sides and end are formed from one piece (part 101) located in the half etched line on the top of the footplate." Not so - the half etched line is, I suspect, for the outside frames, the location for the tender sides is clearly by slot and tab, but.....

IMG_5089.JPG IMG_5090.JPG IMG_5091.JPG

the tags do not fit the slots.

Furthermore.....

IMG_5086.JPG

the slots are not symmetrical as those on one side are closer to the edge of the footplate than those on the other. Oh joy!

I see no alternative but to mark up the footplate with the proper location, remove the tabs and solder the sides and rear in to the proper location via some sort of comedy right angle butt join. EDIT - just thought that I can solder some right angle on to the bottom of the sides and that will give a bigger area to which I can apply solder. Maybe I could also drill the tender footplate and install some location pins to keep the sides straight and parallel.

Shaping the tender sides and back comes next. The instructions advise: "The radii at the end are formed by bending the half etch areas of this part around a 9mm bar and the top flare is formed in a similar way."
IMG_5092.JPG IMG_5095.JPG

Well, the GA and a photo both confirm that the "flare" is not flared, but a straight section. More surprisingly (or perhaps not by now).....

IMG_5093.JPG
the drawing provided by Mr Ascough with the kit shows that the flare is straight and not rounded. I'm pleased about that as I don't enjoy trying to create rounded flares, 9mm bar or not. But then along comes another problem - nothing in the instructions to deal with this one.....

IMG_5085.JPG

The etch thoughtfully has a gap at each rounded corner. Every other kit I've built with a flared corner either has a molding to drop in or (and the method I prefer) a series of fingers cut in to the flare which can be bent to shape, flooded with solder and then filed back to a perfect rounded corner. Does anyone have any ideas how to deal with the approach offered here?

(Does it look to you as though forming the corner around a 9mm bar would work? Funnily enough neither did I. So I formed the corner around a 3mm bar which worked out just fine.)

There may have been some effort made to help with the issue of the flares at the corners as, although not mentioned in the instructions and a part without any part number we have these:

IMG_5087.JPG

Do you think these are intended to be soldered in to the corners with a flood of solder and then filed back to shape?

Believe it or not, so far I'm actually enjoying the challenge. I must be out of my tree. bluppabluppablubba.

Brian
 
Last edited:
Top