Dave's 4mm scale Industrial Loco Workshop.
- Thread starter Dave
- Start date
Herb Garden
Western Thunderer
You joke Matt.... But on Saturday when I was exhibiting the layout I got asked the following question at least 3-4 times.
"Is that the accurascale buckjumper that is being released next year?"
No I don't have a TARDIS! It's a kit
John57sharp
Western Thunderer
It's a lovely little engine. Top work indeed!
John
John
Dave
Western Thunderer
Heljan's is of course a BR Class 02, but with their track record it wouldn't surprise me if we see some appearing in other liveries, pretending to be 220DEs. They took their Ruston LSSE (BR Class 07) and gave it the army livery but made none of the changes to the body to match the army locos (Ruston LSSH). It's like sticking the name and number of a Hall onto a Castle, telling them it's a Hall and expecting that no one will know the difference.
WELL, HELJAN, I KNOW THE DIFFERENCE AND I AM WATCHING YOU.
simond
Western Thunderer
Dave
Western Thunderer
It wasn't a very good example because, to be fair, all that GWR stuff looks much the same anyway.
Dave
Western Thunderer
Heljan's LSSE, pretending to be an LSSH.
The NCB also had some LSSH, so I converted an 07 into one by shortening the length of casing behind the cab and adding handrails to the sides and rear. I covered the louvres on the engine casing with etches that were custom-made by a friend. The cab was also replaced with etched parts with a more correct roof height and profile. It's still a little too tall, but we didn't have a drawing to work from.
The LSSH ought to have a jackshaft drive to the rods but that was a bridge too far for me. I have another 07 and another set of etches stashed away, so if I get around to doing it I will do that one in the army livery and will look at adding the jackshaft. Even without it, my version is more accurate than Heljan's, which is just the LSSE in an army uniform.
The NCB also had some LSSH, so I converted an 07 into one by shortening the length of casing behind the cab and adding handrails to the sides and rear. I covered the louvres on the engine casing with etches that were custom-made by a friend. The cab was also replaced with etched parts with a more correct roof height and profile. It's still a little too tall, but we didn't have a drawing to work from.
The LSSH ought to have a jackshaft drive to the rods but that was a bridge too far for me. I have another 07 and another set of etches stashed away, so if I get around to doing it I will do that one in the army livery and will look at adding the jackshaft. Even without it, my version is more accurate than Heljan's, which is just the LSSE in an army uniform.
Dave
Western Thunderer
I have been building rolling stock for a micro layout that is only at the bare board stage at the moment. It is to be a steel foundry and forge, so some specialist stock is required. I haven't gone into much detail of the build as there really isn't a lot to say.
BR Diagram 1/004 Pig Iron wagons. Trix bodies on Hornby 27-ton iron stone tippler underframes.
BR Diagram 1/004 Pig Iron wagons. Trix bodies on Hornby 27-ton iron stone tippler underframes.
Dave
Western Thunderer
Back to locomotives.
I've had two DJM Austerity saddle tanks and both have been a disaster as far as running goes. They started off alright but in a short time one got to the stage where it would not run around a curve on one of my layouts at all and the other became rougher and jerkier as time went on.
I know that I'm not alone in having DJM Austerities perform badly and I'm sure the reason for their poor performance is down to lots of poor quality gears transmitting the power and fighting against the coupling rods. I don't know what the designer was thinking then he drew this abomination, or why he thought it was necessary when almost every other model runs perfectly well by following prototype practice by transmitting the power via the rods. The amount of backlash is ridiculous. The topmost gear can be turned approx. 270 degrees before the gear that drives the leading wheelset begins to move at all. For the drive to get to the leading axle it goes through 9 gears, yet that to the rear axle goes through only 5 - no wonder it all goes out of phase with the rods after a while.
The entire thing is fit only for the bin.
I'll be starting from scratch with the same recipe as with the Manning Wardle scratchbuilds.
I've had two DJM Austerity saddle tanks and both have been a disaster as far as running goes. They started off alright but in a short time one got to the stage where it would not run around a curve on one of my layouts at all and the other became rougher and jerkier as time went on.
I know that I'm not alone in having DJM Austerities perform badly and I'm sure the reason for their poor performance is down to lots of poor quality gears transmitting the power and fighting against the coupling rods. I don't know what the designer was thinking then he drew this abomination, or why he thought it was necessary when almost every other model runs perfectly well by following prototype practice by transmitting the power via the rods. The amount of backlash is ridiculous. The topmost gear can be turned approx. 270 degrees before the gear that drives the leading wheelset begins to move at all. For the drive to get to the leading axle it goes through 9 gears, yet that to the rear axle goes through only 5 - no wonder it all goes out of phase with the rods after a while.
The entire thing is fit only for the bin.
I'll be starting from scratch with the same recipe as with the Manning Wardle scratchbuilds.
timbowales
Western Thunderer
Phil, goodness knows what the designer was smoking.......
Dave, did you need the little chisel to get the two halves of the chassis apart?
Dave, did you need the little chisel to get the two halves of the chassis apart?
Osgood
Western Thunderer
Intersting.
In theory, if the coupling rods are nice and tight then the extra slack in the drive to the front axle (due to more gears) would cause the drive to be taken up by the centre and rear wheels (both having identical gear trains) with the gears running to the front axle running under no load.
In theory, if the coupling rods are nice and tight then the extra slack in the drive to the front axle (due to more gears) would cause the drive to be taken up by the centre and rear wheels (both having identical gear trains) with the gears running to the front axle running under no load.
Dave
Western Thunderer
Hi Tim. The two parts came apart easily, once the screws were removed. Getting the screws meant having to pull the wheels off and getting the chassis out of the body was a game in itself.
The rods were not tight. The holes in them were very slack but whether this was by design or wear I don't know. The rods themselves are paper-thin stampings that aren't capable of transmitting the drive so I'll replace them with scratchbuilt versions.
Dave
Western Thunderer
I found a drawing on the interwebs and scaled it up to 16mm/ft. to save having to prepare my own drawing. It didn't feature the springs so I made these as patterns in their own right and stuck them on.
I made a test chassis from styrene in order to check the positioning of the slots for the motor mount.
On this test piece the motor mount was inclined but I discovered that the motor can fit vertically, which will make fitting and removing the chassis to the body easier. It doesn't have the slots for the stretchers that will carry the pickup plate.
I made a test chassis from styrene in order to check the positioning of the slots for the motor mount.
On this test piece the motor mount was inclined but I discovered that the motor can fit vertically, which will make fitting and removing the chassis to the body easier. It doesn't have the slots for the stretchers that will carry the pickup plate.
Dave
Western Thunderer
I am. One of the problems (in my view) with the RT chassis is that all that cosmetic valve gear, con rods and slide bars are just wasted space. They can't be seen in the shadows under the boiler and that space is better used either for weight or for DCC sound gear. It's made from 15 thou. etched nickel silver, which isn't very heavy, or very strong. If I'm not going to use all the waggly bits and if I'm going to need to make my own gearbox mount anyway, I may as well make my own chassis that will be stronger and heavier.
The goal is 250g for no other reason than the newly-announced Accurascale Austerity will weigh that and I want to build something that can perform as well as it. Professional company with all the proper equipment and technology Vs bloke in a shed with CAD (Carboard Aided Design) and a 1950s pantograph.
Dave
Western Thunderer
The chassis now has a drive. It's all a bit of a tight fit and I had to use the same trick of milling a recess into one of the frame plates to get the crownwheel in as I did with the Manning Wardle 0-4-0ST.
Fitting pickups is going to be difficult. I can't use my usual system due to the springs being below the bottom of the frames, so that's something to think about.
I've been asked by a friend to weather this Heljan O gauge 48DS Ruston. It's a nice little thing and almost makes me want to go back to O gauge myself.
Fitting pickups is going to be difficult. I can't use my usual system due to the springs being below the bottom of the frames, so that's something to think about.
I've been asked by a friend to weather this Heljan O gauge 48DS Ruston. It's a nice little thing and almost makes me want to go back to O gauge myself.