Stanier 8F in S7

[mickoo]

Regarding etched rivets, I went the other way and sanded the etched ones to make the sharp edges a little rounded on the A1 tender, real rivets are domes, etched ones look like flat pennies stuck on the side . Some of the A1 tender required pressed rivets and alongside the sanded etched ones there's little difference unless you look really closely.

I'm still undecided on which are best to be honest, I personally prefer the shaped of pressed ones, but they do tend to be a uniform size unless you change the half etch hole at the rear and/or the punch and die......and they can be hard work for a large tender side like the A1. Etched ones are easier as they are already produced for you, but are flat and not domed like the real thing, but the size can also be varied with the CAD art work.

 

[OzzyO]

Try this lot of rivets and bolt heads then,


Or this one


Happy riveting all,

So not all rivets are dome headed.

OzzyO.

 

[mickoo]

Indeed not LOL, unless I'm mistaken, I thought most locos were either snap head (domed) or counter sunk (flush) headed rivets, I can't recall seeing any pan heads which is what an etched rivet would represent.

To be fair, it's fairly academic, at arms length, normal viewing distance, your hard pressed to tell the difference between etched relief or pressed rivets, I suppose it's just what you feel most comfortable with, etched relief, pressed or printed

 

[Wagonman]

What is the latest position on the revised etches from MOK? Is there anything that could go in the Newsletter?


Richard

 

[DavidinAus]

If you wish, and the deadline isn't too soon, I can do a write up of what I have done so far. You can see what (little) I have achieved from the pictures further up this thread.
Although there have been and there are problems still to be overcome, between Dave Sharp making the special etches and Slaters making the special wheels, my opinion is that there is a really good model to be made, potentially by anyone with just a little skill and patience.

David

 

[OzzyO]

Hello David, all,

if you have the original parts of the frames could you cut the new wider part off on the bottom red line, at the top of the frames?


This would then remove the part with the red X, you could then do the same with the narrow part and graft the two together using some L angle brass in the corners that have been marked in green.

But do you really need this part in the construction? A copy of this part of the frames instructions could help some of us a lot. The reason that I'm saying that is it looks like it will just get in the way of mounting the motor and gearbox.

OzzyO.

 

[DavidinAus]

Thanks.
However if you look carefully there are uprights on the frames themselves (presumably aimed to support the motor mounting) which will have to be removed [they simply will not go into the whitemetal firebox with the frames set at O/D 29mm - see Adrian's posts above]. Once I have to undertaken that, it will be relatively straightforward, although not easy, to file the outsides of the flat motor mount (the bit perpendicular to the frames) back to fit within the firebox. I can then add metal angle as strengthening to make up for the bits cut off.
The upright holds a plate which itself holds the motor [RG7 or equiv.] loosely in a circular cut-out to allow some movement with the compensation system on the driven axle. I'm reluctant to lose this system.
I will try to scan some of the instructions this weekend to post here. However the instructions, although adequate, and the weakest point of this kit - as MOK acknowledge, and I am trying to help them improve as I go along.

David

 

[Dikitriki]

Hi,

I've been giving some thought to this, wondering what I would do. FWIW, these are my thoughts.

The motor mount as provided in the kit is suitable only for an in-line RG7 or exact clone.
If you are using any other motor, you can't use the motor mount as it is, and may as well get rid of it - or ay least any part above the chassis.
Since I assume you will be using a motor/gearbox unit, the motor mount as provided is a luxury you just don't need.
All that is required is an upright stay to stop motor rotation, and a method of securing the motor to the stay but which still allows it to move with the rise and fall of the driven axle. I have used a band secured with a bolt to the stay, wire clipping into the stay and even wire just soldered to itself in a loop round the stay. All work.

I would venture to suggest that a simple fit for purpose alternative could be fabricated with less work....and angst!

....But it wouldn't be as elegant

Richard

 

[DavidinAus]

Yes, it is a question of just what you want to achieve.
Once MOK offered to help, by doing the conversion etch, I also wanted to help them, and do a couple of tasks: firstly to show that with their modifications it was possible to produce a Scale-Seven version of their 8F kit, and secondly I am happy to act as a ghost-writer for their instructions.
As far as the first of these is concerned, it was easy until I discovered the difficulty of the motor mount and the inside-width of the footplate part. Up to then it has all been going almost exactly to plan.
Now I want to produce a solution which is workable for others with minimal modification of the kit as it stands.
David Sharp, in order to produce a comprehensive "conversion etch" might have to re-design the footplate part. However if I can show that the frames themselves can be modified with minimal trouble, he might not have to produce a new etch of those as well.
I personally think that the S7 Group need to work constructively with kit manufacturers to allow producton of S7 kits with the minimum alteration from Finescale kits - it willl not be viable financialy otherwise for S7 kits to be designed and made.
So although a radical solution to a difficulty might be better, a lesser-but-workable solution is, in my view, preferable.

David

 

[SimonT]

David,
presumably the finescale motor mount fits between the footplate and firebox casting? If that is so, to me the simplest approach would be to reduce the width of the motor mount above the frames to a width that clears the footplate and firebox. I would then add a diagonal web from each side to provide the stiffening that will be lost in removing the over wide end of the mount. The webs would have to sit slightly lower than Ozzy's diagonal red lines to clear the footplate, etc. The base of the webs could be soldered to the remains of the motor mount cheeks below footplate level.

I totally agree with you about the S7 Brigade working with the manufactures. David was very helpful when I bought my 64XX and checked through the full CAD model checking dimensions while we discussed on the phone any likely problems in building it to S7.

Hope this helps

Simon

 

[DavidinAus]

I was just about to set off and form the rivets on the footplate, then take 1.5mm off the inside of each footplate side, when another factor entered my brain, and it is just as well(I think) that it did.
If I take 1.5mm off the inside of each side of the footplate, then the whitemetal cast firebox will no longer fit as intended on the inside edges of the footplate. See first picture:

This might not matter, because the firebox still fits on the frames themselves. See picture 2


So if I make the inside dimension of the footpale sides nearly the same as the inside dimension of the frames then I think it should work. The inside dimension of the frames is 28mm at present. The inside dimension of the footplate is currently 26.5mm. See picture 3


So if I take 1.0 mm off the inside of the footplate each side, the edges will sit on the middle of the frame each side, which will probably look OK, and the firebox can sit on the frame edges.
The only (?!) problem remaining is that the line of etched rivets on each inside edge of the footplate sits right on top of the line to which I need to reduce the footplate inner-dimension. Tricky.

It is tempting to leave the footplate as it is, just cut back the motor-mount. However this would leave the footplate overhanging the inside of the frames, which would not look very good.

Cutting back the footplate by 1mm and using Archer transfers is looking attractive. I have some of these transfers, but have never used them - any hints? They don't look easy to position accurately.

Or file the original etched "rivets" flat, then reform them with my (relatively unsophisticated) Metalsmith rivet tool?

David

 

[Osgood]

I've just been doing some homework on S7 kit conversions by reading this thread. Very inspirational. But I'll be playing safe and starting with a couple of Agenoria industrials!

At the risk of introducing an element of bodging (and I don't even know if it would be appropriate for the 8F), I can see some possible benefit, when converting other kits, in the use of frame overlays to create thicker frames - the original inner frame can be cut back wherever a thin profile is required or visually important.

When converting kits there will always be an element of compromise compared to a scratchbuild. This method would certainly resolve your footplate width issue. If you think about it many kits use much heavier hornblocks than the real thing - this would actually help to make them appear more to scale.

Their use in conversions of the RTR breeds to reduce the gap between frame and gauge-widened wheels would be visually better since most of those use a solid block chassis in any case.

Just a thought, has it been done before? The more I think about it the more uncomfortable I am with any compromise - but if I don't start compromising on something then I won't get anything done!

 

[Overseer]

I would cut the footplate back, file left over rivets back then use the rivet tool to form the new rivets. It should be easy enough to set up guides so the rivets are in line parallel with the edges. You might need to touch the top of the new rivets with a file or sandpaper to give them a flat top like the etched rivets. It will be much easier than trying / remembering to apply Archer rivets in the middle of painting the loco as they apparently don't adhere well to bare metal.

 

[mickoo]

David, I expect the firebox is the correct width as it should fit down between the footplate on the real loco and is/are virtually the same width as the frames. The reason it sits on the footplate at the moment is because the kit has a built in ledge so you can solder the firebox to the footplate, and thus make it all removable in one lump, the foot plate is also wider due to the finescale spacers it was previously designed around.

Your best option will be to trim the footplate to the correct width, then add some shim underneath where the firebox sits so that it sits down between the footplate and onto your new ledges soldered underneath.

Most kits split the firebox at the footplate and use the footplate as a soldering fixing base, real loco fireboxes are complete and the footplate is tacked onto the side, a really good example are the BR Standard locos, especially the Std 5 where the firebox clothing goes all the way down to the frames and is shaped to fit their profile.

On the 8F the frames rise up above the footplate where the firebox sits, there should be parts for this in the kit, I think you may need those parts now so that you can progress with them and suddenly not have to come up with solutions for them later.

To be fair, this is where it all gets tricky, deciding where your going to make the split in parts for dis-assembly and maintenance and then deciding on which bits to stick with which

 

[DavidinAus]

To keep you up to date:

I've taken the plunge ..... Bitten the bullet ..... etc.

I used some rectangular-section brass to strengthen the motor mount, soldered into place.

Then I cut off the frame uprights, and part of the motor mount. As can be seen, the footplate can now lie on the frames. Good.

Even better, the firebox goes over the motor mount!
In this view it is possible to see how well this model goes into the ScaleSeven arena: the firebox is exactly the correct width, even though the model was originally intended for Finescale.
Inspecting the footplate now, it becomes clear (see diagram below) that I will only have to shave the 1mm off the inside of the footplate for the length between the two vertical arrows which I have put on the picture.

The rest is covered by the parts representing the frames above footplate level.

The angled arrow shows one of the slots into which the parts representing the frames where they are visible above the footplate will fit: just outside of the firebox moulding.
Interestingly, they are exactly 29mm across the outside dimension - as are the frames which I have built.

Of course I shouldn't be surprised really, but it is reassuring.

David

 

[DavidinAus]

Although I was in England recently, I had to leave before Guildex, alas.
Were the 8F wheels available? Did anyone see them? Do we know what progess there has been?
I'm not wanting to go too far ahead with the other bits before I have the driving wheels, now.
However I should probably go ahead with altering the footplate as in my last message (I was going to say "last post", but with all these WWI events ....)
I've received my chosen power unit - an ABC Mini-7 (in-line) with a Portescap motor. It doesn't look big enough to move an 8F (I'm not really worried!).

David

 

[Len Cattley]

Hi David, I had a word with Paul Stokes and he is waiting for the tender wheels to arrive from Slaters, which is great news as anybody who has a standard Stanier can use them, not to sure about the driving wheels though.

Len

 

[mickoo]

Hi David, I had a word with Paul Stokes and he is waiting for the tender wheels to arrive from Slaters, which is great news as anybody who has a standard Stanier can use them, not to sure about the driving wheels though.

Len

Are the current (7851ST) 4' 3" tenders wheels not correct then, you've got me worried now as I've a set that should fit Stanier tenders and thought they were correct?

 

[Heather Kay]

Are the current (7851ST) 4' 3" tenders wheels not correct then, you've got me worried now as I've a set that should fit Stanier tenders and thought they were correct?

Perhaps, to clarify, the Group commissions S7 profile wheels for a loco. In this case, pony, driving and tender wheels for the Stanier 8F. Obviously, the tender and pony wheels would suit other Stanier locos. Equally, the drivers will suit locos that used the same diameter/spoke count.

So, the S7 Stores are awaiting the tender wheels to make the full set. Slater's may sell S7 profile wheelsets from their range, but they won't have the detailed reverse of the Group sets.

 

[Len Cattley]

Are the current (7851ST) 4' 3" tenders wheels not correct then, you've got me worried now as I've a set that should fit Stanier tenders and thought they were correct?

Hi Mick they are correct Paul's just waiting to recieve them from Slaters (they were supposed to bring them to Telford).

Len