Beer and Buckjumpers

User avatar
Flymo748
Posts: 2307
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 6:00 pm

Beer and Buckjumpers - it fits!

Postby Flymo748 » Fri Feb 17, 2012 7:41 pm

And just because it did, and I had the camera to hand, a quick snapshot...

Y14 Paint in progress 001.jpg


The painting is at the "blocking in colours" stage, so there are a few blemishes and marks to be corrected, and of course it will get a coat of satin varnish before weathering is started on it.

Flymo
Beware of Trains - occasional modelling in progress!
www.5522models.co.uk

DougN
Posts: 978
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 9:57 am

Re: Beer and Buckjumpers

Postby DougN » Fri Feb 17, 2012 11:05 pm

Looks very nice Flymo, Painting is a skill and an art at the same time. you have to be in the right mood and have the time to sit down do a little... walk away.... come back, do a little more. Well that is what I am finding! A little Black Hawthorn is not so black any more... It is one thing I am comming to is the behaviour of the paint, opacity, thickness and temperature. All seem to effect the result. I must admit that the finish I am now achieving is light years ahead of what I did 5 years ago and totally eclipsing what I did 14 years ago.
Doug
Still not doing enough modelling

User avatar
Flymo748
Posts: 2307
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 6:00 pm

Re: Beer and Buckjumpers

Postby Flymo748 » Sun Feb 19, 2012 9:13 pm

DougN wrote:Looks very nice Flymo, Painting is a skill and an art at the same time. you have to be in the right mood and have the time to sit down do a little... walk away.... come back, do a little more.


Thanks for the compliment. I've had no time to do any more painting on the Y14 since Friday night - although going to the Watford Show did give me the ability to use a 10BA tap to mount the front part of the chassis to the body. A little something that I seem to have overlooked in the build sequence!

DougN wrote:Well that is what I am finding! A little Black Hawthorn is not so black any more... It is one thing I am comming to is the behaviour of the paint, opacity, thickness and temperature. All seem to effect the result. I must admit that the finish I am now achieving is light years ahead of what I did 5 years ago and totally eclipsing what I did 14 years ago.

Sounds like you're moving in the right direction, and the opposite one to me. I'm finding so many things that I knew 20 years ago when I was first active in P4, but I've now long since forgotten!

Still, it's all good fun, and that's what it's all about :-)

Cheers
Flymo
Beware of Trains - occasional modelling in progress!
www.5522models.co.uk

User avatar
Flymo748
Posts: 2307
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 6:00 pm

Beer and Buckjumpers - choices, choices...

Postby Flymo748 » Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:54 pm

Only a couple of weeks to go now until the Missenden Spring Modelling Weekend. I don't know if anyone else is being tempted to put in a last minute appearance, to join the four Scalefour Society members that I know will be there.

The problem now for me is to choose what kit to take along to spend 48 hours of unadulterated modelling pleasure building. Over the last two years at Missenden I've started on my Y14, and my GER tram engine - both of which are in the final stages of the paintshop. So I had a good rummage in my box of kits to see what was there...

And the short-list is currently comprised of:

Alan Gibson GER F4/5 2-4-2T. It's an etched brass kit, it's a known quantity, and I enjoy putting AG kits together.

Alan Gibson GWR 517 class 0-4-2T. This is mostly white metal, with etched chassis and other brass bits. The second P4 loco that I ever built was one of these some twenty five years ago, when the previous incarnation of it was the M&L Kits version.

High Level Kits GER Y5 0-4-0T. Etched nickel silver, and the kit just oozes quality. I love HLK kits - the question is whether I fancy doing another tiny locomotive so soon after the Pug...

I'm not going to take all three along. At the moment, the current hot picks are the 517 and the Y5. One for nostalgia and one for the sheer class of the kit. I'll pack the relevant research books - I've got Russell's "Great Western Engines" by my elbow at the moment - and make a decision when I get there!

How does that sound?

Cheers
Flymo
Beware of Trains - occasional modelling in progress!
www.5522models.co.uk

DougN
Posts: 978
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 9:57 am

Re: Beer and Buckjumpers

Postby DougN » Mon Feb 20, 2012 1:00 am

Go for the Y5, Being a HL kit means that it will fit together, Easy, well thought out. Ogee tank (which will be fun) if I am thinking of the right loco. Gearbox will fit and run first time.... thinking about all of that maybe not. take the Whitemetal as it will be a bit of a challange. :twisted: Nice for you to think about when you are stuck in traffic, in the tube.... well any where!

How about something a little left of field.. signals anyone?
Doug
Still not doing enough modelling

User avatar
David Thorpe
Posts: 884
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 11:13 pm

Re: Beer and Buckjumpers

Postby David Thorpe » Mon Feb 20, 2012 8:01 am

If it was me (and I envy you going to Missenden, maybe one day.....) I'd take the F4/5, as the chassis is likely to be the most complicated (well, I have problems with it1) and it's the one I'd want most help with.

DT

Clive Impey
Posts: 39
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:09 am

Re: Beer and Buckjumpers

Postby Clive Impey » Mon Feb 20, 2012 10:28 am

I agree with Davey Tee about the difficulty of 2-4-2 chassis construction. It would be helpful to have some discussion as to what the best set up is especially with CSBs.

Clive

User avatar
Flymo748
Posts: 2307
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 6:00 pm

Re: Beer and Buckjumpers

Postby Flymo748 » Tue Feb 21, 2012 9:48 pm

CliveLincs wrote:I agree with Davey Tee about the difficulty of 2-4-2 chassis construction. It would be helpful to have some discussion as to what the best set up is especially with CSBs.

Clive

I've had a look on the CLAG website. There are no specific 2-4-2 examples that I've found.

However my gut instinct suggests a look at the prototype to see if it uses radial or pony arrangements on the carrying wheels, and if the former treat it as a 2-6-0 (or 0-6-2). I feel that the wheelbase wouldn't be impractical in length overall, so it shouldn't cause any running problems.

Or maybe spring the non-driving wheels separately. Hmmm...

Cheers
Flymo
Beware of Trains - occasional modelling in progress!
www.5522models.co.uk

User avatar
dcockling
Posts: 638
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:11 am

Re: Beer and Buckjumpers

Postby dcockling » Tue Feb 21, 2012 10:22 pm

Flymo748 wrote:..my gut instinct suggests a look at the prototype to see if it uses radial or pony arrangements on the carrying wheels


Hi Paul,

Of the GER 2-4-2 tanks, C32 (F3), M15 (F4), M15R (F5), G69 (F6) and Y65 (F7) only the C32s weren't radials. The C32s didn't have pony trucks either but a double frame arrangement. The GERS modelling pages say that at one time Coopercraft did a kit for the C32, there's a picture of one on John Brighton's website, but I've never found one on e-bay.

Good luck with the radial axleboxes.

All the Best
Danny

User avatar
Will L
Posts: 1770
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: Beer and Buckjumpers

Postby Will L » Wed Feb 22, 2012 12:35 am

Yes I've got a couple of GER 2-4-2s to do in time and I've been wondering how best to apply CSB's to them.

Obviously it will depend on how you treat those carrying axles.

You could go for a rigid 3 axle and a cosmetic pony truck, which would suit a classic 3 axle CSB implementation. This would be the safe, if a bit unadventurous, option.

I don't think I fancy the 0-4-0 with two cosmetic pony trucks approach. You might get away with it on the relatively small F7 I suppose, but I'm afraid all 0-4-0s, CSBd or not, wave their extremities around in a way which I don't think would be acceptable on a F3/4/5 or 6.

I think I would like to try sprung radial axles/pony trucks, but arranged so as to carry less body weight than the driving wheels. Given the loco weight is balanced centrally over the driving wheels, the symmetrical wheel base should ensure the loco balances out OK. I would have a CSB over the driving axles only, with separate CSB style single axle springs on each carrying axles. These end springs should be the same length between fulcrums so they are equally springy, and could use different size wire than the drivers. The spread sheets aren't going to be much help but fortunately two axle CSB's are trivial (fulcrums symmetrical about the centre point). It would need a bit of trial and error to get the wire sizes right and I would go for the minimum weight on the front and rear axles compatible with keeping the wheels on the track, i.e. breaking the make the centre axle slightly softer than the outside pair rule. I'm inclined to try this as my C12(4-4-2 with cosmetic pony) has much less weight on the bogie wheels than the driver, yet it rides very steadily, showing no sign of excess movement at the front buffer beam, either side to side, or up and down.

Will

P.S. Beware the F3, their wheel base isn't quite symmetrical

User avatar
David Thorpe
Posts: 884
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 11:13 pm

Re: Beer and Buckjumpers

Postby David Thorpe » Wed Feb 22, 2012 7:52 am

Will L wrote:Yes I've got a couple of GER 2-4-2s to do in time and I've been wondering how best to apply CSB's to them.

When you do start on these, Will, I'd certainly welcome one of your blow-by-blow accounts! :) The only thing that's putting me off CSBs these days is the difficulty in fitting Chris Gibbons' excellent gearboxes between the fulcrum points and I wonder if Chris, who appears after all to be a proponent of CSBs, is developing anything to get over that.

DT

User avatar
Russ Elliott
Posts: 930
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 6:38 pm

Re: Beer and Buckjumpers

Postby Russ Elliott » Wed Feb 22, 2012 9:32 am

Some ideas for 2-4-2s were explored here.

User avatar
Flymo748
Posts: 2307
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 6:00 pm

Re: Beer and Buckjumpers

Postby Flymo748 » Wed Feb 22, 2012 7:37 pm

DaveyTee wrote:When you do start on these, Will, I'd certainly welcome one of your blow-by-blow accounts! :) The only thing that's putting me off CSBs these days is the difficulty in fitting Chris Gibbons' excellent gearboxes between the fulcrum points and I wonder if Chris, who appears after all to be a proponent of CSBs, is developing anything to get over that.

DT

Have you tried the High Level "Spacesaver" hornblocks?

"The 'SpaceSaver' is a narrow variation on the Standard design and includes slimmed-down CSB Carriers. It's ideal for situations where lateral clearances are limited, for example, on a driven axle between the loco chassis and the gearbox sideframes. "

http://www.highlevelkits.co.uk/

They move the CSB wires closer in to the frames, and therefore the fulcrum points are also further apart from each other. Leaving more space to fit a gearbox inbetween...

HTH
Flymo
Beware of Trains - occasional modelling in progress!
www.5522models.co.uk

User avatar
Paul Townsend
Posts: 821
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 6:09 pm

Re: Beer and Buckjumpers

Postby Paul Townsend » Thu Feb 23, 2012 7:37 am

Flymo748 wrote:
http://www.highlevelkits.co.uk/

They move the CSB wires closer in to the frames, and therefore the fulcrum points are also further apart from each other.
Flymo


I don't understand that cause and effect.
Why would fulcrums neare the frames cause longitutinal change?

User avatar
Flymo748
Posts: 2307
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 6:00 pm

Re: Beer and Buckjumpers

Postby Flymo748 » Thu Feb 23, 2012 7:50 am

paultownsend wrote:
Flymo748 wrote:
http://www.highlevelkits.co.uk/

They move the CSB wires closer in to the frames, and therefore the fulcrum points are also further apart from each other.
Flymo


I don't understand that cause and effect.
Why would fulcrums nearer the frames cause longitudinal change?


Hi Paul,

It wouldn't. if I understand the question correctly (which I may not have!) DT's original question was about how to squeeze a High Level gearbox between the fulcrum points. If these are handrail knobs then having the wires closer to the frame side means that you can use shorter knobs, creating more space.

Does that make sense? I wasn't suggesting anything about moving the fulcrum points around to make them fit.

Cheers
Flymo
Beware of Trains - occasional modelling in progress!
www.5522models.co.uk

User avatar
Flymo748
Posts: 2307
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 6:00 pm

Beer and Buckjumpers - finding inspiration

Postby Flymo748 » Thu Feb 23, 2012 8:19 am

Sometimes you find something that inspires you to get modelling again. A recent treat for myself that did just that is a newly published book, "London's East End Railways":

Book 003.jpg
Book 003.jpg (67.86 KiB) Viewed 7608 times


It's a hard cover publication, containing both a narrative story of the author's experiences of working in the Eastern Region of British Railways, and some excellent photos from all periods back into Great Eastern days. This volume covers the line out (roughly) from Liverpool Street Station to Stratford station and locomotive works.

The pictures are almost uniformly interesting and of very good quality. Highly recommended for any Great Eastern modeller that wants to soak up the atmosphere, research details for modelling, or just enjoy a rather interesting story.

Cheers
Flymo
Beware of Trains - occasional modelling in progress!
www.5522models.co.uk

User avatar
David Thorpe
Posts: 884
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 11:13 pm

Re: Beer and Buckjumpers

Postby David Thorpe » Thu Feb 23, 2012 8:20 am

For my (so far) one attempt at building a loco using CSBs (I've also done a tender, quite successfully) the problem arose not with the hornblocks and gearbox, but with the fulcrum points and DriveStretcher. I used standard MJT hornblocks, drilled on top to accept a Markits original handrail knob - I think these were the ones recomended by CLAG. The gearbox just about fitted between these, driving the rear axle of an 0-6-0, and had I been using a gearbox alone there would have been no problem because it wouldn't have come into contact with the fulcrum points. To clear the cab, however, i needed a DriveStretcher, and unfortunately the combined gearbox/DriveStretcher unit then fouled the fulcrum points positioned between the centre and rear axles - it could be squeezed in, but there was then no free movement which rather defeated the object of the exercise. The fulcrum poins were the trusty Markits original handrail knobs - 1.5mm ball and 1.5mm long. There are shorter ones in the Markits range, but the difference is minimal - their shortest variety has a 1.00mm ball and is 1.6mm long, and I suspect that using them the same problem would arise.

Will encountered this same problem on one of his builds but resolved it by modifying the gearbox - he's described how in one of the CSB threads. I may give that go if I can summon up the courage :D .

The other option would be to try a Slimliner and associated drivestretcher, but I wanted 80:1 gears and the slimliner doesn't cater for that.

DT

P.S. I've edited this to correct my initial statement that Will had modified the DriveStretcher - in fact, I'm pretty sure that it was the gearbox he modified.
Last edited by David Thorpe on Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:44 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Russ Elliott
Posts: 930
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 6:38 pm

Re: Beer and Buckjumpers

Postby Russ Elliott » Thu Feb 23, 2012 11:46 am

DaveyTee wrote:...and unfortunately the combined gearbox/DriveStretcher unit then fouled the fulcrum points positioned between the centre and rear axles - it could be squeezed in, but there was then no free movement which rather defeated the object of the exercise.

I'm missing something here. With 15mm between frames, there should be 11.5mm clear between Markits handrail knobs. According to the High level pdf, the widest of the drivestretcher units is 9.8mm wide. Is the lack of clearance because the widest part of the HL box is 11.8mm?

allanferguson
Posts: 361
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 6:27 pm

Re: Beer and Buckjumpers

Postby allanferguson » Thu Feb 23, 2012 1:22 pm

paultownsend wrote:
Flymo748 wrote:
http://www.highlevelkits.co.uk/

They move the CSB wires closer in to the frames, and therefore the fulcrum points are also further apart from each other.
Flymo


I don't understand that cause and effect.
Why would fulcrums neare the frames cause longitutinal change?


I think he means moving them further apart across the way, so leaving more athwartships space.

Allan F

User avatar
David Thorpe
Posts: 884
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 11:13 pm

Re: Beer and Buckjumpers

Postby David Thorpe » Thu Feb 23, 2012 2:19 pm

Russ Elliott wrote:I'm missing something here. With 15mm between frames, there should be 11.5mm clear between Markits handrail knobs. According to the High level pdf, the widest of the drivestretcher units is 9.8mm wide. Is the lack of clearance because the widest part of the HL box is 11.8mm?

You're right in that the DriveStretcher itself was not the problem. Had I not used the DriveStretcher, the gearbox itself would have sat quite neatly between the frames, with the fulcrum points fore and aft of it. As it was, use of the Drive Stretcher brought the gearbox forward so that it effectively sat upright beteen the fulcrum points. As I said, it went in, but it was in contact with the fulcrum points, meaning it could not move freely. I have to confess that this may have been due a bit to inefficiancy on my part as the gearbox is a LoadHauler+ and, at 10.8mm wide, it should technically have fitted with 0.35mm free on each side. Unfortunately it didn't - quite possibkly the layer of epoxy glue that I used to fit the handrail knobs increased their length slightly.

DT

User avatar
Russ Elliott
Posts: 930
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 6:38 pm

Re: Beer and Buckjumpers

Postby Russ Elliott » Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:25 pm

Davey - I doubt a glue thickness would make that much difference. If there are clearance problems on a 10.8mm box, sounds like your frame spacing is well under 15mm.

User avatar
David Thorpe
Posts: 884
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 11:13 pm

Re: Beer and Buckjumpers

Postby David Thorpe » Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:41 pm

Surely not, Russ. On basic maths, each handrail knob is 1.5mm long with a 1.5mm ball, is 3mm in total. Two of these = 6mm. 15mm minus 6mm = 9mm clearance.

In fact, there's more than that. I've just done the necessary measurments. There's 15mm between the frames, and 10.55mm between the handrail knobs - I see that I'd filed a little off the head of the ball to try to achieve greater clearance. That still doesn't leave enough room for a 10.80mm wide gearbox.

DT

User avatar
Will L
Posts: 1770
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: Beer and Buckjumpers

Postby Will L » Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:32 pm

DaveyTee wrote:Will encountered this same problem on one of his builds but resolved it by modifying the DriveStretcher - he's described how in one of the CSB threads. I may give that go if I can summon up the courage


I can reassure you that the gearbox mod (to the LoadHauler Compact+) really wasn't that difficult to do, one of the most trouble free hacks I've ever attempted in fact. After all, the extra bits you need are provided by bits of the etch you don't need, and the method ensures no key dimensions are altered.

If I did it again I might want to think if there is a better way to do the catch between the main body and the DriveStreacher, as it isn't as positive in action as I would like. That said, it does work as described. You only need the catch if you have trouble getting the gearbox through the frames when you want to drop the wheels out, but, as we are both squeezing a drive under the cab floor of an 0-6-0, I suspect you will need the catch.

Will

User avatar
Paul Townsend
Posts: 821
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 6:09 pm

Re: Beer and Buckjumpers

Postby Paul Townsend » Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:34 pm

Flymo748 wrote:
If these are handrail knobs then having the wires closer to the frame side means that you can use shorter knobs, creating more space.

Does that make sense? I wasn't suggesting anything about moving the fulcrum points around to make them fit.

Cheers
Flymo

Yes clear now, you meant further apart across the frame and I read it as along the csb length, silly me.

User avatar
Russ Elliott
Posts: 930
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 6:38 pm

Re: Beer and Buckjumpers

Postby Russ Elliott » Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:38 pm

Davey - are we talking about the same handrail knob? Here's the rather unclear spec of the Markit's M4HRK 1.5:

m4hrk-15.png
m4hrk-15.png (37.14 KiB) Viewed 7525 times


I think that length from the base of the flange to the outside of the knob is supposed to be '1.83mm'. Two of those inside a 15mm-spaced frame would leave about 11.3mm clear. (And a little bit more if the face is filed off a tad.)

That said, the better match if using the HL carrier tags on normal (i.e. non-space-saver) HL blocks is probably the M4HRKm, with a 1.75mm beam pitch, and which extends about 2.2 or 2.3mm inside the frame. Two of those in a 15mm-spaced frame would cause problems clearing a 10.8mm box:

hl-horn-plus-knob.gif
hl-horn-plus-knob.gif (8.36 KiB) Viewed 7518 times


Return to “Flymo748”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests