DJH Q7 Build

[Rob Pulham]

I thought that I would start a new thread for this build and try to add as much of the feeling and thought process behind it along the way. I will keep updating my Workbench thread with other items as I finish them as I will be mainly working on this at weekends.

 

So I started again on the Q7 build today with the basic chassis fastened together and the wheel sets running freely.

 

I then tacked the con rods together temporarily so that I could drill them out.

 

Having tried them one side ran freely but the other needed some adjustment, several lots of adjustment in fact.

 

Once all was running freely I drilled and fitted the rod that connect to the slide bars, this time they both ran free at the first attempt.

 

I then sat down to work out how the High level gear box went together never having used one before (the Claud has a Comet gearbox in it).

 

I had selected the High level 54:1 box after reading some trials that one of the groups had done (it may have been the Scalefour society but I cannot remember) and partnered this with a Mashima 14:26. Once I had worked out how to assemble it I reamed out the holes soldered in the bearings and folded up the two frames. I then cut the supplied rod for the stage one and idler gear (the instructions recommend using a carborundum slitting disk in a mini drill but the piercing saw made short work of it.) once I was sure that it was square and free running I soldered the seams in the gearbox frames. Doing my best to put all the bits together and wishing for an extra couple of hands I managed to get all the bits together and brought it to the frames to determine how it would sit and there hit a snag. The Gearbox with the bearings protruding outwards wouldn?????t fit between the frames.

 

Out came the trusty piercing saw and I trimmed of as much as I could and filed the rest until the gearbox fitted between the frames. It then took several attempts to get the idler gear spindle to the correct length to fit between the frames as well.

 

I then took the con rods off and fitted the gear reassembling it to find that I had put the gear on the wrong way round ????? bother or words to that effect I stripped it down again and finally put it together correctly and gave it a push test on the track before adding the motor.

 

All seemed well so I added the motor after a challenge to get the worm gear far enough down the shaft ????? it?????s a very tight fit on the spindle. I then wired it up, gave it all a drop of oil and turned on the power to get a nice smooth running motor with no binding in either direction.

[Kenton]

I managed to get all the bits together and brought it to the frames to determine how it would sit and there hit a snag. The Gearbox with the bearings protruding outwards wouldn??™t fit between the frames.

 

Do you mean the flange face of the bearing was protruding outwards (ie inserted in the holes from the outside) or the other way.

I am surprised that the instructions would suggest fitting with the flange facing inwards - that doesn't make sense.

[Rob Pulham]

Do you mean the flange face of the bearing was protruding outwards (ie inserted in the holes from the outside) or the other way.

I am surprised that the instructions would suggest fitting with the flange facing inwards - that doesn't make sense.

Definitely with the flanges facing inwards - see attached diagram from the instructions.

[John Isherwood]

I am surprised that the instructions would suggest fitting with the flange facing inwards - that doesn't make sense.

 

Why? Done that way you can file off the protruding bearing length as required - even flush with the gearbox frame - but the flanges remain solidly soldered to the inside of the frame.

 

Works for me !!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[buffalo]

Do you mean the flange face of the bearing was protruding outwards (ie inserted in the holes from the outside) or the other way.

I am surprised that the instructions would suggest fitting with the flange facing inwards - that doesn't make sense.

Why? Done that way you can file off the protruding bearing length as required - even flush with the gearbox frame - but the flanges remain solidly soldered to the inside of the frame.

 

Most High Level gearboxes are assembled this way, and the instructions usually say something like "File the outside face of the bush flush" so that they will fit between the frames. The gap between frames and box and between frames and wheels are then taken up by appropriate washers. It also makes perfect sense when you realise that, in most cases, the final drive gear is alligned so that one side is against one of these internal bearing faces.

 

Nick

[Kenton]

It also makes perfect sense when you realise that, in most cases, the final drive gear is allinged so that one side is against one of these internal bearing faces.

 

if it is, then that starts to make sense there is a surface that requires the flange face.

Note to self - try following the instructions next time though I don't recall having problems fitting them round the other way.

which was why I thought you might be having problems fitting between the frames.

 

I really wouldn't wish to file away any bearing simply to pad the space with washers though.

[Kenton]

I have just looked at the frames again - and these are the DJH thick, screw together frames aren't they so the space between them is a less than the normal spacer width.

[Worsdell forever]

Looks Good Rob, although I now only use High Level gearboxes I have always fitted the bearings in gearboxes that way round.

[Worsdell forever]

I have just looked at the frames again - and these are the DJH thick, screw together frames aren't they so the space between them is a less than the normal spacer width.

 

 

DJH frames were designed to withstand a nuclear attack

[buffalo]

...I really wouldn't wish to file away any bearing simply to pad the space with washers though.

I understand what you are getting at, but the bearings usually need to be trimmed except, perhaps, for the narrower boxes in P4 frames. Given that, and the thinness of the unflanged end of the bearing which I doubt will make a very good thrust bearing even if you can file it perfectly flat, it's just easier to file it all back to the flat side of the box. Because the final gear is fixed on the axle against the bearing, it can always float away from the bearing, so something has to limit the movement of the axle. In practice, if you minimise sideplay by washers between the wheels and frames, you really only need washers on the gear side between the box and the frames. Using washers, of course, gives you much more scope for adjustment than filing the bearing ends.

 

Nick

[Mallard60022]

DJH frames were designed to withstand a nuclear attack

 

Oh yes! I have a small bunker in which to hide during Nuclear Attack. It is made from excess frame parts from DJH.

Seriously though. The old Q7 is looking OK so far. (Oh yes - congratulations, you are actually building this kit ,unlike me who spends far too much time pontificating and procrastinating and doing what Mr Jackson says you shouldn't! Doh!)

Perhaps here someone might tell us the discrepancies that are supposedly abounding in this kit? Honestly, I did used to think it was OK.

What's folks'opinions on using a High Level rig rather than the DJH ready made and recommended for this loco (and others)? Cost?

Sincerely, G. Earbox

[Pinkmouse]

Looking Good! Looks like quite a lot of sideplay on the wheels though, have you used any washers on the axles?

[craigwelsh]

What's folks'opinions on using a High Level rig rather than the DJH ready made and recommended for this loco (and others)? Cost?

I don't think the High Level box will save you much money. Its a beautiful design from High Level across their range and they've always worked perfectly for me. The big benefit is also the flexibility of the range especially with the drive extenders to help fit within fireboxes and boilers etc. With that rather crude battleship construction though there isn't much need to hide anything!

 

Can't help on the prototype vs kit, waaay out of region for me! The one piece rods though, yuck! I'm sure you'll make a great job of this old kit though. I've been amazed at what Pinkmouse has done with his DJH tank!

[Mallard60022]

I don't think the High Level box will save you much money. Its a beautiful design from High Level across their range and they've always worked perfectly for me. The big benefit is also the flexibility of the range especially with the drive extenders to help fit within fireboxes and boilers etc. With that rather crude battleship construction though there isn't much need to hide anything!

 

Can't help on the prototype vs kit, waaay out of region for me! The one piece rods though, yuck! I'm sure you'll make a great job of this old kit though. I've been amazed at what Pinkmouse has done with his DJH tank!

 

Re Pinkmouse's 2.6.4; I would like just a weeny bit of his patience and that would allow me to progress far more on kits than I do at the mo!

Think I'll be waiting for Arthur K's Q7.

Thanks, Phil.

[Rob Pulham]

Oh yes! I have a small bunker in which to hide during Nuclear Attack. It is made from excess frame parts from DJH.

Seriously though. The old Q7 is looking OK so far. (Oh yes - congratulations, you are actually building this kit ,unlike me who spends far too much time pontificating and procrastinating and doing what Mr Jackson says you shouldn't! Doh!)

Perhaps here someone might tell us the discrepancies that are supposedly abounding in this kit? Honestly, I did used to think it was OK.

What's folks'opinions on using a High Level rig rather than the DJH ready made and recommended for this loco (and others)? Cost?

Sincerely, G. Earbox

I have a DJH LMS Barney on the way as a wrap up for Christmas and my good lady informed me that she has also ordered the motor and Gearbox from DJH so I will be able to give first hand experience once Christmas arrives

[Rob Pulham]

Looking Good! Looks like quite a lot of sideplay on the wheels though, have you used any washers on the axles?

Al, I haven't used washers on the axles because as it is it only just goes around my curves. Once I am happy everything is correct and if I can get an iron hot enough I will follow John Armstrong's pattern of soldering the spacers in and grinding off the screw heads on the outside of the frames. I have just managed to get a super picture of the left hand side showing quite a bit of quite fine pipework that I hope to replicate after seeing your super example.

[micklner]

52F Models have annouced a EM chassis for the Q7 on their website presumably a OO version will follow. I will e much better than the DJH battleship version!!.

 

 

Mick

[Mallard60022]

I have a DJH LMS Barney on the way as a wrap up for Christmas and my good lady informed me that she has also ordered the motor and Gearbox from DJH so I will be able to give first hand experience once Christmas arrives

 

Good lady indeed! I do have experience (mixed) of DJH ready to go gearbox/motor sets in other kits (usually DJH!) but wondered about the High level ones, of which I have only used one in my Q6 (with Stranger 52F EM Chassis).

I suppose I'm a bit lazy and if the drive is going to be a straightforward fit then I tend to look for the ready made variety; talking of which. What experience do folks have of West Coast Kit Centre outfits?

Sincerely, F. Lywheel

[Pinkmouse]

Re Pinkmouse's 2.6.4; I would like just a weeny bit of his patience and that would allow me to progress far more on kits than I do at the mo!

 

It's not really patience, it's taken me a couple of months to get as far as I did with the 2-6-4T , and it may well take a couple of months more to finish it. I just model when I'm in the mood, rather than feeling I've got to get something done to fit some arbitrary deadline. This helps me focus on one job at a time, and I probably spend much more actual time on a kit than most, spread over a longer period, so I very much doubt I could build kits as a living!

[Horsetan]

.... I just model when I'm in the mood

 

I don't even have that luxury at the moment, as the day job gets in the way

 

I very much doubt I could build kits as a living!

 

By contrast with "Metropolitan" of this parish, who could probably start and complete a loco in 24 hours!

[Pinkmouse]

Al, I haven't used washers on the axles because as it is it only just goes around my curves.

 

!!!

 

Perhaps I'm spoilt?

 

Once I am happy everything is correct and if I can get an iron hot enough I will follow John Armstrong's pattern of soldering the spacers in and grinding off the screw heads on the outside of the frames.

 

Hmm. Got a blowtorch?

 

I have just managed to get a super picture of the left hand side showing quite a bit of quite fine pipework that I hope to replicate after seeing your super example.

 

Great - a good photo is a real inspiration, as well as a curse. Once you've seen what's actually there, it's very hard, (for me, at any rate), to cop out of doing it on the model.

[Earlswood Nob]

Hi all LNER/NER heavy freight fans

Thanks Rob for trying a piercing saw to cut High level shafts. I've always used carborundum discs which get the shaft hot enough to burn fingers. It's a piercing saw for my next gearbox, when it arrives in the much delayed post.

This thread hs prompted me to look at my partially completed Q7. It has a Portescap 1624 motor which wouldn't fit into the cut-out in the boiler without surgery.I put it to one side, many years ago, for further action and there it has remained.

Earlswood (where I grew up)

[Rob Pulham]

!!!

 

 

 

 

Great - a good photo is a real inspiration, as well as a curse. Once you've seen what's actually there, it's very hard, (for me, at any rate), to cop out of doing it on the model.

 

It's worse than that for me - seeing your efforts with the pipe work and seeing it on the photo make it hard for me to cop out. In all seriousness, I love being inspired to do better by the efforts of others. There are a quite a few members of this forum that have inspired and encouraged me to improve my modelling.

[Rob Pulham]

Hi all LNER/NER heavy freight fans

Thanks Rob for trying a piercing saw to cut High level shafts. I've always used carborundum discs which get the shaft hot enough to burn fingers. It's a piercing saw for my next gearbox, when it arrives in the much delayed post.

This thread hs prompted me to look at my partially completed Q7. It has a Portescap 1624 motor which wouldn't fit into the cut-out in the boiler without surgery.I put it to one side, many years ago, for further action and there it has remained.

Earlswood (where I grew up)

 

Thanks Earlswood, I found the piercing saw very easy and it left quite a neat finish that required little tidying up. I haven't tried the motor inside the boiler yet but did have it recommended by another member who had used one so hopefully I won't be too far out.

 

My next challenge is to fit brakes to this lump of a chassis. I have a PDK 02 in the to do pile so I intend to use it's brakes as a template for making some plastic ones for this - after drilling the chassis for hangers

[Earlswood Nob]

Hi to all coal black engine fans

Using a piercing saw to cut shafts for High level gearboxes is so much better than a cutting disc!! It is more accurate no more burnt fingers.

 

Mainly trains do an etch for brake shoes/rigging, MT180 is for LNER, and it looks like there would be 6 suitable shoes for the Q7, so two more would be needed.

Earlswood