Wright writes.....

[micklner]

Slot should be to one side, not in the centre.

[chris p bacon]

10 hours ago, micklner said:

Slot should be to one side, not in the centre.

It worked fine in the centre.

[Tony Wright]

10 hours ago, micklner said:

Slot should be to one side, not in the centre.

It is off-centre.

 

What it means is that one must be careful to orientate the slot so it's beneath the boss in the gear wheel. 

[micklner]

35 minutes ago, chris p bacon said:

It worked fine in the centre.

Not according to previous post re the Roadrunner, all the gearboxes I have built have a offset screw, hence my comment. That is not offset to one side.

 

Edited April 15, 2023 by micklner

[St Enodoc]

7 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

It is off-centre.

 

What it means is that one must be careful to orientate the slot so it's beneath the boss in the gear wheel. 

 

2 minutes ago, micklner said:

Not according to previous post re the Roadrunner, all the gearboxes I have built have a offset screw, hence my comment.

The slot looks as though it's in the centre on this photo:

 

https://www.wizardmodels.ltd/shop/wheels/00slotaxle/

[Dunsignalling]

35 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

 

The slot looks as though it's in the centre on this photo:

 

https://www.wizardmodels.ltd/shop/wheels/00slotaxle/

The slot is, but the deeper part of the recess within it, into which the grub screw is presumably intended to go, is offset to one end.

 

Which way round the axle is installed in the chassis will therefore make a difference if there is an offset in the gear-set.

 

I only became aware of these three posts up but am rather pleased to see the revision.

 

John

[John Isherwood]

16 hours ago, chris p bacon said:

Andrew does have a note on the axle page

 

Please note that this item might not be restocked, as Markits may be switching production wholly to the slotted type (our code 00SLOTAXLE).

 

I purchased 10 of the slotted ones a couple of weeks ago, very handy for the grub screw on a high level box. 

 

My bad - it was my order for Markits' standard crankpins that couldn't be fulfilled - sorry for the confusion.

 

John Isherwood.

Edited April 15, 2023 by cctransuk

[Bucoops]

When (if?) I remember what I did with the ones I bought I will have another look...

[St Enodoc]

1 hour ago, Dunsignalling said:

The slot is, but the deeper part of the recess within it, into which the grub screw is presumably intended to go, is offset to one end.

So what's the rest of the slot for?

[Jol Wilkinson]

1 hour ago, Dunsignalling said:

The slot is, but the deeper part of the recess within it, into which the grub screw is presumably intended to go, is offset to one end.

 

Which way round the axle is installed in the chassis will therefore make a difference if there is an offset in the gear-set.

 

I only became aware of these three posts up but am rather pleased to see the revision.

 

John

Markits produce their own range of gears and gearboxes, so it would be logical if the slot matched their brass final drive gear.

 

I have measured an example of a new Markits gear. The gear retaining screw in the boss is 2.85mm offset from the centreline of the machined teeth. Does the slot match that, presuming that the gear teeth should should be in the centre of the axle?

[Dunsignalling]

30 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

So what's the rest of the slot for?

 

Possibly a similar 2-level recess from the other side?

Edited April 15, 2023 by Dunsignalling

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, micklner said:

Not according to previous post re the Roadrunner, all the gearboxes I have built have a offset screw, hence my comment. That is not offset to one side.

 

Thanks for that, Mick.

 

How very odd..............

 

 

As recently received from Markits.

 

Definitely offset slot.

 

I find these a great boon; no longer the need for filing a flat on the axle, and the grubscrew now goes fully-home, with no risk of fracturing the slot in it. As I say, it does mean the the axle has to be correctly-orientated. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[Dylan Sanderson]

Afternoon all…

 

I’ve just started my first LRM kit and I’ve fallen at the first hurdle! I’ve never built a compensating tender chassis, but am I right in thinking that 1.3 says that I need to cut out the front two axle ‘squares’ in the leading two axles?

 

cheers!

 

[Bernard Lamb]

3 minutes ago, Dylan Sanderson said:

Afternoon all…

 

I’ve just started my first LRM kit and I’ve fallen at the first hurdle! I’ve never built a compensating tender chassis, but am I right in thinking that 1.3 says that I need to cut out the front two axle ‘squares’ in the leading two axles?

 

cheers!

 

Yes. You need to cut these out and fit guides that will slide in the slots to give you the required vertical movement. The other axle is fixed. I would suggest reading a book such as by Ian Rice on the subject before youu go too far.

Bernard

[Dylan Sanderson]

6 minutes ago, Bernard Lamb said:

Yes. You need to cut these out and fit guides that will slide in the slots to give you the required vertical movement. The other axle is fixed. I would suggest reading a book such as by Ian Rice on the subject before youu go too far.

Bernard

Thanks Bernard,

 

Are compensating chassis a ‘must’, or can I just leave the squares in and solder the wheels bearings into them on all 3 axles?

 

I’ve got most of Iain’s books on loco construction, however being dyslexic I don’t absorb words well and much prefer exploded diagrams, one of the reasons why I’ve gone for LRM!

[micklner]

22 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks for that, Mick.

 

How very odd..............

 

 

As recently received from Markits.

 

Definitely offset slot.

 

I find these a great boon; no longer the need for filing a flat on the axle, and the grubscrew now goes fully-home, with no risk of fracturing the slot in it. As I say, it does mean the the axle has to be correctly-orientated. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

This was mentioned about a year ago on here.

Perhaps he has modified them after those postings. Wizard may/will need to change his picture.

[Tony Wright]

The O4/8 is now almost complete. Just brakes (to source), rear sandboxes (to source) and balance weights (to cut from Plastikard), and it should be there.....

 

 

I used the Bachmann B1's backhead and cab interior, hacked about to suit. Yes, the splashers over the rear driving wheels are still present, but these won't really be seen behind a crew.

 

 

Truly old fashioned frames, but an excellent runner. 

 

Any 'scabby' bits should disappear under painting/weathering.

 

 

 

Final layout-testing this morning proved itself entirely capable of handing over 40 loaded minerals (all the spare space in the boiler is filled with 'Liquid Gravity'). 

 

This is definitely a 'layout loco', but, I hope captures the 'look' of an O4/8. It's definitely a 'budget' loco, too. 

 

The basic K's kit I bought for £20.00. It had been started (not very well, but fortunately glued-together), had some bits missing and came with no instructions (so what?). I obtained the Portescap in a 'gummed-up' condition, inside a partly-built GEM MR 4-4-0 (total cost, £40.00). I un-gummed the Portescap, and sold the loco body and tender for £20.00, including the wheels (old Romfords). Obviously, the loco wheels for the O4/8 were new (Markits), but the tender wheels (old Jacksons) were in the K's kit. The Bachmann B1 body was give to me (as were two others), so there was no cost there (thanks again Graeme, Graham and Andy). Even so, I don't think Bachmann B1 bodies are that expensive, even new. Other bits? Buffers and brass/nickel silver sheet came from stock, and there were just a few handrail pillars and wire to complete. Graham King's donation of the chimney and dome also helped considerably, so, thanks to him again. Other than the loco's wheels then, a pretty cheap loco? 

 

Ebay had nothing to do with this, of course. I obtained the bits from collections or at shows; you just have to look beyond the second-hand RTR! 

 

It's certainly superior to............

 

 

My original 45 years old O4/8, made from a mixture of K's, Jamieson and scratch-building.

 

But inferior to............

 

 

This Little Engines O4/8 (builder/painter unknown). This came from the estate of a deceased modeller, but didn't run very well. I made it run properly, and it's now the property of Sandra Orpen (and will be re-gauged for use on Retford).

 

Why did I not retain the best O4/8 of the three? Because I didn't build it myself! 

 

 

[Bucoops]

34 minutes ago, Dylan Sanderson said:

Afternoon all…

 

I’ve just started my first LRM kit and I’ve fallen at the first hurdle! I’ve never built a compensating tender chassis, but am I right in thinking that 1.3 says that I need to cut out the front two axle ‘squares’ in the leading two axles?

 

cheers!

 

 

Personal choice really - If it's a first then perhaps stick with rigid?

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, Dylan Sanderson said:

Thanks Bernard,

 

Are compensating chassis a ‘must’, or can I just leave the squares in and solder the wheels bearings into them on all 3 axles?

 

I’ve got most of Iain’s books on loco construction, however being dyslexic I don’t absorb words well and much prefer exploded diagrams, one of the reasons why I’ve gone for LRM!

Good afternoon Dylan,

 

Compensated chassis are definitely not a 'must' (unless you're modelling in P4). What are you compensating for? Dodgy trackwork? If so, make/lay the track properly at source. 

 

I can only speak from my own experience; granted, regarding sprung/compensated frames, not that much, having only built about half a dozen in that form. That said, despite my taking at least twice/thrice as long, none works any better than by hundreds of rigid frames. In fact, they've proved to be more wobbly in motion, more prone to slipping (despite all the perceived wisdom) and my rigid-framed locos pick-up just as well. In EM, it's absolutely not necessary to compensate frames for good running (most of Retford's locos are rigid, and run superbly). 

 

These are the tender frames for a London Road Models' D2...........

 

 

The reason for the tender pick-ups is that the loco has to operate on Grantham, which has several dead-frog points (a puzzle, I know). Not only that, some are the older Peco Code 100, yet this rigid tender rides just fine through them. The dodge (if it is a dodge) is to enlarge the centre bearing a little, allowing the middle wheels to 'float' a bit (a form of compensation?), thus preventing the dreaded see-saw effect on poorer track.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 15, 2023 by Tony Wright
clumsy grammar

[Michael Edge]

Most of my tender frames for 00 or EM are not compensated but I do often allow the centre axle some up and down movement, usually by slotting the holes a bit. The frequently suggested method of compensation with hornblocks on the leading two axles and a beam in the centre can tend to be a bit wobbly - especially if it allows a lot of up and down movement (as they usually do, far too much).

[Dylan Sanderson]

10 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

What are you compensating for? 

Ohh err!

 

I do also drive a sports car, plenty of compensation there!

[Dylan Sanderson]

11 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon Dylan,

 

Compensated chassis are definitely not a 'must' (unless you're modelling in P4). What are you compensating for? Dodgy trackwork? If so, make/lay the track properly at source. 

 

I can only speak from my own experience; granted, regarding sprung/compensated frames, not that much, having only built about half a dozen in that form. That said, despite my taking at least twice/thrice as long, none works any better than by hundreds of rigid frames. In fact, they've proved to be more wobbly in motion, more prone to slipping (despite all the perceived wisdom) and my rigid-framed locos pick-up just as well. In EM, it's absolutely not necessary to compensate frames for good running (most of Retford's locos are rigid, and run superbly). 

 

These are the tender frames for a London Road Models' D2...........

 

 

The reason for the tender pick-ups is that the loco has to operate on Grantham, which has several dead-frog pints (a puzzle, I know). Not only that, some are the older Peco Code 100, yet this rigid tender rides just fine through them. The dodge (if it is a dodge) is to enlarge the centre bearing a little, allowing the middle wheels to 'float' a bit (a form of compensation?), thus preventing the dreaded see-saw effect on poorer track.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

Thanks Tony, rigid it is then!

 

I’ll post updates on my progress…

[robertcwp]

This is the Gresley carriage on Retford that is built from a Kirk kit, with much modification, which I referred to recently. 

 

IMG_0390am by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

Also, as a bonus, here is a short video clip of The Elizabethan.

 

https://youtu.be/WYFwwE4ZfKI

Edited April 15, 2023 by robertcwp

[Dunsignalling]

Mind you, with the amount of lead Tony stuffs into his locos, they will probably iron out all but the very worst track irregularities as they go along.... 😉

[lezz01]

As a rule if a kit has compensation or springing built in I build it that way. I've always found that they are easier to build with compensation than without. The problem with tenders is that they don't have coupling rods and all my horn block jigs are for 1/8th axles so I would have to improvise something by making some rods with 2mm holes and using long axles, using the springs from my standard 1/8th jigs but that's not really an issue is it?! Just a quick look at the EMGS stores shows no jigs for horn blocks with 2mm axles so it's make something or a rigid chassis. Or set it up with 1/8th horn blocks with the jig and then swap the 1/8th blocks out for 2mm ones but that brings other issues into play.

Regards Lez.