Atlantic's works: Portable layout - Scenic details next

[Horsetan]

I've been looking at recreating a resin version of the old Kitmaster Beyer-Garratt. Could get interesting, using Graeme's methods .....

[Atlantic 3279]

Good evening, I understand you make parts to convert RTR locos either to correct errors or to make different versions etc. Are these to order or available generally. The PDK kit for the A2/1 has a boiler that looks too small compared with the smokebox. This is odd as the V2 kit boiler looks better. Any thoughts on this.

Yes, I do make parts and can supply them to others. Should you want a list we can sort that out later as it's much easier/safer to exchange the necessary details once you've submitted your first half-dozen or so contributions to this forum as you can then use the private messaging facility. It's not wise to start exchanging e-mail addresses via a forum that various spambots and criminals can read!

I don't do an A2/1 boiler, but the point you make about the relationship to the V2 boiler is interesting. Save for the smokebox, shouldn't they be the same? If not, can you get the V2 boiler as a spare and substitute it for that in the A2/1 kit? My resin based approach to building an A2/1, which Mick B (and maybe others) on here has amply tested/proven, would be to start from a Hornby A3 body as that would provide the correct boiler shape (unlike the weird Bachmann V2) and much of the running plate too.

[Atlantic 3279]

I've been looking at recreating a resin version of the old Kitmaster Beyer-Garratt. Could get interesting, using Graeme's methods .....

As a cheaper starting point for a P4 model than the Heljan item?

[Horsetan]

I've been looking at recreating a resin version of the old Kitmaster Beyer-Garratt. Could get interesting, using Graeme's methods .....

As a cheaper starting point for a P4 model than the Heljan item?

Not just that, but to:

1. Prove to myself that the moulds can be done;
2. Correct some of the errors in the Kitmaster kit (some very obvious ones in the revolving bunker end).

The sample kit I have has been carefully reduced back to its individual parts (the original builder didn't use very much glue, so it was easy to dismantle).

Having a look at resin moulding starter kits now. Trying to decide how best to tackle the mould for the boiler and firebox which remains as one assembled unit.

[S.A.C. Martin]

Conversion of one of Graeme's more accurate V2 body shells into an A2/1 is pretty easy though by just adding his Thompson A1/1 smokebox, the Thompson running plate (unmodified) and cutting the front end off the V2 from the smokebox forwards.

The J2 looks rather good Graeme! How will you sort the middle drivers on the K3 chassis (cut down the cranks to match the outside drivers?)

[deltico12]

Thank you for your kind reply. I left out the W1 by mistake, though having looked at the one in the MRJ some while back, it is a very good rendition. The V2 and the A2/1 had the same boiler so a suitable solution to modelling one in 4mm scale should be not too difficult to accomplish. DJH have indicated that a kit in 7MM scale could appear in 2016,perhaps it may appear in 4MM scale as well. Looking at some older entries,. I saw a couple of photos of a complete but unpainted DJH OO gauge A3.Is this kit as good as a Hornby A3 or better? If I decided to build one it would be fitted with a fly wheel fitted motor and a quality gearbox. Any recommendations for the gearbox. Why Hornby and Bachmann don't fit a decent fly wheel drive to their steam locos is a mystery. Maybe it will happen some day.

[Atlantic 3279]

The DJH A3 only came my way as part of a deal with fellow modeller. I re-gauged it from EM (as bought by him at auction) to OO (of more use to him, or, more to the point, easier to sell on). The ironic thing was that having re-sold it on eBay for far more than he had paid in the first place, the buyer then mentioned to him an intention to convert the loco to EM!

I've no idea how well the kit goes together. Tony Wright might be the person to ask, over on the big railway modelling website.

[45609]

Deltico12,

I can perhaps add something. I've built a couple of DJH A3s in recent years and found them to be very straightforward to put together. The only item that I was unhappy with on the body castings was the height of the long travel valve covers. You'll see here that I took a slightly different, some would say OTT, approach to correcting them. Other than that they build into nice weighty models with excellent haulage power. The gear boxes I used were DJH's own pre-assembled offering but only because these were requested by the client I was building them for. If they were my locos I would have used a Highlevel Models gear box. Most probably the HiFlier 30:1.

Pictures of the finished models can be seen here, here and here

I might have some more in progress photos somewhere which I will post up if I can locate them. I might have even posted them on here some while back. I just don't have time to look at the moment. Drop me a PM if you have any questions.

UPDATE: I did post some earlier construction pictures. Found them here

Cheers....Morgan

[Atlantic 3279]

If Morgan* reckons they are okay I'd be inclined to believe him Deltico.

*Is the estimable gentleman visiting this weekend's NEC scrum by any chance?

[Atlantic 3279]

I'll be lurking around stand A65 at the NEC this weekend by the way, with various bits and pieces, resin or otherwise. I even have a modified Peco point for discerning modellers to sneer at. It is meant to have more "classic British steam era" appearance than the factory version.

[45609]

Is the estimable gentleman visiting this weekend's NEC scrum by any chance?

Unfortunately not but I did notice that you had a spot behind a table that affords you a safe separation from the crowds. Hope it goes well.

Cheers...Morgan

[deltico12]

Thanks 45609 for the info on the DJH A3's you are building. Do you build the tenders as supplied or fit a different chassis ie a comet models one. Are the boiler bands reduced in thickness? as they look rather heavy in the photos. It was suggested a few years ago in a DVD programme on loco construction to use bands cut from insulation tape. Once painted over they certainly looked very effective.

[45609]

Thanks 45609 for the info on the DJH A3's you are building. Do you build the tenders as supplied or fit a different chassis ie a comet models one. Are the boiler bands reduced in thickness? as they look rather heavy in the photos. It was suggested a few years ago in a DVD programme on loco construction to use bands cut from insulation tape. Once painted over they certainly looked very effective.

Deltico,

I've sent you a private message (PM).

Morgan

[Atlantic 3279]

Further to that festering sore of OO track: A few years ago I wrote in to BRM urging modellers to get together to press Peco to produce OO points with more typically 1920-1960 British proportions, at least in terms of the length/width/spacing of the moulded timber base. In due course, a response from Peco appeared to me to claim that there would be far more involved in achieving the desired appearance than a simple revision of the moulded base and that, of course, they therefore would find any such change wholly uneconomic. As a rather belated direct challenge to Peco's assertion I have at last got around to extensively altering (where possible) and/or replacing the moulded base of a Peco Code 75 point, in plastic, so as to achieve sizes and spacings of timbers far more in-keeping with (for the sake of argument) SMP Scaleway standards. None of the rails, the bonds or the switch have had to be modified, and the flat-bottom rail has been disguised by the fitting of some trimmed C & L plastic chairs or in some places (especially over the existing moulded Peco rail clips) just little pieces of plain plastic to suggest "chairs". In consequence of the way I've built the replacement sections of base, my sample has clearance between the inter-sleeper webs and the foot of the rail. I accept that this clearance might not be practical in a mass-produced Peco moulded base. I also accept that the projecting keys moulded into the individual C & L chairs would probably be impractical in a single-piece moulding too. I do however feel that I have demonstrated that an upgrade simply to achieve "proportionate" appearance of the timbering would NOT require complete redesign of the Peco point along new lines. I suggest that it would also be possible for Peco (or an enterprising competitor) to mould the base with representations of rail-clips for the fans of flat-bottom track but also produce and sell sprues of dedicated "chairs" to fit directly over the shallower clips, at least on the outer faces of the rails, in order to give a bullhead-like appearance. Obviously this wouldn't satisfy the ultra pedantic who would rather spend hours, weeks, months or even years building exact replicas of esoteric pieces of pointwork (or in fact merely arguing about how to do it without actually building anything) but I strongly believe that "better looking Peco" WOULD satisfy a very substantial number of OO modellers, including many who find the current Peco track bases unacceptably toy-like. Bear in mind too, that regardless of all of the theoretical arguments about the faults in Peco crossing, flangeway and other dimensions relevant to actual running, in most situations Peco points ACTUALLY DO THE JOB.

I don't for one minute intend to modify further points in this way, at least not at this stage, nor do I suggest that this is a viable method for use by most modellers. It is far too time consuming. I'm simply trying to strengthen the case for saying that Peco could and should do something along these lines. I did have some initial thoughts that resin copies of the new sections of timbering might be an option, but while I've managed to make a resin copy of the section that only has slide chairs I've now dismissed the idea of dealing with other parts of the point base in that way. The resin simply doesn't have the qualities that would be needed in order to produce split-chairs capable of clipping in place around the foot of the rail, especially as some timbers have four chairs.

Here are some images to help to explain what I've done.

This first one shows the layout of the timbers in the modified point, a piece of SMP Scaleway alongside for comparison, and the discarded pieces of crowded slim Peco timbering. Where I've retained the Peco material I've widened and lengthened the timbers using added strips of plastikard. These have been added on one of both sides of each timbers as best suited my attempts to make sizes and spacings look reasonable. In on or two places in the group of retained timbers around the crossing I've added material to one side of the timber and trimmed material from the opposite side.

Just the modified point with the discarded pieces alongside and inverted.

Further ther comparison with sleeper sizes and spacings in plain SMP Scaleway>

Comparisons with a Peco point retaining its original diminutive crowded timbers (bottom in both pictures), in this case a Code 100 item as that is all that I had, but the spacing of the timbers is much the same for an untouched Code 75 Peco point.

The clash between Peco point timbering and plain Scaleway.

Again, modified top, SMP middle, original Peco bottom.

General views.

I feel we really ought to pestering Mr Pritchard and his team relentlessly for something like this, until they listen. What's the point to exquisite locomotives and rolling stock running around on track that is merely a parody of the real thing?

[Woodcock29]

Nice work Graeme. I've heard some of the arguments from Peco as we had their Sales Manager, Steve Haynes, here in Adelaide for our 2007 BRMA Convention and we had a specific session in the Convention for discussion with Steve knowing the track question would come up. I haven't had any contact with Steve since we were entertained by him at Peco during my 2008 trip.

What do you suggest in the way we should approach Peco on this subject? It might be handy to have some sort of agreed course of action.

Woodcock29