|
Post by William A on Feb 5, 2021 13:45:54 GMT
EDIT: Since posting this thread, I have investigated options of a Maid of Kent, Glen and so on as a basis for a SECR 4-4-0. I believe I have settled on building the MoK as an L-class, as of August 2021. The original post is below:
Good afternoon all,
I've been recommended to both post my build log here, and it has been suggested to me that this is a great place to ask for advice. Well, I guess I'm starting off with a big one! I would like to build a Maid of Kent with the platework cosmetically altered a little around the splashers and cab to represent an earlier SECR 4-4-0. The E-class is close enough for rock and roll, visually - and I think the D-class with round-top firebox would also be fine if you squinted.
The amendment of splashers, cab, tender side platework seem to me to be quite achievable. However, having posting a request for information on this on the Model Engineer forum it's been brought to my attention that the original LBSC inside-cylinder, Stephenson valve-gear version is compromised. Julian Atkins on there (and here?) has suggested that a better solution would be to investigate Don Young's modification, or use the Joy Valve gear version.
Any thoughts on whether I should be looking into the Don Young modified Stephenson's Valve Gear, or the original Joy Valve gear version? I'm going to be building it as facsimile of an SECR loco that's even further away from the L1 than LBSC may have sketched, so slavish prototypical accuracy is less important than similarity and utility - This would be my first loco build so something which is workable but simple would be preferred over complex-but-perfect.
Right now my lathe is disassembled ahead of a countershaft bearing replacement so no machining is possible for the next week or two - but luckily I have the ME issues from the lat 40's and Don Young's updated valve gear design from the 70's and will be reading them over with great interest.
|
|
mbrown
Elder Statesman
Posts: 1,719
Member is Online
|
Post by mbrown on Feb 5, 2021 13:55:40 GMT
I am not qualified to comment on valve gears for MoK, but one point in terms of your proposed E-class rebuild...
Most MoKs look wrong, even for an L1, because LBSC seems to have extended the cab forward to bring the manifold inside the cab. I suspect the rear of the firebox is also a bit further forward than on the prototype, probably to clear the horns, which accentuates the mismatch and really spoils the proportions. Looking at your profile picture above, you can see that the back plate of the boiler is only just inside the cab front sheet. So you may want to start thinking early on how you arrange the cab fittings so that they all come within your cab profile. Solutions I have seen on this forum include feeding the manifold via a banjo fitting outside the cab, but no doubt there are other good solutions.
Good luck!
Malcolm
|
|
|
Post by davewoo on Feb 5, 2021 15:14:06 GMT
William
Model Engineers Laser list an accurate 5" SE&CR D class with it says castings available as well as laser cut parts,I know nothing about it other than whats on their website, might be worth enquiring, if its your first engine you will probably find it more straightforward to build than modifying an existing design, the company is in the middle of changing hands at present so you may need to be patient. Good luck with the project. Dave
|
|
|
Post by jcsteam on Feb 5, 2021 16:00:54 GMT
I like your line sketch over the MOK drawing. If you look at the MINX tender body and read the article, Curly says that he's made them interchangeable so Minx body on MOK chassis would be fine, and you have the drawings of the platework to follow. I note that your outline sketch seems longer than the MOK tender, but this wouldn't be hard to add extra length, so long as you take note the brake rods, frames and body will all need to be stretched to the same amount.
There is two smokeboxes also drawn for the two different locos, the MINX one would possibly suit the shorter dimensions. So shortening the smokebox would be fine. Now adjusting the wheelbase on the frames, this gets a little more difficult the space for cylinder under the smokebox is pretty tight, if you were to move the bogie back a little this will throw the valve gear off, as the cylinder would also need to be moved back. Likewise the trailing axle, as this would make your boilers firebox shorter.
Anyhow a few things for you to contemplate for now.
Jon
|
|
|
Post by andrewtoplis on Feb 5, 2021 16:19:48 GMT
Is it just me, or is the Maid of Kent boiler a bit narrow compared to old photographs of the engines? Did LBSC reduce it to an easily available size?
Best of luck with the project!
|
|
|
Post by William A on Feb 5, 2021 16:52:55 GMT
So if I read you right, LBSC moved the cab forward relative to a real L1's cab front - which maybe more in line with the E-class drawing above - but that then causes an issue with the controls protruding beyond the cab profile?
|
|
|
Post by William A on Feb 5, 2021 17:07:45 GMT
oh wow, I didn't see the other replies, sorry.
Davewood, I think I would much prefer to build a D-class directly, but having zero experience of live steam locos I woulld have thought an LBSC design with known builds and problems identified would be better? Does anyone have any other info about this D-class?
JCSteam, I wasn't thinking to adjust the wheelbase particularly - as long as we end up with a close approximation I'm satisfied. Similarly, andrewtoplis, with regard to the boiler dimensions. To quote Greenly I'm looking for a loco whose form will follow function, rather than a purely slavish devotion to prototypical accuracy...
|
|
|
Post by coniston on Feb 5, 2021 21:08:56 GMT
I've just had a look through my ME index (an excel file I found on the internet) and K.N.Harris modified the valve gear in ME vol 130 iss 3257 with a correction in vol 131 iss 3265, also further work in vol 131 iss 3281, added slide bar lubrication details vol 131 iss 3282. In vol 135 iss 3380 Don Young writes about modifying a friends MoK valve gear, IIRC it was Norman Spinks or Gordon Chivertons but I may be wrong there. And he goes on in vol 135 iss 3381.
This may give you a bit of work to do with research but may be worth while.
Chris D
|
|
jma1009
Elder Statesman
Posts: 5,900
|
Post by jma1009 on Feb 5, 2021 21:50:14 GMT
Hello William again!
I think myself that a successful MOK is problematic for a first build.
Turning it into a SECR E or D requires you to redesign the boiler with a round top outer firebox - that is quite a complicated procedure.
The valve gear problems then become minor in comparison.
Cheers,
Julian (Atkins)
|
|
mbrown
Elder Statesman
Posts: 1,719
Member is Online
|
Post by mbrown on Feb 5, 2021 22:22:29 GMT
True of the D Class, but I think the E Class had Belpaire boilers from the start. Wainwright used Belpaire boxes on the E Class and the big 0-6-4 tanks which may even have had the same boiler.
And the poster is only aiming for a rough look-alike, so if he can get the valve gear right, I would say go for it!
Cheers
Malcolm
|
|
jma1009
Elder Statesman
Posts: 5,900
|
Post by jma1009 on Feb 5, 2021 23:08:26 GMT
Hi Malcolm,
Yes, you are correct about the SECR class E. My apologies. I think I am correct in stating (now) that the Ls were roundtop fireboxes before the Maunsell SR L1s?
I'm happy to admit I know very little of SECR loco design other than when Holcroft was involved.
(I am really an LBSCR and GWR enthusiast, with a huge dollop of the Ffestiniog and Talyllyn).
I gather Don Ashton helped many a MOK builder over the valve gear, and I wonder if those he helped would be prompted to post here, as I don't recall myself and Don explicitly discussing MOK. If Don Ashton did a redesign of the MOK, I'm not aware of it as to the details.
Cheers,
Julian
|
|
|
Post by jcsteam on Feb 5, 2021 23:20:34 GMT
There is a round top and a belpaire boiler option for MOK, already drawn in the magazine articles. No redesign necessary. Curly drew this option as the round topped boiler may be preferred by some builders as an easier option to the belpaire boiler.
I think really if the loco is to be an approximation rather than a scaled locomotive then MOK would be a good candidate for a D class. Namely because Curly drew it as a be all type locomotive. With options to hopefully suit everyone. These options can be swapped and changed to suit different 4-4-0 and 0-6-0 locos. To provide a base to start from. Although he messed up his valve gear, the problem starts i think with the cylinder been 1/4" further from the drive axle. I believe that Mink was drawn first, then he copied the valve gear and just extended the coupling rods without changing anything else. This threw the geometry out entirely. The series for the two locos ran and included two wheel arrangements, two types of cylinder arrangement for MOK, two types of valve gear for inside cylinder, and a set for outside cylinder. Two boiler options for both locos as they differered slightly in length, and could both include a belpaire or round top firebox. Two tender chassis, and two tender bodies part from each were interchangeable. Then also offered option of steam brakes, the brake gear components been interchangeable, with minor differences to suit wheel dia, or axle spacing. Then went on to explain how to make all the boiler fittings for three locomotives, in two different scale/gauges. Its no wonder he found favour with the readers, giving options such as these. Been able to build to personal taste or ability.
Jon
|
|
jma1009
Elder Statesman
Posts: 5,900
|
Post by jma1009 on Feb 6, 2021 0:22:15 GMT
Hi Jon,
I'm a great fan of Minx, and I would have probably built a 5"g example of the LBSCR example of 'Minx' as it is a C2X loco.
But I think you are confusing the 2 LBSC ('Curly') designed boilers some 70 years ago, as I was not aware that the round topped 'Minx' boiler would fit the MOK chassis? It is a completely different boiler. Though I must admit I haven't looked at the drawings for many years.
It is possible that Don Young's 'Glen' boiler might be a possible candidate? I haven't a clue really on how a tyro such as William would want to have an original outline SECR D or L and easily achieve this.
I don't have any affection for the SECR Ds, Ls, or the SR L1s!
So I am not particularly interested other than the Holcroft connection with the valve gear of the rebuilds, including that of the SECR E1s.
|
|
dscott
Elder Statesman
Posts: 2,437
|
Post by dscott on Feb 6, 2021 1:29:53 GMT
Here is my take on a very rarely modeled ASIA. As always the Drawings are incredibly BAD and a recent meet up with someone else who knew the Designer. Told of a worrying secret. He overheard him tell a friend "Not to do it as it was very difficult." Yet another part started pair have just arrived at Station Road Steam!!! I have only encountered or counted 10 finished since 1976. The tender is fine up to a point but needs the final rivets sorting out? Plus a method of getting to the pump if needed!!!! My method is to get some white mounting card and work on that. The rubber is very useful. Good luck with your Project. Dad was Born in Chatham. David and Lily.
|
|
|
Post by William A on Feb 6, 2021 10:42:19 GMT
Reading the ME series from 1948 LBSC and it seems to suggest or encourage adapting the splashers, cab, tender, smokebox wrapper, etc. to your 'pet' locomotive. To quote 'The boiler is a simple job... [it] may have a Belpaire or round-backed wrapper just as you please ; it makes not the slightest difference to the inner firebox and tubes', and also that if one is a beginner they should model the Joy valve gear regardless of the prototype - which given the discussiona about potential amendments may seem like sage words.
That said I will absolutely take advice from those more experienced than I, and if a MoK really is going to end up being too much of a challenge, then I guess it's back to the drawing board.
|
|
|
Post by jcsteam on Feb 6, 2021 12:28:39 GMT
One thought, and despite my affection for LBSC's designs. Would be to look at using Don Youngs Glen. The outlines and proportions appear to be identical. The boiler is slightly smaller than MOK, but seems to resemble the outline of the D class already without any major changes. Maybe just adjust the outline of the frame to match that of the D class. Available from Reeves www.ajreeves.com/glen.htmlJon
|
|
|
Post by davewoo on Feb 6, 2021 13:16:14 GMT
William
Have to agree with Jon, if the Don Young Glen could be adapted to the D class outline, then I think that would be a better starting point, there used to be one I saw at some of the rallies years ago, I'm sure it was built by David Grant. It steamed and went very well, I never drove it but have driven Don's Aspinall design with the same valve gear (Joy) and similar boiler, which was an absolute gem. I've made a start on the Aspinall, the only snag I can see is the castings are only available from one supplier, the same as Aspinall, to say I have been underwhelmed by them is putting it mildly! However much can be carved from solid, fabricated or alternatives found. Dave
|
|
|
Post by steamingin on Feb 6, 2021 13:17:48 GMT
Dimensions of the E are closer to MoK than for a D. If you are wanting, as I think you are, to build a visual representation of a class, rather than a scale model, basing an E on MoK is closest. However as its your first loco I recommend you opt for whatever type motivates you most. Building from scratch is a long, though rewarding, process and if its not really the loco you want its tougher to see it through to completion. There are aspects of the MoK design that are not correct to prototype it is however, save for the valve gear, a successful design as many built and running can testify. Regarding particular points raised to date I offer the following comments. The MoK boiler is 5" dia. Scale size for an L1 is 5.5" over cladding, hence why MoK boilers look a bit "skinny" compared to L1 photos. None of the valve gear designs are correct to prototype but of the Stephensons versions I would say the KN Harris design is the best. The joy gear alternative is successful. I know of MoKs with both KN Harris and Joy gears, they are all good runners.
|
|
kipford
Statesman
Building a Don Young 5" Gauge Aspinall Class 27
Posts: 566
|
Post by kipford on Feb 6, 2021 14:02:07 GMT
Dave Totally agree with you on the casting front, they are very shonky. The major issues I have had so for are: Tender axle box castings are to small and you cannot make to drawing, I binned mine and machined from steel bar with needle rollers. Rear cylinder cover casting are light on allowance, I scrapped one and remade it from bar. Driving wheels will not clean up to drawing. I had to reduce the diameter of the flange by about 3 mm. Reverser casting has very little allowance on it.
I await with trepidation to see what issue the chimney and dome cause!
On the positive if you have the ring of bronze for the Joy slides you can make the slides and have lots left over for the cross heads.
However I am really enjoying the build.
Dave
|
|
Gary L
Elder Statesman
Posts: 1,208
|
Post by Gary L on Feb 6, 2021 19:46:10 GMT
Hi Jon, I'm a great fan of Minx, and I would have probably built a 5"g example of the LBSCR example of 'Minx' as it is a C2X loco. But I think you are confusing the 2 LBSC ('Curly') designed boilers some 70 years ago, as I was not aware that the round topped 'Minx' boiler would fit the MOK chassis? It is a completely different boiler. Though I must admit I haven't looked at the drawings for many years. It is possible that Don Young's 'Glen' boiler might be a possible candidate? I haven't a clue really on how a tyro such as William would want to have an original outline SECR D or L and easily achieve this. I don't have any affection for the SECR Ds, Ls, or the SR L1s! So I am not particularly interested other than the Holcroft connection with the valve gear of the rebuilds, including that of the SECR E1s. For a first-time builder, is anybody going to give the Curly health warning about some of his boiler designs? Not me, I don’t know anything about MoK... Gary
|
|