Model Railway Forum banner
1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I recently dug a K's princess kit out of my "pile of old kits I've yet to build" box. Found the boiler casting was squashed, was going to abandon project but managed to straighten it out and make it round again by using length of copper tube now glued inside smokebox. So I thought I'd go on with it.
Anyway, I though of using Romford driving wheels instead of the K's steel tyred plastic centred ones that came with the kit (really to keep it looking consistant with other locos I've got) . However, looking at the K's wheels again, they don't look too bad. Has anyone got any experience of using K's wheels, any problems with them? I appreciate this is rather old technology!

Ta.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,614 Posts
Hello there

Welcome to the forum.

First of all the K's wheels come in for allot of flack because of the D shaped hole. I personally dont mind that at all. I think its a sound engineering concept.
Unfortunatly my liking of the K's wheels stops there. The plastic goes very brittle. The tires are always falling off and its almost impossible to get then running true. some of the K's kits came with pre-quatered wheels that were badly quatered and impossible to remove from the axles!

My advice is to just throw them away. They really are more hassle than they are worth.
You will probably find that the motor with that kit has a sprocket that also has a D shaped hole. But dont worry, The motor is even worse than the wheels and will need replacing anyway!

If you have a quatering tool then go for a set of Gibsons or failing that, a set of Romfords. get a mashima motor and i would thoroughly recommend a high level gearbox.

I would love to see some pictures of this kit. have you thought about starting a bench thread in the "on my work bench" section of the forum. you might like to take a quick look at mine. i have recently finished a K's coal tank and i am now fighting with a K's german cab forward.

With lots of work i think that most of the K's kits can be made to look quite reasonable.

Peter
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,629 Posts
Not sure about the Princess, but I had a K's Bulleid Merchant Navy. The axle holes were not even central on the wheels, with the tender wheels being the worst. If I had used the K's wheels the tender would have lurched and bounced like one of those circus clown cars!

Go for the Romfords (or Markits) wheels!

I also agree with Peter regarding the motor. I have never had any success with the K's motors, of several different patterns. I remotored my K's Q1 with a Mashima motor, Comet gearbox and gears and Markits wheels.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
116 Posts
Hi
I have a couple of locos still with K's wheels at least twenty years old no rust and they run true !! more by luck than judgement. However if you ever need to take them off the D hole will normally strip out at the same time.
I agree re motor etc total rubbish. Mashima and High level for everything I build nowdays.
Scalelink sell similar wheels to K's never used them but they are half the price of Romfords. A LNER P1 on RM Web used them and the builder rates them highly, Sadly they only go upto 18mm dia the last time i looked

http://www.scalelink.co.uk/acatalog/Locomo...ng_Wheels_.html

****
 

·
Just another modeller
Joined
·
9,983 Posts
*** Stick to the new Markits (romford) wheels if you want an accurately made self quartering wheel - they do the right wheels for each loco with the right numbers of spokes and detail where spokes meet hub/wheel... each wheel design differs a bit even when they are the same size. (you really can't just use any wheel for any loco - the crank offset is different wheel to wheel and if it doesn't match the valve gear properly problems can exist).

If you don't mind quartering them yourself Gibsons wheels are also very nice, If you don't mind paying top dollar and waiting forever for delivery, Ultrascale wheels are excellent

Good luck with the Princess kit - I used one as the basis for my turbomotive and the accuracy issues in the castings of firebox and front end meant hours of filling and total redetailing of the firebox, a strip of the boiler to the bare shape and replacement of all boiler bands with something close to scale and use of a saw and total replacement of the whole front footplate area. However the basic proportion is OK so it does end up OK as long as you are very patient and take your time.

I have to add to Peters comment - yes, replace motor and gearbox.... but replace the chassis with a comet one too - the original is a recipe for problems as its not very accurate (sorry to be negative... but its useful to know the pitfalls ahead of time.

Richard
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Thanks to all for useful info/advice. I'll certainly not use the K's wheels, markits wheels sound as if they are more to scale with number of spokes, etc. than the older Romford wheels (which I used satisfactorily in the past). Mashima motor with comet 2 stage gear box (Highlevel?) will be way to go, I hadn't intended trying to use the K's motor after disasters of many years ago(!) Richard's advice on accuracy of kit is also useful, I'll plug on with it. I'll also take some digital pics to post. Like srman I've also got a K's Q1. Mine's in dire need of rebuild (got it as part of a bartering deal) and I'm now motivated to use markit wheels, mashima/comet set up on that as well. Thanks again. I'll have a look at the workbench part of the forum as well.

Bill
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,629 Posts
Bill, I was actually lucky in that another BRMA member also had a K's Q1 that he had built a different chassis for (possibly Comet but I'm not sure). Rather than stripping my original poorly built non-running one, he offered me the original K's chassis components from his kit, so I was a able to make a fresh start. I forgot to mention I also added a large brass flywheel.

While I was at it, I also filed the body top profile quite a bit and thinned the chimney rim. It's not as detailed as the Hornby offereings but it is just as smooth-running, noisier (gear whine) and heaps more powerful - it actually pulled a coupling out of the front of a wagon on a long, heavy train!

It may not be as good looking as the Hornby offering, but I did it myself!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
srman,

Thanks for info, can I ask what mashima motor you used and what gear ratio? Agree with use of flywheel, seems to help running.

Ta,

Bill
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,614 Posts
I would recommend tha mashima 10x24 (actually more powerfull than the 12x24) and a 57:1 gear ratio (or there abouts) if you really want a crawler go for the 108:1 gearbox!! you have shedloads of space in a Q1!!

Sorry i have just reread the question and realised it was aimed at SRman. sorry, its been a long day!! i thought i would leave my answer there anyway.

Peter
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Thanks Peter, actually the more advice the merrier! Great thing about this forum is that it's possible to get advice based on other's experiences, particularly things like motor sizes, gear ratios etc. that have actually worked.

I've just been looking at the Comet web site to check on their "princess" chassis, as you said earlier in this thread, it certainly looks more accurate than the original K's version.

Thanks,

Bill
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Hi Peter (again), sorry, meant to say on my last post just sent that I couldn't find your k's coal tank on "on my work bench" forum, I must be missing the obvious search technique?

Bill
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,629 Posts
QUOTE (34030 Watersmeet @ 15 Feb 2009, 07:48) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>srman,

Thanks for info, can I ask what mashima motor you used and what gear ratio? Agree with use of flywheel, seems to help running.

Ta,

Bill

Bill, I'm sorry to say I can't remember what sized Mashima I used. I do remember that the gearbox is a double-reduction one - I'll have to try to dig out my original order specifications, but it was quite a few years ago now. I'm not inclined to dismantle the locomotive to check, although eventually I will DCC it. Not sure what the current consumption is either, for whe I select a suitable decoder. What I do know is that it works and works well.

Peter (pedromorgan), I don't mind in the least your fielding the answer. My expertise in this area is distinctly limited!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Hi, Thanks to everyone for all the helpful advice. Double reduction box sounds worth a go, srman, usually used single worm/gearheel up to now (apart from an rg4 some years ago now). I found your thread ok, Peter, your coal tank looks v. good, also the saint looked an interesting project as well. You certainly get good results from white metal kits.
Very motivational.

Bill
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Thanks for that, Peter. I'll try a double reduction box. Think my Q1 may be a good guinea pig for this. Also, going back to the Princess, Comet recommend a Mashima MH1628 motor (and either their single or double redn box) but of course there's lots of room in a pacific.

I've also got a couple of kits (one built, Millholme 2p from some years ago, one not) that need a motor. The chassis is also shaped to take a x03 type open framed motor. Does anyone know of any currently available motors that are the same dimensions as the classic x03 (perhaps 5-pole)? Or should I just go down the "motor and gear box" route?

Thanks,

Bill
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
7,678 Posts
If at all practical, go the modern can motor (with flywheel if there is room) on a two stage gearbox route, in preference to any form of direct drive onto an axle. Quieter, more free running, and often enables a completely concealed mechanism even in something small boilered like a 2P.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,614 Posts
I think the 1628 is a good choice for that loco. as you say there is lots of room.

I would advise against using an open frame motor such as the X03. they were great in their day but modern can motors are quieter, produce more torque, draw less current, produce less electromagnetic interfearence and require much less maintainance than their open framed forerunners.

Peter
 

·
Paul Hamilton aka &quot;Lancashire Fusilier&quot;
Joined
·
844 Posts
For what it's worth the 1628 comes highly recommended in Iain Rice's book on Chassis Construction in 4mm and from that Mashima's in general. I am using Mashimas and Branchline boxes (no flywheel) in my particular modelling case (Fowler 4F 0-6-0) and remain to play with the High Level units at this stage.
 

·
Just another modeller
Joined
·
9,983 Posts
***The 1628 is a great motor... I recommend it highly when space is available.

BTW, when wondering about gear box ratios, don't forget to take into account the fact that the correct gearbox ratio should be relative to the desired track speed AND that it is of course relative to the combined gearbox ration, wheel diameter and RPM of the motor - and mashimas for example vary from 9500PRM max to 16,000 RPM max (thats nearly 40% speed difference!!)

....so the same ratio isn't appropriate for all motors! A bit of web research will usually find the performance data for the motor you want to use.... and getting it right will make a big difference to both performance and loco power!

regards

Richard
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top