--- In O-14@..., "jclutterbuck2001"
<jclutterbuck2001@y...> wrote:
My K1 kit was for 14mm, and therefore I assume I have the correct
brass extensions. Note these are used directly in the bearings (e.g.
brass in brass) which was one of the first things I did'nt like
about
them.
I used phosphor bronze for just that reason (but forgot to mention it
in my Narrow Lines comments - d'oh!)
Now I have assembled the flycranks, coupling rods etc., I still feel
they should be further out as the con rod is currently about 1.5-2mm
shy of the slide bars. Note the slide bars, and cylinders are much
further out (2+mm each side!) than the prototype which led me to the
conclusion that everything is designed for 16.5 gauge and 14mm gauge
is a poor compromise. This may be a bit unfair. I have not built any
other kits intended for 14mm so perhaps my general observation was
also unfair.
On the contrary, I think you are absolutely correct. What you are
observing, however, is a legacy of the kit having been orignally
designed for 9mm gauge when it should have been 8mm - a discrepancy
of 12.5% and the source of the problem. I confess I haven't taken a
vernier to them but I guess that there MAY be extra width between the
frames to suit 009 AND clearance outside for all the slightly
overscale valve gear. When blown up for 7mm scale the 'errors' would
be compounded.
I get the feeling my continuously increasing fine scale aspirations
for the kit are preventing me from enjoying building it. The trouble
is once I see something obviously wrong it will always bug me, so I
keep rebuilding parts. A case of 3 steps forward, 2 steps back and
using up 5 steps of modelling time! Futhermore I question whether my
skills are up to my aspirations. I'm getting better but will never
be a Guy Mitchell.
:-) I think you mean Guy Williams, or maybe Malcolm Mitchell, both
top flight loco builders I am proud to call me friends.
Note I do have some masters to enable production of replacement
cylinder and valve covers in resin of the correct size and number of
bolts. Casting costs for a set (including covering the mould costs)
would end up being in the region of ?2 - ?3. If there is enough
interest I could get some done.
I'm up for a set, please, John.
On the subject of DIY I have convinced my wife that insulating the
roof space of my substantial loft will save on heating costs, as it
will trap any heat lost from the house below. At least I'll now be
warm in the winter and cool in the summer and get more modelling
time.
My substantial loft in a 1948 vintage house has had the 3" joists
doubled, to 6" depth, to carry the chipboard floor (I have quite a
bit of FR Archivery up there as well) and the space between these
joists has been filled with rockwool (fibreglass) insulation. This
has the double benefit of having seriously reduced the heating bill
for the house below and reducing the sounds of my friends and I
tramping about above the family bedrooms!
The tiled and felted roof has been underdrawn with softboard nailed
to the rafters. The architect member of our group was adamant that
NO waterproof membrane should be put behind the softboard and that
the gap under the felt should be left so that air can circulate; for
this reason the softboard does not go all the way to the apex but an
18" wide horizontal ceiling ensures a gap from one side to the other
(it also makes a good foundation for the six neon tubes).
If you impede the airflow there will be problems with condensation
between softboard and the underside of the felt.
The softboard has been painted with white emulsion - a tedious job as
it soaks up paint by the gallon, but it makes a very light 'room'.
The insulation from the house below prevents the 'room' becoming too
warm and the softboard above insulates the 'room'(mostly) from
outside temperatures. I now have a space for a layout that doesn't
suffer the extremes of temperature found in some lofts.
I feel a Narrow Lines article coming on............grrr!
Adrian
