Stuart Castings

[Steve WithnellParticipant @stevewithnell34426]

I've just started on some Stuart kits I have (my post on the James Coombes) and noticed a marked difference in the quality of the castings. The Victoria castings were very nice. On the left the casting is from the Victoria c 2008. The photo shows how much smoother the finish is than the one on the right, from the James Coombes kit about 2010. (Been in a box under the bench…)

Here is a photo of the cross-head guides – these are quite rough too –

I've just bought a boxbed and base for a D10 and again the finish is pretty rough.

Have I just got a bad batch or have Stuart turned down the quality ?

Steve

[Steve WithnellParticipant @stevewithnell34426]

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

I think they did stop using shell moulding for a time and that may explain the difference.

J

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

It's not just Stuarts who have variable quality. The two castings below are from the same pattern and same supplier. At the time I bought them, I didn't know what a good casting should be like and accepted the one on the left. Machining it all over wasn't a success and the replacement I bought needed very little work (except replacing the bosses.

Neil

[Steve WithnellParticipant @stevewithnell34426]

Well I've spent the afternoon in the workshop and have machined the portface of the cylinder and the steam outlet. The good news is, that it machines very nicely and scrubs up well, despite the rough finish.

Steve

[John OlsenParticipant @johnolsen79199]

If the unmachined areas look too rough you could use a little filler before painting, as was often done in full size practice. Otherwise, you can clean things up a bit with a diamond burr in an air die grinder or a Dremel.

John

[Author]

Posts