Model Railway Forum banner
1 - 20 of 38 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
746 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Many years ago I converted a tender drive Princess to the Turbomotive 46202. Does anybody know if the current Princess chassis will easily fit the old style body as I'd like to upgrade this model. I know the wheelbase is slightly out but as one doesn't see the splashers that won't matter.
I have a current type tender to replace the one with the tender drive.
 

·
Just another modeller
Joined
·
9,983 Posts
*** I really don't know about the chassis swap dimensions, sorry

but.... I hope they aren't out too much dimension wise. as the spashers on 6202 are definately all in full view on the RHS of the loco.

have you considered using the Comet princess chassis? - that way you with a bit of tweaking to set it up right for 6202, you will also have the correct rear frames on the chassis, not the Hornby compromise.

Richard
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
7,673 Posts
I would be very dubious of the current chassis being a straight 'plug in' to a Princess from 'many years ago'. All the pacifics which have been long term fixtures in Hornby's catalogue have undergone steady evolution of both the body moulding and chassis features. That said, it will be possible to install the current chassis if you are prepared to cut clearances, and probably put in new securing points. Take a look at the service diagram, and compare to your present unmotorised chassis to judge whether the securing points have changed. http://static.hornby.com/files/ss-251c-226.pdf

Richard's suggestion would produce a very nice result; does your 46202 carry both smoke deflectors and the extended casing on the RHS, so that only the rear RHS splasher is visible? Stylistically, I do wish the loco had been built with the full length casing both sides. Why only on the LHS in the original I don't know; some people are as a result convinced that the forward turbine extends from the cab to the front bogie, whereas it is all contained in the 'bulge' over the bogie. If I ever get around to the 'Turbo', I will style it right, and be hanged to authenticity!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
746 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Thanks folks - I may be able to get the thing to fit with a bit of carving.

My model was in final condition in BR lined black with smoke deflectors. I'll post a photo as soon as I can get my digital camera set-up.

I also did the proposed 4-6-4, 2-6-2 and 4-4-0s at around the same time, but that was nearly 20 years ago!
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
7,673 Posts
I like 46258. With 70 sq ft grate, mechanical stoker, 300psi and circa 56,000lb TE, but an adhesion factor of less than 3, she would have been like a Bulleid pacific for slipping when starting. But once at speed, the continuous 4,000 IHP that such a grate should have been able to sustain for dealing with Shap and Beattock, would have made running a five hour Euston-Glasgow service practical. What would her BR power class have been: 11P/7F?
 

·
Just another modeller
Joined
·
9,983 Posts
QUOTE (34C @ 13 Dec 2008, 18:59) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I like 46258. With 70 sq ft grate, mechanical stoker, 300psi and circa 56,000lb TE, but an adhesion factor of less than 3, she would have been like a Bulleid pacific for slipping when starting. But once at speed, the continuous 4,000 IHP that such a grate should have been able to sustain for dealing with Shap and Beattock, would have made running a five hour Euston-Glasgow service practical. What would her BR power class have been: 11P/7F?

*** She did really well after initial teething trouble... I suspect that if WW2 hadn't got in the way, the class might have multiplied.

Here's a well and truly reworked front end to reflect the look of the loco when running, with cooling flap up... and a full RHS.

The loco is a well and truly reworked K's body, Comet tender, comet chassis with dual beam suspension (front bogie linked by a compound beam to the driving wheel beam which links front and centre driver ... easier to do than to describe :). It gives correct weight distribution to bogie and drivers as per the prototype - as a result, it is guided into curves properly by the bogie and in general glides along the track!)

Regards, Richard
 

·
Just another modeller
Joined
·
9,983 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
746 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
I managed to get a spare Princess chassis which will indeed fit the old body although the splashers are in the wrong place - it doesn't matter as they are hidden by the casings on 6202.

I have started on converting another body but this will now have to wait till the dark nights. I've also prepared a spare Coronation chassis by rewheeling this so that I can eventually do Princess Anne but as yet I have to locate a spare Princess body in BR green to carve up.

View attachment 1823
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
228 Posts
Nice work! It's useful to see this as I'm looking at re-fitting a couple of Margate Princesses with newer chassis (Comet or Chinese Hornby). How did you deal with the splashers on the right hand side of the loco?

One other (slightly tangential) question: I've noticed that the Margate body has a shorter firebox than the Chinese version; the dimension between smokebox door and backhead is the same across both. Is this a prototypical variance or just an error?

Cheers // Tom
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
746 Posts
The splashers aren't an issue with Turbomotive, but would cause a problem with the other locos.

The original 1984 Princess body was based on the first type of boilers fitted without combustion chamber, but the retooled version introduced in 2001 featured the later boiler with combustion chamber. My original Turbomotive is actually incorrect in that respect but I am working on a later body which will correct that when it is complete. I will then return the original body to its tender drive chassis and possibly dispose of the lot. The original tender I used was in fact a Mainline one altered to fit the Hornby Tender Drive chassis. 2002 had a riveted tender body.

Its easy enough to pick up spare Hornby tender bodies and chassis of the 4000 gallon variety so my original Turbomotive body was mated to a new loco drive chassis and a new tender which just happened to be in the correct lined black livery.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
228 Posts
Thanks for the info about combustion chambers; very helpful. Wikipedia tells us that the 13 Princess Royals were built in two batches of two and 11. Based on your candour about your own model of 6202, presumbly the first two (6200 and 6201) were built without, and the rest with? Therefore the 2001 moulding would be right for 85% of the class.

Re splashers: What am I missing? Am I thinking of the same loco?


Cheers // Tom
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
746 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Its more complicated than that as 6202 was built with a domeless boiler and then received one with a dome later. In fact the boiler story of the Princesses is not straightforward so one needs to refer to the appropriate books etc. to find what condition a loco was in at a certain time.

All the Hornby Princess Elizabeths are incorrect as they have the later valve gear and slide bar arrangements. I am looking at modifying Hornby King slide bars etc. and fitting to create a more accurate model of Princess Elizabeth.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
228 Posts
QUOTE (Saint Johnstoun @ 9 May 2010, 22:27) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>...appropriate books...Could you give a steer on what those are?

QUOTE (Saint Johnstoun @ 9 May 2010, 22:27) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>All the Hornby Princess Elizabeths are incorrect as they have the later valve gear and slide bar arrangements. I am looking at modifying Hornby King slide bars etc. and fitting to create a more accurate model of Princess Elizabeth.I was really thinking above the footplate. In terms of basic dimensions, and allowing for adjustments to depict detail differences, is it a reliable formula to employ the 1984 bodyshell for 6200 and 6201, and the 2001 update as a base for 6203-6212?

Also, still not clear on whether you adjusted the splasher positions on the right side of your Turbomotive. If you did, any tips?

Cheers // Tom
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
746 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
1984 bodyshell will only cover 6200 and 6201 in original condition. However, these boilers were rotated in the pool from 1952-5 and were also fitted with domes so one has to look at the records to see which boilers were fitted to which engines after that date.

The splashers on Turbomotive are hidden, so the difference in wheelbase in the original and later correct chassis does not come into the equation. If you were fitting the earlier body to a conventional chassis the front splasher would need to be relocated about 2mm further forward.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
746 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
46204, 46208, 46210 46211 and 46212 all carried the earlier boilers at some time in the 1950s but domes had been fitted by this time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
228 Posts
Thanks for the info.

QUOTE (Saint Johnstoun @ 10 May 2010, 07:05) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>[...]
The splashers on Turbomotive are hidden,
[...]Really sorry to labour this point, but now I'm worried about my basic locomotive terminology!



Aren't those things in the red ellipse splashers? Perhaps this wasn't how 6202 appeared in service.

Cheers // Tom
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
746 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
The difference in wheelbase between the tender drive and loco drive versions of the Hornby Princess is between the leading and centre driving wheels. My model is of the locomotive in later condition when an additional oil pump was added and the casing on the right hand side was extended further back hiding the front splasher hence the lack of a problem in using the early body. If you wished to use the original body to model the loco as built you would need to move the front right hand side splasher forward.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
228 Posts
QUOTE (Saint Johnstoun @ 19 May 2010, 17:29) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>The difference in wheelbase between the tender drive and loco drive versions of the Hornby Princess is between the leading and centre driving wheels. My model is of the locomotive in later condition when an additional oil pump was added and the casing on the right hand side was extended further back hiding the front splasher hence the lack of a problem in using the early body. If you wished to use the original body to model the loco as built you would need to move the front right hand side splasher forward.I hear a penny dropping
Thanks for the clarification.

Cheers // Tom
 
1 - 20 of 38 Posts
Top