Another one - The 1942 LMS 2-8-4 Tank engine proposal.

 

A3 Shotover with ACFI feed water heater.

 

LMS Corridor Tender for test purposes.

 

Dean Goods

 

I used an elderly tender drive model for this conversion - a pity but may do one on the Oxford version in due course.

 

The Morpeth.

 

Caledonian Railway Signal Boxes.

gnal Boxes

 

Very neat work. Particularly like the Metropolitan K class, very handsome, and we'll never see one of those made available RTR. As for the 'Stanieresque 2-8-4T' I have seen several over the years, and they look 'so right'. (A BR equivalent based on the BR 2-6-4T std4 body and bogie, with the mechanism from a WD 2-8-0, that was 'interesting'; lots of people took a good long look at it, but only a couple challenged the authenticity.)

 

I'd really like to do another K class in Metropolitan or London Transport livery. The model runs very well. I've given it an incorrect BR identity as I run BR in the 1950s.

 

You might think BR would have kept them in service on SR, given the commonalities with the N class, which should have ensured their maintainability; and the shortage of larger tank engines of this power class which saw first LMS design 2-6-4T allocated, and then replacement BR std4 2-6-4T constructed.

Another project which I failed to show on here when completed. Princess Anne...

Don't ever recall seeing a model of this. So interesting to look at. It's a Princess, it's a Duchess, it's a Punchess...

 

Another project which I failed to show on here when completed. Princess Anne with my original Turbomotive. I certainly won't be buying the Hornby one as my Turbomotive has been a faithful runner for nearly half a century - originally with tender drive but rechassied more recently.

 

Proposed 4-6-4 Streamlined version.

 

WD 2-10-0 created by extending a Bachmann 2-8-0 chassis using parts and body parts from another damaged 2-8-0. Running with the LMS corridor tender which was used to test one of the class.

 

WD 2-10-0 created by extending a Bachmann 2-8-0 chassis using parts and body parts from another damaged 2-8-0. Running with the LMS corridor tender which was used to test one of the class.

Oh yes, that's something unique for your layout. Were any changes made to the 2-10-0s as a result of the testing, or was the testing research for the Riddles 9F?

Are the coupled wheels all flanged, and if so, does that require a larger radius than the R2 the 2-8-0 will negotiate?

 

Nice jobs I rebuilt a Bachmann 9F into a Riddles 2-8-2 which is not good enough but needs more work but a few neverwassers is always a great idea, I wanted to make a GCR 2-6-2 but it comes out too long.

Anyway my favourite here is the 2-10-0 which is available model for one of the newer manufacturers and the K class tanks looks very effective.

So nice work, please keep it up

 

You really need a Britannia body for the 2-8-2.

 

An attempt to improve a Hornby Compound. The tender supplied was replaced by one designed for the 2P/4F suitably wired in to make use of the tender pickups. I also replaced the safety valve with Ross Pops. Perhaps a suitable replacement chimney (Stanier) and dome would improve further?

 

Southern Push Pull. I now have two push pull sets with suitable locomotives.

 

Here is 90772 with the corridor tender attached. The corridor tender was still in LMS red.

 

I don't have many large Southern Locos but the two I have are old faithfuls. Despite the split chassis Sir Francis Drake has always been a good runner. King Arthur had a good run on the club layout last week.

 

... Despite the split chassis Sir Francis Drake has always been a good runner...

It was the variability in mechanism endurance that decided me to give up on Bach's split chassis steamers, before they abandoned these mechanisms in favour of regular steel axle wheelsets and wheelback wiper pick up. For me the point of having a model railway is to operate, and the result was that I wore through the conductive plating on tyres, stub axles and the 'axleboxes' typically well before the plastics in the driveline gave trouble, on an original condition mechanism. By recycling usable parts from worn out mechanisms to make assemblages that would run, the plastics troubles then emerged into view. I quite literally ran the final specimens of each class to 'wear out'; insufficient parts with life left in them to make one good running mechanism, and in all this never a single motor failure - that was a good unit.

I recently learned that my A3 conversion with DCC that went to friend is still running sweetly, this had the Bachmann A4 mechanism dimensionally adjusted for a fit in the old Hornby tender drive bodyshell, and had already done ten years with me when the Hornby loco drive model appeared in 2005. Pleasantly surprised by that endurance, but the A4 was easily the cream of the LNER mechanisms (split chassis V2, complete dog!).

All sorts of these old model's parts are still running, entire bodies with a current mechanism powering them, split axle bogies and tender wheelsets providing extra pick up where useful on current models; carved up body parts, cylinder and valve gear 'transplants' onto current mechanisms, to make something not available RTR. Think I have had my money's worth.

 

I have a stock of 'bits' from failed mechanisms (usually valve gear problems) and a supply of new plastic axles but as the number of split chassis locos that actually run on a regular basis on my layout are few it is not a great problem. B1s, V2s, V1s and V3s, Ivatt 2MT tender and tank, and two A4s one of which has run for years without any problems. As you say it's the luck of the draw. Some split mechanisms endure, others fail!

 

I would agree that the A4 split chassis in my experience was the best one, the V2 the worst.

 

Going back to 13 and 14 above I did make an 8MT but the 9F has smaller wheels and is very much shorter, as above I used an old Brittania style body and this picture shows the part built result, the 9F chassis into an 8 coupled loco was easy but the problem is the firebox on the 9F is wide and sticks beyond the firebox of the Brit body, anyway I sort of nearly finished it and had it running, I'll find another photo of it and post once the OO9 is finished I will likely get back to this project

 

The BR standard 'neverwazza' I want to have a go at one of these days is a 6'2" wheel 2-8-2, proper mainline 22T axle load, which would have been the complete 'all rounder' heavy mixed traffic type replacing the Brit and 9F build.

 

The original 2-8-2 proposal had 5'3" driving wheels.

 

The inability of most UK pre-grouping Companies to move forward with freight wagon design (The Caledonian was one exception) meant that in so many cases the CME produced large freight locomotive designs which were capable of hauling loads beyond which the system infrastructure could cope. By the 1950s when for in the USA as an example all freight trains were continuously braked, we were still scraping about in the UK with millions of unfitted wagons.

 

Elsewhere, there are those who are contemplating the conversion of an M7 into a Caledonian Railway 439 class. I did this graphic to show the comparisons and added the North British and proposed Highland Railway designs.

 

Elsewhere, there are those who are contemplating the conversion of an M7 into a Caledonian Railway 439 class.

I'm pretty certain that there was an article in the Railway Modeller in the late 1960s about doing such a conversion, but I wouldn't have a clue which issue it was in. It's a conversion (together with Peter Drummond's projected HR example) that I have often considered doing, in spite of having two unmade DJH kits that I never seem to get around to doing anything with.

The basic job of the conversion should be relatively straightforward, with probably the hardest part being adjusting the width of the cab and bunker.

The GNSR had some 0-4-4Ts as well, but a better starting point for one of them would probably the recent Midland Railway 0-4-4T by Bachmann.

 

Latest project. SECR K Class 'River' 2-6-4 Tank. Bachmann N body mated to cab and bunker parts from a Hornby Fowler 2-6-4 tank - scratch built side tanks.
If I can get suitable 24mm wheels to fit a Bachmann N chassis I will use that.

 

Can anybody suggest a Bachmann chassis with 6' wheels the wheels of which might fit the N chassis? I've used Bachmann Pannier Tank wheels to create a J38 before now.

 

The wheelsets from the Bachmann BR standard 5MT would be an option, these are 24mm diameter on the tyre. You should be aware however that the rear driver has a mounting for the speedo drive representation, which needs some modification for a plain crankpin, and the axle gear will probably need to be replaced by that from the N class.

Never had an example of the Hall to look at, but I suspect that by the time this was upgraded to a steel axle mechanism, 2mm axles in brass bushes had been introduced. The 2mm axle with bushes definitely applies to the first steel axle mechanism V2s, the wheels of which are 24mm diameter. I have never attempted to transplant these thinner axles into the earlier 3mm axle running in mazak 'cut outs' mechanisms...

 

Thanks for that 34c I will pursue that when I get to the stage of a chassis. 5MT wheelsets are readily available from Bachmann Spares. I have already done the Metropolitan K class so sorting out a suitable rear bogie won't be a problem

 

I'm very fond of this model and it is a great runner. I would really like it in London Transport red but I may build another one to do that.

 

One important difference between the Fowler and Maunsell designs was the fact that the Fowler tanks had most of the tanks mounted lower down which also lowered the centre of gravity. The side tanks plus the 6' driving wheels of the K class must have meant a less stable loco.

 

One important difference between the Fowler and Maunsell designs was the fact that the Fowler tanks had most of the tanks mounted lower down which also lowered the centre of gravity. The side tanks plus the 6' driving wheels of the K class must have meant a less stable loco.

A redesign less radical than conversion to a tender loco must have been possible. The description of the problem leading to the derailment suggests some resonance in the side tanks, which baffle plates would have limited, and there was no reason why the tanks could not have been somewhat lowered too. Whatever, the SR didn't go that way...

I will be able to show in model form the development from the K class right through to the BR Standard Class 4...

That's an aspect of models I enjoy, makes the line of development very clear.