Model Railway Forum banner
1 - 20 of 48 Posts

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,427 Posts
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.)
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,427 Posts
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...
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,427 Posts
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?
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,427 Posts
The tests took place with 90464 (2-8-0) and 90772 (2-10-0) between Carlisle and Hurlford on the old GSWR line in 1952. The primary purpose was to test the live steam injectors. Two grades of coal were used hence the use of the corridor tender which had capacity for bagged coal...
Thanks; now taken a look in Steamindex and there it is, injector tests, for which there's a bulletin available.
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,427 Posts
... 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.
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,427 Posts
I would agree that the A4 split chassis in my experience was the best one, the V2 the worst.
When Bachmann UK launched their OO range the A4 was the only loco model which had established (and effectively permanently available) competition in the form of the Hornby model. My suspicious mind tends to the thought that the A4 was therefore produced to a better specification than the other split chassis product in the range.

Not I believe as well specified as Bachmann's HO split chassis steam models though. A late friend in the USA had a couple of their split chassis steam models, and although I never poked around inside the mechanisms, the plating on the tyres was much superior, matching what Bachmann UK put on their current product. Bill ran these heavyweight locos for at least 20 years, American operations style on long freights around his large 'attic empire', trouble free.

All water long gone under the bridge now. I reckon the Bachmann UK launch as a relatively low cost probe to see if there was a profitable opportunity in OO. Having established that, Bachmann then 'changed gear' with the Blue Riband product, best mechanism then available in RTR OO, and an exterior appearance matching what a proficient kit builder and painter could achieve.

Then again the split chassis steamers may still be causing some reputational damage, first glance at RMweb this morning, and first hing I see is a new poster complaining about wonky wheels on a split chassis B1 purchased recently...
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,427 Posts
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.
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,427 Posts
The original 2-8-2 proposal had 5'3" driving wheels.
Indeed. Unfortunately the 2-8-2 didn't get a systematic tryout in the UK, despite great success in North America and Western Europe as a heavy mixed traffic machine. UK railways didn't need high tractive effort to unstick loads, anytthing over 30,000lb T.E. was enough, so a 2-8-2 with a bigger wheel in the nominal 6' range would produce a machine with the proven 90 mph speed capability of the Brit and over 30,000lb T.E., sufficient for UK express operation, and with the adhesion and thus grunt of the 9F, if arranged for a 22T axleload.

The one real criticism of the otherwise very successful V2 2-6-2, was insufficient adhesion to start 1,200 ton freight loads on a bad rail, only 66 tons on the coupled axles. (Pacifics of all UK classes suffered in the same way; once they had the heavy load moving all was well.) The power and T.E. were more than adequate for the job, just the adhesion lacking. The loco that could easily do it, the 5'2" wheel P1 2-8-2 with 22T axleload, as originally designed had a rear truck booster to ensure 'unsticking' of heavy freight loads. The booster was removed as 'found unnecessary' once operational experience had been obtained.
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,427 Posts
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...
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,427 Posts
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...
Going to be a handsome machine when completed, and neatly 'fills the gap' in 2-6-4T suburban service tank loco designs.

The overreaction of the Southern to the 1927 derailment, after it had been demonstrated that a loco of this design was stable at 40% greater speed than that at which the derailment had occurred when running on well aligned and maintained track; 'tells a story' in my opinion about where that railway management's priorities lay. There must have been someone on that team asking 'How is it that the very similar new Fowler 2-6-4T is now being belted along on LMS services with no difficulties?'
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,427 Posts
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.
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,427 Posts
Also, run your two troublesome locos with the bogie removed to see if that helps. (The bogies can become draggy.) And test without tender for the same reason.

Check the keeperplate securing screws, these need to be 'just right' (to avoid too tight, trapping an axle; too slack allowing an axle to slop about).

Check that all qwheels are secure on the plsastic axle centre, etc.
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,427 Posts
It's amazing how much you can get away with on RTR bodies. In order to keep my Bachmann J39 running - original split chassis mech. well and truly worn out - I inserted the mechanism from a Bachmann J11 (which is an inch out in overall wheelbase, correct diameter wheels). The firebox sides are now 'waffer thin' in order that the new mechanism will fit, but unlike Mr Creosote the model has not (yet) exploded. The centres of the wash out plugs inevitably detached, but a dab of black paint is effective concealment. I really ought to get around to finagling the gear train so the motor is fully concealed inside the boiler...
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,427 Posts
...One chap I knew milled out the axle slots on split chassis and fitted them with brass shim inserts.
How did it work out? I fairly casually looked at what might be done, but concluded that building a simple etched kit chassis would probably be less work for greater longevity; as the stability of the chassis halves assembly was not that good to start with, and declined with use. Then Bachmann switched to well proven cast block, robust steel axle wheelsets and wiper pick up, HUZZAH!; and as the split chassis mechs wore out they were scrapped and replaced with the better products pouring out of China..
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,427 Posts
The best of my Bachmann A4 mechanisms was selected for 'carving' to fit inside a push along Hornby A3 body; I wanted to ensure that it ran for long enough to justify the work. And it is still running on its present owner's layout.

Couldn't now tell you which model it came under, but the nickel plating was much thicker than usual, and after two years regular operation before modification there was no sign of the underlying copper plating on the wheel tyres, or on the stubaxles and chassis locations.
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,427 Posts
Neat modelling of one fitted with a spark arrestor, you don't see that very often. But aren't you tempted to remove the 'beefy' brake pull rod and 'shunter's step' that mars this model? What would it cost Bach to upgrade it with a new keeper plate designed to take a fine metal pull rod?

(I very much like Bachmann's 0-6-0T mechanism in this and the Midland 3F, motor and driveline parts in common, sprung centre wheelset for superior pick up; and like yourself am one among many that have fitted them to numerous bodies needing a new mechanism. Among my modelling crimes I have been too lazy to saw out and reposition the out of position splashers on Hornby's old but otherwise decent J52 body, which very easily takes the Bach 57xx mechanism with its correct Ramsbottom wheelbase dimensions. At least the underside brake pull rods of the J52 mean that the 'shunter's step' could simply be cut away...)
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,427 Posts
...Class 501 EMU....how to easily fit/represent bars to the windows? ...
Nightmare to add separately outside the droplight glazing, because they have to be so regular if the finished result is to look well.

All I can think of is removing the glazing strip, scoring the droplights only on the outer face of the glazing strip using a jig to align a steel straight edge, and attaching precut wire onto the score line using canopy glue or similar glazing adhesive. More refined, find someone to etch the window bars; hopefully the Bachmann droplight width is repeat accurate...
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,427 Posts
... Castles ... produced all the variations using Crownline Kits etc...
I went the lazy way, waited until Hornby introduced the current model, of which there is little but good to be said. My late MiL (daughter of a Swindon Carriage and Wagon foreman) loved pointing out where she had to stand when she had a footplate ride - provided by another more distant relative who was a driver - shortly before leaving school and departing Wiltshire - forever as it turned out.
Has anybody attempted a conversion of a Hornby Star into a Saint?
Suppose that someone must have: 90% of the job would be replacing the 4 cyl arrangement with the cylinders, slide bars, crosshead and connecting rods from the Hawksworth County, parts should be available from the Dapol or Hornby models.
 
1 - 20 of 48 Posts
Top