Model Railway Forum banner
181 - 200 of 224 Posts

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,467 Posts
This?

Saw one at a show (remember those?) some years ago, on a Hornby N2 mechanism. Unfortunately the owner wasn't at the show that day, but one of those operating the layout told me the owner was very pleased with how it went together. It certainly looked good.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,485 Posts
Father had some N1 bodies of white metal he fitted to N2 chassis as the N1 was typically working local Halifax - Bradford operations, certainly the heavy body aided traction so I have 3 somewhere in a plastic box but getting them working means fitting dcc chips and hard wiring them and simply put I cannot be bothered just now and basically have not enough space on the layout for more locos so I have too many really nice locos doing nothing.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
920 Posts
Discussion Starter · #184 ·
What experience have you had of Vitrains Class 37? I got one from a Member of our club to repair last night which has become a non runner. On dismantling one of the cardan shafts is completely missing? I've managed to source new drive shafts but 3D printed replacements.
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,467 Posts
Riches indeed in LNER heavy goods, with the Heljan O2 and Hornby's Q6 also available, and 'both ends' of the O4 family in RTR OO. The intervening O4 class parts are easily 'bashed' for anyone wanting more, and in the BR period the WD 2-8-0 just adds to the eight coupled variety that can be ambling about on ex-LNER lines..
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
920 Posts
Discussion Starter · #190 ·
I am only missing an O2 but that will have to wait until I get some spare pennies! One also has the O7 if one is modelling the wartime period. I see quite a few folks have filled the O4 to O1 gap with conversions to create the other 'parts'!
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,467 Posts
I am only missing an O2 but that will have to wait until I get some spare pennies! ...
Definitely wait for the next round of releases of this model, as Heljan are upgrading some of the mechanism construction issues* which attracted criticism first time around, and this next tranche has the vastly more desireable GNR** detailing and tenders in it.

* It must be said that while the construction is from the awkward squad, I cannot criticse the performance on track of my two examples. Comfortably best for traction of any current RTR OO 2-8-0, (in previously available RTR only the H-D/Wrenn 8F beats it) and in the first class for running refinement (easy win over old 8F).. Mine have both run reliably in regular use to date: which is good as I don't fancy having to get inside...

** Given that the majority of the fame of the LNER derives from the GNR heritage, it has taken a long time to get RTR models of other tender classes beyond the A1; what with Bachmann having 'passed' on a GNR H4 based on their LNER K3 model.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
920 Posts
Discussion Starter · #192 ·
Yes, we still have to see a K2, K4, and a decent D49. The Hornby Railroad one is passable and in the absence of anything else I have one codged up using the body of a tender drive one fitted to the loco drive chassis as 62700 as the currently available models are of Hunt class which in reality had rotary cam valve gear. I did do the unthinkable and create the Morpeth too.
Oh for a RTR P1!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
920 Posts
Discussion Starter · #193 ·
Yes, we still have to see a K2, K4, and a decent D49. The Hornby Railroad one is passable and in the absence of anything else I have one codged up using the body of a tender drive one fitted to the loco drive chassis as 62700 as the currently available models are of Hunt class which in reality had rotary cam valve gear. I did do the unthinkable and create the Morpeth too.
Oh for a RTR P1!
It's amazing how some of my Golden Oldies keep plodding on. We had an open day at Wester Pickston - home of Perth MRG, Yesterday and I took some stock to run. My faithful Bachmann 4MT Standard Tankie 80032, J38 - a converted Bachmann J39 with Pannier wheelsets and J39 - both split chassis but plodded round Laurenckirk as if good as new! The Standard Tank is one of the early releases and the J39 too - the J38 is much newer having been converted from a Fleabay purchase but even so it must be over a quarter century in age.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,485 Posts
I have a desire to build a B3/3 sometime, as 6166 it became 1497 later 61497 I think and when sizing up it looks very much as if a B17 chassis would be a close fit with a modified B1 body to suit the higher running plate, it would need bigger cylinders than the B17 but anyway father liked this loco a lot sadly it did not have a long life as rebuilt due to frame failure, still it would be an interesting effort.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
920 Posts
Discussion Starter · #195 ·
I have a desire to build a B3/3 sometime, as 6166 it became 1497 later 61497 I think and when sizing up it looks very much as if a B17 chassis would be a close fit with a modified B1 body to suit the higher running plate, it would need bigger cylinders than the B17 but anyway father liked this loco a lot sadly it did not have a long life as rebuilt due to frame failure, still it would be an interesting effort.
Yes, it was basically a B1 with 6' 9" driving wheels. There is however a difference in wheelbase of 9" between the centre and rear driving wheels between the B17 and the B3, also the running plate would probably be at the same height as there are small splashers visible.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
920 Posts
Discussion Starter · #196 ·
Yes, it was basically a B1 with 6' 9" driving wheels. There is however a difference in wheelbase of 9" between the centre and rear driving wheels between the B17 and the B3, also the running plate would probably be at the same height as there are small splashers visible.
You have one problem with the B3 rebuild - the brake blocks were on the front of the driving wheels not on the rear as the B17.
 
181 - 200 of 224 Posts
Top