Hornby produce a model of the Stanier Black 5 over 800 were built and lasted to the end of steam on British Raikways in 1968.
The Riddles design Standard Back Five was introduced in the early 1950's they operated in most parts of the UK until the end of steam in1968. Bachmann produces this locomotive . Both Stanier and Riddles Black Fives were mixed Traffic locomotives happy hauling freight trains and also stopping local passenger trains and some express trains. Both Black Fives would be an ideal purchase ! I have both Black Fives

 

Hornby produce a model of the Stanier Black 5 over 800 were built and lasted to the end of steam on British Raikways in 1968.
The Riddles design Standard Back Five was introduced in the early 1950's they operated in most parts of the UK until the end of steam in1968. Bachmann produces this locomotive . Both Stanier and Riddles Black Fives were mixed Traffic locomotives happy hauling freight trains and also stopping local passenger trains and some express trains.

 

I'm not quite sure what you are asking here, Mark. Are you asking about Black 5 models, or 4-6-0 models in general?

Hornby currently do the only Black 5 in OO gauge that I know of, with the current models in the main range being quite good, but Hornby also do a cheaper version in the RailRoad range, using some of the older tooling (superseded from the main range) but still upgraded with a smooth running motor in the locomotive. Earlier versions had coarser valve gear (including current RailRoad versions) and tender drive with a ringfield ('pancake') motor.

This is my Hornby version, with a lot of additional weathering. It's a few years old now but is to the latest standards Hornby are producing.



If you want information on other 4-6-0 types, there are many different models from various British railway companies and British Railways, from Hornby and Bachmann, including a few duplications of types).

 

The 4-6-0 type came late to British railways, the first was the Jones 'big goods' of 1893 after which there was a slow acceptance of the type, with the expansion of the loads on the railways and with lots of study trips to the USA the qualities of the 4-6-0 were understood and there were especially on the GWR and GCR experiments and comparisons with the Atlantic types took place however by about 1910 it was understood that the 4-6-0 had advantages in the loading of the drive axles, the smoke box of a steam loco has nothing much inside so weighs little, the main weight comes from the boiler and the firebox is heavy as also it has water over the firebox as well.

The first successful 4-6-0's were when the loco was teemed up with superheaters and a formula was worked out with the Walshearts gear, 2 outside cylinders and the like, the Highland River class was in effect a Black 5 twenty years before the black 5.

The other element was the size of wheels, the black 5, GWR Halls and the Rivers had 6 foot diameter wheels, the LNER designed the B1 it came out with 6 foot 2 inch wheels

The very last steam loco used by BR officially was Black 5 45212 which shunted Preston yard on 12 August 1968, regular service operation had finished the day before.

 

In the UK the medium power 4-6-0 was settled on as a suitable 'all-rounder' general purpose main line locomotive, in much the same role as the 2-8-2 in North America. About 28 sq ft grate, capable of sustaining between 12 - 1400 dbhp, and with a 6' driving wheel: would run at up to 90mph in passenger service with a trainload of 300 tons, and could handle up to 800 tons of slow freight on easily graded routes. (Steam age freight problem in the UK, no automatic brake on the majority of wagons, so unbraked trains ran very slow lest the train run away. Wagons without automatic brake were not eliminated from traffic until the 1980s, by which time the network had been 20 years operated by diesel and electric traction.)

The most numerous example the LMS Black 5 ( the 5 is the power rating), followed by LNER B1, GWR Hall, BR standard 5, SR 'various' (several closely related classes from pregroup designs developed into rough equivalence) of which the S15 and N15 have models.

There were 2-8-0 freight equivalents with a 4'8" wheel, LMS 8F, LNER O1, O2, O4, GWR 28/38xx, Wartime austerity build WD 2-8-0, the usual loco choice for slow freight, especially mineral traffic.

Models available Bachmann, Heljan, Hornby

 

QUOTE (34C @ 15 Dec 2017, 09:40) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>In the UK the medium power 4-6-0 was settled on as a suitable 'all-rounder' general purpose main line locomotive, in much the same role as the 2-8-2 in North America. About 28 sq ft grate, capable of sustaining between 12 - 1400 dbhp, and with a 6' driving wheel: would run at up to 90mph in passenger service with a trainload of 300 tons, and could handle up to 800 tons of slow freight on easily graded routes. (Steam age freight problem in the UK, no automatic brake on the majority of wagons, so unbraked trains ran very slow lest the train run away. Wagons without automatic brake were not eliminated from traffic until the 1980s, by which time the network had been 20 years operated by diesel and electric traction.)

Models available Bachmann, Heljan, Hornby

Thanks. I will look into those.

Wait, what!?! "No automatic brake?!" And until the 1980s?! Holy cow, talk about risky! How on earth did they manage?

Back on track: To respond to Mr. "SRman's" question: I guess I was asking about 4-6-0s in general, and the "Black Five" in particular, since, when I first began to research the wheel type, the "5" came up most often. PS: Thanks for the info about the drawbar in the "N" class.

Mark in Oregon

 

QUOTE (Mark Mugnai @ 15 Dec 2017, 18:27) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>...Wait, what!?! "No automatic brake?!" And until the 1980s?! Holy cow, talk about risky! How on earth did they manage? ...
Very carefully! The 'unfitted' (= no automatic brake) freight trains were operated very slowly, with one or two exceptions on lines that had low levels for traffic and good sighting of the road ahead.

You have bought yourself one of the typical mineral wagons used in this traffic, a timber built example; the same basic pattern was perpetuated in steel versions. The brakes were manually operated by the side levers. When approaching long downward gradient the train was halted and the crew would apply or 'pin down' the brakes on a specified proportion of the wagons proportional to the gradient, to avoid a runaway which the locomotive brakes could not restrain. Once at the bottom of the grade the brakes would be released. Oh and these wagons were 'loose coupled' too, a slack chain over a drawhook between wagons and sprung buffers either side. The charcteristic sound of clang, clang, clang .... clang clang clang as they all buffered up is a now lost sound, but was so much a part of the railway. (If the loco brake was applied really briskly it might be followed by clank, clank, clank ... clank, clank, clank as the compressed buffer springs rebounded and stretched the train out again, with a 'squeee at the finish as the brake van slid along the rails with its brake screwed down!

A full working shift of 8 hours could be used in moving a slow goods a hundred miles or thereabouts. In order that the crews got home, they would have a planned exchange at a convenient halfway point of such a trip, and thus work themselves and their engines back to their home sheds within the working day. Yes, the engines had to get home every night too, just for a start there were so many types in use they needed to be in a location that had the correct spares for their maintenance.

 

Wow, I had no idea (obviously!)

I have a wonderful book about running trains on the Pennsylvania Railroad from the first of the last century up into the late 1940s; the title is "Set Up Running", by John W. Orr. It goes into depth about the subject, and is fascinating, and at times, harrowing...and all this with automatic air braking!

If there was one railroad that was all about standardization, it was the Pennsy; even though early on (pre WW1) an engineer was assigned a specific loco, that practice went away, so the idea of having to return a given engine to it's "home shed" every night seems...very different.

Fun stuff, this.

Mark in Oregon

 

This time I got you 34c, The 'runners' or windcatters working from Annesley to Woodford down the Great Central were the fastest loose coupled freights (maybe ever?) the return trip was a days work for a crew and they commenced using O4's then O1's but came to real fame when 9F's were used, running up to 60 miles/hour they really rattled along so loose coupled freights could be swift and the GC was not flat, summit of the line was Charwelton not far from Woodford and the next station north of there.

Woodford crews serviced and turned the 9F whilst the Annesley men had a break then they took a northbound freight back again. Look up Chris Wards Annesley Fireman website, a great read, there is a gradient profile on here as well, love to have been on these.

92153 works a Towcaster runner

 

Hi Mark.

If you are interested in some of the other 4-6-0 types, one of my favourites is a relatively recent arrival from Hornby (in fact, I have two of them): the Maunsell ex Southern Railway S15, which was supposed to be a heavy goods engine, but was used as a mixed traffic type, and even found its way onto the occasional express passenger, such was their versatility. The model is very powerful and smooth running.

30830 is one I have heavily weathered, while 30842 is more or less straight out of the box.





The similar looking N15 "King Arthur" (or just plain "Arthur") had larger driving wheels and was intended for express passenger work. Hornby have produced a good many variations on the N15, including earlier Urie style cabs or later Maunsell ones, Drummond 'water cart' tenders, flare-sided bogie tenders and 6-wheel tenders, with corresponding adjustments to the footplate shape. The models run very smoothly and quietly, and will haul a reasonable load. Three of mine are here, with Urie cab and bogie tender (30737, King Uther), Maunsell cab and bogie tender (30777, Sir Lamiel, which is a preserved locomotive), and Maunsell cab and 6-wheel tender (30799 , Sir Ironside).









Larger still, but probably slightly less successful as a class were the LN "Lord Nelson" class, also from Maunsell in Southern Railway days. This is an older Bachmann model, which has the dreaded split chassis. Nevertheless, these aren't bad runners, only slightly noisier than more modern mechanisms. I have converted two of these to DCC as I considered the running and haulage as being more than good enough to justify the effort. This one is my lightly weathered 30861, Lord Anson.



Then I have some British Railway 'Standard' types. The Standard 5MT was a mixed traffic class and based firmly on the LMS Stanier Black 5. with updated fittings and fixtures. There were a few different types of tender fitted to different batches. One small batch included Caprotti rotary valve gear instead if the usual Walschaerts type. Bachmann have modelled BR 1B, 1C and 1F tenders on their models. I have three of them, two 'proper' Southern Region allocated versions with ex-King Arthur names (73082, Camelot with BR 1B tender, and 73110, The Red Knight with BR 1F tender, not pictured here). Green 73068 has a BR 1C tender and was a Western Region allocated locomotive. The models run smoothly enough but aren't all that sure-footed.



The slightly smaller Standard 4MTs also had a couple of tender variations; mine has the Southern Region specified BR 1B type. The SR ones also had double chimneys fitted, and were reckoned by their enginemen to be as good as, or even better than, the Standard 5s. Both Hornby and Bachmann offer this model. My Hornby one hauls better loads than the Bachmann Standard 5s can manage. There were earlier models of this type from Mainline (avoid, as the mechanism is dreadful), and Bachmann (with split chassis - not too bad, but not up to the newer standards of running).



The BR Standard types tended to be more widespread (less regional, if you prefer) than the pre-nationalisation types. Nationalisation occurred on 1st January 1948.

'MT' stands for 'Mixed Traffic', and the power classifications went from 1F to 9F for freight (the higher the number, the more powerful the locomotive), and 0P to 8P for passenger types. 5MT could also be written 5P5F.

There are many other 4-6-0 types from both Southern and other railway origins, but seeing as my bias is to the Southern Railway / BR Southern Region, the types I have illustrated reflect that. The Black 5s did stray onto the Southern at times, hence my excuse to own a model of one of those!

 

QUOTE (SRman @ 16 Dec 2017, 09:54) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
(off topic!) I love the row of little tankies up the top - more pics in a separate thread?

 

Thanks Simon. They are my industrial fleet, a sort of side interest sparked by Hornby's release of the Pecketts. I have illustrated these locomotives and some diesels in my layout topics in a couple of other forums - search for Newton Broadway.

 

Holy cow...that's a lot of very useful information. I appreciate your taking the time to post all of that. At some point you mention " the dreaded split chassis": what exactly do you mean, and what is now typically used? I thought the split chassis design was the standard for newer models...it is for US outline locos, both steam and diesel.

Plenty to think about and consider, for sure.

Say, my birthday is coming up in January, if someone would be willing to send me a loco: you know, just to try out...

Mark in Oregon

 

Hi Mark.

The split chassis were arranged so that the metal chassis castings were divided longitudinally in two; the axles had a plastic centre section and the journals the axles ran in passed electricity through each chassis half to one of the brushes on the motor. There were plastic spacers between the two chassis halves keeping the two polarities apart as well. It meant there were no separate wire pickups wiping the backs of the wheels or axles, and was actually quite an efficient way of doing things, let down by not using materials as durable as they could have been, particularly for the plating of the axles where they contacted the journals. It also meant they were far more difficult to convert to DCC when that came along.

Bachmann have been slowly replacing the chassis with newer designs, sometimes reusing the existing body tooling (e.g. the Ivatt 2-6-2T), other times revising the body mouldings as well (the V2 and forthcoming J72 come to mind).

Another weakness of the split chassis design and materials was the plastic axle spacer, which could sometimes split, also taking in the drive gear on occasions. If that happened, the locomotive ran like a drunken dog.

I have one of the earlier Standard class 4 4-6-0 locomotives with the split chassis, and, while it used to be quite a good runner, when I came to looking at converting it to DCC, it wasn't running at all well, so it has now been relegated to the display case (I'm reluctant to part with it because i did quite a good job of weathering it).

Here are a couple of pics of the Lord Nelson chassis being dismantled while converting to DCC.

 

QUOTE (SRman @ 16 Dec 2017, 00:54) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>... The Black 5s did stray onto the Southern at times, hence my excuse to own a model of one of those!
The B1s were regulars going down South in summer traffic ad make an interesting contrast to the S15; and like the S15, Hornby's B1 is one of their 'top drawer' models. I'd like an S15 for my Southern end of the ECML scene because it is such a handsome machine, but have totally failed to find any evidence: just the C and Q1 from the present RTR selection which definitely put in apperances on cross-London freight transfers.

 

Generally good stuff, some of these models do match the performance of the real thing, Urie who followed Drummond on the London and South Western was a pioneer is making a better more efficient reliable and cheaper to operate steam locomotive - and err - Drummond wasn't, as former works manager under Drummond one can only wonder at his forbearance when he saw what his boss was doing. So back in 1912 etc onwards the LSWR introduction of the King Arthur (N15) series was quite a breakthrough.

The British Rail standard locomotives took this formula to the limit, the only issue I would have here is with SRman regarding the BR class 5 and the Class 4 (4-6-0) there was also a class 4 (2-6-0 and 2-6-4 tank) as equal.

The Class 5 was almost rated as a class 6, they were very good indeed so much so that it was decided to cancel further class 6 pacifics and hence there is no way a Class 4 much smaller loco could perform as well as that, having said that the class 4 was a very good loco for what it was designed to do but as diesels multiple units were introduced they found themselves without a job and a number ended up banking on the Shap gradient from Tebay shed an effort to find a way of keeping them busy.

My early favourite version of this type of loco was the Highland River where a genius (Smith) was destroyed by the forces of tradition and dimness (lead by Newlands) and the Highland Railway sold the Rivers to the Caledonian in 1915, great shame, both these railways ended up as part of the LMS and one can see the genesis of the later Black 5 right here - just add a taper boiler.

 

QUOTE (SRman @ 16 Dec 2017, 07:32) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Hi Mark.

The split chassis were arranged so that the metal chassis castings were divided longitudinally in two; the axles had a plastic centre section and the journals the axles ran in passed electricity through each chassis half to one of the brushes on the motor. There were plastic spacers between the two chassis halves keeping the two polarities apart as well.

Bachmann have been slowly replacing the chassis with newer designs, sometimes reusing the existing body tooling (e.g. the Ivatt 2-6-2T), other times revising the body mouldings as well (the V2 and forthcoming J72 come to mind).

Here are a couple of pics of the Lord Nelson chassis being dismantled while converting to DCC.

Yes, that's it; the "split chassis" design. That's the norm, as I say, for all "current generation" US-outline locos I know of, in both HO and N scale, steam or diesel. Your pictures show more or less what my locos look like. So you can imagine my surprise at that same design being referred to as "dreaded". Not that I'm doubting you, (

) but can you show me what the "newer design" looks like?

As I mentioned in my post regarding the Bachmann "N" class, it also is "self contained", but the motor is vertically mounted, and not encased in metal halves, like your Lord Nelson...or my (also Bachmann) Baldwin 2-8-0 or PRR K4. Much easier to "get into" and work on.

Having been in this hobby since the very late 1960s, I of course was raised on the more traditional steam design: the open-frame motor, screwed to the chassis with a direct worm-gear drive. Properly built and maintained, these are capable of fine performance. I must admit a sense of trepidation when I first had to approach the maintenance of the "split frame" type; but, like everything else, you get used to the quirks and learn what to look for...although I must admit I prefer a more "open" design, as I like to be able to see what's going on!

In any case, like every other thread I've started here, this has turned into a most interesting and useful discussion, and I thank everyone who has "chimed in" so far...

Mark in Oregon

 

QUOTE (Mark Mugnai @ 16 Dec 2017, 17:09) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Yes, that's it; the "split chassis" design. That's the norm, as I say, for all "current generation" US-outline locos I know of, in both HO and N scale, steam or
diesel. Your pictures show more or less what my locos look like. So you can imagine my surprise at that same design being referred to as "dreaded"...
Manufactured to a much lower standard on the UK product, in the comparisons I have made. Specific problems on the UK product, very thin plating - just
a 'flash' which soon wore through on heavier models, and brittle plastics for the insulating components in axles and the spur gear trains, which fracture. It
was not all downside, the sealed can motors were consistently good, appear unburstable even when put into service that wore all the plating off in 5 years!

QUOTE (Mark Mugnai @ 16 Dec 2017, 17:09) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>...but can you show me what the "newer design" looks like? As I mentioned in my post regarding the Bachmann "N" class...
That N class model you own is fairly typical of the 'newer design'. Unusual feature is the vertically mounted motor, most have the motor horizontal. Key
features are steel axled wheel sets with hub insulators, very neat wiper pick up concealed behind the flange of the wheels mounted on a neat keeper plate,
solid cast chassis block, robust materials choices throughout. I have had 2 WD 2-8-0s with all the supplied ballast removed and weighted with lead to near
twice the 'out of the box' condition and run very regularly ever since. Sixteen years and nothing needed doing except lubrication. (A UK split chassis model
of this weight (1lb) would fail with worn through plating in bearings and on tyres in five to six years, possibly with plastics fracture needing repair mid way
through the working life, given similar running.)

There have been small refinements since, brass collars on driven axles as bearings, a screw down motor mount in an integral cast box rather than a plastic
clip fit mount, DCC decoder sockets typically in the tender with a very neat drawbar with wiring clipped on. There has been a loss as well. Bachmann used
to put one or more sprung driven axles on the steam mechs but have dropped this feature, last to receive it the Pepp A2 pacific. Shame because it really
helps pick up reliability.

 

QUOTE (Mark Mugnai @ 16 Dec 2017, 06:09) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Holy cow...that's a lot of very useful information. I appreciate your taking the time to post all of that. At some point you mention " the dreaded split chassis": what exactly do you mean, and what is now typically used? I thought the split chassis design was the standard for newer models...it is for US outline locos, both steam and diesel.

Plenty to think about and consider, for sure.

Say, my birthday is coming up in January, if someone would be willing to send me a loco: you know, just to try out...

Mark in Oregon

The split chassis suffers from lubrication, The oil used must be conducting oil or resistance builds up and arcing commences between chassis and stub axle. This rapidly erodes the plating on the stub axle and heats the axle, on the early "Mainline" derived chassis the driving wheels then slip on the axle. On later ones the wheels just fall off and can be pushed back on. My sons old stock Bachmann 43XX lasted 30 minutes of running in before a centre driving wheel came off. A part cure is to fit pickups from chassis to the backs of the wheels.

The BR 4 saga was a bit sad. Ever since the big 5ft 8" wheel 2-6-2 and 2-6-4 tanks were produced people wanted tender versions. The GWR produced the 43XX class, and the SR the N and U series but the LMS decided that the 2-6-0 needed 5ft 3" wheels instead of the tanks 5ft 9" for some bizarre reason and the LNER followed suit with the K1. The std 4 4-6-0 was a standard version of the GWR Manor, with a lengthened version of the 4MT 2-6-4T boiler which didn't steam until a lot of tinkering with blastpipes etc . The Manor itself was a waste of time as it didn't steam until modified blastpipes etc were fitted after 10 years in service and in any case it was as heavy as the projected Churchward 5ft 8" 4-6-0 of 1902. A fancy cab and heavy superheater required a much smaller boiler than the 1902 design. I suppose a non superheated loco was unthinkable in 1938 but it would have undoubtedly been a better loco than the 1938 Manor. So instead of a decent class 4 tender loco, one didn't steam and the other was a bit too small in the wheel for MT use and initially didn't steam. So why didn't the BR build their class 4 tender engine as a 5ft 8 wheel 2-6-0 which would have made the Std 3 (With a No3 1902 GWR 2-4-2 tank boiler not the often quoted Std 4) make a bit more sense (though not much)

 

As a "follow up" to this discussion: this afternoon I purchased off eBay, a Bachmann "Guild Hall", #32-000DC. Pretty sure I got it for a good price.

My question is: it's equipped with a "Hattons decoder", which I don't need.

I'm intent on staying with straight DC, so how difficult will it be to remove that decoder, or do I even have to? I think if I try to run it as equipped, I risk "frying" that device, correct?

As always, thanks for any and all input.

Mark in Oregon

 

The decoder should make no difference, the loco will run on DC and simply the decoder is optional, if you remove it you have to put in place a blanking plights will be an 8 pinned the Bachmann plug has 8 pins whilst Hornby plugs have 4 pins (mostly)

Hattons do not make decoders themselves they are badge engineered jobs some of which look like TCS, either way they are not great, likely you have something else likely it has something else, The Bachmann Hall has the decoder under the cab floor in a tiny space and few decoders will actually fit, my advice if it works then leave it alone. The option maybe is that it is an older non dcc equipped loco that has been hard wired and again you need to be able to follow the wiring to remove the dcc decoder, Hornby locos sometimes have coloured wires makes life easier but Bachmann have a plethora of thin black wires and it is easy to mess these up also the space inside is limited and getting nice small connectors for the wires is another problem, again if it works leave it alone.

Meanwhile you will note that these models have changed even evolved over a period of time, older ones are not now supported although Bachmann UK will still sell you axle inserts etc to repair locos, rods wear out and I have one loco made of bits and space is limited. Overall I took the decision to get rid of split chassis, tender drives, non dcc wired, etc. older locos as the new ones are simply so much better however some have weaker motors and they do wear out.

 

That is blanking p l u g s - spell checker strikes again

 

That's good to know and somewhat of a relief! Thank you.

If there's any interest, I shall let you know when it arrives and how it gets on...

Mark in Oregon

 

If the N class you purchased runs to your satisfaction, the Hall should match it. The basic mechanism design is much the same.

I have had to use the Hattons decoder on behalf of a friend for whom I do decoder installations and some other selected fiddling around, which his arthritic fingers will not permit. Now straight up, I am not impressed with Hattons' decoder. If the mechanism is a good smooth runner on DC, it will often exceed what this decoder can deliver in low speed control: introducing a 'granularity' or jerkiness at low speeds, and very often a sudden surge in acceleration and deceleration about two thirds up the speed range. The granularity applies to both DCC and DC. The cure is simple, unplug and ditch it, put in an 8 pin blanking plug to make it a purely DC loco.

Do tell us how you get on with it. The Hall quite likely will not have as good traction as the N class.

Bachmann did tend to put a bit much spring pressure on bogies, taking weight off the driven wheels, and I think this model introduced the best part of ten years ago may be in that category. That's good for track holding if the layout track is a bit rough, but for those with well laid track is unnecessary. One of the regular adjustments I make is to cut down the spring to make it much softer, just a quarter of the original spring is required if you find one with about twenty turns that stands five eighths of an inch when removed. If it is the later smaller soft spring with half a dozen turns that's fine as it is.

 

Earlier N class locos had a very good motor, later ones is not quite so good, in as far as I know the ones with dcc wiring and 8 pin plug are given number 31869 in BR format (maybe a Southern alternative).

I agree I never buy any more of these TCS, Gauemaster, Hattons badged decoders and for what it is worth most Bachmann locos of recent date use the 21 pin decoder and here I buy Bachmann decoders only, newest offer has Next 18 decoders (also used in N scale) others such as the excellent 9F use the 8 pin format as do ALL Hornby locos and here I have standardised on the DCC Concepts nano 8 pin as it works, is a reasonable price and it fits where many others do not including the fitting into the Bachmann Hall, the BR 2-6-0 and Ivatt 4MT 2-6-0 which all have very tight spaces for the fitment of the decoder in the socket.

It seems you are not impressed by dcc but I would suggest you keep the option open by leaving dcc fitments, sockets and wiring. As above you can run dcc on DC but not Dc on dcc and never ever mix the two on the track feeds as this can blow your control unit very quickly, I keep my tram track as DC and test locos on that or outside on a test track if the weather permits.