Impetus Fowler diesels: different ways to build a collectible

[Adam]

Sitting in the propagator (until the weather improves) are the compenent parts of a newly built, if fifteen year old (via the dreaded E-bay for roughly what it cost new), Impetus kit; a Fowler diesel. I've always rather liked the prototype which, cosmetically at least, was very much of its time (the late '50s, early '60s). The mechanics don't seem to have been so very different to the pre-war types however which is part of its charm and their relative simplicity may be why the type is fairly well represented in preservation.



This isn't a perfect kit though elements of it are very good. The etches are were generally nice and well-detailed and the castings (particularly the resin bonnet) were excellent. There were also some nice turned buffers included but as you can see, I opted for these chunky fabricated dumb buffers (a standard Fowler option it seems). There are a number of minor issues with the steps and rear veranda with the kit as designed: the front is a minor etch error, the veranda didn't actually look much like the prototype. These were both fairly easily resolved with a modicum of cutting and filing.



A more serious problem, however, is the design of the cab: if assembled per the instructions, accessing the cab interior for painting/glazing is impossible since the cab must be assembled in one piece with the footplate and the shape of the cab roof doesn't really allow for making this removeable (the etched part seems to be too short compared to prototype photos in any event). Even if it were, the veranda handrails would be unacceptably vulnerable. My solution should be apparent from the photos. The curved sections were formed from strips of brass sheet, soldered on over length, and strengthened with (prototypical) bits of 'L' section - rainstrips on the real thing - and only then cut to length and shaped. The centre section, a simple arc, was cut from more brass sheet with small locators (2mm lengths of brass 1mm 'L' section), applied fore and aft and clips made from scrap etch either side to hold in in place.



The chassis wasn't bad, but I'm not convinced that the rod linking the flycrank to the rear axle shares the same centres as the frame plates, but this may be because the flycranks are whitemetal castings which have to be bored out to suit the crank throw of the wheels. The consequence is that the crankpin holes of the jackshaft rod (cosmetic - it's driven from the powered axle) is more of a slot. It may be that I introduced some minor difference in crank throw when drilling the flycrank. Never mind, it works and the design has lots of unobstructed space between the frames for lead to improve haulage so for such a diminutive loco' it's quite heavy.

Adam

[Ruston]

Nice one, Adam. I built one of these a long time ago and it's another that could do with a rebuild. I found that I'd fitted the roof with too much overhang at the front and so the veranda handrails ended up leaning forward somewhat. I built mine to 00 gauge and used Romford wheels - what gauge and wheels are you using?

 

 

By the way, when you say that the mechanics of these weren't that different from the pre-war types, this, the 422 class, used hydraulic transmission whereas the pre-war Fowlers used mechanical crash gearboxes, which are very different mechanically and also very different to drive!

[Adam]

It's EM with Gibson wheels (the ones intended for the Backwoods Garratt), which are a bit smaller than the Sharman's or Romfords specified in the instructions but actually look correct. The 3'6" wheels - I had a set, also Gibsons, in stock - do not. It helps, of course that these are actually available. I'm not a fan of those small Romfords, they look rather too chunky. My lack of knowledge about the transmission is a touch embarrassing, though hopefully forgiveable! The rather ghostly grey on the wheels is an undercoat by the way, I haven't decided on the top coat colour yet...

 

Adam

[Arthur]

Adam, Dave, Nice looking models of an interesting prototype, I've always liked that 50's 'space age' look that they have. Those dumb buffers really look the part.

 

Here's an article from The Iron & Coal Trades Review, November 29, 1957. about them along with a larger scan of the photo.

 

 

 

And one in service at Millom Ironworks which had a small fleet of them.

 

 

It was not until I went looking for these details that I learned that Fowler had produced an earlier, similar looking machine, same bonnet but no rear verandah and with doors on the cab side. I also thought that I'd seen an article covering the building of one of these kits in MRJ years ago but it's not in the on line index, maybe it was in something else, maybe I'm just wrong...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ruston]

Fowler 0-4-0 DH.jpg

 

I think in this case this was the only one that was built in this class.

 

There was a class of Fowler that wasn't just a one-off with similar appearance but no veranda - the 421 class. I think the 421s used mechanical transmission.

 

http://www.53a-pix.c...ler421class.jpg

 

 

[Arthur]

Transmission differences aside there seem to be a few variants of this Fowler look about,

 

here's another;

 

 

The various differences seem to be the front grille layout, cab front windows, steps, rear verandah or the type and layout of cab side doors.

 

Oh yeah, and there's this, in narrow gauge:

 

[Kenton]

Another very elegant industrial shunter - that will probably now have us all scrabbling and fighting over the next RARE one to appear on ebay

 

Adam you were very lucky to have picked that one up for "only original price" - I must have been asleep.

[AMJ]

At Middleton Railway (as mentioned in the scan above) we should have our version of this body style in operation during 2011. If you are going to DCC it you could possibly record the sound and then create a chip for it!

[Adam]

I'm pleased my pictures have uncovered a few more shots of these interesting machines - the narrow gauge versions are especially attractive in my opinion. Even the 422 class has a number of variations - the most obvious being the size of the front cab windows. The later ones - as represented by the kit - were larger than all of those illustrated here. No plans for DCC, since we don't do it: working in EM - even if you don't buy kits via internet auctions - creates enough discretionary costs so the space for a chip/speaker (I'm not convinced by most of the DCC sound I've heard in any event, but that's a debate I'm not going to engage in!) is reserved for weight. I only wish I could have found room for a flywheel, but taking a dental burr to the inside of the bonnet wasn't very pleasant, even with the vacuum nozzle only half an inch away.

Thinking about the price, I must have bought it around four years ago now, possibly a little more recently, but even then I was rather surprised to get it for that kind of value. I have a Bagnall 0-6-0 bought a few months earlier, again at only a fiver or so above the list price. I don't think that, even six months later, I could have done that. I recall that, around the same time, a 7mm (pre-built) Impetus Sentinel went for about £600 and the Manning Wardles  seem to go for properly silly money when they appear, and I would think they must have produced more of those than any of their other kits. I suppose that's a reasonable reflection of their rarity, but I do wonder if, having paid that kind of money you'd dare build them?

Thanks for all the interest folks.

Adam

[Arthur]

Kalgarin must be sat on a potential gold mine!!

[Kenton]

Thinking about the price, I must have bought it around four years ago now, possibly a little more recently, but even then I was rather surprised to get it for that kind of value. I have a Bagnall 0-6-0 bought a few months earlier, again at only a fiver or so above the list price. I don't think that, even six months later, I could have done that. I recall that around the same time a 7mm (pre-built) Impetus Sentinel went for about £600 and the Manning Wardles in particular seem to go for properly silly money when they appear, and I would think they must have produced more of those than any of their other kits. I suppose that's a reasonable reflection of their rarity, but I do wonder if, having paid that kind of money you'd dare build them?

I think the problem is very much supply and demand rather than speculative.

As with all these kits the only supply is estates and folk downsizing their collection of un-started rainy day boxes. I think most buyers have intention to build the kit and are either attracted by the kit as an Impetus kit or by the class of loco represented. The problem with the latter group is that they may start a kit, perhaps as their first, and then give up, consigning the kit to the scrap bid/land fill. There becomes a point when there are simply none left and the term "RARE" so often flouted by sellers starts to really mean something.

 

Kalgarin must be sat on a potential gold mine!!

SAT being the appropriate word. Have been for far too long. It is a shame that this happens to kits when the owners retire/sell up. The potential is not fully realised and actively followed up. Though, despite the ebay prices, I'm not so sure that the re-release would be termed a gold mine. Though the kits were good they had room for improvement.

[Adam]

 

 

SAT being the appropriate word. Have been for far too long. It is a shame that this happens to kits when the owners retire/sell up. The potential is not fully realised and actively followed up. Though, despite the ebay prices, I'm not so sure that the re-release would be termed a gold mine.

I think we've been over this ground rather too often, which probably tells its own story.

 

Though the kits were good they had room for improvement.

True: see my OP. I don't think that Impetus are bad kits by any means and certainly, they could be re-introduced without any modifications and be perfectly acceptable in the current market. The issues I percieved with the Fowler were nothing that someone with a modicum of experience couldn't think their way around but the kit worked in the way that the instructions suggested and the only significant mechanical weakness is the whitemetal flycrank. Even bushed (a proper engineering job) and using a wheel to match the crank throw this caused problems. Judith Edge kits supply these items as etched laminated assemblies (different types for each of the available wheels) which is a real boon and a benefit of CAD-based artwork which makes this sort of thing much easier to do with sufficient accuracy.

The experience of having built a couple of Judith Edge diesels certainly helped in this respect. The Bagnall is similar, but with that, the modifications which have slowed the process are, in part, a result of my preferences and experience rather than any special fault of the kit. It will build as designed without any problems.

Adam

[5050]

Nice to see this thread. I've got one of these in my collection of 'gunner' locos (ones I'm gunner finish one day!). It's at least half built with several mods to the design. I built my own set of rear handrails from brass wire rather than use the flat etch and the cab has been built in a manner to allow it to be attached by 10BA screws and captive bolts to allow detailing and painting. The bonnet also has two 10BA studs at the cab end to fit through the cab front, the nuts hidden by the control 'desk' and another stud at the front through the footplate. I fancy a rather complicated 2 or 3 tone paint finish so this should make it easier to paint. The fly-crank axle will be driven by a set of gears driven off the front driven axle so it should never get out of 'sync' and no need to quarter the cranks. In fact, I may not even bother to attach the rods to the cranks, the crank nut on the rod may just be a dummy and go along for the ride. Wheels are home made brass with Alan Gibson tyres and split axles, a system I've succesfully used on a couple of small industrials before. Motor is a very small Mashima flat can with a High Level Load Hauler Compact reduction gearbox, all of which fits neatly into the resin cast bonnet. Like I say above, I will hopefully finish it one day. It sort of ground to a halt at the stage of fitting the wheels to the axle as the crank throw on the wheels is to small to properly fit my GW wheelpress and with brass wheels and a split axle you only really get one chance!

 

If I get a moment or two I'll try and get some photos of the work so far.

 

I've also done some etch artwork for the 'centre door, two window' cab version of the 421. I needed to make a master for resin casting the bonnet so again the project ran out of steam (or should it be diesel?) and now I don't have a programme that will open the file on my new computer. If I ever get back to 'serious' modelling then things may start to happen again!

[Adam]

That sounds like a cut above mine '5050', but I wouldn't call myself an engineer. The illusion of a driven jackshaft is what Chris Gibbon does of course but his kits have the advantage of starting from a blank screen. I did make an attempt at making the cab removable (and replacing the handrails) but settled on the present solution as it makes for a very stable structure and once the etch was tinned and gently rounded it looks rather neat. A trade-off, I suppose, but I don't think it detracts from the (near)-finished article. I'd be interested in any photos you can find of yours though, there's always something to learn.

 

Adam

[br2975]

Transmission differences aside there seem to be a few variants of this Fowler look about,

 

Oh yeah, and there's this, in narrow gauge:

 

 

I stand to be corrected, but isn't this a Fowler 416 Class ?

 

I suspect it is one of the three 2'6" gauge 0-6-0DM 416 Class locos built for the East African 'ground nuts scheme' but were never delivered, and were purchased by British Portland Cement Manufacturers for working between Downswood Quarry & Lower Penarth Cement Works.

 

The line closed in 1968, and the quarry now forms Cosmeston Country Lake(s)

 

The locos were

JF 4160004/1951 to Welshpool & Llanfair 8/1969

JF 4160005/1951 to Welshpool & Llanfair 11/1969

JF 4160006/1951 scrapped during 1970

 

IIRC at least one of the two preserved locos later went to the Whipsnade & Umfolozi Railway.

 

I can recall our Western Welsh bus being held up for one to cross the Penarth - Swanbridge road heading for the works, during 1966

 

Brian R

[Adam]

I stand to be corrected, but isn't this a Fowler 416 Class ?

 

I suspect it is one of the three 2'6" gauge 0-6-0DM 416 Class locos built for the East African 'ground nuts scheme' but were never delivered, and were purchased by British Portland Cement Manufacturers for working between Downswood Quarry & Lower Penarth Cement Works.

 

The line closed in 1968, and the quarry now forms Cosmeston Country Lake(s)

 

The locos were

JF 4160004/1951 to Welshpool & Llanfair 8/1969

JF 4160005/1951 to Welshpool & Llanfair 11/1969

JF 4160006/1951 scrapped during 1970

 

IIRC at least one of the two preserved locos later went to the Whipsnade & Umfolozi Railway.

 

I can recall our Western Welsh bus being held up for one to cross the Penarth - Swanbridge road heading for the works, during 1966

 

Brian R

 

I'm not sure about the one shown in the photo up the thread (I don't think that the south Wales ones were named were they?), but I think you're right about the class going on the works numbers, The Whipsnade railway certainly has a pair so I would assume that those are the machines which originally went to Welshpool.

 

Adam

[br2975]

I'm not sure about the one shown in the photo up the thread (I don't think that the south Wales ones were named were they?), but I think you're right about the class going on the works numbers, The Whipsnade railway certainly has a pair so I would assume that those are the machines which originally went to Welshpool.

 

 

Adam,

 

The loco in the picture appears to be named 'Victor' and when at Penarth the locos were only numbered, and re-numbered, never carrying names.

 

This would make the loco in the photo 4160005/1951 whilst the other preserved example 4160004/1951 became "Hector" at Whipsnade

 

Also, from memory, they wore a green colour, and looking at the background of the photo, that isn't Lower Penarth, so I'd say the photo is definitely post 1972 and taken at Whipsnade.

 

Brian R.

[br2975]

Model Railway Constructor, November 1959 ran an article on (then) modern indutrial diesel shunters and contained drawings of;

(i) Brush-Bagnall 0-4-0DE for the Steel Company of Wales (SCoW), Margam.

(ii) RH 200DE 0-4-0DE, and

(iii) JF 176hp 0-4-0DM which appears to be very similar to the model described here.

 

A few years later, the same magazine ran an article on modern diesel depots, which was almost wholly about the SCoW facility at Margam, built in 1955 and in theory Britain's first purpose built diesel depot.

 

Brian R

[Adam]

Thanks Brian - I see that I should actually take a close look at the photos I link to! The MRC reference is interesting - I think I've seen the piece on the SCoW facility at Margam but I wasn't aware of the earlier article with the drawings. I wonder if Mike Edge has the Brush-Bagnall 0-4-0 on his 'to do' list...

 

Adam

[br2975]

I wonder if Mike Edge has the Brush-Bagnall 0-4-0 on his 'to do' list...

 

Would be nice - but something to bear in mind, the original SCoW Brush - Bagnall diesels were some 10'0" wide, far in excess of the standard BR loading gauge. I also think the Alco Bo-Bo locos the SCoW bought were also stock US products, and would have been "out of gauge" anywhere outside the works.

 

Hywel Thomas has built 4mm 'EM' models of both the Brush-Bagnall and Alco Bo-Bo locos, pictures of which can be found here .....

http://emgaugemodelslayouts.fotopic.net/c1249798.html

 

Brian R

[Arthur]

The Alcos, drawgear apart, were certainly standard. U.S. products. I'd certainly be up for a kit for one of the Brush/Bagnall 0-4-0s. However, I take your point Brian, maybe one of the Brush 0-4-0s, of which BR had a few and which, I think, were the same as those supplied to Parkgate Iron & Steel in Rotherham, might have wider appeal as a kit.

http://johnlawontherails.fotopic.net/p27419068.html

 

 

 

[Michael Edge]

We have the smaller Brush 0-4-0DE (BR D2999 and similar locos) in the list but as has been pointed out the Bagnall Bo-Bos are way out of gauge for most places in the UK.

Michael Edge

Judith Edge kits

[Adam]

Thanks Mike. Much though I admire the Bo-Bos, I could find a use for a model of one since they're so inextricably linked with Margam. The small outside framed 0-4-0s are what I actually had in mind.

 

Adam

[Arthur]

Mike, when you say in the list do you mean planned list or are they currently available?

 

Arthur

[Michael Edge]

In the planned list - along with a lot of others.