Jump to content
 

ModelRail USTC 0-6-0 Tank Loco Project USA


Andy Y
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 1 year later...
  • RMweb Premium

Does anyone know how easy it would be to swap the buffers (or buffer heads) on one of these locos?

 

I’m hoping to recreate 30072 in 1990s KWVR malachite green at some point and was thinking of using 30064 as a base. It’s got the larger buffer heads (presumably as it was one of the Southampton docks locos) and the difference is quite obvious. 
 

If they’re an easy swap it seems a simpler proposition than a full repaint? Although from the scans I have it seems that the green they used was quite a bit more lurid than that featured on the model. 

 

1B0CE2CE-F18D-4700-A0DE-AEB2501642C2.jpeg

B4BD9977-B19A-4288-8576-5E3AC060F189.jpeg

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember 30072 was a somewhat lighter shade of green in preservation than 30064 (in preservation or in service), but not an unreasonable compromise if you're willing.

 

The buffer heads are seperate from the metal buffer beams. How easy they are to extract I have no idea. Probably glued, and might not come out cleanly, which will be an issue if you are planning on doing a straight swap between two different model. You could probably ream out any remaining plastic with a drill bit in a pin chuck, however will be left with the issue of how to fit replacements if you broke the securing lug on removal.

 

The advantage of spring buffers is that this isn't a problem, certainly the way Bachmann make them (just crimped on the inner end)!

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The bunker of 30072 is completely different to 30064, and was not modelled by Model Rail so far.

 

30072 has had at last 2  different variations post 1968, first with an extension in time for the KWVR opening, and later a whole new larger bunker which it has today.

 

30072 in 1967, in Black..

 

30072 Guildford MPD 18.6.67

 

30072 in 1969 with expanded coal bunker to the cab roof

 

69 132 280669 KWVR Haworth 72

 

30072 after painting BR Green in preservation with bunker now “squared” off an extended over the bufferbeam, raised curves resulting in a smaller square rear cab window

 

Class USA 0-6-0T 30072 & Andrew Barclay 0-4-0ST 2258 'Tiny'

 

Note 30064’s dance partner 30073 was also a very different bunker... the two are seen here

RCTS: The Solent Rail Tour 20/3/66. Back-to-back green liveried USA 0-6-0T's nos. 30064 and 30073 at Southampton (Ocean Terminal). [Mike Morant collection]

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

I'm throwing open a challenge. Has anyone operated their Model Rail USA Class in more extreme locations than I have done? This is a report from activities back in 2017, but I've only just written it up as a blog post and published the videos. I think I miss travelling a lot! Enjoy

Edited by G-BOAF
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 29/10/2019 at 17:31, adb968008 said:

The bunker of 30072 is completely different to 30064, and was not modelled by Model Rail so far.

 

30072 has had at last 2  different variations post 1968, first with an extension in time for the KWVR opening, and later a whole new larger bunker which it has today.

 

30072 in 1967, in Black..

 

30072 Guildford MPD 18.6.67

 

30072 in 1969 with expanded coal bunker to the cab roof

 

69 132 280669 KWVR Haworth 72

 

30072 after painting BR Green in preservation with bunker now “squared” off an extended over the bufferbeam, raised curves resulting in a smaller square rear cab window

 

Class USA 0-6-0T 30072 & Andrew Barclay 0-4-0ST 2258 'Tiny'

 

Note 30064’s dance partner 30073 was also a very different bunker... the two are seen here

RCTS: The Solent Rail Tour 20/3/66. Back-to-back green liveried USA 0-6-0T's nos. 30064 and 30073 at Southampton (Ocean Terminal). [Mike Morant collection]

 

From memory - and it's a long time, two models and two Editors ago - the first USA we scanned was at the Worth Valley. There was something of a hiatus when it was realised that the KWVR bunker didn't match either the original or the SR conversion. CADs had to be re-done and I believe the Kent & East Sussex Railway locomotive was eventually used as the basis of the model. Deciding which ones you can't tool for is always the most difficult part of each project. (CJL)

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, G-BOAF said:

I'm throwing open a challenge. Has anyone operated their Model Rail USA Class in more extreme locations than I have done? This is a report from activities back in 2017, but I've only just written it up as a blog post and published the videos. I think I miss travelling a lot! Enjoy

Is it time for you to talk to NASA or Elon Musk?

  • Agree 1
  • Funny 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Wickham Green too said:

Good job you chose the right K.& E.S.R. Yankee Tank - the other one's got  some very major ( and in my opinion extremely ugly ) modifications to cab & bunker.

We're very careful about these things. A lot of original drawings were used, too. (CJL)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
3 hours ago, dibber25 said:

We're very careful about these things. A lot of original drawings were used, too. (CJL)

It's always a minefield when things have been around for a while.

Not related to a loco matter but when my Grandfather was a Signal Lineman and his old district was about to be taken over by a power box he had a visit from some historical archivist or similar within BR as some of the equipment was nearly 100 years old. He commented that he had never seen signal with ironwork supporting the flitches like one in the goods yard. Grandad replied you'll probably never find another. Before I put those on there they were holding up a cistern in the toilet block.

  • Like 1
  • Funny 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 20/11/2020 at 11:25, Wickham Green too said:

Good job you chose the right K.& E.S.R. Yankee Tank - the other one's got  some very major ( and in my opinion extremely ugly ) modifications to cab & bunker.

 

May I enquire what it is about the modifications to our engine that so offends your delicate sensibilities?

  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

it's just a horrible angular thing  in contrast the the curvaceous form Eastleigh crafted out of the American original.

 

The original cab and bunker were scrap when it came to overhaul. The black Yank has always suffered with poor ventilation for the crews. A deliberate decision was taken to fit windows to the front of the cab that could be opened completely. As far as the bunker is concerned, when running 3 trips to Bodiam in a day, it was felt that, as we had to build a new bunker anyway, we might as well build one that had the maximum capacity. Both were deliberate efforts to make Wainwright more useable in it's current role. Maunsell will, as I understand it, continue with the old cab and bunker for as long as they remain fit to be reused. 

 

The modifications may not be to your taste, but they are practical and, as the saying goes, you don't have to look at them! :)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 20/11/2020 at 17:00, dibber25 said:

We're very careful about these things. A lot of original drawings were used, too. (CJL)

 

Original drawings of what?

 

The cab and bunker bear no close resemblance to what the real "Frank S Ross" looked like in LMR service, at which stage it had an original USATC cab and bunker, the latter with coal rails, which I think were fitted either originally or very early to some locos. Neither do they resemble Eastleigh modifications.

 

(BTW, the curvaceous roof-eaves were original, not Eastleigh, I think)

 

The fact that the new cab and bunker are practical, although not like the originals, gets the whole thing into the same territory that the Festiniog got in the 1970s, and while I express no view about the rights or wrongs of this, it is noticeable that the Festiniog has subsequently moved towards a more 'heritage' approach (where loading gauge permits).

 

Oh, hang on a minute! Am I "going off on one" about the KESR ersatz "Frank S Ross", when the debate is about the model one? From what I can see, the model one is correct, the lining details being from a late iteration of the livery, which was slightly different in earlier years.

 

 

 

Edited by Nearholmer
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Fireline said:

 

The original cab and bunker were scrap when it came to overhaul. The black Yank has always suffered with poor ventilation for the crews. A deliberate decision was taken to fit windows to the front of the cab that could be opened completely. As far as the bunker is concerned, when running 3 trips to Bodiam in a day, it was felt that, as we had to build a new bunker anyway, we might as well build one that had the maximum capacity. Both were deliberate efforts to make Wainwright more useable in it's current role. Maunsell will, as I understand it, continue with the old cab and bunker for as long as they remain fit to be reused. 

 

The modifications may not be to your taste, but they are practical and, as the saying goes, you don't have to look at them! :)

Is there a reason why the square SR openable windows were replaced with the smaller non-anglo round windows, rather than designed a fully-openable square design? This really (negatively) impacts the look of the loco from the front.

The rear end, while ugly makes sense operationally. As long as one of the pair is kept in its original SR condition... It would be awful if all four ended up with non-standard bunkers... (I say this as 30064 will probably need significant platework replaced if/when it is overhauled)

Edited by G-BOAF
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
16 minutes ago, G-BOAF said:

Is there a reason why the square SR openable windows were replaced with the smaller non-anglo round windows, rather than designed a fully-openable square design? This really (negatively) impacts the look of the loco from the front.

The rear end, while ugly makes sense operationally. As long as one of the pair is kept in its original SR condition... It would be awful if all four ended up with non-standard bunkers... (I say this as 30064 will probably need significant platework replaced if/when it is overhauled)

It may be worthwhile to think in terms of what would the southern have done if they were still using them.

 

A lack of sufficient coal space, ventilation adding steps are quite practical measures. But it depends on the aims, is it preserving a locomotive or making an industrial machine more efficient. This is often the conflict people have with the NRM.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Coming back to the model, 30073 would be very nice as a subject to partner with 30064 as above. I understand it wasnt the only one with that bunker type.

 

So if kader felt like a few little tooling mods that would be nice imho. I had 7 of these USA tanks at one stage, then the B4 and class 07 emerged, so now its down to a more manageable 3, that would be my rationale for a 4th.

Edited by adb968008
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

It may be worthwhile to think in terms of what would the southern have done if they were still using them.

 

A lack of sufficient coal space, ventilation adding steps are quite practical measures. But it depends on the aims, is it preserving a locomotive or making an industrial machine more efficient. This is often the conflict people have with the NRM.

 

 

 

 

Bought diesels?

 

They were bought cheap and weren't expected to last ten years as they were so knackered. The other railways looked at them but didn't bother as they were so poor. The GWR built their own version and the LNER ordered another batch of antiquated J72s.

 

They were a stop gap and was hardly used after the 07s turned up. Most of the survivors ended up as shed pilots or departmental stock.

 

 

Jason

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, G-BOAF said:

Is there a reason why the square SR openable windows were replaced with the smaller non-anglo round windows, rather than designed a fully-openable square design? This really (negatively) impacts the look of the loco from the front.

 

If memory serves (and it's quite a while ago), we had a set of round ones already. Kept the cost down.

 

Oh, and I rather like them. It's all a matter of opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
3 minutes ago, GreenGiraffe22 said:

They've all just been price dropped to £105, might finally get myself a USA Army one =)

 

It's a Warley weekend offer and will end Sunday evening .

  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...