Jump to content
 

OO Gauge MR 700 Class


AlfaZagato

241 views

Just received this lug in the mail from TMC.  If anyone remembers, I have a penchant for ugly locos. 

20240423_1923441.jpg.b10c24c239271d7621467e3b920d506e.jpg

 

I lucked out, though.   Built, running, painted not only in the right color for my collection, but numbered correctly as well.   About the only disappointment is the builder made absolutely zero provision for a rear coupling.   I have ideas.  

 

Main problem is that there is no substructure behind the rear tender axle.   Nothing to drill into, nothing really to glue to. 

 My first thought was to add a block.  I've had bad luck with such arrangements before.   Even 5-minute epoxy doesn't quite grab well enough against a train.  

 Second thought is an L-bracket, soldered at multiple points.   That then brings the issue of my lack of talent at soldering.   

 Third thought is running a long bolt up through the footplate.   Probably the best cross between strength and simplicity.   Problem there is how to disguise the top of the bolt.   I thought of fabricating a toolbox to cover it.   I've seen no evidence from what few pics I can find that such a toolbox was ever carried by the class.

 

She runs OK on the test plank.  Won't have access to a layout until next month for a good run, though.

  • Like 4

9 Comments


Recommended Comments

  • RMweb Gold

That's a good find, it looks neatly built.

 

I just use a block in such situations, but my trains aren't that long so maybe I'll be unpleasantly surprised when I start running longer trains.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment

I'll give a block a try.   What material do you use?  My thoughts are plasticard.

Link to comment
  • RMweb Gold
Mikkel

Posted (edited)

I tend to use some thick rectangular or square styrene rod (Evergreen call theirs "strips").

 

Edited by Mikkel
Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium
Quote

If anyone remembers, I have a penchant for ugly locos. 

 

An off-topic comment if ever there was one!

 

That looks like a nicely-built example of the K's kit; you're lucky to have it. You might want to consider renumbering. 2849 was one of a handful of 700 class engines rebuilt with the type D boiler in 1908/9, which did result in a degree of uglification:

 

82417.jpg

 

[Embedded link to catalogue image of Midland Railway Study Centre item 82417, 2849 approaching Trent with a through goods train c. 1920.]

 

It went straight from this condition to a G6 Belpaire boiler in 1923, a type it retained until withdrawal in 1947:

 

99-0683.jpg

 

[Embedded link to catalogue image of Midland Railway Study Centre item 99-0683, 2849 outside Derby No. 4 shed c. 1925.]

 

Tenders are a bit of a nightmare. By the 1920s, many 700 Class engines were running with either Johnson tenders off withdrawn 2-4-0s and the like, or with Kirtley tenders with rebuilt tanks, as in these photos of 2849.

 

An example of an engine with round-topped boiler and unrebuilt Kirtley tender, i.e. in the condition of the model, is 2834, renumbered 22834 in 1935 (2849 was renumbered 22834 around the same time). 2849 was a Derby engine for most of its life; 2834 was allocated at Leeds or Normanton up to 1930 but was at Birmingham in 1933, ending its days as part of Bournville shed's antique collection.

 

[Ref. S. Summerson, Midland Railway Locomotives Vol. 2 (Irwell Press, 2007).]

Edited by Compound2632
  • Like 3
Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium
16 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

Are those sandboxes hanging off the outside frame?

 

Yes, those are only a feature of engines rebuilt with D or E boilers, and retained when those boilers were exchanged for the G7 Belpaire boilers. The D and E boilers were second-hand off Johnson 4-4-0s that were being rebuilt with the larger H boiler and were a bit longer than the B boilers originally carried. The 700 class were built without any sanding gear but once steam standing had become standard (from the mid-1880s) they were fitted with sandboxes under the front framing, with sand pipes to the leading wheels. I suppose that these got in the way of the modifications needed to fit the D or E boiler, or possibly it was felt that with the increased power of the rebuilt engines, better sanding was needed. Johnson's earlier 0-6-0s were also built without sanding but the later engines had sand boxes from new, either side of the centre driving wheel; these were of the same pattern as those fitted to these 700 Class engines but being mounted on the inside frames and partly hidden by the footplate valence, were rather less prominent.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment

I think I'll go with 2834.   Lines up nicely with justifying Talavera.   Reminds me, I need to renumber my 812.   I plan to renumber it to be 'Donald' in about '32.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, AlfaZagato said:

I need to renumber my 812.   I plan to renumber it to be 'Donald' in about '32.

 

Ah, yes, I remember noticing that the twins carried the next two numbers after the real last class member, before they 'lost' them.

Link to comment

IIRC Rev. Awdry listed one of their numbers, but not both.   One or the other may have been real!

Link to comment

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
×
×
  • Create New...