Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 20/11/21 in Blog Comments

  1. Thanks Dave. There's an absolutely fantastic bit of film about the last days of steam at Sydney's Darling Harbour which features some spectacularly violent shunting in action, I'm not sure if knuckle couplers are more resistant to the shock or not but it made me wince!
    4 points
  2. A photo of my test track for 0 gauge: So it isn't really taking up much space. I am allowing myself this board (c. 7 square feet) plus one cube in a Kallax for all my items 0 gauge, until I eventually settle on a design for a layout. Then the test track can go.
    3 points
  3. To try to give a more focussed reply. To be honest I don't really understand the idea of "sunk costs". I cannot recover the time I have spent on the project but I wouldn't want to. I have enjoyed building all of it except some of the woodwork. I intend to enjoy building the scenery too but taking a break before doing this won't do me any harm. What I might do, is remove the original baseboard (the one with "intertwined micros") and work it up as a separate 00 layout, as a playground for my collection of 00 shunters. This is what I built it for in the first place but I got sidetracked when I saw a Roco 350hp shunter (the English Electric one like a class 11). Move this baseboard to another room. Build a new fiddle yard for the combination of Wellwood and Shelf Marshes, and a lengthy branch from this fiddle yard to Fairport. Use the space in front of this branch (where the original baseboard sits at the moment) for a compact 0 gauge scheme. So I don't think I will "lose" much of what I have built so far, but maybe reconfigure it. The biggest mistake I made was to build a layout (the first baseboard) first and then try to write the back story. The 0 gauge project is getting its history first (I have lots already), and then the layout built to suit. Quite possibly a year compiling the history and only then making the might-have-been layout.
    2 points
  4. However the 57XX, various versions, were equally capable on Old Oak Common - Paddington ECS trains - they were allowed 400 tons trailing between Old Oak Common and Kensington which was over a steeper rising gradient (1 in 61) approaching Viaduct Jcn than eitjher the Up (1 in 75) or Down (1 in 93). E&C Lines via the flyover between Old Oak East and Ladbroke Grove. Very many years ago (obviously) I had a footplate trip on an 8750 on an Up ECs from OCC to Paddington with 13 Mk1s behind the engine and it went up the bank with no difficulty at all. But of course the 57XX, 94XX, and 15XX were all Power Group C so not much in it in official terms. incidentally (officially) speed on the E&C Lines was restricted to a maximum of 10mph although it was raised to 15 mph in the late 1960s. I don't think there was any particular concern about short wheelbase locos for Paddington ECS work because there were no restrictions at all on where the 57XX/94XX could go at Old Oak and Paddington (apart from the need for ATC clip-up on the electrified lines to the suburban station. So were the 15XX at Old Oak for ECS work because they happened to be 'more modern looking' harking back to the story of the emergence of the 94XX? I wouldn't know and i doubt if anyone else does but equally there is no doubt they did good work there and the ease of oiling was no doubt popular with the Enginemen some of whom would have come off main line work fora a more sedate or less strenuous life (Paddngton ECS turns were for years the work on which Old Oak Drivers who had ageing or health problems were usually accommodated). As an aside in fact the only restriction in the immediate London area on 0-6-0Ts was the Guinness Sidings at Park Royal where in the 1950s 57XX and 94XX were not permitted. Photos also indicate that in South Wales 15XX were used to work freight trips which suggests that such work was not beyond their capabilities.
    2 points
  5. From a prep perspective 1501 wins hands down over a normally aspirated pannier. Everything including the axleboxes can be done from the outside; you just have to make sure the engine is set correctly to do it easily. The only thing you need to go underneath for is to check the springs. You could argue its better on a pit to do the two on the brake shaft, On the road the 15 has buckets of power and handles 8 with ease. You can clearly see they would have been good on the ECS's in and out of Paddington. Some might feel they waggle or are unstable, but to be honest the only time you see a waggle is if you pull it up too soon and at too slow a speed. Its more stable than a normal pannier. However the temperature in the box is noticeably higher. Quite a number call it a raging bull, I would be surprised if they ever got to more than 30 on those ECS's considering the weight of them. In short a great engine and a nice easy prep and disposal, with bags of power.
    2 points
  6. @Dana Ashdown found a photograph of number 15 in her 1887 (final) incarnation, which inspired me to see if I could have a go at producing a reasonable sketch from the photo. As I was going to be colouring the new one I thought I would also colour the previous 1866 rebuild sketch. 1866 Very unusual brake setup for the 1866 rebuild, but I'm confident its a reasonable interpretation of what Ahrons drew in the line drawing I worked this up from. 1887 Looking at the photo carefully I decided it was evident that rather than build a new saddle tank in 1887 Wolverhampton had simply extended the original, which considerably simplified the task. Brakes are more conjectural than I would like, but a similar setup was used by Wolverhampton on early 517s. Colour wise, well, its intended to give the impression of Wolverhampton green. Who knows. As ever I've left out the lining and anything else difficult! GWW seems to be silent on the colours of the painted numbers, but white edged in black seemed feasible to me.
    2 points
  7. Would be nice to see another one! The short bunker/footplate width of the Wills/Finecast kit is a bit of a mystery. I built the Saddle Tank variant of that kit (on another Bachmann chassis), and never noticed it .
    1 point
  8. Well deserved Dave. Fun and games with the new section. I had a suprise when one loco stopped at the FY entrance on my layout. I hadn't spotted it had a taller chimney than the others. Keep meaning to check with a drawing. Don
    1 point
  9. There are several H0 models I want to build. In no particular order these might be - another class 33 or even a 27 on the Life-Like chassis, but analogue not DCC - a courier van (BR Mk1 conversion) - a Wickham railbus - a timber flat based on the Roco Habfis chassis - a better VGA van - a USA tank (S100 derivative) - a BR Mk1 corridor composite - a freelance railbus - some mineral wagons (Playcraft hacks) - a traditional ventilated van - some Mk2b coaches (Lima modified) I have most of the parts for all of these and of course more. Supposing I build four or five more 7mm wagons between now and the Spring then I will have enough for my light railway. I will still have a need to make things, and if I stay with model trains (this seems likely!) this can be something from this list or theH0 scenics, or a 7mm goods shed. I am not abandoning H0 but I do think "Shelf Island" has to come to an end as a project somewhen. I have had a previous go at 7mm scale amd also the USA 1:48 equivalent, both ended in failure (though I sold most of the bits on) but somehow this time things are working out a lot better. Quite possibly, skills evolved in H0 are helping. The path to satisfaction is founded in making a model of a railway (real or not) and not a model of other people's models. My 7mm project will be a lot more focussed than my list of H0 models here.
    1 point
  10. Nice video Corbs. Sometimes I think modellers overdo the super slow crawl, shunting (from what I see of old film) was often carried out at a fair lick as depicted in that video.
    1 point
  11. Hi Richard, A change is as good as a rest, so they say. Good for you, take plenty of time off from the H0, enjoy some lovely 0 scale modelling then maybe run a few H0 trains up and down and I suspect the mojo may return. If not, no matter - just continue to enjoy the 0 scale and as time passes, then decide what to do with the H0. I’ll certainly stay in touch and follow what you do because we have made friends and what we individually model doesn’t matter. Not to mention that you’re a good modeller! I’ve contemplated taking up military modelling or even giving up modelling and starting refurbishing old tractors or plant equipment but frankly, I can’t really see that happening. When I need a change, I just look at American or European stuff instead. Cheers, John
    1 point
  12. Do you mean the re-railing jack?
    1 point
  13. Right now, I want to pay someone to ballast the layout. I just hate the task and I am rarely if ever satisfied with my efforts. But I am so finicky I wouldn't wish anyone to take on the job. I think most of us on the RMweb enjoy building things and running trains, but most of us prefer one or the other. For me it is making things. Arguably I have met an end stop because I cannot build any more layout (I have filled the space available) and I am struggling to make much fresh rolling stock. Also, I am finding it vastly easier to make a model wagon in 7mm scale rather than 3.5mm. A cynic might say this is because I can buy kits for 0 but not H0, but as I begin my fourth 7mm wagon kit I can see some scratch building becoming possible. In comparison most of my H0 efforts are cut and shuts and heavy modifications of 00 and H0 RTR, because this is the only approach I have the ability to get to work. The scale is too small for me to build much from scratch, and I have run out of ideas for new conversions. Some friends I have met through the RMweb have sent me 3D prints and detail parts and I certainly owe it to them to use these parts. So I can see a few items of rolling stock to finish the project off.
    1 point
  14. I was trawling through more pictures and realised that the prototype currently has more roof equipment installed. I could find pictures showing parts of it but I couldn't find a good plan view. So, with a bit if imagination I have had a go!
    1 point
  15. I think that's fair enough. The sunk costs fallacy is always worth bearing in mind even though calling it a day on a project is a difficult step to take.
    1 point
  16. Oow! That looks nice - I think a blue 'k' would not be out of place on my KESR "might have been" shelf layout... ps remember to send a note up the chimney to santa....
    1 point
  17. An interesting vignette from the GWR Elist. Apparently on ECS workings the 15s didn't ingratiate themselves with the S&T department "because nearly every week it seemed one would take out a shunt signal somewhere between Paddington and OOC - and there was no room to move the signals, so the same ones got clobbered time and time again!"
    1 point
  18. It should be said that being piston valve means accelerating away and notching up are easier as you don't have to do the two handed shuffle as with a flat valve engine, ie blower on, regulator closed, move the pole, regulator open and blower shut. In first valve it can be possible to do it without totally shutting off, in second valve you have no chance. Every second the regulator is closed of course is loosing momentum. Whereas with 1501 you can notch up without having to shut off at all. the 94xx do have a slight edge on the 15xx in terms of power though and I can imagine they would be preferred for that bit extra they give.
    1 point
  19. According to RCTS no 15 received new boiler barrels in both the 1866 and 1887 rebuilds, but kept the original domed firebox for her entire life. Apparently new frames were fitted in 1890, which seems a surprising repair on such an oddball locomotive. I did have trouble getting a dome shape that I was happy with.
    1 point
  20. and occasionally very amusing ... in retrospect. I expect it took some time to live this one down, back in the shed: Mike
    1 point
  21. I have a Hornby 2721, representing Tondu's 2761 in her final condition as withdrawn from Tondu in 1950, which I have worked up a bit by replacing the Hornby chimney and safety valve cover with spares from a scrap Westward 64xx that had been replaced with a Baccy RTR. It has a Baccy 57xx chassis, and I have learned to live with the minor mismatch of wheels and splashers, only really apparent in a direct broadside on view. The chimney on the Hornby is that shape to allow release from the mould, apparently, but there is little excuse for the upturned flower pot that does duty as the safety valve cover. Any other view than 90 degree broadside is 'incorrect' anyway on a 00 model because of the gauge issue, please, everyone, this is not an invitation to re-open that debate... Your comments about the bunker length are interesting, as I have also been given (courtesy Philou of this very parish) a Wills I854 in non-running order, which I'd intended to build a new Southeastern chassis for at one time. Tondu had an 1854, 1740, that outlasted 2761 by almost a year and would be in some ways a better prototype, and having read this, I'm now leaning to making 1740 out of a combination of Hornby and Wills parts on the Bachmann running chassis. A drawback to 2761 is that the Bachmann 57xx chassis has the plain fishbelly coupling rods that you would expect from a 57xx, and many 2721s ran with such rods in their later lives, but 2761, which I have photographs of on the recep. roads and the dump at Swindon, had straight fluted rods, so the original Hornby chassis was better in that particular regard! I have no photos of 1740 in her late Tondu condition, so feel justified in including the Baccy coupling rods, and possibly an enclosed cab to conceal the gear intrusion into the cab through the firehole door; on 2761 this is done by the crew and the canvas weather sheet being deployed, But the bunker is too long, and looks it, and a hybrid Hornby/Wills body might be a way to address this. That said, anyone who brings out either a 2721 or 1854 half cab pannier to current RTR standards will precipitate the immediate abandonment of all this, and the Bachmann chassis can go back under it's original body.
    1 point
  22. One of the things I really enjoy about 3D- printing is the ease with which I can make modifications. No messing about with razor saws, files, and the like, with all the resulting swarf. Just some simple drawing tools, in this case a simple rectangle on the floor, which can be copied and pasted to sit over the four wheels. I also added the brake hanger that I forgot the first time round. Just a few minutes with the computer and I have a new model to print
    1 point
  23. For those that are interested, I have uploaded a photographic retrospective for the exhibition onto the Club's website. http://www.uckfieldmrc.co.uk/exhib21nf.html Regards Adrian
    1 point
  24. Definitive answer from the supplier is below:- 1) what the minimum radius is they can couple and propel at? - 2ft for the 3mm version with the mounting plates; a bit less for the 4mm version 2) what is the difference between the Mk1 and Mk3 styles? - Mk3 has the extra “hook” so you can propel after uncoupling without them recoupling. 3) do they engage on curves? - Yes. 3ft was the old restriction before the modification with the addition of the mounting plates. Hope this also helps others, especially the knowledge that the 3ft curves restriction is obsolete for current supplies.
    1 point
  25. I use the 3mm Mk3's as seen above on the right - they are less obtrusive than the 4mm version and have a delayed uncoupling action, so are far more versatile. My curves are 24" with one or two yard ones a bit less and I have no problems with them, with the proviso that my stock are all handed so there is a coupling at one end only.
    1 point
  26. Nice to see the old Finecast Metro again. Or the box at least! This adds a whole new dimension to the philosophical discussion of the fisherman's knife/old broom: If you replace all the parts and then use the replaced parts to make a second identical object, then which is which and what is still the same? I need to lie down
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...