Jump to content
 

BackRoomBoffin

Members
  • Posts

    68
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

496 profile views

BackRoomBoffin's Achievements

156

Reputation

  1. Health warning: I know very little in practical terms of what I am about to say, other than I know it is above my skills level... I understand the prototype were very small and underpowered and withdrawn around 1900 or earlier. We're talking branch and pilot duties only, I guess. I don't know if this is possible, but would the Bachmann Junior/Digby be a suitable victim, but with the motor turned so the wormwheel is in the cab, and the 'front' non-driven axle could then be removed and a new smaller wheelset substituted? This operation in itself would give me heebie jeebies, but, might result in the short wheelbase in the prototype picture. The originals had 5' wheels, I think. That would however leave you with a problem in the cab, and cab doors to hide the mechanism might be implausible as the real things had really really large protruding splashers... By and large Corbs' "cut your coat to suit your cloth" approach makes sense, dependent on what you have to hand, which is what is driving me towards an 0-6-0 as I can't quite reconcile myself to the long wheelbase on the Hornby Smokey Joe chassis (one of which is in the loft) (although I like Corbs' 2-4-0T on this chassis which is at the very start of this thread).
  2. Since you're into the LYR, I've been spending some time salivating over these things, that were used on branchlines... Originally built as 2-4-0WTs then rebuilt. Maybe too small-wheeled and with too short a wheelbase for the traditional expedient of turning an auto-tank chassis backwards? BTW If you or anyone else are in any position to answer my slightly odd query about hypothetical applications of naylor Safety valves (as demonstrated here by our glamourous model), please answer my thread-of-one-post-so-far in Prototype Questions....
  3. I'm not even sure lining is needed. Just painting the footplate black would provide a level of separation between the areas of green and black, and I don't see that that requires a darker red, personally. This image from online (grabbed at random) of a German Mallet shows the kind of thing I'm on about. Look how dingy that green, and how bright that red. No problem, just a hairline of black in between.
  4. Hi, I'm plotting a freelance locomotive from a non-existent works. I have become enamoured of the L&Y Jenkins and Yates saddle tanks with their Naylor safety valves and distinctive 3-column arrangement. I gather NER locos also used these for a period, and possibly more, but I guess they may have been hidden behind covers. Is anyone aware if Naylor valves could be plausibly mounted on top of a dome, as Ramsbottom and Salter vales (and other types) were? Also, what is the latest period Naylor valves were used at? The seem to be a mid-Victorian thing.
  5. One of the several things I appreciate about the left hand (green) loco is the shape of bufferbeam and the way the steps are integrated into it. You'll have a lot more direct experience of this over me, but I am beginning to realise in 'selling' a freelance loco, it's detail that sells the overall concept (not too much, it appears, but key things here and there).
  6. Yes, that kind of thing is where I started, but it's gone on from there.... I need to say again I work _very_ slow and I'm _very_ inexperienced....
  7. I have something more saddle-esque in mind -- also some rebuilds in that period were from well tank to side or saddle tank -- I think it's more a matter of trying to build a deliberate mish mash of detailing so it looks like parts come from an earlier loco. I think it may also be about trying to imply some kind of 'geological stratification' as you work up vertically so the frame and bufferbeam appear more oldfashioned than the superstructure... Have some books of photos of early Victorian locos I am poring over which give some visual cues...
  8. Forgive me if this is a partially uninformed generalised digression, but .... I've been meditating on how much one might be able to address the Largeness Problem bequeathed to us by the Ancient Masters of Plastic in the Far-Off Times (ie the 70s) in adapting proprietary mechanisms when modelling 19th century and light-railway / industrial tank prototypes, based on choosing what to model carefully. Up to the 1870s in railway terms, there were basically 3 ways to get a locomotive with which one could shunt things: - use a discarded tender engine or take one and convert it to a tank engine (these tended to be large and heavy for their power output) -- examples would be LYR and LNWR 0-6-0STs rebuilt from older freight locos -- where this was successful, new-build locos were build that emulated features derived from the 'anecestor' prototype... - build something light with a short wheelbase dedicated to that purpose (but at this stage really 'light' was beyond the ability of the materials if you wanted a higher power output so these were still pretty heavy) - use a horse or vertical boiler shunter (which were light as light could be but very range limited) BUT THEN. The Pug and the Terrier and the 'P' and the 4-4-0T designs like Relaxing Hobby's come at a historic point in the 1880s (ish) when there is: - a) the ability to make engines more compact and powerful than previously as techiques change; b) interest in opening up lighter-laid lines than the mainlines, and legislation is gradually changing to make that so, c) lines and sidings that had been horse-drawn or used vertical boiler types were being replaced with conventional tank engines d) it was not unusual for trip goods tank engines (which could have been later cascaded to yard shunting duties) to have longer wheelbases and be slightly large overall than dedicated yard shunting locomotives, although the distinction might now elude us. So actually some of our most beloved prototypes come at a time when _some_ locos were actually getting smaller, believe it or not. To make my point, Sophia's 0-4-4T is large, but based on the body shell of something that was rebuilt on top of a chassis from standardised based parts on experience with 0-6-0 and 0-4-2 tender engines (James Stirling had a very long career before Wainwright and Surtees started nobbling his deisgns). Similarly, on the NER there were some 0-6-0Ts and O-6-0STs rebuilt by the Worsdell borthers from 0-4-2T and 0-4-4Ts that had been rebuilt by Fletcher (I think I've summarised that without too much misrepresentation of the facts) ... these were larger (I think) than the little 0-6-0Ts built later by the Worsdells for dockyard shunting. So in trying to use a Jinty mech to represent an 1870s style tank engine, as long as I study the prototype, and try to make it look like it is based on (by rebuilding or copying) an older loco that originated as a tender engine or trip shunter, I am 'allowed' a large engine on my light railway / backwoods siding and it _may_ (if I do it right) look more convincing than building an overscale version of a lightrailway engine of the 1880s, 1890s or 1900s. There will still be compromises, because the late Fowler Jinty is an enlarged version of the older Johnson 0-6-0ts, but (I think) I'm not going to have all the compromises to make that I would if I based my loco on a Terrier or a buckjumper or a Killin pug or whatever. Does any of that make sense?
  9. If you're trying to bash the Pug into an 0-6-0, I recommend this beastie from a not-too-far-away location (Gorton ... if you regard the Pugs as an adaptation of a Vulcan design, that's very near indeed):
  10. I'm thinking it will be more of an 'ancient thing from the crypt' (my pen has been considering the work of Craven, Conner, Bromley, England, various Leeds manufactories, several Scottish brothers and that bloke who liked orange). Don't watch this space. I work slow and budget is such that necessary acquisitions will be veeeryyyy caaaarefulllyyyy spaaaaaced.
  11. People, I'm gathering some material for a Jintypug monster. Any suggestions on what tools I should send Igor out for? I've got more opinions than experience....
  12. I dunno, at least they've tried with the 2-4-2T. Consider it up against the near-contemporary Webb 2-2-4-0Ts, or some of the Dean experimental tanks, and it's not completely out of the ordinary. And then, when we look at boiler experimentation, there's the ACFI feedwater heaters, and the Crosti boiler... I'm sorry I think I left pugbashing beind some time ago.... desperately bringing it back, I'd argue that one could easily adapt a Pug to make it a condensing tramway / ilocomotive on the lines of the LSWR Shanks 0-4-0STs, and that that could be adjudged as ugly as this Aspinal/Hoy/Druitt-Halpin beastie, dependent on the beholder.
×
×
  • Create New...