Jump to content
 

FTG Models - CO2 TTA Tanker


Hugh Flynn
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold

One of the missing wagons that is called Modern Image but is now extinct, I look forward to it progressing!

 

Will there be a version produced with the earlier UIC suspension?

 

Mark Saunders

Hi Hugh,

 

Totally agree with Mark on this.

 

We need the UIC suspension ones to enable the modellable timeline to be pushed back a bit!

 

If I remember correctly - you should have drawings for that one as well?

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Hi

I have a couple off cad drawings to show how the wagon is coming along.

I have taken on a wagon that none were preserved and working from old drawings/photo,s and a friend who is into wagons.

Again if you see anything we are not to late to amend.

Hugh

HI Hugh,

 

Looking good!

 

I bet you are glad that your CAD man is back to work.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

I have a couple off cad drawings to show how the wagon is coming along.

I have taken on a wagon that none were preserved and working from old drawings/photo,s and a friend who is into wagons.

Again if you see anything we are not to late to amend.

Hugh

Hi Hugh!

 

Firstly it's excellent to see progress on the CO2 Tank, it's a very much anticipated product.

 

However the biggest flaw I can see is in the coupling, like you SPA wagon the couplings seems to be mounted too far back, and IIRC your models aren't fitted with sprung buffers. So there will be a tendency for your CO2 to derail on curves due to this.

 

- The couplings are mounted too far back

- Either you'll need to add "soft-sprung" buffers

- Or you'll have to bring the coupling forward.

 

Take a look at the Cavalex 4mm PGA wagon thread and see the amount of work RBE (Cav) has put in into the modification of the coupling just to get it right!

 

Hope you don't mind me using your picture here, I've edited one end (right hand side) to a more realistic length for your coupling, just to give you an idea as to how far out it must reach.

post-27484-0-69811800-1478056265_thumb.jpg

 

Overall it's an outstanding product, the only fault I could see was the coupling which I hope you'll correct.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Hugh!

 

Firstly it's excellent to see progress on the CO2 Tank, it's a very much anticipated product.

 

However the biggest flaw I can see is in the coupling, like you SPA wagon the couplings seems to be mounted too far back, and IIRC your models aren't fitted with sprung buffers. So there will be a tendency for your CO2 to derail on curves due to this.

 

- The couplings are mounted too far back

- Either you'll need to add "soft-sprung" buffers

- Or you'll have to bring the coupling forward.

 

Take a look at the Cavalex 4mm PGA wagon thread and see the amount of work RBE (Cav) has put in into the modification of the coupling just to get it right!

 

Hope you don't mind me using your picture here, I've edited one end (right hand side) to a more realistic length for your coupling, just to give you an idea as to how far out it must reach.

attachicon.gifCO2 Tank.jpg

 

Overall it's an outstanding product, the only fault I could see was the coupling which I hope you'll correct.

Glad you picked up on this, the only thing that spoilt your SPA's slightly for me Hugh was the non-standard NEM coupler. It's the reason why they don't run often on Pendeford sidings as the couplers have been problematic for me.

Other than that I'm really excited to see some progress with your new wagon and I'll definitely be ordering 3 at least.

 

Simon

Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad you picked up on this, the only thing that spoilt your SPA's slightly for me Hugh was the non-standard NEM coupler. It's the reason why they don't run often on Pendeford sidings as the couplers have been problematic for me.

Other than that I'm really excited to see some progress with your new wagon and I'll definitely be ordering 3 at least.

 

Simon

Fully agree with that, I would've bought a set of Network Rail SPAs but sadly I'm at a loss for time to sit and modify...My work requires sitting at a computer designing trains all day and then assembling some. So my hobby became my work. In no mood to chop off and glue on!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I thought that the couplings had been modified by the time the network rail set was released?

 

I have two of the earlier batch but will by more in due course as the coupling has been corrected - Hugh will, I'm sure, post if this is duff info.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So without UIC suspension what time line are we looking at please?

 

Phil

 

1966 to early 80s ish for the original vac braked leaf sprung Motherwell Bridge CO2 tanks.

 

I believe the suspension was changed at the same time as the conversion to air brake but can't confirm this. The lagging and bodyside cabinets appear to have been changed around the same time too so to all intents and purposes a completely different wagon.

 

I did a model of one of the early batch a few years back using a couple of Lima HO tank bodies spliced together on a shortened Bachmann TTA chassis.

 

Cheers

 

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

Those couplings look odd. The shaft of the horizontal hook looks as if it’s in mid-air, above the bar which is supposed to support it. It looks as if in reality, the hook would fall down and rest at a downward angle. The cause seems to be that the pocket is too low and the hook is raised by an angled shaft but the bar hasn’t been raised.

 

Perhaps the solution is to raise the pocket or (ugh) use something like Bachmann’s cranked coupler.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

So without UIC suspension what time line are we looking at please?

 

Phil

 

 

Hi Phil,

 

UIC Suspension - TOPS Code TTV - Built Motherwell Bridge Engineering 1962 - 1966 (Wagon Nos 53200 - 53218)

UIC Suspension - TOPS Code TTB - Built Fauvert Guirel 1970 - 1971 (Wagon Nos 53219 - 53249)

 

Tying down the change dates are a pain as the rebuild date is different for each wagon.

 

However, Ratcliffe gives the Air Brake date as from 1982 on and, as WaveyDavey says, this would be when the suspension was changed.

 

A complicating issue is the the as built with UIC Suspension wagons were approved for International Traffic but once rebuilt were not approved.

 

The International traffic appears to have ceased from 1986 which impies one or other of two seperate situation.

 

1 - The traffic ceased as there was no longer the demand

 

2 - The traffic ceased as the wagons were no longer approved for International use.

 

For such a small number of wagons the history is quite complicated!

 

Thanks

Edited by Scottish Modeller
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

The coupling hook is something I noticed for sorting as they both look different.

I also need to check height from cad drawing.

Hugh

 

Hugh.

 

The hook is missing the 'turnback' to prevent uncoupling until the tension is released.

 

Also you previous couplings are not standard. The fishtail area is too think requiring a pocket with an aperture of a differing height. This means that you coupling wont fit anything else and no other coupling will fit your socket. Ie Kadee .

 

Dave

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fully agree with that, I would've bought a set of Network Rail SPAs but sadly I'm at a loss for time to sit and modify...My work requires sitting at a computer designing trains all day and then assembling some. So my hobby became my work. In no mood to chop off and glue on!

Hi

The NR wagons are Nem standard.

Hugh 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hugh are the couplers themselves NEM standard? with your Railfreight SPAs I couldn't use your couplers in my Bachmann, Hornby wagons etc and vice versa I couldn't use Bachmann couplers in the SPAs.

Hi

The cad designer was given NEM details but somehow ended up with it wrong ,I actually blamed the manufacturer of the tooling as we had it drawn in one program and they were using an old out of date

program and I had then to pay extra to have it all re-wrote to the one they were using.

I in my other topic i put my hands up to length of coupling that was my fault as I was only sent one wagon and it ran ok with other manufacturer wagons.

Hugh

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

The cad designer was given NEM details but somehow ended up with it wrong ,I actually blamed the manufacturer of the tooling as we had it drawn in one program and they were using an old out of date

program and I had then to pay extra to have it all re-wrote to the one they were using.

I in my other topic i put my hands up to length of coupling that was my fault as I was only sent one wagon and it ran ok with other manufacturer wagons.

Hugh

Thanks for replying Hugh, these next wagons will be a roaring success (I want three at least)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for replying Hugh, these next wagons will be a roaring success (I want three at least)

If Hugh follows the pattern of the SPAs and produces four with different running numbers, I’ll go for four. Unless, of course, someone produces several rakes of four- and six-wheeled pre-grouping coaches at the same time!

 

It’s likely I’ll get these.  :)

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...