Jump to content
 

Deliberately Old-Fashioned 0 Scale - Chapter 1


Nearholmer
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium

Well, as mentioned above, I do have a number of ETS powered GWR 4-4-0 locos:

 

- An ACE "City of Truro" No. 3440, in the fully lined out livery that it wore in the late 1950s when I was taken on a special to Doncaster behind it and MR Compound No.1000 in the full MR livery - and I did see "City of Truro" on a DN&S service train at Winchester Chesil. Regarding the ACE model it is only strictly correct in the fully lined livery for the late 1950s onwards, as it has the chimney and details as the later "superheated and piston valve fitted" version of the City class which post-date the fancy livery carried in preservation - but I like it and it is a pet favourite!

 

IMG_0942.jpg.7439a07458c67438d561362ea61c285f.jpg

 

 

- An ACE "Straight Framed" Bulldog No. 3352 "Pendragon" in plain Green with the GWR roundel device on the tender. A very good loco, but it only has one motor clutch so doesn't free-wheel like the later models. But it will pull a very large load for a 4-4-0 as the weighting is very good - a superb mixed-traffic loco.

 

IMG_1011.jpg.09a3d41536180d29e40263cf14c4f583.jpg

 

 

- A "County Class" 4-4-0 No. 3821 "County of Bedford" which started life as a Hornby No.2 Special loco, but came to me as a purchase from the Alan Cliff collection - in a fully rebuilt and repainted condition, with an ETS mechanism and Great Western tender. It is rather smart and very tempting at a very reasonable price - much less than the indicative prices for the proposed ACE re-issues. My only complaints are that it has only one motor, the driving wheels should be larger and it needed a lot more weight in the right place to really match the haulage of the ACE pair - these issues are being addressed, with no changes to the body, purely a mechanism transplant and a new cast lead weight (when the weather if fit for such activities).

 

IMG_0963.jpg.ddebf9fb518adaf97a2fb3f6af39bc30.jpg

 

If I was to complete the set of GWR 4-4-0s, I would also need to find one of the first series of ACE / ETS "Bulldogs" - which have the curved frame outline - and get another of the straight framed "Bulldogs" to convert to a "Dukedog" like 9017 (aka 3217) on the Bluebell Railway which I rember from the Cambrian lines and the Didcot Newbury and Southampton in the 1950s. Alan Cliff once posted pictures of a Dukedog conversion on the old ACE Trains Forum and I am tempted - but I need a reasonably priced donor Bulldog first.

 

Regarding the GWR tenders, I now have 4 of the ETS made versions - 3 seen above, and the Mogul 2-6-0 one. Regarding the softness of the joint between the flare and the sde plates, I think the one on the mogul is not as crisp as the earlier ones - possibly down to a change in metal thickness and / or tooling?

 

Hope the above is of interest. I'm a fan.

 

Regards

Chris H

  • Like 13
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all very much for the advice, it was very useful however the funds ended up being allotted towards a Carette for Bassett Lowke 2 inch gauge MR brake van for my ongoing gauge 2 layout, which doesn’t quite exist yet!

 

Heres its engine though, built by me from scratch in NBR livery. Still not quite finished. I think it’s the first gauge 2 engine made since 1927!

 

2D4D3E64-6673-4264-93C7-64472EBFB6B5.jpeg.c00a2f5e9dca05b785729746ef56b51d.jpeg


Douglas

Edited by Florence Locomotive Works
  • Like 4
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Following a break for evening meal, I now hope to make a few comments regarding the GWR "County" Class 4-4-0 locos, especially as I have succumbed to the charms (?) of a Hornby GWR County Class 4-4-0 loco – as temptation was well and truly put in my way, egged on by Nearholmer.

 

Hornby obviously chose the GWR “County” class as a prototype, as it was then (circa 1930) the most recent build of GWR 4-4-0 (this was before they built the “Dukedogs”) to work over LNWR lines between Shrewsbury and Hereford etc. – because the LNWR would not accept the GWR preferred “Saint” class 4-6-0 locomotives - or any other 4-6-0 working over those lines. So Churchward stuck the “Saint” front end on a circumcised set of frames with “City” boiler, to produce a LNWR accepted 4-4-0 – that was rough riding and much harder on the track than either a “City” 4-4-0 or “Saint” 4-6-0, but track maintenance was the LNWR’s problem!

 

So, in reality the "County" Class were a non-preferred compromise design, which did the job but wasn't perfect, in the same way as the other Churhward designs (forgetting the "Great Bear" - another less than perfect compromise design to meet the Board's wish for a "Pacific").

 

Except for the Bulldogs -which were really Mixed Traffic locos, with 5ft 8 in drivers - the bigger 4-4-0s (Cities and Counties) were all gone in the early 1930s, replaced by the Churchward / Collett 4-6-0s. The last of the Bulldogs - 3377  Penzance - built May 1903 as number lasted till March 1951 at Worcester. But if you really want a GWR 4-4-0 in BR colours (Black) it has to be one of the Dukedogs (9000 to 9028) the last of which continued in service till 1960.

 

I'm still a fan.

 

Regards

Chris H

  • Like 6
  • Informative/Useful 3
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

The tender with the Mogul that I have is the same. Its fine if you accept "the tinplate look", but I dont think its pin-accurate in the finescale sense.

I thought we were all for "the tinplate look" here!;)

   Brian.

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

  • RMweb Premium
3 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

…The models illustrated on the Ace website are, of course, original Hornby items from the 1930s.


Thanks for pointing that out - I’d missed the copyright statement with the photos, sorry,  I was looking on my phone earlier and on the small screen I also didn’t notice the “Hornby” on the smokebox doors.  Have corrected my earlier post.  Will pay more attention next time (though I think I’ve said that before too).

  • Like 2
  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Outside cylinders vs inside? Outside cylinder four-coupled locos have a tendency to 'box', which must cause greater side-thrust on the track than with an inside cylinder loco.

 

The best/worst example I ever saw of it was the first time I rode on the Festiniog. The loco was either Blanche or Linda, both of which had been converted to 2-4-0 by that time I think, in an attempt to counter hunting. I was absolutely amazed to see how it wagged about, boxing along under heavy load. The narrow gauge eagerates the affect, I think, by putting the cylinders effectively further from the gauge face, but it applies to all two outside cylinder four-coupled locos.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Counties were noted for rough riding.    

As well as the Bulldog I have a couple of kits for Dukes  plus the Cambrian Beaconsfield. 4-4-0s make for good models.

 

Don

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

Outside cylinders vs inside? Outside cylinder four-coupled locos have a tendency to 'box', which must cause greater side-thrust on the track than with an inside cylinder loco.

 

The best/worst example I ever saw of it was the first time I rode on the Festiniog. The loco was either Blanche or Linda, both of which had been converted to 2-4-0 by that time I think, in an attempt to counter hunting. I was absolutely amazed to see how it wagged about, boxing along under heavy load. The narrow gauge eagerates the affect, I think, by putting the cylinders effectively further from the gauge face, but it applies to all two outside cylinder four-coupled locos.

That does seems unusual as I know most locomotive fitters take great pains to set the valve timing slightly forward in order to cushion the reciprocating blow of the motion. I know the Royal Scot's/Duchess's had a particularly bad problem with smashing up their rear axleboxes (and the crew/track!) unless the timing was altered. I also do this when ever setting up a stationary live steam engine after a rebuild. Never done a loco though so I can't judge.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t think it directly relates to hammer-blow, but to the application of force at distance from the locomotive centreline, or perhaps more specifically distance from gauge face ……. Hammer-blow is about rate of change of force.

 

Linda and Blanche were originally 0-4-0, so are driven on the rear wheels, which I think will worsen the affect as compared with drive on the front wheels, as ‘Americans’ have. They also have the cylinders very high above the track, which may be a factor.

  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

I was simply referring to the LNWR 4-4-0s' reputation as rail-crushers, without having given detailed though to the dynamics. 

Thanks for reminding me of the LNWR locos reputation - which almost makes the GWR "Counties" look blameless by comparison - but the LNWR Civil Engineer irrationally (ignorance of the times I suppose?) banned 4-6-0s from those lines.

 

In the same way the Highland Railway "River" class 4-6-0s were blamed for a lot of track damage and sold at an advantageous price to the Caledonian Railway, who were happy with the locos. The replacement locos built for the Highland  - the "Clans" (?) - were deemed perfectly satisfactory. However, later investigations when the science of static and full dynamic balancing was further understood the replacement Highland locos were in reality found to damage the track more than the "Rivers".

 

Undoubtably the LNER and later the SR were the ones who got dynamic balancing most right with the three cylinder engines - think of the "Go anywhere" availability of the "West Country" pacifics, but the lack of hammer-blow meant they were very likely to spin their wheels getting away from stations and occasionally at speed with nasty results.

 

Regards

Chris H

  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 21/01/2022 at 05:53, Compound2632 said:

I was simply referring to the LNWR 4-4-0s' reputation as rail-crushers, without having given detailed though to the dynamics. 

 

On 21/01/2022 at 08:56, Metropolitan H said:

Thanks for reminding me of the LNWR locos reputation - which almost makes the GWR "Counties" look blameless by comparison - but the LNWR Civil Engineer irrationally (ignorance of the times I suppose?) banned 4-6-0s from those lines.

 

In the same way the Highland Railway "River" class 4-6-0s were blamed for a lot of track damage and sold at an advantageous price to the Caledonian Railway, who were happy with the locos. The replacement locos built for the Highland  - the "Clans" (?) - were deemed perfectly satisfactory. However, later investigations when the science of static and full dynamic balancing was further understood the replacement Highland locos were in reality found to damage the track more than the "Rivers".

 

Regards

Chris H

I don't think the Highland "River" class could have caused any damage to the track before the sale to the Caledonian.  There was confrontation between the Mechanical and Civil engineers at Inverness, the latter complaining that the locos were too heavy for the structures on the line.  The situation wasn't helped by the two that turned up at Perth on delivery being found to be some 6 tons heavier than the designers had calculated.  As a result they only ran clearance trials, and wouldn't have had many opportunities to spread any track.  The Civil Engineer got his comeuppance after Grouping, when the Rivers returned to the Highland, and ran perfectly satisfactorily despite there being only minimal upgrading of the infrastructure, principally the Tay Bridge (not that one) at Dalguise, which was in need of repair anyway.  The later "Clan" class, although over 10 tons lighter than the "Rivers", as @Metropolitan H says, had a higher hammer-blow, and thus had a greater impact on the underline structures, although whether this could be said to actually damage the track  itself is debatable. It was some time before the full understanding of the differences between dynamic and static loading on structures was fully appreciated.

Edited by Nick Holliday
  • Like 4
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't seen it yet, but Ted is a fantastically good photographer, so I have high expectations.He has the ability to compose what might be called "art shots" out of what is, in truth, industry and environmental despoilation. He used to run a foundry before retiring, but he could just as well have been a commercial photographer.

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

  • RMweb Premium

I’m enjoying seeing the various magazine / catalogue covers being shared: could perhaps lead to some concept artwork to promote the new layout idea, methinks?  

 

Although I’m a bit young to have seen these first hand (sorry), I have happy childhood memories of reading old editions with great interest: a pastime that had the added benefit of being free to dream about what I would have wanted without any pressure to actually try and save up to buy any of it :).

 

14 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

More contemporary graphic style, and this time it’s a picture on the southern.

 

 

1B325154-8C05-4AC2-BD74-E0C6DD41BE1E.jpeg

 

I must admit one thought on seeing this one was whether Gordon would appear in the picture on the other line pulling ‘The Express’ - but please don’t get me wrong, that’s a compliment on the way such pictures do still seem real to me: I expect them to be able to move!  (the Awdry reference is a conflation of childhood memories from a time when the Railway Stories were also realistic, not an attempt to start a thread drift)

 

On 14/01/2022 at 22:18, Nearholmer said:

68F600A4-8F28-4866-8B2B-080A13B1FB43.jpeg.3a4decc8d38cdc5353c52b9d0d5095e7.jpeg

 

 

 

I note the inclusion of the centre third rail in this picture - I’m not an expert on third rail electrics, so am happy to be corrected, but my assumption is it’s been drawn in to help make models seem more realistic.  Is that correct?

 

On 27/12/2021 at 12:04, Nearholmer said:

Because the Pullmans are from Bing, I thought I’d include this really cheerful catalogue cover.

 

6E79B62F-DBEB-4B1D-A2B2-0EA9A01F6778.jpeg.20322a69d407609c49195ccf5a6c9b47.jpeg

 

The third rail in this picture intrigues me - not least because of the way it ends at the turnout? (Is that why the plate layers are gathered there?).  Great stuff that warm sthe heart on a cold day, thank you.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The one with a centre conductor rail is drawn from life. It’s Bushey, just south of Watford, where the LNWR electrification used four rails, positive outside and negative in the centre, to be compatible with the Bakerloo Line among other things, allowing trains to run Kennington to Watford Junction.

 

The Bing one is the product of eating cheese before bed-time.

 

Here are a few Gordons for you, by different artists: Dalby, The Edwards, and Spong. I couldn’t quickly find Gordon by Kenney, so you The Diesel instead.

 

1E4CC070-92E8-40AC-B69C-9CE6FD89DDCA.jpeg.7b56be8235b0aeca4745a365bc8dbecf.jpeg3DB68B37-E67B-4161-BCDA-45D8E5C7EC85.jpeg.cc54b60e9496328f335119360b55f9df.jpeg67826DB3-F297-4952-BD60-96C74E62B26D.jpeg.fd27c2d246fdab6a733b6b9350c8a266.jpeg809EEAAE-68F7-4A2C-A534-CE9F4DF2934E.jpeg.0a754f21b5bf98736b8391674002fe94.jpeg

 

The artists I thought least in-keeping were the Edwards, the rest I like, especially Kenney’s very expressive and humorous loco faces.

 

There was at least one, and I think two artists before Dalby, but we haven’t got the rate early editions with their drawings. Dalby re-illustrated the very early books I think, although I’m not totally sure about No.2, which may actually be by Payne, but attributed to Dalby.

 

Anyway …… Dalby’s style certainly influenced my tastes in model railways, and, like you, the 1950s stuff was all secondhand by the time I saw it, but there were still things being turned-out in what must have been fast becoming an outdated style in the early-60s. Think of Ladybird books, and those little books covering “The Route of the XYZ”, as well as Dinky, HD, Kitmaster and Airfix artwork. Even some Triang and Corgi material.

 

Interestingly reactionary, I think, because if you look at the graphic and design approaches of The Festival of Britain, they were far ahead of all this, and didn’t really come to dominate until the later 60s. Typically British to take fifteen years to get modern!

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

5 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Dalby’s style certainly influenced my tastes in model railways

 

Dalby's illustrations of the Railway Series and old Ladybird illustrations were the formative visual influences of my childhood.  Far more pleasing to my young eyes than the 1970s happening all around me!

 

5ea6da625439b4a501e86ee57238d18d--family-illustration-book-illustrations.jpg.b0225a7ad352aa126e9e3293c1b61f07.jpgmd18183722451.jpg.f1e59df6f36430ee5803db8f7b88b445.jpg

  • Like 5
  • Agree 3
  • Round of applause 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
7 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

Far more pleasing to my young eyes than the 1970s happening all around me!

 

This confirms a suspicion that has been growing on me for a while that James is living backwards through time and a decade hence will be celebrating Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee.

  • Like 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
  • Round of applause 1
  • Funny 5
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...