Jump to content

Corbs

Show us your Pugbashes, Nellieboshes, Desmondifications, Jintysteins

Recommended Posts

Well, if we're talking pugbashes.

 

As a standard gauge loco, that thing couldn't pull the skin off a rice pudding.  No preserved line is going to want it.  So the only possible owner some rich bloke who is vain enough to want to own a loco all to himself and rich enough to afford to buy one but not rich enough to afford a bigger one.

 

But how about taking the boiler and designing some narrow gauge frames around the loco.  It'd probably be too big for 2' gauge but anything from 2'6" to p to 3' looks conceivable.  Then run it on a suitable railway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, TonyMay said:

Well, if we're talking pugbashes.

 

As a standard gauge loco, that thing couldn't pull the skin off a rice pudding.  No preserved line is going to want it.  So the only possible owner some rich bloke who is vain enough to want to own a loco all to himself and rich enough to afford to buy one but not rich enough to afford a bigger one.

 

But how about taking the boiler and designing some narrow gauge frames around the loco.  It'd probably be too big for 2' gauge but anything from 2'6" to p to 3' looks conceivable.  Then run it on a suitable railway. 

 

Could think of a few standard gauge sites which it would be lovely at:

 

  • Beamish
  • Northamptonshire Ironstone Railway Trust

  • Rocks by Rail: The Living Ironstone Museum

  • Bowes Railway

  • Scottish Industrial Railway Centre (SIRC)

Granted, not conventional big preserved lines with main line stock, but definitely places where it would fit. I know there are others, some even more suited, but these are just a few that came to the top of my head.

  • Agree 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The general consensus I heard was that it’s far too expensive for what it is/can do, and that something in similar condition but more capable would be cheaper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TonyMay said:

As a standard gauge loco, that thing couldn't pull the skin off a rice pudding.  No preserved line is going to want it.  So the only possible owner some rich bloke who is vain enough to want to own a loco all to himself and rich enough to afford to buy one but not rich enough to afford a bigger one.

 

But how about taking the boiler and designing some narrow gauge frames around the loco.  It'd probably be too big for 2' gauge but anything from 2'6" to p to 3' looks conceivable.  Then run it on a suitable railway. 

Well you could apply that logic to almost anything built in the 19th Century, but why would you destroy the last survivor of its type to build something more useful now, but with a marginal boiler?  If you want to build something useful for today's operation, you might as well use completely new components.

 

As for no preserved line wanting it, I suspect that if someone else paid for the restoration, preserved railways based on industrial operations could be very interested, e.g. Bowes, Tanfield, Foxfield, Beamish.....

  • Like 1
  • Agree 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shame, had no clue it was in such a poor way. While I am interested to see what a narrow gauge version looks like (someone could make a bash from that, you know :wink_mini:), I think it would be a shame to cut up such a unique survivor for a boiler that may not be salvageable in the first place. I imagine if it were to be restored Beamish or any of its contemporaries would make splendid use of it, or if it won't be restored at least make a respectable exhibit of it. At the end of the day, if a narrow gauge railway were in such desperate need of a locomotive and restoring an existing engine wasn't possible, I think new-build would make more sense over rebuilding this engine, both economically and for the longevity and practicality of the end result.

 

 

Now, enough of my rambling , how has your model progressed Fanatic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/12/2019 at 15:28, TonyMay said:

 

As a standard gauge loco, that thing couldn't pull the skin off a rice pudding.  No preserved line is going to want it. 

 

You've not heard of the SE&CR P Class then? 

  • Like 1
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

P for piddling. (C for competent, D for delightful, E for even more so...)

 

As to that Neilson box tank, surely the proper thing to be done is to have it cosmetically restored and put on display in a public museum?

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

P for piddling. (C for competent, D for delightful, E for even more so...)

 

As to that Neilson box tank, surely the proper thing to be done is to have it cosmetically restored and put on display in a public museum?

 

 

H?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Edwardian said:

 

H?

Hornby.

J for jinormous, L for lucky they arrived when they did, N for nearly the ideal locomotive.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

Well, inspired by the efforts of you all, I've finally decided to join the august ranks of Nellie-bashers.

 

It had long struck me that Nellie might look good as a compact 2-4-0 passenger tank - as a passenger tank, recalling her LSWR C14 heritage - and I acquired a beaten up Nellie body from the Bay of Fleas (I still have my childhood Nellie, cherished and safe, and she's not going under the knife!!).

 

The intention is to upgrade a Nellie but keep as much of the character and appearance of the original body as possible.

 

One thing I dislike about the Triang body is the cab front sheet, which would really look better with round spectacles. Other than that, it is really only necessary to replace the moulded-on hand rails and smokebox dart and to add the usual refinements, e.g. screw link couplings and vac pipes (it's to be a passenger loco in this guise), lamp irons, crew etc.

 

However, this was a beaten-up body that had lost its rear steps and chimney, so here there will have to be further changes.  The Dean chimney pictured is temporary, while I mull.  Given the need to replace the rear steps, I thought I might as well go to town and have nice, big curvy ones.

 

The other change is necessitated by the change in wheel arrangement.  I have cut out the cab doors and provided splashers for the rear driving wheels, rather like a Brighton Terrier or D tank.   

 

Here we see it in primer to identify the sanding and filling necessary, so, early days, but the chassis runs and the body fits it, so, the job's a good 'un.

 

IMG_5913.JPG.79503a4daab9f335a3c31add7c1af0dd.JPG

Very nice. I've been very tempted to do something similar to my No.1.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice, what chassis have you used?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My Pug is coming along nicely, not long to it's completed.

Simon

 

IMG_2813.JPG

  • Like 9
  • Craftsmanship/clever 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hobbyhorse said:

My Pug is coming along nicely, not long to it's completed.

Simon

 

IMG_2813.JPG

Hmm, cute. I like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Nile said:

Nice, what chassis have you used?

I'd guess it's a Bachmann NotThomas? The rods are in 2 parts so you can easily convert to a 4-coupled (is it 4 coupled or 2 coupled?) loco.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Nile said:

Nice, what chassis have you used?

 

16 hours ago, Corbs said:

I'd guess it's a Bachmann NotThomas? The rods are in 2 parts so you can easily convert to a 4-coupled (is it 4 coupled or 2 coupled?) loco.

 

Yes, it's a Bachmann Junior 0-6-0.

 

As the centre axle is driven and the rods are in two parts, you could add a front splasher and do an 0-4-2 version just as easily!

 

I thinned the inside of the keeper plate until the leading wheel was low enough to sit on the rails, packed the axle groove in the chassis block above it, including some springy material, and added lead to the inside of the smokebox. I simply bent the front wiper pickups to be in contact with the smaller wheels, so there are still pickups from all six wheels.

 

Crude, but effective.  It now runs very well as a 2-4-0, as well as it did as an 0-6-0, which is really well given the silky smooth Bachmann mechanism.  It was a test in part because I have a pukka 2-4-0 conversion planned for Castle Aching using this chassis. 

  • Like 3
  • Craftsmanship/clever 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the center is driven, why not a 2-2-2?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You would need different wheels unless you added outside cylinders but a better prospect than using a Triang Jinty chassis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, AlfaZagato said:

If the center is driven, why not a 2-2-2?

Well, now you've got me thinking...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, for you more experienced butchers, which of the chassis would be an OK start for a Crampton?   Or am I speaking crazy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't much fancy your chances.

4wbMBts.jpg

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AlfaZagato said:

Actually, for you more experienced butchers, which of the chassis would be an OK start for a Crampton?   Or am I speaking crazy?

I tried one, but what finally beat me was that outside Stephenson valve gear with two eccentrics, which I thought was awfully fiddly, and I gave up.  Before you get there, you need to recognise that the chassis is very lowslung, and I used a brass strip running centrally along the length placed flat, rather than the conventional side frames. The two leading axles were on a bogie, and the driver axle on extensions at the back with gears and motor. I followed an old RM article by Mike Sharman, king of such goings on, and articulated the four wheel tender on to the rear of the main frame, with the leading tender axle floating, and plenty of weight in the tender body and the boiler. Doing it like this it ran well, with a satisfactory pull. But then as I say, you can get bogged down in the motion detail. Otherwise, if you save up, you can buy a HO kit from a French firm.

  • Informative/Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The key problem in using not-Thomas for early locomotives is the height of the mechanism.

 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.