RedGemAlchemist Posted June 27, 2020 Share Posted June 27, 2020 3 minutes ago, Sophia NSE said: In WKR news I've discovered the issue with the Q1 and it's back running again Excellent to hear! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sophia NSE Posted June 27, 2020 Share Posted June 27, 2020 7 minutes ago, RedGemAlchemist said: Excellent to hear! It was something embarrassingly simple too Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mountain Goat Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 On 26/06/2020 at 18:16, Quarry-Steam65 said: Update on Singapore. Safety valves moved and dome holes filled in. Another coat of paint and a 0-4-0 chassis. Then off to get nameplates and some work plates. A bit rough and ready but I don’t think it’s bad for my first attempt.... Very nice. May need a little more filler and sanding down but otherwize it is very nice. Moving the safety valves is a nice touch. It certainly is good for a first attempt. Beats some of my past attempts! 2 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cypherman Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 On 25/06/2020 at 10:51, Mountain Goat said: It is only the detail like the wheel splashers and some of the smaller details which would need changing. It is odd when one finds a so called "Highly inaccurate toy" turns out to be a fairly close and proportioned model of a prototype except for a few details. It is funny though as Triangs adjustments which needed height to clear a clockwork spring... If they did not base it on this loco above, then it really does make one think that "There is a prototype for everything" could not be too far out as being true. This would make a rather excellent article on how to convert one of these to look like the prototype above and it looks very do-able! Hi Mountain Goat, It is very apt that you have said this as this is my current restoration project. And i finally get something to put in this thread............. 10 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mountain Goat Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 Lots of detail there! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted June 29, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 29, 2020 (edited) On 25/06/2020 at 10:51, Mountain Goat said: It is only the detail like the wheel splashers and some of the smaller details which would need changing. It is odd when one finds a so called "Highly inaccurate toy" turns out to be a fairly close and proportioned model of a prototype except for a few details. It is funny though as Triangs adjustments which needed height to clear a clockwork spring... If they did not base it on this loco above, then it really does make one think that "There is a prototype for everything" could not be too far out as being true. This would make a rather excellent article on how to convert one of these to look like the prototype above and it looks very do-able! I think there was a magazine article describing such a project many years ago. ISTR the excess height in the Tri-ang body was huge, getting on for half an inch in total, but with the increase divided and distributed in order to keep the overall proportions roughly correct. That meant the body shell had to be cut into a scary number of horizontal slices, each of them shrunk in height, and then layered back together again. Something very similar has to be done, albeit with vertical cuts, in order to turn a 'Nellie' into the C14 class upon which it was loosely based. The big risk comes from the fact that, though straight bodies can be found, most will be of similar vintage, and made from the same plastic, as the "six-inch" coaches which are so notorious for becoming banana shaped with age. The comparative angularity of the loco body (the tank in particular) is probably all that stops it going the same way. So, good luck, but don't be too surprised if things start to get a bit weird as soon as you reach the end of the first cut, and very weird by the end of the second one. My alternative suggestion would be to slice up the body in order to produce the bits needed to replicate the SECR conversion by adding them to a Bachmann C class. John Edited June 29, 2020 by Dunsignalling 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cypherman Posted June 29, 2020 Share Posted June 29, 2020 Hi John, The only thing that is really vastly out of proportion is the saddle tank. It is a good 5mm too tall. The rest is just a bit out all over to give the model something like a workable proportions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cypherman Posted June 29, 2020 Share Posted June 29, 2020 Hi all, Well here's my almost S class shunter. 14 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted June 29, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 29, 2020 2 hours ago, cypherman said: Hi John, The only thing that is really vastly out of proportion is the saddle tank. It is a good 5mm too tall. The rest is just a bit out all over to give the model something like a workable proportions. Hi, cypherman, That is indeed roughly how much too deep the tank is, but unfortunately, to disguise that, Tri-ang also jacked up the height to the underside of the tank by at least as the same again. Or, it could have been the other way round. Check out the distance by which it clears the splashers and compare that to the prototype photo.... The word of warning is, if you tackle either, but not both, it will make the model look a whole lot less like the real thing, so it's a case of "all or nothing" with these locos. Your very nice pics suggest you've had the wisdom to leave the heavy stuff alone, and how much better it looks when detailed up somewhat, but I'd keep it off passenger duties if I were you. The effect would be the exact opposite of those cute Hayling Island shots showing Mk1 stock towering over Terriers. John 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteelAndSoot Posted June 29, 2020 Share Posted June 29, 2020 Bealie, The current engine I am working on excuse the late night modelling (or more appropriately early morning) 9 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cypherman Posted June 29, 2020 Share Posted June 29, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, Dunsignalling said: Hi, cypherman, That is indeed roughly how much too deep the tank is, but unfortunately, to disguise that, Tri-ang also jacked up the height to the underside of the tank by at least as the same again. Or, it could have been the other way round. Check out the distance by which it clears the splashers and compare that to the prototype photo.... The word of warning is, if you tackle either, but not both, it will make the model look a whole lot less like the real thing, so it's a case of "all or nothing" with these locos. Your very nice pics suggest you've had the wisdom to leave the heavy stuff alone, and how much better it looks when detailed up somewhat, but I'd keep it off passenger duties if I were you. The effect would be the exact opposite of those cute Hayling Island shots showing Mk1 stock towering over Terriers. John Hi John, This engine was a one of a kind converted from a SECR C class tender engine. It was only ever used for shunting work at Richborough Military Port during WW1 and at the end of the war it was sent to Bricklayer's Arms as a shunter, where it survived until 1951. Checking the pictures I have, and there are not that many of them the height from the footplate to the underside of the tank is just about right. The Westinghouse pump that I fitted that is to scale fits just right in the space. Here are a couple of pictures for you to see. It really was quite high off the footplate. Edited June 29, 2020 by cypherman 6 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Holliday Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 7 hours ago, cypherman said: Hi John, This engine was a one of a kind converted from a SECR C class tender engine. It was only ever used for shunting work at Richborough Military Port during WW1 and at the end of the war it was sent to Bricklayer's Arms as a shunter, where it survived until 1951. Checking the pictures I have, and there are not that many of them the height from the footplate to the underside of the tank is just about right. The Westinghouse pump that I fitted that is to scale fits just right in the space. Here are a couple of pictures for you to see. It really was quite high off the footplate. Just a note that the apparatus under the off-side tank is not a Westinghouse pump, but a steam reverser. The SECR was a vacuum brake line, but adopted the steam reverser from quite an early date. 1 1 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mountain Goat Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 (edited) I decided to re-write what I put as it has already been answered. But what colour was this loco in its pre-grouping livery? (And no. I am not taking on such a Triang conversion as I have enough work to do in 7mm narrow gauge). One thing I love about the railways in the older days (And it still happens today) is the way they rebuild things rather then scrap them. To think that this little shunting loco may well have been at the head of express trains in its earlier life... And I was thinking... Maybe some of our models.. Where we have a shunter which can travel at express train speeds... Well. There may be a prototype after all! Edited June 30, 2020 by Mountain Goat 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Compound2632 Posted June 30, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 30, 2020 57 minutes ago, Mountain Goat said: But what colour was this loco in its pre-grouping livery? SECR grey, I should imagine. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cypherman Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 Hi all, When this engine was a tender engine it ran in green. This is a model of the original C class in the colour it was supposed to have run in. Once it was converted to the S class it ran in black. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyMay Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 Would it not be a better starting position to start with a Bachmann C class and convert that either with (1) a new cab/bunker and saddletank or (2) a completely new body? 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mountain Goat Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 (edited) 19 hours ago, TonyMay said: Would it not be a better starting position to start with a Bachmann C class and convert that either with (1) a new cab/bunker and saddletank or (2) a completely new body? I would not have thought so. Not when the Triang body comes so close to the origional. It goes to show how much work was done on the prototype, and probably why they only did the one! Edited July 1, 2020 by Mountain Goat 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilwell Park Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 The Triang 748 body is, most unusually for Triang, made in two parts, clipped together. It is quite easy to remove the cab/saddle tank section from the footplate and slice several mm off the bottom edge & reassemble. It will also be necessary to remove the same amount from the boxes in front of the cab. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted July 1, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 1, 2020 14 minutes ago, Gilwell Park said: The Triang 748 body is, most unusually for Triang, made in two parts, clipped together. It is quite easy to remove the cab/saddle tank section from the footplate and slice several mm off the bottom edge & reassemble. It will also be necessary to remove the same amount from the boxes in front of the cab. I wasn't aware of that, but it's not surprising given that it was originally made to fit over a clockwork drive.. If anybody has both, could they post a photo of one alongside a Jinty, so everybody can see exactly how tall this loco actually is. John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frappington Jct Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 (edited) The Dowlairs loco discussion has inspired me to restart a bash I started on the Hornby 0-4-0 a while back - I've essentially taken the standard body and added a coal bunker using a combination of a GWR 101 bunker and some plastic sheet, along with coal bars over the rear windows, new front steps off a Nellie (because for some reason when I started this ages back I removed the originals) and some Markits toolboxes. Aside from a whistle I've not got any plans to add more bits (apart from a cab floor, though that's not an immediate issue), but if anyone has any suggestions for something glaring I've missed please let me know - I'm rubbish at thinking up these things! In terms of the whole chassis debate, I had various ideas but crucially didn't want to spend much/if any money. I really wanted an 0-6-0 but didn't want to buy a terrier or Electrotren chassis, before I remembered I had an old Hornby Toby in the loft. The wheelbase is really short and I reckon it looks OK, aside from needing some cosmetic frame extension and a little bit of chopping to remove some support sprues which would force the chassis too far back. The major issue is that the motor is too tall so has had to be removed. I've never re-motored a loco before, so could anyone recommend a fairly small motor which would ideally fit the worm gear off the current one to save any really major re-working? Edited July 1, 2020 by Frappington Jct Added a better picture of the loco perched precariously on the chassis 10 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Corbs Posted July 1, 2020 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted July 1, 2020 Awesome. Do you have a pic of the motor you removed? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frappington Jct Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 16 minutes ago, Corbs said: Awesome. Do you have a pic of the motor you removed? Thanks! I think the motor is the standard one in the basic Hornby locos - below are pictures of it alone and sitting on the chassis. I reckon any new motor needs to be about a third smaller to comfortable fit in the body due to the gear wheel placement. 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlfaZagato Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 Look up one of the n20 motors. Tiny and powerful. Cheap, too. I picked mine up for $7. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cypherman Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 5 hours ago, Gilwell Park said: The Triang 748 body is, most unusually for Triang, made in two parts, clipped together. It is quite easy to remove the cab/saddle tank section from the footplate and slice several mm off the bottom edge & reassemble. It will also be necessary to remove the same amount from the boxes in front of the cab. Hi all, I can quite catagorically state that the 748 body in not made in 2 parts. I am sat here with my spare 748 body plus the one I have just modernised and they are moulded in one piece. Unless they made 2 different bodies. Neither of mine split. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BernardTPM Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 There must have been two different versions then. Here's the two part version. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now