Jump to content

Show us your Pugbashes, Nellieboshes, Desmondifications, Jintysteins


Recommended Posts

On 10/08/2020 at 16:55, relaxinghobby said:

 

 

 

The donor engine is one of these an H0 Baldwin 4-4-0 by Bachmann from a second hand stall back when exhibitions happened.

 

440BaldwinFromBachmann.jpeg.f1cc3bef358e8a6a7d35b406ecac1c30.jpeg

 

Which provides a modern chassis with two stage gearing and lots of brake detail and those yummy cylinders and valve gear.

H0 stuff is surprisingly small compared to 00, I though this loco could be made into a small UK type branch line 4-4-0 tender engine, but back home I found in practice with it's 18mm wheels and 25mm wheel base it is small enough to fit inside a Polly/Nellie body shell.

 

 

So it is, that’s why OO was born - to create significantly larger body shells. The difference is around 14%, 1 in 7. 

 

It’s also worth bearing in mind that Nellie (and her sisters, and for that matter all the Tri-ang and Hornby 0-4-0 types) are excessively large for locos of that type. Like other toy manufacturers, Tri-ang tended to build all locos to the same loading gauge, to accommodate the same mechanisms. So Nellie is an 0-4-0 shunter, the size of a main-line express locomotive. You can see this clearly by comparing them to the L&Y Pug, which IS a scale model, or the new Peckett saddle tank types. It’s less obvious with the diesel shutter, because the 08 is a large thing anyway. 

Edited by rockershovel
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/08/2020 at 12:33, taine said:

Here's an attempt at a Pug-bash.  I'm a real beginner so have not worried too much about realism (big compromise being the Hornby 0-4-0 chassis with oversize wheels etc.

 

Does anyone have a recommendation for crew figures for a pug?  I have some from the Dapol work-men set but they all seem too tall. The old Hornby figures that come with the Caledonian pug fireman is OK but the seated driver doesn't fit at all!

IMG_20200819_122244412.jpg

There might be some of the sort of crews you are looking for in the Modelu range; 3D prints posed by real people in very natural positions and working clothes, thoroughly recommended no connection satisfied customer.  If you go a few pages back you'll see my Dokafority pugbash being driven by a Modelu NCB driver.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, rockershovel said:

 

So it is, that’s why OO was born - to create significantly larger body shells. The difference is around 14%, 1 in 7. 

 

It’s also worth bearing in mind that Nellie (and her sisters, and for that matter all the Tri-ang and Hornby 0-4-0 types) are excessively large for locos of that type. Like other toy manufacturers, Tri-ang tended to build all locos to the same loading gauge, to accommodate the same mechanisms. So Nellie is an 0-4-0 shunter, the size of a main-line express locomotive. You can see this clearly by comparing them to the L&Y Pug, which IS a scale model, or the new Peckett saddle tank types. It’s less obvious with the diesel shutter, because the 08 is a large thing anyway. 

My 'Cyclops', a workup of an ancient Triang dokafority/yard switcher, proves this point; intended as a colliery loco, I discovered that she is the widest loco on my layout, a nod I suppose to the 'Transcontinental Series' models.  She is pretty massive compared with a Bachmann 64xx, for example, and towers over the 7 plankers and 16ton steel minerals she plays with for a living.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, rockershovel said:

 

So it is, that’s why OO was born - to create significantly larger body shells. The difference is around 14%, 1 in 7. 

 

It’s also worth bearing in mind that Nellie (and her sisters, and for that matter all the Tri-ang and Hornby 0-4-0 types) are excessively large for locos of that type. Like other toy manufacturers, Tri-ang tended to build all locos to the same loading gauge, to accommodate the same mechanisms. So Nellie is an 0-4-0 shunter, the size of a main-line express locomotive. You can see this clearly by comparing them to the L&Y Pug, which IS a scale model, or the new Peckett saddle tank types. It’s less obvious with the diesel shutter, because the 08 is a large thing anyway. 


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?

Edited by BackRoomBoffin
  • Like 3
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/08/2020 at 21:04, 009 micro modeller said:

I might have missed one earlier in the thread but has anyone adapted or bashed one of these? It seems to have some potential but somehow this particular body style of Hornby 0-4-0 has passed me by.

 

I don't think the 80s clockwork Thomas has anything to do with the other 0-4-0's apart from the really nasty US style one that shared a mechanism.

 

The one in the link had a brief career as an electric 0-4-0 Thomas.  Might be an interesting one to put on an alternative chassis as being a bit rarer it's origin will be less obvious but will need a fair bit of work.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
10 hours ago, BackRoomBoffin said:

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.


Does any of that make sense?

 

Sounds like fun. You could use the body of an existing tender loco and splice it with some tanks too?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Corbs said:

 

Sounds like fun. You could use the body of an existing tender loco and splice it with some tanks too?

 

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...

Edited by BackRoomBoffin
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but a long time ago George Dent bashed about a Bachmann Junior not-Thomas 0-4-0T. It was to his usual standard of modeling and looked great. You can find out more on his blog http://georgedentmodelmaker.blogspot.com/2010/08/bess-is-in-demand.html

 

Before

image.png.f5b133ec2f9f36a712d40a89a10da758.png

 

After

image.png.5d04a21e95a6f99c46b95c5152816bb7.png

image.png.ba64d8761e7b7cf4565f1aa908e842d2.png

 

Fell like I should say something about copyright and all. I dont own these photos should suffice. 

  • Like 9
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, willsheldrake said:

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but a long time ago George Dent bashed about a Bachmann Junior not-Thomas 0-4-0T. It was to his usual standard of modeling and looked great. You can find out more on his blog http://georgedentmodelmaker.blogspot.com/2010/08/bess-is-in-demand.html

 

Before

image.png.f5b133ec2f9f36a712d40a89a10da758.png

 

After

image.png.5d04a21e95a6f99c46b95c5152816bb7.png

image.png.ba64d8761e7b7cf4565f1aa908e842d2.png

 

Fell like I should say something about copyright and all. I dont own these photos should suffice. 

The body is only attached to the footplate by screws. Allowing for easy modification or swapping parts around.

I've lowered the Bachmanntanks and boiler unit by cutting off about 2 mm from the underside and made it look fatter by gluing on layers of plasticard with some rivet detail pushed in. Reshaped the cab cutouts. The saddle tank is a Hornby Percy sitting on the Bachmann chassis and footplate.

 

percypugthomas-a.jpg.dab3af6835bf2a2510f3574f668dadbc.jpg

 

 

percypugthomas2a.jpg.aa39dc43ad4f047c57089b8789e67f09.jpg

  • Like 13
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sophia NSE said:

Still not entirely sure about the colour. Maybe the bright wheels aren't helping

IMG20200826113149.jpg.87868a7dbdfad6e1a6ba4d5644979c5e.jpg


I agree they’re too bright. Gut feeling is that they’re also a bit too big? Could just be me, but I feel like the large wheel-short wheelbase combination draws the eye in as something that doesn’t quite look as you would expect. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold

I usually take the wheels off the chassis, take the rods off and use a small brush to get between the spokes etc.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, relaxinghobby said:

The body is only attached to the footplate by screws. Allowing for easy modification or swapping parts around.

I've lowered the Bachmanntanks and boiler unit by cutting off about 2 mm from the underside and made it look fatter by gluing on layers of plasticard with some rivet detail pushed in. Reshaped the cab cutouts. The saddle tank is a Hornby Percy sitting on the Bachmann chassis and footplate.

 

percypugthomas-a.jpg.dab3af6835bf2a2510f3574f668dadbc.jpg

 

 

percypugthomas2a.jpg.aa39dc43ad4f047c57089b8789e67f09.jpg



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).

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

13 hours ago, Corbs said:

What do you think about it with darker wheels?

951047611_Screenshot2020-08-26at14_19_33.png.0d180f5a2b1af0a716aab7bfd37a79ce.png

 

My 2D is that the front buffer beam needs to come slightly forwards, so that the cleaner can stand on it while cleaning out the smokebox and being in no danger of falling off.

 

 

It looks a little front-heavy - but maybe the buffer beam extension would help with that.  But if not, my second thought is that the driving wheels could be moved forwards a few mm, so that the total weight is balanced over them.  This would need new splashers, so may be a bit drastic.  The buffer beam, though...

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 26/08/2020 at 20:38, Sophia NSE said:

Still not entirely sure about the colour. Maybe the bright wheels aren't helping

IMG20200826113149.jpg.87868a7dbdfad6e1a6ba4d5644979c5e.jpg

 

Wouldn't the doors to the cab foul the internal splashers over the rear set of wheels. Also besides the green/red combination which never works properly the front wheels are too far back.   

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.