Jump to content
 

OO gauge GWR Mogul and Prairie


Paul.Uni
 Share

Recommended Posts

I am happy with both of mine and look forward to buying more to reflect the different designs and liveries around in the late 1950s. It may not be perfect but for £135, and with the probability that you can model any prototype in the range 5390-7321 there is more going for it than against it.

 

On slow running... despite what the Dapol instructions say my two both improved with some additional lubrication of the motion and running in. But in an effort to test slow running to its limits I think that I may have identified a fault with my DC controller (an elderly Gaugemaster).

 

What I observed was that at walking pace i would get 8 smooth wheel revolutions then about 4 where it was more hesitant, as if there was a power drop off. I have tried the same with a Bachmann Hall and Prairie, and a Kernow Warship, and they all do the same sort of thing.

 

Does anyone recognise this phenomenon??

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

Guest Jack Benson

Sorry to be so late in the day, may I ask if the 4300 or large prairies were common features around the Exeter area in the early 50s?

 

Thank you

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
19 minutes ago, Jack Benson said:

Sorry to be so late in the day, may I ask if the 4300 or large prairies were common features around the Exeter area in the early 50s?

 

Thank you

 

 

BR Database is your friend

Exeter depot:

http://www.brdatabase.info/sites.php?page=depots&subpage=locos&id=199

 

N.B. the 61XX series were specifically for the London area although by the late 50s a few moved further afield.

The 5101 were all over the former GWR but concentrated in the Midlands, there were a few in the South West

Visually they are virtually identical.

Moguls were found in several South West sheds

Edited by melmerby
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Jack Benson
50 minutes ago, melmerby said:

BR Database is your friend

Exeter depot:

http://www.brdatabase.info/sites.php?page=depots&subpage=locos&id=199

 

N.B. the 61XX series were specifically for the London area although by the late 50s a few moved further afield.

The 5101 were all over the former GWR but concentrated in the Midlands, there were a few in the South West

Visually they are virtually identical.

Moguls were found in several South West sheds

Just looking for a Mogul excuse

 

Cheers and Stay Safe

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
4 hours ago, melmerby said:

BR Database is your friend

Exeter depot:

http://www.brdatabase.info/sites.php?page=depots&subpage=locos&id=199

 

N.B. the 61XX series were specifically for the London area although by the late 50s a few moved further afield.

The 5101 were all over the former GWR but concentrated in the Midlands, there were a few in the South West

Visually they are virtually identical.

Moguls were found in several South West sheds

 

Also check Bristol, Taunton, Newton Abbot and Laira sheds for allocations, as any locos from those sheds might turn up at Exeter. 

 

 

 

 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
20 hours ago, tomparryharry said:

 

Just like the real thing, where trains took on a banker, either at Newport or Severn Tunnel for the haul through to Patchway. 

Sometimes all the way to Badminton, but most came off at Stoke Gifford if they were heading for the Badminton road; Patchway if they were going down the bank to Bristol.  Some freight workings dropped the pilot at Pilning.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Jack Benson
4 hours ago, Siberian Snooper said:

 

Also check Bristol, Taunton, Newton Abbot and Laira sheds for allocations, as any locos from those sheds might turn up at Exeter.

 

Oddly enough, trawling through a certain website in search of an analogue black'un, I discovered that Bachmann had introduced an Earl class and the rest is history.

 

Cheers and Stay Safe

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
12 hours ago, Jack Benson said:

Sorry to be so late in the day, may I ask if the 4300 or large prairies were common features around the Exeter area in the early 50s?

 

Thank you

 

 

In the 1955 Locoshed Book Large Prairie 6103 and Moguls 6301, 6322, 6385, 6397 and 7316 were at Exeter. Taunton had several Large Prairies and about 10 Moguls, whilst Newton Abbot had nine Large Prairies. I have ignored the Moguls earlier of later than the Dapol version.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 28/11/2020 at 18:23, Budgie said:

 

I think the loco is too light, and could do with an extra 100 grams at least.

 

100g seems a lot! I have (in the spirit of experimentation) added 10 g to the boiler and 20g to the tender and there is a slight improvement in slow running.

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

On 28/11/2020 at 21:06, Clearwater said:

Mine’s been hauling 6 bogie coaches around our 6 by 4, second radius, happily enough.  No slipping.  Nice model, I like it...

 

David

I managed to get some wheel slip with 13 coaches (11 Hornby - 4 Hawksworths, 4 Colletts and 3 Bulleid + 2 Bachmann Autocoaches) but I only have 'microgradients' to contend with, the transition from trestles to bookcase support in a simple attic layout originally built for my son when he was 4, 20 odd years ago.

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

On slow running, and knowing now that my 'main' controller is unstable at low values, I have knocked up a yard of test track fed by another controller. This has allowed demonstration of steady slow running at about 5mph. Which is good enough for me, because low speed is primarily going to be relevant starting and stopping. Certainly does not seem any worse than other locos I have. 

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

  • RMweb Premium
15 minutes ago, Pteremy said:

 

100g seems a lot! I have (in the spirit of experimentation) added 10 g to the boiler and 20g to the tender and there is a slight improvement in slow running.

If you compare the "old" Hornby 61XX to the "new" Hornby 61XX the difference isn't far off 100g. The new one being the lightweight.

If the Dapol Mogul is less than 300g I will be looking to add weight up to about 350g

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

  • RMweb Gold
5 hours ago, melmerby said:

If you compare the "old" Hornby 61XX to the "new" Hornby 61XX the difference isn't far off 100g. The new one being the lightweight.

If the Dapol Mogul is less than 300g I will be looking to add weight up to about 350g

I weighed mine (loco only) and I'm afraid to say it's 210g, hence my wanting to add 100g.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Why do RTR companies persist in making models which are fairly clearly less heavy than they easily could be?  Adding as much ballast as possible over the driving wheels NEVER, EVER, does any harm and is likely to improve performance in respect of pickup, slow running, smooth accelleration and decelleration, while costing next to nothing.  It is my standard practice with any new loco to attempt to get as much extra ballast as I can in, and I have never regretted doing this, but why can't the ballast be part of the model as supplied?  What possible advantage is there in making the model any lighter than it needs to be? 

 

This is a general problem and I'm posting my moan about it here because the subject has been raised, but I am not saying that Dapol are any worse than any other manufacturer in this respect.  I suspect that Budgie and Melmerby are right in suggesting that the mogul is too light, and this is borne out by Pteremy's 10g which has improved the slow running of his loco.  20g in the tender seems to be simply increasing the load on the drawbar, but there may of course be benefits I am not aware of to this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Budgie said:

I weighed mine (loco only) and I'm afraid to say it's 210g, hence my wanting to add 100g.

Based on an article in the Model Railway News nearly 60 years ago, I try to add enough to represent between 3 and 5 tons of adhesive wieght per ounce. The Mogul adhesive weight was 52 tons so I would be looking for somewhere between 10 and 17 ounces or about 280 to 480 grams.

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

7 hours ago, Budgie said:

I weighed mine (loco only) and I'm afraid to say it's 210g, hence my wanting to add 100g.

Yes, you are right. More or less the same weight as a Bachmann Small Prairie, and apparently the new Hornby Prairie. So the question must be whether an extra 100g makes a significant difference (assuming it can be added in appropriate places). If it does then I am sure that would be a modification that a number of people would be happy to make.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
6 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Why do RTR companies persist in making models which are fairly clearly less heavy than they easily could be?  Adding as much ballast as possible over the driving wheels NEVER, EVER, does any harm

 

Not so; if you add so much weight the loco stalls rather than wheelspins when it reaches the limits of its tractive effort you risk burning the motor out.

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

  • RMweb Premium
4 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

Could it be that lighter locos cost less to ship? 

Plus the heavier the loco the more robust the packaging has to be.

Edited by spamcan61
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

The problem these days is the requirement to allocate space for decoders and speakers which eats into where weight could be placed hence the return to metal body parts and the - sometimes - fitting of motors that are too small for the purpose.

 

Izzy

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
33 minutes ago, Izzy said:

The problem these days is the requirement to allocate space for decoders and speakers which eats into where weight could be placed hence the return to metal body parts and the - sometimes - fitting of motors that are too small for the purpose.

 

Izzy

Those DCC and sound fanatics have an awful lot to answer for - it was much easier in the good old DC days (which is why some of us have stayed there)... :jester:

 

Hat, coat, etc...

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
27 minutes ago, Izzy said:

The problem these days is the requirement to allocate space for decoders and speakers which eats into where weight could be placed hence the return to metal body parts and the - sometimes - fitting of motors that are too small for the purpose.

 

Izzy

 

So the majority of non sound user have to take second best so that sound users get what they want?

 

I thought decoder and speaker in the tender was the best way to do it.

There is no reason why a "easy fit" decoder can't be under a removable coal space.

Sticking it in the smokebox is so "DJ Models":)

 

  • Like 4
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Obviously, if you're not going to fit decoders or speakers you can fill the spaces assigned for them with lead - if they are in helpful positions.

 

It's those of us who want that technology and decent traction who have the real problem!

 

I recently had to cut down the front weight in my Large Prairie to fit a speaker but I was happy to do this because I know there is volume in the side tanks to regain that lost weight, and more, at some point in the future (even with the decoder and lots of wiring in there).

 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
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...