OO gauge GWR Mogul and Prairie

[Harlequin]

11 hours ago, Neal Ball said:

That’s a strange one. In some photos I’ve seen to Dapol vs Hornby I’ve seen the Dapol wheels looking like a steam roller.

 

Ive got 2 x Hornby and nothing I’ve seen convinces me to change and/or buy a 3rd loco, this time from Dapol.

 

10 hours ago, melmerby said:

I'd agree with that.

Hornby's wheels are superior, especially the pony.

 

That's clearly twaddle as my Hornby Prairies were fine out of the box, my Dapol Mogul has improved from being a bit mediocre to OK after considerable use. (It's definitely getting there, albeit over time and it doesn't cure the silly gearing..)

 

The Hornby "lightweight" Prairie can be improved no end with some ballast in the tank area, where there are acres of fresh air.

 

If you look at the photos of 6106 and 4144 here: https://didcotrailwaycentre.org.uk/article.php/420/going-loco-august-2020 you can see that the Dapol wheels are arguably closer in appearance than the Hornby. Maybe a bit too fat but closer than Hornby.

 

If the wheel rims are all metal (yet to be proven) then the extra mass should help the pony stay on the track more reliably.

 

My Dapol 5109 weighs 322g. Can't say anything about its pulling power yet - and probably not until Thursday, sadly.

 

Update: My Hornby 6110 (with lots of modifications but not deliberate weights added) weighs 240g.

 

Edited November 29, 2021 by Harlequin

[Harlequin]

I found time to separate 5108's body from it's chassis.

 

Chassis:

 

Big weights in side tanks:

 

And this is the clip that should be holding the front corner of the right hand side tank to the running plate:

 

When I very carefully squeeze the tank top against the running plate I can see the gap reducing but nothing goes "click" and the two parts spring back to their original positions when I let go...

 

Edited May 7, 2022 by Harlequin

[Miss Prism]

Could be a case for Mr 10BA

 

[No Decorum]

I don’t think the crossheads have been mentioned. Dapol and Hornby are different and I think the Hornby is better.

[kingmender]

I'm looking forward to haulage comparrisons. New Hornby prairie struggles to haul 4 Collett suburbans up a 1:60 helix, plenty of grip but little torque so it slows to a stand. It looks like the fireman is struggling to raise steam, clinker in the firebox perhaps? Cranking controller up to full has little effect, requires a little assistance to restart then takes off to warp factor 6 when it reaches the level. By comparrison Dapol Mogul romps up barely slowing in esponse to the incline. Longer freight workings eventually cause it to slip to a stand. Dapol prairie currently en route from Cornwall to Melbourne, so testing might be a while...

Edited November 28, 2021 by kingmender
spelling!

[john dew]

3 hours ago, kingmender said:

I'm looking forward to haulage comparrisons. New Hornby prairie struggles to haul 4 Collett suburbans up a 1:60 helix, plenty of grip but little torque so it slows to a stand. It looks like the fireman is struggling to raise steam, clinker in the firebox perhaps? Cranking controller up to full has little effect, requires a little assistance to restart then takes off to warp factor 6 when it reaches the level. By comparrison Dapol Mogul romps up barely slowing in esponse to the incline. Longer freight workings eventually cause it to slip to a stand. Dapol prairie currently en route from Cornwall to Melbourne, so testing might be a while...

Have you added any weight to the Hornby Prairie? It makes a big difference.

[kingmender]

4 hours ago, john dew said:

Have you added any weight to the Hornby Prairie? It makes a big difference.

Not sure why weight would make a difference, adhesion is not a problem, a lack of torque appears to be. It doesn't slip, just runs out of steam.

[john dew]

1 minute ago, kingmender said:

Not sure why weight would make a difference, adhesion is not a problem, a lack of torque appears to be. It doesn't slip, just runs out of steam.

Just a suggestion……I found it made a significant difference

[melmerby]

2 hours ago, kingmender said:

Not sure why weight would make a difference, adhesion is not a problem, a lack of torque appears to be. It doesn't slip, just runs out of steam.

 

2 hours ago, john dew said:

Just a suggestion……I found it made a significant difference

Definitely makes a difference.

I have two and both haul more with extra weight.

 

My Dapol mogul on the other hand slips on a grade, more weight (externally) and it slows down instead

[Fredo]

Hi could help me find out about 6167 shed allocation thanks 

[Hal Nail]

10 minutes ago, Fredo said:

Hi could help me find out about 6167 shed allocation thanks 

They moved around. What period do you need?

[Fredo]

1958 to 1961 

 

[SteamingWales]

1 hour ago, Fredo said:

Hi could help me find out about 6167 shed allocation thanks 

 

Looking at the photos on Rails website it has an 81C shed plate. BR database says this is Southall but in terms of the rest of it's service history BR database has nothing

 

https://www.brdatabase.info/locoqry.php?action=locodata&type=S&id=6167&loco=6167

[gwrrob]

http://www.greatwestern.org.uk/262_6100det.htm

[melmerby]

Slough in 1948 but moved to Didcot in 1951 and stayed there until 1963 at least (Hugh Longworth BR Steam Locomotive allocations)

 

I've found another book that disagrees with that

Edited November 29, 2021 by melmerby

[MoonMonkey]

5 hours ago, Fredo said:

Hi could help me find out about 6167 shed allocation thanks 

1955: Didcot,  including Wallingford (sub-shed I think). 

[melmerby]

We now have three different allocations, which differ.

Which one is right?

[Hal Nail]

8 hours ago, melmerby said:

We now have three different allocations, which differ.

Which one is right?

At least we've nailed the 81 bit!

 

Actually the replies don't contradict as much as it first appears, looking at the dates.

 

It started at Slough, moved to Didcot in 51 (maybe subsheds but still same code) and ended at Southall in 64 (as many did).

 

Per the Great Western org data it had moved back to Slough by '59 which is a slight contradiction with Longworth you quoted but shed bash also shows it as Slough by 1960 (it wasn't at any of the local sheds on the days visited in '58 or '59).

 

http://shedbashuk.blogspot.com/2017/12/slough-aylesbury-1945-1964.html?m=1

 

So on balance for 58 - 61 I'd go with Slough (81B).

 

 

Edited November 30, 2021 by Hal Nail

[melmerby]

I suppose the problem is that the various lists quote fixed times, not all the same, with years in between where it may have moved and come back!

[1466]

6 minutes ago, melmerby said:

I suppose the problem is that the various lists quote fixed times, not all the same, with years in between where it may have moved and come back!

This dilemma ( of conflicting data sources ) reminds me of advice given to me by a politically savvy boss . He said “Consult and hope for conflict amongst the  views  given and then pick the one closest to what you want to do”.

Put another way , look at the sources and then Rule 1 applies !

[Hal Nail]

18 minutes ago, melmerby said:

I suppose the problem is that the various lists quote fixed times, not all the same, with years in between where it may have moved and come back!

That GWR org table often makes it look as if something was always in one place but I've frequently then discovered they went elsewhere in the gaps.

 

As usual a photo at the right time often gives a decent clue where something was operating (in this case there is one on the Transport Library of 6167 at Iver in 1960 on a Slough local).

Edited November 30, 2021 by Hal Nail

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, melmerby said:

I suppose the problem is that the various lists quote fixed times, not all the same, with years in between where it may have moved and come back!

Exactly so - allocation detail is really only good for a specific date because if it has been taken from an official list, or even a reliably dated photo which clearly shows the shedplate, that only shows the allocation on that date.  It could well have been transferred - in reality or only on paper - the following month and transferred back a month or two after that.

 

There is pretty clear evidence that it was at Slough in 1963 - when it probably last went through works and emerged with an 81B shedplate (if the photo is reliably dated?).  The re-allocation date to Southall in 1964 shown in BR Database coincides with the closure of Slough shed and Southall was a collecting place at that end of the London Division  for engines as their earlier sheds closed to steam.   So it was probably at Slough in the period the OP was asking about.

 

Incidentally the fact that it is seen in a photo of Iver while working a Slough originating (if it was?) stopper tells us little about the allocation beyond the fact that it was a London Division engine - unless the shedplate is legible on the photo.

[Hal Nail]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

Incidentally the fact that it is seen in a photo of Iver while working a Slough originating (if it was?) stopper tells us little about the allocation beyond the fact that it was a London Division engine - unless the shedplate is legible on the photo.

Yes I should have been clearer in saying that there is a photo available of that loco to purchase and check.

 

I've often found it much harder than I expected to find an example of a given class in what I had thought was a typical livery/detail configuration and based at my preferred shed - but that's sods law!

[Steamport Southport]

6167

 

Slough 16/11/1935

Southall 11/6/1964

Withdrawn 10/1965

 

Source Prairie Papers

 

 

Jason

Edited November 30, 2021 by Steamport Southport
Got them Panniers on the brain......

[Miss Prism]

Make that Prairie Papers...