OO gauge GWR Mogul and Prairie

[Ian Hargrave]

On 18/02/2020 at 16:50, melmerby said:

So why did the DRC have issues?

 

I'm not writing them off just waiting to see the end product.

They have the ability do it right, but just might not.

But you remain sceptical.Fair enough.But I hope sincerely that this is not a question of executing an animal labelled with a bad reputation.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

I should have asked, what's DRC? I know it won't be either of design rule checking or the Democratic Republic of Congo, which are the two that flash up in my brain for that acronym. And whatever it is what were its problems?

[tomparryharry]

Just now, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

I should have asked, what's DRC? I know it won't be either of design rule checking or the Democratic Republic of Congo, which are the two that flash up in my brain for that acronym. And whatever it is what were its problems?

 

I 'think' it's a Diesel Rail Car. Of course, I could be wrong. 

 

 

[melmerby]

7 minutes ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

I should have asked, what's DRC? I know it won't be either of design rule checking or the Democratic Republic of Congo, which are the two that flash up in my brain for that acronym. And whatever it is what were its problems?

GWR Diesel Rail Car.

Some poor running with the initial batches.

 

[Steamport Southport]

7 hours ago, boxbrownie said:

That’s a surprise because usually old race horses go into dog food not chocolate bars 

 

 

 

Where do you think they get the nuts?

 

 

 

Jason

[The Johnster]

On 18/02/2020 at 11:09, melmerby said:

1 hour ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Where do you think they get the nuts?

 

 

 

Jason

I think I know in the case of stallions...

 

[Torn-on-the-platform]

It's been a while since we talked about moguls and prairies. Here's a real one:

[Steamport Southport]

10 minutes ago, Torn-on-the-platform said:

It's been a while since we talked about moguls and prairies. Here's a real one:

 

Wrong type though. If you want one of those then it's the Mainline/Bachmann version.

 

 

The one Dapol is doing is only suitable for the 5390-7321 number series.

 

 

 

Jason

[Miss Prism]

On 20/02/2020 at 21:51, Steamport Southport said:

only suitable for the 5390-7321 number series.

 

5384-7321. (The motion plate style changed mid-lot [209], which was rather un-GWR-like.)

 

Here's 5384 on 5 October 1951 with large-boss drivers and a tender with reinforcing flange plates for the spring hangers.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 6 by Miss Prism
image reinstated

[Pteremy]

Which is fine - better something specific rather than a generic bodge. With scope for other versions idc. Why be glass half empty when you can be glass half full? If it looks the part and runs well then most of us will be happy.

[melmerby]

2 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Where do you think they get the nuts?

 

I think I know in the case of stallions...

 

I thought the Stallions still had theirs

It's the Geldings which have donated the nuts............

[martinT]

13 hours ago, Torn-on-the-platform said:

It's been a while since we talked about moguls and prairies. Here's a real one:

 

Very nice. Arguably the most overlooked loco at Didcot & yet potentially one of the most useful as shown on the Llangollen in 2014:

 

 

[tomparryharry]

4 hours ago, martinT said:

 

Very nice. Arguably the most overlooked loco at Didcot & yet potentially one of the most useful as shown on the Llangollen in 2014:

 

 

 

Very nice. One of Harold Holcrofts finest. 

[melmerby]

5 hours ago, martinT said:

 

Very nice. Arguably the most overlooked loco at Didcot & yet potentially one of the most useful as shown on the Llangollen in 2014:

 

 

The GWR did build 342 of them so that must've been pretty useful.

 

I'm surprised that Bachmann haven't produced a modern version of their ex Mainline model.

It was one of their stated aims to update all the split chassis locos on their books.

Because of that they left the goal open and Dapol are taking a punt at it.

I'm surprised that Hornby didn't see the open goal as Dapol has, especially as there will be common parts between the 43XX & the large Prairie tanks

 

[The Johnster]

This and the Manor, as discussed to death elsewhere.  They did update the split chassis of these ex Mainline locos, with different motors and drive, but shied away from the new tooling necessary to deal with the oversized firebox of the Mainline body toolings needed to accommodate the pancake motors.  A re-issue of those toolings would have been very poorly received, rightly; they were good in their day but we expect more nowadays!  Since then they have probably been paving stones on the road to Bachmann’s  hell, and been repeatedly put back as the backlog of introductions built up. 
 

This has allowed Dap to get a foot in door, and my opinion FWIW they are the most likely source of a new Manor to recoup prairie sales lost to Hornby. Of course, for all we know H may be plotting in the 43xx/Manor direction themselves.  Great spectator sport!

[etendam]

On 18/02/2020 at 20:41, melmerby said:

Bought 2 Oxford Dean Goods, total motor failure in one, found it wasn't fitted with the 5 pole motor with two flywheels as originally announced but a cheap 3 pole coreless with one flywheel.

 

Most likely as written in the Bachmann J72 thread by the time the production started the intended 5 pole motors out of production as the industry is slowly changing to coreless motors! Make sure that you use a regular DC controller. No low frequency PWM controllers or feedback controllers as your loco will run terrible or only once with a feedback controller.

 

Ed

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, etendam said:

 

Most likely as written in the Bachmann J72 thread by the time the production started the intended 5 pole motors out of production as the industry is slowly changing to coreless motors! Make sure that you use a regular DC controller. No low frequency PWM controllers or feedback controllers as your loco will run terrible or only once with a feedback controller.

 

Ed

Work OK on DCC (as well as they ever will!)

Plenty of 5 pole motors still available from Chinese suppliers at minimal prices for quantities.

The coreless one Oxford picked is just weak.

[mdvle]

42 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Work OK on DCC (as well as they ever will!)

Plenty of 5 pole motors still available from Chinese suppliers at minimal prices for quantities.

The coreless one Oxford picked is just weak.

 

Rapido is switching to coreless motors (at least for their Rapido brand products) as they have run into quality problems with the 5 pole motors in some of their products.

[melmerby]

2 hours ago, mdvle said:

 

Rapido is switching to coreless motors (at least for their Rapido brand products) as they have run into quality problems with the 5 pole motors in some of their products.

I hope they are of better quality than the Oxford one.

 

[boxbrownie]

14 hours ago, mdvle said:

 

Rapido is switching to coreless motors (at least for their Rapido brand products) as they have run into quality problems with the 5 pole motors in some of their products.

I would think the only problem they found with the five pole motors was they are sourcing them too cheap!

[Marshall5]

On 20/02/2020 at 22:10, Miss Prism said:

 

5384-7321. (The motion plate style changed mid-lot [209], which was rather un-GWR-like.)

 

 

 

Whilst 5384 onwards had the new style motion plate nos 5384 to 5389 retained the old style long splasher on the driver's side.  Possibly this is why Jason said the model only covers nos 5390 to 7321.

Ray.

[Miss Prism]

5 hours ago, Marshall5 said:

Whilst 5384 onwards had the new style motion plate nos 5384 to 5389 retained the old style long splasher on the driver's side.  Possibly this is why Jason said the model only covers nos 5390 to 7321.

 

Ah yes, thanks Ray (and apologies Jason). I should have reminded myself what was said about the repositioning of the reversing rod on pages 9 and 10 of this thread.  (Which was quite a while ago!)

 

I suppose there are also the changes to cab roof, pony truck cover, buffer beam weights, and the later steam pipe mods to take into account.
 

[Star-rider]

On 18/02/2020 at 08:44, sjrixon said:

Mine doesn't like keeping the pony truck on the track. And that's dispite lots of alteration to fix it. Actual chassis is fine and converted to dcc. 

 

I keep hovering over the pre-order button of a Great Western lettered version.... 

The pony truck on mine was also a constant problem at various sets of points that other locos managed perfectly well.

 

Even adjusting back to backs and using another manufacturer's wheels did not help.

 

I found the cure for mine eventually - just make sure that the small screw retaining the pony assembly is no tighter than it has to be; this allows it to "float" a bit better and follow the track. Never had a problem since.

 

Give it a try, it may be worth it for half a turn back with a screwdriver.

 

Otherwise as you say it is not a bad running model even if you have to do a bit of butchery for DCC use.

 

Pete.

[melmerby]

Talking about pony trucks.

My Airfix derived Hornby 5154 also won't keep it's pony truck on the track, you can see it bouncing merrily as it crosses pointwork, diamonds etc. and tends to derail quite regularly, could really do with some downward force. I might try a light spring.

 

I trust both the new Hornby Prairie and Dapol's Prairie & 43XX to work better.

[The Johnster]

On the assumption that the new Hornby 5101 will use the same pony truck assembly as the 42xx, which has never given me any bother, it should solve your bouncy pony issue, Kieth.  I had an original Airfix for many years, literally ran it into the ground, and I've still got some of it's bits, and never had a problem with the ponys.  IIRC the rear pony on the real locos is a radial truck, and the same goes for the small prairies and the 56xx; only the Mainline and later Bachmann 56xx has an attempt to recreate the actual action of a radial, with a sort of floating rear axle that I try to not look too closely at...