OO gauge GWR Mogul and Prairie

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, Ribird said:

I've tried reading through the latest couple of pages since these have been released, I have not seen anyone mention anything about the new style tender coupler? Apologies if I have missed anything. I did watch Sam's Train video, but he really just glossed over the actual snapping of the coupler

• How well does it work?
• What are you thoughts for long term?
• Is it changeable to close coupling? Or is it "close coupled" already?
• If a train jerks at all, will it uncouple itself?
• Is this something all manufactures should switch over to?

Thanks,

 

R

Bachmann had a close coupler on the SR N15 but don't seem to have replicated it elsewhere.

No doubt someone will come up with other examples.

Edited November 16, 2020 by melmerby

[MikeParkin65]

3 hours ago, Karl said:

Good morning everyone, 

 

Like people have said this is a very impressive model and I'm very optimistic about the manor! Mine has a slight soft spot that I'm hoping will free up with use but there is one minor issue I'd like some help with.

 

The middle tender wheelset isn't rotating when the model runs, it turns as freely as the other two when turned by hand. Has anyone got a simple solution for this? I was wondering about a tiny bit of oil but not sure which to use to not affect the plastic.

Possible that the tender pickups are a little to strong? Not uncommon on Hornby. 

[Ribird]

1 hour ago, melmerby said:

Bachmann had a close coupler on the SR N15 but don't seem to have replicated it elsewhere.

No doubt someone will come up with other examples.

Don't need examples. I was thinking over time the "snap" feature will wear out and not work. The train will pull away, yet the tender and its load will still be at the station

[gwrrob]

I will be leaving mine permanently coupled after I’ve finished renumbering and weathering it. Just hope the gap between loco and tender isn’t too great.

[Clearwater]

4 hours ago, Marshall5 said:

According to the information in David Andrews' "The Churchward 2-6-0's" 6385 received outside steam pipes in 4/32 so it would likely be correct to portray it with o/s steam pipes and shirt button crest.

Conversely 6336 didn't receive them until 1/53 so, in this condition, could only accurately carry B.R. livery.

Hope this helps.

Ray.

 

Sorry to be pendantic, but shirtbutton livery was introduced in 1934 so if the pipes were fitted in 1932, it would be highly unlikely to be seen as they've produced it.  Even though the pipes were added in 1932, it would be more plausible to show the loco in 1906-34 unlined livery  for a period post 1934 depending on the dates it was subsequently shopped and repainted nevermind any tender exchanges!

[Ribird]

52 minutes ago, gwrrob said:

I will be leaving mine permanently coupled after I’ve finished renumbering and weathering it. Just hope the gap between loco and tender isn’t too great.

What would be nice, if there was a secondary clip or latch, along with the snap feature. So two forms of connections, one being a failsafe. 

Edited November 16, 2020 by Ribird

[toboldlygo]

3 hours ago, melmerby said:

Bachmann had a close coupler on the SR N15 but don't seem to have replicated it elsewhere.

No doubt someone will come up with other examples.

 

You mean SR N Class from Bachmann, Hornby do the N15

 

The coupling mechanism on the N works beautifully, however on the early versions the tender use to derail due to a clearance issue on the center tender wheel set.

 

I think the coupling mechanism on the Mogul is clever, however how much wear and tear it will take remains to be seen..

 

Though it's the rear of the tender I'd be more concerned with, as Dapol have omitted something important, by the looks of it - it's clearly missing (and not been tooled) on Sam's Trains one.

Edited November 16, 2020 by toboldlygo

[Marshall5]

41 minutes ago, Clearwater said:

 

Sorry to be pendantic, but shirtbutton livery was introduced in 1934 so if the pipes were fitted in 1932, it would be highly unlikely to be seen as they've produced it.  Even though the pipes were added in 1932, it would be more plausible to show the loco in 1906-34 unlined livery  for a period post 1934 depending on the dates it was subsequently shopped and repainted nevermind any tender exchanges!

I actually agree with you but AIUI the original poster wanted a model of 6385 with outside steampipes and a roundel as previously announced. Dapol now appear to be producing 6385 with inside steampipes and a roundel which is an impossible combination because, as you say, the roundel appeared 2 years after 6385 had outside steampipes fitted.

Cheers,

Ray.

[The Johnster]

But one might assume that Dapol’s research confirms that 6385 had o/s steam pipes and ran with a shirtbutton roundel.  Tender swap?

[MG 7305]

Looking at the Sam's Trains review, where on earth did those slide bars come from?

[David Stannard]

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

But one might assume that Dapol’s research confirms that 6385 had o/s steam pipes and ran with a shirtbutton roundel.  Tender swap?

 

Somehow I don't think so.

 

https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrrj1937.htm

[Chuffer Davies]

1 hour ago, MG 7305 said:

Looking at the Sam's Trains review, where on earth did those slide bars come from?

Sadly I have to agree with you.  There is a clearance issue with the prototype Moguls.  When I converted a mainline Mogul to EM to run on Hungerford I had to research the prototype and discovered that the slide bars have a tapered slot at the rear to provide clearance for the connecting rods.  In 4mm the tolerances are such that when I built the Perseverance replacement chassis I had to taper the back of the slidebars to clear the connecting rods, but not to the extent that Dapol have introduced in their model. 

I have now placed an order for the Dapol Mogul and these slidebars will definitely have to go when I convert it to EM.  Infact, having watched the Sam's Trains video, it is more than likely that the whole chassis will go but that's a whole different ball game.

 

Frank  

[1466]

32 minutes ago, Chuffer Davies said:

Sadly I have to agree with you.  There is a clearance issue with the prototype Moguls.  When I converted a mainline Mogul to EM to run on Hungerford I had to research the prototype and discovered that the slide bars have a tapered slot at the rear to provide clearance for the connecting rods.  In 4mm the tolerances are such that when I built the Perseverance replacement chassis I had to taper the back of the slidebars to clear the connecting rods, but not to the extent that Dapol have introduced in their model. 

I have now placed an order for the Dapol Mogul and these slidebars will definitely have to go when I convert it to EM.  Infact, having watched the Sam's Trains video, it is more than likely that the whole chassis will go but that's a whole different ball game.

 

Frank  

Frank

please keep us in the loop re EM gauge conversion. Your concept of motor in the tender and a boiler stuffed full of lead   reminds me of the late Guy Williams’ 28xx for Pendon.

Ken 

[melmerby]

53 minutes ago, Chuffer Davies said:

Sadly I have to agree with you.  There is a clearance issue with the prototype Moguls.  When I converted a mainline Mogul to EM to run on Hungerford I had to research the prototype and discovered that the slide bars have a tapered slot at the rear to provide clearance for the connecting rods.  In 4mm the tolerances are such that when I built the Perseverance replacement chassis I had to taper the back of the slidebars to clear the connecting rods, but not to the extent that Dapol have introduced in their model. 

 

I have now placed an order for the Dapol Mogul and these slidebars will definitely have to go when I convert it to EM.  Infact, having watched the Sam's Trains video, it is more than likely that the whole chassis will go but that's a whole different ball game.

 

Frank  

Having recently finished a Comet chassis for a Mainline 43XX I can confirm that the slide bars need a fair bit of a chamfer to get clearance so that the connecting rods can operate correctly.

Even now they still touch at maximum throw angle.

The only way around it I could think of was having unprototypical less throw on the crank pins.

 

[Harlequin]

I fitted a decoder and speakers yesterday and so I'm finally able to report back on the running qualities of the model.

 

She's very smooth, quiet and reliable. I don't think I have had to poke her once to get her to move.

 

The gearing is a bit high, as others have noted, and top speed would be crazily out of scale but I haven't dared to go there and I haven't measured it.

 

Under DCC control, with the speed table flattened to roughly halve the top speed (and with PWM and back-emf motor control of course) she crawls absolutely fine.

 

The firebox glow is disappointing in three respects:

1. There seems to be a transparent plastic light guide that is clearly visible from some angles (i.e. you see something glassy reflecting at you where you should just see a hole).
2. It's very weak (I haven't applied the YouChoos tweak of putting some foil behind the LEDs yet).
3. The yellow and orange LEDs just cycle regularly like Christmas lights - they don't use the random flicker effect that the decoder can produce.

DCC notes:

• The firebox glow is not connected to any of the function outputs you might expect - it's connected to F0 fwd and F0 reverse. So you have to sync those outputs with the coal shovelling sound.
• Chuff rate sync for YouChoos 43XX Zimo sound project:
  • CV267 = 34 (Chuff frequency)
  • CV354 = 9 (Chuff frequency adjust at speed step 1)

The clever tender draw bar has a very positive click so it feels like a strong connection - at the moment. (Probably not a good idea to repeatedly connect and disconnect it, though!)

 

Edited November 17, 2020 by Harlequin

[didcot]

A picture of the real thing showing the cut out in the bottom slide bar. I don't think the Moguls are alone, I have a funny feeling the Manors have them too, I just cant find a photo.

 

 

 

 

[Miss Prism]

It's interesting that Hornby's prairie seems not to have problems with the conn rod envelope hitting the slidebars, although Hornby has cheated a bit by lowering the cylinder centreline to be on the driving wheel axis, and by cutting away the rear front of the cylinder. Dapol has taken a different cheat route, and, although I await seeing a good side-on shot (rods at 12' or 6'o'clock please), it seems as though Dapol has left the conn rod about 3mm overlength. This first arose (iirc) as a result of the correction to the longitudinal cylinder position in the CAD process. Dapol never made it clear exactly what they had done in that department (the communication to the outside world was non-existent on that aspect), but it seems they only did half a job in the correction process, which was a tricky compromise between allowing enough clearance for the front driver and not impeding the swing of the pony truck. My guess is the factory knew exactly what the problem was, but lacked proper direction in addressing it.

 

 

[Miss Prism]

The Moguls are not alone in having a slot on the lower slidebar. It's an inevitable consequence of the Churchward (or Holcroft?) geometry: 

http://www.gwr.org.uk/prairie-pics/5199-front-end-clearances.jpg

 

The Manor geometry is significantly different.

 

Interestingly, the Court series of Saints had their cylinder centres lowered to be inline with the drivers. I'm not sure how they got away with it, unless there was a re-appraisal of the loading gauge, or maybe the loading gauge problem applied only to 5'8" wheels.

 

 

 

Edited November 17, 2020 by Miss Prism

[Chuffer Davies]

12 hours ago, 1466 said:

Frank

please keep us in the loop re EM gauge conversion. Your concept of motor in the tender and a boiler stuffed full of lead   reminds me of the late Guy Williams’ 28xx for Pendon.

Ken 

Hi Ken,

Yes I remember seeing a picture of the drive mechanism for Guy's 28xx, it was quite amazing in its simplicity but I know it works because I've seen it performing on the Dartmoor scene in the flesh.  I have been dabbling with this type of drive system for some of the loco's I'm building for our club's LNER layout.  This layout recreates the 1:50 gradient of the prototype location and because of that we need as much ballast as possible in the locomotives to enable them to pull representative trains. 

 

This is the system I've developed based around reuse of High Level gears and Markits ball and socket joints.  The J1 loco chassis as shown here illustrates how it is possible to contain the gearbox completely within the frames of the loco.  Unfortunately the motor and gears as I've designed them are much too tall to fit in a Churchward 3500 gallon tender and so whilst the concept is right I will need to rethink how to shoehorn a similar system into the lower tender.  I think 13mm is about the maximum height available above the tender frames so I'll plan to use one of Chris Gibbon's coreless motors.  

 

If I manage to successfully design something suitable is this something you might want to use yourself Ken? 

 

Regards,

Frank

[Coach bogie]

13 hours ago, 1466 said:

Frank

please keep us in the loop re EM gauge conversion. Your concept of motor in the tender and a boiler stuffed full of lead   reminds me of the late Guy Williams’ 28xx for Pendon.

Ken 

And the GWR locos on Torreyford in the 50s-70s. I have kept back a set of parts to try this on a Bulldog oneday/never, inspired by Torreyford's Bulldog which had a solid lead boiler and would pull 50 wagon trains.

 

Mike Wiltshire

[Karl]

21 hours ago, Karl said:

 

Thankyou for the responses. It does indeed seem that the middle wheelset is sitting almost imperceptibly high compared to the other two. When running it on my current track the middle wheel revolves periodically. I'll try your suggestion @rembrow, thanks!

@rembrow, @melmerby Thankyou for the suggestions, it does indeed seem that the pickup on the centre tender wheelset was putting a bit too much pressure on the wheel and causing friction. I've relieved some of this pressure and it seems to have freed the wheel up quite a bit.

[1466]

27 minutes ago, Chuffer Davies said:

Hi Ken,

Yes I remember seeing a picture of the drive mechanism for Guy's 28xx, it was quite amazing in its simplicity but I know it works because I've seen it performing on the Dartmoor scene in the flesh.  I have been dabbling with this type of drive system for some of the loco's I'm building for our club's LNER layout.  This layout recreates the 1:50 gradient of the prototype location and because of that we need as much ballast as possible in the locomotives to enable them to pull representative trains. 

 

This is the system I've developed based around reuse of High Level gears and Markits ball and socket joints.  The J1 loco chassis as shown here illustrates how it is possible to contain the gearbox completely within the frames of the loco.  Unfortunately the motor and gears as I've designed them are much too tall to fit in a Churchward 3500 gallon tender and so whilst the concept is right I will need to rethink how to shoehorn a similar system into the lower tender.  I think 13mm is about the maximum height available above the tender frames so I'll plan to use one of Chris Gibbon's coreless motors.  

 

If I manage to successfully design something suitable is this something you might want to use yourself Ken? 

 

Regards,

Frank

Frank 

thanks for your offer but sadly I’m a bodger rather than engineer. My skill set is finite and I’m struggling with a Comet chassis . That’s not a reflection on Comet but a a statement of my limited abilities. I  also suffer from what my grand daughter calls “ wobbly hands “. I’ve set the Mogul aside for the moment whilst I think  on .

I do appreciate your kindness .

I loved watching Hungerford at Epsom. .

Ken 

[1466]

34 minutes ago, Coach bogie said:

And the GWR locos on Torreyford in the 50s-70s. I have kept back a set of parts to try this on a Bulldog oneday/never, inspired by Torreyford's Bulldog which had a solid lead boiler and would pull 50 wagon trains.

 

Mike Wiltshire

Mike

you have just opened the door to memories of a host of inspirational layouts , Tyling , Charford , Craig and Mertonford etc . And a time when the Modeller , Constructor, and News published on the same day .

Off down Nostalgia Lane !

Ken

Sorry , so off topic .

Edited November 17, 2020 by 1466
Typo

[Harlequin]

5 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

It's interesting that Hornby's prairie seems not to have problems with the conn rod envelope hitting the slidebars, although Hornby has cheated a bit by lowering the cylinder centreline to be on the driving wheel axis, and by cutting away the rear front of the cylinder. Dapol has taken a different cheat route, and, although I await seeing a good side-on shot (rods at 12' or 6'o'clock please), it seems as though Dapol has left the conn rod about 3mm overlength. This first arose (iirc) as a result of the correction to the longitudinal cylinder position in the CAD process. Dapol never made it clear exactly what they had done in that department (the communication to the outside world was non-existent on that aspect), but it seems they only did half a job in the correction process, which was a tricky compromise between allowing enough clearance for the front driver and not impeding the swing of the pony truck. My guess is the factory knew exactly what the problem was, but lacked proper direction in addressing it.

 

 

Are these any use?

 

I took them near a window but clearly there was not as much light as I thought. Sorry.

 

Seems to be plenty of clearance at the end of the slide bars...

 

[Chuffer Davies]

8 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Are these any use?

 

 

Seems to be plenty of clearance at the end of the slide bars...

 

Yes very useful thankyou.  Not only have Dapol put an excessive taper on the ends of the slide bars they have added an extra (and in my opinion quite un-necessary) bend as well.  All very strange as I feel either solution would almost certainly have been sufficient on its own.

 

I believe the three loco types that share the same relationship of connecting rods to lower slide bars are the large prairies, the moguls and the 47xx's.  According to J.H.Russell the moguls were a tender version of the 31xx prairies, and the 47xx are effectively a mogul with attitude - an extra set of driving wheels and a very large boiler.

 

GW standardisation in action.

 

Frank