Jump to content
 

RTR North Eastern Railway Locomotives - A discussion.


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium

The B16 would be rather a challenge for a RTR manufacturer obliged to produce an engine that would go round 2nd radius curves. Unlike most 4-6-0s, where the bogie is tucked up close to the leading drivers, here it's well forward and will need to swing a long way. How to manage that with the cylinders in the way? One can see why Triang went for the short, inside-cylindered B12/3!

 

Mike, what is the minimum radius your P4 B16 will traverse?

Link to post
Share on other sites

A bogie pin to the rear of centre and extra side-play on the leading and centre drivers would solve some of the problems associated with providing locos for ultra sharp curves while restricting lateral oscillation. No RTR manufacturer wants to restrict his sales and so their designers have worked wonders over recent years. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

.... I have no idea how the Q6 has sold, but on the face of it it isn't the NER type I'd have picked first. If it hasn't sold well you can only assume that would put manufacturers off further NER prototypes.

 

I suspect that the Q6 has sold well. Obviously I don't have definitive proof, I doubt that anyone in this discussion would be in that position, but looking at how the price seems to be holding up, the lack of special offers and the scarcity of second hand models I'd say that it did ok. I was very happy to pick up an 'as new' s/h model at less than a hundred notes whereas I could have my pick of brand new K1s at around eighty quid. Though both in my chosen BR period are natural NE engines, the K1 was far more widespread, less specialised and should have sold more. Did Hornby churn out more K1s or is it a sign that the marketplace is irrational? I'm tending to think the latter is more significant than many of us realise and that prettiness or charisma may be a bigger factor in sales than cold eyed logic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...No RTR manufacturer wants to restrict his sales and so their designers have worked wonders over recent years. 

 

I remain impressed by the Ivatt atlantic mechanism layout Bachmann achieved, which the Southerners are shortly going to get to appreciate too. The designer 'shared out' the necessary sideplay over the whole loco mechanism because the bogie is so much constrained by the cylinders, much as on the B16. With the B16 usefually having the connecting rod on the leading driver, I suspect a RTR model of this subject may require one fewer compromise than on the atlantic...

 

... prettiness or charisma may be a bigger factor in sales than cold eyed logic.

 Sure it is. I don't recall many posts on the lines of 'not another main line only express loco model'.

Edited by 34theletterbetweenB&D
Link to post
Share on other sites

Bachmann's Compound impressed me first, as I remember all too well the problems encountered with GEM's then new kit in the late 1960's. I built a trio for a magazine article. The bogie came in for some alteration and I had to hang the Tender on the rear plank to keep the back end of the loco down. I have yet to some someone do with a Bachmann Compound what I did with a GEM kit, and built one of the original compounds. I used a Caley Cardean Tender! 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I have yet to some someone do with a Bachmann Compound what I did with a GEM kit, and built one of the original compounds. I used a Caley Cardean Tender! 

 

Although there in many respects the same engine, the difference in appearance between the Johnson and Deeley compounds is so great that the Bachmann plastic body has to be a very unsatisfactory starting point. I should think a whitemetal kit might be easier to adapt though I can't imagine you kept much more than the boiler - and even there the smokebox has to be shortened. Radically different footplate/valences, splashers, cab, front framing... All five did get Deeley tenders before rebuilding to conform to the Deeley design, though. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The B16 would be rather a challenge for a RTR manufacturer obliged to produce an engine that would go round 2nd radius curves. Unlike most 4-6-0s, where the bogie is tucked up close to the leading drivers, here it's well forward and will need to swing a long way. How to manage that with the cylinders in the way? One can see why Triang went for the short, inside-cylindered B12/3!

 

Mike, what is the minimum radius your P4 B16 will traverse?

 

This model of the B16/1 will traverse a 4' 0" radius curve, which is the minimum on which it has been tested. On my layout 4' 6" is the minimum radius curve so the B16/1 is quite happy. As you say, the B16's bogie does swing a long way.

 

The maths, on the extent of the swing of the front bogie wheel, are not difficult to do if you can remember your Pythagoras. The actual linear distance between the centre of the middle driving wheel and the centre of the front bogie wheel, on the 4 mm model of the B16/1, is 85 mm so if you then use the radius of your chosen curve, in mm's, you have two of the variables for the Pythagoras equation for a right angled triangle (also the equation for a circle).

 

I did these maths, prior to building my model, to establish how much deviation the front bogie wheels would experience on a 4' 0" (1216 mm) radius curve; approx. 2.85 mm plus the gauging 'slop' on the front bogie wheels. If this calculation is repeated for a curve of 1' 6 " radius, for example (approx. 456 mm) or whatever ruling radii the 'OO' layout possesses, then this will identify the extent of the swing of the front bogie wheel.

 

Clearly, there is some mitigation of the effect of this by the 16.5 mm gauge of OO and correspondingly closer spaced mainframes, though the cylinder dimensions and spacing are the same for any gauge.

 

On this model I also reduced the radius of the mainframe bogie wheel cut outs to very near scale, which I also did on my A6 and T1 tanks and would do on an A8. This greatly improves the look of the front end but then also makes the positioning of the bogie pivot much more critical.

 

For minimum radius curves on 'OO' layouts, the cylinders would need to be cut away at the rear and possibly even the slide bars and crosshead assembly might need offsetting to clear the rear bogie wheels.

 

I think the real problem with the B16, for 'OO' layouts, is that the outside cylinders are actually longer (just) than the spacing between the front and rear bogie wheels and the overlap is evenly distributed at each end of the cylinder. This means that the cylinder overlaps both sets of bogie wheels by around .5 mm in 4 mm scale. So any 'OO' model would need to either

 

a) increase the bogie wheel separation to clear the cylinders and/or

 

b) reduce the length of the cylinders so as to fit between the bogie wheels.

 

Even then, with the extent of the front wheel swing effectively moving the bogie wheels rearwards, even this might not be satisfactory.

 

A related problem exists with the D20 in that the prototypes did not have mainframe bogie wheel cut outs; the mainframes were pinched in at the front. So the models of the D20's have mainframes with a tapered spacing at the front and no cut outs. Again, this restricts the curve radius, which these models will traverse, to around 4' 0", though they might manage 3' 6".

 

The G5 tanks had a similar arrangement, using pinched mainframes, on their rear bogies. Here again I used the same principle just adding a little to the 1.5" (each side) of the pinching of the prototype. So I pinched each mainframe in by 0.75 mm over the rear bogies, which will allow them to traverse 4' 0" radius curves but not much less.

 

I knew there was a reason, somewhere, why I opted for P4 and large radius curves!!

 

Cheers

 

Mike

Edited by mikemeg
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Lovely B16 model. Regarding the issue with the bogie swing I wonder if copying the method used on Bachmann's 009 Baldwin 4-6-0 which is configured like a 2-8-0 with a pony truck for the front pair of wheels and the rest rigid but with sideplay would work for a commercial rtr model designed to cope with sharper radius curves?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lovely B16 model. Regarding the issue with the bogie swing I wonder if copying the method used on Bachmann's 009 Baldwin 4-6-0 which is configured like a 2-8-0 with a pony truck for the front pair of wheels and the rest rigid but with sideplay would work for a commercial rtr model designed to cope with sharper radius curves?

 

I don't think the issue is how the bogie wheels are configured i.e. as a bogie or as pony and a rigid pair. The real problem is the very large distance between the coupled wheels and the bogie, allied to the relationship between the bogie wheelbase and the outside cylinder length. This necessitates the bogie wheels, however configured, swinging quite a way on curves and swinging under the cylinders.

 

The problem is further compounded by the width of OO gauge wheel flanges, which would cause the bogie wheels to 'engage' with the front and back of each cylinder more readily, before the full bogie wheel swing extent is reached.

 

This was a problem in P4, though it is made easier by the fact that the Alan Gibson 3' 0" ( and the prototyes had 3' 1 1/4" diameter) 12 spoke bogie wheels are very slightly undersize, so will travel slightly further under the cylinders as they swing before touching the lowest part of the cylinder.

 

Actually, the solution could well involve fitting bogie wheels configured to P4 standards rather than the normal 'OO', with a reduced wheel depth and finer flanges. If the bogie were lightly sprung, then the much finer bogie wheels shouldn't be a de-railing problem. That said, I'm still not convinced that such an arrangement could be made to traverse 18" radius curves.

 

Finally, a few photos of a pair of D20's approaching completion with their tenders now being built and a couple of A6 tanks.

 

Cheers

 

Mike

post-3150-0-85094800-1535464480_thumb.jpg

post-3150-0-17217800-1535464501_thumb.jpg

post-3150-0-76745100-1535465646_thumb.jpg

post-3150-0-51385900-1535469008_thumb.jpg

Edited by mikemeg
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lovely B16 model. Regarding the issue with the bogie swing I wonder if copying the method used on Bachmann's 009 Baldwin 4-6-0 which is configured like a 2-8-0 with a pony truck for the front pair of wheels and the rest rigid but with sideplay would work for a commercial rtr model designed to cope with sharper radius curves?

On the Yugoslav narrow gauge lines they had a class of 242 tender locos which had both drivers flangeless. There's always a creative way around things...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect that the Q6 has sold well. Obviously I don't have definitive proof, I doubt that anyone in this discussion would be in that position, but looking at how the price seems to be holding up, the lack of special offers and the scarcity of second hand models I'd say that it did ok. I was very happy to pick up an 'as new' s/h model at less than a hundred notes whereas I could have my pick of brand new K1s at around eighty quid. Though both in my chosen BR period are natural NE engines, the K1 was far more widespread, less specialised and should have sold more. Did Hornby churn out more K1s or is it a sign that the marketplace is irrational? I'm tending to think the latter is more significant than many of us realise and that prettiness or charisma may be a bigger factor in sales than cold eyed logic.

 

I think your right about the Q6 and the fact that is has held its value even with follow up releases being done and these are moving off the shelves. The K1 however, remains mainly just a British Railways machine and while its smack in the middle of transition period making it popular, Hornby certainly have churned out plenty of releases of this type and thus flooded the market. The one thing I'm surprised at is that 2005 in LNER green hasn't been done...

 

The other thing with some of these models is the poll vs perceived demand issue. If you look at the wishlist poll as a good measure of popularity and thus demand, there are several designs that come forwards. Q6 was one, G5 another. J27 leads the line now, with others like J21 following. However, all of these poll higher than some engines that have been done for other areas of the market, including both transition period and also engines from other periods of operation. So, looking at the wishlist you see the regular workhorses that people would buy many of leading the field, with others such as the D20, D17, A8 following later and polling lower. While that's to be expected once popular models are made, they should stimulate greater demand in others from the area. Records show that this has happened for GE and GN areas (see analysis at start of thread) that once others are made the others rise in interest, but normally not fully as lower choices become more time specific and niche.

 

However, with the releases of the Wainwright C-class in its pregrouping colour and the Sterling Single - have we now opened up a demand for engines to be done in colours other than British Railways. Are the paint schemes causing interest where engines from other areas now can push forwards by being attractive and interesting, away from the usual pacific and standard designs. Could this see that an engine like the G1/D23 which Jol pictured earlier being made? I would think the better choice would be a NRM commission for the M1/D17, as this can fit into the NRM in Miniature range. It means that if the Sterling Single effect of having an engine with a different profile, classic lines and attractive paint scheme can capture the novelty area of the market and drive up demand, then it opens the range up for engines of the NER but also a lot of other ones too, which counters the usual effect of the poll ones you would buy pragmatically for your operation and collection over the impulse and desire for one that is more attractive. Essentially which engines do you need for your layout verses which ones do you want.

 

That could make the whole issue over what can be made and what comes next, very interesting...

Edited by The Black Hat
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Before I get back to the workbench, building more North Eastern (and, shortly, Great Central and Great Northern) locomotives, a few more photos of various types which might yet become r-t-r models.

 

Firstly the D20 (Raven framed example) which is, for me, the very epitome of late Victorian locomotive design. They were just lovely.

 

This one to be 62396; the very last survivor and the only one to carry the later BR crest on its tender.

 

Cheers

 

Mike

post-3150-0-93531100-1536150684_thumb.jpg

Edited by mikemeg
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Then, of course, there is the G5 which TMC have commissioned and are to market, in various forms, as a r-t-r. model.

 

This is one of three G5's which I am now just completing, all built earier this year. This one will be 67256 as it was in mid 1950 when based at Hull Botanic Gardens shed.

 

Once again, a late Victorian design and, once again, they were lovely.

 

Cheers

 

Mike

post-3150-0-11243700-1536151460_thumb.jpg

Edited by mikemeg
  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

Or, perhaps, the D20 with the original Worsdell frames, much as originally built though still with differences from that original state..

 

This one to be 62372 of Selby shed, as it was in mid 1950.

 

As with many North Eastern locomotives, the D20's profile changed, over time, particularly with the later fitting of superheating, which resulted in the smokeboxes being extended. On the D20's, the fitting of deeper mainframes to some locomotives (Raven frames) also changed the profile. Similarly, on many classes, the dome position and profile. the chimney profile, the buffers and drawgear and the safety valve arrangement also changed over time.

 

Ten D20's also received tenders which were an LNER rebuild with a new tender body, similar to the group standard 3500 gallon tender, on the original North Eastern tender underframe.

 

The A6 4-6-2 tanks were another classic case. Only ten were ever built and by the postwar years, almost every one was different.

 

So lots of variations and for any r-t-r supplier to cover the full lifespan of many individual North Eastern classes then two bodyshells (at least) would need to be produced for each class.

 

Cheers

 

Mike

post-3150-0-55350200-1536154546_thumb.jpg

Edited by mikemeg
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hello all,

 

The wishlist poll 2018 is set to be done next week - but I was wondering. Do people vote for all NER engines or items of interest to push them higher or do some vote selectively on which types you would want?

 

Obviously I'm expecting a lot of the latter, as the types come in with different results - but it might be interesting to hear from what people intend to vote for. Also interesting is the addition of the coaching stock on the lists.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Hello all,

 

The wishlist poll 2018 is set to be done next week - but I was wondering. Do people vote for all NER engines or items of interest to push them higher or do some vote selectively on which types you would want?

 

Obviously I'm expecting a lot of the latter, as the types come in with different results - but it might be interesting to hear from what people intend to vote for. Also interesting is the addition of the coaching stock on the lists.

 

Hello David

 

An extract below from Q&A - The Wishlist Poll 2018.

 

Brian (on behalf of The Poll Team)

 

Is there any limit to what voters can vote for?

You can vote for whatever you would realistically wish to buy at any time in the future. Please note that The Team reserves the right to delete without query any entry that it feels is not based on that premise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello David

 

An extract below from Q&A - The Wishlist Poll 2018.

 

Brian (on behalf of The Poll Team)

 

Is there any limit to what voters can vote for?

You can vote for whatever you would realistically wish to buy at any time in the future. Please note that The Team reserves the right to delete without query any entry that it feels is not based on that premise.

 

You might want to buy an engine of every type from one region though. The fact that you vote for them all just gives the view that regardless of the type, you would purchase an engine from that area. That doesn't have to be NER. Merely that you would buy anything from your preferred area. I'm just thinking hypothetically here.

 

Personally, I would vote for specific types. The B16's will all be getting a vote from me, as will J21/J25, J27, A8 and D17 as Id love to see that made into the National Collection in Minature range. The NER stock that's been added all sounds great, so will be voting for those. How great it would be to get the NER Clerestory rake...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Hello David

 

As you know, we have comparison records going back to 2012 (and even further back from when the previous encumbents ran The Poll).

 

The results have been reasonably consistent. If we saw a 'paradigm shift' in any category, we would immediately investigate.

 

All we ask is that people vote for what they would realistically buy at anytime in the future. That premise has stood the test of time so far. If anyone has concerns, they are welcome to either PM me or send an email to The Team as below.

 

Hope that helps.

 

Brian (on behalf of The Poll Team)

thepollteam@gmail.com

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello David

 

As you know, we have comparison records going back to 2012 (and even further back from when the previous encumbents ran The Poll).

 

The results have been reasonably consistent. If we saw a 'paradigm shift' in any category, we would immediately investigate.

 

All we ask is that people vote for what they would realistically buy at anytime in the future. That premise has stood the test of time so far. If anyone has concerns, they are welcome to either PM me or send an email to The Team as below.

 

Hope that helps.

 

Brian (on behalf of The Poll Team)

thepollteam@gmail.com

 

Yes I appreciate that, its also interesting watching some results that increase in popularity when there's a restored engine returning to the scene in preservation and thus makes the pages of a fair few magazines.

 

I'll be voting for a number of North Eastern engines that I would realistically buy, pretty much listed above. So will look forward to what others might say they are voting for and hopefully more results for NER popularity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Well I'll be voting for a J21— the only NER engine I'd buy in OO. In fact it's probably the only thing I'll vote for at all—my main interests are in N gauge, which the Poll Team has abandoned, and narrow gauge, which isn't covered. Not that they did a very good job—the 2000 cut-off date was't relevant in N, where improvements happened later.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is always worth reminding the OO brigade that in matters NER they lag well behind N-gauge.  Very many thanks to Colin at Union Mills. 

 

post-13358-0-30308900-1539369804_thumb.jpg   My Union Mills D20

 

post-13358-0-99927000-1539369508_thumb.jpg  My pair of Union Mills J25s

 

post-13358-0-02841300-1539369605_thumb.jpg  Union Mills J26. 

 

This and the J25 with the storm sheet have the decoders in the cab, the other three locos shown have the decoders in the tender with the motor.

 

post-13358-0-03934700-1539369852_thumb.jpg  Union Mills J27.

 

Union Mills may not be detailed but do have immense pulling power.  UM also do a Gresley J38 and an LNWR Cauliflower, also not available r-t-r in OO.

 

Most of these (plus a G5 modified from a Dapol M7) will be in action on Hawthorn Dene at Warley (Stand C31, shameless plug).  If you are there come along and have a look.

 

Les

post-13358-0-99927000-1539369508_thumb.jpg

post-13358-0-02841300-1539369605_thumb.jpg

post-13358-0-30308900-1539369804_thumb.jpg

post-13358-0-03934700-1539369852_thumb.jpg

Edited by Les1952
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

... my main interests are in N gauge, which the Poll Team has abandoned... Not that they did a very good job—the 2000 cut-off date was't relevant in N, where improvements happened later.

Wow. Are people really surprised there’s some antipathy to doing anything much for N with this sort of - I was going to write “ingratitude”, but it’s more like sneering aggression.

 

There’s a thread elsewhere on RMweb where you can volunteer to do the work of running the N poll yourself, to show us just how it should be done. Good luck!

 

Paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have only ever voted for what I will purchase, and would hope that most do likewise.

I would only vote for what isn't already available as a kit, to widen the range of models available. I don't buy RTR but might if something was available for which I would otherwise have to design a kit or scratch build.

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...