Red's Fumbling Bench

[RedGemAlchemist]

9 hours ago, sem34090 said:

I'd say that a 4-4-4T and a 2-4-4T would be passenger locos (Based off of other varieties of 4-Coupled tank, this seems to have been the most common purpose (apart from 0-4-0Ts) - The Met's H Class 4-4-4Ts were that company's top-link express locos. 0-4-4T, 4-4-0T, 2-4-2T, 2-4-0T, 0-4-2T, etc  are more common but I know that's probably not what you're after - the key thing is they're all generally used for passenger applications), whilst it's fairly safe to say the 8-Coupled tanks are more likely to be freight designs - I present here the LSWR G16 4-8-0Ts:

Used for hump shunting at Feltham, mostly if not exclusively.

Not sure whether I prefer it's similar-ish 4-6-2T counterpart (H16) though:

In my opinion they're both gorgeous, but I have no use for either currently. A H16 is arguably more useful for those not modelling Feltham.

Hmm. Indeed.

Using that logic, 2-6-0T would likely be mixed traffic, similar to its tender counterparts, or light passenger duties like an 0-6-2T. 

 

And yes, they are both fine looking engines. I already have Admiral Horatio Nelson as Pacific tanks go though.

[RedGemAlchemist]

Popped up to Great Eastern Models in Norwich today for my fix of new fodder. Got quite a haul today:

A bunch of Wills' plasticard building sheets
A smaller turntable for Kelsby
A water tower for Berkham Works
The usual selection of second-hand wagons

 

But also these last two items. A totally unique and clearly kitbashed wagon made up of two point motor housings on what appears to be a Triang four-wheeled coach chassis. This'll likely end up as some kind of tool van for the works train;

and another Triang B12, which I'm in two minds about what to do with. It's probably going to be the locomotive that ends up with my grandad's name, but I don't know whether to simply repaint it into KLR livery as I like the B12 anyway and the Triang version is a pretty nice recreation of the loco in its own right, or rebuild it into a tank engine to make it more unique and stop it superceding Black Shuck as the resident mixed-traffic ten-wheeler tender loco. So I'll put it to you guys. Tank engine or restoration? The fate of this old engine rests in your hands, faithful readers.

[BlueLightning]

Great haul Red!

 

Love the new tool van, could use with some doors to cover the gap in the middle maybe?

 

I am quite a fan of B12's as well, so I would love to see what you could do to it while keeping it as such, although I also love tank engines, so I am quite torn!

 

Gary

Edited October 26, 2019 by BlueLightning

[scots region]

One idea that instantly sprues the front of any loco

 

 

Smokebox winglets. 

[RedGemAlchemist]

3 minutes ago, BlueLightning said:

Great haul Red!

 

Love the new tool van, could use with some doors to cover the gap in the middle maybe?

That was the plan. I still have a bunch of broken brake vans to salvage doors from.

 

5 minutes ago, BlueLightning said:

I am quite a fan of B12's as well, so I would love to see what you could do to it while keeping it as such, although I also love tank engines, so I am quite torn!

I know, Gary, I know. It's always the tough decisions that end up falling in your lap, isn't it?

 

1 minute ago, scots region said:

One idea that instantly sprues the front of any loco

Smokebox winglets. 

Of course YOU'D say that, you're Scottish.

[Northroader]

There was an article in Jan63 MRC where a B12 superstructure was rebuilt as a Claud Hamilton, basically a section was cut out toward the front of the firebox, then mounted on a Triang L1 chassis.

[RedGemAlchemist]

11 minutes ago, Northroader said:

There was an article in Jan63 MRC where a B12 superstructure was rebuilt as a Claud Hamilton, basically a section was cut out toward the front of the firebox, then mounted on a Triang L1 chassis.

Not quite the answer I was looking for Northroader, but still thanks. Might be useful for some ideas.

[sem34090]

Is 61572 not the preserved one?

 

Perhaps, therefore, keep it as-is to represent a visiting loco? It's been pretty nicely lined out.

[Annie]

4 hours ago, Northroader said:

There was an article in Jan63 MRC where a B12 superstructure was rebuilt as a Claud Hamilton, basically a section was cut out toward the front of the firebox, then mounted on a Triang L1 chassis.

Something tells me that I did exactly that myself back in the day.

[Annie]

16 hours ago, RedGemAlchemist said:

Hmm. Indeed.

Using that logic, 2-6-0T would likely be mixed traffic, similar to its tender counterparts, or light passenger duties like an 0-6-2T. 

 

And yes, they are both fine looking engines. I already have Admiral Horatio Nelson as Pacific tanks go though.

For your line a 2-6-0 tank engine would be more useful than anything else since it could be used for almost any task.

[RedGemAlchemist]

12 hours ago, sem34090 said:

Is 61572 not the preserved one?

 

Perhaps, therefore, keep it as-is to represent a visiting loco? It's been pretty nicely lined out.

Indeed it is the one that lives on the North Norfolk. I'll take that as one vote for keep as a B12...

 

8 hours ago, Annie said:

For your line a 2-6-0 tank engine would be more useful than anything else since it could be used for almost any task.

...and one vote for tank engine.

Edited October 27, 2019 by RedGemAlchemist

[RedGemAlchemist]

MY DECISION HAS BEEN MADE (thanks to input from the rest of the Achingverse guys).

Inspired by the story of 84030 at the Bluebell, which is currently being converted into a tank engine due to its tender being lost when it arrived at Barry, my B12 will be straight-up converted into a 4-6-0T tank engine. This will include shortening the boiler, moving the firebox forward a bit and giving it the tanks, cab, rear bufferbeam and bunker of a Triang BR Class 3 Standard tank.

Something like this:

Edited October 27, 2019 by RedGemAlchemist

[Corbs]

Hi Red, interesting idea but you may want to re-work it a bit, the main issue is the wheels on tender locos of this type are huge, from your photo edit the top-right corner of the rear driving wheel is missing and would eat into the cab space an awful lot.

Then the tanks are very small, when you take into account the space used by the wheels, the tank capacity looks to be about an eighth of the boiler capacity (the boiler diameter on the tender locos tends to be bigger than that of a tank loco, 84030 is possible because the boilers on the tender locos were teeny tiny and shared with the tank engines), and the size of the bunker might only be enough to cover the firebars three times before you run out of coal.

Perhaps a 4-6-4 baltic design might work better, because then you have a much bigger bunker, and you could even use the lower portion of the bunker as an additional water tank as on some of the large GWR tank locos?

 

I think this version with smaller wheels works better but understand it would be harder to do.

 

 

 

Edited October 27, 2019 by Corbs

[sem34090]

The tank size is my fault - I drew out a B12-derived 4-6-2T for our host to do what he liked with, knowing he particularly wanted a 4-6-0T. The tanks, bunker, Westinghouse Pump (and rear wheelset on mine) were from an Oxford N7.

Edited October 28, 2019 by sem34090

[RedGemAlchemist]

7 hours ago, Corbs said:

Hi Red, interesting idea but you may want to re-work it a bit, the main issue is the wheels on tender locos of this type are huge, from your photo edit the top-right corner of the rear driving wheel is missing and would eat into the cab space an awful lot.

Then the tanks are very small, when you take into account the space used by the wheels, the tank capacity looks to be about an eighth of the boiler capacity (the boiler diameter on the tender locos tends to be bigger than that of a tank loco, 84030 is possible because the boilers on the tender locos were teeny tiny and shared with the tank engines), and the size of the bunker might only be enough to cover the firebars three times before you run out of coal.

Perhaps a 4-6-4 baltic design might work better, because then you have a much bigger bunker, and you could even use the lower portion of the bunker as an additional water tank as on some of the large GWR tank locos?

 

I think this version with smaller wheels works better but understand it would be harder to do.

 

Hmm. The issue with this is that I don't really know how to justify the KLR having a tank engine of this size (yes, I know there's a 9F on the roster, but that's not the point.) I already have plenty of passenger locos, and I don't have the resources or the ability to change the wheels. The 4-6-0T would likely have found itself as a banking engine at the Hewe Embankment or further up the line at Elmtree where the line goes uphill towards Telham, or working somewhere with regular coal stops. The tanks were not to scale, and considering the ones I am planning to give it will likely be much larger anyway.

[Corbs]

Fair enough about the smaller wheels (would mean a completely different chassis, lots of work), that was a red herring.

 

To an operating company, the first 4-6-4T one is the same 'size' as the 4-6-0T, as in cylinder, boiler, driving wheel diameter, whereas the 4-6-4T would likely have a lower axle loading than the 4-6-0T as more carrying wheels to share the weight with.

Worth bearing in mind that the tank loco will still have the same fuel consumption as the tender engine, and you'd have to uncouple the loco from the train to re-coal. If you shorten the boiler and move the firebox forward, it'll reduce the capacity of the boiler (which would be a positive), but then the middle driving axle gets in the way of the grate and ashpan.

Could it be an idea to replace the boiler and smokebox with one of a smaller diameter, giving you more width for water tanks? If you could salvage the fittings from the B12 perhaps you could use something like a piece of plastic tube?

 

Was Sem's 4-6-2T a little like this one? I moved the doorway forward to give more bunker space at the rear.

 

 

I went through the same thoughts when I rebuilt the ROD 2-8-0 into a banker, as the 2-8-2Ts it is based on have smaller diameter boilers and therefore wider water tanks, so with my thicc boiler I had to make my tanks and bunker longer to compensate for the lost space.

 

The B12 may not be the best starting point for a banking engine, its large wheels are suited for higher speeds.

A banker would probably want lots of small driving wheels rather than a few big ones, because (oversimplified) small wheels = more power at less speed, and lots of wheels = more of the loco weight is being used for traction. This is why the U1 was a 2-8-0+0-8-2, and why the Lickey had Big Bertha, an 0-10-0 and then 92079 and sisters, 2-10-0s.

 

I apologise if it seems like I'm being down on it, because I love your creations and the way you produce new ideas out of scraps, I'm only challenging you as I find thinking about things in this way a fun part of the hobby.

[RedGemAlchemist]

50 minutes ago, Corbs said:

Fair enough about the smaller wheels (would mean a completely different chassis, lots of work), that was a red herring.

...

Was Sem's 4-6-2T a little like this one? I moved the doorway forward to give more bunker space at the rear.

 

 

I went through the same thoughts when I rebuilt the ROD 2-8-0 into a banker, as the 2-8-2Ts it is based on have smaller diameter boilers and therefore wider water tanks, so with my thicc boiler I had to make my tanks and bunker longer to compensate for the lost space.

I don't have Sem's drawing on my laptop, but that's actually pretty close, just a tad more precise.

EDIT: Here's Sem's design:

 

50 minutes ago, Corbs said:

The B12 may not be the best starting point for a banking engine, its large wheels are suited for higher speeds.

A banker would probably want lots of small driving wheels rather than a few big ones, because (oversimplified) small wheels = more power at less speed, and lots of wheels = more of the loco weight is being used for traction. This is why the U1 was a 2-8-0+0-8-2, and why the Lickey had Big Bertha, an 0-10-0 and then 92079 and sisters, 2-10-0s.

I know. But it's what I have. (KLR design philosophy in a nutshell right there)

 

50 minutes ago, Corbs said:

To an operating company, the first 4-6-4T one is the same 'size' as the 4-6-0T, as in cylinder, boiler, driving wheel diameter, whereas the 4-6-4T would likely have a lower axle loading than the 4-6-0T as more carrying wheels to share the weight with.

Worth bearing in mind that the tank loco will still have the same fuel consumption as the tender engine, and you'd have to uncouple the loco from the train to re-coal. If you shorten the boiler and move the firebox forward, it'll reduce the capacity of the boiler (which would be a positive), but then the middle driving axle gets in the way of the grate and ashpan.

Could it be an idea to replace the boiler and smokebox with one of a smaller diameter, giving you more width for water tanks? If you could salvage the fittings from the B12 perhaps you could use something like a piece of plastic tube?

...

I went through the same thoughts when I rebuilt the ROD 2-8-0 into a banker, as the 2-8-2Ts it is based on have smaller diameter boilers and therefore wider water tanks, so with my thicc boiler I had to make my tanks and bunker longer to compensate for the lost space.

...

I apologise if it seems like I'm being down on it, because I love your creations and the way you produce new ideas out of scraps, I'm only challenging you as I find thinking about things in this way a fun part of the hobby.

All interesting things to take into account, Corbs. And I'm glad you like my design philosophy of "if I put this with this does it look good?" I will admit another inspiration for the 4-6-0T was this real world analogue:

This is Worsdell's W Class 4-6-0T branch line tank for the NER. They apparently worked the Whitby-Scarborough line ably for a decade before being rebuilt by Raven into the A6 tanks due to the increase in passenger traffic to that part of the Yorkshire coast.

Edited October 28, 2019 by RedGemAlchemist

[Corbs]

I get that your resources are limited, but you don't have to make a banking loco out of a B12, you could look for something different to use, or make something else with it, or use different parts of it.

Like, just throwing ideas out there, could you use an old 8F chassis with the front wheelset removed under the B12 boiler with the carrying wheels from the Ivatt 3MT at the back perhaps? Or if you wanted to go even smaller, a 9F chassis with an axle or two removed? 

If it's a useful comparison, the driving wheels on the W class are 5ft 1.25in whereas the B12's are 6ft 6in, the W class boiler is 4ft 9in and the B12's 5ft 1.125in diameter.

LNER.info says: "However, these strong, sure-footed locomotives had very low coal and water capacities. Hence, between 1914 and 1917, all ten members of Class W were rebuilt with larger bunkers and water tanks. This required the fitting of a trailing wheel, resulting in the locomotives which would become Class A6 under LNER ownership."

 

[Edwardian]

If you want a tank, I think Corbs's designs are to be favoured.

 

Which axle is your model driven off?

 

If not the centre, I'd suggest that the best use of a loco with 6'6" coupled wheels would be to reduce it to a 4-4-0.

[RedGemAlchemist]

24 minutes ago, Corbs said:

I get that your resources are limited, but you don't have to make a banking loco out of a B12, you could look for something different to use, or make something else with it, or use different parts of it.

Like, just throwing ideas out there, could you use an old 8F chassis with the front wheelset removed under the B12 boiler with the carrying wheels from the Ivatt 3MT at the back perhaps? Or if you wanted to go even smaller, a 9F chassis with an axle or two removed? 

 

13 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

If you want a tank, I think Corbs's designs are to be favoured.

 

Which axle is your model driven off?

 

If not the centre, I'd suggest that the best use of a loco with 6'6" coupled wheels would be to reduce it to a 4-4-0.

Well, no, it could be any of a number of things. The reason I wanted to keep it looking as much like a B12 as I could was because I really like the B12 and it kind of pains me to totally destroy another one like I did when building Wild Rover but I have no feasible use for another 4-6-0 tender locomotive without supplanting Black Shuck, my Black 5 which I also really like. 

So my further thoughts were maybe use it on one of the branch lines? Can totally see the 4-6-0T running a light passenger train from Elmtree Market to Elmtree Junction, and the branch is short enough that the small bunker isn't as massive an issue. As for the tanks, I can easily do an LBSC and extend them into an L shape.

 

And it's driven off the front driving axle.

Edited October 28, 2019 by RedGemAlchemist
Answering Edwardian's question

[Edwardian]

I absolutely cannot see a massive tank with 6'6" driving wheels powering a branch train.  It would be an express passenger tank for heavy trains!

 

What happens if you just do a 4-4-0 version of a B12?  Remove the rear axle, shorten the chassis and reduce the boiler length to bring the cab forward.  Reconnect tender, 

 

That retains all the key characteristics of the B12 design, but makes for a more believable loco for your line than a 'super tank'. 

[RedGemAlchemist]

7 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

I absolutely cannot see a massive tank with 6'6" driving wheels powering a branch train.  It would be an express passenger tank for heavy trains!

 

What happens if you just do a 4-4-0 version of a B12?  Remove the rear axle, shorten the chassis and reduce the boiler length to bring the cab forward.  Reconnect tender, 

 

That retains all the key characteristics of the B12 design, but makes for a more believable loco for your line than a 'super tank'. 

Doesn't that just produce a Claud Hamilton?

[Edwardian]

5 minutes ago, RedGemAlchemist said:

Doesn't that just produce a Claud Hamilton?

 

Not really, and nor does it produce a T19 4-4-0.  These were large 7' express engines. Yours represents a more modest type. A GE might-have-been, if you will, sitting between the mixed traffic T26/E4 and the T19 express types.  

 

It's your layout and you obviously have a pretty fixed intention, so by all means stick to it. Not everyone is bound to agree with or endorse the individual's vision, however, and I come from the CA perspective of credible alternative history and believe that the 'super tank' option lacks credibility. Each to his own ... 

 

 

[RedGemAlchemist]

10 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

I come from the CA perspective of credible alternative history

In fairness, as part of the Achingverse I do believe your input is important. I do feel the 4-6-0T is credible though - the KLR didn't have the money to replace or repair the tender of the B12 so just slapped some tanks and a bunker that they already had on it and called it a day. But I'll give it more thought.

 

In honesty though I'm also not totally sure how to go about chopping up the metal chassis anyway without damaging the pickups.

Edited October 28, 2019 by RedGemAlchemist

[Edwardian]

6 minutes ago, RedGemAlchemist said:

In fairness, as part of the Achingverse I do believe your input is important. I do feel the 4-6-0T is credible though - the KLR didn't have the money to replace or repair the tender of the B12 so just slapped some tanks and a bunker that they already had on it and called it a day. But I'll give it more thought.

 

In honesty though I'm also not totally sure how to go about chopping up the metal chassis anyway without damaging the pickups.

 

Well, the KLR was evidently cable of almost anything! I am sure you could justify this.

 

Don't mind me; I don't like Mondays.

 

Tell me why?