RMweb Gold BlueLightning Posted July 22, 2018 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted July 22, 2018 Thanks Chris, I do actually agree about the chimney being to fat. I wanted something thinner, that is all I had at the time. I will have to look at other ideas to replace it. The bunker I had originally considered having it over the boiler, I honestly cannot remember why I didn't, this is the joy of Bluetak, I can play with all these ideas and just remove bits if they don't work! If I were to shorten the boiler and move everything forward we get some issues with the motor in the cab which I am trying to avoid Gary 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold BlueLightning Posted July 22, 2018 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted July 22, 2018 A quick mock up with the bunker placed on the boiler, as per Chris's suggestion Which option do people think loos better?? Gary 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold ChrisN Posted July 22, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 22, 2018 A quick mock up with the bunker placed on the boiler, as per Chris's suggestion Which option do people think loos better?? 2018-07-22 14.08.25.jpg Gary Gary, I like it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold BlueLightning Posted July 22, 2018 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted July 22, 2018 I have spent some time playing with parts to make a new thinner chimney. The height has stayed the same as this is the same height as Prince's chimney, While working on this I was hoping for something resembling that chimney. Thoughts?? Gary 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caley Jim Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 A quick mock up with the bunker placed on the boiler, as per Chris's suggestion Which option do people think loos better?? I also agree that the chimney looks far too short and fat (unless there are loading gauge restrictions). Regarding the bunker, the original looked to me rather too much like it had just been tacked on the back. If going down that route, I would suggest making it slightly bigger and adding a set of trailing wheels to stop the whole thing looking (and being) unbalanced. Maybe that's not an option, though. It all depends on what the loco is going to be doing. If it's just going to be pottering about a yard, then a small bunker atop the boiler is OK as it can be readily topped up as necessary. If, on the other hand, it's going to be making longer journeys, then a larger bunker may be needed. Another option is to omit the rear bunker and give it a wooden 'tender' as was done with both CR and NBR 0-4-0ST's , which had a small bunker either side of the firebox. Jim 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold BlueLightning Posted July 22, 2018 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted July 22, 2018 (edited) Thanks Jim, I think we cross posted as I have now tried a new chimney. I did think about making it a tender engine, but already having prince as a tank+tender I wanted to try something different, what I may do is move the tank filler forward and put a bigger bunker on the tank. thoughts?? Gary PS. I have a Caley tank with a wooden tender. It was my first loco modification, Hornby Caley Pug made to look more like "Kelton Fell" at the SRPS museum, and an old Tri-ang 7-plank turned into a tender very similar to the one in the picture you linked too! Edited July 22, 2018 by BlueLightning 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 Despite the number of pug conversions around, narrow gauge 0-6-0ST with the tank covering the smokebox was a pretty rare configuration. The most obviously puggish one that I know of is the ex Harrogate gasworks Pickett, as rebuilt with larger cab and running at Statfold. Google to see what I mean. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caley Jim Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 ........, what I may do is move the tank filler forward and put a bigger bunker on the tank. thoughts?? I'm just wondering how practicable a bunker atop the tank would be? While there would be a hatch (or two) low down in the cab front to access it, how easy would it be for the fireman to get at any coal which didn't fall down from the top of the tank? Why not cut the tank back from the front of the cab (moving the filler forward) and make two small bunkers either side as per the CR one? These pugs wer pretty much standard Neilson designs of the time. Jim 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold BlueLightning Posted July 22, 2018 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted July 22, 2018 Kevin, I have googled it and I know the loco you mean. I think someone mentioned it on the Pugbash thread before, and it is one I have considered. Jim, I think you are right. Move the rear of the tanks forward and have bunkers between it and the cab. I shall have a play once I have got the kids to bed. Gary 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold BlueLightning Posted July 22, 2018 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted July 22, 2018 I managed to get a bit more playing in quicker than expected. The cab is at a slight angle as it is not being held in place as well, and the bunker side is a bit high (and I haven't put one on the other side yet!!) but I quite like this idea. Thoughts?? Gary 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruffnut Thorston Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 RE: picture shewn way back.... The Forest of Bowland Light Railway by BB... A very good read.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denys_Watkins-Pitchford https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1875774.The_Forest_of_Boland_Light_Railway 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold ChrisN Posted July 22, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 22, 2018 I managed to get a bit more playing in quicker than expected. The cab is at a slight angle as it is not being held in place as well, and the bunker side is a bit high (and I haven't put one on the other side yet!!) but I quite like this idea. 2018-07-22 18.50.22.jpg Thoughts?? Gary Gary, The cab is sticking over the back a bit but then it did so Blanche in her original condition so not a problem. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold BlueLightning Posted July 22, 2018 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted July 22, 2018 It is indeed, in fact the firebox is behind the rear axel. This seemed to be the case of a few narrow gauge locos. Most seem to have been rebuilt with trailing wheels at some point to stop them wobbling. Talyllyn for example. built as an 0-4-0 and quickly turned into an 0-4-2. and indeed the George England's have their cab behind the rear wheels. Hopefully it will look OK once it has a footplate and I am thinking I should maybe try and lower the whole body a bit? Gary 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 The issue is that the firebox on a 2ft gauge loco is nigh-on impossible to fit between a pair of inside frames. Some early locos were built inside frame, but with all sorts of odd arrangements at the back to carry the longitudinal tractive forces round the firebox to the rear coupler. Outside frames were adopted to overcome the problem, but you will notice a long gap between axles either side of a firebox, for example on the W&L locos and on 4-4-0T. Some designers, notably Bagnall and Heywood, adopted ‘marine’ fireboxes to overcome the frame spacing and wheelbase problem. Dolgoch is an interesting loco to dissect with all of the foregoing in mind. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold BlueLightning Posted July 22, 2018 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted July 22, 2018 Interesting. So would I be better bringing the body backwards so the firebox could be fully behind the rear wheels and having it wider than the frames between the wheels would be?? Gary 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 If you have a look at that Harrogate Peckett, of W&L 'Joan', or the Austrian U class as made by Lilliput as instances, you will see that they have a quite short driven wheelbase, with the firebox behind the rear driven axle. As an 0-6-0T, this results in 'tail wag', which is why locos designed for any speed get given a pony truck with side-control. The same, only shorter, applies to 0-4-0T vs 0-4-2T. Dolgoch is the strange exception, having the rear driven axle behind the firebox, but this is only made possible by the use of valve gear driven from the front axle, which was a special feature of Fletcher Jennings. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold BlueLightning Posted July 22, 2018 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted July 22, 2018 I see exactly what you mean. I have a spare set of wheels I could use to turn this into an 0-6-2T time to head back to the drawing board and have a think. Gary 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caley Jim Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 Sorry to be late back to the party. Been watching the highlights of the F1 GP and then The Open. I agree with the others that a set of trailing wheels would make all the difference to the appearance. You could then extend the firebox, pushing the cab a little further back. Jim 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedGemAlchemist Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 Sorry to be late back to the party. Been watching the highlights of the F1 GP and then The Open. I agree with the others that a set of trailing wheels would make all the difference to the appearance. You could then extend the firebox, pushing the cab a little further back. Jim I second that. Turning it into an 0-6-2 would make it look far less squashed. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold BlueLightning Posted July 22, 2018 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted July 22, 2018 Right then time for the crudest mock-up of the day. boiler extention added back in, cab moved further back on the firebox which will allow a bigger coal space, and trailing wheels under the back of the cab. Thoughts?? Gary PS. Thanks for the help everyone, please keep the ideas coming. This may be the last mock-up for tonight as I am starting to feel rather unwell again 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 (edited) Yep, I think the overall outline of that begins to look plausible. Hope you feel better after a kip. If you study the picture of the U below, you will see that, because it has inside frames for the driven axles, there're is what amounts to a big box structure at the rear, which allows a nice wide firebox, and is strong enough to carry the tractive forces to the rear drawbar. This is the alternative to outside frames, but must surely be more expensive to build. It's a very typically continental design and I'm not sure I can recall a British loco built like this ....... examples will now be posted in their hundreds! The loco below shows the same general idea, taken to rather mad extreme, with a driven axle under the firebox ....., I think only one of these was built, and it didn't last anything like so long as the U class and its close relations. Edited July 22, 2018 by Nearholmer 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caley Jim Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 Right then time for the crudest mock-up of the day. boiler extention added back in, cab moved further back on the firebox which will allow a bigger coal space, and trailing wheels under the back of the cab. That's looking much better!! Hope you feel better on the morrow after a good nights sleep. Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold BlueLightning Posted July 23, 2018 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted July 23, 2018 Thanks guys, good to know I'm on the right path. I'm still not feeling great this morning, so have taken the day off work. If I am feeling a bit better later I will try and clean up the mock up a bit so we have something looking lees like a pile of bits thrown together quickly with bluetak. and as I am hoping to have my locos able to traverse a 9" radius I need to come up with a way to attach the trailing wheel that will allow this. Gary 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lu4472ke Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 (edited) and as I am hoping to have my locos able to traverse a 9" radius I need to come up with a way to attach the trailing wheel that will allow this. You could have something like the Bachmann E4 does, where the axle goes through a hole, and allows side to side and front to back movement. Edited July 23, 2018 by lukeknights4472 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 Probably need a pony truck, pivoted below the notional firebox. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now