Jump to content

Hippo

Model Rail / Heljan Class 11 0-6-0DE

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, jjnewitt said:

 

But it doesn't take much to make sure that such items are EM/P4 compatible. We had this with the 1600 thread. All that's required is a dimension in the spec to make sure there's sufficient clearance for EM/P4 wheels. That's all. Nothing more. I fail to see how that significantly adds to the cost of the project. I'd have thought that with margins being very tight any manufactuer would want to maximise all possible sales for what should amount to very little effort...

 

If I can get P4 wheels in one I'll definately have 15105. If not I'll buy another Hornby 08. 

 

Justin

I didn't say they won't be EM/P4 compatible. At this stage I've no idea. I was being honest about the considerations that take place. If EM/P4 compatibility is going to add to the cost, it is unlikely to happen. I took your reference to 'compatibility' to mean that wheel sets could be exchanged to suit EM/P4, and that poses cost implications in certain types of chassis where axles and gears are integral. You seem, however, to just be concerned about internal width (presumably you'd be replacing the whole chassis?) and as the model has no wheel splashers I suspect there would be enough internal width for EM/P4 - however, discarding the RTR chassis seems a prohibitively expensive way to obtain a locomotive body. (CJL)

  • Like 2
  • Friendly/supportive 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jjnewitt said:

 

But it doesn't take much to make sure that such items are EM/P4 compatible. We had this with the 1600 thread. All that's required is a dimension in the spec to make sure there's sufficient clearance for EM/P4 wheels. That's all. Nothing more. I fail to see how that significantly adds to the cost of the project. I'd have thought that with margins being very tight any manufactuer would want to maximise all possible sales for what should amount to very little effort...

 

If I can get P4 wheels in one I'll definately have 15105. If not I'll buy another Hornby 08. 

 

Justin

 

Oh that life were so easy !

 

So EM is close to, and P4 is near-as-dammit to, scale.

 

Presumably, you'd want the width over flycranks and rods to be prototypical, so that they didn't clobber your close-to-prototypical platform face spacings?

 

No doubt dibber25 would welcome your advice as to how the outside frames, flycranks and rods can be reproduced to scale thickness and clearances, in order to achieve this.

 

I cannot imagine that those who have committed to EM and P4 will not have considered the problems specific to outside-framed locos, before making their gauge choices?

 

I await your response with interest!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, dibber25 said:

............and as the model has no wheel splashers I suspect there would be enough internal width for EM/P4 - however, discarding the RTR chassis seems a prohibitively expensive way to obtain a locomotive body.

Depends on how much you can sell the chassis for on Ebay.

(unfortunately can't find a 'Tongue in Cheek' emoji)

 

Eric 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

I remember them as yard shunters in the West Midlands, much the equivalent of the Steam Braked Jinty.

In the late 1950s the local allocations were used for Bushbury yards (2), Bescot (2), and Aston Goods/ Curzon Street (4) on the LNW lines There was also one at Ryecroft but I dont know the purpose of that, possibly the goods depot by Walsall station and the PWay yard. Saltley had a big allocation of 13 , plus 6 08s for Lawley Street, Duddeston Sidings, Washwood Heath, Bromford Bridge and Water Orton.

 

Four, along with 15101 and 15103 were used at Tyseley during the early 1950s, but these were replaced by the first five 08s, 13000-04. The latter were replaced by 13025-29 about a year later.

12112 was always a favourite - to be seen lurking around Bescot or Stourbridge Junction. The first time I went to Saltley - late 67 IIRC - the allocation of class 11s, mostly low numbered examples, were dead in the roundhouse waiting a one way journey to Cashmores.

 

Might have to have one.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12112 was one of the Darlington batch originally on the ER. Eventually came to the LMR to end its days allocated to Saltley and Bescot.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Did they have a air-brake cabinet like an 08?

Hi,

A bit late to go rooting around in the study to check any pics (which I'll do tomorrow when I get back) but I don't remember anything new screwed on. Originally they had no train brake so guess there was plenty of empty space in the equipment boxes to stuff a compressor in. They didn't look particularly ex-works when they turned up and crew training was pretty perfunctory considering Weymouth crews had never had any 350 experience before. In retrospect the whole conversion has more than a touch of expedience about it.

 

 

9 hours ago, royaloak said:

We will include key differences- Bulleid 'Boxpok' wheels and the extra lamp iron/marker lights

Thanks Royal Oak, that'll teach me to read things thoroughly......  :-)

 

Stu

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lapford34102 said:

Thanks Royal Oak, that'll teach me to read things thoroughly......  :-)

Some/a lot of people wont have read the article so worth the question/answer for them anyway.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/07/2019 at 15:32, Mike Buckner said:

I wonder if they have the class 08/09 in mind?

 

 

What...why???? For what????

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, dibber25 said:

I took your reference to 'compatibility' to mean that wheel sets could be exchanged to suit EM/P4, and that poses cost implications in certain types of chassis where axles and gears are integral. You seem, however, to just be concerned about internal width (presumably you'd be replacing the whole chassis?) and as the model has no wheel splashers I suspect there would be enough internal width for EM/P4 - however, discarding the RTR chassis seems a prohibitively expensive way to obtain a locomotive body. (CJL)

 

By compatibility I meant simply there being sufficient clearance to fit EM/P4 wheels, 22mm between frames would do. I wouldn't expect any RTR company to do any more than that, though one does offer replacement EM and P4 wheel sets at a premium.

 

Discarding the chassis (and therefore desiging/buying a new one) would be an option, but for many simply changing wheel sets is a more likely one. The likes of Alan Gibson and Ultrascale have provided conversion sets to do just that. With regard to discarding the chassis being prohibitively expensive, compared to the cost of buying a kit (if it exisits) and then factoring in the time to buid it and paint it, it's an absolute bargain. If the model is any good, and of course if the wheels will fit...

 

Great choice of prototype by the way. 

 

11 hours ago, cctransuk said:

Presumably, you'd want the width over flycranks and rods to be prototypical, so that they didn't clobber your close-to-prototypical platform face spacings?

 

No doubt dibber25 would welcome your advice as to how the outside frames, flycranks and rods can be reproduced to scale thickness and clearances, in order to achieve this.

 

I cannot imagine that those who have committed to EM and P4 will not have considered the problems specific to outside-framed locos, before making their gauge choices?

 

I await your response with interest!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

Not necessarily, compromise things. It doesn't all need to be exactly to scale, just to look right (and the two things are not the same). Start with the intention that the width between the frames is to scale as is the width over the flycranks and adjust things such as springs and cranks to account for the overly thick plastic frames (which probably don't need to be that thick anyway as it's very unlikely they'll be functional). It may be possible to move the flycranks out a little depending on just how wide the prototype is. RTR locos are full of compromises, even the best of them. I don't expect that to change. 

 

It's interesting the various attitudes that seem to exist within the RTR manufacturing field. Within the more mainstream manufacturers there does seem to an attitude that they're just not interested. This contrasts starkly with some of the new kids on the block who actively make their products EM/P4 compatible, presumably to maximise all possible sales. Given that the model railway cake is likley to shrink over the next 5/10 years it will be interesting to see who's doing better; those who court only the mainstream or those who court everyone.

 

Justin

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, jjnewitt said:

 

By compatibility I meant simply there being sufficient clearance to fit EM/P4 wheels, 22mm between frames would do. I wouldn't expect any RTR company to do any more than that, though one does offer replacement EM and P4 wheel sets at a premium.

 

Discarding the chassis (and therefore desiging/buying a new one) would be an option, but for many simply changing wheel sets is a more likely one. The likes of Alan Gibson and Ultrascale have provided conversion sets to do just that. With regard to discarding the chassis being prohibitively expensive, compared to the cost of buying a kit (if it exisits) and then factoring in the time to buid it and paint it, it's an absolute bargain. If the model is any good, and of course if the wheels will fit...

 

Great choice of prototype by the way. 

 

 

Not necessarily, compromise things. It doesn't all need to be exactly to scale, just to look right (and the two things are not the same). Start with the intention that the width between the frames is to scale as is the width over the flycranks and adjust things such as springs and cranks to account for the overly thick plastic frames (which probably don't need to be that thick anyway as it's very unlikely they'll be functional). It may be possible to move the flycranks out a little depending on just how wide the prototype is. RTR locos are full of compromises, even the best of them. I don't expect that to change. 

 

It's interesting the various attitudes that seem to exist within the RTR manufacturing field. Within the more mainstream manufacturers there does seem to an attitude that they're just not interested. This contrasts starkly with some of the new kids on the block who actively make their products EM/P4 compatible, presumably to maximise all possible sales. Given that the model railway cake is likley to shrink over the next 5/10 years it will be interesting to see who's doing better; those who court only the mainstream or those who court everyone.

 

Justin

 

 

Compromise - the eternal cure-all for when scaling the prototype can't be done.

 

The obvious compromise - allowing the external dimensions of the model to be to scale - would be to narrow the gauge on which the model runs ....... but then someone already did that, didn't they?

 

The plain fact is that you can't have it all ways - particularly with outside-framed locos; give me an accurate body on a compromised-gauge chassis any time !

 

I certainly don't want a Class 11 or 12 with substandard thickness springs, cranks or rods, or with cosmetic outside frames that are so thin that they'll crack if any significant pressure is applied.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the lack of wheels in EM/P4 would knacker any conversion. This loco had 4"-0.5" wheels with the 'bevelled' rim. The 08 had 4'-6" also with the bevelled rim. I don't know how many spokes in either case. Wheels for the 08 are readily available, but there are, to the best of my knowledge, no wheels available that feature a 4'-0" o/d, bevelled rim and no crankpin. I suppose that those with a lathe could modify the RTR wheels, but for the rest of us this model is best passed by. A pity but there it is.

 

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

Compromise - the eternal cure-all for when scaling the prototype can't be done.

 

The obvious compromise - allowing the external dimensions of the model to be to scale - would be to narrow the gauge on which the model runs ....... but then someone already did that, didn't they?

 

The plain fact is that you can't have it all ways - particularly with outside-framed locos; give me an accurate body on a compromised-gauge chassis any time !

 

I certainly don't want a Class 11 or 12 with substandard thickness springs, cranks or rods, or with cosmetic outside frames that are so thin that they'll crack if any significant pressure is applied.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

Or perhaps compromise - the inevitable result of using manufacturing techniques where exact scaling of the prototype can't be done. 


I assume you don't have any Bachmann or Hornby 08s as there is room in there for EM/P4 wheels so they must be compromised elesewhere? The springs on the Bachmann one obviously are. Perhaps there's sufficient room in those for EM/P4 wheels as a result of needing the things to go round R1 and R2 curves in OO? Another compromise...

 

8 minutes ago, PenrithBeacon said:

I think that the lack of wheels in EM/P4 would knacker any conversion. This loco had 4"-0.5" wheels with the 'bevelled' rim. The 08 had 4'-6" also with the bevelled rim. I don't know how many spokes in either case. Wheels for the 08 are readily available, but there are, to the best of my knowledge, no wheels available that feature a 4'-0" o/d, bevelled rim and no crankpin. I suppose that those with a lathe could modify the RTR wheels, but for the rest of us this model is best passed by. A pity but there it is.

 

It's true that there isn't a suitable wheel currently available but it also possible that if the conversion is achievable and people put their hands up someone like Alan Gibson will produce something. If EM/P4 wheels don't fit then there definately won't be any proper wheels.

 

Justin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, jjnewitt said:

...

It's true that there isn't a suitable wheel currently available but it also possible that if the conversion is achievable and people put their hands up someone like Alan Gibson will produce something. If EM/P4 wheels don't fit then there definately won't be any proper wheels.

 

Justin

About a year ago I asked AGW if there were going to be any additional wheels In the catalogue for a conversion I had mind. I was told that no additions were planned for any new RTR models.

 

Assuming that Heljan do make the compromises needed there might be a way forward ie 3D printing and an AGW tyre. But then again perhaps not.

 

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even though slightly before my time, these new models are an excellent development, well done Model Rail and Heljan. A blue Class 11 sounds very nice, and although I don't model the Southern Region, as 15212 is one of the only three Class 12s I saw in BR days (at Hither Green in September 1972) that is very tempting too !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jjnewitt said:

 

Or perhaps compromise - the inevitable result of using manufacturing techniques where exact scaling of the prototype can't be done. 

 

 

I've got it !!!

 

..... and Heljan have the perfect credentials for this .....

 

what the EM and P4 aficionados need is .....

 

a Tubby-Gronk !!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

  • Like 1
  • Funny 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

I've got it !!!

 

..... and Heljan have the perfect credentials for this .....

 

what the EM and P4 aficionados need is .....

 

a Tubby-Gronk !!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

And what the OO afficinadoesneed is a perfectly to scale Gronk... Give me a break.

 

I'm going to give up now as this is all becoming a bit pointless. 

 

Justin

 

Justin

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/07/2019 at 17:29, cctransuk said:

 

Err - no; (D)12040 is not in the list of forthcoming releases.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

John.

I can read.

I was asking if you liked this one. (ha ha).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Did they have a air-brake cabinet like an 08? 

Hi Clive,

 

Just checked and they didn't have  additional cabinets added.

 

Stu

  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<slightly off topic but still relevant>

 

A lot of the 08s converted to Air only in the 1980s didnt receive any additional boxes either, the air compressors and receivers simply took up the space the removed vacuum kit used to occupy, of course prior to that most locos had the air braking equipment added and they retained their vac brake kit so space was at a premium so some had additional boxes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, andytrains said:

John.

I can read.

I was asking if you liked this one. (ha ha).

 

Actually, no. I know it's authentic - but only because the painter / numberer hadn't read his numbering manual correctly.

 

It offended my eye at the time, and it still does.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jjnewitt said:

 

And what the OO afficinadoesneed is a perfectly to scale Gronk... Give me a break.

 

I'm going to give up now as this is all becoming a bit pointless. 

 

Justin

 

Justin

 

 

Justin,

 

It was meant as a joke - sorry that wasn't apparent.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

Actually, no. I know it's authentic - but only because the painter / numberer hadn't read his numbering manual correctly.

 

It offended my eye at the time, and it still does.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

They should have made them Class 12. They would have saved a fortune on paint!! (Not).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/07/2019 at 10:46, adb968008 said:

Ooo very nice.

 

makes sense as there’s not too many shunters that would be viable left to do, but these offer a huge range of geography and purpose.

I wonder if an NS, DB,DSB, VR are on the list or if it is left to the Roco version to cover Europe (though some have been repatriated)?

 

There are plenty of liveries to justify a second and even third batch. Not only the export versions (and it's worth noting that four of the Dutch ones are now preserved in the UK, justifying OO models of European prototypes) but also Harry Needle, Day Aggregates, ICI Mond, ICI Wilton, the ersatz BR black and BR green liveries carried by the NYMR's industrial example... It's a very canny choice on MR's part.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This one 12088 survived at Widdrington open cast disposal point having been originally at Swalwell for many years! It is now at the Aln Valley Railway.

 

Mark Saunders

Butterwell 8-9-2012 005.JPG

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.