“FLIGHTS OF WHIMSY”

[Nearholmer]

Ive got a dim recollection that the Campbeltown & Macrihanish had some, as well as the W&L.

 

were they ‘branded’ box containers for coal? ‘CCC’?

 

Nope - actual wagons!

 

 

Edited March 6, 2020 by Nearholmer

[BernardTPM]

There were also the MOY wagons on the Southwold.

[Compound2632]

18 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Ive got a dim recollection that the Campbeltown & Macrihanish had some, as well as the W&L.

 

were they ‘branded’ box containers for coal? ‘CCC’?

 

Nope - actual wagons!

 

 

 

 

I read that in its first incarnation as a colliery line, there were flat wagons that each carried four colliery "hutches" - wheeled coal tubs. On rebuilding, the colliery company equipped itself with the wagons seen in the photo, built by Hurst Nelson. I presume that being narrow gauge, these wagons survived the RCH's final forbidding of dumb buffers in 1913.

 

7 minutes ago, BernardTPM said:

There were also the MOY wagons on the Southwold.

 

A 6-wheel PO wagon has to be something of a rarity!

[Nearholmer]

Dumb-buffered wagons, many with little or no springing in the couplings either, were common fare on slow-speed narrow gauges, even after the move to steel frames. Usually a bar between headstocks, with a hook forged on each end. Draw forces ran through the bar, so no ‘racking’ of the wagon, and buffing forced along the sole bars, which in the case of wooden ones were iron-bound at the ends to prevent splitting. The classic iron V skips had round ends to spread the buffing forces away from the centre.

 

Nowadays, there is usually a bit of resilience built-in somewhere on even basic wagons, by use of ‘metalastic’ pads.

 

Lovely basic, fit for the job stuff!

 

Of course, things got much more main-line-like with larger wagons on, for instance the 3ft gauge lines in Ireland.

[Compound2632]

10 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Of course, things got much more main-line-like with larger wagons on, for instance the 3ft gauge lines in Ireland.

 

I was starting to sense a bit of an Irish ambience with the advent of the cattle wagon. 

[Phil Traxson]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

 

 

 

A 6-wheel PO wagon has to be something of a rarity!

More so as they were Cleminson patent articulated  6 wheelers

[Donw]

With Narrow Gauge railways there was often only one brand of PO wagons from a firm who had works or a big depot along the line. Collieries wouldn't bother with a NG wagon unless the colliery was served by the NG line. The C&M carried the coal from the colliery to the harbour for loading into a ship. 

In your case I suppose a very large distillery might have some wagons on the line. I think that's what I would go for.

 

Don 

[Northroader]

Thanks for the suggestion, Don, I’m hoping to fit a distillery in somewhere. A Highland branch without a distillery is a bit like an overbridge without a bus on top. It’s a very small line and a limited fleet to go with it. I’m just doing a small sample of wagons to give a flavour, so don’t really need to go any further for now.  I did try downsizing two standard gauge P.O. wagons for coal traffic, but somehow they just didn’t look right, the proportions were wrong and the lettering looked awkward.

[Devonbelle]

On 13/08/2019 at 20:45, Northroader said:

Well, there’s a baseboard made and track down (although test runs are keeping the relaying gang busy) so Ive got a firm base to launch my first flight of whimsy. So, what to do? The question is:

 “WHAT IF ONE OF THE OLD PREGROUP LINES WAS NARROW GAUGE INSTEAD OF STANDARD??”

Which one to pick? Well, for now I’m keeping to tank engines because of limited train length, so it had best be a line with some small distinctive tank engines. Killing two birds with one stone, one I’ve always fancied, even in whimsical form, is the Highland Railway, and I suspect most modellers wouldn’t mind having a go at some time in their career.

For now, using the work sheet on a photoshop scheme to demonstrate how it’s done, I did a scan of of one of the “Terrier” 0–6-0Ts. It can be either a side elevation drawing or a decent square on side photo. This is imported on to a new layer, and trimmed round to just have the loco image only. You’ll note from the numberplate it was also reversed. Then using the Edit>Transform>Scale, I can change the image size, finger on the shift so the vertical and horizontal remain in proportion, until the cab just fits between the deck and cantrail lines of the worksheet. The loco will be too long for the chassis, so I then drag the marquee in on the horizontal scale to get a comfortable fit. Comparing the cab to the driver, there isn’t enough room to swing a cat, so marquee just the cab and increase the length to a better fit, and then marquee the rest of the loco and shorten to compensate. To finish off, pick out the boiler mountings, chimney and dome, and extend slightly upwards to get the “cute” look. Here’s what you’ve got.  

 

Once you’ve got the idea, you can achieve the same without photoshop, just sketching in free hand. If you met a full size loco built to the sketch, it would be like a foreshortened Welshpool & Llanfair “Earl/Countess” to look at. Then it’s a matter of making a superstructure from the drawing to fit on the chassis. I do mine from brass sheet cut out with tinsnips, and soldered up, but I would imagine plastic sheet could be used, it’s just I prefer brass sheet fo curved surfaces. Here’s a finished job, it must be a works photo, since then the side buffers have been ditched as neither use or ornament on the curves of this line. The other thing which has been done is to add “knobs” where I can, which may scandalise serious modellers

Only just found this - really put a smile on my face as we stay self-isolated. I saw the picture before reading the text and it put me in mind of some Railway Magazine from the 1950s I read with Highland Railway tank engines. Absolutely great! 

 

[Northroader]

There was a shutdown for the Bank Holiday Monday, so I arranged a main line possession, and got the track gang out laying in a new point, then replacing an old point with plain track, and moving a siding around. Here’s “before and after” pictures to show what’s happened.

I’ve decided that with a very restricted layout, the golden rule should be that all sidings have a direct lead straight off the main running line.Before I was having to clear out one of the long sidings to access the spare loco spur, and it made no operational sense at all. 
(sorry, loss of picture)

Edited June 26, 2023 by Northroader

[Northroader]

I have to confess that the layout has got me scratching my head. Having swapped the point in, test running started, with a fair amount of easing the gauge. The two Triang Nellies needed the gauge checking, with wheels moved on axles. They are still a bit iffy, which I’m putting down to pickups.  The Hornby Desmond is a better performer, but there’s no fine control, I’d dearly love to see trains crawl, giving a better sense of what I’m after, but the gearing needs more teeth than it’s got. This leads round to the question what if you make trains that look “cute”, but are poor performers? Taking a realistic view, I suppose it was ambitious to use old chassis that I’d picked up at a second hand collectors fair for a few quid to turn into good runners, and throw in excessively tight curvature as an extra hurdle for them to negotiate.

What to do? Well, I like the small Highland line feel, certainly I want to keep the backscene and Loch Necky Station. The idea of magnetic couplers is something I’m proud of in this thread, that was a useful application. Beyond that, I’m inclined to scrap the 0n16.5 narrow gauge roundy roundy, and transfer the whimsical franchise to an 0 standard gauge to and fro. I’m confident of getting better running, although the chassis price will increase. In my opening preamble, I was promising an increase in romanticism, which will in part diminish, as I think narrow gauge comes supplied with this quality, and I’m afraid I’ve let down the folks who were sitting up saying “goody goody, a narrow gauge line”.

[Nearholmer]

But, but, but ....... the narrow gauge is essential to this!

 

Can’t you acquire or make a decent chassis?

 

Please!!!!

[Northroader]

Well, something like the new Peckett or B4 are reputedly decent performers, but as yet quite dear, and the curves will need easing, and, urgh? I dunno.. Thanks for your heartfelt plea, though.

Edited May 28, 2020 by Northroader

[Donw]

I wonder if a good PWM controller could make those locos behave.  Brian Tilbury's circuit comes to mind as inexpensive and works well.

As for whether you should change it to 0 gauge. I suspect it would be just as costly as buying a new Hornby chassis for 00. I have also seen it said that the later Chinese made Smoky Joe chassis are better than the old ones perhaps a little less bargain basement? That said I have no idea how to tell I could be more difficult than sexing ducklings.

I feel that you only need a couple of locos and a man of your skills could probably knock up  better ones. As to whether you want to carry one with the Whimsical project is up to you. 0 gauge Highland or even a ficticious light railway in that area could be quite attractive but you would need a larger baseboard to fit much bigger curves so it would be a new layout basically.

I can understand your disappointment.

Don

 

[Northroader]

Thanks, Don, I think all the points you raise are valid. It will probably take some time to sort out where to go with this.

[F-UnitMad]

Would wiring in a resistor of some sort to the Hornby chassis help?

I had this issue a few years ago with my Atlas O F-Units; when I replaced the old Roco drives with the modern Atlas 'china drives', giving each loco one motorised truck each, they then ran much too fast compared to my other Atlas locos which had their china drives wired in series to slow them down. This was all with 12v DC, before I started using DCC.

An enquiry (on Western Thunder IIRC) got me the info of exactly which resistors to buy, and it worked a treat. Maybe something similar would help here? No idea myself of what resistors to buy or how to work out the resistance needed, sorry.

[Nearholmer]

I’ve been through all this with my Nellies in connection with my retro-BLT, and the blunt truth is that with the gear ratio and a three-pole motor, Nellie will never run really slowly, even with a good PWM controller, because at a sensible speed the motor is right on the brink of “cogging”.

 

My better Nellie will just about do it, but even then the tiniest factor will stop the motor; the slightly less good Nellie simply won’t, because wear and tear means there is more friction.

 

Can’t we organise a village fete to raise funds for a decent chassis? 

[Stephen 28]

The Chinese made basic Hornby chassis can be spotted due to having blackened wheels and the bodies have nicer decoration. A quick rummage on auction sites shows they appear around the £15 to £20 mark. The Dapol/Hornby ex L&Y pug has a lower geared chassis and they are plentiful second hand.

[Northroader]

I think my Hornby job is a Chinese one, it’s more recent than the two Triang chassis, and is a better runner, but it is still much faster than I would really like to see. My ideal would be engines which really crawl along, though I doubt this would appeal in the mass market. Thanks for the tip about the Pug, I will have to see what is available of the more recent models once our local collectors fair reopens, which I hope will happen once this dreadful virus goes away.

[Barclay]

That Hornby 'silver' motor in their old Caley Pug chassis was very fast. Could you switch out the motor for one of the cheap Chinese cans, such as a Mitsumi ? These are much slower revving motors and very smooth.

[PaulRhB]

The smokey joe chassis are very variable. I found easing the spring clip holding the motor in helped on some as it was so tight it was creating a lot of resistance. Pug or Peckett chassis will go round much sharper radii than the Nellie or smokey joe chassis happily  

[Artless Bodger]

On 01/09/2019 at 21:17, Nearholmer said:

Now time for a flight of whimsy that I've been brewing for a while .........

 

Canals are now mainly for leisure, and people own nicely painted boats to chug up and down them in comfort.

 

Imagine instead a spindly network of 2ft gauge tramways, extending nationwide, upon which people are allowed to operate their own private trains, speed being governed-down to slow-bicycling pace, say 8mph, and all locomotive "motion" being enclosed. Trains are typically a couple of shortish bogie coaches, one the kitchen-diner-lounge, the other a couple of bedrooms and a bicycle store. Motive power is steam, battery-electric, or internal combustion engine, and because the speed is so low the power rating needs only be about 20hp. I think I'd go for a battery electric loco, with "get you home" diesel backup. Liveries would, naturally, be ornate, and a lot of polishing would go on.

 

All the advantages of a camping coach, combined with the mobility and ever-changing scenery typical of a canal holiday.

 

What do you think?

Have just found this thread: ideas for the future when I cannot manage to fumble with N gauge anymore (as someone notably said, 'I've got N gauge tastes but O gauge fingers' or something like that anyway). Having recently discussed change of scale as a future proofing exercise with Head Gardener, I found her remarkably supportive, even suggesting narrow gauge (thinking back to a holiday in north Wales a couple of years ago and visiting Penrhyn Castle). 

 

However, to the point; your whimsy on common user narrow gauge networks (the early standard gauge lines were intended to work like that weren't they?), there are many youtube videos of people with their own runabouts in Europe and the USA that they use on disused or narrow gauge lines, especially in Russia (turf railways). My favourite is this one in Romania as the driver reminds me of one of my old colleagues who was a forever and patch up and bodge merchant especially when it came to his car, and the built in turntable is just pure him; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zeBIxI7n1I

 

 

There is another video in which the vans meet an oncoming steam train - they just pull into a handy spur, let the steamer go past, then back out and continue - no sign of a tablet.

[Northroader]

Thanks for your interest, Mr. Bodger, the video you linked shows the idea of independence on a small railway admirably. I’ve seen another clip of that railway with a steam train, it’s so rural, and during the progress they deal with a derailment like it’s going to happen on every ride. On your clip I like the way hens, dogs, and assorted livestock cross in front of the van as it goes along. Some of the early Plasser track tampers used to have a turntable underneath like that.

Currently I’m up to my ears in trying to sort out standard gauge items on my other thread, but I hope to return to this layout, probably with a thorough going rebuild and up size, and very likely it will become even more whimsified in the process. I think it’s one way of upsizing your models whilst keeping everything really compact, so I fully agree with your thought process. Good luck with your work in the future.

[Northroader]

Just an update, but without any progress, just to add some information on Nellie performance. One capable modeller I watch on RMweb is Jim Read, usually doing 0 scale microlayouts, but currently working on a small 00 line “Brillig”. His most recent post made me sit up, as he was demonstrating the performance of an old Triang Nellie he’s bought. It would appear it’s down to what controller you’re using.

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/155681-brillig-4-oclock-in-the-afternoon-a-might-not-have-been-in-herefordshire-my-2nd-go-at-00/page/2/&tab=comments#comment-4072605

There’s a useful link in there to a good article looking at controller performance, I can’t see me making one, but it does look as if this is how to get what I’m after on the Whimsy line.

https://www.scottpages.net/ReviewOfControllers.html

Edited August 6, 2020 by Northroader

[Nearholmer]

My "good" Nellie runs like that using a Gaugemaster controller but, with the motor cogging like that, the teeny-weeniest interference with current flow will stop it dead, so everything has to be scrupulously clean. 

 

Personally, I don't count it as "truly acceptable", because its all rather "wing and a prayer". 

 

The contemporary Dock Shunter, OTH, I do count as acceptable. Its slightly lower geared, so isn't cogging at very slow speed. Maybe you should create a whimsical Highland tender engine, using a cheap Dock Shunter chassis in the tender as the drive.