Jump to content

Graham_Muz

New tooling - BR Standard 2MT 2-6-0 2MT 78xxx

Recommended Posts

Just out of interest why did they make a 2MT with a tender? Was it simply that they wanted the extra water and coal capacity vs a tank or something else such as axle weight? As I understand it they are almost mechanically identical to the tanks?

Share this post


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

 

So not able to pull the trains it pulled in reality then? I'm pretty sure I've seen a photo of one (or an Ivatt version) deputising on The Cambrian Coast Express. Also they pulled heavy trains over Talerddig and in the North East.

 

Even the preserved examples pull a lot more than five coaches on a regular basis. Often about 8 or 9,

 

I think Hornby know what they are doing. If they release an underpowered model then we will all complain that our models can't pull a reasonable size train.

 

 

 

Jason

Between Machynlleth and Talerdigg the maximum unassisted permitted passenger train load for a 78XXX  was 138 tons (150 tons less than a GW 43XX and 22 tons less than a 2251 0-6-0).  Going on the standard allowance of 30 tons for an 8 wheeled passenger carrying coach or brakevan that means they would only be allowed a maximum of 6 coaches without losing any time in running.  If they were expected to take a heavier train over that section they would have had to be assisted to Talerdigg although from there the limiting figure forward to Oswestry would be 234 tons or to Shrewsbury (via Westbury) 220 tons - in both cases a maximum of 7 x  8 wheeled vehicles.  On the Cambrian coast route north from Dovey Jcn the limiting load northbound was 170 tons (=5 x 8wheelers) and southbound on a through train from Pwllheli it was 140 tons (i.e. 4 x 8 wheelers      The same loads applied for the LMS design engines.  In fact on some WR routes their maximum permitted passenger train load was the same as a 16XX or 74XX tank engine:blink:

 

Obviously it all depended on gradients thus as an extreme example Paddington to Birmingham via Oxford it was 255 tons (=8) in the Down direction but 364 tons (=12) in the Up direction.  Incidentally the 'limiting load' for a through train on any route is the lowest permitted load over any particular section of that route. All of which of course leads to the key question of what is a 'reasonable size train'?   As few modellers go in for main line routes or are unlikely to have room for long trains it is hardly difficult to suggest loads are limited by off-scene gradients so relatively short trains aren't really a problem for the vast majority of modellers and of course in any case many secondary route trains of the sort these engines worked rarely loaded to the maximum permitted load except at certain times of year.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 2

Share this post


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

Just out of interest why did they make a 2MT with a tender? Was it simply that they wanted the extra water and coal capacity vs a tank or something else such as axle weight? As I understand it they are almost mechanically identical to the tanks?

Simple - the tank engine version could only carry 1350 gallons of water and 3 tons of coal while the 78XXX tender could carry 3000 gallons of water and 4 tons of coal.  The tank engine had a maximum axle load of 14 tons while the tender engine had an axle load no greater the 13t 15cwt.  The axle loading difference probably offered fairly limited advantage to the tender engine.  But very importantly, assuming similar rates of consumption, it could run more than twice the distance achieved by the tank engine before it need to take water so was better suited to running over longer distances than the tank engine which made it far better suited for working many of the relatively lightly used longer secondary which existed when they were built.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Simple - the tank engine version could only carry 1350 gallons of water and 3 tons of coal while the 78XXX tender could carry 3000 gallons of water and 4 tons of coal.  The tank engine had a maximum axle load of 14 tons while the tender engine had an axle load no greater the 13t 15cwt.  The axle loading difference probably offered fairly limited advantage to the tender engine.  But very importantly, assuming similar rates of consumption, it could run more than twice the distance achieved by the tank engine before it need to take water so was better suited to running over longer distances than the tank engine which made it far better suited for working many of the relatively lightly used longer secondary which existed when they were built.

 
Hence their use,alongside their contemporary 2 MT “Mickey Mouse” on the Mid Wales line from Moat Lane ....long,slow and isolate.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

Simple - the tank engine version could only carry 1350 gallons of water and 3 tons of coal while the 78XXX tender could carry 3000 gallons of water and 4 tons of coal.  The tank engine had a maximum axle load of 14 tons while the tender engine had an axle load no greater the 13t 15cwt.  The axle loading difference probably offered fairly limited advantage to the tender engine.  But very importantly, assuming similar rates of consumption, it could run more than twice the distance achieved by the tank engine before it need to take water so was better suited to running over longer distances than the tank engine which made it far better suited for working many of the relatively lightly used longer secondary which existed when they were built.

 

Cheers I thought it would be the capacity rather than axle weight but I did think there would be an advantage there too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So back to my earlier point, and recent discussion and evidence submitted, it would appear that making it capable of hauling 13-15 coaches as will be possible with a heavy diecast body is a tad OTT then?

 

I like to know a locomotive is capable of hauling prototypical loads, hence why I'd mentioned adding a little weight to the 8P Pacifics I own, but a 2MT shouldn't be able to compete with them - should be more prototypical.

 

People criticise the Ivatt 2MT from Bachmann, but accepted that it has no axle 'bearings', it still runs well and can haul prototypical loads.

The pending Hornby model does look like it'll be a bit special nevertheless.

 

Al.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, atom3624 said:

So back to my earlier point, and recent discussion and evidence submitted, it would appear that making it capable of hauling 13-15 coaches as will be possible with a heavy diecast body is a tad OTT then?

 

I like to know a locomotive is capable of hauling prototypical loads, hence why I'd mentioned adding a little weight to the 8P Pacifics I own, but a 2MT shouldn't be able to compete with them - should be more prototypical.

 

People criticise the Ivatt 2MT from Bachmann, but accepted that it has no axle 'bearings', it still runs well and can haul prototypical loads.

The pending Hornby model does look like it'll be a bit special nevertheless.

 

Al.

 

Nope. It's only you banging on about it because you think it'll be cheaper if it's made of plastic and to lower standards. Trust me it won't be.

 

We want quality models that run well. Never heard anyone complaining that a model is made of metal before....

 

What about us that use metal kit built coaches rather than lightweight plastic things? I would like a model locomotive that would at least be able to move them. Not struggle pulling the skin off a rice pudding.

 

 

An old saying - Why spoil the ship for an ha'porth of tar?

 

 

 

Jason

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A tad harsh!!

 

I'm not 'complaining', simply raising a discussion point.

 

If Hornby are setting the precedent of presenting higher quality models in high definition cast metal, then it's great, but with the intention to continue with the larger models as well?

I hope so.

 

It simply would look strange that there's an 8-coach train - metal-bodied (your call) or not - which cannot be hauled continuously around a 'rolling' (with partial inclines perhaps) high detail model railway loop, which requires .... unhitching the 8P and connecting the 2P to haul them ... doesn't make sense.

 

I think perhaps some attention should be drawn towards prototypical drawbar pull.

As many will also confirm, there is no problem in moulding in plastic - it's easier to mould / cast to even higher detail than metal, so it's certainly not to be considered '2nd rate'. as implied.

 

Cast in metal - bring it on - sounds a great initiative.

Continue with the 8P's as well - with higher performing motors perhaps.

 

There's a limited edition Duchess for the 100th celebrations.

How about this being a precursor for Duchesses, streamlined Coronations, A4's, MN's, the forthcoming A2/2 ... that would be quite a coup ... but ... would there be the market?

 

Perhaps this is the other 'risk' / initiative of Hornby?

 

"Let's see if people are prepared to pay a little more for the extra 'quality', traction, performance, etc" ... "if they are, then we'll consider a 'Super Series' of metal-bodied locomotives" ... who knows?

 

Al.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I may come in here, I have done 2 locos using metal bodies from ex kit locos ( a V2 & A3 both on Hornby chassis ).

 

Before I fitted the metal bodies, the 2 locos even coupled together as if to represent flying scotsman and green arrow running together in the 80s would struggle to haul 10 Hornby mk1 coaches.

 

Now, 3 years after I tried that experiment, each loco running on their own will easily haul 9 to 12 Bachmann mk1 coaches.  Admittedly they struggle a bit if my track is a bit mucky but they can do it.  Before the metal bodies were fitted, the locos running individually would just about move 5 or 6 Hornby mk1d or 4 Bachmann mk1s.

 

So given this result, I would certainly say there is something to be said for both Bachmann and Hornby producing locos of all classes with metal bodies.

 

Before anybody comes down on mre like a ton of bricks I also add here that I accept the point that yes prices would rise, but there is a case for metal bodied locos ( either kit built OR a Hornby loco chassis with metal body fitted.

 

I have a plastic bodied GWR 2-8-0 which I converted to a loco drive back in 2005 which struggles to move a coal train of just 14 x 4 wheel wagons + brake van, but if I put a weight ( 240 grams ) on top of the loco from an old Lima class 33, the 2-8-0 hauls the train with ease and will then haul upto another 9 to 15 wagons making nearly 30 in total.

 

Hope this helps

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I contend that most RTR steam outline locomotives are not capable of hauling realistic loads at realistic speeds up realistic gradients because they are far too light, and plastic bodies don't help, but other than this I don't see any particular advantage or disadvantage between plastic, etched brass, or diecast bodies; modern die cast can be very finely detailed and a long way from Hornby Dublo crudity.  I habitually cram as much ballast weight above the driving axles as I can into all my locos, and in each case have been rewarded by better haulage, better pickup performance, and better running overall.  The problem is that the area above the driving axles is usually where the motor and transmission are and there is a limit to how much you can get in, and this will be even less in the case of a DCC loco.

 

Another issue with replicating prototype haulage performance with RTR steam outline is that, with very few exceptions, we cannot reproduce scale radius curves and the drag of the train is considerably proportionally increased by the sharp curves we must perforce employ.  14 coach expresses at a scale 90mph, or 60 wagon freights at 45mph, are big asks for the small motor required to preserve clear space beneath boilers and to enable them and the gears to be hidden as well.  A loco with full compensation will always be able to deliver power to the railhead more efficiently, and other things being equal will always outperform a rigid or semi-sprung RTR loco in terms of haulage, but the cost of assembling such a loco would no doubt be prohibitive.

 

The Ivatt mogul's draughting was modified at Swindon in 1950 by Sam Ell following complaints from Mid Wales line drivers that the locos could not steam as well as the Dean Goods they replaced, and I assume but do not know for a fact that the modifications were incorporated into the BR versions.  The Ivatt hauled a 20 coach Swindon test train at 60mph, a very creditable performance for such a small thing.  Maybe it is a bit of a stretch to demand that a Bachmann Ivatt or the new Hornby 78xxx can match such a performance; just pointing out that there is a prototype precedent...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 2MT looks great with diecast zinc alloy boiler and other metal parts. It joins the Hornby J36, Drummond 700, B12 and Schools class which, AFAIK, have metal boilers.

 

Quite a few Marklin-Trix models use plastic cabs attached to metal chassis and boilers and it's a proven techique and a sound choice by Hornby.

 

It's not a new trend though, Brawa have been using Chinese made metal bodies for many locos for 20+ years, including my BR06 steamer which comes in at a hefty 826g with tender.  If Hornby make a metal A4 I'll be first in line...

2mt_es_2.jpg

2mt_es_4.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, maico said:

.  If Hornby make a metal A4 I'll be first in line...

 

 


your wish has been granted already, just not by Hornby, it also comes with an optional extra for those wanting more haulage capability,...


I plan to have a Hornby metal Duchess join it soon though.

Edited by adb968008
  • Like 1

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.