Jump to content
 

Standard 4MT 2-6-0


Crepello

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold

Evening,

 

I love the design of the Standard 4 2-6-0, considering it was generated from the Ivatt 'Mucky Duck' which is one of my favourites. Visions of a layout based around Kirkby Stephen utilising one of these loco have been considered, especially with the proposed release of the Ivatt 2MT 2-6-0.

 

However, with this model Farish have certainly made an error with the tender spacing, even with the close coupling, althought the OO version suffers the same problem as well. Comparing it to say an Ixion 'Manor' this is a flaw and detracts from the realism and beautiful lines of this loco. As Coachman has said, people model N gauge to get away from the tighter radius curves. Let's hope some enterprising soul can manufacture a closer coupling

 

I was considering getting one of these with the BR2 tender but am having second thoughts, which is a shame because Farish have produced an excellent loco let down with the poor tender spacing.

 

Cheers.

 

Mark

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Quite right,Colin.

Many people model in N because of a lack of space.And there's nothing wrong with using 'train-set' curves if they are hidden from view.

A layout can have large sweeping curves on the scenic bit,and tight curves hidden away at the ends to form a continuous run.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many people model in N because of a lack of space.And there's nothing wrong with using 'train-set' curves if they are hidden from view.

I agree theres nothing wrong at all with using 'trainset' curves.... But that is precisely why there is a large gap between loco and tender.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Im hoping Farish go on to do the Ivatt 4MT in the future, as well as the standard 3MT mogul, after all there should be a degree of common parts between all three?

As for layout, im basing mine on Bowes.

Seems like a good time to get into N gauge.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for having to use tight curves on my planned layout its a necessity as I want the layout to be indoors, and all I'm allowed is 1/4 of the spare bedroom. Don't want to become a recluse by hiding away in the shed/garage/loft.

I hear you. My plans for a stretch of the GWR carving through the west country landscape has been whittled down to a BLT in sommerset. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

My 4MT's have arrived down under. Ordered last Thurs and arrived today, Wed, 6 days from the UK. Thats a record for me.

 

The testing didn't go very well! Straight out of the box, read the instructions, put it on the track, but it only runs in reverse! Gave it a push, but only moves about 1/2 cm forwards then stops and then a low pitch hum emanates from the tender. All the wheels on the loco are free spinning and are not locking up. Before I package it back up and send back to the UK, can anyone suggest probably cause's and fixes, without voiding the warrantee?

 

The second loco ran fine.

 

Secondly, how do you remove the drawbar b/t the loco + tender to fit the shorter one. I've taken the plastic clip off, but can't see how you can take it of the metal fitting on either the loco or tender without damaging the plastic permanently. Anyone know how to do this?

post-6928-12785374961_thumb.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could it be that there is some flash on the drive gears in the tender which cause it to lock when going forward?

 

I am looking forward to the 2mm association releasing a conversion wheelset pack for this loco some time this year.

 

All the best

 

Wyvern

Link to post
Share on other sites

One weakness of the tender coupling arrangement is that the "wires" can become "sprained" so that when going forward there is enough movement to break the electrical connection. This happened with my Jubliee and was easilly resolved with a gentle squeeze of the pilers on the wires. Would not however explain the hum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben, to check whether something is binding within the drive mechanism remove the two rear screws from under the tender bode then separate it from the tender chassis. As this is part of the process for installing a decoder it will not affect the warranty. Check to see if the metal casting in the tender is making contact with the worm gear by running the loco without the tender body in place.

 

The loco to tender connector has been used in a few Farish locos, and in Bachmann USA outline locos for over 10 years. To remove it put the loco and tender at a 90 degree angle, then twist gently upwards - you should see the wires start to ease over the metal pegs. Try to remove it from the tender first, then the loco. I've yet to damage any locos whilst separating them from the tender.

 

 

Tim

 

Thanks Tim, I took the tender top off. I noticed when handling the tender that I could freely turn the the front 2 axles. Upon further investigation I noticed that a pin that 3rd gear from the end is on was protruding. It appears to be poor quality control as the gear has come off pin.

 

Looks like its back to the shop for this one angry.gif

post-6928-127868238494_thumb.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Err...why not just reinsert the pin?

 

Cheers,

Alan

 

 

I would Alan, but as this is a brand new loco, it shouldn't come like that. It can't be pushed in as the gear has come-off and slipped into the tender-chassis block. To get it out would mean to take out the several other pins and gears arround it. I'd rather not do that to a shiny new loco.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would Alan, but as this is a brand new loco, it shouldn't come like that. It can't be pushed in as the gear has come-off and slipped into the tender-chassis block. To get it out would mean to take out the several other pins and gears arround it. I'd rather not do that to a shiny new loco.

 

It shouldn't be difficult as the chassis looks identical in design to the Jubilee - I've had one of those apart and it was no issue.

 

Of course I agree it should not come like that, but if it was me it I'd have thought it would be simpler to just refit the pin even if the gear next to it needs to be removed to do so - to me it looks like a 5 minute job to get you off and running.

 

Cheers,

Alan

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would Alan, but as this is a brand new loco, it shouldn't come like that. It can't be pushed in as the gear has come-off and slipped into the tender-chassis block. To get it out would mean to take out the several other pins and gears arround it. I'd rather not do that to a shiny new loco.

 

Yep, probably best to send it back. Simply clipping things back on is okay, but having to take it apart to rectify issues is a step too far IMO. Besides that way they get to know about their poor quality control and will be able to do something about it for the future.

 

G.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any reason why steam locos and their tenders couldn't be fitted with the expanding cam coupling arrangement as per recent Dapol coaches? Probably a bit difficult for the modeller to fit but I would havve thought no problem for a manufacturer to build into a new model.

 

As suggested above, a lot of people make use of tight curves offscene to get the most out of the space available, and it's a shame if this forces them to accept loco/tender gaps like this one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any reason why steam locos and their tenders couldn't be fitted with the expanding cam coupling arrangement as per recent Dapol coaches? Probably a bit difficult for the modeller to fit but I would havve thought no problem for a manufacturer to build into a new model.

 

I think it depends on the detail below the footplate. Looking closely there seems to be a vertical plate and the small inter-tender-loco buffers. I'm sure these are part of the reason it can't be closed up much more.

 

Reason I say that is that on my langley Standard 4 I've been able to close the loco-tender gap right up allowing the tender steps and the loco footplate to correctly line up. This is done simply with a standard drawbar (nothing fancy) and care to ensure clearances (small inner section of the tender removed). It'll still negociate 9" curves:

 

post-7627-127884325755_thumb.jpg

 

post-7627-127884327913_thumb.jpg

 

So it can be done......

 

Cheers,

Alan

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it depends on the detail below the footplate. Looking closely there seems to be a vertical plate and the small inter-tender-loco buffers. I'm sure these are part of the reason it can't be closed up much more.

 

Reason I say that is that on my langley Standard 4 I've been able to close the loco-tender gap right up allowing the tender steps and the loco footplate to correctly line up. This is done simply with a standard drawbar (nothing fancy) and care to ensure clearances (small inner section of the tender removed). It'll still negociate 9" curves:

 

So it can be done......

 

Thanks for that Alan. I'd guess people might be prepared to do without those underside details if it allowed the gap to be closed up that much. They're probably invisible at most angles anyway... at least they would be if it weren't for that gap!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree theres nothing wrong at all with using 'trainset' curves.... But that is precisely why there is a large gap between loco and tender.

 

The simple answer would be that perhaps there is a large gap because they either got the maths wrong or had ridiculously large amounts of paranoia about size.

 

The more foresighted answer looking at some other models would be that there is a honking great gap because they didn't use a sensible close coupler mechanism. It's not even tender->loco drive so they ought to be able to do it somewhat more easily than say Dapol can.

 

There are certain areas where radius really is an issue - steps, clearances inside cylinders etc, and those where there is a lot less excuse - inter vehicle gaps - as evidenced by the close coupling on a lot of non Farish models nowdays, and the fact the Germans get 26m 1:160 coaches around 7" curves but almost touching on the straight.

 

Alan

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Well after seeing the photos and the bad story, ive cancelled my order for the 4mt, i hated that gap between the loco and tender!

 

 

Sorry to hear that Paul, but I never got as far as ordering one in the first place for that very reason. The Ixion/Dapol 'spring' method is hardly 'rocket science' so I wonder why they didn't consider that. I'm not prepared to pay good money for a model which offends my eye whenever I see it (same as the first lot of 47s). What a pity because they're basically great models. It's also a pity that Bachmann don't interact with us as Dapol Dave does.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to hear that Paul, but I never got as far as ordering one in the first place for that very reason. The Ixion/Dapol 'spring' method is hardly 'rocket science' so I wonder why they didn't consider that.

Probably because that is itself not ideal being a weak point in the event of a short circuit twix loco and tender. Better would be the loco tender coupling style used by Kato. It could be that the design takes into account not just 9 inch curves but also a train set type gradient commencing at the transition from straight to curve with a corresponding twisting action as well as closure between the loco and tender. The coupling style used is I understand one that Bachmann US have used for a number of years so is probably something of a Kader standard. Suppose the question if Bachmann were to produce some ultra short couplings would many people buy them if made available and would they be able to fit them, suspect in both cases the answer will probably for most be no.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I've quite easily reduced the gap by making my own drawbar simply from plasticard. I closed it up so much that i had to file part of the tender/loco buffers off. i didn't file them off fully because my loco tended to 'crab' when running, the loco and tender aren't parrallel on the track when running. So to rectify this i have attatched part of a farish coupling spring to each buffer which pushes the loco and tender apart and keeps them parrallel to each other when running. I need to test it at the club tommorrow night to see if i can close the gap even further but i'm pretty satisified with the current results, although it may be a case of removing the buffers completely and just glueing the springs directly to the flat face of the tender so the gap can be closed further, obviously if you're loco doesn't 'crab' the buffers can just be cut off completely and a new drawbar made.

 

When i finalise the length of the drawbar i'll epoxy two pieces of wire to take power from the loco pickups to the tender, although the tender pickups alone are very effective. ( however i've only been running on plain track so far, they might struggle on points?)

 

Hopefully these poor quality pics show what im talking about!

post-3341-127897273238_thumb.jpg

post-3341-127897284287_thumb.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

So it can be done! Romley's effort gives a similar gap to the Stanier locos which are fairly acceptable. Well done but I still feel it's unacceptable to have to hack a brand new loco with the obvious risks involved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...