Jump to content
 

Mainline class 43XX GWR Mogul surprise


GWR-fan
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 19/02/2020 at 04:17, GWR-fan said:

 Two of my Bachmann 43XX locomotives run with a terrible waddle only tamed by hauling a sizeable load.

 

If these are Bachmann 43xx and not Mainline, it may be worth considering obtaining replacement wheelsets from ekmexhibitions.co.uk - they have them available as spares at a very reasonable £6/set. Also for the Bachmann split-chassis Manor for a little less and Standard 4MT for quite a lot more. However they do explicitly state that these wheelsets are NOT suitable for the equivalent Mainline models. They also have replacement motors for Bachmann split chassis models. Replacement wheelsets from EKM last year cured my waddling '8750' pannier and sorted a pre-owned 4-axle drive Class 37 which arrived with smaller wheels on the driven axles than the non-driven which looked a bit strange, both at reasonable cost; so I pass this info on as a satisfied customer (who is even now eyeing up a few more required bits.........:) )

 

I bought a Mainline Class 03 when they were first released in 1983 and the wheelset fell apart in the box, before I even got to use it! No prizes for guessing it ended up on a Bachmann chassis.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Be vary careful with a Mainline Manor .

 

Mine which I have owned from new had developed Mazak rot in one half of the split chassis, and would not move at all.

 

It was a very major task to correct, requiring me to machine up an entirely new chassis half.

 

Thankfully it runs superbly now, but rather a lot of effort to get there...!

 

 

 

IMG_6578D.jpeg

IMG_6623.jpeg

IMG_6580D.jpeg

  • Like 1
  • Craftsmanship/clever 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Re the Mainline mogul, I am a bit puzzled about the references to the bodies accuracy.

I have a new Dapol mogul, and a very old Mainline one.   Having read the comments over the years , I have carefully compared both models, with scale drawings . I can find little or nothing wrong with the Mainline body, apart from undersize cab front windows and lack of some detail.   

I have checked and compared measurements of both, and some detail.  I cannot for the life of me see anything out of proportion on the old Mainline model. 

What is it that I am missing ???????  Unless of course the Dapol model is also wildly inaccurate and or my drawings are wrong. 

Also compared to the dozens of photos I have looked at, both models look excellent to me.

 

Rob

Link to post
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, RobMG said:

Re the Mainline mogul, I am a bit puzzled about the references to the bodies accuracy.

I have a new Dapol mogul, and a very old Mainline one.   Having read the comments over the years , I have carefully compared both models, with scale drawings . I can find little or nothing wrong with the Mainline body, apart from undersize cab front windows and lack of some detail.   

I have checked and compared measurements of both, and some detail.  I cannot for the life of me see anything out of proportion on the old Mainline model. 

What is it that I am missing ???????  Unless of course the Dapol model is also wildly inaccurate and or my drawings are wrong. 

Also compared to the dozens of photos I have looked at, both models look excellent to me.

 

Rob

The Mainline Moguls were very nice models in their day. I have a Churchward version with the cab cut out and lever reverse and a Collett version with cab side windows and screw reverse. The Collett even depicts the 1½ ton chunk of metal behind the buffer beam which was added to try to improve the tracking. All very nicely observed and executed. I have to admit that performance is a bit noisy even after careful servicing and, of course, it wouldn’t be easy to add a decoder and speaker. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, No Decorum said:

The Mainline Moguls were very nice models in their day. I have a Churchward version with the cab cut out and lever reverse and a Collett version with cab side windows and screw reverse. The Collett even depicts the 1½ ton chunk of metal behind the buffer beam which was added to try to improve the tracking. All very nicely observed and executed. I have to admit that performance is a bit noisy even after careful servicing and, of course, it wouldn’t be easy to add a decoder and speaker. 

I have built a new chassis and added all the missing details including a new backhead reverser etc.  New chimney , safety valve, cab handrails, aws conduit , etc etc.   it compares well with the new Dapol model. 

The tender also has had the works.  new mainframes, wheels, and all other details. All moulded coal removed, and coal space rebuilt.  getting near to repainting... 

i'm not bothered with decoders etc....

 

Rob

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I do not have the Mainline Mogul but I do have a Bachmann split chassis model.  The loco has had the chimney and valve cover replaced with brass fittings.  I can't recall where I got them from but they look the part.  A fall plate and wire handrails are fitted and Comet cylinder covers fitted.  Tender wise the Bachmann chassis is replaced with a Mainly Trains unit and scale wheels fitted and the real coal is in the tender.  Sound is fitted with the speaker in the tender and decoder in the loco and importantly it is a good runner.  I also have the sound fitted Dapol mogul, great model that needs weathering.

 

MikeIMG_20210423_193225915.jpg.831c77e4fabea638e07a45c9ae0f942b.jpg

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I have 3 of these locos - 2 Mainline, 1 Bachman and a fourth which requires a left hand cylinder (anybody got one?) They have all suffered from split chassis problems at times. However careful cleaning and servicing and NEVER pushing the loco manually keeps them going. The Mainline ones with traction tyres are particularly prone to go out of quarter if pushed. The split axle causes them to act like a differential which locos don't have! Clean and reassemble the axle in quarter with a very little superglue in them. It helps a lot. Someone at Bachman servicing gave me that tip. As for dcc and sound, I have successfully fitted decoders in all of them with sound in the Bachman. I never fit speakers in the tender of a loco. I never heard a tender chuff. It is possible but you have to do some modelling and not expect it to work 5 minutes after taking it out of the box. FSB

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
  • Round of applause 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • RMweb Gold
On 22/03/2021 at 19:49, 97xx said:

Be vary careful with a Mainline Manor .

 

Mine which I have owned from new had developed Mazak rot in one half of the split chassis, and would not move at all.

 

It was a very major task to correct, requiring me to machine up an entirely new chassis half.

 

Thankfully it runs superbly now, but rather a lot of effort to get there...!

 

 

 

IMG_6578D.jpeg

IMG_6623.jpeg

IMG_6580D.jpeg

That is a very neat job indeed. I assume that you've done it in steel?  Nice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, tomparryharry said:

That is a very neat job indeed. I assume that you've done it in steel?  Nice.

Thank you, but no, all aluminium.  Why?

(a) Much easier to machine (major factor!)

(b) More compatible - coefficient of expansion close to Mazak, versus steel which is only one third (a convenient answer!)

(c) Rules out corrosion as my stock is stored, although if I had used steel, I would have chemically blackened it.

 

Brass would have been another option. When I use that I do quite like it as for chassis work again I chemically blacken it which means no priming (and scratching through to it afterwards), no thickness of paint and a rather realistic 'metal' look - see the brass/nickel silver combination below - all blackened, not painted.

 

 

IMG_7458.JPG

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
49 minutes ago, 97xx said:

Thank you, but no, all aluminium.  Why?

(a) Much easier to machine (major factor!)

(b) More compatible - coefficient of expansion close to Mazak, versus steel which is only one third (a convenient answer!)

(c) Rules out corrosion as my stock is stored, although if I had used steel, I would have chemically blackened it.

 

Brass would have been another option. When I use that I do quite like it as for chassis work again I chemically blacken it which means no priming (and scratching through to it afterwards), no thickness of paint and a rather realistic 'metal' look - see the brass/nickel silver combination below - all blackened, not painted.

 

 

IMG_7458.JPG

The Q1 looks good. What grade Aluminium did you use?  I assumed steel because of how it looked post machine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/03/2021 at 16:34, The Johnster said:

I believe a fundamental drawback of the Mainline 43xx is that the firebox is misshapen to accommodate the pancake motor, and as a result the Dapol tooling is considerably superior.  This would be particularly apparent if there were other, more accurate, locos with no.4 boilers working alongside a Mainline mogul, such as Bachmann 'City' or Hornby 42/52/72xx.  That said, I had a Mainline 43xx back in the day and was happy enough with it until the chassis gave out.  I removed the traction tyres, which improved pickup and slow running considerably. 

 

The ML pancakes were hopeless, and the nylon gear train inefficient and unreliable.  I was much influenced in the 70s and 80s by Ian Pemberton's locos, split chassis and Portescap/RG4 drive, and applauded ML's approach when it was introduced.  I still think that wiper pickup works despite itself, and that split chassis current collection is the right way to go for steam outline models, but now accept that Mainline's chassis were deeply faulted; not by design, but by materials chosen to keep costs down.  They could and should have been a lot better, and the body toolings were by and large very good, up to current standards in many aspects and they can be easily worked up with lamp brackets, cab glazing, and other details to equal current standards completely.  But the 43xx is flawed as a scale model.

 

I am considering kitbashing a Collett 1938 31xx large prairie, which had a no.4 boiler and 5'3" driving wheels, and have been looking at ways of achieving this (not done anything yet!).  An ML 43xx might have been a useful starting point for the body, but I now think a Hornby 42xx is the way to go, or perhaps Kitmaster CoT for the basic shape of the boiler/firebox.  It is easy to be seduced by Churchward's use of standard parts into thinking any Churchwardian loco can be cobbled up from bits of any other Churchwardian loco, but different driving wheel diameters mean that the boilers sit at different heights, and this affects the set of the cylinders, the height of the running plates, and the shape of the cabs as well.  Smaller wheeled GW tank locos have high arched roofs  All GW locos are the same except when they are different...

I was also led to believe the story about the Mainline firebox shape too.

So when I bought the Dapol mogul I measured everything to check.  Well I have to say I was unable to find an appreciable difference. So either both models are wrong or the Mainline model isn't so bad. 

I then had a search for drawings, and found a couple of pretty good ones.   I really don't believe there is much wrong with the mainline model. Except of course the chassis. I have built a comet chassis for mine.  

All in all I am happy with the ML.   The cab windows are too small . I don't know if I will alter them, but I might.  I have made a new back head, that improves it, and I've fitted wire handrails where there were moulded ones.  

I will post some pictures one day....  Always a faf on here...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
31 minutes ago, RobMG said:

I was also led to believe the story about the Mainline firebox shape too.

So when I bought the Dapol mogul I measured everything to check.  Well I have to say I was unable to find an appreciable difference. So either both models are wrong or the Mainline model isn't so bad. 

I then had a search for drawings, and found a couple of pretty good ones.   I really don't believe there is much wrong with the mainline model. Except of course the chassis. I have built a comet chassis for mine.  

All in all I am happy with the ML.   The cab windows are too small . I don't know if I will alter them, but I might.  I have made a new back head, that improves it, and I've fitted wire handrails where there were moulded ones.  

I will post some pictures one day....  Always a faf on here...

Same here

There were plenty of tales of how inaccurate the Mainline model is but it doesn't wash if you measure it.

I too compared it to the Dapol one and they are pretty close.

 

I have a Comet chassis, Markits wheels & Mashima motor under my Mainline body and use a later Bachmann tender with more modern wheels, on which I have pickups and fitted a DCC decoder in the tender.  Runs nicely if a little on the slow side (50mph scale max)

 

Both halves of the original Mainline chassis were badly warped by mazak pest (wheels were OK) and with such a puny motor it had to go.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The RTR GWR model with the oversized firebox?

 

It was the Lima 4575 Prairie. There was an article in Railway Modeller on how to lower it (and ISTR other magazines did similar articles such as Scale Trains).

 

It was about a scale foot too high (4mm). Easily solved if you were into plastic surgery. Even easier if you wanted to convert it to a 45XX as you could cut away the tank sides from the top rather the bottom.

 

Nowadays you would just buy a Bachmann one, but back then it was either the Lima model or build the K's kit.

 

 

Jason

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

The RTR GWR model with the oversized firebox?

 

It was the Lima 4575 Prairie. There was an article in Railway Modeller on how to lower it (and ISTR other magazines did similar articles such as Scale Trains).

 

Jason

Was there anything right with those?

I bought one and after looking at it carefully some time later decided to sell it on.:yes:

Compared to the Mainline GWR stuff it looked below par.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Was there anything right with those?

I bought one and after looking at it carefully some time later decided to sell it on.:yes:

Compared to the Mainline GWR stuff it looked below par.

 

Far better than most of what Hornby was making at the time. It was 1978 after all.

 

They actually detailed alright with a bit of effort. They made it too high in the firebox area which also raised the tank and bunker sides. It was so there wasn't a motor taking up the entire cab. I don't really know why they did it as it wasn't really necessary (apart from fitting the big heavy weight).

 

If you cut along the footplate and removed a few millimetres it was much better. Obviously you need to do the same at the smokebox end.

 

Or if you were doing a 45XX, you cut along the top of the tank side and mid way up the bunker by the cab doors. As I said there was quite a few articles on detailing them as well as a couple of Crownline kits.

 

image.png.160ff1cbe50fe7f4f0ba883a8d0bc0bc.png

https://www.hattons.co.uk/14628/lima_l205111_class_45xx_2_6_2t_4589_in_gwr_green/stockdetail.aspx

 

 

 

Jason

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, tomparryharry said:

The Q1 looks good. What grade Aluminium did you use?  I assumed steel because of how it looked post machine.

 

That I don't know I'm afraid as I milled it up from my scrap box. If I were to guess based on where it all came from, possibly 6082. As I'm very much a hobbyist machinist, as opposed to a model engineer I don't usually need to worry about grade and tend towards most machinable grades. The only real exception being where I need to use silver steel.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
9 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Far better than most of what Hornby was making at the time. It was 1978 after all.

 

They actually detailed alright with a bit of effort. They made it too high in the firebox area which also raised the tank and bunker sides. It was so there wasn't a motor taking up the entire cab. I don't really know why they did it as it wasn't really necessary (apart from fitting the big heavy weight).

 

If you cut along the footplate and removed a few millimetres it was much better. Obviously you need to do the same at the smokebox end.

 

Or if you were doing a 45XX, you cut along the top of the tank side and mid way up the bunker by the cab doors. As I said there was quite a few articles on detailing them as well as a couple of Crownline kits.

 

image.png.160ff1cbe50fe7f4f0ba883a8d0bc0bc.png

https://www.hattons.co.uk/14628/lima_l205111_class_45xx_2_6_2t_4589_in_gwr_green/stockdetail.aspx

 

 

 

Jason

But Hornby weren't the only kid in town.

It just doesn't look right amongst the Mainline & Airfix offerings, the proportions & shape makes it look like the wheels are undersize.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, melmerby said:

But Hornby weren't the only kid in town.

It just doesn't look right amongst the Mainline & Airfix offerings, the proportions & shape makes it look like the wheels are undersize.

 

It was a crossover period where much better locos were starting to be produced, but some still had to take the odd liberty to fit the mechanisms that were available. When it came out it was an improvement on what went on before, but like all things improvements in design and production methods came along quickly

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, melmerby said:

But Hornby weren't the only kid in town.

It just doesn't look right amongst the Mainline & Airfix offerings, the proportions & shape makes it look like the wheels are undersize.

 

But what were you supposed to run on your perfectly made GWR BLT? Which is after all what about 80% of people had looking at magazines at the time....

 

There was only the 14XX otherwise and a rare as hens teeth autotrailer.

 

Wheels undersize? I don't think they were as Lima did have the large flanges that made them look bigger. The real ones are only 4' 7".

 

 

Jason

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
28 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

But what were you supposed to run on your perfectly made GWR BLT? Which is after all what about 80% of people had looking at magazines at the time....

 

There was only the 14XX otherwise and a rare as hens teeth autotrailer.

 

Wheels undersize? I don't think they were as Lima did have the large flanges that made them look bigger. The real ones are only 4' 7".

 

 

Jason

Well. I did buy one but I just didn't like it and sold it on after a while.

The wheels AFAIK were about the right size but the overhigh body makes them look too small.

 

I bought two Airfix trailers, one in the blue box and later one in a GMR box, I don't remember them being rare.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, melmerby said:

Well. I did buy one but I just didn't like it and sold it on after a while.

The wheels AFAIK were about the right size but the overhigh body makes them look too small.

 

I bought two Airfix trailers, one in the blue box and later one in a GMR box, I don't remember them being rare.

 

I mean in reality. There was only ten of that diagram A33 numbers 187 to 196.

 

 

Jason

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

One forgets now that this period was marked by a market imperative to provide steam outline models that showed the correct boiler shape and visible 'daylight' below the boilers, as opposed to the previous RTR norm from Hornby Dublo, Triang, and Trix where motors and gears were hidden by non-prototypical 'skirts' below the boilers.  Lima produced some truly horrible steam chassis and mechs at the time, and compared to the abomination that lived beneath the J50 and 94xx this one isn't too bad.  Concurrent offerings from Mainline and Airfix had brake and other detail on the chassis, though, and even Triang Hornby were starting to provide this.

 

The Lima pancake motor, a standard type to keep costs down, was a big beastie, and in order to preserve at least some daylight through the cab and to sit above the rear driven axle where they wanted it, had to be accommodated between the cab and the firebox, which had to be raised by about a scale foot to do this.  This mucks up the general proportions of the model, accentuating what is already a bit of a sit-up-and-beg look.  Apart from this the Lima 4575 is not bad for 1978, and not bad for Lima, but these two 'not bads' are enough to compromise the model, probably fatally for most people.

 

The correct proportions can be attained as per Southport Jason's method by trimming the lower edge of the tank/boiler/smokebox/cab'bunker piece, which is conveniently separate from the running plate piece. but one is then left with the problem of re-motoring a plastic chassis block.  This varies in difficulty according to how much work you want to put in; a basic work around would be to chop the chassis to accept a smaller pancake or transversly mounted can motor to drive the initial gear stage within the confines of the now lowered firebox, but one still has no cab detail, a visible final drive cog on one side, no chassis detail, and all the other shortcomings of the model to deal with, not least of which is the poor slow running.  If one assumes that the cab needs to be detailed and clear of motor intrusion, though, a much more complete rebuild is needed and we are getting in to new chassis territory, and have not yet addressed the lack of detail or the vacuum pump linkage, not worth the effort for such a basic entry level loco, especially after the introduction of Bachmanns' small prairies.

 

I wonder if enough can be shaved off the inside of the firebox top and the plastic motor housing to 'get away' with it, but as I have never heard of this fairly obvious dodge being done, I assume it is not feasible.

 

Cost may be a consideration, as Lima 4575s are much cheaper than Bachmanns on the Bay of e, but my view is that the amount of work needed to bring them up to scratch is excessive.  It might be acceptable if one already has a spare Bachmann chassis and mech without a body, but I cannot imagine any other set of circumstances that would apply.  Don't forget there is also detailing work to be done; better buffers, lamp irons, handrails, new chimney without copper cap, cab details and such.  A LIma 4575 can be made into an acceptable layout model, but it's probably worth shelling out the extra for a Bachmann, which is not far off perfect, well detailed and finished, and a good runner as it comes.

 

I don't recall auto trailers being rare at the time, or B sets; common as muck and cheap as chips for many years.  The Airfix auto trailer was numbered to represent the A28 and A30 diagrams, but I have always regarded them as A30s; fortunately for me, Tondu had several of these between 1955 and 60.  They are still acceptable as layout models and respond well to working up.

 

Airfix had introduced their 14xx and these coaches on the back of the popularity of GW BLTs, which had blossomed during the 60s and earlier 70s using K's locos.  Some of these layouts were very good but a good number were pretty average in standard; the new Airfix stock rapidly swept the market, with a plethora of layouts featuring 61xx and B sets, an unusual formation on real GW branches.  The Airfix 14xx developed it's own problems but when new ran much better than most kit built 14xx.  Airfix and Mainline introduced a new and much higher standard of RTR locos and stock, and while it shows it's age nowadays, it was the progenitor of current hi-fi RTR, and some of it can be worked up into decent layout models, which returns us neatly to the original point of the thread and means that I can claim that this post is not OT.  The main advance came with the return to something like traditional mechanisms, but featuring can motors driving via idler gears; these give better power and slow running than the pancakes while maintaining free space in the cabs and beneath the boilers, pioneered by Bachmann and taken up by Hornby. 

Edited by The Johnster
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
32 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

I mean in reality. There was only ten of that diagram A33 numbers 187 to 196.

 

 

Jason

Name a GWR era trailer that was available in quantity.

 

Twelve is about the most of any one diagram.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people are misreading me. I meant the autotrailers were rare. Not the models...  :)

 

 

There were 95 48XX and non fitted 58XX 0-4-2Ts. Add in all the other fitted locos such as 54XX, 64XX, 517, etc.

 

There were 256 autotrailers many of which were BR built or conversions. Most were nothing like the AIrfix model.

 

The 14XX and autotrailer running up and down a branch line was rare and a bit of a cliche.

 

 

Jason

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Plenty of photos of autotrains on branches and if you want such a thing you have to start somewhere.

The 48XX plus Collett era trailer is as good as any.

Equally you could have picked another loco and another trailer diagram and the same argument could be used.

 

There were at least another 100 autotrailers, not numbered in the "normal" autotrailer 1-256 batch

And whatever autotrailer you pick, the majority aren't like it because most are small batches in quantities of 1-12, dissimilar to other vehicles.

  • Agree 1
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...