Jump to content
 

Sentinels.


Recommended Posts

I know Ruston has gone in depth into the Hornby Ruston. He is Obi Wan on that subject.
I want to point out that this powerdrive, which is a superb thing, is suited to the industrial Sentinel Locos.
The excellent Hardy's Hobbies do a 3 D body for one variety of Sentinel.
I have got that on order. I hope they can produce a twin power unit locomotive similar to Phyllis, the Sentinel that worked on the Oxfordshire Ironstone line.
Just a thought.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 1whitemoor said:

I would also like a model of Sentinel 9615 of 1956 PHYLLIS. 

 

I have several useful photographs if anyone would like to use them for CAD references. 

 

Paul A. 

AH, there are a few of us then.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure abut the wheelbase - it's probably close enough - but the wheels are definitely too small for a 200 HP Sentinel which is what I think we're talking about. The real thing had 3' wheels (12mm in 4mm scale). Here's my pair of post-war Sentinels. The 200 HP (left) is heavily adapted from the CSP kit for the S&DJR pair while the 100 HP is from the RT Models kit. There are threads on both on here somewhere.

 

Pair.jpg.ac34fb661c6972177ef10dea4dd4b015.jpg

 

Adam

  • Like 8
  • Craftsmanship/clever 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, PenrithBeacon said:

It's not so versatile that the wheelbase matches the Sentinel.

 

Remember that the wheelbase of the real things was adjustable to take up the slack in drive-chain wear so the quoted wheelbase is only 'nominal' anyway.

 

53 minutes ago, Corbs said:

It's close enough for a heathen like me ;)

 

Me too :good_mini:

Edited by Poor Old Bruce
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
49 minutes ago, Adam said:

Not sure abut the wheelbase - it's probably close enough - but the wheels are definitely too small for a 200 HP Sentinel which is what I think we're talking about. The real thing had 3' wheels (12mm in 4mm scale). Here's my pair of post-war Sentinels. The 200 HP (left) is heavily adapted from the CSP kit for the S&DJR pair while the 100 HP is from the RT Models kit. There are threads on both on here somewhere.

 

Adam

 

The 100HP Sentinels had smaller diameter wheels than the 200HP didn't they?  

Listed as 2'6" on this drawing. 

100HP+Loco+%2528Frys+type1%2529.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Poor Old Bruce said:

 

Remember that the wheelbase of the real things was adjustable to take up the slack in drive-chain wear so the quoted wheelbase is only 'nominal' anyway.

 

 

Me too :good_mini:

Standard gauge Sentinel 4'-9", Ruston 5'-3.5" IIRC or 2mm in 4mm scale. I doubt if the slack would get that bad or that the mechanism had that the ability to take up so much slack.

 

The 4'-9" of the Sentinel makes for difficult modelling in EM/P4. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PenrithBeacon said:

Standard gauge Sentinel 4'-9", Ruston 5'-3.5" IIRC or 2mm in 4mm scale. I doubt if the slack would get that bad or that the mechanism had that the ability to take up so much slack.

 

The 4'-9" of the Sentinel makes for difficult modelling in EM/P4. 

 

The 200 HP is a bit longer, though obviously there's a bit of a risk with such a 'square' wheelbase to gauge ratio. I can't speak for P4, but my pair give no trouble at all in EM (and only 1 has a flywheel).

 

Adam

Edited by Adam
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, PenrithBeacon said:

5'-3.5" IIRC or 2mm in 4mm scale

Ahem, 21.17mm?

Or are you referring to the error?

Edited by Regularity
Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate there are scale modellers out there who produce stuff far better than me.
I am, like Corbs, a heathen, I also have an incurable disease, so my modelling time may well be limited.
Hence, the Hornby Ruston is a godsend to me. I can make Impetus Sentinels without endeavouring to make the powerdrive.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, PenrithBeacon said:

Standard gauge Sentinel 4'-9", Ruston 5'-3.5" IIRC or 2mm in 4mm scale. I doubt if the slack would get that bad or that the mechanism had that the ability to take up so much slack.

 

The 4'-9" of the Sentinel makes for difficult modelling in EM/P4. 

 

Fair comment about the amount of slack occurring in the chain but that doesn't stop the Hornby Ruston chassis making life a lot easier for a lot of people. There are worse things in life than the wheelbase of a model 4-wheel loco being a millimetre or two out although I do also appreciate it may well be anathema to others.

 

I see that, so far, nobody has commented on the glaring errors in the dimensions on the drawing posted by Corbs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
8 minutes ago, Poor Old Bruce said:

 

Surely, it's a difference, not an error.

Can be the same thing in technical circles, but the difference between the prototypes becomes an error if the mechanism is used for something which is different.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
8 hours ago, Poor Old Bruce said:

I see that, so far, nobody has commented on the glaring errors in the dimensions on the drawing posted by Corbs.

 

I couldn't get my head around that. Are the 2 and the 5 the wrong way around?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, PenrithBeacon said:

Looking again at this post I'm not sure that 'error' is appropriate as it offers the wrong connotations. Perhaps 'difference' would be better.

Cheers

Well, I introduced the term, and I stand by it: professionally I use the word to denote a difference between what was observed and what was expected, and see nothing pejorative about the word.

If there is a difference between what a dimension should be if modelled exactly to scale and what it actually is, it is an error In accurately depicting said dimension.

Whether that error is erroneous enough to cause the builder consternation is up to them.

Personally speaking, if the error upsets the proportions, I have a problem. I also try - but accept that I sometimes fail - to get within a scale 1” of the prototype if possible, but acknowledge that exact-scale is a nonsense.

I don’t “judge” other modellers by my reference points (if I have to judge, it can only be on the builder’s own terms) but I also don’t have to be interested.

 

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...