Jump to content
 

Mystery 4mm loco chassis etch - any ID ideas please?


MarkC
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hello all.

 

The etch seen in the accompanying photo came in an eBay purchase. It's not from the kit I bought, but I'm puzzled as to what it might be for. There are no coupling rods, but there are some connecting rods that look NER style at first glance.

 

Any ideas please?

 

Cheers,

Mark

20200924_110344.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

No idea.  Thought at first glance it might be for an 0-4-4T, as the coupled axle spacing on the main side frames (if that’s what they are; the biggest bits anyway) looks too short for the ‘standard’ British 4-4-0 with the trailing axle aft of the firebox.  The connecting rods would thus be coupling rods, and they do look to be the right size for the axle spacing.  
 

But it’s less obvious when you look closely.  The coupling rods are actually connecting rods; must be because they’re tapered to be thicker at the big end.  There’s a sort of sub frame with springs for one axle and a cut out in the main frames presumably to accommodate that and what I think might be another axle.  I think it’s an 0-4-4T or possibly an 0-6-2T, but it could be a 4-2-2 single, and if it is there are very few outside cylindered inside framed candidates apart from the GNR Stirling. 
 

But the Stirling Single had a plain connecting rod and this, whatever it is, is fluted.  They could be intended to be used the other way around of course and we are looking at the rear of them, but why bother to machine them fluted?  it wold explain the frame shaping, though.

 

I like this sort of detective game, but I’m carp at it.  I agree with 34 that the chassis is designed to take an open framed motor, but an Anchorage would be more likely the recommended for a brass chassis in those days.  Perseverance?


 

 

Edited by The Johnster
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi gents. Thanks for the suggestions so far.

 

Yes, the rods are definitely tapered, and the etch itself is quite thick, so I do hesitate to think that it's a Perseverance offering, but one never knows.

 

The mystery continues...

 

Mark

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

Looking at the bottom left of the fret there appears to be the arm for the pony wheel. Looking at the size of it it looks like it could only take a single wheel. So perhaps it could be a 2-4-0 or 0-4-2 chassis. Or as suggested an 0-6-2 or 2-6-0 where the 1st or 3rd depending on what way you look at it may be fitted separately with some form of compensation bearing added to the chassis. If you look to the top right you can see where there is a separate etch that has leaf springs and axle holes for bearings similar to those for the main wheels on the bigger chassis etch. It makes it look more like it is an 0-6-2/2-6-0 as I mentioned. Looking at the pieces you have here it seems that part of the etch is missing. I think that may have held the missing connecting rods as it appears to be the right size.

Edited by cypherman
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, cypherman said:

...Looking at the bottom left of the fret there appears to be the arm for the pony wheel...

Good spot, and there's more arising from that. At the left end there are what look to be lifeguards to be bent down, and I reckon if this is a 4mm scale kit the gauge would be 12mm.

 

Isle of Man 2-4-0T?

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MarkC said:

It was a Little Engines A7 kit - been in the roundtuit pile for about 4 years :)

 

Mark

 

Funnily enough I was thinking Little Engines as I have a D11. But just checked and it has Little Engines etched on it and is different anyway.

 

The main reason I asked is people generally buy things from the same railway.

 

 

 

Jason

Link to post
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, MarkC said:

Hello all.

 

The etch seen in the accompanying photo came in an eBay purchase. It's not from the kit I bought, but I'm puzzled as to what it might be for. There are no coupling rods, but there are some connecting rods that look NER style at first glance.

 

Any ideas please?

 

Cheers,

Mark

20200924_110344.jpg

 

 

Is this a tender loco ? bottom right item looks like some form of coupling with the same diameter hole as the bogie

 

Am I correct in thinking its a fold up chassis, might be worth folding it up

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hayfield said:

 

 

Is this a tender loco ? bottom right item looks like some form of coupling with the same diameter hole as the bogie

 

Am I correct in thinking its a fold up chassis, might be worth folding it up

Hi John.

 

Thanks for joining in.

 

I have absolutely no idea what it is.

 

Folding the main piece up? That might be a good idea. It does seem to have folk at a loss...

 

Cheers,

Mark

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hayfield said:

Is this a tender loco ? bottom right item looks like some form of coupling with the same diameter hole as the bogie...

I wondered about that, but this component is very long in proportion to the other dimensions. I have something of an idee fixe now, that this must be something narrow gauge.

 

What with the missing parts, we'll probably only get an answer if the one person on here who built 'whatever' from this kit shows up and recognises it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if it might be an Atlantic?  The coupling at lower right could be for a 4 leading wheel bogie. The two curved cutouts at the right of the chassis etch could be clearance for the bogie wheels, with the smaller two wheel bogie attached at the left hand end of the chassis.

Is it possible to measure where the connecting rods would put the cylinders , based on either driving axle?

Edited by Bucket of Steam
Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Bucket of Steam said:

I wonder if it might be an Atlantic?  ...

If it were for a 4mm Atlantic, then the roughly 7' spacing of the two driven axle locations probably limits the field to the GNR large and small (LNER C1 and C2) and the LBSCR H1 and H2; which actually had 6'10" spacing for a miniscule gap between the flanges when on new tyres in the case of the GNR locos, and I believe the LBSCR were the same, but have never looked at a drawing.

 

However, the connecting rods are about 30% short for these classes, not that this totally dismisses the idea: anybody else had seriously incorrectly dimensioned parts in an early etched kit? Thought so...

Link to post
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

If it were for a 4mm Atlantic, then the roughly 7' spacing of the two driven axle locations probably limits the field to the GNR large and small (LNER C1 and C2) and the LBSCR H1 and H2; which actually had 6'10" spacing for a miniscule gap between the flanges when on new tyres in the case of the GNR locos, and I believe the LBSCR were the same, but have never looked at a drawing.

 

However, the connecting rods are about 30% short for these classes, not that this totally dismisses the idea: anybody else had seriously incorrectly dimensioned parts in an early etched kit? Thought so...

I had an early etched kit where the coupling rods didn't match the chassis by at least a millimetre. I didn't notice until I tried quartering the wheels and wondered why the coupling rods wouldn't fit. i seem to recall it was an Armstrong Goods.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think an Atlantic is a good shout. What of the Raven class Z or Wordsell 4CC Atlantics? The connecting rods would sit just about right for something like these.

 

But then I might be barking up too big a tree. When I look at the fold up piece which looks like its for a trailing wheelset, it looks to me like there is a fold up tab intended for a coupler mount and much of the etching for the leading pony is missing...So perhaps safe to say its something a bit smaller? For instance the LSWR 415 or LTSR 51 classes. I think the driver spacing might be a bit tight for these particular two, but there are plenty of small Atlantic tanks to choose from, and the connecting rods help exclude a fair few.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

If that is the entire etch then it is definitely a four coupled loco.

 

However, it looks as if it's been trimmed and there are bits missing.  There is definitely a trailing truck and the second fold over section would appear to be for another set of driving wheels as the springs would all match.

 

The distance between the end of the etch and the first axle hole would suggest an 0-6-?

 

The etch folds up to form a U shape, so the incline of frame would suggest a motor laid along this and rising into the firebox/cab area, which discounts a 2-6-0.

 

The dumb bell in the bottom right corner of the etch looks like a compensation beam and with the trailing truck immediately to it's left, I'd suggest it's probably a 0-6-2T.  But if that is the case then there are parts of the valve gear missing,  and that's likely when you look carefully at where other bits have been clipped off the main etch.

Edited by Happy Hippo
Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Happy Hippo said:

If that is the entire etch then it is definitely a four coupled loco.

 

However, it looks as if it's been trimmed and there are bits missing.  There is definitely a trailing truck and the second fold over section would appear to be for another set of driving wheels as the springs would all match.

 

The distance between the end of the etch and the first axle hole would suggest an 0-6-?

 

The etch folds up to form a U shape, so the incline of frame would suggest a motor laid along this and rising into the firebox/cab area, which discounts a 2-6-0.

 

The dumb bell in the bottom right corner of the etch looks like a compensation beam and with the trailing truck immediately to it's left, I'd suggest it's probably a 0-6-2T.  But if that is the case then there are parts of the valve gear missing,  and that's likely when you look carefully at where other bits have been clipped off the main etch.

Hi all,

Happy Hippo this is basically what I said earlier. So if we both think this we may be right or totally knocked right out of the grounds. We shall see.... :)

Edited by cypherman
  • 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...