JeffP Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 Now, now, let's not be heightist. I'm no giant, myself....... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozzyo Posted July 8, 2012 Author Share Posted July 8, 2012 Those that have met me know that I'm over 6' 5'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve fay Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 Those that have met me know that I'm over 6' 5'. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha LOL ( laugh out loud) not Camerons version, good one mate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
3 link Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 Those that have met me know that I'm over 6' 5'. When your laying on your back . Slightly off topic but with Ozzy's permission, does anyone know if there is a kit of a 2884/38xx on the market at present ? ATB, Martyn. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Harper Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 Mr Moderator, when can we get back to the County build? All these posts with reference to size is giving me a complex!! Sandy Ps Been at a festival this weekend. UGH! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffalo Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 ...Slightly off topic but with Ozzy's permission, does anyone know if there is a kit of a 2884/38xx on the market at present ? I think you mean 28XX/2884? Yes, there is a Martin Finney kit for the 28XX, though I don't think it covers the 2884 variety. Nick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
3 link Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 I think you mean 28XX/2884? Yes, there is a Martin Finney kit for the 28XX, though I don't think it covers the 2884 variety. Nick Hi Nick, Funnily enough I have an untouched Finney 28xx kit for sale if anyones interested, sorry I should of said 38xx although I thought the 2884 was the same speck as the 38xx with the larger cab and longer frames. I think at one time jltrt were going to bring out a 38xx but nothing has materialised, so I do not know of anyother suppliers who do this loco, which is rather sad as I think it's a great looking 2-8-0. ( in my opinion ) ATB, Martyn. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve fay Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 JLTRT did have one listed on there old web site, Im not sure if this is under development. could you use the standard 28xx and scratch build the cab along with the other minor detail variations? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffalo Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 ...sorry I should of said 38xx although I thought the 2884 was the same speck as the 38xx with the larger cab and longer frames... Hi Martyn, Yes, they are the same thing, but there really is no such thing as a 38XX, though many people make this mistake. The 28XX series were numbered up to 2883 (built in 1919) and the later ones began in 1938 with 2884. No. 3800 was just one in the middle of a lot built in Dec. 1938. Nick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
3 link Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Hi Steve, JLTRT did have one listed on there old web site, Im not sure if this is under development. could you use the standard 28xx and scratch build the cab along with the other minor detail variations? When I spoke to Martin Finney at Telford last year I asked the same question to him, and I'm affraid the list goes on and on , one of the main differences are the main frames. This is typical of my luck as we all know if the GWR could get away with using the same fitttings they would, but not in this case. I am going to give Laurie a ring today and see if their 2884/38xx is still around or if not enough parts can be had so that I could do a half-scratch build . ATB, Martyn. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 When I spoke to Martin Finney at Telford last year I asked the same question to him, and I'm affraid the list goes on and on , one of the main differences are the main frames. This is typical of my luck as we all know if the GWR could get away with using the same fitttings they would, but not in this case. Other than the cab (which had a flush, rivetted front), there was a differently-shaped slidebar support bracket / boiler support, fireiron stowage tunnel on the nearside.....and those are the visible differences. What other ones were there? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
3 link Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Other than the cab (which had a flush, rivetted front), there was a differently-shaped slidebar support bracket / boiler support, fireiron stowage tunnel on the nearside.....and those are the visible differences. What other ones were there? To be honest I cannot remember now, if it is just what you have said above I would probably have a go at it. On the Wikipedia site it says the overall length is the same size as the 28xx and although the leading wheel is the same, the drivers are an inch larger at 4' 8.5". So perhaps I should dig a bit deeper if possible. ATB, Martyn. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lonesome_whistle Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 the drivers are an inch larger at 4' 8.5". So perhaps I should dig a bit deeper if possible. ATB, Martyn. Are you sure about that? I was shocked enough, after reading that, to check wikipedia and I think you may have misread the track gauge for the driver diameter! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
3 link Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Are you sure about that? I was shocked enough, after reading that, to check wikipedia and I think you may have misread the track gauge for the driver diameter! Sorry about that it's been a long day I stand corrected, and it's not as though the GWR would have bothered to make new patterns for the sake of an inch. ATB, Martyn. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffalo Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Other than the cab (which had a flush, rivetted front), there was a differently-shaped slidebar support bracket / boiler support, fireiron stowage tunnel on the nearside.....and those are the visible differences. What other ones were there? Other visible differences when the first 2884s were built included short safety valve bonnets, although a few 28XX had also received these from the late twenties. Outside steam pipes and the curved drop end at the front of the running plate were standard on 2884s. The addtion of steam pipes and replacement of the square drop ends on the earlier 28XX had only started in the mid 1930s so only a few had then been converted. Whistle shields appeared on 2884s, but not on 28XXs. Upper lamp irons were on the smokebox doors of 2884s, whilst 28XXs were being slowly changed from a position on top the smokebox. Some lower numbered 28XXs retained an earlier pattern of rear sandboxes filled from inside the cab. ATC was fitted as standard to the 2884s. As to the frames, I'm not sure what differences there were between the classes. Certainly there had been changes in the development of the 28XX including beefing up the frames and using some heavier castings from about 1917. The swinging link pony truck had been replaced by a Cartazzi type on those built from about 1915. Originally, compensation beams were fitted between the spring mounts on the front and rear pairs of axles, though this was abandoned and removed from some engines in the early thirties, and so were not fitted to 2884s. Looking at a few photos I've not been able to see any obvious differences beyond these between the frames of 28XX and 2884 classes. All in all, most of the variety is in the 28XX class with the 2884s seeming remarkably uniform. Nick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
3 link Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Hi Nick, Thank you so much for all this info, I have a Finney 28xx kit that I am now seriously thinking of having a go at converting to a 2884 class. I am sure the kit provides for the curved drop end on the front running plates, the one thing that does concern me is was the side running plates longer or was the extra length just taken up with the larger cab ? Talking of cabs, Ozzy thinks that maybe the cab from a Hall would be very similar if not the same. As for the boiler,smoke box and firebox I am hoping these would be the same as the 28xx fingers crossed. It's early days but so far it does seem doable, I just hope my modelling skill are up to the job . ATB, Martyn. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Martyn: I'm also marking out a similar conversion of the Finney kit, but the Hall cab is very different to a 2884. If you have the Russell book, vol.2, there is a reasonable drawing of the 2884 cab in it. The main difference is that the cab front lines up flush with the edge of the cab sidesheets, not recessed like the 2800s. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffalo Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 ...the one thing that does concern me is was the side running plates longer or was the extra length just taken up with the larger cab ? Talking of cabs, Ozzy thinks that maybe the cab from a Hall would be very similar if not the same. At a quick look, the only difference in length seems to be around the buffers/buffer beam area. The cab lengths look very similar. As for the boiler,smoke box and firebox I am hoping these would be the same as the 28xx fingers crossed. Yes they are the same, unless you are looking at a very early 28XX. It's early days but so far it does seem doable, I just hope my modelling skill are up to the job . Go for it. I only build in 4mm, but really enjoyed doing the one Finney kit that I've built. Nick ps. I'll send you a PM Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjnewitt Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 As for the boiler,smoke box and firebox I am hoping these would be the same as the 28xx fingers crossed. The boiler was certainly the same type for both versions, being the standard number 1, and was common to the Halls and Granges as well as the Saints and Stars. There's some interesting information on number 1 boiler allocations here. Also on that site there's some very useful detail on differences between the 2800 and 2884 classes in the class comparisons part. Incidently why is it when refering to GWR locos that xx is used sometimes? I can't quite understand why, ie 28xx as opposed to 2800, 22xx instead of 2251. Just a thought. I'm suprised that no one along the way has come up with conversion kits for the likes of the Finney and Hall to convert them to the later types. Perhaps someone one day will. Edited for bad grammar! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffalo Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 ...Incidently why is it when refering to GWR locos is the xx bit used sometimes? I can't quite understand why, ie 28xx as opposed to 2800, 22xx instead of 2251. Just a thought... The naming 'convention' generally relates to both building and numbering order. If the first of a class is ??00 then the class is usually called ??XX. If it starts anywhere else, the name is based on the first to be built. Thus 2251 is correct, they should really not be called 22XX as the 2200-50 range was in use on other locos when they started building at No 2251. Collet Goods numbered 2200 to 2249 were built later when those engines had been withdrawn or renumbered. Of course, it is rarely that simple. Just look at the number ranges covered by the 1076 or 57XX classes Nick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjnewitt Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Of course, it is rarely that simple. Just look at the number ranges covered by the 1076 or 57XX classes Nick Or course. It's perhaps helpful that lots of the classes were named. It just seems a little quirky shall we say that just because the sequence started with 00 then we get xx but if it started on a different number like 2251 or 2884 or 8750 then that number is used. Not that there's anything wrong with using the notation I just find it curious. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 ....I'm suprised that no one along the way has come up with conversion kits for the likes of the Finney Hall to convert them to the later types. Perhaps someone one day will. I think John Hayes managed to convert a Finney "Hall" to a "Modified Hall" once, and he said it was a lot harder than it looks. Likewise Tom "Stella Artois" Mallard may have done similar exercises for private commission. .....but you do have to pay for the privilege. And if you are trying to design a conversion kit, you still have to come up to Finney's standards and make your transplant look seamless. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjnewitt Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 I think John Hayes managed to convert a Finney "Hall" to a "Modified Hall" once, and he said it was a lot harder than it looks. Likewise Tom "Stella Artois" Mallard may have done similar exercises for private commission. .....but you do have to pay for the privilege. And if you are trying to design a conversion kit, you still have to come up to Finney's standards and make your transplant look seamless. I think I remember reading somewhere that John Hayes had done more than one Modified Hall. Of course anything by Tom Mallard would be superb. The later series Collett Hall on his website is a thing of real beauty. Your right the standard would need to be matched for consistency but there's a number of people out there who have matched that standard. I'm not suggesting it would be easy but not impossible. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
3 link Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 The boiler was certainly the same type for both versions, being the standard number 1, and was common to the Halls and Granges as well as the Saints and Stars. There's some interesting information on number 1 boiler allocations here. Also on that site there's some very useful detail on differences between the 2800 and 2884 classes in the class comparisons part. Incidently why is it when refering to GWR locos that xx is used sometimes? I can't quite understand why, ie 28xx as opposed to 2800, 22xx instead of 2251. Just a thought. I'm suprised that no one along the way has come up with conversion kits for the likes of the Finney and Hall to convert them to the later types. Perhaps someone one day will. Edited for bad grammar! Hi, thanks for the info, I tried to open that link and all I got was a lovely photo of a 3862 working a freight but nothing else. ATH, Martyn. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjnewitt Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Hi, thanks for the info, I tried to open that link and all I got was a lovely photo of a 3862 working a freight but nothing else. ATH, Martyn. The link worked fine earlier. I keep getting a message saying that several Java virtual machines running in the same process caused an error. Perhaps it's been overloaded? Here's the direct link to the 2800/2884 class differences and the boiler allocation information. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.