Red Devil Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 I've just purchased a Metropolitan Bo Bo loco body and sideframes, god knows why as it doesn't really fit anywhere with what I'm currently modelling (Leeds trams and the Grimsby and Immingham tramway and light railway!). Anyway, knowing next to nothing about the prototypes, I just wondered if anyone could tell me the wheelbase of the Bo units and preferably the overall wheelbase with a view to what I might motorise it with? If sucessful, I might feel a small working London diorama coming on, featuring. Underground/surface line, tram (I've already done the CAD for LCC1 in Leeds guise) and bus or trolleybus! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoingUnderground Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 According to K.R Benest's "Metropolitan Electric Locomotives": Bogie wheelbase 9ft 3in; Bogie Centres 20ft 3 1/4in, making the Overall Wheelbase 29ft 6 1/4in; Wheel Diameter 3ft 7 1/2in. Tenshodo SPUD is often used , but Black Beetle or Hollywood Foundry may be a better bet given that there is no need for the low profile of a SPUD. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Devil Posted August 9, 2011 Author Share Posted August 9, 2011 Brilliant, thanks for that, so in 4 mill nominally 37mm, I've got quite a few of these that may be re wheeled and used Run better than a spud and I've got about 7 so a couple pinched for this might be handy, I can live with the fact that they're 35mm. 8 wheel drive and pickup should be fine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Davis Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 If sucessful, I might feel a small working London diorama coming on, featuring. Underground/surface line, tram (I've already done the CAD for LCC1 in Leeds guise) and bus or trolleybus! Or you could do a Steam on the Met? http://www.metroland.org.uk/steamonthemet/ if so, don't forget the station staff at Chorleywood with the firebeaters! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Smith Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 Just picking up rmweb and delighted to find an LT section. I plan to scratch build a Bo Bo from plasticard and ordered appropriate BullAnt bogie and dummy a couple of years ago - see attached Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xerces Fobe2 Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Just picking up rmweb and delighted to find an LT section. I plan to scratch build a Bo Bo from plasticard and ordered appropriate BullAnt bogie and dummy a couple of years ago - see attached There are a number of RMweb members (including me) who are interested in the Underground and model it to. Many of us are also members of the District Dave Forum which has lots of detailed information about the Underground both current and historical which you may find useful. There is a small amount of Underground modelling content however most of it is from RMweb members who post modelling information on both Forums. XF Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adanapress Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 In pasing, I seem to recall reading somewhere that the round ended bo-bos we know, (and how amazing it is that the preserved one has ventured as far as Brighton!!!) were the product of some very dubious accounting, with even a hint of fraud. Rebuilds in fact of the earlier square ended bo-bos, or have I mis-understood entirely? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoingUnderground Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 In pasing, I seem to recall reading somewhere that the round ended bo-bos we know, (and how amazing it is that the preserved one has ventured as far as Brighton!!!) were the product of some very dubious accounting, with even a hint of fraud. Rebuilds in fact of the earlier square ended bo-bos, or have I mis-understood entirely? The original plan was to rebuild the earlier flat fronted BTH locos, and one, No 17 Florence Nightingale was rebuilt. However it was found to cost almost as much as a new loco, so the rebuild plan was scrapped and the remaining 19 locos were all new. None of my reference books mention false accounting or fraud by either Metropolitan Vickers or the Metropolitan Railway, just the usual "you changed the spec that's why they're costing more", "no we didn't, you got your estimates wrong" argument. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
London cambrian Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 from what I understood, the main reason it cost so much was the strengthening for the higher output motors that had to be done just made it imprsctical. As you say florence was rebuilt and two more were being started when they said sod it, the amount of work was just not cost effective, or even practical, considering that your modifying the machine, that has probably done a good few miles and is a bit worn. Better to build new machines, more economic and only slightly more expensive than strengthening and rebuilding 38 more motor bogies. LC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger.s Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 I understood that it was also fiting the extra braking power that tipped the balance. Having said that I am not sure that it was ever really intended that they were going to be rebuilds except in name. It was common practice then (as now) to juggle the books by designating new equipment as rebuilds. New locos would have been charged to new capital cost and affected the capitalisation of the company. Rebuilds on the other hand ae a form of maintanance and can be charged to day to day costs without increasing the capital. This is not fraud, it is accountancy ~ the two are not always different. Regards Roger Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoingUnderground Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 I understood that it was also fiting the extra braking power that tipped the balance. Having said that I am not sure that it was ever really intended that they were going to be rebuilds except in name. It was common practice then (as now) to juggle the books by designating new equipment as rebuilds. New locos would have been charged to new capital cost and affected the capitalisation of the company. Rebuilds on the other hand ae a form of maintanance and can be charged to day to day costs without increasing the capital. This is not fraud, it is accountancy ~ the two are not always different. Regards Roger i don't think you've quite got it right, Roger. The cost of a new loco would not affect the capitalisation of the company, but would increase the total value of its fixed assets. The total net assets would remain unchanged. However if you scrap a loco that is not fully depreciated, that will affect your capitalisation and profits even if a new loco replaces the scrapped loco. Not good for you as a director if the stock market values your company on the basis of the dividends you declare as lower profits normally means lower dividends. Shareholders don't like lower dividends. So if you can make out a case that a loco hasn't been scrapped and replaced with a new one, but rebuilt incorporating both old and new components you avoid the write off of the old loco. The only trouble with this approach is that you can end up with a balance sheet with overvalued assets and an increased annual depreciation charge. The other benefit of a rebuild is that by reusing part of the existing asset it should be cheaper, i.e. less cash goes out the door to the supplier, than buying totally new. In the case of the Bo-Bos it was the BTH body shells that were to be reused for the Bo-Bos whilst the electrical equipment was to be reused in Multiple Unit stock. The Met would not have wanted to spend any more cash than was absolutely necessary, so the failed rebuild plan sounds entirely credible to me. The late K. R. Benest's book "Metropolitan Electric Lomotives" gives plenty of detail on the origin of the MetroVic Bo-Bos and their relationship to the BTH locos. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
London cambrian Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 its interesting how so many reference works quote this as a rebuild, and omit the whole failure part. when we built my 5 inch metrovick, this question came to head many times. however we eventually got to the bottom of it when we saw the works photo of them. in the vickers factory were 8 or so bobos. no way could the met run a service with that many locos out of action Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoingUnderground Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 its interesting how so many reference works quote this as a rebuild, and omit the whole failure part. when we built my 5 inch metrovick, this question came to head many times. however we eventually got to the bottom of it when we saw the works photo of them. in the vickers factory were 8 or so bobos. no way could the met run a service with that many locos out of action You mean this photo from the LT Museum's collection at http://www.ltmcollection.org/photos/photo/photo.html?_IXSR_=_CCnZdVkaC2&_IXMAXHITS_=1&IXinv=1998/62836&IXsummary=results/results&IXsearch=metropolitan vickers&_IXFIRST_=2 which shows 13 (Benest's book says 15) of the Bo-Bos under construction at Vickers Gun Shop in Barrow In Furness in 1922. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
London cambrian Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Yup, that's the one. Impossible to run a service with 75% of the fleet being rebuilt at the other end of the country! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.