Jump to content
 

Peco O-16.5 GVT Beyer-Peacock Kit?


HeavyDuty
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've had an interest in the Glyn Valley Tramway ever since I found a small book about the company here in the States back in the mid 1980s. I was inspired by that book to purchase a Peco 4mm kit and GraFar chassis by mailorder which was a real feat back in those pre-Internet shopping days. I didn't have much luck with the kit due to some badly cast parts and a truly awful running chassis, and the locomotive is long gone.

 

I'd still very much like to build one in 7mm scale. Is the Peco O-16.5 kit and chassis worth building? Are there any other alternatives for GVT locomotives in 7mm?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Like Ken, I'd be keen to know as well......I found John Milners excellent book on the GVT in a dark upstairs room in our local library in the late 90's, and since then I've always had a hankering.....either 7mm or 16mm will do me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

HD, Yes the 7mm kit is fine and the chassis is good too though you can fit it on some OO chassis and I've seen the Bachmann 03 chassis used as an alternative so the US Bachmann starter locos, Thomas or Toby might fit too. The wagons are also available from Peco and the vans from Wrightlines. Glyn is slightly longer than the other two.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Originally produced many years ago by Stephen Poole and then sold on to Peco. I believe it was designed to fit a Hornby Dublo or Triang 0-6-0 chassis and so that must date it back to the 1960s. The chassis is produced by Branchlines but no web site - only that of the previous owner in 'blog' format. New contact details (but may not be up to date) Brian Osborne, PO Box 4293, WESTBURY. BA13 9AA Tel: +44 (0) 1373 822231

 

Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I recently built one of these kits which came my way via ebay, having always vowed never to build one because they seem to crop up on so many 7mm narrow gauge layouts when in reality the prototypes were not that common. I think their popularity stems from the notion that this is a simple kit (basically a box) which you can hide any old chassis under and get away with. Consequently I have seen some truly awful examples thrown together with a junk chassis under them on layouts at shows over the years. In reality, the kit is not that simple to build, the patterns must be ancient by now and in my example, which was actually a Stephen Poole kit and therefore produced pre-Peco when the moulds would have been new(er), the parts needed a good deal of fitting to get good joins and a lot of thinning down of exposed edges. The prototypes were made from sheet platework and this was actually quite thin and delicate despite the massive appearance of the engines. It is worth spending time fettling the castings because the kit makes up into a fine representation of the original. I scratchbuilt a chassis for mine using an old but powerful Anchoridge 5pole motor and Romford wheels with beam compensation. I also set the running height as low as possible which makes re-railing a challenge! Subsequent trials on our Helford Valley layout required the body jacking up a couple of mil. to clear the scenery! Lots of extra pipework and detail in the cab completed the job and it looks well in deep blue HVR livery. I believe the Branchlines chassis to be very good (I have built examples for the other Peco 0-16.5 kits and been very pleased with them) but I would suggest getting a good motor and high ratio gears to get slow and smooth running, these kits are very heavy and if the motor is not up to the job I should think it would expire fairly quickly!

 

I'll try and get a pic or two in due course. Incidentally Wrightlines (now ABS) produce excellent etched kits for the GVT coaches and plastic kits for the box vans and brake van which really look the part behind this loco.

 

Steve

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Just re-found this thread, I have had an unbuilt Peco kit for 3 years designed to fit the Triang / Hornby Jinry chassis (old style). Recently I got a S/H Branchlines chassis off Ebay. Here is a photo of the build to date, forgot to put the roof on

 

post-1131-0-10698000-1332613573_thumb.jpg

 

About 95% soldered construction, as said castings are not 100% perfect. But then adds to the character. Realy enjoyed the build, plan to make my own brake lever and use 4mm (oversize) brass smokebox door darts. Would like to add some cab details, but no idea where to start (no photos)

 

The build of the chassis was aweful and it must be a testament to the quality of the kit that it works so well. I have a small problem with the chassis at a very slow crawl (I guess I will have to buy a new chassis etch). The loco looks super running along the track, and the lads at the club love it. I think it would be better with a newer gearbox rather than the motor mount and gears supplied, and with a 2 stage mount a decent flywheel could be fitted.

 

I will either buy a replacement chassis etch, or rebuild the chassis using new etched hornblocks as the previous builder elongated the non driven axle holes

 

I like the chassis so much I am buying a Hunslet one for my Peco Hunslet loco, having a chat with Brian to see if I can upgrade the gearbox (similar to the Comet gearbox gears). I was going to re-wheel a Triang Poly metal chassis, its just not worth the bother

 

I did buy a Triang Jinty converted to EM gauge, the person who converted it used the Triang Jinty that has 2 metal sides which unscrews, and threw away the Mazac castings. Used the round Romford frame spacers. Romford wheels, decent 5 pole motor and motor mount. You could use an etched Jinty chassis, which would be even better. But the Branchlines chassis is a 0-4-2 wheel arrangement. But by the time you cost it out I guess the Branchlines will win out on cost as well

 

Getting all 6 wheels on the track is a challange (going to make a plastic re-railer) but all in all both kits are super. Very pleased with the result, now have to decide on a livery as my layout will be freelance

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

The build of the chassis was aweful and it must be a testament to the quality of the kit that it works so well. I have a small problem with the chassis at a very slow crawl (I guess I will have to buy a new chassis etch). The loco looks super running along the track, and the lads at the club love it. I think it would be better with a newer gearbox rather than the motor mount and gears supplied, and with a 2 stage mount a decent flywheel could be fitted.

 

I will either buy a replacement chassis etch, or rebuild the chassis using new etched hornblocks as the previous builder elongated the non driven axle holes

 

I like the chassis so much I am buying a Hunslet one for my Peco Hunslet loco, having a chat with Brian to see if I can upgrade the gearbox (similar to the Comet gearbox gears). I was going to re-wheel a Triang Poly metal chassis, its just not worth the bother

 

I did buy a Triang Jinty converted to EM gauge, the person who converted it used the Triang Jinty that has 2 metal sides which unscrews, and threw away the Mazac castings. Used the round Romford frame spacers. Romford wheels, decent 5 pole motor and motor mount. You could use an etched Jinty chassis, which would be even better. But the Branchlines chassis is a 0-4-2 wheel arrangement. But by the time you cost it out I guess the Branchlines will win out on cost as well

 

Getting all 6 wheels on the track is a challange (going to make a plastic re-railer) but all in all both kits are super. Very pleased with the result, now have to decide on a livery as my layout will be freelance

Some interesting points there John,

 

My main thought on this loco stems from the "you can stick anything under there" statement earlier. The Branchlines chasssis is correctly an 0-4-2, but that seems a needless complication to me. Putting trailing wheels/pony truck or whatever under those skirts is asking for trouble, there's no advantage to it, quite the opposite. I would put an 0-6-0 chassis under it everytime. Easier to build, easier to rail-up, easier to balance, better traction, better pickup, less to derail.

Whatever chassis you use, I would suggest Romford wheels, driven by a Mashima can motor via a Highlevel Kits gearbox, or a Branchlines Multibox

 

I did much the same thing with my own tram loco, it was assumed to be a 2-4-2, but I went with an invisible 0-6-0. Its all illustrated on my Narrow Gauge workbench (link below).

 

I also have some thoughts on the Branchlines 0-4-0 chassis kit for the Peco Hunslet, if you are interested?

 

All the best,

Dave.

Link to post
Share on other sites

dave

 

Looked at your links, very envious.

 

Your comments about an 0-6-0 chassis are very wise, the Branchlines Multibox was not what Brian recommended for the Hunslet, but the 51ML ? also some cutting away of the whitemetal in the body may be needed if I wanted to put a flywheel into it.

 

Another drawback of the tram chassis, is that the cab floor is part of the chassis. This makes fitting the chassis into the body a bit tricky each time, and restricts what can go on it. I might have a look at it before I go too far and see if I can alter it to fit the body.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Been to the Model Railway Clubs show at Ally Pally, three 0-16.5 layouts one had a couple of GV tram locos, both with Bachmann Pannier chassis. The chap echoed what you said 0-6-0 chassis are much better. I have brought today an old (Mint) Kemilway 4F chassis, but as its designed for the Wills loco will keep it as I have one waiting a decent chassis. But in my chassis box have an old 0-6-0 thin brass chassis (may be etched) with Romfords which is very free running. without too much work I can adapt it to fit the GV tram.

 

I cannot think why the cab floor is soldered to the chassis, I bet it should have been fitted to the body. It would be a dam-site easier to fit the chassis without it and I could fit crew !!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Been to the Model Railway Clubs show at Ally Pally, three 0-16.5 layouts one had a couple of GV tram locos, both with Bachmann Pannier chassis. The chap echoed what you said 0-6-0 chassis are much better. I have brought today an old (Mint) Kemilway 4F chassis, but as its designed for the Wills loco will keep it as I have one waiting a decent chassis. But in my chassis box have an old 0-6-0 thin brass chassis (may be etched) with Romfords which is very free running. without too much work I can adapt it to fit the GV tram.

 

I cannot think why the cab floor is soldered to the chassis, I bet it should have been fitted to the body. It would be a dam-site easier to fit the chassis without it and I could fit crew !!!

 

The original Stephen Poole version had no cab floor as it was designed to take the old Triang-Hornby Jinty chassis, the back of which fills the cab almost to the height of the door opening.

I bought a part built one off a dealer for £5 about 20 years ago and although one cabside was missing (made one from plastic sheet) it came with an unused jinty chassis. I re wheeled it with Romfords, modded the rear axle hole to take a set of Jackson wheels, sprung in the centre of the axle and made it into an 0-4-2. Unfortunately the previous owner had filed the chassis mounts to lower it to a scale height from the track so on anything other than dead flat track it grounds and shorts out. Must get round to putting a little packing in sometime.

 

Phil T.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The more I think about it, I can see no reason for the cab floor being attached to the chassis, I have a few jobs to do next but the floor will be coming off the chassis and will be soldered to the body before I go any further.

 

I have also been thinking about the chassis, as the main point is to have the loco running faultlessly. In addition as the wheels are hidden by the skirts which makes railing an 0-4-2 very difficult, this loco will be an 0-6-0T. I do have a plain brass chassis which will be converted to fit this loco. I will use the motor and gears and the wheels will go in the spares box and will add a flywheel which may assist DCC current interruptions. The full rebuild is likely to de done once the Hunslet is working

Link to post
Share on other sites

, Unfortunately the previous owner had filed the chassis mounts to lower it to a scale height from the track so on anything other than dead flat track it grounds and shorts out. Must get round to putting a little packing in sometime.

 

Phil T.

 

Phil,

How about gluing a strip of plasticard along the underside of the buffer beams? This should prevent shorts and be a bit quicker than modifying the chassis.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil,

How about gluing a strip of plasticard along the underside of the buffer beams? This should prevent shorts and be a bit quicker than modifying the chassis.

He made it so close even 5 thou would probably rub the track in places, the smokebox end is now done, just a couple of washers, the cab end needs a strip on top of the lip on the chassis. The big problem is finding time, too much casting to do right now so I have something to sell at Sparsholt!

 

Phil T.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...
  • RMweb Premium

Thinking about the cab floor issue again, if its fixed to the loco body, wont that make the cab interior completely innaccessable?

I alway make sure I can gain access to the cab interior (usually by a removable roof) but fixing the floor to the chassis would be one way of doing it.

 

Cheers, Dave.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

The wheels supplied with the kit are RP 25-100 I believe. Has anyone tried them on ME code 70 points?

The wheel profiles work very well with Micro-engineering track standards, however they will not work with the Peco track which is course scale and developed for these kits for use with a Triang chassis.

I am surprised to see these kits still about, quite right they appeared in the late 60's and I had forgotten that they were introduced by Stephan Poole.  I have seen a layout of the GVT where the inspection panels on the side skirt were raised up showing the outside motion.  That was many years ago, only seen it once and never again.

 

Loconuts

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...