RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted April 29, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 29, 2012 Yes, Mike, I think you are right that the 2-8-0T is closer to being one of the second batch of 5205s than a 42XX. My earlier comments were just based on the assertion that this was the 42XX. However, that again raises a question about the numbers that have been published. 5243 would be fine, but 5283 was one of the 1930 batch with raised platform and flanged motion plate (as on the illustrated 72XX). Maybe they will change the numbers but I do wonder whether this suggests that they will be able to produce all of these variations. Nick If the front end of the running plate complete with the motion cross bar frame was all part of a single moulding variation would be a relatively simple task I would think - although it would leave a potential joint to somehow 'hide' in the side of the running plate in the vicinity of the front end of the tanks. The photos don't have anything I can see to suggest this is their intention but you never know. As I understand things the published running numbers were quickly put out in response to a request from a retailer and were clear;y not carefully thought through. From brief contact with Simon Kohler I'm reasonably sure that they will be revised and i know they have the necessary information as I emailed SK a copy of the thread I'd started and I know he received it and forwarded to the design dept. I await the finished models with considerable interest as the saying goes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted April 29, 2012 Share Posted April 29, 2012 ... To those who have expressed misgivings about the 8-coupled wheelbase being a problem on set track curves, I don't personally expect to be an issue... That's not really the problem. As already mentioned four flanged wheels on a similar length coupled wheelbase sail round radius 1 in the form of the Triang 9F. A narrow chassis block to allows plenty of side to side flexibility and jointed rods take care of the coupled chassis going round curves. Teh cylinders ended up further outboard than scale on that 9F model, to ensure that the connecting rod always clears the crankpins; Hornby may employ some cunning here and put a joggle (very GWR!) in the connecting rod to achieve this end with correctly positioned cylinders. However they choose to do it, it can be made to work. But on the 9F, notice that the cylinders are well out of the way of the pony truck, thanks to their 'up high' mounting. In the Churchward position, they are right where the leading bogie wheel wants to go as it swings out. So that gets fixed with a camming mechanism, but there is a footstep ahead of the pony truck wheels: probably a user optional part which will only be useable for those with rather more generous radius curves than set track provides. Similar situation at the rear end of the 2-8-2T. It is going to need a very good camming design if that is the way they go, to present the pony wheel plane at the crossing somewhere near tangent to the curve. I am much looking forward to seeing what Hornby do, as this demands something rather better than the present camming pony truck design... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robmcg Posted April 29, 2012 Share Posted April 29, 2012 From the photos it looks to me as if the rear wheel will clear the rear steps if the pivot is 'just' short enough, and the front steps may end up being slightly restricting on type 3 curves or sharper (two position holes for add-on detail pack?) but of course this is just a guess. Side-play for front and rear coupled axles shouldn't be too much of an issue, but on all steam engines of similar dimensions it can be quite tight. Shades of the L1 front pony! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Instead of pandering to the toytown roundy gallery, which only ensures the continued dumbed down state of our confused hobby, Hornby should simply state that certain locos will not operate around 1st, 2nd or whatever radii. This should, in theory, make the roundy gang up their game and lay larger radius curves. Super detailed RTR models will always be compromised if the bottom end of the market dictates specification perameters. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Among the plastic bodied RTR manufacturers, which would be first to make this bold move? If any were to do so, I would suggest Dapol or Heljan as the likely candidates, since neither have a financial interest in the set track systems that cause these problems. I have no way of checking this but not so long ago a model shop proprieter told me that 80% of his customer base operated their trains on set track layouts, and from conversations with his peers he believed that was typical in the UK. As such he saw absolutely no scope for quantity production OO to avoid meeting the 'nominal second radius point' requirement. He quite flatly said that he wouldn't even stock a product without this capability because of the grief it would cause him; customers would still purchase the damn thing whatever it said on the box, and then be disappointed that their new item kept derailing... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted April 30, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 30, 2012 The problem with the 72Xx is, I think, not so much the coupled wheelbase (which is 1ft 8ins shorter that that of a 9F) but the total wheelbase (which is c.5ft longer than that of a 9F) - and with a radial carrying wheelset at the back end which no doubt helped their propensity to derail on sharp curves in 1:1 scale. But the overall wheel base of a 72XX is still around a foot less than that of a Stanier 'Princess Coronation', albeit with a longer coupled wheelbase that the pacific. Presumably Hornby engineering folk are confident that if they can make a 'Duchess' to go round trainset curves then the 2-8-2 problem is solvable by some part of their armoury - although I sincerely hope that it doesn't include flangeless carrying wheels. Incidentally we tried Sidecar Racer's rather nice kitbuilt 72XX on the modular layout at Taunton yesterday and it was impossible to persuade it to go round what was stated to be a 32in radius (which a couple of Bachmann RODs had taken in their stride) and the principle cause of the binding seemed to be the coupled wheelbase. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.A.C Martin Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 I think, looking carefully at the 2-8-2T, that it incorporates a swing link truck, not unlike that found on the tender drive mechs of the old Hornby Pacifics - the rear axle effectively a pony truck with inside bearings. The frames do not look to go past the rear driving axle on the 72XX. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frobisher Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Instead of pandering to the toytown roundy gallery, which only ensures the continued dumbed down state of our confused hobby, Hornby should simply state that certain locos will not operate around 1st, 2nd or whatever radii. This should, in theory, make the roundy gang up their game and lay larger radius curves. Super detailed RTR models will always be compromised if the bottom end of the market dictates specification perameters. Thing is, Hornby would have to up the game in their trackwork as a first step, and the trainset curves brigade may be a larger portion of the market than you think. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 The problem with the 72Xx is, I think, not so much the coupled wheelbase (which is 1ft 8ins shorter that that of a 9F) but the total wheelbase (which is c.5ft longer than that of a 9F) - and with a radial carrying wheelset at the back end which no doubt helped their propensity to derail on sharp curves in 1:1 scale. But the overall wheel base of a 72XX is still around a foot less than that of a Stanier 'Princess Coronation', albeit with a longer coupled wheelbase that the pacific. Presumably Hornby engineering folk are confident that if they can make a 'Duchess' to go round trainset curves then the 2-8-2 problem is solvable by some part of their armoury - although I sincerely hope that it doesn't include flangeless carrying wheels... The eight coupled wheelbase is as tough a proposition as that of the 9F though, which has two pairs of closely grouped wheels with a gap inbetween, as opposed to the four well spaced out. The tricky aspect is that in making the coupled chassis very flexible with a narrow chassis block, that then moves the central axis of the loco to the outside of the curve, which makes the job of positioning the pony wheels aligned tangent or nearly so to the curve that much more difficult. Cannot use flangeless pony truck wheels as the flanges are required to centre the couplers as much as possible. (The easy 'out' with flangeless is the two centre drivers, then the loco behaves not unlike a mk1 sized coach...) I remain intrigued to see how they go about it. If it were my project, a chassis like a centre motor bogie traction design would appeal: a 1-Bo-Bo-1 would just sail around 1st radius no trouble at all, and there is room inside that big box of a body to do it. Just a bit of cleverness with a slotted rod to allow the coupled wheelbase to hinge in the middle, that can be hidden behind the connecting rod big end. The compromise there of course is that as well as the coupled wheelbase hinging, the cylinders would swing out from under the footplating, as seen on a mallett taking curves. But it would work, and Hornby's engineers have the kit in their armoury, since Rivarossi is part of their empire. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allegheny1600 Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 No, they didn't run over the Settle & Carlisle, nor the Brighton line, the Peak District, the Dingwall line, Mallaig Extension, over the Delph Branch, through Gasworks tunnel, via Hebden Bridge, through Blaenau Ffestiniog, the Whitby line, Isle of Wight system, the Cambrian Coast line nor in the quarries at Dinorwic. They were built for heavy freight on the former GWR system, principally in South Wales.... Hi Coach, Yes, of course! I was only being rhetorical (with tongue stapled into cheek!) but quite right, it could have been seen as a serious question. I see that they also didn't run on the Waverley, the ECML, Kyle of Lochalsh, Leek & Manifold(!) or even, north Wales!?!?! Bet that won't stop some people though! (and why not?) Cheers, John E. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted April 30, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 30, 2012 Hi Coach, Yes, of course! I was only being rhetorical (with tongue stapled into cheek!) but quite right, it could have been seen as a serious question. I see that they also didn't run on the Waverley, the ECML, Kyle of Lochalsh, Leek & Manifold(!) or even, north Wales!?!?! Bet that won't stop some people though! (and why not?) Cheers, John E. Croes Newydd had one at one time - so they did get to 'North Wales' (but perhaps not what Coach considers to be 'North Wales' ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Sidecar Racer Posted April 30, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 30, 2012 Incidentally we tried Sidecar Racer's rather nice kitbuilt 72XX on the modular layout at Taunton yesterday and it was impossible to persuade it to go round what was stated to be a 32in radius (which a couple of Bachmann RODs had taken in their stride) and the principle cause of the binding seemed to be the coupled wheelbase. I thought my ears were burning today , then I found this . If you good folks will bear with me I'll go out to the shed later and lay a couple of lengths of various radius curves and see what the loco will go down to . I will have to post photos only as my only movie facility is my compact camera which uses quick time format so gives a high MB file . I'll check the 72xx and the 42xx and give a report . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 I figured you were only joking Allegheny1600, which is why i responed likewise. A GWR 2-8-0T or 2-8-2T is definitely fiction at Greenfield (West Riding of Yorkshire). However, I have been thinking along the lines of having Western Region days using the GWR equivalent of locos normally seen on Standedge....Cos' I'm one of those old fashioned modellers who still considers GW engines fascinating. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Sidecar Racer Posted April 30, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 30, 2012 Right then , back from the shed and experimenting , Here are the two locos . 42xx , bodywork is K's , chassis aquired from Ebay , Mashima motor and Comet g/box . Comet cylinder set , Romford wheels . 72xx , it's either a Cotswold or Newcast , I bought it about 25 years ago form a mate of a mate who did train and toy fairs . Solid brass chassis , X04 motor , Romford wheels , thats all I know about it , it's due for shopping soon to get some new wheels and hopefully change of connecting rods . It also has the rear truck pivoted so this must aid things a bit . Despite having a chassis width that is within bits of a mm the 72 has a lot more side play in the wheel sets , Some more to do on the 42 yet so this may be investigated further . A length of track was set up , 8'' straight leading directly into a continuous 36'' radius curve with a final straight section . Both loco's negotiated this with no problems . Next the track was realigned to a 30''' radius , I used a 6'' run in at 36'' before going 30'' constant , Again both loco's did go round , but the 72xx made a better job of it than the 42xx , I can only assume the extra side play was a factor here , the 42 seemed to bind a bit , again as the 72 is a fair bit heavier I think the extra weight helps . I dont think it's worth my trying to get down any further in curve radius as I'm fairly sure I've reached a minimum for reliable running , as 30 '' wil be the absolute minimum on the layout I feel confident that things will be okay . I'm sure that Hornby will be trying to get as much side play as possible in thier models , but they will have to go some to get them round the trainset type curves , Two poor video clips , first is at 36'' , second at 30'' , both with the 72xx , These are quick time files , one is 7MB the other is 5MB , low res still produces big files . Apologies in advance , if these cause problems I will delete them . Video's now deleted , 30th June . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 You say the 2-8-2T isn't a Cotswold. Could it be a Sutherland Model Casters kit (later name for same company) or NuCast (who took the kits over). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Sidecar Racer Posted April 30, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 30, 2012 You say the 2-8-2T isn't a Cotswold. Could it be a Sutherland Model Casters kit (later name for same company) or NuCast (who took the kits over). Thats the problem Larry , I dont know who's kit it was originally and I bought it ready built, I do know it's not K's so that leaves the others to choose from , it came to me in a plain brown box so no clues there either . It has been well built and it does run very well to , when it it gets it's wheel upgrade I'll post some internal photos and someone may be able to tell exactly what it's provenence is . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 The solid brass chassis seems to indicate it was originally produced by my late friend Ron Charlton of Cotswold models. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted April 30, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 30, 2012 You say the 2-8-2T isn't a Cotswold. Could it be a Sutherland Model Casters kit (later name for same company) or NuCast (who took the kits over). The body is definitely from the original Cotswold masters in my opinion and the chassis block is as per the Cotswold original. As to who actually cast it and when I can't say but the apparent quality of the side tank and bunker casting suggests to me that it is most likely from the Cotswold period (I believe a lot of there casting work was carried out by Adrian Swain and they certainly had some very high quality stuff in some of their kits although I think Sutherland was almost as good from what I've seen). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Black Hat Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 A 42xx model will be done up by me as that 52xx that was on the NYMR. So Ive given in and plan to get one of these..... ( Will fast be loosing that NER preference reputation if more people find out about these purchases... ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trains&armour Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 I love them! They won't fit in with my planned hypothetical Cambrian Coast line extention at all, but what the heck, i'll buy them anyway. And from my point of view, they are dirt cheap. Over here in Holland, there's hardly anyone that knows anything about British railways, so, as long as i keep a straight face, i can run what I like and make my railway friends believe it's all, errrr, very prototypical.... (RMwebbers are NOT welcome unless taped and gagged..... ) Regards, Sierd Jan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigwelsh Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 42xx , bodywork is K's , chassis aquired from Ebay , Mashima motor and Comet g/box . Comet cylinder set ,Romford wheels . The firebox and boiler angle seem really wrong on that build when compared to the 2-8-2. I did see the valiant attempt at getting the 2-8-2 round the curves on the weekend though there was a similar attempt at the prototype colliery im trying to model and that ended with the loco in the ash and a ban on further attempts! I have the frame drawings ready for a P4 chassis for these so I hope the body doesn't get compromised with whatever Hornby do for a 00 chassis. It looks pretty good so far in prototype form. I wont look at the detail on these as they normally make them up out of whatever parts they have to test. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Fatadder Posted May 3, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 3, 2012 I have the frame drawings ready for a P4 chassis for these so I hope the body doesn't get compromised with whatever Hornby do for a 00 chassis. It looks pretty good so far in prototype form. I wont look at the detail on these as they normally make them up out of whatever parts they have to test. Going to be interested to see how you go about converting it, getting more and more tempted to get one for the shear size of it! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Belgian Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 No, they didn't run over the Settle & Carlisle, nor the Brighton line, the Peak District, the Dingwall line, Mallaig Extension, over the Delph Branch, through Gasworks tunnel, via Hebden Bridge, through Blaenau Ffestiniog, the Whitby line, Isle of Wight system, the Cambrian Coast line nor in the quarries at Dinorwic. They were built for heavy freight on the former GWR system, principally in South Wales.... But they did run to Salisbury and, if I'm not mistaken, on to Eastleigh on occasion! JE Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Sidecar Racer Posted May 3, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 3, 2012 The firebox and boiler angle seem really wrong on that build when compared to the 2-8-2. Any complaints can be addressed to K's . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iL Dottore Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Wow! ME WANT, ME WANT , ME WANT (me already ordered...) They REALLY look tasty and if they aren't 100% accurate for my time period, well I'm not really fussed. If the modification to be made to get fidelity is minor - say renumbering or removing a coal rail, I'll do it, no sweat (I do make the effort to try and be a decent railway modeller - which means tackling such things), if it's major, like removing a top feed, maybe (depends on the ratio between cost of model and my skills). I do hope that Hornby come up with some wizard way of going around small radius curves, maybe an articulated chassis - like a bendy bus. if it won't, then I'll just have to rejig my layout plans to get this beauty around it. F Off to lie down now, I've had a bit too much GWR excitement tonight... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.