Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

4 hours ago, Woodcock29 said:

Here's my upgraded Heljan O2/3. This has had a significant makeover, including correcting the valve gear with a new expansion link and correct positioning of the front joint on the eccentric rod.

 

 

Tony in the photos of the trial version you show of the O2/2 above it appears that Heljan have used the same footplate as for the O2/3, ie that from a loco with long travel valves.

 

One of the key issues in my view is the highly malleable material used for the valve gear, certainly much softer and therefore more prone to bending on any mistreatment than other manufacturers valve gear. However, apart from the incorrect expansion ling/eccentric rod issue and the motion brackets that stick out too far the valve gear actually looks very realistic and the model can certainly be significantly improved - which is after all what we modellers should be doing isn't it! 

 

I must say it was handy that a lot of spare Heljan parts were available from Howes - I bought a full set of what was available including the O2/2 cab and GN tender frames, all of which are likely to be used somewhere along my railway modelling journey, including some when I eventually get around to converting a Nucast O2/3 kit into a Gresley O1.

 

Andrew

'Tony in the photos of the trial version you show of the O2/2 above it appears that Heljan have used the same footplate as for the O2/3, ie that from a loco with long travel valves.'

 

I think you're right, Andrew.

 

However, it was suggested that two different footplates be made. 

 

I must admit, I was blissfully ignorant of the difference, until Roy Vinter told me. I'm not altering the O2/1s and O2/2s I've already built, though. 

 

With a bit of work, the Heljan O2 can be made into a most-reasonable model, as you've shown. I assume you've changed the chimney.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[davidw]

31 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

'Tony in the photos of the trial version you show of the O2/2 above it appears that Heljan have used the same footplate as for the O2/3, ie that from a loco with long travel valves.'

 

I think you're right, Andrew.

 

However, it was suggested that two different footplates be made. 

 

I must admit, I was blissfully ignorant of the difference, until Roy Vinter told me. I'm not altering the O2/1s and O2/2s I've already built, though. 

 

With a bit of work, the Heljan O2 can be made into a most-reasonable model, as you've shown. I assume you've changed the chimney.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Tony did any of the O2/3's or O2/4's run with the GNR tender? 

[glo41f]

Hi most learned fellows

I do not now if this has been allude to before but there are some excellent scenes on this film. It is what our leader is trying to reproduce and by the looks of this has pretty much succeeded.

 

 

Martin Long

[Theakerr]

I have a couple of Heljan 02s.  The first one purchased at full price and the second one at about 1/2 price.  The very first one was a terrible runner.  I was able to get in running forwards pretty well (loosened wheel keeper plate) but never did figure out why it didn't run backwards.  Anyway, replaced free by Heljan including shipping to Canada.  Now detailed,  weathered and a very nice runner.  Also a shout out to Heljan for superb customer service.  Now if they were to make that sprue you mentioned Tony available, that would be a most interesting project for my 2nd one.

Edited October 23, 2019 by Theakerr
added how problem solved

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, davidw said:

Tony did any of the O2/3's or O2/4's run with the GNR tender? 

Good evening David,

 

None of the O2/3s ever ran with a GN tender, but those O2/1s and O2/2s fitted with a B1 boiler (making them O2/4s) did. 

 

 

ex-O2/1

 

 

ex-O2/2

 

 

 

ex-02/2

 

 

ex-O2/2.

 

It would seem that those O2/2s fitted with B1 boilers received side-window cabs on becoming O2/4s. 

 

 

Beware, some O2/2s and O2/4s (rebuilt from O2/2s) latterly received 4,200 gallon GS tenders from withdrawn K3s. This looks for all the world like an O2/3 (with a B1 boiler), but note the low central running plate and buffer beam without quadrant cut-outs in the bottom corners. Not to mention the transposed numberplate and cross rail on the smokebox door! 

 

Have fun.

 

 Regards, with the usual plea to everyone to observe copyright restrictions.

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

Edited October 23, 2019 by Tony Wright
to clarify a point

[davidw]

21 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening David,

 

None of the O2/3s ever ran with a GN tender, but those O2/1s and O2/2s fitted with a B1 boiler (making them O2/4s) did. 

 

 

ex-O2/1

 

 

ex-O2/2

 

 

 

ex-02/2

 

 

ex-O2/2.

 

It would seem that those O2/2s fitted with B1 boilers received side-window cabs on becoming O2/4s. 

 

 

Beware, some O2/2s and O2/4s (rebuilt from O2/2s) latterly received 4,200 gallon GS tenders from withdrawn K3s. This looks for all the world like an O2/3 (with a B1 boiler), but note the low central running plate and buffer beam without quadrant cut-outs in the bottom corners. Not to mention the transposed numberplate and cross rail on the smokebox door! 

 

Have fun.

 

 Regards, with the usual plea to everyone to observe copyright restrictions.

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

Good evening Tony,

Very many thanks for such a comprehensive answer.

[Woodcock29]

6 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

'Tony in the photos of the trial version you show of the O2/2 above it appears that Heljan have used the same footplate as for the O2/3, ie that from a loco with long travel valves.'

 

I think you're right, Andrew.

 

However, it was suggested that two different footplates be made. 

 

I must admit, I was blissfully ignorant of the difference, until Roy Vinter told me. I'm not altering the O2/1s and O2/2s I've already built, though. 

 

With a bit of work, the Heljan O2 can be made into a most-reasonable model, as you've shown. I assume you've changed the chimney.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Yes most certainly, it has a brass Crownline flowerpot chimney. I replaced all the plastic handrail knobs correcting the position of some (one side of tender and cab horizontal rail) in the process. Also fitted sprung buffers which look much nicer, mind you they don't really need to be sprung.

 

Andrew

[Mike 84C]

I like the look of   LNE 2-8-0's but the complexity of the classes with all the modifications baffles me!  Makes Western engines a piece of cake to understand!  Churchward  got it so right with the 28's ;should I don a flack jacket?  

[Woodcock29]

2 hours ago, Mike 84C said:

I like the look of   LNE 2-8-0's but the complexity of the classes with all the modifications baffles me!  Makes Western engines a piece of cake to understand!  Churchward  got it so right with the 28's ;should I don a flack jacket?  

One of the most interesting facts about the various LNER 2-8-0s (and in fact most LNER classes!) is the range of modifications and the challenge in getting the details right in our models.

 

I've actually used several Bachmann WR RODs to make LNER O4/3s (surplus RODs bought by the LNER) as these had a different cab roof to the standard GC built O4s and also Bachmann made a better job of the footplate on this version as they got the length of the wide part over the cylinders wrong on their O4 model which they released first. 

 

Always up for a challenge!

 

Andrew

[The Johnster]

3 hours ago, Mike 84C said:

I like the look of   LNE 2-8-0's but the complexity of the classes with all the modifications baffles me!  Makes Western engines a piece of cake to understand!  Churchward  got it so right with the 28's ;should I don a flack jacket?  

The 28xx was a very good loco indeed and probably as good as any heavy long haul freight loco in the country when it was introduced.  But there was IMHO an opportunity lost with the later 2884s to improve it by incorporating plate frames in line with the Hawksworth 10xx Counties and 6959 Modified Halls. and Hawkworth might have beneficially tried the County boiler, derived from the Stanier 8Fs built at Swindon during the war, on top of the 28xx underpinnings.

 

That said, the WR was reluctant to accept the Riddles 9F when it was first introduced and wanted more 28xx.  Similarly they wanted more Castles instead of the Britannias and more 5101 prairies instead of the Swindon designed Riddles 3MT tank.  In the case of the prairies they may have had a point, as the 3MTs used a very similar boiler, a domed version of the Swindon no.2, on a loco of broadly the same size, but the 3MT's smaller cylinders made it a less powerful loco.  BR classified the GW prairies, large and small, as 4MT.

[APOLLO]

Can't beat a "Mexborough Pacific" - especially in the rain !!

 

 

Unknown warrior - Manchester Victoria - slowing for a crew change 1966 - I bet they were looking forward to their trip !!

 

 

90377 Northbound at Preston, 1966. Shiniest one I ever saw - get the varnish out !!

 

Brit15

 

 

 

[DougN]

On 23/10/2019 at 18:43, Jesse Sim said:

Tony, if I may, you mention the Heljan o2’s, I’ve heard from many people that they aren’t that good, can’t recall why, but I’ve always thought mine ran perfectly well and your comment justifies that they do run well. 
 

have you heard of anything along those lines of them being not up to scratch? 

Jesse if you want to see one that is a shocker I have one... incredibly disappointed it has really put me off Helijan steam locos! 

[St Enodoc]

1 hour ago, APOLLO said:

90377 Northbound at Preston, 1966. Shiniest one I ever saw - get the varnish out !!

Those plastic coal loads need a bit of work.

[MJI]

7 hours ago, The Johnster said:

The 28xx was a very good loco indeed and probably as good as any heavy long haul freight loco in the country when it was introduced.  But there was IMHO an opportunity lost with the later 2884s to improve it by incorporating plate frames in line with the Hawksworth 10xx Counties and 6959 Modified Halls. and Hawkworth might have beneficially tried the County boiler, derived from the Stanier 8Fs built at Swindon during the war, on top of the 28xx underpinnings.

 

That said, the WR was reluctant to accept the Riddles 9F when it was first introduced and wanted more 28xx.  Similarly they wanted more Castles instead of the Britannias and more 5101 prairies instead of the Swindon designed Riddles 3MT tank.  In the case of the prairies they may have had a point, as the 3MTs used a very similar boiler, a domed version of the Swindon no.2, on a loco of broadly the same size, but the 3MT's smaller cylinders made it a less powerful loco.  BR classified the GW prairies, large and small, as 4MT.

 

 

When first built the 28xx was the best freight engine in the country.

 

However it never really changed.

[cctransuk]

2 hours ago, APOLLO said:

Can't beat a "Mexborough Pacific" - especially in the rain !!

 

 

Unknown warrior - Manchester Victoria - slowing for a crew change 1966 - I bet they were looking forward to their trip !!

 

 

90377 Northbound at Preston, 1966. Shiniest one I ever saw - get the varnish out !!

 

Brit15

 

 

 

 

Whilst you have the gloss varnish out .....

 

 

.....90377 needs a coat, too !!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Jesse Sim]

1 hour ago, DougN said:

Jesse if you want to see one that is a shocker I have one... incredibly disappointed it has really put me off Helijan steam locos! 

What’s wrong with it? 

[DougN]

I have backed off the baseplate as suggested... it only just runs. You could say I was so annoyed at it that it went into the draw and hasn't yet seen the light of day in ages... yes I should pull it out and dismantle it and reassemble it to see if that would help! It has just not been on my radar to do so. Much more interesting to build a kit or 4. I have to finish a couple of kits I have first and then I might attack it again. 

 

Time is of the essence at the moment as work is having long days and now this weekend as well. So may be over the Melbourne cup weekend.. but probably not as I think I could finish these kits I have had for years, the D17 is together and needs running in and the j39 which was started by others isn't that far behind it. I would like to get these done this year. The former has been going over 5 years the latter only a month! 

[cctransuk]

Tony,

 

I have just come across this on the RCTS site ......

 

Cl 4 No. 43060 on bridge over the ECML at Little Bytham 28/2/59 - Copyright RCTS

 

..... no doubt you've seen it, but it may be of interest to other members.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Denbridge]

1 hour ago, MJI said:

 

 

When first built the 28xx was the best freight engine in the country.

 

However it never really changed.

The 28s gave an extremely good account of themselves in the 48 locomotive exchanges. A good case if 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'. 

[Headstock]

2 hours ago, MJI said:

 

 

When first built the 28xx was the best freight engine in the country.

 

However it never really changed.

 

The Robinson 8K (LNER O4)  2-8-0 was the best heavy freight locomotive in the country. As for the 28xx, good though it was, it was soundly thrashed on test against by the awesome might of the NER T3 (LNER Q7)

[MJI]

1 hour ago, Headstock said:

 

The Robinson 8K (LNER O4)  2-8-0 was the best heavy freight locomotive in the country. As for the 28xx, good though it was, it was soundly thrashed on test against by the awesome might of the NER T3 (LNER Q7)

 

Not in 1903-5 though when the first 28xx was built

Edited October 24, 2019 by MJI

[Pacific231G]

23 hours ago, Allegheny1600 said:

Hi David and pardon me, Tony for jumping in here!

I strongly suspect the reason for the use of traction tyres on European models is that the typical European modeller builds a (rather rabbit warren type!) layout with storage roads underneath the main scenic section and uses gradients or spirals to move from one level to another.

Due to the rather smaller houses/apartments used in so much of Europe, in the cities anyway, space is at a premium so they build up as well as along and around.

This is akin to the Americans with their multi-level layouts but they get away without traction tyres by the simple expedient of prototypically double (or triple, quadruple etc) heading their trains.

 

OR - maybe it was a hangover from earlier days when mechanisms were not so good?

Cheers,

John.

Hi John

My experience from when I was modelling N. American railways- albeit just a terminus/switching layout- in the 1970s early 1980s was that most H0 stock was simply far more free running. I may have used separately bought trucks (bogies) that were actually fully sprung for some of it but ISTR even the trucks that came with shake-the-box kits being pretty good in that regard. I also suspect that they benefitted from the almost universal use of a single set of standards with NMRA RP25 wheel sets running on compatible track (Shinohara plus some handmade using NMRA gauges) so a better rail/wheel interface than the compromises needed to handle the dfferences between manufacturers here. I'm certainly aware of differences between the running of older Jouef carriages and wagons (Ugh!) and those from Roco that I strongly suspect are to RP25 or very very close. I don't know enough about current British OO products to know how far they've come in that regard.

[Headstock]

38 minutes ago, MJI said:

 

Not in 1903-5 though when the first 28xx was built

 

It's not like railway modelers to be specific, It's a fair point though. I'm happy to go with the 8K for all time champ.

[Denbridge]

1 hour ago, Headstock said:

 

The Robinson 8K (LNER O4)  2-8-0 was the best heavy freight locomotive in the country. As for the 28xx, good though it was, it was soundly thrashed on test against by the awesome might of the NER T3 (LNER Q7)

The Robinson 8k's were fine machines in their day and continued to do good work, even on the GWR. But, they were completely outclassed by the 28's. The T3 may on paper have had a higher reactive element, but would have used an awful lot more fuel to do the same work as a 28, which even in 1948, burning welsh steam coal, still outclassed other newer freight locomotives.

[MJI]

7 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

It's not like railway modelers to be specific, It's a fair point though. I'm happy to go with the 8K for all time champ.

 

Mine is Swindon built as well, 9F.