Wright writes.....

[Theakerr]

Re the 04s, am I missing something?  All the pictures I can find of all types of 04s' show the cylinders very close and almost parallel to the running plate yet the Bachmann and many  models I see have the cylinders and slide bars at a very distinct downwards angle.  When I received my Bachmann the first thing I did was figure out how to correct the cylinder angle.  I am not trying to knock anyone or their models but. on a forum like this that tends to be a bit 'sticky' on details, the lack of comments seems rather strange unless I have got something very wrong.  BTW if I am correct it will become a pet peeve a bit like houses that don't have enough chimneys

[Headstock]

29 minutes ago, Theakerr said:

Re the 04s, am I missing something?  All the pictures I can find of all types of 04s' show the cylinders very close and almost parallel to the running plate yet the Bachmann and many  models I see have the cylinders and slide bars at a very distinct downwards angle.  When I received my Bachmann the first thing I did was figure out how to correct the cylinder angle.  I am not trying to knock anyone or their models but. on a forum like this that tends to be a bit 'sticky' on details, the lack of comments seems rather strange unless I have got something very wrong.  BTW if I am correct it will become a pet peeve a bit like houses that don't have enough chimneys

 

Evening Theakerr,

it has been mentioned, in mine and Clems posts. The piston rod should line up with the centre line of the crank axle so that it is still inclined but not as extreme as Bachmann have it. Has anybody noticed that the pony truck is mounted too far forwards and the cylinders slightly further back on the Bachman model?

[Clem]

2 minutes ago, Headstock said:

Has anybody noticed that the pony truck is mounted too far forwards and the cylinders slightly further back on the Bachman model?

Yes. At least I got that one! .... And I knew about the other other but not got around to doing it.

Edited November 29, 2019 by Clem

[Headstock]

2 minutes ago, Clem said:

Yes. At least I got that one! .... And I knew about the other other but not got around to doing it.

 

I thought that was the case, it is surprising what a big difference to the appearance it makes, your O4 looks right. I've heard people tell of the Bachmann O4 being too long, it isn't. The little engines kits are too short in the running board, a section is required to be inserted ahead of the saddle. What is too long on the Bachmann model is the wheelbase, due to the extension of the pony truck, it almost sticks out beyond the bufferbeam.

[TheSignalEngineer]

12 hours ago, BMacdermott said:

 

Hello Eric

 

Fully concur with you there. The attached two RC Riley pics (taken from a poor photocopy of a Trains Illustrated Summer Annual) serve to illustrate the situation.

 

Empty stock between Paddington and West London or Old Oak Common had its own code as in the first pic. ECS from or to elsewhere used the 'normal' code as shown in the second. Any loco driver I have spoken with has always said that (for example) lamp over right buffer means the driver's right hand buffer when moving in a forward direction. Left hand means driver's left hand.

 

Brian

 

 

 

Good evening Brian

Looking back at old documents the lamp arrangement in the first photo was the correct one for ECS at least prior to WW2. It was shown in the 1948 Paddington area WTT as including Parcels and Perishables trains, with the lower picture shown as ECS. 

 I've also seen the upper one on LMR empty stock trains c1949 at New Street. Post 1950 they had the one shown in the lower picture.

 

Eric 

[t-b-g]

One thing that many GCR models have wrong is the cab roof. There should be a quite distinct angle running front to back, set slightly back from the side edge of the roof. The cab front was a single sheet of metal and the cab roof was behind it and slightly lower than the cab front but many models show a distinct line as if the cab roof sits on top of the front and then has an angle on the top of the roof.

 

The angle was fitted behind the cab front and above the cab roof and the cab front should show no joins at the roof line at all.

 

It is hard to tell from a photo at a different angle but some of the models look to have rather too much daylight under the boiler too. If you look at the prototype (as we should!) the boiler appears to come down to slightly below the splasher tops. On some of the models, you can see through under the boiler to the other side.

 

I may be quite wrong on that second point but that is certainly how they appear from the photos.  

[Jesse Sim]

13 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

Glad to hear it. That is one heck of a journey for a shortish visit!

I’m fine, beers have been cracked in readiness of my mums birthday party. 
 

 

[Jesse Sim]

17 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Just in case anyone is interested, Jesse is safely home. 

Thanks again Tony for everything, when I’m at my computer on Monday I’ll post up some photos. 

[Barry O]

1 hour ago, Jesse Sim said:

Thanks again Tony for everything, when I’m at my computer on Monday I’ll post up some photos. 

Send us some heat please! I can send you gallons of water!

See you soon mate!

Baz

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, Jesse Sim said:

Thanks again Tony for everything, when I’m at my computer on Monday I’ll post up some photos. 

It was our pleasure, Jesse.

 

It's always a most-entertaining time with you around.

 

If nothing else, it shows how genuine the friendships made in this great hobby are. Friendships based on mutual respect and in helping each other. As we observed, such a far cry from the critics who snipe away at any suggestion of 'improving things', safely behind the anonymity of their various 'user names' (none on here, of course) and never 'daring' to meet one face-to-face. Were any of those outraged-at-my-Modeller-piece present at the NEC last weekend? If so, none spoke to me. 

 

Please post the pictures and moving images next week. I'd like to see again your B16 in action - perhaps on Brighton Junction itself? Please let me know about the D2 as well, though that loco/tender drawbar might need altering. 

 

And please wish your mum a very happy birthday from us, and pass on our regards to all your family. 

 

All the best,

 

Tony. 

Edited November 30, 2019 by Tony Wright
to clarify a point

[bbishop]

Gentlemen & Ladies,

 

For an LSWR and DB aficionado, could someone explain the various O4 sub classes?  I think the O4/7 is the GCR locomotive with a Thompson boiler, but I could be very wrong! 

 

Bill

[Tony Wright]

7 minutes ago, bbishop said:

Gentlemen & Ladies,

 

For an LSWR and DB aficionado, could someone explain the various O4 sub classes?  I think the O4/7 is the GCR locomotive with a Thompson boiler, but I could be very wrong! 

 

Bill

Sorry Bill,

 

The O4/7 is a Robinson loco with a modified Gresley O2 boiler.

 

Briefly, they are in BR days.

 

O4/1. Original GC 8K 2-8-0.

O4/2. O4/3 with lowered boiler fittings and cab.

O4/3. ROD-built locos with no vacuum brakes nor water scoop.

O4/5. Robinson 2-8-0 rebuilt with shortened Gresley O2 boiler and separate smokebox saddle.

O4/6. Rebuilt from O5 (a large boilered 2-8-0), retaining higher cab (63913-20 with side window cab).

O4/7. Robinson 2-8-0 rebuilt with shortened Gresley O2 boiler but retaining original GC smokebox.

O4/8. Robinson 2-8-0 rebuilt with Thompson B1 boiler and Thompson side window cab.

O1. Almost complete rebuild (just retaining frames and tender) of Robinson 2-8-0 with outside valve gear, new cylinders, a B1 boiler and Thompson cab.

 

Beware, because at certain times some rebuilds were also rebuilt into O4/8s and O1s. .

 

In 1955 (prior to further rebuildings) there were 58 O1s, 60 O4/1s, 8 O4/2s, 107 O4/3s, 4 O4/5s, 13 O4/6s, 40 O4/7s and 34 O4/8s. 

 

In comparison by 1959 (when the types were still largely intact) there were 58 O1s, 52 O4/1s, 5 O4/2s, 60 O4/3s, 2 O4/5s, 11 O4/6s, 33 O4/7s and 96 O4/8s (the diminishing numbers in some sub-divisions are due to their being rebuilt into O4/8s; thus a rebuilding of a rebuild in some cases).

 

I hope this helps.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[bbishop]

Tony,

 

Thanks very much. 

 

Bill

[Clem]

11 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

O4/1. Original GC 8K 2-8-0.

O4/2. O4/3 with lowered boiler fittings and cab.

O4/3. ROD-built locos with no vacuum brakes nor water scoop.

O4/5. Robinson 2-8-0 rebuilt with shortened Gresley O2 boiler and separate smokebox saddle.

O4/6. Rebuilt from O5 (a large boilered 2-8-0), retaining higher cab (63913-20 with side window cab).

O4/7. Robinson 2-8-0 rebuilt with shortened Gresley O2 boiler but retaining original GC smokebox.

O4/8. Robinson 2-8-0 rebuilt with Thompson B1 boiler and Thompson side window cab.

... and just for completeness, 

O4/4 Robinson 2-8-0 rebuilt with full length Gresley O2 boiler, extended frames, side-window cab and separate smokebox saddle. Just 2 modified to O4/4 and both subsequently rebuilt. First to O1 in 1945 and the second (3882) to O4/8 in 1947. (Nobody ever mentions the O4/4s). It looked similar to the O4/5 but was longer.

[Tony Wright]

4 minutes ago, Clem said:

... and just for completeness, 

O4/4 Robinson 2-8-0 rebuilt with full length Gresley O2 boiler, extended frames, side-window cab and separate smokebox saddle. Just 2 modified to O4/4 and both subsequently rebuilt. First to O1 in 1945 and the second (3882) to O4/8 in 1947. (Nobody ever mentions the O4/4s). It looked similar to the O4/5 but was longer.

Thanks Clem,

 

My interest, of course, is in BR days; by which time the O4/4 sub-division had gone. 

 

Didn't the one rebuilt to O4/8 retain the dip in its splashers towards the cab? 

 

Ah, those joys of 'loco-picking'!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[jrg1]

6 minutes ago, Clem said:

... and just for completeness, 

O4/4 Robinson 2-8-0 rebuilt with full length Gresley O2 boiler, extended frames, side-window cab and separate smokebox saddle. Just 2 modified to O4/4 and both subsequently rebuilt. First to O1 in 1945 and the second (3882) to O4/8 in 1947. (Nobody ever mentions the O4/4s). It looked similar to the O4/5 but was longer.

And also a few engines had distinctive "Battleaxe"  driving wheel balance weights

[gr.king]

Those whose wheels at least had originally belonged to the second series of O5s?

[Tony Wright]

Regarding the GC 2-8-0s (and their derivatives), was there ever a more successful 2-8-0 in the history of this country's locos?

 

This question has been asked before, but I don't think so. 

[Compound2632]

4 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Regarding the GC 2-8-0s (and their derivatives), was there ever a more successful 2-8-0 in the history of this country's locos?

 

 

In what ways were the LMS Standard 8Fs less successful?

[Killybegs]

11 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Regarding the GC 2-8-0s (and their derivatives), was there ever a more successful 2-8-0 in the history of this country's locos?

 

This question has been asked before, but I don't think so. 

 

I guess it would be rude to suggest the GWR 2-8-0s. Their longevity would suggest they more than met their design criteria.

[MJI]

5 hours ago, Jesse Sim said:

Thanks again Tony for everything, when I’m at my computer on Monday I’ll post up some photos. 

 

Was nice to meet you Jesse

[Clem]

33 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Didn't the one rebuilt to O4/8 retain the dip in its splashers towards the cab? 

Yes, it did. An interestingly slightly different subject for a model?

[bbishop]

The LSWR acquired some ROD locomotives after WW1.  Couldn't do Saturday reliefs at 50mph or the Ascot race specials.  Returned with thanks.

 

The LSWR decided on the 4-6-0 for its freight loco.

 

Busy drafting the notes for breaking down the Stevenage exhibition in January.  Better permit the use of hand trolleys.

 

Bill

[Chamby]

49 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

In what ways were the LMS Standard 8Fs less successful?

 

Indeed the 8F was very successful, though not as long lived.  The GCR 8K was introduced in 1911, the 8F was 24 years ‘newer’ being built from 1935 on.

 

My vote goes to the old lady...

Edited November 30, 2019 by Chamby

[Compound2632]

If it's pug-ugly 2-8-0s you're after, you can't find more hideous than LNWR classes E and F - Whale's addition of a leading axle to Webb's 4-cylinder compound Class B 0-8-0s, to relieve the weight on the leading coupled axle. I believe these were the only British 2-8-0s to have more than two cylinders? 

 

Looking through the 2-8-0s listed above, is one forced to the conclusion that the S&DJR 2-8-0s were the least successful? They were certainly found unsatisfactory for the long-distance Toton-Brent mineral trains on the Midland.