Jump to content

Please use M,M&M only for topics that do not fit within other forum areas. All topics posted here await admin team approval to ensure they don't belong elsewhere.

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold

I'm absolutely the last person to go to regarding individualities of LNER locos (or anything else for that matter) but regarding the ejector exhaust pipes I'm wondering if the differences are due to the positioning of the ejector within the cab?

 

Another individuality is in the picture of 501 above the pipe appears to be joggled slightly downwards as it leaves the cab only to be joggled upwards near the smokebox. In my minds eye I can see a pile of pipework on the floor of the erecting shop and the fitters picking the item that was 'near enough'... 

 

Cab windows appear to be different shapes but presumably this has been picked up on elsewhere.

 

Just little things I've noticed and I'm probably a long way behind the game! :) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TrevorP1 said:

I'm absolutely the last person to go to regarding individualities of LNER locos (or anything else for that matter) but regarding the ejector exhaust pipes I'm wondering if the differences are due to the positioning of the ejector within the cab?

 

Another individuality is in the picture of 501 above the pipe appears to be joggled slightly downwards as it leaves the cab only to be joggled upwards near the smokebox. In my minds eye I can see a pile of pipework on the floor of the erecting shop and the fitters picking the item that was 'near enough'... 

 

Cab windows appear to be different shapes but presumably this has been picked up on elsewhere.

 

Just little things I've noticed and I'm probably a long way behind the game! :) 

Good afternoon Trevor,

 

The 'different shapes' of the cab windows (spectacles) between 60501 and 60502 in the prototype pictures I posted is because the latter's is partially open.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

Edited by Tony Wright
typo error
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Why the ejector pipe was joggled on 60501, I have no idea.................

 

But it was, after it was fitted with a Peppercorn Dia.118 boiler

I think you might have a clue right there. The ejector pipe would be supported along its length by brackets which were attached to the boiler crinoline hoops, which were in turn attached to the boiler barrel. These would have been set up for whichever loco that boiler was first built for. As it would be a 'faff' to adjust the position of these brackets (which would also require the boiler cladding pieces to the modified), the easier option would be to simply joggle the ejector pipe itself, a relatively simply job for a coppersmith.

 

Just supposition on my part but seems logical?

Edited by LNER4479
  • Like 3
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LNER4479 said:

I think you might have a clue right there. The ejector pipe would be supported along its length by brackets which were attached to the boiler crinoline hoops, which were in turn attached to the boiler barrel. These would have been set up for whichever loco that boiler was first built for. As it would be a 'faff' to adjust the position of these brackets (which would also require the boiler cladding pieces to the modified), the easier option would be to simply joggle the ejector pipe itself, a relatively simply job for a coppersmith.

 

Just supposition on my part but seems logical?

 

Afternoon Graham,

 

60501 had the jiggle, joggle, wiggle in the ejector pipe in the early fifties, prior to the fitting of the Pepp boiler . If you go even further back, when 60501 was first rebuilt and still numbered 2001, the joggle, jiggle, wiggle ne slope was at t' other end where the ejector pipe exited the cab. Even further back in time, when the locomotive as originally built,  there was also had a slope in the ejector pipe at the cab end.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A change of topic for the collective. Paul Marshall Potter recently reported that one of his Hornby Re built Patriots has suddenly developed the dreaded “Mazak Rot” in the chassis. Now Mazak rot is nothing new and I believe it is caused by impurities in the metal, but I had thought that more recent models would not suffer from it. My real concern is that many of the recent RTR models not only make use of Mazak for the chassis but things like foot plates, boilers and other parts ( the Hornby Peckett is almost all Mazak castings). 

The Hornby re built Scots and Patriots are of course not covered by warranty but are soon to be unusable.

Has any one else had issues with Mazak on more recent models?

 

David

  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, stewartingram said:

Do we know when 60502 gained a lipped chimney? I wish to change my 60501 to 60502 in late life, and Hornby have it as a stovepipe.

 

Stewart

Good afternoon Stewart,

 

In The Power of the A2s, Gavin Morrison, OPC, on page 27 there are pictures of 60502. On the 5th of September 1953 she still had a rimmed chimney, but by 'c1955', in the next picture, it's lipped. The numberplate is still above the crossrail, though. So, 1954/1955 for the chimney switch? 

 

The numberplate was still high up as late as 1957, but by by 1959 it was on the top hingestrap. In 1957, she still had the early BR totem, but by 1959 she had the device (The Book of the A1s and A2s, Peter Coater, Irwell Press, pages 148 and 149. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Norton961 said:

A change of topic for the collective. Paul Marshall Potter recently reported that one of his Hornby Re built Patriots has suddenly developed the dreaded “Mazak Rot” in the chassis. Now Mazak rot is nothing new and I believe it is caused by impurities in the metal, but I had thought that more recent models would not suffer from it. My real concern is that many of the recent RTR models not only make use of Mazak for the chassis but things like foot plates, boilers and other parts ( the Hornby Peckett is almost all Mazak castings). 

The Hornby re built Scots and Patriots are of course not covered by warranty but are soon to be unusable.

Has any one else had issues with Mazak on more recent models?

 

David

Just to be clear I didn’t say suddenly. They have been stored appropriately for roughly 14 years, and the deterioration occurred in that time frame.
https://albionyard.net/2021/02/14/mazak-rot-a-matter-of-time/

 

Having over the past twenty years or so had many models through the mancave from all uk and a few over seas manufacturers, these two are the only experience I have of it. They are first releases so probably around 2007 for the Scot, maybe a year or so less for the Patriot, and fall into the era where a few types from different manufacturers suffered it. I’ve not seen anything that indicates it’s return on more recent models.

Edited by PMP
Date clarity
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LNER4479 said:

I think you might have a clue right there. The ejector pipe would be supported along its length by brackets which were attached to the boiler crinoline hoops, which were in turn attached to the boiler barrel. These would have been set up for whichever loco that boiler was first built for. As it would be a 'faff' to adjust the position of these brackets (which would also require the boiler cladding pieces to the modified), the easier option would be to simply joggle the ejector pipe itself, a relatively simply job for a coppersmith.

 

Just supposition on my part but seems logical?

But no Peppercorn Dia.118 boiler (which 60501 received) had a joggle in the ejector pipe at the front end; other than that fitted to the loco on receipt. It can't have been the original smokebox grafted on either, because the shortened P2 smokeboxes and the A1 smokeboxes were different in length. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Norton961 said:

A change of topic for the collective. Paul Marshall Potter recently reported that one of his Hornby Re built Patriots has suddenly developed the dreaded “Mazak Rot” in the chassis. Now Mazak rot is nothing new and I believe it is caused by impurities in the metal, but I had thought that more recent models would not suffer from it. My real concern is that many of the recent RTR models not only make use of Mazak for the chassis but things like foot plates, boilers and other parts ( the Hornby Peckett is almost all Mazak castings). 

The Hornby re built Scots and Patriots are of course not covered by warranty but are soon to be unusable.

Has any one else had issues with Mazak on more recent models?

 

David

Good afternoon David,

 

I had a more-recent Hornby Brush Type 2 on which the mazak chassis expanded, breaking the plastic body in places.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Agree 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon David,

 

I had a more-recent Hornby Brush Type 2 on which the mazak chassis expanded, breaking the plastic body in places.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Which catalog number, and year of release though Tony? This is the important piece of information. Some early 31’s suffered, others didn’t and it is quite specific as it sounds as though some batches received poor quality mazak, other concurrent releases in different liveries didnt suffer, and are fine.

Edited by PMP
Punctuation
  • Agree 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, PMP said:

Which catalog number, and year of release though Tony? This is the important piece of information. Some early 31’s suffered, others didn’t and it is quite specific as it sounds as though some batches received poor quality mazak, other concurrent releases in different liveries didnt suffer, and are fine.

There was a listing somewhere on RMWeb of models known to have mazak rot problems. I had a 31 and a Rebuilt Patriot or Royal Scot (I forget which) disintegrate and one of my L1s had rot in its bogie. Most of the major manufacturers have been affected. 

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Norton961 said:

A change of topic for the collective. Paul Marshall Potter recently reported that one of his Hornby Re built Patriots has suddenly developed the dreaded “Mazak Rot” in the chassis. Now Mazak rot is nothing new and I believe it is caused by impurities in the metal, but I had thought that more recent models would not suffer from it. My real concern is that many of the recent RTR models not only make use of Mazak for the chassis but things like foot plates, boilers and other parts ( the Hornby Peckett is almost all Mazak castings). 

The Hornby re built Scots and Patriots are of course not covered by warranty but are soon to be unusable.

Has any one else had issues with Mazak on more recent models?

 

David

Yes. One each of 46140 and 45545. Tim E is carrying out remedial work on the Scot with the aid of a newer rot-free chassis block.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, robertcwp said:

There was a listing somewhere on RMWeb of models known to have mazak rot problems. I had a 31 and a Rebuilt Patriot or Royal Scot (I forget which) disintegrate and one of my L1s had rot in its bogie. Most of the major manufacturers have been affected. 

Andy Sharpe compiled the original list and keeps it updated as new reports of afflicted models emerge.

 

 

 

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, robmcg said:

 

I took the liberty of softening the colour in your photo, doesn't she (he) look good!  Will remove if asked.

 

60505_A2_40a_1abc_r1468.jpg.d09e33b6c04b55e0328d21a9853f0ec4.jpg

 

I don't mind at all Rob. That's a lot better. Thanks.

 

The weathering was Value Medium. 

Edited by Manxcat
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Leander said:

Andy Sharpe compiled the original list and keeps it updated as new reports of afflicted models emerge.

 

 

 

Thanks for the link. Fortunately, not very many of my models are affected and the Heljan 47s I have that are on the list are fine. The list notes that only some models are affected. They are due for replacement anyway. The Scots and Patriots are disappointing but only certain models are affected. I have others that are fine.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
4 hours ago, PMP said:

Just to be clear I didn’t say suddenly. They have been stored appropriately for roughly 14 years, and the deterioration occurred in that time frame.
https://albionyard.net/2021/02/14/mazak-rot-a-matter-of-time/

 

Having over the past twenty years or so had many models through the mancave from all uk and a few over seas manufacturers, these two are the only experience I have of it. They are first releases so probably around 2007 for the Scot, maybe a year or so less for the Patriot, and fall into the era where a few types from different manufacturers suffered it. I’ve not seen anything that indicates it’s return on more recent models.

 

Over the last few months I've been "unboxing" a lot of RTR locos which have been up in the attic, through summers and winters, sometimes for upwards of ten years. Some but not all were tested on purchase.

 

Although I've encountered mazak rot with a few of the usual suspects, as well as split gears here and there, i was pleasantly surprised

that the majority of models turned out to be fine, even if some were a little sluggish to start with.

 

Nothing scientific, but the following all date back 10  - 15 or more years and haven't yet shown any issues:

 

Hornby Black 5s and early 2000s Duchesses (various models)

Hornby Schools (various)

Hornby King Arthurs (various)

Hornby M7s (various)

Hornby Unrebuilt WC/Bobs (various)

Castles, Granges, Kings (various)

 

Bachmann Jubilees (various)

Bachmann WD

Bachmann Crabs (various)

Bachmann Unrebuilt Pats (various)

Riddles standards (various).

Prairies, panniers etc (numerous).

 

I've run into Mazak rot with the chassis of the Class 31, which is well documented, and the motor mount for the T9. For the latter, luckily, a replacement is available from Peter's Spares. The rest of the T9 chassis seems immune.

 

I've had split gears with the Rebuilt WCs - again, well documented by others.

 

The one that's now concerning me is a 2006 Britannia which was run relatively extensively until a few years ago, then put into storage. When I got it out late last year, though, it was exhibiting similar symptoms to PMP's Stanier 4-6-0s. I haven't taken it apart for a proper investigation, though. Ironically this one didn't go into the attic so it's had a more temperature-controlled storage environment.

 

 

Al

  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
49 minutes ago, Barry Ten said:

 

 

The one that's now concerning me is a 2006 Britannia which was run relatively extensively until a few years ago, then put into storage. When I got it out late last year, though, it was exhibiting similar symptoms to PMP's Stanier 4-6-0s. I haven't taken it apart for a proper investigation, though. Ironically this one didn't go into the attic so it's had a more temperature-controlled storage environment.

 

 

Al

I’ve recently had a similar experience with 2 stored Hornby Brits that had never run. The first, 70052 was very reluctant at first and then once running had a very pronounced tight spot. I stripped it down completely, removed a lot of white grease that seemed too thick and which had all sunk to the bottom of the gear train and then re oiled and greased all of the key moving parts. It is now as smooth as silk (much better than a more recently produced Brit). The second, 70008 again never run, is locked solid - will strip that down too in due course. Brits aren’t listed on the Mazak rot list (the first edition Scots and Patriots are) so I remain optimistic that 70008 remains salvageable. Hopefully yours will be salvageable able too. 

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding joggles in ejector pipes, Could it be that apart from keeping the ejector pipe a reasonable constant from the boiler, the joggles are arranged to put a backward slope on the pipe so as to drain any condensate? There is what seems to be a drain visible just forward of the cab spectacle in some of the photographs. Its another of those little wiggley pipes that festoon engines.

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mike 84C said:

Regarding joggles in ejector pipes, Could it be that apart from keeping the ejector pipe a reasonable constant from the boiler, the joggles are arranged to put a backward slope on the pipe so as to drain any condensate? There is what seems to be a drain visible just forward of the cab spectacle in some of the photographs. Its another of those little wiggley pipes that festoon engines.

I don't know the answers Mike,

 

The wiggly pipes are something I always put on the models I build of big LNER locos. I think the one in front of the cab is a drain of some description. Originally, it drained right on top of the LH Cartazzi axle box, and, for obvious reasons, was then bent to dribble further forward. 

 

As for ejector pipe joggles, 60501's bent upwards at the front, yet, 60504's (for a time) bent downwards. Then it was straight. For a time 60505's wasn't parallel with the handrail. 

 

What it means (at least to me) is always consult prototype pictures when building a model.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

You must think I'm organised Paul,

 

I really have no idea, but it was when it first came out. When was that?

 

1275497855_HornbyBrushType2.jpg.f6e1b890f2e416f9fee5352b2aa9b9ba.jpg

 

I actually think it's rather a good model, though the new chassis needs weathering

 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

That’s helpful knowing it was a first release review sample, when you described it as ‘recent’, this livery has been re-released in the past few years. My interest (and concern), were if it were one of those, I’m relieved to hear it isn’t.

 

Regarding it’s accuracy, there’s  relatively few issues with it, none that can’t be fixed with a bit of effort. Out of the available models so far, it’s the best. At some stage someone will tell you it looks nothing like a 31, despite it looking very much like a 31, an that Triang’s first 1960’s release is far better.

Edited by PMP
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

Do you think I should join the diplomatic corps?

 

You could always write one of those 'world's shortest books' on the subject of diplomacy, Tony ...

  • Like 2
  • Funny 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that's exactly the tone that needs to be adopted in dealing with certain foreign "diplomats", also with the kind of muck-raking journalists who ask blatantly rude, aggressive, extremist, sensationalist, "ambush questions" and who then proceed to interrupt the attempts to answer them politely.

Edited by gr.king
Inserted missing word
  • Agree 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

Following the successful Autumn 2020 Missenden Abbey Virtual Event, another Event will be held this Spring on 6th and 7th March.

For more information - here is a link:

https://www.missendenrailwaymodellers.org.uk/index.php/spring-2021-virtual-event-plans/

 

A wide range of topics will be covered, including 4 live events (via Zoom which require registration).

An article covering the M & GNR bridge building for Little Bytham is just one of those included.

David

 

 

  • Like 2
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

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.