Coarse Scale O Gauge

[goldfish]

I have been running a variety of locomotives and rolling stock fitted with sprung drawbar drop link couplings for some time with great success. Sprung drawbar 3-link couplings have been in use on0 gauge for around a century, and are pretty ubiquitous on fine scale. The great advantage of using a sprung drawbar over a swivelling drawbar is the ease with which the couplings can be changed. In course scale o gauge sprung drawbars seemed to have been the coupling of choice for wooden bodied rolling stock, but don't seem to appear elsewhere. I wondered how much of a difference using sprung drawbar would make to modern tinplate, and so made up a plate to cover the existing buffer beam with a suitable slot.

 

 

 

These things are always subjective, but I think it is a worthwhile improvement.

[sncf231e]

RivaRossi made around 1950 a coarse scale 0 gauge train set. They made an Italian FS 625 2-6-2 locomotive and a 8-wheel passenger car. 

 

Recently I could add a second car in another color:

 

And this afternoon I had a run in the garden:

 

Regards

Fred

[goldfish]

I have finally got around to resolved the problem with the rear coupling on my ETS Terrier by replacing the obstructing large headed self tapping screw with a M2 countersunk headed screw. So this is a good time to review progress.

 

Where the journey began, the original manufacturer's coupling.

 

Where I have ended up, my choice of coupling.

 

Along the way I had a little diversion and for some time have been running with a sprung drawbar drop link coupling mounted on a temporary styrene buffer beam.

 

I have found sprung drawbar drop link couplings to be a great success, and as there is now space to accommodate the drawbar properly I have tried fitting a blanking plate behind the original buffer beam to accept the sprung draw bar.

 

The great advantage of sprung drawbar couplings is the ease with which you can replace them. So how about 3-link couplings.

 

Or even scale screw link couplings.

 

Sprung drawbar couplings are nothing new. The Leeds Model Company changed to them from swivelling couplings when they dropped clockwork in 1927. The fine scale community have no problem using them, so why don't the modern R.T.R. manufacturers use them?

Edited October 4, 2020 by goldfish
Error in text

[Nearholmer]

Yes, I've been running a Leeds-equipped goods train on my layout, wide buffers and sprung three-links, and it works fine and looks better than trains with the, sometimes huge, gaps that result from using drop-links.

 

But, the likelihood of me getting into a coupler-changing programme is zero. Life is unlikely to be long enough, and similarly wallet, added to which there is something about maintaining the integrity of wagons that were made with drop-links, or indeed those horrible Hornby auto-couplers, in the first place.

 

What a layout using all original Leeds material , such as that built by Rev. Dawes, demonstrates is that by the late-1930s Leeds were well down the road that led to modern fine-scale.

 

Once they arrive with me, I've got a rake of BL wagons with seriously gross pre-war auto-couplers to show ......... now they will upset you!

[goldfish]

16 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Once they arrive with me, I've got a rake of BL wagons with seriously gross pre-war auto-couplers to show ......... now they will upset you!

 

I have no problem with even the most hideous of legacy couplings, what annoys me are the couplings that modern R.T.R. manufacturers insist on fitting.

 

I've never seen a BL auto-coupler, Ill be interested to see them.

[goldfish]

There is thread on Bassett Lowke Auto Couplers here -  https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/109221-bassett-lowke-auto-couplers/

 

If the image posted by ed nantes is the kind of coupling referred to by Nearholmer, then they bear a remarkable resemblance to the very intrusive couplings used by Lenz.

[Nearholmer]

Yes, I started that thread ages ago, and have been hoping since to find examples of the spindly postwar and gross prewar ones - success at last on the latter, but I keep ‘just missing’ on the former.

[goldfish]

4 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Yes, I started that thread ages ago, and have been hoping since to find examples of the spindly postwar and gross prewar ones - success at last on the latter, but I keep ‘just missing’ on the former.

 

The spindly postwar ones look like a modification the Leeds automatic couplings introduced in 1926, which had faded from sight by 1930.

 

The modern day Lenz ones are huge, very intrusive, and in their latest incarnation can be uncoupled with a dcc controlled internal actuator.

[Nearholmer]

Blow me!

 

That is to all intents and purposes the Pre-war BL auto-coupler. I wonder whether they somehow have a common ancestor somewhere in the Bing/Trix family.

[goldfish]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

Blow me!

 

That is to all intents and purposes the Pre-war BL auto-coupler. I wonder whether they somehow have a common ancestor somewhere in the Bing/Trix family.

 

Even better, the design is is the MOROP standard coupling head as defined in NEM 365, and they cost £25 each.

Edited October 4, 2020 by goldfish

[goldfish]

For completeness, the before and after shots for the front couplings on my ETS Terrier. The quick fix for the offending front screw is to swap it for one of the screws securing the lower cover plate on the drive unit.

 

The manufacturer's coupling.

 

 

The replacement LMC pattern coupling.

 

[Annie]

This repainted Hornby L1 tender and loco bodyshell have been on our local on-line auction website for awhile now without a flicker of interest.  I vowed I wasn't going to buy anymore tinplate train stuff since I struggle with doing any kind of model work due to narcolepsy, BUT this could be the only way I could ever get to own a Hornby L1 since normally they sell for the sort of prices that are way beyond my slender means.  So I've put in a bid, - nothing ventured, - nothing gained and all that.

 

 

 

[Nearholmer]

Crikey, even in that state it would have flown off the shelf over here.

 

 

[Annie]

36 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Crikey, even in that state it would have flown off the shelf over here.

 

 

That's what I couldn't understand Kevin.  Apart from the odd bent footstep it's in very nice condition and once the enamel paint is cleaned off there wouldn't be much needing to be done at all.

[Mark Carne]

3 hours ago, Annie said:

This repainted Hornby L1 tender and loco bodyshell have been on our local on-line auction website for awhile now without a flicker of interest.  I vowed I wasn't going to buy anymore tinplate train stuff since I struggle with doing any kind of model work due to narcolepsy, BUT this could be the only way I could ever get to own a Hornby L1 since normally they sell for the sort of prices that are way beyond my slender means.  So I've put in a bid, - nothing ventured, - nothing gained and all that.

 

 

 

It's certainly an L1, but it's not a Hornby one. I'd guess at it being a vintage scratch build.

 

Hornby L1 to hand (ish) for photos for comparison purposes if required.

 

Mark

[Il Grifone]

I was unaware of the existence of the Rivarossi O gauge Gr685, however:

 

http://www.rivarossi-memory.it/Scala_0/Scala_0_1950.htm

 

Italian I'm afraid, but 'Google Translate' will take care of that.

 

The real thing:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FS_Class_685

[Florence Locomotive Works]

5 hours ago, Annie said:

This repainted Hornby L1 tender and loco bodyshell have been on our local on-line auction website for awhile now without a flicker of interest.  I vowed I wasn't going to buy anymore tinplate train stuff since I struggle with doing any kind of model work due to narcolepsy, BUT this could be the only way I could ever get to own a Hornby L1 since normally they sell for the sort of prices that are way beyond my slender means.  So I've put in a bid, - nothing ventured, - nothing gained and all that.

 

 

 

Annie,

 

Not to be to much of downer as we say here, but I believe you have part of what is pictured below, Leeds Model Company freelance engine. It appears yours has had a new boiler barrel and smokebox fitted at some point, along with new splashers. I think it has also had a few millimeters taken out of the running board and firebox, as I can see a faint hint of a seem roughly in the middle between the splashers, and through the firebox band. Quite nice engines though, certainly better than some other freelance engine out there.

 

Douglas

 

Edited October 17, 2020 by Florence Locomotive Works

[brianusa]

Agree with our friend Douglas in Oklahoma, its no Hornby!  The obvious give away are the fixed wheel guards (?)  They are traditionally on the bogie with the Hornby version.

        Brian.

[Annie]

7 hours ago, Mark Carne said:

It's certainly an L1, but it's not a Hornby one. I'd guess at it being a vintage scratch build.

 

Hornby L1 to hand (ish) for photos for comparison purposes if required.

 

Mark

 

5 hours ago, Florence Locomotive Works said:

Annie,

 

Not to be to much of downer as we say here, but I believe you have part of what is pictured below, Leeds Model Company freelance engine. It appears yours has had a new boiler barrel and smokebox fitted at some point, along with new splashers. I think it has also had a few millimeters taken out of the running board and firebox, as I can see a faint hint of a seem roughly in the middle between the splashers, and through the firebox band. Quite nice engines though, certainly better than some other freelance engine out there.

 

Douglas

 

Well whatever it is and whatever its history I don't really mind.  The vendor seems to think it's an old scratchbuild that was no doubt robbed of its wheels and mech at some stage of it's life.  Anyway it's mine now and once it arrives I can have a proper look at it and see what needs doing in the way of body repairs.  I have a couple of biscuit tins containing wheels and various mech bits stashed away so hopefully I'll have enough bits to put something together.

[Annie]

Well the L1 has arrived.  It's made of brass neatly soldered together and it is heavy; - it's definitely not an etched kit.  It's also scale length and very plainly an old scratchbuilt model made by someone who knew about metal working.  The footsteps have suffered from it no doubt banging around in a box for years, but nothing that can't be fixed.

 

I own a lovely old Bassett Lowko clockwork 4 coupled mech that I'm wondering if it will fit.  I'll have to find it in the tinplate train mines first though.

[goldfish]

I came across a Bassett Lowke tinplate open wagon fitted with non-standard couplings and 16mm wheels with rather fetching curved spokes. So an obvious choice for a change of couplings and wheels, and for a change I can make the changes with a clear conscience. Looks rather good with LMC pattern couplings and Slaters wheels.

 

[sncf231e]

Hornby, Bing and Exley in one (clockwork) train on the last day with beautiful weather:

 

Regards

Fred

[goldfish]

I've always thought the Hornby No. 1 Special Tank to be rather awkward looking, never the less when an example in the form of a very grubby, battered body came my way I though it a suitable lock-down conversion project. It actually cleaned up rather well, and straightened out surprisingly easily.

The wheels on the original look too large to my eye, and so I borrowed the drive units from a couple of other conversions to try them. Not a true comparison because one is 3-rail with 25.5 mm wheels and 2.5mm flanges, and the other is 2-rail with 29.5mm wheels and 1.5mm flanges. I might end up putting the body to one side in case a suitable clockwork mechanism comes my way, but here 's what it looks like in modern electrical mode...

 

 

 

 

I'm still undecided which way to go, but to me a shunter should have relatively small wheels. Hornby were very low key in their launch of this locomotive in the November 1929 Meccano Magazine, but they did emphasize that it was a shunter in the brief introduction...

"The corresponding No. 1 Special Tank Locomotive has the same mechanism and general characteristics. It is an ideal engine for shunting purposes."

The general characteristics shared with the Tender Locomotive where...

"In its superstructure it conforms to modern ideas in the way of reduced boiler mountings made necessary by the larger boiler, outside steam pipes, Ross 'Pop' safety valves, etc."

Not exactly an over enthusiastic launch.

The thing that always jars the most to me is the design of the cab, it just doesn't look right. I think I have found a way to improve this by putting in an upright to frame the opening in front of the door. It actually looks much more effective than the images suggest. At the moment it is just held temporarily  in place, I need to come up with a neat way to secure it permanently.

 

[Nearholmer]

Smaller wheels and that upright definitely help.

 

I’ve got one of those ‘bodies’ that I bought for 50p, and I think it looks better as a small-wheeled 0-6-0T, but ‘better’ is, course a relative term, and it still doesn’t look great, and I haven’t pursued the conversion.

[goldfish]

25 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Smaller wheels and that upright definitely help.

 

I’ve got one of those ‘bodies’ that I bought for 50p, and I think it looks better as a small-wheeled 0-6-0T, but ‘better’ is, course a relative term, and it still doesn’t look great, and I haven’t pursued the conversion.

 

i have tried an 0-6-0 drive unit but keeping the outside cylinders then becomes a problem. Smaller wheels with less white space may be the answer.