Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Michael,

That 4-4-0 is not coarse scale; it is a Pickersgill 72 Class made (not by me) from a Meteor Models kit.

P1070047.JPG.d8d528127aa1851e2a2a8da7f7993816.JPGP1070040.JPG.0adeb2176951df31d027465e7b85990d.JPGP1070052.JPG.e09b4969e27659da36c68feaa3502fec.JPGP1070044.JPG.a3214a5231f34765556b738b993d8519.JPGP1070050.JPG.99b40c6cb57a4c4ef976a68d7acbd957.JPG

 

And for comparison the ACE Caledonian 4-4-0:

 

P1070032a.jpg.ed7e639d771b33a4b2ffb030f579efb3.jpg

Regards

Fred

Edited by sncf231e
  • Like 4
  • Craftsmanship/clever 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, sncf231e said:

That 4-4-0 is not coarse scale; it is a Pickersgill 72 Class made (not by me) from a Meteor Models kit.

Fred,

Thank you for the images, superb. It is nice to see fine and coarse scale being mixed.

Regards,

Michael

Edited by goldfish
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 19/07/2021 at 10:28, Il Grifone said:

I've always assumed that the 30" diameter was to fit on a standard table (presumably when mum and/or SWMBO was not around hence tabletop in various manifestations.

 

German (and Italian* probably others?) prototype practice was to measure the gauge between the rail centres. (OK until you try to use a beefier rail section, but I would have thought it easier to measure between the rails). The toy manufacturers followed suit. 35mm gauge, with a 3mm diameter rail head, becomes 32mm measured properly. Finding a scale to fit the gauge came afterwards.

I believe standard gauge came from 4' 6" plateways. To clear the flanges on the rails the wheels had to be a couple of inches farther apart. Fitting flanges to the wheels meant the rails had to move farther apart (or perhaps the rail section gave the gauge avoiding moving the rail fixings).

 

*The local Sardinian metre gauge is actually 950mm.

 

I'm sure it's something of the sort. One thing I have learnt from my Lionel experiments is that the difference between a 27" and a 31" overall circle may not sound like much, but in terms if where it will fit the difference is considerable. I'm sure that it's no coincidences that 15" or so, is also the standard minimum radius in HO and OO train sets. 

 

Hence also, O42 (=42" circle) is the largest usable size on a 6' x 4' or 8' x 4' board, a common size,  and O54 (=54" circle) the largest size which will fit on the once-common, 9' x 5' ping-pong table. Both sizes give sufficient clearance for side-throw from the next size up or down. 

Edited by rockershovel
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone remarked that in my latest video the train stopped at the Hornby station, but that the passengers did not board :blush:. Well, I tried to do better this time at the JEP station :D:

 

 

Regards

Fred

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Sometime ago I acquired a Leeds Nettle that had been cosmetically restored, but was a complete non-runner. The power bogie was missing any current collector, and the brushes and brush holders were also missing. The trailing bogie was also in need of repair. The original intention was to do a full restoration, but it was much easier to fit ETS power and trailing bogies.

 

IMG_0306.JPG.b1b62333e8890036470b5d214cee2465.JPG

Edited by goldfish
  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

There's some lovely stuff on this thread!  I wondered if those in the know could maybe advise me on something please?

 

I've a somewhat knackered clockwork Bing George the Fifth that I picked up spares/repairs to rebuild as a prop for some photographs I'm doing (a previous owner has repainted it, and it has some cosmetic damage... plus the clockwork chassis is properly knackered).  I want to convert it to track electric power for the photographs, either a tender-drive bogie or powered chassis under the loco, to run on Hornby O tracks.  Can anyone recommend if there's a suitable chassis or block?  I've seen a few possibilities online, but wondered if anyone on here had maybe done something similar and had any recommendations?

 

Thanks,

Ben

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben

 

I’ve got a George part way through a stop-start rest project. My first action was to see if I could get the mechanism to run well and strongly, and by a combination of tinkering and (surprise coming) simmering it carefully in a pan of boiling water for a few minutes, succeeded on that front - it runs very respectably now. So, advice point 1: don’t write-off the clockwork too easily, it is very robust.

 

Advice point 2 is that replacement electric mechs can be had from ETS for about one hundred and seventy of your English pounds. Paul Lumsdon of WJVintage (see website), and Michael Foster (I’ve got his email address ….  Somewhere!) are the leading importers.

 

I’ve actually got two ETS mechs that might be right ‘in stock’ for future jobs on old Hornby locos - I’ll check that the wheels and wheelbase are about right for a George at the weekend, and if they are, and you want one in a tearing hurry, I’d be happy to exchange it for the above number of English pounds. I can then source another one in slow motion, which is how fast my projects move!

 

Kevin

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

17 hours ago, Ben B said:

There's some lovely stuff on this thread!  I wondered if those in the know could maybe advise me on something please?

 

I've a somewhat knackered clockwork Bing George the Fifth that I picked up spares/repairs to rebuild as a prop for some photographs I'm doing (a previous owner has repainted it, and it has some cosmetic damage... plus the clockwork chassis is properly knackered).  I want to convert it to track electric power for the photographs, either a tender-drive bogie or powered chassis under the loco, to run on Hornby O tracks.  Can anyone recommend if there's a suitable chassis or block?  I've seen a few possibilities online, but wondered if anyone on here had maybe done something similar and had any recommendations?

 

Thanks,

Ben

Hi Ben,

 

 

I produced a series of video guides on how to go about repairing a clockwork George the Fifth, here’s a link. If you have any questions feel free to PM me.

 

Douglas

Edited by Florence Locomotive Works
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Florence Locomotive Works said:

Hi Ben,

 

 

I produced a series of video guides on how to go about repairing a clockwork George the Fifth, here’s a link. If you have any questions feel free to PM me.

 

Douglas

 

Hello

 

   Cheers for that- I'll have a watch over the weekend :)

 

   And thanks for the offer too Nearholmer; depending on how I can get on with the clockwork, I might take you up on it, but we'll see if I can cobble it back together first with the wind-up gubbins...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Which has prompted me to dig out my loco and an ETS mechanism.

 

5A792445-F79C-42B2-9C84-EAEC97EAC2D9.jpeg.eba57d4b8b667b8f33ffd16586682231.jpeg

 

Bing mechanism 60mm WB, divers 42mm diameter.

 

ETS mechanism 60mm WB, drivers 40mm diameter.

 

A pretty good match, I’d say.

 

I’ve actually got another George shell, complete, but in bits, part-way through panel beating (it was very badly bashed about), and this is making me wonder whether to put the mech under that, rather than a Hornby loco …… food for thought.

Edited by Nearholmer
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

By coincidence postie delivered me a new ETS drive unit yesterday, for a long planned project. The question is, does a classic Hornby 0-4-0 tank make a convincing 0-6-0? I suspect the answer is that it is not a terribly good 0-4-0, and is just as plausible as an 0-6-0.

 

IMG_0313.JPG.a7c929d629037d77f650111fab1e9ed0.JPG

 

I normally try not to modify bodies when I convert them, but this one came to me came to me as a repaint with the cylinders already removed. No further modification was required.

 

The long overhang under the cab looks odd, but seems to be a feature of some tank locomotives.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have often looked at an unmotored 0-4-0 body I have and thought an 0-6-0 chassis would look good under it - I was thinking about a shorter wheelbase though - I just thought it might fit a little better. What wheelbase is that one in your picture ?

 

 

Regards !

 

Andi

 

 

Edited by andi4x4
Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, andi4x4 said:

I have often looked at an unmotored 0-4-0 body I have and thought an 0-6-0 chassis would look good under it - I was thinking about a shorter wheelbase though - I just thought it might fit a little better. What wheelbase is that one in your picture ?

 

I agree that a shorter wheelbase would be better, but this is the shortest wheelbase ETS do with equally spaced wheels. The wheelbase is 80mm (40 + 40). Ideally it would be 70mm (35 + 35), and ETS would be happy to make one for you, provided you want 100.

 

They do a 0-8-0 chassis with 35mm spaced wheels, which would be perfect if you cut down the chassis to make an 0-6-0.

 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that if you moved the chassis back, so that the notional firebox was between the rear two axles, and the notional cylinders ahead of the first, it might look better balanced. 
 

I've got one of the bodies, and the unequal wheelbase ETS 0-6-0 chassis that I got very cheap secondhand planning to rob it for parts, but I can’t get that combination to look kosher however I fit the two together, so haven’t made-up the fixing brackets.

Link to post
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

I think that if you moved the chassis back, so that the notional firebox was between the rear two axles, and the notional cylinders ahead of the first, it might look better balanced. 

 

I have tried moving the chassis back, but to my eye it looks worse. There are also clearance issues with the chassis moved back, which would require the rear mounting attachment point being cut down. Something I am trying to avoid.

 

Rather surprisingly if you compare my effort with a Terrier, the relationship between the front wheel and the front face of the boiler, and the rear wheel and the cab are very similar. I think that the problem is probably not the position of the chassis, but the oversize boiler.

 

IMG_0315.JPG.ef141216b79247c9dbcf21882c452e18.JPG

 

Edited by goldfish
Added image
Link to post
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, goldfish said:

 

I agree that a shorter wheelbase would be better, but this is the shortest wheelbase ETS do with equally spaced wheels. The wheelbase is 80mm (40 + 40). Ideally it would be 70mm (35 + 35), and ETS would be happy to make one for you, provided you want 100.

 

They do a 0-8-0 chassis with 35mm spaced wheels, which would be perfect if you cut down the chassis to make an 0-6-0.

 

Michael

 

I have not cut an ETS chassis down, so, not sure if it would be possible or not - from what I have seen written on other forums, it takes a brave soul to try and take one apart ! I see the dilemma with the chassis wheelbase though. I think, looking at your comparison photo, that a good compromise would be as Nearholmer suggests - centralise the body on the chassis a little and I think the eyes and imagination will do the rest. Balance is the key in this case, I feel.

 

Regards !

 

Andi

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your suggestions. I will have another look at the installation, but the clearance issues I mentioned earlier limit what is possible without modifying the body.

 

In the mean time here are a couple of very quick trial installations in alternative bodies.

 

IMG_0316.JPG.bf71809e492e19ccc8bf796472fe85f6.JPG

 

IMG_0319.JPG.5c91c571efa4890943d5b88dfb58d5d7.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites

That last one looks vaguely like an SECR P class tank, fitted with a rather larger boiler than the originals!

I wonder if the later version of the Hornby tank would look less off-balance if you found something to fill in all the empty space at the rear - cab steps, guard irons, maybe even a tank under the bunker (as found with some push/pull installations, I believe), or even just a false frame extension.

Gordon

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GRASinBothell said:

That last one looks vaguely like an SECR P class tank, fitted with a rather larger boiler than the originals!

I wonder if the later version of the Hornby tank would look less off-balance if you found something to fill in all the empty space at the rear - cab steps, guard irons, maybe even a tank under the bunker (as found with some push/pull installations, I believe), or even just a false frame extension.

Gordon

 

That is an excellent idea, thank you.

 

Something along the lines of this perhaps?

 

IMG_0320.JPG.f79be969d7171f4bb97b2866661a5eb6.JPG

 

This is just a card mock-up, but it is a great improvement. Please ignore the massive amount of daylight over the drive unit, I have just painted the pieces that fill in those gaps.

 

Michael.

 

 

Edited by goldfish
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

One class of locos that always look as if the front drivers are too far forward to me are the SR Q1, and this now puts me in mind of a Q1 tank engine. I presume that they have fairly steeply inclined cyyliners, but that the impression is partly due to their generally unusual proportions, because if you look closely the front axle is in pretty much in the same place as on other 0-6-0 goods engines.

 

Anyway, I like the faux frame a lot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chaps,

 

To be believeable an inside cylindered model loco should never have the leading coupled "Axle" further forward than the rear of the smokebox - and normally the centre line is at least 6 inches behind the rear face of the cylinder block, which is normally co-incident with the rear of the smokebox.

 

This goes for Bulleid Q1s, Gresley J6s or J50s, Stroudley Terriers, Collett 48xx / 58xx, Fowler 4Fs - and so on!

 

Regards

Chris H

Edited by Metropolitan H
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Metropolitan H said:

Chaps,

 

To be believeable an inside cylindered model loco should never have the leading coupled "Axle" further forward than the rear of the smokebox - and normally the centre line is at least 6 inches behind the rear face of the cylinder block, which is normally co-incident with the rear of the smokebox.

 

This goes for Bulleid Q1s, Gresley J6s or J50s, Stroudley Terriers, Collett 48xx / 58xx, Fowler 4Fs - and so on!

 

Regards

Chris H

 

This is very true, but I am not sure that believable is a word often associated with Hornby tank engines.

 

However, there are always exceptions. When looking for plausible prototypes for this I found "Mortomley" a 0-6-0 saddle tank used at the Newton Chamber's Thorncliffe works. I cannot post a picture for copyright reasons, but the front wheels appear to be much further forward than usual.

 

To see if this could work, I did make some composite images of one of these bodies and the drive unit, with the drive unit at the extremes of where it could fit. However without cutting off the bottom of the rear mounting screw the front axle cannot be further back than the centre of the chimney. The two mounting screws are at different heights, the rear one being much lower than the front one.

 

Michael.

 

40-40.png.bdb33d54aef763178575edcd9a0d08c3.png

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...