Standard 3 2-6-0 using standard 4 chassis? Is it feasible?

[bluesparkdave]

Could a Standard 3 2-6-0 be produced fairly easily using the Standard 4 2-6-0 chassis. Only 20 standard 3s were built but they were used in the South of Scotland and NE England which might be too limited an area of interest for them to be of use to the wider modelling fraternity. Would this limit the chances of it ever being produced?

[chrisf]

Could a Standard 3 2-6-0 be produced fairly easily using the Standard 4 2-6-0 chassis. Only 20 standard 3s were built but they were used in the South of Scotland and NE England which might be too limited an area of interest for them to be of use to the wider modelling fraternity. Would this limit the chances of it ever being produced?

 

It might be better to use the Class 3 2-6-2T chassis given that the Class 3s are sister classes and have the same coupled wheelbase.  So, I believe, does the Standard 4 family.  As for the chances of it being produced, who knows what the manufacturers will do next?  One suggestion, possibly a little old fashioned in these times, is to persuade someone to make a resin body if there isn't one already.

 

Chris

[RedgateModels]

There are differences at the front of the footplate between the 3 and 4 moguls, I have a Bachmann 2-6-2 in bits plus an airfix mogul with a view to coming up with a hybrid, but there is no easy option. Scottish layouts are very popular on the circuit, and one class 3 did make it down south towards the end, so anything is possible .....

[JSpencer]

Is the question one of placing a 3MT tender loco body on a 4MT tender loco chassis? Or is it could Bachmann do the 3MT tender engine using the same chassis?

 

As for using the tank loco chassis, that is a no no as the block fills up the side tanks and would need to be cut away first which might affect how the whole chassis holds togethor.

 

Slightly related, you could easily convert (and Bachmann could easily do) the Ivatt 2MTs (both) into BR 2MTs.

[Dunsignalling]

On the real things, the main difference was that the 3MT moguls had smaller boilers to reduce the weight and achieve the desired route availability.

 

It's a while since I last had the body off a Bachmann 4MT but, IIRC, it was a fairly snug fit over the mechanism so I'd think the 4MT chassis block is probably too wide for your idea to work.  

 

John

Edited March 15, 2016 by Dunsignalling

[No Decorum]

Yes, without looking at the detail, the boiler was the first thing which occurred to me. Looking far into the future, it might have been possible for Bachmann to design the the chassis and other various parts to enable Standards 3s and 4s, tender and tank, to be produced at a future date.

 

On the other hand, Hornby has pointed out that this can lead to some parts of the toolings to wear out faster than other parts and I have read somewhere that the body moulding is the most expensive part of the mix.

 

Not that that seems to have mattered much in the past. Long, long ago, Hornby started from considering what parts were available and deciding what could be made from them with minimum expenditure, even if the result was not altogether accurate. Somewhat more recently, Hornby produced a Clan using Britannia parts as an economy measure, believing that the particular recession at the time would lead to a drop in purchasing. As I recall, it didn’t and Bachmann surged ahead.

[Mad McCann]

In reality, the two types shared a common chassis but as John has stated it might be a little awkward to get the existing motor and trappings into the narrower boiler/ firebox combo of the 3MT. Whilst the cab shares the same basic configuration of the four, study of photos suggests that the proportions of the respective cabs are different.

 

Dave.

[edcayton]

Whilst they did share a chassis they looked very different. Not sure if it was just the smaller boiler or the running plates were different, but IMHO the class 4's were the better looking machines.

 

Ed

[No Decorum]

That could well be. May we have a model, please, Bachmann, so that we can make our own minds up?

[JSpencer]

On the real things, the main difference was that the 3MT moguls had smaller boilers to reduce the weight and achieve the desired route availability.

 

It's a while since I last had the body off a Bachmann 4MT but, IIRC, it was a fairly snug fit over the mechanism so I'd think the 4MT chassis block is probably too wide for your idea to work.  

 

John

Not only a snug fit, it is a DCC ready loco for which there is absolutely no place to fit a chip without removing all those DCC ready parts. Even then you would need to use a small 6 pin decoder.

 

The alternative is to place that in the tender and run 4 wires, but this model with its high running plate would make hiding those wires nearly impossible.

 

I don't think we will have issues of the tooling wearing out using parts on different versions, as I doubt these sell in such high numbers to put tooling at risk. Nice cute locos they are, A4s they are not.

 

I have only 1 4MT tender engine and 1 of its Ivatt cousins (with that lovely big chimney and high running plate).

[bike2steam]

Slightly related, you could easily convert (and Bachmann could easily do) the Ivatt 2MTs (both) into BR 2MTs.

With the re-tooled chassis for the Ivatt 2, you never know with Bachmann - the 84000 ( oopps I did say 78 - no) could be a possibility !?

It would be nice to see a standard class 3 mogul, they weren't just limited to the north-east, and Scotland, a couple spent their last few years at Northwich shed (77011 & 14). I saw them at Crewe South, one of which, the infamous 77014 moved to Guildford in April 1966, originally for a special but never returned home, it did visit Blandford, and hauled the last steam working off Bournemouth shed. 

But the straight answer to the original question - unfortunately, no.

Edited March 15, 2016 by bike2steam

[PenrithBeacon]

On the real things, the main difference was that the 3MT moguls had smaller boilers to reduce the weight and achieve the desired route availability.

 

...

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but I thought that the BR3 Moguls and Prairies shared the same GWR inspired boiler, while the BR4 4-6-0 and 2-6-4T boilers weren't quite identical because the 4-6-0's needed to be a bit longer. The BR4 Mogul and the Ivatt Mogul had very similar boilers but they weren't interchangeable.

 

Anyway, that's my tupenneth.

 

Regards

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...As for using the tank loco chassis, that is a no no as the block fills up the side tanks and would need to be cut away first which might affect how the whole chassis holds together.

 Not necessarily. it needs the construction inspecting. I have sawn very large chunks off Bach chassis castings with great success, the similarly tank filling lumps on the 56xx for example, to enable it to power a small 0-6-0 tender loco. If it can be done, then a BR std 3 mechanism with the right wheel diameter that will fit within the class 3 boiler for height is available. Only the body to build...

 

 

On the real things, the main difference was that the 3MT moguls had smaller boilers to reduce the weight and achieve the desired route availability.

 

It's a while since I last had the body off a Bachmann 4MT but, IIRC, it was a fairly snug fit over the mechanism so I'd think the 4MT chassis block is probably too wide for your idea to work.  

 Yes, but. If going at it this way the 4MT motor is neatly in the firebox, and the firebox to cab relationship is much the same on std 3 and std 4. Changing the wheelsets to the 5'3" of the std 3 will drop the mech. height a little too. Graft the slimmer std 3 boiler and smokebox section onto the std 4 firebox, and a good lookee-likee should result.

 

 

General ramble. The 'parts mine' that present RTR offers is now very large. It is strange to me that as the choice in what is available RTR has dramatically increased, so the 'what can I carve out of this?' orientation within this hobby seems to have been severely reduced. There's better tools and materials to support the bashing process nowadays too. What's inhibiting people from having a go? If anyone looks at the GBL thread in 'Other Magazines', you will see it's great fun.

[Poor Old Bruce]

Could a Standard 3 2-6-0 be produced fairly easily using the Standard 4 2-6-0 chassis. Only 20 standard 3s were built but they were used in the South of Scotland and NE England which might be too limited an area of interest for them to be of use to the wider modelling fraternity. Would this limit the chances of it ever being produced?

 

Recent productions have seen models of less numerous locos produced, some with far less geographical scope:

 

Somerset and Dorset 2-8-0 - Ten off - well five really in 1925 and some of those retained their large boilers for a long time.

Adams Radial 4-4-2T - Three off for many years limited to the Lyme Regis branch for most of thei lives.

Drummond 2-4-0WT - Three off again for many years and limited to a bit of Cornwall.

LMS 10000/10001 with their various detail differences at different times.

One-off prototype diesels - Deltic, Falcon, Lion and Kestrel

 

Those in planning:

 

GWR 1361 and 1366 classes, just five of each.

 

With 20 Std 3s being built, I would think there was quite a good chance of a RTR one at some time.

[45568]

I always thought this was one for Golden Arrow, a resin 'drop-on', like the LNER Q1 tank for the Bachmann O4 chassis?

cheers from Oz,

 Peter  C.

[No Decorum]

With 20 Std 3s being built, I would think there was quite a good chance of a RTR one at some time.

I hope you’re right. I don’t think I’m alone in developing a taste for related locomotives when something in particular appears. A case in point is the LNER heavy goods 2-8-0s.

 

Riddles and his team did a remarkable job, in my opinion. BR inherited, I think, 448 classes of steam locomotive and Riddles & Co. worked out that all jobs (apart from shunting) could be done by just twelve. Bear in mind the huge variety of axle loadings, total weight restrictions, loading gauges and power requirements.

[Wheatley]

Somewhat more recently, Hornby produced a Clan using Britannia parts as an economy measure,

Unless I'm missing something (which is entirely possible) the Hornby Clan uses Britannia parts because the real one did. The boiler and fittings are different but that's about all, at least in 4mm scale.

 

Am I missing something ?

 

Edit: Just realised I've read that as "Hornby compromised by using existing mouldings" when I suspect your point was that Hornby did in fact do exactly what BR did and added a loco at minimal cost. Apologies.

Edited March 15, 2016 by Wheatley

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Alternative opinion. It would have been truly impressive if the Riddles team had standardised on existing designs for those roles, instead of increasing diversity by designing and building yet more classes of steam loco, requiring their own unique stocks of spares and all else to support them. That way the diversity reduction starts from 448 instead of 460, just shy of 3% organisational efficiency gain.

[JSpencer]

I hope you’re right. I don’t think I’m alone in developing a taste for related locomotives when something in particular appears. A case in point is the LNER heavy goods 2-8-0s.

 

Riddles and his team did a remarkable job, in my opinion. BR inherited, I think, 448 classes of steam locomotive and Riddles & Co. worked out that all jobs (apart from shunting) could be done by just twelve. Bear in mind the huge variety of axle loadings, total weight restrictions, loading gauges and power requirements.

A good job indeed, though we are going OT here, with hindsight, it could have been fewer:

2MT tank and tender engines, no need for a new design, just carry on doing Ivatts as they were.

3MT tank and tender engines, their roles covered either by the smaller 2MTs or larger 4MTs. I think Western region influenced them too much to do a prairie when a 2-6-4 4MT would have been fine.

4MT tank --> this design is valid as the Fairburns they were based upon had various loading gauge issues in some regions

4MT 2-6-0 tender engine. Just carry on with the Ivatt design, single chimney modifications

4MT 4-6-0 tender engine. Again the Western region intervening IMHO. They were keen to dispose of all 2-6-0s on their regions are replace them with 4-6-0s and this looks a continuation of that logic.

5MT --> could have stayed with the LMS design

6MT --> filled no gap. The few built could have be filled be additional members of current classes (or a 5MT).

7MT --> I not sure if there really was a demand for additional locos in this power range. If there was a need, the numbers built could have been perpetuated by few more of those classes. The LMR converting remaining Patriots, the SR 3 extra west countries, the GWR a few extra countys, the NE a few more V2s...

8P --> if there really was a need to replace Princess Anne then another Duchess would have been fine

9F --> there is some debate as to whether or not such a powerful engine was required. If yes, the design is justified. They certainly built a lot of these for sure so I give them the benefit. If no, then more 8Fs.

 

Two designs out of 12 justified IMHO. There is some political "LMS is taking over..." issues to push for BR designs, but everything 5MT and under is essence a modified LMS design, 2 of them with GWR boilers.

 

But they do make for interesting modelling for sure and I have many of these on my layout. I would definitely get BR 2MT variants for sure if they appear in RTR.

[bike2steam]

Yes indeed, it is going OT a bit, and a discussion like this has been done many times before. But just a few points, the introduction of standard types aided 'cascading' of others to replace worn out classes kept to work thro' WW2 when they should've been withdrawn, but also kept on thro' the lean time post-war years. With most of what you say I can agree, but the 'Brits' simply revolutionised the workings on the Norwich expresses on the GEML ( until the EE type 4's came along), and the 9F's, with one of the best steaming boilers ever built, put up excellent performances on workings like the Birmingham to Carlisle ( via Leeds, and the S&C) freights. The major problem as the standards entered traffic, a lot of their work was being lost as traffic declined. Sorry, it just had to be said  .

[Arun Sharma]

Bearing in mind that the 77xxx class were built at Swindon and did their running in and post-overhaul turns there, a model can be justified on any layout set pretty much anywhere in the country - especially as 77014 spent time in the NW around Nantwich as well as down at Guildford.

See the two volumes of Irwell's "Book of the Standards" for details of wanderings.

Edited March 15, 2016 by ted675

[farren]

more recently, Hornby produced a Clan using Britannia parts as an economy measure, believing that the particular recession at the time would lead to a drop in purchasing. As I recall, it didn’t and Bachmann surged ahead.

 

? When I bought the clan and in the mags it was said by Hornby it was built on a all new chassis

Edited March 16, 2016 by farren

[Wheatley]

Definitely the same chassis, although the Britannia had been re-vamped with a new chassis a couple of years before the Clan appeared. I've a Hornby Brit and a Clan, the chassis are identical.

[JSpencer]

Definitely the same chassis, although the Britannia had been re-vamped with a new chassis a couple of years before the Clan appeared. I've a Hornby Brit and a Clan, the chassis are identical.

The Britannia had a new everything. Doubtless when they designed it, they considered using chassis/tender for the clan at the same time.

Edited March 16, 2016 by JSpencer

[Combe Martin]

Regarding the following quote about the Bachmann 4MT, which I assume to be about the Std 4 2-6-0

 

Not only a snug fit, it is a DCC ready loco for which there is absolutely no place to fit a chip without removing all those DCC ready parts. Even then you would need to use a small 6 pin decoder.

 

The alternative is to place that in the tender and run 4 wires, but this model with its high running plate would make hiding those wires nearly impossible.

I have to disagree completely about this.

 

I've got 2 Std 4 2-6-0s, both DCC ready. One I've fitted a ZTC258 decoder to, which is the direct plug in 8 pin decoder with the 8 pins on the underside, so no wires. The other has the much bigger Lenz Standard+ fitted. This slots into the front of the smokebox and has an 8 pin plug on the end of wires. I havn't had to remove any weights to do this. There are loads of decoders much smaller than a Lenz Standard (quite a big decoder) which would therefore fit. I used the 2 different makes in the same loco type for comparison purposes.