Deliberately Old-Fashioned 0 Scale - Chapter 1

[Stephen 28]

Ambassador, with these moguls you are spoiling us! (With apologies to manufacturers of posh chocs)

[Metropolitan H]

I reckon it is something in the water around Nearholmer Towers. Either that or there is a secret model engine breeding plant being used experimentally???

 

Regards

Chris H

[Northroader]

If he’s cracked that we’d all like some, please.

[Nearholmer]

Actually, it's a sort of 'every cloud has a silver lining' story.

 

I recently bought a 1950s BL standard 0-6-0 goods engine, which I'd been hunting for for ages, but unbeknownst to both the seller and I, it turned out to be a 'lemon'. Seller was very decent about it, and recompensed me, just at the momement that a Corgi BL Mogul with the very good 'second generation' mechanism became available, so No.1823 arrived on shed.

 

No.1864 has been here for probably five years years, having been acquired in a swap for two tank engines, but barely sees the light of day, because it has the 'first generation' mechanism, which generates nerve-jangling gearbox whine. It may get shunted to the departure road shortly, but most coarse-scalers are wise to the whine problem, so there are a lot of these on the market at low prices. I may just put on ear defenders and run it - the horrible whine seems to be a result of harmless high-frequency vibration, rather than anything self-destructive, but if it does grind its innards to dust, I can then fit a new, silent, drive to it.

 

Anyway, to me, they both look very nice.

 

PS: or, I could convert it into a River class tank engine, although that might bring bad luck on my railway, so I probably won't.

Edited November 22, 2017 by Nearholmer

[St Enodoc]

Actually, it's a sort of 'every cloud has a silver lining' story.

 

I recently bought a 1950s BL standard 0-6-0 goods engine, which I'd been hunting for for ages, but unbeknownst to both the seller and I, it turned out to be a 'lemon'. Seller was very decent about it, and recompensed me, just at the momement that a Corgi BL Mogul with the very good 'second generation' mechanism became available, so No.1823 arrived on shed.

 

No.1864 has been here for probably five years years, having been acquired in a swap for two tank engines, but barely sees the light of day, because it has the 'first generation' mechanism, which generates nerve-jangling gearbox whine. It may get shunted to the departure road shortly, but most coarse-scalers are wise to the whine problem, so there are a lot of these on the market at low prices. I may just put on ear defenders and run it - the horrible whine seems to be a result of harmless high-frequency vibration, rather than anything self-destructive, but if it does grind its innards to dust, I can then fit a new, silent, drive to it.

 

Anyway, to me, they both look very nice.

 

PS: or, I could convert it into a River class tank engine, although that might bring bad luck on my railway, so I probably won't.

The only BL Mogul I ever had dealings with was a live steam one, owned my a school mate.

[Northroader]

What about a repaint?

[Nearholmer]

Corgi BL did actually produce them in CIE green livery, and SECR battleship grey come to that, and the CIE ones are mightily collectible, even if they have screechy gearboxes, because there were so few made.

 

I'm surprised that CH hasn't pointed out that the Rivers had 6" bigger drivers than the N, and that the real 'N tank engine' was the Met K(?) class 2-6-4T........

 

Then, I suppose, an SR W tank is another option. Same sized driving wheels as an N, no reputation for derailment, but the outside cylinders and front end look slightly different, I think, because it had 3-cylinders, like an N1 or U1.

 

Corgi should simply have created a set of interchangeable parts, like the real things!

[Northroader]

I came across a K1 at Waterford in 1953, but TBH, you weren’t thinking what a nice shade of green they’d picked to paint it. Every loco I saw over there had a patina of dark grey grime, much the same as this side of the channel, with the number and flying snail faintly visible. White lining out? ho, ho, ho.

[Simond]

“Corgi should simply have created a set of interchangeable parts, like the real things! “

 

Presumably from Churchward, via Holcroft?

 

 

Best

Simon

Edited November 23, 2017 by Simond

[Nearholmer]

Indeed, which raises a question that has been floating about somewhere else:

 

The Maunsell Mogul family was out of the USA, by way of Churchward, and had 2-6-4T versions; the Stanier locos were also out of the USA via Churchward, and had a very good 2-6-4T version, which became, in stages, the BR version. So, why didn't the GWR family of engines include a 2-6-4T?

[Donw]

Indeed, which raises a question that has been floating about somewhere else:

 

The Maunsell Mogul family was out of the USA, by way of Churchward, and had 2-6-4T versions; the Stanier locos were also out of the USA via Churchward, and had a very good 2-6-4T version, which became, in stages, the BR version. So, why didn't the GWR family of engines include a 2-6-4T?

 

The GWR were quite happy with Prairies. I suspect Stanier copied the Fowler ones because the bogie allowed a bigger bunker for longer runs quite why the Southern needed a bigger bunker isn't clear to me perhaps the GWR Welsh steam coal meant you needed less bunker space.

 

Don

[Metropolitan H]

I failed to respond to the "River" class provocation as it was getting a bit far fetched.

 

Regarding the GW tank derivatives of the 43xx Moguls - there isn't one in quite the same way as the Met K Class 2-6-4Ts were built from "Woolwich" moguls or the LMS 2-6-4Ts appear to relate to Stanier moguls.

 

The 31xx / 51xx etc., Prairie tanks on the GWR carried much smaller boilers that the 43xx and later Moguls - it was all about keeping the axle loads down to reasonable levels. Also the GWR had a lot of serviceable 4-4-0s for working cross-country trains over more lightly laid lines.

 

The most powerful GWR tanks were the 42xx 2-8-0T and 72XX 2-8-2Ts for creeping about the country with heavy coal trains. These locos had a lot more in common with a 28xx 2-8-0.

 

Now I expect to be shot-down by JRS or other expert.

 

Regards

Chris H

[Northroader]

Does it fit in with the GWR (and the LNWR) having an aversion to a trailing bogie on a tank engine? Pretty well every other line had some 0-4-4T, but with rare exception, not those two.

[Nearholmer]

The GWR did have a couple of odd 0-4-4T, I think, but clearly didn't much like the idea.

 

Big bunkers on SR engines were for water, rather than simply coal, I think, and possibly the Met K also. There were no water troughs in Kent or Sussex, and the water is very hard indeed in many places, so I guess they liked to fill up where it was good, and take plenty. The runs to the coast are surprisingly long, and the Rivers were meant to replace ancient 4-4-0 tender engines on the semi fasts to the Kent Coast - biggish wheels for non-stopping to Sevenoaks/Tonbridge, Maidstone or Rochester, then onwards calling at many stations.

 

I'm guessing that the GWR didn't have the pressure on London-end tracks and termini that pushed railways to use tank engines for middle-distance services. Did stoppers to Oxford and Newbury use tender engines, or big Prairies?

[Northroader]

61s

[unravelled]

There has been some discussion of GW 2-6-4t locos on the imaginary locos thread, and there is now a spin off build thread

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/128337-gwr-7100-class/

 

Dave

Edited November 24, 2017 by unravelled

[Nearholmer]

Its possibly a cause for concern that truly trivial things can cause delight, but here is one such .....

 

With the aid of the usual dodgy temporary wiring, a train service has commenced between Birlstone and Paltry Circus.

Edited November 24, 2017 by Nearholmer

[St Enodoc]

Its possibly a cause for concern that truly trivial things can cause delight, but here is one such .....

 

With the aid of the usual dodgy temporary wiring, a train service has commenced between Birlstone and Paltry Circus.

On the contrary. The introduction of a new train service is anything but trivial. Well done Kevin.

[Northroader]

Great news... three discs?

[Nearholmer]

It was a case of random disc placement, because I'd forgotten what code I was supposed to be using, but it means Brighton to Salisbury or vice-versa, among other possibilities. SR locos tend to look a bit naked without discs.

[Northroader]

Oh right, my Ian Allan abc only gives one- and two- disc codes, should have known better. You could slip in a few variations on a Brighton Salisbury trip, I suppose.

Edit, by the way, if you want a pilotman for the Paltry Circus branch..?

Edited November 24, 2017 by Northroader

[Metropolitan H]

Well done, I'm looking forward to bringing some interlopers round for a play soon - Met / LNER or GWR, as Sir decrees? Are you about for a late morning coffee on Monday?

 

I'll try not to bring any residual bugs!

 

A bit of good news is encouragement from the distaff side for the reinstatement of the conservatory floor railway, now that the Grand-childer-beasts will not be here so often! - This was an unprompted suggestion - so I'm wondering if there is a catch!

 

Regards

Chris H

[Nearholmer]

There's always a catch, you can be sure.

 

Why not a couple of Met passenger trains, an LNER goods loco, and a big through LNER express, then Paltry Circus can be Baker Street, and Birlstone can be Amersham, for the session? There are one or two (!) wagons and brake vans here already.

 

I'll contact you further to advise 'line clear'.

[brianusa]

 

Steam engines, can't get more old fashioned than that and a change from the local variety, although sharing the same rails.

 

Brian.

[Mark Carne]

Changing the station names to suit the stock that's running sounds very Greenlyish Kevin! I like it!

Edited November 25, 2017 by Mark Carne