Andrew Barclay 14" & 16" 0-4-0ST in OO Gauge

[Unknown Warrior]

Hi Folks,

 

I haven't seen the EP photos either, other than what we've seen here. What I might respectfully add, is that you won't normally see daylight through the real thing. The 14" Barclay is a much bigger beast. As such, this alters the main springing arrangement on the main frames. On the smaller 12" locos, the rear springs are separate, across and above the rear drivers. On the larger 14" locomotives, there is a balance bar, which passes under the boiler barrel, and comes around, and atop the main rear axleboxes. With this, and the main saddle balance pipe, there's not too much to see. Also, in between the frames, the motion plate bisects the place between, where the valve gear passes through to the lifting links and the eccentrics. Some of the larger Barclay locomotives have an recess arc, to allow the boiler barrel to clear the motion. The 16" locomotive simply exacerbates this problem. On nearly all of the Barclay saddle tanks, the boiler cladding goes in first, underneath the barrel, Any fitter will use any, or all the space they can take to make a neat job, with the saddle tank going on top of that. From what I've seen, the 0-6-0 is a better bet, as the boiler gets lifted up a bit, with a slightly different smokebox saddle and firebox support bracket either side.

 

If you're expecting an 9F daylight experience-oh dear!

 

Ian.

 Attached a couple of photos taken yesterday of the EVR ABs  at Wirksworth of the gap between the boiler and frames on the 14 inch (Green) and 16 inch (Blue). The 16 inch is not very helpful as it was in the shed but I offer the photos for information.

[Craigw]

I remember many years ago a review of the Lima King mentioning that the king had a skirt. 

 

I am reminded of that for some reason.

 

 

The model really does look lovely and is a wonderful prototype, but I do find the wall beneath the boiler rather off putting.

 

Craig W

[Bon Accord]

This is the closest I'm ever going to get RTR, so its a question of which of those on offer is going to look most convincing rather than fussing with calipers and throwing my teddy in the corner. Even if the windows are wrong the Fina one is still going to look closer than an L&Y Pug - or a Peckett for that matter

 

I was doing some googling earlier and it would appear that the gasworks did in fact have a 14 inch Barclay (as per the Hattons model) but only for a very short while (4 years). It was purchased in 1914 but was then sold on to the Government in 1918, this was named "Aberdeen Gasworks No.3" for the duration. It was subsequently replaced by the now preserved No.3 which is a 12 inch Barclay.

So there is some scope there for a 'might have been' scenario!

[Phil Parker]

Quite right, Cap'n. I too think this lets the model down and am hoping that the finished item doesn't have this boxy,slab-sided thing under the boiler but it won't matter as most people won't notice it because of all the froth surrounding it.

 

Or maybe they are happy to live with this for the chance of a reasonably priced small industrial loco? Doesn't make them bad people.

 

Having seen the model in the plastic, the "skirt" isn't immediately noticeable. It's well under the saddle tank overhang. The side view photo makes the "slab sided" look more obvious than it really is, helped by the model being unpainted and shown larger than life size. Paint will help a lot, as will more natural viewing angles.

 

I don't have any extra information but I don't think sorting this out would be a "tweak" either. More a "Throw the chassis away and re-tool some of the body". Dave did say in his presentation that packing everything in to such a small model had been a challenge. We want more than two wires to a motor, there has to be electrical noise suppression, provision for DCC chips and even sound. That's a lot of bulk. Yes, it can be done but there may also be implications for the assembly process that could increase the cost.

 

The good news is that no-one has to make a decision now. As Hattons have said, these models will be on the shelves for some time. If you are unsure, sit tight until they appear in the shop (and in the magazines) and make your mind up then.

[Legend]

Yes no real need for another 0-4-0 for me , my Peckett only gets an occasional outing up the goods yard. I think I'll wait and see . I also think once we see a painted example the skirt might not be so noticeable .

[Captain Kernow]

Or maybe they are happy to live with this for the chance of a reasonably priced small industrial loco? Doesn't make them bad people.

 

Having seen the model in the plastic, the "skirt" isn't immediately noticeable. It's well under the saddle tank overhang. The side view photo makes the "slab sided" look more obvious than it really is, helped by the model being unpainted and shown larger than life size. Paint will help a lot, as will more natural viewing angles.

 

I don't have any extra information but I don't think sorting this out would be a "tweak" either. More a "Throw the chassis away and re-tool some of the body". Dave did say in his presentation that packing everything in to such a small model had been a challenge. We want more than two wires to a motor, there has to be electrical noise suppression, provision for DCC chips and even sound. That's a lot of bulk. Yes, it can be done but there may also be implications for the assembly process that could increase the cost.

 

The good news is that no-one has to make a decision now. As Hattons have said, these models will be on the shelves for some time. If you are unsure, sit tight until they appear in the shop (and in the magazines) and make your mind up then.

Hi Phil,

 

I don't disagree with what you say, but all I will throw back in to the above is the fact that Hornby have managed to get a nice, curved boiler under the saddle tanks, and their Peckett model is all the nicer for it.

 

I'll probably still get one, mainly because I'm attracted to small, colourful cute engines, but whether I actually need one is a different question altogether, as I already have a Mercian 14" one operational.

 

I've got more to worry about, anyway, as I've just re-read Iain Rice's warning about trying to use 3-link couplings on cameo layouts.

[pmorgan_cym]

I think the skirt is an acceptable compromise, especially where the 'gap' is barely noticable on the prototype. The pics above at wirksworth are pretty much extreme close up, for most of us the equivalent of the model on your palm held as close to your face as you can maintain focus.

 

Hattons are probably damned if they do damned if they don't. Compromise the other way, less weight and a smaller (dare we say coreless) motor, no room for sound, non standard dcc socket but a more defined void under the boiler, then we will have complaints that the model is 'gutless' 'designed for collectors' etc.etc.

[Dunsignalling]

A lot will depend on ones viewing angle, too.

 

Eye-level close-ups of unpainted EP samples take no prisoners, but don't give a true impression of what most of us will see when using the finished product.

 

With the loco on a layout, even one with baseboards at chest height, one's viewpoint should be sufficiently high for the under-tank area not to draw the eye. It should be in shadow, anyway.

 

Small industrial locos in 4mm scale are very much "quart-into-a-pint-pot" exercises, all the more so when you add in a requirement for a dcc socket and room for a speaker. Not to mention enough weight for it to pull more than three wagons. What might be achievable if Hatton's had set a target sales price of £200 and what can be achieved if they want to bring it in at half that are very different things.

 

Q1. How many of us would stump up twice the price for the much more complex mechanism and assembly process that getting this aspect dead right would entail?

 

Q2. How many of those who did would be privately ticked off if they couldn't see the bit that cost the extra cash when they placed the loco on their layouts?

 

John

Edited September 13, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[No Decorum]

Or maybe they are happy to live with this for the chance of a reasonably priced small industrial loco? Doesn't make them bad people.

 

Having seen the model in the plastic, the "skirt" isn't immediately noticeable. It's well under the saddle tank overhang. The side view photo makes the "slab sided" look more obvious than it really is, helped by the model being unpainted and shown larger than life size. Paint will help a lot, as will more natural viewing angles.

 

I don't have any extra information but I don't think sorting this out would be a "tweak" either. More a "Throw the chassis away and re-tool some of the body". Dave did say in his presentation that packing everything in to such a small model had been a challenge. We want more than two wires to a motor, there has to be electrical noise suppression, provision for DCC chips and even sound. That's a lot of bulk. Yes, it can be done but there may also be implications for the assembly process that could increase the cost.

 

The good news is that no-one has to make a decision now. As Hattons have said, these models will be on the shelves for some time. If you are unsure, sit tight until they appear in the shop (and in the magazines) and make your mind up then.

I think that Hatton’s has read the market well – certainly has read me well! So far I have managed to cut down my desire for Ps to three but I’d be surprised if I stick to that. As to the Barclay, not much whittling as yet! I know Hornby’s Pecketts tend to be mopped up before they appear but perhaps it might be more realistic to compare these Hatton’s models to Model Rails’ USA Tanks because of the twelve variations. Some will sell out rapidly (how many of us have a Katherine in the family?) and some will hang around for a while. If Hatton’s knocks out a re-run, sense would suggest new liveries to scoop up more sales. So, if you want one, order whilst the going’s good, I’d say.

 

With all the excitement, I hadn’t noticed the under-boiler skirt on the Barclay but now it’s been pointed out, it is hard to ignore. The curious thing is that on, for example, the GWR colour sample, it’s green but on the Caledonian version, it’s black. If it cannot be eliminated, black would probably be better and matt black best.

 

Your posting is the first mention of sound I have come across, apart from the “New 00 Gauge Product Announcement” on Hatton’s website. There, the P is quoted as having space for “a sound decoder”, which suggests a speaker, but the Barclay isn’t. I wonder if Hatton’s Dave would be good enough to clarify?

[stewartingram]

I suspect the skirt is there to fit the chassis in. As said earlier, at least no coreless motor - I'd rather have the unobtrusive skirt than an abominal coreless!

 

Stewart

ps yes I'm a Luddite, but I have my reasons, my pwm/feedback contollers that I built have not been surpassed yet in my opinion.

 

Stewart

[Porcy Mane]

For those who are bothered about such things the lighting and boiler bands on this photo accentuate what the boiler and firebox looks like on the prototype.

 

https://bestieboy.smugmug.com/Trains/Rocks-by-Rail-Museum-Rutland/i-zZcQ45H/A

 

And for when the subject of accurate DCC sound crops up some excellent AB (and sentinel diesel) sounds in this clip. The general railway sounds such as the bouncing brake lever are quite good too.

 

 

P

Edited September 13, 2017 by Porcy Mane

[Miss Prism]

What is the cylinder centres dimension?

[Hattons Dave]

Hi all,

I've taken a few more pictures of the Andrew Barclay, this time with the body removed.

 

 

 

 

Hopefully this will illustrate some of the challenge we faced during design.

We needed to pack as much weight in to the chassis to make sure it performs as required whilst staying as true to the prototype(s) as possible.

 

As you can see, the chassis does feature some of the underside of the boiler and then a small section of the chassis block will be visible.  This is unavoidable as the gear train has to be enclosed and we need the extra weight to improve traction.
 

I hope that these views show it is not a step backwards, it is unavoidable to enable the best running of the locomotive.

 

 

Cheers,

Dave

[Porcy Mane]

Very good of you to take the time to photograph and post the pictures. They are very  helpful.

 

P

[tomparryharry]

Pretty neat that you've managed to cram all that in.

 

I'm assuming it's not in N gauge, then?

 

Ian.

 

EDIT: Only joking folks- Honest!

[No Decorum]

Skew wound motor, from the looks of it. Good!

[Ian Hargrave]

Skew wound motor, from the looks of it. Good!

 

I see you are upholding your core(less) values...

[Ian Hargrave]

I suspect the skirt is there to fit the chassis in. As said earlier, at least no coreless motor - I'd rather have the unobtrusive skirt than an abominal coreless!

 

Stewart

ps yes I'm a Luddite, but I have my reasons, my pwm/feedback contollers that I built have not been surpassed yet in my opinion.

 

Stewart

"Skirtgate" then......keeping alive an ancient forum tradition...

[adb968008]

Here's the 1st picture I have found amongst the first (of about several boxes) of notes from my late fathers collection. (Author unknown).

 

He used to manage Buckley Wells railway enthusiasts, which collected pictures and sightings nationwide in the 1960/70's that were sent to him for publication.

 

The picture is much like the IRS one earlier, probably taken same day, so , it was probably an organised visit. It was in the November 1967 folder.

 

I'll keep looking as there's tons more, a fascinating legacy to now have and many good nights readings but it may take me a little longer to find them than I thought.

Edited September 13, 2017 by adb968008

[Porcy Mane]

What is the cylinder centres dimension?

 

Along with Miss Prism, can I be a cheeky chappy and in an earnest sort of way ask what the X, Y & Z dimensions of the chassis block is please.

I have taken the liberty of annotating one of the Hattons pics to show what I'm rambling about. I understand if you're too  busy or unable to post the info.

 

 

Thanks in anticipation.

 

P

(who has a cunning plan for his two or three.)

[JSpencer]

I wonder if the ones used in  Chatham dockyard are the same as Hattons version. These were:

 

Andrew Barclay, Sons & Co.Ltd, were the second largest builder of 0-4-0ST locomotives for Chatham Dockyard and between 1914 and 1946, supplied 5 0-4-0ST, these being;

• Works No.1286/1914 "DEVON"
• Works No.1386/1914 "CORNWALL"
• Works No.2198/1945 "V.E.DAY"
• Works No.2199/1945 "VICTORY"
• Works No.2220/1946 "INVICTA"

Info taken from here: http://www.dockyardrailway.co.uk/steam.php

[Gerald Henriksen]

Small industrial locos in 4mm scale are very much "quart-into-a-pint-pot" exercises, all the more so when you add in a requirement for a dcc socket and room for a speaker. Not to mention enough weight for it to pull more than three wagons. What might be achievable if Hatton's had set a target sales price of £200 and what can be achieved if they want to bring it in at half that are very different things.

 

 

Now the there might be differences in the prototype to help with the issue, but consider 2 small industrial models:

 

1) We have the Hattons Barclay, at £99, with the wall/skirt issue

 

2) We have the Hornby Peckett, at £79 (current price on ehattons.com for R3550, arriving next year), that has appeared to have done a much better job of dealing with the under boiler issue.

 

Now obviously if you want/have to have a Barclay and it has to be RTR there is no choice.

 

But if you merely want a small industrial you can save yourself £20 and get what appears to be a better looking model.

 

I am sure the Hatton's model will sell well, and make lots of people happy.  It's just unfortunate because it appears it is not the model it could have been.

[No Decorum]

Now obviously if you want/have to have a Barclay and it has to be RTR there is no choice.

’Zackly.

[Edge]

I do find vague amusement in the idea that this is a poor or a disappointing model when public knowledge of its existence is scarcely 48 hours old and nobody has actually seen one in real life. 

 

I agree, the model isn't sheer perfection but point me to the OO scale model that hasn't had to be compromised in some way. 

[pmorgan_cym]

Not wishing to.poor soothing petrol in troubled waters. But they pic of the chassis block seems to suggest there is an element of curvature there representing the underside of the boiler.

 

Which is pretty much exactly as Hornby did with the Peckett.

Edited September 13, 2017 by pmorgan_cym