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

[Legend]

A comparison between the standard 6' WB loco and a 7'WB loco. Both are 16" engines

No6-kinneil.jpg

Loco with 6'0 WB.

 

frances.jpg

Fife Standard with 7'0 WB. [This is the preceding works number to the one listed by Hattons.]

 

If I'm right its a great pity, as an East of Scotland engine would have been ideal for me. Perhaps Hattons might like to consider No.6 instead? That engine still exists in working order. It is owned by East Lothian Council, but based at the Scottish Railway Preservation Society's Boness & Kinneil Railway.

http://www.srpsmuseum.org.uk/ncb_no4.htm 

Actually both pictures inadvertently show that you can't really see under the boiler, it is all in shadow . It could easily be a big chassis block in there!

[JeremyC]

The pics curretnly for the items are just generic art renders not representing the final items, I read up the detail difference sheet on page one, and No. 23 had the longer chassis base, so do the other three 16" 0-4-0st models Hattons are producing.

I was going by the list of variations and didn't fully explore the detail table underneath. By long chassis though do they mean long wheelbase (7') as not all 16" engines were this WB.  These photos suggest possibly not:

http://www.railwayherald.co.uk/imagingcentre/view/410784/PL

This is Ayrshire number 10 (AB 2244) also listed by Hattons as having a long chassis, but to me it looks like it has the shorter wheelbase as does 'Katie' (AB 2226).

https://bestieboy.smugmug.com/Trains/Miscellaneous-Steam-Locos/i-wMdmSwQ/.

Only one way to resolve this; I'll email Hattons to check.

Edited September 14, 2017 by JeremyC

[JeremyC]

Hi Doug,

 

A costing exercise was done some time ago and then kept  on file at the museum.

 

I'll try and find it next time I'm down.

 

It was over 10 years ago though - so won't be particularly accurate in the costs stated.

 

I seem to remember it was over £250,000 at the time and that was outside the museums funding ability.

 

Thanks

Going off topic. In my opinion if the Scottish Mining Museum could find the money they'd be better trying to regain ownership of and restore the Grant Richie 0-4-2ST, even if only cosmetically, currently at Prestongrange as it, along with a similar Barclay, (now at the Tanfield Railway) were the signature locos at Lady Victoria.

Edited September 14, 2017 by JeremyC

[Captain Kernow]

Actually both pictures inadvertently show that you can't really see under the boiler, it is all in shadow . It could easily be a big chassis block in there!

Well, yes it could be a big chassis block in there, but the point I was making is that in some of these prototype photos, as you say, you don't actually see anything, whereas in the photos of the pre-production model, you do see, very clearly, the slab of the chassis block.

 

The key thing for me now will be to make the 'slab of chassis block' as invisible as possible. Painting it matt black or a very dark grey might help. Perhaps some additional detritus posed on the running plate will help, such as a freelance additional toolbox, or an oil can, or even an oil lamp purloined from the 'main line'.

[Hippo]

Well, yes it could be a big chassis block in there, but the point I was making is that in some of these prototype photos, as you say, you don't actually see anything, whereas in the photos of the pre-production model, you do see, very clearly, the slab of the chassis block.

 

The key thing for me now will be to make the 'slab of chassis block' as invisible as possible. Painting it matt black or a very dark grey might help. Perhaps some additional detritus posed on the running plate will help, such as a freelance additional toolbox, or an oil can, or even an oil lamp purloined from the 'main line'.

 

Morning Cap'n. If you look at the livery samples that Dave has put on the first page it does look like the chassis block will be black to try and hide it.

 

I fully intend to do the same as you and put some clutter around to hide it even more.

Edited September 14, 2017 by Hippo

[SRman]

Well, yes it could be a big chassis block in there, but the point I was making is that in some of these prototype photos, as you say, you don't actually see anything, whereas in the photos of the pre-production model, you do see, very clearly, the slab of the chassis block.

 

The key thing for me now will be to make the 'slab of chassis block' as invisible as possible. Painting it matt black or a very dark grey might help. Perhaps some additional detritus posed on the running plate will help, such as a freelance additional toolbox, or an oil can, or even an oil lamp purloined from the 'main line'.

 

Perhaps a couple of bicycles for the driver and fireman?

[DougN]

Thanks for that Scottish Modeller. 250k sounds like a lot for a small loco to be restored. I can understand museums not restoring to running condition due to the costs, let alone some where to run them!

 

I guess one thing Hattons Dave could answer is how many of each locos are in a single run of a livery. This is one crazy statistic that I have always wondered about even from the main manufacturers. We all know they did special runs of 512 and 1000 but what is their standard run. If this is a commercial in confidence answer that is ok too.

[bike2steam]

Perhaps some additional detritus posed on the running plate will help, such as a freelance additional toolbox, or an oil can, or even an oil lamp purloined from the 'main line'.

A couple of slewing jacks, and a few off-cuts of sleepers on the 'viewing side' perhaps ??

Edited September 14, 2017 by bike2steam

[PenrithBeacon]

... If you look at the livery samples that Dave has put on the first page it does look like the chassis block will be black to try and hide it.

 

...

Thinking about the possible reasons for that chassis block, the only one that fits is that the block houses a gearbox that drives both axles, and the coupling rods are merely cosmetic. A pity IMO this is not the way to go, I'd have preferred if it were done the traditional way.

Regards

[Porcy Mane]

Thinking about the possible reasons for that chassis block, the only one that fits is that the block houses a gearbox that drives both axles, and the coupling rods are merely cosmetic. A pity IMO this is not the way to go, I'd have preferred if it were done the traditional way.

Regards

 

 

Nah.  Look at the evidence.

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/126141-announcement-andrew-barclay-14-16-0-4-0st-in-oo-gauge/page-5&do=findComment&comment=2851726

 

You have nothing to worry about.

 

P

 

Who thinks I'll not have to be taking a bite out of the Captains chocolate hat.

[maq1988]

Does somebody want to knock up a CAD to show how the motor can be fitted without the block showing?

 

From what I see you cannot lower the motor as it'll be in the 'required' void, you could spin it 180 but the gearbox would be in the boiler, mounting the motor vertically is a no go. Maybe if you lowered the motor into the firebox area and made it smaller, and had a direct worm/gear drive to the back axle it might work. May poke into the cab though.

 

The Hornby Peckett still has a block - it's just hidden behind pipework. See Andy Y's high-res photos from the Peckett thread. http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/103556-Hornby-announce-peckett-w4-0-4-0st/?p=2514101

 

Hatton's might be able to mount the motor on it's side by having it sit curved sides down like the Peckett but even then the block would still exist.

 

Not a deal breaker for me. I'll take two.

Edited September 14, 2017 by maq1988

[Porcy Mane]

Does somebody want to knock up a CAD to show how the motor can be fitted without the block showing?

 

I don't do cad but there are 12 volt motor & gearbox combinations out there where the motor and gearbox will fit in vertically in the firebox freeing up the block area to make visual improvements.

Admittedly the motors are coreless & this work will not be up everyone's street but for those of us of a pedantic nature and who like a bit of modelling it should be feasable.

 

 

 

The Hornby Peckett still has a block - it's just hidden behind pipework. 

 

No it doesn't

Hornby's Peckett boiler bottom is fully semi circular (now there's a contradiction in terms) apart from the firebox area which looks correct to prototype and has the geartrain running through it. You can even see daylight looking under the boiler. It is only a sliver of daylight and your eyes have to be at exactly the right height but the gap is there just as on the real thing.

You could try passing a bit of paper through the gap to prove it for yourself.

 

P

Edited September 14, 2017 by Porcy Mane

[Captain Kernow]

 

Who thinks I'll not have to be taking a bite out of the Captains chocolate hat.

I can't recall now why I said I'd eat my chocolate hat, but feel free to find me one if you like.

 

The 'traditional' drive arrangement will be welcome, of course, and thanks for pointing that out, Porcy.

[Phil Parker]

Does somebody want to knock up a CAD to show how the motor can be fitted without the block showing?

 

From what I see you cannot lower the motor as it'll be in the 'required' void, you could spin it 180 but the gearbox would be in the boiler, mounting the motor vertically is a no go. Maybe if you lowered the motor into the firebox area and made it smaller, and had a direct worm/gear drive to the back axle it might work. May poke into the cab though.

 

The Hornby Peckett still has a block - it's just hidden behind pipework. See Andy Y's high-res photos from the Peckett thread. http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/103556-Hornby-announce-peckett-w4-0-4-0st/?p=2514101

 

Hatton's might be able to mount the motor on it's side by having it sit curved sides down like the Peckett but even then the block would still exist.

 

Not a deal breaker for me. I'll take two.

 

Not if they are going to deliver it at the dates suggested they won't. This model is very near completion and so a complete redesign of the chassis isn't likely.

 

As Dave has said, the chassis is a compromise between fidelity and good running. More to the point though, as the prototype photos on this thread have shown, if there is daylight visible on the prototype then it's a very, very tiny amount, too small to show in the photos. Having seen the model for real, I'd say they have got it right enough. 

[Porcy Mane]

I can't recall now why I said I'd eat my chocolate hat, but feel free to find me one if you like.

 

One day we will get our cummuppance. Fortunately there is plenty of choice.

 

 

or even.

 

Edited September 14, 2017 by Porcy Mane

[stock_2007]

That's the thing I really like about this site in 3 day's we've gone from loving the new loco to wondering if its not to late to redesign it, sadly I have way to many half done kits I'll never finish so this is the only way I'd get an Andrew-Barclay loco. Ok I'm done continue

[maq1988]

No it doesn't

Hornby's Peckett boiler bottom is fully semi circular (now there's a contradiction in terms) apart from the firebox area which looks correct to prototype and has the geartrain running through it. You can even see daylight looking under the boiler. It is only a sliver of daylight and your eyes have to be at exactly the right height but the gap is there just as on the real thing.

You could try passing a bit of paper through the gap to prove it for yourself.

 

P

 

 

Admittedly I don't own a Peckett (yet) so I'm open to be wrong on the block. All photos I can find online of the model do not show the daylight at all - even then it's still hidden behind pipework.

 

I'll support Hattons and the compromise, but I also respect those who think the model could be better as I don't know the prototype enough.

 

Maybe if Hattons announced their intentions earlier in the design phase these things might have been possible to rectify.

[Chris89]

Shall be getting one of these myself. The choice being 2047 '705' in BR Black.

 

Reason for that one, is very biased. First locomotive ever did anything with when Volunteered on the ESR over a decade ago, including a brief go at driving her, going into firebox etc.

[Ian Hargrave]

Admittedly I don't own a Peckett (yet) so I'm open to be wrong on the block. All photos I can find online of the model do not show the daylight at all - even then it's still hidden behind pipework.

 

I'll support Hattons and the compromise, but I also respect those who think the model could be better as I don't know the prototype enough.

 

Maybe if Hattons announced their intentions earlier in the design phase these things might have been possible to rectify.

Oh sure.....like opening a can of worms....and way of ensuring the model would never reach the shelves.Why on earth would they do that? I think we need to remind ourselves that this is a commercial venture designed of course to please but ultimately to return a healthy profit.I recall enough acid being spilled over the GW 14/58XX not so very long ago.The reasons for the design "compromise"

have been explained in detail in any case.Shall we just please let them get on with it...

[2mm Andy]

Thinking about the possible reasons for that chassis block, the only one that fits is that the block houses a gearbox that drives both axles, and the coupling rods are merely cosmetic. A pity IMO this is not the way to go, I'd have preferred if it were done the traditional way.

Regards

Looking at the photo that Hatton's Dave has kindly posted in Post 112, it appears that only one axle is gear driven (there is a bulge in the keeper plate on the rear axle) which makes me suspect that the front axle is probably driven by the coupling rods.

 

Andy

 

(edit - just seen Porcy's post pointing out the same thing - sorry!)

Edited September 14, 2017 by 2mm Andy

[bike2steam]

Well I will probably treat myself to at least one, for my next layout which hopefully will be based (?) on the part of the SSR line between Rugeley Town, and Brereton Collieries exchange sidings, after I found that one (1365/1914) worked at Brereton Collieries in my modelling 'time-frame', a bit of alteration will be necessary as it had wooden blocks for front buffers, and a different cab.

https://chasewaterstuff.wordpress.com/ncb-west-midlands-division-area-2-locomotives/brereton-collieries-ltd/

Edited September 14, 2017 by bike2steam

[High Level Kits]

If bodies can be made available separately, I’d like to do a chassis for this, for EM/P4, or for anyone who has an issue with the solid block under the boiler.

 

This would be a kit, not ready to run.

[Horsetan]

That's the thing I really like about this site; in 3 days we've gone from loving the new loco to wondering if its not to late to redesign it, .....

 

...photographs of sausages. 

Edited September 14, 2017 by Horsetan

[Porcy Mane]

If bodies can be made available separately, I’d like to do a chassis for this, for EM/P4, or for anyone who has an issue with the solid block under the boiler.

 

How long have a been asking yah???   and will you provide a cast boiler bottom. Mr. Rice did it long ago with one of his designs.

 

As you know, I think there's nothing better looking than a good boilers bottom. Especially around the Wakefields.

 

P

Edited September 14, 2017 by Porcy Mane

[Porcy Mane]

Admittedly I don't own a Peckett (yet) 

 

When you do get one you'll be able to do this with it.  

 

 

P