Jump to content
 

OO gauge GWR Mogul and Prairie


Paul.Uni
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold
On 30/11/2021 at 16:15, Chuffer Davies said:

Any chance of a photo showing the rear axle arrangement.  From your photo it would appear not to be a pony truck so how does it work?

Frank

 

Your wish is my command:

 

2139951605_IMG_20211130_161412r.jpg.b2e18daa53d2e0615813c620dc2af8d8.jpg

Edited by Harlequin
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Miss Prism said:

Make that Prairie Papers...

 

Yep. It's an obsession with those Pannier things.  :prankster:

 

 

I found my copies of the Prairie books, still no idea where the Pannier Papers are though....

 

I managed to get all the GWR ones I was missing from the East Lancs a few weeks ago and have even gone on to the Big Southern Tank ones now!

 

 

Jason

  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Got mine this afternoon. It's a bit heavier than the Hornby model, but the driving wheels are around 1mm too small. Quite noticeable when next to Hornby's model. Not had a chance to run it yet though!

Edited by Hymek17
Typo!
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Slide bars, crosshead, coupling rods, connecting rods, handrail knobs, smokebox front appearance & front pony wheels all look inferior to Hornby IMHO

Tank boiler strap looks better*, the motor is bigger so should be better, mass seems to be greater, driving wheel weights have the 'appearance' of separate items (which they are in real life) so better looking.

As I said before, pluses and minuses and no clear winner.:scratchhead:

 

Still that tank footplate gap.:(

 

* The Hornby one looks like it's separate and clear of the boiler cladding, The Dapol one looks like it's been moulded as part of the boiler

 

 

Edited by melmerby
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Steamport Southport said:

6167

 

Slough 16/11/1935

Southall 11/6/1964

Withdrawn 10/1965

 

Source Prairie Papers

 

 

Jason

Took a photo of 6167 on the last steam hauled freight on the Maidenhead to High Wycombe line, many, many years ago...........

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 27/11/2021 at 23:34, Harlequin said:

More photos of 5108 from the workbench:

IMG_20211127_225217r.jpg.998f44e3bf053d24f241bb067ee91885.jpg

2017696129_IMG_20211127_224536r.jpg.599c21a697b100cfd0b24bf6b79883c9.jpg2029537734_IMG_20211127_224610r.jpg.f0f8c589a02908de1516c5983363504a.jpg1717088105_IMG_20211127_224720r.jpg.529e422b7873db09408fd79c50ace121.jpg2105909175_IMG_20211127_224735r.jpg.eeadc28f6492056321ee66bb6c7127dc.jpg446506244_IMG_20211127_224752r.jpg.193c62e7e216bd425c2a94e79de17e3f.jpg531561371_IMG_20211127_224842r.jpg.5e122fc34c65004582dfa22d0076b895.jpg

 

The loco is a good weight and feels very solid.

 

The cab roof is very easy to remove - nice touch compared to the Hornby version.

 

Lovely details on the tops of the tanks.

 

Mould lines on the smokebox barrel either side of the chimney.

 

Rear lamp brackets will be difficult to use but I guess that's a very rare occurrence anyway for most of us.

 

The gap under the tank is worse on the right hand side on this loco. I note that the instructions recommend not removing the body from the chassis at all and that even if you do the running plate would come with it and have to be further removed to try to understand the gap.

 

There's no allowance for a big speaker anywhere in the model - the sugarcube and it's tiny enclosure clipped under the decoder PCB is the only standard sound facility. I'll be looking to cut away the bunker floor to make room for something bigger.

 

There's a YouTube video here that shows a Dapol large prairie with no gap under the tank nor the 'mold lines' near the chimney.  www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVDnidlVxNE .  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, TedW said:

There's a YouTube video here that shows a Dapol large prairie with no gap under the tank nor the 'mold lines' near the chimney.  www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVDnidlVxNE .  

The gap is clearly visible under the Left hand tank on this example - when it comes round on the turntable.

 

The mould lines don't show up so much but I think you can see them just at the end of the turntable sequence.

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 29/11/2021 at 20:44, MoonMonkey said:

1955: Didcot,  including Wallingford (sub-shed I think). 

Hi, reading the other responses to this, it looks like the norm is to provide the source for such assertions.  I spotted this post while looking for thoughts about the Prairie models.  I don't usually scout for info requests about prototypes.  However, I have a book that used to be my Dad's on the shelf and it prompted me to take a look, and I actually found relevant info in there!  So if it's helpful then lovely, although it's before your time query, but it does lend weight to the Didcot allocation.  Source as per images.  

IMG_0789.JPG

IMG_0790.JPG

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

16 minutes ago, MoonMonkey said:

Hi, reading the other responses to this, it looks like the norm is to provide the source for such assertions.  I spotted this post while looking for thoughts about the Prairie models.  I don't usually scout for info requests about prototypes.  However, I have a book that used to be my Dad's on the shelf and it prompted me to take a look, and I actually found relevant info in there!  So if it's helpful then lovely, although it's before your time query, but it does lend weight to the Didcot allocation.  Source as per images.  

IMG_0789.JPG

IMG_0790.JPG

 

IMG_0791.JPG

IMG_0792.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites

Worth considering the Ian Allan ABCs do have some errors. As do many books, websites and other sources.

 

Imagine typing all that out* and proof reading it!

 

If you look at the same section of the book it's got the Clans that weren't built in it. 72010 to 72024.

 

 

 

*I think at the time there was still about 20,000 locomotives

 

 

Jason

  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Somewhat outside Fredo's query (1958 to 1961), but on this pic of 6167 on 26 May 1963, the shedplate appears to be 81B (Slough). (I asked Tony Sheffied to inspect Rail-Online's pic.)

 

The livery is unlined green (in the orange grease rods era), but as Stationmaster Mike has pointed out, it might have been unlined green before this repaint. It is certainly 6167's final livery.
 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

In BR Steam Motive Power Depots (WR):

In Aug 1950 6167 is at Didcot (81E) along with 4 sisters.

In March 1959 there are no 61XX allocated to Didcot and 6167 is at Slough (81B).

In May 1965 there are again 3x 61XX at Didcot but not 6167, which is now at Southall (81C) on that date.

Edited by melmerby
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
11 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

Somewhat outside Fredo's query (1958 to 1961), but on this pic of 6167 on 26 May 1963, the shedplate appears to be 81B (Slough). (I asked Tony Sheffied to inspect Rail-Online's pic.)

 

The livery is unlined green (in the orange grease rods era), but as Stationmaster Mike has pointed out, it might have been unlined green before this repaint. It is certainly 6167's final livery.
 

 

11 hours ago, Hal Nail said:

Whilst I've idly noted several ex works locos with these orange rods, I'd not realised it wasn't always the case?

 

When did this "era" start please?

 

11 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

There is another (b&w) picture of it ex-works at Swindon in 1963 and the shedplate is very clearly 81B - Slough.   See my earlier comments about allocation information - the ABCs usually gave the date for their information, e.g the Winter 1961/62 ABCs had the WR lists correct to 12 August 1961.

 

Greasing of rods ex-works was definitely common practice in the early 1960s and was probably also done on rods in stock in works after any attention had been given to them.  The reason - simples - it was to stop them rusting.  Once in service either cleaning, or accumulation of dirt protected the metal, once an engine was put into store the older practice was to grease the motion but when engines were withdrawn it usually wasn't greased and gathered surface rust very quickly although it took longer on rods which were really dirty or had accumulations of oil on them.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

That typeface doesn't look quite right.

 

Heljan seems to struggle with that BRITISH RAILWAYS lettering as well.

 

I bought an O2 with that style so it would match my Rapido J70 and Hornby D16, which both seem correct.

 

Just doesn't quite look right.

 

https://www.kernowmodelrailcentre.com/p/43044/3911-Heljan-Tango-O2-Steam-Locomotive-number-63954

 

 

 

Jason

  • Informative/Useful 1
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...