Jump to content
 

Nellie's New Railway - A 1963 BLT


Nearholmer
 Share

Recommended Posts

WARNING: This thread drifts about all over the place ........ readers who wish to 'cut to the chase' should skip on to Page 8 or 9.

 

In about 1971, I bought a Triang-Hornby 'Nellie' type 0-4-0T with the idea of building a layout based very directly on Rev. Heath's famous 'Piano Line' (see the thread 'Time to Tune the Piano' for the story of that layout). The layout never got built, and for the intervening nearly half-century Nellie has barely turned a wheel, while the box she lives in has slowly deteriorated.

 

95068A07-8D24-47E2-9FA3-34F0F68E579C.jpeg.3f39192058a248936cbb769878c1fa41.jpeg

 

Well, as the old American song says: Wait 'till the sun shines Nellie, bye and bye!

 

I've decided to use two boards that I made for something else to create a sort of baby-grand piano for her, 2200mm x 420mm., and in the process to build whatever comes in useful from my stash of magazine-front freebies. Those who saw the early draft plan in my other thread will probably be relieved that I've simplified it a bit.
 

456F5B1A-6224-4101-96E0-2DAD64044DCA.jpeg.b09f5efd249796ca556159f624670e23.jpeg

 

This is no serious essay, and I'm utterly out of practice with 00, so don't expect very fine standards, in fact, expect it to look as much as possible like something built in 1971 or earlier.  At this point, I have no idea what the 'scenic treatment' will be, or what Nellie's trains will look like, since there are none yet.

 

39307E1D-F7EC-4D84-8B7D-482B496000B9.jpeg.d3170e1de8f659a8ff3ede950479749c.jpeg

8203592B-7CCD-4438-8F9F-FFC7A552DFC8.jpeg

Edited by Nearholmer
  • Like 17
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Rocker

 

Its very much untouched since purchase in c1971.

 

I’ve just looked it up on the hornbyguide database, and it was only made in this livery in 1970 and 1971, and cost 50/- (actually it cost £2.50; I remember buying it with decimal money).

 

At the time, I thought it looked properly LSWR, although I’m not so sure about that now!

 

Kevin

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
18 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Rocker

 

Its very much untouched since purchase in c1971.

 

I’ve just looked it up on the hornbyguide database, and it was only made in this livery in 1970 and 1971, and cost 50/- (actually it cost £2.50; I remember buying it with decimal money).

 

At the time, I thought it looked properly LSWR, although I’m not so sure about that now!

 

Kevin

 

 

 

I think the LSWR one had outside cylinders which where left out in Hornby's version.

 

Don

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the real thing was also significantly shorter than Triang’s one.

 

Details here http://www.semgonline.com/steam/c14_01.html?LMCL=xzJqyk

 

I sawed-up and shortened a Triang one, but  it was more ‘glue and enthusiasm’ than accurate. A pal who is a few years older than I built a piano line for his young son in the mid-70s, and he fitted o/s cylinders and valve gear (from a Triang Brittania???) to his loco, and did it up in BR lined black ......... it was still too long, but it actually looked very good indeed and ran very well.

 

 

Edited by Nearholmer
  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, that is partly down to the size being different, and partly because I de-complificated it by two turnouts. 

 

I drew it as 1800mm long, and was going to make a single board for it, but decided instead to use the ones I already have, which sum to 2200mm.

 

The Piano really is meant to be a single-board layout though; the track entering from the FY in the centre is an act of genius on a single board, but not so great when a baseboard joint is involved!

 

Incidentally, regarding the LSWR "Nellie" locos: I have seen a really interesting picture of the early 2-2-0T iteration being used on motor-train trials in the SW London suburban area, and IIRC it is hauling a pre-gate stock 'lash up' train. I think the photo is from the Cyril Hawkesworth collection ......... anyone know how to find a copy?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, rockershovel said:

The C14 really is the most wonderfully absurd thing I’ve ever seen..

 

774D4C6B-8175-4733-ACA2-B031E4C4F6E9.jpeg.7991aacd55325c5ba915f741f8177b2e.jpeg

 

... you fitted a Britannia’s cylinders and motion, to a small 0-4-0 shunter? That’s no mean demonstration of Tri-Ang’s standardisation of parts...

 

They started out as power units for railmotors. I've often thought if someone did a serious model of one RTR, it would have a good chance of selling due to quirkiness and Triang nostalgia.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Mr Drummond has certainly brightened up a dull, wet morning... what about these?

 

http://www.semgonline.com/steam/Drummond460_01.html

 

Some of them seemed to have been so modified as to bear no real relationship to the original loco, some versions look almost Ruritanian in appearance; one class were, apparently, the widest steam locos in the U.K., and must surely be the only examples of Stephenson and Walschaerts valve gear on the same locomotive? 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

These insane locos were never integrated parts of railmotors, they had even more insane ones for that!

 

They were designed as ‘free standing’ locos to pull/push driving trailers, after bad experience with the integrated engines, but they were too weedy and slippy.

 

The photo of the very early motor train that I’m seeking I think shows one with a rake of four or six wheelers, one lashed-up as a driving trailer, but memory may be deluding me.

 

Ive shown the earlier model, the Bassett Lowke 112, in my other thread, but it’s so nice, here it is again. It was never sold in LSWR livery, so this must be a repaint.

 

 

 

 

7B0E3400-343C-4DDE-BDB9-0624BCBE0CF4.jpeg

Edited by Nearholmer
  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

How about I put a passenger line on an embankment as the ‘framing’ thing at the back, and keep the piano zone entirely for goods?

 

It looks less forced, and if Nellie stays shuttling to and fro at the top with a motor train, it plays to her strengths, which are stopping and going, with no gradation between.

 

It would mean the need for a less crude loco for the goods, and it feels B4-ish, to give a Plymouth-area feel.

 

All stunningly unoriginal, of course.

 

 

A7E41057-A24D-4978-9DEE-AA41884F5631.jpeg

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Ah how our projects grow. I thought this started out to use just Nellie on a very short layout. Already it has grown in length may be a two level layout  and now Nellie  is being related to shuttle duties! While a new loco is on the cards.

 

It rather reminds me of the advice for Garden railways ' Plant a yard or two of track and it will grow'

 

Don

  • Like 3
  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Er, um, er, well, er, ..........

 

Guilty, M'lud.

 

I do need to watch scope-creep here, because the only way I can get really decent-running r-t-r four and six wheeled engines is to admit modern ones, when I'm supposed to be keeping things retro.

 

Forget the B4 remark ...... Triang Dock Shunter? HD R1 or EE 350hp? Farish 94xx?

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
18 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Er, um, er, well, er, ..........

 

Guilty, M'lud.

 

I do need to watch scope-creep here, because the only way I can get really decent-running r-t-r four and six wheeled engines is to admit modern ones, when I'm supposed to be keeping things retro.

 

Forget the B4 remark ...... Triang Dock Shunter? HD R1 or EE 350hp? Farish 94xx?

 

you do as you want. Sometimes it is fun to see where an idea will go. Other times you want to keep it on track. 

 

Don

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Don is right, this is running away too far, and the reason for that is an excess of space ...... it actually needs to be cramped in order to work.

 

So, forgetting pianos for a moment, a Wantage-esque terminus on one of the two boards.

 

This I think would like right (note that there is a point missing). Entry is from the far end. Setting very Wantage Upper Yard.


C6C871CD-31FE-464F-B9B5-F781B343D982.jpeg.7387c64a58c80aa6b837182ede2c15d7.jpeg

 

You know it makes sense!

 

CA6FA6BF-E838-48B2-9AE5-F28F98B41C95.jpeg.3dd5fb77d22e53207f0228c19cad3468.jpeg

 

 

 

 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

 

The Piano really is meant to be a single-board layout though; the track entering from the FY in the centre is an act of genius on a single board, but not so great when a baseboard joint is involved!

 

 

Hi Kevin

That's always been its downside and it stopped me from doing an H0m version though I must look at that again especially as I've found a couple of prototype "piano" termini.

However, Tony Collins (Andover MRC)  came up with an alternative with his O gauge "Goonhilly" layout by simply changing the orientation of the entry turnout.

This makes it possible to have the hidden section much closer to the entry turnout.

248530465_Goonhillyenlarged.jpg.7792e9329c61e00394c0037b6f31ae4b.jpg

Goonhilly fits on a pair of 4'9" by 20" boards so 9ft 6ins long which equates to 5'6" x 12"  in 4mm scale so  a couple of 2'9" long boards. 

Apparently very cramped but it looks fine in the flesh. I took these photos at Wycrail in 2008

2045969166_GoonhillyWycrail08-0093.JPG.222595d57f82403ba081682d1e8e697d.JPG145483976_GoonhillyWycrail08-0092.JPG.2487a2a9e749eb02190bbe3179128a18.JPG149779557_GoonhillyWycrail08-0091.JPG.b47f5dc7127bf5e1a57c3930e45207f3.JPG1135433024_GoonhillyWycrail08-0090.JPG.cb3de19ccb5d55795e9aa8519bef1041.JPG

 

His orginal version was even smaller  only 8'6" long by 12" in O gauge but perhaps a bit too basic. 

1572647255_Goonhillyoriginalplan.jpg.edb3e72efcd6133f0e895ebf4841bd7b.jpg

 

 

 

Edited by Pacific231G
  • Like 9
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
12 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Er, um, er, well, er, ..........

 

Guilty, M'lud.

 

I do need to watch scope-creep here, because the only way I can get really decent-running r-t-r four and six wheeled engines is to admit modern ones, when I'm supposed to be keeping things retro.

 

Forget the B4 remark ...... Triang Dock Shunter? HD R1 or EE 350hp? Farish 94xx?

 

Battle Space Turbocar?

 

12 hours ago, Donw said:

 

Other times you want to keep it on track. 

 

Don

 

That knocks my idea on the head.

  • Funny 2
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...