Bachmann/EFE 1938 tubestock

[GoingUnderground]

14 hours ago, Lee-H said:

I know Phil Radley has always offered a build and paint service, I am just surprised the major players have never previously offered a r-t-r model. Tri-ang did an SR EMU and a Woodhead EM2 which were quite niche back then. I’m sure an Underground set would have had similar appeal, even to non-southerners such as myself.

I wouldn't call the SR EMU a niche model. IMHO it's as niche as any model of a steam loco or carriage produced by the Big 4, and was typical of many of the 3 and 4 SUB "between the wars" designs of EMU running on the Southern Region. But back in the 1950s the Triang SR EMU shared a motor bogie design with the Bo-Bo Transcontinental locos and their Metro Cammel Class 101 DMU. An RTR of Tube Stock would have needed a brand new motor bogie which would have had few other uses, although, as I pointed out earlier, they could have based it on the Minic Motorways motors. But I think Minic Motorways was a slow selling range, at least compared to its physically larger Scalextric stablemate.

 

Likewise the EM2 motor bogie design was also used on the Class 31 and later the Class 37, and in a shortened Bo-Bo version on the Budd Railcar and the Hymek. The whole OHLE system and hence its locos was much more niche. When Triang launched their OHLE system in the 1959 catalogue there was no British outline loco for it. They probably wanted to model the EM1, but Trix beat them to it, leaving only the EM2. They probably got  their fingers burned a bit with the OHLE system despite the electrification of the WCML and their introduction of a Class 81 (based on the Hornby Dublo tooling) as the OHLE system and locos are generally reckoned to have been slow sellers. 

[PhilJ W]

1 hour ago, GoingUnderground said:

In 2021 I finally managed to acquire one of the Knightwing Sentinel 0-6-0DH kits,. Since then have been doing some investigations, mainly using online sources, to see how the Sentinels were in LT days.

 

Hornby's recently-announced NCB green liveried version, R.30085, is wrong in two major aspects.

 

In LT days, the Sentinel had dumb buffers not hydraulic ones at the long bonnet/engine end, as shown in the photos on page 776 of the LURS November 2021 supplement to Underground News, and judging by the picture on page 56 of London UndergroundRolling Stock in Colour by John Glover, no buffers of any kind on the short bonnet/tender end - it wouldn't have needed any if the tender was rigidly coupled to the loco. It also had a variable height wedgelock coupler at the engine end, with a large hole in the buffer beam skirt to accommodate it. The tooling would need to be modified accordingly if the model was an accurate representation of the Sentinels in LT days

 

The photos that I've found of them running on preserved lines invariably show them with the hole for the wedgelock coupler plated over and spring/hydraulic buffers all round.

 

Modelled in its preserved form, R.30085 fits the bill with the addition of LT logo and running numbers, but would need some physical alterations to reflect the Sentinels' physical configuration under LT ownership.

 

And apologies for taking us off topic.

The LT Sentinels had folding buffers, hinged at the top and folding backwards. They had the appearance of dumb buffers when folded. This was so that they could couple to tube sized stock. The same type of buffer was installed at the outer end of the tender. The same type of buffers are still used on LT's battery locomotives.

[GoingUnderground]

1 hour ago, PhilJ W said:

The LT Sentinels had folding buffers, hinged at the top and folding backwards. They had the appearance of dumb buffers when folded. This was so that they could couple to tube sized stock. The same type of buffer was installed at the outer end of the tender. The same type of buffers are still used on LT's battery locomotives.

I was expecting to see the standard folding buffers when I went looking, but all the photographic evidence that I have seen clearly show wooden blocks not the standard LT folding buffers.

 

There would seem to me to be 2 reasons why folding buffers were not and could not have been fitted:

1. They would have hit the marker light brackets on the top of the buffer beam, and all the photos from LT days show the marker light brackets in situ.

2. The buffer beam was too tall and it would have been impossible to fold the buffers back so that the shanks lay on top of the beam. In fact, the farthest that they could have been folded would appear to have been just beyond vertical, in which position that would have been highly unstable without some sort of latch or restraining mechanism. The photo in John Glover's book  is taken from the tender side of the loco with a tender coupled up, and the top of the loco's buffer beam can be seen projecting above the level of the hinge on the folding buffers fitted to the tender.

 

For example this photo https://www.flickr.com/photos/39918537@N04/14814773618 shows one loco, DL82, in the pea green livery which was applied part way through their time with LT. These are very clearly wooden blocks, not folded buffers, and match the photos taken of the locos in LT days such as the ones to which I referred earlier, and also to the photo of DL82

on page 62 of the 1988 edition of London Underground Rolling Stock by Brian Hardy which very clearly shows wooden blocks, not folding buffers. 

 

But if you have photos of the LT Sentinels with folding buffers then please share them with us as I'd love to see them.

 

Edited January 23, 2022 by GoingUnderground

[PhilJ W]

I have seen pictures of them (or at least one) with folding buffers. IIRC the buffers were fitted to the wood blocks (not dumb buffers). I'm sure the photograph was in one of the IRS yearbooks, I'll have to check it out.

[GoingUnderground]

Please do, as John Scott-Morgan and Kirk Martin say about the Sentinel locos in Red Panniers page 153, "The Ward couplers were difficult to fit and their use precluded normal buffers being fitted to the Sentinel and so wooden dumb buffers were fitted at the front.,,,", suggesting that none of them had folding buffers as all the photos that I've seen from LT days show that there were no buffers fitted at the tender end.  The colour photo on that page will be of use in designing the tender as it shows the tender with its Ward coupling very clearly, and the folding buffers.

[Metr0Land]

On 21/01/2022 at 18:03, GoingUnderground said:

 

Am I pleased with the model? Yes, I am, but slightly disappointed at the body shell colour and the lack of a plug-in buffing plate and dummy LT coupling for the DM cars.

 

 

 

For those of us with 3 thumbs, Nigel (The Forth rail) on Shapeways has done some 3D printed ones.

https://www.shapeways.com/product/TJ37S84PZ/london-underground-wedglock-couplers?optionId=5945803&li=shops

 

I've used plenty of his products on my layout (he's an expat living in USA).  I haven't ordered anything from Shapeways since 2019 and since then that B thing has happened.  The items are printed in Holland.  The small price of the item is probably overshoadowed by delivery/handling charge etc these days but if you're desperate to avoid slicing your fingers it's a possible route.

[Lord of Narnia]

I know Nigel well. He is a real gent and very talented. I have a few of his 1938 and 1959/62 bogies for my EFE cars and they are excellent.

 

He also drew up and printed the 1960 and 1967/72 tube stocks for me to make kits for Radley Models. 

[PhilJ W]

9 minutes ago, Metr0Land said:

 

For those of us with 3 thumbs, Nigel (The Forth rail) on Shapeways has done some 3D printed ones.

https://www.shapeways.com/product/TJ37S84PZ/london-underground-wedglock-couplers?optionId=5945803&li=shops

 

I've used plenty of his products on my layout (he's an expat living in USA).  I haven't ordered anything from Shapeways since 2019 and since then that B thing has happened.  The items are printed in Holland.  The small price of the item is probably overshoadowed by delivery/handling charge etc these days but if you're desperate to avoid slicing your fingers it's a possible route.

I've given up getting stuff from Shapeways. Not because of any problem with their products but they use exclusively the worst delivery service, UPS. I've waited in all day for a delivery that has not arrived. One item from Shapeways took two weeks to arrive after the delivery date. On their website it just said 'Out on delivery' and there is no contact information or any information as to where the depot is.

[SRman]

9 hours ago, GoingUnderground said:

Please do, as John Scott-Morgan and Kirk Martin say about the Sentinel locos in Red Panniers page 153, "The Ward couplers were difficult to fit and their use precluded normal buffers being fitted to the Sentinel and so wooden dumb buffers were fitted at the front.,,,", suggesting that none of them had folding buffers as all the photos that I've seen from LT days show that there were no buffers fitted at the tender end.  The colour photo on that page will be of use in designing the tender as it shows the tender with its Ward coupling very clearly, and the folding buffers.

I, for one, would be happy to accept the model as is from Hornby in LT livery, accepting the compromises. I would be prepared to modify the buffer beams to match photos of the real ones, bearing in mind that the tension lock couplings I would retain will negate some of the middle detail anyway. A set of spare buffers in my spares boxes won't go astray, while a few bits of plastic sheet can easily be cut to represent the wooden blocks.

[Erixtar1992]

Looks good with lights on..

[Uptosteam]

Fancied this as soon as it was announced, as I'm from Balham and travelled lots on this class as a nipper with my mum. I Watched the terrific review by the ex LT motorman Brian, and thought I'll look out for a set. On Wednesday Kernow were showing 8 sets. By Saturday it was 2 sets!! So I pulled the trigger on a set which arrived safely today. 

Absolutely chuffed with something I can relate to from childhood in south London..! Kernow now out of stock, only Malcs Models are showing any stock as of today!!

I guess you can say these are mighty sought after models even if the price 'appears' high!! I can see these selling up to £500 a set next month!!

I do intend to fit DCC sound and working driving lamps using bi-colour leds. Also paint the cabs in the correct Cerulean Blue and add a driver and populate the cars.

 

Edited January 26, 2022 by Uptosteam

[Jeff Smith]

So in the forties, fifties, sixties and seventies that would be full smoking cars and largely empty non-smoking cars.....

[Lee-H]

On 23/01/2022 at 11:08, GoingUnderground said:

I wouldn't call the SR EMU a niche model. IMHO it's as niche as any model of a steam loco or carriage produced by the Big 4, and was typical of many of the 3 and 4 SUB "between the wars" designs of EMU running on the Southern Region.

 

Likewise the EM2 motor bogie design was also used on the Class 31 and later the Class 37, and in a shortened Bo-Bo version on the Budd Railcar and the Hymek.

I called the EMU a niche model because the real things had a very limited geographical range. You would never see one north of London or west of Reading whereas the Big Four reached far and wide over Great Britain.

 

Tri-ang’s EM2 bogie was unique to that loco, Type 2s and 3s had a different shape. I should know, I used to have loads of them! I once replaced a motor bogie on an EM2 with a Type  3 bogie. It ran well but never looked right.

[GoingUnderground]

On 28/01/2022 at 22:53, Lee-H said:

I called the EMU a niche model because the real things had a very limited geographical range. You would never see one north of London or west of Reading whereas the Big Four reached far and wide over Great Britain.

 

Tri-ang’s EM2 bogie was unique to that loco, Type 2s and 3s had a different shape. I should know, I used to have loads of them! I once replaced a motor bogie on an EM2 with a Type  3 bogie. It ran well but never looked right.

By their nature, being  tethered to their power source, all EMUs and electric locos are limited to a specific geographical range and tend not to run terribly well on unelectrified routes. Just ask the driver of the Metropolitan line A60/62 Stock train many years ago at Harrow who came in to Platform 2 and then set off southwards without noticing that the track beyond the platform didn't have 3rd and 4th rails, and found his train stopping when it ran out of "juice". Does that make them "niche models"?

 

You've missed the  point I was making about the EM2 bogie, a loco that I've owned since 1961, so I do know a bit about it. I said the DESIGN of the bogie, not the actual physical bogie itself. Triang standardised as far as they could and used the design, which I think originated in the TT range Class 31 for all their pseudo Co-Co bogies. The only difference was in the physical appearance and that was down to the diecast bogie frame which was specific to the model, except that they went too far with the Class 37 and used the Class 31 bogie unchanged. The Bo-Bo bogie used on the Hymek and Budd railcar also shared components with the Co-Co, but had their own diecast frames. Look at the service sheets and you'll see the same components being used across different models. Triang had form in this respect as all the 4 wheeled motor bogies, apart from the Hymek and Budd railcar, used the same design and shared most of the components. This applied to the SR EMU, the DMU, the Blue Pullman, all the Transcontinental Bo-Bo locos including the OHLE loco and the Dock Shunter, the AL1, and the Sydney Suburban OHLE EMU. The only part that was unique in all these locos was the diecast metal bogie frame itself, and they even managed to use that across models. They made similar compromises across most of the range to keep prices down even if it meant the models of specific locos weren't totally accurate.

[KeithMacdonald]

For anyone who fancies a job on the Bakerloo line.

 

Quote

Full-time Tube drivers can earn £52,972 a year. But many hours are spent in darkness and isolation.