RTR OO9 Locos and Rolling Stock: Compatibility (physically and prototypically)

[Hobby]

It is only one per transporter, normally that all they'd fit! If you have large SG bogie wagon you'll see two NG transporter wagons, one under each bogie. 

 

One other thing to bear in mind is that they don't like sharp curves, I'd suggest a minimum radius of 12", preferably, 15".

 

Someone, can't think who at the moment, makes a transporter wagon with two axle bogies on them, the three axle ones can be a little stiff in operation, especially on curves.

 

Interestingly the original small scale rtr transporter wagon was by Zeuke in the early 60s and whilst it was based on the three axle per bogie prototype only had one rolling axle in each bogie and the bogie was fixed. In effect it was long wheelbase four wheel wagon. The other two axles were "top half" wheels only but because it was so close to the rail you couldn't really tell. It was a very accurate model other than that and is just as good as the current ones if you can find one cheap. They are collectors items though. 

[PaulRhB]

6 minutes ago, steveNCB7754 said:

 

Have been looking into this online.  So far, all I have come up with is what appears to be a double-bogie transporter wagon (each bogie=3 axles), presumably to allow for at least more than one two-axle, or perhaps a single double-bogie bolster wagon, is that what you meant? 
 

Yes that’ll be it. They either carried one 4-6 wheel wagon or a bogie vehicle could be carried on two transporters, with a bogie on each. The three axles would be to spread the load more as they were carrying coal, stone or liquids in many cases. 

 

6 minutes ago, steveNCB7754 said:

If so, it seems a little large for a potential rural narrow gauge line in Mid-Wales (although I appreciate I can do whatever I like of course).

Had really only envisioned transporting one standard gauge wagon per transporter.

 

The Manifold had two lengths of transporter, on the left end of the second shelf down of this display you can see the two lengths. On the lower right is the short version with a standard gauge wagon onboard. I’ve never seen anything bigger than a 4 wheel tank wagon on the L&M long wagons. 
These are Dorset Kits O16.5 models though. 

 

 

[009 micro modeller]

On 17/01/2021 at 20:56, steveNCB7754 said:

 

True, and I suspect trying to incorporate such a thing on the layout I intend, would; a) Be pushing my abilities somewhat, and b) Probably lead to a even greater loss of hair than I have already experienced, whilst just shunting!

 

 

 

I think there was an article in the 009 News a few years ago in which somebody motorised the standard gauge wagons so they could run on and off but it did seem very complicated. On the subject of which, I can recommend joining the 009 Society if you haven’t already: https://009society.com

[009 micro modeller]

11 hours ago, Hobby said:

The Padarn Railway mnetioned earlier is better described as a "Piggy Back" railway rather than the conventional use of transporters as it carried NG on SG rather than the other way round

 

Or strictly speaking narrow NG on wider NG (4ft gauge), but that’s almost standard. The other similar operation in the UK was the Ffestiniog wagons being carried on GWR and LNWR (I think) wagons to the ports.

[009 micro modeller]

9 hours ago, Font T said:

In a bit of a three way quandary at the moment as to whether I wait and buy the yet to be released VoR locos, Bachmann quarry hunslets, or a Fourdees Russell and a couple of others.

 

Bachmann also do a Baldwin, as used on the Glyn Valley, Welsh Highland and Ashover lines.

 

7 hours ago, steveNCB7754 said:

If so, it seems a little large for a potential rural narrow gauge line in Mid-Wales

 

It probably is. As I understand it the L&M was something of a demonstrator for technology that Calthrop would later use overseas. One of the issues with transporter wagons is that the loading gauge and axle loading often have to be bigger than for a standard gauge line (it makes sense if you think about it), so you get the advantage of not needing to transship everything from standard gauge but then cancel it out by removing one or two of the main advantages of choosing NG in the first place.

[Hobby]

It could have worked on the Welshpool, lack of tunnels and only one bridge helps as does the fact it's a common carrier. 

 

Thanks for the correction about the Padarn as well, don't know what I was thinking about other than 16.5mm gauge track could be used with 1:76 scale to make a (nearly) accurate model of it!  

[PaulRhB]

13 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

but then cancel it out by removing one or two of the main advantages of choosing NG in the first place.

Yes but loading gauge often isn’t a problem apart from one or two bridges but the costs saving of formation, sleepers, stock and smaller buildings are much larger. For something like the FR on its narrow shelves and tunnels it would be prohibitive but the Welshpool, Southwold and others would have been very suitable. You could also say lines like the Purbeck clay tramways would have worked with them as their surroundings were fairly flat so all roads were crossed on the level. 
It really depends if the time and labour saved in transshipment outweighs the loading gauge costs so any thing that transhipped a lot or heavy goods probably became viable fairly quickly. The European examples were very similar to the few English NG lines and transporters are rare on mountain lines like the FR there too. The majority of the Harz network is much like rolling English countryside and on that they still do use transporters for the stone quarry and they once saw much wider use for smaller factories and a large power plant coal deliveries. The UK started with SG during the initial mania for many branch lines that would be far more suited to NG and it’s remarkable how many survived long enough to be restored and we’re probably easier to restore financially too! I used to work on one SG preserved line and a NG one and we needed a crane to do anything with track on the SG but a flat and similar gang of volunteers could manage the NG track without big machinery. I could easily shift a NG half sleeper but it took two to shift the SG ones  All those little savings add up. 

[Font T]

14 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

Bachmann also do a Baldwin, as used on the Glyn Valley, Welsh Highland and Ashover lines

 

I don’t really have any affinity with it at all, probably because I don’t remember it from childhood holidays. I guess these passions often start from a young age.

Thanks anyway though, I have heard it’s a really good model and reliable runner from these online forums.

[009 micro modeller]

51 minutes ago, PaulRhB said:

Yes but loading gauge often isn’t a problem apart from one or two bridges but the costs saving of formation, sleepers, stock and smaller buildings are much larger. For something like the FR on its narrow shelves and tunnels it would be prohibitive but the Welshpool, Southwold and others would have been very suitable. You could also say lines like the Purbeck clay tramways would have worked with them as their surroundings were fairly flat so all roads were crossed on the level. 
It really depends if the time and labour saved in transshipment outweighs the loading gauge costs so any thing that transhipped a lot or heavy goods probably became viable fairly quickly. The European examples were very similar to the few English NG lines and transporters are rare on mountain lines like the FR there too. The majority of the Harz network is much like rolling English countryside and on that they still do use transporters for the stone quarry and they once saw much wider use for smaller factories and a large power plant coal deliveries. The UK started with SG during the initial mania for many branch lines that would be far more suited to NG and it’s remarkable how many survived long enough to be restored and we’re probably easier to restore financially too! I used to work on one SG preserved line and a NG one and we needed a crane to do anything with track on the SG but a flat and similar gang of volunteers could manage the NG track without big machinery. I could easily shift a NG half sleeper but it took two to shift the SG ones  All those little savings add up. 

 

I think the weight of the loaded transporters and need for heavier NG rail section would present more of an issue than the loading gauge (although there was at least one tunnel on the L&M, now with a road through it). Purbeck is interesting as one of the lines there was originally 3’ 9” gauge, so not that small anyway. However, depending on what sort of processing of the clay was needed before loading onto standard gauge they may have needed to transship anyway. I’m trying to think why transporters weren’t used for the Welshpool as I think they may have been proposed at one point.

 

The UK starting with SG is also a good point. Loads of countries around the world still have a main network of either 3’ 6”, metre or even 3ft gauge (although I notice that some of these are now being replaced by standard gauge). Did the French metre gauge lines ever use transporters?

[steveNCB7754]

23 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

 

I think there was an article in the 009 News a few years ago in which somebody motorised the standard gauge wagons so they could run on and off but it did seem very complicated. On the subject of which, I can recommend joining the 009 Society if you haven’t already: https://009society.com

 

Yes, that does seem a bit excessive and does limit operations to those wagons, so-modified.  My initial thought (to get round it), was to have the visiting standard gauge loco 'shunt the yard', including the retrieving/placing of standard gauge wagons off/onto the narrow gauge transporter wagon, whilst the latter was temporarily restrained in position at the buffer between the two gauges.  Obviously this is not prototypical (at least not on the Leek & Manifold, where it was seemingly done by 'hand-shunting').  Doing it my way, it could either be;

 

1. A one-off 'movement' = an empty (NG) transporter wagon left in position to receive a new (incoming) empty, or possibly loaded(?) wagon, or it might equally contain a standard gauge wagon awaiting removal (again, empty or full).

 

2. Multiple 'movements', where the 'duty' narrow gauge loco arrives to assist in the operation and more than one transporter wagon is offered up to the 'interchange buffer', for the standard gauge loco to (again) retrieve or drop off the necessary standard gauge wagon(s) (empty or full).

 

Easy to envisage in one's minds eye, but perhaps tricky to execute (though DCC would really help of course).  Wagons would definitely need some sort of 'retardation' arrangement, to ensure that they don't 'wander off' once placed on the transporter wagon!

 

Yes, I would definitely join the society, if this came to fruition, thanks.

 

 

[Hobby]

3. Leave it on the transporter! That's the way its often (mostly?) done at small stations in Europe. Of course it means that the NG railway must have a stock of transporter wagons enough to cope with the traffic flow (which normally isn't that big), but it also means less labour/horse costs in moving the wagon on and off. I know with the transporter bogies that's how it's done virtually all the time as moving them on and off the bogies would be expensive and time consuming. Most wagons are only in one place for a short time, usually no more than a few days. Anyhow, unless you are specifically modelling the L&M it's down to you, all three alternatives are perfectly valid and used in real life.

[009 micro modeller]

11 hours ago, steveNCB7754 said:

 

Yes, that does seem a bit excessive and does limit operations to those wagons, so-modified.  My initial thought (to get round it), was to have the visiting standard gauge loco 'shunt the yard', including the retrieving/placing of standard gauge wagons off/onto the narrow gauge transporter wagon, whilst the latter was temporarily restrained in position at the buffer between the two gauges.  Obviously this is not prototypical (at least not on the Leek & Manifold, where it was seemingly done by 'hand-shunting').  Doing it my way, it could either be;

 

1. A one-off 'movement' = an empty (NG) transporter wagon left in position to receive a new (incoming) empty, or possibly loaded(?) wagon, or it might equally contain a standard gauge wagon awaiting removal (again, empty or full).

 

2. Multiple 'movements', where the 'duty' narrow gauge loco arrives to assist in the operation and more than one transporter wagon is offered up to the 'interchange buffer', for the standard gauge loco to (again) retrieve or drop off the necessary standard gauge wagon(s) (empty or full).

 

Easy to envisage in one's minds eye, but perhaps tricky to execute (though DCC would really help of course).  Wagons would definitely need some sort of 'retardation' arrangement, to ensure that they don't 'wander off' once placed on the transporter wagon!

 

Yes, I would definitely join the society, if this came to fruition, thanks.

 

 

 

I’ve only seen photos or models of the intermediate stations, which obviously used hand shunting as they didn’t have any standard gauge apart from the short lengths at the end of each siding. But potentially at the junction with the standard gauge (where SG locos were present) you could have them shunting the wagons onto the transporters.

 

I suppose one additional advantage of the motorised SG wagon concept is that once the power is turned off it wouldn’t be able to roll off. I understand that if using L&M style transporters they may have to have the SG track gauged at EM or P4 (rather than 00) as the space available between the SG rails is a critical dimension in terms of fitting the NG running gear in, and similarly I have read articles about modelling the L&M bogie vehicles as 4-wheelers because the bogies would not have sufficient swing. This wouldn’t apply if using the RTR continental-design transporters intended for H0e.

 

I bought a secondhand continental transporter wagon a few years ago, planning to make a small layout based around it. It would have needed rails adding to the deck to allow the SG wagons to run smoothly on and off (as made, I think the RTR model was designed to run in an NG train but not to actually be loaded and unloaded). Main issues seemed to be getting the NG transporter to stay in place while loading, and getting the SG wagon to stay in place on the move. My plan to get the SG wagon on and off the transporter was slightly unprototypical and would have involved the loco running round to the other side of the buffers and hauling the wagon off the transporter using a section of dual gauge track, although the gradient required would probably have taken up too much space. I might return to this at some point although I will use more than one transporter and will use a standard gauge loco to move the wagons on and off. I wonder whether uncoupling SG wagons once on the transporter would also present difficulties though.

[009 micro modeller]

11 minutes ago, Hobby said:

3. Leave it on the transporter! That's the way its often (mostly?) done at small stations in Europe. Of course it means that the NG railway must have a stock of transporter wagons enough to cope with the traffic flow (which normally isn't that big), but it also means less labour/horse costs in moving the wagon on and off. I know with the transporter bogies that's how it's done virtually all the time as moving them on and off the bogies would be expensive and time consuming. Most wagons are only in one place for a short time, usually no more than a few days. Anyhow, unless you are specifically modelling the L&M it's down to you, all three alternatives are perfectly valid and used in real life.

 

What was the rationale behind the L&M rolling the wagons off onto lengths of standard gauge track? Was it simply that there weren’t enough transporters to do it another way?

[Hobby]

Can I just say before we go any further that you need to be careful you don't over-analyse this, I feel you are starting to do that! Transporter wagons were introduced long before Calthrop and whilst his method was one way of doing it there were other ways and even though the L&M was the only British railway to have them it should not set a precedent. The chances are foreign manufacturers would have had their ears to the ground and quite possibly have moved in should any other line had considered it, so the "L&M way" should not be the only way you should consider.

 

1 hour ago, 009 micro modeller said:

What was the rationale behind the L&M rolling the wagons off onto lengths of standard gauge track? Was it simply that there weren’t enough transporters to do it another way?

 

As I said earlier I suspect it was due to cost (they wouldn't have been cheap, £315 each I believe) and traffic flow. A coal wagon would be easy and quick to empty, same as a van but I suspect a milk wagon might have taken longer. So if they were just emptying a coal wagon it would probably make sense to just leave it on the transporter as it would be emptied quickly (a day?) and then be sent back, whilst it was being unloaded nothing else could use that space so you are not "wasting" a transporter. Another thought is the number of intermediate stations that would have goods facilities sufficient to warrant the use of a special siding. The Welshpool for instance would probably only have bothered with either end and posssibly Castle, the rest would have been local delivery.

 

1 hour ago, 009 micro modeller said:

I bought a secondhand continental transporter wagon a few years ago, planning to make a small layout based around it. It would have needed rails adding to the deck to allow the SG wagons to run smoothly on and off (as made, I think the RTR model was designed to run in an NG train but not to actually be loaded and unloaded).

 

All of the rtr continental ones are designed to be loaded/unloaded, the frame forms the "rails" the SG wagon wheels run on. On the real thing they usually use chocks which are attached to the frame but movable to hold the wagon in place, the Zeuke one actually had working and adjustable chocks! I think some of the more recent ones do as well. That's also something else to bear in mind, if you don't load/unload then you'll be able to have the chocks in place, otherwise you can't use them unless using the "hand of God" in which case you may as well not bother motorising the wagon! Leaving them permamently makes life easier too!

 

With regard to the bogies, the L&M ones have one major advantage over the Continental ones in that they are completely covered over so what you have underneath is down to you as to what you put there, so don't get hung up on the bogies having 2 or 3 axles!

Edited January 20, 2021 by Hobby

[009 micro modeller]

2 hours ago, Hobby said:

All of the rtr continental ones are designed to be loaded/unloaded, the frame forms the "rails" the SG wagon wheels run on.

 

I know, I just found that it wouldn’t have been free-running enough for what I planned to do with it. Are the RTR models (as opposed to the prototype) designed to actually be unloaded?

[Hobby]

That's the issues with the three axle ones, free running, I think Paul may have found one that is in 12mm gauge but all the ones I've had in 9mm gauge have been sticky to say the least. I think that's why they appear so often secondhand, people buy one then find it doesn't work very well.

 

Then there's the minimum radius!

 

Yes they can be loaded/unloaded, though it takes careful planning...

 

TBH I just use them as moving stock, parked up in a siding when necessary!

 

There's also the issue of couplings, needless to say they are a bit low for an 009 coupling and the prototype used a couple of variations in practice. I think the earlier ones (certainly in German use) used a bar which coupled to the loco (or brake coach at the rear) and between Rollwagons where they were using more than one. On the Zeuke model it was a red piece of plastic with the Zeuke coupling at one end to couple to the loco. In later years the bar also carried a pipe for the brakes, sometimes on the transporters but often as a through pipe to any vehicles behind the transporters.

 

The other method is to have a barrier vehicle at each end which has NG couplings at a lower level and SG couplings and buffers at the correct height to couple to the SG wagon being transported. This did away with the need for the brake pipes on the transporter wagons as the brake pipes on the SG wagon were used. This is often how Rollbocks are operated, certainly in the case of the Czech ones I know, the barrier wagons are weighted (with concrete!) and braked.

 

Close up of the bogie on the Czech line's only Rollwagon showing the chocks to hold the wagon:

 

 

 

How the Rollbocks are coupled with a barrier wagon (can also be used with transporter wagons), barrier wagon on the left:

 

 

 

 

Edited January 20, 2021 by Hobby

[PaulRhB]

25 minutes ago, Hobby said:

That's the issues with the three axle ones, free running, I think Paul may have found one that is in 12mm gauge but all the ones I've had in 9mm gauge have been sticky to say the least.

No mine was 9mm and I did have to modify it but can’t remember what I did as it dragged a lot. I got it running decently but sold it at some stage when I rationalised the 009. 
 

 

5 hours ago, Hobby said:

With regard to the bogies, the L&M ones have one major advantage over the Continental ones in that they are completely covered over so what you have underneath is down to you as to what you put there, so don't get hung up on the bogies having 2 or 3 axles!

Yes although with the shapeways 12mm ones mine are going to actually be 4 wheelers with the inner wheels being dummy discs  I figured with a wagon on top you won’t see that the bogie doesn’t turn, and the difference in pivot position will hardly be noticeable as it’s only a few mm. 

[Hobby]

Like this, the Zeuke one. 

 

https://www.picclickimg.com/d/l400/pict/352448321907_/Zeuke-Herr-Schmalspur-H0m-Rollwagen-in-OVP-463.jpg

 

Can be converted to 9mm gauge as well. 

Edited January 20, 2021 by Hobby

[009 micro modeller]

On 20/01/2021 at 14:38, Hobby said:

That's the issues with the three axle ones, free running

 

I meant the free running of the standard gauge wagon along the deck when unloading. Although the NG bogies on some designs probably have issues as well, partly as some of them are inside-framed (which I know from my attempts at mine tubs doesn’t always lend itself to free running).

Edited January 22, 2021 by 009 micro modeller

[steveNCB7754]

On 20/01/2021 at 08:41, Hobby said:

3. Leave it on the transporter! That's the way its often (mostly?) done at small stations in Europe. Of course it means that the NG railway must have a stock of transporter wagons enough to cope with the traffic flow (which normally isn't that big), but it also means less labour/horse costs in moving the wagon on and off. I know with the transporter bogies that's how it's done virtually all the time as moving them on and off the bogies would be expensive and time consuming. Most wagons are only in one place for a short time, usually no more than a few days. Anyhow, unless you are specifically modelling the L&M it's down to you, all three alternatives are perfectly valid and used in real life.

 

You make a good point.  In my case, I'm imagining that the Standard Gauge station (the main focus of the layout), is also just the 'terminus' (or at least the end) of the Narrow Gauge line (sharing a common goods yard), so what happens after a transporter wagon leaves the scene (with its Standard Gauge wagon load), is not shown.

 

As you suggest, the length of time a Standard Gauge wagon would be on the Narrow Gauge system, depends on a number of factors.  In a rural setting, I can imagine that a wagon brought-in to collect milk (in churns) and return the empties, would be in and out pretty quickly (perishable product), but a 7-plank full of coal (being sold 'off the wagon' by the sackful), might be there some time (depending on demand).

 

[steveNCB7754]

On 20/01/2021 at 08:53, 009 micro modeller said:

 

I’ve only seen photos or models of the intermediate stations, which obviously used hand shunting as they didn’t have any standard gauge apart from the short lengths at the end of each siding. But potentially at the junction with the standard gauge (where SG locos were present) you could have them shunting the wagons onto the transporters.

 

I suppose one additional advantage of the motorised SG wagon concept is that once the power is turned off it wouldn’t be able to roll off. I understand that if using L&M style transporters they may have to have the SG track gauged at EM or P4 (rather than 00) as the space available between the SG rails is a critical dimension in terms of fitting the NG running gear in, and similarly I have read articles about modelling the L&M bogie vehicles as 4-wheelers because the bogies would not have sufficient swing. This wouldn’t apply if using the RTR continental-design transporters intended for H0e.

 

I bought a secondhand continental transporter wagon a few years ago, planning to make a small layout based around it. It would have needed rails adding to the deck to allow the SG wagons to run smoothly on and off (as made, I think the RTR model was designed to run in an NG train but not to actually be loaded and unloaded). Main issues seemed to be getting the NG transporter to stay in place while loading, and getting the SG wagon to stay in place on the move. My plan to get the SG wagon on and off the transporter was slightly unprototypical and would have involved the loco running round to the other side of the buffers and hauling the wagon off the transporter using a section of dual gauge track, although the gradient required would probably have taken up too much space. I might return to this at some point although I will use more than one transporter and will use a standard gauge loco to move the wagons on and off. I wonder whether uncoupling SG wagons once on the transporter would also present difficulties though.

 

Yes, you are right, out on the rest of the Narrow Gauge system, you have to 'hand shunt' (or use a horse, I suppose).  The layout I envisage, would only be modelling the end of that system, so you won't see what happens to the Standard Gauge wagons (on their transporter) once they leave the scene.

 

One 'wild' thought that occurred to me, was; if I used the Leek & Manifold design transporter (where the wheels/bogies are actually nigh-on invisible to the casual observer), maybe you could get away without using wheels (on the model) at all!  Just a suitable 'shoe' at each corner, resting on the rail head, and the transporter wagon could just 'skate' along the track (so no problems with trying to fit wheels/bogies of any sort).  Just a thought ('needs more work' obviously).

 

[BernardTPM]

As an alternative to wagon transporters - containers! Lift off the Conflat and onto a n.g. conflat.

 

[Hobby]

There was an article in one of the model railway mags many years ago by, I think, Giles Barnabe, on the L&M transporter wagons and a model of them. It's one of those "I know I have it somewhere but can't find it" articles. If I do I will let you know when it was!

[Andy Kirkham]

This is how I saw it being done at Gniezno in Poland. The loco drew the wagons onto the transporter with a cable while running on a parallel track. A bit of challenge to represent in a model.

 

Edited January 22, 2021 by Andy Kirkham

[steveNCB7754]

19 minutes ago, Andy Kirkham said:

This is how I saw it being done at Gniezno in Poland. The loco drew the wagons onto the transporter with a cable while running on a parallel track. A bit of challenge to represent in a model.

 

 

Yes, that would be difficult to replicate on a model!

 

Great photo BTW -  but I think they need more lights on the front of that loco!!  Maybe that's the Polish headcode for 'You don't need to know what I'm doing, or where I'm going, just get out of my way!'  LOL