Not a wish list, but...

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Some weird and wonderful prototypes have been made by model manufacturers over the years. Indeed, some very weird and not-so-wonderful prototypes have also appeared in model form.

But one class of loco that seems to have been ignored is the jackshaft-drive LMS 0-6-0 diesel shunters. I wonder why?

[Typeapproval]

QUOTE!

 

Sorry mate! your the 10th bloke I've told today!

 

There's No Demand!😡

 

 

[Richard_A]

Judith edge do a kit for these. 

[Peter Kazmierczak]

i was thinking more RTR.

If obscure one-off prototypes are produced, why not a large class covering a wide period - both steam/diesel eras. 

[MarkSG]

I suppose the simple answer is that they weren't hugely numerous, they're not particularly glamorous, and there are still other early diesels that haven't been done yet. I expect Heljan will get round to it eventually.

[Captain Kernow]

58 minutes ago, Richard_A said:

Judith edge do a kit for these. 

Indeed. What's not to like?

(Model bought from Ebay by Re6/6).

 

[BMacdermott]

Hello Peter

 

Within the Results of The 00 Wishlist Poll, the class had - for a number of years - bumped along between Low and Middle Polling.

 

However, in 2022 (the last Poll to run before we run again later this year) the class had reached High Polling and was not far off The Top 50.

 

Brian (on behalf of The 00 Poll Team)

Edited February 5 by BMacdermott

[Typeapproval]

Again I add this is no a wish list item!

 

I have recently (Last night) been reminded of another oddity. 

 

In addition to the Mansell Three diesel shunters, to which BR added a further Twenty six were added, in 1949 Mr Oliver Bulleid produced a single 0-6-0  shunter/short haul loco No 11001 an intriguing design (As so many of Mr Bulleids designs not a 100%. success!).

 

My thought is perhaps the re-establishment of what used to be described as "Kitchen Table" manufacturing with the establishment of 3D printing businesses we could hope to see such oddities as the 11001 and the LMS shunters produced. Im old enough to remember many "Body line" kits which were great at the time but sadly not stood the test of time. With modern techniques the quality of these 3D prints would be far above the standard of the old white metal kits of yore! A quick look on a "well known auction site" reveals that there are some excellent narrow gauge kits already coming on stream.

 

Again the issues of running gear will need to be addressed!

 

Regards

David.

 

 

 

[stewartingram]

I'm sure I read in a book somewhere this week, that 11001 was allocated to Hornsey (34B) for a short period in the 50s. I'll have to have another look.

[cctransuk]

26 minutes ago, Typeapproval said:

Again I add this is no a wish list item!

 

I have recently (Last night) been reminded of another oddity. 

 

In addition to the Mansell Three diesel shunters, to which BR added a further Twenty six were added, in 1949 Mr Oliver Bulleid produced a single 0-6-0  shunter/short haul loco No 11001 an intriguing design (As so many of Mr Bulleids designs not a 100%. success!).

 

My thought is perhaps the re-establishment of what used to be described as "Kitchen Table" manufacturing with the establishment of 3D printing businesses we could hope to see such oddities as the 11001 and the LMS shunters produced. Im old enough to remember many "Body line" kits which were great at the time but sadly not stood the test of time. With modern techniques the quality of these 3D prints would be far above the standard of the old white metal kits of yore! A quick look on a "well known auction site" reveals that there are some excellent narrow gauge kits already coming on stream.

 

Again the issues of running gear will need to be addressed!

 

Regards

David.

 

 

 

 

I take it that you are aware that there is a 4mm. scale etched brass kit for 11001, available from Judith Edge Kits.

 

I have seen photographic evidence of it operating in the Leeds area.

 

CJI.

[Typeapproval]

Hi, 

 

Sadly my soldering skills leave a lot to be desired!

 

When I was doing my apprentice training, one of the tasks we had to perform was to solder a nipple to a Bowden wire. It was tested in a simple jig on a hydraulic press. The idea was that the cable should break before the nipple pulled off! Never managed it even once! I used Araldite to assemble the few cast kits I attempted! 

 

I've seen some of the exquisite brass models that are on offer, I don't think it would please my "Accountant" (Wife!) if I handed over a fist full of cash to end up with a shambles! Ill stick to Plastic, resin etc. Better the devil etc.!

 

Kind Regards

David.

[The Johnster]

I'd imagine that, for the purposes of RTR manafucture, the production costs of that particular class, with a jackshaft driven connecting rod rather than a straightforward coupling rod, are probably enough to dissuade any firm considering having a go at it.  It is a highly niche prototype and the argument will probably be that there are good RTR 08s already available.  Jackshaft drive is not popular with 4mm RTR companies, only Mainline dipping their toes in with the 03 and 04 (same thing mechanically, and retooled by Bachmann), and Heljan with a 14.  There have even been examples of jackshaft-driven diesels produced in RTR that have used outside frames, such as the Triang Dokafority, based on a jackshafted Bagnall for New Zealand, and the Playcraft/Jouef North British 0-4-0, an indication perhaps of how anathematic manufacturers regard these engines.

 

This is a shame because jackshaft-driven small diesel shunting engines are full of interest and character.  For the LMS loco, it might be worth checking out some European H0 models for mechanisms, such as Crocodiles.

 

8 hours ago, Peter Kazmierczak said:

If obscure one-off prototypes are produced, why not a large class covering a wide period - both steam/diesel eras

 

Not many obscure one-offs make it into RTR production.  Plenty of one-offs, but not obscure ones; Caley 123, Hush-Hush/60700, Turbomotive/Princess Anne, Blue Deltic, DP2, the Fell, Falcon, Kestrel, Lion, Leader, APT-E, APT-E, prototype HST, these are all fairly well-known within the hobby, and some of them put in very low mileages.  10800 might be argued to be a bit obscure, to be fair...

 

But, and in hope that somebody will one day provide me with a Collett 1938 31xx large prairie when the class it was rebuilt from, the Churchward 3150, hasn't apparently been considered yet, I agree with your basic point; sometimes the rationale of the choices that RTR producers make is not easy to follow.  But I'm not a production engineer or an adventure capitalist, so what do I know?

[kevinlms]

8 hours ago, Typeapproval said:

Again I add this is no a wish list item!

 

I have recently (Last night) been reminded of another oddity. 

 

In addition to the Mansell Three diesel shunters, to which BR added a further Twenty six were added, in 1949 Mr Oliver Bulleid produced a single 0-6-0  shunter/short haul loco No 11001 an intriguing design (As so many of Mr Bulleids designs not a 100%. success!).

 

My thought is perhaps the re-establishment of what used to be described as "Kitchen Table" manufacturing with the establishment of 3D printing businesses we could hope to see such oddities as the 11001 and the LMS shunters produced. Im old enough to remember many "Body line" kits which were great at the time but sadly not stood the test of time. With modern techniques the quality of these 3D prints would be far above the standard of the old white metal kits of yore! A quick look on a "well known auction site" reveals that there are some excellent narrow gauge kits already coming on stream.

 

Again the issues of running gear will need to be addressed!

 

Regards

David.

 

 

 

The problem with body only kits, is the all important chassis for them. No point buying a relatively expensive kit, to plonk it on something unsuitable. Those days have gone to most.

[The Johnster]

Yet the bodyshell genre is alive and kicking in the 3D print format; just have a trawl on Shapeways.  Often duplicating RTR-available locos as well.  I wonder if some of the 3D stuff on offer has ever actually been printed up in reality, though.  

[stewartingram]

17 hours ago, stewartingram said:

I'm sure I read in a book somewhere this week, that 11001 was allocated to Hornsey (34B) for a short period in the 50s. I'll have to have another look.

11001, 34B Hornsey, from 6/56 -9/56.

Taken from Shed by Shed, part 7, by Tony Walmsley.

 

Something different for ECML followers?

[Steamport Southport]

I'll stick with the JE versions personally. I'll have to build the ones I've got first, but I'm slowly going through the LMS diesel shunters. Pretty much essential for those that model the North West. 

 

Now if someone were to make the Armstrong Whitworth 0-6-0DE or reissue the Mercian kit then I'll be interested....

 

I don't think the Mercian kit has been available for a long time and I have no idea what is happening to the range since Trevor died.

 

 

 

Jason

[cctransuk]

8 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

I'll stick with the JE versions personally. I'll have to build the ones I've got first, but I'm slowly going through the LMS diesel shunters. Pretty much essential for those that model the North West. 

 

Now if someone were to make the Armstrong Whitworth 0-6-0DE or reissue the Mercian kit then I'll be interested....

 

I don't think the Mercian kit has been available for a long time and I have no idea what is happening to the range since Trevor died.

 

 

 

Jason

 

Then, there was also such a kit from Jamieson, I seem to recall!

 

CJI.

[PMP]

5 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

Then, there was also such a kit from Jamieson, I seem to recall!

 

CJI.

I don’t recall seeing one or hearing of it, however Sayer Chaplin IIRC did have it as one of their early etched kits.

Edited February 6 by PMP
Spellin

[cctransuk]

3 minutes ago, PMP said:

I don’t recall seeing one or hearing of it, however Sayer Chaplin IIRC did have it as one of their early etched kits.

 

Quite correct - failing memory!

 

As I recall, that kit featured in the first MRJ compendium.

 

CJI.

[kevinlms]

18 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

Quite correct - failing memory!

 

As I recall, that kit featured in the first MRJ compendium.

 

CJI.

Article entitled 'Resurrecting a dinosaur', by a Tony Wilson.

 

Also a flash 'Dyno-Drive' version in MRJ No. 140. Mick Barnes.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

On 06/02/2024 at 01:25, The Johnster said:

...I'd imagine that, for the purposes of RTR manufacture, the production costs of that particular class, with a jackshaft driven connecting rod rather than a straightforward coupling rod, are probably enough to dissuade any firm considering having a go at it...

It shouldn't, as it is no more than four rod coupled axles. (The sensible mechanical choice is to drive the leading axle.)

 

The failing of the current Bachmann 03 - which has a decent mechanism as far as the wheels are concerned - is that some mechanical ignoramus put the jackshaft crank representations on cast in pivots on the chassis sides, and slack to boot. Had the jackshafts been on an axle running through the block, exactly as for the wheelsets, it would be fine. 

 

(The cast in jackshaft crank pivots 'inherited' from the prior Mainline and Bachmann 03 and 04s were a consequence of the split chassis mechanism used on these earlier models. It's wonderful how a bad idea lives on in consequences after it has been eliminated...)

[The Johnster]

6 hours ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

It's wonderful how a bad idea lives on in consequences after it has been eliminated...)

 

Not sure 'wonderful' is the word I'd use.

 

Best example I suppose is the Rovex Triang Jinty, intoduced 1954 IIRC.  It was an honest toy, with no pretentions to scale or detail, and none the worse for that, but it used an odd axle-spacing that was incorrect for a Jinty and for anything else TTBOMK.  In consequence, all Triang, Triang Hornby, and Hornby models using mechs derived from the 1954 Jinty (and some Railroad locos are still doing so) have splashers in the wrong places to 'fit' the wheels on this axle spacing.  The chassis has been through many redesigns and retoolings, and the one in current use under some Railroad models looks nothing like the 1954 product, but the incorrect axle spacing survives.  Hornby presumably consider it adequate for Railroad purposes.

 

But the 6-coupled ghost of the 1954 Jinty may be found in other places.  Some of the old Wills Bodyline kits were designed to use this chassis & mech, and hence had their splashers incorrectly positioned to match the axle spacing.  Wills are now South Eastern Finecast, SEF, and are still producing improved versions of these kits; furthermore, they produce chassis kits for such locos (for example their GWR pannier tanks, such as their 1854 and 94xx).  These chassis kits are a massive improvement in detail and running quality over any of the various iterations of the Triang/Triang Hornby/Hornby Jinty chassis, but, because they have to fit kit bodyshells developed from the original Wills kits that were intended to run on the Triang Jinty chassis, the chassis kits' axle spacing still matches the upgraded bodyshell kits, and is still incorrect. 

 

1954 was 70 years ago.

[Steamport Southport]

8 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

 

Not sure 'wonderful' is the word I'd use.

 

Best example I suppose is the Rovex Triang Jinty, intoduced 1954 IIRC.  It was an honest toy, with no pretentions to scale or detail, and none the worse for that, but it used an odd axle-spacing that was incorrect for a Jinty and for anything else TTBOMK.  In consequence, all Triang, Triang Hornby, and Hornby models using mechs derived from the 1954 Jinty (and some Railroad locos are still doing so) have splashers in the wrong places to 'fit' the wheels on this axle spacing.  The chassis has been through many redesigns and retoolings, and the one in current use under some Railroad models looks nothing like the 1954 product, but the incorrect axle spacing survives.  Hornby presumably consider it adequate for Railroad purposes.

 

But the 6-coupled ghost of the 1954 Jinty may be found in other places.  Some of the old Wills Bodyline kits were designed to use this chassis & mech, and hence had their splashers incorrectly positioned to match the axle spacing.  Wills are now South Eastern Finecast, SEF, and are still producing improved versions of these kits; furthermore, they produce chassis kits for such locos (for example their GWR pannier tanks, such as their 1854 and 94xx).  These chassis kits are a massive improvement in detail and running quality over any of the various iterations of the Triang/Triang Hornby/Hornby Jinty chassis, but, because they have to fit kit bodyshells developed from the original Wills kits that were intended to run on the Triang Jinty chassis, the chassis kits' axle spacing still matches the upgraded bodyshell kits, and is still incorrect. 

 

1954 was 70 years ago.

 

The SEF etched chassis for the 94XX is correct. My one that has just moved to the top of the queue and I had it out anyway.

 

Or the Bachmann one is wrong as well as it's the same spacing!

 

This is what we are talking about, certainly not some antiquated chassis and you can move the splashers easily to match as they are separate parts.

 

Sorry I couldn't line up the second photo properly as my phone is a bit rubbish and distorts everything. But in real life they match perfectly.

 

 

 

Two Heljan LNER O2 boxes getting into the shot....

 

What is a multiple of 94XXs called? As I think I've got a problem as I've got another unbuilt Wills kit, a poorly Lima one and a Graham Farish N Gauge version as well. Which makes seven....

 

 

 

BTW I'm supposed to be modelling North Wales/Cheshire in the late 1950s/early 1960s, not London in 1947!

 

 

Jason