LBSC E2

[naugytrax]

I wonder if anyone can point me to dimensioned drawings or scale drawings of the LBSCR class E2 0-6-0T? I'm planning to add some details to a Hornby model, but before I start I'd like to know if serious hacking will be involved. No doubt the wheelbase is wrong, because it uses the generic 0-6-0T chassis, but I'm more worried about the height. The buffers are OK, 14 mm above the rails, but the cab seems very high and the side tanks and bunker seem to match it. My web searches have so far turned up a few photos, but no drawings.

Thanks in advance for any help you can give.

[DS239]

'A Pictorial Record of Southern Locomotives' by J.H.Russell [OPC] contains drawings,and for all the other SR loco's...

The wheelbase of the Hornby model is only 1mm out,the centre axle being too far forward by this amount,the real E2 wheelbase is 8'+8',whereas the Hornby one is 7'9"+8'3".I think the model is pretty accurate,the most noticable difference being the amount that the running plate raises up over the wheels.

[gerrynick]

The NRM will probably have a works drawing on microfiche which they will happily sell you. However, I don't think that this is yet an online service, and you will be overwhelmed with information.

The other answer is to become a member of The Brighton Circle, where such information is more readily available.

[bertiedog]

Your right to suspect Hornby, the body can be lowered to scale height,, but new buffer beams are needed to replace at scale height, from memory about 3mm lower. Tri-ang were more bothered about clearances for the huge couplings than scale models, this still plagues the RTR models to this day.

Stephen.

[Il Grifone]

Your right to suspect Hornby, the body can be lowered to scale height,, but new buffer beams are needed to replace at scale height, from memory about 3mm lower. Tri-ang were more bothered about clearances for the huge couplings than scale models, this still plagues the RTR models to this day.

Stephen.

 

Can you do this one ? Many Tri-ang/Hornby locos have the body full of motor.

[Horsetan]

I think South Eastern Finecast still produce a kit for the E2.....

[bertiedog]

When I say a body can be lowered, it may involve

• lowering the chassis mounting points
• removing the excess tip of the brush gear.
• removing caps etc from top of motor
• Grinding the top corners of the motor away.
• Grinding clearance into the plastic structure

Or a combination of all of these , plus a change of motor and gears, it is not a one fits all operation sequence, but most will lower to scale height one way or another..

 

Just a Dinky scaled cars to fit the boxes Tri-ang felt the coupling more important than appearance, they are learning this now,..... it has taken nearly 50 years!!! Latest offerings are better, but still on the high end of the tolerances. Older model seem to be based on a rule of 3mm too high, to gain clearances, even on a loco with no problems as they had to match the Hornby Tri-ang buffer height.

 

It is not just Tri-ang who did this, most RTR makers on the continent also altered buffer height to house standards, rather than scale, but altered far quicker then Hornby.

Stephen.

[naugytrax]

Thanks for the suggestions, folks.

 

I'll be using the latest chassis (Chinese made) rather than the original chassis with the X.03 motor. This may provide a little more clearance if I decide to lower the body. However, if I did this I would very likely need to do one or more of the things that Stephen listed. In particular I'd have to refashion the chassis mounting points, which does not appeal. On a lowered body I'd have to refit or replace the buffer beams as Stephen says, otherwise they'd be too low, and that would mean somehow reshaping the swoopy bits of the footplate at the ends.

I'm toying with the idea of cutting a horizontal slice from the bottom of the tanks, the bunker and the smokebox saddle. Unfortunately this would eliminate the daylight under the front of the boiler, which is an attractive feature of the new chassis.

The jury is still out on how I will proceed.

 

The price of a membership in the Brighton Circle is outside of my budget for this project, and the going price for Russell's book is even further out! Can books like this be consulted in reference libraries in the UK? I'll be visiting at the end of the month (going to the Bristol show).

 

Rather oddly, the height of the Hornby model is less obtrusive in the lined-out LBSC version than the plain black body shell that I'm working on. Maybe once 32103 is painted and weathered it won't worry me as much!

[Il Grifone]

I believe any library can obtain most books to order for a fee, but the best people to ask are your local library

[Oldddudders]

I believe any library can obtain most books to order for a fee, but the best people to ask are your local library

As far as I am aware, the Naugatuck Railroad isn't less than 3000 miles from the nearest UK lending library.

[DS239]

You will notice that the Hornby wheels are too small and should be replaced with ones of 18mm Dia.

 

????

 

I've just put a vernier across the treads of a set the Hornby Chinese 0-6-0 wheels and they are 19.2mm,so they are,in fact,fractionally too large...

[bertiedog]

I too thought the wheels were too big on the latest ones, and bigger would really push the body height to the limit., I think 18mm is the maximum in practice. Maybe the change to the bigger size has made the look worst. Too many items in the Hornby range have these heritage problems, due to older practices and coupling standards.

Stephen.

[Il Grifone]

As far as I am aware, the Naugatuck Railroad isn't less than 3000 miles from the nearest UK lending library.

 

Oops, I should have read things more carefully!

 

AFAIK the Hornby E2 has always had the same wheels - one size fits neither for the LMS 3F 0-6-0 tank and the 9F 2-10-0. But even the early Tri-ang chassis have 19mm wheels.

 

I would have thought that it was only necessary to lower the body on the chassis, as the buffers are too high anyway.

[Nick Holliday]

Just compared an early Hornby body with the drawings in Russell's book, and the situation is worse than I had thought. Ignoring the effect of the height of the buffers above rail level, which is relatively easy to resolve, the overall height of the body, from buffer centre to roof and to boiler height is correct, but the bad news is that the rise in the footplate is almost double what it should be, perhaps some 3mm too much, which is one of the reasons why the s-curves look so much sharper than the real thing. The tank sides come out perhaps around 1mm too high above rail level, but the effect of the raised footplate is that the sides are actually nearly 2mm short in height. I am not sure waht can be done, lowering the footplate curves would appear to result in the overall height being deficient, and taking a section out of the tanks would make things worse.

Horizontally things aren't any better. Overall the body is some 5mm too short, whcih seems bizarre since the chassis wheelbase overall is the same. Hornby obligingly decided to take a millimetre or two out of each section, so the smokebox, tanks, cab and bunker all theoretically need to be extended. The most significant section is actually the bunker. Hornby's measures just over 10mm, whereas the drawing scales 13mm, so the reduction is around 20% and it shows, the rest are not immediately obvious.

[The Bigbee Line]

Nick,

 

Useful information

 

Thanks

[DCB]

Oops, I should have read things more carefully!

 

AFAIK the Hornby E2 has always had the same wheels - one size fits neither for the LMS 3F 0-6-0 tank and the 9F 2-10-0. But even the early Tri-ang chassis have 19mm wheels.

 

I would have thought that it was only necessary to lower the body on the chassis, as the buffers are too high anyway.

Were the E2s used for anything but shunting?   I seem to remember them being at Eastleigh for shunting at Southampton docks.    

Did they have balanced wheels or were they effectively limited to 30 mph like the E1s?   The E1R rebuilds were initially unsuccessful as branch engines on the Halwil Torrington line due to a lack of balancing, the later ones had balanced wheels.    Too many modellers assume other railways used Tank engines like the GWR.  The GW had a fleet of approx 1000 mixed traffic saddle and pannier tank locos of 850, 2012, 57, 54, 64, 74 and 94XX classes capable of 60 MPH and of heating and braking passenger stock. Some lacked vacuum brakes and steam heat but all had balanced wheels and good valve gear.  Few other companies had significant numbers of such locos, the LBSC had terriers, but preferred 0-6-2Ts and the LSWR preferred 0-4-4T.  The GE had the J69 passenger version of the J67 shunter but the initial J50s were not balanced.

 

Interesting about Hornby buffer heights, I thought they were nearer 1mm too high and I have lowered numerous Hornby and Triang vehicles and locos to Hornby Dublo buffer heights (dating from 1938?)  

 

Hornby and Mainline / Bachmann have now produced several GWR models which sit too low due to using a standard generic running plate and overall maximum height whereas the GWR had an extra 6" of loading gauge to play with . The GW also had tender running plates rather higher than most companies and used deep buffer beams to get the buffers at the right level . The Mainline 2251 with skinny buffer beam and undersize wheels being frankly laughable.

 

Is the E2 body the right width, Hornby made the GWR 8750 too wide by around 2mm which makes it look ridiculous alongside a Bachmann one.

 

The old 9F wheels were similar size but very different to the E2,  Heavier balance weights, longer crank throw, different crank pin thread, I have some next to my lathe awaiting an attempt to reprofile them to fit a 28XX GWR 2-8-0.  

Edited April 9, 2016 by DavidCBroad

[Nick Holliday]

When the class was introduced the first pair were painted in passenger livery and tried out on suburban services. Not very successful, so very much a goods loco thereafter, but they may have done some passenger work when absolutely necessary.

[The Bigbee Line]

I now have an E2 added to my box of projects 'to do'.

 

Has anyone thought of the alternate 'better' RTR chassis about?  Anything with an 8' + 8' with 4'6" wheels.

[The Bigbee Line]

Any thoughts on using a Bachmann 1F chassis?

[Middlesea John]

Regarding DavidCBroad's question about were E2s used for anything other than shunting. I don't know the exact answer to this but I do have the 1960/61 Southern Region timetable on which I wrote the numbers of the locos I saw on the first day I went properly trainspotting as a youngster in Sussex. There are 2 E2s on this list. They wouldn't have been shunting as where we were (between Southwick Station and Fishersgate Halt) there were no sidings. They could have been light engine or they could have been hauling local freights trains. I'd like to think local freights maybe to Beeding cement works or to the big yard at Worthing.

Just a thought and a memory.

[Corbs]

I know I'm a bit late to this conversation but I've been trying out my elderly E2 body on a chinese-made 'Thomas' chassis and it actually runs really nicely, possibly needs attention to pick ups but surprisingly smooth.

 

Edit: Here's a quick video of it running on DC, went this slowly over pointwork which was quite nice

Edited November 7, 2016 by Corbs

[Guest Jack Benson]

On 09/04/2011 at 10:54, 21C1 said:

Skinley do a drawing of the E2. Drawing Nos 4387G Short tanks (Hornby model), 4405G extended tanks. Contact Phil Brice at the Sussex modeller Tel 01273 581265, < http://www.ukmodelshops.co.uk/suppliers/64-The_Sussex_Modeller > I dont know what the latest prices are.

You will notice that the Hornby wheels are too small and should be replaced with ones of 18mm Dia.

 

Tony

Hi,

 

Is that Phil Brice who just left a message on my blog?

 

Please respond as I cannot find your username on RMweb in order to send a PM

 

StaySafe