Mucky Duck Posted August 11, 2011 Author Share Posted August 11, 2011 Ryan, if you really fancy a build project with your spare 8F what about a "Missing" Standard Eight http://www.rmweb.co.....php?f=8&t=8690 all you will need really is a Brit bodyshell and a Comet detailing pack EDIT: Oh and a BR1B tender drive The decision has been made. I shall buy a Bachmann WD when I can afford one and in the meantime, after a brief trial this afternoon, I'll be investigating the missing Standard 8. In Redgate's thread it was mentioned that a Bachmann Standard 5MT body perfectly matched the original drawing he used. Considering it was literally plonked onto an 8F's chassis, it doesn't seem too far out so I will add this project to my workbench thread soon. The only concern is, if I cannot find a replacement Bachmann Standard 5 body, do I trash two new, perfectly good locos to make one? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Colin Posted August 11, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 11, 2011 The fire iron 'cage' on the tender: I am pretty sure I have seen a picture 'somewhere' of a line of new WD's coming off works during the war with this fitting on view. There's a pic on the LNER encyclopedia site of the 2-10-0 undated but in what looks like WD grey, showing this fitting. http://www.lner.info...Austerity.shtml Thanks for that - I wasn't looking forward to trying to remove it! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver Sidelines Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 just out of curiosity, how good is the Bachmann one? how do people rate it? never bought one as havent really got the layout for one and want other things first, but do like them, popular loco one time at my local shed Aintree As someone else says, a bit light. I would just like to add that mine was a bit too noisy but that was solved by carefully grinding away some of the plastic body that was touching the soldered connections to the motor. A nice engine now, I seem to recollect there were quite a few based around Thornaby (Teesside). Ray Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timara Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 just out of curiosity, how good is the Bachmann one? how do people rate it? never bought one as havent really got the layout for one and want other things first, but do like them, popular loco one time at my local shed Aintree As someone else says, a bit light. I would just like to add that mine was a bit too noisy but that was solved by carefully grinding away some of the plastic body that was touching the soldered connections to the motor. A nice engine now, I seem to recollect there were quite a few based around Thornaby (Teesside). Ray Largely depends on which version you have. The originals had a very nice 5-pole Bühler motor, but the later versions have the el-cheapo 3-pole and aren't quite so eager to pull a reasonable load. They are quieter though. I have three originals and one new(er). Mike: I'll let you know how I get on with the gauge conversion of them all. Being 2.5mm axles, they're not quite so easy as I'd like them to be....... You probably know about the bazillion detail differences among them all . The age-old caveat of "pick you loco first" springs to mind! HTH, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les Bird Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Jouef used to do an SNCF 1-4-1R with similar wheels and it was tender drive as well so might provide a suitable chassis (if you can find one). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bike2steam Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 I'll add my vote to buying a Bachmann example if you can, I have 3 that I have added extra weight to, they are excellent, and silent haulers, they work on my layout pulling 40+ 16 tonners with ease - good enough. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Delamar Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 how would you distinguish between an old and newer Bachmann apart from the box? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
great central Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 The Jouef 141R chassis was the suggested method of powering the McGowan kit, couldn't find one for love or money (not that I had much money to spare then going on 30 years ago) so it got a scratchbuilt very basic one. Raided the spares box for valve gear, ex Nucast B1, wheels from a K's ROD which I had fitted Romfords to.Motor was an ancient XO4, but it looked the part until the DJH came along. Not looked on here for a few days, home broadband quit, replacement router held up in London......Grrr. So doing this from my Blackberry. Sorry but my first reaction at the title was 'how's he gonna do that, there's virtually no similarity except they're both 2-8-0s! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mucky Duck Posted August 12, 2011 Author Share Posted August 12, 2011 Thought I was just making a general enquiry to Bachmann about the availability of a WD body. I just received an email from Paypal asking to pay for 'WD body – choice of running numbers as advised'… £35! So with the Markits wheelsets, I make that a cool £90 or thereabouts… bonkers! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Ryan, Ryan, hang on in there mate. This is all a temporary madness brought on by Sundays Charity Shield result. It'll pass and following City's defeat of Swansea on Monday normal service will be resumed. Er, should they lose I cannot imagine what schemes you will embark upon..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold LH&JC Posted August 12, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 12, 2011 On the WD 2-8-0 theme, how possible is it to convert a Bachmann 2-8-0 Dub Dee to one of the 2-10-0 ones? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timara Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 how would you distinguish between an old and newer Bachmann apart from the box? Box and catalogue numbers . From what I can recall, the last Bühler-fitted ones are 32-256 & 7. Anything post-2002 production comes with the 3-pole (32-258 - 90015). The box labelling changes too as 90015 has a white label instead of blue (box-coloured). HTH, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Richard_A Posted August 12, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 12, 2011 Seen as im a swansea fan even though i'm from huddersfield I hope that man city lose just to see what else happens Ryan, Ryan, hang on in there mate. This is all a temporary madness brought on by Sundays Charity Shield result. It'll pass and following City's defeat of Swansea on Monday normal service will be resumed. Er, should they lose I cannot imagine what schemes you will embark upon..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mucky Duck Posted August 12, 2011 Author Share Posted August 12, 2011 Ryan, Ryan, hang on in there mate. This is all a temporary madness brought on by Sundays Charity Shield result. It'll pass and following City's defeat of Swansea on Monday normal service will be resumed. Er, should they lose I cannot imagine what schemes you will embark upon..... Groan! Yes Arthur, the same old last-minute Red sucker punch on Sunday had bludgeoned me to an insane pulp by Monday morning. A profound sense of wild abandon came over me and all sense of self-preservation dissolved… but I'm alright now… promise. So, sorry to disappoint, rka… the boys in sky blue could lose every game this season but that would not be sufficient to drive me barmy enough to attepmt the 8F to WD project. I made the Bachmann WD body enquiry a few days ago and the 'project' has since been well and truly buried… I was just quite shocked at the price when I got the email. I've gained some valuable knowledge about both the prototype and the Bachmann model and I've been severely warned-off doing something very stupid, so I feel lucky all round really. The 'missing' Standard 8F looks do-able though, don't you think gents… perhaps? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Ryan, Ryan, hang on in there mate. This is all a temporary madness brought on by Sundays Charity Shield result. It'll pass and following City's defeat of Swansea on Monday normal service will be resumed. Er, should they lose I cannot imagine what schemes you will embark upon..... Oh God, is the footy season starting again? On the WD 2-8-0 theme, how possible is it to convert a Bachmann 2-8-0 Dub Dee to one of the 2-10-0 ones? Funnily enough, I looked at my Bradwell "WD" kit this morning with exactly that same idea..... You'd basically be looking at a different (wider) firebox, slightly longer cab, and a somewhat longer chassis with a 5th axle. In short, the 2-10-0's a bit different from the driven (3rd) axle backwards. Tender's the same, though! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Flying Pig Posted August 12, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 12, 2011 The decision has been made. I shall buy a Bachmann WD when I can afford one and in the meantime, after a brief trial this afternoon, I'll be investigating the missing Standard 8. Well, if you must, but Redgate finally saw the light and embarked on his excellent 2-8-2 which is what BR really needed (they had loads of 2-8-0s). However, that required a scratchbuilt chassis, so I had a go to see what could be done with the 8F and a Britannia and the result is below, with an unmodified Brit for comparison. Although it's a Paintshop mashup, I've tried to be honest with the scales of the bits I've used and I haven't altered the wheel spacing of the 8F chassis, just stripped off the cylinders and most of the motion. It uses a Brit bogie wheel for the pony as the original 8F wheel just looked too large. Cylinders and motion are from the Britannia as well, slightly repositioned, and look like they might just work without further alteration, though the motion bracket needs more thought (as does the mainframe profile). The Britannia body had to be shortened to fit the coupled wheelbase and I've done this by taking slices from the rear of the smokebox and the front of the boiler, so it should be possible with careful cutting and shutting in real life. Actually, I feel the loco could do to lose a bit more length (perhaps a couple of millimetres at the joint between firebox and boiler? [Edit - done]) as I'd like to see the firebox as close to the rear driven wheels as practical and the cab slightly more over the top of the trailing truck. The latter echoes the layout of A J Powell's rebuilt Jubilee Pacific in Living with London Midland Locomotives, which I've always felt gave a compact but powerful appearance. Apologies if I've strayed somewhat off topic. This is definitely one for those who like to work with top off the jar and the windows firmly closed. One for old tender drive models too, given the amount of fresh air under the boiler. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 The Jouef 141R chassis was the suggested method of powering the McGowan kit, couldn't find one for love or money (not that I had much money to spare then going on 30 years ago) so it got a scratchbuilt very basic one. The McGowan WD was the second kit I built many years ago. I did source a Jouef 141R for the chassis though as my kit building improved I later dis-assembled the WD with the intention of rebuilding it to a higher standard. The DJH kit came along before I got the chance and it has remained in bits ever since. Here are the two parts of the chassis, the loco chassis having lost it's original trailing truck. Jouef did two versions, this one, with spoked drivers, and one with BoxPok drivers which was the recommended option. However, as the real WD had neither, more a webbed spoked wheel with lightening holes in the webs the BoxPok wheels just didn't look right. At the time I was quite impressed with the overall Jouef 141R compared to contemporary UK outline offerings. The tender drive runs smoothly and has an unusual drive train, a gear on the motor shaft drives a pinion on a vertical shaft and that transmits power down to the leading bogie. In the mid 80's, short of scratchbuilding, this was the only WD available. So, next time you''re bitchin' about some minor discrepancy in the latest effort from Bachmann or Hornby remember how it was in the old days Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold RedgateModels Posted August 13, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 13, 2011 Well, if you must, but Redgate finally saw the light and embarked on his excellent 2-8-2 which is what BR really needed (they had loads of 2-8-0s). True, but the 2-8-2 was merely a design concept that was rejected in favour of the 2-10-0 9F. At least the 2-8-0 was planned to be built (it was in the '56 build program) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mucky Duck Posted August 13, 2011 Author Share Posted August 13, 2011 Well, if you must, but Redgate finally saw the light and embarked on his excellent 2-8-2 which is what BR really needed (they had loads of 2-8-0s). However, that required a scratchbuilt chassis, so I had a go to see what could be done with the 8F and a Britannia and the result is below, with an unmodified Brit for comparison… …Apologies if I've strayed somewhat off topic. This is definitely one for those who like to work with top off the jar and the windows firmly closed. One for old tender drive models too, given the amount of fresh air under the boiler. No apologies needed Simon. That does look an attractive loco, even more so than the 2-8-0 and you've done a good job making it look convincing. However, a couple of things would really concern me about tackling this. I don't like the idea of that amount of cutting and shutting with that Brit body, for one. Even if I used a 9F body, which is shorter and visually more 'correct' in length, I'd have to raid the Cartazzi truck and the gubbings below the firebox/cab from a Brit. Not sure if it would be any more of a pain using a Bachmann 9F as a donor (it has daylight under the boiler), cutting off the rear end of the chassis, thus removing the rear drivers, attaching the Cartazzi truck and fabricating the bit under the cab… If I was to attempt something like this, I'd like to do it with the latest generation donors (the Bachmann 9F and Hornby Brit are so much better in every way than previous renditions) so then there's the question, 'how many of my lovely locos do I raid to make this?' Either way, as you imply, it looks a very serious job and I may have unwittingly gained a reputation for being a nutter within this thread but I know my modest limits and I certainly don't want to have a monumental task on my hands. The clincher in Redgate's 2-8-0 thread was discovering that Bachmann's Standard 5 body matches the drawing perfectly, so any cutting, if any, would be restricted to below the footplate. Plonking the body of mine onto the 8F chassis confirmed that it could – just – be possible with my skill level… although it's shame, as the 9F body does look better IMO. I still need to investigate the 2-8-0 project fully – it's by no means set in stone as a goer. I'd really like to inflict minimal damage to my Standard 5 and I think I'd be reluctant to proceed if I can't find a 'spare' body, then I need to take into account the amount of chopping possibly required at the front of the 8F chassis to accommodate the 'correct' cylinders, plus fettling the valve gear etc. I'm sure that's going to push my skills to the limit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Flying Pig Posted August 13, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 13, 2011 Even if I used a 9F body, which is shorter and visually more 'correct' in length, I'd have to raid the Cartazzi truck and the gubbings below the firebox/cab from a Brit. To be honest, using a 9F body didn't occur to me (perhaps because Redgate used a Britannia for his 2-8-2). I don't know whether the design of the Bachmann 9F chassis makes it amenable to having it's rear wheelset removed, but you could probably source a rear truck as a spare without attacking a Britannia. You'd still be left with a spare 8F though Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 ...I've tried to be honest with the scales of the bits I've used and I haven't altered the wheel spacing of the 8F chassis, just stripped off the cylinders and most of the motion. It uses a Brit bogie wheel for the pony as the original 8F wheel just looked too large. Cylinders and motion are from the Britannia as well, slightly repositioned, and look like they might just work without further alteration, though the motion bracket needs more thought (as does the mainframe profile). The Britannia body had to be shortened to fit the coupled wheelbase and I've done this by taking slices from the rear of the smokebox and the front of the boiler, so it should be possible with careful cutting and shutting in real life. Actually, I feel the loco could do to lose a bit more length (perhaps a couple of millimetres at the joint between firebox and boiler?) as I'd like to see the firebox as close to the rear driven wheels as practical and the cab slightly more over the top of the trailing truck. ... To imitate the BR 2-8-2 proposal needs a different chassis: it's 5'3" wheels at 5'9" centres, and that takes the Britannia boiler unchanged - if memory serves the 2-8-2 is just 3 inches shorter in loco wheelbase than the Brit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold RedgateModels Posted August 13, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 13, 2011 it's 6" shorter - in the smokebox Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 Not on the outline weights diagram I have, Brit boiler and smokebox exactly as on the corresponding Brit weights diagram printed on the same page. This design probably went through several iterations while at the proposal stage, unfortunately there is no date or revision information on the drawing so no way of knowing how this might fit into development of the proposal. But since nothing was built, a model based on any drawing is as 'right' as any other... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Delamar Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 I dont know any of the detail differences, could someone point them out on this one for me please, top feed looks different and of course the snow plow.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fazakerley_Junction_geograph-2148242.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timara Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 I dont know any of the detail differences, could someone point them out on this one for me please, top feed looks different and of course the snow plow.. http://en.wikipedia....aph-2148242.jpg Hi Mike, That one's about as close to the standard Bachmann model as you can get, minus the snowplough of course! There are three main types of top feed seen on WDs. To the best of my knowledge, Bachmann have only produced two. One is as per that photo link, the next is the WR version which had a proper casing for it, though I cannot find a photograph of one during a quick scour of Google. The third style is almost identical to a BR standard loco with separate clack valves on the boiler sides. There's only really one other main style of firebox, as rebuilt by Doncaster. This one here shows it to reasonably good effect. If you can see the 5 little bolts that go along underneath the cabside window, they supported a sliding window. Mostly confined to the former LNER-owned locos though (I think they all got done). Pick your loco from photos and then model what you see really. I'm still trying to find photos of my other three, so I haven't a clue whether they were anything near to a "standard" looking machine or not. HTH, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.