SRman Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 While all the 'official' histories list the MNs as being three batches, I always think of them as really being done in four, with 21C1 and 21C2 being distinctly different to the following locomotives (notwithstanding the obvious 'limpet board' cladding and rib on 21C3 to 21C10), as well as all of them receiving various modifications to their front ends quite early on, then modifications to their cabs as well, later. All of 21C1-10 had the distinctive turn-in of the sides and fairings ahead of the cylinders and the radiused sheeting ahead of and behind the cutout over the driving wheels. I still have two of the Millholme kits, one for the last, BR-built, batch and one for the first group (two batches if I follow what i said above!). Whatever happens, we already know Hornby have been able to cater for several differences in the light pacifics, although they fought shy of producing the earlier cab style and abandoned producing 'Sidmouth' in their originally announced production. I am sure they could still do that if they wished to. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
orcadian Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 Many years ago, or so it now seems (at least 12!), I had a question in an interview that Model Rail arranged with senior Bachmann staff. It was around the time that Bachmann had announced their first news about the Class 411 - 4-CEP. At the time, Bach/ Far had also said that their aim was that all 00 lococs would eventually appear in N as well, and vice-versa. They went on, however, to say that an N gauge 4-CEP was not very likely, at the very least not for a long time. Well, N Gauge 4-CEPs are now freely available from Farish dealers. Now Graham Farish have announced a new model of the air-smoothed 'Merchants' in their 2012/13 catalogue, I wonder if they could be persuaded by public opinion to put it through a magnifier???? Perhaps Dave and his team at Chirk might also consider upscaling from their Light Pacifics, but there is no Unrebuilt MN to laser scan,which may deter them. Although people are quick to say that Hornby already have an available chassis, are there not wheelbase (spacing) differences between the Light Pacifics and the Flannel Jackets? SR experts can anwer this conclusively - and we have several of them in our membership! As to the OP's question - yes, please! Get someone to produce an r-t-r Air-smoothed Mercant and I'll buy at least one. And I'd be satisfied with 'Railroad' levels of accuracy/detail (I've already got my coat and steel helmet on, thanks!). BR green 2nd choice, but a BR blue one would certainly be Number One! One of the first loco types I remember seeing on being exiled from Bath to Gillingham (Kent) over 60 years ago! (My father was connected with The Admirality at the time.) Richard Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Graham_Muz Posted July 25, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 25, 2012 Although people are quick to say that Hornby already have an available chassis, are there not wheelbase (spacing) differences between the Light Pacifics and the Flannel Jackets? SR experts can anwer this conclusively - and we have several of them in our membership! Richard It is not a case of being quick to say that Hornby already have the chassis block it is a fact that they do as the design of the block used for the Light Pacifics and their Rebuilt MN's has an offset rear axle bearing that is reversible to increase the axle spacing by the scale 6" between the Light pacifics and Merchant Navies. A different rear trailing truck is used to ensure that spacing is correct too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
orcadian Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 It is not a case of being quick to say that Hornby already have the chassis block it is a fact that they do as the design of the block used for the Light Pacifics and their Rebuilt MN's has an offset rear axle bearing that is reversible to increase the axle spacing by the scale 6" between the Light pacifics and Merchant Navies. A different rear trailing truck is used to ensure that spacing is correct too. Thanks Graham, both for the speedy response and for its very positive content! That gives MN-supporters a very clear steer as to where persuasion may pay off! On Hornby's web-site, I understand they do have a link for suggestions, and have said that it is the only way of getting suggestions heard. 'Dear Hornby, please can we have ........' Richard Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 Graham: the difference is 3", not 6". MN: 7'6" x 7'6" Light Pacific: 7'6 x 7'3" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack P Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 I feel like, if the BoB's and WC's are popular as they are and have all be bought and extensively covered by Mr Graham 'Muz' - http://grahammuz.com/2011/12/05/talking-stock-4-cabs-and-deflectors-bulleid-light-pacific-variations/ Then a RTR Merchant Navy would be a welcome sight I'm sure, And they have the potential to be decorated in both BR/S and SR schemes with only a few body modifications - thusly would appeal to a larger market Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Graham_Muz Posted July 26, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 26, 2012 Graham: the difference is 3", not 6". MN: 7'6" x 7'6" Light Pacific: 7'6 x 7'3" Opps yes, serves me right from trying to post from memory whilst at work. Hornby's offset rear axle bearing is of course correct to be able to do both wheel bases. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 ... Hornby's offset rear axle bearing is of course correct to be able to do both wheel bases. The adjustable cradle idea is quite clever. What other wheelbases might be possible if adopted in other Hornby chassis blocks? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SRman Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Well, they have also done this with their Black 5s, offering two wheelbase variants on that model as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Well, they have also done this with their Black 5s, offering two wheelbase variants on that model as well. Yes, I forgot about that one.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Hale Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Just a slight correction - the latest itteration of Hornby light Pacifics no longer feature the removable rear axle bearing, this was mentioned a couple of months ago on RMweb when I described swapping the rear wheel set for a version with the speedo extension. Does it follow that the adjustable cradle idea is only an option on earlier models? Tim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Just a slight correction - the latest itteration of Hornby light Pacifics no longer feature the removable rear axle bearing, this was mentioned a couple of months ago on RMweb when I described swapping the rear wheel set for a version with the speedo extension. Does it follow that the adjustable cradle idea is only an option on earlier models? Interesting. Was that a decision by Hornby? Or did the factory make the change itself in order to save production cost? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
orcadian Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 On Hornby's web-site, I understand they do have a link for suggestions, and have said that it is the only way of getting suggestions heard. Richard For those who have not used it before, or can't remember it, the Suggestions Box is opened through Hornby.com/forums/ then click on comment form You have to identify yourself and give contact info. Richard Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Hale Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Ivan, Hale Towers is not on the 'need to know' list currently being promulgated by Hornby therefore any speculation is nugatory. The link to the previous thread is: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/58125-driving-wheel-removal-from-Hornby-wcbob I hope that it helps someone. Do I think that a 4mm big Spamcan is on the cards? Well, if you consider Heljan's 'success' is selling diesel prototypes and other assorted failures then I suppose that it stands a chance - after all it ticks all the frothers' usual boxes of: 1. Big 2. Short-lived 3. Express 4. Hastily rebuilt and no longer extant. Unfortunately the frothers miss the target by a country mile when rational decisions on choices of possible candidates for models. Still waiting for Hornby to announce the S15 and 700 so that we can have something to pull the goods west of Salisbury and a good U would not be ignored. If the NE can enjoy umpteen classes of near identitical express types, a U from Bachmann based on the N would be a sensible choice. However when did logic ever have a place in the world of the frothers? Tim (getting on his coat) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack P Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Unfortunately the frothers miss the target by a country mile when rational decisions on choices of possible candidates for models. Still waiting for Hornby to announce the S15 and 700 so that we can have something to pull the goods west of Salisbury and a good U would not be ignored. If the NE can enjoy umpteen classes of near identitical express types, a U from Bachmann based on the N would be a sensible choice. However when did logic ever have a place in the world of the frothers? Much support! I'll get your coat while i'm getting mine Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 ... At the time, Bach/ Far had also said that their aim was that all 00 lococs would eventually appear in N as well, and vice-versa. .. Now Graham Farish have announced a new model of the air-smoothed 'Merchants' in their 2012/13 catalogue, I wonder if they could be persuaded by public opinion to put it through a magnifier... 'At the time' was 2007. Think the key word in that aim is 'eventually'; something we have on the 'to do' list, but not necessarily tomorrow. And there was the over-riding caveat of 'subject to sales success'. I liked that interview, very candid on the subject of 'if it is asked for, and doesn't prove to sell, there's an end to it'. On the other hand, 'if it does sell strongly, there can be more of that genre'. (Regarding the S15, the SR band need to convince Bachmann that while it may look like a 4-6-0 it's functionally the SR's 2-8-0, and would help round out their regional coverage of standard heavy freight locos.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Belgian Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Pppppppplease stop referring to them as 'Unrebuilts'. This has long been a bone of contention amongst Southern enthusiasts and the consensus is that they are 'Originals', 'SpamCans', 'Flat-tops' or 'as built', but that, so far, none has yet been 'unrebuilt'. It may happen, as mentioned above, since 35022 was the first candidate and 35011 is the current one. I have yet to see a good model of an Original MN, although the PDK kit looks pretty well spot on (or, they do, PDK cover most of the variants). Even the Golden Arrow one starts off compromised as it's intended for use with a Light Pacific chassis, with the 1' 3" shorter wheelbase (although it may have a longer pony truck to account for the longer firebox). It would be wonderful if Hornmann were to do a model - black, light green, two blues, dark green, two cabs, three deflector types (and no deflectors), different body styles, 'widow's peaks' and tender types galore - the variations add up to more than the number of locomotives built! JE Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Pppppppplease stop referring to them as 'Unrebuilts'. .... ^ What he said. ....Even the Golden Arrow one starts off compromised as it's intended for use with a Light Pacific chassis, with the 1' 3" shorter wheelbase (although it may have a longer pony truck to account for the longer firebox)..... You can actually plonk it onto a Hornby MN chassis, with a bit of work. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Hale Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 I have yet to see a good model of an Original MN, although the PDK kit looks pretty well spot on (or, they do, PDK cover most of the variants). Even the Golden Arrow one starts off compromised as it's intended for use with a Light Pacific chassis, with the 1' 3" shorter wheelbase (although it may have a longer pony truck to account for the longer firebox). JE, The GAP model is not compromised. Chris includes an extension piece for the chassis in the kit and the rear pony truck must be swapped for the Hornby MN which has a different pivot point which must be tapped M2 in the chassis block. If you wish to use the Hornby MN chassis, you merely need to remove the extra valve gear bits. The Crownline/PDK kit is compromised in the body - look carefully at the juxtaposition of the sand fillers, nameplate and lower skirt in order to see the mistake. Tim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ed 66 plant Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Hi all, I would most definitely purchase an original Merchant Navy.I currently have 3 in rebuilt form (in my humble opinion the most handsome of all UK steam locos!!) but I still need at least one of the earlier versions .My modelling period covers 1954--1958 and therefore many at that time would be running in pre-rebuilt form. I know there are many detail differences (especially at the front end ) as the locos were developed on from 21C1 but hopefully "the more mature ouline" version will be made available with maybe add on alternatives parts to widen the appeal. Yes it is a real must for my Bournemouth Belle! regards,Ed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Belgian Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 If it were my toy and money I would propose going 'lookee-likee' by arranging internal drives to the same design of Caprotti gear as on DoG, with roller bearing main axleboxes too. That should enable the external appearance of the original Bulleid design to be restored, combined with what is probably the best steam distribution achieved in a simple locomotive, making the best use of the output of the excellent boiler. That's a logical follow on to the Jarvis rebuild too: use what is now the proven performance of the BR8 equipment to eliminate Bulleid's chain driven gear and oil bath: neither of which look like 'making the cut' even in any potentially developed form. Spending a lot of dough on restoring the original design to end up with a machine incapable of reliably doing the business out on the network would be a real sickener. It's possible that a current engineering team could make the Bulleid concepts work, but that's risky simply because railway steam loco engineering development isn't so widely practised. If the engineers of the 1940s and 50s who were deep-ended in the technology couldn't make a go of it after a decade of exposure to the problems, then probably best to conclude that there was no way out of the holes dug by those particular concepts. An OO model? Sometime in the next five years I should think, simply because there are very few BR period named express types (= eye candy) available as new subjects. I like your concept of inside Caprotti valve gear but must take issue with your comments highlighted above: the Bulleid chain-driven valve gear seems to have worked extremely reliably on both 'Tangmere' and 'City of Wells' in preservation. I believe that some of the chains in use are modern derivatives of the original concept and neither of these engines and none of the other preserved spam-cans seem to have had any issues/failures in connection with their valve gear. JE Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Graham_Muz Posted July 27, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 27, 2012 JE, The GAP model is not compromised. Chris includes an extension piece for the chassis in the kit and the rear pony truck must be swapped for the Hornby MN which has a different pivot point which must be tapped M2 in the chassis block. If you wish to use the Hornby MN chassis, you merely need to remove the extra valve gear bits. The Crownline/PDK kit is compromised in the body - look carefully at the juxtaposition of the sand fillers, nameplate and lower skirt in order to see the mistake. Tim Unless the rear axle is also moved back, either by swapping the bearing round if you have a chassis of that variety, or using an MN chassis then there will still be a slight compromise with the GAP kit even after the change in rear pony truck position. It should also be noted that if the Hornby rebuilt MN chassis is used then the wheel sets will also need changing as the original MNs did not have balance weights fitted. Tim could you explain the juxtaposition of the sand fillers and namplates on thre PDK kit in more detail as I am unable to imediately see the issue looking at this photo here of a completed PDK kit http://www.pdkmodels.co.uk/Pic%2012.jpg when compared with images on this page here http://www.semgonline.com/steam/mn_01.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Hale Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Unless the rear axle is also moved back, either by swapping the bearing round if you have a chassis of that variety, or using an MN chassis then there will still be a slight compromise with the GAP kit even after the change in rear pony truck position. I do not believe that I precluded that option or is there something that I haven't said that concerns? Tim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SRman Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Oh darn! Graham, I had forgotten about the wheel balance weights. I was planning to use one of my existing Hornby rebuilt MNs as a donor for the GAP kit. Now I'll have to source some B0B/WC wheels as well! Still, that part of the conversion is relatively easy anyway as the axles can be simply dropped out after removing the baseplate screws. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forester Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Pppppppplease stop referring to them as 'Unrebuilts'. You may as well ask people to stop calling them Spam Cans because they look nothing like a can of spam. The fact is people have been calling them "unrebuilt" far as long as the first rebuilt left the works. It may offend English scholars but that's tough. We can't go around renaming every item of railway equipment because it doesn't appear in the Oxford English Dictionary. Part of the charm of the railways is the traditional terminology - grammatical or otherwise. Get over it! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.