Castle Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 Hi Castle, Are you getting confused here? The Bachmann Dukedog already has the upper parts of a Duke but would need curved frames and other minor changes to complete the picture. Whilst the Dean Goods might provide a parallel boiler for an early straight frame Bulldog, the dome would need to be removed and the hole filled. The Belpaire firebox would be too short (the one on the Bulldog is about 6'6" long) and would need to be raised relative to the boiler. The Bulldog smokebox is also much longer, about 5', and is a drumhead type resting on a curved saddle. The Duke and Dean Goods both have the earlier Dean style full wrapper. Nick Hi Nick, No, what I am doing is posting the wrong bit of data... I claim a case of weekenditus! Sorry chaps! In my defence I was on the train, half asleep and running through the plans for today which was the strip down of a locomotive at Didcot in order to affect some repairs so don't be too harsh on me! As you appear to have covered it all I will get back in my box now... All the best, Castle Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffalo Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 Can anybody verify diameter of No.2 parallel boiler as being 4' 6" please? Btw.......has anybody heard of a D0 boiler,please? Jonte Yes, the parallel boiler is 4'6" diameter, but that is just the boiler. With the cladding it is probably about 4'11". I can't find the exact figure at the moment... Standard No 2 is a general class of boiler within which there are several types. D0 is the parallel type, D2 the short cone and D3 the long cone type. Nick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jonte Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 Yes, the parallel boiler is 4'6" diameter, but that is just the boiler. With the cladding it is probably about 4'11". I can't find the exact figure at the moment... Standard No 2 is a general class of boiler within which there are several types. D0 is the parallel type, D2 the short cone and D3 the long cone type. Nick Thanks for clearing that up, Nick. And in the process, you anticipated my next (annoying) question. Regards, Jonte. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jonte Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 Hi Nick, No, what I am doing is posting the wrong bit of data... I claim a case of weekenditus! Sorry chaps! In my defence I was on the train, half asleep and running through the plans for today which was the strip down of a locomotive at Didcot in order to affect some repairs so don't be too harsh on me! As you appear to have covered it all I will get back in my box now... All the best, Castle All sounds plausible to me, Andy. Tell me, are the real ones any easier than the models? Jonte Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castle Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 Hi Jonte, Who is Andy? I suspect that you are asking me! No, the big ones are most definitely are not easier! Think of it like this: Imagine that before you ran your 4mm locomotive you had to strip it down get an inspector in to check the motor out and identify the faults. You would then have to propose a scheme of repairs that have to be ratified by that inspector and the carried out by a competent motor smith. You will then have to test the motor out of the frames and then your maximum of 10 years of running will start so you would then have to resemble it, run it in and then you can use it. The loco would then require annual checks by the inspector until such time he felt it required further repairs. All this and you will need to cover yourself in a thick layer of grease and dirt on a regular basis and make any spares you need to fix your engine yourself. I will also tell you that it is some of the best fun you can have! All the best, Castle Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jonte Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 Hi Jonte, Who is Andy? I suspect that you are asking me! No, the big ones are most definitely are not easier! Think of it like this: Imagine that before you ran your 4mm locomotive you had to strip it down get an inspector in to check the motor out and identify the faults. You would then have to propose a scheme of repairs that have to be ratified by that inspector and the carried out by a competent motor smith. You will then have to test the motor out of the frames and then your maximum of 10 years of running will start so you would then have to resemble it, run it in and then you can use it. The loco would then require annual checks by the inspector until such time he felt it required further repairs. All this and you will need to cover yourself in a thick layer of grease and dirt on a regular basis and make any spares you need to fix your engine yourself. I will also tell you that it is some of the best fun you can have! All the best, Castle Sincerest apologies, Andy, sorry Castle. Dunno where that came from. In fairness, I did admit to becoming confused!!!!! Despite all you've told us, full size stuff still sounds far less fiddly than miniature. At least to me. Best wishes, Castle, Jonte Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jonte Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 Dear all, I'd just like to thank Nick (buffalo) for yet another prompt and thoroughly enlightening response to a PM I sent earlier today containing a litany of questions about the Bulldog class loco, and an early parallel boilered type in particular. A very knowledgeable and generous guy indeed, so thanks again Nick. What prompted my PM to Nick was the discovery of - actually a brief search in my current half incapacitated condition for - a thin sheet of brass that I think was produced by K&M donkeys years ago and which I cannot for the life of me remember where or why I bought it. Still, I knew I had it somewhere and it was a relief to have found it. Anyway, the more I looked at it, the more I convinced myself that it could be cut, burnt and fettled into something vaguely resembling an early N0.2 Dean parallel boiler, possibly with a smoke box wrapper (although the cladding of the real thing was so fine in this area as to render it almost indistinguishable from the rest of the cladding, so that it could even be omitted without detracting from any impending model) and a saddle and even a boiler strap or two. Now, at this point, I should be frank lest I raise any potentially interested parties hopes in vain, as I have to admit I've NEVER attempted anything like this before. However, "we all gotta start somewhere" as they say, and as I have the materials (brass sheet and solder) and tools (soldering iron, piercing saw and one or two drill bits) to hand, the worst case scenario is a day or so's wasted time with an accompaniment of abject disappointment at seeing yet another bright idea scuppered by a darned lack of talent! On the other hand, remote as it may seem, if it works I'm on the phone to Hattons to purchase a Dapol 'City' kit and place an order for the long awaited Bachmann 'Dukedog' which will be the victim donor for this project. I promise that If this proves to be a goer, I shall give a blow-by-blow account of the build for any like minded soul(s), with pictures, either here or on my blog. That's the idea anyway. Finally, the purpose (and title) of this thread was to test the viability of turning the forthcoming Dukedog into an earlier Duke, and, thanks to all those who generously contributed and shared their valuable knowledge, I think it safe to say - in conclusion - that without resort to major surgery to the footplate of the Dukedog (probably those with the skills and means to do so would opt for a kit or even scrathcbuilt variety anyway), this cannot be considered a feasible option after all. At least not for the more inexperienced modeller such as me. Please feel free to agree or disagree. Best wishes, Jonte. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jonte Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 Thanks for your endorsement, Castle. Best wishes, Jonte Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jonte Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Don't know why this didn't occur to me before, but bearing in mind that both models share the same shaped footplate and, essentially, the same chassis/wheel base dimensions, would it not be easier simply converting the already available Bachmann 'City of London' to a Bulldog rather than the pending Dukedog? The advantages include a 'higher set' Belpaire firebox, like those of the earliest version that came equipped with a parallel boiler (and according to the drawings I'm working from the firebox is the exact same length and height of the City's which tallies with the model already in my ownership), cab port holes already cut and glazed, side frames already painted the correct colour - okay the version I'm interested in didn't sport the reinforcing side plates, but they could always be filed flat and repainted at a stretch-, the smokebox door - similar to that of the Bulldog - could be prised off and recycled and most importantly of all: the tender is the earlier type required and already in the correct livery! And of course, this would obviate the requirement to purchase the Dapol kit as discussed earlier in this thread. A further reduction in costs is afforded when one considers that the DCC ready 'City' comes in at a tad over £104 new, as opposed to the higher £118 price tag of the anticipated 'Dukedog'. I'm going to sleep on this one just in case it's the 'Boddies' talking! Best wishes, Jonte Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Belgian Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Don't know why this didn't occur to me before, but bearing in mind that both models share the same shaped footplate and, essentially, the same chassis/wheel base dimensions, would it not be easier simply converting the already available Bachmann 'City of London' to a Bulldog rather than the pending Dukedog? The advantages include a 'higher set' Belpaire firebox, like those of the earliest version that came equipped with a parallel boiler (and according to the drawings I'm working from the firebox is the exact same length and height of the City's which tallies with the model already in my ownership), cab port holes already cut and glazed, side frames already painted the correct colour - okay the version I'm interested in didn't sport the reinforcing side plates, but they could always be filed flat and repainted at a stretch-, the smokebox door - similar to that of the Bulldog - could be prised off and recycled and most importantly of all: the tender is the earlier type required and already in the correct livery! And of course, this would obviate the requirement to purchase the Dapol kit as discussed earlier in this thread. A further reduction in costs is afforded when one considers that the DCC ready 'City' comes in at a tad over £104 new, as opposed to the higher £118 price tag of the anticipated 'Dukedog'. I'm going to sleep on this one just in case it's the 'Boddies' talking! Best wishes, Jonte I think you'll find that the 'City' had a bigger (ie, larger diameter) boiler than the 'Bulldog'. One had a number 4 and 'tother a no. 2.* But, of course, as is well known to all Southern enthusiasts like me, all GWR engines look the same, so you could equally well use a 'King' or a Pannier tank as a starting point. JE *I'm sure GWR enthusiasts will be able to give chapter and verse . . . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffalo Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 I think you'll find that the 'City' had a bigger (ie, larger diameter) boiler than the 'Bulldog'... We've already done the boilers You're right, though, they do all look the same and that's where the problems start... You can probably get away with the wheelbase. The only difference is that the Cities had an extra three inches between the rear bogie axle and the front driving axle. Unfortunately, that's where the good news stops. The driving wheels on the Cities are 121/2" larger, the running plate is about 6" higher, the cab roof is about 10" higher and the boiler pitch is 91/4" higher. The cab is also longer because there is also an extra 121/4" behind the rear driving axle. Then there are the detail differences... Nick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jonte Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 I think you'll find that the 'City' had a bigger (ie, larger diameter) boiler than the 'Bulldog'. One had a number 4 and 'tother a no. 2.* But, of course, as is well known to all Southern enthusiasts like me, all GWR engines look the same, so you could equally well use a 'King' or a Pannier tank as a starting point. JE *I'm sure GWR enthusiasts will be able to give chapter and verse . . . Good morning JE and thanks for your input. I take your point. However, perhaps I should have made my post a little clearer in as much as the points made above relate to the parts of the donor model which could be reused and between the two - current Bachmann 'City' and pending Bachmann 'Dukedog' - more of the structure of the 'City' is reusable and thus makes it more suitable for grafting (hypothetically anyway). The boiler, as you quite rightly point out, will have to be replaced for a parallel No.2 Dean type as per the scale drawings kindly provided by Nick (buffalo) which I shall attempt to fabricate from a thin sheet of brass in my possession, and 'attempt' being the operable word as if it is unsuccessful, I doubt I'll be able to proceed further (however, a quick butcher's at Eileen's Emporium shows a brass tube of a suitable diameter and a mini pipe cutter - essential for ensuring a true cut - available for quite reasonable prices so all may not be lost quite yet!). I'll keep you posted. Jonted Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jonte Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 We've already done the boilers You're right, though, they do all look the same and that's where the problems start... You can probably get away with the wheelbase. The only difference is that the Cities had an extra three inches between the rear bogie axle and the front driving axle. Unfortunately, that's where the good news stops. The driving wheels on the Cities are 121/2" larger, the running plate is about 6" higher, the cab roof is about 10" higher and the boiler pitch is 91/4" higher. The cab is also longer because there is also an extra 121/4" behind the rear driving axle. Then there are the detail differences... Nick Ah well, just a thought Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penrhos1920 Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Have you considered either buying a second-hand K’s kit or Falcon Brass kit of a bulldog? Using just the boiler, firebox, cab and boiler fittings? Having built these kits I can tell you that the hardest part of them is the chassis and getting a 4-4-0 to run smoothly. Both kits have their faults but if I remember correctly you will get a reasonable boiler, cab and fittings out of either. I think the K’s firebox needs lengthening at the back, but it’s a long time since I built my Bulldog. Of course there is a good second-hand market on ebay for these kits at the moment. There is a second possibility that if the Bachmann Dukedog does well they will then look at doing a Bulldog. The City has obviously been successful enough for them to look at the Dukedog. It’s likely that they are looking at what else they can do with as little changes as possible. I doubt that they will look at the curved frame options unless City and Dukedog sales are massive. But they will probably look at all of the straight frame options. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jonte Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 That would be just my luck, Penrhos1920, and I must admit the thought of Bachmann bringing one out in the not too distance future had crossed my mind. But thanks for the suggestions - at least they give me plans b&c! Ideally, I'd like to build a Finney kit, however even I know it's important to get the chassis straight and with my clumsy ways I'm afraid I just can't trust to plate glass, squares and coupling rods to get things right, so I found a solution in Avonside's all singing, all dancing jig. Problem is, that's a couple of hundred quid before I even start, so for now, I'll put that idea on the back burner. Anyway, cheers for now, and hopefully something to show you all later this evening. TTFN Jonte Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penrhos1920 Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Ideally, I'd like to build a Finney kit, however even I know it's important to get the chassis straight and with my clumsy ways I'm afraid I just can't trust to plate glass, squares and coupling rods to get things right, so I found a solution in Avonside's all singing, all dancing jig. Problem is, that's a couple of hundred quid before I even start, so for now, I'll put that idea on the back burner. Finney kit. Very nice. Not too difficult to build because it is well designed. The point of using just the boiler etc from Ks or Falcon is just that you can use the perfectly square Bachmann chassis and footplate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jonte Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Thanks again, Penrhos 1920 - that's sound advice. However, now I'm a little more agile after my recent foot op., I've decided to have a bash at fettling up my own boiler from that brass sheet I marked out the other day when I wasn't so agile, using dimensions lifted from the drawings supplied by 'buffalo'. Markings were scratched onto the surface of the brass sheet with the aid of a steel pin and a (rather large, for this job anyway) set square, the lines being highlighted with nothing more than a permanent marker wiped over them. Incidentally, the dimensions were calculated with nothing more intricate than ratios (Direct Proportions) by taking a known measurement from the drawing (in this case 22' 3" or 22.25' in its metric form) and measured using a rule which read 171mm. Subsequently, the scale dimension and that marked out was arrived at by multiplying a given measurement by 22.25, dividing by 171, then multiplying by 4 (for 4mm scale). Cutting the sheet was a doddle using a piercing saw replete with jewellers blade (available for buttons on ebay), the material being cut on the waste side of the marked line - sorry to insult anyone's intelligence here, but I'm using me as the lowest common denominator. Once cut from the sheet, the edges of the boiler were filed smooth and straight, up to the marked line using a file and then drilled (while still flat) using my hobby drill - pin vice will do - at previously marked points for the chimney and safety valve bonnet. Other markings were made for the points where holes will be drilled underneath the boiler for the fitting of boiler bands and also where the firebox will meet the boiler, however, during the annealing process these were lost. At this point, the flat boiler was taken inside and passed through a naked flame on my gas cooker whilst clasped in the jaws of a pair of pliers. The object of the exercise was to observe it change colour to a shade of purple indicating that the metal had become malleable and therefore easily shaped/bent. Although I tried to keep the heat equal by wafting in and out of the flame, there was nothing I could do to stop the edges turning bright orange. Still, as on a previous occasion, there were no adverse effects and once quenched under the cold water tap it behaved more like thin card than metal. Good job too, as with the permanent marker removed and unable to see the tiny predrilled holes without my specs for reference, I went and bent the boiler along the wrong side - Sod's Law!! Still, once realised, it was easy enough to straighten it out again by pressing underneath an old glass shelf, before returning it to the clothes rail purloined from the airing cupboard, which acted as a suitable former. As geometry is a darned sight more reliable than my capacity to measure to any degree of accuracy, the boiler was a tad short leaving a gap of approximately one millimetre, which was easily filled using a sliver of more brass sheet and bags of 145* solder and Carr's flux. Incidentally, whilst still on its former, the boiler was temporarily held to shape using masking tape so that it could be removed and fabricated. Finally, the soldered closed boiler was returned to the former and filed smooth - well as smooth as I could manage anyway! Incidentally, if you choose to have a go at this, please remember that the metal remains fairly malleable and will not stand rough handling. For instance, while smoothing the joint with the former resting on my knee, the whole lot moved and the end of the file I was using caught the side creating a dent. However, this was easily removed by rubbing the file gently over the dent and repeatedly sliding the boiler up and down the former. Job done! Surprisingly, the whole thing was remarkably perpendicular when stood on (one) end, the smokebox end. The other end doesn't matter in terms of accuracy or trueness as the bolier has been cut over length so that the firebox (rough) end can be lost inside the firebox itself. One I have the model in my possession, and with further reference to the drawing, I can work out the height above the running plate and cut a bracket for it to rest on- from more brass sheet - which can be soldered on. That's it for now, apart from a quick wash and scrub with some Jif (Cif) and an old toothbrush. I'll pop into Hattons over the next couple of days or so and order a Dukedog and pick up a Dapol City kit to try and work out how next to proceed and try a dry run of parts. In the meantime, I'll try and source a suitable tapered chimney and conical safety valve bonnet. Think I'll give Mr. Finney a call. Failing that, Alan Gibson. Anyway, here are some photos of the tools used and the bit of brass tube produced. Please feel free to ask any questions. Best wishes, Jonte Tools used These are wot i made!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
knobhead Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Looks promising, Jonte! Regards, Stefan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jonte Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Looks promising, Jonte! Regards, Stefan Praise indeed, Stefan. Thank you. Jonte Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozzyo Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 If you know the dimension as 22'3" or 22' and a quarter i.e. 22.25 just multiply it by 4 and you will end up with 89mm and that gives you the length. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jonte Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 If you know the dimension as 22'3" or 22' and a quarter i.e. 22.25 just multiply it by 4 and you will end up with 89mm and that gives you the length. Hi Ozzyo and thanks for your advice. Unfortunately, the dimensions I needed weren't given so had to be scaled up/down. No easy rides for me I'm afraid! Regards, Jonte Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jonte Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 I wanted to copy this into my blog to accompany the overall build of Cheapside, so pressed the 'Blog This' function. So far, it's just appeared on a community blog page despite it reading 'Jonte's Blog'. I'm confused. Jonte Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Mikkel Posted November 28, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 28, 2012 Hi Jonte. The "blog this" function adds a particular poast in a thread (not the whole thread) to a blog. I can see the blog fine, including the two posts you have added with the "blog this" function. But you should be able to enter the blog and edit it, set various settings etc. Are you not able to do that? The access is through the drop-down menu under your name in the top right hand corner of the screen. Edit: Ah, I see your problem now. The posts haven't been added to your existing Liverpool Cheap Side Blog. Odd that. Well, maybe a quick copy and paste to your blog is just as easy? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jonte Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Hi Jonte. The "blog this" function adds a particular poast in a thread (not the whole thread) to a blog. I can see the blog fine, including the two posts you have added with the "blog this" function. But you should be able to enter the blog and edit it, set various settings etc. Are you not able to do that? The access is through the drop-down menu under your name in the top right hand corner of the screen. Edit: Ah, I see your problem now. The posts haven't been added to your existing Liverpool Cheap Side Blog. Odd that. Well, maybe a quick copy and paste to your blog is just as easy? Hi, Mikkel, and thanks for dropping in; your help as always is deeply appreciated, especially with computery stuff! Actually, knowing that I'll have to resort to good ol' copy and paste is rather reassuring, as apart from switching on/off, that's the only bit I I can do. Best wishes, Jonte Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jonte Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Rather pleased with my humble efforts yesterday (not getting beyond myself just yet though), I lay in bed anxiously going over the build trying to work out how best to proceed. It was during these nocturnal cogitations that it suddenly occurred to me that the rear end of the boiler would have to be opened up to accommodate the gubbins of the donor model, such as motor and gearbox, a thought that rather concerned me. Why? Well, bearing in mind that whilst being soldered closed it was temporarily held in place with masking tape, I realised that the structure must be under compression, and that to remove the solder at one end could cause it to distort/spring open. Of course, as the front will still be soldered this might just not happen, but ever the pessimist, I decided not to trust to luck. The solution therefore as I could see it, was to cut a section from the left over brass sheet, slightly wider than the diameter of the boiler, and solder it to the firebox end. Was tempted to get stuck into it later today, however, I shall wait until I've at least purchased a City kit, and work out positioning/ size from there. Probably the best solution would be to cut the boiler to the right length and use the proposed end section to form part of, or at least butt up, to the front of the firebox; and perhaps form a bracket to hold it at the right height above the footplate/running plate at that end in the process (the front bracket/saddle will be longer due to the step in the running plate). Food for thought. Jonte Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.