Wright writes.....

[Horsetan]

I would recommend obtaining a copy of Iain Rice's book on locomotive construction, by Wild Swan, for any questions regarding chassis

He wrote three such books, but only one was dedicated to chassis construction. These sometimes turn up on eBay for very little - a fiver or so.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

If my 'Packets' (Rebuilt versions) can't pull the skin off etc. on my coming layout I will be annoyed. However, I have a cunning plan to use a 'motorised' leading coach on the 11/12 coach expresses ...

It is no trick at all to make a RTR OO pacific weigh anything up to 600g, balanced about the middle of the coupled wheelbase. It would take outrageously heavy or draggy stock to prevent easy haulage of a 15 coach train, by a model pacific so treated. My Bachmann Peppercorn A1s have been operating since the early 2000s like this, and show no ill effect: and this model has two steel driven axles running in mazak cutouts in the block, for the benefit of those worried about wear.

 

Lumps of lead are the answer, and the very satisfactory process of beating it with a hammer into the necessary shapes for a good fit, allows me to work off all my frustrations with feeble politicians, and much else that is awry at this timeworld. So, much less cursing too.

[SJR]

Yes, seems eminently sensible to me. So insulated wheels all round then. 

 

The reason I bring this up, is because SE Finecast do a wheel pack, but this includes 3 live and 3 insulated wheels. I was considering this, but have now decided to get all of the components from Markits/Romford direct, meaning I can specify 6 insulated wheels. 

 

Apologies for the very basic questions. I'm sure once I have built a few locos, it will all be obvious, but I wanted to make sure prior to spending £ that I am getting the right thing. 

 

Thank you for the help.

I have bought all insulated wheels from SE Finecast, you just have to ask them.

Regards

Simon

[Brian Kirby]

A short rake of kit built coaches for a branch line is never really a problem weight-wise, but as someone touched on earlier, a main line rake of, say ten or twelve Comet kit coaches, will need some serious motive power to shift it, all those cast ends and bogie sideframes and detail parts soon add up the weight. One solution, dare i say it, is to substitute with plastic RTR bogies, or better still, RTR sideframes on etched bogie frames. Another way of reducing rake weight, is to mix kit built with decent RTR where possible.

  I remember building a Kemilway 76xxx chassis kit in the late 1970s, which in those days had to be married to an Airfix 76xxx plastic body and tender, the DJH 76xxx with it's whitemetal boiler was yet to appear. Preparing the plastic body, and removing all the moulded handrails and even lining guides took longer than building the etched chassis! The next problem was lack of weight in the plastic body, so lead and/or whitemetal were stuffed inside, plus the tender had to be weighted too. The snag with the tender was that this is where the MW5 motor was positioned, driving a flexible shaft to the loco gearbox, again caused by lack of reliable small motors back then, that would fit within the loco (without showing). Originally the flexible shaft consisted of metal universal joints and rodding, but later on rubber tubing seemed more successful, but both techniques could introduce an element of wobble from centrifugal force, so the bulging tender sides had to be weighted to counteract this.

   Having got thus far, in my wisdom, i decided to add weight between the loco frames, which succeeded in increasing traction, but placed a lot more strain on the flexible drive, not to mention the almost hammerblow effect on track. So much so, that after just a couple of test runs, this 76xxx was banned (in the nicest possible way) from Borchester by Frank Dyer! I sold the loco about a year later, i wonder if it's still bashing it's way around somebody's layout? As smaller motors (and eventually Portescaps) appeared, it was then possible to hide the motor inside the 76xxx body and dispense with the flexible drive, and of course as on the Kemilway 82xxx tanks.

                                                           Cheers, Brian.

[Argos]

Tom,

I bought Iain Rice's chassis construction book yesterday.

Initially put off by £40+ prices on Amazon and EBay, I found the book in stock, new, at several transport bookshops, Book Law, Bill Hudson, Pendon Museum (plus a few others).

Just google the title and author. The list price is £13.95.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Argos

[corneliuslundie]

A source of information on Buckjumpers you may not have found is here: https://basilicafields.wordpress.com/category/locomotives/

 

The posts on Buckjumpers ended in mid 2014 and are below the posts on the 2-4-2Ts.

 

No connection etc

 

Jonathan

Edited October 17, 2015 by corneliuslundie

[Not Jeremy]

Tom,

I bought Iain Rice's chassis construction book yesterday.

Initially put off by £40+ prices on Amazon and EBay, I found the book in stock, new, at several transport bookshops, Book Law, Bill Hudson, Pendon Museum (plus a few others).

Just google the title and author. The list price is £13.95.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Argos

That is because the book is still In print and available through any bookshop who stocks it or is prepared to order it from the publisher.

 

As any sensible search of the Internet will soon reveal, as you have demonstrated.

 

Wild Swan books will never appear on Amazon at bargain prices because Wild Swan have chosen not to supply Amazon, this situation will not change. If Amazon says a particular book is unavailable it often means that they cannot obtain it, and not that it is out of print.

 

Apologies for intrusion.

 

Simon

[jrg1]

Just reverting slightly (Melbourne time) there was an excellent article in the seventies regarding the Buckjumpers in the late, lamented Model Railways, complete with a large drawing-the locomotive articles generally are all exceptional, and well worth having, as are the various articles by Iain Rice on locomotive construction.  I suppose you could say it was Roy Dock's bequest to modellers

[RonnieS]

Good Morning and an apology Tony.

 

I misled you recently when I said Hornby Mag had not published the “Old Mills” article. It is, in fact, in the November issue complete with Tony Wright photos.

 

(Rather better than those here) Wolverhampton Model Railway Exhibition 2015

 

 A case of "Mags in bags" concealing the content.

[billbedford]

It is no trick at all to make a RTR OO pacific weigh anything up to 600g, balanced about the middle of the coupled wheelbase. It would take outrageously heavy or draggy stock to prevent easy haulage of a 15 coach train, by a model pacific so treated. My Bachmann Peppercorn A1s have been operating since the early 2000s like this, and show no ill effect: and this model has two steel driven axles running in mazak cutouts in the block, for the benefit of those worried about wear.

 

Lumps of lead are the answer, and the very satisfactory process of beating it with a hammer into the necessary shapes for a good fit, allows me to work off all my frustrations with feeble politicians, and much else that is awry at this timeworld. So, much less cursing too.

 

Yerrr sure, sounds OK until you want to model the LNWR with 12 behind a Precedent.........

[corneliuslundie]

Depleted uranium?

 

J

[polybear]

Depleted uranium?

 

J

You could always google "Depleted Uranium for sale" . I'd guess you'll quickly end up on a government list of "persons of interest..."

[raymw]

Tungsten would be easier to get hold of, heavier too, but a bit of a b*gg*r to machine to shape.

[Focalplane]

I presume all these musings on pulling power, loco weight and pulled load weight assume a level track?  So what happens when you introduce Lickey into the equation?  Is there a simple equation where you can add the relevant incline into factor "i" and come out with the number of carriages/cars capable of being pulled without slippage by an "n" wheeler that has steel tires on 00 gauge nickel silver track?

 

I could hold my breath in expectation for an answer.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

I presume all these musings on pulling power, loco weight and pulled load weight assume a level track?  So what happens when you introduce Lickey into the equation?  Is there a simple equation where you can add the relevant incline into factor "i" and come out with the number of carriages/cars capable of being pulled without slippage by an "n" wheeler that has steel tires on 00 gauge nickel silver track?

 

I could hold my breath in expectation for an answer.

Simple rule of thumb if the vehicles are free rolling enough to keep going (start unassisted and roll) on a  true 1 in 100. Whatever trainload the loco will start without slipping

on level track, it will start and haul :

half that trainload on a 1 in 100,

a third that trainload on a 1 in 50,

a quarter that trainload on 1 in 33, effectively your 'Lickey'.

 

I cannot emphasise enough that the characterisation of the level track maximum trainload has to be on truly level track, and the gradients have to be accurate also. Without getting too impolite, it is a rare layout - in my experience - where the level track is anything like level. Between 1 in 200 and 1 in 100 is pretty normal as 'level'. That throws everything off in the rule of thumb estimation.

[Tony Wright]

Not long returned from doing my stint as 'Loco Doctor' at the Peterborough Show. 

 

May I please say a big 'thank you' to all those visitors who wished me well and were pleased to see me again? 

 

How did the 'doctoring' go? To start with, 'loco funeral director' might have been a better title, as the first two 'patients' had motors which were dying. Still, I was able to direct their owners to places which carried spares.

 

Two N Gauge locos were duds, and both had cautionary tales to tell. In the first case and ancient Grafar pannier had been re-packaged in a brand-new Farish/Bachmann box, and was bought at a train fair. The loco was a complete failure. The second had also been bought at a train fair, and, though it just about ran, it's motor was on the way out.

 

Any successes?

 

A THOMAS made to go again, much to the delight of its young owner (the unscrupulous Mr. York took a picture!), an ancient Tri-ang 2-6-2T chassis resurrected, an old EAMES L1 brought back to life by re-making its valve gear and other adjustments, a Hornby tender-drive 9F made quiet by oiling its motor's bearings, a Bachmann O8' pick-ups adjusted so they did just that (it was tested by MERG afterwards because it was DCC - it worked!) and various other tweaks and twiddles. Interestingly (or perhaps obviously), with the exception of the old L1 (which the owner bought second-hand), every loco I investigated was RTR. I suppose kit-builders can fix things for themselves.

 

But, an even greater 'success' was my advice given to would-be makers of things. Quite a few were teetering on the brink of being actual 'modellers', and I was able to recommend suitable starter kits and bits. I've even recruited one or two more pupils. Good on them, they're determined to give it a go. Why must this hobby become so RTR-dominated, to the extent that fewer and fewer folk are making things? There were hundreds of people carrying brightly-coloured boxes in polythene bags, but few carrying the delightfully-anonymous brown boxes - those with kits in!

 

The best bit?

 

 In endeavouring to fix the old L1, I attracted quite an audience of spectators who all watched intently. My dear wife (bless her) was sent on an errand of mercy to purchase some brass lace pins, which the great Phil of Hobby Holidays graciously donated. So, with many eyes looking on, I rebuilt a fair bit of the (fallen apart) valve gear, re-fixed the crankpins into the Hamblings wheels, adjusted, cleaned and oiled the motor, tweaked the pick-ups and cleaned the driver's treads. After a couple of twitchy starts, the odd adjustment with the iron, and a fettle and fiddle, off she went - to resounding applause! My thanks to those spectators for their patience and forbearance.   

 

I think the idea of a loco-clinic is a good idea at any show, especially as henceforth any donations (and several people offered to pay, which I declined) will be given to a railway-related charity. 

 

If you have a dud loco, I'll try and fix it at the forthcoming Spalding Show.

[Focalplane]

Simple rule of thumb .

Very useful, but the scientist in me has to ask "how big is your thumb?"

 

I certainly agree with your comment about layouts not necessarily being level to begin with.

[Clive Mortimore]

For haulage you need something like this little birdy.

 

 

One night on our old club layout it was hauling 32 Tri-ang and Lima coaches on an undulating track, with some curves as tight as 2 feet and it was still doing a scale 60mph. We had ran out of coaches.

 

Body plastic card, 2 unmodified Hornby class 47 pancake motors.  Body had a lump of steel in it and the under-gubbins a lump of brass.

[Jesse Sim]

Dear Jesse,

 

I don't think the London Road J6 is a good kit to begin your loco modelling career; not because it's a bad kit, but it's too complex in my view for a beginner. If you can find a copy of the BRM Annual for 2011 (I think), an account of how I built one is in that.

 

A few pages back, several suggestions for starter locos were postulated. An inside-cylinder 0-6-0T would be a good idea in my opinion. 

aww really? 

 

ok fair enough, ill have to dig through my magazines 

 

cheers  

[jrg1]

aww really? 

 

ok fair enough, ill have to dig through my magazines 

If you intend to have a go building an etched kit, I suggest the Craftsman 02 diesel shunter. An 0-4-0 with nothing untoward to consider and I just replaced the whitemetal buffers with turned brass sprung replacements.  There was an article in an early MRJ convering the build.

[teaky]

If you intend to have a go building an etched kit, I suggest the Craftsman 02 diesel shunter. An 0-4-0 with nothing untoward to consider and I just replaced the whitemetal buffers with turned brass sprung replacements.  There was an article in an early MRJ convering the build.

MRJ no. 1.

[unclebobkt]

      Very useful, but the scientist in me has to ask "how big is your thumb?"

  ... .

 

 

      Maybe one should ask Little Jack. Horner?

 

     

[Focalplane]

The problem of demanding RTR express engines hauling 12 to 15 car loads seems to be resolved by many by simply putting more weight over the driven wheels.  This does seem logical, but only up to a point.  After giving this some thought, may I first make a few observations.

 

First and foremost, there is a significant difference between RTR plastic bodied mass produced locos and those built from metal.  This isn't just a weight problem, though, because the very nature of mass production means that corners will be cut in the overall design.  Think of poor quartering, split axles, plastic gears, etc., etc.  Extra weight will do these weak links no good in the long run.

 

Second, getting weight where it is needed can be difficult - ironically a tank engine has more available space than many pacifics for adding weight over the driven wheels.  The balance of extra weight in smokebox and cab is all that most RTR models will allow, particularly if cab detail is built into the design, placing the motor right where the weight should go.

 

Third, model trains are not simple scaled down versions of the real thing.  Nickel silver track and tyres offer less traction than steel, hence the traction rubber so often used to get a grip.  And the contact area of wheel against track is probably proportionately less as well.

 

These are my principal observations that could dictate a method to improve the pulling capacity of a locomotive.

 

There must be a balance between weight and the correct use of friction.  Friction plays a double role, as others have pointed out.  The bogie axles should have minimal friction while the contact between the driven wheels and the track should be at a maximum.  The strength of a small electric motor dictates how much weight can be applied to the locomotive.  Here the kit built locomotive usually has the advantage, particularly if using metal gears (and even better helical metal) gears that can be tuned (I like the DJH gearbox concept that Tony showed a few days ago, definitely worth considering).

 

But the best solution I can think of is not just adding lead weight over the drivers, but actually following prototype practice and adding a booster!

 

I first came across boosters when researching the Southern Pacific GS-4 4-8-4s, locomotives capable of 110mph while pulling up to 20 cars over 480 miles each way in daylight hours.  The GS locomotives were built with 2 cylinder steam boosters attached, I think, to the rear locomotive bogie (although some boosters were placed under tenders).  The purpose of this device was simple, to increase the "bite" of a locomotive and at the same time reduce the drag of load carrying bogies.  To illustrate the improvement, a GS-4 had 78,650lbs of tractive effort, boosted from 64,800lbs without the booster.  I should add that boosters were found to be unreliable due to the need for flexible steam pipes and were discontinued during WWII.  As an aside, the booster concept was also experimented with by Gresley on the P1.

 

So, applying this to a classic UK pacific RTR express loco, why not simply replace the tender wheel set with an appropriate tender drive booster?  No, not the dreadful Hornby unit that bulges through the coal of its Dean Goods model, but something based on, say, a Comet tender chassis.  Get the gear ratios right and there you have an elegant but not inexpensive solution.

 

In conclusion, I remember Tony extolling the pulling power of the Hornby P2.  Simple, really, it has 8 large drivers instead of 6!

[Tony Wright]

The problem of demanding RTR express engines hauling 12 to 15 car loads seems to be resolved by many by simply putting more weight over the driven wheels.  This does seem logical, but only up to a point.  After giving this some thought, may I first make a few observations.

 

First and foremost, there is a significant difference between RTR plastic bodied mass produced locos and those built from metal.  This isn't just a weight problem, though, because the very nature of mass production means that corners will be cut in the overall design.  Think of poor quartering, split axles, plastic gears, etc., etc.  Extra weight will do these weak links no good in the long run.

 

Second, getting weight where it is needed can be difficult - ironically a tank engine has more available space than many pacifics for adding weight over the driven wheels.  The balance of extra weight in smokebox and cab is all that most RTR models will allow, particularly if cab detail is built into the design, placing the motor right where the weight should go.

 

Third, model trains are not simple scaled down versions of the real thing.  Nickel silver track and tyres offer less traction than steel, hence the traction rubber so often used to get a grip.  And the contact area of wheel against track is probably proportionately less as well.

 

These are my principal observations that could dictate a method to improve the pulling capacity of a locomotive.

 

There must be a balance between weight and the correct use of friction.  Friction plays a double role, as others have pointed out.  The bogie axles should have minimal friction while the contact between the driven wheels and the track should be at a maximum.  The strength of a small electric motor dictates how much weight can be applied to the locomotive.  Here the kit built locomotive usually has the advantage, particularly if using metal gears (and even better helical metal) gears that can be tuned (I like the DJH gearbox concept that Tony showed a few days ago, definitely worth considering).

 

But the best solution I can think of is not just adding lead weight over the drivers, but actually following prototype practice and adding a booster!

 

I first came across boosters when researching the Southern Pacific GS-4 4-8-4s, locomotives capable of 110mph while pulling up to 20 cars over 480 miles each way in daylight hours.  The GS locomotives were built with 2 cylinder steam boosters attached, I think, to the rear locomotive bogie (although some boosters were placed under tenders).  The purpose of this device was simple, to increase the "bite" of a locomotive and at the same time reduce the drag of load carrying bogies.  To illustrate the improvement, a GS-4 had 78,650lbs of tractive effort, boosted from 64,800lbs without the booster.  I should add that boosters were found to be unreliable due to the need for flexible steam pipes and were discontinued during WWII.  As an aside, the booster concept was also experimented with by Gresley on the P1.

 

So, applying this to a classic UK pacific RTR express loco, why not simply replace the tender wheel set with an appropriate tender drive booster?  No, not the dreadful Hornby unit that bulges through the coal of its Dean Goods model, but something based on, say, a Comet tender chassis.  Get the gear ratios right and there you have an elegant but not inexpensive solution.

 

In conclusion, I remember Tony extolling the pulling power of the Hornby P2.  Simple, really, it has 8 large drivers instead of 6!

Some very good ideas, Paul. Many thanks.

 

I'm afraid my approach to haulage capacity in model locomotives is very unscientific; probably not even rule of thumb. I've seen various devices which measure haulage capacity, some no more than a spring gauge attached to the drawbar. 

 

How do I ensure the locos I build will haul what's required of them? My longest rake is 14 (15 if I choose to add a van) cars or 45 wagons. The longest passenger rake has at least 60% kit-built cars. The longest goods rake is a 50-50 mixture of RTR/plastic kits. Now, it would be a trifle unreasonable to expect smaller respective locos to haul those rakes with equal ability as say Pacifics/V2s or 2-8-0s/2-10-0s. I'm not saying, say, a kit-built K3 will not haul that 15 bogie rake (a Bachmann one won't), but I never use one on it; it always has a Pacific or a V2. 

 

So, a long way before any loco is near-complete - just the footplate/boiler/cab on a running chassis (minus motion) and running tender frames (with rear coupling) - I stick it on the heaviest train it might be expected to haul. If it's mainly white metal (a DJH A1, say), it'll already be able to pull it. If it's mainly brass/nickel silver, I know I'll have to add ballast in the form of lead of all varieties (sheet or 'liquid'). So I do, until it hauls the train. Anything subsequently added to finish the loco is merely 'bonus' weight. No RTR passenger locos I have will take the heaviest passenger load, even with added ballast. But, to be fair, a Bachmann A1 will take 11 Bachmann Mk.1s, as will a Hornby LNER Pacific. Nobody should complain about that.  

[PMP]

One of the suggestions that I give to people who ask me what to start on in the etched kit field is always something simple, but with a bit of a challenge. Pretty much every kit has small details to fit, cab fittings or lamp irons, those types of things.

Making screw couplings for example is a good starter for ten, https://albionyard.wordpress.com/2012/03/15/fifteen-minute-heroes/you get a finished 'model' at the end of the exercise, they only take a few minutes to build and form, and they are a real confidence boost. Best of all they are cheap and you can throw them away if you fail with the first few. Other things like platform trolleys/benches scenic details are all suitable test pieces too.

 

The Craftsman 02 kit is a worthwhile starter, with a few caveats.

 

They are difficult to get hold of at the moment, and some of the recommended components such as the motor and gears can sometimes be no longer available. In that instance the 'finescale' expo shows are invaluable as often you can get contemporary replacements for the original parts. The pic above is an 02 (WIP) with a High Level gearbox substituted. This means a certain amount of modification to the kit components too, and the Iain Rice etched loco kit and chassis construction books are superb sources of help form someone who like TW and a few others, has been there and got the T shirt a few times over.