Wright writes.....

[Bulldog]

The recent discussion on crank angles, which I think I may have been a starting contributor, has been really useful in that the outcome does seem to reinforce my initial comment about Laurie Griffin's inside motion kit for the Midland Compound.  As long as the two outside cranks are offset 90º, as in the prototype, it really doesn't matter what angle I put the third crank at, as the electric motor will simply move the con/piston rod in and out of a hole in a frame spacer.  But logically the third crank should be as in the prototype, that is bisecting the 270º and that is where I will Loctite it into position.

 

And, while doing some mindless chore this morning I remembered that there is one example in real 1:1 scale life of a steam engine's motion being retro-driven by an electric motor.  Back in the 1960s my favourite locomotive, 46235 City of Birmingham, was installed in the Birmingham Museum of Science and Industry on Newhall Street.  Every hour or so the huge locomotive was moved up and down its short track, driven by a hidden electric motor (rumour has it that is was a scaled up Triang X04).

I seem to remember, it was an electric floor mounted winchwith cables and pulleys?

I always went for a look in the 70's after a bit of train spotting at New street.

[New Haven Neil]

re the Compound sound.  One of the Argo Transacord Peter Handford LP's has an on-train recording of 1000, I can confirm she has 4 beats to the bar, and a typically 'Midland' wouffly sound, a deep bark but not sharp.  An amusing part is a bystander on the platform as she leaves shouting 'go on old soldier'!

 

The HP cylinder will never be heard as it exhausts into the receiver for the LP pair, and there only.  When working 'simple' the steam on both sides of the HP is equal and thus doing no work.

[Focalplane]

I seem to remember, it was an electric floor mounted winchwith cables and pulleys?

I always went for a look in the 70's after a bit of train spotting at New street.

I am sure this was the drive methodology, but the result is the same - the wheels moved the motion, not the opposite that happened in real life. I am delighted to learn of someone else who had that wonderful experience, alas no longer possible due to an an*l museum curator having his own way. Edited March 22, 2016 by Focalplane

[46256]

The recent discussion on crank angles, which I think I may have been a starting contributor, has been really useful in that the outcome does seem to reinforce my initial comment about Laurie Griffin's inside motion kit for the Midland Compound.  As long as the two outside cranks are offset 90º, as in the prototype, it really doesn't matter what angle I put the third crank at, as the electric motor will simply move the con/piston rod in and out of a hole in a frame spacer.  But logically the third crank should be as in the prototype, that is bisecting the 270º and that is where I will Loctite it into position.

 

And, while doing some mindless chore this morning I remembered that there is one example in real 1:1 scale life of a steam engine's motion being retro-driven by an electric motor.  Back in the 1960s my favourite locomotive, 46235 City of Birmingham, was installed in the Birmingham Museum of Science and Industry on Newhall Street.  Every hour or so the huge locomotive was moved up and down its short track, driven by a hidden electric motor (rumour has it that is was a scaled up Triang X04).

To see this magnificent engine move was both wonderful and tragic....that it is preserved....but caged...especially given the fact it now resides a couple of miles from a living ....moving museum at tyseley. I have read the arguments...the cost of removing asbestos...the desire to preserve the last British railways original overhaul...it belongs on the mainline....probably won't see it in my lifetime but hope one day fellow brummies will see their engine joining Scotsman..tornado and prince of Wales out there pulling trains..

[wagonbasher]

I agree it is tragic, not helped by the way the locomotive and tender are separated so that able bodied and wheelchair visitors can sort of stand on the foot plate.

 

But this is the real deal. No electric lights, no AWS fitted.. ... Just as she was the day she was turned out at Crewe.. The same paint, the same oil.

 

I wouldn't separate the loco from the tender and I wouldn't haul it's sad butt up and down a bit of track.. Instead I would wallow in its uniqueness.. Lost to so many of our favourite loco's with Thomas faces, inappropriate liveries and modern safety modifications..

 

Don't get me wrong I would love to see it really move but there is Sutherland to carry the flag.

 

Andy

[AndyID]

Don't get me wrong I would love to see it really move but there is Sunderland to carry the flag.

 

 

 

Ah yes! The grand old Duchess of Sunderland

 

(er.....wait a minute. Wasn't that a flying boat?)

[wagonbasher]

Ah yes! The grand old Duchess of Sunderland

 

(er.....wait a minute. Wasn't that a flying boat?)

I'm sure I typed that correctly. Anyway I'd go and watch one of them as well!!

 

Andy

[MJI]

I was in John Dutfield Model Railways shop one day when this chap came in complaining his kit built loco would not run. Heather who runs the shop asked if she could see the loco, no he wanted John (who has retired hence Heather running the shop) to have a look. Heather kept her cool and asked again if she could have a look. The chap handed her his model, in the end. She turned it over and said " It won't run you have not quartered the wheels. You have your cranks at 180 degrees to each other." She did explain why it would not run and what he needed to do to get it to run, I am not sure if he understood because he was not listening very well owing to his embarrassment.

 

 

I worked this out many years ago when trying to make a Mechano loco. Then it twigged

[manna]

G'day Gents

 

I made up an old GEM 0-8-0 chassis back in the 80's and 'quartered' my cranks at 180 degrees, ran like that until about 2 years ago, when I finally noticed that they were wrong !!!!!

 

manna

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

I made up an old GEM 0-8-0 chassis back in the 80's and 'quartered' my cranks at 180 degrees, ran like that until about 2 years ago, when I finally noticed that they were wrong !!!!!

 

 From which we may divine that it had rigid (one piece) coupling rods. Four or more rigidly coupled in the vertical plane will work directly opposed (180 degrees). There may well be some harsh action at dead centres, and a good chance of something breaking if attempted full size; which is why it isn't done even though there are potential advantages in mechanical balance. I believe it was attempted on at least one early eight coupled US design: the engine was quartered as usual for self starting, just the side rods directly opposed. It worked well until it abruptly didn't!

[MikeOxon]

Re. crank settings - I always think a picture helps!  Problem arise if the wheels stop, with the coupling rods on one side in this position:

 

 

On trying to start, the rod in this position can exert no turning force on the undriven wheel, so starting is dependent on the rod on the opposite side of the engine.  That rod will give its best pull if it is at the top or bottom, but will give some pull wherever it is, as long as it is not the same (or 180 deg) as the side shown  Once the engine is running, it will probably keep going, wherever the cranks are set (as long as all wheel pairs are the same!)

 

Mike

[billbedford]

You are over thinking this. The two wheelset will move in synch if there are no coupling rods.

[billbedford]

I believe it was attempted on at least one early eight coupled US design: the engine was quartered as usual for self starting, just the side rods directly opposed. It worked well until it abruptly didn't!

 

How did this work? Having a Walschaert's gear type return crank in a power train is never going to be a good idea.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

From memory the valve gear was off the lay shaft that the cylinders directly drove, there was then gear drive from the lay shaft to an axle. Very early design of which a long deceased American colleague had an engineering mag drawing. It was of a generic type known in the USA as a 'crab' if I recall correctly.

[MikeOxon]

You are over thinking this. The two wheelset will move in synch if there are no coupling rods.

If the rods don't lock! When the driven wheel starts to turn, It will pull on the bearing of the rod before the second wheel turns.  But, yes, I admit it will probably work, if roughly!  I'm afraid my bearings tend to be rather sloppy and would get into a mess

Edited March 23, 2016 by MikeOxon

[Tony Wright]

     Comparison photos C of N on the Left in first photo right in the second.

 

     Yeadon doesn't mention anything re Tenders . Looking at photos therein you can see the difference in height from the normal Tenders. A photo of Marischal looks similar , hence does Isinglass which I presume the drawing is mention anything. I don't have the relevant RCTS volume which might mention something.

 

IMG_6579.jpg

 

IMG_6577.jpg

Mick,

 I can find no reference to the tenders being fundamentally different other than 2001's being welded and having spoked wheels.The RCTS tells us that the initial order was for two tenders, the same as for the 1930-built A3s (other than the points mentioned). 2002's intended tender went to A3 2505 and she got the one intended for 2508. The isinglass drawing doesn't seem to show the differences you've highlighted. Certainly, 2002's tender matches the A3 new-type non-corridor sort exactly. All the P2 tenders seemed to have the same coal/water capacity. 

[billbedford]

If the rods don't lock! When the driven wheel starts to turn, It will pull on the bearing of the rod before the second wheel turns.  But, yes, I admit it will probably work, if roughly!  I'm afraid my bearings tend to be rather sloppy and would get into a mess

 

 

They would be virtual coupling rods then?

[MikeOxon]

They would be virtual coupling rods then?

I think I'm learning something about how models really work!  I was always puzzled by how Hornby 'got away' with the system where the rods were only fixed to the centre wheel and rode on pegs in slots on the other wheels.  Now, I realise that the loco just rolls along anyway and, as you say, the rods are 'virtual'  I've a long way to go as an 'engineer'

[Tony Wright]

Many thanks for all the informed comments on cranks, rods and what have you. 

 

Since my aim with regard making small-scale electrically-driven steam-outline locos is that they must work perfectly; by that I mean, must not derail (yes, that's track-dependent, but I have very good track), must be quiet, be able to pull a prototype-equivalent load (at high speed if necessary), be able to run (very) slowly as well without stalling, stuttering or jerking and 'look the part'. The last point, of course, could apply to static models. 

 

As I've mentioned before, to achieve my aims I've adopted the principles that work for me; these include rigid chassis (jig-assembled), rigid rods, all drivers quartered to 90 degrees (thus Romford/Markits wheels), the largest motor I can accommodate, a high-quality gearbox - DJH, Comet, Porter's Cap, Backwood's Miniatures, High-Level, etc - and sufficient pick-ups.I'd also add sufficient ballast, especially in sheet-metal-built locos. I certainly don't rely on sophisticated electronics to give me smooth running. Yes, all the things mentioned apply to my building in OO and EM. I've never built anything in P4, largely because I don't have the necessary skills, though I have built several locos in O Gauge.

 

With reference to making locos work 'perfectly', as an aside, one of my ever-repeating tasks these days is to find new homes for models owned/built by those now deceased (a sign of the times?) I don't know the builder(s) of the locos I'm currently handling, since they've come via a third or fourth party. With the greatest of respect, his widow has no idea  of any model's value, nor how to make sure they go. My task, which I'll happily undertake (an unsuitable pun?) in these circumstances, is to examine any locos, check that they work, fix them if I can and get the best possible price. Since all proceeds will either go to a widow or to charity, then I charge no fee, nor take anything for my services in the way of any models. No right-thinking individual would do anything differently, though I have to include in the final price the cost of anything I've had to provide - wheels, motors, crankpins, etc. So far this year, I'm on my third set of models for which to find new homes.

 

Models like these.............., all in OO

 

 

This, I believe is a Jamieson hand-cut kit for a J6. It's beautifully-made and very well-painted (though I had to replace the boiler band lining since the originals were lifting off - they'd been painted on to Sellotape!). Because my painting skills are limited, I've had to use transfers, which are a bit coarse. The problem was that the Sellotape had lifted the paint in places, so to cover the bare metal (rather than do a complete repaint) the wider bands did the trick. On testing, it wouldn't even buzz. It has an MW005 motor and the brushes were worn and the commutator soot-coloured. So, new brushes, a complete clean, adjustment of pick-ups and away she goes. It is an excellent runner. 

 

 

Though these locos came from the same estate, I can't believe the builders are the same. This is a K's J3, and it, too, didn't go. It had a K's Mk.2 motor (at least better than the later HP2M) but it, too, had died. The nearest equivalent was a D11, which I thus fitted. I also made new pick-ups. It now goes very well, but it is what it is.

 

 

It's quite possible that the builder of this Nu-Cast K2 (LNER classification) built the J6, because it's also very-well made and finished. The problems? Another dead K's Mk.2 and the old-style, dirt-encouraging all-Mazak Romfords on one side (of too small a diameter). It also had the white metal lump of a chassis. So, whilst retaining the chassis, I carved out the centre bit (bad language to the fore) and installed a dinky Mashima and suitable gearbox; I also painted and fitted the right-sized drivers (with nickel silver tyres) and made new pick-ups. Further problems? Parts of the valve gear fell to bits and had to be refixed, a bit needed taking out of the boiler's bottom (so part repaint underneath) and lumps had to be taken out of the underside of the splashers. The result? A silky-smooth, quiet runner now and a credit to the original builder. It really is very pretty.

 

 

A real curiosity-piece; a scratch-built Stirling 0-6-0. This had a grubby X04 and incredibly dirty wheels and pick-ups. Unfortunately, I didn't have any correct-sized Romfords to substitute, so it still has all-Mazak one side and the centre drivers are flangeless. I made new pick-ups, cleaned it all up and made a new drawbar to replace the non-existent one. It does go very well now.

 

There's also a WSM D2 in GNR livery. It's now back in its box, in bits. Who would glue a brass chassis together? Who would glue things like white-metal steps on, or etched-brass coal rails? 

 

So, how to achieve the best prices? If anyone is interest, as before, will you PM me, please? I'll be taking these models to York with me - I'm sure the organisers won't mind my selling them for widows/charity; if not, they'll be on the second-hand stand. I can assure anyone that they do work well. 

 

Aren't they interesting? Though I have no wish to be disparaging, yesterday some friends came to 'play trains'. One brought a Hornby FLYING SCOTSMAN. Beautiful though it is, and it ran perfectly, after a brief glance, all the interest was directed to these little oddities. 

Edited March 23, 2016 by Tony Wright

[micklner]

Mick,

 I can find no reference to the tenders being fundamentally different other than 2001's being welded and having spoked wheels.The RCTS tells us that the initial order was for two tenders, the same as for the 1930-built A3s (other than the points mentioned). 2002's intended tender went to A3 2505 and she got the one intended for 2508. The isinglass drawing doesn't seem to show the differences you've highlighted. Certainly, 2002's tender matches the A3 new-type non-corridor sort exactly. All the P2 tenders seemed to have the same coal/water capacity. 

 

          The only thing I can think off is that as it was welded and the Tank was perhaps set lower as a result the sidesheets were lower? Good news that Marischal's one is the standard design.

          Bizarre that Hornby took the trouble on a Railroad budget "design clever" Locomotive to go to the expense of a new tooling for a one off tender. Such a shame that a full super detailed version wasn't done instead. Hopefully in the near future we may see a Bugatti front version appear.

 

Thanks

[Mallard60022]

With reference to making locos work 'perfectly', as an aside, one of my ever-repeating tasks these days is to find new homes for models owned/built by those now deceased (a sign of the times?) I don't know the builder(s) of the locos I'm currently handling, since they've come via a third or fourth party. With the greatest of respect, his widow has no idea  of any model's value, nor how to make sure they go. My task, which I'll happily undertake (an unsuitable pun?) in these circumstances, is to examine any locos, check that they work, fix them if I can and get the best possible price. Since all proceeds will either go to a widow or to charity, then I charge no fee, nor take anything for my services in the way of any models. No right-thinking individual would do anything differently, though I have to include in the final price the cost of anything I've had to provide - wheels, motors, crankpins, etc. So far this year, I'm on my third set of models for which to find new homes.

 

 

I'm sorry to highlight this but Tony has a point here and has been doing this task for quite some time. Tony will eventually become too old to do this (sorry matey) and who is there out there who is going to be willing to do this to his standards?

I have identified someone that should outlive me if he is careful and lives locally. He has an extensive knowledge of model railways and the true value of most things. I'm not sure he could spend the time that Tony does in checking stuff and then making some things run, as he still works at the moment and should do for many years ABW. Nevertheless I am seriously tempted to get his agreement and name him as the executor of my MR stuff and at the same time, ensure Mrs Mallard knows this. This is because the loft is stuffed with railway junk and it will need sorting when I get scrapped and I don't want my lovely collection to go for peanuts to a Trader that will offer just that.

My instructions would be something like, "Please deal with this, make use of what you can, scrap what is impossible to salvage (that's probably most of the layout) and sell on items that are left over, making this latter task the source of a fund to go to a [named Charity] or what Mrs Mallard wants.

I've only helped a little with similar situations and although difficult for all involved, the 'organised' execution of such duties, following the late owner's and or partner's instructions, made things so much more comfortable.

Anyway, enough of this morbidity, however it is something that needs consideration.

Phil (Mrs Mallard's spouse).

[St Enodoc]

I have identified someone that should outlive me if he is careful and lives locally.

Have they discovered the elixir of life in North Notts then?

[Tony Wright]

I'm sorry to highlight this but Tony has a point here and has been doing this task for quite some time. Tony will eventually become too old to do this (sorry matey) and who is there out there who is going to be willing to do this to his standards?

I have identified someone that should outlive me if he is careful and lives locally. He has an extensive knowledge of model railways and the true value of most things. I'm not sure he could spend the time that Tony does in checking stuff and then making some things run, as he still works at the moment and should do for many years ABW. Nevertheless I am seriously tempted to get his agreement and name him as the executor of my MR stuff and at the same time, ensure Mrs Mallard knows this. This is because the loft is stuffed with railway junk and it will need sorting when I get scrapped and I don't want my lovely collection to go for peanuts to a Trader that will offer just that.

My instructions would be something like, "Please deal with this, make use of what you can, scrap what is impossible to salvage (that's probably most of the layout) and sell on items that are left over, making this latter task the source of a fund to go to a [named Charity] or what Mrs Mallard wants.

I've only helped a little with similar situations and although difficult for all involved, the 'organised' execution of such duties, following the late owner's and or partner's instructions, made things so much more comfortable.

Anyway, enough of this morbidity, however it is something that needs consideration.

Phil (Mrs Mallard's spouse).

Thanks Phil,

 

You've raised a most pertinent point. 

 

I honestly believe that as our generation dies off (it already is, too quickly!,) any models we might possess will diminish in value, rather than increase. I'm referring to that vast, immediate post-War bulge of urchins who grew up in the '50s/early-'60s, those who saw steam and (perhaps now in later life) wish to model what they remember. Why do I think values will go down? Because those who might buy 'dead stock' (apologies for my being lugubrious) in the main are from that generation. That's if sales of the locos/stock I've disposed of more recently are an indication. 

 

It gets worse in my view, particularly for kit-built items. I was saddened by how little Geoff Brewin's locos actually made. Things like his King (with his prototype coreless motor/gearbox in it) which eventually sold for less than the cost of the bits. Or his A4 which only did slightly better. Why? Because fully-finished RTR equivalents just knock the kit-built market every time. 

 

So, all of you out there who think your model railway collection will ensure any of your grasping descendants will live in luxury after your demise, think again in my view. I've mentioned before that I've itemised the things I've made, to make the job for my sons easier after my death. But, who's going to want to pay the price I'm asking now for a loco commission? 

 

I firmly believe, particularly in mainstream OO, we've never had it so good. Whether one makes things, pays others to make them or is principally an RTR user, what a tremendous wealth of stuff is out there. This evening, I glanced at a copy of Model Railways; the one where only Frank Dyer's Borchester was featured. I have to say, some of it looked a bit 'rough', compared to what's available today, even off the shelf. That said, I still think there's far greater merit in Frank's personal work than in just being able to hand over cash and open a box. But, looking at a picture of his O2, compared to the one I've just received from Heljan, why would one bother making one today? Other than for the joy of it. 

 

How long this Cornucopia will last is a moot point, particularly at the prices being asked. My advice, for what it's worth, is buy it, make it, get someone else to make it for you and just enjoy it while you can.While you can still see it, your fingers still work and your pension will still take the hit. As a non-believer, I won't care a fig after my demise, anyway.

 

From some recent conversations, pension-providing collections (or those who thought they'd provide a pension) of things like Dinky, Hornby-Dublo and O Gauge bits of bent tin aren't worth what they were a few years ago.  

[robmcg]

I fully agree Tony, and what's more I think the availability of quality models of UK steam in particular is so good, that it will have some bearing on future production of RTR models by the two main players. I suspect commissions and buyer deposits will be more common in future.

 

I sell some of my models at on-line auction and prices realised are higher than a couple of years ago, the price of new equivalents being no doubt a factor.

 

It does raise the question of supply and demand, and the number of people in their middle years, 50-65yrs perhaps, who enjoy collecting and/or modelling.

Edited March 23, 2016 by robmcg

[Clive Mortimore]

Having read Tony's very pessimistic view of the future I have had some thoughts of my collection..........................I am and will have enjoyed it, so what if my heirs get nothing for it. The blighters take no interest in it at the moment so they will not want it when I am gone so why should they get anything for it.

 

Remember any collection, be it stamps, toys, old battered furniture, jewelry etc. is only worth something if there is someone wanting to buy it. Better still two people wanting to buy it. Without a buyer it is only fit for landfill.