Wright writes.....

[Chamby]

I dislike the term ‘average modelling’ because it implies comparing one model against another... but often you are not comparing like with like when judging the finished article. For example, take a loco that has a complex shape. Comparing two finished models, one may capture the shape better than the other, so is deemed by an uninformed observer to be the better model. But then if that was a kit-built model, whereas the less accurate version was hand crafted from raw materials, which one showcases the greater modelling skill?

 

I think this is why I sometimes have a fondness for items that are less perfect than others. They represent a quality of modelling input, rather than the accuracy of the finished model..

 

Phil

[gr.king]

I am greatly amused by the discussion of methods for conversion of favourite old locos to DCC, often requiring dismantling to a degree that some owners would never contemplate, combined with cunning combinations of home-brewed careful modifications and replacement parts purchased at extra cost. It's not that I consider such work difficult or impossible, but the contrast between the truth of such loco conversions and the spurious claims about the "simplicity" of DCC is notable.

 

"Just connect two wires to the track and there you go."

[micklner]

I dislike the term ‘average modelling’ because it implies comparing one model against another... but often you are not comparing like with like when judging the finished article. For example, take a loco that has a complex shape. Comparing two finished models, one may capture the shape better than the other, so is deemed by an uninformed observer to be the better model. But then if that was a kit-built model, whereas the less accurate version was hand crafted from raw materials, which one showcases the greater modelling skill?

 

I think this is why I sometimes have a fondness for items that are less perfect than others. They represent a quality of modelling input, rather than the accuracy of the finished model..

 

Phil

 

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some see a total old dog, bits hanging of etc etc and think its wonderful ,others cringe at the same thing . 

[glo41f]

Loved the pictures of the B1's. We had a large number of them and in fact the last steamer on Ipswich shed was a B1 then departmental 17. I used to be allowed to sit on the footplate whilst it was simmering away on its carriage heating duties trying to imagine what it would be like if it was actually made to move!  They were mostly pretty scruffy apart from 61059 which was the "pet" of the shed. I have to fess up and say that I think looks wise the Black 5 is possibly more "handsome" but that may get me drummed off this thread.

 

Someone has alluded to the fact that DCC was originally pitched as "just connect 2 wires" and that was it. We now know that is not it and that all manor of subsidiary gizmos seem to be necessary and that is without sound being involved. So far my experiences with it are not convincing me to change but I am intrigued by the comments here that the "old" style motors work better under DCC than ever they did under analogue.

 

Some of the modelling now being displayed here is decidedly above average in my view. Hopefully this thread is encouraging folk to higher levels of achievement. It is always stimulating here and thanks for making it so.

 

Martin Long

Edited February 6, 2018 by glo41f

[Tony Wright]

Some of the later split chassis Bachmann B1's and probably others came such that the motor was isolated from the chassis with the electrical connections being achieved by little springs contracting both the motor and their respective chassis side.  Removal of these springs gave an isolated motor.  All the owner had to do then was drill and tap (although I found that with careful sizing one could simply force screw in a good quality steel screw) each side of the chassis and attach to decoder or in my case to additional pickups on the tender.  My experience with the new Bachmann B1 chassis is that they are good runners but unless one adds extra weight and there is not much room for extra weight, they do not have the hauling power of the old split chassis.

Re RTR longevity; I have a couple of Bachmann WD's that have been running for at least 14 years  (thy came out about 2003) pulling about 35 coal wagons, one growls a bit but it always has.  I have a loco drive Hornby A3 that has been running again for about 10 years and a couple of loco drive later model Hornby A4's purchased about 2009 and 2010.  All pulling 9 or 10 coach trains made of of Bachmann Mk1s, Hornby Greslys and early Bachmann Thompsons.  Re running, a lap of my circuit is at least 60' which most do at least 3 or 3 times and sometimes many more each running session and I would estimate I have had a running session between 150 and 200 days a year on average over the time span involved  So applying conservative maths that is 60 x 2 x 150 x 14 or 250,000' or about 48 miles for the WDs and about 24 miles for the A4s and A3.  Note i have double and triple checked my maths and purchase dates because I am having a hard time believing my own numbers.   However, even if I have messed up by a factor of two, the numbers are pretty impressive.  Against this I have had to replace a motor in a Bachmann A1 but it was a known problem and has run for at leat 10 years on the same circuit as above since the motor was replaced.  I have had to make Comet chassis for two J39s and most of my B1s have had new Bachmann chassis.   FYI, I do have a roundy round but it is automated such that a session is about 25 mins and consists of 9 trains in each direction running at appropriate speeds.  so I don't get bored.

Thanks for that information. 

 

Just this morning, I've weighed one or two items running on Little Bytham for comparative purposes. The results are interesting, but in no way should be taken as a scientific survey, and, anyway, I have no idea if my wife's kitchen scales are accurate or not. 

 

I've tried to get a like-for-like equivalent between my kit-built locos/stock and RTR items. All the weights are in grams and are, at best, approximate.

 

Here are the results................

 

DJH A1 (with added lead) 875. This was by way of an experiment to show just how much a kit-built Pacific might pull. After 30 carriages on Stoke Summit, the cars at the front of the train 'imploded' because of the resistance on the curves. It'll take 25 kit-built cars on LB with no problem, though only for fun. 

DJH A1 (with no added lead) 725.

Bachmann A1 (with added lead) 550.

SE Finecast A4 (with no added lead) 725.

Hornby A4 (with no added lead) 430.

 

The weights include the tenders.

 

If nothing else, it shows how much more capable kit-built locos will be in hauling heavier trains. 

 

MOPOK ex-GWR BG 280.

Hornby ex-GWR BG 120.

Bachmann Mk.1 120.

Comet Mk.1 252.

Bachmann (latest) Thompson 175.

Comet Thompson 250.

Comet Gresley 250.

MJT Gresley (with brass interior partitions) 280.

I don't have a Hornby Gresley, but I imagine they weigh much the same as a Bachmann Thompson or Mk.1.

 

Brass/white metal four-wheeled van 125.

White metal four-wheeled van (with plastic roof) 75.

plastic (RTR) four-wheeled van 30. 

All the above are similar sized vehicles. 

 

What does all this 'prove', if anything? If my maths is right, and I'll do my best, a ten car train of plastic RTR carriages will weigh around 1,200 grams. A brass/white metal kit-built ten car train will weigh 2,500 grams (and more?). Since the majority of my non-Mk.1 cars are made from Comet/MJT/Kemilway kits, and two sets are 14 cars long, then my decision to make my own locos becomes clear. No RTR Pacific I have (even with added weight) will even look at the principally-kit-built long rakes, but, as I've mentioned, that's not what they're made to do to be fair. 

 

Since I'm not a physicist, please bear with me. Even though all the kit-built cars run on white metal bogies with pin point axles (meaning they're very free-running), the starting 'tractive effort' required is substantial (for a train of over 3,500 grams in weight - if my maths are wrong, please correct), and no Hornby or Bachmann Pacific will entertain these. With a helpful starting 'shove', once the train is moving, they'll just about go round (slipping furiously! - David West will confirm this), but I wouldn't bet on their longevity if this is what they're asked to do.  

 

A conclusion? Hardly, and we've been here before. For my specific needs, the only way I can run my heavy (prototype-length) trains successfully is by building my own locos. That is my choice. I'm sure (as Barry Oliver has shown on LB, with some astonishing HO American diesels) there are some RTR locos which will pull anything. However, for (general) British-outline, RTR, OO Gauge ER/NER/ScR Pacifics, best keep them for lightweight RTR stock. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

 

Edited to clarify a point.  

Edited February 6, 2018 by Tony Wright

[Tony Wright]

I dislike the term ‘average modelling’ because it implies comparing one model against another... but often you are not comparing like with like when judging the finished article. For example, take a loco that has a complex shape. Comparing two finished models, one may capture the shape better than the other, so is deemed by an uninformed observer to be the better model. But then if that was a kit-built model, whereas the less accurate version was hand crafted from raw materials, which one showcases the greater modelling skill?

 

I think this is why I sometimes have a fondness for items that are less perfect than others. They represent a quality of modelling input, rather than the accuracy of the finished model..

 

Phil

Thanks Phil,

 

That's why my preference (as a judge as well) is always towards a model that has been personally-made (and that includes kits/adaptations) to the 'perfection' achieved by far-away factories. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[APOLLO]

Two things to factor in are gradients and curve radius (severity of). I guess Little Bytham is dead level (from Tony's wonderful photos) and somewhere I have read (probably in his book) curves and points were as large a radius as possible. This helps haulage capability whatever your loco's lineage.

 

On my loft layout I have 4 low level passenger lines, no gradients, sharpest curve is the largest radius Hornby track (in tunnel) - very few problems with most locos, 10 - 12 coach trains of proprietary stock.

 

The two high level lines goods lines have gradients, not severe but some long (30 - 40 wagon) trains need double heading. The best pulling locos up here are my various 2-8-0's and 2-10-0's (naturally !!). My solitary Bachmann 9F will pull my son out of bed if I connected them up !!!!. All my diesels are superb haulers - mostly Bachmann / Heljan.

 

I have permanently coupled some locos together, both physically & electrically for use up on the goods lines. An old Mainline rebuilt Scot is thus coupled to an equally old standard class 4. They sound a bit naff, and waddle a bit, suitably weathered they will haul virtually anything at a low speed. Two old Tri-ang 3F tender locos similarly so. These two old soldiers will run forever !!

 

Brit15

[micklner]

Use a r.t.r  P2 or O2/3 they both weight a "ton" 

 

 

Golden Age A4  r.t.r ?

Edited February 6, 2018 by micklner

[jamie92208]

The question of gradients is interesting.   I've built a 3 car EMU set for Green Ayre.  as it has large windows above the motor bogies I have powered it with two ABC traction motors which go in an etched bogie of my own design. One trailer car is scratchbuilt and the other is a modified Slater's kit.  The main line is level but the EMU needs to go up and down the Castle Branch which has been built to the prototypical 1 in 70. The motor car is obviously scratch built and ended up quite light.  Initially the motor bogie slipped badly on level track but I then added a lot of extra weight to the motor vehicle.   I was worried as to how it would perform on the Castle Branch.   At Warley when it was test run for the first time it ran well as a two car set so we tried adding the third car. It worked well on the level main line so I was very pleased that it romped up the Castle Branch without any problem.   It isn't finished and lined out but it was very enjoyable to see my first ever scratchbuilt piece of rolling stock working the diagram that it has been designed for.   Obviously the weight around the motor bogie has proved sufficient. Fortunately there was room in the underframe for a lot of printers type with more on the floor in the saloon.   Unfortunately I never managed to get a photo of it running as a three car set.  That will have to wait till I get to France now.   

 

From Tony's description of the trains on LB I really must try and take him up on his offer of a visit before I emigrate. I hope that Mo is continuing to improve.

 

Jamie

[thegreenhowards]

I am greatly amused by the discussion of methods for conversion of favourite old locos to DCC, often requiring dismantling to a degree that some owners would never contemplate, combined with cunning combinations of home-brewed careful modifications and replacement parts purchased at extra cost. It's not that I consider such work difficult or impossible, but the contrast between the truth of such loco conversions and the spurious claims about the "simplicity" of DCC is notable.

 

"Just connect two wires to the track and there you go."

Graeme,

 

To be fair, if you use Set Track (or streamline with insulfrogs) and DCC ready RTR, then one can get away with just two wires (to each circuit). It’s because we’re talking about taking it beyond the ‘average modeller’ (how’s that for linking topics?!) that the complexity arises.

 

From my experience if I was starting with a fleet of mainly kit built locos, I wouldn’t touch DCC. But for mainly DCC ready RTR locos it’s very good, and if one has to do a bit of work to make a handful of kit built locos work on the same infrastructure then so be it.

 

Andy

[Theakerr]

Tony, I agree re the hauling capacity of kit built locos.  My Little Engines J11, made about 20 years ago and has done even more circuits than the WDs, on a test run pulled 16 (if I remember correctly) Bachmann Mk1s from a standing start with no problem.  I suspect it would pull a significant number of kit coaches with no problem either.  My point though was that some of the RTR stuff does seem to be standing the test of time.  FYI after being rather surprised by my numbers I measured my actual run this morning.  It is closer to 100' compared to my estimate of 60'.  Back to B1s, a friend brought his Hornby B1 round and it has significantly better hauling capacity than the new Bachmann Chassis.

[Tony Wright]

The question of gradients is interesting.   I've built a 3 car EMU set for Green Ayre.  as it has large windows above the motor bogies I have powered it with two ABC traction motors which go in an etched bogie of my own design. One trailer car is scratchbuilt and the other is a modified Slater's kit.  The main line is level but the EMU needs to go up and down the Castle Branch which has been built to the prototypical 1 in 70. The motor car is obviously scratch built and ended up quite light.  Initially the motor bogie slipped badly on level track but I then added a lot of extra weight to the motor vehicle.   I was worried as to how it would perform on the Castle Branch.   At Warley when it was test run for the first time it ran well as a two car set so we tried adding the third car. It worked well on the level main line so I was very pleased that it romped up the Castle Branch without any problem.   It isn't finished and lined out but it was very enjoyable to see my first ever scratchbuilt piece of rolling stock working the diagram that it has been designed for.   Obviously the weight around the motor bogie has proved sufficient. Fortunately there was room in the underframe for a lot of printers type with more on the floor in the saloon.   Unfortunately I never managed to get a photo of it running as a three car set.  That will have to wait till I get to France now.   

 

From Tony's description of the trains on LB I really must try and take him up on his offer of a visit before I emigrate. I hope that Mo is continuing to improve.

 

Jamie

Just fix up a time, please, Jamie,

 

You're most welcome. 

 

This making up of prototype-length trains came about naturally, with a desire to attempt to recreate the trains of my youth. Not all of these were huge (the respective Talismans were only eight and nine cars), but stoppers at Retford on the main line usually poked out both ends beyond the platforms, and on busy summer days, trains would be strengthened or enormous reliefs run.  

 

I've mentioned before, that when WMRC started Stoke Summit the Bachmann Mk.1s had not appeared, so we made just about everything, generating kits if necessary for what we needed. Comet kits for the Mk.1s, Gresleys and Thompsons were built in proliferation, and the locos to pull them were built accordingly. Though it might seem a bit 'I'm all right Jack', what the RTR boys chose to bring out (other than the wonderful Bachmann Mk.1s) was largely irrelevant. Heavy trains needed sure-footed, heavy locos; hence kit-building. What might be interesting in your scale is to see how much the promised RTR A3s or A4s will pull, in comparison with, say, a DJH equivalent. Having lifted one up recently, I don't think I've come across a more hernia-inducing loco. 

 

Someone has mentioned an OO RTR P2 has having excellent haulage capabilities. It has, and I've shown it running on LB (beating one of my kit-built rebuilds, until I added more weight to it!), but the last P2 was rebuilt into an A2/2 the year or two before I was born, so one would be of no use to me (unless as a flight of fancy). As for a Golden Age A4, I don't think I'd call that general RTR. 

 

Mo continues to improve, thank you, but I doubt if she'll be with me at Doncaster. 

 

If she's all right by Friday, I'll be there. If not, then family health takes precedence over my fiddling with model trains.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[Tony Wright]

Tony, I agree re the hauling capacity of kit built locos.  My Little Engines J11, made about 20 years ago and has done even more circuits than the WDs, on a test run pulled 16 (if I remember correctly) Bachmann Mk1s from a standing start with no problem.  I suspect it would pull a significant number of kit coaches with no problem either.  My point though was that some of the RTR stuff does seem to be standing the test of time.  FYI after being rather surprised by my numbers I measured my actual run this morning.  It is closer to 100' compared to my estimate of 60'.  Back to B1s, a friend brought his Hornby B1 round and it has significantly better hauling capacity than the new Bachmann Chassis.

Thanks Theakerr,

 

Your commenting about some RTR stuff not standing the test of time is very interesting. I don't quite know if there was a 'watershed' when what was offered RTR was 'dumbed-down', at least mechanically, but I recall buying an RTR J72 when they first came out (40 odd years ago, and made by whom?). In a way, it was a bit of a paradox - the body was exquisite in every way; streets ahead of what Tri-ang/Hornby had for sale at the same time. Yet, mechanically, it was very poor. The wheels seemed to be fixed to the axles with a sort of 'star-shaped' screw in the middle. They shifted out of quartering under load, and were decidedly wobbly. I'm sure the chassis was electrically-dead, but it was of no use to me. My memory is of building a Comet replacement, and then selling it. 

 

Split chassis locos of all kinds appeared later, from the likes of Palitoy, then Replica, then Bachmann, all of which, in my experience, of dubious mechanical worth, though with very good bodies. I recall a layout representing one of the Pennine crossings (was it Marsden?), which ran double-headed 4-6-0s. I could hear the racket they made, even in a crowded exhibition hall, though I thought the layout was rather good. There was another layout, similarly geographically-located, featuring a long, low viaduct. I thought it was lovely, until some clattering, wobbling, contemporary 4-6-0 appeared, shattered any illusion of reality. 

 

Most of today's RTR chassis are adequate, but whether they'll stand the test of time is a question of time, and use. 

 

Just a couple of little tales to finish; yesterday, a kindly (older - he was in his 80s) gentleman popped round (he'd got my name from the local model shop) telling me that he'd been told that I can 'fix' locos. He wasn't sure how old the loco he'd brought was (builder unknown) but it was a Wills 94XX on a Tri-ang Jinty chassis (I wonder how many locos were built on top of that long-lived mechanism?). It had been re-wheeled (with Romfords), but was 'dead'. A quick inspection, replace the brushes in the X04, adjust the pick-ups, clean and oil it, and away it purred. He was delighted, and seemed to imply that I ought to take up raising the dead, walking on water and changing water into wine! The mechanism was at least 50 years old, but, with the simplest of maintenance, it'll be good for a further 50. How far have we come, I wonder? The end result? Some more money for Cancer Research. 

 

Today, I've fixed the motion (both sides) of an old K's 15XX pannier tank (the GWR 'stinker', the only type - apart from the French Atlantics and the rail motors - to have outside valve gear). It was brought to me at Stevenage, but needed my 'operating theatre' to fix it, so he left it with me. A crankpin had come loose, the gear had jammed and 'it wouldn't go'. Though the wheels were Romford, the motor was (is) a K's Mk.1. So, an hour's work (and some very naughty language as the 'domino-effect' kicked in) and it's now fixed. You can collect it at Biggleswade, Roy. Though I'd never claim that K's motors were state of the art at the time (I'm talking of the Mk.1 and Mk.2 types here, not the ghastly HP2Ms), once cleaned and oiled, this'll carry on for years and years. And, more money for Cancer Research. 

 

Maybe everything isn't quite as bad as I make out. 

Edited February 6, 2018 by Tony Wright

[Anglian]

As an advocate of EM I feel I should ask you if there is anything we (the EMGS) can do to help you make your decision whatever that turns out to be?

 

Frank

 

 

Frank,

Thank you. I think to be honest I need to come and talk to the EMGS at a show and join to obtain the handbook to see what I may be letting myself in for.

 

On another note I think I was incredibly blessed with the RTR locomotives I had as a teenager 35 or so years ago. My Mainline J72 looked great for the day and was a super sweet and reliable slow runner. When I returned to the hobby it was a bit of a shock to discover that they were considered dreadful.

 

My Hornby Black Five and Mainline 4MT were also very good at slow speeds but I did keep track and wheels very clean. However, the Airfix 6100xx was dreadful.

 

Thanks for others for answering the EasiChas question. 

Edited February 6, 2018 by Anglian

[Tony Wright]

Frank,

Thank you. I think to be honest I need to come and talk to the EMGS at a show and join to obtain the handbook to see what I may be letting myself in for.

 

On another note I think I was incredibly blessed with the RTR locomotives I had as a teenager 35 or so years ago. My Mainline J72 looked great for the day and was a super sweet and reliable slow runner. When I returned to the hobby it was a bit of a shock to discover that they were considered dreadful.

 

My Hornby Black Five and Mainline 4MT were also very good at slow speeds but I did keep track and wheels very clean. However, the Airfix 6100xx was dreadful.

 

Thanks for others for answering the EasiChas question. 

I'd forgotten about the Airfix 61XX, though I never owned one.

 

Perhaps I should have also mentioned (again from personal experience) the Trix LNER Pacifics of the late-'60s. Both the A3 and A4 were poor runners, though the A2 (which had German chassis, I think) was incredibly powerful and very quiet. The fact that none of the tenders supplied with these models was correct, didn't seem to matter. I believe Trix produced tender drives for these locos later on. Did these work better? 

 

Things have certainly moved on.............

 

 

My next submission for Bachmann Times will be about locomotive lamp codes (something dear to my heart, indeed). I've just been sent this latest model to illustrate the 'side-on' fixing of GWR lamps, and how spare lamps were stored on the footplates. Though its running will not be a feature of the piece, I've not long taken it out of its packaging and boy oh boy, what a super-smooth mechanism. It is absolutely beautiful - quiet and smooth. I've not yet tested its pulling powers (again, not a feature of the piece), but I'll report accordingly. I imagine it'll pull with ease it's prototype-equivalent load. 

 

What a difference from its split-chassis Palitoy origins. Though I never owned one, one was tried (years ago) on Moretonhampstead, and what a wobbly, noisy thing that turned out to be. One magazine rated this new model as 8 out of 10 for performance. It would be interesting to see the performance of a loco they rated as 10 out of 10! 

 

There's a piece on loco headlamp codes in the next issue of BRM. 

 

Out of interest, I've not long done some more tests on RTR locos' pulling power on LB. The following are all Bachmann. I'll do some more tests tomorrow with other RTR manufacturers' locos. 

 

 

This new-chassis Bachmann V2 took an 11-car rake with ease (ten Bachmann Mk.1s, one kit-built car). 

 

 

This Bachmann Austerity used to belong to the late Dave Shakespeare, and took this 40-wagon (mainly RTR) train with little difficulty, though not quite as easily, particularly on starting the rake, as my DJH ones.

 

 

Bachmann 9Fs will haul anything I put behind them.

 

Has anyone else any tales of pulling power, please?  

[Barry O]

A DJH Wd has replaced the Bachmann one I used on Chapel en le Frith. With a high level gearbox and mashima fitted the kit built loco is much more steady and doesn't get tired as it makes its way around the layout.

 

Pulling wise it is more powerful.

 

But the Bachmann 9F is another matter. I may have to add some weight in my DJH one to provide the same pulling power if required.

Baz

Edited February 6, 2018 by Barry O

[Michael Edge]

I weigh locos routinely, the Stanier Pacifics for Carlisle are mostly weighted to about 600g and have to pull heavy (13 coaches or so, many kit built) trains up gradients. The limiting factor for weight is that the loco can still spin the wheels at full power, otherwise the more the better. In the past I did find another limitation though, a Wills A4 I built for a customer had the body filled (not by me) with Cerrobend to the extent that the Sharman wheels were flexing under the strain any going out of gauge.

[Headstock]

I'd forgotten about the Airfix 61XX, though I never owned one.

 

Perhaps I should have also mentioned (again from personal experience) the Trix LNER Pacifics of the late-'60s. Both the A3 and A4 were poor runners, though the A2 (which had German chassis, I think) was incredibly powerful and very quiet. The fact that none of the tenders supplied with these models was correct, didn't seem to matter. I believe Trix produced tender drives for these locos later on. Did these work better? 

 

Things have certainly moved on.............

 

Lamps 01 2251 loco.jpg

 

My next submission for Bachmann Times will be about locomotive lamp codes (something dear to my heart, indeed). I've just been sent this latest model to illustrate the 'side-on' fixing of GWR lamps, and how spare lamps were stored on the footplates. Though its running will not be a feature of the piece, I've not long taken it out of its packaging and boy oh boy, what a super-smooth mechanism. It is absolutely beautiful - quiet and smooth. I've not yet tested its pulling powers (again, not a feature of the piece), but I'll report accordingly. I imagine it'll pull with ease it's prototype-equivalent load. 

 

What a difference from its split-chassis Palitoy origins. Though I never owned one, one was tried (years ago) on Moretonhampstead, and what a wobbly, noisy thing that turned out to be. One magazine rated this new model as 8 out of 10 for performance. It would be interesting to see the performance of a loco they rated as 10 out of 10! 

 

There's a piece on loco headlamp codes in the next issue of BRM. 

 

Out of interest, I've not long done some more tests on RTR locos' pulling power on LB. The following are all Bachmann. I'll do some more tests tomorrow with other RTR manufacturers' locos. 

 

60862 Bachmann V2.jpg

 

This new-chassis Bachmann V2 took an 11-car rake with ease (ten Bachmann Mk.1s, one kit-built car). 

 

90607 Bachmann Austerity 01.jpg

 

This Bachmann Austerity used to belong to the late Dave Shakespeare, and took this 40-wagon (mainly RTR) train with little difficulty, though not quite as easily, particularly on starting the rake, as my DJH ones.

 

92192 Bachmann 9F.jpg

 

Bachmann 9Fs will haul anything I put behind them.

 

Has anyone else any tales of pulling power, please?  

Evening Tony,

 

When I was test running for the introduction of the Northbound Master Cutler, I had calculated that the build of the eleven carriage rake would be around 3061 grams. I had some experience with the previous Northbound South Yorkshireman and it's locomotive on the 1 in 75 climb, this required a bit of tweaking to get the performance right, as I had never built a full express train that had even run on the flat before, never mind up a big hill. In the interim, every other train constructed had been running down the bank, so it was with some concern that I returned to Northbound workings as the  Master Cutler would be quite a bit heavier train.

 

The locomotive, a DJH/Comet hybrid A3 number 60052 was constructed with this job in mind. A great deal of thought went into the maximum power that the loco could impart to the track, I had previous successes with re balancing the weight distribution with a previous V2 class locomotive to get more grunt were it mattered. In addition I new that the rolling resistance was an initial issue with the SouthYorkshireman set. The plan called for a larger reserve of power from the new locomotive if possible and insuring the minimum rolling resistance and removal of unnecessary weight in the rolling stock that it would pull.

 

As things turned out 60052, one of my Fathers last builds, more than fulfilled our expectations, On test it easily lifted the ten carriages of the South Yorkshireman up the 1 in 75, and we then began hanging Bachmann MK1's on the tail end. Eventually the great blue beast was cruising up the bank with 16 bogies on the draw bar. I couldn't tell you off hand what the total weight was, or how much the 1 in 75 added to the draw bar pull required. What it did mean was that the Master Cutler was buildable without sacrificing either the numbers of carriages or the types required. I would add as a postscript that by following my own thoughts on construction I managed to cut the weight of the completed formation to 2204 grams. It's a way of working that I still follow today, so that I will no what the weight of a train will be before I build it, as well as what is required from the locomotive that will pull it.

[ArthurK]

'd forgotten about the Airfix 61XX, though I never owned one.

 

Perhaps I should have also mentioned (again from personal experience) the Trix LNER Pacifics of the late-'60s. Both the A3 and A4 were poor runners, though the A2 (which had German chassis, I think) was incredibly powerful and very quiet. The fact that none of the tenders supplied with these models was correct, didn't seem to matter. I believe Trix produced tender drives for these locos later on. Did these work better? 

 

 

 

 

I purchased a Trix A4 (Mallard) secondhand many years ago (cost £12.50). It was tender drive with traction tyres. It was certainly not quiet but one thing in its favour was that it would pull anything that I could find to put behind it, 

 

I repainted it as "Capercaillie" - the only double chimney A4 at Gateshead at that time.

 

The loco wheels tended to lock but that had no effect on its progress. Not a bad model for its time but was a full scale ten feet over the cylinders (as was the A2 from the same stable).

 

 

ArthurK

Edited February 6, 2018 by ArthurK

[Tony Wright]

I weigh locos routinely, the Stanier Pacifics for Carlisle are mostly weighted to about 600g and have to pull heavy (13 coaches or so, many kit built) trains up gradients. The limiting factor for weight is that the loco can still spin the wheels at full power, otherwise the more the better. In the past I did find another limitation though, a Wills A4 I built for a customer had the body filled (not by me) with Cerrobend to the extent that the Sharman wheels were flexing under the strain any going out of gauge.

Thanks Mike,

 

Having seen the Stanier Pacifics you and others have built for Carlisle, I can testify to their haulage capacities. Handsome is as handsome does, and they're a testament to your modelling skills.

 

 

 

 

As you know, the rakes in these pictures are at least 13-cars long, mainly metal carriages built by Larry Goddard (wasn't it fun changing the wheels? I've still got one here to do). 

 

Along with Retford, I don't think I've photographed a more-impressive model railway, and it was a privilege to be invited by David (at the request of Steve Flint of the RM) to take the pictures in 2016. Incidentally, in conversation with Steve at Southampton, he'd like me to go over again this year for an updated photographic shoot. We must get it arranged.

 

Interestingly, a friend of mine weighted his Schools Class so much that the plastic-centred driving wheels went out of the round, after it was left standing stationary for a prolonged period. 

 

I'm very much of the 'weight & see' school of adding ballast to locos. I weight them until they're able to fulfill their duties with ease, then add a little bit more. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

Edited February 6, 2018 by Tony Wright

[Mad McCann]

Oh, do it, please! I'm looking forward to seeing more of this amazing layout. Having a great familiarity with Carlisle today, it's fantastic to see modelled locations I know well as they were just before I was born! I often imagine on my wanderings around town how they looked back in the day, particularly the area of the goods lines and yards and this model gives a great flavour of what I missed. There's a few Glasgow locations I'd love to see done on this scale! 

 

D4

[Tony Wright]

Oh, do it, please! I'm looking forward to seeing more of this amazing layout. Having a great familiarity with Carlisle today, it's fantastic to see modelled locations I know well as they were just before I was born! I often imagine on my wanderings around town how they looked back in the day, particularly the area of the goods lines and yards and this model gives a great flavour of what I missed. There's a few Glasgow locations I'd love to see done on this scale! 

 

D4

The pictures I've just included of Carlisle have been seen before, though any I take this year will, for obvious reasons, appear first in the Railway Modeller. 

 

The owner is to be congratulated on bringing together a team of top professionals (led most-ably by Mike Edge) to create this EM Gauge 'masterpiece'. His wife is a very good modeller, too! 

[ROY@34F]

.

 

 

 

Gosh this thread moves on apace! I've been too busy to catch up for a few days, and there were about 10 pages to wade through covering a range from signal interlocking through coupling systems to Blue Pullmans...all very entertaining and informative. 

 

I'm interested in your oft quoted comments about the (lack of) haulage capabilities of RTR locos. I've found that with a little lead added they pull just about anything asked of them (although my 14 coach 'Aberdonian' rake is a tall order for most things including DJH kits). As a rule of thumb, I find 12-14 RTR cars or slightly fewer kit built cars are fine with an A4, and slightly less with an A3 (as there's less room for lead). I have a Wills A3 on a Hornby chassis which romps round even on the Aberdonian - my most powerful steamer. For example, this standard but weighted Hornby A4 romps round with no wheel slip on my newly completed 10 car Elizabethan rake. Apart from the 2 mark 1s at the back, these are all Southern pride brass sides on Bachmann donors with MJT heavy duty bogies. 

DSC_1586.jpg

 

I recognise your other reasons for kit building which are certainly all valid - especially if one can build a chassis as well as you can. I must sort out the finish (and early crest) on the A4 above. Do others find that RTR locos are too weedy for prototypical length trains?

 

Please wish Mo a speedy recovery from me.

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

Andy, 

 

 

Your certainly correct in the popularity of this thread. I can't keep pace either.  Regarding haulage capacity of RTR engines

I have removed the DCC gubbins from my Hornby A3s &A4s , cast lead weights for the boilers and sheet lead in firebox sides, and as you say they will certainly pull anything you put behind them, well anything realistically speaking.

 

Regards, Roy.

Edited February 6, 2018 by ROY@34F

[Chamby]

On 16 May 2016, St Austell MRC had a ‘fun’ meeting with a competition to see which locomotive had the greatest pulling power. Predominantly RTR locomotives, from across the clubs membership. The winner by a mile was Hornby’s Flying Scotsman from the late 1980’s, unmodified, with tender drive and traction tyres. It ran round the clubs layout pulling the longest train we could fit on the layouts circuit, chasing tail of its own train. 51 coaches, 3 wagons and of course the dead weight of the locomotive was also propelled by the tender drive. It easily outperformed a Bachmann 9F and would have pulled more if the circuit would have allowed.

 

There’s a video of it on the club You Tube page.

 

Phil.

Edited February 6, 2018 by Chamby

[Chuffer Davies]

Frank,

Thank you. I think to be honest I need to come and talk to the EMGS at a show and join to obtain the handbook to see what I may be letting myself in for.

 

Hi again.

If you can make it to Bracknell in May then you can visit Expo EM where there will be a raft of demonstrators who can advise you on a range of topics including track and locomotive construction.

 

There are also a number of area groups who meet regularly dotted around the country and I’m sure your local group would be very happy to offer you support.

Best of luck,

Frank