Wright writes.....

[APOLLO]

Just now, cctransuk said:

 

Whoa!

 

Look at that asbestos blanket flapping in the breeze!

 

CJI.

 

I thought that was the guys shirt hung up to dry - a bit big though !!

 

Elf n Safety ? - Years away !!

 

Brit15

[t-b-g]

I can't recall whether it was in a magazine article, or perhaps at an exhibition, that I saw somebody "doing a job" on a Lima Crab. They had either widened the loco or narrowed the tender to get the relationship correct and had corrected a number of other errors. From memory, it is the width of the tender that was wrong. It looks it in the photos but I would need to measure to confirm.

 

It looked half decent when it was done. I don't think anybody would bother doing such work nowadays.

 

At the time, there were only three ways to get a Crab. You had the Lima one, a a Wills kit designed for the awful Triang 2-6-2T chassis or you did some scratchbuilding. I don't think the fancy brass one from the far east had come out yet but I may be wrong about that.

[46243]

10 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

The best livery too, especially with a train of crimson-and-cream coaches.

 

I'm intrigued by the geometry of what I assume is a lift up section.  Could we have a closer look please?

 

Regards

John

[St Enodoc]

28 minutes ago, 46243 said:

I'm intrigued by the geometry of what I assume is a lift up section.  Could we have a closer look please?

 

Regards

John

No problem! Start here and work your way down the page:

Happy to answer any questions in my topic.

[john new]

19 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

For once the Merican's have done something sensible and simple, 19 mm gauge track, closer than EM at 18mm or 18.2mm

 

Then of course there is 00fine, or what ever name it has this week  at 16.2mm.

 

As for Lima steam locos, I have a Crab ready to be made wider and converted to one with poppet valves.

And we wonder why the use of non r-t-r is falling. Turning it around and look at it from the supplier perspective what do you stock to cover small demands across a wide spectrum. No, or limited, supply of the bits then making it harder.

[uax6]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

I can't recall whether it was in a magazine article, or perhaps at an exhibition, that I saw somebody "doing a job" on a Lima Crab. They had either widened the loco or narrowed the tender to get the relationship correct and had corrected a number of other errors. From memory, it is the width of the tender that was wrong. It looks it in the photos but I would need to measure to confirm.

 

It looked half decent when it was done. I don't think anybody would bother doing such work nowadays.

 

At the time, there were only three ways to get a Crab. You had the Lima one, a a Wills kit designed for the awful Triang 2-6-2T chassis or you did some scratchbuilding. I don't think the fancy brass one from the far east had come out yet but I may be wrong about that.

 

The one I've seen was in the RM. It was basically fitting Romfords to the existing Lima products and leaving everything else the same. Just doing this makes a huge difference. 

I started on one to widen the footplate along the boiler (easy enough) then I cut the cab sides off and widened them, and filled in the roof (which was tricky to get the roof profile right). I was going to use Airfix tenders.

 

But then I got a couple of Wills ones, which are much better apart from the silly raised bit between the frames at the leading end. I still need to cut them out and make them thin. The worst part is using the triang cylinders, hence the scrounging of the lima ones! I might one day build up the comet chassis for them...

 

Andy G

 

Edit: For some reason the front bufferbeams are invariably damaged on the Lima Crabs, I think all the ones I've had, had variable levels of damage, and a peculiar upward lift to the footplating behind it. They also suffer from Mazak rot with the weight over the driving wheels, that locks them up.

Edited February 21 by uax6

[Northmoor]

2 hours ago, t-b-g said:

I can't recall whether it was in a magazine article, or perhaps at an exhibition, that I saw somebody "doing a job" on a Lima Crab. They had either widened the loco or narrowed the tender to get the relationship correct and had corrected a number of other errors. From memory, it is the width of the tender that was wrong. It looks it in the photos but I would need to measure to confirm.

 

It looked half decent when it was done. I don't think anybody would bother doing such work nowadays.

 

At the time, there were only three ways to get a Crab. You had the Lima one, a a Wills kit designed for the awful Triang 2-6-2T chassis or you did some scratchbuilding. I don't think the fancy brass one from the far east had come out yet but I may be wrong about that.

Model Trains, April 1981; it involves widening the loco cab and running/footplate, not narrowing the tender (which is stretched to fit the motorised chassis).

[Barry Ten]

2 hours ago, t-b-g said:

I can't recall whether it was in a magazine article, or perhaps at an exhibition, that I saw somebody "doing a job" on a Lima Crab. They had either widened the loco or narrowed the tender to get the relationship correct and had corrected a number of other errors. From memory, it is the width of the tender that was wrong. It looks it in the photos but I would need to measure to confirm.

 

It looked half decent when it was done. I don't think anybody would bother doing such work nowadays.

 

 

From recollection it was the loco that was too narrow. There was an article in which the footplate was widened by adding plastic strips, and I think the cab widened as well. It looked OK because as you say, that was the only "easy" way to get a Crab. The theory was that the Lima designers had interpreted the difference in width between cab and tender as a mistake in the drawings, and "corrected" accordingly.

 

The roughly contemporaneous Hornby Patriot had the opposite problem in that tender was too wide and long. There was another article showing how the tender body and cosmetic frames could be cut down to something more realistic, all without requiring any alteration to the mechanism. It was a bit of a mystery why Hornby had made the tender oversized to begin with as they needn't have.

 

Edited February 21 by Barry Ten
Edit - see responses above.

[Compound2632]

16 minutes ago, Barry Ten said:

The theory was that the Lima designers had interpreted the difference in width between cab and tender as a mistake in the drawings, and "corrected" accordingly.

 

I supposed at the time (and still do) that they simply thought it looked so wrong no-one would buy it. 

[Barry Ten]

Here are two more Lima conversions, a pair of 94XXs using Bachmann chassis.

 

 

 

 

This one uses a split chassis unit. The main work to the body is filling in the steps on the starboard side of the cab.

 

 

 

This one uses the more recent Pannier chassis, although both run on DCC. The black one has the later style of front frames without the plating between them.

 

 

The black one is stuffed with lead and will pull anything.

 

Al

 

 

 

[Michael Edge]

My 94xx used the Lima cab/boiler/tanks with the rest scratchbuilt.

Seen here on a visit to Liverpool for its photo.

[Clive Mortimore]

1 hour ago, Barry Ten said:

 

From recollection it was the loco that was too narrow. There was an article in which the footplate was widened by adding plastic strips, and I think the cab widened as well. It looked OK because as you say, that was the only "easy" way to get a Crab. The theory was that the Lima designers had interpreted the difference in width between cab and tender as a mistake in the drawings, and "corrected" accordingly.

 

The roughly contemporaneous Hornby Patriot had the opposite problem in that tender was too wide and long. There was another article showing how the tender body and cosmetic frames could be cut down to something more realistic, all without requiring any alteration to the mechanism. It was a bit of a mystery why Hornby had made the tender oversized to begin with as they needn't have.

 

Hi Al

 

Looking at my Lima Crab the tender body is about right for a Fowler LMS tender, the frames are right for a MR tender, the body is too far back. I found if I moved the tender body so the front of it was where it should be it leaves a small platform at the rear like the re-bodied MR tenders with standard LMS tanks. Dimensionally it might not be 100% but to me it looks more realistic.

[Tony Wright]

Crabs?

 

Being careful with my words, I've had a few on Little Bytham, including.............

 

 

This early Far East example, painted, hand-numbered/lettered and weathered by the late Brian Lee. I sold it on behalf of his widow.

 

 

 

Another Far East one, though I can't remember who brought it.

 

 

Nor can I remember which collection this DJH came from, but that, too, was sold on behalf of a bereaved family. 

 

 

[RodneyS]

17 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

Today, I was presented with a South Eastern Finecast made-up C12.

You have my sympathy.  A friend bought a made-up C12 which did not run very well.

He asked me to look at it and I managed to re-solder some broken joints on the chassis.

It was still a disaster but then he did the decent thing - unintentionally.

He carried it up to the loft layout and managed to drop it.  It hit the first floor landing and then proceeded down the stairs to the ground floor.  Saved me a lot of trouble.

 

I'm sure he could be persuaded to do the same with yours - and the Crab.

Rodney

[lezz01]

15 minutes ago, RodneyS said:

You have my sympathy.  A friend bought a made-up C12 which did not run very well.

He asked me to look at it and I managed to re-solder some broken joints on the chassis.

It was still a disaster but then he did the decent thing - unintentionally.

He carried it up to the loft layout and managed to drop it.  It hit the first floor landing and then proceeded down the stairs to the ground floor.  Saved me a lot of trouble.

 

I'm sure he could be persuaded to do the same with yours - and the Crab.

Rodney

Some things just need to be skipped I guess.

Regards Lez.  

[Tony Wright]

6 hours ago, RodneyS said:

You have my sympathy.  A friend bought a made-up C12 which did not run very well.

He asked me to look at it and I managed to re-solder some broken joints on the chassis.

It was still a disaster but then he did the decent thing - unintentionally.

He carried it up to the loft layout and managed to drop it.  It hit the first floor landing and then proceeded down the stairs to the ground floor.  Saved me a lot of trouble.

 

I'm sure he could be persuaded to do the same with yours - and the Crab.

Rodney

Good evening Rodney,

 

Well, I hope my friend doesn't bounce his C12 down the stairs. However, since he lives in a bungalow, that would be difficult (his layout's not in the loft). 

 

I've fixed it, and it now runs really well with its replacement motor/gearbox installed.

 

Here it is now...........

 

 

I'm not too sure of its accuracy (condensing gear and Ramsbottom safety valves on a BR C12?). The bogie/pony wheels are the wrong type as well, but now, after stripping it mechanically, it's a really sweet/powerful performer. I've also tidied up the paintwork.

 

Some time ago, the same friend brought this round............

 

 

Built from a K's kit (by whom, no one knows), it's bizarre. It's the second of the Class numbered/named as the first. 

 

I had to rebuild the motion (parts of it just dropped off!) and now...................

 

 

I've given it its correct identity. 

 

It's a very good runner after my ministrations (Portescap-powered), but why do folk buy such rubbish (as it was) in the first place? 

 

I wonder what it's worth now?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

I've got another of the donated locos running quite sweetly...........

 

 

It's a white metal kit (which?) and, though quite well-built, its running was 'tight'. I deduced it was the valve gear giving trouble, so I've fixed this and now she runs quite well. I don't think it's run much at all, and running-in should make it really sweet.

 

Should it have copper and brass adornments? 

 

Has an RTR equivalent of this appeared recently, and does anyone know how much that is? This will be much cheaper!

[Steamport Southport]

K's or Nucast. Currently still available from Nucast Partners.

 

Copper chimney cap and polished safety valve is correct for the 15XXs as most of them spent their existence on station pilot duties. Some of them were even lined. But often they were filthy.

 

https://1501pta.jimdofree.com/7-locomotive-history/

 

 

Rapido has made a RTR version. 

 

 

Jason

[46243]

11 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

No problem! Start here and work your way down the page:

Happy to answer any questions in my topic.

 

11 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

No problem! Start here and work your way down the page:

Happy to answer any questions in my topic.

Hi, very interesting and enlightening.  I enjoyed reading the thread.  Thank you very much.

[St Enodoc]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

why do folk buy such rubbish (as it was) in the first place?

Because there was no other way?

[RodneyS]

Well Tony, your C12 looks so much better than the one my friend bought, even before the accident.

 

Another purchase by this same friend was a G2 0-8-0.  A Gem kit I think, on a rather nice etched chassis.  One axle was sprung with proper horns and axleboxes and fitted with flangeless wheels - correctly I believe.

 

It looked really nice and ran very well but only on straight track. You have mentioned in the past about kit built locos with absolutely no side play on the wheels !

 

Fortunately he sold it on.  Some other poor soul now has the problem.

Rodney

[jrg1]

10 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hi Al

 

Looking at my Lima Crab the tender body is about right for a Fowler LMS tender, the frames are right for a MR tender, the body is too far back. I found if I moved the tender body so the front of it was where it should be it leaves a small platform at the rear like the re-bodied MR tenders with standard LMS tanks. Dimensionally it might not be 100% but to me it looks more realistic.

It would be helpful if there was a guide to the standard Midland/LMS tender-the permutations trip up the unwary.  

[lezz01]

1 hour ago, jrg1 said:

It would be helpful if there was a guide to the standard Midland/LMS tender-the permutations trip up the unwary.  

Well there sort of is. The Midland engine profile books each have a detailed section on the tenders used by each locomotive type and it's the same for the LMS profiles. The 8F and 4F ones are fairly detailed giving dates of modifications to the tenders. There are also tables in the Summerson books giving dates of changes to each locomotive and then there are the Essery and Jenkinson books giving details of when locos changed tenders. I will agree that there is no one stop guide but it's all out there if you're willing to do the research and a bit of research never hurt anyone. 

Regards Lez.

[Captain Kernow]

13 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Has an RTR equivalent of this appeared recently, and does anyone know how much that is? This will be much cheaper!

Kernow Model Centre are doing them new (Rapido) for £134.99, which will be a discount of some kind on the RRP.

 

But..... there have been a lot of reports of these RTR locos not running too well and I think some of bits falling off in transit...

 

If I needed one of these (fortunately for my wallet I don't!!), then I would definitely opt for the one you have fettled and not the RTR one.

 

There have also been complaints from some folk about the RTR ones 'waddling'. Well the real ones did as well, so that's one thing that Rapido have got right!

 

[gr.king]

9 hours ago, lezz01 said:

Well there sort of is. The Midland engine profile books each have a detailed section on the tenders used by each locomotive type and it's the same for the LMS profiles. The 8F and 4F ones are fairly detailed giving dates of modifications to the tenders. There are also tables in the Summerson books giving dates of changes to each locomotive and then there are the Essery and Jenkinson books giving details of when locos changed tenders. I will agree that there is no one stop guide but it's all out there if you're willing to do the research and a bit of research never hurt anyone. 

Regards Lez.

It's a debatable point, but if all of the necessary information is already in print, but in a variety of different places, there is always a risk that a new publication that seeks to put all of the information in one place may actually cause confusion if any errors sneak past the proof-reading and editing process. A disagreement between two "authoritative" works on the same subject simply creates another problem for the fastidious modeller to solve.

I remember lessons in technical drawing (with actual pencil, paper, straight edge and square) in my 'teens. It was always considered to be correct that no dimension should be marked on a drawing if that dimension could be determined by adding or subtracting dimensions that were already marked, as any unintentional disagreement between figures would make nonsense of the whole thing.