Wright writes.....

[St Enodoc]

6 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

Exactly - give a typically free-rolling RTR coach a push and let it go.  Even if it's doing a scale 50mph, it will likely stop faster than a real emergency brake application.

Unless it's a Trix Mk 1.

[DenysW]

I'm not sure that the coach analogy works pre-roller bearings for the full-scale. For the models - no valid opinion.

[rowanj]

A while ago, there were some posts about budget modelling, and a query about fitting a tender -drive A3 to a more modern chassis.

 

The A3 is actually GBL, but this was a Hornby clone. Some nibbling of the body at front and rear was all that was needed, The tender is actually a -tender-drive model, cut down in old-school "cut and shut" based on, if I recall, on an article by Simon Martin. I removed most of the motor gubbins, and sawed and filed a fair bit from the top of the casing to get a realistic coal level. The original tender moulding is too fat, (which is probably what I'll be told at my Wellman check tomorrow)

 

The train, which is an early-morning Edinburgh-Newcastle, is real budget ! A pair of Railroad Mk1's, 3 GBL Mk1's,( one of which is re-sided Comet) and an anclent re-painted Lima Guv with Bachmann bogies and DC Concepts transfers. I put it together to test some magnetic couplings which I got from EBay. Not for the purists, but great fun.

Edited August 22, 2022 by rowanj

[t-b-g]

What I find interesting about model railway haulage, weight, power etc. is that it clearly isn't always obvious what works and what doesn't.

 

I have a small 0-6-0 that will haul 135 wagons (probably more but I ran out of wagons on the layout) and I have an 0-8-0 that is much heavier and has a bigger and more powerful motor but won't pull that much. The 0-6-0 has steel tyred wheels (push on Gibson wheels) and 108:1 gears. The 0-8-0 has Ultrascale wheels and a 50:1 gears. The drag on the wagons isn't a factor as they were both pulling the same train. The limiting factor was adhesion as the 0-8-0 slipped.

 

There is so much to take into account, such as what materials the rails and wheels are made from, how smooth or rough the surface of the wheels are, the gearing and so on.

 

I have seen people try to be clever and carry out all sorts of experiments and calculations but to take all the variables into account really makes such things an academic rather than a practical exercise.

 

Roy Jackson always had a struggle with getting locos to haul that "boat train" and got up to all sorts of tricks to get the traction required, including "Bullfrog Snot" on the driving wheels and mounting the motor in the tender so the boiler could be solid weight. They still struggled. Yet Ken Hill's GEM Midland compound with very old Romford wheels (mazak tyres one side) and a Triang XO4 and gears and no extra weight added to the kit built body romped away with the train.

Edited August 22, 2022 by t-b-g
typo

[robertcwp]

2 hours ago, Northmoor said:

Exactly - give a typically free-rolling RTR coach a push and let it go.  Even if it's doing a scale 50mph, it will likely stop faster than a real emergency brake application.  On level track, a real coach would roll for miles.

A Bachmann Thompson carriage will roll further than most. They have metal bearings and are very free-running.

[PJT]

7 hours ago, APOLLO said:

Probably mentioned before but back around 1972 after a house moved I changed from TT to OO. Tri-ang Hornby (or was it Hornby back then) had just brought out their Evening Star 9F 2-10-0, It was a "silver seal" tender drive. I later bought a silver seal Black Five. These first Tri-ang tender drive locos ran superbly, and still do today, I still run them today, nearly as powerful as a recent Bachmann 9F (but nowhere near it as to detail).

 

The secret of these early tender drives lay in the fact that all tender driven wheels (on both sides) had traction tyres, and all loco drivers had pick ups, the loco being permanently coupled and double wired to the tender. Super smooth, quiet and powerful. The later tender drives with traction tyres on one side only (and I have a few) are nowhere near as good, a very retrograde step by Hornby in my opinion.

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember the earliest Triang-Hornby tender drives were either of Fleischmann design, or at least very heavily influenced by the Fleischmann design.  Whichever, they seemed altogether of far, far better quality than anything tender drive that came along later from Hornby (I still have a very early Evening Star that still works very well, though really I only still have it for sentimental reasons and never run it except maybe once a year to see if it's still ok - which it always is), but still sometimes suffered from the problem Tony pointed out, that of the bizarre sight of the loco wheels not turning while the loco was being pushed around the track by its tender.

 

Pete T.

 

Edited August 22, 2022 by PJT
Added a couple of words for clarity

[robertcwp]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

What I find interesting about model railway haulage, weight, power etc. is that it clearly isn't always obvious what works and what doesn't.

 

I have a small 0-6-0 that will haul 135 wagons (probably more but I ran out of wagons on the layout) and I have an 0-8-0 that is much heavier and has a bigger and more powerful motor but won't pull that much. The 0-6-0 has steel tyred wheels (push on Gibson wheels) and 108:1 gears. The 0-8-0 has Ultrascale wheels and a 50:1 gears. The drag on the wagons isn't a factor as they were both pulling the same train. The limiting factor was adhesion as the 0-8-0 slipped.

 

There is so much to take into account, such as what materials the rails and wheels are made from, how smooth or rough the surface of the wheels are, the gearing and so on.

 

I have seen people try to be clever and carry out all sorts of experiments and calculations but to take all the variables into account really makes such things an academic rather than a practical exercise.

 

Roy Jackson always had a struggle with getting locos to haul that "boat train" and got up to all sorts of tricks to get the traction required, including "Bullfrog Snot" on the driving wheels and mounting the motor in the tender so the boiler could be solid weight. They still struggled. Yet Ken Hill's GEM Midland compound with very old Romford wheels (mazak tyres one side) and a Triang XO4 and gears and no extra weight added to the kit built body romped away with the train.

I managed to get Sandra's Hornby B17 (re-gauged and with added weight) to just about haul the new boat train up the gradient in the down direction (opposite way to how Roy ran the boat train). However, that was by making the whole train RTR stock with cleaned wheels, lubricated axle bearings and ballast weights taken out. I also cleaned the track, which helped. So, not really a fair comparison I know, but it did manage it. Roy's Hornby Britannia had no trouble even without those modifications to the stock. It is curious how some locos can pull much better than others. The new B17 that Tony has done for the layout will be a great addition to the layout.

[AdamOrmorod]

3 hours ago, t-b-g said:

What I find interesting about model railway haulage, weight, power etc. is that it clearly isn't always obvious what works and what doesn't.

 

I have a small 0-6-0 that will haul 135 wagons (probably more but I ran out of wagons on the layout) and I have an 0-8-0 that is much heavier and has a bigger and more powerful motor but won't pull that much. The 0-6-0 has steel tyred wheels (push on Gibson wheels) and 108:1 gears. The 0-8-0 has Ultrascale wheels and a 50:1 gears. The drag on the wagons isn't a factor as they were both pulling the same train. The limiting factor was adhesion as the 0-8-0 slipped.

 

There is so much to take into account, such as what materials the rails and wheels are made from, how smooth or rough the surface of the wheels are, the gearing and so on.

 

I have seen people try to be clever and carry out all sorts of experiments and calculations but to take all the variables into account really makes such things an academic rather than a practical exercise.

 

Roy Jackson always had a struggle with getting locos to haul that "boat train" and got up to all sorts of tricks to get the traction required, including "Bullfrog Snot" on the driving wheels and mounting the motor in the tender so the boiler could be solid weight. They still struggled. Yet Ken Hill's GEM Midland compound with very old Romford wheels (mazak tyres one side) and a Triang XO4 and gears and no extra weight added to the kit built body romped away with the train.

 

I've even found variation between RTR locos of the same class. Back in lockdown 1, out of sheer boredom I tested how many of my coaches (16 at the time I think, a mixture of RTR Gresleys and MK1s) each of my locos could manage around my roundy-roundy. I found one of my Hornby A4s was much more sure-footed than the others, easily managing all 16 while the others either couldn't or slipped a lot. I never got to the bottom of why...

[t-b-g]

21 minutes ago, AdamOrmorod said:

 

I've even found variation between RTR locos of the same class. Back in lockdown 1, out of sheer boredom I tested how many of my coaches (16 at the time I think, a mixture of RTR Gresleys and MK1s) each of my locos could manage around my roundy-roundy. I found one of my Hornby A4s was much more sure-footed than the others, easily managing all 16 while the others either couldn't or slipped a lot. I never got to the bottom of why...

 

Very much like the real thing of course. I have read, several times, that some real locos were regarded as being better than others in the same class, being either better haulers, smoother riders or more reliable.

[Chamby]

41 minutes ago, AdamOrmorod said:

 

I've even found variation between RTR locos of the same class. Back in lockdown 1, out of sheer boredom I tested how many of my coaches (16 at the time I think, a mixture of RTR Gresleys and MK1s) each of my locos could manage around my roundy-roundy. I found one of my Hornby A4s was much more sure-footed than the others, easily managing all 16 while the others either couldn't or slipped a lot. I never got to the bottom of why...

 

A few years ago I attended one of those silly club nights where we held a 'what will haul the most' contest.  The 'steam' winner was an unmodified 1980's tender drive Flying Scotsman that managed 53 RTR coaches.  It would probably have managed a few more, but there wasn't enough room on the circuit:  the tail end of the train was just 3 inches in advance of 4472's front buffer...

 

We thought the winner would be a Bachmann 9F, but those traction tyres made all the difference.

[SD85]

2 hours ago, PJT said:

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember the earliest Triang-Hornby tender drives were either of Fleischmann design, or at least very heavily influenced by the Fleischmann design.  Whichever, they seemed altogether of far, far better quality than anything tender drive that came along later from Hornby (I still have a very early Evening Star that still works very well, though really I only still have it for sentimental reasons and never run it except maybe once a year to see if it's still ok - which it always is), but still suffered from the problem Tony pointed out, that of the bizarre sight of the loco wheels not turning while being pushed around the track by the tender.

 

Pete T.

 

 

Pretty sure that was the case. Early mechanisms used the Fleischmann drive, but later ones were of lower quality.

 

Regarding tender drives, I used not to understand the point of them, but recently got a Roco DB class 50 (made in the mid 90s I think) and saw how tender drive is done properly. Motor in the tender, powering the wheels there, and also driving the wheels of the loco via a driveshaft system (as opposed to Hornby and Airfix which just used the loco for pickup). I am fairly sure that this setup (at least to power the driving wheels) is also used over here in scratchbuilt models as well from time to time.

 

The Roco model also has traction tyres aplenty. I must confess I am a little puzzled as to the British modelling scene's aversion to anything with traction tyres (at least in 4mm and above), when H0 scale modellers in Europe and America seem to never have an issue with them. I wonder why this is?

 

Back to tender drive - I have an Airfix 4F and one of the things that surprised me when I bought it was how much it could haul given that it was tender drive. It's pretty noisy, but certainly can pull.

 

It is also ironic that the tender drive Margate Hornby models were regarded as more towards the toy end of the scale than Airfix/Mainline/Replica/Bachmann but arguably (thanks to the tender drive) had a more realistic close coupling between locomotive and tender than any of their competitors at the time, thanks to an innovative sprung drawbar. Why Hornby could not have retained this feature when they switched to loco drive plus tender pickups models is a mystery, it probably wouldn't have been that difficult to update it.

Edited August 22, 2022 by SD85

[Tony Wright]

6 hours ago, DenysW said:

A question born out of ignorance, I'm afraid.

 

Do you attempt to achieve scale weight on the locomotives? So an A4 in OO should weigh 0.52 lb (scaled on 1/76 ^3). And the same for coaches.

 

I ask because LB is succeeding in having OO locomotives pull the correct number of coaches for its era at scale speed.

And answered in ignorance (in the true sense of the word). 

 

I was a bit of a duffer at formulae (or any hard sums!), so I never apply any. I note from your post that the 'scale' weight of an OO A4 should be just over half a pound. All my kit-built ones are over one pound in weight (well over). I just pack them with as much ballast as possible, even those with white metal bodies. 

 

As for coach weights, I don't bother (though it's wise to have heavier, kit-built metal ones at the front of trains, if possible, ahead of lighter plastic ones; especially if reversal is contemplated). 

 

So, we have a situation where, although very pretty.........................

 

 

This 'lightweight' (but much-altered) Ian Rathbone-painted Hornby A4 can only be rostered to the lightweight expresses, such as the eight-car 'Tees-Tyne Pullman' (made up of modified Hornby and Bachmann cars - yes, I know the Mk.1 cars only appeared after LB Station was razed to the ground, but Rule 1 applies). 

 

But................

 

 

At already a pound and a quarter, this (incomplete) Pro-Scale A4 takes 14 bogies (at least a third kit-built) in its stride. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

A most-interesting subject of late; that of 'scale' haulage. My thanks to all contributors.

 

As mentioned, I apply no mathematical principles, just 'weight & see!'.

 

One thing I did note (purely by accident) a couple of years ago, when building two all-but-identical J6s, was that the one fitted with stainless steel tyres on its drivers slipped less on a heavy load than its sibling with nickel silver-tyred drivers. Both have Markits wheels (the latest Markits drivers now have stainless steel tyres). I assume it's something to do with the different coefficients of friction between the two metals, but that probably requires a formula to work out, so, please, count me out. 

 

Anyway, it's probably all irrelevant, because..............

 

 

 

I've got nothing which comes anywhere near close to the haulage capacity of this superb Accurascale Deltic! 

 

Yes, as with the Mk.1 Pullmans, it's anomalous running through LB (especially with the FS winged thistle), but so what? It's my trainset, and Geoff Haynes' weathering (based on pictures in the books on Deltics I've written) really brings NIMBUS to life. 

 

 

[Barry Ten]

This Lima Western has just two driven axles with Ultrascale wheels (not sure what they're made from) but it's got enough grunt

to shift seven Bachmann MK1s without difficulty.

 

 

It's got a CD motor in place of the Lima pancake, but other than that, it's the same transmission. I've had this model since 1980.

 

 

 

 

[stewartingram]

I'm probably going against the grain with this one, but so what - it works for me.

I have an original tender drive B17. It has been converted (though not quite finished) to a B2 with a Crownline kit (must have been in the mid-80s, I went to Crownline to pick it up whilst on a work training course in London).

It has a whitemetal (ie heavy) NE tender, and the usual Crownline etches & whitemetal details on the loco, but mechanically it is otherwise essentially a Hornby B17. The thing is, it is so quiet, and obviously powerful. I've not had the room to test it to the max for loads, but what I've seen is good. Slow speed is really good too. I'm keeping it as it is, no reason to change.

Also I use a home built PWM controller (Wireless World design from the 70s), which usually gives excellent very slow running with all locos (even a Triang X04 0-6-0), but with obvious 'chatter' from the gears on these crude toy chassis. The B2 does run a lot quieter though, than the other early B17 I have though; I've always put this down to the weight of the whitemetal tender body, which also gives extra sound insulation around the motor.

And I've never had the loco wheels lock up.....

[sandra]

Hello Tony,

 

There has been some discussion of locomotives with tender-drive. I don’t think anyone would advocate tender-drive today as it is a relatively crude way of powering a model loco.

 

However I think there may be some interest in one of the locos I found in a drawer when I acquired Retford.This is a very old Hornby A4, 4903 Peregrine and she is here hauling the down Tees-Tyne Pullman. The locomotive is a Hornby tender-drive model which has been converted

to EM gauge but using the original Hornby tender drive unit and the original wheels, four of which have traction tyres.The surprisingly thing is that the loco is actually a very good runner, it has no problem hauling this train which consists of 8 metal coaches, it will go down to a walking pace and yet also reach a scale 138 mph. What does give it away as a tender-drive loco is the exaggerated movement of the tender which fairly bounces around at speed and which would be unacceptable in a scale model.

 

However I must say I used to have an Airfix tender-drive Fowler 4F and I must say that this was one of the quietest and smoothest locomotives I ever had.

 

Sandra

[JamieR4489]

I've just finished my C2 so I thought I'd post some photos here.

 

The loco started off as a K's C1 I bought already built with the intention right from the start of converting it to a small-boilered version. The new cab, boiler and tender are all 3D prints which I did the CADs for and had printed by Hexa-Cubed. The gearbox and motor (X04 with K's gears I think) have been replaced by High Level Kits examples meaning it's now a very smooth runner also helped by tender pick-ups and a flywheel to get over my insulfrog track. The lining is HMRS on the tender and boiler bands and Humbrol enamels through a bow pen everywhere else. This explains the difference in shade picked up by my phone's camera but to the naked eye the difference is a lot more subtle. I've deliberately left the loco in ex-works condition.

 

 

Regards,

 

Jamie

[Tony Wright]

15 hours ago, JamieR4489 said:

I've just finished my C2 so I thought I'd post some photos here.

 

The loco started off as a K's C1 I bought already built with the intention right from the start of converting it to a small-boilered version. The new cab, boiler and tender are all 3D prints which I did the CADs for and had printed by Hexa-Cubed. The gearbox and motor (X04 with K's gears I think) have been replaced by High Level Kits examples meaning it's now a very smooth runner also helped by tender pick-ups and a flywheel to get over my insulfrog track. The lining is HMRS on the tender and boiler bands and Humbrol enamels through a bow pen everywhere else. This explains the difference in shade picked up by my phone's camera but to the naked eye the difference is a lot more subtle. I've deliberately left the loco in ex-works condition.

 

 

Regards,

 

Jamie

Good afternoon Jamie,

 

No. 3254 is a popular choice for a Klondike. You've made a very nice job of yours...........

 

I built a DJH kit of one for use on Grantham, but it saw running-in service on Little Bytham first. 

 

 

 

And was used over the LNER weekend four years ago. 

 

It's now owned by one of the Grantham team.

 

And, I built another 3254 for Jesse Sim..........

 

 

 

 

Which was painted (as was the first one) by Geoff Haynes (you're far more self-reliant). 

 

 

It, too, was run-in on LB before being shipped off to Australia.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[Barry Ten]

Thiose C2s are very handsome locomotives.

 

For my sins, I've been messing around with a J72 chassis. I picked up an assembled, but unmotorised, Comet J72 chassis and Mainline body from ebay for not too much money. Since I have a J72 of my own which is no longer running well (it was a split-chassis model) I thought it would be a good way to get it working again. Even if the chassis proved a dud, at least I'd have myself a set of wheels!

 

The chassis turned out to be something of a puzzle. It looks to have been built reasonably square but for some reason the middle bearings were loose on the axles, not soldered to the frames at all. And the bearing holes had been opened up over-size, so there was a lot of scope for the middle axle to slop around at odd angles to the other two. I'm not sure why this was considered a good idea but it didn't strike me as a recipe for good running, and in case there was still a definite tight spot when rolling the chassis.  Hence, I removed the wheels, soldered in the middle bearings as parallel as I could, given the inherent uncertainty, and then found it wouldn't run at all. I then had to unsolder the coupling rods and broach out the holes a bit more, until I had a free-running 0-6-0. I'm guessing that the slop in the middle axle was enough to compensate for the coupling rods being not quite correct for the wheelbase. Normally with a Comet chassis everything needs only minor clearance to run well but I've no idea what shennanigans went on during the assembly.

 

The other issue is that the brake shoes have been fitted quite close to the frames, which is a little odd. I might unsolder and refit them, or just see how they much or little they bother me when the model is finished.

 

I now have to have a rummage through my motor/gearbox stash to see if there is something which will suit.

 

 

 

Edited August 23, 2022 by Barry Ten
typos

[JamieR4489]

24 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon Jamie,

 

No. 3254 is a popular choice for a Klondike. You've made a very nice job of yours...........

Good afternoon Tony,

 

Thank you very much. There were only a couple of C2s left in my target era of summer 1938 and 3254 was the only one I could find photos of from the late '30s showing both sides. Additionally, it had to be a loco from the last batch because of using the C1 chassis with the square cartazzi frames.

 

Regards,

 

Jamie

[t-b-g]

This may reveal me as being a bit shallow but if I was modelling a C2 in LNER days, I would have built 3254 because it used 4 consecutive numbers from the transfer sheet.

 

My "rule" was that if there was a member of the class that allowed me to do that, then I did. From memory my K2 was 4635 and my J6 was 3542. My Nu-Cast Sentinel shunter was easy as No 21.

 

Malcolm Crawley trumped me magnificently by producing D20 No 1234 and a NER 0-6-0 (J21 I think) No 432.

[jwealleans]

3254 is now in my care and has just been joined by 3255, formerly of Hitchin.

 

 

It's had a bit of cleaning and patching up since this picture and will make its show debut at Fareham in October.

 

 

 

Edited August 23, 2022 by jwealleans

[Barry Ten]

31 minutes ago, jwealleans said:

3254 is now in my care and has just been joined by 3255, formerly of Hitchin.

 

 

 

It's had a bit of cleaning and patching up sice this picture and will make its show debut at Fareham in October.

 

 

 

 

Dave Stone and I will be there with Dave's 7mm Sherton Abbas. I look forward to saying hello.

[Tony Wright]

34 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

This may reveal me as being a bit shallow but if I was modelling a C2 in LNER days, I would have built 3254 because it used 4 consecutive numbers from the transfer sheet.

 

My "rule" was that if there was a member of the class that allowed me to do that, then I did. From memory my K2 was 4635 and my J6 was 3542. My Nu-Cast Sentinel shunter was easy as No 21.

 

Malcolm Crawley trumped me magnificently by producing D20 No 1234 and a NER 0-6-0 (J21 I think) No 432.

I've never thought in that way Tony, and I'm often 'shallow'. 

 

On 'fudging' together a 'Jubilee' (many, many years ago), I thought of making it into DE ROBECK (the longest consecutive number?), and a mate once made a model of 4F 44444! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Compound2632]

57 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

On 'fudging' together a 'Jubilee' (many, many years ago), I thought of making it into DE ROBECK (the longest consecutive number?)

 

Has to be, though that doesn't stop some:

 

 

[Embedded link.]