Wright writes.....

[Porcy Mane]

Status, whatever that might be, has got sweet f-all to do with anything. I didn't build any locos with friction-fit plastic wheels. I got to paint the damn things, which is something the builders did not have to concern themselves with. That is until their customers returned locos with broken motion, then they went back to Romfords pretty sharpish. I am what some might call the 'old school' and if it looks like sh*t, smells like sh*t, then it's sh*t.  Those friction-fit wheels too easily slipped their quartering while I was using a rag soaked in cellulose thinners to wipe paint off treads after spraying the chassis. It was a nerve-racking process and invariable left me carrying out some re-quartering and straightening of motion when testing the chassis afterwards. After rebuilding two sets of Walschearts I flatly refused to paint any more locos with plastic wheels.

 

When metal loco building was at it's peak in the 1970's and 80's and many people paid to have their locos built and painted, I could see the 'fashions' coming and going. Stephen Poole wheels, 30-to-1 and 40-to-1gear-sets, 5-pole motors etc etc. Not surprisingly plastic centre wheels with their sculptured spokes and wheel bosses took off like wildfire, but they were scaringly flexible and loose on their axles. Later on the news filtered through that the builders were returning to Romford wheels because of the come-backs from customers whose locos had "dissintegrated' while operating on the layout.  My annual throughput was around 280 coaches and goodness knows how many locos for kit manufacturers, pro builders, middle-men and private individuals. I simply related my experience and threw in "glass case" for good reason. If your experiences are different, feel free to state your case. I for one won't argue with your personal experiences. How could I?

 

That was then, this is now.

 

P

[Headstock]

A more definitive answer care of Mr Bradwell. All engines as built with the exception of 61149

 

12 engines had the type as fitted to V2s, 2 transferred from class A2/1

1012-37 riveted type

1038-39 non standard tanks on standard bodies.

1040 onwards had buffers added at the front

61350-9 61400-9 riveted

61314 onwards square frames

61400-9 angled ends to front buffer beam

61352/3/4/7 snap head rivets

61165 and then 61149 had the same low front tender from a K3

coal weighing tenders

 

The Bachmann tender only covers a limited number of locomotives. The Hornby tender is the most common type.

 

Edited just to clarify, all tenders had steam braking and did not require a vac reservoir.

Edited February 19, 2016 by Headstock

[Headstock]

Mayflower carries the common welded type of tender as featured on the Hornby model. It has cut outs to the frame edges as originally fitted prior to 61314. The coping plate is forwards of the dome, thus in the wrong location for the LNER green livery, The alteration in the location of the plate was carried out in the late fifties.

[Porcy Mane]

A more definitive answer care of Mr Bradwell. All engines as built with the exception of 61149

 

I don't think Mr B included this squared off dome in his variations. I've often wondered if it was a repair due to corrosion?

61036 by Peter, on Flickr

 

P

[Headstock]

The squared of dome seems to be an original feature, my V2 60878 had a squared of dome in the period modelled, but the rear coping plate still intersected it  at this date. It is another little thing to check for if you can find a decent photo. Likewise my B1 61381, had an extra filler cap into which a brickett could be dropped for water softening. Excellent photo by the way, it demonstrates why brass is the best material for tenders and cabs.

 

Extra note

 

When I was modelling this, I noticed that there is a ring on the top of the dome that is visible in your photo. I wondered at the time whether this was a lid that could be opened? The round topped domes do not have external access as far as I an aware.

Edited February 19, 2016 by Headstock

[Porcy Mane]

The squared of dome seems to be an original feature, my V2 60878 had a squared of dome in the period modelled, but the rear coping plate still intersected it  at this date. It is another little thing to check for if you can find a decent photo. Likewise my B1 61381, had an extra filler cap into which a brickett could be dropped for water softening. Excellent photo by the way, it demonstrates why brass is the best material for tenders and cabs.

 

Bit like this then.

 

Extra note

 

When I was modelling this, I noticed that there is a ring on the top of the dome that is visible in your photo. I wondered at the time whether this was a lid that could be opened? The round topped domes do not have external access as far as I an aware.

Looking at pictures that bracket seems quite common on locos.

62005 had it in 1965.

Class K1 62005. Filey (Butlins Camp). 6 March 1965 by ricsrailpics, on Flickr

and retains it in preservation. It seem to match up with a "hasp" on the filler lid when the lid is open. I've asked a few that should know it's purpose but nobody so far has come up with an explanation.

 

P

Edited February 19, 2016 by Porcy Mane

[Headstock]

Bit like this then.

B1-Tdr-RH-EditSm.jpg

 

Looking at pictures that bracket seems quite common on locos.

62005 had it in 1965.

Class K1 62005. Filey (Butlins Camp). 6 March 1965 by ricsrailpics, on Flickr

and retains it in preservation. It seem to match up with a "hasp" on the filler lid when the lid is open. I've askes a few but nobody so far has come up with an explanation.

 

P

 

Yes, yes and more, perhaps it was for securing the filler cap if required?

[55F]

Hello Tony

 

I placed the post below on the forum earlier today and was advised by another Forum Member that you were the best man to help me with the problem.........I hope that is the case and if so, thank you for your trouble

 

I have a Bachmann A1.....Tornado, on the tender of which the plastic spindle [?] which connects the tender to the metal link on the locomotive has broken.......don't ask how....I haven't a clue and am not in the habit of mistreating models!

 

My first attempt at a repair has failed [i used a piece of plastic spindle found in the 'odds and ends box', cut  to size].  The main problem being that the glue [tried plastic weld and then Devcon 5 minute rpoxy] did not set rigid and therefore failed. A secondary problem being the necessarily small diameter of the plastic.

 

Obviously I could try and obtain a replacement tender chassis but that is my last resort.

 

Any advice will be appreciated.

 

55F

[micklner]

Hello Tony

 

I placed the post below on the forum earlier today and was advised by another Forum Member that you were the best man to help me with the problem.........I hope that is the case and if so, thank you for your trouble

 

I have a Bachmann A1.....Tornado, on the tender of which the plastic spindle [?] which connects the tender to the metal link on the locomotive has broken.......don't ask how....I haven't a clue and am not in the habit of mistreating models!

 

My first attempt at a repair has failed [i used a piece of plastic spindle found in the 'odds and ends box', cut  to size].  The main problem being that the glue [tried plastic weld and then Devcon 5 minute rpoxy] did not set rigid and therefore failed. A secondary problem being the necessarily small diameter of the plastic.

 

Obviously I could try and obtain a replacement tender chassis but that is my last resort.

 

Any advice will be appreciated.

 

55F

 

Use a piece of Brass rod of correct size, drill with correct size drill  through the chassis and superglue the rod in. Or use a screw of the correct size screwed from the top downwards , check that there is enough room for the screw head when fitted before trying.

[micklner]

Status, whatever that might be, has got sweet f-all to do with anything. I didn't build any locos with friction-fit plastic wheels. I got to paint the damn things, which is something the builders did not have to concern themselves with. That is until their customers returned locos with broken motion, then they went back to Romfords pretty sharpish. I am what some might call the 'old school' and if it looks like sh*t, smells like sh*t, then it's sh*t.  Those friction-fit wheels too easily slipped their quartering while I was using a rag soaked in cellulose thinners to wipe paint off treads after spraying the chassis. It was a nerve-racking process and invariable left me carrying out some re-quartering and straightening of motion when testing the chassis afterwards. After rebuilding two sets of Walschearts I flatly refused to paint any more locos with plastic wheels.

 

When metal loco building was at it's peak in the 1970's and 80's and many people paid to have their locos built and painted, I could see the 'fashions' coming and going. Stephen Poole wheels, 30-to-1 and 40-to-1gear-sets, 5-pole motors etc etc. Not surprisingly plastic centre wheels with their sculptured spokes and wheel bosses took off like wildfire, but they were scaringly flexible and loose on their axles. Later on the news filtered through that the builders were returning to Romford wheels because of the come-backs from customers whose locos had "dissintegrated' while operating on the layout.  My annual throughput was around 280 coaches and goodness knows how many locos for kit manufacturers, pro builders, middle-men and private individuals. I simply related my experience and threw in "glass case" for good reason. If your experiences are different, feel free to state your case. I for one won't argue with your personal experiences. How could I?

 

Cellulose thinners and plastic aren't the best of friends , no wonder wheels came loose, the fumes alone will melt plastic.

 

The paint would have  soaked into the plastic around the axle area of the wheel and attacked the plastic and caused the failure. Not a good choice of paint for plastic wheels.

Edited February 19, 2016 by micklner

[polybear]

24-hour epoxy sets rock-hard, whilst the fast setting stuff often doesn't for some reason (there was a thread in the last few days on this very subject).  Does the pin have to be plastic - could you drill a hole where the pin was and fit a t-shaped metal pin (e.g. cut-down nail, or similar?) thru' the hole, secured using 24 hour epoxy?  Also, I'd suggest buying the epoxy from a source that would sell quite a lot of it - it does age with time.

 

HTH

Brian

 

Edit:  Beaten to it by Micklner 

Edited February 19, 2016 by polybear

[55F]

Thank you micklner.

[Tony Wright]

Hello Tony

 

I placed the post below on the forum earlier today and was advised by another Forum Member that you were the best man to help me with the problem.........I hope that is the case and if so, thank you for your trouble

 

I have a Bachmann A1.....Tornado, on the tender of which the plastic spindle [?] which connects the tender to the metal link on the locomotive has broken.......don't ask how....I haven't a clue and am not in the habit of mistreating models!

 

My first attempt at a repair has failed [i used a piece of plastic spindle found in the 'odds and ends box', cut  to size].  The main problem being that the glue [tried plastic weld and then Devcon 5 minute rpoxy] did not set rigid and therefore failed. A secondary problem being the necessarily small diameter of the plastic.

 

Obviously I could try and obtain a replacement tender chassis but that is my last resort.

 

Any advice will be appreciated.

 

55F

Good evening the shed after Huddersfield. 

 

These broken tender spindles on Bachmann locos are not uncommon. They are the very fag to couple up as well. 

 

Micklner has answered your question and I can only add a little. I cut off the stump and drill a small hole in its place, tapping this 10BA. I then screw a 10BA bolt in, anchored with viscus superglue. When this is thoroughly set, I cut of the head of the bolt with Xurons, to the length required, cleaning it up afterwards with a file. Check than the cutting has not sheared the glue (it should still be stable) and there you go. 

 

Alternatively, I dispense with Bachmann's loco-tender coupling and make my own from nickel silver wire. 

 

I hope this helps.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

I don't know whether anyone has used a Markits gearbox. I have, but it was to test a prototype. 

 

 

I've just put this one together and it works superbly. Because the motor-fixing screws are to the side, adjustment of mesh is an absolute doddle. Mark Arscott is aware that on some of the frets, the lines are not completely etched through where they should be. Two minutes' work with a piercing saw saw to this. 

 

It's going inside a P2, so it's just the job. 

[46256]

Tony since the demise of portescap have used products from comet...high level and markits respectively....I'm not sure which is my favoured make....i have received excellent service from all three manufacturers.....all the gearboxes motor combinations have worked well ....having got over the initial hurdle of being assembled by me.....the only type not yet attempted is the latest comet type and that is on the grounds of cost....not that it wouldn't be worth it...especially as a portescap if still produced would I'm sure be far more pennies...thank you for keeping the " hands on " part of our wonderful hobby being discussed by the excllent modellers who contribute to this post.....

 

 

Best wishes Brian..

[Theakerr]

Headstock said  "Mayflower carries the common welded type of tender as featured on the Hornby model. It has cut outs to the frame edges as originally fitted prior to 61314. The coping plate is forwards of the dome, thus in the wrong location for the LNER green livery, The alteration in the location of the plate was carried out in the late fifties."  Then. If I understand you correctly, the layout shown in Porcy Mane's picture would be correct for Mayflower circa 1958.  I don't mean to be argumentative because I really appreciate Headstocks information but last night when going through all my books I did come across a picture of a B1 (and a V2) that looked as though it had this air/vacuum tank.  Anyway, based on the feedback the tanks will be coming off all my B1's.  Again many thanks Headstock for your help.

[55F]

Thank you Tony and Polybear for your time and trouble.  I'm very grateful.

[46256]

Whilst on the subject of hands on...currently building a DJH big Bertha....in keeping with my bham based layout..when completed she will trundle through..ex works from Derby to her workplace on the lickey....she will be in ex works condition...lined BR black.

 

Her 010 0 wheelbase has exposed some shortcomings in my fiddle yard approach point work currently being worked on...I have a number of Bachmann and Hornby 9 fs ...the latter a rebuilt crosti..railroad chassis with a golden arrow resin body...now replicated by Hornby themselves...I digress

 

The DJH kit is , and I'm sure this will be confirmed an early example of their work. I have made later types from this range and I can spot the development. The chassis consists of two sturdy brass frames...the squareness courtesy of two screwed in frame spacers. In any event chassis assembled, powered by a high level kits 54/ 1 high flier and big mashima motor....runs very nicely on my test bed.

 

My layout has minimum radii based on the peco code 75 curved point....most of my locos both RTR and home built travel through without incident...the Bertha chassis .and my request for advice..to give the best flexibility I have reduced the bearings on all five axles.....my issue is with the coupling rods. They are single etch two sets of three crank pin holes...using the centre crank pin as a fulcrum....i am thinking of two options using the present rods soldering them onto a nickel silver rear...then separating them in a way that creates a middle o60....with the front and rear rods effectively 040 s thus giving the front and rear axles more flexibility....the other alternatives are buying Alan Gibson wd rods... The same wheelbase.......compensating the chassis....or taking holy orders in a secluded monastery in the Alps....sorry to go on, but if you can't air your problems with fellow modelling nuts..sorry enthusiasts....

[46256]

Just read my last post..the point being made about Hornby and Bachmann 9f chassis was the built in ...flexibility ...on the axles and coupling rods....all of which allows them to sail through my point work whilst Bertha ...bless her....does her best to resemble a beached whale

[davefrk]

I don't know whether anyone has used a Markits gearbox. I have, but it was to test a prototype. 

 

Markits gearbox.jpg

 

I've just put this one together and it works superbly. Because the motor-fixing screws are to the side, adjustment of mesh is an absolute doddle. Mark Arscott is aware that on some of the frets, the lines are not completely etched through where they should be. Two minutes' work with a piercing saw saw to this. 

 

It's going inside a P2, so it's just the job. 

 

Yes Tony they are good especially with a Mashima can motor, I've still got some test etches I was trying out for Markits years ago. One was for a 9F and curved round in a 'C' shape with, I think, three layshafts, it was a bit noisy so was resigned. My Fairburn tank you've seen on Retford has one of the straight up and down ones and is great runner combined with the CSB suspension.

I have fitted them in a few big heavy locos but still use Highlevel boxes for the small/medium stuff.

 

Dave Franks.

[Headstock]

Headstock said  "Mayflower carries the common welded type of tender as featured on the Hornby model. It has cut outs to the frame edges as originally fitted prior to 61314. The coping plate is forwards of the dome, thus in the wrong location for the LNER green livery, The alteration in the location of the plate was carried out in the late fifties."  Then. If I understand you correctly, the layout shown in Porcy Mane's picture would be correct for Mayflower circa 1958.  I don't mean to be argumentative because I really appreciate Headstocks information but last night when going through all my books I did come across a picture of a B1 (and a V2) that looked as though it had this air/vacuum tank.  Anyway, based on the feedback the tanks will be coming off all my B1's.  Again many thanks Headstock for your help.

 

I would have to look at a photo of 61379 in 1958 to confirm. The original information you have quoted is in regard to the preserved locomotive, now named Mayflower. I could not tell you exactly when the rear bulkhead was moved on 61379, but it would be after 1957. Unlike the B1 the V2 locomotives had vacuum braking, so they would have carried the cylinder on the tender. Beware of the Bachmann tender as this represents the riveted type. The riveted tenders where not flush sided. They had a distinct coping plate that stood proud of the sides. Looking at some images of 61379 (not clear of the date) the tender is defiantly a welded type, however I can not tell if the frames are straight or scalloped. If I find out more definitive info I shall post.

Edited February 19, 2016 by Headstock

[raymw]

As I mentioned on this thread a year or so ago, some folk aren't yet mature enough to wear long trousers.

[AndyID]

As I mentioned on this thread a year or so ago, some folk aren't yet mature enough to wear long trousers.

 

Or smoke, particularly in the presence of cellulose thinners

[jrg1]

Iain Rice's book on Chassis Construction gives good advice on coupling rods.  

[Craigw]

Of course Micklner should report it. That's far better than getting into a pointless whizzing match. It's the Mods' reponsibility to deal with situations like this.

Andy, I also said not to reply.

 

just leave it sit. I know who comes out of it better and so do you

 

Craigw