knobhead Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Gentlemen! Am I right in thinking that the trailing wheel should be fixed, not in a pony truck? Regards, Stefan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold tomparryharry Posted January 23, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 23, 2014 Hi Stefan, What body do you propose? Ian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
knobhead Posted January 23, 2014 Author Share Posted January 23, 2014 Hi Ian, I'm using the Airfix 61XX body with some bits from the Dapol kit. Buffers, whistles, safety valve cover, chimney and bogie- trailing wheels from Gibson. If these ingredients will add up to a nice looking and running County tank remains to be seen. http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/81199-gwr-county-tank/ Regards, Stefan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Sidecar Racer Posted January 25, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 25, 2014 Just as a insight for you Stefan , the County Tank is actually bigger than a 61 xx . This photo shows a an Wills/ SE Finecast 61xx body at the bottom and the original Cadman / M&L County kit . Hope this is of interest / help . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium melmerby Posted January 25, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 25, 2014 Just as a insight for you Stefan , the County Tank is actually bigger than a 61 xx . This photo shows a an Wills/ SE Finecast 61xx body at the bottom and the original Cadman / M&L County kit . DSCN1691 (800 x 600).jpg Hope this is of interest / help . If you look at the dimensions of each type, the most obvious visual difference is the boiler pitch. It is 8' 6" on a 2221 and 7' 11 3/4" on a 61XX (with a corresponding difference in overall height.) Other dimensions are not too far out e.g length over buffers 2221 = 41' 4", 61XX = 41' 0" Wheelbase 2221 = 32' 0", 61XX = 31' 9". (from front carry wheel to rear carry wheel.) Keith EDIT: I propose making one of these using a die-cast 61XX body (GraFar?) from which the useless 2-6-2 chassis was dumped! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Sidecar Racer Posted January 25, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 25, 2014 If you look at the dimensions of each type, the most obvious visual difference is the boiler pitch. It is 8' 6" on a 2221 and 7' 11 3/4" on a 61XX (with a corresponding difference in overall height.) Other dimensions are not too far out e.g length over buffers 2221 = 41' 4", 61XX = 41' 0" Wheelbase 2221 = 32' 0", 61XX = 31' 9". (from front carry wheel to rear carry wheel.) Keith EDIT: I propose making one of these using a die-cast 61XX body (GraFar?) from which the useless 2-6-2 chassis was dumped! I dont disagree with your comments , but putting the two side by side does show up the difference , also i think that photo seems to over emphasise things for some reason . Good luck with your model . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold tomparryharry Posted January 25, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 25, 2014 Just as a insight for you Stefan , the County Tank is actually bigger than a 61 xx . This photo shows a an Wills/ SE Finecast 61xx body at the bottom and the original Cadman / M&L County kit . DSCN1691 (800 x 600).jpg Hope this is of interest / help . I notice that your M&L county & 61xx are pretty much on a par from the chimney to the cab backsheet. Would I be correct in thinking the major differences are with the bunker & front footplating? Ian. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
knobhead Posted January 25, 2014 Author Share Posted January 25, 2014 I appreciate all info on the subject! My approach to the County tank starts with the Hornby County chassis, the driving wheels and cylinders are what they are and I'll just try to match the rest to the prototype photo. I'm shooting for the overall look, not individual measurements. Regards, Stefan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach bogie Posted January 25, 2014 Share Posted January 25, 2014 I am lucky enough to have a scratch built County tank with the straight framing as no kit has covered this variant (built in a deal in exchange for me building a couple of Dreadnoughts). Initially it had a radial rear axle which was fine through everything but a Peco double slip. The chassis was tested minus motor and all was fine. However under its own power the forces exerted was enough to throw the rear wheels off, not just on Peco slips but also the sharper side of a curved point.There was minimal sideplay in the drivers so nothing could be done there. The narrow radius was too much for it. Now it has a bogie as per all my big prairies and no challenges at all. If you have any curves less than 3ft, I would suggest testing the chassis under its own power before commiting too far through the build. I'll add a pic when daylight allows. I agree with Sidecar racer, the County Tank is massive compared to a big prairie. Mike Wiltshire Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
knobhead Posted January 25, 2014 Author Share Posted January 25, 2014 Sure, the County is different from the 61XX, but I'm not exactly using the Airfix body as it left the factory. Regards, Stefan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Sidecar Racer Posted January 25, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 25, 2014 I notice that your M&L county & 61xx are pretty much on a par from the chimney to the cab backsheet. Would I be correct in thinking the major differences are with the bunker & front footplating? Ian. That seems to be it , the tanks are a bit longet too . I am lucky enough to have a scratch built County tank with the straight framing as no kit has covered this variant (built in a deal in exchange for me building a couple of Dreadnoughts). Initially it had a radial rear axle which was fine through everything but a Peco double slip. The chassis was tested minus motor and all was fine. However under its own power the forces exerted was enough to throw the rear wheels off, not just on Peco slips but also the sharper side of a curved point.There was minimal sideplay in the drivers so nothing could be done there. The narrow radius was too much for it. Now it has a bogie as per all my big prairies and no challenges at all. If you have any curves less than 3ft, I would suggest testing the chassis under its own power before commiting too far through the build. I'll add a pic when daylight allows. I agree with Sidecar racer, the County Tank is massive compared to a big prairie. Mike Wiltshire Going to have to disagree there Mike , my kit had the two options for the front footplate , curved or straight , I went for the straight as something a bit different . I do however completly agree with the curve handling problem , I think I will have to re-engineer mine to a pivoting rear truck ( somehow ) . Another problem area on mine is keeping the front bogie on the track , it's very light and sensative to sudden changes . The build thread for mine is here if anyone is interested . http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/20567-sidecar-racers-platform/page-2 It starts on the second post page two . Sure, the County is different from the 61XX, but I'm not exactly using the Airfix body as it left the factory. Regards, Stefan At the end of the day ss long as you like what you built thats all that matters , most of the differences are not the end of the world . If you have the Russell books of the GWR locos there are scale drawings in Volume two . Your model is looking very good and I think you are well on the way to producing a very passable loco , I am by no means a nit-picker with my work and as long as the thing looks like whay I'm trying to achieve thats my job done . Please keep us up to date with this build as I'm enjoying it so far . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium melmerby Posted January 25, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 25, 2014 Good luck with your model . If it ever gets finished it won't be overly accurate as there isn't a lot you can do with a die-cast body, which in itself isn't particularly well detailed. No doubt a RTR will appear before it's done! Keith Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
knobhead Posted January 25, 2014 Author Share Posted January 25, 2014 Had a look at your County-build, Sidecar Racer. I liked it! My project will never match an etched-kit, but your pictures of the etches and the loco itself will be very useful. Regards, Stefan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach bogie Posted January 26, 2014 Share Posted January 26, 2014 Going to have to disagree there Mike , my kit had the two options for the front footplate , curved or straight , I went for the straight as something a bit different . That is seriously irritating to learn. Many years ago Jackson Evans had an unbuilt kit on sale, and I was told only the curved running plate was covered. I never bother since. I had a second chance of one when my local model shop of the time, Transport Treasures, had an unbuilt one, complete with wheels and motor and at a very reasonable price, as a commission sale, and remembering the Jackson Evans comment did not buy it. Apologies for misleading anyone, and thanks for the info Mike Wiltshire Here is mine against a Wills big Prairie. The County tanks really are that big. Mine is exact to the plans from the Railway Modeler GWR plans book. And what is a County tank doing in Westbury? 2221 was allocated to Trowbridge for a time. They became well travelled, especially towards the ends of their careers. 2231 was photographed working into Banbury several times in its last years. MW Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium melmerby Posted January 26, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 26, 2014 That is seriously irritating to learn. Many years ago Jackson Evans had an unbuilt kit on sale, and I was told only the curved running plate was covered. I never bother since. I had a second chance of one when my local model shop of the time, Transport Treasures, had an unbuilt one, complete with wheels and motor and at a very reasonable price, as a commission sale, and remembering the Jackson Evans comment did not buy it. Apologies for misleading anyone, and thanks for the info Mike Wiltshire DSCF2571.JPG Here is mine against a Wills big Prairie. The County tanks really are that big. Mine is exact to the plans from the Railway Modeler GWR plans book. And what is a County tank doing in Westbury? 2221 was allocated to Trowbridge for a time. They became well travelled, especially towards the ends of their careers. 2231 was photographed working into Banbury several times in its last years. MW The much higher boiler pitch and large smokebox saddle really shows in that shot as does the taller bunker. They were just over 13' 2" tall over the cabs and had 19T on the leading driver. They were red route classified. Keith Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted January 26, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 26, 2014 The much higher boiler pitch and large smokebox saddle really shows in that shot as does the taller bunker. They were just over 13' 2" tall over the cabs and had 19T on the leading driver. They were red route classified. Keith And were generally disliked (intensely) by Enginemen - the subject of much complaint at Old Oak Common. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Sidecar Racer Posted January 26, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 26, 2014 And were generally disliked (intensely) by Enginemen - the subject of much complaint at Old Oak Common. Which might explain there dispersal round the system including forays into deepest Devon . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium melmerby Posted January 26, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 26, 2014 And were generally disliked (intensely) by Enginemen - the subject of much complaint at Old Oak Common. The County 4-4-0 which they were a development of were know as " Churchward's Rough Riders" so with the extra weight of the water tanks, so high up, I would imagine they were less than pleasant to drive! Keith Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted January 26, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 26, 2014 Which might explain there dispersal round the system including forays into deepest Devon . Probably more due to the arrival of the 'tanner-omners' than anything else but probably also looking to see if there were any other uses for them plus working out their mileage. And from what I've been told they had an even worse reputation with Enginemen than the 4-4-0s! (even allowing for Old Oak being something of bolshie lot ). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
knobhead Posted January 26, 2014 Author Share Posted January 26, 2014 I promise to snap a photo, like the one Coach bogie posted: County tank vs. large Prairie, when I'm done with the County tank. Regards, Stefan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium melmerby Posted January 26, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 26, 2014 Probably more due to the arrival of the 'tanner-omners' than anything else but probably also looking to see if there were any other uses for them plus working out their mileage. And from what I've been told they had an even worse reputation with Enginemen than the 4-4-0s! (even allowing for Old Oak being something of bolshie lot ). Probably the large praries would do everything a "County" tank would do and were better on the track and more versatile as well. Those large wheels would be a bit of a hindrance on a twisty branch with limited speed potential. Keith Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold tomparryharry Posted January 26, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 26, 2014 Probably more due to the arrival of the 'tanner-omners' than anything else but probably also looking to see if there were any other uses for them plus working out their mileage. And from what I've been told they had an even worse reputation with Enginemen than the 4-4-0s! (even allowing for Old Oak being something of bolshie lot ). The boiler was a No4, probably the one boiler that no one really got on with. I expect things like wheels, boiler, etc, went back in the 'pool' for future use. Generally speaking, if a loco is running 'rough' it will normally steam well.... Even the BR version of the No4 boiler was not liked... Ian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium melmerby Posted January 26, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 26, 2014 The boiler was a No4, probably the one boiler that no one really got on with. I expect things like wheels, boiler, etc, went back in the 'pool' for future use. Generally speaking, if a loco is running 'rough' it will normally steam well.... Even the BR version of the No4 boiler was not liked... Ian According to RCTS only 2230 had a Standard No.4 (experimentally) all others had a No.2, the same as a 61XX. (Unless I am reading it wrong!) They also say about the No.4: "It was one of the most successful examples of standardisation, being used on over 750 locos of 7 different classes as well as some absorbed stock from Welsh Railways" Keith Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold tomparryharry Posted January 26, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 26, 2014 Sorry Keith, I'm wrong, you're right. I was indeed reading up on 2230. Ian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffalo Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 Am I right in thinking that the trailing wheel should be fixed, not in a pony truck? Apologies for the late response, Stefan. Holcroft, who was there at the time, records that the "...radial axlebox at the trailing end..." was "...much the same as..." that on No. 99. Of the latter, he said that the radial axlebox on No 99 became a standard part. So, it looks like the rear end is much the same as later 2-6-2Ts. On the rough riding and other unpopularity issues, he was very critical of both the tender and tank Counties. Of the tender engine, he mentions that the inside cylinder 4-4-0s gave a much smoother ride and called the Counties "...an assembly of standard parts for the sake of standardisation; it was the least successful of the Churchward designs and the first to disappear in time to come. Neither did the 'County Tank' have a long life, as the 2-6-2 tank was found to be a more generally useful type." It sounds like the engineer's view wasn't so different from that of the Old Oak enginemen. Nick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.