OO gauge Airfix City of Truro with Branchlines Chassis etc

[Jeff Smith]

Barry, I was actually referring to Horsetan's picture of City of Truro.....

[Barry Ten]

Barry, I was actually referring to Horsetan's picture of City of Truro.....

 

Ah, right!

[Jeff Smith]

Chris,

 

You are obviously building yours with a rigid chassis. As such all the weight will have to be on the main drivers with the bogie allowed freedom of movement per normal RTR practice, ie not weight bearing. Someone suggested you could allow the front of the tender to rest slightly on the loco rear but this has the danger of lifting all but the rear tender wheels off the track....so if you were to add pickups to the tender wheels, as I did, these would not be fully effective. My recommendation would be to cram as much weight as you can over the main drivers and in the tender. Put pickups on the main drivers and all 6 tender wheels and merely tow the tender. Fitting a 'loose' fallplate will improve the looks considerably but obviously has to accommodate whatever minimum radius you intend to use.

 

Building mine in P4 proved to be quite a problem - I had to remove a lot of plastic to get the wheels in and had to provide compensation. The rear axle is rigid with the motor attached. The front axle is on a beam with the bogie which itself has one pivoting axle. It was built, tested, and is now in a display cabinet so I cannot comment on hauling power etc. Minimum radius curve is probably about 4ft.

 

You are making splendid progress with yours and I'm sure you will be very pleased with the end result. By the way, in case you didn't already know, Modelmaster does the nameplates.

[Jeff Smith]

In the sample that I have, the instructions say the upper holes should be used if you are representing a Bird/Bulldog/Atbara, with scale 5'8" drivers. The lower holes should be used for the 6'8" Cities and Flowers. There was no correction slip in the kit, so possibly I have an early one.

This is going back a bit in my research but I believe I recall reading that the GWR used the same chassis for the smaller wheeled version, ie same wheel centreline. This resulted in a lowering of the whole body by 6 inches and the need to move the buffers up on the buffer beam. If this was the case I'm not sure why Branchlines would need two different holes unless to keep the body at the same level for both versions - this would however be inaccurate.

 

However Chris, yours and mine should be correct with the 6'8" drivers, assuming you used the correct holes.....

Edited June 11, 2014 by Jeff Smith

[bigbadbadge]

Thanks guys for the piccies and thanks Jeff for the useful tips, I may see if it will run round my sons layout but otherwise just a tester really to see if I could do it before going onto an LBSC D3 and SECR H class for my eventual New Romney layout that I have started to accumulate stock for (this is a while off though and I have been building a small southern region rural terminus layout to improve my skills before cracking on with the New Romney one).  Although I have several GWR locos now so I might build a small GWR layout at some point.

 

Thanks again

All the best

 

Chris

[Horsetan]

This is going back a bit in my research but I believe I recall reading that the GWR used the same chassis for the smaller wheeled version, ie same wheel centreline. This resulted in a lowering of the whole body by 6 inches and the need to move the buffers up on the buffer beam. If this was the case I'm not sure why Branchlines would need two different holes unless to keep the body at the same level for both versions - this would however be inaccurate.

 

However Chris, yours and mine should be correct with the 6'8" drivers, assuming you used the correct holes.....

 

Since the chassis is to being built using CSBs, I suppose the upper/lower hole problem becomes a little less critical. All interesting, nonetheless...

[Jeff Smith]

I'm not sure who is using Continuous Springy Beams but even with CSBs you still have to get the correct static ride height.  4-4-0s or 0-4-4s are notoriously difficult to set up.  To get the best performance you need to have weight on the bogie which means you have to have some allowance for vertical movement in all the axles, except in the case of using one rigid axle as the drive axle (as I did in this model).  RTR manufacturers usually get away with 'sloppy' chassis and in fact my P4 conversion of a Bachmann GWR 0-6-0 Pannier runs perfectly well using the original chassis.

[darrel]

You may wish to consider fitting the chassis under the model of city of truro that is with the latest great British locomotives magazine in newsagents now. It's a very good model based on the Bachmann model. Worth considering before building the Dapol kit.

[bigbadbadge]

Hi Darrel

Thanks for the tip have looked out for it but yet to see it, However would like to build it up as a kit.

 

Could anyone advise what is best to secure the outside cranks as they keep coming undone when testing.  I have soldered them and filed down smooth but I presume that the axle is not suitable to solder to.  Would I need to use Loctite instead? If so which one should I use.

 

Many thanks in advance

 

All the best
Chris
  

[Horsetan]

You may wish to consider fitting the chassis under the model of city of truro that is with the latest great British locomotives magazine in newsagents now. It's a very good model based on the Bachmann model.....

If you can live with the incorrect taper of the boiler, it's probably alright. The Airfix/Dapol boiler has the correct taper but is undersized - more of a Standard no.2 than a Standard no.4.

[cctransuk]

Hi Darrel

Thanks for the tip have looked out for it but yet to see it, However would like to build it up as a kit.

 

Could anyone advise what is best to secure the outside cranks as they keep coming undone when testing.  I have soldered them and filed down smooth but I presume that the axle is not suitable to solder to.  Would I need to use Loctite instead? If so which one should I use.

 

Many thanks in advance

 

All the best

Chris

  

 

Chris,

 

Try partially countersinking the face of the cranks and re-soldering. Filing flush pretty much removes all of the solder that you have applied; countersinking will allow some solder to remain to lock the crank to the axle when you file flush.

 

Make sure that the quartering and running clearances are spot on before soldering - if there is any binding the crank / axle joint will be under considerable strain.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[bigbadbadge]

Cheers John

 

I will give that a go, yes I have found that out have got them into position now and will see if they stay there if not will wip off and countersink.

 

Thanks again

 

Chris

[Barry Ten]

Hi Darrel

Thanks for the tip have looked out for it but yet to see it, However would like to build it up as a kit.

 

Could anyone advise what is best to secure the outside cranks as they keep coming undone when testing.  I have soldered them and filed down smooth but I presume that the axle is not suitable to solder to.  Would I need to use Loctite instead? If so which one should I use.

 

Many thanks in advance

 

All the best

Chris

  

 

I used some Loctite retainer and that's been fine ever since. Unfortunately the reference number has rubbed off the bottle I have it - a friend gave me some from his workshop - but it's the green coloured one. I doubt that it's critical which one you use, though.

[buffalo]

I used some Loctite retainer and that's been fine ever since. Unfortunately the reference number has rubbed off the bottle I have it - a friend gave me some from his workshop - but it's the green coloured one. I doubt that it's critical which one you use, though.

 

That would most probably be 601 or 603, the latter being a more recent introduction. Both are intended as shaft retainers and require only a small gap between parts. Not to be confused with the thread locking compounds, e.g. 243, which are blue in colour and much less suitable for this application.

 

Nick

Edited June 15, 2014 by buffalo

[bigbadbadge]

Thanks guys for the information.

 

All the best

 

Chris

[bigbadbadge]

Hi Folks

 

I am back, I had to take some time away for a while as had to build a Model VW Beetle replica of a mates car for his wedding present and had a deadline so concentrated solely on that for a while.  Now done I can spend some time on the CoT again (amongst my aircraft modelling too).

 

Anyway the sides added to the footplate

 

 

Wooden floor added to cab area, I had to add a replacement splasher in the cab after getting carried away thinning them out.

 

 

Buffer beam in place and etched splasher faces added, I have had to pack out the sand box faces on each front splasher.

 

 

Cab sides covered and extended as the kit ones are not long enough.

 

 

This is as far as I have come at the moment, I hope to do more at the weekend if I get time. 

 

Thanks for looking

All the best

Chris

[bigbadbadge]

Hi All

 

Bit more (slow) progress (I am also doing other projects which include a group build on another forum, a Bristol Blenheim 1, decorating and some 1:1 modelling on my '67 VW fastback).  I have managed to get most of the body done, just got to add some finishing touches before I paint it, still to add are lamp irons and wash out plugs, cab handrails and the beading around the cab side windows/openings.

 

I think I will model a Bird class loco.

 

Thanks for looking

 

All the best
Chris

 

 

[Izzy]

With regard to haulage capacity and using the tender weight to bear onto the rear of the loco to help improve it, I noticed a very good design for this in the latest MRJ (235) concerning the 2mm 4F, where the tender body pivots on the rear of the tender chassis thus allowing the chassis to keep all wheels on the track whilst the bodies weight bears on the back of the loco. Whether such a design concept could be retro-fitted to the loco is open to question since it requires a gap between the tender chassis and tender floor but might be worth considering.

 

Izzy

[bigbadbadge]

Thanks Izzy, I have the current MRJ so will look at the article, thanks for the heads up.

All the best
Chris

[DCB]

I like the idea of a floating tender chassis where the rear axle takes the tender body weight at the back and the front of the tender body rests on the loco chassis with the rest of the tender chassis just taking it's own weight.

I have several Airfix Truro kits but the smokebox looks too small for a Std 4 and maybe too big for a No2 and in all the photos and drawings I have seen the frames should drop down behind the rear bogie wheel and just beyond the steps, not over the rear bogie axle, and that stuidly enough really bugs me and has stopped various schemes for a bulldog or Dukedog in their tracks.

The ultimate haulage power solution might be a K's powered tender chassis with an additional shaft driving the loco wheels through a universal joint and suitable gearing.  City of Truro may have hauled light trains in her Ocean Mails days and final DNS duties but in preservation she has hauled 8 and more, I remember her slipping furiously at Bridegnorth in the 1980s and I think she took 7 up Sapperton Bank during the GWR 150 in 1985, I might be wrong memory fades.

[bigbadbadge]

Hi All,

 

Crikey has it been that long since my last post.  I am sorry about that, I have been distracted lately with work, family life and working on my classic car (lots of work on underside, steering and wheels) which has kept me busy for quite a while.

 

I have finally managed to snatch some time for this project again.  Loco almost ready for paint, added lamp Irons, couple of handrails, washout plugs and safety valve bits.

 

 

I have also finally managed to start on the Tender body, this is a Hornby item bought on Ebay and represents one of the later tenders used.  Coal load has been removed and false floor added and all else boxed in as necessary, also mounted to plasticard glued to the body.  Only used the frames from the Airfix Kit which includes steps and buffer beam.

 

Not sure what locomotive to do yet, looking at one of the Birds possibly as they served into BR days, does anyone know if they were left in their GWR colours and left somewhat scruffy or did any get shiny new BR paintwork ?

 

Thanks for looking

 

All the best

 

Chris

[mow]

I looked at this thread a few minutes ago, which reminded me about reading about C o T to Bird Conversions in The Airfix Magazine. 

 

A subsequent internet search took me back to another RM thread which mentioned a series of articles from 1967-8. 

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/69535-great-british-locomotives/page-45

Edited May 31, 2015 by mow

[Horsetan]

I looked at this thread a few minutes ago, which reminded me about reading about C o T to Bird Conversions in The Airfix Magazine. 

 

A subsequent internet search took me back to another RM thread which mentioned a series of articles from 1967-8. 

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/69535-great-british-locomotives/page-45

That included a conversion to the "Dukedog" class as well. Very ingenious.

[Barry Ten]

 

Not sure what locomotive to do yet, looking at one of the Birds possibly as they served into BR days, does anyone know if they were left in their GWR colours and left somewhat scruffy or did any get shiny new BR paintwork ?

 

Thanks for looking

 

All the best

 

Chris

 

There's a picture of 3445 Flamingo in 1947 (so just pre-BR) in Vol2 of Nock's history of the GWR 4-4-0s, but it doesn't seem to be carrying any lining or lettering on the tender.

 

One thing to keep in mind is those etched outer frames only work for the 4-4-0s with deeper frames, which excludes the City class, which had shallower frames until the ends of their lives. In terms of those with the same size drivers as the City, I think they suit the Flower class, whereas the Birds used the smaller driving wheels.

Edited June 2, 2015 by Barry Ten

[bigbadbadge]

Thanks guys for the kind comments and the info, much appreciated.

 

All the best

Chris