Drawings and parts for classes 81 to 84 and 86 to 89

[298]

^^^what Clive said, I started doing them about 20 years ago along the lines of the Practical Model Railways articles (picked up more than one Triangle class 81 body for £1 a pop), and although they seemed ok at the time, the 84 and 85s still showed their class 86 parentage and when the Bachmann 85 came out, I realised that such conversions would need a lot more effort to put right to modern standards.

 

I'm surprised by the protection over the Cross-Arm pan, the only ones known to be left in the UK are on the ACLG locos.

[ClikC]

We have had the 4mm cross arm pantograph kit for some time now at £9. It's currently the only AC one we do but I am working on the Stone-Faiveley single arm. All the others are DC diamond frame pans. We do have them all in 7mm scale as well now but the website pictures are 4mm.

 

Expect an order Michael!

 

I'm surprised by the protection over the Cross-Arm pan, the only ones known to be left in the UK are on the ACLG locos.

 

I find it a little sad if I’m honest. What with the collapse of Marconi (GEC) in 2006, it's subsequent breakup and selling off, in all likelihood the drawings of the pantograph have been lost forever. Some small slice of railway history, although admittedly a dead-end, gone. In the scientific community, it's often the failed experiments, the negative results which in many respects are more valuable than the more widely publicised successful experiments, because negative results tell you where not to look.

 

But, at least some exist in preservation.

 

Regards

 

Matt

[60800]

I was thinking along the lines of using the 86 cab as a base to chop bits out of and reshape, but if there's nothing else useful on an 86 body, I may as well just scratchbuild everything. I'm tempted to get the window frames, grilles, jumper boxes, roof sections, chassis and body sides laser cut by York model making. Make it more of a jigsaw than a scratchbuild

 

Cheers,

60800

[Gordon H]

We have had the 4mm cross arm pantograph kit for some time now at £9.

 

Slightly confused now...

If the original cross-arm drawings are not available, what dimensions were used for the kit version?

[298]

Slightly confused now...

If the original cross-arm drawings are not available, what dimensions were used for the kit version?

Standing on the roof with a tape measure...?

[GRUNFOS]

Standing on the roof with a tape measure...?

Hope the power was off!

[Horsetan]

..... you will find the GEC (AEI) Crossed-arm Pantograph (As fitted to 82 008 and 83 012) to be particularly irksome to model. I've had the pleasure of standing on top of the 83 a few years ago (courtesy of the AC locomotive group), with tape measure in hand, but I require a second visit to obtain some key dimensions I am missing.

 

I've recently pursued Serco RailData who hold the RSSB's British Rail Board's Drawings, and after a lengthy e-mail correspondence on the subject of the GEC pan, concluded that they have a manual for one, but due to it being 3rd party intellectual property, they are not allowed to give out copies to members of the public. Things seem to be heading the same way with the Stone-Faiveley type AMBR pan, so at this stage I'm not even going to enquire about the Brecknell Willis highspeed and low speed pans.

 

If find the lack of real hard data, not so much the lack of RTR models, or various OLE pieces to be the main stumbling block for modelling AC locomotives.

 

Some more pans here

[Michael Edge]

Slightly confused now...

If the original cross-arm drawings are not available, what dimensions were used for the kit version?

No, I didn't measure this one at Barrow Hill, although I took some photos we weren't particularly interested in pans at that time. Someone (can't remember who) supplied some dimensions, the rest was worked out from photographs and geometry. I don't know if ours is absolutely accurate but it does work very well.

Does anyone know the reason for the development of this type of pantograph? or for that matter why simple diamond frame designs were not used on AC locos in this country?

[ClikC]

 

Some more pans here

 

The old-dalby site is a well-thumbed book mark of mine. Luckily my interest in Pantographs from a modelling point of view it's limited to only 3 types; Stone-Faiveley type AMBR and its Mark 1 'bicycle frame' variant, and the GEC (AEI) Crossed-Arm Pantograph. Although, the Brecknell Willis High and Low speed pans are interesting from a technical point of view, as the control rods are all internal to the upper and lower arms.

 

 

No, I didn't measure this one at Barrow Hill, although I took some photos we weren't particularly interested in pans at that time. Someone (can't remember who) supplied some dimensions, the rest was worked out from photographs and geometry. I don't know if ours is absolutely accurate but it does work very well.

Does anyone know the reason for the development of this type of pantograph? or for that matter why simple diamond frame designs were not used on AC locos in this country?

 

Reading between the lines of http://www.old-dalby.com/HSCCP.htm Actual testing of Pantographs didn't occur until the late 1970's. As all testing was more concerned with neutral sections and the like.

 

I think it's safe to say that is probably boils down to speed. Making an educated guess, I think the crossed arm and diamond frame pans are pushed down from the contact wire by wind resistance at high speeds. Hence modern developments favoured fewer arms, and on the Bracknell Willis highspeed pan, even aerofoils. I'm guessing that you want either a flat constant force on the contact wire from the pan head, or at least predictable forces.

 

But, as I say, all an educated guess.

 

Regards

 

Matt

[298]

Does anyone know the reason for the development of this type of pantograph? or for that matter why simple diamond frame designs were not used on AC locos in this country?

Our loading gauge- diamond frame pans require a lot of clearance space. Which is fine if the thing is stuck above the roofline, but if your loading gauge is tight, then you need a larger cutaway section.

 

It also helps to have the pan head above the bogie pivot, with small BoBo designs this would result in a larger pan protruding into the cab roof area.

[298]

 

Reading between the lines of http://www.old-dalby.com/HSCCP.htm Actual testing of Pantographs didn't occur until the late 1970's. As all testing was more concerned with neutral sections and the like.

 

I think it's safe to say that is probably boils down to speed. Making an educated guess, I think the crossed arm and diamond frame pans are pushed down from the contact wire by wind resistance at high speeds. Hence modern developments favoured fewer arms, and on the Bracknell Willis highspeed pan, even aerofoils. I'm guessing that you want either a flat constant force on the contact wire from the pan head, or at least predictable forces.

 

But, as I say, all an educated guess.

 

Regards

 

Matt

The Japanese seem to manage with cross-arm pans at high speeds, but the UK seemed to be hung up with the wear of moving joints whilst in service, so having less of them is obviously an advantage.

 

There is also the issue of the head wandering longitudinally (and laterally!) with worn out cross arm pans, as can be seen in this video:

 

https://youtu.be/U7mk8kZOqf8

Edited April 26, 2016 by 298

[forest2807]

I was thinking along the lines of using the 86 cab as a base to chop bits out of and reshape, but if there's nothing else useful on an 86 body, I may as well just scratchbuild everything. I'm tempted to get the window frames, grilles, jumper boxes, roof sections, chassis and body sides laser cut by York model making. Make it more of a jigsaw than a scratchbuild

Cheers,

60800

Do a quick search for 'Class 86 to 83' and my thread might give you a few pointers about what not to do! Sorry, can't post a link at the moment.

[jetmorgan]

On the subject of the cross arm pantographs. There is an article in Railway Modeller Feb 85 about detailing the Lima 87 which does have a side drawing of the cross arm panto, sadly no front or rear view. Again I have a PDF copy of this article if anyone is interested.

[ClikC]

The Japanese seem to manage with cross-arm pans at high speeds, but the UK seemed to be hung up with the wear of moving joints whilst in service, so having less of them is obviously an advantage.

 

There is also the issue of the head wandering longitudinally (and laterally!) with worn out cross arm pans, as can be seen in this video:

 

A quick google image search showed most of Japan’s high speed stock with something akin the Brecknell Willis pan, and diamond pans on the commuter stock. Not saying your incorrect, just I didn't think that was the case, mind you, I didn't exactly look very hard.

 

Interestingly the design of the diamond and cross armed pans in that video is very different to the GEC/ AEI design. The arms of the GEC pan are clamped to a tube which surrounds another tube acting as a bearing, which is much more resistant to lateral 'play'. The GEC pan also features equalising cross members mounted atop or below this tube, ensures the longitudinal stability of the pan, at least while in good condition...

 

 

On the subject of the cross arm pantographs. There is an article in Railway Modeller Feb 85 about detailing the Lima 87 which does have a side drawing of the cross arm panto, sadly no front or rear view. Again I have a PDF copy of this article if anyone is interested.

 

I believe that was written by Gordon H of this parish. Alas, the Lima 87 roof is compromised, and does not have the correct 69 1/2" by 57" footing for all BR pantographs. On my somewhat stalled Class 87, I hacked the whole roof section out of the Heljan class 86 (as that was pretty much the only part they got right), and transplanted it into the roof well of the 87.

 

Regards

 

Matt

Edited April 26, 2016 by ClikC

[stovepipe]

An interesting on-line resource is the proceedings of the 1960 BTC Electrification Conference, available here.

 

It contains general arrangement drawings of all the early electric locomotives and EMUs as well as some bogie details. Just click on the pdf icon, but beware it is a large file ~30MB.

[ClikC]

An interesting on-line resource is the proceedings of the 1960 BTC Electrification Conference, available here.

 

Page 151 (158 of the PDF) contains dimensional information for the Stone-Faivereley Type AMBR pan head in profile, this is already a brilliant find!

 

Many thanks.

 

Matt

[Clive Mortimore]

An interesting on-line resource is the proceedings of the 1960 BTC Electrification Conference, available here.

 

It contains general arrangement drawings of all the early electric locomotives and EMUs as well as some bogie details. Just click on the pdf icon, but beware it is a large file ~30MB.

Hi Stovepipe

 

Wow, that is a great document. Not only for the loco information but the EMU and OLE contents is also very helpful.

[Dagworth]

Wow, thanks to 60800 for starting this, nowhere near enough modellers doing real work on AC loco models. 

 

Here are some of mine

 

86101

Detailed Hornby body with scratch built pan, Lima 87 bogie frames and Heljan 33 mechanism in rebuilt chassis (yes I know the bogies are too short!) Romford 16mm wheels. Note headlight.

 

86328

Detailed Hornby body with scratch built pan and no flexicoil. Modified Hornby bogie frames on a Heljan 33 mech as per above, but running on the wheels from a Heljan 86 so it does have resilient wheels to distinguish it from an 86/0. MW jumpers from Hornby class 50

 

87004 (awaiting plates!)

Much reworked Lima 87 with rebuilt roof and scratchbuilt cross arm pan. Lima bogie frames on Heljan 33 mech again. Romford wheels

 

81012

Originally a Trix AL1 body on a Heljan mongrel mech. The main parts of the chassis are from yet another 33 but the bogies are from a Heljan 86. Bogie side frames are shortened Trix (The Trix ones as supplied had been stretched to fit an existing power bogie, possibly the one from the Western minus the centre wheel?) Pan uses some elements of the Heljan 86 pan!. Underframe details have been much rebuilt since this photo was taken.

 

Internals, Heljan 33 mech in the middle, lots of plasticard and Hornby 86 cabs.

 

And the whole lot doing what they are meant to (courtesy of Shane Wilton

 

At the moment I can't find the pics of the scratchbuilt 85!

 

Andi

 

 

 

[ClikC]

nowhere near enough modellers doing real work on AC loco models.

 

I am very much in agreement with Andi on this! And always a pleasure to see your models. I must ask though, did you fettle the Hornby 86 body? Or the Heljan Chassis? I figure the chassis would be the easiest to attack with a b*****d file, but I found that the Lima 87 slides over it nicely with very little work needed.

 

Here's a snap I took in the kitchen this afternoon.

 

 

A bit of a mock up on what will be an 86/0. The correctly sized Alsthom 10' 9" bogies from the Bachmann 85 make one hell of a difference. I've already hacked the bogie V bracket from the Class 85 donor, chassis will be the stretched 85 chassis, converted to P4 and will (if all goes to plan), be fully sprung with working suspension of the CSB type.

 

Regards

 

Matt

[Dagworth]

 

I am very much in agreement with Andi on this! And always a pleasure to see your models. I must ask though, did you fettle the Hornby 86 body? Or the Heljan Chassis? I figure the chassis would be the easiest to attack with a b*****d file, but I found that the Lima 87 slides over it nicely with very little work needed.

 

Here's a snap I took in the kitchen this afternoon.

 

 

 

A bit of a mock up on what will be an 86/0. The correctly sized Alsthom 10' 9" bogies from the Bachmann 85 make one hell of a difference. I've already hacked the bogie V bracket from the Class 85 donor, chassis will be the stretched 85 chassis, converted to P4 and will (if all goes to plan), be fully sprung with working suspension of the CSB type.

 

Regards

 

Matt

 

My Heljan chassis' are from the 33 rather than the 86, the Crompton is narrower so can be fitted into the plasticard cradle without huge amounts of work to the 86 bodyshell except removing the weight retaining pieces. I have now also fitted two Heljan 86 chassis' into Lima 87s (Ironically with 33 bogies to retain the Lima 87 sideframes and wheel spacing so they match the others, which also leaves me a second set of 86 bogie towers to do the next 81.

 

Nice work on your 86/0 so far, how many people can tell the differences between ACs, let alone sub-classes though

 

Andi

[ClikC]

Nice work on your 86/0 so far, how many people can tell the differences between ACs, let alone sub-classes though

 

Andi

 

Thanks Andi. Probably very few indeed!

 

Regards

 

Matt

[Michael Edge]

The Japanese seem to manage with cross-arm pans at high speeds, but the UK seemed to be hung up with the wear of moving joints whilst in service, so having less of them is obviously an advantage.

 

There is also the issue of the head wandering longitudinally (and laterally!) with worn out cross arm pans, as can be seen in this video:

 

https://youtu.be/U7mk8kZOqf8

That's a very interesting film, the Cuban pans move about in much the same way as my test one did - only more so!

[Horsetan]

....a mock up on what will be an 86/0. The correctly sized Alsthom 10' 9" bogies from the Bachmann 85 make one hell of a difference. I've already hacked the bogie V bracket from the Class 85 donor, chassis will be the stretched 85 chassis, converted to P4 and will (if all goes to plan), be fully sprung with working suspension of the CSB type.

 

I wonder if Penbits will have a go at sprung bogies for AC electrics?

[Gordon H]

I believe that was written by Gordon H of this parish.

 

 

If your dates and magazine title are correct, then that was not my article. Mine appeared in 'Model Railways' in Feb '84.

The reason I asked Michael as to where he got the dimensions for the kit was in the hope that he didn't blindly follow my dimensions from that article, as I did exactly what he suggested and tried to scale it from pictures and drawings at the time. No such thing as the ACLG in those days!

On the upper arm 'triangulating' cross-braces, I seem to recall that some examples had them as a single brace, and some were formed as double braced (i.e. like an X).

The other benefit of the cross-arm design was that not only did it not protrude over the cab roof (per 298's comment), but it also didn't protrude backwards over the switchgear area as much as a Faiveley would. The crossed nature meant that a reasonable height could be reached for much shorter lower arms than an equivalent diamond frame.

[TRAILRAGE]

SOME NIIIIIIIIIIICE LOOKING MODELS HERE. This could turn out to be a real good thread.

 

Cheers Trailrage