1466

Hi Frank I have just measured across the insides of the W irons on the tender ... 22 mm . I have tapped the frame with a screwdriver and it sounds like plastic . The tender wheels are very difficult to remove and almost impossible to replace . At the moment, I think the critical issue is going to be the tender axles diameter ; it’s non standard length and the axle ends are plain not pinpoint . If the electrical circuit must be completed with the tender coupled I.e. it won’t run without, retaining or replacing the original tender wheels might be key . Have you seen Harlequin ‘s helpful post of the tender ? Ken

Yes the coal load is easily removed and the coal space looks good .

Thanks again, Harlequin. You promoted me to take out a set of tender wheels ( the rearmost). I was hoping to substitute Alan Gibson’s but ... the axle length is non standard at 25 mm and they are not pinpoints but “blunt” although radiused at their ends. It adds another issue to converting to EM gauge . Ken

Harlequin , that is very helpful . Would be you be able please to measure the “slot” in which the wheels run to confirm my estimate of the dimensions? Im interested to see if EM wheels would fit . Thanks Ken

Dear Frank i haven’t run my Mogul yet and don’t want to take it apart so take what follows with a faint scepticism . The only place I could get the vernier alongside the splashers was at the very end of the rear splasher where I could ,by eye , lay it alongside and estimate rather than close the vernier . The distance there is 22.8 to 23.00 mm I estimate. B to B is around 14.2 mm .Across the drivers flange to front 2.8 mm . I can’t get at the driver’s axle diameter yet but they run in brass bearings. I estimate there is 0.8 mm clearance between front connecting rod nut and cross head .There is , I think, potential here to thin the nut and tweak the cross head out . Gibson’s and/or Ultrascales may be thinner .My cross heads appear to be knock kneed and aren’t parallel to the footplate ... maybe an illusion The tender across the frame is 21.8 mm . The diameter of the axles is 2.75 (!) and flange to front is 2.8 mm. From what I have estimated I think a conversion to EM is a possibility. The footplate/valance is I guess metal and the body is plastic .My concern right now is the diameter of the driving wheel axles . I would welcome somebody checking my estimated dimensions ( Mogul ) . Hope this helps . Ken PS I’ll try to post photos later .!

Unless someone beats me to it , I’ll run the vernier over mine tomorrow morning . Ken

Thanks everyone . Most helpful . I’m modelling 1935 GWR but have seen Instanters on modem air braked stock with them in the “short” position . I understand that a skilled shunter would tweak the “ears “ and change them to the “long “ position . Thanks again Ken

I recently bought some Accurascale Instanter couplings - great product . I’m aware that 3 links are for “unfitted” stock and screw links for vacuum stock ( my era is 1930s). Is there a rule of thumb guidance for stock fitted with Instanters , please ? A sort of Mr In Between . Thanks Ken

Hello Anglian I’ve just measured my Boxhill , an EM gauge Bachman pannier with Ultrascales and my Hornby R3170 Hall with Gibson’s wheels converted to EM gauge . A word of caution , these are as accurate as I can make them but anyone progressing to EM their Boxhill does so at their own risk OK ? The following are mm and wheel width flange to face Boxhill 2.74 Ultrascale 2.3 Gibsons 2.26 Boxhill across the wheel bosses 21.40 and as RodneyS says the footplate is 21.50 I can’t get at the wheel bosses on the Pannier and Hall because brake gear etc gets in the way . However I have measured across the front faces of the wheels set at EM gauge using the EM gauge Society device . Ultrascales 21.08 Gibsons 21.03 . I reckon it may just possible to squeeze Ultrascales and Gibsons into an un modified footplate but the clearance would be unrealistic . If you cut or file out the leading driver footplate to 22.80 as RodneyS suggests , the clearance would be 1.8 overall or (say) 0.9 each side . All of this doesn’t take account of wheels with bosses and coupling rods twirling around and hopefully not clouting the footplate . Side play would have to be controlled . I am assuming the middle and following drivers may be accommodated by cutting out the footplate in the same way as the leading drivers . So it may work if you substitute Ultrascales or Gibsons drivers but proceed carefully. I’ve revisited Tim Shackleton’s “Plastic Bodied Locos” and note that when he’d built a Terrier in P4 he used Gibson’s wheels but their provenance lay in Studiolith . I haven’t looked at Gibson’s catalogue to see what is currently on offer . Personally I’m leaning to using Gibson wheels and widening the cut outs in the due cast footplate . But I’m weighing up in filling spokes with solid balance weights, airbrushing the wheels and masking off “spokes “ . It is either that or leaving Boxhill as is . I was hoping this would be a quick and cheap conversion but it is proving to be a tad more costly and complicated. I’m musing still . Hope this helps. Ken

Thanks again, Rodney. I’ve had a closer look and believe the clearances are tantalisingly close but dangerously near to breaking through the splasher fronts . My intention was to preserve the beautiful finish of the body and wheels so I am chickening out . Thanks for everybody’s interest and contributions . Ken

No Decorum , I apologise that I wasn’t clearer when referring to the R3170 chassis . My one did have brass bearings when I converted it to EM gauge last year .It also has a can motor but whether it is 3 or 5 pole , I can’t say . It does run and pull well, though and was a bargain from Hattons at around £80 . Given the large commonality between Halls and Saints, model and prototype, I would happily buy a Saint (or2) based upon the recent R3170 chassis and mechanicals . Some regard it as one of Hornby’s best .I regret the confusion that may have arisen with the much older Hornby Hall and Saints . Best wishes Ken

Thanks , Rodney, this is helpful . I’ll report back when I try . Ken

I have had a look at converting Boxhill to EM and I’m not too positive . The clearance between the wheels and the footplate is commendably tight in 00 . The critical point seems to me to be around the leading coupled wheels . It might be possible to cut or file the die cast footplate moulding to increase clearance but this would encroach into the splasher housing . I haven’t taken the body off to see If it would be possible to thin the splasher moulding to move the wheel out each side by at least 1 mm . There might be room . If this works , I guess there would be more room alongside the middle and following coupled wheels inside the tanks so the leading wheels are key . I am pausing to reflect before proceeding . Ken

My favourite day dream . Hornby announce a Saint . They keep the well regarded R3170 Hall ‘s chassis and tender , add new drivers and pony wheels . A new loco body with clever tooling to make straight and curved frames . Add a dash of Lady of Legend “star” dust and , in my opinion, you have an economical sure fire winner . I’ll buy 2 , one straight one curved frame . Ken

Thanks Dave and Penrith for the encouragement and suggestions. I’m minded to try pulling out the Dapol wheels to preserve the decoration . Tim Shackleton also suggested taking out the resulting slack with fibre washers . You cut a segment out and slip it over the axle and so avoid having to take the wheel off the axle . I’ve done this before with a Hornby 28xx and it works . The splined axle helps . I’ll try this approach and report back but there are a couple of projects before it in the 2do list . How did I find time to go to work ?! Mind , I retired aged 70 . Forward ! Ken

Thanks David . I have Tim’s book and will revisit it . The Locomotion model is superbly finished and has beautifully painted “spokes” on the balance weights . I’m hoping for a quick and cheap solution such as pulling out the wheels with a GW wheel puller - sacrilege, I know .However , I am aged 75 so time is finite . There are lots of projects I’d like to complete so time management and short cuts are important to me . I have successfully converted Dapol railcars to EM by pulling out the wheels so am hoping the same approach will work . Thanks for the suggestion . All the best Ken

I’m delighted with my Locomotion “Boxhill” . Any advice or tips on converting it to EM gauge ? Thanks Ken

Yes 26power , this is exactly the same place . Amazing to see my childhood places from the air and on maps . My impression of Church Path and Church Road was alongside the vicarage and church so I never saw the Benzole plant . I am still mystified how coal was transported from Mitcham goods yard to the gas works . It would have been a huge effort in horse and car days and even if they used big Fodens , a Herculean task . I am hoping for enlightenment when I receive the history book . Thanks for another fascinating resource . Ken

The accompanying aero maps are fascinating . I see from them that were sidings curving towards the Benzole site which I didn’t know were there . I’d seen the sidings curving the opposite way which led to a metal fabricators with a rail mounted Coles crane . It was later a car auction site . Thanks bigherb . Ken

Thanks bigherb ! That is fantastic. My parents were married in Mitcham Parish church and I went to The Star school , both in the photo .My grandad lived in Benedict Road . Church Path - follow the road alongside the Church and grave yard . Church Path is marked by the line of trees coming towards Church Road , alongside the edge of the cemetery . Which is a bit of a mystery as it is a fair way from what I take as the plant . Ken

Hello Ray I am going back nearly 70 years so memories are unreliable . Church Path is , I recall, a small alley off Church Road . There were small warehouses around there and I recall smells of paint and varnish being made . I also remember there was an industrial accident and 2 men were badly burned when a barrel of varnish caught fire . To be frank , I don’t know whether the site was an office or works . Mitcham had a history chemical engineering so it could have been either . However I guess that making Benzole as a by product of coal gas production would need substantial plant . One mystery for me is that the Goods yard and Mitcham and the Gas works were separated and I don’t know how coal was transferred from the yard to the Gas works . I do recall huge 8 wheeler Foden trucks with high sided bodies going past my first school which was located mid way between the two . I have assumed ( dangerous) that the Fodens transported coal one way and coke in return . This was around 1950 . I gather that Benzole’s HQ was in London , Victoria which , if correct , would lean me towards Mitcham being a production site . My interest came from the introduction of the Bachmann 14 tanker in Benzole livery a long time ago . I saw a photo in one of Bill Hudson’s books on private owner years ago and bought a couple of Bachmann tankers . I removed the inaccurate catwalks to kit bash a slightly more accurate rendition which had its faults . The Oxford tanker is much better . Ive looked at the website of Merton Historical Society but can’t find any more details . That said , I’ve ordered a book from them which touches on Mitcham Gas Works . If it sheds more light , I’ll come back . Ken

May I add 2 comments to the debate. But first some background. I model a 1930s steam era with a station on one side of an “oval” and a sliding traverser fiddle yard on the other The minimum radius is 36 inches . Goods stock has 3 links and I prefer Kadee on coaches . I can run 35 wagon freights and 9 passenger coach trains . My comments concern tractive effort and making up and disposing of full length trains . Tractive effort . My Hornby 28xx , 72xx , Bachmann 56xx and 57 xx can pull 35 or more goods wagons . My Hornby and Bachmann Halls manage 9 coaches ; only my Hornby Grange is light footed . Making up and disposing . As the GWR found , it is all very well hauling 100 coal wagons but what do you do at the very end of the journey? i keep goods wagons in cuts of 10 . All have 3 links but at the end of each cut is a wagon with a simple hook and bar coupling . This are not noticeable when painted grey .Each cut is kept coupled up on a cassette. So I can quickly assemble 35 wagons from the traverser to the running lines . Passenger stock is stored similarly . It means I can watch a long train go by at my leisure whilst shunting a smaller goods in the yard .

Any thoughts on stains or spillage around the filler ? I believe discharge was from a valve under the tank . Thanks .

Thank you both for your erudite contributions which I welcome .On weathering , I’ve gone for a smudge of track dirt on the under frame and a hint of rainwater streaks on the tanks . Ken

I apologise in advance for my vague replies. First of all I lived in Mitcham which was the location of one of Benzole’s sites . So a personal connection. Secondly , Mitcham was in Southern Railway and then Southern Region territory . So it is entirely possible a Benzole tanker would be appropriate for a Southern layout . Third , all petrol was “pooled “ during the war so all tankers would have been shared and therefore ubiquitous. You can run any tanker anywhere credibly as they would have travelled widely . The “pool” arrangements ceased around 1952, I think , and branded petrol was marketed . I’m persuaded you could run any of the pre war tankers , if you wish . Probably weathered . Any livery introduced say post 1952 would be anomalous since new liveries were only slowly introduced .Everything was still rationed immediately post war . But , most importantly, Rule 1 applies . The Oxford tankers have been well reviewed and I’m pleased with mine . Usual disclaimer.