St Enodoc
-
Posts
20,007 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Exhibition Layout Details
Store
Posts posted by St Enodoc
-
-
14 minutes ago, Coach bogie said:
It looks like what eventually became Nu Cast 42xx. The tools had an interesting life starting off as Western Precision Castings, then Sutherland Models and then Cotswold before moving on again to Nu cast.
It is the lost wax crosshead that point me in this direction. The above kits would make only the straight frame version, hence the one piece footplate. For the over the cylinder footplate, you had to go down the K's route which came as a two piece casting to allow the alternatives. Note both the K's and the Sutherland kit both became Nu cast to add to the fun.
Original frames were a solid milled brass block only replaced by a pair of sides with spacers in the Nu cast years.
A GWR 47xx and 4-6-0 County kit had a similar history.
Mike Wiltshire
Thanks Mike. I should have mentioned that 4206 - definitely Cotswold - has lost-wax crossheads and slidebars (integral with the cylinder backs). The boiler barrel was also, well, barrel-shaped...
From what you say, I now think that 4247 is from the Nu-Cast successor to the K's version rather than the Cotswold (and predecessors) version.
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, St Enodoc said:
Any detectives out there?
Here are some possible clues/red herrings (caveat - some may be due to different levels of bodgery between Graham and myself):
- 4206's footplate is continuous from front to rear. 4247's is in two parts, with the join in line with the tank front.
- The rivet patterns are different on the side tanks, bunkers and smokeboxes (hard to describe and I can't get a decent photo).
- 4206's cab doors have a representation of a handle near the top.
- 4206's whistles are further forward on the firebox top.
- 4247's boiler has a more pronounced taper and consequently its firebox projects further above the side tanks.
- 4247's cylinders have no backs.
- 4206 has a better-defined rivet pattern on the valances.
- 4206 has tapered buffers. 4247's are parallel.
- 4206's pony truck pivot is in line with the leading drivers. 4247's is in line with the cylinders.
- 4206's slidebars, crossheads and side rods appear "finer" than 4247's.
Oh, and thanks to @Jesse Sim for pointing us all in the right direction.
-
3
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, jjb1970 said:
The bit where you want a huge vacuum is the condenser. Condenser vacuum is critical to performance and efficiency in a ranking cycle steam plant. They have vacuum breaking valves.
You are James Watt and I claim my five pounds.
-
1
-
2
-
2
-
-
50 minutes ago, jimwal said:
The GWR 42/52/7200 2=8=0/2-8-2T locos were also produced by K's. These had 16th inch thick brass chassis with screw assembled spacers.
The Sutherland/Cotswold kits mostly had brass block chassis, whilst the Nu-Cast kits mostly had cast witemetal block or 'bar frame' looking chassis.
Thanks. Perhaps 4247 is by K's then? Any detectives out there?
-
11
-
-
4 hours ago, The Fatadder said:
I have all the wagons the layout needs
Ha, ha, ha!
-
1
-
4
-
-
On 07/05/2024 at 17:47, St Enodoc said:
It's definitely not a Cotswold - I have one of those too. When I got it, I thought it was Nu-Cast (son of Cotswold?) but I'm sure I saw something on it marked DJH. When I have a chance I'll have another look.
In the meantime, a quick search reveals:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/364859478867
However, that's the only search result for DJH 42xx, so it's possibly described wrongly, although there's definitely a DJH box in one of the photos.
I had a chance to look at 4247 today. For a start, despite what I said above, I couldn't find any markings to indicate that it was a DJH model, so I reckon we can discount that.
The chassis is a typical Nu-Cast style thick frames, tubular spacers design, unlike my older Cotswold 4206 that has an ancient milled brass one-piece chassis, shaped to take an X04 motor. 4247's body assembly is subtly different from that on 4206 though. Perhaps when Nu-Cast took over the model and changed the chassis they changed some of the body moulds too?
Anyway, I'm not going any further and I think I'm happy now that 4247 is certainly a Nu-Cast model, nicely put together by the late Graham Bradley.
-
3
-
-
8 minutes ago, monkeysarefun said:
When is sliced beetroot coming back?!
The only word I can find from the vampiric US company that bought Golden Circle , closed down the factory here and moved production to NZ was way back in March saying that it'd be back really soon and nothing since.
Woolies own brand is available but that is a product of China and I refuse to buy foreign beetroot especially if imported by the supermarket that spruiks its support for Australian farmers.
I can sometimes get 3 threes which at least is Australian grown and canned but the supply is variable.
Its lockdown toilet paper all over again!
At the other place, that begins with C, I get "Three Threes Sweet Sliced Beetroot - Australian Grown in Western Australia" in in proper glass jars. Yes, it's not always in stock but I always keep a jar in reserve.
-
3
-
-
On 11/05/2024 at 08:17, Northmoor said:
This Andy is why most of the New Generation lines will never achieve their ambitions. The journey on too many could be best described as, "Going from nowhere, to nowhere, through nowhere in particular". The general public won't pay much for that nor in any great numbers.
That description was applied, appropriately, to the Bluebell in the early days.
On 11/05/2024 at 03:18, Michael Hodgson said:Nothing strikes me as a special attraction at the KWVR (unless you're particularly into the Bronte sisters) or locations like East Grinstead.
The whole point of Bluebell getting to East Grinstead was for the National Rail connection.
On 11/05/2024 at 09:42, Michael Hodgson said:I've heard punters asking at the booking office for "a return to wherever the little train goes to please"
Reminds me of the old Punch cartoon.
Passenger: "Return, please."
Ticket Clerk: "Where to?"
Passenger: "Here, of course!"
-
2
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Well here we are at 1052 AEST on 12/5/24 (Mothers' Day in these parts) so I've decided to make my 20,000th RMweb post here - just because I can.
-
7
-
26
-
4
-
On 08/05/2024 at 20:02, jjb1970 said:
They do spot checks. A friend recieved a rather intimidating letter, I think he did the usual thing of thinking 'free money for a museum, capital idea!' and ticked the box without thinking. I never tick for obvious reasons in my current circumstances, though I say why I can't agree (I am not a UK taxpayer).
Interestingly, on my last visit to the UK I visited a large, long-established museum and as a UK taxpayer (company pensions) I tried to claim gift aid. However, computer says no - it insisted that I enter my UK address, which of course I don't have.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, jwealleans said:
Yes, I can vouch for the canteen.
Sorry to have missed that!
-
31 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:
Plenty of Darwin candidates there.
That's right, it's not all that far from Darwin...
-
2
-
1
-
3
-
-
Do the Blue Pullmans count?
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, 96701 said:
You've forgotten about the ones that knock the locks off and put back on again.
I didn't want to get too technical, Phil!
-
1
-
-
33 minutes ago, Obadiah said:
It was interesting to see what was available, or at least theoretically available, for if you asked for some of the smaller loco, coach or wagon components listed, a far away look would come over the counter staff, and you would be told with a merest hint of a sigh "ah yes, it's on order", so at least some things haven't changed over the ensuing years!
Not for nothing was W&H understood to be an abbreviation for "Wait & Hope".
-
2
-
-
I have 13 panniers of various ilks plus one more under construction.
Do I need help?
-
8
-
4
-
-
1 hour ago, Northroader said:
some marvellous ancient coach bodies just rotting away in fields, given away in the 1920s for cottages and sheds.
I remember seeing some of those in the St Helens area 60-odd years ago. They were rotting then. A number have been recovered for restoration at different heritage lines, including the Bluebell.
-
3
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, acg5324 said:
IIRC the shop was in the Guinness book of records for the most sales in value per sq foot of any shop.
Wot, more than Monk Bar Model Shop?????
-
1
-
3
-
-
14 minutes ago, Ozexpatriate said:
QED.
-
2
-
-
6 hours ago, jwealleans said:
Would you buy a used A4 from any of these men?
Nope - especially not the bloke front left...
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, kevinlms said:
Another reason not to sit in any row that's in line with the front part of the engine.
-
2
-
-
7 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:
Simply because the metric dimensions usually quoted are conversions of the original imperial dimensions, rounded to the nearest millimetre:
- track spacing 2⅝" = 66.675 mm ~ 67 mm
- 1st radius 14⅝" = 371.475 ~ 371 mm
- 2nd radius = 17¼" = 438.150 mm ~ 438 mm
hence
- 3rd radius 19⅞" = 504.825 mm ~ 505 mm
- 4th radius 22½" = 571.500 mm
Obvious! Thanks.
-
1
-
1 minute ago, Dunsignalling said:
IIRC, Super 4 was first released under the Tri-ang regime, and curves only came in 1st and 2nd radius. 1st radius, at least, was increased over the preceding Series 3 geometry, thereby reducing double track spacing, but I think 2nd radius may have been the same or very close to "large radius" Series 3.
I'm fairly sure that 3rd and 4th radii were only introduced after the rebranding to Hornby, and I'm not certain whether Hornby or Peco did it first.
John
Yes, Super 4 was still Tri-ang and had a completely different geometry from Series 3.
I have a June 1993 Peco Setrack Plan Book, which only includes no 1 and no 2 radius but includes a reference to "other manufacturers' No 3 radius" - obviously Hornby - with regard to curved points.
I thought I also had some Tri-ang and later books but apart from a January 1966 Triang-Hornby Super 4 book they seem to have gone AWOL at the moment.
-
4
-
-
2 hours ago, Neal Ball said:
*Other fireman’s names are available!
Pugh, Pugh, Barney McGrew, Cuthbert, Dibble and Grubb?
-
2
-
9
-
Sheffield Exchange, Toy trains, music and fun!
in Layout topics
Posted
If you're going to do that, why not leave it level until it's passed under the road? A half-height bridge opening sounds a bit odd to me.