BackRoomBoffin

Coming back to this monumentally late... 

 

18 hours ago, Joseph the L&YR lover said:

i was thinking about a side tank loco but now that i know about a lyr one....time to figure out how to build that!

Health warning: I know very little in practical terms of what I am about to say, other than I know it is above my skills level...

I understand the prototype were very small and underpowered and withdrawn around 1900 or earlier. We're talking branch and pilot duties only, I guess.

I don't know if this is possible, but would the Bachmann Junior/Digby be a suitable victim, but with the motor turned so the wormwheel is in the cab, and the 'front' non-driven axle could then be removed and a new smaller wheelset substituted? This operation in itself would give me heebie jeebies, but, might result in the short wheelbase in the prototype picture. The originals had 5' wheels, I think. That would however leave you with a problem in the cab, and cab doors to hide the mechanism might be implausible as the real things had really really large protruding splashers...

By and large Corbs' "cut your coat to suit your cloth" approach makes sense, dependent on what you have to hand, which is what is driving me towards an 0-6-0 as I can't quite reconcile myself to the long wheelbase on the Hornby Smokey Joe chassis (one of which is in the loft) (although I like Corbs' 2-4-0T on this chassis which is at the very start of this thread).

17 hours ago, Joseph the L&YR lover said:

I've been thinking about trying to bash a 2-4-0 passenger tank engine together but i really have no idea where to start, could anyone give me some advice?

Since you're into the LYR, I've been spending some time salivating over these things, that were used on branchlines...

Originally built as 2-4-0WTs then rebuilt. Maybe too small-wheeled and with too short a wheelbase for the traditional expedient of turning an auto-tank chassis backwards?

BTW If you or anyone else are in any position to answer my slightly odd query about hypothetical applications of naylor Safety valves (as demonstrated here by our glamourous model), please answer my thread-of-one-post-so-far in Prototype Questions....

On ‎28‎/‎08‎/‎2020 at 09:53, Compound2632 said:

numerous railways, notably the GWR and GCR used a darker green - mid chrome green - with red frames, albeit Indian red, a dark red. This was almost the default livery for locomotives in the mid-19th century. But colour on colour* is forbidden by the laws of heraldry. Those medievals were no fools - the laws were devised to facilitate battlefield recognition.  

 

Once the locomotive is lined out, the base colours will be "lifted" by the contrast and there won't be large blocks of green and red next to each other.

I'm not even sure lining is needed. Just painting the footplate black would provide a level of separation between the areas of green and black, and I don't see that that requires a darker red, personally.

This image from online (grabbed at random) of a German Mallet shows the kind of thing I'm on about. Look how dingy that green, and how bright that red. No problem, just a hairline of black in between.

 

Hi, I'm plotting a freelance locomotive from a non-existent works.

I have become enamoured of the L&Y Jenkins and Yates saddle tanks with their Naylor safety valves and distinctive 3-column arrangement.

I gather NER locos also used these for a period, and possibly more, but I guess they may have been hidden behind covers.

Is anyone aware if Naylor valves could be plausibly mounted on top of a dome, as Ramsbottom and Salter vales (and other types) were?

Also, what is the latest period Naylor valves were used at? The seem to be a mid-Victorian thing.

6 hours ago, Sophia NSE said:

I much prefer that. Dark green or mucky black would both work

 I vote for chocolate brown...

4 hours ago, relaxinghobby said:

The body is only attached to the footplate by screws. Allowing for easy modification or swapping parts around.

I've lowered the Bachmanntanks and boiler unit by cutting off about 2 mm from the underside and made it look fatter by gluing on layers of plasticard with some rivet detail pushed in. Reshaped the cab cutouts. The saddle tank is a Hornby Percy sitting on the Bachmann chassis and footplate.

 

 

 

One of the several things I appreciate about the left hand (green) loco is the shape of bufferbeam and the way the steps are integrated into it.

You'll have a lot more direct experience of this over me, but I am beginning to realise in 'selling' a freelance loco, it's detail that sells the overall concept (not too much, it appears, but key things here and there).

41 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

http://www.furnessrailwaytrust.org.uk/bhsco17.htm

 

This might be interesting to look at. It’s an 0-4-0 tender to 0-4-0ST rebuild.

Yes, that kind of thing is where I started, but it's gone on from there.... I need to say again I work _very_ slow and I'm _very_ inexperienced....

10 hours ago, Corbs said:

 

Sounds like fun. You could use the body of an existing tender loco and splice it with some tanks too?

I have something more saddle-esque in mind -- also some rebuilds in that period were from well tank to side or saddle tank -- I think it's more a matter of trying to build a deliberate mish mash of detailing so it looks like parts come from an earlier loco.

 I think it may also be about trying to imply some kind of 'geological stratification' as you work up vertically so the frame and bufferbeam appear more oldfashioned than the superstructure... Have some books of photos of early Victorian locos I am poring over which give some visual cues...

20 hours ago, rockershovel said:

 

So it is, that’s why OO was born - to create significantly larger body shells. The difference is around 14%, 1 in 7. 

 

It’s also worth bearing in mind that Nellie (and her sisters, and for that matter all the Tri-ang and Hornby 0-4-0 types) are excessively large for locos of that type. Like other toy manufacturers, Tri-ang tended to build all locos to the same loading gauge, to accommodate the same mechanisms. So Nellie is an 0-4-0 shunter, the size of a main-line express locomotive. You can see this clearly by comparing them to the L&Y Pug, which IS a scale model, or the new Peckett saddle tank types. It’s less obvious with the diesel shutter, because the 08 is a large thing anyway. 

Forgive me if this is a partially uninformed generalised digression, but ....

I've been meditating on how much one might be able to address the Largeness Problem bequeathed to us by the Ancient Masters of Plastic in the Far-Off Times (ie the 70s) in adapting proprietary mechanisms when modelling 19th century and light-railway / industrial tank prototypes, based on choosing what to model carefully.

Up to the 1870s in railway terms, there were basically 3 ways to get a locomotive with which one could shunt things:

- use a discarded tender engine or take one and convert it to a tank engine (these tended to be large and heavy for their power output) -- examples would be LYR and LNWR 0-6-0STs rebuilt from older freight locos -- where this was successful, new-build locos were build that emulated features derived from the 'anecestor' prototype...

- build something light with a short wheelbase dedicated to that purpose (but at this stage really 'light' was beyond the ability of the materials if you wanted a higher power output so these were still pretty heavy)

- use a horse or vertical boiler shunter (which were light as light could be but very range limited)

BUT THEN. The Pug and the Terrier and the 'P' and the 4-4-0T designs like Relaxing Hobby's come at a historic point in the 1880s (ish) when there is:
- a) the ability to make engines more compact and powerful than previously as techiques change;
b) interest in opening up lighter-laid lines than the mainlines, and legislation is gradually changing to make that so,
c) lines and sidings that had been horse-drawn or used vertical boiler types were being replaced with conventional tank engines
d) it was not unusual for trip goods tank engines (which could have been later cascaded to yard shunting duties) to have longer wheelbases and be slightly large overall than dedicated yard shunting locomotives, although the distinction might now elude us.

So actually some of our most beloved prototypes come at a time when _some_ locos were actually getting smaller, believe it or not.

To make my point, Sophia's 0-4-4T is large, but based on the body shell of something that was rebuilt on top of a chassis from standardised based parts on experience with 0-6-0 and 0-4-2 tender engines (James Stirling had a very long career before Wainwright and Surtees started nobbling his deisgns).

Similarly, on the NER there were some 0-6-0Ts and O-6-0STs rebuilt by the Worsdell borthers from 0-4-2T and 0-4-4Ts that had been rebuilt by Fletcher (I think I've summarised that without too much misrepresentation of the facts) ... these were larger (I think) than the little 0-6-0Ts built later by the Worsdells for dockyard shunting.

So in trying to use a Jinty mech to represent an 1870s style tank engine, as long as I study the prototype, and try to make it look like it is based on (by rebuilding or copying) an older loco that originated as a tender engine or trip shunter, I am 'allowed' a large engine on my light railway / backwoods siding and it _may_ (if I do it right) look more convincing than building an overscale version of a lightrailway engine of the 1880s, 1890s or 1900s.

There will still be compromises, because the late Fowler Jinty is an enlarged version of the older Johnson 0-6-0ts, but (I think) I'm not going to have all the compromises to make that I would if I based my loco on a Terrier or a buckjumper or a Killin pug or whatever.

Does any of that make sense?

On 13/08/2020 at 18:46, Captain Pugbash said:

i've had a bit of a think, come up with 2 things that would be pugbashable.
A killin pug, can be easily made from a nellie cab and a normal Hornby smokey joe pug
An 0-6-0 L&Y pug, which can be easily made from 2 pug kits (heck will probably build one myself soon)

If you're trying to bash the Pug into an 0-6-0, I recommend this beastie from a not-too-far-away location (Gorton ... if you regard the Pugs as an adaptation of a Vulcan design, that's very near indeed):
 

3 hours ago, cypherman said:

Hi all,

I suggest large amounts of Vodka. If it gets to look really bleary to you after a few you will not know quite what a monster you have built. You might even get some sleep as it stalks it's way round you railway causing fear and mayhem to you other engines....

I'm thinking it will be more of an 'ancient thing from the crypt' (my pen has been considering the work of Craven, Conner, Bromley, England, various Leeds manufactories, several Scottish brothers and that bloke who liked orange). Don't watch this space. I work slow and budget is such that necessary acquisitions will be veeeryyyy caaaarefulllyyyy spaaaaaced.

1 hour ago, Corbs said:

Maybe some Percy Pigs

 
Ooh, no.

Brown ale and baklava, round here.

People, I'm gathering some material for a Jintypug monster.
Any suggestions on what tools I should send Igor out for?

I've got more opinions than experience....

On ‎10‎/‎07‎/‎2020 at 18:03, RedGemAlchemist said:

Not exactly very aesthetic, is it?

I dunno, at least they've tried with the 2-4-2T.
Consider it up against the near-contemporary Webb 2-2-4-0Ts, or some of the Dean experimental tanks, and it's not completely out of the ordinary.

And then, when we look at boiler experimentation, there's the ACFI feedwater heaters, and the Crosti boiler...

I'm sorry I think I left pugbashing beind some time ago.... desperately bringing it back, I'd argue that one could easily adapt a Pug to make it a condensing tramway / ilocomotive on the lines of the LSWR Shanks 0-4-0STs, and that that could be adjudged as ugly as this Aspinal/Hoy/Druitt-Halpin beastie, dependent on the beholder.

12 minutes ago, rockershovel said:

 

..or clockwork!

If anyone does want to buy a product costing £60 - £100 (dependent on retailer etc) to remove the expensive bits and retrofit a technically obsolete technology...
a) that is the best application of Rule One I've seen in some time
b) feel free
c) please throw some money my ways whilst you're at it

Given we now have high-tech modern battery powered equipment, is anyone insane out there running hyper-modern digitally controlled clockwork by any chance?

Anything is possible...

13 hours ago, rockershovel said:

Googling about, it seems to be one of those ideas that enjoyed a vogue for a while, was found to be of little real use, and was dropped again 

Really, it's the answer to the question, 'we've got some old under-boilered locomotives and we want to improve their steaming capacity without reboilering them' without realising that the costs were nearly the same and the proposed innovation added additional issues eg centre of gravity, weight distribution etc that would be better resolved by ... reboilering them (and also superheating). I also understand that on the LYR routes they were tried on, they only really worked in one direction due to the prevailing gradients.

But it would possibly allow for the fitting of radio control gear to your OO Bachmann 2-4-2T.

And by the way the same equipment is here

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-locomotive-no-708-express-138029841.html?pv=1&stamp=2&imageid=598ABF16-8ACB-4349-BAA2-7996C092656C&p=408846&n=84&orientation=0&pn=1&searchtype=0&IsFromSearch=1&srch=foo%3Dbar%26st%3D0%26sortby%3D2%26qt%3Dgnr%20steam%20railway%26qt_raw%3Dgnr%20steam%20railway%26qn%3D%26lic%3D3%26edrf%3D0%26mr%3D0%26pr%3D0%26aoa%3D1%26creative%3D%26videos%3D%26nu%3D%26ccc%3D%26bespoke%3D%26apalib%3D%26ag%3D0%26hc%3D0%26et%3D0x000000000000000000000%26vp%3D0%26loc%3D0%26ot%3D0%26imgt%3D0%26dtfr%3D%26dtto%3D%26size%3D0xFF%26blackwhite%3D%26cutout%3D%26archive%3D1%26name%3D%26groupid%3D%26pseudoid%3D%26userid%3D%26id%3D%26a%3D%26xstx%3D0%26cbstore%3D1%26resultview%3DsortbyPopular%26lightbox%3D%26gname%3D%26gtype%3D%26apalic%3D%26tbar%3D1%26pc%3D%26simid%3D%26cap%3D1%26customgeoip%3D%26vd%3D0%26cid%3D%26pe%3D%26so%3D%26lb%3D%26fi%3D0%26langcode%3Den%26saveQry%3D%26editorial%3D1%26t%3D0%26edoptin%3D

21 hours ago, rockershovel said:

Since someone mentioned the Triang clockwork “top tank”, here’s a nice little video of this once-common beastie. I notice a mention in the comments underneath, to fitting these bodies to an R355 chassis, which is of course, the 0-4-0 found on the Nellie/Polly/Connie series and others.

 

There IS a certain family resemblance, mostly around the smokebox; I assume the clockwork mechanism couldn’t be accommodated in the available space, which is why there was no clockwork Nellie? Rather begs the question why they didn’t produce an 0-4-0ST at the time, given that the R153 0-6-0ST wouldn’t last much longer. 

 

So, here’s a challenge; does anyone have one of these as a pugbash, however motorised? 

 

 

This is a mad theory, but I think there IS a prototype for this loco (sort of)! Bear with me...

http://www.museum.alibaba.sk/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/halpin/halpin.htm

 

On ‎04‎/‎07‎/‎2020 at 10:54, Sophia NSE said:

Sitting next to the Q1 for a height check

Beginning to think I should have said P1 with that wheelbase...

1 hour ago, Sophia NSE said:

Recabbed by Wainwright and reboilered by Maunsell. I like your T1 class name for it!

At the risk of derailing a fine thread with hairsplitting - Surtees was Wainwright's draughtsman and basically responsible for the 'Wainwright' cab (and, allegedly, everything else). He very briefly overlapped at Ashford in 1913/1914 after Wainwright's retirement with Maunsell and his assistants Pearson (from the GWR) and Clayton (from the Midland).

Clayton is allegedly responsible for almost everything from the Maunsell era that has parallel boiler and Belpairefirebox (particularly the rebuilds of the Ds and Es, and the L1s). He was also the brains behind the S&D 2-8-0s.

So I was assuming that, to design your loco, Surtees took the new boy out for a pint when Maunsell was talking to the rest of the staff about taper boiler passenger tanks. Maybe the WKR got hold of the beermats after?

The actual response to heavy shunting in Kent during WW1 was to a) put a saddle tank on a C class and b) hire all kinds of locos from all over during the war.

1 hour ago, Sophia NSE said:

A few minutes work and we have this!

...research at Ashford reveals an unauthorised Surtees / Clayton proposal for shunting in the Kentish coalfield... the 'T1' class...

Hey all,

I had another idea I thought belonged on this thread, although strictly speaking not an imaginary locomotive, but another repurposing of existing stock for an imaginary railway of the past:

I'm not necessarily a fan of the neo-Awdry stuff that appears here now and again, and I appreciate is very popular with many, because the overall backstory to the railways on Sodor is a bit too … neat?

Thing is, in my head, if you had a large semi-autonomous island off the Northwest coast of the UK and a sufficient industrial economy for heavy mainline rail, in the immediate pre- and post-war period it would have had a) a large military or naval base and b) a complicated local politics and quite possibly a local separatist terrorist movement. And even then it probably wouldn't have been running, eg, Pacifics.

(Possibly after WWII it would have had a USA military presence and Cold War spying, but that's another issue.)

But then I discovered the history of the Palestine Railways, being an interwar British-run railway in a 'colonial' area with a strong military legacy being entirely equipped with either WW1 military surplus locomotives, or locomotives built or rebuilt by British manufacturers...

Transplant its locomotive stock to a northern-hemisphere location, and you have a perfect representation of what a small, cash-strapped, embattled but autonomous system in the 1930s actually looked like, particularly if you monkey with Awdry slightly.

A bit like an Irish railway of the same era, but different.

To make some parallels with Railway Series locomotives...

'Edward' becomes an ex-ROD Baldwin 4-4-0

'James' becomes an ex-LNWR Webb 17" 0-6-0 or ex-LSWR 395 0-6-0

'Percy' and 'Duck' become Manning Wardle 0-6-0STs

'Henry' becomes the ex-Baldwin 4-6-0s rebuilt twice (into 4-6-2Ts and 4-6-4Ts)

'Gordon' becomes the larger, more powerful and faster North british 4-6-0s which were technically mixed-traffic engines but were their nearest thing to express engines.

and 'Thomas' becomes the Nasmyth WIlson 0-6-0Ts (which were a strikingly odd but winning combination of a Jinty, an LMS 2MT tank, Scottish-style curved tank tops, and an SR USA tank)

I can't find a home in the Irish Sea or North Atlantic for the Kitson 2-8-4Ts, though...

20 minutes ago, Ravenser said:



Just for the hell of it - what did Mersey Railway 4 and 6 wheel stock look like??

DOn't know about Mersey Rly, but here's a possible impression of a Wirral Railway train in what looks like light brown / teak...

https://www.travellingartgallery.com/landscape/historic/detail/H016.html

I am not for a moment suggesting that a C Hamilton Ellis picture gives you a detailed scale guide to panelling, in case anyone makes this point.

I'm mainly watching the assembled throng with awe, but with regard to Saxon chariot styles, it's worth pointing out that the Saxon kingdoms can be divided in the early kingdoms, the so-called Heptarchy, the period of VIking invasion, and the unified kingdom of England (ie pre-grouping, post-grouping, wartime, and nationalisation). So the 10th century drawing I posted is OT, as it's post-grouping (I think).

I'll get me coat.