goldfish

The near simultaneous arrival of another private owner wagon and some goodies from Walsall Models prompts me to offer a comparison between the original private owner wagons and my smartened up version. The original is on the left, and my version with a full width buffer beam and sprung drawbar couplings is on the left. A similar improvement can be made by replacing the standard couplings with normal Leeds/LMC pattern couplings, but I think eliminating the slot in the buffer beam to be well worthwhile. The partially converted new wagon provides a before and after image. This sort of thing is highly subjective, but I very much prefer my version. Ace Trains have announced a "Brilliantly Old Fashioned Revivals" Range of 4-4-0 Locomotives, which are claimed to be very close replicas. I wonder if they will fit their standard couplings, or offer something more like the original Hornby couplings.

The paint on Leeds stock is notorious for peeling off on its own, and in my experience doesn't need anything particularly aggressive to remove it. In fact I have one 0-4-0 tank awaiting some work that has a fresh chunk of paint fallen off every time I look at it. The couplers look interesting. Are those drop links fitted to standard 3-link coupling hooks?

Just a thought, are the flanges on Walsall wheels thinner than the other wheels? If they are, try increasing the back to back slightly. It has worked for me in the past with wagons that refuse to be pushed through points. Adding washers to reduce the side play on the axles might also help.

The up coming Dapol 4-wheel coaches will be 188mm over the buffer beams, if that helps.

Lead/tin solder was commonly used to fix mazac castings in place, and I have never heard of it causing a problem.

Looking at the page source and scripts, it looks like an attribute is missing from the links in the menu pages. The menu pages have : <li class="ipsType_light"> <a href="https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/168308-links-to-latest-content-not-working/" title="Go to last post" class="ipsType_blendLinks"> The Profile page has : <li class='ipsType_light ipsType_medium'> <a rel="nofollow" href='https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/168308-links-to-latest-content-not-working/&amp;do=findComment&amp;comment=4639403' class='ipsType_blendLinks'> The class 'ipsType_medium' is defined in root_framework.js, and has the property <a href='#' data-action='loadNewPosts'>. It looks more like an error in the template rather than a software error. Also the rel="nofollow" attribute would appear to be missing from the profile pages. Michael

I still have this error, and it is still present on all three of my machines. This is the only site where URL's are being truncated, but it is not happening across the board. For instance the link to the latest post on this tread from the Forum Rules, Notices, Faults & Help menu is truncated : www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/168308-links-to-latest-content-not-working/ But if I go to my profile the link is not truncated : www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/168308-links-to-latest-content-not-working/&do=findComment&comment=4637465 For some reason the URL's on some pages are being truncated at the ampersand. Most puzzling, and very annoying. Michael

Thank you for that. I am using Firefox for Ubuntu 94.0 on 2 desktop PC's, and Firefox 78.15.0esr on Debian on a laptop and get the same error. I have tried both accepting all cookies, and rejecting all cookies, but it has no effect. Michael

For the last few days the links to the latest content have not been working. Rather than linking to the last post on thread they are linking to the first post on the thread. The URL would appear to be incomplete as it just includes the address of the thread, omits the post number. This would appear to be a server error, but it might be that Firefox is stripping off the end of the URL.

It is possible that Maerklin did not come up with 54mm, Gauge 2, although i cannot find the reference at the moment. Just before publishing the 1891 catalogue Maeklin took over the firm of Ludwig Lutz, another toy maker. It seems that in order to merge the two companies ranges the Maerklin products were labeled as Gauge 1 (48mm) and the Lutz products as Gauge 2 (54mm). I found the reference on a German site, but cannot find it again. Perhaps Fred can can throw some light on this.

The keys varied over time, but were surprisingly accurate. Henry Greenly famously wrote - “The best reference for the scale equivalent of a model railway is not the gauge but the size of the driver’s hat”’. (Model Railway News, July 1937, p192)

I was not intending to decry Henry Greenly's work, for his time he did exceptional work. But his legacy is that some pragmatic decisions have become fossilised and set in stone. Looked at objectively, 7mm : 1 foot is in no way a good scale. For many reasons, but mainly because it is just plain wrong. When the BRMSB set the standard for fine scale they should have ditched 7mm / ft and gone for a truly accurate gauge of 35mm and a scale of 1:41. It would have been accepted at the time, but they were more interested in codifying the current best commercial practice.

Märklin defined 0 Gauge as 35mm between rail centers in about 1893. The rails were tinplate with rail head 3mm in diameter, which gave a distance of 32mm between rails. Märklin had nothing to do with the 7mm to the foot nonsense, that was the fault of Henry Greenly and Bassett Lowke.

There doesn't appear to be a copy of the BRMSB Standard Dimensions 1950 available on line, so I am posting a full text copy here for reference. BR Standard Dimensions 1950.pdf

Of limited interest, but somebody might find this useful. In September 1952 The Model Railway Constructor published the BRMSB Standard Dimensions for Stud Contact Electrification. P1.pdf

The rail is not expanding in isolation, everything around it is also expanding to some extent at the same time. Also if the rail is constrained and cannot freely expand the heat energy will be converted into strain energy until something gives and then the rail will distort. Your use of Pythagoras to model a simplified case is for one right angle triangle, but for this simplified case you should be using two right angle triangles back to back. In practice the expanded rail would form a curve and the displacement would be less.

I think you you may have the decimal point in the wrong place, it isn't shown. The Linear Thermal Expansion Coefficient of Nickel Silver is 0.0000162 - 0.0000167. https://psec.uchicago.edu/thermal_coefficients/cte_metals_05517-90143.pdf There is useful calculator here : https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/thermal-expansion The actual expansion is 0.2916mm - 0.3006mm. More than enough to matter.

On reflection I have decided to revert my Hornby 0-6-0 conversion back to an 0-4-0. It does look better. Very much a work in progress, but it looks really good when it is running.

I had a long chat on the telephone with the proprietor about these. They look very interesting at first sight, but have one big drawback so far as I am concerned, you have to remove the chassis to replace the batteries. There are three versions of the chassis, but only one fit a Hornby body. Also with a 3V motor powered by 2 AA batteries it isn't going to be a a great performer. There are a number of other self contained battery powered chassis available elsewhere, but the Smallbrook studio offering is only one I have found that will fit a Hornby body. Edit : I have since come across a chassis by Bole Laser Craft that could be modified to fit a Hornby body. It has a 12 volt micro motor and gearbox and is claimed to run happily on either a 6 or 9 volt battery. https://bolelasercraft.com/product/greenbat-locomtive-chassis/

That is a very nice conversion indeed. I particularly like the use of the push rod for the on/off switch. If the green wire offends you, how about going over it with a black marker pen. Many steam locomotives are surprisingly skeletal, particularly when viewed on an embankment with a low winter sun behind them. With clockwork conversions I think the best idea is to reproduce the outline of the original mechanism. I keep looking at old clockwork motors and wondering if it would be easier to simply gut one and fit an electric motor and gearbox inside the casing. Slaters do 16mm NG wheels that would be suitable replacementm for the Hornby wheels. Michael

A final shot to show what is probably the best that can be achieved without modifying the body. Apart from the odd bit of extraneous daylight under the smoke box that is. I think that is reasonable to say that it is possible to convert one of these Hornby 0-4-0's to an 0-6-0, but it isn't really worth the effort, unless ETS bring out a shorter wheel base drive unit. I actually got this for another, more appropriate body, but I will live with this for a while to see if it grows on me. I keep meaning to get some transfer to reapply the lining, perhaps that might help reduce the bulky appearance and improve the overall effect. Michael.

This is very true, but I am not sure that believable is a word often associated with Hornby tank engines. However, there are always exceptions. When looking for plausible prototypes for this I found "Mortomley" a 0-6-0 saddle tank used at the Newton Chamber's Thorncliffe works. I cannot post a picture for copyright reasons, but the front wheels appear to be much further forward than usual. To see if this could work, I did make some composite images of one of these bodies and the drive unit, with the drive unit at the extremes of where it could fit. However without cutting off the bottom of the rear mounting screw the front axle cannot be further back than the centre of the chimney. The two mounting screws are at different heights, the rear one being much lower than the front one. Michael.

That is an excellent idea, thank you. Something along the lines of this perhaps? This is just a card mock-up, but it is a great improvement. Please ignore the massive amount of daylight over the drive unit, I have just painted the pieces that fill in those gaps. Michael.

Thank you for your suggestions. I will have another look at the installation, but the clearance issues I mentioned earlier limit what is possible without modifying the body. In the mean time here are a couple of very quick trial installations in alternative bodies.

I have tried moving the chassis back, but to my eye it looks worse. There are also clearance issues with the chassis moved back, which would require the rear mounting attachment point being cut down. Something I am trying to avoid. Rather surprisingly if you compare my effort with a Terrier, the relationship between the front wheel and the front face of the boiler, and the rear wheel and the cab are very similar. I think that the problem is probably not the position of the chassis, but the oversize boiler.