Traintresta

So I guess because one never got built, a class 5 4-6-2 wasn’t really a suitable option. Seems like a large loco for such a low power classification. Question is, would anybody have built a small 4-6-2, with wheels of the 5’6” to 5’8” size.

I’ve read a couple of references to the original BR standard class 5 being a Pacific before it was decided to continue producing LMS standard 5’s in a slightly modified form. I’m trying to figure out what form this would have taken. A reduction in boiler size from that of the Clans, using the same frame of the Britannia’s like the clans did might have worked but I’m wondering if an enlargement of the Standard 4 4-6-0 concept was considered, using 5’8” driving wheels. These don’t seem to have been a problem for a mixed traffic loco and would allow a shorter coupled wheelbase to fit under what would likely be a shorter boiler than the clans. Does anybody have have any thoughts or information on this topic?

I like my car to have four wheels and go. Aircon and Bluetooth might be nice but I hate paying for gadgetry and I’m certainly not going to lose any sleep over it.

That's starting to look like the way to go since I can't afford either a whole comet loco kit or a DJH kit. any pointers on how to do this?

Thanks for the replies. I suppose that makes modelling it easier. I went looking for valve gear yesterday but I can only find the comet crab chassis with reidinger gear.

Where does the rotary drive come from on this version of the Caprotti valve gear? On the later Ivatt class 5's and the BR standards there is a drive shaft from the centre axle outside the coupling rods that goes to the cylinders, but I cannot see anything similar on these.

I’ve read that the ARLE had chosen the Maunsell N as it’s standard 2-6-0, but I have always wondered why the MR didn’t build on the principle of the 7f. A 2-6-0 version would have put paid to the crab that was later mass produced and perhaps stanier wouldn’t have needed to design his mogul as it was only produced in small numbers anyway. Who knows, if the 7f has been multiplied, perhaps there would have been less need for the Austin 7’s and the 8f.

Funny how you’ve chosen to return it to a 2-8-2 arrangement!

So it did. I always forget the GWR attempt at streamlining, for me it falls short of he mark but with a few tweaks could have been much better looking and still nothing like the typical British streamliner. I wonder if this cab had any aerodynamic effects in terms of smoke clearance. It has a nice rounded front to it rather than the sharp V that the LNER used. I’m some respects i prefer it. Perhaps we we should think of imaginary streamlined locomotives to see what alternatives we can come up with.

The LNER v front cab was a smoke clearing measure, apparently it was very effective at lifting smokemclear of the drivers view.

Yes they did, but the tidying up of the running boards hid the steam pipes quite well. I’m surprised some of the larger BR standards (such as the class 6, 7 and 8) didn’t get the V front cab like the A4, P2 and V2.

So this weekend see's me working on a new chassis for a GWR large prairie tank in an effort to create something differ3nt but also similar. I imagine this could have been a possibility although I suspect its light weight would have been useful, the real GWR might have made one on a longer chassis? This was largely inspired by the LSWR Urie tanks, the driven wheelbase is 6'6" + 6'4" like the Hawksworth 1500 class pannier tanks, with the same 4'7.5" wheels. I suppose my excuse is that its a freight tank loco but in reality I love the look of narrow gauge locos, the proportion of the body size to the wheel size but don't really want to venture away from 4mm.

Absolutely awesome! Stanier could have considered th I instead of the P2's.

I suppose in fairness th3 big change to make this more austere would be the running boards at the front losing the curve and being split in two. Probably an Ivatt style tender to match the cab better? I don't like how the steam pipes are so visible and ugly on the caprotti black 5's but I do like the version which high running boards as it matches Ivatt's class 4. Would caprotti valve gear be of any use on this?

I really fancy building a 4-8-0 but have yet to decide on the details, however, the stanieresque on above is very well proportioned. I like the inclusion of the Ivatt style cab although you could probably get away with a normal stanier cab with such small drivers. I wonder how an Ivatt version would look, I bet it would appear very American.

I really like the way these turned out. It’s given me some inspiration.

I’m in the process of trying to come up with some sort of justification for the sort of locos I’m planning to run (hopefully soon to follow) which will be prototype based but not models of actual prototypes. In the process I hit upon the idea that perhaps it could be interesting to suppose that the big four were grouped differently in 1923. Somebody much earlier in this thread suggested a ‘big 5’. What I was thinking was grouping the railways less on geographical location and more on the premise of stimulating competition by having lines compete for traffic in broad regional areas. So so for example the SECR and the GCR could compete against an L&Y, LNWR, LBSCR group and a GNR and LSWR group. Just a a thought but it might be venturing more into freelancing, however, it gives greater scope for imaginary locos.

Thank you david. I am just about to give this a go, safe in the knowledge that I'm not wasting a lot and can work quickly. Fortunately I have built several etched chassis recently so I have the tools required to keep everything square and true and I have extensive experience of scratchbuilding so I'm hoping for success now.

How successful is the styrene chassis? I'm contemplating using this method myself for all manner of projects but having never tried it I'm wondering what are the perils and pitfalls, things to avoid and such like?

I noticed you have used card for structural modifications, something I've never done or considered, so I'm just wondering why that and not use metal or plastic are?

I had never realised that the Lima Deltic was in 3.5mm scale fortunately I'm not modelling Deltics, although I have an excellent little book on the Deltics which, out lines some alternative applications. These are all very interesting and I may one day get around to modelling one or two, meaning I will eventually need Deltic body shells son its good to know what's right and what's not.