Traintresta

Good question, I haven’t tested it yet but I’m hoping it won’t have to do anything less than 36” on my layout, as small so it is.

It was your C14 that gave me the idea for this long pony to replicate the radial axle. The rear driven axle is able to move vertically but doesn’t rock, the pony/radial axle is free to rock as well as move vertically and swing side to side. The way I have two forward driven axles, they are able to rock to a degree as each compensation beam moves independently of the other, which means the rear driven axle should provide the anti-roll stability

I had seen those when I researched point kits but thought using plastic parts might be easier. Despite my experience of laying copper clad track, I tend to work in plastic for almost everything else so I thought I’d go that route with track work. it’s early days yet and I’m still learning so I might explore the options.

I have built plenty of points using copper clad construction, hence I’m tempted to go back to that as I know how to do it well. I did do a search and found very little bit didn’t think to do the obvious and check that section of the forum. Thanks for the nudge.

I have purchased two sets of the C&L Finescale point kits, the 'just the plastic bits' versions. I think I need to get in touch with Phil at C&L as I couldn't see any slide chairs nor were there any instructions (which I was expecting) before I really get cracking, but tonight I set about making a point using a template printed from templot. I must admit, I have never done this before and my immediate response to not seeing some of what I expected was to flee back to the idea of making trackwork using copper-clad construction, but I really would like to have a go at this type of construction so that I can take advantage of the look of bullhead trackwork. This layout is really taking a long time to come together, I started the benchwork nearly 15 months ago and still have some bits to finish up before track can really go down, but I was hoping that making a point would spur me on to do that. I have some pretty specific ideas about things I want to do with this layout after several false starts on other layout projects so I feel pretty frustrated at present, because bullhead track was one of my 'must-haves'. Had Peco introduced a comprehensive range of bullhead points (specifically curves) and were they not priced so highly, I might have just bought what I wanted from them, but my budget and the lack of a complete bullhead range of points, and my desire to model OO-Sf lead me to point construction. Further complicating things, I need to travel into nearby Sheffield tomorrow so the temptation to pop by and by some copper clad sleepers from Marcway is right at the forefront of my mind but I am trying to remain patient, not something I consider myself good at being.

I've recently been working on an LNER N5 kit that I bought a couple of months ago, and in the last few days I've managed to get the chassis together, but decided I wanted to completed compensate it to get a more realistic effect from the 'radial' axle at the rear. I've attached a few images of some modifications I have made to try and achieve this, it needed a little tweaking to the ride height as it was ever so slightly nose down, but I appear to have overdone this a little so it needs some further adjustments, but I thought I'd show the progress so far, partly because I have never done this before and feel pretty chuffed with myself for actually pulling it off!

I thought as much, thanks for the confirmation.

Hi all, I purchased the loco in the attached photo, off of that well known online auction site. I’m just wondering if anybody can help me identify the maker? I know SE Finecast do a model of the N1 that is a white metal body so I’m guessing that is what it is, but wondered if anybody else made a similar kit? It’s sitting on a triang chassis and looks to do so with relative ease so I don’t know if that is what it’s designed for but I know SEF now do an etched chassis for their kit.

Does anybody have the dimensions of the G6 and G5 1/2 boilers please?

Any drawings of the wheel arrangements, i.e. spacings?

Set about making such a loco once but made it overly complicated by using the back end of a Fowler 2-6-4t and made a hash of it so gave up.

I'm not sure the firebox on the 2-6-2 is in proportion to the boiler, it looks very undersized. I'm curious to know more about the class 4 however. I was aware of an LMS proposal for a small 4-6-0 for a Scottish line but I think that was meant to be a class 2.

It wasn’t just a British obsession. The Japanese and Americans had lots of electrics using similar wheel arrangements and I’m pretty sure there were a good many locomotives like that in Europe to. Parts of the commonwealth had plenty as exported by British companies. The proliferation of them suggests they either had a valid application to overcome some engineering problem or they were all that was known at the time. We know the latter isn’t the case so there must have been a valid engineering reason for them. I notice the electrics tend toward the 4 wheel leading bogie so I’m guessing that was a speed related thing, in much the same way 4-6-0’s and 4-6-2’s are considered to run smoother than 2-6-0’s and 2-6-2’s at speed.

English Electric main line diesel locomotives of British Rail by Brian Webb, part of the Davis & Charles locomotive studies series.

Interesting proposal from the LMS Fairburn era powered by a 16SVT rated at 1600hp. It’s the same weight as a 31with more power and a similar wheel configuration in that there are 4 powered axles and 2 carrying axles.

I was discussing this topic with my old man, who suggested BR would have done better to design and build its own locos in house, using the best bits of what was available, in much the same way they did with the class 56 and HST. I countered that they were able to do that with the benefit of a lot of hindsight and experience and that BR’s early homebuilt locos were no better than the rest of the assorted collection, except that the 37 seems to have been sound in every respect except that BR didn’t like nose ends. min fact it was BR insistence on the 1Co bogies that hindered the early type 4’s.

Because as a modelling venture I would feel the need to commit to one or the other versions of history.

I have considers this many a time, but I find I stumble across two barriers. Firstly if need to work out all the details and know all the classes in ‘my alternate reality’. Secondly, and more importantly, I kind of like a lot of what we ended up with and can’t fine a way reconcile the two.

Much as I love EE diesels, they could have had HS4000’s.

The bogies on the Hymeks were of traditional diesel bogie construction and could have taken electric traction motors.

I don't think it's too much of a stretch to see the LNER doing a similar concept, or at least BR, even as early as the 50's. If you look at the LNER concept, it's effectively a single unit two engine locomotive, and in the case of the second version has a cab at each end. Surely it's not that much of a stretch to use the front half of the design only and place one at each end of the formation.

The lower drawing does appear to have another cab at the rear/flat end so it is entirely possible that LNER had foreseen the need to turn these and provided an additional cab by this time to make that, and shunting moves down onto a train formation, easier by provision of an additional driving cab. In much the same way as GMD offered the option of a hostlers cab on it's F and E units, some of which, were mid-loco, but others were at the rear end of what would be a fixed loco consist such as the original drawbar connected FT (A+B as a single unit much like the LNER concept).

They end in /034 and /036 so you could be right but zooming in, the top drawing appears to have a 45' date and the one below is harder to read but seems to end in a 8. As much as I can read the number before it is either a 4 or a 6 so I'm guessing it's 48'.

Like nothing I was expecting!!

I have never seen an explanation as to why they weren't ordered, but it may have been that this was a consideration made before he 31's were re-engined or before the 37's were ordered in quantity. I do know that EE were able to build large numbers in short order so they had the advantage over other builders, and Beyer-Peacock (if I understand correctly) didn't last much longer so they may not have been in a position to fulfil the order.