Jump to content
 

New tooling - BR Standard 2MT 2-6-0 2MT 78xxx


Graham_Muz
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 07/01/2020 at 12:42, 26power said:

Don't immediately recall seeing a picture of one at Kirkcudbright or on that branch.   Dumfries, Stranraer, Newton Stewart and Whithorn branch - yes or pretty certain.

78016 was on the Whithorn branch in 1963 (with 46467) after the jumbos were withdrawn and 78026 was there in 1964. 78051 ? was at Ayr and Dumfries for periods around the same time. Not seen any evidence of one at Kirkcudbright but never say never...

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like the look of these. Although they never run in the BR(SR) in numbers. They look perfect and I wonder if there had been more built would they have been used to eliminate the various elderly 4-4-0’s scattered all over the BR(SR). That’s my logic anyway to get an early and a late crest version. 
 

big james 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting little locomotive and should make a nice and very useful addition to anyone's 'mixed era' layout / BR.

 

Is it me, or does the cab look like 'next door's garden shed'?

Just doesn't look right - and I mean the 1:1 as well.

 

Al.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 06/01/2020 at 17:20, 9402 Fredrick said:

From what everyone has said, 78000 will be unlined green, a first for Hornby on any of their mixed traffic locos that were lined br green, and 78047 is gonna be lined br black with late crests.

 

OK, thanks for the update on R3836 and R3839, will R3838 78010 be black with/without lining and early/late crests?

 

TIA,

 

Stan

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, atom3624 said:

Interesting little locomotive and should make a nice and very useful addition to anyone's 'mixed era' layout / BR.

 

Is it me, or does the cab look like 'next door's garden shed'?

Just doesn't look right - and I mean the 1:1 as well.

 

Al.

It was closely based on Ivatt’s design but altered to fit tighter loading gauges.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stanley Melrose said:

 

OK, thanks for the update on R3836 and R3839, will R3838 78010 be black with/without lining and early/late crests?

 

TIA,

 

Stan

I think both R3836 and R3838 will both be lined black with the respective crests (late for R3836 and early for R3838).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
53 minutes ago, No Decorum said:

It was closely based on Ivatt’s design but altered to fit tighter loading gauges.

Were they mechanically identical? Would boilers, wheels, cylinders and motion etc. have been interchangeable betreen the Ivatts and the Standards?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Andy Kirkham said:

Were they mechanically identical? Would boilers, wheels, cylinders and motion etc. have been interchangeable betreen the Ivatts and the Standards?

Mechanically, pretty well. The Standards had BR Standard fittings such as clack valves, injectors and so on.

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Andy Kirkham said:

Were they mechanically identical? Would boilers, wheels, cylinders and motion etc. have been interchangeable betreen the Ivatts and the Standards?

 

From a model perspective, the most important thing is the basic mechanism the same.  Which AFAICT is basically yes, so a manufacturer like Hornby could manufacture models of standard and Ivatt versions of the 2MT 2-6-2T and 2-6-0 using basically the same chassis, which means potentially 4 models for the price of 1.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On ‎09‎/‎01‎/‎2020 at 10:42, TonyMay said:

From a model perspective, the most important thing is the basic mechanism the same.  Which AFAICT is basically yes, so a manufacturer like Hornby could manufacture models of standard and Ivatt versions of the 2MT 2-6-2T and 2-6-0 using basically the same chassis, which means potentially 4 models for the price of 1.

Current manufacturers have consistently suggested the opposite: the savings in sharing a mechanism layout are relatively minor, most of the research, design, tooling and manufacturing is necessarily unique and thus comes at 'all-new' model cost, to deliver the expected level of fidelity in appearance to the prototype.

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 13/01/2020 at 12:31, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

Current manufacturers have consistently suggested the opposite: the savings in sharing a mechanism layout are relatively minor, most of the research, design, tooling and manufacturing is necessarily unique and thus comes at 'all-new' model cost, to deliver the expected level of fidelity in appearance to the prototype.

Models usually have a complete set of tooling even though the prototype may share a common element. This is necessary to combat issues of worn tool components. In addition if production is being outsourced to different factories they need a complete set of tooling. 

The only saving in this direction is that if after research a component is found to be identical the CAD file could be copied and renamed thus saving a few hours of Keyboard Jockey time.

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 13/01/2020 at 12:31, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

Current manufacturers have consistently suggested the opposite: the savings in sharing a mechanism layout are relatively minor, most of the research, design, tooling and manufacturing is necessarily unique and thus comes at 'all-new' model cost, to deliver the expected level of fidelity in appearance to the prototype.

Moreover, components are produced in the exact number required for the 'project', which is treated as a stand-alone matter by Hornby or whoever.  You can't order (say) 2,000 BR standard 2MT moguls from China and then, 6 months later, order 1,500 84xxx tanks because the factory that made your 78xxx chassis is now booked to make something else and you have to treat the 84xxx as a separate project.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, PenrithBeacon said:

I wonder if the Comet chassis for the Bachmann Ivatt will fit.

Cheers

I fear not, and therein lies my cooling enthusiasm for this model. It looks from the images of the model that Hornby are going down the route of metal boiler with one half connected to the body and the other to the chassis. This not only means seam lines at 10 and 2 o'clock on the boiler, but also a gash where the two halves of the boiler meet, but worst of all a real faff for those who want to replace the chassis. It also means carving Hornby's implausibly straight pipe runs off metal, to replace them with something wonkier. 

It's early days obviously, but these problems certainly affect the J36 and will put me off the 2mt if they affect it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

37 minutes ago, Daddyman said:

It looks from the images of the model that Hornby are going down the route of metal boiler with one half connected to the body and the other to the chassis.

 

Sadly, I think you will be right. From the 3D print above there seems to be the representation of something between the frames.

 

Be nice to see Hornby producing something like this.*

 

EastLancsGalaFeb201161-46433.jpg.e612967a7900f5bfb4f8d63e812848e9.jpg

 

* This is the Ivatt version.

 

P

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 08/01/2020 at 22:57, No Decorum said:

Mechanically, pretty well. The Standards had BR Standard fittings such as clack valves, injectors and so on.

 

Which is why for many years, people were sure Bachmann were due to release a model of this (or the tank version).  Too late now. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On ‎17‎/‎01‎/‎2020 at 14:15, PenrithBeacon said:

I wonder if the Comet chassis for the Bachmann Ivatt will fit.

I am sure that this would be possible, though noting the caveats expressed below.

23 hours ago, Daddyman said:

I fear not, and therein lies my cooling enthusiasm for this model. It looks from the images of the model that Hornby are going down the route of metal boiler with one half connected to the body and the other to the chassis. This not only means seam lines at 10 and 2 o'clock on the boiler, but also a gash where the two halves of the boiler meet, but worst of all a real faff for those who want to replace the chassis.

Then again, the boiler underside incorporated with the mechanism, has been present as a constructional feature over many years in plastic bodied models. Splicing in a replacement boiler underside - most recently on a remotored Bachmann J39 body - isn't difficult.

 

Whether this, and other modifications that are simple with a moulded plastic body construction, might prove more difficult on a diecast metal body is a good question. That has yet to arise for me, as my three Hornby diecast loco body models are all on more than adequate RTR OO mechanisms. It is a little ironic that what is a step forward for RTR OO - mainly in providing adequate weight for traction in the right place - might prove a disadvantage for those wanting to use the RTR item for a finescale project

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
31 minutes ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

It is a little ironic that what is a step forward for RTR OO - mainly in providing adequate weight for traction in the right place - might prove a disadvantage for those wanting to use the RTR item for a finescale project

A nice point. Slightly galling too that Bachmann managed to use a plastic boiler and get the motor mostly into the firebox on the LMS 2MT (albeit with the backhead intruding into the cab slightly); is there anything wrong with its haulage power? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...