What could this loco be turned into?

[OliverSR]

I recently saw this O gauge loco on eBay, obviously scratch built and I doubt to any prototype. As it had no bids I put an offer in due to looking to have a decent motor and chassis under it and was accepted. It runs fairly well and with a clean I think will be even better. My thoughts have turned to what to do with the body, I’m thinking I may choose to scratch build a new one entirely and be gone with the oddly propositioned toy train aesthetic(it has its charm but doesn’t work for me).

Does anyone have any suggestions of what this chassis could go under, I feel like an industrial shunter of some sort but wondering if there was a prototype with a similar wheelbase.

OliverSR

[The Johnster]

It does look as if it has potential, a (working?) 0-4-2 chassis with driving wheels about the 3' diameter ball park.  If it were me, I'd be thinking about some of the Scottish 0-4-2T dock shunters, which presumably (I'm not expert on them) were developments of 0-4-0 pug types that needed a bigger firebox and trailing wheels for a bigger bunker, which suggests to me a loco that can work away from base over an extended site, carrying sufficient fuel for the day's duties, over sharp curvature. 

 

Everything above the running plate is badly proportioned and not put together all that well, so needs to be given the opportunity of an exciting new career in the landfill industry, and once it has been disposed of you can start considering what the replacement will look like, with regard to having sufficient space for whatever motor/gearbox lurks under there.  I'd try to avoid attemting to recreate the Aberdeen shunters exactly, and go for a saddle tank configuration which will allow plenty of space inside for the motor, which I suspect is filling the rather chunky existing bodyshell.  I think the loco needs outside cyldiners, and you might be able to cheat a little with covered in motion L & Y pug-style.  Inside cylinders of a size able to fit between the frames would be unable to provide much in the way of useful T.E...

 

The new smokebox needs to be smaller, perhaps with the saddle tanks extending to the leading edge of it.  I'd want better buffers as well, possibly wooden 'dumb' buffers.  Those nameplates would have to go!  Maybe a bell; the enclosed motion suggests roadside working. 

[melmerby]

The tanks look like the sides from a Stanier tender😀

[Dave John]

A decent suggestion but historically the other way round Johnster . The Caley / NBR pugs were a development of the Caley 262 class  0-4-2 saddle tanks built for the Killin branch. 

 

 

Full drawings are available from the CRA. 

[Steamport Southport]

They were bog standard Neilson 0-4-0STs.

 

First appeared on the NBR in 1882 well before the 0-4-2STs.

 

https://www.lner.info/locos/Y/y9.php

 

But had their origins in the GER and others that were built for industrial users and contractors.

 

https://www.lner.info/locos/Y/y5.php

 

In fact Kelton Fell dates from 1876

 

https://preservedbritishsteamlocomotives.com/neilson-co-works-no-2203-ncb-no-13-kelton-fell-0-4-0st/

 

 

 

Jason

Edited January 26 by Steamport Southport

[OliverSR]

Managed to remove the body from the chassis with it being held on with two screws. The footplate is also a seperate piece but the chassis looks well made with a decent motor and plunger pickups to driving wheels. Pretty compact in all so I don’t know why they made the body so box like and chunky as there wasn’t much mechanism to hide.

If possible I’d like to avoid adding outside cylinders as although I’m happy to try a new body would rather not mess with the chassis.

OliverSR

[Enterprisingwestern]

1 hour ago, OliverSR said:

Pretty compact in all so I don’t know why they made the body so box like and chunky as there wasn’t much mechanism to hide.

 

They seem like a few commercially available body parts, so probably the tail wagged the dog and the body just "happened"?

 

Mike.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

The GNSR had Manning-Wardle 0-4-2T for dock shunting, LNER classes Z4 and Z5. Outside cylinders however, but the overall antiquated appearance might compensate?

https://www.lner.info/locos/Z/z4.php

[melmerby]

Maybe it should've been called "Bitsa"

Bits of this and bits of that.

[cypherman]

Hi all.

With plain robust nature of the body it looks like it may have been made for child or grandchild to play with. While the grown ups play with more delicate kit.

[Wolseley]

14 hours ago, OliverSR said:

Does anyone have any suggestions of what this chassis could go under, I feel like an industrial shunter of some sort but wondering if there was a prototype with a similar wheelbase.

OliverSR

 

I took one look at the chassis and it shouted out LNER Z4 (ex-GNSR X) Manning Wardle 0-4-2T.

 

https://www.lner.info/locos/Z/z4.php

[F-UnitMad]

19 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Everything above the running plate is badly proportioned and not put together all that well, so needs to be given the opportunity of an exciting new career in the landfill industry,

Sir Johnster, master of the English language, cracks me up yet again with his superlative powers of description.... 🤣🤣🤣👍👍👍👍👍

[roythebus1]

I suspect there weren't many small locos that had inside valve gear, there wouldn't be room for it, plus it would need a pit for very basic inspection.

[melmerby]

31 minutes ago, roythebus1 said:

I suspect there weren't many small locos that had inside valve gear, there wouldn't be room for it, plus it would need a pit for very basic inspection.

Do you actually mean Inside Cylinders?

Inside valve gear was quite common.

[Flying Pig]

What about about a Sentinel-style contraption?  True Sentinels didn't have rod-coupled wheels, but you could claim it was built on the frames of a more conventional loco.  The body could be very simple.

[The Johnster]

3 hours ago, F-UnitMad said:

Sir Johnster, master of the English language, cracks me up yet again with his superlative powers of description.... 🤣🤣🤣👍👍👍👍👍

 

My pleasure, F-Unit.

[Talltim]

1 minute ago, The Johnster said:

 

My pleasure, F-Unit.

Thought for a minute you were suggesting building an F-Unit on the chassis...

 

(in Soo paint, obvs)

[Talltim]

The obvious answer is to keep the nameplates and build the body to match...

[The Johnster]

There's a lot more room available inside any proposed bodyshell for this loco than I initially assumed, and I'm now veering in the direction of an open cabless vertical boilered Inside cylindered loco.   I always want to see the drive shafts working on Sentinels...

[kevinlms]

5 hours ago, Talltim said:

The obvious answer is to keep the nameplates and build the body to match...

Yes, and make it look like 37 413! Or 37 111 in an earlier time. Just needs to be a little longer and a coat of blue paint. Oh and some minor detailing.

[OliverSR]

I’ve been having a look into some potential candidates to either replicate or take inspiration from.

NLR crane Lank

https://mikemorant.smugmug.com/Trains-Railways-British-Isles/LMSR-and-BRM/LMSR-pre-grouping/NLR-locomotives/i-HtpCP4q/A

LNWR crane tank

https://mikemorant.smugmug.com/Trains-Railways-British-Isles/LMSR-and-BRM/LMSR-pre-grouping/LNWR-locomotives/i-KxtcZJ2/A

Cape Town dock shunter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Town_Railway_%26_Dock_0-4-0T

beyer peacock 2-4-0

https://chasewaterrailwaymuseum.blog/2017/09/22/chasewater-railway-museum-catalogue-album-1-local-colliery-locos/05113-alfred-paget-0-4-2st-beyer-peacock-204-1861-ccccc-chasetown-1-4-1950/

 

admittedly some of these may not fully match up with the size of driving wheels my chassis has but not out of the question for a freelance industrial with some more grounded proportions. My planned layout is a small dockside scene so this sort of thing shunting about a truck or two would be appropriate.

OliverSR

[Nearholmer]

In my head, it works better as a 2-4-0T, because I can’t find room for cylinders or firebox as an 0-4-2T, maybe something like the KESR Hawthorn Leslie, which had notably small drivers:

 

 

Could lead to an “Oh, Mr Porter!” themed layout.

 

Or, how about the gangly-looking 2-4-2T “Selsey”?

 

Edited January 27 by Nearholmer

[Nearholmer]

Or, if you want to dodge out of building cylinders and con rods etc, you could try a Sharp Stewart 2-4-0T with inside cylinders, although I can’t think of a SG one with such small drivers.

 

 

With so little mechanism to hide, it does cry out to be something small and early, with little or no cab.

 

 

Edited January 27 by Nearholmer

[Nearholmer]

If you have a look at ‘Kynite” of the Corringham Railway, you will see that that was a small-wheel 0-4–2T, but it illustrates my firebox and cylinders point, because it had a notably short wheelbase to fit them in. It was though a standard KS product, their Waterloo class, so could be justified anywhere.

[Metropolitan H]

12 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Or, if you want to dodge out of building cylinders and con rods etc, you could try a Sharp Stewart 2-4-0T with inside cylinders, although I can’t think of a SG one with such small drivers.

 

 

With so little mechanism to hide, it does cry out to be something small and early, with little or no cab.

 

 

That is the same (at least very similar) to the loco built for the Princes Risborough and Watlington Railway - that became GWR 1384 - was sold on to the WC&PR where it was named "Hesperus", and generally known as "The Wreck". It is crying out to be modelled for a "never wozzer" finescale minimum space branch / twig line.

 

Regards

Chris H