RMweb Premium Downer Posted April 13, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 13, 2018 Shame - I was hoping for another BR early crest. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium MrTea Posted October 28, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 28, 2019 Does anyone know how easy it would be to swap the buffers (or buffer heads) on one of these locos? I’m hoping to recreate 30072 in 1990s KWVR malachite green at some point and was thinking of using 30064 as a base. It’s got the larger buffer heads (presumably as it was one of the Southampton docks locos) and the difference is quite obvious. If they’re an easy swap it seems a simpler proposition than a full repaint? Although from the scans I have it seems that the green they used was quite a bit more lurid than that featured on the model. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-BOAF Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 Remember 30072 was a somewhat lighter shade of green in preservation than 30064 (in preservation or in service), but not an unreasonable compromise if you're willing. The buffer heads are seperate from the metal buffer beams. How easy they are to extract I have no idea. Probably glued, and might not come out cleanly, which will be an issue if you are planning on doing a straight swap between two different model. You could probably ream out any remaining plastic with a drill bit in a pin chuck, however will be left with the issue of how to fit replacements if you broke the securing lug on removal. The advantage of spring buffers is that this isn't a problem, certainly the way Bachmann make them (just crimped on the inner end)! 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold adb968008 Posted October 29, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 29, 2019 The bunker of 30072 is completely different to 30064, and was not modelled by Model Rail so far. 30072 has had at last 2 different variations post 1968, first with an extension in time for the KWVR opening, and later a whole new larger bunker which it has today. 30072 in 1967, in Black.. 30072 in 1969 with expanded coal bunker to the cab roof 30072 after painting BR Green in preservation with bunker now “squared” off an extended over the bufferbeam, raised curves resulting in a smaller square rear cab window Note 30064’s dance partner 30073 was also a very different bunker... the two are seen here 2 1 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-BOAF Posted November 18, 2020 Share Posted November 18, 2020 (edited) I'm throwing open a challenge. Has anyone operated their Model Rail USA Class in more extreme locations than I have done? This is a report from activities back in 2017, but I've only just written it up as a blog post and published the videos. I think I miss travelling a lot! Enjoy Edited November 18, 2020 by G-BOAF 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dibber25 Posted November 18, 2020 Share Posted November 18, 2020 On 29/10/2019 at 17:31, adb968008 said: The bunker of 30072 is completely different to 30064, and was not modelled by Model Rail so far. 30072 has had at last 2 different variations post 1968, first with an extension in time for the KWVR opening, and later a whole new larger bunker which it has today. 30072 in 1967, in Black.. 30072 in 1969 with expanded coal bunker to the cab roof 30072 after painting BR Green in preservation with bunker now “squared” off an extended over the bufferbeam, raised curves resulting in a smaller square rear cab window Note 30064’s dance partner 30073 was also a very different bunker... the two are seen here From memory - and it's a long time, two models and two Editors ago - the first USA we scanned was at the Worth Valley. There was something of a hiatus when it was realised that the KWVR bunker didn't match either the original or the SR conversion. CADs had to be re-done and I believe the Kent & East Sussex Railway locomotive was eventually used as the basis of the model. Deciding which ones you can't tool for is always the most difficult part of each project. (CJL) 1 1 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steamport Southport Posted November 18, 2020 Share Posted November 18, 2020 (edited) ISTR the K&WVR USA had alterations done to it in the 1970s because it was an oil burner. So I think the model is correct for the late 1960s and early 1970s. But not as it is now. Jason Edited November 18, 2020 by Steamport Southport 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Decorum Posted November 19, 2020 Share Posted November 19, 2020 13 hours ago, G-BOAF said: I'm throwing open a challenge. Has anyone operated their Model Rail USA Class in more extreme locations than I have done? This is a report from activities back in 2017, but I've only just written it up as a blog post and published the videos. I think I miss travelling a lot! Enjoy Is it time for you to talk to NASA or Elon Musk? 1 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wickham Green too Posted November 20, 2020 Share Posted November 20, 2020 On 18/11/2020 at 21:54, dibber25 said: ....... I believe the Kent & East Sussex Railway locomotive was eventually used as the basis of the model. ....... Good job you chose the right K.& E.S.R. Yankee Tank - the other one's got some very major ( and in my opinion extremely ugly ) modifications to cab & bunker. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wainwright1 Posted November 20, 2020 Share Posted November 20, 2020 I would like them to do Wainwright from Ashford Works. Ray 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dibber25 Posted November 20, 2020 Share Posted November 20, 2020 5 hours ago, Wickham Green too said: Good job you chose the right K.& E.S.R. Yankee Tank - the other one's got some very major ( and in my opinion extremely ugly ) modifications to cab & bunker. We're very careful about these things. A lot of original drawings were used, too. (CJL) 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold TheSignalEngineer Posted November 20, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 20, 2020 3 hours ago, dibber25 said: We're very careful about these things. A lot of original drawings were used, too. (CJL) It's always a minefield when things have been around for a while. Not related to a loco matter but when my Grandfather was a Signal Lineman and his old district was about to be taken over by a power box he had a visit from some historical archivist or similar within BR as some of the equipment was nearly 100 years old. He commented that he had never seen signal with ironwork supporting the flitches like one in the goods yard. Grandad replied you'll probably never find another. Before I put those on there they were holding up a cistern in the toilet block. 1 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wickham Green too Posted November 20, 2020 Share Posted November 20, 2020 (edited) 16 hours ago, dibber25 said: We're very careful about these things. ..... Never thought otherwise. Edited November 21, 2020 by Wickham Green too spilling 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fireline Posted November 24, 2020 Share Posted November 24, 2020 On 20/11/2020 at 11:25, Wickham Green too said: Good job you chose the right K.& E.S.R. Yankee Tank - the other one's got some very major ( and in my opinion extremely ugly ) modifications to cab & bunker. May I enquire what it is about the modifications to our engine that so offends your delicate sensibilities? 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wickham Green too Posted November 24, 2020 Share Posted November 24, 2020 (edited) it's just a horrible angular thing in contrast the the curvaceous form Eastleigh crafted out of the American original. Edited November 24, 2020 by Wickham Green too 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fireline Posted November 24, 2020 Share Posted November 24, 2020 46 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said: it's just a horrible angular thing in contrast the the curvaceous form Eastleigh crafted out of the American original. The original cab and bunker were scrap when it came to overhaul. The black Yank has always suffered with poor ventilation for the crews. A deliberate decision was taken to fit windows to the front of the cab that could be opened completely. As far as the bunker is concerned, when running 3 trips to Bodiam in a day, it was felt that, as we had to build a new bunker anyway, we might as well build one that had the maximum capacity. Both were deliberate efforts to make Wainwright more useable in it's current role. Maunsell will, as I understand it, continue with the old cab and bunker for as long as they remain fit to be reused. The modifications may not be to your taste, but they are practical and, as the saying goes, you don't have to look at them! 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted November 24, 2020 Share Posted November 24, 2020 (edited) On 20/11/2020 at 17:00, dibber25 said: We're very careful about these things. A lot of original drawings were used, too. (CJL) Original drawings of what? The cab and bunker bear no close resemblance to what the real "Frank S Ross" looked like in LMR service, at which stage it had an original USATC cab and bunker, the latter with coal rails, which I think were fitted either originally or very early to some locos. Neither do they resemble Eastleigh modifications. (BTW, the curvaceous roof-eaves were original, not Eastleigh, I think) The fact that the new cab and bunker are practical, although not like the originals, gets the whole thing into the same territory that the Festiniog got in the 1970s, and while I express no view about the rights or wrongs of this, it is noticeable that the Festiniog has subsequently moved towards a more 'heritage' approach (where loading gauge permits). Oh, hang on a minute! Am I "going off on one" about the KESR ersatz "Frank S Ross", when the debate is about the model one? From what I can see, the model one is correct, the lining details being from a late iteration of the livery, which was slightly different in earlier years. Edited November 24, 2020 by Nearholmer 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-BOAF Posted November 24, 2020 Share Posted November 24, 2020 (edited) 59 minutes ago, Fireline said: The original cab and bunker were scrap when it came to overhaul. The black Yank has always suffered with poor ventilation for the crews. A deliberate decision was taken to fit windows to the front of the cab that could be opened completely. As far as the bunker is concerned, when running 3 trips to Bodiam in a day, it was felt that, as we had to build a new bunker anyway, we might as well build one that had the maximum capacity. Both were deliberate efforts to make Wainwright more useable in it's current role. Maunsell will, as I understand it, continue with the old cab and bunker for as long as they remain fit to be reused. The modifications may not be to your taste, but they are practical and, as the saying goes, you don't have to look at them! Is there a reason why the square SR openable windows were replaced with the smaller non-anglo round windows, rather than designed a fully-openable square design? This really (negatively) impacts the look of the loco from the front. The rear end, while ugly makes sense operationally. As long as one of the pair is kept in its original SR condition... It would be awful if all four ended up with non-standard bunkers... (I say this as 30064 will probably need significant platework replaced if/when it is overhauled) Edited November 24, 2020 by G-BOAF Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold adb968008 Posted November 24, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 24, 2020 16 minutes ago, G-BOAF said: Is there a reason why the square SR openable windows were replaced with the smaller non-anglo round windows, rather than designed a fully-openable square design? This really (negatively) impacts the look of the loco from the front. The rear end, while ugly makes sense operationally. As long as one of the pair is kept in its original SR condition... It would be awful if all four ended up with non-standard bunkers... (I say this as 30064 will probably need significant platework replaced if/when it is overhauled) It may be worthwhile to think in terms of what would the southern have done if they were still using them. A lack of sufficient coal space, ventilation adding steps are quite practical measures. But it depends on the aims, is it preserving a locomotive or making an industrial machine more efficient. This is often the conflict people have with the NRM. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted November 24, 2020 Share Posted November 24, 2020 1 minute ago, adb968008 said: is it preserving a locomotive or making an industrial machine more efficient Precisely. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold adb968008 Posted November 24, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 24, 2020 (edited) Coming back to the model, 30073 would be very nice as a subject to partner with 30064 as above. I understand it wasnt the only one with that bunker type. So if kader felt like a few little tooling mods that would be nice imho. I had 7 of these USA tanks at one stage, then the B4 and class 07 emerged, so now its down to a more manageable 3, that would be my rationale for a 4th. Edited November 24, 2020 by adb968008 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steamport Southport Posted November 24, 2020 Share Posted November 24, 2020 8 minutes ago, adb968008 said: It may be worthwhile to think in terms of what would the southern have done if they were still using them. A lack of sufficient coal space, ventilation adding steps are quite practical measures. But it depends on the aims, is it preserving a locomotive or making an industrial machine more efficient. This is often the conflict people have with the NRM. Bought diesels? They were bought cheap and weren't expected to last ten years as they were so knackered. The other railways looked at them but didn't bother as they were so poor. The GWR built their own version and the LNER ordered another batch of antiquated J72s. They were a stop gap and was hardly used after the 07s turned up. Most of the survivors ended up as shed pilots or departmental stock. Jason 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fireline Posted November 24, 2020 Share Posted November 24, 2020 1 hour ago, G-BOAF said: Is there a reason why the square SR openable windows were replaced with the smaller non-anglo round windows, rather than designed a fully-openable square design? This really (negatively) impacts the look of the loco from the front. If memory serves (and it's quite a while ago), we had a set of round ones already. Kept the cost down. Oh, and I rather like them. It's all a matter of opinion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenGiraffe22 Posted November 26, 2020 Share Posted November 26, 2020 They've all just been price dropped to £105, might finally get myself a USA Army one =) 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Graham_Muz Posted November 26, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 26, 2020 3 minutes ago, GreenGiraffe22 said: They've all just been price dropped to £105, might finally get myself a USA Army one =) It's a Warley weekend offer and will end Sunday evening . 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now