RMweb Gold Tony Wright Posted February 19, 2014 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted February 19, 2014 The nameplates for PRINCE OF WALES arrived this morning, courtesy of 247 Developments. The front numberplate supplied is the 'right' font, but wrong, but Ian Wilson's Pacific one is 'right' but wrong. Just what a difference Tom Foster's touch can make to a standard Hornby A3 is, I hope, illustrated here in these 'studio' shots. As already mentioned, I've also substituted Markits bogie wheels and close-coupled the loco to tender. The differences in the cabside numerals' colours does show a little - more so under my powerful lights in fairness. I always think Hornby's BR green is a bit too 'blue', but the application of the Klear really brings it to life. The top picture is CORONACH as supplied by Hornby, incorrectly fitted (for a Canal A3) with AWS. Full marks to Hornby, though, for fitting an A4 boiler for the period depicted. The boiler suits PRINCE OF WALES for 1958. 18 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 2750 Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Thanks Tony. I was pleasantly surprised at the haulage capabilities of your Hornby Pacifics on Little Bytham. I've now started adding the flanged wheels to my Gresley Pacifics cartazzi. Will these reduce the hunting motion? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
micklner Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Tony What method are you using to close the Loco / Tender gap please. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gerbil-Fritters Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Thanks Tony. I was pleasantly surprised at the haulage capabilities of your Hornby Pacifics on Little Bytham. I've now started adding the flanged wheels to my Gresley Pacifics cartazzi. Will these reduce the hunting motion? It ought to. Without the flanges on the trailing wheels, you've got a very long 4-6-0 with a gigantic ass flapping in the breeze. Get them Cartazzis doing what they're designed to! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DougN Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 It ought to. Without the flanges on the trailing wheels, you've got a very long 4-6-0 with a gigantic ass flapping in the breeze. Get them Cartazzis doing what they're designed to! Makes me think of the Queen song "fat bottomed girls".... maybe I should stop listening to Queen in the railway room???? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Tony Wright Posted February 20, 2014 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted February 20, 2014 Tony What method are you using to close the Loco / Tender gap please. Mick, I'm trying to remember what the original drawbar looked like before I modified it. If I recall, it has three holes in it (what the tiny one does I don't know), two for coupling the tender to the loco - one for display and one for running. For 'display', no bends can be negotiated and for 'running', the fireman would have to be an Olympian! I think what I did was to cut-off the 'running' hole and elongate the 'display' hole, as shown in the picture, but I can't quite remember. Does this explain it? It's really the opposite of what one might think - elongate a hole to 'shorten' a drawbar. I've done it on other Hornby locos such as the 'Britannia'. I have to say, I find the plug-in system betwixt loco and tender employed by both the big two to be a real fag - and all to accommodate a chip in the tender for those who insist on DCC, or to link tender pick-ups. I usually modify them by taking current from the driver pick-ups directly to the motor - tender pick-ups aren't necessary on decent track and who wants DCC? As for the 'stabilising' qualities of the Hornby flanged Cartazzi wheels, they don't make the slightest difference. There are marked differences amongst how the various RTR Pacifics I run run. Some waddle (like 60054) and others ride quite steadily. All waddle far more than my kit-built ones because they're designed, at source, to negotiate tight radii. The haulage you witnessed by RTR Pacifics Tom was mainly on lighter (though full-length) trains. On the all-metal rakes, they struggle a bit, though less so if there is extra ballast added or the superfluous tender pick-ups are discarded. That said, compared with 'decent' kit-built locos, running-wise, they're not in the same class. Still, that's the way the hobby's going, or gone in more recent times, especially with regard to locos. With the weathering you do, they look most impressive and I won't deny that, but none runs quite as well as my kit-built ones. I hope this is of some help. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
micklner Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Tony Thanks for that I never realised it was the plug in type connector version. Have you done anything with the "old fashioned" type as well please. I have found on a couple occasions the tenders are wired the "wrong way" around on my ebay finds which suggests Hornby have changed the wiring around at some point. As you say the Pacifics dont need tender pickups anyway so I disconnect them anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Tony Wright Posted February 20, 2014 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted February 20, 2014 Tony Thanks for that I never realised it was the plug in type connector version. Have you done anything with the "old fashioned" type as well please. I have found on a couple occasions the tenders are wired the "wrong way" around on my ebay finds which suggests Hornby have changed the wiring around at some point. As you say the Pacifics dont need tender pickups anyway so I disconnect them anyway. Mick, With regard to the old-fashioned type, all I've done is fix a .45mm nickel silver 'goalpost' to the dragbeam of the loco and fix a hook of the same material to the stub of the peg on the tender, after sawing the latter item off flush. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Mallard60022 Posted February 20, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 20, 2014 I seem to remember that loads of Pacifics on 'Retford' have no wheels lurking in the Cartazzi at all ! If Mr Jackson does that, so might we.......? P Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nimbus Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Full marks to Hornby, though, for fitting an A4 boiler for the period depicted. The boiler suits PRINCE OF WALES for 1958. Except that it's a bit of a bodge, since they've made the barrel taper start in the same place as a standard A3, which places it 1ft scale behind the dia107's throat plate boiler band, where it should have been. It would have been an unnecessary prototype complication to form the firebox clothing with tapers in either direction within one sheet. On the model, it tends to be obvious only on engines in Kings Cross condition (as opposed to sheds further north). ISTR the Hornby boiler front ring being part of a single moulding with the running boards, so the front ring length is probably 1ft scale too long for a dia107 too. I tried to find a dia107 clothing drawing for the A3 on the NRM Doncaster lists, so I could etch one, but did not find anything specific. What they do have is the Thompson 4470's dia107 clothing drawings. Did Doncaster just use those again from the mid-50s for the A3s using dia107 boilers? Anyone here know? The Nim. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 ... I've now started adding the flanged wheels to my Gresley Pacifics cartazzi. Will these reduce the hunting motion? And another for 'not a lot'. It does help a little putting a spring on the bogie, with some weight to compensate installed; but most effective is to limit sideplay on at least one set of coupled wheels. Usually doing this on either of the leading or trailing coupled wheels is all that is required on pacific chassis, probably which one to do depends on where the weight is balanced. I simply proceed empirically, cementing a little black plasticard to the keeper plate behind the wheelsets until a good result is achieved. Doesn't really affect ability to take curves, as the resulting 'more rigid wheelbase' section this produces is still no more than that of a short wagon. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gr.king Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 (edited) Mick: I believe I've found that because of the inheritance of the "guts" of the Ringfield block in the tenders of the Railroad models, Railroad drawbars were wired opposite polarity to the super-detail locos. If somebody has been swapping bits to make up a "complete" loco for sale on e-Bay you will then have problems! Edited February 20, 2014 by gr.king Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Tony Wright Posted February 20, 2014 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted February 20, 2014 Except that it's a bit of a bodge, since they've made the barrel taper start in the same place as a standard A3, which places it 1ft scale behind the dia107's throat plate boiler band, where it should have been. It would have been an unnecessary prototype complication to form the firebox clothing with tapers in either direction within one sheet. On the model, it tends to be obvious only on engines in Kings Cross condition (as opposed to sheds further north). ISTR the Hornby boiler front ring being part of a single moulding with the running boards, so the front ring length is probably 1ft scale too long for a dia107 too. I tried to find a dia107 clothing drawing for the A3 on the NRM Doncaster lists, so I could etch one, but did not find anything specific. What they do have is the Thompson 4470's dia107 clothing drawings. Did Doncaster just use those again from the mid-50s for the A3s using dia107 boilers? Anyone here know? The Nim. Many thanks Nim for pointing out the error in the taper on Hornby's dia. 107 firebox taper. The more you look and so on. I think the front ring length on the Hornby 107 boiler is pretty close to what it should be - certainly not 4mm too long, though I don't fully understand what you're saying there - my being dim I suppose. I've compared it with the isinglass drawing for 4470 and the A3 drawings, and it's within half a mil' of what it should be. However, the Isinglass drawing for the A1/1 has a continuous (top) taper on the boiler from the smokebox to the firebox. I don't think this is right - shouldn't the front two rings be parallel? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nimbus Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Many thanks Nim for pointing out the error in the taper on Hornby's dia. 107 firebox taper. The more you look and so on. I think the front ring length on the Hornby 107 boiler is pretty close to what it should be - certainly not 4mm too long, though I don't fully understand what you're saying there - my being dim I suppose. I've compared it with the isinglass drawing for 4470 and the A3 drawings, and it's within half a mil' of what it should be. However, the Isinglass drawing for the A1/1 has a continuous (top) taper on the boiler from the smokebox to the firebox. I don't think this is right - shouldn't the front two rings be parallel? If I'd been a bit more thorough on my original post, it would have been clearer. So, I've dug the GAs out of the drawer and looked at the boiler dimensions. I don't have a GA with the banjo collector A3, so these dimensions are for the round dome boilers: Gresley A1 lengths: Firebox - 9'5 7/8"; Taper Ring - 8' 7 3/8"; Front Ring - 11' 9 5/8"; Between Tubeplates - 19' 0" Gresley A3 lengths: Firebox - 9'5 1/2"; Taper Ring - 8' 7 3/8"; Front Ring - 11' 9 5/8"; Between Tubeplates - 18' 11 3/4" Gresley A4 lengths: Firebox - 10' 5 3/8"; Taper Ring - 8' 7 3/8"; Front Ring - 10' 9 5/8"; Between Tubeplates - 17' 11 3/4" Note that the fractional parts are hard to read on my OPC prints, so may be in error, and that the ring lengths are before telescoping together. But it shows that the taper ring was a constant between the dia94 and dia107 boilers. The 1' combustion chamber added to the dia107 firebox was compensated by a 1' shorter front ring. I'm pretty sure Hornby's front ring will be common to all their variants, as I mentioned. As I don't have a dia94A drawing with the banjo collector, I can't confirm, but I imagine this didn't shift in its position relative to the taper ring, but on the dia107 with the entire taper ring 1' further forward, so also would the banjo collector be. On my Isinglass A1/1 drawing it looks like John knew the front section of the clothing was parallel - most obvious on his top view. The Nim. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gr.king Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 As Tony may remember seeing for himself, my W1 conversions of the A4s, with even greater rear overang, waddled ridiculously at speed unless the rear truck was made lightly sprung so as to carry at least a little of the loco's weight, combined with at least a rubbing strip (if not a separate light centring spring) to damp down or slightly resist the swaying of the rear overhang. You could of course washer-up the outer coupled axles of you loco to greatly reduce side-play rather than use the carrying trucks for control, if you don't want it to go around hairpin bends. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 2750 Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Thanks for the advice gents, regarding the 'waddle' on RTR pacifics. It's something I'll address when the big layout gets underway. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Tony Wright Posted February 20, 2014 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted February 20, 2014 If I'd been a bit more thorough on my original post, it would have been clearer. So, I've dug the GAs out of the drawer and looked at the boiler dimensions. I don't have a GA with the banjo collector A3, so these dimensions are for the round dome boilers: Gresley A1 lengths: Firebox - 9'5 7/8"; Taper Ring - 8' 7 3/8"; Front Ring - 11' 9 5/8"; Between Tubeplates - 19' 0" Gresley A3 lengths: Firebox - 9'5 1/2"; Taper Ring - 8' 7 3/8"; Front Ring - 11' 9 5/8"; Between Tubeplates - 18' 11 3/4" Gresley A4 lengths: Firebox - 10' 5 3/8"; Taper Ring - 8' 7 3/8"; Front Ring - 10' 9 5/8"; Between Tubeplates - 17' 11 3/4" Note that the fractional parts are hard to read on my OPC prints, so may be in error, and that the ring lengths are before telescoping together. But it shows that the taper ring was a constant between the dia94 and dia107 boilers. The 1' combustion chamber added to the dia107 firebox was compensated by a 1' shorter front ring. I'm pretty sure Hornby's front ring will be common to all their variants, as I mentioned. As I don't have a dia94A drawing with the banjo collector, I can't confirm, but I imagine this didn't shift in its position relative to the taper ring, but on the dia107 with the entire taper ring 1' further forward, so also would the banjo collector be. On my Isinglass A1/1 drawing it looks like John knew the front section of the clothing was parallel - most obvious on his top view. The Nim. Thank you Nim, The 'streamlined' dome cover of the perforated steam collector is correctly further forward on the 107-boilered A3s. Unless I'm getting thoroughly confused (easy these days), with regard to the boiler band positions on the models - 94A and 107 - the latter has shorter distances between the second and third and third and fourth boiler bands, making up for the 4mm of the combustion chamber. It 'looks' right in comparison with photographs and equates to the isinglass drawings. So, apart from the taper being incorrect at the firebox top front, the model's boiler appears to be pretty accurate. It's a pity the expansion link on the valve gear is too long though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 2750 Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 It's a pity the expansion link on the valve gear is too long though. What is the reason for this Tony, it is noticeable when compared to photographs. Is this to do with train set radii? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Tony Wright Posted February 20, 2014 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted February 20, 2014 As Tony may remember seeing for himself, my W1 conversions of the A4s, with even greater rear overang, waddled ridiculously at speed unless the rear truck was made lightly sprung so as to carry at least a little of the loco's weight, combined with at least a rubbing strip (if not a separate light centring spring) to damp down or slightly resist the swaying of the rear overhang. You could of course washer-up the outer coupled axles of you loco to greatly reduce side-play rather than use the carrying trucks for control, if you don't want it to go around hairpin bends. Thanks Graeme, I do remember your W1 conversion - most ingenious and very effective. As for washering-up (great phrase) the outer axles, I've tried that by using Peco one eighth fibre washers. You don't have to take the wheels off the axles, merely cut a piece out of the washer with a curved scalpel blade that's slightly smaller than one eighth (or whatever the axle size), so you end up with a 'C'-shaped washer rather than an 'O'. Using tweezers, you then push the washer between the rear of the wheel and the frame. It's a slight friction fit over the axle, so doesn't subsequently fall out. Use as many washers as you need. One beneficial side effect is the lessening of the movement on the pick-ups. Does it work? Up to a point, but such is the general sloppiness in OO that it's not a complete panacea for waddling Pacifics. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Tony Wright Posted February 20, 2014 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted February 20, 2014 What is the reason for this Tony, it is noticeable when compared to photographs. Is this to do with train set radii? Tom, Not in the slightest I imagine. Hornby just got it wrong. I've fiddled with one for a friend in the past by altering the pivot point in the expansion link. That is to remove the pin from the centre of the link, solder a very small washer over the top bit of the lower pierced section of the link, lop off the top of the link and solder on a replacement top bit. Then re-attach the link to the radius rod via the new, lower pivot. It needs raising by about 2mm. The finished link isn't dead right but it means that at no point in the motion is the pivot between the expansion link and the eccentric rod lower than the pivot between the eccentric rod and the return crank (as it should be), which it is on the Hornby model when the cranks are at the bottom. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nimbus Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Thank you Nim, The 'streamlined' dome cover of the perforated steam collector is correctly further forward on the 107-boilered A3s. Unless I'm getting thoroughly confused (easy these days), with regard to the boiler band positions on the models - 94A and 107 - the latter has shorter distances between the second and third and third and fourth boiler bands, making up for the 4mm of the combustion chamber. It 'looks' right in comparison with photographs and equates to the isinglass drawings. So, apart from the taper being incorrect at the firebox top front, the model's boiler appears to be pretty accurate. I've only got one BR condition Hornby A3, Sandwich, specifically for its dia107 boiler, as to the best of my knowledge that boiler is not represented in any kits. While I had the measurements to hand, I thought I should offer it up against a steel ruler. I saw the loco a few months ago when I was rearranging things, but can I find it now? The Nim. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gr.king Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Regarding the mismatch between the position of the boiler band and the limit of coning on the Hornby 107 boiler, I noticed that on the "butties" that I've converted into Thompson Great Northern models. As I firmly intended NOT to do a repaint of the neatly lined green areas I left well alone. Had I intended to paint, I would have done some very careful filing to adjust the profile. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Tony Wright Posted February 21, 2014 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted February 21, 2014 Just something rather different. A full review will be appearing in the next issue of BRM. It looks rather nice to me. 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Oldddudders Posted February 21, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 21, 2014 I'm not a 2mm person, but guess that's the new Farish Jinty? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Tony Wright Posted February 21, 2014 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted February 21, 2014 I'm not a 2mm person, but guess that's the new Farish Jinty? Indeed it is. 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