Behind Closed Doors
- Thread starter GHWood
- Start date
Thanks for posting the diagram Nick, obviously its not as straight forward as cutting an arch in the existing frames then, but in some ways it makes the cutting of the arch in the main frame and an extension look easier, as you can do it in two halves.
I think i will get a strip of steel bar from B&Q and have a play with that to explore the possibilities.
I took a look at the Baldrys rule in the link you posted, and sought immediate refuge in a large single malt!
Rear truck is a doddle then?!!
I think i will get a strip of steel bar from B&Q and have a play with that to explore the possibilities.
I took a look at the Baldrys rule in the link you posted, and sought immediate refuge in a large single malt!
Rear truck is a doddle then?!!
This topic has been a little quieter for the past four days!
I did not get to cut the bunker on Sunday, it was too cold in the garage, and Mrs G H Wood was standing guard over her kitchen table all day.
However revisiting some of the posts made, and following an exchange of pm's with several folk, and a detailed consultation with Bradypus, the conversion to a 2-6-2T, looks distinctly possible.
Nick has worked out the formula for the front pony truck, it should (just!) be possible to do this without adding an extension to the frames and running plate. Anchoring a frame stretcher in the area of the cylinders and hanging the truck from that. Having further studied Grahams photos in post #88 there seems to be the ideal mounting point for the rear truck where the battery compartment lid is fixed.
The plan would be to use two sets of Accucraft L&B wheels (25mm).
Rechargable batteries mounted in the side tank, with a charging socket disguised by one of either the sandbox lids or water filler covers, and the on/off switch in the rear bunker.
Anyone forsee any problems?
I did not get to cut the bunker on Sunday, it was too cold in the garage, and Mrs G H Wood was standing guard over her kitchen table all day.
However revisiting some of the posts made, and following an exchange of pm's with several folk, and a detailed consultation with Bradypus, the conversion to a 2-6-2T, looks distinctly possible.
Nick has worked out the formula for the front pony truck, it should (just!) be possible to do this without adding an extension to the frames and running plate. Anchoring a frame stretcher in the area of the cylinders and hanging the truck from that. Having further studied Grahams photos in post #88 there seems to be the ideal mounting point for the rear truck where the battery compartment lid is fixed.
The plan would be to use two sets of Accucraft L&B wheels (25mm).
Rechargable batteries mounted in the side tank, with a charging socket disguised by one of either the sandbox lids or water filler covers, and the on/off switch in the rear bunker.
Anyone forsee any problems?
Neil Robinson
Registered
GHWood said:
Hmm, will it fit on the turntable?
Today we have been mostly.......
making a frame stretcher and a make shift pony truck, to see how much of a difference it would make. and further explore possibilities
The stretcher is made from a draw bar from a redundant L&B bogie, the pony truck a bit of folded brass with Accucraft 25.mm wheels, measurements taking in to account Baldrys principle, as explained by Bradypus
making a frame stretcher and a make shift pony truck, to see how much of a difference it would make. and further explore possibilities
The stretcher is made from a draw bar from a redundant L&B bogie, the pony truck a bit of folded brass with Accucraft 25.mm wheels, measurements taking in to account Baldrys principle, as explained by Bradypus
What becomes apparant though, when the pony truck is in position, the overhang at the rear of the loco is very much more obvious, looks like if this goes ahead it will have to be a 2-6-2, otherwise the loco looks unbalanced. (or a 2-8-0 Matt!)
The pony truck does make a huge difference to the front of the loco though
I notice Roundhouse do a gauge convertor kit for "Russell" that looks as if it contains all the bits needed to make a neat job of this. http://www.roundhouse-eng.com/pdf/rusgck.pdf
The pony truck does make a huge difference to the front of the loco though
I notice Roundhouse do a gauge convertor kit for "Russell" that looks as if it contains all the bits needed to make a neat job of this. http://www.roundhouse-eng.com/pdf/rusgck.pdf
brianthesnail96
Registered
2-8-0? Now you are talking! I think you are right, it needs something at the back now- maybe if you'd extended the frames at the front it'd have been OK but I think a 2-6-2 and the standard length would be even better. Look forward to it!
Good idea on the Russell bits, should save some work.
Good idea on the Russell bits, should save some work.
brianthesnail96
Registered
Want one!
johnsaintjim
Registered
GHWood said:
Now that is fascinating. Any idea how much it is?
johnsaintjim
Registered
Doug said:
I have to agree Doug.
Sitting here lookin at me Lawley, I would say a feature could be made of the running plate extension.
brianthesnail96
Registered
Doug said:
Glad you said that, I was thinking the same thing but didn't want to say, seeing as I've done diddly squat on my project...
Only needs 1/2" or so...
Midwalesstokie
Registered
It doesn't look too bad, the 2-6-2 reminds me of a pair of locos that ran in Cyprus.
The lawley is a funny shape in my view. The wheelbase is a bit too short for an 0-6-0 but there's not quite enough room to fit extra wheels in. If you look at this photo of Superior, it uses the same running gear but has much more room at the back to fit the pony truck in and to allow room for the firebox grate but it all looks in proportion (to my eyes anyway!)
This drawing of Russell, taken from here http://www.irsociety.co.uk/Archives/2/Russell.htm < Link To http://www.irsociety.co.uk/Archives/2/Russell.htm</a></font> < Link To http://www.irsociety.co.u...htm%3C/a%3E%3C/font%3E sgows that although having a similar length wheelbase it has more room at either end for the pony trucks and again looks more in proportion. This loco, like the T&D tanks has a sort of laid back look to it whereas I think the 2-6-2 Lawley looks more upright. The length with the pony wheels doesn't quite match the height. I hope that makes sense!
The lawley is a funny shape in my view. The wheelbase is a bit too short for an 0-6-0 but there's not quite enough room to fit extra wheels in. If you look at this photo of Superior, it uses the same running gear but has much more room at the back to fit the pony truck in and to allow room for the firebox grate but it all looks in proportion (to my eyes anyway!)
This drawing of Russell, taken from here http://www.irsociety.co.uk/Archives/2/Russell.htm < Link To http://www.irsociety.co.uk/Archives/2/Russell.htm</a></font> < Link To http://www.irsociety.co.u...htm%3C/a%3E%3C/font%3E sgows that although having a similar length wheelbase it has more room at either end for the pony trucks and again looks more in proportion. This loco, like the T&D tanks has a sort of laid back look to it whereas I think the 2-6-2 Lawley looks more upright. The length with the pony wheels doesn't quite match the height. I hope that makes sense!
brianthesnail96
Registered
Looks much better to me
Very interesting mock ups Mr Wood. I am sure a certain gentlemanly ghost looking down from his window in Douglas would approve.
2-6-2 makes the most sense, spreading the weight of the loco over more axles, and nice high speed ride into all the curves in either direction. With one of these you can relay your track with lighter rails and only replace half the rotten sleepers!
I would go for a forwards frame extension, but not as far as you have photoshopped, about half or two thirds of it?
Happy steamings,
John
2-6-2 makes the most sense, spreading the weight of the loco over more axles, and nice high speed ride into all the curves in either direction. With one of these you can relay your track with lighter rails and only replace half the rotten sleepers!
I would go for a forwards frame extension, but not as far as you have photoshopped, about half or two thirds of it?
Happy steamings,
John