Re: Narrow Gauge & Industrial Railway Modelling REVIEW
Excellent news, well done John.
Cheers Robin?
Sent from
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Some of you may have seen the news already:?
?
This all happened very quickly, but means our wonderful magazine continues.
?
John
|
Re: Narrow Gauge & Industrial Railway Modelling REVIEW
Some of you may have seen the news already:?
?
This all happened very quickly, but means our wonderful magazine continues.
?
John
|
Re: SAR/WHR Garratt pipework
Allan, I also do the SAR Bell type link & pin couplings and also the Avontuur branch chopper couplings, the link & pin couplings couple automatically as long as you have the coupling height is the same height. The swan neck castings are designed to use? this ducted tube 1.7mm. Brian
------ Original Message ------
Date 13/01/2025 6:59:36 AM
Subject Re: [o14] SAR/WHR Garratt pipework
?Brian Thanks, but I’ll have to pass on the sandboxes and oil tank/pump, as I’ve already fabricated my own equivalents, and fitted them to the (now painted) tank and bunker units. If I’d known about your castings I’d certainly have used them.? The Paddock water tower looks great, albeit probably too big for my proposed layout, but the point levers and slide chairs could be very useful - thanks for the tip. Allan On 8 Jan 2025, at 20:00, Brian via groups.io <rallim56@...> wrote:
? Allen, I have a few different types of sandboxes that were used by SAR on the NNG16's plus I have the oil tank and pump as a casting if you are interested. I also did a etched kit to make the SAR point tumblers and chairs, Kevin now owns the rights to getting them commercially etched, in the photo with the bogie the sideframes are S scale American Flyer Bettendorf bogies except I had a new bolster cast to make them look like SAR bogies except they have a wheelbase of 3'8.7" instead of the 3'10" that they should be. I also did the Paddock water tank for Kevin I think he has a spare kit, it's a big tank at roughly 6" [152mm] square Brian
------ Original Message ------
Date 9/01/2025 5:16:49 AM
Subject Re: [o14] SAR/WHR Garratt pipework
? ?Steve, Brian
Many thanks for the info and the links, which I’ll follow up.
Given the issues with the Backwoods Miniatures kit - and the way that the prototype locos swapped components, boilers and even engine units with incestuous abandon - ?I’m building my kit as a “generic” NGG16. Life is too short to match an individual loco at a particular date, but all credit to those who do! I am making some modifications, such as fitting the later design of lubricators, and I’ve rebuilt the headstocks to accommodate Zamzoodled couplers at 1’6” ARL to match my Lynton & Barnstaple stuff, as Brian recommends.
I’ll give my model plates for NG143, purely because I’ve been hauled by her. Otherwise any link to a real WHR/VoR Garratt will be obviated by a livery of plain, slightly grubby, black. I want an everyday goods engine, not a preservation prima donna, lovely though they are. Not everybody’s choice, I know.
As to the LH piping, thanks for the explanation. I clearly misinterpreted the GA drawing in NG&IRM no. 61. The pipe being for water makes much more sense, especially given the juxtaposition of the injector feeds. However, that does beg the question as to how 143 could run without this pipe in the 2000s? I can only guess it was temporarily rerouted to run behind the frame member, which would probably be easier for a water pipe than an exhaust one, but I could well be wrong.
Anyway, again thanks for the help.
Allan
On 7 Jan 2025, at 23:46, Brian via groups.io <rallim56@...> wrote:
? Just for the record the Backwoods hi NGG16 kit was completely wrong especially regarding the headstock arrangement, if you compare the attached photo to the correct headstock you will see the difference, especially the coupling height for some reason Backwoods set the coupling height to HO scale height instead of the correct 13.1mm above rail as it should be, I also did the artwork to make the Cockrell tank as per #87, but also the earlier round top tank as well, if you are interested in upgrading your model Garratt's you can contact Kevin Macintosh [he spells his name as Kevan Macintosh on Facebook] if you want to contact him. Also attached is a photo of one of Kevin's Garratt's.
PS: if you are interested in the Bell type link & pin couplings check out this video of there operation coupling automatically.
------ Original Message ------
Date 7/01/2025 7:08:22 AM
Subject Re: [o14] SAR/WHR Garratt pipework
Allan,
The exhaust steam pipe from the rear unit on the NGG16s has only ever been on the driver’s (right hand) side of the locos. The two pipes on the fireman’s (left hand side) of the locos are the vacuum pipe for the train and loco brakes, and the water balance pipe between the tanks on the front and rear units.
The vacuum pipe runs from just behind the smoke box to below the cab. The water pipe runs from the front of the boiler cradle to the rear and is connected to a casting (the lump on the boiler cradle frame by the firebox front) that has the water feeds to the injectors taken from it.
So far as I am aware the pipe runs on the boiler cradles below the running plate have not changed much (if at all) on the NGG16s during their various overhauls. Above the running plate is a different matter as boiler swaps during the 10 year overhauls have lead to the clack valves being in different places (either towards the front of the boiler or just ahead of the dome) according to which boiler is fitted.
As to my favourite Garratt? When they were oil fired it was definitely 143, 138 did not steam as well on oil. Both engines were much better steamers when they went back to coal firing. 130 has a similar performance to 138 and 143. 87 uniquely has a Lempor exhaust and is definitely the loudest of the Garratts when working hard. So 143 (I did a lot of my firing training on it) closely followed by 87.
Regards
Steve
On 5 Jan 2025, at 21:51, Allan Dare via groups.io <allan.dare@...> wrote:
? A prototype question, but some of our FR/WHR experts may know the answer:
?
As built all the NGG16 Garratts had exhaust steam pipes running along the boiler unit frames on both sides of the loco. Pictures of no. 143 in commercial service in 1986 South Africa show the pipe on the left-hand side, but when first running on the WHR (in her original black livery) this LH pipe was missing; the only exhaust steam pipe was on the right hand side. No. 138 also may have had a similar single pipe layout at the time.
?
The lack of the LH pipe didn’t seem to affect the loco’s performance; I had a trip behind 143 in this condition in 2007, and she had no problems climbing out of Dinas with a lengthy train. However, following overhaul in 2010-11 no. 143 appeared not only in green livery, but with the standard pipes-on-both-sides layout as well.
?
Does anyone know the thinking behind these changes, and were any other NGG16s so affected?
?
Thanks
?
Allan
(PS and yes, I know the Backwoods kit is for a NGG16 with rivetted tanks, and 143 has welded ones…literal rivet counting!)
?
?
<IMG_1381.JPG> <35166906_1024129124392357_3018808520947531776_n.jpg>
<IMG_2445.JPG> <IMG_2446.JPG> <IMG_1396.JPG> <IMG_1399.JPG> <IMG_1400.JPG> <IMG_1405.JPG> <Paddock Water Tank 1.jpg> <Paddock Water Tank 2.jpg> <Paddock Water Tank 3.jpg>
|
Re: SAR/WHR Garratt pipework
? Brian Thanks, but I’ll have to pass on the sandboxes and oil tank/pump, as I’ve already fabricated my own equivalents, and fitted them to the (now painted) tank and bunker units. If I’d known about your castings I’d certainly have used them.? The Paddock water tower looks great, albeit probably too big for my proposed layout, but the point levers and slide chairs could be very useful - thanks for the tip.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 8 Jan 2025, at 20:00, Brian via groups.io <rallim56@...> wrote:
? Allen, I have a few different types of sandboxes that were used by SAR on the NNG16's plus I have the oil tank and pump as a casting if you are interested. I also did a etched kit to make the SAR point tumblers and chairs, Kevin now owns the rights to getting them commercially etched, in the photo with the bogie the sideframes are S scale American Flyer Bettendorf bogies except I had a new bolster cast to make them look like SAR bogies except they have a wheelbase of 3'8.7" instead of the 3'10" that they should be. I also did the Paddock water tank for Kevin I think he has a spare kit, it's a big tank at roughly 6" [152mm] square Brian
------ Original Message ------
Date 9/01/2025 5:16:49 AM
Subject Re: [o14] SAR/WHR Garratt pipework
? ?Steve, Brian
Many thanks for the info and the links, which I’ll follow up.
Given the issues with the Backwoods Miniatures kit - and the way that the prototype locos swapped components, boilers and even engine units with incestuous abandon - ?I’m building my kit as a “generic” NGG16. Life is too short to match an individual loco at a particular date, but all credit to those who do! I am making some modifications, such as fitting the later design of lubricators, and I’ve rebuilt the headstocks to accommodate Zamzoodled couplers at 1’6” ARL to match my Lynton & Barnstaple stuff, as Brian recommends.
I’ll give my model plates for NG143, purely because I’ve been hauled by her. Otherwise any link to a real WHR/VoR Garratt will be obviated by a livery of plain, slightly grubby, black. I want an everyday goods engine, not a preservation prima donna, lovely though they are. Not everybody’s choice, I know.
As to the LH piping, thanks for the explanation. I clearly misinterpreted the GA drawing in NG&IRM no. 61. The pipe being for water makes much more sense, especially given the juxtaposition of the injector feeds. However, that does beg the question as to how 143 could run without this pipe in the 2000s? I can only guess it was temporarily rerouted to run behind the frame member, which would probably be easier for a water pipe than an exhaust one, but I could well be wrong.
Anyway, again thanks for the help.
Allan
On 7 Jan 2025, at 23:46, Brian via groups.io <rallim56@...> wrote:
? Just for the record the Backwoods hi NGG16 kit was completely wrong especially regarding the headstock arrangement, if you compare the attached photo to the correct headstock you will see the difference, especially the coupling height for some reason Backwoods set the coupling height to HO scale height instead of the correct 13.1mm above rail as it should be, I also did the artwork to make the Cockrell tank as per #87, but also the earlier round top tank as well, if you are interested in upgrading your model Garratt's you can contact Kevin Macintosh [he spells his name as Kevan Macintosh on Facebook] if you want to contact him. Also attached is a photo of one of Kevin's Garratt's.
PS: if you are interested in the Bell type link & pin couplings check out this video of there operation coupling automatically.
------ Original Message ------
Date 7/01/2025 7:08:22 AM
Subject Re: [o14] SAR/WHR Garratt pipework
Allan,
The exhaust steam pipe from the rear unit on the NGG16s has only ever been on the driver’s (right hand) side of the locos. The two pipes on the fireman’s (left hand side) of the locos are the vacuum pipe for the train and loco brakes, and the water balance pipe between the tanks on the front and rear units.
The vacuum pipe runs from just behind the smoke box to below the cab. The water pipe runs from the front of the boiler cradle to the rear and is connected to a casting (the lump on the boiler cradle frame by the firebox front) that has the water feeds to the injectors taken from it.
So far as I am aware the pipe runs on the boiler cradles below the running plate have not changed much (if at all) on the NGG16s during their various overhauls. Above the running plate is a different matter as boiler swaps during the 10 year overhauls have lead to the clack valves being in different places (either towards the front of the boiler or just ahead of the dome) according to which boiler is fitted.
As to my favourite Garratt? When they were oil fired it was definitely 143, 138 did not steam as well on oil. Both engines were much better steamers when they went back to coal firing. 130 has a similar performance to 138 and 143. 87 uniquely has a Lempor exhaust and is definitely the loudest of the Garratts when working hard. So 143 (I did a lot of my firing training on it) closely followed by 87.
Regards
Steve
On 5 Jan 2025, at 21:51, Allan Dare via groups.io <allan.dare@...> wrote:
? A prototype question, but some of our FR/WHR experts may know the answer:
?
As built all the NGG16 Garratts had exhaust steam pipes running along the boiler unit frames on both sides of the loco. Pictures of no. 143 in commercial service in 1986 South Africa show the pipe on the left-hand side, but when first running on the WHR (in her original black livery) this LH pipe was missing; the only exhaust steam pipe was on the right hand side. No. 138 also may have had a similar single pipe layout at the time.
?
The lack of the LH pipe didn’t seem to affect the loco’s performance; I had a trip behind 143 in this condition in 2007, and she had no problems climbing out of Dinas with a lengthy train. However, following overhaul in 2010-11 no. 143 appeared not only in green livery, but with the standard pipes-on-both-sides layout as well.
?
Does anyone know the thinking behind these changes, and were any other NGG16s so affected?
?
Thanks
?
Allan
(PS and yes, I know the Backwoods kit is for a NGG16 with rivetted tanks, and 143 has welded ones…literal rivet counting!)
?
?
<IMG_1381.JPG> <35166906_1024129124392357_3018808520947531776_n.jpg>
<IMG_2445.JPG> <IMG_2446.JPG> <IMG_1396.JPG> <IMG_1399.JPG> <IMG_1400.JPG> <IMG_1405.JPG> <Paddock Water Tank 1.jpg> <Paddock Water Tank 2.jpg> <Paddock Water Tank 3.jpg>
|
Re: SAR/WHR Garratt pipework
Allen, I have a few different types of sandboxes that were used by SAR on the NNG16's plus I have the oil tank and pump as a casting if you are interested. I also did a etched kit to make the SAR point tumblers and chairs, Kevin now owns the rights to getting them commercially etched, in the photo with the bogie the sideframes are S scale American Flyer Bettendorf bogies except I had a new bolster cast to make them look like SAR bogies except they have a wheelbase of 3'8.7" instead of the 3'10" that they should be. I also did the Paddock water tank for Kevin I think he has a spare kit, it's a big tank at roughly 6" [152mm] square Brian
------ Original Message ------
Date 9/01/2025 5:16:49 AM
Subject Re: [o14] SAR/WHR Garratt pipework
? ?Steve, Brian
Many thanks for the info and the links, which I’ll follow up.
Given the issues with the Backwoods Miniatures kit - and the way that the prototype locos swapped components, boilers and even engine units with incestuous abandon - ?I’m building my kit as a “generic” NGG16. Life is too short to match an individual loco at a particular date, but all credit to those who do! I am making some modifications, such as fitting the later design of lubricators, and I’ve rebuilt the headstocks to accommodate Zamzoodled couplers at 1’6” ARL to match my Lynton & Barnstaple stuff, as Brian recommends.
I’ll give my model plates for NG143, purely because I’ve been hauled by her. Otherwise any link to a real WHR/VoR Garratt will be obviated by a livery of plain, slightly grubby, black. I want an everyday goods engine, not a preservation prima donna, lovely though they are. Not everybody’s choice, I know.
As to the LH piping, thanks for the explanation. I clearly misinterpreted the GA drawing in NG&IRM no. 61. The pipe being for water makes much more sense, especially given the juxtaposition of the injector feeds. However, that does beg the question as to how 143 could run without this pipe in the 2000s? I can only guess it was temporarily rerouted to run behind the frame member, which would probably be easier for a water pipe than an exhaust one, but I could well be wrong.
Anyway, again thanks for the help.
Allan
On 7 Jan 2025, at 23:46, Brian via groups.io <rallim56@...> wrote:
? Just for the record the Backwoods hi NGG16 kit was completely wrong especially regarding the headstock arrangement, if you compare the attached photo to the correct headstock you will see the difference, especially the coupling height for some reason Backwoods set the coupling height to HO scale height instead of the correct 13.1mm above rail as it should be, I also did the artwork to make the Cockrell tank as per #87, but also the earlier round top tank as well, if you are interested in upgrading your model Garratt's you can contact Kevin Macintosh [he spells his name as Kevan Macintosh on Facebook] if you want to contact him. Also attached is a photo of one of Kevin's Garratt's.
PS: if you are interested in the Bell type link & pin couplings check out this video of there operation coupling automatically.
------ Original Message ------
Date 7/01/2025 7:08:22 AM
Subject Re: [o14] SAR/WHR Garratt pipework
Allan,
The exhaust steam pipe from the rear unit on the NGG16s has only ever been on the driver’s (right hand) side of the locos. The two pipes on the fireman’s (left hand side) of the locos are the vacuum pipe for the train and loco brakes, and the water balance pipe between the tanks on the front and rear units.
The vacuum pipe runs from just behind the smoke box to below the cab. The water pipe runs from the front of the boiler cradle to the rear and is connected to a casting (the lump on the boiler cradle frame by the firebox front) that has the water feeds to the injectors taken from it.
So far as I am aware the pipe runs on the boiler cradles below the running plate have not changed much (if at all) on the NGG16s during their various overhauls. Above the running plate is a different matter as boiler swaps during the 10 year overhauls have lead to the clack valves being in different places (either towards the front of the boiler or just ahead of the dome) according to which boiler is fitted.
As to my favourite Garratt? When they were oil fired it was definitely 143, 138 did not steam as well on oil. Both engines were much better steamers when they went back to coal firing. 130 has a similar performance to 138 and 143. 87 uniquely has a Lempor exhaust and is definitely the loudest of the Garratts when working hard. So 143 (I did a lot of my firing training on it) closely followed by 87.
Regards
Steve
On 5 Jan 2025, at 21:51, Allan Dare via groups.io <allan.dare@...> wrote:
? A prototype question, but some of our FR/WHR experts may know the answer:
?
As built all the NGG16 Garratts had exhaust steam pipes running along the boiler unit frames on both sides of the loco. Pictures of no. 143 in commercial service in 1986 South Africa show the pipe on the left-hand side, but when first running on the WHR (in her original black livery) this LH pipe was missing; the only exhaust steam pipe was on the right hand side. No. 138 also may have had a similar single pipe layout at the time.
?
The lack of the LH pipe didn’t seem to affect the loco’s performance; I had a trip behind 143 in this condition in 2007, and she had no problems climbing out of Dinas with a lengthy train. However, following overhaul in 2010-11 no. 143 appeared not only in green livery, but with the standard pipes-on-both-sides layout as well.
?
Does anyone know the thinking behind these changes, and were any other NGG16s so affected?
?
Thanks
?
Allan
(PS and yes, I know the Backwoods kit is for a NGG16 with rivetted tanks, and 143 has welded ones…literal rivet counting!)
?
?
<IMG_1381.JPG> <35166906_1024129124392357_3018808520947531776_n.jpg>
|
Re: SAR/WHR Garratt pipework
? ?Steve, Brian
Many thanks for the info and the links, which I’ll follow up.
Given the issues with the Backwoods Miniatures kit - and the way that the prototype locos swapped components, boilers and even engine units with incestuous abandon - ?I’m building my kit as a “generic” NGG16. Life is too short to match an individual loco at a particular date, but all credit to those who do! I am making some modifications, such as fitting the later design of lubricators, and I’ve rebuilt the headstocks to accommodate Zamzoodled couplers at 1’6” ARL to match my Lynton & Barnstaple stuff, as Brian recommends.
I’ll give my model plates for NG143, purely because I’ve been hauled by her. Otherwise any link to a real WHR/VoR Garratt will be obviated by a livery of plain, slightly grubby, black. I want an everyday goods engine, not a preservation prima donna, lovely though they are. Not everybody’s choice, I know.
As to the LH piping, thanks for the explanation. I clearly misinterpreted the GA drawing in NG&IRM no. 61. The pipe being for water makes much more sense, especially given the juxtaposition of the injector feeds. However, that does beg the question as to how 143 could run without this pipe in the 2000s? I can only guess it was temporarily rerouted to run behind the frame member, which would probably be easier for a water pipe than an exhaust one, but I could well be wrong.
Anyway, again thanks for the help.
Allan
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 7 Jan 2025, at 23:46, Brian via groups.io <rallim56@...> wrote:
? Just for the record the Backwoods hi NGG16 kit was completely wrong especially regarding the headstock arrangement, if you compare the attached photo to the correct headstock you will see the difference, especially the coupling height for some reason Backwoods set the coupling height to HO scale height instead of the correct 13.1mm above rail as it should be, I also did the artwork to make the Cockrell tank as per #87, but also the earlier round top tank as well, if you are interested in upgrading your model Garratt's you can contact Kevin Macintosh [he spells his name as Kevan Macintosh on Facebook] if you want to contact him. Also attached is a photo of one of Kevin's Garratt's.
PS: if you are interested in the Bell type link & pin couplings check out this video of there operation coupling automatically.
------ Original Message ------
Date 7/01/2025 7:08:22 AM
Subject Re: [o14] SAR/WHR Garratt pipework
Allan,
The exhaust steam pipe from the rear unit on the NGG16s has only ever been on the driver’s (right hand) side of the locos. The two pipes on the fireman’s (left hand side) of the locos are the vacuum pipe for the train and loco brakes, and the water balance pipe between the tanks on the front and rear units.
The vacuum pipe runs from just behind the smoke box to below the cab. The water pipe runs from the front of the boiler cradle to the rear and is connected to a casting (the lump on the boiler cradle frame by the firebox front) that has the water feeds to the injectors taken from it.
So far as I am aware the pipe runs on the boiler cradles below the running plate have not changed much (if at all) on the NGG16s during their various overhauls. Above the running plate is a different matter as boiler swaps during the 10 year overhauls have lead to the clack valves being in different places (either towards the front of the boiler or just ahead of the dome) according to which boiler is fitted.
As to my favourite Garratt? When they were oil fired it was definitely 143, 138 did not steam as well on oil. Both engines were much better steamers when they went back to coal firing. 130 has a similar performance to 138 and 143. 87 uniquely has a Lempor exhaust and is definitely the loudest of the Garratts when working hard. So 143 (I did a lot of my firing training on it) closely followed by 87.
Regards
Steve
On 5 Jan 2025, at 21:51, Allan Dare via groups.io <allan.dare@...> wrote:
? A prototype question, but some of our FR/WHR experts may know the answer:
?
As built all the NGG16 Garratts had exhaust steam pipes running along the boiler unit frames on both sides of the loco. Pictures of no. 143 in commercial service in 1986 South Africa show the pipe on the left-hand side, but when first running on the WHR (in her original black livery) this LH pipe was missing; the only exhaust steam pipe was on the right hand side. No. 138 also may have had a similar single pipe layout at the time.
?
The lack of the LH pipe didn’t seem to affect the loco’s performance; I had a trip behind 143 in this condition in 2007, and she had no problems climbing out of Dinas with a lengthy train. However, following overhaul in 2010-11 no. 143 appeared not only in green livery, but with the standard pipes-on-both-sides layout as well.
?
Does anyone know the thinking behind these changes, and were any other NGG16s so affected?
?
Thanks
?
Allan
(PS and yes, I know the Backwoods kit is for a NGG16 with rivetted tanks, and 143 has welded ones…literal rivet counting!)
?
?
<IMG_1381.JPG> <35166906_1024129124392357_3018808520947531776_n.jpg>
|
Re: Narrow Gauge & Industrial Railway Modelling REVIEW
Issue 141 has gone to the printers for distribution at the end of the month.
In this issue we continue with Part 2 of Marty Johnston’s superb series on the unique outside flange Charles Hunt Railway system. This part covers the locomotives and rolling stock and is supported by no less than 11 scale drawings by Stuart Baker. We also have an article and scale drawing by Stuart on the Campbeltown & Macrihanish locomotive Chevalier, loco and construction articles by Giles Favell and Paul Holmes, a rolling stock kit adaptation article by Nick Brown and finally Sydney Leleux shares some memories of early standard gauge industrial Kerr Stuart diesels, plus of course the usual product & book reviews and readers letters.
Contents:
- Charles Hunt’s Innovative Railways – Part 2?- Martin E Johnston describes the locomotives and rolling stock of this unique outside flange based railway system with prototype photos and 1:32 scale drawings by Stuart L Baker
- Campbeltown & Machrihanish Light Railway Chevalier?- The 2ft 3ins gauge locomotive modelled in 7mm scale by Stuart L Baker with 1:32 scale drawing
- Tattoo in 16mm Scale?- Traditional & modern techniques and electronic wizardry by Giles Favell
- Wantage Tramway No.5 Jane?- Paul Holmes builds this unique England engine in 7mm scale
- Lynton & Barnstaple Coach No.1 Conversion?- Nick Brown builds a new coach from Slaters 7mm kit components
- Encounters with two Kerr Stuart Diesels?- Sydney A Leleux shares some memories of early standard gauge industrial diesels
- Quarry Crane?- A modelling mystery by John Elliot
|
Re: SAR/WHR Garratt pipework
Just for the record the Backwoods NGG16 kit was completely wrong especially regarding the headstock arrangement, if you compare the attached photo to the correct headstock you will see the difference, especially the coupling height for some reason Backwoods set the coupling height to HO scale height instead of the correct 13.1mm above rail as it should be, I also did the artwork to make the Cockrell tank as per #87, but also the earlier round top tank as well, if you are interested in upgrading your model Garratt's you can contact Kevin Macintosh [he spells his name as Kevan Macintosh on Facebook] if you want to contact him. Also attached is a photo of one of Kevin's Garratt's.
PS: if you are interested in the Bell type link & pin couplings check out this video of there operation coupling automatically.
------ Original Message ------
Date 7/01/2025 7:08:22 AM
Subject Re: [o14] SAR/WHR Garratt pipework
Allan,
The exhaust steam pipe from the rear unit on the NGG16s has only ever been on the driver’s (right hand) side of the locos. The two pipes on the fireman’s (left hand side) of the locos are the vacuum pipe for the train and loco brakes, and the water balance pipe between the tanks on the front and rear units.
The vacuum pipe runs from just behind the smoke box to below the cab. The water pipe runs from the front of the boiler cradle to the rear and is connected to a casting (the lump on the boiler cradle frame by the firebox front) that has the water feeds to the injectors taken from it.
So far as I am aware the pipe runs on the boiler cradles below the running plate have not changed much (if at all) on the NGG16s during their various overhauls. Above the running plate is a different matter as boiler swaps during the 10 year overhauls have lead to the clack valves being in different places (either towards the front of the boiler or just ahead of the dome) according to which boiler is fitted.
As to my favourite Garratt? When they were oil fired it was definitely 143, 138 did not steam as well on oil. Both engines were much better steamers when they went back to coal firing. 130 has a similar performance to 138 and 143. 87 uniquely has a Lempor exhaust and is definitely the loudest of the Garratts when working hard. So 143 (I did a lot of my firing training on it) closely followed by 87.
Regards
Steve
On 5 Jan 2025, at 21:51, Allan Dare via groups.io <allan.dare@...> wrote:
? A prototype question, but some of our FR/WHR experts may know the answer:
?
As built all the NGG16 Garratts had exhaust steam pipes running along the boiler unit frames on both sides of the loco. Pictures of no. 143 in commercial service in 1986 South Africa show the pipe on the left-hand side, but when first running on the WHR (in her original black livery) this LH pipe was missing; the only exhaust steam pipe was on the right hand side. No. 138 also may have had a similar single pipe layout at the time.
?
The lack of the LH pipe didn’t seem to affect the loco’s performance; I had a trip behind 143 in this condition in 2007, and she had no problems climbing out of Dinas with a lengthy train. However, following overhaul in 2010-11 no. 143 appeared not only in green livery, but with the standard pipes-on-both-sides layout as well.
?
Does anyone know the thinking behind these changes, and were any other NGG16s so affected?
?
Thanks
?
Allan
(PS and yes, I know the Backwoods kit is for a NGG16 with rivetted tanks, and 143 has welded ones…literal rivet counting!)
?
?
|
Re: SAR/WHR Garratt pipework
Allan,
The exhaust steam pipe from the rear unit on the NGG16s has only ever been on the driver’s (right hand) side of the locos. The two pipes on the fireman’s (left hand side) of the locos are the vacuum pipe for the train and loco brakes, and the water balance pipe between the tanks on the front and rear units.
The vacuum pipe runs from just behind the smoke box to below the cab. The water pipe runs from the front of the boiler cradle to the rear and is connected to a casting (the lump on the boiler cradle frame by the firebox front) that has the water feeds to the injectors taken from it.
So far as I am aware the pipe runs on the boiler cradles below the running plate have not changed much (if at all) on the NGG16s during their various overhauls. Above the running plate is a different matter as boiler swaps during the 10 year overhauls have lead to the clack valves being in different places (either towards the front of the boiler or just ahead of the dome) according to which boiler is fitted.
As to my favourite Garratt? When they were oil fired it was definitely 143, 138 did not steam as well on oil. Both engines were much better steamers when they went back to coal firing. 130 has a similar performance to 138 and 143. 87 uniquely has a Lempor exhaust and is definitely the loudest of the Garratts when working hard. So 143 (I did a lot of my firing training on it) closely followed by 87.
Regards
Steve
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 5 Jan 2025, at 21:51, Allan Dare via groups.io <allan.dare@...> wrote:
? A prototype question, but some of our FR/WHR experts may know the answer:
?
As built all the NGG16 Garratts had exhaust steam pipes running along the boiler unit frames on both sides of the loco. Pictures of no. 143 in commercial service in 1986 South Africa show the pipe on the left-hand side, but when first running on the WHR (in her original black livery) this LH pipe was missing; the only exhaust steam pipe was on the right hand side. No. 138 also may have had a similar single pipe layout at the time.
?
The lack of the LH pipe didn’t seem to affect the loco’s performance; I had a trip behind 143 in this condition in 2007, and she had no problems climbing out of Dinas with a lengthy train. However, following overhaul in 2010-11 no. 143 appeared not only in green livery, but with the standard pipes-on-both-sides layout as well.
?
Does anyone know the thinking behind these changes, and were any other NGG16s so affected?
?
Thanks
?
Allan
(PS and yes, I know the Backwoods kit is for a NGG16 with rivetted tanks, and 143 has welded ones…literal rivet counting!)
?
?
|
A prototype question, but some of our FR/WHR experts may know the answer:
?
As built all the NGG16 Garratts had exhaust steam pipes running along the boiler unit frames on both sides of the loco. Pictures of no. 143 in commercial service in 1986 South Africa show the pipe on the left-hand side, but when first running on the WHR (in her original black livery) this LH pipe was missing; the only exhaust steam pipe was on the right hand side. No. 138 also may have had a similar single pipe layout at the time.
?
The lack of the LH pipe didn’t seem to affect the loco’s performance; I had a trip behind 143 in this condition in 2007, and she had no problems climbing out of Dinas with a lengthy train. However, following overhaul in 2010-11 no. 143 appeared not only in green livery, but with the standard pipes-on-both-sides layout as well.
?
Does anyone know the thinking behind these changes, and were any other NGG16s so affected?
?
Thanks
?
Allan
(PS and yes, I know the Backwoods kit is for a NGG16 with rivetted tanks, and 143 has welded ones…literal rivet counting!)
?
?
|
I agree David that the notable Welsh NG railways were all sub 2ft. I also agree that a suitable source of bull/double headed rail may be a challenge. I know Paul H used S Scale Society rail for Dinas but seem to recall hearing the latest rail is not so good.
?
However, the real opportunity with the Templot approach is that ALL the track and pointwork for a layout can be printed with correct chairs and sleepering in your chosen gauge. There are even 3d printable filing jugs for the rails. It is a completely opposite approach to buying some flexible track and a few points and assembling a track plan. That said it is mightily difficult to perfect a complete digital plan. I resorted to full size paper for the crossover and goods yard loop for Lynton. And the PLR was all done with hand drawn templates.
?
John
|
Was there any TWO FOOT gauge track with chairs? I suspect that it was all an inch or two short of two feet and thus somewhere in the lower part of the 13mm - 14mm range in 7mm (or the Talyllyn at 15,75 mm).
Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year to you all.
David WOODCOCK
Champlon, Belgique
|
John,
That's an interesting development and not such a surprise as Paul Martin produced printed 14mm track some time ago. That was FB to suit the Lionheart L&B models. FB is easy as there are many different (model) rail sections available. Chaired track is not quite so straightforward as the range of bullhead/double head sizes/profiles is very limited and the most popular, code 75, is not quite heavy enough.
Adrian?
|
I've been watching on and off the Templot developments for 3D printed chairs in either 3D printed or laser-cut sleepers. The big interest for fellow true gauge aficionados is it is meant to work in any gauge or scale. I think the chairs are defined by a CAD file so it should be possible to produce 14mm track with all variants of Welsh chairs.
?
The following link on WT is probably easier to follow than the Templot forum itself:
On this thread there are also details of someone who will print and lasercut track from Templot files as a service.
?
I have to confess I have a love-hate relationship with Templot (more of a hate if truth be told) but I understand it has got slightly easier to use of late.
?
John
|
Re: Now: O14 group birthday - started 28th November 2004 - Thursday, November 28, 2024
#cal-notice
Hi Gents,
I think special accolades are in order for David from KB
Scale for keeping Roy’s range of locos, rolling stock and accessories
alive!
?
Also, Paul’s support with the re-gauging of the L&B
models would have been a special prize for those modelling the L&B. With the
ever diminishing number of suppliers and support services available, it was
sensational for Paul take on this project, and I am sure it would have been a
very labour intensive modification exercise.
?
Reading some of our member stories, it appears common
that some projects take years (or decades?). I have probably not been as
productive as I should have been with very little O14 modelling in the last 10
years. I have actually accumulated a reasonable roster of Listers other locos
and rolling stock which will be adequate for when my grand O14 project happens.
I am finding the primary impediment to be the track building. I have all the
track gauges and frog jigs etc, however I do find track building to be the most
tedious part of model railways. I am aware that Paul now has some r-t-r ?track available, however his website
shows this currently as “Out of stock”. Maybe over the Christmas break, I should
start making a few points?
?
Bruce
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: Allan Dare via groups.io
Sent: 2 December, 2024 8:58 AM
Subject: Re: [o14] Now: O14 group birthday - started 28th November
2004 - Thursday, November 28, 2024 #cal-notice
?
I
wonder how many of us got into O14 by accident, or nearly so?
?
Back when the Greenwich show was still in Greenwich I bought one of Roy
Link’s first batch of Rustons plus some skips (and a horse as back-up power to
the loco!). The kit was for 14mm gauge, so for no better reason that’s what I
built, together with a very small “skips with everything” diorama. This reached
the operable-but-unscenicked stage before my butterfly mind switched to
something else.
?
Fast forward a few years, and on a whim I picked up an unbuilt Peco Hunslet
and Branchlines chassis from the 7mmNGA sales stand. I dithered over which gauge
to build it to, but eventually decided on 14mm purely to match the Ruston.
?
Forward a few more years, and I bought the Alan Gibson kit for “Lew”. The
earlier locos dictated the choice of 14mm gauge, but I now discovered its
benefits - it not only looks better, but gives far better clearances between the
frames on outside-frame locos. A Wrightlines Baldwin showed similar clearance
benefits on an inside-frame loco, both in the crucial areas behind the
crossheads, and for bogie swing without clouting the back of the
cylinders.? More recent projects such as an NGG16 Garratt and L&B Lyn
have likewise been no harder in O14 than in O16.5.
?
I now tell people that I model in O14 because, in contrast to EM and P4,
it’s actually easier than its commercial-gauge equivalent. It’s kind of true….
but inertia is the real reason!
?
Allan
?
?
On 1 Dec 2024, at 20:34, Peter Tarver via groups.io
<peter_tarver@...> wrote:
?Hi Paul & All,
?
I am here & have been for some time ? just not very productively as
in the main my modelling in the last few years has been focused on P4 bits. I
have been sorting some 014 stock in the last few months though, thanks for the
inspiration to do so!
?
As you say, Croesor Junction is in the pipeline - though I think prior to
that there will be an inglenook called Porthmadog Snowdon Street, with a bit
of the mill & surroundings. Only 2 points to worry about as I haven't
built them in flat bottom before!
?
House & wedding may scupper short term progress however!
?
Cheers,
Pete
On Thu, 28 Nov 2024 at 15:08, Paul Holmes via groups.io
<heatonwood@...> wrote:
[Edited Message Follows]
Hi all and thanks for the mention Robin. I’ve no idea when I joined the
yahoo group but started 014 modelling back around 2005 with the Port
Wynnstay England locos. It’s still a niche scale/gauge which suits me
fine!?
There must be many who model in 014 and are neither members of the 7mm
NGA nor here, my daughter’s fiancé for one who is slowly accumulating stock
for a Col Stevens? era WHR layout of Croesor Junction.?
Thanks must go to Paul Martin for assisting us with his products.
So happy 20th birthday to the group. Maybe next year as it will be 21,
we should storm the Burton show?? Oh wait - my Corris layout is 15.75mm
gauge….
Paul
|
Re: Now: O14 group birthday - started 28th November 2004 - Thursday, November 28, 2024
#cal-notice
I wonder how many of us got into O14 by accident, or nearly so? Back when the Greenwich show was still in Greenwich I bought one of Roy Link’s first batch of Rustons plus some skips (and a horse as back-up power to the loco!). The kit was for 14mm gauge, so for no better reason that’s what I built, together with a very small “skips with everything” diorama. This reached the operable-but-unscenicked stage before my butterfly mind switched to something else.?
Fast forward a few years, and on a whim I picked up an unbuilt Peco Hunslet and Branchlines chassis from the 7mmNGA sales stand. I dithered over which gauge to build it to, but eventually decided on 14mm purely to match the Ruston.
Forward a few more years, and I bought the Alan Gibson kit for “Lew”. The earlier locos dictated the choice of 14mm gauge, but I now discovered its benefits - it not only looks better, but gives far better clearances between the frames on outside-frame locos. A Wrightlines Baldwin showed similar clearance benefits on an inside-frame loco, both in the crucial areas behind the crossheads, and for bogie swing without clouting the back of the cylinders. ?More recent projects such as an NGG16 Garratt and L&B Lyn have likewise been no harder in O14 than in O16.5.
I now tell people that I model in O14 because, in contrast to EM and P4, it’s actually easier than its commercial-gauge equivalent. It’s kind of true…. but inertia is the real reason!
Allan
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 1 Dec 2024, at 20:34, Peter Tarver via groups.io <peter_tarver@...> wrote:
?Hi Paul & All,
I am here & have been for some time ? just not very productively as in the main my modelling in the last few years has been focused on P4 bits. I have been sorting some 014 stock in the last few months though, thanks for the inspiration to do so!
As you say, Croesor Junction is in the pipeline - though I think prior to that there will be an inglenook called Porthmadog Snowdon Street, with a bit of the mill & surroundings. Only 2 points to worry about as I haven't built them in flat bottom before!
House & wedding may scupper short term progress however!
Cheers, Pete On Thu, 28 Nov 2024 at 15:08, Paul Holmes via groups.io <heatonwood@...> wrote: [Edited Message Follows]
Hi all and thanks for the mention Robin. I’ve no idea when I joined the yahoo group but started 014 modelling back around 2005 with the Port Wynnstay England locos. It’s still a niche scale/gauge which suits me fine! ?
There must be many who model in 014 and are neither members of the 7mm NGA nor here, my daughter’s fiancé for one who is slowly accumulating stock for a Col Stevens ?era WHR layout of Croesor Junction.?
Thanks must go to Paul Martin for assisting us with his products.?
So happy 20th birthday to the group. Maybe next year as it will be 21, we should storm the Burton show? ?Oh wait - my Corris layout is 15.75mm gauge….?
Paul?
|
Re: Now: O14 group birthday - started 28th November 2004 - Thursday, November 28, 2024
#cal-notice
Hi Paul & All,
I am here & have been for some time ? just not very productively as in the main my modelling in the last few years has been focused on P4 bits. I have been sorting some 014 stock in the last few months though, thanks for the inspiration to do so!
As you say, Croesor Junction is in the pipeline - though I think prior to that there will be an inglenook called Porthmadog Snowdon Street, with a bit of the mill & surroundings. Only 2 points to worry about as I haven't built them in flat bottom before!
House & wedding may scupper short term progress however!
Cheers, Pete
On Thu, 28 Nov 2024 at 15:08, Paul Holmes via groups.io <heatonwood@...> wrote: [Edited Message Follows]
Hi all and thanks for the mention Robin. I’ve no idea when I joined the yahoo group but started 014 modelling back around 2005 with the Port Wynnstay England locos. It’s still a niche scale/gauge which suits me fine! ?
There must be many who model in 014 and are neither members of the 7mm NGA nor here, my daughter’s fiancé for one who is slowly accumulating stock for a Col Stevens ?era WHR layout of Croesor Junction.?
Thanks must go to Paul Martin for assisting us with his products.?
So happy 20th birthday to the group. Maybe next year as it will be 21, we should storm the Burton show? ?Oh wait - my Corris layout is 15.75mm gauge….?
Paul?
|
Re: Now: O14 group birthday - started 28th November 2004 - Thursday, November 28, 2024
#cal-notice
I originally started the PLR as 16.5mm c.1985 but then very quickly rebuilt it to 13.7mm gauge (for 1ft 11 1/2ins) as it just didn't look right. This again I rebuilt to 14mm once I became aware of Roy's RCL Kits 14mm range - there wasn't much built as my progress was glacial as it still is. It was about 8 years later that I got in touch with Roy and he published my trackwork articles in the Review. The rest is perhaps history. The original board still exists, there is still track to build and years of scenic work ahead - but then that was always the point!
?
John
|
Re: Now: O14 group birthday - started 28th November 2004 - Thursday, November 28, 2024
#cal-notice
I've been building slate waggons to 14mm gauge since the early 1990s!! David Rae modestly omits to mention his super layout Bunny Mine. Adrian?
|
Re: Now: O14 group birthday - started 28th November 2004 - Thursday, November 28, 2024
#cal-notice
I also remember seeing Rhyd and ALR at that show but I have had to good fortune to have seen both much more recently.
?
I guess I started in 014 when Roy first introduced his range in the 1980’s.? However it took a lot longer for me to actually build the intended layout!? I had amassed quite a range of locos and stock
in the intervening period and still have a lot left to build.? I really do need a bigger 014 layout (and a 16.5 one as well for all my existing GVT based stock).? One can dream!
?
Cheers, Robin
?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
On Behalf Of John C via groups.io
Sent: 28 November 2024 13:41
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [o14] Now: O14 group birthday - started 28th November 2004 - Thursday, November 28, 2024 #cal-notice
?
Yes happy anniversary to fellow O14ers. I'm not sure Mark is still on the group or even active in O14. This was originally a Yahoo group and I joined as member no.2. We were an early transition to groups.io so didn't have to pay (she it's
still free).
It is also just over 10 years since I exhibited the PLR at ExPong. That was a great day alongside David with Rhyd and David Malton with his ALR.
After nearly 3 years the PLR is installed now with the traverser built ExPong14 and I've nearly completed the circuit of hidden track which will enable the grandchildren to drive trains nose to tail - they're still a bit young for shunting.
Thoughts are turning towards more locos, a large rake of clay wagons and the tippler.
|
Robin Edwards
Allan Dare
Adrian Gray