Lynton & Barnstaple baseplates
All,
Further to my posting in July last year,? I am pleased to advise that Chris Stapleton at Phoenix Precision has emailed to announce that, at last, he now has the new moulded Lynton & Barnstaple Railway baseplates, to suit Karlgarin C82/7 rail, listed on his
website:
No photos as yet.
It occurs to me that it might be helpful if purchasers also requiring the correct rail could buy this direct from Phoenix at the same time. I'll have a chat with Chris to see if something can be thrashed out.
Regards,
Richard
_._,_._,_
|
Re: Roy Link kits availability
As Paul has said, there is likely to be a certain amount of
obsolescence, and while I didn't know Roy as well as some of you guys, I bet that he would have looked at 3D printing to be able to produce more of his kits, or if not he would have found someone else to produce them for him.
We should not forget that technology has moved on since he made those kits. I guess it would be good to see a list of the kits he did produce back then, and I would think that anyone who can do 3D printing for O14 will already be working on a new version of those kits.
Colin Rainsbury? ?
Paul, ? No, I meant it’s the least we can do as a community of like-minded people? ? There are bound to have been supply issues and supplier changes bearing in mind the length of time the products have been going. What we don’t know is if any current issues are serious road blocks. If David is working by himself, what he maybe doesn’t appreciate is that there is a whole community here and on the likes of RMWeb of people that may be able to offer advice from the model industry and help get things moving if possible. ? Personally speaking I have no expertise in the likes of lost wax casting, white metal casting, or plastic injection mounding, my career skills are more IT related, and business related, but if he needs help to get things moving again even to explore what might be possible, I don’t have a lot of time but I’d put up my hand to see if there was anything I could assist with? ? Regards, ? Steve ? ? From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul Martin
Sent: 22 May 2025 11:37
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [o14] Roy Link kits availability ? >> it's the least we can do.<< I assume by that what you mean is "it's the least someone else can do"? One of the issues that is probably facing David, had he the time, would be obsolescence, which is just getting to be more of a problem with time. With the loco kits the? original issue was the loss of the Mashima motors but that has now expanded to be most of the running gear. ? The firm that made the tyres, axles and all the turned bits are no more. Markits for other parts are gone. Casters for whitemetal are getting scarce as the established ones pack it in ? Paul
|
Re: Roy Link kits availability
Paul, ? No, I meant it’s the least we can do as a community of like-minded people? ? There are bound to have been supply issues and supplier changes bearing in mind the length of time the products have been going. What we don’t know is if any current issues are serious road blocks. If David is working by himself, what he maybe doesn’t appreciate is that there is a whole community here and on the likes of RMWeb of people that may be able to offer advice from the model industry and help get things moving if possible. ? Personally speaking I have no expertise in the likes of lost wax casting, white metal casting, or plastic injection mounding, my career skills are more IT related, and business related, but if he needs help to get things moving again even to explore what might be possible, I don’t have a lot of time but I’d put up my hand to see if there was anything I could assist with? ? Regards, ? Steve ? ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul Martin
Sent: 22 May 2025 11:37
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [o14] Roy Link kits availability ? >> it's the least we can do.<< I assume by that what you mean is "it's the least someone else can do"? One of the issues that is probably facing David, had he the time, would be obsolescence, which is just getting to be more of a problem with time. With the loco kits the? original issue was the loss of the Mashima motors but that has now expanded to be most of the running gear. ? The firm that made the tyres, axles and all the turned bits are no more. Markits for other parts are gone. Casters for whitemetal are getting scarce as the established ones pack it in ? Paul
|
Re: Roy Link kits availability
To add to Paul's comments about obsolescence?- I very much doubt that Roy's artwork for the various etched components was in digital form, so that can't be used any longer. Indeed, depending on where David got his etching done the artwork may have disappeared altogether.?
Adrian
|
Re: Roy Link kits availability
>> it's the least we can do.<<
?
I assume by that what you mean is "it's the least someone else can do"?
?
One of the issues that is probably facing David, had he the time, would be obsolescence, which is just getting to be more of a problem with time. With the loco kits the? original issue was the loss of the Mashima motors but that has now expanded to be most of the running gear.
?
The firm that made the tyres, axles and all the turned bits are no more. Markits for other parts are gone. Casters for whitemetal are getting scarce as the established ones pack it in
?
Paul
|
Re: Roy Link kits availability
Thanks Andrew,?
In regards to your question about what I expect to happen as a result of these messages? If something unforeseen has happened to David that stopped him producing some/all of the RCL range of models then after several years it seems fairly unlikely they are going to surface again. So, I'd hope that David or someone who knows David, could at least give some indication that either; he is unable to produce any/all the models now or in the future and so could offer out an option for someone else to take this on, or that by a future date he could confirm that some or all of the range would be coming on the market again? I don't think that sounds unreasonable?
Although I wouldn't have counted myself as a close friend of Roy's, I did know him quite well over the years, and so I do feel that what he's left us as his legacy should be treated with respect and every attempt made to continue his excellent books, magazine, and models, to whatever degree can be managed, it's the least we can do.
Regards,
Steve
|
Re: Roy Link kits availability
Steve,
Have seen the odd request for info on KB-scale over the years with the same reply each time that the range was dormant.
As for questioning the lack of availability of the models, what do you expect to happen as a result of this? If someone owns the range, has other aspects of their life take over so that production isn’t currently possibly but they intend to at some point so retain the range rather than passing it on, then there’s not a lot that can happen.
Cheers Andrew
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On May 17, 2025, at 10:17, Steve Thomason via groups.io <thomsk@...> wrote:
? John, ? Thanks for the response. Yes, it would be great to see more flexibility in gauge options with some of the new NG7 items coming out. I’m sure you are right that David has been distracted for some reason or other, but I just found it strange that for quite a few years now no-one seems to have questioned the lack of availability for all these models. ? As an aside, although I don’t take the Review on subscription at the moment, I’ve been a reader on and off since issue 1, so thank you so much for the work you have put into this over the years. ? Steve ? From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John C via groups.io
Sent: 16 May 2025 22:31
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [o14] Roy Link kits availability ? Like you I'm disappointed in the lack of availability of the ex RCL range of O14 kits which inspired many into this genre. As you've observed this group is not very active but that may be just due to the evolution of social media rather than the lack of availability of Roy's kits. 7mm NG is clearly becoming more popular especially with the Bachmann NG7 range and Peco updated kits and some will seek accurate gauge versions. David Janes is a moderator of this group but I think his (KBscale) email is bouncing so he may not get these messages. I suspect life has conspired to distract him from continued production. I share your hope that the range can resurface and develop further.
|
Re: Roy Link kits availability
John, ? Thanks for the response. Yes, it would be great to see more flexibility in gauge options with some of the new NG7 items coming out. I’m sure you are right that David has been distracted for some reason or other, but I just found it strange that for quite a few years now no-one seems to have questioned the lack of availability for all these models. ? As an aside, although I don’t take the Review on subscription at the moment, I’ve been a reader on and off since issue 1, so thank you so much for the work you have put into this over the years. ? Steve ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John C via groups.io
Sent: 16 May 2025 22:31
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [o14] Roy Link kits availability ? Like you I'm disappointed in the lack of availability of the ex RCL range of O14 kits which inspired many into this genre. As you've observed this group is not very active but that may be just due to the evolution of social media rather than the lack of availability of Roy's kits. 7mm NG is clearly becoming more popular especially with the Bachmann NG7 range and Peco updated kits and some will seek accurate gauge versions. David Janes is a moderator of this group but I think his (KBscale) email is bouncing so he may not get these messages. I suspect life has conspired to distract him from continued production. I share your hope that the range can resurface and develop further.
|
Re: Roy Link kits availability
Hi Steve,
?
Like you I'm disappointed in the lack of availability of the ex RCL range of O14 kits which inspired many into this genre. As you've observed this group is not very active but that may be just due to the evolution of social media rather than the lack of availability of Roy's kits. 7mm NG is clearly becoming more popular especially with the Bachmann NG7 range and Peco updated kits and some will seek accurate gauge versions.
?
David Janes is a moderator of this group but I think his (KBscale) email is bouncing so he may not get these messages. I suspect life has conspired to distract him from continued production. I share your hope that the range can resurface and develop further.
?
John
|
Re: Roy Link kits availability
Craig,
?
Thank so much for the offer. I'll contact you to see what you have. I do have a number of unbuilt kits purchased years ago that I still have to finish, but the main reason for my initial message was to understand what has happened to Roy's legacy. It would be great to know that the production and availability of the kits are secure for the future.
Steve
|
Re: Roy Link kits availability
Hi Steve, I have a small stash of both RCL and KBScale kits. Depending on what you are looking for I may be able to help.
Regards, Craig Parry
I've recently joined this group and apologise up-front if this is all in hand and understood by others, but I've tried trawling through the forum entries in this site and on RMWeb, and cannot find anything recent that explains the availability issues with the O14 Roy Link products?
? ?
For me Roy Link was my original inspiration for modelling in O14 and I'm sure he was for many others. Checking the KBScale website it states all their kits are now back in production but does not state a date. For many months I've been checking the Lightrailwaystores website who are meant to sell these products, but it still states that 95% of the original Roy Link products are not available. If you want a coupling pin or a fishplate you're in luck, but none of the wagons or locos. I've tried contacting KBScale a number of times with no joy. I tried contacting Lightrailwaystores to see if they have anyway of contacting KBScale or if they are aware what the issue is, and I didn't get any useful feedback.
The only forum message I can find about this goes back to 2019, when in theory the previous production issues were now resolved and by 2019 everything was meant to be all back and available. However, nothing seems to have changed.
Roy did so much to champion this modelling gauge, and opened up modelling of 2ft gauge industrial railways to so many people. Sadly when I now look at the volume of messages over the recent years for this O14 IO Group, interest seems to be tailing off? This is very possibly in no small part due to the products that triggered the interest all those years ago not being available.
David Janes appears to be the owner of KBScale and in charge of the Roy Link kits but I cannot find any recent entries here or on RMWeb that gives any updates on the availability of these products. If he is unable to produce any of the range anymore, is the best course of action to offer out the production of these to someone else? I'm not holding up my own hand for the job, but if there is anything I could do to assist in other ways, then I'd be willing to try. So, please David are you able to give this forum an update on what is happening??
Steve Thomason
|
Roy Link kits availability
I've recently joined this group and apologise up-front if this is all in hand and understood by others, but I've tried trawling through the forum entries in this site and on RMWeb, and cannot find anything recent that explains the availability issues with the O14 Roy Link products?
? ?
For me Roy Link was my original inspiration for modelling in O14 and I'm sure he was for many others. Checking the KBScale website it states all their kits are now back in production but does not state a date. For many months I've been checking the Lightrailwaystores website who are meant to sell these products, but it still states that 95% of the original Roy Link products are not available. If you want a coupling pin or a fishplate you're in luck, but none of the wagons or locos. I've tried contacting KBScale a number of times with no joy. I tried contacting Lightrailwaystores to see if they have anyway of contacting KBScale or if they are aware what the issue is, and I didn't get any useful feedback.
The only forum message I can find about this goes back to 2019, when in theory the previous production issues were now resolved and by 2019 everything was meant to be all back and available. However, nothing seems to have changed.
Roy did so much to champion this modelling gauge, and opened up modelling of 2ft gauge industrial railways to so many people. Sadly when I now look at the volume of messages over the recent years for this O14 IO Group, interest seems to be tailing off? This is very possibly in no small part due to the products that triggered the interest all those years ago not being available.
David Janes appears to be the owner of KBScale and in charge of the Roy Link kits but I cannot find any recent entries here or on RMWeb that gives any updates on the availability of these products. If he is unable to produce any of the range anymore, is the best course of action to offer out the production of these to someone else? I'm not holding up my own hand for the job, but if there is anything I could do to assist in other ways, then I'd be willing to try. So, please David are you able to give this forum an update on what is happening??
Steve Thomason
|
FS: Western Scale Mdls Machine Tools
Please excuse the monotonous ?cross posting, I’m trying to find the best new home for these exceptional models.
?
We’re downsizing and moving, so some wonderful pieces need a new home.
?
In the later 1990s, Western Scale Models, Bill Gustafson himself, produced a set of shop tools measured from those still in use on the Sierra RR.? There were, still are, a marvel of white metal castings, beautiful.? They’re in O-Sale/Quarter Inch, so they’re perfect for O, On3, On30 or On2 use.? Virtually mint in perfect boxes, sealed sleeves intact.? The eight of them are, starting with a sample kit contents:
?
1? Heavy Duty Double Spindle Lathe
2? Belmont-Mills Car Wheel Borer
3? Hack Saw, Post Drill Press & Grinder
4? 28-inch Engine Lathe
5? Niles-Bemont-Pond Hydraulic Wheel Press
6? Planer
7? Radial Drill Press
8? Shop Heater & Overhead Travelling Crane
?
These show up on eBay, but their asking prices can be atmospheric.? I found actual selling prices and discounted them by 25%.? Or $500 for the lot.? Or you can make me an offer.? Shipping and insurance is extra.
?
Photos attached!
?
Pricing attached!
?
Please contact me using the Reply To Sender function or directly to: jolitzwr at yahoodotcom.
?
Thanks for looking,
?
Bill Jolitz
        
|
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
|
Steve Thomason
Adrian Gray
Paul Martin
Robin Edwards
Allan Dare
