7mm Cl.66 Wheels - Supplier?
- Thread starter Dog Star
- Start date
Dog Star
Western Thunderer
Now being brought up in the pre-diesels era the recent posts about the length discrepancy has passed straight over the top. Please, can someone post a picture of the relevant side / section of the prototype and the corresponding part of a model so that I can understand the discussion?
thank you, Graham
thank you, Graham
Dog Star
Western Thunderer
Thank you.... at least that detail has now been pick-nitted.Graham, and just for you, now that you have your meds, three shots of batch I, II, III lights in that order.
mickoo
Western Thunderer
Dog Star
Western Thunderer
Of course, thank you, all the time in the world since I retired.... after cooking dinner, taking pet to vet, blackening wheels for son's A4 tender, replying to posts on WT..... waiting for RMWeb.
regards, Graham
mickoo
Western Thunderer
Graham, here you go in glorious technicolor .
First an image of a completed RJH/ PRMRP model, the green line is where the body join should be, then the radiator needs extending to make it 50% of the new size, the exhaust manifold and silencer also need moving along accordingly, as do the engine roof covers etc. Second image is a 1:1 for comparison.
Strange thing is, a very quick check shows none of the 59s are like this either. I have not checked every individual loco, there are differences in that class as well, not your worry, just more for my interest. So goodness knows where they got this style of body work from. Addendum, PRMRP power cubicle size is based on 59/2 series.
Hope that clears that up for you.
One other point, please make sure the body goes on the right way around LOL, there are some models out there where the fuel tank and battery box are back to front LOL, note cab doors are not equi distance from the front of the loco so the body must go on the right way round to line up with the steps on the bogies, but your a long way from that conundrum.
One other pit nick I've spotted is the chassis support for the primary rubber springs, PRMRP has a flat solebar, there should be large curved protruding section to support the chassis on the rubber springs, I suspect that either the PRMRP bogie is too narrow (should be 92" over datum casting) or the solebar too wide. Class 59 do not have this so that could be a heritage carry over on the kit.
Kindest
.First an image of a completed RJH/ PRMRP model, the green line is where the body join should be, then the radiator needs extending to make it 50% of the new size, the exhaust manifold and silencer also need moving along accordingly, as do the engine roof covers etc. Second image is a 1:1 for comparison.
Strange thing is, a very quick check shows none of the 59s are like this either. I have not checked every individual loco, there are differences in that class as well, not your worry, just more for my interest
. So goodness knows where they got this style of body work from. Addendum, PRMRP power cubicle size is based on 59/2 series. Hope that clears that up for you
.One other point, please make sure the body goes on the right way around LOL, there are some models out there where the fuel tank and battery box are back to front LOL, note cab doors are not equi distance from the front of the loco so the body must go on the right way round to line up with the steps on the bogies, but your a long way from that conundrum
.One other pit nick I've spotted is the chassis support for the primary rubber springs, PRMRP has a flat solebar, there should be large curved protruding section to support the chassis on the rubber springs, I suspect that either the PRMRP bogie is too narrow (should be 92" over datum casting) or the solebar too wide. Class 59 do not have this so that could be a heritage carry over on the kit.
Kindest
mickoo
Western Thunderer
You too?, I gave up on that site months ago, I really do not have enough time in the day for their server to take 20-30 seconds to load a page.
Kindest
Dog Star
Western Thunderer
Nor at least 2 to 3 minutes to tell me that there has been a SQL error! What surprises me most about this observation is that the "slowness" does not appear to be related to the time of day.
regards, Graham
Dog Star
Western Thunderer
Modern Locomotives Illustrated...
There is an issue dedicated to the Class 59
, that for the Class 66 is due November 2013 
.Never mind Mick, plenty of time for you to contribute photos to the CL66 MLI.
regards, Graham
mickoo
Western Thunderer
Just to add some more info to this thread on class 66, spoke to a very knowledgeably fitter the other day and he explained the long and short tank variants. Basically its weight and emissions.
Long tank locos are Tier 1 emissions, I.E the original design.
Short tank locos are Tier 2 emissions, the problem arises with the cooler group, to meet the emissions standard the engines run hotter so the cooler group has to be made larger, the added size of the coller group and weight of coolant pushes the weight up over the allowance for the loco, the only way to claw back the overweight is to reduce the size of the fuel tank, thus short tank locos are not short due to operational demands or design, they're short becuase the rest of the loco is obese and over weight.
Hope that helps
Long tank locos are Tier 1 emissions, I.E the original design.
Short tank locos are Tier 2 emissions, the problem arises with the cooler group, to meet the emissions standard the engines run hotter so the cooler group has to be made larger, the added size of the coller group and weight of coolant pushes the weight up over the allowance for the loco, the only way to claw back the overweight is to reduce the size of the fuel tank, thus short tank locos are not short due to operational demands or design, they're short becuase the rest of the loco is obese and over weight
.Hope that helps