I've been looking at getting one of these because it would be a superb fit for my layout. There's one at a shop locally, and I haven't bought a new loco for ages. But the reviews are poor. Its no use to me at all if it can't climb my Shap Fell, but I'm very tempted, nevertheless.
Do those 4 driving wheels create enough traction? Can anyone put me out of my misery and tell me its a good 'un?
Thanks Richard. That review confuses the hell out of me. I have a challenging layout, and I'll probably hold off buying. Someone else might jump in and buy it anyway. its $299 Au$ here, which is 150 quid in Uk. Prob priced right here.
It is limited for traction, because unfortunately the technique of using metal body castings to deliver sufficient weight for traction had not generally re-entered RTR OO at time of introduction. (The more recent similar size Rapido Stirling single and Hornby D16/3 4-4-0 demonstrate the benefit of this.)
Other than that well received because it was overall accurate and ran well. A friend has a couple on his LMS layout, and run as a pair - as they really were because they were far too small for the train loads on the WCML - they work well. It will probably be posssible to upweight them by substituting shaped lead pieces for the mazak ballast weights (Bachmann's technique of screw attachment of internal ballast weights is really helpful) but I have never been offered one to play with... I can typically add 60% additional mass while maintaining the centre of balance between coupled wheels on a loco this size, and that will yield a 60% increase in haulage.
BHD wrote: ↑Tue Jul 25, 2023 4:30 pm
They didn't really impinge too much on the WCML - with the double-heading being of the LNWR Jumbo and Claughton variety...
They impinged on the WCML for the first decade of the LMS with a vengeance, during the Derby ascendancy. These were the new express loco class constructed in quantity for general use on the new LMS, and necessarily went wherever the inherited loco stock was proving inadequate. When the LMS needed to demonstrate the capability to run non-stop Euston to Glasgow in 1928 to match the LNER's announced non-stop service what was used for the one off run? A compound!
Fowler had an ineffectual stab at a 4-6-0 in 1927, but it wasn't until after Stanier came to office in 1932 that superior express traction became available to the LMS.
True - but didn't take kindly to being thrashed over the Northern Fells on the WCML and the Claughtons were coming back in the early 30's with the inadequacy of the Compounds and the Royal Scots before they were properly fettled.
The Compounds were always going to be insufficient on the LMS heavier workings - like sleepers, The Irish Mail and the Midday Scot - to be fair - they were only rated 4P by the LMS. They performed more than adequately and punctually on semi-fasts in scenarios of less stressful environments.
I like them and have one of each of Bachmanns and a heavily-modded Hornby tender drive job. Chester retained a few for the North Wales Coast line stoppers and semi-fasts to Bangor and Llandudno, where they excelled with lighter train weights.
Bigmet wrote: ↑Tue Jul 25, 2023 5:32 pm
When the LMS needed to demonstrate the capability to run non-stop Euston to Glasgow in 1928 to match the LNER's announced non-stop service what was used for the one off run? A compound!
Reminds me of Mallards world speed record run - it ran the middle big-end hot and was removed - with the result that the world record train arrived at KX behind a GNR Atlantic...
