Why so few tank locos?

[EtchedPixels]

There have been several 0-4-0 kits and there's still the N Brass Peckett.

Peco/Wills did a B4, and an Avonside for two examples.

[H]

There's less tanks than tender loco's or diesels for example.

. . . . and there's more tanks than gas turbine locos, or DEMUs, or EMUs, or even DC electric locos for example. But that's the problem, once you start specifying the categories and adding in restrictions, just about anything can be declared and claimed.

Perhaps we should be more grateful with what we have in total and give manufcaturers encouragement for more, rather than comparing against other types/categories and moaning about our lot and how little it is. After all people have chipped in with suggestions about alternatives, kits, and other potential.

Now what about that pink loco I mentioned. . . . .

H.

[Roy L S]

There's also the Farish J94 Austerity saddle tank, still available at retail I think.

Minitrix made the tank version of the Ivatt 2MT as well as the tender version, like most Minitrix products it's a very good runner for its age, and not usually too pricey second hand.

The J69 and GP tank are two very different beasties. The former fell apart when you removed the body for a start!
The J69 is often referred to as a Holden Tank, big motor, not very good for shunting or end to end layouts but great for roundy roundy types!
People often sell them on (or even give them away) once they lose the coupling rods but you can buy replacement  ones. I think its BH Enterprises who do them.

I'd be interested to know if these are still available (don't appear to be on the BH website). I have a J69 missing the con rods which is a surprisingly good runner considering the flimsy plastic clip-together chassis and can motor!

I'm sure its part No BHE114. Worth a try at 75p for a pair! http://www.bh-enterprises.co.uk/page13.htm

Before anyone with one of these locos spends the extortionate sum 75p it is worth bearing in mind that replacing the rods will not necessarily cure the inherent problem with this loco.

There were two incarnations of the J69, the first (Which came in the plastic case) can be identified because externally the ends of the keeper plate are square and do not taper up and couplings are sprung. Internally the gears on the early models are integral with the axles. These may be worth a go at fixing.

Later ones with the tapered ends to the keeper-plate and those horrible droopy couplings had a plastic drive-gear that was an inteference fit on the axle. Almost always the reason for failure of this variant of the loco (and resultant ejection of the con-rods) was the splitting of a gear which would rotate uselessly on the axle and result in loss of synchronisation of the wheelsets).

In a box somewhere I have a boxed mint and working BR black one that I only rarely use and even thenwhen I do only with a very light trailing load. I also have another BR one which when I got it was caked solid with all kinds of gunge and grease. It had a hell of a life but still worked. I cleaned it out, and this one I do have more faith in. I figure if it was going to fail, given the abuse it had been put to, it would have done by now.

Anyway, sorry for long ramble, but the history of these early Farish locos is fascinating. As I think I mentioned earlier in this thread the real gem (for the time) is the very first 94xx Pannier (Again in the plastic case) this had a far superior chassis, that actually works and keeps on going (I think it has a Buhler can-motor). They also have all three axles driven, not just the outside two like the next and far inferior incarnation did.

Regards

Roy

[Newportnobby]

I know life is a series of choices and priorities, but in the NGF Poll the only tank engine in the Steam Top Ten was the N2.
If it were possible the tank engine I'd like (yeah, I know, GWR again) would be the 56xx in BR livery. At least it's not an 0-6-0

[EtchedPixels]

I know life is a series of choices and priorities, but in the NGF Poll the only tank engine in the Steam Top Ten was the N2.
If it were possible the tank engine I'd like (yeah, I know, GWR again) would be the 56xx in BR livery. At least it's not an 0-6-0

And is also available as a quite easy to build kit. Like the real beast it also has superb traction with the very heavy body.

[E Pinniger]

I'm sure its part No BHE114. Worth a try at 75p for a pair! http://www.bh-enterprises.co.uk/page13.htm

Didn't see that, thanks for the link! I was thinking of ordering some detailing parts from BH anyway, so will add them to my list.

(regarding Roy L S's comments, the main reason I want the connecting rods is for looks rather than functionality; the loco runs fine with a light load, but looks a bit odd with bare wheels! It's the later version with tapered keeper plate)

[Roy L S]

I'm sure its part No BHE114. Worth a try at 75p for a pair! http://www.bh-enterprises.co.uk/page13.htm

(regarding Roy L S's comments, the main reason I want the connecting rods is for looks rather than functionality; the loco runs fine with a light load, but looks a bit odd with bare wheels! It's the later version with tapered keeper plate)

The Holden's rods are only cosmetic. They have open ends rather than holes and locate behind the crankpins on the outer wheelsets (The centre axle just floats). The problem is that with the model you have if one gear is loose on the axle so that the two outer wheelsets do not rotate together, the rods will just fall out.

If by cosmetic you mean parked up in a siding then that's a different matter.

Cheers

Roy

[dodger]

Lets not forget the following tank loco body kits made Langley:

SR     - E2 (both versions) & E5
LNER - N2, N7/3 & L3
LMS   - Prince of Wales 4-6-2
GWR  - 56xx & 97xx

[Stevie DC]

Adding to the bodies available as kits are two LNER J52 bodies from Beaver and BH Enterprises respectively.

IMHO the Beaver kit looks better than the BHE version but both suffer from being stretched to fit the Farish GP tank chassis. The later 57xx chassis is almost spot on for this locomotive but the earliest versions of this came some time after the kits!

With both Dapol and Farish offering improved 57xx tank engines in the future someone may be looking to offer a new kit for fit this chassis - although both the older kits can be made to look quite respectable with a little hacking to there length.

[BernardTPM]

The 'proper' Farish Jinty also has a useful chassis with a lower overall motor height than earlier chassis. Perhaps there may be suitable prototypes for kits for this too.

[Karhedron]

Most of the kits available seem to be fairly long in the tooth and utilise old Farish chassis. Is there much that is more modern and builds up to give a level of detail closer to modern RTR with just the parts provided in the kit?

[Stevie DC]

As far as I'm aware many (if not most) locomotive body kits are at least several years old. The ability to produce something close to modern RTR is dependent on the skills of the builder.

Etched brass brings you close to RTR but again you need the skill to build it. New technologies such as 3D printing again offer another potential route but, at present, you'll still need to paint the model...

[EtchedPixels]

Most of the kits available seem to be fairly long in the tooth and utilise old Farish chassis. Is there much that is more modern and builds up to give a level of detail closer to modern RTR with just the parts provided in the kit?

Even if there was you'd still have to assemble it. Most of it is about adding the fine detail - handrails and the like. You can do that to a white metal kit whether they included the handrail wire or not.

The link to Dr Al's N2 I posted earlier in this thread shows what can be done with these kits and a bit of care and attention.

A more modern kit won't change that, you'll still need to add things like handrails and vac pipes if you want a really finely detailed look.

[dodger]

The 'proper' Farish Jinty also has a useful chassis with a lower overall motor height than earlier chassis. Perhaps there may be suitable prototypes for kits for this too.

I tried the jinty chassis in a Langley E5 body the only modification necessary is to make a bracket to secure the rear of the chassis. At least it saves removing half of the pole pieces and magnet.

[BernardTPM]

That's what I thought - a lot of older kits sat too high unless you were prepared to hack both the inside of the body and bits of the chassis. IIRC the Jinty chassis is at least imm, possibly 2mm, lower than the 'generic' chassis used in the 94xx, etc. since the late 1970s.