[modeleng] Re: 0-4-0 Hunslet drawings (Dinoric Port versus Penrhyn Port classes)
- From: "Craig Gluyas" <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: modeleng@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:12:00 +0100
Hi Rich,
The Milner hunslet is the longer version, scaling to a 4' wheelbase (16"
on 7¼). It works out about 48" long.
Regards
Craig
> Hi there Peter,
>
> Thanks for the offer. I wonder though whether this slightly highlights my
> problem.
>
> The loco you refer to at Bredgar is...
>
> http://www.bwlr.co.uk/locos.php?flag=lj
>
> ...which is the Dinorowic version of the Port class, which has something
> like a 3 foot 3" wheelbase in real life.
>
> Whereas the Penrhyn Port class was a different beast, with a 4 foot
> wheelbase and a dropped footplate, not to mention lower corners of the
> buffer beam rounded off with a very large radii, see...
>
> http://www.quarryhunslet.mste.co.uk/public/Winifred.php
>
> (though one shouldn't attribute too much to the lack of a cab as they were
> semi-easily-detachable.)
>
> I may be wrong here, but I think the Port designation refers to the wheel
> diameter and cylinder sizing, relating to tractive effort, not to a
> particular design. In the same way that Estate cars tend to be more
> powerful that a Sub-sub-compact (to use the American designation).
>
> I don't suppose the Milner drawings cater for this longer version?
>
> Yours,
>
>
> Rich.
>
> On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, peter wrote:
>
>> Rich,
>>
>> Happy to. I am building a Port class Hunslet in 7.25" (1/3 scale). The
>> frames are laid and the boiler complete. I have a complete set of
>> drawings, they are by Roger Marsh. I live in Trowbridge and happy to
>> entertain visitors.
>>
>> There is a Port Class at the Bredgar and Wormshill Railway, I was made
>> to
>> feel very welcome and allowed to crawl all over and under to take
>> pictures
>> and measurements.
>>
>> I would give more details, but I am over 3000 miles away from my
>> drawings
>> in Beijing although I fly back today (its 06:55 here).
>>
>> e-mail me on peter AT puffernutter DOT co DOT uk and we'll see the best
>> way
>> of communicating.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 18:27:11 +0100 (BST), "R.L. Roebuck"
>> <rlr20@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Hi there All,
>>>
>>> I've a few observations and questions which I thought I'd throw out
>>> there
>>
>>> to the group incase they drummed up any interesting conversation.
>>>
>>> 1) Whilst surfing the interweb last evening, I came across the
>>> following
>>> site detailing the construction of a Lynton and Barnstaple 2-6-2 in
>>> 7.25" gauge...
>>>
>>> http://www.mizensrailway.co.uk/Images/Loco/Locos/Davids%20Loco.htm
>>>
>>> ...this looks like quite an impressive beast, but I was a bit taken
>>> aback
>>
>>> by the frame thickness of 20mm. Is this kind of thing the norm for
>>> Milner
>>
>>> locomotive designs?
>>>
>>> 2) The thing I was actually looking for was drawings for some of the 4
>>> foot wheelbase Hunslet quarry locomotives formerly of North Wales. I've
>>> got hold of the book which is the respected source on the subject as
>>> talked about by this page...
>>>
>>> http://www.quarryhunslet.mste.co.uk/public/intro.php
>>>
>>> ...but only the drawings smaller and larger hunslets are detailed in
>>> the
>>> book, whereas the drawings for all but the smallest of the Penrhyn
>>> locomotives are missing. Does anyone have any ideas where drawings can
>>> be
>>
>>> obtained from for the Penrhyn 'Large Quarry' and/or the Penrhyn 'Port'
>>> class hunslets? Ie...
>>>
>>> http://www.quarryhunslet.mste.co.uk/public/Bill_Harvey.php
>>> http://www.quarryhunslet.mste.co.uk/public/Winifred.php
>>>
>>> ...to me they just have the edge over the other variants which seem to
>>> be more commonly modelled.
>>>
>>> 3) In looking through a book detailing full size boiler construction,
>>> it
>>> looks like it was common place to construct a subassembly of inner and
>>> outer firebox all on one piece with backhead the throatplate fitted.
>>> Then
>>
>>> as the final stages of assembly the boiler barrel, front tubeplate and
>>> tubes would be added. Why do we not do this in miniature? Am I missing
>>> something here - as we end up having a much larger mass of copper hot
>>> for
>>
>>> the fitting of all the stays, all the backhead bushes, foudation ring
>> etc,
>>> whereas with the full size method they keep the size of the 'beast'
>>> down
>>> for all the fiddly bits, right up till the end of the job?
>>>
>>> Anyway, is there's anyone out there who fancies a bit of a chat on any
>>> of
>>
>>> the above subjects?
>>>
>>>
>>> Yours,
>>>
>>>
>>> Rich.
>>> MODEL ENGINEERING DISCUSSION LIST.
>>>
>>> To UNSUBSCRIBE from this list, send a blank email to,
>>> modeleng-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word "unsubscribe" in the
>>> subject
>>> line.
>>
>> MODEL ENGINEERING DISCUSSION LIST.
>>
>> To UNSUBSCRIBE from this list, send a blank email to,
>> modeleng-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word "unsubscribe" in the
>> subject line.
>>
> MODEL ENGINEERING DISCUSSION LIST.
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE from this list, send a blank email to,
> modeleng-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject
> line.
>
MODEL ENGINEERING DISCUSSION LIST.
To UNSUBSCRIBE from this list, send a blank email to,
modeleng-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject line.
Other related posts:
