Garden Railway Forum

I was wondering if anyone agreed with me that my Roundhouse Billy would look nicer with a trailing wheel under where the "firebox" would be. I keep looking at the engine, especially with its tender, and feeling as though this would be an attractive and relatively easy modification to do. Of course it would be irreversible, since I would cut out the hole in the frame to make an opening for the wheels.

I guess I was inspired to do this by the Talyllyn Railway's "Tom Rolt" engine. It was originally a Barclay engine, with its typical "koppel-y" look, and it was made to look more British, well completely rebuilt really, and this is sort of what I would like to do with mine. I feel that it is a nice-looking engine, however I chose it because I wanted something different and would like it to look a bit more British, which I feel it will after installing locoworks running boards and possibly this trailing-axle idea. I won't be adding side-tanks like "TomRolt", as the engine already has a tender. But I thought the trailing axle would change the engine's look for the better. What do you guys think?

Here is how she looks at present (taking on water at the kitchen sink):



Part of me says "leave Billy alone!" but part thinks she would like a trailing axle. I can't decide. Since it's an English engine, I can't pass up the opportunity to ask some real English people what they think.

Keith S:90899 wrote: Part of me says "leave Billy alone!" but part thinks she would like a trailing axle. I can't decide. Since it's an English engine, I can't pass up the opportunity to ask some real English people what they think.  :P

I really like the Billy loco from Roundhouse though I agree there seems to be plenty of room for a trailing axle. However, I thought it was loosely based on a German prototype so perhaps this question should be opened up to any Germans out there?

andymctractor:90901 wrote:

Keith S:90899 wrote: Part of me says "leave Billy alone!" but part thinks she would like a trailing axle. I can't decide. Since it's an English engine, I can't pass up the opportunity to ask some real English people what they think.  :P

I really like the Billy loco from Roundhouse though I agree there seems to be plenty of room for a trailing axle.  However, I thought it was loosely based on a German prototype so perhaps this question should be opened up to any Germans out there?    :)

You should know by now that Keith does not care for such things

Id go for it mate, it would certainly balance it out

Well, that's the thing. Originally I just liked how the engine looked and didn't give any thought to whether it looked "German" or "British". But I like British-style rolling stock much better. Continental stuff looks "foreign" to me, whilst UK stuff does not.

I believe Roundhouse chose the styling due to its ambiguity: Koppel exported engines all over the world, including Commonwealth countries, Koppel engines also came the the UK as war reparations after the great war, AND many of Andrew Barclay's locomotives have design elements "borrowed" from Koppel designs, so the engine could in fact be styled after almost anything you care to believe. I believe it's still considered a "generic" model.

I find however that "Billy", with its large cylinders, wide-diameter boiler, curved cab roof and inside frames looks neither German nor English, but rather a mish-mash, sort of like many Barclay designs. It MOST resembles a large Koppel engine with outside frames but still lacks the well-tank they all seemed to have. "Billy" does not look like he has a well-tank, that's why I gave mine a tender.

Anyway, I don't really care. In reality it IS an English engine, having been made in Doncaster, and my rolling stock is all NWNGR, W&L, or IoM, so even though the loco looks like a multi-ethnicity half-breed, the train looks basically British.

I'm nervous about cutting the frame though. I'm sure I can do a good job of it, just wondering if the result will look silly or not. I think Pauly is right, the engine will look better balanced.

I know, why didn't I just build a "Katie" or a "Lady Anne"? I guess I just like things that are a little different. I liked how the boiler sits up higher than on the other two engines.

Keith S:90899 wrote:I was wondering if anyone agreed with me that my Roundhouse Billy would look nicer with a trailing wheel under where the "firebox" would be.

Generally the trailing wheels on an 0-4-2 should be behind the firebox, so there is space for the ashpan......

If you haven't heard of it before, read up on Baldry's Rule which sets out where the pivot for the pony truck should be located.

http://www.scalefour.org/resources/baldry.html

Looking at the Billy frames, you'll probably need to fit another frame stretcher just behind the wheels to take the pivot and the wheels will be fairly close to the rear headstock. If you run on 32mm, there may be enough space between the frames and you won't need a cutout for the trailing wheelset.

I find Photoshop is a great visualisation tool for designing a loco. I generally cut and shut drawings, but if you take a side on pic against a light background, you can move things around until it looks right. Maybe also take a pic of a spare wheelset and paste it in.

There were a lot of 0-4-0 and 0-6-0 Krauss and O&K locos. sold in Aust. before the Great War, but I can't think of any that were an 0-4-2. They sold well here, as they were cheap and delivery was quick. Like most german engineering though, they were given a good working over with the ugly stick as part of the design process.....

Regards,
Graeme

One intriguing feature of "Tom Rolt" (cited earlier in the thread) is that the pony truck is pivoted from the rear bufferbeam, rather than from front. (The pivots are the two black things that stick out below the rear buffers - see here and here, for example.) The arrangement - which I've not seen elsewhere - is designed to make it vastly easier to drop the ashpan out.

Personally, i think if you go for the pony truck at the rear it will not suit a tender loco. I think it would look much better as a tank 0-4-2.

I was tempted to do this to mine now i have the Henry body kit on it.

Thanks for the thoughts, fellows. Some good information here and sensible opinions. I really can't make up my mind so I'll give it a mull over while I build my Brandbright coach and wait for Locoworks to start selling the running boards they are making for this locomotive. I don't want to do anything rash!

I would look at whether you can make it fit without cutting the frames and look at how you could make it reversible of you decide you don't like it.... I think it would suit a 0-4-2 tender nicely.

I'm not so sure about the trailer, given the Koppel-style look and the tender.

Hmph. I think I might leave it alone. It's been two years since I built it and I think I'm just getting the urge to build another one. Which I can't afford. I think I'll do the running-boards when they become available and fit a DJB whistle, and this will keep me occupied without cutting into the frames of my "Billy".

If you use your locos to push over point blades and you used your 0-4-2 Billy running backwards and without the tender, you might find the points would derail the bogie but otherwise it sounds like a good idea.
I personally tend to leave things alone when they are working fine.

Good luck

I don't have any points yet but that is a good point, no pun intended of course. I think I'll leave her alone for the time being. Right now the "Billy" runs very nicely and I like how it looks well enough.

Hi Keith,

I led you astray on this one. I've been going through my library looking for Aust. delivered Krauss locos for my next loco project and an article with a photo of a Krauss 0-4-2T+T turned up.

The Plane Creek sugar mill tramway had two of them, now long gone, although the last one wasn't scrapped until the late 50's.

I found a copy of the photo online in Lynn Zelmer's cane tram resource site. The tender looks very familiar. The second photo shows one of them late in it's life when it was fitted out for weed control.

http://www.zelmeroz.com/album_rail/qld/ ... Krauss.jpg
http://www.zelmeroz.com/album_rail/qld/jbc/0782-26B.jpg

The LRRSA site has a reprint on their website of the article from 'Light Railways' listing the Krauss locos that ran in Aust.

http://www.lrrsa.org.au/LR153_10_18.pdf

Graeme

Those are interesting locomotives. The "weed control" device fitted in the one picture is especially peculiar. I wonder how that worked. They also have external stevenson's valve gear which is unusual but kind of attractive.

The weed control device works by directing the exhaust from chimney down on to track.

...so it just kills weeds by blasting them with coal smoke? No wonder everything looks sooty in those pictures.

Keith S:91751 wrote:Those are interesting locomotives. The "weed control" device fitted in the one picture is especially peculiar. I wonder how that worked. They also have external stevenson's valve gear which is unusual but kind of attractive.

The weed control attachment fed exhaust gases and steam onto the track. Exhaust temp. would be >100C, so high enough to sterilise weed shoots.

On the Queensland coast, weed control would be like painting the Sydney Harbour Bridge. By the time you drove to the end of the line, you'd have to turn around and start again.......

Being well tanks there's nowhere to put inside valve gear and outside Stephenson was a feature of these small German locos.

Aster make a kit for a little 30hp Krauss 0-4-0T that has working outside Stephensons gear. In 45mm gauge only, but about the same price as a rtr Billy here in Oz.

Graeme

Graeme

I'm not sure about what should be right with an 0-4-2 wheelarrangement on a RH Billy.

But I would like to show some pics of an Orenstein & Koppel engine on a norwegian 2 foot light railway, compared to my modified Billy (the headlight and a rear coalbunker).
Outside frames are very British compared to continental engines. Except that, I think my Billy gives a very good impression of an Orenstein & Koppel engine.

I think the RH 'Billy' is meant to do a fair imitation of an Andrew Barclay & Co. industrial locomotive of the 1910s or 20s. These were, in fact, O&K design built under license in Scotland. In some cases they were slightly modified to take account of UK operating practices and conditions, but they are pretty much Koppels.

Barclays evolved the design somewhat. Early ones such as the TR's "Douglas" are pretty straightforward copies, they later evolved into beasts like the two turf burners that are now at Bushmills (Co. Antrim) and Stradbally (Queen's County). They are nice little engines with the works being a bit more 'get-at-able' than the usual UK patterns of side and saddle tanks. The exception there being the Kerr Stuart designs - such as the Brazil and Tattoo classes, which have the gubbings on the outside.

Peter in AZ