O-16.5 Musings.....

[Patrick Davey]

This might well end up being 'pie-in-the-sky' stuff but here I go......

I don't usually like posting in forums until I have something firm to show but as what follows is completely new to me, I figured I'd be best getting some advice first!!!  As my current build Brookhall Mill draws to a close (after 2 years of building) thoughts are inevitably turning to the next one.  I had a plan to create another 'micro' which would feature some of the fantastic IRM and MM diesels but then I realised that my heart currently lies in the Antrim narrow gauge!!!  I built a diorama of Capecastle a few years ago and was sad to have to dismantle it so maybe pangs of guilt are hitting me.....

But I don't want to build a diorama.  I want something that moves and can be operational, so even before I decide on a setting, I'm looking at locomotives.  The most distinctive Antrim narrow gauge loco (for me anyway) was the S class compound 2-4-2t:

https://transportsofdelight.smugmug.com/RAILWAYS/IRISH-RAILWAYS/NORTHERN-COUNTIES-COMMITTEE-NARROW-GAUGE-LINES/i-KvrR3WF/A

A very attractive prototype so that is the most likely target.  Building a working model of one of these in OO gauge would be impossible for me but then I started thinking of O gauge, but using OO technology....

The use of OO scale track to represent narrow gauge track in O scale (known as O-16.5) has been done before so my current thinking is to find a suitable OO gauge chassis and modify it for use as an O scale narrow gauge chassis.  I thought initially of using a Hornby Peckett 0-4-0 chassis as my starting point then an esteemed friend suggested an Adams Radial tank instead, the only modification needed there would be to chop the leading bogie in half so that seems a better option.  Plus the Adams is cheaper than the Peckett.....

I am quietly confident of being able to construct a decent loco body from plasticard, incorporating metal components.

I also did a test modification of a spare piece of OO track, removing every other sleeper seems to give it a narrow gauge feel for O scale - photo attached.

Grateful for thoughts and even ridicule!

 

Edited September 16, 2022 by Patrick Davey

[Galteemore]

No ridicule Patrick - great project. Have you considered 5.5mm scale though? You will get the correct scale/gauge ratio, but still with access to lots of handy chassis etc. Although I can see 7mm has a lot of advantages!

[jhb171achill]

Year	“S” Class 2.4.2T						“R” Class 2.6.0T	“P” Class 2.4.0T (IOM “Peveril” class)
1877			Grey area denotes period BEFORE the specific locomotive mentioned below was built.				“The Bruiser”	1		Larger tanks
1878										4
1879
1880 1881 1882 1883							5
1884	BNCR	BNCR					68	BNCR		BNCR
1885 1886 1887 1888
1889								63		64
1890
1891
1892	69	70		M R	N C C
1893								New boiler
1894
1895
1896
1897	110	111					109	104		105
1898
1899							New Boiler
1900
1901
1902
1903	MR  NCC						MR   NCC
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908			112
1909				113
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919					103
1920			102	101		104		Withdrawn
1921
1922
1923	L	M	S	~	N	C	C			LMS NCC
1924
1925	Livery Unknown				Livery Unknown
1926										Lent B’Cast
1927
1928			Reb							SOLD CVBT
1929										(No. 6)
1930				Reb						No
1931	To “S2”   2.4.4.T									Number
1932	|									Carried
1933	|									Scrapped
1934	|						Withdrawn
1935	|
1936	|				OOU
1937	|				OOU
1938	|				Scrapped
1939	|			41 (B’Cast)
1940	|
1941	|	Livery	Date change	approximate
1942	|		42
1943	|		Paper Mill			43 (B’Mena)
1944	|
1945	|		**	**
1946	Scrapped		…	…
1947			…	Armoy Snow		To B’Cast
1948		44 (B’Cast)	…	…
1949		U	T	A		UTA	U	T		A
1950		UTA Livery	UTA Livery	UTA Livery		UTA Livery
1954		Scrapped 1954	Scrapped 1954	Scrapped 1954		Scrapped 1954

NCC Narrow gauge locomotives

 

Livery key (background colour)

Darker Green (at top):  Ballymena & Larne Rly. Lined green

Lighter Green (post-1884):  BNCR extremely dark lined green

Pink:  NCC maroon, lined

White: NCC black, unlined – approx. change 1941

White, 1950:  UTA lined black

Regarding the track, I think that perhaps the sleepers look to short and too narrow - but the massive advantages that you state in terms of using 00 scale track and chassis, etc., (also carriage bogies!) is a very compelling argument. The good news is that a lot of narrow gauge track wasn't in the prime of its life, and the sleepers were half-embedded into Mother earth, so the sleepers thing isn't really a big deal to me, and certainly passes the 2ft rule........

The above info may be of use. Livery details included, of course.

 

Edited September 16, 2022 by jhb171achill

[jhb171achill]

It seems that the coaches at Ballycastle were never repainted into UTA livery, ending their days in unlined NCC maroon. Unlike the (British) LMS, secondary and narrow-gauge NCC coaches generally received neither lining nor LMS crests after about 1940. The Ballycastle stock, like some on the 5 fut 3, were plain maroon with dark grey roofs, with the letters "L M S" and "N C C" and the number, all in shaded gold, on the sides. Upholstery in those yokes was blue, I believe.

[Patrick Davey]

2 hours ago, Galteemore said:

No ridicule Patrick - great project. Have you considered 5.5mm scale though? You will get the correct scale/gauge ratio, but still with access to lots of handy chassis etc. Although I can see 7mm has a lot of advantages!

Thanks GM - sounds interesting, the straining eyesight made 7mm seem the best option for scratchbuilding/modifying a loco but your point about the scale/ratio makes it worth looking into!  Where would I find more information?  Thanks again

1 hour ago, jhb171achill said:

It seems that the coaches at Ballycastle were never repainted into UTA livery, ending their days in unlined NCC maroon. Unlike the (British) LMS, secondary and narrow-gauge NCC coaches generally received neither lining nor LMS crests after about 1940. The Ballycastle stock, like some on the 5 fut 3, were plain maroon with dark grey roofs, with the letters "L M S" and "N C C" and the number, all in shaded gold, on the sides. Upholstery in those yokes was blue, I believe.

Well that would make that bit a lot easier!!  Thanks for that comprehensive diagram JB and I take your point about the track, there are definitely going to be trade-offs but it's still early stages so if I decide to do Capecastle again for example I might just buy the proper track - it's a very simple layout after all with just one siding with headshunt so just two turnouts.

[Mayner]

18 hours ago, Galteemore said:

Have you considered 5.5mm scale though? You will get the correct scale/gauge ratio, but still with access to lots of handy chassis etc. Although I can see 7mm has a lot of advantages!

 

16 hours ago, Patrick Davey said:

Thanks GM - sounds interesting, the straining eyesight made 7mm seem the best option for scratchbuilding/modifying a loco but your point about the scale/ratio makes it worth looking into!  Where would I find more information?  Thanks again

Well that would make that bit a lot easier!!  Thanks for that comprehensive diagram JB and I take your point about the track, there are definitely going to be trade-offs but it's still early stages so if I decide to do Capecastle again for example I might just buy the proper track - it's a very simple layout after all with just one siding with headshunt so just two turnouts.

Patrick.

5.5mm-1 foot or 1:55 on OO Gauge track was basically the standard scale for modelling Irish 3' narrow gauge up to the introduction of OOn3 on TT gauge track in the 1960s.

Sam Carse's layout of the  County Donegal system and George Hannan's Killybegs layout were both in 5.5mm scale.

I think the Killybegs layout and Sam Carse's locos on stock are on display in the Donegal Railway Heritage Centre.

The scale also appears to be popular for modelling the Welsh 2'-2'6" Narrow gauge with an association & handbook http://www.55ng.co.uk/pdf/55Handbook2019.pdf

It should be simple enough to build the loco and rolling stock bodies in plasticard and possibly persuade Worsley Works to produce the corridor coach sides to order in 5.5mm.

Scaling up a OO chassis to a larger scale may be challenging, it may be a better option to start with an older Hornby Pug or "Nellie" 0-4-0T chassis rather than using a current 'state of the art" model such as a Hornby Pecket or Adams radial.

The older UK assembled Hornby/Triang chassis while relatively basic are robust and suitable for upgrading with spare parts available from businesses like Peter's Spares or Hornby Triang Spare parts

[Galteemore]

Thanks John. I also came across that website a few years ago http://www.55ng.co.uk/index.php  although the seed was possibly sown long ago: I saw Sam Carse’s layout when very young. A real scratchbuilder’s paradise in this scale. The association even offer a free printable scale ruler on their website! 

Edited September 17, 2022 by Galteemore

[airfixfan]

George Hanans layout and Sam Carses rolling stock are in Donegal Railway Heritage Centre.

[Tullygrainey]

20 hours ago, Patrick Davey said:

 

Well that would make that bit a lot easier!!  Thanks for that comprehensive diagram JB and I take your point about the track, there are definitely going to be trade-offs but it's still early stages so if I decide to do Capecastle again for example I might just buy the proper track - it's a very simple layout after all with just one siding with headshunt so just two turnouts.

 

Patrick,

If it helps with the decision, here are some pics of Peco's dedicated O-16.5 track, firstly alongside the standard Peco OO stuff and then in situ on my O-16.5 micro layout.

Alan

 

[Patrick Davey]

Folks this is a textbook example of why a forum such as this is so beneficial, thank you for all your feedback and suggestions, I started off with a general idea and it has now been shaped by the collective experiences and advice of so many of you so I have decided that yes it is indeed feasible and I am going to use the proper track from Peco, and go for 5.5mm scale.  So many valid points raised above, all gratefully received!

Still a bit of work to do on Brookhall Mill then attention will return once more to the County Antrim narrow gauge

[Galteemore]

Excellent Patrick. Having been through similar thought processes a few years ago, it’s all worth it in the end! Although my modelling heart lies in Leitrim, I was born a few miles away from the Antrim lines- and my father in law used to play with the trucks in Larne yard on a Sunday ! Look forward to seeing this develop. 

Edited September 17, 2022 by Galteemore

[jhb171achill]

14 minutes ago, Galteemore said:

……… and my father in law used to play with the trucks in Larne yard on a Sunday ! Look forward to seeing this develop. 

On the Holy Sobbbbith in Larne!!!!!

Ooooooooooohhh! Tis straight to Judgment, hellfire, damnation and eternal wailing and gnashing of teeth for him!!!

[jhb171achill]

1 hour ago, Tullygrainey said:

 

Patrick,

If it helps with the decision, here are some pics of Peco's dedicated O-16.5 track, firstly alongside the standard Peco OO stuff and then in situ on my O-16.5 micro layout.

Alan

 

Superb scenic work around the track too. Can we see more?

[Tullygrainey]

Thank you jhb, At the risk of hijacking this thread... a few pics. It's a fictitious yard somewhere between a quarry and a quay. No name so far, beyond "the narrow gauge one"

Alan

 

[David Holman]

A layout of the Antrim narrow gauge is long overdue, methinks - so it will be great to follow progress. 

 One thought about 5.5mm scale on 16.5mm track is that the rail height might be a bit big. Peco NG track used Code 100  flat bottomed rail. Not sure, but seem to remember bull head track was used on some of the Antrim lines.

 From my own experience 0n16.5 is a nice format to work in. There are any number of second hand wagon, coach and loco chassis available cheaply second hand, while in the larger scale, 00 mechanisms seem to run better. Being inside framed, there are no outside cranks to worry about, though those four coupled locos all had outside valve gear and all had outside cylinders - am sure this is a reason why we rarely see them modelled. You could always start with The Bruiser, I suppose - I did an approximation of it once using a Lima GWR 2-6-2T chassis, minus the rear wheels. 

 You could go the whole hog and do 0n21 of course, but this means making your own track too. Another option would be to model in 1:48/6mmft, where there are still lots of figures and road vehicles available. 16.5 track is not far off, while EM is spot on of course.

 Gauge 1 (10mmft) on 0 gauge track might be fun too if you have the space!

[jhb171achill]

2 hours ago, Tullygrainey said:

Thank you jhb, At the risk of hijacking this thread... a few pics. It's a fictitious yard somewhere between a quarry and a quay. No name so far, beyond "the narrow gauge one"

Alan

 

May I make suggestion that you start a thread for this? I've loads of questions to ask, but I don't want to hi-jack this thread either!! That is an absolutely stupendously good little layout. Shades very much of early Antrim industrial narrow gauge, a la Carnlough, Red Bay, etc. The scenic content is outstanding as is the railway interest.

Edited September 17, 2022 by jhb171achill

[Patrick Davey]

1 hour ago, jhb171achill said:

May I make suggestion that you start a thread for this? I've loads of questions to ask, but I don't want to hi-jack this thread either!! That is an absolutely stupendously good little layout. Shades very much of early Antrim industrial narrow gauge, a la Carnlough, Red Bay, etc. The scenic content is outstanding as is the railway interest.

Quite happy to be hijacked by something of such unbelievable quality, definitely agree with JB, you should definitely start a new thread Alan!

[Patrick Davey]

4 hours ago, Tullygrainey said:

Thank you jhb, At the risk of hijacking this thread... a few pics. It's a fictitious yard somewhere between a quarry and a quay. No name so far, beyond "the narrow gauge one"

Alan

 

This really is jawdropping stuff!!!

[Brack]

The question people will ask is about whether 16.5mm looks ok for 3'. That's a personal opinion really - like 16.5 vs 21 for broad gauge in 4mm.

Dad (IrishSwissErnie) and I did some irish NG in O-16.5 about 20 years ago (an earlier incarnation of the sligo and donegal junction).

Everything was built using rtr 00 chassis - 21t hopper chassis for most vans/wagons and plate frame bogie bolster bogies. Locos used Bachmann's manor, mogul, n class and v1.

All styrene, lots of micro strip. Dad built most of the stuff, with a teenage me contributing a few wagons, vans, a railcar, an open topped cattle wagon and a Chilean taltal railway kitson meyer and nitrate gondola that perhaps were a touch extravagant!

Mostly freelance designs based around the products of certain builders. The length of run in the loft must've been nearly 40', but to me,  watching a cattle train trundle along the scruffy grass, over the bridge and into the station was convincing enough.

My favourite locos were 1 & 2, a pair of beyer peacock 060t built on bachmann 43xx chassis.

He's got more photos and videos on his flickr in this album.

(Click on the image and I think it takes you there).

Edited September 17, 2022 by Brack

[airfixfan]

Have done a series of articles on all 3 of the NCC  NG lines so glad to help Patrick if required?

[Patrick Davey]

5 minutes ago, airfixfan said:

Have done a series of articles on all 3 of the NCC  NG lines so glad to help Patrick if required?

Most definitely!

[Tullygrainey]

15 hours ago, jhb171achill said:

May I make suggestion that you start a thread for this? I've loads of questions to ask, but I don't want to hi-jack this thread either!! That is an absolutely stupendously good little layout. Shades very much of early Antrim industrial narrow gauge, a la Carnlough, Red Bay, etc. The scenic content is outstanding as is the railway interest.

 

13 hours ago, Patrick Davey said:

Quite happy to be hijacked by something of such unbelievable quality, definitely agree with JB, you should definitely start a new thread Alan!

Thank you very much gentlemen. I will certainly give that serious thought. Yes, the N Antrim mineral lines were one of the inspirations. I'm pleased that that shows through a bit

[Lambeg man]

On 17/9/2022 at 1:32 PM, jhb171achill said:

Ooooooooooohhh! Tis straight to Judgment, hellfire, damnation and eternal wailing and gnashing of teeth for him!!!

Old Dave Allen joke - Ian Paisley (years ago) preaching exactly as above. Woman in the congregation asks "Doctor Paisley, what about those of us who have no teeth?" Response "Teeth will be supplied!"

Apologies for the interruption. Interesting thread Patrick.

Edited September 18, 2022 by Lambeg man

[Patrick Davey]

On 17/9/2022 at 2:23 PM, David Holman said:

A layout of the Antrim narrow gauge is long overdue, methinks - so it will be great to follow progress. 

Thanks David - it was your own inspirational creations in the larger scale which started me thinking about O-16.5 and I was tempted, especially by the easing of pressure on the eyesight, considering I have never tackled a loco before.  Galteemore's point about the correct scale/gauge ratio has me decided on 5.5mm though so I'll see how that goes.  The Bruiser was considered but I decided on the S class as I will probably be modelling the 1940s period and The Bruiser was I think gone by then, plus the S class were the main (exclusive?) motive power by that stage and they have a lot of very convenient straight lines which are a further attraction to the beginner loco converter...... 

[Patrick Davey]

Thanks again everyone for your input here, it has been very reassuring!!

So here's the current plan:

* A second creation of Capecastle, this time in 5.5mm scale

* A model of S class No. 41, in NCC plain black livery - this loco was one of two which received bunker extensions which I think improved their appearance 

* DCC rather than DC

* A few scratchbuilt goods wagons and vans to start, then maybe carriages to follow if I survive the loco build

 

The loco will be based on an Adams Radial chassis although I know I will be gritting my teeth when I take the body off as the Adams Radial has been very successfully converted to a BCDR 442t which would be something I would love to do in the future.  I wonder will the body yield any useful parts for the NCC loco eg. chimney, dome etc?  The big challenge will be the cylinder/pistons/cranks arrangement - these little locos were quite complicated in this area and there is an issue in that the cylinders would need moved closer to the driving wheels, necessitating shortening of metal components etc and I do not work in metal so I will need a little bit of help from my friends, as the song goes!

 

 

 

 

[airfixfan]

Both 41 and 42 received extended bunkers. Have a good collection of photos but busy doing proper NG at the moment.

[Galteemore]

Hi Patrick. Great plan. Have you got David Lloyd’s book on modelling the Irish NG? Includes pictures of his work on an Antrim tank. Re parts, S scale Society may have various LMS loco castings that would work, or some 4mm ones may be suitable. Bill Scott’s book on NCC locos has drawings which some legerdemain with a photocopier should produce something helpful for you. Re valve gear, a bit of trial and error should produce something acceptable. If you build up the cylinders a bit and add a bit of plastic bar and rod in likely places, you can give a fair impression of what should be there. The S and S1 are tricky beasts for modelling (they don’t have a traditional footplate as a foundation) so if you can produce something that’s largely correct as your first effort, you can be pleased enough! 

Edited September 19, 2022 by Galteemore

[Patrick Davey]

1 hour ago, Galteemore said:

Hi Patrick. Great plan. Have you got David Lloyd’s book on modelling the Irish NG? Includes pictures of his work on an Antrim tank. Re parts, S scale Society may have various LMS loco castings that would work, or some 4mm ones may be suitable. Bill Scott’s book on NCC locos has drawings which some legerdemain with a photocopier should produce something helpful for you. Re valve gear, a bit of trial and error should produce something acceptable. If you build up the cylinders a bit and add a bit of plastic bar and rod in likely places, you can give a fair impression of what should be there. The S and S1 are tricky beasts for modelling (they don’t have a traditional footplate as a foundation) so if you can produce something that’s largely correct as your first effort, you can be pleased enough! 

Thanks GM - must look up that book.

Great suggestions re. castings etc.

See my next post for further musings re. cylinders......

[Patrick Davey]

Having studied both locomotives closely, I think the main issue will be modifying the cylinder/pistons etc - please forgive my ignorance of the correct terminology and please fill in the gaps in my knowledge below.....

So the arrangement of the aforesaid (motion?) on the Adams Radial is as follows:

And on the S class:

The red coloured connecting rod could be key to the conversion - the Adams Radial cylinder block needs moving closer to the wheels and the connecting rod needs moving to the rear driving wheel.  I imagine the cylinder block is attached to the Adams Radial locomotive body so it would need removed and attached to the new NCC S body I would be making.  Once the cylinder is relocated, am wondering how easily would the connecting rod be repositioned as indicated and would that actually be enough to effect the modification?  I know the NCC loco has a much more complicated system than this but it would be a good start!

I am currently looking at the Hornby Radial on eBay - the Oxford Rail one doesn't seem to have as good reviews.......the only thing is the Hornby one has a metal body so probably wouldn't yield itself to cannibalising for chimney, dome etc.....

 

Edited September 19, 2022 by Patrick Davey

[Galteemore]

It’s a connecting rod, Patrick. If you move the cylinder back by the same distance as that between the  wheel centres it should all work ok. Use the distance between the holes in the grey rod (the coupling rod) as your guide. 

Edited September 19, 2022 by Galteemore

[Patrick Davey]

5 minutes ago, Galteemore said:

It’s a connecting rod, Patrick. If you move the cylinder back by the same distance as that between the  wheel centres it should all work ok. Use the distance between the holes in the grey rod (the coupling rod) as your guide. 

Name updated - thanks GM!

All makes sense - thanks 

[Tullygrainey]

Hi Patrick, I have 2 Oxford Rail Adams Radials and they both seem to run ok but I don't know how they compare with the Hornby model. The first one survived a BCDRisation,  encouraging me to buy the second one for more of the same. I have the chassis here in front of me as I write.

The crankpins simply unscrew from the wheels and there's plenty of length on them to accommodate both connecting and coupling rods on either driving wheel. Moving the connecting rod onto the rear axle should be easy enough - keep Galteemore's advice about distances in mind though. On the Oxford rail version, you may be able to remount the cylinder block on the chassis. 

The motor on the Oxford Rail chassis projects quite far forward, about 27mm ahead of the front driving axle but, looking at the photos of the NCC S Class, it should just about fit inside the smokebox on your body.

Good luck with this. I've always really liked these engines.

Alan

[Patrick Davey]

Great stuff Alan thank you!

[David Holman]

Just be careful with the con rods on the S class, because they are outside the front drivers. On the real thing, clearance could be pretty tight, which on a model often equates to fag paper thickness. The good news is that, with a semi freelance model, nobody is going to notice of you move the cylinders out a bit. The other modelling dodge is to bore the cylinders slightly off centre to create more room.

[Patrick Davey]

Just bought a black Hornby Adams Radial off eBay - updates to follow!

Thanks again everyone.