Flying Scotsman in USA

[strummer]

Interesting timing on this thread.

I recently picked up a couple of UK-outline steamers; A Hornby 4-6-2 "Princess Royal" with tender drive, and a Bachmann 2-6-0  in Irish Railways markings. Both are "OO" (which is probably best left for another category  ). The Hornby runs "ok'; it has what they call a "Ringfield" motor: I call it a "Vertical Pancake". The Bachmann shows identical operating characteristics to my HO Consolidation, which shows the same performance as my B-Mann N scale 2-8-0.

I find the crimson red on the Hornby and green on the Bachmann to be a pleasant change from all my black steamers...

Peteski, I had wondered why no headlights; now I know.

Happy New Year, everyone!

Mark in Oregon

[Mark5]

I once had a Minitrix Flying Scotsman, but sold it around the turn of the century. I think it might have used the same mechanism as the Minitrix K4. 

I've since pondered getting a Farish or Dapol version, but 1:148 is a huge difference to me compared with 1:160.

[JanesCustomTrain]

I've since pondered getting a Farish or Dapol version, but 1:148 is a huge difference to me compared with 1:160.

I hear you, same with the Kato hood width and the Kato number boards, right ?    Happy New Year !

Jane

[peteski]

I find the crimson red on the Hornby and green on the Bachmann to be a pleasant change from all my black steamers...

Peteski, I had wondered why no headlights; now I know.

If you Google for "no headlight on British locos" (or something similar), the are more details.   Here is one related thread.

[havingfuntoo]

One and the same 

Ah .....went to have a coffee at that cake shop you recommended to me in SA a couple of weeks ago to much drama with all the works going on around it ..... I am also know in other places as 'allsmiles' 

[Mark5]

I hear you, same with the Kato hood width and the Kato number boards, right ?    Happy New Year !

Jane

lol, yeah. 

[peteski]

I looked at my Dapol Flying Scotsman and yes, the shell (rear of the cab actually) is glued to the walkway.  Thanks to the fact that the glue was applied over a rather thick coat of paint, I was able to break the bond.

To remove that loco's shell, first take off the leading truck (remove the screw at the pivot point behind the truck).  Next, remove the screw between the cylinders.  That screw holds the front of the shell (boiler).  A this point the the front of the shell (boiler) should be loose, and you should be able to lift it slightly. If not, then it is stuck to the boiler saddle (over the cylinders). Slide a single edge razor blade between the boiler and the saddle and gently pry it up slightly. Do this on both sides. It is not glued - it is probably just the paint that acts as adhesive. Once the front of the shell is loosened, move to the cab area.



Now slide a single-edge razor blade  between the cab and the walkway exactly as shown here. Do not try to insert the blade any further back.  Start moving the blade up and down like a lever. At some point the rear edge of the cab should snap upwards.  repeat on the other side.  There is also a set of latches holding the cab down. If breaking the glue joint did nod unlock the latches, use the razor blade to pry the cab further apart from the walkway until the latches inside are released. The cab will then come off the chassis.



This photo shows the tab that was glued (red arrows), and the latches which are supposed to hold the rear of the shell (yellow arrows). The latches should hold the shell down - not sure why they ended up gluing the rear tab to the slot in the walkway. Maybe they were afraid that the latches alone would not hold the shell securely enough.

There really isn't much room inside the boiler. There is a large weight glued into the boiler.

Since the first photo clearly shows it, I might as well comment on the sloppy installation of the boiler handrail. Not only are the standoffs glued in fairly uneven and crooked, there are glue stains on the shell.

[JanesCustomTrain]

I looked at my Dapol Flying Scotsman...

Thanks  +1

Jane

[peteski]

Thanks  +1

Jane

You're welcome (no up-votes needed - "thank you" is just as good). 

[Mark5]

Thanks Pete - despite the sloppy assembly, the shell is decades better than my old Minitrix model.

[peteski]

Thanks Pete - despite the sloppy assembly, the shell is decades better than my old Minitrix model.

True, there is no doubt the shell design and details are superior to Minitrix (which is probably a 40+ years old design).

But there are other problems that I'll have to address. One is that the eccentric crank is loose to spin on the main pin (even though the screw holing it is tight.  I can't believe that this passed the inspection.  But there are also some interesting design features that I like. One of these days I'll give a more detailed review (I just took it out of the box now to show try removing the shell).

[strummer]

...will be looking forward to that review... 

Mark in Oregon