A Must-Read for Anyone Building the GRS Live Steam Kit of the GWR 2021Class.

[AllWight]

John

I realise my comments were a little harsh but the truth is the truth I cannot change or alter the facts that in the case of the motors in the GRS 45XX they are inferior to the Mabuchi that GRS offer as an alternative at an additional cost. So therefore they know that the motors are of poor quality. My grumble was why not make a model the best it can be rather than settling for a rough motor that will give many hours of head scratching. The motor going into the new Radial Tank that John Witts and I are working on will be a Maxon with an ABC helically cut drive train system to ensure a smooth operation. This will cost a bit more than the Mabuchi that GRS supply but it will be a far superior motor and drive mechanism. I don't want to have any negative comments about any aspect of the engine that we intend to sell as a kit to anyone who wants it. So for this reason the Radial Tanks development is taking time to make sure that every aspect of its design and creation has been thought over carefully. For example this engine is longer than the GRS Prairie and still manages to negotiate 8' radii without bufferlock.

Mark

[John Candy]

Mark,

Michael Adamson phoned me yesterday, principally to discuss the Gresley carriage kits but other matters were discussed.

I raised the matter of your comments on the motors fitted to the 45XX Prairie tank and the explanation was as follows.
All the 45XX tanks were purchased from China as a single batch, many years ago, before the Gauge 3 revival was under way.
They were placed in storage so that when there was an uptake in interest, GRS would be in a position to offer a cheap RTR locomotive to stimulate interest in G3.
Michael acknowledged that the motors may not be as powerful as some people would like (in particular he mentioned their restricted ability on gradients) which is why GRS offers the upgrade to the Mabuchi motor.
He stated that the Mabuchi motor is a faster-revving motor and thus noisier than the Chinese motor but that for the majority of customers the Chinese motor has proved satisfactory and very few have opted for the conversion (which at 80GBP only covers the cost of the parts and allows nothing for the labour involved).

I know you feel that GRS should have specified the Mabuchi motor but as I understand it, at the time of the bulk purchase of the 45XX that was not an option.

You may recall that Bachmann were offering the same model a couple of years ago at more than twice the price being charged by GRS and I wonder whether those were fitted with the same Chinese motor?

Unprompted, Michael also commented on the quality of Chinese soldered joints, which he agreed leave a lot to be desired!

Basically, the 45XX is a very cheap RTR loco when compared with the cost of a G3 loco kit and even by comparison with the cost of locos in the smaller scales (at the beginning of 2010 GRS were offering them at around 600GBP and even now a 45XX plus 2-coach B-Set can be had for under 1400GBP).

I guess one has to be prepared to compromise on quality and cannot expect a Rolls-Royce for the price of a Ford.

Regards,
John

[AllWight]

Well John

That is a fair comment however I am not a fan of Rolls Royces or Fords, I prefer VW and Audi's myself. Quality German engineering, Vorsprung Durch Technik, any way i digress.

My aim is to show that the consumer has the right to expect good value for money. GRS could go and re-motor the remaining 45xx in their current stock with the better Mabuchi and find they have a better engine on their hands to sell and to promote their good name.

They have done an awful lot for the scale and that is not up for discussion but a supplier is only as good as its weakest product so I would pass on my apologies to Michael and Co at GRS and say thank you for all their efforts. Additionally I like the LNER non corridor coach as featured it looks really good. Its only a shame that I am a Southern man.

Mark

[hornbeam]

Once the house move is over and I've sold a load of LGB tram stuff I will still love to get one of these. My concern is finding someone to mod the steam motor and I'm ok soldering and folding straight lines but won't be able to roll the cab roof. However the biggest letdown is there is no way to fill the boiler in steam! All the Roundhouse locos I have don't have a sight glass but do have a filling system via a spray bottle.

[John Candy]

I distinctly remember being told by Michael Adamson that the best performance from these locos was to be obtained by filling the boiler two-thirds and then topping-up every few minutes (it was in response to the question of fitting a sight glass to ensure the boiler didn't run dry).

I have just examined the boiler in the kit I have here and it definitely has no provision for a filler valve!

Perhaps Michael was confusing the 2021 with the 45XX....does anyone here have one and ,if so, does that have a filler valve?

Before I made the final decision not to build my kit as live steam, I was thinking of making two major alterations, both of which would have involved adding bushes to the boiler.

The first was to fit a sight glass for water level (particularly since it appeared obvious from the size of the gas tank that the water would run out before the gas) and the other was to look at fitting an axle-driven ram pump and injectors/clack valves (and fitting water tanks inside the panniers).

Whether or not it would be feasible to fit a ram pump in the space available (DJB do offer one for 16mm locos) and whether or not (in view of the information from Dajo) the engine would have enough spare power to drive the pump are questions I cannot answer.

The G3 Society Treasurer has a steam-powered 2021 and seems satisfied with its performance : It was running several circuits of the Ampthill line without attention (hauling  8 GRS wagons) when I saw it there in July.

John.

[bolingbroke]

John,
I for my sins have both a steam pannier and a prairie. My experience of running them has been very limited due to not previously having a track. Such running as I have done has been reasonably ok. Both have pulled two B set coaches  comfortably on level track. Tim Breeze tells me that he has seen a pannier (fitted with a Roundhouse burner) pull over a dozen wagons.

The real point of my post is the question of water v gas tank capacity. I have always been blindly and probably foolishly under the impression that water exceeds gas capacity. All my dozen or so steamings to date have been based on the principle - when the gas runs out the engine stops - up  to now without mishap. I cannot recall who it was that told me that this was the correct modus operandi but someone who I assumed to have prior knowledge, assuredly did so.

Have I been ill-advised? The last desperate resort in all problem solving , if all else fails, is to look at the instructions. I am off to try and find them.

Regards,
Roger

[AllWight]

Hi Roger

You forget that old adage, "real men don't need instructions as they instinctively know what to do".
If that fails then put the kettle on and have a brew up! Works for me every time.

Mark

[dajo]

Hello Roger Bolingbroke,

I think that you are the first person, other than me, who has posted and who has a Pannier Tank.  Your experiences are of great interest to me because there seem to be two different versions of this engine out there; the Good and the Bad.  I have a Bad one, it may be that you have a Good one.  Please expand on "reasonably ok": do you need to use a full-open regulator; does your engine struggle when hauling two coaches; is it a messy runner; can you get the safety valve to lift when under load (or at all), i.e., how good is the boiler at steam production; and, very important to me, is the burner noisy?  My engine "was barely capable of 'pulling the skin off a rice pudding'" until I worked on it; now it will start a seven waggon train on a 1:33 uphill curve.  I have little doubt that it will haul over a dozen waggons on the level.

People's subjective standards vary, particularly with such things as noise; some people may be very forgiving of a noisy burner, others (such as I) not.  But it is possible to be a lot more objective with performance, and also actual mechanical detail.  Do you know the port size on your engine's motor?  Now I am getting back to the Good and the Bad: I am wondering if something ridiculous happened during production of the motors.  A wild example would be a broken #45 drill (0.082 inch) inadvertently being replaced by a #54 (0.055 inch) to drill the steam ports; this would explain Good performance and Bad performance respectively.

I assume that you have read what I wrote; any commentary on your engines performance that you can provide might be very valuable, at least to me.

With regard to boiler and fuel capacity, I did write about this a little under Boiler Performance.  And I have made a supporting run since then.  On the occasion that I am thinking of, I put about 440 ml water in the boiler (full is about 530 ml) and filled the gas tank (huge).  The engine ran for a long time, I forgot to time it, but estimate at least 45 minutes.  Then I started to be concerned about water in the boiler and stopped the run, turned off the gas to extinguish the flame, turned on the gas - more open than when running, went into the house, made some tea, went back outside, and the gas ran out about twenty minutes after I had stopped the run.  That is a bit of a long-winded description, but the point is that my guess is that the gas does not run out early enough on this engine.  Can you remember how your engine stops?  If it was going well and then, rather quickly, slowed and stopped, then the gas ran out.  If it slowly performed less and less well, then the water was getting low and uncovering the flue, so there was less and less wetted area for the heat transfer.  With gas, you have to get the water pretty much completely exhausted to do damage since copper is a good heat conductor and it will not get too hot if there is any water around.

I hope that you are able to describe for the forum your engine's performance, and what you expect from the engine, so that we can establish what "reasonably ok" means to you.

Regards,
David Outteridge

[dajo]

Whether or not it would be feasible to fit a ram pump in the space available (DJB do offer one for 16mm locos) and whether or not (in view of the information from Dajo) the engine would have enough spare power to drive the pump are questions I cannot answer.

There is plenty of space underneath, although standard servos are just a tiny bit too large for simple installation.  However, the compensation dictates fancy brackets.  My guess is that my (modified) engine could handle the load.  See another post of mine re Good and Bad.
dajo

[bolingbroke]

Hi Dajo,
I am unfortunately not able to answer all of your questions. I regret I have not fully read your excellent article. I will do so. The main reasons I cannot be more explicit are twofold. First my lack of running time with the engine. Only once have I had access to a continuous track and that was at a GTG. For various reasons, I did not get a lot of track time - mainly because I took two coal-fired engines. My second observation relates to my total lack of experience with oscillating cylinder locos. That is why I used the very subjective term "ok".

My expectations were conditioned almost entirely by the comments of Tim Breeze who put the loco together. He said that I had to have a Roundhouse burner to get performance. He also mentioned the point that you have alluded to - there seems to be, by reputation, two types - good ones and bad ones. He was of the opinion mine was a 'good one'.

Since acquiring the loco I have purchased a couple  of coal-fired locos. This is why, together with the lack of track, I have not really concentrated on the pannier. I have just spoken to Tim who has some interesting observations. I will try and answer more of your questions as I now have an a reasonable length of 'there and back' track and can do some better observations. May I suggest that you contact me directly at least in the short term. I will also give you Tim's contact details if you do not have them. He has said he will be happy to pass on his thoughts. My contact details are on the members list -member 348.

regards,
Roger

[bolingbroke]

Hi Dajo,
Sorry, my last post did not include thanks for your very helpful information on water/gas capacities. Many thanks.
Regards,
Roger

[joewatt]

Oh dear! Am I the only person pleased with his GRS Prairie? I converted it to radio control with a Mac 5 controller and 18 x AA batteries. It pulls both B coaches - but I admit to running it normally with only one coach because it slows on the up slopes on my track. It has yet to catch fire and I don't know for how long it will run until the batteries go flat because I got fed up waiting after an hour's continuous running.

I also admit that the buffer beams and a bogie spigot on the B coaches fell off. However, soldering them back on was not a problem.

My other GRS kits - 5 freight wagons and an Austerity live steam are excellent. The only small criticism I will make of GRS is that the instructions would benefit from being clearer. I am several months into building a Manor and have had to do research to understand some details - I'm an aircraft engineer - my knowledge of locomotives - where to put the boiler water feed pipes and the vacuum unit for example - is limited. However, I live in York, so can pop into the National Railway Museum any time.

I just want to encourage newcomers - don't be put off - GRS is overall excellent and they will resolve most problems on the phone.

[IanT]

Hi Joe,

Good to hear your views on this - thank you for posting them.

Any more photos of your railway by the way?

Regards,


IanT