Thanks and congratulations, Brian Meldon, on your article in today's NEWS. For me, the historical perspective is an important part of the value of our society.
I join Tom in the congratulations to Brian - indeed an interesting read, not only for the 009 modelers but as well for the whole model railroading community.
BR
Alex
Something to look forward to when my paper copy turns up....
Quote from: JulienW on December 03, 2018, 10:38
Something to look forward to when my paper copy turns up....
{Hmmm, we stuffed the envelopes on 22nd. }
Mine hasn't turned up yet and it usually arrives very quickly...
Nor mine!
There's a thread: "Questions about The News" in the General section which covers the absence of 009 News latest issue in the recent posts. There has been some sort of unexplained problem with Royal Mail with the bulk of issues. As Tom lives abroad, I expect that the overseas issues have been distributed and delivered without problems, it's just the rest of us who are without our monthly fix at present! Go across to the thread about the News to continue further discussion about 009 News please, so that whoever is monitoring this issue keep up with things in one place.
Mick
Still not received my copy !
Might I suggest that further comments about the non-arrival of December's 009 News be posted at http://www.009society.com/forum/index.php?topic=3795.msg26807#new
Great article as always... But what does HO-VE that they used as their designation for the range mean, Brian?!
Quote from: Hobby on December 10, 2018, 10:25
Great article as always... But what does HO-VE that they used as their designation for the range mean, Brian?!
Thanks Blair.
I think VE it is the first letters of 'voie
Thank you all for your nice comments.
I wrote this article back in 2016 for the 50th anniversary of the launch but never bothered to send it in as I thought that interest in the detailed history of these old models was fading somewhat and not relevant to 009 modelling of today.
I sent it in after some comments on here that I should.
Yet to come are the details of the three versions of the toastrack coach, the two versions of the log wagon, the two (or four) versions of the V skip, all the track and the two pre-formed layouts. Yes there were two layouts!
By the time 009 News readers had seen all that I am sure they will be fed up with the Jouef range!!
As always I would be very happy to hear any corrections of extra information, so please do post any you have on here.
Brian Meldon
You're too modest Brian! The new article on the Jouef/Playcraft loco is very interesting and informative; and it is an excellent supplement to the other detailed histories you have published in 009 News in the past of Egger stock and the Roco HOe 0-6-0T locos. Looking forward to the next article on the rolling stock and I can assure you that there are many members who are not fed up with this type of article!
The problem with the new knowledge is that although I now know that the one Jouef coffee grinder loco that I have is one of the common ones, I am still nervous about my intentions to cut the cab up and replace it with something more compatible with the loading gauge and "scale" of other HOe/009 stock!
I don't think you have ever done a similar series covering the early Liliput items have you? I for one would be very interested in that as well if you have the time, collection and information on them!
Thanks for sharing your extensive knowledge of our heritage ready to run stuff!
Mick
Thanks Mick you are too kind!
As to the Liliput range although I do own six of the early 0-6-2's and at one time had ten of them, I have never 'collected' them as such.
They are just locos that are used on the layouts, so all are re-painted and modified rather than in as new condition and as a result they are not suitable for photos for an article.
I am also gradually selling the older examples to make way for newer locos on the layouts, I suppose I could do something about the various chassis used in the 0-6-2's as I think we are up to version 5 now!
Also, in terms of the detail the Liliput range does not have the same interest for me as the Egger and Jouef range does, even though the origins of the Liliput H0e range in 1968 was very much part of Egger-bahn.
Brian Meldon
[Indeed: "chemin de fer
Last week, a friend gave me two skip wagons from an unknown manufacturer. Thanks to Brian's article, I now know that they are made by Jouef. Do you know if there was ever a mechanism produced to make these tip their loads?
Neil
Quote from: Neil McGrath on December 10, 2018, 22:35
Last week, a friend gave me two skip wagons from an unknown manufacturer. Thanks to Brian's article, I now know that they are made by Jouef. Do you know if there was ever a mechanism produced to make these tip their loads?
Neil
No, Jouef never made a tipping dock.
Perhaps I should not give out
Well it seems the one I picked up at a toyfair a year or two back is the one in the top right of the four photos in the article, flat sides, black wheels old motor!
Quote from: Hobby on December 12, 2018, 16:13
Well it seems the one I picked up at a toyfair a year or two back is the one in the top right of the four photos in the article, flat sides, black wheels old motor!
That is the second most common version Blair made from 1966 to 1968.
As I mention in the article be warned that the very thin tank sides on the version without the plate will distort and often crack with use, it is unusual to find one with perfect tank sides these days, and those that are ok have probably had little or no use.
In numbers made and still around today it would appear it goes like this starting with the most common version:
c1968 to 1971 (black wheels, raised nameplate)
1966 to c1968 (black wheels, flat tank)
1980's version (red wheels, raised nameplate, new type chassis/motor)
1966 early version (red wheels, flat tank, gloss paint driver, poor definition on printed lettering.)
That said finding a flat tank version without distorted or cracked tank sides is also quite difficult now.
Brian Meldon
I have moved the undernoted from 52 Years of Jouef H0e Part 1 wrongly started by myself in the ROLLING STOCK section of the forum. So to avoid confusion I have copied the thread here: -
Malcolm
Jr. Member
Right carrying on where we left off.......................
Brian - A Jouef chassis with black wheels would date between 1967 and 1972. (It was only the very first production run in 1967 that had the red wheels.)
Malcolm - 'Joan' has black wheels.
Brian - The body with the flat sides and no raised name plate would date from 1966 to c1969.
Malcolm - 'Joan' has flat sides and no raised nameplate.
Brian - The flared lower lip on the chimney was only on a very small number of the first locos made in 1967, not even all the red wheel locos have them, it is quite unusual and I have only seen it two or three times.
Malcolm - 'Joan' does not have a flared lip on the chimney.
Brian - If you look on the inside of the plastic body if the green plastic is almost the same colour as the original outside it dates from late 1967 to c1969, if it is a darker green, almost black, then it is the early 1967 body.
Malcolm - 'Joan' has a green plastic body which is almost the same colour as the original outside colour [and the same as a later green model in my possession]
Malcolm - The plastic in 'Joans' motor is black.
Do I presume correctly then that 'Joan' is a late 1967 to c1969 model? She is not described in Narrow Gauge Adventure which was published in 1975 however there is evidence to suggest the book was actually written a few years before in the late 1960's. [See also Arnold chassis below.]
Moving on to the Arnold chassis under 'Colin' and 'Calum'. From what you say Brian I think I am looking at a 'Series 0' chassis with layshaft and metal keeper plate. Photo attached of 'Calums' chassis
(//url=https://flic.kr/p/2dUcd9Y%5Dhttp://%5Bimg%5Dhttps://farm8.staticflickr.com/7808/46535618672_b3bdf2d196_c.jpg)[/url]Calum chassis (https://flic.kr/p/2dUcd9Y) by Malcolm MacLeod (https://www.flickr.com/photos/157354560@N03/), on Flickr][/img]
I acquired a spare chassis from 009 Sales a few years ago. I have swapped the motor from this for the one in 'Colin', which was reverse polarity, and have solved that problem. Fingers crossed I never have to call the original motor into service!! I examined both motors but cannot see anything to suggest the motor with the reverse polarity is anything other than a 'Series 0' but then I'm no expert............... Motor was not in upside down. Are the 'Series 0' and 'Series 1' motors identical except for polarity?
It is thought that PD acquired and modified the the locos sometime between the Arnolds coming onto the market in 1963 and the late 1960's. This is based on the fact they are described on pages 72 and 74 of Narrow Gauge Adventure first published in 1975 but as mentioned above there is evidence to suggest the book was actually written a few years before in the late 1960's.
In the circumstances I would therefore date 'Colin' and 'Calum' to between 1963 and mid to possibly late 1960's.
Malcolm
Blair said: "Perhaps we should have a "News" section to avoid confusion!!"
- we do now have one - though it's called 'Questions about the News' - which might be a good place to put items arising from the contents of the News?
David.
Quote from: Malcolm on January 03, 2019, 18:14
Right carrying on where we left off.......................
Malcolm - 'Joan' has black wheels.
Malcolm - 'Joan' has flat sides and no raised nameplate.
Malcolm - 'Joan' does not have a flared lip on the chimney.
Malcolm - 'Joan' has a green plastic body which is almost the same colour as the original outside colour [and the same as a later green model in my possession]
Malcolm - The plastic in 'Joans' motor is black.
Do I presume correctly then that 'Joan' is a late 1967 to c1969 model? She is not described in Narrow Gauge Adventure which was published in 1975 however there is evidence to suggest the book was actually written a few years before in the late 1960's.
Malcolm
Yes I agree the Jouef loco that 'Joan' is made from was made between late 1967 and c1969.
However this only proves the earliest date Joan could have been made. These locos were quite common and PDH may have purchased one second hand, or even purchased one new but not worked on it for a few years.
Brian Meldon
Quote from: Malcolm on January 03, 2019, 18:14
Moving on to the Arnold chassis under 'Colin' and 'Calum'. From what you say Brian I think I am looking at a 'Series 0' chassis with layshaft and metal keeper plate.
I acquired a spare chassis from 009 Sales a few years ago. I have swapped the motor from this for the one in 'Colin', which was reverse polarity, and have solved that problem. Fingers crossed I never have to call the original motor into service!! I examined both motors but cannot see anything to suggest the motor with the reverse polarity is anything other than a 'Series 0' but then I'm no expert............... Motor was not in upside down. Are the 'Series 0' and 'Series 1' motors identical except for polarity?
It is thought that PD acquired and modified the the locos sometime between the Arnolds coming onto the market in 1963 and the late 1960's. This is based on the fact they are described on pages 72 and 74 of Narrow Gauge Adventure first published in 1975 but as mentioned above there is evidence to suggest the book was actually written a few years before in the late 1960's.
In the circumstances I would therefore date 'Colin' and 'Calum' to between 1963 and mid to possibly late 1960's.
Malcolm
Yes it is a 'Series 0' chassis.
I no longer have any 'Series 0' chassis, all the ones I have ever owned have suffered with crumbling mazac chassis blocks. However I do have at least one motor from a 'Series 0' and I will compare this to the later motors when I get a chance, but from memory they are not identical. (For a start I think the brush springs are not the same.)
It should also be noted that it looks like the flanges on the chassis in your photo have been turned down, no doubt PDH found they were too large, just like all the rest of us!
As I mentioned before the 'Series 0' chassis were produced from 1963 and went out of production in the mid 1960's, it is known that the Arnold locos produced in 1967 had the later 'Series 1' chassis.
But as with 'Joan' this only sets the earliest date that the locos could have been built.
Brian Meldon
I can also add a date to the lower parts of the cab and side tanks on
Quote from: clayliner on January 03, 2019, 21:17
Blair said: "Perhaps we should have a "News" section to avoid confusion!!"
- we do now have one - though it's called 'Questions about the News' - which might be a good place to put items arising from the contents of the News?
David.
I was thinking more of a separate
section of the Forum rather than just a thread, David! But now I'm drifting again... Back to Joueff!! ;)
Quote from: Hobby on January 04, 2019, 10:51
I was thinking more of a separate section of the Forum rather than just a thread, David! But now I'm drifting again... Back to Joueff!! ;)
You're not keeping up Blair, I think we have morphed into early Arnold 0-6-0s at the moment!
Quote from: B.Meldon on January 04, 2019, 08:29
Yes I agree the Jouef loco that 'Joan' is made from was made between late 1967 and c1969.
However this only proves the earliest date Joan could have been made. These locos were quite common and PDH may have purchased one second hand, or even purchased one new but not worked on it for a few years.
Brian Meldon
When 'Joan' joined the CMR fleet will probably remain a mystery. All one can say with certainty is she was acquired sometime between, at the earliest late 1967 and 1975 when she first appeared that year in the March Railway Modeller on pages 67/8. Whether she was new or second hand one cannot say but I have a sneaking suspicion PD would have been first in the queue for them [and for the Arnolds] and if he were alive today the Heljan L&B and the Bachmann Baldwins. Although never photographed there is evidence on Dundreich that PD owned at least one Jouef toastrack coach.
Quote from: B.Meldon on January 04, 2019, 08:38
Yes it is a 'Series 0' chassis.
I no longer have any 'Series 0' chassis, all the ones I have ever owned have suffered with crumbling mazac chassis blocks. However I do have at least one motor from a 'Series 0' and I will compare this to the later motors when I get a chance, but from memory they are not identical. (For a start I think the brush springs are not the same.)
It should also be noted that it looks like the flanges on the chassis in your photo have been turned down, no doubt PDH found they were too large, just like all the rest of us!
As I mentioned before the 'Series 0' chassis were produced from 1963 and went out of production in the mid 1960's, it is known that the Arnold locos produced in 1967 had the later 'Series 1' chassis.
But as with 'Joan' this only sets the earliest date that the locos could have been built.
Brian Meldon
I must admit I had not picked up on the possible turning down of the flanges. I will get one the competent engineers at the club to check measurements. That said both Arnolds cruise through all the points on Dundreich including the Peco N gauge point at the entrance to the engine shed!
Quote from: B.Meldon on January 04, 2019, 10:14
I can also add a date to the lower parts of the cab and side tanks on
Quote from: Malcolm on January 04, 2019, 21:46
Brian. Many thanks for the time taken to answer the queries, I'm off to update my history of the CMR locos. To other forum members, sorry about the thread drift.
Malcolm
No prob as far as I'm concerned Malcolm, it's been very interesting indeed. If I could just find an unloved Egger number 2 loco body that needs to be re-homed, I have an ancient Arnold 0-6-0T and could well be very tempted to try to put together a running mate for my WeeMoira (in Hancock's Improved Engine Green of course!)
Happy New Year by the way!
Mick
Quote from: MickT on January 04, 2019, 23:02
....... If I could just find an unloved Egger number 2 loco body that needs to be re-homed, I have an ancient Arnold 0-6-0T and could well be very tempted to try to put together a running mate for my WeeMoira (in Hancock's Improved Engine Green of course!)
Mick
You may find it easier to get hold of a Minitrains Koppel body as many have used the chassis for other 009 locos. Although not identical to the original Egger No2 the differences will not show at all in a
Noted Brian, thanks for the suggestion. I've also got my eyes out for one of those, but nobody seems to have used this chassis and offloaded the body within my search zone! Plenty of Krauss bodies without chassis around, but no "Koppel" bodies seen!
I don't "do" replicas due to not having sufficient skill - "tributes" are a more achievable approach!
Mick
Mick, I've a green Western No5 body (cab and boiler but no chimney) if that's any use?
In addition to thanking Brian for sharing his research I should also have thanked our News Editor, Chris, for publishing the Jouef articles. The fact that the articles have generated some discussion on this forum which has had a positive result, at least in so far the history of the CMR loco fleet is concerned, shows there is some life in the members forum :)
Malcolm
Quote from: Hobby on January 05, 2019, 11:49
Mick, I've a green Western No5 body (cab and boiler but no chimney) if that's any use?
Thanks Blair, I've got one of those and also a couple of the standard blue number 5 bodies, it's the little "contractors loco" no.2 or the virtually identical Minitrains Koppel that I'm looking for (body only)
Mick