Anybody interested in hopper bodies made by Rokal, and supplied to Eggerbahn for their hopper wagon?
These come from Jouef, but evidently were never fitted. 'Evidently' means the studs used to fix them to the chassis, are pristine as moulded.
Can't see any damage on them, but due to age minor storage and handling wear might be present on the item you get.
No chassis, no wheels, no couplings.
These have been around for sale for some years now. I can confirm that they are original 1960's mouldings made for Egger-bahn by Rokal that were purchased from Egger-bahn by Jouef in 1968 along with the egger moulding tools, quite a lot of incomplete unused mouldings, and a lot of the clear plastic boxes, but they were never used by Jouef.
(They originate from a Rokal TT scale bogie hopper wagon.)
Sadly it is not possiable to make a full replica Egger-bahn wagon because you can not get the metal laders. They are also too wide for the normal Egger plastic boxes. This issue with the boxes is probably the reason Jouef never used them.
An Egger hopper wagon without the metal ladder has almost certainly been made using these surplus bodies!
Brian Meldon
Dear Brian,
Good to know there won't be any fake Eggerbahn hopper wagons then. ;D
Thanks for the clarification, but that shouldn't stop anybody making their own hopper wagons. :laugh:
I certainly agree that they are hefty by Eggerbahn standards, but they fit in neatly with the Liliput narrow gauge stock (of Egger design).
Cheers
Waldschrat
The only Liliput item to date from their link to egger-bahn is the body of the Zillertalbahn coach with the slatted wooden sides.
However this was not an Egger design, it was designed and produced by Liliput only intended to be marketed as part of the Egger range. The Ziller loco that was to be designed and built by Egger using an extended version of their existing 0-4-0 chassis.
As such the coach was intended to work on the very tight egger-bahn curved track so was fitted with the standard Egger-bahn two wheel coach bogies.
However following Egger-bahn's demise Liliput embarked on their own range, they designed and produced the U class locos and the rest of the range without any Egger-bahn input. The Ziller coach chassis was re-designed to take fixed wheels as they intended it to run on much wider radius curves.
If you look at the underside of the early Liliput coaches you can see where the original mout was going to be for the Egger bogies.
Brian Meldon
Here is a link to a photo of the 1964 Rokal TT scale catalogue showing the bogie ballast wagon where the body used by Egger-bahn originated:
(https://forum.009society.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fas.rumia.edu.pl%2Ftt%2Fkat%2F-rokal%2Fnr16%2F037.jpg&hash=e53a6f5f58fd27ae3d842768c5c090e0a5d69b3d)
(Originating web page: http://as.rumia.edu.pl/tt/kat/katalogi.asp?poz=37&kat=rk16 )
Here is a link to a photo of the TT scale Rokal bogie ballast wagon:
(https://www.picclickimg.com/00/s/NzQ4WDE2MDA=/z/W58AAOSwlypb~n2~/$/Rokal-TT-00317-4achs-Schotterwagen-DB-EpoIII-_57.jpg)
(Originating web page: https://picclick.fr/Rokal-TT-00317-4achs-Schotterwagen-DB-EpoIII-192740578375.html)
The version of the body used by Rokal is not the same grey as the version used by Egger-bahn and it has additional DB lettering.
Brian Meldon
Dear Brian,
The Rokal hopper waggon is a model of a German MOW, i.e. non-revenue, waggon, class Facs, designed by Talbot. There was a similar 2-axle class Otmmi 51.
Obviously, the 'DB' (Deutsche Bundesbahn) and the station 'Nuernberg' do not make sense on a narrow gauge waggon; sensibly they were omitted by Eggerbahn.
The same prototype has been modelled by Fleischmann (H0 and N), ROCO (H0), Arnold (N) and Minitrix (N). Its load carrying capacity is 58,5t. If you convert that with the TT to H0 ratio (0,725) you get 22,3t payload for the fictional prototype of the Eggerbahn hopper. Add to that circa 13t tare weight (for a 2-axle waggon), and you have a waggon with a cross weight of roughly 36t, or 18t axle load. In narrow gauge parlance that is a serious track requirement only very few mainline operations tend to have.
That's why you're certainly right: it is big, and accordingly the Eggerbahn waggon looks odd; it should be a 4-axle waggon, which would bring the axle load down to a more credible 9t. Still, certainly more common carrier 750mm-gauge upwards, rather than industrial narrow gauge in the 600mm-gauge region; but Eggerbahn was aiming that way with the longer goods waggons released that year.
At: http://www.museumseisenbahn.de/jfahrzeug/163.htm
you can see a similar waggon, supplied originally to a lignite mine (who run on track rated 28t/axle loading; standard gauge and 900mm) as 2-axle hopper, converted to 4-axle for use on a narrow-gauge museum line; for reasons detailed above.
However, the Brohltaleisenbahn used similar, but bigger waggons for its Phenolit traffic on metre-gauge, see:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brohltalbahn
and:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Brohltalbahn_(15089180907).jpg
, which makes the Eggerbahn model a reasonable model size-wise on 750mm-gauge, at least if fitted with bogies.
I can't find any evidence for your claim that Liliput designed the coach; given that there is nothing of that sort on any German website, especially not corroborated by former Liliput employees, this is most doubtful.
The only photograph of the Eggerbahn Austrian stock I know, is the new-announcement of these items in Miba. That photo shows a precursor to the class U, clearly NOT a class U, and certainly NOT on an extended 0-4-0 chassis (bigger wheels and different wheelbase). On a stretch it might have been modelled on the Uv, but various features are wrong for the Uv.
With Eggers' engineering expertise in design it does not make sense, especially as Liliput was on contract for the manufacture of coaches only. Furthermore, if it were as you suggest, sure enough Liliput would have certainly advised Eggerbahn to produce the much more numerous class U, rather than the uncommon prototype (only 3 of which were built).
Don't forget, in our magazine, and various English web-sites the Austrian engine classes are all jumbled up, mostly called class U, whatever they are; it seems they don't know the distinguishing features. The classes Bh, S, T, U, Uv, Uh, and Yv are all 0-3-1, but with substantial differences, not just in size.
Given that the motor of the class U was at the time unique to the Liliput range (the Tigerli used a similar, but different motor), it doesn't look like Liliput re-designed much internally; if they had done they surely would have changed to the Tigerli motor. But, unless we can lay our hands on the photo-model used for the Miba shot that remains speculation.
Happy New Year
Waldschrat
I am sorry this is off topic and a bit long!!!
Here is the photo from Miba that was taken at the 1967 Neuenb
Dear Brian,
Thanks for posting the pictures. However, some comments are appropriate. >:(
First of all, the class U is not a 'standard', certainly not more a 'standard' than Uv, Uh, or Bh. It might be more common or widespread, but that doesn