Personally neither. They're small and frustrating to learn to run due to their small size. I'd suggest something with a larger boiler/firebox, where there are plenty of examples built, and can be seen running. Something larger will give better performance on track and greater satisfaction, even pull passengers happily. I have a 31/2 Netta which is not a complicated engine (even with internal stephensons valve gear), but there are other LBSC models I.e Maisy, which can be great little engines. Also Martin Evan's Jubilee is a cracking loco.. with a lot of parts easily available laser cut (all the plate work can be bought laser cut and soft-soldered).

I know a lot of people say go for 5" i.e. Simplex… but I have one of these and its no easier/harder, but blooming heavier !!

Just my personal thoughts on the question before I'm hounded to death by those who think differently.

Del.

Take a look at the Conway locomotive. A friend has one, which we took out last New Years day (look for "Conway Locomotive Canada" on youtube, and you'll find it).

It's simple, surprisingly light, and more than enough oomph for the task at hand. I really like it.

I do have a Tich, which IMHO is a fantastic locomotive, but do understand that others may think it's too small.

For me, either you go for a large 7-1/4" locomotive, or a smaller 3-1/2"; I don't understand 5" gauge.

(smaller 3-1/2" – easy to transport/manhandle, larger 7-1/4 – the "appeal of the large"; 5" – big enough to be a pain to manhandle, but a "wannabe" 7-1/4" – but that's just my opinion – yours may differ)

John — http://cnc-for-model-engineers.blogspot.com

Edited By John Alexander Stewart on 16/01/2014 13:00:22

Re Rainhill – several people have reported that there is not enough tractive effort with Rainhill, and it is difficult to get enough weight on the drivers without ruining the loco's appearance with weights stuck on all over the front end. There are several threads on this site for Rainhill, one with all the drawing errors reported so far. In the ME articles I noted that there is not one picture or sufficient written/drawing details of the foundation ring and throatplate area of the boiler.

In comparing Tich and Juliet I remember someone wrote in and said that Ajax was a better choice of loco as slightly larger but same sort of complexity as T and J, and said it was very suited to new builders.

JD

Definitely a bit iffy.

Regards,

Richard

Hi Bob,

I am building a tich as my first engine. Why? Well I have a small lathe (unimat SL) and I knew I would make lots of mistakes due to my lack of experience. Castings are cheap enough if I make a mistake to start again. It won't pull much but I'm not building it for that. I think you need to build to what you feel is ascertainable for you. Tich comes with a construction manual with a step by step and methodical approach which is exactly what I need as I knew I would struggle to build an engine just from drawings.

I think it can be fashionable these days to build a 5" or 7 1/4" engine on your first time out but if you don't have the space, experience or machinery, you may struggle early on and the engine may take a long time to be finished- if at all.

Just my 2penneth.

Daniel

Will – thanks for the words of encouragement for both the OP, and for smaller gauges in general.

There are a growing handful of people "over here" pushing the smaller gauges again for the reasons you stated, plus one – the larger the gauge, the larger the track, and thus the harder it is getting to get the land to build on.

John.

I started with 2.5inch Basset-Lowke Flying Scotsman and a Super Adept lathe, aged 11, a definate no no!!

Subsequently LBSC's Juliet on an EW lathe and then a Masie on an ML 7. Both were equal in building, but Masie has more to it, including a combustion chamber. Juliet hauls four adults quite happily on an up and down track and Masie eight adults. She used to fly around the old Witney and West Oxford track at Woodstock with four adults.

David

Just my 2 cents worth, as someone who has built both types of valvegear:

If you are skilled at close but smooth fitting pins /holes/ bush type joints you will have no trouble with Baker gear. If the joints are sloppy, too tight, or holes are out of position, there could be trouble.

Baker gear does require some accurate hole to hole distances which are more critical as size/scale of engine gets smaller.

Stephenson gear is a little more forgiving in terms of distance between holes etc. but the expansion link and die block must be made carefully and made of compatible wearing materials, otherwise friction and wear will be high and the engine will not run smoothly and/or for a long time. If the link's pin joints are sloppy, or die block to link fit is sloppy or eccentric fits are loose there could be trouble. The expansion link can be a hard part to make by hand. With a jig and/or rotary table, not so much. Even less trouble if you lay it out in CAD and have it wire EDM cut out of pre-hardened gauge plate.

Baker gear if made well is very smooth in operation with little friction, and with excellent control of valve events.

Good luck. JD

Bob ,

With small side tank engines there is a lot to be said for having all the works on the ouside of the engine .

Nothing to do with merits of different valve gears or ease of making – just easy access !

Julian ,

I’ve always fancied making the 6 wheel integral tender version of the railmotor – might give it a go one day .

There was a nice railmotor at Cardiff track when I used to visit years ago ( c 1971-5)- was that
yours ??

There was also on one occassion a RRy 0-6-2 and a Netta built as a Barry engine – built by Ross McKay ?? .

Altogether a good showing of Welsh engines .

Regards ,

MikeW