New Engine from Stuart (reintroduced actually)

[Nick_GParticipant @nick_g]

[Nick_GParticipant @nick_g]

.

Their No.3 **LINK**

Looks like an interesting project that would be worth getting ones teeth into over a good period of time.

By the look of the photo it seems to be based on the No.1 but in a twin compound configuration. Then altering the size of one of the cylinders.

 

Nick

 

Edited By Nick_G on 03/11/2015 14:31:41

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

I'll wait until they bring back the Lightweight which is the one I fancy

[SteveMParticipant @stevem36008]

Looks a lovely engine.
It'd be nice to see it in a bit more detail though.

It always bugs me when when websites don't make images available in high resolution so we can see it in a bit of detail.

[Nick_GParticipant @nick_g]

Posted by SteveM on 03/11/2015 19:17:10:

so we can see it in a bit of detail.

You are in luck. Seems one made at the turn of the last century has videoed one a 100 years later.

Nick

[SteveMParticipant @stevem36008]

Thanks Nick. That is a fine machine.

[julian atkinsParticipant @julianatkins58923]

for such large cylinders it seems a bit odd without valve gear, and hence very restricted in application i would have thought. £1,000 for just a table model seems a bit steep to me!

cheers,

julian

[mechman48Participant @mechman48]

Nice engine but on the expensive side of my pension allowance.

George

[Nick_GParticipant @nick_g]

Posted by julian atkins on 03/11/2015 22:16:47:

£1,000 for just a table model seems a bit steep to me!

 

julian

.

I totally see the point you are making.

And it is. A £1000 is a lot of money full stop.! But I think one has to take a wider view on model engineering. If we were to count the cost of machines, tooling, workshop building and a whole roost of other things each and every item we make would even out costing a small fortune. But that is not why we do it, is it.?

Those castings would give many, many months and in some cases years of pleasure in construction. I know quite a number of people that spend more than that a month in the pub or book makers. Not my choice of lifestyle I might add, (though I was a bit of a beer-monster in my youth . ) but that is what they choose to do and so long as they are happy I am not going to call them for it.

A chap I know has well over £1.5 million in vintage cars and motorbikes in a secure unit. Never drives or rides any of them. Just goes once a month or so to look at them. ………………………….. Very, very strange and pointless if you ask me. But he gets untold pleasure from doing so.

TBH when I hit pension age I will probably not be able to justify such an expenditure. In fact I cannot presently as I have other calls on my income for different things. As I said £1000 is a lot of money and is to most people.

As a side note :- I wonder what percentage of casting kits, especially loco ones ever get completed by the original buyer of the castings. Is it low or high.?

The point I am making is that of all the hobbies I have had over the years model engineering is probably the most pointless. But at the same time the most rewarding. (except totty chasing. . )

If one is a constructor of kits this is not a cheap hobby we do. Especially when one is a 'newbie' and gathering machines and tooling. Some friends of mine totally get why I do it. Others look at me confused and in a sympathetic way considering me 'One sandwich short of a picnic.'

In these times of "buy it cheap and bin it when it's broken" I say well done Stuart for introducing a new product into their line. …………. Pity it's a grand though.  (edit :- Actually it's more. – It's a grand plus VAT)

Nick

Edited By Nick_G on 04/11/2015 00:26:31

[Steven VineParticipant @stevenvine79904]

It is £1200.

Edited By Steven Vine on 04/11/2015 06:31:51

Edited By Steven Vine on 04/11/2015 06:33:04

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

As Stuarts sell reversing gear sets for most of their other engines I'm sure a set will follow, not much point in putting it in a launch if you can't use reverse thrust.

There are several more detailed compound twins about of a similar size if the builder wants a more detailed or useful engine with pumps, condenser, reversing gear etc.

[Ian S CParticipant @iansc]

I suppose 1000 pounds is not too bad when you compare it with the price of a boiler for even a quite modest sized locomotive.

Perhaps they would sell more castings if they re introduced something like the "Progress" engines of the 1930s, there were two verticals, and two horizontals, one of each was a slide valve, and the other two were oscillators. 1/2" bore, 3/4" stroke, they came with the cylinder ready bored. There is a "Progress" S.V. in my mates museum, it was sitting next to his S9(the S9 got nicked) at a steam exhibition, as rare (in NZ) the SV was probably worth more than the S9. Photo of the S.V. as we got it, it looks a little better now.

Ian S C

Edited By Ian S C on 04/11/2015 09:50:21

[Author]

Posts