An interesting post from Doug over at the Mamod forum

[Spule 4]

All-

Found something of interest for some of us that have been asking about Mamod's Thomas Telford.

http://modelsteam.myfreeforum.org/about56171.html

I had said before that what would be nice is a mix of William and MkII.....

[Spule 4]

....and right as I got this posted, Chris "Dr. Mamod" Cairns e-mailed it to me as well.

[Chris Cairns]

Firstly, Well Done to Doug for posting about his visit to the Mamod factory. Others have been before but never posted any useful information, and in particular no photographs.

Mamod do listen to their customers and the steamer community - they want to make the best possible models. - - - - but the Thomas Telford is also going to be aimed at the cheaper end of the garden railway market

So I post my thoughts to attract further discussion, based on my experience of earlier Mamod locomotives plus the 3 photographs of the Thomas Telford locomotive that Doug has posted.

Pros

1. A copper gas pipe. Finally Mamod have listened to previous owners and now made this a standard fit.

2. Centre Buffer couplings. Introduced on the Brunel locomotive these are deemed necessary by the Garden Railway community.

3. In-Cab regulator. A big weakness of the Golden Jubilee, William & William II locomotives. A finer thread will improve control particularly for typical slow running.

4. Detailing. A full set of cab handrails (Mark I & II locos only have one each side), Brass spectacle rings (none on Mark I loco), a dummy whistle and decent size water tank filler doors.

5. Extra boiler insert. Will keep those who insist on fitting a water top-up valve very happy.

Unknowns

1. Combustion Chamber. It is not clear from Doug’s photos as to the construction of the combustion chamber. If it is the same as the 3-faced Mark I & II locos then good, if it is the same vertical design as the William II then it will suffer from overheat problems. There also appears to be a more restricted airflow to the burner with the modified side tanks (Mark I & II locos have a clear path to the bottom of the combustion chamber sides).

2. New Cylinders. The prototype has the improved cylinders that were introduced with the William II, and are used on the stationary & mobile engines as well. On the William II & Brunel locos these have difficulty running at slow speeds, which is possibly because the piston is not fitted with an ‘O’ ring (just the piston rod & cylinder gland). So the Thomas Telford will be using an un-proven design, just like the Golden Jubilee first did, with poor results.

3. Lubricator. Not seen in Doug’s photos but I suspect it will use the same design as the Mark II loco, thus there will be a drain/filler plug sticking out the side of the cab on the right. This design is a straight displacement lubricator, but it is not metered/controlled like the Roundhouse style lubricators, so the oil gets used up very quickly. Not good when there is no piston ‘O’ ring fitted.

4. Spot welded bodywork. Not clear in Doug’s photo but I wonder if the side tanks are spot welded to the cab sides like the William II, Mark I & II locos. Makes it a lot harder to modify. Why not fit the side tanks to the cab sides through the cab handrails like the Mamod SL/MSS locos?

Cons

1. Riveted Construction. Mamod have acknowledged that owners like to tinker with their locos and apparently have taken that into account. So why is it still the only loco currently available that is still all riveted construction (even the factory built MSS locos have a screw & nut constructed chassis). Surely this is their chance now to introduce a screw/bolt & nut constructed locomotive like their competition. This is currently one of the big negatives about Mamod locos in the Garden Railway community.

2. Wheels. Doug mentions the construction of the new Mamod wheels which are still Mazak cast. These are the wheels fitted to the Mark I & II locos and we have just had our first recorded wheel slip on the leading axle over on the 16mmngm Yahoo group, which so far Loctite 603 has repaired. The wheels fitted to the prototype Thomas Telford loco are actually machined steel wheels, as fitted to the William II, and these suffer from having loose brass bearings in the chassis frames which allows the wheels to move sideways and sometimes causing the couplings rods/eccentric rods to lock up. Some method of holding these bearings firm into the chassis frames is required.

Mamodification/Tinkerability

Doug mentions this in his posting, with the possibility of adding cab backs, bunkers, smoke box fronts & cylinder covers. Bottom line is there is not a big enough market to warrant an aftermarket manufacturer in producing these in such small quantities and sell them at an attractive price but still make a profit. There are just so few William, William II, Mark I & II locomotives being actively used in the Garden Railway community, as opposed to the ‘toy steam’ community – how many do we read about on any of the Forums? Only manufacturer who tried this was Steam 4 Fun, but if you look at Simon’s range now it is very limited for the Mamod & MSS Steam Railway (even the smoke box door and dart which was specifically modified to fit the locomotives has been dropped – you can still get the one for the Traction engine which will need modifying).

Will be interesting to see what price this locomotive ends up being. Would be nice if Mamod introduced a special price to launch the model like they did with the Mark I locomotive (then called ‘The Mamod Train’). I've currently held off buying a Diamond Jubilee at £330, and the reported under £450 for the Thomas Telford will need a lot of careful consideration as well.

Chris Cairns.

[dougrail]

Firstly, Well Done to Doug for posting about his visit to the Mamod factory. Others have been before but never posted any useful information, and in particular no photographs.

Mamod do listen to their customers and the steamer community - they want to make the best possible models. - - - - but the Thomas Telford is also going to be aimed at the cheaper end of the garden railway market

So I post my thoughts to attract further discussion, based on my experience of earlier Mamod locomotives plus the 3 photographs of the Thomas Telford locomotive that Doug has posted.

Pros

1. A copper gas pipe. Finally Mamod have listened to previous owners and now made this a standard fit.

2. Centre Buffer couplings. Introduced on the Brunel locomotive these are deemed necessary by the Garden Railway community.

3. In-Cab regulator. A big weakness of the Golden Jubilee, William & William II locomotives. A finer thread will improve control particularly for typical slow running.

4. Detailing. A full set of cab handrails (Mark I & II locos only have one each side), Brass spectacle rings (none on Mark I loco), a dummy whistle and decent size water tank filler doors.

5. Extra boiler insert. Will keep those who insist on fitting a water top-up valve very happy.

Unknowns

1. Combustion Chamber. It is not clear from Doug’s photos as to the construction of the combustion chamber. If it is the same as the 3-faced Mark I & II locos then good, if it is the same vertical design as the William II then it will suffer from overheat problems. There also appears to be a more restricted airflow to the burner with the modified side tanks (Mark I & II locos have a clear path to the bottom of the combustion chamber sides).

2. New Cylinders. The prototype has the improved cylinders that were introduced with the William II, and are used on the stationary & mobile engines as well. On the William II & Brunel locos these have difficulty running at slow speeds, which is possibly because the piston is not fitted with an ‘O’ ring (just the piston rod & cylinder gland). So the Thomas Telford will be using an un-proven design, just like the Golden Jubilee first did, with poor results.

3. Lubricator. Not seen in Doug’s photos but I suspect it will use the same design as the Mark II loco, thus there will be a drain/filler plug sticking out the side of the cab on the right. This design is a straight displacement lubricator, but it is not metered/controlled like the Roundhouse style lubricators, so the oil gets used up very quickly. Not good when there is no piston ‘O’ ring fitted.

4. Spot welded bodywork. Not clear in Doug’s photo but I wonder if the side tanks are spot welded to the cab sides like the William II, Mark I & II locos. Makes it a lot harder to modify. Why not fit the side tanks to the cab sides through the cab handrails like the Mamod SL/MSS locos?

Cons

1. Riveted Construction. Mamod have acknowledged that owners like to tinker with their locos and apparently have taken that into account. So why is it still the only loco currently available that is still all riveted construction (even the factory built MSS locos have a screw & nut constructed chassis). Surely this is their chance now to introduce a screw/bolt & nut constructed locomotive like their competition. This is currently one of the big negatives about Mamod locos in the Garden Railway community.

2. Wheels. Doug mentions the construction of the new Mamod wheels which are still Mazak cast. These are the wheels fitted to the Mark I & II locos and we have just had our first recorded wheel slip on the leading axle over on the 16mmngm Yahoo group, which so far Loctite 603 has repaired. The wheels fitted to the prototype Thomas Telford loco are actually machined steel wheels, as fitted to the William II, and these suffer from having loose brass bearings in the chassis frames which allows the wheels to move sideways and sometimes causing the couplings rods/eccentric rods to lock up. Some method of holding these bearings firm into the chassis frames is required.

Mamodification/Tinkerability

Doug mentions this in his posting, with the possibility of adding cab backs, bunkers, smoke box fronts & cylinder covers. Bottom line is there is not a big enough market to warrant an aftermarket manufacturer in producing these in such small quantities and sell them at an attractive price but still make a profit. There are just so few William, William II, Mark I & II locomotives being actively used in the Garden Railway community, as opposed to the ‘toy steam’ community – how many do we read about on any of the Forums? Only manufacturer who tried this was Steam 4 Fun, but if you look at Simon’s range now it is very limited for the Mamod & MSS Steam Railway (even the smoke box door and dart which was specifically modified to fit the locomotives has been dropped – you can still get the one for the Traction engine which will need modifying).

Will be interesting to see what price this locomotive ends up being. Would be nice if Mamod introduced a special price to launch the model like they did with the Mark I locomotive (then called ‘The Mamod Train’). I've currently held off buying a Diamond Jubilee at £330, and the reported under £450 for the Thomas Telford will need a lot of careful consideration as well.

Chris Cairns.

Hi folks,

It was an offchance that I got to tour the Mamod factory.

The pros excited me very much, having heard much criticism about the plastic gas pipes for one [safety hazard] and other aspects.

The Unknowns - the combichamber and bodywork I didn't enquire about, but the lubricator does look similar to that of the Mk2 and does have a nub protuding out of the r/h side of the cab. I perhaps should have taken a better photo set of the loco - top, bottom etc.

The wheels seemed secure and not loose at all. They are the steel type as opposed to the shiny mazak type however which adds some reliability to them. Pricewise I got the impression of about £400-430.

Hope this helps.

[Spule 4]

The "lay on the loco on its side for servicing" lubricator would be a bit of a pain on a "proper" garden railway loco.

The rest could be improved along as you go. The big question is, how much larger than an SL is the TT loco?

[dougrail]

I'd say the TT was about the same size as the MK2 - the cab height looks the same construction.

As for lubricators, try having one where thou needst tip the engine upside down

[Spule 4]

As for lubricators, try having one where thou needst tip the engine upside down

[Chris Cairns]

The big question is, how much larger than an SL is the TT loco?

I'd say the TT was about the same size as the MK2

I disagree. Here is one of Doug's photos suitably enhanced.



The boilers used on the Mark II & William II are 44.5mm diameter (Line A). Line B is just slightly larger than Line A so the width of the loco across the side tanks is probably about 89mm (William II is 88mm whereas Mark II is only 82.5mm wide).




Compare these 2 photos. The Thomas Telford cylinders are mounted just slightly further back than the William II, and the cab has been extended (window outlet around gas tank). So the Thomas Telford is either the same length as the William II or as I suspect slightly longer.

For a visual comparison between Mamod SL, Mark I/II & William locos see my video from 0:25 here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imZwlU3KzXU

Whilst doing these measurements I just found something interesting. Whilst the Golden Jubilee, William, Mark I & II locos all have their tank sides spot/tack welded to the cab side, the William II tank sides are just super-glued to the cab side (which I easily undid lifting the tank side off the cab side after removing the front cab handrail), thus making the Thomas Telford the ideal candidate for a screw/bolt & nut constructed locomotive. I'm now tempted to ask if Mamod could make me a Thomas Telford loco without the use of rivets, and either supply enough 6BA screws & nuts to build it, or discount the price for my own self assembly.

As for lubricators, try having one where thou needst tip the engine upside down

I assume you mean you have to turn the loco upside down in order to drain the lubricator, and not fill the lubricator. The problem with the Mark II lubricator is if you remove the drain plug with the loco upright you will probably not get all the oil in without some draining down on the cab side before you get the drain plug back on. Again with the bigger cab on the Thomas Telford Mamod have the opportunity to put the drain plug/filler inside the cab and you can use a syringe to empty it (just like your PPS lubricator).

Chris Cairns.

[Chris Cairns]

Sounds like Doug has bought a Thomas Telford loco - http://gardenrails.myfreeforum.org/about6485.html

First thing I notice in the photo he has posted in that Topic is the LHS combustion chamber is too close to the boiler - has this suffered the same fate that my William II combustion chamber had with the plate being trapped inside of the gas tank holder rivet? If so then it is going to get very hot and probably flare out on that side burning the paint!!!!

Hope Doug checks over his loco carefully before lighting up as I damaged my William II due to that manufacturing error.

Chris Cairns.

[dougrail]

Fraid to say I haven't bought one yet. I was able to closer-inspect the prototype with my good camera. That and I am skint.

New thread will reveal all chaps, for your inspection.