Jump to content

Frond

Members
  • Content Count

    53
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

49 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

275 profile views
  1. I agree that the A2/2 locomotives were not part of the standardisation plan but they did in effect become the prototypes for the A2/3s which presumably were? I also agree that the wisdom of the rebuild is another debate entirely! However I never intended my comment to be anything deep and meaningful, it is just that I find the fact that in the (mostly) war years between 1941and 1946 Thompson built or rebuilt a total of 26 Pacific type locos using 4 different designs, with numerous detail variations somewhat ironic given his standardisation policy. Steve
  2. I have been following the discussions on the numerous difference between individual engines that have been pointed out by the well informed members together with Hornby's Engine Shed article and it still makes me smile to think that one of Thompson's main objectives when he took over as CME was standardisation!
  3. Frond

    New Hornby Rocket

    Just received my R3810 set through the post (thank you Rails) and despite everything I have read and all the pictures I have looked at I was still surprised at how small it is! Amazing little model.
  4. I have a pretty good idea what the respirators would have been having worked with breathing apparatus for over 30 years. If you can imagine a gas mask only instead of a filter there is a long rubber tube, this tube is led to somewhere where the air quality is better, in this case as near to track level as possible. The wearer basically sucks (relatively) clean air through the tube with exhaled air going our through a one way exhaust valve on the mask. Again using the LNER Encyclopedia as reference apparently the crews objected to sharing the equipment and their use was discontinued. Given what the conditions in the tunnel must have been like I am not sure what was the lesser of two evils.
  5. I have just re-read the LNER encyclopedia entry on the U1, and it would appear that it wasn't over popular at "home" either! Perhaps it was simply that back in the day the LNER crews had no choice but to get on with it but the ex LMS guys on the Lickey wanted no part of it.
  6. Thanks for the replies, but the cynic in me is still not convinced. Surely all the problems would have equally have applied on it's home turf? and yet it worked there for 20+ years.
  7. Firstly apologies if this has been discussed before. Over the years I have read on a number of occasions that in BR days the ex LNER U1 Garratt was tried in the Lickey Incline in an attempt to justify the cost of a new boiler as its work on the Worsborough Incline was coming to an end. All the articles have stated that the trials were unsuccessful and the loco was subsequently scrapped. What I have never read is why the trials were unsuccessful. On the face of it you would think that she would be eminently suitable having worked as a banking engine for years, indeed I think am right in saying she was built for that very purpose. Was it the old problem of not wanting/liking engines from other regions (companies) or was there a real problem? If anyone has any knowledge of the reason(s) I would be very interested. Thanks Steve
  8. Perhaps you were too preoccupied counting Hornby references but he does mention the fire box flicker (albeit in a rather negative way). For the record I am not going to be buying either version so have no axe to grind and therefore would normally have kept quiet but thought this should be corrected. Steve
  9. Thanks Fran Nice to put faces to names Steve
  10. Love the picture but could Oliver or Fran give us a left to right name check please for those of us who don't know who is who. Thanks Steve
  11. Frond

    The Engine Shed

    Pardon my ignorance but who is Larry Goddard? Steve
  12. In an effort to cheer myself up I finally took the plunge on Monday evening and ordered a Princess Elizabeth from Rails (the malt whisky I happened to be drinking at the time had nothing to do with this sudden extravagance- honest). It arrived this morning which given the current circumstances I feel is very good service and looks fantastic. Now about that King Arthur that Rails have got on sale! - pass the bottle someone....
  13. Thanks for the reply Fran. Please do not take my post as an expression of disappointment, I was genuinely curious. Your openness has been one of the best things to happen to railway modelling for years, the fact that we are having this discussion proves that -I can't imagine many (any?) other manufacturers discussing the details of their development process. Please keep it coming, mistakes, blind alleys, corrections and all. Thanks Steve
  14. Must say I am curious as to what happened to the "cunning plan" to overcome the wheel size /body shape conundrum - I suspect that copying Bachmann wasn't it! As an engineer myself I gave the problem some semi serious thought coming up with vague ideas of cams to raise the body on sharp bends to allow clearance, which in turn gives the problem of the body bobbing up and down etc. I pretty soon gave up and thought I would wait for the answer, turns out there isn't one, only a compromise (which I must add I have no problem with). However I would like to know what ideas were considered and ultimately rejected. Steve
  15. Brian, Andy thank you for your replies. Apologies for raising this subject again, I was initially interested in why John had not voted this year as I thought his answer might give an insight into getting more people to vote. Turns out he simply missed the window of opportunity as I had done the previous year. The longer the poll is open the more votes but it is clearly a case of diminishing returns and as you guys are the ones putting in the time and effort it is entirely up to you when the cut off is. Thank you all once again for conducting the poll Steve
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.