RMweb Premium phil-b259 Posted April 12, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 12, 2018 H and R/R1 were used for VERY different purposes - the former assorted local passenger workings and the latter various shunting tasks, Folkestone banking and, of course Canterbury & Whitstable ............. little, if any overlap. Not sure what you would class as a 'heavy 0-6-0T' loco if the 'S' doesn't count ??!? The S was a one off - and as I said the C class tender loco it was converted from (boiler etc retained by the rebuilt machine) was not a particularly large 0-6-0 to start with (cvompare it to the Midfland 4F for example. 'Large' tank engines as far as I am concerned are things like the GWRs 72XX and 52XX Freight locos, the GWR 51XX Large Prairie, the LMS Fowler / Stainer 2-6-4T, the LBSCR pacific & Baltic tanks etc.... In fact NO 0-6-0T deservers the application of the word 'large as a descriptor in the general sense. If you are wanting to specifically compare 0-6-0T locos, then it might well be the E2 ranks towards the larger end - but so do some of the GWRs pannier tanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenGiraffe22 Posted April 12, 2018 Share Posted April 12, 2018 Not an 0-6-0, but the SECR J looks kinda large, like an H with a big butt although I've forgotten why we're talking about the existence or non existence of large Southern tank engines Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil gollin Posted April 12, 2018 Share Posted April 12, 2018 . The ***** "northerners" again, trying to hijack the thread. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted April 12, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 12, 2018 The S was a one off - and as I said the C class tender loco it was converted from (boiler etc retained by the rebuilt machine) was not a particularly large 0-6-0 to start with (cvompare it to the Midfland 4F for example. 'Large' tank engines as far as I am concerned are things like the GWRs 72XX and 52XX Freight locos, the GWR 51XX Large Prairie, the LMS Fowler / Stainer 2-6-4T, the LBSCR pacific & Baltic tanks etc.... In fact NO 0-6-0T deservers the application of the word 'large as a descriptor in the general sense. If you are wanting to specifically compare 0-6-0T locos, then it might well be the E2 ranks towards the larger end - but so do some of the GWRs pannier tanks. In terms of sheer bulk, the GWR 94xx surpasses the heavier version of the E2 by 3 tons with the 15xx 3 tons heavier again. However, the heft of the 72xx (92t.2cwt) is exceeded by Mr Urie's LSWR G16 4-8-0T at 95t.2cwt and his H16 Pacific tank at 96t.8cwt. Of the rest, no LNER tank topped the 90 ton mark and only the 3-cylinder version of the Stanier 2-6-4T did so on the LMS. Mind you, aren't Garratts classified as tank engines?........ Getting back on topic, I'm looking forward to the new LN. Upon delivery, my "got at" Bachmann one will be retired to be further got at via a Comet chassis. John 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wickham Green Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 If you are wanting to specifically compare 0-6-0T locos, then it might well be the E2 ranks towards the larger end - but so do some of the GWRs pannier tanks. Sorry, I got the feeling from your #111 that the 'heavy 0-6-0T' WAS specifically being discussed ...... as I said in #125 the J50 was the out & out winner in that category. Widening the sub-topic, I'd certainly agree that the SECR 'J' should be mentioned as a nice big chunky tankie ( #127 ) .......... but unless someone's going to speculate that Maunsell might have come up with a Lord Nelson Tank ( 4-6-4T ) had he become Loc.Sup. of the Brighton I fear we've strayed off topic too long !!?! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted April 13, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 13, 2018 Sorry, I got the feeling from your #111 that the 'heavy 0-6-0T' WAS specifically being discussed ...... as I said in #125 the J50 was the out & out winner in that category. Widening the sub-topic, I'd certainly agree that the SECR 'J' should be mentioned as a nice big chunky tankie ( #127 ) .......... but unless someone's going to speculate that Maunsell might have come up with a Lord Nelson Tank ( 4-6-4T ) had he become Loc.Sup. of the Brighton I fear we've strayed off topic too long !!?! According to my 1955 abc the heaviest versions of the J50 (J50/3 and J50/4) at 58t.3cwt were pipped by the WR 15xx by just a hundredweight. John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wickham Green Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 According to my 1955 abc the heaviest versions of the J50 (J50/3 and J50/4) at 58t.3cwt were pipped by the WR 15xx by just a hundredweight. John According to my 1948 abc ........................................ what's a 15xx ? ...... doesn't compare with the mythical Lord Nelson tank, whatever it is !!?! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted April 15, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 15, 2018 (edited) According to my 1948 abc ........................................ what's a 15xx ? ...... doesn't compare with the mythical Lord Nelson tank, whatever it is !!?! Ugly brute, poor imitation of a USA. Introduced in 1949, which is why I described it as WR rather than GWR, though it was presumably designed before nationalisation. Edited April 16, 2018 by Dunsignalling 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
autocoach Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 (edited) Some of this comment seems to be about as far removed as the L&N rather than the LN..... (L&N=Louisville & Nashville) Edited April 15, 2018 by autocoach Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wickham Green Posted April 16, 2018 Share Posted April 16, 2018 Ugly brute, poor imitation of a USA. That's why I described it as WR rather than GWR. Who you callin' an ugly brute ??!? I've never figured out how the 1500 could be heavier than the 9400 when it appears to be shorn of all extraneous components ....................and it's a LOT heftier than the unbelievably tiny yankee-tankie - whatever its visual similarities ! ............... as for comparison with Maunsell's stylish Lord Nelson - how on earth did we get this far off topic ? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted April 16, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 16, 2018 Who you callin' an ugly brute ??!? I've never figured out how the 1500 could be heavier than the 9400 when it appears to be shorn of all extraneous components ....................and it's a LOT heftier than the unbelievably tiny yankee-tankie - whatever its visual similarities ! ............... as for comparison with Maunsell's stylish Lord Nelson - how on earth did we get this far off topic ? Quite. Sublime to the ridiculous or what? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robmcg Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 would a pic of a Bachmann one help? picture edited will remove if required 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
autocoach Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 would a pic of a Bachmann one help? 30851_Nelson_windy_evening_on_shed_3abcd_crop1_r1200.jpg picture edited will remove if required Looks more like an LMS rebuilt Patriot..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium brushman47544 Posted April 17, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 17, 2018 would a pic of a Bachmann one help? Looks more like an LMS rebuilt Patriot..... Would appear not... Have to agree about looks, the Bachmann version really doesn't stand up to scrutiny next to the Hornby one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iltman Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 would a pic of a Bachmann one help? 30851_Nelson_windy_evening_on_shed_3abcd_crop1_r1200.jpg picture edited will remove if required If only the mod l looked this good! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Limpley Stoker Posted April 18, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 18, 2018 Hopefully Hornby’s second attempt will be better than their first............. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steamport Southport Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 Not bad for the era and even has the luggage wagon. You don't see that modelled often to any standard. Jason Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted April 19, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 19, 2018 (edited) Would appear not... Have to agree about looks, the Bachmann version really doesn't stand up to scrutiny next to the Hornby one. Not really surprising, given that more than a quarter-century of r-t-r progress separates the two. Bachmann's LN was not half bad in its day, though I always found that getting a really good runner was a bit of a lottery. As one of the relatively few "big-green-named" engines (and even fewer SR prototypes) they have covered, it should perhaps have been an early candidate for an update but Bachmann appeared to have a general antipathy towards developing anything Southern for many years. All-in-all, I'm a little surprised that Hornby managed to keep their mitts off it as long as they did. John Edited April 19, 2018 by Dunsignalling Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wickham Green Posted April 19, 2018 Share Posted April 19, 2018 (edited) ............. Bachmann appeared to have a general antipathy towards developing anything Southern for many years. John In a geological timescale it's not actually that many years since the E4 appeared ............. and there are rumours of an Atlantic or two ............... ! ............................. ( Maybe that's too Bachmann-positive ...... this is supposed to be a Hornby thread.) Edited April 19, 2018 by Wickham Green Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted April 19, 2018 Share Posted April 19, 2018 .....I'm a little surprised that Hornby managed to keep their mitts off it as long as they did. They do have form for doing their versions of engines covered by their rival. See A4, Std.4 4-6-0 and Hall. The LN merely joins that list and may take the wind out of the sails of any plan that Bachmann might have had to re-engineer theirs, if there was ever such a plan. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted April 19, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 19, 2018 (edited) In a geological timescale it's not actually that many years since the E4 appeared ............. and there are rumours of an Atlantic or two ............... ! ............................. ( Maybe that's too Bachmann-positive ...... this is supposed to be a Hornby thread.) But before the C, there were just the Nelson and the N in a good two decades....... Just as well they made BR standards or they'd have had a very thin time emptying my wallet. John Edited April 19, 2018 by Dunsignalling 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wickham Green Posted April 19, 2018 Share Posted April 19, 2018 But before the C, there were just the Nelson and the N in a good two decades....... Just as well they made BR standards or they'd have had a very thin time emptying my wallet. John Can't think how much new stuff they did for other railways back then, though ...... most of it was Mainline re-hash jobs, wasn't it ? ............................ but aren't we lucky how things have progressed since then - not only Bachmann and Hornby ( back on topic ) but a considerable number of new boys too ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted April 19, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 19, 2018 (edited) They do have form for doing their versions of engines covered by their rival. See A4, Std.4 4-6-0 and Hall. The LN merely joins that list and may take the wind out of the sails of any plan that Bachmann might have had to re-engineer theirs, if there was ever such a plan. I get a definite impression that, if Bachmann leave an outdated model of a popular prototype (in or out of production) , for too long with no evident intention to upgrade it, Hornby will regard it as fair game. You missed the B1 off your list, incidentally. Dapol are doing it to both of them with the GWR Mogul and Large Prairie, so it's not just a red-on-blue thing. In the case of the Mogul, Bachmann haven't produced any for at least a decade and Hornby's Prairie is more representative of what was expected in 1988 than 2018. With specific reference to the LN, IIRC Bachmann were asked about their intentions when other DCC-friendly upgrades were announced and replied to the effect that it was not a priority. Given that it took them four or five years to produce a new chassis casting for the Ivatt tank (having previously tooled everything else for the 2-6-0 version), that suggests a timescale of decades rather than years, so the way was open for any rival to jump on it. Hornby's predilection for large named (and Southern) locos just made them the most likely candidate. John Edited April 19, 2018 by Dunsignalling Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted April 19, 2018 Share Posted April 19, 2018 I get a definite impression that, if Bachmann leave an outdated model of a popular prototype (in or out of production) , for too long with no evident intention to upgrade it, Hornby will regard it as fair game. You missed the B1 off your list, incidentally..... I knew I'd missed one out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted April 19, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 19, 2018 (edited) Can't think how much new stuff they did for other railways back then, though ...... most of it was Mainline re-hash jobs, wasn't it ? ............................ but aren't we lucky how things have progressed since then - not only Bachmann and Hornby ( back on topic ) but a considerable number of new boys too ! After the LN and N but before the C: just for the LMR: new Crab, Ivatt 2 and 4 moguls, S&D 7F, LMS 3F,4F, Jinty (stealing Hornby's clothes), L&Y 2-4-2T, LNWR 0-8-0 and upgraded 4-6-0s. I'll leave out the re-chassised Ivatt tank, the 1F 0-6-0T, the Stanier mogul and the Coal tank as they are more recent. John Edited April 20, 2018 by Dunsignalling 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now