RTR North Eastern Railway Locomotives - A discussion.

[The Black Hat]

To be Devil's advocate for a moment, whilst as mentioned the J25 is very similar, the boiler sits quite noticeably lower on the J25 and additionally the cab is noticeably different owing to the splasher protruding from the front of the J21 whereas on the J25 (such as my avatar) it is much more flat-fronted

 

Don't you think that such differences could be done with tooling changes. Yes these are details that actually are different between the two and would most likely be picked up on close inspection but I think you could still do the two variants in one model.

[Compound2632]

To be Devil's advocate for a moment, whilst as mentioned the J25 is very similar, the boiler sits quite noticeably lower on the J25 and additionally the cab is noticeably different owing to the splasher protruding from the front of the J21 whereas on the J25 (such as my avatar) it is much more flat-fronted

 

The C is altogether a bigger engine than the P - longer wheelbase, larger wheels, etc. Quite a different engine; one could not produce a scale model of both at once!

[The Black Hat]

The C is altogether a bigger engine than the P - longer wheelbase, larger wheels, etc. Quite a different engine; one could not produce a scale model of both at once!

 

Really? There's one inch difference between the two on the wheelbase, between the two classes - that's about 0.4mm on the model! The wheel base on the engine and tender is exactly the same. The wheels might be different but on the model your talking about a 1mm difference! I reckon realistically speaking a model company would use the same wheel. If you were not told about it you wouldn't notice the difference. Both types had the same diagram 67 type boiler and as mentioned theres only subtle differences in where its placed. I think if you can model a P2/1 and then cater for a P2/2 which is what some expect then this should be easily possible. 

[Compound2632]

Really? There's one inch difference between the two on the wheelbase, between the two classes - that's about 0.4mm on the model! The wheel base on the engine and tender is exactly the same. The wheels might be different but on the model your talking about a 1mm difference! I reckon realistically speaking a model company would use the same wheel. If you were not told about it you wouldn't notice the difference. Both types had the same diagram 67 type boiler and as mentioned theres only subtle differences in where its placed. I think if you can model a P2/1 and then cater for a P2/2 which is what some expect then this should be easily possible. 

 

My apologies. It should have been evident from what I wrote that, owing to my imperfect recollection of the LNER classification, I was at cross-purposes, thinking of the Class P, with its 7'9" + 8'0" wheelbase. Classes C, P1, P2 and P3 all share 8'0" + 8'6". (Where did your extra inch come from?)

 

This comes back to the question of whether we are understanding NER to mean the North Eastern Region of BR, or the North Eastern Railway.

 

EDIT: corrected Class P to 7'9" + 8'0" - 9" shorter than Classes C, P1 &c.

Edited February 2, 2018 by Compound2632

[The Black Hat]

My apologies. It should have been evident from what I wrote that, owing to my imperfect recollection of the LNER classification, I was at cross-purposes, thinking of the Class P, with its 7'9" + 8'6" wheelbase. Classes C, P1, P2 and P3 all share 8'0" + 8'6". (Where did your extra inch come from?)

 

This comes back to the question of whether we are understanding NER to mean the North Eastern Region of BR, or the North Eastern Railway.

 

The longer wheelbase of the whole locomotive is where I think that extra inch comes from, with J25 (NER P1) at 37ft 10.75in and the J21 (NER C/C1) at 37ft 9.75in - at least according to LNERinfo - as I'm a tad skint to go and buy a whole load of Yeadons books - dream thought I must.

 

However, your right about the whole NER meaning either NE Railway or NE Region, which I have mentioned previously as a means where people get confused as to how the engines are lobbied for. Most are still wanting an engine like J21/25 to be in the guise for the transition period of British Railways, although as others now need to research the past attention is turning to more pre-grouping interests and the NER with its varied traction is just as good an area, if not better than most, for people to choose to model in the future.

[Edwardian]

I have raised the point before that it is not possible to obtain an accurate estimate of the degree of support for pre-Grouping condition locos, as the wish-list poll does not differentiate.  That is not intended as any kind of criticism of the poll, which is an impressive undertaking involving much hard work and, I believe, is an asset to the hobby.  It is simply that it is not a tool for identifying the level of potential pre-Grouping support, and, so far as I am aware, no such tool exists.

 

So, if I vote for a J-something or a N or Q something, that is exactly what I will get, whereas what I really wanted to support was a C, or P or A etc ...

 

In other words, unless you specify that you want a pre-Grouping period or condition loco, it will be assumed that you mean you are only interested in a 1930s-1950s LNE/Eastern Region model, as many, indeed, most, people will be.

[BMacdermott]

Hello Edwardian

 

Many thanks for your kind words about The Wishlist Poll. You are right that we can't differentiate and we have drafted some text as below which voters will see in due course. 

 

David: Possible ways round the abbreviation problem when writing are: NE Railway or BR(NER).

 

Brian (on behalf of The Poll Team)

 

Draft Poll Guide Text Extract (subject to final amendments)

It is impossible for us to take into account detailed shed allocations and the vast array of variations within classes over the years such as tender swaps, chimney types, safety valves and liveries. The manufacturers will ‘get as much as they can’ from any model via the use of slip tools and so on. It seems to make commercial sense for them to produce models which span a number of decades and which appeal to a wide audience. Two such examples are: Bachmann’s Earl Class and Hornby’s Adams Radial.

[Lambton58]

Would it be prototypical to use a J72 in a dock environment?

Yes.  Found this photo on the interweb, though I've seen it before in either Ken Hoole's North Eastern Album or the North Eastern book in the Then and Now series.  Can't recall if the engine in the photo is a J71 or J72

 

https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/503153-rescuing-railways-2.html#post7585513 (post 38)

 

Ralph

Lambton 58

Edited February 2, 2018 by Lambton58

[The Black Hat]

I have raised the point before that it is not possible to obtain an accurate estimate of the degree of support for pre-Grouping condition locos, as the wish-list poll does not differentiate.  That is not intended as any kind of criticism of the poll, which is an impressive undertaking involving much hard work and, I believe, is an asset to the hobby.  It is simply that it is not a tool for identifying the level of potential pre-Grouping support, and, so far as I am aware, no such tool exists.

 

So, if I vote for a J-something or a N or Q something, that is exactly what I will get, whereas what I really wanted to support was a C, or P or A etc ...

 

In other words, unless you specify that you want a pre-Grouping period or condition loco, it will be assumed that you mean you are only interested in a 1930s-1950s LNE/Eastern Region model, as many, indeed, most, people will be.

 

I very much agree. This tends to hit on two areas, one of which we have already identified. The first is that by typing in NER - it can cover everything from pre-grouping to end of steam. The wording does not easily differentiate between periods. Even ex-NER engines can be confused when you consider it could be in LNER period, rather than the transition era that many are interested in. There are fewer areas where the exact lettering duplicates again between pre-grouping and its later grouping or regional identity under BR. NER has its later NER Region, SR links between Southern Railway grouping and BR Region. GWR has both pre-grouping and then grouping company. What strikes NER as being tricky is that it is the only one that matches both ends of the chronological spectrum, going from grouping to the end of steam, being North Eastern Railway and then North Eastern Region. So its much harder to pin down exactly when the interest in models requested, matches the condition of the engines in their timeframe.

 

​The transition period does have the draw of being able to model a bit of everything, being ex-pre-grouping survivors, can run along grouping and BR standard designs and alongside transition period diesel and units. As a result it has that element of encompassing a great many interests.

 

Even if the poll came with a question before the choices, being "what time period do you model" - which I think has happened before, it gives no ability to cross reference what area as well, unless it were to follow up as another question. One method could be;

 

1.a. What time period do you model?

1.b. What regional area do you model?

 

That would then give you about 100 different answers from the 2 questions combined, but it would also be a way of gathering information and then having it to disseminate and analyse afterwards. I still expect transition areas to dominate at the moment, but a longer term trend might be for more interest in pre-grouping, rather as just seeing them as novelties or interests, bought for the fact that the engine looks very nice compared with everything being BR black - which is the main reason the Wainwright C flew off the shelves.

 

The advantage for the NER would now be that it has much more scope for interest in the pre-grouping variation of traction. Just like transition gives you various types of engine, the NER can have heavy goods steam, main and branch line steam, even branch line diesel railcars making a start. All that before you then add electric traction with overhead power or units on 3rd rail, pending on your choice of area. To be honest, most of this is fantasy as it wont yet command the following or polling to justify such a pre-grouping range, but if there were to be one its variation makes it a stronger case than most other areas.

 

So that brings us back to the transition period being the one driving the chance for these ex-NER designs to be done that lasted till the end. Its the reason why you see ones such as G5, J21/25, J27 polling higher than others as they mostly did last to the end. When done with current tooling ideas, such as the Bachmann E1/J72 you can have the model made for the BR NE Region yet still have a model made for the NE Railway period that came before it. If that's the case, you can do both and designs such as these easily match or surpass what was seen in other pre-grouping engines so can follow the wow factor that the Wainwright C was able to produce. That means that in the NER you find a nice range of engines with many livery variations, not few, and of a large geographical area on their home region, that then operated out of it into others, or had some designs that operated in other areas too. They are all the exact reasons that companies choose to look for to find ideas why a model should be produced and then add that they out poll many others it shows the desire for them is clearly there.

[Lambton58]

Yes.  Found this photo on the interweb, though I've seen it before in either Ken Hoole's North Eastern Album or the North Eastern book in the Then and Now series.  Can't recall if the engine in the photo is a J71 or J72

 

https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/503153-rescuing-railways-2.html#post7585513 (post 38)

 

Ralph

Lambton 58

 

Found it!  It's in Ken Hoole's The North East Railway Book (pub David & Charles) - the first ever pure North-eastern railways book I ever bought.   Hoole says that shunting on the Newcastle Quayside was carried out by J71s and J72s.  I should imagine that would have been the case in NER days (as E and E1s of course) alongside older NER 0-6-0Ts possibly.  

 

There's also a nice 1961picture in British Railways Past & Present, No 4 The North East by Robinson & Groundwater, showing J72  69024 working on the Quayside, alongside an Austin A35 van and an old BRS Leyland  8 wheeler.

 

Ralph

Lambton 58

[Barry O]

I have two Q6s. A very old nucast (really a Q5 and a half) as well as a Hornby one..nowheavikydiscounted by a box shifter. Being a Horden lad I can remember Q6 as well as J27 ( two nucast kit built), WDs (DJH kit built), and 9Fs (again DJH kit built).

In addition I have a nucast G5, a nucast A5, a nucast J21, a Ks J72, a Little Engines A7 and a scratcbuilt B16/1 and a scratchbuilt NER A class. Cylinder/ bogie problems can be overcome using a bogie pivot in front of the bogie.

 

What would I need RTR for a North Eastern Region layout? Not a lot but some NCB hoppers in red would be nice...

 

I have a 4 car met cam buffet set , a Clayton, EE type 3 and dieselbrake unit so I am missing a Class 26....

 

What could be produced...well anything really but from a financial point of view:

 

None of the NER electrics would sell well...the Judith edge kits ones have been available for a long time but I haven't seen a big layout with the running.

 

The J27 may be Ok but in NER condition or in LNER or BR condition?

 

Best thing to do is to get kits and build them as it may be some time before some of these appear in a RTR format.

 

However ssomethings are missing. The NER built Vestibuled mainline stock, some of the NER hoppers etc.

Would these fit into an RTR run...probably not.

 

Baz

[Dick Turpin]

Best thing to do is to get kits and build them as it may be some time before some of these appear in a RTR format.

 

 

You are dead right there, we are very fortunate in the variety and quality of kits for the region. It would be nice therefore, if anything RTR was of items which save time, like wooden 20T hoppers, so we could get to building kits of the more rare items.

Edited February 7, 2018 by Dick Turpin

[Classsix T]

Ive zipped through to the end of this thread, so applegreenogies if it's been mentioned, but speculation as to where NER RTR production might go will benefit from watching how the rather surprising clamour of the production of GER (regional) prototypes started and whether it progresses.

 

A decade ago I found myself both, flush with cash and a project in mind to model transition period East Anglia. The absolute zeitgeist of project and production synchronisation! I couldn't believe my luck.

It continues with Bachmann's 2018 announced green no yellow panel 40, likely to be popular with EA modellers not wanting sound.

We're still waiting on the Cl.21 and N7.

 

My point is, the tender moulds are out there to do an accompanying E4 loco, which frankly would do me well, but no announced plans thus far.

 

Possibly it's just been one of those things that for some reason GER modelling hit the jackpot, I do hope NER and Scottish modellers get to share my pleasure, have the same good fortune in having traction and rolling stock readily available.

 

C6T.

[Les1952]

I have two Q6s. A very old nucast (really a Q5 and a half) as well as a Hornby one..nowheavikydiscounted by a box shifter. Being a Horden lad I can remember Q6 as well as J27 ( two nucast kit built), WDs (DJH kit built), and 9Fs (again DJH kit built).

In addition I have a nucast G5, a nucast A5, a nucast J21, a Ks J72, a Little Engines A7 and a scratcbuilt B16/1 and a scratchbuilt NER A class. Cylinder/ bogie problems can be overcome using a bogie pivot in front of the bogie.

 

What would I need RTR for a North Eastern Region layout? Not a lot but some NCB hoppers in red would be nice...

 

I have a 4 car met cam buffet set , a Clayton, EE type 3 and dieselbrake unit so I am missing a Class 26....

 

What could be produced...well anything really but from a financial point of view:

 

None of the NER electrics would sell well...the Judith edge kits ones have been available for a long time but I haven't seen a big layout with the running.

 

The J27 may be Ok but in NER condition or in LNER or BR condition?

 

Best thing to do is to get kits and build them as it may be some time before some of these appear in a RTR format.

 

However ssomethings are missing. The NER built Vestibuled mainline stock, some of the NER hoppers etc.

Would these fit into an RTR run...probably not.

 

Baz

 

I think you could continue to miss class 26.  The BRCWs allocated new to Thornaby were Class 27.  It would be nice to have a class 25/0 from someone....

 

The nice thing about the NER 0-6-0s was that they didn't change very much during their long lives.  Most obvious was replacing the big brass trumpets over the firebox with Ross Pops, an easy backwards change with a lost wax casting.  The positions of washout plugs can be either ignored or sorted with Milliput, a small drill and a lot of interesting language.  Balance weights were only spasmodically fitted to J27s, two different types and only applied to some of the class. Ditto shaped cab front windows - done on the few J27s built with circular lookouts and some but by no means all J26s changed.

 

J26/J27 would be a comparatively easy one for an r-t-r manufacturer- the biggest difficulties would possibly be two slides for the two cab fronts, effectively two boilers (early/late) and differing coal rails on some tenders. Chimneys are separate items so windjabber/ground off can both be covered, as can Ross Pops vs valve trumpets.  Far fewer variations than have already been applied to other models.

 

OTOH the only ex- NER 0-6-0 to visit London in service was a J25 used as empty stock pilot at Paddington during WW2......

 

Just a thought

Les

[Edwardian]

Ironically, considering that I live not far from Darlington where the first 20 E1s were built in 1898-99, I don't see a copy of the latest RM in our local retailers until sometime after the 15th of the month, so, I have to give hearsay evidence that the March RM contains an announcement that Bachmann is tooling for the original batches as well as those the batches that were built from 1914.

 

Of that is correct, we are to have the original short bunker version.

 

It is not that often we get a pre-WW1 pre-Grouping release.  The very thing I have wished for will come to pass! If this information is correct, Bachmann are to be commended.  

 

(sorry that's "J72" if you only speak LNER!)

[Compound2632]

Ironically, considering that I live not far from Darlington where the first 20 E1s were built in 1898-99, I don't see a copy of the latest RM in our local retailers until sometime after the 15th of the month, so, I have to give hearsay evidence that the March RM contains an announcement that Bachmann is tooling for the original batches as well as those the batches that were built from 1914.

 

Of that is correct, we are to have the original short bunker version.

 

It is not that often we get a pre-WW1 pre-Grouping release.  The very thing I have wished for will come to pass! If this information is correct, Bachmann are to be commended.  

 

(sorry that's "J72" if you only speak LNER!)

 

Shame not to go the whole hog and produce T.W.'s Class E, on which his little brother's smaller-wheeled engine was based. In my view, their larger wheels make them look more attractive. There would also be the option of T.W.'s more ornate livery as well as Wilson's simplified version; also, there were 120 built, with the last being withdrawn in 1961 - by a whisker, more numerous than the Class E engines.

 

The downside is that they were one of T.W.'s few designs not to start out as two-cylinder compounds!

Edited February 7, 2018 by Compound2632

[Compound2632]

But see here for an expert explanation the differences between Classes E and E1. Let's suppose what I'm really saying is that rather than replacing the old Mainline E1, Bachmann could have done a different, equally numerous and long-lived, NER 0-6-0T.

[R Marshall]

L

 

I think you could continue to miss class 26.  The BRCWs allocated new to Thornaby were Class 27.  It would be nice to have a class 25/0 from someone....

 

The nice thing about the NER 0-6-0s was that they didn't change very much during their long lives.  Most obvious was replacing the big brass trumpets over the firebox with Ross Pops, an easy backwards change with a lost wax casting.  The positions of washout plugs can be either ignored or sorted with Milliput, a small drill and a lot of interesting language.  Balance weights were only spasmodically fitted to J27s, two different types and only applied to some of the class. Ditto shaped cab front windows - done on the few J27s built with circular lookouts and some but by no means all J26s changed.

 

J26/J27 would be a comparatively easy one for an r-t-r manufacturer- the biggest difficulties would possibly be two slides for the two cab fronts, effectively two boilers (early/late) and differing coal rails on some tenders. Chimneys are separate items so windjabber/ground off can both be covered, as can Ross Pops vs valve trumpets.  Far fewer variations than have already been applied to other models.

 

OTOH the only ex- NER 0-6-0 to visit London in service was a J25 used as empty stock pilot at Paddington during WW2......

 

Just a thought

Les

 

 

Les,

 

I feel it would be easy to live without the superheated versions of  J21, J24, J25 and J27 (with longer smokeboxes, snifting valves and loss of the obvious "piano front" between the front frames), but the variations in boiler diagrams for the saturated versions still result in the usual NE differences in dome cover shape (J27 only) and position.

 

Nevertheless, with careful choice of individual locomotives, these difficulties could largely be avoided, so what you say is true.

 

I model only in N Gauge, but I'm tempted by the Hornby Q6. Any of the 0-6-0s will be similiarly tempting.

 

Regards,

 

Roy

[Edwardian]

Shame not to go the whole hog and produce T.W.'s Class E, on which his little brother's smaller-wheeled engine was based. In my view, their larger wheels make them look more attractive. There would also be the option of T.W.'s more ornate livery as well as Wilson's simplified version; also, there were 120 built, with the last being withdrawn in 1961 - by a whisker, more numerous than the Class E engines.

 

The downside is that they were one of T.W.'s few designs not to start out as two-cylinder compounds!

 

T W's livery is splendid with those claret borders and frames

[Tin Turtle]

 

 

(sorry that's "J72" if you only speak LNER!)

 

 Glad I'm not the only who doesn't do 'speaking LNER' - when I give talks on the NER I catch myself talking about A's, O's and T2's and realise the crowd mainly don't have a clue what I'm on about!

[The Black Hat]

What could be produced...well anything really but from a financial point of view:

 

None of the NER electrics would sell well...the Judith edge kits ones have been available for a long time but I haven't seen a big layout with the running.

 

Best thing to do is to get kits and build them as it may be some time before some of these appear in a RTR format.

 

However somethings are missing. The NER built Vestibuled mainline stock, some of the NER hoppers etc.

 

Sorry Baz, but I disagree strongly with the jist of what your saying here. Why should the North East Railway / Region, follow a rule where just as kits are available it shouldn't be done in RTR. If that was the general rule of thumb, then most RTR shouldn't be produced as a kit is available. That means no 8F, Black 5s, Adams Radial Tanks, S15, Merchant Navy's, Schools, City class, T9, M7, Western region tanks and a whole load more shouldn't be done either as kits for them are available.

 

The only time I see this getting mentioned is when people start to look down from the main ranges to see what else is needed in the locomotive fleet. As the lobbying for NER has grown it has shown what other options are available to fill the gaps. While those in 00 gauge look enviously at N over their Union Mills J21/25, there are other options available in kit form. Once away from the various group standard designs and some leading pre-grouping designs, the kit is going to be an option to get the engine that might not ever be produced.

 

This will likely include things like NER electrics, as they are so niche a subject, but I don't see why a G5 or J21/25 shouldn't be made in 00 gauge, given the obvious spread they had over the region, the numbers that were made (meaning they will be required more than once to model an area realistically) or the periods they were operational in, from pre-grouping to near or end of steam. Add that (as shown above) some of the polling has shown that these are wanted and required as much as other engines already made and released to RTR means that these must be a viable option for a choice for future RTR production.

 

It’s likely that in every region, there will still be a core that prefer to kit build over buying more RTR, but that doesn't mean that future RTR should be compromised over the fact that such a group exists. If companies detect that such a group is big enough to compromise a release it could be enough to scupper it. Personally, I think that's the exact opposite for those wanting RTR for NER/Region models, but in order for the NER range to be viable the correct choices need to be made.

 

New RTR engines can also incorporate the advances in model railways, such as being digital and making it much easier to chip engines, and add sound. This is how the hobby is going, and such advancements are a reason why personally, I’d love to see a North Eastern layout with engines running with sound and great scenic detail. Kit building remains largely an analogue system, and it’s fairly obvious that most who support the kit building idea remain using that as a means of powering engines. As a result, adding such elements as lighting and sound are things they can continue to live without, whereas I think that they are now an important feature and can greatly enhance the abilities and performance of an engine running on a layout. If anything I see such reasons as another massive reason why RTR for NER/Region should be possible is that there is nothing done in RTR before – so any release goes up against a rare kit built engine and doesn’t even have to compete against a previous RTR model made with other tooling. That’s a massive hole in the market, that can be moved into, and as choices diminish as popular group standard models are done, these reasons make the case and likelihood of NER being good selling choices that can encaptivate the attention of the purchaser even stronger and more likely.

 

I would have J21/25, J27, G5, B16 released as models, then with some NER coaches - some clerestory and some vestibule stock. Wagons should be just a few designs given the NER's preference for a common pool rather than private owner. Some of these HUO wagons announced make a dent in one of the later designs needed.

 

Then, that gives the engines needed to make the range needed for the NER area, while leaving the possibility of some engines still being done for a limited edition run. Ones for an NRM commission such as the Q7 or Aerolite immediately spring to mind.

 

Further ones that might be needed can then be done by scratch build, modifying RTR or kit builds, meaning there can still be a place for it, when choices start to diminish as models are made – but at that point a lot of demands would be satisfied and your back to niche models that are outdone by the need to retool an older release of a popular model, or a one from another area that hasn’t been done. However, that will take some time and years, should further releases follow the Hornby Q6 and the Bachmann J72 – but just because there’s a kit out there doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t follow. I would say the opposite is true.

[Compound2632]

To what extent would RTR versions of classes already available as kits affect the viability of the kit manufacturers? I'm not going to argue for protectionism!

1. Will RTR mostly be bought by people who would not consider attempting an etched/whitemetal kit?

2. Will kit-builders ignore RTR because what they enjoy doing is building kits?

3. Will the increase in interest in modelling the NER (Railway and/or Region!) as a result of the availability of RTR in fact boost kit sales?

Discuss...

[Dick Turpin]

IMO what you need is some basic RTR to get a layout started, then plenty of decent kits for the rarer, area specific items to allow development of the concept, whatever it is. RTR always draws people in, whether they want to move on to actually modelling ie building things/detailing things, or not. Either way, we need to get people interested and actively making layouts, and in that respect RTR is always the springboard.

Edited February 8, 2018 by Dick Turpin

[Edwardian]

Ironically, considering that I live not far from Darlington where the first 20 E1s were built in 1898-99, I don't see a copy of the latest RM in our local retailers until sometime after the 15th of the month, so, I have to give hearsay evidence that the March RM contains an announcement that Bachmann is tooling for the original batches as well as those the batches that were built from 1914.

 

Of that is correct, we are to have the original short bunker version.

 

It is not that often we get a pre-WW1 pre-Grouping release.  The very thing I have wished for will come to pass! If this information is correct, Bachmann are to be commended.  

 

(sorry that's "J72" if you only speak LNER!)

 

No, apparently I have been misinformed.  No original E1s, just 1914 onward.

 

B*gger.

[Les1952]

L

 

 

 

Les,

 

I feel it would be easy to live without the superheated versions of  J21, J24, J25 and J27 (with longer smokeboxes, snifting valves and loss of the obvious "piano front" between the front frames), but the variations in boiler diagrams for the saturated versions still result in the usual NE differences in dome cover shape (J27 only) and position.

 

Nevertheless, with careful choice of individual locomotives, these difficulties could largely be avoided, so what you say is true.

 

I model only in N Gauge, but I'm tempted by the Hornby Q6. Any of the 0-6-0s will be similiarly tempting.

 

Regards,

 

Roy

 

Dome cover and shape aren't difficult to do- the dome is a separate part.  There are also two chimney heights and a variation of whistle position.

 

I did say you would need two boilers- the early ones (diagram 57) not only had the dome 1'1" further forward but I'm not sure if these also had different washout plugs.  There were boiler changes from diagram 57 to 57A and back again, and the last diagram 57 boiler ran until 1958.

 

Most expensive is the need for two boilers if you are to cover right back to 1906.  All the other details are effectively slides (cab front) or detail mouldings (domes, chimneys etc)

 

There were 35 superheated J27s out of 115 plus 50 J26s.   The J26 became identical with the J27 between 1910 and 1925 except for 28 that retained their round cab spectacles.  I would be tempted to ignore the superheated locos  as from 1943 onwards all but six reverted to saturated, 

 

I was only thinking of J26 and J27 in the first instance.  The J25 is 11" shorter in the frame than J26, and the J24 is much smaller again.  A J21 would be nice but.....

 

I model in OO and in N and am fortunate to have Union Mills J25, J26 and J27 (and D20) in N to a passable standard, though all three need work doiung to their tenders.

 

All the best

Les