Hornby - New tooling - Large Prairie

[gwrrob]

On 11/01/2019 at 16:32, gwrrob said:

"Our tooling will allow for changes featuring the water pick up apparatus, water filler types, journal lubricators, tank front step types, bunker recess differences, sliding cab-side shutters, bunker steps and handrails, fall plates, boiler handrails, steam pipes, rear sanding boxes, extended valve spindle guides, ATC fitment, different chimney types, whistle shields, lamp iron positions, tank balancing pipes, short and tall safety bonnets, inside and outside brake rodding, washout plug positions and stopcock covers."

 

A reminder of the spec when first announced in January.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

4 hours ago, The Johnster said:

...The cylinder assembly can be raised to bring the piston centre line to the correct height, but it is possible that this will upset the vital 'sit' of the running plate on the chassis.  The entire body shell would move upwards, and the buffer height would be reminiscent of the Triang/Triang Hornby era, not a desirable result.  I'd be inclined to let matters be and accept the inaccuracy, so look out for a Johnster shaped obsessed monster, a pathetic shell of the... after all, I'm already at the muttering inchoherently stage!

Should it happen that the display sample is representative of the appearance of the model on release,  you could try what this drysider would do if confronted with a similar problem. Hornby's usual design for attaching cylinders is a bridge across the chassis block that connects the cylinders. Determine how much you are going to want to raise the cylinders. Cement this depth of plastic to the underside of the bridge and allow to fully set. Then pick up thy file and by the application of said file reduce the top of the bridge and the valve chest representations by the same amount as the depth of plastic cemented on underneath. Reassemble, and rejoice at the superior appearance obtained. (Much the same procedure was required on Bachmann's ROD/O4 where the piston axis when extended was near 2mm below the crank axle centre, a mechanical nonsense.

 

 

[The Johnster]

That's so crazy it could just work...

 

But now there's another problem; the slide bars are not level on the photo of the black liveried version, they droop towards the rear!  The cylinders look level, so it's probably just a matter of careful application of upward pressure to get them right.

[Miss Prism]

4 hours ago, County of Yorkshire said:

That safety bonnet looks too tall for the period?

 

That is my feeling. Twenty 5101 class Prairies were outshopped with tall safety valves, and at that time (1929), tall valves were standard on the (very numerous) No 2 boilers, which continued to do the usual rounds that the No 2 boilers did of course, but short valves became the new standard for the large Prairies, probably with lot 259 of 1930. Notwithstanding the usual boiler-swapping activities, it seems to me the 'default' for the 5101 members quickly became the short safety valve, and I certainly haven't seen a pic of a tall safety valve on a 6100 class loco.
 

Hornby's rendition is made more peculiar by the valves appearing way above the top of the casing - 'supertall' valves! (Sharp flush-nose pliers would remedy the situation.)

 

Hornby does weird things sometimes.

 

[AY Mod]

13 hours ago, gwrrob said:

 

Well spotted Sir. Star syndrome again..

 

 

 

 

Hornby have confirmed that the production run will have the correct pony truck wheels, here's a pic from China.

 

[Coach bogie]

7 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

 

That is my feeling. Twenty 5101 class Prairies were outshopped with tall safety valves, and at that time (1929), tall valves were standard on the (very numerous) No 2 boilers, which continued to do the usual rounds that the No 2 boilers did of course, but short valves became the new standard for the large Prairies, probably with lot 259 of 1930. Notwithstanding the usual boiler-swapping activities, it seems to me the 'default' for the 5101 members quickly became the short safety valve

 

If does bother purchasers you may consider modeling to a photograph. I have a Castle with a tall safety valve 100A1 Lloyds. The number of times I am taken to task over this, yet the photographs prove it kept it throughout the 1930's, the short one appearing when oil fired.

 

For the 1920's 30's 51XX engines there are also other considerations - cab side shutters or not, square of curved ends, outside or inside steam pipes. 

 

I have a half finished conversion of a Wills SEF 51XX to make 5138 as the image link below

 

https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrbsh1784.htm

 

https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrls201.htm

 

Mike Wiltshire

Edited November 12, 2019 by Coach bogie

[Miss Prism]

Here's another Castle (4088) with a tall safety valve cover, but I bet those valves on its standard No 8 are short ones.

 

34 minutes ago, Coach bogie said:

https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrbsh1784.htm

https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrls201.htm

 

Those are not 5101 class locos, which is what Hornby is producing, at least initially.

 

[The Stationmaster]

2 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

Here's another Castle (4088) with a tall safety valve cover, but I bet those valves on its standard No 8 are short ones.

 

 

Those are not 5101 class locos, which is what Hornby is producing, at least initially.

 

Maybe Hornby have made the same mistake?   (Although I wouldn't really expect it - unless somebody somewhere looked at the wrong photo in error?)

[Miss Prism]

Rob's pic of Hornby's 4154  shows Hornby can do the correct short safety valve for the 5101/61xx/41xx locos, so I guess the 6145 pic is an aberration.

 

 

[Coppercap]

51 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

Here's another Castle (4088) with a tall safety valve cover, but I bet those valves on its standard No 8 are short ones.

 

I don't think the years given on the caption are correct - the headlamps appear to be dark, so are presumably red. When did the GWR change from red to white lamps?

[Miss Prism]

After the instruction of December 1936, but the changeover was apparently very gradual, so I would say the 4088 caption could be correct.

 

[The Stationmaster]

13 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

After the instruction of December 1936, but the changeover was apparently very gradual, so I would say the 4088 caption could be correct.

 

Agree, I  recently came across a late 1940s photo of a 'Castle' carrying Class A lamps and one was very clearly white but the other was a much darker shade in a way that suggested that it wasn't dirt but was still painted red.   On one change of GWR lamp body colour I have found some information about the original instructions was that lamps were to be exchanged for the new body colour as they passed through stores for replacement/repair.  So if a depot looked after its lamps the changeover could take quite a time.

[dibber25]

If the model shown is a LIVERY SAMPLE it may well be made up from available parts, not necessarily the parts that will be used on the finished model. (CJL)

[Coach bogie]

2 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Maybe Hornby have made the same mistake?   (Although I wouldn't really expect it - unless somebody somewhere looked at the wrong photo in error?)

 They are a complex class. With many of  ex 3111's rebuilt/updated and renumbered into the 51XX series, I was trying to highlight the issues with the variations over anything with a 51 number in the 20's and 30's and finding a picture may help anyone wishing to personalise their engines. As Miss Prism state with boiler swops finding a 'standard' 51 could be a challenge. It also offers the opportunity to back date to the earlier versions.

 

Mike Wiltshire

[brushman47544]

1 hour ago, dibber25 said:

If the model shown is a LIVERY SAMPLE it may well be made up from available parts, not necessarily the parts that will be used on the finished model. (CJL)

 

Hope it's not a livery sample because if so Hornby's started going backwards again in terms of accurate greens for GWR/WR locos. The colour looks too flat and has no depth or richness to it, harking back to those appalling Kings that we were assured was a thing of the past.

Edited November 12, 2019 by brushman47544

[The Johnster]

2 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Agree, I  recently came across a late 1940s photo of a 'Castle' carrying Class A lamps and one was very clearly white but the other was a much darker shade in a way that suggested that it wasn't dirt but was still painted red.   On one change of GWR lamp body colour I have found some information about the original instructions was that lamps were to be exchanged for the new body colour as they passed through stores for replacement/repair.  So if a depot looked after its lamps the changeover could take quite a time.

I agree.  An oil lamp is not an item which wears out quickly and could easily last years.  Eventually rust sets in to the hinge pin and spreads to the lamp body.  The oil reservoirs and burners probably last even longer.  Had there been a problem arising from the continued use of red painted lamps I'm sure the replacement process would have have been speeded up, but the signalmen, who were the people whose reading of the headcodes was most important, seem not to have raised any issue.

[The Stationmaster]

4 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

I agree.  An oil lamp is not an item which wears out quickly and could easily last years.  Eventually rust sets in to the hinge pin and spreads to the lamp body.  The oil reservoirs and burners probably last even longer.  Had there been a problem arising from the continued use of red painted lamps I'm sure the replacement process would have have been speeded up, but the signalmen, who were the people whose reading of the headcodes was most important, seem not to have raised any issue.

Although oddly there were staff suggestions (once that scheme started), and earlier occasional letters from signalmen suggesting white pao inted lamps would be more easily seen although that mainly related to tail lamps.

[tomparryharry]

This 'thing' about livery. You're joking, surely? Mid chrome green is a bu**er to get right, and I mixed thousands of tons of real chrome when we ran the foundry. From what I've learned, black was 'let in' to make the paint go further, rather than any artistic endeavour. Then you've got the material used to clean the locomotive. Is it blackjack? thin oil? lamp oil? Diesel? 

 

You're batting  a real sticky wicket,believe me.... Best of luck.

 

Ian.

[tomparryharry]

11 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

I agree.  An oil lamp is not an item which wears out quickly and could easily last years.  Eventually rust sets in to the hinge pin and spreads to the lamp body.  The oil reservoirs and burners probably last even longer.  Had there been a problem arising from the continued use of red painted lamps I'm sure the replacement process would have have been speeded up, but the signalmen, who were the people whose reading of the headcodes was most important, seem not to have raised any issue.

 

It was the lack of that red lamp oil what did it, Guvner! Once the Customs & Excise people started dipping the oil reservoirs, and finding red oil inside, that was the downfall. Many is the time I've seen a Grange pulled over in Sonning Cutting, having the lamps 'checked for red'.....

[The Johnster]

28 minutes ago, tomparryharry said:

This 'thing' about livery. You're joking, surely? Mid chrome green is a bu**er to get right, and I mixed thousands of tons of real chrome when we ran the foundry. From what I've learned, black was 'let in' to make the paint go further, rather than any artistic endeavour. Then you've got the material used to clean the locomotive. Is it blackjack? thin oil? lamp oil? Diesel? 

 

You're batting  a real sticky wicket,believe me.... Best of luck.

 

Ian.

Got to agree with this; Hornby have form with this and some appalling interpretations of Midland/LMS red, but they are both very difficult colours to get right.  It is extremely difficult to pin them down exactly on real locos, because colour photos vary according to the lighting conditions when the photo was taken, the film used, and the original development process; they will be further compromised when the negative is printed.  On top of that, if you paint a model with a colour mixed to original company specifications, which are bound to be right, aren't they, it looks wrong because the impression on the eye of an expanse of colour on something the size of a real locomotive differs from a 4mm scale model 1/76th the size.  Then you have to take into account the cast and temperature of the lighting you view it under.

 

To many variables to pin the thing down accurately, and a tour of heritage railways looking at GW and BR green locos shows 50 shades of green, at least.  Polish tends to darken the impression of a colour as well, because the gloss reflects some of the light before it gets to the colour.  I don't think the green in Andy's photo, clearly taken in very strong light, is too bad at all.

[tomparryharry]

You can nail it down with a serious dose of Caveat Emptor:- Let the buyer beware. If it looks good, runs well, and can be fettled to something resembling a Great Western Large prairie, then as I've already (publicly) said, I'll be highly likely to buy one. 

If it's a dogs dinner, then that'a different matter.  Initial responses from people with equal or greater knowledge than myself appear mildly favourable, so fingers crossed. 

 

The piggy bank is looking nervous, what with the ball pein hammer being so close......

[tomparryharry]

14 hours ago, The Johnster said:

That's so crazy it could just work...

 

But now there's another problem; the slide bars are not level on the photo of the black liveried version, they droop towards the rear!  The cylinders look level, so it's probably just a matter of careful application of upward pressure to get them right.

 

Be careful John, optical illusion?  It's all Hornbys' fault. Every Western model should be presented in the Swindon 'rods down' position.

[Ian Hargrave]

The  best rendition of GW green ,I think,at this current time is on Bachmann’s GW 4920 “Dumbleton Hall” .From what I have seen thus far on this thread ,this Prairie’s paint job......if this is indeed the production standard.....has reverted to the “pale and interesting “ version we are all too familiar with.I hope I am proven wrong.

 

It does matter.It is as important as other flagged issues with this eagerly awaited release.

 

 

[brushman47544]

Colour perception is not the issue here. Many of us are old enough to have seen BR green in BR days, for example, so have some idea of what we think it should look like. Yes we may all think differently, but the colour was supposedly "standard" and should have been pretty much the same everywhere. I don't remember seeing major differences between the Western Region and Southern Region locos for example; certainly not to the point where it might be considered a completely different shade of green. So why is the "BR green" Hornby uses on its models so very different from one to the other? Get a majority view on what is closest and stick to that.

[melmerby]

33 minutes ago, brushman47544 said:

Colour perception is not the issue here. Many of us are old enough to have seen BR green in BR days, for example, so have some idea of what we think it should look like. Yes we may all think differently, but the colour was supposedly "standard" and should have been pretty much the same everywhere

 

All colour perception is subjective and two people who think they have good colour vision may see it differently.

I always though an LMS Jubilee and a GWR Castle. basically similar forms of loco, looked different when painted what should have been the same "BR Loco Green"