Hornby - New tooling - Large Prairie

[The Johnster]

Because the no.4 is too small and the no.1 too big, and the no.14 is a good intermediate between them.  Tanks would have been thinner so you might not have got 2,500 galls and I’m trying to avoid as much weight as possible. Side window cab and hopper bunker.  
 

Interesting that the BR 4MT 75xxx, with an adapted Swindon no. 14 boiler, also ran into draughting problems, and that the solution was double chimneys, never tried on the Manors

[The Stationmaster]

14 hours ago, The Johnster said:

My thinking was that it is apparent that Collett wasn’t happy with the 5101s, or by the look of things the 3150s either, even if the bean counters, and the loco crews and shed fitters were, and it occurred to me, if not to him, that with the the Manor boiler and engine parts, he had the makings of a very good 2-6-4T.  
 

Your observation certainly won’t detract from Hornby’s model, which is at least of a prototype that existed, still does actually.  Whereas my imagined 2-6-4T never did, even apparently in Collett’s head, or if it did he never mentioned it!

How do you work out that Collett 'wasn't happy' with the 5101s - the GWR kept on building them until 1949 which would hardly have been likely if the CME 'wasn't happy with them'.  They worked and they did the job required of them so why build a 2-6-4T instead, especially as it would cost more than a 2-6-2T and deliver no advantages at all in train loading (and a possible penalty on respect of weight transfer off the driving wheels - depending on spring adjustment etc)?

 

The interesting thing is that having reconstructed small numbers of the 51XX and 3150 Class with slightly smaller driving wheels (a mere 2 inches off the diameter) the 5101s continued to be built with the new wheel diameter unaltered.  Does this indicate that the reconstructions of engines over 30 years old was considered a poor bargain - even in the times of post-war shortages of material - or was it found that the results in traffic didn't justify the changes?  We'll probably never know which but clearly new builds of 5101s won the day.

 

 

 

[The Johnster]

My opinion, others are available and I do not claim mine to be established fact, is that Collett saw room for improvement in the large prairies, or why would he have gone to the bother of messing around with them?  I contend that it is most likely his input that led to the experiments, as I can't see him allowing an underling to mess about in such a way.  The only candidate would have been the crown prince Hawksworth, who never showed any propensity to alter the large prairies at all when he was in the hot seat.

 

The 61xx returned the desired results on the London suburbans, which may have prompted Collett to examine the 5101s and 3150s.  The result was the 81xx, a 61xx with slightly smaller wheels, and the 31xx, a 3150 with significantly smaller, 5'3", wheels; low numbers were built and never converted back to original spec so they can't have been failures, but the impact of German foreign policy in the 1939/45 period and Collett's retirement ended the gun and fames.  

 

We will never know if there was a better mixed traffic tank loco hidden in the detail for the GW, and it doesn't matter beyond an academic discussion among modellers.  That some of the modellers either once worked on the railway, in your case in positions that made a difference, is of little import, but may give our respective comments more weight amongst our modelling peers.  This is perhaps more appropriate in 'Imaginary Locos' than detracting from the subject here, but it is germane to the 5101s and 61xx. 

 

The LMS had gone in for 2-6-4Ts in a big way, especially given that the progenitor of the line of evolution was the product of the 'small engine policy' brigade, and the Southern had dabbled, and but for the Sevenoaks accident would have continued no doubt; a big passenger tank answers a lot of questions on the Southern, especially on the Central and Eastern Sections, and the nationalised region lost little time in ordering Brighton built Fairburns in 1948/9, and were responsible for the 80xxx not long afterwards, against the background of continuing electrification.  

 

So, if 2-6-4Ts were successful on the LMS and later on the Southern Region, there must be an advantage over prairies (admittedly the LMS' prairies were not not difficult to find an advantage over).  The GW's large prairies were probably as close to as big as you could go with the arrangement in the UK, and, given that Collett fattened up the Stars to provide the Castles, and the Castles to provide the Kings, and tried to improve of the 43xx with the Granges and Manors, it seemed possible to me that, had he not been hidebound by GW conservatism and Churchward worship, he would have followed the LMS 2-6-4T lead.  The result would have been a tank loco of about 5MT in LMS/BR terms, with better adhesive weight than a Manor, that would have been able to extend London or Birmingham suburban workings to Swindon or Banbury from London or Oxford,  Chester, perhaps even Reading from Birmingham, as a result of the larger bunker, and 12 coach peak traffic trains could be handled; the LMS locos did it!  

[Harlequin]

Would you guys like to continue this discussion in Imaginary Locomotives?

 

There is a new model of a real locomotive to talk about in this thread.

 

Thanks,

Edited June 21, 2020 by Harlequin

[Hilux5972]

6 hours ago, Richard Croft said:

I’ve had this one here for sound fitting, it’s a nice model, well designed inside too to make sound fitting quite easy

 

 

Richard

Blimey that didn’t take you very long. Sounds great! 

[atom3624]

I noticed the 'chuffs' lost synch as the locomotive sped up in the video ... my biggest bugbear for sound and steam locomotives.

 

Al.

[tomparryharry]

51 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Would you guys like to continue this discussion in Imaginary Locomotives?

 

There is an new model of a real locomotive to talk about in this thread.

 

Thanks,

 

Hang on Phil, I paid for the full half-hour argument!

 

(With apologies to the Monty Pythons amongst us).

[atom3624]

I don't run DCC, so I'm not the one you're selling to, but for me, the 'chuffs' are at least 50% of the selling justification of sound in steam.

It is more obvious at slower speeds, under power, obviously, and the intensity gets weaker as the speed increases, but from the videos of archive and currently preserved locomotives I've seen, they are still quite clear even at higher speeds.

 

Al.

[atom3624]

Thanks for the reply.

Glad it is possible.

 

Al.

[MartinTrucks]

Rails of Sheffield have emailed stating that they expect to receive the Hornby R3721/X Class 61xx Large Prairie later this week. This is No.6110 in GWR green and lettered 'Great Western'.

 

Keep well,

Martin

[petrox]

Has anyone managed to fit a crew to this model? - I'm usually a bit wary of dismantling brand new models - not sure if the cab roof will detach or whether taking the body off helps - advice appreciated.

 

Thanks.

 

[Holmside]

Re Johnster’s posts relating to the pros and cons of the existence of particular loco configurations and types (culminating last Sunday at 17.06 hrs),  I found these discussions  both fascinating and illuminating.  Whilst there are many texts showing actual designs, I know of few ( but that’s doubtless due to my lamentable ignorance of these matters) that go into details of the ‘why’s’. Whilst it may be considered a small digression from the topic in hand, I welcome such asides as enriching the hobby enormously.

[Ian Hargrave]

17 hours ago, MartinTrucks said:

Rails of Sheffield have emailed stating that they expect to receive the Hornby R3721/X Class 61xx Large Prairie later this week. This is No.6110 in GWR green and lettered 'Great Western'.

 

Keep well,

Martin

Yes,I’ve had a look but before passing comment on the livery application I‘ll look at Kernow’s image when it appears there.Don’t ask me why but theirs is sharper and less flat.

 

[Neal Ball]

1 hour ago, Ian Hargrave said:

Yes,I’ve had a look but before passing comment on the livery application I‘ll look at Kernow’s image when it appears there.Don’t ask me why but theirs is sharper and less flat.

 

The Rails and Hattons photos are the new ones from Hornby.

[Ian Hargrave]

15 minutes ago, Neal Ball said:

The Rails and Hattons photos are the new ones from Hornby.

 
I still hope.

[gwrrob]

8 hours ago, petrox said:

Has anyone managed to fit a crew to this model? - I'm usually a bit wary of dismantling brand new models - not sure if the cab roof will detach or whether taking the body off helps - advice appreciated.

 

According to this excellent review, it's going to be a challenge.

 

https://albionyard.wordpress.com/2020/06/21/Hornby-61xx-r3723-review/

[The Stationmaster]

28 minutes ago, gwrrob said:

 

According to this excellent review, it's going to be a challenge.

 

https://albionyard.wordpress.com/2020/06/21/Hornby-61xx-r3723-review/

Thanks for the link Rob - a very encouraging review from someone who is both objective and not known for pulling his punches should there be a need for any, good to see there weren't any.  Paul Isles and his colleagues are to be congratulated for doing such a fine job on the lerge prairie if this one is an example of teh attention to detail on others. 

[melmerby]

It says it weighs in at 235g which seems a little light, I'm sure the Airfix derived model was more than that.

Be interesting to see how the two match up performance wise when mine arrives.

Nice to see the two trucks are metal, much more likely to stay on the track than the awful Airfix ones.

 

 

[St Enodoc]

17 hours ago, gwrrob said:

 

According to this excellent review, it's going to be a challenge.

 

https://albionyard.wordpress.com/2020/06/21/Hornby-61xx-r3723-review/

Very interesting and helpful review.

 

12 hours ago, melmerby said:

It says it weighs in at 235g which seems a little light, I'm sure the Airfix derived model was more than that.

Be interesting to see how the two match up performance wise when mine arrives.

Nice to see the two trucks are metal, much more likely to stay on the track than the awful Airfix ones.

 

 

That's just over 8 ounces so assuming the pony trucks carry no weight it comes in as a little more than 6 prototype adhesive tons per ounce. That's better than some other Hornby models before adding weight (Grange 6.9, Star 6.5, 42xx 9.0) but not as good as the Castle at 5.6 or Britannia at 4.7.

 

Nearly 60 years ago Jack Newton in the MRN proposed a target of 3 tons/ounce but I aim for 5 to get the performance I need.

[MikeParkin65]

2 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Very interesting and helpful review.

 

That's just over 8 ounces so assuming the pony trucks carry no weight it comes in as a little more than 6 prototype adhesive tons per ounce. That's better than some other Hornby models before adding weight (Grange 6.9, Star 6.5, 42xx 9.0) but not as good as the Castle at 5.6 or Britannia at 4.7.

 

Nearly 60 years ago Jack Newton in the MRN proposed a target of 3 tons/ounce but I aim for 5 to get the performance I need.

Wonder what the new Princess comes in at then  - I’m wondering if I might have to reinforce my baseboards lol

 

[MAURICE040947]

R3721 arrived in stock today Beautiful---enjoy

https://www.osbornsmodels.com/r3721-Hornby-gwr-class-61xx-large-prairie-2-6-2t-6110---era-3-49261-p.asp

[Ian Hargrave]

23 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Thanks for the link Rob - a very encouraging review from someone who is both objective and not known for pulling his punches should there be a need for any, good to see there weren't any.  Paul Isles and his colleagues are to be congratulated for doing such a fine job on the lerge prairie if this one is an example of teh attention to detail on others. 

 
Having succumbed to the blandishments of BR black ( It wasn’t my original intention ) ,I wholeheartedly agree with the critical acclaim this has received...and yes it does “go quicker” bunker first.The whole physical presence/mass has been authentically captured. Now Hornby,please let’s have an acceptable green to grace the other versions.Even if it’s only borderline,I can forgive all for a model of this pedigree.

[The Johnster]

Excellent and informative review.  I'm pleased to read that the plastic coal in the bunker is removable to reveal a correctly formed bunker interior!  As to weight, I try to cram in as much as I can and it looks as if there will be little opportunity with this model.  Smokebox, bunker, and possibly the top of the firebox are the only opportunities so far as I can see.  I would expect performance to be much better than the old Airfix but I have no experience of the previous retooled Hornby versions of this.  I have had 2 Airfix large prairies and my experience of them is that running is much improved by removal of the traction tyre and replacement with an ungrooved wheel, but the loco takes several years to run in and give it's best possible performance.  Both of mine succumbed to broken slide bars at pretty high mileages.  They were noisy by modern standards and the pickup mounting, on clear plastic behind the wheels, was crude.  I have held off buying a replacement until this and the Dapol model are 'out'.

 

 

[melmerby]

7 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Excellent and informative review.  I'm pleased to read that the plastic coal in the bunker is removable to reveal a correctly formed bunker interior!  As to weight, I try to cram in as much as I can and it looks as if there will be little opportunity with this model.  Smokebox, bunker, and possibly the top of the firebox are the only opportunities so far as I can see.  I would expect performance to be much better than the old Airfix but I have no experience of the previous retooled Hornby versions of this.  I have had 2 Airfix large prairies and my experience of them is that running is much improved by removal of the traction tyre and replacement with an ungrooved wheel, but the loco takes several years to run in and give it's best possible performance.  Both of mine succumbed to broken slide bars at pretty high mileages.  They were noisy by modern standards and the pickup mounting, on clear plastic behind the wheels, was crude.  I have held off buying a replacement until this and the Dapol model are 'out'.

 

 

I too have two previous versions, both early & late Hornby varieties (which don't have traction tyres). They weigh around 330 grams much more than the 235g quoted for the new ones.

The running I find is pretty good being both quiet & smooth (large can motor) and the haulage excellent but they suffer from rubbish pony & trailing trucks, the front especially and the plasticky Airfix original features and no cab interior

I broke the slide bar assembly on one so it is now glued together.

[Denbridge]

On 21/06/2020 at 17:06, The Johnster said:

My opinion, others are available and I do not claim mine to be established fact, is that Collett saw room for improvement in the large prairies, or why would he have gone to the bother of messing around with them?  I contend that it is most likely his input that led to the experiments, as I can't see him allowing an underling to mess about in such a way.  The only candidate would have been the crown prince Hawksworth, who never showed any propensity to alter the large prairies at all when he was in the hot seat.

 

The 61xx returned the desired results on the London suburbans, which may have prompted Collett to examine the 5101s and 3150s.  The result was the 81xx, a 61xx with slightly smaller wheels, and the 31xx, a 3150 with significantly smaller, 5'3", wheels; low numbers were built and never converted back to original spec so they can't have been failures, but the impact of German foreign policy in the 1939/45 period and Collett's retirement ended the gun and fames.  

 

We will never know if there was a better mixed traffic tank loco hidden in the detail for the GW, and it doesn't matter beyond an academic discussion among modellers.  That some of the modellers either once worked on the railway, in your case in positions that made a difference, is of little import, but may give our respective comments more weight amongst our modelling peers.  This is perhaps more appropriate in 'Imaginary Locos' than detracting from the subject here, but it is germane to the 5101s and 61xx. 

 

The LMS had gone in for 2-6-4Ts in a big way, especially given that the progenitor of the line of evolution was the product of the 'small engine policy' brigade, and the Southern had dabbled, and but for the Sevenoaks accident would have continued no doubt; a big passenger tank answers a lot of questions on the Southern, especially on the Central and Eastern Sections, and the nationalised region lost little time in ordering Brighton built Fairburns in 1948/9, and were responsible for the 80xxx not long afterwards, against the background of continuing electrification.  

 

So, if 2-6-4Ts were successful on the LMS and later on the Southern Region, there must be an advantage over prairies (admittedly the LMS' prairies were not not difficult to find an advantage over).  The GW's large prairies were probably as close to as big as you could go with the arrangement in the UK, and, given that Collett fattened up the Stars to provide the Castles, and the Castles to provide the Kings, and tried to improve of the 43xx with the Granges and Manors, it seemed possible to me that, had he not been hidebound by GW conservatism and Churchward worship, he would have followed the LMS 2-6-4T lead.  The result would have been a tank loco of about 5MT in LMS/BR terms, with better adhesive weight than a Manor, that would have been able to extend London or Birmingham suburban workings to Swindon or Banbury from London or Oxford,  Chester, perhaps even Reading from Birmingham, as a result of the larger bunker, and 12 coach peak traffic trains could be handled; the LMS locos did it!  

The only advantage of a 2.6.4 over a prairie would be a larger bunker. Since the LMS and other lines were saddled with using inferior coal to Welsh steam coal, which Swindon locos were designed to burn,  the larger capacity on 2.6.4's would be required.