LMS 2P upgrade in print

[pH]

Here's information from the "BR database" site:

 

Locos allocated to Bath Green Park shed between 1948 and closure:

http://brdatabase.info/sites.php?page=depots&subpage=locos&id=51

 

Locos allocated to Templecombe between 1948 and closure:

http://brdatabase.info/sites.php?page=depots&subpage=locos&id=543

 

If you want to be absolutely certain that a specific loco was allocated, I'd suggest checking Locoshed Books as Dunsignalling suggests. However, the "BR database" site has become progressively more reliable since it was started. I would trust it unless the information conflicts with information from another source that you definitely know to be true (i.e. much like any other site).

[Guest Jack Benson]

5 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

 

From the pictures the biggest problem with the locos is not the chimney and dome but that the body sits too high, so high I wonder if the body was actually screwed down.    The traction tyre "thing" should be sortable by substituting trailing wheel tyres for the grooved driving wheel tyres.  I have removed tyres from several recentish Hornby wheels to reuse on other locos so I assume the 2P will be similar.

I am hoping the Duchess tyres are the same as the T9 and Schools as our T9 has got progressively more prone to derail as its traction tyres wear,  its party piece is turning the corner on diamond crossings, and the schools looks set to follow it.  I ended up with a Duchess chassis from a job lot with things I actually wanted!

 

The angle of the camera gives a false impression of the loco height, it compares well with the GA. However the same cannot be said for the chimney and dome, possibly the most obvious features of any loco. The dome's taper was a manufacturing requirement of the old Mainline model to allow easy egress from the mould whilst the chimney is rather considerably undernourished for a BR-era example. 

 

Both chimney and dome have now been replaced with Fowler items supplied by Colin at AG, the only problem is the capuchon which was not evident in the 50s - the source is a rather rare full side view acquired of 40634 acquired on eBay. The images shows the problem that needs to solved.

 

Issues of traction tires are utterly irrelevant as the chassis will receive AG wheels in due course, more pressing issues are the lack of frames around the bogie however thin plasticard overlays will solve that issue. If a Preserverance chassis could have been sourced and if the Hornby mechanism was not so smooth, the rebuild would have been more extensive.

 

The football sized handrail knobs have been replaced, a Bachmann tablet catcher, new fallplate, shortened tander link and a Hardy footplate crew fitted. We didn't replace the rather good lubricators, just added some fuse wire oil lines.

 

The rebuild has resulted in a reliable model of an essential prototype for a 50s SDJR layout, it is our only Hornby model but its true origins are Mainline and the better design is clearly evident despite its age.

 

Loco allocations- sometime ago we uploaded the definitive link to locos used on the SDJR onto the RMweb SDJR area Link to RMweb thread

 

Cheers

 

JB

 

[DCB]

 

3 hours ago, Jack Benson said:

 

The angle of the camera gives a false impression of the loco height, it compares well with the GA. However the same cannot be said for the chimney and dome, possibly the most obvious features of any loco. The dome's taper was a manufacturing requirement of the old Mainline model to allow easy egress from the mould whilst the chimney is rather considerably undernourished for a BR-era example. 

 

 

The photo shows clearly that something is very wrong with the loco (or possibly the tender) height.  The pic of the prototype 2P is distorted but you can still see the lines of symmetry and I have marked them with a line.    The bottom of the tender tank lines up with the bottom of the loco footplate valance and the top of the buffer beams   Cab cutaway matches the tender front, and the footsteps very nearly match.   The body may match the GA dimensions but the body is around 2mm  / 6"  too high on the chassis.   The front buffers must be 2mm too high. 

 See pics attached.

I always check my loco and rolling stock buffer height against a template, well actually a Hornby Dublo wagon, while building / detailing.  I would much rather run 2mm too small bogie or driving wheels than run with buffers clearly not in line. 

The old Mainline wheels have shiny flanges and were not intended as drive wheels and have only two or three splines on the axle, I am sure there is no way to secure the Hornby drive pinion to the Mainline axle and the Mainline wheels wont fit Hornby axles.  The coupling rod pins pressed in instead of using screws like the current model.   The final Hornby Tender Drive 2P wheels may well fit, check they have the threaded bosses for coupling rod screws, but then you have to quarter them.  That's why i suggest changing the tyres, Peel tease, lever them off in situ and leave the quartering alone.  

Edited August 31, 2019 by DavidCBroad

[Guest Jack Benson]

7 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

  The body may match the GA dimensions but the body is around 2mm  / 6"  too high on the chassis.   The front buffers must be 2mm too high. 

 

I always check my loco and rolling stock buffer height against a template, well actually a Hornby Dublo wagon, while building / detailing.  

 

 

Hello, 

I may be old-fashioned but I prefer to compare a model with a GA rather than use a Hornby Dublo wagon as a benchmark.

Moreover, the Hornby/exMainline 2P may not meet your discerning standards but it looks (once the chimney, dome, handrails etc. have been replaced) like a 2P to my codfish eye.

 

Cheers

 

JB

 

 

 

 

[Derekl]

I can't see why one would not use an HD wagon as benchmark if the height happens to be right - a little easier (and probably more accurate) than trying to get an accurate measurement off a GA drawing and then applying to a vehicle on the track. Perhaps a little patronising to suggest otherwise.

 

You may be satisfied with the appearance of the loco and tender (and I agree chimney, dome and so on are a vast improvement), but I have to agree that all the photos of the model show a massive difference in height between loco and tender body - either loco too high, or tender too low and in contrast to the prototype pic at the top of the thread. I also cannot see how the camera angles influence the appearance, although would welcome direct side on view that shows otherwise.

[DCB]

Checking the Roche drawing it looks like the buffer height is right on the loco as the buffers and top the bogie wheels should be in line within 1/6 mm  so it looks like the tender is at fault, possibly the wheels being underscale, 14mm(?)  when they should be 17mm according to Roche. 

[Guest Jack Benson]

2 hours ago, Derekl said:

 

You may be satisfied with the appearance of the loco and tender (and I agree chimney, dome and so on are a vast improvement), but I have to agree that all the photos of the model show a massive difference in height between loco and tender body - either loco too high, or tender too low and in contrast to the prototype pic at the top of the thread. I also cannot see how the camera angles influence the appearance, although would welcome direct side on view that shows otherwise.

 

Hello,

 

I more than satisfied with the appearance of the loco and tender, moreover more discerning modellers seem to be happy with the Hornby/Mainline model. My 2P project is certainly unfinished, a Comet tender is a possible upgrade but I am happy enough at the moment.

 

However, I do look forward to seeing the efforts of those who make such comments such as 'massive difference' until then, I consider the matter closed.

 

Cheers

 

JB

[Dunsignalling]

18 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

 

 

 

The old Mainline wheels have shiny flanges and were not intended as drive wheels and have only two or three splines on the axle, I am sure there is no way to secure the Hornby drive pinion to the Mainline axle and the Mainline wheels wont fit Hornby axles.  The coupling rod pins pressed in instead of using screws like the current model.   The final Hornby Tender Drive 2P wheels may well fit, check they have the threaded bosses for coupling rod screws, but then you have to quarter them.  That's why i suggest changing the tyres, Peel tease, lever them off in situ and leave the quartering alone.  

 

 

Thanks, my remaining tender-drive 2P (Dapol) will therefore receive the Perseverance chassis kit I've had in my stash for more than a decade, rather than being sacrificed to rewheel one of my Hornby examples.

 

John 

Edited September 1, 2019 by Dunsignalling

[down the sdjr]

On 31/08/2019 at 03:54, pH said:

Here's information from the "BR database" site:

 

Locos allocated to Bath Green Park shed between 1948 and closure:

http://brdatabase.info/sites.php?page=depots&subpage=locos&id=51

 

Locos allocated to Templecombe between 1948 and closure:

http://brdatabase.info/sites.php?page=depots&subpage=locos&id=543

 

If you want to be absolutely certain that a specific loco was allocated, I'd suggest checking Locoshed Books as Dunsignalling suggests. However, the "BR database" site has become progressively more reliable since it was started. I would trust it unless the information conflicts with information from another source that you definitely know to be true (i.e. much like any other site).

Very useful links those, the Templecombe one especially for me. Thank you.

[Derekl]

21 hours ago, Jack Benson said:

 

Hello,

 

I more than satisfied with the appearance of the loco and tender, moreover more discerning modellers seem to be happy with the Hornby/Mainline model. My 2P project is certainly unfinished, a Comet tender is a possible upgrade but I am happy enough at the moment.

 

However, I do look forward to seeing the efforts of those who make such comments such as 'massive difference' until then, I consider the matter closed.

 

Cheers

 

JB

 

Hi - I largely posted because you were rude and patronising to the previous poster. I kind of expected you would respond similarly, and I am pleased to see I was right and you met expectations.

 

Might be interesting (and perhaps a little more productive) to see a photos that shows relationship of loco and tender without any photographic "distortion".

[Combe Martin]

On ‎31‎/‎08‎/‎2019 at 08:18, Jack Benson said:

I'm sure all the 2ps on the S&D were unlined, and I have studied loads of picture books.  If anyone has seen a picture of a lined one on the S&D I'm quite happy to be corrected because it means I don't  have to remove it.  The other thing to check is the tender front. Some Fowler tenders  had the 'coal door' tender front (like in this picture) but lots had the 'coal hole' tender front. You have to study photos of your particular loco to see which it had, and even then the photo angle isn't always helpful.  There is a brass etch available to convert the tender front which can also be used on the Hornby 4F, and Bachmann 4F and 7F.  Its amazing how many RTR locos have the wrong tender front.

Edited September 1, 2019 by Combe Martin

[Guest Jack Benson]

1 hour ago, Combe Martin said:

I'm sure all the 2ps on the S&D were unlined, and I have studied loads of picture books.  If anyone has seen a picture of a lined one on the S&D I'm quite happy to be corrected because it means I don't  have to remove it.  The other thing to check is the tender front. Some Fowler tenders  had the 'coal door' tender front (like in this picture) but lots had the 'coal hole' tender front. You have to study photos of your particular loco to see which it had, and even then the photo angle isn't always helpful.  There is a brass etch available to convert the tender front which can also be used on the Hornby 4F, and Bachmann 4F and 7F.  Its amazing how many RTR locos have the wrong tender front.

Hi,

 

Thanks for the suggestion, the image of 40634 recently purchased on eBay is clearly lined in mixed traffic with early small lion. Although undated,  it is pulling set 395 and fitted with a tablet catcher, this does suggest that it was allocated to the SDJR when the image was captured. There is a discernible difference in running plates heights twixt loco and tender but it really is no more than the image of #45 on Rosspop's blog (see supplied link)  Unfortunately, I cannot share the purchased image for copyright reasons. 

 

As previously mentioned a Comet tender is under consideration but it is not a priority as 40634 is a 'layout' loco which never leaves home - however the essential defects of chimney, dome, handrails have been rectified, maybe that will be the full extent of the upgrades.

 

I hope this clarifies matters but I really have nothing more to add at the moment.

 

Cheers

 

JB

 

 

[Iain.d]

14 hours ago, Combe Martin said:

I'm sure all the 2ps on the S&D were unlined, and I have studied loads of picture books.  If anyone has seen a picture of a lined one on the S&D I'm quite happy to be corrected because it means I don't  have to remove it.  The other thing to check is the tender front. Some Fowler tenders  had the 'coal door' tender front (like in this picture) but lots had the 'coal hole' tender front. You have to study photos of your particular loco to see which it had, and even then the photo angle isn't always helpful.  There is a brass etch available to convert the tender front which can also be used on the Hornby 4F, and Bachmann 4F and 7F.  Its amazing how many RTR locos have the wrong tender front.

 

In the early BR days quite a few of the 2Ps allocated to S&D sheds were in lined black either with ‘BRITISH RAILWAYS’ on the tender or the early emblem. These include 40505, 40509 and 40527 (Ex MR 2Ps), 40563, 40568, 40569, 40601, 40634 and 40696.  Towards the end of the 1950s (and those with the later emblem) fewer seem to be lined, mind you in some instances it could simply be that the lining is lost below the dirt.

Iain

 

[Iain.d]

On 10/04/2019 at 19:50, Jack Benson said:

 

Finally, an odd question:-

Is there a definitive list of individual locos that have regularly worked on the S&DJR,  not classes (much too easy) but individuals?

 

Cheers

 

Jack

 

 

I don’t have a definitive list of 2Ps that ran on the line.  Some of the shed allocation lists are useful but its worth bearing in mind that some transfers from one shed or region to another may simply be a paperwork exercise and never actually happened.

 

I’ve a fair number of S&D books and over the years I’ve collated most of the picture caption data into a list. From this list (and allowing for picture caption errors and my own transcription errors) the following 2Ps exist in photos somewhere between Bath and Bournemouth West between 1949 and 1962 - 40505, 40509, 40511, 40527, 40537, 40563, 40564, 40568, 40569, 40601, 40634, 40652, 40696, 40697, 40698 and 40700.

 

Iain

[Guest Jack Benson]

1 hour ago, Iain.d said:

I don’t have a definitive list of 2Ps that ran on the line.  Some of the shed allocation lists are useful but its worth bearing in mind that some transfers from one shed or region to another may simply be a paperwork exercise and never actually happened.

 

I’ve a fair number of S&D books and over the years I’ve collated most of the picture caption data into a list. From this list (and allowing for picture caption errors and my own transcription errors) the following 2Ps exist in photos somewhere between Bath and Bournemouth West between 1949 and 1962 - 40505, 40509, 40511, 40527, 40537, 40563, 40564, 40568, 40569, 40601, 40634, 40652, 40696, 40697, 40698 and 40700.

 

Iain

Iain,

 

Thanks,

 

Sometime ago, I posted a handy link to locos used on SDJR in the RMweb SDJR area, it provides lists by regions/classes of locos used in the BR period. I cannot vouch for its absolute veracity but it seems to have been well received and maybe worth bookmarking.

 

Cheers

 

JB

 

 

[Combe Martin]

On ‎01‎/‎09‎/‎2019 at 22:04, Jack Benson said:

Hi,

 

Thanks for the suggestion, the image of 40634 recently purchased on eBay is clearly lined in mixed traffic with early small lion. Although undated,  it is pulling set 395 and fitted with a tablet catcher, this does suggest that it was allocated to the SDJR when the image was captured. There is a discernible difference in running plates heights twixt loco and tender but it really is no more than the image of #45 on Rosspop's blog (see supplied link)  Unfortunately, I cannot share the purchased image for copyright reasons. 

 

As previously mentioned a Comet tender is under consideration but it is not a priority as 40634 is a 'layout' loco which never leaves home - however the essential defects of chimney, dome, handrails have been rectified, maybe that will be the full extent of the upgrades.

 

I hope this clarifies matters but I really have nothing more to add at the moment.

 

Cheers

 

JB

 

 

 

On ‎02‎/‎09‎/‎2019 at 10:08, Iain.d said:

 

In the early BR days quite a few of the 2Ps allocated to S&D sheds were in lined black either with ‘BRITISH RAILWAYS’ on the tender or the early emblem. These include 40505, 40509 and 40527 (Ex MR 2Ps), 40563, 40568, 40569, 40601, 40634 and 40696.  Towards the end of the 1950s (and those with the later emblem) fewer seem to be lined, mind you in some instances it could simply be that the lining is lost below the dirt.

Iain

 

Apologies for not being clearer.  When I said most S&D 2Ps appeared to be unlined I meant in their later BR days, so approx. 1958 to 1962 (from memory I think the last 2p was withdrawn in 1962 but I'm away from home at the moment and havn't got access to all my books). My main modelling period is 1959 to 1965, but concentrating on 1961 (a very good year for a big mixed variety of stock and locos, and 1964).

 

I do have Ivo Peters 1 & 2 (1950s) with me and having scanned through them there may be a couple of 2ps still with lining up to 1956, though I do take the point about lining being hidden by dirt, and the picture angles arn't always helpful.  I cant find a picture of any lined 2p after that, but as I said most of my books are at home.

 

If anyone has spotted a picture of a lined 2p as late as 1958 or later I would love to know because it means I don't have to scrape it off my new Hornby one.

[Guest Jack Benson]

Combe Martin,

 

As promised:- 40634 Bath Green Park 1954 - Copyright bob-j510305 purchased by current owner

 

The lack of capuchon is very noticeable.

 

JB

Edited September 10, 2019 by Jack Benson

[Guest Jack Benson]

On 01/09/2019 at 19:43, Derekl said:

 

Might be interesting (and perhaps a little more productive) to see a photos that shows relationship of loco and tender without any photographic "distortion".

DerekL,

 

Until, the chimney and frame extensions are addressed, the Hornby 2P remains unavailable for further comment however there has been other images posted which might be useful. You will just have to be a little more patient however until then, thank you for your input.

 

Cheers

 

JB

[Combe Martin]

On ‎10‎/‎09‎/‎2019 at 11:46, Jack Benson said:

Combe Martin,

 

As promised:- 40634 Bath Green Park 1954 - Copyright bob-j510305 purchased by current owner

 

The lack of capuchon is very noticeable.

 

JB

 

Many thanks for this.  It fits with the general impression that in their early BR days the S&D 2Ps were lined, but mostly lost it in the mid 50s.  Ivo Peters vol 2 has 2 pictures of this loco dated August 1956 (Plates 78 and 80).  Both show it unlined and clean, well not grimey.    One is a close up of the cab side.   Looks like I'm going to have to scrape that lining off.

[Guest Jack Benson]

 

Almost, not quite complete. Still needs a proper fallplate and early BR lion totem.

 

The "massive difference'' seems to have disappeared, no doubt due to the lack of camera distortion?  The actual differences are far more subtle, the chimney, dome, handarails, tablet catcher etc. and appreciated by those who demand greater accuracy. something

 

 

Hi Combe Martin,

 

I just looked at Ivo Peters vol 2 has 2 pictures of this loco dated August 1956 (Plates 78 and 80), the pictures are in marked contrast to the image at BGP

 

But I suspect the lack of lining  is illusory so do not scrape that lining off.

 

JB

 

 

 

 

Edited September 13, 2019 by Jack Benson

[Guest Jack Benson]

 

In response to list the upgraded items:-

 

Bogie and tender wheels - Alan Gibson

The dome and chimney are Fowler items Dome 4M613 - Chimney 4M608. - for building a BR loco, the capuchon needs to be removed from the chimney.

The rather nice lubricators were not replaced, instead oil lines made from fusewire were cobled together.

The crew are Hardy's figures.

All handrails were replaced with bits from Alan Gibson Workshops.

Frame extensions and fall plate are etched waste.

Finally, info is pretty sparse but Wild Swan's Midland Loco No3 was of limited help.

Renumbering from Railtech decals - great service

Smokebox door etch - Narrow planet

Lanterns - Lanarkshire Model Supplies

 

For a 35+ year old model originating with Mainline, the Hornby re-issue with loco drive is good enough in comparison with Bachmann's outstanding SDJR locos. The arrival of their Johnson 1P 0-4-4t is eagerly anticipated.

 

Thanks for putting up with all the waffle but the journey was worthwhile.

 

Cheers

 

JB

Edited September 18, 2019 by Jack Benson

[Iain.d]

On 14/09/2019 at 12:01, Jack Benson said:

 

In response to list the upgraded items:-

 

Bogie and tender wheels - Alan Gibson

The dome and chimney are Fowler items Dome 4M613 - Chimney 4M608. - for building a BR loco, the capuchon needs to be removed from the chimney.

The rather nice lubricators were not replaced, instead oil lines made from fusewire were cobled together.

The crew are Hardy's figures.

All handrails were replaced with bits from Alan Gibson Workshops.

Frame extensions and fall plate are etched waste.

Finally, info is pretty sparse but Wild Swan's Midland Loco No3 was of limited help.

Renumbering from Railtech decals - great service

Smokebox door etch - Narrow planet

Lanterns - Lanarkshire Model Supplies

 

For a 35+ year old model originating with Mainline, the Hornby re-issue with loco drive is good enough in comparison with Bachmann's outstanding SDJR locos. The arrival of their Johnson 1P 0-4-4t is eagerly anticipated.

 

Thanks for putting up with all the waffle but the journey was worthwhile.

 

Cheers

 

JB

That looks good, it’s turned out well.

 

Iain

[Iain.d]

On 05/09/2019 at 18:34, Combe Martin said:

 

Apologies for not being clearer.  When I said most S&D 2Ps appeared to be unlined I meant in their later BR days, so approx. 1958 to 1962 (from memory I think the last 2p was withdrawn in 1962 but I'm away from home at the moment and havn't got access to all my books). My main modelling period is 1959 to 1965, but concentrating on 1961 (a very good year for a big mixed variety of stock and locos, and 1964).

 

I do have Ivo Peters 1 & 2 (1950s) with me and having scanned through them there may be a couple of 2ps still with lining up to 1956, though I do take the point about lining being hidden by dirt, and the picture angles arn't always helpful.  I cant find a picture of any lined 2p after that, but as I said most of my books are at home.

 

If anyone has spotted a picture of a lined 2p as late as 1958 or later I would love to know because it means I don't have to scrape it off my new Hornby one.

Sorry for delay in replying, work and life got in the way! 

 

I have had a casual browse through my books and can’t find any obvious picture of any 2P on the S&D that’s still lined after 1956.

 

I too would be happy to have it confirmed if any were still lined though.

 

Iain

[down the sdjr]

Great looking loco.

I have been adding all the detailing parts to my Bachmann 4Fs, 3Fs, and & 7Fs this week, plus crews and coal. I have to agree they are fantastic locos for the S&D. I have a Hornby 2P as well, runs like a dream.

The Johnson 1P will be a interesting S&D model.