jcm@gwr Posted January 26, 2020 Share Posted January 26, 2020 2 hours ago, brossard said: Gasp, oh no! A Jinty would be a better fit for LNER stock. There is no affordable RTR LNER loco AFAIK. (I have a J39 and J50 from Tower but the price is a bit eyewatering). John There nearly was a J94, but I'm not sure if it would have been worth having or not! We have to hope that either Dapol or Minerva notice, and fill, the obvious gap! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brossard Posted January 26, 2020 Share Posted January 26, 2020 From what I have read, not a lot of workaday LNER locos lasted long in BR ownership. The two I mention were gone from regular traffic by 1962. Oxford have announced the J27 which lasted until 1967 apparently. If only Dapol or Minerva (although these seem to be fixed on GWR) could do the same in 7mm. John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Hal Nail Posted January 26, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 26, 2020 You know you want to.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brossard Posted January 26, 2020 Share Posted January 26, 2020 46 minutes ago, Hal Nail said: You know you want to.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WM183 Posted January 27, 2020 Share Posted January 27, 2020 (edited) I do want to, in fact. I'd like to go with LMS, but the issue in O gauge is that GWR has a much bigger array of small layout friendly tank locos (and smallish tender engines) compared to the LMS, at least pre nationalization. Once the Ivatts came along, I suppose an Ivatt 2MT (tender or tank) a Jinty, and maybe an old 3F or 4F 0-6-0 might be a nice range of stock. However, by this time, coaching stock has grown quite huge. LMS' most famous and modelled locos seem to be large ones; various 4P tanks, Black 5s, Crabs, and so on, are all pretty big. I suppose post nationalization Panniers would show up virtually everywhere though... Edited January 27, 2020 by WM183 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WM183 Posted January 27, 2020 Share Posted January 27, 2020 Is this from a kit or? That is gorgeous! 11 hours ago, Hal Nail said: You know you want to.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brossard Posted January 27, 2020 Share Posted January 27, 2020 Alas Amanda, you are so right about the dearth of RTR locos that are not GWR. The manufacturers serve the marketplace and GWR remains the most popular. My suspicion is because there are so many well documented bucolic GWR branch lines. If you went with the nationalization era, you would have more flexibility in that locos from other companies prior to 1948 could be seen almost anywhere. I did 00 LMS for nearly 30 years before switching to 0. When I did, I went for early 60s since many pregrouping locos were still in service and the infrastructure had yet to be modernized. So, you have decisions to make. John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Hal Nail Posted January 27, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 27, 2020 6 hours ago, WM183 said: Is this from a kit or? That is gorgeous! Dapol! Replacement vac and steam pipes, filled in the seam on the smokebox saddle and gave it a respray but it's a cracking little model as supplied. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Hal Nail Posted January 31, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 31, 2020 On 25/01/2020 at 22:17, hmrspaul said: i'm coming to the conclusion that if there is an upright vacuum pipe then it may be handed - for example the BR Shark - because they can be designed to end up on the centre line above the coupling.. https://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/sharkzuv Although in conservation (thus risky to quote) this BR built LMS van has handed pipes https://PaulBartlett.zenfolio.com/brlmsvan/e5fcca86b https://PaulBartlett.zenfolio.com/brlmsvan/e5fcca88b https://PaulBartlett.zenfolio.com/brlmsvan/e2743354d Paul Just going back to this, do we think the pipe runs the same side as the cylinder? Would make sense but i cant see well enough to prove it either way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike hughes Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 (edited) On 31/01/2020 at 09:41, Hal Nail said: Just going back to this, do we think the pipe runs the same side as the cylinder? Would make sense but i cant see well enough to prove it either way. Have a look in my Peak rail Album on flickr and it shows the underneath of a Shark. Can't put a link for it at the moment Link is Michael Edited February 1, 2020 by mike hughes Added link Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Hal Nail Posted January 31, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 31, 2020 (edited) 8 hours ago, mike hughes said: Have a look in my Peak rail Album on flickr and it shows the underneath of a Shark. Can't put a link for it at the moment Michael Found it thanks. Pipe runs on the other side to the cylinder- so much for my logic! Edited February 1, 2020 by Hal Nail 1 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