hornby 2020 Hornby A2/2 and A2/3 (2020 Range)

[robmcg]

6 minutes ago, mckinneyc said:

I'll be adding both era 5 models to my collection to sit alongside my A4s and currently sole Gresley A1.

 

I have to confess that Bachmann's A1 and A2 have never attracted me due to the drooping cab end and lack of finesse Hornby have always seemed to bestow on top link locos

 

Yes the drooping cabs are a drawback for the Bachmann models, but they can be meddled with. Some seem quite bad some are nearly perfect, shades of Hornby's A3 dramas!

 

If we get the quality of the Hornby O1 then we will be ok, slight running plate issues on some of the notwithstanding.

 

I personally end up buying all these models anyway because so admire them at the prices, and don't mind attempting mild repairs as are often needed with fragility and so on.  

[MGR Hooper!]

Can someone tell me what's the difference between an A2/2 and A2/3? The only difference I can see is the smoke deflectors.

 

Sorry if it's been covered before.

[robmcg]

Well, there's no simple distinction I know of, but I have never studied the class. Some have full smoke deflectors, some have the small type by the chimney.  Some have round domes, and flat-front cabs, others have banjo domes and streamilned cab fronts a la V2.  Plus there were a few with different boilers.  And possibly variations of cab, boiler, and dome....  

 

I think the official difference or class definitions revolve around the source of the engines,  A2/2s were rebuilt 2-8-2s,  A2/3s were new engines with 250lb boilers,,  A2/1s were  in place of discontinued V2s.  Many were built re-using as many donor parts as possible from their respective sources.

 

I'm just guessing, however, there are many round who will know much more.

[No Decorum]

14 hours ago, AlexHolt said:

 

They showed off a few samples of it at Warley. RRP of £219, bit too expensive for me. Theres some photos here https://www.world-of-railways.co.uk/news/missed-warley-2019-heres-our-new-rtr-product-roundup/

To my mind, the V2 without outside steam pipes is the most beautiful steam locomotive ever made. I’ll pay up. I want Hornby’s Thompsons too, even if they weren’t very pretty.

 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

15 hours ago, robmcg said:

While the new A2/2 and A2/3s are sure to be superb even irresistible models does anyone know if the re-tooled blue box V2 will appear this decade? 

That's the hot competition of 2020. Bachmann are making noises about availability of the V2 before the end of this year. Did they get wind of Hornby's list, do we think? Best part of 200 V2s in service, any ECML layout needs a few: suspect Bachmann have the model with staying power...

 

10 hours ago, MGR Hooper! said:

Can someone tell me what's the difference between an A2/2 and A2/3? The only difference I can see is the smoke deflectors.

LNER class parts: that these and the Peppercorn A2, and the Thompson A2/1 all have the basic class designation 'A2' tells you that they are a single class (of pacifics), but that within that class there are significant variations identified as 'class parts' by '/numeral'. (Unlike the other three disorganised groups which implemented all sorts of variations within classes but failed to systematically distinguish same. When nationalisation came it was seen that Doncaster's way was inevitably the right way, and BR duly adopted this scheme.)

 

Read all about the variations: https://www.lner.info/locos/A/a.php

 

 

Edited January 7, 2020 by 34theletterbetweenB&D
add omitted link

[The Black Hat]

19 hours ago, stewartingram said:

Good news that Hornby are to release these; my only quibble is that they all are due at the same time. (Cue that wallet groan again).

Now, the controversial bit. 

There's always, it seems an anti- or pro- Thomson view. I have neither. Though ECML is not a primary collection for me (being GE section at Cambridge), I do have a strong interest and collection for the GN. After all, we had quite a few run in to Cambridge from KGX. Also we had plenty of diversions due to engineering works or accidents. And, for me, I spent many hours trainspotting at Sandy, Offord, PBN etc....

Which gets me to my "controversial" point. The Thompsons were as much of the ECML scene as the Gresleys. I never compared them, just saw them, always there (for ever, it seemed, quite wrongly...). They were THERE, just another part of the scene which I loved. They were distinctive, not wrong in my eyes. And I'd love to have a Tardis to see them again, just like the rest of that scene.

 

Stewart

Didn't think it would be long for the Gresley vs Thompson debate to start or have an influence.

To be honest, I think most side with Gresley in this debate, merely for the fact that they think they are backing the winning team, (Gresley reputation, 126mph, Mallard, Scotsman, etc) much like a load of Football supporters now will be backing Man City or Liverpool and have deserted Man Utd.

I wonder how many will have bemoaned Thompson locos but now be looking to add these to their collections and layouts, enjoying the guilty pleasure of seeing a locomotive they have criticised but then wanted, being made in model form.
 

[MGR Hooper!]

 

* deleted *

 

Edited January 7, 2020 by MGR Hooper!
Posted in the wrong thread.

[robmcg]

3 hours ago, The Black Hat said:

I wonder how many will have bemoaned Thompson locos but now be looking to add these to their collections and layouts, enjoying the guilty pleasure of seeing a locomotive they have criticised but then wanted, being made in model form.
 

 

I enjoyed a comment from I think Johnster in another thread pointing out that divided drive and rearward-set cylinders did not appear to affect the reputation of Swindon's large engines; King, Castle, Star, nor indeed the erstwhile Lizzie on the LMS.

 

A google search 'Thompson A2' brings several entries by the LNER people with fair descriptions of each A2 variant.

 

Interesting that the P2 rebuild version had more tractive effort than a BR 9F !  I think the relatively,shall we say, patchy reputation of the A2/1, A2/2 and A2/3 had a lot to do with drivers, unfamilarity and some early issues with the class having excellent brakes and thus water going into steam area where it shouldn't, early on.  Certainly with 22 ton axle loads, 19 or 20-inch pistons and 250lb boilers there shouldn't have been any problem with power for starting.

 

Are there any books with descriptions from people who drove and fired these engines? The 50 sq ft grate on a P2 rebuild would have not been very nice if you only had a small load to shift.

Edited January 7, 2020 by robmcg

[D9001]

I have seen photos of “Honeyway” on the Waverley Route but did any A2/2s ever run on the Waverley? Unlikely I know...

[Great Eastern Lady]

Hornby could have just made a kit where you could hack your own P2 and rebuild it into a A2/2

 

[manna]

G'Day Gents

 

Great to see Hornby make these loco's, they have been in demand for many years.

 

Going to look a little odd, with two 'Cock o' the North's' on the same layout, and looking totally different, wonder if they'll do them in wartime black ? 'One day'.........

 

manna

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

4 hours ago, robmcg said:

 

I enjoyed a comment from I think Johnster in another thread pointing out that divided drive and rearward-set cylinders did not appear to affect the reputation of Swindon's large engines; King, Castle, Star, nor indeed the erstwhile Lizzie on the LMS...

 

Are there any books with descriptions from people who drove and fired these engines? The 50 sq ft grate on a P2 rebuild would have not been very nice if you only had a small load to shift.

Thompson's pacifics were an assemblage of perfectly good parts for power production: all of them Doncaster standard in design and construction worked up during Gresley's tenure. Where it all came apart was the mechanical layout, an overlong frame which was excessively flexed by the forces generated in the cylinders, resulting in poor riding, induced defects and unreliability. Peppercorn took the same power production kit, assembled it on a more compact frame - of similar layout to the Gresley classes - and reliable locomotives of excellent performance were produced; 64 in the late 1940s, and one rather well known one more recently by the A1 trust.

 

Writing, here's a list:

http://www.steamindex.com/people/drivers.htm

 

McKillop (Toram Beg) is well known. RNH (Dick) Hardy is well worth reading. 

 

 

[robmcg]

48 minutes ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

Thompson's pacifics were an assemblage of perfectly good parts for power production: all of them Doncaster standard in design and construction worked up during Gresley's tenure. Where it all came apart was the mechanical layout, an overlong frame which was excessively flexed by the forces generated in the cylinders, resulting in poor riding, induced defects and unreliability. Peppercorn took the same power production kit, assembled it on a more compact frame - of similar layout to the Gresley classes - and reliable locomotives of excellent performance were produced; 64 in the late 1940s, and one rather well known one more recently by the A1 trust.

 

Writing, here's a list:

http://www.steamindex.com/people/drivers.htm

 

McKillop (Toram Beg) is well known. RNH (Dick) Hardy is well worth reading. 

 

 

 

Ah, things are becoming a little clearer, the frame-flexing and poor riding not-much mentioned specifically in why the Thompson Pacifics had a poor reputation among many.  I have several R H N Hardy books and must look further.  Are there any books devoted specifically to the Thompson and Peppercorn A2s? I have the Irwell hardcover tome, as well as the RCTS green book on Pacifics...  much reading in store!  Cheers.

[pH]

8 hours ago, robmcg said:

Interesting that the P2 rebuild version had more tractive effort than a BR 9F ! 

 

As did the LMS Princesses and Duchesses.

[robmcg]

I have had a quick look at the RCTS green book 2A LNER Pacifics which has a vast amount of information about the A2 class and sub-classes.

 

One fact which I thought quite interesting was that when the first P2 rebuilds were finished at Doncaster they went into traffic without nameplates, these were in May 1944 still attached to the parts of the donor P2s not necessary for the new engines and were in the scrap road at Doncaster, with the voracious appetite for metal at the time, just before D-day. On 13 May they were taken off and polished and were fitted to their new 4-6-2 engines before June 8th 1944.

 

In Jan and April 1945 2003 Lord President and A2/1 3697 (V2  series as Thompson 4-6-2) were compared to A4 Silver Fox on passenger trains of the day, typically 16-19 total up to 600 tons and with goods trains up to 774 tons.  The A4 was better in coal consumption except on the heaviest trains, where the new A2s were better, the A2s were also better at acceleration. 2003 was slightly heavier on coal than 3697 on account of firebox size. None of the engines had trouble making up time from signal delays, the A2s were well within capacity, steamed well and accelerated better than the A4.

 

So even if they proved pretty poor in BR days they certainly had power!

 

edit; source p151,  RCTS green book 2A  Pacifics, Locomotives of the L.N.E.R.

Edited January 8, 2020 by robmcg

[davidw]

4 hours ago, robmcg said:

I have had a quick look at the RCTS green book 2A LNER Pacifics which has a vast amount of information about the A2 class and sub-classes.

 

One fact which I thought quite interesting was that when the first P2 rebuilds were finished at Doncaster they went into traffic without nameplates, these were in May 1944 still attached to the parts of the donor P2s not necessary for the new engines and were in the scrap road at Doncaster, with the voracious appetite for metal at the time, just before D-day. On 13 May they were taken off and polished and were fitted to their new 4-6-2 engines before June 8th 1944.

 

In Jan and April 1945 2003 Lord President and A2/1 3697 (V2  series as Thompson 4-6-2) were compared to A4 Silver Fox on passenger trains of the day, typically 16-19 total up to 600 tons and with goods trains up to 774 tons.  The A4 was better in coal consumption except on the heaviest trains, where the new A2s were better, the A2s were also better at acceleration. 2003 was slightly heavier on coal than 3697 on account of firebox size. None of the engines had trouble making up time from signal delays, the A2s were well within capacity, steamed well and accelerated better than the A4.

 

So even if they proved pretty poor in BR days they certainly had power!

 

edit; source p151,  RCTS green book 2A  Pacifics, Locomotives of the L.N.E.R.

Agreed, they had double chimneys and were reputedly very free steamers.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

5 hours ago, robmcg said:

...In Jan and April 1945 2003 Lord President and A2/1 3697 (V2  series as Thompson 4-6-2) were compared to A4 Silver Fox on passenger trains of the day, typically 16-19 total up to 600 tons and with goods trains up to 774 tons.  The A4 was better in coal consumption except on the heaviest trains, where the new A2s were better, the A2s were also better at acceleration. 2003 was slightly heavier on coal than 3697 on account of firebox size. None of the engines had trouble making up time from signal delays, the A2s were well within capacity, steamed well and accelerated better than the A4.

 

So even if they proved pretty poor in BR days they certainly had power!...

The power producing components were already well proven, and the A3, A4 and P2 developments had all shown the benefit of the Kylchap ejector, all this was good. Doncaster had this aspect of loco performance 'nailed down'. (And the results would show in the 1948 exchange trials. Well look at that, you don't need an expensive Belpaire firebox, it was a complete vanity. The cheaper round top shoved out more power on less coal and water.

 

An excellent summary overview is found in 'Thompson and Peppercorn Locomotive Engineers' by HCB Rogers. The blunt unvarnished truth (which doesn't find favour in some quarters): the Thompson pacifics failed as vehicles due to a weak frame construction forward of the coupled wheelbase. They failed against the criterion set out  justifying their construction; to eliminate the unreliability of the Gresley designs: as it was the Thompson locos that proved less reliable in service - and they went to the scrapper ahead of them in consequence as demand for steam power reduced. Nul Points!

 

 When Peppercorn came to office he found the drawing office staff already had work in hand to revise the frame layout against Thompson's intentions; these were implemented  and the resulting A1 and A2 pacifics were successful. It was as simple as that: use the bogie bearing structure as the frame brace for the outside cylinder mounting and a stiffer frame

construction which better controls the reaction forces was achieved. Fancy, just the same layout as had been long proven on the Gresley pacifics, strange to relate. Don't mess with well proven...

[micklner]

3 minutes ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

The power producing components were already well proven, and the A3, A4 and P2 developments had all shown the benefit of the Kylchap ejector, all this was good. Doncaster had this aspect of loco performance 'nailed down'. (And the results would show in the 1948 exchange trials. Well look at that, you don't need an expensive Belpaire firebox, it was a complete vanity. The cheaper round top shoved out more power on less coal and water.

 

An excellent summary overview is found in 'Thompson and Peppercorn Locomotive Engineers' by HCB Rogers. The blunt unvarnished truth (which doesn't find favour in some quarters): the Thompson pacifics failed as vehicles due to a weak frame construction forward of the coupled wheelbase. They failed against the criterion set out  justifying their construction; to eliminate the unreliability of the Gresley designs: as it was the Thompson locos that proved less reliable in service - and they went to the scrapper ahead of them in consequence as demand for steam power reduced. Nul Points!

 

 When Peppercorn came to office he found the drawing office staff already had work in hand to revise the frame layout against Thompson's intentions; these were implemented  and the resulting A1 and A2 pacifics were successful. It was as simple as that: use the bogie bearing structure as the frame brace for the outside cylinder mounting and a stiffer frame

construction which better controls the reaction forces was achieved. Fancy, just the same layout as had been long proven on the Gresley pacifics, strange to relate. Don't mess with well proven...

Gresley Pacifics were just as bad with problems with cracked frames , Flying Scotsman has to have hers repaired again in the last major overhaul.

 

Thompson didn't do himself any favours by designing a Loco around the coupling rods , it appears that idea, was to justify chopping up the P2's, still no idea how he got away with that decision.

 

The Thompson Pacifics were always doomed in late BR days, due to small numbers in classes , or one offs ,the same happended to the W1 as well and other classes in existence at that time.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

14 minutes ago, micklner said:

Gresley Pacifics were just as bad with problems with cracked frames , Flying Scotsman has to have hers repaired again in the last major overhaul...

Exactly. The weight limits imposed on UK and indeed most European loco designs stands behind this, and was a major bone of contention of the maestro, M. Andre Chapelon. The desired power increases which he and others could deliver, came at the price of the increased forces racking the loco frame to failure that much faster.

 

Doncaster had made a step forward on the A4, the frames putting in better life than the A3 despite the higher power output, but look at the weight of this and the Crewe Duchess design. Neat 22T axleloads on the driving wheels meant the best part of 40T on the carrying wheelsets. Now make an awkward muck of the frame layout as on the Thompson and Stanier Princess pacifics, and the frame has to be longer: extra frame length is yet more weight: you are painting yourself into a corner with a sub-optimal frame length, greater weight for reduced resistance to the racking forces.

 

(The Stanier Princess had constant problems with the outside cylinders working loose, references here: http://www.steamindex.com/locotype/stanloco.htm#prinroyal 

 'Living with Midland Locomotives' (Powell) is very informative on the troubles with Crewe's attempts at pacifics. It was no small problem making the 50% gain in sustained power delivery from that obtainable from 4-6-0s, while staying within the weight limits imposed by the civil engineer.)

[OFFTHE RAILS]

1 hour ago, micklner said:

.................................

Thompson didn't do himself any favours by designing a Loco around the coupling rods , it appears that idea, was to justify chopping up the P2's, still no idea how he got away with that decision.

 

The Thompson Pacifics were always doomed in late BR days, due to small numbers in classes , or one offs ,the same happended to the W1 as well and other classes in existence at that time.

 

The contemporary comment on these Thompson A2s was "designed around their connecting rods" not coupling rods.

I agree that the "rebuild" of the P2s was vandalism and if they were not suitable for work on curved lines in Scotland they should have been moved to the East Coast main line. Thompson wanted a mixed traffic pacific instead of the V2 and should have started with his new build  A2/1s  not the P2s,

Edited January 8, 2020 by OFFTHE RAILS
poor grammar

[Joseph_Pestell]

These three new ECML locos and the new Bachmann V2 all look superb. A bit strange though to be getting so many locos at the same time for the same line. Is this a "Little Bytham effect"?

 

Why did Thompson feel the need to "re-invent the wheel" with a new design rather than build more V2's? The V2 had really proved its ability with heavy trains during the war.

[Flood]

30 minutes ago, OFFTHE RAILS said:

 

I agree that the "rebuild" of the P2s was vandalism ...

Except it can't be vandalism as that is without the permission of the owner and permission to rebuild was granted.

[Denbridge]

1 hour ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

The power producing components were already well proven, and the A3, A4 and P2 developments had all shown the benefit of the Kylchap ejector, all this was good. Doncaster had this aspect of loco performance 'nailed down'. (And the results would show in the 1948 exchange trials. Well look at that, you don't need an expensive Belpaire firebox, it was a complete vanity. The cheaper round top shoved out more power on less coal and water.

 

An excellent summary overview is found in 'Thompson and Peppercorn Locomotive Engineers' by HCB Rogers. The blunt unvarnished truth (which doesn't find favour in some quarters): the Thompson pacifics failed as vehicles due to a weak frame construction forward of the coupled wheelbase. They failed against the criterion set out  justifying their construction; to eliminate the unreliability of the Gresley designs: as it was the Thompson locos that proved less reliable in service - and they went to the scrapper ahead of them in consequence as demand for steam power reduced. Nul Points!

 

 When Peppercorn came to office he found the drawing office staff already had work in hand to revise the frame layout against Thompson's intentions; these were implemented  and the resulting A1 and A2 pacifics were successful. It was as simple as that: use the bogie bearing structure as the frame brace for the outside cylinder mounting and a stiffer frame

construction which better controls the reaction forces was achieved. Fancy, just the same layout as had been long proven on the Gresley pacifics, strange to relate. Don't mess with well proven...

A Belpaire firebox was not a complete vanity. With the right coal, they were vastly superior to a round top, wide firebox. The latter were designed specifically to burn coal with a lower calorific value, such as Yorkshire hards. Swindon machines suffered from WW2 onwards once the government realised it could sell Welsh coal abroad for more than the railways would pay. Pre war a Swindon boiler was the most efficient steam producer in the country.

Edited January 8, 2020 by Denbridge

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

29 minutes ago, Denbridge said:

A Belpaire firebox was not a complete vanity. With the right coal, they were vastly superior to a round top, wide firebox. The latter were designed specifically to burn coal with a lower calorific value, such as Yorkshire yards. Swindon machines suffered from WW2 onwards once the government realised it could sell Welsh coal abroad for more than the railways would pay. Pre war a Swindon boiler was the most efficient steam producer in the country.

You lack the evidence to support these claims. Use a superior coal - higher energy content, minimal ash, among other significant characteristics - and the boiler performs better, naturally enough: but to make the argument this has to be tested on both boilers.

 

The counter claim of reason is that the superior coal will yield better results in any sound boiler design. And the cheaper design starts with that advantage, efficiency is about total costs for the end result. You might recall that the GWR gave Mr Churchward a hard time over this, leading to his famously incorrect answer that one of his could drag two of their's backwards. Something of a joker who knew his argument was a weak one. Shame the GWR board didn't call him on it at the time.

[Flood]

Over the last ten years there have been more than enough threads on RMweb on the pros and cons of Thompson Pacifics.

 

I would like to think that this thread is about Hornby's forthcoming models.