Jump to content
 

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


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, Les1952 said:

 

 

Just to expand on this, the A4 was Walter K Wigham, and the driver Fred Dines- its regular driver.  The situation came about when a few too many Pacifics needed routine maintenance at the same time - piston and valve exams were mileage based and needed a couple of days away at Doncaster.  The version in the Peter Coster book (relater to PC by Peter Townend) said that he agreed to take the loco on strict condition he would have an A4 the next day, and asked on return to keep the A2 until his own A4 came back.  Close enough correlation.

 

There is another tale of an A2, which I can't find, relating a substitute from New England again where the driver had said "It's a fine engine but how do you keep it from trying to go over the fields" or similar.  I wish I could find the story - it will turn up at some stage- too many books and not enough hours in the day.....

 

Les

 

 

Peppercorn A1.

“Driver Arthur Davis had No 60149 Amadis for some time as his regular locomotive. He was not one to complain, but he did ask one day if the locomotive could be stopped from riding across the fields — at times he was worried that it was not on the lines at all.” Top Shed, Townend, 2nd. ed. p. 153.

 

It’s a curious business. It is often told that the design of the proposed Thompson A1s was being delayed until Thompson’s retirement, whereupon redesign of the front end resumed apace. The poor riding of the Thompson Pacifics was attributed to the long space between the bogie and the leading driving wheels. To the consternation of the redesigners, the riding of the Peppercorn A1 was worse. Nock says that the only time he was truly scared on the footplate of a steam locomotive was on one of them. Probably, the longer distance of the bogie ahead of the driving wheels of the Thompsons made them better rather than worse. Somewhere, in my turn I can’t find the reference, I recall reading that the source of the trouble was the use of a B17 bogie. and the strengthening of the side control springs solved the problem.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
7 hours ago, 5944 said:

Is the very back of the cab clipped into the footplate properly? Looks to be a slight gap with the mounting lugs visible. 

Now you mention it, yes there does seem to be a small gap. I’ve gone back to the model and checked and it’s not really noticeable from normal viewing angles and distances so I’m not too worried. It’s only on one side so I can turn it round if necessary!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, No Decorum said:

Peppercorn A1.

“Driver Arthur Davis had No 60149 Amadis for some time as his regular locomotive. He was not one to complain, but he did ask one day if the locomotive could be stopped from riding across the fields — at times he was worried that it was not on the lines at all.” Top Shed, Townend, 2nd. ed. p. 153.

 

It’s a curious business. It is often told that the design of the proposed Thompson A1s was being delayed until Thompson’s retirement, whereupon redesign of the front end resumed apace. The poor riding of the Thompson Pacifics was attributed to the long space between the bogie and the leading driving wheels. To the consternation of the redesigners, the riding of the Peppercorn A1 was worse. Nock says that the only time he was truly scared on the footplate of a steam locomotive was on one of them. Probably, the longer distance of the bogie ahead of the driving wheels of the Thompsons made them better rather than worse. Somewhere, in my turn I can’t find the reference, I recall reading that the source of the trouble was the use of a B17 bogie. and the strengthening of the side control springs solved the problem.

The main problem with the riding of the Thompson Pacifics was the use of a B1 bogie (adequate for a medium-sized loco, but poor for a very big one). Originally, the poor riding was attributed to the long front end on the locos. 

 

Since the Peppercorn Pacifics inherited the same bogie, the poor riding continued and the Thompsons (to some extent) were exonerated (though they still rode wildly). 

 

ALCAZAR was experimentally fitted with an A4 bogie (the loco being modified to suit) and, guess what? It then rode like an A4. Sadly, steam's end was in sight and no further A1s were converted. 

 

I've mentioned this before, but when I started building models of Thompson's Pacifics over 45 years ago, I had the privilege of talking to many professional railwaymen who'd fired them (they now being drivers at Leeds, York and Doncaster diesel depots at the time). None had a good word for them. Though they said some of the A1s rode badly, they preferred them because of their great reliability. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 5
  • Informative/Useful 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

The main problem with the riding of the Thompson Pacifics was the use of a B1 bogie (adequate for a medium-sized loco, but poor for a very big one). Originally, the poor riding was attributed to the long front end on the locos. 

 

Since the Peppercorn Pacifics inherited the same bogie, the poor riding continued and the Thompsons (to some extent) were exonerated (though they still rode wildly). 

 

ALCAZAR was experimentally fitted with an A4 bogie (the loco being modified to suit) and, guess what? It then rode like an A4. Sadly, steam's end was in sight and no further A1s were converted. 

 

I've mentioned this before, but when I started building models of Thompson's Pacifics over 45 years ago, I had the privilege of talking to many professional railwaymen who'd fired them (they now being drivers at Leeds, York and Doncaster diesel depots at the time). None had a good word for them. Though they said some of the A1s rode badly, they preferred them because of their great reliability. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Just goes to show , Tony , that there was a great variation in opinions amongst footplate staff as all the ones I  spoke to mentioned the power & free steaming . However most preferred the Gresley pacifics for their better riding & lower coal consumption .

  Regarding the rough riding it has been said that the De Glehn type bogie & the cartazzi  rear axlebox worked against each other to cause the swinging motion  on the post war engines . Something should have been done about it much earlier to bring their riding up to standard .

                                                                                  Cheers ,

                                                           Ray .                                

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine if Thompson had swallowed his pride back in 1943 and built all his Pacifics with Gresley A4 front bogies.

 

People would now be saying, "Who was that Gresley fellow?"  "Ah yes, the one who insisted on that weird conjugated valve gear...  a nightmare to set up, apparently..."   But BR never converted the conjugated A3s, A4s, V2s and others. Shame, they could have become great locomotives. 

 

 

:)

 

  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, robmcg said:

Imagine if Thompson had swallowed his pride back in 1943 and built all his Pacifics with Gresley A4 front bogies.

 

People would now be saying, "Who was that Gresley fellow?"  "Ah yes, the one who insisted on that weird conjugated valve gear...  a nightmare to set up, apparently..."   But BR never converted the conjugated A3s, A4s, V2s and others. Shame, they could have become great locomotives. 

 

 

:)

 

 

BR swapped a pair of engineers between Swindon and Doncaster, often seen as a way of getting Crewe to look good.  

 

The Swindon man at Doncaster introduced Swindon's method of frame alignment and valve examination, improving the performance of locos with Conjugated valve gear at a stroke, and the Doncaster man introduced LNER-style draughting to Swindon boilers, and fitted Kings and castles with double chimneys, improving their performance at a stroke.

 

In both cases it wasn't thought to be the effect BR heirarchy thought they would get...

 

The A2/1 was a V2 with the conjugated valve gear replaced with three sets of motion.  The lengthening needed made them 4-6-2s rather than 2-6-2s...

 

Les

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Well I was feeling pretty smug because I’d got a decent model of 60501. I ran it in and today fitted a DCC decoder. I immediately had a short and a hole on the decoder - serves me right for not trying it on the programming track first. That wiped the smug smile off my face!

 

I’ve done some tests with a multimeter and I get a short across the motor terminals, even with the tender wiring disconnected at the 4 pin plug,  which doesn’t seem right. On returning the blanking plug and running it on DC I notice that there are some blue sparks from a short on the valve gear. It still runs well on DC but there is obviously enough of a short there to upset DCC. I can probably fix it but don’t want to void my warranty, so will ring my supplier tomorrow.

 

Has anyone else had problems with fitting DCC?

 

If Tony Wright is reading this, please don't laugh too loud!

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

 

  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

Well I was feeling pretty smug because I’d got a decent model of 60501. I ran it in and today fitted a DCC decoder. I immediately had a short and a hole on the decoder - serves me right for not trying it on the programming track first. That wiped the smug smile off my face!

 

I’ve done some tests with a multimeter and I get a short across the motor terminals, even with the tender wiring disconnected at the 4 pin plug,  which doesn’t seem right. On returning the blanking plug and running it on DC I notice that there are some blue sparks from a short on the valve gear. It still runs well on DC but there is obviously enough of a short there to upset DCC. I can probably fix it but don’t want to void my warranty, so will ring my supplier tomorrow.

 

Has anyone else had problems with fitting DCC?

 

If Tony Wright is reading this, please don't laugh too loud!

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

 

 

Evening Greenie,

 

just to add to your woes, Hornby have got the tender wrong for 60501 and the upcoming 60502. As produced, it's only suitable for the loco up until 1948, not in BR green.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Evening Greenie,

 

just to add to your woes, Hornby have got the tender wrong for 60501 and the upcoming 60502. As produced, it's only suitable for the loco up until 1948, not in BR green.

I’d seen your comments. It’s not too noticeable to me and I’m happy enough to live with it. Certainly less of a discrepancy  than I normally make when I build a kit - as you often point out! 

  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

I’d seen your comments. It’s not too noticeable to me and I’m happy enough to live with it. Certainly less of a discrepancy  than I normally make when I build a kit - as you often point out! 

 

Evening Greenie,

 

I don't have your deep pockets, so I have to be more discerning on what I spend my modelling budget on. 

 

Your kit discrepancies provide hours of fun, the domed roof ended tourist twin, that apparently wasn't a tourist twin, rather something new, is still my favourite. It will be a sad day for discrepancies, when you stop asking for prototype info after you have completed a kit and start asking for prototype info before you have started a kit. You could work for Hornby!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Headstock said:

 

Evening Greenie,

 

I don't have your deep pockets, so I have to be more discerning on what I spend my modelling budget on. 

 

Your kit discrepancies provide hours of fun, the domed roof ended tourist twin, that apparently wasn't a tourist twin, rather something new, is still my favourite. It will be a sad day for discrepancies, when you stop asking for prototype info after you have completed a kit and start asking for prototype info before you have started a kit. You could work for Hornby!

That is a ridiculous comment from someone who would rather sit on information than share it. You only come out with your pearls of wisdom when you can knock someone down.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 4
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

While I wait breathlessly for the A2/3 in BR and LNER livery, which will no doubt be greeted by the same chorus of objective comments from people who haven't bought one,  here are my two A2/2s as from the box, natural light,  neither has any major fault and both run very well.

 

 Img_2910abc_r1820.jpg.1391ee1aa80e60d608380d339a1348b9.jpg

 

IMG_2906abcde_r1820.jpg.61c9bcde27d2bdb91bbc57ed0527ffb5.jpg

 

60501 CotN pristine Hornby condition, 60505 ToF TMC 'value weathering'

 

I know I've shown these before, but I think these are nice models, and Hornby are to  be commended in my view.

 

As a committed box-opener I absolutely enjoy these examples of production 'art', which to my mind given the low production volumes, is simply astonishing.  And yes I have had to return or repair a few Hornby models, but not these two.

 

FWIW and it ought not be relevant, my modelling skills are limited by paralysis and only one properly working hand and now cataracts but I can still recognise  a good model, which might add to my perspective on these things.

 

Canon EOS-M half-frame camera at F29 and about 20 secs, ISO 100 room light only.

 

cheers 

 

edit; and here is the same 60505 with digitally-added accessories and a tiny bit of editing.

 

Img_2890abcde_2a_r1820.jpg.e8c042e1a73fd40452d93ba97236f20e.jpg

 

Oh dear no bash plate....    horrors! :)

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by robmcg
added comment and pic and typos
  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

Well I was feeling pretty smug because I’d got a decent model of 60501. I ran it in and today fitted a DCC decoder. I immediately had a short and a hole on the decoder - serves me right for not trying it on the programming track first. That wiped the smug smile off my face!

 

I’ve done some tests with a multimeter and I get a short across the motor terminals, even with the tender wiring disconnected at the 4 pin plug,  which doesn’t seem right. On returning the blanking plug and running it on DC I notice that there are some blue sparks from a short on the valve gear. It still runs well on DC but there is obviously enough of a short there to upset DCC. I can probably fix it but don’t want to void my warranty, so will ring my supplier tomorrow.

 

Has anyone else had problems with fitting DCC?

 

If Tony Wright is reading this, please don't laugh too loud!

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

 


Yes. Sounds like the same problem I had. Check the back of the 8 pin socket for very poor wiring......

 

 

Edited by gordon s
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
4 hours ago, robmcg said:

While I wait breathlessly for the A2/3 in BR and LNER livery, which will no doubt be greeted by the same chorus of objective comments from people who haven't bought one,  here are my two A2/2s as from the box, natural light,  neither has any major fault and both run very well.

 

 Img_2910abc_r1820.jpg.1391ee1aa80e60d608380d339a1348b9.jpg

 

IMG_2906abcde_r1820.jpg.61c9bcde27d2bdb91bbc57ed0527ffb5.jpg

 

60501 CotN pristine Hornby condition, 60505 ToF TMC 'value weathering'

 

I know I've shown these before, but I think these are nice models, and Hornby are to  be commended in my view.

 

As a committed box-opener I absolutely enjoy these examples of production 'art', which to my mind given the low production volumes, is simply astonishing.  And yes I have had to return or repair a few Hornby models, but not these two.

 

FWIW and it ought not be relevant, my modelling skills are limited by paralysis and only one properly working hand and now cataracts but I can still recognise  a good model, which might add to my perspective on these things.

 

Canon EOS-M half-frame camera at F29 and about 20 secs, ISO 100 room light only.

 

cheers 

 

edit; and here is the same 60505 with digitally-added accessories and a tiny bit of editing.

 

Img_2890abcde_2a_r1820.jpg.e8c042e1a73fd40452d93ba97236f20e.jpg

 

Oh dear no bash plate....    horrors! :)

 

 

 

 

 

Get those cataracts fixed Rob, had mine done a couple of years ago, changed my life.

 

Rgds..........Mike

  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Funny 2
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

Well I was feeling pretty smug because I’d got a decent model of 60501. I ran it in and today fitted a DCC decoder. I immediately had a short and a hole on the decoder - serves me right for not trying it on the programming track first. That wiped the smug smile off my face!

 

I’ve done some tests with a multimeter and I get a short across the motor terminals, even with the tender wiring disconnected at the 4 pin plug,  which doesn’t seem right. On returning the blanking plug and running it on DC I notice that there are some blue sparks from a short on the valve gear. It still runs well on DC but there is obviously enough of a short there to upset DCC. I can probably fix it but don’t want to void my warranty, so will ring my supplier tomorrow.

 

Has anyone else had problems with fitting DCC?

 

If Tony Wright is reading this, please don't laugh too loud!

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

 

You've made my day, Andy!

 

I haven't laughed as much since I went to see Dave Allen years ago at Jolly's in Stoke on Trent. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

P.S. My comment is said in jest. I hope you solve the shorting problem...................

Edited by Tony Wright
to add something
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 hours ago, gordon s said:


Yes. Sounds like the same problem I had. Check the back of the 8 pin socket for very poor wiring......

 

 

Thanks Gordon,

 

I knew I’d seen a similar problem recently but forgot it was you and this loco! I did have a look at the back of the blanking plug and it was a bit of a mess but no short circuits. As I said the short is still evident when the tender (and therefore decoder socket) wiring is disconnected so it is not a DCC problem as such, just one which DCC’s sensitivity to short circuits shows up.

 

Andy

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

That is a ridiculous comment from someone who would rather sit on information than share it. You only come out with your pearls of wisdom when you can knock someone down.

 

My apologies if I've offended you Andy, I thought it was a bit of banter but you are obviously deeply upset. To make amends, I promise never to comment on your posts again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
11 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Evening Greenie,

 

I don't have your deep pockets, so I have to be more discerning on what I spend my modelling budget on. 

 

Your kit discrepancies provide hours of fun, the domed roof ended tourist twin, that apparently wasn't a tourist twin, rather something new, is still my favourite. It will be a sad day for discrepancies, when you stop asking for prototype info after you have completed a kit and start asking for prototype info before you have started a kit. You could work for Hornby!

It was me who queered if the kit Andy had purchased was correct, in a PM as not to embarrass him. He then asked in open forum if what I was saying was correct or not. Andy bought the kit in good faith as being correct, after all you have quoted drawings from the same source as being very accurate.  It seems the kit manufacture used the official LNER diagram, which is grossly wrong.

 

Thankfully many people on this forum realise there a wide range of railways, and railway history, not just one failed line in a very short time period like you concentrate on. Most enjoy making, and running their model railways. Another fun part of this hobby which this forum allows us to do is seeing other peoples work. I like seeing what has been built at Coulsdon Works and the comings and goings at Gresley Junction. 

 

Sorry everyone else for going off topic.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Round of applause 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
38 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

My apologies if I've offended you Andy, I thought it was a bit of banter but you are obviously deeply upset. To make amends, I promise never to comment on your posts again.

Pah! Boo! Various other rude comments. How patronising.

M. Gove.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, robmcg said:

While I wait breathlessly for the A2/3 in BR and LNER livery, which will no doubt be greeted by the same chorus of objective comments from people who haven't bought one,  here are my two A2/2s as from the box, natural light,  neither has any major fault and both run very well.

 

 Img_2910abc_r1820.jpg.1391ee1aa80e60d608380d339a1348b9.jpg

 

IMG_2906abcde_r1820.jpg.61c9bcde27d2bdb91bbc57ed0527ffb5.jpg

 

60501 CotN pristine Hornby condition, 60505 ToF TMC 'value weathering'

 

I know I've shown these before, but I think these are nice models, and Hornby are to  be commended in my view.

 

As a committed box-opener I absolutely enjoy these examples of production 'art', which to my mind given the low production volumes, is simply astonishing.  And yes I have had to return or repair a few Hornby models, but not these two.

 

FWIW and it ought not be relevant, my modelling skills are limited by paralysis and only one properly working hand and now cataracts but I can still recognise  a good model, which might add to my perspective on these things.

 

Canon EOS-M half-frame camera at F29 and about 20 secs, ISO 100 room light only.

 

cheers 

 

edit; and here is the same 60505 with digitally-added accessories and a tiny bit of editing.

 

Img_2890abcde_2a_r1820.jpg.e8c042e1a73fd40452d93ba97236f20e.jpg

 

Oh dear no bash plate....    horrors! :)

 

 

 

 

 

Hornby provides a plain hook with no screw link coupling, so there’s nothing to bash the bash plate. I have found that the hook pulls out easily and I have filed down the end of one of Hornby’s own hook and link offerings (R7200) to fit. It would be nice if manufacturers would provide an alternative to a plain hook for those of us who don’t want a tension lock at the front. 

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, robmcg said:

 

People would now be saying, "Who was that Gresley fellow?"  "Ah yes, the one who insisted on that weird conjugated valve gear...  a nightmare to set up, apparently..."   But BR never converted the conjugated A3s, A4s, V2s and others. Shame, they could have become great locomotives. 

 

 

:)

 

That’s a red rag, Rob! There’s lots of argument about the maintenance needed by the gear but very little mention of the driver having to oil round before every turn of duty. I dug and dug and eventually found a comment by Toram Beg. “We could hardly believe our eyes when we went underneath and found only a connecting-rod and 6 oiling points to the bogies and driving-wheels.”

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...