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

[MikeParkin65]

10 minutes ago, Flood said:

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.

Agreed - there are currently 181 pages on this over at National Preservation - some it VERY acrimonious! https://www.national-preservation.com/threads/edward-thompson-wartime-c-m-e-discussion-2012-2020.35938/

[Denbridge]

1 hour ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

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.

Rubbish. A Swindon boiler Was the most efficient design produced prior to ww2. So much so, that designers across the country aimed to emulate Churchwards design. Yes it was more expensive initially but that was repaid by longer steaming hours between works attention. Swindon boilers using Welsh coal burned less coal and used less water to perform the same work as a Gresley, Stanier or Maunsell boiler. All proven at the time. This isn't to say those boilers were in any way inferior. They were designed to do the required work on their own railways. Remember NO designer would want to include a rear truck if it wasn't necessary.  Pacifics, like Atlantic's before them were born out of the necessity of requiring a wide firebox  to burn the fuel available to them. Even Gresley, following the Castle/A1 trials stated that the Churchward/Collett 4.6.0 represented the ideal in terms of motive power and went on to use many of Churchwards principles. 

[Denbridge]

1 hour ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

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.

The evidence is out there in numerous publications by engineers and authors who actually know or knew their stuff and wrote without bias towards a particular railway or designer.

[Steamport Southport]

Oh god, not the Thompson V Gresley nonsense again...

 

Thompson built probably the best locomotive the LNER ever had in the B1.  So why all the negative comments about Thompson? Not on here, but in general.

 

Gresley locomotives had awful problems with the valve gear that they spent most of the LNERs existence and after trying to sort out. Still a problem with the preserved examples. They were also very poor steamers. Look at all the effort they put into experiments with chimneys and drafting.

 

So of course they were all going to be rebuilt eventually. So why do the Gresley worshippers all get upset that 4470 was rebuilt. It was getting rebuilt into an A3 anyway. They were running a railway, not a museum. And definitely not a beauty contest.

 

And a Castle could pull two of the bu66ers backwards. Proven with 4079 v 4474....

 

 

 

 

Jason

[G-BOAF]

Why do the Thompson pacifics, with their missing cylinders above the bogie wheels, look so ungainly, when similar arrangements on the GWR Castles and Kings look so spot on and not too bad on the LMS Princess Royals?

Is it something to do with the fact we are used to seeing cylinders above the bogies on LNER pacifics?

 

[HonestTom]

1 hour ago, AlexHolt said:

I'm sure these will sell well enough, even though people seem to bash Thompson locomotives there are still plenty of Thompson locomotives on the market, Hornby B1, Bachmann B1, Hornby O1, Hornby L1, these have sold well enough for reruns in the past so theres obviously some demand for them. 

In my case, I'm not modelling the LNER or the East Coast, or even trying to be historically correct. I'm just running whatever I want because I think it looks nice or different to what I already have. From what I've seen this is what quite a few of the younger generation of railway modellers are doing these days.

 

Currently we can only guess at liveries. I'm going to guess that they will be whats shown on the Hornby product pages, but Cock O The North is listed as an Era 4 (BR Early) but shows a BR Late Crest photograph, not sure if it will be BR Green with Early Crest or Apple Green with British Railways lettering. 

 

 

 

LNER express locos seem to sell pretty well generally. I reckon there are quite a few people who will buy these to fill in the gaps in their East Coast line-up.

 

I wonder if they'll sell to people who already bought the pre-rebuild Cock O' The North and want to complete the story? Certainly that was my thought when the model was announced.

[Joseph_Pestell]

13 minutes ago, G-BOAF said:

Why do the Thompson pacifics, with their missing cylinders above the bogie wheels, look so ungainly, when similar arrangements on the GWR Castles and Kings look so spot on and not too bad on the LMS Princess Royals?

Is it something to do with the fact we are used to seeing cylinders above the bogies on LNER pacifics?

 

 

I don't think it's the cylinders. It's more about the wheels being in the wrong place (and perhaps a few inches too small).

[Headstock]

On 06/01/2020 at 21:37, micklner said:

Rumour is that they have taken so long that, Bachmann have decided to make them as A2/1 's to spite Hornby.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Afternoon Mick,

 

I haven't looked in on RM web in ages. Perhaps lured back by the RTR examples of locomotives that many claimed would never be produced RTR. I must say, there is more misinformation per line with regard to real steam locomotives, or bits of them, on this thread than I have read in quite sometime, I shan't hang around here too long. However, being laid low by toothache, the partisan nonsense made me laugh and cheered me up considerably. I do hope that the arrival of all this collectible stuff will not put you off producing your own superb models.

 

I would have honestly bought an LNER green A2/2, my first RTR purchase in many years. Unfortunately, silly old Hornby are not making one!  You've missed your chance to 'pod person' me from modeller to collector Hornby. Now I shall have to consider back dating and repainting one while continuing to admire your own efforts, re 503 Lord president . See what you've done Hornby, made me a modeller to the day I die, probably from toothache.

 

I would be interested in your thoughts with regard to converting the Hornby LNER A2/3. How feasible would it be to convert this to the LNER A2/2, with a bit of patch painting? I assume a new cab (or at least spectacle plate and roof) wing deflector's, sandbox fillers and new S curve to the running board against the firebox, anything else that I have missed, boiler? I think that Hornby produce better pure LNER locomotives than Bachmann, with the exception of the valve gear and the terrible tender ride height problem. I think that the latter is corrected on the Hornby A1, hopefully that will be the tender used on the Thompson Pacific's and they make a special effort with the valve gear.

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, G-BOAF said:

Why do the Thompson pacifics, with their missing cylinders above the bogie wheels, look so ungainly, when similar arrangements on the GWR Castles and Kings look so spot on and not too bad on the LMS Princess Royals?

Is it something to do with the fact we are used to seeing cylinders above the bogies on LNER pacifics?

 

 

The cylinders were two big on the A2/2, thus the bogie was moved further forwards. If positioned as in the King etc, the rear wheels would have hit the cylinders on some curves. The GWR layout worked to a certain extent due to the small cylinders. However, it was not perfect and derailments were not uncommon in some yards.

Edited January 8, 2020 by Headstock
add r to certain

[micklner]

51 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Afternoon Mick,

 

I haven't looked in on RM web in ages. Perhaps lured back by the RTR examples of locomotives that many claimed would never be produced RTR. I must say, there is more misinformation per line with regard to real steam locomotives, or bits of them, on this thread than I have read in quite sometime, I shan't hang around here too long. However, being laid low by toothache, the partisan nonsense made me laugh and cheered me up considerably. I do hope that the arrival of all this collectible stuff will not put you off producing your own superb models.

 

I would have honestly bought an LNER green A2/2, my first RTR purchase in many years. Unfortunately, silly old Hornby are not making one!  You've missed your chance to 'pod person' me from modeller to collector Hornby. Now I shall have to consider back dating and repainting one while continuing to admire your own efforts, re 503 Lord president . See what you've done Hornby, made me a modeller to the day I die, probably from toothache.

 

I would be interested in your thoughts with regard to converting the Hornby LNER A2/3. How feasible would it be to convert this to the LNER A2/2, with a bit of patch painting? I assume a new cab (or at least spectacle plate and roof) wing deflector's, sandbox fillers and new S curve to the running board against the firebox, anything else that I have missed, boiler? I think that Hornby produce better pure LNER locomotives than Bachmann, with the exception of the valve gear and the terrible tender ride height problem. I think that the latter is corrected on the Hornby A1, hopefully that will be the tender used on the Thompson Pacific's and they make a special effort with the valve gear.

Swings and rounabouts spring to mind re A2/3 to A2/2 !.

 

The big obvious difference is the Cab , on my A2/2 s , I used one of the  GBL A4 Mallard £5 version copies V Cab, simply glued to the Bachmann A2 Boiler after cutting the Boiler to fit, it glued well. Phoenix Paints list the smoke defelectors under the DMR range they now sell. Boiler ,Graeme KIng may still have resin parts for dome , footplate etc . He did have superb etches as well for the various valve gear set ups  for the Thommo Locos. The A2/3 Tender the body of  which will have to be a all new moulding will be the rivetted  version, again spares box etc for a correct Tender or sand off a lot of rivets !

 

I would personally buy a Hornby A2/2, and just change the cab area and add any other minor details needed,. I presume at the moment, that it will be much easier way to convert to a LNER A2/2.

 

As you have a least a year to wait hopefully the Toothache will be long forgotten by then !!

[Hilux5972]

Someone asked for a video? 
 

https://youtu.be/Kgbdq4nN6OI

[30368]

Anyone intersted in buying my DJH A2/3 kit?

 

Well done Hornby - I model the LSWR/SR etc but am a great fan of the LNER too. Fantastic announcements the "ugly" A2's (well not the A2/1's but that should be possible too) and the W1 in both forms what more could one ask for? Lets hope they all come to market without too much delay.

 

Think I may be running a lot of enthusiasts specials from the East Coast when my 70D layout is completed - we have made a start at long last.

 

Kind regards,

 

Richard B

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, micklner said:

Swings and rounabouts spring to mind re A2/3 to A2/2 !.

 

The big obvious difference is the Cab , on my A2/2 s , I used one of the  GBL A4 Mallard £5 version copies V Cab, simply glued to the Bachmann A2 Boiler after cutting the Boiler to fit, it glued well. Phoenix Paints list the smoke defelectors under the DMR range they now sell. Boiler ,Graeme KIng may still have resin parts for dome , footplate etc . He did have superb etches as well for the various valve gear set ups  for the Thommo Locos. The A2/3 Tender the body of  which will have to be a all new moulding will be the rivetted  version, again spares box etc for a correct Tender or sand off a lot of rivets !

 

I would personally buy a Hornby A2/2, and just change the cab area and add any other minor details needed,. I presume at the moment, that it will be much easier way to convert to a LNER A2/2.

 

As you have a least a year to wait hopefully the Toothache will be long forgotten by then !!

 

Thanks Mick,

 

I had forgotten that the A2/3 had a riveted tender. With removing the rivets and the boiler bands to create the ex P2 boiler, the loco becomes a virtual repaint. It would be as easy to just build the original version PDK kit and paint it from scratch. I know your not a fan of the PDK, however, despite the quality of the G King castings, there are two many features of the Bachmann A2/A1's that, as a starting point, are poor when compared to the prototype. That said, your conversions are at least as good as any RTR model.

 

Have Hornby missed a trick here in not making the A2/2 as built/rebuilt? Didn't one or two survive in original condition right through to scraping? The A2/2's were only occasional motive power on the B16 diagram's of the time period I'm interested in, so not a great loss there being more important models to create. At the end of the day, my custom, or lack of, is no big deal to Hornby and most will not bothered by such details in different locomotives.

 

Re tooth, it's to be yanked, the bad news is that the dentist can't numb it up, it didn't work on me, at least not on this tooth. Sedation and an accompanying responsible adult (how embarrassing being taken to the dentist) is required. The good news is that there is a wisdom tooth likely to surface once it's gone.

Edited January 8, 2020 by Headstock
add that

[Corbs]

I think it's great that Hornby have chosen to do these models. It was less than a year ago I was talking to Simon A.C.Martin on the Edward Thompson podcast episode and we discussed the lack of focus on Thompson's locos and their representation in model form.

The full episode is here in case anyone is interested or hasn't seen it before:

 

[APOLLO]

Regarding big locomotives the 3 cylinder Union Pacific 2-12-2's used Gresley valve gear, later modified with roller bearings in the valve gear for better reliability. 88 were built.

 

https://www.steamlocomotive.com/locobase.php?country=USA&wheel=4-12-2&railroad=up

 

The locomotives had been delivered as "slow-speed units" with a restriction of 35-mph. "However," Bruce comments,"because of the long wheelbase the engines were very stable riding [sic], and speeds of 60 mph or over were very frequently reported." They also handled 2 % grades and 6-8 degree curves despite their extreme length.No other railroads built such long-wheelbase engines, however. Another unusual note about this class was that the highest axle loading was found on the trailing truck under the firebox and not one of the driving axles.

 

 

I'd love to be on board one of these thundering across Wyoming at 60mph !!

 

I have pre-ordered a "Cock of the North" - Plenty of time to save up for her. I think Hornby are on a winner with this one. 

 

Brit15

[micklner]

35 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Thanks Mick,

 

I had forgotten that the A2/3 had a riveted tender. With removing the rivets and the boiler bands to create the ex P2 boiler, the loco becomes a virtual repaint. It would be as easy to just build the original version PDK kit and paint it from scratch. I know your not a fan of the PDK, however, despite the quality of the G King castings, there are two many features of the Bachmann A2/A1's that, as a starting point, are poor when compared to the prototype. That said, your conversions are at least as good as any RTR model.

 

Have Hornby missed a trick here in not making the A2/2 as built/rebuilt? Didn't one or two survive in original condition right through to scraping? The A2/2's were only occasional motive power on the B16 diagram's of the time period I'm interested in, so not a great loss there being more important models to create. At the end of the day, my custom, or lack of, is no big deal to Hornby and most will not bothered by such details in different locomotives.

 

Re tooth, it's to be yanked, the bad news is that the dentist can't numb it up, it didn't work on me, at least not on this tooth. Sedation and an accompanying responsible adult (how embarrassing being taken to the dentist) is required. The good news is that there is a wisdom tooth likely to surface once it's gone.

A2/2 no idea if any remained the same to the end , I would be suprised if they did.  I will have a look later.

What parts on the Bachmann A2 do you not like ?

PDK I have only built their A1/1 , the fold up chassis was poor in the extreme , too wide= zero sideplay when built, no detail it didnt even have springs etched on or supplied. Average castings at best, and a resin boiler . It even had rivets on the Cabsides whch only the A2/3 had etc etc. Poor research and appeared to have been rushed into production. Mine was sold on, and a Hornby / KIng version in LNER versions Blue and Green built instead much better detail and they go round corners !

Good luck with tooth , I had one broken in half  pulled a while ago not pleasant !!

 

[robmcg]

A very good discussion in that rather long video, many good points made around 54-55 mins.  I haven't looked at it right through, it's summer here and beautiful weather, albeit the fires in Aus are very sad.

 

I think the Thompson Gresley debate might go on for ever, am I allowed to say I like both?  and look forward to excellent Hornby models, all power to Paul Isles at Hornby and those who have to untangle the subtleties of the various engines involved. A2/2 LNER 505 'Thane of Fife'  for me please , maybe I'll paint mine wartime black and run it without plates. Park it next to a wartime black V2 and watch them hiss steam at each other.

 

oops.

 

FWIW I judge the views of R H N Hardy and O S Nock to be my guide. edit; and Peter Coster writes very well about the A2s in the Irwell Book of A1 and A2 Pacifics.

Edited January 8, 2020 by robmcg
additions

[robmcg]

22 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

Regarding big locomotives the 3 cylinder Union Pacific 2-12-2's used Gresley valve gear, later modified with roller bearings in the valve gear for better reliability. 88 were built.

 

https://www.steamlocomotive.com/locobase.php?country=USA&wheel=4-12-2&railroad=up

 

The locomotives had been delivered as "slow-speed units" with a restriction of 35-mph. "However," Bruce comments,"because of the long wheelbase the engines were very stable riding [sic], and speeds of 60 mph or over were very frequently reported." They also handled 2 % grades and 6-8 degree curves despite their extreme length.No other railroads built such long-wheelbase engines, however. Another unusual note about this class was that the highest axle loading was found on the trailing truck under the firebox and not one of the driving axles.

 

 

I'd love to be on board one of these thundering across Wyoming at 60mph !!

 

I have pre-ordered a "Cock of the North" - Plenty of time to save up for her. I think Hornby are on a winner with this one. 

 

Brit15

 

Yes I have illustrated these. Very much the reason why the UP Challenger 4-6-6-4 eventuated, but a tiny bit off-thread perhaps.   even if the 4-12-2s had conjugated valve gear..

Edited January 8, 2020 by robmcg

[60027Merlin]

8 hours ago, OFFTHE RAILS said:

 

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,

 

The rebuilt P2s were in fact transferred down south in the late 40s as they could not cope with the diagrammed trains. However, there was no requirement to transfer them to the ECML as they always worked on the ECML either as P2s or A2/2s, the Edinburgh to Aberdeen road being part of the ECML.  

 

[robmcg]

Having done some enjoyable reading, I think we overlook the wartime conditions facing the LNER too often when judging Thompson. We tend to overlook the suddenness of the need for a new CME, Gresley hadn't considered retirement, and the A3s weren't doing brilliantly with wartime conditions. Who could have foretold the future in late 1941? 

 

I think also the LNER built too many Pacifics, in the end.  The A2 ride and front end flexing was an issue but not insurmountable,  Thompson had to build many parts of engines by fabricating them. His B1, K1 and O1 engines were excellent,  and I love the prospect of seeing the A2/2 and A2/3s by Hornby.

 

And we underestimate the fact that the engines were a result of a team of skilled Doncaster and other men. The books I have looked at (partly in all cases in this A2 regard) are Irwell's, RCTS, and a bit of Hardy, and with the heat generated by the subject I' might prefer the Thomas Hardy  to the former,     hmmm... I wonder what Tuplin might have thought?

 

 S A C Martin wrote in 2012 (I think)

"I think in that respect, the Thompson Pacifics could be considered "successful" if we accept that which they were designed for - a higher level of standardization between locomotive classes, and removing certain flaws in Gresley's designs - ultimately as prototypes, proved the theory for certain components to produce what I (personally) consider the height of Pacific locomotive design in this country."

 

While many disagree, Colonel H C B Rogers who wrote 'Express Steam Locomotive Development in Great Britain and France' puts the question rather pointedly on the last page of the book about 532 'Blue Peter'  "Is this then the finest of all our existing express locomotives and the pinnacle of British express steam?"

 

And Blue Peter was after all  development of a Thompson design, albeit with Gresley and Doncaster parts.

 

 

 

Edited January 8, 2020 by robmcg

[micklner]

57 minutes ago, micklner said:

A2/2 no idea if any remained the same to the end , I would be suprised if they did.  I will have a look later.

What parts on the Bachmann A2 do you not like ?

PDK I have only built their A1/1 , the fold up chassis was poor in the extreme , too wide= zero sideplay when built, no detail it didnt even have springs etched on or supplied. Average castings at best, and a resin boiler . It even had rivets on the Cabsides whch only the A2/3 had etc etc. Poor research and appeared to have been rushed into production. Mine was sold on, and a Hornby / KIng version in LNER versions Blue and Green built instead much better detail and they go round corners !

Good luck with tooth , I had one broken in half  pulled a while ago not pleasant !!

 

Lord President and Mons Meg retained the wedge shape Cab and original Boiler diagram till the end . Hornby presumeably dont want to take the risk of spending extra money on additional tooling/ versions.

[Mad McCann]

I believe there is sufficient commonality on a superficial level between A2/1 and A2/2 that it may be possibly without too much trouble to produce the former from the latter (in BR condition at least).

I fully expect to be put to rights on that score by someone here! 

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, micklner said:

A2/2 no idea if any remained the same to the end , I would be suprised if they did.  I will have a look later.

What parts on the Bachmann A2 do you not like ?

PDK I have only built their A1/1 , the fold up chassis was poor in the extreme , too wide= zero sideplay when built, no detail it didnt even have springs etched on or supplied. Average castings at best, and a resin boiler . It even had rivets on the Cabsides whch only the A2/3 had etc etc. Poor research and appeared to have been rushed into production. Mine was sold on, and a Hornby / KIng version in LNER versions Blue and Green built instead much better detail and they go round corners !

Good luck with tooth , I had one broken in half  pulled a while ago not pleasant !!

 

 

Thanks Mick,

If the wisdom tooth doesn't come through I shall 3d print a replacement.

 

Re the Bachmann A2. I always find the Bachmann stuff a little clunky compared to Hornby locomotives. Even the new V2 looks a bit thick and chunky on the boiler bands, the depth of the running board and tender side sheets for example, though the over all shape looks to be the finest that Bachmann have achieved with an LNER locomotive. There is something about the shape of the Bachmann A1/ A2 that doesn't quite flow together properly, there is something of the silhouette that is wrong. There is no doubt that the A1 in particular is inferior to the DJH model in all respects. Bachmann seem to do much better with, more angular, industrial looking stuff.

I'm not sure how much of the Bachmann A2 you retain in your conversions, so some of this is possibly not relevant. It's the atrophied parts, such as the tender and Cartazzi axle boxes and the stubby steps. The horrible dome, the superheater and the reversing leaver covers, all look to have melted. The rear loco frames look very wide apart as do the tender frames, is this so? The valve gear is probably not relevant to our conversion, though it is usually better proportioned (except the terrible K3) than Hornby's, it tends to be spoilt by some toy like giant screw sticking out of some unfortunate location. I don't like them as models, however, a lot of what I have pointed out can be corrected so the fundamentals are probably rightish.

 

So, no A2/2 as built and Lord P and Mons Meg are no go at anytime. Lord P and C of the N are the two I have referances for, both York engines, nothing on Earl M though.

[woodenhead]

This is to help Sam of Sam's trains who wielded his empiric knowledge of all things trains on his special Hornby announcements (complete with affiliate link).  That he thought the W1 became an A4 shows he does not bother with any real research beyond what is placed in front of him.

[woodenhead]

2 minutes ago, AlexHolt said:

 

Oh dear, thats not good is it.

 I've noticed things like that in the past. Such as with his Bachmann A2 review where he called it a Thomson A2 even though the Bachmann model is a Peppercorn model. Would have thought he'd put a bit more effort in to it now that he has a larger number of subscribers and views. 

His fans love him so he must be doing something right, I switched off.