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

[Headstock]

2 hours ago, robmcg said:

 

Well said, and Thompson avoided the Belpaire too...  and an ex-firemen from Annesley I know via Facebook says the O1 was far better to fire than an 8F  no bias there!

 

The Thompson O1 has been a vastly underrated locomotives over the years, more for the connoisseur of performance rather than a popularity contest winner. The Annesley Woodford runners were extremely taxing workings. They were sharply timed, with a train departing Annesley ever half hour. If a train was only a minute late of the yard, it would be cancelled and later reinserted back into the sequence.  Locomotive turnround was very demanding and only one stop was allowed for water on an out and back working. The locomotives were required to maintain an average of 35 MPH on route, the runners were the fastest unfitted freight workings in the country. The locomotives were also expected brake a 750 ton unfitted freight train within section.

 

Extensive testing was carried out with different classes of 2-8-0 in the late 1940s. Such unrelated classes as the Gresley 3 cylinder O2 and the Austerity 2-8-O failed to match the performance of the Thomson O1. So successful was the Thompson locomotive, that all but five of the class was allocated to Annesley shed. When the Stannier 8F came to Annesley in the 60s, they also struggled to match the performance of the O1's on the runners. Only the mighty 9F's matched and surpassed them, when the Eastern region concentrated its single chimney locomotives at Annesley in the later 1950s. The five locomotives not allocated to Annesley were sent to Tyne Dock to work the Consett Iron ore trains, again it took the 9F's to displace the O1's from these services.

 

There was a fixed set of criteria to successfully work the Annesley Woodford runners. The Thompson O1 was master of the job, no other eight coupled heavy freight locomotive in the country could match them, those that tried were found wanting.

Edited January 15, 2020 by Headstock
clarify a point

[robmcg]

Brilliant summation Headstock, thankyou.  I have photos of 9Fs on shed at Annesley and here's one by Blii Wright, a fireman there.  He praised the O1 above the 8Fs too.

 

 

Another friend who who there in those days saw the pic and commented, said, 'these were HAMMERED every day'.

 

A bit off-thread but the O1 sure was a Thompson success! 

 

Even more off-thread, I've gone and bought another Hattons/Heljan Garratt...  I wonder how they would have done on runners.  

 

Here is a photo by Chris Ward from the O1 days which gives something of the atmosphere. 1954.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 16, 2020 by robmcg

[Willie Whizz]

From what I've heard of the Garratts' weaknesses, on such demanding workings (speed and braking as well as just raw haulage) they'd probably have knocked themselves to pieces within the week ...

[robmcg]

2 minutes ago, Willie Whizz said:

From what I've heard of the Garratts' weaknesses, on such demanding workings (speed and braking as well as just raw haulage) they'd probably have knocked themselves to pieces within the week ...

 

I suspect there may be a germ of truth in that..!

 

But they DID bring  80 load 1,200-ton loose-coupled trains to London for 25 years..... and all the subtleties of the up-and-down Midland Main Line to deal with....  I fear I am drifting a bit too far off thread! 

 

Except to say, I tend towards the S A C Martin view of things.  Did S A C MARTIN finish his book about Thompson? 

 

 

[Hilux5972]

Here’s a cropped image from Kernows Facebook page. And also a link to a video from Hattons explaining the difference between the /2 and the /3. 
https://youtu.be/rZdmL0k59aE

[Londoner]

On 15/01/2020 at 22:28, Headstock said:

 

The Thompson O1 has been a vastly underrated locomotives over the years, more for the connoisseur of performance rather than a popularity contest winner. The Annesley Woodford runners were extremely taxing workings. They were sharply timed, with a train departing Annesley ever half hour. If a train was only a minute late of the yard, it would be cancelled and later reinserted back into the sequence.  Locomotive turnround was very demanding and only one stop was allowed for water on an out and back working. The locomotives were required to maintain an average of 35 MPH on route, the runners were the fastest unfitted freight workings in the country. The locomotives were also expected brake a 750 ton unfitted freight train within section.

 

Extensive testing was carried out with different classes of 2-8-0 in the late 1940s. Such unrelated classes as the Gresley 3 cylinder O2 and the Austerity 2-8-O failed to match the performance of the Thomson O1. So successful was the Thompson locomotive, that all but five of the class was allocated to Annesley shed. When the Stannier 8F came to Annesley in the 60s, they also struggled to match the performance of the O1's on the runners. Only the mighty 9F's matched and surpassed them, when the Eastern region concentrated its single chimney locomotives at Annesley in the later 1950s. The five locomotives not allocated to Annesley were sent to Tyne Dock to work the Consett Iron ore trains, again it took the 9F's to displace the O1's from these services.

 

There was a fixed set of criteria to successfully work the Annesley Woodford runners. The Thompson O1 was master of the job, no other eight coupled heavy freight locomotive in the country could match them, those that tried were found wanting.

Hi Headstock, interesting post. I know little about these trains and GC line working. I'd be interested to know why the two cylinder O1s were preferred to the 3 cylinder O2s. Do you have a reference to any material about this? If so, perhaps you could flag it u to me.  Thanks.

[Headstock]

2 hours ago, Londoner said:

Hi Headstock, interesting post. I know little about these trains and GC line working. I'd be interested to know why the two cylinder O1s were preferred to the 3 cylinder O2s. Do you have a reference to any material about this? If so, perhaps you could flag it u to me.  Thanks.

 

I don't know the specific criteria for the O2 but I can guess. They were basically slow mow sloggers. With relatively low boiler pressure and more primitive valve events, they were the same generation as the original GNR Pacific. When class O2 was worked over the Worsbrough incline, they were regarded as somewhat sluggish in comparison to the more familiar Robinson 04. The three cylinders arrangement made them sure-footed but Fuel economy would have been poor when trying to run at speed. Fuel economy was crucial on the runners, unless you wanted run out of water, to kill your fireman and get out and push your locomotives home.

 

The O1 one could run fast, the 8F could run and pull just as well when you got them going but at a heavier cost in coal and water. The O1 could out accelerate the Stannier from a standing start, or when the power was put on during up hill running. Being able to run fast with perfect confidence in your braking system is a tremendous advantage. The steam brake on class O1 seems to have been highly effective when making fast brake applications from speed, when compared to the vac braking of other heavy freight locomotives. This combination of fast running, rapid acceleration, quick braking, low maintenance / quick turnaround and fuel economy was a killer. They were basically more modern locomotives than class O2, not much more modern. Basic freight train operation and the types of locomotives being designed to run it were still pretty much last century.

[Londoner]

On 18/01/2020 at 18:25, Headstock said:

 

I don't know the specific criteria for the O2 but I can guess. They were basically slow mow sloggers. With relatively low boiler pressure and more primitive valve events, they were the same generation as the original GNR Pacific. When class O2 was worked over the Worsbrough incline, they were regarded as somewhat sluggish in comparison to the more familiar Robinson 04. The three cylinders arrangement made them sure-footed but Fuel economy would have been poor when trying to run at speed. Fuel economy was crucial on the runners, unless you wanted run out of water, to kill your fireman and get out and push your locomotives home.

 

The O1 one could run fast, the 8F could run and pull just as well when you got them going but at a heavier cost in coal and water. The O1 could out accelerate the Stannier from a standing start, or when the power was put on during up hill running. Being able to run fast with perfect confidence in your braking system is a tremendous advantage. The steam brake on class O1 seems to have been highly effective when making fast brake applications from speed, when compared to the vac braking of other heavy freight locomotives. This combination of fast running, rapid acceleration, quick braking, low maintenance / quick turnaround and fuel economy was a killer. They were basically more modern locomotives than class O2, not much more modern. Basic freight train operation and the types of locomotives being designed to run it were still pretty much last century.

Thanks Headstock, It hadn't occurred to me that the O2 hadn't been rebuilt with the long travel valve arrangements.

[Blandford1969]

On 18/01/2020 at 18:25, Headstock said:

 

I don't know the specific criteria for the O2 but I can guess. They were basically slow mow sloggers. With relatively low boiler pressure and more primitive valve events, they were the same generation as the original GNR Pacific. When class O2 was worked over the Worsbrough incline, they were regarded as somewhat sluggish in comparison to the more familiar Robinson 04. The three cylinders arrangement made them sure-footed but Fuel economy would have been poor when trying to run at speed. Fuel economy was crucial on the runners, unless you wanted run out of water, to kill your fireman and get out and push your locomotives home.

 

The O1 one could run fast, the 8F could run and pull just as well when you got them going but at a heavier cost in coal and water. The O1 could out accelerate the Stannier from a standing start, or when the power was put on during up hill running. Being able to run fast with perfect confidence in your braking system is a tremendous advantage. The steam brake on class O1 seems to have been highly effective when making fast brake applications from speed, when compared to the vac braking of other heavy freight locomotives. This combination of fast running, rapid acceleration, quick braking, low maintenance / quick turnaround and fuel economy was a killer. They were basically more modern locomotives than class O2, not much more modern. Basic freight train operation and the types of locomotives being designed to run it were still pretty much last century.

I wonder as well whether the fact the O1 had outside valve gear also meant quicker and cleaner preparation compared to having to go inside on the O2?

[Headstock]

3 hours ago, Blandford1969 said:

I wonder as well whether the fact the O1 had outside valve gear also meant quicker and cleaner preparation compared to having to go inside on the O2?

 

Good Afternoon Blandford 1969,

 

It is difficult to say on that one, but it is the kind of thing that can make a big difference when having to work the engines. I know that the 8F's were regarded as a right pain in the butt when it came some operations. To quote the Annesley fireman website.

 

'One would think that the “8F”, being the more modern locomotive, would be vastly superior to the ex-Great Central “O4” rebuilds. No way! When cleaning the fire on an “O1”, the fireman could whip out four of the firebars, push the clinker through and have the firebars back in less than half an hour. Not so with the “8F”s! the firebars were twice the length and weight. This, together with a longer firebox made the fireman’s job much more arduous'.

[atom3624]

Obviously still discussing the A2/2 and A2/3 then .....   

 

Al.

[davidw]

I'm looking forward to them. I've a DJH A2/3 and an A2/3 converted from a peppercorn A2 by Tim Easter from Graeme King And Morgan Gilbert. But I anticipate two further A2/3s and two A2/2s. Financing them will be interesting.... 

[D9001]

On 11/01/2020 at 17:04, 'CHARD said:

 

60501             Cock o' the North
60502             Earl Marischal
60503             Lord President
60505             Thane of Fife
60506             Wolf of Badenoch
 

 

Very interesting! Do you have any dates, please? 

[Flood]

Well I hope you all have fun making your A2/2s look as grotty as this one:

Edited April 4, 2022 by Flood

[Londoner]

On 06/01/2020 at 17:20, MikeParkin65 said:

I am led to believe from another forum that Tony Wright of this parish has had some involvement. If thats the case we should be able to relax in the knowledge that models will be correct to prototype

Isn't he a school teacher?

[SomethingTrainLover]

It’s odd, speaking solely on their looks, not that big a fan of Thompson’s Pacifics, but in model form, even the early samples Hornby has shown, they look very appealing. I’m tempted to pick up one of the A2/3s but I should probably wait until after I’ve gotten the W1.

[davidw]

On 24/01/2020 at 23:41, Flood said:

Well I hope you all have fun making your A2/2s look as grotty as this one:

I don't see why not;)

[IMS]

Really looking forward to these models. I think the A2/2s were among the most handsome locos ever built, although the modifications were notorious for causing rough riding and maintenance problems. Saw 60504  Mons Meg once at Essendine, just after I'd run out of film... The individual locos of the type had detail differences mostly documented in the RCTS book on the LNER pacifics.

The A2/3s (and the A1/1 Great Northern) seem to have been much better engines, lasting into the wholesale withdrawal of steam.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

20 hours ago, IMS said:

The A2/3s (and the A1/1 Great Northern) seem to have been much better engines, lasting into the wholesale withdrawal of steam.

The A2/3 was definitely superior to the A2/1 and A2/2, from which this design was developed, the usual benefit of accumulating experience. All of them Kylchap ejector equipped, which meant their power production potential was very good. What may also have helped their longevity could be that the withdrawn A2/2s may have supplied one or more spare boilers, which were the same diagram.

 

Likewise the A1/1 which had an A4 type boiler, and was equipped with the Kylchap ejector, just as the last 4 of the A4s. A little surprising that the boiler didn't get transferred to the spare set of A4 frames, to make a low cost replacement for the A4 lost in the York bombing.

[MikeParkin65]

On 01/02/2020 at 14:17, AlexHolt said:

Hornby have shown off some of the CAD drawings for the A2/2 in their latest Engine Shed Blog. https://www.Hornby.com/uk-en/news/the-engine-shed/Hornby-2020-stephensons-rocket

Image from Hornby Engine Shed

I appreciate this is an early CAD but it will be a first for any mainstream manufacturer if they make a front bogie without the ugly from NEM coupling box. Hope this stays on the production versions (does anyone use the front coupling on their top flight express locos?

[davidw]

1 minute ago, AlexHolt said:

 

The latest Hornby A4 release doesn't have the front NEM pocket. I think its probably going to stay that way from now on with the larger locomotives.

Just checked one of my a4s it was originally Wild swan loco drive. It never has a front nem socket. Though it was possible to fit a front coupling with a bit of fiddling. On the 30 or so A3s and A4s I've got they've only gone front ways fast. Personal ly I don't see the need for s front coupling. Though I appreciate some would require a coupling as per the prototype.

[MikeParkin65]

1 hour ago, davidw said:

Just checked one of my a4s it was originally Wild swan loco drive. It never has a front nem socket. Though it was possible to fit a front coupling with a bit of fiddling. On the 30 or so A3s and A4s I've got they've only gone front ways fast. Personal ly I don't see the need for s front coupling. Though I appreciate some would require a coupling as per the prototype.

Thanks - going to check my 60031 when I get home. Most of my locos are ex LMS so assumed the LNER were the same

[Hilux5972]

The new Kings had a good solution to a front NEM pocket, having it removable. Still gives the option then for running on preserved lines. 

[davidw]

1 hour ago, AlexHolt said:

Some more information posted on the latest edition of The Engine Shed. Final CAD images of the A2/3 and decoration artwork. https://www.Hornby.com/uk-en/news/the-engine-shed/british-railways-standard-2mt-2-6-0-update-on-new-liveries

 

Images are all from Hornby Engine Shed Blog

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's going to be a great model.

[Hilux5972]

46 minutes ago, AlexHolt said:

Looks as though there will be no front NEM pocket on the bogie as Hornby have said that these are the final CADs. 

Was the same with the A4’s. You don’t have express steam locomotives pulling trains tender first at 90mph do you.