Jump to content

truffy

Hornby W1 Hush Hush

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, micklner said:

Excellent photos here , the shade of Grey used is a good match for the last photo above. It also shows the book I have used for reference re the Chimneys fitted on 10000.

 

 

http://www.loveless.co.uk/hushhush/index.html

 

 

 

1 lner W1.jpg

 

 

Interesting that (1) Loveless missed the tender top being black and (2) in the last two views on that linked page, it seems they tried a light and a dark shade, too.  I'd be well pleased with the dark - it seems like a very defendable interpretation.

 

Cheers

 

Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr chapman said:

Doe anyone know if the rear truck will be fixed or able to swing? 

I imagine it will be fixed as per the A4. Though will be interesting to see if they model it as a 4-6-2-2 or a 4-6-4. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Hilux5972 said:

I imagine it will be fixed as per the A4. Though will be interesting to see if they model it as a 4-6-2-2 or a 4-6-4. 

I did wonder, two flangless axles hanging out on a curve might look odd. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr chapman said:

I did wonder, two flangless axles hanging out on a curve might look odd. 

Yeah I agree. Perhaps they will pivot and flange the 1st wheelset next to the driving wheel and have the rear wheelset unflanged? Will be an interesting thing to see what they do. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, jukebox said:

 

 

Interesting that (1) Loveless missed the tender top being black and (2) in the last two views on that linked page, it seems they tried a light and a dark shade, too.  I'd be well pleased with the dark - it seems like a very defendable interpretation.

 

Cheers

 

Scott

Yes agree re Tender Top, the photos  looks like all the same model with light variation to me.

 

I have two of the rebuilt W1 both go around a 30 inch curve without problem, a simple box design for the rear truck . However , I built before them a Finecast version, which was hopeless on corners no idea why and it hanged the Cab out a long way as well on bends.

Graeme Kings A4 conversion kits became available. and I sold the Finecast version on. The Hornby/King W1 has much better detail than the Finecast version (I didnt need the Finecast  weight for my trains either).

 

My rebuilt W1's

 

post-7186-0-68245800-1450180350_thumb.jpgpost-7186-0-66260300-1450274571_thumb.jpg

  • Like 10
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Craftsmanship/clever 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mr chapman said:

I did wonder, two flangless axles hanging out on a curve might look odd. 

It will indeed. Same applies to the Thompson pacifics, they are going to hang out one end or the other, more than previous shorter Doncaster designs, the inevitability of geometry.

5 hours ago, Hilux5972 said:

Yeah I agree. Perhaps they will pivot and flange the 1st wheelset next to the driving wheel and have the rear wheelset unflanged? Will be an interesting thing to see what they do. 

I  expect a pair of rigidly mounted unflanged, and project one will be a replacement internal truck to take flanged wheelsets. The adventures of those that have followed Graeme King and others' doings on LNER forum are most informative, as referred to in 'micklner's' post above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Zero Gravitas said:

 

I’ve always thought that the W1 wheel arrangement was actually a 4-6-2-2, because of the arrangement of the trailing wheels.  Hattons describe it in the video as a 4-6-4.  Have I been wrong all these years?

You can have it either way; Whyte notation doesn’t quite allow for it. You could describe the GWR Iron Duke class as 2-2-2-2. It didn’t have leading bogies but the two leading carrying axles were attached to the frames. You could also describe the LNWR Greater Britain class as 2-2-2-2. It had two driving axles but they weren’t coupled together. This notation masked one essential difference between the two: one had two driving wheels and the other had four. To my mind (personal opinion), the Iron Duke class was better described as a 4-2-2 and the Webb as a 2-2-2-2. Hence, as the trailing wheels of the W1 were unpowered, it would be better described as a 4-6-4.

Curiously, the P1 is usually described as a 2-8-2 but it might be more accurately described as a 2-8-2-0 because the trailing truck was fitted with a booster. Follow that logic to its conclusion and, depending on whether the booster is in use or not, it switches between 2-8-2-0 and 2-8-2 on the move. I suppose that most people who know what the W1 is, know the arrangement of its trailing wheels so perhaps it doesn’t matter very much. However, It seems to me that if the Whyte notation is ambiguously used as in my first two examples, it defeats its purpose.

M’Lud, I respectfully suggest that the number of driving wheels is more important than the arrangement of the carrying wheels, therefore the W1 is a 4-6-4.

(Counsel for the Prosecution points out the importance of the arrangement of the carrying wheels by citing what happened when the leading axle of 2-2-2 3021 Wigmore Castle broke.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, No Decorum said:

You can have it either way; Whyte notation doesn’t quite allow for it. You could describe the GWR Iron Duke class as 2-2-2-2. It didn’t have leading bogies but the two leading carrying axles were attached to the frames. You could also describe the LNWR Greater Britain class as 2-2-2-2. It had two driving axles but they weren’t coupled together. This notation masked one essential difference between the two: one had two driving wheels and the other had four. To my mind (personal opinion), the Iron Duke class was better described as a 4-2-2 and the Webb as a 2-2-2-2. Hence, as the trailing wheels of the W1 were unpowered, it would be better described as a 4-6-4.

Curiously, the P1 is usually described as a 2-8-2 but it might be more accurately described as a 2-8-2-0 because the trailing truck was fitted with a booster. Follow that logic to its conclusion and, depending on whether the booster is in use or not, it switches between 2-8-2-0 and 2-8-2 on the move. I suppose that most people who know what the W1 is, know the arrangement of its trailing wheels so perhaps it doesn’t matter very much. However, It seems to me that if the Whyte notation is ambiguously used as in my first two examples, it defeats its purpose.

M’Lud, I respectfully suggest that the number of driving wheels is more important than the arrangement of the carrying wheels, therefore the W1 is a 4-6-4.

(Counsel for the Prosecution points out the importance of the arrangement of the carrying wheels by citing what happened when the leading axle of 2-2-2 3021 Wigmore Castle broke.)

Surely, the whyte notation is very clear. If wheelsets are linked, ie coupled driving wheels or carrying wheels in a common frame, they are shown as such. Ie a dean single with a leading bogie is a 4.2.2 wheras a Gooch single with independent carrying wheels is a 2.2.2.2. Similarly Drummonds LSWR designs were either 4.4.0 or 4.2.2.0 depending on whether the drivers were coupled or not.

According to whyte  notation,  10000 was a 4.6.2.2 but Gresley himself decreed, for whatever reason,  that it should be classified as a 4.6.4 .

Edited by Denbridge
Spelling
  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this and the Thompson A2's are fantastic additions to the scene - and totally unexpected.

 

Mentioned earlier but not confirmed, do we know if all will be from '1st rebuild' with double chimneys, or will there be a single chimney version as per original?

 

(My personal preference is the double anyway so I'll have to squirrel some funds away .... !!!)

 

 

Generally, which is your preference - squashed sausage or A4-nosed rebuild?

 

Al.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hatton's have posted a short video on the brand new Hornby LNER 4-6-4 W1 "Hush-Hushh"

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone ever modelled or photoshopped the un-rebuilt W1 in Garter blue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the W1 is going to have everyone eagerly awaiting it's arrivel just like the P2 did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, alexl102 said:

Has anyone ever modelled or photoshopped the un-rebuilt W1 in Garter blue?

There have been several models of the original in Apple Green, which results in a very attractive locomotive and was proposed for the prototype,  I don't recall ever seeing one in blue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/01/2020 at 08:39, micklner said:

Yes agree re Tender Top, the photos  looks like all the same model with light variation to me.

 

I have two of the rebuilt W1 both go around a 30 inch curve without problem, a simple box design for the rear truck . However , I built before them a Finecast version, which was hopeless on corners no idea why and it hanged the Cab out a long way as well on bends.

Graeme Kings A4 conversion kits became available. and I sold the Finecast version on. The Hornby/King W1 has much better detail than the Finecast version (I didnt need the Finecast  weight for my trains either).

 

My rebuilt W1's

 

post-7186-0-68245800-1450180350_thumb.jpgpost-7186-0-66260300-1450274571_thumb.jpg

 

Afternoon Mick,


the black paint on the Hush Hush was painted out very quickly. I think that the loco made its first and only run in that condition between works. It was painted out about the time, or just after, that the front grab rail was fitted above the bufferbeam. The colour grey used on the locomotive has been known for sometime. The mixing speck produced by the LNER is still in existence and there is physical evidence of the actual paint used on the locomotive. Loveless has it right for most of the locomotives existence, a medium to dark grey with a greenish tinge.

  • Informative/Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrew,

 

Thanks for the info re colours, is it known if the Tender and Cab interior were also Grey ?

 

Mick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, micklner said:

Andrew,

 

Thanks for the info re colours, is it known if the Tender and Cab interior were also Grey ?

 

Mick

 

Afternoon Mick,

 

A good question. I can only defer to Brown and Loveless.

 

I know that there is a large amount of information on the Hush Hush in the NRM, the so called file. This has sat there virtually untouched and unrecognized for many years. William Brown, author of the brilliant book that rewrites the history of the locomotive and dispels the myths, collaborated with  L H Loveless using the research found in the file. This formed the core of the book and it also provided solid information for the original O gauge model. As far as I am aware, there hasn't been any amendments or updates.

 

It would seem that the backhead, manifold etc would have been black, with interior spectacle plate and side sheets grey. The inside of the coal  space, up to and including the external corridor plating, the water space and water filler, rear and forward bulkheads and the interior tender side sheets were all painted black. Thus from the outside the loco was grey, with the exception of the tender gangway. The out side (cab side) of the forward tender bulkhead was also painted grey. I hope that helps.

Edited by Headstock
add space
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You learn something everyday. I hadn't appreciated this fact (from http://www.loveless.co.uk/hushhush/index.html):

 

"Union of South Africa, 60009 runs today with the tender that was behind Hush Hush for the whole time it was numbered 10000. The W1 got another tender, by coincidence, when it became 60700. The original tender was in store when 60009 was purchased for preservation, the purchaser chose the tender in the best condition to go with it, and the one ex 10000 was the one."

  • Informative/Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Afternoon Mick,

 

A good question. I can only defer to Brown and Loveless.

 

I know that there is a large amount of information on the Hush Hush in the NRM, the so called file. This has sat there virtually untouched and unrecognized for many years. William Brown, author of the brilliant book that rewrites the history of the locomotive and dispels the myths, collaborated with  L H Loveless using the research found in the file. This formed the core of the book and it also provided solid information for the original O gauge model. As far as I am aware, there hasn't been any amendments or updates.

 

It would seem that the backhead, manifold etc would have been black, with interior spectacle plate and side sheets grey. The inside of the coal  space, up to and including the external corridor plating, the water space and water filler, rear and forward bulkheads and the interior tender side sheets were all painted black. Thus from the outside the loco was grey, with the exception of the tender gangway. The out side (cab side) of the forward tender bulkhead was also painted grey. I hope that helps.

Excellent info thanks, just need the Loco now !.

 

For anyone who cant wait, Finecast version of the W1's  are now appearing on ebay .

  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Bluebell Model Railway said:

I'm sure Hornby will do very well with this model. 

 

However what I'm not happy about is people's disregard for ownship of photos. 

 

@jukebox cropped from. My own video...

The @Ribird directly pinched from my PDF...

 

Not impressed gents. Ask permission, If they are not taken down by the end of today I'll will ask the moderator to do so... 6th time this has happened... Getting particularly annoyed and not given any credit. 

Unfortunately this is quite common and much worse in these internet days.

Being polite does not always work.

When I was involved in photography it was common for the national press to use photos without permission.

You just sent them an invoice and they paid up without question.

It might be worth your while taking that line.

At one time I provided a web site that was the definitive site on a certain subject with photographs.

From time to time these were stolen.

We set up a sting where photographs were published with false information.

They were stolen and used in a book.

We laughed, but sadly the false information can and has been repeated.

I now only put on this site and various others photographs that I consider to have no commercial value.

I have had the odd person ask if it is OK to use them so not all people are bad.

Bernard

 

 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Bluebell Model Railway said:

I'm sure Hornby will do very well with this model. 

 

However what I'm not happy about is people's disregard for ownship of photos. 

 

@jukebox cropped from. My own video...

The @Ribird directly pinched from my PDF...

 

Not impressed gents. Ask permission, If they are not taken down by the end of today I'll will ask the moderator to do so... 6th time this has happened... Getting particularly annoyed and not given any credit. 

It is theft of copyright.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fantastic selection of a super-interesting locomotive ... been said before, and by me as well I think ...

 

A few questions wrt the Hornby rendition:

 

  1. We all know the FIRST one should have a single chimney, namely R3840, but I suspect ALL 3 will have a DOUBLE chimney / blast-pipe - can anyone confirm this please?
  2. Are there any physical differences between the 3 'original format' Hornby models - R3840, R3841, R3842 - body, chassis?
  3. R3841 is said to be 'named' "British Enterprise". Will the nameplates be FIXED on the body, or left for the new owner to place if required?

Assuming pre-orders remain, I'm trying to clarify these details before placing my order.

 

Al.

Edited by atom3624

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, atom3624 said:

R3841 is said to be 'named' "British Enterprise". Will the nameplates be FIXED on the body, or left for the new owner to place if required?

 

SPECULATION ALERT!

 

Given that the only difference between R3840 and R3841 is the nameplate, I'm assuming that it's fixed. Otherwise, there'd be no need for two R numbers.

 

TBH, I cannot understand why Hornby release just one version with loose nameplates, but that would probably also result in complaints. Rock, hard place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was precisely the point I was trying to clarify - it would save a lot of hassle.

 

Perhaps the 'box art' is more specific, highlighting the named locomotive?

 

Al.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.