micklner Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, atom3624 said: Fantastic selection of a super-interesting locomotive ... been said before, and by me as well I think ... A few questions wrt the Hornby rendition: 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? Are there any physical differences between the 3 'original format' Hornby models - R3840, R3841, R3842 - body, chassis? 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. The only person to know to the answer any of your questions are Hornby staff , as its not due for another year they probably dont know either !!! . Edited January 12, 2020 by micklner 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Hilux5972 Posted January 12, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 12, 2020 I believe it’s been said the nameplates will be loose in the box for the purchaser to fit. Whether or not they print a nameplate on the loco remains to be seen. It never actually carried a name. Though in saying that it never wore Apple Green, but they are producing a model in that guise so we will see. Will be interesting to see if the never-fitted Pegasus plates for the rebuilt version will be an option. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Hilux5972 Posted January 12, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 12, 2020 Looking online, I found this image of the cigarette card livery. Will see how the models turn out. 3 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
atom3624 Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 (edited) The green does look very nice, particularly with the contrasting grey / black. I still prefer the '1st rebuild grey' but all would be interesting purchases. I've sent a direct message to Hornby relating to my previous questions - single/double blastpipe and nameplates. I'll relate what I can if/when I receive a reply. Al. Edited January 12, 2020 by atom3624 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
atom3624 Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 (edited) Well I've bitten the bullet, and pre-ordered an 'original' and also a BR final edition - A4-style minus valances in dark green. I've 12 months to start squirrelling away .... !! I've not had any definitive confirmation wrt the blastpipes, but am suspecting they'll all be double. If information appears during this year to the contrary, then I'll have to see if I can transfer across to British Enterprise. Odds are it'll be tampo printed with plates, which I wanted to avoid. I've asked Fox if they do the plates - including Pegasus which I believe was a BR option. Al. Edited January 13, 2020 by atom3624 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeoffBird Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 On 12/01/2020 at 12:31, atom3624 said: Fantastic selection of a super-interesting locomotive ... been said before, and by me as well I think ... A few questions wrt the Hornby rendition: 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? Since we won't be able to get Hornby to change their tooling, we are no doubt stuck with the double chimney on the original 10000. According to Yeadon it was based at Neville Hill at the time and only did a few trial trips to Hull and back. We will have to apply Rule 1 and pretend that Gresley was persuaded by Chapelon to fit a double chimney first to 10000 and then later to "Cock o' the North". Only this way can I justify puitting a "Flying Scotsman" headboard on the loco! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
atom3624 Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 I just can't wait to get my grubby little hands on it ... I'll have to, obviously!! As you say, I suspect all will have the double chimney / blastpipe - which I prefer. The marketing 'never existed' one looks great as well ... Just curious - is it longer, LoB, than a final Princess Royal ('Stanier tender')? My guess is it should be. Al. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSpencer Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 It would strike me as a bit odd if they have gone off and done this state of the art model (unlike the Design Smart Cock'O'the North) with only the very short lived double chimney option. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
micklner Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 7 minutes ago, JSpencer said: It would strike me as a bit odd if they have gone off and done this state of the art model (unlike the Design Smart Cock'O'the North) with only the very short lived double chimney option. All we have seen so far is a 3d render, this is a year from the production of a actual model , the sample happended to have a Double Chimney. It will be a very big own goal by Hornby if that option was ever made. As far as I can tell, the Double Chimney was used a for testing two months before its rebuild , there is no indication that it ever pulled a in service train in that period , it would also need extra cowling on the bodywork around the chimney area as well = no chance of it being made. IMHO. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
atom3624 Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 Not like me to contradict ... but ... I actually hope they did get it slightly wrong ... and it is a twin blastpipe version they make - just looks much better - more appropriate for such a relatively vast locomotive. Something that size just looks 'wrong' with a single. Al. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jukebox Posted January 14, 2020 Share Posted January 14, 2020 On 13/01/2020 at 00:38, Hilux5972 said: Looking online, I found this image of the cigarette card livery. Will see how the models turn out. There's also a version of that cigarette card with black smokebox and grey. It'd have been nicknamed a Black Headed Python if it ever got that livery in real life... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSpencer Posted January 14, 2020 Share Posted January 14, 2020 14 hours ago, micklner said: All we have seen so far is a 3d render, this is a year from the production of a actual model , the sample happended to have a Double Chimney. It will be a very big own goal by Hornby if that option was ever made. As far as I can tell, the Double Chimney was used a for testing two months before its rebuild , there is no indication that it ever pulled a in service train in that period , it would also need extra cowling on the bodywork around the chimney area as well = no chance of it being made. IMHO. 11 hours ago, atom3624 said: Not like me to contradict ... but ... I actually hope they did get it slightly wrong ... and it is a twin blastpipe version they make - just looks much better - more appropriate for such a relatively vast locomotive. Something that size just looks 'wrong' with a single. Al. Personally, I have nothing against the double chimney as I built my kit version with it which is a great runner as long as it does not meet anything less than 3ft radius! Just that if I get a second W1, I would prefer her with a single chimney. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
atom3624 Posted January 14, 2020 Share Posted January 14, 2020 2 hours ago, JSpencer said: Personally, I have nothing against the double chimney as I built my kit version with it which is a great runner as long as it does not meet anything less than 3ft radius! Just that if I get a second W1, I would prefer her with a single chimney. I can understand in that respect, just that with a single chimney, it's like the Duchess of Atholl - the single makes it look anaemic in comparison to the beefy double. Much prefer the latter. Al. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
truffy Posted January 14, 2020 Author Share Posted January 14, 2020 (edited) 6 minutes ago, atom3624 said: the single makes it look anaemic in comparison to the beefy double. Much prefer the latter. I agree that the double makes it look more beefy; but, at the end of the day, I much prefer whatever's prototypical for the locomotive in service. Otherwise, I'd opt for nameplates too! Edited January 14, 2020 by truffy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
atom3624 Posted January 14, 2020 Share Posted January 14, 2020 I was hoping that the nameplates would be included separately, and without the risk of the 'tampo printed' ones being on the locomotive - thus a 2-in-one. This would give options and save production costs. I was erring towards the named one, hoping for separate plates, but decided on an 'original', and have contact Fox to see what they can do - both British Enterprise and Pegasus. Al. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
truffy Posted January 14, 2020 Author Share Posted January 14, 2020 9 minutes ago, atom3624 said: I was hoping that the nameplates would be included separately, and without the risk of the 'tampo printed' ones being on the locomotive - thus a 2-in-one. This would give options and save production costs. I would also have thought that this approach would make stock allocation and tracking easier, resolving to only one R number. But there's also the likelihood that people would complain about having to stick nameplates on, especially if there's no tampo to line up with. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
atom3624 Posted January 14, 2020 Share Posted January 14, 2020 Are we going back to the Hattons 66 comments, and railway 'modellers'? !! I totally understand your comments Truffy, which are unfortunate. What's difficult about lining up a painting / photograph on the wall? ... Al. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted January 14, 2020 Share Posted January 14, 2020 20 hours ago, atom3624 said: ...is it longer, LoB, than a final Princess Royal ('Stanier tender')? Best part of a foot longer over buffers in original form. 75' 3 7/8" Whole five eighths of an inch longer as rebuilt, shaved off the front end. 74' 4 7/8" 7P 74' 4 1/4" Total wheelbase W1 64' 3 1/8" 7P 63' 10" The concern would be to make them a fit for a 70' balance turntable bridge. I doubt that any of the UK railway boards would have greeted a request for yet longer turntable provision with any joy. (Dimensions from the Haresnape books, usually reliable!) 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
drmditch Posted January 14, 2020 Share Posted January 14, 2020 What a shame the Hush-Hush never got a tender with a suitably matching profile! It's even more of a shame that the simple engineering faults were never properly corrected. (Ref. William Brown's most interesting book.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Headstock Posted January 14, 2020 Share Posted January 14, 2020 36 minutes ago, drmditch said: What a shame the Hush-Hush never got a tender with a suitably matching profile! It's even more of a shame that the simple engineering faults were never properly corrected. (Ref. William Brown's most interesting book.) Afternoon drmditch, few would be aware that the major engineering fault was eventually resolved. How embarrassing it must have been for the LNER when it was finally realized what the problem was. In its final form, working with the counter pressure locomotive, the Hush Hush put up some prenominal performances. The problem was that the locomotive was deliberately arrested, so that it should theoretically be equivalent to the A1 pacific, thus the performance of the two could be directly compared. By the time that the LNER realized were the problem lay and sorted it out, the A1 Pacific had already been superseded in both fuel efficiency and power output by the A3 super Pacific. As a result, the Hush Hush was rendered somewhat redundant. The locomotive still had the potential for the artificial blocks to be removed and its full power to be unleashed. However, the undoubted success of the A3 pointed the design team off in new directions, culminating in the A4 and the eventual rebuilding of the Hush Hush. Despite what many out of date accounts would have it, the water tube boiler worked exactly as designed, what a shame that a simple engineering fault traced to Darlington works sabotaged it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSpencer Posted January 14, 2020 Share Posted January 14, 2020 34 minutes ago, Headstock said: Afternoon drmditch, few would be aware that the major engineering fault was eventually resolved. How embarrassing it must have been for the LNER when it was finally realized what the problem was. In its final form, working with the counter pressure locomotive, the Hush Hush put up some prenominal performances. The problem was that the locomotive was deliberately arrested, so that it should theoretically be equivalent to the A1 pacific, thus the performance of the two could be directly compared. By the time that the LNER realized were the problem lay and sorted it out, the A1 Pacific had already been superseded in both fuel efficiency and power output by the A3 super Pacific. As a result, the Hush Hush was rendered somewhat redundant. The locomotive still had the potential for the artificial blocks to be removed and its full power to be unleashed. However, the undoubted success of the A3 pointed the design team off in new directions, culminating in the A4 and the eventual rebuilding of the Hush Hush. Despite what many out of date accounts would have it, the water tube boiler worked exactly as designed, what a shame that a simple engineering fault traced to Darlington works sabotaged it. At the same time the RN rejected high pressure water tube boilers for its warship designs after trails on one ship failed. The USN built a class of ships with them, sorted the problems out which gave them more compact and more fuel efficient machinery. The cumulated in 1000psi boilers by the end of WWII. Now what if the W1 had been built in the US? The problem with the UK in the 30s, we were perhaps too quick to write off new designs before getting basic problems sorted out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
atom3624 Posted January 14, 2020 Share Posted January 14, 2020 After the rebuild, they were said to be both vastly superior to the original design, yet still remained 'restricted', with the increased-size cylinder valves being too small ... Sounds like in whichever form, it could have been a lot more than it was ... pity!! Al. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hroth Posted January 14, 2020 Share Posted January 14, 2020 25 minutes ago, JSpencer said: The problem with the UK in the 30s, we were perhaps too quick to write off new designs before getting basic problems sorted out. Not just the 30s. Look at another new Hornby announcement for 2020, the APT. The prototype hurried into service before the bugs were sorted, tried by media, executed by a railway-disliking government and the technology sold off. A couple of decades later, the technology was re-imported from Italy to improve the WCML services. Oh well, I'm getting closer to ordering a W1... 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
drmditch Posted January 14, 2020 Share Posted January 14, 2020 Do thoroughly recommend Mr Brown's book. (Although it seems to have a silly price on Amazon!) 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold tractionman Posted January 14, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 14, 2020 2 minutes ago, drmditch said: Do thoroughly recommend Mr Brown's book. (Although it seems to have a silly price on Amazon!) £19.95 here--http://www.crecy.co.uk/hush-hush-the-story-of-lner-10000 cheers, Keith 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now