Rails of Sheffield Improved Precedent Class

[Helmdon]

2 hours ago, john new said:

If the  LNWR era is not the one you specifically model, but you want one of these, you could always buy Hardwicke and run it with four BR blue grey mark1s. It may well look odd but would be correct (number of coaches is from memory but won’t be far out).

 

Not for my model of the GC extension in the 1950s.....

 

not that it has stopped me, but it’ll be Lucknow and Genesis for me (both ordered)

[1BCamden]

 

Just love the look of these and the balance of the LNWR Precursor Family.

Edited March 9, 2021 by 1BCamden
added footnote

[1BCamden]

 

notice the difference between the model and the prototype, an easy fixable problem, photo dated 26th March 1932 just before withdrawal.

photo credits to WarwickshireRailways.com

Edited March 9, 2021 by 1BCamden

[Compound2632]

7 minutes ago, 1BCamden said:

notice the difference between the model and the prototype, an easy fixable problem.

 

Model not blowing off?

[Compound2632]

But really, the only think that leaps out at me is the thicker-than-scale flange of the dome and safety valve casings. Am I missing something else?

 

[1BCamden]

circa 1922

again photo credits WarwickshireRailways.com, much thanks

Edited March 9, 2021 by 1BCamden

[Compound2632]

Well, late LNWR condition not as clean as the post-1928 LMS condition! Did tenders retain Webb buffer guides when engines got the later type?

[1BCamden]

10 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

But really, the only think that leaps out at me is the thicker-than-scale flange of the dome and safety valve casings. Am I missing something else?

 

check out the buffers, Talavera was withdrawn in December 1932, would they have changed the buffers over between March and December that year, maybe....

Fortunately Bachmann are on the ball regarding this matter, the model comes supplied with Webb and Cook style buffers.

Edited March 9, 2021 by 1BCamden

[LNER4479]

19 minutes ago, 1BCamden said:

notice the difference between the model and the prototype, an easy fixable problem,

Prototype doesn't have a front tension lock coupling?

 

Looks a lovely model!

[Compound2632]

2 minutes ago, 1BCamden said:

check out the buffers, Talavera was withdrawn in December 1932, would they have changed the buffers over between March and December that year, maybe....

 

Ah, are those even longer guides in the March 1932 photo than in the c. 1922 photo? A subtlety beyond me I'm afraid. I've got Lucknow on pre-order; my problem will be making some coal rails to mover her forward to c. 1902.

[1BCamden]

7 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

Prototype doesn't have a front tension lock coupling?

 

Looks a lovely model!

Well picked, I missed that one haha

[1BCamden]

6 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Ah, are those even longer guides in the March 1932 photo than in the c. 1922 photo? A subtlety beyond me I'm afraid. I've got Lucknow on pre-order; my problem will be making some coal rails to mover her forward to c. 1902.

Compound2632, you are right on the money, the Webb and Cook buffer intermix, and whether they would have been changed prior to withdrawal.

[1BCamden]

1 hour ago, 1BCamden said:

Compound2632, you are right on the money, the Webb and Cook buffer intermix, and whether they would have been changed prior to withdrawal.

Regarding Lucknow, lucky you, I’m struggling to find any detail regarding the prototype LNWR Lucknow 1673, maybe a name change to 1745 John Bright

 

Edited March 9, 2021 by 1BCamden

[Compound2632]

43 minutes ago, 1BCamden said:

Regarding Lucknow, lucky you, I’m struggling to find any detail regarding the prototype LNWR Lucknow 1673, maybe a name change to 1745 John Bright

 

I will be looking for an identity change to an engine based at Monument Lane, Aston, or perhaps Walsall, c. 1902

Edited March 9, 2021 by Compound2632

[1BCamden]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I will be looking for an identity change to an engine based at Monument Lane, Aston, or perhaps Walsall, c. 1902

LNWR 2-4-0 Improved Precedent No 1676 'The Nile' is seen standing at the up platform on a up semi-fast express service circa 1901, unfortunately the coal rails appear standard by this time, maybe Bachmann might do a parts supply

It’s possible that this engine could have seen Aston, or Walsall 

Edited March 9, 2021 by 1BCamden

[Compound2632]

5 minutes ago, 1BCamden said:

LNWR 2-4-0 Improved Precedent No 1676 'The Nile' is seen standing at the up platform on a up semi-fast express service circa 1901

It’s possible that this engine could have seen Aston, or Walsall 

 

That is, I think, Tamworth, so it's on the Trent Valley line - maybe a triangular diagram but otherwise sadly missing Brum!

 

EDIT: or possibly Lichfield Trent Valley, but same difference.

 

No. Definitely Tamworth.

Edited March 9, 2021 by Compound2632

[Legend]

I’ve gone for the red one , but the black one looks nice . But at that price I’m afraid one will suffice 

[1BCamden]

21 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

That is, I think, Tamworth, so it's on the Trent Valley line - maybe a triangular diagram but otherwise sadly missing Brum!

 

EDIT: or possibly Lichfield Trent Valley, but same difference.

 

No. Definitely Tamworth.

Sorry about that, yes Tamworth Station

[Edwardian]

I have a 6 ft, 6 in. Straight Link model, an old GEM kit.  I suppose what I would like most is a 6 ft. Straight Link (Waterloo/Whitworth), but that won't happen until I have the time and skill to tackle the London Road kit. Anyway, I speculated with hope in my heart that by the date of my 1905 layout, it might not be too improbable to see an Improved Precedent on a cross country through service, rather than on a WCML express. With that in mind, I found I lacked enough reasons to resist this release.

 

Lacking any detailed knowledge of LNWR locomotive history, I naturally plumped for 1673, rather than navigate the potential anachronisms of the preserved example (there generally are one or two inconsistent features even in the best preserved locos, I find).

 

I assume 1673 was chosen as there is a nice profile photograph in the condition represented by the model; pre-1896 with no coal rails and with black coupling rods. 

 

Now I wonder which might be the more convenient change; adding coal rails to Lucknow (which probably means soldering up some brass strip absent a convenient fret for sale), or changing the buffers on Hardwicke?  I have yet to trawl suppliers' catalogues to see if there are suitable Webb buffers available. 

 

Are there any other anachronisms on the preserved loco that show up on the model, or are the buffers the only inconsistency with 1900s in-service condition?

[john new]

White cab roof.

[Edwardian]

1 hour ago, john new said:

White cab roof.

 

Thanks. I think I might manage to deal with that, however!

 

I was thinking more of physically, or affecting areas of complex livery. I assume that the Hardwicke model has fluted rods? If so, I suspect that feature is also more appropriate for Compound/Stephen's 1902 setting and my 1905? 

 

The Lucknow model has the earlier plain rods.

 

The Lucknow model appears to sport two cab roof whistles. This I find hard to spot in pictures, though I think I see two in the picture posted earlier of 1745 John Bright (in which the loco also has plain black rods and no tender rail, suggesting early condition to me). The Hardwicke model seems to have a single whistle, which seems the arrangement in later pictures of the prototypes.  Does anyone have a date for this change please?

 

As it is, to my uneducated glance, it seems that Lucknow has an extra whistle, plain black rods and a lack of tender rails, none which reflects the 1900s condition as I currently understand matters. Of the required changes, replacing the rods and fabricating and fitting coal rails seem non-trivial amendments.

 

Whereas, Hardwicke has the correct rods  (in the correct colour), the desired coal rails, a single whistle, but a white roof and Bowen Cooke (?) buffers. Repainting the roof and replacing the buffers seems preferable, to me, than making the necessary changes to Lucknow. 

 

Unless I've missed some other feature on Hardwicke that would require amendment, I conclude that I have ordered the wrong model!

 

I suppose I could approach LRM over Webb buffers.  I always feel I should order a kit when I ask for spares from LRM (who have always been a pleasure to deal with) because they don't, I think, advertise components as such.  Perhaps this is God's way of telling me to order a Waterloo/Whitworth kit. 

 

 

 

Edited March 11, 2021 by Edwardian
grammar

[PaulRhB]

Has anyone heard of an expected date for these to arrive this year? I’ve had a mooch around but can’t see one. 

[Norton961]

I think that there is another difference that the model of Hardwick has over the LNWR condition. The preserved Hardwick has 4 washout plugs on the firebox so if the model is to be backdated then these will need filling in.

 

David

 

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

The Lucknow model appears to sport two cab roof whistles. This I find hard to spot in pictures, though I think I see two in the picture posted earlier of 1745 John Bright (in which the loco also has plain black rods and no tender rail, suggesting early condition to me). The Hardwicke model seems to have a single whistle, which seems the arrangement in later pictures of the prototypes.  Does anyone have a date for this change please?

 

The second whistle was actuated by the Harrison communication cord - the exterior type strung through hoops on the eves of the carriage roof. (In an emergency, there was a one-in-two chance of leaning out of the right side of your compartment...) The change-over from this to internal cord acting on the automatic brakes took place over several years from c. 1900. So I think the best one can say c. 1902 is "in course of removal". Might be complete by 1905?

 

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

The Lucknow model has the earlier plain rods.

 

I hadn't clocked that. 

 

The tender coal rail change seems to have been rapid, over no more than 18 months.

 

I'm sticking with Lucknow for now, anyway, although the thought of one in Midland livery is tempting, to complement my 1532 Class 0-4-4T in LNWR livery!

Edited March 11, 2021 by Compound2632

[Edwardian]

20 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

The second whistle was actuated by the Harrison communication cord - the exterior type strung through hoops on the eves of the carriage roof. (In an emergency, there was a one-in-two chance of leaning out of the right side of your compartment...) The change-over from this to internal cord acting on the automatic brakes took place over several years from c. 1900. So I think the best one can say c. 1902 is "in course of removal". Might be complete by 1905?

 

 

Thanks, that's helpful

 

20 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

I hadn't clocked that. 

 

The tender coal rail change seems to have been rapid, over no more than 18 months.

 

I'm sticking with Lucknow for now, anyway, although the thought of one in Midland livery is tempting, to complement my 1532 Class 0-4-4T in LNWR livery!

 

My current thought is to spend more money!  I like the idea of an early 1890s Improved Precedent, so won't muck about with Lucknow.

 

I'm minded, though, to invest in Hardwicke as well, and some replacement buffers. 

 

That would be for CA 1905, so begs the question of identity.  The service would come onto the WNR system via GER Peterborough, so might come, via Wansford, from, say Rugby or Northampton way.  Not clue as to LNWR allocations or where to seek them.

 

I idly wonder whether a re-boilered surviving Precedent could be represented by the model?