Rails of Sheffield Improved Precedent Class

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, Brassey said:

Gibson buffers 4905 London & North Western, Webb in my 2018 list.  

 

Found them! confusingly not next to the Whale and Bowen Cooke buffers...

 

2 minutes ago, Brassey said:

you could try a LRM 1500 tender

 

I was surprised, on checking the LRM website, to see that they don't do a whole Improved Precedent.

[Brassey]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I was surprised, on checking the LRM website, to see that they don't do a whole Improved Precedent.

LOCO7 with a choice of tender. I’ve got one and a Whitworth (but for the Small Jumbo i already has a suitable George Norton tender)

 

“L.N.W.R./L.M.S. “Precedent”
Mr. F W Webb introduced the ‘Improved Precedent’ or 66″ Straight Link class as the same basic design as that of the original Precedents, between 1887 and 1890. The entire class was modernised and re-boilered between 1891 and 1895 to provide a total of 166 engines. It was in this form that these engines won most of their fame, with a capacity for hard work combined with an ability to run at high speed. One of the class, Hardwicke, is preserved in the NRM at York. This locomotive is famous for it role on the 1888 and 1895 railway races to the north.The kit is etched in brass with nickel silver for the chassis. The curved running plate is formed over a jig that incorporates the valance, to accurate and straightforward assembly. The etched boiler is pre-rolled and an 1800-gallon tender is supplied as standard. A selection of etched name/number plates is included.
Choice of tender£126.50”

[Compound2632]

33 minutes ago, Brassey said:

LOCO7 with a choice of tender. 

 

Oh dear. Mind's going, I think.

[Brassey]

29 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Oh dear. Mind's going, I think.

I know the feeling. I put a request into 247 Developments for some Precedent nameplates only to discover that the ones I want are included in the LRM kit I have already. Doh!

[Synch]

15 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I have a suspicion that @Brassey knows that; the first LMS livery was the same as the last Midland livery in all points except company insignia; it was applied until late 1927. I happen to think that it suits the locomotive very well, though not as handsome as BR mixed traffic livery (!) - it does work better on small locomotives than large - on a Duchess (the livery was re-used by BR) the vast areas of crimson lake are unrelieved by lining; on this small engine, there's enough lining to go round! Not very many ex-LNWR engines got the LMS standard-issue smokebox door numberplates; this has been variously attributed to Crewe's resistance to Midland innovations or to the design of Webb's smokebox door. However, I suspect that any engine turned out in the full passenger livery would have got one; I'm sure that Bachmann will have done their research on this point in Novelty's case. 

From Essery and Jenkinson's Locomotive Liveries of the LMS, it was apparently due to the fact that Crewe was in the middle of reorganization up until Crimson was dropped for classes like the Precedents in the late 20s, many engines were painted in the erecting shop and as a result got plain black; only four of the Precedents are confirmed as carrying Crimson, and it's interesting how few LNWR passenger engines gained the correct livery before the upheaval.

The smokebox numberplates are another interesting point, after around 1928 the order was to remove them from all pre-grouping locos except Midland engines, this seemed to vary from works to works althought Crewe and St Rollox took up this mandate quite rapidly; Horwich for instance didn't seem to pay much attention, some engines lost their smokebox numberplates at one overhaul only to regain them a few years down the line.

[GeoffBird]

On 09/10/2021 at 20:54, Brassey said:

I know the feeling. I put a request into 247 Developments for some Precedent nameplates only to discover that the ones I want are included in the LRM kit I have already. Doh!

How easy is it going to be to rename and renumber the locos?  It is just a question of sticking the new plates over the old ones?

[Brassey]

1 hour ago, GeoffBird said:

How easy is it going to be to rename and renumber the locos?  It is just a question of sticking the new plates over the old ones?

Whilst rtr is not my thing, the video on here shows the original name and number plates to be just printed on.  So it should be straightforward to stick new plates over the top. I attach plates with evo stick contact adhesive. I do one side at a time and let it set whilst lying flat on the side. Otherwise gravity can shift the plates before the glue goes off. 

[Steamport Southport]

With Bachmann the plates are normally on an etch with the plates printed on.

 

Makes changing identities very easy, especially if it's GWR/BR WR. LNWR will be a doddle.

 

 

Jason

[AlfaZagato]

Were all Improved Precedent-class 'plates the same dimensions?  Or did they change sizes with the length of the name?

[Brassey]

14 hours ago, AlfaZagato said:

Were all Improved Precedent-class 'plates the same dimensions?  Or did they change sizes with the length of the name?

 

They were probably to a standard though IIRC there were some oddities of semi-circular plates covering the whole splasher on some LNWR locos.  If you are buying the plates from a supplier then presumably they would have done the research and consulted photos.  As previously stated above for example, only 4 locos ever carried the LMS red livery so putting some different names on this variant would be wrong.

[Helmdon]

5 hours ago, Brassey said:

only 4 locos ever carried the LMS red livery so putting some different names on this variant would be wrong.

I'd have said 'non prototypical' rather than wrong - depends what you want to do...

[Compound2632]

13 minutes ago, Helmdon said:

I'd have said 'non prototypical' rather than wrong - depends what you want to do...

 

That's a particularly large can of especially vigorous worms you're opening there.

 

Most model railways represent a fictional location, although many will be historically-informed, intending to represent the practice of a particular railway company at a particular time; is it legitimate to have models of actual locomotives etc. in fictional livery? After all, they never actually ran on one's fictional line... How far can history be warped?

[Brassey]

52 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

“ is it legitimate to have models of actual locomotives etc. in fictional livery? After all, they never actually ran on one's fictional line... How far can history be warped?“

If you’re of the school “every layout should have a Flying Scotsman” then I guess anything goes. 

On the other hand, if you’re that concerned about the correct size of nameplate then you might want to get other details right too; such as livery.  The nameplate on HARDWICKE is 46 1/2 inches. Others from photographs, such as PITT and ALMA, were smaller whereas SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN nearly took up the whole splasher!

 

MERRIE CARLISLE was one of the 4 locos to receive the red LMS lining.  Looking in LNWR Liveries, Talbot et al, I find no mention of the LNWR adding Prussian Blue to drop black as mooted in the above video review. This is another falsehood that needs correcting. 

Edited October 14, 2021 by Brassey

[Compound2632]

12 minutes ago, Brassey said:

If you’re of the school “every layout should have a Flying Scotsman” then I guess anything goes. 

 

Full disclosure: I have a Flying Scotsman - Hornby 1980s vintage. The most called-for engine by younger visitors to the layout.

 

While we're there, which were the other two red Precedents, along with Novelty and Merrie Carlisle? Were they all allocated to the same shed?

[Brassey]

33 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Full disclosure: I have a Flying Scotsman - Hornby 1980s vintage. The most called-for engine by younger visitors to the layout.

 

While we're there, which were the other two red Precedents, along with Novelty and Merrie Carlisle? Were they all allocated to the same shed?

Ok hands up … I’ve got a Midland 1F…

 

Precedent LMS nos in red livery:

 

5012 JOHN RAMSBOTTOM

5036 NOVELTY

5050 MERRIE CARLISLE

5069 PENRITH BEACON

 

Source: Yeadon, A Compendium of LNWR Locomotives 1912-1949 Part One Passenger Tender Engines 

 

I have no shed allocations for the LMS sorry. 

[Helmdon]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

That's a particularly large can of especially vigorous worms you're opening there.

 

Most model railways represent a fictional location, although many will be historically-informed, intending to represent the practice of a particular railway company at a particular time; is it legitimate to have models of actual locomotives etc. in fictional livery? After all, they never actually ran on one's fictional line... How far can history be warped?

well you might, for example, want one called Cromwell and really like LMS red.

 

I've been trying to crowbar a Clan onto the 1950s GCLE since the new model was announced and still never found any evidence of one, but what if they'd built the second batch and allocated them to the Southern Region, then one had found its way as far as Woodford, which SR locomotives occasionally did....? 

 

So I'll be renumbering 72004 as the unbuilt 72010 Hengist and crossing my fingers.

 

I don't think that's any better or worse than someone wanting a particular Precedent for whatever reason, which means extending its life for a few years and putting it into a different livery to one it carried. Or just liking one livery over another. 

[Compound2632]

10 minutes ago, Helmdon said:

well you might, for example, want one called Cromwell and really like LMS red.

 

That would be an inappropriately cavalier attitude to historical modelling! Surely a locomotive named after the Lord Protector could be nothing other than black:

 

 

[Embedded link to Warwickshire Railways lnwrrm924.jpg.]

[AlfaZagato]

I just wanted to know how easy it would have been to 'win' a year or two.   Double-checking the dispositions on Wikipedia, looks like Talavera was already one of the last scrapped, so renaming is less of an issue.

[Steamport Southport]

I was going to say "No Flying Scotsmen here", then looked at the shelf and there are four of the things. 

 

All GBL models that are eventually going to be other A3s.

 

 

I suppose I had better start thinking about getting one of these. Problem is everything has come out at the same time!

 

Even just from Rails that includes these, the 812, 18000. I think the NER railcar is imminent which is a possible buy.

 

Then there are the V2s and Compounds (a red one is a must). 

Then Hornby have a few coming out and Rapido, and KR, etc.... 

 

 

Jason

[Helmdon]

2 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

I was going to say "No Flying Scotsmen here", then looked at the shelf and there are four of the things. 

 

All GBL models that are eventually going to be other A3s.

 

 

I suppose I had better start thinking about getting one of these. Problem is everything has come out at the same time!

 

Even just from Rails that includes these, the 812, 18000. I think the NER railcar is imminent which is a possible buy.

 

Then there are the V2s and Compounds (a red one is a must). 

Then Hornby have a few coming out and Rapido, and KR, etc.... 

 

 

Jason

Know the feeling but I’m starting to get back on top of it - the Clan’s come, so my pre-orders are just Lucknow, 5 LNWR Genesis, A5, and the Titfield Thunderbolt. Given the latter is 2023, hopefully it’ll all work out to the satisfaction of my bank manager….

[GNR Dave]

Same here. I think that this is the first time in 20 years of buying model trains that I breathe a sigh of relief when release dates get pushed back.

[Edwardian]

On 14/10/2021 at 15:26, Compound2632 said:

 

That would be an inappropriately cavalier attitude to historical modelling! Surely a locomotive named after the Lord Protector could be nothing other than black:

 

 

[Embedded link to Warwickshire Railways lnwrrm924.jpg.]

 

I will not be wanted one in any colour called Cromwell!

[Edwardian]

On 09/10/2021 at 14:59, Compound2632 said:

 

The model of Lucknow, presented in c. 1895 LNWR condition,

 

 

Is it?

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

I will not be wanted one in any colour called Cromwell!

 

Names from across the politico-historical spectrum are available.

 

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

Is it?

 

Allegedly. The biggest single tell-tale is the lack of coal rails on the tender - introduced in that year and well-nigh universal on passenger engine tenders by the following year, IIRC. It also has the three pre-1903 lamp holders above the buffer beam.

[Ian Hargrave]

On 14/10/2021 at 15:26, Compound2632 said:

 

That would be an inappropriately cavalier attitude to historical modelling! Surely a locomotive named after the Lord Protector could be nothing other than black:

 

 

[Embedded link to Warwickshire Railways lnwrrm924.jpg.]

But which Cromwell ….Oliver or Thomas. ?.  Lucknow is less equivocal. My family has form there in that my paternal great grandmother was apparently born there during the siege,she being the wife of a serving NCO in a cavalry regiment. I suppose I should really stand by brand loyalty and order the namesake. This seems to be shaping as one of the better offerings from what seems to be a rather jaded crop of new releases I think. Dilemma though in that the black LMS version holds much appeal too. Methinks a brighter star rises.