Jump to content

Hornby 2021 - Revised tooling A1 and A3


Recommended Posts

 

Built in August 1924, Gresley designed A1 No. 2564 was typical of the majority of the class in being named after a racehorse, in this case ‘Knight of the Thistle’, winner of the 1897 Royal Hunt Cup. The locomotive was the second of 20 A1s to be built by the North British Locomotive Company rather than being built at Doncaster Works. Under Thompson’s 1946 renumbering scheme ‘Knight of Thistle’ became locomotive No. 65. The locomotive was rebuilt to A3 specification in March 1947 and continued in service until being withdrawn by BR in June 1964. 
 

Slide70.JPG

 

LNER No. 2547 ‘Doncaster’ was built in August 1924 to A1 specifications. The locomotive was not named after the locomotive works that built it but after the 1873 Derby winner. The locomotive was rebuilt to A3 specification in May 1946 and at the same time received the number 48 as part of Thompson’s renumbering scheme. Upon nationalisation the locomotive was renumbered 60048 and remined in service with BR until September 1963.
 

Slide71.JPG

 

LNER No. 2544 ‘Lemberg’ was built at Doncaster Works in July 1924 as a member of the A1 Class. In 1927 'Lemberg' became one of the first of the class to be rebuilt as an A3 Class locomotive. In 1946 ‘Lemberg’ was renumbered under Thompson’s renumbering scheme, becoming No. 45 before being renumbered again upon nationalisation of the railways, becoming BR No. 60045. As with other A3s, a double chimney was fitted to ‘Lemberg’ in 1958 followed by smoke deflectors to combat the resultant reduction in visibility caused by the softer exhaust blast. After a long service, the locomotive was withdrawn in 1964. 
 

Slide72.JPG

 

As the first steam locomotive to achieve an official 100mph run back in November 1934, this high-speed steam locomotive is instantly recognisable and has become an icon of British railway engineering.

 

A1 Class 4472 ‘Flying Scotsman’ entered traffic on the 24th of February 1923, unnamed, as LNER No. 1472. Selected as the LNER's prestige exhibit for the forthcoming British Empire Exhibition at Wembley, 1472 emerged from Doncaster Works on the 2nd of March 1924 with the Company's Coat-of-Arms adorning the cabside, a new number; 4472 and named as ‘Flying Scotsman’. On the 1st of May 1928, and fitted with a corridor tender, ‘Flying Scotsman’ undertook the first non-stop run from London to Edinburgh.

 

In 1946 ‘Flying Scotsman’ was rebuilt to A3 class specification and emerged in January 1947 having been renumbered by LNER as No. 103. In December 1948 ‘Flying Scotsman’ was once again renumbered as a result of the nationalisation of the railways, becoming No. 60103. BR Painted the locomotive in a stunning BR Express Blue livery which was retained until 1954. 
 

Slide73.JPG

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • AY Mod pinned this topic
2 hours ago, woodenhead said:

Lol, I was going to joke about another A3 retool, didn't think there would be one.

I said the same less than 24 hours ago. Big question are these convertible to 1/24th scale RHDR locos like the Tri-ang Lying Scotsman was.

Edited by Clive Mortimore
Link to post
Share on other sites

I do hope Hornby will re-tool the valve gear on these as well. Probably the worst feature of the existing versions. I realise these are only advanced images, but they appear to show the existing gear.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 2750Papyrus said:

Hornby, you'll get in trouble if you don't decide between Knight of the Thistle and Knight of Thistle!

Both are correct. Or rather, both were carried by the locomotive. The Hornby model depicts the earlier form of 'Knight of the Thistle' as built in August 1924 but which was an incorrect title. The error was corrected to 'Knight of Thistle' in December 1932. However, the locomotive was paired with a corridor tender in July 1928 and was not paired with a GN type tender again until June 1937. It went into wartime black in March 1944. The illustration therefore is correct for the period 8/24 until 7/28.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jamesC37LG said:

Setting up nicely for a GNR liveried No.1470 announcement in 2022 I see... 

Oh boy, yes! A GNR A1 is something I feel has been overlooked for too long.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Still big sellers , judging from the god awful Ski Jump recent versions,the current tooling is knackered.

 

Hornby have taken the right decision, well done !!!

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The excellent new A2s comfortably leapfrog the Bachmann V2 and are imo the best big LNER engines we've seen so far (but I haven't looked at the retooled P2 thread yet).  Unfortunately, this reworked A1/A3 looks distinctly demi-bottomed in comparison, though of course I can see the advantage of better adhesion in a large steam loco.

 

However the major visual flaw in the current version, at least to a non-specialist like me, is the awful representation of the motion bracket, which is extremely toylike and doesn't match the otherwise very high standard of the model (the ancient Triang model was actually much more lifelike in this one particular feature!).  It's very disappointing that Hornby have not taken the opportunity to address this in the rework of the running plate.  Ironically, the sample of Doncaster is a particularly bad example and shows how sensitive this part is to manufacturing variation.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Ribird said:

Wasn't 'Lemburg' rebuilt as an A3 in 1927? So shouldn't R30087 be an A3 tooling, not A1? (Yes that's the R code, even checked over at Kernow)

Appears to be an A3 in the photo with the superheater header covers on the smokebox (which do look oddly small) so I would hope that it's a typo.

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

The excellent new A2s comfortably leapfrog the Bachmann V2 and are imo the best big LNER engines we've seen so far (but I haven't looked at the retooled P2 thread yet).  Unfortunately, this reworked A1/A3 looks distinctly demi-bottomed in comparison, though of course I can see the advantage of better adhesion in a large steam loco.

 

However the major visual flaw in the current version, at least to a non-specialist like me, is the awful representation of the motion bracket, which is extremely toylike and doesn't match the otherwise very high standard of the model (the ancient Triang model was actually much more lifelike in this one particular feature!).  It's very disappointing that Hornby have not taken the opportunity to address this in the rework of the running plate.  Ironically, the sample of Doncaster is a particularly bad example and shows how sensitive this part is to manufacturing variation.

 

Bear in mind these are artistic renderings rather than the finished product. It isnt just the motion bracket, the motion itself needs retooling, particularly the expansion link and the relationship between that and the crank.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tramshed said:

Both are correct. Or rather, both were carried by the locomotive. The Hornby model depicts the earlier form of 'Knight of the Thistle' as built in August 1924 but which was an incorrect title. The error was corrected to 'Knight of Thistle' in December 1932. However, the locomotive was paired with a corridor tender in July 1928 and was not paired with a GN type tender again until June 1937. It went into wartime black in March 1944. The illustration therefore is correct for the period 8/24 until 7/28.

 

The illustration includes the definite article but the headline reads just Knight of Thistle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JamieR4489 said:

I thought Knight of the Thistle was correct for both the order and the racehorse?

Indeed. This is what Yeadon has to say on the subject "2564's use of 'Knight of the Thistle' apparently came to the notice of Lord Lyon, King of Arms in Scotland, and incurred his displeasure. When that engine was in Doncaster for general repair 9th November 1932 until 2nd January 1933, they saw fit to remove those plates and substitute new ones showing 'KNIGHT OF THISTLE', which was meaningless, both for the Order, and equally, for the race horse. The engine then carried these innocuous plates to its withdrawal". I guess the moral of this story is that then, as now, its not the facts of the case that matter but who gets control of the narrative!

  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MGR Hooper! said:

Did not expect to see a re-tooled LNER A1 and A3. Now I feel like we'll get a revamped LNER A4

Maybe they're working their way through the Sanda Kan designs/tooling replacing them with ones more suitable for their current suppliers? 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, spamcan61 said:

Maybe they're working their way through the Sanda Kan designs/tooling replacing them with ones more suitable for their current suppliers? 


Simon did explain the reason behind it in the video.

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Denbridge said:

Bear in mind these are artistic renderings rather than the finished product. It isnt just the motion bracket, the motion itself needs retooling, particularly the expansion link and the relationship between that and the crank.

 

True - I was assuming these were the new model rather than the current one used to illustrate liveries and I agree about the motion.  Hopefully we will be pleasantly surprised.  A model to the overall standard of the A2s would be very nice indeed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tramshed said:

. The illustration therefore is correct for the period 8/24 until 7/28.

With the number on the cab side! It will be accurate for a far shorter time frame than that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be great to have seen a double chimney late crest A3 as mentioned  without deflectors, with GNR or high sided A3 tender. These go for stilly money on eBay....

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • AY Mod unpinned this topic

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.