Coach bogie Posted January 26, 2014 Share Posted January 26, 2014 Does anyone know if the current Earl of Berkeley plates are the originals as they continued to be carried on 5060 for several years after the 9017 purchase? Mike Wiltshire Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSpencer Posted January 26, 2014 Share Posted January 26, 2014 According to Eric Mountford, the instruction to paint red backgrounds was issued in November, 1949, and rescinded in April, 1952. This instruction followed a suggestion by a member of public. However, the instruction caused many complaints from photographers, etc.I understand that the instruction was for mixed traffic locomotives, which is why the SVR have a manor (Bradley?) in this mode, and I think Witherslack Hall (GCR?) got the 'treatment'.By the time 'Berkeley' went to the Bluebell, it had lost the name plates. Putting them back on is not strictly within it's time line, seeing as the loco is in BR livery. To someone at the Bluebell, it's a 'namer', however, so they're playing model railway rule number 1. To the Bluebell's credit, they're doing it at 12"-1 foot scale....Hope this helps.Ian Interesting and thanks. When manufacturers do a preserved engine, I think it would be nice if they could state whether or not model represents it in preserved condition. Generally they do but in this case, I wonder if 9017 ran as such in preserved condition and if so, do we know when? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold tomparryharry Posted January 26, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 26, 2014 (edited) Does anyone know if the current Earl of Berkeley plates are the originals as they continued to be carried on 5060 for several years after the 9017 purchase? Mike Wiltshire Hi Mike, I think (not sure) that GW nameplates are class specific, being due to the curvature of the splasher radius. However.. There's no telling if the 5060 plates use the letters off 3217, on a new background plate. Ian Edited January 26, 2014 by tomparryharry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach bogie Posted January 26, 2014 Share Posted January 26, 2014 Hi Mike, I think (not sure) that GW nameplates are class specific, being due to the curvature of the splasher radius. Ian They usually are. With the Earl plates, Swindon just trimmed the backing plate to fit the Castle splashers creating some odd shapes. See below https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=gwr+earl+nameplate&tbm=isch&source=iu&imgil=bUfp3x9le97hIM%253A%253Bhttps%253A%252F%252Fencrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com%252Fimages%253Fq%253Dtbn%253AANd9GcT7R8xyx8Bj5OF1ToH49VhkhAhFmEbV61ct2WNUTJdqmTk59hCh%253B2111%253B1639%253Bkj0MDegUtHLDVM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.flickr.com%25252Fphotos%25252F85045832%252540N07%25252F9872584424%25252F&sa=X&ei=Ye7kUpO0Daev7AbcwYGoBg&ved=0CEAQ9QEwAw&biw=1440&bih=728#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=mWN6jrESW94IIM%253A%3BUnx_fmgXHuxa-M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fupload.wikimedia.org%252Fwikipedia%252Fcommons%252F1%252F1f%252F5043_Earl_of_Mount_Edgcumbe_Tyseley_%283%29.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fcommons.wikimedia.org%252Fwiki%252FFile%253A5043_Earl_of_Mount_Edgcumbe_Tyseley_%283%29.jpg%3B4359%3B3067 I was just wondering if the originals were recut/reused in anyway Mike Wiltshire Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted January 26, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 26, 2014 Interesting and thanks. When manufacturers do a preserved engine, I think it would be nice if they could state whether or not model represents it in preserved condition. Generally they do but in this case, I wonder if 9017 ran as such in preserved condition and if so, do we know when? 9017 has run on the Bluebell carrying nameplates in both GWR green and BR black liveries if published photographs are to be believed. The nameplates are almost certainly replicas I would think - somehow I can't see Swindon hanging on to the original 'Earl' plates when the names were going onto 'Castles' although a lot of old plates did survive, and still do of course. As far as I'm concerned the engine will always be 9017 - that was the number it was carrying when I last saw it, receding into the distance at Talerddig summit. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach bogie Posted January 26, 2014 Share Posted January 26, 2014 (edited) http://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrsa1495.htm This would appear to be an elusive wartime photograph that shows a Dukedog in green 'GWR' livery, It could well be black, but the boiler shade is slightly lighter than the smokebox, so I'd say green. What does everyone else think; is Bachmann's choice of GWR livery credible, given this photograph? I have just come across a clearer version of this image in Great Western Journal no 52 page 197.The tender definately has a diferent hue to the frames and I would speculate it is in green.The engine however, has a continuous shade across and could be black. There were mix and match with liveries as photos show. Same article has reference to 3207 working 12.25 Snow Hill to Stratford 0n 26/1//39. Mike Wiltshire Edited January 26, 2014 by Coach bogie Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSpencer Posted January 26, 2014 Share Posted January 26, 2014 9017 has run on the Bluebell carrying nameplates in both GWR green and BR black liveries if published photographs are to be believed. The nameplates are almost certainly replicas I would think - somehow I can't see Swindon hanging on to the original 'Earl' plates when the names were going onto 'Castles' although a lot of old plates did survive, and still do of course. As far as I'm concerned the engine will always be 9017 - that was the number it was carrying when I last saw it, receding into the distance at Talerddig summit. Indeed that was my problem, the Bachmann 9017, does not have name plates nor red backed cab or running numbers. I was hard pressed to find a photo of her in this condition preserved (I.e not named and with black backed numbers). But found one in the end. The main reason I brought 9017 was because I,m a fan of the Bluebell. Western locomotives have a token appearance on my layout, albeit about 40 engines... 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JZ Posted January 26, 2014 Share Posted January 26, 2014 (edited) Picked up mine yesterday, fitted decoder and gave it a run a short while ago. I took 3 carriages with ease up the 1:80 gradient out of Tolmouth, which is the maximum I am likely to put on it. Will get around to programming it when I finally decide it's final identity. Still find the brake gear attached to the frames grate and looks worse with weathering and unlike the C class and 3F, it shows up badly if it's cut away. Personally I'd rather pay a few quid more and have it right. Other than that, very happy with it. Edited January 26, 2014 by JZ 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David32424 Posted January 26, 2014 Share Posted January 26, 2014 Interesting and thanks. When manufacturers do a preserved engine, I think it would be nice if they could state whether or not model represents it in preserved condition. Generally they do but in this case, I wonder if 9017 ran as such in preserved condition and if so, do we know when? 9017 has run in preservation as Bachmann's version depicts when it visited the Llangollen Railway back in 2009. BR black livery with nameplates removed and safety valve bonnet also painted black only difference being the type of riveted tender. So to a certain extent Bachmann's version 9017 in a "as preserved" condition is accurate to the time it was at Llangollen rather then when based at Bluebell. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSpencer Posted January 26, 2014 Share Posted January 26, 2014 9017 has run in preservation as Bachmann's version depicts when it visited the Llangollen Railway back in 2009. BR black livery with nameplates removed and safety valve bonnet also painted black only difference being the type of riveted tender. So to a certain extent Bachmann's version 9017 in a "as preserved" condition is accurate to the time it was at Llangollen rather then when based at Bluebell. Thanks, a couple of red backed number plates will fix the scene for Bluebell. Not bad I suppose. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobwyer Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 Evening All, I have finished running in my Dukedog, and it now joins the ever growing list to be re-gauged and chipped. I have to say this model is an absolute beauty, runs perfectly and with a few detail/weathering refinements will look the business. I would go as far as to say the best Western RTR model to date! If Bachmann keep this up we are in for a very bright future. Now make my year and announce a 94xx please, pretty please! A quick photo-call before going into temporary storage (just like the real ones!). Regards, Andy. Is it just me or is everyone happy with the obvious error of omission on the front buffer beam, I'm sure that if Hornby had done this then WW3 would have started Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold tomparryharry Posted January 27, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 27, 2014 If you are referring to the coupling hook, then probably yes. Without seeing one, I'd suggest that there is a coupling in the parts bags, and one for the tender, as well. Ian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevelewis Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 If you are referring to the coupling hook, then probably yes. Without seeing one, I'd suggest that there is a coupling in the parts bags, and one for the tender, as well. Ian Confirming that there are 2 coupling hooks + 3 link couplings in the additional parts pack ( there are several additional parts!) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Fatadder Posted January 27, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 27, 2014 Is it just me or is everyone happy with the obvious error of omission on the front buffer beam, I'm sure that if Hornby had done this then WW3 would have started Not happy with it, (or the presumably over large splashes) Hopefully brass masters will bring out a replacement, else I will be drawing up my own! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobwyer Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 (edited) Confirming that there are 2 coupling hooks + 3 link couplings in the additional parts pack ( there are several additional parts!) Should have been clearer, surely the buffer beam itself screams as loud as any 12 spoke wheel, or moulded smokebox door handle. Fortunately the absence of prominent rivets should enable a replacement beam to be easily produced and fitted with the advantage of being able to paint and number accordingly in a non cramped environment twixt hook and buffers Edited January 27, 2014 by bobwyer 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold tomparryharry Posted January 27, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 27, 2014 There has been several pages about the '12 spoke wheel'. My personal take is that Hornby do this sort of thing on purpose, regardless of what they say. They have the correct part in stock, but fail to fit it. The upshot is that everyone screams about what is, in effect, a very poor visual production QC signoff. I fully expect this behavior from Hornby regarding GW stuff, after the debacle regarding the 'tank issues'. Payback, if you will. It seems that Blue Box takes a differing view, and put the bits in. At least the bits are there. I have to go to external suppliers to get the bits to make a 'tank' look right. The annoying thing for me, as a GW modeller, is that I am unable to use the Duke, as it's out of area. Doesn't stop me admiring it, or, for that matter, the Hornby Star, also out of area for me. Ian 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BR(W) Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 Is it just me or is everyone happy with the obvious error of omission on the front buffer beam, I'm sure that if Hornby had done this then WW3 would have started Hello. Could you expand on this, please. From photographs that I have seen of the model, the only problem that I have with the bufferbeam is that it is far too shallow, but, strangely, this doesn't seem to bother me that much. In every other respect the model seems to be a winner. Cheers, BR(W). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Prism Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 It's not clear why Bachmann made the bufferbeam the wrong shape - I can't imagine a NEM pocket swinging round that far even on tight curves. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Fatadder Posted January 27, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 27, 2014 It's not clear why Bachmann made the bufferbeam the wrong shape - I can't imagine a NEM pocket swinging round that far even on tight curves.And there are other ways round it with cranked couplings, longer shaft lengths, body mounting etcParticularly as we are talking the front coupling which a lot of people remove anyway... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidR Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 I caved in yesterday and bought the G W R version, from the Bure Valley Railway shop. Already removed the GWR and replaced with a shirtbutton logo: next renumbering and naming. I've decided on the first one - 3201 'St.Michael'. (I'm a big fan of Marks & Spencer!) 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach bogie Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 I caved in yesterday and bought the G W R version, from the Bure Valley Railway shop. Already removed the GWR and replaced with a shirtbutton logo: next renumbering and naming. I've decided on the first one - 3201 'St.Michael'. (I'm a big fan of Marks & Spencer!) If you are buying the plate from modelmaster, I commissioned the plate as a bit of self indulgence! Mike Wiltshire 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
6892 Oakhill Grange Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Am I missing something about the livery question. Surely figure 490 in Russel Vol 2 establishes that that GWR green livery was used before the renumbering and therefore GWR green with a 90xx number is credible for a class member although perhaps not for 9003. Oaky PS: since as far as I can tell the world ended when Swindon ran out of roundels and I am a figment of my own imagination perhaps I should have kept quiet Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Prism Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Am I missing something about the livery question. Surely figure 490 in Russel Vol 2 establishes that that GWR green livery was used before the renumbering and therefore GWR green with a 90xx number is credible for a class member although perhaps not for 9003. That is correct. You are not missing something. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David32424 Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Here's my belated and fairly basic review of 9017 I've just uploaded to Youtube. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Mawer Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Regarding increasing pulling power of the model, I understand removing the spring on the front bogie so it doesn't remove downward pressure on the front drivers. I don't fully understand the bit about washers on the drawbar. I presume this is the coupling bar between the loco and tender? Where do the washers go? To do what? Has anyone put any lead in the loco body cavity at all? Before I take it apart does anyone know if there is any space? Hollow dome? Rich 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