Wright writes.....

[Shaw_Thing_M8]

56 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

60505's unique (for the class) Thompson boiler and extended sandbox filler supports also militate against making 60506 from that source.

 

Ah, that is a shame as I wanted to renumber mine to 60506. Useful to know before I went in half-cocked, perhaps it's possible in the future to address those differences (as well as some of the models QC issues).

 

Cheers

Tilman

[robmcg]

1 hour ago, Manxcat said:

This beauty arrived on Monday from TMC who supplied and weathered it for me. It is superb. 

I will add real coal, lamps and a crew and fit the brake rod assembly which is supplied with the loco. 

This is actually the first RTR loco I have bought where one of the names I wanted was one of those manufactured. 

I did not photograph on my layout because its in the garage and its freezing tonight.

 

 

 

I am so pleased that it looks so good, I have one en route from TMC also weathered, and I am expecting the possibility of one or two assembly issues which appear to be common if the thread in products is accurate.

 

Given that this thread is about modellering, I like to remember the wise words of Tony when he compares RTR to anything one might make for oneself, the relevant costs in time and energy, and of course the relative satisfaction.   Thus the re-attachment or bending of parts is not always too onerous. 

 

I took the liberty of softening the colour in your photo, doesn't she (he) look good!  Will remove if asked.

 

 

I must say TMC have done a lovely job, a hint of rust on tender frames, nice motion near the cylinders, may I ask which TMC weathering 'type' you had specified?

 

 

 

Edited February 14, 2021 by robmcg
typos, addition.

[St Enodoc]

1 hour ago, LNER4479 said:

You'll just have to content yourself making GWR 'County' Tanks, Tony ... or is that more than flesh and blood can stand?

At least you don't have to worry about whether the valve gear's in forward or reverse...

[jimwal]

I have posted the request below in a couple of other places on RM Web and elsewhere but so far with only limited response.

With Tony's thread having such a huge following, I'm hoping someone here maybe aware of other resources.

 

Images of LMS Restaurant Cars in BR times.

 

Looking for photos or sources to the above.

I have all the usual LMS carriage books by Jenkinson and Essery. The images in these are nearly all official 'as built' type shots with very few in the BR period.

I have done some searching of the photographic collections like 'Rail Online' and others. Inevitably many of these are 'loco centric' meaning relatively few rolling stock views.

I have a few pics of 'period 1 & 2' vehicles but very few of 'Period 3' Stanier coaches particularly in BR maroon.

 

Many Thanks 

Jim

[Woodcock29]

5 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I haven't checked, but does 60501 have the joggled vacuum ejector pipe? If not, it should have. 

The obvious question to me is why was there a need to put a joggle in the ejector pipe?

 

I wondered if the nameplates were higher up than on the others? But they weren't when it initially had the early emblem and had the joggle. Later with totem (are my descriptors of totem vs emblem correct? Its not my main period of interest) the nameplates have been moved higher up and 'snuggle up under the joggle on the left hand side. I can see that the position of the boiler handrail varies from in line with the upper smokebox door hinge to in line with the smokebox door handrail but on 60501 when it initially had the early emblem and the joggle the handrail is in the higher position but later on its in the lower position.

 

Should the handrail be higher up on the Hornby model and clipped to the front of the smokebox? A photo dated August 1952 in The Power of the A1s, A2s and A3s shows this. But then a month later during a general overhaul the boiler from 60115 was fitted so potentially everything changes? Is this when the nameplates were moved higher up?

 

The wonders of modelling LNER locos - impossible to get the details right without photos of both sides in the period (probably the actual day!) you want!

 

Isn't it great - the need to paw over photos in an endeavour to get things right!

 

Andrew

Edited February 15, 2021 by Woodcock29

[LNER4479]

9 hours ago, jimwal said:

I have posted the request below in a couple of other places on RM Web and elsewhere but so far with only limited response.

With Tony's thread having such a huge following, I'm hoping someone here maybe aware of other resources.

 

Images of LMS Restaurant Cars in BR times.

 

Looking for photos or sources to the above.

I have all the usual LMS carriage books by Jenkinson and Essery. The images in these are nearly all official 'as built' type shots with very few in the BR period.

I have done some searching of the photographic collections like 'Rail Online' and others. Inevitably many of these are 'loco centric' meaning relatively few rolling stock views.

I have a few pics of 'period 1 & 2' vehicles but very few of 'Period 3' Stanier coaches particularly in BR maroon.

 

Many Thanks 

Jim

Try Robert Carroll's excellent coaching stock album which is kindly available on line:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/robertcwp/albums/72157603653607671

 

It's become my 'go to' source for coaching stock photos in the BR era.

[Tony Wright]

7 hours ago, Woodcock29 said:

The obvious question to me is why was there a need to put a joggle in the ejector pipe?

 

I wondered if the nameplates were higher up than on the others? But they weren't when it initially had the early emblem and had the joggle. Later with totem (are my descriptors of totem vs emblem correct? Its not my main period of interest) the nameplates have been moved higher up and 'snuggle up under the joggle on the left hand side. I can see that the position of the boiler handrail varies from in line with the upper smokebox door hinge to in line with the smokebox door handrail but on 60501 when it initially had the early emblem and the joggle the handrail is in the higher position but later on its in the lower position.

 

Should the handrail be higher up on the Hornby model and clipped to the front of the smokebox? A photo dated August 1952 in The Power of the A1s, A2s and A3s shows this. But then a month later during a general overhaul the boiler from 60115 was fitted so potentially everything changes? Is this when the nameplates were moved higher up?

 

The wonders of modelling LNER locos - impossible to get the details right without photos of both sides in the period (probably the actual day!) you want!

 

Isn't it great - the need to paw over photos in an endeavour to get things right!

 

Andrew

Good morning Andrew,

 

Why the ejector pipe was joggled on 60501, I have no idea.................

 

 

But it was, after it was fitted with a Peppercorn Dia.118 boiler (in your earlier reference, the loco was still fitted with a shortened P2 boiler - common to all six on rebuilding, but only retained by 60503/4 until withdrawal). The nameplate was also raised up. Why? 

 

This shot also illustrates the wisdom of caution when quoting established works. Both the RCTS and John Edgson claim 60501 was never fitted with AWS. Hmnn. 

 

Why 60501's horizontal handrails stopped short of the front is also not known (60505 was the same in this respect). All the other four had their handrails clipped to the smokebox front ring.

 

Like this.........................

 

 

With its straight ejector pipe, 60502 could be easily modelled from Hornby's 60501. All that's needed is to extend those handrails and clip them to the smokebox front. The cab and tender are the same (visually) with turn-ins and beading. 

 

Lowering the front numberplate won't be too easy, requiring some judicious carving, though pre-1955/'56 it was above the handrail. 

 

One thing I've never seen recorded is why the locos with shorter names had their 'plates moved forwards on the smokebox later in their lives. 

 

Ah, those joys of loco-picking.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[jimwal]

27 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

Try Robert Carroll's excellent coaching stock album which is kindly available on line:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/robertcwp/albums/72157603653607671

 

It's become my 'go to' source for coaching stock photos in the BR era.

Many thanks LNER4479. I have already searched Robert's and Paul Bartlett's photo sites. Both are very comprehensive but catering cars could not have been on photographers' agenda at the time.

[TrevorP1]

I'm absolutely the last person to go to regarding individualities of LNER locos (or anything else for that matter) but regarding the ejector exhaust pipes I'm wondering if the differences are due to the positioning of the ejector within the cab?

 

Another individuality is in the picture of 501 above the pipe appears to be joggled slightly downwards as it leaves the cab only to be joggled upwards near the smokebox. In my minds eye I can see a pile of pipework on the floor of the erecting shop and the fitters picking the item that was 'near enough'... 

 

Cab windows appear to be different shapes but presumably this has been picked up on elsewhere.

 

Just little things I've noticed and I'm probably a long way behind the game!  

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, TrevorP1 said:

I'm absolutely the last person to go to regarding individualities of LNER locos (or anything else for that matter) but regarding the ejector exhaust pipes I'm wondering if the differences are due to the positioning of the ejector within the cab?

 

Another individuality is in the picture of 501 above the pipe appears to be joggled slightly downwards as it leaves the cab only to be joggled upwards near the smokebox. In my minds eye I can see a pile of pipework on the floor of the erecting shop and the fitters picking the item that was 'near enough'... 

 

Cab windows appear to be different shapes but presumably this has been picked up on elsewhere.

 

Just little things I've noticed and I'm probably a long way behind the game!  

Good afternoon Trevor,

 

The 'different shapes' of the cab windows (spectacles) between 60501 and 60502 in the prototype pictures I posted is because the latter's is partially open.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

Edited February 15, 2021 by Tony Wright
typo error

[stewartingram]

Do we know when 60502 gained a lipped chimney? I wish to change my 60501 to 60502 in late life, and Hornby have it as a stovepipe.

 

Stewart

[LNER4479]

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Why the ejector pipe was joggled on 60501, I have no idea.................

 

But it was, after it was fitted with a Peppercorn Dia.118 boiler

I think you might have a clue right there. The ejector pipe would be supported along its length by brackets which were attached to the boiler crinoline hoops, which were in turn attached to the boiler barrel. These would have been set up for whichever loco that boiler was first built for. As it would be a 'faff' to adjust the position of these brackets (which would also require the boiler cladding pieces to the modified), the easier option would be to simply joggle the ejector pipe itself, a relatively simply job for a coppersmith.

 

Just supposition on my part but seems logical?

Edited February 15, 2021 by LNER4479

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, LNER4479 said:

I think you might have a clue right there. The ejector pipe would be supported along its length by brackets which were attached to the boiler crinoline hoops, which were in turn attached to the boiler barrel. These would have been set up for whichever loco that boiler was first built for. As it would be a 'faff' to adjust the position of these brackets (which would also require the boiler cladding pieces to the modified), the easier option would be to simply joggle the ejector pipe itself, a relatively simply job for a coppersmith.

 

Just supposition on my part but seems logical?

 

Afternoon Graham,

 

60501 had the jiggle, joggle, wiggle in the ejector pipe in the early fifties, prior to the fitting of the Pepp boiler . If you go even further back, when 60501 was first rebuilt and still numbered 2001, the joggle, jiggle, wiggle ne slope was at t' other end where the ejector pipe exited the cab. Even further back in time, when the locomotive as originally built,  there was also had a slope in the ejector pipe at the cab end.

[Norton961]

A change of topic for the collective. Paul Marshall Potter recently reported that one of his Hornby Re built Patriots has suddenly developed the dreaded “Mazak Rot” in the chassis. Now Mazak rot is nothing new and I believe it is caused by impurities in the metal, but I had thought that more recent models would not suffer from it. My real concern is that many of the recent RTR models not only make use of Mazak for the chassis but things like foot plates, boilers and other parts ( the Hornby Peckett is almost all Mazak castings). 

The Hornby re built Scots and Patriots are of course not covered by warranty but are soon to be unusable.

Has any one else had issues with Mazak on more recent models?

 

David

[Tony Wright]

4 hours ago, stewartingram said:

Do we know when 60502 gained a lipped chimney? I wish to change my 60501 to 60502 in late life, and Hornby have it as a stovepipe.

 

Stewart

Good afternoon Stewart,

 

In The Power of the A2s, Gavin Morrison, OPC, on page 27 there are pictures of 60502. On the 5th of September 1953 she still had a rimmed chimney, but by 'c1955', in the next picture, it's lipped. The numberplate is still above the crossrail, though. So, 1954/1955 for the chimney switch? 

 

The numberplate was still high up as late as 1957, but by by 1959 it was on the top hingestrap. In 1957, she still had the early BR totem, but by 1959 she had the device (The Book of the A1s and A2s, Peter Coater, Irwell Press, pages 148 and 149. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[PMP]

42 minutes ago, Norton961 said:

A change of topic for the collective. Paul Marshall Potter recently reported that one of his Hornby Re built Patriots has suddenly developed the dreaded “Mazak Rot” in the chassis. Now Mazak rot is nothing new and I believe it is caused by impurities in the metal, but I had thought that more recent models would not suffer from it. My real concern is that many of the recent RTR models not only make use of Mazak for the chassis but things like foot plates, boilers and other parts ( the Hornby Peckett is almost all Mazak castings). 

The Hornby re built Scots and Patriots are of course not covered by warranty but are soon to be unusable.

Has any one else had issues with Mazak on more recent models?

 

David

Just to be clear I didn’t say suddenly. They have been stored appropriately for roughly 14 years, and the deterioration occurred in that time frame.
https://albionyard.net/2021/02/14/mazak-rot-a-matter-of-time/

 

Having over the past twenty years or so had many models through the mancave from all uk and a few over seas manufacturers, these two are the only experience I have of it. They are first releases so probably around 2007 for the Scot, maybe a year or so less for the Patriot, and fall into the era where a few types from different manufacturers suffered it. I’ve not seen anything that indicates it’s return on more recent models.

Edited February 15, 2021 by PMP
Date clarity

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, LNER4479 said:

I think you might have a clue right there. The ejector pipe would be supported along its length by brackets which were attached to the boiler crinoline hoops, which were in turn attached to the boiler barrel. These would have been set up for whichever loco that boiler was first built for. As it would be a 'faff' to adjust the position of these brackets (which would also require the boiler cladding pieces to the modified), the easier option would be to simply joggle the ejector pipe itself, a relatively simply job for a coppersmith.

 

Just supposition on my part but seems logical?

But no Peppercorn Dia.118 boiler (which 60501 received) had a joggle in the ejector pipe at the front end; other than that fitted to the loco on receipt. It can't have been the original smokebox grafted on either, because the shortened P2 smokeboxes and the A1 smokeboxes were different in length. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

41 minutes ago, Norton961 said:

A change of topic for the collective. Paul Marshall Potter recently reported that one of his Hornby Re built Patriots has suddenly developed the dreaded “Mazak Rot” in the chassis. Now Mazak rot is nothing new and I believe it is caused by impurities in the metal, but I had thought that more recent models would not suffer from it. My real concern is that many of the recent RTR models not only make use of Mazak for the chassis but things like foot plates, boilers and other parts ( the Hornby Peckett is almost all Mazak castings). 

The Hornby re built Scots and Patriots are of course not covered by warranty but are soon to be unusable.

Has any one else had issues with Mazak on more recent models?

 

David

Good afternoon David,

 

I had a more-recent Hornby Brush Type 2 on which the mazak chassis expanded, breaking the plastic body in places.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[PMP]

7 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon David,

 

I had a more-recent Hornby Brush Type 2 on which the mazak chassis expanded, breaking the plastic body in places.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Which catalog number, and year of release though Tony? This is the important piece of information. Some early 31’s suffered, others didn’t and it is quite specific as it sounds as though some batches received poor quality mazak, other concurrent releases in different liveries didnt suffer, and are fine.

Edited February 15, 2021 by PMP
Punctuation

[robertcwp]

49 minutes ago, PMP said:

Which catalog number, and year of release though Tony? This is the important piece of information. Some early 31’s suffered, others didn’t and it is quite specific as it sounds as though some batches received poor quality mazak, other concurrent releases in different liveries didnt suffer, and are fine.

There was a listing somewhere on RMWeb of models known to have mazak rot problems. I had a 31 and a Rebuilt Patriot or Royal Scot (I forget which) disintegrate and one of my L1s had rot in its bogie. Most of the major manufacturers have been affected. 

[Leander]

1 hour ago, Norton961 said:

A change of topic for the collective. Paul Marshall Potter recently reported that one of his Hornby Re built Patriots has suddenly developed the dreaded “Mazak Rot” in the chassis. Now Mazak rot is nothing new and I believe it is caused by impurities in the metal, but I had thought that more recent models would not suffer from it. My real concern is that many of the recent RTR models not only make use of Mazak for the chassis but things like foot plates, boilers and other parts ( the Hornby Peckett is almost all Mazak castings). 

The Hornby re built Scots and Patriots are of course not covered by warranty but are soon to be unusable.

Has any one else had issues with Mazak on more recent models?

 

David

Yes. One each of 46140 and 45545. Tim E is carrying out remedial work on the Scot with the aid of a newer rot-free chassis block.

[Leander]

13 minutes ago, robertcwp said:

There was a listing somewhere on RMWeb of models known to have mazak rot problems. I had a 31 and a Rebuilt Patriot or Royal Scot (I forget which) disintegrate and one of my L1s had rot in its bogie. Most of the major manufacturers have been affected. 

Andy Sharpe compiled the original list and keeps it updated as new reports of afflicted models emerge.

 

 

 

[Manxcat]

20 hours ago, robmcg said:

 

I took the liberty of softening the colour in your photo, doesn't she (he) look good!  Will remove if asked.

 

 

I don't mind at all Rob. That's a lot better. Thanks.

 

The weathering was Value Medium. 

Edited February 15, 2021 by Manxcat

[robertcwp]

1 hour ago, Leander said:

Andy Sharpe compiled the original list and keeps it updated as new reports of afflicted models emerge.

 

 

 

Thanks for the link. Fortunately, not very many of my models are affected and the Heljan 47s I have that are on the list are fine. The list notes that only some models are affected. They are due for replacement anyway. The Scots and Patriots are disappointing but only certain models are affected. I have others that are fine.

[Barry Ten]

4 hours ago, PMP said:

Just to be clear I didn’t say suddenly. They have been stored appropriately for roughly 14 years, and the deterioration occurred in that time frame.
https://albionyard.net/2021/02/14/mazak-rot-a-matter-of-time/

 

Having over the past twenty years or so had many models through the mancave from all uk and a few over seas manufacturers, these two are the only experience I have of it. They are first releases so probably around 2007 for the Scot, maybe a year or so less for the Patriot, and fall into the era where a few types from different manufacturers suffered it. I’ve not seen anything that indicates it’s return on more recent models.

 

Over the last few months I've been "unboxing" a lot of RTR locos which have been up in the attic, through summers and winters, sometimes for upwards of ten years. Some but not all were tested on purchase.

 

Although I've encountered mazak rot with a few of the usual suspects, as well as split gears here and there, i was pleasantly surprised

that the majority of models turned out to be fine, even if some were a little sluggish to start with.

 

Nothing scientific, but the following all date back 10  - 15 or more years and haven't yet shown any issues:

 

Hornby Black 5s and early 2000s Duchesses (various models)

Hornby Schools (various)

Hornby King Arthurs (various)

Hornby M7s (various)

Hornby Unrebuilt WC/Bobs (various)

Castles, Granges, Kings (various)

 

Bachmann Jubilees (various)

Bachmann WD

Bachmann Crabs (various)

Bachmann Unrebuilt Pats (various)

Riddles standards (various).

Prairies, panniers etc (numerous).

 

I've run into Mazak rot with the chassis of the Class 31, which is well documented, and the motor mount for the T9. For the latter, luckily, a replacement is available from Peter's Spares. The rest of the T9 chassis seems immune.

 

I've had split gears with the Rebuilt WCs - again, well documented by others.

 

The one that's now concerning me is a 2006 Britannia which was run relatively extensively until a few years ago, then put into storage. When I got it out late last year, though, it was exhibiting similar symptoms to PMP's Stanier 4-6-0s. I haven't taken it apart for a proper investigation, though. Ironically this one didn't go into the attic so it's had a more temperature-controlled storage environment.

 

 

Al