Wright writes.....

[grahame]

. . . and now for something completely different - a couple of Prestwin wagons in N/2mm. They are 3D prints from Shapeways riding on commercial chassis. Left is a diagram 1/274 (10ft wheelbase) and right a dia 1/277 12ft wb. Being 3D printed there's not a lot to do on them but I did cut away the moulded ladders as they looked rather chunky and replaced them with finer etched ones. Currently I'm waiting on decals that have been ordered, and then it'll be some weathering:

 

[Iain.d]

We were fortunate enough to have a public holiday today (I’m always amused by the anti-monarchy Western Australians’ quite happily accepting a day off for the Queen’s Birthday!) that allowed me a little time to start something that I’ve wanted to have a go at for a long time.

 

A while back I showed this picture of an old Triang Midland 3F that was one of my early RTR upgrades to replace the original chassis with a set of frames from Comet.

 

 

I did this in about 1993, utilising a DS10 motor, open frame gearbox and Romford wheels (which are probably not quite correct but were pretty much all that was available to match my skill level and budget) in a compensated chassis; from memory it was a nice runner on Peco Code 100 track.  On the loco body I carved off the handrails and the plastic skirt that ran from the boiler to the running plate, replaced the reversing rod and a few other bits and pieces.  This tidy up might see new buffers and a bottom to the boiler barrel being added. Longer term it might even get a High Level gearbox.

 

On the tender all I did was replace the top with a body built from plastic sheet and coal rails from a Hornby Compound. I never did anything to the chassis. Knowing a future layout would involve code 75 track, the tender chassis would need to go.  A couple of years ago I picked up this George Norton Johnson 3500 Gallon tender from Ebay for about 6GBP. I also acquired a set of new old stock Gibson 4ft 3in 12 spoke wheels.

 

 

It was only on opening the tender packet a couple of months ago that I realised I would need some 2mm hornblocks / bearings  for the wheels to run in. I couldn’t find anything on the Wizard website – well I couldn’t see any for looking – so purchased some 1/8in hornblocks and 1/8in to 2mm  reducing sleeves instead.

 

And today I managed a start.

 

 

The wheels required a bit of a clean to remove some tarnishing on the treads and the axles needed a wipe down so that they passed into the reducing sleeves – they’re a tight friction fit, the reducing sleeve being a nice sliding fit into the bearing/hornblock. I widened slightly the hornblock guides in the tender chassis sides so the hornblocks are a sliding fit and soldered the chassis up. I still need to solder a piece of wire to each hornblock guide so I can secure the hornblocks once their axles are assembled. I also soldered the half etch brake shoes to the hangers.

 

Still a way to go but a very enjoyable afternoon.

 

Kind regards,

 

Iain

[micklner]

In 1975, I doubt if my wages were much more then £30 a week !! . Hence the big Ouch!!

 

2 hours ago, PMP said:

They were pretty expensive to have made. You were paying for the artwork to be done, all hand drawn ‘in house’ and cross checked against prototype references. Then usually a few months wait for a slot in the etching and painting process. As @Tony Wrightmentions above with prototypical plates they then went into the main ranges, some freelance were added for industrial and narrow gauge builders. They were the best of their time hence the popularity and modellers prepared to do the work required to cut them and fit them.

 

Edited September 27, 2021 by micklner

[PMP]

2 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Weren't they the only ones of their time?

By the time I was at KX early (80’s) I think LFC (Lion Fireworks Co?) we’re starting to do through etched plates. The quality was poor, and Perseverance may have done some too. Then I believe Fox started (also good), and another I can’t recall the name though, someone will!

[Denbridge]

8 minutes ago, PMP said:

By the time I was at KX early (80’s) I think LFC (Lion Fireworks Co?) we’re starting to do through etched plates. The quality was poor, and Perseverance may have done some too. Then I believe Fox started (also good), and another I can’t recall the name though, someone will!

The ones I really miss are the superb CGW range. I think they were the best quality and most accurate plates ever for 4mm scale.

[PMP]

13 minutes ago, Denbridge said:

The ones I really miss are the superb CGW range. I think they were the best quality and most accurate plates ever for 4mm scale.

That was them. Not convinced of most accurate, but overall they were good. The range has been sold and I know who’s got it or part of. Hopefully they’ll be available once more times is to hand.

[Headstock]

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

As promised, A2/2 comparisons...................

 

 

The nearer one is a modified Hornby A2/2 (weathered by Geoff Haynes), representing the class as fitted with a Dia. 118 boiler.

 

The further one is built from a Crownline kit (painted by Ian Rathbone), representing an example of the class with its original cut-down P2 boiler. As such, 60504 (and 60503) retained this type of boiler until it was scrapped. With minor detail differences, this could be repainted into LNER lined apple green (which 60502 could not be. Well, not accurately, anyway). 

 

Differences to note are the longer smokebox on 60504, the shorter boiler (with the cladding in four sections, not five as with 60502), the full 'V'-fronted cab, different positions of firebox washout plugs and the shorter central footplate section. The dome position is slightly further back as well. All these differences militate against painting a Hornby A2/2 in LNER green (though some might just not bother, and do so, anyway).

 

The differences are also apparent in these two shots...................

 

 

 

As I say, a fair bit of modification would be needed to the Hornby model.

 

 

 

Good afternoon Tony,

 

don't forget the tender. No LNER / BR Pacific was paired with the type of tender presented on the Hornby Cock 'o' the North or on Earl Marischal above, it is entirely fictitious.

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Good afternoon Tony,

 

don't forget the tender. No LNER / BR Pacific was paired with the type of tender presented on the Hornby Cock 'o' the North or on Earl Marischal above, it is entirely fictitious.

Thanks Andrew,

 

It has been mentioned before, and lowering the frontplate is much easier than any work needed to make an original A2/2 from the Hornby product.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, PMP said:

By the time I was at KX early (80’s) I think LFC (Lion Fireworks Co?) we’re starting to do through etched plates. The quality was poor, and Perseverance may have done some too. Then I believe Fox started (also good), and another I can’t recall the name though, someone will!

Good afternoon Paul,

 

Jackson Evens made etched plates at the same time. I think the range eventually passed to Modelmaster.

 

I think I've used just about every type down the years. I couldn't use one Jackson Evans plate for an A1 because it was rather longer than the smoke deflector (can't remember which name), but others have been OK. 

 

I usually use 247 Developments or Fox for my nameplates now. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Headstock]

43 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Andrew,

 

It has been mentioned before, and lowering the frontplate is much easier than any work needed to make an original A2/2 from the Hornby product.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Good evening Tony,

 

not just the lowering of the streamlined fairing (and front plate), Earl Marischal never carried a streamline fairing on its tender in either LNER or BR days. In addition, neither Cock 'o' the North or Earl Marishal had 'new type' tenders with flush side sheets, they both had side sheets that curved in at the cab end, like the tenders fitted to class A3. There was only one 'new style' tender with flush side sheets like the Hornby model, that was the tender that ran with Great Northern after it was rebuilt to class A1/1. The tender fitted to the rebuilt Great Northern, never carried a high or low streamline fairing, as on the Hornby model. The tender produced by Hornby is of new tooling and unlike earlier versions produced for class A3, it is the correct ride height. Unfortunately, Hornby have created a variant of the 'new style tender', with high streamlined fairing and flush side sheets, a type that never existed in reality.

Edited September 27, 2021 by Headstock
clarify a point.

[Tony Wright]

4 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Good evening Tony,

 

not just the lowering of the streamlined fairing (and front plate), Earl Marischal never carried a streamline fairing on its tender in either LNER or BR days. In addition, neither Cock 'o' the North or Earl Marishal had 'new type' tenders with flush side sheets, they both had side sheets that curved in at the cab end, like the tenders fitted to class A3. There was only one 'new style' tender with flush side sheets like the Hornby model, that was the tender that ran with Great Northern after it was rebuilt to class A1/1. The tender fitted to the rebuilt Great Northern, never carried a high or low streamline fairing, as on the Hornby model. The tender produced by Hornby is of new tooling and unlike earlier versions produced for class A3, it is the correct ride height. Unfortunately, Hornby have created a variant of the 'new style tender', with high streamlined fairing and flush side sheets, a type that never existed in reality.

Good evening Andrew,

 

The tender behind 60502 does have curved in front ends to the side sheets. As far as I can tell, apart from the incorrect top front fairing, to all intents and purposes it is a 'new-type' non-corridor tender, as fitted to the A3s.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening Andrew,

 

The tender behind 60502 does have curved in front ends to the side sheets. As far as I can tell, apart from the incorrect top front fairing, to all intents and purposes it is a 'new-type' non-corridor tender, as fitted to the A3s.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Good evening Tony,

 

you must have a special VIP tender, everybody else has the flat as a fart version as seen below.

 

 

Talking about the incorrect top fairing. I appreciate it is only a graphic but Hornby seem to be determined to repeat the error with their upcoming model of Earl Marischal in double down deflector condition. Where is the tender curve in? It should look like the cab with daylight visible between the handrail and the side sheet due to the tight curve.

 

 

The picture below shows the real Earl Marischal in double down deflector condition, to match the above graphic. Notice that the front of the tender side sheet is not visible due to the tightness of the curve. There is no streamlined fairing, there never was a streamlined fairing on this loco! Notice the water pipe hard up against the low forward bulkhead, just like an A3.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 27, 2021 by Headstock
remove rando cap letter.

[Headstock]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening Andrew,

 

The tender behind 60502 does have curved in front ends to the side sheets. As far as I can tell, apart from the incorrect top front fairing, to all intents and purposes it is a 'new-type' non-corridor tender, as fitted to the A3s.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Contrast the side sheet that is visible beyond and behind the Grab handle on the Hornby locomotive, with the same angle on the real 60501. The edge of the side sheet is not visible on the real loco because it curves around in the same manner as the real Earl Marischal above, notice that 'daylight' is visible between the grab handle and the side sheet of the real 60501 below. The Hornby side sheet lacks the real curve. The lower streamline fairing is also very evident as compared to the model. Cock 'o' the North never had a streamlined fairing until after rebuilding. It originally had an identically proportioned forward bulkhead to Earl Marshal, this was raised in height to accommodate a sheet attachment, when rebuilt with an A4 style front end. The bulkhead was cut down in height, along with all the Thompson A2 tenders equipped with high bulkheads and streamlined fairings, in the late forties. It was only then that it received the fairing. Unlike the Hornby model, it never carried a high fairing, even in original condition or as originally rebuilt as an A2/2.

 

 

 

The severity of the curve is beautifully illustrated by both tender and cab side sheets in the above image. The tender curve on the Hornby model should match the cab curve exactly, its the same radius. The grab handle should be on the curve, not parallel with the flat of the tender side sheet, that is why we are looking straight on at the handrail on the cab side sheet, even though the loco is angled away from us.

Edited September 27, 2021 by Headstock
add info.

[Tony Wright]

12 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Contrast the side sheet that is visible beyond and behind the Grab handle on the Hornby locomotive, with the same angle on the real 60501. The edge of the side sheet is not visible on the real loco because it curves around in the same manner as the real Earl Marischal above, notice that 'daylight' is visible between the grab handle and the side sheet of the real 60501 below. The Hornby side sheet lacks the real curve. The lower streamline fairing is also very evident as compared to the model. Cock 'o' the North never had a streamlined fairing until after rebuilding. It originally had an identically proportioned forward bulkhead to Earl Marshal, this was raised in height to accommodate a sheet attachment, when rebuilt with an A4 style front end. The bulkhead was cut down in height, along with all the Thompson A2 tenders equipped with high bulkheads and streamlined fairings, in the late forties. It was only then that it received the fairing. Unlike the Hornby model, it never carried a high fairing, even in original condition or as originally rebuilt as an A2/2.

 

 

 

The severity of the curve is beautifully illustrated by both tender and cab side sheets in the above image. The tender curve on the Hornby model should match the cab curve exactly, its the same radius. The grab handle should be on the curve, not parallel with the flat of the tender side sheet, that is why we are looking straight on at the handrail on the cab side sheet, even though the loco is angled away from us.

Your evidence is irrefutable Andrew,

 

Many thanks.

 

However, the Hornby A2/2's beaded tender isn't quite so farty-flat as you'd have us believe. There is just the slightest turn-in of the sides at the front. Granted, it's nowhere near enough, and the handrails are only just on the cusp of it.

 

 

 

Just some evidence of a turn-in? 

 

It should, of course,

 

 

look more like this. 

 

Oddly,

 

 

Millholme got that bit right on its A2/2 tender, though little else. 

 

 

I used an A3 tender when I built the prototype for DJH's A2/2 kit.

 

As always,

 

 

observation of the real thing is imperative.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Edited September 28, 2021 by Tony Wright
typo error

[FarrMan]

Phew. I have managed to catch up with this thread after about three months being behind to a greater or lesser extent. What a huge range of interesting topics covered. Thank you to all who have contributed. When I saw that I only had 40 pages to catch up on, I thought 'O good. Only 1000 contributions to go to catch up!'

 

Lloyd

Edited September 28, 2021 by FarrMan
Correct punctuation

[Headstock]

5 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Your evidence is irrefutable Andrew,

 

Many thanks.

 

However, the Hornby A2/2's beaded tender isn't quite so farty-flat as you'd have us believe. There is just the slightest turn-in of the sides at the front. Granted, it's nowhere near enough, and the handrails are only just on the cusp of it.

 

 

 

Just some evidence of a turn-in? 

 

It should, of course,

 

 

look more like this. 

 

Oddly,

 

 

Millholme got that bit right on its A2/2 tender, though little else. 

 

 

I used an A3 tender when I built the prototype for DJH's A2/2 kit.

 

As always,

 

 

observation of the real thing is imperative.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

Good afternoon Tony,

 

Thanks for the photographs. The tender on 60502 almost looks like it has a slight chamfer to the edge. Flat or chamfered, it doesn't look anything like the real thing. Hornby can fool a lot of the people some of the time but not the ones who have had to form the curve with their own hands. Incidentally, what is it with the fashion for using yellow numbers on BR liveried locomotives? This seems some sort of fad adopted by the all the major RTR manufactures.

 

The irony is that Hornby had already created the correct tender tank for Earl Marischal, one that it carried throughout its career. What a shame they didn't just unclip it from 60077 and place in on the new improved tender chassis. Instead, they have gone to the cost of creating an all new fictitious tender tank, bizarre.

 

I still stand by my comments that the Hormby A2/3 is the best mass produced RTR LNER pacific*. The A2/2 is rather a disappointment in comparison. I find myself agreeing with  comments up thread, that it is very much built down to a price, it even has the A2/3 bogie. Personally, I would have supported an originally rebuilt version of these locomotives. The choice of at least five or six authentic liveries, including BR drab green, would have had great appeal to many. The production model is stuck with only drab green and the choice of late or early Ferret. Is this the only time in recent history, that a big four locomotive, has not had a big four version produced in a manufactures range?

 

* let down by a poorly executed livery.
 

Edited September 28, 2021 by Headstock

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, Headstock said:

 

Good afternoon Tony,

 

Thanks for the photographs. The tender on 60502 almost looks like it has a slight chamfer to the edge. Flat or chamfered, it doesn't look anything like the real thing. Hornby can fool a lot of the people some of the time but not the ones who have had to form the curve with their own hands. Incidentally, what is it with the fashion for using yellow numbers on BR liveried locomotives? This seems some sort of fad adopted by the all the major RTR manufactures.

 

The irony is that Hornby had already created the correct tender tank for Earl Marischal, one that it carried throughout its career. What a shame they didn't just unclip it from 60077 and place in on the new improved tender chassis. Instead, they have gone to the cost of creating an all new fictitious tender tank, bizarre.

 

I still stand by my comments that the Hormby A2/3 is the best mass produced RTR LNER pacific*. The A2/2 is rather a disappointment in comparison. I find myself agreeing with  comments up thread, that it is very much built down to a price, it even has the A2/3 bogie. Personally, I would have supported an originally rebuilt version of these locomotives. The choice of at least five or six authentic liveries, including BR drab green, would have had great appeal to many. The production model is stuck with only drab green and the choice of late or early Ferret. Is this the only time in recent history, that a big four locomotive, has not had a big four version produced in a manufactures range?

 

* let down by a poorly executed livery.
 

Thanks Andrew,

 

I was surprised that Hornby decided to make a new tender for its 60501 A2/2, because I told the designer that a suitable tender for 60501 and 60502 was already available from the firm's A3. The A4 streamlined non-corridor tender is suitable for 60505/6, of course; and 60503/4, but they're not suitable for Hornby's A2/2. 

 

I've already outlined the economic reasons for Hornby not making an original A2/2.

 

I suppose what it boils down to is, despite the perceived faults, folk can now own models of Thompson Pacifics where previously the only options were scratch-building (which I've done) or kit-building (which I've also done). Or pay someone else to do it for them. The first two options require skills not possessed by all and the third (which I've supplied) requires financial resources also not possessed by all. That's not to say 'all' can afford a Hornby RTR A2/2, but if prices recently-highlighted are anything to go by, then under £140.00 seems exceptional value to me. 

 

Most I've spoken to who've obtained them are very happy; they overlook any faults (not that faults are acceptable, but they're a fact of life - I should know, I've created enough!). 

 

One recent reviewer told me he was writing his reviews for the 95% of people who won't know (or don't care) whether the models they buying are correct in every detail or not (though I'd like to think that percentage is lower). 

 

You have all the necessary skills not to be RTR-dependent. Extrapolating the percentage figure listed above, it might imply that 95% of 'modellers' do not.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

 

 

 

 

Friend Tommy Mann from Scotland came over to see me today.

 

Bringing with him some real delights........................

 

 

A pair of Sutherland/Nu-Cast ex-NB 4-4-2Ts, one a C15, the other a C16 (please don't ask me which is which).

 

Both ran superbly.

 

 

This ran equally well. It's a Bristol Models WD 2-10-0 with a scratch-built chassis. Tommy tells me it's his work in progress; excellent work! Especially considering its origin. 

 

 

This rather nice Hornby A3 modification is Eric Kidd's work (Merlin on here). 

 

Thanks for bringing these, Tommy, and thanks for a splendid day.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 28, 2021 by Tony Wright
to add something

[Headstock]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Andrew,

 

I was surprised that Hornby decided to make a new tender for its 60501 A2/2, because I told the designer that a suitable tender for 60501 and 60502 was already available from the firm's A3. The A4 streamlined non-corridor tender is suitable for 60505/6, of course; and 60503/4, but they're not suitable for Hornby's A2/2. 

 

I've already outlined the economic reasons for Hornby not making an original A2/2.

 

I suppose what it boils down to is, despite the perceived faults, folk can now own models of Thompson Pacifics where previously the only options were scratch-building (which I've done) or kit-building (which I've also done). Or pay someone else to do it for them. The first two options require skills not possessed by all and the third (which I've supplied) requires financial resources also not possessed by all. That's not to say 'all' can afford a Hornby RTR A2/2, but if prices recently-highlighted are anything to go by, then under £140.00 seems exceptional value to me. 

 

Most I've spoken to who've obtained them are very happy; they overlook any faults (not that faults are acceptable, but they're a fact of life - I should know, I've created enough!). 

 

One recent reviewer told me he was writing his reviews for the 95% of people who won't know (or don't care) whether the models they buying are correct in every detail or not (though I'd like to think that percentage is lower). 

 

You have all the necessary skills not to be RTR-dependent. Extrapolating the percentage figure listed above, it might imply that 95% of 'modellers' do not.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

 

Good evening Tony,

 

some interesting points. I don't think 60501s tender was one Hornby already had in the catalogue, due to the lack of streamlined fairing, but you are probably better informed on that than I .

 

The economic reasons for producing one model over another is a sort of interesting subject. However, the commercial aspects of the hobby seem to be the be all and end all these days. I don't see any cost savings in producing the tooling of a particular choice of A2/2 over another. The big boys never import existing tooling from another model, they always retool. The only thing that is shared with the finished A2/3 is the chassis and running gear, both are applicable to any version of the A2/2. I guess it depends how many units  you want to sell. More livery choices, on an earlier A2/2, could shift more units of a particular tooling IMO. However, I'm just an armature hobbyist, how much units the big boys shift is no concern of mine.  I suppose the downside is, the more units that are sold, equals even more of the same stuff, resulting in less choice at exhibitions at sometime in the future.

 

I wouldn't put too much importance on this particular percentages myself. It is only of interest to sales people, who wish to sell magazines, picture books or RTR objects. It isn't really relevant to anybody wanting to just enjoy or be creative in the hobby. The 95%, described as ''wont know or don't care'', by your professional writer colleague, sounds like a self created demographic, one that he is aiming his product at. I am reminded of the jewellery boss, who rubbished his customers, for the trash he was pedaling to them. 

 

I have nothing to sell to this supposed demographic myself. In addition, the genius of not being RTR dependant, means that the opinions of the 95% and what they can own, if they exist, matters not a jot to myself. The real railway, in its many forms, is what I take note of. Though I don't claim infallibility, due to its complication and vasts size.
 

Edited September 28, 2021 by Headstock
clarify a point

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

 

 

 

This rather nice Hornby A3 modification is Eric Kidd's work (Merlin on here). 

 

Thanks for bringing these, Tommy, and thanks for a splendid day.

 

 

 

 

 

 

What a lovely tender curve. Hornby could do it back in the day. I'm not letting them off on the valve gear though and i'm a little bit suspicious that the cab cut out is a little low.

Edited September 28, 2021 by Headstock

[Tony Wright]

19 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Good evening Tony,

 

some interesting points. I don't think 60501s tender was one Hornby already had in the catalogue, due to the streamlined fairing but you are probably better informed on that than I .

 

The economic reasons for producing one model over another is a sort of interesting subject. However, the commercial aspects of the hobby seem to be the be all and end all these days. I don't see any cost savings in producing the tooling of a particular choice of A2/2 over another. The big boys never import existing tooling from another model, they always retool. The only thing that is shared with the finished A2/3 is the chassis and running gear, both are applicable to any version of the A2/2. I guess it depends how many units  you want to sell. More livery choices, on an earlier A2/2, could shift more units of a particular tooling IMO. However, I'm just an armature hobbyist, how much units the big boys shift is no concern of mine.  I suppose the downside is, that the more units that are sold, equals even more of the same stuff, resulting in less choice at exhibitions at sometime in the future.

 

I wouldn't put too much importance on this particular percentages myself. It is only of interest to sales people, who wish to sell magazines, picture books or RTR objects. It isn't really relevant to anybody wanting to just enjoy or be creative in the hobby. The 95%, described as ''wont know or don't care'', by your professional writer colleague, sounds like a self created demographic, one that he is aiming his product at. I am reminded of the jewellery boss, who rubbished his customers, for the trash he was pedaling to them. 

 

I have nothing to sell to this supposed demographic myself. In addition, the genius of not being RTR dependant, means that the opinions of the 95% and what they can own, if they exist, matters not a jot to myself. The real railway, in its many forms, is what I take note of. Though I don't claim infallibility, due to its complication and vasts size.
 

Good evening Andrew,

 

I don't claim to be better informed than anyone else. The tender for 60501 was already there (potentially) from the Hornby A3, wasn't it?

 

I also think you'll find that the smokebox/boiler/firebox/footplate is exactly the same series of mouldings (with slight alterations at the cab front) for the Hornby A2/2 and A2/3 (hence the choice of 60501/02/05/06 - 60501 and 60505 having been the first, with the other two on the horizon). 

 

I'm not really RTR-dependent, but I'd never use the word 'genius' about it in my case. 

 

I still exploit RTR where it can serve me well (though not with locomotives). The notion of having to build over 90 BR Mk.1s would have meant very few of Bytham's express passenger trains completed by now; not without modifying at least that number of Bachmann ones. 

 

I also don't know what the percentage is of those who don't know or don't care is. Except, I'm sure it's a large majority. 

 

Many thanks for your thought-provoking comments.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited September 28, 2021 by Tony Wright
typo error

[micklner]

The correct Hornby Tender for Wolf  60503 , was fitted to Hornby A3's The White Knight and Ladas , there maybe others as well.

Edited September 28, 2021 by micklner

[Headstock]

42 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening Andrew,

 

I don't claim to be better informed than anyone else. The tender for 60501 was already there (potentially) from the Hornby A3, wasn't it?

 

I also think you'll find that the smokebox/boiler/firebox/footplate is exactly the same series of mouldings (with slight alterations at the cab front) for the Hornby A2/2 and A2/3 (hence the choice of 60501/02/05/06 - 60501 and 60505 having been the first, with the other two on the horizon). 

 

I'm not really RTR-dependent, but I'd never use the word 'genius' about it in my case. 

 

I still exploit RTR where it can serve me well (though not with locomotives). The notion of having to build over 90 BR Mk.1s would have meant very few of Bytham's express passenger trains completed by now; not without modifying at least that number of Bachmann ones. 

 

I also don't know what the percentage is of those who don't know or don't care is. Except, I'm sure it's a large majority. 

 

Many thanks for your thought-provoking comments.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

I don't claim to be better informed than anyone else. The tender for 60501 was already there (potentially) from the Hornby A3, wasn't it?

 

Yes the tender tank from the A3 would sort of do but not the godawful standing on tiptoe chassis. It is also available on the original Cock 'o' the North model. However, neither have the streamlined fairing in conjunction with the low bulkhead. Wouldn't that require new tooling?

 

I also think you'll find that the smokebox/boiler/firebox/footplate is exactly the same series of mouldings (with slight alterations at the cab front) for the Hornby A2/2 and A2/3 (hence the choice of 60501/02/05/06 - 60501 and 60505 having been the first, with the other two on the horizon). 

 

Having had the A2/3 in lots of bits, I assumed that the cab front on any version of the A2/2 would require new tooling for the footplate.

 

I'm not really RTR-dependent, but I'd never use the word 'genius' about it in my case. 

 

I still exploit RTR where it can serve me well (though not with locomotives). The notion of having to build over 90 BR Mk.1s would have meant very few of Bytham's express passenger trains completed by now; not without modifying at least that number of Bachmann ones. 

 

I'm perfectly happy to exploit RTR when it meets my needs. The genius bit is that I don't care about it. If that was all I had to rely on, it could be quite panic inducing.

 

90 MK1s, Ughh. It's enough to make you want to take up flower arranging. Have you tried crashing them? That sounds like a lot of fun.

 

I also don't know what the percentage is of those who don't know or don't care is. Except, I'm sure it's a large majority. 

 

I don't think that anybody does know what this percentage is, if it's true. What is more important to me is '' wont know, don't care'' will never be a part of my model railway experience. If that is what most people think, I wouldn't even know how to communicate with them.

Edited September 28, 2021 by Headstock

[Barry Ten]

I spent the last couple of evenings adding Crownline brake gear to this old Hornby Battle-of-Britain:

 

 

Although it might seem a bit daft when there are better RTR models available, not to mention the possibility of a Comet chassis under the existing body, I wanted to preserve as much of the works of the model as possible. It was a 40-year old Christmas present, its X04 motor still ran, and I felt that the nature of the Bulleid brake gear would go some way to disguising the crude wheels, even if the coupling and connecting rods are still very much Triang-Hornby. The Crownline detailing parts also include slidebars and crosshead bits, missing on the Hornby model.

 

Although the brake gear is soldered up, it still needs to be glued to the chassis block. I first glued thin acetate sheet to the chassis, to prevent any chance of shorting, then epoxied the brake gear onto these sheets. It all seems to work so far, although I've still got the opposite slide bar to do. Once the chassis is done, I'll move onto the body improvements.

 

Al

 

[TrevorP1]

11 hours ago, Barry Ten said:

I spent the last couple of evenings adding Crownline brake gear to this old Hornby Battle-of-Britain:

 

 

Although it might seem a bit daft when there are better RTR models available, not to mention the possibility of a Comet chassis under the existing body, I wanted to preserve as much of the works of the model as possible. It was a 40-year old Christmas present, its X04 motor still ran, and I felt that the nature of the Bulleid brake gear would go some way to disguising the crude wheels, even if the coupling and connecting rods are still very much Triang-Hornby. The Crownline detailing parts also include slidebars and crosshead bits, missing on the Hornby model.

 

Although the brake gear is soldered up, it still needs to be glued to the chassis block. I first glued thin acetate sheet to the chassis, to prevent any chance of shorting, then epoxied the brake gear onto these sheets. It all seems to work so far, although I've still got the opposite slide bar to do. Once the chassis is done, I'll move onto the body improvements.

 

Al

 

Oh how I wish I’d kept my Winston Churchill and 47606!