Wright writes.....

[Dunsignalling]

13 hours ago, micklner said:

Any photos if it still exist Graeme please ?

The last issue of the Hornby D49 is most strange effort from 2011 , they tooled up a part new design motor driven chassis ignoring the bodies etc , then only for sale for one year and have  ignored it ever since. Such a obvious Loco for a new version to be made.

 

Sadly Hornby  keep churning out new liveries on old tat, as well as some "good" new issues every year.

A very strange company, with a lot of their "ideas and decisions" on how to make money for their shareholders. Certainly not helped by the current "fiasco". Titfield Gate !!

 

The Hornby D49 traces its origins back to the "Year of the 4-4-0" back in the 1970s (or possibly 1980s).

 

The range consisted of the D49, LMS Compound, GWR Churchward County, and SR Schools, with extensive use of common parts, leading to the last two being more dimensionally accurate than the others.

 

The change to motors in the locos was (AIUI) forced on Hornby by tighter electrical RF interference regulations, which their tender drives could not pass. 

 

Only the Schools has been fully retooled to modern "main range" standards but the old one stlll re-emerges from time to time in the Railroad range. Bachmann has done an altogether superior Compound. That doesn't seem to have been one of their hottest-sellers, which reduces the likelihood of Hornby doing a new one. 

 

Problem with the 4-4-0s generally is that (unless they "Go-Dublo" and use cast bodies) they require traction tyres to haul the sort of loads we expect such "mid-size" prototypes to handle. That then triggers adverse comment from those who cannot abide tyres. That may be one reason Hornby hasn't revisited the D49 or the County.

 

John

 

Edited January 13, 2022 by Dunsignalling

[JamesSpooner]

As someone whose main standard gauge interest is East Anglia, I would note that Hornby has done another LNER 4-4-0, in the form of the Claud Hamilton D16/3 and made a pretty decent fist of it too, with significant elements of cast bodywork providing acceptable haulage capacity.  I have a couple regauged to EM and have repainted one as 62614, the Royal Claud without decorative splashers carrying LNER green livery but BR logo. Seen here crossing a Blacksmith model of the other Royal Claud.

[gr.king]

Only a couple of small later images of the completed loco to hand Mick, and while the conversion was done before I had any suitable digital camera I've added a couple of scans of the original (not very satisfactory) film "snaps" to show that I did fabricate new cylinders and to indicate the reconstruction of the top of the tender. Had I not been more focussed on production of items genuinely suitable for Grantham in recent years I might have re-visited the question of the chassis by now:

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

I did indeed. You more or less gave me the Coronation set in order to persuade me to buy the Silver Jubilee which was much more fully priced - it was value for money but at the time was the most I'd spent on model railway kit in one day, so I had to swallow hard! 

 

 

It is indeed that set. Here is a link to it running on Gresley Jn.

It doesn't get that much use as it's out of period for me but it is a beautiful 'objet'!

 

I'd have thought they'd do the West Roding first - much easier!

 

Here's my version which you also sold to me (on my first visit). Mine is ex Gamston Bank.

 

I seem to remember that I came to buy an ex Coronation twin and ended up with this as well. Another expensive day!

 

All the best

 

Andy

 

 

 

Good afternoon Andy,

 

Thanks for the clarification.

 

I've sold so much stuff on behalf of bereaved families or for other modellers (with a substantial donation to CRUK) that I forget what went where, to whom and when. Anyway, I'm glad you're pleased with your SJ; it is rather nice.

 

I'm sure Hornby will do the West Riding as well; after all, the formation is exactly the same as the Coronation (without the Observation Car). It'll just need rebranding.

 

What Hornby could also do is the spare set; the one not branded Coronation or West Riding, but with roof boards. This was used for any of streamlined services, including the Silver Jubilee when that set was out of action.

 

A pair of that spare set (BSO/SO) appears in the current Hornby 2022 magazine yearbook (No.14) on page 79, forming part of a 'Footex' extra. Why Tim Shackleton thinks they're 'Thompson articulated coaches' I have no idea, but the roof boards reveal it as part of the spare set (unless the previously-branded cars later received roof boards in BR days?). I don't think Thompson was responsible for any articulated stock, and the pair is definitely from an ex-streamliner.

 

Anyway, I emailed Mike Wild pointing out the 'error', and the upshot is he's coming to photograph Little Bytham for Hornby Magazine next month! Obviously, he prefers to take his own pictures, so it'll be interesting to see his approach. 

 

Given that Little Bytham has already been featured in BRM (obviously), the Railway Modeller, the MRJ and in TCH, could this represent 'over-exposure'? I know it's common now for layouts to feature in several publications, meaning? More publications and/or fewer layouts? Who knows? We'll have to see, but I'm, looking forward to it..........

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[JamesSpooner]

Tony, it’s funny how sometimes different threads in different places coincide but in the Great Eastern Railway Society email thread there has just been reference to ex Coronation BTO-TO twins working in a York, Lowestoft (Central), Yarmouth Vauxhall service from 1949.  There is reference back to an article on the subject in a recent GE Journal and that has a photo of such a twin set (1738 and 1737) at Norwich Thorpe. The photo does show roof boards but I’m not sure whether those coaches were from the spare set or one of the dedicated ones.

 

best

 

Nigel

[davidw]

52 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon Andy,

 

Thanks for the clarification.

 

I've sold so much stuff on behalf of bereaved families or for other modellers (with a substantial donation to CRUK) that I forget what went where, to whom and when. Anyway, I'm glad you're pleased with your SJ; it is rather nice.

 

I'm sure Hornby will do the West Riding as well; after all, the formation is exactly the same as the Coronation (without the Observation Car). It'll just need rebranding.

 

What Hornby could also do is the spare set; the one not branded Coronation or West Riding, but with roof boards. This was used for any of streamlined services, including the Silver Jubilee when that set was out of action.

 

A pair of that spare set (BSO/SO) appears in the current Hornby 2022 magazine yearbook (No.14) on page 79, forming part of a 'Footex' extra. Why Tim Shackleton thinks they're 'Thompson articulated coaches' I have no idea, but the roof boards reveal it as part of the spare set (unless the previously-branded cars later received roof boards in BR days?). I don't think Thompson was responsible for any articulated stock, and the pair is definitely from an ex-streamliner.

 

Anyway, I emailed Mike Wild pointing out the 'error', and the upshot is he's coming to photograph Little Bytham for Hornby Magazine next month! Obviously, he prefers to take his own pictures, so it'll be interesting to see his approach. 

 

Given that Little Bytham has already been featured in BRM (obviously), the Railway Modeller, the MRJ and in TCH, could this represent 'over-exposure'? I know it's common now for layouts to feature in several publications, meaning? More publications and/or fewer layouts? Who knows? We'll have to see, but I'm, looking forward to it..........

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

it's always great to see LB in print. 

I've commented else where as have others that the BR period models would be interesting too. I'm aware that there would be significant revisions. I have hoped that Andy  at Isinglass would take a crack at them. The mail coach kits are very few and far between. Especially down this way. 

It's certainly interesting where Hornby are going with coaching stock. 

[micklner]

2 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

The Hornby D49 traces its origins back to the "Year of the 4-4-0" back in the 1970s (or possibly 1980s).

 

The range consisted of the D49, LMS Compound, GWR Churchward County, and SR Schools, with extensive use of common parts, leading to the last two being more dimensionally accurate than the others pair.

 

The change to motors in the locos was (AIUI) forced on Hornby by tighter electrical RF interference regulations, which their tender drives could not pass. 

 

Only the Schools has been fully retooled to modern "main range" standards but the old one stlll re-emerges from time to time in the Railroad range. Bachmann has done an altogether superior Compound. That doesn't seem to have been one of their hottest-sellers, which reduces the likelihood of Hornby doing a new one. 

 

Problem with the 4-4-0s generally is that (unless they "Go-Dublo" and use cast bodies) they require traction tyres to haul the sort of loads we expect such "mid-size" prototypes to handle. That then triggers adverse comment from those who cannot abide tyres. That may be one reason Hornby hasn't revisited the D49 or the County.

 

John

 

I agree re above, it just makes little sense to release the D49 with just "upgraded" Loco chassis, unless they had a large stock of bodies and tenders to use up at that time . You would thought they have simply brought out a complete new Loco in due course. It obviously was a poor seller to only be sold for one year. Perhaps Hornby thought they wring some more money out the old version which never worked out ?.

 

Cast metal is fast becoming the replacement to plastic Boilers D16 J37 , J15 , Footplates on A3's etc etc. So a obvious one for the D49 if it ever reappears.

 

The D16 seems to be a poor seller/or not popular with owners , for some reason there have been recently  dozens of them and the J15 on ebay secondhand.

[gr.king]

7 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

Problem with the 4-4-0s generally is that (unless they "Go-Dublo" and use cast bodies) they require traction tyres to haul the sort of loads we expect such "mid-size" prototypes to handle. That then triggers adverse comment from those who cannot abide tyres. That may be one reason Hornby hasn't revisited the D49 or the County.

 

John

 

Given the manufacturing that is demonstrably possible these days, I don't see that the requirement for heavy metal body or traction tyres in a loco powered 4-4-0 really applies any more, unless the problem is compounded by trying to add non-essential space occupying bells and whistles like large chips, sound units or the latest attempt to resurrect smoke units. Lightly sprung or floating axles and a solid weight in the front of the tender, bearing down on the rear drawbar of the loco, plus weight where possible in the rear of the loco body and chassis goes a long way towards better adhesion. If the four-coupled drive unit in the loco is fitted to the body in the form of a separate truck with fore and aft rocking facility (not difficult to do), then the front of the loco can actually ride on the bogie too rather than merely waft around above it. That allows extra weight in the loco as some of it can sit further forward without un-balancing the loco, it limits the problems of vertical clearances above the bogie as both bogie and body front largely ride in unison over any track undulations, and weight on the bogie opens up the possibility of using it to pick up electricity meaningfully. 

Edited January 13, 2022 by gr.king
Clarification

[gr.king]

4 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

The change to motors in the locos was (AIUI) forced on Hornby by tighter electrical RF interference regulations, which their tender drives could not pass. 

 

I must make a point of continuing to run my existing tender drive locos, given the additional satisfaction of knowing that they do not conform with latest regulations.

[Headstock]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon Andy,

 

Thanks for the clarification.

 

I've sold so much stuff on behalf of bereaved families or for other modellers (with a substantial donation to CRUK) that I forget what went where, to whom and when. Anyway, I'm glad you're pleased with your SJ; it is rather nice.

 

I'm sure Hornby will do the West Riding as well; after all, the formation is exactly the same as the Coronation (without the Observation Car). It'll just need rebranding.

 

What Hornby could also do is the spare set; the one not branded Coronation or West Riding, but with roof boards. This was used for any of streamlined services, including the Silver Jubilee when that set was out of action.

 

A pair of that spare set (BSO/SO) appears in the current Hornby 2022 magazine yearbook (No.14) on page 79, forming part of a 'Footex' extra. Why Tim Shackleton thinks they're 'Thompson articulated coaches' I have no idea, but the roof boards reveal it as part of the spare set (unless the previously-branded cars later received roof boards in BR days?). I don't think Thompson was responsible for any articulated stock, and the pair is definitely from an ex-streamliner.

 

Anyway, I emailed Mike Wild pointing out the 'error', and the upshot is he's coming to photograph Little Bytham for Hornby Magazine next month! Obviously, he prefers to take his own pictures, so it'll be interesting to see his approach. 

 

Given that Little Bytham has already been featured in BRM (obviously), the Railway Modeller, the MRJ and in TCH, could this represent 'over-exposure'? I know it's common now for layouts to feature in several publications, meaning? More publications and/or fewer layouts? Who knows? We'll have to see, but I'm, looking forward to it..........

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

 

Good afternoon Tony,

 

The situation with regards to roof mounted destination board brackets is rather complicated. There are some photographs of the the West ridding Ltd with mountings for a single board, this may have been prior to the public introduction of the set. BR fitted roof board brackets from 1957 as required, this coincided with the new Maroon livery and the introduction of the 'Talisman'. There may be some complication with the spare set but I would have to refer to my notes, I haven't looked at them in at least 15 years and I'm not sure were they currently reside.

[Tony Wright]

I mentioned the ex-streamlined carriages in BR days, and here are some on Little Bytham..............

 

 

Now, I know confession is good for the soul, so here goes. Though one of the Restaurant sets was in the post-War West Riding, it wasn't the brake type, seen here. I built this pair long before the notion of running 'accurate' trains really took off, in the form of Stoke Summit. Built from a Mailcoach kit, I just fancied it. I've still to find an SO/RSO pair to build to replace it. It would appear that any of this type worked in Scotland in later BR days.

 

But, here's the rub! Nobody ever noticed it during Stoke Summit's days, and nobody has ever commented on it on Little Bytham. 

 

I'm not sure whether any of this type got the extra door. Certainly, the SO/RSO would have had at least one, usually on the left-hand inner end, but only in the SO section? 

 

 

A BSO/SO pair certainly worked in the West Riding, at least until the late-'50s, so here's mine; again made from a Mailcoach kit. Did these sets get the extra door? Perhaps on this side, but on the RH inner end of the SO? 

 

 

Anyway, they happily fit in with my West Riding rake, hauled here by a completely non-stuttering 60119, now all her driving wheels conduct current! 

 

 

A pair which definitely should have extra doors at the LH inner end is the FO/FO duo. 

 

I built this set long before such knowledge of extra doors and all that was widespread; there's no way I'm retro-fitting them now. It runs, as did the prototypes, in The Talisman. 

 

 

At this distance, who can see the missing doors? 

 

I admit to being ambivalent about Mailcoach kits. At the time they allowed me to build types unheard of in model form before, and the streamliners were decades away RTR. However, the fit of the roofs was generally lousy, and painting (all by multiple-coats of enamel applied with a sable in my case) was fraught with difficulties. The plastic bogies were pretty-naff, too (all mine are metal HD types). 

 

I wonder whether Hornby will release the streamliners in BR appearance? Skirts removed, solebar covers taken off (or not) and those extra doors! It'll require a lot of re-tooling. 

 

 

[Bucoops]

3 hours ago, JamesSpooner said:

Tony, it’s funny how sometimes different threads in different places coincide but in the Great Eastern Railway Society email thread there has just been reference to ex Coronation BTO-TO twins working in a York, Lowestoft (Central), Yarmouth Vauxhall service from 1949.  There is reference back to an article on the subject in a recent GE Journal and that has a photo of such a twin set (1738 and 1737) at Norwich Thorpe. The photo does show roof boards but I’m not sure whether those coaches were from the spare set or one of the dedicated ones.

 

best

 

Nigel

 

171x and 172x were Coronation sets, 173x was the spare set and 458xx for the West Riding Limited (the WR set being renumbered post-war to 91xx).

 

 

[MikeParkin65]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

I mention

 

I wonder whether Hornby will release the streamliners in BR appearance? Skirts removed, solebar covers taken off (or not) and those extra doors! It'll require a lot of re-tooling. 

 

 

I doubt they will because of the niche nature of the vehicles limiting their appeal to a larger market and the number of changes to tooling required to make an accurate model as you say. Having said that though Hornby have had no qualms in painting over windows or printing on additional detail in order to make various specialized use MK1's so they could always take the same approach with these........ 

[Tony Wright]

52 minutes ago, MikeParkin65 said:

I doubt they will because of the niche nature of the vehicles limiting their appeal to a larger market and the number of changes to tooling required to make an accurate model as you say. Having said that though Hornby have had no qualms in painting over windows or printing on additional detail in order to make various specialized use MK1's so they could always take the same approach with these........ 

Thanks Mike,

 

They are quite niche and might well have limited appeal. However, I wonder what constitutes 'niche' now in model railway parlance?

 

At the time, when Heljan were introducing their one-off diesels in OO, I thought 'how much more niche can one get than with these?'. Granted FALCON and DP2 were relative successes, but LION only lasted a couple of years in service, and then on only two routes. I'm told they all sold well. 

 

Aren't we even more niche now with what's not long come out and what's announced? GT3? Hardly a success and never made a penny, yet isn't the model of it on to its second run? The Fell? Leader; the ultimate flop! 'Kerosene Castle'? The Turbomotive? Any others? 

 

Yes, these are locos, but specialist carriages seem to do well. I'm told you can't buy Hornby's Coronation Scot carriages for love nor money now. Yet, how niche was that? Only ever seen on the WCML from 1937 until the War. Yes, the cars were used post-War (but not in dedicated sets); might Hornby produce those in BR guise? 

 

Nothing will surprise me now with regard to what the RTR manufacturers will offer next. But, in a way, I really don't care. I'd better explain myself. Yes, when I was a full-time model railway journalist, what came out new RTR was of vital importance. It 'made a story', even a scoop! Now, in retirement, all I do are occasional bits of writing, including the odd review. However, what of reviews now for, say, the Hornby W1? I'm told they've all sold out. No point then in writing a review of something you can't buy. Time was, when a review would be published before a model went on sale. 

 

My main reason for not really caring is that I have little or no use for new RTR models. Yes, I've exploited the various Mk.1s over time, and some freight stock, but new locos represent nothing I can use, or even need. I know I've produced videos extoling the various RTR locos' virtues, but please don't believe everything you see. I wouldn't say I tell lies, but when visitors run Little Bytham, very little (if any) RTR motive power is driven. I'm not saying they're not good; even very good, but I haven't personally made them so they don't really count. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

[micklner]

Niche ? either way the BR Coronation version if made, may have more appeal to the BR modeller and to his/her pocket . It would appear that they ran mainly in pairs in BR days so a lot cheaper than buying four set @ £100 or more plus £65 or more  for the Observation Car by then say  roughly £500 for a Coronation LNER set. I would be amazed if Hornby tried to sell West Riding  and unmarked sets in the future, more like £600 to £700 by then allowing for inflation or more.

 

Personally if the model is good and reasonable value I have no qualms about buying any r.t.r of my choice, and enjoy running them. It also saves a huge amount of time not having to build them or paying someone else to do the work for you.

How much for a kit , then paying to have it built and paying for it to then be painted Loco costs? Far more than a r.t.r. at todays prices.

I am lucky I build and paint mine and enjoy the challenges. Lets not forget not everybody has the skills , time or patience or the spare finances to do the same.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 13, 2022 by micklner

[Chamby]

6 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon Andy,

 

Thanks for the clarification.

 

I've sold so much stuff on behalf of bereaved families or for other modellers (with a substantial donation to CRUK) that I forget what went where, to whom and when. Anyway, I'm glad you're pleased with your SJ; it is rather nice.

 

I'm sure Hornby will do the West Riding as well; after all, the formation is exactly the same as the Coronation (without the Observation Car). It'll just need rebranding.

 

What Hornby could also do is the spare set; the one not branded Coronation or West Riding, but with roof boards. This was used for any of streamlined services, including the Silver Jubilee when that set was out of action.

 

A pair of that spare set (BSO/SO) appears in the current Hornby 2022 magazine yearbook (No.14) on page 79, forming part of a 'Footex' extra. Why Tim Shackleton thinks they're 'Thompson articulated coaches' I have no idea, but the roof boards reveal it as part of the spare set (unless the previously-branded cars later received roof boards in BR days?). I don't think Thompson was responsible for any articulated stock, and the pair is definitely from an ex-streamliner.

 

Anyway, I emailed Mike Wild pointing out the 'error', and the upshot is he's coming to photograph Little Bytham for Hornby Magazine next month! Obviously, he prefers to take his own pictures, so it'll be interesting to see his approach. 

 

Given that Little Bytham has already been featured in BRM (obviously), the Railway Modeller, the MRJ and in TCH, could this represent 'over-exposure'? I know it's common now for layouts to feature in several publications, meaning? More publications and/or fewer layouts? Who knows? We'll have to see, but I'm, looking forward to it..........

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

 

You might be wise to have a chat with the Hornby magazine chaps about the merits or otherwise of photoshopping smoke and steam effects on photographs of featured model railways... they have a habit of doing that in their layout articles.

[john new]

1 minute ago, Chamby said:

 

You might be wise to have a chat with the Hornby magazine chaps about the merits or otherwise of photoshopping smoke and steam effects on photographs of featured model railways... they have a habit of doing that in their layout articles.

Yes, rather spoils the pictures too for me.

[robmcg]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

.....

 

Nothing will surprise me now with regard to what the RTR manufacturers will offer next. But, in a way, I really don't care. I'd better explain myself. Yes, when I was a full-time model railway journalist, what came out new RTR was of vital importance. It 'made a story', even a scoop! Now, in retirement, all I do are occasional bits of writing, including the odd review. However, what of reviews now for, say, the Hornby W1? I'm told they've all sold out. No point then in writing a review of something you can't buy. Time was, when a review would be published before a model went on sale. 

 

My main reason for not really caring is that I have little or no use for new RTR models. Yes, I've exploited the various Mk.1s over time, and some freight stock, but new locos represent nothing I can use, or even need. I know I've produced videos extoling the various RTR locos' virtues, but please don't believe everything you see. I wouldn't say I tell lies, but when visitors run Little Bytham, very little (if any) RTR motive power is driven. I'm not saying they're not good; even very good, but I haven't personally made them so they don't really count. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

I have a feeling Tony that this is a bit of a golden age for RTR steam-age esoteria like the W1 and Coronation Scot.

 

The market may shrink, certainly it will change in its subtleties, and model making will continue.

 

In the meantime I do like this RTR stuff, personally. I just bought this...

Britain's most powerful steam express locomotive, ever.  Just ask O S Nock.

 

 

 

Edited January 13, 2022 by robmcg
addition

[drmditch]

Re: Parkside Underframes

 

This thread is full of interests, information and even delight!

There are a few items towards which I might be able to make some contribution, and rather than bundle them all together I thought it might be better to make several posts with appropriate references.

 

Like others, I have found that the traditional Parkside underframes tend to let the solebars and w-irons angle inwards as the solvent sets. 

In more recent years, I have found a solution by offsetting the solebars from the lugs on the floor using approx .75mm plastic strip . 

I always secure the brass bearings into the W-irons with my small soldering iron.

 

Here is a picture of a Dia 116 Van so treated:-

 

 

I expect my vehicles to run freely down the 1 in 45 gradients on my railway.

(In the expectation that if they run easily down-hill, they will take less effort to haul up-hill!)

 

 

 

All my vehicles are weighted. Vans are easy! Old nails/screws etc are easy to fit inside. Just making sure that they don't rattle!

Edited January 13, 2022 by drmditch

[drmditch]

Re: Locomotive Coal

 

My coal, both for locomotives and wagon-loads, comes from my present garden, and my last one.

Both properties are in what were County Durham pit villages.

I also have a lump or two picked up on Northumberland beaches. (The meaning of 'seacoal' has changed a bit over the centuries.)

 

Although this may well be 'steam coal', I have not heard of West Durham coal being used for main-line locomotive purposes.

The NER negotiated it's coal supply carefully, although I am not sure how it accounted for it's transport costs relative to the pit-head price.

I have never read about how the LNER/NEA managed it's coal supplies.

 

I think (can find reference if required) that the NER/NEA used coal from Ryton Main for locomotive testing, as in the comparisons of 4-4-2s in the 1920s.

This was probably a great treat for the NBR engines!

 

In loading tenders/vehicles I use either PVA or 'superglue', but I prefer something which does not dry matt. I like some surfaces to catch the light!

 

I do try to vary tender loads. Some are full, as if newly coaled, and some are getting a bit empty!

 

It doesn't seem to be my day for taking pictures, (I will try to replace these tomorrow)  Apologies for poor photography, but here are two Q6s, one from South Shields and built in Durham, and one from China  and modified in Durham!

 

Annoying that someone has obscured the window glass!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 14, 2022 by drmditch
Replaced PIctures

[john new]

1 hour ago, drmditch said:

Re: Locomotive Coal

 

My coal, both for locomotives and wagon-loads, comes from my present garden, and my last one.

Both properties are in what were County Durham pit villages.

I also have a lump or two picked up on Northumberland beaches. (The meaning of 'seacoal' has changed a bit over the centuries.)

 

Although this may well be 'steam coal', I have not heard of West Durham coal being used for main-line locomotive purposes.

The NER negotiated it's coal supply carefully, although I am not sure how it accounted for it's transport costs relative to the pit-head price.

I have never read about how the LNER/NEA managed it's coal supplies.

 

I think (can find reference if required) that the NER/NEA used coal from Ryton Main for locomotive testing, as in the comparisons of 4-4-2s in the 1920s.

This was probably a great treat for the NBR engines!

 

In loading tenders/vehicles I use either PVA or 'superglue', but I prefer something which does not dry matt. I like some surfaces to catch the light!

 

I do try to vary tender loads. Some are full, as if newly coaled, and some are getting a bit empty!

 

It doesn't seem to be my day for taking pictures, (I will try to replace these tomorrow) but here are two Q6s, one from South Shields and built in Durham, and one from China  and modified in Durham!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Slightly off topic, but partly relevant to coal supplies. One of the Early Railways Conference papers to be published later this year should be the one presented that covered loco coke supplies to the Midlands Counties Railway. We will giving the book the full plug later in the year with ordering details but at the organising Board meeting yesterday we did agree a price of £20 for last year’s virtual conference attendees and £40 other. Non UK P&P probably with a supplement.

 

Edited January 14, 2022 by john new

[PMP]

11 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

Given that Little Bytham has already been featured in BRM (obviously), the Railway Modeller, the MRJ and in TCH, could this represent 'over-exposure'? I know it's common now for layouts to feature in several publications, meaning? More publications and/or fewer layouts? Who knows? We'll have to see, but I'm, looking forward to it..........

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

I’d suggest only if the words/images are the same or similar to what’s been seen in other magazines. If you’re telling a different story/emphasis then I don’t think it’s overexposed. My Albion Yard layout featured in one way or another in all the contemporary publications BRM/HM/MRJ/MR/RM and Model Railroader. I made sure that each ‘story’ or feature image was different to any previous article, and time separated too.

One pleasing approach was from BRM who ran the article in black and white, to capture the feel of the era BR 50’s-60’s.  I believe there was an occasion a few years back where the same layout and virtually identical words appeared in two magazines within a month of each other. The writer having sent pretty much the same piece to different magazines, which then happened to run the articles almost simultaneously. 

Edited January 14, 2022 by PMP
Add pic

[St Enodoc]

1 minute ago, PMP said:

The writer having sent pretty much the same piece to different magazines, which then happened to run the articles almost simultaneously. 

Several decades ago, acceptance of an article by one particular magazine was conditional on not submitting the same or similar material to one of its competitors. I daresay they all had similar policies.

[PMP]

1 minute ago, St Enodoc said:

Several decades ago, acceptance of an article by one particular magazine was conditional on not submitting the same or similar material to one of its competitors. I daresay they all had similar policies.

That’s still the protocol as I understand it, certainly what I work to, how the error occurred I don’t know.

[Tony Wright]

12 hours ago, micklner said:

Niche ? either way the BR Coronation version if made, may have more appeal to the BR modeller and to his/her pocket . It would appear that they ran mainly in pairs in BR days so a lot cheaper than buying four set @ £100 or more plus £65 or more  for the Observation Car by then say  roughly £500 for a Coronation LNER set. I would be amazed if Hornby tried to sell West Riding  and unmarked sets in the future, more like £600 to £700 by then allowing for inflation or more.

 

Personally if the model is good and reasonable value I have no qualms about buying any r.t.r of my choice, and enjoy running them. It also saves a huge amount of time not having to build them or paying someone else to do the work for you.

How much for a kit , then paying to have it built and paying for it to then be painted Loco costs? Far more than a r.t.r. at todays prices.

I am lucky I build and paint mine and enjoy the challenges. Lets not forget not everybody has the skills , time or patience or the spare finances to do the same.

 

 

 

 

Good morning Mick,

 

I think you're right that the BR versions of the LNER streamlined stock (if produced RTR) might be more attractive price-wise. I think the most used were six cars (three twins) in any one train, the post-War West Riding. Bit by bit they were taken out; first the FO/FO twin, then the BSO/SO pair until just the catering twin SO/RSO was left up to (around) 1960. 

 

I think £500.00 would be 'conservative' for a whole Coronation by the time the train appears, but we'll have to see. As you say, more likely £600.00 or £700.00 in the future. Either way, I'm sure they'll look terrific.

 

Regarding RTR locos, all I'm expressing is a personal point of view. For those who don't have the skills (but want to learn) I make it my business to assist them when I can, on a one-to-one basis here or as a tutor at seminars. As for time, I've never been convinced that that's an excuse for not making things. And, patience......... Do you think I have patience? I'm afraid I don't. I'm impatient; I want to see things finished as quickly as possible, so that I can get on with the next project.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.