Wright writes.....

[landscapes]

11 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Little Bytham no longer has two 'Cocks O' The North'....................

 

 

For 60501 to become EARL MARISCHAL, the backing for the nameplates needed shortening. A brand new curved blade in the Swann Morton, and GREAT care.................................................. I employed a rocking motion. 

 

There's no need to force off the original nameplate. 

 

 

Replacement etched plates from 247 Developments fitted perfectly. I ordered them yesterday and they arrived today. I call that service. 

 

Consult prototype shots because the A2/2s' nameplates moved around on the smokebox during their lives. 

 

Why 60501 and 60505 had their horizontal handrails cut short of the smokebox's front is lost in the mists of time. The other four had theirs clipped to the smokebox front ring. Thus, for 60502 they have to be added. 

 

They're formed of Gibson's small handrail pillars and .40 brass wire. The Hornby pillars are made of brass, but the rails themselves are made of steel. I exposed the brass and tinned it (WITH THE GREATEST CARE!). After soldering the new wire into the Gibson pillars, shaping it and then drilling small holes in the smokebox ring, the two were soldered together (WITH EVEN GREATER CARE!) and the new pillars superglued into the holes. Phew! 

 

Any chance of the original top lamp bracket surviving any treatment was instantly lost. The replacement is brass fret, formed/soldered and glued into a new hole. 

 

 

Rather than the fag of changing all the numbers, I just carefully scraped off the last digit.

 

 

And the different front end, with licks of matt black to cover the brasswork. 

 

Since 60502 was shedded at York, then the 50A 'plate can be left.

 

 

Complete and ready for weathering; heavy weathering, since York never seemed to have any cleaners. 

 

The replacement '2' isn't exactly the same colour, but weathering will disguise this. 

 

I sable brush-painted the cab roof eaves and the tender above the beading with matt black enamel. 

 

Worth doing? I think so. Strictly speaking, in this guise (numberplate above top hingestrap and early BR totem), 60502 is a little early for Little Bytham, but I'm prepared to be 'flexible'.

 

Will others 'risk' doing something like this to their brand new acquisition. I hope so, but the chances of cock-ups are manifold....................

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Tony

 

Your 60502 looks superb, I enclose a photo of my 60501 which I have altered for it to look as it would around 1959.

 

I replaced the existing tender totems with the later style, added an AWS bang plate below the front buffer beam and replaced the plain double chimney as well as the usual additions, real coal, lamp, and Fox etched nameplates, works plates, and smokebox number plate.

 

I have yet to replace the smokebox door with the number plate positioned on the top hinge strap, the existing one seems well and truly glued on.

 

As a result of my alterations thank god I do not have to extend the boiler handrails round to the front of the smokebox door, an alteration I do not think I would have had the nerve to carry out.

 

Incidentally looking at archive photos of 60501 the boiler handrails did actually go round onto the smokebox door in the early 1950's.

 

Regards

 

David

 

 

Edited February 21, 2021 by landscapes
Spelling

[Tony Wright]

5 hours ago, Woodcock29 said:

Tony it looks to me that Hornby have at last improved the look of their bogie wheels even if they are still rather wide. These look far more like typical LNER bogie wheels to me.

Andrew

They have indeed Andrew,

 

I agree, the treads are a bit 'wide' (to be fair, these outstanding models are designed to go round train sets), but the side profile is excellent.

 

I claim no credit from this - all I told Hornby's designer during our meetings was that 'I think your current bogie wheels are sh!t!'.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[CUTLER2579]

Surprised you never got to the point Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

36 minutes ago, landscapes said:

Hi Tony

 

Your 60502 looks superb, I enclose a photo of my 60501 which I have altered for it to look as it would around 1959.

 

I replaced the existing tender totems with the later style, added an AWS bang plate below the front buffer beam and replaced the plain double chimney as well as the usual additions, real coal, lamp, and Fox etched nameplates, works plates, and smokebox number plate.

 

I have yet to replace the smokebox door with the number plate positioned on the top hinge strap, the existing one seems well and truly glued on.

 

As a result of my alterations thank god I do not have to extend the boiler handrails round to the front of the smokebox door, an alteration I do not think I would have had the nerve to carry out.

 

Incidentally looking at archive photos of 60501 the boiler handrails did actually go round onto the smokebox door in the early 1950's.

 

Regards

 

David

 

 

Thanks David,

 

All the A2/2s had their horizontal main handrails clipped to the smokebox front ring when they were first rebuilt. It was only after 60501 and 60505 were fitted with Peppercorn boilers (60505 latterly with a Thompson one) that their handrails were cut short. Why, when 60502 and 60506 on receipt of Peppercorn boilers retained theirs clipped to the front? 60503/4, which always retained the original shortened P2 boilers, had the extended 'rails. 

 

Steve has called me 'brave' for soldering on the extensions to my (now) 60502. 'Daft' might be a better adjective, given that the risk of melting part of the smokebox is ever-present. 

 

The thing is, without solder any joint made by glue would just fail - the amount of 'land' to glue to is minute. 

 

Your weathering on 60501 is excellent; it's brought it to life.

 

Aren't the A2/2s fascinating 'animals'? At no time in their lives were any two in the class identical. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[APOLLO]

10 hours ago, john new said:

Outraged and if I wrote what I wanted to write I would be justifiably slung off RMWeb. So the polite reply-

 

if it is in the public domain yes.

 

if it isn’t declared as being PD then theft is theft. How hard is it to just copy a link.

 

Sorry I touched a nerve. just my thoughts., not looking for arguments.  

 

Soon we will be paying for everything on the net like it or not, many newspapers are subscription only etc. Paying for other peoples views on the news is just not on for me.

 

Also what is in the PD, and what is not ?, sometimes (most times) it's difficult for many to determine.

 

I'll leave it at that, have a curved trestle bridge on an incline round a mountain in O gauge to design and build (sick of tunnels !!).

 

Brit15

 

 

 

 

[cctransuk]

10 hours ago, john new said:

Outraged and if I wrote what I wanted to write I would be justifiably slung off RMWeb. So the polite reply-

 

if it is in the public domain yes.

 

if it isn’t declared as being PD then theft is theft. How hard is it to just copy a link.

 

I download images - just short of 100,000 at present - so that I can catalogue and refer to them in future. To find photos of a particular vehicle or location, all that is needed is a search of the appropriate folder.

 

If I did not do this, the chances of Google finding a specific image that I could recall having seen would be minimal. Any image 'owner' that imagines that they can display images on the internet without them being available for all and sundry to download is simply deluded.

 

John Isherwood.

[Chamby]

7 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Good evening Phil,

 

By your time, the bays were hardly being used for terminating or departing passenger traffic, so the length is not that important. However, without them the station can not be operated prototypically. The only trains that ran straight through Leicester Central station were the runners, they avoided the station via the outside lines. Every passenger train stopped at Leicester Central station on the outer platforms and did one of the following, changed engines, changed crews, dropped off or picked up extra carriages, dropped off or picked up vans, or were remarshalled to return in the direction they had come.

 

A change over locomotive would be waiting in one of the bay platforms to take over an express, once the train engine had come off the stock in the outside lines . Parcels vans would be marshalled in the bay platform to add on to a train, or a train engine would remove such traffic from a train and place them in the bay platform. Strengthening carriages were a major feature of operations at Leicester, they were added and removed from trains by use of the bay platforms. There was a constant flow of traffic being moved back and forth between the bay platforms, the parcels depot, Leicester shed, the goods depot, the carriage sidings and cleaning sheds and the mainlines that ran either side of the island platforms.

 

Looking at aero films images, that were gathered originally for what was going to be a model of Leicester Central station, ninety percent of the over all roof was covered over by the late thirties. By your time, you couldn't see a darn thing, except the tops of a few buildings pocking out of the top of the canopy. That was the main reason the model was abandoned and the location moved a couple of hundred yards south of the station. The traffic movements were fantastic and complex.  Just swapping and turning the locomotives from the south and northbound York Bristol, Bristol York trains, that met at Leicester and departed again, was pretty complex. Unfortunately, like most movements, you wouldn't be able to see most of what was going on.

 

I would at least consider not using the phantom through lines for that purpose. Rather you could keep them for marshalling locomotives and stock, just like the real bay platforms and keep the passenger and freight stock to the outside lines were they should be. As it is, you have  taken one of the London extensions iconic  Island platform complexes and ruthlessly cut it in two, creating two isolated up and down platforms, without a subway, bridge any other means of traveling from one amputated part to the other. Did you ancestors work for the MR?

 

Good morning Andrew.

 

You are absolutely right.  Perhaps given the space available, It might have been truer to model something smaller, further down the line, such as Loughborough or Rugby.  But that would be operationally bland in comparison.  So I decided, for better or worse, to capture as much of the essence of Leicester Central as I can within the spatial constraints of my home, and my being a one-man ‘jack of all trades and master of none’ in the modelling sense.

 

I have deliberately not called the model ‘Leicester Central’ because it just isn't... to purists (and myself) it will always be a bit of a curate’s egg, especially in the short term.

 

Regarding the canopy glazing specifically, I came to the same conclusion as yourself about the restricted view from the corrugated covering, especially when viewed from above.  I decided to retain the original glazing and will only weather it lightly, for that very reason.  I appreciate that each of these individual decisions takes me a little further away from the true prototype, but these are all considered decisions that we all must make, within our own tolerances.

 

Operationally as well, I don’t have space for a monster fiddle yard, or the capacity to accurately model every locomotive and coach in every formation that this location saw.  But I do intend to field a decent cross section of representative services, and get as close to the operational subtleties as I can.

 

This will only ever be my personal model railway, and I won’t make claims beyond It being a rather contrived blend of prototype and forced compromise.  A pastime and retirement project, as accurate as I can make it, within the rather significant constraints that I have.

[cctransuk]

13 minutes ago, Chamby said:

.... So I decided, for better or worse, to capture as much of the essence of Leicester Central as I can within the spatial constraints of my home, and my being a one-man ‘jack of all trades and master of none’ in the modelling sense.

......

I have deliberately not called the model ‘Leicester Central’ because it just isn't... to purists (and myself) it will always be a bit of a curate’s egg, especially in the short term.

 

Exactly my approach to Evercreech Junction, which will be entitled 'Creech' - being a much condensed form of the original!

 

John Isherwood.

[landscapes]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks David,

 

All the A2/2s had their horizontal main handrails clipped to the smokebox front ring when they were first rebuilt. It was only after 60501 and 60505 were fitted with Peppercorn boilers (60505 latterly with a Thompson one) that their handrails were cut short. Why, when 60502 and 60506 on receipt of Peppercorn boilers retained theirs clipped to the front? 60503/4, which always retained the original shortened P2 boilers, had the extended 'rails. 

 

Steve has called me 'brave' for soldering on the extensions to my (now) 60502. 'Daft' might be a better adjective, given that the risk of melting part of the smokebox is ever-present. 

 

The thing is, without solder any joint made by glue would just fail - the amount of 'land' to glue to is minute. 

 

Your weathering on 60501 is excellent; it's brought it to life.

 

Aren't the A2/2s fascinating 'animals'? At no time in their lives were any two in the class identical. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Hi Tony

 

For some unknown reason I find all of Thompson’s Pacific’s fascinating, I always have done.

 

Unfortunately I started train-spotting in late 1962 at the tender age of Nine years old and only ever saw four of his Pacific’s 60500, 60513, 60520 and 60523

 

How I wish I could have seen the A2/2’s in service.

 

In your comments earlier you said  60502 is going to be heavy weathered are you going to do that yourself if you don’t mind me asking?

 

Regards

 

David

Edited February 21, 2021 by landscapes
Spelling

[Headstock]

3 hours ago, Chamby said:

 

Good morning Andrew.

 

You are absolutely right.  Perhaps given the space available, It might have been truer to model something smaller, further down the line, such as Loughborough or Rugby.  But that would be operationally bland in comparison.  So I decided, for better or worse, to capture as much of the essence of Leicester Central as I can within the spatial constraints of my home, and my being a one-man ‘jack of all trades and master of none’ in the modelling sense.

 

I have deliberately not called the model ‘Leicester Central’ because it just isn't... to purists (and myself) it will always be a bit of a curate’s egg, especially in the short term.

 

Regarding the canopy glazing specifically, I came to the same conclusion as yourself about the restricted view from the corrugated covering, especially when viewed from above.  I decided to retain the original glazing and will only weather it lightly, for that very reason.  I appreciate that each of these individual decisions takes me a little further away from the true prototype, but these are all considered decisions that we all must make, within our own tolerances.

 

Operationally as well, I don’t have space for a monster fiddle yard, or the capacity to accurately model every locomotive and coach in every formation that this location saw.  But I do intend to field a decent cross section of representative services, and get as close to the operational subtleties as I can.

 

This will only ever be my personal model railway, and I won’t make claims beyond It being a rather contrived blend of prototype and forced compromise.  A pastime and retirement project, as accurate as I can make it, within the rather significant constraints that I have.

 

Good afternoon Phil,

 

Rugby would have been a fascinating location to model, it had a goods yard and like Leicester, it had terminating passenger services, that had to be remarshalled to return from whence they came.

 

If you want to, ''capture as much of the essence of Leicester Central as I can'', you have to recognise that it was and island platform that was the final destination for a lot of workings and services, that was its essence. If you chop it in two and add extra through lines, it kind of misses the point. If you want to convert it into something else, you might as well model Kings cross and make it a through station. St Endoc suggested putting in a piece of cardboard in place to block off the additional through lines. Why not make it a removable section of platform, It needn't be very big, even an inch wide would do and re-join the two orphans?  I don't see how that would infringe on your one man band spatial constraints.

 

From an operational point of view, Leicester was the mid point were everything changed. You don't need a big fiddle yard or even have to model every train to represent that. LSGC has around sixty trains and doesn't model every train or formation. If essence is your thing, what you do need to do is change locomotives on N and S bound expresses, that's what Leicester was for, beyond the typical functions of a station. The station had a seventy foot turntable that could turn the largest locomotives, Leicester sheds turntable was too small for this. All western region locomotives were turned on Leicester's station turntable in order to return south. Locomotives from the North that worked in on services terminating at Leicester, would be turned on the station turntable to work back North. In essence, it was not a through station were things dashed past, it was more of a stop start operation with plenty of shunting. Only the runners came through, while operation continued inboard of them, but even they came down to 10 MPH in the station environs.

Edited February 21, 2021 by Headstock
Remove errant ,

[johndon]

12 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

I download images - just short of 100,000 at present - so that I can catalogue and refer to them in future. To find photos of a particular vehicle or location, all that is needed is a search of the appropriate folder.

 

If I did not do this, the chances of Google finding a specific image that I could recall having seen would be minimal. Any image 'owner' that imagines that they can display images on the internet without them being available for all and sundry to download is simply deluded.

 

John Isherwood.

 

Nothing at all wrong with downloading images for personal use, as you say, once they are on the internet there is nothing to stop anyone from doing it and doing so involves no breach of copyright.  However, there is a big difference between uploading an image to the internet and it being 'public domain'.

 

Where the copyright breach comes in to play is where the person who has downloaded the image does one of the following:

 

1.  Sells copies of that image on eBay - there are thousands of images for sale on eBay where the seller most certainly is not the copyright holder.

 

2. Uses that image in a book or magazine article.  I know of one person who has a huge image collection and, in the past, sent copies of images to people who expressed an interest.  Unfortunately, one of those people then had those images published in a book and, as a result, the owner will no longer allow anyone to have copies of his images.  I know he has hundreds of images of the location I am modelling but he won't allow me to have copies.

 

3. Uploads the image to another website including this one.  By far the worst place for this is Facebook where the general consensus is 'I found it on Google so there is no reason why I can't upload it to Facebook'.  This has happened with images of mine on a number of occasions.

 

As per my signature, I run a website that documents the history of the Tyne Dock to Consett line.  I have hundreds of images on there but, in every case, I have the written permission of the original photographer.  It costs nothing to ask, is the right thing to do and so far, not one person has refused permission.   For some of the images I've published, I've paid the relevant fee to do so.

 

John

 

Edited February 21, 2021 by johndon

[APOLLO]

After watching this very interesting video of long gone railroads in Colorado I decided to add a bit of "excitement" to my operations. Short steam powered ore trains on spindly trestles high in the sky on sharp bends and heavy grades - magic !!.

 

 

A couple of weeks ago I went to the Rocky Mountains (my garage) to do some surveying !! Could I squeeze in a mine branch, mine, and two or three sidings ? Long hard looks at what I had built, and I wanted to keep most of it "as is". Yes I could - The answer was in the video - build it on trestle bridges, on sharp curves and steep gradients up in the sky - just like the old timers did.

 

Peco set track O gauge points were thought practical here. I downloaded and printed templates from the Tower models shop website (Peco haven't got them for some strange reason). I already had a box of track (bull head - yes wrong but it'll do). My method of construction is very strange - but it works. Blast out the sandstone scenery with lump hammer & chisel where required, Cut, bend and lay the track floating in mid air, mark, cut & paint the trestle track base, test fit. That's where I'm up to now. The bents (supports) girders etc will come later this spring - lots of interesting work to do, brings my modelling Mojo alive. Only the first half of the branch is done, the second bit to and including the mine surveyed only and work will commence here this summer when the snow has melted in the mountains !!

 

A couple of before and after shots.

 

The existing narrow gauge. The standard gauge line will pass through here after Blaster Bates has been. The spur has to go.

 

 

Start of the new line (end of the old spur coming out of the tunnel). 

 

 

Existing narrow gauge and mine spur.

 

 

Feasibility study. Track and template laid. The narrow gauge has to go here probably (or curtailed at the point). A dual gauge crossing is beyond me, though I may put in a dummy crossing. I rarely use this line. The station will stay, now a short standard gauge siding and a home for my Gas Electric railcar I built last summer.

 

 

Blasting complete (spot the chisel marks). Hornby track used for N/Gauge for test fit only.

 

 

Trestle bridge track base made & painted. Curvature, clearances  & gradients all OK

 

 

Trestle supports and girder bridge over main line etc to be made & fitted.

 

 

Current end of stage 1. A curved s shape trestle will rise to the mine site.

 

 

Proposed mine site. The station building & one track in front will stay. The narrow gauge yard will be the site of the mine over two or three standard gauge tracks. Just i bit of rock blasting required here.

 

 

NO - you three are NOT going "up there" !!!!

 

 

This is the sort of modelling I really enjoy doing, even though it was an hour at a time in a freezing cold garage last week.

 

Brit15

[Paddy]

On 19/02/2021 at 17:28, Tony Wright said:

A most enjoyable afternoon has been spent thoroughly testing my new Horny A2/2 on Little Bytham....................

 

At first, I thought I'd do a comparison with my near 25 year old DJH prototype A2/2.

 

 

 

The top lamp bracket on the Hornby one will be replaced with a metal one. 

 

One interesting (very interesting?) point is the potential price comparison. Were I to build 60501 from the DJH kit for a customer (the kit would need alterations to the cab and tender for 60501/2, it really suiting 60505/6) and get Ian Rathbone (who painted this one) or Geoff Haynes to paint it, for the final price one could get six Hornby A2/2s! The equivalent of the whole class............ Food for thought.

 

 

Though the Hornby one is not as powerful in terms of pulling power as my kit-built A2/2s, this 13-car rake (mainly modified Bachmann Mk.1s with four kit-builds) was handled with relative ease, with (prototypically?) a fair bit of slipping to get it going. I'd imagine it's more than enough for most buyers. 

 

It goes fast as well..................

 

 

 

Once quality control issues are sorted out (and the 'problems' are not universal), it's a real winner in my opinion. 

 

 

 

Hi @Tony Wright

 

Glad to see your A2 does not seem to have the assembly issues endured by others.  May be the poor ones are down to specific individuals within the factory?  If I was Hornby, I would do causal analysis to reduce the risk of this sort of thing happening again.

 

As you indicate, Hornby's A2 represents incredible value when compared to the cost of the equivalent locomotive built and painted from a kit.  However, this does not excuse Hornby from being accountable for poor assembly and dubious (to some people) livery choices.

 

Whilst cheaper than a kit, the ~£190 RRP is still a lot of money to many people and it is not wrong for them to expect their model to be very good.  If the reality is that Hornby need to increase prices to get to this standard consistently then that is another conversation.

 

I wish Hornby every success and I truly feel for them as I am sure they did not set out to deliver models which have left some of their valued customers feeling disappointed.

 

Kind regards

 

Paddy

 

 

 

[Northmoor]

53 minutes ago, johndon said:

 

Nothing at all wrong with downloading images for personal use, as you say, once they are on the internet there is nothing to stop anyone from doing it and doing so involves no breach of copyright.  However, there is a big difference between uploading an image to the internet and it being 'public domain'.

 

Where the breach comes in to play is where the person who has downloaded the image does one of the following:

 

1.  Sells copies of that image on eBay - there are thousands of images for sale on eBay where the seller most certainly is not the copyright holder.

 

2. Uses that image in a book or magazine article.  I know of one person who has a huge image collection and, in the past, sent copies of images to people who expressed an interest.  Unfortunately, one of those people then had those images published in a book and, as a result the owner will no longer allow anyone to have copies of his images.  I know he has hundreds of images of the location I am modelling but he won't allow me to have copies.

 

3. Uploads the image to another website.  By far the worst place for this is Facebook where the general consensus is 'I found it on Google so there is no reason why I can't upload it to Facebook'.  This has happened with images of mine on a number of occasions.

 

As per my signature, I run a website that documents the history of the Tyne Dock to Consett line.  I have hundreds of images on there but, in every case, I have the written permission of the original photographer.  It costs nothing to ask, is the right thing to do and so far, not one person has refused permission.   For some of the images I've published, I've paid the relevant fee to do so.

 

John

 

After reading your thought-provoking comments above, I thought I'd do a quick eBay search for images of a few known locations.  I found:

- numerous images which are neither useful historical records (often poor technical quality) or good photographs;

- several that I recognise from books, which are almost certainly not the seller's intellectual property;

- quite a few which aren't where the description says they are.

 

Caveat Emptor.....

[robertcwp]

12 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

After reading your thought-provoking comments above, I thought I'd do a quick eBay search for images of a few known locations.  I found:

- numerous images which are neither useful historical records (often poor technical quality) or good photographs;

- several that I recognise from books, which are almost certainly not the seller's intellectual property;

- quite a few which aren't where the description says they are.

 

Caveat Emptor.....

I own lots of images that have appeared in books but so far as I know I have always acquired them with rights to use. In some cases, eg Gerald T Robinson, this was from him via a friend of his and with his full agreement. In other cases, the photographers have passed on and their estates have disposed of the images, usually via dealers. For example, I own several Alan A Jackson and Casserley images that have come that way. 

 

Facebook is indeed a problem. I have no objection to people posting images from my collection on Facebook provided they acknowledge the source. However, I have caught numerous people who have edited the images to either crop off or obscure my name. I usually simply post a link to the image on Flickr and that individual tends not to do it again. I did get into a ridiculous argument on Facebook with someone who claimed to know lots about the issue and clearly did not. This concerned an image taken by Anonty Noakes, of which I own over 100. They all came from his estate via a dealer with full rights to use. Where possible, I acknowledge this in the Flickr caption. That's not always possible as lots of slides and negatives have passed through several hands. On a different note, I acquired an original slide with rights to use that had been held by Colour Rail. The proprietor accidentally forgot to remove it from his site and kindly did so when I checked via the person I bought the slide from, who had sold it on his behalf.

[Northmoor]

Finding an image via Google then claiming that because it was in the public domain, you have the right to use it, isn't really any different to finding someone else's car keys and claiming that entitles you to drive their car.

Rob

[Chamby]

2 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Good afternoon Phil,

 

Rugby would have been a fascinating location to model, it had a goods yard and like Leicester, it had terminating passenger services, that had to be remarshalled to return from whence they came.

 

If you want to, ''capture as much of the essence of Leicester Central as I can'', you have to recognise that it was and island platform that was the final destination for a lot of workings and services, that was its essence. If you chop it in two and add extra through lines, it kind of misses the point. If you want to convert it into something else, you might as well model Kings cross and make it a through station. St Endoc suggested putting in a piece of cardboard in place to block off the additional through lines. Why not make it a removable section of platform, It needn't be very big, even an inch wide would do and re-join the two orphans?  I don't see how that would infringe on your one man band spatial constraints.

 

From an operational point of view, Leicester was the mid point were everything changed. You don't need a big fiddle yard or even have to model every train to represent that. LSGC has around sixty trains and doesn't model every train or formation. If essence is your thing, what you do need to do is change locomotives on N and S bound expresses, that's what Leicester was for, beyond the typical functions of a station. The station had a seventy foot turntable that could turn the largest locomotives, Leicester sheds turntable was too small for this. All western region locomotives were turned on Leicester's station turntable in order to return south. Locomotives from the North that worked in on services terminating at Leicester, would be turned on the station turntable to work back North. In essence, it was not a through station were things dashed past, it was more of a stop start operation with plenty of shunting. Only the runners came through, while operation continued inboard of them, but even they came down to 10 MPH in the station environs.

 

Hi Andrew,

 

Rather than just put in a tiny section of platform, which would make things more operationally correct but to my mind it would just look wrong... are there any precedents for this arrangement on the railway network?  I'd rather, as you suggested earlier, just operate the layout 'as is' utilising the central roads as if they were bays.

 

Alternatively I think I would retain the South Bay in full, and install the central island section and buildings, leaving a token North Bay sufficient to hold a locomotive. Aesthetically that would be much better I think, and I'll probably go down that route if more space isn't available to me in due course.  In the meantime there is a great deal of other aspects of this layout that I can be getting on with, before having to make that call!

 

Thanks for your input and kindest regards,

 

Phil

 

[Jol Wilkinson]

41 minutes ago, Chamby said:

 

Hi Andrew,

 

Rather than just put in a tiny section of platform, which would make things more operationally correct but to my mind it would just look wrong... are there any precedents for this arrangement on the railway network?  I'd rather, as you suggested earlier, just operate the layout 'as is' utilising the central roads as if they were bays.

 

Alternatively I think I would retain the South Bay in full, and install the central island section and buildings, leaving a token North Bay sufficient to hold a locomotive. Aesthetically that would be much better I think, and I'll probably go down that route if more space isn't available to me in due course.  In the meantime there is a great deal of other aspects of this layout that I can be getting on with, before having to make that call!

 

Thanks for your input and kindest regards,

 

Phil

 

 Perhaps a scissors crossover at the centre of the two centre roads would create the operational effect of two bays. 

 

As mentioned, Rugby would make a superb model but require a huge space. The flyovers in the Southern approaches would just have to be modelled. The excellent Warwickshire Railways website has  a wide selection of photos, although  no shots of the bays as far as I can see. Like Leicester GC, Lime Street and others, the overall roof would hide much of the detail.

 

 Tring was also an interesting location which I wanted to model but it wasn't to be. A number of trains from Euston terminated there,  while others were routed from the fast to slow lines and vice versa. Several goods loops held south bound trains while waiting for a path, after they had slogged up the incline through the cutting. 

[Tony Wright]

8 minutes ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

 Perhaps a scissors crossover at the centre of the two centre roads would create the operational effect of two bays. 

 

As mentioned, Rugby would make a superb model but require a huge space. The flyovers in the Southern approaches would just have to be modelled. The excellent Warwickshire Railways website has  a wide selection of photos, although  no shots of the bays as far as I can see. Like Leicester GC, Lime Street and others, the overall roof would hide much of the detail.

 

 Tring was also an interesting location which I wanted to model but it wasn't to be. A number of trains from Euston terminated there,  while others were routed from the fast to slow lines and vice versa. Several goods loops held south bound trains while waiting for a path, after they had slogged up the incline through the cutting. 

Good afternoon Jol,

 

I thought the suggestion was to model Rugby Central. 

 

Rugby L&NWR would require something bigger than Retford's home to do it justice (with the GC passing over the south end for good measure).

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

5 hours ago, landscapes said:

Hi Tony

 

For some unknown reason I find all of Thompson’s Pacific’s fascinating, I always have done.

 

Unfortunately I started train-spotting in late 1962 at the tender age of Nine years old and only ever saw four of his Pacific’s 60500, 60513, 60520 and 60523

 

How I wish I could have seen the A2/2’s in service.

 

In your comments earlier you said  60502 is going to be heavy weathered are you going to do that yourself if you don’t mind me asking?

 

Regards

 

David

I don't your asking anything David,

 

I'll pass it over to Geoff Haynes to weather. Any green issues will then disappear. 

 

I only ever saw one clean A2/2; MONS MEG shortly after shopping. The others were just in BR standard grime, typical of 35A and 50A. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, Paddy said:

 

Hi @Tony Wright

 

Glad to see your A2 does not seem to have the assembly issues endured by others.  May be the poor ones are down to specific individuals within the factory?  If I was Hornby, I would do causal analysis to reduce the risk of this sort of thing happening again.

 

As you indicate, Hornby's A2 represents incredible value when compared to the cost of the equivalent locomotive built and painted from a kit.  However, this does not excuse Hornby from being accountable for poor assembly and dubious (to some people) livery choices.

 

Whilst cheaper than a kit, the ~£190 RRP is still a lot of money to many people and it is not wrong for them to expect their model to be very good.  If the reality is that Hornby need to increase prices to get to this standard consistently then that is another conversation.

 

I wish Hornby every success and I truly feel for them as I am sure they did not set out to deliver models which have left some of their valued customers feeling disappointed.

 

Kind regards

 

Paddy

 

 

 

Good afternoon Paddy,

 

As I said a day or two ago, Hornby is aware of the assembly issues with some of the A2/2s. The firm is fully-aware of its responsibilities with regard to its valued customers.

 

It's a pity the gloss has been taken off the launch of these (if they're right) excellent models. The situation will be resolved. 

 

Meanwhile, I've done a bit more on mine today.................

 

 

Two simple jobs were to paint the rims of all the wheels matt black and also weather the motion.

 

Full (heavy) weathering will complete the job.

 

 

Then it was down to more running; in this instance on the Down 'Northumbrian' made up of 12 cars, mainly modified RTR but with a heavy, kit-built metal triplet catering set. I was surprised it struggled a bit on this, so I tested the nearest Bachmann equivalent (an A2) on the same rake. It took it with relative ease. The weight of the two seemed to be much the same, so I investigated further. The keeper plate on the A2/2's tender had been screwed up tightly, effectively 'applying the brakes'. Half a turn with a screwdriver, and the brakes were off. 

 

I then tried it one of my heaviest trains.....................

 

 

13 on, all metal kit-built! Though it wasn't as assured as my kit-built A2/2s, with a bit of (prototypical) wheel-slip it managed it. I think for an RTR Pacific this is outstanding performance.

 

The straight ejector pipe is correct for 60502.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

Another loco thoroughly tested on LB today was Jesse's V2...................

 

 

This took 14 all-metal kit-built cars - with ease! 

 

It now has balance weights, wiggly pipes and cylinder drain cocks.

 

I'm amazed that it's so powerful give its white metal lump for a chassis, though the Jepson motor is a superb (if old-fashioned) prime mover. Is it worth building a Comet replacement set of frames? 

 

 

[Clearwater]

In the spirit of show and tell and classing myself very much towards the beginner end of the spectrum, I’ve made progress with my Comet D83 coach.  Obviously not one available RTR,  It seems to roll alright and went around our 6 by 4 literal trainset out particularly on the radius 3 and fine through points. I’m sure there’s stuff to improve on but I’m not dissatisfied with it.

 

 Still needs painting and one two detailing bits adding, rails at the end and alarm gear plus one or two grab handles.  I suspect I will go for one of the simpler GWR liveries!  Thanks to all who’ve offered me advice. 
 

David

 

 

[Jon4470]

32 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Is it worth building a Comet replacement set of frames? 

 

 

If it already works well then there’s no point replacing the chassis ...... in my opinion.

[Jeepy]

5 minutes ago, Jon4470 said:

If it already works well then there’s no point replacing the chassis ...... in my opinion.

I agree, I'm a long way from being an expert but i like the old saying, 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it!' 

 

Regards, 

 

Jim.