Hornby Star Class

[melmerby]

16 minutes ago, Coach bogie said:

 4056 has been shunted to the other side for the shot. That answers that one then. I do not have the boiler records but it must have received the boiler from 4020 at some point.

Thanks

 

Mike Wiltshire

It's actually the first view of it as "Thunderbolt" enters "Mallingford"

 

Incidentally Anthony Dawson (NRM etc.) suggests the featured loco isn't actually Lion but a sister loco that was bought by MDHB about the same time.

(There has been quite a bit of reconstruction and the tender doesn't belong with it.)

 

[melmerby]

There are two BR period right side photos of 4056 in Nock's "Stars, Castles & Kings", one with large cover, one without.

Unfortunately no year, like most of his runs!

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, Coach bogie said:

 I do not have the boiler records but it must have received the boiler from 4020 at some point.

Thanks

 

Mike Wiltshire

Hi Mike

Any records of major overhauls?

4020 was withdrawn in 1951 when the boiler presumably went into the pool.

4056 can be seen early in BR period without the big cover but has it in 1952 when the film was being shot and still had it when near to withdrawal.

One has to assume that when seen in "Titfield Thunderbolt" 4056 wasn't too long out of works, where it received 4020's boiler and kept it until withdrawn.

[railroadbill]

On 01/04/2020 at 11:20, No Decorum said:

The Parallel Scots. The term was bandied about during their birthing pains – a very embarrassing episode for the LMS.

They were built by North British.  I've read that North British tried to get hold of Castle drawings without any success but did get SR Lord Nelson drawings.  Apparently some boiler details (firebox?)  were similar but how many other details were based on the LNs is a moot point.  Anyway, there could be a case for the Royal Scots (original)  being 3 cylinder Lord Nelsons rather than 3 cylinder Castles.

[No Decorum]

3 hours ago, railroadbill said:

They were built by North British.  I've read that North British tried to get hold of Castle drawings without any success but did get SR Lord Nelson drawings.  Apparently some boiler details (firebox?)  were similar but how many other details were based on the LNs is a moot point.  Anyway, there could be a case for the Royal Scots (original)  being 3 cylinder Lord Nelsons rather than 3 cylinder Castles.

They were indeed built by North British, with interference from the LMS, which hampered them. Most notably, perhaps, in the matter of piston rings, which wore rapidly and leaked steam. The LMS was no doubt influenced by the success of the Castle class on the LNER when trials against Gresley’s A1s were carried out. A Castle class was borrowed by the LMS and performed well. Attempts by the LMS to get the Great Western to build fifty for LMS use were rebuffed, as was the request for drawings. No doubt miffed, the LMS itself at first referred to its new locomotives as improved three cylinder Castles.

 

You’re right, though, that the Royal Scots probably owed more to the design of the Nelsons than to that of the Castles.

 

Edit for clarity: the first fifty were built by North British and the final twenty by the LMS.

Edited April 11, 2020 by No Decorum
Clarity

[Steamport Southport]

4 hours ago, melmerby said:

It's actually the first view of it as "Thunderbolt" enters "Mallingford"

 

Incidentally Anthony Dawson (NRM etc.) suggests the featured loco isn't actually Lion but a sister loco that was bought by MDHB about the same time.

(There has been quite a bit of reconstruction and the tender doesn't belong with it.)

 

 

Anthony Dawson is talking out of his ar$@. 

 

It's definitely Lion. The MDHB still had the paperwork. It can't have been it's sister Tiger as they were different.

 

 

The tender was a spare which came from the Furness Railway when the 0-4-0s were converted to tanks. All the evidence is there. 

 

http://www.lionlocomotive.org.uk/history.html

 

 

 

Jason

[melmerby]

5 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Anthony Dawson is talking out of his ar$@. 

 

It's definitely Lion. The MDHB still had the paperwork. It can't have been it's sister Tiger as they were different.

 

 

The tender was a spare which came from the Furness Railway when the 0-4-0s were converted to tanks. All the evidence is there. 

 

http://www.lionlocomotive.org.uk/history.html

 

 

 

Jason

Maybe you should have a word with him if you have definitive evidence that it is Lion and not another loco. Then he will be able to correct his research.

 

 

[railroadbill]

9 minutes ago, No Decorum said:

They were indeed built by North British, with interference from the LMS, which hampered them. Most notably, perhaps, in the matter of piston rings, which wore rapidly and leaked steam. The LMS was no doubt influenced by the success of the Castle class on the LNER when trials against Gresley’s A1s were carried out. A Castle class was borrowed by the LMS and performed well. Attempts by the LMS to get the Great Western to build fifty for LMS use were rebuffed, as was the request for drawings. No doubt miffed, the LMS itself at first referred to its new locomotives as improved three cylinder Castles.

 

You’re right, though, that the Royal Scots probably owed more to the design of the Nelsons than to that of the Castles.

I'd forgotten about the request by the LMS for 50 GWR built Castles.  Interesting what an LMS Castle would have looked like... exactly like a GWR one perhaps?  One of those what-if's that we'll never know...

 

[perhaps the GWR should have asked for some LMS terrritory in exchange... :-)  ]

[Steamport Southport]

1 minute ago, melmerby said:

Maybe you should have a word with him if you have definitive evidence that it is Lion and not another loco. Then he will be able to correct his research.

 

 

 

His research has already been debunked. Wasn't it who said the Hetton Colliery engine is a replica? He has also said Rocket isn't Rocket. The guy is deluded. I bet he's burning mobile phone transmitters at this very minute.

 

It's up to him to prove everyone else wrong. Not the other way round. The evidence is available in numerous books.

 

 

 

Jason

[No Decorum]

2 minutes ago, railroadbill said:

I'd forgotten about the request by the LMS for 50 GWR built Castles.  Interesting what an LMS Castle would have looked like... exactly like a GWR one perhaps?  One of those what-if's that we'll never know...

 

[perhaps the GWR should have asked for some LMS terrritory in exchange... :-)  ]

I’m inclined to think that it was a good thing for the reputation of the Castles that the Great Western neither built them for the LMS nor supplied drawings. Great Western crews were coached in how to deal with the Castles. With their relatively low superheat, performance tended to deteriorate rapidly if pressure was allowed to fall. LMS crews, used to higher superheat, were quite used to allowing pressure to fall with no major ill effects. This was a contributory cause of poor performance by some of Stanier’s initial designs. In addition, Crewe was a highly efficient works and even in BR days tended to be able to knock out locomotives cheaper than anyone else. I think that Crewe was perhaps a little less particular about precision and a Castle built at Crewe might not have been quite the excellent machine produced by Swindon.

[JimC]

13 minutes ago, No Decorum said:

I’m inclined to think that it was a good thing for the reputation of the Castles that the Great Western neither built them for the LMS nor supplied drawings. 

There's also, I think, a bit of a question mark about how well the GWR engineering would have survived LMS shed maintenance practice. 

[railroadbill]

I went to the NRM last autumn and Lode Star was over their inspection pit so was able to walk underneath it. Not a lot of room to get at oiling points etc. and taking the motion down in a works visit must have been difficult. Later era locos like Britannias with 2 cylinders and outside valve gear  must have made maintenance much easier.  But they didn't look so good, of course. :-)

[Coach bogie]

5 hours ago, melmerby said:

Hi Mike

Any records of major overhauls?

4020 was withdrawn in 1951 when the boiler presumably went into the pool.

4056 can be seen early in BR period without the big cover but has it in 1952 when the film was being shot and still had it when near to withdrawal.

One has to assume that when seen in "Titfield Thunderbolt" 4056 wasn't too long out of works, where it received 4020's boiler and kept it until withdrawn.

It had lost it again by the time of the SLS specials in 1956. That what has thrown me, as I do not have any images on the drivers side taken in the early 50's but quite a few in the last couple of years. where it is the usual small cover.

 

Thanks for all your input.

 

Mike Wiltshire

 

https://picclick.co.uk/Photo-Darkroom-Gwr-Star-Class-Loco-No-192919404210.html#&gid=1&pid=1

[melmerby]

 

Having read through more of the text in Nock's books and worked out what picture was taken at what time and what run it is tied to

I can say that it was back to small cover by the end of 1955.

 

Found another picture ( Snow Hill, 12 aug 1952):

RCTS have a photo dated 28/6/53 still with large cover.

 

4020 seems to be camera shy as I can't find many photos.

 

 

[robmcg]

With the upcoming 4003 'Lode Star' does anyone know if it will have the same livery as the older model from a few years ago?

 

Old model 

 

 

Hornby new model catalogue photo

 

 

Could someone more knowledgeable than me explain the times/years of each livery?

 

Also is it just me or is the new model given a taller safety-valve housing?

 

I know catalogue and pre-production pics are approximations. 

Edited April 11, 2020 by robmcg

[Clearwater]

2 minutes ago, robmcg said:

With the upcoming 4003 'Lode Star' does anyone know if it will have the same livery as the older model from a few years ago?

 

Old model 

 

 

Hornby new model catalogue photo

 

 

Could someone more knowledgeable than me explain the times/years of each livery?

Hi Rob

 

@Miss Prism’s excellent GWR.org.uk has details on loco livery:
 

http://www.gwr.org.uk/liveriesloco1906.html

 

http://www.gwr.org.uk/liveriesloco1934.html

 

My interpretation of the above is the latter looks like monogram livery to me and hence late 1930s as opposed to the great crest western which is 20s/30s style.  Haven’t got sources to hand to check whether 4003 had a 3500g tender for the time period.  If I’m wrong, someone will no doubt correct me!

 

I’ve always found the monogram looks lonely on large sided tanks or tenders but looks lovely when on a bench or ironwork!

 

David

 

[Miss Prism]

9 hours ago, robmcg said:

With the upcoming 4003 'Lode Star' does anyone know if it will have the same livery as the older model from a few years ago? 

 

Two general points:

- as you note, Hornby is prone to photoshopping its illustrations, so what appears in the new catalogue isn't necessarily what will appear on the product;

 

- for locos with tenders, the livery of the loco is given only by what is on the tender, so will reflect a regular tender-swapping process (at major works visits).

 

The Great coat-of-arms Western era is 1926-34. Shirtbutton is 1934-42. 4003 would have swapped to a large 4000g Collett tender shortly after 1937.

 

I would assume that future Hornby production of 4003 is still tied in officially with Steam Museum at Swindon. Currently, I think 4003 is Great coat-of-arms Western. Hornby's illustration reflects the polished valve front and backs of the exhibit, which I find garish and distracting.

 

The significant difference of Hornby's illustrations (both old and new) and the prototype exhibit is the lining of the tender fender. Churchward 3500g fenders were still being lined in the beginning of the shirtbutton era, but were becoming increasingly rare by the late 1930s.

 

[robmcg]

18 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

...

 

The Great coat-of-arms Western era is 1926-34. Shirtbutton is 1934-42. 4003 would have swapped to a large 4000g Collett tender shortly after 1937.

..

 

Pre-1926 I assume was 'Great Western' with round GWR emblem between ?  Except for the plain unlined green c1918-1920 as so delightfully shown on tranpack 4050?

 

And I am told by Edwardian that front bogie brakes went after 1921.

 

I'm not sure about the cab front porthole windows and lining but presume these went fairly early.

 

I guess I was hoping the 4003 might be in pre-1925 condition for the new model but that would require the above mods and of course  would allow my cheap clerestory stock to look a little better with it.     

 

I too find the silver paint a bit overwhelming...

[Craigw]

27 minutes ago, robmcg said:

 

Pre-1926 I assume was 'Great Western' with round GWR emblem between ?  Except for the plain unlined green c1918-1920 as so delightfully shown on tranpack 4050?

 

And I am told by Edwardian that front bogie brakes went after 1921.

 

I'm not sure about the cab front porthole windows and lining but presume these went fairly early.

 

I guess I was hoping the 4003 might be in pre-1925 condition for the new model but that would require the above mods and of course  would allow my cheap clerestory stock to look a little better with it.     

 

I too find the silver paint a bit overwhelming...

 

Early 1920s was WW1 austerity.  Brasswork painted over, though this did vary. Livery was unlined green with "Great Western" on tender. Locos had porthole windows in cab front and tall vacuum pipe at front. Tenders did not have the transverse vacuum cylinder at this point nor the heavier springs. Both are more typically C1925

 

Regards,

 

Craig W

[Siberian Snooper]

A mix of coaching stock would be more appropriate, clerestories mixed with other stock, very few GW trains ran with uniform coaching stock.

 

 

[melmerby]

23 minutes ago, Siberian Snooper said:

A mix of coaching stock would be more appropriate, clerestories mixed with other stock, very few GW trains ran with uniform coaching stock.

 

 

Indeed

Like this in the late 20's:

   

 

And This

 

The clerestories are catering vehicles

 

Edited April 13, 2020 by melmerby

[Ian Hargrave]

The lack of uniformity in train formation lasted well into BR ( W ) days,with the odd exception such as the use of new Hawksworth stock in the Cornish Riviera formation.

[Miss Prism]

Try this one for 1926 variety:

https://www.rail-online.co.uk/p552693582/hDB9271D3#hd5627fa5

 

[robmcg]

Lovely photos all, I have done several pictures with clerestories and other GWR coaching oddities, all odd after I illustrate them,  but may not show them here, some may appear in the Hornby Best Ever thread.

 

One example may be allowed, a c1922 Star with Hornby carriages, edited, will remove if asked. Probably have .livery details wrong but 'approximation' in my watchword.   I made the track, at least, 4' gauge...

 

 

 

[robmcg]

On 13/04/2020 at 20:51, Miss Prism said:

Try this one for 1926 variety:

https://www.rail-online.co.uk/p552693582/hDB9271D3#hd5627fa5

 

 

In keeping with a 1926 theme, here is a 4003 'Lode Star' by Hornby which arrived here in NZ yesterday, photographed by me but with with background removed a la Tony Wright or Peterborough North, and given a warm hue and caption...   

 

What a fine model, the old style effect reduces somewhat the white detailing on the model, not that careful photography cannot subdue it. Tends to reduce argument about Hornby green livery too. :)

 

 

or if you like true 'as the camera sees it' colour

 

 

Pictures edited as in background removal, rather roughly around some detail. Will remove if it offends.

 

Here is one on my desk....    lovely  and roll on Hornby for the new release later this year.

 

  

Edited April 16, 2020 by robmcg