Jump to content

Heljan GWR 47xx Night Owl


Hilux5972
 Share

Recommended Posts

Interesting and makes sense. In a different era I understand railwaymen referred to 'Westerns' as 'thousands'.

 

My feeling is that the name 'Night Owl' was coined by the enthusiast press, just like - as has already been noted - 'Taffy Tank' and even worse, 'Flat Top' for an original West Country. 

Not any enthusiast press that I've had anything to do with!!

CHRIS LEIGH

Interesting and makes sense. In a different era I understand railwaymen referred to 'Westerns' as 'thousands'.

 

My feeling is that the name 'Night Owl' was coined by the enthusiast press, just like - as has already been noted - 'Taffy Tank' and even worse, 'Flat Top' for an original West Country. 

Not any enthusiast press that I've had anything to do with!!

CHRIS LEIGH

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never heard the "Night Owl" appellation before the Didcot group started work. Not saying it was never used but I do't think it was common. My suspicion is that they are trying to bring it into more common usage because named engines are more likely to capture the public imagination. "Night Owl" has a more catchy ring to it than 4709. ;)

 

When new, it was planned to name the class but this was eventually dropped. Anyone want to bet that 4709 is fitted with "Night Owl" name plates when it enters service?

Edited by Karhedron
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Hello Stationmaster (et al)

 

The following is not 'definitive evidence' and is not intended to detract from anything said earlier (particularly about the name being used locally at Oxford).

 

I was a trainspotter around London in the late 50s/early 60s, and an enthusiast since, but had never heard the term 'Night Owl' until last year. My good friend (and fellow member of the Steam Railway Research Society) penned an article about the class which appeared in Steam Days (May and July 2013) as alluded to in posting #59. 'Night Owl' appears in the sub-title and in the caption to the first photo - but, if I recall correctly, Richard didn't write those elements of the text. I have emailed him about this, but he is often away from his computer.

 

In the book Four Thousand Miles on The Footplate (1952)OS Nock wrote an article about a 47xx working. He refers to them simply as '47s'.

 

I will be ordering Heljan's model asap!

 

Brian

Edited by BMacdermott
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The 47XX were quite seriously restricted on route availability being barred from numerous yard sidings etc where the 4-6-0s were allowed plus some serious mainline restrictions as well as they were not permitted to cross the Royal Albert Bridge, were not permitted beyond Beachley Jcn on the Gloucester - Severn Tunnel Jcn route, were not permitted beyond Patchway on the Severn Tunnel route or indeed anywhere in South Wales, were not permitted beyond Worcester on the Oxford - Hereford route, not permitted between Shrewsbury and Hereford or between Bristol and Barnt Green over the former Midland route, not permitted on the West London Line, not permitted Maidenhead to High Wycombe ('Castles' were), , not permitted to Avonmouth Docks via any route, not permitted between Mangotsfield and Bath Green Park, but they were allowed right through to Chester, not permitted Castle Cary to Weymouth. 

But they were allowed on the S&D, right? :jester:

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies for going on about it, but I think the Night owl thing might have been a Laira 'Links' nickname for those 47s. I've got a vague memory of hearing one of the shed staff saying it, but that was in 1959 so I could be mistaken and just totally wrong.

I never heard spotters in Plymuff calling them that.

P

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I don't give two hoots what it's call as long as it's a good model. :derisive:

 

I don't give two hoots what it's call as long as it's a good model. :derisive:

And as long as Heljan find a decent,reliable and long lasting motor for it .Please let's not have another Clayton or Beyer Garratt "event"

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Well...Tysley or Oxley maybe. Saltley (21A ) was LMR not WR.

Don't think they would fit round the connections from the GWR to the LMS in the Up Yard at Bordesley, and the list provided by Stationmaster says they were barred via Barnt Green.

Edited by TheSignalEngineer
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I'm old school and I would not be adverse to remotoring any model as my old fashion Gaugemaster track cleaners fry coreless motors, so as it has a decent rolling chassis and the body is up to todays standards I will be buying one. :toclue:

The BG is not powered,as had been commonly thought,by coreless motors but by bog standard ( very bog,it seems ) 3 pole jobs. The 47XX will be near £200 when it arrives. A lot of Wonga to shell out for possible burn out ,methinks.Heljan need to address putting cheapo motors in expensive kit for some of its OO models.We need them of like standard to those in its HO models.A far cry from the days of Buhler motors,it seems.

Link to post
Share on other sites

RMWeb member "7013" has been asking for a 47xx since the days when Pat Hammond manually collated the wish list results submitted by email.

I am concerned that he may have fallen from his chair and hasn't got back up as I would've expected some response from him.

Please let us know you're alright and that this model finds favour.

 

King regards "7013"

Roy Palfrey (from our old MREMag days)

 

 

I can just imagine 7013 running around town tonight like a demented dervish, dribbling and muttering something about needing a few to all the groups of young ladies he passes, only to be then locked up by dibble to spend the night impersonating a 47xx in his cell!

 

Bet he's a happy chappy that's for sure :-)

 

It has taken me from last Saturdays Warley until now to recover from the shock of seeing that poster on the Heljan Stand. No that was not a tear on my cheek a fly got in my eye. I was so dumfounded that I read 47xx due 2016 then asked the Heljan guy when it was due! Yes I am happy at last to see it being made. personally I would have liked a British Manufacturer to take it on, only because my Beyer Garratt is very good but not excellent, that said the 'Tango' looked superb.

Good to see you are still around Roy, I still send my mutterings in to MREmag, but we have to be a bit more PC these days. Hope you are keeping well, your wit and humour are sorely missed on MREmag.

Edited by 7013
Link to post
Share on other sites

The BG motors may be Bog Standard Ian, but they sure do have some pulling power. I wonder where this story about coreless started? I remember reading it somewhere, perhaps someone with a bit of knowledge should take a peek. It would be nice to believe that the 47xx will have a motor that does it justice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Tony Wright has had nothing but praise to say about the O2 Tango review samples he has had and they have been put to hard work on Little Bytham so I take that as a positive sign for the 47XX.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Tony Wright has had nothing but praise to say about the O2 Tango review samples he has had and they have been put to hard work on Little Bytham so I take that as a positive sign for the 47XX.

And assuming the production O2s turn up well ahead of the 47xx, then there will have been some decent test duration on my layout and a good number of others too.

 

Hattons had a B-G sample running satisfactorily in their shop for some time, so I doubt there's a basic design flaw in this model. What I do suspect is that gear train resistance, and especially any significant inequity in this,  may lead to a motor heating and failing. A hand built test sample is likely to be mechanically well sorted; the production line assemblies will be more variable. (It will be recalled that on the class 17 the cause of failure seemed to be both weak motors and draggy drivelines.)

 

As I have posted before, a three pole motor of the same physical dimensions as that in the B-G is fitted in the class 15. My two examples of this model have been trouble free, and have ample haulage, will happily take away a freight load appropriate to an 8F rating. Although the largest possible motor is always preferred, I don't see this unit as being inadequate. Whatever the problem is on the B-G, I would be confident that it is fixable, and relatively easily...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Apologies for getting my info wrong, it was crews at Oxley not Saltley as mentioned. Found a photograph on flicker of 4706 taken at Oxley where the photographer also refers to it as by its nickname Night Owl.

Not sure from how far back the photographer got the nickname, but the scan was only made in 2012.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The 'XX' suffix was used in official documentation - without going through minute books (unlikely to be the sort that show it in any case) the earliest example I have immediately to hand is the 1927 loads booklet for passenger and parcels etc trains which as it happens doesn't include the 47XX although it does include such interesting things as the 22XX (4-4-0 'County') and allows the same loads for the 29XX, 43XX, and 31XX !!

 

They also used another nomenclature in official books such as the "GWR Engines" series, using a full 4 digits and this is explained in the forward pages as how they refer to their classes. For example: 5700 class, 4000 class for the Stars and Castles being 4073 class. Page 17 of the 1946 edition also uses ** when describing number allocations, to quote '... the "5700" class of 0-6-0T type engines the serial numbers are 57**, 67**,77**, 87** and so on'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So I take it that Hornby will also be announcing a 47xx come December 17 to extend their trifecta of duplicates to four pairs (Kings over Owls)? :jester:

 

If this is slated to arrive in 2016, I wonder if it will appear before Exe/Yeo/Tor, the 1361 and the 1366?

Edited by Ozexpatriate
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...