Garethp8873 Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 Anyone seen Hornby latest teaser...? Looks like another annoucement is coming our way... https://www.facebook.com/officialhornby/photos/a.10150197267445843.309835.53107985842/10153791545660843/?type=3&theater Garethp8873. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold adb968008 Posted September 22, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 22, 2016 does look a bit like this doesn't it.. http://www.train-photos.net/picture/show/21257/SECR-Wainwright-Class-H-0-4-4T-A26331263-foreground (it's not the first hint of a H class we've seen) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garethp8873 Posted September 22, 2016 Author Share Posted September 22, 2016 does look a bit like this doesn't it.. http://www.train-photos.net/picture/show/21257/SECR-Wainwright-Class-H-0-4-4T-A26331263-foreground (it's not the first hint of a H class we've seen) I'm thinking a H but I will wait and find out... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 I'm thinking a H but I will wait and find out... I don't think there's much doubt: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Ian J. Posted September 22, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 22, 2016 Also, Graham_Muz of this parish said in a status update: A blog post written tonight ready to be published around midday on Friday #tease http://www.grahammuz.com #watchthisspace As he's a Southern modeller, it would fit in Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG John Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 But will they produce a version in SE&CR condition, and I don't mean as preserved? Not my specialist field, but I assume they changed over their life, like most locos. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Black Hat Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 Wonder if its able to be used of the chassis for the M7. Personally, if thats the case Im hoping Hornby might realise that such a chassis could be used for a NER G5. You need something to go with the gorgeous Q6 after all. But better keep the southern lot happy... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garethp8873 Posted September 22, 2016 Author Share Posted September 22, 2016 I don't think there's much doubt: I don't think either but I just feel it's best to wait and hear it from the horse's mouth. Whatever the loco is, my debit card will burn next year...!! That's a definate yes!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 But will they produce a version in SE&CR condition, and I don't mean as preserved? Not my specialist field, but I assume they changed over their life, like most locos. I agree that Hornby will continue the policy of preferring "as preserved" versions to accurate for pre-Grouping versions as, of course, they are only interested in tooling for BR modellers. In some cases this has served us ill, but some prototypes seem to be OK and I suspect this is one of them. The Bachmann SE&CR C Class, the already re-boilered LBSC E4 and, I believe, the LSWR M7, are examples of tooling that permits accurate representation of the pre-Grouping condition. The H class was only introduced in 1904, so the chances seem good that it escaped a rebuild. The bits most often changed on tank engines seem to be boiler/boiler fittings and bunkers, extended or given coal rails. Looking at the photographs of the H Class, none of these areas seem to have been changed. I have not spotted any differences so far. One issue is that the Bluebell locomotive appears to be fitted with Westinghouse cylinders on the front of the LH tank. Only a minority (almost a quarter) of the class were Westinghouse fitted, for the Chatham section, I believe. I can only assume that was correct for No.263, the Bluebell engine, when she was in service, but it limits those wanting to renumber or represent another part of the system. However, hopefully someone who actually knows something about the H Class will come to our rescue! I just feel it's best to wait and hear it from the horse's mouth. Where's the fun in that?!? Well spotted, by the way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG John Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 The H class was only introduced in 1904 That solves my problem then! If it was O gauge I could sneak it on to the K&ESR, but my current 1905 layout is set in the West Country, far from its territory, and the next one is likely to be set in the 1880s. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 That solves my problem then! If it was O gauge I could sneak it on to the K&ESR, but my current 1905 layout is set in the West Country, far from its territory, and the next one is likely to be set in the 1880s. I, on the other hand, will be desperately rubbing my coppers together and seeing if I can master Silhouette and produce an Ashford Gothic set to go with this, the C and the 60' Birdcages! Nice problem to have. Could the SECR be the first (standard gauge) pre-Grouping company to become 'do-able' with RTR? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium phil-b259 Posted September 22, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 22, 2016 One issue is that the Bluebell locomotive appears to be fitted with Westinghouse cylinders on the front of the LH tank. Only a minority (almost a quarter) of the class were Westinghouse fitted, for the Chatham section, I believe. I can only assume that was correct for No.263, the Bluebell engine, when she was in service, but it limits those wanting to renumber or represent another part of the system. However, hopefully someone who actually knows something about the H Class will come to our rescue! Where's the fun in that?!? Well spotted, by the way. If you are referring to the pump looking thing visible on the front of the left hand tank - that is a steam reverser, NOT a Westinghouse pump for air braking. This is a common mistake - the SECR was quite a fan of the steam reverser and its design was agreed to be a good one. The LSWRs attempt was much less satisfactory and some contend that had Mr Bullied's pacifics been fitted with an Ashford based design rather than an Eastleigh one, things could have been very different. In SR days however a number of the H class were additionally fitted with a Westinghouse pump to supply air for the SRs pull-push system of working. On the Bluebell, the H, C and 01 all have steam reversers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-BOAF Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 Wow, if correct. I just hope the colours match the Bachmann version (which seemed relatively correct); will look a bit stupid if they don't. Await with interest. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 If you are referring to the pump looking thing visible on the front of the left hand tank - that is a steam reverser, NOT a Westinghouse pump for air braking. This is a common mistake - the SECR was quite a fan of the steam reverser and its design was agreed to be a good one. The LSWRs attempt was much less satisfactory and some contend that had Mr Bullied's pacifics been fitted with an Ashford based design rather than an Eastleigh one, things could have been very different. In SR days however a number of the H class were additionally fitted with a Westinghouse pump to supply air for the SRs pull-push system of working. On the Bluebell, the H, C and 01 all have steam reversers Phil, I am grateful for that. It explains why the feature is invariably present in views of the LH of the engines despite the fact that, what, only 16 of 66 were air-braked! Well, that's one red herring laid to rest! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 Wow, if correct. I just hope the colours match the Bachmann version (which seemed relatively correct); will look a bit stupid if they don't. Await with interest. Good point, after all GW fans have cause to doubt Hornby's abilities with dark green! I think their Drummond green is a little off too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted September 23, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 23, 2016 Wow, if correct. I just hope the colours match the Bachmann version (which seemed relatively correct); will look a bit stupid if they don't. Await with interest. I generally consider Hornby's BR lined black to be a very good match for other manufacturers' products. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Ian Hargrave Posted September 23, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 23, 2016 I generally consider Hornby's BR lined black to be a very good match for other manufacturers' products. Let Henry Ford be the final arbiter...but then,he's no longer with us,is he ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 That solves my problem then! If it was O gauge I could sneak it on to the K&ESR, but my current 1905 layout is set in the West Country, far from its territory, and the next one is likely to be set in the 1880s. Pity you're not doing the K&ESR in 4mm, because I've just worked out a plan for hacking up Triang clerestories for, inter alia, a LSW Tricomp brake, one of which made its way to the K&ESR! Why not have a layout in both scales; you know what you need right now is yet another layout project! Fingers crossed for a Wainwright liveried H and that Hornby doesn't screw up the green! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG John Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 Pity you're not doing the K&ESR in 4mm, because I've just worked out a plan for hacking up Triang clerestories for, inter alia, a LSW Tricomp brake, one of which made its way to the K&ESR! Why not have a layout in both scales; you know what you need right now is yet another layout project! Far too modern. It would stop me being perverse and modelling the K&ESR when it was neat and tidy, rather than the tatty and decrepit that most people think of! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted September 23, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 23, 2016 I agree that Hornby will continue the policy of preferring "as preserved" versions to accurate for pre-Grouping versions as, of course, they are only interested in tooling for BR modellers. In some cases this has served us ill, but some prototypes seem to be OK and I suspect this is one of them. The Bachmann SE&CR C Class, the already re-boilered LBSC E4 and, I believe, the LSWR M7, are examples of tooling that permits accurate representation of the pre-Grouping condition. The H class was only introduced in 1904, so the chances seem good that it escaped a rebuild. The bits most often changed on tank engines seem to be boiler/boiler fittings and bunkers, extended or given coal rails. Looking at the photographs of the H Class, none of these areas seem to have been changed. I have not spotted any differences so far. One issue is that the Bluebell locomotive appears to be fitted with Westinghouse cylinders on the front of the LH tank. Only a minority (almost a quarter) of the class were Westinghouse fitted, for the Chatham section, I believe. I can only assume that was correct for No.263, the Bluebell engine, when she was in service, but it limits those wanting to renumber or represent another part of the system. However, hopefully someone who actually knows something about the H Class will come to our rescue! Where's the fun in that?!? Well spotted, by the way. In the case of the M7s, there were four main variants and various parts changed and changed back again during LSWR days - check out those pointy smokebox doors. Notwithstanding the pull-push fittings that moved around between various long-frame examples during their careers, the typical M7 "look" seems largely to have settled down by WW1 or shortly afterwards. Thereafter, the only really obvious change was the filling in of coal rails by BR to cope with rubbish coal. As you say, the H Class seems to have escaped anything in the way of major change throughout its history so, even if Hornby do it "as preserved" it won't be far off at least one version of pre-1923 service condition. Removing the Westinghouse cylinder should be child's play for anyone with the confidence to renumber anything finished in the elaborate SECR passenger livery! John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 In the case of the M7s, there were four main variants and various parts changed and changed back again during LSWR days - check out those pointy smokebox doors. Notwithstanding the pull-push fittings that moved around between various long-frame examples during their careers, the typical M7 "look" seems largely to have settled down by WW1 or shortly afterwards. Thereafter, the only really obvious change was the filling in of coal rails by BR to cope with rubbish coal. As you say, the H Class seems to have escaped anything in the way of major change throughout its history so, even if Hornby do it "as preserved" it won't be far off at least one version of pre-1923 service condition. Removing the Westinghouse cylinder should be child's play for anyone with the confidence to renumber anything finished in the elaborate SECR passenger livery! John Much as I'd hoped and expected, but many thanks for confirming, John. Yes, mercifully the Hornby Drummond-liveried M7 has open coal rails and to my uneducated eye, looks much as that short framed batch did in Drummond's day. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSpencer Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 I, on the other hand, will be desperately rubbing my coppers together and seeing if I can master Silhouette and produce an Ashford Gothic set to go with this, the C and the 60' Birdcages! Nice problem to have. Could the SECR be the first (standard gauge) pre-Grouping company to become 'do-able' with RTR? Only if someone does a Dance Hall or some other brake van (and we accept the several later wagon types already produced running around in SECR grey). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Ian Hargrave Posted September 23, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 23, 2016 How about a Wainwright D? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenGiraffe22 Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 For goodness sake, how am I supposed to save for a mortgage deposit when model railway companies keep releasing Southern Railway porn? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 Only if someone does a Dance Hall or some other brake van (and we accept the several later wagon types already produced running around in SECR grey). True, it's not all yet on an RTR plate, but not really a problem because plastic wagon kits are relatively quick and easy and not beyond anyone's ability, and Simon0r of this parish has so ably demonstrated how to adapt a Parkside kit to a SECR brake van: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/112617-buildingbodging-some-secr-brake-vans/ Late SE&CR goods vehicles feature in the Cambrian range. How about a Wainwright D? Not going to argue with you there. I'd prefer Blue Box to tackle it, but I suppose that means I'd be dead and buried before it appeared! For goodness sake, how am I supposed to save for a mortgage deposit when model railway companies keep releasing Southern Railway porn? An interesting way to put it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.