Hornby announce the ex SECR / SR / BR(s) Wainwright H Class 0-4-4 tank as part of their 2017 range

[it's-er]

Chris Gammell snapped a pair of H tanks crossing on passenger trains at Cranleigh in a sadly undated pic in 'Southern Branchlines 1955-65'. I think my late first wife typed the manuscript for this book. In another caption he quotes the LBSC D3s on this route as being replaced by M7s, then the Hs took over, themselves giving way to the 2-6-2s as said above.

I have just been looking at that photograph, as I have memories of seeing locos with 'funny rooflines' at Cranleigh. My grandparents lived in Cranleigh, and to an 8 or 9 year old from ER territory in Edinburgh, those rooflines looked very odd and old fashioned!

 

The photo you refer to shows H class 31279 and 31543 at Cranleigh, undated (alas!) as you say, and immediately above it there is another photo of H class 31279 at Cranleigh on 8 August 1959. In addition 'The best of Southern steam' by Alan Postlethwaite shows (plate 105) H class 31543 at Cranleigh, also undated. Finally Railway Modeller April 1979 has a photo of H class 31276 at Cranleigh on 4 July 1960 "with set 605 (Maunsell 2-coach plus ex SECR non-corridor 10 compartment strengthening carriage)." This last confirms Trevor's comment at post 174 above.

 

I rather assume these locos would have been allocated to either Guildford or Horsham sheds?

 

John

[Oldddudders]

I have just been looking at that photograph, as I have memories of seeing locos with 'funny rooflines' at Cranleigh. My grandparents lived in Cranleigh, and to an 8 or 9 year old from ER territory in Edinburgh, those rooflines looked very odd and old fashioned!

 

The photo you refer to shows H class 31279 and 31543 at Cranleigh, undated (alas!) as you say, and immediately above it there is another photo of H class 31279 at Cranleigh on 8 August 1959. In addition 'The best of Southern steam' by Alan Postlethwaite shows (plate 105) H class 31543 at Cranleigh, also undated. Finally Railway Modeller April 1979 has a photo of H class 31276 at Cranleigh on 4 July 1960 "with set 605 (Maunsell 2-coach plus ex SECR non-corridor 10 compartment strengthening carriage)." This last confirms Trevor's comment at post 174 above.

 

I rather assume these locos would have been allocated to either Guildford or Horsham sheds?

 

John

 

Horsham, I think. 

[Islesy]

I suppose they didn't get as far as Reading when first built did they? My Dad, who was getting on a bit when I was born, so I'm nowhere near as ancient as it would make me seem, was born at the farm between the SECR and LSWR lines in Wokingham, and would have been about 2 when they first appeared. Not that I want yet another modelling subject to consider!

When the Reading turntable was under repair in July 1935, Nos.1239, 1322 and 1553 were temporarily transferred there, if that's of any help? A bit after first introduction mind...

[DavidH]

Horsham, I think. 

 

The locos came from Brighton. The Brighton-Horsham and Horsham-Guildford services were worked from Brighton, at least in Winter 1960 (see my posting last page). Crews came from either Brighton or Horsham.

 

Unless there is a Guildford duty to cover the Horsham line ...

 

... but there are no Guildford duties for the Horsham line listed in Chris Gammell's book; however, this is unsurprising as the data for this division is from 1966, which is after the Horsham line closed, so rather unhelpful ...

 

Looking at the Summer 1960 locoshed book, I can find no H class locos allocated to Guildford (70C). Without knowing when the Brighton duties changed from M7 to H class, I can't be sure if this is significant. What we need is the Winter 1960 duties list for Guildford ... There are a handful of Guildford allocated M7s in Summer 1960, but don't know at this time what they worked (I'm sure others can provide this information).

 

In Summer 1960 there is at least one H class allocated to Three Bridges (75E) of which Horsham is a subshed. However, the only Three Bridges duty allocated to Hs is the East Grinstead-Three Bridges service. Three Bridges has no Horsham duties.

 

All with the proviso that I assume both books are reliable - I haven't cross-referenced against other contemporary sources (because I don't have them).

 

Hope this helps!

Edited September 28, 2016 by DavidH

[Ian Hargrave]

What a cracking debate ! This is what this forum is all about.

[Clive Mark]

I think the stuff that lasted a little later is where our best bet lies. 

 

As such I would think that means NER S3/LNER B16, NER P1/LNER J25 and the NER C1/LNER J21 would be very much welcome. The NER P3/LNER J27 I would also think highly likely. 

 

But the B16 and all its varients if combined and the J21 and J25 if modelled together both overtake the J27 regularly in wish lists. 

 

Still, let the Southern lot have their moment. However, Hornby should know - we're still watching. 

 

Yes ....I agree with this....but has anyone any idea when ANYONE will do a Maunsell U. There seems to be curse upon this engine !

[John M Upton]

Going purely by photos from the 1950's into the early 1960's in books and elsewhere it seems that pretty much any M7, H and E4 to name but a few classes allocated to anywhere from Guildford in the west to Tonbridge in the east and north to Redhill plus south to Brighton appeared across the Horsham/Three Bridges and beyond area which does suggest a certain inter-working of locos allocated to different sheds in the area.
 

As far as I am concerned if it appeared in that area or was allocated to any of those depots in my time frame then Rule 1 applies!! 

[247 Developments]

We have made a Start on the artwork for Smoke Box No's for the ones that made it in to BR

[Graham_Muz]

We have made a Start on the artwork for Smoke Box No's for the ones that made it in to BR

That will be 64 of the 66 then. Those that didn't make it in to BR were numbers 1264 and 1312

[darren01]

Had and email from Hatton's this morning looks like the BR black with late crest (train pack), so look's like your only be able to get it in a train pack?.

[Graham_Muz]

Darren

 

That is my understanding from the information for the initial releases in 2017 that I wad given in conversation witht the design team, and makes sense as the Pull Push sets were introduced post 1959.

 

At the end of the day we can not expect a manufacture to release every variation in every format immediately!

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

... has anyone any idea when ANYONE will do a Maunsell U. There seems to be curse upon this engine !

 Or even aN curse. Didn't someone on UR-RMweb make a virtue out of necessity and rework his mazak rotted footplate N into a U? If enough folk do it, that's the usual 'raindance' to procure a RTR model...

[locoholic]

Darren

 

That is my understanding from the information for the initial releases in 2017 that I wad given in conversation witht the design team, and makes sense as the Pull Push sets were introduced post 1959.

 

At the end of the day we can not expect a manufacture to release every variation in every format immediately!

 

Although Heljan usually have a good attempt - any idea why they do it, whereas Hornby and Bachmann do a tease, saving the version that you want until four years later, if ever (still waiting for a narrow chimney, late crest green Schools...)?

[BG John]

A new topic on this was started in the Pre-Grouping Forum, but Andy Y locked it and linked to here. I think it could be useful to have separate discussions on pre-grouping aspects of RTR models, as any discussion that happens in the general topic tends to get lost in a mass of irrelevant posts, and confused with pre-grouping liveries on models of preserved locos. Somewhere we could discuss the potential for backdating, or lack of it, and ways to do it, might encourage more people to have a go.

[Edwardian]

A new topic on this was started in the Pre-Grouping Forum, but Andy Y locked it and linked to here. I think it could be useful to have separate discussions on pre-grouping aspects of RTR models, as any discussion that happens in the general topic tends to get lost in a mass of irrelevant posts, and confused with pre-grouping liveries on models of preserved locos. Somewhere we could discuss the potential for backdating, or lack of it, and ways to do it, might encourage more people to have a go.

 

Yes, that is a good idea.  Perhaps a single topic on RTR releases that can or can't be used for Pre-Grouping layouts, on adaptions and conversions, etc. Each new release could be considered and discussed in this light.

 

Time to head back to the Ghetto and leave these good BR-modelling folk in peace!

[Ozexpatriate]

A new topic on this was started in the Pre-Grouping Forum, but Andy Y locked it and linked to here. I think it could be useful to have separate discussions on pre-grouping aspects of RTR models, as any discussion that happens in the general topic tends to get lost in a mass of irrelevant posts, and confused with pre-grouping liveries on models of preserved locos. Somewhere we could discuss the potential for backdating, or lack of it, and ways to do it, might encourage more people to have a go.

I would think a topic like that - focused on how to more accurately back-date RTR models - would be welcome.

 

Recent examples like the Bachmann E4 would be on topic there too.

 

Having a product specific thread - like a "Hornby SECR H Class" thread (like the locked one) in the pre-grouping area doesn't make sense.

[BG John]

Having a product specific thread - like a "Hornby SECR H Class" thread (like the locked one) in the pre-grouping area doesn't make sense.

I think it does, although it's good to have a general one too. I think there's enough pre-grouping related stuff to discuss on the forthcoming Oxford GWR brake van to fill an entire topic, let alone an individual loco!

[Dunsignalling]

I would think a topic like that - focused on how to more accurately back-date RTR models - would be welcome.

 

Recent examples like the Bachmann E4 would be on topic there too.

 

Having a product specific thread - like a "Hornby SECR H Class" thread (like the locked one) in the pre-grouping area doesn't make sense.

If the thread were entitled (something like) "SECR version of Hornby H Class tank", to differentiate it from the topic relating to a general discussion of the models, it would fit into the existing pre-group section of the forum.

 

That way, each model could have its own thread.

 

John

Edited October 2, 2016 by Dunsignalling

[Andy Hayter]

Like others I have found it difficult to distill anything really useful for the pre-grouping period from the general discussions,  Amidst the 50 pages of:

What a lovely model.

We have waited for this for so long.

They are crazy asking so much money.

£x cheaper from this supplier.

They should have done No.x instead, since this one was not found on my insignificant branch line between June 15th and July 2nd 1950.

 

You occasionally find a nugget.

 

Of course they were modified during their lives and this one represents the as preserved state (so what needs to be changed?)

This livery was never carried in service  (so which one(s) was/were?)

 

 

If we do have separate threads to discuss specifically the pre-grouping versions - and I am very much in favour - it is beholden on us to post the shortcomings (if any) and what can be realistically done to improve/backdate the model.

 

If you are all up for it, so am I.

[Ian Hargrave]

My candidate for post of the year ! More like this please.

[Edwardian]

I tend to agree with the last 3 posts. 

 

If there is one reason for posting about the potential of a new release for a pre-Grouping, or early Grouping modeller, on the general product thread, I would say that the reason would be to maintain at least some profile for the relatively neglected periods in the hope that an "average enthusiast", such as myself, might stumble across the possibilities for modelling these wonderful periods in our railway history.   Otherwise there is really nothing to challenge the illusion that railway history began c.1950.

 

On the other hand, any discussion of pre-Grouping models tends to fall on stony ground.  Thankfully we have rather fewer of the "go away and learn to build kits if you want one of those" comments than we used to, but  the odd nugget of pre-Grouping information gets easily lost in the crowd of posts.  For instance, I posted concerning whether anyone knew where the Hs worked prior to WW1, specifically, would they have been seen down the old mainline as far Redhill.

 

That sparked off a number of posts about the class's distribution in the '50s and '60s, which was interesting, informative and doubtless useful for the majority of H Class customers, but it was as if I'd never mentioned their pre-Grouping workings!  How quickly we reset to the hobby's current default!

 

It might be, therefore, that each can best concentrate on his own by separating out the discussion.

[Oldddudders]

Graham Muz does a good job of running a thread announcing every new Southern Railway, predecessors and successors model that he learns about. 

 

It should not be beyond the wit of the Pre-Grouping chappies to come up with something similar.

[BG John]

Graham Muz does a good job of running a thread announcing every new Southern Railway, predecessors and successors model that he learns about. 

 

It should not be beyond the wit of the Pre-Grouping chappies to come up with something similar.

It would have to be a group effort though, due to the diversity of companies, interests and periods. The Southern Railway covered one corner of England and existed for 25 years, while the pre-grouping era covered the whole of Britain and lasted 100 years.

 

What we need to start with is an expert in herding cats .

[Edwardian]

It would have to be a group effort though, due to the diversity of companies, interests and periods. The Southern Railway covered one corner of England and existed for 25 years, while the pre-grouping era covered the whole of Britain and lasted 100 years.

 

What we need to start with is an expert in herding cats .

 

Indeed, and the reality is that the "and predecessors" bit is somewhat token; Graham's threads predominately deal with models that are very much ex- whatever the Southern's progenitors produced because that is what the manufacturers make.

 

But, moves are on foot in the Pre-Grouping section of this site to address the use of RTR models by those interested in ancient history.

[Dunsignalling]

It would have to be a group effort though, due to the diversity of companies, interests and periods. The Southern Railway covered one corner of England and existed for 25 years, while the pre-grouping era covered the whole of Britain and lasted 100 years.

 

What we need to start with is an expert in herding cats .

But the H Class was only in service with the SECR for 19 years.

 

Few of the old companies covered that large an area and that word 'diversity' is exactly what makes your ambition so hard to achieve.

 

"Pre-grouping" steam locos went through so many generations of development in that century that "state of the art" examples from the end of it bear far less resemblance to anything from the beginning than they do to "Evening Star", a loco whose early classmates emerged barely three decades after the grouping and which included very few features that weren't present in Robert Urie's H15 4-6-0 of 1914.  

 

The umbrella term "Pre-group" includes, at its extremes, the Cornwall Minerals Railway and the Great North of Scotland, neither of whose stock can reasonably be mixed, at any time during that 100 years, any more than they should with a Deltic. 

 

The latter, however, can legitimately appear on the same layout as an A4, a Stirling Single, "Rocket" and "Clan Line", if you model the right place on the right day! 

 

Whatever prototype one picks for an r-t-r pre-group model will, by definition, displease more modellers than it pleases. That is, almost certainly, why the manufacturers fight shy of trying to do it and aim those "pre-group liveried" products that they do make, firmly at collectors and the Rule One mob.  

 

John

 

PS. Most cats are pretty adept at organizing their humans, but the converse will never be possible.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Dunsignalling