Hornby Princess Coronation Class (Duchess)

[Robin Brasher]

Five Duchesses (Nos 6230-4) named Buccleuch, Atholl, Montrose, Sutherland and Abercorn were built as conventional engines. In their final years all the Duchesses reverted, more or less, to the classic lines of conventional engines. 

 

 

Edited May 31, 2023 by Robin Brasher
Not the first Duchesses

[Steamport Southport]

6 minutes ago, Robin Brasher said:

The first five Duchesses (Nos 6230-4) named Buccleuch, Atholl, Montrose, Sutherland and Abercorn were built as conventional engines. In their final years all the Duchesses reverted, more or less, to the classic lines of conventional engines. 

 

 

 

They weren't the first five Duchesses though.

 

6220 to 6229 were built before them.

 

Weren't even the first to carry the Duchess names as 6225 was Duchess of Gloucester, then it was Norfolk, Devonshire, Rutland and Hamilton.

 

Ignore the idea they were separate classes. That's an enthusiast thing. The LMS thought of them as just 7Ps and didn't distinguish between a Princess or Duchess, even Turbomotive was just another 7P.

 

 

Jason

[pH]

1 hour ago, Steamport Southport said:

They weren't the first five Duchesses though.

 

6220 to 6229 were built before them.

 

Weren't even the first to carry the Duchess names as 6225 was Duchess of Gloucester, then it was Norfolk, Devonshire, Rutland and Hamilton.

 

It wasn’t as simple as that. Here are the dates to traffic of 6225 to 6234. (From  three separate sources which all agree, though it’s always possible the last two copied from the first 🙂.)
 

6225  5/38

6226  5/38

6227  6/38

6228  6/38

6229  9/38

 

6230  6/38

6231  6/38

6232  7/38

6233  7/38

6234  8/38

 

Yes, the first to service, carrying a ‘Duchess’ name, was definitely 6225. But not all in the 6225-6229 series were in service before the first of the 6230-6234 series. (Individual dates in June 1938 may even be significant!)

Edited May 30, 2023 by pH

[Steamport Southport]

22 minutes ago, pH said:

It wasn’t as simple as that. Here are the dates to traffic of 6225 to 6234. (From  three separate sources which all agree, though it’s always possible the last two copied from the first 🙂.)
 

6225  5/38

6226  5/38

6227  6/38

6228  6/38

6229  9/38

 

6230  6/38

6231  6/38

6232  7/38

6233  7/38

6234  8/38

 

Yes, the first to service, carrying a ‘Duchess’ name, was definitely 6225. But not all in the 6225-6229 series were in service before the first of the 6230-6234 series. (Individual dates in June 1938 may even be significant!)

 

6229 Duchess Of Hamilton was late into service as it was being prepared for it's American trip.

 

 

Jason

[Robin Brasher]

12 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

They weren't the first five Duchesses though.

 

6220 to 6229 were built before them.

 

Weren't even the first to carry the Duchess names as 6225 was Duchess of Gloucester, then it was Norfolk, Devonshire, Rutland and Hamilton.

 

Ignore the idea they were separate classes. That's an enthusiast thing. The LMS thought of them as just 7Ps and didn't distinguish between a Princess or Duchess, even Turbomotive was just another 7P.

 

 

Jason

Thank you. I have amended my post

[Pete the Elaner]

11 hours ago, pH said:

 

Yes, the first to service, carrying a ‘Duchess’ name, was definitely 6225. But not all in the 6225-6229 series were in service before the first of the 6230-6234 series. (Individual dates in June 1938 may even be significant!)

 

I've made a spreadsheet of the class for different details in LMS days (So City of Salford is ignored) & the dates I have agree with your list completely. My list is obviously compiled from other sources, probably the same ones you have used?

 

Just to add extra confusion: 6212, the last of the Princess class, was named Duchess of Kent & 6223/6224, from the first batch of 5 Princess Coronations, were named Princess Alice & Princess Alexandra.

I am sure most classes had a lot of variations within the class, but streamlined casings, smoke deflectors & single/double chimney are probably more obvious than most.

[Robin Brasher]

The trilogy of Hornby Dublo inspired Duchesses has given me the opportunity to compare the Hornby Dublo and Hornby models.  The Hornby Dublo and Wrenn Princess Coronation models were excellent and have stood the test of time.  Hornby Dublo probably chose to model 'City of London' and 'Duchess of Montrose' because they were the first members of the class to be painted maroon and green respectively. The shortcomings in appearance of the Hornby Dublo and Wrenn models only became apparent to me when the new Hornby models appeared with the main difference being the larger diameter wheels on the Hornby version. The Hornby 'City of London' has the lining in the right places which is a bright yellow as in the prototype. Conversely the lining on the Hornby 'Duchess of Montrose' is more subdued than the lining on the Hornby Dublo model. The gold lettering and lining on the Hornby 'Duchess of Atholl' is better than the Hornby Dublo version which is unlined. The gold was unique to 'Duchess of Atholl' and, being more subdued than the yellow lining and lettering of the British Railways locomotives, looks better to me.

[Standards_in_OO]

I have just received my City of London from TMC which looks awesome. One observation though, should it have overhead wire warning signs if it is in maroon? I’m not sure the exact time the duchess’s were painted maroon but other models and photos of the real things often have these on. I don’t mind either way, just something I noticed. 

[AY Mod]

22 minutes ago, Standards_in_OO said:

One observation though, should it have overhead wire warning signs if it is in maroon?

 

1963 images on Colour Rail with flashes.

 

Looking at some less discernible B/W shots they were probably there in 1962 and probably not in 1961 - despite being under the wires.

 

[Standards_in_OO]

52 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

 

1963 images on Colour Rail with flashes.

 

Looking at some less discernible B/W shots they were probably there in 1962 and probably not in 1961 - despite being under the wires.

 

That’s great thank you for sharing! 

[adb968008]

3 hours ago, Standards_in_OO said:

I have just received my City of London from TMC which looks awesome. One observation though, should it have overhead wire warning signs if it is in maroon? I’m not sure the exact time the duchess’s were painted maroon but other models and photos of the real things often have these on. I don’t mind either way, just something I noticed. 

Duchesses went maroon mid-1950’s (first with lms style lining), then as per the model in 1958, but AC Electrification wasnt until 1960 and OHLE flashes came about.

 

So mid 1958- early 1960 would be correct.

[adb968008]

Fyi flickr picture from 1959..

 

not mine, its a decade+ before my time.

 

Edited June 9, 2023 by adb968008

[Standards_in_OO]

4 hours ago, adb968008 said:

Duchesses went maroon mid-1950’s (first with lms style lining), then as per the model in 1958, but AC Electrification wasnt until 1960 and OHLE flashes came about.

 

So mid 1958- early 1960 would be correct.

Thanks for clarifying. Really looking forward to running this one in over the weekend. 

[MikeParkin65]

On 09/06/2023 at 13:31, adb968008 said:

Duchesses went maroon mid-1950’s (first with lms style lining), then as per the model in 1958, but AC Electrification wasnt until 1960 and OHLE flashes came about.

 

So mid 1958- early 1960 would be correct.

The model is supplied with the AWS fitted (as were the previously issued 46229 and 46235) but without the electrification flashes. According to the RCTS book AWS was fitted to the entire class from Feb 1959 commencing with 46235. 46245 recieved its in March 1959 so I suggest the period when it ran with AWS but without flashes is limited to mid 1959 to early 1960. Interestingly I think the photo in @Andy Y 's post dated 20/05/61 does  show the bottom of a flash fitted to the front of the frames but not the one in front of the top feed - a possible variation following some shed attention perhaps.

[Robin Brasher]

I ran my Hornby 'City of London' and 'Duchess of Atholl' at the Wessex Group of the Hornby Collectors Association meeting at Corfe Mullen last Tuesday.  They both ran very well hauling three Mainline Stanier coaches on an 8' x 4' layout with Peco large radius points, It was nostalgic and reminded me of the train set days in the 1950s when we ran Hornby Dublo maroon Pacific locomotives with three coaches on imaginary journeys on the the West Coast main line.

[paul 27]

On 14/11/2022 at 19:13, 5 C said:

Only to a point.

 

Most of the fittings (coupling rods, valve gear, cylinders etc.) are interchangeable along with components like the motor retainer and the fixed trailing truck.

 

The current version includes a casting of the lower firebox which is part of the bodyshell moulding on the previous version.

 

The previous version has two lugs at the front to locate the bodyshell which are absent on the current version. The previous version went through several incarnations - I seem to have several different versions. The main changes were to accommodate the fixed trailing truck but also various DCC installations.

Very interesting i wonder if the earlier body would fit onto the latest chassis

was thinking of City of Nottingham  weathered version with the fixed rear bogie,

with out too much modification.

[MikeParkin65]

I am going to research this latter so not being lazy but wondering if anyone knows if any of the original non streamliners  (6230-4) ever ran with ex streamliner tenders? Reason I ask is that I have acquired a full footplate body (ex 46232) and have in the spares a chassis and complete tender ex 46235. Both BR green. I think 46249-52 would have originally had streamlined tenders (ordered as streamliners and tenders completed before loco's which were delivered unstreamlined)  but would like to model 46230-4 if there is prototype evidence. Perhaps 46242 post Harrow as well?

[Tiddles47]

1 hour ago, MikeParkin65 said:

I am going to research this latter so not being lazy but wondering if anyone knows if any of the original non streamliners  (6230-4) ever ran with ex streamliner tenders? Reason I ask is that I have acquired a full footplate body (ex 46232) and have in the spares a chassis and complete tender ex 46235. Both BR green. I think 46249-52 would have originally had streamlined tenders (ordered as streamliners and tenders completed before loco's which were delivered unstreamlined)  but would like to model 46230-4 if there is prototype evidence. Perhaps 46242 post Harrow as well?

This site may be of use to you https://www.brdatabase.info/

[ScRSG]

If it helps, 46230 definitely ran with an ex streamlined tender, and if I remember was the tender originally allocated to 46247. The only photo evidence I have seen shows from ezly crest BR days, so can't be sure that it carried the ex streamline tender in LMS days.

 

Chas

[MikeParkin65]

Thanks Chas. Just perusing the RCTS tome which suggests both 6230 and 6231 had streamlined tenders from 1945 to withdrawal (table 4.6).  

3 hours ago, ScRSG said:

If it helps, 46230 definitely ran with an ex streamlined tender, and if I remember was the tender originally allocated to 46247. The only photo evidence I have seen shows from ezly crest BR days, so can't be sure that it carried the ex streamline tender in LMS days.

 

Chas

According to the table 6230,s tender was 9707 which was new with 6224. 6231 had 9812 which was new with 6249. 

[MikeParkin65]

Subtle difference in shade of green between the ex 46235 tender and the 46232 body. Think  I can live with it. Interestingly the older 46239 looks a closer match. 

[atom3624]

Nice relatively tight gap between locomotive and tender too.

I would say it's the weathering effect of the heat in the boiler fading the locomotive green slightly, if anyone asked!!

Is there any way you can better-centre the speedo?  If they're plastic-centred wheels, I have done this on several locomotives - a pet peev of mine!

Al.

[Steamport Southport]

21 hours ago, MikeParkin65 said:

I am going to research this latter so not being lazy but wondering if anyone knows if any of the original non streamliners  (6230-4) ever ran with ex streamliner tenders? Reason I ask is that I have acquired a full footplate body (ex 46232) and have in the spares a chassis and complete tender ex 46235. Both BR green. I think 46249-52 would have originally had streamlined tenders (ordered as streamliners and tenders completed before loco's which were delivered unstreamlined)  but would like to model 46230-4 if there is prototype evidence. Perhaps 46242 post Harrow as well?

 

Wiki. The details tally with with published sources.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LMS_Coronation_Class#Table_of_tender_and_locomotive_pairings

 

 

 

Jason

[MikeParkin65]

1 hour ago, atom3624 said:

Nice relatively tight gap between locomotive and tender too.

I would say it's the weathering effect of the heat in the boiler fading the locomotive green slightly, if anyone asked!!

Is there any way you can better-centre the speedo?  If they're plastic-centred wheels, I have done this on several locomotives - a pet peev of mine!

Al.

I'll be honest - I saw discussion of speedo drive angles elsewhere and dont properly understand what the problem is. Same with return cranks. Anything that upsets the security of the rods on the model I avoid (if its working and all that!) and I usually wait for these flimsy speedos to snap then fit a static Comet version

[Flying Pig]

8 minutes ago, MikeParkin65 said:

I'll be honest - I saw discussion of speedo drive angles elsewhere and dont properly understand what the problem is. Same with return cranks. Anything that upsets the security of the rods on the model I avoid (if its working and all that!) and I usually wait for these flimsy speedos to snap then fit a static Comet version

 

The free end of the speedo crank should be on the axle centreline to ensure it and the speedo don't move. Otherwise it will describe a circle as the crank rotates and the speedo will have to follow.

 

The end of a Walschaerts return crank is meant to be off centre so that it does induce motion in the attached rod.