Deliberately Old-Fashioned 0 Scale - Chapter 1

[Donw]

It seems quieter than when I was there a couple of years ago 

A rail tour special from the Midlands I think

 

This was on the regular service

 

Some interesting NG bits at the Corfe Castle end.

 

Don

[Nearholmer]

It was really busy. I deliberately took a picture just after one train had gone, but before the last Train came in.

 

SWMBO said it was the most expensive park and ride ever (from Norden), but I thoroughly enjoyed it, and so did offsprings. Mogul one way, Crompton the other, so the return was like a reprise of commuting thirty years ago!

Edited August 26, 2017 by Nearholmer

[Nearholmer]

While wasting time in a cafe, having arrived ludicrously early for an appointment .......

 

My search for LNER six-wheelers in London suburban service turned-up the below, which seems not to be subject to copyright.

 

The train is out of Broad Street, headed for the 'GNR suburbs', and is a rake of GNR coaches, behind on ex-GCR Pacific tank. I would never have guessed that these locos worked Kings Cross suburbans, but apparently, from 1928 several did. It looks way too powerful for a string of matchboxes, but there is a lot of uphill and short station stops, so maybe not. Would make a very good tin train, and there is a fairly simple way to achieve it .........

 

Incidentally, doesn't the loco look a lot like an LNWR Prince of Wales tank, as produced by Bing for BL? I'm thinking that a bit of copy-catting went on when it came to this design. But, both look lumpen and old-fashioned compared with the contemporary LBSCR Pacific tanks.

Edited September 4, 2017 by Nearholmer

[Nearholmer]

This has now turned into a branchline of interest in these big GCR Pacific tanks.

 

They looked pretty smart when new, and while they were still very much 'modern image' it seems that the resemblance to the LNWR ones was spotted, probably by Greenly, so that Bing made models of them for BL, I assume using the same mechanism as for the LNWR equivalent. There is a picture of one on this page of wondrous beauties http://www.tcawestern.org/bassett.htm

 

I've also found a picture of a model of one in full GCR livery, but 'L&NER' lettering, which looks particularly good.

Edited September 4, 2017 by Nearholmer

[Northroader]

Yes, they've got a nice chunky look about them, and when you're a scratch builder anything with just inside cylinders has to be a good loco. I met up with them at Darlington, mixed in with NER 3cylinder cousins, off down to the coast or up to Bishop Auckland, far away from the GCR, and nice to see they got on to the GNR bit as well. I suppose working out of Marylebone the GWR could see them at High Wycombe. Wonder if they got down the widened lines?

[Nearholmer]

Probably not. The Met service was all electric by the time they were built, and I don't think they would have fitted down (or perhaps more importantly Up) the tunnels at Kings Cross.

 

They were used on the Aylesbury section, after the LNER took the services over from the Met., though, so presumably they hauled Met coaches. I think they might have worked the 'one minute wonder' LNER service from Marylebone to Watford.

 

The cunning plan doesn't involve scratchbuilding, but it might involve advanced surgery on tin-plate.

Edited September 5, 2017 by Nearholmer

[Metropolitan H]

Ere Nearholmer,

 

I thought your desires mainly stayed sarf of the river! Although it won't happen before the N7 is finished - and a J52 - an A5 is definitely on my probable ones to do list. Probably using an ETS mech and an Ace Products kit for the upper works. its one of the reasons why I bought the Dastardly LNER coaches.

 

Regards

Chris H

 

P.S. - The A5s were definitely too big for the Widened lines - just like all the larger Met Railway tanks from Classes G, H and K classes, none of which ran south of Finchley Road.

 

CH.

Edited September 4, 2017 by Metropolitan H

[Nearholmer]

Panic ye not!

 

This is rather a passing interest, resulting from the realisation that this is the first loco I've seen that might be produced by altering one of those awful Hornsby No.2 Special Tanks.

 

It wouldn't result in an accurate model, but it is certainly possible to get a recognisable representation out of it.

[phil_sutters]

Probably not. The Met service was all electric by the time they were built, and I don't think they would have fitted down (or perhaps more importantly Up) the tunnels at Kings Cross.

 

They were used on the Aylesbury section, after the LNER took the services over from the Met., though, so presumably they hauled Met coaches. I think they might have worked the 'one minute wonder' LNER service from Marylebone to Watford.

 

The cunning plan doesn't involve scratchbuilding, but it might involve advanced surgery on tin-plate.

If you are planning on running a clockwork version, this might offer a good place to put the key without making an unsightly hole in a side tank

 

[Metropolitan H]

................................. the realisation that this is the first loco I've seen that might be produced by altering one of those awful Hornsby No.2 Special Tanks.

 

It wouldn't result in an accurate model, but it is certainly possible to get a recognisable representation out of it.

 

Really,

 

I think JG Robinson might be spinning in his grave. I'm not aware of any real loco that could recogniseably be made from the Hornby 4-4-2T - however, I have seen one or two very major rebuild that produced much better looking models.

 

Regards

Chris H

[Nearholmer]

It's much less about insulting Robinson, and much more about saving the world from Frank Hornby's worst ........ taking the tinsnips to one, if I can find a cheap shell, would do everyone a huge favour.

[Metropolitan H]

Have you thought about mutilating two of the Hornby bodies to make a Whitelegg G&SWR or Billington LB&SCR 4-6-4T? - Might look better than maligning an A5 4-6-2T.

 

By the way I do have the Yeadon's register book which includes the A5 - in both the early cab version as in your picturesa or the later side windows (2 off) version as mainly built for use on ex NER lines.

 

Hope third rail work is satisfying and still leaving energy / time for layout progress.

 

See you soon - I need a chat, following a pivotal day trip to P'boro. At least I got to see where Grandfather used to park his bike (in the Bishop's garden) when he went to watch the football - a comic story, but all true.

 

Regards

Chris H

[brianusa]

I'm always surprised of the ire vented on the No.2 Tank engines.  While they may not be the best representation, they look the part and lets face it, if you were ten and you opened one at Christmas, would you care?  Its all too easy to criticise in later life but good ole' Frank was making toys for kids, not grown ups with a fetish for rivets!

 

Brian.

[Metropolitan H]

Brian,

 

Agreed. However, the thought of trying to pass off a Hornby No.2 tank as any real loco type offends.

 

By the way, I don't usually bother to add - or count - rivets, but I do like my locos to have a recognisible outline and face. I have owned a Hornby No.2 tank, but while it might have pleased a very junior me, its charm very soon waned.

 

I happen to like the A5 as a good looking and very capable suburban tank loco design that deserves better representation.

 

But each to his own.

 

Regards

Chris H

 

P.S. - I look forward to seeing more of you layout picture postings. Keep them coming.

 

CH

Edited September 5, 2017 by Metropolitan H

[phil_sutters]

By the way I do have the Yeadon's register book which includes the A5 - in both the early cab version as in your picturesa or the later side windows (2 off) version as mainly built for use on ex NER lines.

 

 

To complete the picture -  but there is something about the 'look' that reminds me of Dad's two OO Bing 2-4-0Ts - one LNER green and one LMSR red - I do wish I hadn't got rid of those, when the succeeding Hornby 3 rail went!

Our local retro market seems to have a steady 0 tinplate element - I don't know whether it's the same stock getting moved around or new stuff coming through - I haven't really looked closely at what they are selling.

Edited September 5, 2017 by phil_sutters

[Nearholmer]

Brian

 

You are unquestionably right in what you say about children's toys, but even toys can look neat, proportionate, and pleasing to the eye, which I contend that the early No.1 locos, and very definitely the No.2 locos, were, or they can look clumsy, disproportionate, and offensive to the eye ....... Rivets aren't even in the discussion.

 

Does it not Pain you to look at this picture? (Readers of a sensitive nature should avert their gaze)

Edited September 5, 2017 by Nearholmer

[brianusa]

 It did mention, perfect in design!

 

Brian.
 

[BG John]

It also says that "The realistic appearance and beautiful lines......may be judged from the above illustration".

 

I judge it a complete failure .

[Simond]

I judge it a case of "what the manufacturing engineer can make for the money" triumphing over "what the designer wanted".

 

Would I be right in thinking Frank fulfilled both roles?

 

Best

Simon

[mervyn]

As the saying goes "In the eye of the beholder" to me it looks Brutish and ungainly and a very naive design .....but I still like it !!

[Nearholmer]

I've no idea whether FM concocted it himself; seems a bit unlikely. I think it came about because there was a need to get more room for the spring to uncoil inside the 'boiler', and to use parts that were either inherited from the previous design, or common with the equally ugly 4-4-2 tender engines.

 

Below is the predecessor, which isn't a great deal more 'realistic', but is a lot nicer to look at, especially if the rear bogie is swapped for a pony truck. But, the clockwork is an uncomfortably tight fit in one of these, and it's very easy to accidentally get the control rods fouling the spring, which greatly reduces length of run, when assembling one.

Edited September 6, 2017 by Nearholmer

[Northroader]

Just to prove what a contrary sod I am, I prefer the 4-4-2T to the 4-4-4T appearance wise.

[Donw]

Just to prove what a contrary sod I am, I prefer the 4-4-2T to the 4-4-4T appearance wise.

 

There's no accounting for taste   

The SR Q1 is quite popular despite its unusual design.  Certainly many small boys would have been delighted to receive one of those 4-4-2T for Christmas.  To me they do look rather like Big Bertha's younger siblings.

 

Don

[johnhutnick]

For all of the complaining about Hornby tank locos, consider how many 2-4-2's and 2-6-4's that Lionel sold which had no basis in reality.

John Hutnick

[Nearholmer]

One more go at this GCR loco, using parts from Mr Hornby's emporium, then I'll be quiet about it.

 

It seems to be 0 gauge, I've got a brand new, unused, meccano reversible clockwork motor, just need the rest of the bits, then I can build the perfect wind-up engine.

Edited September 7, 2017 by Nearholmer