clecklewyke Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 Is this the worst ever model of our Dearly Beloved 4472? Seen in Askrigg Antiques. The proprietor and I think it has been made in an Eastern sweatshop as a trinket for a pub. Any other possibilities? If you simply MUST add it to your collection, contact Daniel Metcalfe -7969 496924 Ian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
'CHARD Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium kevinlms Posted March 18, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 18, 2017 So where does it go wrong? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 It's a damn sight better than my Trix Twin one...... Tony Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tamperman36 Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 they both appear to go wrong the first time you try to turn a corner. Major problem? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandwich station Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 Is this the worst ever model of our Dearly Beloved 4472? Depends on when it was made? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockershovel Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 I rather like the wooden one! Reminds me of a ride-on one we had when I was a toddler, and Brio is with us... Was the first one painted with a toothbrush? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted March 18, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 18, 2017 Is this the worst ever model of our Dearly Beloved 4472? P1090789.jpg P1090790.jpg Seen in Askrigg Antiques. The proprietor and I think it has been made in an Eastern sweatshop as a trinket for a pub. Any other possibilities? If you simply MUST add it to your collection, contact Daniel Metcalfe -7969 496924 Ian Looks to be in much the same condition as Riley's discovered when they dismantled the real thing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Kris Posted March 18, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 18, 2017 There are several other topics floating round showing this awful abomination of a model. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Colin_McLeod Posted March 18, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 18, 2017 The "valve gear" would jam if the locomotive actually moved. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatB Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 Here in Oz they're all over the trinket shops like a rash. Cheapo imports from sweatshops to our north. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenGiraffe22 Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 Alternative Scotsman. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgman Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 Plenty of room for a decoder ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 It's better than the O gauge clockwork 0-4-0 type in having the right number and relative sizes of wheels in sort of the right places on the loco? Looks like there's an opening door in the gangway to the corridor tender too, that's a feature not seen in other attempts! Most of it makes sense, and it is not to be expected that the function of the side rods are going to be correctly interpreted; while the Cartazzi axlebox representation is a thing to wonder at. What does interest me is the length of chain across the front of the footplating. Is there a place in the world where this was normal kit on locomotives? Might give a clue to origin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steamport Southport Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 The chain is vaguely where the lifting holes are. So maybe they have used a photograph of it being lifted when it went on one of it's trips abroad and assumed it always had chains there. Jason Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signaller69 Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 At least the shade and lustre of the paintwork look ok. Think the boiler may be a *tad* on the small side. . . And splasher alignment out a fraction. . . And whats going on with that double "headlight"? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TT3 Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 Well it is a lot better than _that_ clock... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 There's a long tradition of this sort of thing. Hornby, late 1920s, I think. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted March 18, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 18, 2017 There's a long tradition of this sort of thing. Hornby, late 1920s, I think. Whoever produced the new one has made a very much better stab at the tender.................. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 Stabbing at, with a large and heavy pointy thing, might indeed be the best way to improve it. Hornby were doing things on the cheap, by re-liverying a passably OK French loco, and giving it a tender from another loco altogether. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeps Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 If it wasn't pretending to be flying Scotsman it would have a certain eccentric charm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 It's Mum and Dad can be seen below. Mum was a freelance 4-4-0, who donated the tender (which should really carry 2711, not 6100), and Dad was the French loco, which itself should really have been a Pacific! They had three other children, all Atlantics, who wore GWR, SR, and LMS colours, pretending to be a Castle, a Lord Nelson, and a Royal Scot. Four-coupled clockwork locos were a good idea in practice, because they could hurtle round the standard 24" radius tinplate curves. When Hornby eventually produced a six-coupled loco, it had to have an entirely new range of larger radius track to go with it. K Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
garethashenden Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 Well it is a lot better than _that_ clock... This clock? The lengths some people go to to get models to go around train-set curves... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killian keane Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 Well, the bowman 234 representing 4472 wasn't too good, after all it was a 6-2-0 which used the same tooling as caerphilly castle and an LMS crab! Then again, I suppose it made up for that in that even today they are REALLY strong locos http://www.sidestreet.info/locos/loco88.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leopardml2341 Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 So where does it go wrong? Typeface of the lettering? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.