New tooling - BR Standard 2MT 2-6-0 2MT 78xxx

[MidlandRed]

I’ll be honest, having had 65+ yrs involvement with model railways I’ve never known anything other than pristine models and I suspect that has been the case, as they say, since time immemorial!! Regrettably in my childhood I disfigured several, now quite valuable, model locos with repaints and/or weathering. Because that’s how I saw the trains at the time. I now lament having done so when I get them out of their boxes. 
 

But that is why some modellers weather their own locos and there are a number of firms which specialise in it. 
 

I shan’t be subjecting any of my Accurascale or Sutton’s Loco Works diesels (or Hornby 9F) to weathering in spite of remembering well seeing the few weeks old class 25s like D5234 in dirty condition running from Saltley with only the numbers, windows and safety markings totally clean. There’s plenty of views on line of 6 month old ML freight locos in filthy condition (and WL passenger ones such as D1953-61).
 

 Just my preference but I like the look of them pristine, as they would have appeared at Derby Works open days!! Just my take in it.

 

However the choice is there to weather them if that’s what you want. 

Edited October 16, 2023 by MidlandRed

[cctransuk]

3 minutes ago, MidlandRed said:

I’ll be honest, having had 65+ yrs involvement with model railways I’ve never known anything other than pristine models and I suspect that has been the case, as they say, since time immemorial!! Regrettably in my childhood I disfigured several, now quite valuable, model locos with repaints and/or weathering. Because that’s how I saw the trains at the time. I now lament having done so when I get them out of their boxes. 
 

But that is why some modellers weather their own locos and there are forms which specialise in it. 
 

I shan’t be subjecting any of my Accurascale or Sutton’s Loco Works diesels (or Hornby 9F) to weathering in spite of remembering well seeing the few weeks old class 25s like D5234 in dirty condition running from Saltley with only the numbers, windows and safety markings totally clean. There’s plenty of views on line of 6 month old ML freight locos in filthy condition (and WL passenger ones such as D1953-61).
 

 Just my preference but I like the look of them pristine, as they would have appeared at Derby Works open days!! Just my take in it.

 

However the choice is there to weather them if that’s what you want. 

 

Totally accepted - but the degree to which Hornby have applied the 'bling', to what are inevitably overscale pipes,  has IMHO  - and in this case - worked to the detriment of the product.

 

CJI.

[MidlandRed]

12 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

Totally accepted - but the degree to which Hornby have applied the 'bling', to what are inevitably overscale pipes,  has IMHO  - and in this case - worked to the detriment of the product.

 

CJI.

I’d agree it’s even more blingy than the Ivatt tank I saw at the GCR but it can be toned down by the purchaser if that’s what they want. I must admit I don’t recall seeing many spotless ex GW copper capped chimneys back in the 60s either (but absolutely all models of those prototypes have them).

 

I suspect even those intricately modelled and coloured bits of pipework, handrails and the like on modern very accurately modelled diesels may be slightly out of scale and definitely only visible in that form immediately ex works or within a few days of being so. I guess there’s a balance in these things - a bugbear of mine is the overscale window dividers on some of these - admittedly the latest class 30/31s are light years better than my early 60s Triang ones - but they still look overscale to me - but still good enough for me to have ordered one!!! 
 

I think Hornby have done a great job on this 2MT and should be congratulated. Even the slightly odd slope of the cab sides on the prototype is captured. 

Edited October 16, 2023 by MidlandRed

[Bernard Lamb]

On 15/10/2023 at 17:37, phil-b259 said:

 

I would say its far easier to tone it down with some weathering than it would be to bling it said pipework once it had arrived.

 

Consequently Hornby's approach strikes me as the sensible approach - provide the loco 'ex works' / 'just been built' condition and leave it up to the end user to tone it down as much or as little as they like.

Fair enough, if the model has the correct details as per that time.

We have here a locomotive that is around seven years old (AWS fitted) so it is totally wrong.

Just got mine and will report tomorrow. I do find some things a bit odd, but not surprised given Hornby's history.

Bernard

[adb968008]

2 minutes ago, Bernard Lamb said:

Fair enough, if the model has the correct details as per that time.

We have here a locomotive that is around seven years old (AWS fitted) so it is totally wrong.

Just got mine and will report tomorrow. I do find some things a bit odd, but not surprised given Hornby's history.

Bernard

The model of 78010 (early emblem) is not aws fitted, does not have the batterybox.

 

The late crest ones are aws fitted.

Edited October 16, 2023 by adb968008

[45568]

Now bling-free!! A few minutes with a fine brush, steady hand and a tin of Humbrol black!

 

 

 

I do like this model, and I am considering purchase of 78006 in lined green. There is a pic on Smugmug 

https://railway-photography.smugmug.com/BRStandardSteam/BR-Standard-Class-2-260-780007/7800078003-Built-1952/7800078003/i-3qWgpvg

of 78006 in lined green with an early emblem, dated March 1957. Early enough to be seen alongside Dukedogs and Dean Goods on certain lines?

Cheers from Oz,

Peter C.

[Wheatley]

12 hours ago, Daddyman said:

The issue is not that the pipework is too clean; it's that it's about 3 times overscale. 

Quite. It will be coming off to be replaced with fusewire, like I did on its Ivatt shedmate (although that was adding rather than replacing). 

[Bernard Lamb]

11 hours ago, adb968008 said:

The model of 78010 (early emblem) is not aws fitted, does not have the batterybox.

 

The late crest ones are aws fitted.

I did not say it was.

Do you want to start an argument for the sake of it?

I think that most, nay almost all, people on here are intelligent enough to understand by looking at the photographs what I was talking about.

It is very unlikely that an early emblem example could be seven years old.

Bernard

 

 

[cctransuk]

6 hours ago, 45568 said:

Now bling-free!! A few minutes with a fine brush, steady hand and a tin of Humbrol black!

 

 

 

I do like this model, and I am considering purchase of 78006 in lined green. There is a pic on Smugmug 

https://railway-photography.smugmug.com/BRStandardSteam/BR-Standard-Class-2-260-780007/7800078003-Built-1952/7800078003/i-3qWgpvg

of 78006 in lined green with an early emblem, dated March 1957. Early enough to be seen alongside Dukedogs and Dean Goods on certain lines?

Cheers from Oz,

Peter C.

 

.... and, IMHO, vastly improved!

 

THAT looks like an ex-works loco.

 

CJI.

Edited October 17, 2023 by cctransuk

[The Black Hat]

14 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

Totally accepted - but the degree to which Hornby have applied the 'bling', to what are inevitably overscale pipes,  has IMHO  - and in this case - worked to the detriment of the product.

 

CJI.

 

Got to love how someone located in the Western region is complaining about polished brass/copper... 

[TomScrut]

15 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

Not disputed - but why is it necessary?

 

Are the principal players producing models of actual trains - or a fictitious image of what railways never were?

 

Sooner or later, such 'bling' will become received wisdom of the reality 'back in the day' - and future generations will be unable to understand why such a perfect system was superceded.

 

It isn't accurate, and it isn't justifiable!

 

CJI.

 

Was this "bling" fitted to the locos when they were built? If so, that's how the model should be IMO to allow it to be weathered/darkened to suit the taste of the buyer. In terms of something being modelled as it was X years old, I do still think if something can be cleaned back into a pristine condition then it should be on the model.

 

For example, 78022 in preservation varies in blinginess depending on when you are wishing to model it.

Edited October 17, 2023 by TomScrut

[cctransuk]

1 hour ago, The Black Hat said:

 

Got to love how someone located in the Western region is complaining about polished brass/copper... 

 

At the time that I witnessed the prototype, I was a schoolboy living in Leicester; ex-works locos aplenty at the annual BR Derby Works Horticultural Show / Open Day.

 

The locos looked immaculate, but polished brass and copper was very sparingly bestowed.

 

CJI.

Edited October 17, 2023 by cctransuk

[cctransuk]

57 minutes ago, TomScrut said:

 

Was this "bling" fitted to the locos when they were built? If so, that's how the model should be IMO to allow it to be weathered/darkened to suit the taste of the buyer. In terms of something being modelled as it was X years old, I do still think if something can be cleaned back into a pristine condition then it should be on the model.

 

For example, 78022 in preservation varies in blinginess depending on when you are wishing to model it.

 

As I have posted previously, ex-works locos were NOT polished in the way that the new Hornby loco is presented.

 

For a major public exhibition, a loco might be 'bulledup', but is was a rare exception.

 

44568's model, above, is massively more convincing with the 'bling' obliterated.

 

Depends what you want - a shiny toy or a convincing model.

 

CJI.

[TomScrut]

2 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

polished

 

I think the thing is, and I am maybe completely missing the point here, surely unpolished copper piping etc is still copper coloured, rather than black? I.e. unless they painted the pipes black before sending them out they'd still be material colour until they got dirty?

[cctransuk]

1 minute ago, TomScrut said:

 

I think the thing is, and I am maybe completely missing the point here, surely unpolished copper piping etc is still copper coloured, rather than black? I.e. unless they painted the pipes black before sending them out they'd still be material colour until they got dirty?

 

To my eyes, unpolished copper pipe is a dull reddish brown, and brass a dull yellowish tan.

 

The bottom line is that the copper and brass pipes and fittings on ex-works locos were not strikingly evident - as is the case with Hornby's model.

 

CJI.

[TomScrut]

13 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

To my eyes, unpolished copper pipe is a dull reddish brown, and brass a dull yellowish tan.

 

The bottom line is that the copper and brass pipes and fittings on ex-works locos were not strikingly evident - as is the case with Hornby's model.

 

CJI.

 

Maybe not, and that's slightly different to the thing I thought you had issue with. I thought you were suggesting they should all be black, rather than being a more natural colour.

[cctransuk]

1 hour ago, cctransuk said:

 

As I have posted previously, ex-works locos were NOT polished in the way that the new Hornby loco is presented.

 

For a major public exhibition, a loco might be 'bulledup', but is was a rare exception.

 

44568's model, above, is massively more convincing with the 'bling' obliterated.

 

Depends what you want - a shiny toy or a convincing model.

 

CJI.

 

Further to the above - a little thought will show why ex-works locos were NOT routinely 'bulled up'.

 

BR was a nationalised body, with little incentive or resources to waste on embellishments which made no contribution to the function of the loco.

 

Within days, it would join its comrades under a coat of muck, which would rarely, if ever, be cleaned  - a lowly Standard 2-6-0 would fulfil its duties quite adequately whether shiny or filthy.

 

Why would the railway 'bull up' a loco that was destined for ignominious obscurity within a very short period?

 

CJI.

Edited October 17, 2023 by cctransuk

[VIA185]

No disputing that BR didn't bull up locomotives unnecessarily but BR were not trying to sell 1:76 scale models. Put two identical models in a shop display - one in Hornby 'bling' and another in weathered condition and I don't need to tell you which one will sell first. You might be accustomed to seeing your Landrover covered in mud but would you buy it from the showroom in that state?

[The Stationmaster]

20 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

As I have posted previously, ex-works locos were NOT polished in the way that the new Hornby loco is presented.

 

For a major public exhibition, a loco might be 'bulledup', but is was a rare exception.

 

44568's model, above, is massively more convincing with the 'bling' obliterated.

 

Depends what you want - a shiny toy or a convincing model.

 

CJI.

Ah but if you'd neen to Caerphilly works the impression would have been rather different.  There's a lovely photo of ex-works 78005 in Eric Mountford's book and all the oil pipes around the lubricator and below the front of the smokebox are shiny non-ferrous metal (presumably copper).  and of course the paint finish also shines - because it was a Caerphilly Paint Shop job.  

 

None of it would have lasted more than a day or two in traffic and even if the engine was cleaned properly by Cleaners who knew what they were doing the ex-works varnished paintwork would have looked different once the paraffin/oil mixture got onto it let alone any abrasion as cleaning removed any grit from the surfaces.

 

Interestingly some preservationists do actually polish their engines  - a certain well known Stanier pacific was regularly polished at one time (and might still be for all I know).  And others who didn't know that was what happened could never understand why the engine looked the way that it did.  But I doubt the railway companies or BR ever used polish on their engines - too expensive for a start.  But my some of Carriage Cleaners could almost get the appearance of a polished surface on coaching stock by using something which was not meant for exterior cleaning - but it was very hard work so rarely happened.

 

It all comes back to a simple starting point - I doubt that many people in the wider market would look twice at a grubby or truly dirty model, they'll go for the 'shiny' one every time.  And as already noted it's easy enough to tone down the bling and the shine - not so easy to go the other way.

[The Stationmaster]

20 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

Further to the above - a little thought will show why ex-works locos were NOT routinely 'bulled up'.

 

BR was a nationalised body, with little incentive or resources to waste on embellishments which made no contribution to the function of the loco.

 

Within days, it would join its comrades under a coat of muck, which would rarely, if ever, cleaned  - a lowly Standard 2-6-0 would fulfil its duties quite adequately whether shiny or filthy.

 

Why would the railway 'bull up' a loco that was destined for ignominious obscurity within a very short period?

 

CJI.

The main reason engines weren't cleaned. especially in post-war years, was the lack of staff to do it at most depots.  Any who were recruited as Cleaners very rapidly found themselves passed-out and [promoted to Passed Cleaner so they could be used on firing turns.  Oer - depending on the Region - were covering other far more important running shed work than cleaning.  

 

But still some depots managed to keep at lest some eninges clean - sometimes of the most unlikely classes.  For example Aberdare kept a very clean  lined green 56XX 0-6-2T for passenger work over the Vale of Neath while all its large tender engines either got minimal attention or went uncleaned.

[cctransuk]

1 hour ago, VIA185 said:

No disputing that BR didn't bull up locomotives unnecessarily but BR were not trying to sell 1:76 scale models. Put two identical models in a shop display - one in Hornby 'bling' and another in weathered condition and I don't need to tell you which one will sell first. You might be accustomed to seeing your Landrover covered in mud but would you buy it from the showroom in that state?

 

I am not advocating offering models only in weathered condition - far from it - I loathe those caricatures!

 

I was prompted to make my original comments because I felt that the Hornby finish is, in this case, overdone. There is a subtle but visible difference between a model that portrays an ex-works loco and one which comes over as excessively embellished.

 

If anyone doubts this, compare the as- produced Hornby model with the 'adjusted' model illustrated above by 44568.

 

I know it is a matter of personal choice, but it is important for those of us who like to buy models that look like the prototypes that we remember.

 

CJI.

[phil-b259]

2 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

I know it is a matter of personal choice, but it is important for those of us who like to buy models that look like the prototypes that we remember.

 

The number of people who ‘remember’ British Railways steam is only going one way - and that’s down!

 

As someone born in the late 1970s when I say I want it to look like the engines ‘I remember’ - that will translate as the excellent highly polished look I see on the Bluebell, Severn Valley, etc

 

And I’m not alone - Increasing people’s only memory of ‘working steam’ is the locos they see at Heritage railways - and on most of those railways having the working loco with their copper / pipe work polished is usually the norm so they will expect the same from models.

[Ian Hargrave]

3 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

The main reason engines weren't cleaned. especially in post-war years, was the lack of staff to do it at most depots.  Any who were recruited as Cleaners very rapidly found themselves passed-out and [promoted to Passed Cleaner so they could be used on firing turns.  Oer - depending on the Region - were covering other far more important running shed work than cleaning.  

 

But still some depots managed to keep at lest some eninges clean - sometimes of the most unlikely classes.  For example Aberdare kept a very clean  lined green 56XX 0-6-2T for passenger work over the Vale of Neath while all its large tender engines either got minimal attention or went uncleaned.

Indeed…..as witnessed by the 86J boy on the Gadlys Junction Bridge. Though I have no recollection of any clean locomotive…….🙄

[MikeParkin65]

22 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

The number of people who ‘remember’ British Railways steam is only going one way - and that’s down!

 

As someone born in the late 1970s when I say I want it to look like the engines ‘I remember’ - that will translate as the excellent highly polished look I see on the Bluebell, Severn Valley, etc

 

And I’m not alone - Increasing people’s only memory of ‘working steam’ is the locos they see at Heritage railways - and on most of those railways having the working loco with their copper / pipe work polished is usually the norm so they will expect the same from models.

If you take a proper look at any preserved loco that is in steam you will see that even highly polished locos weather by the hour and pipe work in particular takes on the changing hues of heated metal.  For how to model a preserved loco see Bachmanns version of 75014 as a good example. 

 

Hornby's blingy out of the box look reminds me of a 1970's Ford Capri more than anything else!

[Daddyman]

An out-of-the-box model looks nothing like either a preserved loco or an ex-works or specially cleaned loco in steam days. Weathering a model to look ex-works or recently cleaned is an art in itself. Even to model a museum-standard loco would require careful attention to finishes. Out-of-the-box RTR models resemble nothing on earth.