Moderators AY Mod Posted August 17, 2022 Moderators Share Posted August 17, 2022 13 minutes ago, New Haven Neil said: Surely, the whole point of an EP is for comment internally and externally regarding the model Certainly from my perspective it's a bit demoralising when we do post something for illustration or information purposes and we so often see what seems to be a race to pick fault with it. Often the comments can be rude or lacking any balance. This was the one that started it. 15 hours ago, Miss Prism said: The piston axis doesn't look to be pointing at the axle centre. It doesn't say something like "That's impressive and I'm not sure if it's me but..." And then our time gets taken up so, as I've chosen to do numerous times, we just don't post some of the things we've seen on our travels. It's easier. Anyway, we've been told the design is correct and, yes, the EP may be a little loose in that regard. 12 hours ago, coeurdelyon said: Regarding the piston being inline with the centre driven axle, I am attaching a snippet of the factory 2D drawing to clarify the position Thanks Richard 2 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Hal Nail Posted August 17, 2022 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 17, 2022 (edited) 50 minutes ago, AY Mod said: Certainly from my perspective it's a bit demoralising when we do post something for illustration or information purposes and we so often see what seems to be a race to pick fault I did think it must be disheartening and I wondered earlier if you should perhaps block comments for a short period to allow people to digest before reacting. But, and I'm sad to report that despite your better qualities, come the revolution you and your esteemed colleagues will still be up against the wall for your part in this, stifling chat is rather contrary to the object of social medya, init! :) edit: given things can be misinterpreted, joking aside i thoroughly appreciate your efforts and having seen some blatant racism go unchecked on another forum earlier, also think you strike a good balance between letting people chat but moderating where needed. Edited August 17, 2022 by Hal Nail 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steamport Southport Posted August 17, 2022 Share Posted August 17, 2022 (edited) 14 hours ago, 46444 said: GWR boiler on the prototype I do believe?.. Must say it's a nice looking model covering three BR regions... Cheers, Mark Nope. LMS 6B boiler as fitted to 6 Stanier 3P 2-6-2Ts with minor tweaks. BR even called it a BR6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LMS_Stanier_2-6-2T Link to photo of one. https://www.rail-online.co.uk/p622665815/e9d744658 Jason Edited August 17, 2022 by Steamport Southport 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Prism Posted August 17, 2022 Share Posted August 17, 2022 For sure, there were nice things about it of course. Guess I'll wait for the next photo to arrive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
two tone green Posted August 17, 2022 Share Posted August 17, 2022 And to think this we are trying to reproduce the real world in miniature. Shame real world attitudes can’t be reduced by the scale we model. 🤔 Thanks for the photo and your attempt to keep us informed. Keep up the posts. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arun Sharma Posted August 17, 2022 Share Posted August 17, 2022 (edited) I wonder if Lionheart would consider producing a 77xxx [the 2-6-0 tender version of this tank engine] afterwards? Edited August 17, 2022 by Arun Sharma politeness Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
7007GreatWestern Posted August 17, 2022 Share Posted August 17, 2022 (edited) On 17/08/2022 at 11:21, Steamport Southport said: Nope. LMS 6B boiler as fitted to 6 Stanier 3P 2-6-2Ts with minor tweaks. BR even called it a BR6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LMS_Stanier_2-6-2T Link to photo of one. https://www.rail-online.co.uk/p622665815/e9d744658 Jason Really? "As no existing LMS boiler was available which would suit a Class 3 loco, whilst still allowing weight to be kept within acceptable limits, it was decided to use a slightly adapted version of the Swindon No.2 boiler (the barrel was shortened by 5 13/16 inches) as fitted to the GWR Large Prairies and 56XX 0-6-2 tanks." I expect the source of this quote know what they're talking about:- http://www.82045.org.uk/82045_history.html Can you explain to me why Robert Riddles would base his design for a new standard tank locomotive on one of Stanier's least successful designs? Edited August 18, 2022 by 7007GreatWestern spelling correction 2 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshall5 Posted August 18, 2022 Share Posted August 18, 2022 I was very pleased to see the photos of the EP as I was holding off on ordering an 82xxx as I want 82003 which was a late transfer (1965) to the L.M.Region at Patricroft. The reason being that the first 20 had fluted coupling rods (which the EP has) whereas the remainder had plain ones. 82003 didn't stay long in the Manchester area being withdrawn in Dec.1966 but, strangely, wasn't actually cut up until Oct.1968. Ray. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted August 18, 2022 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 18, 2022 On 17/08/2022 at 11:21, Steamport Southport said: Nope. LMS 6B boiler as fitted to 6 Stanier 3P 2-6-2Ts with minor tweaks. BR even called it a BR6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LMS_Stanier_2-6-2T Link to photo of one. https://www.rail-online.co.uk/p622665815/e9d744658 Jason Alas you are well wrong. the boiler was basically a Swindon No.4 boiler built using the flanging blocks for that boiler although, obviously, a dome was added plus standard fittings etc. As that information comes directly from the writings of E.S. Cox who was a member of the Locomotive Design Committee for the BR Standards (who also pointed out that, unusually among the smaller Standards, the boiler was not based on an LMS design) I think we can be absolutely certain that it was basically a GWR design boiler. 1 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
7007GreatWestern Posted August 18, 2022 Share Posted August 18, 2022 22 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said: Alas you are well wrong. the boiler was basically a Swindon No.4 boiler built using the flanging blocks for that boiler although, obviously, a dome was added plus standard fittings etc. As that information comes directly from the writings of E.S. Cox who was a member of the Locomotive Design Committee for the BR Standards (who also pointed out that, unusually among the smaller Standards, the boiler was not based on an LMS design) I think we can be absolutely certain that it was basically a GWR design boiler. Perhaps the person who wrote the article for The 82045 Steam Locomotive Trust made a typo or cut-and-pasted an inaccurate article from elsewhere? Alternatively there could be some red faces when they try fitting that boiler into the frames.........😅🤣😆 http://www.82045.org.uk/news/82045_news-jly22.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshall5 Posted August 18, 2022 Share Posted August 18, 2022 45 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said: Alas you are well wrong. the boiler was basically a Swindon No.4 boiler built using the flanging blocks for that boiler although, obviously, a dome was added plus standard fittings etc. As that information comes directly from the writings of E.S. Cox who was a member of the Locomotive Design Committee for the BR Standards (who also pointed out that, unusually among the smaller Standards, the boiler was not based on an LMS design) I think we can be absolutely certain that it was basically a GWR design boiler. Whilst I agree that the BR6 boiler was not based on an LMS design it was also not "basically a Swindon No.4 boiler built using the flanging blocks for that boiler.....". The BR6 boiler was based on the Swindon No.2 boiler which had a front dia. of 4'5" and rear dia. of 5'0". The BR6 was 4'5" and 5'0 1/2" respectively. Whilst the No.4 boiler was the same length as the No.2 it was larger in dia. at 4'11" and 5'6" respectively so vastly different to the BR6. Dimensions from official diagrams. Ray. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium John Besley Posted August 18, 2022 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 18, 2022 (edited) 20 hours ago, 7007GreatWestern said: Really? "As no existing LMS boiler was available which would suit a Class 3 loco, whilst still allowing weight to be kept within acceptable limits, it was decided to use a slightly adapted version of the Swindon No.2 boiler (the barrel was shortened by 5 13/16 inches) as fitted to the GWR Large Prairies and 56XX 0-6-2 tanks." I expect the source of this quote know what they're talking about:- http://www.82045.org.uk/82045_history.html Can you explain to me why Robert Riddles would base his design for a new standard tank locomotive on one of Stanier's least successful designs? That is correct ... I researched the design extensively before starting the project back in 1997 I know this might hurt the purist but the 82xxx have a lot of Swindon in them especially as all of them where built there, in essence they are a modern BR(W) prairie The NRM holds all the critical original drawings for the 82xxx ... Edited August 18, 2022 by John Besley 2 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted August 19, 2022 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 19, 2022 15 hours ago, Marshall5 said: Whilst I agree that the BR6 boiler was not based on an LMS design it was also not "basically a Swindon No.4 boiler built using the flanging blocks for that boiler.....". The BR6 boiler was based on the Swindon No.2 boiler which had a front dia. of 4'5" and rear dia. of 5'0". The BR6 was 4'5" and 5'0 1/2" respectively. Whilst the No.4 boiler was the same length as the No.2 it was larger in dia. at 4'11" and 5'6" respectively so vastly different to the BR6. Dimensions from official diagrams. Ray. So one of the people responsible for Standard design detail got it wrong. Fair enough and no doubt shows that we can't always trust the memory of trained loco engineers. (E.S. Cox in this case), Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
84B Oxley Posted August 19, 2022 Share Posted August 19, 2022 82003 at Patricroft. January 3rd 1967. How did it manage to keep the first BR crest so long? 4 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
84B Oxley Posted August 22, 2022 Share Posted August 22, 2022 And my O Gauge version of the same loco. Photographed on Marsh Lane MPD of Preston O Gauge Group. Model was built from a DJB kit well over twenty years ago but has undergone several upgrades in the intervening years. Runs like a sewing machine with a Canon/ABC motor/gearbox. 17 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Popular Post Adrian Stevenson Posted September 4, 2022 Author RMweb Gold Popular Post Share Posted September 4, 2022 A few pics taken today at Guildex. Most impressive loco. Cheers, Ade. 19 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators AY Mod Posted September 4, 2022 Moderators Share Posted September 4, 2022 26 minutes ago, Adrian Stevenson said: A few pics taken today at Guildex. Most impressive loco It's superb; did you get to feel the weight of it? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Adrian Stevenson Posted September 4, 2022 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted September 4, 2022 Hi Andy, I did! Nice to meet up today. Cheers, Ade. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Prism Posted September 4, 2022 Share Posted September 4, 2022 I'm still wondering how they moulded that lot. Astonishing. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pwr Posted October 10, 2022 Share Posted October 10, 2022 I must say that looks pretty impressive. I am glad I ordered one. Paul R 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Adrian Stevenson Posted November 26, 2022 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted November 26, 2022 They are even better now the painted examples are here. Seen today at Warley. I really really like the MT Black livery. Cheers, Ade. 19 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium John Besley Posted November 26, 2022 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 26, 2022 Is there one along side 82045? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Adrian Stevenson Posted November 26, 2022 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted November 26, 2022 I think there was. Here is the real thing. 6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium John Besley Posted November 26, 2022 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 26, 2022 (edited) To think that started with a conversation with Dave Knowling and myself when lighting up an Austrety at Buckfastleigh way back in 1997... I have the spare smokbox numberplate in my workshop still un painted.... must finish it oneday ... See she's got a SR route indicator what shed code is it 72A? Edited November 26, 2022 by John Besley 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidmouth Posted November 27, 2022 Share Posted November 27, 2022 Having seen these in the flesh , these do look stunning and possibly even better than the small prairie which I didn't think possible Really nice to have a chat with Richard from Lionheart yesterday at Warley 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now