Peterborough North

[micklner]

The problem at a total guess maybe the   "  [   " between the two pictures it could be causing some weird duplication.  I have had the same problem too no idea why.

[great northern]

The layout is looking fantastic and it looks like the Hornby Mk.1's will provide a great way to increase the numbers of coaches at a reasonable price. I haven't ready too much about them, but two things that spring to mind are: 1. Do Hornby do the BSO that is missing from the Bachmann range? and 2. are the coupling pockets at the 'correct' pocket height as defined in the standards?

I wish! That would be a great help, but at the moment it is just SK CK BSK. As to couplings, no problem coupling them to Bachmann.

[tetleys]

Gilbert /TW

 

That answers my questions and since I've never bothered to reduce the roof welds on my Bachmann models although I do weather and my eye sight does not improve with age I can certainly see me buying the Hornby version along with some decals to add missing graphics and a bag full of Bachmann or Hornby metal wheels.

 

Somebody mentioned the cost of a rake of coaches which of course is expensive but this is where Gilbert's system scores and why I am adopting the same technique on my new layout. Dual direction running and or cassettes, just switch locos and what goes 'up' should eventually return 'down' therefore one rake serves two trains or more if cassettes are adopted. Simples Tch!

 

As for the B.1.with holes visible in the smoke box could it not be a case of a bad steamer receiving attention from the shed master who used trephining to remedy the problem? Just a thought.

 

Confused of Ancaster / Nottingham

[great northern]

Been a long time since I posted anything. I must have been doing other things. I just wish I could remember what they were. I've certainly spent some time looking, unsuccessfully, for things that I put "somewhere safe". Anyway, a few more photos at last. First we have a Down Newcastle relief, with one of our own at the head.

I reckon they look quite nice from this viewpoint, though nowhere near as graceful as an A3.

The same cannot alas be said of the front end view. One thing I have done is to put together another wall. This one is somewhat lower, and has already been toned down a bit, though it needs more. I've also set it in a bit from the houses, as someone kindly suggested. The only problem with doing that is that the wall is not now flush with the side of my mock up building, and I'd much prefer it to be like that. I like the proportions of the mock up too, so I don't really want to shorten it. Does the gap between wall and terraces really make that much difference folks?

One thing I am now very happy with is the basic concept of wall with houses peeping over the top. It really tidies up the background to this B1 arriving with the 1233pm from Grimsby. Strange train this, as it was shown in the public timetable as working through to KX on Fridays only, and terminating on other days. In fact it worked through unadvertised every other day. Does anyone know what that was all about? Although it carried Class A lights the formation was certainly not up to express standards. Very strange. The loco is an early Bachmann one, and the worst runner I possess. It lurches about and makes horrible grinding noises, quite like a real B1 when run down when I think about it. 1202 was a Lincoln engine and very common indeed, so I've stretched things a bit to include it.

Just a slightly different angle, again to see how the background shapes up.

And here is one for the N5 Appreciation Society, which has at least one member.   She has brought in the stock for the 3.22pm to East station, though she will not herself be making the onerous one mile journey. Isn't it amazing what a difference one small alteration can make to the "face" of a locomotive? 61202 was one of the B1's with the number higher up on the smokebox door, and it really does show up.

[Flood]

I will apologise now.

 

Contrary to virtually everyone else I think the A2/2s look both sleek and powerful. That long smoke box without full length smoke deflectors just does it for me. In fact it's the smoke deflectors on the A1s and the other A2s that I just don't like - I even like elephant ears!

 

I am not particularly an LNER fan, nor really a steam fan, but an A2/2 just does it for me.

 

Ok guys, lynch me if you want. Beauty will always be different for everyone.

 

 

By the way: that background's really coming on now - great work.

Edited December 1, 2013 by Flood

[westerner]

I could be another one for lynching as I have to agree with Flood.

[Timara]

I will apologise now.

 

Contrary to virtually everyone else I think the A2/2s look both sleek and powerful. That long smoke box without full length smoke deflectors just does it for me. In fact it's the smoke deflectors on the A1s and the other A2s that I just don't like - I even like elephant ears!

 

I am not particularly an LNER fan, nor really a steam fan, but an A2/2 just does it for me.

 

Ok guys, lynch me if you want. Beauty will always be different for everyone.

 

No need to apologise, Graham!  Having built one of those and with one or two more in the pipeline ( ), I can see entirely where you're coming from.  They have cleaner lines than the later A2s, if one can say that about E.T's pacifics.... *ducks away from missiles*

I'll say one thing though, a Brit without deflectors has a similar air to the A2/2.  Only saying, since mine is currently like that while the paint on them dries!

 

Cheers,

[micklner]

Unique looks combined with the A/1, A2/1 and A2/3 . You always know a Thompson Pacific when you see one . :paint:

[Mallard60022]

Mons Meg;  very good indeed I think the little deflectors add a real sleek look to that front. 

I am the second in the N5 fanclub......that last view is superb.

Quack

Edited December 1, 2013 by Mallard60022

[New Haven Neil]

N5 club #1 here....lovely photos again Gilbert.

 

Actually, despite being a Gresleyphile, I do rather like that shot of Mons Meg too! It does have a look of power no doubt, but not perhaps grace. 

 

I personally would rather see the wall from the corner of the building, which looks more appropriate to me.  The slight difference in being closer to the house fronts matters little in comparison.  IMHO of course!

 

edit for speelink.

Edited December 1, 2013 by New Haven Neil

[great northern]

"Power, but not grace". Very well put I think. They certainly do have a presence, but aesthetic matters were clearly not a priority for ET. I too have a sneaking regard for them, so those who have "come out" over the last few posts are not alone.

[davidw]

It seems there's no 'me too' button

[islandbridgejct]

About the wall. It's probably more important that the boundary wall should run outside the shed to the left, as the shed is clearly more recent and is built inside the railway's property, so I'd expect the wall to continue behind it.

 

(I haven't  contributed in ages, but I'm still following and enjoying developments.)

Alan

[Tony Wright]

Firstly, 

           Congratulations Gilbert on 'nearing' your 200th page. A tribute to the inspiration Peterborough North has given to so many.

 

Though not related to Peterborough North exactly, I note  some pictures and further comments about Thompson's A2/2s. I'll say no more about them, other than to mention a detail I've never ever seen commented on before. That is the position of the nameplates on the smokebox. As originally rebuilt, the shorter named locos had their plates further back - over the steampipes. Later on (I think from 1956 at the latest), those with shorter names (60502/3/4/5), whichever boiler was fitted, had them moved forward - in front of the steampipes. The Isinglass drawing has Mons Meg's name in the further back position (as originally rebuilt), but, for later days (post-'56) it should be forward. I mention this, not as a criticism, but just out of general interest. Yeadon and the RCTS make no comment on it (unless I've missed something).

I've included a picture of my Mons Meg to show what I mean.

I've been trying to work out how many A2/2s I've built down the years. You have one of my five or six Wolves of Badenoch, this Mons Meg is at least the fourth, there at least three Thanes of Fife and one Cock O' The North. Strangely, I've never built any Earls Marischal or Lords President (I think that's the right plural).

 

[New Haven Neil]

_{I'm getting it again - power but not grace! She looks to almost be leaning forward into the load, or am I just an old (ish) romantic?}

 

_{Lovely model, Tony, full of character.}

 

_{(Why can't I change this stupid little font?).}

[Alister_G]

_{I'm getting it again - power but not grace! She looks to almost be leaning forward into the load, or am I just an old (ish) romantic?}

 

_{Lovely model, Tony, full of character.}

 

_{(Why can't I change this stupid little font?).}

 

I agree, a great bit of modelling, Tony.

 

She looks very purposeful, but not at all elegant...

 

Al.

[Tony Wright]

_{I'm getting it again - power but not grace! She looks to almost be leaning forward into the load, or am I just an old (ish) romantic?}

 

_{Lovely model, Tony, full of character.}

 

_{(Why can't I change this stupid little font?).}

Leaning forward? Thanks for the kind comments, but it's probably more to do with my 'wobbly' building. She was dropped once (not from a great height, thankfully), which resulted in the cab roof being squashed a bit. Looking at this picture, have I 'squashed' it back too far? It doesn't look entirely horizontal now. Still, look at 60044's cab in later years - it's all over the place!

 

But, you better get back to Peterborough North. 

[Alister_G]

Leaning forward? Thanks for the kind comments, but it's probably more to do with my 'wobbly' building. She was dropped once (not from a great height, thankfully), which resulted in the cab roof being squashed a bit. Looking at this picture, have I 'squashed' it back too far? It doesn't look entirely horizontal now. Still, look at 60044's cab in later years - it's all over the place!

 

But, you better get back to Peterborough North. 

 

With apologies to Gilbert, I don't think it's your wobbly building, Tony

 

The sweep of the firebox and the length of the smokebox in front of the cylinders does give the impression of leaning forward, to my mind.

 

Maybe I'm just as incurably romantic as New Haven Neil

[davidw]

Firstly, 

           Congratulations Gilbert on 'nearing' your 200th page. A tribute to the inspiration Peterborough North has given to so many.

 

Though not related to Peterborough North exactly, I note  some pictures and further comments about Thompson's A2/2s. I'll say no more about them, other than to mention a detail I've never ever seen commented on before. That is the position of the nameplates on the smokebox. As originally rebuilt, the shorter named locos had their plates further back - over the steampipes. Later on (I think from 1956 at the latest), those with shorter names (60502/3/4/5), whichever boiler was fitted, had them moved forward - in front of the steampipes. The Isinglass drawing has Mons Meg's name in the further back position (as originally rebuilt), but, for later days (post-'56) it should be forward. I mention this, not as a criticism, but just out of general interest. Yeadon and the RCTS make no comment on it (unless I've missed something).

I've included a picture of my Mons Meg to show what I mean.

I've been trying to work out how many A2/2s I've built down the years. You have one of my five or six Wolves of Badenoch, this Mons Meg is at least the fourth, there at least three Thanes of Fife and one Cock O' The North. Strangely, I've never built any Earls Marischal or Lords President (I think that's the right plural).

 

Mons Meg.jpg

Hmm  Dear Mr Hornby or Bachmann or Heljan ........what about one of these? or A2/3 or A2/1?

[micklner]

Blimey !!!!!!!!!!!!! Thompson supporters whatever next  

 

Bachmann have 3/4 of the A2/3 already in the A2 , judging from ebay prices it still is a popular model.

[New Haven Neil]

Leaning forward? Thanks for the kind comments, but it's probably more to do with my 'wobbly' building. She was dropped once (not from a great height, thankfully), which resulted in the cab roof being squashed a bit. Looking at this picture, have I 'squashed' it back too far? It doesn't look entirely horizontal now. Still, look at 60044's cab in later years - it's all over the place!

 

But, you better get back to Peterborough North. 

 

No, that's not what I meant Tony!  acg_mr makes the point I was trying to convey, the loco looks as if she is really putting her back into work, leaning forward taking the weight like a beast of burden ploughing or hauling a load.  It is indeed the long smokebox, set back cylinders and small wheels that give that look. 

 

Afraid my modelling will never reach that standard, please don't think I was implying any criticism of the model. The Wolf or Mons Meg would be my choice......when Bachmann do it....

[Coldgunner]

Heard the news that Saturday is the last day of operation for platform 1...

[great northern]

Leaning forward? Thanks for the kind comments, but it's probably more to do with my 'wobbly' building. She was dropped once (not from a great height, thankfully), which resulted in the cab roof being squashed a bit. Looking at this picture, have I 'squashed' it back too far? It doesn't look entirely horizontal now. Still, look at 60044's cab in later years - it's all over the place!

 

But, you better get back to Peterborough North. 

Not at all Tony, all things Eastern welcome, and Mons Meg does look really good. Your modelling and Ian Rathbone's painting makes, for me anyway, the ultimate practical locomotive. I include the word practical because it runs as well as it looks, which alas can't be said for many professionally built locos.

 

Heard the news that Saturday is the last day of operation for platform 1...

That's the last bit of the old station gone then?

[great northern]

Blimey !!!!!!!!!!!!! Thompson supporters whatever next

 

Bachmann have 3/4 of the A2/3 already in the A2 , judging from ebay prices it still is a popular model.

Thompson supporters? That may be going a bit too far......... It has a "presence" , that's for sure, but actual performance left a lot to be desired.

[Tony Wright]

No, that's not what I meant Tony!  acg_mr makes the point I was trying to convey, the loco looks as if she is really putting her back into work, leaning forward taking the weight like a beast of burden ploughing or hauling a load.  It is indeed the long smokebox, set back cylinders and small wheels that give that look. 

 

Afraid my modelling will never reach that standard, please don't think I was implying any criticism of the model. The Wolf or Mons Meg would be my choice......when Bachmann do it....

Neil,

       I didn't take any 'offence' at all, and my reply was ambiguous to say the least. As for criticism of models, I've been doing that for years. Anyway, constructive criticism is how standards improve, so I actively seek it. 

 

What I meant to say (but didn't) was that whenever I take a picture of any model I've made, I'm usually horrified by what my camera reveals. For instance, 60504's roof does lean forwards from back to front (possibly prototypically) but it's most noticeable via a picture.

 

But, thanks for the kind comments, and, maybe, she does look purposeful.

 

Like Gilbert, I remember these locos in everyday service, and they did look powerful, but slightly 'odd' in my opinion. In my naivety, I recall being given a railway book one Christmas which had a cut-away picture of Cock O' The North in it, only it was as a P2. I couldn't understand, and obviously didn't know, about the rebuilding (I'd be about ten, so Christmas, 1956). So, I puzzled at length why the Cock O' The North I'd seen a month or two before looked so different. Just as any, not particularly bright, decade-old schoolboy might have done, and did.

 

Anyway, enough of my mumblings, and back to Peterborough North.