Peterborough North

[Theakerr]

Congratulations on 200 pages.  A very significant achievement.

[hornbyandbf3fan]

201 now! Great pictures as always, makes me want to change the region of the layout I was planning and I have a sudden want for some Gresley suburbans!

[coachmann]

If there is one thing that lets those A4's down, it is the slab-sided cylinders. Yes I know why they are like that....To clear the chassis when removing the body, but surely there is something that can be done when the bottom of cylinders should be well rounded. 

Edited December 4, 2013 by coachmann

[jrg1]

I think Tonys last post  sums up a lot of Thompsons work, he appears to take great delight with interfering with original designs. Ones that spring to mind are other than Pacifics are:-

J11 D49 D20 O4 B17

As far as I know none of these were any better than the original designs or in some cases even worse!!.

Same point again, he must have been some kind of magician with the LNER Board how to did he ever justify these rebuilds to them. Wartime conditions, LNER skint as ever and there he is fluffing about with old Locos looking for ones to rebuild to become projected standard designs for the LNER.

 

Tony those unpublished notes, sound like a very good basis for a very interesting book !!

I think the P2s were used in the wrong application-they should have been on the GN main line, working the heaviest loads, and not on a route (Edinburgh-Dundee) singularly unsuited to them.  As rebuilds, i understand they were prone to slipping, not used if possible on top link work, and the first class to be scrapped from 1959.  

Peppercorn's main modification was in the location of the front end and connecting rod arrangement-a reversal of what the chief draughtsman at Doncaster called a design based around the con-rods.

No idea what the aim was to produce the K5-the K3 design was over two decades old, and grafting a B1 front end on would never recoup rebuilding costs.

Taking a rotary valve gear D49 and installing D11 cylinders-a design going back nearly half a century has an aim of whimsy about it-and a rough shunt was excuse enough to get rid of it.

As for the B3, the class was problematic, but sitting splitting the frames and grafting on a B1 front end meant chassis problems forever-on an old, unsuccessful design.  Why?

Nothing was gained by the D20 or O4 rebuilds-did any of these exercises ever recoup their costs, or for that matter, achieve the designer's aims?

 

Congratulations, by the way on 200 and 5000!  Keep it up!

[micklner]

Perhaps Thommo got bored easily  , cant think of any other logic behind some of his "designs".

[coachmann]

I suppose it all comes down to where one is coming from. With some, it wouldn't matter if Edward Thompson was one of the ten disciples... 

[jrg1]

I thought Thompson's carriage designs were first class-didn't he re-organise the carriage works?

[JeffP]

I wonder if the concentration of certain classes on certain sheds had anything to do with familiarity?

Perhaps the fitters etc at York and New England were trained on the A2's?

 

Meanwhile, I notice the spotter with the camera seems shocked to see Silver Link, as he's moving backwards?

And the drain cock piping on the driver's side of Sir Murrough seems to be coming adrift?

 

I've also looked and noted that the shedplate on Silver Link does, indeed, say 65B?

 

I thought she was always a Top Shed loco, apart from a bried sojourn at Grantham?

 

Edited for info if poss:

 

 

 

None of the Thompson Pacifics rode as well as the Gresley pair (neither did the A1s/A2s as well, until ALCAZAR got an A4 bogie - then it rode like an A4).

 

In what year was that, and how long did it keep it? Might be important to my Alcazar build, should I ever finish the turntable!

Edited December 5, 2013 by JeffP

[Richard E]

And the cleaners need to be told off, they've left a load of fluff off their cloths all over the front of both of those A4.

 

Apparently shed allocations for Silver Link are:

 

• Kings Cross        7/9/1935
• Grantham         16/8/1944
• Kings Cross      30/5/1948
• Grantham         16/6/1948
• Kings Cross      31/5/1950
• withdrawn       29/12/1962

Edited December 5, 2013 by Richard E

[Tony Wright]

In answer to one or two queries - and a few of my own, please........

 

ALCAZAR's A4 bogie is mentioned on page 173 of Peter Townend's East Coast Pacifics At Work, though no date is given. I imagine it was in 1959/'60 during her last move to 36A. As for a model, unless you make the bogie bearing exactly like the prototype then there should be no outwardly-visible difference.

 

I've puzzled further about 60014's erroneous 65B allocation. I know Tim Easter has done a lot of renumbering/renaming of Gilbert's A4s, as has John Houlden, and I can't believe either of those august gentlemen would make such a 'howler'. Since it's clearly a Hornby A4 (and the 'scuff marks to the rear of nameplate suggest the prior removal of an earlier, longer name), then which one was it previously, assuming that it's the original Hornby shedplate? 60027 and 60031 were latterly allocated to 65B. I know GOLDEN PLOVER was amongst Hornby's first A4s but I thought that came out with a 64B shedplate. My mouldering 1964 Ian Allan Locoshed Book has both at St. Rollox, but by this time the dreaded diagonal cabside stripe would be present. Has Hornby produced an A4 in that condition? It's a bit of a mystery.

 

Further to the A4s, and to pick up a theme from a little while ago, I've never seen mention of why the positions of the nameplates varied so much, particularly the longer ones. For instance, 60009, 60012 and 60013 had their plates fixed (at times) so far forward that the front edges touched or even broke the parabolic lining. Yet, 60001, 60002 and 60008 (amongst others) with (almost) as long names, had theirs fixed a long way back - so much so that their rear edges went more than halfway towards the second cladding band, thus ending up like the longest-named ones. Does this suggest that the placing position was fixed from the rear? Perhaps for the longer-named ones, but who knows? From the picture, 60002's is too far forward.

 

Out of further interest, I've included a picture of my own 60002. This is one of the first Bachmann A4s from the last century which I detailed and modified, made a Crownline streamlined non-corridor tender for it and got Ian Rathbone to paint it. The Cartazzi rear truck and lubricator drive are scratch-built, it has a Comet bogie, new buffers and the front numberplate has been lowered. I also thinned down the valve gear a bit. Please note the pushed-back position of the nameplate, and the electric warning flashes (which could be all over the place). As far as the flashes, 60002 was a late recipient (along with 60031) and 60011 never got them - something else I've never seen recorded. And, something else I've never seen modelled is the flange at the base of the tender tank for fixing the erstwhile stainless steel strip to - for those locos participating in the 'Coronation' and 'West Riding' services (though other A4s ran them as well). This was actually fixed below the soleplate, and was merely painted over after the strip was taken off. Only three streamlined non-corridor tenders were so fitted - those attached to 60001 and 60002 and one to the blown-up A4, which eventually ended up behind 60507. Several of the corridor tenders (both 1928 and 1935 types) had these strips as well. Please look closely at pictures. 

 

I note Larry's 'criticisms' of the flat 'cylinders', with which I wholeheartedly agree. Rather than fill this thread with A4 options, might I please suggest a look at Wright Writes, where I've posted (or will be posting) pictures of other A4s?

 

I hope some of the above is not perceived as 'destructive' criticism. Peterborough North is justifiably the most popular layout on RMWeb and it provides enjoyment to many. Since great importance is given to overall accuracy, I hope these observations and comments are taken in the spirit they're intended.

 

   

[Tony Wright]

Oops!

 

I should have qualified that the picture on PN has 60002's nameplate too far forward, and I don't know how to edit previous post - what a dunce!

 

And, I should have also offered my congrats on reaching such a milestone, but, please, dust your models before taking pictures.

 

Other than that, well done.

 

Oh, and I've just found out how to edit a post - not such a dunce?

I should have also mentioned in the previous post that the strip on the soleplate on my 60002's tender was made from strip brass (1.5mm?), soldered in place.

Edited December 5, 2013 by Tony Wright

[Worsdell forever]

 

 

I've puzzled further about 60014's erroneous 65B allocation. I know Tim Easter has done a lot of renumbering/renaming of Gilbert's A4s, as has John Houlden, and I can't believe either of those august gentlemen would make such a 'howler'. Since it's clearly a Hornby A4 (and the 'scuff marks to the rear of nameplate suggest the prior removal of an earlier, longer name), then which one was it previously, assuming that it's the original Hornby shedplate? 60027 and 60031 were latterly allocated to 65B. I know GOLDEN PLOVER was amongst Hornby's first A4s but I thought that came out with a 64B shedplate. My mouldering 1964 Ian Allan Locoshed Book has both at St. Rollox, but by this time the dreaded diagonal cabside stripe would be present. Has Hornby produced an A4 in that condition? It's a bit of a mystery.

 

 

 

Seems like it had been a 'Golden Plover' assuming this one hasn't been renumbered and it is showing 65B.

 

Anyway, congrats on passing the 200 page mark Gilbert.

[great northern]

I have learned two things today. It is inadvisable to go and play golf when one has a very painful and swollen toe, having been told by the doctor to rest it. This applies even when one is sick and tired of sitting around the house and want some fresh air. It is also inadvisable to try to play golf when the wind is gusting to 70mph.

 

I learned something else yesterday. When one sees something inaccurate on a photograph, one should not post it anyway and hope that no-one notices.   60014 did indeed start life in the dim and distant past as Golden Plover, complete with 65B plate. It is so far in the past that I can't remember who did the alterations, though it certainly wasn't either Tim or John Houlden. It is even possible that I did it myself. I will now put it right. As to 60002's nameplate, I shall in future remember TW's advice always to give full and concise instructions whem commissioning work. That is of course if I ever acquire any more locos. I do have quite enough. As to dust, I rarely remember that the camera will always show up in cruel detail what the naked eye hardly notices. And now I shall retire, battered and windswept, to lick my wounds.

[jwealleans]

I do have quite enough.

We all have quite enough.  It's just that quite enough is never enough. 

[Timara]

We all have quite enough.  It's just that quite enough is never enough. 

 

Quite right too...!  I've tried my level best to stave off locoholism myself, but repeatedly fail.  There's no such thing as having too much.  He who says he has enough isn't properly content

 

Gilbert: As for 60014, I have some 34A shedplates here if you need any.  At last count there were 8 left on my two sheets.

[JeffP]

One thing I notice missing from Gilbert's A4's is the electrical(??) conduit which ran along the lower edge of the driver's side footlate.

 

All the A4's in the NRM seemed to have it, is it/was it a recent thing?

Would anyone know id Silver Fox carried such an item circa 1962?

[60027Merlin]

Congratulations Gilbert on 200 pages - now onward to 300 of ECML magic!

 

 

Re JeffP's query, the conduit running along the driver's side of the loco is for the AWS fitted in the late 50s.  

 

 

Eric

[Mallard60022]

Congratulations Gilbert on 200 pages - now onward to 300 of ECML magic!

 

 

Re JeffP's query, the conduit running along the driver's side of the loco is for the AWS fitted in the late 50s.  

 

 

Eric

Did every A4 receive AWS?

P 

[davidw]

Did every A4 receive AWS?

P 

yes

[JeffP]

Thanks for that. It'll have to go on mine then.

[tetleys]

200 pages!

 

Does that qualify as a novel or just a DCC instruction manual?

 

Here's to the next pages however in number.

 

Confused of Ancaster

[Mallard60022]

yes

That was a trick question; one didn't as it was bombed at York...................................(sorry  David, I know you meant well )

DCC stands for Decidedly Confused Controller.

Quack

Edited December 6, 2013 by Mallard60022

[Richard E]

Is that any relation to the Fat Controller?

[Alister_G]

Is that any relation to the Fat Controller?

You must have heard of the Fat Duck, it's quite famous...

[Tony Wright]

Regarding AWS and the A4s. Apart from the original Sir Ralph (is that the right one?), destroyed in the York air raid, all the A4s eventually received AWS, as already confirmed.

 

Apart from fitting the protection plate behind the front coupling and (on one or two) actually making a representation of the device on the bogie front, with one exception I've never fitted the conduit down the nearside valance (indolence!). Unlike on the Thompson and Peppercorn Pacifics, the battery box for the equipment was inside the cab, so not really visible. As far as I know (with four exceptions) all the LNER-designed Pacifics eventually got AWS, including 60501 which both the RCTS and Isinglass say it didn't. The four exceptions were the quartet of A3s shedded at Carlisle Canal. There might be others, possibly the three A2/1s at Haymarket - perhaps someone can confirm.

 

Returning to A4 nearside conduits, the Golden Age A4s certainly have them. The problem is they're also fitted to some of those which shouldn't have the device - those in BR blue, post-war Garter blue and the experimental liveries in early BR days. I don't think any conduits and protection plates were fitted on their A4s with valances.

 

As for general AWS, as part of my assistance in helping Heljan with its O2 development, obviously for later-in-life locos AWS is to be fitted. The problem is where? Usually the visible AWS equipment is all on the same side - conduit, battery box and air reservoir. It's also usually on the same side as the drive. But, I've found several examples where the gubbins is on the opposite side to the drive and a few where it's muddled up - conduit and box on one side but reservoir on the other; irrespective of the drive side. When you consider all the effort that goes into trying to make sure our forthcoming RTR models are accurate down to the smallest detail, doesn't it confirm how such really good value they are? Or is that a matter of opinion?

 

Finally, I admit this is a bit off topic, though I hope of some little interest. As for 'mistakes' in pictures and models, I think my 'track' record in this is possibly unequalled down the years - locos sporting all manner of mistakes (my original A1/1 had one bogie wheel with just nine spokes!), points set wrongly, signals showing impossible invitations and so on. So, my good friend, keep on taking those inspirational pictures and poke the likes of me in the metaphorical eye. It's your railway, after all!