Peterborough North

[great northern]

Time for some more operating, and a very distinguished first train of the day.

This prompted one of my sporadic efforts to reproduce a real photograph, again copyright of Andrew C Ingram, and not to be further reproduced,

This is actually the Saturday train, which ran with the headboard reversed as an anonymous train, but apart from that it is almost exactly as the Elizabethan ran in late August 1958, save for the first coach, which is clearly a strengthener. Here's my effort in glorious black and white.

We have one signal in the "wrong" place, and the mock up building doesn't help, but all in all I'm not displeased.

A loco close up. Only a couple of weeks before the date of the prototype shot my friends and I had spent a day at Doncaster, to be informed by the spotting grapevine that 60012 was outside the paint shop at the Plant, and could be seen without even having to trespass. Off we went, as she would be a very good cop. Not there though, so back to the station, quite a long walk for nothing. "Oh, she's gone on shed now" we were then told. Were we just being wound up by the locals? Another good hike, and this time there she was, gleaming and spotless, as Tim has reproduced her for me.

The platform end view, no doubt with some spotters leaping for joy. They're off camera by the way.

We swing round to catch her once more as she passes a local B1 waiting to depart with the 3.00pm to Grimsby.

An experimental shot, leaving the camera on automatic setting. It interpreted this as a night time scene, but hasn't done too badly really.

I decided to finish off with a shot of the B1. Two mistakes, firstly I left the camera on automatic, and secondly I didn't notice that someone had made off with the vac pipe yet again. I really did think I'd checked every one of them, but not so, obviously.

[jonny777]

Lovely. 

 

Thankyou.

[micklner]

B1 appears to have missing nameplates as well.

[jonny777]

Are you sure?

 

61113 did not have a name.

[JeffP]

Should have gone to specsavers.....Are you reading it as 61013? LOL

[fishytrains]

That photo under the canopy is fantastic and a true testament to the level of detail you have gone to. Left me speechless!

 

Mike

Edited November 24, 2013 by fishytrains

[Oldddudders]

The Elizabethan copy scene is wonderfully accurate. You really are scooping the pool here. Clever in all the right ways.

[landscapes]

Very nice set of photos.

 

David

[micklner]

Are you sure?

 

61113 did not have a name.

Holes in the smokebox in usual B1 nameplates position .

 

Forgot to say Cracking pictures as usual.

[tetleys]

Gilbert,

 

Moving back to the Hornby Railroad, coach am I right to suggest the glazing is not anything like as flush as the Bachmann version and what else can you point out having had access to both, £15 is very reasonable but if my eyes do not deceive I think I'd rather pay the extra for the genuine flush fitting Bachmann version.

 

Dave S.

[artizen]

The under roof shot is fantastic!

[Brass0four]

Gilbert,

 

Moving back to the Hornby Railroad, coach am I right to suggest the glazing is not anything like as flush as the Bachmann version and what else can you point out having had access to both, £15 is very reasonable but if my eyes do not deceive I think I'd rather pay the extra for the genuine flush fitting Bachmann version.

 

Dave S.

Depends on your pocket - mines tight! I've got just one maroon twelve-coach rake of Bachmanns and that took some saving up for. Otherwise, I've Thompsons that require flush-glazing, etc, and Hornby Gresleys that lack the proper tumble-home (etc.) To make secondary rakes - including mixed - I'll happily use the Railroad, maybe more weathered. And, to my eye, the roof-top panel-joints don't look like they need chiselling off the way the Bachmanns do - and that is one hell of a boring, neck-breaking job.

 

It's not too hard modelling a branch-line/terminus, whatever, loco and stock-wise, but the ECML is harder on the pocket, particularly if you are concentrating on engines as, I suppose, many of us do.

 

Tony.

 

EDIT: And I'm willing to bet that sometime or other, Hatton's will do some special offers that make long rakes more doable...

Edited November 24, 2013 by Brass0four

[great northern]

Gilbert,

 

Moving back to the Hornby Railroad, coach am I right to suggest the glazing is not anything like as flush as the Bachmann version and what else can you point out having had access to both, £15 is very reasonable but if my eyes do not deceive I think I'd rather pay the extra for the genuine flush fitting Bachmann version.

 

Dave S.

Actually Dave the glazing is pretty flush - the lighting conditions when I took the photos didn't do any favours. I was pleasantly surprised when TW showed me them, and they really don't loook out of place next to Bachmanns. There are compromises, not much underframe detail, none of the extra roof detail Bachmann do, and a lack of brandings- no C1 on the ends for example, though that is easy enough to put right, but the basic coach is rather good. TW is of the same opinion, and you know that he is not easy to please. The one thing IMO that must go is the plastic wheels, not so much because of appearance, but because of the running problems that will occur through dirt collection.

 

I always remove the roof ribs from Bachmann Mk1's, repaint the roof, renumber, and weather. Oh, and replace the wheels if I can get any Jacksons. That's a fair bit of work, and I reckon if I put the same amount of time into Hornby's effort I'd have a coach that would pass muster pretty well, and with a significant saving. The colour match with Bachmann is close too, so they can be made to look right in a mixed rake.

[great northern]

Depends on your pocket - mines tight! I've got just one maroon twelve-coach rake of Bachmanns and that took some saving up for. Otherwise, I've Thompsons that require flush-glazing, etc, and Hornby Gresleys that lack the proper tumble-home (etc.) To make secondary rakes - including mixed - I'll happily use the Railroad, maybe more weathered. And, to my eye, the roof-top panel-joints don't look like they need chiselling off the way the Bachmanns do - and that is one hell of a boring, neck-breaking job.

 

It's not too hard modelling a branch-line/terminus, whatever, loco and stock-wise, but the ECML is harder on the pocket, particularly if you are concentrating on engines as, I suppose, many of us do.

 

Tony.

 

EDIT: And I'm willing to bet that sometime or other, Hatton's will do some special offers that make long rakes more doable...

  Spot on Tony. I shudder to think of the expense I've incurred on Bachmann MK1's, and if I were starting now I would most definitely see if Hornby's effort could be made to look the part without too much effort. The roof ribs by the way are not too obtrusive, so I would leave well alone. I've found over the years that Bachmann's have been reduced, and that actually makes it more difficult to get rid of them without damaging the roof, as there is less plastic to work with. I use a very small and cheap scewdriver which I've converted into a chisel.

 

As you say, when modelling long trains any viable means of cutting costs can only be a good thing, especially if it means that a project becomes possible when otherwise it would have had to be postponed or shelved.

[davidw]

Thanks for posting the mixed rake Gilbert - Very impressive they would seem to me. I have handled one but a picture in a rake helps. Removing roof ribs and a replacing the molded toilet pipe run will bring it very quickly to Bachmann standards. To be honest though the it does seem to sit slightly lower and arguably better than the Bachmann version 

Edited November 25, 2013 by davidw

[Mallard60022]

I shall now go to the loft and look at my Mainline MK1s! Those Hornby ones look great and just right for a few 'tweaks' to improve them.

I really do like that under the canopy shot having looked back at the video clip.

 

P

[Richard E]

Holes in the smokebox in usual B1 nameplates position .

 

Forgot to say Cracking pictures as usual.

61113 wasn't named though. in the 611xx series only 61189 was named apparently, Sir William Gray. None of the photographs of 61113 that I can find on line show any evidence of her having been named either.

[Oldddudders]

61113 wasn't named though. in the 611xx series only 61189 was named apparently, Sir William Gray. None of the photographs of 61113 that I can find on line show any evidence of her having been named either.

My 1961/2 Combined Volume agrees with you - no name. But I think the point that is being made is that the loco in the pic has the holes in the side of the smokebox where a nameplate would be attached.

[gresley]

I agree.   Obviously a change of identity.   What was the donor loco ?

 

Stuart

[Tony Wright]

I hope this works, because I'm new to this sort of thing - adding pictures I mean. 

 

Since Gilbert posted pictures on this thread of Hornby's RailRoad Mk.1s, viewers might be interested in some 'studio' shots of a couple of them.

 

I'll be conducting a full review of these cars for BRM in the near future, and later showing how to achieve some 'improvements'. I can confirm that the glazing is as flush as Bachmann's (though both have a slight 'halo' around the edges), the roof ribs are nowhere near as prominent, though they're still too prominent - exactly how subtle the weld marks are on a Mk.1 roof is perfectly shown in the latest issue of BRILL, on page 118 (I've got an article in it as well; sorry for the plug). The wheels, though true round, are plastic with with very deep flanges, end handrails and water fillers are only moulded-on and the livery is 'compromised' by the omission of route status and solebar data. That said, the livery is well-applied (the lining is finer than Bachmann's) and the overall proportions have been well-captured. They 'sit' very well, too - something not always apparent on RTR carriages. Give or take, they're going to be in the region of £5.00 - £10.00 cheaper than Bachmann's, which will be a factor in some folk's choice. However, fitting metal wheels will add to the cost (though I've had to change proprietary metal wheels on many occasions), but a few hours' work (fitting separate handrails if you wish, adding transfers, etc) should produce most reasonable models. At close inspection, perhaps not a showcase model, but in a rake (as I hope to eventually show) of up to 13 cars, well? 

 

 

For interest, I've also added a picture of a Mk.1 BSK in current service; taken last Saturday at Creeton.

Apologies if the above is a little off topic, but as 'layout coaches', and Peterborough North needs a lot of those, with that little bit of work I'm sure they'll be quite acceptable.  

[great northern]

I agree.   Obviously a change of identity.   What was the donor loco ?

 

Stuart

Back in the dim and distant past....... Wildebeeste I believe. This is the kind of thing I tend to forget - filling in little holes - though I'm sure I've seen a photo somewhere of an unnamed B1 with holes in exactly the same places. Did Doncaster, or other works, bother filling in the securing holes when boilers were transferred during general overhauls? Not when 61113 got this boiler obviously.

[The Stationmaster]

Sorry, 

          One carriage in my previous post has appeared twice for some reason.

Computers and I don't get on very well!

 

Don't worry - it does that to me as well sometimes (among other things - don't try to delete one or you might lose both, that also happens to me ).

[davidw]

Don't worry - it does that to me as well sometimes (among other things - don't try to delete one or you might lose both, that also happens to me ).

And to me - annoying isn't it...!

[Adrock]

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?

[Brass0four]

And to me - annoying isn't it...!

And me!

 

But I found a possible cause, in my case at least: the left-click button below the vile touch-pad on my lap-top is worn. Sometimes it needs more pressure for slightly longer to work. I understand this can cause a repeated signal under certain circumstances, particularly when up-loading images. I was having a lot of trouble and discussed this with Andy Y. and this seemed likely. It still happens but now I'm more used to editing the URLs. So long as you track the ends of each line it is doable, even to a non-PC savvy fool like me.

 

Tony.

 

EDIT! to clarify ( in case anyone is as dumb as me) The image code will be repeated. Delete one of them without interfering with the other.

Edited November 25, 2013 by Brass0four