GWR-Fanatic Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 (edited) Run a model of 4470 Great Northern that rebuilds itself into an A1/1 under DCC control in full view of the punters. When they complain, replace it with Cock o' the North... Eh? I don't get this one! Apart from the bit about the LNER P2 "Cock o' the North" for some reason, that makes sense because your basically taking one loco off and replacing it, or have I some how totally missed the point of this particular entry? Edited May 7, 2012 by GWR-Fanatic Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicester Thumper Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 do what I do, use kit bashed type loco. I have a lone star OOO engine shell on a farish 25 chassis and it goes like a bloody rocket!!! but the purists don't like it when I take the layout out and about! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium kevinlms Posted May 7, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 7, 2012 Eh? I don't get this one! Apart from the bit about the LNER P2 "Cock o' the North" for some reason, that makes sense because your basically taking one loco off and replacing it, or have I some how totally missed the point of this particular entry? Transformers? Kevin Martin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbishop Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Eh? I don't get this one! Apart from the bit about the LNER P2 "Cock o' the North" for some reason, that makes sense because your basically taking one loco off and replacing it, or have I some how totally missed the point of this particular entry? Er yes, if I can explain it in a way you might understand, it's taking a Castle, replacing the valve gear with outside Walschaerts and fitting a dome ...... no hang on, didn't Stanier create a decent looking locomotive. Which is more than can be said about the Collett product on the certain other railway. I will leave it to those better versed in the ways of the LNER to explain exactly what horrors that Thompson perpetrated. Bill 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWR-Fanatic Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Er yes, if I can explain it in a way you might understand, it's taking a Castle, replacing the valve gear with outside Walschaerts and fitting a dome ...... no hang on, didn't Stanier create a decent looking locomotive. Which is more than can be said about the Collett product on the certain other railway. I will leave it to those better versed in the ways of the LNER to explain exactly what horrors that Thompson perpetrated. Bill Ok, so it's still a clear as mud, but I think you're comparing a King Class with a Duchess or Coronation class locomotive (in fact aren't they to an extent one and the same?) If anything it all goes back to the only 4-6-2 ever built by the GWR (I believe by a chap by the name of Churchward, Heh Heh Heh), by the name of "The Great Bear". However I'd still like to know how such an elaborate swap of locomotives would be achieved actually in front of people, a lot of smoke and mirrors no doubt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scots region Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Ok, so it's still a clear as mud, but I think you're comparing a King Class with a Duchess or Coronation class locomotive (in fact aren't they to an extent one and the same?) If anything it all goes back to the only 4-6-2 ever built by the GWR (I believe by a chap by the name of Churchward, Heh Heh Heh), by the name of "The Great Bear". However I'd still like to know how such an elaborate swap of locomotives would be achieved actually in front of people, a lot of smoke and mirrors no doubt. I'm sure if someone was to put a request to Leokim we could get some effect. Alternatively why not Thompsonise a castle? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluebottle Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Ok, so it's still a clear as mud, but I think you're comparing a King Class with a Duchess or Coronation class locomotive (in fact aren't they to an extent one and the same?) If anything it all goes back to the only 4-6-2 ever built by the GWR (I believe by a chap by the name of Churchward, Heh Heh Heh), by the name of "The Great Bear". However I'd still like to know how such an elaborate swap of locomotives would be achieved actually in front of people, a lot of smoke and mirrors no doubt. Don't ever change, Matt - I like you just the way you are! Gordon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColinW Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Don't ever change, Matt - I like you just the way you are! Gordon Believe me he won't change, he's just the same at the club aren't you Matt Colin 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWR-Fanatic Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 (edited) Don't ever change, Matt - I like you just the way you are! Gordon Believe me, the only change I'll ever encounter is the change that jangles in my pocket after purchasing a new N gauge locomotive at an exhibition. Believe me he won't change, he's just the same at the club aren't you Matt Colin Always ready with a gem of wit and/or wisdom when needed. Edited May 7, 2012 by GWR-Fanatic Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mogman1969 Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 Refuse to allow pensioner discounts, in fact, charge double to anyone who complains about its lack :-) Advertise yourself as wheelchair friendly, then make all the gaps between layouts just slightly too small for a wheelchair to pass anyone looking at a layout. Install the wheelchair ramp to the step below the top one on the way up to either the cafe or the toilets. Have the cafe run out of milk and chips at 11.59am on Saturday. Don't get further supplies in until 4.50pm. Arrange the gaps between stalls so that the thinnest stallholders get the largest, and the ones with the erm widest loading gauge get the narrowest gaps. christ onna bike , ive been to a few like this .......... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColinW Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 (edited) Believe me, the only change I'll ever encounter is the change that jangles in my pocket after purchasing a new N gauge locomotive at an exhibition. You get change and have some at the end of a show Always ready with a gem of wit and/or wisdom when needed. Yes you shoot yourself in the foot most evenings Colin Edited May 8, 2012 by ColinW Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iL Dottore Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 (edited) Having contributed to this thread earlier, I have been enjoying this thread and people's inventiveness. However, comments made elsewhere about the commercialisation of the 2012 Olympics (especially about how athletes and visitors have to give up their "non-sponsor" items whilst at the games) made me think about the extremes of modern sponsorship... You set up your layout at the exhibition, with the sign stating it's a LMS/GWR/SR/LNER/BR/etc layout and do a few test runs with regular stock for the exhibition organisers. When the punters arrive, then put up an additional sign "brought to you by Burger-O, Fizzy Stuff and Trabant" (whatever your choice of sponsor...) and start running your LMS/GWR/SR/LNER/BR rolling stock all emblazoned with LARGE logos of Burger-O, Fizzy Stuff and Trabant. Of course, if you really want to go to town, refuse to run the layout if anyone either (a) wants to take photos without a sponsor sold licence or ( b] is seen eating or drinking a non sponsor provided foodstuff. And when, probably inevitably, the exhibition organisers tell you to either get rid of the sponsorship stuff or get out, turn around and sue the organisers.... I doubt you'd be getting any further exhibition invites... F p.s. You'd also need a sign changing the layout name from, say, "Little Cruxley Village", to something like "CheapoAirburg - Proudly Sponsored by CheapoAir" Edited May 8, 2012 by iL Dottore Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbishop Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 Yeah, Mogmans contribution inspires me to insist on taking my pushbike round the exhibition with me. Well I'm entitled to if the exhibition manager fails to provide a suitable parking space. Actually the bike has already got into four exhibitions, but hasn't been taken round whilst they were open to the public. Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
298 Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 Having contributed to this thread earlier, I have been enjoying this thread and people's inventiveness. However, comments made elsewhere about the commercialisation of the 2012 Olympics (especially about how athletes and visitors have to give up their "non-sponsor" items whilst at the games) made me think about the extremes of modern sponsorship... You set up your layout at the exhibition, with the sign stating it's a LMS/GWR/SR/LNER/BR/etc layout and do a few test runs with regular stock for the exhibition organisers. When the punters arrive, then put up an additional sign "brought to you by Burger-O, Fizzy Stuff and Trabant" (whatever your choice of sponsor...) and start running your LMS/GWR/SR/LNER/BR rolling stock all emblazoned with LARGE logos of Burger-O, Fizzy Stuff and Trabant. Of course, if you really want to go to town, refuse to run the layout if anyone either (a) wants to take photos without a sponsor sold licence or ( b] is seen eating or drinking a non sponsor provided foodstuff. And when, probably inevitably, the exhibition organisers tell you to either get rid of the sponsorship stuff or get out, turn around and sue the organisers.... I doubt you'd be getting any further exhibition invites... F p.s. You'd also need a sign changing the layout name from, say, "Little Cruxley Village", to something like "CheapoAirburg - Proudly Sponsored by CheapoAir" Didn't a manufacturer produce some shipping containers with ficticious names because they couldn't obtain an authority to reproduce the correct company insignia...? You could go one step further an have "Virmin" and "DR5" liveried trains (the real companies didn't always licence their image to modelmakers), suitably inspired by the artwork on some supermarket own-brand products that the lawyers say isn't a copy but is close enough to fool you into picking them up after a quick glance. Since my layout features the Armour Yellow of "Onion Pacific", I might have to charge punters the equivalent of ten dollars to look at it at a show.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNERandBR Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 Er yes, if I can explain it in a way you might understand, it's taking a Castle, replacing the valve gear with outside Walschaerts and fitting a dome ...... no hang on, didn't Stanier create a decent looking locomotive. Which is more than can be said about the Collett product on the certain other railway. I will leave it to those better versed in the ways of the LNER to explain exactly what horrors that Thompson perpetrated. Bill Basically when Thompson took over from Gresley as the LNER's CME there were a number of A1 Pacific's which had yet to be rebuilt as A3's. ( I believe Flying Scotsman was one of them) Thompson wanted to create his own Pacific design but due to the wartime austerity measures he wasn't alloud to build brand new express passenger locomotives. So he decied to rebuild instead. He used Great Northern (The first Gresley Pacific) as the prototype for this rebuiding. Cock o' the North suffered the same fate. The P2's were rebuilt by Thompson into the A2/2 Pacifics. (There was a whole class of P2 2-8-2's by the way) The overall issue with Thompson's Pacific designs was to save materials he insisted on all three connecting rods being the same length. This pulled the outside Cylenders back creating an odd look. See http://www.lner.info/locos/A/a1_1.shtml and http://www.lner.info/locos/A/a2_2.shtml Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWR-Fanatic Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 (edited) Basically when Thompson took over from Gresley as the LNER's CME there were a number of A1 Pacific's which had yet to be rebuilt as A3's. ( I believe Flying Scotsman was one of them) Thompson wanted to create his own Pacific design but due to the wartime austerity measures he wasn't alloud to build brand new express passenger locomotives. So he decied to rebuild instead. He used Great Northern (The first Gresley Pacific) as the prototype for this rebuiding. Cock o' the North suffered the same fate. The P2's were rebuilt by Thompson into the A2/2 Pacifics. (There was a whole class of P2 2-8-2's by the way) The overall issue with Thompson's Pacific designs was to save materials he insisted on all three connecting rods being the same length. This pulled the outside Cylenders back creating an odd look. See http://www.lner.info...os/A/a1_1.shtml and http://www.lner.info...os/A/a2_2.shtml I just don't understand why Thompson gets so much stick, I've never seen anything wrong with his locomotives, just because their rebuilds of Gresley designs, doesn't mean their poor runners does it? Oops... I just realised that this conversation is once more heading down the path of being :offtopic: :offtopic: !!!!!! Any how, thanks for the explanation in regards to the type of locomotives mentioned, however I still don't see how it explains the effect of a locomotive changing form in front of a crowd of people whilst on a exhibit layout. Edited May 9, 2012 by GWR-Fanatic Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold LH&JC Posted May 9, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 9, 2012 I just don't understand why Thompson gets so much stick, I've never seen anything wrong with his locomotives, just because their rebuilds of Gresley designs, doesn't mean their poor runners does it? Oops... I just realised that this conversation is once more heading down the path of being :offtopic: :offtopic: !!!!!! Any how, thanks for the explanation in regards to the type of locomotives mentioned, however I still don't see how it explains the effect of a locomotive changing form in front of a crowd of people whilst on a exhibit layout. I don't think that's too off topic, you've certianly set yourself up to be lynched by Gresley-fundamentalists! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColinW Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 I don't think that's too off topic, you've certianly set yourself up to be lynched by Gresley-fundamentalists! This following from his 'Churchwood' error, but not saying anything about the Southern Matt, the club is having a good influence on you Colin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWR-Fanatic Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 (edited) I don't think that's too off topic, you've certianly set yourself up to be lynched by Gresley-fundamentalists! All I'm saying is that I don't understand why there is so much negativity about Thompson, as the previous post states, his locomotives look rather fine to me, maybe it's because I'm not an LNER enthusiast, but a GWR enthusiast, that I don't see the full picture. This following from his 'Churchwood' error, but not saying anything about the Southern Matt, the club is having a good influence on you Colin Well I ought to keep myself in some people's good books, and thinking about it on a slightly different note all I can say is that visiting exhibitions will now be a very interesting experience. Edited May 9, 2012 by GWR-Fanatic Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mogman1969 Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 revenge of the exhibition organiser , there was once a boring man , a very very boring man . he would turn up at our shows belittling every thing on show , he was (naturaly) a dyed in the wool swindon man , so i invited him to our next years show ..........there was another boring man he used to build things (badly) out of strip ali . yep i invited him too .........stuck the pair of them in a room on there own ......................after that they were alot kinder to our efforts one way of getting lynched is to organise 4 successfull shows onna shoestring then watch som other silly sod try it , needless to say it was a disaster (yes !!!!!) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Loudly proclaim to everyone that there's no such thing as scratchbuilding. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNERandBR Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 All I'm saying is that I don't understand why there is so much negativity about Thompson, as the previous post states, his locomotives look rather fine to me, maybe it's because I'm not an LNER enthusiast, but a GWR enthusiast, that I don't see the full picture. It's not so much the look of them it's the fact he took some of Gresley's finest designs and rebuilt them. This makes people belive he had a vendetta against Gresley. To help explain it all let's say for example that Hawksworth had a dislike of some parts of Collett's designs. So he decides to take some of Collet's finest locomotives and rebuild them. There will be some people who'd be horrified at this and others which prefer the later designs. Which is what we have within the LNER fanbase. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Stubby47 Posted May 10, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 10, 2012 Loudly proclaim to everyone that there's no such thing as scratchbuilding. Apart from Peter Denny... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talltim Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 He was scratchbuilt? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Endacott Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 He was scratchbuilt? No - he came from a kit. Geoff Endacott 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