42xx Hornby 42xx& 72xx - first glimpses

[brushman47544]

Oh and despite my views I have not rung round cancelling any of the shed's worth I have on order - they'll be the best GW 8 coupled tanks we've got, especially for the money.

 

But will you be kicking yourself if a 72xx exactly as you want it appears in next year's catalogue ?

 

These GW tanks do not interest me personally, but from the pictures so far they do look very promising. The moulded smokebox door handle will be an interesting test for design clever; the catalogue pictures show the DoG so fitted too but I don't recall it being mentioned in that thread, everyone was concentrating on its moulded handrails. So when seen at actual size rather than blown up in a photo, how noticeable will it be?

[The Stationmaster]

But will you be kicking yourself if a 72xx exactly as you want it appears in next year's catalogue ?

 

These GW tanks do not interest me personally, but from the pictures so far they do look very promising. The moulded smokebox door handle will be an interesting test for design clever; the catalogue pictures show the DoG so fitted too but I don't recall it being mentioned in that thread, everyone was concentrating on its moulded handrails. So when seen at actual size rather than blown up in a photo, how noticeable will it be?

First point is that there is a suitable 72XX (although the bunker top fender might have to go) in this year's lot - only problem is that it's in GWR green but that requires no more than paint to correct and I will need numberplates anyway as I'm sure they'll never do the exact one I want complete with etched plates     Chopping off some moulded smokebox door handles (and a lot more moulded 'detail') is - alas - something I got very skilled at back in the dark ages of r-t-r because I had to and I can but hope that my eyes and hands are up to it nowadays (does Chinese plastic peel away like the Margate stuff I wonder?).  The only bit which might be an interesting trial for me nowadays is making sure I drill in the right place to fit the brackets for the smokebox door numberplate - at least on the BR versions the loco comes ready marked out!

 

If Hornby get their BR livered 72XX right I might go for one but that is a minor consideration as far as I'm concerned.

 

And as you might have gathered I wasn't keen on various bits of moulded whatevers a long time back and I'm no keener on it now but the 8 coupled tanks are coming at a reasonable price by today's standards so a bit of compromise on detail fidelity isn't a surprise and provided it's easy(ish) to carve off I won't be moaning.

[t-b-g]

I think that a lot depends on what you want the model for.

 

I have a good friend with a vast GWR layout, which is operated by hundreds of GWR RTR locos.

 

These date back to Lima 94xx Pannier tanks and go right through to the latest releases. I operate the layout twice a week and have these locos passing by (and stopping!) in front of me dozens of times an evening.

 

I could not, in all honesty, tell anybody which ones had sprung buffers or moulded on smokebox door handles.

 

If you want a top quality, 100% accurate, perfect reproduction of a particular loco in a particular condition as it appeared on a specific date, isn't it asking a bit much from Hornby? Perhaps a commissioned Finney kit or suchlike is more appropriate for those purposes. Better still, actually build the kit yourself. Either way will cost more than the Hornby loco and if ther person building it is a real top drawer modeller you might get something as good as the Hornby one if you are lucky.

 

There was a time, as has been mentioned, when a new RTR loco was, to at least some modellers, an opportunity to get the toolkit out and turn it into something better.

 

I can't help thinking that we have become so spoilt rotten by the wondrous models that Hornby and others produce at ridiculously low prices for the quality and detail they incorporate that we now throw up our hands in horror at the slightest thing that doesn't match our way too high expectations. 

[buffalo]

I think that a lot depends on what you want the model for...

It does indeed and we can all make our own choices whether to accept the model as it comes out of the box, or to apply some relatively minor improvements.

 

...If you want a top quality, 100% accurate, perfect reproduction of a particular loco in a particular condition as it appeared on a specific date, isn't it asking a bit much from Hornby? Perhaps a commissioned Finney kit or suchlike is more appropriate for those purposes. Better still, actually build the kit yourself. Either way will cost more than the Hornby loco and if ther person building it is a real top drawer modeller you might get something as good as the Hornby one if you are lucky...

Of course, but you are repeating this straw man argument that suggests someone on here is saying that Hornby should have produced the "100% accurate, perfect representation of a particular loco". As far as I can see, no one has. Certainly I haven't and neither has Mike. We have simply mentioned some fairly minor real errors that are wrong for all of the class, some features that are unlikely to have been seen together on a loco with the livery depicted, and some little things like smokebox door handles where easy improvements can be made.

 

I'll be getting a 42XX because I like them, not because they are essential for my model railway. Indeed, it is almost certain that they never ran over the line I am modelling. Had they been essential, I would probably have already built a Finney kit (if he actually made one!) and, apart from the painting, I'm fairly confident that it would be far better than anything Hornby can offer (it would have proper open frames and the right gauge wheels for a start). As it is, I'm happy to keep my kit building skills for locos I really need and modify good RTR models when, as with the 42XX, the opportunity arises.

 

...There was a time, as has been mentioned, when a new RTR loco was, to at least some modellers, an opportunity to get the toolkit out and turn it into something better...

Why "was"? There seem to quite a few who are still quite happy to do that.

 

Nick

[gwrrob]

According to a caption in Peter Grays book Steam in Cornwall there were only two 42xx shedded west of Bristol.4247, the preserved one and another.Both were at St Blazey.So what number was the other number and was this in GWR days or later.These were used in Cornwall on clay trains.

 

4247 looking superb in post war G W R livery. http://www.flickr.com/photos/taffytank/3709466321/

 

Obviously the Hornby model has no outside steam pipes. I'm sure the next batch variation will.

[Coach bogie]

According to a caption in Peter Grays book Steam in Cornwall there were only two 42xx shedded west of Bristol.4247, the preserved one and another.Both were at St Blazey.So what number was the other number and was this in GWR days or later.These were used in Cornwall on clay trains.

 

4247 looking superb in post war G W R livery. http://www.flickr.com/photos/taffytank/3709466321/

 

Obviously the Hornby model has no outside steam pipes. I'm sure the next batch variation will.

 

 

St Blazey allocations for 1938, 1943, 1947, 1949 - 4215, 4298 (4247 Aberbeeg in 1938)

 

4298 arrived in July 1931 and stayed until October 1952. Workings usually the Fowey- Blazey but there was a regular woring to Tavistock junction (Plymouth) using one of the 42xx.

Early 50's 4298 was photograph heading east up Dainton on a train of cattle wagons (presume broccolli)

 

St Blazey 1956 -  4206, 4242, 4247

 

1961 - all 42XX activity ceased in Cornwall

 

Mike Wiltshire

[gwrrob]

4298 arrived in July 1931 and stayed until October 1952. Workings usually the Fowey- Blazey but there was a regular woring to Tavistock junction (Plymouth) using one of the 42xx.

Early 50's 4298 was photograph heading east up Dainton on a train of cattle wagons (presume broccolli)

 

Thanks for that info Mike.I can treat myself to one and renumber then. 4298 never received outside steampipes.Has anyone got the lead to that Dainton photo please.

[t-b-g]

It does indeed and we can all make our own choices whether to accept the model as it comes out of the box, or to apply some relatively minor improvements.

 

Of course, but you are repeating this straw man argument that suggests someone on here is saying that Hornby should have produced the "100% accurate, perfect representation of a particular loco". As far as I can see, no one has. Certainly I haven't and neither has Mike. We have simply mentioned some fairly minor real errors that are wrong for all of the class, some features that are unlikely to have been seen together on a loco with the livery depicted, and some little things like smokebox door handles where easy improvements can be made.

 

I'll be getting a 42XX because I like them, not because they are essential for my model railway. Indeed, it is almost certain that they never ran over the line I am modelling. Had they been essential, I would probably have already built a Finney kit (if he actually made one!) and, apart from the painting, I'm fairly confident that it would be far better than anything Hornby can offer (it would have proper open frames and the right gauge wheels for a start). As it is, I'm happy to keep my kit building skills for locos I really need and modify good RTR models when, as with the 42XX, the opportunity arises.

 Why "was"? There seem to quite a few who are still quite happy to do that.

 

Nick

 

I agree with all you say and my comments were not aimed at folk who approach things in that way.

 

I was responding to the people who are either cancelling orders or reconsidering them over such minor stuff.

 

If a sprung buffer and a smokebox door handle not being exactly as you want them are enough to put you off purchasing a model, then you are really setting your expectations very high indeed.

 

At least a couple of the 42xxs will be making an early appearance on my friends layout and none of us will worry in the slightest about the buffers, smokebox door handle, the slidebar bracket or anything else, we will just enjoy having a couple of rather lovely new locos on the layout and seeing how the timetable is tweaked to fit in some extra coal trains!

[Coach bogie]

Thanks for that info Mike.I can treat myself to one and renumber then. 4298 never received outside steampipes.Has anyone got the lead to that Dainton photo please.

 

Great Western Journal No. 70 Spring 2009 page 345.

 

 

I am told use of St Blazey 42's west of Plymouth was common at a weekend. The Friday afternoon St Blazey (3.05pm) - Tavistock Junction (6.03pm) left the loco spare at Laira until Sunday lunchtime (return working 12.10pm Tavistock Junction - St Blazey.

 

Mike Wiltshire

[gwrrob]

Great Western Journal No. 70 Spring 2009 page 345.

 

Mike Wiltshire

 

Blimey,don't time fly on here .   A couple of familiar names on this old thread.

 

http://rmweb.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=46239

[Neal Ball]

........I'll be getting a 42XX because I like them, not because they are essential for my model railway. .......

 

Nick

 

Agreed! - I quite like both the look of the 42xx and the 72xx - don't need them, just like them and Andy's 'photo further up the trail convinces me more that I like them!

[iL Dottore]

May I make a request of Nick (Buffalo) and Mike (The Stationmaster)?

 

Would you consider joining forces, editing down your posts and using your extensive knowledge in producing a short pamphlet that would be (for want of a better term) an "idiot's guide to getting the right details onto the right tank engine for the right period"?

 

We all have our areas of expertise (I for one know a wee bit about architecture and am getting to the point where I can recognise the difference between English and Flemish bond at 6ft), but are completely uninformed about other areas in the modelling canon.

 

Anything, like a short pamphlet, that would help me grasp the essential differences seen in such locomotives and yet does NOT induce Cerebral RSI would be warmly welcomed indeed.

 

iD

[The Stationmaster]

May I make a request of Nick (Buffalo) and Mike (The Stationmaster)? Would you consider joining forces, editing down your posts and using your extensive knowledge in producing a short pamphlet that would be (for want of a better term) an "idiot's guide to getting the right details onto the right tank engine for the right period"? We all have our areas of expertise (I for one know a wee bit about architecture and am getting to the point where I can recognise the difference between English and Flemish bond at 6ft), but are completely uninformed about other areas in the modelling canon. Anything, like a short pamphlet, that would help me grasp the essential differences seen in such locomotives and yet does NOT induce Cerebral RSI would be warmly welcomed indeed. iD

This isn't entirely the answer to the Doctor's prayer but it will give you a starting point on some of the more noticeable differences (plus some useful stuff on 72XX bunker rivet patterns from Mike Wiltshire although that is an area to watch as several of the early group of 72XX [7200 - 19] acquired the later pattern bunker in the 1950s).

 

Maybe we could use this as a basis for the 'pamphlet' idea suggested by Flavio?

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/49734-gwr-8-coupled-tank-engines/

[Ozexpatriate]

"idiot's guide to getting the right details onto the right tank engine for the right period"

That sounds very difficult to me.

 

I am reminded of a famous quote from US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart on a landmark obscenity case before the court in 1964.

 

Paraphrased it is "I know it when I see it but can't define it".

 

The full quote is:

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."

[robmcg]

I'm all for getting details as right as can be.

 

Rob

[Guest Belgian]

Those who poo-poo those others who bemoan the provision of details such as smokebox door handles moulded on rather than as separate fittings are, in my opinion, rather missing the overall point.

 

To expand what I think the overall point is: up until the release of the 2BIL and, now, this GWR 8-coupled tank, each new Hornby release could be seen to have moved the hobby forward, especially since the turn of the Millennium. Now, however, we are witnessing a reversal of this trend - however 'clever' they think they are being - and those who care are fearful of how Hornby will interpret this, particularly that they will start to think 'If they accept this, what else can we cut back on to make ourselves more money?'. It's the drip-drip philosophy which was the watchword of the 'old' Hornby and which many of us were so delighted seemed to have gone. Now it's coming back.

 

We'll just have to live with it if we don't keep expressing our horror of it. Keep up the detailed criticism boys, don't let the big machine grind you down!

 

Jeremy English

[Neal Ball]

But surely, if we are that bothered about the lack of a separate Smokebox dart, then its sooooo easy to change - It must be, I can do it !!!!

 

It's just the same as changing a number. Just go out, spend a few extra quid and hey ho, you have a very unique model now numbered 4255 or whatever instead of the same number as the catalogue.

 

Small price to pay for something that will end up being more unique than the other shop bought models......

 

(I have not checked that 4255 would be a suitable number swop, I'm merely illustrating the point!)

[melmerby]

I can understand the disappointments due the production model being not to the same specification as that originally announced, but Hornby must have sound reasons to trim the specification, presumably to reduce the selling price. Their prices were already pulling away from Bachmann's for similar sized models.

 

I assume these changes that Hornby are making are so that they can still make a worthwhile profit on the models and therefore remain solvent.

It seems to me at least, that Hornby having no in house production (unlike Bachmann) and having to rely on third part producers is already at a disadvantage cost wise.

Maybe when they moved production off-shore they should have invested in a producer somewhere, but that's another story!

If the models prove unprofitable we will soon be looking at a choice of just one major 00 producer supplying UK outline. (Dapol is a peripheral player in my opinion.)

 

We have had several mentions of the lack of 5 pole motor, which if a read the info correctly, will now be a three pole with flywheel.

As Bachmann have never, AFAIK, used a five pole in a British steam loco, is it really a problem?

 

Keith

[Dick Turpin]

I have not checked that 4255 would be a suitable number swop, I'm merely illustrating the point!

 

Ho ho, good job you added that bit or you may never have heard the last of it. 

[Guest Belgian]

Why do I bother, many of you still miss the point (but I'm glad there are those who don't - thanks guys and gals - whoops! - people).

 

JE

[buffalo]

This isn't entirely the answer to the Doctor's prayer but it will give you a starting point on some of the more noticeable differences (plus some useful stuff on 72XX bunker rivet patterns from Mike Wiltshire although that is an area to watch as several of the early group of 72XX [7200 - 19] acquired the later pattern bunker in the 1950s).

 

Maybe we could use this as a basis for the 'pamphlet' idea suggested by Flavio?

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/49734-gwr-8-coupled-tank-engines/

Yes, Mike's OP and several later contributions in that topic are an excellent basis for Flavio's pamphlet. Perhaps we should keep this and any related information on the history of the prototypes in that topic. Mike's coverage concentrates on the period from 1930 so I'd be happy to contribute a little more about the earlier history of the 42XX if anyone thought that was useful. It would be little more than the information in the RCTS volume and references to a few photos, though might still be useful for those without access to this source. As far as the Hornby models are concerned, though, this might only be of interest to a few braver souls who would be prepared to remove the cab shutters and safety valve bonnet.

 

Where it might be difficult to avoid inducing "Cerebral RSI" would be in the details of the 28 or so members of the class that acquired outside steam pipes at various dates between 1930 and 1959. Some of these retained the square drop running plate, some acquired the curved type and some had both at different times. It might be easier to leave that, and the rather random choice of 42XX used to produce the third batch of 72XX until we have the Hornby models in our hands and can be more certain about which numbers they might plausibly represent.

 

Nick

[Miss Prism]

Some summary notes, which includes contributions from Stationmaster Mike.. I think this covers most of the bases, but no doubt some extra notes could be added on early appearance (the usual smokebox riveting saga would apply).

[buffalo]

Some summary notes, which includes contributions from Stationmaster Mike.. I think this covers most of the bases, but no doubt some extra notes could be added on early appearance (the usual smokebox riveting saga would apply).

Excellent. That saves me a bit of work then. It covers pretty much all that I would have added.

Rear distance piece on rear buffer beam present on 5205-14, but not present on 5215-74.

because 5215-74 were built with longer frames to match the extended bunker.

One point that I am unable to resolve is that of the routeing of the water feed to the top feeds. On some other classes of tank engines this was altered from running along the tank top to passing through the tanks. I have no information on these engines.

Most photos of 42XX where the pipes are visible show them curving back along the tank top. This includes photos in BR days so, unless someone finds a late photo clearly showing the pipe disappearing into/behind the tank it looks unlikely they were altered.

 

May also be worth noting that whilst some of those up to 5274 acquired short safety valve bonnets at various times, many tall bonnets survived into BR days. There are also photos of 72XX with tall bonnets, e.g RCTS figs J66 (7215 BR early crest) and J68 (7249 in monogram shirtbutton livery), and Russell vol 2 fig 469 (7240 in 1947). A particularly changeable feature that really needs dated photos to be sure.

 

Nick

 

edit: brainfade

[Miss Prism]

Many thanks Nick. I have updated the page, and included extra notes on steam lance cock positions (No 4 boilers were not all the same!), Code DL boiler appearances, tank vent variations, and the post-1939 fitting of the handrail bridging the boiler at front end of water tanks. I have also added a temporary para on smokebox riveting, but I do not know exactly when flush rivets ended (I have assumed 5204) and have assumed snaphead rivets started at 5205, but this is no doubt far too simplistic.

[The Stationmaster]

Yes, Mike's OP and several later contributions in that topic are an excellent basis for Flavio's pamphlet. Perhaps we should keep this and any related information on the history of the prototypes in that topic. Mike's coverage concentrates on the period from 1930 so I'd be happy to contribute a little more about the earlier history of the 42XX if anyone thought that was useful. It would be little more than the information in the RCTS volume and references to a few photos, though might still be useful for those without access to this source. As far as the Hornby models are concerned, though, this might only be of interest to a few braver souls who would be prepared to remove the cab shutters and safety valve bonnet.

 

Where it might be difficult to avoid inducing "Cerebral RSI" would be in the details of the 28 or so members of the class that acquired outside steam pipes at various dates between 1930 and 1959. Some of these retained the square drop running plate, some acquired the curved type and some had both at different times. It might be easier to leave that, and the rather random choice of 42XX used to produce the third batch of 72XX until we have the Hornby models in our hands and can be more certain about which numbers they might plausibly represent.

 

Nick

In my view that represents the most realistic and sensible approach (notwithstanding potential problems, still, with the safety valve cover and the question of top fenders on bunkers which often don't show on prototype photos - including a photo of my own of a 72XX I aim to alter Hornby's 7202 to represent  ).

One possibility which interests me - and has since I saw the earliest Hornby EPs - is backdating the Hornby 5205 to be a 42XX with outside steam pipes which appears to mean basically adding a representation of the rear buffer beam packing piece.  It's things like this we can explore once the red boxes start arriving (and I've worked out how to smuggle them in).