Hornby castle arriving?

[Ian Hargrave]

An increasing potential problem Ian.  More & more locos seem to be appearing in what can fairly readily be identified as 'as preserved./currently running' condition and in some cases they would be difficult to alter to 'in service' condition.  many folk won't mind of course but some no doubt will.

Good point.

[Hilux5972]

From photos and the Book of the Castlrs, it appears that 5043 arrived at Barry with a collett tender. Checking the entries for other locos, 5051 was last paired with a hawks worth tender. I presume when 5051 left Barry, its purchasers asked for a tender swap?

5051 currently has a Hawksworth Tender as well as 5043 so probably not.

[Ozexpatriate]

Could we add this to the existing Castle discussion?

[sidmouth]

5043 had its double chimney fitted I think in May 1958 . from March 60 to April 62 It had a Hawksworth Tender . Speaking with the team at Tyseley I don't believe there is any evidence of a Double Chimney Castle running with an early crest Hawksworth tender

 

Details from the excellent Irwell Press Book of the Castles 

[Clearwater]

5051 currently has a Hawksworth Tender as well as 5043 so probably not.

Interestingly 5051 was the fourth engine to leave Barry. I'd marginally confused myself as it was paired with Pendennis' tender cover the summer but is usually with a Hawksworth tender however my recollection from the 80s was she was with a Collett tender. A quick google confirmed. Equally 5029 would arrived at Barry with a Hawksworth tnder, photos I've seen confirm, but now is usually seen with a collett tender. The other castles sent to Barry all left service with collett tenders

 

Given that engines were separated from their tenders at Barry (some were sold as ingot carriers) and on other occasions a purchaser mixed and matched locos and tenders, at some point 5043 lost the tender it arrived with. There's a shot in Peter Brabham's excellent book of 5043 in '67 still with the collett tender. My assumption was that a prior purchaser had decided they would rather have a collett tender than Hawksworth and hence the swap. 5043 was the third castle to leave; the second was the still unfortunate 7027, so if there was a swap of 5043's tender for another castle, the only candidate is 5051. I don't know whether hall/castle tenders are interchangeable. There's a few halls that left between 5051 and 5043 (4883/4965, 5900,6960 and 4930)

 

Somewhere I have a picture from tyseley in the early to mid 1980s of 5043 and 7027 around the turntable pre restoration. From memory, 5043 had the Hawksworth tender at that time

 

David

Edited October 21, 2015 by Clearwater

[G-BOAF]

Presumably castle and Hall tenders were swapped? 5043 I believe has a part newly constructed Hawksworth Tender (using an old body on new frames - someone can correct me on that).

 

Pictures up of 5043 on Hornby.com

http://files.Hornby.com/360//R3301/R3301_spin%20large/Images/R3301_spin%20large/Lv2/img01.jpg

 

Am I going to be the first to point out that IF the photographs on Hornby's website are correct, they have fitted the wrong cab sides - the model as pictures has the L-shaped handrails round the cab window. 5043 should have the Straight handrails as per earlier Castles.... Has someone not been paying attention when selecting the tools again (as with 4073's running plate...?, and Great Gathering/Goodbye 60009 bow-ended tender top insert, and Lamp Iron locations on nearly all recent A4 releases) I've said it before but there's no point in tooling up very commendable detailed differences if you go and get them wrong on every other release! I presume these locos are being made by (un)Refined??

 

I guess I should reserve judgement until the first models appear in the flesh...

Rant over.

[Hilux5972]

Hopefully that is just the pre prod models.

[Clearwater]

Presumably castle and Hall tenders were swapped? 5043 I believe has a part newly constructed Hawksworth Tender (using an old body on new frames - someone can correct me on that).

 

Pictures up of 5043 on Hornby.com

http://files.Hornby.com/360//R3301/R3301_spin%20large/Images/R3301_spin%20large/Lv2/img01.jpg

 

Am I going to be the first to point out that IF the photographs on Hornby's website are correct, they have fitted the wrong cab sides - the model as pictures has the L-shaped handrails round the cab window. 5043 should have the Straight handrails as per earlier Castles.... Has someone not been paying attention when selecting the tools again (as with 4073's running plate...?, and Great Gathering/Goodbye 60009 bow-ended tender top insert, and Lamp Iron locations on nearly all recent A4 releases) I've said it before but there's no point in tooling up very commendable detailed differences if you go and get them wrong on every other release! I presume these locos are being made by (un)Refined??

 

I guess I should reserve judgement until the first models appear in the flesh...

Rant over.

Mine has arrived with me. Sadly the cab side does have anL shaped handle not the straight per prototype. A pity... As you suspected/predicted factory is REF

 

Am due to see the real thing on Saturday. Will try and take some photos to aid comparison

Edited October 22, 2015 by Clearwater

[B15nac]

Got anymore picture? Is it a nice model ?

 

Cheers Neil

[Clearwater]

Hi Neil

 

See below. Generally, I think it's a good model (as the other Hornby Halls). Colour isn't quite as glossy as my recollection of the original. Camera phone shots below resized via Apple so apols for quality. If you'd like other angles, let me know and I can add

 

As alluded to above, I've always had a soft spot for 5043 since seeing her at Tyseley around the turntable, largely unrestored except for a shiny copper chimney

 

David

 

[Ozexpatriate]

I see that like the other REF-made GWR 4-6-0s, the miniature footplate crew have to negotiate a ski jump to access the tender.

 

These models would look better without that fall plate. At 45° it is so visually distracting from the lines of the model.

Edited October 22, 2015 by Ozexpatriate

[Silver Sidelines]

I probably have not been keeping up but the mix of double chimney, overhead warning plates and an Early Emblem tender say that this is a model of the preserved Castle.  Otherwise the engine looks 60s and the tender 50s?

 

Ray

Edited October 22, 2015 by Silver Sidelines

[Ian Hargrave]

I probably have not been kee[omg up but the mix of double chimney, overhead warning plates and an Early Emblem tender say that this is a model of the preserved Castle.  Otherwise the engine looks 60s and the tender 50s?

 

Ray

Correct,Ray.Resident at Tyseley presently.To my eyes,an incorrect alliance of loco,tender and B.R.crest.....but ok if you run current image.Best with Voyagers and Pendolinos.Great with choc.& cream Mark 1 stock.

[The Black Hat]

The model should be for the engine as it is running in its current condition. 

 

See here: http://www.blackhatrailwaypictures.co.uk/p48253346/h23876590#h23876590 

 

However, as with many preserved steam engines enthusiasts tend to always compare their current condition with what has been before. While the standard outline might have been different previously to match the rest of the fleet, now the engine itself is running in a different period and a different guise, albeit in this case tweaked. There is a significant amount of the engine portraying an appearance that would have happened years ago, but now other compromises are needed to match both industry specifications and operational necessity. The tender change is more a fact about its rebuild and that in turn adds more to the engines own history. We need to move on from always seeing preserved engines as a means to repeat the past in every form. Instead, view the engine for what it is today, as a new chapter in its own history, on its own right.

 

Its a good choice for a model. The engine itself has put in some brilliant performances on the mainline, including some storming runs up Shap and the S+C. I've seen it as far north as York, but personally would welcome this engine gladly into the hearland of the North East on visit!! Personally, I couldn't wait for the engine to be made, I bought a castle and altered its appearance. Im glad others will enjoy the model of the Earl, being of the engine today, and also look for other preserved engines coming if Hornby is still doing the engine and support coach idea. 

[Ian Hargrave]

Good performances ? Second nature to a Castle....and why would I not compare ? I was raised near the South Wales main line in the 40's and 50's.

Edited October 22, 2015 by Ian Hargrave

[The Black Hat]

Sorry Ian, might have not been too clear. I think its fine to compare an engine today with what it was before, and what others were doing at the time. Comparrison between times and even different engines is all par for the course. What I'm meaning in that when people look at an engine today and then expect it to be exactly as it was years ago. The Earl is not a great example of this, save for the tender which is more a link to its return to traffic and looks authentic. When some enthusiasts see change they see it as wrong, rather than progression. 

[Clearwater]

In the blurb on Vintage Train's websiteabout 5043, there's an interesting comment (top of middle column) about the decision to restore to late 59s condition albeit with a double chimney

 

Clearly they already run 7029 with a double chimney but iirc, the other restored castles all have single chimneys and I can see the logic in having at least one mainline castle with a double chimney at all times, particularly as it clearly enhances performance.

 

http://www.tyseleylocoworks.co.uk/tlw/tlw_locomotives.htm

[Ozexpatriate]

When some enthusiasts see change they see it as wrong, rather than progression.

David, that raises an interesting question. I think it depends on what the model purports to be.

 

A model can do one of three things:

• Accurately* represent something as it ran in original revenue service at a particular time (based on photographic evidence)
• Accurately* represent something as it ran in preservation at a particular time (based on photographic evidence)
• Something else.

* this is an imprecise term but I think it includes the aggregate combination of shape, basic livery and the visible equipment details that the manufacturer chose to include - as opposed to those deliberately omitted. Perhaps "authentic" is a nice word here.

 

These are separate from what I would call poor modelling - the ski jump fall plate on the Castle (it shouldn't be at 45°) and the moulded shelf instead of a hand-rail on the Star cab side.

 

I do think manufacturers should be clear in their collateral to describe which of these three they are aiming at.  If they claim to be accurate and a visible detail is incorrect, then it's OK to say it is wrong.

 

Personally, I'm not very picky. If it fits my 'theme' I'm happy to bend the rules of historical accuracy and purchase a model that feels representative but strictly speaking is in the "something else" category. Based on a lot of the conversation in that thread, some of the Oxford Rail wagons seem to apply to that category.

 

I like the "authentic" and "tailored" distinctions that Wessex Wagons makes.

Edited October 22, 2015 by Ozexpatriate

[G-BOAF]

The cab handrail is a pity - two detail mistakes on two castles this year (Caerphilly and now Edgcumbe). I was also going to say it is nice that Hornby have correctly portrayed the non-standard nameplate curvature of the Earl plates (which I believe were reused from the previous 'Earl' namers), which they have on the splasher front etch shape. On the real loco, there is a mismatch in the radius of the nameplate and the splasher, and this is reflected in the non-parallel top and bottom lining below the nameplate.

https://locoyard.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/017-2013-2013-the-moonraker-mainline-tour-salisbury-gwr-4073-castle-class-5043-earl-of-mount-edgcumbe.jpg

 

HOWEVER - rather than make the panel below the nameplate thicker in the middle (i.e. top and bottom lining not parallel), Hornby have increased the width of the plate itself... Why???? Might this have been someone in China 'correcting' this that should not have been 'corrected'??

This will make life difficult for those who want to fit a fine etched plate, as well as it failing to represent an idiosyncrasy of the livery of the 'Earl' series of castles

 

I am not an expert, but I can spot this a mile off and it took me all of 2 minutes. As Dave Jones' approach demonstrates, have amateur eyes going over a model, be it CAD,  tooling development, or livery, means that silly mistakes that some miss are highlighted. I'm not blaming solely Hornby on this front, I do it with my own work enough, and value a second or third pair of eyes for critical stuff.

 

This said, other than the cab and nameplate (and the continued lack of black on the top of the chimney - easy fix), it looks a generally nicely made model.

 

But Clearwater, your LH cylinder seems to have some mis-formed lining on its rear end... or is that just the pic.

 

Come on Hornby, you are delivering the goods in fine style with your newly tooled models (K1 footplate aside), time to get in gear with your re-releases. I'm happy to pass my eye over your pre-production models and correct them for you (in a diplomatic way).

 

I'm fully aware that 15 years ago having a debate over a small detail like a cab handrail would have been beyond our wildest dreams in RTR, just to put things in perspective. but given that such details are available...

 

Back to the prototoype - why did tyselely not paint a late crest on the tender? - 5043 had a Hawksworth tender fitted between 1960 and 1962 (according to BRDatabase), so late crest Hawksworth with Double Chimney would have been historically accurate for her.

Edited October 22, 2015 by G-BOAF

[Clearwater]

Thanks - you're right, the printing does look slightly wonky on the left cylinder. Will have to decide whether it bothers me or not.

[MikeParkin65]

 

 

Back to the prototoype - why did tyselely not paint a late crest on the tender? - 5043 had a Hawksworth tender fitted between 1960 and 1962 (according to BRDatabase), so late crest Hawksworth with Double Chimney would have been historically accurate for her.

 

I recall at the time of 5043's relaunch Bob Meanley, CME at Tyseley stating that it was the choice of the restorers. They are well aware it isn't historically accurate, they just prefer it!

[The Stationmaster]

The cab handrail is a pity - two detail mistakes on two castles this year (Caerphilly and now Edgcumbe). I was also going to say it is nice that Hornby have correctly portrayed the non-standard nameplate curvature of the Earl plates (which I believe were reused from the previous 'Earl' namers), which they have on the splasher front etch shape. On the real loco, there is a mismatch in the radius of the nameplate and the splasher, and this is reflected in the non-parallel top and bottom lining below the nameplate.

https://locoyard.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/017-2013-2013-the-moonraker-mainline-tour-salisbury-gwr-4073-castle-class-5043-earl-of-mount-edgcumbe.jpg

 

HOWEVER - rather than make the panel below the nameplate thicker in the middle (i.e. top and bottom lining not parallel), they have increased the width of the plate itself... Why???? Might this have been someone in China 'correcting' this that should not have been 'corrected'??

This will make life difficult for those who want to fit a fine etched plate, as well as it failing to represent an idiosyncrasy of the livery of the 'Earl' series of castles

 

I am not an expert, but I can spot this a mile off and it took me all of 2 minutes. As Dave Jones' approach demonstrates, have amateur eyes going over a model, be it CAD,  tooling development, or livery, means that silly mistakes that some miss are highlighted. I'm not blaming solely Hornby on this front, I do it with my own work enough, and value a second or third pair of eyes for critical stuff.

 

This said, other than the cab and nameplate (and the continued lack of black on the top of the chimney - easy fix), it looks a generally nicely made model.

 

But Clearwater, your LH cylinder seems to have some mis-formed lining on its rear end... or is that just the pic.

 

Come on Hornby, you are delivering the goods in fine style with your newly tooled models (K1 footplate aside), time to get in gear with your re-releases. I'm happy to pass my eye over your pre-production models and correct them for you (in a diplomatic way).

 

I'm fully aware that 15 years ago having a debate over a small detail like a cab handrail would have been beyond our wildest dreams in RTR, just to put things in perspective. but given that such details are available...

 

Back to the prototoype - why did tyselely not paint a late crest on the tender? - 5043 had a Hawksworth tender fitted between 1960 and 1962 (according to BRDatabase), so late crest Hawksworth with Double Chimney would have been historically accurate for her.

And of course the livery on 5043 is no less or more historically inaccurate than that on the NRM (and I believe mainstream Hornby version of KGV 6000).

 

Simple thing for folk to watch out for - if you are looking for a model of a preserved engine in its preserved condition that is what is being offered with these two.  If you are looking for a livery accurate model of the engines when they were in traffic these two are not that (and obviously 5043 has got modern ohle warning 'flashes' as well).

[G-BOAF]

personally I don't mind Tyseley's choice of livery, it marks a significant new period in the locos history. Would be nice to see a late crest at some point before her next overhaul.

I also commend Hornby for doing real modern image steam (just a shame about the errors!) This adds to a not inconsiderable number of mainline heritage locos produced including 4472 (various), 35005, Olton Hall, 60019, WCRC Black 5, and the GG A4s with 46233 to come... have I missed any?

Of course then there are preserved mainline locos that have no noticable difference to BR days, including 7029 (and 48773 wth a couple of minor differences), OHL flahes aside.

Edited October 22, 2015 by G-BOAF

[Silver Sidelines]

I wonder what sort of reception there would be if the manufacturer were to issue the model with separate transfers for Over Head warning stickers (modern and 1960s) and a choice of tender emblems.  It might even be seen as useful to give modelers something to do!

 

Ray

[Budgie]

I wonder what sort of reception there would be if the manufacturer were to issue the model with separate transfers for Over Head warning stickers (modern and 1960s) and a choice of tender emblems.  It might even be seen as useful to give modelers something to do!

I think most of them would be left in the box unused.