Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

 Somewhere between about £240 and £330 depending on when in 1975/6 you start counting. (based on RPI).

Andy,

         Thank you ever so much. Being an art teacher meant, in the main, not having to do hard sums. I suppose that's fair, though, and the price now of a complete DJH 4mm kit for an A2/2 or A2/3, including wheels and motor must be approaching somewhere in the £240.00-plus bracket, maybe more (does anyone know exactly?). I know DJH no longer supply kits with wheels, and a full Markits set is now a king's ransom (though they are superb). Add the cost of the motor/gearbox and you can see the price parity with nearly 40 years ago. And we get folk on here bleating about how much RTR locos cost these days. Born; know; they're; don't; they - rearrange into a well known phrase or saying! If you make that a DJH A3 (for which there's a current RTR equivalent), just think of the uproar at having to pay twice as much as one out-of-the-box - and you still have to build it and paint it! Extrapolate those figures in relation to Hornby's DoG - isn't the fully-decorated version offered for around a hundred pounds? What price a full DJH equivalent? Never has there been such a cornucopia of RTR riches available. 

[Tony Wright]

Wow what a most interesting thread this is!

 

I have greatly enjoyed seeing the model pictures and Mr Wright's layout is very close to what I would build given the space. You 4mm types really have it made these days with the super models you can buy more or less off the shelf. When I first changed to 7mm, it was largely build it yourself (and to some extent still is though the likes of Heljan have made things easier.) I have always admired TW's work and the wonderful pictures that he has produced over the years. I also appreciate the frankness that he has expressed in how he has come to where he has one of the country's top layouts.

 

I do wonder how Little Bytham is/will be operated? Will you try to replicate a timetable at a specific time or just run trains on a demand basis? Given the level of perfection achieved, it would be a shame not to run it as it was in life. One of the things I am envious of is the ability to opt out of "reality" and sit and run trains whilst drinking a mug of  tea or something stronger. In 7mm this is not usually possible.

 

Thank you for sharing this with us. Greatly appreciated.

 

Regards

 

Martin Long

Stationmaster Happisburgh

Martin,

           You're very kind in your comments, though describing Little Bytham as one of the 'country's top layouts' might be a bit too 'gushing'. Because of the work of others it has the potential to become something worth considering but there is still a long way to go. It's because of teamwork - Norman Turner, Norman Solomon, Rob Kinsey, Mick Peabody, Ian Wilson, Rob Davey, Richard Wilson, Mick Nicholson and Graham Nicholas (amongst others) that it's got so far. Me, I've made most of the locos and passenger stock (though Tony Geary has contributed greatly to the latter), made the coffee and taken the pictures. To me, being part of a team where everyone has a large practical input makes a layout so much more personal.

 

            With regard to operation, Ian Wilson has worked out a three hour 'daylight' sequence where 'all' the trains are represented. It's based on BR's own 1958 summer timetable for passenger trains and a glance at Great Northern's working timetable for the period (thanks Gilbert). Since I only have 36 rakes, many of these have to double up as 'generic' trains, especially as dedicated sets like 'The Elizabethan' and the Pullmans can only be used once. Locos are changed as appropriate. It's not run to a timetable as such, more a procession of appropriate trains. If the fancy takes, one can circulate as long as we wish. Obviously, the shunting of the pick-up goods over the ladder crossover takes place in the gaps between the through trains. I'll post a copy of the sequence in due course.

 

            Finally, and totally off topic, I've been trying to work out what what the car is in your image. It looks very similar to the back end of mine - a TVR Chimaera 500. Surely that's too much of a coincidence.

 

            And, thanks one more for the praise, though that really should go to the other guys.  

[glo41f]

Tony

 

Thank you for the information. Being an operations type I will be interested to see the sequence you intend to use. I know how a realistic sequence enhances the enjoyment of a model and when a group all participate it is one of the finest attributes of this wonderful hobby. When I was a regular operator on Wallsea, we all derived great satisfaction in running the sequence with many multiple moves without much verbal communication such was the level of expertise.

 

The car (and the numberplate) 1 GOG belongs to a local wealthy person (well he has more money than I am ever likely to have) and at the time I took the rather poor picture , it was on a GE Blue Jaguar Coupe. I took the picture and wanted to put a spoof on the Gauge 0 Guild website about the Presidents "offical" car but the hierachy had a sense of humour failure based on the premise that the membership would believe it so it was pulled.

 

As a further thought, if the standard of 4mm was as good as it now is back in 1970, I would never have converted to 7mm. Who would have thought then that it would be possible to have pretty well a complete BR Eastern Region loco stud with matching coaches to a detail level which is hard to achive even by scratch building, straight from the box. You do not know how fortunate you are chaps!

 

Regards

 

Martin Long

Stationmaster Happisburgh Norfolk

[queensquare]

. Since I only have 36 rakes,

 

 

Only!!........this bear of little brain is trying to work out how long he would have to live to build that many.........

 

Jerry

[unclebobkt]

   ... .

 Any comments, please ........

  ... .

Full reviews will be appearing shortly in BRM.

 

 -- May I, as a non-modeller,  venture a suggestion?

 - It is that Hornby move-away from their 'Racing slick.' tyres on the leading bogies - they shew-up too obviously in low-down & frontal views, such as one might see were one not an helicopter-pilot but a 4mm.:1ft. person with both feet firmly on the ground.  Possibly time for Hornby to move-away from the 'Toy train.' aspect and with their improved models improve their tolerances?

[gr.king]

For anyone who was interested in seeing further progress with the GN style coach conversion work that I sneaked on to Tony's thread a page or several back, some images are now uploaded over on the "Grantham" thread:

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/58826-grantham-the-streamliner-years/page-38?p=1304365

Edited January 18, 2014 by gr.king

[Tony Wright]

Only!!........this bear of little brain is trying to work out how long he would have to live to build that many.........

 

Jerry

In answer to your question, a bit of time, nearly 40 years now. However, much of the earlier stuff has been disposed of down the years, and I suppose it's taken the best part of the last quarter century to make/acquire most of the models required - locos and stock. As I've mentioned before, I've made most of the locos and passenger stock from kits or adaptations (though there are a large number of Bachmann Mk.1s) and the freight stock is mixture of kit or modified proprietary items, mostly the work of mates who are participants in the build. 

 

The 36 rakes are accommodated in the main fiddle yard which has 20 roads, two of which must remain free for through running from the respective Up and Down kick-back sidings at both ends of the layout. Of the 18 occupied roads, four contain two trains (one long, one short) and the remaining trains occupy the dead-end roads referred to as kick-back earlier - trains either reversing out of those roads to run or reversing into those roads afterwards. Obviously, this puts great emphasis on reliability in reversing, because I will not tolerate derailments. With the same emphasis on reliable running, all the fiddle yard roads are configured to give the easiest possible entrance, using large-radius Peco points almost exclusively (medium-radius are only tolerated on exit roads). I have also resisted the temptation to try and cram too much in by having each road able to accommodate appropriate full-length trains (and a loco), with spare length for at least one more carriage or several more wagons. 

 

The following pictures illustrate the arrangements - the shelves 'above' the yard being used to store spare locos. I heartily dislike the constant handling of locos, but it's a necessary evil. For loco changing, having run once, the loco brings its train out into the open once more and is replaced, railing taking place by a plastic (American) wedge device which sits over the rails. 

 

 

In this picture the 'north' end of the fiddle yard is shown with an A1 departing on an Up express and a V2 arriving with a Down 'Parly'. Spare locos for southbound trains sit waiting.

 

 

This shows the central section of Little Bytham's main line fiddle yard

 

 

The other end with trains arriving/departing, including the Uddingstone-Cliffe cement block train leaving its kick-back road. in distant view is the lifting section, necessary for access as the years pile on! The A2/3 will stop short of this because of the appropriate wiring.

 

 

Finally, in answer to another query about Hornby's 'steamroller' bogie wheels - chuck them away, for they are ghastly in appearance (though necessary for train set curves), and replace with something better - in this case Markits. 

Edited January 17, 2014 by Tony Wright

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...The following pictures illustrate the arrangements - the shelves 'above' the yard being used to store spare locos. I heartily dislike the constant handling of locos, but it's a necessary evil...

 Is it absolutely necessary though? The loco alone will tackle a severe gradient with no difficulty. Is there any way to route an 'escape' road off the eventual exit route (effectively the running line) from each end of the fiddle yard, which then rises on a fairly stiff grade to cross the tracks as required and is kept concealed behind backscene, and enables locos to run round the layout to storage roads above part of your current storage yard. When required the loco then moves forward and descends (steeply) to running line level, and reverses onto its train.

[micklner]

Tony

        In the picture of Enterprise it looks like the Cartazzi truck has a rimmed wheel ? Is it a modified set up or what curves will it go around?.

 

 

I agree re Markits sadly until i can find a simple way of lining the Apple Green version of the wheels mine will stay as Hornby !!

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

Tony

        In the picture of Enterprise it looks like the Cartazzi truck has a rimmed wheel ? Is it a modified set up or what curves will it go around?.

 

 

It won't even go around straight track, judging by the relative positions of the wheel flange and the rail head in that shot...

 

 

The Curse of Cartazzi strikes again!

Edited January 17, 2014 by Dr Gerbil-Fritters

[Tony Wright]

It won't even go around straight track, judging by the relative positions of the wheel flange and the rail head in that shot...

 

 

The Curse of Cartazzi strikes again!

Well spotted, and it's because of my carelessness in setting up the shot. I didn't run it into position but placed it there for the photograph, forgetting to check. Despite this happening in hundreds of pictures I've taken, I never learn!

 

The loco (with the trailing wheels on the road) will go round 3' radius curves with ease.

 

Mick,

         I should have qualified the comment about junking the nasty bogie wheels by stating 'if they're black'. Strangely, those with a white rim (LNER green) appear finer because the eye reads the fine lining. Those with red bogie wheels (A4s) look just as bad. 

 

One other thing of note is my indolence in not carving off the top wiggly pipe at the back end of the smokebox. This appears to consist (on the real thing) of a handwheel for opening and closing what ever is to be opened or closed. It should only be on the fireman's side (if present) on LNER locos (with the exception of the A4s). Because Hornby made/make both manifestations of the A1/A3, they've put it on both sides. The other (lower) wiggly pipes could do with being replaced with separate items as well, as I've done on other examples.

 

 

As for those wiggly smokebox pipes, Bachmann don't fit them to their locos, whichever side. A few minutes' work with a small handrail pillar or two and some 5 amp fusewire, and the job is done. There probably should be more, but it's the impression that counts, illustrated by this 'standard' Bachmann A1. With replaced bogie wheels, the wiggly pipes (but not AWS conduit, which it should have!), rear end raised up to match loco and tender footplates and a brilliant Tim Shackleton weathering job, there you go. In handling, the valance weathering has been partially removed and needs to be re-instated. Despite extra ballast, it still won't haul what my DJH-built ones will, and the return crank leans the wrong way on this side. But, it's got weathered headlamps! 

Edited January 17, 2014 by Tony Wright

[westerner]

 , I'm so jealous about the size of your fiddle yard. Oh to have the space not to have to replace trains rather than locos.

[Tony Wright]

More wiggly goings-on!!!!

 

 

Here's another Bachmann A1, this time with a bit more done. The front wiggly pipes are there but also the one at the back end of the ejector pipe, running down through the footplate. Obviously new bogie wheels are there (MGW, from the dawn of time!) but this one's had replacement etched brass deflectors as well, spare from a DJH A2/2-A2/3 kit. Worth it, probably not on a 'layout' loco (unless it's photographed up close and personal) and my weathering isn't in the same class as Tim Shackleton's. I also don't know why I used 'white' cabside numbers, rather than cream. 

 

 

As for what the wiggly pipes should 'really' look like on an A3, though this picture has been seen before, I hope it shows what I mean. The replacement bogie wheels are really worth it in this shot.

[Barry O]

The added pipes do make a big difference.

 

Next up - why do we put up with a blooming great big screw in the valve gear of Bachmann Locomotives - dates back to my Triang Princess! The Hornby A3 looks much better and yet people are always having a go at Hornby - come on Bachmann your US outline is better than this!

[St Enodoc]

The following pictures illustrate the arrangements - the shelves 'above' the yard being used to store spare locos. I heartily dislike the constant handling of locos, but it's a necessary evil. For loco changing, having run once, the loco brings its train out into the open once more and is replaced, railing taking place by a plastic (American) wedge device which sits over the rails. 

Tony, have you considered Peco loco lifts or a similar home-made mini-cassette? I know you would need rather a lot though. A friend of mine near Melbourne, Victoria, has a similar shelf for loco storage, but with a steep access track up to it and a Fleischmann (I think) turntable on the top, with locos stabled on the radiating roads.

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

Tony, what are your thoughts on the Brassmasters A3 front end parts? 

 

 

 

 I'm always aware when looking at models how the underpinnings don't really match up to the steamy bits on top.  

 

It's an obvious knock-on from having to cope with sharp curves and Triang incline pier sets no doubt, but I find my eye irresistibly drawn by all the fresh air around the nether regions.  I usually slap some plasticard into the gaps so that my locomotives at least seem to have proper underframes, but it may just be one of my particular weaknesses. 

 

 

 

 

[micklner]

     One problem with the Brassmaster kit is you cannot get the bogie in the picture seperate for OO use (its part of the P4 EM chassis etch). I have used the seperate detail sheet on my A3 and A4 's , sadly again the A3 front irons wont fit with Hornby bogie wheels. I have one non valanced  A4 with front irons etch fitted using Gibson wheels without problem.

    Tony I presume you prefer Markit version to Gibsons at over £9.00 per bogie a tad expensive !!

[Horsetan]

Almost everything bearing a Markits label is expensive.

[gr.king]

Hence my skinflint's penchant for making what I can by RTR conversion.

[Tony Wright]

Tony, what are your thoughts on the Brassmasters A3 front end parts? 

 

 I'm always aware when looking at models how the underpinnings don't really match up to the steamy bits on top.  

 

It's an obvious knock-on from having to cope with sharp curves and Triang incline pier sets no doubt, but I find my eye irresistibly drawn by all the fresh air around the nether regions.  I usually slap some plasticard into the gaps so that my locomotives at least seem to have proper underframes, but it may just be one of my particular weaknesses. 

I don't think it's a particular weakness, more of a strength, and in many ways I couldn't agree more. I too have added fill-in bits on some locos, especially the cut-outs around bogie wheels to lessen the daylight. I've also used Brassmasters' separate detailing parts on a 'Jinty' and a Stanier Black Five, featuring their uses in a DVD. 

 

All that said, I suppose I remain a pragmatist at heart, because I've always been 'obsessive' about the running of my locos and stock. It has been my experience to examine (on request) dozens of ostensibly 'professionally-built' locomotives (from kits or scratch) where no consideration can have been made for these locos to operate on a model railway. By that I mean, a model railway with 'sharp' curves. Bogie wheels fouling cylinders and frames, driving wheels with no side-play, Cartazzi frames impeding the swing of the truck, tender-to-loco coupling being too close and eight-wheeled tenders having no sideplay in the 'boxes. Visually, they might have looked stunning but they didn't work. As for 'sharp' curves, I mean anything down to 30". Whilst I wouldn't tolerate such 'farm' railway curves on a scenic section, I've had to go as tight as this in fiddle yards. I suppose 24" might just be tolerable on fiddle yard sidings for short vehicles only, but mainly for RTR items.

 

On the real thing, such radii are never contemplated even in shed yards, unless you're modelling a colliery complex or the like. I recall once looking at an aerial shot of York Station and thinking that if it were a model railway, trains would fizz through at over 60 m.p.h! Even if depot track caused 'problems', real locomotives, whilst not actually derailing, did not 'short out' and if various parts touched, scuff marks were evident on the frames, or the locos physically moved the track. This was brought home to me on examining locos at Barry Docks, firstly in 1966 and in subsequent years, where deep grooves were present in the frames behind the driving wheel flanges and in the case of the two 'Kings', massive erosion in the joggled frames behind the second bogie wheels. Though some of this might have been caused by pushing/pulling around the sharp curves in the yard, most of it must have been done out on the road. 

 

Since most 'cutting out of light' can only be seen/not seen from side-on, I tend to leave plenty of 'air' around bogie wheels (less so in kit-built ones), though, I concede, the improvements, if they don't compromise running, are worth it. As for Markits bogie wheels being pricey - yes they are, but they're always true-round, the bespoke ones look like what they're meant to replicate and they don't disintegrate. Thus, because they make such a dramatic improvement in appearance, especially in the classic three-quarter front view, then I'll fit them despite the cost implication.

 

Other compromises I won't tolerate where running might be impeded are the omission of front steps and cylinder drain cocks, though the latter might have to be joggled out a bit or shortened. If radii are too tight to allow these, then something is fundamentally wrong with the railway or the owner is running inappropriate stock. 

 

As for every bit of visible detail being present below the footplate, I do draw the line at sand pipes. Not every one to be fair, as with a 'Schools' say, where there's a huge gap between the drivers. But with ones so intimate that if they almost touch the tyres (as in the prototype!), then the slightest alteration during taking out the loco from its box or packing it up (or the occasional derailment) can cause all sorts of problems.

 

Finally, though the likes of Brassmasters' detailing bits are fantastic and improve the appearance of locos no end, because I have so many locos, I don't think I'll be fitting them, except as in an article for publication. 

 

 

 

Showing my hypocrisy I suppose in a way, here's my SE Finecast 'Schools', built to operate on Charwelton. Because this is a one-off, I 'went to town' a bit. By arranging the bogie so it had almost no swing (effectively making the loco a rigid 0-8-0) and making the chassis electrically-dead, I was able to fix the prominent front steps and cylinder drain cocks in place, and also make the rear bogie wheel splasher. Leaving off the sand pipes would have not been countenanced, When viewed from any angle there is no extra daylight visible.

 

 

Though Hornby's 'Schools' is a brilliant model generally, to go round tight curves the front steps and cylinder drain cocks have to be omitted. And, though the appearance of the bogie wheel spokes and rim are superior to the 'standard' Markits 12mm bogie wheels, the flanges and tyres are really crude. All the sand pipes are there, though! Viewed from the side there'll be plenty of daylight.

Edited January 18, 2014 by Tony Wright

[S.A.C Martin]

My apologies, but the latter picture seems to have got muddled up with a previous one..............

 

Here it is again

 

A2 1 Jamieson Hand Cut kit 02.jpg

 

 

I should have pointed out that a new footplate would also have been required to accommodate the making of an A2/1 kit by DJH. I also got the feeling that, because (other than the solitary A1/1) the A2/1 was the least numerous LNER Pacific class, sales might not be that high - certainly not high enough to justify the cost of the amount of new tooling required. Still, that didn't stop Crownline from offering a kit for it (and the A1/1!), but I suppose they could use certain parts from the V2 kit, as indeed did Nu-Cast with regard to its own A2/1, though they had to produce an eight-wheeled tender for later manifestations (which suited 60508, 60509 and 60510, but not 60507 which inherited the flush-sided tender from the A4 blown up in the York air raid). 

 

I agree with you Tony that, numbering only four examples, the A2/1 seems the least likely (bar the short lived Raven Pacifics) of all the LNER Pacifics to be made RTR. Yet if we can have the Duke of Gloucester which is in a class of one and significantly shorter lived in service (albeit preserved), we cannot in all good conscience say never to the orphans of the storm I suspect…!

 

 

Please don't think me pompous, but I was responsible for the first A2/1 kit ever being produced in 4mm, in 1975/'76. EAMES used to offer a service for Jamieson 'hand-cut' kits, whereby you could specify a locomotive type and they'd make you a (very basic) kit for it, So, I ordered an A2/1, having been given an assurance that the price would not be too high because much of what was needed was already available from the same firm's V2 kit - cab, firebox, tapered boiler section, etc, and the six-wheeled tender (which was the wrong pattern for an A2/1 anyway). Since I didn't want the tender but wanted an eight-wheeled type to suit DUKE OF ROTHESAY, I enquired further, and was quoted a price of almost £30.00 (without the tender) and obviously ex-wheels motor, etc. So, I ordered it, and was given the six-wheeled tender, anyway. I built a (rather inappropriate) Wills A2 tender to go with it (inappropriate for an A2 as well - too fat, no rivets; why did kit-makers use Roche drawings as a guide?). This cost about a further fiver and the bespoke nameplates (supplied by Kings Cross) jacked the price up still further - all in all to not much shy of £40.00 - it was a good job I was on a head of department's salary in teaching at the time! What's £40.00 in today's money, especially when a contemporary complete K's kit for a tender loco was about £12.00 - £15.00? For a short period, EAMES offered that same A2/1 kit in the Jamieson range, though I'd carried all the development costs. Latterly, I built a more appropriate SE Finecast A2 tender to go behind it, and I still have it, complete with my painting. I've included a couple of pictures of it, though they've already been seen in publications before. Still for a nearly 40-year old loco it's not too bad (I hope), built be a learning near 30-year old at the time.

 

 

I think it's a rather convincing model myself. If I may add to Mick's excellent example on the previous page, here's my A2/1, also Duke of Rothesay.

 

It was built using Graeme King's resin components, a Bachmann V2 body shell, a Bachmann B1 tender and a Bachmann A2 chassis albeit using the latest Bachmann V2 valve gear in place of the original set. One thing I think which is significantly noticeable about mine is the poor shape of the boiler which has resulted from the use of the Bachmann V2 boiler. Graeme King is currently working on a replacement resin body for the Bachmann V2 and I may yet be tempted to build a new A2/1 using that as a starting place instead.

 

Different approaches to the same problem: if you want an A2/1, how do you build one?

 

[scots region]

 

I agree with you Tony that, numbering only four examples, the A2/1 seems the least likely (bar the short lived Raven Pacifics) of all the LNER Pacifics to be made RTR. Yet if we can have the Duke of Gloucester which is in a class of one and significantly shorter lived in service (albeit preserved), we cannot in all good conscience say never to the orphans of the storm I suspect…!

 

 

I think it's a rather convincing model myself. If I may add to Mick's excellent example on the previous page, here's my A2/1, also Duke of Rothesay.

 

It was built using Graeme King's resin components, a Bachmann V2 body shell, a Bachmann B1 tender and a Bachmann A2 chassis albeit using the latest Bachmann V2 valve gear in place of the original set. One thing I think which is significantly noticeable about mine is the poor shape of the boiler which has resulted from the use of the Bachmann V2 boiler. Graeme King is currently working on a replacement resin body for the Bachmann V2 and I may yet be tempted to build a new A2/1 using that as a starting place instead.

 

Different approaches to the same problem: if you want an A2/1, how do you build one?

 

CIMG5668_1.png

 

 

I agree with you Simon, being completely inexperienced in building anything larger that a 16 tonner, I wouldn't know what to advise, what exactly is the contention over the V2's boiler may I ask? Also welcome back to the site, how go things your end of the world?

 

Yours, a friend

ScR. 

[glo41f]

Another question on the operation of Little Bytham. The pictures of the (huge) fiddleyards indicate that the up and down sections are discreet. So how does for example the up Queen of Scots get back? Ideally the loco and train should re appear some time later on the down direstion. Or do you not bother and just run a sequence of trains in each direction? Is there any rule in place as to the loco used i.e. if a Gateshead loco is seen hauling the up train, when back in the fiddle yard it is moved to the other end of the yard ready to be seen at some stage hauling a down train back to its home shed? Gosh things could get very complex but it would make the spotters on the platforms lives very interesting!

 

 

The M&GN presumably lends it self to some sort of automatic operation on a timed interval basis with a train circulating in each direction alternately.

 

 

Martin Long

Stationmaster Happisburgh Norfolk

[Tony Wright]

Another question on the operation of Little Bytham. The pictures of the (huge) fiddleyards indicate that the up and down sections are discreet. So how does for example the up Queen of Scots get back? Ideally the loco and train should re appear some time later on the down direstion. Or do you not bother and just run a sequence of trains in each direction? Is there any rule in place as to the loco used i.e. if a Gateshead loco is seen hauling the up train, when back in the fiddle yard it is moved to the other end of the yard ready to be seen at some stage hauling a down train back to its home shed? Gosh things could get very complex but it would make the spotters on the platforms lives very interesting!

 

 

The M&GN presumably lends it self to some sort of automatic operation on a timed interval basis with a train circulating in each direction alternately.

 

 

Martin Long

Stationmaster Happisburgh Norfolk

Martin,

           The sequence does not allow for trains returning - all go the way they're pointing, so it's a not entirely accurate in that respect - in fact, a long way from it. However, a representative selection of trains can be run, but to replicate, say, all the daytime summer trains from dawn until dusk would be impossible without a fiddle yard at least ten times bigger. As for trains getting back, most of the longer distance services' sets wouldn't return in the same day, anyway; not the way they do now. So, with regard to the 'Queen of Scots', there were two sets, the Up train forming the Down service next day and vice versa. There's a particular problem with the QoS in that the Leeds-only pair of cars were always next to the loco - north or south, outside the brakes. So, even if an attempt were made to have the train coming back, some substantial re-arranging of stock would be necessary. With the exception of one of the 'Talisman' rakes (I think), all the Anglo-Scottish expresses had two sets - one Up, one Down. The Newcastle trains tended to be one set, but if one represents a six/seven hour period of trains on LB both sides of noon, it's unlikely that same set would be seen returning. The same is so for the West Riding/York/East Riding trains, though the 'Sheffield Pullman' set should be seen twice.

 

Trains have appropriately-shedded locos at their fronts, and when a sequence ends those locos can be turned for opposite running if required. Obviously, it's not prototypical, nor could it ever be without a giant fiddle yard. In the same way that the great Retford or Biggleswade could never be entirely prototypical, running-wise. I know on Peterborough North most trains have been attempted, but not both sets for the Scottish trains; so, for example, the 'Elizabethans' are the same set, which, for the coach spotters is the same as having the same A4 on both Up and Down trains on the same day. 

 

The M&GNR bit is entirely separate, as it always was. There are only nine sets on that, ranging from seven cars (for the much-shortened Leicester) to the three-car Nottingham Kings Lynn 'ords' and respective Up and Down freights. It's just operated as one pleases, but since trains were so infrequent it hardly matters. It's certainly not automatic!

 

With regard to the A2/1 (a handsome model by the way, Simon), the Bachmann V2 boiler (I believe) does not have the right taper, is a bit too fat, has a daft dome and the firebox does not slope down towards the rear. Can anyone elaborate further, please? 

Edited January 19, 2014 by Tony Wright

[micklner]

The V2 is horrible I think that covers it !!  Graeme King is doing some resin versions at the moment, hopefully they will come out ok, I will bash one into a A2/1 if they become available.

 

A reworked and repainted Bachmann current version more detail  including a new Chimney,Dome and Superheater Covers.

 

Edited January 19, 2014 by micklner