Wright writes.....

[Compound2632]

Afternoon Stephen,

 

LNER designed locomotives, as opposed to those of pre grouping design.

 

Ah but... The LNER didn't have the resources to equal the LMS's scrap-and-build policy, so pre-grouping designs were much more a feature of most parts of the LNER system right up to the last days of steam. At nationalisation, what percentage of the LNER's locomotive fleet had been built to group standard designs since 1923, compared to the LMS?

 

(Actually that's not such a simple question: on the LNER, what about rebuilds? On the LMS, the 2P and 4P 4-4-0s, 4F 0-6-0, and 3F 0-6-0T, although group standard classes, were closely based on Midland Railway designs - but if we exclude them, we have to exclude revamped GNR designs on the LNER - certainly the first run of Gresley pacifics - but see 'rebuilds'... Anyway, the LMS-built classes mentioned largely replaced pre-grouping designs, notably in Scotland.)

 

Nevertheless my point stands: pre-grouping engines are a necessary part of a convincing model of an LNER line or an ex-LNER line in the BR era, with the possible exception of the Great Northern main line!

Edited February 15, 2018 by Compound2632

[BMacdermott]

Hello everyone

 

Readers may like this short video.

 

Brian

 

[Roger Sunderland]

Of course it can be done in DC. The only difference, the signaler also becomes "control" and has to select the model controllers so the drivers have power.

 

Even Tony's Little Bytham is semi controlled like I have described. With Andy or Richard banished to the other side of the station and to the Down line controller it is up to me on the Up line control panel to set the signals and the controller under instructions form Tony in the fiddle yard. Works wonderfully, well there is normally only one or two errors from the fiddle yard geezer, but we won't make them public.

 

I have many times driven Andi Dell's Dagworth which is a drive to the signals DCC layout. Andi is altering Dagworth. He is replacing the corner boards with greater radius curves, which will slightly make the layout bigger. Giving more room in the operating well, because we are all getting wider.

Yes, agreed Clive, but...... The point about the DCC operation is that the signalman doesn't have to select the controller. Therefore the drivers, as on the real thing, are free to drive. And, yes, sometimes even have a SPAD, with resulting issues!

[Headstock]

Ah but... The LNER didn't have the resources to equal the LMS's scrap-and-build policy, so pre-grouping designs were much more a feature of most parts of the LNER system right up to the last days of steam. At nationalisation, what percentage of the LNER's locomotive fleet had been built to group standard designs since 1923, compared to the LMS?

 

(Actually that's not such a simple question: on the LNER, what about rebuilds? On the LMS, the 2P and 4P 4-4-0s, 4F 0-6-0, and 3F 0-6-0T, although group standard classes, were closely based on Midland Railway designs - but if we exclude them, we have to exclude revamped GNR designs on the LNER - certainly the first run of Gresley pacifics - but see 'rebuilds'... Anyway, the LMS-built classes mentioned largely replaced pre-grouping designs, notably in Scotland.)

 

Nevertheless my point stands: pre-grouping engines are a necessary part of a convincing model of an LNER line or an ex-LNER line in the BR era, with the possible exception of the Great Northern main line!

 

I Can't disagree with you. I would add that the LNER inherited a lot of better pre grouping designs than did the LMS, thus there was less incentive to invest in a scrap and build policy even if they had the cash to do so. With regard to what is and what is not an LNER design, yes it gets complicated, probably why I didn't give an exact figure. For example, class K3 was a group standard design adopted from the GNR, so was excluded. The situation is more complicated with the rebuilding of the B12's, while Thompson's  A1/1 was really a new class of engine, rather than a rebuild of the original GNR locomotive.

Edited February 15, 2018 by Headstock

[grahame]

Explain the forthcoming Bachmann 1P 0-4-4T!

  

I said with a few exceptions

So is that because it is an exception or exceptional?

 

G

[Denbridge]

Yes, agreed Clive, but...... The point about the DCC operation is that the signalman doesn't have to select the controller. Therefore the drivers, as on the real thing, are free to drive. And, yes, sometimes even have a SPAD, with resulting issues!

The signalman doesn't necessarily select the controller either on DC. That is achieved by setting the route and the signals  

[Clive Mortimore]

The signalman doesn't necessarily select the controller either on DC. That is achieved by setting the route and the signals

Selecting the controller is part of the route setting.

[asmay2002]

How can the releases over 10-15 years and forthcoming releases be an assumption?

You can't seriously class the Hornby Saint as a recent model which was back in the near toy days?

seems you are choosingt to be argumentative for the sake of it

You same to be haviing difficulties. Your assumption was "Sure, there will be releases of non preserved classes but they will be in the minority of overall production. Economics, plain and simple.".   This is not just an assumption it is clearly wrong.

 

You said there had been no RTR Saint released to bolster your poorly constructed argument that locos with no survivors wouldn't be produced commercially.  No mention of time frame or quality.  Again you are clearly wrong.

 

Every time somebody points out the falacies in your argument you try to move the goalposts - classic trolling behaviour.  

[davidw]

Thanks Andrew,

 

The image is most-helpful.

 

The work on this project is progressing at quite a rate, so my answers to the questions I was asked (answered by all those who've helped on here, so thanks once more to all concerned) should allow it to proceed further. I state again, my input is only minimal, and I'm certainly taking no credit.

 

One question I was also asked was about the colour of the roofs on these wee trams. Were they, at any time, ever white? I'd be surprised if they were, and even if they were white when brand new or just-shopped, the roofs would surely turn to dark grey after a few trips.

 

The commissioning of new RTR models by magazines and retailers seems to be a growing trend these days. What will be next, I wonder?

 

As a demonstrator, I'm frequently asked about whether Thompson's Pacifics might one day appear in RTR form. At Doncaster, I had two on display (one complete, one now complete) in need of painting; an A2/2 and an A2/3, both built from DJH kits (with two more A2/2s just started). My answer is always the same; 'Never say never, but I'd be very surprised'. That said, who'd have predicted a few years ago that we'd now have (or soon will have) things like L&NWR 0-8-0s, Coal Tanks, Lanky 2-4-2Ts, SE&CR 0-6-0s and (among others) LB&SCR Atlantics? All of these (certainly in pre-Grouping form) are before the memory of most alive today, yet they seem to be popular. If nothing else, it shows that many (most?) modellers don't always model what they recall, but for those who do (like me), Thompson's big creations were as much a part of the ECML BR steam era scene as anything built by Gresley or Peppercorn.

 

When I was helping Bachmann with the research for their Thompson carriages (a modest input), I took along two A2/3 models of mine. One was built from a DJH kit, the other from a King/Bachmann A2 conversion. It was the latter which I thought the firm might be interested in. They borrowed it for some time, after I suggested they examine it and consider a potential RTR example in future. After all, the boiler, dome, bogie, pony, Cartazzi frames, coupled wheelbase, coupling rods, crossheads, slidebars and the whole tender were the same for the A2 as the A2/3, and there were an equal number of real locos. The answer came back eventually, 'No'. And, that was that.

 

Though I am by no means a pundit on polls, may I ask if anyone is interested in buying an RTR A2/3 (or A2/2 - the A1/1 and the A2/1s would have no chance?), they contact me, please? On here, if you like. I can then ask again, but don't hold your breath!

 

If nothing else, the above request shows my hypocrisy yet again; talk about poachers and gamekeepers! Other than acting as an advisor, I have not a great deal of interest in an RTR A2/3. The five I 'need', which are more than enough, I've built/modified (Graeme King did the one conversion, which I completed), and those who manufacture the kits for them (or any other loco kits) should be supported; an RTR example is usually the death-knell for an equivalent kit. However, for those who can't build one for themselves or and/or can't afford to pay someone else to do it for them, then an RTR A2/3 would be the answer for them, wouldn't it? What might the price be, though? Over (well over) £200.00? That'll start some bleating!

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

An RTR A2/2 and or a2/3 I'd like to see. Ugly brutes though they were, they were powerful steamers. All the names that were carried were majestic. Better than some a3s discussed a few pages back. But is the price point Tony mentioned a deterrent? It'll still be cheaper than a kit especially a full commission. I'm surprised they've not been tackled. Edited February 16, 2018 by davidw

[CF MRC]

The P2 is an amazing model judged by any standard. Until Tony mentioned it I had no idea that the cab windows might not be exact. Having viewed a few images I agree – the side openings should be a little bit larger. The images I've seen also suggest that the spectacles' lower edge falls in line with the centre line of the cab side windows.

After a few strokes with a file and a tiddly bit added under the front spectacles Lord President looks a bit better around the cab. The busy lining around the spectacle front should ‘loose’ any imperfections.

The side openings are now correct size, and the flush glazing will have an indication of the wooden frames; these make the windows actually quite small. The front pillar is a touch wide, but that will be very beneficial when it comes to lining out.

 

Tim

[St Enodoc]

The flexibility of DCC does allow you to do this Tony. On our Bournemouth West exhibition layout, DCC controlled, we employ a "signalman" who sets all routes for arriving and departing trains and signals. He never drives the trains. The main driver, using a handset drives the arriving and departing trains (one at a time) and never sets any routes or signals, just observes them. A further operator, using another handset, is solely responsible for station pilot duties but must observe what the signalman is allowing and the main driver who usually takes precedence. This, I think, gives us a very realistic operation with all train drivers being led by the signalman. Although I've given it some thought, I don't think you could replicate this completely with DC, but no doubt someone will tell me it can be done.

It can be done Roger, and I did it as an experiment many years ago using PO key switches to connect the track sections to a specific controller according to the setting of the associated points and signals, but it was fearsomely complicated and would have been a nightmare on a medium- to large-sized layout. It certainly needed many multiples (or hundreds of per cent...) of two wires!

[St Enodoc]

There used to be a superb S gauge model of Thame on the exhibition circuit. This was controlled by a proper interlocked lever frame at the front of the layout. The trains were driven, by 'drivers' who obeyed the signals, with provision for operation in the yard, away from the signalled main lines. All in DC.

I was invited by Leslie Bevis-Smith and his team to operate the Thame signal box at a Crawley exhibition in about 1983. After a few minutes, the fact that the trains were only built to 1/64 scale became totally irrelevant. We were operating a real railway but in model form. That set me along the path of separating the roles of driver and signalman on my layouts, which I only achieved successfully after converting to DCC.

[St Enodoc]

Of course it can be done in DC. The only difference, the signaler also becomes "control" and has to select the model controllers so the drivers have power.

 

Even Tony's Little Bytham is semi controlled like I have described. With Andy or Richard banished to the other side of the station and to the Down line controller it is up to me on the Up line control panel to set the signals and the controller under instructions form Tony in the fiddle yard. Works wonderfully, well there is normally only one or two errors from the fiddle yard geezer, but we won't make them public.

 

I have many times driven Andi Dell's Dagworth which is a drive to the signals DCC layout. Andi is altering Dagworth. He is replacing the corner boards with greater radius curves, which will slightly make the layout bigger. Giving more room in the operating well, because we are all getting wider.

Just the way I like it (even though I haven't built any signals for the Mid-Cornwall Lines yet...).

[Denbridge]

I was invited by Leslie Bevis-Smith and his team to operate the Thame signal box at a Crawley exhibition in about 1983. After a few minutes, the fact that the trains were only built to 1/64 scale became totally irrelevant. We were operating a real railway but in model form. That set me along the path of separating the roles of driver and signalman on my layouts, which I only achieved successfully after converting to DCC.

I too operated Thame once. What a wonderful layout. I sometimes wonder what became of it. Would be such a shame if it was dismantled.

[Tony Wright]

This thread flies along at a pace too fast for me. I spend a day with friends, and it's another couple of pages added!

 

May I bring together a few points, please?

 

Firstly, though it's known I encourage robust debate, the 'calling of names' is something to be avoided. I have no means of moderating this thread (which some folk, rightly or wrongly, believe is my 'property' and of which I'm the 'leader'); I don't know how to, nor do I particularly want to know how to moderate it. Unless it's self-regulating (among all posters) it'll lose its worth, and I, for one, do not agree with censorship.

 

May I scotch any rumours now that I'm considering 'funding' an RTR A2/2 or A2/3? As I mentioned, whether, in the future, one ever comes out RTR, it won't be of great interest to me - I make my own, and continue to do so. My reason for requesting expressions of interest is that in my frequent chats with representatives of the RTR manufacturers, I'm asked from time to time what might or might not be a good prototype to go for in the future. Though I'd never claim to influence opinion, I can report that there has been an interest in Thompson Pacifics, though hardly on the grand scale. As has been mentioned, they had grand names (the A2/2s the best of all), though HERRINGBONE isn't that wonderful. 

 

The video clip of the A2/2 on the rolling road is very interesting, and it looks a well-built model. I'd say it's built from a Crownline/PDK kit (because the DJH A2/2 will not make either 60503 or 60504), and it's a pity the cabside proportions have not been altered - the numbers are set much too low because the horizontal handrail is set too low because the windows are set too low. The dodge is to raise the horizontal handrail up (by plugging the original holes with solder and drilling two more each side, right underneath the windows). Though this is still wrong, it does allow the numbers to be put in the right place, with their bottom edges level with the central valance. The pictures below show this. It's also worth adding the wiggly pipes. 

 

 

 

Dennis Lovett is still very much with Bachmann, though he retires in the autumn. He'll be a very hard act to follow. 

 

Operating Little Bytham? Today, four friends came round (two of whom have never operated it before) and we had a grand time. Whether it's DC or DCC, to some extent is irrelevant to the sequence's operation (though some might disagree). To all intents and purposes two drove for most of the time (changing, of course), one on the Up, the other on the Down. I acted as fiddle yard operator and signalman for the scenic section. When the full operating potential is known and realised, four operators are best; one driving Up trains (two controllers), one driving Down trains (two controllers), one signalling (that is setting all sections, signals and roads through the scenic section - busy work via cab control) and one operating the fiddle yard. As it was, we went through the 50 train movements almost perfectly in just over an hour and a half- I cocked-up by changing a point under a train! 

 

Nothing is ever 'perfect', and we managed to get through with one point motor failed (previously), one feed failed (previously) and one signal failure (today). Gentlemen, my thanks. 

 

I think that's about it for now. 

[CF MRC]

I think the front spectacles on Mons Meg should be a touch closer to the boiler, or vice versa, Tony.....(tongue in cheek).

 

Tim

Edited February 16, 2018 by CF MRC

[t-b-g]

I think the front spectacles on Mons Meg should be a touch closer to the boiler, or vice versa, Tony.....

 

Tim

 

It is one of the big questions that makes me think when I build kits. I have recently wrestled with two kits, one whitemetal and one etched. Both from reputable manufacturers and both containing some fairly obvious faults.

 

So do you just build the kit or do you correct the faults?

 

In the case of the two I have built, if I was to correct the faults, I may as well have scratchbuilt them. I had to alter one of them as if I didn't, the buffers passed over the ones on the next vehicle. It was that much too high. The others I made a decision based on how much time they would take and if the resulting improvement was worth the effort.

 

In the case of Mons Meg, your post made me look up a photo of the real thing as it is not a class I know well, just to see what you mean. Several things jumped out at me. Comparing the real thing to the model just makes me see all the little bits that are not quite right. So the gap between the bottom of the smokebox and the top of the saddle is quite a bit bigger than it should be at the front end. The handrail should be just under the rectangular cover on the smokebox, so either the handrail is too low, or the covers too high (or too small). The cylinders stick out sideways too far beyond the footplate and they are also too high, or the front footplate is too low. The buffers should be at the lower edge of the beam, not in the centre (which would suggest the front footplate is too low) and the vacuum pipe should be nearer the coupling hook rather than half way between the hook and the buffer. The steps on the curved part of the footplate on the front are right at the edge instead of being in the middle. The sandbox fillers don't look right for 60504 either. The AWS guard, fitted under the front bufferbeam, was not fitted centrally. It was offset to the LHS looking forward. If it had been central, it would have been in the way of the vacuum pipe. 

 

Incidentally, there is a colour photo of the loco on the web (just type LNER Mons Meg into the search) which looks for all the world as if the nameplate is all brass, with no black, or any other colour backing. Is it just the light reflecting? Has the paint rubbed off with cleaning?

 

I am sure none of these will be down to Tony W's construction but are more to do with errors in the kit itself. I can't imagine Tony getting parts that were correct and assembling them to look wrong!

 

I hope I have not come across as doing a demolition job but if if it had been a RTR model, these things would have been picked up on. If people don't know about them, they don't have an opportunity to correct them. If anything, I just want to flag up the pitfalls of expecting a kit to be accurate. In many respects RTR models are more accurate than kits. Perhaps that is one reason why so many choose not to build their own locos any more.

Edited February 15, 2018 by t-b-g

[RThompson]

It is one of the big questions that makes me think when I build kits. I have recently wrestled with two kits, one whitemetal and one etched. Both from reputable manufacturers and both containing some fairly obvious faults.

 

So do you just build the kit or do you correct the faults?

 

In the case of the two I have built, if I was to correct the faults, I may as well have scratchbuilt them. I had to alter one of them as if I didn't, the buffers passed over the ones on the next vehicle. It was that much too high. The others I made a decision based on how much time they would take and if the resulting improvement was worth the effort..

Sometimes though as I found out with my sentinel kits, the real loco buffers do not line up with other rolling stock expect for the later post war type where they seem to have finally corrected it! A consequence is the earlier loco type kits, which I did after the last type have the higher buffers. Edited February 15, 2018 by RThompson

[bbishop]

The flexibility of DCC does allow you to do this Tony. On our Bournemouth West exhibition layout, DCC controlled, we employ a "signalman" who sets all routes for arriving and departing trains and signals. He never drives the trains. The main driver, using a handset drives the arriving and departing trains (one at a time) and never sets any routes or signals, just observes them. A further operator, using another handset, is solely responsible for station pilot duties but must observe what the signalman is allowing and the main driver who usually takes precedence. This, I think, gives us a very realistic operation with all train drivers being led by the signalman. Although I've given it some thought, I don't think you could replicate this completely with DC, but no doubt someone will tell me it can be done.

 

We do it on Southwark Bridge: analogue, 120 lever box with interlocking (albeit by computer).  It is possible to have six concurrent stock movements.

 

We need ten operators, two on the box, three drivers, three subsidiary roles with both signalling and driving work (goods yard, loco yard, crows nest) plus two in the fiddle yard (who have a controller, but that one doesn't really count). And, in due course, an eleventh for the gas works.

 

Bill

Edited February 16, 2018 by bbishop

[Headstock]

I think the front spectacles on Mons Meg should be a touch closer to the boiler, or vice versa, Tony.....

 

Tim

 

I think that ther's a bit of a dodge going on there. The frame to the spectacle plate window looks to be a different shape to the actual aperture. I can see it poking out from beyond the lower right hand of the frame.

[Headstock]

It is one of the big questions that makes me think when I build kits. I have recently wrestled with two kits, one whitemetal and one etched. Both from reputable manufacturers and both containing some fairly obvious faults.

 

So do you just build the kit or do you correct the faults?

 

In the case of the two I have built, if I was to correct the faults, I may as well have scratchbuilt them. I had to alter one of them as if I didn't, the buffers passed over the ones on the next vehicle. It was that much too high. The others I made a decision based on how much time they would take and if the resulting improvement was worth the effort.

 

In the case of Mons Meg, your post made me look up a photo of the real thing as it is not a class I know well, just to see what you mean. Several things jumped out at me. Comparing the real thing to the model just makes me see all the little bits that are not quite right. So the gap between the bottom of the smokebox and the top of the saddle is quite a bit bigger than it should be at the front end. The handrail should be just under the rectangular cover on the smokebox, so either the handrail is too low, or the covers too high (or too small). The cylinders stick out sideways too far beyond the footplate and they are also too high, or the front footplate is too low. The buffers should be at the lower edge of the beam, not in the centre (which would suggest the front footplate is too low) and the vacuum pipe should be nearer the coupling hook rather than half way between the hook and the buffer. The steps on the curved part of the footplate on the front are right at the edge instead of being in the middle. The sandbox fillers don't look right for 60504 either. The AWS guard, fitted under the front bufferbeam, was not fitted centrally. It was offset to the LHS looking forward. If it had been central, it would have been in the way of the vacuum pipe. 

 

Incidentally, there is a colour photo of the loco on the web (just type LNER Mons Meg into the search) which looks for all the world as if the nameplate is all brass, with no black, or any other colour backing. Is it just the light reflecting? Has the paint rubbed off with cleaning?

 

I am sure none of these will be down to Tony W's construction but are more to do with errors in the kit itself. I can't imagine Tony getting parts that were correct and assembling them to look wrong!

 

I hope I have not come across as doing a demolition job but if if it had been a RTR model, these things would have been picked up on. If people don't know about them, they don't have an opportunity to correct them. If anything, I just want to flag up the pitfalls of expecting a kit to be accurate. In many respects RTR models are more accurate than kits. Perhaps that is one reason why so many choose not to build their own locos any more.

 

Crikey,

 

you should have seen the list of problems I had with the front end of the Horny A4 featured in the correct bogie wheel scenario few pages back, I didn't post through fear of ridicule. I built a Crownline A2/2 some years back and made quite a few alterations. The cylinders are definitely too big and the superheater covers are too small. The cover plate over the middle cylinder looks slightly odd in the above picture, I don't recall this being a problem in my kit, however it was some time ago. I would most definitely be wary of sand box fillers on these locomotives, apparently they change from picture to picture when your not looking.

[t-b-g]

Crikey,

 

you should have seen the list of problems I had with the front end of the Horny A4 featured in the correct bogie wheel scenario few pages back, I didn't post through fear of ridicule. I built a Crownline A2/2 some years back and made quite a few alterations. The cylinders are definitely too big and the superheater covers are too small. The cover plate over the middle cylinder looks slightly odd in the above picture, I don't recall this being a problem in my kit, however it was some time ago. I would most definitely be wary of sand box fillers on these locomotives, apparently they change from picture to picture when your not looking.

 

I know what you mean about hesitating to post. I thought long and hard before posting anything as I have a huge amount of respect for Tony W and didn't want to be seen as having a go at him. I am not. I am having a go at the quality of the kit parts. It is more out of frustration at the amount of time I have spent correcting the ones I have been building. In that respect, I was even harder on myself as they are both for other people and I don't want them thinking that I didn't care enough to make some corrections.

 

I would like to think that I know Tony W well enough for him to take my comments in the spirit intended, to warn folks about possible pitfalls. Each of us chooses how we model and if Tony W had corrected every little fault in every kit, he would have built a fraction of the locos that he has. Or even a small percentage! 

[Clive Mortimore]

Crikey,

 

you should have seen the list of problems I had with the front end of the Horny A4 featured in the correct bogie wheel scenario few pages back, I didn't post through fear of ridicule. I built a Crownline A2/2 some years back and made quite a few alterations. The cylinders are definitely too big and the superheater covers are too small. The cover plate over the middle cylinder looks slightly odd in the above picture, I don't recall this being a problem in my kit, however it was some time ago. I would most definitely be wary of sand box fillers on these locomotives, apparently they change from picture to picture when your not looking.

 

I know what you mean about hesitating to post. I thought long and hard before posting anything as I have a huge amount of respect for Tony W and didn't want to be seen as having a go at him. I am not. I am having a go at the quality of the kit parts. It is more out of frustration at the amount of time I have spent correcting the ones I have been building. In that respect, I was even harder on myself as they are both for other people and I don't want them thinking that I didn't care enough to make some corrections.

 

I would like to think that I know Tony W well enough for him to take my comments in the spirit intended, to warn folks about possible pitfalls. Each of us chooses how we model and if Tony W had corrected every little fault in every kit, he would have built a fraction of the locos that he has. Or even a small percentage! 

Hi Andy and Tony

 

Ever tried to make a diesel locomotive kit, and I am not on about dear old MTK but all manufacturers seem to have a couple of guesses at things in each kit. Overall dimensions are frequently wrong, I have two class 14 kits one too long and one too short (one for the front of the layout and one for the back, helps with the perspective). But I am no better when I scratch build. The limitations are down the available information before building, be it parts for a scratch build or masters for casting etc.

[Anglian]

After a few strokes with a file and a tiddly bit added under the front spectacles Lord President looks a bit better around the cab. The busy lining around the spectacle front should ‘loose’ any imperfections.

The side openings are now correct size, and the flush glazing will have an indication of the wooden frames; these make the windows actually quite small. The front pillar is a touch wide, but that will be very beneficial when it comes to lining out.

 

Tim

 

 

This tweak has made a real difference. I'm sure it's going to look beautiful wearing its LNER livery. Of course it looks fabulous as it is in the bare metal colours. Will you be painting it yourself, if so would you care to share your prep, primer and painting secrets - I understand if not!

 

 

[Chamby]

Full respect for Tony with his model of Mons Meg, despite any inaccuracies it still is a fine model and very recognisable as an A2/2 to me... not that I ever saw one in the flesh, mind.

 

Every time I see an A2/2, be it photograph or model, I can’t help but picture it as a P2 and feel sad. I understand the reasons for their conversion and can rationalise this in my head, but my heart just wants to turn back the clock and see it as the P2. It happens every time.

 

For all their faults, the P2’s looked like the pinnacle of locomotive development in the UK. I’m not saying that they were, just that they looked the part. If I ever get to see 2007 Prince of Wales in the flesh, that will be a very special day for me.

Edited February 16, 2018 by Chamby