Wright writes.....

[johndon]

On 30/08/2023 at 14:49, LNER4479 said:

The total height difference is 85mm - all of which has to be lost / gained on the other half of the circuit. Main issue with that is the 'Up' (downhill) trains starting away out of the fiddle yard, round a 3 foot radius curve to get on scene.

 

 

We have a similar issue on South Pelaw where, due to the climb to Consett, the fiddle yard is around 3" higher than the front of the layout, a difference that also has to be made up at the 'downhill' end of the layout which, once off the scenic section, is actually uphill.

Edited August 31, 2023 by johndon

[LNER4479]

4 hours ago, 30368 said:

 

Wow, looks really wonderful, did you paint and line it too? Really first class. Mine, when finished will have to be in early SR livery so for my layout (70D, 1948-1967) it will have to be a preserved loco pulling enthusiast specials which is almost as mad as Drummonds original design. I must admit that Drummond's various designs of 4-6-0 are very distinctive and make interesting models.

 

Thanks, kind regards,

 

Richard B

Thanks Richard,

 

Yes - bought the correct(?) green/brown from Precision then used Pressfix LNER black n white lining which appeared to be a reasonable match. Was a bit stuck for lettering so used the 'R', 'L', 'W' & 'S' from 'BRITISH RAILWAYS' off a BR sheet!

 

It was 25 years ago when I made it. Only have a few print photos of the build.

Edited August 31, 2023 by LNER4479

[Tony Wright]

With the moving footage of both P2s now on WOR, this evening I've taken a few more stills of LORD PRESIDENT.

 

 

On a running-in 'parly'.........

 

 

And since views from bridges seem to be popular...........

 

 

 

On a far more-prestigious turn (though unlikely, but it's pleasing).

 

Read my full review in the November issue of BRM.............

 

 

[Woodcock29]

13 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

I've added the extra bits to Hornby's latest P2.

 

It really is a striking model, with performance to match.

 

You can see how it runs (and PRINCE OF WALES) on WOR in due course. 

Tony

I've just received Thane of Fife through a friend who's a member of the Hornby Collectors Club. It certainly is a striking model. Given you've fitted the additional parts provided it looks like Lord President also has the front guard irons missing in the extras packet, as does Thane of Fife. I understand these can be provided by Hornby if one asks for them. Of course I can easily make up some brass ones which will be thinner anyway.

 

I have to say I'm still very disappointed with what Hornby provide as etched nameplates - in reality they are nothing like proper etched plates. I've also just received Earl Marischal and that proved to be interesting. I already had a pair of etched nameplates in stock (from 247) but they are nowhere near long enough. I understand from another thread on RMweb that Fox plates for 'Earl' are also too short. It appears that Hornby have got the length of the plates correct and unfortunately on 'Earl' they've actually fitted plastic plates (like their A4 models) whereas on the other P2s they have applied nameplates in the print process and also provided their version of etched plates as add ons. I'm thinking of asking either 247 Developments or Fox if they can produce plates of the correct length as I'll need plates of the correct length once I remove the plastic plates. The alternative that I'm contemplating is to make a pair of the smoke deflectors that were fitted later, from brass and simply fitting the etched plates but I'll know they are much too short.

 

On my 'Earl' I noticed that the cab sides were bent inwards in the centre of their rear so I've removed the cab by gently prising the sides away with a screwdriver inserted between the sides and the seats.  The seats in Earl need to have their backs removed as they have the large rear cab cutout. Also the metal footplate is bent very slightly downwards at the rear under rear part of the cab side so there is gap under the rear of the sides, particularly  on the drivers side. As its metal I'll just need to leave that alone I think. I've scraped away a lot of the glue that was holding the sides to the sides of the floor inside the cab with a scalpel and have got a much better fit after straightening the rear of the sides simply by bending with my fingers. Despite all this it does run very well!

 

Andrew      

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, Woodcock29 said:

Tony

I've just received Thane of Fife through a friend who's a member of the Hornby Collectors Club. It certainly is a striking model. Given you've fitted the additional parts provided it looks like Lord President also has the front guard irons missing in the extras packet, as does Thane of Fife. I understand these can be provided by Hornby if one asks for them. Of course I can easily make up some brass ones which will be thinner anyway.

 

I have to say I'm still very disappointed with what Hornby provide as etched nameplates - in reality they are nothing like proper etched plates. I've also just received Earl Marischal and that proved to be interesting. I already had a pair of etched nameplates in stock (from 247) but they are nowhere near long enough. I understand from another thread on RMweb that Fox plates for 'Earl' are also too short. It appears that Hornby have got the length of the plates correct and unfortunately on 'Earl' they've actually fitted plastic plates (like their A4 models) whereas on the other P2s they have applied nameplates in the print process and also provided their version of etched plates as add ons. I'm thinking of asking either 247 Developments or Fox if they can produce plates of the correct length as I'll need plates of the correct length once I remove the plastic plates. The alternative that I'm contemplating is to make a pair of the smoke deflectors that were fitted later, from brass and simply fitting the etched plates but I'll know they are much too short.

 

On my 'Earl' I noticed that the cab sides were bent inwards in the centre of their rear so I've removed the cab by gently prising the sides away with a screwdriver inserted between the sides and the seats.  The seats in Earl need to have their backs removed as they have the large rear cab cutout. Also the metal footplate is bent very slightly downwards at the rear under rear part of the cab side so there is gap under the rear of the sides, particularly  on the drivers side. As its metal I'll just need to leave that alone I think. I've scraped away a lot of the glue that was holding the sides to the sides of the floor inside the cab with a scalpel and have got a much better fit after straightening the rear of the sides simply by bending with my fingers. Despite all this it does run very well!

 

Andrew      

Thanks for that update, Andrew.

 

I, too, couldn't find the frame-mounted guard irons.  

 

Though I fitted the brass nameplates, I'm disappointed, too. 

 

Beware fitting the extra-large smoke deflectors on 2002. The original arrangement at the front was cut-back when they were attached, I believe. 

 

There was no problem with the cab on 2003.

 

 

Though, either the seats are too high or the crew's legs are too short!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 1, 2023 by Tony Wright
tautology

[St Enodoc]

2 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Though, either the seats are too high or the crew's legs are too short!

Interesting. Often, especially with diesels, it's the other way round and life-changing surgery is needed.

[Tony Wright]

An elevated view?

 

 

Even though there is no actual structure for a photographer to stand on here............

 

 

Or an 'eye-level' one? 

 

I'll continue taking both.

 

The more I look at (and take photographs of this Hornby P2) I'm more and more impressed. Nameplates aside (important, I know), I think it's an incredible representation of these marvellous-looking machines. I prefer them in this guise (even though I was only minus two when the last one became an A2/2 - surely the most 'extreme' rebuilding ever seen in steam locomotive history? However, that debate has been done to death already). 

 

 

[Chamby]

13 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

 

Though, either the seats are too high or the crew's legs are too short!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Or the cab floor is too low?  

 

However It looks like the figures are simply too small...  if they were stood up, their little faces might just peer over the bottom of the cab windows.  A 5’9 figure to scale, would stand 23mm tall.

 

Replacement standing figures from ModelU or You Choos would be an improvement... though their seated figures tend to be on the small side too.  

 

I’d prefer fit ‘to scale’ figures and have to do a bit of surgery if necessary.

[LNER4479]

30 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

The more I look at (and take photographs of this Hornby P2) I'm more and more impressed. Nameplates aside (important, I know), I think it's an incredible representation of these marvellous-looking machines. I prefer them in this guise (even though I was only minus two when the last one became an A2/2.

Good morning Tony 

 

I can see that you've taken a shine to No. 2003; as this is all part of a review, I trust we are going to see a similar set of pictures of No. 2007? (I suppose I might end up owning one of those!)

 

I would be particularly interested to see it confirmed that it tows a 'Tornado' tender, ie with spoked wheels, roller bearings and increased water capacity. There's had to be an amount of 'second guessing' in creating this model, in cooperation with the A1 Trust. One interesting detail is that the original feed water gubbins is to be retained from a visual point of view but they will actually house the two turbo-gens for the electrical system. So they should be present on the model.

 

As a contemporary loco(!), No.2007 will be seen on the mainline hauling railtours so a rake of MkIs would be most appropriate (with support coach immediately behind the tender!), All open coaches apart from the brakes. Ideally a uniform maroon or blood n custard rake; more likely a bit of a rag bag combination of the two! There's a challenge for you!

Edited September 1, 2023 by LNER4479

[sandra]

48 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

An elevated view?

 

 

Even though there is no actual structure for a photographer to stand on here............

 

 

Or an 'eye-level' one? 

 

I'll continue taking both.

 

The more I look at (and take photographs of this Hornby P2) I'm more and more impressed. Nameplates aside (important, I know), I think it's an incredible representation of these marvellous-looking machines. I prefer them in this guise (even though I was only minus two when the last one became an A2/2 - surely the most 'extreme' rebuilding ever seen in steam locomotive history? However, that debate has been done to death already). 

 

 

Hello Tony,

 

Not sure this was the most extreme rebuilding. Think of the GWR 3521 class some of which started as 0-4-2 Broad gauge tank engines and eventually became 4-4-0 standard gauge tender engines. 
 

Or the Decapod which was a 0-10-0 tank engine but became a very peculiar 0-8-0 tender engine.

 

Sandra

[Mark Laidlay]

On 30/08/2023 at 17:07, Tony Wright said:

And thanks to the work of Jamie Guest (CAD design) and Dave Wager (construction) it completed the whole scene. 

 

I suppose, if nothing else, it shows how modelling an actual prototype dictates how the layout's stages are built-up and completed.........

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Tony,

Do you know if the retaining wall is still there behind the new house next to the M&GN embankment?  You could sneak in and have a look if the owners don't mind.....

Mark in Melbourne

[gr.king]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks for that update, Andrew.

 

I, too, couldn't find the frame-mounted guard irons.  

 

Though I fitted the brass nameplates, I'm disappointed, too. 

 

Beware fitting the extra-large smoke deflectors on 2002. The original arrangement at the front was cut-back when they were attached, I believe. 

 

There was no problem with the cab on 2003.

 

 

Though, either the seats are too high or the crew's legs are too short!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

Looks like Hornby have now adopted the sensible idea of putting the fall plate on a pivot, as I started doing years ago, instead of gluing two flimsy and highly-snappable fixed lugs into the rear of the footplate. I'll continue very happily with the models of Lord President and Earl Marischal that I produced for myself when Hornby first issued Cock o'the North. They have given very good service, especially after I swapped the motor in one of them for a cheaply acquired example of the better motor that Hornby used in the best LNER Pacifics, and apart from the perceived value of my time they must have cost me very considerably less than Hornby now charge for their models.

It is quite true that a proper model of Earl Marischal with extra smoke deflectors cannot be produced merely by adding the deflectors to the "as built" version. The RCTS book confirms that the front of the original casing was cut back by approximately a foot when the extra deflectors were fitted. Further research might also reveal exactly what the resultant front upper-edge profile was...

[Michael Edge]

I think the most extreme example of "accountancy rebuilds" was the LMS Patriot - nominally rebuilt from Claughtons but the only part retained in other than the first two was the reversing wheel.

My drawing of P2 2002, from LNER GA.

[Compound2632]

25 minutes ago, Michael Edge said:

I think the most extreme example of "accountancy rebuilds"

 

One has to think like a 19th century accountant: a capital asset had a value on the books; that value had to be maintained by keeping the asset in good working order - the cost of which was a charge on revenue. Eventually, the only way to do that would be to renew the asset, i.e. replace it by a new equivalent item; this would still be a charge on revenue - the capitalisation of the company was not increased. As far as I understand this, it's an enthusiast's myth that the renewed asset had to contain some part of the original asset. Along with the Patriots, the Midland's 483 Class superheated class 2 4-4-0s are a prime example, renewing old Johnson 4-4-0s; I think the 3Fs rebuilt from Johnson 0-6-0s fall into the same category, though there more of the original engines was used. The most extreme case I know of is the multiple rebuildings and renewals whereby some Midland Railway Jenny Lind 2-2-2s of 1848 became 0-6-0WTs by the 1860s, one lasting until c. 1920 (after further rebuildings). that's getting value out of your capital assets!

 

In the case of the various rebuilt LNER big engines, the point is that they were not "new" engines in the sense of being additions to capital stock.

Edited September 1, 2023 by Compound2632

[Mark Laidlay]

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks for that update, Andrew.

 

I, too, couldn't find the frame-mounted guard irons.  

 

Though I fitted the brass nameplates, I'm disappointed, too. 

 

Beware fitting the extra-large smoke deflectors on 2002. The original arrangement at the front was cut-back when they were attached, I believe. 

 

There was no problem with the cab on 2003.

 

 

Though, either the seats are too high or the crew's legs are too short!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

When did the LNER go to Left Hand drive?

 

[Mark Laidlay]

On 30/08/2023 at 19:20, LNER4479 said:

The spoil from the latter (cutting) very likely being used to construct the former (embankment).

 

My understanding is that the art of surveying a new railway was to strike a balance between the two to simplify construction through a rolling landscape. The alignment of the route was fine-tuned accordingly to achieve this. A gradual transition from cutting to embankment (and vice versa) is the typical result.

 

It was kind of you to mention Shap in such terms earlier up thread. I was there just a few days ago(!) Whilst the Shap Wells road bridge is the recognisable scenic feature, at the lowest point of the embankment will be water. The small clutch of trees to the right is the giveaway - a small beck draining rainwater off the fell into a tributary of the Lune. There is a similar feature on Grantham (the infant river Witham) and you have the equivalent on Little Bytham. Without such features, the land would flood and the embankment would quickly become the dam of a sizeable lake!

I spent a very pleasant hour or so on the Saturday at York watching the parade of trains and the working of banker engines at the top.  Thanks for exhibiting something different.

Mark in Melbourne

[billbedford]

11 minutes ago, Mark Laidlay said:

When did the LNER go to Left Hand drive?

 

Just after the A1s were allocated to Scotland, the locomen threatened to strike if expected to drive them. Scots locos had been lefthand drive since the beginning. 

[thegreenhowards]

An update on my C2/ Portescap issue.

 

I tried running it on my rolling road yesterday and it run for 20 minutes with no problem. But I did notice that there was a slight binding at one point on the revolution, so I dremel led away some white metal from the inside of the wheel arches. I decided to strip out the decoder anyway and try it on the club layout like that. It did 10 circuits with no problems. So I tried putting the decoder back in. It ran fine with the decoder and no body, but when I put the body back on it died after one circuit and I now can’t get it to work with or without the decoder!

 

 

Hopefully it will recover after a rest, but my working assumption at the moment is that it is an internal friction problem combined with a slightly weak motor, possibly exacerbated by the chip - or the wiring to the chip (it’s quite tight inside).

 

I think my next job will be to replace the motor but that will have to wait until next week as I’m now away for Guildex in Stafford.

 

Andy

 

 

[DenysW]

5 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

surely the most 'extreme' rebuilding ever seen in steam locomotive history

More than a touch of hyperbole here? My entry would be the Midland rebuilding its 1848 2x2-2-2Cramptons as 0-6-0 in 1850 (after attempts to sell them failed), and then 0-6-0WT in 1862, with one nominally surviving until 1921. I'm willing to be out-voted howveer.

[t-b-g]

You have to go a long way in rebuilding terms to match the story of WM&CQ loco No. 6. Built in 1846 as an 0-6-0 tender loco for the Manchester and Birmingham Railway, it became LNWR property and they rebuilt it as an 0-6-0ST. In 1872 it was sold off to the WM&CQ who rebuilt it as an 0-8-0ST and used it on passenger trains. It was then rebuilt as an 0-6-2ST. After damage in an accident it was rebuilt with new frames and a new tank, which was much longer than the old one. In 1903 another rebuild included a change back to 0-8-0ST with a new domeless boiler. So it had 4 different wheel arrangements, which ought to be a record unless anybody knows otherwise. It lasted long enough to become the only LNER 8 coupled saddle tank, being withdrawn in October 1923, after 77 years of use. The story is lifted straight from Dow's GCR book, volume 3, which has a photo.

[lezz01]

3 hours ago, t-b-g said:

You have to go a long way in rebuilding terms to match the story of WM&CQ loco No. 6. Built in 1846 as an 0-6-0 tender loco for the Manchester and Birmingham Railway, it became LNWR property and they rebuilt it as an 0-6-0ST. In 1872 it was sold off to the WM&CQ who rebuilt it as an 0-8-0ST and used it on passenger trains. It was then rebuilt as an 0-6-2ST. After damage in an accident it was rebuilt with new frames and a new tank, which was much longer than the old one. In 1903 another rebuild included a change back to 0-8-0ST with a new domeless boiler. So it had 4 different wheel arrangements, which ought to be a record unless anybody knows otherwise. It lasted long enough to become the only LNER 8 coupled saddle tank, being withdrawn in October 1923, after 77 years of use. The story is lifted straight from Dow's GCR book, volume 3, which has a photo.

Trigger's broom for sure.

Regards Lez.

[JamesSpooner]

Well if we are talking of Trigger’s broom, Merddin Emrys is a good example.  Originally constructed at Boston Lodge in 1879, the boiler was built by Hunslet in 1969, the bogies date from about 2005, the tanks a similar date, the cab 1988, in fact probably the only original bits are the name plates….  Still the original engine though… 😊

 

Nigel

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, lezz01 said:

Trigger's broom for sure.

Regards Lez.

 

It does explain how a loco from the 1840s lasted so long.

 

I do have one WM&CQ loco on Buckingham. It is one of the few locos I have done much with. I attach a before and after pair of photos showing the state it was in when it arrived here and how it looked after some sympathetic attention.

 

 

It has crossed my mind more than once to build a model of No 6 in its 0-8-0ST form in the Denny style, perhaps with my own drawings done from a photograph and a couple of known dimensions but there are lots of tasks higher up the priority list.

[ROY@34F]

10 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

 

There was no problem with the cab on 2003.

 

 

Though, either the seats are too high or the crew's legs are too short!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

It doesn't quite look right in the cab does it Tony . The seats are maybe a tad too high , though not much I think . The floor does look a bit low in relation to the firehole door, but again not by too much . I have to say the firehole door itself is excellent .There used to be an additional wooden box "stool" for the driver and fireman additional to the already raised platforms each side . Maybe these platforms could be a bit deeper ?  When sitting facing forward the fireman would sit with the left foot up resting on the slacker pipe valve , which is missing in this Hornby cab , and right arm resting on the open side window and watching the road ahead . But he wouldn't  have the shovel hanging from  his hand , like this guy . Most odd is that .The driver's hand is in mid air , or is it a gesture as the driver and fireman look to be facing each other having a natter . The backs of the seats shouldn't go down to the floor like that , again most odd . While I'm at it , the shovel ain't right for eastern region engines . it should have a much narrower and longer blade . The hinged fall plate looks good though as Graeme King noted .

    Well having got that off my chest . Sorry for perhaps an over critical reply !

       Regards , Roy.

 

 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

12 hours ago, LNER4479 said:

Good morning Tony 

 

I can see that you've taken a shine to No. 2003; as this is all part of a review, I trust we are going to see a similar set of pictures of No. 2007? (I suppose I might end up owning one of those!)

 

I would be particularly interested to see it confirmed that it tows a 'Tornado' tender, ie with spoked wheels, roller bearings and increased water capacity. There's had to be an amount of 'second guessing' in creating this model, in cooperation with the A1 Trust. One interesting detail is that the original feed water gubbins is to be retained from a visual point of view but they will actually house the two turbo-gens for the electrical system. So they should be present on the model.

 

As a contemporary loco(!), No.2007 will be seen on the mainline hauling railtours so a rake of MkIs would be most appropriate (with support coach immediately behind the tender!), All open coaches apart from the brakes. Ideally a uniform maroon or blood n custard rake; more likely a bit of a rag bag combination of the two! There's a challenge for you!

Good evening Graham,

 

I've not taken as many of 2007, but in answer to your question about the tender.......

 

 

It's certainly got spoked wheels and what looks like roller bearings represented.

 

 

The different arrangement of the coal space and the rear end have been modelled correctly, it would seem. Like TORNADO?

 

Certainly round ends to the axle boxes. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.