Wright writes.....

[t-b-g]

I know absolutely nothing about GWR 4-4-0s and precious little about diesels but I think the J11 looks really lovely!

 

There is nothing that jumps out at me as being wrong and the only way I could begin to pick fault would be by getting a photo of the real thing and standing it next to the model to see if I could find some nits to pick!

 

I already have 4 (two I built and two that came with Buckingham) so I was going to struggle to justify another one but as and when one comes out with a Robinson chimney, either in early LNER or GCR livery, I will be going for the wallet!

 

There is a very interesting livery variation that I only found out about by reading the recent (and very good indeed) book on GCR liveries by John Quick. This was the repainting of 6 J11s with LD&ECR lining at Tuxford works just after the LD&ECR was taken over and the J11s were sent there by the GCR. They appeared with GCR lettering but with LD&ECR lning of yellow, blue and vermillion.

 

So that will be my excuse to have another one for my LD&ECR based layout.

 

Tony 

[MJI]

Well spotted Graeme.

 

With regard to the cab roofs, both the BR-liveried ones are from the initial Neilson batch and have the less prominent central rib. The LNER version represents a Gorton-built example and has the more prominent roof rib. So, full marks to Bachmann for getting this right.

 

 I like your assertion that the only 'proper' livery (for any LNER-owned loco?) is LNER black. Those Methuselahs still amongst us might themselves assert that the only 'proper' livery for a 9J is lined GCR black. Me, I like them in the condition I saw them - BR black, around Manchester, Sheffield, Retford and Lincoln.

 

As for 'relentless decline', that started for many ex-GC locos before BR. In fact the War probably prolonged the lives of several pre-Grouping classes on the LNER.

And, ask any follower of the L&NWR railway about its locos' decline and you'll be told that was well pre-War. 

 

Yes, BR saw a 'relentless decline' with regard to steam, but wasn't that inevitable, if a little premature? However, before it did wasn't BR also responsible for the 'creation' of the finest steam locos ever to run in this country?

 

My list would include -

The A1s (admittedly LNER-designed but built by BR) - with everything taken into consideration, the 'best' express passenger loco ever to run in this country, and all their work done in BR days.

The fitting of all the Gresley Pacifics with Kylchap double chimneys, resulting in daily mileages and availability unheard of during the pre-War heyday. And, what about BR deciding that the A3s could be used extensively on no fewer than seven pre-Grouping railways, as top link motive power? The most you'd have seen them on pre-War is three. 

The rebuilding of many of the Bulleid Pacifics.

The fitting of double chimneys to the 'Kings' and many 'Castles'.

The 9Fs - the best heavy freight steam locomotive ever to run in these islands. 

The last developments of the 'Black Fives' - those with roller bearings giving the highest mileages between overhauls of any steam class. 

Some decline?

 

And, how about an appreciation of the BR Mk.1 coach?

 

These are the reasons why I 'must' model an era of 'relentless decline', including the running of BR-numbered J11s.

I imagine I'm not alone.

 

Some great points there.

 

And you are modelling an era where four generations of top link locomotives are operating together.

 

The 40 looks good, as does the Dukedog, not up on the other loco.

[coachmann]

Think of all the locos designed and scrapped since 1934 and yet a few of the original Black 5's lasted right to the end of steam despite the evolution of this particular class. They were annoying because they were everywhere and yet admired because they were probably this country's best all-rounder. 

[Paddy]

I haven't posted on this thread for a time, but one or two comments might seem pertinent now.

 

My thanks to all those who commented on the various Princes of Wales. I bow to the knowledge shown in these posts.

 

I'm glad Norman Solomon's work has been highlighted. Without doubt, his work is peerless and, though others make track professionally, the master is in a different league. If you really want to know how to make track, might I suggest attending one of the Missenden Abbey weekends, where Norman is one of the tutors. I used to be one, but circumstances change.

 

As for a further Little Bytham DVD, I don't know. The first one was actually rather poor in my opinion - badly made, with stills not put in where they should have been, much too much of my waffle and far too little of trains moving, even though many minutes were shot. It wasn't done by Activity Media unfortunately; certainly in terms of production quality.

 

Thanks to Chris Foren for his mention of the current BRILL, and my urchin Cestrian scribblings. I hope he liked it. As far as further Irwell publications are concerned, I've actually written a soft-back for them, to be published next year. Guess what, it's all colour and it's all diesel and electrics, featuring pictures I took in the '60s, '70s and '80s. How times change! If it's successful, there might be more.

 

Now, on to modelling - in view of the release of Hornby's latest RailRoad Mk.1s, I've just spent a couple of days 'fiddling' with them. I have to say, as 'layout coaches' these are outstanding value for money and, with just a little bit of work, run perfectly acceptably (visually and mechanically) alongside my Bachmann and kit-built alternatives. A description of all this will be published in the February 2014 issue of BRM. But for now, some pictures. One is a repaint.

 

Hornby Mk.1 BSK end.jpg

 

Hornby Mk.1 SKs.jpg

 

Hornby Mk.1 BSK & CK.jpg

 

I hope they load.......

Hi Tony,

 

Good to see you active again. Another Little Bytham DVD would be great. In fact anything with you in it would be welcome by me!

 

Merry Christmas

 

Paddy

[gr.king]

As you may have guessed, my comments about proper livery and decline under state ownership were a light hearted bait-dangling exercise. In serious debate there are many pro's and con's to be considered, and the question of which "big-four" group or other loco design was "best" is completely un-answerable as the criteria each was built to satisfy were different.

 

Whatever the technical merits of a Mk1 coach may be, and apart from the obvious telescoping resistance of an all steel coach with limited numbers of doors I have no idea of those, for me they do not even begin to compare with the stylishness of varnished teak panelling and dome-ended roofs. For me they are the antithesis of a "nice coach", being more of a plain tin tube which, as with so many other standard BR items, is dominated by LMS features (dictated by LMS dominated management) with bits and pieces of GWR and latter-day SR practice thrown in where technical superiority was just occasionally allowed to trump LMS dogma. It seems to me that almost every possible LNER feature was rigorously excluded. Centre bukeye couplers and sprung wide gangway connectors managed to get adopted for the coaches, and LNER pattern slidebars for most of the standard locos, but beyond that it was b***** all. Even the BR coach liveries leave me cold. Crimson and cream just looks tasteles to my eyes, and its replacement by all-maroon looks like just another extension of LMS domination. How on Earth a GWR inspired passenger loco livery ever made it past the Euston Maffia I have no idea.

 

It is interesting however that recourse had later to be made to Gresley bogies in order to give a decent ride rather than a gut churning one on some of the Mk1 coaches and they even appeared on AC electric MU's. The "supremacy" of the 9F design never really had a full test either. Good as they no doubt were, the fact that none of them ever passed beyond the phase of being almost new locos whilst in heavy service would no doubt have helped to make them appear glowingly good. I wonder what they would have been like with a couple of million miles of running with a war or two thrown in to deprive them of proper maintenance for several years at a time? Its just a thought......

Edited December 15, 2013 by gr.king

[coachmann]

As you may have guessed, my comments about proper livery and decline under state ownership were a light hearted bait-dangling exercise. In serious debate there are many pro's and con's to be considered, and the question of which "big-four" group or other loco design was "best" is completely un-answerable as the criteria each was built to satisfy were different.

 

Whatever the technical merits of a Mk1 coach may be, and apart from the obvious telesoping resistance of an all steel coach with limited numbers of doors I have no idea of those, for me they do not even begin to compare with the stylishness of varnished teak panelling and dome-ended roofs. For me they are the antithesis of a "nice coach", being more of a plain tin tube which, as with so many other standard BR items, is dominated by LMS features (dictated by LMS dominated management) with bits and pieces of GWR and latter-day SR practice thrown in where technical superiority was just occasionally allowed to trump LMS dogma. It seems to me that almost every possible LNER feature was rigorously excluded. Centre bukeye couplers and sprung wide gangway connectors managed to get adopted for the coaches, and LNER pattern slidebars for most of the standard locos, but beyond that it was b***** all. Even the BR coach liveries leave me cold. Crimson and cream just looks tasteles to my eyes, and its replacement by all-maroon looks like just another extension of LMS domination. How on Earth a GWR inspired passenger loco livery ever made it past the Euston Maffia I have no idea.

 

It is interesting however that recourse had later to be made to Gresley bogies in order to give a decent ride rather than a gut churning one on some of the Mk1 coaches and they even appeared on AC electric MU's. The "supremacy" of the 9F design never really had a full test either. Good as they no doubt were, the fact that none of them ever passed beyond the phase of being almost new locos whilst in heavy service would no doubt have helped to make them appear glowingly good. I wonder what they would have been like with a couple of million miles of running with a war or two thrown in to deprive them of proper maintenance for several years at a time? Its just a thought......

Interesting and thought provoking comment ...particularly with regard to the 9F's.

[bluebottle]

... Its just a thought......

 

Wow! If that's just a thought, what would one of your Philippics be like?  

[Legend]

Tony, on page 20 when looking at Railroad Mk1s you refer to Mike Trice gangway ends. Are these somthing that's commercially available?

[gr.king]

MJT range from Dart Castings.

[Tony Wright]

Tony, on page 20 when looking at Railroad Mk1s you refer to Mike Trice gangway ends. Are these somthing that's commercially available?

 

Graeme just beat me to it. 

 

MJT components for carriages are unsurpassed and essential additions/complete parts/sides/roofs/bogies/gangways, etc for anyone building LNER/BR carriages or Pullman cars.

[Tony Wright]

 

 

 

 

 

Knowing you well, I was prepared to 'take the bait', so here I am in the keep net. 

 

That said, I still believe my list of 'bests' (however subjective) was relevant, especially as some of the locos listed put up their 'best' performances right at the end of their lives.

 

I agree entirely with the observation of a post-war LMS domination of BR practice, but, to be fair, especially in locomotive matters, Stanier had laid the foundations for a standardisation programme which made absolute sense. With reference to the BR Standard classes, if so many more locos were needed (999, including the 'Austerities') post-War, why not just build more of the entirely suitable LMS-equivalents, other than for political reasons? Other than the 'Brits', the 'Clans', 71000 and the 9Fs,almost every other BR Standard had a direct LMS equivalent, some being so close that they only differed in footplate styles. I suppose the 82XXXs were superior to the puny LMS equivalents, and the 75XXXs were a lightweight 4-6-0 with no direct equivalent, as were the 77XXXs 2-6-0s but that's it. Anyway, things like the Fairburn 2-6-4Ts were well liked on the Southern and the Ivatt 2-6-0s were the best loco the M&GNR ever had, so a further build of more LMS types for the various regions would probably have been acceptable.

 

Regarding the adoption of the LNER-style slidebar on many of the BR Standards, that was probably chosen, in part, because some of them had design work done at Doncaster and Brighton. Interestingly, the style was criticised following a 'Brit' losing its off-side slidebar (thus dropping the little end) on the S&C, causing the derailment of a passing train, with several fatalities. Anyway, it must have been the fitting which was at fault, for I can find no record of any Gresley/Thompson/Peppercorn loco losing its motion in this way. 

 

The coupled wheelbase on the BR Standard Five was quite different from the LMS equivalent (Doncaster/Darlington influence?) and, interestingly, the batches of these built at Doncaster between 1955 and 1957 were the only 4-6-0s ever built at the Plant.

 

As for the 9Fs, I agree they never lived long enough to be superannuated but I still believe there was nothing to touch them overall, especially if their express passenger work on the ER, LMR (on summer Saturdays), WR (out of Canton) and especially on the S&D in the summer is taken into consideration. Can you think of any other heavy freight class being able to do that? The P1s?

 

As for the Mk.1. Of course, in terms of visual elegance and smooth-riding it's not in the same class as the LNER teak stock. But, in 1951, there was no way that wooden-bodied vehicles were going to be built for BR. My praise of them is in their widespread longevity.

 

Finally, my modelling motives are common to many but different from many others, in that I model what I remember seeing most clearly. So, if liveries in my time weren't as 'impressive' as some of those before, it's what I remember seeing from 1956-'63, not what I would like to have seen. And, to finish on a subjective note, I'll warrant that MERLIN, breezing through Doncaster on the Up 'Elizabethan' in 1958/'59 with the loco in immaculate Brunswick green, towing a set of gleaming maroon Thompson PV carriages (with two Mk.1s on the end) would have looked better (in my opinion) than the same loco in post-War Garter blue hauling the same stock, but in that 'funny' ersatz teak. Mechanically, the loco would certainly have been!

 

Worms away! 

[Tony Wright]

Oops,

          The quotes didn't appear in the posts above.

 

I'm still not there with this computer stuff!

[t-b-g]

Modelling pre-grouping, you can only model what existed before 1923. Model grouping and you can have anything built up to 1947 plus a very good proportion of pre-grouping stuff. Model BR steam and you can have BR produced stuff, plus grouping plus a lot of pre-grouping. It is only really after WW2 that a lot of interesting pre-grouping locos and stock were finally despatched in the face of BR standards and Mk 1s

 

Plus it is within the living memories of many modellers, although another 20 - 25 years should put an end to that!

 

So there a lot of plusses to modelling the BR period.

 

There are down sides too. The main one being that so many other people are doing it that it gets difficult to make your models stand out from the crowd. If, however, your modelling is to please yourself rather than others (which is surely the best reason for doing it) then it probably doesn't matter a great deal if you have the same things running on your layout as everybody else has on theirs.

 

My own choice is to model the pre-grouping era. Partly it is because I like making things and I can't do it as well as Hornby and Bachmann and I don't wish (or have the ability) to compete. Partly it is to recreate scenes that I have never seen other than in black and white photos in glorious colour and partly it is because of the style and elegance of the locos, rolling stock and other railway features, even including things like signalling, buildings and other infrastructure.

 

I am not sure that a Garter Blue A4 looked too good pulling teaks (not as good as an LNER Green A3) but on a streamlined set like the pre war West Riding, or a Grey loco on the Silver Jubilee set ..... WOW!

 

So I take on your BR Green A4 on a rake of Maroon Mk 1s and I open my bidding with a GNR Atlantic on a rake of 12 wheeled clerestories!

 

Seriously, this variety of tastes and interests is just what makes our hobby so good!

 

Tony (Gee - not Wright!!)

[micklner]

Quote

 

 

I'll warrant that MERLIN, breezing through Doncaster on the Up 'Elizabethan' in 1958/'59 with the loco in immaculate Brunswick green, towing a set of gleaming maroon Thompson PV carriages (with two Mk.1s on the end) would have looked better (in my opinion) than the same loco in post-War Garter blue hauling the same stock, but in that 'funny' ersatz teak. Mechanically, the loco would certainly have been!

 

 

Outrageous comment did they clean them that well in 1958/59 ???? 

 

Ersatz or not they not spots of anything BR produced in the looks department.!! Garter Blue is the only colour for a A4 wheezing or not :jester:

[Fenman]

Crimson and cream just looks tasteles to my eyes, and its replacement by all-maroon looks like just another extension of LMS domination. ...

 

Fascinating how tastes differ; for me, a rake of crimson and cream carriages fresh out of the shop and hauled by "modern traction" in a blackberry black livery set off with a glorious aluminium stripe... Yeah, not many liveries beat that for me.

 

Though I do like a bit of Southern Malachite with sunshine lettering...

 

Paul

[landscapes]

Hi

 

Fully agree 200% a Brunswick Green A4 at the head of a rake of Maroon or Crimson & Cream carriages is the only option for me.

 

Regards

 

David

[Tony Wright]

Modelling pre-grouping, you can only model what existed before 1923. Model grouping and you can have anything built up to 1947 plus a very good proportion of pre-grouping stuff. Model BR steam and you can have BR produced stuff, plus grouping plus a lot of pre-grouping. It is only really after WW2 that a lot of interesting pre-grouping locos and stock were finally despatched in the face of BR standards and Mk 1s

 

Plus it is within the living memories of many modellers, although another 20 - 25 years should put an end to that!

 

So there a lot of plusses to modelling the BR period.

 

There are down sides too. The main one being that so many other people are doing it that it gets difficult to make your models stand out from the crowd. If, however, your modelling is to please yourself rather than others (which is surely the best reason for doing it) then it probably doesn't matter a great deal if you have the same things running on your layout as everybody else has on theirs.

 

My own choice is to model the pre-grouping era. Partly it is because I like making things and I can't do it as well as Hornby and Bachmann and I don't wish (or have the ability) to compete. Partly it is to recreate scenes that I have never seen other than in black and white photos in glorious colour and partly it is because of the style and elegance of the locos, rolling stock and other railway features, even including things like signalling, buildings and other infrastructure.

 

I am not sure that a Garter Blue A4 looked too good pulling teaks (not as good as an LNER Green A3) but on a streamlined set like the pre war West Riding, or a Grey loco on the Silver Jubilee set ..... WOW!

 

So I take on your BR Green A4 on a rake of Maroon Mk 1s and I open my bidding with a GNR Atlantic on a rake of 12 wheeled clerestories!

 

Seriously, this variety of tastes and interests is just what makes our hobby so good!

 

Tony (Gee - not Wright!!)

 

Well said Tony, and I'm with you 100% with regard to making things for yourself.

 

I'm also with you on this business of a certain 'sameness' about so many BR steam/diesel layouts on the web and in magazines. You can't stop progress though and if a more discerning purchasing base has resulted in so many fantastic OO models these days, most of them representing BR main line stock, then that tends to lead to a uniformity of stock. And, not just stock, but ready-to-plant buildings and the like. So much so, and I know you've heard all this before, that the hobby of railway modelling is becoming less of a 'constructive' hobby (in mainstream OO) and more of an acquisitive pastime in my opinion.

 

Because I fall into the 'baby boomer' category of the immediate post-War 'bulge', I'm one of many tens (?) of thousands who try to model what that generation saw. I've just written an article in BRILL, recollecting my 'urchin' observations at Chester, from 1956 until the early '60s. I've been delighted with the response from (quite a few) readers, especially where my failing memory has erred, but I bet it's the sort of thing which strikes a chord with many. At the time (1960), on my trainset, I tried to do a sort of Chester. How? With a Tri-ang 'Princess', 'Jinty', 3F, a 'Jubilee' hacked from a 'Princess' and several motorised Kitmaster locos - all of it really rubbish by today's standards (I was only 14/15). Now, if I so chose to do a potted Chester, stock-wise I'd not need to build very much, even for the Northgate, with Bachmann's 'Director', O4, Ivatt 2-6-0 and 82XXX, plus OO Works' GC tank. Even the forthcoming J11 could be used at a push, and the K3 and B1. Riches indeed. But, other than the bespoke buildings, scenery and trackwork (which is a lot, I admit), all I'd have proved is my ability to earn enough money and to open boxes, and do a bit of renumbering if necessary. In the event, the locos would be less 'mine' than the ones I fudged over 50 years ago.

 

I think modelling pre-Grouping scenes has a real appeal, especially for folk who wish to make things for themselves.

[queensquare]

 

So I take on your BR Green A4 on a rake of Maroon Mk 1s and I open my bidding with a GNR Atlantic on a rake of 12 wheeled clerestories!

 

Seriously, this variety of tastes and interests is just what makes our hobby so good!

 

Tony (Gee - not Wright!!)

 

Fully agree Tony (both), making things is where the real fun is for me.

I'll raise you with a pair of red engines bringing the Manchester Diner (Pines after 1927) into Bath from the north and heading south behind a pair of blue engines.

What a fun thread this is.

 

Jerry

[coachmann]

............Well  Now, if I so chose to do a potted Chester, stock-wise I'd not need to build very much, even for the Northgate, with Bachmann's 'Director', O4, Ivatt 2-6-0 and 82XXX, plus OO Works' GC tank. Even the forthcoming J11 could be used at a push, and the K3 and B1. Riches indeed. But, other than the bespoke buildings, scenery and trackwork (which is a lot, I admit), all I'd have proved is my ability to earn enough money and to open boxes, and do a bit of renumbering if necessary.

I'll bet you knew I would mention carriages Tony. The few varieties of plastic RTR carriages are merely the starters. Despite building coaches for myself at regular intervals, I'll probably be dead before I match BR's variety in the 1950s.

Edited December 15, 2013 by coachmann

[Tony Wright]

Having just seen Hornby's proposals for next year, there's yet another loco kit with 'nails in its coffin'. That said, the prototype picture for it is actually of the K1/1.

 

One might have thought a prototype picture of one of the 70 K1s might have been sourced - I would have thought pictures of 61997 were harder to find.

 

Still, at least I'll complete this one before Hornby's K1 arrives. It's from a DMT kit, by the way, which I believe is being taken off the market, anyway. 

 

[jamie92208]

Just caught up with this thread and have enjoyed reading the exchanges above.  One of the reasons that my layouts are set in 1923'ish is to give me the chance to run mainly pre groupling stock but with a bit of variety from other companies thrown in together with the odd early LMS thing.   I never did get my L & Y Tri composite finished to run on Long Preston but it was intended to look nice on the back of a rake of maroon Cleresories.     I fancy that in that era there would ahcve been quite a few odd livery's around as stock got mixed up, somehwat akin to the early Amtrak area in the 1970's in the US when you coulc see trains with coaches from all sorts of differnet companies plus a few early repaints.

 

Jamie

[Tony Wright]

Having just seen Hornby's proposals for next year, there's yet another loco kit with 'nails in its coffin'. That said, the prototype picture for it is actually of the K1/1.

 

One might have thought a prototype picture of one of the 70 K1s might have been sourced - I would have thought pictures of 61997 were harder to find.

 

Still, at least I'll complete this one before Hornby's K1 arrives. It's from a DMT kit, by the way, which I believe is being taken off the market, anyway. 

 

 

Sorry,

          DMR kit

[MJI]

Fully agree Tony (both), making things is where the real fun is for me.

I'll raise you with a pair of red engines bringing the Manchester Diner (Pines after 1927) into Bath from the north and heading south behind a pair of blue engines.

What a fun thread this is.

 

Jerry

 

When you bring the Pines into it 9F wins.

 

Lined green 10 coupled freight engine running as an express loco.

[unclebobkt]

  ... .

  I agree entirely with the observation of a post-war LMS domination of BR practice, but, to be fair, especially in locomotive matters, Stanier had laid the foundations for a standardisation programme which made absolute sense.

  ... .

  As for the 9Fs, I agree they never lived long enough to be superannuated but I still believe there was nothing to touch them overall, especially if their express passenger work on the ER, LMR (on summer Saturdays), WR (out of Canton) and especially on the S&D in the summer is taken into consideration. Can you think of any other heavy freight class being able to do that? The P1s?

  ... .  Worms away! 

 

 -- Wasn't Stanier ex-GWR.?  If so then his standardisation policy would have been following-on from Churchward's, wouldn't it.

 - Also didn't Maunsell on the SR. initiate a similar policy?

 -- As for 9Fs. on passenger workings weren't they limited to a max. speed to minimise their hammer-blows?

  --  :-)

Edited December 17, 2013 by unclebobkt

[chrisf]

 

 -- As for 9Fs. on passenger workings weren't they limited to a max. speed to minimise their hammer-blows?

  --  :-)

 

In theory.  Evening Star worked the up Red Dragon and down Capitals United Express for a few days in June/July 1960 and on one of these merry outings brought the Dragon into Paddington 15 minutes early.  AFAIK there is no record of a King doing that!

 

Chris