Wright writes.....

[polybear]

56 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

I have no idea. If you want an expert on modelling A4s, I am not the person to turn to. I haven't built anything that modern for several decades now. 

 

I just look at photos of the real things and models and play "spot the difference".

 

Sorry Tony - I got the wrong "Tony", if you see what I mean....😳 

[t-b-g]

20 minutes ago, polybear said:

 

Sorry Tony - I got the wrong "Tony", if you see what I mean....😳 

 

Quite understandable and forgivable!

[Tony Wright]

11 hours ago, landscapes said:

Hi Tony

 

I hope you don't mind a few more Bulleid Pacific photos, these two were both taken back in 2009 just to show the same problem now on two different Pacific's in preservation.

 

Regards

 

David

Good evening David,

 

I don't mind at all.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, micklner said:

I have read Lilliput as the basis  for the Bachmann version , no idea if that is the same maker?. It doesnt compare with the Hornby version , theirs was one of the first "superdetail" Locos produced to current standards. I remember Mr Wright in a BRM review  article using the words  "Dont bother building kits of the A4 ever again" or very similar at the time . They are not perfect but much better than the very old Finecast version. I have never seen a Proscale version "in the flesh"

Good evening Mick,

 

"Dont bother building kits of the A4 ever again"

 

I wouldn't take anything I write too seriously.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

Continuing with the subject of A4s.............

 

 

One thing I've never seen modelled correctly (and certainly not by me) is the supporting of the front numberplate. It's not a wedge (like Hornby Dublo modelled), but two triangular brackets with a gap below the number. I model the wee brackets, but don't leave a gap.

 

 

Other things I've never tried to replicate are the creases in the tender and the leaning-back cab. The eaves and top lining are nowhere near parallel to the tender top and tender lining. 

 

So, on to (as promised) comparisons.

 

 

A real A4, romping south through Little Bytham in the late-'noughties.

 

I've tried to replicate the same angle (taken from Marsh bridge) but the physics of the camera's size and the fact that there'd be a model signal in the way make it impossible. However, here goes..........

 

For consistency, all the following have been painted by Ian Rathbone (with one exception).

 

 

60002, a much-modified Bachmann original, with new bogie/bogie wheels, new buffers, scratch-built Cartazzi truck, lamp brackets added, front numberplate lowered, anti-skid strips added, new handrails, altered valve gear and a complete Crownline streamlined non-corridor tender, with strip at its tank base which once supported a stainless steel band.

 

 

60007, a South Eastern Finecast A4. 

 

 

60008, a modified Hornby A4; new bogie wheels, loco-to-tender close-coupled and replacement lamp bracket (one sneeze and the originals disappear!). 

 

 

60014, a Wills A4 on a scratch-built chassis. 

 

 

60022, a Pro-Scale A4.

 

 

60027, a Golden Age A4 (I can't remember why I bought this now), obviously not painted by Ian Rathbone.

 

 

 

 

60034, same as 60002, but this time on a complete replacement chassis from South Eastern Finecast (the original split chassis just, err, split!). It tows a South Eastern Finecast tender, modified to represent the cut-down rear from the '48 loco exchanges. 

 

I can certainly see differences among all these models. Why, might one ask, not standardise on one type of model A4? Well, certainly not Hornby (despite its excellent appearance) because it won't pull the heaviest trains, and the Golden Age one was just a moment of weakness. 

 

All have merits and de-merits, yet I'm happy enough with them all.

 

Of course, they're never made/modified to be scrutinised to the highest degree. 

 

They're all really 'layout locos', made to be viewed in a wider context. 

 

 

Like this...............

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 18, 2022 by Tony Wright
to add something

[mattingleycustom]

On 17/08/2022 at 00:03, JamesSpooner said:

Tony,

 

This is quoted as a photo of Manston apparently when new and the wrinkles are quite clearly apparent in it.  I know Bulleid was a comparatively early exponent of welding and even in the 1970’s BREL was building wrinkles into its Mk3 coach sides, due to welding distortion, so maybe there was an element of that in addition to the hand formed sheets?
 

best wishes

 

Nigel
 

Not quite 'when new' as it wouldn't have had the addition of the 's' to the number or 'British Railways' on the tender when completed for the Southern in October 1947.

 

Thankfully Manston is still with us and will be 75 in a couple of months ... LNER 4472 will be 100 next year; making it an antique!

 

Glenn

[Chas Levin]

5 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

...I can certainly see differences among all these models. Why, might one ask, not standardise on one type of model A4? Well, certainly not Hornby (despite its excellent appearance) because it won't pull the heaviest trains, and the Golden Age one was just a moment of weakness. 

 

All have merits and de-merits, yet I'm happy enough with them all.

 

Of course, they're never made/modified to be scrutinised to the highest degree. 

 

They're all really 'layout locos', made to be viewed in a wider context.

 

Like this...............

Good evening Tony, a terrific line-up, thank you for posting them: that first picture, of Sir Nigel, is absolutely superb! I find the shape pleasurable to look at, almost like touching it, like the mudguard curves on a 1930s car, or... 😉

Ok, moving on: absolutely, all have merits and de-merits and no, not really built for close scrutiny.

That being said, I find it quite natural to see lots of differences in kit-built ones, I think it was just that I'd expected the two main mass production RTR 'big players' to be more standardised by now.

Reading posts after mine, I remembered that I had read before of the current Bachmann one being unchanged from the Trix/Lilliput that's even older than me (I think!) and perhaps that's what surprises me, that Bachmann wouldn't have updated such an iconic loco by now.

I do have one Bachmann and four Hornbys (ranging from the late 1980s to about 2012) but because the Bachmann is in BR livery and the Hornbys are LNER, I've never actually run the two brands together so the differences hadn't struck me. Also, I realise while writing this that I don't scrutinise RTR models in anywhere near the same detail as I do something I'm building.

 

On reflection, perhaps it's better that I don't run the two brands' locos side by side: for my running purposes, they look perfectly fine separately... 🙂

Edited August 18, 2022 by Chas Levin

[Tony Wright]

30 minutes ago, Chas Levin said:

Good evening Tony, a terrific line-up, thank you for posting them: that first picture, of Sir Nigel, is absolutely superb! I find the shape pleasurable to look at, almost like touching it, like the mudguard curves on a 1930s car, or... 😉

Ok, moving on: absolutely, all have merits and de-merits and no, not really built for close scrutiny.

That being said, I find it quite natural to see lots of diffrences in kit-built ones, I think it was just that I'd expected the two main mass production RTR 'big players' to be more standardised by now.

Reading posts after mine, I remembered that I had read before of the current Bachmann one being unchanged from the Trix/Lilliput that's even older than me (I think!) and perhaps that's what surprises me, that Bachmann wouldn't have updated such an iconic loco by now.

I do have one Bachmann and four Hornbys (ranging from the late 1980s to about 2012) but because the Bachmann's in BR livery and the Hornbys are LNER, I've never actually run the two brands together so the differences hadn't struck me. Also, I realise while writing this that I don't scrutinise RTR models in anywhere near the same detail as I do something I'm building.

 

On reflection, perhaps it's better that I don't run the two brands' locos side by side: for my running purposes, they look perfectly fine separately... 🙂

Thanks Chas,

 

I think Bachmann worked on the original Trix/Lilliput body (altering the wrong firebox angles for a start), but it's still from a long time ago. It inherited nothing from the rotten chassis (loco-drive or tender-drive). I bought a couple in the early-'70s (from City Models in Liverpool, crossing the Mersey after a day's teaching in Birkenhead), but both were poor runners. I gave them away. Bachmann made a split chassis for the body (with 'smooth flywheel drive'), but that wasn't much good, either. The latest chassis is a big improvement, though I don't think the model is currently available. 

 

The original Hornby A4 (tender drive) was dire, both in appearance and performance. Hornby Dublo's from more years than I've been alive was a bit misshapen, and as for its tinplate tender..............

 

The current Hornby A4 is in a different league, and can lay justifiable claim (body-wise) to being the most accurate 4mm model of this most-famous class. 

 

Yes, there will be differences among kit-built A4s (I've never built a Finney one - out of my league), just as there were differences between two prototype A4s, especially with regard to ripples and dents. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[robertcwp]

21 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Chas,

 

I think Bachmann worked on the original Trix/Lilliput body (altering the wrong firebox angles for a start), but it's still from a long time ago. It inherited nothing from the rotten chassis (loco-drive or tender-drive). I bought a couple in the early-'70s (from City Models in Liverpool, crossing the Mersey after a day's teaching in Birkenhead), but both were poor runners. I gave them away. Bachmann made a split chassis for the body (with 'smooth flywheel drive'), but that wasn't much good, either. The latest chassis is a big improvement, though I don't think the model is currently available. 

 

The original Hornby A4 (tender drive) was dire, both in appearance and performance. Hornby Dublo's from more years than I've been alive was a bit misshapen, and as for its tinplate tender..............

 

The current Hornby A4 is in a different league, and can lay justifiable claim (body-wise) to being the most accurate 4mm model of this most-famous class. 

 

Yes, there will be differences among kit-built A4s (I've never built a Finney one - out of my league), just as there were differences between two prototype A4s, especially with regard to ripples and dents. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

With extra weight, the Hornby A4 can pull too, as has been demonstrated on Retford where the Elizabethan (10 out of 11 carriages are metal kits) is within their capabilities. Hornby has also done several tender types.

[Tony Wright]

10 hours ago, robertcwp said:

With extra weight, the Hornby A4 can pull too, as has been demonstrated on Retford where the Elizabethan (10 out of 11 carriages are metal kits) is within their capabilities. Hornby has also done several tender types.

Good morning Robert,

 

I've seen them perform.

 

I haven't added any ballast to my one Hornby A4, because it only gets used on the lightest expresses - the afternoon 'Talisman' or the 'Tees-Tyne Pullman'.

 

The Hornby tenders make an excellent range (of three?) - original 1935 streamlined corridor, 1937 streamlined non-corridor and original 1928 (ex-A1/-A3) corridor type. With work, the trio of 1928 tenders with the cut-down rear for the '48 Exchanges (latterly fitted to 60029, 33 and 34, with two of them going to Flying Scotsman in preservation) can be reproduced. As can the strip at the tender's tank base (seen on some of all three A4 tender types) to support the stainless strip for the 'Coronation'/'West Riding' A4s.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[rodent279]

2 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Robert,

 

I've seen them perform.

 

I haven't added any ballast to my one Hornby A4, because it only gets used on the lightest expresses - the afternoon 'Talisman' or the 'Tees-Tyne Pullman'.

 

The Hornby tenders make an excellent range (of three?) - original 1935 streamlined corridor, 1937 streamlined non-corridor and original 1928 (ex-A1/-A3) corridor type. With work, the trio of 1928 tenders with the cut-down rear for the '48 Exchanges (latterly fitted to 60029, 33 and 34, with two of them going to Flying Scotsman in preservation) can be reproduced. As can the strip at the tender's tank base (seen on some of all three A4 tender types) to support the stainless strip for the 'Coronation'/'West Riding' A4s.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Does your Hornby A4 have tender drive? If so, does it still have the unsightly wheels that Hornby used?

(Or do the later tender drives have more realistic wheels? Mine is a late 1980s Silver Fox.)

[Barry Ten]

I've not seen much mention of the Dapol "Black Label" A4 which I think had a die-cast body. Other than seeing it reviewed in one or two of the magazines, I don't think I've ever seen one in a shop or on a layout. Presumably it didn't do well enough to lead onto other things.

[Northmoor]

2 hours ago, rodent279 said:

Does your Hornby A4 have tender drive? If so, does it still have the unsightly wheels that Hornby used?

(Or do the later tender drives have more realistic wheels? Mine is a late 1980s Silver Fox.)

Tony hasn't replied; he may have had "a funny turn" and gone to lie down after reading that question.

 

"Tender drive? TENDER DRIVE?!"

[Jesse Sim]

5 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

Tony hasn't replied; he may have had "a funny turn" and gone to lie down after reading that question.

 

"Tender drive? TENDER DRIVE?!"

Does Mo know CPR?

[jwealleans]

I once ran a Hornby tender drive A4 on Grantham at a running weekend just to see Tony's reaction.   It was well worth it.

[Bucoops]

2 hours ago, jwealleans said:

I once ran a Hornby tender drive A4 on Grantham at a running weekend just to see Tony's reaction.   It was well worth it.

 

Post the video or it never happened 😇

 

2 hours ago, Jesse Sim said:

Does Mo know CPR?

 

Should be easy enough - just drop a succession of locos from a height of about 3 feet. If the weight of them doesn't do successful compressions the thought of the damage to them would soon wake Tony up 🤪

[Tony Wright]

5 hours ago, rodent279 said:

Does your Hornby A4 have tender drive? If so, does it still have the unsightly wheels that Hornby used?

(Or do the later tender drives have more realistic wheels? Mine is a late 1980s Silver Fox.)

I think others have made the situation regarding my attitude to tender-drive quite clear.

 

I'll have (at least) two A4s on my demonstration stand at the Loughborough Show over this weekend (both loco-drive, of course).

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[richard i]

What a restrained reply. You picked your words very carefully. 
there is one exception. 2mm. It seems to be the only way to get loads of power. Motor in the tender with power through a drive shaft to the coupled wheels on the loco.

richard 

[Jesse Sim]

1 hour ago, Bucoops said:

 

Post the video or it never happened 😇

 

 

Should be easy enough - just drop a succession of locos from a height of about 3 feet. If the weight of them doesn't do successful compressions the thought of the damage to them would soon wake Tony up 🤪

He was okay until @jwealleans mentioned it again. 

[Tony Wright]

4 hours ago, Barry Ten said:

I've not seen much mention of the Dapol "Black Label" A4 which I think had a die-cast body. Other than seeing it reviewed in one or two of the magazines, I don't think I've ever seen one in a shop or on a layout. Presumably it didn't do well enough to lead onto other things.

Good afternoon Al,

 

I cannot comment on how well (or not) the Dapol 'Black Label' A4 sold, because I don't know. Like you, I've never seen one on a layout (other than on Little Bytham). I had one to review, five years ago............

 

 

I thought it quite impressive; at a price, of course.

 

 

The fixed lamps might have discouraged some purchasers.

 

 

There was a fair amount 'under the bonnet'.

 

 

Including a smoke unit (which worked on plain DC). 

 

I wonder how many were actually sold, but it's not been perpetuated as far as I know. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Barry Ten]

I know this has been gone over before, and I might have posted this video already, but I do think the old Airfix-style tender drive could be made to run well especially on DCC. My 4F is one of my best runners, and it's just the bog-standard tender drive with the most basic kind of Hiornby decoder. It's definitely best suited to slow running, though, as the noise level goes up quite sharply at faster scale speeds. I've got a 2P which has the same drive and runs just as well, but again it's at its best when running relatively sedately.

 

 

Of course in general I'd rather have loco drive because there's something right about it, but this is one of those marginal cases where I don't feel justified in the time and expense of a new chassis, never mind binning tbe existing one.

 

Al

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, richard i said:

What a restrained reply. You picked your words very carefully. 
there is one exception. 2mm. It seems to be the only way to get loads of power. Motor in the tender with power through a drive shaft to the coupled wheels on the loco.

richard 

I don't think that's quite the same as 'tender-drive', Richard. 

 

Not the spectacle of an A4's tender roaring like a bull as it pushes its loco with locked-up solid motion! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

Yet another 100 pages! 

 

Thanks to all contributors for making this thread so interesting and active. 

[MJI]

1 hour ago, Barry Ten said:

I know this has been gone over before, and I might have posted this video already, but I do think the old Airfix-style tender drive could be made to run well especially on DCC. My 4F is one of my best runners, and it's just the bog-standard tender drive with the most basic kind of Hiornby decoder. It's definitely best suited to slow running, though, as the noise level goes up quite sharply at faster scale speeds. I've got a 2P which has the same drive and runs just as well, but again it's at its best when running relatively sedately.

 

 

Of course in general I'd rather have loco drive because there's something right about it, but this is one of those marginal cases where I don't feel justified in the time and expense of a new chassis, never mind binning tbe existing one.

 

Al

 

I may have one available as I bought a broken 2P for the loco body and it will get a LRM tender and Comet chassis.

 

Body is being MRed

[Willie Whizz]

Speaking of tender drives, I’ve recently rediscovered a half-forgotten Hornby A3 “Prince Palatine” powered that way, barely run because the project of the day was stillborn. Does anyone know whether the loco body would fit a modern Hornby A3 chassis, and whether the tender could simply have the old motor removed and run empty - or would it all be more complicated than that?  Thanks.