Wright writes.....

[jrg1]

Despite being a through and through steam man, the sound of a Deltic notching up under the roof of Newcastle Central was one of the most invigorating powerful sounds I have ever heard. Next up is Widor's Toccata played on a large pipe organ.  I have diverse tastes...

In the days of ECML sleepers, Deltics would haul the train to Waverley, and hand over to twin Sulzers.  The roar of the Deltic under the station roof as it accelerated away to haymarket would wake everyone up-at around 1 a.m.  

[Compound2632]

It is interesting to read others comments on the best looking locomotives. We all know the smartest looking were the Midland Railway 4-4-0s built or rebuilt after Deeley had refined the appreance of the MR's locomotives, think 990 class, belpaire Class 2's (non superheated were best) and Class 3 Belpaires. But what do I know I am a mere diesel modeller.

 

The "Deeley style" does have a certain smartness of simplicity and set the style for subsequent Derby locomotives right up to the Patriots but can you really say they were better looking than what had gone before, either the belle-epoque elegance of the Belpaires and first Compounds as built, or indeed the perfection of line of Johnson's earlier engines:

 

 

Just to show I'm not entirely partisan, I'd also like to put in a good word for Robinson's atlantics.

 

As to Flying Scotsman, it has to be said that the engine in its current form is not what the majority of the public expect to see, whatever the preferences of those who remember east coast steam in the 60s. For most people, myself included, this is Flying Scotsman:

 

 

... and a very elegant-looking engine too - the most handsome of the east coast pacifics, if I may be forgiven for saying so!

[Bucoops]

 

As to Flying Scotsman, it has to be said that the engine in its current form is not what the majority of the public expect to see, whatever the preferences of those who remember east coast steam in the 60s. For most people, myself included, this is Flying Scotsman:

 

 

... and a very elegant-looking engine too - the most handsome of the east coast pacifics, if I may be forgiven for saying so!

 

FS does look it's finest in this guise - absolutely stunning. As good as a Silver or Garter Blue A4? I would say no, but that's me

[Penlan]

One of the ironies of the name fame 'Flying Scotsman', and the euphoria around it,
is that a number of non-railway people thought it would be a streamlined A4, like Mallard,

thus I fronted many queries (as a railway modeller!!!) when pictures appeared in the national press.

Edited April 13, 2018 by Penlan

[unclebobkt]

    ........ .     Next up is Widor's Toccata played on a large pipe organ.  I have diverse tastes...

 

          I hope that you have listened to Widor himself playing his Toccata on the Cavaille-Col organ - a great achievement for an arthritic & 80 YO. on a 'Tracker.' organ.  :-)

 

       

[jacko]

you're all wrong of course. There is no finer sight than a Princess Coronation at full chat - even in the wrong livery

 

 

Graeme

[unclebobkt]

         It is interesting to read others comments on the best looking locomotives. We all know the smartest looking were the Midland Railway 4-4-0s built or rebuilt after Deeley had refined the appreance of the MR's locomotives, think 990 class, belpaire Class 2's (non superheated were best) and Class 3 Belpaires.

 

          I can't write that off-hand I can recall the above-mentioned locomotives. - hence my vote for 4-4-0s. would go to the L&SWRs. 'T9.', aka. 'Greyhound.', class.

  But, of course, my vote for locos.. overall would go, undoubtedly to Mr. Collect's 'Castle.' class.'.

 

       

Edited April 13, 2018 by unclebobkt

[great central]

Tony,

 

You might need to sit down before you look at this example! This is a 35-40 year old version built in my teenage years, and I can't remember the details, but I think it's Wills or Nucast and it appears to be on a Hornby B17 chassis with tender drive. Why I used a donor with overlarge drivers I can't remember! Does anyone else remember these kits - was I the only one to make the chassis mistake or was this recommended?

 

I'm wondering what to do with it. I could plonk it on a modern Bachmann or Hornby chassis, build a comet chassis (but all that valve gear turns me off this option) or possibly look at a B2 conversion. Any suggestions (apart from binning it!).

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

Old B1 .jpg

 

Assuming it's a similar age to mine it'll be a Nu Cast one, as you say built around 40 years ago. I would say keep it, it's got a certain character, mine had a cast block for a chassis which I couldn't get to run properly despite opening up the coupling rod holes so far that they were eventually useless!

I wrote to Nu Cast with a stamp as advised in the instructions for replacements (although I believe that was only for the whitemetal components) with a covering letter offering to pay for a full valve gear etch if it wasn't covered. I received an apologetic reply by return of post. The etches were sub-contracted and had been done incorrectly so they sent me a full etch as replacement, the unused parts of which finished up (turned inside out for plain rods) underneath my McGowan Austerity with a scrathbuilt, simple bar frame chassis. The austerity has been seen in a thread I started a good while ago.

Edit: still got the B1 by the way, never sold any kit i've built

Edited April 13, 2018 by great central

[great central]

you're all wrong of course. There is no finer sight than a Princess Coronation at full chat - even in the wrong livery

 

 

Graemeduchess.jpg

 

Nope! To me a 4 cylinder loco always sound like it wants to go faster but the wheeels won't come along with it

There's the definite urgency of a 3 cylinder which you can relate to the wheel speed, but this in my opinion really takes some beating

Edit: note it also has a chime whistle, more evidence of it's importance

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVQPqd3n13c

Edited April 13, 2018 by great central

[46256]

Dear all in the company of friends the other night, all of whom far more up to speed with the current railway scene....enjoy the class 91 locomotives whilst you can....class 800 are on their way if not already landed.....not a bad description of these rather aero looking units...progress..

Edited April 13, 2018 by 46256

[great central]

Dear all in the company of friends the other night, all of whom far more up to speed with the current railway scene....enjoy the class 91 locomotives whilst you can....class 800 are on their way if not already landed.....not a bad description of these rather aero looking units...progress..

 

Progress?? Not too sure about that, from what I can gather from other sources these 800 things aren't, perhaps, as good as they're being made out to be.

Various issues about lack of speed when running on diesel and the overhead power supplies haven't been upgraded to cope with the extra demand placed on it in places.

Also being nice, shiny and new you can almost guarantee one thing, very uncomfortable seats

[Bucoops]

Ironing board seats seems to be the phrase of choice.

[Tony Wright]

Tony,

 

You might need to sit down before you look at this example! This is a 35-40 year old version built in my teenage years, and I can't remember the details, but I think it's Wills or Nucast and it appears to be on a Hornby B17 chassis with tender drive. Why I used a donor with overlarge drivers I can't remember! Does anyone else remember these kits - was I the only one to make the chassis mistake or was this recommended?

 

I'm wondering what to do with it. I could plonk it on a modern Bachmann or Hornby chassis, build a comet chassis (but all that valve gear turns me off this option) or possibly look at a B2 conversion. Any suggestions (apart from binning it!).

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

Old B1 .jpg

Andy,

 

Definitely Nu-Cast. 

 

 

 

This is mine in its Stoke Summit days (it runs on LB still). I built two; the first 40+ years ago. Like a fool I used the white metal chassis, and, like Neil, I found the rods didn't match the axle holes. I gave it away! I acquired another second hand some 25 years ago, and built it (as shown above). This time I used a Comet set of frames (though didn't realise at the time that the eccentric rod was too short). It works fine. Rather than make the heavy tender, I substituted a Bachmann one (your tender, by the way, isn't right - the front cut-out is too big). The massive lamp has since been replaced.

 

Keep your B1 - it's yours in a unique way and, if nothing else, it's a valuable learning curve. Why are you scared of making valve gear? The two sets I've seen look fine. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Clive Mortimore]

The "Deeley style" does have a certain smartness of simplicity and set the style for subsequent Derby locomotives right up to the Patriots but can you really say they were better looking than what had gone before, either the belle-epoque elegance of the Belpaires and first Compounds as built, or indeed the perfection of line of Johnson's earlier engines:

 

 

Just to show I'm not entirely partisan, I'd also like to put in a good word for Robinson's atlantics.

 

As to Flying Scotsman, it has to be said that the engine in its current form is not what the majority of the public expect to see, whatever the preferences of those who remember east coast steam in the 60s. For most people, myself included, this is Flying Scotsman:

 

 

... and a very elegant-looking engine too - the most handsome of the east coast pacifics, if I may be forgiven for saying so!

Mr Johnson's engines were very pretty, I do feel he lost it a bit with the early H boilered locomotives but Mr Deeley seemed to make them appear smarter. I like the simple straight lines and functional look without being austere. 

 

Mr Ivatt and Mr Robinson achieved similar results on their respective railways.

 

Of course as for looks at speed nothing beats a full 10 coach AM9 gliding gracefully at 100 mph over the River Ter bridge at Hatfield Peverel.

[Bucoops]

 

Of course as for looks at speed nothing beats a full 10 coach AM9 gliding gracefully at 100 mph over the River Ter bridge at Hatfield Peverel.

 

It's about half a mile if I were a crow from my desk to that mini-viaduct. I do miss the 309s - was a very enjoyable day on the Clacton Sunset tour. Now THEY were comfortable units.

[Black Marlin]

There's a glorious (albeit copyrighted) image of Sceptre illustrating precisely why the original A1 was the best proportioned of all Gresley's pacifics here. Ravishing! And an excellent photograph; the photographer was clearly someone of no mean skill. Hat suitably doffed, etc.

[Tony Wright]

Since we've had a discussion about the visual 'delights' of A3s, how about the following?

 

 

Single chimney, new-style non-corridor tender. Old Wills kit, scratch-built chassis; all my own work.

 

 

Double chimney, wing deflectors, GN-style tender. Old Wills kit, scratch-built chassis, Jamieson tender; all my own work.

 

 

Double chimney, no deflectors, GN-style tender, A4 boiler. Modified Hornby (by me), weathered by Tom Foster.

 

 

Double chimney, German deflectors, GN-style tender. DJH, originally built by Steve Naylor, rebuilt and painted by me.

 

 

 

Double chimney, German deflectors, split handrail on smokebox door and top lamp bracket lowered, streamlined non-corridor tender. Old Wills kit, scratch-built chassis, K's tender; all my own work.

 

Strictly-speaking, in 1958's summer (the time LB is set), very few A3s would have a double chimney and none would have deflectors (other than 60097) of any kind. The Mk. 1 Pullmans hadn't arrived, either.

 

No matter, Rule 1 applies. 

Edited April 13, 2018 by Tony Wright

[Bucoops]

Sandwich is my favourite - I also like the name so it's on the list for the one I'm building, although that Sceptre picture has caught my interest...

[cctransuk]

Tony,

 

I was never a fan of the A3 'German' smoke deflectors, but I am going to stick my neck out, (and risk offending you), by saying that the deflectors attached to your models give more of an impression of elephants' ears than those on the prototype.

 

 

 

They strike me as over large, and I think it is because the turn-in to the bottom edges is larger than on the prototype; they just don't look 'right'.

 

Sorry - but I know that you encourage comment, positive or otherwise.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[gr.king]

 

 

When all the A3s were fitted with Kylchap double pots, their steaming was improved dramatically, so much so that they took on the same duties (other than the non-stop) as any other of the ECML Pacifics (despite their being only 7P).

 

Edited to alter an absolute blooper! Thanks Jonathan.

 

My impression is that Eastern Region didn't always take very much notice, if any, of the P & F loco rating systems originally devised by that other railway in the Midlands. The long standing maxim on the GN was that the most important measure of an engine's stature was its ability to boil water. With a well proportioned boiler in the first place, enhanced by the Kylchap double exhaust, the A3s were certainly able to boil water, and it has been suggested in at least one work that I've read that the later Doncaster pacific boilers with shortened barrels and bigger fireboxes were "forcing" more steam production out of a largely unaltered tubing arrangement. The implication is that efficiency was being sacrificed un-necessarily in the Thompson / Peppercorn boilers in order to obtain more power, and that a careful re-design of the tubing ought to have accompanied the other changes. It is not difficult to imagine that a nominally less powerful loco such as a 7P A3, working more efficiently and therefore in a sense more effortlessly, might be just as good on many jobs as an 8P obtaining results by force. I know it's not as simple as that and that in many respects the efficiency and reliability of the Peppercorn A1s was excellent for their day.

I've also read that men with long experience of GC section loco working couldn't see why former LMS men with whom they increasingly mixed in the 50s were so anxious to know what P or F rating applied to certain former GCR, GNR and LNER locos when considering their suitability for a job. The GC section men, it was said, were accustomed to accepting that it was simply part of the work to take the available locomotive and as far as possible use it in such a way that it coped with the train.

[thegreenhowards]

Andy,

 

Definitely Nu-Cast. 

 

 

This is mine in its Stoke Summit days (it runs on LB still). I built two; the first 40+ years ago. Like a fool I used the white metal chassis, and, like Neil, I found the rods didn't match the axle holes. I gave it away! I acquired another second hand some 25 years ago, and built it (as shown above). This time I used a Comet set of frames (though didn't realise at the time that the eccentric rod was too short). It works fine. Rather than make the heavy tender, I substituted a Bachmann one (your tender, by the way, isn't right - the front cut-out is too big). The massive lamp has since been replaced.

 

Keep your B1 - it's yours in a unique way and, if nothing else, it's a valuable learning curve. Why are you scared of making valve gear? The two sets I've seen look fine. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

 

Tony,

 

I’m not scared of valve gear any more (after your lessons) and I will do some more one day. But I only have limited time for modelling, and valve gear seems disproportionately fiddly and time consuming and not particularly enjoyable. I’d rather make the valve gear on something not available RTR and concentrate my valuable modelling time on the rest of the roundtuit pile.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[landscapes]

Hi Tony

 

Great Photos of your A3 models, 60054 Prince of Wales is the one for me with either type of tender I do not mind.

 

On the subject of smoke deflectors its amazing how many different types there are on the Gresley, Thompson and Peppercorn Pacific's, I make it nine in total if the A1 and A2 pacific's,  and A3 wing type and A2/2 have different smoke deflectors from each other. 

 

A1

A1/1 (60113)

A2

A2/1

A2/2

A2/3

A3 German style

A3 Wing type

A3 (60097)

 

Regards

 

David

Edited April 13, 2018 by landscapes

[petrovich]

Mr Johnson's engines were very pretty, I do feel he lost it a bit with the early H boilered locomotives but Mr Deeley seemed to make them appear smarter. I like the simple straight lines and functional look without being austere. 

 

Mr Ivatt and Mr Robinson achieved similar results on their respective railways.

 

Of course as for looks at speed nothing beats a full 10 coach AM9 gliding gracefully at 100 mph over the River Ter bridge at Hatfield Peverel.

1757 A beautiful steam engine. Thanks for posting Clive.

 

Regards

 

Peter

[Tony Wright]

Tony,

 

I was never a fan of the A3 'German' smoke deflectors, but I am going to stick my neck out, (and risk offending you), by saying that the deflectors attached to your models give more of an impression of elephants' ears than those on the prototype.

 

A3 60103 FLYING SCOTSMAN.jpg

 

 

They strike me as over large, and I think it is because the turn-in to the bottom edges is larger than on the prototype; they just don't look 'right'.

 

Sorry - but I know that you encourage comment, positive or otherwise.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

You're probably right, John,

 

They're Jackson Evans ones, and were what were available at the time (other than scratch-building). DJH's are actually a bit small. The current SE Finecast ones seem the right size (though the drawing for fitting them has a single chimney!).

[Clive Mortimore]

1757 A beautiful steam engine. Thanks for posting Clive.

 

Regards

 

Peter

Hi Peter

 

Thanks goes to Steve Compound who posted the photo. One of only two locos that carried names on the MR.