Hornby P2

[S.A.C Martin]

It's not the length which is the problem, it's the fact the boiler casing on 2001 is parallel in conjunction with the flatter fronted smokebox front.

 

The metal weight underneath on the chassis looks to me like it may cause a minor problem in conversions to the streamlined front end, requiring filing down or outright removal. Hence my concerns. I will take some pictures of mine on the relevant isinglass drawing for 2006 to demonstrate my thoughts tonight.

[micklner]

Sounds like I have saved some money as I was considering a Railroad version for conversion as well as the enhanced version !!!

 

 

thanks !!

[w4rrn]

Apologies if this may have been already discussed earlier on in the thread ;-)

I have on pre order a TTS sound P2 mainly for display purposes in a cabinet. With the idea that one day I will build a layout to run it on.

As the idea of the TTS sound is for analogue layouts, if I decided to build my layout as a DCC digital layout would the sound still work after I have fitted a chip. Or would I be better buying the STD enhanced version and converting it to DCC sound with the correct chip etc. thanks

[Ryde-on-time]

Apologies if this may have been already discussed earlier on in the thread ;-)

I have on pre order a TTS sound P2 mainly for display purposes in a cabinet. With the idea that one day I will build a layout to run it on.

As the idea of the TTS sound is for analogue layouts, if I decided to build my layout as a DCC digital layout would the sound still work after I have fitted a chip. Or would I be better buying the STD enhanced version and converting it to DCC sound with the correct chip etc. thanks

The TTS sound version is DCC fitted as stated here

 

http://www.Hornby.com/lner-2-8-2-cock-o-the-north-p2-class-with-tts-sound.html

[toboldlygo]

It's not the length which is the problem, it's the fact the boiler casing on 2001 is parallel in conjunction with the flatter fronted smokebox front.

 

The metal weight underneath on the chassis looks to me like it may cause a minor problem in conversions to the streamlined front end, requiring filing down or outright removal. Hence my concerns. I will take some pictures of mine on the relevant isinglass drawing for 2006 to demonstrate my thoughts tonight.

Looking at the service sheet, the metal weight is a separate part, so can easily be removed for modification.

[WD0-6-0]

Apologies if this may have been already discussed earlier on in the thread ;-)

I have on pre order a TTS sound P2 mainly for display purposes in a cabinet. With the idea that one day I will build a layout to run it on.

As the idea of the TTS sound is for analogue layouts, if I decided to build my layout as a DCC digital layout would the sound still work after I have fitted a chip. Or would I be better buying the STD enhanced version and converting it to DCC sound with the correct chip etc. thanks

I have heard said that TTS won't work on analogue so it has to be DCC already, which it is.

Rhys

[gr.king]

Having prepared prospective "modification drawings" almost a year ago after being allowed to very swiftly offer up a small steel rule to the display-case sample of the Hornby P2 at Barrow Hill, and now having a model of my own to allow me to check those drawings, I agree in some respects with Simon. A Bugatti front with the correct P2 type of long top slope would not fit over the "forehead" of the chassis weight unless that Bugatti front was a very thin-walled structure. Not much need be filed away in order to make more room for an easy fit, so I don't see that as a killer problem. The weight unscrews very easily from the chassis - I tried that out in order to be certain. It won't budge until the rear screw is taken right out however, as the weight has to be drawn forward slightly to disengage two lugs that help it to keep the motor / gearbox in place.

 

ONE WORD OF CAUTION ABOUT BODY REMOVAL: Watch out for the motor tags (left side) which snag on the edges of the body slot as the chassis tries to pass through the gap. The body needs to be eased apart around the area where the motor goes in. I've found it easier to gently band the upper tag for the motor so that it stands upright and then bends slightly over the top of the motor. This stops it from hooking, unseen, onto internal irregularities in the body and preventing withdrawal of the chassis. I can envisage some of these motor tags getting broken off.

 

I'm not yet seeing any problems at a lower level if converting the body to P2/2 or P2/3 spec. It IS true that the heights of the major parts of the running plates ought to differ, but I'm not sure how crucial to final appearance that is likely to be. I'm assuming at present that it won't be a major problem, and as modelled (accurately or otherwise) Hornby's CotN running plate seems to line up fairly neatly with the profile of a modified A4 nose. The overall length difference comes from the greater forward bulge of the Bugatti front. I don't see that causing problems.

 

My initial efforts, when I get other projects out of the way, are likely to focus on producing an Earl Marischal as built. I thought about using some Hornby A3 cylinders for simplicity, but there is of course a difference in the wrapper shapes. Comet LNER cylinders, or even a Bachmann A1 or A2 set if you could get them might be useful alternatives. I doubt if any cylinder sets will just screw-on as direct replacements, but such challenges are all part of the conversion process. Having access to part-sets of etched A2/2 style valve gear solves my problems to some extent regarding the Walschaerts requirement. Scratchbuilt additions to the lower front parts of the body, removal of the ACFI gear, removal of the rotary reversing shaft and minor repositioning of one handrail appear to be the other elements of the job. The tender will need disc wheels to be correct.

 

Lord President (and its brethren) will present additional challenges. I envisage use of an extensively modified A4 front, with new chimney and amended top slope, a new coned upper-front section of boiler casing, straightened cab side sheets, added roof vents and fairing behind the central vents (or maybe splice in an A4 cab or just its roof), along with alteration of the tender features to produce the streamlined version.

Edited September 1, 2014 by gr.king

[DonnyRailMan]

It's not the length which is the problem, it's the fact the boiler casing on 2001 is parallel in conjunction with the flatter fronted smokebox front.

 

The metal weight underneath on the chassis looks to me like it may cause a minor problem in conversions to the streamlined front end, requiring filing down or outright removal. Hence my concerns. I will take some pictures of mine on the relevant isinglass drawing for 2006 to demonstrate my thoughts tonight.

=====================================================================================================

 

We never know but Hornby might have it all in hand & a streamlined version ready in the wings to come out

next year.

 

                                          D.R.M.

[CathcartCircle]

I've got to say I much prefer the non streamlined version! I'll leave that to the A4s!

[Mike70]

I wonder if the main range version (R3207) will turn up early like the Railroad version???

 

I've scanned through some of the recent posts on this thread and I've not seen anything about square bearing housings.

Is that what Hornby have used or was their a late modification?

[Colin_McLeod]

Early?????

[JSpencer]

I guess whether or not Hornby will do other members of the class will depend on both sales of the CoTN and research showing how many people who did buy it, will buy other members.

 

 

I personally have ordered CoTN,

I would certainly buy Earl Marshal in her original form

However I will not buy the Bugatti nose one, simply because I built a Ks kit of it 20 years ago (otherwise doubtless I would!)

 

However who would and would not buy other members? And which ones?

[Bon Accord]

I guess whether or not Hornby will do other members of the class will depend on both sales of the CoTN and research showing how many people who did buy it, will buy other members.

 

 

I personally have ordered CoTN,

I would certainly buy Earl Marshal in her original form

However I will not buy the Bugatti nose one, simply because I built a Ks kit of it 20 years ago (otherwise doubtless I would!)

 

However who would and would not buy other members? And which ones?

 

I'd certainly go for 2002 as built (without the extra deflectors). As for the other versions, well I'd probably at least have 2003-2006, not forgetting 2007 when it appears from the P2LC.

[railroadbill]

Just a quick update, my CotN has run for several hours now,  must be at least 5, and is running very smoothly, both at speed and slowly. No problems have shown up so far.  Great stuff.

 

Prototype could have run from Edinburgh to Aberdeen and back in that time (although apparently locos were changed at Dundee and one worked Dundee Edinburgh and return and another  Dundee Aberdeen and return).  [LNER steam by O S Nock]

[Mike70]

Early?????

I meant early in terms of the more recent delivery dates.

 

If you look back though the thread, on the 23rd August Hattons were not expecting R3171 until 5th September.

Then on the 27th August they were showing up in model shops.

Edited September 1, 2014 by Mike70

[Bon Accord]

Just a quick update, my CotN has run for several hours now,  must be at least 5, and is running very smoothly, both at speed and slowly. No problems have shown up so far.  Great stuff.

 

Prototype could have run from Edinburgh to Aberdeen and back in that time (although apparently locos were changed at Dundee and one worked Dundee Edinburgh and return and another  Dundee Aberdeen and return).  [LNER steam by O S Nock]

 

There's a couple of different reasons for that, but apparently one of the principle factors was that the water columns at Dundee (Tay Bridge) were so slow in replenishing tenders that it was quicker to replace the loco itself. I seem to recall this arrangement lasted until the end of steam.

Edited September 1, 2014 by Bon Accord

[bluebottle]

I guess whether or not Hornby will do other members of the class will depend on both sales of the CoTN and research showing how many people who did buy it, will buy other members.

 

I personally have ordered CoTN,

I would certainly buy Earl Marshal in her original form

However I will not buy the Bugatti nose one, simply because I built a Ks kit of it 20 years ago (otherwise doubtless I would!)

 

However who would and would not buy other members? And which ones?

 

Trying to speed read through the thread, my eye was caught by the last line of J's post. It was a relief to realise that he was referring to model locomotives and not to RMwebbers.  I was worried that there might be those who, infatuated with my avatar image, would bid to purchase me for who knows what purposes!

[Paddy]

All the electrics are definitely in the loco, the tender follows on from the Railroad Scotsman and has the adjustable metal bar, no pickups.

 

Tony Wrights review of the super detail model last year, interestingly, had the model without cab doors. I'm slightly impressed at the way this factory fitted addition has slipped under the radar along with lamp irons and cab glazing.

 

Hi Simon,

 

Out of interest, do you know why has Hornby started to remove pickups from tenders?  Is it a cost cutting measure?

 

Many thanks

 

Paddy

[Colin_McLeod]

Trying to speed read through the thread, my eye was caught by the last line of J's post. It was a relief to realise that he was referring to model locomotives and not to RMwebbers.  I was worried that there might be those who, infatuated with my avatar image, would bid to purchase me for who knows what purposes!

I've asked Gostude for some advice as to what value to put on you, then I might make my bid.

 

Are you kit built and/or professionally weathered?

[S.A.C Martin]

Hi Simon,

 

Out of interest, do you know why has Hornby started to remove pickups from tenders? Is it a cost cutting measure?

 

Many thanks

 

Paddy

I'd love to know too I'm afraid - on the Railroad models, cost cutting seems likely. However for £73 and running so beautifully with the long wheelbase, doesn't need it.

[Coldgunner]

I thought the P2 tender was going to be a direct copy of the 60163 tender to save on design and certification.

[S.A.C Martin]

I thought the P2 tender was going to be a direct copy of the 60163 tender to save on design and certification.

 

No, the P2 tender is going to be a modified, beaded version of that used behind the original no.2001. So taking cues from Tornado certainly but not identical.

[Market65]

Hi. I've got a bit more done on my P2. Some more black and white lining has been added around the cab and fire-box areas, as well as around the deflector area at the front. Also managed to get the white lining around the buffer beam. I think I've got the lining, so far, in the right places, but please do let me know if I have not! There, as stated before, is still plenty to do, including getting a start made shortly on the tender. Then the red lining etc.,

.

.

.

 

There is more to come...

 

All the best,

 

Market65.

[AdamOrmorod]

I thought the P2 tender was going to be a direct copy of the 60163 tender to save on design and certification.

I think I've read this too, that it was going to be near-identical to Tornado's but with some modification to allow longer fire-irons to be carried or something like that. The tenders behind the representations of the two locomotives on http://www.a1steam.com/ and http://www.p2steam.com/ at the tops of the pages certainly seem identical.

Edit: the P2 SLC link doesn't seem to want to work, but it does if you copy and paste the address.

Edited September 1, 2014 by Ade the Pianist 4468

[S.A.C Martin]

I went to most of the P2 lectures and the intention from the P2 Trust is that it will be designed to match 2001's rather more closely than a simple copy of 60163's tender, including beading. The overall idea is the same: increased water capacity, electric lighting, the tender back head will no doubt share the same or similar electrical gubbins Tornado has.