The Engine Shed

[toboldlygo]

My mistake in that case. Dont think it will be the Duchess tender chassis - too long isnt it?

Depends on the tender - I think

[Vistisen]

My mistake in that case. Dont think it will be the Duchess tender chassis - too long isnt it?

 

Remember this is only a computer generated image for the packaging.

[MikeParkin65]

Remember this is only a computer generated image for the packaging.

Talking about photo of 8F test shot on Engine Shed

[JSpencer]

I read somewhere, that the mud-holes where a BR modification. Hopefully it was just because it's a livery sample.

That's the term I was looking for. Yes I hope they check it is just a sample error otherwise everyone will be contacting you to change the number on their models to C1 in preserved condition!

Edited April 21, 2017 by JSpencer

[JSpencer]

Have you?

Indeed, vive le pinard, vive le pinard...

[leavesontheline]

Great to see the 8F making a re-appearance. It must be longer than the seven years they are quoting for the Q1 since there was an 8F in the range?

[Islesy]

Oops, bit of brain fade on my part with the copy for the Standard 4 on the web, no drink involved unfortunately, which is where I probably went wrong!

I'll make sure it's rewritten on Monday and amended on the web page as soon as possible.

Have a good weekend all,

 

Paul

[amwells]

With the good news about the GWR mk3 FO, can we hope that intermediate coaches for the test 800 will also be produced?

[asmay2002]

I thought there was going to be 2 versions (LMS Stanier tender & BR Fowler tender). Judging by the chassis on the tender it's the same one that's being fitted to the new Princess Coronation.

It didn't ought to be.  The Duchess had a 10 ton capacity tender whereas the 8F had the smaller 9 ton version.

[MatthewCarty]

Cannot wait for the standard 4 to make a reappearance, I have the green one on preorder, but might be tempted by the black one as well (I definitely don't need it though)!

[Ian Hargrave]

Cannot wait for the standard 4 to make a reappearance, I have the green one on preorder, but might be tempted by the black one as well (I definitely don't need it though)!

This was always a top notch model .The WR double chimney version is the icing on the cake and will make an excellent choice for modelling a late Cambrian Coast Express especially as there is no Manor to current atandards on the horizon.

 

This is intended to be a blatant hint. However let's be grateful for what is in store.These 75XXX will do very nicely,thank you and the samples serve to whet the appetite.

 

No I don't need it.That said,I'd like it.Nuff said......

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Interesting to see an 8F engineering sample. Does this suggest that they've tweaked the tooling somehow?

 Won't know until we see the release, because the livery sample may well be based on earlier tooling. I still see cast chassis block with socking great eye-catching shiny spinning gear shaft end, in a location where there should be daylight under the boiler, on the sample in the photographs. Expectations have moved on rather since this mechanism layout was introduced, and the other eight coupled freight heavies in their range are all significantly more refined in this respect. 'Could use improvement', wait and see if Hornby have acted.

 

Tender underframe: for modelling purposes the 4,000 gallon Stanier tender underframe is constant, whether the nine ton or ten ton bunker bodywork sits on top. So if the new underframe without spurious valance and thus having correctly proportioned spring and axlebox detail is fitted beneath a 9 ton bunker body, that will be a step forward.

[G-BOAF]

I read somewhere, that the mud-holes where a BR modification. Hopefully it was just because it's a livery sample.

I noticed that - I was hoping I could do a preserved C1 from it, but the sample shown also has the earlier rimmed smokebox door (as does, (incorrectly?) the BR sample), so not suitable.

So I'll be sticking with renumbering 33005...!

Edited April 22, 2017 by G-BOAF

[Caledonian]

I noticed that - I was hoping I could do a preserved C1 from it, but the sample shown also has the earlier rimmed smokebox door, so not suitable.

So I'll be sticking with renumbering 33005...!

 

Not wanting to derail this particular discussion, but I've always wondered how Hornby come to decide which locomotives to model. Namers are straightforward, but why pick say 33005 rather than 33006.

 

The first Black 5 I bought was 45393 simply because I wanted one and that was the only number available at the time. Not complaining, I simply renumbered it as an Aberdeen one, but I've always wondered why Hornby picked 45393 in the first place. It took a very long time to find a photie of it. Subsequently I've acquired two others; 5036 and 45458. I've been able to find photies of the latter in BR days [playing musical boilers] but not in the LMS livery offered by Hornby, but 45458 was a very elusive bird indeed.

 

My point being that Hornby certainly didn't pick them because there were good and abundant photies. So why?

 

I'm really not bothered, its just an exercise in idle curiosity

[Steamport Southport]

You don't know what photographs they have in their archive. Not all photographs are available in the public domain. A quick Google Image search and I've found three good quality photographs of 45393. There are two others available from Colour Rail.

 

With it being allocated to Edge Hill for a time then I would have thought that it would have been photographed quite a lot.

 

 

Jason

[Caledonian]

45393 I did find, as I say - at Bletchley per the shed plate. It still comes back to that idle question as to why choose to manufacture an anonymous 45393 rather than an equally anonymous 45396. As an individual modeller I know what I want to model and why, its how Hornby pick 'em that I'm curious about.

[stewartingram]

45393 - and similar number 45292 - were "our" engines, visiting Cambridge almost daily from Bletchley.

"almost" Honourable GE locos !

 

Stewart

[adb968008]

Not wanting to derail this particular discussion, but I've always wondered how Hornby come to decide which locomotives to model.

Why limit the question to just Hornby ?, all manufacturers globally this should apply to.

 

My Guess behind random number selection is probably down to photographs available. The rest down to significant events (fame, preservation etc).

[Caledonian]

Why limit the question to just Hornby ?, all manufacturers globally this should apply to.

 

My Guess behind random number selection is probably down to photographs available. The rest down to significant events (fame, preservation etc).

 

Ah well, that was my point. There's nothing at all stands out about the three Black 5s in question [unless you count 45454 coming off the road at Wormit] and there's nothing much in the way of photies. We've had a bit of an insight into how the Peckett identities were settled on, but when we're dealing with anonymous black locos who decides and why?

 

Is there a wall chart listing all the numbers -  and a set of darts...?

[Roy Langridge]

Exactly as it should be. I get really fed up seeing exhibits with unique livery after unique livery and a disproportionate number of named locos. More nondescript models are needed.

 

Roy

[No Decorum]

Exactly as it should be. I get really fed up seeing exhibits with unique livery after unique livery and a disproportionate number of named locos. More nondescript models are needed.

 

Roy

Agreed. Coming from an era when steam locos were mostly small and cute or large and imposing, with a coloured finish (as like as not self-coloured plastic), I feel spoilt by the present offerings of black 0-6-0s. Rarely modelled, they made up the majority of the locos wandering around the country.

[steve1023]

45393 I did find, as I say - at Bletchley per the shed plate. It still comes back to that idle question as to why choose to manufacture an anonymous 45393 rather than an equally anonymous 45396. As an individual modeller I know what I want to model and why, its how Hornby pick 'em that I'm curious about.

It's something I have often wondered too. Perhaps Paul could give an insight how they come too the decision to produce 45393 or 34077 etc,etc, maybe here or on the engine shed.

 

Kind regards

Steve

[Ian Hargrave]

It's something I have often wondered too. Perhaps Paul could give an insight how they come too the decision to produce 45393 or 34077 etc,etc, maybe here or on the engine shed.

 

Kind regards

Steve

 

Why don't you PM him and ask ?

[GreenGiraffe22]

Perhaps they draw numbers out of a hat? Or use a random number selection thingy on the computer?

[Forester]

It's something I have often wondered too. Perhaps Paul could give an insight how they come too the decision to produce 45393 or 34077 etc,etc, maybe here or on the engine shed.

 

Kind regards

Steve

 

Not sure there has ever been much intelligent thought given to individual members of a class at Margate or nowadays.

 

Take the Merchant Navy, both rebuilt and unrebuilt. All the well-known and loved shipping lines are in the first series. By the time the third series was built Eastleigh was pretty much running out of British and Allied lines to name them after.

 

But Hornby gave us the third series when they produced the Rebuilt MN, hence all these Clan Lines, and for a second bite of the cherry they went for the second series  - the likes of the well-known Holland-Afrika Line. They never did a first series run of rebuilt MN.

 

Enter the Original Merchant Navy. A first series at last - except it's in as-built condition which lasted a matter of weeks. For the regular modeller we have Clan line and Holland-Afrika yet again (third time).

 

Dear Hornby,   Cunard and P&O shipping lines are still with us (albeit now US-owned). Most people have heard of Canadian Pacific, Shaw Savill, Orient Line. All first series Merchant Navy.

 

But I'm not holding my breath. The next release of original MN will surely include East Asiatic Company.

 

Uh oh. Here come the Renamers with their blobs of glue everywhere ........ Time to sign off.