Q6

[coachmann]

I was wondering if it was being trailed on Harwarden bank if so it would have got to Wrexham. !!!!! 

Just to tempt you a little further in the Marcher Railways book (Bridge Books) on page 150 there's a picture of a C13 4-4-2T  at Oswestry   

I came across that shot of the C13 in the Oswestry bay shot on Google. Very intriguing. I happen to like the Q6 after seeing them at work around Durham and Consett on video. They certainly hopped along, but it is a model I can resist buying for the Cambrian (says the bloke with a 'King')....

Edited June 17, 2016 by coachmann

[SDJR7F88]

Just picked up the LNER version today from my local model shop. Filming a review as we speak    Here's some pictures for the time being and one of my full review videos will be up hopefully in the not too distant future...  Hope they are of help (apologies for the poor lighting, make the model look dusty)

 

Edit; Review Video now online! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3SuG8ZqJYs

 

Edited June 19, 2016 by SDJR7F88

[Guest Q663368]

Does anyone have a photographic reference for LNER Q6 3418 as depicted by Hornby please.

 

The only one in my reference material shows it with "British Railways" on the tender and with different chimney.

 

I must admit, they look to be superb models. I received notice today from Hattons to say my BR early version is on its way to Canada.

[micklner]

Does anyone have a photographic reference for LNER Q6 3418 as depicted by Hornby please.

 

The only one in my reference material shows it with "British Railways" on the tender and with different chimney.

 

I must admit, they look to be superb models. I received notice today from Hattons to say my BR early version is on its way to Canada.

 

      Yeadon page 87 ?, if yes they have missed off the Capuchon from the top of the Chimney otherwise the chimney is identical. They may have a photo with it missing ? otherwise strange because the Hornby BR version has one fitted in photos . The Capuchon was standard fitting on all the Q6's and were prone to corrosion perhaps it had rusted way prior to the Yeadon photo and been replaced ? !

 

Lettering is Gill Sans in the photo, so no reason why the Hornby Loco numbers and LNER lettering wouldn't be correct for the late LNER period. 

[Guest Q663368]

Yeadon page 87 ?, if yes they have missed off the Capuchon from the top of the Chimney otherwise the chimney is identical. They may have a photo with it missing ? otherwise strange because the Hornby BR version has one fitted in photos . The Capuchon was standard fitting on all the Q6's and were prone to corrosion perhaps it had rusted way prior to the Yeadon photo and been replaced ? !

 

Lettering is Gill Sans in the photo, so no reason why the Hornby Loco numbers and LNER lettering wouldn't be correct for the late LNER period.

 

Many thanks for the response.

I have yet to find a photograph of a Q6 fitted with a 50A boiler, steel buffer beam, flat smoke box door and chimney minus capuchon. Most pictures seem to feature the earlier loco's with the sandwich type buffer beam. I am aware 3418 had a plate buffer beam. I will keep searching.

[micklner]

Sadly as well as the missing Capuchon from Chimney and the Bufferbeam possible problem , it also has a Flat  BR Smokebox Door and the Tail Rods for the cylinders are missing . All would need fairly major surgery to correct.

 

The Bufferbeam should have Class No on the left and Shed allocation on the right normally at the bottom of the Bufferbeam .

 

 

Sadly the loco is not correct for any LNER period, unless Hornby have a photo with all these features missing/different which would be very surprising.

 

 

 

​The BR version would be a better bet for conversion to LNER days as it has at least the  correct Chimney and Smokebox Door fitted !!

Edited June 18, 2016 by micklner

[Butler Henderson]

I hope the lamp iron atop the smokebox is metal.

[Dick Turpin]

I have to admit to being somewhat saddened when I learnt that there wasn't going to be a proper LNER (pre-war) version. It was bad enough when Heljan only did the Tango in post war variants. Makes one want to pack up modelling the grouping era and just switch to transition like everyone else. Just kidding.

 

It is a very nice model though and I do hope they sell loads of them.

[t-b-g]

A pony truck? Why on earth would you want one of them! Boiler, weight, and small wheels =  grips like hell. Job done. 

 

The GCR did it with the development of the Q4 into the O4 and that seemed to do OK (I have used the LNER classes as most people won't know the GCR ones).

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

It's a 'horses for courses' decision for the engineering team. The NER had an enormous freight traffic, principally coal being moved relatively slowly a short distance from pit to point of use or staithes for export. They also had significant gradients to cope with. For this purpose the cheaper option of total adhesion makes sense. The success of the NER 0-8-0 and 0-6-0 designs saw them among the very last pre-group design steam locos withdrawn from service, good evidence that the designs were fit for purpose The NER was an early pioneer of the 4-6-0 as a fast goods loco, for the longer and faster runs of other classes of freight; and had what BR rated a class 6MT unit in service from 1919 to undertake this work. .

 

Contrast to the GCR. with a fair quantity of longer run heavy mineral traffic. The expenditure on a guiding pony truck makes sense for this class of work.

[cheesysmith]

I alway thought the reason that Robinson went for the 2-8-0 was that the design was a development of his earlier 0-8-0, and putting the superheater and longer smoke box on with the increased cylinders required the extra front axle because if the increased axle load at the front. As to adhesion, the 04 had a higher tractive effort even with the extra unpowered axle.

[Bernard Lamb]

Are the coupling and connecting rods actually as bright as they seem in the photos?

If so it is a major backwards step for Hornby.

Needs a touch of gunmetal and gunge I reckon.

General shape does look good to me and captures the rugged simplicity of the design rather nicely.

Rear top lamp iron is a very nice touch.

Bernard

[SDJR7F88]

Are the coupling and connecting rods actually as bright as they seem in the photos?

If so it is a major backwards step for Hornby.

Needs a touch of gunmetal and gunge I reckon.

General shape does look good to me and captures the rugged simplicity of the design rather nicely.

Rear top lamp iron is a very nice touch.

Bernard

Nope, it's just my poor lighting as mentioned. Was so hard to get it to focus on the model, so most of the images are a lot brighter than what they are. The ballast is a big giveaway as to how bright some of the shots were 

I hope the lamp iron atop the smokebox is metal.

I believe it is.

 

 

Full review is just being uploaded and should be on later this evening

Edited June 18, 2016 by SDJR7F88

[runs as required]

Oh Bu££er!

Doorbell just rung "Oh it'll be the electric hedge trimmer at last" cries she.

Returns with "No, its just a box for you..."

I find its a perfect and pristine T2 (early lion) just waiting to be weathered and Blaydonised.

 

But how to explain reckless winter time expenditure at the height of summer?

dh

Edited June 18, 2016 by runs as required

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

But these are all engineering design choices which are made with respect to the work expected, operating conditions,  acceptable axle load for the routes the loco must work over, (Neither of these locos had particularly high axle loads, very typical of UK mineral types which had to work on colliery sidings and other locations where the track was not first class).

 

The Q6 and the O4 would run about 17T per driven axle, the Q4 probably much the same once superheated; the Q6 and O4 both had the same RA5 route availability.

When the NER develop the Q7 which had as high a nominal TE as any UK eight coupled, they retained the 0-8-0 layout accepting an axle load which must have been 19T, and the route availability became RA7 as a consequence. These too were very successful machines, and well out performed Mr 'Because one of mine will pull two of theirs backwards'  expensive 2-8-0s when put to the test of slogging uphill with a large load in foul weather. That was the extra adhesion weight, steam sanding and high nominal tractive effort of the Q7 showing to advantage. The NER was designing for their conditions, as the GWR, GCR and all the others were for theirs.

[Porcy Mane]

I  really do find it hard to understand that sometimes when a manufacturer brings out a new loco model, we find the need to have a bit of a moan that it isn't the exact variant with all its little foibles that Aunt Sallys Granny saw it with, when running through her local station in June 1932.

 

So with Hornby only introducing 2 different models so far and the prototype running to 120 built with a lifespan approaching half a century and more, the chances of getting your preferred exact version is probably akin to buying a quintuple rollover winning lottery ticket.

 

We are probably lucky that we have Dave Bradwell still willing to sell us the individual different firebox doors, chimneys, domes etc that enables customisation to take place with very little effort. Sandwich bufferbeam? No problem. A bit of plasticard will take care of that. Correct buffers? Well catered for by Lanarkshire Model Supplies or Mr Bradwell depending on era.

 

I'm not sure why Hornby has reproduced the join along the top of the boiler clothing as Mr Raven originally signed it off, as this was altered in the 1930's to as 63395 is now.

See below:

NER Q6 0-8-0 63395 by Stephen Rhodes, on Flickr

 

A Hornby Q6 boiler. (yesterday)

 

A little scraping will soon have that sorted. I'll do it as at the same time I'm removing the tool slide "crease" along the boiler sides. Those tooling marks are becoming a bit of a Hornby Trade mark on their newer steam engines.

Good to see that on the tender from 63443 the dome blank is a removable plug hopefully boding well for the introduction of more loco classes with the scoop fitted version of this tender.

 

A Hornby Q6 chassis, yesterday.

 

Good job nobody's mentioned the bread bin (or lack of it) around the fire hole.

 

Now what is it the M in RMweb stands for? Ah yes, I've remembered, "Modelling".

 

Good job Hornby. Roll on the Pecket.

Edited June 18, 2016 by Porcy Mane

[Horsetan]

...

HonrbyQ6-003-editSm.jpg

A Hornby Q6 chassis, yesterday.....

Will you be getting the lathe out to discover how Hornby's wheel centres are mounted into their tyres?

[Porcy Mane]

Will you be getting the lathe out to discover how Hornby's wheel centres are mounted into their tyres?

Nah. I've got a couple of etched chassis on the go. Interesting to note though that the trailing 3 axles on the Hornby chassis has a degree of non sprung up and down play.

[stewartingram]

Oh Bu££er!

Doorbell just rung "Oh it'll be the electric hedge trimmer at last" cries she.

Returns with "No, its just a box for you..."

I find its a perfect and pristine T2 (early lion) just waiting to be weathered and Blaydonised.

 

But how to explain reckless winter time expenditure at the height of summer?

dh

 

You paid for it way back in the winter?

 

Stewart

Edited June 18, 2016 by stewartingram

[micklner]

I  really do find it hard to understand that sometimes when a manufacturer brings out a new loco model, we find the need to have a bit of a moan that it isn't the exact variant with all its little foibles that Aunt Sallys Granny saw it with, when running through her local station in June 1932.

 

So with Hornby only introducing 2 different models so far and the prototype running to 120 built with a lifespan approaching half a century and more, the chances of getting your preferred exact version is probably akin to buying a quintuple rollover winning lottery ticket.

 

We are probably lucky that we have Dave Bradwell still willing to sell us the individual different firebox doors, chimneys, domes etc that enables customisation to take place with very little effort. Sandwich bufferbeam? No problem. A bit of plasticard will take care of that. Correct buffers? Well catered for by Lanarkshire Model Supplies or Mr Bradwell depending on era.

 

I'm not sure why Hornby has reproduced the join along the top of the boiler clothing as Mr Raven originally signed it off, as this was altered in the 1930's to as 63395 is now.

See below:

NER Q6 0-8-0 63395 by Stephen Rhodes, on Flickr

 

HonrbyQ6-004-EditSm.jpg

A Hornby Q6 boiler. (yesterday)

 

A little scraping will soon have that sorted. I'll do it as at the same time I'm removing the tool slide "crease" along the boiler sides. Those tooling marks are becoming a bit of a Hornby Trade mark on their newer steam engines.

Good to see that on the tender from 63443 the dome blank is a removable plug hopefully boding well for the introduction of more loco classes with the scoop fitted version of this tender.

 

HonrbyQ6-003-editSm.jpg

A Hornby Q6 chassis, yesterday.

 

Good job nobody's mentioned the bread bin (or lack of it) around the fire hole.

 

Now what is it the M in RMweb stands for? Ah yes, I've remembered, "Modelling".

 

Good job Hornby. Roll on the Pecket.

 

     Not whinging etc , but there are a lot of problems to try and create anything other than a BR version as it has been produced.

     The so called LNER version has a lot of differences to be sorted by the time they are all rectified it would need a respray, let alone a bit of modelling !!. Simply poor research by Hornby as the photos are readily available for a correct version to have been made.

     One area of concern for me at least will Hornby survive to allow any other versions to actually appear in the future ? fingers crossed on that one  !!

[asmay2002]

These too were very successful machines, and well out performed Mr 'Because one of mine will pull two of theirs backwards'  expensive 2-8-0s when put to the test of slogging uphill with a large load in foul weather. That was the extra adhesion weight, steam sanding and high nominal tractive effort of the Q7 showing to advantage.

The actual facts are that they tested the Q7 on a nice fine day and compared it with the 28XX running in a blizzard and then declared victory for the Q7.  With that kind of engineering expertise it's no wonder the LNER went broke...

[Porcy Mane]

     Not whinging etc , but there are a lot of problems to try and create anything other than a BR version as it has been produced.

     The so called LNER version has a lot of differences to be sorted by the time they are all rectified it would need a respray, let alone a bit of modelling !!. Simply poor research by Hornby as the photos are readily available for a correct version to have been made.

     One area of concern for me at least will Hornby survive to allow any other versions to actually appear in the future ? fingers crossed on that one  !!

Catering for the most popular market and quickest return I guess?

 

Who knows what adaptations may be planned for the future? Maybe it was a case of hurrying it into production just in case someone developed rival product as a means of recovering R&D costs and improving cash flow.

All said with tongue firmly wedged in cheek of course.

 

Good job they decided not to choose 63360 in mid 1960's garb.

 

P

[Dick Turpin]

The actual facts are that they tested the Q7 on a nice fine day and compared it with the 28XX running in a blizzard and then declared victory for the Q7.  With that kind of engineering expertise it's no wonder the LNER went broke...

 

Well both exist in preservation, so maybe someone might want to try a re-match on the bank at the NYMR in nice sunny weather someday and compare the results? I know which one I'd put my money on.

[Porcy Mane]

try a re-match on the bank at the NYMR in nice sunny weather someday and compare the results? I know which one I'd put my money on.

 but with all that additional weight and crew distraction being carried in the Q7 cab, it's bound to be at a major disadvantage.

 

 

P

[Mike Oliver]

I don't remember a big infotainment screen in the cab when I used to drive the Q7.