Hornby lowmac

[Trigger123]

Hi please can anyone tell me if the Hornby x airfix lowmac would of ran in LMS days or LNER and what would the livery look like and colour

[Caledonian]

Hi please can anyone tell me if the Hornby x airfix lowmac would of ran in LMS days or LNER and what would the livery look like and colour

 

Yes indeed, and almost certainly grey

[MartinTrucks]

Hi please can anyone tell me if the Hornby x airfix lowmac would of ran in LMS days or LNER and what would the livery look like and colour

 

It is a LNER design but 30 were also built for the LMS in 1944.

LMS numbers were 700700-700729 and livery LMS bauxite.

LNER vehicles wore LNER red oxide/bauxite livery.

Some vehicles to this design were also built for, or by the GWR, were coded Loriot P and wore their dark grey livery.

Hope this gives you a start.

[sandwich station]

What year would the LNER ones date from?

[jonhall]

What year would the LNER ones date from?

 

Similar to the LMS - effectively a wartime standard, we have discussed these here http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/75914-Hornby-lowmac-from-the-odds-and-ends-box/?hl=%2Bferry+%2Blowmac&do=findComment&comment=1159179

 

Jon

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

It is a LNER design but 30 were also built for the LMS in 1944...

 Nicely tracked in the Tatlow LNER wagons series: the basis of the design was a GCR lowmac, Mac N in LNER service rated at 20T and unfitted thus in freight grey. (The truly particular could add the internal journals on the axles and fit spoked wheelsets if they can be found or made.)

 

The LNER uprated the design to 22T in 1938 by slightly deepening the side members and these were all vac brake fitted, by mid war rated as 25T, and would go on being built in substantially the same form by BR into the 1950s.

 

Excellent subject choice for a model by Airfix GMR all those years ago

[John M Upton]

By coincidence I found one of these Airfix Lowmacs in a box yesterday. Dusty, axles rusty and minus it' couplings but more than good enough to receive a little TLC and pit it back into service.

 

I found some wheels intended for a kit that are the right size so it's going well so far....

[The Johnster]

I remember my Airfix one; do you mean the RTR or the construction kit, which came with a pretty good JCB to load onto it.  The only real issue with both these wagons was lack of weight and consequent prone-ness (pronity, proneraltiy?) to derailments if there were a few wagons behind them in a curve, or in front if we are talking about propelling.  The obvious solution is a chunky metal load, but this is no help if you want to run your lowmac unloaded.  Replacing the wheelsets with steel ones will do no harm, but any other weight you can wangle in out of sight under the wagon will be a bonus.  

 

The construction kit version was a pretty good model IIRC, and if it is still in the range, now marketed by Dapol as Kitmaster, stands up well enough to modern RTR offerings; cheap as chips, too!

 

Just read your original post fully; you mean the ex Airfix GMR to Hornby via Dapol RTR.  Same comments about ballast apply, but a revamped lowmac will make a useful addition to your stock.

Edited December 29, 2017 by The Johnster

[PhilJ W]

I remember my Airfix one; do you mean the RTR or the construction kit, which came with a pretty good JCB to load onto it.  The only real issue with both these wagons was lack of weight and consequent prone-ness (pronity, proneraltiy?) to derailments if there were a few wagons behind them in a curve, or in front if we are talking about propelling.  The obvious solution is a chunky metal load, but this is no help if you want to run your lowmac unloaded.  Replacing the wheelsets with steel ones will do no harm, but any other weight you can wangle in out of sight under the wagon will be a bonus.  

 

The construction kit version was a pretty good model IIRC, and if it is still in the range, now marketed by Dapol as Kitmaster, stands up well enough to modern RTR offerings; cheap as chips, too!

 

Just read your original post fully; you mean the ex Airfix GMR to Hornby via Dapol RTR.  Same comments about ballast apply, but a revamped lowmac will make a useful addition to your stock.

The ones that I have or had as the case may be all had a weight riveted to the underside. I also have made up a few of the Airfix/Dapol kits to which I araldited sheet lead between the frames on the underside. I have had no problems with lack of weight of the Airfix/GMR ones though I glued the couplings into the straight ahead position which probably helped. The layout I used them on was an end to end without any serious curves so it didn't cause any problems.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

In addition to weighting the kit for which there is ample space underneath concealed by the deep frames, both RTR and kit versions run much better with metal wheels  (an effect that is noticeable on all longer wheelbase vehicles on small radius curves).

 

The ex-Airfix now Dapol kit, conforms to the GER origin 14T lowmac, 25'6" over headstocks, classified Mac K by the LNER.

[John M Upton]

The recently rediscovered Airfix RTR Lowmac EU wagon I mentioned earlier. 

 

Underside view shows the fairly substantial weight riveted to the underside, painted by Airfix the same colour.  Also visible are the replacement metal wheels I have just fitted and the couplings are scrounged from the bits and bobs box and duly fitted.

 

It looks like this one originally was supplied with a load attached as there is damage to the deck which I shall sort shortly.

 

 

[Butler Henderson]

The recently rediscovered Airfix RTR Lowmac EU wagon I mentioned earlier. 

It looks like this one originally was supplied with a load attached as there is damage to the deck which I shall sort shortly.

Would have been a big crate http://www.airfixrailways.co.uk/WagonsA.htm

[PhilJ W]

I prefer them with the original Airfix couplings, even better than the current Bachmann ones IMHO.

[The Johnster]

Yes; I still have my big crate though the lowmac went the way of all flesh long ago, lost in one of the moves of my 'unsettled' period.  It was, I thought, an unsuitable load for a lowmac, being perfectly within the loading gauge on a lowfit or dropside medfit.  Mine has become static, left in a corner of the goods depot half covered with a tarp.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Judging by the available photos, the LNER's larger load capability lowmacs sometimes found employment transporting steel ingots, which in no way challenged the loading gauge. I imagine it was the 20T+ load capacity with four steel members supporting the floor to take the concentrated load that was one reason why they were considered suitable; and the resulting low CoG and automatic brake may well have been factors too.

[The Johnster]

Fair enough, and there could have been anything, weighing anything, in that crate!  But the purpose of these and the GW Loriots, effectively the same thing, was to carry heavy loads that would have otherwise been out of guage, 4 wheeled versions of bogie wells or crocodiles, or trestrols at the extreme end of it.  Large machines, transformers, machine tools, pumps, hoist pulleys, JCBs, ship or aircraft propellers, that sort of thing; of course, these may or may not have been crated!  Something like a machine tool, heavy precision equipment of high value, would certainly have needed protection from the weather, as would other such items of delicately engineered stuff.

[Darius43]

 The only real issue with both these wagons was lack of weight and consequent prone-ness (pronity, proneraltiy?) to derailments.

”Propensity”

 

Cheers

 

Darius

 

PS Happy New Year

[sandwich station]

I have both the Airfix and Hornby RTR versions and the weight on the bottom of the Hornby version is smaller.

[Fat Controller]

Fair enough, and there could have been anything, weighing anything, in that crate!  But the purpose of these and the GW Loriots, effectively the same thing, was to carry heavy loads that would have otherwise been out of guage, 4 wheeled versions of bogie wells or crocodiles, or trestrols at the extreme end of it.  Large machines, transformers, machine tools, pumps, hoist pulleys, JCBs, ship or aircraft propellers, that sort of thing; of course, these may or may not have been crated!  Something like a machine tool, heavy precision equipment of high value, would certainly have needed protection from the weather, as would other such items of delicately engineered stuff.

The Royal Navy were great fans of the use of large crates, though usually conveying them in Highfits, Pipes or Tubes.

[Darius43]

Here’s a Hornby (ex Airfix) Lowmac with an oversize load. Still need to add tie down chains etc.

 

 

 

Cheers

 

Darius

Edited January 1, 2018 by Darius43

[tamperman36]

i have a couple of these wagons which are usually included within engineers trains, however just before Christmas I had a sudden moment of inspiration and decided to add a load to one. the load consists of a Matchbox Caterpillar D8 dozer, with a little extra detail and better tracks fitted and then chained onto the wagon.

Edited January 1, 2018 by tamperman36

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Here’s a Hornby (ex Airfix) Lowmac with an oversize load. Still need to add tie down chains etc...

 

 Among the 'etc.' is the need to saw through the ploughing engine's chimbley to bring it within gauge height. The joint near the base shows you where it would have detached or hinged in reality, for just this purpose.

[RANGERS]

These were used for delivering Pemberton caravans from their factory at Wigan. There's a couple of published photos of loaded wagons, one in Alf Ludlam's volume on the Skegness line and another on the WCML in one of Eric Tracy's books. Both showed a number of wagons in the train and would have dated from late 50s or very early 60s judging by the caravans being carried.

Edited January 1, 2018 by RANGERS

[Andy Hayter]

 

The ex-Airfix now Dapol kit, conforms to the GER origin 14T lowmac, 25'6" over headstocks, classified Mac K by the LNER.

 

Except that the axle boxes are BR 1950s and far too chunky for a pre-grouping wagon.  They are however not that noticeable in a moving train and some crude surgery will produce something more lie the GE originals.

[Darius43]

Among the 'etc.' is the need to saw through the ploughing engine's chimbley to bring it within gauge height. The joint near the base shows you where it would have detached or hinged in reality, for just this purpose.

Sawing through a chimbley - sounds eye watering.

 

Cheers

 

Darius