New Hornby Product - W1 60700 - OK so it's not really

[S.A.C Martin]

What's this?! A first look at a new Hornby product?!

 

 

 

A brand new, DCC fitted, Gresley W1 4-6-4. Simply stunning.

 

Okay, hands in the air - it's not technically a new product, direct from Hornby.

 

What it is, is a commission build by Graeme King for me, to produce a W1 by extending the Hornby Railroad Mallard as a base.

 

The great advantage of using 60022 was its DCC fitted chassis - which, straight out of the box, runs perfectly.

 

Taking this model out of the box and placing it on the Copley Hill set for the first time was a great moment - it looks and feels like a proper ready to run model, testament to Graeme's workmanship.

 

 

It also goes some way to show how bizarre Hornby's Railroad Mallard is, in some ways!

 

The bodyshell, as shown above with the comparison to my own super detail Sir Ralph Wedgwood is actually the same item, minus the fittings such as glazing, lamp irons and a coupling. Apart from that, the two items are one and the same. Looking at the chassis - the DCC chassis, in the same vein as the Railroad Flying Scotsman, is also the same. The only difference is the fitting of the clunky, old style valve gear (which in fairness is very rugged for continuous use).

 

 

At the cab end, Graeme's careful cutting of the Hornby bodyshell and fitting of the South East Finecast W1 cab, and cab roof, looks phenomenal. You simply could not tell that the bodyshell had been cut in any way, shape or form. I'm very lucky in that Graeme decided as an exercise - in other words, to see if he could - make for me a non-corridor tender from the over-width Railroad tender (whose origin was from the old tender drive A4 models).

 

The result is a stunningly slimmed down body which is scale width and correct for the period depicted by this W1 model.

 

The chassis modifications involved the fitting of the South East Finecast cartazzi and pony truck sides - and a two axle truck between the frames. The irony that this model is actually a 4-6-4, when railway historians argue over whether the W1 was a 4-6-4 or 4-6-2-2, is not lost on me!

 

Comparing the W1 to the A4 betrays something else:

 

 

The sheer length of the W1 is startling. It has to be said - I'm suddenly finding that the A4 doesn't look long enough compared to the W1! There is a certain majesty in the 4-6-4 that I wasn't quite expecting, but the Gresley racehorse line certainly breaks through in this model.

 

One final picture - and a round of thanks and kudos to Graeme for a job well done.

[Guest Max Stafford]

Fantastic job Simon. All I can think to add would be spectacle plates and forward cabside glazing.

Wonderful.

 

Dave.

[S.A.C Martin]

Fantastic job Simon. All I can think to add would be spectacle plates and forward cabside glazing.

Wonderful.

 

Dave.

 

Don't thank me Dave - thank Graeme King. He's done an exceptional job with this commission, and it's becoming something of a "signature build" for him - mine was the third W1, and the first DCC fitted one to roll out off his workbench, arriving at Copley Hill this morning. If any of you read BRM, he showed readers how to make their own in a previous issue, not too long ago.

 

The grin on my face has not left yet!

[robmcg]

Superb model! Lovely reminder of an 'orphan' locomotive. I wonder what crews thought of her?

 

Rob

[RedgateModels]

now what about an original form one?

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

... I wonder what crews thought of her?

Reputedly popular with the drivers on the London-Leeds run she spent most of her career on, with a reputation for being strong on the banks. As a motive power unit, in all essentials this loco had much in common with the later Peppercorn A1, but with conjugated valve gear. The increase in grate area to 50 sq ft from the 41.25 of the Gresley pacifics and V2s meant that the sustained power output could be higher. The downside, as observed by several railway officers and commentators at the time, was that typical ECML loads and schedules did not continuously require the minimum output from such a large grate, and coal was being fired simply to keep the firebars covered on the easier stretches of the line as a result. The firemen knew that the bigger grate often cost them more work, and the length of the cab requiring a step between the shovelling plate and firehole did not endear the layout of the W1 to them.

 

I have seen it suggested that this loco would have been the test bed for a US design automatic stoker had war not intervened. Both Gresley and Stanier had been looking at fitting this technology, realising that the obstacle to any further increase in continuous power output was the hard worked fellow with the shovel. M Chapelon had famously managed to find a chauffeur with the ability to feed one of his fireboxes at a (sustained!) 8,000lbs an hour rate, but that could hardly be expected of the average man, indeed BR fixed the workrate at 3,000lb/hr. When maximum boiler power output tests were made on the LMS and (BR)LMR it was necessary to employ two firemen, simply to move enough coal onto the grate to enable the full potential of the boiler design to be evaluated (and even with two firemen the Duchess boiler could not be got to its' limit).

[Horsetan]

....I have seen it suggested that this loco would have been the test bed for a US design automatic stoker ......

 

Surely not Berkeley?

[micklner]

now what about an original form one?

 

look here

 

http://www.lner.info/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2443

 

The original 10000 is the BRM build article from last month issue

 

Mick

[rockershovel]

I think, something eight-coupled and American.