Keith Turbutt

I know the discussion has moved on to the A2/3s but I would like to share some good news. Having mentioned here that my A2/2 CoN was missing its fall plate, I contacted Hornby customer services to see if they could supply the missing part. I was not at all hopeful, but I got a prompt reply to say that they were awaiting spare parts and would be able to send me one in a few days. The missing part arrived today. Well done Hornby!

Thanks Tony for the very clear and full description re the boiler differences/changes. Great photos bye the way.

There is a photo on the Rail-Online photographic website of 60512, front end only, at Perth dated 19/6/1965 - the date it was withdrawn. It appears to still have its valve gear intact. A photo at Perth on flickr dated 13th July shows the valve gear and coupling rods removed. I cannot post these photos as they are subject to copywrite but are easy enough to find on flickr with a simple search using the loco number. Rail-Online is organised by loco classes, so choose Steam Locos/LNER/Class A2. Photos are arranged in loco number order within each class.

The model of Steady Aim, with early emblem, also has a round dome steam collector further forward. It finished up with a streamlined collector further back on the boiler as modeled on Sun Castle with the later totem. I am sure TW could give us chapter and verse on this.

Further to my last post,there are several photos of 60512 on Flickr at Perth. The photo in Robert Gadsdon's album has the comment "60512 had been withdrawn from Dundee Tay Bridge shed in June, but was moved to Perth for two months, before being towed to the scrapyards. There is an unconfirmed report that this loco may have been selected for an - unsuccessful - preservation attempt, but it was later scrapped, and none of the class were preserved." Also one at Rickarton Jcn in Ernies Railway Archive. I think there had been an enquiry about Steady Aim working the Waverley Route so this may answer that.

According to Yeadon 60512's final shed was Dundee, from 14/6/65, and was withdrawn on 19/6/65. I saw it at Perth on 30/8/65. Is it possible it never got to Dundee? I attach my photo showing it at Perth with valve gear and coupling rods removed -presumably ready for disposal. According to Yeadon it had already been sold in July to Motherwell Machinery and Scrap Co but clearly hadn't been moved yet. Hopefully I will be receiving the model very soon.

........ and here it comes!

Bill, I've found another cab view of an O4/8 this time on Flickr 60s steam LF 08-66 63781 at W. George and Son, Wath Central. You can find the photo by searching 'O4/8 63781' This view is slightly higher than the previous one I sent a while ago. In this photo you can just see the top of the reverser handle above the driver's seat. It appears to be the standard bar with handle at either end. The bar appears to be in the vertical position. I would suggest that this is the original reverser equipment and this photo gives a good indication of the alignment of the reverser. Could the angle of the reverser be determined by the angle of the external reversing rod? As the cab of the O4/8 is wider than the other rebuilds there is plenty of room to rotate the reverser. Would it be reasonable to assume that the reverse will therefore be the same as on the O4/5 and O4/7 bodies that you already produce. I really think that if you are looking for anything more definitive you will be waiting forever. For my part the internal cab detail is of lesser importance than the external appearance of the whole body especially as the O4/8 has an 'enclosed' cab. I hope you find this helpful. Keith

Hi Al, Just to clarify, I was referring to the missing fall plate which is between the cab and tender and attached to the cab. It is a safety feature which stops the crew falling down between the loco and tender. I think your reference was to the bash plate below the front buffer beam to protect the AWS equipment being 'bashed' by the swinging coupling which I understand was not applicable to 60501 as AWS had not been fitted to this loco at the time depicted by the livery. I attach an example of a fall plate fitted to a Duchess pacific which I hope makes the above explanation clearer. Appologies for any breach of copywrite . I believe all tender locos had fall plates other than most of the standards which had extended, enclosed cabs. These standard locos were found to be draughty by their crews - through lack of a fall plate - and later production had modified conventional cabs - but that's another story and going of topic -sorry!

Further to my post on 4th February when I reported top lamp brackets not fitted and loose in the box on both locos. I have just noticed that 60501 is missing the fall plate as well as the grab rail above the RHS front steps although there is evidence of glue around the empty holes. 60505 was OK in both these respects. I haven't noticed anyone else mentioning a missing fall plate. These are still not items that would lead me to seek a replacement as my models do not suffer from some of the other problems that have been mentioned. I should be able to source a fall plate if Hornby are unable to supply one and I can deal with the other issues. I still believe these are basically good models. I've yet to test run these locos but am optimistic of good running as nobody has reported any problems here. Tony Wright has mentioned that Hornby are aware of QC problems. However I fear it will be too late to rectify any similar problems on the A2/3s as reports suggest these may arrive at the end of this month in which case they will have been shipped several weeks ago. In my minds eye I have an image of a factory sweatshop assembling these models where the staff are under great pressure to meet targets. I hope I am wrong.

Andy, I'm not sure how the wheelbase of the F1 compares with the F2 but you may wish to take a look at the position of the spring over the leading axle before it goes into the paint shop. The spring should be central over the axle but appears to be quite a way off . The casting looks a bit low down and generally looks anemic. If you have a better set in the spares box or can find a better one among the small suppliers such as Alan Gibson it may be worth changing. I attach an extract from a photo in LNER Encyclopedia which I found by searching LNER F1 in my browser (and hopefully not breaching copyright). I think you will agree that it is quite a prominent feature. Good luck with the project.

I received from Kernow 60501 and 60505 this afternoon - it is my birthday this month ! Forewarned by earlier posts I first checked for top lamp brackets and indeed on both locos this was missing. Checking for anything loose in each box I found what appeared to be the missing items although they look a bit small, one especially, to my eye. This seems to be a common problem. I also checked the water scoops on both tenders and indeed they are both facing backwards. The tenders on each loco are slightly different , one having higher front and back plates. I must check Yeadon for the tender history. Cab droop had also been previously mentioned and wavey running plate but on first inspection this did not appear to be a problem. Maybe just a hint of a wavey running plate on one side but nothing that would trouble me. I'll take another look in better light tomorrow. I look forward to giving them a run tomorrow but I must first tidy the wiring between loco and tender on 60505 before doing so as one of the wires droops down to rail level. So in general I am pleased with the models - better than I could build myself - although I do have an A2/2 kit with V fronted cab in the 'roundtoit' pile!

Hi Tony, I've been following the discussion on the 'Muckey Duck' ( as I knew them) and the relationship between the cab roof and the tender cab. The discussion so far appears to concentrate on the tender. However, I have been drawn to how the loco body on the model 'sits' in/on the frames. There appears to be a gap between the bottom of the firebox and the frame below it. I think the firebox should sit 'snugly' on the top of the frames. Also the AWS battery box seems to be a bit low in relation to the cab side sheet also resulting in a gap. I wonder therefore if there is something stopping the back end of the body sitting a bit lower. I know you have already said that you cannot lower the body any further. Anyway for what it's worth that's my two pennyworth. I attach a photo taken by me at Preston, August bank holiday 1967 which I hope demonstrates my thoughts. Two friends and I spent the weekend in the North West based in Preston, but we also had trips to Carlisle, Windermere and Manchester. The highlight for me was a black5 cab ride from Manchester to Bolton on the Belfast Boat Express. It was a memorable weekend. I would also like to mention how much I enjoy reading Wright Writes and and would like to thank you and all your regular contributors for keeping this so interesting with so many useful tips. I hope that I will have the opportunity ,once again, to visit LB once this epidemic has been dealt with With Seasons greetings and best wishes for the New Year Keith

Re sorting out the 'curve of the roof profile', I don't think anyone has yet mentioned the Kirk roofs that were supplied with the Gresley 'shorties' - the 52'6" coaches built for the GE lines. These roofs have a different, and I believe improved profile, better shaped domed ends and are shallower by about 1.2mm. With two of the shortie roofs it would be possible to 'cut and shut' a roof to fit the 61'6" coach. There would be enough roof left over of the 'sacrificed' roof to make more 'cut and shut' roofs. These roofs are currently listed on Wizard Models as 'C10A: LNER Gresley 52’6″ Gangwayed Carriage Roof' with the comment:-This is the ex-Ian Kirk/Colin Ashby product, and further supplies are unlikely. There are 121 left in stock at present. For me this is an easier option to filing/sanding the original roof. The attached photo compares the two roofs.

Bill, Rail-Online has a photo of 63738, an 04/8. The view is looking into the cab from the tender. There is a good view of the backhead and confirms that bucket seats were fitted. Unfortunately the driver's seat is occupied so it is not possible to see the reverser. As the O4/8 shared cab and boiler with the 01, I would think it reasonable to assume the cab fittings and backhead were the same. Keith

Hi Bucoops I visited Mangapps on Saturday which was their last open day of the season. It was extremely windy but there was a lot to see and most of the stock is now under cover. I took a few photos of the coach buffers you referred to. I'm not sure if they are too late for your project but here they are anyway A detail that I hadn't noticed before was the wooden blocks for stowing the collars when not in use. Each wooden block has a hook at the top and the collar has a hole to pass over the hook. I'm not sure if the later Gresley coaches had the same feature.

Hi Richard, Good to see you are finding the time to do some modelling now you're back at work. I look forward to when we can give these coaches a run on the track in the garage. Monday afternoon's meeting was well attended but your presence was missed as you seem to be the only one doing anything. I hope we can carry on with our afternoon meetings in the garden for a few more weeks, weather permitting. The latest virus news is not encouraging so retreating back into the garage may be a problem if the situation continues to deteriorate. Bye the way, I cured the noise from the latest addition to my RTR 'collection' - the Hornby Princess - Queen(?) Maude. After removing the body and giving it a run the noise disappeared(?!) so the conclusion was a problem with the body. On inspection there were some pips inside the body below where the dome and top feeds were located - presumably the fixings for these items. There was also a feint mark around the fly wheel below one of these fittings. Using a riffler file (on Jim's suggestion) I filed back these pips until the inside of the body was smooth. After refitting the body and giving it a run all was well! I look forward to seeing further progress with your project. Cheers Keith

Richard Bring them along tomorrow and we'll take a look. I presume your reference to height is in connection with the clamps. I don't think they will bruise the metal as they will only be pressing down on the former which is presumably the correct shape already. Height shouldn't be a problem for rolling the side edges and you shouldn't need the clamps for rolling the main part of the roof. Cutting to length might be done before rolling? Keith

Richard, If you have some small G clamps, clamp the brass onto the wood at each end. Then on a dense rubber mat or similar roll each side on the matt in the same way as you might make any bend in brass. I don't think double sided tape would work and sounds a bit messy and may distort the brass when you try to remove it. This should sort out the sides . Then remove the clamps and use a round bit of pipe/broom handle of suitable diameter to gently shape the top of the roof on the mat. Cheers Keith PS I have some small clamps but Jim may have some better ones.

Yes, I think we are getting confused because the information gathered is from different dates. I agree the drawing appears to be later ie not 'as built' and the corridor connection may well have been added later. The heading on the drawing 'built by Cravens 1899' may have merely been a way of describing the coach - not necessarily showing it 'as built'. Does the handwritten crossing say 'condemned vans 1935' ? You say above 'Also that end of the first train leaving marylebone is not the right type of carriage. It is close but the three not two compartment version'. As you are building this dining set, does that mean you don't have the correct brake end for this dining set? I think you have now worked out all the possible options and you now have to go with your gut feeling based on the period you want to model these coaches. Finally, Jim said 'Hopefully the weather will let us get together next week.' I know you said you will be on holiday anyway, but the 10 day forecast for HP shows rain 'all day' Monday! Not sure if these comments are of any help but it's certainly fun. Cheers Keith

Hi Richard, That second photo is a great find, where did you get it. It seems to be some sort of event judging by all those top hats and everyone gathered round, It looks like Marylebone? Is that the 3 coach clerestory dining set you are building? Coming back to the brake ends, there is certainly no corridor connection at the flat brake end. By zooming in you can just make out the footsteps coming up from both sides forming a triangular arrangement with one step at the top in the centre - no room for a corridor connection. Could this mean all brake ends were without corridor connections? As we said before 'bow ends' helped to keep the corridor connections closer together, so why would they put a flat end on a brake if it had a corridor connection? Did brake ends with large duckets have flat ends and no corridor while brakes with small duckets (more modern?) have bow ends with corridor connections. It gets curiouser and curiouser! I expect Jim is following this and it would be interesting to have his views. Cheers Keith

Richard, Further to our discussions about windows in the ends of the brakes, in a conversation with Jim this morning he said that the Midland often had curving handrails for access to the roof over rear windows in the brakes , so it is quite possible that this was the case in the photos you showed me yesterday. Looking at the drawings in Historic Carriage Drawings, LMS and Constituents by David Jenkinson there are several examples of this. Yesterday I was concerned about the placing of the footsteps with these handrails where there was a window but the drawings clearly show that there is room for footsteps when there is a rear window. In conclusion, if I were you, I would put windows in the ends of the brakes where there is a suggestion of this in the photo as this seems to have been GC policy. Cheers Keith

Yes Clive, As Richard has already said, we are holding our meetings in the garden in the open but running trains which can be viewed with the double doors open at the back of the garage. This works ok while the weather permits. We're looking forward to seeing what Richard is going to bring next week. Hope you can join us sometime. You will recognize the faces in the picture below which was taken the previous week before the schools broke up so Richard wasn't there. Cheers Keith