Tony Wright

Heartiest congratulations on 200 Not Out. Sorry to be a pedant, though, but none of my records ever has 60014 as being shedded at St Rollox (65B). That is unless my eyes are playing tricks with identifying the shedplate.

It seems that one only has to post a picture of a Thompson Pacific or mention them and partisanship 'breaks out'. Gilbert's (and micklner's) points are well made, and I've written reams about them. However, perhaps a few observations might be relevant. As is probably known, in the last 12 months I've had privileged access to the first-hand (unpublished) notes of some of those responsible for the running of the P2s up to their rebuilding. There is no doubt there was a near mutiny in Scotland and, as has been said many times, how ET obtained permission to rebuild them in the darkest war days still has a hint of mystery about it. Though the rebuilding cured some of the problems, equally debilitating (if not more so) features were introduced and the locos could no longer do what they could as P2s. According to the late and 'in the know' Malcolm Crawley, not a penny of the expenses incurred in the rebuilding was ever recovered, and the six locos weren't as useful (or reliable) as rebuilds. One hears of ET 'making the most of a bad job' - not according to the guys who actually ran the P2s (and Toram Beg was only in the junior links at Haymarket at the time). The A2/1s are a curiosity. The irony is they weren't as good and reliable as Kylchap double-chimney V2s, so that rather begs the question why, at the time, didn't ET just fit the last four with this device? That said, the same question could also be asked of Gresley, and the BRB in the early/mid-'50s. The A2/3s were the best, of course, but were let down by features such as the poor front end (no need to inherit the cylinder arrangement from the A2/2 for new construction), the further-forward dome and the old-fashioned cab front. If they had been 'right', a further 15 would have been built under Peppercorn's signature. The A1/1 is probably the most contentious, and Gilbert's observations are dead right. I've recently assisted Peter Coster (in the most modest of ways) by proof reading his latest A3 book and checking on the picture captions. Our e-mail correspondence on 60113 was most enlightening. One cannot question ET's motives in seeking to produce an 'improved' post-Gresley pacific. However, apart from the divided drive/separate valve gear (the latter, one could argue was better than the conjugated sort), the best bits in in were Gresley features - the A4 boiler/firebox/combustion chamber and the Kylchap exhaust. Where it failed was in the frame/cylinder arrangements, dictated by Thompson's insistence on equal-length connecting rods. Compared with a double chimney A3 (with an A4 boiler?) it was no better in terms of performance and far less reliable. None of the Thompson Pacifics rode as well as the Gresley pair (neither did the A1s/A2s as well, until ALCAZAR got an A4 bogie - then it rode like an A4). This was probably due to the use of the inadequate B1 bogie (why did Thompson need to change a bogie/bearing/springing arrangement which rode so perfectly?). My observations of ET's Pacifics were that they were almost always used on secondary services - I never saw HONEYWAY. The 'almost' refers to 60500 fairly blasting northwards through Retford after a signal check at Grove Road, on the down 'Heart of Midlothian'. 60504 turned up on a humdrum stopper later on, its front end obliterated by its own steam. A few days later, on Bawtry Station, I watched 60506 really struggling in an even larger wreath of steam to recover from the viaduct slack, as 60032 just regally breezed by on the up 'Elizabethan. During my only visit to York in full steam days (summer, 1957), most of the Thompson Pacifics allocated there were on shed and 60515 was south-side pilot. But, it was all such a long time ago, and, as Gilbert has alluded to, the fact that, in England, they were always shedded at places with little top-link work rather does indicate what the operating authorities thought of them. Still, I can relive those memories through the models I've made, and, as models, the Thompson Pacifics run just as well as any others.

I agree entirely, Larry, if you want a carriage to the standards to which you can aspire, especially with your outstanding painting. But, for 'layout' carriages (by that I mean vehicles in rakes of up to 13, and lots of those), I think these Hornbys have a place, as I hope my pictures show. I also agree about the lozenge window effect (which no manufacturer of plastic-sided carriages has ever solved) but, ironically, it does give an effect, from certain angles, of the wooden surrounds to the inside of the windows. I've only ever seen interior wooden window rebates/reveals modelled once, in 4mm, by Rodney and Vera Cooper. It was at a Scaleforum some years ago, and their carriage justifiably won first prize. Whether they put the moisture-capturing grooves in the bases or not, I wouldn't know, but I'd not be surprised if they did! So, whilst agreeing in principle with everything you say, I still think these budget cars have a place with just a bit of work. As I imply, on a layout, the compromises are less apparent, and, I can't tell, in the 'going-away' shot of the three Hornby carriages whether they have moulded-on handrails or not, even though I know they do. But, in the close-up comparison of the two brake ends, I agree, you can. By the way, I've got a couple of friends coming over to operate tomorrow. One has seen these cars, one has not. My intention is to put the four into different trains and run them round. These trains are a mixture of Comet, Bachmann, Southern Pride and Comet/PC overlays making up the Mk.1s, plus Comet, Trice, Southern Pride, BSL, etc for the Gresley/Thompson stock. I'll not say anything, but ask them if they noticed afterwards. Many thanks for your interest and comments.

Neil, I didn't take any 'offence' at all, and my reply was ambiguous to say the least. As for criticism of models, I've been doing that for years. Anyway, constructive criticism is how standards improve, so I actively seek it. What I meant to say (but didn't) was that whenever I take a picture of any model I've made, I'm usually horrified by what my camera reveals. For instance, 60504's roof does lean forwards from back to front (possibly prototypically) but it's most noticeable via a picture. But, thanks for the kind comments, and, maybe, she does look purposeful. Like Gilbert, I remember these locos in everyday service, and they did look powerful, but slightly 'odd' in my opinion. In my naivety, I recall being given a railway book one Christmas which had a cut-away picture of Cock O' The North in it, only it was as a P2. I couldn't understand, and obviously didn't know, about the rebuilding (I'd be about ten, so Christmas, 1956). So, I puzzled at length why the Cock O' The North I'd seen a month or two before looked so different. Just as any, not particularly bright, decade-old schoolboy might have done, and did. Anyway, enough of my mumblings, and back to Peterborough North.

Leaning forward? Thanks for the kind comments, but it's probably more to do with my 'wobbly' building. She was dropped once (not from a great height, thankfully), which resulted in the cab roof being squashed a bit. Looking at this picture, have I 'squashed' it back too far? It doesn't look entirely horizontal now. Still, look at 60044's cab in later years - it's all over the place! But, you better get back to Peterborough North.

I don't think it's just you Barry. The appears to be more of the tops of the wheels present above the bogies on the Bachmann carriages (can you have a top of a circle?), which suggests the Bachmann ones ride a bit higher. Looking at prototype pictures suggests Hornby's are nearer the right visual arrangement. But, looking at those same prototype pictures, depending on how old/worn the springs on the bogies are, carriage ride height seemed to differ anyway. Speaking of the bogies, Hornby's are more realistic, in my opinion, because the surface detail is deeper and crisper.

Firstly, Congratulations Gilbert on 'nearing' your 200th page. A tribute to the inspiration Peterborough North has given to so many. Though not related to Peterborough North exactly, I note some pictures and further comments about Thompson's A2/2s. I'll say no more about them, other than to mention a detail I've never ever seen commented on before. That is the position of the nameplates on the smokebox. As originally rebuilt, the shorter named locos had their plates further back - over the steampipes. Later on (I think from 1956 at the latest), those with shorter names (60502/3/4/5), whichever boiler was fitted, had them moved forward - in front of the steampipes. The Isinglass drawing has Mons Meg's name in the further back position (as originally rebuilt), but, for later days (post-'56) it should be forward. I mention this, not as a criticism, but just out of general interest. Yeadon and the RCTS make no comment on it (unless I've missed something). I've included a picture of my Mons Meg to show what I mean. I've been trying to work out how many A2/2s I've built down the years. You have one of my five or six Wolves of Badenoch, this Mons Meg is at least the fourth, there at least three Thanes of Fife and one Cock O' The North. Strangely, I've never built any Earls Marischal or Lords President (I think that's the right plural).

Having now thoroughly tested Hornby's latest RailRoad Mk.1s, in trains made up of other stock and by themselves, I've come to a few conclusions. These are - With replacement metal wheels they run just as smoothly as they did on the plastic originals but they're less likely to pick up dirt on the tyres. With just a few minutes spent on adding more transfer data, they're improved considerably (though I didn't go as far as adding the solebar data). In comparison with Bachmann Mk.1s, the moulded-on handrails and pipes aren't as good. However, you don't have the onerous task of removing the roof ribs. Painting the roofs matt grey adds to the realism. The overall finish is fully up to Bachmann's standard, and the lining is even finer. Even with the extra cost of the wheels, they're still considerably cheaper than Bachmann's. As 'layout' coaches they're 'perfect' when viewed from a reasonable distance, and, because they're lighter than Bachmann's they're easier to tow. In rakes mixed with other Mk.1s, at a 'normal' viewing distance, when running by, it's almost impossible to tell which is which. I've included some shots of them running on Little Bytham. The side-on shots show the cars sandwiched between two Bachmann cars (with their roof ribs removed). One shows my repaint of the WR SK into carmine and cream. I admit to leaving the cornice chocolate band untouched, and, if you look really closely, my painting up to the central lining band is a bit untidy in places (though this is really only apparent via the camera). In comparison, the Bachmann carmine looks much darker. Any comments, please? The comparative guard's ends of the BSKs are illustrated - Bachmann's on the left. Both have been modified/detailed. Here, the differences are more apparent - separate pipes/rails, chalk panels adjacent to the doors and crisper lettering than the transfers. However, when bowling by..............Note also the lower position of the left-hand lamp bracket on the Mike Trice gangway end - much more common than Bachmann's. So, overall? Obviously not up to the detail standard of Bachmann, with a little bit of work, ideal as layout carriages. And, I say again, you don't have to take off the roof ribs! As already mentioned, how I did all the little mods will be reported on in the February, 2014 issue of BRM.

On a totally different subject to my most recent post, I've noticed on Hornby's P2 thread the mention of a sprung drawbar or such-like. I've been springing the drawbars on my kit-built locos for years. I've written about it on several occasions, but I'll mention it here if I may.It's not my invention - that was the brainchildren of the late Brian van Meeteren and his friend Alistair (?). I just plagiarised it. It consists of no more than a length of 26 SWG (.45 mm) nickel silver wire of about an inch long, soldered at its back end to the tender soleplate (black arrow). As this protrudes through a slot in the tender dragbeam, it's bent downwards through 90 degrees (red arrow). It then engages with the eye of a split pin, protruding through a hole in the loco dragbeam. Behind the dragbeam, the split pin is held in tension by a coil spring (green arrow). Both the pin and coil spring (cut down to three quarter length) come from Jackson/Romford couplings. With up to 13 carriages, the spring still remains in tension, until a bend is encountered, then the drawbar extends. The 'whip' in the nickel silver allows for bends and, back on the straight, the loco-tender intimacy is re-established. I hope this helps.

David. In the shot of the BSK and CK, the furthest carriage is Bachmann (you can just make out the prominent roof ribs). The two SKs are Hornby, of course, and the BG just in shot is by Bachmann, with the roof ribs removed and it having being weathered. Dave - I hope you're keeping well. I don't believe Hornby had any such tooling in mind when Bachmann produced its range of Mk.1s in the last decade of the last century. Why? Until Bachmann brought out its range of Mk.1s, no 'serious' modellers would have used what had been previously available, not without extensive 'butchery'. Previously there'd been Lima, Replica, Hornby and Mainline (any more?). Granted, there were one or two in those ranges which required little modification (Replica's BG and Mainline's Restaurant Car) but the rest had armoured window reveals, generic roofs, wrong buffers and the wrong proportions to the windows. Hornby were in the 'trainset' market at the time, so sold as many of their old Mk.1s as they could to such purchasers. Prior to Bachmann's range, anyone who wanted a 'proper' Mk.1 built Comet kits or put Comet sides on donor vehicles (or PC sides or scratch-built or modified Kitmaster's). Thus, why would Hornby have invested thousands of pounds in new tooling for a model, targeted at a market, which, at the time, they weren't aiming for? Supposition, perhaps, but Bachmann obviously saw the 'higher end' market then, and went for it. As far as I know, the thinking behind these new Hornby cars is for a basically-accurate model, at a budget price which satisfies the 'trainset' market, yet, with a little work, looks fine on a layout. As for trying to 'out do' Bachmann, anyone who wanted dozens of accurate Mk.1s has probably got them by now (Retford has scores of them, for instance) so there is probably no economic point in producing a higher-standard model of a Mk.1, which would cost more than a Bachmann equivalent (and sell to whom?). In truth, particularly with regard to the far less prominent roof ribs, Hornby has out done Bachmann - all those endless hours with a chisel taking the wretched things off! I think it's really a matter of simple choice. If you want separate handrails, full lettering/numerals and metal wheels, then Bachmann is the obvious choice. If those things aren't important, or you're prepared to do a bit (minus struggling with the roofs), then the cheaper option might be tempting. That said, don't you think it's a bit of a pity that Hornby has produced diagrams identical to those already available? To the trainset market it wouldn't matter a jot, but what a pity we didn't get a BSO, BFK or FO? Still, it means kit-building will still be alive for a bit longer.

I haven't posted on this thread for a time, but one or two comments might seem pertinent now. My thanks to all those who commented on the various Princes of Wales. I bow to the knowledge shown in these posts. I'm glad Norman Solomon's work has been highlighted. Without doubt, his work is peerless and, though others make track professionally, the master is in a different league. If you really want to know how to make track, might I suggest attending one of the Missenden Abbey weekends, where Norman is one of the tutors. I used to be one, but circumstances change. As for a further Little Bytham DVD, I don't know. The first one was actually rather poor in my opinion - badly made, with stills not put in where they should have been, much too much of my waffle and far too little of trains moving, even though many minutes were shot. It wasn't done by Activity Media unfortunately; certainly in terms of production quality. Thanks to Chris Foren for his mention of the current BRILL, and my urchin Cestrian scribblings. I hope he liked it. As far as further Irwell publications are concerned, I've actually written a soft-back for them, to be published next year. Guess what, it's all colour and it's all diesel and electrics, featuring pictures I took in the '60s, '70s and '80s. How times change! If it's successful, there might be more. Now, on to modelling - in view of the release of Hornby's latest RailRoad Mk.1s, I've just spent a couple of days 'fiddling' with them. I have to say, as 'layout coaches' these are outstanding value for money and, with just a little bit of work, run perfectly acceptably (visually and mechanically) alongside my Bachmann and kit-built alternatives. A description of all this will be published in the February 2014 issue of BRM. But for now, some pictures. One is a repaint. I hope they load.......

I have no wish to take this piece way off thread but, firstly, may I express my compliments with regard to micklner's painting skills? His work is most impressive indeed. And, I couldn't agree more with him about encouraging folk to have a go at doing things themselves. Whether a majority could match his painting and lining skills, I rather doubt it. My point about using the skills of a professional painter was to postulate how good a finished model might result from Hornby's P2. No professional painter I know would use transfer lining (other than to line with a bow pen onto plain transfer sheet for things like boiler bands). Every time I've compared my own transfer lining with that of a professional, it's always too thick and/or too bright in comparison, especially white/black/white. Yes, as Mick has shown, using transfer lining the results can be very impressive but there's just something rather subtle about the panel lining on locos if it's applied directly with a bow pen, but, only if it's done well - by the best professionals. As for altering the radius of transfer wheel lining (as implied), I think I'll pass on that one. Finally, I don't think SALMON TROUT as illustrated on Mick's thread has a 'banjo' dome, though it should have. It's got a 'streamlined' dome, the sort fitted to all the Peppercorn and non-streamlined Gresley Pacifics post-war (as well as the Thompson Pacifics and all the V2s) at various times. The 2500-2508 numbered A3s were the only ones to carry the true banjo (peardrop) shaped dome, but only until they were painted black in the war. In fact, the only pre-war LNER locos in apple green with a streamlined dome were the V2s. My apologies, for this is way off topic, but it's been the cause of hundreds of models of LNER big engines (RTR and kit-built) being wrong. Mr Roche and his contemporaries didn't do their research! Ironic, isn't it, that most were wrong because they had a banjo dome when they should have had a streamlined one, not the other way round?

May I thank all those on this thread who've considered my P2 review in BRM as 'fair'? Might I also thank those who've 'challenged' my comments and for the insight they've brought? I certainly don't claim to know all the answers, but, overall, the responses by folk who've actually seen the model now suggest that it really is very good, despite the inevitable compromises. I think the issue of moulded handrails has been done to death. As for the use of the A3 tender (with its separate handrails), I did question Simon Kohler about this before I wrote the review and the reasoning was, that in the long run it will still be cheaper to produce a 'one shot' body rather than have the extra cost of a person fitting ten pillars and five rails; and (my speculation) it will probably add more than £10.00 to the overall cost. There might be other factors involved which I'm not privy to, nor should I be. I know speculation and opinion are hardly concrete evidence but I'd be surprised if Hornby did not have future plans for more than just 2001 to be produced. In my review, I state that the whole front end is a separate moulding. Thus (speculative, I know), 2002 could be 'relatively' easily produced (with or without smoke deflectors), for it shares the same basic tender (but with disc wheels). Walschaerts valve gear would be needed as well, but the basic chassis is the same. Future speculation might be that 2003 and 2004 will be made (look at the shape of the weight at the front). For these, a streamlined non-corridor tender will be needed (which Hornby already makes) and different cab sides. For 2005 and 2006, a single chimney and combustion chamber will be needed respectively. With modified cab cut-outs 2001 and 2002 could also be produced with the Bugatti nose. If any of my 'wild' speculation is correct, can one not see the sense in making the compromises to keep costs down? Finally (more speculation), it's crossed my mind just how good a P2/1 might be made from Hornby's 'budget' edition. Using this cheaper option, by carving off the handrails and fitting separate ones, making up the lubricator drive and altering the top hinge of the smokebox door (I missed this!), then getting a top professional painter to give her the full treatment, what might it cost? Between £300.00 and £400.00? Perhaps a bit more? If I were to acquire all the bits and build a Pro-Scale model, then get Ian Rathbone to paint it, it would be well the 'wrong' side of £1,000 - probably nearer £1,500 or more. Since the painting would be the same, I know which one I'd opt for. I might even try it. Or, by really carefully carving off the handrails on the fully-decorated example and then carefully patch-painting, then making up the lubricator drive and altering the top hinge, what would the cost be? After all, Hornby's painting is superb. I might even try that!

I hope this works, because I'm new to this sort of thing - adding pictures I mean. Since Gilbert posted pictures on this thread of Hornby's RailRoad Mk.1s, viewers might be interested in some 'studio' shots of a couple of them. I'll be conducting a full review of these cars for BRM in the near future, and later showing how to achieve some 'improvements'. I can confirm that the glazing is as flush as Bachmann's (though both have a slight 'halo' around the edges), the roof ribs are nowhere near as prominent, though they're still too prominent - exactly how subtle the weld marks are on a Mk.1 roof is perfectly shown in the latest issue of BRILL, on page 118 (I've got an article in it as well; sorry for the plug). The wheels, though true round, are plastic with with very deep flanges, end handrails and water fillers are only moulded-on and the livery is 'compromised' by the omission of route status and solebar data. That said, the livery is well-applied (the lining is finer than Bachmann's) and the overall proportions have been well-captured. They 'sit' very well, too - something not always apparent on RTR carriages. Give or take, they're going to be in the region of £5.00 - £10.00 cheaper than Bachmann's, which will be a factor in some folk's choice. However, fitting metal wheels will add to the cost (though I've had to change proprietary metal wheels on many occasions), but a few hours' work (fitting separate handrails if you wish, adding transfers, etc) should produce most reasonable models. At close inspection, perhaps not a showcase model, but in a rake (as I hope to eventually show) of up to 13 cars, well? For interest, I've also added a picture of a Mk.1 BSK in current service; taken last Saturday at Creeton. Apologies if the above is a little off topic, but as 'layout coaches', and Peterborough North needs a lot of those, with that little bit of work I'm sure they'll be quite acceptable.

I must admit to not conducting haulage tests in the most scientific of ways. By that, I mean I hang a 'typical' prototype load behind the model and see what it can do. Though largely not eight or ten-coupled, some recent models have given the following anecdotal results.... Hornby's Star pulled eight plastic-based carriages (Bachmann Mk.1s) with little trouble. Any more and it started to slip a bit. Bachmann's 4Fs hauled 25 plastic wagons with ease - 30 and there was some slipping, and more was a struggle. Bachmann's 10000 and 10001 both flew round independently with 13 carriages. 15 and there was some little 'struggling'; 20 was a limit without slipping, but over half the rake was kit-built metal carriages. Heljan's Class 16. 40 wagons, no trouble at all. My railway has generous curves, and, because my stock is a real mixture of kit-built and proprietary items it would be unlikely if anyone else could replicate the same conditions exactly. So, I can only report in this highly subjective manner. With regard to the Hornby P2, it pulled my ten-car 'Queen of Scots' with such ease that we kept on adding more carriages. Given that the rake is a heavy meld of Hornby/Comet/Trice components, say, ten Bachmann Mk.1s would have been easier. I reckon 25-30 Bachmann Mk.1s could have been taken with relative ease, but that's a guess because rakes of that length, effectively going through 180 degrees (the loco going 'north', the brake van going 'south' at the same time), become unstable on curves. I'm sure many will report in saying that my results aren't typical, their own locos being able to take more or less, dependent on the conditions. A relatively recent Bachmann 'Austerity' took 40 plastic wagons with ease and could have taken more, though not as many as my DJH ones. A few years ago I compared haulage between Bachmann and Hornby's 9Fs and there was nothing to choose between them - 45+ wagons with little effort, but my DJH ones will take more. Highly-unscientific I know, but I hope this helps.

Whether said in jest or not, the P2 I reviewed does not have traction tyres (unless they're so discreet that I didn't notice!) Though it wasn't the heaviest, it's still heavy enough and almost all the weight is adhesive. So, for the scientific amongst us, I wonder what its factor of adhesion might be. Given that all my multi-wheeled locos run just as well (if not better) as 0-6-0s, and they're not compensated, the adhesive weight distribution must be via a continuously changing three-point contact (the centre drivers are always set a twitch higher than the front and rear ones to prevent the dreaded see-saw effect). Though I impart a little springing to the front bogie (either as a downwards-pressing-link or a coil spring on the pivot), the bogies mainly carry their own weight, adding little to the road-holding of a chassis. I always make my chassis 'tight'. I don't mean with a tight spot but with the minimum of clearance in bearings. In comparison, Hornby's are a bit 'sloppy', with greater clearance in the bearings. Though this doesn't cause poor running (quite the contrary), it means that all the eight drivers are in contact with the rails all the time. Does this aid its adhesion then? I ask the question in all honesty because I once built a Crownline original 'WC' with full compensation, resulting in all tyres taking an equal distribution of the adhesive weight. The result - prototypical slipping on the grand scale. The next one I built was rigid and that slipped less! I think, given its weight, it's because the P2 has eight drivers which makes it such a good puller. Isn't that why the real things were built like that? What alloy the tyres are made of, I haven't a clue, though it might impart a greater coefficient of friction than, say, nickel silver: in the same way that a steel-tyred driving wheel on nickel-silver track has a greater coefficient of friction than a nickel silver one. But, I'm not a physicist so my observations are anecdotal rather than empirical. What I would say is that my 'testing' of the P2 was a reasonable example of 'cause and effect' - the cause being eight drivers and adequate weight, the effect being that it pulled a 'house brick'.

In answer to one or two queries....... I don't actually recall counting the carriages in my spotting days but I do remember some huge empty stock trains in the summer. Spotting at 'The Walls' in Chester (see the next BRILL, by the way), my memory is of empty stock coming FROM the N.Wales coast. Whether this was for balancing purposes I don't know but a usual summer Saturday scenario in the late-'50s/early-'60s saw special train after train going TO the coast (using the WR lines as well, as far as Saltney Junction), one block apart. Punctuating all this 'down' excitement would be the empty stock trains coming from N. Wales. Motive power on these could be anything - 8Fs as related by Larry, 9Fs (including a Crosti on one occasion), 'Mickeys', 'Crabs', Stanier Moguls and the occasional 4F. 20 coaches was common I believe - they certainly looked that long - and the stock was mainly LMS or LNER in origin. But, I was but a mere secondary schoolboy at the time, and the memory fades! One other possible point of interest is that at Chester (as at many other places as well), during the non-summer months there were rows of carriages parked in the sidings; to the left as you left the General heading for N. Wales or Paddington, across the top end of the triangle or parallel with Lightfoot Street. On one occasion, there was Southern stock parked for a time. I realise that this is way off the P2 topic, other than (apart from wartime) 20 carriages seems to be a maximum load expected of any loco, but I hope it's of some little interest. I wonder, other than the P2, how many other RTR locos will take that load? Will others report, please?

Speaking as a 'Johnny Come Lately' (how apposite a description), may I thank those who've so far commented on my remarks about Hornby's P2? Regarding my visual presentation of the loco running, one or two points relating to that might be of further interest. I was not part of the editing of the finished piece but it's a pity that one or two moments ended up on the 'cutting room floor'. Though you see the P2 actually pulling 23 carriages (almost half of which were either complete metal kits or adaptations), the footage of it actually starting that rake and the whole lot then passing by the camera was left out. A pity, though cynics might have suspected that a 'third party' was giving it a shove out of sight (in the same way that those same cynics might have thought the same third party was holding the end of the rake to prevent the A2/2 from taking it). As an aside, the A2/2 no longer runs as sweetly as it did because of the exertions imparted - I think I might have damaged the gearbox, though it has run for many years previously. The P2 suffered not at all, despite having one of its slidebars missing (nobody has noticed on this - BRM's front cover, top right, and my comment on it was omitted from the review). Afterwards, I tested some other locos and, out of interest, these were the results hauling the same rake. SE Finecast A4 with a D13 motor and DJH gearbox: initial slipping on starting, then it flew round, even faster than the P2. Golden Age A4: initially, the rails underneath its drivers were burnished beautifully, and it got the rake just about going until a bend was encountered; then more rail polishing. Several Hornby A4s (and A3s): less polishing of the rails (because they're not as heavy) but no forward movement. Bachmann A4 (both chassis); no forward movement. Bachmann A4 with SE Finecast replacement chassis (and lots of lead in the body): little forward movement but I didn't want to kn****r it! Several DJH A1s: though they moved the load (slipping all the time), I felt that to wear out perfectly good locos was a bit excessive. Several Bachmann Deltics: lots of noise and excessive slipping, but they just about got round (but not as well as the P2). Lima Deltic with two power bogies: 23 carriages was a mere trifle. I couldn't find its maximum load because, after 35 carriages, the rake was 'imploding' on the bends. The above observations are highly unscientific, highly subjective and have not been independently ratified. However, should you choose to believe what I've just posted, I think it's fair to say that Hornby's P2 is probably (in terms of tractive effort and its ability to actually shift a load) the most powerful, British-outline RTR steam loco currently available in OO. That it can pull more than an RTR loco costing in excess of £1,200 is really quite staggering. That it can pull more than many of my kit-built locos is also salutary. I once had a Trix A2 with traction tyres on its grossly inappropriate German-style chassis' driving wheels which I recall once pulled 20 Hornby-Dublo SD Mk.1s, but it was hardly a scale 'model', especially with its corridor tender. I also had a Hornby-Dublo 'Deltic' which was pretty powerful but it wasn't very accurate to say the least. So, even if the level of detail doesn't impress you on this P2, at least concede that in terms of power, there's nothing else to touch it. Since I don't have a 'King', 'MN' or 'Duchess' I cannot entirely qualify that last statement but I'll bet none of them beats this P2.

The best description of how Norman Solomon lays and ballasts track (all in one go) is provided on the Right Track DVD from Activity Media or BRM (can't remember which number - might be 10 or 11). You can order a copy on line I think.

In response to Larry's comments about the Bytham baseboards looking like a grand piano, I'd never thought of it like that but he's right. They were beautifully built by Norman Turner of Wolverhampton MRC - the result of yet more horse-trading. I nailed together a couple of Duchesses for him - one from scratch and one from a meld of Hornby and Comet to produce 46256. Ian Rathbone painted them both to perfection. I'll try and find pictures of them.

I thank Bluebottle for his erudite comments and, yes, I admit to being enthusiastic about a new loco name. By referencing other titles held by the Prince of Wales, I thought it might make an appropriate link, but there you go. My reason for assuming that 'Thane' was the same as 'King' comes from Ted Talbot's wonderful little book relating to the origins and meanings of BR's loco names, in which he describes the Thane of Fife as the ruler of the Kingdom of Fife. I put two and two together and thought a kingdom was ruled by a king.

Many thanks for the kind comments on 'my' track, Larry. However, though it's my 'property', how it looks and how it 'works' is entirely down to that master, Norman Solomon. In my opinion, his work is unsurpassed. To save money, I did the 'basic' wiring and installed the Fulgurex motors, but its accuracy and appearance are because of his great skills. What it looked like after it was laid and ballasted in 2007, is shown below. I hope this is of help.

Since I'm the one who wrote the review of the Bachmann 4F in BRM, might I respond to Coachman's comments of earlier on this thread, please? Firstly, my point about the cost of a kit-built Star was as a price comparison against a brand-new RTR equivalent. So, might I ask him, what has the price of bacon got to do with this? Comparisons with proprietary models. This is an excellent observation and, certainly, if one compares the Bachmann 4F with the Hornby one, the former is considerably more accurate and detailed and the latter is more expensive. No contest, really. However, though I concede the point about recognising the lengths Bachmann has gone to in providing separate handrails underneath the smokebox door, I think Coachman has been slightly disingenuous with regard to not mentioning the things that weren't right on the Bachmann 4F models. So as not to go right off topic, a 'meaningful' comparison? With regard to my use of right and wrong, perhaps readers can refer to my 4F review for clarification. Though it's a separate item, the nearside handrail on the 4F is far too small in diameter. Any separate handrails on the Star appear to be perfect. The chimney is wrong on one of the 4Fs. Though I only have the one Star, its chimney looks dead right, as do the others (in photographs). The tender isn't right on two of the 4Fs, one more so than the other. The Star's tender I have looks absolutely perfect to me, though, I concede, I haven't seen the others, except in pictures. The arrangement of washout plugs/mudhole doors on the firebox of two of the 4Fs isn't right. The arrangement of such items on the Star's firebox looks exactly right. Exactly where the sandboxes are on the Star I'm not sure, but the front ones on the 4F are in the wrong place and have no means of filling them. One of the 4Fs should have piston tail rod covers on the front buffer beam and one should have the covers where they'd been. Since the Star has no such things, a comparison is impossible but if you want separate detail there's the steam lance on the smokebox door and the lamp irons for spare lamps on the nearside footplate towards the front. One of the 4Fs had poor painting and finishing around the footplate footsteps and the cab front. The Star's painting is entirely blemish-free. Though hardly exhaustive, I think the above comparisons are apposite. There's no doubt Bachmann's 4F is an outstanding model but to put it at a higher level (on the strength of moulded-on or separate handrails) than Hornby's star isn't quite fair, in my opinion. Out of interest, in the January 2014 issue of BRM I'll be conducting a thorough 'improvement' with regard to the Bachmann 4Fs I have the greatest of respect for Larry and have no wish to begin any enmity but, since I don't eat bacon, how much does it actually cost? Finally, on the subject of RTR bogie wheels from all the RTR makers, I don't think any are dead right, even if they have the right number of spokes. Bachmann's tend to be a bit too small and Hornby's, if anything, a bit too big but that might be down to the overscale flanges.

My thanks to those who've posted in response to my comments on the Star. I'll attempt to answer some of the questions. I fitted all the accessories in the pack, mainly for the photographs. These included brake rigging, cylinder drain cocks and the vacuum standpipes. The last-mentioned are quite fragile. The missing valve rod on the nearside should protrude out of the front of the valve chest (the bit above the cylinder), then turn in on a pivot at more or less right angles and go inside the frames. I'm not an expert on GWR locos by any means but on consulting which books I have (Russell, Nock, Tuplin, etc), it would seem that webbing between the spokes of the driving wheels is quite common. Most GWR locos seem to have the crank pin between the spokes rather than in line (am I right?) and this webbing would appear to add strength. But, it seems to be almost arbitrary (it can't be, surely) and its positioning can be on one wheel, one side, or the other, or on two wheels or even three (on one side) or not at all. Similarly, balance weights can be similarly randomly placed. I have no idea if this Star has the webs or balance weights in exactly the right position or not because I don't have an actual picture of it. Perhaps they're correct for LODE STAR (by the way didn't the bloke on the moving footage call it LONE STAR?), but I don't know. I did not know that anybody at Hornby had claimed that 12-spoke bogie wheels were correct for a Star. That is plainly wrong. I must admit that I'm in a privileged position with regard to RTR manufacturers in the hobby, in that I am, and have been in the past, consulted with regard to future models. At the moment I'm helping two manufacturers with the research and development of a new locomotive each. Part of that consultation results in my knowing (just a little) about the costs of new tooling. I'm not here to defend RTR manufacturers but one or two points might be enlightening. To compare costs of new models with models (of a similar type) which have been in production for a time (and are just re-liveries, re-namings, re-numbering, etc) is a trifle naive if I might be so bold. The development and production costs for those were met at an earlier time, before the Chinese economy started to really service itself, as well as make just about everything for the rest of the world. Those costs have now spiralled. I don't believe that we'll ever have it so good again, not at the prices folk expect to pay. I can assure you that things like separate cab (and tender) handrails, though highly desirable, will add considerably more than a couple of quid (or even 20 quid) to the price of a new model. I know models from the recent past have had these, but prices of those are sure to rise because of the labour-intensive nature of the process. Just as an anecdote, my younger son is involved in the production of aquaria and various pieces of apparatus which go with them. About five years ago he visited China and part of the production line for the components his firm required consisted of two or three blokes in a hut, squatting on the floor, assembling the bits and pieces, sweatshop fashion. I'm not suggesting that Hornby locos are made (or ever have been) by such a colonial means, but neither are the bits for my son's company any more - and the price has rocketed! I'm convinced that, if everything that's 'demanded' is to be put on an RTR loco in the near future, then expect the price to be nearer £200.00 or even more. Perhaps the more discerning will be prepared to pay this and there'll be enough of them to make it viable. Yes, everyone makes mistakes - did you know, for instance, that the Graham Farish TORNADO has two few spokes in its driving wheels? If not, read the forthcoming issue of BRM. And the price of that is there or there about equivalent with Hornby's Star. But, what's on offer now RTR is really outstanding compared with just a few years ago. I've been in a lucky position in the past in that the things for the railways I've been involved with, locos and rolling stock-wise, have never been dependent on what the RTR boys gave us. We at Wolverhampton built it all from kits or scratch, out of necessity. Apart from the more esoteric items, that's not entirely necessary now. Look at the the most popular layout on RMweb, Peterborough North. Most of Great Northern's locos and much of his stock is, admittedly modified, RTR. Having that a decade ago would have been impossible.

This is one of the trio of Hornby Stars scheduled for a full review in BRM in the January issue. Since most pictures on this thread of the locos are a bit gloomy, I've taken two for people to see more clearly. I can confirm that the footplate is not distorted and the cylinders are at the correct angle but the valve motion is missing from the nearside. It's also got two too many spokes in its bogie wheels. The rear coupling also droops but this is a minor error. As for the correct buffers, I'm undecided at the moment and I'm conducting some research. From that initial research I can conclude that, overall, the dimensions are spot on. As to the elbow steam pipes or not or whether rivets should be present or not (here and there), my research continues. My view? Though I can understand some criticisms, it runs superbly and the overall finish is to a professionally-painted standard or not far off. The moulded-on handrails on the cab perhaps let it down a bit but it's impossible to tell when it's on the layout at, say, four feet away. As regards the cab interior, that looks fantastic. The 12-spoke B17 bogie wheels are a bit of a mistake (I was mainly responsible for their being fitted to that loco) but anyone who's got a NER loco might wish to make an exchange. Personally, I change the bogie wheels on RTR locos as a matter of course, to Markits or Alan Gibson, so that wouldn't bother me in the slightest. At the price, it'll come out more than the forthcoming P2, so one might expect separate handrails and etched plates but I still feel it's exceptional value for money overall. So, at the risk of starting an all-out war, may I make the following suggestions, please? 1. If you think it's too much money, don't buy it. 2. If the moulded-on handrails are too offensive, carve them off and replace them with separate items. Or, if you can't do it, get someone else to do it for you. Careful patch-painting will be needed if this is attempted. I'd leave them alone. 3. If the footplate is distorted or parts of the valve motion are missing, inform your supplier. Better still, if you can, examine the model before buying. 4. Change the bogie wheels. 5. Fit scale etched-brass plates. 6. Build, or have built for you, a kit for the same. If you build and paint it yourself, it'll be at least twice as much for all the bits. If it's built for you (properly) expect it to be near four figures. Much of the above carries a cost imperative, and I understand this, but I sometimes wonder what's happening to the hobby with regard to actual modelling.