Woodcock29

Tony G RCTS 3B does indicate the first 30 D9s were built by Sharp Stewart with 3250 gallon tenders. But I've yet to find a photo of such to prove that. Every early photo I've found has a 4000 gallon tender. I understand they were all changed very early on to 4000 gallon tenders. As you say the last 10 were provided from new with water scoop fitted 4000 gallon tenders. The one book I don't have which might help is the Irwell Vol 1 on Great Central Locos. I've got Vol 2 which is from 1912. I know someone who has a copy so I might borrow it next time I visit him. What's more frustrating to me is in 2008 at Bo'ness I actually had a cab ride in Morayshire and actually rode on the front plate of that tender! That's the UK trip where I first met you at Roy Jackson's! I took some photos of the tender but not enough! This was just before I became more interested in GC tenders which happened following the arrival of the Bachmann O4 in 2009. I have no answer to this conundrum and probably we'll never know. Andrew

Hello Brush Veteran Could you please confirm for me that Heljan is producing a new footplate for the O2/1 and O2/2 versions? Its appears they might be because on the spares drawing on the Gaugemaster website there appear to be two footplates present. A new footplate is required of course because the earlier versions had short travel valves and consequently the high part of the footplate was lower as the expansion link was not as long. I understand that although a different material is to be used for the valve gear that the incorrect connection of the eccentric rod to the bottom of the expansion link is not being upgraded. I hope that is not the case? Andrew

Tony Looking at the photos on the Rails website - which all I have to go on it appears as if the chimney is devoid of a narrower top rim above the wide rim and the rim we can see looks nothing like photos of the prototype. I have looked at a wide range of A5 photos as well as various angles of the two models shown on the Rails website - you can see extra views by selecting to order one of the models shown on the Rails website. Side on the hand-painted early LNER model seems to have no top rim at all - merely a flat top to the wide part of the rim. Conversely the BR black model does have a top rim of sorts. The chimneys on both appear to have the opposite taper to the subtle taper and curves that they should have. I probably haven't explained this very well. Otherwise the model looks very good at this stage (other than the coal rails on the green example below). The photos below from the Rails website and elsewhere should help. Will remove if necessary. The main issue with the Craftsman A5 is that the bunker is too narrow. The other noticeable error is that the widest part of the footplate around the tanks is overlong as the steps when fitted are located under the transition area between widths. I built one of these back in the early 80s and of course at that time didn't know of these errors. I also acquired a built kit in a job lot from a deceased estate in the last 10 years. I was in the process of stripping and rebuilding this kit when I became aware of the Sonic/Rails model. As the rebuild was proving quite difficult its been shelved for the time being whilst I concentrate on other modelling projects. Endeavouring to widen the bunker was going to be very difficult and probably not possible whereas correcting the footplate was easy. This kit also had an incorrect chimney fitted so I was intending to use my spare Craftsman chimney on it but of course that's now been set aside in case its needed for the Sonic/Rails model. Andrew

I've got the LNER black lined in red A5 on order. Looking at the photos of the pre-production model it generally looks ok apart from the chimney. If they don't improve the chimney that will need to be replaced. Fortunately I have a spare Craftsman chimney in stock. Years ago I used to butcher these to make a shorter chimney for my B5, B2 and B3 - built back in the late 80s and early 90s. Andrew

Tony Gee What I neglected to say was that tender 6032 (agree LNER version of GC number 1032) is described in Yeadon's Appendix 2 as GC type b which is 4000 gallon, ie one of the 4000 gallon variants which may have originally had coal rails or solid coping plates depending when first built. Yeadon indicates the 4000 gallon tenders were first built in 1904 with four coal rails but from 1905, what I call coping plates (he refers to as coal guards) were solid steel. Searching further in Yeadon Vol 20 there is a picture of what I think is Q4 5058 (Yeadon Tender Appendix indicates this loco had tender 6032 from 1/29-1/42). The loco's number on the cabside is very feint (particularly the 4th number) but looks like 5058 to me. You can't see much of the tender but it is a 4000 gallon tender with solid coping plates - but its not easy to tell if they are plates over coal rails (indicated by no beading). This loco went to Doncaster in 1/42 for rebuilding to a Q1 tank engine. Hence the tender became spare. Yeadon indicates the tender was sent to Gorton 4/4/42. Obviously it then went to Darlington to be paired with D49. Andrew

That appears to be a genuine GC tender number and according to Yeadon (Appendix 2 - Locomotive Tender Numbering) it was coupled to J11 5325 until 2/26. Then Q4s 6075 (4/26-1/29), 5058 (1/29-1/42). Then reconditioned 21/4-1/5/42 thence to Eastfield shed 13/5/42 and D49 2759 26/6/42-?/9/47 - end of the record In Yeadon. So it appears at some point in time it transferred to Morayshire. Andrew

Andrew The measurements are based on figures on the drawing but also compare well with measuring off the drawing. I agree the valence does also look too thick. I'm going to have to be happy once I get around to making the refinements I've alluded to above. Although I did um and arr for bit as to whether to buy one. I'm trying now to spend my time on building what I already have in stock in the way of the kits - which is rather frightening so when a RTR option becomes available I usually take it. I do actually have a Proscale V2 to build one day - I've only had that for 37 years and I know it has a range of faults and difficulties. My first V2 , which I still have was a Bristol Models version which I built in 1978. I got it out recently to give it a run but it really needs a new up to date motor rather than the old MW005. Its obviously quite archaic in many ways but was part of my learning curve. Andrew

Not that I'm aware of. Etched plates are provided that need to be fitted by the purchaser. However for a novice this would be difficult as there is nothing to fit them to. In due course I'll be fitting the plates and other detailing bits to Alan's trio. One of his others is the Rails exclusive Durham Light Infantry.

By my measurements the smokebox appears to be too long by the extra thickness they've added to the front. Andrew

Tony Further to my earlier post here's a photo of one of Alan Harrison's trio of BR Bachmann V2s. This time the left hand side. You can clearly see the extra thickness of the smokebox front with the rivets set way too far back from the front. Something that's also missing and visible in this photo, but easily rectified are the handrails on the curved sections of the footplate behind the buffer beam. Andrew

Absolutely Mike - thanks. It confirms I need to fill in the space they've left between the two valves. They've got a representation of the clips holding that plate around the valves but the plate is only really the edge of the plate on the model. Andrew

Mick the only two things of those I mention that can't be fixed are the height of the centre section of the footplate and the issue with the overscale band on the front of the V. I had actually hoped I could separate the cab (and the V front) from the firebox which is possible with most recent Bachmann locos I have - O4, D11, J11, C1 etc but it seems to be firmly glued together in that area as I think the firebox was initially a separate item. The slightly undersized cab windows look better with no glazing in the rear ones. However, of course none of these matters should have needed to be fixed. One of the most disappointing aspects is the valve gear which is just so chunky compared to any other recent models. But I can replace that - valve gear is something I love tinkering with. Andrew

Tony Whilst clearly the new Bachmann V2 is a vast improvement on the 1992 version there are several issues with the 2022 version. It does certainly look like a V2. In the above photo all I've done is substitute the flanged cartazzi wheels (provided with the accessories) and add the front vacuum pipe and a coupling. The engine to tender drawbar is a diabolical arrangement not suited to steam locos in my view and used previously on the Blue Pullman I'm informed. Its ugly from side on and stretches out as its sprung, when under load making the excessive gap even wider. Also it causes the tender to 'crab' along and on a moderate weight train (9 Hornby and Kirk Gresleys) caused the first carriage to derail a couple of times. I will need to change the drawbar arrangement. The front of the smokebox is too thick and needs to be trimmed back. It doesn't look as bad on this LNER version as a BR version, as it doesn't have the ring of rivets set well back from the front. Fortunately its easily removed by dismantling the body and pushing the weight in the smoke box forward from behind. This pushes the front out at the same time sliding the handrails forward, which are simply bent around and fitted into holes in the smokebox front plate not into handrail knobs as they should be. This will be rectified shortly by filing back the rear of the smokebox front and refitting it, including with handrail knobs for the side handrails. The valve gear is excessively chunky (cf with Hornby A2s or indeed the Bachmann Stanier Mogul). I think, although I can't prove it as I don't have the model, that Bachmann have simply used the valve gear from the chassis upgrade version of a few years ago. Or at least parts of it. On the left hand side the reversing rod is placed too low below the footplate (sorry haven't photographed that side yet). The only plus on the valve gear is that it at least it has a two layered expansion link (should be three of course). I have a plan for dealing with the valve gear - its called Comet. The raised section of the footplate over the driving wheels is about 1mm too high compared with the Isinglass drawing. This accentuates how low the reverser is on the left hand side. The footplate is adorned with rivets. Unfortunately a lot are in the wrong places. I've been studying V2 photos continually since receiving this model (Locos Illus 9, RCTS 6C, Yeadon Vol 4, The Book of the V2s, Gresley Obs 154 - The V2 issue, Gres Obs V2 Supplement), also a couple of photos posted for me by Mike Trice on LNER Forum of Green Arrow and an extensive range of V2 photos posted by Neil Dimmer also on the LNER Forum. The rivets along the outer edge above the cylinders and on the up slope to the rear of this all seem to be fiction, and maybe some in front of the smokebox. Whereas the side curves above the buffer beam are almost devoid of what in photos are the most prominent rivets on the loco. Each side piece has two rivets instead of eleven on the prototype. (I know that locally here in Adelaide I'm known as a rivet counter - this simply proves the fact!). The livery is generally well done and I think the colour is about right. However, the thick moulded band at the front of the Vee has caused Bachmann to place the V in the lining too high making the black band look well overscale. The cab side windows are marginally underscale but look better when the glazing in the rear windows are removed - I've done that since taking the photo. As Tony indicated with the test pieces he had on LB there are some really nice aspects such as the off-set lubricators on the left hand side. the off-set plating around the snifting valve. Something I'm not clear on is whether in fact the safety valves should be set into a longitudinal open section in the front of the cab roof (as on the model) or simply set into the plating of the cab roof like on a A4? Can anyone advise please? I'll be attending to the modifications in a couple of weeks after our daughter and her family have gone home to Qld. Unfortunately when they arrived the youngest granddaughter (4 yrs) brought an unwanted guest with her - Covid so we're in a 14 day lock down period. Both my wife and I and our other granddaughter have all contracted it now. But we're not too bad. I'll post a photo when I've completed the upgrade. St Enodoc will be surprised/interested to hear that I've started on a small scenic project on my layout with the elder granddaughter (7 tomorrow) now they're here for 14 days or more! Andrew

That new Bachmann V2 drawbar is a diabolical thing in my view. I've recently received the LNER version. Apart from the fact that the gap opens up even further under load, it causes significant 'crabbing' of the tender with what I consider to be moderate loads, e.g. 9 coach mixed rake of Hornby/Kirk coaches. I've also found that twice it has led to the first coach, a Hornby BG derailing, which has not happened previously. I'll need to change it when I make a range of other modifcations, none of which should have been necessary on a model of that price! I'm really encouraged following Tony's visit to Margate! However, by the sound of where Hornby's at I don't expect to see the Coronation set until 2023. But we'll see? Andrew

I don't think you really need an excuse, I never have!

Tony 4000 gallon is right for 64397 (previously 5282) from 4/49-5/60. During that period it had tender 5004 which was originally coupled to B8 5004. The tender outlived the J11 and spent its last 12months plus attached to an O4. Source Yeadon Appendix 2 which covers in detail the GC tender allocations. Andrew

Jesse Just a small point. On the conflat above the brake lever needs to be shortened so that the bracket is centered more or less on the right half of the W iron. Andrew

The discussion on the GC tenders attached to D49s has been most enjoyable. All who have contributed have had something to add. When I posted the photos on the previous page of Morayshire's tender in 2008 I queried the presence of the rearward fire iron bracket. Tony Gee has pointed out the row of rivets at the base of the rear tender flare on Morayshire's tender in the BR period photo above suggesting it may well have come from a Pollitt or Parker loco. If that is so that would most likely explain the presence of the second fire iron bracket unless of course it was added in preservation days for convenience. Such a row of rivets is also visible on a tender attached to 62705 at the top of page 30 In Yeadon Vol 10. I suspect some of the tenders could be from D6s as the side coping plates have the curved ends. On J10s they normally had squared off ends. We'll probably never know. I only wish I had checked the front coal plate on Morayshire's tender to see if the tender number plate was present. If it was this would tell us which loco it was originally attached to. Does anybody have photo of the front of the tender or access to look? Andrew

When I reinstalled my steps under the footplate I removed a very small amount from the top and removed some of the east west lug on the back so I could set them in by about 1.6-1.7mm each side. Andrew

Further to my previous post here are some photos of Morayshire's GC tender taken in 2008. I did wonder about the rear fire iron bracket in the photo below and whether that was an addition but they were present on the tenders generally fitted to J10s but not often evident on the later 4000 and 3250 gallon tenders. The replacement front handrails can be seen below

The answer is yes but it has been answered through the various discussion points above by Mike and Tony G. In answer to Graeme King's question about modifications to Morayshire's GC tender. The only mods I can see are the handrails on the front side plates which would originally have been at the front of the small side plates and offset outwards as per standard GCR practice and the fact at some point in time it has been fitted with LNER group standard buffers. I've actually ridden on the front plate of this tender at Bo'ness back in 2008. Andrew

Tony the Bachmann tender you have used came with the D11 models, not the O4s and is a self trimming type. It has the water pick up handle so came with their D11/1. Andrew

Tony G The Bachmann/ NRM LNER C1 comes with black handrails - they need to be painted green. I've just tarted up my third of these, a lovely model. Luckily I picked up the last two here in Oz secondhand - the latest actually being a brand new model but from a deceased estate. Andrew

Its very deceptive if I was only looking at the rear view I'd certainly agree they are black. The same photo of Sir Hugo is on the front cover of the book LNER Locomotives in colour 1936-1948 and to me in that photo they appear black. However, the front view taken on the same day at Grantham in THE BIG FOUR IN COLOUR 1935-50 shows them to be green. I don't think it's a reflection of the boiler colour. Looking at the front splasher its top is definitely green compared the adjacent curved footplate in that photo. So what do we conclude? Looking at both photos outside in bright sunshine I'd conclude the colour is green. Andrew

Nothing nicer than a photo of a C12.