Frond

I know there are more episodes to come on subject of the Underground, I was thinking more of the next series.

Steve

Hopefully Tim and the team are already planning/working on their next project. 

I was wondering what I would choose next, so far we have had architecture (not something I would have thought of but great) and the Underground  (ditto). Being an engineer  I would love something on the evolution of locomotives but I accept that will probably not appeal to the wider audience.

Any thoughts?

Steve

I watched my recording of the episode last night and thoroughly enjoyed it.

I was a little bit worried about the subject matter as despite being a Londoner, I have never been that keen on the Underground, probably because my Dad worked on the "real" railway at Stratford. I needn't have worried as the presenters Siddy and Tim did a great job of pulling me in with their knowledge and enthusiasm. I also felt a surprising amount of nostalgia as since moving out of London I have not used the Underground that much and the rolling stock shown is how I remember it (I didn't know the Aldwych branch had closed!!).

Thanks again to the team making the programme and I look forward to seeing the rest.

Steve

On 29/01/2021 at 16:26, dibber25 said:

Didn't watch it but if what I hear about the account of building the Royal Albert Bridge is true then it falls woefully short on accurate historical research. The spans were not 'winched' into position. I doubt there were winches in existence capable of lifting them. The actual means by which they were positioned is far more interesting and very easy to find out by reading any Brunel biography. More invented TV history. (CJL)

Just watched this programme (recorded) and bearing in mind Chris's  (dibber25) comments paid particular attention to the raising of the Royal Albert Bridge section. It was the Operations Manager of Network Rail who stated that " the books say they were winched into place with huge chains" . Presumably the producers of the programme assumed he knew what he was talking about!

Nevertheless I enjoyed the programme immensely and as I said last week it is a pleasure to have something to watch that takes your mind off your daily woes for an hour or so. As a subscriber to Model Rail I have a great respect for Chris's knowledge and experience but I did find his condemnation of an entire programme that he had not seen a bit disappointing.

Just watched tonight's episode (I recorded it so watched it slightly delayed to cut out the adverts) . Really enjoyed it , I have been suffering from cancer for the last seven months so to watch something that really took my mind of my everyday issues was a real treat, thank you Tim and your team.

Thanks again for the replies, I have got it now!

I should have read up on the history of the rebuilds before asking obvious questions.

Steve

Thank you for your replies, I feel that I should know this stuff but I don't.

However if the pacifics  were successful on the route it makes me wonder why the P2s were built in the first place as the A1/A3s pre date them.

The P2s were built specifically for the Edinburgh to Aberdeen route to overcome the need for double heading.

After they were withdrawn and rebuilt by Thompson what happened on the Edinburgh to Aberdeen route? Did they go back to double heading?

A number of posts have said that it is hard to believe that Hornby would tool up for a double chimney version as it only ran in that condition for 2weeks. Given that they are bringing our versions (nameplates, LNER green) that never ran at all I don't find it so surprising!

7 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Good morning Frond,

 

The A2/2 locomotives were never intended to be part of the standardization program, rather as test beds for future ideas. Something had to be done about the urgent problems with the P2's. Whether the total rebuilding was the correct solution is another debate, they were a convenient test bed.

I agree that the A2/2 locomotives  were not part of the standardisation plan but they did in effect become the prototypes for the A2/3s which presumably were? I also agree that the wisdom of the rebuild is another debate entirely!

However I never intended my comment to be anything deep and meaningful, it is just that I find the fact that in the (mostly) war years between 1941and 1946 Thompson built or rebuilt a total of 26 Pacific type locos using 4 different designs, with numerous detail variations somewhat ironic given his standardisation policy.

Steve

I have been following the discussions on the numerous difference between individual engines that have been pointed out by the well informed members together with Hornby's Engine Shed article and it still makes me smile to think that one of Thompson's main objectives when he took over as CME  was standardisation!

Just received my R3810 set through the post (thank you Rails) and despite everything I have read and all the pictures I have looked at I was still surprised at how small it is!

Amazing little model.

17 minutes ago, Michael Edge said:

. The Garratt was equipped with what were described as respirators (not sure what exactly they were - possibly mine rescue gear) after an earlier incident with an asphyxiated crew.

I have a pretty good idea what the respirators would have been having worked with breathing apparatus for over 30 years. If you can imagine a gas mask only instead of a filter there is a long rubber tube, this tube is led to somewhere where the air quality is better, in this case as near to track level as possible. The wearer basically sucks (relatively) clean air through the tube with exhaled air going our through a one way exhaust valve on the mask.

Again using the LNER Encyclopedia as reference apparently the crews objected to sharing the equipment and their use was discontinued. Given what the conditions in the tunnel must have been like I am not sure what was the lesser of two evils.

I have just re-read the LNER  encyclopedia entry on the U1, and it would appear that it wasn't over popular at "home" either!

Perhaps it was simply that back in the day the LNER crews had no choice but to get on with it but the ex LMS  guys on the Lickey wanted no part of it.

Thanks for the replies, but the cynic in me is still not convinced. Surely all the problems would have equally have applied on it's home turf? and yet it worked there for 20+ years.

Firstly apologies if this has been discussed before.

Over the years I have read on a number of occasions that in BR days the ex LNER U1 Garratt was tried in the Lickey Incline in an attempt to justify the cost of a new boiler as its work on the Worsborough Incline was coming to an end. All the articles have stated that the trials were unsuccessful and the loco was subsequently scrapped.

What I have never read is why the trials were unsuccessful. On the face of it you would think that she would be eminently suitable having worked as a banking engine for years, indeed I think am right in saying she was built for that very purpose. Was it the old problem of not wanting/liking engines from other regions (companies) or was there a real problem?

If anyone has any knowledge of the reason(s) I would be very interested.

Thanks

Steve

1 hour ago, adb968008 said:

neglects to mention one of the biggest differentiators of the two models (the firebox flickr).

Perhaps you were too preoccupied counting Hornby references but he does mention the fire box flicker (albeit in a rather negative way).

For the record I am not going to be buying either version so have no axe to grind and therefore would normally have kept quiet but thought this should be corrected.

Steve

Thanks Fran 

Nice to put faces to names

Steve

Love the picture but could Oliver or Fran give us a left to right name check please for those of us who don't know who is who.

Thanks

Steve

17 hours ago, robmcg said:

 

I thing Larry Goddard may have had a role in the Hornby engine colour.

Pardon my ignorance but who is Larry Goddard?

Steve

In an effort to cheer myself up I finally took the plunge on Monday evening and ordered a Princess Elizabeth from Rails (the malt whisky I happened to be drinking at the time had nothing to do with this sudden extravagance- honest).

It arrived this morning which given the current circumstances I feel is very good service and looks fantastic.

Now about that King Arthur that Rails have got on sale! - pass the bottle someone....

2 hours ago, Accurascale Fran said:

 

Hi Steve,

 

We looked into the raising the body on curves and it was not practical from a manufacturing point of view or operationally. We did push hard for it, but was a non-runner. I guess what I have learned from this is that we probably should not be as open and transparent as we have been on RMWeb and elsewhere, and just not discuss anything until its ready. It may have given some false hope in some quarters which was not my intention. Lesson learned here I guess.

 

Cheers!

 

Fran

Thanks for the reply Fran.

Please do not take my post as an expression of disappointment, I was genuinely curious. Your openness has been one of the best things to happen to railway modelling for years, the fact that we are having this discussion proves that -I can't imagine many (any?) other manufacturers discussing the details of their development process. Please keep it coming, mistakes, blind alleys, corrections and all.

Thanks

Steve

On 2 December 2018 at 02:11, Accurascale Fran said:

Hi John,

 

I believe that this has been pointed out elsewhere in this topic and I am loathe to speak ill of another companies product but the DP2 solution is a complete non-runner as it distorts the whole body shape of the locomotive as a result. The body of a Deltic (and DP2) tapers at either end just before the cabside doors, and the DP2 model does not depict this most distinctive of body features correctly as a result of this feature you are championing. Therefore, it looks very wrong when you look at it from above and the sides. I would suggest reading the relevant thread on here for further information and I’m sure you will then accept why it’s a non-runner for us.

 

All I will say at this juncture is that we are working on a cunning plan in this area, which will take a lot of working with the factory and when we have the acceptable results and engineering, we will show it.

 

Cheers!

 

Fran

Must say I am curious as to what happened to the "cunning plan" to overcome the wheel size /body shape conundrum - I suspect that copying Bachmann wasn't it!

As an engineer myself I gave the problem some semi serious thought coming up with vague ideas of cams to raise the body on sharp bends to allow clearance, which in turn gives the problem of the body bobbing up and down etc. I pretty soon gave up and thought I would wait for the answer, turns out there isn't one, only a compromise (which I must add I have no problem with). However I would like to know what ideas were considered and ultimately rejected.

Steve

Brian, Andy thank you for your replies.

Apologies for raising this subject again, I was initially interested in why John had not voted this year as I thought his answer might give an insight into getting more people to vote. Turns out he simply missed the window of opportunity as I had done the previous year. The longer the poll is open the more votes but it is clearly a case of diminishing returns and as you guys are the ones putting in the time and effort it is entirely up to you when the cut off is.

Thank you all once again for conducting the poll

Steve

12 hours ago, OOgaugeJaf said:

Steve,

 

I have not been on here for a while unfortunately. Completely missed the poll.

 

I would have selected S160, J21, A8 and Standard 3. Too late now of course.

 

cheers

 

John

Thanks John

I missed the poll last year as I was away on holiday. I know that this has already been discussed but perhaps two weeks is a bit too short?

Steve