Londoner

The oracle has spoken.

I just hope that KR's modelling accuracy of the Fell is better than their management of the arrangements for paying for it. Once again I've received a payment advice which appears to be incorrect, or at best inconsistent with what they've already stated.

The 'Ladykillers' is a true comic classic and a brilliant watch for anyone. It's also the best movie I know for a realistic reflection of central London in the mid fifties. Every time I see it I'm reminded of cycling after school from East Ham to Kings Cross to see Sir Nigel's beautiful engines and cycling up York Road to try to get into the shed. When I now, occasionally, come down from the Angel I'm amazed that this can be the place I used to visit so often, a different world, I still think in many ways, a much better time and place than today. I was looking at IMDB and saw a question about the strange steel structure in the centre of the roundabout O/S the station, where all the shack like buildings were, and wonder why I can't remember it or the roundabout. More peculiar, I can remember going into the station one Sunday morning and finding 'Kingfisher' from Haymarket standing there when she wasn't one of that year's non stop engines.

Worries about crime, I agree, is a given, but I don't remember anyone being really bothered about their personal safety. Levels of personal violence were small and usually not serious, (there's always been fights over arguments in pubs). What's new is drug fuelled extreme violence street crime and serious crime perpetrated by gangs. I live on the eastern edge of London and recently, a 17 year old girl was stabbed to death in a park by a drug dealer demonstrating how violent he could be. In the fifties, that crime would be national news and almost unbelievable. There wasn't much consumerism following WW2 for some time, & I can remember people complaining about 'utility' products.

That isn't my general perception of how things were then at all. Perhaps it depended where you lived, or how you were brought up, as it still does today. What was dreadful about the food? Immediately after the war perhaps, but within a few years food quality and range was back to normal. The range of food wasn't the same as it is now, but is that really significant, I don't remember people complaining about food once rationing ended. There was a fear of TB, but Terramycine and Streptomycine ended that soon after the war. 'Empire' attitudes weren't all bad, far from it, and engendered behavior which was beneficial for all British people, integrity, honesty, loyalty, good manners, respect for others etc. All pervading racism? Rubbish, there was no more racism then than there is now, what's changed is that laws and enforcement have driven expressions of racism underground, not "...…..no longer being accepted as part of societal norms" is meaningless, perhaps you've just stopped listening to the complaints of ethnic minorities. I'm afraid that, in spite of protestations from many, there's a racist undercurrent with most people, (less in the British than many), which is now suppressed. Perhaps you should take the Guardian or the Independent for a while. I agree that attitudes to homosexuals and women have changed for the better, but there's a way to go with both of them. I don't understand which stereotypical group you're referring to in your second sentence as having become marginalised and violent. Do you mean homosexuals, or unmarried mothers? You don't mention any of the undesirable things that have taken root. Fundamental schisms in society based on religion, creed and/or colour. Crime. Consumerism. Fossil fuel dependency. Disrespect for others. Victimhood. etc, etc.

Yes, BR class 72.

Robmcg, Even with that ugly chimney that sits on the smokebox with a huge gap under it? Reminds me of the issue with the BR7. A fabulous model for a while, then produced with a chimney with a lip of about a scale 3 inches deep. Then, back to a nice rendition of the chimney lip. The 6 always had a beautiful chimney, along with everything else.

The ex LNER engines have all been fabulous, but I still think the BR6 is the best Hornby engine ever. Perfect in every respect.

I agree entirely. There's supposedly elitist people on other threads pontificating about headlamps and headlamp codes and that they must always be strictly accurate, signal arms a few degrees off prototypical, exactly prototypical train formations etc. However, they ignore the blatantly obvious and self evident fact that the gauge is ridiculously narrow and the wheel flanges a scale six inches deep. They seem to have never heard of EM or even P4.

Isn't he a school teacher?

That's true, but is it really relevant? Surely it's unreasonable for modellers working to exact detail to expect the vast majority to pay the major extra cost of producing exact, fine scale models just to suite a minority. Just like any manufacturer, Oxford are going to target the market segment that suits them, one where the balance between sales volume and their costs gives them the volume and profit margin they require. It's like saying the Ford shouldn't produce a sports car because it makes it less likely that Aston Martin will.

That's true, but is it really relevant? Surely it's unreasonable for modellers working to exact detail to expect the vast majority to pay the major extra cost of producing exact, fine scale models just to suite a minority. Just like any manufacturer, Oxford are going to target the market segment that suits them, one where the balance between sales volume and their costs gives them the volume and profit margin they require. It's like saying the Ford shouldn't produce a sports car because it makes it less likely that Aston Martin will.

That's true, but is it really relevant? Surely it's unreasonable for modellers working to exact detail to expect the vast majority to pay the major extra cost of producing exact, fine scale models just to suite a minority. Just like any manufacturer, Oxford are going to target the market segment that suits them, one where the balance between sales volume and their costs gives them the volume and profit margin they require. It's like saying the Ford shouldn't produce a sports car because it makes it less likely that Aston Martin will.

Poor design, CAD, and/or poor tooling, and/or poor quality control may have been responsible. Without more background information it's impossible to know. Anyway, what difference does it make and what's the value of this speculation? These are not marketed as super scale top line models with the corresponding cost penalty, they're marketed, and priced, as budget models. I think they're good value for money. If you don't think they're worth the money, don't buy them. They're clearly targeting a mass market and not specialists who demand perfection whatever the cost. In any case, it seems to me the errors you mention, other perhaps than the Great Way Round engine, can be corrected by the purchaser with minimal effort or skill. I bought their N7, in two guises, for well under £100 each. I'm not completely without knowledge of LNER engines, but some of the criticism of them on this web site, over extremely minor, individual engine details, is extremely difficult to determine and ridiculous in an engine that costs less than £100.

Without further detailed knowledge of the research, design and tooling production on a per model basis, how's it possible to know any error is down to "poor research"?

Thanks Headstock, It hadn't occurred to me that the O2 hadn't been rebuilt with the long travel valve arrangements.

Hi Headstock, interesting post. I know little about these trains and GC line working. I'd be interested to know why the two cylinder O1s were preferred to the 3 cylinder O2s. Do you have a reference to any material about this? If so, perhaps you could flag it u to me. Thanks.

"many of Churchward's principles", I'm afraid not. Gresley lifted Churchward's superior valve events to greatly improve his engines. The A1 motion failed to take maximum advantage of the expansive use of the steam and ensure good exhaust clearance. Gresley, apparently, gleaned this from an examination of the Great Way Round engine whilst it was on the LNER. I may be wrong, but from memory I believe most of the improvement was made by lengthening one of the motion rods, prior to a more extensive revision of the motion. All the changes cost peanuts. (The A4 boiler was superb; wide, and not excessive firebox, high pressure, combustion chamber, relatively short tubes, high superheat and owed nothing to Churchward). The main advantage of Gresley,s engines, over those of Great Way Round, was the vastly superior boiler with a high degree of superheat, the advantages of which Gresley fully appreciated, and the smothooness, length and directness of the steam circuit. Gresley learned nothing from Great Way Round boilers which was of any use, other than to avoid them. As for other railways use of the ridiculously expensive Belpair boiler, take a look at how the class 5 engines performed during the 48 trials, you're in for a surprise.

The principle reason Doncaster chose the round top firebox, rather than the Belpaire style, was because the plates could be rolled, not requiring flanging blocks, which made the boiler much cheaper to manufacture with no loss in performance, efficiency or maintenance cost. The idea that LNER boilers were inferior to those of the GW is ridiculous. The A4 heads all the meaningful statistics from the 48 exchanges for boiler performance and efficiency. It also produced one of the highest power output of the trials when climbing the 1:42 Hemerdon bank from a 16mph check at its foot. Seagull was worked full regulator and at 53% cut off, (admitting steam for 53% of the stroke), When PN Townend later asked the Great Way Round Inspector, who was riding on the footplate of Seagull at the time, what he remembered of the trials, he said, "Your A4 climbing Hemerdon Bank with a glass full of water, both injectors on and still making steam". "You couldn't do that with one of ours. You dare not put the second injector on, and when you got to the top you were looking for the water in the bottom of the nut". (East Coast Pacifics at Work P N Townend, Page 128 (sic).

Try "A Life on the Lines. A railwayman's Album", by RHN Hardy. Brilliant read for anyone interested in the LNER and its engines and particularly the GE section and East Anglia, bit of Southern too. In the shot on page 107, I could be one of the schoolboys waiting on the taxi ramp at LV. Lots about Stratford loco too, another place I spent much of my schoolboy spare time. (ISBN 978-1-84486-173-6, www.anovabooks.com).

I certainly remember the parallel chimneys on N7 engines right up to virtually the end, certainly in 1959/60.

Perhaps I've misunderstood, but isn't the question one of 'is a 3 pole motor with flywheel better than a similar 5 pole motor without?' I don't know the answer to this, but would think it quite feasible.

Perhaps it's just a publicity stunt based on an 'any news is good news' philosophy. Could be laughing his head off at how easily people are duped, and/or manipulated, or amazed how seriously some people take toy trains.

Why would you see a need to flatten incorrect speculation?

Why would you see a need to flatten speculation, incorrect or otherwise?