Headstock

Good evening 4069, neither, kit or RTR, has a monopoly on good or bad smokebox doors, or any other components. No real B1 carried a smokebox door like the thing on Bachmann model for example. My own O1 has a modified smokebox door grafted on from an old Hornby B17. As good as the Hornby O1 smokebox door is as received, it makes the renumbering of the loco limited, the chimney on the other hand is terrible, both the good and the bad can be cut off and replaced. There have been plenty of good whitemetal and RTR smokebox doors over the years and plenty of bad whitemetal and RTR smokebox doors as well. I don't see any division in quality between the too based purely on material. As a builder, I can if I so wish, equip my kit or RTR locomotives with the best components I can find and without prejudice of material used, be that plastic, 3d print, whitemetal, or machined or cast brass.

Evening Mick, Tony, three different chimneys on each O1class loco. Even with modern tech, they still haven't got it right.

Good evening 4069, not completely the case, the Hornby model has the smokebox type fitted to the minority of the class. The majority had the type as represented by Tony's other two models. See link. https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_11_2012/post-98-0-55738700-1352037973.jpg

Good afternoon chaps, have you read the entire conversation or just the one post? Why is it expectable for Tony to bring up the Harrow accident to support his argument about MK.1s in a conversation about aesthetics. Yet it is not acceptable for me to reply? He referenced the MK.1s with this quote.''I'm sure those who were travelling in the few Mk.1 carriages in the northbound train involved in the Harrow disaster of nearly 70 years ago were glad that's what they were in''. I don't think anybody in any of the carriages directly wrecked in the Harrow and Wealdstone accident, would be glad about what carriage they were in. My post simply points this out and why. Taken from my post. ''Whatever the pros and cons of MK.1s vs older carriages, non of them would be a place were I would wish to be, sometimes survivability in a disaster is down to pot luck rather than design. Unbelievably, some passengers escaped the with only light injuries, from the crowded wreckage of the local train hit by the Perth express. This was despite the fact that the rear four carriages, were telescoped to approximately the length of a signal carriage''. For Lemmy 282 and other, The nuclear flask film used in a post as evidence of the strength of the MK. 1. I is disingenuous, as it makes no mention of the fact that The MK.1s are all running on buckeye couplings. If running on screw couplings, as they were at Harrow, the result would be very different, with carriage flung all over the place. Anybody without an agenda of there own, would appreciate this is not a criticism of the MK.1, rather a criticism of the policy of running express trains on screw couplings in the twentieth century. When a system like the buckeye had been available and in use in this country for decades. I am critical of designing a carriage like a MK.1 to run on buckeyes and then intermingling them with weaker carriages using screw couplings, this was criminal. The report agrees, recommending that buckeye equipped carriages, when used with screw coupling carriages, should be marshaled together with buckeyes deployed to protect the head of a train. Alternatively, make up trains of MK.1s, don't randomly mix them in with non buckeye equipped designs. Finally, I am critical of Tony's use of The Harrow and Wealdstone accident in this debate as my primary dislike of MK.1s is aesthetic and viral. However, I do have a right to reply.

I think you have missed the point by a country mile.

Good gravy, criticise the ugly MK.1 and RM web implodes for a day! No doubt when I am really, really old, I will also look back dewy eyed and fondly on something unpleasant from my youth, like the Cold war or the Birdy song. An update on the MK. 1s in the Harrow disaster as memory slightly cheats, it was LMS carriage 24683 (5th) that had its body ripped from the underframe and not the MK. 1 as stated upthread. BR MK.1 34108 (4th) had its bogies and underframe equipment sheared off as it rode up over wreckage of the Perth express. However, it was the roof that was ripped off from 34108, rather than the whole body, as it reared up and hit the overbridge. The rear half of the carriage was virtually demolished. The image below shows 34108 as it came to rest on the up fast platform. It is now the most northerly of the carriages in the Liverpool express, despite being number four in the formation. The people seen standing at the highest level against the sky, are on the roof of the second MK. 1 damaged in the accident, carriage 34287 (6th). Nothing identifiable remains of the LMS steel bodied carriage 24683 (see below), that was marshaled between the two MK.1s. The roof of 34108 was left embedder in the south side of the overbridge, the damaged bridge was then struck by the Kitchen car in the Liverpool train. It should be noted that whatever the strengths or weaknesses of the individual carriages. non of the three trains involved in the accident had buckeye couplings deployed, as used on the carriages in the nuclear flask video. All were using screw link couplings that had no means of stopping one carriage overriding one another, crossing the platforms or bringing down the overbridge. There were four carriages in the Liverpool express with buckeye couplings, though non were in use. Three carriages were brand new MK.1s, the forth was a Gresley full brake built in 1928. The second MK.1, 34287, was marshaled one carriage back from the leading MK.1. Things did not go well for 24683, mentioned above, it being marshaled between the two mk.1s. The all steel body of 24683 was demolished, as 34287 rode up and over and beyond it, leaving the twisted underframe lying on a pile of bogies near the overbridge. The body of LMS 22726 (7th) was also ripped from its underframe as it was dragged up over the wreckage by 34287, it is seen to the extrema left in the photo above. 34287 was externally the least damaged of the two MK1's that were marshaled towards the head of the train. The accident report notes, how well both the body and underframe survived the impact and how surprisingly few deaths were recorded in the Liverpool express. It does however concede that 34287 was a shambles inside. This accident was never going to go well, which ever way you could theoretically remarshal or re-equip the trains. The increased structural strength of the MK. 1 was ironically, devastating to the older weaker carriages. Whatever the pros and cons of MK.1s vs older carriages, it is bluntly shown in the photo, non of them would be a place were I would wish to be. Sometimes, survivability in a disaster is down to pot luck rather than design. Unbelievably, some passengers escaped the with only light injuries, from the highest casualty's sustained in the crowded wreckage of the local train, that was hit by the Perth express. This was despite the fact that the rear four carriages, were telescoped to approximately the length of a single carriage!

With regard to the Harrow accident. The MK.1 that bore the brunt of the collision on the Merseyside bound express, survived in much better condition* than the LM carriages around it. As it was running with LM stock, the Pullman gangway / buckeye system was not deployed, negating a lot of the safety advantages. Unfortunately, the body was completely ripped off from the underframe by the impact and landed relatively intact on top of the wreckage. The carriage avoided any telescoping, though it was now in two parts. This was very unfortunate for the passengers inside, who were literally cut off at the ankles or thrown out of the body shell as it was propelled across the wreckage. The accident report noted that if the Gresley bogie vans, at the back of the Merseyside express, had been marshaled at the front, with buckeyes deployed, they would have absorbed the shock of the impact more successfully and countless lives would have been saved. The syphon on the front of the Southbound sleeper disintegrated on impact and nothing recognisable of the wooden body could be located, its sacrifice probably saved lives in the carriages behind it. The rear wooden bodied carriages of the local train, were most casualties occurred, was compacted into a very small space by the impact. However, a similar incident on the ECML, were a sleeper ran into the back of a wooden bodied local train, resulted in the wrecking of the tail end brake and sadly the death of a passenger in the rear compartment. The problem of telescoping was avoided and the rest of the train remained intact. This was due to the set being comprised of vehicles with Pullman gangways with buckeye couplings deployed. One of the conclusions of the Harrow accident report, was that LM stock, running on screw couplings in main line expresses, should be protected by rafts of stock with Pullman gangways and buckeye couplings. The MK.1 was obviously a big step forwards in terms of safety on what had gone before. However, the contribution of the buckeye coupling and Pullman gangway system, that had been in use on the SR and LNER for decades, shouldn't be forgotten. *As far as telescoping was concerned.

Good afternoon Tony, The ugliness is in the detail with a MK.1. For example, the bare sharp edged roof, just hangs of the end of the carriage like a cheap shack with a tin roof. No attempt is made to finish it off, or even end it flush. I bet it could give you a nasty paper cut. Their general proportions of everything and how it relates to its neighbor looks kind of cheap. Gorgeous and very typically GWR in its diversity, bravo. Why use one type of carriage when you can have six. Also a small eared ,short nosed orange Elephant?

Good afternoon Tony, I don't like Mk.1s. Though I recognise their necessity and place in history, though the latter is rather over egged. I would also note that some individual vehicles do have some merit. I could go on for pages about the individual offensive details of the MK.1 but here is a quick run down. A couple of reasons not to like the MK.1. 1. They are ugly, not interestingly ugly, just blandly ugly. The proportions are all wrong and everything that is esthetical pleasing about traditional railway carriages has been in some way corrupted. 2. They spread like a virus. A virus that destroyed more beautiful, elegant and quirky carriages. They ushered in time of repressed uniformity, were individuality was crushed under a boot of MK.1 tyranny. 3. The Bachmann MK.1 has done the same thing to railway modeling. boxes and boxes of ugly uniformity. In addition, its not that good a model, it looks very dated next to your more proficient A1s for example. The two placed in close proximity is very esthetical jarring to my eye. I would add, the negative effect it has had on making things and the impact on diversity at exhibitions. I would agree that MK.1s are required in some numbers for many prototypes. However, as far as the ECML is concerned in the 1950s, layouts tend to be skewed towards the principal named trains. As a result, a false impression can be generated. I have come across people who didn't realise that Gresley carriages were a thing in the 1950's on the ECML, '' I thought they were all replaced by MK.1s'', is the usual cry. This kind of opinion comes from a familiarity with model railways, not with a familiarity with the real railway. They are usually astounded to find out there were hundreds of trains running on the ECML, beyond the ones usually modeled, some of these were even 100% Gresley, some were even pre Gresley! 4. Finally, from the above. MK. 1s in model railway land, are not contextualised enough in terms of the over all picture, leading to a distortion of history, a lack of variety, creativity and ultimately dull layouts. With regard to your own problem of requiring 90 MK.1s. I would not want to purchase 90 MK1's. Nor would I wish to build 90 MK. 1s. Though the now almost extinct hobby of building MK.1s has its merits. My solution would be, if trapped in 1958, to parcel out the trains more broadly, beyond the principal named expresses, thus reducing the number of MK.1s required. Alternatively, by using your existing timetable, I would consider building a limited number of MK.1's, to run immediately behind your Pacific's as required. As a result, a much improved and believable aesthetic match between the two would be achieved. Left to my own devices, I would just model prior to the introduction of the MK. 1s, problem solved. The latter has the advantage that many other BR aesthetic disasters are no longer required.

I don't claim to be better informed than anyone else. The tender for 60501 was already there (potentially) from the Hornby A3, wasn't it? Yes the tender tank from the A3 would sort of do but not the godawful standing on tiptoe chassis. It is also available on the original Cock 'o' the North model. However, neither have the streamlined fairing in conjunction with the low bulkhead. Wouldn't that require new tooling? I also think you'll find that the smokebox/boiler/firebox/footplate is exactly the same series of mouldings (with slight alterations at the cab front) for the Hornby A2/2 and A2/3 (hence the choice of 60501/02/05/06 - 60501 and 60505 having been the first, with the other two on the horizon). Having had the A2/3 in lots of bits, I assumed that the cab front on any version of the A2/2 would require new tooling for the footplate. I'm not really RTR-dependent, but I'd never use the word 'genius' about it in my case. I still exploit RTR where it can serve me well (though not with locomotives). The notion of having to build over 90 BR Mk.1s would have meant very few of Bytham's express passenger trains completed by now; not without modifying at least that number of Bachmann ones. I'm perfectly happy to exploit RTR when it meets my needs. The genius bit is that I don't care about it. If that was all I had to rely on, it could be quite panic inducing. 90 MK1s, Ughh. It's enough to make you want to take up flower arranging. Have you tried crashing them? That sounds like a lot of fun. I also don't know what the percentage is of those who don't know or don't care is. Except, I'm sure it's a large majority. I don't think that anybody does know what this percentage is, if it's true. What is more important to me is '' wont know, don't care'' will never be a part of my model railway experience. If that is what most people think, I wouldn't even know how to communicate with them.

What a lovely tender curve. Hornby could do it back in the day. I'm not letting them off on the valve gear though and i'm a little bit suspicious that the cab cut out is a little low.

Good evening Tony, some interesting points. I don't think 60501s tender was one Hornby already had in the catalogue, due to the lack of streamlined fairing, but you are probably better informed on that than I . The economic reasons for producing one model over another is a sort of interesting subject. However, the commercial aspects of the hobby seem to be the be all and end all these days. I don't see any cost savings in producing the tooling of a particular choice of A2/2 over another. The big boys never import existing tooling from another model, they always retool. The only thing that is shared with the finished A2/3 is the chassis and running gear, both are applicable to any version of the A2/2. I guess it depends how many units you want to sell. More livery choices, on an earlier A2/2, could shift more units of a particular tooling IMO. However, I'm just an armature hobbyist, how much units the big boys shift is no concern of mine. I suppose the downside is, the more units that are sold, equals even more of the same stuff, resulting in less choice at exhibitions at sometime in the future. I wouldn't put too much importance on this particular percentages myself. It is only of interest to sales people, who wish to sell magazines, picture books or RTR objects. It isn't really relevant to anybody wanting to just enjoy or be creative in the hobby. The 95%, described as ''wont know or don't care'', by your professional writer colleague, sounds like a self created demographic, one that he is aiming his product at. I am reminded of the jewellery boss, who rubbished his customers, for the trash he was pedaling to them. I have nothing to sell to this supposed demographic myself. In addition, the genius of not being RTR dependant, means that the opinions of the 95% and what they can own, if they exist, matters not a jot to myself. The real railway, in its many forms, is what I take note of. Though I don't claim infallibility, due to its complication and vasts size.

Good afternoon Tony, Thanks for the photographs. The tender on 60502 almost looks like it has a slight chamfer to the edge. Flat or chamfered, it doesn't look anything like the real thing. Hornby can fool a lot of the people some of the time but not the ones who have had to form the curve with their own hands. Incidentally, what is it with the fashion for using yellow numbers on BR liveried locomotives? This seems some sort of fad adopted by the all the major RTR manufactures. The irony is that Hornby had already created the correct tender tank for Earl Marischal, one that it carried throughout its career. What a shame they didn't just unclip it from 60077 and place in on the new improved tender chassis. Instead, they have gone to the cost of creating an all new fictitious tender tank, bizarre. I still stand by my comments that the Hormby A2/3 is the best mass produced RTR LNER pacific*. The A2/2 is rather a disappointment in comparison. I find myself agreeing with comments up thread, that it is very much built down to a price, it even has the A2/3 bogie. Personally, I would have supported an originally rebuilt version of these locomotives. The choice of at least five or six authentic liveries, including BR drab green, would have had great appeal to many. The production model is stuck with only drab green and the choice of late or early Ferret. Is this the only time in recent history, that a big four locomotive, has not had a big four version produced in a manufactures range? * let down by a poorly executed livery.

Contrast the side sheet that is visible beyond and behind the Grab handle on the Hornby locomotive, with the same angle on the real 60501. The edge of the side sheet is not visible on the real loco because it curves around in the same manner as the real Earl Marischal above, notice that 'daylight' is visible between the grab handle and the side sheet of the real 60501 below. The Hornby side sheet lacks the real curve. The lower streamline fairing is also very evident as compared to the model. Cock 'o' the North never had a streamlined fairing until after rebuilding. It originally had an identically proportioned forward bulkhead to Earl Marshal, this was raised in height to accommodate a sheet attachment, when rebuilt with an A4 style front end. The bulkhead was cut down in height, along with all the Thompson A2 tenders equipped with high bulkheads and streamlined fairings, in the late forties. It was only then that it received the fairing. Unlike the Hornby model, it never carried a high fairing, even in original condition or as originally rebuilt as an A2/2. The severity of the curve is beautifully illustrated by both tender and cab side sheets in the above image. The tender curve on the Hornby model should match the cab curve exactly, its the same radius. The grab handle should be on the curve, not parallel with the flat of the tender side sheet, that is why we are looking straight on at the handrail on the cab side sheet, even though the loco is angled away from us.

Good evening Tony, you must have a special VIP tender, everybody else has the flat as a fart version as seen below. Talking about the incorrect top fairing. I appreciate it is only a graphic but Hornby seem to be determined to repeat the error with their upcoming model of Earl Marischal in double down deflector condition. Where is the tender curve in? It should look like the cab with daylight visible between the handrail and the side sheet due to the tight curve. The picture below shows the real Earl Marischal in double down deflector condition, to match the above graphic. Notice that the front of the tender side sheet is not visible due to the tightness of the curve. There is no streamlined fairing, there never was a streamlined fairing on this loco! Notice the water pipe hard up against the low forward bulkhead, just like an A3.

Good evening Tony, not just the lowering of the streamlined fairing (and front plate), Earl Marischal never carried a streamline fairing on its tender in either LNER or BR days. In addition, neither Cock 'o' the North or Earl Marishal had 'new type' tenders with flush side sheets, they both had side sheets that curved in at the cab end, like the tenders fitted to class A3. There was only one 'new style' tender with flush side sheets like the Hornby model, that was the tender that ran with Great Northern after it was rebuilt to class A1/1. The tender fitted to the rebuilt Great Northern, never carried a high or low streamline fairing, as on the Hornby model. The tender produced by Hornby is of new tooling and unlike earlier versions produced for class A3, it is the correct ride height. Unfortunately, Hornby have created a variant of the 'new style tender', with high streamlined fairing and flush side sheets, a type that never existed in reality.

Good afternoon Tony, don't forget the tender. No LNER / BR Pacific was paired with the type of tender presented on the Hornby Cock 'o' the North or on Earl Marischal above, it is entirely fictitious.

Evening robmcg, building things, good for them.

Good morning Tony, I don't have enough experience of handling modern RTR to pick a best. I have noticed that the larger pacific locomotives generally contain far more compromises, inaccuracies and toy like features than some of the smaller locomotives. On another note, the metal bodies look very well detailed but ironically they are rather let down by a plasticky looking finish. Beige pipework, what's that all about? Your O gauge build of 45305 is a cracker though.

Good evening Tony, are you being serious?

The pointy bit on an A4 roof is a separate curved piece that unbolts from the rest of the cab. The actual roof above the spectacle plate terminates into the side of the boiler cladding. It doesn't follow through to the end of the point as its own curve. Theoretically, the removable part is almost flush with the cladding on top. To facilitate this, Hornby simply paint on the point of the V to the top of the boiler cladding. If the loco is repainted, the point can disappear under the new layer of paint.

Good evening Tony, all LNER locomotives had red buffer shanks, it's just that they had to wear black buffer shank PPE south of Doncaster.

The only thing to worry about is producing identically shades of colour on rakes of wagons.

LMS Bauxite was never red, It is mostly described as brown. Larry Goddard remembered it being so. LNER red oxide on the other hand was kind of red. The LNER adopted a colour that they described as bauxite during the war, it is believed this was very similar to the shade adopted by BR, neither was like that used by the LMS. There were many different versions of bauxites as there were different versions of greys.

Pre war late thirties I would say. All the variations are present, including the right hand stripe on wagon number four. The paint work on older liveries is not too much of a surprise. The big four did like to look after their investments even if they were pooled. However, they are not the bandboxes of model railway land. There is a better version of this photo, I can't find it at present. The leading wagon is LMS, wagon number four is NE. I've never personally seen the mythical LNER dark, dark, dark grey and my Father didn't have much to say on the subject, only, ''they were grey, mostly".