7007GreatWestern

I've re-linked to the 2009 article describing how a Mainline/Bachmann Manor body was adapted to fit a Hornby Grange chassis.....and vice-versa. https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/5712-Bachmann-manor-modification-with-Hornby-grange-chassis/&do=findComment&comment=46632 In case the link still doesn't work I've also attached the relevant images. A very nice piece of modelling IMO.

The Bachmann Manor body has been shoehorned onto a Hornby Grange chassis before on RMWeb.......and rather nice it looked too! The modeller in question ended his post by saying "I'm now holding my breath to see if Bachmann upgrade their Manor in 2010 and make all this work a waste of time!". I sincerely hope he WASN'T holding his breath!!!!!

Thank You 'Southerner' for sharing your excellent footage of the 'Saint' commissioning. Many of us would have liked to attend the event but couldn't. Thanks to you we are all able to savour the sights and sounds of the day.

Thanks for that Miss P. As you say, 4144's doors (as preserved) were black when it wore the postwar GWR livery:- Of course this isn't a definitive answer since this is a loco in preservation where liberties are often taken! The following website suggests that the front and sides of the cab should be green and the rear face of the cab should be black:- http://www.gwr.org.uk/liveriesloco1942.html Here's the relevant part:- "A 1947 Swindon paint specification indicates that fittings on the tops of pannier and saddle tanks were in green. Tops and fittings on side tank locos remained black. In the same specification, green is cited for "cabsides front and back (inside and outside)" but black for "bunker coal space"." If this is correct, Hornby appear to have got it 'wrong way round' with the rear of the cab being green and the front black:-

Apologies if this has already been mentioned........... Are my eyes deceiving me or is the weatherboard (front face of the cab) painted black in this EP? If so, is it correct? I don't think it is. Judging by by the evidence of various preserved examples I'm not the only one:- These are both locos preserved by the GWS at Didcot (who are normally spot-on for authenticity) and both in postwar livery like the Hornby model of 4154. Happy to stand corrected if I'm wrong. Nice to see that Hornby have depicted the cab doors as black which is correct. Minor criticisms aside, I still think it's a very nice model.

4154 was completed in July '47 and the postwar 'GWR' livery is therefore correct for the loco as built. However the tall safety valve bonnet shown on the EP is incorrect. According to David Maidment's "Great Western Moguls & Prairies" the 5101s built after October 1930 (starting with 5160) were fitted with the short bonnet. If 4154 ever carried a tall bonnet it would have been as a result of a boiler change later in life......by which time it would probably also have been repainted! Other than that my initial impression are that this looks to be an excellent model. The paintwork also looks to be deeper and more lustrous than recent Hornby models. Well done Hornby. Credit Card is on standby!!!!

Here is some film taken earlier today of two "Swindon 2 cylinder taper boiler 4-6-0s indistinguishable to all but a very few". Those of you unable to distinguish between them are politely invited to visit this website where you might find assistance:- https://www.specsavers.co.uk/stores

It always amuses me when people say "all GWR locos look the same", or in the case of a recent post justify the non-production of a GWR loco by saying they're indistinguishable. Personally I wouldn't be able to tell a Merchant Navy from a West Country, a Royal Scot from a Patriot, or Peppercorn's A1s from his A2s. Nor is there much distinction between a Clan and a Britannia in my eyes. None the less we have RTR models of all of them! Personally I suspect a newly tooled Manor would sell rather well, if only because they have been such a familiar and popular type on Britain's preserved railways. They now have a reputation and profile far removed from that in the steam era.

My eyes could be playing tricks on me, but there appears to be a seam around the top feed supply-pipe covers and also around the base of the safety valve bonnet. Perhaps the bonnet and supply pipes are one separate component? If so it would be very easy to switch between safety valve types depending on the production run. I don't think I've seen that done before on any previous RTR GWR model.

Hello John, I thought you might appreciate some info on Large Prairie activity at Chester around your chosen period as well as an answer to your question. According to John Copsey's excellent article in GWRJ No.88 (August 2013) the full workings for Chester/Birkerhead from 1949 survive! At that time the large Prairies were allocated two kinds of working between Chester and Birkenhead:- Mainline passenger services from the south terminating at Birkenhead Woodside usually changed locomotive at Chester. The incoming tender engine would be removed and the Large Prairie would take the train the last 15 miles to Woodside. Prairies from both Chester and Mollington Street (Birkenhead) were used. These express workings were timed at around 30 minutes and usually stopped at Hooton and Rock Ferry. Stopping trains between Chester and Birkenhead were also handled mainly by the Large Prairies. These trains were timed at anything from 40 to 60 minutes. The diagrams for the Prairies typically involved two or three return trips between the two towns plus a run along the West Kirby branch or to Helsby. Of note, in 1948 Chester still had two of the older 5100 Prairies (Standard No.4 boiler, not covered by Hornby model). However, the more modern 5101s were the dominant type. In 1954 Birkenhead had 10, Chester 7. There is a really good article called "The Great Western in Wirral" with some nice photos of Large Prairies working around the Chester area here:- http://www.pendragonpublishing.co.uk/Great_Western_Wirral.pdf I'll leave it to the carriage experts on RMWeb to identify the vehicles seen in the article! The above article answers your question specifically. "On rare occasions, or when a ‘51XX’ was not available, specials were worked by GW tender locomotives of the ‘43XX’ 2-6-0 Class or ‘Hall’ and ‘Grange’ Class 4-6-0s." Of course Granby is based somewhat on Wrexham, so I'm glad to report a photo in David Maidment's book on "Prairies and Moguls" dated June 1949 which shows 5186 leaving Chester with a local train for Wrexham. However, the train of around 7 coaches seems to be a real mixed bag of corridor stock including two Toplights! Andy.

Speak for yourself Mr. Isherwood! That's quite possibly the most discriminatory and patronising post I've yet read on RMWeb....... Precisely WHAT has Rob's disability got to do with this? Is tolerance of his photomontages some kind of indulgence afforded to him because of his condition......but now he disagrees with the rest of us it's time to turn on him? Even by the typical standards of RMWeb product threads you have managed to take this discussion to a new low. Shame on you sir! You seem to be happy to assume the mantle of self-appointed moderator of this thread ("This is a railway modelling forum, not one for photo manipulation.") so doubtless we can look forward to more of your admonishments in future. Alternatively you could 'wind your neck in' and let Andy York decide?

Which just goes to show how stunning this model could have looked in lined green if it had a 'sympathetic' paint job at the factory! Why do the manufacturers all seem to find it so hard to produce a realistic rendition of lined green? This is one of the main reasons I decided to model the early 1950s since black (be it lined or unlined) is one colour they all seem to be able to get right!

Well said Rob! It should be said in the interest of balance that Heljan are not alone when it comes to 'over-egging the pudding' with loco lining. While Bachmann's version of green is superior to Hornby's, some of their lining is also very exaggerated. Look at the two images below of 'Hall' class locos reproduced at more-or-less the same size. In the photo of the real loco the lining is barely perceptible in places....the lining on the tender being most apparent. Compare that with the extremely vivid lining on the model. Model..... Reality..... I can see only two ways of improving the lining on RTR locos. The first is obvious: reduce its thickness. However, there will no doubt be technological limits on how fine you can go. The second is to tone down the vividness of the lining colour so that although it is still overscale it it far less apparent. Andy.

Hi Castle, I'm not sure what DCC controller you have, but the NCE Powercab will show you the current the loco is drawing. I have one of those, and being mindful of the reputation of Heljan locos for drawing a hefty current I checked my 47xx when it first arrived. The readings I got were in line with my non-Heljan locos....though admittedly I was running it light engine and at low-to-moderate speed. The decoder in mine is a Lenz Standard+ V2. If you controller isn't a Powercab you may want to check the instruction manual or online forums to find out if it can be configured to display current. I have a feeling even the Powercab does't show it by default - you have to go into 'Settings' to turn that feature on. (Happy to stand correct by more knowledgeable Powercab owners!) Alternatively, if you have an old DC controller knocking around you could put the blanking plate back in and test it on DC with an ammeter in series. It's a few years since I did such tests but I seem to recall that even a heavily loaded loco would typically draw less than 200mA. Again, I'm happy to stand corrected by the very knowledgable folk on RMWeb. Hope this helps. Andy.

The image is from Rails of Sheffield's website. I own one Heljan 47xx (unlined black) and am very happy with it......and feeling rather relieved I didn't hang on for a lined green one!

....well maybe, though that isn't necessarily an entirely good thing.... Did someone on here say that metal struts are 'purely cosmetic' and couldn't possibly be the cause of the running plate distortion on this model and the Hornby Eight-Coupled tanks....?

Thanks for that 34theletterbetween.....I wasn't aware of the issues you describe with double pivoting. It will be interesting to see what solution Dapol come up with, assuming the existing design is changed. Please feel free to contact Dapol to suggest a better solution. I agree with your point about making the front cylinder cover a separate, push fit moulding. I have suggested precisely that in my most recent post on Dapol Digest. Perhaps a removable 'half relief' cylinder cover could be fitted to the model in the factory, with an full relief one supplied in the accessory pack for the consumer to fit? Hornby have used rebated cylinders on several of their GWR 2 cylinder models (Grange, 42xx/72xx/52xx, 28xx) though to date haven't supplied alternate covers. A shame, as that would be a nice feature for people without tight radii.

Hi 57xx, Creating a rebate on the inner face of the cylinder is precisely what I have suggested to Dapol, as well as using off-centre pivot points to effectively lengthen the swing of the pony truck when cornering. It's a technique used by at least one other manufacturer and seems to be widely acceptable to customers. In Dapol's reply to my post they explain that the rear end of the cylinder block was shortened so that the vertical centreline would continue to line up with the centreline of the chimney.

Over on Dapol Digest I have received a courteous and constructive reply from them regarding the cylinder dimensions. It seems Dunsignalling was 'on the mark' when he wondered if this was a design decision taken to enable the model to negotiate 2nd radius curves. (see post #412). Richard of Dapol has said that they are going to try to redesign this aspect of the model if possible and will update us with revised drawings. The phrase 'if possible' is significant - it may be the project is too far advanced to make these changes now. If not, then I'm guessing an improved cylinder/bogie design should be practicable for the Large Prairie. Whatever you think of the design decision, I'd like to commend Dapol for actually listening to their customers and engaging positively with well intentioned advice. A marked contrast with some if not all of their competitors!

There is of course a very good reason why the leading and trailing faces of the cylinders and smokebox saddle will always line up - they are in fact the same physical component! Here is a photo of the newly cast cylinder/smokebox saddle for the preserved 2884 No. 3850:- http://www.dinmoremanor.co.uk/news-of-3850s-cylinder-casting/ On a real GWR loco the smokebox/cylinders are split in the vertical plane. Only on model trains are the saddle and cylinders separable from one another! I'm pretty convinced that the Dapol cylinders are undersized along the x-axis. The question is, are they also incorrectly positioned? I can't say with total certainty but the vertical centreline of the cylinders does seem to line up with the centreline of the chimney.....which it should. (See dotted red line). Because the cylinders are undersized in the x-plane, the leading edge of the front coupled wheels is clearly visible behind the piston gland (see orange oval), whereas in the official drawings it is obscured. I haven not yet received a reply to my postings on Dapol Digest regarding the error in the cylinders or the front vacuum pipe swan neck. I'll keep you updated if and when I do. In the mean time if anyone else sees anything erroneous in the drawings please inform us or Dapol. Other pairs of eyes would be useful - I am not an expert!

The above seems to be confirmed by official drawings..... Churchward Mogul cylinder position and footplate profile: Collett Mogul cylinder position and footplate profile: If you compare the above drawings it seems that on the Collett Mogul the curved drop in the running plate was moved forward relative to the front of the smokebox. On the Churchward Mogul the drop is clearly rearward of the smokebox front. Dapol look to have got the position of the curved drop correct for their model (Churchward Mogul), but the cylinders and saddle both seem to be undersized along the x-axis. The saddle should fill the gap between the boiler-to-smokebox rivets and the bufferbeam support strut...but it doesn't. Dapol Drawing of Churchward Mogul:

Over on Dapol Digest I have posted about a possible fault in the drawings regarding the position and size on the cylinders and smokebox in the new CADs. I'll repeat it here for anyone so interested....... "The problem relates to the width (when seen side-on) of the cylinder block and smokebox saddle. I have marked up the relevant part of your drawing and photographs of the prototype to illustrate my point. (see below) In your drawings the front face of the cylinders meets the horizontal running plate some distance behind the point where the running plate curves downward (red circle). This makes the front end-cover of the steam chest visible. When you look at the prototype photo however the front face of the cylinder meets the running plate at the point where it begins to curve down - NOT rearwards of it! Also, I would query the line of the front face of the smokebox saddle - it should be immediately behind the point where the buffer beam support struts attach to the smokebox. On your drawing there is a gap between the two (yellow circle). Finally I believe the rearmost face of the saddle should meet the forward row of circumferential rivets that hold the smokebox to the front of the boiler. (green circle). Again, on you drawing there is a gap between them. I have checked in David Maidment's book on the class and can find no photos of 4300s having the cylinder layout shown in the drawing at any stage in their lives. The rearward position of the front face of the cylinders looks correct for the later "Collett Moguls", but not the "Churchward Moguls". (See below) https://goo.gl/images/cePcdh However, the front and rear faces of the smokebox saddle are still wrong with respect the the buffer beam struts and the circumferential rivets."

I'm very happy to summarise feedback on here and put it onto Dapol Digest and I seem to remember MissPrism put his comments there directly. Personally I'm not bothered at all how the information gets to Dapol. What interests me is that if anyone sees any howlers Dapol are told and problems are rectified before they go to tooling. Perhaps if Oxford Rail had shared CADs and been receptive to comment the Dean Goods would have been a better model than it was? There will be no point in us all moaning when faults are spotted 6 months hence......we have an opportunity to make a difference NOW. For what it's worth (and it ain't worth much) I've already commented on the over-sized swan neck for the front vacuum hose on Dapol Digest.

Do any of the GWR authorities on here have any views on the new Dapol CADs? I recall MissPrism came up with a long list of recommendations based on the initial CADs which were sent directly to Dapol. The views of some of the more learned souls on here might be useful feedback for Dapol (MissPrism, Edwardian, Coachmann, Stationmaster Mike, Castle, CoachBogie and others whose names I can't remember....)?

New CADs of the Churchward Mogul have appeared on Dapol Digest in the last week:-