7007GreatWestern

Haven't found anything for 60-62 but have you seen these pictures from September '63? https://flic.kr/p/7k1o2W https://flic.kr/p/7rC6Ah https://flic.kr/p/7DEcT2 There's also a colour picture which is claimed as '63 (but I have my doubts):- https://flic.kr/p/jmtgyH In all cases the location is Shrewsbury. There's also a photo of the loco dated 1958 showing the loco attached to a Churchward 3,500 gallon tender on e-Bay at the moment. Andy.

Another nice photo of 6825 in action attached to a Churchward 3,500 gallon unit with post '56 emblem. https://goo.gl/BAvCnV Sadly there is no caption detail whatsoever. The healthy mix of blood & custard and maroon stock suggest mid to late 50s to me, which ties in with James' estimate of '57. Does anybody recognise the location? Andy.

6825 seen at Par, date unrecorded:- https://flic.kr/p/Ps3zQz Most the photos I can find of it are from '63 and it was attached to a Collett 3,500 gallon tender at that time. Andy.

Hi Mike et al, I've done John Hodge a disservice in Post #30 by not going on to quote what he had to say about the Granges being attached to Hawksworth tender, but I did so only for the sake of clarity since that happened much later in their careers. The quote from the Hornby website appears to say that four Granges were allocated non standard tenders when new, the operative word here being "originally":- "Originally the class were paired with Churchward 3,500 gallon tenders, many coming from the withdrawn ‘4300’ class locomotives, including four with modified higher sides and longer fenders and in time Collett’s own 3,500 gallon tenders were used From 1942, Collett’s larger 4,000 gallon tenders were used and, just occasionally, Hawksworth straight sided tenders.." ​I'm not saying that either Hornby or Mr. Hodge are definitely wrong. I'm simply puzzled that there was no reference to it in Mr. Hodge's very detailed article and I'm interested to know what tenders Hornby are referring to. Given the depth and breadth of expertise on RMWeb I'd be amazed if someone hereabouts didn't know ;-) In case anyone is interested, John Hodge's article has the following to say about 'Granges' being paired with Hawksworth tenders. It occurred on three occasions. In September 1953 6863 'Dolhywel Grange' was attached to Hawksworth tender No. 4087 and the pair remained together until the loco emerged from Swindon in August '54. 6853 Morehampton Grange was paired with Hawksworth tender No. 4037 at Tyseley for the grand total of twelve days in March/April '54 while its own tender was repaired. Finally 6844 'Penhydd Grange' was paired with Hawksworth tender No. 4008 from July '62, probably until withdrawal in April '64. ​Mr. Hodge closes his account with the following caveat which agrees with Mike's point about the fallibility of official records and the importance of photographic evidence:- "Some caution must be observed in treating official tender details as sacrosanct as some changes never appear to have been officially recorded and there are no details after 1964." Andy.

Ray, Just to be clear, is the above photo one of the newly released models (presumably Llanvair Grange)? Andy.

Back in post #22 Railroadbill included a quote from the Hornby website:- "Originally the class were paired with Churchward 3,500 gallon tenders, many coming from the withdrawn ‘4300’ class locomotives, including four with modified higher sides and longer fenders and in time Collett’s own 3,500 gallon tenders were used." ​In a following post I speculated that the four tenders with modified high sides and long fenders may the the so called "Intermediate" type. I've had a dig around in my collection and turned up the following from Steam Days (January 2002) "Great Western Granges - A Case Of Better Late Than Never" by the very knowledgeable John Hodge:- "The 'Granges' ran exclusively with Churchward 3,500 gallon tenders from new until 1942, when 24 were paired with a Collett 4000 gallon tender by the end of the year.......In August 1944 No. 6811 became the first 'Grange' to be paired with a Collett 3,500 gallon tender (No. 2257) which then passed on to No. 6807 from November 1946 to June 1948. During 1948 these tenders progressively began to be paired with 'Granges', and gradually the whole of the seventeen tenders (Nos. 2242-68) were used with the class..." Mr Hodge then goes on to kibosh my theory about Intermediate tenders being attached to the 'Granges':- "None of the Intermediate tenders built by Collett were ever used with the 'Granges'." All of which leaves unanswered Hornby's claim about the four non-standard tenders. Contributions from some of the GWR experts hereabouts would be appreciated. As it happens four of early the 'Granges' did differ from the rest of the class, though the difference was not the tender. They were initially fitted with tapered cast iron chimneys without copper cap, possibly from the 4300 moguls they replaced:- https://goo.gl/images/mCVgc3 As Micheal Caine might say, "Not a lot of people know that." :-) Andy.

A few points on the above.... There is an excellent article on the differences between and evolution of different GWR tender types by a gentleman called Jim Champ:- http://www.gwr.org.uk/no-tenders.html He modestly describes it as a "Beginner's Guide". My mind boggles at what the 'Expert Guide" would be like! Regarding Hornby's claim that four Granges were initially attached to "tenders with higher sides and longer fenders": I am guessing (but don't know) that they are referring to the so-called "Intermediate" tenders. They are discussed in the above article. Regarding the Hornby "Overton Grange" model I must contradict the post above - they were fitted with vacuum pump spindles as were all the early Sander Kan era releases of the Grange (e.g. Derwent Grange, Hardwick Grange, Frankton Grange). If anyone is interested I recently did a blog article on replacing the cylinders, slidebars, crossheads and connecting rods on an "Overton Grange" showing that they did feature the pump spindle:- http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blog/2308/entry-20572-new-cylinders-sliders-crosshead-for-Hornby-grange/ Railroadbill is quite right when he says that the pump body and spindle are difficult to see behind the Automatic Train Control conduit. In real life they were far more prominent:- http://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrbsh1806.htm Contrast the above photo of the real "Crynant Grange" with Railroadbill's photo of the Hornby model. I believe that the designers of the model had to make certain trade-offs once the decision was made to represent the ATC conduit as a separately fitted component. If it were truly reduced to scale size it would be too fragile to handle by the operatives on the production line. The conduit is therefore overscale in thickness as is the clearance between the conduit and the lower edge of the running plate. The vacuum pump body has also been moved in from the edge of the running plate to make space for the overscale conduit. When the Hornby Hall was released a decade later as a "Design Clever" model, refinements like ATC conduit were dispensed with. That did however enable the designers to give greater prominence to the vacuum pump components:- http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/103783-gwr-hall-class/?p=2083409 Andy.

On the subject of things Liverpudlian, the two Johns may not be aware that Ken Dodd passed away this weekend at the age of 90. I hope gents you will not mind if I post some of his best gags, gleaned from the BBC website. The passing of 'Doddy' is another part of 'old Liverpool' gone forever. Andy. "My dad knew I was going to be a comedian. When I was a baby, he said, 'Is this a joke?'" "I love my girlfriend, my girlfriend loves me. She loves my hair, she loves my eyes, she loves my teeth. She loves my teeth because I'm the only person that can peel an orange through a tennis racket." "I haven't spoken to my mother-in-law for 18 months. I don't like to interrupt." "My act is very educational. I heard a man leaving the other night, saying: 'Well, that taught me a lesson.'" "The man who invented cats' eyes got the idea when he saw the eyes of a cat in his headlights. If the cat had been going the other way, he would have invented the pencil sharpener." On his famous tax fraud trial: "I told the Inland Revenue I didn't owe them a penny because I live by the sea." On his live shows that famously started at about 8 o'clock in the evening and finished in the early hours of the following day: "You think you can get away, but you can't. I'll follow you home and I'll shout jokes through your letterbox." "Do I believe in safe sex? Of course I do. I have a handrail around the bed." "I do all the exercises every morning in front of the television - up, down, up, down, up, down. Then the other eyelid." "I did 25 minutes running on the spot this morning - I had my braces caught in the banister."

I think the answer to your question lies in StationMaster Mike's post. These locomotives are being assembled in haste in a production line environment. The operatives may well even be paid 'piece work'. The problem with the vacuum pump spindle is that it requires the slidebars to be lined up with the running plate edge with greater accuracy than if the spindle isn't present. If it isn't lined up correctly the spindle either fouls the inside of the pump body causing drag on the motor or it drops out altogether, a situation that will be all too familiar to anyone who has taken these locos apart for remedial work. To make matters worse the Hornby Grange is very susceptible to 'drooping' cylinders and/or slidebars, a condition that results from the inadequately designed supports for both components. That makes it even more difficult to get the pump spindle to line up with the pump body. Here's a photo to show what I mean:- https://railsofsheffield.com/products/29974/Hornby-r3452-oo-gauge-br-4-6-0-llanvair-grange-6800-grange-class-locomotive It is possible with appropriate 'fettling' to get everything to line up, but it takes takes time and time is of course money. Hornby is also gambling on the fact that the bulk of its customers neither know nor care what a vacuum pump is. For the benefit of anyone who doesn't know, the crosshead driven vacuum pump was widely used on GWR 2 cylinder designs and worked like an inverted bicycle tyre pump. Whereas the bicycle pump pushes air into a tyre, the vacuum pump expels air from the locomotive brake system to help the Driver maintain the 25" Hg depression required to keep the train brakes in the 'release' position. The effectiveness of the pump depended on the speed at which the wheels were turning. The GWR system was ineffective below 15mph, so the driver would have to use the 'live steam' ejector to release the brakes from a standing start. Once above 15 m.p.h the crosshead driven pump would help maintain the vacuum against the inevitable leakages in 200+ yards of flexible hose and imperfect break cylinder seals. The driver would therefore not have to waste hard-won and expensive 'live steam' to do the same job. Andy.

In fairness to Hornby they have done something about it - they've progressively introduced improvements to the model with each successive release to the point that the most recent models are very good indeed. That isn't much consolation though to the folks who have the early releases and are dissatisfied with them. As an aside, I bought two pre-owned Hornby models from certain well known Liverpool emporium this weekend. Both appeared to be pristine and unused. One was a 14 year old, Sander Kan manufactured, 'old school' Hornby 'Grange'. The other was a Hornby 'Star', about six years old and like the 42xx a product of 'Design Clever'. Can you guess which one is now running like a Swiss watch and which is going back to the retailer because it is unusable on DCC? No prizes sadly. Andy.

I've often thought that The Wirral Way (the trackbed of the former Hooton - West Kirby line) would make an excellent heritage railway. It's about the right length (12 miles), passes through pleasant scenery and is close to attractive towns like Parkgate. It would also have two points of interchange with the national rail network. Additionally, while Manchester has a steam railway of its own, neither Liverpool nor Chester do. In short, there is an un-tapped market. As it happens one station at least has survived in much the same condition as it was when the line closed. Hadlow Road is three stops down from John's former local station of Heswall. It's popular with walkers and cyclists has a tea room. It has an active local support group and even has its own Facebook page! I found this little film made by a local community TV channel discussing fundraising and maintenance for the station. The accents should bring back memories for John! Andy.

Hi Simon, If this was almost any other model I would suspect your retailer of bluffing in order to avoid refunding/exchanging. In this case however they're right! Here's the photo from their website of one of their premium priced weathered models:- https://www.themodelcentre.com/R3222COALTMC/ I tend to agree with Rob - if you're not confident to do the mods yourself or you feel you shouldn't have to then send it back. I see you're in Oz. I'm not sure whether Australian or UK Consumer Rights pertain but here's a helpful link to your rights in UK Law:- https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/advice/i-want-to-return-my-goods-what-are-my-rights The article makes reference to 'goodwill' returns and hopefully that will be the case in this instance. I also suggest you check TMC's website for their Terms & Conditions which may be above and beyond the minimum that is required in Law. They ARE legally obliged to stick to their own T&Cs. Andy.

Steady! You could end up on a certain well known 'naughty step'!

Here is one of the eight-coupled tanks with straightened running plate. Getting everything straight from the front of the tanks to the leading face of the cylinders required the motion radius plate, outside steam pipes and the bottom edge of the smokebox saddle to be filled down. I used abrasive boards for the task. I recommend doing it a bit at a time and re-checking the fit as you go along to avoid filing off too much! Once everything was satisfactory I glued the joints and gently clamped everything while the glue cured. Getting the running plate forward of the cylinders to lie down is another matter altogether. As you can see, I have tried replacing the factory fitted struts with my own made from nickel-silver wire which are longer than the originals. The hope was that lengthening the struts would push the front bufferbeam down further. I'm still not completely satisfied with it. My next move will be to remove the factory fitted coupling hook from the front buffer beam and replace it with one similar to this:- Hopefully the 'invisible' portion of the hook will locate under Hornby's (extremely crude) representation of the extension frames, thereby drawing the whole front running plate and buffer beam downwards. I hope this is of help, Andy.

This is a common problem with the early releases of the Hornby Eight-Coupled tanks and recent releases have been much better (but still not perfect). The problem goes back to the design of the smokebox saddle, motion bracket and outside steam pipes (though the latter aren't a problem on your model), which make it impossible for the production-line operative in China to get everything straight. The only solution is to take the body to bits and fettle it yourself or return it to the retailer. Fortunately there are some very good articles if you do decide to do it yourself. George Dent did an article in Model Rail showing the process. Here's an link which you might find useful:- http://georgedentmodelmaker.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/hornbys-big-tank.html Also a gent called Ray, who goes by the alias SilverSidelines has done his own blog article which is similarly excellent:- https://longsheds.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/no129-hornbys-class-52xx-tanks.html I've done a couple of these myself, one of which should be appearing on A Nod To Brent in the next few weeks. It's a relatively straightforward job, greatly assisted by the fact that the upper body isn't even glued to the running plate (they clip together). A very 'doable project' for someone with basic dexterity, tools and confidence. You may be wondering how it could be that Hornby produced a design with such elementary flaws. The answer is simple: this model was one of the products of Hornby's "Design Clever" fad. It amazes my that there are people on this platform actually calling for its return........ Andy.

Hello John, I didn't realise that Granby was based (however loosely) in the Wrexham area. As I'm sure you know, Wrexham in reality had three stations, Exchange, General and Central. The history of the railways around Wrexham, the Dee Estuary and the Wirral is byzantine in its complexity and I won't attempt to summarise it here (frankly, it makes my head spin!). For anyone interested the relevant 'Disused Station" entries are a start:- http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/w/wrexham_central/index0.shtml As unlikely as it seems, Wrexham was as much a stronghold of the Great Central (later LNER) stronghold as it was of the GWR. The GCR owned Exchange station outright and its forebear, the Manchester, Sheffield & Lincolnshire Railway built Wrexham Central and the line to Ellesmere line in partnership with the Cambrian. The GWR backed out of the joint project to build the line! Wrexham even had its own LNER shed called Rhosddu, some details of which can be found here:- http://shedbashuk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/wrexham-rhosddu-1946-1959.html John, you could if so minded justify running some ex-LNER stock on Granby. A couple of J11s were based there around 1947 (modelled by Bachmann), as was a J94 (DJ Models, Hornby) and three of the enigmatic Y3 0-4-0T 'Sentinels'. This is available in OO gauge but only from ModelRail magazine apparently:- http://www.modelrailoffers.co.uk/p/58068/MR-014-MR-Dapol-Y1-Sentinel-Steam-Locomotive-number-68138 There were sporadic appearances by J72s at the shed at that time as well, a newly tooled model of which is to be released by Bachmann this year. Personally I think a "Director" 4-4-0 heading a rake of Hornby Gresley teak stock would look very handsome indeed exercising the GCR's running rights from Chester Northgate into Granby! You mention memories of Southport Chapel Street and the L&YR 2-4-2 tanks. There are a few photographs on David Hey's wonderful website:- http://www.davidheyscollection.com/page27.htm By the time I began travelling by train to Southport in 1979 they had long gone, but remnants of the past were everywhere. The former steam shed was open as a tourist attraction called "Steamport". It hosted an eclectic collections of exhibits, including the sole surviving Mersey Railway steam loco, an unlikely looking outside framed condensing 0-6-4 tank engine called "Cecil Raikes". It also housed the only surviving original carriage from "The Docker's Umbrella" (The Liverpool Overhead Railway) and one of the last remaining Liverpool trams. Steamport has long since been closed and demolished but its exhibits have moved on to new homes. You might want to check these links out John as I am sure they will bring back memories of your youth:- http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/mol/collections/transport/tramcar-245.aspx https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liverpool_Overhead_Railway_electric_units#/media/File:Liverpool_Overhead_Railway_carriage,_Museum_of_Liverpool-2.jpg And one from before you time or mine John, Cecil Raikes:- http://www.healeyhero.co.uk/rescue/pits/Ilkeston/Cecil-Raikes.html Passenger service from Liverpool to Southport in the 80s were still in the hands of the LMS designed Class 503 EMUs, some of which dated back to 1938! Liverpool was in such state of dereliction at that time that people barely noticed that they were travelling around in what was pre-war equipment. My recollection of them is of their blinding acceleration and highly sprung seating. Towards the end of the careers in 1985 some of the drivers decided to "have a go" just for old time's sake. The resulting exhilarating runs caused the (few) passengers on board to be almost thrown out of their seats as they passed over rail joints at breakneck speed, aided considerable by the aforementioned seats! At the end one of them was repainted into LMS livery for use on special occasions. It is now preserved at a museum in Coventry, but here it was back in 1985:- http://www.martynhilbert.railpic.net/gallery/displayimage.php?pid=474&lang=luxembourgish I hope these rambling observations and reminiscences are of interest and bring back a few memories. Andy.

As Stationmaster Mike says the 4700s were unpopular with some firemen, but not everyone was of the same opinion. In his book “Engines Good and Bad” A.W. Summers, who joined the GWR in 1923 had the following to say about them (P.64): “They usually ran at night, so the the 4700s were rarely seen in action during daylight, which may account for their relative obscurity.” He goes on to say “As a fireman ay Old Oak Common, I had many trips on these engines, and was convinced that they were excellent engines……They were not booked to work at express train speed , but once out on the road they were able to maintain a high speed and were rarely behind schedule due to a fault with the locomotive.” In his book “Firing Days - Reminiscences of a Great Western Fireman” former Didcot fireman Harold Gasson wrote that the 4700s were “a locomotive that was favourite with all Great Western enginemen”. He also wrote “They were popular with enginemen because of their sheer all out power and running qualities, but firemen found them to be “the coal minder’s friend””. Moving on to Stationmaster Mike’s point about the ease with which he was able to spot the entire class during daylight hours. The reason for this according to Maidment’s book (*) is the changing pattern of use of the class. Prior to and during the war they were assigned to “six day turns”, which meant they were rarely available to work Summer Saturday extras. During that period they did work some regular passenger local passenger trains which were “filling in” jobs between overnight freight duties. An example he gives is a six-coach Newton Abbot to Exeter stopper which was 4700 hauled from the late 20s until the outbreak of war. After the war Saturday holiday work became more common because some of their freight diagrams became ‘Saturdays Excepted'. Maidment goes on to say that the 1955 ALSEF strike caused the railways to lose a significant amount of business to road transport and that resulted in the 4700s being further freed for daytime work. Whatever individual enginemen may have thought of them there is evidence that they were regarded very highly indeed within the company. Here are some claims from Maidment’s book that paint a stark picture of how important these locomotives were to the GWR and Western Region. In 1937 the annual average mileage of the class was about the same as the ‘Halls’, but the average tonnage hauled per mile was 40% greater for the 4700s versus the ‘Halls’. The work they did was of such importance that Collett was briefed daily on the running of the overnight “vacuum freights”. As late as 1953 the Western Region order a complete new set of No. 7 boilers to replace the original ten which were by then thirty years old. The new boilers were fitted to the entire class between 1955 and 1960. Clearly Western Region Management knew the value of these locos and believed they had many years of productive use ahead of them. I don’t know who coined the term ‘Night Owl’, but it has been adopted by the Great Western Society’s group attempting to recreate one of these locos. Given that they are competing for scarce funds with projects with more “media friendly” subjects (e.g. Patriot "Unknown Warrior", P2 "Prince of Wales") it surely makes sense to do so? In the not too distant past I was a volunteer working on the restoration of a certain ex-GWR loco. It was well known in preservation circles at that time that it is harder to raise funds for a locomotive which is un-named. The 'Night Owl' sobriquet may not sit well with some enthusiasts, but then they aren't usually the ones having to raise hundreds of thousands of pounds from jumble-sales, will bequests, business sponsorship, private donations and steaming fees. I hope the above is of interest. Andy. * “Great Western Eight Coupled Heavy Freight Locomotives”, David Maidment, Pen & Sword Transport.

When the re-tooled Hornby 'Grange" first graced our model shops (2004 I believe) it "raised the bar" in terms of standards for the GWR modeller. It was Hornby's first attempt at a Western loco in the new era of high-fidelity models manufactured in China. The retooled 'Castle' and 28xx/2884 were still years down the pipeline so the Grange was a pioneer! The model combined hitherto unknown standards of detail and accuracy (for Western modellers that is!) with the silky smooth performance of the five-pole motor. Compared to the crude Triang Halls and Mainline Manor of the 70s and 80s it was in an altogether different league. It was however not perfect. One feature that always let it down in my eyes was the area of the cylinders, sliders and crossheads. The slidebars seemed to have been manufactured as pressing from thin sheet metal. They lacked the chunky 'depth' of the prototype. The thin slidebars had a knock-on effect on the crossheads which were made thin to match. If you're unsure what I'm talking about here's a photograph of a typical GWR 2 cylinder arrangement seen on the West Somerset Railway:- Then in 2016 Hornby released its retooled "Hall". The model was conceived during Hornby's "Design Clever' phase and featured many compromises compared to the 'Grange' of a decade earlier. No brass axle bearings. No five-pole motor. Brake ejector, outside steam pipe and numerous handrails all moulded integrally with the body rather than as separately fitted details. The model received a mixed response, but one feature immediately caught my eye - the slidebars. They were head and shoulders above those on the Grange. I wondered if it would be possible to swap the factory fitted 'Grange' components with their equivalents from the 'Hall'? A quick 'Google' found that "Peter's Spares" had exactly what I was looking for, Hornby Parts X6640/X6641. The 'bag o' bits' you get contains the cylinders, slidebars, slidebar braces, a screw to attached the cylinders to the chassis as well as the connecting rods/slidebars and piston rods for both sides of the loco. Below is a side-by-side comparison of the 'Grange' (left) and 'Hall' (right) slidebars and:- Below the 'Hall' (left) and 'Grange' (right) crossheads showing the difference in thickness between the two. So, how easy are they to fit? The answer is that a tiny bit of modification is required. If you look at the above photograph you will see two raised 'ribs' on the plastic web that links the two cylinders.The purpose of the ribs is to keep the cylinder assembly centred on the chassis block. However, the inner faces of the ribs are a little closer together on the 'Hall' than the 'Grange' so I opened them out slightly with some emery board. The only other modification required is the chamfered hole for the fixing screw. That needs to be opened out a little with a round file - it doesn't quite line up with the screw thread on the 'Grange' chassis. Below is the finished result:- To my eyes at least, it's a big improvement on the factory fitted offering. Are there any downsides to this mod? A couple. For a start, the 'Grange' and 'Hall' slidebars are supported midway along by different means. On the 'Grange' a part of the pressing is bent at 90 degrees to the slidebars and then is bedded in a slot in the side of the chassis block. On the Hall, a separate plastic bracket attaches around the upper and lower sidebars. This in turn 'sits' on part of chassis. Using my modification the slidebars aren't supported at all except at the cylinders. That being said they haven't so far shown the slightest inclination to droop despite a protracted run-in period! Another thing to bear in mind is that the 'Hall' cylinders don't include the representation of the rocking lever/valve spindle that is a feature of the 'Grange' model. It would be easy however to drill some small holes in the rear face of the steam chest to allow the 'Grange' part to be attached to the 'Hall' cylinder. One final point to bear in mind. The 'Grange' slidebars are far more forgiving of misalignment with respect to the path of the crosshead than is the case with the much thicker 'Hall' slidebars. Because they were made of such thin material the 'Grange' slidebars will deflect to accommodate any such misalignment - the 'Hall' ones won't......but then that's true of the Railroad 'Hall' equally! My point is, care is needed to ensure everything lines up, especially the vacuum pump spindle and pump body. Which leads me on to one final point. There is also one extra nice pay-off with this modification. Recent releases of the 'Grange' have omitted the spindle linking the crosshead to the vacuum pump. The 'Hall' crosshead come with the spindle! I hope this simple mod, which I haven't seen done elsewhere is of use to someone. I for one am pleased with the result. Andy.

No, I didn't buy any of the first batch that came without proper bearings. I was and remain 100% opposed to "Design Clever" and would have never given them houseroom as originally specified. Am I right in saying that Simon Kohler insisted that subsequent batches should get decent bearings or is that just an urban myth? Whoever it was I say "Thank You!".

According to Maidment's book they were prohibited from South Wales, the North & West Route (Newport-Shrewsbury) and Cornwall. However, there were a few 'exceptions to the rule'. The prototype 4700 regularly worked a Bristol-Carmarthen freight when new. However, at that time it was still fitted with the smaller Standard No. 1 boiler which was later dispensed with. Once the Standard No. 7 boiler was fitted to the class the restriction on them increased further. During the Second World War restrictions on them were relaxed somewhat and they were allowed into Cardiff to work traffic from the docks. By 1942 they were working a Paddington-Bristol-Shrewsbury-Greenford diagram so the North & West Route restriction must have been waived. Once the war ended, the peacetime restrictions came into effect again. The 47's were officially restricted to 60 mph throughout their lives, but given that they were never fitted with speedometers it's perhaps unsurprising that they were occasionally time at 70-80mph on passenger duties!

On the subject of which Rob, when are we likely to see said locomotive passing through a well know station in the South Hams? Is it at Swindon for Works attention?

Handy to know a friendly modeller with a surplus 72xx who isn't a rip-off merchant then?

And to think, prior to 1889 there wasn't even a requirement in law for passenger trains to be 'fitted'! Thanks Mike for that insight into real railway operation. In the case of your Class 37 hauled train at Cwmbargoed you mention the presence of a brakevan. Was there radio comms. between the footplate crew and the brakevan in the diesel era? Andy.

Hi Ian, I'm not suggesting the run in David Maidment's book is at all typical. These locos spent the great bulk of their lives attached to long rakes of heavily loaded, unfitted wagons and 50mph hour running would be out of the question! However, SimonMW's question was about the maximum speed of the prototype, not the typical speed. Personally I'm happy with the gearing on the Hornby model. In the trade-off of speed vs torque I'll take torque every time with this particular model and 30 mph suites me fine. Andy. PS. I have no doubt that the sensation of being 'pushed in the rear' by 600 tons+ teetering on the brink of being out of control would be terrifying to us mere mortals!

In his book "Great Western Eight Coupled Heavy Freight Locos" former Western Region Manager David Maidment recounts an experience he had aboard 42xx in 1962. Strictly speaking this forum is concerned with the 72xx, but given that the only difference between the 42xx and 72xx is the enlarged bunker we can consider a run on a 42xx as a good guide. Returning to Mr. Maidment and 1962. As a Western Region Management trainee he was booked to ride aboard 4279 with a Footplate Inspector and a Llanelli 'Passed' Fireman who was being examined, presumably to be 'made up' to Driver. As fate would have it the Llanelli fireman didn't turn up so Mr. Maidment got to spend the day driving a 42xx under the tutelage of a Footplate Inspector no less. Lucky man! Of interest to this discussion is their return journey form Margam comprising fifty empty cattle wagon which were vacuum fitted. "I relaxed as the sun glowed red in the sky ahead of us and we chirruped away, cantering along at around 50– 55mph. The old engine shook and rattled and the cab controls did a war dance, but the engine rode well enough and I leaned out of the cab side space feeling very content. I watched, mesmerised, as the front end of the running plate jigged around, seemingly independent of the rest of the locomotive, and bade farewell to the inspector as we parked 4279 under the coal tower, ready for it to be put away by the shed staff." So, on the rare occasions the eight coupled tanks were let loose on something vacuum fitted they were capable of running into the high fifties at the very least. That being said I'm very pleased indeed with the running qualities of my three Hornby eight coupled tanks - they run quieter and smoother than ANY other RTR Great Western Tank model that I own. Mr. Maidment's book is highly recommended to anyone with an interest in the GWR freight scene. I have no connection the Author or anyone else connected with the book. Maidment, David. The Great Western Eight Coupled Heavy Freight Locomotives (Kindle Locations 1401-1402). Pen and Sword. Kindle Edition.