Joseph the L&YR lover

5 hours ago, Alex Neth said:

(If you see any grammar mistakes or info mistakes feel free to tell me, and I will fix it.)

So, lets talk about James.

For those who don't know, James is a 2-6-0 tender engine with 2 insid-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah... who cares, everyone knows him. You know his basis, the L&YR class 28, mogul version, which never existed, to help with stability issues with the smoke box. His model, however, does not depict the fake basis correctly. The Rev's model was of the G&SWR 403, aka Austrian Goods, which was going to be Jame's prototype basis.But this wasn't carried out, for some reason. But my theory is that the Austrian Goods look weird. The smoke box looks short, and the smoke box door looks too small. It looks like the NER Class P3 with the cab shorted and opened up.

But then that brings up the fact that the L&YR 28 doesn't look like James either. The boiler is too high up, the bellpaire fire box doesn't match the shape, the cab height is closer to the fire box height, the cab windows are on the side instead of on top. There are some characteristics that do carry over to James, like the funnel and dome heights.

Lets try some other Moguls, how about the CR 34 class? It's a good loco, but doesn't look like James, no bellbaire, base of smokebox too wide, windows too circular, and overall is too Scottish. Nothing is wrong with that, it's just Jame's isn't Scottish.

There is one more inside 2-6-0, the DSER class 15 and 16. It does have a good resemblance to James, minus the dome, funnel, and boiler height. If those could be fixed, then we have ourselves a good James!

But, however, then James would be Irish, and we want him to be English.

 

In conclusion, there will never be a perfect basis for James, but we can make good, alternative versions. Like mine I came up with. It is a version of the LB&SCR K class (as below) with the footplate flattened out, and the splashers increased in size about 15%/20%, cab height increased with the windows being above the boiler, as seen in Jame's model, the outside pistons being removed, funnel height increase to reach the height of the cab, and finally the top of the bellpaire needs to be rounded on top, like James model. I would do it in photoshop but I would have no idea of what I'm doing, so I'm out of luck.

is an example of the illustrations being weird, would stick to the written basis (no, there is no conflict of interest, why do you ask?) for this.

9 hours ago, DCB said:

That's exactly the sort of loco I could see being built for Sodor in 1895 ish and run until the 1930's and then rebuilt to look much like Edward!   Not sure anything larger than a 4mt was needed...

just forget they have an A1...although after the 39 rebuild it was less strong so eh?

3 hours ago, tythatguy1312 said:

you should see how often Sodor's changed layout, Henry's tunnel has been on both ends of the island at varying points

a diference between the show and books. mainly cause the show stays on the west coast and the books move from the east to the west from book 1-3

16 hours ago, tythatguy1312 said:

arguably what shocks me most about James is that he wasn't built, as Moguls are ideal light mixed-traffic engines and would be well suited to the many jobs James is depicted doing (stopping passenger, mixed freights, light expresses). He represents a logical evolutionary path for several railways, yet only the Caledonian ever got close with the 34 class.

If i can remember correctly there is a drawing of him, but it was only just a slight advantage compared to the standard class 28s

6 hours ago, MarkSG said:

 

Or even some non-generic short bogie stock, since a lot of that did last a lot longer than the four and six wheelers.

 

For that matter, we are, surely, long overdue a set of clerestories to contemporary standards.

think the concept of generic bogie stock has come up a lot so i kinda expect that to happen within the next 10 years?

2 hours ago, PenrithBeacon said:

Fowler did propose a compound Pacific, and Hughes did once propose very much larger engines before Grouping.

from what i've seen, the hughes locos were for goods work, and you also have to remember how much bigger a pacific or larger engine is compared to the infrastructure the lms had to work with 

2 hours ago, rodent279 said:

Would it? I'd always understood that GJC was wedded to equal length con rods, and cylinders that were horizontal, and, as far as practicable, in line with the driving axles. 

If you're prepared to diverge from the first, then you could have shorter con rods on the inside, longer on the outside, and reposition the inside and outside cyls so they are more inline (with each other).

If you're prepared to drop the requirement for the cyls to be horizontal & inline with the driving axles, you can raise them, to give increased loading gauge clearance. Which is more or less what was done on the Duchesses. So maybe an LMS Castle could have looked a bit like a 4-6-0 Duchess?

GW 4 cyl engines had inside Walschaerts gear, not Stephenson.

would a 4-6-0 duchess look much different from a dreadnought? 

10 hours ago, gr.king said:

You'll find it stated in other places too, there were no GNR coaches that looked like these in any period. The roof shape is completely wrong and the style of the panels is completely wrong for GNR 4 wheeled and 6 wheeled carriages.

yes, they are generics meant to represent those coaches, he is asking for what time period would the lettering be from

1 minute ago, Edwardian said:

 

Don't!

 

I can hear that wheedling voice again "But we've always had a generic six-coupled tank engine in our range"

 

we got that back in the stone age, not anything recent

i mean a 0-6-0 tank engine that doesn't look like it's from any company could work

Edit: or pull a Hornby and make a 2-4-0 or 0-4-2 chassis that can take multiple basic body shells 

15 minutes ago, Philou said:

Perhaps this ought to be in its own thread .......... we have the 'generic' coaches, but what about a nice 'generic' loco to pull them? I'll start with No6699 - H/D GWR 0-6-2T that I converted to 2-rail and has flanged wheels all round to go with my 'generic' consist (I'm at a bit of a loose end at the moment ................).

 

Here it is - bottom row, right:

 

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

think we had brought up a 4-4-0 made by beyer peacock or sharp stewart to work with some of the under represented companies

8 hours ago, TangoOscarMike said:

 

Thank you! For the paint-job I have in mind (futuristic Victorian) I think anything small and old-fashioned would do - the new Hattons or Hornby coaches, the Triang Clerestories, the Hornby 4-wheelers, the Ratio kits....

 

 

nah, you need small 3 or 4 compartment coaches with a similar envelope and speed whiskers to make it go faster

7 hours ago, adb968008 said:

That is precisely my plan.

Though I am biased, I have an A, 2x 0-6-0ST rebuilds, a Dreadnought, 2xDreadnought tanks as well as the Aspinalls... oh and pugs.

 

The A class 0-6-0 is a class much overdue to be modelled.

 

L&Y has some very fanciful stock...Butter Vans, Pigeon carriers, corpse wagon ! I’m surprised some of these havent been outed, even as kits.

don't forget the 30 ton wagons 

8 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Better not to mention those vehicles in the same breath as Bachmann's superb model! 

 

You are cautious to say "in S&DJR livery". They certainly bear no resemblance to any real S&DJR carriage, though of course their LMS prototypes saw service from the 1930s onwards. But it's not even any sort of S&DJR livery, just a blue of possibly vaguely the right shade - and whose daft idea was it to put the written class designations halfway down the door panels?

 

Dapol might as well paint them chocolate and cream and call them Great Western. Real Farish stuff...

 

Hey, that's got the blood circulating and me properly woken up!

well, it works with a lack of rtr stuff....or you could go the fun route and say it's a preservation thing

Just now, adb968008 said:

Ive read this in a couple of places.

But not seen anything definite to confirm it.

 

AiUI the cost of red vs Black meant post 1929 the plan never continued, but prior the plan was a towards uniform maroon fleet.

time to make a layout based on this now!

2 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

looked better with BR numbers.

 

I understand that, but for the depression/recession in 1929, the LMS was aiming for a total fleet in Maroon. Had that occurred, I guess an LMS Maroon would have naturally happened, as well as “Red fives”.

 

 

wait, lms red was going to be a standard livery for everything?

i predict.......they will release a train

but seriously, i would like to see a pregrouping 4-4-0 and maybe a new version of the lanky pug to go with the other recent 0-4-0st's? 

4 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

No, you want to be modelling the LNWR main line for that.

ah nice, a better railway than the midland

what we need is people to model the midland as it was, many double headers

as someone who has the midland 4f i say i like it more than the br and lms ones, but then again it may just be me loving the old midland number's and safety valve

2 hours ago, Sophia NSE said:

What kind of sick mind comes up with a thing like this??!!??

 

a weird 2-4-0 or small 0-6-0?

6 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

Unless of course they started at the same time, seizing on Hattons' idea with an aim to come to market earlier.

 

It's not like its not been done before albeit for different reasons.

seems like if anyone was doing that they would announce it by now

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

The red version does indeed look lovely. I am not sure those clerestories would have been a typical branch line train of the period. A few Slaters 6 wheelers would be more likely. The clerestories were more of a main line vehicle.

 

As I have a collection of MR carriages, including 6 wheelers, with a layout on the way to run them, the loco is tempting.

here's the thing, old bogie coaches look nicer and aren't used enough so they used them for this....and probably just what they had to hand

5 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

I watched the video with the sound off. Was the sample shown there the sort that makes its own noises or the sort where one can enjoy chuffing away oneself? 

just has the standard "electric motor getting revved up and down" music and a guy talking about the model

think that's mostly cause the tvs props they are based on are weirdly proportioned compared to oo gauge locos