railroadbill

That's the one, by Ken Chadwick (just looked it up on Amazon). Thanks. It's got some interesting ideas, providing the donor locos are available cheaply enough. Now, thanks to GBR.... Rowanj's A3 looks spot on!

Meant to say in last post that mushroom vents on tender tend to drop off, stick back in easily enough but probably best to check before they disappear. Also the cab ventilator isn't square to the cab roof (but seems fitted in a slot).

On the top of the boiler (on all of my 4) is a rather strange moulding line. Hardly shows, in fact took me quite a while to notice it despite taking one to pieces. Probably fine for display as is but if it's going to have much done to it then it calls for a touch of 2000 grade wet and dry followed by Halfords Vauxhall burgandy red, or crimson lake as it's otherwise known. Still, have to cut the moulded handrails off anyway. Tried fitting the chassis from my Millholme 2P, lines up ok. Enough room, this is an idea of what it would look like as a 990 class. Comparison of how much longer compound is alongside 2Ps (Millholme and Jamieson), another project still to be finished! Chimney and dome from Jamieson 2P to show LMS fittings. I'm thinking these would have been a standard pattern, could be wrong and need to check. When the compound is in pieces it's rather like looking at a Kitmaster kit, already painted!

Sorry for dimly lit pic, but here's what it looks like with the centre of the footplate part cut away, also the pillar for the attachment screw has been cut off. Re compounds on the SDJR. In Peter Smith's book Footplate over the Mendips compound 1046 is mentioned as being allocated to the SDJR during the second world war, and other compounds very occasionally working over the line. Also in 1924 compound 1065 was tried between Bath and Bournemouth on 230 ton trains but didn't pull so well at slow speed as hoped. 990 class 995 was tried in 1925 and did better with a 230 ton train but didn't fit onto the Bath turntable otherwise all 10 990s could have been transferred to the S&D. (Presumably the compound wouldn't either but perhaps by ww2 the turntables were larger).

Thanks Tren, it was the 990 class (990-999) that I was thinking of, so class 4 like the compound. I believe that they were built for hilly routes, specifically the S and C. The 3Ps (700-799) sound like they could be worth some research. Somewhere in my pile of books on the SDJR I think I read that the 900 type had been tried on that line, but didn't stay. Compounds were run there as well I think. Have to find an appropriately numbered one that ran there. (Deeley or Fowler?)

Another thought, because the splashers come off so neatly, this could be a bit of a bonus with small wheeled 7F.

Beat me to it, Nile! I've just stripped down one of mine, haven't taken the splashers off yet. I've cut the centre part of the footplate moulding off between the driving wheels, looks like enough room for a working chassis to fit. The moulded frames under the front of the footplate can probably stay there. All in all the mouldings look precise enough, better than the castle body, but then from a rather more recent source perhaps. One of my 4 had a black tender back as in an earlier posting, but finish is otherwise good on them.

Recently read a book, can't remember name right now but got it out of library, about converting locos from various other (cheapish) locos. One was an sdjr 7F from an airfix 4F with a modified boiler, think it ran on a Hornby 8F chassis. So think it could be done from gbr compound. One to muse about, may not be finished that soon of course.

A "bus safari" took me to W H Smiths in Colchester today where I bagged 4 compounds. They actually look very good, excellent finish. My game plan is (ok I'm sticking my neck out here) 1 conversion to LMS compound, 1 conversion to class 3 4-4-0, [the simple version of the compound as used on the S & C], 1 conversion to 7F 2-8-0 - and a motorised Midland compound since it looks good to start with. The first 3 would need different domes for one thing, but the 1000 dome as fitted looks like it might pull out/be cut out leaving an already moulded groove for an LMS dome to be fitted. Cutting the moulded handrails off the one to be left as MR might be problematical if trying to save the finish though. Wouldn't matter on any other conversions as they would be black. And only £8.99 each (plus 2p for the 2 bags to put them in, but they did then go in the suitably large rucksack I'd had the foresight to take....) Up in loft tomorrow to start taking things apart.

Put an order in on the MT website on a Sunday night for a mixture of detailing bits and pieces and it dropped through the door Tues morning which is very good service. Put in another order by phone and got some good advice from Dave as well. MT will be missed I think....

Where's the mouse, then?

Doesn't your time go on the other side of the balance sheet? i.e. if I buy a kit/parts, whatever, for £40 and spend 40 hours making it then that's only £1 per hobby hour, dead cheap for a pastime. (At least that's how I sell it to swimbo!!)

One thing about GBL that is a bonus is the plinth that the loco comes on, which is handy for displaying other locos when placed on a shelf. Very handy (expect that's been commented on somewhere above already).

What! Shock horror! But I paid 30 shillings for my Ian Allen collection of F J Roche drawings in Foyles in, er, well rather a few years ago! Best comparing several sources, I guess. I've just been looking at a load of Castle photos and perhaps the cab roof is really higher than I expected so the GBL cab height could be ok (I first though it looked a bit high). Really like Castles, if I had just one large scale model in a glass case then it would have to be one. Probably why I kept the Hornby Dublo and Airfix ones.

Hi Skinnylinny, Been up in loft with camera and scewdriver. Airfix castle in front, GBL other side of platform. Castle behind is Hornby Dublo Bristol Castle. That's the GBL body. Comparison of Airfix (green and boiler bottom) with GBL (black). The Airfix chassis (unpowered due to tender drive) is secured by 2 screws one under cab, other near smoke box, which also hoilds bogie on. The GBL "chassis" is held on by a screw into the long circular fixing half way along the boiler. I then cut this out. There is a small screw hole under the cab on the GBL one but this is slightly further forwards than the Airfix one. The Airfx chassis will fit under the GBL body but at first sat slightly too far back. I think this can be packed so the driving wheels are centred correctly under the splashers. The cylinders will fit into the cut outs on the underneath of the running plate so the chassis can be aligned properly. You'd have to fit a plate under the smokebox for the front fixing screw to go into. So it can be done with a bit of extra work but body fixings aren't totally identical to the old Airfix one. There's a pic of the unpowered Airfix chassis with it's weight. I took the cab off the GBL one because it looked too high compared to the Roche drawing but it seems the same as the Airfix (therefore Dapol/Hornby one). There's one more pic of the Airfix castle with the Great Model Railways box it's been living in for years (well since 1980 or so). Ok, I think the GBL one has promise and could be turned into a working model ok, and with extra detail could well become an accurate model of a particular Castle. Thanks for the review TheWeatheringMan and for the extra Castle details from other posters as well. You're selling me on getting the SEfinecast kit as well now. cheers, Bill

I'll have a look tomorrow when I'm home and can get up in the loft. The GBL body came off the cast "chassis" easily enough. You could take the chimney top off the Airfix one and use that as well since it looks much better.

Got an Airfix Castle that I bought from new, in a GMR box, about the time they folded so probably got it cheap. Dug it out a while ago and thought of getting rid of it because it wasn't in the same league detail/mechanism wise as the later locos I've got that run on the layout I now have. Giving it a test run, I was surprised that it ran very well so I've kept it. Read about GBL on here but never actually seen an issue in local newsagents or supermarkets so given up on them. Until last Wednesday when I visited Colchester and by chance went into W H Smiths who had 4 of the Castle issue. I thought about it, then went back to the display where there were now only 2 of them... Anyway, bought one and for £8.99 as The WeatheringMan says in his excellent review, worth it for the tender alone, plus the loco body can be detailed enough to pass muster, I think. Should keep me out of mischief for a while. Could be worth upgrading the Airfix one, needs better lining for a start, and putting a chassis together for the GBL one (or they can both sit on a siding at the back of the layout with my Hornby Dublo Bristol Castle). Only thing is the cab looks too tall somehow? Thanks for the review on this TheWeatheringMan.

Excellent! thanks for the Ship of Theseus reference, the wikipedia article is very good. (Would RMweb be the same with different members?)

Thanks for that, just found the book on the FAAMs restoration of KD431 to original condition - and indeed as you say they had to painstakingly remove the 1963 makeover paint. Fortunately the original makeover hadn't involved stripping back to bare metal. I quote "removing polyurethane paint (best described as coloured glue) from on top of thin cellulose paint applied some 60 years ago provided a very new challenge". Fascinating.

Don't think anyone's getting hot under the collar about this, just some find it interesting to find out how a particular historical artifact is preserved. The classic car fraternity certainly do take the historical accuracy of old vehicles seriously and it can make a tremendous difference to the value. There have been court cases about the provenance of classic raciing cars, for instance, that aren't what they seem. It's the difference between lets say a particular aircraft of historical importance being preserved by the RAF museum, explaining it's significance and another similar aircraft being restored to flying order and maintained as such at Duxford or Shuttleworth. The FAA museum have a Corsair fighter that is preserved in the original condition it had been left in and quite deliberately didn't have any new paint, new markings, new parts at all. This kept it as a museum piece that could be studied seriously to confirm manufacturing techniques and so on. On the other hand a restored aircraft will involve current techniques, materials, remanufactured parts to current regulations, to enable it to operate. With locomotives, Mallard must have needed a lot doing to get it back to steaming condition in the 1980s. It's preservation versus restoration and operation. So we're really looking at how museums should keep artifacts to enable the past to be available for study, and this has also brought up interesting issues as to how steam locomotives were operated and maintained in that past. I personally find the steam railway and how it worked very interesting (and indeed other types of railway) but it is just a hobby (unless you are a museum curator of course). cheers, Bill

We see through a glass darkly. Hopefully there is integrity in his writings! There are quite a lot of statistics in Allen's book, mainly timed runs for each type of engine but also for example the results of trials between GN, NE and NB atlantics, rather inconclusive, and trials between an NB atlantic and an LNWR Experiment. C J Allen's comment seems based on the GN engines good performance with both heavy and fast trains. I suppose in reality if a locomotive class ran the trains they were supposed to reasonably reliably and safely, without costing too much, then that was enough for the railway company. But looking back through the mists of time, these are very interesting comparisons!

C J Allen in "British Atlantic Locomotives" wrote about the 27 Sept 1953 train with 251 and 990, that despite the "dummy superheater" mods, the train which was 440 tons gross ran at 80mph near Tallington and took 25 min 37sec from Huntingdon to Hitchin, which was not bad going. His conclusion on the Ivatt large Atlantics was that they were the best British Atlantic design despite being heavier on coal, and that they ran best with the final 32 element superheater fitted in Gresley's time. My RCTS books on the LNER cover classes A1-A10, B1-B19, L1-N19 and Q1-Y10, plus the preliminary survey - but not regrettably C1! Could someone with the appropriate volume comment on the 251 preservation story, please?

So Locomotion's intention is that their model of 251 represents the loco that is standing in the museum now, not as it might have been when running originally, and that's what it is being sold as. That's fine by me. Thanks, Stationmaster.

Hi spet0114, I've now found this quote, which is on web page http://www.lner.info/locos/C/c1.shtml quote: "PreservationNo. 2800 (pre-1946: No. 3251) was withdrawn in July 1947 and was restored to an external GNR condition complete with its original number of 251. This included the replacement of the superheater, piston valve cylinders, Ross pop safety valves, and mechanical lubricators. The replacement slide valve cylinders were taken from No. 2868, and the saturated boiler was taken from No. 3278. A new frame was fitted, probably from No. 2868. After this restoration, it was exhibited at Kings Cross in October 1952 as a part of the station's centenary. In 1953 it was steamed for a series of specials celebrating the centenary of Doncaster Works. The restored No. 251 exhibited poor steaming due to its saturated boiler that still retained the flues from a previous superheater. Hence, these specials were piloted by C2 No. 990 Henry Oakley. In 1954, No. 251 hauled more specials, this time it was often helped by D11 No. 62663 Prince Albert" After a visit to the Doncaster Paint Shop, No. 251 entered the York Museum in March 1957. It was then transferred to the new National Railway Museum in 1975. No. 251 continues to be preserved in a static condition as a part of the National Collection." end of quote. This would imply that the current 251 has frames from 1 loco, cylinders from another and boiler from a third loco.

This was really my question in post 618 - how "original" is the external condition of 251 now, and is the Bachmann model intended to represent the current state as preserved or as the loco first appeared, if there are indeed differences? They did best when the Robinson superheaters replaced the Schmidt ones, according to C J Allen (British Atlantic Locomotives) edit for typos