Liverpool and Manchester 'Lion'

[AY Mod]

15 minutes ago, Craigw said:

luckily for me I couldn't be bothered to comment.

 

Good, it saved you looking a clever dick when there was a reason.

[Free At Last]

10 minutes ago, Balgrayhill said:

Do you have insider knowledge?  Did you strip down the model to see?  

 

If not, how do you know some 'forgot a gear stage'?  Or are you another of this hobby's great know-it-all's-with-zero-evidence?

The model is not available yet so he won't have been able to strip it down.

It was more likely a comment based on an observation.

[Graham_Muz]

Some people are not so much glass half empty, but as not having a glass at all, just a negativity keyboard... 

[Phil Parker]

9 minutes ago, Free At Last said:

The model is not available yet so he won't have been able to strip it down.

It was more likely a comment based on an observation.

 

It was a smart-arse bit of trolling based on the video I posted, by someone who is now on the naughty step. 

 

I spent over an hour fighting the latest upgrade of the Adobe editing software to get this out*. It was filmed yesterday as an aside to another job, and i did the edit in my own time because I thought people might find it interesting. As it was, I'm beginning to wish I hadn't bothered. 

 

*eventually rolling back to the old version. 

[CUCKOO LINE]

I,m sure most of appreciated the photos, feedback and video. 

[I.C.L. 11]

2 hours ago, PenrithBeacon said:

I've looked through the thread and Rapido's website and it isn't clear to me if the model will be available in its original L&M condition, but I suspect not. I think it will be in its current condition. 

Can anyone advise please?

The Rapido model is based on the 1929/30 Crewe rebuild of Lions remains for the L&M centenary when many missing parts had to replaced with guesswork replicas based on other locos or simply fantasy items (such as the brass "haystack" firebox cladding). A true L&M ownership Lion would be almost an entirely different model and full of conjecture as there are no contemporary drawings and some documented dimensions are contradictory.

 

The different versions offered by Rapido cover only minor changes after 1930 such as the addition of a pressure gauge in the 1950s and some revisions during a final overhaul in 1980 for the L&M 150th.

[melmerby]

The power connector looks interesting. IMHO we need disconnectable loco and tender.

Looks, hopefully, more positive than Dapol's effort.

[PaulRhB]

6 minutes ago, I.C.L. 11 said:

A true L&M ownership Lion would be almost an entirely different model and full of conjecture

To be fair they may have guessed quite close to the original in 1930. The main difference we know of would be the frames length but that was changed during L&M ownership so it’s correct for the rebuilt if not the very original one. The rest we don’t know is wrong or right 🤪

[melmerby]

2 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

 

It was a smart-arse bit of trolling based on the video I posted, by someone who is now on the naughty step. 

 

I spent over an hour fighting the latest upgrade of the Adobe editing software to get this out*. It was filmed yesterday as an aside to another job, and i did the edit in my own time because I thought people might find it interesting. As it was, I'm beginning to wish I hadn't bothered. 

 

*eventually rolling back to the old version. 

I thought it was nice to see the working pre-production loco, thanks for posting it.

[Compound2632]

Just now, PaulRhB said:

The rest we don’t know is wrong or right 

 

I understood that it is known that the haystack firebox of the restored engine is not how the original would have looked?

 

But it has to be remembered that the engine has spent over half its life in its current condition!

[Dana Ashdown]

58 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

I understood that it is known that the haystack firebox of the restored engine is not how the original would have looked?

I could be wrong, but I think Lion received the haystack boiler a short time after it was sold by the Liverpool & Manchester, so it may be "period," if not actually original. Many of the early engines were rebuilt so much that its hard to tell.

 

[JonathonAG]

3 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

 

It was a smart-arse bit of trolling based on the video I posted, by someone who is now on the naughty step. 

 

I spent over an hour fighting the latest upgrade of the Adobe editing software to get this out*. It was filmed yesterday as an aside to another job, and i did the edit in my own time because I thought people might find it interesting. As it was, I'm beginning to wish I hadn't bothered. 

 

*eventually rolling back to the old version. 

 

I for one am very grateful for the video, it just adds to my excitement for both the Titfield and individual Lion releases.

 

Perhaps it's just me thinking this, but the increase in pre-grouping and earlier designs in 00 gauge is making the modelling scene all the more interesting to me....and that's a comment from somebody with two dioramas based in the 1960s! 

[KeithHC]

Surely the hook on the back of the tender is to represent the conversation between the Rev. And the Bishop of Wellchester. Now who can come up with 3D printed rope coupling. Could we get modelu to do all the main characters as well.

 

Keith

[luke_stevens]

4 hours ago, PenrithBeacon said:

I've looked through the thread and Rapido's website and it isn't clear to me if the model will be available in its original L&M condition, but I suspect not. I think it will be in its current condition. 

Can anyone advise please?

 

Part of the problem is that no-one seems sure what the "original" loco looked like.

 

Wikipedia, not necessarily the most reliable source but good enough for this, has it built in 1837. In 1841 it got a new boiler Boiler, new longer frames, new cylinders, new valves and valve chests and new valve gear.  It was then fitted with another new boiler in 1865.

 

Quote form Wikipedia: 

“It was ‘rediscovered’ in 1923 () and then renovated by Crewe Works. Lion's tender had long since been scrapped so a new one was built by Crewe Works using parts from a scrapped Furness Railway tender, originally built by Sharp, Stewart of Manchester. Other work included: a new chimney; new smokebox doors; new wheel splashers; new foot plate and cab guard rails; new boiler lagging; new boiler tubes; the fitting of a mechanical lubricator; new boiler fittings. The cylinders were also probably re-bored. A controversial copper cover was fitted over the high-crowned wagon-top firebox to simulate an arc de cloitre firebox of the 1840s period.”

 

If anything at all, remains of the original is doubtful. I read a suggestion elsewhere that it "probably" had a round top fire box at the start of it's life... 

 

The model Rapido is producing is planned to be accurate for the versions they are producing. As for modelling it before 1923...

 

Luke

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LMR_57_Lion

[Compound2632]

9 minutes ago, luke_stevens said:

Wikipedia, not necessarily the most reliable source but good enough for this, has it built in 1837. In 1841 it got a new boiler Boiler, new longer frames, new cylinders, new valves and valve chests and new valve gear.  It was then fitted with another new boiler in 1865.

 

B. Baxter and D. Baxter, British Locomotive Catalogue 1825 – 1923 Vol. 2A London and North Western Railway and its constituent companies (Moorland Publishing Company, 1978) is perhaps more authoritative but has maybe been superseded by more recent research? It is certainly widely at variance with the Wikipedea article and is not cited by the authors thereof. It cites SLS Vol. 33, p. 312 for the original build date of July 1838. Initially No. 57, it was renumbered 36 (at an unspecified date) before becoming LNWR No. 116 in 1847. Initially built with 12" x 18" cylinders, the date 1844-5 is given for reboilering and the increase in cylinder diameter to 14". Sale to MDHB in May 1859 and the rest is history.

 

The Wikipedia statement that this was one of six ordered from Todd, Kitson & Laird should not be interpreted as meaning they were a "class", rather, three pairs of locomotives, each pair differing from the other pairs. Leopard and Panther of 1839 were 2-2-2s while the other pair of 0-4-2s, Elephant and Buffalo, also of 1839, had 14" cylinders from the start.

[PaulRhB]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I understood that it is known that the haystack firebox of the restored engine is not how the original would have looked?

 

Yes the haystack is is unlikely due to the firebox being round topped, especially as it’s a luggage (goods) loco.

Thing is though such ‘deceptions’ were done and we have no proof either way. Did someone in 1930 remember they had such fireboxes, mistaking it for another class, base it on other historic locos still around or just like it thinking in a 1930’s rose tinted view of the past? 😉

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

But it has to be remembered that the engine has spent over half its life in its current condition!

Yes and most importantly it IS accurate for the Titfield Thunderbolt. We know that as we do have numerous pics. 

[Compound2632]

11 minutes ago, PaulRhB said:

Yes and most importantly it IS accurate for the Titfield Thunderbolt. We know that as we do have numerous pics. 

 

One could say it's an accurate model of an inaccurate restoration. I dare say the choices made in the late 1920s were based on the best information then available; it has also to be borne in mind that the intention then was to put the locomotive into working condition which would doubtless involve some compromises.

[Bucoops]

7 hours ago, No Decorum said:

 It’s lovely to see such an ancient machine being modelled.

 

Sorry, Lion or Phil?

 

Looking good (Lion, to be clear :D)

[Phil Parker]

1 hour ago, KeithHC said:

Surely the hook on the back of the tender is to represent the conversation between the Rev. And the Bishop of Wellchester. Now who can come up with 3D printed rope coupling. Could we get modelu to do all the main characters as well.

 

Keith

 

Or use a bit of thread like we used to do when modellers were modellers? Youth of today etc. grumble grumble...

[Bucoops]

9 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

Or use a bit of thread like we used to do when modellers were modellers? Youth of today etc. grumble grumble...

 

I rest my case.

[Compound2632]

3 minutes ago, Bucoops said:

I rest my case.

 

Well, it is a luggage engine.

[PaulRhB]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

One could say it's an accurate model of an inaccurate restoration.

But is it? We don’t know 😉 the fact that it’s deemed unlikely it’s accurate because we know some bits were missing and replaced is as speculative as what it actually looked like. 
We will never know as it’s highly unlikely any new engravings will emerge. Still it will allow those bothered to take a milling machine to it to reprofile to their speculative interpretation 😉

[Phil Parker]

I'd guess that most people want the one in the film, and aren't going to be that fussed if it's different from a fully accurate model of the loco as it was built. TBH, a large number will just like it because it's attractive and unsual.

[BroadLeaves]

7 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

because it's attractive and unsual

I'm certainly in that camp. It's a total "magpie" * purchase for me. And let's face it, if we all waited for an RTR locomotive (or any rolling stock for that matter) that was completely accurate, well... ... we'd never buy anything.

* Oooh look - it's shiny!

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, PaulRhB said:

But is it? 

 

We have every confidence, do we not, that Rapido's model will be as accurate as the compromises of 00 permit. Or did you mean that we don't know the 1920s restoration is an accurate reconstruction of the locomotive's original (or near original) condition? My understanding is that we can be confident that it is not accurate; we know that some parts are not as originally built but not exactly in what way they differ!