Wright writes.....

[Andy Y]

Another interesting insight Tony. It would seem the NE type door was the more common on O1s. Although as your photos show the large B1 door was applied to some members. Was the B1 door addition something that was done in their later life. I intend to add a NE door to mine to depict 63755 of Dairycoates in 1950 (lovely photo in Yeadon 24B of her.)

 

 

 

 I'm glad the pictures of the O1s have proved interesting. The various manifestations of 63746 have been noted. The ex-works shot at Doncaster shows it with red-painted buffer stocks (even though it's a B&W print), which was Doncaster's practice. Note the position of the electric warning flashes on the smokebox and the bulbous smokebox door. A slightly earlier view shows it with a NE-style 'flat' door, and the flashes on the footplate, though one cannot tell what colour the stocks are. However, observe the shot of 63806 and this shows a Gorton-shopped O1, for the Manchester works painted them so. Note also the battered appearance of 63650 (at Staveley GC shed, by the way), even though it's recently had a new smokebox and new (bulbous) door. Battered enough to have a broken front numberplate, though. And who painted the 'arrow of indecision' on the cylinders, getting it the wrong way round in the process - the maritime version? I wonder how many folk will incorporate all these wonderful differences in their latest Hornby O1s.

 

With regard to the O1s and their smokebox doors, from my researches I can indicate the following....

All the O1s were rebuilt at Gorton and everyone, on entering service, carried an NE-style smokebox door. This, I admit, is supposition, for the earliest picture in my collection of an O1 with the more bulbous door is dated 1954 (63760, at Tyne Dock, as illustrated earlier on this thread). Every picture I've got of an LNER-liveried O1 shows it carrying the NE-style, 'flat' smokebox door. Thus, the smokebox door on Hornby's LNER-liveried version is definitely wrong, as confirmed by Yeadon on page 211 of Volume Twenty-Four, Part B of his Register. As for Hornby's 63670 (weathered O1), a glance at the prototype picture on the loco's packaging might suggest it had a 'bulbous' door early in its BR career (prior to even having a smokebox door numberplate), but the picture isn't quite conclusive enough, because it also shows a flange around the door's circumference - not present on any of the other more bulbous doors, yet a feature of the NE door. The sideways lighting is probably responsible for the illusion. As for 63789 (Hornby's pristine O1), according to Yeadon (middle picture on page 217), the loco should have a NE-style smokebox door, not the one provided. Strangely, neither in the RCTS nor in Yeadon can I find a picture of an O1 with the style of door supplied by Hornby. Thus, though it makes economic sense for Hornby to produce a model with a door they've already moulded (for the B1) it is by far the rarer style. In fact, out of the 58 O1s rebuilt, I can find evidence of only five having the Hornby-style smokebox door, these being 63650, 63652, 63746, 63760 and 63786. With the exception of 63760, all got the bulbous doors late in their lives (63760 having reverted back to the NE-style door by the late '50s). What must also be considered is that it's highly unlikely that these individual locos all had the bulbous doors at the same time. My reckoning is probably no more than three had the bulbous door at any one time. So, pick one of the above and renumber your Hornby O1 or fit a replacement NE-style smokebox door. The choice is yours.

I hope this helps.....

[Guest Tom F]

Thank you Tony, very helpful. I also noticed that there isn't a single photo of an O1 with anything other than the NE style door in Yeadon 24B, I therefore wondered if Hornby had made an error but as your photos show it is still prototypically correct, even if less common.

 

Did any of the O4/8s get the B1 type door? I've not seen any photos depicting this, but until recently I didn't think any O1s got this type door either.

 

Cheers

[S.A.C Martin]

As for Hornby's 63670 (weathered O1), a glance at the prototype picture on the loco's packaging might suggest it had a 'bulbous' door early in its BR career (prior to even having a smokebox door numberplate), but the picture isn't quite conclusive enough, because it also shows a flange around the door's circumference - not present on any of the other more bulbous doors, yet a feature of the NE door.

 

I have to query this, as this shot of 63746 clearly shows a flange around the circumference of the "bulbous" door. A zoomed in version of this shot is also available. The flange - which is present on Hornby model's door for 63789 - may not be correct for the number chosen, but it is correct for the type of smokebox door modelled.

 

This type of smokebox door is one I have noted in RCTS 6B on LNER liveried and numbered no.3780, seen in figure no.80, which though side on, shows the larger, more bulbous door with the flange as per Hornby's model of BR 63789.

 

I agree wholeheartedly that the NE type door is the most prevalent in the known photographs from RCTS 6B and Yeadon's no.24B, but I would disagree with the notion that there is no flange on the B1 style door.

 

This flange can in fact be seen quite clearly in one of Mr Wright's photographs from this very thread:

 

 

The NE style door of course, has a wider and more prominent flange. The relative flatness of the NE door contrasts against the, as Mr Wright correctly states, more "bulbous" door.

Edited January 18, 2013 by S.A.C Martin

[Andy Y]

I have to query this, as this shot of 63746 clearly shows a flange around the circumference of the "bulbous" door. A zoomed in version of this shot is also available. The flange - which is present on Hornby model's door for 63789 - may not be correct for the number chosen, but it is correct for the type of smokebox door modelled.

 

This type of smokebox door is one I have noted in RCTS 6B on LNER liveried and numbered no.3780, seen in figure no.80, which though side on, shows the larger, more bulbous door with the flange as per Hornby's model of BR 63789.

 

I agree wholeheartedly that the NE type door is the most prevalent in the known photographs from RCTS 6B and Yeadon's no.24B, but I would disagree with the notion that there is no flange on the B1 style door.

 

This flange can in fact be seen quite clearly in one of Mr Wright's photographs from this very thread:

 

 

The NE style door of course, has a wider and more prominent flange. The relative flatness of the NE door contrasts against the, as Mr Wright correctly states, more "bulbous" door.

 

 

 

 

Thank you to Simon Martin for pointing out my error in the description of the bulbous door on the O1 not having a flange. He's quite right of course and I must be more careful in my descriptions. What I meant to do (and this is a weak excuse I know) was to qualify my statement with 'prominent' as a prefix. After I read it through after posting to you, I realised my omission but didn't think to rectify my inadequate use of English. Still, as an ex-teacher - well spotted young Martin for finding my 'deliberate' error. But it does have a wider context, and errors of fact must be pointed out. I've long been a critic of websites where wildly inaccurate statements are posted, and, in this case, I've been 'hoist by my own petard', so I'll take it on the chin. If Simon is also right about the door on 3780 being bulbous (looking closely, he probably is) then my conclusion that it was a BR addition is erroneous, though probably 99% correct. Again, a mistake to be pointed out. Still, at least most of what's been posted has been useful, though, I admit, I must be more careful in future. My compliments, too, for the weathering on his own O1 seen elsewhere on the site.

 

I know Simon is a follower and student of the LNER - well done for that - and a supporter of Edward Thompson's Pacifics. Though I've no wish to get any further involved in the 'discussion' on the merits (or otherwise) of ET's 4-6-2s, it might be of interest to him to know that I've just been working through some first-hand documents relating to the period between the P2s' construction and their subsequent rebuilding. All these are unpublished (though eventually they will be) and they relate (in part) to correspondence about the rebuilding concerning several LNER officers responsible for actually running the railways around Edinburgh and beyond. Almost to a man, the opinions on the rebuilding ranged from an 'act of criminal folly' to a complete waste of time and money. Though the RCTS tells us that No. 2004 worked a troop train from Perth to Newcastle in the early part of the war, reading through these documents suggests there were several more occasions when the P2s did this, invariably overnight (hence the previous lack of information?). Apparently, the trains were massive (and vital) and no other locomotive class could manage them, especially over Cockburnspath. If a P2 were not available, the train was double-headed. All my previous readings about the P2s suggest visits to Newcastle were rare. No, on a not-infrequent basis it seems, but only overnight. Though the correspondents acknowledge that the big Mikados had their faults, the retention of these giants with their unsurpassed pulling power (especially during the war) should have been paramount. Haymarket's shedmaster almost lost his job for saying so. Only Toram Beg, amongst the professionals, appears to have criticised the P2s in print, though Geoff Lund (one of the officers) reckons the driver's lack of seniority pre-war would have meant his having little to do with them. Anyway, Toram Beg's assessment of the A2/2s was even more damning. He's the one who reckoned they'd slip on Portobello Sands!

 

Though this does go slightly off topic, with Hornby's imminent release of Cock o' the North (admittedly in original form), then it might be of interest. Anyway, might we eventually get a Bugatti-nosed P2?

 

 

 

 

 

Please can you tell Tom F that in all my collection of O4/8 pictures (books/magazines/photographs) I cannot find a single picture of one having the GNR-style, bulbous smokebox door. There were eventually 99 in the sub-class, so surely one must have got one... Anybody got a picture? 

The model photograph included is of mine built 34 years ago. It consists (that word again!) of a K's set of frames, footplate and complete tender. The rest is scratch-built with Jamieson bits, including their B1 smokebox door. Don't look too closely for it's a bit naff! I wonder if Bachmann will produce this sub-class. 

 

[micklner]

Re the P2 I have always wondered why they were never transfered south. If a reason for their scrapping/rebuild was due to tight Scottish curves it would have been a easy decision to move them and a lot cheaper too!. Crazy decision to remove five super powerful locos mid war !!

As often said some of E.T's decisions regarding the use and redesigns/tinkering of Gresley and other LNER Locos doesnt stand up to close examination. I always thought the LNER were short of money I wonder how he ever got permission from Directors to spens so much cash on his "experiments"

 

Any suggestions on a source for NE Smokebox doors for the O1 ?

 

Tony

     You have slatted the look of  NEM couplings , what do you use on Little Bytham to ensure reliable running in forward and reverse on curves please ?

[Guest Tom F]

Any suggestions on a source for NE Smokebox doors for the O1 ?

Hello Mick, I hope Tony doesn't mind me posting this here. Old style Hornby D49 or Old B17 door works as a great donor. I believe that is what Tim Easter used on GIlbert's O1.

I've been working on mine this morning.

 

Edited January 19, 2013 by Tom F

[coachmann]

Re the P2 I have always wondered why they were never transfered south. If a reason for their scrapping/rebuild was due to tight Scottish curves it would have been a easy decision to move them and a lot cheaper too!. Crazy decision to remove five super powerful locos mid war !!

As often said some of E.T's decisions regarding the use and redesigns/tinkering of Gresley and other LNER Locos doesnt stand up to close examination. I always thought the LNER were short of money I wonder how he ever got permission from Directors to spens so much cash on his "experiments"

 

Any suggestions on a source for NE Smokebox doors for the O1 ?

 

Tony

     You have slatted the look of  NEM couplings , what do you use on Little Bytham to ensure reliable running in forward and reverse on curves please ?

As much to the point is, I wonder how Gresley got permission to build lots of small classes of locos for different routes and jobs AND fit his costly to maintain conjugated valve grear when its use on smaller locos wasnt proven. Gresleys contemporary CME's critisised him for this and his blinkered approach. Thompson clearly showed the way with his prototypes. The B1 and K1 were suitable for all occasions allowing his company to withdraw many pre-group locos and for BR to sweep away many of Gresley expensive to maintain designs. Thompsons standard boilers were fitted to many classes so leading to even more efficiency.

[TheSignalEngineer]

I think both camps have a place in the hobby. I would dearly like to model a couple of real layouts but both would need a scenic section of 20ft+ and the traffic was sparse ( and a bit boring). My current project is ficticious, but everything on it could have happened and i can run different groups of stock in roughly correct period.

 

I think there are some fantastic real place models out there like Jim's BNS, but as is hopefully being shown by BCB you can pull together several real buildings from an area and put them together in a ficticious setting provided that the context and the running of the railway is believeable.

[micklner]

As much to the point is, I wonder how Gresley got permission to build lots of small classes of locos for different routes and jobs AND fit his costly to maintain conjugated valve grear when its use on smaller locos wasnt proven. Gresleys contemporary CME's critisised him for this and his blinkered approach. Thompson clearly showed the way with his prototypes. The B1 and K1 were suitable for all occasions allowing his company to withdraw many pre-group locos and for BR to sweep away many of Gresley expensive to maintain designs. Thompsons standard boilers were fitted to many classes so leading to even more efficiency.

 

 

I agree however

 

Why waste money on one off rebuilds of A10 to A1/1 ,J11, D20, D49 a few O4 turned into shunters Q1 , V2 and probably other LNER classes (I havent checked) as well ??  and all in wartime.

 

The A1/1 was a better engine than a A10 other than that they were all failures or no better than the original engine.

 

Thompson redeemed himself with the B1 and the A2/3 and for all the nonsense you read were good engines.

Edited January 19, 2013 by micklner

[micklner]

Hello Mick, I hope Tony doesn't mind me posting this here. Old style Hornby D49 or Old B17 door works as a great donor. I believe that is what Tim Easter used on GIlbert's O1.

I've been working on mine this morning.

 

image_1358589709560777.jpg

  Thanks for info I presume a easy removal job ?

[Guest Tom F]

  Thanks for info I presume a easy removal job ?

 

Not too bad, I wasn't confident to cut the smokebox door off with a razor saw, so I used my hand drill around the smokebox door (It's moulded onto the O1). Once all the way round the smokebox door I used my swann morton to bring the door off. I've filed it back and smoothed the O1s smokebox ring off.

 

The D49 door I have filed right back (it has an inside ring to clip onto the smokebox of the D49) so it is now flush to fit onto the O! smokebox. I was careful when removing the handrails so that they can be reused and don't require new 0.45mm wire.

 

Tim Easter's conversion can be found here. 

Edited January 19, 2013 by Tom F

[great northern]

As much to the point is, I wonder how Gresley got permission to build lots of small classes of locos for different routes and jobs AND fit his costly to maintain conjugated valve grear when its use on smaller locos wasnt proven. Gresleys contemporary CME's critisised him for this and his blinkered approach. Thompson clearly showed the way with his prototypes. The B1 and K1 were suitable for all occasions allowing his company to withdraw many pre-group locos and for BR to sweep away many of Gresley expensive to maintain designs. Thompsons standard boilers were fitted to many classes so leading to even more efficiency.

Larry, try as I may, I cannot recollect lots of small Gresley classes for different routes and jobs. Class V4 immediately comes to mind, and the Garrett of course, but that was a one off for a very specific job. Other than that most Gresley designs seem to have been built in large numbers. Nor can I find many Gresley designs which were swept away by BR. The following lasted until, or almost until, the end of steam on the lines of the old LNER. A3,A4, B17, J6, J38 J39 J50 K2 K3 N2 02 V1/3 and V2.

 

It is true that many life expired classes were swept away after the war, though it was probably only the war that extended their lives that far, but they were almost exclusively pre grouping designs such as the GC 4.6.0's, the various types of Atlantics etc. The only Gresley designs I can recall going were the 0.6.0's of classes J1 to 5, which were 40 years or more old.

 

Gresley designed engines at a time when the railway, and the steam railway at that, was the undisputed prime mover of people and goods. Thompson and his successors were faced with very different problems, so one cannot compare like with like. The Thompson Pacifics were not a success, as witnessed by their being largely marginalised at sheds such as York and New England. It is surely also a shattering indictment that even while he was still in office his staff were secretly working on a new design of Pacific, and that exisiting orders for A2/3's were cancelled after his retirement?

 

There were indeed some successes, B1 and K1 in particular, but even they really represented the final development of a line going back to GN days. It is significant also to look at what happened to classes which Thompson rebuilt. The B2's worked alongside the B17's, but no more were rebuilt, and both classes were withdrawn at the same time. The same applies to J11, though in fact the original engines lasted a bit longer than the rebuilds. That also applies to the 01's, which were outlasted by some original Robinson engines. Surely, had the Thompson designs/rebuilds shown themselves to have significant advantages over the originals, more rebuilding would have taken place?

 

As I said earlier, what was swept away was largely a host of pre grouping locos which would have been replaced long before if the LNER had not been so strapped for cash in the '30's. Very few of those were Gresley designs though.

 

I'm sure I have forgotten some classes Larry. Please remind me, and I will consider whether I should alter this response.

[will5210]

The K4s are the obvious example of the specialist loco designed for a specific job. V4s would've probably been widespread had it not been for SNGs death.

 

I believe ETs reputation would've been completely different if he hadn't rebuilt Great Northern & the p2s.

[asmay2002]

Larry, try as I may, I cannot recollect lots of small Gresley classes for different routes and jobs. Class V4 immediately comes to mind, and the Garrett of course, but that was a one off for a very specific job. Other than that most Gresley designs seem to have been built in large numbers. Nor can I find many Gresley designs which were swept away by BR. The following lasted until, or almost until, the end of steam on the lines of the old LNER. A3,A4, B17, J6, J38 J39 J50 K2 K3 N2 02 V1/3 and V2.

 

It is true that many life expired classes were swept away after the war, though it was probably only the war that extended their lives that far, but they were almost exclusively pre grouping designs such as the GC 4.6.0's, the various types of Atlantics etc. The only Gresley designs I can recall going were the 0.6.0's of classes J1 to 5, which were 40 years or more old.

 

Gresley designed engines at a time when the railway, and the steam railway at that, was the undisputed prime mover of people and goods. Thompson and his successors were faced with very different problems, so one cannot compare like with like. The Thompson Pacifics were not a success, as witnessed by their being largely marginalised at sheds such as York and New England. It is surely also a shattering indictment that even while he was still in office his staff were secretly working on a new design of Pacific, and that exisiting orders for A2/3's were cancelled after his retirement?

 

There were indeed some successes, B1 and K1 in particular, but even they really represented the final development of a line going back to GN days. It is significant also to look at what happened to classes which Thompson rebuilt. The B2's worked alongside the B17's, but no more were rebuilt, and both classes were withdrawn at the same time. The same applies to J11, though in fact the original engines lasted a bit longer than the rebuilds. That also applies to the 01's, which were outlasted by some original Robinson engines. Surely, had the Thompson designs/rebuilds shown themselves to have significant advantages over the originals, more rebuilding would have taken place?

 

As I said earlier, what was swept away was largely a host of pre grouping locos which would have been replaced long before if the LNER had not been so strapped for cash in the '30's. Very few of those were Gresley designs though.

 

I'm sure I have forgotten some classes Larry. Please remind me, and I will consider whether I should alter this response.

 

 

Larry is quite right about Gresley classes being built in penny packet numbers (albeit with a few exceptions honourable such as the K3 and V2) compared to what the other railways were doing.  Just to take some of the ones you listed above

 

B17 - 73 - Equivalent power class 5 locos on LMS Stanier class 5 or GWR Hall built in hundreds.

J38 - 35.  6F 0-6-0 why? LMS/GWR built 8F 2-8-0s in Hundreds

J50 -105  compare with LMS 3F tank or GWR 57xx built in hundreds.

K2 - 75.  4Mt 2-6-0 compare with GW 43xx or LMS 4F or Crab.  Again all built in hundreds.  Even the Southern had 80 N class 2-6-0 and they were mostly interested in electrification.

N2 - 107 3MT - 0-6-2T compare with GWR small Prairie tank or LMS 2-6-2T or 2-6-4T built in Hundreds

O2 - 66 Even the LNER preferred to buy O4's in hundreds rather than replicate these things. Compare with GWR 28xx or LMS 8F again built in Hundreds

V1/3  - 92 4MT 2-6-2T compare with hundreds of LMS 2-6-4T or GWR large prairie.

Edited January 19, 2013 by asmay2002

[Andy Y]

Tony

     You have slatted the look of  NEM couplings , what do you use on Little Bytham to ensure reliable running in forward and reverse on curves please ?

 

 

 

 

 

In answer to Micklner's's question regarding which couplings I use on Little Bytham, the answer is two-fold. On carriage stock I make my own, consisting of a goal-post between the buffers on one carriage and a simple hook on the following one,  effectively making a piggy back arrangement. This is all made from 26 SWG (.45mm)  nickel silver wire. Representations of the train-heating pipes and brake pipes, etc are made from 30Amp fusewire. I've described the system several times in the past. Though 100% efficient and, under gangway connections, remarkably 'realistic', rakes cannot be separated other than by lifting vehicles off the track. Since re-marshalling of passenger-carrying stock doesn't take place on my trainset, the system works for me. Because my curves are fairly generous, the cars can be propelled as well as pulled in/out of sidings without problems. Goods stock employs three-link or screw shackles in fixed rakes - again, because of the generous radii they can be propelled with relative ease. Where re-arrangement/shunting of wagons takes place, I use tension-locks at the moment - a few, selected wagons being employed. Though this smacks of hypocrisy, folk seem to have misinterpreted my comments on tension-locks in general. What I take exception to is to their visual prominence, stuck on the front of locomotives. In a rake, their obtrusiveness is less of a problem. A simple wire loop under the loco's buffer beam, painted matt black, will suffice perfectly, with the wagon/coach it's attached to retaining a hook. Though one of these shots might have appeared before, please look closely at the buffer beams of the locos in these pictures. These are the ones I use for my pick-up workings, where they tow/shunt wagons both ways. The wire loop on them engages with tension-locks and work perfectly, but they are far less obtrusive. If Sprat & Winkle-type couplings are used, then the loop is lifted up accordingly. In all cases, a screw shackle is also retained. The N5 and the C12 were built for Ian Wilson's Edenham project, where the same arrangement is employed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Product origins available via mouseover)

 

 

[great northern]

Larry is quite right about Gresley classes being built in penny packet numbers (albeit with a few exceptions honourable such as the K3 and V2) compared to what the other railways were doing.  Just to take some of the ones you listed above

 

B17 - 73 - Equivalent power class 5 locos on LMS Stanier class 5 or GWR Hall built in hundreds.

J38 - 35.  6F 0-6-0 why? LMS/GWR built 8F 2-8-0s in Hundreds

J50 -105  compare with LMS 3F tank or GWR 57xx built in hundreds.

K2 - 75.  4Mt 2-6-0 compare with GW 43xx or LMS 4F or Crab.  Again all built in hundreds.  Even the Southern had 80 N class 2-6-0 and they were mostly interested in electrification.

N2 - 107 3MT - 0-6-2T compare with GWR small Prairie tank or LMS 2-6-2T or 2-6-4T built in Hundreds

O2 - 66 Even the LNER preferred to buy O4's in hundreds rather than replicate these things. Compare with GWR 28xx or LMS 8F again built in Hundreds

V1/3  - 92 4MT 2-6-2T compare with hundreds of LMS 2-6-4T or GWR large prairie.

I guess to a degree it depends on what you regard as small numbers. Class J38 at 35 locos is I accept small, but was built for a very specific purpose, and was really a J39 in many respects, both being introduced in the same year. The rest I would suggest are in themselves significant numbers. OK, they don't compare with the examples you mention, but the LNER's position was totally different from the GWR, which continued almost unchanged after the Grouping, and the LMS which was largely the amalgamation of three pre grouping companies. The LNER inherited locomotives from several different companies, and at Grouping many of them were still relatively new. Add to that the fact that the LNER was never wealthy, and for much of the time financially on its uppers, and for all those reasons standardisation as practiced on the GW and LMS was never likely to happen.For example, look at all the heavy goods locos the LNER inherited from the GCR and NER. they were perfectly acceptable and did the jobs they were designed for, so with money in short supply they had to be left to get on with it.

 

As to your comment regarding 02's, again the decision to buy war surplus 04's was purely pragmatic and momey led. Quite simply, the Government were almost giving them away, and as the LNER had already inherited quite a lot from the GCR , it was the sensible and cheap option at the time. Significantly, more 02's were built in later years.

[coachmann]

I have no particular leanings. I just think Gresley could have provided his company with simple to build and maintain 2-cylinder engines, as was proven later by Thompson. The L1, B1 and K1 easily did the work that K4's, D49's, B17's, V3's and V4's had done. The K4's, D49's and B17's barely lasted out the 1950s, well short of the final years of steam, while contemporary designs from the other 'Big Four' companies sailed forth into the 1960s untouched apart from the SR 'King Arthurs'. 

 

Thompson was down to earth and yet innovative in designing the smaller wheeled A2 Pacific, which Peppercorn was given on a plate to develop. We simply do know know what Peppercord would have designed seeing as he never did ow't from scratch. Thompson's A2 idea of a smaller wheeled Pacific was surely the precursor of the BR Britannia, the one seed that did not germinate on the LMS.

 

As an aside, I watched a video this morning showing Peterborough in the early 1960s. After a few Gresley and Peppercorn Pacifics 'slipped' while leaving the station, the narrator made big play of the "ungainly Thompson Pacific attempting to make a dignified exit." There was a momentary slip before the A2/3 got hold of the train and proceeded on its way, and then lost its feet for a moment on the points that all the other Pacifics had slipped on, but the narrator just had to tell us a V2 would show us how it should be done! 

Edited January 19, 2013 by coachmann

[Captain Kernow]

According to some commentators "One bloke from Peterborough reckoned I was in league with the Devil etc," is a term of endearment compared to their opinion of me.

Pretty much made my day with that one, Beast!!   

[micklner]

Thanks to Tony re info on his use of couplings..

A photo of his Coach coupling would be excellent please.

 

Sadly I any many others do not have the luxury of "generous" curves on their layout. I also use 3 links/screws on wagon stock where they are far more visible. Simply not viable on Coaches (see below).

 

I saw on the recent weathering article by Tony on Coaches, in which again he removed tension locks from the Coaches and used Screw couplings instead.

It is a shame and people may not realise that Screw couplings on Coaches simply do not go around virtually any kind of curves without buffer locking and derailment in either direction. This may leave a lot of fed up modellers when they try to use screw couplings on their layouts !!

[micklner]

As an aside, I watched a video this morning showing Peterborough in the early 1960s. After a few Gresley and Peppercorn Pacifics 'slipped' while leaving the station, the narrator made big play of the "ungainly Thompson Pacific attempting to make a dignified exit." There was a momentary slip before the A2/3 got hold of the train and proceeded on its way, and then lost its feet for a moment on the points that all the other Pacifics had slipped on, but the narrator just had to tell us a V2 would show us how it should be done! 

 

 

Less than 20 years after Great Northern re build etc and the press  publicity re Gresley v Thompson. It would appear the commentator had a long memory whether true or not !!

[Captain Kernow]

I've only just caught up with this thread, and it's very pleasing to read some of the common sense comments from Tony.

 

On the subject of lamps, I will admit to getting slightly 'caught out', or perhaps 'taken aback' when Andy Y made a remark about the lack of them on my locos, when he was visiting the other day and we had Bleakhouse Road up.

 

That's not to say that I've not thought of this, as a serving railwayman (over 30 years and counting...  ), I suppose it would be remiss of me not to have done so...

 

My exhibition layouts all feature 3 link/screw link couplings, and, like Tony, I really don't like the 'dreaded tension locks' (although one member of my operating team - who claims to be from the Nobility of an unspecified, possibly non-existent continental country) dislikes 3 links so much, that he brings his own (weathered) stock to operate on my layouts, at exhibitions, when I'm not looking...).

 

Whilst most of the other kind souls who help me out at shows put a brave face on it, I suspect most of them would welcome something easier than 4mm 3-links with open arms! However, I will persevere with these as long as I can..

 

All my layouts also feature a lot of shunting, especially terminus stations like 'Bleakhouse Road'. On 'Engine Wood', you can, if you wish, just run through trains and not shunt (they leave that to me). 'Callow Lane' will be another shunting fest, with very few through workings from one fiddle yard to another...

 

A few years ago I developed a 'system' (bit of a loose term for some bent bits of 0.4mm brass wire), to allow removable tail lamps during exhibition operations. The attached photo probably best illustrates how it worked - the tail lamp had a bit of brass wire glued in the back of it, coming out at an angle of approx 45 degrees, and this was inserted into a corresponding hole in the rear of the vehicle concerned:

 

 

However... in practice it was much easier to put the tail lamps into position when the train was out of sight, in the fiddle yard, than when on view in front of the paying public, especially if you'd already spent a few moments faffing about with the 3-link couplings! 

 

Then you could easily drop the lamp onto the ballast, or even waste more time trying to find the tweezers that you thought you had only a few minutes earlier.. Lamps also got lost, so I'd be hard pushed now to find more than two or three of the dozen or so that I prepared for exhibition use.

 

And that was just for tail lamps, never mind loco head lamps or side lamps on brake vans... In operational terms, any train that didn't exhibit the correct lamps would attract the attention of the signalman, who would probably be required by the Rules & Regulations - depending on the circumstances - to arrange for your train to be stopped to ascertain the facts and arrange for the lamp situation to be rectified. So, you could say that having all lamps correct is important on the model, but equally the tail lamp was the signalman's confirmation that your train was complete, so it could arguably be considered the most important of the lot (should we wish to draw such possibly contentious distinctions...).

 

Thus you cannot really keep the loco headlamps in place on a train that has terminated, and where the loco is going to return to the fiddle yard without being turned. To keep it realistic, you have no choice but to remove them and replace them at the opposite end of the loco.

 

Whilst some folk may be happy to insert a portion of a stable (certainly robust in 4mm scale) into the front of the footplate on your expensive plastic-moulded RTR loco, or into the whitemetal or brass footplate of your kit-built loco (same for smokebox doors etc.), I am not prepared to potentially 'disfigure' my models in that manner, so my lamp brackets (where I haven't retained the RTR ones, for example - the later RTR ones aren't bad in some cases) are usually made up from 0.75mm brass strip from Eileens.

 

The real things were mostly bolted onto the loco, so you could say that they were robustly held in place. On the 4mm model, my brass strip ones really have to be attached with superglue or perhaps epoxy (unless it is a metal footplate, and I can solder them in place - even then, glueing is usually easier). The same applies for the brackets for side lamps on brake vans.

 

I suppose it might be possible to solder a bit of wire to the underside of the lamp bracket and glue this into a hole in the footplate (actually, I have tried it!) or perhaps flatten the top of a bit of 0.5mm brass wire to resemble the upper portion of a lamp bracket, and glue the lower (still round wire) part into the footplate (done that as well, thinking about it), but even then it needs to be neatly done, in order to look good, and you've then got to remember to change each loco head lamp, plus tail lamps, plus do the 3-link couplings, each time you terminate a train in public view and re-start back to the fiddle yard.

 

Given that some of my kind and tolerant helpers aren't really that keen on 3-links, I can't bring myself to make them 'do' lamps as well (to say nothing of the verbal and written Rules exam that I'd probably have to subject them to...    ).

 

It goes without saying that (for me) using Bluetak isn't really acceptable, either - how much pressure do you apply - in public gaze - to get the lamp to stick on, and how easy is it to inadvertantly derail the loco in the process? (also bearing in mind that not every 'enthusiast' exhibition goer likes seeing the 'hand from the sky' anyway...!).

 

So, to conclude, I've tried removable tail lamps, and could probably make that system work again, if I really felt the will to do so. As regards loco head lamps, it is the one thing that I would like to do, but in a robust and reliable way that equally doesn't compromise the appearance of the locos. As I haven't found that system yet, the head lamps stay off...

 

On a layout, there are other things that contribute equally to the perceived realism of the model, such as weathering, decent scenery and working signals. All of these things are achievable these days, some may take a bit of practice but the experience of getting there ought to be fun. However, realistic loco steam exhaust, the replication of a loco 'blowing off' or the steam from the cylinder drain cocks hasn't yet been done with any degree of realism.

 

 

Nor have walking, gesticulating figures in 4mm scale, either...

 

 

(and if they did, they'd probably go on strike for better wages on my railway!...  )

 

 

[MJI]

Thanks to Tony re info on his use of couplings..

A photo of his Coach coupling would be excellent please.

 

Sadly I any many others do not have the luxury of "generous" curves on their layout. I also use 3 links/screws on wagon stock where they are far more visible. Simply not viable on Coaches (see below).

 

I saw on the recent weathering article by Tony on Coaches, in which again he removed tension locks from the Coaches and used Screw couplings instead.

It is a shame and people may not realise that Screw couplings on Coaches simply do not go around virtually any kind of curves without buffer locking and derailment in either direction. This may leave a lot of fed up modellers when they try to use screw couplings on their layouts !!

I find screw couple pullman gangwayed coaches just as wrong as tension locks, Kaydees are nearest I know of

[coachmann]

I find screw couple pullman gangwayed coaches just as wrong as tension locks, Kaydees are nearest I know of

Couple a BR Mk.I or Gresley/Thompson corridor coach to a Stanier corridor coach.  Adaptors will sort out the different gangways but the LMS coach will only couple onto a hook. Fine in real life but I havent seen a Kaydee that drops down to leave a hook showing. In model form a Kaydee isnt ideal when mixing stock, but the good 'ol hook is.

[Andy Y]

 

With regard to ASMAY 2002's recent post on this thread responding to Coachman's and Great Northern's comments, though I can't argue with his figures, I can't follow the logic. I must be dim! Comparing one railway with another is, to use the old adage, like comparing apples with pears. Each of the Big Four built the types of locomotives to suit that railway's individual needs. Into this must be factored specific routes and their requirements and the financial constraints in place at the time. I've just done some (very rough) adding up as to the number of steam locomotive locomotive classes inherited by BR from the Big Four at the beginning of 1948. This includes all the myriad of pre-Grouping designs still extant (many with little life expectancy to be fair). The GWR provided over 50 classes, the Southern over 70, the LMS over 100 and the LNER over 140. I'll leave the mathematicians to work out the percentages, for I haven't counted up the number of individual locomotives from each company. At first glance, these figures support ASMAY 2002's argument about the number of classes and how few locos must have been in them, but it must be remembered that of all the Big Four the LNER was in the most parlous state financially, and could not afford to scrap and replace, as did the LMS under Stanier's regime. Part of Gresley's locomotive policy was to build specific classes for specific routes. If this was unlike what the others did, it doesn't necessarily mean that there's a serious flaw. Take the K4s - I agree, few in number but the only class that could handle the heaviest loads unaided over the West Highland route. It's been said that at Crianlarich, the sight of a K4 passing over the equivalent LMS line handling two more coaches than a Stanier '5' underneath was a sight to behold. One could argue that the Class '5' was much more versatile, but it wasn't as suitable over the more hilly routes as the K4. Gresley saw the economics of a specific design (it saved an engine and a crew) but it had a cost in terms of the initial build price and the added complications. Interestingly, post-war, when various 4-6-0s came to the West Highland (B1s, Stanier '5s', Standard '5s'), their haulage capacity was all inferior to the K4s, and they thus took lighter loads or resorted to double-heading. Only the accountants have the real answers. The same is so for the P2s (even more so), and after their demise there's wasn't a locomotive in the land capable of taking what they did. But, I admit, the cost imperatives were high. 

           

As to the numbers in various classes, umpteen standpoints can be taken. It's not always the case that if a class has a vast number in it, it must be better than a smaller one, even when the economies of standardisation are factored in. It's cited that the J38s were few in number, but they were a far superior locomotive to the 4F. Just because there were more 4Fs doesn't make them a better engine, and in no way could they have done the work of the J38s in the Fife coalfields. But then, the J38s couldn't have hauled the holiday extras taken by the 4Fs. Ask the bean counters.

           

Ironically, one could argue that the LNER built too many big engines to Gresley's design of 'only' three classes (if you combine the non-streamlined Pacifics), nearly 300 of A3, A4 and V2 (I admit the P2s and W1 aren't included). Thompson and Peppercorn added even more, so that the ER/NER/ScR of BR ended up with a grand total of nearly 400 locomotives heavier than a GWR 'King'. And, if we're really being 'picky', Thompson's total of Pacifics were formed of four classes, and yet they only comprised a total of 26 locomotives. What's sauce for the goose....

         

By the same 'logic', Stanier could be criticised for not building enough Pacifics for the LMS, and there were fewer 4-6-2s of his design in two classes than there were in one (A3) of Gresley's. As I say, arguments can be swayed in all directions. 

         

To conclude, and my apologies to those I've left behind (not surprisingly, for I'm muddling myself up), one can't always make direct comparisons. And, with regard to my comments about Edward Thompson's P2 conversions they were to indicate that some new information was forthcoming. I applaud those who defend Thompson, for his motives must have been admirable, and the constraints of the war meant he had to do something to reduce maintenance costs. However, it is a fact of history, that every one (with one exception) of his 'improved' 'standard' locomotive types was outlived by the types they were supposed to replace, however many were built and of how many classes. The exception (if you don't include the K1s, which were brought out under Peppercorn's regime, though, I admit, Thompson showed the way) was the B1. Without doubt, this was the locomotive the LNER really should have built years and years before, and it's a valid criticism of Gresley for his not doing so. One could argue that it was the LNER's most useful locomotive and a fitting tribute to its designer. As has been said already, had ET not tinkered with a few of Gresley's 'sacred cows', his name would have been revered as entirely the man for the job in the circumstances. Just think, had he left the P2s alone, fitted a Kylchap double pot to the V2s and fitted an A4 boiler and a Kylchap double pot to Great Northern (and all the other A1s/A3s) - all of which were entirely possible at the time, and much cheaper than costly rebuilds - he would be considered to be amongst the most applauded of the 20th century CMEs. But, no, he's the most derided. Perhaps, best leave it there.

           

[Guest jim s-w]

I find screw couple pullman gangwayed coaches just as wrong as tension locks, Kaydees are nearest I know of

 

seargent are much nearer than kaydee

 

Fine in real life but I havent seen a Kaydee that drops down to leave a hook showing.

 

Again seargent rather than kadee

 

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gray.hickson/couplers.html

 

Hth

 

Jim