Model Railway Forum banner
141 - 160 of 168 Posts

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,279 Posts
Wonderful isn't it, that such a troubled design has such a fine model.

One of the rare exceptions to the engineering mantra 'if it looks right it is right'. Deployed on the KX suburban services they were commonly referred to as 'Concrete mixers' because of the dreadful noises so often heard while running; and the all too frequent 'not running' because the cause(s) of one or more of the noises had resulted in sufficient damage.to disable the loco.

But the Hornby model will work splendidly on any layout. A slight lack of imagination in the mechanism design apart - the decoder socket is in the right place in the bunker, good work there; but then no direct access by lifting out the moulded coal load which could have made possible a decoder installation with no need to remove the body, which would have been a first in OO - it's all good. The wiper pick ups on the bogie may need adustment to prevent skidding wheels is all. There's enough weight for traction on both the typical suburban service set, and the maximum freight load they were safe to operate. It's easy to add weight if you are going to use yours to drag 16 sleepers out of KX up the 1 in 105...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
882 Posts
Discussion Starter · #143 ·
Wonderful isn't it, that such a troubled design has such a fine model.

One of the rare exceptions to the engineering mantra 'if it looks right it is right'. Deployed on the KX suburban services they were commonly referred to as 'Concrete mixers' because of the dreadful noises so often heard while running; and the all too frequent 'not running' because the cause(s) of one or more of the noises had resulted in sufficient damage.to disable the loco.

But the Hornby model will work splendidly on any layout. A slight lack of imagination in the mechanism design apart - the decoder socket is in the right place in the bunker, good work there; but then no direct access by lifting out the moulded coal load which could have made possible a decoder installation with no need to remove the body, which would have been a first in OO - it's all good. The wiper pick ups on the bogie may need adustment to prevent skidding wheels is all. There's enough weight for traction on both the typical suburban service set, and the maximum freight load they were safe to operate. It's easy to add weight if you are going to use yours to drag 16 sleepers out of KX up the 1 in 105...
It romps away with six or eight of my mixed suburban rakes no bother. The prototype was flawed in that Mr T used the same axleboxes as the V3 tanks where 3 cylinders gave less stresses but with two they didn't stand it. It is said that ET didn't tell the board that they were going to be 2 cylinder but in the end it didn't matter as it was down to British Railways to duplicate them. When I was on Waverley in the 1970s (purser) a retired Helensburgh driver used to come for a sail regularly and he swore by the V1s and V3s. They had the NBL built L1s for running in at Eastfield but like anything Thompson they were treated with contempt - B1s apart. Spent his last years driving 303 EMUs and said that there was no interest in the job by then.
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,279 Posts
... like anything Thompson they were treated with contempt - B1s apart...
He wasn't a competent engineering designer, and considering that the design team were 'experienced safe old hands' it has to be down to the concepts he insisted on. The 'assemblage' locos, B1, K1, O1, using stock parts of proven design worked well enough, but all the locos with novel design features a failure, mainly because the frames and mechanism components specified weren't up to the job.

Had E.T. stuck to his strength which was administration, he could have left an entirely different legacy. He could have used the LNER's engineering resources to identify and correct the inside crank big end design fault (which had to wait until post war) and thereby to eliminate the principal cause of 'the trouble' with the three cylinder machines. That was the rational action to take at that time: there was no way scrap and replace with new designs was possible, squandering of time and money attempting it...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
882 Posts
Discussion Starter · #149 ·
Sorting out the spares department and managed to get enough in the way of parts to build up a spare Gresley A3 (without loco body) which has now been run and tested - however a body has been sourced so I wonder which loco it will become. I would like St. Simon with the small deflectors but don't have a spare GN tender. This chassis is a very quiet runner too
Train Wheel Rolling Vehicle Auto part
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,402 Posts
Disagree above regarding Thompson, the impoverished LNER burnt itself out keeping the war effort going and the last thing it needed were lots of 3 cyl conjugated gear locos (that paid a good royalty to Sir Nigel do not forget) and just read the work done by S O Ell at Swindon plant on the V2's shows how hopeless this novelty really was, the Thompson locos pacifics were hung up with equal length rods giving a long overhang but my father worked on locos in the 1940's and 50's as a premium apprentice and no locos were said to be freer steamers than the A2/1 (the last 4 V2's converted to Pacifics)
As to the L1 model all good, except the wretched front bogie mechanism that adorned a few Hornby locos back in the 2000's and the L1 with the pony truck close to the front driver is a problem with tight radius curves where the truck over turns on the radius that is to say if 20 degrees is needed it goes about 25.
Father thought that the L1 had too small a set of wheels and that a modern A5 as a 2-6-4 tank would have been better as these both accelerated well and pulled well and were quite fast to boot.
Come on Sonic I have paid the deposit for a GCR livery A5 but the L1 is a useful loco to have around.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
882 Posts
Discussion Starter · #151 ·
Remember that most of what Thompson produced had a lot of Gresley in it. Unfortunately the man was not a 'people person' and got too many backs up so whatever he tried to do in some circles was not going to win approval.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,402 Posts
Yes SJ he was a bit abrupt but father met him as a lad and said he was very nice to talk to and he was always doing his best to bring on young 'uns, sure the Thompson locos leaned on what they had because there simply was not the resources to do as much as he wanted, the 100A boiler got many outings for instance, he used Gresley parts where they worked on the other hand he was less impressed where they were weak or expensive illustrated by V4 versus B1, the B1, K4 vs K1 and the falling apart B17 (they had to be withdrawn from the Manchester area as being needing too frequent rebuilds, so Thompson was practical and gave the LNER what it needed after Gresley's death so hard working, effective locos, in my view however it was a shame he did not put the P2's onto the GC where the massive wartime loads could be handled as the main line to London was built to really strong standards, same with W1 and the top link was 6 locos, the P1's could have gone to Annesley to run 'windcutters' where the speed and load pulling power could have been properly used, this would have kept the hierarchy of the enthusiast happy I expect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
75 Posts
Elsewhere, there are those who are contemplating the conversion of an M7 into a Caledonian Railway 439 class.
I'm pretty certain that there was an article in the Railway Modeller in the late 1960s about doing such a conversion, but I wouldn't have a clue which issue it was in. It's a conversion (together with Peter Drummond's projected HR example) that I have often considered doing, in spite of having two unmade DJH kits that I never seem to get around to doing anything with.

The basic job of the conversion should be relatively straightforward, with probably the hardest part being adjusting the width of the cab and bunker.

The GNSR had some 0-4-4Ts as well, but a better starting point for one of them would probably the recent Midland Railway 0-4-4T by Bachmann.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
882 Posts
Discussion Starter · #154 ·
I'm pretty certain that there was an article in the Railway Modeller in the late 1960s about doing such a conversion, but I wouldn't have a clue which issue it was in. It's a conversion (together with Peter Drummond's projected HR example) that I have often considered doing, in spite of having two unmade DJH kits that I never seem to get around to doing anything with.

The basic job of the conversion should be relatively straightforward, with probably the hardest part being adjusting the width of the cab and bunker.

The GNSR had some 0-4-4Ts as well, but a better starting point for one of them would probably the recent Midland Railway 0-4-4T by Bachmann.
I have four DJH 439 Class locos dating from the 1980s - all well worn out - the mechanism was not the most durable.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
882 Posts
Discussion Starter · #155 ·
What we do need RTR are ex NER A8 and B16!

I'm pretty certain that there was an article in the Railway Modeller in the late 1960s about doing such a conversion, but I wouldn't have a clue which issue it was in. It's a conversion (together with Peter Drummond's projected HR example) that I have often considered doing, in spite of having two unmade DJH kits that I never seem to get around to doing anything with.

The basic job of the conversion should be relatively straightforward, with probably the hardest part being adjusting the width of the cab and bunker.

The GNSR had some 0-4-4Ts as well, but a better starting point for one of them would probably the recent Midland Railway 0-4-4T by Bachmann.
My four - still around but need some TLC.
 

Attachments

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,279 Posts
What are folks' take on the Oxford Rail N7?
Very pleased with my three, all run smoothly, look well and are dimensionally accurate. Only fault is the coupler mounting, putting the couplers way too far outboard, but anyone handy can improve this.

Very good for the money, despite which I will only buy a fourth when a really low price is available on any version: (I plan to use the mechanism to power my kit built N7, which has a worn brass kit mechanism with a very tired motor.)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
882 Posts
Discussion Starter · #157 ·
Sorting out the spares department and managed to get enough in the way of parts to build up a spare Gresley A3 (without loco body) which has now been run and tested - however a body has been sourced so I wonder which loco it will become. I would like St. Simon with the small deflectors but don't have a spare GN tender. This chassis is a very quiet runner too
View attachment 21702
Body arrived today - some cosmetic work plus renaming and renumbering to follow.
Train Vehicle Rolling stock Wheel Rolling
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,279 Posts
I do like the A3's still with the GN style tender right to the end of their time in service, a reminder of the A1 design's origin, which proved to have so much development potential.

Neat variant to have with the small (and ineffectual) smokebox top deflectors, I haven't gone further than four 'mainsteam' variants, single and Kylchap chimneys combined with GN and high sided tenders; there are no Kylchap A3 with Witte deflector examples either, as my modelling period finishes mid '62. My excuse, the Kylchap V2's didn't need deflectors - apparently - so why did the racehorses need 'blinkers'?
 
141 - 160 of 168 Posts
Top