Heljan Gresley O2 2-8-0 'Tango'

[2512silverfox]

I assume that Heljan are intending to produce the Gresley 02 2-8-0 in its various forms, but I think one or two posters are confusing the orginal Gresley 01 as being the same class (Later became 03 when the Thompson rebuilds arrived in 1944) There are anumber of detail differences which would preclude any easy rebuld into the earlieir two cylinder loco - unless Graeme know otherwise?

[Atlantic 3279]

I doubt it will be an easy rebuild, but a GN two-cylinder 2-8-0 has been on my "to do" list for a while and starting from an RTR O2/1 rather than modifying an O2 kit might offer advantages in terms of effort, speed, cost and results.

As far as I can see: The driving wheels with their large balance weights must be exchanged onto the third coupled axle and the second coupled axle has to move forwards 2mm. I imagine that it will be possible to re-arrange the individual sections of the coupling rods to suit. The brakes have to turn around to pull on the rears of the wheels. New cylinders, new front running plate and framing plus completely new outside motion will be required but I think Comet LMS 8F motion might be persuaded to fit and to look nearly correct. The pony axle has to move 3mm to the rear and larger pony wheels are needed. The sides of the smokebox saddle need to be waisted in rather than straight and the steam pipes require square covers rather than round.

[Atso]

I'm sure if anyone can turn an O2 into an O1 it is the ever insane Atlantic!

Seriously though, can we have one in N gauge!!!!

[earlswood nob]

Evenin' all
I look forward to an O2 with GN cab and I'd love an O1 (I already have a NuCast O2/3), but as for converting a R-T-R O2, I'm not sure. What might be possible is marrying an O2 chassis to a A1/A3 pacific to produce a P1. Now that was a heavy freight loco.
What would also be useful if a GN tender is produced. It could be used to convert a K3 to the GN version with (I think the tenders are the same).
It seems that over the last couple of years, therehas been an increase in big (usually dirty) freight locos. With O4, O1 and now O2 becoming available. A Long Tom Q1, Tiny Q4 and Q6 are eagerly awaited. I love them as the original purpose of railways was mineral transport. A Q4 could be converted from a Bachmann O4, shortened boiler, modified firebox (straight sides) and shorter footplate. The boiler should be slightly smaller, but I don't think it would be noticeable.
Such are our dreams, may they all become reality.
Earlswood Nob

[Atso]

Evenin' all
I look forward to an O2 with GN cab and I'd love an O1 (I already have a NuCast O2/3), but as for converting a R-T-R O2, I'm not sure. What might be possible is marrying an O2 chassis to a A1/A3 pacific to produce a P1. Now that was a heavy freight loco.
What would also be useful if a GN tender is produced. It could be used to convert a K3 to the GN version with (I think the tenders are the same).
It seems that over the last couple of years, therehas been an increase in big (usually dirty) freight locos. With O4, O1 and now O2 becoming available. A Long Tom Q1, Tiny Q4 and Q6 are eagerly awaited. I love them as the original purpose of railways was mineral transport. A Q4 could be converted from a Bachmann O4, shortened boiler, modified firebox (straight sides) and shorter footplate. The boiler should be slightly smaller, but I don't think it would be noticeable.
Such are our dreams, may they all become reality.
Earlswood Nob

Stop it! All this talking about O2s, P1s, etc is seriously making me want to go back to 4mm!!!! Where are my pills....

[Manxman1831]

I expect to see at least three Garratts made from the Heljan O2 within the first six months of them becoming available in the shops, if only for no other reason than they can be done.

[60800]

On the talk of Heljan and garratts, their pre - production LMS garratt was on display at Warley:

[Tom F]

On the talk of Heljan and garratts, their pre - production LMS garratt was on display at Warley:

Very nice Blackout

Never done Warley before, but might make a weekend of it next year.

[S.A.C. Martin]

And why is the O1 maligned?

For much the same reason any Thompson loco, bar the grudging praise given to the Thompson B1 - the name "Thompson" at the start of it.

If we'd had objective assessment such as "it doesn't cover the pre-war period, it doesn't cover the whole of the ex-LNER system in BR days", quantified with "but we understand that the B1, L1 and O1 all share some common toolings" then there would be no problem in my view with any criticism of Hornby's O1. It has to be justified. Very little of it - and that against the Thompson L1 I note - has been from certain quarters.

But let's just say that preconceived bias against Thompson militates against objective assessment of him or his locomotive designs; be it in prototype or model form. A shame as the Thompson O1 really is an exquisite model, up there with the best of Hornby's models (which I still feel is the Thompson L1, despite the excellence of the B1, B17 and recent Clan and Castle products).

Apologies for venturing into an area where my knowledge is sketchy at best, but I'm happy to be educated - I understood that the thinking behind Hornby's O1 was perceived as part of a three-pronged strategy (O1, B1, B17) based around the 100A boiler and other common parts. That being so, it strikes me as an all too rare example of the sort of joined-up thinking that is desperately needed at Margate.

That is how I understood it, and I agree with you Ian - more of this kind of joined up thinking, with complementary items in the ranges, is the way to go. From here, Hornby are not too far away from all of the pieces for a GER B12 (various forms) or a Thompson B2 (B17 chassis plus 100A boiler, cylinders and similar from the B1) and there's a few more no doubt you could throw in as well.

Frankly, we've never had it so good - and I also don't care at all who makes what, so long as it is accurate enough to the prototype and offers us a way of better depicting our chosen territories.

[Coboman]

On the talk of Heljan and garratts, their pre - production LMS garratt was on display at Warley:

A ha! interesting diesel behind the garratt. I gave Heljan information and pictures about Falcon in that livery with a yellow front 18 months ago. I wonder if I'll get a discount or anything.......

[Atlantic 3279]

I don't see any need to fan the flames of the argument over the initial production of a Thompson O1 rather than a Gresley O2, regardless of who is manufacturing them, but it does seem from my point of view that "competitive capitalism" is responsible for some rather wasteful duplication or even triplication of research, development and production costs here:

Bachmann already had the Robinson 8-coupled chassis well covered, also the ROD tender. Hornby have now developed their own versions of those exact same items for the O1.

By the time Heljan very commendably offer the O2 it seems likely that we shall have three different manufacturers all producing LNER group standard 4200 gallon tenders, possibly including the same version of the design from all three of them.

Whether we want to also drag the B1 duplication into this is another question, but with all of the other LNER loco types that could have been popular with modellers I wonder if this 3 way fight to occupy the middle ground is entirely sensible.

[auldreekie]

Weel, there's ay a wee bit o' groond that's no in the middle (muddle?), mair towards the top...... No bad injins, neither....

auldreekie

[S.A.C. Martin]

I don't see any need to fan the flames of the argument over the initial production of a Thompson O1 rather than a Gresley O2, regardless of who is manufacturing them, but it does seem from my point of view that "competitive capitalism" is responsible for some rather wasteful duplication or even triplication of research, development and production costs here:

Bachmann already had the Robinson 8-coupled chassis well covered, also the ROD tender. Hornby have now developed their own versions of those exact same items for the O1.

By the time Heljan very commendably offer the O2 it seems likely that we shall have three different manufacturers all producing LNER group standard 4200 gallon tenders, possibly including the same version of the design from all three of them.

Whether we want to also drag the B1 duplication into this is another question, but with all of the other LNER loco types that could have been popular with modellers I wonder if this 3 way fight to occupy the middle ground is entirely sensible.

I don't disagree with your thoughts at all Graeme, but it doesn't appear to be as simple as that. Hornby had clearly planned to make L1, B1 and O1 - which all share common tooling - for quite some time. There's no doubt in my mind that these three locomotives, which cover suburban tank engine, mixed traffic and heavy goods, were planned to complement each other thusly.

It cannot be coincidence that Hornby have introduced suitable Gresley and Thompson suburban stock and also LNER hopper wagons, together with these three locomotives. There is clearly a level of joined up thinking going on, and the use of parts standard to one another more or less underlines Hornby's tactic.

There is also no guarantee that Bachmann will make any of the other ROD conversions (despite the existence of the GWR type, which arguably doesn't require the same levels of tooling that a new O4/8 or O1 would have required, despite the existing chassis block). Their next catalog will be interesting - I wonder if I will be eating my words before then...

The tender issue is an interesting one, however I think it's fair to say that tenders in general are duplicated the most. There are Stanier and Fowler tenders of the same type available from Hornby and Bachmann, used behind their Royal Scot/Patriot and Patriot/Jubilee locomotives respectively. The GWR locomotive types have all on both sides used Churchward, Collett and Hawksworth type tenders and these are duplicated too.

The only railway which hasn't seen the same level of tender duplication is the Southern, and that may be down to the fact that Hornby and Bachmann haven't done locomotive types which shared design parentage with each other (King Arthur compared to Lord Nelson, Bulleids compared to the N Class).

There's bound to be some level of tender duplication in future as the choice of desirable classes to be made becomes more and more limited. Hornby may do an improved D49 some day and that will force Hornby into tooling up a new tender top for their already existing GCR frames (if that is correct? Please correct me if I am wrong) which can be found behind their O1. Bachmann have already done this with the O4 and D11, so it stands to reason it may yet happen with the J11 too.

I'm not sure if anyone shares this viewpoint, but given the way that ex-LNER locomotives, in particular, have swapped around tenders, I tend to see tenders as almost consumables at this point, keeping any tenders bereft of an engine as spare in stock for the day it can be paired with an appropriate locomotive. Certainly, I have a good number of Bachmann A2, Hornby A3 and A4 eight wheeled tenders in stock for any and such eventualities!

Is it wasteful to tool up the same tender from three manufacturers? I think it's been a fact of life in this industry for quite a while and it's only now reached the extreme of three, rather than two, manufacturers making the same tender.

[Boris]

Any of you guys ever fire an O1 or O2

Well I did.
To take an O2 from Darnall to Mottram was a bloody nightmare.
Lucky if we made Wadsley bridge for the first 'blow up' and Warncliffe Loop for the second.
Maybe the way Darnall drivers drove them, but most of our fireman couldn't get them to steam where they needed steam on the hill
Probably great on the G.N, nice and level but at full regulater and full forward gear up "The Bank"
Fornicating useless.
Now the O1, take them anywhere, the suprise when I first got into the cab of one was where are all the bits and pieces, purely basic and nothing there we didn't need.
The nice solid bark from the chimey, a haze of smoke in the steam, they would blow off at the extra shovel full
From what I heard from Annersley firemen was nothing but praise when they allocated, I think, all the O1s there

[Brush53Falcon]

Any of you guys ever fire an O1 or O2

Well I did.
To take an O2 from Darnall to Mottram was a bloody nightmare.
Lucky if we made Wadsley bridge for the first 'blow up' and Warncliffe Loop for the second.
Maybe the way Darnall drivers drove them, but most of our fireman couldn't get them to steam where they needed steam on the hill
Probably great on the G.N, nice and level but at full regulater and full forward gear up "The Bank"
Fornicating useless.
Now the O1, take them anywhere, the suprise when I first got into the cab of one was where are all the bits and pieces, purely basic and nothing there we didn't need.
The nice solid bark from the chimey, a haze of smoke in the steam, they would blow off at the extra shovel full
From what I heard from Annersley firemen was nothing but praise when they allocated, I think, all the O1s there

Perhaps Grantham kept their O2's in better fettle and on hearing the tales of when the return ironstone empties used to have to stop for a blow-up after the Frodingham crew had been relieved perhaps gives this some substance but what I do know is that they were used day in day out up and down the High Dyke branch with its notorious gradients for many years until dieselisation so your final comment seems a little harsh. However it is always what suits man best and perhaps the O1's were better suited to the type of jobs you were employed on. Do you happen to know if any O1's ever got used on the High Dyke branch?