Atlantic's works: Portable layout - Scenic details next

[jwealleans]

Well I still don't like them, but that's a seriously good job. Have you adjusted the bogie wheels as well?

[Atlantic 3279]

Yes, following my comments on 28th I moved them forward by the estimated extra 1 to 1.5 mm, along with the cylinders. Following more checking of dimensions on my digitally reproduced Isinglass drawing I've noticed loads of discrepancies between positions of features that should be the same in the right and left side views, including heights of running plates, smoke deflectors, top of chimney and the fore-aft position of features such as wheels and boiler bands (for the same five-piece barrel clothing) , so whether any of my new features are dimensionally correct is anybody's guess unless a genuine GA drawing is to hand. Never mind, they look about right and the confusion must make it all the more difficult for anybody to claim that they are "wrong".

[S.A.C. Martin]

It looks like an A2/3 to me - that's all that matters here!

Graeme, it's stunning. Hearty well done from me, when we first discussed this I wondered if it would beat the W1 conversion for sheer impression: I think it has surpassed that high standard and can only hope my painting skills improve to do it full justice.

[manna]

G'Day Gents

Stunning piece of work

I'm just wondering if it would be possible to make an A2/3, using an old Trix A2 bodyshell, Brit chassis and D49 valve gear, I know it wouldn't be anywhere near scale, but would look good at the head of a long van train !!! Could be a cheaper alternative for us poverty ridden ex railwaymen

manna

[Atlantic 3279]

By all means show us the way Manna.

Thanks to all for more kind remarks.

[Blink Bonny]

Looks great! Not one I'd model meself but I take my hat off to you!

[S.A.C. Martin]

This I simply do not understand. If you model the East Coast Mainline in some form, from 1946 onwards, surely you MUST have a Thompson Pacific of some form loitering around somewhere for it to be an accurate representation of the period?

I know that I can't legitimately model Leeds in any form without a few A2/3s and possibly one of the P2 conversions somewhere, so how anyone feels they can model BR Eastern Region without one Thompson Pacific surprises me greatly.

[davidwest]

This I simply do not understand. If you model the East Coast Mainline in some form, from 1946 onwards, surely you MUST have a Thompson Pacific of some form loitering around somewhere for it to be an accurate representation of the period?

I know that I can't legitimately model Leeds in any form without a few A2/3s and possibly one of the P2 conversions somewhere, so how anyone feels they can model BR Eastern Region without one Thompson Pacific surprises me greatly.

I quite agree A2/3 and A2/2 were common on the ECML the former until '65 more common in many respects than the Peppercorn A2.

[Atlantic 3279]

Oddly enough, the Thompson Pacifics are not at all to my taste either, but possibly the A2/3s were the most reasonable looking of the whole unsatisfactory lot and this just seemed like a conversion crying out to be done. I might well have to make one to keep for myself now too. It's odd how some things can just grow on you.........

I've restricted the side-slop in the expansion links and eccentric rods now, and put a backing on the slidebars to keep the crossheads securely in place. It all runs very nicely, and now I even dare run it at speed with no fear of mashing/twisting/snapping any "locked" valveagear

[coachmann]

This I simply do not understand. If you model the East Coast Mainline in some form, from 1946 onwards, surely you MUST have a Thompson Pacific of some form loitering around somewhere for it to be an accurate representation of the period?

Hooray. When I put this in a modelling magazine with an LNER bias some years ago it seemed mine was a lone voice.

[Blink Bonny]

In my defence, all I can say is that, as a fully certified Somerset and Dorset modeller, I am free to pick and choose which locos I model apart from those on the S & D. That's why I have an Ivatt 4 with that hideous double chimney and why the Millholme kit in my "to build" pile will be finished with one of these 'orrible appendages.

However, if I was to model the ECML (N gauge?) then Thompson pacifics would be on my shopping list.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it, m'lud.

[manna]

G'Day Gents

Careful with the word 'certified' BB or we'll have the chaps it white coats ask where you are

manna

[Blink Bonny]

Manna, they follow me everywhere. Somehow I keep one jump ahead of them, mainly because a moving target is harder to hit!

[S.A.C. Martin]

Larry, I think I remember reading that comment and nodding in agreement at the page. But then, this doesn't seem restricted to LNER thinking. How many GWR goods trains do you see being pulled by a 28xx or 38xx at exhibitions? Very few eight coupled tank engines in use, it seems. What about the "Austin sevens"? It's always an s&d 7f instead. People have their favourites regardless of prototype accuracy. I'm aware the latter have to built from kits, so cost and availability of kits must be taken into account.

[Atso]

This I simply do not understand. If you model the East Coast Mainline in some form, from 1946 onwards, surely you MUST have a Thompson Pacific of some form loitering around somewhere for it to be an accurate representation of the period?

I guess that's why I'm modelling pre-war then! (ducks for cover!)

Honestly though, with people pre-occupation with getting every detail right (and fantastic if you can!) it does strike me as odd that certain key locomotives don't get modelled. The Thompson locos are a good example, like them or loath them (you may guess I'm in the latter) they existed and should be modelled more to give a good representation of the area/era.

Atlantic, fantastic work as always - I must get you to do something for me in N!!