The LNER Encyclopedia

I see we shall have another variety of freelance vintage coach blatantly lying about its identity and claiming to be a GNR vehicle, which it looks nothing like...

I'm unsurprised about the announcement of a Cock o' the North re-tool and the P2/2s to go with it. I assume there will be little or no demand henceforth for resin body fronts or for valve gear conversion etches. I wonder whether the new Pacifics will get more substantial (but not overscale) and more faithful valve gear as well as the cast metal running plates, and I wonder whether the change to cast metal is really a move to suit factories and workforces that don't seem recently to have been able to produce and assemble the original plastic running plates without distorting them?

I won't be shelling out money to replace my P2s and Pacifics either way. There's nothing wrong enough with them to warrant replacement.

A tentative resurrection of Dublo? Purely a test of a marketing ploy? Will the under-pinnings of the new locos with die-cast bodies have the necessary additional strength to stand the weight and resist wear?

I may consider a Lord President in due course , luckily my built one via Graeme is Mons Meg.

Nothing else on the lists rocks my boat. When you actually looks at the lists ,there is hardly anything totally new, vast majority is re liveries.

I agree with Graeme re A1 and A3's , I expect the current tooling is also knackered, hence the metal footplate.

I didn't have the patience to watch all of the Youtube video, but what I did see - a Coca-Cola train encouraging obesity in the little ones - an Avanti Pride set - hideous colour scheme - encouraging what? Seems Hornby is swinging more to toy trains than model railways? Let's hope the finances continue to improve and perhaps there will be something useful for us oldies!

Atlantic 3279 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 05, 2021 1:46 pm ...A tentative resurrection of Dublo? Purely a test of a marketing ploy? Will the under-pinnings of the new locos with die-cast bodies have the necessary additional strength to stand the weight and resist wear?

No trouble at all with my Bachmann A1s (axles running in mazak slots) and Hornby Gresley pacifics (axles in brass bearings) which have been running since shortly after purchase made up with lead to 600g (8P) or 550g (7P) with no trouble whatsoever, in the 19 to 15 year period since these models went into service. Wear is well controlled by grease lubrication on the gear train and axles, and a bimonthly oil round routine on the side rod crankpins and joints.

There may be a limit with current construction. An old T-H 9F converted to loco drive and made up to 800g first ran several years outdoors with no trouble, then indoors, both locations with typically a 3kg train load. After an aggregate of about 10 years service it failed pretty spectacularly, one wheel on the driven axle shifting about 60 degrees and breaking and bending the side rods both sides in consequence.

The smaller LNER group loco models with largely diecast bodies that I own are most pleasing: never mind the H-D nostalgia angle, I should like this construction to be generally adopted. (Hornby B12/3, D16/3, J15, J36. Oxford N7. And I read that the Bachmann MR 0-4-4T is largely metal bodied.)

Agree with what's been said. Much duplication. Little new. I wonder though how much plans have been hit by covid. Rmweb implies that the 9f is likely easter 2022.

And perhaps the diesel electric guys are delighted with what they're getting. Class 91 rakes etc...

Its a pity the original P2s produced by Hornby were during the Design Clever period which must now be seen by them as a major blooper. Anyway my so called 'super detail' model got a complete face lift including removal of all plastic hand rails and a repaint of the back of the tender to so I could place the lining in the correct place. However, its never run that well as it takes a lot of current to get it started and then it takes off. I've seen Railroad versions run much better! I need to replace the motor with something better at some stage.

Graeme please remind me - did you build your 2002 with the smoke deflectors? I'm thinking I might get the 2002 version but rather fancy it with smoke deflectors to make it look more different to 2001 as the prototype photo used by Hornby suggest it will be in original condition. Might have to make them out of brass in due course.

I reckon the Southern guys will be quite happy as they've been crying out for an alternate tender for the Merchant Navy for some time.

The 6 and 4 wheel coaches are a total waste of effort in my view unless, contrary to the Hattons versions, the Hornby models are actually based on a prototype from one particular railway. It doesn't really matter who's. We can see they're obviously not GN and I suspect not GC either. If they were LBSC or Midland or whatever at least some one would be getting decent models of a prototype and could use them appropriately. Otherwise a total waste of effort but then that''s my purist hat being worn!

I think the incorrect liveries for the W1, on what is otherwise likely to be an excellent model, are also silly as they lead non-experts into thinking it might have been painted like that.

I reckon in a year or two if the 2020 range Coronation Scot sells well we might see a Coronation set - could be at least four versions Coronation, WR, unmarked and some in blood and custard for BR period.

Andrew

Atlantic 3279 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 05, 2021 1:46 pm I see we shall have another variety of freelance vintage coach blatantly lying about its identity and claiming to be a GNR vehicle, which it looks nothing like...
Will the under-pinnings of the new locos with die-cast bodies have the necessary additional strength to stand the weight and resist wear?

I just wonder if Hornby have stolen a march on Hattons plans for 4 and 6 wheel coaches. Are they the same design and production?

I too would like die-cast bodies on engines generally (like Märklin still do).

Kimball

Well, I for one don't mind that much; after all, they're making some four and six wheelers that Hattons' hasn't made (yet), like for the North British Railway, some early rakes for the London and South Western Railway, and some four wheeled brakes for the LNER that would be useful for a branch-line NPCC set. And they're also slightly cheaper too, and have what I think is a clever lighting system, so that's something.

If I'm honest? I can't help but feel like some people are just trying to stir up controversy and ill-will, trying to poison the well of public opinion solely for the sake of being a jerk and a troll and getting their jollies off.

I could be tempted by "Doncaster" although I certainly don't need another A1. If one was to acquire another just for the fun of it, that's a good one to have. Hopefully a 1928/1934 build A3 will be forthcoming from this new tool in the not too distant future, to make up for the disaster that was "Book Law" and the even worse "Firdaussi" (I have 3 of the first and one of the other and they were, apart from 1, pretty awful). Again, I don't have any need for one but a good model could be very tempting. The streamlined P2 is perhaps the most interesting thing there. One must be careful when all excited about new releases, I could be at risk of becoming a collector....

Paul

In response to Andrew's question, my P2 conversion parts never included smoke deflectors for Earl Marischal.

As for the charge from NZ of deliberately stirring up controversy, let's consider non-prototypical vintage coaches that look nothing like the item they claim to be on to the box label, and let's be honest about the fact that GNR vintage coaches from the late Victorian and very early Edwardian eras are extremely distinctive and not at all like anything that Hornby or Hattons are offering: Those who pay proper attention to the historical prototype (which some, quite evidently, have not done) will realise that there is a world of difference between genuine railway modelling (which involves at least trying to get all of the obvious things looking right and performing the right tasks, or at least getting as close as possible to that so that the discrepancies are not noticeable) and the alternative, easier process of simply playing with toy trains (in which case you can have any piece of rolling stock, of any origin, even something imaginary from Mars, running in any colours you like, and pretend it is something real).
On here, I think we are generally talking about models rather than toys.

NZRedBaron wrote: ↑Wed Jan 06, 2021 12:33 am If I'm honest? I can't help but feel like some people are just trying to stir up controversy and ill-will, trying to poison the well of public opinion solely for the sake of being a jerk and a troll and getting their jollies off.

Are such remarks necessary?
In my experience this forum has always, and allowing for the occasional spat of course, been a well mannered and useful source of ideas and information. I, for one, am always keen to learn from the well informed and skilful people who post on here.
Please let us not poison it.

drmditch wrote: ↑Wed Jan 06, 2021 1:16 pm

NZRedBaron wrote: ↑Wed Jan 06, 2021 12:33 am If I'm honest? I can't help but feel like some people are just trying to stir up controversy and ill-will, trying to poison the well of public opinion solely for the sake of being a jerk and a troll and getting their jollies off.

Are such remarks necessary?
In my experience this forum has always, and allowing for the occasional spat of course, been a well mannered and useful source of ideas and information. I, for one, am always keen to learn from the well informed and skilful people who post on here.
Please let us not poison it.

Ditto !!!

Yip, don't call people who know what they're talking about a jerk, looks bad for you.

Anyway, to discuss a point raised by Graeme, perhaps the imminent release of the W1 will give some indication of what to expect from A1/3 revamp.
I'd hope that at least the coupling rods get a bit of weight added, but my experience suggests the most vulnerable part is the eccentric crank and rod and expansion link, all too easily damaged. It's the one area where Bachmann really are superior, their return crank arrangement is much better, even if some lean the wrong way. I don't suppose anyone has seen one of the new Princesses up close, that could also give some clues as to whether Hornby have made a general engineering improvement in the valve gear department.
Time will tell of course, but it's something to talk about I guess.

Cheers
Paul

Anyhoo, changing the subject, I had a random thought; would the body-shell of a Thompson A2/3 comfortably fit over the chassis of a Gresley A3 or a Peppercorn A1/A2?

Just a random idea I thought of for asthetics- swap out the short Thompson running gear for a more conventional set.

NZRedBaron wrote: ↑Thu Jan 07, 2021 7:37 am ... would the body-shell of a Thompson A2/3 comfortably fit over the chassis of a Gresley A3 or a Peppercorn A1/A2?...

'The match' to the A2/3 is the Peppercorn A2. If you obtain drawings of the two you will see that from the rear of the frames to the front of the boiler, the two designs may be overlaid: Peppercorn reverted to the proven mechanical layout at the front end - the most visible evidence of which is the outside cylinders neatly disposed between the bogie wheels - and the aesthetically superior result of the significantly shorter frame and correct relation of cylinders and bogie is achieved. In short, the job has already been done in reality, and the Pepp A2 model is thus 'all you need'...