Hornsby Q6

[Hatfield Shed]

I do tend to the 'glass half full' idea; while it would be ideal to have in depth coverage, the sight of an NER origin tender loco in OO RTR form should be the cause for much celebration. Here's hoping that it gets a really positive reception in terms of achieved sales; that might encourage more than just Hornby in the idea that there are desireable subjects for models 'up North'.

[earlswood nob]

Evenin' all

I am pleased that the Q6 has been produced. However, I think many LNER modellers will be disappointed that the loco with the LNER number is a post 1946 number. This is suitable for a layout that models 1946 to early 1948, but misses out on the 1923 to 1946 period.

Earlswood nob

PS, what about a J21 and J27

[Sniffer]

First of all sincere apologies for my typo on the thread title.

Hadn't really expected the level of debate this release would generate. And no, I'd no idea the allotted number made it so date sensitive.

As I've said before my modelling skills are limited to scenery and attention to "silly" detail in areas like platform furniture etc. My metalworking and hence bashing skills are severely limited.
To have an accurate and finely detailed Q6 available from the box is beyond my oddest dreams.

I know already it's going to be a firm favourite.

[manna]

G'day Gents

A least Hornby do the hoppers that the Q6 pulled, now if somebody can point me to a picture of a Q6 on ECS out of Kings Cross !!!

manna

[Woodcock29]

I have a LNER Q6 on the way now with the intention of renumbering it into pre war. Its not really suitable for my modelling area but I've always loved the Q6s since they were the last real ex LNER heavy goods engines in service. It will replace my old NuCast 'underscale' model which I built back in the early 1980s.

Fortunately, despite the 50A boiler being mostly suitable for WW2 onwards, there were about 7 so fitted in 1938 and more in 1939 so I just need to make sure I can find one with the correct tender. I've recently gained access to purchasing some of the Yeadons I don't have here in Oz secondhand so I'll shortly have Vol 23 which should help with this task.

Woodcock29

[mick b]

Some problems for backdating the post war LNER version are surfacing .


Hornby's post war LNER version

Missing Capuchon from Chimney , Flat Smokebox Door and a Steel Bufferbeam. Missing tail rods from the cylinders. All would need fairly major surgery to correct.

The only photo of 3418 in Yeadon is very early BR days with the tender in British Railways Lettering. Photo does not show the Bufferbeam all the other problems are there in the photo as being fitted or not as the case maybe.

Sadly the loco is not correct for post war either unless Hornby have a photo with all these features missing/different which would be very surprising.


The BR version is a a better bet it has correct Chimney and Smokebox Door , but still with a Steel Bufferbeam and no Tail Rods . It looks like it has a moulded Smokebox Door Number which would be a pain the remove and smooth off !.

[2392]

For me the fore going remarks in this case about the new issue Hornby Q6, represent the almost impossible situation model makers are in, be they the Ready to Run makers like Hornby or to a lesser degree the kit makers. Why impossible, because no matter what version of the Loco, carriage or wagon they produce, they have to pick a particular point in their career to model. As almost on a daily base there were a variety of permutations to pick from to choose, so if there has to be a compromise as what to produce. Just like what colour do you outshop your loco in........that though is another debate to put it mildly .

[mick b]

For me the fore going remarks in this case about the new issue Hornby Q6, represent the almost impossible situation model makers are in, be they the Ready to Run makers like Hornby or to a lesser degree the kit makers. Why impossible, because no matter what version of the Loco, carriage or wagen they produce, they have to pick a particular point in their career to model. As almost on a daily base there were a variety of permutations to pick from to choose, so if there has to be a compromise as what to produce. Just like what colour do you outshop your loco in........that though is another debate to put t mildly .

I agree, but in this case the most basic research e.g look at one very easily accessible one photograph, could/would have corrected the very basic mistakes on the Q6 made by Hornby's research department before production.

[Daddyman]

Some problems for backdating the post war LNER version are surfacing .


Hornby's post war LNER version

Missing Capuchon from Chimney , Flat Smokebox Door and a Steel Bufferbeam. Missing tail rods from the cylinders. All would need fairly major surgery to correct.

The only photo of 3418 in Yeadon is very early BR days with the tender in British Railways Lettering. Photo does not show the Bufferbeam all the other problems are there in the photo as being fitted or not as the case maybe.

Sadly the loco is not correct for post war either unless Hornby have a photo with all these features missing/different which would be very surprising.


The BR version is a a better bet it has correct Chimney and Smokebox Door , but still with a Steel Bufferbeam and no Tail Rods . It looks like it has a moulded Smokebox Door Number which would be a pain the remove and smooth off !.

Thanks for this, Mick. I won't have one myself, but my dad may want one for his mid-1930s-set layout. I'm not familiar with the class, and don't have the relevant Yeadon, so your info on variations is useful. As you know, the J27 had some similar variations ("A" boiler, chimney with or without capuchon, different smokebox doors, steel or sandwich bufferbeam). However, with the J27, you can virtually have any of those features mixed around on a 1930s loco, but you're saying that's not the case with the Q6? - i .e. no 1930s Q6 had a steel b.beam or capuchon-less chimney? I'm also confused about the s.box door: you mention a flatter door as being appropriate for a later loco, whereas the earlier door on (all?) other ex-NER classes was flatter, and the replacement LNER one more dished - see again the J27. And when you say the BR model has the correct s.box door, you mean it has the earlier door?

Grateful for any clarification.

[Atlantic 3279]

Come on gents - are we LNER modellers or aren't we?

Quite - and that's why I think it is reasonable to protest that the so called LNER version of this model does not actually portray a typical Q6 during the greater part of the LNER era.

As Mick has now mentioned, for some silly reason they've decided to model one of the oddities without a windjabber on the chimney. How daft! If you don't want this feature, it's easy to file off. You can't file it back on if it isn't there in the first place...

Unless my eyes deceive me the smokebox door on the pseudo LNER offering looks like the smaller, flatter NER original, which is okay, although a wheel-and-handle door fastening might be wanted, and the lubricator is where it should be between the first two splashers - yet the chassis includes a wholly inappropriate lubricator drive off the third wheel.

There's reasonable chance that you won't want a snifting valve on a 20s to mid 30s loco but you may well want a steam circulating valve on the left of the smokebox. On top of moving / replacing the dome, perhaps adding tail rod covers, deciding whether to try to correct the firebox length and possibly altering washout plugs as mentioned amply above, there's also the probable need for a base casing round the safety valves, TWO whistles rather than the one supplied and a possible change of buffers.

It's just not a "thoughtful" LNER model offering. I'm not convinced that this combination of features has more commercial potential than a loco with "classic" LNER features, many of which persisted into the 50s and 60s.

[mick b]

Some problems for backdating the post war LNER version are surfacing .


Hornby's post war LNER version

Missing Capuchon from Chimney , Flat Smokebox Door and a Steel Bufferbeam. Missing tail rods from the cylinders. All would need fairly major surgery to correct.

The only photo of 3418 in Yeadon is very early BR days with the tender in British Railways Lettering. Photo does not show the Bufferbeam all the other problems are there in the photo as being fitted or not as the case maybe.

Sadly the loco is not correct for post war either unless Hornby have a photo with all these features missing/different which would be very surprising.


The BR version is a a better bet it has correct Chimney and Smokebox Door , but still with a Steel Bufferbeam and no Tail Rods . It looks like it has a moulded Smokebox Door Number which would be a pain the remove and smooth off !.

Thanks for this, Mick. I won't have one myself, but my dad may want one for his mid-1930s-set layout. I'm not familiar with the class, and don't have the relevant Yeadon, so your info on variations is useful. As you know, the J27 had some similar variations ("A" boiler, chimney with or without capuchon, different smokebox doors, steel or sandwich bufferbeam). However, with the J27, you can virtually have any of those features mixed around on a 1930s loco, but you're saying that's not the case with the Q6? - i .e. no 1930s Q6 had a steel b.beam or capuchon-less chimney? I'm also confused about the s.box door: you mention a flatter door as being appropriate for a later loco, whereas the earlier door on (all?) other ex-NER classes was flatter, and the replacement LNER one more dished - see again the J27. And when you say the BR model has the correct s.box door, you mean it has the earlier door?

Grateful for any clarification.

I am no expert and this is from Yeadon's photos and comments therein

Hornby have done the 50A Boiler as fitted from 1938 see earlier post for Loco numbers. cannot see nay point in attempting to modify to the Dia 50 type you would wreck the Body trying

Bufferbeam. Sandwich type upto Q6 Number 2222 the from 2233 Steel plate version was fitted , it would appear earlier Locos had them as retro fitted at later dates and GS Buffers as well.

Chimney all the photos have them with the Standard fitting Capuchon other than when it had corroded away.

Smokebox Doors all appear ( to my eyes) to have dished Doors until fitted with Flat doors starting in 1945 onwards some still had original doors in mid 1950's . As the model has a one piece handrail a real pain again to try and change. Much easier to use the BR version Loco and file off the smokebox number .
Edit Got above back to front. Flat doors first then dished doors late LNER into BR.


As always use photos as a minefield as always !! They only used Five type of Tender too . Mechanical Oil drive off the Offside centre coupling wheel was removed on Locos as well. .

No idea why they made it as a post war loco anyway as the recent Heljan O2 offering ,how much demand is there for that period? Hornby have also done the same recently covering this era for the D16 and the B1.

[drmditch]

One thing about this model that no-one else seems to have mentioned is that externally-driven lubricator arms didn't start to be fitted until 1949.
(Sorry if someone did mention this and I missed it)

Other than that (and the windjabber) Hornby's 3416 doesn't look too different to my 3418( which is modeled on a 1946 Consett shedded engine).
.....Picture here (scroll down)....
After all, with 120 long-lived engines every individual showed it's own particular engineering history. But then, I've never particularly been interested in running an RTR model 'straight-out-of-the-box'.

Yes, I was thinking that a pre-1946 numbered example might be useful, but I think I'll wait till I see an actual example of the Hornby model - and I'll see how my bank account is going!

[Pebbles]

Surely the nub of the matter is that Hornby have done a good job of producing a model of 63395.

[Horsetan]

Surely the nub of the matter is that Hornby have done a good job of producing a model of 63395.

That's the one NELPG members and collectors / eBay traders will be after.

[ArthurK]

For those interested in getting the Hornby Q6 63443 the following photo may be of use. Taken early 60's at Low Fell.

I might also add another photo of 63358 taken at Blaydon is also mine. Hornby have used this in their short video "The Story So Far" without bothering to find out the owner of the copyright. They have incorrectly attributed this to Colorail.

ArthurK