Princess Royal Decoration Sample, new Cl. 66s and Terriers!

[JeremiahBunyan]

November's edition of "The Engine Shed", is now up.

 

https://www.hornby.com/uk-en/news/the-engine-shed/princess-royal-deco-class-66-terriers

 

Quite an enjoyable read covering the Princess Royal Class' development, newly announced Class 66s, samples of the second batch of Terriers and samples of the 1:1 Collection.

 

One thing I am really happy about is the fact that they've updated the second tender (water one) on the A4 with NEM couplings. In my view all stock needs to have NEM couplings with narrower couplings. 

[LCDR]

The new Princess Royal looks terrific, and will be a proud addition to Hornby's catalogue. I was impressed at the efforts Hornby are going to to incorporate the differences between different class members especially as this is a very small class of only 12 actual examples. 

 

How far I wonder will Hornby go to incorporate ALL the variations. When new 6200 and 6201 had a Fowler tender, a domeless boiler and peculiar chimney almost like a double stovepipe. There were a lot of other differences too, affecting top feed, slide bars and motion brackets, buffers, lubricators, cylinders, reach rod transfer shaft, cab rain gutters and window side screen etc. Will these appear eventually or is this a step too far?

 

The class originally had domeless boilers, but within a few years domes were added.

 

6205 had a completely different arrangement of valve gear requiring a highly visible and distinctive motion bracket which it uniquly retained throughout is life. I suspect this one will be a step too far, despite this locomotive as 46205 was a long term resident in the Triang range many years ago.

 

What has not yet been incorporated in Hornby's plans is 6202, the Turbomotive which is a completely different animal. This has been demanded by people on this forum for many years but so far no attempt has been made to model this unusual beast.  And of course the unlucky and extremely short lived alter ego, "Princess Anne" as well.

 

I suspect this model will be a best seller, I am sorely tempted to get one myself, although it would have no place on a Southern Region themed layout. I do however fondly remember them during my spotting expeditions to Euston in the late 1950s. 

 

 

 

 

[96RAF]

I wonder if Hornby would push the boat out with this model and do each and every class variant seeing as they appear to have already done the hard work in cataloguing the differences. It would make a nice collection and offer them the unique opportunity for a mega-special editon release one day. That would cost a bob or two.

[LCDR]

To do each and every class variant might not be overly practicable especially with the larger classes such as the 57xx panniers, the Midland/LMS 4F, the Stanier Black 5, and the WD 2-8-0, all of which had over 500 class members. My own favourite classes the West Country / Battle of Britain which had 110 class members and the Schools which ran to 40 examples have numerous variations.

 

The Bullieds of course had the major differences of the original and rebuilds, but even the originals had differences within class, for example in the air smoothed casing, some had a panel ahead of the cylinders, others lost this, there were differences to access doors,, cab side windows, flat fronted and 'V' wedge fronted cabs, 8 foot 6 inch and 9 foot wide cabs, short, normal and long smoke deflectors, not to mention the variety of tenders, both with and without side raves. There were a few 'one offs' as well, 34035 and 34049  had a different style of cowl at the front to improve smoke lifting, and there were two different styles tried. 21C162 had slightly modified smoke deflectors until 1949. 34064 had a Giesel exhaust system fitted in 1962. AWS was added in about 1959 to most locomotives the battery box was fitted above the buffer beam under the smokebox, visible from the front. 

 

Schools differences were equally as confusing. The most obvious were the single and multiple blast pipes requiring different sized chimneys, The shape of the cab and size of the cab side window was different between the first ten and the rest. The front bogie too changed in shape during the 1930s, after the originals developed cracks. 900 to 904 had tender steps unlike the rest of the class.Originally 905 to 939 had disc tender wheels and the lockers on the front of the tender were arranged differently. 932 had extended sides to its tender. Snifting valves on the smokebox were removed after WW2. Smoke deflectors were not originally fitted to 900 to 909 but from 1931 these were fitted and 910 upwards got them from new.

[ellocoloco]

The tempation to order up 6201 is great, after all Lizzie was my very first model loco. It looks fantastic but like LC&DR above, it doesn't fit with the rest of my collection and plans for a future layout.

 

One thing that has always surprised my - and its not just a Hornby thing - is the lack of close coupling between steam locomotives and tenders. I think its an area that could be worked on.

[walkingthedog]

Too close and the loco won't go round curves without derailing. Shortening the draw bar isn't too difficult. Not easy but not too difficult. 

[ellocoloco]

@WTD

 

I didn't make myself clear enough above as I'm so used to referring to close coupling as the extending NEM equipped mechanism that I discovered on Roco models in the late 1980s, years before any UK OO manufacturer had considered using something similar.

 

If buffer separation between coaches or wagons can be reduced to less than 1mm on straights with no lock up on corners, there is no reason why this cannot be used between a loco and tender for a similar effect. It should be even easier between a loco and tender because there is no requirement for other stock to match that particular coupling. Electrical connections can be carried between the two units separately if required. This would greatly improve the visual appearance of the model and have no effect on performance.

[96RAF]

@LC&DR

I was only talking about Lizzie class for the all variants exercise.

[walkingthedog]

I'm sure Hornby had a 'stretchy' draw bar once.

[walkingthedog]

They did/do:

 

/media/tinymce_upload/14d34589b4fb0859d1bea20dcb6bb2cc.PNG

[LCDR]

@LC&DR

I was only talking about Lizzie class for the all variants exercise.

Sorry, didn't read it correctly. 😳

[ellocoloco]

@WTD

 

I stand corrected, thank you. 

 

The design above looks like it only extends from one unit meaning it will have limited effect, but certainly a step in the right direction. Do you know what locomotives carried this?

[walkingthedog]

Sorry I don't remember but somenody will. I looked good when stationary but stretched when under load.

[96RAF]

You could easily make one if your drawbar has two holes, just join them into a slot, then add a spring. No need for the extra special bolt as the normal shouldered bolt will work.