P2s

[Kestrel]

Father Christmas came early this year and dropped off 2002, 2003 and 2005 this morning. Told him not to bother with 2007 as it's an imposter
Already had 2001 so just need 2004 and 2006 for a full house.

[Atlantic 3279]

Given that the sloping front of Hornby's "Cock o' the North" chassis block made it obvious from the time of that model's launch that other versions were supposed to be under consideration, it's hardly the "expected outcome" for these models only to be reaching the market for the first time a whole nine years later. Curious too that they've chosen 2002 as first built, and 2003, precisely the same examples as the loco conversions that I've enjoyed running since autumn 2004 and which acted as masters for the resin parts I subsequently produced for others to use.

[Woodcock29]

Kestrel
You could answer one question for me please. Has Hornby got the lining panel on the rear of the tenders lined up with the sides? They didn't on the so called 'super detailed' version of 2001 initially.

Thanks
Andrew

[manna]

Given that the sloping front of Hornby's "Cock o' the North" chassis block made it obvious from the time of that model's launch that other versions were supposed to be under consideration, it's hardly the "expected outcome" for these models only to be reaching the market for the first time a whole nine years later. Curious too that they've chosen 2002 as first built, and 2003, precisely the same examples as the loco conversions that I've enjoyed running since autumn 2004 and which acted as masters for the resin parts I subsequently produced for others to use.

G'Day Gents

Reckon they've been watching you ! Wonder if we'll see an Ivatt 2-6-2 ??

As for the P2's, they look nice, wouldn't mind 2002.

manna

[markindurham]

Wonder if we'll see an Ivatt 2-6-2 ??

Bachmann do the baby Ivatt, so I suspect that it's unlikely.

Mark

[Woodcock29]

I can answer my own question above as my 2005 arrived yesterday via a friend who's a member of Hornby Collectors Club. The top of the rear lining panel is almost in alignment now. Not perfect but hardly noticeable.

Generally its a nice model. I think the bulge of the cylinders in the front casing isn't as pronounced as what it should be. What's not right is the arrangement of the 'cod's mouth'. The model has an extra panel at the top which is narrower than the main section, similar but not quite the same as on an A4. The P2s didn't have this section - the main opening section went higher up.

The chimney on mine isn't seated as well as it could be. My blue W1 had a similar issue - will need to look at that.

The engine tender coupling has one distinct advantage it can easily be pulled apart to separate engine and tender. It's better than what Bachmann used on its V2 and provides closer coupling than that did but its still too bigger gap for those who have minimum 3ft radius. At first look it doesn't seem there is any way to close it up and the fall plate on the engine doesn't reach the tender.

Unfortunately Hornby has reverted back to generic looking front pony wheels rather than the correct LNER style it produced for the A2/2, A2/3 and W1. It's has the much improved slidebars/crosshead arrangement introduced with A2s but not the chunky coupling and connecting rods the A2s have which is a shame.

The livery is generally good but the lining is missing around the washout plugs on the lower sides of the firebox. The white line around the black smokebox front is rather heavy compared to the fine red lining on the valence and front cylinder casing.

One distinct improvement is the way the front casing curves under the cylinders. All the other streamlined models would look so much better with a similar arrangement.

[Woodcock29]

I should add a bit more.

It's been produced without any of the additional plating that the tender had when first built so probably represents the engine in 1938-9.

Performance wise it runs really well and has good weight so should haul a lot. After running in I've had mine romping around with 8 of the later Hornby K type Pullmans for a test run.

I had a play with fitting the flanged Cartazzi wheels but they don't touch the rails unless you add 20 thou spacers under the keeper plate. I removed the smaller diameter hub at rear of those wheels to increase side play but it wouldn't go around a Peco code 75 slip. It might yet traverse 36in radius but I do have a lot of curved points leading into my storage loops which are around 30in radius on the inner track. Some more trials are called for.

I look forward to receiving 2002 in a few weeks.

[Hatfield Shed]

There's useful information, for which I am grateful.
Good news on the Cartazzi truck, an easy fix to adapt for the flanged wheelset, the 36" minimum radius requirement is what I would expect. The Streamline slips are all 24" substitution radius, so no surprise that the P2 is no go on it (Peco know how to do better, take a look at the slips in their code 83 range.)
And Hornby too have gone for the camming loco to tender linkage; hopefully it will be as easy to replace with a plain bar as that on Bach's V2. Clearly these pieces of junk are a 'current fashion' item.( I wouldn't mind if they worked, keeping loco to tender at scale spacing on straight track, reliably camming out proportional to the curve radius for clearance, and then restoring to straight ahead alignment, but those I have seen are failures in all respects; and of particular relevance to the LNER wide firebox classes which can haul a full size train, performance degrades as load increases.)

[Horsetan]

.... not to bother with 2007 as it's an imposter...

That's the only one I'm interested in.

[manna]

Wonder if we'll see an Ivatt 2-6-2 ??

Bachmann do the baby Ivatt, so I suspect that it's unlikely.

Mark

G'Day Mark

The Ivatt 2-6-2, was a proposal by H.A.Ivatt, not HG Ivatt. HA Ivatt's 2-6-2, was based on the Large Atlantic, but with a 2-6-2 wheelbase, it was intended to be a fast Mixed Traffic loco, but never came to fruition.

Atlantic 3279, built a 'What-if'.

manna

[markindurham]

Wonder if we'll see an Ivatt 2-6-2 ??

Bachmann do the baby Ivatt, so I suspect that it's unlikely.

Mark

G'Day Mark

The Ivatt 2-6-2, was a proposal by H.A.Ivatt, not HG Ivatt. HA Ivatt's 2-6-2, was based on the Large Atlantic, but with a 2-6-2 wheelbase, it was intended to be a fast Mixed Traffic loco, but never came to fruition.

Atlantic 3279, built a 'What-if'.

manna

Hi Manna

Oh wow. Now that I didn't know. Cheers.

Every day's a school day, eh?

Cheers
Mark

[Atlantic 3279]

The imagined Gresley re-build of the loco that H.A. Ivatt never built:

https://www.lner.info/forums/viewtopic. ... 74#p116874

[Woodcock29]

I've had another play around with my Thane of Fife and by removing even more of the inner hub on the Cartazzi wheels so that the hub is now level with the inner face of the flanges I found that it will just go through the curve on a Peco code 75 slip.

However, trying to do this by fitting a spare pair of Hornby pacific wheels or even Romford 14mm wheels with the earlier Cock'o the North models found it doesn't work even if I space the axle and the keeper plate down with styrene packing pieces by trial and error.

Andrew

[Atlantic 3279]

I looked at the arrangement in the original "design clever" Cock o' the North too, and concluded that without some serious metal cutting, there was no way to satisfactorily install flanged OO wheels to get good reliable running forwards and backwards on 3 foot radius curves (with rail joints and other inevitable irregularities) and on equivalent curvature points. Even if the totally unhelpful central cast lump is removed to accommodate a hidden pony truck, the cast side frames are too thick and too close together to permit decent side-swing. The separate, thin-walled plastic representation of the rear frames, at more-or-less scale internal width on the Chinese-made loco-driven super-detail A1/A3/A4 models (also on the first versions of the Railroad range) was far more accommodating...

[mick b]

Poor design, the same or evenworse on the W1.
They appear to be suddenly obsessed with adding weight to new Loco designs, copying other companies. They could have simply made the chassis end at the start of the Truck as Graeme said .
Making the Truck area metal does nothing or minimal for haulage purposes.