dubdee1000 wrote:The stars are due to the 'swear filter' that operates on the forum. From time to time you'll see the mischevious amongst us having a go at thwarting it, much to the annoyance of the Mods who keeping having to tidy up after our antics.
There's one mod here who won't be tidying up if you use a word in it's innocent context, but expect no mercy for any intentional profanities. In my book 'swear filters' or whatever is the current term for them are just profanity highlighters. I caused howls of laughter in a staff meeting when I put up on the screen a transcript of the Principal's end of term address with plenty of strategically placed asterisks. My proposal to turn the filter off but implement an acceptable use policy with strong guidelines as to what was not acceptable went through on the nod.
John W
aka Bufferstop
Wise words John. I'll take this off-topic a little, but words are just words. Its the intention behind them that needs to be considered. We all know what is being censored in this thread and I don't think I'm speaking too far out of turn by saying no-one seems too bothered by it. However, if I said that those all those in Scotland are cocks, then I'm sure it would cause offence and i would be quite rightly slapped down.
Anyway, back to the topic. Is the P2 due for release anytime soon?
I'll let that one through, this time, as I'm sure any Scots will understand it was just an example.
"Gentlemen, pray silence for the President of the Royal Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things."; 'Make Tea, not Love.' Camel Spotting Thread. My layout thread.
A few comments on the 'biassed' review. Design clever is now "pragmatic compromises". When viewing the haulage test, the reviewer does not show the P2/1 moving off from rest, only showing it at speed hauling the 23 coaches and then bringing to rest. On a long straight section of rail and with judicious power application I feel a lot of model locomotives would haul 23 coaches. The test proved little.
In his haulage comparison he purposely exagerates the Pacific performance by instantly applying maximum power to the rails, initiating wheel slippage from rest under load. When he applies low power settings the Pacific moves from rest under load, but he then initiates wheel spinning by instantly applying full power. Loco weight is not the issue, it is correct application of power. What Pacific does not slip its drivers under load????
Is the reviewer an employee of Hornby? If not then he makes a good job of pretending to be. Hornby seem to have made a decent cosmetic effort on the loco, but what is underneath all that pristine finish? Do we have thin web square bearing cutouts? For the Railroad price no doubt many compromises have been made, but let us hope not too many. Definately a nice looking locomotive which no doubt will find itself unprototypically on many railways. Given its 1934 - 1938 timeframe, I feel a few will forsake reality and buy it simply because firstly it is a P2 and secondly it looks good and is cheap.
Yes I have to agree with you there. If you whack full volts through in a big rush, you can make just about any Loco' slip. But I'm still looking forward to getting mine.
It is well known that the original Mikado Whyte wheel arrangement P2 was converted several years after release (1934 - 1938) to a Pacific 4-6-2 configuration, so I cannot see the point of the previous posting.
GWR_fan wrote:It is well known that the original Mikado Whyte wheel arrangement P2 was converted several years after release (1934 - 1938) to a Pacific 4-6-2 configuration, so I cannot see the point of the previous posting.
Tim
Sorry Tim but I agree with Old Man Phil, a P2 was only ever a Mikado, when they were converted to Pacifics they were no longer P2s, they were A2/2s. The "P" was the LNER designation for a 2-8-2. See here http://www.lner.info/locos/
Jim
This Signature Left Intentionally Blank, but since I have written this and I intended to do it, this Signature is intentionally not blank. Paradox or What? My layout - Gateside and Northbridge
Jim,
no problem, simply a matter of semantics. One day the loco was a Mikado P2, the next day an A2 Pacific. Technically the "P2" is a Mikado, no argument, but the loco did not cease to exist in the transformation. I think it is more personal point scoring for the poster to be so pedantic (perhaps due his time on the other site).
Jim,
no edit function again. At no point did I or anyone else state the P2 was a Pacific. The reviewer made comment on the haulage capacity of the P2 model and compared the loco to what it eventually became a Pacific configuration. No one, repeat no one, made reference to a P2 being a Pacific. The poster was the one who inferred that comment was made that the P2 was a Pacific and you agreed with his comment that the P2 was never a Pacific. Please reread what he stated plus what I stated in my response to the video referred to. I made no comment to the P2 being a Pacific. Perhaps the poster can state why he made the comment as there was no inference that the P2 was a Pacific? It came from his statement of "for the un-informed...."
Okay boys, let's not resort to fisty-cuffs. Simply get back to the fact that a P2...as projected by Hornby...is a Mikado as designated by its 2-8-2 wheel arrangementand which were purposely built by Gresley for the extremely banked North British Railway Mainline...The Aberdeen road, and were very successful. As a further Point of interest, after mutilation by Thompson and the subsequent conversion to Pacific Status whereby the entire front end was cut off including the first pair of driving wheels and the stripping away of all airsmoothing (streamlining) casing, the locomotive no longer bore any resemblance to its former existance as a Mikado
Looking at the video after 5:30, in some of the run pasts does anyone else think it looks like the wheels are spinning away faster than the train is moving?
