3rd Rail Sunset made a model of this some years ago--at a time when I had absolutely no money available to buy a pricey engine...
Who else has made this engine in O 3R?
Jeff C
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
In Great Britain there is ACE which is out of production on the A4 but it is possible to find one on the secondary market and there is actually Darstaed who sold a very similar one.
Their website is http://www.darstaed.com/index.html and you have a distributor in USA.
Those models have a tinplate look but they are scale. Not easy to compare with Sunset models.
Daniel.
Attachments
Shows how bad my memory is...I'd forgotten about the Ace and Darstaed locos. The 3rd Rail engine was gorgeous. I've never seen a single one for sale on the secondary market.
Jeff C
"Those models have a tinplate look but they are scale."
In all honesty, the prototype locos have a Tinplate look.
The actual loco is a tremendously ugly thing, which is not to say that I don't like it.
I agree—ugly, but striking...in the same way a GG1 or Little Joe electric engine is.
Whatever the appeal, they captivate me, and I’d like to have an O scale or G scale model.
Jeff C
leikec posted:I agree—ugly, but striking...in the same way a GG1 or Little Joe electric engine is.
Whatever the appeal, they captivate me, and I’d like to have an O scale or G scale model.
Jeff C
Yeah - it brings up the concepts of "good ugly" and "bad ugly". Many ugly things are captivating - I do not find the Little Joe to be ugly, but the GG1...well, kind of homely - as an example, I just love steamers with the overhanging Coffin FWH. Now, I wouldn't put that on a NYC Hudson (no ugly DNA there at all), but as used on the the B&M 2-8-4's? That works. Fortunately, the NYC recessed their Coffin FWH's on the locos that had them, like the 5344.
This A4 is just painful to look at - yet, the British Duchess Class (I think that's right) Pacifics are among the best-looking steamers anywhere. Sort of a NYC Niagara-PRR K4-blend vibe, if you can imagine such a thing.
I am a Gresley pacific (A4 and A3) fan, so I have a couple.
Here is the Sunset Silver Fox A4:
And video:
The ACE Mallard:
And video:
And a 1 gauge ASTER Mallard:
And video:
Many more pictures in my (free to download) e-book on this subject: http://sncf231e.nl/lner-pacifics-and-nyc-hudsons/
Regards
Fred
Attachments
Images (3)
That Silver Fox is gorgeous!
Too bad MTH didn't make a set like that. Their coaches would have been phenomenal!
D500 posted:<snip>This A4 is just painful to look at - yet, the British Duchess Class (I think that's right) Pacifics are among the best-looking steamers anywhere. Sort of a NYC Niagara-PRR K4-blend vibe, if you can imagine such a thing.
I agree about the A4, and would add the bulbous Coronation Pacifics of the LMS.
On the other hand, in addition to the Duchess class, the Southern West Country/Merchant Navy and the BritRail Britannia classes are handsome designs.
I converted a Darstaed A4 Mallard to TMCC.
My youngest asked Santa for a Lionel Mallard for Christmas. Well here it is....
This has Guns Super Chuffer, ERR Cruise Commander and Railsounds. I used a Lionel smoke unit and modified it to fit. The sounds are the only compromise, the small engine sound set has the nearest British sounding whistle but you have American crew talk
and a bell.
None of that matters though as we had one very happy little boy on Christmas morning.
Nick
Attachments
How about a A4 of the PRR kind: a 0-4-0 switcher. No mention in the post about which rail line!
rex desilets posted:D500 posted:I agree about the A4, and would add the bulbous Coronation Pacifics of the LMS.
On the other hand, in addition to the Duchess class, the Southern West Country/Merchant Navy and the BritRail Britannia classes are handsome designs.
Coronation Pacific of the LMS (Tower Models):
Duchess class (MTH):
Southern West Country/Merchant Navy (ACE):
BritRail Britannia class (ACE):
Regards
Fred
Attachments
Images (4)
SNCF,
The photo of your LMS Coronation Pacific is outstanding! Wish I had known about 'Tower Models' when I was collecting unusual streamlined British locomotive model trains. Have always been keenly interested in British locomotive design - especially streamlined examples. I do have an Aster live-steam LNER Silver Link in my collection but never ran it - display only in a dust proof case. Anyway the photos you posted are excellent and a real inspiration to those of us who appreciate streamline locomotive design regardless of country of origin.
Jeff C: Better have deep pockets for an Aster (or really any) A4 G gauge model! Fred: you are, as always, the MAN: Your collection of both electric and live steam models never fails to entertain and amaze us! BRAVO, sir!
D500 posted:Yeah - it brings up the concepts of "good ugly" and "bad ugly". Many ugly things are captivating - I do not find the Little Joe to be ugly, but the GG1...well, kind of homely - as an example, I just love steamers with the overhanging Coffin FWH. Now, I wouldn't put that on a NYC Hudson (no ugly DNA there at all), but as used on the the B&M 2-8-4's? That works. Fortunately, the NYC recessed their Coffin FWH's on the locos that had them, like the 5344.
This A4 is just painful to look at - yet, the British Duchess Class (I think that's right) Pacifics are among the best-looking steamers anywhere. Sort of a NYC Niagara-PRR K4-blend vibe, if you can imagine such a thing.
D500, kindly excuse me but you seem to be rather opinionated here, yet unable to define or even say why. You must realize you've offended many with those GG1 and Gresley A4 comments. Have you ever seen a GG1 in person? I first saw an in service Tuscan & 5 stripe Dulux GG1 at the old Penn Station in April 1963. I fell in love with those things right there and then, even though I never did get that one in the Lionel catalog. The curves and contour blends Raymond Lowey applied to the prototype "Rivets" transformed the entire carbody into a singular shape of elegance with flowing line. A couple of years later, (1980-'81) I personally took many photos of PRR 4877 at South Amboy, N.J. in Tuscan and 5 Dulux stripes and it was and still is a beautiful Art Deco design. Compound curves confuse some, --but not everyone. I was actually offended (is the best way to describe it) by the streamlined casing's shape the first time I saw one of Sir Horace Nigel Gresley A4's, in 1968 in a book my Dad got for me. As a boy, he'd followed the Gresley Pacific exploits just as they happened in the 1930's: from 4472 Flying Scotsman breaking 100MPH, 2750 Papyrus' breaking 108 MPH, through 2509 Silver link's 112.5MPH run to 4468 Mallard's 126MPH world record which still holds. Sir Nigel Gresley was to have had Mallard taken through 130MPH --but something else had happened on that very day, the scheduled day of the run, September 1, 1939. My Dad even took me down to the subterranean "new" Penn Station in 1969 to see Flying Scotsman LNER #4472. I remember it very, very well. I've been an enthusiast of LNER and other British locomotives ever since. That doesn't mean I haven't been all over the U.S. chasing steam because I have. I deeply regret no New York Central Hudsons were saved and aesthetically speaking for the rest of U.S. steam locomotives, some are genuinely nice. One must adjust to the A4's truly radical shape, but in time if you have an artistic sense it more than grows on a person. Especially so when in the original 3 shades of gray as the airfoil shaped side valences are considerably enhanced when in a contrasting shade from the boiler "cladding" as they call it over there. Lose those valences (they did during WW2) and also the lighter wheels and aesthetically the design is not as successful. No, A4's do NOT "...look like toys". If you'd seen one for yourself you'd know and understand. Aside from that Aster cast aluminum A4 streamlined casing, and the Sunset 3rd rail no other of the A4 "models" depicted in this thread is at all close to the correct flowing contours of the actual streamlined casing. That's why so many of you find them "ugly", you've never seen one. In reality, they're quite elegant. When you see them in person and become somewhat used to what they are, they unquestionably are BEAUTIFUL objects to anyone with a true sculptor's eye. The A4's vie for 1st place along with unstreamlined N.Y.C. Hudsons for me as the best looking steam locomotives ever, and I am absolutely not alone in this perspective. I say that as an artist, and as I own NYC J Class Hudsons in many scales. Also, there are objective measures of proportion and contour that make for a good looking design, as well as those that do not. If you want ugly, then just take a look at the UP's 4000's. Their 4-6-6-4's were much better proportioned. Even the Stanier Princess Coronations (Duchesses) in unstreamlined form were not all that nice looking despite your claim they were. I've seen, photographed and ridden behind LMS 6229, contributed information to the British National Railway Museum in York that I was told greatly assisted with the re-streamlining of that specific locomotive. It's class' 3 axle tender is virtually half-again as long as is needed for those engines to be good looking as one cannot have a locomotive without it's tender. William Stanier somewhat addressed that fault with the streamlined form as the L.M.S. shops at Crew added (as did Dreyfus with the streamlined J3a's) an overhanging empty shell extension to the tender's rear. But the rest of the streamlining to be blunt (as was the streamlining) was less than outstanding. After one has seen a Gresley LNER A4 in person, ridden behind one from Carlisle on the Scottish border all the way down to Bradford with much of it at speeds well in excess of 80MPH, been in Mallard's cab and have gotten used to the smooth, multi-hued exteriors devoid of all the outdoor plumbing of American steam locomotives, one may begin to appreciate (and without angst) what the British (London & North Eastern Railway and Doncaster works) have achieved with these record breaking locomotives. As for the Ace model in 0 gauge 3 rail, well it ain't a scale model guys, it's a toy no where near a scale representation of an A4 --and Mr. Levine himself states as much! The Sunset 0 Scale brass import is very good and I did think about buying one but I have responsibilities. There's an excellent British-made white metal and etched brass 0 scale kit from DJH as well. But far and away, the very best is also a British kit, Martin Finney's 7mm, ultra-fine scale A4 is without peer. NOTHING else even comes close. And that's my two cents worth on this matter.
Super7 posted:
By the way, I consider all the models you mention as toys and I am happily playing with them!
Regards
Fred
I saw this back in March. I was goofing off in Sheffield and took a train over to York to see the museum.
Attachments
Images (1)
sncf231e posted:Super7 posted:By the way, I consider all the models you mention as toys and I am happily playing with them!
Regards
Fred
I have an old video tape of Mr. Levy describing why toy trains are superior or at least he believes them to to be preferable to "scale model trains". In his words, imagination is required with toys, but not so much with scale models. That was his concept of the relationship of toy v. scale as presented in that interview. What I am aware of from that interview of him, and as is also obvious by the measure of his products themselves is that he is first a business man and a toy train enthusiast . Not nearly so much a Fine-Scale or even a scale model enthusiast at all. I personally have spent the majority of my life working toward the specific effort of eliminating the stigma found within the general populace regarding "toy trains". I've done this by and with the goal of exceptionally precise (therefore extremely costly to produce) and accurately rendered interpretations or fine scale models of railroad equipment. That as opposed to the, quick, cheap and relatively very easy to produce "toy trains". Mr. Levy is a businessman and no doubt well knows exactly what I am saying. The entire point of my posting above is regarding the streamline casing of the prototype A4's: There were several on here who said they're"ugly" and I said that's only because they really don't know what the things actually look like!. The A4's streamlined casing's compound curves are exceedingly elusive. When not properly rendered, the results are genuinely ugly, even hideous in many cases as illustrated. But when accurately reproduced, the shape is most elegant. Until very recently, accessing those contours, miniaturizing them and replicating them has been the exclusive domain of a very limited number of individuals: the true artist/sculptors. Clearly the Ace Trains A4 is a toy level replica. I am sorry but Fred, but in no way may it be mistaken for a "scale model", regardless of it's original purchase price. It's about as accurate a representation of a Gresley A4 as the 1936 made tinplate Lionel Hiawatha 4-4-2. I do believe that was Mr. Levy's stated intent for ACE Trains was to recapture the "feel" of days long ago and the emotions evoked by and with the toys of that era. When properly photographed, a true scale model appears in that image as almost or virtually indistinguishable from the prototype. A scale model A4 successfully captures the elegance I'd mentioned that is found with the original engines while the ACE Trains A4 does not. Please note, the term "Scale" has real meaning and should not be cavalierly applied as with a whim. Thank you.
I find it most curious how people on this forum get so worked up about the plus and minus aspects of streamlined steam engines. How about just enjoying them for what they are - creative well thought out designs done at a time when industrial design was young and exciting! I think it was truly remarkable designers in the last century were able to convince captains of industry of their creative ideas and make them a reality.
Why not just consider comments as opinions, and let them stand as such? Each of us has a right to opinions, when aesthetics are at issue.
Toys? Yep - difficult to own a copy of the real thing, for most of us. Trains? If there were a cure, I would take it.
Afraid to offer my opinion on these locomotives - don't have that kind of courage. Those drivers look great!
This train first appeared in 1935 and clearly was more advanced than anything seen anywhere else in the world. The diesel powered DRG's "Fleigender Hamburger" (literally "The Flying Hamburger") or the UP M10000 (et. al.) and CB&Q streamliners were all ultra-light weight and of a very limited passenger capacity. None could have maintained the speeds required to maintain schedules on the LNER's East Coast Mainline as did the A4's. The Silver Jubilee was a full sized train of ample accommodation and in an unmatched service for both speed and comfort. Once one becomes acclimated to the unique streamlined contours of the A4's, their aesthetic success is assured. It is very different from anything in the U.S.'s duality of form regarding streamlining choice: that of either an "upside down bathtub" or the, uh ahem, the "Freudian Symbol" types. Add to that flashy streamlined appearance, the genuine recording breaking and holding speeds of these things, the A4's own exclusive singular case where looking "speedy" and the in service being extremely fast, was factually the case. Before you PRR fans go off, the 4-4-4-4 PRR T1's did not live up to their promise, they were far too slippery to be usefully fast while in service, or they'd have survived considerably longer than the very few years they did. The exceptional A4's THREE cylinder design (honestly now, how many of you actually knew that?) not only looked very fast, but actually were exceedingly fast! (Yes, yes, I know the Gresley A1/3's were also 3 cylinder with his own design of conjugated valve gear).
Big Jim posted:That Silver Fox is gorgeous!
So was the real one.
rex desilets posted:D500 posted:<snip>This A4 is just painful to look at - yet, the British Duchess Class (I think that's right) Pacifics are among the best-looking steamers anywhere. Sort of a NYC Niagara-PRR K4-blend vibe, if you can imagine such a thing.
I agree about the A4, and would add the bulbous Coronation Pacifics of the LMS.
On the other hand, in addition to the Duchess class, the Southern West Country/Merchant Navy and the BritRail Britannia classes are handsome designs.
Seems a great many of you having never seen an A4 in person and after my lengthy diatribe of "toy A4's are what are 'UGLY' and not the real ones or properly rendered scale models", as is the Sunset 3rd Rail, are being judgmental here. Why continue to judge them without giving them a real chance? I doubt many of you would call the above purely Art Deco 1935 designed train as being "ugly" in this view. How ancient the LNER "somersault" semaphores appear next to this Flash Gordon/Buck Rogers contemporary with it's unit-designed train. Think of how the rocket ships looked in those 1935-'36 serials! The locomotive and train were wind-tunnel designed and extremely successful for aiding with smoke lifting. But more importantly the A4's were probably the single streamlined class of steam locomotive who's streamlining (internal as well as external) supplied an additional 200 Horse Power over the same in unstreamlined form and more still over the prior A3's (Flying Scotsman and 78 others) with the A4's significantly reduced coefficient of drag enabling those much higher speeds than any U.S. locomotives and on a daily basis in the U.K. and Scotland for over 40 years. If you would think about it, the cars we grew up with the in 1940's and '50's look downright weird these days, don't they? As I have previously stated, initially, the A4's very strongly offended me. But in my soon to be six and a half decades on this planet, I have noticed that many of those things that at first strongly offended me if given a chance turn out to be among my top favs of all time. Given a real chance the A4's design will grow on you. And Rex, the Coronation Pacifics ARE one and the same with the "Duchess" class. Also the West Country (BoB) class are thelight Bulleid Pacifics whereas the earlier (1941) Merchant Navy's were considerably larger and heavier and resultingly suffered a good deal of a more restricted line availability. They are two entirely different but similar looking and designed locomotives. Oliver Bulleid was 6 years junior to Sir Nigel Gresley and Gresley's assistant for a good number of years, that is until lured away to the Southern during the early days of the Second World War. I like Bulleid's engines very much too in as the British say "Unrebuilt form" (by one Mr. Jarvis of British Railways, making them "Bull-Jars"). But in either form they were no where near as successful as the Gresley A4's nor are they considered by the British Railway enthusiasts overall as "attractive" as the A4's earning the nick-nameStreaks. While the Bulleid engines were universally known as "Spam Cans". That opinion is excepting of course of Southern Fans who are well regarded for their exuberance for their beloved Bulleids! No where near as successful as the A4's that is until the advent of neoprene replacing the as-built leather seals on the oil-bathed, chain driven and between the frames valve gear and that pesky and creeping, power-assisted reverser. Also, the rebuilts (I've ridden behind rebuilt West Country Class; "Taw Valley") with three sets of Walshaerts suffer from severe driver Hammer Blows (U.K.) or Dynamic Augment (U.S.) further restricting their line availability which is why a good many were never rebuilt. A total of THIRTY FIVE of the two classes of Bulleid Pacifics exist! But what do I know.
As I said about Alan Levy, it was he who in part defined the difference of toys as requiring "more" imagination than do true scale models. What that means is simply put, toys aren't accurate to the prototype. To manufacture from scratch or for production an "ultra Fine-scale " model demands enormously more time, requires extremely more amounts of money, it just so very much more complex of an effort, than needed for a toy replica. Be that the ACE A4 or an ultra fine-scale F Unit. To lump scale models with toys of any caliber is a genuine affront to those who do manufacture (with great financial risk) or those who build those very difficult (skills wise) scale models, as opposed to buying a farmed out to Communist China CAD designed and manufactured, steel mold produced, pot-metal MTH or Lionel Choo choo. Again, my point is toys without question, are not scale models. Judgments about the real articles should neither be based upon toys nor a few photos. If one judges the aesthetics of a woman's face based upon a street-fair derived caricature of her, he will be most surprised upon meeting her face to face, either one way or another. The same is true for the A4's. That is all I am saying. A direct comparison with a head on view of an overly wide at the buffer beam ACE 0 Gauge A4, will immediately reveal a complete lack of any of the most elegant of compound curves found with the original. Thank you.
Well...this has certainly been fun...
Jeff C
For those interested in models of streamlined steam locomotives: I made a number of videos presenting H0/00 models of streamlined steam locomotives (i.e. steamliners) from around the world, including some A4's. They can be seen here: http://sncf231e.nl/steamliners-in-h0-scale/
Regards
Fred
sncf231e posted:For those interested in models of streamlined steam locomotives: I made a number of videos presenting H0/00 models of streamlined steam locomotives (i.e. steamliners) from around the world, including some A4's. They can be seen here: http://sncf231e.nl/steamliners-in-h0-scale/
Regards
Fred
Very nice Fred. I only wish you had the current Hornby A4 in there as it is exceptionally accurate to the streamlined shape, whereas the earlier versions... well, they are ugly!
Incidentally, two of the engines depicted aren't actually streamlined: the Battle of Britain Bulleid Pacific and the LNER P2.
Bulleid claimed his Merchant Navy and West Country (that includes the BoB as well) were not streamlined at all. Note his same philosophy with the clearly not streamlined war-time built Southern Q1 Class 0-6-0 "Coffee Pot's". What they were was entirely encased in a shape that would permit their being rapidly washed in the very same passenger coach washing facilities of the Southern instead of labouriously hand-cleaned by engine wipers. The smoke lifting characteristics were abysmal and needed to have the smokebox side smoke deflectors modified for them to work at all.
As for the first of the LNER P2's that front end was again designed by O.V.S. Bulleid for smoke lifting purposes and nothing more. That is clear as the rest of the locomotives were entirely conventional. This is found on the A1 Locomotive Trust web page as they are well along building a brand new LNER P2 2-8-2 and they are in need of subscribers. These are the same folks who delivered on their promise to build an Arthur Peppercorn LNER A1, and I am quite sure you all have heard of BR 60163 Tornado.
When the A4 front end wind tunnel results produced superlative smoke lifting characteristics, all subsequent P2 2-8-2's were built with very similar to the A4 fronts (but not exact copies) and the the earlier first P2's were retrofitted with this style front end as well. Thank you. P.
Super7 posted:<snip>rex desilets posted:D500 posted:<snip>This A4 is just painful to look at - yet, the British Duchess Class (I think that's right) Pacifics are among the best-looking steamers anywhere. Sort of a NYC Niagara-PRR K4-blend vibe, if you can imagine such a thing.
I agree about the A4, and would add the bulbous Coronation Pacifics of the LMS.
On the other hand, in addition to the Duchess class, the Southern West Country/Merchant Navy and the BritRail Britannia classes are handsome designs.
--And Rex, the Coronation Pacifics ARE one and the same with the "Duchess" class.
Of course. The class was designated "Coronation" at the outset, with the engines being named for various duchesses. The first members of the class were built with streamlining, eventually removed. So, when I use the term Coronation it commonly refers to the streamlined examples.Also theWest Country (BoB) class are thelight Bulleid Pacifics whereas the earlier (1941) Merchant Navy's were considerably larger and heavier and resultingly suffered a good deal of a more restricted line availability.
They are two entirely different but similar looking and designed locomotives. Oliver Bulleid was 6 years junior to Sir Nigel Gresley and Gresley's assistant for a good number of years, that is until lured away to the Southern during the early days of the Second World War.
To my untutored eye the two classes look alike. But then, I'm a devotee of Stanier and all his works. I have an English friend who is devoted to LNER, but then, the English are sometimes perverse in their likes....Considering the A4: no disputing the engineering excellence of the design. There was, just last night, a documentary that featured the latest (and last) restoration of an A4 with interesting discussion of its engineering features.
Regarding aesthetics...not everything from the Art Deco era is appealing to me. While one can appreciate the form/function of the A4, I still don't like its looks.
<snip>
Super7 posted:<snip>Before you PRR fans go off, the 4-4-4-4 PRR T1's did not live up to their promise, they were far too slippery to be usefully fast while in service, or they'd have survived considerably longer than the very few years they did.
Insufficient weight on the front engine, to start. The T-1's were built with an intercepting valve in the steam line to stop speeding of the front engine. However, it was frequently not maintained. Furthermore, the poppet valves were also a maintenance headache. As I recall there was only one shop that could maintain the class. In short, the T-1 demise was maintenance problems and cost along with General Motors salesmen touting the miracle of internal combustion.
<snip>You will never see anything like this, an 80+ Year Old locomotive moving that fast (completely unassisted) on any tracks anywhere in the U.S. ever again.
N&W's J could, but present-day track standards could not support the loco at high speed. Otherwise, except for Southern in its day, US railroads just don't want to be bothered. Devotion of the English to their preserved trains is, by itself, sufficient reason to visit across the pond.
rex desilets posted:Super7 posted:<snip>rex desilets posted:D500 posted:<snip>This A4 is just painful to look at - yet, the British Duchess Class (I think that's right) Pacifics are among the best-looking steamers anywhere. Sort of a NYC Niagara-PRR K4-blend vibe, if you can imagine such a thing.
I agree about the A4, and would add the bulbous Coronation Pacifics of the LMS.
On the other hand, in addition to the Duchess class, the Southern West Country/Merchant Navy and the BritRail Britannia classes are handsome designs.
--And Rex, the Coronation Pacifics ARE one and the same with the "Duchess" class.
Of course. The class was designated "Coronation" at the outset, with the engines being named for various duchesses. The first members of the class were built with streamlining, eventually removed. So, when I use the term Coronation it commonly refers to the streamlined examples.Also theWest Country (BoB) class are thelight Bulleid Pacifics whereas the earlier (1941) Merchant Navy's were considerably larger and heavier and resultingly suffered a good deal of a more restricted line availability.
They are two entirely different but similar looking and designed locomotives. Oliver Bulleid was 6 years junior to Sir Nigel Gresley and Gresley's assistant for a good number of years, that is until lured away to the Southern during the early days of the Second World War.
To my untutored eye the two classes look alike. But then, I'm a devotee of Stanier and all his works. I have an English friend who is devoted to LNER, but then, the English are sometimes perverse in their likes....Considering the A4: no disputing the engineering excellence of the design. There was, just last night, a documentary that featured the latest (and last) restoration of an A4 with interesting discussion of its engineering features.
Regarding aesthetics...not everything from the Art Deco era is appealing to me. While one can appreciate the form/function of the A4, I still don't like its looks.
<snip>
Rex, The LMS's given proper name for the larger 4 cylinder Stanier Pacifics was "Princess Coronations", not simply "Coronation" and not all of the larger of William Stanier's Pacifics were built as streamlined. Princess Coronations was the class's actual name. The train itself was named the "Coronation Scot", while the engimen's slang name for the loco class was "Duchesses." See Miles Kington's "Steam Days" "Travels With a Duchess" at the 9:00 minute mark. I was personally told this same information by Mike Blakemore, an LMS specialist docent at the NRM. That was while I was visiting the York facility in 2001, ostensibly to hand him (which I did) a 4'"x 5" contact print duplicate (from my personal collection) of a Dufaycolour transparency that was shot 30 April, 1939 of streamlined LMS #6229 painted Crimson Lake and gold with red and black lining out. BUT it was renumbered and substituting as "Coronation 6220" (which was actually blue & silver) at the New York World's Fair on it's opening day. I also have in my collection the H. Dreyfus Streamlined NYC J3a, the B&O George Emerson and others on 616 size or 2-1/4" x 3-1/4" Dufaycolour taken at that same time. The providing of this image was at a crucial moment in time as it enabled the NRM to qualify for and as a result the acquisition of the matching Lottery Grant funding necessary for the re-streamlining of LMS #6229. It is situated adjacent to LNER #4468 Mallard in the great hall (the former LNER engine shed) at York. Regarding those Bulleid's: At first I also confused the Merchant Navy's with the BoB-W/C classes until my travelling behind West Country; Taw Valley in 1993 from Exeter St. David's to Yeovil Junction, when I was summarily "dressed down" for being so entirely ignorant. The British aren't as you say "perverse" but instead "Provincial" as it is a "Home Team" mentality regarding one's "Big Four" pre-grouping (1/1/48) preference. And as to your feelings regarding "Art Deco" you've not established credential in the Art field, so as to be possessing of a valid opinion on the matter. You must realize how there are so many self-proclaimed expert critics in art and every other field as well. Those paid at the task of criticizing who truly and genuinely are not qualified to do so abound. And to be perfectly honest, not everyone is able to recognize line, form and contour. Otherwise the term Expert is wholly devoid of value or merit. Just as there are a great many people who literally can't carry a tune, those who are physically tone deaf, yet they "know what music they 'like' and it ain't Beethoven." Too, there are those who do not understand or simply "get" line and form. My own measure here is clearly the only rationally based judging criterion: do you sculpt, paint or draw? And if so, just how well? Without question for those able to assess as to why, both line and form are an unqualified aesthetic success. Those lines and the form they generate are objectively beautiful.
Without question for those able to assess as to why, both line and form are an unqualified aesthetic success. Those lines and the form they generate are objectively beautiful. The fault here apparently lies elsewhere. You say that you personally don't "like it". Please define what it is about this form that makes you not like it.
I happen to be a big fan of the A4 (note my user name), but the long-winded opinions and disdain for those who disagree with their sense of taste are beyond tiresome. I'm guessing that the original poster was hoping to start a friendly discussion. How wrong he was!
Posts like the one quoted above by Super7 are what make people hate discussion forums. And the quote above takes the cake. "Objectively beautiful" is a contradiction in terms. Beauty is inherently SUBJECTIVE, and anyone who feels differently is arrogant.
Whether or not someone thinks the A4 is beautiful is strictly an OPINION and there is no right or wrong about it.
tcox009 posted:I've been to York and to the museum in Green Bay that has the only A-4 in the USA. However I am sure we can all agree that this little guy is a toy. He was made by Mettoy.
There is an A4, Dominion of Canada which is also in North America and may once again be seen at the Canadian Railway Museum in Saint-Constant, Quebec .
"Once again" as in 2012 it was returned to England for a lengthy, full cosmetic restoration in order to take part in the "Mallard 75" celebrations on the 75th anniversary for Mallard's record breaking 126MPH run.
All six surviving members of the A4 class were present at the NRM for these events. For those celebrations, Dominion of Canada was restored to Garter Blue with Indian Red wheels with new valences fitted and a new single chimney with the original Canadian bell once again mounted directly in front of that single chimney.
OK "Super7"....enough of trying to turn this thread into a debate on what is ugly and what is beautiful. The two terms are subjective at the very least and so may not be definable as anything more than a "gut" opinion. There is a reason why the old saying "Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder".... Lets keep this thread on track with the OP's original intention because if we get anymore alerts, it is going to close or go away....
Just looked at this thread again--Fred's videos are absolutely wonderful. Very nice, sir!
Jeff C
