Cheating in n gauge

[portland-docks]

Just been thinking today about how some class of locos look exactly the same as a different class minus minor differences...

So i thought, the standard 3 tender engine being built looks very similar to a std 4mt....could you cheat and renumber a std 4mt?

Standard 6 hengist, loooks the same as a std 7....could you cheat and renumber a std 7?

Theres other options aswell but thats 2 of them

[PostModN66]

A big YES IMHO,

When you have "frozen" people and vehicles, painted sky, buildings with no drainpipes or satellite dishes or TV aerials, a cliff at the side of the layout, uncoupling happening by magic (or a giant hand), no wind or rain, solid water, (possibly) overscale track, no or non-working signals.......etc.....etc......detailed differences between one loco type and another are pretty small beer.......!

Discuss...(while I run for cover..!)   

Cheers   Jon       

[dodger]

You could provided you dont stand the renumbered Class 4 alongside a class 3 tank when the different diameter boiler may be apparent. I thought I read somewhere many many years ago the class 3 and class 4 2-6-0's used the same chassis.

The same would go for a Britannia and Clan.

Many years ago when production at Poole was ceasing and the web was not around I made a class 4 2-6-0 from a Langley class 4 4-6-0 body, with a lump cutout between the chimeny and dome, mounted on a class 4 2-6-4T chassis. I'm still using it and to me its acceptable.

Dodger

[Newportnobby]

According to my Observers Book, the Clan differed from the Brit in having a higher running plate, smaller diameter boiler, taller chimney and taller dome.
However, it would probably only be known by yourself

[red_death]

Following on from Jon, a big NO in my books!

Though, I should caveat that with it really depends on what is important to you and what you want to do with your layout. I think if you want to exhibit it then it is a No, but if you are running at home for your pleasure then the decision is yours!

Personally I would rather have a prototype in a location it never really appeared, rather than number up something incorrect.

Cheers, Mike

[johnlambert]

I don't see a problem with pretending that something is something else if you're happy that they are near enough to be indistinguishable.  I can't tell at a glance if I'm looking at a Standard 5 or Standard 4 if they're both 4-6-0s but then I wouldn't know enough about running numbers to spot that you'd renumbered something either.

It wouldn't be right for a manufacturer to pass off one type of loco as another, but I don't think any of the big names would do that.

I applaud those who go to great lengths to make their models as accurate as possible.  Especially if they apply the philosophy to the whole layout.  I've seen some magnificent work on P4 layouts where such care has been taken; not something I've got the patience to do.  But if you're happy to accept 'close enough' and honest enough to admit that some things aren't strictly right then go for it. 

In some ways I think I'd be happy enough playing trains with generic locos and coaches as long as they looked good and ran well.  We are very lucky that it is possible to have stuff that runs well and are good models that don't rely heavily on shared, generic chassis, bogies, etc.

[PLD]

Personally I'd say NO...

I'm sure we wouldn't accept it if Farish just made one 4-6-0 and painted/numbered it as an LMS Jubilee, LNER B17, GWR Castle etc etc...
[Yes I know they did it with the Hall/Castle (aka the 'Hassle') in the bad old days...]

Admittedly the BR Standards were a lot closer in appearance, but when you see them together side-by-side the differences in size are very obvious...

[NeMo]

Admittedly the BR Standards were a lot closer in appearance, but when you see them together side-by-side the differences in size are very obvious...

In other words, provided you don't put a pseudo-Clan next to a Britannia, then such differences should be much less obvious. So if you want a Clan and that's the only way to get one within your budget and/or skill set, then go for it!

Like some others have said, I'd personally have a good model in the wrong time/place than a bad model in the right time/place... but that's my own opinion and the end result is a hodgepodge of locomotives from a GWR Prairie tank through to EWS Class 66! If fudging liveries and numbers lets you come up with a more authentic set of locomotives for a specific time and place, then it's your railway and it'll be all the better for your efforts.

At the end of the day this hobby is all about compromises. After all, unless you go 2mm fine scale, we're all running our standard gauge engines on narrow gauge track! 

Cheers, NeMo

[H]

If the locos are close in terms of looks/size and you are prepared to re-number it, then why not make a little more effort and do some modelling to correct the deficiencies and turn it more accurately in to what you want?

Other than that I agree with Red Death and PLD. But then I also suspect that some of the replies are a little divisive . . . . 

H.

[Paddy]

Interesting idea and I have thought about renumbering a Britannia as 71000 Duke of Gloucester for a number of years.  The issue is the Duke's tender which is unique I believe.

Paddy

[Newportnobby]

Interesting idea and I have thought about renumbering a Britannia as 71000 Duke of Gloucester for a number of years.  The issue is the Duke's tender which is unique I believe.

Paddy

The Duke was slightly longer, was heavier (due to the tender capacity of 10 tons of coal against the Brits 7 tons), had a double chimney and Caprotti valve gear.
The power classification was therefore 8-P against the Brits 7-MT and the Clans 6-MT

[portland-docks]

the clan and and std 7 however look extremely close so i think you could possibly get away with that one aslong as you dont stand them side by side....even though 9/10 people would instantly recognise it was a dapol britannia model lol

[Adam1701D]

Speaking as one who ran a German V100 for a few years as a Clayton in the 1970s, I'd give an unqualified "yes".

We all work to different levels of accuracy, so run what you like with your head held high. 

[Gordon]

A big YES IMHO,

When you have "frozen" people and vehicles, painted sky, buildings with no drainpipes or satellite dishes or TV aerials, a cliff at the side of the layout, uncoupling happening by magic (or a giant hand), no wind or rain, solid water, (possibly) overscale track, no or non-working signals.......etc.....etc......detailed differences between one loco type and another are pretty small beer.......!

Discuss...(while I run for cover..!)   

Cheers   Jon   

I like to portray locos and trains - especially formations - as true to life as possible, but I heartily agree that a model railway (even 'fine scale') can never be a 100% accurate representation of the real thing, especially the fact that on the vast majority of smaller scale layouts motive power is powered through the running rails.

I remember once at a major show, everyone 'drooling' at the 'best layout in the show' - a fine scale O gaige layout with rivet counted steam locos. As I was waiting for the next train, a huge grinding/growling wa wa wa wa sound started up and through the scenic break (another non prototypical aspect of model railways) came one of the inch perfect, all rivets included steam locos! Trouble is it sounded more like a tardis crossed with an ancient tram at Crich museum, completely ruining the effect.




.

[Paddy]

Interesting idea and I have thought about renumbering a Britannia as 71000 Duke of Gloucester for a number of years.  The issue is the Duke's tender which is unique I believe.

Paddy

The Duke was slightly longer, was heavier (due to the tender capacity of 10 tons of coal against the Brits 7 tons), had a double chimney and Caprotti valve gear.
The power classification was therefore 8-P against the Brits 7-MT and the Clans 6-MT

Dapol have a high sided tender on the 9F which you could get away with.  I do not believe Dapol have released a Britannia with that tender though.  Did any Brits have a double chimney s?

Paddy