Rivermead Central

[40057]

Well, you are correct. The Moguls do not all have the same tender detail (for heaven's sake, why not?). It is difficult to find enough photos on the Net to do a proper comparison, but previous auctions do help. From this it looks as if the GWR and SR moguls have a very plain tender, with no filler / pick up dome / air vents, and no rear partition either. Whereas the LMS and LNER moguls do seem to have a detailed tender just like the 4F. This is pretty strange, because the catalogue description for all of them is the same, and they were all the same price - £5-5-0 in 1936 (approx £500 in 2026). Which was not cheap, compared with the Midland Compound at £1-12-6 or even the "Flying Scotsman" at £4-4-0. I know that you are not a Hornby fan, but it does make me wonder about B-L when the four Hornby No 2 Special tender engines (GW County, LMS Compound, LNER D39, SR L1) were available at the same time with correctly modelled tenders for each one, featuring things like fire-iron rests, vac pipes and lamp irons and of course fillers and vents for a price of £1-8-0 for each engine.

John

Hi John

In terms of pricing, I refer you to earlier posts in this thread, especially #103 and #104 and the discussion leading up to those.

There are all sorts of reasons that might contribute to explaining the price difference between Hornby and Bassett-Lowke. Just a suggestion, but Mr Bassett-Lowke was politically left-leaning so maybe paid his staff better. Frank Hornby was a self-made millionaire and latterly a Tory MP. Hornby’s products were toys aimed at children and had to be priced for that market. Certainly, the Hornby true-to-type 4-4-0s have a lot more detail than the lithographed B-L locos. But the Hornby models have features like a smoke-box door pressing that overlaps outside the sides of the smoke-box. Much simpler than the B-L arrangement but unsightly and unrealistic. Hornby simply omitted the outside valve gear from the 4-4-0s that should have had it. It wasn’t needed on a toy but it was absolutely necessary on a Bassett-Lowke ‘scale model’.

I do think, as per my posts #104 and #105, the Bassett-Lowke prices were also about image and marketing. Bassett-Lowke customers were not going to boast to friends about what a bargain their model railway had been. They were more likely to want their friends to know what an expensive purchase it was.

Martin

 

[40057]

Well, you are correct. The Moguls do not all have the same tender detail (for heaven's sake, why not?). It is difficult to find enough photos on the Net to do a proper comparison, but previous auctions do help. From this it looks as if the GWR and SR moguls have a very plain tender, with no filler / pick up dome / air vents, and no rear partition either. Whereas the LMS and LNER moguls do seem to have a detailed tender just like the 4F. This is pretty strange, because the catalogue description for all of them is the same, and they were all the same price - £5-5-0 in 1936 (approx £500 in 2026). Which was not cheap, compared with the Midland Compound at £1-12-6 or even the "Flying Scotsman" at £4-4-0. I know that you are not a Hornby fan, but it does make me wonder about B-L when the four Hornby No 2 Special tender engines (GW County, LMS Compound, LNER D39, SR L1) were available at the same time with correctly modelled tenders for each one, featuring things like fire-iron rests, vac pipes and lamp irons and of course fillers and vents for a price of £1-8-0 for each engine.

John

Hi John

There is another clue to Bassett-Lowke’s pricing policy, the company’s image and who was buying its models in the three prices you quote above.

First, the Compound. Keenly priced at £1 12s 6d and competitive with similar models produced by other makers, including Meccano Ltd. My guess is the Compound was sold as cheaply as possible, essentially at production cost plus an acceptable profit.

Now the Flying Scotsman at £4 4s 0d and the moguls at £5 5s 0d. The point about these prices is they are respectively four and five guineas.

For the younger reader, a guinea was 21/- or £1 5p in today’s money. Guinea coins ceased to be legal tender in the early 19th century, but 21/- continued to be used as a pricing unit until decimalisation — essentially for posh goods and services. Many, but not all, of Bassett-Lowke’s more expensive locomotives were priced in guineas: £8 8s 0d, £11 11s 0d etc. etc. These prices were presumably not just production cost plus a standard margin. These prices were a statement about the goods, the company selling them and the class of person expected to buy them. These prices were chosen as a statement of superiority and quality and part of the marketing strategy. Day-to-day items were priced in pounds but your expensive suit, one’s horse and your Harley Street physician all had prices in guineas. Naturally, one’s model locomotive, if bought from the best maker, Bassett-Lowke, was priced in guineas too. Of course, Hornby trains were priced in pounds (or often only in shillings). Except when Hornby produced their most expensive model, 6201 Princess Elizabeth, that was £5 5s 0d.

Of course Bassett-Lowke locomotives were more expensive. As well as the model, some social status came included in the price.

Martin

 

[simond]

The Guineas Classics | Newmarket Racecourse

The Guineas 1000 & 2000 are among the most famous flat races in the world. We've picked the best races from our archives for you to watch here.

www.thejockeyclub.co.uk

 

[John R Smith]

These prices were chosen as a statement of superiority and quality and part of the marketing strategy. Day-to-day items were priced in pounds but your expensive suit, one’s horse and your Harley Street physician all had prices in guineas. Naturally, one’s model locomotive, if bought from the best maker, Bassett-Lowke, was priced in guineas too.

A very good observation, Martin. And it was a marketing strategy which failed them dismally after WW II.

John

 

[Fitzroy]

Guineas notwithstanding, the high prices of Bassett Lowke models were primarily because of needing to amortise tooling over a much smaller market. By the time Hornby turned his thoughts to trains, he had a vast factory with a massive toolroom that he needed to keep occupied, and a worldwide Meccano dealer network and captive audience to soak up trains. Hence he could price very aggressively on non-recurring cost recovery. Bassett-Lowke couldn't except where he could get BVD to help pay for projects with the cigarette coupon scheme. I don't think labour costs for recurring work would have been greatly different, but Hornby was able to design for production every step of the way, so often the effect for a given cost was better. The same forces at work drove more investment in smaller scales at the expense of O gauge, given there was sufficient market pull.

 

[John R Smith]

By the time Hornby turned his thoughts to trains, he had a vast factory with a massive toolroom that he needed to keep occupied, and a worldwide Meccano dealer network and captive audience to soak up trains.

All good points. And the Meccano Magazine must have helped too, as well as the Hornby Book of Trains, all very well produced promotional material. I had every issue of the MM as a boy, and of course was thereby thoroughly indoctrinated in the virtues of Hornby Dublo and Dinky Toys, which is where almost all of my pocket money went.

John

 

[40057]

To return, specifically, to the guineas question. Earlier, I had a look through the spring 1933 Bassett-Lowke catalogue whilst having my morning coffee. There is no doubt there was a policy of pricing the more expensive locomotives in guineas, though there are plenty of very expensive items not priced in guineas. In the gauge 1 locomotives section of the catalogue I found:









The other large Gauge 1 locomotives listed were an LMS Claughton, Crab 2-6-0 and LNER mogul, all priced at £12 12s 0d. The LNER loco was also offered in kit form at £11 11s 0d.

Sure, these prices must reflect production cost or, more specifically, what Bassett-Lowke paid Bing as the manufacturer of all but the 2-6-0s. But the retail prices have certainly been fixed in whole guineas.

Martin

 

[40057]

I see I have not posted an update on progress with my current build of a wall since 5 February, post #756.

Steady but uninteresting progress has been made. I have completed the wooden supporting structure behind the cosmetic brick-effect MDF panels. The wall has already developed slight curvature along its length despite my best efforts of using ‘reversed pairs’ of strip wood supports in the hope any tendency to warp will be cancelled out by adjacent pieces wanting to bend in opposite directions. I have fastened the steel brackets from B&Q which will be used to hold the wall in place — and straight — on the layout:



The steel brackets will not be visible when the wall is finished and installed.

In passing, I will comment that with wind/rain/snow, today is probably the first day of 2026 that I could have taken the wall outside to be photographed.

Martin

 

[John R Smith]

In passing, I will comment that with wind/rain/snow, today is probably the first day of 2026 that I could have taken the wall outside to be photographed.

Hello Martin

This is the first decent afternoon we've had here for a long time, too. Mild and sunny here in Cornwall would you believe, so I went for a walk up the lane where we now have primroses and daffodils in bloom. But of course it was raining this morning. The wall looks good, the steel brackets are I think a very sound plan.

I really like the Bassett-Lowke catalogue extracts, I think the Gauge One stuff is just so nice - "Titley Court" in live steam, I would kill for that. But of course I would have nowhere to run it. I got heavily involved with G1 back in the 1980s, and just loved the size of it and the scope for detail. We built a tiny cameo layout which actually worked quite well and we did a lot of scenic stuff. Amazingly it got featured in the Model Railway Journal at the time.

We have heard nothing from the Rivermead Engineering Shops for a while on progress with the Rebuilt Scot - how is it going?

John

 

[40057]

Hello Martin

This is the first decent afternoon we've had here for a long time, too. Mild and sunny here in Cornwall would you believe, so I went for a walk up the lane where we now have primroses and daffodils in bloom. But of course it was raining this morning. The wall looks good, the steel brackets are I think a very sound plan.

I really like the Bassett-Lowke catalogue extracts, I think the Gauge One stuff is just so nice - "Titley Court" in live steam, I would kill for that. But of course I would have nowhere to run it. I got heavily involved with G1 back in the 1980s, and just loved the size of it and the scope for detail. We built a tiny cameo layout which actually worked quite well and we did a lot of scenic stuff. Amazingly it got featured in the Model Railway Journal at the time.

We have heard nothing from the Rivermead Engineering Shops for a while on progress with the Rebuilt Scot - how is it going?

John

Hi John

The Royal Scot is no further forward. I decided I want to test the motor set up as an 0-6-0 without the valve gear. I should get an opportunity to do that in about a month’s time on a large track at an exhibition, so all I have to do is get the wheels and rods fitted and running smoothly before then.

The B-L Gauge 1 models are every bit as nice as the 0 gauge production, but take up so much space. Also most locos are steam so either look pretty tatty or the paint is good — in which case you can’t use them. I disapprove of the trick used nowadays of fitting an electric motor to steam models where the burner should be. A steam engine is a live thing and being live steam is the very essence of the wonderful Bing models. We have a clockwork Bing for B-L Gauge 1 Midland 0-6-0, unfortunately in rough condition. It came from the garden railway belonging to my late father-in-law’s father. According to family members, the railway ran down one side and across the end of the tennis court — and was operated to a strict timetable. The fact that there was a tennis court in the garden says everything you need to know about the sort of person who was buying Bassett-Lowke’s Gauge 1 models — in this case he was a solicitor with a successful legal business. No doubt, he charged in guineas! I also have a Gauge 1 Claughton — which is steam. No track for it at home, but it visits a friend’s garden railway occasionally. I do run it as the paintwork is wrecked. I had to do a lot of work to address steam and water leaks and a far-from-airtight smoke box, but it is now a strong loco that runs very well.

Martin

 

[Roger Pound]

The super BL gauge 1 models were always a pipe-dream for me. My only steam experience was Mamod - lots of fun but very limited. All a long time ago now but thanks for reviving memories.

Roger.

 

[40057]

Rapid progress with my wall this afternoon! All the brick-effect MDF ‘tiles’ are now glued in place:



There will be a ‘stone’ string course above the lower, thicker, section currently just painted with white primer, and a ‘stone’ coping. I use strip wood to make the ‘stone’ elements, suitably painted. There will be a bit of tidying up to do tomorrow around the corners where the adjacent panels are at 90 degrees. But I anticipate just a small amount of filler and sanding before proceeding to paint with brick colour, then add the mortar.

Martin

 

[John R Smith]

Hello Martin

I think that I may have made some progress with the puzzle of the B-L Mogul tenders. One of the problems around researching the Moguls is that they are rather scarce in today's marketplace, perhaps because they were expensive when new and did not sell very well as a result. However, just at this moment Trevor Salt has two for sale, both LMS 2-6-0s no 13000. And they are somewhat different -



This is what I am assuming is the earlier example. Note that is has the lamps mounted on the front bufferbeam, no lamp irons, and the running number is on the tender. Both engines are electric (so of no interest to me). And this is the tender which goes with this one -



As you can see, it is very plain with no fillers or vents, no rear division, and is much the same as the Duke of York tender of the time except that it is not tab-and-slot, but of soldered construction.

Here is the second 2-6-0 -



We note that the lamps have gone and there are lamp irons instead. The running number has moved from the tender to the cab side. I am assuming that this engine is later, and we can see that the tender is different -



The tender now has a rear division, a filler and two air vents.

So what I am suggesting is that, perhaps, when introduced in 1926 the Moguls all had two headlamps, no lamp irons, and a very plain tender. Sometime in the 1930s they were updated with lamp irons and a new, more detailed tender - all, maybe, except for the GWR version which did not get updated because it had not sold very well (I can't find a GWR version without the lamps)?

Let me know what you think.

John

 

[40057]

Hello Martin

I think that I may have made some progress with the puzzle of the B-L Mogul tenders. One of the problems around researching the Moguls is that they are rather scarce in today's marketplace, perhaps because they were rather expensive when new and did not sell very well as a result. However, just at this moment Trevor Salt has two for sale, both LMS 2-6-0s no 13000. And they are rather different -

View attachment 258684

This is what I am assuming is the earlier example. Note that is has the lamps mounted on the front bufferbeam, no lamp irons, and the running number is on the tender. Both engines are electric, so of no interest to me. And this is the tender which goes with this one -

View attachment 258685

As you can see, it is very plain with no fillers or vents, no rear division, and is much the same as the Duke of York tender of the time except that it is not tab-and-slot, but of soldered construction.

Here is the second 2-6-0 -

View attachment 258686

We note that the lamps have gone and there are lamp irons instead. The running number has moved from the tender to the cab side. I am assuming that this engine is later, and we can see that the tender is different -

View attachment 258687

The tender now has a rear division, a filler and two air vents.

So what I am suggesting is that, perhaps, when introduced in 1926 the Moguls all had two headlamps, no lamp irons, and a very plain tender. Sometime in the 1930s they were updated with lamp irons and a new, more detailed tender - all, maybe. except for the GWR version which did not get updated because it had not sold very well?

Let me know what you think.

John

Hi John

I think you are about right with your suggestions.

It is difficult to spot definite patterns because of the small sample size of surviving locos available to examine. Also the amount of swapping and alterations undertaken by the original owners or more recently by collectors/restorers.

Undoubtedly, in your post, the loco with the number on the tender is the earlier example. But it has finer wheels, which may not even be B-L, than the later loco. Probably that means the motor is also non-original with the later pattern axles designed for quartering by means of the eared washer system. The loco with the cab-side number looks to have been repainted, though I can’t be 100% certain about that from the photos. Which means the number might originally have been on the tender.

What is beyond doubt is the fixed lamps (early) versus lamp brackets (later). My best guess is the lamp brackets were substituted/added when the motor type changed and the key-hole moved to the lhs of the loco. Logically, I guess the other detailing additions to the tender were most likely brought in at the same time.

I’m not sure the driving wheel spacing was the same for the Bing 6-coupled motor as for the B-L mech used later. Didn’t matter when there were no splashers, but the GW model would have had to be changed. So have I ever seen a GW mogul with the later type mech and a more detailed tender? Thinking about it, perhaps not. Do such exist? Don’t know.

Incidentally, the 58mm x 58mm wheel spacing on the large B-L mech, as per the catalogue entry in post #796. I am now pretty sure based on photos found online that this was the wheel spacing used on the J39. Though the J39 should have had smaller diameter wheels than the ex-stock mechs offered in the catalogue.

Martin

 

[John R Smith]

Undoubtedly, in your post, the loco with the number on the tender is the earlier example. But it has finer wheels, which may not even be B-L, than the later loco. Probably that means the motor is also non-original with the later pattern axles designed for quartering by means of the eared washer system.

Yes, well spotted. You can see from the listing and the full set of photos that the early loco now has a can motor and a new set of wheels. You might also notice that the Greenly-Walschaerts valve gear has been modified, probably at the same time.

I think that you may well be correct about the later engine repaint - the finish is rather too semi-gloss for 1930s B-L. But if it has been refinished, it has been done very well.

John

 

[John R Smith]

Hello Martin

Just a quick update about signals. The Bassett-Lowke Best Quality platform starter (which I perhaps unwisely fitted a finial to) has been retired and has been replaced with a B-L all-metal home signal, as the Kingswell Street S&T Department has decided to standardise on this type. I must say that progress has been slow in this area, as these soldered-up tinplate signals do not seem to have survived very well. I now have a box of scrap B-L signal parts which could possibly be resurrected, but it hardly seems worth the effort. Just now and then, something comes up -



So this is the latest installation, a B-L LH bracket signal now in service as the inner home, controlling the entry to platforms 1 & 2. This came from Michael Hannan, a trader based in Limerick, who mainly deals in tinplate Bing, Marklin, Jubb etc but who now and then has some B-L items. When this signal turned up I was very pleased, as it was in excellent condition and there was not much to do. These LQ signals do come with finials (hooray!) and in this case the white paint was in good shape, most unusually. The solder joints were OK too, which made a nice change. The only work I had to do was to refurbish the black paint (after a good wash and dry) with some new black gloss.

On the way soon, I hope, is a recent auction win which will be a RH bracket signal to act as the platform starter for both platforms. So if that one is alright, we should be all set for signals - there will be six semaphore arms, and five disc ground signals in total.

John

 

[40057]

Hello Martin

Just a quick update about signals. The Bassett-Lowke Best Quality platform starter (which I perhaps unwisely fitted a finial to) has been retired and has been replaced with a B-L all-metal home signal, as the Kingswell Street S&T Department has decided to standardise on this type. I must say that progress has been slow in this area, as these soldered-up tinplate signals do not seem to have survived very well. I now have a box of scrap B-L signal parts which could possibly be resurrected, but it hardly seems worth the effort. Just now and then, something comes up -

View attachment 258992

So this is the latest installation, a B-L LH bracket signal now in service as the inner home, controlling the entry to platforms 1 & 2. This came from Michael Hannan, a trader based in Limerick, who mainly deals in tinplate Bing, Marklin, Jubb etc but who now and then has some B-L items. When this signal turned up I was very pleased, as it was in excellent condition and there was not much to do. These LQ signals do come with finials (hooray!) and in this case the white paint was in good shape, most unusually. The solder joints were OK too, which made a nice change. The only work I had to do was to refurbish the black paint (after a good wash and dry) with some new black gloss.

On the way soon, I hope, is a recent auction win which will be a RH bracket signal to act as the platform starter for both platforms. So if that one is alright, we should be all set for signals - there will be six semaphore arms, and five disc ground signals in total.

John

Hi John

For all you say ‘progress has been slow’, compared with Rivermead Central, it looks pretty quick to me. As previously discussed, the tinplate B-L signals are more realistic in that they have a ladder, but usually are not in good condition. It’s the typical problems of inadequate cleaning after soldering: poorly adhering, flaking paint and rust. So you have done well to find nice examples so soon.

The big advantage I see in the later production tinplate signals is the spring fitting that means the signal can be changed manually and will stay in the ‘on’ or ‘off’ position. I can’t operate most of my signals using remote levers — far too much work — so these tinplate signals are ideal. Except they were only made in a small range of configurations which won’t work with my track layout in many places. I’m not going to worry about this now: it’s a problem for the future. Meantime, if I find a good condition, commercially made, vintage signal that is right for one of my more complex locations, I will buy it if I can.

Returning to your previous reply regarding the mogul with new wheels and motor. Obviously, I have no idea who is responsible for the alterations, and know nothing about the circumstances and state of loco when the alterations were made. Nevertheless, to me, that altered mogul is the sort of botch to be avoided at all costs. In original condition, it’s an interesting 100-year-old model. An example of commercial quantity production from the early years of small gauge manufacture at Northampton. An historic item, if viewed in that way. If viewed as a model of an LMS Crab, of course it’s terrible. The foot board above the valve gear is the wrong shape, the loco is over-scale size and absurdly wide. There is almost no detail. The altered model I presume was someone’s attempt to make the model more realistic. In that it failed: it’s still a dreadful model. However, as altered, neither is the model now a good example of commercial modelling from the 1920s. The wheels are too fine, the still-very-crude valve gear is partly non-original, the motor type an anachronism.

If you want a good model of a Crab, build, or get built, one of the kits now available. If you want a Bassett-Lowke mogul, find a nice one that shows what Bassett-Lowke were making and selling at the time. To me, the practice of fitting modern-design motors in historic models just ruins them.

Martin

 

[John R Smith]

If you want a Bassett-Lowke mogul, find a nice one that shows what Bassett-Lowke were making and selling at the time. To me, the practice of fitting modern-design motors in historic models just ruins them.

Yes, I could not agree more. The job has not even been well done.

Obviously, I have no idea who is responsible for the alterations, and know nothing about the circumstances and state of loco when the alterations were made. Nevertheless, to me, that altered mogul is the sort of botch to be avoided at all costs.

Absolutely right. But the seller is asking £400 for it, and I expect somebody will end up paying it. (The later mogul is asking £600).

The big advantage I see in the later production tinplate signals is the spring fitting that means the signal can be changed manually and will stay in the ‘on’ or ‘off’ position. I can’t operate most of my signals using remote levers — far too much work — so these tinplate signals are ideal. Except they were only made in a small range of configurations which won’t work with my track layout in many places. I’m not going to worry about this now: it’s a problem for the future. Meantime, if I find a good condition, commercially made, vintage signal that is right for one of my more complex locations, I will buy it if I can.

It would seem (and correct me if I am wrong) that the only metal signals with the "springy thingy" are post-war upper quadrant ones (after WW II the only LQ types catalogued are the wooden post variety). I now have examples of both pre and post-war tinplate signal types, and the sprung operating arm does work very well on the later UQ ones. In the pre-war catalogues the user of the tinplate signals is advised to set them in the "off" position using a pin pushed through tiny holes in the lever and the post which must be aligned. I have to report that this is possible, but requires great patience, a steady hand, good light and excellent eyesight. I have given up on it, and find that an oil drum or barrel inserted underneath the balance weight does the job much faster. Shame on me, but better ideas are welcomed.

John

 

[40057]

Yes, I could not agree more. The job has not even been well done.



Absolutely right. But the seller is asking £400 for it, and I expect somebody will end up paying it. (The later mogul is asking £600).



It would seem (and correct me if I am wrong) that the only metal signals with the "springy thingy" are post-war upper quadrant ones (after WW II the only LQ types catalogued are the wooden post variety). I now have examples of both pre and post-war tinplate signal types, and the sprung operating arm does work very well on the later UQ ones. In the pre-war catalogues the user of the tinplate signals is advised to set them in the "off" position using a pin pushed through tiny holes in the lever and the post which must be aligned. I have to report that this is possible, but requires great patience, a steady hand, good light and excellent eyesight. I have given up on it, and find that an oil drum or barrel inserted underneath the balance weight does the job much faster. Shame on me, but better ideas are welcomed.

John

I am not sure if the spring ‘holding device’ for keeping the signal in either position was introduced pre-WW2. If so, late 30s, because nearly all or all pre-war tinplate signals have the ‘pin in hole’ system.

Personally, I’m not fussed as to LQ or UQ or even which company. A variety of signals due to changes in track layout and one-off replacements is quite usual in IRL. I would never manage a uniform set as you have got, and don’t mind that.

Martin

 

[John R Smith]

Hello Martin

I am wondering if you can help with a Bassett-Lowke puzzle which has been intriguing me for some time. It may well be that the answer is well known, and I have just missed the obvious, but here goes -



Here are my B-L 0-6-0 and 0-4-0 tank engines. The 0-6-0 is in my 1934 catalogue, so it was introduced by then. Mine is one of the earlier ones, with the big 5374 number on the side. Later on in the 1930s they were offered in LMS, LNER and SR versions. This one is a bit of an oddball, in that it is clockwork but has the 1 5/8" cast-iron wheels with centre slotted nuts. The 0-4-0 tank does not appear in any of my catalogues, but was apparently issued in the late 1930s and was not reintroduced post-war. Whereas the 0-6-0 was re-issued in BR livery and soldiered on to the end. You can see how Bassett-Lowke cunningly re-used the cab, side tanks and boiler fittings from the 0-6-0 in its junior offspring.

So, the puzzle is this. Both these engines (and the others that I have seen) have this maker's transfer on the bunker -



It just says "British Made" after the B-L name. Whereas Bassett-Lowke engines of the 1930s generally have this -




This one is from a Compound 4-4-0. You will notice that it has the company name and "Made in Northampton". Variations include "Northampton Make".

So from this I conjecture that the 0-6-0 and 0-4-0 tanks were perhaps not made in Northampton, but were outsourced to another maker. If so, then who? The engines are tinprinted and built with tab and slot, so it would have to be a builder conversant with this process. I do hope you can shed some light on this . . .

John