Hornby 2-Hal with correct trailer pickup bogie

[robertcwp]

Having today purchased a copy of the Summer 1958 London (Eastern) District Carriage Working Notice Electric trains, it shows that the 2 Hal units moved away from the Maidstone West line before they moved away from Maidstone East.  All services to Maidstone West including through portions from Cannon Street and Charing Cross are shown as 2 Hap stock.  All workings from Victoria are still shown as 2 Hal.  Both types would have been seen at Gillingham, the 2 Hals coming from Victoria and the 2 Haps (and lots of EPBs) coming from Charing Cross or Cannon Street,

[bazza.]

Hello Bazza,

 

No that is not my understanding - these units could work in multiple as the control systems (ie the jumpers and connections between units) were fully compatible (gear ratios being a separate issue). The big difference between the two systems was in how the equipment functioned and how it was located on the unit - thus the older Metrovick equipment was all housed in a cubicle adjacent to the driving compartment whereas the EE gear was all underframe mounted and exposed for all to see.  When the BILs started to be withdrawn it was the Metrovick equipped ones which went first along with the similarly equipped LAVs.  From a photo of the end of a unit you can tell the difference - Metrovick units had the power conduit routed over the roof, whereas EE units had it routed down the offside to the underframe.

 

Thus - in the context of RTR EMUs - the same mouldings etc cannot be used for both. thus, if Hornby wanted to produce a NOL (can't see it myself!) they would need a new underframe for the motor unless they modelled one of the last 8 untis.  

 

Hope that is a bit clearer.

 

There are lots of other subtleties - the later batch of BILs for example had stronger underframes and Spencer Moulton self-contained buffers.  The one modelled by Hornby has the earlier underframe with square stem buffers - careful when renumbering

 

 

 

 

 

Cheers,

 

Hi Howard,

 

Thank you for that bit of information. I had never paid much attention for the reason of the different routing of the power conduits on the front of each unit, but now looking at photos I can see the visual difference between the two control systems without the need to read the unit number.

 

I don't do renumbering anymore! I numberered each coach of the 4Cor, 4Buf, and 6Pan units when I built them, never again. If I want to add another Hornby or Bachmann SR coach or emu set to my collection, I am happy to wait for the next production run, so that I do not have to renumber a whole 2 or 4 car emu set.

 

A few months ago Colin told us about the stronger underframes and Spencer Moulton buffers on the later 2Bil units, but thank you very much for the info.

 

Regards

 

Bazza

[bécasse]

Having today purchased a copy of the Summer 1958 London (Eastern) District Carriage Working Notice Electric trains, it shows that the 2 Hal units moved away from the Maidstone West line before they moved away from Maidstone East.  All services to Maidstone West including through portions from Cannon Street and Charing Cross are shown as 2 Hap stock.  All workings from Victoria are still shown as 2 Hal.  Both types would have been seen at Gillingham, the 2 Hals coming from Victoria and the 2 Haps (and lots of EPBs) coming from Charing Cross or Cannon Street,

This was all driven by inter-working and by the desire to minimise the number of different types allocated to a depot.

 

Once 10-coach trains started to run into Cannon Street and Charing Cross in the mid-1950s, they had to be formed of EPB stock because the only available two coach sets were 2-EPBs - yes there were 2-NOLs, 2-BILs and 2-HALs but they were effectively fully diagrammed elsewhere. Although Greenwich line trains were limited to eight coaches, they interworked off-peak with other routes and it was therefore necessary for these to be formed of EPBs as well. The last 4-SUB workings on the Dartford lines were on the peak-hour Holborn/Blackfriars via Peckham Rye trains which could, and possibly did, inter-work with other Holborn/Blackfriars trains. The replacement of 2-HAL units on the semi-fasts to/from Gillingham and Maidstone West by 2-HAP units when these started to become available in 1957 was therefore a no-brainer. A few semi-fast peak hour services to/from Sevenoaks were also formed 4-EPB+6-HAP with the same formations appearing on balancing "second class only" stopping services, although no attempt was made to label the 1st class compartments for use of 2nd class passengers.

 

The Victoria/Holborn-Bromley South-Sevenoaks/Orpington services nominally remained worked by 4-SUBs (and a few 4-NOLs) until replaced by 4-EPBs with the June 1959 TT so it made sense to keep 2-HALs on the same route to Gillingham/Maidstone East. In practice, the timetable cuts of September 1958 threw up spare 4-EPB units and, of course, both varieties of 2-HAP were constantly being delivered, so the Victoria/Holborn routes saw increasing EPB/HAP working well in advance of the intended June 1959 cutover, although care with diagramming was required to ensure that "join-ups" had the same type of unit.

[robertcwp]

This was all driven by inter-working and by the desire to minimise the number of different types allocated to a depot.

 

Once 10-coach trains started to run into Cannon Street and Charing Cross in the mid-1950s, they had to be formed of EPB stock because the only available two coach sets were 2-EPBs - yes there were 2-NOLs, 2-BILs and 2-HALs but they were effectively fully diagrammed elsewhere. Although Greenwich line trains were limited to eight coaches, they interworked off-peak with other routes and it was therefore necessary for these to be formed of EPBs as well.

I think the Greenwich line must have gone 10-car by 1958 as virtually all the Dartford lines peak hour trains are listed as 10-car.

 

In the early days of the 10-car scheme there were a few Gillingham/Maidstone working that were 4 Sub 6 Hal, so not all 10-car train were EPB stock.  This disappeared when the first batch of Haps arrived.

 

The peak-hour Sevenoaks train that included Hap stock and, before they appeared, Hals and back in the mid-1930s Bils was the Waldron Smithers train - he was the local MP from the1930s until 1954 and complained about the trains so better stock was put onto a peak-hour Sevenoaks train to placate him, and this continued for many years.  In Summer 1958 it was the 5.30 pm from Cannon Street and was 6 Hap 4EPB.

 

In 1958 Holborn Viaduct saw 8 Hap on one train to Gillingham but 4 Hal on another two. 

 

Victoria (Eastern) saw a mix of EPBs and SUBs, plus Hals but no Haps.  a 10 Hal formation was listed on a morning peak hour train from the Gillingham/Maidstone East lines.

[Guest maxthemapman]

I'm sorry, but this all gets a bit tedious after a bit:

 

No no no, this is wrong, its an oversimplification, its more complicated than you think, its not going to happen.

 

If model railway manufacturers listened to all these comments, nothing would ever get released rtr. Sometime I think that railway modellers are the most miserable negative people on this planet. Why on earth would they be like that?

 

What I have been trying to do is establish what could be released by manufacturers with the least development costs and the most benefits in terms of sales. Positive comments are more helpful in this respect. What is likely to be cheaper, to tool up a 2Nol or a 2Hap? Don't say that both are hard and have lots of pitfalls, supply some evidence or logic one way or the other. Ditto sales, 'I can't see it myself' My university students get a D for that sort of comment. I tell them that I am not interested in their opinions, I am only interested in the quality of argument that led to those opinions.

 

Sorry about the strong words, but why don't all the people I am targeting this at just write to Hornby and Bachmann and tell them never to produce a Southern Electric unit ever again because it is too complicated, too much development money, and no one wants to buy them.

[HAB]

I'm sorry, but this all gets a bit tedious after a bit:

 

No no no, this is wrong, its an oversimplification, its more complicated than you think, its not going to happen.

 

If model railway manufacturers listened to all these comments, nothing would ever get released rtr. Sometime I think that railway modellers are the most miserable negative people on this planet. Why on earth would they be like that?

 

What I have been trying to do is establish what could be released by manufacturers with the least development costs and the most benefits in terms of sales. Positive comments are more helpful in this respect. What is likely to be cheaper, to tool up a 2Nol or a 2Hap? Don't say that both are hard and have lots of pitfalls, supply some evidence or logic one way or the other. Ditto sales, 'I can't see it myself' My university students get a D for that sort of comment. I tell them that I am not interested in their opinions, I am only interested in the quality of argument that led to those opinions.

 

Sorry about the strong words, but why don't all the people I am targeting this at just write to Hornby and Bachmann and tell them never to produce a Southern Electric unit ever again because it is too complicated, too much development money, and no one wants to buy them.

 

Well, I see where you are coming from.  But it is also worth pointing out that all the recent releases have contained "mistakes".  Now, whilst no one can ask for perfection, most of the "mistakes" would have been no more difficult or expensive to do "right" than to do "wrong". So one can only conclude that the manufacturers acted out of ignorance rather than to save money or make a particular product more commercially viable. In truth - whether a unit is scratch built by an individual or mass produced as a toy, the biggest investment is often time on research. If they do bother to read forums like this - which I doubt - then, far from being put off, they will recognise are getting a lot of their research done for free.  If you seriously think that a debate such as the above is going to influence a manufacturer's decision on a particular product, then I must say I don't agree.  When I say this forum might just help them get a detail right rather than getting it wrong, then you are entitled to disagree with me!  If Hornby ever visit RM web, they will at least have learnt that both the BIL and the HAL should have compressors fitted - the absence of which is more than a trivial detail, especially given that they did bother to fit Triple Valves which are one tenth the size of compressors!.

 

But surely, the point about a discussion like the above is that we all learn from what appears?  Or maybe you do not see that as the objective of a "forum"? 

[bécasse]

I think the Greenwich line must have gone 10-car by 1958 as virtually all the Dartford lines peak hour trains are listed as 10-car.

 

If you look carefully you will see that this is all the Dartford lines trains except via the Greenwich line (8x head code group) (and, of course the trains via Peckham Rye). There were significant physical difficulties in lengthening the platforms at some Greenwich line stations and, as it had lower loadings than the Bexleyheath and Loop (Sidcup) lines, 8 coach trains were retained. I think that there may have been some 10 coach trains diagrammed via the North Kent route (Blackheath and Woolwich - 6x head code group) but these skipped Woolwich Dockyard which was one of the problem stations, trains via this route were then less frequent, only 1 an hour off-peak, anyway. Fast Gillingham/Maidstone trains could be formed of 10 coaches because they only stopped at Woolwich Arsenal where the platforms had been lengthened.

[RFS]

There were physical difficulties extending the platforms on the Greenwich line to 10 coaches but it was done.  I lived on that line until 1963 and regularly used Westcombe Park station and rush-hour trains were 10 coaches.  The 1958 timetable which I still have does not show any trains skipping Woolwich Dockyard station.  There have been more recent problems with the extension to 12 coach trains, but I believe the stations have been lengthened again.

[Oldddudders]

Moody (4th edition 1968) records that 10-car trains began working to Dartford via the Greenwich and the North Kent on 11.6.56, being extended to Gillingham on 16.6.56.

[robertcwp]

If you look carefully you will see that this is all the Dartford lines trains except via the Greenwich line (8x head code group) (and, of course the trains via Peckham Rye). There were significant physical difficulties in lengthening the platforms at some Greenwich line stations and, as it had lower loadings than the Bexleyheath and Loop (Sidcup) lines, 8 coach trains were retained. I think that there may have been some 10 coach trains diagrammed via the North Kent route (Blackheath and Woolwich - 6x head code group) but these skipped Woolwich Dockyard which was one of the problem stations, trains via this route were then less frequent, only 1 an hour off-peak, anyway. Fast Gillingham/Maidstone trains could be formed of 10 coaches because they only stopped at Woolwich Arsenal where the platforms had been lengthened.

Let me clarify my use of the expression "virtually all the Dartford lines peak hour trains are listed as 10 car".

 

Every Dartford lines departure from both Cannon Street and Charing Cross between 5.00 and 6.00 pm in the Summer 1958 carriage workings is listed as 2 EPB 8 EPB (or as a 6 Hap 4 EPB for Gillingham) 10-car combination except one, the 5.57 pm Cannon Street-Barnehurst, which is 8 DD.

 

The 1958 book I have does not list the headcodes. I am well aware of the difference between 6x and 8x.  The Summer 1960 Charing Cross workings do have the headcodes and there are plenty of 80 codes listed as 10-car.  The 10-car scheme did not happen overnight.  Charing Cross came first in 1954 and then only for Bexleyheath line trains.  10-car working spread gradually across the whole of the South Eastern suburban lines from Charing Cross and Cannon Street.

[trainset1]

 

 

The Saturday 7. 0 am London Bridge to Ore and 10. 0 am return of the stock to Victoria (direct) were 8 Hal

 

Hi,

 

Could Robert , or someone else tell me if the - 10.0 am return of stock to Victoria (direct) was ECS or in service - not via Eastbourne (was the line between Stone Cross jcn & Polegate electrified ) or something else.

 

Thanks,

Steve.

[bécasse]

Sorry for sowing confusion about the Greenwich line services only being 8-EPB instead of 10-EPB. Obviously my ageing memory is at fault on this occasion, although I just wonder whether I am remembering a subsequent reduction of at least some Greenwich-line peak trains to 8-EPB for economy reasons, perhaps c1962 or 1963. The trains via Peckham Rye were definitely never more than 8 coaches.

 

Incidentally, the most difficult Greenwich line station for conversion to 10 coach working must have been Maze Hill down which still had connections to carriage sidings at both ends in a fairly cramped setting. The report on the 04/07/58 accident there confirms that all the connections were in place at that date.

[robertcwp]

Hi,

 

Could Robert , or someone else tell me if the - 10.0 am return of stock to Victoria (direct) was ECS or in service - not via Eastbourne (was the line between Stone Cross jcn & Polegate electrified ) or something else.

 

Thanks,

Steve.

It's not marked as empty in the carriage workings so I assume it was passenger.  It avoided Eastbourne (at least it doesn't appear in the list of Eastbourne workings whereas trains that reversed there do).  I believe the direct Stone Cross-Polegate line was electrified.  The 12.00 Noon Ore-Victoria on a Saturday is also shown direct, this was two 6 Pul units.

[Oldddudders]

The trains via Peckham Rye were definitely never more than 8 coaches.

 

 

Until the advent of Networker, possibly much later, the former South Eastern suburban was a 10-car railway, the former Chatham suburban an 8-car railway.

[talisman56]

I don't think there's a SPAD here at 4.30: look carefully and there's a second signal to the left of the one at danger,  and which is "off".  I believe the signal next to the track that is "on" applies to the line to the right of the train.

 

You mean at the top of the embankment? I looked at the film many times and thought it was an artifact from the branches of the trees. Having looked at it again on a different PC, I can see a bit clearer. I certainly looks like a similar signal with backboard, but it is a *long* way away from the trackside. Running through the 15 seconds or so either side of 4:25 in the film, there is a long distance without a signal on the Up Slow line (second one over), and very little space to put a signal between the Down Fast and Up Slow, so the signal which is 'on' could very well apply to the Up Slow and the one at the top of the embankment to the Up Fast. Certainly a classic situation where the driver has to 'know the road' very well... I wonder why they didn't put in a gantry, as they have in other places, so that the signals would be next to the lines to which they apply?

[Ian Abel]

... I would love a COR, having adored them in my early youth...

 

Same here, a 4-COR would be a fantasy come true!

Not quite early youth for me, but I spent several years routinely riding 4-COR (and other 2-BIL/HAP type groupings) on the Waterloo-Woking line when commuting from Weybridge.

 

I've wanted one for about 40 years! I even had a motor unit kit in the early '70s but never completed it AND sadly it has been lost

 

I'm "getting by" with a 4-CEP for now, but any RTR 4-COR announcement would have me pre-ordering in a flash!

[Colin parks]

I'm sorry, but this all gets a bit tedious after a bit:

 

No no no, this is wrong, its an oversimplification, its more complicated than you think, its not going to happen.

 

If model railway manufacturers listened to all these comments, nothing would ever get released rtr. Sometime I think that railway modellers are the most miserable negative people on this planet. Why on earth would they be like that?

 

What I have been trying to do is establish what could be released by manufacturers with the least development costs and the most benefits in terms of sales. Positive comments are more helpful in this respect. What is likely to be cheaper, to tool up a 2Nol or a 2Hap? Don't say that both are hard and have lots of pitfalls, supply some evidence or logic one way or the other. Ditto sales, 'I can't see it myself' My university students get a D for that sort of comment. I tell them that I am not interested in their opinions, I am only interested in the quality of argument that led to those opinions.

 

Sorry about the strong words, but why don't all the people I am targeting this at just write to Hornby and Bachmann and tell them never to produce a Southern Electric unit ever again because it is too complicated, too much development money, and no one wants to buy them.

Hi Max,

 

Not wishing to sound too miserable or negative but:

 

Tedious or not, at least I and Howard have taken our 2 BILs 'out of the box' (quoting your post #44) before speculating on what parts might or might not be possible to be used by Hornby in the development of a new model: The Hornby 2 BIL chassis is impossible to use for a 2 NOL as the latter's bodywork is narrower and just would not fit the 2 BIL model's floors. Furthermore, the floors of both 2 BIL vehicles have holes for location of specific parts to be fitted by workers in the factory. There are no locating holes where EPB type gear would fit. It requires new chassis tooling for that.

 

As it happens, I not only spoke to a Hornby rep. at DEMU 2012 about what could or could not be produced if they produced a 2 BIL, I showed him my Kirk 2 BIL and alongside, the scratch-built 2 HAL, pointing out that to all intents and purposes the chassis were common to both units (and the Tin HAL). I also commented that the a 4CIG could be produced with just new bodywork on the 4 VEP chassis. (Sadly the quality and reputation of the Hornby 4 VEP model has probably put paid to that idea.)

 

Once I found out that Hornby were to go ahead with the 2 HAL, I emailed the head of the design team to suggest a few improvements to the 2 BIL chassis they were going to use. I never got a reply. I haven't seen any comments on this topic which are intended discourage manufacturers. We are just trying to get good models made.

 

Hopefully that is enough evidence. All my comments have been based on actually dismantling the 2 BIL model and building the 2 HAP and 2 HAL, plus hours of research and comparing plans from various sources.

 

Have you got your 2 BIL out of its box yet?!

 

 

Colin

[LC&DR]

 

Hello Bazza,

 

No that is not my understanding - these units could work in multiple as the control systems (ie the jumpers and connections between units) were fully compatible (gear ratios being a separate issue). The big difference between the two systems was in how the equipment functioned and how it was located on the unit - thus the older Metrovick equipment was all housed in a cubicle adjacent to the driving compartment whereas the EE gear was all underframe mounted and exposed for all to see.  When the BILs started to be withdrawn it was the Metrovick equipped ones which went first along with the similarly equipped LAVs.  From a photo of the end of a unit you can tell the difference - Metrovick units had the power conduit routed over the roof, whereas EE units had it routed down the offside to the underframe.

 

Thus - in the context of RTR EMUs - the same mouldings etc cannot be used for both. thus, if Hornby wanted to produce a NOL (can't see it myself!) they would need a new underframe for the motor unless they modelled one of the last 8 untis.  

 

Hope that is a bit clearer.

 

There are lots of other subtleties - the later batch of BILs for example had stronger underframes and Spencer Moulton self-contained buffers.  The one modelled by Hornby has the earlier underframe with square stem buffers - careful when renumbering

 

 

 

 

 

Cheers,

 

Hi Howard,

 

Thank you for that bit of information. I had never paid much attention for the reason of the different routing of the power conduits on the front of each unit, but now looking at photos I can see the visual difference between the two control systems without the need to read the unit number.

 

I don't do renumbering anymore! I numberered each coach of the 4Cor, 4Buf, and 6Pan units when I built them, never again. If I want to add another Hornby or Bachmann SR coach or emu set to my collection, I am happy to wait for the next production run, so that I do not have to renumber a whole 2 or 4 car emu set.

 

A few months ago Colin told us about the stronger underframes and Spencer Moulton buffers on the later 2Bil units, but thank you very much for the info.

 

Regards

 

Bazza

 

A bit of prototype information extracted and condensed from the Electrified Lines Instructions which might be of help.

 

Instruction 55 (Instruction 79 in the 1966 edition) concerns the coupling of trains and interoperability. The Southern used a simple lettering system to distinguish what could couple with what and be driven as a multiple unit. Units in any one group was not able to operate in multiple with units in any other group, apart from ' D' & 'E' Q.V.

 

 'A' group contained the early suburban and outer suburban sets, thus 3, 4, 2Bil, 2Nol, 2Hal, 4Lav, 2SL, 2Wim, and trailer sets were fully compatible, and were able to couple electrically. (N.B. the code 'Sub' was not officially used in the Carriage Working notices the sets being shown merely as '3' or '4'.) These required 3 connections, one each power, control and lighting jumpers to be connected. 

 

 'B' group contained the express units 6Pul, 6Pan, 6City, 4Cor, 4Buf, 4Res, 4Gri, 5Bel, however the jumper connections varied, so between two 4 car units (1 power plus 1 Control), 4 car to 5 or 6 car (1 control only), and between 5 coach and 6 coach units (2 control).

 

'C' group was confined to the two 4DD sets 4001 & 4002. (1 power and 1 control).

 

 'D' group contained suburban stock with EPB brake (1 control), and 'E' group contained express and semi-fast stock with EPB brake (1 control). 'D' group contained the 2 and 4 EBP stock, and 'E' group contained 2Hap, 4Cep/4Bep, 4Cig/4Big, 4Vep and MLV.  'D' and 'E' could be coupled and controlled as a train provided that 50% of the motor coaches were Group 'E'.

 

The jumper cables on different stock had different shaped plugs and sockets so physically coupling incompatible stock was difficult.

 

The Bulleid 4EPBs (5001 up) originally had power and control jumpers which were supposed to be coupled but by 1955 the power  jumpers were being removed, although the socket was retained to be attached to an overhead trolley supply in depots where there was not a third rail.

 

Hope that is useful.

LC&DR

[FalqueVert]

A quick scan through my Southern Electric picture books reveals that prior to the Kent Coast electrification in the mid-late 50s, one would tend to find Hals on ex-SECR routes in Kent and Bils on ex-LBSC and LSWR services in Sussex and Surrey - their initial introduction areas. After that point, they became more common-user in the latter areas, presumably after the mass-introduction of Haps as part of the Kent electrifications. Bils and Hals were very similar in terms of power and seating capacity (including 1st/2nd seating ratio) so it would be a case of 'we want 8 cars for this service, round up four 2-car units from the sidings', which could give you any combination from 4x 2Bil to 4x Hal with every mixed combination between. As there were 152 Bils and 99 Hals (plus 2700 which was only in service for a relatively short period), in a mixed rake chance would be there would be more Bils than Hals, in most cases.

Hi,

 

I am afraid I am just an interested onlooker but if it is of interest to anyone I used to catch the train from Aldershot to Waterloo in early 60's and it was always 2-BIL + 2 HAL (until replaced by 4-VEP). I always considered the 2-HAL bit as being more genteel as opposed to the more severe, modern looking 2-BIL (and the seats were more comfortable as well).

 

Additionally the trains from Aldershot to Waterloo via Ascot were always 4-COR which I used to take for the fun of it (I was only 13) until the guard caught me one day and told me my ticket was not valid . 

 

Also on this train, when rounding the curve near Staines one day I noticed that it had slowed down considerably but kept going , I looked out of the window to see what was going on only to see a stream of yellow liquid emerging from the drivers cab! I assume he had placed something on the drive handle (I think) to keep it down while he found blessed relief.  

[The Bigbee Line]

Also on this train, when rounding the curve near Staines one day I noticed that it had slowed down considerably but kept going , I looked out of the window to see what was going on only to see a stream of yellow liquid emerging from the drivers cab! I assume he had placed something on the drive handle (I think) to keep it down while he found blessed relief.  

At least the driver didn't throw out a little newspaper wrapped parcel.......  Now that was a relief.......   Here's one I made earlier........

[Dave Scott]

Hi,

 

I am afraid I am just an interested onlooker but if it is of interest to anyone I used to catch the train from Aldershot to Waterloo in early 60's and it was always 2-BIL + 2 HAL (until replaced by 4-VEP). I always considered the 2-HAL bit as being more genteel as opposed to the more severe, modern looking 2-BIL (and the seats were more comfortable as well).

 

Additionally the trains from Aldershot to Waterloo via Ascot were always 4-COR which I used to take for the fun of it (I was only 13) until the guard caught me one day and told me my ticket was not valid . 

 

Also on this train, when rounding the curve near Staines one day I noticed that it had slowed down considerably but kept going , I looked out of the window to see what was going on only to see a stream of yellow liquid emerging from the drivers cab! I assume he had placed something on the drive handle (I think) to keep it down while he found blessed relief.  

The trick is to remove the key. I have seen this done in a CEP which had split at Tonbridge and the door was not closed properly. Having accelerated the rattle anoyed the driver so power off, switch off the controls, let go deadmans fix door nold down deadmans and swith controls back on

[Xerces Fobe2]

I am note sure but I think there is a rivet missing from the 2 HAL shoebeam!

 

XF

[Southernman46]

Second blue version has emerged from the works ....................

 

http://www.ehattons.com/164438/Hornby_R3341A_Class_2_HAL_2623_2_car_EMU_in_BR_blue/StockDetail.aspx

 

Annoyingly the HAL's seem to be holding their value and not dumping in a most un-BIL-like way

[Southernman46]

And lo and behold,

 

£62 bargains at Hattons

[robertcwp]

And lo and behold,

 

£62 bargains at Hattons

Way too good to miss. My current layout is not Southern Electric but I have it in mind to have a small layout depicting the SR in the late 1960s in around 10 years' time. So, this was an opportunity to acquire some stock:

 

P1070792am by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

I already had a 2 Bil and a 2 Hal, which cost roughly twice as much as these two.

 

P1070791am by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

They don't look too bad as an 8-car train:

 

P1070793am by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

I only noticed when putting it back in the box that one of the shoe fuses had fallen off the 2 Hall in green with full yellow ends.

 

I also added a 2 EPB for £72:

 

P1070795Am by Robert Carroll, on Flickr