Blue Riband Mk1s

[Flying Pig]

Does anyone have a list of the Mk1 body types issued to Blue Riband standard? Bogies fitted would be interesting too, but I'm not after a complete list of liveries and catalogue numbers.

 

Prompted by seeing an RMB in the new Cumbrian Mountain set and wondering what standard it'll be to.

 

Thanks in advance.

[Bomag]

TSO

SK

CK

FK

FO

BSK

BCK

RMB

RU

RFO

SLF

SLSTP

BG

GUV

CCT

Horse Box

 

Bogies vary with livery, mostly BR1 (75% for the ones I have) with the rest C/B4. I cannot see the coaches being anything other that the current versions. The last of the old type was the departmental yellow ones which had the amended windows layouts 

[Flying Pig]

Thanks - more than I thought. Weren't some released on Commonwealth bogies too?

[mjkerr]

All the ones I have (in Blue / Grey livery) have B1 bogies, except as below
I am still waiting for those with B4 or Commonwealth bogies, or missed the original releases (last minute swap for my WHL rakes)

374-013 SO B4 bogies
374-013B SO B1 bogies
374-085 BCK B4 bogies
374-085A BCK B4 bogies
374-110 RMB Commonwealth bogies

374-112 RU B1 bogies
374-258B CK B1 bogies

Edited May 3, 2015 by mjkerr

[acg5324]

Some of the SR Green and 'other regions' maroon have been issued with Commonwealth Bogies. Farish also have an archive page on the website listing what is no longer produced.

[John M Upton]

I just acquired a new BCK in blue and grey and to my surprise it had B4 bogies fitted.  A consultation of the combined volume for 1987 shows them all, including the coach whose number the model carries as running around on Commonwealths.  Has there been a boo boo?

 

Also is it just me or are blue and grey coaches (not including the old tooling and even those are a bit thin on the ground) with the exception of the FK and RUO which nobody really wants getting like rocking horse droppings of late? 

[mjkerr]

I've just updated my earlier list of Blue / Grey to include the two recently acquired BCK
They are both slightly different, but both have B4 bogies
I have also consulted all my Platform 5 books (1985, 1986, 1988, 1993)

 

374-085 is 21222

This is an earlier batch 2 compartments of First, 3 compartments of Second 
Withdrawn by 1985
Possibly BR1 bogies

374-085A is 21247
This is a later batch 2 compartments of First, 3 compartments of Second
Commonwealth bogies

374-085A is either incorrect or is prior to 1985, and it's probably the same for 374-085

Equally, none of these coaches really match those allocated to Polmadie during the 1980s for my layout, but it's as close as I can get
I am still waiting for more Mark 2A TSO (going to purchase 12 this time), but due to no BFK I am going to cobble this together from BSO and FK

Edited May 3, 2015 by mjkerr

[Les1952]

Now this may sound a bit controversial, but I need a magnifying glass to read the numbers on the side of a Farish coach when I've got the thing in my hand.

 

Unless you are faithfully modelling a specific train on a specific date does it actually matter if coach X has the wrong number for its bogies?  Outside of the showcase who will spot it?

 

I ask this because one of the loudest critics of Dapol's "pigeon toed" maroon Gresley coaches was standing in front of my layout at a recent show.  I asked him which two of the six Gresleys in my express running round at a scale 20mph (track gang on line) had had the bogie centres adjusted (two actually had).  After three passes he still couldn't tell.....

 

All the very best

Les

[mjkerr]

Unless you are faithfully modelling a specific train on a specific date does it actually matter if coach X has the wrong number for its bogies?  Outside of the showcase who will spot it?

We're not discussing the TOPS numbers, it is the mismatch of the bogies fitted to the BCK

 

I too am not bothered about the TOPS numbers carried by coaches

However, researching the bogies requires use of those numbers

Comparing to records shows no BCK coaches with B4 bogies

It is certainly easier to see bogies than it is numbers

However, would anyone actually know the bogies are wrong?

 

It is the same with my 374-013B SO coaches

All the Polmadie based coaches should have either Commonwealth or B4 bogies, but all I had been able to source (in 4 years) was this version with the B1 bogies

I have only recently acquired another, which has the B4 bogies

 

I now some Fort William / Oban services used Mark 1 coaches with B1 bogies, but by the time the Class 37/4 locos were introduced they had all been replaced

Edited May 3, 2015 by mjkerr

[John M Upton]

In my case I was renumbering it to a Scottish example and it was when checking my combined volume for 1987 I noticed that none of them had B4 bogies like the model.  Now personally as it is going around on the back of a three car train bound for a fictional West Highland branch line destination with a Large Logo 37 on the front I am not really going to notice, just checking whether I was going mad or not or of there had been to use the correct railway employee parlance, a cock up...

[Bomag]

We're not discussing the TOPS numbers, it is the mismatch of the bogies fitted to the BCK

 

I too am not bothered about the TOPS numbers carried by coaches

However, researching the bogies requires use of those numbers

Comparing to records shows no BCK coaches with B4 bogies

It is certainly easier to see bogies than it is numbers

However, would anyone actually know the bogies are wrong?

 

It is the same with my 374-013B SO coaches

All the Polmadie based coaches should have either Commonwealth or B4 bogies, but all I had been able to source (in 4 years) was this version with the B1 bogies

I have only recently acquired another, which has the B4 bogies

 

I now some Fort William / Oban services used Mark 1 coaches with B1 bogies, but by the time the Class 37/4 locos were introduced they had all been replaced

 

Actually about 34 BCKs had B4 bogies (or B4/B5 mix) - SC had four in 1982 - one at IS and 3 at Cowlairs. 21222 was rebogied with B4s before withdrawal in 1980 - 21247 always had C. I don't think any service Mk1s went C straight to B4, although some went C to BR1 to B4 due a dalliance with the southern region

 

But this is beside the point, as Farish produce all three main bogie types they should put the right ones on the model for the time/livery.  If needed I will buy them a copy of Longworth, which is mostly right. I wouldn't mind as much if they sold C and B4 bogies as spares; they only thing I have read from Farish why not is an excuse rather than a reason.

 

And to LES1952, yes it does matter a Mk1 coach has the wrong bogies on it. I's the equivalent of running a A3 with a Fowler tender. 

[mjkerr]

Actually about 34 BCKs had B4 bogies (or B4/B5 mix) - SC had four in 1982 - one at IS and 3 at Cowlairs. 21222 was rebogied with B4s before withdrawal in 1980 - 21247 always had C. I don't think any service Mk1s went C straight to B4, although some went C to BR1 to B4 due a dalliance with the southern region

That's odd, as the Platform 5 books are relatively accurate for which bogies were fitted on all the other Mark 1 coaches

For the BCK they are all listed as being built with Commonwealth bogies and having Commonwealth bogies, from 1985 through 1993

Perhaps, all those with B1 or B4 bogies were withdrawn by 1985

 

Apologies for reference to Polmadie, Cowlairs was still active, but to simplify my file I have listed the coaches as Polmadie

[Bomag]

For the BCK they are all listed as being built with Commonwealth bogies and having Commonwealth bogies, from 1985 through 1993

Perhaps, all those with B1 or B4 bogies were withdrawn by 1985

 

Probably, but by then the only BCKs left were charter/special ones and the Carstiars spare for the train splits. 

[Les1952]

Nothing like as extreme as A3 with Fowler tender- most would notice that one on a moving N-gauge train.

 

However, Bachfarish's record on A3s included the wrong tender on Scotsman, getting the wrong name on "Knight of Thistle", mislabelling a single chimney loco as double, and the wrong cab and boiler on "Merry Hampton".   Not to mention misfitting a part so they all ran in reverse gear......

 

So with that record, getting the wrong combination of Mark1 number and bogie might be a logical follow-on.

 

Les

[Roy L S]

Hi Les

 

Regards the A3 you are factually correct in terms of detail inaccuracies without question, but to be fair to Bachmann these models were made from existing Poole tooling and some of the limitations arise from there, there is no way they were going to develop any new tooling for these ancient models so the compromises were inevitable.

 

If you want a fairer representation of where Bachmann are with newly tooled LNER steam locos in look no further than their A1, a truly stunning model, or their B1 which thoroughly trounced Dapol's effort in almost every respect.

 

As to Mk1 coaches, I tend to agree with you, wrong bogies are nowhere near as visible as a Fowler tender behind an A3 (!) but for those to whom these things matter equally wrong, and all the more perplexing given that the correct bogies are available.

 

Roy

[John M Upton]

In OO scale I usually change the bogies on Bachmann Mk1's to suit the number I have selected for the model, the easy availability of spare bogies in the larger scale makes this possible.  Unfortunately as far as I am aware the same range of spare bogies is not available in N scale at least at the moment.

Edited May 4, 2015 by John M Upton

[mjkerr]

Unfortunately as far as I am aware the same range of spare bogies is not available in N scale at least at the moment.

That is correct, there are no spare parts for the Blue Riband range, at the moment, and as I understand it Farish have no plans to make any available either

Furthermore, due to the method of construction it's no longer a simple case of swapping the bogies

 

I swapped over plenty of bogies on my previous Mark 1 coaches, replacing BR1 bogies with either B4 or Commonwealth bogies

 

I have a similar issue in trying to create a Mark 2A BFK

It looks as if I will have to remove the interior from a BSO and insert part of the interior from a FK

It is not perfect, but it is as close as I can get

[Les1952]

Hi Les

 

Regards the A3 you are factually correct in terms of detail inaccuracies without question, but to be fair to Bachmann these models were made from existing Poole tooling and some of the limitations arise from there, there is no way they were going to develop any new tooling for these ancient models so the compromises were inevitable.

 

If you want a fairer representation of where Bachmann are with newly tooled LNER steam locos in look no further than their A1, a truly stunning model, or their B1 which thoroughly trounced Dapol's effort in almost every respect.

 

As to Mk1 coaches, I tend to agree with you, wrong bogies are nowhere near as visible as a Fowler tender behind an A3 (!) but for those to whom these things matter equally wrong, and all the more perplexing given that the correct bogies are available.

 

Roy

 

Making a model from old tooling isn't an excuse for putting the wrong name on an engine.  Similarly putting the wrong tender on a loco- and I don't exempt Dapol in this as two of their A4s should have non-corridoor tenders also.  Thinks- I understand the missing Duchesses went back because they appeared with the wrong name....

 

Similarly the POOLE A3s run in forward gear.  Someone in China put a part in the wrong way up so Chinese A3s and A4s are all in reverse gear.

 

Turning to B1s- the Dapol one scores well ahead in one respect- it can be fitted with DCC sound.  The Farish B1 tender hasn't enough spare space to take the chip and the loco to tender connection isn't reliable enough to guarantee the survival of the sound chip.  I have a BachFar Ivatt 2MT with sound- take the circuit board out and a Zimo decoder and sugar cube speaker go in nicely- no motor to fit round.  The wired-in tender means the connections are good enough for the chip to survive without stay-alive.

 

On A1s, yes it is a beautiful model and I'm looking forward to getting one of my pair back from repair so the other one can go off- burnt out motor and smoky circuit board respectively.

 

Turning back on topic- I started this exhibition season with three more Blue Riband Mark 1s than I'm finishing the season with.  Why?  These are the coaches that will not stay coupled- even to other Blue Riband Mark 1s.  If a coach refuses to stay coupled to ANY other coach it is neither use nor ornament as far as exhibition running is concerned.  In each case the problem has been misformed NEM pockets leaving the coupler bending upwards.

 

Les

Edited May 4, 2015 by Les1952

[Steadfast]

Whilst it doesn't fix the B4 supplies, Ultima/ Etched Pixels Commonwealths are a straight replacement, if built without the coupling pocket and reusing the Farish 7mm wheels.

Old style B4s can also be fitted, but again require coupling pocket removal and also the plastic is waxy so won't take weathering too well. You also need to add a couple of shims to the bogie mount to keep he bogie sitting flat

 

jo

[Roy L S]

Les

 

With regard to your post 18 above, to be fair I did say some of the limitations and was not defending incorrect printing of names, but the choice of tender for the A3s from that generation of models was limited to GN type or corridor, Farish did only those two and the point I was making is that they were never going to tool a third so corridor was the closer match of the available ones on a model which by then was on borrowed time.

 

If the only way the Dapol B1 scores ahead it DCC sound compatibility then fair enough for those who want it but hardly likely to sway a purchasing decision for the majority (hence the Dapol models can still be bought new at bargain bucket prices) and sadly in my experience the loco to tender contact is only any good if the wires actually stay in one piece!  

 

On the subject of the Ivatt I was very tempted by the DCC sound conversion but had been put off as I understood the speaker was in the cab (I assume yours is a Wickness conversion) if it is all in the tender I may well revisit the option...

 

A1s, for balance my two (one DCC fitted) have been faultless over many hours of running, I really don't understand why you seem to have so many problems...

 

Back to "Blue Riband" Mk1s. This coupling problem does not seem to be a widely reported issue (in fact I'm not sure I have read of it from anyone apart from you) and again for balance I have (including BGs) got around twenty now, no problems as regards coupling whatsoever with any of them.

 

I think I am just going to have to consider myself lucky so far....

 

Roy 

[Crepello]

No problems with my Mark 1s either; maybe substituting a short NEM rapido on one end will cure the problem--it certainly improves the looks; there'll be less of a droop. I've cured the problem of a SPA and an OBA that kept parting by fitting (long) Dapol NEM buckeyes to both--result, no parting.

[acourtrail]

By swapping bogies between coaches in my fleet I managed to partly solve the problem of coaches having the wrong bogies.  Some still have the wrong type, but as I am thinking of having a cull, any outgoing coaches with CW or B4 bogies will be disposed of with BR1 bogies.

[scruff]

I hope no one is planning to mix Mk1 and Mk2a coaches in a rake.. The height difference is noticeable.. Does anyone know which one is wrong??

 

Cheers

Mark

[ThaneofFife]

i spotted one trader at TINGS selling new farish sleepers with one B4 bogie and one commonwealth!

[mjkerr]

I hope no one is planning to mix Mk1 and Mk2a coaches in a rake..

The height difference is noticeable..

Does anyone know which one is wrong?

I have three such rakes (Oban / Fort William)

I can't see the height difference unless close up

The height difference is correct

 

Was able to see this at Glasgow Central a few times when a Mark 1 coach was coupled up to a Mark 2 or Mark 3

Edited September 19, 2015 by mjkerr