JDW

I didn't take any decent pics of the work in progress I'm afraid, but (sorry to disappoint!) I did exactly the same. Sliced the coach in the same place as you, rejoined the two halves, even used the same trick with the glazing to line things up, and inserted the doors. Definitely a bonus that the livery on yours matched and you didn't need to repaint it - a fraction of a millimetre out between the bodyside parts on any of the stripes could have meant a repaint! I managed to get away with the same trick to create a Midland Mainline class 170 centre coach without having to match the paint colours to Bachmann's.

Hi, and welcome. It sounds like an interesting project. There's quite a lot you can do with parcels stuff in various spaces, so probably quite a few small layout options. Short trains aren't uncommon, if I remember right BG+GUV+GUV+BG was a common RES formation. Definitely worth keeping an eye on places like Ebay for the occasional bargain (I had a quick look out of curiosity this afternoon and an unboxed Lima Res class 47 sold 'Buy It Now' for £28. There's a set of Heljan Res 47 and 4 matching GUV/BG's at £150, which is great value per item (though I suppose that depends on whether you can afford the outlay to buy all of them at once, or are more restricted to spending £20-30 at a time, of course). A 2000s-era Lima 67 +3 GUVs at £84.95 isn't bad either. There are of course plenty of bargains to be had at model shops too. I was in Bolton the other day and popped in to Nuffy's Models, and happened to notice a weathered Lima Res 47 at a good low price. If I didn't have a couple already, I'd have been tempted. I wonder if some of the well-designed Metcalfe buildings would be a good start, depending on the style of layout you're going for ultimately, for things like Royal Mail depot or for loading platforms. Easy to build and modify, and not too expensive. They could also form the basis of a small diorama to display models on. Good luck, keep us posted.

Very nice! Having done a Northern one using the Realtrack model, and a WYPTE one using the older DC Kits resin kit, it's nice to see someone else produce a centre car. I'd have been tempted to do one using the new WYPTE one if the price weren't so high. Cutting up a Realtrack one that cost around £100 I can cope with, but I decided buying two £250 models to produce a three car DMU was beyond what I was prepared to pay.

Ah yes, I couldn't see the wood for the trees there, I'd overlooked 'guard' as also being a railway term! Thank you for clarifying the point!

Some interesting comments but pleeeease, it's Gare du nord, Gare de l'est, Gare Montparnasse, and any other Gare ( = station) you can think of. Garde = guard.

You might have done it already, but I found it helped to remove the pick ups from the trailing bogie as well when I converted one car to non-powered when I did a 155, as the pick ups cause a lot of drag. I seem to remember there being a weight under the seating unit as well which I removed.

I don't want to keep going round in circles, but yes, you're right that the van driver was the cause of the situation which unfolded. But the lorry driver had every opportunity not to drive into it. "Someone else could have done something" isn't an excuse to have an avoidable accident. I'd dare suggest the lorry driver knew where the van was going before they even exited the roundabout. He could have backed out at any point, but chose to try and make the point. Just because the van driver is in the wrong lane or trying to push in, that doesn't remove any responsibility from the lorry driver. He could see the situation developing and drove into it, and at all times he, entirely by himself, without any third party action from the van driver or anyone else, could have avoided it.

I think we'll have to disagree then. Yes, the van had the opportunity to but clearly wasn't taking it. Being generous for a second, he might not have been aware of the lorry. Or he might have been cutting in on purpose, we can guess but we don't know. What we do know is that it was already clear to the lorry driver what was happening, and there was no point at which the van driver left the lorry driver with no other option but to collide. The lorry driver could have avoided the collision. The van was in front and intent on changing lanes. It's up to the person behind to react to that. Had he cut in suddenly (let's imagine he looked like he was going to turn right into an entrance before the traffic island then changed his mind and moved left at the last minute) then yes, that would be on him. But he's out in front here (even if not fully) and the lorry driver is clearly aware of what is happening from an early stage. He follows the car in front closely around the roundabout, so I'd say he was intent on not letting the van in before they even reached the exit of the roundabout. Note the car path of in lane 2 in front of the van too. "Someone else started it" and "someone else could have avoided it" might both be correct, but that doesn't take away the blame where he could have avoided it himself - and frankly, he could have avoided it quite easily here by the looks of it too. The van might have created the situation, but once it's been created, a professional driver should be reacting to it, not driving on, closing the gap between him and the car in front, and hoping the van reacts how he wants (ie "I'm not letting you in, move back to the right") just because he doesn't want to let him in. Even if the van driver created the situation, the HGV driver created the collision, and I would have expected a safe and competent professional driver to do so, regardless of what the other motorist did/didn't do or could have done. I might be a bit more sympathetic to the 50-50 view is the HGV driver hadn't shown that he was aware of the situation developing so early and for so long by sounding his horn but making no other attempt to react...

Regardless of whether the van is pushing in, whether (s)he's in the right lane or wrong, regardless of whether it's deliberate and he knows the lorry is there or accidental because he has his music on so loud he hasn't heard the horn and has carelessly not checked his mirror, the HGV driver's opportunity to avoid a collision begins before 4:06. That's the point where it's clear the van is in front and is intending to move over. That's the point the HGV driver identifies that there's a risk and starts sounding his/her horn. For 100% of the duration of the horn (which was over twice as long as his stopping distance), the HGV driver had the opportunity to avoid a collision with a vehicle he could clearly have avoided colliding with. Even if the other driver could/should have taken action too, there is no point at which the HGV driver could not have taken action to avoid it. The fact he is sounding his horn from that point is a sign he has identified there's a risk. He's identified that the van is (deliberately or carelessly) moving into his path. Even if he thought the other driver might react and take avoiding action, he had more than enough time to realise the other driver wasn't reacting and to adjust his speed/road position accordingly. Like it or not, the HGV driver was the vehicle behind, so he was the one had the full and clear view of the situation developing. The vehicle in front wasn't going to disappear, and the HGV had at all times the opportunity to avoid the collision, regardless of what the other driver might/could/should/shouldn't have done. Which is what a professional driver should be doing. So yes, as far as driving standards goes, 100% fault to the HGV driver. The only people who I can see 'legitimately' trying to argue anything else would be the HGV owners and insurers who will want to blame the van driver to minimise cost to themselves, but an objective analysis of the very clear video shows he drove into a collision that he could see coming and could have avoided. NB - to be clear, that's not to say that the HGV driver would be to blame in all such and similar situations, or that it exonerates other drivers from driving with care, attention and safety, but once it is clear that there's a risk/danger, it's up to any driver to avoid the collision wherever possible, which in this specific case, he had more than ample opportunity to do.

So many of these videos seem to show bad driving by the person with the camera, I wouldn't dare send in some of the clips they do. The one with the white van trying to merge in front of the lorry from the roundabout, for example. Caption says the white van ignored the horn "giving an indication I was beside him". Even with our restricted forward-only view, it's clear from around 4:06 that the van is trying to merge. The lorry driver starts sounding his (or her) horn at around the same time. The horn continues up to the point of collision at 4:12. That's six whole seconds, at low speed, that the driver had not to collide with the van. He makes his first serious effort to brake at around 4:11, and is stationary by 4:14. It doesn't take much to work out that he could have stopped well clear, and we can see with our own eyes anyway that he closes the gap to stop the van merging, and pretty much drives into the collision. Were that one of my drivers, I'd be holding him 100% responsible. Regardless of whether the van had made a mistake or was deliberately pushing in, his use of the horn shows he was aware of the situation developing, and he could easily have braked to avoid it. So many people seem to think "it's my lane" or "my light was green" or whatever else and forget that at the same time, it's always a driver's responsibility to avoid a collision where they can reasonably do so.

Nice to see someone improving an older model, they can still look pretty good for their age. If removing the buffer beam cowl is too much, I suspect painting the 'lip' at the top black rather than yellow might at least go some way to making it less obvious.

I have to admit, I wasn't much of a fan of the looks of the Swift, I always think it looks a bit sad-faced. Having driven it it though, my opinion's improved, it drives quite well. The lack of opening windows is indeed an issue, we had the door open most of the way for some air flow.

For some of the day, yes I suspected as much, thanks!

Something a bit Scottish, the only three buses present at the RW Thompson Memorial Rally in Stonehaven yesterday (Sunday 25 June 2023). I can tell you the one on the right is a 1968 AEC Swift, I'm not so sure about the others, beyond stating the obvious that the one on the left is some kind of Alexander Y-Type! RW Thompson was the inventor of the pneumatic tyre, and was born in the Aberdeenshire port town in 1822. ...plus a couple of arty shots taken around Aberdeen on its way to and from the rally...

I suspect it's highly unlikely. I'm sure someone will come along soon and give you dire, apocalyptic warnings of wheels catching on other bits and wearing themselves down until they fall apart, but in reality, I suspect there's no risk of any real damage. The bigger problem is likely to be that the fine tolerances and many extra detail parts sometimes limit the extent of free movement of parts like bogies, coupled with factors like the increasing length of modern stock and the move from nice wide couplings to much smaller ones which won't couple easily on sharp curves (and more so the tighter the curve). I think it's more a case of that some of the compromises needed to make the much finer models people want these days mean that they're not designed to, or recommended to run on such tight curves, and manufacturers are probably wary of people returning them "because the flanges catch on first radius curves" and such like, but as you've found many will do. Unless you can hear/see something binding and nonetheless run it for hour after hour at full speed around a circle of first radius track, I think it's a safe bet that it'll be fine.

I've no particular feeling one way or the other on KR but those emails are diabolical pieces of writing. I can see what effect they were going to, but among the many faults they seem a great case of using a heck of a lot of words to say very little. As others have said, it's great that people try, but I do wish sometimes people would realise their limitations, and realise that although its often dismissed as nitpicking, the good, proper and appropriate use of language actually does matter, and cases like this prove that.

As illustrated by this recent image from Martin Loader on his Hondawanderer website: http://www.hondawanderer.com/153303_153922_Pandy_2023.htm

I stand corrected!

I hadn't noticed before, but the Regional Railways logo is in the wrong place (It should be under the two saloon windows closest to the door at both ends)

I've seen various reports on this, and of course we don't fully know the situation. In most cases of people forcing their way off trains, I'd agree with the general consensus in this thread that they really should be listening for safety announcements, staying put, waiting to be evacuated, or whatever the appropriate action might be. In this situation, where from what we can gather passengers (rightly or wrongly but clearly legitimately) believed there was a fire, surely that's exactly what the emergency hammers are for. There appeared to be an emergency, there appeared to be an immediate need for egress, and the doors were either not immediately opened or not immediately openable. Whether, with the benefit of hindsight and railway knowledge it was the best or most procedurally correct course of events is somewhat moot. The passengers believed there was an immediate danger, people by the doors couldn't/didn't open them, and the safety equipment (ie the break glass hammers) were used for precisely then purpose they are provided.

No, they didn't

Agreed, I don't want to write it off, and the other two cars look like coming together a bit better. It's never going to be a high quality model, but is unusual enough that it seems worth carrying on with. Certainly, I'm not going to be spending a fortune on more parts, I doubt I'll motorise it, and it'll probably just get a cheap plastic pantograph. I have some heavy weights, the metal strips from Lima locos of old, I wonder whether immersing it upside down in warm water and placing those lengthways inside the roof, spreading the weight as evenly as possible, might work, but worry it'd do something awful to the sides then instead!

There's no cutting and shutting involved, it's a 3d printed kit in two halves. The only joint is where the centre window is, in the centre of the body. Before it developed the curve, it had already been heated and had the splayed-out sides straightened closer to vertical, and has strengthening strips along the insides of the body. With any luck, yet more heating and straightening will sort it, but it's getting to a point where there's only so many times you can do that and cure other imperfections it causes, there are already ripples in the sides.

Bit of a dark pic but I carried on and added some red and white stripes to the 323. It actually doesn't look that bad from a distance, though it still needs work so is far from the finished livery. Gives an idea at least. While I had the white out, I did the doors on the 156.

Has anyone checked that it is the correct shade of Coca Cola red...? Shouldn't the roof be a darker grey? And blue seats? Shouldn't they be maroon LT-style moquette? Hmmm...