Jump to content


RMweb Gold
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,688 Excellent


About MarshLane

Profile Information

  • Location
    Flatlands of Lincolnshire

Recent Profile Visitors

1,030 profile views
  1. Any further progress with your wagons or other items Quarryscapes? Must admit I enjoyed your thread and it has been a bit of an incentive to ‘do my own thing’ in a similar way, albeit on a different area.
  2. Superb work, this has to be one of the best scenic diorama's I've seen .. fantastic.
  3. Dave, Love the Manchester photographs - happy days! I wish somebody would bring out a RTR Class 304 EMU as I have always thought that Oxford Road would make a superb compact layout with lots of options and variety! Keep the photos coming, they are great to look at. Rich
  4. No problem! I’ve not a clue, but would assume steam emissions are very different rules to diesel power unit emissions.
  5. Its not quite that simple and like most things around EU regulations, it is complicated and it all depends on what aspect you are talking about. I don't know all the ins and outs, but if you are talking from a railway certification perspective then yes it would be a new build, but from an emissions standards viewpoint, I believe it would be a rebuild. Where the GBRf 73/9s were concerned, my understanding is that they were classed as rebuilds from the railway certification point of view, as long as the frames were original. Emissions standards did not really come into that as they were putting brand new MTU engines in, which had to meet the latest criteria. However, move away from railway certification and EU emissions standards are not too interested in frames (or even what mode of transport they are) purely the power unit - which could be for use in a railway locomotive, ship, or even a static power plant in a factory. GBRf used this latter point to obtain its final batch 66/7s, which were ordered after the emissions regulations changed. From memory (I'll stand corrected) but EMD had four engines on the ground in Europe that were delivered but never fitted to a loco - hence the power unit had been delivered to Europe and had touched the soil, therefore it was in the EU while the old emissions standards were in place. These four were then shipped back to the states and incorporated into the final batch of 66/7s to be built - Nos. 66773 to 66779. Of the seven, four were the EU power units, one was the power unit from 66734, that was written off in the derailment at Loch Trieg, and the other two power units came from accident damaged Euro66s, meaning that GBRf could order seven locos after the deadline for new build engines. Where the 69s are concerned, there is regulation whereby rebuilt locos are only required to meet the regulations that were inforce at the time of the construction, which means a lot more can be done. Fire regulations are similar for example, I once asked a very Senior Manager at Virgin Trains East Coast why the new Class 800s could not simply have the Mk4 interior, it worked, it had been proved and was better than the DfT had specified. I was told "the seats in the Mk4 do not meet the latest fire regulations and cannot be use in the IET, we can use them in the Mk4, because being refurbished, the seats and internal spec only has to meet the fire regulations that were in force when the vehicles were built!" I'll not get into the IET specs here, because that is a whole different ballgame thanks to the DfT!!!!
  6. Yes I believe your right - it has to meet the emissions standards that were in place at the time of its construction as long as the frames remain intact, in which case its classed as a rebuild. If the frames are changed, its a new locomotive that must meet the current standards. Don't quote me, but I believe that's the case. Thats why the 73/9s were classed as rebuilds.
  7. Sorry guys, that was said tongue in cheek, but its been suggested to me from a GB source that they may go far closer than anyone mentioned ... just down the road in fact. Time will tell I guess.
  8. Andy, If you don't mind me asking, how wide / long was the yard pictured above? I am guessing about 4' x 2'? Do you know what Trebudoc was in total length? Rich
  9. Hi Andy, Yes it is Saltney - now long long and lifted Rich
  10. Heritage Line testing from May next year ahead of the main line work ... wonder what heritage railway is close to the EMD site and Longport ... that's Stoke for anyone who doesn't know .....
  11. Sorry for resurrecting and old thread - but Chris, you dont happen to have any idea what branding or number the Chocolate & Cream liveried autocoach was in that 1955 photo do you? I am guessing it would probably have been 'GWR' rather than the shirt button or 'Great Western'? Rich
  12. Why? Why? ... well the wallet started screaming .. and something about a bit of plastic that's bent so much its snapped in two!!
  13. Hi Rod, Sorry for the radio silence the past few months. Hope you are doing ok - nice to see WKT progressing well, am I keeping an eye on what your doing - love the RR 101 I frequently recall my visit to WKT and thoroughly enjoyed the day, and this thread! Rich
  14. So when do your divorce papers come through Jinty? or is the Mrs away at the moment, hence your safe with comments like that hehehe! While we'd talking, I'll just check you got my email last week? They looks superb Andy! Be a shame if SMS doesn't survive your house move - still at least you can enjoy running it now. My blue Peak is going up for sale in the next week or so ... but given that I am downsizing my O gauge collection, I am not too sure how I have acquired a pair of Heljan Prairies from a well known establishment in Sheffield Could there be something in the wind?! Rich
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.