Jump to content

TheSoutherner

Members
  • Posts

    1,241
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChS5QXRKBdW7N2aT9pvLmOw

Profile Information

  • Location
    Here

Recent Profile Visitors

10,391 profile views

TheSoutherner's Achievements

1.3k

Reputation

  1. Afternoon all, Eventually, I would like to model 34010 "Sidmouth" circa 1960 (Black nameplates, AWS plated over, circle TIA symbol), as and when funds and motivation permit. See here: https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipP8mDUfaI522hZMyDCZBCq8cMeHjKY2n5o0HBzjyi_blnZUbwegw41whlu2XD8UuQ/photo/AF1QipOz0l6eh6V836Fg3wMdVBITMbTXpdlk2by78nxD?key=U1VSVHNGSXRpeGhHaVFPRTFBbUNKUlNQakJQTVRB I've been looking at photos to assess the loco for potential donor models. My understanding is, that by rule of thumb, cut down tenders had the ladder handrails toward the outside of each side, as modelled by 34071: However, 34010 appears to have the ladder handrails toward the inside: As far as I can find, after digging through photo after photo, 34010 was the only light pacific to have the BR pattern ladder handrails on the inside. I've had a look on the SEMG site, which shows 5500g tender No3335 (paired with 34010 from 1959 until withdrawal) was first paired with MN 35022 when new, due to its own 6000g tender (No3345) not being ready at the time. Is the positioning of the handrails a carry-over from its use with 35022? Or was there another reason for this anomaly? Thanks in advance
  2. Thanks for sharing the video here. It's much appreciated.
  3. I have a mate 'on the inside', as it were. The way he put it to me, there seems to be a constant, repetitive disagreement between the Management Team and the Permanent Way department. In that, in blunt terms, the Management throw money at the loco department for repairs and overhauls, while depriving the P-Way department of funds. The P-Way department argues (or maybe it was just my mate), the reason the locos keep needing money thrown at them, is the fact the trackwork is shaking them to bits. But they don't have the money to do anything about it. Regards, Matt
  4. That title goes to this beastie: http://www.furnessrailwaytrust.org.uk/fr20.htm Regards, Matt
  5. U Class: Problem with the U Class is the number of variants within just a 50 strong class. Would love to see it happen though. Rebuilt 'Battle of Britain' Class: Would require a brand new tooling for the tender. The 5250g tender hasn't been seen in model form since the days of Hornby Dublo. P Class: Wasn't there a thread on here not too long ago, detailing the differences between all 8 members of the class?
  6. That's interesting. I have three. One will easily manage 5 around tight curves, the others struggle with 4... Regards, Matt
  7. People don't take the risks seriously, due to it being a 3rd of the size. Failing to see, it is just as dangerous.
  8. D9004 "Queens Own Highlander" had a similar crest, mounted above a single line nameplate.
  9. N15 Class 777 "Sir Lamiel" 'Lord Nelson' Class 850 "Lord Nelson" When Sir Lamiel was down at Swanage, I asked if I could go up into the cab. When in there, I asked the locos representative if it would ever go mainline again, the response was "After it's next overhaul."
  10. Spotted at this years Great Dorset Steam Fair... Regards, Matt
  11. Spotted at this years Great Dorset Steam Fair... Regards, Matt
  12. ...or D213 "Andania", given its recent return to service in preservation.
  13. Hedge an outside bet on 37254, in Intercity Livery. Regards, Matt
  14. Chances of Hornby doing this... https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10208031305515508&set=gm.542465962621150&type=3&theater Regards, Matt
×
×
  • Create New...