Jump to content

Rob Haigh

Members
  • Content Count

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

26 Neutral

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    www.instagram.com/rail_and_scale

Profile Information

  • Location
    UK

Recent Profile Visitors

140 profile views
  1. Yep I'm sure they would. But one of the manufacturers in the examples above were fine with using an inaccurate body type or chassis, as very few match! If they can take liveries with the body/chassis type, why not with a running number which in my opinion would be more obvious when looking at a rake on a layout!
  2. Yeah I understand that, and it is a good point. If so, I just thought it was interesting that they seem to generally feel limited to producing running numbers that they have photographic evidence for, but seem less bothered by using an inaccurate body/chassis for said prototype!
  3. You might be missing the point of the question. If was more about why manufacturers don't use different running numbers ever time they produce a livery that has been produced before. It's absolutely reasonable for manufactures to look at competitors products and produce the same liveries, but why not choose a different running number each time?
  4. Thanks for the interesting replies. A couple of good points from Phil: ...Yeah I can kind of see why manufacturers may want to play it safe by not modelling a number that they don't have photographic proof of. Especially when considering so many numbers may not have even existed... Overall though I'm still thinking it to be laziness or lack of research! Surely subtracting a few from the number on the last produced example in model form would please modellers as it would mean a little less renumbering?! But then again a large rake would need to
  5. This is on the borderline of being a 'general musing', so apologies if this is in the wrong area! Is anyone aware of the reason that manufactures often like to reuse the same running number for wagons? In many cases a single individual wagon has formed the basis for multiple models across manufacturers, sometimes after a gap of several years (or decades) too. With dozens or even hundreds of prototype wagons in an owner's fleet, why not pick a different number each time? With such different lettering it can't be a case of tooling being passed around. ...Is it
  6. Is it me or are they far fewer new private owner open wagon variations this year compared to previous years? I always look forward to the wagon section to keep an eye out for companies local to me and there doesn't seem to be many!
  7. It will never be finished!! Looks fantastic by the way!
  8. Thanks, these two didn't have screws into the body (the only screws under there were for the couplings) but trusting you on the other type I used a Stanley knife and they did pop out after a careful wiggle. I'm now left with disguising or removing the ugly weight in the hopper wagon; it's in the hopper itself rather than in the chassis like the Hornby version! [Edited to include photos for anyone else wondering the same thing]
  9. Is there any easy way of removing the factory-fitted loads from Dapol wagons? I can't see any lugs, clips or screws on the underside of the wagon body. Are they clipped in internally? Are they glued in?! The types of wagons I'm referring are shown in the image below. Thanks!
  10. Apologies if this is a silly/basic question... Why were some mixed traffic locomotives in the BR steam era painted in lined black while others of the same class were unlined (e.g. Black 5s)? Was it just because certain works just didn't bother with the lining in general? Or most/all works stopped bothering after a certain time? Were certain locos more regularly used on one traffic duty (either freight or passenger) so painted accordingly? I've wondered for a time, and couldn't find any previous threads. Thanks!
  11. Perfect, thanks 31A and knitpick, I was not aware of Bachmann's 36-025 or 36-026. Having had a quick Google/eBay of them I think they're the solution I was looking for for my example couplings 2, 3 and 4 (even if they might require some of the edging taking off for 2 and 4). I will order some 36-025 for now and see how they cope with the curves, although they are quite gentle. Thanks all!
  12. Many thanks for the excellent and detailed replies, however my intention is not to just identify the types of coupling shown in the images as shown, nor to add NEM pockets to the stock that doesn't currently have them. What I'm trying to do is find easy to source narrow couplings that would fit each of the items above. For example, I know that coupling 1 is of the old Dapol/Airfix type, but I have identified that Hornby's R8099 couplings would be an option to fit this stock with narrow couplings (see image included with this post). I'm trying to find out what replaceme
  13. Morning all, I'm hoping to change the tension lock couplings on all of my OO rolling stock to the narrow type (that is, all of my stock without NEM pockets). Of course I have various starting points, so I was wondering if anyone could help identify whether any ready-to-use options are available for the four types shown in the image? I've got as far as identifying an option for coupling 1 as Hornby's R8099 Coupling Assembly Pack, and that couplings 3 and 4 will probably take the same type: Hornby R8099 Coupling Assembly Pack ? ? ?
  14. Hi all. I've been a lurker on this thread for a while now but I thought I'd join in. Having bought every issue containing LMR-region BR-liveried locos in order to populate sheds/sidings, I decided to bring the LMS 8F into the same period (my first time re-numbering a model!)... Rob
×
×
  • 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.