MikeTrice

Not according to the information sheets produced by the LNERSG and available on lner.info.

It looks as if the production numbers are different. From photos published recently we have: 1st: E81025E 3rd: E82326E

Having had a quick look at that thread, I think I will keep out for the moment!

It is the same shade they use on their Crimson/Cream liveried corridor stock.

The original painting specification Hornby produced for the printing process stated "Crimson". Whether the shade they use really is Crimson is another question.

Guilty of both charges, the latter being tongue firmly in cheek. As stated in the early reply, the tumblehome is improved but the underframe is still too wide. That does not apply to the suburbans which (fingers crossed) are as perfect as can be, being based on brand new mouldings. Might regret that statement as I am sure some smart Alec's will be looking to see if they can prove me wrong. I have said it before, and I will say it again, that the response and enthusiasm of the Hornby engineers has been a major factor in the quality of these and I would not like to take praise away from them.

To the best of my knowledge the profile is better and as you say has the beading in the correct position, however the underframe is still overwide being based on the earlier moulding. Either way, hope people like them.

It is some years since I was involved with these, so things may have moved on.

From memory they do not have the cast in buffer beam as you use the SP moulded parts.

Am I missing something here but 9'0" at 4mm to the foot should be 9*4 which was 36 when I went to school. Right, got it, you have converted feet to millimeters. Doh!

The HMRS BR Mk1 book quotes a width over sides of 9'0" Modified MJT.

Just to add fuel to the debate, the MJT ends were designed to match a Lima coach to which etched sides had been added and as a result are probably too wide. I probably adjusted the window positions to suit but it was so long ago I cannot remember ;-) I do recall measuring one up and had a couple of attempts to get a casting that pleased me.

These pre-production samples are likely to be on display at Model Rail Live so if anyone is in a position to take some detailed photos????????

With SkaleScenic produces I have found sieving the gravel with a fine tea strainer helps a lot. I use the courser grains as a base/fiiler and finish with the fine grains on top.

Off the top of my head you would have to remove and replace the trussing and probably move the battery boxes, then remove both inner bogies and replace with one articulated joint in conjunction with one of the removed bogies. Might possibly have to cut away the buffer beams on the inner ends. At this stage I do not know if Hornby have produced the trussing supplied and battery boxes as a separate moulding which obviously would make removal easier. The hardest part is producing the articulated joint for both the inner bogie and the coaches. Once I get my hands on some actual coaches, I will certainly be looking into the possibilities but suspect with the speed I move, Coachmann will get there first!

One of the problems is what point in time should a particular model represent? Fortunately Hornby seem to have a policy of issuing revised running numbers each year so any error, with luck and appropriate advice, will be corrected next time around. As an aside, I wonder who will be the first to attempt/publish an articulated pair once they are released.

I suspect these are production paint jobs so unlikely.

Or coupled with full thirds as a D242 Artic Twin. Perhaps not so daft after all!

I did try and persuade them to drop the 1st and substitute a full brake however they presumably felt that the 1st would be more popular. Given they are producing a corridor full brake this year who is to say they will not add one in a future year if these sell well.

Enjoy is an understatement. You have done us proud.

First of all, the most important question is this: if it ran perfectly would you still want to replace it with something new? As you will now be aware there are many benefits of the T Trak approach, or modules in general, giving greater flexibility moving forward. There is a technique used by the East Surrey N Gauge group who use modules extensively within the club. They use N Trak modules. With the N Trak system the rails stop some 2" short of the module end and 4" bridging pieces of Peco streamline physically join the two sections together. Using this approach the is no rail joint at the module interfaces and they seem to run with no problems. If your answer to my first question was something like "yes I would like to sort out my current layout" then it should be posible to retrofit this arrangement. You would need to measure back 2" from each "joint" and using a rotory cutter cut through the rails and remove the track across the joint. Cut 4" lengths of matching Peco track and thread fishplates on so not part of the fishplate extends beyond the track end (you will probably need to remove some sleepers for this). Place the new length in the new gap between boards and using a sharp screwdriver slide the fishplate along the rail to extend onto the adjacent rail. Given the layout is permanent you can then paint/balast the new pieces to match the rest of the layout. Worth a try?

Again thanks for taking the trouble to upload them. Much appreciated. First time I have seen liveried samples.

No, but I am not complaining. The BG is the Gresley Corridor Full Brake which may not be sufficiently advanced to display yet. I know I might be biased, but those suburbans sure look good.

It does sound a shame if you are happy with all other aspects. To be able to make suggestions we probably need some more information about the current arrangement: Is the layout permanently fitted in the room or do you strip it down into modules and reassemble to run? Are the baseboards flat and do the top surfaces match at joints? How is the Peco track fixed down onto the board and what underlay (if any) did you use? Where derailments occur are you aware of the reason (i.e. vertical or horizontal missalignment, joint on curve)?

Thanks for the photos. Was the BG in evidence as well by any chance? For the suburbans Hornby's paint specification states "Crimson".