Jump to content

Peter Bedding

Members
  • Content Count

    784
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

898 Good

Profile Information

  • Location
    SouthWest of the Madding Crowd
  • Interests
    Ex-L&SWR Division of Southern Railway, 1938-1948.

Recent Profile Visitors

2,185 profile views
  1. They will need quite a lot of surgery, as described elsewhere on this forum by chaps knowledgeable on Island history. Personally, I had thought that a different choice of prototype (only slightly shorter, I believe) would have had a wider appeal. PB
  2. I don't think that I have ever deliberately procured a loco or train set for static display, but I shall give this some thought. 21C1 in full malachite warpaint would be a cabinet showpiece. PB
  3. More than ever, there is a need for a suite of r-t-p station buildings to the designs of Sir William Tite. They would not have to be either monumental, or prohibitively large. Chard Junction or Broad Clyst are not particularly demanding. PB
  4. May I enter a plea for one or more of the problem-solving pioneers in this case to post ample photographs onto this Forum page? I have made a provisional decision to wait for Hattons to bring 3125 to market, and buy one ready-chipped. Whilst this may appear to duck the issue, I still feel I need to know what the problems are. PB
  5. Good morning all. The release-to-market day for the next Oxford versions of the Adams 0415 class will soon be with us, and I hope that they are a commercial success I bought a sample of OR's 30584, (because it was there, regardless of livery), and I was most pleased. I know I should worry about the inaccurate boiler profile, but I don't.. What is beginning to concern me though, is that one of the computerised images for number 3520 is of the wrong loco, and even more wrong would be the slidebars. The final 3 locos were all built by different foundries, Using Eastleigh's numbers, 125 was built by Stephenson, 488 by Neilson, and 520 by Dubs. All were built much about the same time (1885-ish) 125 and 520 were rebuilt by the Southern in 1930 and amongst other changes received new frames of a different front profile. Both of these locos retained the original single slide bars. So these details would be appropriate for wearing Mr Maunsell's lined olive green passenger loco livery. The computer image for OR76AR006 is, I believe, broadly appropriate, and I hope to own one soon. However, the computer image generated for (3)520 - OR76AR007 is, I believe, wrong in one particular respect. It purports to show 3520 correctly in Mr Bulleid's utility livery as worn in 1946, but with the Neilson front frames unique by then to 488. I realise that I am raising the fine art of rivet counting to almost unprecedented new heights, but my point is that OR acknowledged these selfsame differences with their original press release, and their tooling to date has shown that their production department can get it right. It's just the advertising that threatens to get it wrong. I hope that some one can show us that all is under control. PB
  6. If this view should prove to have been taken at Lyme Regis, then I may claim to still be on topic. This particular coach, a 56ft Lav Third (ex Composite), is believed to have earlier been a part of Set148, which itself had a varied history. And if at Lyme Regis, then it would indicate that various loose coaches might get marshalled at Axminster to cope with the Summer Saturdays in the West passenger influx.
  7. Still on topic (!) the attached photo of the prototype may also be of interest to the informed readership. Found on the web, if the rightful owner should wish to claim credit, I hope he/she will do so. PB
  8. I think, Larry, that you have hit a perennial nail right on the head. I have my original much-thumbed copy of the 1970 edition of the HMRS Livery Register, which accompanied me to Circle meetings when such were held at Worplesdon Village Hall in the 1970s. The authors had put much effort into this definitive work, and were (rightly IMHO) most proud of the result. I await the renewed edition of this Register with keen interest. PB
  9. Which flags up an interesting (to me at any rate) point. There were six of these sets (42-46 inclusive), with two different liveries. (Although new evidence on another forum would suggest that Set 43 was withdrawn still in green). So if Hornby were to bite the bullet and release a second production batch, we could hope for new Set numbers. Well, they can count me in. PB
  10. Hello Rob, May we have some information on the loco, Number 1848. Is it a repaint with new numbers? PB
  11. The ingredients for my 2-Set No 45 were delivered this morning. They are currently sitting on my desk top, awaitiing transfer to the carriage sidings. Without one of the 3 Lyme Regis locos in appropriate livery, I am undecided as to which loco from my modest collection should be given the privilege of pulling the first departure of the day from MoF. Probably T1 number 7. My real point, however, is to confirm all of the foregoing comments regarding the stunning accuracy and detailing. Wow, and thrice wow, and further words would distract. Please, Mr Hornby, may we have some more. PB
  12. I believe that you are correct with respect of 6404 and 2639. My record shows that from April 1936 to November 1956 they were paired as Set Number 45. I would expect that Hornby will have this detail stencilled on the centre line on the outer ends. PB
  13. Weather sign reportedly once displayed at Croydon Airport:- " Fog over Channel, Continent cut off." Plus ca change....etc etc..... PB
  14. Hello Dave, I feel a tad embarrassed to ask further, however I should like to know if the spares in question are yet in view. My 207 is a lovely little mover, and it looks naked without a complete "face". I would welcome any solution at this point. Be well, Peter
  15. Set 20 comprised 58ft BT(L) number 2618, and 56ft BC(L) number 6482. Hth PB
×
×
  • 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.