Jump to content

Pennine MC

Closed a/c
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Pennine MC

  1. Good suggestion, but it doesnt really work like that. Trying to persuade folk to discuss something in a new thread once they've already started in an existing one is a bit like herding cats.
  2. Old chestnut I'm afraid, Stewart. It's not about being stroked and cosseted, it's the simple courtesy of someone acknowledging that they place a value on the time and effort given up on their behalf. And as Doug says, it's also good for a respondent to know that his response has been targeted in the right direction or at an appropriate level. Threads like this ultimately stand or fall on one distinction IMO - some people just dont seem to understand conventional concepts of manners. I dont mind if other folk are not as fussed as I am about that, but I draw the line at suggestions that
  3. Indeed we have Dave, but where do you see the solution? a) Should those who are satisfied with a given model just accept that others might want to discuss any areas of concern, and not seek to treat the latter as pariahs, or; b ) should those who seek to improve standards give up on that aim, and just accept that their aspirations in the hobby will be shaped by others with lower expectations? In my experience, it's almost always the first group who take exception to the second, not the other way round. There's a basic lack of tolerance here, and most of it is only flowing one w
  4. Not always appropriate though. Sometimes it's a case of 'point X is wrong, it's not easily fixable, but now you know it's there, you can make up your own mind whether it matters to you'. A caveat Bernard, if I might - constructive criticism and free, informed choice. As Jim sagely pointed out, just saying something is great isnt actually very informative.
  5. And some, oddly enough, will do both; no real need to post divisive comments, IMHO.
  6. Given that he's kindly taken the time to place the definitive info elsewhere on the Web (link below), I dont think he's obliged to cruise around forums just in case somebody wants to ask him a question: http://www.railblue.com/rail_blue_history_2.htm Sometimes it's better to go to the source of the information, rather than expect it to come to you
  7. Aesthetically displeasing, presumably. A model (any model) may well be 100% correct to prototype, but still unattractive to an individual. YMMV of course.
  8. One or two might fall into that highlighted description, but it's doing the others a bit of a dis-service to say the least. It also disregards something very relevant (IMHO), the value of goodwill - performance issues can be equally or more offputting to contributors, the 'givers' if you like, not just to those who mainly 'take'. That choice of words isnt meant to be derogatory or divisive btw, merely a straightforward way of making the point.
  9. Still puzzled why folk are focussing on this '2FS' thing TBH; is it really so unthinkable for either side to agree that '2mm scale' would have been a perfectly acceptable compromise (and one that wasnt incorrect, whereas N gauge, despite what anyone says, patently is).
  10. Looking back Nick, these points pretty much reflect my experience and as you say, it's not greatly motivating. Whilst it's a basic tenet of research that single sources of information shouldn't automatically be seen as definitive, the current situation goes too far to the opposite extreme - multiple sources displaying questionable veracity. Either way, it seems that easily obtained information isnt always correct information, but maybe that's just reflective of wider attitudes and 'dumbing down'.
  11. Fair point Dave, but (naturally enough) it works the other way when it's more fact than opinion. The facts get lost or buried, or (worse) superseded by incorrect or incomplete replies.
  12. (my bold) Well, given that blithe and breezy approach, there really seems little point in anyone putting in the time to check out and provide an accurate, definitive answer
  13. Or he could take some note of the two longtime Hull residents (myself and 45125) who were around at the time and have already given him the answer he requires. Like you say, just a suggestion.
  14. Jan, it's lovely work and I hate to mention this but those pushrods are arranged the wrong way - they should slope downwards from right to left on that side of the wagon (assuming it's Morton braked, which the presence of the clutch would suggest).
  15. All good points Mick, and I'll chuck in another one - there would be an expectation that a small loco should sell for a small price, regardless of what development costs or sales prospects were.
  16. Class 10 perhaps, as it's essentially a Blackstone-engined 08; ditto with the didn't-reach-TOPS Crossley-engined batch of 350s. But an 11 is very different - most significantly, it has smaller wheels and a flatter cab roof profile.
  17. A small point - do they, or is it just modellers on forums that do that?
  18. This is really sad, but 5388 - 95 is the sequence I recall (dont ask me where from), and my '78 RCTS confirms Sc5391/92/95 as push pull fitted although it doesnt mention the brakes. Good find K, that was a cracking site, definitely one to watch.
  19. NOT TO BE USED FOR P WAY BALLAST OR OTHER ENGINEERS' MATERIALS (or something very much like that) - applied to these and SR 8-plank opens after the sideways opening doors had resulted in one or more incidents.
  20. Hence the regular suggestions to gain experience on something cheap and cheerful first; said novices will never make progress whilst they're looking for an excuse not to try.
  21. I was going to say, that wasnt a Dairycoates one, then I realised the OP hasnt actually specified... Cheers for finding the JGT stuff Nidge, it would have taken far too long for me at lunchtime.
  22. Not that long 6737 at least went blue in early '69, in the 'one central arrow' style; you may of course know that 6835/36 were also early blue repaints, but they're not splitboxes.
  23. Just to clarify before the thread takes the usual route of muddlement or repeating incorrect information - the point has already been established that diesel renumbering, with the class 45 Peaks, started in 1973. My clear recollection is that with 45s, it started that spring, in advance of the rest of the diesel fleet, and is confirmed by Roger Harris' allocation history
  24. It was something mentioned in the 'Railway Mag' before the service actually started Bob, but that's the only mention I've ever seen of it. Personally I was happy enough with them in blue, but I think they should have had painted names from Scotts and Glens
  25. It's a nice theory Neil, but OTOH, 1960s diesel builds were often ordered in batches of (for instance, figures out of the air) 44 for Area A plus 23 for Area B, which some chappie had evidently calculated would be the figure required to dieselise the diagrams for a given area or service. When you think about it, it's mostly just the non-adopted Pilot Scheme classes that stayed with batches of 10 or 20 - everything else is an apparently random number (263 Brush 2s, 74 Westerns); it's just that 101 has that 'ring' about it. And of course had things been different, there'd have been some 300 H
  • 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.