Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • Skype

Profile Information

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Bloodnok's Achievements



  1. Well, if the customers spend all night in the bar the night before it arrives, I'm sure at least some of them are going to be sick...
  2. Dare I suggest, for the type of company that likes to commission interesting prototypes, that the NER's EE1 4-6-4 No.13 would probably sell a lot better than it's service record would have you believe? I have absolutely no prototype justification for it. But it looks awesome, like nothing else we ever saw in this country, and I'd definitely have one. I think this is the closest poll to mention it in. It is clearly a passenger loco, and it's clearly not a tender loco, even though it was built to haul top-link ECML passenger trains. The trains would run through PN, even though the loco would have been attached to them slightly further north...
  3. From the ten items listed, 1, 2, 3, and 4 please. I'd like to see a Dogfish. This could be done as a variation on the catfish in the poll, or as another production run of the Heljan model (which I'm happy with the quality of, but is not currently available).
  4. Yup, if you are going to do civil engineering work, straightening the track is a better use of money than widening existing bridges.
  5. I'm definitely a sucker for engineers wagons -- 6 and 7 too please.
  6. At 1:42, someone goes past his stopped car, and someone overtaking that vehicle ends up right at the far right hand side of the road. It looks like fresh tarmac with no markings there, but it also looks very much like the same standard as the three-lane parts either side of that clip, too, so I'm assuming there could have been oncoming traffic at any moment...
  7. Rats. The container wagon I want is the one that's not in your list - the Conflat ISO. These were converted Lowmacs, fitted with a frame to support a single 20ft ISO container when these were still a tiny minority of container traffic, that "surely won't catch on".
  8. Time to make some of this hidden storage ... hidden. This is "plonked" at the moment, looking for where it doesn't line up. Job one -- take the nice straight edge of the ply, deliberately lined up on the edge of the sheet because I wanted it nice and straight, and put a really subtle but significant curve in it, because even in a new-build house the wall isn't precisely dead straight.
  9. I have not voted for anything in this poll. I have intentionally chosen not to, as I don't believe I would genuinely buy any of the options listed. I don't have too many wagons, and I do like them -- but I already have a vast list of wagons I should buy but mostly don't. I can't afford most of them, and a lot of stuff sells out before it gets far enough up my list to be purchased. (Or what was planned as a rake turns out to be a single sample wagon).
  10. That's very much the kind of appearance I wanted -- albeit I have four parallel tracks here rather than two. I suspect it's not designed for any scale -- the creator got a file and just uniform scaled it to a given length. Do they make one four tracks wide? (I'm wondering if I should have got this one: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/122492762700 ... although I'd have to replace the laser cut two-part floor in that one to use it as an actual lift-out section).
  11. NPCCS vehicles have definitely been lacking in recent ranges, and parcels trains often feature a wide range of vehicles. Lots of the same type (even if it's a good model) looks wrong. My votes here are for: 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12. Unrelated manufacturer plea: Bachmann, pretty please, I want a Mk1 GUV in plain blue, that I don't have to repaint / strip off decals.
  12. The plan was always to dress up the lift-out section as a bridge. I wanted a truss for the visual spectacle of the train going through a bridge (rather than merely over a bridge). I bought these laser cut bridge sides as they are the same length as the planned lift-out section. However, now they have arrived, I'm a little concerned about how tall they are compared to trains. Even sat here level with the bottom of the lift-out board, the train is well below half the height of the truss. Even with clearance for catenary and assuming there will be a roof connecting the sides together, it still feels like the sides are significantly too tall. This span scales up to a 61m real-life distance -- not a massive span requiring such a tall truss, surely?
  13. Yes, but they are mounted on the underside of the body, not up inside the body like the APT-P.
  14. The APT-U retains motors inside the bodyshell in the power car, dropping the frontmost motor to accomodate a driving cab (hence the second axle of each power car being undriven). But it has non-articulated coaches. The APT-S moves the motors to be mounted on the underneath of the shell (still body mounted, but below the floor), keeps the coach articulation, and has a DVT at the other end of the rake. Marry the updated APT-S power car and DVT design to the updated APT-U coaches, and now you have the final specification, with body-mounted underfloor motors, a non-articulated coach rake and a DVT. In this process, the target speed has dropped from 155 to 140. And the tilt requirement has dropped from 9 degrees to 6, plus tilt is now optional so that batches built for routes that don't benefit from tilt won't have to sustain the maintenance cost for it when there is little to no in-service benefit. Six degree tilt max allows a different body profile with a wider roof, half-way between the APT and the Mk3. No articulation implies a return to 23m carriages, and those together allow a general styling update. You will indeed find this version in the Hornby catalogue. It's just listed under a different name. The Class 91 loco and Mk4 coaches
  15. I have this terrible pain in all the tilt packs down my left side...
  • Create New...