Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Rhydgaled

  1. I understand that Hornby only tooled two versions of their scale-length mark 3 coaches (excluding the new sliding-door ones): 3-window buffet (TRUB/TRFB) First Open / Standard Open (same bodyshell for both as per the real thing) Lima produced at least the following: TGS First Open / Standard Open SLE / SLEP (are these the same or different, and if the latter did Lima produce both?) Did Lima also produce multiple types of buffet? When looking on Ebay for Merlin coaches, I've found some 3-window buffets (TRUB/TRFB) which are captioned a
  2. Both are listed as feedback on the page I linked to earlier: The relevant sections of that article read as follows: The Hornby R965 controller: "is a feedback type that uses a thyristor (or SCR) as an electronic element switching a rectified but unfiltered source of dc, at line frequency." The HM2000 controller: "It is clear from observing the output waveforms below that it is a thyristor-feedback design, like the Hornby basic R965 or Gaugemaster feedback designs." and "It exhibits some of the heating characteristic of a PWM design. It has a modest degree of feedback"
  3. Are these cast wheels the same as those used on the RailRoad class 395, which also has brake disc detail? For some reason there are three different sets of class 395 wheels listed by Hornby as spares, two of which (this one and this one) look the same to me but have different prices (the third set is the motor-bogie wheels). If the class 395 wheels are better than the ones fitted on the mark 3s, would the 395 wheels be suitable for use on future mark 3 releases?
  4. Thanks, I had better not risk it with my old feedback controllers then. That will make making a decision easier since it's now a clear choice between Bachmann's 8750 in lined black or waiting for them to do a 64xx in some form of GWR green with a brass safety valve cover.
  5. When the 'guises' are settled, will images of each version replace the photos of the real thing on the 'shop' web pages? I'm interested in one model, the preserved 1638 in either the 'semi-fictitious' GWR green or entirely fictitious BR lined black (with early crest). I'd rather have the latter, but it would mean lining it myself (scary thought) and probably renumbering so I haven't decided yet. If I do go for black, I'd be after an unweathered model with a brass safety valve cover and given the use of the same real photo on several of the products offered it's not obvious which ones are in th
  6. Thanks for the reply; however I doubt my HM2000 is the same thing as your 'H&M Walkabout' controller and both the HM2000 and the Hornby R965 (which I think are the Hornby train set controllers I have - they certainly look like that) are listed as feedback controllers here. From reading the coreless motor threads I've found (which I struggle to understand if I'm honest), it seems that there's a few things that can kill a coreless motor, one being feedback controllers (depending on the width of the pulses said feedback controllers produce) and another being stalling the motor. It just sound
  7. Do these have coreless motors? I'm trying to decide between a 1366, 64xx or 8750 and this could be a deciding factor; I am non-DCC and I fear my controllers (HM2000 and Hornby's old train set one) would damage/destroy a coreless motor so would avoid those.
  8. If it was just the tension lock coupler itself and this was easily removable (which I assume NEM makes so) then I think I would agree with you. However if removing the tension lock leaves the coupler mount very visible anyone fitting a scale screw coupling will still have the front end appearance of their loco effected by the coupler mount unless that mount is also easily removable or the modeller hacks it off. I have read descriptions of other model recently which state that the NEM pocket pivots, so presumably is a separately fitted part. I've not seen whether the Model Rail 16xx NEM pockets
  9. Yup, certainly some rethinking needed... Apart perhaps from the 'not destroying any scenery' part (which might reduce the safe reaching distance to the 2ft you recomend) I think I can reach about 3ft. However in OO a radius 4 semi-circle requires a baseboard width of getting on for 4ft. Thus a continuous run requires either access from both sides or an access hole in the centre. My brain is stuck thinking inside a box which dictates the layout is against a wall, so access from both sides is a tricky one for me to design something interesting. Regarding the access hole, the obvious
  10. Would the operation of that be similar to the Dartmoor railway where, if I recall correctly, this ex-EMU driving vehicle (possibly from a 4-CEP?) had control only of the brakes? I think the driver was on the diesel shunter (which might be a class 08?) at the back to apply power. Presumably if an auto-fitted GWR loco is used with an autocoach the driver can apply power from the autocoach? Returning to the use of a non-auto pannier with an autocoach at Didcot, would such operation be feasible on a long heritage railway such as the Severn Valley or West Somerset (in which case i
  11. I have the Oakwood Press book "The Whitland & Cardigan Railway" by M.R.C. Price. The photos of the early days show 517 class 0-4-2 tank engines and 850 class saddle tanks, I'm pretty sure the 850s also appeared in pannier form and I think I've seen a picture of a 1901 class pannier at Cardigan. The Oakwood Press book states that the Cardigan branch had a 'yellow' colour weight restriction, which if true would rule out 57xx in GWR days. Presumably they might have appeared once BR reclassified them as 'yellow' locos but I've yet to see photo of one on the branch. A shame as a photo of an 875
  12. They look... glossy... I hope it's just a CGI render and the light shining off them is just to make them look like shiny new models and that they won't actually be like that. I've wanted a lined black pannier for some time (partly from seeing my brother's N gauge one and partly from seeing the real 9600 at Melton Mowbray on a railtour) but I'm not sure if I'm better off with the new one (which I think is 32-205A - running number 8771) or the older 32-201 (I think - running number is 8763) if I can find one on Ebay or the pre-owned sections of Hattons/Rails. Over in the 'Bachmann Availability t
  13. Thanks for the quick replies. No auto-fitted 1600s, that makes justifying a purchase of Model Rail's new 1638 rather difficult again. For years I've thought, if anyone ever makes a decent RTR 16xx I'll have 1638 (assuming I'm remembering correctly that is the preserved one) in lined black (I've fancied a lined-black pannier for some time). Then I find out they never carried lined black so I thought ok, I won't have a 16xx after all. Now however I have started building a small layout (not the dream layout that I'm still designing) that doesn't have space for a run-round fa
  14. Does the latest release (R3692 I believe) still have traction tyres? It's clear from various posts that the previous one (without sprung axle) had tyres but I cannot see the tyres on any photo or YouTube video I've been able to find of R3692 so have Hornby finally removed the tyres when they brought back the sprug axle?
  15. Elsewhere on RMweb, I've read that at least one of the preserved 4575s was not auto-fitted by BR but has had the equipment fitted in preservation. Are the sloping tanks the only difference between the 45xx and 4575 classes because, if so, I take it a heritage railway could auto-fit one of the three preserved 45xx locos if desired? That page does say that "When more powerful autofitted engines were required in BR days the equipment was fitted to some 4500 class small prairie 2-6-2 locomotives." which doesn't tie up with what has been said on RMweb (ie. that only 4575s were
  16. Have you tried asking them (address at the link @Wheatley posted)? If not, let me know if you'd like me to write to them. Perhaps I should also create a new topic over in the preservation sub-forum given that we aren't talking about 91111 anymore (which seems to have been de-designated).
  17. Have you managed to make any progress on this? This is a 'prototype question' really, but seeing as you may have already done some work on this I thought you might have the answers. Do you know how wide the doors, windows and 'deadlights' (which is what Ian Walmsley seems to call window pillars) are on the class 195? I found a drawing with vehicle lengths and bogie spacing online (PDF download) but after scaling accordingly in AutoCAD the windows seemed to be a few centimetres smaller and the deadlights larger than my hasty tape-measure measurements on the real thing (which were wi
  18. Thanks for the advice on whether to start a new topic and how to rename this one. I have now done the latter, I hope the new one is better. My thoughts exactly, much better to get a good design worked out in advance of buying stuff (although I do have a load of setrack and a few trains from past layouts, if I didn't N guage would be looking tempting right now). I wasn't aware that Hornby produced curved points with different radii, the only ones I have available to me in SCARM are R8074/R8075, which I believe are 2nd radius. If your 42xx struggles with a 3r
  19. Thank you all for the further replies. You have certainly given me a lot to think about and (quite correctly) highlighted some serious flaws. I have been playing around with SCARM some more, but some of the same mistakes keep cropping up again. This topic though was given the title 'minimum space reverse loops' and I notice I have strayed from that somewhat. I'm not sure if I should just walk away now, rename the topic (assuming I can) or start a new topic with a more open-ended title.
  20. Thank you for all the replies so far. You mean do something like my first block plan above but use three tracks (2nd, 3rd and 4th radius curves) in the reverse loops at both ends? That's a nice idea for increasing fiddle yard capacity even if it is not enough by itself. I think I may still be trying to get far too much into my model. My dream for many years has been to model Cardigan station and Whitland station, not as they were but in a 'what if' scenario in the late 1990s/early 2000s where the Cardigan branch is a heritage railway (although the Ca
  21. Challenge N.1 - Minimum Space Reverse Loops I'm not a huge fan of the traditional oval layout design. Assuming half of the oval is hidden behind the back-scene, a train running left-to-right will disappear from the right hand edge of the model but will reappear on the left hand edge still running from left-to-right. In most respects I would prefer an end-to-end layout with an off-stage fiddle yard or two (one being needed at each end if modelling a through station rather than a terminus). However, a continuous run would be useful for running-in locos and in the case of modelling a
  22. According to Rail UK forum 91131 is currently stored at Doncaster Royal Mail Terminal. I agree with your comments regarding the designation being forgotton or it being vandalised. I wasn't suggesting more than one charter rake of mark 4s. Just the one rake (with a few spare vehicles which would also allow different formations for different sorts of charter) for a total of up to 12 vehicles (plus DVT(s)) preserved for charter use. Does designation prevent a loco being exported and regeared for freight use?
  23. Sorry for digging this topic up again; I know it's old but a fair few class 91s have now been withdrawn by LNER so (assuming science eventually finds a way to tackle COVID-19 so we can all go to out for leisure purposes again) the topic of preservation is important. I believe the Railway Heritage Designation Advisory Board / the Science Museum trustees have now cancelled the designation of 91111 and instead designated 91110 (along with 91131 which was already designated). I would have liked to see all three designated but clearly we cannot keep everything. If one of the t
  24. Yes, Oxford originally announced that they would eventually do the three-phase (IC125) variant not just the mark 3a - I was looking forward to that until the mark 3a models started to appear with the rather less-pronounced roof ribs and the underframe which appears too square in some pictures instead of being narrower at the bottom.
  25. Looking at various pictures online, it appears that these sliding door mark 3s include many of the variations found on mark 3s in general: The guard's door on the TGS is presumably unmodified from slam-door days The roof detail is presumably unmodified from slam-door days The XC TCC has the roof vent detail more commonly associated with coaches that have single-phase ETS The ScotRail TGFB (R4907A) has a (presumably largely unmodified) slam-door (just missing the handle) although on the Hornby web store R4907 appears to have a TGS door If I'm right, this means th
  • 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.