Rhydgaled

The same is true of the Lima model the Hornby Railroad one originated from - certainly my Lima GWT train pack example just has white lights on the motorised power car (with significant light bleed through the body too, an issue I think Hornby fixed for the Railroad model). I guess Lima thought of it as a model for a 'roundy-roundy' layout and assumed it would only ever be run with the motorised power car leading. Up until now they haven't had a 'super detail' version of the mark 3 - only the Lima tooling and their own (which is a similar spec to the Lima one but with central door locking lights and no TGS) so they've just been shipping those at main-range prices to go with the 'super detail' power cars. Now that they have retooled the slam-door mark 3s however, hopefully they will reintroduce the Lima ones (and/or their earlier scale-length tooling) in the Railroad range at sensible prices. At £40.50 from Hattons or nearly £45 direct from Hornby? No thanks. Unless there is a really complex livery (such as the original DRS class 68 livery or the photograph on the side of Wales & West class 153s), I don't like to pay more than £1 per metre of (nominal length) the real thing for a non-motorised model with no electrics (such as headlights). A mark 3 is nominally a 23m vehicle so a Railroad model priced at £23 would suit me. I'm not interested in paying more for seperately fitted handrails etc. that I'm likely to break when handling the model and that, once broken, will look worse than the molded detail on the Lima mark 3s.

Has the BBMF one arrived? @adb968008has posted some pictures of the Midland Pullman HST over in the 2021 HST range topic one of which also shows the BBMF class 91. If anyone has seen the latest Hornby BBMF one, could they confirm whether it has the transfer finish or normal tampo printing?

The Gwili railway has (or had) some coaches in green with a red stripe down the side. I'm not sure but I think they are mark 1s. At least one of the coaches also had some writing on it and a red symbol (this can be seen here: https://www.visitcarmarthenshire.co.uk/view/31-gwili-railway/#image-3 - the first green coach in the formation). I can't find a clear picture now, but I seem to recall seeing one once which showed that the red symbol is in fact the logo of Felinfoel brewery (one of the Gwili's locomotives, which has now moved to the Severn Valley Railway, is or was owned by the brewery and has a plaque showing the brewery logo).

I don't know whether Hornby ever updated their earlier IC225 tooling to feature NEM pockets but, even if they did, I don't think they have produced any in Swallow livery for a long time other than the new tooling. Therefore, any old Swallow mark 4s from Hornby are probably the same as mine which appear to have large D tension locks as part of the bogie moulding. Replacing the couplings on the old coaches is therefore probably NOT an easy job, so for anyone with a new-tool 91 and old coaches putting the wide couplings on the loco is probably the way to go if you want an easy life. Please note that I have NOT tried this, I have neither a new 91 nor new mark 4s - mine are all the old tooling.

Given all the 'celebrity locos' that have appeared in real life (inc. the LNER farewell tour which even went as far as a full rake of matching coaches), and the fact that the purple Taw Valley does exist out on the 1:1 railway, I'd say this what-if is also semi-plausible. Apart from the fact LNER doesn't have any IC125s left (and none of them were sliding door fitted) it's the sort of thing that might have happened - in fact when I first saw the picture on the Hornby website I wondered whether an XC set had been treated for the Jubilee and Hornby had put it into model form.

I agree, it really spoils the look of that side of 91119. Could those engineering reasons be satisified by moving that particular extra grill somewhere which would be entirely within the black/dark area of the swallow livery? Given my previous comments regarding a retooled 91, it might be rude off me not to order one of those (and a display cabinet for it) so a delay to next year is good for me since I am having to be careful with spending at the moment (just spent most of my savings on an investment and need to wait for a return on that). One question though, I think the retooled 91110 was described as VTEC or LNER livery; are there any detail differences between that and it's original East Coast condition? I think I saw a photo online once of a 91 that suggested the hatches weren't plated over but concealed with some sort of polyfiller type stuff. Could be wrong though. Didn't the 91 that ran with mark 1s on the GBRF charity railtour last year need those cables?

Thanks; your paint work looks great but the green on those Fox transfers does indeed look a bit off in some of the pictures. My power car is now in plain BR blue with odd bits of stubborn black paint on the roof and blueish green contamination in the grills and groves. Not sure how fussy I should be removing those before I break open my spray can of grey primer - and then I need to find someone who can mix spray cans for the Pheonix paints (I have the three tinlets - not sure how to match the shade of grey on the Lima coach rooves though).

Well, there is an e-mail address on the Hornby site, but is the generic Customer Service address the best place for comments to draw attention to apparent errors on yet-to-be-released models?

If their listening to feedback now, where do I point out that the renders for most of the mark 3 buffets advertised on the Hornby website seem to lack the central roof vents? Possibly Correct (central vents present) R40035 (FGW TRFB) R4989 (NR NMT) Wrong (no central vents) R40044 (BR TRFB (LNER Farewell Tour)) R4932A (LNER) R4932B (LNER) R40173 (Blue Pullman TRBF) R40174 (Blue Pullman TRBF)

I know you said you'd mix the dark blue, but I happen to recall that the dark blue is called 'Ocean Blue' from another RM Web topic. From that topic, the RAL id (for the dark 'Ocean Blue') is 5020.

An update on this; despite me saying "I'm in no rush" above, my post appears to have prompted a reply since on 4th March a flurry of forum messages went back and forth between me and Railtec and by the end of the day the product I'd been looking for (BR (W) renumbering and shed code pack) had been released. All items had previously been available as part of complete loco packs like this but that contains transfers I won't need for my renumber. It took me a few days to place the order but, once I'd done so, I didn't have long to wait before I received the e-mail requesting my desired loco number etc. and the transfers had been dispatched within 24 hours of me replying to that. Very impressive given the 'please allow 14 days' message on the website. I've not tried to apply the transfers yet (told you I wasn't in a rush for them) but they look very good as far as I can tell with them still on their backing paper.

Sorry to bother everyone again, but having now read said instructions (naughty me playing trains before reading the instructions) I am a little confused - it does say "some older controllers" put out a high voltage but prior to that it says "If you are new to the hobby" and "have a DC-powered train set, please contact us before operating" (bold added by me in both cases). I'm not new to the hobby, but my controllers are all Hornby ones - mostly from DC-powered train sets (the exception being my HM2000). Should I contact somebody and if so should that be Model Rail or Rapido? Hopefully since I've only used one of my controllers with my 16xx so far, and mostly only at low speed, I've not done any damage to it (yet).

Thanks; do the shunt signals need the same colour lever (red if I recall correctly) in the 'box as the full-size signals? Ah, I think that means even as an isolated layout what I have is wrong - I cannot put a trap point in because my 'headshunt' (I'm not even sure if I have the correct meaning of that term) extends onto the point that leads into the passenger platform - just look where the Terrier is on the photos above and that's probably my shortest loco. Perhaps squeesing a 3-3-5 inglenook and a passenger platform into 2ft by 4ft in OO was too much compression... If you want to run two trains into the station, one passenger and one goods, you need a signal at the platform to hold the passenger train safely while the goods train arrives and is put out of the way in either the loop or the sidings. I wasn't suggesting you were wrong or that I don't want one there, I just wonder whether it would physically fit without making the overall scene look very wrong. I guess it might have to go ON the platform, like W7 at Whitland but much closer to the end of the platform (pic here (not mine)). Sure; I think it's the only place where the singaller might be able to see all the points - but taking the signal box off the station board might leave it looking a bit empty. I think it may have been one of the Welsh narrow gauge lines, quite possibly even Devil's Bridge, that gave me the idea of using a tight cutting in a scenic break. If it was Devil's Bridge that inspired me though, I had forgotten about that footbridge - I was deliberately trying to be a bit different by having the train pass through my scenic break without a bridge or tunnel. Oh dear, I seem to have openned a can of worms here... My knowledge of Signalling Regulations is quite close to zero - I know you mustn't drive past a home (red-arm) signal at danger and that horrizontal is danger, but I don't know how the little disc shut signals are used - I'm guessing the red line being horrizontal means danger too, but it what ways are they treated differently from the full-size signals? Which of course leaves the wagons unattended with no brake van while the loco is propelling the brake around the train, which feels wrong to me (wagons at risk of running away unless somebody applies the handbrake on them). Obviously wagons are left without a brake once in the sidings, but I don't know what makes that 'allowed' but running a train without a brake van 'not allowed' (the trap point I don't have room for would help with the ones in the sidings, but not with the loop). I certainly cannot recall seeing any signals at Fishguard Harbour (electric token) - not even to protect the level crossing. Why would signals be required with the older 'One Engine In Steam' token system (maybe I should have put this in the signalling sub-forum - or layout topics). Another black mark for me then - the DMU in the pics is permanently shut in the platform line at the moment, because there's nowhere for it to go except crashing to the floor. I think you can shut a freight in the loop at Trecwn on the Fishguard line though, is there any reason you couldn't lock in a passenger train?

Thanks for all the replies so far. Sounds like it may be worth ballasting the layout after all. Interesting; when I was designing the yard originally I tried to think of somewhere that would have a constrained site but thought of North Wales, not South; specifically Blaenau Ffestiniog - lots of high mountains in Snowdonia which I felt could create a tight spot. While I'm not trying to recreate any specific location with this layout, I'm taking inspiration from the Ffestiniog - Trawsfynydd - Bala route. I wonder whether I could fit a starter signal there... Originally I was going to have one in the cutting, at the limit-of-shunt, but decided the signal post might make my cliff look too short (and, since it is a Setrack curve, most of my passenger stock would probably be out-of-gauge if I put anything tall there). Ffestiniog - Trawsfynydd - Bala was a GWR route I believe and my heritage fleet has a definite GWR/BR(W) lean to it (though there's all sorts really) so that suits me. What are the dots on sticks? I'm assuming the flags are full passenger signals, are the dots on sticks ground signals? A side question I was going to ask is how many levers I need to paint in each colour for the signal box, so this should be helpful (although you are missing the long siding of the Inglenook and it doesn't have the dedicated headshut you have drawn). Good idea; if I can find space to have a nice long run between the two stations, I may well do that and I'd be much happier about it that way than having a random loop so close to the terminus but not actually part of it. At this stage there's no space for anything beyond the station/yard baseboard, so I'm not too bothered about the specifics of the extension other than whether there is the potential to add one and have the end result be plausable. The main question is whether it's worth putting much more scenic development into the bit I have, which depends on whether it could form a useful part of any future larger layout. Never thought of it that way. I guess any remaining doubt about the plausability of it comes down to the fact my scenic break seperates the loop from the rest of the station. I fear my rather random collection of rolling stock can only be explained in one way, that it is a modern image heritage railway, although I could of course just not run the modern stuff. The colour scheme of the railway buildings (chocolate and cream) makes it BR Western Region I believe. You only need one brake van, but shouldn't it always be at the opposite end to the loco? Thus, when propelling from the run-round to the shunting yard the van needs to be leading, so it'd need to be run round as well leaving the wagons with no loco or brake van attached. Obviously there are suituations where wagons are allowed to be left without a loco or brake van coupled to them, but I'm not sure what those are. Edit: thought it might be clearer if I show the current state of the layout (ignore the blue diesel bodyshells in the car park, they are just being stored here while I try and overhaul their motors (unsucessfully so far)). The third photo confirms the lengths of the sidings for the Inglenook as 2x 3-wagon and 1x 5-wagon - when on the 'headshut' the loco and 3 wagons do block the platform road unfortunately but there is room for quite a large loco to be used for shunting. The Hymek in the background for example, if only it wasn't a non-runner.

I starting building a modified Inglenook sidings layout some time ago and in the past year it has finally come close to looking complete in some respects. However I did not ballast it as I started to think that if I was to keep it long-term I would want to extend it and the idea I had for the extension didn't seem realistic to me. So I thought I would ask if the resulting layout seems sensible. Here is the track plan: the yellow border bottom-right is the 4ft x 2ft existing layout which is all OO set-track except for a small length of flexible track leading into the two double straights that form the platform road. Above that is the Inglenook itself. The idea is that all passenger trains would be DMUs or auto-coaches, so the lack of a run-round facility is not a problem there. However, due to lack of space on the existing board my extension idea has a run-round loop for freight trains just beyond the cutting through the hill that forms the scenic break on the existing layout. This seems implausible to me, to have a run-round so close to the station yard but not within it and out of sight of the signal box. Operationally I would propose that freight trains arrive from A to B with the loco hauling and a brake van on both ends. The loco would then run-round, remove the brake van from the A end and shunt it into the siding at C before attaching at the A end and pushing the train (now with just one brake van, which would be the leading vehicle) into the shunting sidings. On the way back, the loco would haul the wagons from B to A and retrieve the brake van from C before continuing towards the fiddle yard (which also doesn't exist at present).

I hope to build a fictitious diesel locomotive (and possibly two more of a similar design if I can find a way to scratch-build the bodyshells - a challenge given my current zero skill). I have an early Hornby class 91 and the way the bogies clip into the chassis looks quite straightforward so I thought if I obtain some spare class 91 bogies for my new loco(s) it shouldn't be too difficult for someone (most likely my engineering-skilled brother) to build a custom chassis to accept them. However, I understand there are three (soon to be four) different versions of the 91 so I'm not sure what the best combination of components would be. Two service sheets are available for the three current versions of the 91, HSS 208B and HSS 285C. Both service sheets show what appears to be a set of all-wheel wiper pickups for the unpowered bogie, but my model does not appear to have one of these and on the service sheet for the 3-pole motored version this part is not labelled with a part number. On the 5-pole version it is labelled as X8786 Collector Assembly. Am I correct in believing that purchasing one of these would upgrade the non-powered bogie X8513 from 2-wheel to 4-wheel pickup? And is X8513 identical between all existing versions of the class 91? I understand there is also a version of the 91 with the new Railroad motor bogie (as found in the Railroad IC125), but I cannot find a service sheet for that. I'm not sure what the best motor to go for would be, the Railroad one, the 5-pole Ringfield or something else entirely. I note that the non-powered bogie wheelsets don't have traction tyres, but do have a gear on the axle which suggests that if I buy two non-powered bogies it would be possible to use that gear to drive the wheel from a chassis-mounted (rather than bogie-mounted) motor but I'd be completely reliant on others to sort out the gearing in that case. X7691 is apparently the motor and flywheelS from the new super-detail 91 (service sheet HSS 455 here), would that be a good option?

Yes, the shed code and smokebox number should have white text - do the etched ones not have white text? The printed smokebox number on mine looks very authentic but since I am planning to renumber it at some point (I'm not in a huge rush to do so) I would need to use the supplied etched smokebox plates (or 3D transfers in Railtec's case).

Does that price really include the smokebox numbers as your website appears to suggest? I ask because Fox's price for the shed code plates (£2.30) is similar to yours (£2.20) while the price difference for the numbers is quite large in comparison (Fox is £9.30). For those who (like me) are after shed code and number plates (including smokebox numbers) I think Railtec would be the cheapest option if they offered an equivalent product but they don't at present - I've sent them a PM asking if they are likely to introduce one in the near future.

Though it would appear that Railtec is swamped and unable to deal with correspondence (or fix the contact form) because they are too busy fulfilling orders for paying customers (which is fair enough – better that way round than taking people’s money but not delivering the goods). The message I sent to Railtec via the forum on Feb 15th is still captioned ‘Not read yet’ by the forum software. I’m in no rush for a reply so don’t mind this.

I understand that custom artwork to be printed on transfers should be in vector format, but surely that doesn't apply to pictorial liveries? The photograph of a steam locomotive on sheet 4mm-47826-1 looks like it would be essentially impossible to create as a vector image so how should artwork of this nature be prepared before approaching Railtec (or a rival transfer supplier)?

Sounds a bit like the guest house claiming a sea view - but only if you stood on a chair and used binoculars! John Isherwood. My perspective wasn't much different to this (pic isn't mine) - surely kneeling on the floor gives a more-prototypical view of the model

Doesn't look too bad from those angles, but when I ran mine while kneeling on the floor (so I was looking up at the model) I could see a bit of red glow below the tanks just in front of the cab - it looked like the fire had melted a hole in the bottom of the loco! Are they all like that or has mine been sub-optimally put together? I won't be sending it back as it ran wonderfully - going smoothly through a shutting exercise when everything else stalls at least once. It does make a slightly unhealthy noise at higher speeds but I'm guessing that would iron itself out if I was able to run it in properly - my brother asked me to see how fast it could go but I can only turn the knob so fast and my shunting plank is quite short so by the time I'd reached full speed and started slowing down again the rear tension lock had put a slight scratch on the Peco buffer stop at the end of the siding. No damage to the loco fortunately.

For years I've been planning to make up new boxes for my unboxed rolling stock using the white stuff that is like little balls all stuck together (I think it's called expanded polystyrene) that Hornby used to use for train sets and loco packaging. Because I will be using random bits of this polystyrene from incoming packaging etc. I intended to line the inside of the box with cotton sheeting (I think I read somewhere it should be undyed cotton to avoid damaging models) as a barrier to avoid reactions between the polystyrene and the paint. I've finally obtained a hot wire cutter to cut the polystyrene but as well as a bit of white cotton I've been offered some silk and some muslin fabric. Does anyone know if silk and viscose (which, according to Google, can be a component of muslin) are safe to use in contact with models for a prolonged period?

According to that link, that colour is available in Satin (Dull) and Gloss finish and is used for "signal arms, vehicles, brakedown trains and Warning Panels from introduction until 1985." For post 1985, there is this shade which is available in Satin (Dull) finish only. I've not tried either shade myself so cannot vouch for the finish. Railmatch also do the post 1985 colour in acrylic (and possibly the earlier colour too, I'm not sure), but I cannot vouch for the finish on any of these either.

If you haven't already weathered them, could you make sure to grab some pics before you do please? Mine will not be weathered, although if my GWT respray goes well I am toying with the idea of doing a fictional version of Swallow livery with a 91-style white front end which if I go through with it will need some light weathering on the white bits.