Jump to content
 

Rhydgaled

Members
  • Posts

    357
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Rhydgaled

  1. 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 solution is to make it a room-sized access hole and have a shop-counter style lifting section across the doorway. I can't see a way to make a reverse loop that fits in a reasonable space AND allows me to reach any derailments so sadly I have been forced to omit them from the latest iteration of my plan. Following the advice above I have used only Streamline points - minimum radius should be Peco/Hornby 3rd radius (unless I have accidently gone tighter with the flexi). Here's what the lower level looks like: As you can see, I have now had a proper go at Whitland station and following DavidCBroad's advice to turn the dead end into a loop I brought in elements of an earlier track plan (although I'm not sure where the turntable was in reality). The east end of Whitland station (confusingly at the left side of the layout diagram) has a footbridge which I thought could be used as a scenic break, hence me excluding the east-end platform ramps on the drawing. I think this is a big improvement in terms of access on the previous design but I'm not sure what to do about the left hand short-edge which is very inaccessible due to being under Cardigan: Whitland station itself is also quite wide, which could lead to issues if there are derailments in the bay platform (against the wall) but again I can't see a solution. Also evident is that there is no space for a fiddle yard for the main line. Trying to think of novel ways to get one in (the front-runner being a vertical traverser giving access to a low-level fiddle yard) made me realise I don't know how I'd operate the thing anyway. With Wales & West's wide selection of liveries (rebranded Regional Railways, Heart Of Wales orange, Devon & Cornwall black etc.) I thought* I would try to run a realistic timetable (so if a unit heads off to Cardiff it doesn't come straight back on the next train). But how would I keep track of which one is due back next without getting very bored keeping track rather than running trains. Maybe a layout this big just isn't cut out for single-person operation - more of a club thing to take to exhibitions perhaps? I would like to upload the SCARM file to share with anyone who would like to build something along these lines, but the forum doesn't appear to allow that. So, Challenge/Question N.2 - is a large secondary mainline layout practical for one-person operation? Perhaps more importantly, there's no room for a workbench for building scenery and no room for my other layout (the 2ft by 4ft one that I started building** because I had no space to build Whitland and Cardigan). Maybe I should just build some extensions to the small layout to make it more than just a shunting plank and forget Whitland, but how do I let go of a dream I've had for so long? And I still want to build something I can run my longer trains on (eg. IC125s). Finally, I note that the branch apparently rejoining the main line raised some concern previously. The reason I have done this is that the branch that diverges at Whitland is NOT the Cardigan branch. It is the Pembroke Dock branch that you see diverging 'on-stage', the Cardigan branch in reality diverged a little further on, well out of site of the station. I considered a seperate set of hidden sidings to represent the Pembroke Dock branch, but since Pembroke Dock is the primary destination for HSTs (which if they end up being 2+8 would probably be the longest trains on the layout and thus probably want to have a dedicated road in the fiddle yard that they always 'go home to') I decided against that. * if I ever find the units at a reasonable price on ebay or elsewhere. ** it's still unfinished
  2. 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 is there much benefit of using auto-fitted locos)?
  3. 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 8750 on the CardiBach would give me a perfect excuse to buy myself a Bachmann one. More relevant to this topic though is that the Oakwood Press book states that Dean Goods locos did run on the CardiBach. Tender engines were never common, it says, but the monthly cattle train to Crymych was apparently often hauled by a Dean Goods. No pictures that I'm aware of though, and I'm not sure if they ever got north of Crymych. Thus, if you model south of Crymych (or Crymych itself) you can include a Dean Goods without invoking 'I built it so I'll run what I like'.
  4. 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 to March 2021' topic it was stated that this latest batch might have coreless motors and I have a vague recollection of reading once that coreless motors have a problem with old controllers. My main controller is a HM2000 and if I ever get a big enough layout to need more than 2 feeds I have one or two of the old Hornby train set controllers (possibly R965, they look much like this anyway) and something even older I inherited (I'm not sure if it still works, haven't needed to find out). Would the new model render all my controllers obsolete and force me to buy a replacement? Also, I've yet to pluck up the courage to renumber anything, but it's something I would like to do in future. It appears from the glossy video that the number plates are printed flat (so are not raised detail) so it should be possible to cover them up with etched plates without too much difficultly. Is that correct? If I do renumber, the target loco would I think be 9600 unless anyone knows of any that ever ran on the CardiBach (it's plausible since there were given the necessary yellow weight restriction in BR days).
  5. 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 facility so autotrains would be useful and I thought that, had any of the 1600s been auto-fitted, could be an excuse to have 1638 in GWR green. I imagine fitting Flying Scotsman would require bespoke linkages to be designed and built for it, which would be more expenive and complex (and thus a much-less realistic 'what if') than taking a set of auto-gear parts identical to that used on a 4575 and installing them using a identical procedure. I apply the "it's my railway/money so I'll run/collect what I like" rule but the "what I like" is in part defined by whether I can think up a plausable (to me) story for why said items are running. Sounds like a 45xx is similar enough to a 4575 that (if I ever manage to obtain one) I'll be happy with my 45xx pushing an autocoach so thanks for answering my query. In that regard, given my general very limited knowlege of steam loco types and that the 1600s were successors to the earlier auto-fitted 2021 class, I think I can forgive myself for thinking that 1600s may have been auto-fitted. I suppose the auto-fitted 6400s were also successors to 2021s. Anyway, I stand corrected now; no auto-fitted 1600s. That leaves me still looking for an auto-fitted 0-6-0; I suppose I could use a 6400 but unless I find one was used on the CardBach (as 1600s were) there isn't a second point of interest in the class. The only other preserved types I can think of that I haven't already discounted (or confirmed as not having been auto-fitted) are the outside-cylinder 1366 class panniers and 1361 saddle tanks. Given that what I've read about these types suggests they were designed as shunting engines I very much doubt they were auto-fitted, but I cannot find anything that states outright that they weren't. I also found this history of 1369 which twice mentions auto-coaches. Of course they probably just ran round the coach at each end of the journey but it did give me a very faint hope that 1369 has been auto-fitted at some point. Can anyone confirm that 1366/1361 weren't auto-fitted as I assume?
  6. 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?
  7. 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 fitted, not 4500/45xx with non-sloping tanks). Also, it doesn't say whether any members of the 1600 class were auto-fitted. It does say that 1600s replaced 850 and 2021 classes - given that many 2021s were auto-fitted according to that document, it would seem sensible to have fitted the 1600s. But were any of them auto-fitted?
  8. 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).
  9. 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 windows 129cm or 130cm x 76.5cm for the windows and roughly 48cm for the deadlights).
  10. 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 3rd-4th radius curved turnout then I should certainly avoid R8074/R8075 (I have lots of stock which Hornby advise should not be used on 1st radius curves). Anyway, back to the layout planning. M. R. C. Price's Oakwood Press book on the railway (I think my copy is of the second edition) contains this map of Cardigan: I love the way that looks with the curve and the way hardly any of the lines are running parallel to the edges of the map. I've been trying to get a similar feel but at the same time compress the throat, without much success. One change I've made is that I have put the cattle dock siding coming off the line to the goods shed rather than the engine shed road. Another map that I've seen has it that way and the photos showing that area seem to agree. I'm not entirely sure from the map above which points are curved ones and whether there are any 'Y' points involved. I also added loco-release points for the goods shed road. Track is flexi, setrack straights and streamline points except for four ST‑238 (Y-point curve, 859.6mm radius I believe). To give some sense of scale, the blue box is 610mm tall.
  11. 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.
  12. 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 Cardigan track layout I was trying to reproduce indentically). To make Whitland interesting would require a far larger space than I'm ever likely to have so I am starting to accept that it'll need to be significantly different from the real thing. The space doesn't currently exist, but an area of garden has recently become available and the family are talking about building a large insulated shed (which would be about 7m by 4m). There are a number of options proposed for the use of the shed, one of which (a pool table) could perhaps coexist with a model railway. Something around three walls of the shed is what I'm looking at doing, with 'Whitland' along one long wall, a compressed 'Cardigan' on one short wall and a fiddle yard along the other short wall. I've not yet worked out whether I can compress Cardigan and Whitland enough to fit without losing the ability to run trains of the lengths I had hoped for. Something like a HST I probably wouldn't send round the reverse loop anyway; I'd stop it, reverse the direction on the controller and have it come back with first class still where it should be. Steam charters would be more of a problem, as there are no turnables or triangles west of Whitland yet the loco would be turned by the reverse loop. I just threw that together quickly to illustrate the basic arangement and was going to put a straight in to break up the reverse curve. I have now made this change on the plan below (see end of post) and incorporated your flexi track idea for one of the two tracks (if I actually build this I might use flexi track for both as you have done depending on how many setrack curves I have to use up). What stock in particular has trouble with 2nd radius curves as I fear I have quite a few in my box of track? I like that idea, if it were just me I'd probably go for a fiddle yard at each end (like my first block plan above but without the reverse loops) and the idea of making the fiddle yard into a massive turntable appeals as it would avoid needing a loco run-round facility off-stage. However I have a brother who is telling me I need a continuous run, and for runnning in my old locos after years of storage he's probably right. Good question; I'm not really sure what I want from a layout since it's so long since I've had one. I think I enjoyed the end-to-end layout I had before we moved house (mainly running passenger trains between two stations and stopping them gently in the platforms) more than the short-lived oval we had in the spare room here before it became my brother's bedroom. I've also helped run the 3mm scale Cardigan layout at the CardiBach Society's exhibition and was quite interested in trying to simulate operation of the working time table. I've also made up timetables based the real railways of Pembrokeshire that I'd like to try and operate on my model of 'Whitland'. Perhaps this is most like your third option, in which case the long run behind the scenes might not be great. Here's a plan of the whole shed concept. The track plan for 'Whitland' is just off the top of my head and I've not put 'Cardigan' in yet expect as just a single track. The red track is a gradient to get the branch above the main line. Still needs alot of work.
  13. 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 through station could possibly save space by allowing both ends to share the same fiddle yard. It would of course be possible to operate a traditional oval (with an off-stage fiddle yard on one side) as an end-to-end layout but if a train is left running around the loop it will still always be running left-to-right (or vice-versa). I've therefore been toying with the idea of having a reverse loop at each end of a double track scenic section as shown in the basic block-plan below. This way, a train can be set running and left alone, and when it moves off-stage at the right hand edge it will reappear from the right hand edge. Of course, this block-plan wastes space by having separate fiddle yards for each end. Also, a reverse loop takes up more space than the simple semi-circle at the end of a traditional oval. If my trains were N gauge I might not worry about that, but since my fleet is in 00 gauge I need to save space. I therefore thought about having the line loop back behind the scenic section from one end to access the fiddle yard at the other end, which would lead into the reverse loops. This is shown on the second basic block-plan, but the two reverse loops would still take still take up a lot of space (these block plans are not to scale). Is there a way I can combine the two reverse loops into the space of one of them (eg. by having one with radius 2 curves inside the other using radius 3) and still be able to leave a train running continuously (ie. without having to switch points for the train on each lap)? I've thought about having them on different levels (one above the other) but that would make accessing the stock in the lower fiddle yard rather difficult. After way too many hours in SCARM and Hornby Virtual Railway I have come up with a solution (pictured below) involving three crossovers (Peco ST-250 or Hornby R614/R615) but have I actually saved any space and is there a better way?
  14. 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?
  15. 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 three has to be scrapped, saving 91010 (UK loco speed record holder) and 91031 would I feel be the right decision. As noted in the quote above, designation does not mean that the NRM automatically gets the item - if I understand correctly a safe home will be sought for items on the list if their owner has no further use for them. I would hope that this is happening now for 91031 which I understand is one of those LNER have already withdrawn, and it means something along the lines of G-BOAF's post below is possible: If it were up to me, I would put 91110 (retaining Battle Of Britain Memorial Flight livery) in the NRM as part of a line up with Mallard and 43102 (in Swallow livery) as a speed records exhibit (with 43159 preserved elsewhere). Unfortunately I don't think 43102 and 43159 are on the designation list. Going back to 91s, with 91110 in the NRM that leaves 91031 for restoration to Swallow livery (tidy up the grills so the livery works while they are at it) for use on charters, probably with the AC loco group. I'd also hope that somebody will set up a '225 group' to preserve 1-2 mark 4 DVTs and 11-12 mark 4s (one full rake plus a spare buffet and SO and maybe a spare SOE). Put new high-spec first class interiors in the buffets, the spare SOE (if you have one) and the first class coaches and you have several formation options for different charter markets: Loco + SOE + SO + SO + SO + SO + SO + SO + RFB + PO + PO + DVT for special event extra capacity (assuming TOCs are permitted to use non-PRM livery on a limited number of days each year) Loco + SOE + SO + SO + SO + SO + SO + SO + RFB + PO + FOE + Loco for special events where you need to top & tail diesel locos because that aren't DVT compatible Loco + FOE + PO + RFB + PO + PO + RFB + SO + SO + SO + DVT for Pullman dining trips (a bit like Northern Belle) (FOE = First Open End, SOE = Standard Open End, SO = Standard Open, PO = Pullman Open, RFB = Restaurant First Buffet, DVT = Driving Van Trailer). As well as preserved 91 number 91031, the mark 4s could be available for use with the class 89, preserved class 90s etc. If there was such a group, I would almost certainly sign up as a member.
  16. 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.
  17. 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 the only missing variations needed to do the slam-door FO/TSO/TF/TS coaches (including mark 3a/b single-phase ETS coaches) are the toilet windows, buffers for the mark 3a/b coaches and a handle for the doors. That would leave the buffets, which of course would need window and roof differences, and SLE/SLEP coaches. Would be nice to see matching tooling for all mark 3s with no odd ex-Lima vehicles in a Hornby formation or Hornby vehicles in a Lima rake. I know nothing about tooling, but the extra CAD work required to do the slam-door coaches appears to be quite limited, given that the doors themselves (minus handle) seem to be CADed up already. There are probably a load more variations I'm not aware of though.
  18. In what ways are the existing Hornby mark 4 coaches inaccurate? I can see that the end skirts being fixed to the bogie instead of the body is an issue, as is the lack of the SOE ('Standard Open End') vehicle but what else is wrong with them? Do any of the releases have NEM pockets or do you have to hack the bogies apart if you want to get rid of the tension locks? In terms of level of detail is the spec that much different to the Lima mark 3? If I was in the market for LNER mark 4s I think I would also be happy with a run of the existing model*, as long as the price is right, with the exception of the DVT. Those printed/sticker head/tail lights just look REALLY naff. As it happens the only 91 I'd potentially be in the market for at the moment is 91110 in Battle Of Britain Memorial Flight Livery, but neither Hornby nor Cavalex announced it. I was tempted last time Hornby offered it, but it still had the naff printed/sticker head/tail lights. The other thing that really lets down the old model (at least mine, which is the train set version) is the fixed-down plastic pantograph, I think I'd like one which can be manually set at any height and will stay there until moved into a new position by the 'hand of god'. I've zero DCC experience, so don't know what is involved, but would it be possible to produce a basic DCC-ready model with extras sold seperately? Such extras could include a servo-controlled pantograph and a choice of 8-pin and 21-pin decoders so that modellers can upgrade the basic model to whichever standard they prefer / can afford. * with modified bogies to allow couplings to be replaced if they do not already allow this The IC225 rakes on the East Coast Main Line are currently formed of nine coaches I believe. The formation I think is 91 + SOE + 4x SO + SV + 3x PO + DVT. The TfW set that was on test today I think was 67 + SOE + SO + SV + PO + DVT, so the restaurant car (SV) will live on. I don't know why the first class coaches are called 'Pullman Opens' (PO) but that seems to be what BR decided they would be called.
  19. I agree. I'm not going to replace my Hornby IC225 as it has sentimental value, being my first train set. But I'd probably buy a OO model of 91110 in its Battle Of Britain livery if it was produced to a reasonable standard and not excessively expensive.
  20. Ah ok, thanks for confirming. I suppose photographs of 16xx locos on passenger/mixed trains don't necessarily mean they were booked for such work, but there certainly are pictures of 16xx with passenger stock in tow on the Cardigan branch. Thanks; interestingly it doesn't list any 45xx as having carried lined black either, even though Bachmann have done one of those in lined black.
  21. Having seen larger Panniers (eg. 9600) in BR lined black livery I had assumed that livery would also have been carried by the 16xx locos at some point. Did the 16xx (n)ever have lining?
  22. I've (finally) been editing the footage I've collected of Intercity 125 trains west of Swansea (and the odd shot of the modern 'Pembroke Coast Express' further east) over the past few summers. Since the IC125s will no longer operate to Pembroke Dock, I would like to put one of those date ranges you see on memorial nameplates (eg. Driver Stan Martin 1950-2004) up on screen to mark the end of IC125s on the Pembroke Coast Express. Unfortunately, I don't know when InterCity 125s took over the service from whatever came before (I assume class 47s, but that's just a guess). So, does anyone know when that happened? I hope that the 'Pembroke Coast Express' name will live on with the new trains although, with the 9-car ones unable to fit in Carmarthen station it will unfortunately be a 'sardine midget' 5-car set. However if the name is dropped then I might do another video with a wider date range; I have plenty of footage of the IC125s, alot more than will appear in the video I'm working on at the moment, so that won't be a problem. However I don't know when the 'Pembroke Coast Express' name was first used either, other than it dates from the steam age. Hope somebody can help.
  23. I understand why they would do mrk3a first, but I read somewhere (fairly sure it was the advertising matterial Hattons distributed with my most recent order from them) that Oxford would be moving on to produce IC125 coaches later in 2017. But we have now had the range anouncement and there is no such model, so I am left wondering whether Oxford have decided to drop the IC125 variants. Ah, thanks for the clarification; so the letter before 'a' is '<null>'. I was thinking 'Mark 3' was the generic term for any variant, with each variant having a letter code. Similarly with mark 2s, when the first variant came along after the originals I would have assumed they would be mrk2b with the original batch being mrk2a, but now I guess it goes mrk2<null>, mrk2a, mrk2b, etc. So, the coaches with 3-phase ETS and no buffers are Mrk3<null>, regardless of whether they have the 'different window frames' that MJI informs me the prototypes had (thanks for pointing out that difference, by the way). I'm confused again (doesn't take much), were the prototypes 3-phase ETS or single phase? Wikipedia says the class 41s had 3-phase ETS supply at the time, but that the preserved one has single-phase now (so I assume the three coaches the 125 group have now are mrk3a and not the actual prototype coaches). But if the prototypes were 3-phase, they couldn't have been ordered as LHCS first. I'm not familiar with the vehicle numbering on longer MUs, such as Pendolinos, but with sprinters the last three digits of each vehicle match the unit number, so would I be correct in assuming class 253 set 253001 would have had all coaches numbered xx001? The power car numbering suggests not (as does Wikipedia's article on the prototype set), but if that's the case what makes them MU-style numbers and not just numbers as the LHCS would have?
  24. 41 loco hauled (WCML) Mk3's built in the mid eighties (38 FO, 3 BFO). Partly to replace the Manchester Pullman Mk2 coaches. If the first batch of LHCS Mrk3s are Mrk3a, and the second batch Mrk3b, does that make the prototypes Mrk3c and the bufferless IC125 ones Mrk3d? (and I thought Oxford were planning to do the latter as well as the Mrk3a models, have they dropped the idea to minimise tooling costs?) The first batch of LHCS being mrk3a doesn't make sense to me as surely at least the prototypes (which I think I read somewhere had buffers and conventional ETS) came before that (unless the prototypes are mrk3a as well, but still surely the IC125 came before the Mrk3b at least).
  25. Ah, I took 'plates' to be short for 'nameplates', so appologies to 159220 if it was the GWR logo that was refered to. I am well aware that the GWR logo on the power cars is raised metal (but never thought of this as plates). Etched letters for the GWR logo would certainly seem like a good idea, they do need to be 3D (and not just printed letters) to accurately model it.
×
×
  • Create New...