Jump to content

Zero Gravitas

RMweb Gold
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Zero Gravitas

  1. Agreed. Notwithstanding all of the problems with the running gear; whilst the body detail is good, it's a scale foot too wide and looks vaguely ridiculous next to other coaching stock. My plan with mine is to put it on a 5Seven9 (or is it Five7Nine - it's still early) 6-wheel underframe when it becomes available separately, and run it as the brake van on a train of milk tankers to try and hide the extra width.
  2. Apologies for the hijack - but exactly which Tourett volume is this, please? I’m suddenly slightly concerned there’s a wagon book I don’t know about :-)
  3. Well you live and learn - thank you. I’ve just been back to Tatlow to educate myself, and then I’ll go to my room and think about what I’ve done. However, I still wonder if there is a reason why opening to the left was much less common than opening to the right. And I’ll add to my post above to explain my error.
  4. There's probably good news and bad news here... The good news is that I think the weathering and the transfers are absolutely fine - I've seen vans on exhibition layouts lettered and weathered to a significantly lower standard than this. And it's good to see vac pipes and steam pipes on fish vans! My own approach to getting the numbering level is to use a bit of low-tack masking tape to create a straight, level edge and use this as the datum for positioning the lettering. However - the bad news is that I've never seen an LNER van (or any UK van for that matter) where the door slid open to the left - every other example I've seen has opened to the right. In addition, I would expect these vans to have LNER pattern 8-shoe brake gear, with the off-set v-hangers; and they appear to have something more akin to LMS brake gear arrangements. Edited to add - 57xx has corrected me below, so I’ve struck out the erroneous part of this post. These are NER wagons and should have left sliding doors. Apologies for any confusion. So in fact, there’s just good news :-)
  5. Sorry. I was frivolously thinking about what the W1 would have been classified as had it been a 4-8-4 (or 4-8-2-2, but let’s not start that again). Knowing then that LNER Pacifics were A Class, and the 4-6-0s were B class, there was not a class for 4-8-4s; and also given that I (for India) was the only letter not used, I made the jocular suggestion that had the Hush-Hush in fact been a 4-8-4, it would have been an I1 and not a W1 (W being the class code for 4-6-4s). Edited to add: Just realised (not for the first time) I'm an idiot: Given the W1 was the only LNER locomotive with a 4-6-4 arrangement, had it been made as a 4-8-4, the W code would still have been available and so it would still have been a W1, but W would then be assigned to 4-8-4s. No wonder you've got no idea what I mean...
  6. It’s actually an I (for India) 1... I being the only code the LNER did not use for wheel arrangements...
  7. This has been a fascinating discussion, and the conclusion I have drawn from it is that if there can be this much interpretation and discussion applied to something that is supposed to be a standard for classification, then (and with all due respect) then it's not a very good standard. Additionally, I think the single biggest problem with Whyte notation is that is does not differentiate the powered wheels from the unpowered, and so relies on a degree of assumption and/or interpretation of what the layout of the locomotive actually is. Most of the time, this works because across the majority of locomotives the wheel arrangements are broadly similar (basically carrying wheels - driving wheels - carrying wheels) and we can make an accurate interpretation based on our experience. However, there are "corner cases" (as we are seeing) where it's a lot less clear what's going on and it's both difficult to assign a Whyte notation and then interpret what that notation actually means. It's a bit like the Newtonian theories of motion - they work for the majority of situations we experience as humans (up to the solar system scale), but for very high velocities and masses (the black hole sort of scale) they don't work and Einstein's theories have to take over. So for me, whilst it's not perfect, that's why UIC notation works better for a greater majority of locomotives.
  8. I’ve always said that Mr. Bonwick is the most dangerous man in railway modelling...
  9. That’s the same link I quoted. And whilst 4-6-2-2 is not “strict” Whyte Notation, I think it does make sense in in the spirit of Whyte (to me anyway...). In UIC it would be a 1C11, which would be much clearer. As for your second example, I agree that Whyte doesn’t cover it - but I don’t think UIC does either. There are (A1A)(A1A) examples (Class 31 or 18000, which is less than a mile from where I am typing this), and in any case if you were being strictly pendantic but tautological they would (Ao1Ao)(Ao1Ao). Although you could argue that if (Ao1Ao)(Ao1Ao) were adopted formally, then A1A could be used for the situation you describe, but would fail for a B1B upwards.... This conversation is one of the many reasons I love RMWeb!
  10. It’s covered fairly (if you’ll excuse the pun) well here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whyte_notation including articulated locomotives. PS: I think the W1 would be a 4-6-2-2 and not a 4-6-2+2 because the Bissel truck is attached to the same set of frames as the other wheels. If, for some bizarre reason the Bissel truck were attached to the tender, then it could be considered a 4-6-2+2, but then I think it would have to be a 4-6-2+2-0-0 in Whyte notation. PPS: A 4-6-2-2 could theoretically be interpreted as a locomotive with a two-axle leading bogie, followed by a three-axle leading bogie, then 2 driving wheels and a single-axle trailing truck... Which is why UIC notation is more precise.
  11. Even by your very high standards, Mr. B - that tractor is outstanding!
  12. In Larkin's "BR Parcels and Passenger-Rated Stock" Volume 2, there's a undated picture of Sc3323W on page 25, postulating that it may have been condemned at the time the photograph was taken. And don't worry too much about the £900 - I understand that in order to avoid having to take down the listing and then re-create it when they get new stock, it's a common ruse to set the price at a level that nobody would pay in the meantime.
  13. Although there’s good evidence that American English is very close to the way that “English English” was spoken around the time of the Pilgrim Fathers - so it’s probably us who have diverged, not them...
  14. That's not good. I can the situation developing where people are going to have a place a pre-order with two or three different retailers in order to have a chance of one of them being able to supply. This has consequences: If asked to pay a deposit, or upfront, it reduces the amount of available "hobby money" people will have at any time, which will reduce overall spend on the hobby (you'll get refund if an order is cancelled by the supplier - but you'll then have to use that for the next set of speculative pre-orders). People will start to order direct from the supplier to bypass any "retail rationing" - which my have some effect on the long term future for the retailers. It skews the actual demand for products - there being apparently more orders than are actually needed. Either way, it will probably not end well.
  15. IIRC, the solebars were channel section, but the “wrong” way round - so the flat was on the outside... again, IIRC the 6-wheel fish van had the same arrangement And this is why quite a few of us are interested in getting five79 fish van underframes to rescue the Dapol/Hornby Stove R - although Dunsignalling of this parish is very much leading the way:
  16. I’d really like to order one, but all I get when I try and get to the kr models website is a “HTTP error 500”...
  17. And after that incident where the smuggled marijuana was washed up on the beach, no tern was left unstoned... I’ll get my coat.
  18. I don't think that it's a painted line around the lower cab front - I think it's light reflecting off a raised seam (weld seam) which runs exactly there. If you look at the pictures that cctrans posted on page 9, you can see the seam, and the Rails decorated samples show it very well. Edited to add: Gaz101’s photo later shows that there is a thin orange line above the seam - so I was wrong.
  19. Thank you showing the livery samples - 18000 looks splendid, and I'm really glad I've pre-ordered (in the late-crest livery) However, one small point - the "orange" band on the sample looks too yellow (as opposed to orange) and ever-so-slightly too wide when compared with the posted images of the real thing. To the Stationmaster's point - I think the bottom of the band is in the right place, but because it's slightly too wide, that makes it look a bit high.
  20. On the Five79 website the fish van is listed as “coming soon”... I also want want one for an Enparts van, so I keep checking...
  21. Please keep us posted on this one (even if not in this thread) - the re-appearance of the fish van means I may finally be able to stop hating that Stove R...
  22. That would probably have been the version in the discreet brown envelope, rather than the see-through plastic bag...
  23. Quick FYI - subs copy arrived this morning, so it’s on it’s way.
  24. I’ve always used UHU to glue lead to plastic models, and never experienced any ill effects, even on some Parkside wagons approaching 30 years since assembly. The one concession I have always made is to never put the lead anywhere air-tight, so have always drilled a couple of small holes in the plastic floor of vans, for example.
  • Create New...