Bomag

This is a serious point, if it affects you so much why continue to it? Of all the forums I contribute to this one has to be the most interventionist; its one thing to filter out scam/spam/ah hominem, but you obviously spend significant time 'gardening' topics which don't fit. While many jobs make you want to tell people to refer to Arkell vs Pressdram most people set a point they intervene at levels that are practicable and sustainable without going doolally.

I don't know which traders they are but probably at least one did Doncaster without anything untoward. To repeat others, it's good they bothered to come at all, and were willing to suffer the restrictions. Looking forward to getting back to Glasgow after the 21st March.

Probably not, but I would suggest that its the name which is relevant not the loco.

I didn't say that. You support the organiser, this can by summarising what punters thought didn't work but filtering out the verbage.

Coming back from KX on a HST one day, we stopped on Welwyn Viaduct for best part of an hour as an 180 has spread engine parts over Welwyn North station and the fire brigade was clearing up damping down - interesting smell.

As they say from our part of God's own country there's nowt as queer as folk. Either a complaint is useful for next year or it shows that our hobby is full of very odd people. Apart from complaints along the lines of a couple of GW layouts was 'simply not enough' I have never heard anything which I had the odd worry about while doing the Friday set up. Being exhibition organiser needs thick enough skin not to be depressed, but not too thick to be able to evaluate how well you did. For the rest of us we need to provide support where it is needed.

If Bino was disappointed, implying that he is ungrateful isn't going to help. You had a whinge about my disappointed about aspects of the Doncaster show even though I had thoroughly lowered my expectations. It's a good job that for me that exhibition was worth it as a shopping trip, whereas for Bino it doesn't sound like it was. Similarly I don't infer from Bino that he thought Hornby had given back word, only that Hornby is perhaps behind most others in getting back to exhibitions of this size. While he may have been a bit satirical on why Hornby may want to avoid queries (que Titfiled jokes as well), its a valid point. My club had a fairly successful show last October, but the benchmark is ever raising and we need to have a better one this year. People expect continuous improvement while we live with COVID - in this case (and having seen the plan) having a slightly higher percentage of the space for layouts next year could be a goal.

OT Give the title with 'GWR cancelled' my father would say it was not soon enough.

If this was for 2021 was there any other properly new loco?

If this was 1992 the bloke is to old for John Cameron. However, there is come semblance so it could be his father. Anybody know what tartan the tie is?

The cost of redoing the chassis for 03/04/08 (and the others which are adding sound) is part of the reason for the increased cost of these models. For those of us on DC its wasted money. Farish would not change the design of a perfectly workable chassis unless they can justify charging a premium. A chassis for a totally new model would not be to much different with a socket than without but with the 'upgrades' the extra design and manufacturing cost are down to one cause - DCC. To gratuitous and badly paraphrase grahame - a proper modder would not consider waiting for a RTR solution, they would have soldered on a DCC chip many years ago.

Depends if you are modelling the railway as a whole or modelling individual vehicles. I saw a wonderfully modified/weathered Inverness Class 24 on a layout, hauling a rake of Mk2a coaches!

One of our layouts was due to go to York; we had a full work out back in November and found out which operators/track/stock needed help or attention. While not everybody can have the layout up to practice, one of the ones today had at least one two day exhibition in the Autumn. But then again if two of your volunteer operators have a slanging match in front of the public you can only commiserate with owners.

I think that some of the layout operators could have done with some practice. A couple of previously good ones were a shambles - on one eight operators managed two up trains and no down trains in 10 mins. However, very few people were moaning - for many of us it's primarily a shopping trip.

Like many control measures they are the option to apply last and therefore the one to go first (ERIC and all that). I should be taking a LFT before going and even with a lowered immune response I would rather people take a LFT beforehand rather than rely on something much less reliable. People getting too close is starting to get an occasional issue. I move back one step in that case, sufficient to be clear in most cases; if they follow I ask them to keep their distance. In many case the novelty of meeting people is still new enough for it to be unintentional - however, you do get a few oddballs. Given the size of the ground floor space, they should be able to get a decent level of ventilation. The smaller exhibition area on the 1st floor may be something to do first before getting a cup of tea while everybody else is bargain hunting.

Having lived in Ilford Fish and Chips is Cod cooked in oil, no thanks.

I fully support loco owners in freedom to do things like this. However, people should have the freedom to say that owners (or lines) are being a wazzock and that it's naff, which this is. Being the son of Draper rail I am not surprised this has been inflicted on a non-GW loco. It would look quite good on thier 28xx though

Scale of production is an issue, but for GF the best answer is to produce more seconds in a batch (or two or three different seconds) so reducing the fixed costs per model. It will then avoid modellers moaning about the lack of seconds. This is seemingly similar to NGS who have 245 yellow carflats left and none of the more obvious liveries. There can be anomalies but it's not rocket science. At least for revolution its clearer where the market is.

BR should have built the the last three as 5 cars and we could have compared then to the Kato 800s - which are £180

Code 55 is 30 years old, not exacly new. It was design to run with most models of the time so something will need to be designed in the early/mid 1980's for it to have problems. As for Lima their locos were terrible, however, some of the stock was not bad - the Syphon is fine with some replacement bogies and the CCT is quite nice.

At various times and at various locations you could find a mix of Mk2s. So the ECML in the 1970's you could find Mk2a, Mk2d, e and f together. On the WCML in the late 1980's you could regularly find Mk3a, Mk2f and Mk2c on Euston services but Mk2e and f (plus Mk2d BFKs etc ) on cross country services. The mix of Mk2a, b and c depended on the location. For example transpennine north services had a different mix of types than the NSE services from Waterloo to Exeter. If you are modelling 1988 onwards the Platform 5 stock book has the sector pool codes so you can see what ran together. In addition to the Edinburgh to Queen Street Mk2z mentioned above, the SR Mk2z FKs were air braked (and ETH only) and a few Mk2a FK and BFK were converted to vac brakes. Depending on your time period its worth noting that some of the early Mk2z FK were steam heat only so limited their use.

I was in a shop last week and they said that the Bachmann rep has said there was a completely 'new' Farish model going to be announced. I think anybody's reaction depends on your definition of 'new'. I know they are in love with the marketing speak but it does create expectations which they don't meet. One of the new livery 08's is a nice fit but I would have preferred the benefit of keeping the old chassis for the non-sound version. I will have to check the OO section to check the reference but DVTs came in Mk3b and Mk4 versions, Dapol already did a NR yellow Mk3b DVT

I think they used the body from their Dia 36 RFO for their Dia 71 FO

Visits to Perorama/PECO shop have been 1977, 1983, 1999 and 2013. Nice shop for everything other than PECO; as expected their own products were RRP but you would expect them to have nearly their whole range in stock.

Using waybeams to support track saves mass and ensured the deck is visible for inspections. The problem is that it is structurally stiff and the whole deck is subject to live load strain leading to increased fatigue. Having a bed of ballast reduces fatigue loading on the bridge deck but is heavier and makes inspection for deck condition much more difficult (like post tensioning). Modern steel decks can support the dead weight of ballast and are more durable by reducing live fatigue loads. Given had bad decks have got with waybeams (my colleague managed to put his foot through the deck of the Tay bridge in the 90's) god knows what state some of the ballasted bridges from the 1960s/70s have got to.