Jump to content

KRModels announce a GT3 Model


micklner
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, truffy said:

It would take the most obsessive of super-detailers to install a crew member reading a newspaper with his trousers ‘round his ankles. I wonder if anyone’s done it?

Apparently this level of detail is set to become bog standard in the future.

  • Round of applause 1
  • Funny 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Colin_McLeod said:

Got a phone call from Michael today to clarify my address and to confirm that my GT3 is being despatched now complete with DCC decoder and tested.

Mines on its way!!

 

All of the stuff I have ordered from the UK has missed the Tax Man, Please please let this one escape the snare too!

 

Downside all my Cobalt are going back to DCC concepts to get a issue sorted to bus only service at the moment.

 

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, boxbrownie said:

Didn’t I read it has that feature?

Yes, already included. KR Models are probably feeling flushed with success.

  • Funny 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Keith J said:

Apparently this level of detail is set to become bog standard in the future.

 

And, no doubt, will be met with a round of thunderous applause.

 

 

 

  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the blue GT3 should be numbered GT4.

That way you could run two and keep the history books clean.

Roco have recently released a loco in a fictitious livery and given it an in depth fictitious history in their catalogue and advertising. 

A few years down the line, and history could get corrupted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SGP said:

I think the blue GT3 should be numbered GT4.

That way you could run two and keep the history books clean.

Roco have recently released a loco in a fictitious livery and given it an in depth fictitious history in their catalogue and advertising. 

A few years down the line, and history could get corrupted.

Don't think that would be possible without excess expense retooling the cabside as the number plate on the cab side looks to be moulded onto the valence/cab component. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote

Has anyone who has their GT3, tried changing the tender buffers for round ones yet? 

An quick and easy fix is to punch out two plasticard discs with a paper punch and stick them onto the oval buffers.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

As the loco was never officially a BR loco and only ran test trains I’d be highly surprised if the loco ever ran with less than two crew in the cab.

 

I believe that it may have been set up for single man operation, but again, considering union opposition to single manning at the time, it’s unlikely it hauled any trains that way. Perhaps yard moves etc. but that would be about all

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote

Can anyone confirm if GT3 ran with a one man or two man crew. I assume that a two man crew (driver and secondman) was more likely in the early 1960s.

The single manning agreement for loco hauled turns didn't get passed until 1966.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Edge said:

As the loco was never officially a BR loco and only ran test trains I’d be highly surprised if the loco ever ran with less than two crew in the cab.

 

I believe that it may have been set up for single man operation, but again, considering union opposition to single manning at the time, it’s unlikely it hauled any trains that way. Perhaps yard moves etc. but that would be about all

As it was only ever run on test trains it probably had a minimum of three people in the cab and most likely four (Driver, Secondman, Traction Inspector, and at least on EE rep/technician. 

 

Technically, apart from tending the boiler, it could have been single manned on some train working turns as the Manning Agreements stood at that time but inevitably there would have been debate in respect of sight lines when carrying out such movements as attaching to trains or moving around yards which under the 1957 Manning Agreement would have seen a a dscussion at the Manning Committee about double manning when doing such things and adding in the boiler (albeit not required during the summer of course) it would probably have been worked by double manned turns for convenience in covering the awkward parts if it had ever entered traffic on BR.  This was  not an unusual situation where only a small part of a turn needed double manning but it was more convenient and reliable to diagram it for the whole turn.

 

PS The 1965 Manning Agreement extended single manning of locomotives to partially Fitted and Loose Coupled freight trains (subject to various restrictions and limitations).  It also increased, from the 1957 Agreement, the aggregate driving mileage permitted in a single manned turn working diesel or electric locomotives on passenger trains.

Edited by The Stationmaster
  • Informative/Useful 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

As it was only ever run on test trains it probably had a minimum of three people in the cab and most likely four (Driver, Secondman, Traction Inspector, and at least on EE rep/technician. 

Maybe that explains the bog... drivers seat, secondmans seat, and a Toilet seat needed for the only technical guy who really knew what kind of an explosion a gas turbine could produce at random...

 

url link..

turbine-ogden-ut.jpg

 

Edited by adb968008
  • Funny 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, locoman462 said:

Can anyone confirm if GT3 ran with a one man or two man crew. I assume that a two man crew (driver and secondman) was more likely in the early 1960s.

 

Can’t imagine Aslef would ever have allowed less than two crew then.

 

if Buckton was involved he would probably have insisted on six

Edited by D9001
  • Agree 1
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
15 hours ago, D9001 said:

Can’t imagine Aslef would ever have allowed less than two crew then.

 

if Buckton was involved he would probably have insisted on six

Buckton was a full time union official (probably an Area Organiser?) at that time and didn't become Assistant General Secretary (to A.E Griffiths) until 1963).   However personalities would have been irrelevant - what counted was what was in the 1957 Manning Agreement and any decisions made by the Manning Committee if the loco was ever discussed there (which I doubt as it never entered traffic and only ever worked test trains).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...