Jump to content
 

Peterborough North


great northern
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium

An appeal. Is anyone out there well versed in Powerpoint? My slides have decided to go all peculiar, and I can't fathom out what I may have done to cause it, let alone see how to put it right.

 

All I'm doing is revisiting the existing sequence file, and amending and updating where necessary. No alterations to the main programme at all, or at least not intentionally.

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

On 19/10/2019 at 17:29, great northern said:

"visually conned" - I like that Ian. You are spot on too, as usual. I always try to present it in the best light possible, and the very kind comments are appreciated, but there are plenty of better model railways than this out there.

 

Don’t put yourself down Gilbert. Model railways, like beauty , are in the eye of the beholder, and who is to say one layout is better than another ? All we can say is that you have a cracking trainset  which we can all admire and it is a great credit to you that you share it with us all in this way.

Keep the pictures coming, please.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 11
Link to post
Share on other sites

On ‎01‎/‎10‎/‎2019 at 18:56, stewartingram said:

 

Now listen here. I used to live in Cambridge, alongside the "loop" via St. Ives. I had my abc, and knew the names of most of the B17s at the time (though sadly didn't see many of them). How I just wished that I could see some of the nearby (in the abc book) class of D49, with the familiar names of local places. One day, my wish was nearly granted, & again a little later. I saw Rutlandshire (62729), and also The Holderness, (wherever that is) (62744). And yes I did READ the nameplates! I've never seen any mention of this elsewhere, I've even posted it to the GER Society, with the reaction that it was a spotty schoolboy error. But, years later, I met up with another local guy, who became my best mate (sadly now deceased). Guess which two locos he had also seen in Cambridge...?

 

Stewart

Holderness is the area East of Hull (think Hedon). 

 

rgds

dave

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, davidw said:

Oh that's the new one you showed a little time back. Was this the dia in the consist? 

That's a bit of a puzzle actually. The book shows it to be a 34 ton car, but both Dia 167 and 168 were 33 ton weight, so I'm not sure what it might have been. A typo is one possibility.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 24/10/2019 at 22:08, great northern said:

That's a bit of a puzzle actually. The book shows it to be a 34 ton car, but both Dia 167 and 168 were 33 ton weight, so I'm not sure what it might have been. A typo is one possibility.

Thanks Gilbert. I was thinking of using the Hornby 167 dia. Isinglass do the rebuilt version as a 3d print

Edited by davidw
Clarity
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
12 hours ago, great northern said:

That's a bit of a puzzle actually. The book shows it to be a 34 ton car, but both Dia 167 and 168 were 33 ton weight, so I'm not sure what it might have been. A typo is one possibility.

Gilbert,

 

I seem to remember having thus this debate with ‘34A’  on your thread a couple of years ago.  I think he said that, while the prototype d.167 was 33 tons, the production ones were 34 tons, and that when 34 tons is shown in the carriage workings then that probably indicates a d.167. I also think that the GN section mainly had tourist buffets (I.e. d.168) while the NE section tended to have standard Teak buffets (d.167 as Hornby). 

 

If I’m right then this train should have a d.167 buffet and as the stock starts the day in York, that seems to fit. It’s certainly what I run in my version of the 1605. I may replace it with a d.275 when I get round to building one as I think this is the train that Carter said one worked on in his Backtrack guide to buffet cars (could be wrong on that though as I’m away and don’t have the reference material).

 

I think the d.168s would be more typical on GN section originating trains such as the Cleethorpes services.

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

 

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...