Peterborough North

[BMacdermott]

Hello again everyone

 

I thought it might be worth mentioning that NPCCS seems to have been by-passed by the RTR boys in the past few years.

 

Yes...Hornby has just announced the SR Gangwayed Bogie Luggage Van and they have produced the LMS Horse Box but, apart from the Oxford Rail Carflats (2016) and the 'generic' Hattons and Hornby ranges, the genre seems thin on the ground.

 

Or have I missed something?

 

Brian

[great northern]

My votes are :- 2.3.6.7.8.9.11.

 

I agree with Brian, there is a lack of NPCCS RTR. General vans would be good for PN, so 2 fits, and 3 would allow me to add another train that should be seen during the time frame of my layout.

 

I already have two BZs, but more would be good, as they do appear in the official books quite often. The Gresley non gangwayed brakes also appear a lot, and at the moment I have just one. Some more variety in parcels trains would be good too, so that is where my other five votes go.

[davidw]

My votes

 

2. , 3. ,7. .8. 9. 10. 12. 

 

Weren't the thompson BG's 63ft?

[BMacdermott]

Thanks David, duly corrected!

 

Brian

[Clive Mortimore]

1 hour ago, BMacdermott said:

00 Rolling Stock Mini-Poll No.3: Non-passenger-carrying Coaching Stock (NPCCS)

 

Hello everyone

 

Welcome to the third in our series of seven Mini-Polls concerning rolling stock that has at least some connection with Peterborough North. I am running them on behalf of Gilbert.

 

You can submit your wishes here, on the thread, as usual, or PM me direct if you prefer the ‘secret ballot’ method.

 

If you vote on the thread, please feel free to explain why you have chosen your selection – hopefully, that will promote some interesting debates – but please do not take it as an excuse to start up the old chestnut of ‘kits vs RTR’!

 

Here’s what to do…

1. You may vote for two of the ‘car types’, plus four of the Passenger Brake Vans, plus one of the TPOs. Seven votes total available. You cannot ‘transfer votes’!

2. They must be items you would realistically wish to buy if made RTR.

3. Submit your entries on this thread simply as (for example): 2, 4, 7, 9, 12 – with comments and explanations following.

4. If you vote by PM, please only list your selection of numbers without explanations.

 

Although the Gresley Diag.245 and Thompson Diag.344 BGs are currently available RTR, the aim here is to vote for ‘new tool’ versions to go with re-tooled coaches and that Bachmann might include the Diag.327 with the Diag.344. I have listed the Gresley 51ft 1½ B and 52ft 6in BG as one as I believe they could possibly share the same sides. To maintain brevity of this list, I have moved the LNER Fish Van (technically NPCCS) into a forthcoming Freight Mini-Poll.

 

Get your thinking caps on and get voting!

 

 

3. Car Carrier – Anglo-Scottish Bogie CCT (E71000-E71099 of 1957)

 

 

You have until 17.00 on Thursday 3 June. However, I will stop earlier and advise if votes reach 50. I will present the results during the day on Friday 4 June.

 

I look forward to your selections and comments!

 

Brian

(Note: These are ‘informal Polls for fun’ on Gilbert’s thread only and neither The 00 Wishlist Poll Team nor RMweb are specifically involved, apart from me in my ‘personal capacity’.)

 

Hi Brian

 

Is this for both types, the ex GER (Dia 54E, E71035E-E71099E) and ex LNER (Dia 10, E71000E-E71034E) Illford stock? Also what about the PMVs converted from ex GER Illford stock (dia 53E E6002E -E6081E)?

[BMacdermott]

Hello Clive

 

As noted in other (main) and Mini-Polls, it is impossible to be totally precise with many items without going into lengthy variant lists which many find perplexing.

 

I have listed specifically the 1957 vehicles numbered E71000-E71099, but appreciate that others were employed on car trains. I did, in fact, have many others listed in my first draft, but saw that they were 'over-powering' other items and deleted them.

 

I suggest that you write up what 'car carrier' means to you, and your needs will be 'stored for reference'' in the Comments Received for makers to see. It has to be said that even if 10,000 of us voted for Car Carrier Vehicle  A but makers found it more 'commercially viable' with tooling, packaging etc to make Car Carrier Vehicle B, then B would no doubt come to market.

 

For the purpose of these 'informal Mini-Polls', if it looks like an ECML Car Carrier, then it probably is - and 'debate and discussion'' are welcomed.

 

Hope that helps.

 

Brian

[Bogie]

On 30/05/2021 at 20:55, great northern said:

A Sunday morning plonk.

 

 

I'm using these to experiment with different skies and degrees of brightness. Your opinions will be gratefully received.

 

I do like this - the brightness has added an element of realism to the photo.

 

Mind you having never been to Peterborough North, I now fully expect someone to tell me there has never been a bright day there in recorded history.

 

 

[Clive Mortimore]

59 minutes ago, Bogie said:

 

I do like this - the brightness has added an element of realism to the photo.

 

Mind you having never been to Peterborough North, I now fully expect someone to tell me there has never been a bright day there in recorded history.

 

 

According to local legend there was a bright day but everyone was so shocked no one wrote down when it happened.

[Clive Mortimore]

1 hour ago, BMacdermott said:

Hello Clive

 

As noted in other (main) and Mini-Polls, it is impossible to be totally precise with many items without going into lengthy variant lists which many find perplexing.

 

I have listed specifically the 1957 vehicles numbered E71000-E71099, but appreciate that others were employed on car trains. I did, in fact, have many others listed in my first draft, but saw that they were 'over-powering' other items and deleted them.

 

I suggest that you write up what 'car carrier' means to you, and your needs will be 'stored for reference'' in the Comments Received for makers to see. It has to be said that even if 10,000 of us voted for Car Carrier Vehicle  A but makers found it more 'commercially viable' with tooling, packaging etc to make Car Carrier Vehicle B, then B would no doubt come to market.

 

For the purpose of these 'informal Mini-Polls', if it looks like an ECML Car Carrier, then it probably is - and 'debate and discussion'' are welcomed.

 

Hope that helps.

 

Brian

Hi Brain

 

The number series you quoted include both the LNER rebuilt coaches E71000E to E71034E and the GER coaches E71035E to E71099E hence my query. The LNER coaches had angle iron truss frames and rode on ex GNR Fox bogies, the GER coaches were on GER bogies and had turnbuckle underframe supports. There was also a slight difference in roof profile.

[Joseph_Pestell]

3 hours ago, BMacdermott said:

Hello again everyone

 

I thought it might be worth mentioning that NPCCS seems to have been by-passed by the RTR boys in the past few years.

 

Yes...Hornby has just announced the SR Gangwayed Bogie Luggage Van and they have produced the LMS Horse Box but, apart from the Oxford Rail Carflats (2016) and the 'generic' Hattons and Hornby ranges, the genre seems thin on the ground.

 

Or have I missed something?

 

Brian

 

No, it has always been a neglected area.

 

Shame, when:

1)It can add so much to the activity on the layout (station pilot removing vehicles from passenger trains).

2) And also a win-win in the sense that any company's CCTs, BGs, Siphons, etc could be seen almost anywhere in the country. 

3) Parcels vehicles can be in quite short formations yet hauled by top-flight locos.

4) NPCCS lasted longer than other rolling stock so carried various liveries.

 

I sometimes get the impression that the people at the top of the manufacturing/commissioning companies don't actually know much about the real railway.

Edited May 31, 2021 by Joseph_Pestell
Add

[Joseph_Pestell]

I'm not sure that I know enough about LNER NPCCS to be qualified to vote!

 

Not being likely to model the ECML, although recent releases have made me think about it, my choice inevitably favours, those vehicles which could have been seen elsewhere.

 

So: 1,2,//5,6,8,9,//11.

[BMacdermott]

1 hour ago, Clive Mortimore said:

The number series you quoted include both the LNER rebuilt coaches E71000E to E71034E and the GER coaches E71035E to E71099E hence my query. The LNER coaches had angle iron truss frames and rode on ex GNR Fox bogies, the GER coaches were on GER bogies and had turnbuckle underframe supports. There was also a slight difference in roof profile.

 

Thanks Clive…but I hope I am getting across to you that it is impossible within the stated scope of these Mini-Polls to be ‘deadly accurate’, and your variants show some of the complexity.

 

Within the ‘main’ 00 Wishlist Poll we made the statement as follows which applies equally here:

 

The addition of BR running numbers was made some years ago at the request of voters and we have had notes of appreciation for that. They are there simply to assist identification. It is impossible for us to take into account the vast array of variations within classes over the years.

 

The manufacturers will ‘get as much as they can’ from any model via the use of slip tools and so on. It seems to make commercial sense for them to produce models which span a number of decades and which appeal to a wide audience.

 

We in The Team would often joke that we could work our socks off and list 99.7% of all variants of any item but would still have someone write in with (such as): "Ah…but you haven’t listed the one that was converted to a Treacle Van and used in the night freight on the Lordnoseware Branch between 26 January and 4 February 1908 before it derailed and fell into a river, never to be seen again".

 

All I can do is point you towards a closely approximate position on the rolling stock compass, but I can't always give you an exact heading.

 

Brian

[31A]

5 hours ago, BMacdermott said:

Or have I missed something?

 

Hi Brian, it's surely not quite that bad when you think about it.  There have been quite a lot of NPCCS vehicles produced to modern standards relatively recently.

 

Hornby - LNER and LMS 4w CCTs; SR BY, B and GBL; LMS and GW Horse boxes.  LNER, LMS, GW and BR Mk1 BGs.

 

Bachmann - SR 4w PMV; BR 4w CCT and bogie GUV; BR Horsebox; BR Mk1 BG

 

Which is not to say there isn't scope for more.  I have found NPCCS a good area for diversifying the rolling stock on my layout, where the passenger carrying trains are more or less of fixed formations and already catered for by RTR types.  Indeed I have already built some of the types listed quite recently, from kits and by bashing RTR vehicles.

 

So in terms of the poll and what would be useful for my layout, and I would be likely to buy, I will vote for:

 

Car Carriers

 

• 1 and 2 - I believe there have been kits for these in the past but I didn't buy them.  I think the Chivers kits are planned for re-release but I would buy an RTR version if available.

 

Passenger Brakes

 

• 6 - I recently built one from the  metal kit by Ian McGregor, but would buy at least one more.
• 7 - Again, I recently built a Comet kit for the gangwayed version, but would buy a non gangwayed one.
• 9 - I have a Mail Coach plastic kit for this but it's such a poor kit I don't think I'll ever finish it.
• 10 - The Bachmann RTR one is pretty long in the tooth and not up to current standard so I would definitely buy this.

I have now run out of votes for Passenger Brakes but if I had more votes I would also vote for 5 and 8.  I didn't vote for 5 as I have two built from Chivers plastic kits so I don't need any more, and it is an easy kit to build.  8 - I have two Hornby ones, and although better than the equivalent corridor coaches (the panelling has been corrected), is still wrong in profile.

 

Re would a Dia. 120 be seen at Peterborough North, I was recently looking at a picture of an ECML parcels train that included one, headed by an A4 taken somewhere on the southern end of the ECML, could have been at Hadley Wood, but can't remember where I saw it now; could have been on Tony Wright's thread?

[BMacdermott]

Hello Steve

 

Many thanks for the above. I am - perhaps - being overly pessimistic, but NPCCS announcements seem to have tailed off lately. The 2021 Hornby GBL is the first since 2015 (ignoring later period Carflats of 2016).

 

Below is a summary which others might be able to add to - if so, I will edit  them back into this post.

 

GWR

2010 Hornby Hawksworth BG 

2011 Hornby Horse Box 

 

SR

2007 Hornby Van C 4-wheel BY

2012 Hornby Van B

2015 Bachmann PMV (but the CCT has not been produced in 'steam era' guise)

2021 Hornby GBL 

 

LMS

2005 Hornby 50ft BG

2010 Dapol Stove R 6-wheel (a commission originally)

2013 Hornby 4-wheel CCT

2014 Hornby Horse Box (inadvertently listed in LNER, now moved here)

 

LNER

2012 Hornby Gresley BG

2013 Hornby Extra Long CCT 4-wheel

 

BR

2000 Bachmann Mk1 BG (with Hornby coming in with their version later)

2007 Bachmann Mk1 GUV

2010 Bachman Mk1 TPO (first of several in later years)

2013 Bachmann Mk1 Horse Box (originally a TMC commission I think)

2014 Bachmann Mk1 CCT 4-wheel

2016 Oxford Carflats (but these were for the later BR period not the 1959 type)

 

Edited in 'stop press' paragraph:

 

The 2019 00 Wishlist Poll listed 68 items of NPCCS to vote for.

 

Brian

 

 

 

 

Edited June 1, 2021 by BMacdermott
Added 'stop press' line about 2019 00 Wishlist Poll

[31A]

1 hour ago, BMacdermott said:

Hello Steve

 

Many thanks for the above. I am - perhaps - being overly pessimistic, but NPCCS announcements seem to have tailed off lately. The 2021 Hornby GBL is the first since 2015 (ignoring later period Carflats of 2016).

 

Below is a summary which others might be able to add to - if so, I will edit  them back into this post.

 

GWR

2010 Hornby Hawksworth BG 

2011 Hornby Horse Box 

 

SR

2007 Hornby Van C 4-wheel BY

2012 Hornby Van B

2015 Bachmann PMV (but the CCT has not been produced in 'steam era' guise)

2021 Hornby GBL (announced only as yet)

 

LMS

2005 Hornby 50ft BG

2010 Dapol Stove R 6-wheel (a commission originally)

2013 Hornby 4-wheel CCT

 

LNER

2012 Hornby Gresley BG

2013 Hornby Extra Long CCT 4-wheel

2014 Hornby Horse Box

 

BR

2000 Bachmann Mk1 BG (with Hornby coming in with their version later)

2007 Bachmann Mk1 GUV

2010 Bachman Mk1 TPO (first of several in later years)

2013 Bachmann Mk1 Horse Box (originally a TMC commission I think)

2014 Bachmann Mk1 CCT 4-wheel

2016 Oxford Carflats (but these were for the later BR period not the 1959 type)

 

Edited in 'stop press' paragraph:

 

The 2019 00 Wishlist Poll listed 68 items of NPCCS to vote for.

 

Brian

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Brian, nice list; just to add - the Hornby SR GBL is now available (I bought mine at the beginning of May), and I think you may have written "LNER Horsebox" for Hornby when you meant "LMS Horsebox"?  I've an idea Bachmann may have only made their SR 4w CCT in BR Blue as they modelled a van with the end doors sealed, which was inapplicable to earlier periods!

 

[chris45lsw]

Brian, Hornby haven't done an LNER Horse Box but they have done an LMS one. 

 

There are older ready to run examples of NPCCS which are capable of simple improvement to make pretty good models, eg:-

 

GWR

Hornby (ex Airfix) Siphon G (outside framed)

Hornby (ex Airfix) Siphon H

Lima Siphon G (inside framed)

 

LMS

 

Lima 42ft GUV

 

Yes, the Thompson Diagram 344 BG is 63ft but the Thompson planked Diag. 327 BG is 61ft 6in.

 

My votes are:  1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10.   If it wasn't precluded by the rules I'd have voted for 5 and 8 as well!

 

Chris KT

 

  

[gwrrob]

43 minutes ago, chris45lsw said:

There are older ready to run examples of NPCCS which are capable of simple improvement to make pretty good models, eg:-

 

GWR

Hornby (ex Airfix) Siphon G (outside framed)

Hornby (ex Airfix) Siphon H

Lima Siphon G (inside framed)

 

 

With respect @chris45lsw the underframe detail would need a lot of work to bring them up to the 21st century standards we see on recent SR et al parcel stock. The old Lima model hasn't seen the light of day since Hornby acquired it.

[drmditch]

Re: NPPCS Poll

1,2 7,8,9,10 please.

(I think that's the maximum allowed!)

[thegreenhowards]

5 hours ago, 31A said:

 

Hi Brian, it's surely not quite that bad when you think about it.  There have been quite a lot of NPCCS vehicles produced to modern standards relatively recently.

 

Hornby - LNER and LMS 4w CCTs; SR BY, B and GBL; LMS and GW Horse boxes.  LNER, LMS, GW and BR Mk1 BGs.

 

Bachmann - SR 4w PMV; BR 4w CCT and bogie GUV; BR Horsebox; BR Mk1 BG

 

Which is not to say there isn't scope for more.  I have found NPCCS a good area for diversifying the rolling stock on my layout, where the passenger carrying trains are more or less of fixed formations and already catered for by RTR types.  Indeed I have already built some of the types listed quite recently, from kits and by bashing RTR vehicles.

 

So in terms of the poll and what would be useful for my layout, and I would be likely to buy, I will vote for:

 

Car Carriers

 

• 1 and 2 - I believe there have been kits for these in the past but I didn't buy them.  I think the Chivers kits are planned for re-release but I would buy an RTR version if available.

 

Passenger Brakes

 

• 6 - I recently built one from the  metal kit by Ian McGregor, but would buy at least one more.
• 7 - Again, I recently built a Comet kit for the gangwayed version, but would buy a non gangwayed one.
• 9 - I have a Mail Coach plastic kit for this but it's such a poor kit I don't think I'll ever finish it.
• 10 - The Bachmann RTR one is pretty long in the tooth and not up to current standard so I would definitely buy this.

I have now run out of votes for Passenger Brakes but if I had more votes I would also vote for 5 and 8.  I didn't vote for 5 as I have two built from Chivers plastic kits so I don't need any more, and it is an easy kit to build.  8 - I have two Hornby ones, and although better than the equivalent corridor coaches (the panelling has been corrected), is still wrong in profile.

 

Re would a Dia. 120 be seen at Peterborough North, I was recently looking at a picture of an ECML parcels train that included one, headed by an A4 taken somewhere on the southern end of the ECML, could have been at Hadley Wood, but can't remember where I saw it now; could have been on Tony Wright's thread?

Steve,

 

I'm interested that you say the Hornby Gresley full brake is still wrong in profile. If you’re talking about the turnunder, I think it’s spot on. It’s certainly much better than the earlier coaches.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[thegreenhowards]

Brian,

 

Now you’re talking. There’s a lot on that list I would go for.

 

I would buy any of the car types, but my favourite would have to be 3 (the Anglo-Scottish bogie CCT). You mention that the train only started in 1960, but the sleeper version started in 1956 with the earlier 4 wheel CCTs and upgraded to the bogie version later (in 1958 I think). I run my sleeper with the CCTs built would love to be able to do the 1958 version (although I’d need some 66’6” sleepers for that as well!). Here is my take on it - a sexy train I think.

 

As a second car type, I’m really torn between 1 and 2, but I go for the shorter version. I’d buy the Newton Chambers ones if 3 wasn’t available but would certainly prefer 3.

 

On the passenger brakes, they’re all great but I’ve built enough D.120s from the Chivers kits and D.327sfrom Mailcoach/ Comet kits. Plus, I think the Hornby Gresley full brake is perfectly good so no need to produce a new one. So I’d go for 6,10,7 in that order.

 

But, saving the best for last, I’d be really keen on a Gresley TPO vehicle. I’ve built brass sides for one but they came out different lengths and have gone in the ‘too difficult’ pile for now. A couple of those would allow me to model the 2020 KX-Edinburgh TPO which is one of only a few trains that I choose to ignore in my sequence which otherwise covers every working through Hatfield between midday and midnight according to the 1958 timetable. As a bonus, it was a regular working for Deltic during its East Coast testing.

 

So my vote is:

 

11,3,1,6,10,7 in order of preference.

 

Andy

 

 

Edited May 31, 2021 by thegreenhowards

[thegreenhowards]

 

 

Quote

My vote goes to the LNER Diag.164 & Diag.165 TPOs. Can anyone say if these were used in the 10.30pm from King’s Cross in 1958? It’s another ‘long train’ but I can accommodate the formation: POS-POS-BSK-SLC-CK-SK-SK-BG-BG.

 

Brian

Brian,

 

I can’t say for sure but the one’s shown in the CWN are the same weight as the ones in the 2020 KX-Edinburgh and I do know they were D.164/5.

 

Andy

[great northern]

Another day, and indeed another month, wind down. The same applies at PN, as 10pm and the end of the sequence draws closer. More WDs begin to emerge as the succession of night goods workings gets under way, and here comes another of them.

 

 

[31A]

1 hour ago, thegreenhowards said:

Steve,

 

I'm interested that you say the Hornby Gresley full brake is still wrong in profile. If you’re talking about the turnunder, I think it’s spot on. It’s certainly much better than the earlier coaches.

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

The turnunder on the full brake seems to me to be the same as on the passenger coaches (I've just been to have a look), it's just that it looks less bad on the full brake because the real things had a different profile to the passenger carrying coaches, with flatter sides, so they 'get away with it'.  But it is still too wide; in reality the brake vans were narrower than the passenger carrying coaches; the same width as the brake portions of passenger carrying coaches with brake sections, in fact.   But the Hornby model is the same width as their passenger vehicles.  The underframe is too wide too, so the solebars are too close to the edges of the body sides, which goes for the passenger carrying corridor coaches as well.  I think the only thing about it that's an improvement on the passenger carrying vehicles is that they altered the position of the middle piece of horizontal beading, to make the lower panels better proportioned.

 

I admit it is a bit tenuous; from most angles it's quite an adequate model, it's just when you look at it end on and possibly standing next to a brake van made from (say) a Comet kit that the difference is apparent.

 

 

[manna]

G'day Folks

 

My pick is 1,5,7 & 11, mainly because I model 1920 until 1939.

 

manna

[thegreenhowards]

40 minutes ago, 31A said:

 

The turnunder on the full brake seems to me to be the same as on the passenger coaches (I've just been to have a look), it's just that it looks less bad on the full brake because the real things had a different profile to the passenger carrying coaches, with flatter sides, so they 'get away with it'.  But it is still too wide; in reality the brake vans were narrower than the passenger carrying coaches; the same width as the brake portions of passenger carrying coaches with brake sections, in fact.   But the Hornby model is the same width as their passenger vehicles.  The underframe is too wide too, so the solebars are too close to the edges of the body sides, which goes for the passenger carrying corridor coaches as well.  I think the only thing about it that's an improvement on the passenger carrying vehicles is that they altered the position of the middle piece of horizontal beading, to make the lower panels better proportioned.

 

I admit it is a bit tenuous; from most angles it's quite an adequate model, it's just when you look at it end on and possibly standing next to a brake van made from (say) a Comet kit that the difference is apparent.

 

 

Steve,

 

We had a similar debate over on Write Wrights a few months back and I posted this picture.

 

 

This is a collection of Gresleys from Hornby, MJT, Isinglass and others I've forgotten. I’m away, so can’t check or redo the photo. However, the Hornby full brake is far right and a standard Hornby is third from left. I would say that’s a noticeable difference. I accept that the floorpan may be too wide, but I really don’t care as I don’t think it’s noticeable on a layout. I certainly wouldn’t update my Gresley full brakes should a new one come out.

 

Gilbert, sorry if we’re taking over your thread. Tell me to shut up if you like - I won’t be offended.

 

Regards

 

Andy