Peterborough North

[Woodcock29]

19 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

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

I generally agree with 31A's comments on the Gresley BG. Also because the body is too wide it doesn't have the characteristic overhang of the roof. I'd probably agree with Andy to the extent that there is a marginal improvement in tumblehome though - at least that was the view I had when they first came out and I bought two.

Also it should be noted that Hornby, to its credit, fixed the beading on the lower panels on all its gangwayed Gresley coaches. Many seem to be unaware of this.

Andrew

Edited May 31, 2021 by Woodcock29
Added minor comment

[BMacdermott]

11 hours ago, drmditch said:

Re: NPPCS Poll

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

(I think that's the maximum allowed!)

Hello drmditch

 

You still have one vote available if you wish on items 11 or 12.

 

Brian

[Bloodnok]

NPCCS vehicles have definitely been lacking in recent ranges, and parcels trains often feature a wide range of vehicles. Lots of the same type (even if it's a good model) looks wrong.

My votes here are for: 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12.

Unrelated manufacturer plea: Bachmann, pretty please, I want a Mk1 GUV in plain blue, that I don't have to repaint / strip off decals.

[great northern]

Another look at that WD. They do have a certain presence and character, don't they?

 

 

[BMacdermott]

14 hours 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)

 

LMS

Lima 42ft GUV

 

Thanks Chris

 

I didn't go back pre-2000 as I think Gilbert and I were referring to the paucity in recent years.

 

If I include individual Mk1 TPO releases, the time-line works out as roughly:

 

2000-2004 = 1 item

2005-2009 = 3 items

2010-2014 = 12 items

2015-2021 = 3 items

 

Brian

[BMacdermott]

10 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

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

Andy

 

Hello Andy

 

Whilst I can't speak for Gilbert as it is 'his thread', part of the agreed purpose of these Mini-Polls was to create debate and tease out valid comments. From my viewpoint, you are doing exactly what we hoped for.

 

Brian

[great northern]

10 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

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

No problem Andy. Nothing wrong with healthy debate, and differences of opinion, provided they are expressed in a civilised manner, as I know they will be when you and Steve are involved. Who knows, some people may even change their opinions as a result.

[Sandhole]

1,2,5,6,7,8,11

[great northern]

A walk around my garden gave me this glorious sight, which I  thought was well worth sharing. Truly a sea of blue.

 

 

[31A]

2 hours ago, BMacdermott said:

 

Hello Andy

 

Whilst I can't speak for Gilbert as it is 'his thread', part of the agreed purpose of these Mini-Polls was to create debate and tease out valid comments. From my viewpoint, you are doing exactly what we hoped for.

 

Brian

 

1 hour ago, great northern said:

No problem Andy. Nothing wrong with healthy debate, and differences of opinion, provided they are expressed in a civilised manner, as I know they will be when you and Steve are involved. Who knows, some people may even change their opinions as a result.

 

Well in that case, here's another two penn'orth and then I will be quiet on the subject; I think we may have to agree to disagree.

 

But here are a couple of pictures I took this morning.  I have to say, I can't really detect any difference in the side profile between the BG and the passenger carrying coach.  Perhaps it's just me!

 

 

 

I must admit I hadn't realised Hornby had improved the lower side panelling of the passenger coaches to match that of the BG; I've had no need to buy any more recently.  The BG in the picture has had the gangway replaced, in the case by a cast whitemetal one (Westward!) as I think the Hornby one is too short and wide - which is another thing that spoils the appearance of these models.

 

But as I said earlier, I think the BG models 'get away' with it as the side profile was in reality flatter than that of the passenger coaches and certainly when formed within a parcels train where the excessive width isn't apparent they look OK; the discrepancy probably wouldn't be enough for me to want to replace the two that I've got.

 

[great northern]

Next to appear is another ECS working, this one from Doncaster to Nene Sidings. 36A has provided one of its nearly new 9Fs, though you wouldn't know it from its appearance.

 

 

[Mallard60022]

19 hours ago, 31A said:

 

 

Well in that case, here's another two penn'orth and then I will be quiet on the subject; I think we may have to agree to disagree.

 

But here are a couple of pictures I took this morning.  I have to say, I can't really detect any difference in the side profile between the BG and the passenger carrying coach.  Perhaps it's just me!

 

 

 

I must admit I hadn't realised Hornby had improved the lower side panelling of the passenger coaches to match that of the BG; I've had no need to buy any more recently.  The BG in the picture has had the gangway replaced, in the case by a cast whitemetal one (Westward!) as I think the Hornby one is too short and wide - which is another thing that spoils the appearance of these models.

 

But as I said earlier, I think the BG models 'get away' with it as the side profile was in reality flatter than that of the passenger coaches and certainly when formed within a parcels train where the excessive width isn't apparent they look OK; the discrepancy probably wouldn't be enough for me to want to replace the two that I've got.

 

I've cast my good eye over an enlarged version of the pic and the difference, if any, is that the BG is a teeny bit flatter than the other thing, really nowt to shout about in anyway. My penneth is that the use of the camera over time has created this debate.  As most model trains are viewed from a distance and not from lineside almost direct end on, then I think the ongoing natter about coach end profiles in the case of Gresleys, is a bit of a waste of energy. Far too picky for me I'm afraid and I think that if a coach looks as these do then I'm not complaining  and I suspect 99 out of a 100 others wouldn't either.

Like the replacement gangway on the BG; that helps the owner's eye for shape.

P

[great northern]

And so we come to the last two trains of another day at PN. It is nearly 10.00pm, and a bit of a miracle really that there is still enough light for photography, but apparently there is, and it allows a view of Pretty Polly coming in with the last Grantham local.

 

 

As usual, the next duty will no doubt be something more onerous.

 

 

[Market65]

Good morning. I’m voting for 1,6,7,9,10 and 11.

 

Firstly, number 1, would make a much needed change, which could be included in plenty of trains.

 

Number 6 is desperately needed to fill a big gap, and was seen at the head and rear of trains, as shown on Gilbert’s excellent layout. 

 

Number 7 plugs yet another gap. I would certainly buy in several examples. Why the RTR manufacturers have left the LNER so far behind I don’t know.

 

Number 9 would make a welcome change from steel sided BG’s, whilst number 10 would simply complete Bachmann’s range of Thompson stock (excluding the restaurant cars).

 

Finally, for myself, number 11 would add to and make a welcome change to the BR TPO stock. 

Of course, all of these models would have to be dimensionally correct and fully detailed and finished.
 

Best regards,

 

 Rob.

[BMacdermott]

Hello everyone 

 

Item No.3 in our current Mini-Poll (see page 1312) is: Car Carrier – Anglo-Scottish Bogie CCT (E71000-E71099 of 1957)

 

Am I right in saying that these received the 2-line branding Anglo-Scottish Car Carrier, London-Newcastle-Edinburgh from early summer 1960 in readiness for the new train of the same name? 

 

Many thanks

 

Brian

[great northern]

Here is a plonk. It was an inadvertent one, as I was in the process of crawling out of the room when I got this view. When I saw it though, i thought I would share it. It is entitled "Cor, isn't it clean and tidy".

 

 

[LNER4479]

Blimey, you must be expecting visitors ...

[gwrrob]

Quick , get some track down and make a you tube video.

[great northern]

21 minutes ago, gwrrob said:

Quick , get some track down and make a you tube video.

Don't you need a carpet, though?

[Oldddudders]

People who know me would worry if my floor looked like that.

[LNER4479]

Evening Brian (and Gilbert).

 

Not so easy for me this one as, again, I'm thinking 'what would I buy for a BR(LMR) 1950s layout?'. I've had to do a quick research on the types you quote!

 

Nonetheless, there are innumerable pictures of parcels trains on the WCML (the morning Crewe-Carlisle seems to have been a key train in the distribution pattern) with lovely, apparently random mix of vehicles, with plenty of ex-LNER types present. On that basis therefore my votes go to:

 

1. Bogie Covered Carriage Truck CCT 45ft (Diags.2 & 3, of 1924-1928)

2. Bogie Covered Carriage Truck CCT 52ft (Diag.7, of 1940)

 

6. Passenger Brake Van BZ 6-wheel (Diag.358, BR-built 1950)

7. Passenger Brake Van B 51ft 1½in & BG 52ft 6in Gresley (Diags.129 & 284 of 1928 & 1939, Diags.154 & 282 of 1932 & 1938)

9. Passenger Brake Van BG 61ft 6in Thompson - Flat Planked Sides (Diag.327 of 1945-1946)

10. Passenger Brake Van BG 63ft 0in Thompson - Steel Sides (Diag.344 of 1945)

 

Edited June 2, 2021 by LNER4479

[great northern]

Your evening photo shows Pretty Polly at journey's end, still well under the canopy with such a short load.

 

 

[thegreenhowards]

8 hours ago, BMacdermott said:

Hello everyone 

 

Item No.3 in our current Mini-Poll (see page 1312) is: Car Carrier – Anglo-Scottish Bogie CCT (E71000-E71099 of 1957)

 

Am I right in saying that these received the 2-line branding Anglo-Scottish Car Carrier, London-Newcastle-Edinburgh from early summer 1960 in readiness for the new train of the same name? 

 

Many thanks

 

Brian

Brian,

 

I think you’re correct in that assumption. There are pictures (from the mid ‘60s) of the vehicles so branded in both Banks/ Carter’s LNER Passenger Trains and Formations (p215) and the blue Harris book (p113). Exactly when they were so branded is open to debate but 1960 seems plausible. I would like to know how they were branded prior to 1960 when in use on the London-Perth car sleeper. This photo suggest that they were, perhaps, not branded.

 

https://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10443241&itemw=4&itemf=0001&itemstep=61&itemx=77

Any thoughts?

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

ps. Looking at that photo again, I suspect it is of the earlier 4 wheel CCTs.

Edited June 2, 2021 by thegreenhowards
Ps

[31A]

8 hours ago, BMacdermott said:

Hello everyone 

 

Item No.3 in our current Mini-Poll (see page 1312) is: Car Carrier – Anglo-Scottish Bogie CCT (E71000-E71099 of 1957)

 

Am I right in saying that these received the 2-line branding Anglo-Scottish Car Carrier, London-Newcastle-Edinburgh from early summer 1960 in readiness for the new train of the same name? 

 

Many thanks

 

Brian

 

33 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

Brian,

 

I think you’re correct in that assumption. There are pictures (from the mid ‘60s) of the vehicles so branded in both Banks/ Carter’s LNER Passenger Trains and Formations (p215) and the blue Harris book (p113). Exactly when they were so branded is open to debate but 1960 seems plausible. I would like to know how they were branded prior to 1960 when in use on the London-Perth car sleeper. This photo suggest that they were, perhaps, not branded.

 

https://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10443241&itemw=4&itemf=0001&itemstep=61&itemx=77

Any thoughts?

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

ps. Looking at that photo again, I suspect it is of the earlier 4 wheel CCTs.

 

Or maybe a bit later - in "Keith Pirt's Colour Portfolio Eastern & Northh Eastern Region Vol. 2" there is a picture of A3 60078 on the Up Anglo Scottish Car Carrier.  The date is given as June 1960.  The first two vans seem to be the rebuilt LNER coaches then there is a BR standard GUV, and behind that a mixture of vans.  The loco is carrying a headboard (painted black lettering on white background) but none of the vans carry the branding on the side.  I suppose the given date may be in error?

 

[BMacdermott]

11 hours ago, LNER4479 said:

Not so easy for me this one as, again, I'm thinking 'what would I buy for a BR(LMR) 1950s layout?'. I've had to do a quick research on the types you quote!

 

Hello LNER4479

 

Indeed, the idea of making the Mini-Polls 'thought provoking' was part of the overall thinking - and that seems to be working very well.

 

Thanks.

 

Brian