Waverley West Posted January 18, 2015 Author Share Posted January 18, 2015 (edited) Operationally, I don't think there would have been any problems with mixed units, as all blue square-coded DMUs were able to operate together. Whether there were any minor incompatibilities/problems I'm not qualified to say (although it would be interesting to know if any drivers are reading this). But exactly as 45156 says, the fact that they had to cobble the units together was a reflection of the poor reliability and non-availability (exacerbated by a fire at Ayr depot in 1984) which I think was a characteristic of first generation Scottish DMUs in particular from the mid-70s through really until the 15X units arrived in the late 80s. . Edited January 19, 2015 by Waverley West Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pendlerail Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/BRITISH-RAIL-CLASS-120-DMU-COLOU-RSLIDE-1164-/371238838589?pt=UK_Collectables_Railwayana_RL&hash=item566f8f213d Someone is trying to sell a picture of your layout on Ebay ;-) seriously though just noticed there is a couple of Waverley pics on at the moment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium keefer Posted January 19, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 19, 2015 Meant to say earlier, if you're running in 1990s era, you could have regional railways 117s on the fife circle services - though I'm not sure of the exact years As has been said already, 1st gen blue square units could be a right dolly mixture - though I don't think there were any 1st class/composite cars (think these disappeared c.1975/6). Should jut be able to paint out the yellow stripes as I believe such vehicles were merely re-classed. Also any driving cars would be motor coaches - restrictions around Scotland e.g. queen st. tunnels and inverkeithing/queensferry meant trains had to have a certain amount of working engines and even motor/trailer twins not allowed. Class 122s could be tacked onto other units or be a replacement for the unit DMBS. The mix'n'match approach is definitely more interesting, just a pity there aren't more TS coaches available. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derekstuart Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Keefer, Was that rule rigidly adhered to, or only an aspiration? The reason I ask is that I spent many a day as a lad at Waverley and I saw driving trailers. One time on a trip to Burntisland, the 101 was formed as a 3 car, but oddly the leading car was a driving trailer and it really struggled, eventually failing a station or two before Burntisland (which resulted in the following HST picking us up whilst the 101 limped on to wherever). Aside from 3 car formations, did power/trailer units appear more on other routes that didn't have restrictions? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium keefer Posted January 19, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) I'm sure that certainly from the late 70s that most rostered units were usually 3-car, DMBS-TS-DMS (Inc. any TC/DMC that were declassified). I have somewhere a WTT from 1974/75 that has 2-car units, I'll have to check what services they were on and if they were power twins. A 3-car unit with only 1 powered car would be a no-no i think, it would struggle to cope even on level track, possibly your train was a short notice formation. I'll also check a 1969 sec. appendix - there are definitely instructions for queen st regarding the number of engines that must be working per number of cars in a DMU set. Unfortunately, I don't have any platform 5/ABC DMU books to check if/where any driving trailers were allocated Edited January 19, 2015 by keefer Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derekstuart Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Thanks Keefer I think given your comments what must have happened was that the leading power car had failed (perhaps not both engines working to start with and then the second one failed) as the Guard said, when asked why we were going so slow "we started with two engines and now we have one with a hill to climb"- perhaps he was talking about power cars rather than diesel engines- he was talking to 'normal' passengers who might not appreciate the difference. It was a long time ago! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Removed a/c Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) Did any of the DMUs employ a either MKI or a MarkII TSO ? Edited January 19, 2015 by thebritfarmer Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRDBLUE17 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 The 117's in reggie rail livery with scotrail brandings were running up to 99/2000 as I saw them when I first moved up to Scotland and Edinburgh. Not sure when they started but would be a nice addition to Waverley West smoking away on departure. All the best Mark Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckymucklebackit Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Did any of the DMUs employ a either MKI or a MarkII TSO ? I have never heard of a Scottish DMU using a Mk1 or Mk11 TSO, they would have needed to be modified with blue square jumpers and sockets. The only instance I am aware of a non DMU passenger vehicle being used was of the Western Region where Hawksworth coaches were used in units http://www.railcar.co.uk/topics/hawksworth.html I am sure someone did a model on here. Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckymucklebackit Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) Might be an idea to open ScR DMU formations as a full thread on it's own on the Scottish Railways thread, I have quite a few photos and links I could post. Regards jim Edited January 20, 2015 by luckymucklebackit 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waverley West Posted January 20, 2015 Author Share Posted January 20, 2015 Might be an idea to open ScR DMU formations as a full thread on it's own on the Scottish Railways thread, I have quite a few photos and links I could post. Regards jim Sounds like a good idea to me, Jim. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckymucklebackit Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Sounds like a good idea to me, Jim. OK - that is it kicked off!! http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/95012-scottish-dmu-formations/ Jim 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium keefer Posted January 20, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 20, 2015 had a look at the instructions for queen st. and it's basically a train with 'x' DMU coaches should have at least 'x' number of engines running - except for: 1 coach - 2 engines, 2 coaches - 3 engines. so a bubblecar is ok, but a 2-car must be a power twin (in fact it states earlier on that a power/trailer 2-car must not be used on its own). Any units not meeting these conditions must be assisted. I thought there were similar instructions for inverkeithing/queensferry but i was mistaken - i'm just wondering if there would be mention in a passenger train loads book (never seen one so don't know) off the top of my head, the only driving trailers i could think of being ScR allocated would be the class 122 DTS, but don't know where/when they were used. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waverley West Posted January 20, 2015 Author Share Posted January 20, 2015 Hi folks, I've just come across these old black and white night shots of a 101 leaving Waverley and heading out through Princes St. Gardens bound for Dundee, at least that's what the destination blind says anyway. Cheers Dave 11 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waverley West Posted January 20, 2015 Author Share Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) 27105 emerges from The Mound tunnel into a sunlit Waverley... Edited January 20, 2015 by Waverley West 11 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Waverley West Posted January 20, 2015 Author Popular Post Share Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) Here are the colour versions of the 101 shots above... Plus a closeup of an unusual visitor in the shape of a workstained DPU... I was a bit disappointed when I heard the rivets on the front were printed, but it's surprisingly effective. Maybe my eyesight's going. Edited January 20, 2015 by Waverley West 21 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimleygrid Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Lovely photos as always Mr WW. Yesterday whilst sorting through some boxes of old photos, I came across these two, which made me think of your superb layout. Whilst I believe, someone will no doubt be able to confirm, they were taken either in 1989 or 1990 and a bit late for Waverley West, I thought you might quite like them nevertheless less. EW1 by AP474, on Flickr EW2 by AP474, on Flickr 7 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waverley West Posted January 26, 2015 Author Share Posted January 26, 2015 Nice Alex. Very nice. Thanks. The stock on WW goes up to 89 or so, when the wires went up and the loco-hauled push-pulls disappeared. I've often thought about putting some knitting up, and it's always a possibility, but I think running 80s stock would then not seem right, so I will probably stick with the 80s as my main era. I can still squeeze in sector railfreight and later InterCity stock, so that's not a problem. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigwordsmith Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Dave - don't even think about going sparky - knowing you, you'll want it to all work perfectly and you'll spend months tearing your hair out to find authentic posts, then getting your stock to work properly. Ref those two shots of Waverley from GrimleyGrid - how incredibly simple the track layout is compared to steam days! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimleygrid Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Hi Dave, Waverley West looks just right without the OHLE and agree that it should remain so. But then I am biased being a diesel man! Replacing HSTs with 91s and Mk4 stock, I don't think so! Replacing 47/7s and push-pull stock with Sprinters, have you gone mad boy?!!! Phew, glad we got that one sorted! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derekstuart Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Dave, It's your layout of course, so your decision on whether to keep it really good as it is now or totally and utterly ruin it with stringing up wires that symbolise the death of proper diesels (47's mostly gone, HST's leaving, and of course by then most 25/6/7's all gone to the depot in the sky). (ouch! sitting on the fence really hurts) But at the moment you have not only a good model railway, but you have an archaeological record of what Scotland's principal station was like 'back in the day'. As a respectful suggestion, if you are curious to know what it looks like with soul-less electric traction, you could always stick them on there, photograph it and then photoshop in some wires- I know it wouldn't add in the gantries, but the eye doesn't seem to notice that (see p4newstreet as a good example). As ever, excellent pictures. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PjKing1 Posted January 26, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 26, 2015 Hi Dave I've got to agree with the previous comments, I think it might ruin your execelent work, I love the early AC electrics and I'd planned to add the wires to my layout, but as I'm doing more on it I just think the masts etc would ruin the look. But it's your layout and what you want to do is the important thing Keep up the great work, Paul Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derekstuart Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Paul, That's funny there's a bloke like you who.... I don't know if I would say the same with your layout- the reason I said that for Dave's WW is that it clearly marks the era where many of the interesting classes are all extinct. On your layout, if I'm not mistaken, the masts went up much earlier and thus you could still see many of the interesting classes running under wires on your layout. I don't (personally) think the masts spoil the look of the layout- in some good examples they enhance it. But (IMO) it depends on the era they were put up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PjKing1 Posted January 26, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 26, 2015 Paul, That's funny there's a bloke like you who.... I don't know if I would say the same with your layout- the reason I said that for Dave's WW is that it clearly marks the era where many of the interesting classes are all extinct. On your layout, if I'm not mistaken, the masts went up much earlier and thus you could still see many of the interesting classes running under wires on your layout. I don't (personally) think the masts spoil the look of the layout- in some good examples they enhance it. But (IMO) it depends on the era they were put up. Hi Derek I totally agree mate especially with the reasons on here, ie loosing the diesels etc and era of the wires, but I do think masts would suit a layout like this and I think it would look great with blue ac electrics. I just think smaller scenic layouts may sometimes be overpowered by the masts?? Cheers, Paul Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigwordsmith Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Paul, I thought that by the time the ECML went 'under the wires' everything was raspberry ripple. Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now