Wright writes.....

[St Enodoc]

But isn't it better to do so, just in case of the odd short-circuit? 

 

With mine, if, say, an insulated bogie wheel just touches the frames, all I get is a stutter. My experience with DCC (with locos I've built for customers) is if that scenario occurs, everything shuts down. In one case, the loco lost its address and had to be re-programmed. I just couldn't be bothered with such a nuisance. Yes, if it's a big short on my layout, the loco stops. But, when sorted, off it goes. Another unwanted side-effect of a post-short on a DCC system was a DMU just taking off by itself, under no control and oblivious to any pushing of buttons.

 

Several of my locos are equipped with D11 or D13, open-framed motors. Fitted to a DJH gearbox these give incredibly powerful results. Great for me, except one brush contact is directly in contact with the motor frame - not insulated. So, no means of isolating the motor armature/frame, so no DCC.

 

No DCC? Good. Anyway, my prejudices with regard to this are well known. As I've said before, the very worst operating layout I have ever seen (actually no operation at all) was DCC-equipped, yet it was a visual (if entirely static) masterpiece.  

Tony, I didn't want to restart the DC/DCC debate. I was just pointing out an error of fact. As long as you can isolate the motor brushes from the loco frames, you can use live or dead chassis for DCC just as you can for DC.

 

A short on the track side of a decoder should have no ill effects at all, but a short on the motor side almost certainly will.

 

BarryO is absolutely right about coupling live chassis locos together - in DCC or DC.

 

In short (sorry), what's good for the goose is good for the gander and there is very little that demands a different approach for DCC from that for DC. It's like the canard about "DCC-friendly points" - no such thing. Either a point is built and works properly or it isn't.

 

Having lit the blue touch paper on that topic, I will now retire...

[Anthony]

This is a thread that I have followed with ever-increasing admiration for all concerned. What Wright writes inspires me, as it does many others I am sure, to improve my modelling within and hopefully, as time progresses, beyond my capabilities. Please, please, keep the thread going for all our sakes, as I wish you well in your challenges.

 

I felt emboldened to add my own thoughts on the subject of DCC. Tony Wright describes himself as a Luddite for sticking to DC, and all power to his arm for that - everyone to his own, or we all become clones. From my point of view, it is precisely because I am a Luddite too that I have gone down the route of DCC; this was around 12 years ago or so.

 

I was a long-lapsed modeller when I was finally in a position to build a layout in our garage. I was, of course, grossly over-ambitious, but I was absolutely not knowledgeable enough to have wired my scheme conventionally, indeed had DCC not been available, I would probably have strangled the concept at birth, as I did not have time to learn the finer details of electrical wiring as it relates to model railways. It truly was the arrival of DCC that made it all possible.

 

Now, I know that the 'two wires' myth has been well and truly discredited, but I have found that all matters DCC have been remarkably easy to manage and that the information supplied by manufacturers has been comprehensive and, broadly speaking, easy to understand, along with enormous help from suppliers at shows.

 

Of course, nothing is utter perfection, but I have had no challenges I couldn't meet and I have certainly seen at least as many problems on DC-run layouts art shows as I have at home.

 

This is absolutely not to decry or praise either system in particular, but to point out that Luddites can benefit from DCC too! So I have to thank DCC for making whatever I have achieved possible.

 

I do have some kit-built locomotives on the layout (far too few!), but have had no problems - yet.

 

Perhaps I should also point out that I am not computer-orientated geek - 66 and counting!

 

Oh, and yes, my layout is BR (E) inspired, but certainly not up for public viewing!

 

Anthony

[Tony Wright]

Tony, I didn't want to restart the DC/DCC debate. I was just pointing out an error of fact. As long as you can isolate the motor brushes from the loco frames, you can use live or dead chassis for DCC just as you can for DC.

 

A short on the track side of a decoder should have no ill effects at all, but a short on the motor side almost certainly will.

 

BarryO is absolutely right about coupling live chassis locos together - in DCC or DC.

 

In short (sorry), what's good for the goose is good for the gander and there is very little that demands a different approach for DCC from that for DC. It's like the canard about "DCC-friendly points" - no such thing. Either a point is built and works properly or it isn't.

 

Having lit the blue touch paper on that topic, I will now retire...

Thanks John,

                      Perhaps I didn't make myself entirely clear.

 

D11 and D13 motors cannot be isolated from the frames. One brush contact is permanently isolated from the motor frame/armature by its plastic bush but the other is permanently connected by its all-metal bush. The two mountings are not compatible - you cannot replace the metal bush with a plastic equivalent (unless you're prepared to do some serious modification). I like these motors for fast express passenger locos, provided they have a suitable gearbox to 'slow them down'. With an appropriate DJH 'box (GB4-A), they'll start off smoothly and slowly and reach a speed in excess of the prototype - well in excess. Since such 150+ mph performance is only for 'showing off', I concede it isn't necessary; except when some splendid follower of things much further west turned up with a 'Western' diesel which fairly flew through Little Bytham, only to be soundly trounced by an A4 with a D13 and GB4-A gearbox! To be denied the delights of this motor/gearbox combination because of DCC imperatives is not something I'm prepared to countenance. I'll take a picture of a typical installation tomorrow.

 

As for lighting the blue touch paper on DCC (remember Standard's Three-Two-One-Zeros?), I'm happy to indulge in a lively debate. However, as is well known, I'm never going to change my views on DCC. I agree entirely with what you say about geese (and sauce?), but I still maintain that an electrically-dead chassis is better for DCC than a live one, more so than with DC. And, for little locos (and for big ones like the resin-bodied V2 I'm just finishing), I'd much rather fill any space with ballast rather than muck about fitting decoders.    

[Tony Wright]

This is a thread that I have followed with ever-increasing admiration for all concerned. What Wright writes inspires me, as it does many others I am sure, to improve my modelling within and hopefully, as time progresses, beyond my capabilities. Please, please, keep the thread going for all our sakes, as I wish you well in your challenges.

 

I felt emboldened to add my own thoughts on the subject of DCC. Tony Wright describes himself as a Luddite for sticking to DC, and all power to his arm for that - everyone to his own, or we all become clones. From my point of view, it is precisely because I am a Luddite too that I have gone down the route of DCC; this was around 12 years ago or so.

 

I was a long-lapsed modeller when I was finally in a position to build a layout in our garage. I was, of course, grossly over-ambitious, but I was absolutely not knowledgeable enough to have wired my scheme conventionally, indeed had DCC not been available, I would probably have strangled the concept at birth, as I did not have time to learn the finer details of electrical wiring as it relates to model railways. It truly was the arrival of DCC that made it all possible.

 

Now, I know that the 'two wires' myth has been well and truly discredited, but I have found that all matters DCC have been remarkably easy to manage and that the information supplied by manufacturers has been comprehensive and, broadly speaking, easy to understand, along with enormous help from suppliers at shows.

 

Of course, nothing is utter perfection, but I have had no challenges I couldn't meet and I have certainly seen at least as many problems on DC-run layouts art shows as I have at home.

 

This is absolutely not to decry or praise either system in particular, but to point out that Luddites can benefit from DCC too! So I have to thank DCC for making whatever I have achieved possible.

 

I do have some kit-built locomotives on the layout (far too few!), but have had no problems - yet.

 

Perhaps I should also point out that I am not computer-orientated geek - 66 and counting!

 

Oh, and yes, my layout is BR (E) inspired, but certainly not up for public viewing!

 

Anthony

Anthony,

 

Many thanks......

 

May we see some pictures of your layout, please? 

 

Another non-computer-orientated geek (or otherwise) - 67 and counting!

Edited July 12, 2014 by Tony Wright

[St Enodoc]

Thanks John,

                      Perhaps I didn't make myself entirely clear.

 

D11 and D13 motors cannot be isolated from the frames. One brush contact is permanently isolated from the motor frame/armature by its plastic bush but the other is permanently connected by its all-metal bush. The two mountings are not compatible - you cannot replace the metal bush with a plastic equivalent (unless you're prepared to do some serious modification). I like these motors for fast express passenger locos, provided they have a suitable gearbox to 'slow them down'. With an appropriate DJH 'box (GB4-A), they'll start off smoothly and slowly and reach a speed in excess of the prototype - well in excess. Since such 150+ mph performance is only for 'showing off', I concede it isn't necessary; except when some splendid follower of things much further west turned up with a 'Western' diesel which fairly flew through Little Bytham, only to be soundly trounced by an A4 with a D13 and GB4-A gearbox! To be denied the delights of this motor/gearbox combination because of DCC imperatives is not something I'm prepared to countenance. I'll take a picture of a typical installation tomorrow.

 

As for lighting the blue touch paper on DCC (remember Standard's Three-Two-One-Zeros?), I'm happy to indulge in a lively debate. However, as is well known, I'm never going to change my views on DCC. I agree entirely with what you say about geese (and sauce?), but I still maintain that an electrically-dead chassis is better for DCC than a live one, more so than with DC. And, for little locos (and for big ones like the resin-bodied V2 I'm just finishing), I'd much rather fill any space with ballast rather than muck about fitting decoders.    

Tony, that is all very sound reasoning. I agree that a dead chassis is better than a live chassis for DCC (just as live-frog points are better than dead-frog) and I prefer them anyway for the couplings reason BarryO put forward, but I was just making the point that as long as you can isolate the motor it is not a prerequisite.

 

Thank you also teacher for correcting my use of English! A bit of sauce is always good. Looking back at my last post I think I mentioned too many birds in it so I'll duck out now.

[westerner]

As the owner of said western, I have to agree with Tony that with the same amount of stock on his A4 did beat my western (Heljan) for pace.

[Tony Wright]

Just to bring together a few recent topics...........

 

 

The Graeme King V2 is now complete apart from body weathering and the Comet chassis painting/weathering finishing. Now, packed with as much lead as possible she'll take full-length trains with ease. 

 

I never cease to be amazed how 2,000 Watts of light bring out every single surface feature. The bodywork painting looks to be a bit rough but it is nowhere near as speckled as appears here. Whenever I take pictures using my old-fashioned studio lights, every single speck of dust appears like a small pebble (thank goodness for the clone brush) and the surface texture on this model looks like it's covered in dust. It isn't, and it awaits weathering, which will take nicely onto the 'open' surface. 

 

The lining is Modelmaster's mixed-traffic red/grey. I'd normally attempt the valance-lining, but since most of it will be obliterated I didn't bother. 

 

 

On test on a relatively lightweight train (no lamps? I know, but this shot isn't principally concerned with 'realism'). With normal daylight room lighting and a bounced fill-in flash the paint texture looks fine. I'll post further pictures when she's complete.

 

 

In tight perspective the loco looks entirely natural (still no lamps!) and Mr. King is to be congratulated for capturing the essence of a V2 completely. Ian Wilson's Pacific Models front numberplate looks good and, when weathered, I don't think anyone will be aware that this V2 isn't a complete kit-build. As a 'layout' loco it is excellent, and the spare Bachmann tender (off the K3 featured in the latest issue of BRM) saves work.

 

 

Even as just a 'layout' loco, this Bachmann V2 falls well short, even though I've chucked the hopeless original spilt chassis away (actually gave it away to a guy with poor eyesight and dodgy hearing!) and built a replacement set of Comet frames. The over-porcine boiler is highlighted in this front view (V2 boilers were big, but not this fat), as are the too-inboard outer lamp brackets (Graeme, why did you copy these?). Though I've replaced the dome (with not too good a fit) and it's been weathered, it's still not really a V2. Yes, the current Bachmann V2 now has a decent chassis but the body is still poor. Whether Bachmann will announce a new body for its V2 I'll know one way or the other next Sunday, at the press/retailers open days at Barwell. 

 

 

Further to comments made yesterday, this type of powerful and smooth mechanism cannot be used by followers of DCC (their loss I'm afraid). This is out of one of my DJH A2/2s and (I think) I installed the same power unit in the model I built for them. This is now in the possession of a friend and, perhaps, he'd like to comment on the efficacy of this type of drive. 

 

 

It has to be made, but it's not too difficult and it goes like stink! The D11/13-type motor is illustrated showing its incapacity to be completely isolated. DJH name such motors after big cats; appropriate, I suppose. 

[gr.king]

Sheer lazy assumption that Bachmann might have got the lamp iron positions right on my part I'm afraid. Spotted earlier, correction would have been simple

 

I must pay more attention to lamp iron positions.

I must pay more attention to lamp iron positions.

I must pay more attention to lamp iron positions.

I must pay more attention to lamp iron positions.

I must pay more attention to lamp iron positions.

.........

Edited July 13, 2014 by gr.king

[Horsetan]

Should have gone to Specsavers?

[davidw]

V2 looks superb. Thanks

[gr.king]

Should have gone to Specsavers?

 

I'm afraid it is a neural rather than an optical problem, as I'd already noticed when building my own V2 that the dimples for the lamp iron positions were wrong, but I failed to mention this in the notes that I supplied regarding best use of the V2 body casting.

If you look back to the pictures of my LNER green V2 visiting Little Bytham via timewarp tunnel, you can see that I had departed from the marked "narrow" lamp iron spacings.

[Tony Wright]

I'm afraid it is a neural rather than an optical problem, as I'd already noticed when building my own V2 that the dimples for the lamp iron positions were wrong, but I failed to mention this in the notes that I supplied regarding best use of the V2 body casting.

If you look back to the pictures of my LNER green V2 visiting Little Bytham via timewarp tunnel, you can see that I had departed from the marked "narrow" lamp iron spacings.

 

 

 

Rather than have viewers trawl back through page after page, here's the proof.

 

And, the paint finish is superlative!

 

As for the notes Graeme, if you gave me any they were immediately lost!

[S.A.C Martin]

Possibly the best two looking V2s in the country in this scale/gauge apart perhaps from one scratch built example I've seen recently and Tonys Jamieson one that runs so beautifully on Little Bytham.

 

One point put to me for the building of my new layout is that I need to have more V2s, possibly more numerous than any of the Pacific types. Since I have a number of Pacifics of all types in double figures, and currently only one built and finished V2 running, I suspect I need to stick my finger out and get on with it!

 

Thanks to Graeme for the excellent resin bodyshells. I don't know if Bachmann will put a new body on the V2 - or come to that, the A4 either - but both of the new chassis types is wonderfully smooth in my experience and will suit those of us not yet inducted into the field of chassis building. I will have a go soon, on a J72, I promise...! I digress. I think Graeme's body shells give a very fine finish and certainly the best proportioned V2 model on the market.

[Tony Wright]

Possibly the best two looking V2s in the country in this scale/gauge apart perhaps from one scratch built example I've seen recently and Tonys Jamieson one that runs so beautifully on Little Bytham.

 

One point put to me for the building of my new layout is that I need to have more V2s, possibly more numerous than any of the Pacific types. Since I have a number of Pacifics of all types in double figures, and currently only one built and finished V2 running, I suspect I need to stick my finger out and get on with it!

 

Thanks to Graeme for the excellent resin bodyshells. I don't know if Bachmann will put a new body on the V2 - or come to that, the A4 either - but both of the new chassis types is wonderfully smooth in my experience and will suit those of us not yet inducted into the field of chassis building. I will have a go soon, on a J72, I promise...! I digress. I think Graeme's body shells give a very fine finish and certainly the best proportioned V2 model on the market.

I think you're being a little over-generous with your praise, Simon, at least with regard to my efforts. There's a superb scratch-built V2 by Mike Edge which runs on Peterborough North, sporting an Ian Rathbone paint finish for one. 

 

You're right about Graeme's body shell, though. It beats Bachmann's V2 body into a cocked hat, is better proportioned generally than the Crownline one, is much easier than the Pro-Scale example and is at least as good as the Nu-Cast V2. Naturally, it's not as crisp as the Jamieson 2-6-2 but it's far less difficult to achieve a V2 using it. The Finney one, of course, is in a different class.

 

I congratulate him on his enterprise - for providing modellers everywhere with the means of achieving a decent V2.

 

It's now part-weathered (the paint is drying as I type this), and I'll post some pictures when it's finished.

Edited July 13, 2014 by Tony Wright

[S.A.C Martin]

Mike Edges one was the one I was thinking of Tony. Looks very much at home on PN though for me, Graeme's bodyshell edges out the scratch built example on cost grounds.

 

If you were building up a fleet of V2s, you'd want Graeme's I think. Best looking versus the cost and modelling factors although I don't think I'd be swayed by a new Bachmann V2 body if it does get retooled - as with Graeme's Thompsons there's something wonderfully satisfying about building one from a kit.

[Theakerr]

You all probably know this but I won't assume it, hence the post.  When i worked at a certain facility they used swifter cloths to pick up small (some very small) errant particles of nasty stuff.  I figured if it was good enough for that it was good enough for my train set.  And Yes they do a heck of a job of getting rid of even the finest of dust particles.  Note I do happen to live in the GWN but i assume you can get them over your side of the pond.

[Tony Wright]

The Graeme King V2 is now glazed, weathered, had a crew installed and lamps put in place. 

 

 

Here she is heading a southbound fitted fitted freight and is about to move from the Up slow to the Up fast at Little Bytham on a balmy summer's day in 1957/-'58. Quite when 60837 received green livery I'm not sure but it's clearly in need of a repaint. York never seemed to clean its stud and this one matches the loco's condition in Peter Coster's Irwell book on the class. 

 

 

In some ways I prefer the same picture in B&W.

 

 

On its return working, 60837 heads for Dringhouses yard in York. In conversation with Gilbert Barnatt today, it would seem that most of York's fast freight diagrams would probably have run overnight, but I think this looks the part. She's overtaking my ancient part-scratch-built, part K's O4/8, one of the few locos I still possess which I made in the '70s. The scene will be completed by the Down splitting starter, which should be sited the other side of the siding. It's hoped to have signalling finished this year/early next year dependent on a very busy man's schedule, but there's no rush. 

 

I think this view sums up my philosophy with regard to 'layout locos' completely. This is an almost one-piece resin-bodied V2 (can you tell?), the result of one guy's ingenuity and inventiveness, on a set of decent frames from Comet, painted, lined, numbered, lettered and weathered by me, working on my trainset exactly as I'd envisaged. Though it will stand reasonably close scrutiny (more by the merits of the products than by what I've done) I made it not for that purpose. I made it for scenes such as this - a big engine heading a long train on a Class 1 main line; one of dozens and dozens I've made, all locos for layouts. 

 

Speaking of locos for layouts, that's what I made the K3 for, featured in the latest issue of BRM. I first saw the photocopy proofs, and it seemed to stand up OK. However, in the magazine, I thought it looked a bit rough, particularly the DPS on the bottom of pages 40 and 41. This is nothing to do with the magazine's reproduction (if anything, it's too good), more my inability to produce something worthy. But then I put a scale rule against the image. From the rail to the top of the chimney measured 28' in scale (over twice life-size - thus much bigger than 7mm scale). The same height measurement at the rear of the tender measured 17'. From buffer to buffer, the loco and tender measured nearly 90'. Even in the smaller image, the loco and tender measured nearly 65'. In the DPS on the next two pages, my rather scabby-looking K3 was over 70' long. 

 

I mention the above, not in my defence but to prove (I hope) what I set out to achieve in my modelling. I'm really pleased with the way the finished loco/locos look in its/their layout setting, which is surely what's important in the final analysis. My problem, I suppose, is too powerful a camera!

Edited July 15, 2014 by Mod4

[Tony Wright]

Why has this bl***y computer put a mangled image at the bottom of the last post? Half the image came from a picture from before, which had already been deleted from the memory stick. I didn't even open it either.

 

My apologies, but these devices are akin to the spawn of Satan at times in my opinion.

[great northern]

Why has this bl***y computer put a mangled image at the bottom of the last post? Half the image came from a picture from before, which had already been deleted from the memory stick. I didn't even open it either.

 

My apologies, but these devices are akin to the spawn of Satan at times in my opinion.

But not as bad as DCC.   Sorry Tony, couldn't resist that. As to the V2, it is clearly at the head of 714 Down, the 4.05pm KX - Dringhouses Class C, booked to pass Essendine at 6.57pm, where it was due to be  switched to the SGL.  So, through LB shortly after 7.00pm, and plenty of daylight to get the shot at this time of year. That's from the 1956 WTT, but I don't think the timing will have changed much over the next couple of years.

 

As to the livery of 60837, we have yet another of these little mysteries. According to Yeadon, she was ex Darlington after a general on 29/12/56. Now, also according to Yeadon, Darlington started to turn out V2's in green from 14/12/56. He lists a number of them, which were green but with early crest, but 837 is not among them. Her next general was not until February 1959, so she may well have been black, and filthy, until then. She isn't included in that Railway Observer list I sent you, but I suppose it is quite possible that she wasn't seen and reported as still in black at the time. As you said some years ago - the delights of engine picking!

[coachmann]

I love the wide spaciousness of that shot showing the V2 passing a solitary coach and an 04. 

[Guest 2750]

Very much agree Larry. What could have been better that watching big ECML locos pounding by on a fast stretch of mainline. Alas I'm far too young to have seen any of it.

 

However I'm hoping this is something I can very much recreate with Thirsk South.

[Mod4]

Why has this bl***y computer put a mangled image at the bottom of the last post? Half the image came from a picture from before, which had already been deleted from the memory stick. I didn't even open it either.

 

My apologies, but these devices are akin to the spawn of Satan at times in my opinion.

 

Tony 

 

It happens for some reason from time to time, I have edited your post to remove the mangled image. 

[Tony Wright]

But not as bad as DCC.   Sorry Tony, couldn't resist that. As to the V2, it is clearly at the head of 714 Down, the 4.05pm KX - Dringhouses Class C, booked to pass Essendine at 6.57pm, where it was due to be  switched to the SGL.  So, through LB shortly after 7.00pm, and plenty of daylight to get the shot at this time of year. That's from the 1956 WTT, but I don't think the timing will have changed much over the next couple of years.

 

As to the livery of 60837, we have yet another of these little mysteries. According to Yeadon, she was ex Darlington after a general on 29/12/56. Now, also according to Yeadon, Darlington started to turn out V2's in green from 14/12/56. He lists a number of them, which were green but with early crest, but 837 is not among them. Her next general was not until February 1959, so she may well have been black, and filthy, until then. She isn't included in that Railway Observer list I sent you, but I suppose it is quite possible that she wasn't seen and reported as still in black at the time. As you said some years ago - the delights of engine picking!

Many thanks Gilbert,

 

Unfortunately, 60837 cannot be passing Bytham in the evening. Look closely at the shadows of the vans immediately behind the loco. For this light-orientation to be right, it would be nearer 7.00 am than 7.00 pm. The effect is caused by the room lights being above and to the left of the scene, with my fill-in flash bounced off the white ceiling/walls to the right. The slightly 'warm' cast to the rails is as a result of my having the shed doors open and the bright morning sun reflecting off them into the room. Isn't it amazing how far we've come in our analysis of model railway photographs, especially where real skies are superimposed on models of real locations where we try to replicate real trains, even down to the right time? I might try the shot again, but this time extinguishing half the room lights, slightly opening the curtains on the left of the scene, fully opening the curtains to the right and cranking the Metz CT60 up a bit more. For this to work, though, it'll have to be a cloudy day. Am I a zealot, or what? Seriously, those who make up their model railway empires couldn't give a fig. They run fictitious trains through fictitious locations at fictitious times of day, and they probably have great fun.

 

With regard to 60837's livery, I too read the relevant bits of Yeadon (and the RCTS, and Ian Allan, and Irwell, and..............) and came to more or less the same conclusion. Since it had to be a loco I saw, I scrutinised my mouldering Combined Volume for the summer of 1957 (can it really be getting on for 60 years' old?) and there she was, underlined neatly by a conscientious schoolboy. I first visited York in the summer of 1956, so, if I saw it then, it must have been black. Underlining in the '57 abc ceased in 1960 with my second Combined Volume - after that it was Locoshed Books. Retford was first visited (in reliable memory mode) in 1956 as well, with Doncaster a year later, then Markham Moor, Bawtry, Selby, Thirsk, Darlington, etc, etc as age and mobility allowed. If 60837 wasn't painted green until February 1959 then her grubby black fits in perfectly for my Little Bytham depiction of summer, 1958. If not, oh well. Production 'Deltics' fizz at full bore through a station closed and almost completely demolished 18 months before they saw the light of day and underneath a railway closed (and lifted) two years before ST PADDY's (the second in the class but the first in service) twin exhausts added a different kind of staining to the underside of the girder bridge (which isn't right, anyway). 

 

Oh, those joys of prototype modelling..................

[LNER4479]

The Graeme King V2 is now glazed, weathered, had a crew installed and lamps put in place. 

 

It's hoped to have signalling finished this year/early next year dependent on a very busy man's schedule, but there's no rush. 

Just as soon as I get these two enjoyable but time-consuming blighters clear of the workbench, sir...

 

 

Following last night's efforts, they now sport most of their roof gubbins, so shouldn't be much longer now. It's then on to a batch of signals to make up, including yours, all parts in stock

 

V2 looks great and us apple greenies are looking forward to seeing Mr King's own demo version completed (currently having its detail applied from what I gather)

[coachmann]

Production 'Deltics' fizz at full bore through a station closed and almost completely demolished 18 months before they saw the light of day and underneath a railway closed (and lifted) two years before ST PADDY's (the second in the class but the first in service) twin exhausts added a different kind of staining to the underside of the girder bridge (which isn't right, anyway). 

 

Oh, those joys of prototype modelling..................

When I took photos of a brand new Deltic steaming into York Station, I got home only to be told by the lads I was pulling their legs 'cos they weren't yet in service! These were the days when real-time railway news was delayed by as much as 2-3 months by the time Trains Illustrated and Railway Magazine reached the bookstands! Sadly one also read of passenger train withdrawals when it was too late to take a 'last ride'. They say fast colour film came too late. To that I would add th'internet!

Edited July 15, 2014 by coachmann