217 RIVER FLESK

How disappointing - though my wallet is happy to hear this news

I'm told that the Oxford model does actually come with the correct style of buffers, it's just that they are included inside the box & hence need swapping over, strange that they didn't fit the correct pattern in the first place, unless of course Oxford have a photo of the wagon in later life with oval buffers fitted. I personally went for the Hattons version, preferring their shade of green & no over scale chains. other than that, I don't think that's there's any difference between the two versions.

Question; do they come with any yellow wheel chocks to stop ones load moving? + didn't they get left lying around on the decking when the carflat was empty?

Don't worry about it sitting high, as soon as you put a payload on it, it'll sit down on the springs & things will be fine . . .

Out of interest, what sought of military vehicle would have been carried on the warwells in the late '50s - '60s? Also what would their livery have been? Still on lone to GWR / LMS / LNER?? One other question, how many were sold on to BR & hence had BR colours? Thanks in advance Mike C

But remember, you are assuming that the loco is sat on a flat surface. The first question has to be, is the surface actually flat?

Can't say that I'm enthused with the join line half way along the tank - stands out like a soar thumb - what as shame, as I was going to go with the Kernow offering in hope of a better model

Think I read somewhere that the owning group are planning an official re-naming ceremony at some point in the future to celebrate all their hard effort in re-restoring her

Has anyone had chance to put the new Thompsons up against the old ones for comparison purposes? Any photos? I'm just being a tight wad & don't really fancy changing out loads of money if there's no mega leap forward Cheers, Mike C

See that Kernow have posted some paint sample shots: http://www.kernowmodelrailcentre.com/p/54989/32-643Z-Bachmann-Class-438-4-TC-Unit-number-8023-NSE

Looking through some of the excellent photos on Paul Bartlett's site, the answer would appear to be yes

Your tanks must be running empty, while everything else must be loaded to it's maximum . . .

Is it me, or is this picture reversed?

To say that there is only one route of exit out of the body of a 'Toad' isn't totally true, they have a half height door at the no veranda end that allows the guard access to the tail lamp bracket at the 'blunt' end. I'm sure that if I were a guard & my van had been rear ended & the veranda end had been damaged / exit route blocked, I'd have been more than happy to clamber out via this route.

How about for operating the sanding gear?

First of all you have to find a shunter! OK, so that was a flippant first response, now putting my serious head on, I haven't seen anything like a shunters truck / match wagon / brake van in use with a small shunter for years now, the last place that I used to see an 08 + brake van was sitting in the middle road at Bristol Temple Meads. Cheers, Mike C

See post 211

Oh well, all the above has just about put me off buying this model - sorry Oxford, too many needless errors, plus being the 9ft version & hence not really lasting in to the BR period, it's just not suitable for my timeline, shame as I was looking forward to a different cattle wagon. Mike C

Forgive me Odin, but I'm a bit confused by your posting, are you saying that a 73/0 has an EMU jumper, whilst a 73/1 has a multi jumper? As a simpleton, what's the difference please?

4TC units could be treated as loco-hauled coaching stock under some circumstances which included being hauled by class 50 locomotives. Only class 33/1, 73 and 74 could propel and be controlled remotely from the leading TC driving cab. In all other instances the locomotive could only haul the train, a red tail lamp would be necessary as a precaution against battery failure and a run-round required at any terminus. They could be hauled but not propelled by class 33/0 and 33/2 locos which happened from time to time if no 33/1 was available. It also happened when two locos were required: the day that 33/0+33/1+8TC arrived at Exeter St. Davids the staff there - not being trained on push-pull operation - were flummoxed when they ran the locos round and couldn't match the connections. Extension jumpers could have been used on the 33/0 but instead they ended up running the locos round one at a time. Quite a feat on a summer Saturday at St. Davids! I guess as we're being so specific as saying that only 33/1s could 'shove' a TC, then should we not also be saying that only 73/1s & 73/2s could do the same, as don't 73/0s have a different MU layout 'up top'?

"The noise was so great that the air-conditioned silence inside a 5WES, when the REPs and TCs were finally replaced, seemed almost magical." Ah but you didn't have the joy of listening to a Crompton at full bore pushing you up Bincombe . . .

Nice model & yes I'd like one, but tis one large chunk of money - think I will have to sit this one out & hope that in the future they produce a 3-TC

This probably isn't the thread to post this in, but what is the advantage of a coreless motor over what I guess you might call a conventional motor? Is it just reduced manufacturing costs or is it a genuinely a superior motor?

Oooh yes, a model of Victor (or Vulcan) the ultimate 'modern' industrial 0-6-0Ts would be very nice - well remember them on the WSR - pull anything Mike C

Hi Hilux5972 & Forester, Thanks for your replies Cheers, Mike C