Dungrange

Have you tried simply e-mailing customerservices.uk@Hornby.com?

I'm no expert on tank wagons, but I agree with Royaloak that the three reference photographs in the original post seem to represent three different wagons that have nothing in common with one another bar their TOPS code. I also agree with Jack374 that I'm not sure there is a big enough market to model all variations of large bogie tank wagons of which there are numerous detail differences within each TOPS code. Whilst it is nice to be able to represent variation in a rake, with models from Bachmann, RevolutioN and a forthcoming offering from Cavalex, which all represent different prototypes, I suspect that there isn't a substantial enough market to justify the tooling costs for another new model. I have some of both the Bachmann and RevolutioN models and I am contemplating getting a triple pack of the Cavalex TEAs but I think it would be fair to say that would probably be enough for me and having bought a rake from RevolutioN, I'm unlikely to buy any more than the odd wagon from anyone else to provide a bit of variety.

I was going to ask the same question. I assume since the STVA grey versions are being produced in N gauge, that the same liveries and running numbers are likely to be produced in 00. From the above train formations, it certainly looks like anything goes on most flows, so a good mix will suit any fictional train.

Not knowing too much about these prototypes but understanding that the experts (ie you guys) were waiting for what sounded like a more accurate modern version from Oxford Rail, I also waited to see what the verdict was on these. If the Hatton's version, despite the observations about the bogies is considered the better model, than I'll just need to hope that they do another run. I'll obviously have to reacquaint myself with the content of the Hatton's thread in the meantime. Still if the Trains4U / Calvarex warflats are not out until 2020, I'm not in too much of a rush. There is plenty of other models out their that I'd like.

That's big enough when sat side by side with the Settrack point work that many are more familiar with. I guess 660 mm doesn't actually seem that long, until you decide to make a crossing out of it and realise that it wouldn't fit on a typical 4' x 2' baseboard.

I never noticed that, but see what you mean. I assume that these have NEM pockets, so that the Tension lock coupling can be removed and replaced with a Kadee?

And you could probably fit larger better quality speakers in a building that you can in a typical locomotive. How many EM2s can you fit in the roof space of a typical station building?

I'm no expert, but I think all you could probably say is that they are as good a representation of the real thing as you are going to get without retooling. If you want 100% prototypical accuracy, then you will need to make all the modifications yourself paying careful attention to photographs since the real coaches have changed over time. Unfortunately, I think these are technically too new for my time period, but since I have a couple of NMT power cars (which are also too new) and only two Mark 3 coaches to put between them at the moment, I'll just overlook any errors and at least have a train that is the right length and the right colour. I'm sure that many others will be of the same opinion.

The 11 ft 2" figure definitely predates the Big Four Era - The Board of Trade Requirements for 1902 mandated that for all new railways "The intervals between adjacent rails, where there are two lines only, or between lines of rails and sidings, not to be less than 6 feet. Where additional running lines are alongside the main lines, an interval, of not less than 9 feet 6 inches to be provided, if possible, between those additional Lines and the main line. This is what gives rise to the 11 ft 2" centre to centre dimension. See - http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/BoT_Requirements1902.pdf However, the above is an annotated copy of the 1892 edition which stated that the distance "should not be less than 6 feet". Presumably it was felt in the late 19th century that the use of the word 'should' was perhaps a reason why some companies were perhaps not necessarily following what had been established as a standard in the Victorian Era. Therefore whilst some earlier railways may have built to a closer interval originally, it is likely that the spacing would have increased to meet the Board of Trade Requirements during subsequent renewals.

The scale centre to centre gap is a fraction of a millimetre short of 45 mm, whereas Peco streamline is 2" (50.8 mm). The clearance between vehicles in reality should be about 18" or 6 mm in 00. The problem here is that there is not enough space between the toe of the right most point and the right edge of the baseboard to shunt the sidings. For an inglenook, the head-shunt should be able to accommodate the length of the locomotive and three wagons if using the standard 3-3-5 formula or locomotive and two wagons is using the smaller 2-2-3 formula.

The Coalfish are not old toolings. Hornby upgraded the chassis on their HAA Merry Go Round Hoppers around 2003 to include NEM pockets and narrow tension lock couplings before the Coalfish was first released. All Coalfish have used this new chassis, so if you have any Coalfish with large pre-NEM couplings, then they must have been bought secondhand with the original owner doing a chassis swap before selling on. The first version of the body was incorrect, but the tooling was subsequently corrected to represent the first batch of 400 after poor reviews. I've bought some of the early Hornby models to use the chassis with the S-Kits body to represent the more recent build. The price doesn't seem too much higher than a few years ago, but I'm not sure I have any need for more (albeit I may still end up getting three more)!!

Given that the event is on 8th June and this is only 29th May, you've a week and a half to wait!!!

I was hoping that it's just that it was easier to use a single shade of brown for the image above (ie fill the outline with one colour) than to actually 'weather' an image. However, I notice that the weathered brown livery has the same price as the grey livery, so unfortunately, I suspect that it will be an all over flat brown livery rather than a heavily weathered grey livery that effectively looks predominantly brown. Is it easier to get the effect on the photograph above by starting with a grey wagon and weathering it with brown paint, or starting with a flat brown wagon and try to make some parts less brown?

DCC Concepts produce a set of modern end of train lamps https://www.dccconcepts.com/product/end-of-train-lamp-with-all-electronics-3-pack/ I've not used these - just know they exist.

Thanks Jules, If Railtec are willing to do a custom order for you, Steve can sell me the same transfer pack if you are doing 394829 in this condition -

Does anyone produce transfers for the MHA? I have a couple of the S-Kits resin bodies to paint up and put on the Hornby chassis, which will require transfers - I was hoping that Railtec may do them at some point.

Josh, I started a similar topic last year - There is a better market for smaller layouts than large ones, so you may have a reasonable chance of a sale, but you still need to find someone who wants what you have built and has the space to accommodate it. I agree that advertising a layout for sale at an exhibition is one way of doing it. Ideally you want to find someone reasonably local to you. However, as has been said, RMWeb is a large group of potential purchasers. Do you have a layout thread on here? If so, highlight that you are looking to sell and see how many people contact you.

I understand that the postponed event is now going to be held on the weekend of the 4th/5th May.

Is the 8 thou difference in height noticeable when mixing these track ranges or is there also a difference in sleeper thickness that means that the top of the rail heads align?

I'm not a fan of layouts with the operators out front unless the layout is a relatively small fiddle yard to terminus type layout and the single operator is situated in front of the fiddle yard - ie not blocking the scenic area. I'm not sure I that understand why the 'Shunter' has to be out front - I think this role could just as easily be performed from the rear and would avoid blocking the audiences view unnecessarily. With regards the 'Signaller', I think you are only placing them out front so that the public can see the NX Panel. Would it be possible to have the layout at a height such that the operators would be seated behind the layout but that the signaller would have to stand behind the layout with his back to the audience. The NX Panel would then be separate from the layout, but mounted at a height such that it could be seen quite clearly above the height of the back-scene. The downside is that the 'Signaller' would not be able to see operations on the layout (which would be behind him) but this would be prototypical. Most signalling staff do not have any knowledge of what is actually happening on the track beyond what is relayed to them through the track circuits etc. This would then avoid blocking views for those interested in the scenic area, while also allowing those who would like to see the NX Panel being able to do so by looking above the back-scene. It may not work, because I'm not entirely sure what this NX Panel will look like, but that's my two pence worth.

I'm hoping for one or more of the SPT Carmine and Cream livery to work alongside the Barbie unit that I already have. I suppose that's a problem with so many liveries to choose from. Hopefully SPT Carmine and Cream will make the category of 'Further Planned Liveries'.

Well, I take your point, and if anyone only wants a few wagons, that would make sense. However, shows three triple packs worth of PFA wagons behind a pair of Class 20s but if purchasing your three DRS packs, I'd be three containers short and whilst they may not add much to the cost of the PFA, I'm sure that if you decide to sell the containers individually they won't be free! Unfortunately, I really like the British Fuels containers, but the DRS ones would fit better with my era. Decisions, decisions.

Out of interest, how long did the British Fuels livery remain in traffic? I've seen plenty of pictures of these in various EWS Enterprise services in the later half of the 1990s, but I'm assuming that this traffic may have been lost when EWS became a lot less enthusiastic about wagon load traffic around 1999/2000. Is that correct? Presumably the loss of traffic around this time was the reason why surplus PFA wagons were available for DRS to acquire.