Wheatley

You are not right, in fact the designer couldn't really get much more muzak into the space he had to work with 

Maybe not inside but almost every Bachmann loco I own has a cast footplate. Does the O2 ? I'm aware there are balance issues with 0-4-4s, I own a couple of whitemetal ones, but balancing for optimum traction is easier if there is weight there in the first place.

Is that really the conclusion that is implied in this thread....that insufficient adhesion results from its design ?

Yes. Too much plastic and not enough mazak. Other manufacturers are using mazak running plates and other components to get adhesive weight up, and have been for some time. Am I right in guessing that the O2 is mostly plastic apart from the chassis block ?

Those arguments apply as equally to the handrails, lamp irons and windscreen wipers too but they're all present.

We're better off at this stage comparing the model with photos of the real thing rather than the CAD.

 

I think Ceptic's point was that it doesn't match those either.

The rough gravel area next to the bridge... Anyone know why this is actually there? Was it put there when the tarmac was laid on the road up there?

 

It's the former alignment of the road before it was dog-legged over the bridge when the line was built. Coming north the road crosses the bridge over the beck, then swings off it's original alignment to turn right over the railway bridge. It doesn't regain its former alignment until just before the farm about 300 yds further north.  

Cracking layout !

But is it £11 better than the Dapol version when it still has faults.

There's faults and faults. The Dapol/Dublo one is a caricature at best - too short,crude, and solid where it shouldn't be (granted it was light years ahead when it first appeared). If the Bachmann one is dimensionally accurate I'm happy with thinning out a few bits and adding a couple of others which the injection moulding process can't cope with. As for the handrails - we don't expect separate door handles on 12 ton vans (for example) so I think it's a little unfair to expect them on this. If they were massively prominent grab rails such as those on brake vans or 21t coal hoppers that would be different, but they're not.

YMMV of course, but I only need one or two so I'll probably buy them.

Sectorisation started in 1982, Scotrail came along in 1983. Most of the liveries might have come later and the coaches might only have been used on dedicated Sealink services for a few years but as a potted history of one of the more complex and confusing bits of BR history it isn't that bad.

If their vehicle range is anything to go by I don't think they'll be doing "everyday run of the mill" anything.

Special signalling arrangements, or an engineering possession, would be in force as the saloon might need to stop in section if something problematic was spotted.

 

Not necessarily. Until 1994 at least for routine inspections they were simply signalled on the block as a Class 9 train (Class 1 if not requiring to stop) and the time they needed to be clear of the section was agreed with the signalman. A lookout might be provided but that was as far as it went.

A pair is no odder than any of their other releases, test trains normally had more than two coaches and the Royal Train definitely had more than a SLF in it. I think a second run of 2 SKs is a good idea though, if I thought there was a reasonable possibility of that I might even join the CC and buy the first two ! (They fit in with a 'nice to have but not so nice I can be bothered respraying a load' idea). As it is I'll just keep an eye out for them on Ebay.

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/92766-news-from-warley-2014/?p=1672631

Not sure what you would do about the half a dozen or so other SKs in the set, I expect a lot of BSKs will finish up on Ebay.

Oval buffers on the loco, round buffers on the tender. Is this correct?

Yes. The sidethrow on the front of the loco was greater than on the rear.

Employees refusing to put their full (or real) names is also a ploy to make things difficult when it comes to complaining about the vexation from these *******s and in legal proceedings.

 

More likely it's to stop their less sane customers stalking them and posting dog sh** through their letter boxes etc. I have a collection of name badges from my customer facing days, none of them have my real name on.

WADR, the reduction in fatalities is possibly due more to the much maligned H & S rather than the colour on the front of an engine.

 

I don't believe I suggested anywhere that the reduction was solely down to yellow paint ? I suggested it was the start of doing something about an identified problem. I believe the full story is in "British Rail - A Journey By Design" by Brian Haresnape if you care to go find a copy.

 

A pity they ever thought of yellow panels at all; spoiled a lot of colour schemes. Red buffer beam's worked fine for years!

A lot of dead P.Way men would suggest otherwise, steam locos ran over plenty of them. Not only were diesels even harder to see and hear coming because they simply had less visual and audible presence than a steam loco, the whole railway was getting faster. Faster passenger trains, more 40/50/60mph fitted freight, less 25mph unfitted freight. These days it's been a bad year if trackworker fatalities are in single figures - the last time I looked this up (and of course I can't find the link now), the annual death toll in the 1950s and 60s was frequently over a hundred.  Something had to be done.

And in terms of accuracy, where do you draw the line?

Dimensionally accurate would have done.

Both pics taken in September 1957 on the Styal line, LMR. Single black headlamp on the LH lamp iron. Saloon is M45045, no steps under the LH buffer.  

There are two photos in Steve Bank's article which appear to show saloons being propelled, both have the lamp lower left, i.e. Class 8. As they clearly aren't Class 8s I suspect the position was not critical as long as there was a headlamp on it somewhere.

Could the two extra bits be footsteps ? There are a couple of photos in Bank's article and also the 1998 Model Rail walk-around article showing steps under the left-hand corners of some saloons but not others (BR modification ?).

 

What should the correct lamp code be when being propelled?

Single headlamp on either bracket, judging from photos.

I'm thinking there should be guard irons at both ends for propelling.

 

No sign of guard irons on any of the photos I've seen.

Those vans are curious, as they seem somewhat more careworn than the rest- perhaps conveying parts or coach batteries?

Various 6-wheel vans were used as 'Cell Trucks' conveying coach batteries to and from the main works. A number of photos of the earlier LMS 6 wheeled fish vans appear in Dave Larkin's books (and elsewhere), and the later slab-sided vans (your second link) went into departmental use too.

The side control springs are indeed for a steadier ride when propelling, without them the vehicle tends to 'hunt' from side to side. Not all the saloons were fitted, some were retro-fitted later but at lest one was never fitted. The details are in Steve Banks' article.

model what you see (from a photograph)

 

Normally I'd agree but in this case I beg to differ. Trying to judge intensity of lighting levels from a photograph must be even more fraught with booby-traps that trying to work out exactly what shade BR Maroon was. Just about every setting on the camera affects the result, as does the film and everything you do with it afterwards.

In this case, like Mickey, I prefer to rely on my personal experience of stopping DMUs outside the box on sunny days to check that the tail lamps were actually lit. It does sound like the OP might have a duff one though.

My SIIa had all new steering as part of its rebuild. Reconditioned steering box, new track rod ends, new relay, I had everything done except my chrome balls. I still shut my eyes when an artic comes the other way. Quite a few of the articles in Land-Rover Owner when it first started were concerned with fitting new steering boxes to series Landies, the donor vehicles being anything except another Landy.

Could they be RAF ones??

I think the stripe is just the light catching the barrel top on the sides, the dark green and yellow scheme didn't come in for RAF kit until the early 70s as part of 'Survive to Operate' or whatever it was that preceded that.

As for painting everything in the same pattern camo, was that not to make it impossible/difficult for the Russians to tell how many of anything you had by identifying small differences ? A friend spent the greater part of the 1980s poring over 8x10s of intercepted Soviet 'Bears' and 'Bisons' trying to identify tiny differences in airframes to find unique identifiers.

I think they are army ones though.

Agreed, the 'bumperettes' at the back are the sturdier square type rather than the grab handles fitted to the civvy spec ones. However, I think they're 109"s (long wheelbase), as they have three hoops for the canvas tilt. If you look at the 88" in will5210's link it's only got two uprights. They look like 88"s in the photo because it's foreshortened. (Unless mil-spec 88"s had three uprights of course).

I concur with Jim (I was looking for pics when he posted !) Five or six per wagon, loaded with the tow hitch lashed down and the back end of the trailer up in the air, with the hitch of the next one lashed down underneath it. Airfix do the Sankey version in the ex-JB Models LWB Land-rover kit. It's rather nice, which is more than can be said for the Land-rover.

http://www.ehattons.com/36800/Airfix_A02324_Long_Wheelbase_Landrover_Hard_Top_GS_Trailer_with_British_Army_marking_transfer/StockDetail.aspx

http://tk4666.moonfruit.com/communities/9/004/006/892/339/images/4529891458.jpg