DropTheTap

If you're looking at the 'photo in post 2361, your eyesight is a stretch better than mine...

Thank you! That was my recollection too, however reading volume one of Larkin's "Working Wagons", he speculates that they were introduced to rail tank wagons around 1976. it would be nice if this was the case as it's the period in which my layout is to be set!

Anybody have a definitive idea of when "hazchem" symbols came to be applied to these wagons please? Description of the wagons states "80s", but I've a sneaking suspicion it was earlier than this (oh for a photographic memory!)

Looks great! Any chance of a view of the back please? I'm very interested to see how you've used the Lego...

Completely agree. I think the Lima unrefurb. body I had from eBay is going on the Hornby Railroad chassis and I'll re- use the Railroad body on the old Lima chassis. I'm currently researching American diesel mechanisms that might fit the Lima chassis, and it looks like there may be a candidate that will more or less drop in. But what with this and the headcode panel/ bodyside strip mods to the body, it will be a longer term project. Keep up the good work, love catching up with this thread!

You should! I ordered the Lima example that we talked about a couple of pages back... thanks to this thread!

I think at that price, I would have had a punt! Honestly, I can also see myself undertaking more of this type of project while the price of new locomotives rockets. Just like I had to do thirty years ago when my pocket money was limited!

As mentioned, the Hornby model is on sale for a good price in Liverpool, however the bodyshell seems to be a bit of a hybrid. The side beading is certainly there, but it doesn't extend around the nose ends, which obviously isn't prototypical: https://www.flickr.com/photos/16819691@N08/7442883104/in/photolist-ckGHQL-rgokfc-w2rNsG-okhNas-aF7hJB-u116YN-u11VFo-cq7ELG-sPF9Nn-nK7bqk-sajm8v-6cgK4Y-sC529A-cXVGXU-hRxQdL-AA4oiz-dabu1T-sCfA9c-t6juKp-u3rDi7-tNcaUL-u5VYG4-tNc58W-u3rKd3-u3rLFy-2boSdS-ffDG9G-3RfbC-s2fnLd-bpQBrk-fnetce-633iND-d7YFV-fkuNDV-7E5ewL-6uLB2U-6kkgTR-7DZXxc-jSkZPQ-qGZpGP-7eGLRP-nD8QEQ-ruVes8-8Sq2pC-bkjug8-oqyh5b-fwnYkg-c2LpDh-aqC4YN-qQMvSv However, after seeing a Lima 31 325 for sale on eBay, it would appear that Lima take the beading right across the cab door, which is correct for the period up until the door was sealed: https://www.flickr.com/photos/pics-by-john/6787605793/in/photolist-bkNfJ6-boncTX-h98SP9-9wZ1LZ-mW3BRW-iUsCYW-ebZ1ib-gTLagg-qU6hAJ-67eJbC-nYTjeN-73Yftu-6iph4z-oH3s8v-icfbew-zD1roV-eecaHt-bjB22z-8LAsPK-7muttW-kpiXeg-oE8a6c-shDHz-mMcv4y-s8t4cu-duDLrV-fUyWpY-fKz4mj-az2UCt-cwc8KU-85NbaJ-puNqCX-4cdS8q-2912Rf-ooN8pQ-ny13s9-5ZRKr1-adcKgo-o6duAX-cW6qKw-9idUaE-nXz9nu-s5rwG7-brnmSa-a6dBPR-8jhPPz-37bvEr-AksRXV-bq6cf5-cFc543 But not for the period after that, and prior to refurbishment: https://www.flickr.com/photos/16819691@N08/7447016450/in/photolist-cm4Uxm-o2ixyM-cyPjU7-zrYXEF-aGZhxH-9a5Txg-h7Vc4Y-dDybrh-aF9Ki8-bqWdUZ-2bjqLV-5VqgN1-2x6JPc-c3rR77-3Rfjy-pgkigy-ffpz4t-bS72ZB-bkNfJ6-boncTX-h98SP9-9wZ1LZ-mW3BRW-iUsCYW-ebZ1ib-gTLagg-qU6hAJ-67eJbC-nYTjeN-73Yftu-6iph4z-oH3s8v-icfbew-zD1roV-eecaHt-bjB22z-8LAsPK-7muttW-kpiXeg-oE8a6c-shDHz-mMcv4y-s8t4cu-duDLrV-fUyWpY-fKz4mj-az2UCt-cwc8KU-85NbaJ-puNqCX Also, the boiler port footsteps are apparent, which would certainly make it an unrefurbished example, but I wonder if the bufferbeam skirts are included in the box? I know the non- railroad version had them (I owned one before the chassis exploded), I'm not sure about the Lima examples. I model the 1970s, so now I wonder if, as you say, the Lima bodyshell is the way to go, or whether the Hornby railroad shell can be fettled adequately? Sigh...

47256 has arrived at Rails and it appears to have the correct underframe arrangement, but... ...it has the rivets around the cab windows... ugh! Still, I'm very tempted. Has anyone attempted to pare these off and patch paint please? It doesn't *look* all that difficult to accomplish...

Cracks me up when people overturn a petrol can, throw on a match and then complain when they get burned: like watching videos of cats get washed, as someone said a little while ago!! Personally, I feel like much of this thread has been objective. Vociferous, and somewhat circular, but mostly objective.

Sir, you must be very easily amused...

...as you walk away whistling...

"Worse" in this case means more inaccurate. You are narrowing a gauge that is already too narrow by prototype standards. And I will state once again: I have no problem with OO gauge. I model in OO gauge and am very happy with it. However I also accept the fact that it is not prototypically accurate. Whether you consider this as "wrong" is up to you.

I'm struggling to grasp the concept of taking something that's prototypically inaccurate and making it worse.

Yes, it kind of is. What keeps a model (and prototype locomotive) on the track is the back to back measurement of the wheels, flange to flange. Certainly, wheels have to be a certain thickness in order to maximize ride on the gauge corner, but the outside to outside dimension is an irrelevance. As I said a minute ago (and if I could figure out how to multi quote, I would have done it!), how OO gauge makes a steam locomotive look in terms of realism is a happy (in this case) side effect, and one which I hadn't considered. Yet I've seen some *very* realistic looking kettles in P4...

What, really??

Like I said, I wasn't quite sure which dimension you were getting at and truthfully, I'm still not 100%. Either way I'll absolutely accept your point about running quality and wheel/ tread thicknesses when OO was first promoted. I don't think OO is in any way inferior at all, it's just not accurate in terms of the prototype gauge. However it makes a model steam train look is a (happy, in this case) side effect.

Not sure I get where you're coming from here chief. The distance between the outer edges of the wheels on a locomotive is not a pertinent dimension. What keeps the thing on the rails is the distance between the inner faces. Are you sure it wasn't the thickness of those old wheels making the outer face dimension appear accurate? OO is inferior to EM and P4 only in terms of scale accuracy between the gauge faces of the rails. Even as an OO gauge modeller I can accept that.

I half agree, which probably means that I half disagree! There are plenty of modellers who have built very nice looking layouts by re- spacing PECO code 75 plain line sleepers while retaining the points more or less out of the box. I completely accept that there needs to be a range of points to go along with the plain line, yet the plain line alone will save vast amounts of re- sleepering work for some people. And I know that there are OO track systems available (points and plain line) with "scale" spacing between sleepers but these are not cheap, nor are they widely available to us foreign modellers. So providing that the new system retains a price competitive advantage over Marcway, C&L etc., it's certainly welcomed by some of us.

Right, but to take C&L as an example, it's significantly more expensive and not as widely available. (But yes I agree, it looks very authentic).

Agreed. And most trainsets are manufactured by Hornby and Bachmann, who normally supply track with them. No evidence, but I question whether PECO's main customers are trainset users rather than layout builders. Although many years ago, it wasn't until my circle of trainset friends and I decided to start building layouts that we learned of somewhat more superior track in PECO. It seemed very logical that, as Hornby supplied the trainset, aftermarket track components were sought from the same source. Again, no evidence, just a personal perspective. I for one am very much looking forward to this track: I was going to cut and re- space code 75 F/B for my next project but I think I'll put off trackwork until the new releases. We've been asking for accurate sleeper spacing for years, now we (almost!) have it and I'm very grateful. I wonder if they'll produce bullhead on concrete sleepers eventually?

And there's always Holgate bridge in York: http://www.bridrailmodellers.com/imagelib/sitebuilder/misc/show_image.html?linkedwidth=actual&linkpath=http://www.bridrailmodellers.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/Holgate.jpg&target=tlx_picp0t5 Simplistically speaking, you can cross any span you want (within reason) depending upon 1. what's being carried on the bridge and 2. the design strength (i.e. depth & thickness) of the bridge section to carry it! Love following your progress by the way, thank you.

Thank you! Not a whole lot of longevity but an interesting variation nonetheless.

In what time frame did "Vanguard" run in this non- standard livery variation please?