3rd Rail Exile

9 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

SR Q (not the Q1).

On the contrary - SR Q1 (not the Q!)

Are you stretching "streamlining" to include "air-smoothing"? The two are not the same...  

If so:  Best - either variety of Spam can.  Worst - streamlined "King" as mentioned previously...

1 hour ago, Steven B said:

 

Don't disagree. I doubt Gresley, Thompson, Collett, Hawkswroth, Stanier et.al. had that much involvement in the coaches that carry their names either.

 

Steven B.

I trust Hawkswroth was suitably angry if he didn't like a design that carried his name...

Ugliest British steam loco - the hideous attempt to "streamline" a "King"

Another vote for DP1 - undeniably striking in appearance and innovative in its use of marine diesel engines.  The fact that it was actually successful is an added bonus!

At the risk of being boring, another vote for the HST.  The current stuff running past my window on the GWML just makes me wish electrification hadn't happened on that line...

Another vote for Class 20...

On the freight side I'll go Class 70...

Resistance is futile...

Production Deltic. 

15 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Does that include those built in the 70s for all the coal traffic to lose their traffic in the 80s?

If we don't include those (and perhaps even more modern "heavy haulers") the poll will be even more of a foregone conclusion than some already suspect it to be...

3 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

I think we know the winner of the type 5, why even bother with a vote.

Agreed!

The only possible questions are "Prototype or Production version?" and "Which livery?"

Decisions, decisions - a real tricky decision this!  In a photo finish it'll have to be Class 50, by a (lack of) nose from Class 40 and Classes 44/45/46...

32 minutes ago, great northern said:

Vos is zis Bagpipe, please?

17 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Bagpipes, something the Irish gave the Scots but the Scots have never got the joke.

 

In railway terms a Bagpiped Crompton (class 33/1) is one fitted with high level brake and control pipes so it can power a 4TC unit or two with the driver at the far end of the train and the loco pushing at the back. Diesel push pull. It was necessary as the SR ran out of money to do the last bit of electrocution to Weymouth so a 4 REPs powered a 12 car train (4 REP+4TC+4TC) to Bournemouth. The REP was taken off and a 33/1 attached for the last part of the journey.  Even after the 3rd rail was extended to Weymouth the trains had to be divided at Bournemouth because there wasn't enough power for a full length train.

Thanks Clive - I shouldn't have expected Gilbert to know that! 

Crompton for me - specifically Bagpipe if we're doing sub-classes

9 hours ago, atom3624 said:

Will they change it to "Sir Colonel Tom Moore" - is that even correct nomenclature?

 

There's a Welsh one, now and English 'Sir Tom' !!

 

Al.

Just to be pedantic, I think it would be "Colonel Sir Tom Moore". but I concur with the comments made by @phil-b259 above (other than the spelling )...

2 hours ago, Ian J. said:

...the only thing I need to sort out the coal rails is to source a good enough quality replacement that is correct for fitting the bunker once the lamp iron protrusion has been removed.

Please post details on here if you do source a "good enough quality replacement" - whilst I'm happy with the model I'm not beyond correcting known errors!

11 hours ago, truffy said:

 

Could this be an illusion created by the direction of the lighting, as explained earlier by @AY Mod?

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/132605-rails-of-sheffielddapolnrm-announce-oo-gauge-stroudley-a1a1x/&do=findComment&comment=3963369

Definitely - once you get model-in-hand it's clear that coal rail alignment is fine around the bunker. 

When I queried that a few days back, I was totally unaware of the size/positioning issue that was then discussed by others with much greater knowledge of the prototype.  I currently have one each of the Rails/Dapol and Hornby models running round the layout, and to me it's one of those "you can see the differences if you look closely" things.  I accept the evidence that one is "correct" to the prototype and one isn't, but to me they look just like different local applications of the same modification. 

I'm happy with both models...

2 hours ago, gwrrob said:

Take a seat Gilbert. You know my feelings.

 

When he's really needed, where is the rightful owner of that seat to tell us that Bos****** is by far the best castle? 

Hat, coat, etc...

30 minutes ago, truffy said:

So, and please forgive me if I’ve lost the plot or I’m stating the bleeding obvious, does this mean that the wobble and the popping axle boxes are symptoms of the same problem? And that problem is better solved with a drill bit than CA?

That's my understanding (though some have mentioned other sources of "wobbles" as well). Axle boxes that are not dead in line/parallel/concentric with the axles can act on the bogie frames and either a) lift them to cause the wobble or b) be broken off depending on how well they've been glued to the axles.  Enlarging the holes allows slightly greater allowance for being mounted off-centre.  But you still need CA or other adhesive to re-attach the axle boxes to the axles if you want them to rotate and not fall out...   

1 minute ago, AY Mod said:

 

Having had opportunity to look into this you have made an incorrect assumption I'm afraid.

 

The effect is a result of dual light sources, one to the lower left and one to the upper right being dominant on adjacent faces of the bunker rails. The light on the left is highlighting the lower surface of the ribbing and the light on the right highlighting the upper surface of the ribbing.

 

I believe Rails will be replacing the images at some point.

Thanks for explaining that Andy - it certainly looked strange in the original pictures, so I'll look forward to seeing the new ones Rails put up.  In the meantime, a close look at the images posted above by @Jenny Emily reassures me with regards to that area of the model - I'll eagerly await delivery of mine in a few days!

54 minutes ago, Ian J. said:

 

I agree the coal rails really don't look right at all. Maybe someone who knows 3D printing, or who knows casting in resin/whitemetal/etc, could do a better version? I think this is an area that Dapol/Rails will need to revisit to perfect the model, and make an improved version available as a replacement for current models.

Very strange - lining the coal rails up at the corners would have been a good start...  On a closer look (blowing up the Rails' images), it almost looks as if the back section has been fixed in the wrong way round - as in "inside out".  I think I can see indentations at the correct height to line up with the sides...

2 minutes ago, KDG said:

No, Hornby's website says sold out.  Unless they've up the number again...

 

I suggest you re-check (and make sure to "refresh/clear cache) - as of 09:54 it's available to pre-order from the Hornby website...

Number to be made is currently 2020 - "Limited Edition" or not, I hope they just keep upping this until the orders stop!

4 minutes ago, MGR Hooper! said:

 

It is still available.

Thanks for that - it was "Out of Stock" when I looked 5 minutes ago but I checked again when I saw your post and managed to pre-order one! 

6 minutes ago, Phil Bullock said:

What? 18/60 here - did best on the what is it and music rounds.

 

As for Fighter Pilot - could be anyone hee hee. How many put Sir Keith Park? well he was sat in a Hurricane.....

 

 

Thought I'd be different and go for Sir Trafford Leigh Mallory instead of Sir Keith Park...

41 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

...some ISO complaint markings next to the cab doors. 

I much prefer the concept of "ISO complaint" markings, but suspect you mean "ISO compliant"...