kenw

The term 'Lightweights' referred to the construction technique rather than any particular classes, or even weigh as I don't think there was actually that much difference in actual weight. 'Lightweight' cars would always have the 'LW' stencilled on the ends, initially on the blue square, and after this was dropped after the non-blue square types were defunct, in place of it as illustrated above, as the LW had operational significance - these cars were restricted as to where they could be formed when being conveyed in loco hauled ecs / parcels trains, and maybe were more restricted in conveying tail loads than 'Heavyweights'. Don't recall HW markings being applied.

Hi, Although trailer cars weren't powered, they were wired for through control, and the control equipment differed between different coupling codes, which is what the codes referred to, so no, they wouldn't be compatible with different coded sets. By the late 80s, trailer cars were largely extinct anyway, apart perhaps from some specific areas. In the Newcastle area we still had 3-cars in the early-80s, but not 4-car, and the DMUs were replaced by Pacers from '86. We then got all sorts of odd sets draughted back in, (anything they could get that still ran, basically) to cover for all the Pacer failures! I think some of the auxiliary equipment such as battery boxes were positioned differently between 101s and 108s.

Hi Clive, Good luck with that one! I did consider trying this conversion, but only got as far as taking the body off the powered DMBS car. One look at the complexity of the innards, particularly the motor housing and the full length PCB under the roof, and promptly put the lid back on! Gave up on the idea of converting this chassis from a Driving Motor to a Trailer Brake, and the alternative of just converting the body, from a DMBS to a DMS would leave the rather large motor housing fully visible in the passenger saloon. An easier option would probably be seeing if Charlie Petty of D C Kits still has any parts available to build the TBS, and use a pair of Bachmann DMS as made

Interesting, as the Trans-Pennines were non-standard and for specific workings. As the photo linked to above shows they had Pullman type gangways, when a 101 / 104 driving car was used presumably the gangways would have to be locked out of use, unless (unlikely) gangway adaptors were available? As this wouldn't allow through access for the Guard would the 101 / 104 vehicle be locked out of passenger use, and used solely to provide a driving vehicle?

Hi John, Yes, but the Trans-Pennines weren't exactly standard sets. They were basically mainline Mk1 stock built as DMUs and for a specific service and as Clive has said, didn't normally tend to associate with lesser types. In fact, looking at the picture you linked, it has buckeye couplers and a 'pullman' gangway which wouldn't be compatible with the BS gangway of standard DMU stock

Yes, from the same reference, the 4-car 104s were built for the North Eastern Region, and were formed DMCL-TSL-TBSL-DMCL. I've converted one of these from a pair of Hornby 110 sets. Although I've not seen any evidence of it, as the Met-Cam buffet cars were 'loose' vehicles, there's no reason one couldn't have been formed in a 104 set in place of the TSL, as described above.

Hi, Formation of the 4 car Met Cams depended on which batch they were from; The 1956/7 batch were formed DMCL-TSL-TBSL-DMCL. Driving cars with original style front with four marker lights. The 1959 batch were formed DMBS-TCL-TCL-DMCL Driving cars with later front having just two marker lights and a 2 digit headcode below windscreens. The DMBS also had the later style van doors on the left-hand side, the Guard's door, inward opening with droplight being the right-hand door, and the plain outward opening door being the left-hand one. These also appear to have been the only 4-car sets built with a Driving Brake car instead of the usual Trailer Brake. Of course as cars were swapped between sets for maintenance, either style DMCL could be seen on either formation set. The Trailer Buffet cars were built separately, in 1960, and intended as 'loose' vehicles for inclusion on certain scheduled trains, so could be included in any set as required, either in place of a TCL / TSL in a 4-car, or simply added into a 3-car or power-twin, but not a normal motor/trailer 2-car!! I've heard they were normally used on Newcastle - Carlisle / Newcastle - Middlesbrough services, but not for very long - as well as his normal duties, and checking / selling tickets, the Guard was also supposed to man the Buffet. Which naturally didn't work.! That brings in a general point on DMU formations. While all 'blue square' cars were compatible, and any could be coupled to make up sets as required, as well as different sets working in multiple together, you don't, with their relative low power, get more trailer vehicles than power cars within the same set, and as, on the standard sets, all motor cars were also driving cars, this limits for maximum formation of a single unit to 4-cars (ie 2 driving motor cars and 2 trailer cars), and a driving trailer would only work in a 2-car set. The mixing of different classes of unit was also aided by the fact that, as drivers, we simply learned "the DMU", and that was that, ANY DMU was A DMU. Regardless of type, they were all built to the same standard, unlike their modern replacements where each class needs to be learned individually. Reference for formation info; A Pictorial Record of BR DMUs, Brian Golding, Cheona Publications (green, A4 sized). invaluable for modelling DMUs, includes build formations and regional allocations including number series, main detail differences within types, photos, and scale drawings of all car types

Not quite, the report actually says (para.43) "There were also no reported near misses with road or pedestrian traffic"Note the use of "reported", the enquiry would only consider the event as officially reported

While both the Barclay and Bagnall look interesting, but with a defunct RSH already which failed to manage a full lap of the club test track, and other's on here experience, another Electrotren chassis or two?? sorry but think I'll have to pass on that one

Level crossing stupidity? More like reporting stupidity! For a start, it's not an automatic crossing - there's full barriers so it must be remotely monitored in some way, probably CCTV. This means the signals must also be interlocked with the crossing. From the video, the 'speeding' train (according to caption) has obviously been stopped and the driver instructed to proceed at caution and ensure the crossing's clear. Motorists are doing what they should, standing or doing a u-turn. As stated above, flashing red lights are an absolute stop and no-one, including emergency services, can pass, or authorise anyone else to pass, them. I've said on here before, press motto, "never let truth get in the way of a good story" As for "MrPhoneCam", typical 'mobile on, brain off'

Still is, it's the easiest way of turning sets back the right way round on the east coast route

Yes, it was screw couplings on the inner ends, and all other connections were identical as on the driving ends. So it was even possible, and I believe, done on occasions, so add an additional car to a set by coupling it's inner end to a driving end - eg adding another power car to a two-car set to form a three car

Although DMUs could haul 'tail traffic', by the time they were blue-grey livery the practice seemed to have largely died out (though not entirely from Swindon 123s post), and I never encountered it myself. Hauling passenger coaches by this time would be highly unlikely. Authorisation and instructions for tail traffic were as suggested above, contained in the sectional appendixes, and were on a line by line basis. The major factors were the line's gradient, and the number and ratio of power cars in the train. For your two car set, if a power twin then maybe a GUV van or similar load on most permitted routes, a power car / trailer two car set would unlikely to haul, if anything, more than a single 4 wheel van and on flattish routes

Obviously selected as the size of those two no-one would get past !

How far has the actual construction contract already been let? This may be a determining factor

Afraid so, I was down Tyne Yard with the Thunderbird two / three month ago an d the fitter there (Paul) was telling me the final 'Jarrow tanks' had run the previous day. Incidentally, I sometimes wonder what the general public make of a train of bogie tanks passing through that say "TEA" on the sides

My first impression was the coaches in the first photo appeared to be in LNER teak, having a brownish look. However, clicking to enlarge for photo for closer inspection, they have the BR lining and numbering style, so they are definitely maroon. The colour film emulsions from this period can be just as unreliable as the actual paints

Hi, just caught up on this interesting thread This lasted at least till the mid 80s. - When the Carlisle line via Scotswood closed and trains were diverted via Dunston to Blaydon, a single line was retained as far as Elswick for this depot. Hexham - listed previously. In the goods yard area, it handled 4w tanks. This was served by a pick-up working from Tyne Yard which also served Haltwhistle with the Killfrost? tanks. Sunderland, South Dock I don't think's been mentioned. An interesting one, it was brought (back?) into use late 70s / early 80s and was served by a 56 hauled block train of TEAs. The train was split in South Dock yard, the two portions in turn then being propelled down a steep gradient and over a level crossing (internal docks road) into the depot. A specially adapted brake van was provided, attached to the leading end, for this shunt. Closed several years ago now. Jarrow on Tyneside I don't think's been mentioned either. This was served by a daily block train of TEAs, latterly often 60 hauled. Closed earlier this year. A minor derailment here once caused major road chaos all over Tyneside, the access spur was on a curved concrete viaduct - with the roundabout serving the South end of the Tyne Tunnel below, which had to be closed!

Looks to be the same problem as mine. When I removed the 'blanking plug' from the PCB socket, isolating the motor from the PCB board and chassis, the motor still shorted out with test leads applied directly to it's terminals. Relegated to dead engine line

It just smoked again when tried it back home. Then started just shorting out. With the Blanking Plug removed from the socket and touching test leads direct to motor terminals still shorts out, on test gauge it takes a full 1 amp before controller cuts out.It had been test run previously light engine, and was running smoothly, this was just its first loaded test, just 6 wagons, and it didn't quite make one full lap

Anyone else had problems with the electrotren chassis? At my recent test session on our club test track, my RSH with 6 wagons managed just one lap before grinding to a halt and the motor going up in smoke. (My J73 of Arthur's - OO gauge, rigid chassis, and unweighted - comfortably managed all 24 wagons I had with me! ) (more posted on Wright Writes about this model)

Hi. Although I've not done the K4, I've built an Alexander J27 and J77, and an N10 nearing completion. Also a few of his tender kits on various conversions. I've always found his kits to be good quality castings with little flash and fit together well. Instructions can tend to be a bit 'basic' though. Some kits in recent years have been upgraded to include a brass boiler instead of whitemetal in two halfs. One point to watch is with the chassis, if it uses the tubular screw-in type frame spacers - these were seemingly designed for the old (thicker) drilled brass bar type frames and with the etched frames it results in a rather narrow chassis, so be careful with your gearbox selection, some are too wide to fit. Dont know if the K4 has that type spacer or just etched ones which should be wider though

Haven't built one of those, but my DJH D20 4-4-0, (kindly pictured and commented on by Tony on here a few month ago on it's visit to L.B.), had the same problem of being nose heavy and lack of anywhere for extra weight where it wouldn't make this worse. I normally use a brass bar for the drawbar, secured at either end by 8BA bolts, as part of using the 'split live' pick up system. A spring (the type supplied with screw couplings) was fitted over the bolt in the tender, between drawbar and tender base, and adjusted so most of the weight of the front of the (heavy whitemetal) tender is carried on the drawbar by the rear of the loco. Transformed the loco from struggling with 3 coaches to being perfectly happy with 6, and capable of more

if they're going to ignor four flashing red lights and a barrier, is yet another sign going to change these idiots nature? Having the lights work this way would see some motorists seeing them as working needlessly or just as ordinar traffic lights and negate their meaning that when flashing a train IS coming

Fortunate it was one, Pacers are often used on this line