BR Blue

Definitely February 1986. I have that in the Jane's book and Rail Magazine of the time. 58050 had a system called SEPEX as far as I recall.

The first four Yeoman 59s would have been in service for around 4 and a half years when that video was taken. Hard to believe it was so along ago when they first arrived. I first saw them in 1987.

Definitely try and salvage it. It is all going experience and part of the learning curve. DMU cut and shunts are really enjoyable once you get into it.

That is my recollection too.

Badly. The Heljan Hymek is vastly superior both in haulage capacity and accuracy. It is one of Heljan's better models. It has the correctly offset roof grill and in general is a vastly superior model.

You are right. British fuels is out of era for me but I have duplicates of all the original 4 Cawoods sets so will be trying to swap the wagons only with someone who whats a larger uniquely numbered British fuels rake.

And a second question for you. Both your options come with one speaker, is there a particular type of speaker you would choose to replace the two Bachmann ones included in the model? Thanks

Kernow did say they intended to do other classes but obviously Bachmann took over the project after that and have never stated any further intentions. However, I think a 116 will follow in future. The way modern tooling is made I am sure Bachmann have planned for variations.

Yes, Set 465 was allocated to Cardiff and was a 118. Towards the end of the 80s and into the early 90s Cardiff did get other units as 116 were withdrawn. Additionally units from Bristol and other places would also venture into Wales. Class 117 were not unknown in Wales and there are quite a few photos of the Kernow Class 117 unit in South Wales for instance, this photo by Geoff Dowling (https://www.flickr.com/photos/geoffsimages/) at Ebbw Junction (incorrectly labelled as a 116 on Flickr) of a service from Cardiff: A NSE 117 also made an early visit to South Wales as previously mentioned in this topic. I have not ordered a 117 yet but my resistance is failing.

Both versions look good. One apparent difference is the headcone panels in the front on view.

He did mention it as he looked into after being surprised by the price and thinking it was a bit of a bargin which it obviously is not. He never mentions that is inaccurate. He is more concerned about the packaging I agree that its a poor model and should be in Railroad range but its a superficial review and far inferior to most magazine ones. It is also supposed to be one of his better ones. Personally I have stopped watching his reviews.

Just to added to the earlier discussion earlier on in this topic. Ben Jones has said, as part of a wider discussion in the class 45 topic, that the 33/0s with the old tooling were done for Gaugemaster at a lower retail price. This appears to be at Gaugemaster's request to keep the price down. He also said it is unlikely the old tooling will be used again.

I would not give any weight to Sam's opinions even if I might sometimes agree. His 'reviews' of models such as Hornby's RAF liveried 156 (being blissfully unaware it was a 20 plus year old Lima tooling so what did he expect) to his sensationalist criticism of some Heljan models. There is more informed feedback to be found here, in amongst some OTT responses. It is really great that you are engaging and I can appreciate it is difficult, all the more so with some far too personal comments. I would not blame you if you stopped. The fact that Heljan had some historic models with shape issues such as the 33/0 (why has it come back in some recent releases?) and the 47 does make some wary and Heljan will come under more scrutiny in this regard. Heljan can get it right e.g 33/1, 33/2, 35, 128 etc. which makes the occasional misstep all the more frustrating. I too am in the camp of when something is seen it cannot be unseen. Your point about the O gauge 45 is well made and re-assuring. I am looking forward to the next 45 updates. Thanks for taking the time.

Looking at the details on the Hattons site I find it it usual the way you can build 2 different 14 car sets with different power options. https://www.hattons.co.uk/newsdetail.aspx?id=668 Firstly get the 5 car set and buy the 9 extra which includes a powered NDM car so you will have a 14 car set with 2 powered NDMs. Alternatively, buy the 7 car set which includes the APT-U development coach (not used in 14 car set) leaving you to buy 8 more but in this case you get a dummy NDM so there is only one powered car in the train. Full details, including the Hornby R numbers are on link above and no doubt other sites. The result is 2 different 14 car sets with the difference being (apart from running numbers) that one set has 2 powered cars and the other 1. Perhaps it depends on whether your layout has inclines or not. Either way it would have to be a big layout

There would have been a cost to replacing the tooling so why did they replace it? Also it was a few years ago too and they had done a few runs with the original tooling. I doubt it owed them much. Surely there would have been an extra cost for using two different molds in the latest production run. They have better tooling so why not use it? I would expect sales would be higher had the used the newer tooling. Personally would have bought Sultan if it was in the newer tooling. The original 33/0 was around for a while before they decided to replace it. Presumably due to the negative impact of the model on their reputation? The theory floated above that they had some old molds lying around and wanted to get rid of makes sense to me. What I find so odd is that when they have gone to the trouble of improving or fixing your error (although some aspects such as the grills were a step backward) why, a few years later bring back the older flawed model? I cannot imagine we will see Bachmann bring back some of their older class 37 versions, their class 47 with class 57 bogies or their class 150 with the solid black interior. Manufactures tend to respond to criticism and improve their models which is great for us all. Hornby often consign older models to their Railroad range when they bring out a better version. All of this is why I find the Heljan decision to re-introduce, the late but not lamented flat roofed 33 a strange decision. Of the recent releases, the green 33008 also uses the old tooling.

Which problem? The answer is confusingly yes and no. The original 33/0 had the incorrect roof profile which was corrected on the revised release. However, the revised release did introduce some over prominent panel lines (for want of a better word) on the roof but at least the roof had the correct profile. Something the 33/1s and 33/2s always had. Then some of the current releases inexplicably re-introduced the flat roofed version. I say inexplicably as Heljan corrected it - presumably due to customer feedback and reviews - and now on some models have brought it back. Other models in the latest batch of releases still have the corrected roof profile but still have the over prominent panel lines. I do not know why Heljan did not bin the flat roof 33/0 as they have a correctly profiled replacement. I cannot see, for example, Bachmann bringing back the original 37 molds or the 47 with the 57 bogies.

The award is a complete nonsense like other claims he made when he was starting DJM. I know for a fact that a successful wagon he claimed he was responsible for had none of his input as the project re-started without him. The initial work he did was sub standard and rejected. The project was redone from scratch yet he still tried to take credit.

I would have a preference for the earlier NSE livery myself. Tempted by the Kernow GWR livery version too

This might be the same one in Cardiff in 1987, also from Flickr:

He definitely dealt with his Chinese suppliers differently to other manufactures. For instance other manufacturers paid their Chinese suppliers.

Dave Jones claimed to have won this award. As stated, Margaret Thatcher took time out from the events of the Falkland War to award young Dave this prize. One of the many doubtful claims he made. I think it may have been on his website.

Definitely Spamcam61. The more Dave Jones is mentioned in connection with this matter the better. I have heard a few things from multiple independent people who had dealings with Dave Jones. I cannot prove any of it but I believe it to be true. There are too many similar stories. As well as the snake-oil sales man there was a nasty side. The narcissist label does appear to fit. I can definitely see him doing something like this again. I spoke to him a few times and I always felt uneasy about him. I only learnt of his past exploits in his N gauge resprays more recently. As regards his holidays, there were multiple annual holidays which were illustrated for all to see on various photography sites. For most of the time DJM was running he had no other employment so .... I wonder how much a prime-ministerial award winning modeller would earn in a year?

At the APT stage the alarm bells were well and truly ringing. The losses as recorded by the liquidator are not the whole story as has been mentioned - little or no book keeping, the Paypal saga etc. I believe the total is higher. Lots of money accumulated and very little to show for it in terms of products, pre production samples or toolings. Others have shown that crowd funded projects can be successful if properly managed. However I still believe there is a huge gaping hole in the accounts. Factories were not paid so where did the money go? I have my suspicions.

I have vague memory of reading an article where someone powered the roof fan, I think on a Hornby 50 not a 56. They might have used one of the motors from the Hornby 58 and put two powered function outputs for the chip as one was not enough. I would guess a scottrains29 says a micro motor might be the way to go. I am sure someone as done it.

I dont recall it being asked before. I would say it is highly likely. I have seen photos but not 1990. It is a question of when the last of them were painted into the newer livery, if indeed they all were.