Gary704

I’ll wade in here rather than lurking in the dark corners!  Tbh when that Easterner train set finally arrived I was quite “shocked” by how small it was. However the detail and how it “sat” on the track with no wobble or overhang very quickly proved to me that I had made the right choice. Strange really.,

”00” no longer seems right to me. 

Class 40 please…🤭 and a Black 5.. 🙏

It’s not often I put my oar in but I’ve been monitoring the TT120 threads for a while and my goodness what a lot of Hornby bashing!

TT120 has brought me back into the hobby so that must be a good thing.

Anyway.. running lights on a shunting loco.. 

when carrying out shunting one red and one white above each buffer. 
when running on main line as a loco or not shunting two white lights one above each buffer and a tail light as required.

No other lights used after 1976. 

2 hours ago, britishcolumbian said:

Via the German TT board I discovered this, laser cut kits

 

https://www.inthegreenwoodlaser.co.uk/tt120

Interesting. Reasonably priced too. 

22 minutes ago, Roddy Angus said:

Or looking at it another way, Hornby is just alerting the other manufacturer that they are already working on a model so that the other manufacturer can decide whether or not they still want to spend their money going head to head against each other.  Similar to Accurascale and Revolution who are both doing the FNA-D but at least both know they have competition. 

 

To be honest, I prefer Hornby's approach to other manufacturers who don't announce until the models are about to ship, thereby possibly leading to a smaller company committing expenditure on a model which suddenly has unexpected competition.

 

I've nothing against competition  but, the way I see it, I simply prefer Hornby's openess in alerting other companies to their plans.

 

Roddy

It’s illegal for one company ( in any business) to advise another of their business intentions, as SK admits in the you tube video. 
It’s a free market economy and Hornby ( and Bachmann et al ) can do whatever they like.

Outwith the big two ( Hornby and Bachmann ) the others are almost “specialist” in the model train world. I can’t see Rails, Rapido or Accurascale getting into the trainset market anytime soon.

That looks better than I thought it would. The track looks good, certainly better than Hornby images I’ve seen. Certainly promising. Good size too!

On 03/11/2022 at 19:21, spamcan61 said:

They've been living off borrowed money for years; just because a company is big (in a very small field) doesn't make them invincible. I hope they succeed, I've ordered a set, but I certainly wouldn't take it as a given that the scale will take off commercially.

Everybody should hope they will succeed because it’s in the hobby’s interest. The anti Hornbyists may sneer and pontificate but the fact of the matter is that it’s Hornby that bring people into the hobby. No one else.

4 hours ago, eldomtom2 said:

It looks like Hornby are getting what they want - the problem is, I'm not sure a new scale on its own will be enough to save them. They have failed to use TT as a chance to reconceptualiise their ideas of what a train set is, for instance - they are just doing the exact same thing they do in OO, just in a different scale.

I’m not sure Hornby need “saved”. They are a multi national company. They know what they’re doing. They don’t operate out of a garden shed!

3 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

Fleischmann and Rivarossi's excursions into British outline were very nicely done by the standards of the time but expensive and limited. They all look rather crude today but that's hardly surprising or a cause for criticism given their age and the paradigm shift in British outline over the last 30 years or so.

I think it is something to celebrate that British outline finally has an RTR option which is the same scale as international models and with the correct gauge for scale. How much crossover there will be between British and overseas I don't know but at least the option is there now.

The main complaints I see here and elsewhere still seem to be from disgruntled OO and N enthusiasts who don't like the idea of a company making models in another scale. My answer is still that if people want more OO and N models then rather than complain about TT they should look to manufacturers to do more in OO and N. Actually, OO modellers have never had it so good and really can't complain. Things may be less rosy in N but Rapido and Revolution are doing some very nice models and Farish and Dapol are still active in the scale. 

I do agree with the comment about “disgruntled 00 and N” modellers. Perhaps it’s because the incorrect gauge / scale is an inconvenient truth? To be reminded that after spending ££ on an exquisite model that it’s running on narrow gauge track can’t be great and that the 00 cash cow mythology has been perpetuated by all manufacturers.

Just dipping my toes in here and fascinated by TT120. Definitely will make me think about returning to the hobby.

https://westhillwagonworks.co.uk/new_products

Hi, Just stumbled across reference to train crew diagrams. I'm doing research on Strathmore but have a "professional" interest in old train crew diagrams. Where does one start? Thanks.

I’m not one for hype Westie. I take an interest in railway related infrastructure and politics. Electrification, possibly bimode’s, are the way forward.

Not more diesel.

Probably need to disagree on that Eddie R.!

Probably a couple of things worth mentioning. I would be unlikely that Transport Scotland go down the 222 route.

It has been proven elsewhere that the 22x class are less fuel efficient and more polluting than a Class 43 (even two of them), the MTU has a remarkable engine management system.

TS have made it clear that decarbonisation is the way forward.

HST replacement will not be diesel.

Probably a couple of things worth mentioning. I would be unlikely that Transport Scotland go down the 222 route.

It has been proven elsewhere that the 22x class are less fuel efficient and more polluting than a Class 43 (even two of them), the MTU has a remarkable engine management system.

TS have made it clear that decarbonisation is the way forward.

HST replacement will not be diesel.

A final point and a personal opinion (!), the quality of the refurb is excellent. Obviously there are limitations ( the corridor connection shows its heritage) and corrosion will be an issue, but there is at least 10 years left in the old girls yet.

Gary

Hi all,

On the subject of named trains I have to be honest and say I have never heard of the named freight trains. I strongly suspect it was a marketing ploy, used by the commercial people, but never filtered down to the troops. None of the old steam boys I used to work with ever mentioned named trains, it was alway the "xx.xx goods" or whatever. Same with passenger trains, names were irrelevant.

..and having just reread my post, it was of course the "signalman house"...

Hi,

Late to this so apologies. As it may have been mentioned there are a few good pictures on "Transport Treasury". Also  NLS / Maps are tremendous. I know the area reasonably well. The Station Masters house was burnt down in the '30's and never replaced. The track plan and signals didn't change much until 1967, however there was a Refuge Siding (trailing connection) on the Up side, on the Forfar side of the LC. This was removed quite early, possibly '30's ?

A word though! The occupant of the station building (at least a couple of years ago is unfriendly). He erected a fence across the trackbed for "privacy" and denied me permission to take pics of the SB site.

Hope the link works.

Gary

https://www.flickr.com/photos/88182025@N08/albums/72157685039036783

18 minutes ago, Fat Controller said:

The article I recollect made much of the fact that the line had received a 'Prize Length' award at some point.

18 minutes ago, Fat Controller said:

The article I recollect made much of the fact that the line had received a 'Prize Length' award at some point.

18 minutes ago, Fat Controller said:

The article I recollect made much of the fact that the line had received a 'Prize Length' award at some point.

18 minutes ago, Fat Controller said:

The article I recollect made much of the fact that the line had received a 'Prize Length' award at some point.

Yup. I remember seeing a "Prize length" sign about Eassie. And that was in 1982, long after the local gangers had gone. The "Forfar Relay" were  a squad of gangers living in Forfar, continuing the railway tradition long after the demise of "their" line. BR kept them going because of Forfar's geographical location. There would have been lads in that squad who would have worked win the line pre '67, it must have been galling to see the scrappy's move in..

13 minutes ago, caradoc said:

As Gary704 says the bridge numbering north of Kinnaber Jc is a continuation of the Caley route too, with the result that the numbers 'stepped back' and there are therefore several bridges with duplicate numbers. Control has to be very careful when getting a report of a bridge strike, or indeed any other incident involving a bridge number, in that area. I presume (unable to check as now retired !) that the Engineers' Line Reference (ELR) changes at the site of Kinnaber Jc ?

Ahh. I've seen reference to the "line of route" thing. I presume it will still change at Kinnaber. If I can confirm you will be the first to know!

20 hours ago, sulzer27jd said:

Have a look here - 

 

I have and downloaded the Glamis and Eassie drawing. They are v. good, with the Eassie example having Forfar Rd LC featured. Something I have been looking for!

22 hours ago, keefer said:

A couple of latter-day oddities which harked back to the main-line status of the route were the Highland main line to Inverness was referred to as the 'branch' and at Stonehaven there is a 'Carlisle 250' (not sure of the figure) milepost 

 

It's no longer referred to as the Branch for obvious reasons, however the MP's from Carlisle are still actively used. Kinnaber is just shy of 203 miles and Stonehaven is 225 miles from Carlisle. Structure numbers also revert to the CR / LMS system at Kinnaber, from memory numbered from Perth. The NB is miles from Dundee (?). BTW the first bridge on the HML at Stanley is Bridge No1 and was referred to as the "Highland bridge".

22 hours ago, Caley Jim said:

Have you asked on the CRA website ?

 

Jim

Hi Jim,

Sort of! I sent an email to CRASSOC and I am hopeful of corresponding with the legendary Jim Summers!

On 20/03/2019 at 08:37, imt said:

A

 

Effectively you are saying there was no through route Stanley/Aberdeen after end 1967?

 

Do you have any knowledge of the named freight trains and where and when they ran?

Correct. The "Strathmore line" (Between Stanley JN and Kinnaber Jn) was part of the CR route from Carlisle to Aberdeen, many consider it part of the WCML. O.S. Nock referred to it as the "Caley Racetrack".It was a  significant player in the 1895 races. Beeching reported it as a duplicate route in his 63 report with all through traffic diverted via the parallel NB route via Dundee from 4/9/67. The SJ to Forfar and Kinnaber Jn to Bridge of Dun were singled and down graded to basic goods line status. The branch from Bridge of Dun to Brechin was also retained. Forfar North Jn to Bridge of Dun was to be "mothballed" for a year ( a Castle / Wilson ploy to mollify the locals and unions) in case of reopening (!) but the reality was that BR needed the high quality track for use elsewhere. Signal posts and telegraph poles remained in situ adding to the "lost main line" image..

Kinnaber to Brechin closed in 1981 after a DMU special and SJ to Forfar closed on 5/6/1982 after two specials hauled by 40143, although 26010 went up the line to collect wagons on 7/5/82.

The picture is dated 1986 and shows Stanley Jn with the empty trackbed of the Aberdeen line stretching away..

Hi all,

The Strathmore main line was a prominent feature locally but, remarkably, seems to retain a low profile. However my specific interest is the signal boxes and level crossings, with current research concentrating on the Stanley JN to Forfar corridor. However sourcing signalling details is difficult, particularly for the later years. I have used "443shop" diagrams, but these tend to be Edwardian and have a few minor errors. can anyone help?

Gary