Pteremy

Save up for the retooled versions, whenever they appear!

The classic Modellers BackTrack article describes them as based on a 1938 Shell-BP design, which was '..a refinement..' of the 1927 RCH design. A key difference/innovation in the Air Ministry orders was the provision of a catwalk and ladder. Initially two small catwalks either side of the filler cap, subsequently one longer one. But not all of the tank wagons built for the Air Ministry had a catwalk, so there was quite a lot of variation. Post war conversions saw catwalks and ladders added where absent, and some catwalks repositioned. So all in all a lot of variety for some willing manufacturer to make a fortune out of.

I don't know how accurate it is (in a rivet counting sense) but the underframe is certainly a thing of beauty, really capturing the 'skeletal' look of the real thing.

Indeed. Guess we will have to wait for the first test samples to find out.

The colour is described as being 'BR green'.

Possibly. To be honest I don't really associate Dapol with 2020 standard wagons. Too many wagons of distant vintage or generic design, for my era of interest at any rate. But if they have done a good job of a 7mm version then I would be in the market for a few scaled down versions. I know that some of the others they have scaled down, the Bolster E for example, have gone down well.

Yes, indeed, one reason that I think it was a good choice to produce. They already have a much more modern design (somewhere) in production. But after that taking on the Air Ministry tank wagons, one of RTR's big gaps, would I think be a logical and commercial thing to do.

Sad news even in these sad times. I hope that the layout has a second lease of life somewhere. But whatever it's fate the inspirational will live on. One of the things I have been doing during lockdown is a cardboard mock up of a stretch of the 'Bolham deviation' on the Exe Valley line, the consequence of an obsession stretching back to 1974-77, in part fuelled by Broad Aston.

I have not seen one in the flesh yet - waiting for a different livery - but it does seem that Oxford have produced a decent model of an early tank wagon. Hopefully it will be a commercial success. And if so perhaps they will be tempted to use the experience to develop the later 'Air Ministry' tank wagons.

Is that a cradle mount?

Yes. The captions in all 3 books are a weakness in the sense that I do not think that the photographic evidence, much of it new and excellent, is always evaluated as critically as it might have been. Things are missed, misinterpreted or the subject of spurious speculation. To give another example, on page 679 of Volume 3 there is a photo of a Class 120 DMU in the Exe Valley platform at Dulverton, on the last day of the Exe Valley service (5/10/63). The caption includes speculation that this was '..possibly the first time a DMU had been used on the service?' And yet it is recorded elsewhere that in Summer 1963 the 12.50pm Exeter to Dulverton service (arr Dulverton 2.07pm, dep 3.15pm) was provided by a 3 car DMU set, with photographic evidence of both Class 120 and Class 116 being used. For example, on 23 June 1963 Laira Class 120 Set LA503 was used - see p51 of John Owen's master work on the Exe Valley, p163 of Modern Railways 1963, or Whitehouse's Branch Line Album. B&W photos from eBay (possibly still available) show a Class 116 unit in use on 6th July 1963.

This was the first issue I have managed to get my hands since lockdown, thanks to my wife/daughter who go shopping while I am required to 'hide away'. It is fine. The difficulties they faced producing the issue are addressed in the editorial. I don't why some people have it in for Model Rail - in my view it is good value for money.

Yes it is.

Well I have a blue 3 car set which includes 51332 and 51334, for which domes would be accurate (albeit you would not have expected both numbers in the same set). But I also have a green 3 car set which does not have appropriate numbers. Comparing the Lima with Bachmann reminded me that Lima had not done a bad job on the underframe detail, albeit in simplified form. But you get 2020 performance from the Bachmann mechanism, assisted by the electrical pick up from all three coaches

And yet the exchanges illustrate something about different perspectives, and a desire to get to a better understanding of 'the truth'. I have learnt something about the GWR/WR mainline, and something about geography. Personally I would not be so dismissive of the diversion from the main subject of the thread.

I don't think this is right. The OS map shows a dog legged field boundary west of Milley Bridge, just as in the photo. It also shows Milley lane running to the north of the bridge, and Milley Road to the south. Truth is both posters are right. The railway terminology is quite logical, because the infrastructure has spread east from Ruscombe. But geographically the railway has always been 'passing' Waltham St Lawrence (to the south east). If the prominent signs for 'Waltham St Lawrence' were at the bridge when the photo was taken you can understand why that was given as the location.

Whether or not the buffer beams are correct for use in traffic Bachmann appear to have got the lining right. The green whiskered set is numbered as Southall set SHL308 51349/51391/59501. Thanks again to the Railcar site this would have been the '18th set', delivered summer 1960, by which time lining was applied from new. I think that I will be keeping the red buffer beams, on the rule 1 assumption that some were rushed into use without blackening.

I think that earlier in this thread - if not, on a prototype related thread on RMWeb - it was mentioned that the first 4 117 sets actually had domed headcode boxes. The Railcar website has photos showing this, for example 51334 from the 3rd set: https://www.railcar.co.uk/images/101/?id=101 In some photos the doomed head code boxes have very obviously rivetted/studded rims where the box was attached to the roof, rather like the Derby built class 127s. For example see 51374 (from the 1st set) in May 1961 on page 76 of Kevin Robertson's First Generation DMUs, where the weathering to the white cab roof shows this well.

The 'Railcar' site has photos that appear to show red buffer beams https://www.railcar.co.uk/images/117/works/5cr-145.jpg

Out of curiosity I looked up this location on the online OS map. 'Milley Bridge' is marked prominently. So if it had been me I suspect that I would have recorded the location as that!

Ran my 117 for the first time last night. Really impressed by the mechanism - ran incredibly smoothly straight out of the box, even at a slow crawl (on DC).

On tail loads there are three examples in Kevin Robertson's First Generation DMUs: p25 2 car 108 set with SR PMV (on way to Bletchley, 8/61) p40 3 car 120 set with LMS (?) Stove R (on way to Hereford, 6/58) p66 Pair of 122 singles with 2 milk tanks, crossing Royal Albert Bridge bound for Plymouth (4/62) And two slightly more recent examples in Brian Morrisons British Rail DMUs: p72 3 car 104 set with SR (?) PMV (on way to Ipswich, 6/79) p188 3 car 120 + 122 single with 12T Insulated Fish Van (on way to Aberdeen, 6/79)

Squinting might get you a 118 but not a 116. And you are assuming that a lot of different tooling would be required when that probably isn't really the case - small step to a 118, slightly bigger one to a 116 because of the different layout to the middle coach. As for the 'general public' I doubt that is where the market for £300 DMU's is, it is with those who value the small prototypical differences. It is a bit like saying that manufacturers should not bother making more than, say, two types of coach in any style, a brake 2nd and a corridor 2nd. But fortunately that isn't true anymore, even different lengths of underframe being accommodated.

I am sure that is right. But I hope that the pent up demand for 116/118s etc is noted somewhere, given that the differences are not so great in the grand scheme of things.

I hope you are wrong. Today manufacturers are much more willing to consider variations on a theme, be it liveries or relatively slight prototypical changes or differences, than they were when Lima produced their 117. Of course there has to be money in it for them. But I reckon that the 116/117/118/121/122/149/150 family offers a good opportunity for someone. On the mystery tour, as it is a rule 1 journey there will be plenty of scope to include appropriate refreshment/comfort stops in the timetable.......