Pteremy

Great to see the excellent reviews. Let us hope that this increases the chances of seeing 116s, 118s and driving trailers for the 121/122s, either directly or via commissions. (But selfishly SYP versions in first batch(es) please!) Until then I will be happy with a Rule 1 whiskers 117 on a 'mystery excursion' from London.

This is only a 'rule 1' purchase for me. But i reckon that if the upper window angle can be fixed (so more nearly parallel than 'droopy') then most people will think that this is the Peak to have.

Looking at the Heljan illustrations on page 1 of this thread the roof curve starts well below the rainstrip. So perhaps it is the arc of the rain strip across the front is wrong, with consequences of the upper slope of the windows?

The Sins of The Fathers. Apparently there was also a layout featured in an episode of Frost. https://railwaypages.com/trains-on-tv-and-screen

The BTF film 'Modelling For the Future' deserves a mention here, a film devoted to the large model layout of a possible channel tunnel railway terminal, as it was envisaged in 1961. Perhaps not quite what the original post was after, as the layout had a serious 'modelling' purpose rather than just entertainment. But fantastic viewing nonetheless.

Or - with the arrival of the Bachmann Cl117/CL121 - some of the missing links - Cl 116/118 and Trailers for the Cl121/122.

Another slight oddity is the photo on page 562. This is described as the 1.17pm from Barnstaple Junction to Taunton on 30/8/61, crossing the Tone viaduct. 1961 is a suspect date because the visible coaches are BR Mk1s, which did not appear regularly on local services on this line until 1963. But happily the picture has been published at least twice before: in Railway Magazine 1965 (p60) and In MJ Fox's Railways In and Around Taunton (p69) (although there it is printed back to front). According to the Railway Magazine it is in fact 5336 on the 3.50pm from Barnstaple, on Saturday 5th September 1964. (Fox - the photographer - gives the same date in his book but does not specify a time.) At the front of the train are 3 milk tanks, and milk tanks could also be sent to Taunton on the corresponding weekday service - the 4.10pm - for example, see page 326 of Volume 2 and page 563 of Volume 3. Prior to use on the 4.10/3.50pm the WR coaching stock for this service was used for an early afternoon service between Barnstaple Junction and Torrington, so this would have been a convenient way to transfer milk tanks on to Taunton when, for whatever reason, this was required. (In fact the 2.47pm Torrington to Barnstaple Jct was the first leg of the majority of milk traffic from Torrington to London. Up to eight loaded tankers and a van would be attached to the 2.47pm (arr BJct approx 3.30pm) for transfer to the 3.00pm Ilfracombe-Exeter passenger train (dep 3.45pm BJct). Reformed into milk trains at Crediton (with milk from other destinations) they then worked to Exeter, where the tankers were split into milk trains for WR and SR route destinations in London.)

I agree. I do not want a Fell, or a Leader. But I didn't think I wanted a (G)WR Gas Turbine either, and yet it is a semi plausible 'Rule 1' possibility for me so I am going to have one. So if you can get the numbers together then why not do these limited edition runs. The basics are universal - it has to look right, and it has to operate (run) to good, modern standards (DC or DCC). With a few successes, and a little any luck, lets hope that others will start to do the same for carriage and wagon stock. As far as I can see 'Bespoke RTR' is the modern equivalent of e.g. quality brass kits that made the more obscure available to those with the means (in skill) to create them.

For the record there is one obvious error in the book, 'imported' from a photograph on the Cornwall Railway Society website. http://www.cornwallrailwaysociety.org.uk/taunton-to-barnstaple.html# On page 598 there is a picture of a camping coach, supposed to have been taken at South Molton in April 1961. The photograph caption speculates on why a camping coach, recorded as being in use at Congesbury from April 1953, should have been in use at South Molton in 1961, describing it as 'something of a mystery'. The only mystery is why anyone should think the location is South Molton. Considering the photograph then: there is no gabled roof at the relevant end of the station buildings at South Molton; there was a gated access to the platform between the main buildings and the end of the goods shed dock at South Molton; above the camping coach roof at the left hand end you can just make out a chimney and three spinals from a signal box roof, but there was no signal box in that position at South Molton; the rail entrance to the good shed is a brick arch, but like others on the line South Molton goods shed had its original broad gauge brick arches replaced by horizontal girders; and the good shed in the picture has a round wooden slated vent/window in the peak of the brickwork, but South Molton does not. So where is it? Perhaps not surprisingly it is at Congesbury - which has all the relevant features shown in the photo: a gabled roof in the relevant position, a signal box on the other side of the station, more or less opposite the goods shed, and a goods shed with the right characteristics.

My copy arrived this morning, a couple of days earlier than expected. Looks like the decision to complete the story with a third volume was well justified. Obviously only just flicked through so far, but there is a good proportion of pre war (and earlier) photos, as well as coverage of routine aspects of the operation of the line that typical 'photo + caption' highlights books never get into. Looking forward to reading properly.

This may have been addressed earlier in this thread, but is there any suggestion that Hatton's accelerated their releases in response to the Hornby spoiler? These locos are not my era, and i have a lot of sympathy for the complaints. But equally our hobby needs innovators, people not afraid to take a few risks. I don't see Hornby as innovators, even though they produce some excellent products. Should we cut Hatton's some slack, whilst asking them how they intend to pick it up?

Does seem curious. I would have thought that it is just a question of halting/completing the chassis assembly process at an appropriate point, before the no longer needed components are added. With a saving in both assembly time and components.

I recognise the 'half Noah' tendency mentioned in another thread. That is, I think that variety is a good thing in the BR steam era, 1948-to early 60s, and I am tempted to have one of everything, at least, everything that fits 'my' part of that era. As time goes on I am a bit more critical about the type of freight that is represented - but there is still scope to vary the wagons carrying that freight. So one of 'these' will be welcome.

Really informative thread Phil. Looking at some GSYP examples it looks as if the far corner of the OHLE flashes did, very very slightly, overlap the nose curve. So even with lower head code boxes it was a tight fit. As an alternative to moving the head code boxes did you consider whether slightly underscale OHLE flashes might work - e.g. HO rather than OO? If such things exist? Or whether transfers from different sources might be different sizes?

I do hope that some police force, somewhere is making use of all this information. Whilst each individual theft may not be the highest priority, the cumulative losses must be starting to ramp up and the culprits appear to quite brazen in persisting with their strategy.

The RCTS master work notes that the 10 tenders built in Lot A112, the final batch of Churchward tenders, 'have been called "intermediate pattern"'. Which suggests to me that (a) the authors did not themselves find the term helpful but that (b) it was probably a term of long standing and therefore they mentioned it for completeness. For me the most significant point is that there were only 10 built, with a further 2 rebuilt into this condition.

The 1952 photo is actually 18100, not 18000 - but the single coach formation, on a test run, appeals from a modelling point of view.

Taunton-Barnstaple. And the Exe Valley - although 7801 and 7806 apparently took the Royal Train from Exeter to Thorverton, for overnight stabling, in July 1952.

Three cheers for Dapol. Yes, we need to see what the model looks like and how it performs, before passing judgement on it. But that is true of any release, by any manufacturer. Dapol clearly want to be taken seriously: that is, as a manufacturer of accurate models, not just 'toys', so they want this to be a success. (p.s. - don't forget the 73xx)

It is - just finished reading it. The London/Urban theme is fab - think i may buy a print copy as well.

Which is fine - better something specific rather than a generic bodge. With scope for other versions idc. Why be glass half empty when you can be glass half full? If it looks the part and runs well then most of us will be happy.

Gave one of my aged (and second hand) Bachmann 43xx a spin yesterday, after some time in a box. Clearly needs running in - and lubricating - but was a bit like a bucking bronco. More than prototypically so, but much as I remember it, even when run in. So I am looking forward to a good, modern mechanism as much as anything else. Fortunately (for me) the body style of 43xx that Dapol are starting with suits my 'final steam' period of interest (i.e. 63xx). But if they come up with a really good mechanism then I think that they will be able to cash in by building on the initial investment with other variants of 43xx, and other classes.

Affordability depends on personal circumstance and inclination. But it is possible to compare 'cost' over time. Apparently (according to inter web) £1 in 1980 equates to £4.18 in 2018. So working backwards a £300 DMU would have been just over £70 in 1980. I don't know what the Lima 117 cost circa 1980, but I bet that most people would have considered a Bachmann version, with the quality of detail and operational functionality, DC or DCC (if it could have been utilised), worth the extra. Which is not to say that I don't find the steep price increases a worrying trend. But as others have said there are other, smaller manufacturers, who are demonstrating that quality can be delivered at a lower price.

Yes, of course. But I think that it is a good choice for 'limited run' RTR. I would never have bothered with a kit. But given a good RTR option then, on a Rule 1 basis (for me), yes please.

I have a complete set of GWJ, the only magazine that I have cared enough about to have bound. It was a thing of beauty, in execution and content. But I can understand the limitations, particularly in terms of new insights. If someone was to bring together, in one place, the existing knowledge of the system then - from an academic perspective - that would be a worthwhile enterprise - but realistically I think that, given the scale of any such enterprise, then we are going to be left with multiple contributions, in multiple places. Which is probably no different to any other specialism, railway or otherwise.