Pteremy

Many thanks everyone.

Are they recorded anywhere?

I am right in thinking that the indicator boxes were only fitted at the end of 1966?

Exe Valley 14xxs are the same: some years they have top feeds, other years they don't. My approach is to have a mix, and similarly a mix of liveries. So representative of the period, if not necessarily accurate for a specified day in a specified year (although some combinations of loco and coach are intentionally time specific). A vanishingly small number or people would spot any errors, errors which would not be significant in the grand scheme of things.

There are lots of books and articles about wagons, but I wonder if there is a need for the information to be brought together to provide a definitive guide, in, say, a 'Wagons Illustrated' format? You could of course say the same for coaches. More often than not I find myself having to piece together things from several sources - and then discover later that I have missed or misunderstood something! Am I alone in yearning for a more 'monograph' approach to these things? Particularly as those with first hand knowledge are a wasting asset.

These look very tempting - on a Rule 1 basis in my case - but what is it with diesels that were that were relative failures? Some sort of inverse rule seems to apply: their attractiveness as models is inversely proportional to their success in real life. At least with Hymeks/Warships/Westerns you can blame management decisions rather than performance.

Fantastic stuff Tom. I particularly like the subtle variation in grey. I don't know (or care) which of the greys is officially 'right' because they all look the part. Are you going to have any 'nearly new' ones as well? I would also observe that at these distances, and with the exterrnal appearance so good, the lack of internal detail isn't really an issue.

Very nice - is the 'distress' freelance or based on as specific example?

The editorial of the latest HMRS magazine is about model shops, apparently a rewrite of a piece in Scalefour news in 2015. It makes the point that many provided kits and scratch build components, some even having their own product lines. Hobbytime for example had its BSL coach range. I never aspired to such things in those days but it was a marvellous shop to visit. It must have had its fair share of RTR but my hazy memory of it is as a 'making things' shop.

Prohibiting duplication would also inhibit new entrants into the market. Hornby may be grumpy but their response to Hatton's/Rails - in the sense of manufacturing response - illustrates the benefits of differentiated competition. They are having to up their game, either in terms of new spec or a new price point for old spec.

A happy and plausible outcome is that there are two different markets: the Hornby mass market, in Railroad and higher spec versions, and the high end RTR as being produced by Rails, Hatton's, Accurascale, Dapol, TMC etc.. Lets hope so. With all the understandable emphasis on locos I also hope that Hornby continue to produce excellent coaches. 'Retooling' the Gresleys to correct the mistakes, and provide a more realistic range, must be quick win. Some period I/II LMS coaches would support the emphasis on 'trains', as would earlier GWR - Toplights - or later - Sunshine Type I/II (rather than the Bachmann Yellow Disc). So co-operation may be more productive for everyone, rather than false direct competition.

Does anyone moderate the moderators?

In similar vein the 9ft Pressed steel bogie on Hornby Hawksworths would be useful for anyone building mid-late 30's coaches, including Sunshine and Yellow Disc.

I thought that it was very entertaining, as did my wife - although no doubt from a slightly different perspective. James May was James May but not irritatingly so. Personally I think that anything that normalises the hobby (or aircraft/military modelling for that matter) is a good thing. Limited insight into the 'business issues' but to do that would have needed a very different sort of programme.

Out of interest is there any research/intel as to how many layouts there are that will do justice to a 16/18 coach formation?

Are those 'Cats eyes' in the road in Black Lion crossing? Made me wonder if they have been modelled before - or maybe I have just never noticed?

Well delivery date has changed from 'Summer 2019' to 'TBC' in the March magazines. (And was 'Spring 2019' only a few months ago.) A negative interpretation is 'slipped'. A positive interpretation might be that they are taking stock post Hornby announcement on Prairie, to put more emphasis on the Mogul (including perhaps more permutations). But that is probably wishful thinking on my part, and other interpretations are available!

Chris - I did see it and it felt a bit weak. I would expect issues of legitimate concern to be shared beyond the confines of RMweb (in a classic venn diagram, overlapping areas of interest, sort of way). Don't get me wrong. I don't expect MR to write about them (unless they actually become news). But I would expect a leading Magazine in the hobby to be aware of them, and to inform its contributors accordingly.

Nice picture of no smoking triangle here. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Interior_of_GWR_Collett_60_"Sunshine"_Excursion_Third_No.1289_(6887463535).jpg

I agree re Coopercraft. I am not in favour of hounding suppliers etc, because their failings can have a variety of causes, and those moaning may not be objective. But I think that there is enough in the public domain to suggest that in this case active promotion is not appropriate. You would have thought that the MR editorial team would be sufficiently savvy about this. But as some one who has only been aware of MR comparatively recently I think that it is excellent value for money.

Yes! And there also appear to be red triangles in the windows in the pictures posted at the beginning of this thread, so they are intentional. Sometimes it better not to know, and even better not to care! I don't think this should put anyone off.

Can't help with a photo of this one. There is a short para on MoS in Tourret mentioning vehicles built in 1940, similar in design to the Air Ministry ones, but the illustrating plate (393) is prior to livery. However, liquid ammonia is not a petroleum product, so the Class A & B livery rules are irrelevant. The livery could be correct for WWII. The model is the generic Bachmann cradle mount but without a photo it is anyone's guess whether the 'fittings' are correct, whether for liquid ammonia traffic or period.

This looks about the right size and shape - though no longer with us.

Page 246 - of the 'revised and enlarged edition' - will send you a scan.

In my experience these tank liveries (like other PO liveries) are usually based on a photograph - and sure enough 5049 appears in this livery in plate 544 of Tourret's Petroleum Rail Tank Wagons of Britain, described as 'possibly ex Air Ministry'. Whilst the livery on the model is not freelance the wording is much too large and the BP badges are not in quite the right position. The model is a hybrid - or generic if you prefer (as are Bachmann's) - used as the basis for both Class A and Class B vehicles. 5049 was saddle mounted whereas the model has a cradle; I also doubt that the tank diameter is correct (which may contribute to the lettering/badge issues). None of this will stop you making a decent 'representation' of a tank wagon. I am hoping that Accurascale might turn their attention 'Air Ministry' tank wagons at some point, as it is a major gap in the RTR market.