Covkid

20045 and 20085 were retrofitted with steam pipes for 1980s West Highland work Flickr link to 20045 https://www.flickr.com/photos/eastfield/8448857250/in/photolist-sq29NY-dTPqWd-dSAAUA-UVZFZL-oofshX-dU25by-dSC3No-Vy5tRk-dnCm3L-5yoyuU-4sji5e-apfmVJ-arCfJc-23isvVP-Xizi96-h8y2fK-iggdMG-UVAcFJ-i7coSy-89QLLC-VADr-giZgK-bDYGvo-pnAJUe-ioUd-2EdcH-L46PJ-dgwRM-oF5wqy-QJo8K2-QMm3-9Aj8f-5kPDsi-7PJxGe-3c7xxK-akKikp-cjJjUm-QMk8-ioX3-QMkL-QTsqK-QRwaG-UAzpkH-L46CG-6uXeiA-rpbTuS-6kS8iB-dVnc5j-9vJAF5-L4kkt Flickr link to 20085 https://www.flickr.com/photos/60566499@N03/14446807511/in/photolist-iDtwwK-T5n3yQ-Ukh5LA-9dySrm-o1BEy8-aEzteE-WzVuJD-TmAsTL-Vqnraa-fkowtT-4UVwow-4QSf4T-X8kqQf-4xiJCB-4QEudG-4MeLmv-TwGmE5-4vTtPC-4UtSyY-hQ94W8-4BsUiw-qFnbrB-4MZkM9-4URJfB-4QoMTq-dKQ2E2-XNtu5J-4QoMdw-TfoG6Q-UZhUX6-4caJkY-9vKDsK-4URJKF-89UoFb-4UVKL5-4jq8eq-4URje2-4UWc1f-fqGBoS-4QoMey-4URny2-67acki-4UVzKw-4QoM2E-4QoMmS-4QoKKJ

Pretty sure that back then there became an issue with the class 97 - something to do with drivers signing the classes. This led the 31 and the 47s being renumbered. According to this http://www.class47.co.uk/c47_numbers.php?index=2&jndex=0&kndex=79&s_loco=47480 "throbbin Robin" 47480 was renumbered 97480 in September 1988, but less than a year later in July 1989 it became 47971

Interesting. When they started work on the Cannock line modernisation, the bridges I have seen have been neatly rebuilt with bricks and triangular cappings, ready for the electrification. Also the bridge over the Sutton Park line on Bosty Lane near Aldridge was rebuilt in the same manner - suggesting there may yet be OLE to a new Aldridge station in the future. Unless that is the defacto attention to each bridge irrespective of whether OLE runs under it. One of the rebuilt bridges over Hednesford way https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Chase-Line-electrification-Walkers-Rise-Hednesford-bridge-reconstruction.bmp

Whilst on the subject I have seen an image of an B1 4-6-0 hauling an BR class AL5 into Derby, presumably from Doncaster. The AL5 was braked by air and would have needed air to be supplied to it, but not sure how many, if any B1s were fitted with Westinghouse air pumps, this late in their career. In my view the AL5 would almost certainly have been a "swinger" and the shackle would probably have been wound up tight !!

I am going to disagree Roy. My Bachmann model of 10001 has a vacuum cylinder inboard of each bogie on the underframe. Bachmann could have got it wrong of course but I somehow doubt it. I therefore turned to MLI 185 and swotted up. The Graham Fenn drawing shows vacuum cylinders as I mentioned on the Bachmann model, but CJM states "Brake equipment was supplied by Westinghouse with air controlling the brakes on the locomotive and vacuum brakes provided for the trains". I appreciate that indifferent comments have been made about both CJM scribings and Graham Fenn drawings, but I am inclined to believe that the Ivastt "twins" were vacuum braked, but willing to be proved wrong.

Neil - I am not sure that using the BR classifications (/1, etc) is useful. From what I have gleaned of the Bachmann announcement D5282 was a class 25/2 but from a visual model point of view was identical to a class 25/3. This means that boiler details apart it could represent D5233-D5299, D7500-7567 and D7598-D7677. The announcement of blue 25060 is a 25/1 yes, but apart from representing D5176-D5232 as a 25/1, could also represent class 25/2 Nos D7568-D7597. Perhaps gangwayed and non gangwayed might be more appropriate

I suspect he was on about the descriptive text introduction where Bachmann state there were 323 class 25s. As there are examples of 25/1, 25/2 and 25/3 preserved, as well as 24, then we can hope the foibles of the original class 25 mouldings are eradicated.

That has confirmed it then, and I notice Hattons have removed the picture from their website of what was described as 25060. These models promise to be absolute corkers given Bachmann products of recent times, but there were so many little individualities amongst them, I hope the Barwell research will hold up. There could also be serious justification for some new after-market bits for them.

Which would have been ideal on the front of the reintroduced "dutch departmentals" Tope Clam Rudd

Good point. Not seen it either since you mention it. "Maude, some Pumpherston tanks and that brakevan might be a useful combo

Yes. That blue "East Asiatic" Merchant does look really tasty indeed. Surprised there isn't as single new wagon design there but the Pumpherston tank wagon livery looks like a good sop to the Scottish modellers. Would they be a match for "Maude" ?

No. Because they are a different design. Might be wrong but I think the Chiltern doors more or less fit into the original door apertures. From a model point of view I suspect this could be an easy model modification by using 3D printed replacement doors on existing Mk3 models. AIUI the Wabtec modification involves gas axing most of each original Mk3 vestibule off, then welding in a new preassembled vestibule module. I understand there were significant problems with making the Chiltern doors work because they largely had to be bespoke to each aperture of each vehicle. Because the Wabtec vestibules are unit construction they simply needed to be welded in as a complete unit.

Yes and Yes but....... The HST trailers in the 2+4 sets will look significanlt different due to pocket doors. Imagine a Mk3 coach but with ends similar to a class 156. The first power door Mk3s are expected out on the railway in a few weeks with XC, then Scotrails, then GWRs.

Having checked the Hattons website Bachmann releases there is a mismatch with what is quoted as 32-340 25060. The Hattons webpage shows a BFYE "late" class 25 with the deep middle windscreen, which certainly isn't 25060. The image does however match the same bodyshell as 32-341 D5282 which is the other named Bachmann release. It would make sense for one bodyshell design to be released before the other I guess.

Not sure about this list being thin for new tooling I spotted two brand new retools of class 25s amongst the list. D5282 and 25060 are presumably a "late" 25/1 in two tone green and an "early" boilered 25/1 in blue, although they as shown as based on the 24/1 tooling. Bachmann could of course have picked wrong numbers as the class 24/1 body moulding could only be used up until D5175 (25025). What I suspect though is the 24 chassis including bogie frames but not boiler tanks and battery boxes could form the basis for the "new" 25 with a newly tooled body and underframe. Very appealing to me. No idea why Bachmann have resisted the flush front "peak" for another year, unless they no longer have access to the tooling from the Modelzone version.

Very important point Users of the ex Virgin franchise Voyagers and Pendolini for the last dozen+ years will have accepted cramped saloons due to the tilt profile. The "fullsize" cabins of the IET wil seem posititvely luxurious

Then there the different planking arrangements as well as 15T and 25T vans with different frame depths.

Regarding the PEP based EMUs, and the "Glasgow Blue Trains, do both driving cars of each unit share the same bodyshell ? If so then it is probably a more positive proposition. The problem with the first generation MUs was that nearly all bodyshells were different requiring expensive tooling. The latest generation MUs seem to be common user bodyshells and I firmly predict a Bombardier Aventra EMU in some of it's many forthcoming forms.

Spoken to KMRC, Ordered and paid for my green K2704 (10203). Must admit the black and silver models look really nice but as a 1960s BR(LM) modeller it has to be green for me. Well done Kernow for delivering some pretty exceptional models. If I were a gambling man I would put some money on a "Kerosene Castle" being announced later this year and I hope it is the later of the two !!!!

Having read this thread up to date I think I have just lost the will to live !!! Yes, Bill started this thread but I wonder if he expected page after page of people debating his busines model. It seems clear to me that you either do business with Bill or you don't, but adding the "Ratners jewellery is crap" simile to this thread is utterly irrelevant.

Probably because only a questionable proportion of modellers fancy Scottish teamakers I shouldn't wonder

Thanks very much for posting that link Paul. Shocking to think it was 20 years ago and how railfreight has changed in the UK

I agree. It looks to me as though this very very complex train is starting to put the operators through the mill in daily operation. May be wrong but think the operations of 800s up until now have involved three different phases. The first phases has involved GBRf drivers working with HItachi to produce mileage based fault free running, mostly on diesel, but also in a limited way on AC too on the ECML. The diesel operations have progressed on the WR and have involved staff training and some AC running between Paddington and Maidenhead. The third phase has seen IETs enter timetabled service with GWR but still restricted mostly to diesel operations apart from Paddington - Maidenhead. This is with GWR staff including guards who have probably only got their stick mitts on them in the last nine weeks. They will probably be receiving very little faults and failures saupport because these things are brand new and in passenger service just weeks. It also seems as though regular door versus platform operations are a recent feature. Perhaps we have expected these very complex Hitachi products to work perfectly straight out of the box, with the minimum of user skills - users who hithertoo mostly used slam door stock and no TMS style computerised trains. Big repect to the GWR, VTEC, FHT and TPE staff who have to learn operate the new trains in all conditions, especially if in the future some might be DOO.

Regarding the "flush front" class 45 / 46 mentioned upthread. Given the years which have elapsed since the Modelzone special was announced and produced, I do find it odd that Bachmann have never dug it out and reissued it in several guises. Myself and my mate bought one of the Modelzone limited edition 45048s and wonder just how many were sold, or was it a carcrash ? These days I guess the lighting would need to be provided, then there is the issue of the square high intensity headlight which some carried at the end of service, and which I thought were ugly. This would need to be lit, and would need a different mould to the original flat front version. I suppose there is also the question of whether Bachmann still have access to the tooling. I guess us armchair folk tend to think manufacturers are able to dust off the tooling from any model in their past catalogues and whack out another run. Suspect it really isn't that simple.

I'd second your choice Robert but my view is that the SLW have dashed any hope of Bachmann producing a retooled BR/Sulzer type two of any shape. It is a real shame and I would hope I will be proved wrong, simply because a collector / modeller could "fill their boots" with the many variants Token catcher recess boiler grille cover boiler grille area reskin boiler water steps plated over Early exhaust or late exhaust One triangular panel or two triangular panels Hinged air filter grilles Lamp irons Headboard clips Sandboxes Non boilered examples D5179-5182 and 25242 A minefield for the producer