Nova Scotian

On the topic of advent calendars - Hornby doing one again this year too. Day 1 is the chance to win some number of hobby points. https://uk.Hornby.com/christmas/advent-calendar

Interesting, I thought it was because he'd got ahead of himself (it says day-2, but it's the 1st December). But changing the link manually doesn't work! The newsletter e-mail for once doesn't give a "view online" option. This is the day 1 item, a Gaugemaster Track Cleaning Wagon in RTC livery https://railsofsheffield.com/products/gaugemaster-gm4430103-track-cleaning-wagon-br-rtc 30 quid, 33% off as was 45 quid. I'm signed up for the newsletter and got it at 8am UK time.

Greatly saddened by this.

When still in use in Devon you had a 2+1 pacer plus class 153. The 153 was always filled before the pacer because of the difference in comfort (ride, sound levels etc). The pacer did do what it was meant to do. That doesn't mean it wasn't a blight on our railways as compared to if they had invested in proper rolling stock. They weren't going to do that, so we got what we got. They did not see the economic benefit the railway brings as important enough - bean counting indeed. I will maintain they are awful machines and are suitable only as public toilets (their other main use). The 230s are a massive step up from them. The difference a set of real bogies makes.

I found it interesting that there's some US ownership and a very short time before entering administration they shipped a second product to the US. I'm disappointed by what's happened here. I think their product had application and was promising to maintain rail service in some areas - and much better than the pacer was. They were set back by a number of clear problems - a fire, the software for the Isle of Wight (must have cost them a fortune), and then a "thermal incident". I don't think the D stock are ratty, or can't be made to be good - particularly the bogies. However, I do think the choice of D stock caused one massive problem that's been talked about before - a 60mph top speed. This causes problems for any pathing on mainline. Anything else (passenger) out there is 75mph plus. Pacer was 75mph (if it ever got there and didn't give you brain damage shaking at that speed).

"As the doors open at Warley Model Railway Exhibition on 26th November 2022, visitors to the Hornby stand will be given the chance to experience something special! If they'd said "new product launch" then this thread would have been different. Not just a special announcement, they said "chance to experience something special". We all tried to parse the experience word and what was meant by that. I can't imagine in the world of model trains "any publicity is good publicity". Not how this works. Noone trawls their way through 15 pages of rmwebbers doing what we do best and thinks "I'll just hop on the Hornby website and buy something I hadn't already planned to".

Rolled my eyes so hard I have a headache

I'll bite. You may place your pre-order through Hattons, Rails of Sheffield, Kernow, TMC, Derails, Gaugemaster, or any of the myriad of other ones. This might be because they show capacity for pre-orders, they are doing a discount when the manufacturer is not online, or that you just like to support a shop from good experience beforehand. Many stores aren't just a physical location, they are supported significantly by their online sales, and shipping in the UK is cheap. These stores take a risk by pre-ordering stock that may not sell (or may sell out - and they've left money on the table by discounting when it would have sold at full price) that makes the case for a manufacturer to produce a run. They stock other goods you need, and if you give them a call they'll give you advice. I think the "omni-channel" approach was working mostly well for the consumer - you can buy online direct, buy from your modelshop direct, or go in in person. However, any accountant will tell you you're giving up margin (for both sides) in this model, which is particularly important if your demand outstrips supply to the end consumer. So, retailers start commissioning runs, and it means they can also get small runs of niche products done the manufacturer won't. The manufacturer looks to maximize margins on popular product. The problem that I have with this is when the manufacturer appears, on multiple occasions, to have reneged on allocations - with the threat of no future allocations if a fuss is made (various threads on this forum allege this). Essentially they have destroyed good faith, chasing extra margins, despite pissing off both the retailer and the original consumer ordering (hoping there are tens-to-hundreds of consumers that want the in-demand product to make up for every one you upset). So, coming back to the announcement - as an "experience" it would be fantastic to see them reengage with the retailers. Working with their retailers to enhance displays, stock, inventory, and ensuring that allocations are strong and kept to. Online, direct selling remains part of the picture, but not the whole story. The work that Rails and others have done to expand their stores, run sessions, make it more interactive - it's making it more about the hobby again, about crafting - rather than just buying boxes. So much more to modelling than just buying a loco - the scenery, electronics, accessories - and of course speaking to someone who knows what wagons would have run in that era with that loco. When I hear experience I hope for a partnership where hobby sales can increase across the board because we all want to model more because our retailers are stronger from the partnership. I expect to be disappointed.

Not afraid to report I went SR, GWR, LNER and LMS. Seems harsh as I do like Coronation Class, Royal Scots etc, but Gresley has the edge in big engines :) Then GWR tank engines push them into second for me. As a kid I didn't like the King/Castle compared to the big LNER and LMS engines, but have come to appreciate them more with age. Lord Nelsons, Schools, Bulleid Pacifics etc push SR in to first place. The engineering challenges they faced, and then looks + utility. Of course, once it's BR I'm a Western Region fan, and Scotland :)

It's just of an incredible scale. Admittedly I only ever saw Woodhams late 80s and early 90s because of my age, but I can't imagine there were ever this many locos parked up anywhere in the UK. A few gems in there as well. Going to have to win the lottery and make a visit to buy some of my favourites.

A chance to experience something special? Something new and exciting for all of us? They must be committing to decent model shop allocations of their range for popular preorders. And not cancelling those allocations to redirect to online direct orders. That would be a fantastic experience we could all appreciate.

I'll take mine in Loadhaul livery or not at all.

Not surprising - it's not fast enough nor regular enough to ever make sense for my business travel (a one-two day conference becomes 5 days, whereas with a flight I can often fly back the night before and sometimes in the morning of). The quality of service is declining as a tourism operation, no dome car or observation car. It's not useful for intercity travel unless Moncton - Halifax, but even then it's much slower than by car. It doesn't go through the other two main NB cities. If the Via / the feds kill it, I hope they come up with real options for travel in the maritimes, preferably lower carbon. It's seven hours by bus from Halifax to Saint John, or four hours driving by car. Halifax to Charlottetown and/or Moncton a little better. Local air service was hammered by COVID, such that YSJ, YQM, YFC, YQY and YYG have had quite significant cuts. YQM and YYG probably the least, by virtue of size, and location. I doubt the service could ever be profitable given they don't own the tracks, the track quality in NB is such that the speeds are very slow, they have no economies of scale in staffing, resourcing, equipment etc from having any other service out this way. Any investment in new equipment isn't going to pay off, even if it did increase ridership etc. I can imagine the breakeven point is just too out of reach for the volumes of people that would travel. Ultimately the lack of decent public transport out here is what will probably drive me out to look to live elsewhere.

My parents were on the "Ocean" in the last month and commented on the buffer car - of course this is in addition to the trainsets no longer being turned and therefore not having dome/observation cars, but they do have Budd sleepers. Rail service - at least to the east coast - continues its decline. I assume as new Siemens trainsets come online the rest of the country will be dripfed any coaches that can pass an inspection as we wait on a decision to other recapitalize the rail fleet outside of the windsor-quebec corridor, or for them to finally pull the plug. As a side note I've been looking at tickets for December on the Ocean - very, very little sleeper availability. It doesn't seem unpopular - but I doubt there'll be any analysis of lost revenue (due to capacity) when doing profit/loss for the line.

Fella in the boom crane from this segment on looks like he's in an Austin Powers movie (eg. parody of generic henchmen from Bond type movies. It's the high collar black uniform!). 880 seconds in, 14:20, if the link doesn't start there immediately Also the Q1 does not belong on this list. Probably the best 0-6-0 - power, power to weight, maintenance, cost and speed of production etc. 51 ton loco with that tractive effort is outstanding. Especially with proper size (ish) driving wheels - unlike the J38 which barely belongs on this list as the wheels are so much smaller (so pure freight rather than having eyes on mixed use, even if the rest may not have been great mixed use!). Q probably the most disappointing. 4F the most limited for its inherent capability otherwise?

If only they'd put as much effort into weathering the track and ballast as they did the roof to the right. Very unrealistic, trainset type set-track. Far too clean and uniform.

According to online articles - yes, but they're now getting interest from elsewhere and are positioning it as a shunting replacement for the 08s. Recharging also by plugging in, not just the small gen set. My question/suggestion above isn't too disimilar - looking at similar use cases on the mainline where high outputs of power aren't required for a long period - only for a short period. With genset on a class 18 running flat out, with a fully charged (new) battery you'd be fully depleted at 67 minutes at full power (416kw). Not dropping below 20% brings that to about 54 minutes. Of course as you deplete a battery you mildly impinge its ability to deliver full power, especially if that's over an extended time period and you're generating heat in the cells, but I've avoided that complication as my napkin doesn't have room! Of course shunting isn't extended periods of full power - it's high power to get it moving, then relatively low power to sustain the movement, followed by the ability to brake (regenerative) to slow it down.

Well they wouldn’t be low power, they’d be capable of 2300kw when needed, but obviously only for a short time. you’re definitely right they seem to favour flexiblity - and someone like DRS prioritizing new and reliable. Some of the smaller freight and spot hire, and even gbrf, have more diversity in their fleets.

Ended up down a rabbit hole on the new Clayton Class 18 hybrids and got me thinking about the class 69s, and the various classes laid up in storage, particularly those 60s whose engines will likely never run again! The Class 18 is stated to have 524kwh of lead acid batteries - 90 tonnes in a bo-bo package, with a small JCB ~70hp "range extender". Articles on this class state the lead acid were chosen for cost, durability, cycles, replaceability, cost etc - all makes sense. So it got me thinking about some of the stored classes, and again particularly the class 60s, and the duty cycles that exist on the railway that are likely sub-optimal for the current class employed. One was the class 66 bankers on the Lickey, another was the 66s (and similar) on RHTT. With some back of the napkin calculations I reckoned you could pull the old Mirrlees out of a 60, and replace with approx 786kwh of lead acid (useable) capacity, plus a ~700hp range extender (Cummins QSK19 for simplicity's sake in my calculations). Alternatively, LiFEPO4 batteries are approximately twice as energy dense, though more expensive. I believe these are the battery technology for the planned Class 93? I reckoned again you could easily get 1048kwh of these into a class 60 + range extender, and possibly as high as 1572kwh. So - would it be useful on the railway? Using the power output of the current class 60 and then tracked against the battery depletion rate (+plus 500kw approx from range extender) gave me the length of time the loco could feasibly operate at full power until the battery is depleted. For 786kwh it would be about 25 minutes, for 1048 it would be 34 minutes, and for 1572kwh it would be 52 minutes (the larger battery capacity gives much longer for the output of the range extender). Running a heavy container train from Fleixstowe at high speed is going to deplete that battery + extender very quickly, but for applications where full power (or close to it) is required for a short time, or where there are periods of idling the battery plus range extender would likely be more than enough. So once again I come back to bankers (not many, very niche), permanent way maintenance, and RHTT. Two options for the range extenders - if there's no use for the withdrawn Voyagers, then you're reusing an older engine under a different emissions regime, and the engine hours are going to be limited (plug-in hybrid, right?!), plus the cycles are hopefully going to be easier on the engine (having the engine running at a set, more efficient output rather than constantly cycling up and down with all the thermal shock that brings). Alternatively you drop a new euro 5 engine in. Or, after all this bother, is it less useful than the new class 93s with battery, electric and higher diesel output? Or could this be a way of extending the life of some useful engines, reducing carbon emissions, and particularly reducing particulate + CO + NOx + SOx in those locations that wouldn't look kindly on the 66s and equivalents idling? Battery lifecycle cost would be a concern, and I can't imagine there'd be enough demand to convert more than 15-20 across the network. Given you'd also have to create brand new software to control the energy flow (how does the loco know you're just going up the bank then rolling back down under regenerative braking, versus a 60 mile start-stop drag where you need the range extender running) - and how is that cost effective for a small run?

That is a filthy 66 - assume the cab sides and front gets cleaned regularly for identification purposes, but the sides and back don't matter?

No one else wince when he goes to open up the box with the box cutter facing straight down? I guess that’s why the second piece of cardboard is under there.

Thanks - sent along to some family who may attend

Sorry, yes, I had remembered the 67 - but because of the high axle load, and the fact it's a slow-revving lump I'd then forgotten when I came to write my post! The Class 67s were turn of the century right? So we had a 35-40ish year period where there were no new Bo-Bos, whereas there was a relatively steady stream of Co-Cos. I suppose if they'd wanted a Bo-Bo they could have looked to a regeared HST (with a new body), 17.5t axle load, Class 4ish power - but loco hauled services going the way of the dodo. What could a single one have done (regeared for 90mph or 100mph) that couldn't be achieved by a legacy diesel, or a DMU?

I do still wonder where development would have gone - an observation: There were no more bo-bos above a class 3 in power until the Class 68 came along (apart from the HST!!). If modern track access pricing had been in place I wonder how that would have tipped the balance in favour of lighter weight, less axles etc. Within a decade it's probably likely you'd have seen 2500-2700hp from a single engine bo-bo hydraulic as per the DB 218s - but would they have been needed with the sheer number of class 47s available? The other thing that comes to mind is the LNER attempts over time for lightweight, powerful, fast enough locos for their Scottish routes. The V4s, K4s etc. Would a lightweight Bo-Bo, easier on the track, able to run 6-8 coach trains on semi-fast timings on the highland lines have made more sense than heavily loaded routes in southern england?

I think this is the video previously shared by someone else