MidlandRed

I think you’re being disrespectful to the technical and professional people who put these things together. It’s a big task - and as I previously stated, the document’s purpose is to discharge legislative requirements - if people don’t think it does they can comment (and if it’s found the document is wanting in this respect, there could be a requirement to rectify this, with consequent changes to the project and delay). Political pondering is outside of this although the comments and responses to the document (all of which are available in the same area as the link) may well include input with political involvement (eg formally from local authorities) - although the responses will almost certainly be provided by professional staff. As I say - technical process - as with engineering design, members of the public often have views and behave as if everything’s subjective - it very often isn’t and you’ll find members of the public doing things like presenting views which conflict, for instance with the laws of physics. Or suggesting solutions to their perception of the problem being resolved by the design, their perception of the problem being entirely incorrect (and so, as a result is their proposed solution). There is a vast difference between professional design and construction activities and the public’s view. This is why large projects have professional communication teams which strive to support the interface between the project and the public and political interests.

Rather than pontificating on this, if you find the bit in the Environmental Statement that covers these you will probably find out. I would venture they may be to deal with significant objections that could have derailed the project (possibly in terms of inability to mitigate in any other way, and certainly in terms of creating significant project delay which may have cost vastly more to resolve). The best route is to read the document, not reach conclusions by some other method (like GB News for instance which seems to view any sensible environmental matter as ‘woke’ - other hack alleged news outlets are, of course available). I’m certainly not suggesting you guys are in this description btw, just that finding the relevant technical info is relatively easy - having done so a discussion about the rights and wrongs might be interesting.

If it’s a green tunnel, it’s environmental mitigation (unless it’s been mislabelled for some reason). Amazing though it may seem to some, these projects are designed by large multi disciplinary teams of professionals and it’s not just ‘latter day’ Brunels and the like who put the ‘Meccano’ together, as it were. This link is to the Environmental Statement for HS2 Phase 1, which is designed to enable the project to meet legal obligations - it describes environmental challenges created by the project and sets out proposed mitigations - the results of consultation on it are also there if anyone’s interested 😀 the exact reasons why green tunnels have been adopted as a solution to mitigate impacts (probably significant and multiple in types) will be described somewhere within the documents and possibly, alternatives considered will be discussed. https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/hs2-phase-one-environmental-statement-documents

It has to be said - this is really fabulous and includes the most accurate rendition of the windscreen area I’ve seen on a model of a Brush Type 2 - diesel and electric models in OO often seem to get the pillars too wide but this looks perfect (possibly the fine rendition of the windscreen rubber helps this). I’ve just been comparing it with Graham Wareham’s Flickr photo of it at Stratford in the late 60s (where it had a D!!) - good to see there’s room to add Ds for the pre August 68 modelling officianados 😀

It certainly could do dependent on what the stock in hand is and how skewed the cycle of transit, sale and delivery is. However I suspect the Red Sea issue, which is affecting many other industries and also competitors (unless their orders have been pre paid) has not been something anyone could predict.

You seem to be continuing and restating an assumption that the £20 million of ‘stock in hand’ is sitting in a Hornby warehouse somewhere unsold. As discussed a page or so back, in reality it could, for instance, be made up partially of varying levels of stock paid for but still in final transit (and judging by various flyers received from TMS etc in the last couple of days there is a lot of stock in transit, presumably delayed by the Red Sea issues). Hornby is, of course, in somewhat different market areas than the likes of Rapido and Accurascale, although they do compete in the hi fidelity (in terms of accuracy) locomotive and rolling stock market - that ‘hi fidelity’ market seems to suffer less from the cost of living crisis in terms of the demographic having disposable income (probably because it’s skewed sharply towards the ‘retired gentleman’ demographic (with apologies to any retired or other ladies 😀).

In the immediate dieselisation of the Birmingham Division, class 24, 25 and 40 were the locos used generally. However referring to another photo (from spring 1967) in the book referred to in the earlier post I made, a selection of locos around a turntable at Saltley are all class 25s and 47s - the 40s and 24s were moved to the north west and Stoke divisions respectively - also for dieselisation. However I suspect many class 47s were employed in freight (admittedly an increasing number on fitted trains) into the era when the 135 class 56s and 50 class 58s had come on line - we also need to consider that from the mid 70s, HSTs came on line as the first choice passenger train solutions on some routes. It would be interesting if anyone has freight working arrangements and allocated traction from the freight orientated depots for the late 70s and early 80s. The reproduced regional freight plan (which formed part of a regional traction plan) for the remainder of 1966 for the LMR in the Changing Engines book shows all of the proposed reallocations and new build as applied to freight operations. It’s very enlightening. Similar planning documents for the mid to late 70s might identify the allocation of class 47s to freight work.

I suppose it depends what ‘stock on hand’ means. If they have paid the factory but it’s still in transit is this included? Also I would presume this is more than just railways and includes the other brands (Scalectrix etc etc) some of which will no doubt rely equally, if not more than elements of the rail business on being available for delivery to stockists etc. Hornby also provides ancillaries like track and scenic etc etc - the point is it’s not necessarily £20 million of model locos or rolling stock (as this would be with some makers).

Not massively helpful to this question, but regarding Brush Type 4s and freight traffic, they were conceived as mixed traffic locos. Many were built without boilers for freight use (generally ER). D1807-36 were allocated initially to D16 (Nottingham Division) and when new could be seen at places like Westhouses and Kirkby in Ashfield in replacement for Stanier 8Fs where they would have been used on unfitted mineral trains. As stated earlier in the thread, they were used, for instance in the late 60s/early 70s on class 9 trip coal trains from the Cannock Chase collieries to power stations like Birchills (Walsall) - Bescot trips, there being an excellent photo of two such trains (9T54 hauled by 1629 and 9T32 by another with multiple rakes of 16T and 24T minerals) at the power station in 1969 in the Changing Engines - The Transition from steam to diesel and electric traction in the Birmingham and Rugby Divisions of the LMR book. A number of these locos were fitted for slow speed control for merry go round working, which they performed until the arrival of the class 56 in the later 1970s. However the fitting of power stations and mines with the required loading and unloading equipment was a phased process and some continued to receive supplies hauled by type 4 power (eg D1-10 peaks etc). As has been stated the reducing volume of non fitted wagons in the late 70s and the increasing availability of Type 5 locos for freight would probably reduce the likelihood of BR blue domino headcode class 47s on non fitted mineral trains. The application of blue livery to the class was also a relatively drawn out process so that would also affect it.

Are we sure they still have mountains of unsold stock or is this a presumption from a situation years ago? Some firms ‘encourage’ payment in advance for pre orders in various forms, often on the pre-text of assisting purchasers to budget for their purchases - however the other sides to this are it enables the company to more accurately predict the order volumes but most importantly resolves their cash flow problem as they get a proportion of direct sales payments well in advance of delivery enabling interest to be earned until such time as they have to pay the factory. I’ve always wondered what proportion of their sales occur in this way - I guess we will never know but from posts on this site, it seems quite a few are happy to pay in advance. P Hornby does not follow this business model - they don’t take your money (or offer to from what i can see) until the model is despatched. I suspect this is generally because they’re not aiming for the same market segment except in the cases of some model locos. I could imagine the outcry if they did (though those companies that do this don’t seem to get negative publicity, surprisingly)!!

Crikey - that looks somewhat like John Lennon circa 1967!! 😲

The TT model Rapido team could feasibly be inspecting a model loco on a layout to investigate how they make them run so smoothly 😀

Funnily, I have a PWM and it’s absolutely fine (I saw all the criticism of it) - I’ve yet to leap for a class 11 despite intending to when it was announced - I may still do. Strangely, I now have one of their Peaks as well (I’m not telling you how much I paid but it was absolutely a no brainer) - I did avoid D15 because of the livery comments on here, but more so I saw that @Phil Bullock repainted his!! I got one in economy green and can overlook the very minor issue with the curvature on the top quarter of the cab (which in my view is completely out shadowed by the look and general bulk and overall correctness of the model - it’s a really nice model, looks and runs great - very smooth - I believe they’ve updated the shape for the 44s etc to help/ respond to the electron microscope guys. I know we’ve come to want absolutely perfect looking models and indeed I have some on order from two sources who get close (one even closer than the other) - as for whose actually runs the best - well that’s another matter but these latest Heljans, along with my experience with the latest Hornbys and Bachmanns suggest these are all very good indeed.

I think the issue identified is that the Heljan looks less correct than the Bachmann from the square on front view. I don’t think anyone has disagreed with that. However it looks perfectly acceptable from most other angles that I’ve viewed it from. It is noticeable that all the photos you refer to show the Heljan front on but the Bachmann from more of an angle (not quite 3/4 front view) - so I’ve yet to see how good or otherwise the Bachmann looks front on in that version. The Heljan appears perfectly acceptable to me - particularly on a layout where it will likely be the only Brush type 4 - much more so via the TMC exclusive which depicts a late 60s early rail blue LMR version, the 9 of which built as such were somewhat celebrities at the time - the only version of the new Bachmann so far acceptable to a modeller of that era is ER D1565 - having seen that version there are elements of the front (to do with the top of yellow warning panel and shelf in front of windscreen) I don’t like equally as much as the issues with the Heljan - however they are noticeable from different angles than from the straight on front view, and ones which I’m more likely to see more often, as a model. Otherwise it’s very good as well.

I still think mine looks v pretty, in spite of all the discussions!! 😀

Did KWVR and LHR run into BR stations at the time - SVR extended to Kidderminster much later? Maybe that was why but equally, the railways may have taken the view they’d use historic liveries they liked or made up their own. The Dart Valley at that time, IIRC had everything in GW livery (including 1638) and locos such as 6697, 4555, 7029, 6000 and 4079 ran in GW livery in service on the main line in the mid 60s. I do recall feeling somewhat miffed when I visited KWVR on a loco society shed bash trip around Yorkshire in 1969/70 that even the railbuses were in made up liveries - as I’d never seen them in BR days it was disappointing at the time, although good to see them preserved - 46441 on LHR was another which stood out like a sore thumb, in a pseudo LMS lined livery. However it’s now great to see these photos as it sort of, defines that era of preservation.

Are we sure there was any directive? I certainly don’t recall it being reported or discussed in the railway press at the time and have only come across the suggestion more recently (basically on RMWeb). Only certain railways seemed to invent their own liveries (KWVR and L and HR being notable examples). SVR, for instance had its locos (eg 46443 and 48773) in BR livery - I don’t think they were unique, although as with all railway (and bus) preservation there was a tendency to paint stock in as built condition, which, in many cases for locos meant grouping or pre grouping.

Looking at photos of 1:1 class 47s on passenger trains, and also mixed rakes of mk 1s and mk 2s, mk 1 format stock appears to come out slightly taller than mk 2. However, referring back to the TMC video of D1960 on Little Bytham, the loco does look fine in comparison with the stock of the train it is depicted pulling (not mk 2).

And the EM1 (later class 76) used as bankers on Worsborough) Not a one off - I also saw this - the line concerned was the steeply graded and sharply curved link from the Bescot to Walsall line, round on to the South Staffs line towards Wednesbury, Dudley and Stourbridge Junction. I think the train loco was a Stanier 8F as probably was the banker. The junction for this line was under the M6 flyover - which was built in isolation at the time of electrification - the approaches were built slightly later. Additionally, Bescot provided bankers (class 25s from those generally available on shed) for trains travelling up grade, south towards Soho junction from Perry Barr junctions, through Handsworth Park - the trains were held at a signal just south of the short tunnel under what was the Endwood public house, Hamstead Road - possibly the starting signal for the erstwhile Handsworth Wood station (closed immediately post war) - when the banker(s) arrived at the rear of the train (out of sight beyond the tunnel and the curve) they communicated with the train loco (s) by sounding horns. This must have happened in steam days also, presumably?

I’m happy to be patient and am confident the locos will be great. In fact I’m thinking of ordering another. One thing in SLW’s favour, most of us haven’t paid any money so far, in stark contrast to some suppliers, whose requirement (or option in one case) to pay in advance seems v often to be taken up by purchasers.

It’s funny you should mention this, as I’ve also been mulling it over since the earlier discussions and after stumbling over the TMC video of D1960 on Little Bytham. I thought it looked rather good, even more so in weathered form. My conclusion is it only doesn’t look its best when viewed exactly front on - which is unlikely ever to happen in reality. D1960 looked ok in relation to the height of the stock it was pulling - which begs the question whether Bachmann’s look too tall!! In contrast with the previous comment about the eye brows (in reality the frame around the tops of the windscreens) the Heljan model does replicate this with a slight rise in the panel above each windscreen - my guess is the dimension of this feature is really very small to reproduce correctly in OO scale. Anyway my overall feeling is I’m happy with it, minor warts and all - and completely outweighed by the faithful representation of the early blue fye, four arrow, body side numbering livery - I certainly wouldn’t want to be attempting to repaint one of the other models into one of the final Brush 9, which were always something of a celebrity in my mind in the late 60s. Great that TMC had the vision to commission something for the transition era modeller! I shall always remember to look at it at least from the 3/4 view 😀 after all the only time I ever saw a loco fully front on (thankfully 😲) was on shed or at the end of a terminal station when I was stood in front of it - maybe on a bridge but that was from an elevated view and very rarely fully front on.

Great photos. However is it my imagination or is the space between the marker lights and the headcode panel on these two different (wider on 47 356 (D1884 in real money)) and the black area around the numerals in the headcode panels wider on 47 256 (D1934 in real money) - interesting as they are both Brush built (or is it an optical illusion because of the slightly different camera angles) 🫢

Romford.

https://flic.kr/p/2nmsTt5 I can’t get this to appear as a pic (D1960 at Crewe as built - Colin Alexander, Flickr) - however it does clearly show the slight curvature of the front panel and particularly, the location of the handrail in relation to the cab front. These look right to me on the Heljan and different from the Bachmann. The foot steps are also shown clearly and although Heljan’s left hand one is slightly too far left, it’s not as major as it appears against some of the other photos shown. In terms of its size, and height, given the comparison earlier in the thread where the Bachmann model was shown coupled to an Accurascale mk2 coach and the buffers are clearly higher, whereas the Heljan ones match, are we sure Heljan is wrong and Bachmann right - looking at the side by side picture above, Bachmann’s looks too big to me, although the overall shape looks right (the handrail is too low for D1960 and the cab front too flat, however 😀). The Heljan has slightly less space between the marker light and the headcode - that might make all the difference. Im not clued up enough on differences (Crewe v Brush built) but I do know D1960 is the penultimate Brush product.

Regarding the headcode box, having compared the image on Flickr of D1960 at Crewe carefully, I’ve concluded it is correct. It may look marginally odd from some of the angles we view model trains from but it certainly looks fine when looking at a more realistic viewing angle (in relation to how one would see the prototype normally). I too really like the new Bachmann model (other than the fact the only 1960s variant available is D1565, in two tone green, if you can find one). A Crewe built example and not suitable to be in early blue (D1953-61). However, and again having compared the Heljan with the photograph on line, I have concluded that, if anything the Bachmann version has the below windscreen hand rail slightly too close to the top of the front panel. Also, looking at the comparison photos further up this thread, the earlier models have too narrow (in relation to the width of the roof) a ventilator on the cab roof. Overall I’m happy with the model as is, and for another day, may execute the minor tweaks talked about above sometime in the future - it looks fabulous from layout viewing distance.