PenrithBeacon

Perhaps he has outgrown silly schoolboy humour.

I really don't understand why one of the best small traders has by far the cr#ppiest thread on RMweb.

The thing that bothers me about the GWML is that if NR continue to brush aside objections to their designs for OHLE then electrification may well become just as objectionable as motorway or runway building to the disadvantage of the UK. I think that NR needs to become far less arrogant in its attitudes. Regards

Shawplan do an etch of lamp irons. I have an example but I haven't examined it to closely. Regards

Profoundly disagree with much that is here. Firstly Heathrow 50 years ago was a very different proposition to the Heathrow of today and secondly the OHLE on the GWML is an eyesore, far, far worse than the OHLE on the WCML through Harrow. People are entitled to take a view on the impact of change on their environment and complain if decisions made by railway or aviation professionals negatively impact on their lives. We don't live in a nasty society where we are obliged just to accept what Big Brother says. Long live Winston! Regards

Or not buy the kit. Regards

I quite fancy one of these, but as a 'nice to have' rather than a 'must have'. I think I shall wait until the model is thoroughly reviewed here before I'd take the plunge. So far Oxford Diecast haven't impressed. Regards

Ihad a look on their website yesterday and the price is £153!

I converted a Peco 'Pixton' PO wagon to P4 thirty odd years a go using Studiolith compensation units and wagon wheels. The combination of the Peco springs and three point suspension worked well, but then it was working on Heckmondwyke's perfect trackwork. Still got the wagon upstairs somewhere it hasn't required to run for decades. Regards

Thanks , Paul. Regards

There is a theory that the term 'Jinty' originated by a misunderstanding by Hornby. It goes that the Johnston 0-4-0T had a 'J1' boiler (which is true) and somebody at Derby works called this a 'Jinty'. Hornby misunderstood and the rest is history. In more recent times the concept of LMS Period 1 to 3 coaches invented by Essery and Jenkinson is now in common use, although the term actually has no historical provenance. Regards

Corporate memory comes from writing stuff down in manuals not simply relying on somebody remembering. That somebody can fall under a bus, can be promoted to post and a location where he is effectively unavailable or may retire. Relying on gurus is all very 1960s but it isn't the way a modern business can run. I suspect that the government, when it decided to electrify the GMWL, actually thought that NR did have the records I don't know whether BR did record what they did (and why) and RT or NR threw it all away, but I do hope, as a taxpayer, that NR do recording (what, where, why and when) for the future. Regards

Sorry about that I must try to keep up. One is currently available on eBay at a eye watering price http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Bachmann-32-7266Z-CLASS-66-66552-FREIGHTLINER-SHANKS-EXCLUSIVE-FOR-KERNOW-MODELS-/301825045948?hash=item46462cb5bc:g:AzIAAOSw7FRWbWeF . Think I'll pass! Regards

That would make a nice special from Bachmann! Regards

With respect the portal gantries over the WCML are less intrusive than those over the GWML, although there are exceptions. The WCML gantry beams are made from an open 'Warren Truss' design which is inherently more 'open' than the sheet metal beams, albeit with lightening holes, of the GWML and also the vertical pylons finish flush with the top of the beams. On the GWML design the pylons continue way above the beams, un-necessarily so, to the detriment of their appearance and at considerable additional cost. The photo below shows the point. I can understand the need for robust design, I would not advocate the use of the ECML design, it was a mistake, but if NR had adopted the original BR(M) design it would have saved a lot of money and had a robust design to boot. This project is way over budget and timescale; NR is incompetent and should be abolished. Its infrastructure functions ought to be incorporated into the TOC's franchises. Regards

Although as a taxpayer I fully support electrification, as an enthusiast it can be a disaster. I'm not at all surprised that people living along the GWML are complaining about the intrusive nature of this electrification. It seems to me that it is more of an eyesore than the original 1960s 25kV electrification. NR has made a mess of this. Regards

I caught 66522 at Headstone Lane this afternoon with an unusually short train and in a livery I haven't seen before. The picture is a still from a video. Regards

I have converted one to P4, the brakes need paring down to avoid the flanges. Can anyone advise if the radius on the handrails is accurate as it seems to be a little large to me. Regards

Are you going to market these? Regards

Second star on the left.

Ditto mine Looks nice, captures the prototype well Regards

Or, alternatively, a negative one from you: pot calling the kettle black. Every time a reservation is expressed about this model or SLW you immediately jump in and attack. I think you ought to be open and honest with us all and say just what is your relationship with SLW, for it seems to be a lot closer than you have intimated so far. The SLW Class 24 is very much better than either of the two predecessors, but it is a long way from being perfect and doesn't justify the c£200 price tag. For that money it has to be a lot better than it is. I shall wait for the forthcoming Bachmann model to see how that does. At my age it is probably the last chance to get an accurate Derby Sulzer, but there you go! Re the comments on the diagonal member behind the radiator. This is part of the structure of the locomotive. The loco was designed with a 'Warren Girder' style of superstructure which was intended to support the weight of the Sulzer engine and the generating set. The radiator itself was designed to be behind the diagonal but the grill is in front. A little more research on the part of SLW would have made this clear.

It's very slow, very sophisticated, but slow.

Thanks for that. The problem of course is that British modellers expect the space under the boiler to be free and Oxford must surely know this. Why did they therefore sign-off on this feature? Inexperience perhaps, or the bottom line? The way the new SLW Class 24 is selling I suspect anxieties about the retail price will matter less in future. Regards

I agree about the modelling but I would doubt if any future batches will be modified, it'll just be too expensive. You might just find that any future models won't have this feature though, and I don't understand at all why it wasn't designed out on the 'drawing board' on this model. The universal joint is a surplus item and engineers don't usually like this because surplus items increase costs. Regards