melmerby

It was near Hammerwich on the Walsall-Lichfield line. EDIT "Past & Present 62" lists it as (correctly/incorrectly?) "Anglesey Sidings" Another rail atlas I have has it as "Anglesea Sidings" Apparantly named after the Marquis of Anglesey owner of some local pits. Keith

Harringay, Haringey and Hornsey are all variant spellings of the same name (Dictionary of British Place Names) and have been used variously over the years, not one is either correct or incorrect. Haringey is not a modern invention. Keith

Records show that the claim at the time was lower than the later published record. With their earlier record attempt the LMS claimed 114mph, just enough to beat the LNER's then current maximum, although independent timers wouldn't accept more than 112mph. City of Truro also seemed to have gained just enough to beat the magic ton although other timers wouldn't accept more than (I think) 97-98 mph. It's the sudden spikes on an otherwise fairly smooth speed curve, which enable a record to be claimed, that arouse suspicion. Keith

The problem with all these claimed rail speed records is that they are really flukes. For a land speed record to be recognized there has to be two runs in opposite directions within a given time limit and the average taken. No rail records ever come near to meeting those criteria. There always seem to be discrepancies between different timers and the Dynamometer car (if used) and so often the highest claimed figure is presented. E.g. City of Truro's 100mph was due to a sudden blip of speed not accepted by some(most?) timers, likewise Mallard's 126mph and the Coronation's claimed 114mph maxima were due to a sudden small, but significant, increase during a relatively steady speed curve. Keith

Nobody has mentioned a Stanier Coronation as a possible Mallard beater, similar sized wheels (actually 0.5" bigger) free running and more horsepower could mean a top speed at least on a par with Mallard on the same track. How about DOG? definitely has the horsepower and is supposed to be pretty free running. There were other locos around the world that might have been faster than Mallard but were never timed officially, such as the Milwaukee Road F7, which supposedly attained 120mph on a regular basis on level track and had attained 125mph but was not authenticated. Incidentally they had 7 foot driving wheels and 300psi boilers with just two large cylinders they developed 3000hp. As an aside Riddles 9Fs have travelled with a wheel rotation speed greater than Mallard's at 126mph! EDIT this can't be true as it would mean a 9F at 98mph and I don't think one went that fast. Keith

This happens regularly. I've seen quite a few Modelzone "exclusives" go for silly prices whilst still in stock in the shops, I especially remember their last batches of Coal Traders wagons Modelzone price and in stock = £22.50. Ebay at the same time £40+!!! the mind boggles. Mind you it goes both ways, I have been trying to get a copy of Essery and Jenkinsons LMS coaches Vol.2 for years, which in good nick typically now fetch £50-£60 from book dealers. I've just missed an Ebay auction where 'pristine' copies of Vol 1 & 2 together went for only £31. I'm gutted. Somebody got a real bargain, not me sob sob. Keith

I have a Sprog II and think it is a very useful piece of kit. Go to the JMRI pages http://jmri.sourceforge.net/ and see for yourself about Decoder Pro which is the essential driver software. Decoder Pro is free and versions are currently available for Windows, Mac & Linux. (and I wouldn't be surprised if a version came for hand helds.) P.S. I think it would have been more appropriate to post this question in the DCC section Keith

And the chap on MREmag - not so sure I would have done so had I read MREmag before I posted! PS. the Bachmann site now shows 3031! (again) Keith

Hi Bazza I believe that's what it was supposed to be when originally unveiled, but the 2011 catalogue p22 (and the retailers adverts) now show 3099! Modelfair have this rather confusing (or hedging their bets) description: Bachmann 31-129, 30xx ROD 2-8-0 Steam Locomotive 3031 in GWR green Ref: 31-129 31-129 Bachmann 30xx ROD 2-8-0 Steam Locomotive 3099 in GWR Green. Keith

Some of them had two cast plates, a ROD and a GWR, e.g. picture K462 in RCTS showing ROD 1868 (3084) on loan in 1921. Even some of the short lived ones were partly "Westernised" e.g. ROD 1947 (3089), which received a Taff Vale chimney and GWR safety valve cover (RCTS plate K466) but not it would seem green paint! Keith

A further titbit regarding RODs: I read in one of the monthly mags that a group is trying to repatriate up to three RODs which ended up in Oz, at least one of which ran for a time on the L&Y and LNWR. Even more possibilities if they manage to get one home! Keith

Just had this reply from Bachmann: "Thank you for your email. This issue has already been raised and passed on to our Research & Development Team who are carrying out further research. I will forward your email also. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Dennis Lovett Public Relations Manager" Looks like they were already aware of it, Maybe the person EDIT: Julian Evers who contacted MREMAG contacted Bachmann as well. Keith

The problem that the number 3099 causes as far as I can see is twofold: 1) wrong colour - should be black. 2) Very short life - the second 3099 lasted 4 years. Choosing a low number 3000-49 and carefully researching the subject would give a choice of loco with approximately 25 or more years of service on the "Western" and could be presented in several GWR livery periods. I assume some must have received a roundel after the initial green paint and "Great Western" and possibly also "GWR" before BR days and black again. Keith

Hi Dilbert By the general lack of interest this post has seems to have aroused (Only 200+ views) it makes you wonder just how many GWR RODs will be sold! Keith

Hi Dilbert After I posted I realised Bachmann had a "contact us" e-mail facility and sent off my concerns. I've got a GWR green example on pre-order but I hadn't twigged that 3099 was to be the green one! Keith

Hi all. I've tried doing a search so forgive me if this has been brought up before. The ROD in "Great Western" green livery is proposed to be 3099. According to RCTS this loco number (either of the two which carried it) never was green, it was always black and is a short lived engine. The second 3099 went in 1929. The first GWR 3099 was a hired engine (works number RS 3766, ROD 1739) but was returned to the Government in 1922 and later sold to the LNER becoming their 6308. The later 3099 was from the batch of locos which the GWR bought S/H (works number NBL 22214, ROD 2124) According to RCTS (much simplified) latterly there were three groups of 'ROD's, 3000-3019 purchased almost new and fully westernised, the others two groups were formed from 80 engines purchased S/H. The best 30 were westernised and numbered 3020-49 and the rest were touched up and ran until they failed and carried 3050-99, the latter batch were always black. The first two batches generally lasted into BR times apart from a few that went just before nationalization. The 3050-99 batch had all gone by 1931. So why is Bachmann doing 3099 in "Great Western" livery and painted green? Keith

On the ex GWR lines the kettle was normally used for the assisting power, not just as a heater! The occasions I saw steam + diesel, always with the steam on front, were in the summer in Cornwall. From what I can recall, a Hall or Grange in front of a Warship or a pair of D6300s wasn't unusual during the steam/diesel changeover period. Keith

There is one in Interlaken, close to Interlaken West which I thought was fairly good: "Modelleisenbahn-Treff, Interlaken" It moved from it's previous location to a new one in Rugensparkstrasse in 2004. Can't find any info unfortunately. I had a town map of Keswick, Cumbria for the 1960s and there was a "Model Railway Exhibition" marked in the town centre. Anybody remember it? What was it like? Keith

I don't expect to see a Dreamliner in Birmingham unless they end up on a Transatlantic turn. The impression that I get, maybe mistaken, that aircraft like the Dreamliner are going to save lots of fuel cruising at Mach 0.85 at 36000 ft or so, for long periods, compared to that used by earlier generations of jets. The longer the journey the more economical it becomes per passenger/km. Less fuel can be saved pro-rata on short journeys where the fuel guzzling climb is a major part of the journey. That is where savings are going to be harder to gain and where it seems the train has the best chance of competing. I can't remember which aircraft I went to Paris on, it might even have been in the late 80's but it did not seem to reach a cruising altitude at all, it seemed to be on a long gradual climb until somewhere over the SE of England and then throttle back and an equally slow decent. On long haul flights to Asia, Africa and the US, (all from Heathrow admittedly) the climb seemed quicker and to a higher altitude and then cruised for a long period until throttle back for decent. Maybe things have changed significantly in more recent times! Keith

I forgot about London City, that would make Birmingham sixth! I hadn't appreciated how close the station was to the airport, even though I downloaded a copy of the originally published maps (first editions). It would still add time to the checkin but then again all the other airports have transfer times as well. The aircraft cruising heights on flights such as B'ham-Paris-B'ham still do not reach what I understand is the most economical height (unless they do now as I haven't been since the '90s), namely 30000+ feet which is where an aircraft such as the previously mentioned Dreamliner would be at it's best. Keith

A satisfactory conclusion then. At first glance it does look too tight. The problem I had was initially not finding the screw under the footplate and trying to force the body off. A quick call to Bachmann service pointed me in the right direction! Keith

Surely the Dreamliner scores in it's long distance cruising ability, Short hops down country would not be it's forte so the train will still have the advantage. Those of you that have done a short hop will have noticed that aircraft don't reach (economical) cruising height before having to descend. Birmingham to Paris is like that. Edit: I noticed that Boeing still quote all their sizes first in US units and the cabin is 226" I can't visualise that at all! Keith

Aircraft use untaxed fuel and it cannot be allowed to continue. If they had to pay a reasonable rate short haul flights would be dead in the water. All other modes of passenger transport AFAIK have to pay tax on their fuel, which gives the airlines an unfair advantage. As an aside BBC Midlands Today has been running a story about Birmingham Airport becoming London's "fourth" airport. Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and Luton anybody. That's four already! Anyway it is based on the claimed travel time from Central London to Birmingham Airport of 39 minutes, much less than the "Fly The Tube" to Heathrow. They didn't explain how they got that figure, as HS2 misses the airport by a mile one would have to get from the HS2 station across to New Street and get a train back out to Birmingham International. That would add quite a bit of time. Keith

And very little seems to be being done to cope with it. People still profess their "right" to buy gas guzzling cars, use high energy consumption products (both in manufacture and use) and lead generally profligate lives. There was a recent report from America where some Republicans said they would fight to the death to preserve "their way of life", over President Obama's more environmental agenda. To me it came across as total wasteful arrogance. Little do they appreciate (or want to appreciate) it is their children or children's children who will have to cope with the consequences. I think that airlines generally have had a pretty easy time of it in the past due to government policies and I think that will change in the future when the oil really starts to run out. Short haul flights will be considered an anathema as the diminishing fuel is reserved for 'more essential' long haul business. All surface transport can use alternate forms of energy but there seems to be at present no alternative to kerosene for aircraft and little meaningful research on the problem. Keith

I think it was a bit tight but the body went back on with a bit of a wiggle as far as I can recall. Try offering it up at a slight angle so one side of the pcb goes in then the other. I definitely got one inside my Crab! The one loco I have where a weight needs to be removed and is designed to be is the Hall. Keith