Bob Reid

Backing up what Larry wrote, on the whole no change would have been made to the regional prefix if it was being used "on-loan" to another region, and even if it was a permanent move, they were rarely (if ever) changed until next time they visited the shops. It wasn't in those days something the local C&W examiner did.

Run it into Glasgow Central? (2nd photo in)

Cheers Boris. Having worked with them myself Boris both for BR and in Preservation and having ben unable to find any images of them the wrong way round in BR days (not that means an awful lot - just the photo's I can find) I was struggling to understand when they came to be like that! However as you say - it's your coach. And a good one you picked to!

Out of interest Boris, were these preservation vehicles you looked at? as I suspect the cylinders have been remounted after a brake overhaul the wrong way (round), or at least, not as they were originally intended.

Hi Boris, The release valve, at least for that type of brake cylinder, is in the correct position (it didn't pull directly on the valve - there was a small lever extending out at right angles to it) relative to the cylinder pivot bosses. However you've placed the cylinder the wrong way round as the valve should be to the inside - towards the bottom longitudinal, not as you've got it, towards the solebar side. Lovely build all the same!

Most of the production B4s & B5s were designed at the same time - or at least within a short time of each other (the Mark's 2-8 were used originally to identify the variant for a particular application - rather than to identify a newer or "improved" version built over time). When first drawn up however, none were shown with friction dampers, though some but not all were to receive them later as a modification (from possibly as late as 1969 onwards). It's perhaps confused by Parkin calling them pre-production B4s in in the photo, when they were the Mark II production version - and were the only ones to be fitted with side pull brakes and equalisers in combination with the lack of friction dampers (recognisable by the large brake beams at either end of the bogie).

They would appear to have continued in service Brian - they certainly kept issuing amendments to the specific drawings for them, and it would have been easy enough to bring them up to spec - being that close to the final design (not that there really was a final design anyway)!

The B4s used were I believe the B4 MkII version (Mk II Bogie version not MkII coach)! - Parkin shows these in the photo marked "a pre-production B4 bogie....." these had a totally different brake arrangement of bogie brakegear however the most obvious feature was the lack of the bonded rubber/steel friction damper assembly you see either side of the primary springs attached to the axlebox castings and bogie frame on all bar the hydraulic damper fitted B4s. They were otherwise outwardly similar to the production B4s. As far as the Parkin "early trial" photo is concerned we've yet to determine what vehicle that bogie was fitted to as any photo's or concrete info is yet to surface (though a pair according to Parkin completed 140,000 miles)!

They were all made of 3M pressure sensitive adhesive film (as were the numbers & letters etc in various thicknesses)..... Designed that the longer they were on the harder they were to get off (guaranteed to rip when torn off by errant spotters)

Good montage there Jim. It wasn't Scottish Region policy - quite the opposite. All the work of one Haymarket Supervisor needless to say!

More fitting at this time - The Ugly Sisters

Mind post your progress on here! Merry Christmas

Watching this layout develop has been the highlight of my modelling year (yes I know it's predominantly coaching stock - quite sad really some would say) however it spurred me on to at least make a start on something for myself. That and the rolling stock conversion threads have been of great interest and I'm keen to see how you develop it in 2011. Best wishes for the season to all of the Clayhills Kirkhill Team

Couldn't resist and paid for it. It certainly isn't as straight as I thought on looking at it last night fresh out the box! Nice gap at the back of the firebox..... and alongside it's neighbour I'll certainly be interested to see what mods get done to correct this. It would appear the back ends getting pulled down somehow.

No probs but it'll be tomorrow at some point now - still too many pressies to wrap!

300 or 3000 (which it is) it doesn't matter - as long as it's limited quantity in issue to that spec (which of course could include the box as well). The NRM Deltic is perhaps a case in point of changing quantities!

It was 1000 but because of expressions of interest? it was increased to 3000 (and is stated on the LE Certificate) mines is 2113.....

The only way for that footplate edge to be any thinner john is if it was made of etched n/s or the like - 3/8" plate scaled and rounded up to 0.13mm and it's finger cutting thin. I don't actually think they've done too bad - is it the depth of the angle supporting the footplate that you think's wrong or the shape of the curve? To be honest if you are going to modify it anyway, that little step shouldn't be any bother to add. I seem to have struck lucky this time, the cab isn't drooped and everything remains firmly on. Certainly the marginally shinier finish gives it a far better appearance!

Can't say for certain Alan without digging deeper however it was minus the railtour special paint accoutrements in July of that year, still with it's nameplates and without the cab side builders plates - Barking Bill has some lovely shots of it here. The 61B plate remained on it even when it returned to Ferryhill. I guess it all depends on what photographs they based the model on.

Guess it depends on in what year your model of 60532 represents however the Bachmann version is correct for it's last couple of years at Ferryhill then (more specific to the model) Dundee, by which time it had lost both of it's cab side works plates - see this pic as just one example so they did well in that respect. Pity though they left off the OHL flashees it wore at the but of course it's easier to fit them than to remove them for an earlier version.

To Pennine MC for myth busting

Arty farty maybe Mike, but I'm not sure they qualify for a "how realistic are your models" thread - I can't see your models

Everyone, his neighbour and his dog are expecting it next week now - me, forget the box just the loco would be fine (grand tool box all the same) from Kernow....... and I don't care how long it's taken.

I'll give you a part answer just now Brian - bed beckons! The fabricated shell vents had similar central ventilator tube which formed part of the base to which 5? mild steel leaves were rivetted at the ends to. One on the top as a cover, and two down each side, each with a 1/8" gap between each other at the side - the difference basically was that the whole body formed the dome, and the air rushing past the 1/8" gaps created a depression inside and drew the air out of the vehicle! - These are based on the Classic Ash's patent Ventilator which I believe the GWR made good use of. Must finish that drawing and it'll maybe be more self explanatory to see all three. More on the GM /Roevac Vents later...... Maybe you should re-title the post "The Search for a Better BR Ventilator"

(for Mark 1s at least) Craig, I've a fair collection of the BR Standard series Drawings on Aperture Cards (though sadly no way of printing them cheaply) - hence the use of Autocad and Inventor, from when I worked for the CM&EE. As far as the Vee Hangers, I've can knock up whatever your after (PM or email me if you need to) having done a fair bit on the drawings for etched replacement parts for them already. The CSSC Minutes in the Parkin supplement are without a doubt good however they are a very shorthand version of each minute - the originals (Keith used the copies held in the NRM) are much longer (as were all the meetings we went to)! and contain the full minute and more importantly the referencing of previous minutes to place them all in context with each other. Fortunately I've copies of the post 56 minutes on Microfilm. Apologies Brian for butting in on your thread!