Bob Reid

Why would it have been 140mph? They were designed for 125mph though (as a result of being "hauled" restricted to 110mph. 140mph only ever became a consideration (and then for Mark 4 stock, on the advent of the IC225 project). Why would BR have considered retro-fitting the Mark 3s for 140mph, when there were no locomotives, nor any plans or funding to produce any 140mph capable locomotives after the Class 91s? You say it wasn't a priority? As far as I'm aware (certainly within INTERCITY) it was never considered let alone a priority, as the next step would have been the Mark Vs - I'm not disputing it ever happened however I certainly don't ever remember a "if only we'd though of that' moment or 'we should have employed a Systems Engineer', in respect of the Mark III stock - Why on earth would they?. The Mark IIIs were well designed and executed and their length in service has proven that time and time again. BR was already full of capable engineers - and a had plenty of competent and active Systems Engineers. The only thing BR lacked was a cohesive plan for the progressive replacement of rolling stock, such as had existed up until the end of Mark III construction, which would have course have necessitated a government that wasn't intent on running BR down.

Don't worry about your hat just show us the error of our beliefs

I'll need to stop using that invisible ink

More like an Electronic version than EP, though the principles the same - each Power Car is equipped with a Davies & Metcalfe E70 electronic Brake Controller which through application valves on each power car (and the associated train wires), applies and releases the brakes simultaneously from each end, basically for the same length of train at a faster rate than a conventional loco-hauled set - we are talking fractions of a second difference in lag for either type however on an HST it's sufficient enough to reduce the stopping distance at maximum speed quite considerably! Aside from all that, both the Loco-Hauled and HST Mark 3s were originally designed to operate at 125mph!

It's like many of these stories that get put about- wrong rivets, too small, too big, whatever - no one ever puts any figures round it, any meat on the bone as it were...... The one about the height? of the HJ Clayton came out within the first week of release, and to date no ones put any figures to the difference. Could it be the kit Clayton's are wrong? Who knows without any supporting info? I'm certainly not out to look up or source the appropriate drawings as to be honest (like many of the purchasers) apart from the drive problems it looks better than any Clayton I'd seen modelled previously. In comparative price terms, the HJ - even at full price, are clearly streets ahead. Of course there is room for improvement, but I'd have to say, to me that fact doesn't detract greatly from what HJ produced. Some people are never happier than when they are decrying the latest release. Having returned to modelling a few years back now after an extended absence thanks to BR and the 12" to the foot version, I've been increasingly disappointed by the queue that forms to be the first to pronounce the "next-best-thing" from the manufacturers as a dud, or to spot the latest "oops" as if all the other modellers will be suitably impressed by their wealth of knowledge and prowess. As you say PMP, if there version is that much better and streets ahead of the RTR manufacturers, and yet costs the same price, then lets see it then - Get it out on the table

Nothing like stirring it up without any explanation? Forgetting the drive problems, what's the joke about it?

Do you mean the earlier photo's of the EMUs as well as the 156 - It's the Bright Orange of Strathclyde Transport..... See http://members.madasafish.com/~dysgraphyk/156/class156_liv-st.htm or strictly speaking Strathclyde PTE.....

Nice Mark 2! - Save yourself some time! Periscopes were not fitted to any of the Mark 2 brakes, having been abandoned (on all but the SR) in the summer of 1963, whilst Mark 1 construction was still on the go and two/three years before the Mark 2 BFKs were constructed. One less detail for you to model. I know you've mentioned the underframe equipment in passing however are you changing it to the earlier Mark 2 style?

Handy things those electrical hoses Ian. Great for spraying electricity all over the place

Kentucky Fried Chicken

on her horse

along the watchtower

amongst the nobs

Knowing nothing about Black Beetle's Dave, does this mean 2 sets or are they man enough for 1 and 1 unpowered bogie? Much as I Like the thought of a proper open cab for the Heljan Clayton, at ??42 a pop it's looking an expensive option, though of course one would be more reasonable!

Your quite right Jamie - seven points in the scenic area (C+L) and whatever it takes in the fiddle yard down the other long side. Main line trains certainly help as does the length to run them in - though I'll probably have to increase the A4 fleet by a couple and get my name down for a Bachmann A2... Oh and increase the number of Maroon Mark 1s - so if you feel like chucking yours in the bin, I've the perfect bin for them

I am Graham I've started constructing a 7mm diorama of part of the Carriage Shop at Glasgow Works (St.Rollox), purely to display / photograph the (infrequent) 7mm models I do, so therefore it's small (and non-functioning) in 7mm terms - which is about as much space as I have for an '0' gauge layout! Fortunately I do have enough room (21ft x 7ft) in one of the lofts to fill with a 4mm scale / '00' gauge layout. I've tried a few locations however never being able to settle on a specific location didn't help! As most of my 4mm modelling has been in the 1960-68 period, and I've a leaning towards main-line as opposed to branch trains, Auldbar Road is more than a probable as I guess it ticks all the right boxes. Fortunately trains on the Glasgow-Aberdeen main line in that period were well photographed - and allow a typical for the period Scottish mix of ex-LMS and LNER locomotives! Bob.

Good point 28ten! I still intend to use the blog for general carriage stuff - there is a lot I come across when searching out or creating drawings for folk that would be best suited to this "occasional" format I've chosen, that (obviously) are not particularly linked to a more specific layout or workbench thread! This 'drop by' format for me looks to be the best for that kind of thing! Bob.

Coming from the Scottish central belt you get used to the obliteration of track formations and structures caused by "progress" - goodness knows what some of the property developers would have done without the BR Property Boards once vast portfolio of redundant trackbeds and yards. The downside of this "progress" is that much of the recognisable railway has progressively disappeared over the years. Move out of the Edinburgh-Glasgow corridor north-eastwards (in our case by 125 miles) and it's incredible the difference it makes. Whilst over the last two years I've wandered here and there up and down for a location for a layout, never really settling on a location, it became obvious that much of what I was after was on our (literal)! doorstep. One prospective candidate was Auldbar Road on the Caledonian main line between Forfar and Guthrie Junction. The line closed in 1967, and though the station closed in the 1950s a surprising amount still remains - almost all still exists (if a little overgrown) bar the wooden station buildings and of course the track and signals! The original stationmasters house remains, and adjacent to that, Auldbar Road signalbox, functioning as a private outbuilding these days, but looking better than it did in the early 60s when it was then a "redundant" BR asset. Perhaps you can see why I'm inspired to use this location for a layout. For more info on this section of the Caledonian main line to Aberdeen I'd thoroughly recommend The Arbroath & Forfar Railway by Niall Ferguson published by The Oakwood Press Bob

Cheers Dave. The first short article (which will be of Caledonian interest to you) follows shortly! Bob.

You know, when Rmweb3 appeared, I really couldn't get my head round how to fit in layouts and workbenches in the old sense to this new environment. First I tried dumping all the old workbench topic I had directly into the new blog format, then I added a couple of updates...... Then it fell apart at that point! No reactions from anybody but the odd soul (sorry Max, your not that old) who follow my wanderings, no real indication of whose actually reading the thing (if only to make it all seem worthwhile) anyway the light went on last week when I noticed how much more "interactivity" of the type I was happy with there was for those who created separate topics (as opposed to blogs) for their layouts and workbenches. So this is the format I've arrived at; I'll create separate conventional topics for my 4mm Layout (in it's MkIV iteration) and individual workbenches for my Rolling Stock work. The "Blog" will just be a regular diary of my wanderings around the Scottish region, in model and protoype form, with more "magazine" like short articles on what I come across - on anything railway orientated that takes my fancy.... If you would like to contribute to this and pass comment please do - This is perhaps not what Andy Y intended for this medium however it's at least one I'll be comfortable with Bob

Just remember and do a workbench thread for us lesser mortal Dave (or David as well) - I'm keen to see how this is done!? Bob.

Just to maintain some kind of continuity, this link is to the pages I previously cobbled together on the old site. Okay I could copy them over however fresh start what Bob's Carriage Shop - JLTRT 7mm Mark 2f DBSO To be followed by a bringing up to date series of articles....(for which there are lots) honest! __________________________________________