Pennine MC

Indeed we have Dave, but where do you see the solution? a) Should those who are satisfied with a given model just accept that others might want to discuss any areas of concern, and not seek to treat the latter as pariahs, or; b ) should those who seek to improve standards give up on that aim, and just accept that their aspirations in the hobby will be shaped by others with lower expectations? In my experience, it's almost always the first group who take exception to the second, not the other way round. There's a basic lack of tolerance here, and most of it is only flowing one way.

Not always appropriate though. Sometimes it's a case of 'point X is wrong, it's not easily fixable, but now you know it's there, you can make up your own mind whether it matters to you'. A caveat Bernard, if I might - constructive criticism and free, informed choice. As Jim sagely pointed out, just saying something is great isnt actually very informative.

And some, oddly enough, will do both; no real need to post divisive comments, IMHO.

Given that he's kindly taken the time to place the definitive info elsewhere on the Web (link below), I dont think he's obliged to cruise around forums just in case somebody wants to ask him a question: http://www.railblue.com/rail_blue_history_2.htm Sometimes it's better to go to the source of the information, rather than expect it to come to you

Jan, it's lovely work and I hate to mention this but those pushrods are arranged the wrong way - they should slope downwards from right to left on that side of the wagon (assuming it's Morton braked, which the presence of the clutch would suggest).

NOT TO BE USED FOR P WAY BALLAST OR OTHER ENGINEERS' MATERIALS (or something very much like that) - applied to these and SR 8-plank opens after the sideways opening doors had resulted in one or more incidents.

Absolutely, even without getting knocked, a flat glued joint shouldnt be trusted in those circumstances, and back in 'th'owld days when we had to make and fit pipes ourselves, a drilled hole was standard practice. If you're wary, make a slight indentation first with the tip of a knife blade or something else pointy, then the drill is much less likely to slip. And use a pin chuck rather than a minidrill - again you'll get finer control.

Interesting brake rigging on the first wagon, seems to incorporate some sort of self-propulsion mechanism

Pardon my naivety, but is that not the idea? Dapol have been keen enough to invite input thus far, is it suddenly not welcome?

The thing with that particular Bachmann model is that it's not numbered as a run of the mill COV AB, but one of the prototypes for what became the VDA. Production VDAs were AB only, but that one, having been converted from an early van (the type that later became VAB/VBB), may well have been vac piped. I can't say for certain because I've never seen an early period photo of it - it would be interesting to know what image Bachmann have worked from for that one.

TBH my first thought was that the date is correct, and that they're in store (or maybe 'one journey, loco coal' status?) - if it was an earlier date, you'd expect a more representative sample of steel wagons.

I know what you mean here Paul, though to me the overall-rusted one would blend in more than a cleanish one, as that's a hard look to pull off. There is indeed a homogenity though in the 'typical' 1960s ones - they will obviously differ from each other in terms of shape, size and amount of rust flakes/patches, but there are certain wear points that go first maybe 80% of the time. In later periods, changes in painting regimes and the greater incidence of body repairs produce more variation. I know it sounds initially daft because rust is rust, but I can often approximately age a picture by the appearance of steel minerals in it - a rake in the early '60s looks different from one in the late 60s, and a 1970s one different again.

The 'MCO' on the IU site is a bit of a daft description really as none of the French ones survived to carry that code. The one at Ludborough is AFAIK one of a pair, the doors were most likely removed by BTP (British Titan Products) of Grimsby when the wagon was acquired for the infrequent flow of ilmenite from Immingham. The flow later used tipplers built on 35t tank underframes and was one of the last two unfitted freight flows on BR.

I disagree, it's not a clear inference at all. Not quite correct IIRC, the reasoning was that the Jube and the Standard 4 had not sold any better than if they'd just had new chassis. As Rob says, the retooled Jube has been out at least four years, possibly more, I'm open to correction but I think these examples are the second run. Every time something is sold cheaply, we go through this process of speculation, overanalysis and getting two and two to make five. It'll just be stock clearance to make way for newer items, it's hardly an unknown phenomenon with consumer goods.