Pennine MC

They did on inter-Regionals, and certainly in the mid 70s* I remember them in use on Aberdeen - GQS/Edinburgh and possibly other principal internal services, but otherwise they were generally rare. To be fair, if you were halfway up the WHL or the Far North and didnt know what train you were signalling, there'd be not much helping you * Edit - t'would be my 1975 Railrover, as the '76 one was post-'0000' era.

It's the tare (unladen) weight, applied for charging purposes so that it could be subtracted from the gross weight when the wagon + load combo was weighed. Very generally, a Morton (single sided) braked 16T mineral would tend to be lighter than one with double/independent gear or with vac brakes, but the potential range does vary quite widely between the 'upper sixes' and the 'mid eights'

From Andyman's post (my bold): They dont have to give any discount, likewise you dont have to buy from them. And what the Savoy has to do with all this, I really dont know...

I would imagine that the heaviest services were those that either split at Perth (for Edinburgh and Glasgow) or were headed further south (the Royal Highlander was certainly one such triple-header), hence the Queen St constriction wouldnt be an issue (and I think locos would have been changed at Perth anyway on those trains) It's been suggested that even the two-loco combos were sometimes one of each, in order to get the best of the performance curve of each (not that it always happened, obviously). Then again, it could be a bit random, like finding socks in the dark - pull three out and you're more likely to get a pair that match

[idealism mode] One would think that RTR locos or units should really be designed as a cohesive whole, i.e the chassis should be heavy enough to do what it needs to do and in turn, the drivetrain and peripherals should be strong enough to handle that. From experience particularly with Lima diesels, I'm of the firm opinion that adding weight helps with electrical pickup; tyres obviously do the opposite.

Nope. The only BSYP 27 was D5389, which had blue window surrounds (not windows...)

Re- 5908. My first edition Roger Harris allocation history states: Said first edition is 1986, the more recent one may be more definitive but whatever, the dates in Harris re- Cohens are fuller than those on Chronicles of Napier.

Some cracking character there - anybody any thoughts on what the load is in the Medfit behind the loco?

It's not just this forum TM, it's a bit of a hoary old argument (IMHO) in the hobby in general. Another potential flashpoint is to make pithy observations without the substance of the backing argument. But hey, we've all done it at some time or other; your intentions were evidently sound enough, my reaction for one was possibly a tad trigger happy and so I'd like to thank you for responding with good grace.

And here it is again. I'll save time and transfer my own words from another very recent thread: Quite. It may be that some intend to do something about these errors themselves, in just the same way as some are prepared to do something about the gauge. But you cant rectify an error unless you've identified and appraised it first.

As far as I can see Dave, by saying that the suggested tender wheel is a 10 spoke, the Captain is just making a simple observation. He's not saying it's either noticeable or worth worrying about, in fact as he's used them in another 22, if anything he's saying the opposite. I'm all for fidelity, I'm also all for informed choice and allowing folk to make their own decisions.

I dont want to drag this out either John, I agree the discussion didnt run particularly smoothly but in Nidge's absence, I'd be very confident that his suggestion wasnt in any way intended to belittle you. Whilst one should never say 'never', I do think that the balance of probability here is that you're mistaken, and if you genuinely think you've found a variation, I personally feel that the burden of proof is on you to find an ex-works shot of it.

Even the driver's uniform is spot on, there's attention to detail

Oh but sometimes it is, especially if the said dirt has been cleaned back to a certain point (which in the case of windscreens, would make perfect sense). We've had debates before about this, about Peaks with 'black' nose tops for instance, and blue 47s with 'black' roofs, but like m'learned friends above, I'm unconvinced that it's anything other than dirt In which case, you should paint what you see (it's your model, and that is in any case a basic rule of weathering). But liveries in this period are contorted enough as it is, I'd hate Dapol or any other manufacturer to have to produce models catering for 'variations' which are, quite simply, unproven.

They lasted ten years because the overriding national priority was to replace steam, and it was felt that there was work for even the less brilliant diesel types. It took until around 1967/68 for the National Traction Plan to be able to rationalise the diesel fleet and to identify surpluses.

There are a few more contenders for late survivors in all-green in the 'Early Diesels' thread a bit further down, the ScR 20 referenced there on John Grey Turner's site is a possible for going straight into blue. No idea what number it is though. Several all-green 33s lasted into 1968, I'd think those would then have got BFYE

From Hornby Mag's Facebook page. Class

Coming in after a night on the p*ss, that thought is not lost on me You could be right there. HJ's 'Falcon' rewrote the diesel rule book in terms of what was viable, the 16 (if/when it happens) is possibly going to close the chapter.

You know sometimes when you get your shirt cuff caught on a door handle? I've never seen that on a layout.

Thanks for the clarification there

It's become fashionable for not particularly well-read folk to trot out the same old cliches about any of the diesels that met with early withdrawal. I keep meaning to dig out an early Rail Enthusiast mag which had in it some first hand comment to the effect that Kingmoor staff did a lot of good work sorting out both its Claytons and Metrovicks. As for the 21s, you've only to look at the typical immaculate external condition of the Kittybrewster-based batch of machines to make a reasoned guess that the innards must have been similarly looked after; fairly recently I dropped across a comment from a secondman (possibly on a Flickr site) to the effect that he'd only known one failure in his time of working with them.

Not at all Brian, by the same token I should apologise if you felt singled out. I'm just at saturation level with certain hoary old arguments, I spoke not just for myself but for any middle ground modellers who just want to enjoy the hobby the way it suits them without being caught by 'we've never had it so good' apologism at one end, and the 'oh, get on and do some modelling, it'll put hairs on yer chest' evangelising at t'other. I believe there are a large number of us who try to encompass both approaches, we just get misunderstood, misrepresented and generally caught in the middle. Because it *is* rare, relatively speaking. If it wasnt, we'd know about it because the manufacturers would be using it more often as a sales pitch. OTTOMH I can only think of the Deltic, the Kernow Thumper and the Dapol Western that are using it or have used it; certainly with the Deltic, the cost wasnt an issue to Bachmann because it was underwritten by the NRM as commissioning party.

No intention to distort your position Brian, I habitually edit my quotes because I'd rather do that than quote too much or stuff that isnt relevant to what I want to pick up on. Nevertheless, my apologies if you felt that was what I was doing. That said, I'm still not sure of the significance here. Very few RTR models are laser scanned because of the expense anyway, but if I was scratchbuilding a model, I'd use drawings which I'd then cross-check against as many photos from as many angles as possible. It surely follows that that is good practice for an RTR manufacturer? Again you've lost me, I still dont think you've answered my question. What relevance does this have to the errors under discussion, with the headcode panels or fan grilles? Why do such well-nigh unavoidable compromises with track-related factors have a bearing on the acceptance of discrepancies in the upper bodywork? We also typically accept reductions of maybe 50% in platform length, does it follow that we should be prepared to accept a hypothetical Bo-Bo diesel that was a scale 25ft long, if one were made for us? I'll repeat, I dont expect any model to be perfect, but I also dont expect anybody to be holding back standards, either in RTR as it comes or in the efforts of those who see it as a basis for improvement. (I should no doubt make clear that this is a general discussion of principles now, FWIW the errors on the Baby Deltic wouldnt bother me).