Pennine MC

Yeah, I think most of us having an interest in the type know that (or have grasped it). The point here is that this key idiosyncracy was scanned correctly, but then made incorrect at a later stage by a contractor, necessitating further correction. Not only that, but explaining here what has happened has caused further confusion, despite the good intentions of all involved. It's quite a good illustration, I think, of how the various chains in the model making process mean that (for any manufacturer) it isnt as simple as it might appear. It also occurs to me that it shows why laser scanning isnt the panacea it's made out to be, partly because of the wild card mentioned above and also because of the lack of sharpness in the cab corners that Bernard mentioned in post #43

That's how I remember it John, I have a bit of a soft spot for the Cravens triples as I spent two consecutive summer hols at my Mum's Aunt's house in Newark in 1968 and 1969. Travelling as we did to Nottingham and Lincoln, they were around in '68 but by '69, as you say the 120s had taken over (although Etches Park's BRCW 104s were still around).

Yep, I'm still confused: Dave says they're offset, and I know they're offset, so why have they since been moved to the centre line?

I'm not sure I understand this. Are we talking about the fan grilles on the roof?

I'm squarely with Craig on this, particularly as the chassis concerned is a steel frame and the wagon pictured in the book is on a wooden one. Not only that, but the likelihood of them copying a maverick PO design from amongst the hundreds of thousands that did conform to RCH norms is prrr - retty slim. Mr Rice's logic for the WB being 10ft is based on rail chairs being usually spaced at 2'6 intervals (the wagon's wheels are each conveniently right over a chair) - I dont know enough about track to know how reliable that assumption is? Like judging buffer lengths, it's very difficult to tell from photos but the WB *could* be longer than 9ft - the axleguards look slightly nearer than usual to the headstocks and the pushrods could be at a slightly shallower angle

The marking in the centre is, literally, the centre line marking, so would be there irrespective of livery/period. '14-11' is the tare weight, the panel immediately to its left is the repair data panel which came in with the 1964 livery changes (but was often applied to wagons retaining elements of earlier liveries)

It might have some. It looks like an early Bachmann reissue of the Mainline BBC, but with diamond frame bogies instead of the GW plateback type. If the rest of the moulding is unaltered, it'll have GW Dean/Churchward pattern levers, not visible in that shot, as the Mainline model was based on a GW build. BR BBCs followed an evolutionary course from the GW wagons but all had conventional lever handbrakes. The grey is a bit on the dark side (not wrong as such, but not the commonest shade), but then so are most Bachy unfitted wagons

Came to look at this bleedin' regulator, found the hoppers as well

I think I'm right in saying that a few wooden PO coal wagons were built on steel underframes, but as Craig says, they would still be 16'6 long not 17'6. The liveries are generally nicely done though, obviously they'll never be as authentic as Bachmann's current products but depending how fastidious you are, they can still look quite good when weathered. I think Sparky has a few on his Penhydd layout. Alternatively you could ditch the bodies and use the chassis for kit or scratchbuilt wagons

The rust flecks are excellent Matt, but one thing - whilst the corner plates are steel, the actual body sheeting is plywood

Those will be the ones that I've made passing reference to in the past - I assume they're from the Railway Observer, Matt? LM 27s seemed quite regular visitors to Carlisle at that time, there is a pic of one on the GSW in 'Diesel Days Scotland' and years ago I saw a shot of one on the S&C on a website

One wee thing you might want to do on the mineral J, is to remove the raised pips on the brakelever guide - they should of course be holes really, but it does look better flat than pimpled. Grano is nice, I have a couple tucked away. Was it John or yourself that faired the roof into the sides? - I think that's the single biggest improvement that can be done to that kit

Not just bad maths, if you take out the TOPS numbers it's patently chuffing incorrect: Um, dont think so. What they've probably done is looked at the number series for 24/1s (which is right) and combined it with the tired old modeller's chestnut that 24/1s are by definition the headcoded ones. I appreciate they wanted to be brief but they'd have been better just referencing Dave Hill's site.

A fair bet, Stuart. The leftmost one (unless refloored, which did happen with heavy body repairs) will have bottom doors as it's a non-top flap wagon (either an MoT diagram 1/102 or an LMS D2109). The second one in might have, it seems to have some sort of white marking on the side door although it's understandably not clear. That said, I'm sure wagons without bottom discharge got sent to drops occasionally and had to be shovelled out via the side doors [Edit to remove double posting due to IE6 slow responses]

Time for a bump methinks, in view of the mention in the RoSc group B)

I'm fairly sure that came up in the Waverley thread and that we said it was very probably D60 - nameplate length is about right, it doesnt have a regimental crest and the shedplate is probably an NER fitting and thus could be a 55A one

Probably everybody, because it's not possible to model a strictly correct arrangement with the parts that Airfix provide - there's no Morton clutch on either brakelever Which is what it's all about IMO, experimentation. Though having said that, I don't believe technique is the be-all and end-all of weathering, there are often several possible ways to arrive at similar results. And perhaps paradoxically, the pursuit of individuality (as mentioned by Paul) is actually assisted by *not* doing the same thing every time.

I knew it wasn't the instructions, cos I don't read 'em

Love it

I was hoping some sort of recollection would come forth Mike, but my impression FWIW is twofold: one, that the original designs simply duplicated the concept of the many wooden 13 tonners (which also generally had bottom doors), and the second being of somebody having the vague idea that they could be used on coal drops in the absence of hopper wagons (albeit still with shovelling involvment, inside the wagon). It's probably not coincidence that the LNER 16 tonners were the only pre-BR ones to not have bottom doors, and possibly the adoption of the LNER 21T hopper as a BR type was a significant factor in the decision to stop building 16 tonners with bottom doors (though that's only a theory, I'd have to check specific order/build dates to even begin to back it up). As for them being run together, again it's possible but in the typical 'train shot', it's difficult to tell; at the time that this would have been happening (if it was), they'd have been mixed in with ex-POs