Pennine MC

Thanks Stu

I've been a bit wary of using acrylics for weathering because they've never seemed as "controllable" to me as enamels something I've always put down, rightly or wrongly, to the pigment in acrylic being coarser than enamels.

 

That might have a bearing. I tend to think though it's that the solvent carrier 'flashes off' more quickly, though I believe the right thinners will counteract that

What I will be interested in is to see whether acrylic weathering is less prone to the effects of handling than enamels are.

Maybe so. A mate has a Bachy 25 that was crudely weathered with acrylics (not by him), and he says nothing will shift them

I'm sure I posted this before, but can't find it in the thread? ... 16t minerals experimentally painted - GREEN ! I'll have to have a look in the loft at my old mags.

Please do Stewart, I think I would remember that if you'd posted it before

http://www.flickr.co...N08/6454422593/

 

rather unusual repair behind the end stanchions on this one,

Hmmm, you often see patch painting there, I'd suspect over some welding bodge on the uprights themselves, but the plating patches are less common (though you can see similar on the sides of wagons, often near the door posts)

The base weathering is acrylic with enamels on top.

Interesting combo Stu, the roof as a whole looks much more convincing than some I've seen done with acrylics, and I like the subtle 'darkness' over the cabs

(and the next photo along too - cracking weathering reference photo )

This one:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/52467480@N08/6454428569/in/photostream/

Interesting vehicle, I dont think the patch painting is random, think it's had one of the various 'disposal' brandings applied, possibly 'SUBEX2' which IIRC was for vehicles sidelined for inspection but not actually condemned, and was painted out if the wagon was found to be OK. Look at the wagon to its right also - at a glance at at more distance, you'd take it for 'overall' rust but there are several distinct shades in interesting disposition. Similarly the second wagon in Mike's shot is only moderately rusted on the sides, but heavy on the ends - modellers I think often apply rust flakes in a too evenly 'spaced out' pattern, possibly subconsciously.

... I never saw it convey a tail load other than the parcel vans though one of the staff did mention to me about it conveying Presflos though I doubt if anyone could confirm this now.

Sounds odd but it wouldnt be unprecedented, I have a photo of a Presflo (and a 13T Highfit with cable drum) on the back of the evening Kyle - Inverness train in 1976

... I would very much like to see a class 120 DMU in model form as well though in OO. .. Mind you, if I ever do get round to starting another layout I have a suspicion it will end up as the Baltimore & Ohio in West Virginia!

Yeah, they did get about, but not that far

... This is a great contender for our 'Early Diesels,' as there's no yellow in sight ...

I know it's early, but you sure about that

Will that be before or after the 'Fell' then

 

It seams to me a great shame that Dapol have gone their own way with the blue liveried models, there is a very green hue in their blue and it does not look good next to Hornby or Bachman stock.

Bachmann's early blue has often been commented on as being a tad dark anyway. As has oft been discussed on this forum, the perception of Rail Blue varies greatly according to many factors (personally I'd say it was a bit 'green' anyway). As ever, YMMV, but expecting everything to look 'the same' is a hiding to nothing.

2x W5449

2x W13493

1x W16084

so obviously at least 2 will need a renumber

Just to augment Flood's comprehensive reply, 16084 is bogus; in reality that number would be a Mk1 composite (CK).

There are also a lot of bodywork differences between 10800 and the 16, despite the natural 'family similarity'.

To be fair Jon, some of the threads were on the old forum, which I dont suppose you'll be able to access. BV however has his own Flickr site now:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/59835095@N02/sets/72157627649152349/

 

...

I did some digging and I think that the reason Bachmann might have done this is that 47148 retained the fixed grill into its Blue TOPS period. I've just found a picture of 47146 in Green (TOPS) full yellow ends with the fixed grills ... in 1975 (MLI No 800, page 36)... but other than that, I've found no pictures of the fixed grills post 1968.

...

 

... Most new models now emerging (with the 4-digit panel) still seem to have the fixed 3-piece grill... in my mind... unless you're modelling "early 60s", there's a risk that this will be wrong. ...

 

I was quite disappointed to see that the majority of Bach releases have this (IMHO) wrong roof... It still bemuses me that they'd target Pre and post TOPS Blue with this config... when they did have a "right" or better one.. looks like 32-801 (Loco 1764). Shame.

 

...

Jon mate, with the greatest of respect it is not 'wrong' by any definition (although it's arguably true that there could be better choices). There's no question that Bachmann have modelled an actual loco with 47148, in fact all of their fixed grille models are perfectly accurate in this respect, whatever number they have.

The change to Serck grilles on new build was made quite early, as also was the retrofitting on any loco built with dual braking - but other locos that had been built VB only were only modded as and when they were DB fitted. That took a long time - from around 1969 until 1975ish, so it's far from impossible to find fixed grille locos in the '70s. Brush Veteran has posted shots of them and it's been covered on this and other forums many times since the model came out.

 

Again staying with Dapol I've recently purchased 10 x 21 ton coal hoppers, ... I wondered exactly what diagram they were meant to represent as I know the hand brake lever sat very high on the early diagrams and these wagons couldn't represent them as the brake was low at solebar level. Of the 5 different running numbers I find that one was from a production run of 50 at Shildon, the remaining 4 from Birmingham, but these production runs were of diagram 146 which had very different strengthening ribs down the flanks, it being a full boxed in section. In addition the diagrem 146 referred to welded production. The Dapol wagon has thin reinforcing in line with diagram 143, but of course the diagram 143 needed the high brake lever and were of riveted construction as per the model

 

All 21 ton should have fine wire grab rails and operating rods, but I can forgive them being missing on the basis of cost. All Dapol had to do to make these accurate enough would be to use the right running numbers, a slight modification on certain side panels and high brake lever ..........

 

As Brian says, this wagon is one inherited by Dapol via the disparate confusing strands that evolved from 1970s RTR. Hornby also market it, with much the same inaccuracies and no doubt the same idea, to extract a steady revenue from something that owes them very little. IIRC though the Hornby Dublo 'SD' welded hopper was far too wide, so wouldnt sit easily on the ex-Airfix chassis anyway

Not a comment linked to the model as such, but I'd be careful about setting too much store by the diagram numbers for 21T hoppers. Even the most cursory checking against photos on Paul Bartlett's Zenfolio site will reveal many BR-built wagons (mostly the earlier builds) that were not actually built to the allocated diagram. The pukka LNER ones are probably even more varied.

Maybe for post 70s, but when my father was learning to drive in the late 60s (we came late to automobilia) he was taught to park with his front wheels angled so that if the hand brake failed the car would "roll into the curb" (I also dimly recall he had to put the car into first when turning off the ignition - but I'm probably wrong). I vaguely recall reading that driving practices in the 60s had not changed much since the 30s and are (were?) very different to today's practices.

iD may well have a point here, those to me look like practices (like slowing down on the gears) that were born of a time when car brakes weren't as reliable.

Nowadays with power steering, it's much easier to straighten up as Jim suggests, once settled into a space and if your manouevring doesnt do it for you. I'd say the majority of cars that do exhibit turned wheels these days are ones that have been driven forwards into a car park space with nothing on one side.

Is this a cliche?

 

Badly parked 4x4s? Yeah

 

... Bristol docks ... shunters - they had very prominent 'S' for steam or 'D' for diesel notations painted on! If the people dealing with the prototypes cannot tell the difference, what hope do we poor modellers have??

I'd guess that was more for control staff and those dealing with the records, as those that could see what was in front of their eyes.

But in the present situation of so many appropriate models coming out that the budget is at full stretch; and some of the subjects being such tiny classes that a very few years of relivery reissues will cover the whole class: damnit, I will wait until the one I want near inevitably appears.

Yeah, dont get me wrong; I'm not saying it isnt sometimes a good idea, and like many folk I have a long a list of projects that could be possibly kept from getting longer by interpretation of what *might* be on the way - this is surely why threads like this are as popular with 'doers' as 'box openers'. But as ever, there needs to be realism, and that's what's sadly sometimes lacking.

 

... Problem some have, like me who has not altered engines too much ... is that the engines are expensive to start to work on, ... Its not a case of can you do it, but a case of can you do it to the standard and finesse of the models that are made now, ...

So, as I always say with weathering - build up your experience on cheaper models. Nobody on this forum set out with full grown skills, the sooner you start the sooner you'll get to where you want to be.

If your not prepared to wait, or doubt whether your efforts would ruin it - then perhaps maybe you buy the model for what it is as its as close as youd get for the time being.

Yep, that's pretty much it I think. This idea of 'waiting til they do the one I want' is relatively new - when some of us started out, there was absolutely no point in waiting for variations, 'cos it just wasnt going to happen.

Late replacement loco for failed K3 on Grimsby fish turn. Commandeered while running-in from Doncaster works.

Is this post a red herring?

Modern Locomotives Illustrated has a photo of D8408 with the small square panel on the short bonnet and states it was delivered with it in 1958.

 

Good to know it's authoritative as ever

 

This is news to me, a debate ive never come across. Railway modellers have always modified RTR....It's what they do!

 

This thing about 'we shouldn't have to modify new RTR' sounds suspiciously like current thinking to me, or maybe it's because I dont mix in the right circles ('everything on a plate' society).

As ever, it's a broad debate put here in a brief soundbite.

We all have our own tolerances but I think most would agree you shouldnt have to correct defects in new RTR (such as, hypothetically, a loco that wont run properly or a coach that had the wrong roof profile) - but then again if you want to do it, that's OK. Modifying to enhance, to detail, to represent variations or different builds using a basically sound model is a completely different thing, and should indeed be 'what we do'.

Was D5545 the first of these? I think I was shown through the engine compartment while it was idling at Liv St, must have been 1961.

So anyway, back to the plot. Yes Ian, I think it was - numbers in the D5655 - 70 range also ring a bell now I think on.

 

Pennine MC said "I recall reading that EE did actually offer to supply the last batches of 37s at 2000hp but BR declined, probably on the grounds of standardisation" - now if I remember correctly a re-engined Brush Type 2 - D5835 I think - was tested with an uprated engine at both 1600 and 2000 bhp. Not sure what electrical changes had to be made to handle that but presumably it was the test bed for this exercise?

I doubt it Phil - at that time, the Brush locos still had the Mirrlees lumps in them, it was that that was uprated. Not sure about electrics, but 5835 was unique in having the big cooling grilles at both ends, which it kept until the end, viz:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianews/5813358008/

There were also other class members rated at 1600hp for a time, I can never trouble to remember which ones

And was it therefore the only loco to operate as a Type 2, type 3 and type 4?

 

Unless you count 47s with duff traction motors

Most of the above is recalling what I have read from Brian Webbs 'Deltic locomotives of British Rail', a book which I would consider essential reading if you are serious about these little locos.

Cheers, I thought there's be something in that but you have better recall of it. We have discussed 5901 and the U-type before, methinks.