Pennine MC

The title was BRAKE not BREAK so I don't understand why you said it!!!

I dont wish to cause an argument given your evident dischuffment Bart, but I'm sure I remember seeing it as 'break'. Presumably the 'edit by Mod4' line isnt just coincidence, particularly as it was less than an hour after Brushman's polite request?

They escaped all over the system, and not simply after the SR went Vacuum brake. ... My theory is that the higher tare 25Ton than other standard brake vans (20 Ton) was found useful.

It's a thought isnt it, I've also seen enough pics of them working random freights on other Regions to have stopped consciously noting them

looks to be a GWR FRUIT A if I'm not mistaken?

I think it is Dave, the opposed angle irons being the giveaway, but I must admit the end door made me think it was a b*stardised Mogo at first*. The meat van is as you say, just gold.

* Edit - I'll sleep on it, but I think maybe the end(s) is/are Mogo - there's no trace of the twin vents of the Fruit.

... you parallel-boiler boys ...

That sounds a bit Stanierist to me

 

... perhaps it was a question of using an available engine within the E-E group for that power output, with the class 20 engine not being powerful enough and the later class 37 engine being too big for a type 2 loco.

Possibly, but the principal difference between the basic type 1 and 2 specs was twin cabs and train heat capability - some type 2s (like the early NBLs) were actually 1000hp (the power ratings IIRC being type 1: 800 - 1000hp and type 2: 1000 - 1500). Added to which, the 8SVT could probably by then have been offered at a higher rating - as an aside, 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.

Again I shouldnt post too much off the cuff (I should go away and read like Bill ), but it does seem likely that the locos were a case of an engine being available and looking for an application.

 

... They had a high power to weight ratio, perhaps not so significant in a small suburban loco however, where reliability should have been more significant.

That's an interesting point. I'm not sure OTTOMH and I'm not running to check books while my tea's settling, but presumably the Babies were simply put forward as a contender for the broad type 2 'spec', without necessarily any specific purpose in mind. It highlights (in a very general sense) how BR didnt always make best use of its assets by taking account of particular strengths and weaknesses.

... It just shows how far ready to run has come on when you're arguing over the amount of rivets on a chimmny!

I dont see anybody counting rivets on chimneys, argumentatively or otherwise. I do see folk discussing the presence or absence of rivets on smokeboxes, and whether that might be linked to certain builds or number ranges - all grist to the mill of those who want to utilise RTR to best effect. As someone who likes B1s but doesnt know that much about them, I for one am grateful for their insights.

 

Can we expect a U-turn of political proportions, then?

Constantly:

http://www.pakfiles.com/watch-video/MTQ3MDg=/Fast-Show-Indecisive-Dave

...but hell, if you're modelling Scotland in the 'rescue the branches' era you've got a head start for a W&M I reckon.

Far be it from me to make you look neither funny nor clever (big there), but the Waggonbasher was the one type that never saw service in Scotland; Alston was the nearest they got, and then only briefly.

 

... almost a clique (all "liking" each other's posts), on this post appearing to stand shoulder to shoulder with the retailers

Or maybe we just share a common outlook Brian, one that (with due respect) is a tad more wordly wise than your own.

As for 'standing shoulder to shoulder with retailers', it's not just offensive but it's off the mark - understanding and accepting something isn't actually the same thing as condoning it.

My last word on this.

...BR suggested some to Diag 530.

I hadn't a clue what that was until last night when I found out that this diag was for the centre cars of 3 car Cravens 105 units.

 

I hardly like to mention this after 'that document', but those Cravens trailer cars would have been surplus at that time, having been withdrawn from the LMR sets they were delivered with.

 

Some of us had agreed to move on... but I wouldn't know a 4-VEP from an N15.

And the A2 doesn't help your case.

So let's do that. I think the folly of making an overall comparison of manufacturers on the basis of disparate individual models has been shown.

 

It's Christmas - time to rip off the punters big time - nowt to do with supply and demand, just retailer greed.

Hattons prices often vary according to supply and demand and possibly other reasons. I've no doubt there's a profit motive there as well, but it's nothing to do with Christmas.

Hornby may well have missed a trick with late to market products like the B1 and B17.

Again I dont see the relevance. Hornby dont tell Hattons what price to sell at.

The general (I think way above inflation) increase in the cost of RTR model railway items

 

Why would it be linked to UK inflation? It's part of a world economy, in which the ever increasing expectations of a Chinese workforce play a big part

cctrans ... Perhaps you are a retailer ...

John a retailer? Ho hum. With due respect Brian, I think you'd do well to better get to know the folk you're arguing with.

... headcode. ..Did they just not use them in the Scottish region?

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.

... the bottom RH corner of the wagon has the numbers 7 - 11 on a black box.

 

The sheet has different numbers for the various wagon numbers eg 8 - 1 8 - 17 and so forth. ...

 

What's the signifcance of these numbers? I guess it's something obvious staring me in the face but am having a mental block.

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'

Smacks of "Rip Off Britain" to me! [snip]

From Andyman's post (my bold):

... (i.e. reduce the discount offered over RRP). ..

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...

 

in the time of triple-headers, was the HBS only required to/from perth? certainly glasQS had limited platform lengths so 3 locos would mean shorter trains, mind you edin waverley would not have that problem

 

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)

If I recall correctly, the usual configuration was an HBS and two BRCWs.

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

 

... Better than filling the body full of lead which puts extra weight on bearings and gears.

[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.

Is the minitrix class 27 d5370,blue syp with white windows based on a genuine livery ?

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

Re- 5908. My first edition Roger Harris allocation history states:

Wdn 9.3.69. Stored at Hornsey 3.69 - 7.69, to store at Fin Park 7.69 (noted 5.7.69) - 10.69. The loco arrived in Bescot yard 6.10.69 and was noted at the diesel depot on 23.11.69. However, the disposal of this loco has not been ascertained beyond doubt. It was (1) sent to J Cashmore, Great Bridge in 12.69 and noted there being broken up during 2.70 or (2) sent to G Cohen, Kettering for scrap 12.69 and noted in yard 14.1.70 with a quoted cut up date 17.1.70

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.

Nice prototype shot, don't think its been posted before http://www.flickr.co...842667/sizes/m/

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

 

Unfortunately, not knowing the history of this website, I did this by comparing the very minor errors to the discrepancy in the track gauge and promptly walked straight into a minefield.

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.

 

 

As an aside, with a very personal opinion, I have been amazed at how many posts concern very minor errors in a mass produced model, but the fact that the model will be operated on track which is way under scale is apparently of no concern at all.

And here it is again.

I'll save time and transfer my own words from another very recent thread:

But anyway [insert name as appropriate], please tell me - because I for one am genuinely interested in your thought process - just what is the substance behind this trite old argument? Is it that because the gauge is out by 2.33mm, therefore an error of up to 2.33mm - plus or minus - anywhere else on a model should be acceptable as well? If manufacturers used that as a yardstick, there'd be some pretty odd looking models about...

Why do ... 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?

What errors have been pointed out seem to have been done in a generally constructive or at least neutral manner in, I imagine, a spirit of informing others whether it be fellow modellers or the manufacturer.

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.

seriously fellas, will knowing it has 10 spokes instead of 11 be

 

a) noticeable

b ) worth losing sleep over

 

I'm all for fidelity, but there comes a point.....

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'm sorry Mod6, but it was first suggested that I had "confused" them with class 29s. I think that was uncalled for too. I'll draw a line under this discussion, but I think its unfortunate that it had developed the way it did.

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.

... with off white shirt ...

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