298

IIRC the BCK used was 21269.

That was built by Stuart Haworth, and is not the same as the exhibition layout built by the Riverside Railway Society/Nottingham Model Railway Society as mentioned by Gordon H. It was in RM, March 2007, Rail Express March 2001(?) And BRM before that.

Let's start a rumour that it was going to be named...

Real 90's have only ever had B/W pans, Hornby's have only ever had some collapsed scaffolding. I'd have had a cheeky bid on it a few years ago, the motor bogie would have gone under a 76, the body would have been detailed and renumbered, and the diamond pan would have gone on a HO US Boxcab.

From memory, those SAR locos were originally designed by Metrovick, the Westoe locos are from Siemens, AEG, Kerr Stuart, and EE. I am convinced that one of the reasons why early electric locos are perceived to look the same was because they didn't have time to evolve and so designers might have copied the same simple shape that had proven design features. But the key "family features" on locos from that era actually have alot of commonality with contemporary steam locos, early Baldwin locos had cabs of the same profile as steam locos and their bogies were simply motorised tender trucks.

What about "Haston Fruit Row" for all those reefers you brought from me...?

I suppose it depends to what extent the information is used to provide information- taking a cue from another thread, there is evidence of NSE liveried Mk2's running in Scotland, but how accurate would this be on a layout...? You could present the photo to show such a coach and say the layout is set on an exact date, but then again such rareties aren't part of the norm and shouldn't be modelled as they werent part of the general scene. I actually quite enjoy the research side of the hobby, and it's a revelation to find new photos of my chosen prototype and try to guess the exact location or year if not known. But slavishly following such information may lead to accurate but improbable looking scenes on a layout, hereas someone who only believes that the loco should match the caboose and anything coupled between them is incidental, might have an artistic touch and be able to create a complete scene that looks just right. So who builds the better layout...?

Some people seem to make a point of offering their constructive advice, or even thinking they have the right to criticise a layout and won't leave it until they've found something wrong. But what makes it worse is the operator(s) are a captive audience (especially when you operate from the front), and feel compelled to make conversation at a level of utter drivel, whilst trying not to be distracted from their operating. I've become an expert in nodding and smiling politely... On my next Patagonian narrow gauge layout, I'm deliverately going to have the grass blown over the wrong way by the prevailing winds. Lets see how many spot that deliberate error...!!

I don't like the term because it harks back to an era 30+ years ago, but looking at that era with hindsight gained over the years, we now know that toolmakers generally did a good job of getting the basic shapes right, even if the finished detail and manufacturing processes weren't as fine as we expect today. But the wish for continual change and improvement, generated by these "rivet counters" who were unprepared to rest on their laurels, has created the market and quality standards and a "we've never had it so good" atitude enjoyed by those who are prepared to point out mistakes. I had quite a chat with the new "till minder" in my local branch of a UK based model shop chain, and he asked if I was a "Rivet counter" in quite a derisory tone. I wasn't quite sure of how he knew about the phrase and can only assume it's from conversations with regular customers, who are presumably the same ones who keep bringing back new models due to manufacturing quality issues... Isn't that because Brits tend to model from a "trainspotting" perspective and replicate what they would have seen at their local station (ie lots of trains going by and some shunting in the yard), without actually thinking about accurate traffic patterns or governing what happens when or where the wagons are routed. Punters at shows and to some degree exhibition managers dictate how layouts are built and operated, which means maximum action, just in case someone complains their not getting good value from the few quid they paid to enter a show.

Nice Rapide. I miss seeing the classic fleet now they've moved from Coventry.

Phew, I've finally found someone who isn't exhibiting this weekend. It seems like everyone I know is out with their own layout, or someone else's....

The good (or bad) thig about the Brighton Belle is it is one of those impulse buys that seem to appeal once available, regardless of where they appear in wish list poles or production costs, such as the Blue Pullman. Unfortunately I can't think of many overhead electrics that tick the same boxes, except perhaps the 89....

It would take a brave manufacturer to percievably send good money after bad, but you could argue that the release of other AC electrics would add to the bigger picture and might be more tempting to modellers wishing to model an overhead-orientated layout. There are certainly quite a few areas/eras that could be represented using what is commercially available, but I don't rate the Farish 90 that highly and the 81-85 series aren't represented at all despite having a better type of pantograph to allow running under real wires (not that you need wires in N gauge).

If demand is less than the minimum required to make a viable production run, then the number supplied will be precisely zilch...! I think it'still a shame the model hasn't been a popular seller, it is certainly a lot better than the current 4mm scale effort and in this scale you can get away with just modelling the masts.

Relying on my limited experience, I think I'm definitely swaying towards preferring the pre-revolution era- although there have obviously been many improvements made to certain areas of life since 1959, other areas (which I'm not going to name) need someone to step back and say "Look, what the Bl**dy Hell are we doing here, this is no way to run a railway or even a country". I'm still liking the idea of lettering a loco for "Central Pedro", in recognition for the help given by Cuban modeller, travel expert, and all-round good guy Peter Smith for all of the help given so far.

Quainton Road on Sunday- we managed to ride in 353 but didn't have as much with Brill No.1 as it was cape'd on us twice. I was also pleased that it was our 6 week old Daughter's first ride on a train, not that she will remember...

Game on...!! http://www.uprr.com/newsinfo/releases/heritage_and_steam/2013/0723_4014.shtml

Thanks for the tip, but luckily I've been lent a copy, Phil....!! You're right, it is most useful. The Baldwin 4-6-0 will be getting a ficticious number and mill name that doesn't clash with any of those listed in the book. One rescourse I am trying to loop out for are photos from William D. Middleton as he was in Cuba at the time I'm looking to model. I have his photos in Trains magazine 01/59, his book titled "The Last Interurbans", and a Joe Strapac book on GE Steeplecabs. I'm assuming that there are more in other publications, as his photos seem to be spread far and wide.

I still don't know exactly why they rebuilt them, the cabs are original but the square hoods were added when the traction motors were changed. The Hershey had previously added extra ventilation slots in the sloping hoods to aid ventelation, so perhaps they have traction motor blowers too...?

Do you think it would fit under the hoods on this...: http://ymtram.mashke.org/cuba/hershey/photos/hersh11011mg.jpg This is the N gauge 44 Tonner chassis without it's PCB: http://estore.bachmanntrains.com/index.php?main_page=popup_image&pID=1671

I'm still thinking about it (and my Brain tends to shut down in the heat so it it's taking a while, and I'm still unsure whether to go for the classic "Terminus", or a through station with traversers at each end, or the whole hog and make it a roundy-roundy for exhibition/garage use. Punters seem to expect more operation from a tail-chaser, and are more patient with an end-to-end layout.

The 50T Steeplecabs I'm planning for this project will again be stretched Cannonball Car Shops kits, they were designed to accept the earlier self powered trucks from the Bachmann 44Tonner and represent a smaller loco. The real 50T to 62Ton locos share the same truck dimensions and centres as the later diesel, so the chassis is a direct fit. I did consider this project in N as Bachmann also do a 44Tonner in this scale, but I doubt the chassis will fit inside a Steeplecab body, but might work inside one of the Hershey rebuilds with square hoods. Are there any prototype Steeplecabs that you are interested in...?

I have a copy of a basic drawing with key dimensions on (from Joe Strapac's "Interurban Electric Locomotives from Baldwin-Westinghouse"). If you have the skills and are keen enough to give it a go, then I'm sure you will get lots of support from US based forums. The reason why I like the concept of 3-D printing is minor variations that might be unique to specific locomotives can be changed by the user, once the hard work has been done by somebody more knowledgable. The other loco I'd like to see done is the GE 50T Steeplecab (as 298 in the photos above), as again there were lots of road specific variations, but the model can be designed to fit straight on a Bachmann 44Tonner chassis.

I've just found details of a cancelled order for 5 B-W "B" locos that had pantographs and were destined for Central Limones Sugar Plantation. I could twist history a bit and assume they ended up on the Hershey, so my brass one might get painted after all...