ClikC

Hornby class 50 mechanism is butter smooth, but the model is not without its faults. I have seven of them in various states of work to convert them to P4, add detail and make applicable changes to how they looked on the LMR circa 1974. All are currently in storage with the rents. Chief negatives (your mileage may of course vary). Couple of toy like features (“working” cab doors and radiator grills) ruin the look of the bodysides. Wheels are too small 12mm instead of 14.x mm for the 3’7” prototype. Bogies too far from the Solebar. Both decisions made to accommodate 2nd radius curves I believe. Alan Gibson sell wheels in the correct size which are more or less a straight swap. There is a boss to file down to reduce the ride height of the model (it’s a pigs ear to do, mazak is awful stuff, get yourself a good b***ard file). Nearly every model suffers from the ‘banana’ bogies resulting ‘rocking’ on the central axle (handful of ways to fix this, from smaller diameter centre wheels, to opening out the centre axle holes or even full springing). Face has a few issues. Cab windscreens, get yourself the Shawplan etch (and roof fan too)! Nose could do with ‘building up’ with milliput or the like, then reprofiled against pictures. Depending one year of production, BR Blue paint may be too dark in comparison to more modern releases, but that’s a whole argument in itself. All in all its great base model, with some work out into it can be made spectacular. Regards Matt

Hi Gordon, It’s not just the that we have a lot of weird and wonderful now produced, but also the large increases in RTR prices, and the current turbulence re: COVID. Hence I commented on the effect rather than the cause. But I agree, the success of KR Models now leading the charge on ‘weird and wonderful’ is a factor which may change the RTR landscape, and I (as someone in the market for 9-12 decent models of 82, 83 and 84 respectively) for one could not be more happy to be proved wrong. Regards Matt

RIP, an inspiration to us all.

Hi Martyn, It's just the one book he's brought in to show me so far, he has promised to have a dig and bring in some more. Obviously, being inherited from my colleagues late father there is a certain amount of sentiment connected to them. However, having had a chat with him explaining some of the responses so far, I think it would be possible to obtain scans of the document, which as you say may be of interest to the wider community. I'll update this thread as an when, and be in touch once i have a firmer understanding of what documents he has. Regards Matt

I'm doubtful we'll ever see Classes 82, 83 and 84 in RTR form, especially seeing as the bottom appears to have vanished from underneath the market for weird and wonderful Diesel Prototypes from a few years back, which perhaps could have seen Heljan produce them. Although, it will be worth watching if the Rails of Sheffield/ Accurascale Class 89 ends up released, which may significantly change the OHLE 'playing field' as it where. The Class 81 remains somewhat more viable, and of course with the Heljan 86/0's incoming, it may provide impetus to see it announced. It's long been speculated that the boys from Barwell may attempt one, given the class 85 as a base. But, it's not as simple as reusing the class 85 underframe and sticking an 81 shell on top. There are significant differences between the two just on bogies alone, and as I think was demonstrated with the Heljan 86/2, OHLE modellers are not in the market for sub-par models. Regards

Hi Neal, I thought I recognised the book from somewhere, and of course the Barrowmore group webpage is where I'd seen it. Regards Matt

It always occurred to me, that potentially the Old Dalby Test Track could enter the sphere of 'preservation', providing 25kV OLHE suitable for running preserved AC Electric Locomotives. If one was smart about it, you could maintain weekday functionality for modern day testing, museums for British Rail's R&D history a functionality as a preserved railway with a 'not so modern image' slant. Regards Matt

Looking forward to seeing these in the flesh, and indeed February is much sooner than the June/July period i was expecting. Regards

Morning All, Advanced apologies if this is the wrong section. Yesterday, I had one of those conversations with a colleague, which lead to the reveal of my interest in railways, prompting the reveal that said colleagues father used to work at Derby, and at some point during the 1970's rescued a load of documents being thrown in a skip. This morning, I've arrived to find one such example on my desk (images attached), apparently the worst condition of the lot (it's missing a back cover). It's a little out of my experience field and general areas of interest (the not so modern image of LMR circa 1974), but with a bit of cross over. I note that the document has a number of 'manual insertions', including the prototype 'Liner' vehicles (Later to be the FGA/FFA Freightliner container flats). I'm wondering if anyone can tell me about the document, how it was used? I assume as a record of 'wagon types', as drawings are all of a General Arrangement type, rather than more detailed works drawings (which I'm always on the lookout for). Said colleague has also asked the inevitable question over any apparent 'monetary worth' of the book. Regards

he best colour selection box! There is actually very little wrong with the Hornby Class 86 body, and it can be made into a cracking model. I still want to finish my Bachby 86/0, although it does require a trip back to Devon to dig it out of long term storage in the rents shed. Part of the backlash against the Heljan 86/2 was because the Hornby version is pretty damn accurate if you ignore, bogies and pantograph. Lima Class 87 requires a lot more work, but getting a set of Shawplan extreme etchings Class 87 windscreens transforms the face amazingly. Likewise the Hornby 25 is a great base, as are Lima 31’s, if still a little compromised. I’ve not had a look at the Airfix 31’s, truth me told most type 3’s leave me a little cold. What really gets me is the level of fine detail in the old Lima mouldings, I still have mad ideas about using the Lima 40 body, just for that reason. Regards

Well. the short answer is, you probably would not, it's just too many risks. Like making a model in TT or S scale, it has a small following, but OO is the bulk market. But, as a thought experiment. I'd probably opt for some wildly used existing scale, just not used by railways. Something like 1:72 I'd develop two types of track. A train-set type geometry. And then an accurate scale RTP set of common points etc. Locomotives, i'm no expert on steam so can't comment sort of probably a Black Five a starter for steam. Modern image, would either be a 47, 37 or an 86. With tooling made to produce a variety of variants, range would start with 'as built', some BR blue mid point and the some example in 'as withdrawn' type configurations. Regards Matt

It's probably your internet browser. Try a different one. 150ml Aerosol clearly shown as 3rd option. Regards

I’m not aware of any published NG wheel and rail standards, but I suspect any deviation from the standard gauge system, will significantly less than the deviation of course scale 00 of the 1960’s is to the P4/S4 standards developed by the Model Railway Study Group. Unless said NG railway is also running with rigid wheelbases. I’ll drop a video of the Colin Craig FFA/FGA testing on Mostyn here, and leave my arguments at that. https://youtu.be/s7KHkp0oJd4 Regards

Had one of those moments today, when looking for something completely different, stumbled across a bit of information of great interest to my chosen period and area of interest. Nice picture of 87 015 from June 1974, shown with mild weathering on the white roof. Class 87 Roof Deborah Irwin website Useful information, if like me you are currently backdating models of Hornby's 87 035 to 'as built' condition for the WCML Electrification north of Weaver Junction circa 1974. Regards

As I confess, these are an alien concept to me. But yes, I did see North British reportedly struggled to fit drive around the bogie pivot. That image shows things in much more clarity. I had assumed the hydraulic motor would have been in the bogie (very much like a traction motor) with cardigan shafts or gears to the other wheels. But the drive wheels are mechanically (mesh) connected via card an shafts. If as you suggest, the warships share a similar principle, but with no mechanical linkage to the centre axle, that rules out my secondary theory. Regards

Hi Patrick. looks fine to me, but any robust testing methodology would employ multiple examples. In engineering terms, you’d require 30+ results in order to be statistically significant (I appreciate this is time consuming). Can I suggest that a range of prototypes be tested, both steam, diesel and electric. And if possible, it may be an idea to test a range of back to back values through the points. It’s always nice to confirm that incorrect values don’t work, as well as positive indications. Regards

Hi Duncan It’s the adjacent part I think is key. I’m far from an expert on diesel hydraulics (being born in the west country and being surrounded by GWR and Western Region fanatics, naturally I’m a fan of AC Electrics and North Western LMR Diesels). But it may also refer to the type of mechanical linkages employed. Fluid coupling may be classed as mechanical in principle, but may not count as a true mesh like gears or coupling rods. The correct question I think, is what is mechanically different in a Diesel Hydraulic C bogie, and a A1A bogie. I suspect, the C bogie has one hydraulic motor, and a geared or shaft arrangement to each outer axle. The A1A bogie I suspect has independent Hydraulic motors on the powered axles. I hope you can follow my thinking here, and of course I consider this a good natured discussion. Regards

It simple if you understand the difference. As an example the difference between a Bo-Bo and a B-B is that the two axles in a B bogie are coupled together, either by a coupling rod or because they are both driven by the same motor, as is the case with diesel hydraulics. the Americans have confused things, as they refer to b-b/ c-c but actually mean bo-bo/ co-co etc. A1A is correct as adjacent wheels are not mechanically coupled. Regards

The 26th of August 1974 shot from Robmcrorie on Flickr shows 86 236 with a cross-arm. I’ve probably got some other examples, but I’ll need to do some digging.

And this ladies and gentlemen is why I moved to Yorkshire to do my engineering degree.

There is a completed Silver Fox Class 81 up for sale at present: Silver Fox BR Class 81 Electric Locomotive - 81004 No connection to seller, just noticed it because I'm normally on the lookout for Trix Class 81 bodies. Although I have not bought one yet. I keep holding out hope of Bachmann announcing a Class 81 (has it really been 8+ years since the 85 launched in June 2012?!), but I'm sceptical at best. Having said that, I fitted a Heljan 86/2 Roof into a Lima Class 87 shell, then Hornby announced their 87. Hacked up a Bachmann 85 and got working on a 86/0 with the Hornby body, que Heljan retooling for 86/0's. And of course Andi (Dagworth) was part finished on his scratch built Class 85 when Bachmann made the original announcement... It's like some sort of curse... I should probably start work on a 3D printed Class 81-84 kits, and watch the RTR announcements a week later...

I will forever associate Orbital’s ‘The Middle of Nowhere’ album with travelling behind a Class 47 over the sea wall at Dawlish: But any hard working diesel goes hand in hand with Thrash Metal. Anything Slayer, but I think Metallica really nailed it: But leaving BNS behind an 86 or 87 has to be: The Bashing anthem: Although there is a piece of classical music from the end of ‘Steam on the Settle & Carlisle’ whose name I can never remember, which really invokes the majesty of rail travel. Regards Matt

Wild Frontier - The Prodigy

Hammet and Morgan Duette Hornby Zero 1