GoingUnderground

The wheels on the Bogie Well Wagon are 10.3mm in diameter, so you could use Peter's Spares PS33 10mm Container and Lowmac Wagon replacement wheelsets. I've used them to replace missing wheelsets on the Triang container flat with good results, the metal wheels have a bit more mass than the plastic originals which gives it a little bit more inertia and it seems, at least to me, to sit on the rails better due to the slighty higher overall weight.

Our nearest model shop back in the 1960s stocked yard lengths of substitute/replacement phase 2 catenary wire. I had getting over 15 lengths of it which I used with the double track portals, plus 3 of the Triang 15 foot catenary sets and a couple of the extension sets for the diamond crossings and junction fittings. Deepcar was a marvellous layout, and still exists so I am told. I was fortunate enough to be one of its operators for a couple of outings a few years ago, and was able to run some of my EM1s on it on club nights. It uses Code 100 track but I never replaced the wheels on my Triang EM2s so they have never run on Deepcar. The catenary was quite delicate which meant running RTR locos with the pans down unless the springs had been replaced with weaker ones. We also ran one of my Trix Transpennine units on it at a Train Collectors Show, and an Olivias/Heljan EM1 but with Judith Edge pantographs as the standard Heljan ones would have wrecked the catenary. At risk of going further OT, Deepcar was IMHO an ideal layout, plenty of action, variety with trains entering and leaving the relief roads and the line to Stocksbridge, with some shunting in the yard. IT was also reliable, there was teh odd glitch, but that was most often fixed very rapidly with the quick application of a soldering iron. It was/is visually interesting with the deep cuttings at one end and that truly remarkable catenary. But these days I make do with Triang Phase 2 catenary and get as much enjoyment out of using that as I first did almost 62 years ago. And I always collect from the catenary.. I like your comment about the switch. I had a similar arrangement, but not to switch between OH and TK but to switch the orientation of the common return as the layout had both continuous loops and a terminus, and when the EM1and 2s entered the terminus this had the effect of changing the common return rail. So I incorporated SPDT switches into the wiring from the outputs from my Duettes so that the reversed locos could still be driven out and on to the main track. This let me drive 2 OHLE locos at once independently on the same track provided one had been "reversed" and there was no track powered loco on those lines at the time. The loft layout, shared with my brother, was large enough to do this easily, have 2 trains chasing their tails but far enough apart so that if one derailed there was plenty of time to bring the other to a halt. That is something that I don't think I've seen anyone mentioning as doing before, driving 2 locos on 2 rail track with both collecting from the catenary at the same time. It can be done by making sure that the return for each loco is different by the simple expedient of turning one loco round which makes the catenary the common conductor

Talking of twin motored models, Triang did look at them. There was at one stage in the early 1960s a version of the TC series R55 diesel with 2 motors, only one drove the wheels whilst the other was there just to make a noise, a very early attempt at "sound". Pat Hammond says "less than 2,000 were made". The EM2 body was designed to take a second working motor bogie, as shown by the holes in the body at the non-motored dummy end to accommodate the additional bogie and the required contacts to provide it with power. But it would have made for a much more expensive model, and the much cheaper and simpler Magnadhesion fixed the implied adhesion/haulage capacity problem. I did buy an EM2 motor bogie with a view to fitting it to an EM1 to create the planned twin motor bogie version, but that is still waiting in the queue of projects which just keeps getting longer. In fact the loco for which it was intended can without any modification or additional weight haul 6 of the shorter 9" Triang coaches with their higher-friction split axle wheelsets quite well on level track and round curves. The Trix EM1 has little problem with those coaches with its higher weight due to its cast bodyshell and traction tyres. Hammond says that the EM2 didn't go on sale until late 1961 but didn't give a reason for its delay. It must have been the haulage issue that delayed the EM2 going on sale until Magnadhesion was "invented". Was it the reason why there is Magnadhesion, or was it the first loco to benefit from it? I've never seen or heard of an EM2 motor bogie without it, same as I've never seen or heard of the finished model with 2 motor bogies ex-works. Anyone ever seen or heard of a genuine one even if it was a factory proof-of-concept or pre-production model not an after-market conversion? The provision for a second powered bogie must have increased the bodyshell tooling cost. The Class 31 R357 came after the EM2 but shared the same design concept for the nominally Co-Co bogie, but, IIRC, it didn't have provision in the bodyshell for a second motor, and I beleive that it launched with Magnadhesion. I think they were both conceived at the same time judging by the R numbers EM2 R351, Class 31 R357, but the EM2 would have been given priority as it was needed to support sales of the catenary system. I suspect that the delay in the EM2 going on sale was caused by a haulage issue as the January 1961 price list shows it as "Available Later" and Magnadhesion wasn't standard in1961. Without Magnadhesion, the Class 31 would have had the same adhesion/haulage problem as an EM2 without Magnadhesion.. We may moan about the lack of haulage capacity of the Triang locos especially when compared to the heavier competition from HD and British Trix with teir diecast metal bodies, but they were designed primarily as toys, which meant keeping the price low which inevitably resulted in compromises, and for most kids layouts 3 or at most 4 of the 9" coaches plus a tender loco would probably have been all that they would have had space for on their layout. That was certainly true for me until pester-power persuaded my Dad to board out the loft floor and put up some 4 foot high screening partitions round the sides to which baseboards could be fitted.

I mentioned the Transpennine unit in the context of vintage models retaining their value as the Transpennine motor cars and coaches still seem to sell very well on Ebay. Outside of them and the EM1, AL1 and catenary equipment, I'm not sure that much else from the British Trix range is of interest to many. But you all may be more up-to-date than I on the prices of vintage models as I tend only to look for items that I want t oadd to my collection or for rebuilding or modification projects or as parts for those projects.

Using British Trix catenary masts may be a solution, but it creates its own problem, actually finding some British Trix catenary in the first place. If you think that finding the Triang catenary portals to buy is hard, they seem to go very quickly on Ebay, in my experience finding British Trix catenary is more like climbing Everest - it can be done, but don't think it's going to be an easy task. Of all the Triang range, the items that have held their value best are the Sydney Suburban EMU set, R450, R451 and R452; the EM2/Class 77, R351; the AL1, R753; the green Steeplecab, R254, and its maroon economy cousin R252; the TC double-ended electric Loco, R257; and almost all of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 catenary range with the exception of the Series 3 catenary mast bases as they cannot be used with Super 4 track. The Hornby Railways reincarnation of the Triang catenary is also seen less often on Ebay and hence attracts good prices and tends to go quickly. It uses different single masts to the Triang version, but being of the same basic design, they too would be a b**** to remodel to form a 2 arms per mast version like Sagaguy's Modified Trix ones. The grey double track portals, R489, also go quickly and aren't cheap. There is a similar situation with British Trix, with the black and green versions of the EM1 and the blue AL1 holding their values really well, and as I've just said, their catenary is rare with prices to match. The Trix Transpennine DMU also attracts silly prices, especially for the intermediate coaches with their NE running numbers. Even the 2 rail version of the Hornby Dublo AL1, 2245, which was modified in Margate to become the Triang Hornby AL1, R753, holds its price remarkably well due to rarity value, whilst the genuine Binns Road factory made 3 rail version,3245, is probably the rarest of all with known genuine examples in single figures. There never was any HD catenary, they used the Triang catenary in their publicity pictures prior to the Triang Hornby amalgamation and the loco becoming part of the Triang Hornby range. Let us know what you plan to do, and do put up sone piccies to share with us when the time comes..

The Triang double track portals R580/489 are themselves heavier than the standard portal used on the WCML at least as borne out by my own observations when going into London on the Bakerloo via the DC Lines recently. But if the Triang portals were any lighter in construction then they would probably be too delicate to be a plastic moulding and would have to be or a more robust material.

Thank you for that. I know that they are used in reserved areas without a paved/hard surface where cars shouldn't be, but their use in open streets today surprises me as I would have thought that they represented a collision hazard as road markings don't protect anyone. You often see Keep Left bollards taken out and nowadays those are designed to detach and break off. I would have thought that a traction pole represented a slightly more immovable object, not to mention the damage and disruption when then a falling pole took out the overhead wiring. Back in the pre WW1 period they were used in unreserved areas of the streets, but then the electric trams would have been some of the fastest vehicles on the street, and there weren't parked vehicles for other "road" users to negotiate.

There is insufficient clearance for the Triang phase 2 catenary, it just sits on the catenary wire not the baseboard. You can make plinths to lift it though. You also have to devise a way to support the catenary wire. But even then you're not finished, as you then have to make sure that the upward pressure of the pantograph doesn't lift off the baseboard, or just glue it down to your baseboard, ruling out use with a loose-lay layout. I recently took apart an original Airfix one that I built back in the early 1960s before I got started on catenary, and modified it so that I could use it with the Triang Phase 2 catenary. Here is my modified gantry. It may look odd, but it is still work in progress and I will be modifying the walkway to use it as an internal crawlway One advantage of modifying this gantry is that you could add additional kits to let you span multiple tracks and platforms, not just double track, and place the catenary wire supports appropriately. But it is a lot of work, at least it is the way that I did it. You might regard it as overkill, but my conversion was intended to give it the "beefier" look of the power or signal portals used on lines with OHLE. I also modified the feet so that they now clip-fit to Super 4 track. The catenary wire is secured to the gantry using the standard Triang nylon mast links, the links themselves are held in exactly the same way as they are on the Triang R580/Hornby Railways R489 double track portals.

And to illustrate my answer to Colin's question, as there seems to be some confusion, possibly caused by me, over whether or not you had to modify Triang masts in stations, this is how it is done. The masts and bases are exactly as produced in Margate in the 1960s, nothing's been changed or altered. As you can see, the masts "overlap" which is why you can't easily produce a double arm mast in the same way as Sagaguy has done with his Trix masts. It could be done, but would mean very substantial changes to the top part of the mast , and would also mean creating a shorter clipfit base so that the mast was equidistant from both tracks. The track, being Super 4, has exactly the same 67mm spacing as todays Hornby Reilways, Peco & Bachmann setrack track, as it was established with Super 4 track 60 years ago in 1962, and the track in the picture is Super 4. If the clearance between the back of the mast and the other track seems tight, bear in mind that when the Triang catenary was designed back in 1958 Triang Standard and Series 3 track 1st radius curves were 343mm radius, and 2nd radius curves were 435mm radius, giving nominal double track centres of 92mm so there would have been a lot more clearance. This tighter radius for 1st radius curves meant that the base had to be longer so that the mast didn't foul the inside edge of carriages going round 1st radius curves. When the change to Super 4 was made, with its closer track spacing made possible by the more generous 1st radius curves (372mm) the mast bases were redesigned to be narrower, and changed be 100% plastic, so they would fit the closer Super 4 sleeper spacing compared to Standard & Series 3 track, but the masts themselves were not changed. There is no differece between a 1958 produced (marketed from 1959) non-power mast and the final production 10 years later. The only change to the power mast was to the spring tensioning wire and that changed when the Phase 2 catenary was introduced.

Couldn't you just have used 2 masts in the same way that I did with Triang back in the 1960s with one for each track? I would have thought that there would have been sufficient clearance on straight track to do that, or are the HD track centres just too close for comfort? Looking in the late Tony Matthewman's book on British Trix, the pictures of layouts with the Trix catenary seem to show that the clearance between track and mast was even more generous than on the Triang system. I do have some Trix catenary, but it's boxed up at the moment and I've never compared the relative clearances between mast and track for Triang and Trix. I do like your "2 arms per upright" design, often seen in real life on tram overhead back in the 1900-1914 approx period with the traction poles literally in the middle of the road, not a problem back then when cars and lorries were a rarity on the highways and byeways. I have a vague recollection of seeing it used before for Trix, but I cannot think where I saw it. It looks like you had to move the clips supporting the wire closer to the upright. You can't do that trick with the Triang single masts because of their design. It's interesting how Triang and Trix tackled the problem of the double track portal in different ways. Trix had inserts that linked the ends of facing arms to give a portal that bore mre than a passing resemblance to those on the 1500V DC Woodhead line, and I think these were available from the first release of the Trix catenary. On the other hand, when the Triang portal arrived it had the look of the portals installed on the 25kV WCML. The Triang portal did have the advantage that you could make a joining piece into which you fitted the ends of 2 portal cross-members to give you a 4 track portal, or even, at a pinch, a 6 track portal. The placing of the catenary links isn't quite perfect, a slight shave of the ends of the cross-members is all that would be needed for perfect alignment with the track centres, but the overall effect is very good, as you can see from this photo of the little bit of catenary on Super 4 track that I've got set up to play with at the moment. In the background you can see the later grey Hornby Railways portals in use on a Super 4 double track curve of 2nd and 3rd radius curves. The Hornby Railways portals have been fitted with my modified bases to allow them to clip-fit to Super 4 track just like the earlier Triang R580 portals. The Bakerloo line train under a portal is a "mytabin" image of the area round Neasden if the GCR route all the way from Manchester to Marylebone via Sheffield Victoria and Nottingham Victoria had been electrified at 1500V DC. I think that there are a couple of places between Wembley Central and Watford Junction (Watford (LMR) to London Transport/Underground experts) on hte route of the WCML where the occasional portal does span the Watford DC Lines used by the Bakerloo even though there is no catenary above the tracks used by the Bakerloo trains on that route. Apologies that the focus isn't quite perfect, but you can clearly see the linking piece between the two portal cross-members and the proximity of 6 pantographs ( 4 Trix and 2 Triang) shows that it is stable provided the push-fit is tight enough.

I love the look of the model, but what puts me off buying one is doubt over how well the panto runs under the wires. Heljan's feeble attempt at working pantos for the EM1/Class 76 and EM2/Class 77 were worse than useless, to put it mildly, IMHO. Yes, I know the answer is to fix the pan so that when raised the head doesn't touch the wire, or to do without the wire and just add 3rd rail, but that doesn't appeal to me.

Use the single masts and put them in the "8 foot" on straight runs. You couldn't use Triang catenary where there were platform faces on both sides of a single track or a platform on one side and a wall very close to the track on the other unless you modified the masts. You couldn't use catenary on double track curves with the curved platforms outside of the double track as there wasn't sufficient clearance between the back of a mast fitted to the outside of 1st radius curves when running the longer scale length coaches on the 2nd radius curves. The double track portals R580 were a relatively late addition to the range, appearing in the 1965 catalogue as avaialble "Spring" which became "Autumn in the September '65 price list, finally being shown with a price in the January '66 price list at 4/11 (24 1/2p) for a pair of portals. However, you couldn't use them on curved track for the same reason, insufficient clearance on the inside of the curve. That appied to double track using1st & 2nd radius curves and also when using 2nd and 3rd radius curves.. They fixed that by modifying the portal uprights to give sufficient clerarance on curved double track in the Hornby Railways era, see this thread https://www.rmweb.co.uk/topic/174645-Hornby-railways-1972-1996/

I believe that the bow collector was replaced in 1908, 3 years after the locos were introduced into service. Source: "The London & North Eastern Railway Encyclopaedia" https://www.lner.info/locos/Electric/es1.php

Mazak, which is the UK trade name for a zinc alloy first produced in the USA under the trade name of Zamak, doesn't suffer from "pest" or "rot" because both Mazak and Zamak zinc alloys are pure enough not to suffer from the issue. However, the problem can arise even when genuine Mazak or Zamak is being used if quality control standards are not adequate and old alloy castings are recycled by adding them to the mix at casting time if the recycled castings themselves are not of sufficient purity in the first place. This can raise the level of impurities above the threshold needed for rot to start. This has been found to be the underlying cause in several documented instances of castings suffering from rot. Of course, there may be batches of alloy being made where the alloy manufacturer's quality controls have slipped. The cuplrit, or "how" it happens, is the quantity of lead present in the alloy. Ideally zinc alloys should be free from not just lead but also tin and cadmium. The late Tony Matthewman describes the problem in Appendix 3 in his book "The History of British Trix H0/OO Model Railways in Britain". British Trix does seem to be the worst affected of all the 3 leading makes up to the end of the 1960s. In the presence of lead and moisture, and there's always some moisture in the air, zinc will corrode to form zinc oxide which has no structural integrity and as the zinc forms 95% of the casting, the casting simply disintegrates as most of us know from personal experience.

Talking of the catenary system, the Hornby Railways era saw the return of the phase 2 catenary system. It was slightly different to the earlier version. There were new and rather oversized-looking single masts which used the original nylon clips ("links"), for holding the catenary wire, unchanged, as were the cross-members of the double track portals. But the bases for the single masts were different as by then System 6 track with its "clip-fit" feature for attaching accessories to the track had gone and the single mast bases were of a "claw" type design that gripped the ends of the sleepers. The double track portals had redesigned uprights which gave greater clearance from the track and allowed them to be used on curved track, but at the price of only being offered with screw fixings. Both the uprights and the cross-members were moulded in grey, presumably to look like the galvanised prototypes. I modified some of the screw fixing Hornby Railways portal bases to clip-fit to Super 4 track as you can see in the attached photo. There is a modified base to the fromt otf the green Triang portal upright on the right, with the original Triang era portal base behind the Hornby Railways upright fitted to one of my modified bases on the left.

The Grand Victorian Suspension Bridge first appeared in 1963 as R.264. It seems to have been renumbered twice, appearing as R.179 in the 1992 catalogue, and more recently as R.8008. It is the only item of the Phase 2 carenary system that you can still buy from new as the "hoops" are there to support the catenar ywire, and the underside of the top of the arch in the towers still has the clips to hold the catenary wire as well. Knowign how keen Margare has been to reduce costs I'm surprised that it is still supplied with the hoops as they have no purpose other than to support the catenary wire. I guess they must be part of the tooling for the suspension "cables" and it would cost more to remove them from the tool than it does to leave them in place. There was a "cut-down" version introduced at the same time with just a single high central pier, R269, sold as the "Suspension Bridge Extension Set. If it had been bought and used the extend the main bridge, you'd have ended up with 2 end piers surplus to requirements. But it isn't the longest lasting bridge. That honour goes to the single arch brick bridge R.189 which first appeared in the 1961 7th edition catalogue as "available later". It was 4/11 in old money in the 1962 price list, that converts into 24 1/2p. It's still available, still with its original catalogue number of R189, but the price is now £17.49 and apart from the track bed and parapet now being moulded in grey plastic, it is unchanged from 1961 AFAIK. It's 3 arch counterpart, the brick viaduct, R.180, was also introduced in 1961, and was in the 2020 catalogue, also still with the same R number. I don't know if it lasted through 2021 into 2022, I thought that it had, but when I looked today it wasn't shown on the Hornby website. Does anyone know if R189 and R180 were in every catalogue from 1961 through to 2020? Even if they weren't, 59-61 years is a very long time for any product to remain in production unchanged.

1956 Stock was the prototype for the 1959/62 Stock, and was an updating of the '38 Stock design. It was originally numbered in the 4xxxx series and comprised 3 x 4 car sets and 3 x 3 car sets to make up 3 x 7 car trains, 21 cars in total. These were all modified to be able to run with the '59 stock and renumbered from 1000-1011 inclusive for the DMs, 2000-2010 (even numbers only) for the 6 Trailers, and the 3 NDMs were 9001, 9005 and 9009 (to match the D DMs in the 4 car set. The '56 Stock, and later the '59 Stock was for the Piccadilly Line which ran a mix of Standard and '38 Stock from the introduction of the '38 Stock through to the early 1960s when the '59 Stock was finally delivered. The Northern Line, apart from the City Branch, used only '38 Stock. When the Piccadilly Line got the '73 Stock, the displaced '38, '56, and '59 Stock was transferred on to the Northern Line and some of the '38 Stock was withdrawn, primarily the 1949 variants which had different bogies which I believe were welded and being more rigid were cracking. Some of the '59 Stock finished its days on the Bakerloo after the Northern Line got the '95 Stock. But those suggesting the '35 Flat fronted Stock or '56 Stock have missed my point. Those would require new tooling for the cab ends whereas the '59/62 stock tooling already exists and can be used without any further expenditure by Bachmann. They could run the '59/62 tooling and produce "aluminium" stock, giving them any of the destinations on the Bakerloo Line, or West Ruislip, Ruislip Gardens, Ealing Broadway, Marble Arch, White City, Liverpool Street, Loughton, Debden or Grange Hill on the Central, or Rayners Lane, Northfields, Oakwood, Arnos Grove, or Hounslow on the Piccadilly as there haven't been any '59/62 Stock models with those destinations released previously.

I've had good results with Phoenix Precision's "Superstrip". Revell paint remover also works, but use it in a well ventilated area. Neither seem to damage the plastic. The only thing that you have to be careful about is that they can sometimes leech some of the colour out of the plastic leaving it looking a shade paler than you might be expecting. On the other hand the pigment in some paints seems to be absorbed into the plastic so even when the paint has been removed, it can leave the plastic tinted by the old paint. So don't be surprised if the results aren't quite as good and pristine as you might be expecting, and you may have to repaint the model after stripping away the old paint. For example, I stripped one of the R.580 green catenary portals which had been painted white (no it wasn't a signal gantry with the signal heads removed), and whilst the paint came away, the plastic was very pale. When I abraided the surface slightly the original green colour was still there. I had a similar eperience with the grey-bodied R55 single-ended transcontinetal diesel and with the white bodied R129 TC refrigerator car both of which had been painted red. The paint came away, but the plastic still had a pinkish tinge. What I found helpful was to drip the stripper on to a layer or two of kitchen paper and either lay the item to be stripped on the soaked paper for about 20-30 minutes or lay the soaked paper on top of the model, or even do both at once. That seemed to help get the stripper into the nooks and crannies making it easier to rub away with a tissue, or the cotton buds or points of the cocktail sticks. Wear gloves as the strippers can cause skin irritation for some (no jokes about strippers, please). I tried caustic soda on Tamiya acrylic, it loosened much but not all of the paint, so I wouldn't recommend it. The Transcontinental coaches will be tricky because of their corrugated sides, you might find a supply of wooden cocktail sticks useful in addition to cotton buds. The points of the cocktail sticks can get into areas where the cotton buds can't such as up close to raised details such as rivets.

You mean in addition to the 3 different Island Line liveries that have already been produced and released as 2 car static unpowered sets: October 2008 - Network South East (gift set 99932), November 2009 - LT Tribute Red (gift set 99934), and July 2011 - Dinosaur/Jurassic Coast (gift set 99935). I don't know how fast these sold out.

I was in discussion recently with someone who claimed to have inside knowledge about Bachmann's plans for further EFE Rail tube stock releases. They didn't give anything away, but did say that there would be more models to follow. My money will be on 59/62 Stock next. for the simple reason that whilst the 2 EFE Rail '38 stock releases have sold out, there is a risk that the market could be getting close to saturated. All the "heavy lifting" of creating the motorised chassis has been done. I'm convinced that the original EFE static models of the '38 and '59/'62 stock used the same tooling, but with different inserts to produce the two different cabs. So a batch of 59/62 would probably not involve any further development costs at all, be a useful way to dip a toe in the water to see how well that sells whilst the market digests the recent '38 Stock releases. For those who don't know, '59/62 stock was used routinely on more lines than the '38 Stock, if you ignore the '38's fill-in role on the East London Line, but that was treated a a branch of the Metropolitan at the time, and the one 4 car set of '38 Stock that stood in for the flat fronted '35 Stock on the Central. '59/62 Stock was bought for the Piccadilly line as 7 car trains (4 + 3 sets), but was diverted to the Central line to form 8 car trains (4 + 4 sets). Additional stock by now called the '62 Stock was ordered specifically for the Central to replace its Standard Stock and make good the '59 Stock deliveries diverted to the Central. The '59/'62 Stock was later cascaded on to the Bakerloo and Northern lines when the Piccadilly got the '73 Stock, and the Central its '92 Stock. '59/62 has been released with Central, northern and Piccadilly line destinations, but not with Bakerloo line ones. So there is a potentially small but untapped market for a'59/'62 set with the destination "Queens Park", and before someone says "It's Queen's Park", I have examples of both being used by LT/LU. I don't have a '59/'62 Stock destination blind though to check which was used for real. An interesting (and largely undocumented) aside for anyone who cares, IIRC, there was a difference in the colour of the upholstery between the '59 and '62 Stock. The '59 had a blue/green colourway or at least that's how I remember seeing it on the Piccadilly line back in the early 1960s, whilst the '62 Stock (which was my daily commute to Central London for very many years) had the same grey/red/black upholstery as the Metropolitan's A60/62 stock. However, if some one said that it was the '56 Stock which had the blue/green upholsery I wouldn't argue with them, I just remember seeing "silver" trains" with blue/green seating on the Piccadilly.

ESU did say back in early February when the ywould normally have announced their new items for 2022 that the lack of new products was being caused by the difficulty in obtaining components. Hence they would only be announcing new products once they had them in production and were certain when they would be able to put them on sale. That announcement was made in German, so the idea that the UK is being singled out for adverse treatment by them would seem, to me at least, to be a bit wide of the mark. But it wouldn't surprise me if ESU was giving the EU and the USA priority, they are much larger markets than the UK. If supply is tight then it makes commercial sense to keep your largest markets and largest customers supplied.

There was some debate earlier about the speed of the EFE Rail '38 stock. Some folks seemed to think that the stock was incapable of travelling faster than 25 mph, the normal tunnel speed, which seems to be the top speed of the EFE Rail model(s). Well, I just came across a video filmed in 2018 of '38 stock returning from Amersham to the Ealing Common Depot. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyF5ejtJccI This shows that the '38 stock was capable of rather more than 25 mph, much closer to 40-45mph, which supports the view held by some, myself included, that Bachmann have got the gearing wrong on the EFE Rail models. For those who say that the video is not typical as it was shot on the outer reaches of the Metropolitan Line where the stations are further apart, the fact that much of the route between Amersham and Harrow is "downhill", The train was probably lightly loaded as it was clearly the final run of day for the LT Museum Heritage '38 Stock, and also it on the Fast line between Moor Park and Harrow. To me that doesn't matter. It just proves that where the surface stations were further apart, such as on the DC lines between Queens Park and Watford Junction, the '38 stock was perfectly capable of reaching close to its maximum speed which is though to be close to 45mph. Incidentally, using the video's timings and distances according to Quail Maps suggests that the train is doing well over 40 mph, possibly close to 50 mph, but, as I said that is a "gradient assisted" performance.

Neil, Many thanks For that info. Becoming a "heavy smoker" was what I though might happen if the Triang Seuthe unts were used without a smoke pipe. But I thought it was worth asking, so, again, many thanks. The synchrosmoke elements are like gold dust as they do tend to burn out, and, so far, there is no known replacement available. As these elements are a few turns of resistance/hot wire wrapped around a ceramic cylinder all that is needed is the type and specification of the wire. Having watched the recent Hornby series, I do wonder if that information isn't buried away somewhere in the archives in a certain well known ex-factory in the Margate area.

I've recently dug out my locos from the 1960s out of long term storage, where they've been resting for the last 50 years. Some have the original Seuthe unit RT520 and others have the later Synchrosmoke units. Seuthe When the locos with the Seuthe units were new ex-works, they came with a plastic cap over the chimney to stop the hollow smoke pipe S.5994, falling out. Inevitably that precaution was often forgotten subsequently when servicing the locos back in the '60s, and the smole pipes did fallout. There was a spare one supplied with the smoke oil. But those got used up. I'm in the process of putting these locos back into full running order, but am missing the smoke pipes in some of them. So 2 questions: 1. Can the Seuthe smoke units fitted back in the 1960s by Rovex be used successfully without the smoke pipes? If not what can be used in their place? 2. Seuthe do still sell a smoke pipe - Catalogue reference 200 - Does anyone know if that would that do instead of an original Rovex supplied one? Synchrosmoke I also have queries about the Rovex designed and made Synchrosmoke units. I have a B12 which still has a working Synchrosmoke unit with its original cartridge element - Is this a record for the longest lived working Synchrosmoke unit? Probably not as it doesn't really count as it has been in storage since the 1970s. The "wadding" S.7599 looks to have largely disintegrated in the last 50 years. Is there a known safe, non-flammable, substitute for it? I was wondering if a small piece of fibreglass, as used in some roof insulation products might be suitable - non-flammable & large surface area to which the smoke oil could cling? I know that there have been discussions on here over replacements for the heating element/cartridge, X.549, as the elements tend to burn out if the loco is run without smoke oil (which doesn't seem to be so much of a problem for the Seuthe units). But I can't recall seeing a post about remade or substitute units being offered for sale. Does anyone know if replacement/substitute elements are around, or if a "rewind" service to replace the heating wire is offered by anyone? Thanks for your input.

All my Triang locos are either pre-1972 models (the Triang Railways or Triang Hornby period) or are the run-out of those designs in the immediate post 1971 period. All my X.04 motors have phosphor bronze bearings and oil retaining pads. On the X.04 the front bearing held the armature shaft in place, being sandwiched between the worm gear and the commutator, the bearings also held the armature shaft in place. On the Mk II bogie, versions A-G, the phosphor bronze bearings also held the armature in place but, unlike the X.04, the Mk II design limited the armature shaft's fore and aft movement by means of a ball bearing that sat at each end of the armature shaft inside the phosphor bronze bearing. That is why there is a dome in the metal clip that holds the oil retaining pad in place as that partly houses the ball bearing. The Mk III motor bogie, first used in 1961 on the Budd Railcar and later the Hymek had bearings to retain the armature in place, but without the oil retaining pads. The Mk VII motor bogie, which shares the same basic design of the Mk III, dispensed with the metal bearings completely. This was first seen in 1961 in the OO range on the EM2, the Mk VIIA version, followed by the Mk VIIB as used on the Classes 31 and 37. On the Mk VII the armature shaft was fitted with two plastic sleeves with locating "ears", one on each side of the armature and commutator assembly, immediately adjacent to their respective worm gear. The ears on the sleeve slotted into grooves on the chassis holding the sleeves in a fixed position. Thus the sleeves limited the armature shaft's fore and aft movement and also held the armature shaft in place vertically. I don't know if you'd call these sleeves "oil retaining bearings" or not, but I can't recall the instructions that came with my EM2 telling me to lubricate the armature shaft where it passed through the nylon sleeve. Personally, I think they are better described as "oil-less". All these designs were swept away eventually by the tender drive era, and also by the ongoing need to reduce the cost and simplfy the design and reduce assembly time of the motors by designing out components wherever possible, as exemplified by the evolution of the basic Rovex motor bogie design from the MkII to the very similar Mk III and Mk VII. designs. Having rebuilt several Mk II and Mk VII bogies, the Mk VII is far easier and quicker to take apart and reassemble than the Mk II as the armature just drops into place.