GoingUnderground

And here's the destination plate and the vinyl sticker.

The destination is absolutely correct. Before nationalisation it was Watford (LMS), and the destination boards were updated using adhesive vinyl stickers. There are plenty of pictures of Bakerloo line stock in the public domain showing the Destinations Watford (LMS) and Watford (LMR), not to mention that was my route to work from 1979. So I doubt that Bachmann had to do much research. The very last Bakerloo line train to Watford sported this headboard.

I see the Triang 3MT, R59, is on the list. So if we're going back to when Adam was a lad, then the British Trix EM1/Class 76, F105B (B for Black) and F105G (Green), later catalogue numbers 1123 and 1126 respectively, suffered from zinc pest. it was the bogie casting that failed, I've not heard of any of the bodies falling apart. The same bogie casting was used on the Warship, F106, so they could be affected as well.

Whilst o nthe subject ot repaints, for those of you who like mytabins, here's a Steeplecab Switcher next to an unmodified late model Bo-Bo Switcher. Something a bit different, and not entirely unprototypical, http://wx4.org/to/foam/misc/yv_trans_co_2_june1970.jpg although the Yakima Valley locos were closer to the Bo-Bo Tyneside ES1 than the 0-4-0 Steeplecab. The Steeplecab is a repaint, but with the roof extended over the front/rear cab windows, and the pantograph has been given replacement upper arms and pan head, the Triang original upper arms had broken and the head was hanging loose. It is quite amazing, at least to me, how this slight mod to the cab roof makes it look like a much more expensive model.

If anyone is interested, ESU are now offering a service to upgrade/convert a SmartControl system into a CabControl system. This is a software/firmware upgrade, not a hardware upgrade, includes both the ICU and the Smartcontrol Handset. They are also offering a service to upgrade just the handset software to the latest Mobile Control 2 software. But it's not cheap, see https://www.esu.eu/en/support/warranty-repair/reparaturen/servicepauschalen/ECoS-ecoscontrol-radio-mobile-control-ii/

At first sight, it is the R3YA set, but here's something wrong with the trailer car as shown in the pictures on the auction site. The body of the "trailer" is not from an R.451 Trailer car, but from the Driving Motor, R450/452. You can easily tell as the real R.451 trailer car end bays are the same at both ends, with 3 windows between the car end and the doors. see pages 116-117 and 181-182 in Hammond Vol 1. However the roof is correct for an R.451 Trailer car as it lacks the "Fuse " which disguises the OH/TK changeover switch. This could be a "factory assembly mistake" as I believe that the same tool was used to make both the DM and Trailer cars but with different inserts, one for the DM, one for the Trailer, as the trailer car has the necessary mounting points for a power bogie and the OH/TK changeover switch, which incidentally is the same switch as used on the Steeplecab R.254, the Transcontinental Electric R.257, and the AL1/Class 81, R.753. Also the positioning of the screw fixings for the roof is the same on the DM and Trailer cars. but, equally, someone could have combined a Trailer roof and a DM body with the necessary dummy "power " bogie to get a sellable model. so I wouldn't expect it to attract an andditional premium for being a factory mistake. The pantograph needs replacing as it is missing the pan head. But the fact that it is boxed, especially of the box is correctly labelled will push it higher.

Me for one. I did it with one of my original EFE models, using a separate functions only decoder to control the headcode lights. I can't show you as I wasn't satisfied with the sodium orange colour of the LEDs available at the time and took it apart, and have still to rebuild it with more appropriate LEDs.

You're quite right, you don't make holes in the baffle, no more than I would make holes in the cabinets of my Hi-Fi speakers here at home. Cetain Hi-Fi speakers depend on the speaker being housed in a totally airtight box but with the speaker cones or diaphragms exposed to the outside. Sugarcube speakers are no different in that respect to the 10 inch bass drivers on my Hi-Fi. So I apologise for not making what I would do clearer. I wouldn't install the speaker in the manner described by Bachmann. If you follow their instructions you end up doing the equivalent of putting it in a totally sealed box because they say to install the speaker in the cavity so that the bafle is below the speaker, and then to cover it with the lid to the chamber, and then to make matters worse, you have to put the body back on the chassis. To me that's the equivalent of putting your Hi-Fi loudspeakers in a cupboard and closing the cupboard door, and then leaving the room and closing the room door and listening to the music from outside the room. You just wouldn't do that. I remember when I first started reading about how to install sound decoders the emphasis placed on making sure that the speakers had access to the exterior of the model so that the sound wasn't needlessly muffled. So I would make the holes as I described, and install the speaker in such a way that I could create the baffle above the speaker, not below it. That way there would be no obstructions between the speaker diaphragm and the open air.

If the speakers were fitted into the spaces provided in the chassis then that will have muffled the sounds somewhat as there is no opening to the exterior from the speaker space.. What it needs is some holes drilled through the bottom of the space for the speaker and then through the underside of the equipment moulding so that the sound can get out, which should make it sound louder. Placed with care, the holes won't be visible.

I like it very much. Well done. In your commentary you say that if individual marker/headcode lights are fitted, that they are individually selectable. Have you set that up for all 5 headcode light positions, or just for the 4 on the model? When headcodes were used, all 5 positions were used for "white" as can be seen on the DM car in the LT Museum in Covent Garden, and the conversion of one of the positions to a permanently red-lensed light, as on the EFE models, only happened after LT stopped using headcodes. TubePrune has illustrations of the headcodes for both Standard and '38 Stock, but strangely not for the '38 Stock on the Piccadilly line. http://trainweb.org/tubeprune/Marker lights.htm#Tube Lines I assume that the Piccadilly '38 stock just used the 4 lights at the corners and the Standard Stock patterns.

Ron, In the 12+ years that I've been using the ESU site, I can't recall any difference in the site other than the German/English differences. But then I haven't been looking at the Products pages or switching back and forwards between "english and "american" as I've been concentrating on the Forum and Downloads pages. Currently there is only one English language version of the ESU website, and that is biased towards the USA which isn't surprising as the USA is a far larger market than the UK, and the "2022 Product Highlights" and before it the yearly "Product Highlights" from 2018 onwards list all the items available in the USA. In recent years there has not been a non-USA English language catalogue which would cover what's available in the UK, IIRC the most recent one that I have was for 2013, which excluded the items only available in the USA. ESU has today published their 2022 price list and it shows the European version of CabControl at 549 euros. It is DCC only according to the product description on the German part of the ESU website. The English language page for CabControl still, today, has the original announcement text, calling it its "North American" DCC system and has not been updated to match the new German language page for CabControl. Now that CabControl is finally due to arrive in Europe before the end of the year, I wonder if ESU will at some point let Piko SmartControl owners upgrade their SmartBox ICU firmware and the SmartControl app to the latest ESU versions, much as they did several years ago with their "Reloaded" upgrade package for the Maerklin Central Station 1?

Ron, There is only one English language version of the ESU website https://www.esu.eu/en/, and that has listed the CabControl since it was first announced. What is worth noting is that the CabControl listed on the German part of their website has a different part number, 50311, to the one on the English language version, 50310. In my experience, ESU only use new product numbers where there is a physical difference between the products. So there must be some difference between the two, but having had a quick look at the German CabControl webpage, I can't see what it is. It also says available Q3/22. And the German page is new, not just a translated version of the English page. That is probably why it doesn't mention CabControl availability being limited to the US, Canada & Australia. There's not a lot of point in that notice being left up once CabControl becomes available outside of the N. America and Australia.

For those of you that are Interested, ESU have said today (1st February 2022) that there will be a European version of CabControl released. This was not a formal new product announcement, but a reply to questions on their forum about the timing of the 2022 new product announcements now that this year's Nuremberg Toy Fair has been cancelled. They have not said when it will go on sale, whether it will be DCC only, or multiprotocol, or if it will gain any additional functionality over and above the version already on sale in N. America and Australia. They said that because of production difficulties caused by problems with the supply of ICs, they quoted lead times of 57 weeks, and hence they will only be announcing new products when they have finished goods to put on sale. They mentioned 2 new decoders and the European version of CabControl in the post which suggests that CabControl in Europe cannot be too far away.

By their nature, being tethered to their power source, all EMUs and electric locos are limited to a specific geographical range and tend not to run terribly well on unelectrified routes. Just ask the driver of the Metropolitan line A60/62 Stock train many years ago at Harrow who came in to Platform 2 and then set off southwards without noticing that the track beyond the platform didn't have 3rd and 4th rails, and found his train stopping when it ran out of "juice". Does that make them "niche models"? You've missed the point I was making about the EM2 bogie, a loco that I've owned since 1961, so I do know a bit about it. I said the DESIGN of the bogie, not the actual physical bogie itself. Triang standardised as far as they could and used the design, which I think originated in the TT range Class 31 for all their pseudo Co-Co bogies. The only difference was in the physical appearance and that was down to the diecast bogie frame which was specific to the model, except that they went too far with the Class 37 and used the Class 31 bogie unchanged. The Bo-Bo bogie used on the Hymek and Budd railcar also shared components with the Co-Co, but had their own diecast frames. Look at the service sheets and you'll see the same components being used across different models. Triang had form in this respect as all the 4 wheeled motor bogies, apart from the Hymek and Budd railcar, used the same design and shared most of the components. This applied to the SR EMU, the DMU, the Blue Pullman, all the Transcontinental Bo-Bo locos including the OHLE loco and the Dock Shunter, the AL1, and the Sydney Suburban OHLE EMU. The only part that was unique in all these locos was the diecast metal bogie frame itself, and they even managed to use that across models. They made similar compromises across most of the range to keep prices down even if it meant the models of specific locos weren't totally accurate.

Please do, as John Scott-Morgan and Kirk Martin say about the Sentinel locos in Red Panniers page 153, "The Ward couplers were difficult to fit and their use precluded normal buffers being fitted to the Sentinel and so wooden dumb buffers were fitted at the front.,,,", suggesting that none of them had folding buffers as all the photos that I've seen from LT days show that there were no buffers fitted at the tender end. The colour photo on that page will be of use in designing the tender as it shows the tender with its Ward coupling very clearly, and the folding buffers.

I was expecting to see the standard folding buffers when I went looking, but all the photographic evidence that I have seen clearly show wooden blocks not the standard LT folding buffers. There would seem to me to be 2 reasons why folding buffers were not and could not have been fitted: 1. They would have hit the marker light brackets on the top of the buffer beam, and all the photos from LT days show the marker light brackets in situ. 2. The buffer beam was too tall and it would have been impossible to fold the buffers back so that the shanks lay on top of the beam. In fact, the farthest that they could have been folded would appear to have been just beyond vertical, in which position that would have been highly unstable without some sort of latch or restraining mechanism. The photo in John Glover's book is taken from the tender side of the loco with a tender coupled up, and the top of the loco's buffer beam can be seen projecting above the level of the hinge on the folding buffers fitted to the tender. For example this photo https://www.flickr.com/photos/39918537@N04/14814773618 shows one loco, DL82, in the pea green livery which was applied part way through their time with LT. These are very clearly wooden blocks, not folded buffers, and match the photos taken of the locos in LT days such as the ones to which I referred earlier, and also to the photo of DL82 on page 62 of the 1988 edition of London Underground Rolling Stock by Brian Hardy which very clearly shows wooden blocks, not folding buffers. But if you have photos of the LT Sentinels with folding buffers then please share them with us as I'd love to see them.

I wouldn't call the SR EMU a niche model. IMHO it's as niche as any model of a steam loco or carriage produced by the Big 4, and was typical of many of the 3 and 4 SUB "between the wars" designs of EMU running on the Southern Region. But back in the 1950s the Triang SR EMU shared a motor bogie design with the Bo-Bo Transcontinental locos and their Metro Cammel Class 101 DMU. An RTR of Tube Stock would have needed a brand new motor bogie which would have had few other uses, although, as I pointed out earlier, they could have based it on the Minic Motorways motors. But I think Minic Motorways was a slow selling range, at least compared to its physically larger Scalextric stablemate. Likewise the EM2 motor bogie design was also used on the Class 31 and later the Class 37, and in a shortened Bo-Bo version on the Budd Railcar and the Hymek. The whole OHLE system and hence its locos was much more niche. When Triang launched their OHLE system in the 1959 catalogue there was no British outline loco for it. They probably wanted to model the EM1, but Trix beat them to it, leaving only the EM2. They probably got their fingers burned a bit with the OHLE system despite the electrification of the WCML and their introduction of a Class 81 (based on the Hornby Dublo tooling) as the OHLE system and locos are generally reckoned to have been slow sellers.

In 2021 I finally managed to acquire one of the Knightwing Sentinel 0-6-0DH kits,. Since then have been doing some investigations, mainly using online sources, to see how the Sentinels were in LT days. Hornby's recently-announced NCB green liveried version, R.30085, is wrong in two major aspects. In LT days, the Sentinel had dumb buffers not hydraulic ones at the long bonnet/engine end, as shown in the photos on page 776 of the LURS November 2021 supplement to Underground News, and judging by the picture on page 56 of London UndergroundRolling Stock in Colour by John Glover, no buffers of any kind on the short bonnet/tender end - it wouldn't have needed any if the tender was rigidly coupled to the loco. It also had a variable height wedgelock coupler at the engine end, with a large hole in the buffer beam skirt to accommodate it. The tooling would need to be modified accordingly if the model was an accurate representation of the Sentinels in LT days The photos that I've found of them running on preserved lines invariably show them with the hole for the wedgelock coupler plated over and spring/hydraulic buffers all round. Modelled in its preserved form, R.30085 fits the bill with the addition of LT logo and running numbers, but would need some physical alterations to reflect the Sentinels' physical configuration under LT ownership. And apologies for taking us off topic.

That's true, but in my experience most folks only think of the below ground parts of the Tube network and forget about the above ground parts.

May thanks for that info. I was going to order some bogies from Phil to make up my own version, but I'll look out for the Radley Models version. Back to the new '38 Stock, there's a review of the model, by an ex-LT driver who drove the '38 stock on the Northern Line on youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fINVQK8jzeU Like him, I too think it's a bit undergeared, having got my own running.

I think that Harrow Model Shop offered a "build and paint" service for their '38 stock and their other LT/LU kits back in the day. Phil Radley, who was connected to Harrow Model Shop still does offer such a service on his kits. Both Phil and John Polley/Metromodels offered a motorising conversion service for the original Gilbow EFE static models of the '38 and '59/'62 Stock. London Transport/Underground is rather a niche market, and the production of the S stock and now the '38 Stock in R-T-R form, along with the 57xx ex-GWR pannier tanks and the Art Deco station buildings it is probably indicative of a saturated model railway market and the manufacturers trying to find new models and markets to keep generating sales. I'm just disappointed that it has fallen to Bachmann to do it when the first Meccano Hornby O gauge electric loco produced 97 years ago was the Metropolitan Railway's MetroVic Bo-Bo, running off 120V AC! At least Hornby has now produced the 0-6-0DH Sentinel which LT bought to replace the pannier tanks. 50 years ago the technology did exist. Just look at the small motors that Triang were producing for their Minic Motorways range, or the motor produced for the Triang "Rocket". The reason why manufacturers don't make something is that they don't think that the sales of the product will be large enough to return a decent profit, or that spending the development cash in other areas will produce a bigger profit. They too want the biggest bangs for their bucks. It's only now that the market for the most common locos and rolling stock is saturated that they're turning to less popular or less common items to produce. Lots of modellers don't see the Underground as worth modellng - no steam and all in tunnels - not worth the bother.

As Bachmann made no changes at all to the original Gilbow EFE '38 Stock bodyshell, only to the window glazing, a '59/62 Stock version would be a simple matter of assembling the model using the Gilbow EFE '59/'62 Stock bodyshell instead, meaning that Bachmann could introduce such a model at absolutely no extra development cost at very short notice - subject to production capacity constraints. Thus, if this first batch of the EFE Rail '38 Stock sells well, then I'd expect to see reruns with appropriate running number changes for Bakerloo, Piccadilly and ELL destinations and '59/'62 Stock models introduced with Bakerloo (there wasn't a Gilbow '59/'62 Stock model), Central, Northern and Piccadilly Line destinations, replicating Gilbow's expansion of the static model range. This expansion would fit with Bachmann's past production of the S Stock, the Art Deco "Harrow-on-The-Hill" station units, the two versions of the Sudbury Town station building (stand alone and low relief), and the low relief Tube surface buildings from the 1930s of the rebuilt City & South London part of the Northern line. Conversion "kits" for the Gilbow static models could follow, but the only reuseable part from the static models would be the Gilbow bodyshell meaning that they would cost almost as much to produce as a new model and the retail price would be very similar to that of the complete model.

A bodyshell swap with one of the old static models is possible, but the drivers cab partition will have to be cut down because of the raised floor in the new model, as will the body mounting pillars as whilst these stil exist on the new model they are shorter than on the static model bodies and the ones on the old body will have to be reduced in length. Also a way will have to be found to replicate the new model's body fixing lugs inside the old shell. The lighting unit would have to be moved across. it is held in the new shell with self tappers screwing into a new boss projecting down from a modified version of the old ceiling insert. Going the other way - fitting one of the new bodies to a static chassis, will require the body fixing lugs to be cut off inside the new shell or the old style seating unit modified. Swapping the Plux board for a 21MTC looks to be relatively easy, For anyone thinking about fitting sound, the recess for the sugar cube speakers has no access/port to the outside, and the Bachmann instructions say to put the speaker in the recess and refit the lid. So the sound may be somewhat muted as the speaker would effectively be in a closed box. Regauging for EM or P4 may be tricky as the pickup strips sit vertically inside the bogie frame with the axle ends riding on these strips and the axles between the wheels appearing to be plastic. Depending on how the axle end contacts with the wheel, regauging for EM or P4 may be very tricky, and could mean replacing the axles and wheels, and may mean changing the pickup method as well.

I ordered mine from Rails when it was announced, and it arrived today. First impressions - The body colour is too dark, even for Train Red, and is closer to maroon than to train red at least to my eyes. The colour on the original EFE static models was about right, see attached photo of 3 of the original EFE models, with the cab end of the real LT Museum 4 car set superimposed on an original EFE model on the right. The photo of the actual train from which the cab end shot was was taken at High Barnet on the occasion of the 70th anniversary of the introduction of the '38 stock in June 2008. I don't have them to hand at the moment to check, but the later '38 Stock static models of the ELL set and the "Metropilitan Amersham" set might also have had a darker bodyshell colour. Also the gaping hole below the driving cab door to accommodate a plug-in coupling is terrible, a compromise too far. I was under the impression that there would be a plug in moulding supplied to fill in the gap, similar to the way that the buffing plate and the LT coupler could be removed on the static model, but there were none with mine. It leaves the front view looking very infinished IMHO. The bodyshell is the old EFE moulding, but modified so that it clips on to the chassis instead of using self tapping screws into plastic pillars. Strangely, the fixing pillars are retained even though they no longer have any purpose. The interior repeats the colours used on the original static model for the seats and floor despite the seating unit being new with a raised floor to hide the mechanism. The Plux22 blanking plug is clearly visible throug the windows as will be a DCC decoder if one is fitted. The route maps and adverts are the same as used on the static models and are not terribly representative of the real thing, but in operation they cannot be seen. Because the fixing pillars have been retained there are no adverts on the inside of the car ends. Also they have used the same lime green colour instead of something closer to LT cerulean blue. This is particularly noticeable in the cab, as it was in the static models, where the back wall of the cab should be LT Cerulean Blue not cream. This is demonstrated clearly in the photo above showing the darker interior on the actual train as opposed to the light cab interior on the static model, the static model having the same cab interior treatment as the EFE Rail model. The bodyshell also has the same door open warning lights on the roof which were never fitted to the '38 stock. Does the fact that they are there hint that ther might be a '59/'62 Tube Stock model to follow as the '59/'62 stock did have the warning lights. The line/route/destination board is a stickers which have very visible rounded corners, a retrograde step. The original diecast metal chassis has been replaced by an all new plastic chassis. This has resulted in the DM cars weighing in at 105 grams, a lot less than the unmotorised static original DM car, 129 grams. Whilst I haven't tried it myself, judging by the "play" in bogies (more than on the static models) it looks like the cars will have no problems with 1st radius curves given their length. Am I pleased with the model? Yes, I am, but slightly disappointed at the body shell colour and the lack of a plug-in buffing plate and dummy LT coupling for the DM cars. I also think it a pity that Bachmann didn't take the opportunity to include working tail lights and a working headcode light given that the ywent with Plux 22 (my preference would have been 21MTC and I intend at some point to investigate replacing the Plux mounting plates with 21MTC ones).

I think that you might have misunderstood the relationship between Lego and Trix. In the UK, Lego was made in the Courtaulds factory in Wrexham following a licencing agreement between the Danish Lego company and Courtaulds. Courtaulds was a chemical company which used wood pulp as its feedstock from which it made cellulose acetate. If you've ever been to Spondon, outside Derby, you may have noticed the smell of vinegar/acetic acid given off by the former Courtaulds acetate plant adjoining the railway at Spondon. Cellulose acetate is a well known type of plastic used to make amongst other things plastic toys including Lego up to 1963. Lines Bros/Triang used it up to the mid 1950s before switching to polystyrene. Lego was expanding fast in Europe and the Danish Lego company couldn't handle the additional volume required to satisfy the demand in the UK and Ireland. Hence the licencing agreement with Courtaulds. So the tie up between Lego and Courtaulds isn't as weird as it might at first seem. Courtaulds, through its British Celanese subsidiary, bought the British Trix business from its previous owners, Dufay who were experiencing serious financial problems, to expand its interests in the toy world. The Courtaulds factory producing Lego for sale in the the UK and Ireland, and subsequently in Australia, was in Wrexham, and British Trix was moved to Wrexham to be physically and managerially close to its new parent company British Celanese. I couldn't see where Matthewman says that British Lego made mouldings for British Trix, only that they provided storage and production facilities after British Celanese sold British Trix to the German Trix company in 1968 after Celanese shut down British Trix in December 1967. As British Celanese/Courtaulds owned both British Lego and British Trix, with some senior executives involved in both companies, it could have happened during the period of ownership by Courtaulds. However, the British Lego factory probably had its hands full keeping up with demand for Lego.