26power

Carstairs 1961, colour Sure we've had this, or similar but searching this topic doesn't work for me. Difficult to have much more of a contrast between the two - one "out the box", the other so rusted hard to say it was ever painted in the first instance. http://www.rail-online.co.uk/p735325087/hC5B7CF4#hc5b7cf4

Mainline originally. As these are so common/cheaply obtainable I have wondered if the width issue could be addressed by using just the sides with some more suitable ends - Ratio? Never got further than wondering though!

Think it's a Fruit D in photo J1169 in post 4000: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/85326-dave-fs-photos-ongoing-more-added-16th-august/page-160 Any help?

http://railway-photography.smugmug.com/1/Pre-TOPS-Locomotives/Type-3/English-Electric/-D6700/i-rrwDMfz/A

In post 420: "The coach bellow gangways themselves are produced by Stuart Clarke - trading on eBay as 'Great Little Gangways' - they live up to their name"

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/79414-pghs-photographs-of-british-railways-from-c1960/page-14 Post 350

Thought it may look like the box that was at Kinneil, so googled that. Naturally lots of links to the SRPS and Bo'ness and Kinneil Railway. But it did also give a link to the box at Ratho on the RailScot site, which looks to be the spit of the one at Brunthill. See: http://www.railbrit.co.uk/imageenlarge/imagecomplete.php?id=35510 Further searching resulted in finding the picture of Dunning, here: http://www.signalbox.org/gallery/sc/dunning.php Which indicates this was a ScR standard design from 1948 to 1954. Didn't find a picture of Kinneil, but that OT for this thread anyway!

Background of this one: https://www.flickr.com/photos/69947186@N08/6432151809/in/photolist-aNosD8-3bBDrj-6igj3k-f5RDCu-nPTEGW-mwtrFk-adT3s4-4HjbqR-dYxiMe-aHNhX8-dBr5we-p5M3fj-gDn6gJ-fUXByg-hhFp1y-mwFb1C-adT3Nx-oQjnqf-6igTrM-f4TbQp-f4SYC4-f4SB2V-iLZC7Z-f58ekJ-f4Stkk-fMYbDj-9gBSbV-f57TJ3-arbjaa-cXnnvd-f4T8wX-f4Sx9k-f4T4D6-djyeEP-9vcZBV-9vg16G-7NUsK4-cNHGbj-ayeHTL-oGt6YJ-cNHJw9-cNHHq7-cNHEG5-cNHCXE-vkruqH-ngk9cK-dsw8HR-deCyqR-5CP2zy-9bjTnr Kinneil colliery, colour but undated

Brunthill signal box; http://railway-photography.smugmug.com/Railway-of-Scotland/Stations-and-Signal-boxes/i-fGLvD5z/A

Exhibition on Port Road at Dalbeattie Museum. Plus illustrated talk on line on 28th June by A Rex. See: http://www.dalbeattiemuseum.co.uk/

Apologies if we've had these before, all colour shots. Patchway junction 28/07/62: https://www.flickr.com/photos/29644579@N07/8478628416/in/set-72157650114817958 Rose Grove: https://www.flickr.com/photos/29644579@N07/8498753844/in/set-72157650114817958 Some different loads in these two: Scout Green: https://www.flickr.com/photos/29644579@N07/8476674674/in/set-72157650114817958 Metal waste? Salisbury: https://www.flickr.com/photos/29644579@N07/8475584341/in/set-72157650114817958

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/RB-Railway-Image-61928-Haymarket-/111631236930? Close up of the bracing here.

Just realised the picture I linked to is the one further up the thread. Perhaps the circular columns include for lagging? Or perhaps there are multiple pipes? As a Civil Engineer, but not a Structural Engineer, the arrangement I described seems logical to support the tank. The other factor is the bracing between all the supports. Regards,

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/HAYMARKET-SCOTLAND-6-3-1952-LOCO-62437-/201297512172? Might be of interest re watertank? Looks the five sets of legs support two longitudinal beams, which in turn support transverse beams at each panel joint. I would guess the round(?) parts are a pipe for filling and a pipe to supply water cranes. Regards, 26power

Water tank and coal loader marginally in these views: http://www.railbrit.co.uk/imageenlarge/imagecomplete.php?id=29663 http://www.railbrit.co.uk/imageenlarge/imagecomplete.php?id=36665 From: http://www.railbrit.co.uk/locationnew.php?photographer=&loc=Haymarket%20MPD&offset=0 which I'm sure you've seen before.

Black patches on ends, inside view in colour, scrap(?) load: http://www.railbrit.co.uk/imageenlarge/imagecomplete.php?id=31874

Got a more precise location? Thanks,

A different load: http://www.nrm.org.uk/ourcollection/photo?group=Liverpool%20Street&objid=1995-7233_LIVST_FT_196 Apologies if we have had before.

From the following thread and a link to the SRPS Steam website: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/95771-7mm-j36-great-aunt-maude/page-3 Not sure if new to you, but a shot of the coaling tower in background of this nice shot of "Maude": http://www.srpssteam.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=21&pos=2

Thanks for taking the time to post your views. I'll wait and see if the actual models are as the pictures posted on Bachmann's website. However, from those I can see your point about the serrated roof/bodyside join in particular, and also the four corner bent angles with strengthening plastic behind. The bodyside join on the real thing is pretty obvious, so I can probably understand why that location chosen for a join on the model, less o though the need for the notchings. Would have thought the roof could just have sat behind the uprights. This seems the best PB picture to draw comparisons with: http://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/brgraincgp/h1ebcc1c2#h1f9d35f2 Probably still the only way I'm ever going to have any steel grain hoppers though.

Excuse me asking, but what are you unimpressed about? Pictures on the website don't do the model any favours, but they looked the part in the showcase at Glasgow last weekend. Skimming through the linked list of wagons there doesn't seem much sense about some of the prices - a bogie bolster is only about £1.50 more than a 16T mineral! This hopper is cheaper than the recent pipe, which also seems odd.

Can't persuade you to do the simple modification of setting back the bogie springs? Couldn't find a thread detailing this (pictures lost with Fotopic's demise), bur post 25 in this thread should give you the ghist for a 4mm version. 7mm model has the same issue though: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/13971-Heljan-class-26/

From: http://www.mremag.com/news/article/having-your-say--mon-26th-january-2015/20470 "I thought you would like to know about a modification we are making to the wagon based on the Pre Production sample we had on display. I thought the wagon couplings looked slightly too long when I saw the sample and believe other people have posted the same comment online. I brought the wagon home and measured it carefully against the NEM rules and competitors’ products. Ours was the only wagon of the 4 manufacturers which actually complied with the NEM coupling rule (which actually only covers the NEM pocket size and location!). However the ‘loop’ of our coupling is longer than other firms by 2mm. So when coupling ours wagons you would find a larger 4mm gap between wagons. We’ve had a conference call over night with the toolmaker and agreed to retool the loop and produce one which will match the alternative brands wagons length of 9mm proud of the wagon (And so reduce ours by 2mm). I think you know Lyndon says he listens to customers – hoping this is an example of putting his money where his mouth is and doing so. Delivery dates are unaffected as the new tool is scheduled for development on Tuesday this week. Tim Mulhall Oxford Diecast" Good to see this picked up before production starts.

From a Bachmann mineral the front of the metal dropper hook is behind the face of the buffers. I would guess the front of the coupling face about 3mm in front of buffer faces. From side on images on OxfordRail website the back of the dropper is in front of the buffer faces. Not sure how swapping couplings would help - is the basis of them being NEM couplings not that they ara all the same length? From a quick look online there is a prescribed distance from the buffer face to the front of the coupling pocket. Obviously can only be measured on the real wagon, but would be unfortunate if something as straightforward as this has been done incorrectly.

New wagons. Couplings look to maybe stick out a bit too far?