'CHARD

On 07/06/2023 at 09:52, letterspider said:

Well sir, it is hard to argue with someone when they are brandishing a weapon like that!

Nice touch.

49 minutes ago, Dicky L said:

Accurascale early class 37 crew fitted in it. 

No wonder he's cross, service was booked 37055 and look what was kicked out instead.

I'd like to know what the second-man is doing at the end of the video - looks like he's egging someone on for a bit of fisticuffs!

6 hours ago, Arunit said:

Thank you for the detailed explanation.

  please explain the data panel entries for class 92 especially the last two 

The Data panel on a Class 92 gives its different ETH ratings that apply if it's taking power from the overhead line at 25kVAC (180?) or third rail at 750V DC (108). 

The loco is mixed traffic, and has different brake system settings for passenger mode or goods mode, hence the two different brake force values are shown. The rating for passenger trains is the higher of the two.

12 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

To be honest I've never quite understood the severe hairshirt approach, and I'm not suggesting anyone has that attitude on here

 

It's a bit like being a massive fan of Westerns....

...Jima .... aren't Westerns. 

 

Jason, we haven't met. My name is 'Chard and I have a wardrobe of hair shirts, only I don't promote this lifestyle as such.

Regarding Westerns, you mis-spelled Lima.  [I'm a massive fan (my favourite locos) but I own none because I'm modelling the Scottish Borders.]

Forgive me if I've missed something basic here, but isn't this issue about the bogies of latest release coaches having pick-ups just all about standardisation of product in the factory. Same as non-DCC/ DCC-ready locos having speakers fitted as standard with nothing to drive them?

10 hours ago, AY Mod said:

bufferbean 

Sounds like a B-52's song!

1 hour ago, TerryBewdley said:

Has there been any response from Hornby to these comments?

I can't see one, but you only posted them an hour ago.  I'm not sure how they could respond, the comment was quite esoteric.

These two dunderheads referred to in the OP need to have their stupid faces pasted up in Wanted posters.

I do believe, mercifully,  that they are unenlightened relics of a dying minority these days; dinosaurs, if you like. 

Ridicule and pity is probably the way; my guess is they're past changing or even caring. Perhaps I'm being uncharitable but then again maybe their bitterness will consume them before long.

So sorry you had to experience this vileness.

British Railways Mark 1 Coaches by Keith Parkin includes details of regional allocations from build.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/homeowner-finds-huge-abandoned-model-railway-back-garden-134629115.html

This was at the top of my news picks today!  Do we know the builder/ previous householder, Frank, I wonder! 

Is anyone on here already providing advice to Lauren?

Wow! Amazing to see this thread arise after such a long time.

Getting up to date has triggered a couple of queries, what is meant by 'gimcrack' and whatever became of MGRHooper? 

3 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

I was watching this video about it yesterday

 

 

Yes, that popped up on my Google (?) feed too, obviously the algorithm was working well!

It's curious that there's no report when so much infrastructure was terminally destroyed!  Not to mention the loss of life that was probably prevented. 

Given what Jeremy has explained above, it seems that an investigation into working practices and major re-education and training of staff would have been required.

I need to consult the HMRI report to see what failed here. Research for later over a brew, perhaps!

Wow! How time flies!  The signalman has been honoured by the naming of a GBRf Class 66/3. It was a fascinating episode too.

Story here:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ceq3w919xd2o

1 hour ago, Combe Martin said:

How about some accurate Milk tankers?

 

... there is a much greater Milk Tanker expert on here too.  I'm sure they know who they could consult !

 

I believe that the factory is lactose intolerant, unfortunately. There are plans for an Alpro liveried TEA instead.

Yeah, now you mentioned it, it really does feel a bit 'niche.' 

27 minutes ago, Wheatley said:

 So unlikely to turn up at a wayside goods shed but very likely to run yard to yard thence to a main distribution point. 

For those modelling a route that carried a large volume of yard to yard Class 4 fast freight trunkers, then, these would definitely not be out of place, originating elsewhere and destined for a remote end user beyond the receiving yard.

Sounds like pet food, margarine and munition shells, to name but three, could be viable. Am I correct in thinking that whisky wasn't palletised; ale was crated but not conveyed in Palvans.

I think the chance of a retool is vanishingly small, as Heljan is also in the Peak marketplace these days, and the classes are neither widely considered iconic (Deltic, 37, 50) nor viewed as essential due to their commonality (47).  Their star is not in its ascendancy nearly 40 years after the withdrawal of the last 46s.

Don't get me wrong, I'm one of those folk with a justification to amass quite a sizeable fleet, but I'm not prepared to re-buy or switch suppliers for precisely that reason. 

1 hour ago, Cwmtwrch said:

 

Some were converted to parcels vans circa 1948, but with the bodies substantially rebuilt; any survivors would not have been in fish traffic in the 1960s. 

Exactly the thing for a parcels and miscellaneous lash-up in Crimson, then!

Super!

That's a great budget model to add to a Sixties parcels and miscellaneous lash-up, in crimson. Smashing!

SC 1733-38 RB AJ41 1961 - 

SC 1829-48 RMB AN21 1961 -

SC 1940-43 RU AL41 1960 -

SC 1949-58 RU AL41 1960 -

SC 2424-26 SLC AS31 1959 -

SC 3101-03 FO AD11 1961 -

SC 3987-97 TSO AC21 1954 -

TSO AC21 reallocated to SC in 1956:

4109/15/20/34/44/9/52/3/7/77/95

4203/8/12/23/4

SC 4244-57 TSO AC21 

SC 9357-62 BSO AE21 1960 -

SC 13055-59 FK AA11 1953 -

SC 13249-51 FK AA11 1960 -

SC 15146-80 CK AA31 1953 -

SC 15346-49 CK AA31 1954 -

SC 15418-24 CK AA31 1954 -

SC 15523-32 CK AA31 1954 -

SC 15543-62 CK AA31 1955 -

SC 15685-91 CK AA31 1956 -

SC 16185/7/91/5 CK AA31 1961 -

SC 21017-19 BCK AB31 1954 -

SC 21112-18 BCK AB31 1956 -

SC 21200-01 BCK AB31 1958 -

SC 24394-96 SK AA21 1953 -

SC 24557-68 SK AA21 1953 -

SC 24651-75 SK AA21 1954 -

SC 25721-45 SK AA21 1954 -

SC 24791-95 SK AA21 1954 -

SC 24816-18 SK AA21 1954 -

SC 24919-44 SK AA21 1956 -

SC 25696-703 SK AA21 1958 -

SC 34188-224 BSK AB21 1952 -

SC 34316-25 BSK AB21 1953 -

SC 34400-12 BSK AB21 1954 -

SC 34431-50 BSK AB21 1953 -

SC 34725-28 BSK AB21 1955 -

SC 80315-17 POS NS 1961 -

Hi there, for my odd purposes I've made a list of the MkIs built for/ allocated new to ScR.

If you are able to wait an hour or so, I'll be able to get it on here for you.

12 minutes ago, Sjcm said:

Wouldn't they need permission to use the Hornby name? I think its very unlikely that it would be granted if they are expecting any sort of critical reviews, especially as they seem to have close links to Hornby whether they own them or not

I think they could just have permission, don't you!

And yes, it's without prejudice. You'll note they haven't reviewed the Beatles vans, for example!