Crompton Power

Hi folks,

Has anyone else compared the shades of orange on the SPTE liveried class 156 and Revolution Trains class 320?

Dapol’s take is darker than Revolutions. I would say the 320 is closest to what I remember, interested to hear others thoughts on this.

I have messaged Dapol but have yet to hear anything back.

Cheers,

Keith.

Totally agree with the last few comments.

Similar to Scott B I pondered over a way of fixing the livery error, but too much work to try to match the blue, a full repaint would probably be in order.

My pre-order has also been cancelled, shame as I was looking forward to these.

Keith.

The latest issue of MLI Plus (October-November 21) has 7 pages devoted to Caroline through the years, some great photos in the article.

cheers,

Keith.

On 09/08/2021 at 08:02, Revolution Ben said:

 

Hello Keith,

 

My understanding is that when they first had the bolsters removed they weren't immediately recoded and renamed as YQA Parr.  The model of DC967548 is based on this photograph from Paul Bartlett's superb website dated October 1985:

 

https://zenfolio.page.link/w4TLc

 

cheers

 

Ben A.

 

Thanks for the info Ben.

Order about to be placed!!

Keith.

An excellent choice of wagon, thanks Ben & Mike.

Quick question about the Yellow Mullet's being offered.

The pair that are not British Steel branded, the one without bolsters, does it come with bolsters to add ourselved?

To me it looks like an incorrectly branded PARR??

Thanks,

Keith.

Received my copy this morning after phoning Key yesterday!
I’ve only had a quick flick through it, but it looks really good, looking forward to vol 3!!

Keith.

Here's a single VGA with the Ford vans, again can't see if there are any Cartics on the train.

This shot has the most interest for me, I can run my Arbel's with Cartic's!!

Best start saving!!

Keith.

5 hours ago, Ben A said:

Hi Steven,

 

The IWAs you're interested in were built about 3 years before the twins offered by Revolution, and are to an almost identical design.   The primary difference is that they are single wagons (my understanding is that the type offered by Revolution was made as a permanent twin by Duewag to take advantage of European grants for 4-axle wagons) and they don't have the characteristic solid underframe with four holes.  The end framing and roof looks identical, though the doors have one extra panel each. 

 

Found a picture with Cargowaggon twins on the Ford train, unfortunately we can't tell if there were any Cartics on the train as well.

Keith. 

23 hours ago, David41283 said:

I spent today having a better go with the DGs. To be honest, once I took a few minutes to do the soldering properly, it was easy. A quick wipe of the wires with a fibreglass pen, tinned both ends and the loop and dropper went together really nicely. Again a little more time on each loop and they were also a lot more consistent. I made up 7 couplings in an hour and fitted a latch only coupling to a farish 08 using plasticard pack into the NEM pocket as per Keith's method above.

Glad to see that you are having some success with the DGs and that 29 looks great!

9 hours ago, David41283 said:

 

Hi Keith,

 

Those photos are super, thank you.

 

Can I ask, I know that most only fit a latch (no loop) to locos, but on some of your photos of wagons it appears there is no latch, just a loop. Is this done on purpose or are the photos just mid-way through installation? This would certainly avoid the issue I am finding with the latch feet interfering with the loop join.

 

I also note that you aren't soldering together the two ends of the loop - phew! I was really struggling with this, and to be honest, I couldn't imagine a scenario in which the forces involved were great enough to necessitate this anyway.

 

One thing I am really struggling with, is soldering the two different wires together to make the dropper. Is there a trick I'm missing here? 

 

Thanks

 

David

Hi David,

I started off with having a latch on all couplings but soon realised that having a latch on the coupling with the loop was not required as the coupling that hooked up to it didn't have a loop itself so there was no need for the latch.

You have to keep your stock all the same way round but you will be doing that if only have one loop per wagon.

Yep I've never soldered the loop together, never come across that from those I know who also use DGs. The loops can pop out in the stock box but it's easy to put them back into the little holes.

Soldering wise, no real trick, just take my time tin both parts and then a quick dab to join them.

You can form the loop and dropper in one piece from the steel wire as Pete points out, I have heard that the loop could become magnetised over time, not sure if that would be an issue?

Cheers,

Keith.

On 21/02/2021 at 12:29, David41283 said:

 

Hi Keith,

 

I saw a photo online somewhere of a modified DG with a piece of brass rod soldered across the base plate at right angles in order to clip into an NEM pocket. How do you get them to fit into the pockets?

 

Thanks

 

David

Hi David,

Yes I have also seen that somewhere.

I cut down the base plate to make it a finger the same width as the inside of the pocket. Then I pack it in with strips of plasticard. A few pictures to hopefully show what I’m trying to explain. The Pannier is the old style coupling with a spring. Base plate was slimmed down to fit the size of the opening where the coupling and spring would fit, plasticard added to fix in place then chassis and body reunited.

Hope this helps.

Keith.

Hi,

I did what you are doing about 15 or so years ago.

I couldn't get those with the etched loops to work reliably, getting them to couple up was an issue, especially the MBDs.

Sounds like you have managed to succeed where I didn't!!

I persevered with DG's, they work well but need to be handled gently to avoid any knocks to the couplings especially in stock boxes traveling to and from shows. Though a quick bend back into place usually has them back in service again!

To avoid completely making the fitting of DGs irreversible I have cut the base plate to fit in the coupling pockets on locos, both the older style and NEM pockets.

Persevere with the DG's they will be worth it in the end.

Keith.

On 02/01/2021 at 18:58, jbqfc said:

thanks that what i thought i have to do 

 

John 

I also use DGs, you may be already doing this, but I thought I would share anyway. Now my 92 is still to arrive so I'm yet to handle one to see but with the newer NEM fitted stock I trim down the DG baseplate so that it fits into the NEM pocket, I then pack the DG in the pocket with some plasticard so it becomes a tight fit but also removable should you want to put the standard coupling back in. 

Regards,

Keith.

On 16/12/2020 at 18:15, jonas said:

A strange one this for me. I had Railfreight grey on preorder and was genuinely excited to receive the model, only to be left feeling underwhelmed. I agree some of the front end detail is subtly moulded to the point of undernourishment - it doesn’t have the star quality of other newish Farish releases such as, say, the Class 40.

 

I can’t put my finger on what’s wrong - it certainly looks like a ped and runs beautifully. 

I certainly agree with jonas, runs really well and looks correct in my eyes. Again I couldn’t put my finger on it, I even dug out the 31 I resprayed into RF Grey many years back for a comparison.

I didn’t appreciate that the cab windows on the old version were too small, for its day it was a welcome addition from Farish.

Regards,

Keith.

On 16/12/2020 at 18:15, jonas said:

A strange one this for me. I had Railfreight grey on preorder and was genuinely excited to receive the model, only to be left feeling underwhelmed. I agree some of the front end detail is subtly moulded to the point of undernourishment - it doesn’t have the star quality of other newish Farish releases such as, say, the Class 40.

 

I can’t put my finger on what’s wrong - it certainly looks like a ped and runs beautifully. 

2 hours ago, Clay Country said:

 On the Kernow website it says the SPTE orange version will only proceed if there are enough orders, likewise the Silverlink 321, so it doesn't appear to be definite that these are going ahead yet. Fingers crossed they do as I'm sure a lot of people buying an orange 320 will also want an orange 314.

Revolution has confirmed that on their website today.

https://www.revolutiontrains.com/3-2-1-its-the-final-countdown/

Fingers crossed the SPTE Orange version get through.

Keith

Hi,

I received the below today from Kernow Model Centre.

Has the STP PTE orange version reached enough for production?

I certainly hope so.

Keith.

I see that the early bird price for the IWA's ended yesterday.

A bit annoyed with myself for not checking the Revolution site a day earlier!!

On 05/06/2020 at 11:54, Lukas G. said:

I’m unsure about those myself but I would believe they would be for departmental/charter use. It’s actually Fastline instead of Serco. Doesn’t make much sense to me to offer those as they are very obscure wagons (To the point of people not knowing about their existence) and to offer those instead of a livery like Caledonian Sleeper green is an interesting decision.

It's a staff canteen and mess coach.

It's certainly a strange choice, especially as it's the same prototype but with different branding.  

More details can be found here:

http://www.departmentals.com/departmental/977989

It carried Jarvis branding first then Fastline, it's currently on the Wensleydale Railway at Leeming Bar.

Cheers,

Keith.

1 hour ago, DavidMcKenzie said:

I am only playing a game of 'spot the difference' from the photos above, rather than actually remembering if this was the case for all units in the mid 90s, but to me it looks like the units that have the Royal Mail writing also have a branding (Great Eastern in the first of the above photos) on the opposing side of the other set of door to the Royal Mail writing. When the royal mail is gone so is the Great Eastern. The trains arriving at Euston also seem to have a branding if the royal mail writing is present (although I can't read it from the photos, I am pretty sure it won't say Great Eastern on the WCML units).

 

This would tie in well to Karhedrons assumption that at a repaint both the royal mail writing and the branding disappeared, possibly in preparation for privatization.

 

Great set of photos by the way, thanks for posting.     

I couldn't remember off the top of my head what route branding the WCML 321's were. A quick look at www.nsers.org/route-brands.html came up with Northampton Line.

On the GE lines did any carry Anglian Electrics or West Anglia branding or was it Great Eastern only?

Cheers,

Keith,

All the best to Mark and the team, hope you have a successful show.

Keith.

Looks like another excellent show that Mark and his team has put on, a not to be missed show.

On ‎12‎/‎07‎/‎2019 at 21:09, Crompton Power said:

Hi,

I did ask about chargeback, told that chargeback is only valid up to 6 months. Is this what others are being told? 

Amex are usually really good and have been on previous occasions for other issues. The guy explained that PayPal breaks the 3 person chain that section75 relies on, card company, seller and card holder. He also explained that payment via Stripe, which is also an intermediary payment facilitator is not covered by section75. You often don't know that the payment is via Stripe when a transactions is made. One to watch out for if you can with your online purchases.

Hi folks,

An update to my section 75 claim with Amex.

I received a reply stating that Amex are unable to uphold my claim.

They note that the value was £130 and a £30 deposit paid but consider they are not liable as the claim falls outside the scope of section 75.

Also payment was via PayPal, so Amex not liable under section 75 if there is not a direct relationship between the creditor (Amex) and the supplier.

But the letter then goes on to say that Amex will credit my account with £30 on non-liability basis as a goodwill gesture!

So a result is a round about way.

Keith.

On 10 July 2019 at 16:57, philiprporter said:

Hi Keith - I paid via PayPal using a Barclaycard but when I wrote the letter to them, I made it clear that my claim was not eligible for a section 75 claim (because I paid via PayPal) and so I wanted to initiate a chargeback. If you look at the Barclaycard website you can see some useful guides as to the differences between a section 75 claim (not covered if you paid by PayPal) and a chargeback (potentially covered if paid via PayPal). I was refunded my APT deposit by Barclaycard, but this is 'pending further investigation' so it remains to be seen whether that 'investigation' will end in Barclaycard asking me to pay back the refund - we shall see.  

Hi,

I did ask about chargeback, told that chargeback is only valid up to 6 months. Is this what others are being told? 

Amex are usually really good and have been on previous occasions for other issues. The guy explained that PayPal breaks the 3 person chain that section75 relies on, card company, seller and card holder. He also explained that payment via Stripe, which is also an intermediary payment facilitator is not covered by section75. You often don't know that the payment is via Stripe when a transactions is made. One to watch out for if you can with your online purchases.

Hi folks,

I'm not having much success in claiming my Class 92 deposit back. American Express have put a Section 75 claim in for me but the chap I spoke to says chance of a refund is low as my payment was via PayPal.

Has anyone else had a refund where a payment has gone via PayPal?

Regards,

Keith.