Ravenser

I have seen in a 3mm context that the check rails on Peco have to be filed /modified to take Triang TT3

I was once aware of a corporate giveaway deal involving a container freight operator, sponsors of names and a manufacturer (not Hornby) . Basically if they were naming a loco for you , then you could order a specific number of models of the vehicle , numbered and named for your loco, from the manufacturer , as a corporate giveaway. They would then do a run in your number /name - and the balance of the models were sold in the general market. But you certainly had to pay for your models . I can't remember the price - if I was told - and it would no doubt be wholesale price or better. But the models didn't come free. (As it happens , we hadn't a clue what we were doing with the things , and I ended up with two of them for nothing .....) So I am rather struggling with the idea of Company A approaching Company B saying "we want you to make us a cororate giveaway, specially developed . But we want it for free." It doesn't seem very good business: corporate giveaways normally have to be bought

I can't believe that Drax got their wagons free. They must have shouldered the cost of their half.

I'd understood from someone else's reaction that they seemed to be suggesting the whole thing was a rumour spread by someone beginning in D about his competitors .... Hence I was starting to wonder if the technology was something of an urban myth There is a discussion to be had about whether the extra cost of "hard" tooling makes any sense these days. If we are in an environment where manufacturers should be planning to recover their whole tooling and development costs from the first 1 or 2 runs , then it's arguable "hard" tooling makes no sense. I don't know whether "soft" tooling is compatible with diecast, but it would seem to make no economic sense to pay the extra money for steel tooling of plastic bodies for these exotic one offs . Including things like the B17/5 , W1, LMS Co-Cos , Blue Pullman, etc etc Looking at the turbulent history of OO Class 37s, nobody has got more than 10 years out of a tool. If that's the case even with a high volume subject - what is the point of "hard" tools any more??? If OO RTR is slowly being garotted by rising cost , is this a cost that Hornby and others need to off-load? But diecast may be a different ballgame. It is quite difficult to see how a new-tooling project can be made to stack up on the basis of just 1500 examples

From what is being said , I think the Duchess is the one that will slip all the way back to Winter 2024/5 We've already seen a finished 08 running round Hornby's layout at Warley - given that and the release date it's hard to credit that it could be going for tooling now . So presumably it won't be one of the two 0-6-0s in question Before Christmas , when the release dates changed , SK was quoted as expecting the 66 to go for tooling after Christmas and hopeful release dates would come forward . It looks as if the 66 has missed that target, but may be with us in a year or so, with the 50 behind it. That a pair of 0-6-0s have moved ahead of these larger locos in the queue does cut against the "narrative" that Hornby are only interested in big green namers Apparently the issue is that the new TXS decoder is a little too large

But if they are for collectors , then it doesn't matter - cos they won't be run. They will live in a display case or tucked up safely in their little boxes It does beg the question of why sound is fitted , but I suppose it allows an extra run of the things, and more options for the collector. The quality of the sound project probably doesn't matter either

If this "soft tooling" technology, using lower cost aluminium tooling rather than longlife steel, does indeed exist (and some have been implying it doesn't) then it really needs to be used on short run projects like this, and the B17/5. You are never ever ever going to make enough to justify the cost of tools with a 50 year life..... Whether such tooling can cope with diecast metal is another question. As for recovering all costs on the first run, and what that does to the economics with paid -off tooling , I give you the Drax Biomass wagons. £83 a wagon whjen first released. Recently knocked out at £25 a wagon. (There may have been an element of putting a shot across the bows of a competitor who has a comparable wagon, but I doubt Hornby ran them at a loss)

But in OO 2023 is a "marking time" programe because 2022 is running late In TT we've just been told : So in the real world , the Duchess is slipping and will be out well after the LMS coaches. The 66 isn't quite finalised and seems to be slipping a little One 0-6-0 has gone to tooling already, and another one seems to be ahead of both the 66 and Duchess. (It's possible that the 0-6-0 in tooling is the 08 , but the impression seems to be it's steam. They've shown a working 08 running round the layout already) Reality may be a little different from a quick look at the website. In particular small locos in TT seem to be progressing faster than the catalogue listing suggests. It looks like the proportion of small locos in TT may be more like 25%-33% (2 or 3 out of 8 or 9) But , as I said earlier , small locos in a small scale are inherently challenging, so smaller scales will favour bigger prototypes. Hornby have already said they can';t get sound into a TT 08..., Using the TT listings to argue for a big loco prejudice at Hornby is misleading. How many small locos do Farish do in N? Not that many. Hornby have done quite a few small locos in OO, they've done them well, and they have sold. If they were genuiniely only interested in big named locos the Pecketts, the Sentinels and the little Ruston would never have happened

I can't quickly find references for where in the production run the guard's compartment was omitted. But since HST sets were still being built until 1982, the guard's compartments were out of use very early P.S Platform 5 spotters books quote the TGSs being built from 1980 onwards

There would be a TGS at one end only. Since there are power cars at both ends , there would have been a FO at the other end. My experience on the ECML in the 80s was that the first class accomodation was at the concourse end at KX , and the TGS at the country end of the train. (First class at the London end was fairly standard operating procedure and I think still is. On push /pull sets the loco is normally at the country end of the train) The guards compartment was taken out of use quite quickly as being next to the engine was found to be very unsatisfactory for the guard.

I'm afraid I've laid nearly all the track , so I'm committed to Peco code 55 now That said, 2 out of 7 points I've bought have failed at the tie bar in the 9 months I've been going . One before it was laid and I had to buy a replacement as the switch blades broke up. the second has one blade sprung loose, and I'm going to have to try to extract the plastic tie bar somehow and somehow fiddle a piece of PCB strip under (and over the solenoid point motor pin) and solder the switch blades in place to the PCB If that fails, it will be cut the point out with a slitting disc and replace (It's deeply buried in the track formation). I'm really not looking forward to any of this... Hence my main reaction to the Code 40 is "I hope the tie bar is securely fitted" . That would be a substantial plus over Peco in my eyes N gauge track (The affected point is above the TTA in the third picture , with a white patch under it , concealing the whacking great hole for a Peco solenoid) Apologies for thread diversion . Trying to drag this back on topic - this side project makes it possible to play with large modern stock that I could never hope to run on a 4mm project , as I live in a 2 bedroom flat . That is a logic that crosses over to TT:120 as well as N . The wagon works project could have been done in TT - a couple of 66s and an 08 would do the job. Some compression would be needed to fit in the same 6' length , but many more of the wagons would be 4 wheel (HAA, CDA, TTA,) + IFA so train lengths should still look ok . It might work best pushed back to the 1990s with 47s and 37s and treated as a BR facility. Since I had a small core of modern N stock in a drawer (arising from 2 Dapol 66/5s I was given) , N gauge was a a given for me

I said 4mm modellers , not simply OO. Yes most OO exhibition layouts rely heavily on RTR , but not exclusively. A lot of 4mm modellers supplement RTR with kits, especially at exhibition level. 4mm finescale plays a relatively larger part in the 4mm scene than 2mm finescale does with N. My perception is that a lot of N gauge layouts rely exclusively on RTR - possibly because N is just a bit too small to make building it yourself comfortable. Whether TT:120 offers a sufficient increase in size to make a serious difference to ease of construction is a critical question Hornby TT:120 is not aimed at the "train set" market, because that is an "older children" market. It's aimed at adults new to the hobby, who feel that 4mm takes up more space than they have available . I think this is probably a 21-50 demographic. It's other big target is those already in the hobby who don't really have space to do much in 4mm , but who have dabbled with N and found it didn't suit them . From a 4mm perspective I see a steady trickle of postings from people saying "Don't have much space, haven't been able to build a layout, tried N but couldn't get on with it , so here I am back in 4mm" Whether TT:120 will work for those people is another critical question. Those kind of people will start with RTR , but they may well be open to supplementing it with some kind of build yourself (such as a 3D print) - if the scale allows it . Whether TT:120 is big enough to allow something like the ease of construction we take for granted in 3mm and 4mm scale is very much an open question , and probably quite critical to the future of all this I'm not saying that N gauge modellers are lesser modellers. I'm saying that N gauge is arguably a bit too small for making things to be comfortable I still have fairly painful memories of attempting to apply 7 seperate decals to the end door of a shipping container in N

The key question is going to be whether the extra size of TT120 is enough to make an appreciable difference to the ease of making things Etched coach sides may be a good test. Etched brass sides on a donor vehicle is an accepted route in 4mm , and clearly perfectly workable in 3mm, with comparable results. It doesn't seem to be a common resource in N. Will it work in TT:120, or is that too below the critical point where the technique stops working well? Repainting coaches is accepted in 4mm , and necessarily in 3mm . Plain maroon is as easy as they get . If reskinning Hornby Mk1s with Worsley etched sides and respraying in maroon is reasonably easy and you don't need to be Tim Watson to get a decent result , then it's "game on" for TT:120 as a constructional scale. If it's too much of a struggle for the average experienced modeller , then this is a RTR-only scale and things look much more difficult for it I'd hoped that was what I'd find , but when I lifted the bonnet and started using the dial calipers things were all over the shop. I can't reconcile my measurements for any vehicle with any of the 3 published 9mm standards, and they aren't even the same on vehicles from the same manufacturer. It's a bit depressing . The NGS approach of sticking a page at the back of the Manual saying "here are 2 standards, but actually the manufacturers don't really work to either" looks a bit like washing your hands of the whole subject. Since the N gauge project is a modern wagon works and largely uses big bogie wagons , there's probably enough mass and inertia to stop things running amok. But I do wonder about the NGS Hunslet stalling at frogs because one wheel has fallen into the Grand Canyon , sorry Peco's idea of a crossing flangeway. So far there's no significant problems, but big lurches are visible as stuff crosses points

The holiday line idea was a response to JeffSmith saying his interests were GWR. It won't suit a Gresley Pacific... I was trying to think of a scenario which could combine a Castle (promised) with a 57xx and maroon Mk1s , for a simple continous run layout. There are problems because routes like the Cambrian , the Ruabon route through to Barmouth Jnc and the Afon Wen line could not take a Castle (there have been one or two such layouts in the magazines recently). It would at least have more operational interest than the mainline plain double track "cavalcade" layout, through crossing trains and a pickup goods to shunt the yard The S&DJR did see Bulleid Pacifics , but they haven't been promised in TT:120 although 9Fs have been. Castles could certainly reach Kingswear and I think maybe St Ives as well, but those were BLTs. Mk1 corridor stock doesn't quite seem like regular branch line fare in the 1950s

Just to add that the East Lincolnshire line is a no-no as well : special dispensation required during wartime to run V2s , though Britannias were OK . 4472 made it into Grimsby in 1969 as a one off . B1s got into Skegness and Cleethorpes . I think Britannias are being touted for a later stage, but I'm trying to confine ideas to suit to what is definitely promised in Phases 1-4, with models floated as later phases being used to fill out the scenario Given the availability of A3 and A4 from the start , along with Mk1s and the likely availability of etched sides for Mk1s in TT:120 from Worsley , I still think a Stoke Summit style ECML layout is the best option if you want a "watching the trains go by" style layout using the intial releases. JeffSmith has said that's not his cup of tea, and it's not mine but it will suit quite a few people , and you need a big space to try it in 4mm. With Gresley coaches promised in a later phase, along with a 31 , a 9F and probably a Britannia and an A1 after that, the bare bones for an approximation of an ECML lineside would be there The holiday line idea came from JeffSmith saying his interests were GWR . I was trying to think of a way of combining a Castle (the large GW loco promised) maroon Mk1s and 57xx in a rural scene. But there are difficulties

Apologies. The 57xx will clearly be a critical item... Would a single track secondary route , maybe a holiday route with a passing station and holiday trains , work as a continous circuit?

I am most certainly not Simon Kohler in disguise. As I said, my point was "what can you do with a TT:120 set/already promised products " , not to say "you shouldn't model X in this scale you should model it in that scale" A post war ECML layout does seem like an obvious candidate for TT:120 But I do note that a thread about actual TT products is getting repeated posts arguing that you shouldn't model the ECML in TT:120 , you should do it in N.... I'm struck by the way that any attempt to see positives or potential or opportunities in this new scale gets jumped on in that way And the line always seems to be "why model in TT when you can open a box in N?" In the case of an OP whose main modelling commitment is P4, that seems a seriously misplaced line to take. If you went up to an S gauge modeller and asked him why on earth he was doing it when he could simply buy everything RTR in OO, you would be missing the point. Some people may prefer a more constructional approach I do think that TT:120 is probably going to be a more craft-based scale than N - you will need to do more yourself and hopefully the moderately larger scale will allow you to do so more easily. Certainly Continental TT looks a more craft based culture than Continental HO and N . I stand by my comment that based on everything I've seen so far the culture of N gauge seems a lot more RTR and a fair bit less constructional than I'm used to in 4mm. The models you show are nice to see: it's just there seems to be a lot less of that in N than in 4mm I'm aware of both Chivas and the NGS kits. In fact I currently have a Chivas SSA kit and an NGS chemical tank kit in progress (this even before I've ballasted the track). I've also built a couple of SSAs from Cambrian kits in 4mm so I have a direct comparison. The Chivas N gauge kit is very simple but it relies on a RTR Peco chassis which has completely the wrong suspension - a compromise nobody would accept in 4mm. I'll be changing the plastic wheels. The body I removed from the donor Peco wagon is clearly based on the 1960 Izal palvans - but stretched to fit a TTA chassis. This is the 4mm equivalent: 4mm Izal van from Rumney . The same Peco chassis goes under the NGS chemical TTA. It is a very simple kit indeed , and I certainly intend to get and build more of the kits. (A wagon works will handle plenty of repairs on tank wagons) . And I'm painting my kit. But building kits seems rather less common in N than in 4mm, even though the kits that are available seem to be really very simple - just a few pieces One of the key components for TT:120 to develop will be a moderate range of plastic wagon kits. That won't come from Hornby - Peco (under the Parkside brand) seem more likely I've seen the Hornby coaches in the flesh - there was a TT layout operating on their stand at Warley, and I spent 5 minutes or so looking. The wagons also looked good - close to modern 4mm standard in my view , and better than the steam age N gauge wagons I've seen in the shops. Lastly, I'm afraid you've missed my point about wheel and track standards. In a 4mm context it's taken for granted that wheels and track should be properly matched so that the wheel/track interface works correctly. This is not primarily about looking pretty , its about engineering coherence - though in practice the finest wheels and track are produced to the tightest compatibility. The basic engineering principles of the wheel /track interface don't simply evaporate cos you're modelling in N. I've taken the trouble to do some measuring of things in N and the results are here https://www.rmweb.co.uk/topic/171439-do-we-need-a-current-day-brmsb/page/14/ Not a single wheelset seems to conform to either old or new NMRA standards as listed in the NGS Handbook, or to NEM310/311. The wheelset differ significantly from one model to another within the same manufacturer's range . Hornby declare they are working to the established Continen tal TT standards A consistant wheel and track standard delivers better running , and is therefore a plus

Two Pacifics and an 08... 33% in the first batch. But then small scales tend to skew towards big prototypes , because the model is physically larger, and needs to be. My thumb is larger than the NGS Hunslet in N. (There is both a push and a pull towards doing big modern stuff in N. Firstly the modern scene becomes unmanageably large in 4mm: almost every vehicle seems to be 12" long. Secondly in N - or potentially TT - the big vehicles are much more convenient to handle than traditional steam stock . A wooden PO on N is not quite "grain of rice" size and weight but it feels like it's well on the way...) A 66 is about as big as a 14xx + trailer. In N gauge, that's an advantage for the 66. In 4mm , it's a problem..) However Hornby have had a good run with new small locos in OO - Sentinel, Peckett, (two flavours each), Ruston, J50, Terrier (not to mention Rocket and Lion). From older tooling they have the Pug, 14xx, J94, Jinty and in the Smokey Joe series , CR pug, KGV , 101, 06 and the recent generic Bagnall diesel. I'm struggling to remember many small locos from Bachmann apart from an 08 and the 03/04 they inherited from Mainline - and I've omitted the 08 from the Hornby list as a bit big... These things are small enough to drop below £100, and therefore cheap enough to become an impulse purchase. That's how both my W4 Peckett and Ruston 48DS happened : too cute to resist and on sale at an affordable price, and both have proved to be very effective motive power for the Boxfile. These small locos have been excellent sellers for Hornby The canard that "Hornby only do big green kettles" is frequently repeated without looking at what they have actually made and sold. They've not had any commercial failures with their small locos

However the context is someone who has a TT:120 set of an ER flavour. "You should do it in N" is not a relevant reply to "What should I do with my TT:120 set" Modelling the ECML in 4mm is obviously challenging because of the space requirement . But almost all the flagship ECML steam layouts are in 4mm not N. The most notable exception, Copenhagen Fields , is 2mm finescale , which is a somewhat different proposition. Why this should be is an interesting question. But the hobby seems to have voted with its feet against the idea of doing the ECML in N Certain advantages to doing it in TT120 can already be identified . The valve gear on the TT Pacifics is noticeably finer than their N gauge equivalents which have very chunky valve gear. The track will be about 25% finer than in N , since the same rail codes are used in TT. TT:120 is a scale track gauge. TT:120 is to NEM310/311 standards - no British N gauge stock is to any known wheel/track standard, nor is one item of stock consistant with another, even from the same manufacturer. And NEM310/311 standards for TT are proportionally finer than the equivalents for N gauge We can also note that the Mk1 coaches Hornby have produced look pretty good - and to my eye rather better than their equivalent in N . The Pullmans look good too, and the Pacifics seem as good as or better than those available in N. As TT:120 models have twice the volume (and probably at least twice the mass) of N , they have more "presence", and that is helpful with big engines and express trains on a major mainline . N doubt N has an even smaller footprint , but the question is whether TT:120 is big enough to avoid losing all the benefits of 4mm whilst still delivering a dramatic space saving over 4mm This should also mean that making things yourself is easier. Having dabbled with a little N myself in recent months I notice that it's a much more RTR culture than I'm used to in 4mm . Making kits at all is quite a bold step in N , they are noticeably more compromised and some of them - such as Langley whitemetal kits - are old and relatively crude. (NGS wagon kits are rather better than this , but still much more simplistic than we are used to in 4mm. Instructions that imply most people will choose to leave the kit in self-coloured plastic certainly raise my 4mm-trained eyebrow) Again , though , context is critical here. The OP's main modelling interest is in P4, and he lives in the US. Given that , existing RTR support for everything is not the be-all and end-all for him. A willingness to make things, a preference for scale gauge and coherent wheel/track standards, and a readiness to do something a bit different can all be assumed. Given that he normally works in 4mm , advantages of TT:120 against 4mm are relevant. I really don't think the OP's going to model the 1950s ECML in P4 - from what I can make out his P4 modelling is focussed on much smaller earlier subjects. Hence "what can I do with this set" - merits the answer - "model something that is far too big to do in P4 , as a low-stress side project, using a lot of RTR material " Laying Peco Code 55 points will certainly be lower stress than handbuilding pointwork in P4.... Something like "Stoke Summit " is certainly going to be doable in TT:120 , and a lot of people are attracted by that sort of subject. Within 18 months enough items should be available in TT:120 to cover most of the bases (That will include diesel bodies from Lincoln Locos and etched Mk1 sides from Worsley) . It will take you 18 months to plan, build the boards, and lay and wire the track...

I will check the link - it came up via a Facebook feed, and it was in the name of the recognised local paper Dakota Dibben show at Witham - revised link and here is a later RMWeb thread on his promotions https://www.rmweb.co.uk/topic/134378-arundel-exhibition/ I take "Mid Kent Model Railway Group" to be "Dakota and his regular mates" I don't think there's a lot else going on in the area, exhibition-wise , at this time of year so he's not likely to be taking the bread out of anyone's mouth (whether or not the bread has been prepared to proper hygene standards)

There are certainly Halling motor bogies. Not sure they are big enough for a large diesel or electric but they should do a job for a multiple unit . The tram modellers swear by them

Only just seen this , but I do recall reading in the past that it was known for heavy wartime trains leaving Kings Cross to be so long that the locomotive and first coach(es) were in Gasworks Tunnel. Passengers had to walk through the train to reach them OS Nock , The Great Northern has a whole chapter on WW1 train working, with logs - it looks as if just over 500 tons tare (14-16 bogies) was the limit with Ivatt Atlantics by 1917-18. One southward run (Grantham -KX) with the Flying Scotsman probably in1918 is quoted as 529 tons tare , 590 tons gross , 76 axles (= 19 bogies) with intermediate speeds of 71.5mph at Essendine, 27mph at Stevenage and Abbots Ripton, 60mph at Huntingdon and 69mph at New Southgate Geoffrey Hughes , LNER , of WW2 : "Many trains were loaded in excess of 20 coaches, with which timekeeping , even to the decelerated schedules of the day, was impossible although records exist of prodigious efforts by Gresley Pacifics hauling trains of 800 tonnes or more ." That would certainly equate to 20 bogies or more . I've seen references to wartime trains drawing up twice at intermediate stations because they were far too long for the platforms. The context of all this is that the number of mainline passenger services had been slashed to free up paths through the 2 track bottlenecks at the southern end of the ECML, and much fewer longer and slower mainline services were being run. If you kept mainline departures out of the peak (4:30pm -6:15pm) then gumming up the Widened Lines access for an hour would be acceptable. If it was a question of the night trains, then shutting down the Widened Lines service after 8pm or 9pm might well be acceptable in wartime Nevertheless backing down and coupling on in the darkness of Gasworks Tunnel must have been something of a nightmare , acceptable only under wartime conditions. It was, I suppose, not so bad compared to being caught in an air raid. From that, I'd say that as far as the LMS /LMR Operating Department was concerned , they were running an 11 coach passenger railway, with 13 coaches possible on Liverpool services if you ran non-stop Euston/Crewe and rather longer than that on Anglo Scottish services. I've read that the LMS WCML Anglo Scottish day service between the wars was in fact dire in terms of frequency - amounting to the Royal Scot , the Midday Scot , and 2 semi-fasts . The Coronation Scot would therefore have been a useful boost.. The LNWR's policy was apparently a few heavy trains , which Midland men had tried and failed to change in the mid Twenties (Though they may have had more success making this stick to Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham) So the steam age WCML may well have been 11 x 57' coaches as a norm , with one or two heavier Liverpool expresses, and a small number of Anglo-Scottish day trains, plus the night sleepers , loading to 14+ bogies. The stations with longer platforms may well represent the LNWR's assessment of regular stops on Anglo Scottish services - Rugby, Crewe, Preston and Carlisle

This may be of interest: Lincoln Locos bodies on Continental TT mechanisms There will certainly be 12mm gauge /1:120 scale Continental TT mechanisms available. 3SMR handle them Their use in 3mm has been restricted by the fact that they are in a different smaller scale so they don't necessarily fit with wheelbases /wheel diameters in 3mm scale. Given that TT120 is the same scale that issue starts to fall away. It's been the total lack of anything British in 1:120 that has restricted their relevance... I'm sure Class 66 at least will remain available long term in TT because there is a market for that in TT' Mittel Europa heartland So the new scale has a much wider support base than Triang's TT-3 ever had

Peter Denny's J11 has done longer in service than the real thing (which managed at least half a century..) Buckingham GC is nominally set in 1907 I believe, and he committed to the GC as a prototype in 1946 . Strictly that takes you to 1983 , when everything was still blue and unfitted16T minerals were in traffic. (Unfortunately BR Sectorisation 1985-97 seems to be the very period the RTR manufacturers can't seem to sell. The main period on my main layout is 1985-90. The Boxfile arose as a way of using all those enticing wagon kits I wasn't allowed to run on a TOPS BR layout...) What you are forgetting is that there are quite a lot of A4s preserved , and quite a lot of them are/have been passed for mainline running. Also it's likely anyone who is interested enough to to be a potential customer for TT has been on a preserved railway, and it's almost certain they will have ridden in Mk1s It's not as if more recent traction is being ignored. An HST and a 66 are in Phases 3/4, and the 66 is clearly going to be a cornerstone of the range - it is the model that will also be appearing in the Arnold range for Germany, Poland and other Eastern European markets . Container flats are coming quite soon, and TTAs, HAAs are lined up in the early phases , and an IET/Azuma is promised So Hornby are not focusing on the 1950s - they are trying to cover BR steam, post-privatisation, and BR diesel. That not everything is fully covered in the first 6 months of the range is understandable Remember it's not just the people who buy some TT in the next 6 months. It's the people who buy into model railways over the next 10 years via the new scale that matter... Patience! But A4s are literally iconic. My late mother's back door keys had a key fob which looked familiar . It was a little metal A4 (she wasn't a railway enthusiast) . I was given a "railway mug" at Christmas by relations. What has it got on it? Two A4s, a Coronation Pacific, an "airsmoothed" Bulleid Pacific, and 4472....

For the record, I'm some way short of retirement and was born just slightly before the end of ER steam. Mk1s are still marginally with us , and any reference material will tell you the first ones were introduced in 1951 with many thousands built up to 1964 . Obvously express trains on British Railways thoughout the 1950s featured lots of Mk1s The last Mk1 in frontline revenue service was a buffet with Anglia c2005 and I'm old enough to remember that - not least because it regularly appeared in the 18:00 Norwich and my regular commuter train at that time left 2 minutes later from an adjacent platform... However Mk1s are still with us , because they are the normal coaching stock for steam railtours, as everything from Mk2a onwards is airbraked. They are also the backbone of preservation services. Hence Mk1 coaches are pretty foundational to RTR in any scale. Almost nothing else has lasted so long - no other coach was so universal Since the Pullman varient of the Mk1 did not appear until about 1960, clearly Pullman services in the 1950s used the older Pullman cars. It is worth pointing out that train sims are necessarily offered to a younger demographic , which may skew things. Those over 50 are dramatically less likely to be into any kind of computer game "Best" is always subjective. But you might like to have a look at this major thread .. Annies' Virtual Pre-Grouping There's a huge amount in there