kevinlms

Well, not very fast!

Why not buy the matching Class 37, while you're at it? Also reversed between shots. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/scrapyard-class-37-diesel-loco-heavily-weathered-/300857346763?_trksid=p2047675.m1850&_trkparms=aid%3D222002%26algo%3DSIC.FIT%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D11%26meid%3D5433525078874368562%26pid%3D100011%26prg%3D1005%26rk%3D3%26sd%3D290853868358%26

Hmm, so a railway that had 'no need' for a Pacific, wanted to build one of these?

Hah, except just to be different and annoy the GWR fans, I'd run it backwards!

My name is Alice, and I was sitting in the waiting room for my first appointment with a new dentist. I noticed his DDS diploma on the wall, which bore his full name. Suddenly, I remembered a tall, handsome, dark-haired boy with the same name had been in my high school class some 40-odd years ago. Could he be the same guy that I had a secret crush on, way back then? Upon seeing him, however, I quickly discarded any such thought. This balding, gray-haired man with the deeply lined face was way too old to have been my classmate. After he examined my teeth, I asked him if he had attended Morgan park high school 'Yes. Yes, I did. I'm a Mustang,' he gleamed with pride. 'When did you graduate?' I asked. He answered, 'in 1975. Why do you ask?' 'You were in my class!', I exclaimed. He looked at me closely. Then, that ugly, Old, Bald, Wrinkled faced, Fat-arsed, Gray-haired, Decrepit Son-of-a-bitch Asked, "What did you teach?"

How does he know that the steering is done from the rear?

Says a lot for the rest, considering how many points we've lost recently and STILL remain 3rd.

Our Chelsea team, could do with a new owner - preferably one who lets a manager manage without interfering & bringing in strikers and 'temporary' managers that no one wants. What a dismal performance this morning, no wonder Benitez is our most unpopular manager ever.

Good for knocking the platform edging into shape?

But there is a problem with that statement. Coleman may well have been at Derby at that time, but at grouping, he was Chief Draftsman for the NSR, where he'd actually been working at various posts since 1905! It wasn't until 1935 he transferred to Derby & was responsible for fixing various issues for Stanier. So Tom Coleman, wasn't a Midland man at all! http://www.steamindex.com/people/coleman.htm First few sections.

Nothing wrong with a suspicious mind when dealing with senior management! In the case of Stanier, it wouldn't have been too hard to persuade him to leave the GWR as he was only a few years younger than Collett, who didn't retire for another 9 years after Stanier left. Sometimes a bit of rivalry can be a good thing.

Perhaps it was merely a case of he had some bright ideas, that didn't quite work out as intended. If they HAD all worked, would he be considered a genius, rather than a villain? What if Stanier had been judged by say his work on the early Jubilee's? What if the management had been just like current day Chelsea's? Thompson wasn't the last CME from Doncaster to have some ideas that didn't work out. I'm thinking of Bullied's 'Leader' locos & his Irish peat burners, rather than his Southern pacific's.

So what Hornby part number is on the box? Gets it wrong in 2 places. http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/RARE-Tri-ang-Hornby-R159-Electrically-operated-lifting-Bridge-suit-Triang-/221180351953?pt=AU_Toys_Hobbies_Model_Railways&hash=item337f6055d1 I wonder how much a similar bridge with Pola B619 (B 691?) on the box is?

The **** NICE EXAMPLE FOR THE SERIOUS COLLECTOR ****, I'm sure they will be queuing up for it.

An example of accountants that just look at the price, without knowing what constitutes the price. I suppose no one wondered why there was a significant difference? Just assumed that Crewe machining & Swindon casting sections were both inefficient and that Crewe foundry & Swindon machining sections were similarly efficient.

They might of both been 'LMS', but surely there that was about the limit of their 'sameness'? In fact, there was nothing Midland about the Tilbury Tanks either, as they were basically an existing design with more members built. With air brakes & long suburban passenger trains along an almost flat line, renowned for fairly fast running, they were hardly going to find the same conditions elsewhere on the system (without the air brakes). Not surprised that the different motive power ended up dumped 'out the back'.

Obviously, someone decided the couplings were the valuable bit!

But surely it was becoming so, but they ignored it. The problem was that the basic 0-6-0 chassis was little changed from Kirtley days in regards to axle bearing size & method of lubrication. What was acceptable for those small locos, was no good even for the 4F. By the time larger locos such as the Garratt's were fitted with the same equipment, in the name of standardisation, it was an achilles heel. Worryingly for the Garratt's, they built 3 first and then ordered 30 virtually the same, with the same errors repeated, such as poor bearings, small water balancing pipes, even the water fill locations, didn't match the dual water crane spacings, amongst other things. Surely a 3 year trail ought to have revealed some weakness & the next 30 should of had some modifications. As it was, Beyer Peacock, virtually disowned their largest single order of the Garratt.

Some other railways (notably the L&YR) had started constructing much larger wagons, often of 20 Tons capacity. They had worked out that it was cheaper for them to haul a smaller number of higher capacity wagons, than the opposite. So the question is why did other railways not follow the same practice & indeed the LMS went back to making smaller RCH based designs of 12 Tons. In fact it wasn't until BR days when they built a modest number of 21 & 24 ton wagons.

Hmm, so the other railways WERE stupid for building bigger locomotives? Doesn't really make sense.

I was under the impression that the CME came up with new loco drawings & the civil engineers knocked them back, without nominating the details of the problem. Certainly it seems that way, reading of the list of Deeley & Fowler designs of 4-6-0 & 4-6-2 & Hughes 2-8-2 that failed. Wonder why they didn't get their heads together & worked out what changes actually needed to be made to have bigger & better locos. Also the Midland used two key criteria to base the 'efficiency' of their locos, the coal consumption & the cost of repairs. With these two considerations, the best Midland design was the 2P version of the 4-4-0! So logically, the Euston - Glasgow Central ought to have been an hourly service of 5 coach trains, with a 2P at the front. All nonsense of course, because the assumed costs were based on the fact that small locos lightly loaded obviously SEEMED to be cheaper to provide.

And possibly the reason the light doesn't always work, cos the paint got in everywhere?

I would agree. But what about the inserts that fall out of magazines onto the floor as soon as you pick up one up in the newsagents (unless the lot is in a plastic bag - sorry mods! But a time where the bag DOES have its merits - saves shop staff having to pick them up). By the way, do others agree that it is courteous to pick up the bits you've dropped? Surely stuff like the Hattons price list or even old Railway Book Club leaflets & going back further, the photo print suppliers - showing my age!, will never be worth money?

Even works most of the time.

You could argue that without opening the box to check, the model could be a detailed side stuck to a spacer! But you're all correct, why do they say that the box has never been opened, when obviously it has. Anyway, don't the vast majority of us get the model home & take a good look at it, possibly run it, then and only then, stick it back in the box?