Bomag

Platform 3 and 4 at Bradford interchange in your time period had vans stabled on platform 4 most of the day (and in the siding behind) and the eastbound services using platform 3.

Yes it was historically accurate for the date of the photo .

Given the loco was built in 1992 even if was 'Indian' red it would have not have been actuate for 1879-1946.

On a more technical side, the chemicals used in colours in the late C19 and early C20 (man made or natural) were much less UV fixed so they would have faded much quicker and, while they may not be as dark as DLG, you would have had a mixed bag of shades.

Local services which were not already DMU may have been formed of Mk1 Suburban stock.

The only mainline Mk1s you likely see is a portion working of a longer distance service. e.g. off a Blackpool service split at Preston. Given that corridor Mk1 stock outnumbered open stock by about 3 to 1 you would likely have a portion of BSK/CK or for three coaches BSK/CK/SK or BSK/CK/BSK

Smart answer, there has always been somewhere more important to send the 158s (in that switching to 158s is unlikely to increase bums on seats).

Practical answer, the 156 give slightly better view all around and in the summer having the windows open adds something.

Engineering answer the 158 is wider and longer. Its also, as we found out on the Ely- Norwich line speed increase in 1989/90,  wider in different places than a MK3 so you have to do all the stations again for clearance.

Not certain about the Hull Pullman but the Yorkshire Pullman from 71 (and I think TT Pullman from 69) was a AL401, 402 or 403 RU (diagram 23/23a/23b) along with a RMB. This continued with the Mk2d stock introduced by May 1971, there were 9 ab RU allocated to the ER.  AL401/402/403 were the original form (as the Bach/Farish) model with 5 or 6 seating bays). The RUB was similar on the outside and may have be subbed as ER had a few. No photo I have seen has either a RBs(exRU) or RB in use on Pullmans of this livery. RBRs were later if you are looking at early 70's.

It is worth noting that from 68-71 (until the remaining pullmans were dual baked / dual heated) they were the only front line rakes with MK1 day coaches. The Mk2a coaches were air braked so the pullmans were stuck with late 100 mph vb steam heated Mk1s e.g. 26138-26217 (lot 30726) SKs and e.g. 35344-35368 (Lot 30699) or 35408-35446 (Lot 30721) BSKs

Of the list of sets on the linked site the only one which cannot be created from RTR models is the Tyne Tees Pullman. Neither of the ER Griddle cars are anywhere close to what is available. 

6 hours ago, George Woodcock said:

Hello

 

    So if there were no 150s in the late 80s, or indeed any other time, in the area what units would have been used in the late 80s?

 

                                                                               Cheers

 

                                                                                                  George   

P5 has, for 1989, 14x 108 DMBS/DTCL pairs, 16 lose 101 cars; 7x 142s and all 25 143s

8 hours ago, drjcontroller said:

Here's 150001 between Newcastle and Manors on 8/8/85, but not in passenger service, it was on a test run, but no idea what was being tested I'm afraid.

 

001 did a tour as both a demonstrator and test (clearance and track circuits). It spent most of the second half of August around Edinburgh and was used as a shuttle for the Haymarket open day on the last weekend.

When first introduced in 1987/88 the 150/2 were split between NL (even numbers up to 264) and NH (odd numbers up to 253). While the Newcastle TPN service remained LHS there were two additional TPN services an hour which were 150/2. These included the Scarborough services (where 150212 came to grief); I can remember 150/2 subbing the occasional LH TPN Newcastle service at Leeds I have no idea if they made it past York. Given the problems with unserviceable stock in West Yorks they were unlikely to have been allowed to stray.

As for 150/1 there was the hourly(ish) Nottingham to Leeds service but nothing north of Leeds.

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

And this thread is entitled 'Royal Train 1970 - 1985'. - quite a while before any naive, and railway terminology ignorant, Civil Servant wrote any sort  franchise terminology or drafted any such agreements.   But the situation remains the same - it is only a Royal Grain if it is conveying the Monarch - end of. (And yes - I was deeply involved in planning one in post privatisation times as well and involved in occasional arrangements for journeys by a member of the Family other than the Monarch).

I think you are missing the point that irrespective of what you called it, or what it was called in BR paperwork, the topic is de-facto the 'Royal Train', even if it is not de-jure in your terms. In fact any train carrying a 'royal' is a Royal Train even if it is not formed of 29xx stock (e.g. a Class 321 dustybin to Kings Lynn). Even BR could not overrule the English language.

8 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

 

OTH, it may be that everyone was clued-up to the limitations of the initial diesels, but was equally clued-up to how shockingly expensive steam locos were to operate.

 

I think that it was a much as how variable the costs of operating steam locos were - this was as much a competence and training issue than loco. I infer from the output, that aside from crews going for efficiency or not, those who had experience (presumably from the start of their careers) of fireing and driving different types of boiler and firebox design were more adaptable to working locos on exchange. This sometimes were not the top link drivers and fireman who drove the same big locos every day.

I think that this behind why some regions or areas faired better. The sheds which had O6 previously had less issues with standard than others in the ER and I assume why CF men liked Brits better than others on the WR.

On 27/08/2020 at 18:14, Pre Grouping fan said:

Anybody who's received the coaches, can they confirm whether the intercity lettering is on the same end of the bodies or opposite ends on each side.

 

I read on the n gauge forum that the lettering is on the same end and inaccurate? 

Can anyone confirm which way is accurate?

 

Cheers

Yes they are on the same end on at least one model; however, having looked at photos the lettering position changed in 1974 when they were renumbered so it may be right for the period. The modelled version is when on ECML test with E1xxxx numbers. One thing which wrong is the 'Restaurant-Buffet' on E10100 (RUK then TRUK) this  should say only 'Restaurant' - confirmed on a photo as E10100 and as 40500 at Shildon. E10000 is correct with 'Buffet' only. I have to say that with the low contrast background I can hardly see the lettering while in motion.

I have not seen any photos of it under test on the ECML but if it was the full 2+10 then the model may struggle - it made heavy weather of 2+8 out the box, more so than the production HST models.

Still a very nice model.

8 hours ago, RichardT said:

 

Of course the world didn’t end in 1968. I should have made it clear that I was talking about models of locos in their various “in service” conditions, as opposed to the inevitable mish-mash of changes resulting from preservation - especially in poor old Scotsman’s case!  
 

So services hauled when owned by Peglar, Macalpine, FS Ltd and UK Gov (via DCMS agency) don't count? I would accept 'not accurate the period xx to yy' but to use 'fictitious' is misleading.

1 hour ago, RichardT said:

 

I was also initially fooled by the fact that Dapol and Rails are using illustrations of existing models as placeholders, so I will be interested to see if the LNER livery A3 "Flying Scotsman" is now correctly numbered 103, as Scotsman wasn't rebuilt from A10 to A3 until January 1947. The previous FS model on the Dapol website is fictitious - named "FS", numbered 4472, in LNER green, but with an A3 boiler. 

 

I have that model (ND128D) and it is right for my period (except for a couple of minor issues) - late 1970s to mid 1980's when it had a A3 boiler, single chimney and Apple Green. The world did not end in 1968.

4 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

There is presumably an NR engineering or design standard but it will take a lot of digging to find it even if it is accessible without an NR user log in.  In any event it might only apply to new works and remeduial work although there could well be a separate inspection standard somewhere.  Big web search needed startin g with teh various NR document lists I would think.

Thanks for letting me know; I was wondering if it was just me. I am used to putting my standards out for public use. Not that everybody bothers to read them (looking at HS2!) 

Don't suppose anybody has any public facing links to NR/ORR geotechnical standards, specification or requirements? All my rail contacts seem to have urgent trips to Scotland. Some of my Scottish and NE region colleague have found in the last few days a much greater percentage of failures from high pore water pressures than destabilisation by scour and it would help in comparing NR/ORR docs with DMRB/SHW. Googling has brought us some links but it would help in ensuring I am not missing anything.

3 hours ago, Padishar Creel said:

 

Introducing the MK2Fs makes the RBR even more conspicuous by its absence. Bachmann have allowed Hornby to fill this gap in 00, so the chances of BachFar doing one in N are provably even smaller than they were last year but yes, I agree totally. Far more useful than the RU

 

es grüßt 

pc

A refurbished RBR(RU) or RUB would not require a completely new  model. Although a RB/RBR would be nice I would be happy with either.

33 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

All we know is that the train derailed and that it appears a slip of some sort was involved (note I do not even say 'responsible').  That is all that is sensibly in the public arena apart from the identity and details of the train reported earlier in this thread - nothing about a bridge, nothing about the nature of the slip.  Until we hear anything further confirming the nature of the slip, or whatever it was that led to the derailment we are in the realms of speculation and guess work, and so is the media.

 

Any of us with experience of derailment investigation or slips could immediately - but in this case wholly speculatively - list a myriad of possibilities about what happened and how it happened.   To do so would be not only be pointless but utterly wasteful and potentially seriously misleading particularly as it now seems a death, or two, was unfortunately involved.

Which is why I said that it may not be relevant in this case. Looking at other footage of floods in this area for this event, along with similar high intensity flooding incidents in the recent past may mean that both structural and geotechnical assessment criteria may need to change. In the 1990's the Indian code of practice had more diverse failure modes (for both monsoon and flash floods) than the UK standard. 

There seems to be some disappearing  posts, on this an other forums. From a post on some other forum there was a picture from above which could indicate a bridge failure rather than a second landslip. Without assuming it was anything to do with scour, with issues of flash flooding looking to be more common it may need to be time to look at what is assessed. Back in the 90's I did a few bridge assessments where I looked at consistent high river flows rather than flash flood.

5 hours ago, Aire Head said:

 

Isn't most of the S&C 60 Mph speed limit anyway?

 

Also I am only seeing 158s making their way to and from the S&C at the moment. Used to be 2 set coupled together but with the ongoing crisis just single units are in use at the moment.

Sorry, I don't understand your point - while 170s can do 100, as I said they are limited to 60 on the S&C. Given the transmissions settings this is apparently like driving down the motorway in 3rd. Going up the hills will give the engines more of workout than they currently get trundling about on the Harrogate line, which may help with clearing emissions.

The 158 has a different transmission system, the speed where it switches up and down between being a fluid coupling and hydraulic link is (or was when introduced) about 50mph. This means is should be more fuel efficient at S&C speeds.

I am not certain what the transmission is like with the Class 195, perhaps somebody who drives them can comment?

Class 195s aren't really suited for the S&C; think more Class150 level of comfort. Class 170 from the Harrogate line would be better -  a max speed of 60mph would be an issue but going up all the hills would give the engines a clear out!

1 hour ago, Phil Parker said:

 

So we are told. Spend an long, unpaid day having to tell people who think the rules about sales to non-members should apply to them and see how lovely you are. That, and we only have one disappointed customer's opinion - one who thinks they shouldn't even be allowed at a show. 

 

The whole sales to non-members debate has been covered many times. If you want the benefits of belonging to an organisation such as this, or the various manufacturers collectors clubs, join. If you won't join, don't moan you don't get the benefits.

 If it was the same women as I often encountered on the N gauge stand then she was an equal opportunity grump, equally brusk with members who just asked for stuff in stock. The current mob on the main stand is much more resilient; at Doncaster earlier in the year (was it six months ago?) the guy in front was being a pain and when it got to the point where it was not going to progress there was a pleasant but firm 'that was interesting, now that we have finished I need to help the next person'.  Hopefully the next time I won't have the current ritual to ask if the post 1976 warflat is available.

It depends on the workshop it was painted at - the first spay painting trails were mid 1950's. The change in paint specification in 1956 (the number of coats and thickness of the paint rather actual colour) was partly to improve durability - partly with spay painting. With spray painting (particularly air based systems) it is much easier to pain the ends the same colour as the body. I think that most BR workshops had switched by 1960, although that did not stop them paining the ends black.    

10 hours ago, adb968008 said:

You mean, unique to 1 loco, just as 66587 in Pink is.

it is not accurate, a long way from it, indeed its not even trying to be accurate. But it is a nod to the past, just as 66779 and 66789 are, and as 37404 was, in its day (ironically it ended its days at Crewe Diesel too), as was D172.

It makes it a celebrity
 

47593 however is much closer to accurate, as close as can be, given requirements for Mainline. 47716, 37688 are too, the green 47’s also are pretty good renditions, as is 37669, 521 is definitely an odd one out.

 

No I mean accurate for now. As you said it is not intending to replicate a previous state, therefore it is accurate for July 2020.  Whether it directly replicates a livery which was used in the past is important for some, for the rest of us the question is does it look nice.

13 hours ago, adb968008 said:

Yes but it had headcode boxes, no headlight, wrap around buffer cowling and different style grills in the nose back then... in short it looked much less like it does today. Strange choice to turn this one green, when others much closer to original exist...
 

Railfreight Metals or Petroleum could have been much more appropriate.

37521 is painted in a livery which is accurate for 2020. It's not a museum artefact restored to a set time period. However, BR green diesels (esp plain green) look as awful now as they did in the 1960's

11 hours ago, The Johnster said:

The Birmingham/Liverpool/Manchester electrification was indeed a serious presage of the future, and it's completion in 1966 coincided with the introduction of the new corporate image liveries and lettering. which sort of matched that used on the new motorway signs and airport directions; the feeling was of modernity and efficiency.  The trains were impressive, 100mph on B4 bogies in 'flights' with short headways between them, but the WCML traffic remained as mk1 stock, admittedly on new B4 or Commonwealth bogies, for quite a while after, well into the 70s and the Weaver Jc-Polmadie opening.

By the end of 1970 all the LMR Mk2c stock had been delivered, cascading the vb Mk2z onto secondary WCML services. While there were Mk1s on cross country and Barrow/N Wales services all core day WCML services would have been Mk2 stock except for catering cars and BGs . By the end of 1971 the principle services would have a/c first class stock as well.