Bomag

Perhaps why they did not sell was that the bogie centres were out and looked 'wrong'. If I had seen them beforehand I would not have got any from the initial batch - having said that most of the reason I dislike them is that they seem to decouple a lot more easily than the later ones. Therefore, you have to consider whether it is the livery or quality of the model that is the cause of something not selling.

From the photos the TSO and BSK are Cobblers, only the FK is Paddington stocj.

He hasn't had the K4 for 50 years, it was saved by Viscount Garnock who just managed to survive to see it return to steam in 1989 (with very nice lunch on the SVR). Luckily Cameron is a neighbour of the Lindsays and has funded it since then - both should be celebrated. While Cameron is perfectly entitled to stuff them, we have few enough operational LNER locos as it is. We handed the N7 over to an organisation who could fund (if not immediately or continuously) the operation of it; perhaps that would be a better celebration of the efforts over the last 50 years.

Invisible text again, green and maroon are prototypical but only if you model post BR

Yes, but only as preserved, or on charter service.

The ECML had two HST sets with two catering cars all the way to when they were replaced with Mk4s. In the early days of Mk4 operation there was also at least one set with two RFM and three FOs. During the weekend one PFM and one FO were regularly declassified.

Yes, I missed than. Although with white lettering it would be early rather than later.

I have no problem in you defining WCML trains as you wish but generally it is considered to be services to/from Euston or other services mainly/solely on the WCML. Similarly CC trains to Newcastle and Scotland and Transpenine services are not normally considered ECML services. Given previous smart answers I said that they were not common on Euston services; I did not say they were never used. However, from the first use of wcml a/c stock (excluding Pullmans) until replacement by 390s something like 85% of train miles of day stock was Mk2F and Mk3 (there were still a lot of MK2c coaches on secondly services until the late 1980's). The WCML did receive some 1st class Mk2D coaches (no seconds) to upgrade remaining Mk1 first class stock (based on Mk1 transfers/withdrawals at the time) but they were mostly transferred within about 10 years. Similarly they got some Mk2e seconds but those not moved to CC services were mostly transferred to other regions. In terms of the services listed by Harris, while stock may have been ordered for specific services whether they ended up on them for any length of time is another matter - take the Mk3b BFOs which were touted as being produced for the all 1st class Manchester Pullmans but which had a multitude of drivers and were not introduced AFAIK until after the service went two class and they went to other uses e.g. The Mk3 Clansman set.

Slightly OT I work with road accident data looking at improving safety via road design. The use of 'accident' does not imply that it was unavoidable, only it was not deliberate (which is common enough to need weeding out of stats) irrespective of how reckless the driver is. Having failed O level English three times and then giving up having got into Uni, I am the last person to criticise people's use of English; however, what does irritate me is those who say the use of the word 'accident' is pejorative or sloppy. No it is perfectly good word for the intended meaning. There is a continuing low level conflict between signing accident and 'incident' on VMS. Not only is accident better understood by non-native English speakers but also leads to a greater and more consistent reduction in traffic speeds than the anodyne 'incident'. Currently the pink and fluffy brigade hold sway.

As covered in a prototype thread Mk2ds were not that common on WCML services, neither were Mk2Es but these were regulars north of New Street on Cross Country services

Which is why I said it was a pity it was not possible to do something a bit more expansive, I did not imply that it should have been. I have to say that I did not know what the ABF was but then all my family who have served since WW1 have been in the Navy or RAF.

You do realise that your phrase is now often considered to be a deliberate insult. As a N gauge modeller I am not not considering it an insult just a representation of the mindset of many 4mm modellers Also given that this tread is not labled as be being N gauge specific I don't see the problem; its no different than if it was only done in association with Hornby. Congrats to those involved and to Freightliner but it's a pity that something along the lines of the two Class 91s in terms of livery could not have been achieved instead of the rather insipid new Freightliner colours.

!Satire Alert! Is it because you already have our money for the 321s?

It could be that there is that there is only so much money people can dedicate to sit in somebody else bank account, especially if they still have to pay a residual amount at some unspecified time. So far Revolution have had near £1k off me and about another £300 to pay off for 321s - so far I have 7 very nice tank wagons . Given that I have no idea when I have to pay the £300 (plus a similar lot for pre-ordered NG society stuff) I cannot commit to anything that I could not pay off with a months income. So far there are two Class 92 options and some tanks which are vying for the same cash. Since Type B tanks are not something I can say I know enough about to comfortably order a trains worth suitable for the early/mid 1980's its probably down to a class 92 (or two).

The difference in height is equivalent to nearly a foot, it is not subtle.

Doubtful. The tank loco is an N7 in steam with overhead flashes and there is one (and possibly two) Thompson B1s. A good probability of it being a GE shed, although Copley Hill or Neville Hill (both Leeds) are outside bets.

Canonbie, Langholm branch. http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/c/canonbie/index.shtml There is another photo of this train.

The site needs a irony icon. As you imply that while the work on model started in 2015 the development of the 'extras' may have started much later - I don't know, the cynic in me thinks perhaps on 12th August?

Sorry to be picky but Red Death said, in another thread, that you had been working on this since September 2015. Is it still very early stages? Fortunately a Class 92 is very much in the 'nice to have but only under rule one' so its not something for me to get to worked up about as some are doing.

Line speed is derived from the top speed of the stock, the breaking performance relative to the signal spacing and the track geometry. The HST differential on existing track at the time was mostly due to the greater speed of application of the brakes as well as the increased rate of deceleration; also relevant is the lower track forces due to the better suspension. When the 158s came in with a 90mph top speed, better acceleration and the ability to disappear to the signalling systems, several regions had programs to increase the line speed from 75mph to 90mph for sprinter stock. I spent quite a bit of 89/90 doing work on the Norwich to Peterborough line - the work was two fold, replacing any jointed track with CWR (to increase the available cant deficiency from 90mm to 110mm) and lengthening the transitions so the extra 20mm of CD (or increase in cant for some existing CWR sections) was generated over a longer distance (to stop the tea/coffee from sliding off the tables). RCE Scotland definitely did some work on this is they asked, via Hudson House, for a trick one on my colleagues devised to make it easier to apply to reverse curves (with reverse cures on double track having trains going in one direction tends to move the contravention point downstream). I took it from the discussion that RCE Scotland may have done something similar to increase line speed for Mk3 stock but that, unsportingley, the 47/7s tended to up the reverse curves in one direction a lot faster than expected. We took an interest as we knew that we were getting the DBSOs for the London line - unfortunately we did not get the Mk3s but the Mk2fs displace from the WCML. If you thought 47/7 were bad on track loads it was nothing compared to 86/2s

Sorry, I was not aware that this wasn't what everybody does in real life (with the caveat that it applied to Brunswick green 4-6-0s with brass bits, rather than just green locos)

simmonds25 You seem to missing an explanation why you did not by the CJM 33 on your first visit if it was so good? The omission of the rubbing plate may be a commercial decision, if its that or no model which option is acceptable? The only read issue is that Dapol to often muck up liveries while doing it correctly would no be any more expensive. As for me my GF 33 is still an acceptable model.

From the Hornby reference I take it that the 71 is in OO. Crowdfunding is ideal where there is enough modellers to make a model viable, but only if there is certainty of numbers and part payment up front. Without this certainty a manufacturer would not gamble on spending a lot of money developing the model. In OO there are enough modellers to make some quite obscure prototypes viable. In N to get the same number of orders will require a much higher percentage of modellers to sign up for it to be viable. Therefore these will tend to be areas which are becoming popular but where previously there was limited demand e.g. AC electrics, NSE - stuff which a 47 year old gets nostalgic about; or are 'new' and therefore have no track record of likely demand e.g. Class 390. Transition period is popular and has been popular for some time, manufactures are likely to have a good grasp of what transition period models will sell leaving crowd-sourcing activities to look at more obscure prototypes to ensure that the big two don't do a Q6, 59, Radial etc.

'It seems a pity the Voyagers couldn't be replaced with IEPs and then banished from the UK.' I fixed that for you.

Was there a date indicated in the mag?