Bomag

Changing the livery supposedly indicates that the company has adopted a new startagy/policy/blame avoidance process which shows that they have nothing to do with the previous lot's inability to run anything propoerly. Everbybody else takes it as being the first step in not acheiving a properly running railway.

If you read back you will find that the options they gave were specifically in the 'present' condition i.e. no names which were had been superseded and any 390/1 sets were only available as numbered 3901xx. This seems to have changed when it come to stripy doors when its 'well it represents the majority of its life'. I don't mind either way.

In terms of the Standard 5 model, just like the real version, it's a bit 'boring'. If you are looking at well known/popular trains e.g. Cambrian coast express, then for RA reasons they were mostly associated with either Standard 4 classes. As for it missing from the catalogue, as far as a couple of shop have told me, if it isn't still in stock at GFand/or announced for a re-run then it's not listed. For something which has had a couple of recent runs it may be that you may have to wait a year or two. However, it would help if they list old models as either 'dead' or new runs subject to demand and capacity.

The journal mentions who designed it, not who is going to produce it - good design fails with indifferent manufacture.

For those who have received their NGS 1/17 Journal, NGS has announced doing a RTR Hunslet DH shunter but completely failed to mention who is producing it (or even if it is direct commission with a factory). I have no doubt that the body will be as good as any NGS RTR model, but what about the chassis? For me its a very much a Rule 1 model so probably only a single model - the orange CEGB one looks particularly perky.

Given the engine's origin it could be a motor boat!

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.