Bomag

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?

No I mean Carflats - NGVs 96250-96265 dia NG502 sector code IMRX (1989) based at EN. They were renumbered from wagons, apparently due to sectorisation, in 1985 until Carfalts were supplanted by an expanded fleet of NX GUVs (coupled with a reduction in traffic) in the late 1980s. You have a single picture of one on your website (B745645) which was not actually one of the renumbered vehicles (presumably it was condemned before it was renumbered).

I very deliberately mentioned NG(V) not FVX. FVX are freight stock which is why I indicted I was not certain and I am happy for those who get interested in such things to expand on this. I have no idea what period the reference to Mk2c is in the Rail express which is why I did not say that it was impossible just that (for later years when restored to passenger stock) it would not be likely to be seen together. The statement that the Mk2s mentioned by acg5324 were Mk2cs was not fully accurate; the photo evidence linked by acg5324 supports this, but does not exclude the odd use of Mk2b or c. Stock allocation of MK2cs, even prior to sectorisation means that FKs used on Motorail stock were Mk1s, Mk2zs and MK2as.

Well they might of been referenced as being Mk2cs but there is the slight problem in that Mk2cs were air braked and NG carflats were vac braked. While some of the later carflats were air braked I don't think that any were used on motorail services i.e. the RL94xxx series.

Other than the LMS Inspection coach they are apparently a lot of rust held together by paint. The inspection coach is only slightly better on the basis that it has more structural wood in it. The RUs are not to much of a loss but the RSO would be more significant.

Arggh! if only it was the other way round.

Well you are in luck, acording to the last trainspotting live program a Class 390 was seen at Wick so one at Inveress is a given Just assume that the Clansmen continued past the early 1990's and, like the North Wales line, used 390s draged by 57/3s.

I don't think that answers the question as to whether, depending on relevant sales, if you would do further batches of the popular liveries. Its was a bit different with the QM brake van and Inspection saloons where most people brought one of each livery. If you want a rake then you would be looking at multiples of the same livery, in which case going for 500 of each livery is a potential issue.

I was thinking I would have a couple of trains worth until I saw the price! If it cost that then it does. A few to go with the existing de-branded Mk1 FK - and perhaps a Intercity Mk2a brake. The NGV is shown with a wagon number - the ones in service all had NPCCS numbers. Paul B's website show 745645 condemned as a NGV in 1985 but AFIAK it was not a conversion. There is a good shot of M96255 in the 1988 P5 combined edition

I (just) remember Teddy walking round a sopping wet Shildon yard in 1975 wearing open toed sandals. Having looked at the photos again it looks like my father is driving the traction engine in J023! It may also be our Austin 7 in J024 - what dates were these taken?

Photo 897 looks to be the east end of Billericay station. 899 could be the section to the east of the station in the cutting - very few bits of the GE electrified at this time was in a cutting and curved at the same time.

While not discounting Lincolnshire there are similar landscapes on the GE fen section e.g. Hilgay - if the subsequent photo is Wisbeah and Upwell then it could be close. When looking at photos at old buildings next to fen lines it is worth noting that the railway and fens are sinking at different rates - which was a pain if you are trying to find the track level for electrification to KL. The upshot is that slightly built structures next to the tracks can be subject to differential settlement so the bungalows may not have survived.

The original code NSSX covered all Solent and Sarum stock - NWXX split off in about 1990.

Sorry, I made the assumption that following previous discussions on this set, those interested would automatically know their Mk1 coach numbers.

Your choice of units is very WC centric, you could have chosen a high numbered 321/4 suitable for use on both WC and GE line but you chose two low numbered units. It is up to you to decide what you want to sell.

Yes they are different because GF advert has the wrong number listed - an RB - rather than a RMB - which is rather the point of the positing.

It's very small (the photo of the model) but there is something between the number and name plate at the no 2 end so it looks that bird is on! I have to say that with manufacturers shunning the GE and particularly NSE - e.g. no GE/NSE Class 321s - its nice to see something looking this good.

There is an GF advert on the back inside page of the N Gauge Journal - it gives the RMB as 1685! After a dose of the vapers I reach for my 1990P5 and find that 1865 was a CA base coach in NSE - I hope the advert is a typo. The other coaches are 5136 and 9391