Bomag

Why not consider the BSK, it is as close as you can get

Remove the original corridor interior and replace with part from a TSO

The BSK is not a good base for a BSO.That is not to say the BCK is close to a BSO either but at normal vewing distance (and with the first class stripe removed) I would say that most people would need to look twice to notice the difference.

The BSK has 4 seating bays, one loo and two sets of doors to the van area.

The BCK has 5 bays, two loos and a single set of van doors

The BSO has 5 bays, one loo and a single set of van doors

I'm a bit lost with this.

 

158s took over directly from 47s & LHCS on the Liverpool/Newcastle trains in January 1991 but I don't recall any LHCS substitutions on these trains afterwards and I was working at Lime St at the time. 150s had been working Scarborough/Holyhead trains etc from the late 1980s.

150/2 had been used since they went to 3 TPN trains an hour.  The first 158 in Leeds I saw which was not  obviously on test was on the 14th (158734) - LHCS was used until I stoped commuting on 18th Jan (with a gap until September) which is why I could not give a date. As with the Mk4s at that time the door sensors on some 158s were a bit tempermental.

As for the 31s I never saw any on TPN services only on the S&C trains when they origonated in Hull.

RES was launched in October 1991. The Trans-Pennine trains went over to Class 158s in January 1991.

 

Therefore RES-liveried locos did not work these trains.

While 158s started to turn up from about the 14th Jan 1991 the final vehicles were not in service until New Year 1992 (the last centre car). The 158s took over from the 150's  and the Liverpool to Newcastle service continued to be L/H for some/most of the year. There was the occaional pre-res red 47s, it depended what CD had working!

"There's a very tatty set of 125 stock that often appears on such occasions".

 

Would that be the East Midlands set that keeps appearing on the KX - Leeds service? Kenw - I expect you know it well!

 

I wonder why that set has never been refurbished as it seems to have been on for a while now even back in East Coast days?

 

(Edited for spelling)

I was on a EMT HST forming the 7:20 Leeds to KX. An older lady (who had obvious used EC/VEC quite a bit) was talking to guard

OL - this is a different train than normal, this is going to London?

G - yes its going to London, but its not our normal stock.

OL - I heard that your trains were going to be improved - this is very much better with proper tables and more comfortable seats.

G - no this is not our train, we have hired it from East Midlands trains and our other trains won't end up like this.

OL - pity.

Apart from the smelly brakes and dodgy 1970s colour combination its been a race to the bottom for comfort (only partially ofset by power sockets).

PS Last month I had to do London to Reading in stearage on a FGW HST. It was so awful I elected to travel back in a turbostar on a Slough only stop service.  

I realise that the precise location here may be impossible, but I think it is fenland, most likely in Cambridgeshire.

 

However, can anyone recognise the train service from the stock?  5 Mk2s all NSE and an all 1st coach included but no buffet, with 47 haulage?

 

 

Scan-150930-0005.jpg

That is more likely to be south of Ely, although there were some bits around Downham like that. Other bits, such as Denver sluice have much higher embankments as the fens have sunk.

There are not that many 175 mileposts. If it is roughly the same time as the other two then could be Hambleton Jct just before the wires got there, but the bridge looks to be to old.

PS

175 from Paddington is plain line (Whiteball, St Fagins and a field north of Shrewsbury)

175 from Euston is Weaver junction which would be wired, or the outskirts of Chester.

175 from StP was on the closed bit off the MML north of Wath

175 from KX is Hambleton and Wakefield Westgate South Jct.

175 on the GC seems to be on the Met lines south of Aylesbury

This totally 'derailed' Mk2F and 47 issue is why I never bother asking Dapol or Bachmann about thier timescales at exhibitions.

I have to say though that the Bachmann responce does highlight that they have no 47/4s left so may may see some more in 2016! 

As for a 117 it would be nice (as would a 116) as long as it does not look out of place with the Dapol 122/121.

i spotted one trader at TINGS selling new farish sleepers with one B4 bogie and one commonwealth!

Now if it was a B5 bogie it would not be so bad

With respect Bomag I wasn't infering that you were being picky at all, I was just pointing out to anyone who cared that 321/4s did work on the Eastern, thus it wasn't a total game killer.  Yes I see your point about clarifying which version of 321, some of those livery options may be more common on an early 321/3 for certain.

 

However, and again with respect and I outrightly apologise in advance if this causes offence, but, I will state outright that yes, I believe anyone is being picky if they state that they are modelling a very specific time period and will not accept a RTR product unless it is exactly as they require.  If one chooses to have such specific time frame and prototype requirements then, in my opinion I hasten to add, I believe that one has to accept what the RTR manufacturers give us and be fully preparded to modify and adapt them to suit our very specific requirements as best one can by kit bashing, cut'n'shut-ing etc. 

 

I can only speak for myself here, but a modified Revolution 321/4 would be better than any scratchbuilt 321/3 built by my hand for sure.  I too wouldn't mind a layout with an Eastern/Anglian backdrop in the c.1990 window, but if it's going to happen then I know my best option is for Revolution to succeed with this, get myself some 321/4s and then get the plasticard, filler and paint out to change them to 321/3s and/or 322s.  I imagine I'd be long dead before another RTR or Kit manufacturer decides to fill the gap otherwise (oh wait, breaking news, Kernow and Bachmann are going to do a Ltd run of 322s in Stansted Express livery - only £1200 a piece, but I get a certificate. Cha-Ching!).

 

 

Regards,

Paul

Paul

You fail to understand my point that I am not saying that I won't buy one (or more) but that it was not clear which version was being offered. With the cost of models I can't afford to buy everything, therefore something which is 'near but not quite' is going to be in the queue behind the many models which are right for the periods and locations I model. In this case the £600 which could of gone to a couple of trains worth of 321/3 is probably going to the Dapol 252. If the 321/4 and 321/9 sell well then there may be an early version 321/3 or 322 in which case I would likely buy these in preference to something else.

You will always get Rule 1 models which are outside these considerations, e.g. a Cl390 or a Maroon, B/G, or Jaffa CL309 (hint hint).

But you'd buy "4+" 321/3s, in NSE, which surely aren't prototypical...?!

With my eyesight I can tell the difference between a 321/3 and 321/4 when running, but not reading the set numbers. If you meant that 4 sets would run together, then they would be run as two 8 car sets; however, when testing in 1989 4 set trains did turn up in Colchester yard.

Warning - Saddo alert, sorry can't resist, whiling away the hours as I am.....

 

There were 321/4s on the Great Eastern as well.

 

Edit:  Oops, fixed them links now 

There were no 321/4s on the GEML in 1989/90 (which is the limited period I model for for this area, as I mentioned in my post), there were only the first batch of 321/3s. Your comment would be like saying I was being a bit picky running a  Hawksworth County on a pre-war GWR layout.

As I mentioned I am not saying they got it wrong by not doing an early 321/3 but that they should make it clear which options they will be offering. 

Hello Bomag,

 

The research we have done so far has been fairly cursory, since we aren't sure whether there will be the demand to see this through into production, but on another forum it's been suggested that the second batch of 321/3s had the same bodyshells as the 321/4s.

 

To quote: "321301-346 have a small and a medium size window in the first class section behind the cab of the DTCO, while 321347-366 and all 321/4s have a small and a large size window in the first class section." 

 

A very quick image search suggests this may be correct, so maybe we can do a 321/3.

 

But given that this would be a first RTR Mk3 based EMU in N, and given the 321/3s don't appear to me to have run anywhere that 321/4s didn't, I am surprised at your comment that you would buy four 321/3s but not even a single 321/4. 

 

I can understand you not wanting to commit to four of the other type but, assuming we are talking about NSE liveried versions, is it really the case that for the sake of a slight difference in windows in one carriage you would prefer to have none at all?  Even if not perfect is this model still not a huge step in the right direction?

 

It's your choice, of course, but that level of expectation is going to be difficult for any manufacturer to satisfy!

 

Thanks very much too for the information about the Kings Lynn operations - or lack of them.

 

cheers

 

Ben A.

The point was not moaning was that you were not doing 321/3 at this point it was that if I was not aware of that and if I put down I would buy 4 NSE 321s you would suddenly find a lower number being actually ordered when the it came to chose (and pay). That would not help you.

I will will still be down for a couple (or all three) of 321/9s and some Northern 322 if  you get round to it.

In terms of why I would not get a 321/4; while I would buy a 390 on the rule one principle a 321 would need to fit in to the locations I model (in this case West Yorks and GEML 1989/90). While many modellers would get a model if it is just close to what they want with the cost of models something in the 'nice to have' bracket may mean that from some you get a couple ordered instead of six.

 

It would be really great if a prototype Mk 3 trailer were to be produced as well - with the correct flush/frameless appearance to the window apertures, and the roof featuring 3 roe-vac ventilators at each end, rather than one large square one. This could then be sold as a spare, and/or incorporated into future "Mk 3a" hauled stock production, to make these vehicles more accurate. I'd buy at least 10 such Mk 3a roofs if they were made available as a separate item. 

 

Cheers

 

Tom.

The issue with the roof vents on the prototypes and Mk3a TSO/FO and having a replacement roof has been covered before on the forum and was not going to be a runner.

Plus we won't need to wait for the TGS!

I would update the page to make it clear you are not doing a 321/3 - I may be interested in 321/9 and 322 but definitely would buy several (4+) NSE 321/3.

As for the point about Kings Lynn and 321s an additional six units were ordered for KL services but these ended up as 443 to 448 (which is why the vehicle numbers are lower than sets 431 to 442). Some 321s were used during the testing of the wires but I am not aware of any being used on services once the through trains switched to KX.

I've seen similar here in S Yorks too, but I couldn't say if there are any regular booked workings. I get the impression that on Sundays you sometimes get coupled units of different classes, one locked out, possibly to rotate units around for maintenance.

Mind you, I have also heard people mention Northern's "random unit generator".

For West Riding services there can be any variation of 155/153/150/142/144 combinations. On the Harrogate line its seems having two of the same type of unit on the same service is less than 50%. Combinations with 158s isn't as common (at least when I travel) and there are less combinations with 156s than there seemed to be. 

Just been on the Kernow website for the first time in a little while. Sorry but I don't like the redesigned website - the pictures are so small as to be virtually useless! A significant amount of screen real estate is also wasted by putting the items in three columns rather than 4 or 5. Maybe it's designed for tablets or something small.

 

Such a disappointment compared to their previous site,

 

Dave

It could be as much to do with how it works with your web browser - It looks great on Firefox filling the full screen on my PC (3840x2160) but on IE it fills less than 30% of the screen. This is probably down to MS than KMC

Not sure of the location, though it could be Syston.

Not sure of the date, but it might be 1985.

Not sure of the loco, but it may be a Cl.45/1.

Not sure of the working, but it's possibly a B'ham - Norwich.

 

All-in-all, not sure really...

 

I would like to have seen a 45 go across Trowse swing bridge on the approach to Norwich! When I was with RCE Anglia they were 'banned' - whether this was official or not I am not certain.

I don't appear to have the newsletter ?

 

Great Western

Ditto, the last one I received was 31st March.

Friday 13th. February, 1987

.

 

Other loco hauled workings that afternoon included:-

33046+3918+3746+4376+13389+3991+5366+3848

 

 

Brian R

Can you confirm these numbers as there seems to something missing i.e. a brake

As for WEX services in July 1990 the most common arrangement I had noted was variations on  2TSO, BFK, TSO, TSOT, BFK, 2TSO the others were a mixture but generally they wither had two BFKs or a BFK and FK. I always assumed that the BFKs were roughly in the middle due to short platforms.

For the BCK they are all listed as being built with Commonwealth bogies and having Commonwealth bogies, from 1985 through 1993

Perhaps, all those with B1 or B4 bogies were withdrawn by 1985

Probably, but by then the only BCKs left were charter/special ones and the Carstiars spare for the train splits. 

We're not discussing the TOPS numbers, it is the mismatch of the bogies fitted to the BCK

 

I too am not bothered about the TOPS numbers carried by coaches

However, researching the bogies requires use of those numbers

Comparing to records shows no BCK coaches with B4 bogies

It is certainly easier to see bogies than it is numbers

However, would anyone actually know the bogies are wrong?

 

It is the same with my 374-013B SO coaches

All the Polmadie based coaches should have either Commonwealth or B4 bogies, but all I had been able to source (in 4 years) was this version with the B1 bogies

I have only recently acquired another, which has the B4 bogies

 

I now some Fort William / Oban services used Mark 1 coaches with B1 bogies, but by the time the Class 37/4 locos were introduced they had all been replaced

Actually about 34 BCKs had B4 bogies (or B4/B5 mix) - SC had four in 1982 - one at IS and 3 at Cowlairs. 21222 was rebogied with B4s before withdrawal in 1980 - 21247 always had C. I don't think any service Mk1s went C straight to B4, although some went C to BR1 to B4 due a dalliance with the southern region

But this is beside the point, as Farish produce all three main bogie types they should put the right ones on the model for the time/livery.  If needed I will buy them a copy of Longworth, which is mostly right. I wouldn't mind as much if they sold C and B4 bogies as spares; they only thing I have read from Farish why not is an excuse rather than a reason.

And to LES1952, yes it does matter a Mk1 coach has the wrong bogies on it. I's the equivalent of running a A3 with a Fowler tender. 

The comment about a row of cars is of interest to me. I wonder how signalmenn are trained in respect of stopping traffic. My experiences as a driver suggest they wait for a natural break in the flow but surely there is sometimes a need to stop a line of traffic. As a young PC I was taught to pick a vehicle about 3 from the tront and make eye contact with the driver, point directly at him and then use the raised arm signal (as in the highway code) to lawfully instruct him to stop. This training was also given to school crossing patrols. The important thing is that the driver not only needs to understand you are using your powers to stop traffic, but he also neds to know it's him you are instructing to stop

The signalman would not have the same powers to stop a vehicle as a per the Police or Traffic Officer. What he/she would have would be the right to place a traffic sign under Sections 64 or 65 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1988 (the latter in this case) which would give an instruction to road users not to proceed. With lights it is no problem but with gates the gate has to be closed and the red roundel visible to give a lawful instruction.

YOU ARE GETTING A SAY!!! At the bare minimum that's a good thing ...

I am with Churchill on the position of democracy as being overrated (with tongue firmly in his cheek). I would have preferred a set list of options given the relocation of the scoring area ( aka goalposts). Anybody want to swap a 9 car order for an 11 car (with appropriate additional wodge)? 

Hello Bomag,

 

If you're at all disappointed then I am really sorry - we want this process to be a positive one for all our supporters.

 

But as I explained above, this decision was not arbirtrary - it was taken for practical reasons of seeking to minimise possibilities for confusion further down the line and only when we looked at the actual practicalities of the process - which was well after we asked people to support us! I can assure you we did not have the minutiae of these aspects of this planned out last December!

 

Also, it was always made clear that there would be 10 different numbersets, and that these would be chosen democratically by our supporters, but none (except for the Poppy Pendolino) was ever specified. Even now none of us knows which numbers will actually be produced.

 

So as I understand it, what you are saying is that you are disappointed you aren't getting the chance to vote for everything, even though you have always been prepared to go with whatever models are selected?

 

However, this is a learning process for me and if it's the case that people would rather know up front which models are being produced, instead of being given a choice further down the line, then we will do that with future projects.

 

 

cheers

 

Ben A.

You may be identifying a different meaning of arbitrary than I am.  Nothing in your factors you have listed should exclude offering a 9 car 390010 named the commonwealth games 2002, 390045 Virgin Valiant etc as one of your options.  When I ordered a 9 car set I assumed that that I the odds were 10/51 for any single unit to be chosen and since I would be happy with about 60% of the name options for a 9 car set and OK with half the rest the chances of only having a choice of something I didn't particularly want is less than 10%. Given you are only doing current options and a 60/40 split I have an 85.7% of being lumbered with something I don't want. Being an engineer I did bother to estimate the risks on name number - on what was said at the point of ordering a 10% risk was acceptable.  Consider this, if this was a model of an A4 would you think it odd if the only options were the final livery and final names? (and of course not having 4469 as an option)