cheesysmith

Explain why me has not been able to get one. Been wanting one with the better glazing to use the sides with hatchette chassis. Need one or two, as well as a CK to make a rake up for "the jolly fisherman" rake.

Have to admit, chopping MK1 coaches into other versions is fun. I have about 9 hatchette to play with. Why so many? I was attracted to the glazing and the price lol.

Remember when there was freight trains there instead of somewhere to store new trains waiting software updates?

In the words of the great homer simpson D`OHHH Guess who put the half window blanks inthe wrong windows?

Yes, I got board waiting for the mould to set, so just grabbed a hatchette mk1, and a bit of plasticard. Quick bit of filler, rub down and file to round the half windows off and one RMB.

Further update, 1 step forward, 2 steps back. I have made a better master of the cab front, and now making the mould for the rear plug. Step back-I tried casting the under frame for a 105, but found out too much undercut parts. Will have to take the under frame bits, add them to a piece of plasticard, and cast them flat. This will work, as long as the flat bits are kept to the inside. Photos will follow when I have something to show.

Quick update (other than why am I awake at this tim of night?). I said all this casting was a learning curve, well lesson learnt. I had mixed up too much for the next mould, so I quickly knocked up a box to use it to try doing a set of bogie side frames. I didn't seal them to the bottom of the box, so the moulding resin got under them. They ended up in the centre of the mould, so useless. But it did teach me a lesson. Also, quick cut of the mould and recovered the side frames.

It wasn't only locos but also p-way and train crew that could be used more efficiently if it wasn't for the regional "kingdoms". The only thing "OfQ" did right was finally allow BR to know how much it cost to run the network. Must have been the accountant wet dream at HQ. Then you had the odd facts like the most expensive lines to run were the ones with the biggest subsidy. If BR wasn't allowed to close a line, usually because of political opposition, they were then paid to keep running it. So instead of using the little monies they had to modernise them, any investment went to lines without PSO grants, and those lines became frozen in time. Why spend the limited investment on resignalling them when somebody else is paying?

You have to remember that until OfQ (what a stupid name that was) came along, we may have had the business sectors, but everything was organised through the regions. And when the BTC was disbanded, along with the RE, and the BR board came into being, the regions carried on as separate entities. The modernisation plan, coupled with closer control from headquarters, was a missed chance to change the way things worked. Instead we had each region the main sponsor of each loco design, and until the 47, no true nation standard diesel loco. A classic example was the number of locos needed was based on a area, by taking the number of steam locos, then assume the diesels would do the work of X steam to give the numbers of diesels needed. Even before beaching, there was savings to be had that reduced the numbers needed. Exchange sidings were becoming extinct, with direct trains between main marshalling yards. A better idea would have been to look at the work there, figure out what work was going to be kept long enough to justify the cost of the diesels, and order them by traffic needs, not depot needs. More standard locos would also mean more through workings, less changing locos at regional boundaries. Also, a better central control cold have resulted in a different network than what we have now. A local example, between Chesterfield and Leister, the GC should have been kept and used for the passenger services, with links to the old LMS lines, with all the slow freights kept to the ex LMS lines. Every time I travel over both halves of the preserved GC I keep thinking how much better would this straight line between the major population centres have been rather than the old, wanders it way round every little hill ex MR line we have now as the midland main line.

This I blame on siggy69. This is the first time I have tried using resin moulding, and got to say the result is better than I expected. Now I need to make the rear half of the mould, as the first try is a solid cab, bit useless really, but it was just a experiment. Then I can make moulds for each version of the 105 cab (4 markers, 3 markers plus 2 digit headcode, 2 marker plus headcode, refurbished 2 marker, and maybe the 113 four digit headcode as well). Also, need to make the cab for a 129 as well. PS-My 12 year old son actually mixed and poured the resin for the cast, and even he was impressed.

This is getting away from the original question. Why were the peaks considered redundant? Simple answer is they were old, they had paid for themselves (in book keeping terms, so owed the railways nothing), they were at a age where they would have needed monies spending to keep them reliable enough to be useful and because of BR needing less big diesel locos could be replaced on the work remaining by younger locos that needed less cost.

It didn't help that they sent the worse ones down first. In those days the region's would have been told to transfer X number of class XX but they made sure the least reliable or the ones needing most work got sent.

EE actually got closer to mixed traffic, but with different locos using the same components. The 37\50\55 all used the same bogies and motors (not sure about the gearing) but the electrical systems were set up different. The weak fields and generator unloading were such that the 37 had excellent low speed pulling power, but the others had more power at rail at high speed.

A quick question, if I may. I am trying to make the different versions of the craven DMU, and was looking at the photos of the parcels unit/129. Looking at the photos, are the marker lights mounted differently from the normal cravens, looking like they are a bit further inboard under the cab windows? Would be logical, as they did have the earlier MU cables mounted on the cab fronts.

Actually the WR DH were electro magnetic control with fixed throttle positions. The blue star MU system was a infinitely variable air throttle that needed a air pipe between locos. The EM MU system was more reliable than the blue star system, but it was felt that the drivers needed more control of the loco that came with the air throttle. This over looked that the driver has little idea about the second loco when in multi and was relying upon the electrical systems to control tractive effort. The WR had a spate of motors burning out on the 25s, and when investigation shows in multi the slight difference in the weak field setting between locos made one do more work than the other, resulting in the motor damage. So the E-G push pull used coaches with the 27 way jumpers plus a air pipe between locos and a remote fire system (plus one loco having a separate ETH diesel generator). If you had used a WR DH you would only have needed a set of 36 (IIRC) jumpers fitting to the coaches. And as you had already removed the steam generator for a diesel generator, that could have been done to a DH for ETH just as easily. I would have put the diesel generator in the half brake at one end with a cab, like the DVT used with the 47/7, to allow maximum use of unmodified DH locos.

Must say, those lima mk2 look good. Pity the flush glazing doesn`t solve the one are where it always stands out, and that is the toilet compartment. Also, IIRC lima used some odd sized wheels from their European lines for the b4 and bt10 bogies. This made some odd things like ride height. Also, the only way a B4 bogie would have the traction bar pointing up was if there was no coach mounted on it. They are normally horizontal. Like most lima stuff, the bodies are good, with some excellent moulded details, but what is below platform level is a bit vague and guess work.

Having just gone through all 18 pages, can I say well done on getting so far. And look forward to the progress in the future.

a 3d printer, and here was I thinking Clive was into back and white photos because of his poor grasp of technology. I knew it was only a disguise to cover over his lack of paint on his models LOL. Also, why do so many people bid on the old triang/Hornby mk1 full brakes? They are only useful for cut`n`shuts, being the wrong size for a BG. For the price some people pay you can get the better replica one, and that is the right size at least.

They are the same diagrams as used in the parkin book. I was after actual scale drawing to work from. Especially the different half brakes.

The biggest costs were the engine £40k for a twin bank Sulzer and £37k for the Brush electrics used in the 47. These are the costs BR paid to Brush when building them at Crewe. This means the actual build cost plus components came out a approx £30k. It cost a extra £3-5k for Brush to modify the electrics already on order that had been diverted from the last 20 peaks to the first 20 class 47 ( the generators). In the cost of rebuild, the biggest items were the engine and generator/electric drive components. As for the rebuilds. I would have done away with the mixed traffic idea. These rebuilds regeared for freight would have been perfect for the MGR trains just being introduced.

Does anyone know where I can get 4mm/00 gauge drawing of the MK1 coaches? Wanting to make a rake of two, and want to bash some older cheaper coaches into other types, to try and make a consistent look (and too tight to pay the cost of the Bachmann coach, plus it is more fun lol).

The point is for less cost Vs new you could rebuild the older locos into more powerful but lighter locos . How much extra cost did they incur through their lives in fuel carrying the extra 30tons about. And the extra costs of the poor riding bogies in track damage, and the repair costs of the bogies fractures. And the limits the poor bogies put on route restrictions (unable to use humps in yards etc). If this had been done when they went through main works overhaul, once the prototypes had been done to work out the kinks, it would have probably been quicker than a normal overhaul. Send a 40 to Crewe, and a 2400hp 114ton co co comes back. If you fitted ETH at the same time you have a loco that could haul the same train as the class 40 but with ETH, something the 40s never had (they could have, but it would have reduced the HP for pulling the train. It was considered but the uprating the engine was thought would reduce the reliability. If the engine had been updated with the heads off the class 37/50, but kept down to 2400HP, it would only have equalled the output per cylinder of the 37 which has been one of the most reliable engines BR has had).

That engine is much sort after, as it is a skyline block with a extra height cast into it. Used the block with the twin cam head off the skylines and you have bigger HP easily.

Surprised the French have not gone the old BR route of 6.25kV AC. Would be more efficient than DC.