Karhedron

It depended on the era. Up until the mid-50s, churn traffic was still being carried so some trains would include a mix of tankers and NPCCS for carrying the churns. The GWR built siphons for this traffic, not sure about the other big 3. I believe churn traffic was stopped in 1956 or 57 (if anyone knows the exact date I would be interested to find out). From then on, milk trains would usually consist of just tankers and BG of some sort for the Guard. From 1968 this changed again so that the Gaurd could ride in the loco and practice of running a passenger-rated brake vehicle with milk trains came to an end. Milk trains could be mixed, particulraly in the country. Hemyock and Saltash are examples of services that were routinely mixed with passenger traffic at least as far as the junction. Some mixed trains ran right into London. The longest lasting example I know of was the United Dairies Creamery at Moreton-in-the-Marsh. This did not merit its own train so the milk tankers were usually attached to the rear of an up express to Paddington.

I do wargames modelling, mainly Games Workshop.

I have now got the delayed action working with the small circular magnets thanks to a tip from a user on another forum. I simply moved the trip pin in towards the centre-line gently with a pair of needle-nosed pliers. This increased the deflection caused by the magnets and means that it works properly. See below.

Well since no has had a go yet I have decided to do a bit of experimenting with the Dapol couplers and some neodymium "rare earth" magnets. The ones I used were 3mm x 2mm circular ones. I chose these as the North and South poles are aligned along the axis of the cylinder making alignment easy, they also wedge snuggly between the sleepers of Peco code 55 track. I tried different combinations and placements of the magnets. The one that seemed to work best was with the 2 magnets just inside the rails, one sleeper apart in the 4 and 10 o'clock positions as shown below. With the magnets in this position (one northside-up and the other southside-up) uncoupling seemed quite reliable. See the images below. The problem was that I could not get the delayed action to work. My guess is that the magnets are not strong enough to provide sufficient deflection to operate this feature. Now this is not the end of the world. Magnets like this can be bought on eBay for pennies so it will not break the bank to scatter them around the layout at many locations. Also they can be fitted without having to remove sleepers which makes them much easier to disguise. Simply give them a brush of matt paint to match the ballast and they are almost invisible. I have not bought a Dapol uncoupling magnet yet so I would be interested to hear how reliable the delayed action uncoupling is with this. If others find it works well, I may try with a row of magnets.

OK, now you have really piqued my curiosity. Warships could be D600s, D800s or D833s. We know you have the D600s in the pipeline for Kernow (and they would be very welcome in N gauge too ). Bachmann/Farish do the D800s in 00 and N gauge and IIRC they are pretty decent models. Whilst I am not averse to more hydraulics, it seems an unusual choice if you are planning to duplicate them. Similarly with the D833s. While they would be welcome, are they different enough from the Swindon variety to drive extra sales?

Perhaps applying a fine dab of glue (or even paint) to one end will keep them held in place.

That is indeed a good thing. I must admit that I am quite suprised about this (in a good way) as I thought they were set at a different height from MT couplers. Still, I am very pleased to hear it and I may try some experimenting of my own.

Superb work again. Sorry if I missed it earlier but who's transfers did you use for lining and numbering?

It is a difficult thing to get these details right. I know some of them as I am a GWR fan, some were pointed out by others more knowledgable than I. For example I know next to nothing about the LNER and the comparisons of the 2 B1s from Farish and Dapol left me blank. There is no single "standard" reference for locos like this, you have to gather the information from a myriad of disparate source. Dapol have already indicated they will be incorporating improvements into the Mk2 batch of Halls so at least they listen to feedback. If they correct all (or most) of the issues then I will cheerfully be in the market for another one (GWR livery this time I think) as it mechanically a very good model.

I recall Dapol mentioning that they plan to include these on their locos in future (not sure which one will be the first to get it). They will also include a standard rapido for those who prefer it in much the same way that they currently include dummy knuckles with many of their items. I am not sure if this statement also applies to wagons/coaches or not.

In theory it should. I am sure people will start posting the results of their experiments soon.

The reluctance to carve up older stock has always been a barrier to the adoption of alternative coupling solutions. However in this case it may be acceptable. You can get NEM Rapido arms so converting stock back for resale is quick and painless. I do not think that most people buying second hand would care whether an item has a Rapido box or NEM pocket as long as it can take the Rapido coupler. The only issue that might occur is people who are relectant to carve up "collectable" items. N gauge has not really been around long enough to have an equivelent of tin-plate.

It looks very promising. The separate NEM pockets for converting older stock seems an acceptable compromise to the engineering challenge of making a new coupling fit older stock and has the added benefit of being extremely useful for kit builders. On the magnet front, I have an interesting idea. It is possible to buy 2mm deep by 3mm diameter cylindrical rare-earth magnets on eBay which fit snuggly between the sleepers of Peco streamline track. These are often used by N gaugers to operate couplings like D&Gs or Peco Elsies. In theory, mounting a pair of these with opposite poles facing upwards just inside the rails should provide the same shaped magnetic field as the Dapol uncoupling magnet. I have seen people do the same in 00 with Kaydees and mounting at the 1 o'clock and 7 o'clock positions seems to give the best results. I have some of the magnets already. My local model shop does not have the couplers in yet but as soon as they do I will get some to experiment with and post the results here.

You could try something like Crystal Clear for replacement glazing. I used this on my N gauge D600 and I was very pleased with the result, it gave a very flush finish. It gats harder as the size of the aperature increases though so I don't kno if 00 would be beyond it.

That is a very impressive model and captures the look of the prototype well. A shame about the tension lock at the front but at least it will be easy to remove. Since these units are only likely to be coupled to others of their own kind, I wonder if the tension lock is necessary. Dapol's N gauge sprinters were fitted with scharfenberg couplers (sp) which bore a passable resemblance to the couplers on real DMUs. I wonder if such an approach would work better here?

Or look on it as an opportunity to add a 14xx to your roster. Variety is the spice of life.

Agreed, I think that the lines I have added below should be at almost the same height. http://www.flickr.com/photos/treflyn/3570496903/in/set-72157606035640594

True but a simlple relivery and removal of the pantograph will give you a 450 for the Southern. A new cab front will give you a 360 for both LTS and Heathrow Connect routes. A 380 must surely be a possibility too.

True but Bratchell charge around £300 for an RTR 4-car unit. The 4-CEP is less than half that and I suspect they will try to keep future units around the same price point. I used to model overhead electrics in the days when the only option for MK3 EMUs were MTK kits. Bratchell's offerings (nice though they are) are not priced at a level that would tempt me. However if there were units at the price of a 4-CEP I would think again....

This is the real question. With no OEMUs on the market yet, the demand is unknown. After years of saying that EMUs would not sell well, Bachmann finally took the plunge with the 4-CEP. The results clearly convinced them the market was bigger than they thought as the 2-EPB was not far behind. Hornby also jumped on the bandwagon with the 4-VEP. I suspect the same will be the case with the 350, it will be used as a litmus test for the market as a whole. The choice of the 350 is quite a good one as it has a decent number of liveries and also offers easy pickings for the 360 and 450 in the future. Perhaps a success of the Desiro will prompt Hornby to look at other EMU families such as the Electrostar or Mk3 suburban units.

Still in GWR livery without top feed in 1958. http://plumbloco.smugmug.com/Trains/CambrianCoastLines/16750125_TBdHnX#1339200369_hPkB3Sf-A-LB

Whatever will enable them to sell the entire production run at maximum profit with no leftovers. For me I guess I am willing to pay up to around £100 for a large, well specced modern loco but that is only my price point. £95 for a Western sounds a reasonable RRP and as others have noted, box shifters like Hattons are offering them for less. As a WR modeller an accurate Western will suit my layout very well.

This is a good question and I do not know the answer. I am not even sure if the toolings were unique. Several of Dapol's early N gauge models were shrunk from the Airfix 00 toolings (1400, Autocoach, B-sets) despite the fact that Hornby own these.

I believe that they are the old Airfix ones. Nice to see them getting a new lease oflife, especially as there are more suburban locos to haul them.

Hello, photo can be found here. http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/296884_290478784303210_214563285228094_1118367_1403715255_n.jpg For general info, Dapol seem to put their most up-to-date news on Facebook now. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Dapol-Ltd/214563285228094