Dixie Dean

Well after a lot of time and mind changing the layout is finally underway. I have built 2 and finished sections, which amount to the highest part of the layout, and a bit of a mountain pass. I am now building the next lowest sections which consist of 2 shelves around the garage, at abut eye height. The 2 sections I have finished are above these in height with 2 ramps leading up to each end of these 2 modules. Both modules have catenary which consists of N Brass portals with Peco wires, plus a couple of single masts, one of which is mounted on the adjacent mountain side. I have also been working on a couple of rolling stock projects. One of these was re-motoring an APT, using the Heljan 26/7/33 chassis, which only now requires a BWHS pantograph to finish it. The other which I am only in the very early stages of is making up a 8 or 10 car GNER White Rose Eurostar. I have bought an additional set of centre coaches and the 2 editions of Model Rail which detailed how to convert them to intermediate coaches.

Please contact me if you have a set or 2 of these you no longer want

I would be interested in either the 4 car set or the 2 centre coaches.

Likewise. I have recently constructed 2 modules using some N Brass portals and a couple of masts I scratch built.

Hi Mark. Quite a long answer to do it justice. But as briefly as I can, I cut the centre out of the APT bogies and glued in the Heljan bogies. I mounted a rectangular speaker outlet side down in the centre of the bottom half of the body. On this I glued a u shaped aluminium cradle into which I fixed the Heljan motor. I extended the driveshafts using copper tube. The top of the inner lugs on the original bogies are too tall and were cut off and lower lugs were fabricated from thin brass. The picture may assist. I used contact adhesive to stick the original outer bogie frames to the new bogie towers. I fashioned an additional platform from aluminium to carry the DCC chip. The cradle is stuck on top of the speaker using several layers of double sided tape. The chip platform is glued with superglue. If you need to know more please PM me and I'll do my best to assist.

Cheers guys. I think I'm minded to go with connecting it with the bogie, so need to decide whether to use the existing hole in the body or build a frame like the original power car had.

Mmm, had another thought, though. The original APT pantograph was bogie mounted through the 2 black rebates which were holes in the body and sat on a platform on the top of 4 uprights. I guess I could do something similar by cutting out the black rebates and building a platform and mounting the pantograph on that. It would still turn when the bogie turned, but would be exactly centred over the mid point of the bogie. That would avoid the pantograph leaning when the APT tilts!

My APT upgrade, which was on hold whilst the DJM initiative was active, has been revived and I've nearly finished working on the last jobs, mainly the power car. I've re-engined it with an Heljan 26/7/33 motor and bogies and now just need to decide what to do about mounting a pantograph. For the moment I have a spare Bachmann Class 350 pantograph. I have attached a photo which shows that the Heljan bogie has a plastic sort of clamp which mounts on the tower and has a hole in the end of it. Placing it the wrong way round to which it would be normally, it is in exactly the centre of the pantograph hole in the original Hornby body, although it does move off centre when the bogie turns. So my question is, should I try to attach the pantograph to this point, by some sort of bolt and platform, so keeping to the spirit of the original loco. (something like a very narrow bolt, e.g. 1 mm or less shank with a plasticard platform above) on Is the fact that it will turn, particularly on points, too much of a problem? Or should I just fill the hole in and mount the pantograph direct in the centre? Your views would be much appreciated.

I've been refunded by HSBC having paid with a Business Visa Credit Card for the £249 I paid towards the APT. I paid for the 2 Class 92 using my PayPal credit and as expected they refused to consider any repayment.

I'd really like to see this as a spare as well. It would be great to add to some other models I already have. Fran, could you do it as servo spare and a non-servo spare? There's loads of us out here who would buy them!

I paid for my 2 class 92s with my PayPal balance and basically they've told me to pi55 o55. Hopefully I will get my APT deposit back, so only £60 short. Anyway, it's a lesson learnt, I won't be using PayPal anytime soon for anything other than cast iron stuff.

I'm not sure weathered versions would be a runner, might be something to do after market.

Was anyone else on here interested in 92031? PM me if you are.

Well, perhaps a "secrecy and publicity" thread then. To get back on topic, it will be interesting, assuming that Dave's 92's get built, whose look the best, detail and shape, etc. and whose run best. I must admit that I've ordered a 10 car sleeper train as well. Not sure I'll quite have a station big enough to get it into though. Might have to think about 2 x 4 coach packs instead, as 8 cars will be about my limit.

This all very interesting but perhaps would be better in a "Crowdfunding or not" type thread

Could do with a couple of Class 88s and a 93 or 2 as well though

And why not, I'm sure you are not the only one One can never have too many class 92s

Regarding the email I sent to Dave, (referenced on the now closed thread) I've had a quite +ve reply. I must admit that reading these threads, I also would rather that all the moaners just button it and stay away. If you're not interested in the project, then please post elsewhere about things that you are interested in. If you were a crowdfunder and are not continuing, a post saying that, and even giving your rationale, will suffice. Let's just keep this thread for those who are crowdfunding to comment as they see fit.

Just had a listen. Indeed, the youchoose sounds do sound quite reverberating.

I've emailed him about 92031 and some other matters

I could go for one as well

Sorry if this question has been asked - but has anyone any opinion as to who is doing the best sound for this loco at the moment?

I know what you're saying Hillside Depot, but that doesn't make it any the less galling, when we're waiting for so many other classes of loco or unit to be produced.

Having read both the DJM thread and this one, I would just like to say that how disappointed I am again that two manufacturers have again gone head to head on the same model. As pointed out on the DJM 92 thread, this is becoming a common theme. I can see the reasoning behind it, but that doesn't make it any better. There's people crying out for other missing models, like the 81s to 84s, the 89, and the still missing 88 and now the 93 (OK I understand Dapol might have the right to the 88, but Dave having a right to the CS 92 hasn't stopped Accurascale getting the rights as well). I wish all you manufacturers would get your acts together and stop duplicating things, it's really starting to pi55 me off! What about some of the new CAF DMUs and EMUs, or the new Stadlers for East Anglia? Let's have some of them, rather keeping re-inventing the same wheels!

Only just found this thread, but yes I would have a couple as well. Could easily be developed into a class 93 as well. That would give a couple of liveries.