teaky

Errm, I think you've missed the gag. That bit of the text is just the set up for the punchline which requires a translation of the motto into French and then reading out loud. (Although, you might wish you hadn't and would be reaching for the groan emoticon if there was one!)

Ah, so you're the cause of the hold up! Hurry up!

Hornby website indicates LNER D16/3 e.t.a. now 01/03/15.

Hornby website indicates LNER J15 e.t.a. now 01/02/15.

You're not the first to vote for the Jones Goods and there's definitely something in that. Perhaps they see a gap in the market for north of the border RTR? I hope Oxford Diecast are not just going to leave that fuzzy image to sit there for a month. That'll spoil the fun.

Can't beat a bit of froth! I'm sure it'll backfire if they mess about with delivery dates.

Your link looks like the T3 that 69843 referred to. From what little we can see in the current picture, I'm blowed if I can tell the difference.

I don't know enough about LSWR locomotives to know and having looked at the first few pictures I could find on the web I can't tell the difference in the front ends when related to the deliberately vague Oxford Rail picture. The radial tank does have a good following but your T3 idea might be a locomotive with a wider range. Since there are preserved examples of each with stovepipe chimneys that doesn't help either. It will be a bit of fun over the next few days to see what appears from the mist.

LSWR Adams Radial is my guess.

The Oxford Diecast website has a link to the Oxford Rail website. Still no idea what the products might be though.

Doesn't that ignore the pre-orders Ed? Pre-orders appear to have exceeded supply at present and many of them must pre-date the production runs surely?

That is the address and phone number on the invoice from my last order, dated 03/01/08. However, KM Engineering are indeed now based at MacKintosh Road and, according to the sign on the factory, still have the same phone number. Thanks lippy.

"... including a pair of outstanding breakdown trains." Can you talk him into putting something on RMweb Tony?

Mods - Can we have a "light the blue touch paper and stand back" emoticon please?

I agree that the original P2 was a classic design and is far more attractive than the Bugatti-nosed versions. However, I do still like the look of the later styling which combines sleekness and power. I take your point though Larry, it doesn't work as well as the complete streamlined package of the A4s. I suspect the P2s were not reallocated further south simply because the existing pacifics were already doing a good job and Gresley had come up with a superior design in the A4 in terms of their suitability for high speed running and more than adequate haulage ability. It seems to me that the P2s could have been developed into effective east coast mainline locomotives, after ironing out the pony truck problems perhaps, but they were simply superseded by something that was a better fit to the requirements. There is evidence that further 8-coupled designs were considered but, presumably, not deemed to be the best fit for the intended purpose. My feeling is that, as CME, Thompson was itching to design a front line pacific and, without the budget for a completely new build, was searching around for something to rebuild which would be palatable to the board. He then hit upon the P2s (based on the A3 boiler after all). I don't think Thompson's design is attractive but there are plenty of people who do. It looks fine but the cyclinder placing seems odd to me. There is evidence that Thompson's desire to simplify some aspects and innovate in others could bear fruit in times of tight budgets and lower maintenance schedules (e.g. his B1, rocking grates on pacifics) and you're right they did last albeit not as long as other LNER pacifics. One wonders though whether he was looking in the right area? Cook's focus in BR days on greater precision in the workshops seems to have been very effective in ironing out problems on all of the pacifics.

Hi Ian, Nos. 26 & 27 are Bill Richmond's Tring layout which Tony referred to in an earlier post. In 1988 it was still being built. It does look good but there's not much mention of extensive stock and if it doesn't run then .... No. 107 appears to be Chippenham in 00?

How on earth did I manage to miss this thread?! Brilliant work there Gravy Train. Inspirational.

Hi mikesndbs, I assume you have checked that all the pick ups are OK? It seems odd that your loco should stall with one pair of wheels on the dead frog and the other drivers on clear track.

The only place currently available to me to do a test run of my R3207 was on my son's little used and therefore not very clean shelf layout which has Peco set track points with insulated frogs. I was simply trying to confirm I had a working model but I noticed no hesitation and it very nearly coped with the tight radius. A more thorough test might show up a benefit from extra tender or pony truck pick ups but it isn't something that concerns me at present.

I had an email from a company recently saying that if I wasn't 108.8% satisfied with their service on a recent order then I should let them know. I was so tempted to reply but feared it would be a lengthy conversation! I was completely satisfied with their service but could not figure out how I was going to explain what else they needed to do to gain the extra 8.8%. Perhaps it involves folding space and time?

Hi Tony, I think you are agonising unnecessarily over the tight radii of the M&GNR section. To my mind this is a bonus feature of a superb layout not the main part. Sooner or later a model railway is going to have to compromise on a tighter curve or a fiddleyard to represent the rest of the world. It seems appropriate to consider how to disguise view lines with trees and bridges but I certainly don't think it impacts on the layout as a whole which does a great job of representing part of the east coast mainline along with lengthy mainline trains. It is going to be a wonderful layout when finished and I, along with many others, am enjoying seeing it develop on this thread.

(Sorry to OT a little here Tony but you started it!) Hi Pete, Hants - Thanks. That's put my dodgy info. straight. Wic - There's a trap there too. As well as corruptions of wic there's the term wich in its own right which refers to salt e.g. Northwich, Middlewich, Nantwich in (Tony's and my home county of) Cheshire and Droitwich (the place of the salt, Roman Salinae) in Worcestershire which has the claim to fame of being mentioned more times in the Domesday book (albeit under its previous name of Upwich) than any other town. Rivers - That explains a lot. We have several Avons, Ouses, Tames etc. I wondered why the Anglo Saxons seemed so unimaginative!

When I last purchased from Kean Maygib I did so via telephone and letter using the following contact details. Kean Maygib PO Box 3071 Trowse Norwich NR14 8WU 01603 720792

Minefield! Shouldn't "County of Hants" be "County of Hamwic", Hants being an abreviation of the shire (Hampshire) rather than the town originally at its centre (now absorbed into Southampton)? Don't Essex, Kent etc. already refer to administrative areas (counties based on old kingdoms) rather than towns thereby creating the same tautological problem? I'm in complete agreement on the principle though. A modern minor irritation is PIN number - personal identification number number (sigh). There's a fantastic example where things got out of hand in Worcestershire. Bredon Hill which combines Celtic, Saxon and English to say Hill Hill Hill !

Main range. 2nd batch.