More railway books have been reviewed and these will be found in the Book Review section which may be accessed by clicking on ‘Books’ to the left of this page and then picking the title that interests you from the index. For quick movement through the index, click on the appropriate letter in the letter index at the head of the column.

If the book interests you, there is a live link at the bottom of each review which will take you to the equivalent page on the Amazon website where you will find comparative prices for new or second-hand examples gathered from booksellers around the country.

My thanks to those who drew my attention to the announcement on the Hornby website concerning those extra models planned for this year - which were mentioned in MREmag a few months ago when they started appearing on some retailers' websites. The additional models are to be:

King Arthurs: 746 'Pendragon' post-war malachite green and with an 8-wheel tender, 30799 'Sir Ironside' in BR weathered green with a 6-wheel tender and early small insignia, 30778 'Sir Pelleas' in BR green with small early insignia and an 8-wheel tender and 30755 'The Red Knight' in BR green with large early insignia, an 8-wheel tender and a Lemaitre blastpipe with large chimney.

Bullied Light Pacifics: 34026 'Yes Tor' with a 5500 gallon tender, 34036 'Westward Ho' with a 4500 gallon tender, 34109 'Sir Trafford Leigh-Mallory' with a 4500 gallon tender and 34088 '213 Squadron' with a 4500 gallon tender.

The positive responses to Brian Macdermott's insightful call for working signals seem to indicate that there really is a market for them. I don't see this as surprising when one considers the enormous upgrading to locomotives and rolling stock over the last few years. Also with DCC as an operating system which should allow such railway like procedures as setting routing for groups of signals - just as we know it can with sets of points. In fact, if there was ever a time for working signals, the introduction of DCC surely makes that time now.

It's interesting (and perhaps quite understandable) if, to date, British manufacturers have seen signalling as a low priority. I think it is a reasonable statement to say that, apart from illumination for night operation, the single aspect (pun unintended) of British layouts, that modellers are most likely to leave unfinished, is the signalling. Most of us electrify our points for automated operation, most of us operating from 12 volt DC use isolating switches to automatically control our sections while those of us using DCC use automation for everything. In this environment it seems rather antiquated to be manually adjusting semaphore arms with a long screwdriver or some kind of home made prod; so it is little wonder that modellers aren't actually rushing out to buy manual signals.

So perhaps this is the whole point the manufacturers are missing when they are reading the market. We aren't buying signals because there really isn't much to buy. On the other hand, if a reasonable range of automated signals was out there, it seems, from the responses to this subject, we would certainly be out there buying them, specifically because they would enhance the automatic operation of our layouts and substantially increase the complete credibility of our operations. I don't think we expect a whole range overnight - just start with a few common examples and take it from there.

Dave Brindlesmith is absolutely 'right on the money' when he talks about the Viessmann range of signals as a European example. I can give you an older one - Marklin. When I first started modelling in Marklin, as far back as 1960, there was even then a range of no less than eleven different kinds of automatic signals which, as Dave correctly states, are in many cases much more complex than the British ones. I have some which still operate today, with the range being further increased by another six signals when Marklin introduced their K-Track range. As many of these are still being produced, alongside Viessmann, maybe the European manufacturers can see something in the market for automated signalling that the British manufacturers can't. All I can say is they certainly add credibility to operation, even in analogue mode, and look fantastic in night operation.

So, maybe this is one side of the hobby where the Germans are still fifty years ahead. Surely, however, the potential that automated signalling has in enhancing layouts and creating another distinct area of fascinating viewers at exhibitions, accordingly attracting more people to our hobby because it is even more interesting, should no longer be overlooked.

Richard Whitmore

I wonder if I could ask some of your expert contributors for a bit of help for what I fear is an embarrassingly simple question.

I have a Lima Euro-Sprinter, bought nearly 10 years ago now, and recently it has started to go slower and slower. With the (DC) controller on 'full' it runs at just over half the speed of a recently bought Heljan Hymek.

Also, in one direction of travel, it makes quite a squeal, suggesting a need for lubrication. However, I'm puzzled that the squealing occurs in only one direction; put it in reverse and it's very quiet. Does that mean there's something else wrong?

Any advice would be gratefully received. I suppose I've been unnerved by the comments over the years about the damage that over-lubrication can do. I've never been sure when to use the oil can and when to avoid it.

Martin Crossley

Martin Russell stated (22 June) that, in conversations with two local model shops, they both - "made reference to the fact that the Bachmann container flat without containers did not sell very well and they believed the (Dapol) spine wagon might suffer the same fate".

I appreciate the concern but don’t think that reportedly poor sales of the Bachmann product (without containers), is really any indication of potential sales of the FEA-B that Dapol are proposing. The problem with the excellent Bachmann model is that it was not available without containers until relatively recently and after the vast majority of modellers had already bought all the models that they are ever likely to want. Having bought most of the early releases myself, I now have a couple of rakes of EWS Intermodal wagons with an extensive enough range of containers - although I’d really like more of the 20 foot versions. Consequently, while I can’t say that I won’t buy any more Bachmann Intermodal wagons in the future, from now on I’ll definitely be restricting purchases to those that come with containers that I really want. Hence, I don’t envisage buying the Bachmann models without containers - although I would have done if they had brought out the weathered version at the start.

However, as the Bachmann product is the only decent ready-to-run model on the market (I don’t think much of the dated Hornby model), both my DRS and Freightliner Class 66 locomotives are currently left to haul EWS stock (they must be on hire). If a quality alternative Intermodal wagon, suitable for either DRS or Freightliner, were to become available, then I can state that I would purchase a rake of around four twins. Also, as Freightliner haul more Intermodal trains than EWS, I would have thought that demand for the FEA-B would have been higher than for the FIA produced by Bachmann.

However, I agree that there is a need for, "a range of suitable containers sold either with them or as separate items". Hopefully Bachmann choose to capitalise on Dapol’s investment (if they make it) by producing a significantly larger range of 20 foot containers to accompany both their own models and the Dapol FEA-B if it sees the light of day.

Like Martin, I’d also like to say to Dapol that I want them to produce the spine wagon. However, if Dapol want a louder cry, I think that they need to provide us with more details including an indicative price and confirm that the ‘spine wagon’ is in fact an FEA-B twin set, each of which will carry up to six twenty foot containers.

David Laing

I have just bought the Dapol Class 66 dummy unit and it makes a terrific double header. A Class 20 motorless unit from Bachmann would be ideal to allow a nose to nose double Class 20 train. Hopefully Bachmann might consider this possibility.

Kennedy Howden

I was wondering if anyone in Australia had yet received their replacement footplate for their Bachmann N Class Moguls?

Mark Kitanov, Australia.

The correct number is 15 as you stated. 4009 'Shooting Star' had already been rebuilt into a Castle in 1925 when she was renumbered 100 and renamed 'A1 Lloyds' in 1936.

David Gill, New Zealand

Yes, next Saturday and Sunday will see Britain's largest vintage trains exhibition when Sandy Upper School opens its doors again. The school is in Engayne Avenue, Sandy, Bedfordshire, SG19 1BL.

There will be over 40 layouts and displays to see and over 20 traders give a good selection across the whole range of toy train and model railway scales which should satisfy most people's needs.

Travel: There is free parking on the school site which is a few minutes from the A1. Download a map from the internet using the postcode SG19 1BL. If travelling by train, Sandy station is on the East Coast Mainline from Kings Cross and Peterborough. It is about ten minutes walk from the station. There will be a vintage London Transport free bus service to take you to and from the school.

And don't forget, anyone joining the Train Collectors Society during the weekend will receive a refund on the admission charge!

By Brian Macdermott

I was pleased to see Grahame Wareham's posting about the later batch of 26s (D5331 - D5336) which spent a short time at Finsbury Park. I didn't mention these in my previous message as I was not certain of my facts about them. I have no written records from this early period but only my memory and the underlining of D5332/33/34 and 35 in my Ian Allan book to rely on.

I could not recall where I had seen them - if it had not been at the 'Cross'.

The only other 26s I saw were on the Inverness to Kyle Line, but this was not until 1976, by which time they had all acquired their TOPS numbers.

Tony Eliott

Some while ago there was a discussion about the route the above took. If the enquirer would like to contact me and give an address, I have a photograph which might interest him.

Peter Gomm

Robin is seeking discussion of this subject, but I must stress that the outcome will in no way affect the result of the quiz which has already been determined - Ed.

I think Martin Russel has hit upon a possible sticking point with the proposed Dapol spine wagons when he brings up the subject of whether or not containers will be included with them.

Years ago, I wanted to build an N scale multimodal facility (the American name for a container facility). These things do not have to be huge - like the Baltimore dock facility that one can see clearly from the elevated road next to it. But oh, how the track plans formed in Mr Noggin, as I drove past each week. Indeed, I used to have a roadside container stop in a side street about a mile from my home (now used for something else and fenced off, sadly). I did some drawings and settled on a plan.

I duly bought two packs of the excellent 5-car articulated 'well-car' sets from Walthers (one in TTX livery and one painted for Santa Fe) but then I hit a snag. They came with no containers. I would need at least ten large and ten small containers. I forget the actual sizes involved - possibly 60 ft and 40 ft. Not just any manufacturer’s offerings would do, since these cars were machined to require a highly accurate representation in the containers themselves. These proved hard to get and expensive when I could get them.

I think it is interesting that the next time Walthers offered a well-car (non-articulated and in CN livery) they included a container load.

Of course, these containers will raise the price of the final product - possibly considerably.

The response in these pages is interesting, although probably not representative of the market as a whole. Perhaps people are really not interested in modelling this aspect of modern train operations?

David Laing reports being unimpressed by out-of-scale features on the Bachmann wagons. I followed my Wathers purchases with one of an older five-car prototype, designed to take only 40 ft containers. These had beautiful etched brass ladders and grab irons that had to be bent to shape after unpacking. These are closer to scale than injection moulding can produce, but are so fragile that one must be extremely careful in handling the cars. I’m guessing Bachmann chose to go with a more 'thumb friendly' design to broaden the appeal of the wagons.

I hope that Dapol get representative data on this one. They are too small to be able to afford taking a bath with an unpopular model.

Steve Mann

-----

I can't agree more than with the sentiments that Martin Russel has expressed.

If we want Dapol to manufacture this item then we have to get into the shops and indicate what we will eventually purchase subject to certain conditions. Having expressed a wish each year to get a wagon of this nature, to ignore the opportunity to indicate a desire to buy is folly.

I appreciate (and agree) that to make the flat without a container is not too clever but I guess this may be down to production timetables more than anything else. If you would buy with container but not without - tell your retailer. Get the feedback going and see what Dapol can do. Maybe they will delay production until they can get the combination together; that's better than the plans going in the fire.

Remember that there is no commitment to buy, no requirement to part with hard earned cash and absolutely no commitment to take an item irrespective of an indication so to do. No one is asking anyone to part with money. Dapol need an indication of what we would purchase if they produce it, if it is up to specification and if it is priced right. Their only immediate way of understanding demand is to talk to retailers - and I know this is being done.

"Retailers are being negative" - they see themselves as not wanting to take a punt on items that may not sell. Major retailers are not completely sure that Dapol will produce what they say, in the numbers required and at the standard needed. Hence they are sitting on the fence or simply ignoring the manufacturer. It is up to us to convince them, or otherwise.

I can but make a further statement that is harsh but fact.

Chris Day

Has anyone out there got any information regarding the old and now discussed, gasworks rail site situated just north of Hitchin in Hertfordshire? Information in the form of photos and details of siding, amounts and lengths taken and recorded during its operational years, is required.

If you have any prints of this site that you would be willing to post to me, you can let me know via the "contact me" link within my website and I will supply you with my home address.

If the campaigning of both myself and the local Councils can bring about the near future reinstatement of this rail yard, it would mean a significant increase in rail borne freight, both to and from the Hertfordshire area, in the future. This, as all rail enthusiasts will agree, is a worthwhile cause indeed.

Bob Hart

Unfortunately, I no longer have a photograph but, when I was a child living in Luxembourg between 1977 and 1979, there was a bright yellow steeple cab electric loco which was an absolute dead ringer for the Tri-ang model. It lived on a siding by the Villeroy and Boch porcelain factory north of Luxembourg City. I went looking for it again in the mid-1980s, but it had gone.

There was also a toyshop full of Kitmaster kits, but I made the foolish mistake of telling a friend's father about those and he bought the lot!

Glad to see you back online.

Paul Dryden

I am sure many have welcomed you back an line, it was interesting to see just how many people miss this site when its down - which is rare, thankfully. While you were away I looked at some of the other sites and it made me realise how having you as the 'moderator' ensures that everyone has a say and is able to contribute in a way that is non-derisory, which cannot be said for some 'forum' type sites.

Before the advent of technology we now take for granted the lead-time for magazines meant publishers could not respond as quickly as they do today with up-to-the-minute news items. Traditionally March was the month when news from the British Toyfair became general knowledge and the Railway Modeller for that month carried a banner to show it contained the British Toy Fair News Special. This featured a rather cheerful cartoon-style illustration of a white and yellow lion as a patriotic symbol. The cover illustration was of George Mellor’s ‘TT-3’ Rhos Valley Railway and superimposed on it was a roundel declaring ‘TT-3 is Three’. Given the growth of the Tri-ang range and trade support it would have seemed impossible to realise at that time the proprietary system was almost halfway through its life-span.

The inside front cover featured Trix with illustrations of the Britannia and 56XX tank locomotive whilst the Southgate Hobbyshop announced it had increased its conversion allowance for those wishing to change from Hornby-Dublo three-rail to Dublo two-rail. For those who wanted to make their Kitmaster models operational the Hobbyshop had motorised the Tri-ang Utility Van by fitting it with a motor-bogie. This was an ideal solution being suitable for inclusion in both passenger and freight trains. The cost was 45/- (£2.25p). A second advertisement from the Hobbyshop offered a Special Service for Trix Owners based on the six-year support the Southgate premises had provided to back-up the Trix production. The extent of this was demonstrated by the conversion of over 2000 AC motors made after 1950 using special one-piece Beatimagnets for which demand was still continuing. These conversions took around seven-days but it was stressed the old power-units could not be converted and therefore had no value. The full advantages of the Trix DC system was outlined and the locomotives and overhead catenary parts were listed.

Bradshaw Model Products Ltd. of Hove, Sussex, featured Rivarossi American rolling stock and the 1959/60 Catalogue that cost 2/- (10p). Also on an overseas theme, Bradford Model Railway Centre Ltd. continued to promote the Eheim Trolleybus System and invited readers to send for a bumper packet of news from the Nuremburg Toy Fair. The King Charles Sports Centre in Leeds featured the Pocher four-wheel Swiss Coach with end balconies for 29/6 (£1.47½ p). Another importer was John Underhill of 32, Minster Street, Reading, Berkshire who had a two-page advertisement listing the various makes he offered. The Max Gray 0 gauge 2-rail Sante Fé 2-10-4 weighed in at 13lbs and was 30¾" long. It had ‘deflanged’ centre-drivers and an AC/DC motor. No price was given but I doubt if I could have bought it out of my pocket-money.

Peco continued to advertise their Wonderful Wagon range with an enlarged illustration of the detail included on a three-plank wagon. GEM listed their Flexi-Trak range as well as lever-frames and Flexible Lineside Fencing. We have come across Blacknell’s shed advertisement, as well as that for CCW Wagons and Vans, in earlier issues and the same applies to Tri-ang’s Progressive advert with the station components, catenary and rake of freight wagons hauled by the Steeple-Cab 0-4-0 locomotive. Also in this category are those for Airfix with the Norman Church, Bassett-Lowke’s back scenes and Hattons of Liverpool with just a half-page that compares to the small-print multiple-pages of today. Allan Brett Cannon were promoting their Chairway Track with the price of an 18" length reduced to 4/3 (21½ p). The Romford ‘Terrier’ and ‘Phantom’ Motors were 22/2 (£1.11p) and 39/8 (£1.98p) respectively from W & H (Models) Ltd. S. French & Sons Ltd. trading as the Surrey Model Railway Supermarket featured the Trix ‘Britannia’, EM1 and 56XX locomotives and reminded customers’ it was able to supply goods on either three or six months credit post free.

Moving to the back of the Modeller the Model Railway Club’s 35^th Model Railway Exhibition was advertised. The venue was the Methodist Central Hall, Westminster and it ran during Easter week from Tuesday 19^th to Saturday 23^rd April. Ballard Brothers of 133, School Road, Moseley, Birmingham listed the new Kitmaster Coach Kits at 6/6 (32½ p) each. They were available with the sides moulded in either red or green plastic, a useful feature especially if you wanted to paint them in Western Region colours because the green versions provided a better base for the cream paint. Gamages and the Model Shop, Birmingham were also promoting the coach kits. Tyldesley & Holbrook of 109, Deansgate, Manchester 3 had their usual selection of ‘O’ gauge locomotives including a coarse scale GWR 4-6-0 ‘County of Pembroke’ priced at £23/10/- (£23.50p). A useful supply of second-hand for 00 & TT Gauges was available from Robert Denny and he listed a variety of items including a Trix DC 3-Car Meteor’ Set for 67/6 (£3.37½ p). Welkut Flexible Track was sold by the Harrow Model Shop with two-rail yard lengths priced at 4/4 (22p), points at 10/4 (52p) and curved points at 12/4 (62p) each. George Webster (St. Helens) Ltd. offered the Kitmaster ‘100 Years of Steam’ Presentation Set in stock at 27/6 (£1.37½ P) and stocked GWR Pannier Tank bodies for 9/8 (48½ p). I imagine these were the diecast Gaiety examples. A vertical half-page advertisement from Peco’s Technical Advice Bureau listed those back numbers of the Modeller obtainable from their Office. Hornby Dublo’s range of building kits were featured by Baker’s Model Shop of 14, Canterbury Street, Gillingham, Kent. Described as quick and easy to assemble without the need to paint or use plastic cement, the Suburban Station with Booking Hall cost 22/6 (£1/07½ p). The Island Platform with awning was 9/11 (50p), the Goods Shed and Platform with the Dinky Crane fitted cost 25/- (£1.25p) and the two-road engine shed 17/9 (89p). The latter could be extended width-wise by the addition of an Extension Kit to provide four roads at a cost of 12/6 (62½ p). I often wonder what happened to the kits because that for the Engine Shed provided a good basis for detailing even today. I believe it was based on the prototype at Chester.

Taking his opening heading from Super Mac, Cyril Freezer in his Editorial reflected on the Toy Fairs and the quantity of good inexpensive equipment becoming available to the amateur. He observed that those modelling the 1955 – 1960 period now had a selection of appropriate locomotives and rolling stock ready-to-run. It had become possible to purchase items for around the cost of less detailed pre-war models despite the effect of inflation. Mr. Freezer’s commented that it is not human nature to be satisfied, and it does seem that the more the trade presents the more enthusiasts demand. No doubt this observation will receive nods of agreement from both Barwell and Margate as well as other manufacturers offices. He also, without wishing to be taken out of context, hoped that it would never be possible to get every conceivable item for model railways because that would lead to the loss of encouragement to try scratch building with the great personal satisfaction it can generate. Sentiments that are as true today as then.

Frank Riley will be well known to those of my era as the Editor of Meccano Magazine and it was reported he had retired the previous January. The Modeller offered him best wishes for his retirement and acknowledged the pleasure he had given to his readership over the years.

Keeping the TT3 theme was an article by the Rev. Edward Beal on Some Industrial Buildings. Edward Beal had been sufficiently impressed with the advent of TT3 that he abandoned his 00 activities to concentrate on the smaller scale often utilising Airfix building kits. Despite being intended for 00 some kits proved equally useful for TT. His designs for this article were a Creamery, Lime Works and Chemical or Oil Storage Depot. The Airfix Service Station, Footbridge and Booking Hall provided a useful source of parts, the girders from the Footbridge having uses in various scales. Wing Commander K.H. Burns was an acknowledged expert on track work and his article dealt with Double Junctions for his TT3 Milton, Drayton & Port Sutton Railway. Detailed drawings guided the reader through the electrical wiring and arrangement of linkages for operating the points. This article was equally applicable to any scale being of universal interest.

Jim Lawton described The Hawthorns Railway in Junior Modeller. This was a large club layout located in a school with an overall size of 24’ x 6’, the mainline being in the shape of a dumbbell. Provision had been made to provide a branch line and goods yard at a later date. During tests a nineteen coach train hauled by a Tri-ang ‘Castle’ and 97XX Pannier Tank had successfully negotiated the layout including the climb to the higher level.

Scaffolding is an aspect that is not often modelled but M.G. Trestrail offered a page on the subject with an illustration of a Bilteezi Factory with scaffolding in place. Some dimensions were offered as a guide. The Tri-ang 0-6-0ST was a somewhat large model in terms of appearance for 4mm scale, no doubt due to the need to fit a clockwork mechanism in some examples, but this was a good starting point for anyone wanting to start a 7mm scale narrow-gauge system. An article by A.R.G. Dow described the construction of Doris by his Father to create an attractive saddle tank from the Tri-ang model, albeit without outside cylinders that the majority of narrow-gauge locomotive feature. It was a relatively simple conversion, the donor locomotive having been purchased for £1. Hamblings wheels were fitted, the running board widened and cab enlarged. New boiler fitting and other details plus a repaint completed the job.

The Aerial View featured Church Fenton with a suggested model version of the prototype track plan that would have required a baseboard length of 17’ in 4mm scale before taking into account curves or fiddle yards at either end.

As was traditional, the March issue of the Railway Modeller reported on the Toy Fairs held in London and Brighton and headlined the news that Die Casting Machine Tools Ltd. (DMCT) were introducing 000 Train Sets. The British outline locomotives were the English Electric Baby Deltic (Class 23) and BR Derby Sulzer Bo-Bo (Class 24). An American Bo-Bo was also to be produced. I remember my school friend, Mike Claydon, was given some equipment when it first appeared in the shops and I was impressed with the appearance of the Baby Deltic. Sadly Mike passed away unexpectedly earlier this week and our hoped-for reunion, after finally tracing each following a gap of some forty-five years, will not take place. When we first exhibited our Hornby Dublo 3-rail layout at Ardleigh Green School for the 1958 Christmas Bazaar Mike was the third operator with my Father and myself.

The Modeller commented on the programmes of the various manufacturers and observed 1960 would be really wonderful for railway modellers. They were certainly right and there was no sign of any letup in the drive from Meccano to revitalise their fortunes with Hornby Dublo. It was accepted their 1959 Programme had overrun and releases were still outstanding. The legacy of adopting live-frog points had not been appreciated and with Tri-ang launching their evergreen ‘Britannia’, EM2 Co-Co and Southern Region L1 the chances of their catching-up was doubtful especially when purchase costs of models was considered. Notable introductions planned for Hornby Dublo were the Deltic Co-Co, that promised so much and delivered little because the details of the full-size Production Batch had not been resolved, and 350hp Diesel Shunter. The latter, with its prototypical outside frames and cranks, would prove to be more popular as would the start of the range of Super Detail coaches that combined the use of plastic and tinplate. Compared to those models having plastic sides the retention of tinplate enabled almost flush glazing to be achieved and, whilst slightly short of scale length, the effect of overhang on proprietary curves was mitigated to some extent. New wagon introductions planned included Presflo bulk salt and bulk cement wagons and an Esso tank wagon in black livery. As a prelude to 1961 news was given of the intention to release a Rebuilt Pacific although there was no hint as to whether it would be a ‘Merchant Navy’ or ‘West Country/Battle of Britain’.

I have already mentioned Tri-ang and a further introduction would be a Pullman Brake Coach in 00. TT was not forgotten because it would also benefit from the introduction of a ‘Britannia’, bogie luggage van and BR Coaches in Western Region colours. Interiors for both 00 and TT coaches would be available by the Spring and wagons loads for 00 were illustrated.. An interesting note was that, in addition to a diesel depot, a diesel horn was to be produced for TT-3. I wonder what happened to that project? Those interested in the Transcontinental range were promised a Budd Diesel Railcar.

Trix had decided to fit finer wheels but were still handicapped by their use of 3.8mm to 1’ scale that meant their products were smaller in comparison to those of Tri-ang and Hornby Dublo. The new Trix locomotive was the Western Region ‘Warship’. In order to overcome the use of proprietary curves the buffer beams and fairings above the bogies was made to pivot with them. If the model had been to 4mm scale I think it would have sold better. The new Western Region 56XX 0-6-2T had been delivered and the Modeller was able to test an example through the good offices of the Southgate Hobbyshop. The combination of a robust motor, diecast body and plastic treads on two driving wheels ensured the model performed excellently with good slow-running characteristics. Plastic bodied rolling stock was to be introduced as well as interiors for coaches.

The plastic revolution was gaining ground and Airfix announced they were intended to introduce rolling stock kits, the first being the Park Royal 4-Wheel Railbus (3/- ~ 15p) and then a Presflo Bulk Cement Wagon and Long Wheelbase Oil Tank Wagon (Both 2/- ~ 10p). Kitmaster’s move into Mk1 Coaches was to be welcomed with a photograph showing the giant-leap that was about to be made with flush-glazing in a plastic body-side. These were to be available in both 00 and TT-3. Peco had responded to the lack of interiors by introducing cardboard kits for the purpose. With the coaches priced at 6/6 (32½ p) and interiors at 2/9 (14p) the cost for each vehicle was modest and they were to scale length. The question that has always puzzled me is why, having established a market for coach kits, Kitmaster did not develop that aspect of their business. In contrast to what Hornby would eventually offer, Kitmaster’s Prototype ‘Deltic’ was a superb model perfectly at-home amongst a steam stud and happily both the 12" to 1’ example and the kits are still with us today. Forthcoming kits on the locomotive front were the German 2-6-2 (June), BR 9F 2-10-0 (September), SNCF 4-8-2 (October), ‘City of Truro’ (November) and Beyer-Garrett (December). In TT-3 a ‘Royal Scot’ was promised.

The range of Perfecta power-drive kits for motorising Kitmaster locomotives was due to be expanded to include the Italian Tank, Western Region 2-6-2T, SR ‘Battle of Britain’ and ‘Princess Coronation.’ The kit for the Italian Tank would cost 8/9 (44p) and those for the other three 11/8 (58p) to which the cost of a Tri-ang XT motor had to be added (12/10 ~ 64p).

Every year the Railway Modeller holds the Railway Modeller Cup Competition and the results for 1959 were announced. In terms of Railways of the Month they dominated the Competition with C.H. Philo’s Magnificent System being just that and taking the Cup. Another elaborate model railway, Cheshire Fact and Cheshire Fiction, owned by Col. Bellamy took second place with the Rev. W. Awdry’s Ffarquhar Branch being the third most popular. For pure character and grittiness G.D. Austin’s Stephenton was a well-placed fourth followed by John Charman’s Charford. The remaining placings were County Donegal by G.R. Hanan (6^th), Still in the West Country, A.S. Taylor (7^th), The Denny Touch, Rev. P.B. Denny (8^th), Milton, Drayton & Port Sutton, K.H. Burns (9^th), More Trams, P.D. Hancock (10^th), Variety in TT-3, Rev. E. Beal (11^th) & Highland in O Gauge, O.E. Bankins (12^th). It was said to have been the biggest poll for the Competition.

Frank Spence

A healthy number of responses this month and a good number of entries that scored the full ten out of ten. However, there were two questions that caught a lot of people out but more of that later

We thank Rails of Sheffield again for their continued sponsorship of the quiz.

Here are the questions and answers. The Quizmaster’s decision is final.

Aristocraft have announced that due to a world shortage of copper and ever increasing prices of the raw material, the future cost of G scale track is to double in price from the 1st July. Copper forms 70% of the raw materials used in brass rails.

Graham Hubbard, Managing Director of Bachmann Europe, the distributors of Aristocraft products in Europe, said:

"Aristocraft have held prices for as long as they could and were confident that the price of copper would reduce. The price has risen from $1 per pound in 2005 to $3.40 today and Aristocraft can no longer hold the price."

Graham Hubbard continued:

"We and Aristocraft are aware that demand for their track products has escalated in recent months due to the demise of LGB, but the stark reality is that without these price rises, brass track is no longer commercially viable and we are faced with price rises or stopping track production."

He added:

"If the commodity price of copper changes then we will review prices accordingly."

By Brian Macdermott

Monday 25 June: Sky Three, 19.00-20.00. Crash Files. The US NTSB investigates a 1996 head-on train crash in Maryland.

-----

Can I just say that I totally agree with Brian Macdermott on this subject.

Peter Gomm

-----

Ready made working signals shouldn't be too difficult to produce. Viessmann have been producing exceptionally high quality signals for the German/Austrian market for years. These German signals are generally more complex than British prototypes, production of which should therefore be at least as feasible.

Dave Brindlesmith

-----

Almost 70 years ago, Meccano Ltd were producing Hornby Dublo electrically operated semaphore signals and offered colour light signals from around 1959. As far as scale is concerned, these are still far superior to the former Tri-ang signals offered by Hornby today, although in fairness to Hornby I believe these items are offered as 'childproof' rather than as scale models.

Surely, with modern technology, it should be possible to update these signals, certainly for steam era layouts where colour lights were often simple replacements of the traditional home and distant signals, with the signal post going through the baseboard to be secured on to the 'electrics' (colour light) and 'mechanics' (semaphore) circuitry which could be hidden.

Presumably it is Dapol who will have the original drawings of the Hornby Dublo signals unless they were destroyed in the fire.

-----

I agree that there is a real need for good robust ready-to-use signals. However, when you suggest it to the major producers, they say that their priorities are rolling stock (Bachmann) or that they do not have enough capacity (the others). Colour lights would be easier (and OK for me), but the same 'above' applies. Small market - limited production run, I guess.

Paul Burke

-----

I'm very much in agreement with Brian Macdermott's comments, on the 14th June, regarding working signals. I'm part of a team building a 1930s (DCC powered) GWR exhibition layout and we're about to embark on the task of signalling, with at least the running lines having working signals. Life would be much easier if a system such as described by Brian were available. Following this year's poll, I'm tempted to wait to see if any of the major manufactures are tempted, but I suspect that the soldering skills are about to be brushed up, working on the currently available kits.

Bob Powell

-----

I too was interested to read John Cherry’s comments on the lack of operating semaphore signals, along with some of the follow up comments. With all due respect to John, I think he has over simplified the situation which, to some extent, he acknowledges. Just like the hobby is demanding more detail and accuracy of locomotives and rolling stock, the same demands would be made of manufacturers if anyone were to go into producing operating semaphores. Not only are there BR tubular posts, there are also wooden posts, rail posts, lattice posts etc.. Then there’s all the different styles in signal arms; do we go for upper quadrant or lower quadrant - the list of possibilities is endless. To put an LMS style signal on a SR layout would be like having a Fowler tender behind a T9.

We then have all the different complexities of junction signals, gantries etc. For modellers whose layout represents a prototypical location, there is really only one option and that is to build, or get someone else to build, signals that directly relate to the track diagram of your layout. The alternative, if you want ready made operating signals, is to design your layout around the availability of ready made signals. Er - no thanks.

My own layout is based on Seaton Junction is East Devon. A relatively quiet rural location but just look at the complexity of the semaphores there, especially that double posted up starter with home and distant arms on both posts and home and distant sight repeaters on both posts. Nightmare!

Sorry John, but the I think the reason no manufacturer has entered into this market is because there are so many options, it may not be economically viable and, although there are rumours about someone taking the initiative, there is a limit as to how much they can offer. The existing Hornby signals offer an acceptable solution for the younger end of the market or those with simple track layouts. Beyond that, it’s hand built I’m afraid.

By the way, I do agree with John and Nicholas Rothon about the fragility of the Ratio kits. They do make up into a nice fixed distant though.

Dick Flower

-----

-----

John Cherry and Brian Macdermott have raised an interesting topic (week ending 15 June) regarding the limited range of signals available for (mainly 00) scale layouts.

Apart from the distant days [no pun intended] of those made for Hornby Dublo (Upper Quadrants in single arm, double arm, and junction types) and those made by Tri-ang, later Hornby; there were also a limited array of Lower Quadrant signals made by Crescent Toys: these included single arm, and junction types (2- or 3-post), also a gantry over two tracks.

Accurately positioned, they would at least contribute to a layout's character before the more detailed ranges of Ratio's ready-made (later their kit-built) versions arrived.

Whilst signal-parts have long been available to create the desired displays (I have used them myself over 50 years ago), there certainly could be a demand today for having a set of basic components to put together, to create the desired configuration as dictated by the track layout they 'control'.

Over the years I've observed many excellent layouts at exhibitions, but regrettably some would be spoilt as they lacked a realistic atmosphere owing to ...(wait for it)... they were totally devoid of signals! Some others would have a few signals more than likely and they would be incorrectly positioned.

It is surprising, really as, in all other respects, the modellers' attention to detail on the layout was superb!

So, when I see a layout which has got realistic signal coverage, perhaps even enhanced by dummy ground discs, catch points or point rodding, then I've no hesitation in congratulating the operators involved.

We all seek realism with our locomotives, rolling stock and scenery so don't let this be spoilt by overlooking the basic requirement for any railway, that of 'controlling' signals - unless you just operate a 'one engine in steam / one train only' branch line. Even that would have a 'fixed distant' signal or 'warning' board on the approach to its terminus!

I'll remain silent on the question of whether to use 'hand' or 'electric' operation. Even the technicalities of 'prototype interlocking' would be best left to the more skilled experts!

Stephen Derek

-----

I see we are nearing the magic 5,000,000 hit mark. I have been with MRE since the beginning and have never missed a day. Well done Pat for providing a superb online magazine that others aspire to.

Andrew Carter

Just as a bit of a further antidote to the sometimes negative comments on manufacturers, I must say, I have just received a Hornby 70045 'Lord Rowallan' from a well known supplier in Liverpool (I've no trade connection, just a satisfied customer). In this case - very satisfied indeed.

What a superb piece of kit. Whether l will ever fit the brake rigging I don't know but Hornby have certainly covered all their bases with this one; it looks terrific and ran smoothly and powerfully once put on the track. It wasn't always like this - I can still remember my disappointment at the poor running of a Hornby Dublo 'Barnstaple' all those years ago!.

Some six years ago I got what was by then the best ever Britannia I'd had. It was a Hornby 'Firth of Clyde, made out in China, and had a lot of excellent detail. It ran reasonably well (still tender drive at that time) but the front end still owed too much to the ancient Tri-ang model which first appeared in the early 1960s. A picture of the Tri-ang original was in my Tri-ang Railways - the First Ten Years book - which says something about when I first got into modelling and how long the Britannia bogie mouldings, in use in 2001, had been around.

I made some modifications to 'Firth of Clyde' and had a short article published in Railway Modeller about them. It looked well with a scale coupling, steps etc.. In that article I said I expected Hornby would soon bring out a new model addressing some of the issues I'd raised. They did, very soon after, but exceeded even what I'd expected.

You may be surprised to hear that I am gong to made a little modification to my new Britannia. No, not the trailing wheels. I have no problem with these - they look fine, even on 2 foot radius curves which are my layout's minimum. However, I like my locos to be as close-coupled to their tender as possible. I had done a modification to a previous model, cutting a few millimetres off the tender chassis, along the lines suggested in MREmag a while ago. I thought that I would not have to do that with the new model and it's much too detailed to get away with that sort of thing anyway. Hornby have kindly provided alternative positions for the tender drawbar.

The only snag is that, in the close-coupled position, the model won't take a 2 foot radius curve. I reckon it might be all right with a 3 foot radius curve and I wish I had the space for larger curves, but I haven't. Since Hornby clearly state that the model needs a minimum of 438mm (about 18"), the outer drawbar hole is bit too far out for me. It's still pretty good, but not quite as close as I'd like. So, in due course (once the engine is out of warranty) I am going or remove the little buffer gear on the tender (which is barely visible under the tender fallplate, anyway) and use the close coupling position.

None of this is a criticism of Hornby. Short of providing an infinitely variable position or something more complicated such as a sprung drawbar (which would probably give trouble anyway in regular usage), I don't see what we could reasonably expect. Also, it is doing some of these little extra things that add to the pleasure we get from running our own railway, which make modelling so satisfying. I build 4mm Northern Irish DMUs for fun and, believe me, getting some of these things to run at all properly, underfloor engines et al, is a real challenge!

Colm Flanagan

-----

I have fitted the Hornby 4-function decoders to almost 30 Bachmann, Lima, Heljan and Hornby locomotives and have had no trouble with any of them. The improvement in running for the older Lima locos is significant, with a reduced top speed and increased control over acceleration and deceleration. Bachmann locos run as sweet as ever as do Heljan locos (classes 35 and 47) and no decoders have burnt out. At £8 each, these decoders are an absolute bargain. Some oaf at the recent Chatham show said they are not NMRA compliant to which I replied they are Julian's layout compliant and that is all that matters!

Julian Saunders

Ian Reynolds asks if the Hornby decoders he has are OK to put in his Class 50. The answer to this is, yes, they will be OK. I have put one in my Class 50 and it worked OK.

Julian Martin

Again we have three layouts reviewed in this issue of BRM. The first is a long-lived 00 gauge GWR layout built by Brian Yates. With the second, Neil Burgess has relived his childhood at Warmley on the Midland's route to Bath with an 00 continuous oval stocked to date it to the early 1950s. Our final layout is the concluding article on Karl Crowther's EM gauge 'Cornwallis Yard', originally built by the late Bob Haskins. In addition there are pictures and descriptions of four different layouts submitted by readers.

Practical articles include the detailing of a Dapol N gauge EPS Class 73, modelling GCR station buildings and overbridge, building a pair of 0 gauge tank engines, the use of lead-free solders and new ways of making signal arms bounce realistically.

There is a one page feature on Steam, the museum of the GWR at Swindon, and a 4-page black and white picture gallery devoted to the Southern King Arthur Class, compiled by writer Eric Sawford.

A free Model Trains Study Day, for those 14 and over, will be held at the V&A Museum of Childhood at Bethnal Green, London, on 30 June. The times are 10.30 - 4.00pm and early booking is recommended (tel: 020 8983 5205 or mocbookings@vam.ac.uk)

Learn about the history and evolution of model railways. Discuss the dilemma between 'using' verses 'preserving' model train collections. Enjoy demonstrations from local clubs and an object handling session led by the Museum's Collections' Manager.

Speakers include:

Tony Wright
The Assistant Editor of British Railway Modelling, Tony will talk about the history and evolution of model railways from a personal perspective.

Robert Forsythe
A former Museum Curator in West Yorkshire, and author of articles in British Railway Modelling, Model Railway Enthusiast and Model Rail. Robert will speak on ‘Model Railways and the Thomas the Tank Engine Phenomenon’.

Robert Kaufeler
Robert is an enthusiastic amateur and member of various collectors’ societies. Robert will show us pieces from his own collection and discuss how collectors balance their desire to enjoy models through actively running them, with the imperatives of conservation and preservation.

I went to two local model shops over last weekend to enquire about placing orders for the spine wagon. I was disappointed to find that neither were actually taking orders but would just put a figure into Dapol based on what they thought they could guarantee to sell. They both made reference to the fact that the Bachmann container flat without containers did not sell very well and they believed the spine wagon might suffer the same fate unless there are a range of suitable containers sold either with them or as separate items. I also phoned a couple more dealers and had similar conversations.

From the recent posts, some modellers are worried it may not be of a high enough standard or might be over priced and now I get the feeling some dealers are thinking the same way.

If we, modellers and dealers, keep thinking this way, then the new high cost developments will be shelved and manufacturers will keep trotting out the same old items with a slight livery or number change.

Every year wish lists generate a lot of debate but if a manufacturer does try to bring out something different and is met with too much negative comment, who can blame them if they don’t take the plunge. I just hope that there are some modellers and dealers out there who, like me, will say to Dapol we want the spine wagon.

Martin Russell

Dick Flower

The motorail dock in Stirling is south facing. The train could have been pulled into the through platform. The Stirling CCTs would then have been detached and deposited in the loading/unloading dock. Then the Inverness portion would be detached. I notice that there are no through coaches at Inverness and so, maybe, that was to allow passengers a wee bit more time to get organised and then to get on other coaches waiting in one of the bay platforms. These now had the CCTs attached to the front for offloading at Inverness.

Again, this is pure conjecture, but a bit of fun.

Graham Crawford

-----

Regarding Neil Rodger’s remembrance of his journeys to Scotland, I can confirm the Car Sleeper ran from Sutton Town station, not Sutton Park, on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Sundays. The Tuesday service was in high season only. I saw this train most weeks in the 1962 season and the CCTs could number up to 10 or 12 in July/August with, if memory serves me correctly, three sleeping cars and two or three corridor coaches.

In high season it was quite a load and I think the ‘train’ engine brought the coaches from the Vauxhall & Duddeston coach cleaning depot. There would be either a Fowler 2-6-4T, an Ivatt 2-6-0 or a Class 4 standard on hand at Sutton to shunt the CCTs onto the back of the train once the cars had been loaded. All this took place in the bay platform and adjacent siding to the north of the Lichfield platform.

In 1962, I have recorded, in early June, Royal Scots as the train engine, but to echo the words of your other correspondents, by mid-June, Britannia’s took over with few exceptions until the end of the season. 70046 was the most regular performer. I still have a copy of the sales literature that BR used for this service.

My pals and I would watch the train being assembled in Sutton station and then cycle to Four Oaks station to see it come through. It was a terrific sight, on the 1 in 100 up gradient, given the load and the ‘cold’ start. The best spectacle at Four Oaks was, I think, in late 1961 when a Jubilee and a Black 5 double headed. Four Oaks station shook with the noise!

In the late fifties I suggest Neil Rodger’s green engine was probably a Royal Scot. I guess an A3 would be flattered to be mistaken for a Royal Scot! I’m not sure that the opposite would be true!

David Cull

-----

I saw a comment on your site yesterday, from Ian Breeden, regarding sleeper services. Ian quoted from the London Midland Region Passenger Train Marshalling Circular for 7 May 1973 to 5 May 1974.

Please could you pass on to Ian an invitation to join my Yahoo Group, which he may find of interest (I don't think he is a member)?

The link is: http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/BRcoachingstock/

He will need a Yahoo identity (which is free) and, with one, can subscribe by e-mail to: BRCoachingStock-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Brian Macdermott mentioned the Sutton Coldfield-Stirling car sleeper and listed the formation taken from my Yahoo Group.

The most recent edition is the 1971 Western Region Coach Working Programme (all 437 pages of it).

Robert Carroll

-----

There is a track plan of the station with the car loading ramp on page 146 of An Historical Survey of Selected LMS Stations - Volume One, by R. Preston Hendry & R. Powell Hendry and published by OPC. According to the book, the Motor Rail service started in 1967.

The equivalent of "Motor Rail" still exists in France.

Joe Cassidy

-----

As a 'born and bred' resident of Sutton, I have fond memories of the Stirling sleeper service. It ran from Sutton Coldfield station-not nearby Sutton Park.

The motive power, formation and route changed over the years, but around 1962-4 it always departed in the Lichfield direction. The cars were loaded by end ramp during the day into a mixture of BR GUVs and CCTs in one of the goods yard sidings. The sleepers and 'day' vehicles (all Mk1s as I recall) were brought into the bay platform from the Birmingham direction by the train loco.. This had a low platform face and portable wooden steps were provided for passengers.

As the train loco was effectively trapped at the buffers, a shunting loco was sent by Aston (usually a Black 5) to put the car carrying vehicles on the back of the train. The whole lot, train loco included, was then hauled out onto the main line for the train to depart via Lichfield.

David Jenkins

-----

This talk about car carriers reminds me of our trip to the big city by Motor Rail - Perth to London Kensington - in the late 1960s. The cars were carried on flat wagons, old coach chassis maybe, with no protection from the elements. It was a good trip.

Alastair Robertson

I missed purchasing King Arthur by a day, a couple of months ago, at my local stockist. Subsequent to that, I noticed that the price rocketed on certain well known websites and none are now available. My local dealer says that Hornby are running another batch which should be due in around 2 months time. Presumably it's the name that's the cause of the popularity as other versions are still available.

I write this as I was at the Brockenhurst show recently where I heard that 'Sir Lamiel' had arrived and departed from stock very quickly. I may be completely wrong but I believe that the NRM edition locos tend to be limited in their production run so you can draw your own conclusion if you want one of these.

Robert Inns

The Tri-ang item always seemed a bit odd-looking to me though it appears to be a quite reasonable model of this 4-wheel prototype. Note the original even had regenerative braking - in 1924! I rather thought the Tri-ang model was inspired by Swiss prototypes as much as the ES1, as a way of using the 'Polly' 0-4-0 chassis and perhaps getting some continental sales, but I could be mistaken. I'll have to reread our esteemed editor's tome to check this!

Paul Gittins

Paul Jansz

I am guessing that, as the only available ready-to-run sound chip for the Class 50 is the Swd one, the recording was done using a loco that is currently preserved - probably a refurbished one. Swd http://www.southwestdigital.co.uk/ have just dropped the price of the 00 sound chips down to £85. That is £20 cheaper than a year ago!

Simon Evans

The following Hornby models should now be in the shops: Class N15 777 'Sir Lamiel' (R2638), Class 101 BR green (R2578A) and blue (R2579A), Pendolino coaches standard buffet (R4271), standard open (R4274A) and trailer standard open (R4272) and, finally, digital power track (R8241)

Also, on their way from China are the following Graham Farish models: 3-car HST in GNER Mallard livery (371-480), 46T POA Yeoman Tiger with reinforced ends (373-975), Mk1 BG BR maroon (374-027B) and Mk3 TRFB in the new blue and grey Midland Mainline livery (374-375A).

This weekend, 16 June 2007 to 17 June 2007, the exhibition will be at East Halton Village Hall. There will be approximately 10 layouts plus trade. There will be a period bus connecting with Cleethorpes, Barton-on-Humber trains from Thornton Abbey station to East Halton (small extra charge) and there will be a conductor on bus.

The opening times are: Saturday 11.00 am - 5.00 pm and Sunday 10.00 am - 4.00 pm. Prices are: adults £3.50, OAPs £2.50 and children £2.50.

By Brian Macdermott

-----

I found John Cherry's letter interesting and mildly amusing. John does not live round here as the local main line has a mixture of colour light and semaphore signals. It may surprise some modellers that semaphore signals are still erected to replace life expired examples - one being replaced locally, with a new example, only a few weeks ago. This signal is used many times a day to control an assortment of trains, including Voyager and Pendolinos.

Merfyn Jones

-----

John Cherry makes some interesting comments on signals. I have also found that Ratio kits look fine but are too delicate for a working railway. The Hornby signals can be improved with some black paint to the cap, lamp and the lower part of the post. It is possible to add a platform and rail and possibly a counterweight. Also, some white paint can be used to cover the cream plastic. Hornby must have this in mind from the images in the current catalogue.

The recent book Final Years of Isle of Wight Steam has some splendid images of Southern equipment including rail based signals.

I note that the Old Smokey set includes two of the old GWR coaches. With new roofs, these would provide a splendid basis for an Isle of Wight set. I hope Hornby will release them on their own once again or even consider a version with a revised roof profile. As is well known, the catalogue shows an 02 with the Maunsell coaches. Is this just a dream or can we live in hope?

Nicholas Rothon

Neil Roger's recollections on Monday 11th, brought back memories of the car-sleeper trains - in my case seen on the East Coast main line rather than travelled on. The midlands service operated out of Crewe for both Scotland and the South West, if Titled Trains of Great Britain by CJ Allan may be trusted.

I hope Neil has a large loft layout to accommodate a model train, as these were some of the biggest passenger service formations of the time. The make-up on the East Coast was GUVs, sleepers, a restaurant buffet and a BSK. These were typically in a ratio of about 10 GUVs to 6 or 7 sleepers. On the East Coast service, the GUVs were prominently branded with two full vehicle length lines of text: 'Anglo-Scottish Car Carrier'. Beneath this, if my memory serves me right, was 'Motor Vehicle Transporter'. Was this style used elsewhere?

Paul Jansz

-----

Further to my earlier e-mail regarding the above. Apparently 60088 remained at Aston until July 6th after it was realised that A3s were barred from the section of line between Wichnor Junction and Sutton Coldfield. It then ran light to Crewe South on 6th and was subsequently understood to have worked a train from Crewe to Carlisle on July 7th (Motive Power Miscellany - LMR - Trains Illustrated - September 1961).

If any RCTS members have copies of Railway Observers for this period they may be able to shed more light on this topic, including whether the earlier visitor operated northbound.

Ian Breeden

Many thanks to Martin Cowgill for his detailed information and the excellent website he suggested. I totally agree with him, too, that Hornby should bring their liner flats up to date, i.e. cast frames as opposed to plastic and a 4-set as well as buffer beam fitted singles.

Bob Hart

Does anyone know where I can purchase suitable continental transfers to make more blue Tri-ang (ghastly non-prototype etc.) to go with my sole example. I have tried Peco and Model Rail but drawn a blank.

An excellent read as ever Pat. All quiet from me on the blue Pullman front because I have eventually acquired a full Kitmaster set.

Mike Lester

Hi all! Thanks for the advice, I have already purchased two of these decoders. I presume these are OK to go into my Hornby Class 50s?

Ian Reynolds

During my visit to the DCC weekend at Pecorama in Beer, I picked up an interesting Peco leaflet - Wiring Peco Pointwork for DCC. Essentially, this leaflet gives advice on wiring points for DCC. What surprised me was the advice that Insulfrog points should use insulated joiners immediately after the point. Three-way points are also recommended to be treated this way. Also, Insulfrog diamond crossings should be insulated and are energised via a points PL-15 microswitch only when that 'path' is being used. Basically you treat Insulfrog as Electrofrog.

One other thing, Peco recommend that, to avoid voltage drop, you have feeders every 6 foot for each track.

I must admit it was far easier to comprehend than the instructions they give out with Electrfrog points.

John Jeffery

Regarding Alan Short's letter about the Hornby Dublo EMU - OH Goody! I have both, and a 2-rail motor version and a 3-rail E3002 all bought new by me with .££££££££ in my eyes. I wouldn't sell them though - too sentimental.

George McKie

I agree with Pat and other correspondents about the need for you to go out to your local hobby shop and order as many of these Spine wagons as you can afford.

If Dapol receive enough orders and go into production, there is a good chance they may consider further 4mm models. The next subject could then be a little less modern - something like a Sturgeon rail carrier or a scale BR 21 ton mineral wagon.

Here's hoping!

Phil Bartlett

-----

I am not surprised there is apathy concerning the aforementioned container flat. We live in 'the Electronic Age' today. If people can't do something on their computer they often don't bother. I buy most of my model railway gear on the net, as it's much more convenient. Personally, I would buy quite a few of these flats, but surely some sort of on-line poll would give a truer reflection of a particular model's (un)popularity, rather than how many people can be bothered to pop into their local model shop if they even have a local model shop!

Nick Knibbs

-----

Chris Day makes some important points in his e-mail regarding the indicated demand for a FEA container flat in 00 - as Dapol are apparently considering.

Firstly, Chris’s email was the first time I have seen the TOPS code of the proposed ‘spine wagon’ specified, which I have to admit I knew nothing about until last week. The Dapol website doesn’t give much detail. However, as I voted for an FEA in the last MREmag Poll, I can state that I will probably purchase at least three or four of these if they are manufactured to current standards and sold at a reasonable price. However, the likely demand (not just from me) will be dependent on both price and quality. An indicative price has not been indicated by Dapol and the quality of all manufacturers’ releases varies. As Dapol do not currently produce any 00 wagons for modern era modellers, many of those (including myself) who may purchase an FEA will be unsure whether it will match the best of what Hornby and Bachmann currently produce.

As an example of the problems inherent in estimating demand, I was looking forward to the release of the Bachmann OCA earlier this year and intended buying several. However, when I actually saw the models in my local model shop, I was disappointed by the over scale top edge, which I feel spoils an otherwise acceptable model. The result of this is that I have not purchased any, despite previously being interested. There is the same risk if Dapol do go ahead with an FEA and it falls short of market expectations.

Personally, I would have thought that there was enough demand to sell at least 2,000 units (most modellers buying more than one), although I doubt very much that Dapol will get such a high indication of demand from retail outlets. Prior to this year’s Glasgow show, AMRSS sought to gauge demand for their limited edition Class 158 on the basis that modellers could give an indication of intent without committing to a purchase (i.e. they weren’t actually ordering one). As we all know, fewer than 100 modellers indicated that they would consider purchasing one of the limited edition models and yet 500 models sold in just under nine hours. Dapol will therefore have to consider a similar scaling factor if they are to produce enough stock.

In general, I tend to purchase stock at model railway exhibitions and, therefore, I will speak to the traders that I do most business with at the next fairly local show. Fingers crossed that this proposal does actually get off the ground.

David Laing

-----

From around 1962 until 1966 I attended and lived at Bishop Vesey Grammar school in Sutton Coldfield. In my early years, the dormitory I slept in overlooked the railway line, from Birmingham New Street to Lichfield City, via Sutton Coldfield.

As I recall, the 'sleeper' went past every Tuesday night, heading towards Lichfield, and beyond. I believe it took the cut-off line to Lichfield Trent Valley.

As a regular schoolboy user of the line from Sutton Coldfield to Birmingham, I seem to remember the car loading ramps at (I believe) Sutton station.....but something about Wylde Green station also sits in my mind.

I don't recall witnessing any loading of cars (probably a 'time' thing) but I do recall knowledgeable older lads watching from the high windows, informing us all that a 'Brit' was pulling it, more often than not. This train was a highlight amongst the usual rabble of bewhiskered DMUs and even rarer was the sight of a diesel-hauled freight train.

Sounds that jog the memory are the rasping DMU exhaust, with the gear change that took forever?

Alastair Queen

-----

In reply to Neil's queries the night sleeper did indeed run from Sutton Coldfield to Stirling (Sterling is what you'll need to finance your layout) and, of course, vice -versa. But I think, if my memory serves me correctly, it was railway staff who loaded the cars into the bogie vans. I forget the correct name for the vans but Lima made models of them.

The loco for these trains was almost always a Duchess or City because it formed part of the Perth-London service picking up, of 3/4 sleeper coaches and 3 vans, when it came down from Perth at about 2200 hrs.

On the 'down' service, i.e. from the south, this train arrived about 0600hrs at Stirling where the sleepers and car vans were dropped off and the rest of the train departed for Perth. The stock left at Stirling was then shunted about so that the vans were at the loading bay for unloading by railway staff. The cars were put in the Motor-rail car park ready for collection by their owners

The service to Sutton Coldfield was discontinued in the 1980s but was continued for a short while to London Kensington (Olympia) until finally done away with in the 1990s.

William Fairweather

-----

Neil Rogers is right in thinking the Motorail train went from near Sutton Coldfield. I believe it was actually the now closed Sutton Park station (the line is still open for freight traffic).

However, for a train starting in the West Midlands, it certainly won’t have been 'Flying Scotsman' hauling it. I have no actual knowledge but I guess it was much more likely to have been a Black 5.

Jim Campbell

-----

With regard to Neil Rogers query, I initially thought this could have been a Princess Pacific, however, in Trains Illustrated Motive Power Miscellany for August 1961, reference is made to this duty being upgraded to 7P Motive Power, in place of Jubilee Class locomotives.

Royal Scot Class locomotives were observed as follows:-

15th Jun - 46145 'The Duke of Wellington's Regt (West Riding)' (55A);

20th June - 46166 'London Rifle Brigade' (5A);

25th June - 46125 '3rd Carabinier' (5A);

27th June - 46135 'The East Lancashire Regiment' (5A)

On 1 July 60088 'Book Law' (55A) arrived on the southbound service and is referred to as "the second appearance of an A3 Pacific on this duty".

On 5th July 1960 - 72009 'Clan Stewart' arrived on the southbound service and returned north the same evening.

Ian Breeden

Further to the recent posts about Heljan 33s, I too have had a problem. I purchased 33212 (BR Blue without headlight) and both bogie pivots were broken. One broken piece was in the box, the other was inside the body and dropped out when I picked the loco up. I arranged to swap this for a second one and, again, both pivots were broken. I have since returned this for a refund and purchased from elsewhere - hopefully from another batch. This third one seems fine.

Chris Wright

Just to advise anyone who has not yet seen the new Hornby King Arthur Class 'Sir Lamiel' (now released), this is another excellent loco and has been finished in its current preserved livery. It, therefore, has the latest style electrification flashes on the deflectors, boiler and tender, plus NRM plate etc.. The loco is, therefore, not suitable for the late 1950s and early 1960s, unless these are removed. This may assist some people who may be considering purchase of this particular locomotive.

Research has already been made to see if this loco did possibly carry the early style electrification flashes, but all photograph evidence so far confirms no such flashes were ever carried. In fact, none of the King Arthurs were around long enough to gain these flashes unless, of course, someone out there can prove otherwise!

The July BRM, which arrived this morning, has a nice photo spread of King Arthur Class by Eric Sawford.

John Cherry

Regarding Stuart Reid's recollection of locomotive models similar to the ES1 class he has seen in model railway catalogues, Jouef produced a model of an SNCF locomotive - possibly a Class BB12000 (BB13000), all of which had a centre cab and 'bonnet'. I believe Kitmaster also made a kit which was referred to by the nickname of this type - 'Crocodile'.

Tri-ang also produced a 'Steeple Cab' shunter (0-4-0) and I seem to recollect reading about a diesel of similar outline in Aberdeen docks.

Ian Breeden

Regarding the above, what a wealth of knowledge Braid Anderson has about railways. He hasn't failed me on the occasions I've asked him questions, both technical and loco types, etc. and it has not just been on British railways - but more or less world wide systems. I tried to catch him out once by asking what the driver had in his sandwiches on a particular run. The answer came back: "Corned beef and 'broon' sauce!"

Bruce Fairweather

There has been much debate over the original allocations of the BRCW Type 2s. My earliest recollections of Class 26 was in 1960 at Kings Cross when I remember seeing a couple of tablet catcher fitted examples standing in the station as well as several members of the D5300-19 pilot scheme batch. I have photographs of D5331 and D5333 at Kings Cross. I believe a small batch from D5330-D5336 spent about a year at the then new Finsbury Park depot, before migrating to Scotland. The pilot scheme batch D5300-D5319 followed north in late 1960/1.

The Class 27s of the final batch (D5379-D5415) were all initially delivered to Cricklewood. I photographed most of them whilst they were there. Some subsequently ended up at Leicester and Toton, whilst Wellingborough, Derby and Bedford had examples regularly on shed. D5370-D5378 were transferred from Thornaby to the Midlands Line division sometime in 1969, I think, and I have photographs them at Leicester and Burton-upon-Trent.

D5380 and D5382 were both painted into a two tone green scheme similar to the later Class 25s. I have slides of both and Colour-Rail currently list D5382 in this livery.

Finally, I did see D5383 in Oxford in 1964, working the daily Washwood Heath to Hinksey Yard freight which was normally a Class 25 working. It was written-off in a serious accident the following year . Oh, such good memories and am I glad to have recorded most of it on film!

I hope this helps.

Grahame Wareham

Having just digitised my fledgling (and still under construction) layout, I attended the 4th DCC day at Peco's premises in Beer. Everything was spot on. The seminars were 1st class and informative. In the marquee one could talk to (and ask questions of) the DCC exhibitors.

I was able to talk to Simon Kohler about my problems with 'King Arthur' and he kindly offered to have it looked at it if I returned it to Margate. I also 'ear wigged' a prolonged discussion between a DCC enthusiast and Simon, over some apparent shortcomings in the Hornby DCC system. I feel that maybe Hornby have directed their DCC marketing approach to the mass market, who want a 'plug and play' Hornby system. The true DCC enthusiast would probably want more from a system and would opt for something else. I do not know - these are just my thoughts.

I also was able to talk to Tommy of Mackays and he was able to inform me that the 'AUS' message I was getting, whenever I started up the system, was German for 'STOP - did I feel a little foolish!

Overall, it was a truly excellent day. The only query for Peco is: why did the sandwich stall close at lunchtime when everybody wanted food?

John Jeffery

I have decided to run both European and British outline (not at the same time) and will be adding more of English Electrics Finest to my fleet. However, I shall be having only locos that I rated when following the class. I am also looking at fitting a soundchip to the flagship of my fleet. Does anybody know how much this will cost and whether it is for refurbished or un-refurbished examples?

Ian Reynolds

Graham Farish have released three High Speed Trains (HSTs) onto the market. The sets comprising of a motorised power car, dummy power car and intermediate vehicle are now available in InterCity (Catalogue number 371-479), GNER (371-480) and the new Midland Main Line (371-475A) liveries.

The N gauge model High Speed Trains were first introduced in 1981 by the former Poole based Graham Farish company but now benefit from a totally new chassis. These models have not been available for some years and matching Mark 3 coaches are also being produced to allow modellers the opportunity to build up sets to the correct number of vehicles.

By Brian Macdermott

In response to Ian Reynolds query, while I am uncertain about fitting Hornby decoders in Roco locomotives, the expert advice that has consistently applied to Roco has been to fit Lenz decoders and if it were me I would be cautious about fitting anything else.

However, Ian might like to contact British retailers that specialise in Roco. Two that have substantially advertised Roco regularly in Continental Modeller for many years are Mackay Models and Howe's, both of whom have websites.

Richard Whitmore

-----

Ian Reynolds asks if Hornby Decoders are OK to use with Roco locos. My advice would be to check the current draw of the loco on start-up. If it exceeds 500 milliamps, then don't use the current Hornby decoders.

I have a Hornby Select unit on my layout now (yes, sorry folks, I've gone DCC) and find that, so far the best budget combination is the Select unit with the Bachmann 3 function decoder with BEMF. Hornby 4 function decoders are just not up to the job and locos I have fitted with them crawl round at a third of the speed they should. Put a Bachmann one in (essentially a Lenz one) and they go much better. If you have lights on a loco that are lights, not LEDs it is essential you check the load on the decoder before fitting. Heljans will blow a Hornby decoder.

Julian Martin

Like Chris Day, I am very interested in the Dapol container flat/Spine wagon. However, I am somewhat cautious over expressing committed interest (either financial or verbal) in any model before I actually see it 'in the flesh'. What I say next could sound a little unhelpful, abrasive even, but it is intended as constructive criticism.

There have been too many either silly and/or unnecessary errors or design choices from all the manufacturers (Hornby, Dapol, Bachmann, Heljan and ViTrains, in no particular order of guilt, but some are more guilty than others) of 00 ready-to-run stock in the recent past for me to absolutely trust what the final product will be from any of them. So, I have to say: "Sorry, but I simply can't make a commitment 'sight unseen'. Show me a good model first, then I'll consider it."

If any of the manufacturers want me to make an up front commitment, then they will have to establish better reputations first.

Ian Vale

-----

Bob Hart asks about the details of the proposed Dapol spine wagon in 00.

This would be the same as the wagon due to be launched later this year in N and is an FEA-B twin-set built by Greenbrier in Poland from 2003 onwards. Dapol are suggesting two liveries and, as the N gauge one is being produced in Freightliner and GBRf liveries, I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that these would be the two produced in 00. Freightliner, GBRf and Balfour Beatty operate these sets with Fastline using a minor variation for their Class 56 hauled trains. I have already informed my retailer of choice that I would buy several sets.

As for original BR Freightliner flats... I had a Tri-ang Hornby one as a child far too long ago to remember, then one day I bought a Hornby wagon for my own son's layout - it was quite a shock to find exactly the same wagon I had as a child in the box with no apparent improvements - perhaps it's time for Hornby to give this a makeover and bring it up to current standards, it has a much larger potential market than either the Dapol or the existing Bachmann Intermodal flats.

Alan Short asks if the amount paid for the Hornby Dublo 3-rail EMU is a record. If it is, all I can say is, what an obscene amount of money for such an item! If I ever win the lottery I fully intend to buy up these sort of models throw away the boxes and run them just to see the jaws drop on the faces of the collectors (you can't take it with you when you go so why not enjoy it while you are here). Let's face it, it's why these models were made in the first place - to run them! All you have to do now is pray I never win the lottery.

Julian Martin (tongue welded to cheek and tin hat on!)

Glenn Martin writes that we have yet to see a good attempt by either Hornby or Bachmann at reproducing realistic weathering effects, and that it would take 'a bit of effort' to achieve authenticity.

Having just received mine, I think the Bachmann 9F 92044 model is excellent. True, much of the weathering is 'blow over', but the boiler staining is very well done, and there was such immense variation in appearance in actual service that it would be well-nigh impossible to reproduce an 'average'. I doubt that the costs incurred by very complex painting could be recovered, as no two engines were ever exactly the same.

The effects of dust, rain, steam, ash, heat, soot and rust are quite easily changed and perhaps enhance by extra work by a purchaser.

My initial concern was the selling of weathered models which may vary from advertised pictures and the advertising of finished models with supplied super-detailing fitted.

I doubt it is practical to please everyone. I have photographed my 90244 Class 9F and it looks great, reminiscent of my days of photographing steam during the 1960s. What a superb model! My only gripe would be that the tender-spacing choices are fractionally wide - but that is very minor.

It reminds me also of a front cover on a c1964 Model Railway News showing a 9F looking forwards from low below the driver's-side cab. It may have been credited to G F Heiron but my memory of a series of excellent covers is not great. Does anyone remember that?

Robbie McGavin

With regard to Thom Ritter’s enquiry about sleeper train formations, these can be found in the Passenger Train Marshalling book, for the appropriate region, which was published by BR for internal use. I have a copy of the London Midland Region edition from 7^th May 1973 to 5^th May 1974 which, unfortunately, does not cover the period or regions he is interested in. This publication shows changes to train formations en route and, in some cases (see below), the return workings of the stock were unusual.

Thom's enquiries may bear more fruit if he requests information about specific sleeping car services (e.g. Kings Cross to Aberdeen in 19**) as another enthusiast may have a record of the actual stock operating that train on one or more specific dates during that year. Most sleeping car trains used two sets of stock, operating the 'down' service on Monday night, returning on the 'up' service the following night. At peak periods, such as Bank Holidays and weekends, the formation could be strengthened.

He may also need to bear in mind the fact that some formations in the BR maroon period could have included ex-GWR, LMS and LNER sleepers.

As an example of unusual workings, the Motorrail service departing Inverness at 1010 hrs on Friday was formed: loco - RBK+FO+FK+FK+SLSTP+SLSTP+BFK+8 Carflats. At Perth an FK +2 Carflats were attached and the train continued to Crewe as loco - FK+RBK+FO+FK+FK+SLSTP+SLSTP+BFK+10 Carflats. On arrival at Crewe the FK+RBK were detached and the remainder of the train formed the 2250 hrs Motorrail from Crewe – St. Austell as loco - FO+FK+FK+SLSTP+SLSTP+BFK+FK+10 x Carflats with 4 Carflats being detached at Newton Abbot.

This stock subsequently formed the 1240 hrs SO St. Austell – Crewe Motorrail train.

The RBK returned to Inverness at the front of the 2020 hrs FO Euston to Inverness.

Ian Breeden

Just to mention I have a layout based on North Norfolk Railway’s Weybourne station. One of its guises, is as the set for the Dad’s Army episode of The Royal Train. It features a modified working Bachmann Gandy Dancer cart, on which are models of Dad's Army characters, the vicar, verger, mayor and Warden Hodges.

The layout was recently at Bressingham at the annual Dad's Army day. If anyone would like to use it for a '40s event etc., please let me know at keithtommo@hotmail.com

Keith Tompkins

In answer to Derek Morrow's (correct spelling of Derek) posting on 6^th June, regarding Inventory Software. I use a programme called Track those Trains. This was advertised in the model railway press a few years ago and is still available as a trial download before you purchase a license at www.trackthosetrains.com. This allows you to set up an inventory of your locos, rolling stock, layouts etc.. You can also add history and livery details as well as purchase price and insurance value. Each entry also allows you to attach photos of either the model or a prototype example. I have found it a useful programme to keep a record of your complete collection.

I hope this helps.

As a separate question, does anyone know what happened to W & T model kits range? Did anyone take on producing the kits?

Steve Gibbons.

After the annual poll, where the request for working semaphore signals came very high, I was surprised that there was not a follow up of comments to MREmag. I have noted mention this week that one the manufactures may be taking a strong interest. However, I thought I would offer my own viewpoint for consideration.

Initially a quick resume of what is currently available.

1 – Ratio – a good selection of kits and ready made signals which cover a number of regions. I have made these and would very much recommend them to anyone who wishes to 'have a go' at building semaphore signals. The one downside is that they are plastic and very delicate, thus easily prone to damage on a layout.

2 – Model Signal Engineering Components - these are etched etc. and require soldering skills. I have seen finished items on some exhibition layouts and they are excellent but I would consider the downside for many may be the soldering aspect and the time scale to actually make.

3 – Hornby ready made. These are currently the only items available from one of the leading manufactures and have been around for a number of years. I personally would not reject the range which represents distant, home and starter and offers a junction version. To me the main problems with them are the large clip-fit base and that the junction version too seems to be over scale for 00. However, I have signalled my layout with these as I have some of the former Tri-ang releases which have a much better slimmer base, with two good size fixing holes for attaching to baseboard. Also, the junction version was not as tall and therefore looks more appropriate. A case of mixing and matching old and new.

The biggest problem with new manufacture must be what type to choose to make. The sheer diversity of signal types that prevailed across the BR system and earlier would be impossible to cover. So my suggestion would be make the BR tubular post type and possibly a wooden post version, which are more aligned to the LMR semaphore signals. Yes, I can hear the howls from modellers of other regions but we cannot expect to see every type issued.

The BR tubular post type is ideal for the steam era, well into the diesel era and almost to today’s scene. I actually saw one still working only last weekend. They also need a strong/slimmer and more representative base and initially could be produced as distant, home and starter – also with a distant and home on one signal. A junction type and a gantry facility could also be produced, similar to the current Hornby type with fitment slots, but offer a better range of individual signals to be installed, i.e. short post, long post and double arms etc.. The gantry could also be produced as 'lock together parts' so that it could be installed in a variety of positions. Take a good look at photographs to see the various types that were once common place.

This just my own view and I feel it would help a good number of average railway modellers, but I also appreciate that it will not cover everybody’s requirements. However, I cannot see any main stream manufacture making specific types with the outlay that will be required to set up production. We must accept some compromise but provision on the lines suggested would offer good flexibility.

John Cherry

The National Railway Museum (NRM) has set an estimated completion date for the overhaul of 'Flying Scotsman', following discussions between the NRM’s Workshop team and contractors. The date is December 2008 for running in and ready for mainline operations in January 2009.

The NRM is aware that this is a substantial delay to the original time plan, however it was discovered that the locomotive’s firebox needed more extensive work than was first anticipated. In order to carry out this work, specialist copper is needed of which there has been a substantial shortage in the UK. However, the copper has now arrived and is ready for pressing, which will be carried out at R K Pridhams new premises in Tavistock.

Just a brief note to say that I today had occasion to talk to a contact at Dapol and was very surprised and somewhat dismayed to find out that there has been a great deal of apathy regarding the projected FEA multipurpose container twin flat (not spine wagon really!). Much of the apathy was from shops who are otherwise large movers of numbers in "box" terms.

I know, from my discussions with various modern image sectors, that this wagon, if manufactured to current standards, will cover what has been a serious omission (one of many you may say) in the modern image wagon fleet. It will be available in Freightliner, Fastline and GBRf liveries immediately and, indeed, may well be in Balfour Beatty and other users liveries in the fullness of time.

If Kennedy Howden wants to run a train double-headed by two Class 20 locomotives, why doesn't he run two powered ones?

Jane Sullivan

Stephen Dimmock mentions the sketchy documentation concerning the English land-side arrangements of the Dunkirk evacuation.

Unfortunately much of what interests us nearly seventy years on was cloaked in secrecy at the time and probably not planned in the detail we suppose as "drive to Redhill and ask for further instructions" seems to confirm. Over the past few years, I have been researching a single street in Dover, as it was in WW2, to form the basis of a motorised diorama. The N sized version of this was on show at the Model Bus Federation AGM last October and the Faller Car System based half cab buses with home made bodies performed faultlessly all day. The railway passes out of sight beneath the Western side of the diorama in the tunnel just to the North of Dover Priory Station (in case anyone thinks this is not a railway related message).

After the diorama was finished, my brother discovered an old video compilation of archive film of Dover called "Summer Holidays" which includes shots of some of the road and rail transport used for evacuated troops arriving there from Dunkirk. The original source of the film is either the Imperial War Museum or one of several prolific Dover photographers and film makers. The book "Dover at War" records that 327 special trains operated from Dover moving 180,982 troops over a nine day period. As far as I know there is no single place to find information about this period so the message to anyone wanting to model it is "be prepared for a lot of research, and just when you think you have finished something fresh will turn up".

As is the way with these things after I had finished making the Sir John Falstaff pub, a source at the Dover Transport Museum found me a photo of the pub taken just prior to the war which revealed that my use of older style multiple paned windows was wrong. By then, the building was firmly glued in place between the fire station and the electricity company office and is still waiting for someone more knowledgeable to point it out to me!

Mike Harvey

Back in the late fifties, as a small boy of 3 to 5, the family holiday was always in Scotland. I can remember travelling in the car to a station somewhere (I think near Sutton Coldfield). I think the station had only the one train there, because I don't remember any other trains. Also, from what I can recall, the yard or station appeared surrounded by large brick walls.

We would arrive in the afternoon and drive on to the train through carriages that had fold down metal plates between them and doors that were closed after each carriage was full of cars.

I also remember my Grandfather walking me up to the engine to speak to the driver and look into the cab. I remember it as a large light green engine, like the 'Flying Scotsman'. I don't know if it was or not. We would then get into the sleeper carriages and wake up at Sterling where we could drive the car for our holiday. The only other thing I can remember about it was hearing and feeling the banker attached at Beattock, as it would wake me up.

I would like to recreate this train on my loft layout. So, if there is anybody out there who knows of or remembers this train, what it composed of and where it ran from, I should much appreciate any information they may have.

Neil Rogers

I think I can confirm that new cars of the '50s (and before) were often in colours other than black. As I write this, I am looking at pictures of a blue Bugatti, grey Rolls Royce, white Bullnose Morris and blue Austin Seven. A salesman's handbook alongside my desk, for the 1956 Ford Consul and Zephyrs, describe two tone colour schemes, as do many contemporary sales brochures.

Yes, many pre- and early post-war cars were black and the basic versions were predominantly so and hence why they were more common. In the '50s, though, improved paint systems, and a reaction to the austerity days of war, saw the change to 'any colour you want - except black'.

Although my 1955 Morris Minor was black, my friends 1938 Morris 8 also, alternative colour versions of both were available. My grandmother had a pale blue 1953 Anglia and my father a beige 1955 Renault.

It should also not be forgotten that the MOT, or 'ten year test', was introduced in 1960 and this was the catalyst that removed many old cars, often 'old bangers', and frequently black, off the road.

In response to the request for information on Sleeping Car train formations by Thom Ritter, I would offer the following information obtained from BR(WR) Passenger Train Working (Paddington) publications:

October 1983/May 1984.

1B02 - "The Night Riviera"- 00.05 for Penzance.

3 TSO Penzance.

NEA

TSO

FK

SLEP

SLE

SLEP

NDX

SLEP - Plymouth

2 NDX

Formed by 19.49 ex Willesden, due Paddington 21.30.

May 1973/May 1974.

1B09 00.55 Penzance. Conveys Sleeping Car and Motorail Passengers only.

GUV (Cars) Penzance.

GUV (Cars) Plymouth.

BCK Plymouth.

SLF Plymouth.

SLS Plymouth.

SLC Penzance. (Fridays Only until 28.9.73)

SLC Penzance.

SLF Penzance.

4 SLC Penzance.

BCK Penzance.

Formed by 21.40 Old Oak Common, due 22.00.

The 2 GUVs were attached at Paddington after loading on platform 2 with passengers' cars.

I hope that this is of use,

Pete Nolan

During my recent research into LNER 0-6-0 locos, I compiled some interesting figures.

The total number of LNER 0-6-0s taken over by BR was 1,698, of which LNER classes J38 and J39 accounted for 324. This left 1,374 pre-Grouping 0-6-0s taken over by BR from LNER. Respective totals were:-

NER - 358

NBR - 297

GER - 276

GCR - 252

GNR - 191

If you then take only classes numbering over 100 locos each, the figures are:-

NBR - 227

GCR - 174

GER - 127

NER - 115

GNR - 110

I think there's a pretty good case for a model NBR 0-6-0 in there somewhere - and I didn't invent any of the figures!

The recent posts regarding bogie problems may be related to a problem I have noted with all my recent class 33/1 and 33/2 purchases with high intensity lights.

Straight from the box, when placed on the track, only the wheels on the outer axle of each bogie contacted the rails and the bogies were reluctant to pivot freely. Taking the body off revealed that the wires to the lights were being trapped between the cab inserts and the top of the bogie gear towers thus pushing the bogie down. If you try to force the bogie into alignment the pivot is likely to break.

My solution was to bend the wires up vertically as close to the PCB board as possible so that they are now inboard of the cab inserts. Putting the body back on the bogies are now free to pivot and rock.

The big question is – if this is a common problem, why didn’t Heljan notice this at the inspection stage and put things right before the end user has an issue? Is it yet another case of lack of attention to detail that could potentially put off the buying public making further purchases.

Martin Russell

-----

Only two Class 27s were painted in the two tone green livery akin to the later Class 25s and these were D5380 and D5382.

Both locos were repainted thus when allocated to the LMR, but were still in this livery when transferred to Scotland c1968/69. D5380 received full yellow ends while in this livery.

I have seen pictures of these on the web, but can't remember where.

Alan Rintoul

-----

What an eye for detail your readers have.

I would just like to set Robin Johnson's mind at rest, regarding 'type' and 'class'. It was just me being a little sloppy with terminology. I know that 'types' didn't go up to Type 26 in early BR diesel days - everyone knows the largest was type 12 (only joking).

Apologies also to Mr Brooks-Burke. I said that BRCW Type 2s (not Cromptons before anyone says) were at Ipswich in about 1961 - probably it was in 1959 or 1960. They were just a few months old at the time.

Dudley Jones

Is this a record? Hornby Dublo 3-rail EMU boxed and trailer unboxed - both with yellow end panel and black rear. With ringfield motor the EMU sold on eBay on Tuesday evening for £430 and trailer for £201 - a total of £631. (Item Numbers 190116846869 and 190116850263).

Alan Short

Once upon a time, when the world was young, the ES1 locomotive was used on Tyneside. It was an electric which could pick up power either through a pantograph on the cab roof or by third rail. The cab was centrally located and the body sloped down to front and rear. I believe there's one in the NRM.

Now, I have two questions:

Was there a diesel version of this, or something which looked similar, because I can remember as a very small boy seeing something very like it trundling around Aberdeen harbour, which certainly wasn't electrified.

Secondly, I'm sure I can remember seeing pictures of the same in old model railway catalogues - we'd be talking early 1960s

Does this ring any bells?

Stuart Reid

Not being blessed with electrical knowledge I am looking for help in wiring up a Peco electrofrog double slip. I am using Peco point motors and the PL15 twin micro switches and am baffled by the instructions!

I was wondering whether any of your readers could help by explaining where I am going wrong by perhaps drawing a simple schematic showing exactly where the track feeds should go and how to wire up the micro switches etc..

Chris Boyle

After a recent trip to the Netherlands and seen the fabulous locomotives and rolling stock out there, I decided I would like to model a small NS/DB layout. So, I have sold all but one of my Class 50s and have a small stud of mainly Roco NS locomotives that I would like to fit Hornby decoders to. All my locos have working lights, which is the norm for even the basic hobby models for the European market. So, does anybody know if Hornby decoders will work in Roco locomotives?

Ian Reynolds

The staff of Model Rail have been particularly quick off the mark with their review of the new Bachmann 00 Class 37/4, samples of which arrived from China by air just a few days before the magazine landed on the doormat. I shall not reveal their conclusion other than to say that it makes interesting reading.

Other reviews include recent Hornby Mk1 releases and ViTrains Class 37/4s, Oxford Diecast 4mm scale Ford and Morris vans as well as trees from Woodland Scenics and Grand Central Gems. There are the first pictures of the forthcoming Graham Farish Class 60 'Isambard Kingdom Brunel', the Tower 0 gauge 14XX and the Bachmann 141/181 locomotive for the Irish market. Heljan's release plans for the future are revealed.

The layout reviewed is 'Shaweport', an N gauge modern image scene by Stephen Farmer. The masterclass features the BR Class 14.

'Construction' articles cover an 0 gauge FNA nuclear flask wagon, updating the Heljan 0 gauge Class 47, modelling fields, improving lighting on the Hornby Class 60, BR mineral wagons, horse traffic, a working 0 gauge layout on a 10ft plank and The Workshop Apprentice series looks at assembling 00 subassemblies.

The Bachmann Collectors’ Club has launched its own website at www.bachmann-collectorsclub.com which will provide members with the latest information. The site can also be accessed through www.bachmann.co.uk by clicking on the Collectors’ Club section.

The Collectors’ Club pages includes details of all the exclusive club models produced by Bachmann for members over the years and a comprehensive guide to the contents of each of the Collectors’ Club magazines produced over the years.

Dennis Lovett, Public Relations Manager at Bachmann Europe said that "the Bachmann Collectors’ Club has seen major growth in the last 12 months and we intend to provide even more facilities and offers during the new club year, which starts on 1st July".

By Brian Macdermott

Sunday 10 June: Travel Channel, 13.00-14.00, Swiss Railway Journeys.

Derek Morrow may like to check out www.trackthosetrains.com. This software was developed from a fairly general collector software programme, which I have also used.

'Track Those Trains' will track inventory costs, valuations, allow photos, links to layouts, train spotting records, contact list, sources of spares, a diary (past current and future) and is programmable to provide a set of database criteria for your own special needs. I am not a computer wizard by any means, yet find it simple to use. The database can be searched by a number of variables (which you determine) and can provide printed reports.

The website allows for a free trial to be downloaded, providing most basic function for experimentation. The full software is, in my opinion, reasonably priced. The only technical support I have needed ("Computers for Dummies" is too technical for me!) was help on how to transfer the database to a new computer and the response was fast and helpful.

I have no connection with the company other than as a very, very, satisfied customer!

David Nevett , Edmonton, Alberta

-----

-----

Braid is right, I am lucky. Manses do usually have quite good spaces for a layout and this one is no exception. I have a 17 by 8 shed in the garden which is where mine is based. He is right also about church halls. (There are some perks to every job!) I have started a model railway club for the school where I am chaplain and the layout is some 27 by 15 feet. It is not too popular with the ladies in the church who do not like the stack of baseboards on the stage, but the kids love it!

I am glad someone was paying attention and could correct my mistakes! I do not remember now from where I got my information with regards to numbers, but it was clearly wrong. Thanks, Braid. It makes the case for the J36 stronger which appeals to me more because it is that much smaller and therefore brings more variety, as far as the casual observer is concerned, which I think is very important. Most folk out there, particularly in exhibition land, do not know the subtleties of various classes but they do like to see movement and variety. A J36 looks so different from a larger J39 that it will spark more interest at an exhibition than the in-between J37. So, how about it Hornby/Bachmann?

Graham Crawford

Paul Jansz wrote that the EE Type 2 Baby Deltics were withdrawn because they were unreliable. I seem to recall that Modern Railways magazine, in 1967, reported that the Eastern Region considered them to be their most reliable type 2, achieving several periods of 100% availability. Without doubt they had problems, but so did many of the numerically larger classes. It should be remembered that, at this time, all 263 of the Brush Type 2s (later Class 31) had to be re-engined.

I think more to the point was that they were a small non-standard class and that BR, in the late sixties, after Beeching, had far too many small diesels than it had work for and that was the reason they were withdrawn.

Mark Jenkins

I am sure that Clive Mortimer is wrong about Class 26s in Ipswich; they may have made it in 1959/60, but by '61 they were all in Scotland. The early LMR based Class 27s definitely made it to March shed on freights in the 1960s. They also made it Gloucester too.

Perhaps Clive can enlighten me as to how many 27s were repainted in 2-tone green? Are there any pictures on the Web?

Paul Brooks-Burke

There are several different ways of looking at the duplication of models, when Hornby and Bachmann go into competition with their Jubilee offerings, the result will almost inevitably be one of good and bad. The Hornby offering will have strengths that the Bachmann does not and vice versa. Hopefully, we, the buying public, will have two worthy locos to purchase. The worst case scenario is if one is greatly superior to the other which may have a big impact on the inferior products investment.

Quite often we have seen one manufacturer feed off the success of another i.e. Bachmann's sales of SR locos must have been buoyed by Hornby's huge investment in Southern subjects.

Then there is the question of cheaper alternatives such as the 37 which comes as cheap or expensive as the buyer wants it to be. Just because someone buys a cheap 37, it does not mean that it is not any good. It just means there are more sophisticated models around.

We have also seen one manufacturer drop a loco from its range only to be taken up by another and greatly improved upon, the 9F for instance. If one looks through the history of manufacturers there are plenty of examples of one of the aforementioned scenarios and, by and large, it has served buyers well.

I believe that instead of bemoaning the duplicated offerings we should welcome them as it gives us a choice. One interesting observation about the forthcoming Jubilee's is price. Hornby locomotives usually have a higher RRP than Bachmann's ones. If both locos are pretty even in quality it could be down to who is willing to shave their profits most, to get sales. We could end up with a price war on our hands!

-----

Frank Spence points out that Bachmann and Dapol are in competition with one another, and he is right, but there is a very good reason why these two fine manufacturers should consider discussing future projects with each other and it is entirely illustrated by the Class 66 situation.

The market for N scale models is lucrative but small. If two competing models appear, one is almost certainly to be judged here and elsewhere as 'superior' based on some criteria or other. The usual one seen in these pages is the basic appearance of the model. Although unusually rough running will cause comment, I rarely see a model’s performance touted to the same degree as (say) the accuracy of the roof profile. This is a situation in which the 'losing' company will take a bath as word spreads and even those, who would not normally care, will develop a preference for the more accurate of the two models.

Should consumers be in the rare but happy position in which both models are identical in appearance and performance, it would be best for each company to offer their versions in liveries not offered by the other. Identical livery in catalogues lead to another area in which inaccuracy can be judged by the knowledgeable. The opinion shared by those of less encyclopaedic knowledge can lead to sales being lost to a slip of the airbrush. This goes double for rolling stock, especially modern profile goods wagons.

Both companies have areas of the hobby in which they excel over the other. Better their efforts should coincide than collide on the odd occasion they each pick the same subject. I want both companies to be healthy and profitable for a long time to come.

And who knows, a workable NEM pocket standard based on de facto UK 00/N realities could fall out of the discussions too.

Peter Gomm should visit the Dapol website where he will see exactly what a spine wagon is, although it is early days and the pictures are CAD workups so far. It looks to be a nice addition to any modern layout.

Steve Mann

Referring to the recent posting about the Heljan 33/2, I find that my Heljan 27/1 has the same fault, derailing on the points. Luckily, I have also a continuous loop on my layout, enabling the Heljan 27/1 to run without any mishaps.

I contacted Heljan UK regarding this fault, but they were unable to assist me. Perhaps a reader of MREmag will be able to assist in rectifying this fault.

Robert Stalker

I was converting one of Hornby's beautiful Merchant Navies ('Canadian Pacific') to DCC this week and I have read the correspondence about the variable pulling capabilities (or otherwise) of these locos with interest.

I was surprised to see that the rear drivers of this model were sprung so that gentle downwards pressure on the cab compressed the spring on the rear axle and the front drivers lifted off the track.

I think this may be the cause of their adhesion problem. As soon as the loco is pulling a load that will tend to transfer weight rearwards and if the suspension spring compresses this will allow the front wheels to lift and hey presto - reduced traction.

Two or three years ago, I was working with modifying the Hornby 9Fs to loco drive. I found that, without the body fitted, the chassis were impressive load pullers but as soon as the body was fitted they were extremely prone to slipping. The cause was the front bogie lifting the front drivers fractionally off the track by contact with the buffer beam. A similar effect to the above but with a very different cause.

As 'Canadian Pacific' was a customer's loco, I could not experiment with the suspension, but I suspect converting it back to effectively a rigid chassis would improve things dramatically. A stiffer spring above the rear axle may help but this must not cause the rear drivers to be lifted off the track or the problem will remain.

Having suspension will help with pickup over uneven track but good pickup and poor adhesion are not very useful partners. Perhaps, if it had been the front drivers that had the springing, then it may have worked. Has anyone with one of these locos tried their pulling power when reversing?

Stuart de Boer

The next toy auction at The Old House, Station Road, Knowle, Solihull, West Midlands B93 0HT, is next Tuesday, 12th June at 11.00am. Viewing will be on Saturday between 9.30am and 12.30pm and on Monday from 9am until 5pm. There will also be viewing on the morning of the sale from 8.30am until 10.00am.

The Bachmann Collectors’ Club limited edition Class 66 locomotive No.66540 ‘Ruby’ has now sold out. The locomotive was named to celebrate Freightliner’s 40th Anniversary at Coatbridge in January 2006.

The limited edition locomotive was offered to Bachmann Collectors’ Club members in the Spring 2007 issue of the Collectors’ Club magazine. 504 models were released, each with a numbered certificate. When the recently published Summer issue was distributed in June, only 20 examples remained and these have quickly sold.

Dennis Lovett, Public Relations Manager at Bachmann Europe, said, "All three of the 2006/7 00 gauge locomotives have now sold out. We have three more locomotives in 00, one in N gauge, as well as sets of wagons in both scales, lined up to be released during the new club year which commences on 1st July 2007".

Bachmann Europe PLC displayed the first shots of the new Voyager driving car at the Annual General Meeting of the N Gauge Society held in Redhill on Saturday 26 May.

Some of the first components of the forthcoming Class 37 locomotive were also seen, together with working examples of the new Class 04 diesel shunter. Undecorated samples of the new Jubilee with single and double chimneys, long and short fireboxes, smooth and riveted tenders were on show together with both bogie types.

We thank Rails of Sheffield again for their sponsorship of the competition. We have set aside two weeks for you entries to be submitted so the closing date this month is 22:00 on Thursday June 21st. Don’t forget to send your entries on a separate email with the subject "June Quiz".

Here are the questions. Some nice and easy ones and a couple to make you think a little.

Brian McDermott is not far off in his reference to those "bake" coaches. Back in the '70s I spent a lot of time travelling up and down the country in Mk1 stock and always remember the characteristic smell of ancient dust baking in the heating system, especially at night when it was full on.

Stuart Reid

Pedantry No. 1: Dudley Jones appears to be getting his diesel types and classes a little mixed up (Monday MREmag). 'Type' was of course a pre-TOPS power classification for diesels, while 'Class' was the TOPS notation. Considering that Type 5 was the highest pre-TOPS power classification (the 3300hp Deltics), the mind boggles at the power available to the driver of a "Type 26"! Perhaps it was a Type 26 that 'London-Brighton In Four Minutes' was filmed from... in real time? (wink)

Pedantry No.2: Alas, John Simmonds has further misspelled Deryck Guyler's name!

I must admit that I'm of a generation where things like 'Much Binding In The Marsh' and 'Round The Horne' are regarded as very much of their time. Humour is notorious for not travelling well through time - I'm of 'The Goodies' and later 'Not The Nine O'clock News' and 'The Young Ones' (no, not the sappy Cliff Richard film!) generation, but I can well see why those who weren't adolescents at the time wouldn't find them in the slightest bit funny.

It takes a very special comedian or comic actor (the late, great Dave Allen springs to mind) to make humour transcend generations. But in the vast majority of cases, the most appropriate expression is - 'you had to be there'.

But I was pleased to see Mick Reynolds reference to the glorious Bonzo Dog Doo Dah Band. I assume his brother makes the noises for the talkies?

-----

With reference to Gordon Hopkins' post today (Tuesday 29th May) I really must disagree, why should a coupling box that doesn't appear on the prototype need to be scaled to a different height in 00 rather than H0? It's not a prototype feature, so just has to work, which the existing standard appears to be able to do.

The whole point of NEM boxes is so that we can standardise on our couplers of choice (regardless of what they may be) and have them reliably work together, that needs a consistent height, the existing standard gives a consistent height that will work reliably with H0 or 00, so what's the problem here?

Why do things the hard way? We have a standard, we have some companies already working to it (or getting close) at least some of the time - the idea is to promote compatibility, not incompatibility.

Martyn Read

Crawley Model Railway Society is celebrating its 50^th anniversary in 2008. We are trying to make contact with as many former members as possible. We would welcome seeing them at our next exhibition which will take place over the weekend of 12^th and 13^th April 2008, or before hand.

The exhibition will be approximately 50% bigger than the last and we are pleased to announce that Gordon Gravett will be exhibiting his long awaited 'Reseau Breton' masterpiece. The society will also be unveiling two new layouts in N Gauge and ON30.

We look forward to hearing from any former members and renewing friendships. If there are any modellers in the Crawley, Horley or Horsham area who would like to see what we have to offer, then the same invitation applies.

Barry Mursell

If Peter Gomm goes to Dapol's website: http://www.dapol.co.uk/newsn.html - under April, he'll find the first 3D Cad/Cam images of the spine wagon. He can then make a decision how important it may be in his life!

Tony Pritchard

-----

I am (along with many others I suspect) very excited at the tentative announcement in Friday's (01.06.07) MREMag of Dapol's proposal to produce a 00 gauge model again after all this time, It is a much needed type.

However, I need a few questions answering about this new model though. By the term 'spine' wagon, do they mean Freightliner Intermodal container flat? 'Twin unit' presumably means permanently coupled, as with the superb Bachmann sets? If so, will the model represent one of the later open sided style twin flats, as operated by EWS, or one of the many other styles currently in service?

It is great news, though, whichever style they go for, but what would be fantastic news would be to hear of an original coupled 4-set liner wagon being produced. Now that would sell at least as well (and as many items) as a fresh 'twin' set!

Also, to really put the icing on the cake, how about producing an ever increasing range of 'out-of-the-box-, ready-to-run, compatible, 20ft / 30ft / 40ft and 45ft containers in both standard and 9ft 6inch heights to go with both this new wagon and the current Bachmann ones?

Bob Hart

Further to Mr Robert Stalker's comment (04.06.2007) May I add: Colonel Chin Strap's "Don't mind if I Do" (Have another drink), Mrs Mop's "Can I do you now Sir?" and the odd comments like "Don't forget the Diver" and in a very non-PC world good old "Ali Upp!"

After the War (WWII), Two Way family Favourites was going out to BAOR in West Germany - all, of course, on the BBC Light Programme and not on the BBC Home Service.

Rowland Batson

-----

For the record, ‘Much Binding in the Marsh’ (broadcast 1944-54) starred Kenneth Horne and Richard ‘Stinker’ Murdoch. They were ably supported by several other character actors, such as Sam Costa, Maurice Denham, Nicholas Parsons and Dora Bryan. Although the original setting was an RAF station (during and after the war), the team ended up demobbed and running a local newspaper!

Kenneth Horne did of course go on to greater things with ‘Beyond our Ken’ and then ‘Round the Horne’. Richard Murdoch and Arthur Askey had been together in another wartime favourite, ‘Band Wagon’.

A simple Google search will reveal much more information about these programmes and performers, and others, for those interested.

Nick Stanbury

Not that you are likely to have the time or the inclination, I guess, but putting "Horace Batchelor" into Wikipaedia is really quite illuminating - especially the local Bristol Newspaper Article which you can access at the end!. I don't think he was too short of a few bob!

Johnny Haynes [also a late night Luxembourg listener and Kenneth Horne devotee].

It is great that Dapol have brought out a non-motorised Class 66 to allow a double header. I hope that Bachmann might follow suit and bring out no- motorised units. I particular would like to see a Class 20 in such a form as these are common on the railways.

Kennedy Howden

I am not so sure that Clive Mortimore is quite right in his claim that D5379 - D5415 were allocated to the Midland Lines rather than a specific depot. This certainly may have been correct later on, but I am sure that when they were introduced in 1962, this system had not been introduced and they were in fact initially allocated to Cricklewood.

Living at the southern end of the Midland main line I saw all this batch of locos and travelled behind many of them in two tone green livery and, if my memory serves me correctly, carrying 14a shed plates. I also have two separate publications that confirm 14a allocation.

Tony Elliott

-----

Just a minor correction to Ian Taylor’s posting on the Class 26/27 allocations. In 1963, 15A was Leicester Midland, not Leicester Central. The Midland shed had been 15C for many years but this was changed to 15A in 1963.

Dick Flower

In answer to the recent enquiry, D5379 to D5415 were introduced between June and October 1962 and were all initially allocated to 14A Cricklewood Depot. Thus, they were seen on the Midland main line and on cross London Freights etc.. It has also been suggested that they worked to Dover on the Car Carrier service, I have yet to locate a photo confirm this working.

Sadly the Heljan models were not issued with the interconnecting doors so do not represent the early locos - although the BR green issues do carry the appropriate numbers. This was a missed opportunity by Heljan to generate some worthwhile sells to those who model the early BR green era.

John Cherry

It was interesting to hear about the final planned consist for the Hornby Railroad Range.

However, surely the R1092 City Freight Set should be also part of this range with the crude/inaccurate under scale ex-Lima Deltic along the non-prototypical use of a Deltic on a short (unfitted?) assorted freight train. Assuming that this set is still going to be released, I would be interested to hear from other readers on this subject.

Mike Leonard's email, published on 30^th May, is an interesting and useful contribution to the debate about LNER 0-6-0s but I think he is off the mark regarding the Great Eastern. It would be hard to envisage the Great Eastern branch network without Y14 / J15s. J17s are no substitute for these superb little engines which, with their low (13.5 ton) axle loadings, could travel over the whole system. They functioned both as goods engines and for branch passenger services.

The North Norfolk Railway's J15 pops up regularly at various venues round the country winning new friends and, of course, the world record for fastest construction of a locomotive is held by Stratford for building a J15 (9h 47m) - so it should be simple enough for Hornby or Bachmann to build.

Malcolm Harding

Do you know of any UK based software for collating a complete inventory of a model railway, with pictures, price, history etc. – with or without links to the database of ready-to-run manufacturers, current and historical?

I seem to remember some years ago there was one and it came out of the offices of one of the great national houses. Unfortunately, I cannot remember which one or find any reference to it now.

Philip Morgan

Further to Peter Bedding’s message regarding WW11 models, I would like to add the layout 'Overlord' to the list of excellent layouts depicting the wartime period. I agree with Peter that this period is a fascinating one to model.

"I am taking photos for my model railway project".

"Yeah, right, come with me Sonny Jim".

I have a passing interest in Operation Dynamo being the evacuation of Dunkirk when the railways moved thousands of service men from the Folkestone and Dover area back to bases throughout the UK. Locos and stock from all over the system converged on the Dover area but very little of the details of this amazing operation can be traced.

My one hearsay quote that sums up the operation is from a seconded non-Southern driver, leaving Dover with a fully laden train of rescued troops, saying:

"Where am I going?"

The answer came:

"You’re routed for Redhill stop there and ask again"

I do know that some of these rescue trains went as far as Exeter and maybe beyond so there must have been some unique workings of locos and stock yet to be unearthed.

Stephen Dimmock

Many thanks to Messrs Hubbard, Plowman and de Boer for all your helpful replies regarding my question on Bachmann DCC fitted locos and their use where a Relco is fitted. This is very useful information which is much appreciated and, hopefully, I can obtain Jubilee 'Alberta' (a personal favourite) when it is eventually released.

It is also gives much credit to MREmag as a good source for exchange of information.

John Cherry

Hornby have just released the following N scale models in their cold cast resin Lyddle End series:

Bay Terrace Houses - left-hand (N8687), right-hand (N8688), garden walls (N8689)

garden walls T section (N8690).

Town Gas Works - gas holder (N8737), retort house with chimney (N8738), boiler house (N8739), tower condenser and washer (N8740), purifiers (N8741), office & gates (N8742), stores (N8743), straight walls x 3 (N8744) and corner walls x 2 (N8745).

Lyddle End Terminus Station - main building (N8713) and terminus offices (N8714).

Upper Lyddle End Station - main building (N8716) and waiting (N8717).

Lower Lyddle End Station - shelter (N8718), waiting room (N8719), office (N8720) and platform signal box (N8721).

St Andrews church N8700 and lytch gate (N8695).

Skale Oil petrol station (N8727).

The Saracens Head (N8705).

Country police station (N8701) and police box (N8696).

Phil Bullock on Friday 1st June made mention of the various diesel classes employed on the Kings Cross suburban services. It was sadly true that the EE Type 2 'Baby Deltic' (later Class 23) was unreliable. Despite remedial attention, this was the cause of its early scrapping.

Regarding slipping Pacifics, a major factor which is often forgotten is the superheater. Add to the larger grate area and boiler possible when this format is adopted instead of a 4-6-0, the installation much larger superheaters. Wonderful for more economic power production; but if the regulator is on the saturated side of the steam pipe, this constitutes a large reservoir of steam heading for the cylinders, effectively beyond the control of the driver. Once the lubricating technology had caught up, the possibility of fitting the regulator after the superheater was realised, and this was widely employed on the Riddles Standard designs.

Paul Jansz

How can I order a Spine Wagon when I don't know what it is? Is it something very important to my life? Am I missing out?

Peter Gomm

Recent correspondence has referred to the weathering on the latest 9F (92044 from Bachmann) differing from the pre-production photographs. In my opinion, we have yet to see a good attempt by either Hornby or Bachmann at reproducing realistic weathering effects. Most examples still consist of a quick 'blow over' with the airbrush to the lower regions of the loco with some pseudo-rust colour.

If you take the time to study photographs of the real things in service, you will see that the wheels were rarely rusty, especially on main line locos. Most locos had a smattering of dirt (brown) on the underside, especially at the front end around the base of the cylinders, the frames and some discolouring of the ashpan due to hot ashes. The boiler top was under a constant rain of soot from the chimney giving a dusty grey colour to the boiler top, usually washed down the sides by the rain.

It would take a bit of effort from the main manufacturers to achieve an authentic weathered finish, but if one of them can produce that lovely teak finish on their (sadly flawed) Gresley coaches, with a reputed 100 passes of the painting process, it is certainly not beyond them.

Glenn Martin

There has been a lot of comment regarding the duplication of models by manufacturers and, currently, the debate has surrounded the decisions taken by both Bachmann and Hornby to produce models of the Royal Scot Class. Elsewhere there has been duplication of the Class 66 in N gauge by Graham Farish and Dapol.

Hornby, Bachmann/Graham Farish and Dapol are separate commercial companies seeking profitability and in direct competition with each other. Looking back, as I have done in Past in Print, the output of the then major manufacturers was more restricted when compared to the level of offerings available today.

I cannot imagine anyone in business being prepared to discuss their own development programme with a direct competitor but we are fortunate that the main organisations do take notice of the comments and opinions expressed by us. It is inevitable in such a situation that duplication will occur in the future but healthy competition will continue to benefit the hobby. What may be worth exploring is those areas where co-operation and common standards would be more beneficial to the hobby. Couplings and DCC come immediately to mind.

Frank Spence

4mm Heljan 33/2, straight from the box, ran OK on the straight but it came off at the first point - and this kept happening. There was no immediate obvious cause, but on closer checking I found the cross members that hold the front bogies in place were broken. There appears no reason for this break on a new locomotive. So, if you have a similar loco with this problem check the cross members.

Mac Strong

If there are any other decals that people can't find, please ask through my website ( www.precisionlabels.com/d66.html ) and send me a picture of it, ideally showing some feature of the stock it's on, like a grill or the side of an engine from top to bottom, so that I can scale from that.

John Peck

Re - those older listeners of nostalgic radio (MREmag 30/31 May) - probably modelling layouts set in the fifties and early sixties - readers may like to know that BBC7 (available on digital radio and the BBC website) frequently replay old favourites such as "The Goon Show"; Hancock's Half Hour"; "The Navy Lark"; "Round the Horne"; "Take it from Here"; and many others...just the job to recall ones (misspent) youth when steam still reigned supreme!

Stephen Derek

Congratulations to Dapol on their 00 spine Wagon initiative. I hope it succeeds. I wonder if we are seeing the emergence of a new way to market with this and Heljans Falcon i.e. that manufacturers canvas support first. If so, this may actually be the way to get an 0-6-0 tender engine along the lines of recent correspondence. I'm for a J37 myself but then I'm geographically biased!

Dapol are a refreshing change in model railways. They keep their prospective customers in the loop, publishing drawings on which comments are actively encouraged. There is a short development time (typically within a year) and models turn up on time.

I hope this venture back into 00 is a success. There's room for lots more.

Russell Benton

A recent correspondent bemoaned the duplication of models between Bachmann and Hornby, whilst another gave logical reasons for a particular LNER 0-6-0.

Along the same lines the top three loco types (in terms of numbers) on the Southern at nationalisation were WC/BB, M7 and the C class 0-6-0. Few others came near, so the C is an obvious choice. As Hornby seems tied to (albeit very good) passenger locos, how about Bachmann repeating the foresight they had with the N class and producing a C, there is even an example on the Bluebell. While they are at it they could do a an early Southern pillbox brake van to go with it, another big gap in the market.

Roger Norman

Gordon Hopkins wrote: "Like Jane Sullivan, my main use for NEM style pockets in 4mm scale, where they exist, is to fit buckeye style couplers - whether they be Kadee or any other make. Whilst it is true that such pockets do not exist on the prototype, buckeye couplings most certainly do - at least on the prototypes I model. So, if I want to apply the same simple procedure that Jane mentions to change coupling style, is it unreasonable to expect the pocket to be set at the height appropriate for that item of stock? This means near buffer beam level in 4mm scale, not at an artificially low level just because that's what 3.5mm models already use. Experience shows that magnetic uncoupling at this greater height can be readily achieved, so this is no barrier to operation either."

What Gordon’s asking for here, is that the NEM style socket be adjusted on 00 stock so that the Kadee type coupling is placed at the 00 scale height of a buckeye coupling. But this wouldn’t actually change anything. The Kadee style coupling is an H0 coupling, whose characteristics were defined by the original manufacturer (Kadee) to "vaguely" emulate the US prototype buckeye coupling at near to (US) prototypical height in H0. No amount of fudging makes it an 00 coupling.

Kadee did not specify the NEM 362 standard, they merely followed it to produce the NEM 362 socketed version of their couplings so that they were inter-operable with their own defined standards existing in US H0 practice.

If Hornby and Bachmann were to suddenly change their pocket height so that NEM 362 Kadees so fitted were at 4mm scale height (which is odd to argue for in a non scale coupling) then where does that leave the people who want to use an alternate coupling, such as the Roco close coupling? Suddenly, that will be too high to automatically uncouple, and a new design of tension lock, would be required as well.

Even then, the buffer beam mounted Kadee won’t be right. It’ll stick out too far (actually further than currently as it’ll have to clear the buffers) it’ll be over scale, it just won’t actually look right.

Gordon Hopkins wrote: "Of course, if accuracy of representation is of no significance to you, and you intend running almost anything with anything else, then the H0 standard will do fine. But, in these days of super detailed 4mm models, it seems a shame to allow couplings to let the side down for the sake of largely unnecessary compatibility with another scale, just because they happen to use the same track gauge as manufactured."

Gordon, I think you have missed the point here. The NEM 362 pocket is at the height it is because that is the height that is most commonly been used to secure couplings in both H0 and 00 in Europe and has been for quite some time. You will note that the uncranked NEM tension lock couplings supplied by Hornby and Bachmann are at the same height as those tension locks not NEM socketed, and you’ll note that the former Airfix clip in coupler pockets now used in some Hornby stock are almost exactly the same height as the NEM 362 defined standard which means you can pop a slightly modified NEM coupling in there and it’ll work happily, and that was not a standard defined by anyone other than Airfix so that you could have a choice of slim-line or chunky tension locks (eventually only the latter were supplied). Those tension locks were not inter-operable with the continental couplings of yore, but that was just a damn sensible height to put the (non-scale) couplings at.

The NEM 362 standard exists not so that you can couple any old bit of rolling stock together but so that you can use your preferred choice of coupling to couple your stock together, not just the manufacturer supplied couplings.

Paddy Sinclair

In response to a question about traction tyres on the J52, I have a J83 that also suffered pickup problems. I removed the traction tyres and now it runs well over all my point work. This has not seemed to affect its pulling power - in fact it will still pull better than my Bachmann Golden Eagle A4.

I hope this helps.

Paul Davis

The 140th toy auction at the West Street Auction Galleries in Lewes, Sussex, is next Monday (June 11th) at 10.30am. Viewing will be on Friday between 9am and 5pm and on Saturday from 9am until 1pm. There will also be viewing on the morning of the sale from 9am until 10am.

Does anyone know where I can find information on BR sleeper train formations and locos used for them? I am particularly looking for details on Eastern Region maroon Mk1s, Western Region blue and grey Mk1s and Western Region Executive livery Mk2s and Mk3s.

Thanks, Pat, for this brilliant website and for anyone who can help me out.

Thom Ritter

Thanks to Mike Leonard for his sensible digest of prime candidates. Any of these 'maids of all work' would be very welcome in model form.

My own primary interest is in the J6, for a couple of reasons.

The first is very simple: despite ample production of Doncaster's big engines in model form over the years, there has never been a suitable 0-6-0 produced in ready to run form to go with them on their home turf. (The J39 was notable for its general absence on the East coast route south of Doncaster, but were ubiquitous elsewhere on the system.)

Second, there is no easily utilised Doncaster 0-6-0 7' 3" + 9' 0" chassis available. All current models with this spacing have dated features that make them difficult to 'recycle' into other models, being either plastic with an awkwardly positioned motor (Hornby's N2, B17) or split chassis type (Bachmann B1, V1). I should say this has not stopped me using these chassis, but something better would be welcome. There are just so many common Doncaster types using this chassis: K2, other J's including J50 and J52, N1.

Regarding Goslin's list and the GER J20, while these were the largest capacity GER goods engines, they were one of the smaller classes. The numerous J15 and J17 were more widely distributed and, with similar numbers surviving into BR service, the larger J17 is probably the better proposition for manufacturing. Anyone who has struggled to conceal a motor in a J15 would probably concur.

Paul Jansz

I for one would certainly endorse Stuart de Boer's suggestion today that "future polls could be remodelled so a vote for 'a small 0-6-0 tender loco with a northern flavour' did not get lost through being diluted with the many variants." Most of us are likely to buy a particular type of loco if it is offered to us rather than getting sniffy because it isn't the particular class we asked Santa Claus to put in our stocking.

Stuart Reid

I was having difficulty with removing the body from a Hornby J52 - a nice weathered version. None of the screws on the bottom seemed relevant. I emailed the Hornby Service Desk for help and ten minutes later Julian rang me to give me the answer - it unclips from the back and slides slightly backwards to unhook from the two lugs at the front.

It couldn't be much better than that! Thank you Hornby.

Linking to another recent theme, this loco has traction tyres on the middle drivers. These stick like glue to the track - it is hard to push it along as they grip so well. It should be able to pull the Titanic. However, this is at the expense of pickups. It is noticeable that with only four wheels picking up it is a bit prone to stall at slow speed over pointwork.

Stuart de Boer

Having been assured by many that the only Class 37 worth having would be the forthcoming model from Bachmann, I couldn't wait to get my example (37672 in Transrail livery) home and into action on my layout. After some running in, I put it to work on an engineers train and ran it for well over 30 minutes. Very impressed.

It ran well as I come to expect of Bachmann models, although my example was a little noisier than usual. To me (not a rivet counter), the body looks fine and the finish was good. New features include opening cab doors (like Hornby locos) and an interior cab light. The latter in my opinion is great but a little too bright.

The final verdict.

It is better than the original Bachmann model in terms of accuracy. Not that much better than the ViTrains version of the Class 37 ( I have 5 of these) as far as value for money is concerned. I will happily run examples from both stables. Bachmann does need to think about more liveries and variations though. The Class 37 is an enormous subject to cover!

Both manufacturers need to move on from the 37/4 and 37/6 bodyshell variant soon.

Andrew Wiltshire

I fully agree with Jane Sullivan. There is only one correct height for Kadee couplers which is determined by the height of the coupler tail above rail level - it is the same for both H0 and 00 scale stock.

Bachmann use two different NEM pocket heights corresponding to their straight and under-set (cranked) hook and bar couplers. The height difference is about 2.5 to 3mm. The lower pocket height (designed for straight Bachmann NEM coupler) is near enough correct for use with Kadee NEM couplers nos 17-20. However, most stock has the higher NEM pocket. I have tried many different solutions, including modifying Kadee NEM couplers so that the head is under-set, but I have come to the conclusion that the easiest solution is simply to super-glue a second Bachmann NEM pocket (with the plastic tail fixing removed) onto the bottom of the existing pocket. This brings the second pocket down to near enough the correct height, and is a simple low cost solution. Bachmann NEM pockets are available in the spares packs 36-027 and 36-030.

One minor point of detail - the Bachmann NEM pocket wall seems to be slightly thinner on one side compared to the other. Glue the second pocket so that the thinnest side is uppermost. This lowers the coupler by about 3mm.

David Randles

-----

Like Jane Sullivan, my main use for NEM style pockets in 4mm scale, where they exist, is to fit buckeye style couplers - whether they be Kadee or any other make. Whilst it is true that such pockets do not exist on the prototype, buckeye couplings most certainly do - at least on the prototypes I model. So, if I want to apply the same simple procedure that Jane mentions to change coupling style, is it unreasonable to expect the pocket to be set at the height appropriate for that item of stock? This means near buffer beam level in 4mm scale, not at an artificially low level just because that's what 3.5mm models already use. Experience shows that magnetic uncoupling at this greater height can be readily achieved, so this is no barrier to operation either.

Of course, if accuracy of representation is of no significance to you, and you intend running almost anything with anything else, then the H0 standard will do fine. But, in these days of super detailed 4mm models, it seems a shame to allow couplings to let the side down for the sake of largely unnecessary compatibility with another scale, just because they happen to use the same track gauge as manufactured.

Looking at it another way, if they existed in quantity, would we expect 3mm ready-to-run models to use the 3.5mm NEM standard too, just because there's still only half a millimetre in it and people might occasionally want to run both together on some dual gauge track? I very much doubt it.

Gordon Hopkins

-----

I've been operating my 00 scale British layout with Kadee couplers for over 30 years, and I completely agree with Jane Sullivan. Interestingly, if you check the MOROP specification for NEM 362 (at www.miba.de/morop/nem362-d.pdf) you'll find that the pocket height for H0 scale (smaller than 00) is exactly the same as for S scale (larger than 00). So it's hard to see how the appropriate height for 00 could be anything different. There is, in fact, an entirely separate specification (NEM 363) for coupler mountings with adjustable heights. This corresponds to the Fleischmann 6574 close-couplings, which can be used between the coaches in rakes of British stock (although, nowadays, I prefer the Keen Systems devices, which are usually easier to fit).

Humphrey Bryson

The BRCW Type 2s allocated to English sheds were:

D5300-19 Hornsey. A few were around long enough to be transferred to Finsbury Park when that opened. All had been banished northwards by October 1960.

D5370-78 were originally at Thornaby, but later transferred to the LMR Midland lines circa 1966, before going to Scotland.

D5379-5415 were allocated to the LMR Midland lines. During the '60s the LMR did not allocated diesel locos to sheds but to locomotive districts. Most of the BRCW locos were allocated to the London and Leicester districts. They could be seen on the ex-MR lines from St Pancras to Sheffield, Birmingham to Peterborough.

Clive Mortimore

-----

Type 26s were also to be seen at Ipswich, where I believe a few were allocated for a while. My records show D5311/8/9 to have been there (on shed) about 1961. I never saw one at Norwich.

NB Type 2s were also at Ipswich around this time, including D6117/22/4/7/9 and D6131-35/7.

Norwich was obviously impressed with the Type 15s. When several of the first ten of the series arrived, they spent some months in a siding by the coaler, apparently laid up, while J15s, J17s and the last B12 performed duties apparently suited to the Type 15.

Dudley Jones

ITMA stood for' It's That Man Again' followed by 'The Tommy Handley Show'. I could be wrong, of course, unless I am the only 'oldie' daily reading MREmag.

Robert Stalker.

I have a twin cassette pack from the BBC with 4 episodes of Much Binding. They have been played to death! There is no sign of Deryck Guyler in any of the episodes that I have but I think memory can play tricks with us sometimes.

However, I did just want to add that Deryck Guyler, also famous as Corky in the Eric Sykes show and of course the head of the General Assistance Department in the Men from the Ministry, moved out here to Brisbane, Australia, late in his life to be close to his family and, for those interested, his memorial is in the large Mt Thompson Crematorium Gardens at Mt Gravatt.

Getting back to my model railways, are there any rumours circulating yet that any of the big companies are going to do something about signals next year. Hornby have been so good lately, I would happily forego the T9 for 12 months if they would just bring out a new series of decent, ready to use signals.

Stephen Russell-Clark, Brisbane

I'm a great fan of the old BBC Sunday lunchtime comedy shows. I'm too young to remember 'ITMA', or 'Much Binding...', sorry to those who can, but I had to correct Peter Gomm's spelling of the surname of Derek Guyler. This actor was an icon. He had so many memorable characters during his radio and TV career. He was the friendly neighbourhood copper in the Eric Sykes/Hattie Jacques TV shows and he stood out as the school caretaker in 'Please Sir' with John Alderton and co. and, even now, he is parodied in the 'Churchill' insurance ads, oh yes he is, and, indeed, he was famous for his adeptness with the washboard. Sadly I am old enough to remember those!

I think the idea to name a 'Warship' after 'HMS Troutbridge' is brilliant, but it would need many dents added to the front end to reflect 'Mr Phillip's' navigational and docking errors don't you think?

My layout has a station named 'Keynsham ("spelt K,E,Y,N,S,H,A,M"), near Bristol. The Station Master is Horace Batchelor and I paid for all the stock with a pools win using the "Infradraw" method. From Crystal set to DCC, looking back how privileged we have been to be involved. Enough, now back to the MAC.

Unfortunately, track most definitely is about millimetres here and there - just as much as on rolling stock.

Peter Morgan asks instead, "If track was produced, which remained 00 gauge, could accept all current and some past products with no modification, was dimensionally inaccurate but of cosmetically "scale" appearance, would you buy it?".

Maybe, but not without knowing what the details actually were. That's where the millimetres come in. 'Cosmetically scale' and 'dimensionally inaccurate' are phrases which are contradictions in terms, for which there can never be a compromise that will please all parties.

Like Peter, I would also like to see some examples produced to see what is being proposed - and the variations that might be on offer. Only by doing this and displaying them as widely as possible, both on the web and at shows, are we likely to see much in the way of progress on the matter.

Gordon Hopkins

By Brian Macdermott

Sunday 3 June: Travel Channel, 13.00-14.00, Swiss Railway Journeys.

Reader Paul Crake (30th May) obviously shares my taste. There has been, thank heaven, a pacifist backlash to aspects of the two world wars, but I'm not sure whether the period is unpopular (Foyle's War comes to mind and was popular enough), or just simply misunderstood. The reality is that the social attitudes and environment of that time are beyond the comprehension of many current modellers. There was much more social cohesion that has been lost. It does seem a tad illogical, though, that the Maunsell lined green and the BR eras should be favoured, and the bit in between gets swept into a black hole.

But there are some superb layouts which have been on the recent exhibition/magazine article trail and which are of this period. These include 'Lulworth Camp', 'Curyford' and 'Wartime'. All power to the respective owners' elbows; may they repeat their success.

Peter Bedding

John Cherry asks whether he can use a DCC decoder fitted loco on a Relco-fitted layout. This is an issue which I have covered in an article:
http://mrol.gppsoftware.com/Relcos.aspx

It is not necessary to "avoid a number of proposed purchases of Bachmann locomotives" or any other similarly decoder-fitted locomotives. Simply wire a switch in the 16VAC supply to the Relco unit so that it can be turned off when required i.e. when a DCC loco is present. Alternatively, unplug the power supply to the Relco.

With a switch fitted, there is no problem and no locos need to be avoided!

Graham Plowman

-----

Stuart de Boer

The latest state of 00 gauge has the top two manufacturers set to fight it out over the Royal Scot class, rebuilt of course. This makes one wonder, as in all things the market forces influence heavily the choice of model manufactured. This has seen the popular creation of the A3 and A4 Pacific's and the return of the Britannias. These are all historically important locomotives and they are followed not surprisingly by the Royal Scot class, the mainstay of the West Coast for many years. They will be amazing creations, there can be no doubt that the battle will make great models. The question becomes then how an oddity, such as the ugly duckling Q1 class locos, sold so well.

The key to marketing is the originality of your product, so, like the Q1, the Class 411 EMU will be a great success for Bachmann. It represents a new concept not approached by the model rail manufacturers before. So, to ensure good sales volumes, Hornby and Bachmann must continue to search for the original products to service those needs. With the reflection in the creation and provision for a market avenue previously not explored, at least not by opposition, and convince the consumer of the need.

So, now Hornby and Bachmann should stop fighting each other and, instead, search for new avenues to expand their product ranges. By directly competing they will have less of the market share for their Royal Scots, and this will be detrimental to the sales volumes and investment by each company. Some duplication should be expected. 'Mallard' is so popular it is good that each company has one, so there will always be a model in production. However, there are so many types and class of steam loco there would be little need to duplicate to this extent. I hope the Royal Scot is a success for both companies, but also a minority event, and that in the future the companies will seek alternate routes to expand their ranges.

As an after thought, is 6100 going to be manufactured by either companies at this stage, as the preserved example or the BR version?

Just a few thoughts.

Thanks to Pat for the great magazine everyday.

Simon Baldwin

Ian Taylor

-----

Regarding Norman Cluelt's enquiry about the early days of Class 26/27 locos, D5300-D5319 were originally allocated to 34B (Hornsey), D5379-D5415 (inclusive) started their careers at 14A (Cricklewood) and roamed widely up and down the Midland main line so would undoubtedly have been seen frequently at Wellingborough, Leicester and Derby.

All the others started as Scottish engines except for a small batch - D5369-D5378 which first went to 51L (Thornaby).

Although I saw all the Hornsey locos at Kings Cross, they did not stay long, being replaced, I believe, by what was to become the Class 31s. The Cricklewood engines arrived in 1962 and remained for a number of years, but I cannot recall when they actually left for the North.

Tony Elliott

-----

Class 26s were allocated to Kings Cross suburban workings from their first deliveries. This would have taken them as far as Cambridge and presumably Peterborough. They shared these with EE Class 23s (Baby Deltics), NBL Class 21s (D6100) and Class 24s, until sufficient Brush Type 2s were available for all but the Baby Deltics to be allocated away. Indeed, the D6100s were expunged under a very dark cloud being unable to pull the skin off a rice pudding! Initial allocations were to Hornsey pending the opening of Clarence Yard (Finsbury Park 34G) as a diesel servicing depot, after which all GN main line southern end motive power was concentrated there. I am not aware that they strayed much from these workings.

Class 27s were initially allocated to Cricklewood (14A) and I think Leicester (15A, D15) and Toton (16A, D16). They certainly worked between those two areas down the Midland main line and also strayed off piste. Saltley (2E) was not adverse to hijacking them for work rostered from that depot and I can well remember D5400 turning up one lunchtime at Worcester on a Washwood Heath-Gloucester freight.

There was also an initial allocation of non-boiler fitted Class 27s to Thornaby, but these came south in (I think) 1966 in exchange for some early Class 25s.

The website http://www.derbysulzers.com is a mine of information on diesel workings from 1958 onwads and is well worth a look for further interest.

Phil Bullock

Stuart de Boer

A number of rumours have been circulating regarding the status of the recently introduced Class 37 locomotives. During transit, a number of locomotives were damaged and could not be released. Those that were released were checked prior to despatch and no damage was found.

By Brian Macdermott

As this is Snippet No.100, I thought you might like a small diversion from motive power details into the complex world of 1961 coaching stock rostering (extracted from the November issue of Trains Illustrated).

Take the 7.27am Newark-King’s Cross – a 9-coach restaurant car formation.

The 4.57pm King’s Cross-Grantham on the previous evening provided a 5-coach set (bake second, frst, two open seconds, bake second). This spent the night at Grantham.

Three coaches (composite, open second, brake second) provided the passenger section of the 4.00am King’s Cross-Leeds on the previous day. In the afternoon, it formed the 4.43pm all stations Leeds-Doncaster, where the stock waited from 5.54pm to 9.40pm before travelling south on an ECS train to Grantham.

And the restaurant car? This was used to supply dinners on the 7.30pm Down ‘Aberdonian’ on the previous evening. Detached at York, it was worked south empty at 1.06am to Grantham on the 10.25pm from Edinburgh.

By 3.06am, all the constituents have reached Grantham and then have to be marshalled in order: the 5-coach set at the south end; the 3-coach set at the north; and the restaurant car in the middle. At 6.10am, all is ready for the start as an empty train to Newark, reached at 6.35am, 52 minutes before scheduled departure as the 7.27am to King’s Cross.

Two of MREmag’s regular contributors run excellent Yahoo Group websites to do with coaching stock.

I thought Mike Leonard put forward a very balanced summary on model 0-6-0s. My only slight quibble might be to exchange the J17 and J11. But that's a personal bias, because I've always had a soft spot for the 'Pom-Poms'.

As regular readers will know, I'm very much a North British Railway man. On the other hand I would venture a guess that I probably know more about many other enthusiasts' favourite railways than they know about mine (the company that owned the first British inside frame inside cylinder 4-4-0s in Britain, the first train ferries in the world, the first 'merry-go-round' trains in the world, the first sleeping car in Britain, the longest railway bridge in Europe, and so on!).

Before leaving Britain in 1966, I travelled extensively around the country. Even in my Army days (May 1960-May 1963), though based on Salisbury Plain, I paid longish visits to Yorkshire, East Anglia, Devon and South Wales, among others. During my childhood a 'step uncle' owned a farm near Retford, where we spent a summer holiday. To this day I can still remember the 'clank' of a Gresley 2-8-0 on a long goods train.

During my pre-Army days in the Merchant Navy, and post-Army as a civil engineer, I have watched steam engines at work around half the world. 2-10-0s in Germany and South Sumatra, 4-4-0s in Pakistan and West Java, plus Garrats in East Africa and Australia. In Papua New Guinea, while building the Lae Sports Complex, I unearthed the tracks of the narrow gauge line which once upon a time connected the Voco Point tanker terminal with the Main Wharf.

But I digress - I call it Oldtimers Disease.

Braid Anderson

-----

Thanks Mike for some interesting work. It was certainly interesting for me particularly with the conclusions drawn which vary a little, but not much, from the listing in Goods Traffic of the LNER by Geoff Goslin. The first chapter he devotes to a brief survey of LNER goods locomotives. In it he lists the following pre-grouping principal classes (followed in brackets by your suggestion):-

GOSLIN Your List

GNR J6 (J6)

GCR (J11)

GER J20 (J17)

NER J27 (J27)

NBR J37 (J36)

So, it is only for the NBR and GER that there could be some disagreement.

With regards to the NBR, the J37 was more numerous but with an RA of 8 compared to an RA of 3 the J36 could be used on branch lines where the J37 could not, which might make it more attractive. Again, the J20 on the GER has a slightly higher RA of 5 compared to 4 for the J17, which again could be a factor. All four engines were in use until December 1962 so there is a wide scope for various liveries. I believe there would also be wide scope for releasing these unnumbered with transfers included as many people would want more than one.

Personally, I would love to see a J37. There were 23 at St. Margarets in 1938, 28 by 1959. For all the Lothian and Fife coal traffic, they were in much demand. There were only 14 J36s in 1938 and 6 in 1959 at St. Margarets so that one has less appeal to me as I am not modelling a branch line.

That's my tuppence worth, who's next?

Graham Crawford

As a long time reader but first time poster to MREmag, I feel the need to publicly commend Bachmann for the excellent level of customer support shown to me this week.

I am a BR 4mm modeller from Australia and recently purchased a Bachmann Class 45 via mail order from the UK. On receipt of the loco, it as apparent that the air tanks were missing from the battery box areas. I sent a quick email to Bachmann in the UK about this and received a courteous reply, within 24 hours, advising me that the parts were on their way to me. They duly arrived yesterday; so, well done Bachmann! In an era when good service is generally declining, this was a most pleasant surprise.

Great magazine Pat, keep up the good work.

John Keane, Brisbane

The Bachmann 9F weathered version varies.

It might be time to consider some sort of code-of-practice about marketing illustrations. I bought mine on the basis of a Bachmann picture which was quite quickly removed from the website of a major retailer... showing rust and staining quite different from the engine offered for sale. The factory picture shows extensive airbrushing of white stains and rust stains, and possibly enhanced-image colouring.

To their credit, the major retailer took their own basic pictures of the product. But not before I had ordered one on the basis of the factory picture.

Some manufacturers, and in 00-scale this is mostly Hornby and Bachmann in steam at least, appear to have a haphazard approach to things like production vs catalogue. Hornby have appalling steam effects. Maybe they mean it this way. <g>

I am quite a fair writer and photographer and have edited some magazines to do with disability. I enjoy modelling, but would not even begin to guess the breadth of the 'honesty-in-advertising' issue when we have digital catalogue pictures, and hand-finished 'weathering'.

Robbie McGavin

One of the originals was Sam Costa. The second I think was Richard Murdock. That's given the age away hasn't it? So many of those early comedy shows are available on the web.

David Rigby

-----

Just a quick note that you missed out Derek Guiller (I'm not sure how to spell his surname but this is how it sounded). He appeared in many programmes including on TV. He played the washboard. How many readers know what that is?

Peter Gomm

-----

You appear to have forgotten another member of the Crew at Much Binding, Sam Costa!

On a different tack, I have often been tempted to name a station Troutbridge, or adorn D871 with the name of that frigate. For those now totally lost, I'm thinking of 'The Navy Lark' broadcast on the Light Programme that starred, amongst others, Leslie Phillips, Jon Pertwee and Ronnie Barker.

Frank Spence

-----

By your statement you are not as old as I thought!

The radio show "Much Binding In The Marsh" was supposedly a fictional RAF Station based 'Somewhere in England' and did indeed star Kenneth Horne and Dickie Murdock as Officers. Also there was Nicholas Parsons, Sam Costa, Dora Bryan and Maurice Denham. Super comedy with no smut, as I recall and I can well remember Messrs. Horne and Murdock bringing the show to a close by singing the song "There's Much Binding In The Marsh".

I believe the show ended in the mid-50s and then Kenneth Horne started his own Sunday lunchtime comedy shows.

-----

This radio show was part of my childhood's evening listening, along with ITMA and, never bettered, Dick Barton - Special Agent. James Bond is but a pale comparison.

Kenneth Horne played the part of the Station Commander, I seem to remember, "Stinker" Murdoch was his sidekick, and Sam Costa played his batman. The humour was topical and the satire wickedly accurate. It was said that the "erks" of the time believed it to be a documentary.

Even such is time..

Like the little boy reported on Wednesday looking for WW2 model railways, I too am somewhat surprised as to the lack of WW2 railway models in British outline. At best, I suppose, most liveries were just dull colours rather than camouflage as was the case on the continent.

However, in European outline, there are and have been some superb WW2 camouflage models from, initially, Lima, then latterly from Liliput. Just look at Liliput's current range - locos in standard and winter camouflage with boiler armour plating, coaches and wagons, especially the twin wagon set with an Me 109 just being delivered from the factory. There is a flak coach with quad AA guns at each end and sets of "four tanks on wheels", both in camouflage and grey, that were used to patrol the German railway network.

If you model Epoch II WW2 European HO outline there is a plethora of models, both for layout modelling and for dioramas. Just add some tank and train busting rocket carrying Typhoons and you can create WW2 all over again in layout form - peacefully of course!

Bob Knee

I am just replying to Phil Brice's question on your site.

I passed Wilton earlier this year and was surprised to see the goods shed and yard had gone and the site has been redeveloped after many years of neglect. All the upside buildings were still standing until recently, although the box was moved to Meadstead and Four Marks some years ago. There are many books on the route . As for gaining access to the site from the road side, it should be fine. From the track side it is very doubtful as the station is fenced off. Again, all can be seen in books that are available.

Laurence Hopkins

I'd like to say, that my experience is mostly with 3.5" models...and the power to weight ratio of them is really quite staggering compared with full sized. I own a 0-8-0 (Martin Evan's Caribou) and a Britannia (LBSC, built to the words & music). Both of them will slip violently, if given the chance to do so. The Britannia will slip at up to 9 miles an hour (real MPH, not scale) and will do so with basically any load behind her. Typical driving at full power outputs involves driving on the reverser, rather than the throttle. This is a fairly prototypical way of driving, as it minimises loss across the throttle and maximises N. Given a 1/2 turn on the reverser, she will typically loose her feet, at which point the smart move is to back the reverser again fairly smartly (reverser is 13 turns from full ahead to full reverse and has fairly even balance between the two).

I think that a lot of the problems are to do with power to weight ratios that are excessive. Electric locos (and diesel/electrics) can have severe problems with wheelslip. There are numerous commercial solutions to this problem, ranging from the simple to the extremely technical. The issue is that, particularly with a "modern" steam engine, the power to weight ratio is such that, at 'blowing off', they have enough power to easily slip the wheels. This means that the driver must drive, and not just willy nilly open up the regulator. Under the right conditions, a slip can be a very violent affair.

James Powell

-----

I have heard it was something to do with the reverser being set too high and that the rails at Waterloo were a 'no sanding allowed' area due to the track circuits getting gunged up. However, it has been said that, in the last years of steam, many drivers went for the slip just for show or they were a poor driver!

Laurence Hopkins

I am writing with reference to Gordon Hopkins' letter about NEM pocket heights in Tuesday's MREmag.

My model railway runs with Kadee couplers. The easiest way to convert a vehicle with NEM coupler pockets to Kadees is to pull the existing coupler out of the pocket and replace it with a Kadee from the 17--20 range.

In order for Kadee couplers to uncouple magnetically, the tail of the coupler has to be at the correct height above rail level. Once you've got that height, all the other heights, such as the height of the NEM pocket, follow automatically as night follows day. It doesn't matter whether your vehicle is H0 or 00 scale; because I am using Kadees designed in H0 for H0 NEM pockets, the NEM pocket has to be at the H0 height for magnetic uncoupling to work properly.

If the NEM pocket on a vehicle is at the wrong height, or the vehicle does not have NEM pockets, then I am reduced to fitting Kadee No.5 (standard length) or 46 (longer) couplers, or sometimes by drilling a hole through a No.20 and screwing that into the hole that a tension-lock coupler was screwed into. This is just the right height, requiring no extra packing or filing, would you believe. I have lost count of the number of couplers I have fitted over the years.

I don't understand Gordon's comment about applying a "mandatory" requirement to something that is not even to the same scale, since NEM coupler pockets are not to any scale, since they don't exist on the prototype and neither do the couplers they support. As for: "Inter-changeability between UK and 'other' stock is not really much of an issue anyway because the two rarely meet - and their bodies would be out of proportion if they did", they do meet regularly on my model railway, and who cares? It's my railway, and I'll run what I like.

So, as far as I am concerned, there is a standard height above rail level for NEM coupler pockets in 00 and it is the same height as for H0.

Jane Sullivan

With the wonderful array of container wagons available from Bachmann and Heljan's container terminal crane (if you've got plenty of money) does anyone know whether there is a trailered lorry suitable to compliment these, whether it be in a kit or ready-to-run form. I have been searching websites and magazines but have been unable to find anything suitable in 00 scale.

Martin Jones

I wouldn't want to appear pernickety, but for those modelling the 1950s, who were too young to have been around at the time, in the West of England, at least, the attractive brightly-coloured post-war cars didn't really dominate the scene until the mid-1960s. Even as late as 1962, when I became an avid car-spotter, most cars to be seen in my neighbourhood were still pre-war or immediately post-war saloons from Ford, Vauxhall, Austin and Morris, with the occasional Alvis, Bentley, Jaguar, etc. thrown in to leaven the mix. And, unlike the period dramas you see on telly, these were almost universally painted in a very high-gloss black.

Even those cars produced after the war (Morris Oxford, Vauxhall Wyvern, Rover 60, etc.) were little different in style from late pre-war designs and were still more often black than not. The earliest cars I remember looking distinctly colourful were the Ford Consul 365 and the Zephyr/Zodiac equivalent, plus the early post-war Popular (100E?) and the infamous Vauxhall Victor that rusted so fast they all disappeared before their predecessors!

So, quite a lot of the cars to be seen on steam-age model layouts were not actually typical of the scene before 1960. The exception was, of course, on car transporters like the Hornby ones, which look quite cute with rows of Morris 1100s and Minis. But remember that two-tone paintworks like those on the Cararama Mini models were also very uncommon, although Vauxhall Victors and Triumph Heralds did have two-tone paintwork as a manufacturer's option and were seen occasionally.

If you're not a wheel-nut counter (or whatever the car equivalent of a rivet-counter is), then don't worry about it, but I just thought I'd mention it!

Anthony New

I just thought I would drop a line re Julian Martin's coupling message and your response. I'm not quite old enough to recall the Kenneth Horne radio show referred to, but I do remember a model layout featured in Railway Modeller many moons back with a station called 'Much Cussing in the Marsh', and wondered if that might be what Julian was referring to? As I recall, the layout featured a branch line to 'Swearing Town', so you can guess what the layout was called!

This led me to thinking about funny layout names (which was featured on this site some time ago), and I recall another layout which featured a station called 'Stackton Tressels'. There were (I think) two other stations with similarly amusing (and apposite) names, but I cannot recall what they were (does anyone else know?).

The reason that this station stuck in my mind was its connection with another classic comedy series, "Dear Ladies", starring Dr Evande Hinge and Dame Hilda Bracket. This pair of venerable ex-stage starlets; played respectively by George Logan and the late Patrick Fyffe; graced our TV screens in the 1970s and early 1980s and lived in the charming old English village of 'Stackton Tressel'. The village scenes for the series were shot in Knutsford and Great Budworth, for those with an interest.

Peter Bedding's comments (24 May) on models from the end of the Southern Railway struck a chord.

Last week, in a branch of a well-known chain of model shops, I overheard a mother with her son asking a shop assistant if they had any models of "troop trains". Despite there being in a cabinet behind his head a beautiful Southern Q1 and a superb A4 in black "NE" livery, LMS and Gresley teak carriages, and some older models in Second World War liveries, he immediately replied "no". The prospective but now disheartened customers left the store empty-handed.

It always surprises me how little the manufacturers push this period when, if my childhood is in any way representative, I would guess that large numbers of small boys are interested in things related to war. There are glamorous engines, including the A4s and (hint, hint) Schools, that in appropriate liveries could be branded specifically as war models, as well as quirkily interesting machines like the Q1s (although I note that the advertised 3rd Q1 to wear Southern livery was cancelled, presumably because the first two were slow sellers).

With fantastic-looking Maunsell carriages about to appear, a Southern troop train set would be easy to put together - as indeed would troop trains and war freight trains from other regions.

I wonder why this period is apparently so unpopular?

Paul Crake

I have today purchased the new Bachmann weathered 9F 92044 of 34E and must offer my praise to Bachmann for an extremely well "dirty" loco, apart from the shiny coal in the tender!

Well worth the wait for this issue and certainly recommend to all awaiting such a loco - also much cheaper than the Modelzone limited edition version.

I operate my 'analogue' layout with Guagemaster controllers and my two main lines have Relco track cleaners wired in. I now understand from my local dealer that I should not purchase a Bachmann locomotive that has DCC on board (i.e. chip fitted) as this will not operate under analogue control and the Relco will cause damage. It was also mentioned that the same would happen if Guagemaster electronic track cleaners are fitted.

This will mean that a number of proposed purchases of Bachmann locomotives will now have to be avoided and to keep to non-fitted items. However does anyone know if it is possible to simply remove the "on board" chip and, if so, whether the loco will work under analogue operation? Has anyone attempted this so far?

Thanks in advance for any feedback on this subject.

John Cherry

Early members of the class were allocated to the southern end of the East Coast Main Line and could also be seen at St. Pancras, Leicester and Derby before emigrating to Scotland. At what depots were they allocated to in England up to 1968?

Thanking you in advance - your work with the MRE is much appreciated, a must read every day !

Norman Cluelt

If Ian Taylor would like to contact either of the people listed below he can be brought up to date with proposals for the Class 47 and other items.

The Class 47 is being handled by Paul Furner who can be contacted at Paul.Furner1@btinternet.com This project is not a 3mm Society venture so the loco will be available through a small number of outlets.

A proposal for other ready to run items is being researched by Chris Harris who can be reached on chrisharris_51@yahoo.co.uk. This also is not a 3mm Society project.

There are other proposals being thought seriously about which these have an association with the 3mm Society and details of the progression of their proposals are privy to members of the society. We welcome you to join us. Refer to our website for information about the society and how to become a member. http://www.3mmsociety.org.uk

David Rigby

I've got some set-track points in my fiddle yard, with a curved point connecting toe-to-toe with a straight point. The Hornby Class 52 I have won't make it round the curve of the two points. Is the curved point less than 2nd radius on the inner curve or is the Class 52 not compatible with 2nd radius curves?

Mike Wonham

Given that the LNER vote was somewhat diffused in the last Poll, have taken it upon myself to view the relative merits for all concerned, of various pre-Grouping 0-6-0s, courtesy of the information available on the LNER Encyclopaedia website. In this way, perhaps we can all appreciate their relative merits and, I hope, not just be conditioned by our local regional allegiances.

From the current information available, the most suitable locomotives for R-T-R production would seem to be:

GCR - J10 & J11

GER - J15 & J17

GNR - J6

NBR - J36 & J37

NER - J21 & J27

I would certainly welcome constructive comments from anyone, who could suggest more deserving locomotives, but having perused the information available, these would seem to be the most numerically produced classes and the ones which covered the greatest areas throughout their service history. Consequently, when you consider the recent Bachmann criteria highlighted in BRM, I believe that you can reduce this list further. You can then begin to identify a possible priority order for Bachmann or Hornby, based on fairly sound commercial principles. I would therefore like to propose the following:

GCR - J11, as opposed to the J10. The J11 was produced in greater numbers than the J10, and was a heavier locomotive, with a larger diameter boiler and therefore would be easier to manufacture. The J11 operated in both GCR and GER areas, as well as on those of the M&GN. It operated into North Wales and Merseyside in the 1930s and 1940s. The J10 range was not so large. Unfortunately, there seems to be no example of either locomotive in preservation.

GCR - J17, as opposed to the J15, but this is not so clear cut as above. The J15 was produced in greater numbers, but the J17 is both the heavier and larger locomotive in terms of boiler diameter and so may be easier to manufacture. Both locomotives operated in the GER area, but appeared not to have operated outside this area - although I am open to further information on this! Both locomotives have preserved examples that can be seen currently, the J17 being part of the National Collection.

GNR - J6 by self-selection, unless anyone can educate me to other viable alternatives. The J6 is the third heaviest locomotive after the NBR J37 & GCR J11, but its boiler diameter is relatively quite small at 4 ft 8 ins. I believe that the J6 operated only throughout GNR territory and that there is no preserved example in existence.

NBR - J36, as opposed to the J37. The J36 Class was produced in greater numbers than the J37, albeit that the latter was the heavier locomotive and larger in boiler diameter. The J36 was seen in operation in North Yorkshire and Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Borough Gardens Shed) during WWII, outside of its normal NBR area. It also has a preserved example, unlike the J37.

NER - J27, as opposed to the ubiquitous J21 - head ruling the heart here! The numbers of J21s produced, easily outnumbered those of the J27. However, the J27 was both heavier and larger and the dimensions are fairly compatible with the Bachmann J39, which is already in production. Both the J21 and J27 have preserved examples, but the J27 had the wider area of operations as it saw service in Scotland, south of Edinburgh, as well as operating in GER areas. In contrast, the J21s only operated though out the NER area.

Now for the really contentious bit, especially after my opening comments. This is what I would suggest as my final order of priorities - and here I accept that a Middlesbrough-born man living in York might just have a smidgen of NER preference and loyalty:

1. NER J27 - due to its operational area including NER, GER and Scottish areas, plus a preserved example of the locomotive, and therefore a merchandising opportunity to help reinforce commercial sales potential.

2. GER J17 - combination of its popularity in the recent MREMag Poll, its operational area in GER and having a preserved example in the National Collection - again a possible commercial merchandising opportunity.

3. NBR J36 - combination of operating outside of its normal area and a preserved example - possible commercial merchandising opportunity.

4. GCR J11 - based solely on its large area of operations in GCR, GER, M&GN, Merseyside & North Wales.

5. GNR J6 - only GNR 0-6-0 that seems to appear under the Bachmann criteria.

6. NER J21

7. GER J15

8. NBR J37

9. GCR J10

Having offered up my opinion, I now look forward to receiving some interesting comments and hope that they will be of the constructive variety!

Mike Leonard

I glanced through the track poll and found it far too complex to begin to answer. Surely the poll could have been a lot simpler. The crux of the issue is surely not about millimetres here and there or P4 EM etc., what scale check rails, but the much simpler: "If track was produced, which remained 00 gauge, could accept all current and some past products with no modification, was dimensionally inaccurate but of cosmetically "scale" appearance, would you buy it?".

It is, after all, what I suspect people are asking for, accurate 00 track is an oxymoron. I think everyone accepts that (unless you model some very obscure narrow gauge system), but what is needed is a cosmetically enhanced product and that is not going to come from a CAD system or a slide rule but from the artist's eye and observation.

The old trick of cutting a few sleepers from your flexitrack and spreading the rest out to a more 'scale' appearance, is what we're talking about here, but extended to points and crossings - and maybe some work on sleeper lengths too. It's not a question of scale but appearance, a better poll would require more work, building mock up prototypes or some digital photo trickery to ascertain which compromise looks best in most peoples eyes.

'Scale appearance' 00 track is going to be a compromise. It is going to look right and definitely be wrong but I suspect it will sell. It might even find a few converts in the EM faction. Perhaps today's models are getting too detailed and too delicate to be re-wheeled easily (this is speculation on my behalf not a fact etc.). Remember, nearly 80% of people who answered the pole seemed to suggest that EM P4 etc. are a complete waste of time - to put a cheeky opposing spin on someone else's 'take' on the results.

In a way, I'm very pleased with my move to 16mm/SM32 with very few of these sort of arguments. Most people are freelancers and you can gain a lot of fun adding gloriously incorrect details to your rolling stock to make it look nice, without anyone telling you it's wrong - wagons made of wood, locos that need fuel oil and water. It's great fun and not as expensive as you would believe. My Roundhouse Millie, at £400, looks very good value when placed next to a Hornby or Bachmann £100 model.

Peter Morgan (the other one)

by Stephen Haskins

Currently the situation really doesn't look very promising. In short, LGB of America (LGBoA) refrains from their previous offer of €7,5M to take over LGB in Nuremberg, together with about 100 remaining employees. LGBoA could not fulfill the requirements of the bank consortium, according to a short press release. However, they are still willing to take over the responsibility for the bankrupt company LGB if another participant joins them to fulfill the bank's financial conditions.

Schedule - Week Beginning 28^th May

MREmag readers may be interested to know that with four days still left to go in the month TRC has broken the 1 million hits barrier! Figures for the channel reveal that from 00.01am on the 1^st May until 23.59 26^th May 1,112,051 hits were recorded a quite staggering achievement and an endorsement of TRC's policy of providing free entertainment for railway enthusiasts.

By Brian Macdermott

Perhaps one of the reasons why British manufacturers do not consider adherence to the NEM standard as being that important is that it is defined for HO at 3.5mm to the foot, not 00 at 4mm to the foot. You can hardly apply a 'mandatory' requirement on something that is not even to the same scale. Inter-changeability between UK and 'other' stock is not really much of an issue anyway because the two rarely meet - and their bodies would be out of proportion if they did.

However, it would be nice if the manufacturers were at least consistent within their own ranges and perhaps agree a standard for 00 separately from NEM.

Gordon Hopkins

Terry Gee's wishes for 00 scale cars from the '50s and '60s may be nearer fulfilment than he realises. Has he seen the recent advertisements from Oxford Diecast models who are to introduce 1:76 range of cars and light vans? Early releases appear to include a Vauxhall Cresta, Humber Super Snipe, Ford Zephyr, Mini and Morris Minor vans and they are reasonably priced. If they are a success we can, no doubt, look forward to other favourite additions. Perhaps a look at their website might prove interesting.

Tony Elliott

-----

The Oxford range is a relatively new one but in the past Marks and Spencer have produced a set of 3 Jaguars of the right era.

Peter Gomm

I have been reading MRE regularly for some time now and must say how much I look forward to it, even though some contributors get a little too hot under the collar sometimes. I am wondering if the knowledge base of the readers can help me with a couple of items.

I am researching Wilton station on the Salisbury and Exeter and I notice on Google Earth that the "up" side yard and goods shed seems to have been cleared, flattened completely. Can anyone in the Salisbury area confirm this as I wanted to make a site visit this summer to photograph and measure up, permissions permitting.

The other thing is, can anyone say what has happened to Sharman Wheels? Their website is unavailable and exhibition appearances don’t seem to happen now either. I am about to start a couple of loco kits the wheels for which are not readily available from other sources.

Any information would be welcome.

Phil Brice

From my understanding, Pacific locomotives are a bit slipperier than other engines but my understanding is divided between that which pertains to models and that which pertains to the prototype.

Having not seen a Bulleid Pacific in action, I can only assume that, between the equalisers on the frames and the force of the steam engine cylinders, there is a point of moment or 'turning force' which could, however minuscule, lift the front driver wheels from contact with the rail. In the case of the Bulleid engine, if there was a degree of improper equalisation, then it would be possible that the weight transfer could result in less contact for the rear driver to the rail and to the front driver and therefore slip in the initial application of power.

Flexibility in the drivers? Possible but I somehow think unlikely!

With models, the issue is more one of balance over the three drivers. Because the motor is often over the back of the driver set, the tendency at the point of moment is to lift, again from the front, creating a 'slippery' situation. The motor is constant torque as distinct from however many power strokes. Because the 0-6-0s and 4-6-0s have the motor fully over the drivers, there is less of a tendency to slip. I had a Pacific for which I built a new motor and had to weight the front considerably to balance the wheels on the rails.

I hope this is of help,

Trevor Gibbs

-----

I have to chuckle when the subject of slipping is mentioned.

I have watched Pacifics slip when running light out of Waterloo.

I had a friend who was an avid Great Western fan and he claimed that their locos never slipped. He just should not have said it as one morning on one of our holidays in the West Country we watched a County slip on leaving Tiverton Junction. Of course his excuse was that the Counties were not Great Western engines but BR ones.

Peter Gomm

-----

With regard to Jeremy English on Friday 25th, in his comment on the propensity of the Bulleid Pacifics to slip, there have been a fair list of contributing causes advanced over the years, but no firm conclusion.

The lower mass of the BFB wheels (partly from being 6'2" rather than the typical 6'8" of express types on the MN) and higher stiffness of the BFB wheels, when compared to spoked types, are thought to have had an effect. Add to this the relatively low adhesion weight for the power output capability, the large cross section and low internal losses in the steam circuit and the suspension and balancing arrangements. Then there is the tendency to spill oil from the sump, which was confined to these locos in their original form.

For comparison, the Britannia Pacifics, with their conventional spoked wheels, which although not affected to the same degree, were also recorded as occasionally slipping at speed. Again, no final conclusion was reached to explain this.

This rather suggests that these classes were nudging against the limit for the power output to adhesion weight ratio, for reliable adhesion with the dynamic balancing and uncompensated suspension arrangements typical of UK practise.

Paul Jansz

-----

I was told by someone who drove them, that at least part of the problem was oil dripping from the oil bath that protected the chain drive, but that would not account for them slipping in their rebuilt form.

Martin Bradshaw

Some of your readers might be interested in some videos I put up on YouTube which was shot at Expo EM. I hope this will give a good flavour of the exhibition, which I very much enjoyed. My disclaimer is that I shot this for my young kids and for myself and I'm not a professional videographer. Take a look and if you like it please feel free to pass this on via MREmag.

To my horror, I find that two layouts were missed: Liverpool Crown Street 18.2mm (Liverpool Model Railway Society) and Liverpool Lime Street 18.2mm (John Holden). I'm not sure how that happened although they were in the same aisle and I had to take some breaks in filming. This is a shame because both were really interesting.

I hope this will be of interest to readers and that they will excuse my shaky camera work.

In general I think YouTube is an interesting beast and I would certainly love to see more video of layouts on there.

Nick Thompson, Scotts Valley, CA

Anyone modelling the current railway south of the Thames will be hard pressed to find any ready-to-run passenger stock. I can think of a Eurostar, a Networker and a limited edition 170. Three classes that rarely meet. I do not think that I have missed much.

Paul Harman

-----

Peter Bedding asks for Bulleid liveried M7s and King Arthurs and I expect he will get them eventually, but it has to be remembered that taking into account the period of wartime black it was relatively short lived livery and Hornby will naturally want to produce the more popular liveries first.

On the subject of a T9 being used as the basis for an L12, I must beg to differ. Given that the locos were built on the same frames, that is where the similarity ends. The L12 (and S11) have a larger diameter boiler pitched at a higher centre line, on a different pattern smokebox saddle with different boiler mountings. In addition the cab is higher to cope with the bigger boiler. In short there is nothing above footplate level that is the same.

A similar suggestion was made some months back that a newly tooled L1 could be used for a D1 and E1. Again, a 'non-starter' once as you look at their respective major dimensions. By comparison the changes required for the different Arthurs produced so far are minimal - a different cab, smoke deflectors and steps, plus a safety valve cover.

I look forward to that T9, though.

Roger Norman

I've just picked up on this topic and am rather surprised that nobody seems to have mentioned Scale Link who do a useful range of figures (workmen, drivers etc.) and vehicles as well as their better known etchings.

Their site at www.scalelink.co.uk is worth a look. Brian Macdermott might even find the hoardings he wants here. I have no connection with the company other than as a user of their products.

John Whitelaw

I have been looking at Peter Smith's website on station colours, which is very useful. It emphasises the similarities and differences in the BR and big 4 colour schemes. To get around the problem of running private owner goods trains, e.g. LMS as opposed to 1950s' BR Southern mainly passenger trains, I have been contemplating the idea of adapting a layout so that key buildings (station, signal boxes etc.) could be lifted off and replaced with those of another company. This would give a different and more appropriate atmosphere for the scenario. It obviously would not be suitable for the purist but I wonder whether anyone has tried this approach?

Secondly, there was some interest, a little while ago, in tank wagon schemes and lack of information. There was a series of articles in Model Railways (published by Argus) by Paul Bartlett and Peter Fidczuk of which I have only Part 6. This was in April 1992 and covers the 45ton TTA. Earlier parts covered the 12 ton type tank wagons. Perhaps one of the current magazines may be able to rerun this series or publish a monograph?

Robert Inns

Samples have arrived of the Class 37/4 '37410 Aluminium 100' in BR large logo blue livery with Scottie motifs (32-382) and the BR Class 9F 2-10-0 as '92006' with early decals (32-854).

Also received are two sets from Hornby. These are the premier digital Venice Simplon-Orient-Express British Pullman train set (R1073) and the new Eurostar set (R1071). Also released are Class N15 'Excalibur' looking splendid in Southern Railway livery (R2580) and the Mk3 sleeper in First ScotRail 'Caledonian Sleeper' livery as '10523' (R4307).

There is also a great deal of excellent footage of the relevant era on the DVD The Railways Of Scotland, Volume 8 - Dundee & the Tay Bridge'.

The Southern modeller appears to have been well served of late, and this has drawn out some expressions of disappointment from those whose tastes lie to the north of the Thames.

Our good friends at Margate must have invested several hundred thousand pounds to produce M7s, King Arthurs, and Maunsell coaching stock. It is reasonable that they will wish to recover this outlay and it is reasonable for me, as a willing customer, to attempt to steer them in my direction.

To date, the liveries of the Hornby M7, King Arthurs and the first release of Maunsell coaches are all either pre-war or post-Nationalisation. There was a period in between, which has been addressed with the Q1 and the streamlined West Country models on which the Bulleid livery prevailed.

My view is that the Bulleid liveries create a market which might usefully be further tapped; models in these liveries would certainly squeeze a willing penny or three out of my purse.

But I also wish to stick my neck out. There are rumours from the camp barber (at RAF Much Binding) that preparations for a T9 are well advanced, not a million miles from Margate, and that these preparations might allow a 2008 launch. What a stroke of genius it would be if the first T9 batch should include Bulleid liveries (narrow cab, 8 wheel watercart tender, please).

Oh yes, and whilst I think of it, a brake composite with high windows.

I would also like a K10. Do you think that Hornby realise that, in model terms, much of the T9 tooling could be used to provide an L12, and only small changes to produce an S11?

Sweet dreams.

Peter Bedding

In response to Terry Gees request about 00 scale cars he might like to look at Oxford Diecast at www.oxforddiecast.co.uk they appear to be going to produce some cars that might fit the era he is interested in.

Chris Morgan

In response to Terry Gee's cry for help, I too have experienced the same problem. Fortunately Oxford Diecast seems to be on the case, as their recently-introduced Morris Minor van proves. It's not a car per se, but at least it's a start.

Look here for more info... http://www.oxforddiecast.co.uk/76/index.htm

Let's hope it's the first of many earlier period cars in 00 scale.

-----

Terry Gee was asking in today's MREmag about 00 scale cars that would suit the 1950s/1960s period.

Both Corgi (Trackside) and Oxford Diecast are adding 00 scale cars to their range during 2007. For the benefit of Terry and other readers, I have summarised the releases below:

1) Corgi Trackside http://www.corgi.biz/collectables.html

Cars - Morris Minor 1000, Ford Anglia 105E and Vauxhall Viva HA.

Car-based vans - Ford Anglia, Bedford HA and Morris 1000 van.

Small vans - Ford Transit Mk1, Bedford CA, Morris LD and Austin J2.

2) Oxford Diecast http://www.oxforddiecast.co.uk/

Cars - Humber Super Snipe, Vauxhall Cresta, Ford Zephyr and Ford Anglia 105E.

Car-based vans - Ford Anglia, Morris Minor, Mini and Ford Anglia ice-cream van.

The main difference between the 2 ranges is that Oxford Diecast models have registration numbers, whilst the Trackside releases (to date anyway) do not.

I hope this information proves helpful, I am certainly looking forward to adding all of these releases to my layout.

David Crozier, Nicosia, Cyprus

I should like to commiserate with the Paul and Graham Plowman on the bad experience they report at the hands of their fellow modellers in the matter of their track poll.

I have used polls a few times over the years, sometimes to spark discussion of a subject in a forum, sometimes as a barometer of current interests of participating forum members and every single time I’ve been snarled at by people objecting to the lack of nuance my questions permitted them when responding. It seems to go with the territory.

One trap I never fall into any more is setting polls for other people: any poll I set is designed to sort people out according to criteria useful to me and me alone. Even when this is explained up front there will always be a crowd of idiots who feel that I have single-handedly brought democracy low by setting the poll.

Unfortunately, the Plowman Poll was specifically tasked with coming up with a suggested course of action on behalf of the respondents. This is a formula for trouble. I have no doubt that Paul and Graham have found that there are a thousand people willing to tell them why they got it wrong, but no-one willing to step up to the plate and "fix" things because the truth is it is always easier to complain than act.

Disputing, even heatedly, conclusions drawn from a poll is an entirely different beast, of course. Such discussion allows refinement of the data collection process and increase understanding of the subject under discussion.

Steve Mann

by Chris Tooth

I am not sure if the following releases have escaped your magazine. I spotted them on the Rural Railways stand at the last Sutton Coldfield show:

RC444 Redoored Lamprey.

RC445 Crab

RC446 20T Lamprey Ballast D1/570

RC447 20T Mineral D1386

RC448 20T Tunny Ballast D1771

RC449 15T Ling Ballast D1773

They are all 4mm scale plastic kits and a departure from the manufacturers existing 2mm kits. I've made up examples of the last three and can highly recommend them as a high quality well thought out kit. They go together as well as, if not better than, Parkside kits and include white metal buffers, brass coupling hook, wm vacuum cylinder (Tunny) and brass wire for the brake-gear. There is also a plastic coupling mount suitable for the Bachmann 36027 Mk2 NEM coupling. I feel £6 a kit is very reasonable.

There are no details regarding the type of wheel required given on the packet and this is very useful when purchasing kits. Also, prototype information is very sparse and the builder is assumed to have access to Volume 4 of An Illustrated History of Southern Wagons. I have this but I'm not sure all his buyers will.

By Brian Macdermott

If the British manufacturers can confirm that they do indeed install the coupling pockets on their rolling stock as per the NEM, then the problem would appear to be the tension-lock couplings themselves. The question then is, can the tension-lock coupling be altered so as to allow full functioning when installed in NEM pockets?

If not, then is it time to make a radical change away from the tension-lock coupling? Fleischmann made this change so why not Hornby, Bachmann, etc.? Of course, it costs money, but so does any change and without change there is no progress.

Although Fleischmann introduced a new type of coupling, which allows rolling stock to be coupled much closer, they still produce the old TL type coupling as an alternative for those who wish to use it. Both types are fitted with the shank to enable them to be installed in NEM pockets. The change takes about 10 seconds and the only tool required is a pair of tweezers for removal of the unwanted coupling head.

Hornby are moving in the right direction with their version of the Roco close coupling, but we have not yet arrived at the point of full compatability between rolling stock of various manufacturers in the same way as the Europeans have done. When rolling stock from Hornby, Bachmann, Dapol, etc. can be operated together, then we will have reached that point.

Many thanks to Nick Quinn for his very informative reply to my question about these decals. I will pass it on to my friend.

Bob Hart

Braid Anderson raises an interesting question when he asks whether outside-cylinder steam engines with very large piston thrusts help the adhesion. I'm not sure of the answer but have noted something similar in models. Older Tri-ang locos like the Jinty, Hall and B12 will pull well up hills while slipping continuously but a recent Hornby Grange gives up as soon as it starts to slip. I wondered if the eccentricity or roughness of the wheels may have something to do with it.

Curiously enough, a similar effect has been observed in motorcycle racing. 4-cylinder 4-stroke engines normally produce a fairly even torque over the wheel's revolution and when a driven wheel starts to slip, it tends to slip further still which makes it difficult to control. One racing team found that changing the crankshaft to put all the firing impulses close together gave a wheel time to recover from a slip and grip again. This allowed a rider to ride the bike with the rear wheel continually on the edge of slipping. Due to the characteristic sound made by the engine this was known as a 'big bang' engine and proved so successful that other teams were forced to copy it.

The usual explanation given is that the dynamic coefficient of friction (i.e. while slipping) is less than the static coefficient of friction (before slipping) and that uneven firing pulses allow the wheel to slow significantly on each rotation to grip again, increasing average adhesion.

Most 2- or 4-cylinder steam engines produce 4 power impulses per revolution (the theoretical maximum of 8 for a 4-cylinder loco was not common) and a 3-cylinder engine would be expected to produce six which should give a smaller cyclic variation. However, I suspect that the physics is rather more complex in both bikes and locos. On the steam locos, at least, it will be affected by the degree of balancing of reciprocating masses (piston and rods) that the designer choose to include in the driving wheel balance weights. The cut-off setting will influence the duration of the piston thrusts and springing of the trailing truck and the tender attachment might be important too.

The tendency of Bulleid's Pacifics to slip suddenly and badly has been noted many times and is generally attributed to the trailing axle, which loads up and reduces the adhesive weight on the driving wheels. Churchward's 4-6-0s were generally reckoned superior in adhesion for their weight, but they could slip too!

I recently watched one video of a Castle pulling out of Paddington with a long train and it is noticeable that the loco slipped repeatedly and almost continuously until it left the platform, but that the slipping was slight and controlled the whole time rather than brief and excessive. The driver didn't appear to shut off to correct it. Why the difference? Is it in the cylinders, the wheels or the steam circuit?

Anthony New

A friend is considering building a 00 scale model layout of this, set in a 1950s/1960s era, may I request any information or contact with your readers who have modelled this or have any knowledge of this period. We have found lots of websites, mostly on the first and original bridge disaster, but seek more information.

Can anyone help? Please email me direct at: richardwallace04@yahoo.co.uk.

Richard Wallace

If the volume required of the under-layout sound system is derailing the trains and deranging the neighbours, the obvious answer would be for the operators to wear headphones, a solution not practical when on-train sound is used.

Yes, I am serious. Under layout sound systems offer a wealth of possibilities for industrial layouts above and beyond the 'vroom vroom' of a diesel or 'chuff-chuff' of a steam loco. I’m talking about the sounds of the industries themselves. Coal treatment plants, steel mills, electricity generation plants, gasworks, dockyards and so on are all noisy places to be. The ambient sounds that come from them are a big part of the industrial railway soundscape.

Then there are those shunting/marshalling yards. Even a small one can be made to seem much larger and busier if there are the sounds of unseen train operations. Move the layout to close-to-eye level and the illusion becomes even more pronounced. Many US layouts are designed to be viewed this way, rather than from a blackbird’s eye view, and the increase in the illusion of size is not to be casually dismissed.

Then there are the other sounds, the ones not directly associated with the railway. That nearby town shouldn’t be silent and that dockside is being washed by water in motion after all.

Someone made a good point about reverberation recently, but missed the rather obvious point that the reverberated sound comes not from the locomotive itself but from the surrounding geography. The horn on the diesel should not reverberate on the diesel but from all around it. The obvious solution is under-layout sound reproduction.

Final point. For those situations where the public is supposed to hear the sound in all its glory, perhaps not mounting the speakers on the baseboard itself but on the floor under it would alleviate the derailment issue?

I did vote and applaud the efforts of the pollsters to try and determine if there is some kind of agreement. I personally have never fancied building track (although I have friends who love doing just that) so I suspect I am like many others out there who would buy better ready-built track if it was available. Or, maybe I wouldn't because my layout is already built.

If I was to build another, I might buy the improved track if it was readily available, but only if my large collection of existing 00 stock would run on it!

This is probably the nub of the discussion. I know P4 is more accurate than any improved version of 00 but the work involved in getting there is beyond what I want to do (even assuming I was capable).

So, in the words of the computer buffs, any new better 00 track has to be able to cope with the legacy systems of existing 00 locos and rolling stock. Otherwise, not many people are likely to buy it!

Rob Melvin, Canberra, Australia

The latest bulletin from Bachmann informs us that the new Class 37, Ivatt 2-6-0 and the Class 47 are all moving forward to the production stage. On the N gauge front, livery samples of the Class 60 have been received and the new Jubilee Class locomotive sample has undergone running trials on the test track.

Development work on the Graham Farish Class 150 and the Bachmann 00 model is now proceeding apace following completion of the drawings. The N gauge Class 101 needs a new chassis and samples should be available towards the end of the year.

Thanks for the kind words about the Montys range of figures from Dart Castings. As the master sculptor of the range, also the older Pheonix 0 scale and my own Trackpass range at http://,www.trackpass.net , plus many others over the decades, it's always good to get feedback.

I find hands and feet very difficult to produce in this scale without making them a bit thick as the material the masters are made from is brittle if unsupported - so I use wire to support them. The master has to endure a hot vulcanised mould. The ideal way to make them thinner would involve making an initial metal submaster and then fettling the offending items down and recasting which, on small figures, makes as many problems as it solves - especially cost and time wise, as well as shrinkage.

Of course, this can be easily done by the customer with a scalpel blade and file if deemed important. Plastic figures are produced from much larger masters (about 75 mm usually) and then reduced when making the mould.

4 mm faces tend to disappear under a thick coat of paint and can then be painted if the features need refining. I would prefer to just have a blank face with a nose but I do make an attempt at producing a reasonable face. It can then be painted as required. It is tricky at that size, especially for attractive girls!

Martin Feldwick

We have recently had a call for more scope in 00 scale little people but I would like to put in a request for 1950s' and 1960s' 00 scale cars.

At the moment we have quite a large amount of trucks, vans and buses on offer for this period, but the balance needs addressing. I am in the middle of building a new BR(S) 00 scale layout set in the late '50s, thanks to all my lovely new Hornby Southern locos, but period cars for this era are few and far between.

So, how about it someone? The list is almost endless Vauxhall (Cresta and Wyvern), Morris (Oxford and Minor), Austin (Cambridge, A30 and A40), MG (MGA and MGB), Hillman (Minx), Sunbeam (Rapier) and Ford (Zephyr, Zodiac and Popular) - to name but a few.

Terry Gee

My thanks to Paul Stallard. Within minutes of reading his response, I had accessed the Modelmaster Decals site, found the plates for 7912 and placed an order.

Very satisfactory.

Geoff Baxter

I have just watched the video of the 'Kingston Regis' layout on The Railway Channel - as brought to my attention in Tuesday's editorial of MRE.

Not long ago, I posted a contribution to this magazine stating that I believed the scenic modelling and buildings of Allan Downes to be genuine three dimensional art. John and Jane Jacobs, creators of this wonderful layout 'Kingston Regis' are right up there with him. The atmosphere was so strong I felt I wanted to live there, in that time, which was conveyed so brilliantly by attention to every small detail.

Like many great examples of two dimensional art, the success of this layout seems to have a lot to do with that artistic sense of being able to create an overall harmony from the perfect blending of small details. Watching the video, the beauty within the big picture is made up of countless individual miniature items - each a highlight on its own but each in harmony with those around it - an exploration of emotions which is probably the core test of any form of art.

I would love to know what the title of the classical music on the video was. Just like everything else it seemed to complement the layout perfectly.

In any case, thank you so much to all involved for bringing it to me. It really has been a pleasure to watch.

Richard Whitmore

Sadly Rob Melvin is seeking a solution to a problem resulting from yet another case of lack of standardisation.

I know that most knuckle couplers, particularly the Kadees, are designed for H0 scale. I and many others use them in 00 because of the benefits they confer. There is a supposed compromise with mounting height, which has to be below the 00 buffer beam if optimum automatic operation is to be achieved.

The old argument that they are unprototypical for British outline doesn't cut any ice with me. Very few modellers use prototypical three or screw link couplings. For those who want reliable close coupling, efficient automatic operation and less of a non-prototypical eyesore than the tension-lock coupler, the Kadee is a great option. Sadly the tension-lock couplers of the different manufacturers (and even the same manufacturers - but different eras and patterns) are not noted for their reliable inter-operation.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if the manufacturers of British outline 00 ready-to-run models could consistently set their NEM pocket heights at the optimum height. It's all been rather hit and miss in the past. There are even examples of locomotive where the pocket height at the front and the rear are different.

I suspect that British outline 00 and it's pocket height aberrations represent a small niche market. It is doubtful that it would be a viable proposition for coupling manufacturers to set up for the production of over and under shanked NEM pocket couplers to compensate for the past inability of 00 ready-to-run stock manufacturers to set their NEM pockets at the correct height.

I'm pleased to note that there has been a marked improvement in the last year or so and replacement of an NEM tension-lock usually involves a straight swap with a Kadee. As a rule of thumb, if a tension-lock NEM coupling has a straight shank, the pocket is set at the optimum height for a straight shanked NEM Kadee. If the NEM tension-lock coupling is stepped up or down, the NEM pocket is set too low or too high respectively.

How about we lobby the Hornby, Bachmann, Heljan, et al, to ensure that, in future, they continue to set their NEM pocket heights at the standard for optimum Kadee operation. In the meantime, we'll probably have to continue to improvise with items of non-standard stock.

Adrian Kops, Melbourne, Australia

I just feel the real need to say that couplings, on most of today's ready-to-run British outline stock, are a complete and utter disaster!

Scenario 1 - A Bachmann loco (any of the recent releases) gently backs onto new Hornby coaches, moves train forward, the coaches stay where they are and the loco disappears into the mist without coaches.

Scenario 2 - A Heljan loco backs onto Bachmann Mk1 coaches, the loco coupling dives under the coach coupling and lulls you into a false sense of security when you pull off. The coaches run for 3 inches then cut loose as the coupling on the loco is at a different height.

I say this to all the manufacturers of British outline stock I know that we somehow still seem to be in love with the old hook and bar used by Tri-ang, Hornby and Lima and, yes, it was ugly but at least it worked and you didn't lose your train halfway through it's journey. Isn't it time we ditched the hook and bar and moved into the 21st century? How about using the couplings used on the Bachmann Turbostar DMUs and Sprinters? they never uncouple!

Rant over... just sort it please.

This coming weekend, 26^th & 27^th May, Railex Aylesbury takes place at Stoke Mandeville Stadium, Harvey Road, Aylesbury, Bucks HP21 9PP.

Over the past few years, Railex has become a 'must visit' show for the railway modeller. There are over 20 of the very best layouts currently to be seen - from steam era layouts up to the current contemporary scene.

Railex in contained within a massive 20,000 square foot light and spacious venue that is fully wheelchair assessable. Due to the size of the exhibition, many large layouts are attending, as well as many that are rarely exhibited; so this maybe the only chance to see some for quite a while.

Although a massive show, Railex has a very relaxed feel about it, even when busy, allowing easy access and easy viewing of all exhibits and demonstrations.

Layouts confirmed include: 'Aldbury Town' 4mm scale P4, 'Alton' 4mm scale 00, 'Burwell Fen' 2mm, 'Cascade Yard' 7mm scale American narrow gauge, 'Cement Quay' 4mm scale 00, 'Dinas Ddu' 7mm scale narrow gauge, 'East Street Wharf' 4mm scale EM, 'Ellis Road' 7mm scale 0 gauge, 'Halifax King Cross' 4mm scale P4, 'Hamilton' American N, 'Happisburgh' 7mm scale 0 gauge, 'Hoath Hill Halt' 3mm scale,'Midland Sidings' 4mm scale P4, 'Mill Street Goods' 7mm scale 0 gauge, 'Mostyn' 4mm scale P4, 'Morse Junction' H0, 'Oldshaw' 4mm scale EM, 'Sykes Bridge Shed' 7mm scale 0 gauge, 'Vine Street' 7mm scale 0 gauge and 'Wibdenshaw' 4mm scale EM.

There are also the following demonstrations: Gordon and Maggie Gravett will be in attendance and will be bringing along one or two boards of their new French layout, Phillip Hall with 'weathering', Mike Peascod with Plasticard modelling, Brian Daniels with diesel modelling, Simon and Terry Bendall modelling the contemporary scene and Tim Venton using computers to design model railways.

The Bluebell Railway - Last Days of Normandy

This music and sound film looks at the last working day of the small tank engine Normandy before she retired.

Wednesday 23rd May

NEW SERIES! Narrow Gauge In The Garden with Ian Stock - EXCLUSIVE TO TRC!

Ian Stock is striving for realism in his railway modelling and this has taken him to the great outdoors. In this fabulous six part series we get to see some magnificent garden railways and episode one introduces us to the lower Bryandale Railway, of which Ian is General Manager, and the Pimlico Tramway - a delightful railway squeezed into a back garden.

Thursday 24th May

The Club - Beckenham and West Wickham

Horton will please modern image fans, a layout with full signalling created by off duty, well, signallers. Some people just can't get enough

Friday 25th May

From The Footplate - Welshpool & Llanfair Part Two

The second part of our trip along this wonderful railway - today it's from Golfa to Castle Caerinion

Saturday & Sunday 26th & 27th May

Something For The Weekend - The Bodmin and Wenford

Great steam action for you on this Bank Holiday weekend and the small engine in charge of proceedings has some stiff gradients to climb!

Monday 28th May

Miniature Pleasures with Giles Favell - The Hilton Valley Railway

By Brian Macdermott

Bob Hart was asking who makes G scale decals for US and Canadian prototypes; MG Decals do. I have dealt directly with them via their website (for HO) and found them to have a quality product and good customer service. The website address is at: http://www.mgdecals.com/homepage.htm

Nick Quinn

In most descriptions of the NBR Atlantics I have come across, they are described as being very heavy on coal. No doubt, when comparing them with Atlantics elsewhere, the writers did not take into consideration the comparatively arduous conditions under which they worked. On both the Waverley route and the Edinburgh-Aberdeen main line, the gradients and curvature were more severe than experienced by most of their English counterparts. The small number of cut-off positions, and low grade coal, wouldn't have helped either.

Tests carried out by the LNER in October 1923 seem to have thrown new light on this subject, when GNR C1 Atlantic '1447' and NBR Atlantic '878' made a Newcastle-Edinburgh round trip each, on consecutive days, with the same 406 ton train and using the same coal, coal consumption was GNR - 50.7lb/mile and NBR - 45.9lb/mile.

Another comparison, with the NER C7 Atlantics, has given me great food for thought over the years. The C7s were 3-cylinder machines and were said to run 'as smooth as a Rolls Royce'. The NBR Atlantics, on the other hand, were notoriously rough riders, with continuous oscillation generated by 2 massive 21" outside cylinders. Initially the NBR civil engineer complained bitterly about the Atlantics spreading his rails. To the point where a 55mph limit was slapped on them, until one highly-qualified Director queried whether the fault lay with the locomotives or the permanent way.

The NER C7 Atlantics were very poor starters and hill climbers. It was said of them that they could smell a bank before they came to it. The NBR Atlantics were the very opposite, and excelled at starting away and climbing the hills. Yet, the NER Atlantics had less tractive effort and slightly more adhesive weight than their NBR counterparts. Theoretically the former should therefore have had less tendency to slip.

It has occurred to me that maybe the marked difference in riding qualities was actually the reason for their comparative abilities. The NER Atlantics, with their smooth straight-line action, depended for traction entirely on the vertical weight bearing on the rails via the tyres. The NBR Atlantics, on the other hand, probably scored much extra 'grip' from those oscillations that spread Mr Bell's track. Imagine the thrust of those large outside cylinders skewing the short wheelbase first one way, then the other, pressing the insides of diagonally opposite flanges onto the inside of the rails.

Maybe someone with more knowledge of the interaction of wheels and rails can correct me, or otherwise?

Braid Anderson

With reference to Geoff Baxter’s email request for details for renaming/renumbering his Bachmann Hall Class loco, he can do no wrong in looking to Modelmaster decals. Under their Jackson Evans section they have the complete etched brass plaques and are complete with the following:

GWR nameplate sets include cabside numbers and BR smokebox number (if applicable) and are finished in black. Numberplate sets also include BR smokebox number (if applicable). All in for £6.30p plus postage and packing.

I have no connection with the company other than a very satisfied customer!

Paul Stallard

Commenting in detail on Bill Francis' post would not be conducive to Pat wanting short, readable articles!

Suffice to say, I am not convinced of the efficacy of sound speakers being mounted under a layout, even in conjunction with on board sound. We have had quite a few attempts in the past. DC had it's sound programmes. All seem to have fallen by the wayside. Reasons given, by those who have tried, vary from not sounding right to complaints from the neighbours and including derailments caused by the vibration!! I still maintain that listening to steam engines working on a recording is not directly related, pleasure wise or sound wise, to getting on board chips sounding right for you and your layout.

As to which chips do what, ESU is the king of readily re-programmable sound chips which, by virtue of it's complexity, few have ventured far into. In steam, at least, I suspect that most people are waiting for pre-recorded sound sets and, until then, the standard sounds will do. CT and Tsunami are good out of the box but with the Tsunami, not being reprogrammable at all and CT being reprogrammable with great difficulty, if at all. Digitrax make a good sound only decoder which is very easily reprogrammed to give fair results quickly and cheaply, particularly where an existing decoder is installed.

As to the two minute ESU chip, two minutes of sound is quite adequate, as long as the sounds are readily repeated. The previous standard 1 minute Loksound 3.5 Damplok 2/4 cylinder contains no less than 103 sound files including no less than 25 different chuffs, nearly all of which are in use. I think that two minutes sound is of crucial use to the diesel men giving more time for the long notching files that big diesels need. I drive largish diesels all day and they take a while to build up revs but it takes only about a minute to go from a standing start to full speed including gear changes. Five seconds of whistle or horn on the real railway would earn a reprimand.

As to sound quality, this is constrained by the smallness of speakers and the difficulty of using sound boxes. It is generally accepted that chip sound quality is generally poor. Over manipulation of sound files tends to make them crackly. I agree that a good source (such as Steamsounds) gives appreciably better results after conversion to a much lower quality as needed by the chip.

I shall correct myself on two points. I have stated in the past that the standard is 11KHz 8 bit. I notice that my latest ESU software needs 16KHz 8 bit. Ho hum - more sound downloads to rework. All my sound fragments are in the former and won't play in my ESU chip!! I have also stated that Digitrax are the only sound chip software to have a decoder test facility. Not so. ESU also have a decoder running facility called Virtual Cab.

David White

More railway books have been reviewed and these will be found in the Book Review section which may be accessed by clicking on ‘Books’ to the left of this page and then picking the title that interests you from the index. For quick movement through the index, click on the appropriate letter in the letter index at the head of the column.

If the book interests you, there is a live link at the bottom of each review which will take you to the equivalent page on the Amazon website where you will find comparative prices for new or second-hand examples gathered from booksellers around the country.

I know that the NEM pockets, from different loco and rolling stock manufacturers, are at different heights. What is really needed is variable height Kaydee type couplers. For normal draft box use they already make under-shank, centre-shank and over-shank which enables you to get the correct coupler height (which is the key) regardless of the draft box height.

Unfortunately, neither Kaydee nor Bachmann US, in their Ezymate range, offer variable shank heights on the couplers that plug into NEM pockets.

So, if the train manufacturers can't do it, what about the coupler manufacturers?

Rob Melvin, Canberra, Australia

I need to obtain some late-BR lines for my Tri-ang B12 but most of the decals available do not match the correct shape and colour scheme I need. One side of the cab has a faded set of BR lines and loco number, but it's completely missing on the other side. I've recently spray painted the loco black and so I need to recreate the rest of the livery. I guess I could also completely skip the lines and just add the number but I'd like to add the red details if I could.

I realise that I've lowered the value of this loco by painting it, but it looks really good now! I want to run this loco on my layout and am not concerned about keeping it only as a collectors item.

Could you please let me know if you have any decals or refer me to any companies that might have these?

Rob Robotham

If David Chappell would like realistically proportioned, subtly posed 4mm scale figures he should look at the Monty's Models range sold by www.dartcastings.co.uk. In plastic the Dapol, ex-Airfix, sets still take some beating.

These are vastly superior to the wargame style Campbell figures, that Louis Heath recommended, which are caricatures at best.

Peter Cowan

-----

The recent correspondence concerning populating model railways reminds me that Hornby Dublo produced some superb plastic railway staff and passengers in the early 1960s. Unfortunately the tooling must have vanished because they did not reappear when Wrenn took over production. I have often been amused by comments in reviews over the years that certain ranges of figures were only suitable for HO and undersize for 00. I didn't realise we were all made to a common size, in which case I must be to 00 while my wife is TT!

Frank Spence

-----

In response to David Chappell contribution, 'Little People', I would certainly recommend that David visit web pages for Dart Castings and Aidan Campbell who cast various models in white metal and offer them unpainted.

I find at times that the face, hands and feet of cast white metal figures are poorly reproduced and which can spoil what otherwise are good figures for any layout.

Robert Stalker

Having just moved (to Spain), I have been sorting through some of my magazines. Over the last 40 or so years I have bought RM, CM, MRN & MRC on a fairly regular basis plus others that have had articles of interest. Every now and again I go through them and throw out those that have nothing of long term interest. It is interesting to find that I have retained, among others, Model Railways for September 1974, Engineering in Miniature for March 1985 and Locomotives Large & Small for November 1986.

All three feature articles on the models of an Australian (ex-Enfield) Arthur A Sherwood who constructed and engineered working live steam and electric locomotives in 1/240 scale. He also made an electric powered GNR N2 0-6-2 tank in 1/480 scale - which is half Z gauge! Needless to say, all items, including all drawings and plans, had to be produced and burners, motors and track had to be scratch-built,.

I still read the articles and wonder whether anyone else has produced similar works of art? Even more amazing is the fact that he was into his 60s. When I got to my 60s, I had to give up my Maerklin Z gauge because I was having problems track laying! He is a man who has my admiration.

On a different subject, does anyone know of any model railway clubs and or shops in Murcia, Spain?

Thanks for an essential morning read.

Tony Rimmer

To add to recent queries and comments regarding the working of coaches of this colour scheme on Southern's West of England workings, I can definitely recall (even after 50 years), BR Mk1 stock in this livery worked the route for a while. Waiting departure in the 4.45pm Exeter Central to Exmouth, I regularly saw the 1.0pm Waterloo arrive (making an ideal cross-platform connection) and certain portions would be in this livery.

Some Maunsell corridors would also have been in this livery during the mid-fifties and these were also used on branch services. For example, the rear 2-coach portion of the 5.15pm Exeter Central - Exmouth, which, after detachment at Exmouth, ran on to Tipton St Johns as a Through Portion from Exeter. This was a useful service for schoolboys and commuters.

With Hornby's Maunsells coming, it will be great to recreate these memories. But, dare I mention it, better still with a BCK and an open second!

Stephen Derek

I think it is important to support Pat's comments in his editorial of May 14 regarding the recent track poll carried out by Paul and Graham Plowman. I feel that some of the criticism of them that has occurred across the Internet as a result of them conducting this poll is something that we really don't need in this hobby. I am not talking here about constructive criticism addressing the issues in the poll such as how the questions were framed.

Constructive criticism is always, in my mind, acceptable. Although, in this case, I know that I, at least, could not have started a survey from scratch and come up with a superior approach to what Paul and Graham have done. It is always much harder to create something from the beginning than to fine tune it afterwards and I think that they have done a very good job of it. There has also been the side benefit of also generating some excellent, positive suggestions from other contributors to this magazine.

No, what I am upset about here is the personal attacks that Paul and Graham have obviously suffered over conducting this poll. Let's put things into perspective. Neither Paul or Graham started the debate on the production of a model track system which would more visually represent the real life track in Britain. Regular readers will know that this subject actually originated from consistent praise of the fidelity to prototype of the new products from Hornby and Bachmann, and that their realism now deserved a track system that was also closer to the British prototype than what presently exists. As we know, this discussion about new 'British style' track created a lot of interest in this magazine and continued for quite some time - possibly only DCC has received more subject coverage in correspondence in the time I have been reading MRE.

The matter could have died there except Paul and Graham decided to actually do something about it which, if I recall correctly, was after Peco stated that they would listen to comment on the subject. This means that there was obviously an interest on Peco's part in what their customers were asking for. So, if something were to happen in regard to new track, this was obviously the time to make it happen, and Paul and Graham simply took it on themselves to make this effort in response to what so many modellers said that they were interested in. Most importantly, they didn't merely push their own viewpoints as has been wrongly claimed - they set out a whole range of variables from fine scale to 'train set' options. They invited all of us to participate, with them doing the hard work of collating and apportioning all this information. So, how anyone could even feel that it is legitimate to attack them is totally beyond me.

I am a simple creature who believes that model railways are there for us to enjoy. However, for many modellers, who are far more skilled and creative than I am, part of the enjoyment comes from the pursuit of excellence in their modelling which, of course, is enhanced by realistic track. Just as there is nothing wrong in being a hobbyist who is somewhere between a railway modeller and train set operator, like I am. There is also absolutely nothing wrong in wanting to achieve excellence. After all, isn't excellence something that we are encouraged to attain in all parts of life from the moment we start school, so why should there be something wrong in someone wanting to take the same approach to railway modelling? While a scratch or kit builder, with specific track building skills, can produce excellence, the introduction of a ready made proprietary system, that is closer to scale, will enable more people to achieve their goals.

For the record, I don't know Paul or Graham beyond a single item of correspondence but I do admire them for putting their hands up and doing something positive and consequently making it easier for any potential manufacturer of a British type track to consider the design options available. Of course, without MRE as the platform, to create such interest would not be possible and, as I have said before, it is the courtesy and quality of the vast majority of contributors to this magazine, along with Pat's fair minded editing (this being a case in point), that make MRE stand out. I guess that's why Paul and Graham have chosen to restrict future debate to MRE. In any case, I do hope that if one day British modellers are graced with a closer to scale track system, someone will drop Paul and Graham an email saying "thanks".

Richard Whitmore

Our track poll has clearly been one of the most emotive subjects discussed in MREmag and elsewhere. I would like to thank all those who wrote to both MREmag and to us privately giving their support and constructive comments. I had intended to respond to the issues raised by readers but clearly that would generate another hail of abusive e-mails upon the Editor, which really would not be fair. Pat puts in a lot of time to bring us the MREmag and he should not have to put up with this childish nonsense.

To our critics I would say, we gave it our best shot. We took the time and trouble to develop the software for an on-line polling system, which avoided the need for you to waste time sending e-mails and preserved your privacy, absolutely. Our choice of questions might not have been perfect but then we are only human. If anyone feels they could do better, this is a free world, there is nothing to prevent you from running your own poll on this or any other subject.

We apologise to the Editor for the hail of abuse, which our poll attracted.

Paul Plowman

-----

How sad that some people have decided to be unpleasant regarding the track poll. Come on people, this is a hobby, not a war zone. You may have different views, but most of us, I suspect, are here to enjoy ourselves, not to try and score pseudo clever points off someone else.

I did put in my pennyworth to the poll, although I have to admit I found it a little confusing, I do suspect the Ps have a hidden agenda?

I would like to keep it friendly and simple. Accepting that model making is a compromise and we remain with H0/00 track, to expect the major manufacturers to change would be unrealistic. It is, of course, the sleepers which give the track a Continental look. The width should stay the same as, although it is not 4mm scale, it looks OK. The web should incorporate a wider spacing. This would keep me happy and improve the looks. I know that I can separate the sleepers and get the same effect and I do, but it would be nice to have it done in bought stock.

Keep it friendly chaps - we are not all experts. Speaking personally, I don't understand half of what you say anyway! But I do enjoy reading the Mag each day.

Alan Tewson

-----

Many thanks for selecting the constructive responses to 'that' controversial track poll. Like others, I felt that a claimed impartiality was completely at odds with the statement that 00 should be abandoned in favour of P4. Paul Plowman did himself no favours with this and I guess that he will take a long time to live it down. I deplore the personal abuse that has been directed his way and will take no part in it.

In the event that any of the manufacturers are still with this thread, and have not all left in despair to take up bungee jumping, I wish to state my summary.

I, too, have become a dyed-in-the-wool 00 ready-to-run modeller. I purchase goods to my taste. Despite the purist nonsense sometimes written, I am building a 'roundy-roundy' 'tail-chaser' for 'kettles' and ***** to those who denigrate the cornerstone of our hobby. I long for the day when the British trade adopt a common and viable standard for 00 and, until that day comes, I fully support the DOGA Intermediate Standard as being the best I wish to aim at.

Peter Bedding

-----

Can I start by saying thank you to Paul Plowman for running the Track Poll? Whilst I don’t necessarily agree with some of his interpretations of the results, I do not believe that the poll itself has harmed the debate on improved 00 track and I certainly don’t think that his "actions have very possibly put the whole 'better looking 00 track' stream back 10 years", as David Scanlan has suggested. However, I do have some comments to make.

Starting with Paul’s comment that "22.93% of respondents would prefer the trade to dump 00 altogether", whilst technically correct (he’s referring to the respondents rather than railway modellers as a whole), is a wholly misleading and very biased conclusion. What the result does show is that a significant proportion of those concerned with the accuracy of model railway track have already moved to a wider gauge, or at least finer standards. This is unsurprising as it is dissatisfaction with 00 that creates EM and P4 modellers. However, the vast majority of 00 modellers will not have responded to the poll because they don’t know or care enough about track to vote – it’s just something to run trains on.

As for Paul’s surprise that most respondents want sleepers, bearers, wing and check rails at 4mm scale rather than a compromise, I think that this is possibly because some of us are unsure as to what compromises we are actually willing to accept. Like many others, I think that SMP and C&L track generally looks acceptable, and had I realised that the option for a "compromise scale" meant "something to match C&L track", I may have voted for this instead of 4mm scale. After all, if I’m going to compromise slightly on sleeper length, a slight compromise elsewhere is not an unrealistic expectation. However, I want something much closer to 4mm scale than 3.5mm scale.

Personally, I think that Andy Parr’s comment is spot-on when he says "Someone has to choose a commercially profitable middle ground. I feel that this poll shows just how difficult it is, and perhaps why we've not seen progress on the matter from manufacturers." It does show how difficult it will be to please everyone. I had hoped that modern flat bottom rail and concrete sleepers would have polled higher, but it looks like I’ll have to wait a long time.

However, the poll does indicate that if a manufacturer were to look further at a new track range, a live frog turnout of around four foot radius, possibly with an integrated switch and weathered bullhead rail would probably sell reasonably well and, even if that's not what I really want, I'd probably still buy it if it looked better than the current offerings.

David Laing

-----

It is nice to see a name I normally associate with the Scalefour Society join the debate. Russ, you are more than right - the question is a simple one. The answer must be a big YES.

Clive Mortimore

-----

There has been a lot of reaction to the Plowman poll saga and some not necessarily in the 'right spirit'. I note that on Thursday's edition of MREmag you published some of the emails you had received.

That you have no inclination to edit the more "vitriolic" stuff within the context of MREmag I can understand but, given the circumstances, would it not be for, informational purposes, useful to produce a summary of those mails that perceive the poll as positive, neutral or negative.

Personally, I found the poll structure (I did not vote by the way) and its results do not represent the reality of the current situation concerning requests for better 00 track especially points. I believe a lot of people may have a similar viewpoint.

Nick Davies

A vast increase in the number of entries this month so thank you to everyone that entered. There were nine entrants who scored the full ten out of ten but the question that caught many out was question 1. You were probably lulled into a false sense of security thinking that the first question was simple and straight forward but it wasn’t (see below).

I would also like to say thank you to those who responded to my request last month for some feedback. I have tried to take account of some of the comments this month and, judging by the number of entries this month, it seems to have had some effect. I would also like to give special thanks to those who encouraged me to go on. However, one responder implied that if he/she didn’t know the answers without looking anything up, he/she couldn’t be bothered. I think it’s a reasonable expectation that some effort has to be put in for £50.

Here are the questions and answers. The Quizmaster’s decision is final.

By Brian Macdermott

Class 9F 2-10-0 No.92122 piloted Peak D7 ‘Ingleborough’ when she failed whilst working an Up Blackpool express on 5 April 1961.

I agree that it is a pity that Bachmann have not retooled their Thompsons yet. But you could upgrade them yourself.

I now have a rake of eight flush glazed 'Blood and Custard' Thompson coaches with Kadee close couplers and with both first class and no-smoking transfers in the windows. I used SE Finecast glazing units and fitted suitable Kadees with draft boxes in the recommended fashion. It did not take long, I was able to upgrade one or two per week. Frankly, I am very pleased with them and they stand up well beside the Bachmann Mk1s.

Have a go, it is well worth the effort.

Louis Heath

Mike Romans

David Chappell raises a good point about figures supporting our model railways. My biggest bugbear is that you see the same few models on every other layout. Wouldn't it be boring at a show if 0-4-2T 1432 and its B set were on every other layout? To over come this with layouts I am involved with, I make the population and Milliput is the medium used. It is a very relaxing way to spend a few evenings. See http://www.rmweb2.co.uk/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3589&SearchTerms=figures

Clive Mortimore

Track Poll

Well said re the responses to the track poll. I was disappointed to hear from Paul's feedback that some forums had some pretty nasty comments on them and, again, to hear that you've received some disagreeable responses too.

So, at least in part to compensate, I would like to applaud him and Graham for putting the poll up and you for supporting it and giving a chance for some idea of wishes on the subject to be gathered for those of us interested in better track for 00.

I can't say I agree with all his conclusions, but then I expected that opinion would be diverse on the subject. What annoys me most is that some people (hopefully a small minority) still seem to think that their way of thinking is absolutely right and no-one else's view is in any way valid. This is so patently not the case in our hobby but, as in all pastimes, sports and interests, there are extremes of view which some people feel they just have to inhabit.

Anyway, once again thank you, and also thank you Paul and Graham, for your efforts. Hopefully some good will come from them.

Ian Vale

-----

The Plowmans' OO track poll is certainly interesting and has definitely generated a lot of comment on various Internet forums, not all of it positive. However, there do seem to be some problems with the format of certain of the questions and with Paul Plowman's analyses of the results which rather undercut his conclusions

The biggest problems centre on question 1.

With over 77% of respondents indicating that the product they want is OO track, we can forget about ready made P4 or EM pointwork - the market is not there. The real issues arise with the OO Finescale option, and what it might mean. On one forum, not long after the poll opened, Grahman Plowman stated that: "A new product would have to use one of the existing standards and be compatible with RP25/110 wheels". I wouldn't disagree with that and it was a reasonable assumption that this was what the poll meant by OO Finescale. However, on 20th April, Paul Plowman wrote here that OO Finescale meant something completely incompatible with all existing RTR

Effectively, that meant the poll offered either the status quo or 3 options which were completely incompatible with all RTR. You couldn't vote for a OO track standard finer than current Peco, but which would allow some or all modern RTR to run, because that option wasn't in the poll. Yet the Plowmans themselves had indicated that this was an essential requirement for a viable product and Paul has twice vigorously attacked his own OO Finescale option as unworkable.

I can think of four 16.5mm gauge track standards which are finer than current Peco Streamline and compatible with some or all current production OO RTR: DOGA's OO Intermediate standard, the old BRMSB standard, the Continental NEM standards and the NMRA's S3. There are probably a couple of others I've missed. As even Paul admits, SMP hand-built pointwork is compatible with all current OO RTR stock. Why were none of these options included in the vote? Many letters to MREMag had specifically indicated support for such an option. It is difficult not to feel that Question 1 of the poll was designed to obstruct support for finer OO track . Even so, OO Finescale was the leading option until Paul Plowman's first analysis made a lengthy attack on the concept whilst the poll was still running. This seems to have resulted in an increase in support for both Peco standards and for P4, for which his first analysis amounted to an election broadcast.

This does seem to belie the claims made at the start of the poll that Paul was an impartial neutral on this issue, as he models in P4. To me it seems an object lesson in the reasons why OO standards and the specifications for OO products should be decided by modellers actually working in OO, not by people working in other gauges.

Questions 9 and 10 were flawed by the multiplicity of options offered. With 3 bullhead options but no less than 7 flat-bottom options this was always likely to produce a bullhead option as winner simply by fragmenting the flat-bottom vote . If the options are aggregated, the figures for plain track are 60% bullhead and 40% flat-bottom, which is not fully conclusive.

I'm also surprised by Paul's reference to several responses being "a good result" by which he appears to mean that respondents gave the answers he wanted to hear. If the organisers of the poll had already decided they wanted to see certain outcomes emerge, then they were hardly neutrals as they initially claimed. Paul has himself admitted that the question on radii was wrongly structured and the assumption that only strict prototypical geometry was acceptable and that, therefore, only large radii were permitted, was inappropriate and should have been open to debate.

As a result, I'm afraid both the poll results and their interpretation have been seriously compromised and, in many areas, are open to challenge or doubt. I certainly cannot accept Paul Plowman's analyses of them as valid and nor, I believe, will most OO modellers.

The Double O Gauge Association will continue to work for proper OO track, to a finer standard compatible with modern OO RTR stock, on behalf of OO modellers in the UK and elsewhere. We believe there is very considerable support amongst OO modellers for such a product.

Stephen Siddle,
Treasurer, Double O Gauge Association

-----

I suppose I fit the description of being an "Internet savvy, mostly serious railway modeller" - albeit, one who chose not to take the Plowmans' track poll.

As published earlier in MREmag, I would be delighted to see a manufacturer take up the challenge of 00 pointwork to sensible (DOGA Intermediate?) standards to complement the quality of the latest releases from Bachmann, Heljan and Hornby. However, bearing in mind previous debate in MREmag, I was not sure how the data would be used.

When I read the inference that "22.93% of respondents would prefer the trade to dump OO altogether" (based on the question "What is your preferred model railway track standard?"), I knew I had made the right decision! With a comment like this, why should the poll be taken seriously? Sadly, it is precisely this form of logic that provokes a robust response from certain quarters.

Christopher Rabson

-----

Whilst I can understand you wish to reduce the amount of vitriol published on the site, I do hope that you will allow people to express their active disagreement with the way that the Track Poll was structured (as has been expressed many times on both this site and on other sites), and especially with the results as presented by Paul Plowman. I think that my comments should be taken against a background of my willingness to host a simpler online poll (see MREMag Thursday 22.3.07 - before the GPP poll was announced on 2.4.07).

Unfortunately, simply providing Paul with a vehicle to propose his own (non-mainstream I believe) opinions will not help the hobby advance. In common with many people who have commented on this whole situation, my feeling is that Paul's actions have very possibly put the whole 'better looking OO track' stream back 10 years.

When I reviewed the raw data coming out of the poll, the thing that struck me is that there is a wish for 'better quality' small radius trackwork to be produced in a RTR form. I disagree with his statements about everybody having to either replace their stock, or re-wheel to 'finescale' standards. The results actually seem to scream out that people want OO Intermediate standard track (an option which was not available in the poll). Strangely enough, this would allow for small radius 'finerscale' turnouts to be produced that would run current RTR wheelsets without any problems.

So thus, whilst it is fine for any correspondence to be forwarded to Paul (and possibly his solicitors from the tone of his message announcing the results of the poll), I think it would be beneficial to show your impartiality to publish some of the less destructive emails that you have received on the matter.

David Scanlan

-----

I felt the inclusion of EM and P4 in the poll confused the primary issue being discussed in MREMag, namely 'better 00 track'. Paul Plowman's assertion that "22.93% of respondents would prefer the Trade to dump 00 altogether" is an over simplistic misrepresentation of what many wider gauge adherents feel about the commercial viability of different areas of the hobby. Although not needing 00 track, EM and P4 workers need a healthy 00 sector.

Secondly, and hopefully getting back on MREmag topic, I thought the poll did little to take the current temperature on 00 track and wheel standards. The poll didn't even mention the DOGA Intermediate Standard, whose adoption I would see as a nub of the 00 turnout and timber issue. The poll would have been more useful if it had been directed solely at 00 modellers and its one and only question had been: "Do you want the manufacturers to conform to the DOGA Intermediate Standard - yes or no?"

Russ Elliott

-----

It is very strange that Messer's Plowman and Plowman invited people to enter their poll on other forums but will now only discuss the results on here. How will those people who are not on this forum who voted in their poll know the result of the poll? How can they enter in the post poll debate?

I am still not sure to whom the resulting outcome will be presented.

Clive Mortimore

-----

-----

I don't wish to denigrate someone's obvious hard work, but all this track poll demonstrates is that someone has too much time on their hands.

Whilst lauding efforts to get a more realistic track system, this whole exercise clearly shows serious modellers won't accept a "one size fits all", but with so many variations I can't see how any manufacturer can justify the costs of tooling up for a product that will please no one.

There will always be people who just want setrack and, at the other end, people who will only find hand-built meets their standards. Someone has to choose a commercially profitable middle ground. I feel that this poll shows just how difficult it is, and perhaps why we've not seen progress on the matter from manufacturers.

Andy Parr

-----

I'd just like to thank Paul Plowman for all the obvious time and effort that went in to the track poll. Interesting results, but now I've converted to USA 2 rail O scale, doesn't really bother me any more ! It would be nice to see an improved RTR rack system though - thanks again Paul !

Don Gilham

-----

I'm sure we'd all like to thank Graham and Paul Plowman for the track poll, the results of which I agree are interesting. I suspect that the support for 4mm scale sleepers which surprised Paul may in part be due to 00 modellers wanting sleepers that simply look more like 4mm scale (in width particularly) and that many would not in fact want sleepers of the correct scale length which would necessarily stick out too far beyond the rails. As with all such polls, it is difficult to frame the questions perfectly without the knowledge of the answers that one is going to get!

I am glad Paul agrees about the difficulty in making finescale wheels and track work effectively in a mass-production environment, but I still believe this difficulty is underestimated by some respondents.

As a died-in-the-wool 00 gauge modeller, I am not at all surprised at the demand for points of less than four feet radius. Most of us who try to model main lines in the limited spaces at home are forced to use sharper radii to stand any chance of getting a decent station throat into the space available. Setrack radii are too sharp, even for me, and the curved ones are pretty horrid. So my own preference is for the Peco medium-radius Streamline point and the long curved points.

For me the overall geometry and appearance of the track are far more important than the details. One other thing I should really like, but which Paul didn't raise in the poll, is a curved diamond somewhat shorter than the Peco long one as this is (in my view) one of the biggest limitations in achieving realistic pointwork in complex station throats.

Anthony New

Phil Porter

I used the Model Color acrylic paints manufactured by Acrilico-Vinilico which I was able to buy from a shop supplying military and fantasy figures.

Louis Heath

I have been reading with interest all those E-mails regarding NEM pockets and standards. From my own thoughts, it appears that Hornby have the NEM pocket at the correct height and Bachmann also have them at the correct height, where the straight coupling is fitted in the NEM pocket. However, where Bachmann use the cranked version of the coupling to lower it, this pocket appears to be too high.

Perhaps for next year's wants list, number 1 should be a request that Bachmann issue coaches/wagon/locos with NEM pockets at the correct height. Or the model buying public could all request that Bachmann redesign the various items with NEM pockets at a more correct height.

Still enjoy my morning paper.

I have been reading this topic with some interest. There is only one snag with a motorised van or coach. If you are modelling a branch or main line terminus, you will have to run the train around the locomotive!

Ian Farey

I have recently purchased a Bachmann Hall Class locomotive that I wish to renumber and rename to 7912 'Little Linford Hall'. Before anyone raises it, yes, I am aware that the Bachmann model is not a modified Hall Class, whereas 7912 is. For the purpose I have in mind, it does not matter.

I wonder if anyone can advise me whether anyone makes or offers transfers to renumber and rename this class.

Geoff Baxter

Of course, David White was absolutely correct in his remarks about reprogramming a ESU Loksound decoder. What I was trying to illustrate was the ease with which I can alter or change the sound aspects of a loco not only via software, but 'on the fly' as we say, i.e. in real time. However, I am sure we all agree, the Loksound is one of the few soundchips that can be reprogrammed by the end user, which David commendably does using suitable soundfiles. Can we re-programme a Tsunami? This is not possible at the moment I believe, which is a shame given its 16 bit characteristics. It is of course relatively easy to replace certain sound elements of a Loksound fitted loco providing you have the appropriate software and hardware interface that I believe David processes. But, how easy is it for the majority of users to change the horn on their SWD Class 158s? Unless you have the above, or access to them (and not forgetting a different horn sample), I believe you are stuck with what the vendor has supplied.

Visit the multi award-winning Kew Bridge Steam Museum on 20th May and see steam power come alive.

Up to a dozen different fire engines, dating from 1914 to the 1980s, will be on display on the day. Organised by the Fire Service Preservation Group, the rally will feature early motorised Dennis fire engines, including the magnificent 1916 petrol driven model from the Royal College of Science complete with student firemen in period dress. There will also be a mix of younger fire appliances including a war-time and 1980s models, as well as appliances which are still in use and fire fighting displays and demonstrations.

By Brian Macdermott

Jeremy English is 'on the mark' with N15 history. I agree that S15 was a 'lesser engine' in suitability for modelling. The N15 was also, in my opinion, more attractive - even than the H15. As far as I can guess, coming from a family of railway people including a top link NZ driver and workshops-people from 1900AD onwards, all three classes shared many parts and production techniques

The Urie 1918 design was affected by WW1 manpower shortage and the subsequent designs varied somewhat in detail as a result of being 'built from plans'. The design was pre-war and Eastleigh had its own ways. It is likely that the main changes from the 1914 H15 to the 1920s' Scots Arthurs were to do with subtleties in material design and breathing. Also from the vagaries of building from plans, as well as experiments by the senior engineers. Several cylinder arrangements were used, with subtle changes in all manufacturing and weights etc. However, this is just a deduction on my part and not proven record. Perhaps we forget how steam engines were living and changing machines. These were not a large class and would have been almost hand-built.

North British, by 1939, could produce superb locomotives from plans. They built 30 outstanding 4-8-2s for New Zealand in just six weeks! Someone might comment on how good they were in 1925 when they built N15s.

Such a fine model by Hornby!

Robbie McGavin [NZ]

If anyone (like Phil Gollin with his 'suggestion of the year’ for example) is interested in the current version of the motorised van, have a look at the website for High Level Models. They produce kits for motor bogies of 34 mm (8ft 6in) and 40mm (10ft) wheelbase. I am sure these could be used to replace loco hauled coach bogies if desired.

Richard Billinge

David Chappell asked: "Can anyone point me to a source of good figures who are not performing the 100 meter race, or waving to invisible friends?". I agree with David, there are too few high-quality figures around. And especially too few high-quality female figures (ahem...).

Mikkel Funder

-----

David Chappell is quite right on the issue of people. I think that this area of modelling is poorly supported by manufacturers. What is needed is a plastic moulding firm to make batches of 'era' people of, say, 50 that can be painted. Kit people, is a possibility. If a body and several arm/leg positions were made then this would give more scope. I think that this is a project for China in order to keep the cost down.

George McKie

As an active train-spotting short-trousered boy on the Eastern section of the Southern in the 1950s, I would like to add to other comments that 'Blood & Custard' Mk1s were certainly used on this section as well. I particularly remember, with childhood fascination, the boat trains labelled "Continental Express - Short Sea Crossing" which included (this was in the days when normal classes were First and Third only) the exotica of Second class Mk1 coaches with large numeral 2 on each door. I think they were just normal First Opens so marked. Interesting and simple to do variation there!

Thanks as ever for a great daily read

Tony Stanford

There are over 1000 lots going under the hammer on Saturday, in this part of the sale. A further 800 lots of mainly diecast models will be sold simultaneously in The JLS Room.

Simon Kohler has asked me to reassure readers that Hornby have produced the correct coaches that make up the Pendolino. That is to say that if you have a Pendolino train set or a train pack and add the solo coaches, you will be able to assemble a correct 9 car train.

I would just like to add my 'two penneth' to Anthony New's thoughts. I run vintage Hornby Dublo 3-rail and, at our monthly running session, this subject came up as an informal discussion.

Hornby Dublo 3-rail track is coated brass and the original Mazac alloy wheels generally give good pulling capacity (up to 12 tinplate coaches). The later 3-rail locomotives, of the 2-rail era, are fitted with nickel silver tyres and these certainly show a lower friction coefficient. Even after 40 something years, this is still apparent at times. In my case, particularly with locos that I purchased in 1964 after production ceased. Some of these were so bad that they had very little use until recently. It now seems that running the locos (with light loads within their capability) improves their performance. A case in point is my diesel shunter which could manage only 3 wagons and can now tackle 14 or 15 with grip to spare. I don't know if the wheels are roughed-up or smoothed during running, but it is my feeling that the wheels are smoothed, giving a larger 'footprint' on the track. The phenomenon is not consistent across the range but exists to some extent.

Incidentally, the 2-rail locos running on Hornby Dublo nickel silver track are much less prone to exhibit the problem.

I know that this does not give answers or suggestions, only observations. There must be someone in MREmag world with sufficient metallurgy experience to analyse the situation

Terry Dyckhoff

-----

Further to Anthony New's post on the 10th May, the coefficient of friction definitely improves with use, as both the driven wheel tyre and railhead polish in the course of extended operation. With commercial 00 models on nickel silver track, from starting values around 0.1, there is usually an improvement to between 0.12 and 0.15. The final value is dependent on the material used for the tyre. If you have a well used layout, you can confirm that the friction improves as the railhead polishes. You can do this by substituting a new and unused length of track and running a load which was just within the capacity of a given loco to start on that length when operating on the well used track. It will slip when attempting a start on the replaced section.

Those making the effort to go the finescale route and using steel for both tyre and rail, enjoy the coefficient of friction of 0.24, 'just like the real thing'. Relating to one of my previous posts, this is one of the reasons why commercial 00 models often need to be made heavier if they are to haul prototype loads. I thought it would be rather amusing for people to research for themselves safe, usable and denser alternatives to lead, expecting replies on the lines of "If I could afford to weight using gold..."

Paul Jansz

I should like to express my thanks to Messrs Stuart Morris, David Rollason, Howard Merrion, Paul Dryden and Dick Flower for their help in identifying the 10 coaches which I recently purchased. As yet, I still haven't identified the 57 foot clerestory coaches but am still pursuing the leads these gentlemen have supplied.

For your benefit, Paul, if you care to reread my request for help posted on Thursday 3^rd May, you will find that my request was primarily for help in identifying these models (not being an expert in the older types of GWR carriage) and, secondly, to try and get some feeling as to whether the substantial 3 figure sum I'd given for the 10 carriages was 'over the odds' or not. I trust this information may help to relieve your sense of sadness. Thanks again for your help.

Many thanks Pat for providing this excellent resource to the likes of myself who are not so knowledgeable as others.

Alan Fryer

My understanding is that WD40 was developed primarily as a water dispellant, hence 'WD', and the formula was reached at the 40th attempt.

Frank Spence

The TCS have had a stand at the Warley MRE exhibition for several years. Initially, we just had a static display of information, the club magazine and TCS member benefits. The year after we had a display cabinet of toy and model trains in an interesting A to Z format, from Airfix to Zenith, via Lima and Trix amongst others.

But many show visitors walked straight past to the next society's table, which had moving trains.

The TCS owns some locos used on the display, a Marklin Z electric outline loco, and a pair of Rivarossi 0 gauge US outline diesels. Other stock is normally provided by TCS members operating the display, or is on loan.

We do advertise that show visitors may try out their locos and over the years we've had the common and the unusual, including the Kitmaster powered van, some Japanese N, the prototype MSL 0 gauge Class 76 and exotic continental Trix. There has been only one non-runner in all that time - a 'repaired' Class 08 diesel shunter bought from a manufacturer's stall normally near the entrance. The purchaser was able to do a swap and the replacement worked perfectly. A Hornby Dublo 0-6-2T set was brought along by another visitor, who wanted to trade it in for some modern equipment. The loco had been in a loft for 30 years, the prospective purchaser was able to see it run, hesitantly at first with plenty of sparking, then after a few minutes, it ran so well, that the vendor actually thought about keeping it.

With the increasing take up of DCC, perhaps we ought to be able to temporarily switch in a DCC command station to any of the tracks. Another option would be to add the new Japanese micro gauge.

See us at the NEC for Warley 07!

Malcolm Pugh

May I have a moan about "little people", please?

I am now getting round to populating my 00 layout after many years of building. I need a good number of passengers waiting for trains on the platforms - it is a summer Saturday in 1954 after all! I have boxes of 'little people', purchased at shops, shows and swapmeets over the years. I had never really studied them closely but I just stored them in boxes marked 'people'. Now, looking at them, and trying to select suitable ones for the layout, I find I am very disappointed. Their poses and demeanour, in many cases, is awful.

I do not like 'action' poses such as walking, running, climbing stairs, waving hands or flags, levering objects, etc. I prefer people standing in certain positions, either on their own (waiting for a train) or 'talking' to another one or two people in a small group. One has to search really hard to find 4mm/ft figures which fit my requirements as about 60% or more show some form of 'movement' as outlined. This applies to the well known ranges of plastic figures, whether purchased unpainted or painted. Do modellers really want their passengers and workers running, walking, waving, etc.? Should not the bulk of figures be stationary with just a few doing something.

It is such a shame, because, for example, one range of plastic figures, which has been around for many years and is now marketed by a company in Wales, is in some ways excellent. Their faces, clothing and general detail, even when looked at with a magnifying glass, are superb examples, but their poses are, in my view, stupid, or at the least odd. I will admit I have not purchased any of the well known HO figures, but looking at the make-up of packets of these on the web, they seem also be have a high proportion of figures 'doing something', even when classed as "standing passengers".

The other problem, chaps, is that there is a shortage of women! Also, children used to travel on trains and there are not many of those about, either. Am I being unreasonable? Can anyone point me to a source of good figures who are not performing the 100 metre race, or waving to invisible friends? Can we have some more lady passengers as well, children also?

David Chappell

I recently had an Australian resident friend call in to see me during his 90 'tax free' days over here and we tried his L&Y 0-6-0T 'Rapid' shunter on my 0 gauge circuit in the garage. At the time, there was evidence of some verdigris on the track, despite good Cornish weather and recent cleaning.

In answer to a query how he dealt with such problems in northern Queensland, he remarked, as an engineer, that a few drops of liquid graphite fed onto the track in several places (he has a quite extensive layout in his garage) which is picked up and spread by the locomotive wheels and seems to overcome the problem. He added, "My biggest problem is a continual battle with Termite ants".

One cannot add more!

Stuart Morris

With regard to the posting from Dick Flower this week. I spoke with Graham Hubbard at a show a while ago and was told that, because of technical problems with flush glazing, these coaches would not be released. I suspect they felt the manufacturing slot in China could be used more profitably with a new product. It is, after all, a commercial decision and whilst new Thompsons would delight me, Bachmann remaining a viable producer in the market place suits me even better.

Derek Betts

-----

At one point the Rails of Sheffield website actually listed retooled Thompsons as a future release. I would buy a rake or two if the NEM coupling boxes were done to the proper NEM specification. Four years of moaning about this (I am not alone but expect all kinds of "get a life" responses) have done very little good.

The Hornby Gresleys seem to be just about the only ready-to-run coaches on which one can simply plug in the Roco/Fleischmann/Marklin close coupler and get proper close coupling. With Hornby Pullmans you have to use one normal Roco and one long one (the adjustable height type), Bachmann Mk1s need both long ones but the Hornby Staniers are hopeless, even with the Keen extended corridor connections, because the buffers lock up.

Just what is the problem with this. I imagine Bachmann Liliput are even made in the same factory and they are perfect. All the TRIX/Marklin/Fleischmann/Roco fit together perfectly, buffer to buffer, corridors touching. They never derail or lock and these manufacturers have been doing this since the early 1990s.

It would be most interesting to have an answer from Hornby and Bachmann as to why this issue has never been taken seriously.

Les Herbert

I must reply to Peter Bedding’s statement about Mk1 coaches in 'Blood & Custard' livery on the SR were confined to Waterloo – Southampton duties. Mk1 4-coach sets 866, 867, 877, 878, 879, 881 to 891 (that’s a total of 64 coaches) were all allocated to Waterloo – Plymouth and Portsmouth – Plymouth workings from their delivery in 1952 right through to the mid 1960s. These sets all consisted of a BSK, CK, SK and BCK and would have been delivered new in 'Blood & Custard' livery. There is plenty of photographic evidence to show some of these coaches, indeed complete sets, still carrying 'Blood & Custard' livery in 1961 and less so in 1962.

Therefore, Peter, your statement that Mk1 coaches in this livery were "rare and short lived on West of England services" does not hold water and I still suggest it’s another option for Bachmann to consider.

Dick Flower