The Night Mail

[Chris Snowdon]

10 minutes ago, Happy Hippo said:

Dark Chocolate Ginger cookies are better.

 

You'd have turned them into drooling sycophants if you'd fed them Bara Brith.

I had a struggle to convince my US colleagues of the virtues of haggis...

[Chris Snowdon]

5 hours ago, DenysW said:

Possibly of the Bank of England? At that point it was a private, for-profit, unlimited liability company. It also did not willingly accept the role of lender of last resort.

Sorry b all, think I intended to attach the quote from Guy Granet to this one...

 

regards

cs

[Compound2632]

21 minutes ago, Chris Snowdon said:

And the trick used a generation later and for almost a century was the reverse, classifying new-builds as rebuilds, to come off the current account rather than capital account.  A different public good, according to the necessity of the time, but still "creative"

 

I've looked at this a lot in my wagon research - the concept of renewals. As far as I can make out, the approach to depreciation of capital assets was different to that that holds now. If you had a capital asset, the theory was that it retained its value - the capitalisation of the company remained constant. So you had a renewal fund - a charge on income - which paid for the maintenance of the asset, so that it was always notionally as good as new. After a certain amount of time, that became untenable, so you renewed the asset - built a new wagon, carriage, locomotive, whatever, to take the place of the old one. This was again a charge to the renewal fund. If the renewal was a more modern, bigger, item, you might have to charge the improvement to capital. You could also sell the old item off second-hand. The minutes talk of wagons being 'rebuilt' - so many hundred open wagons to be rebuilt as a smaller number of covered goods wagons, but of the same total capital value. 

 

There's a nice instance of the Midland doing this with wagons in the years before the Great War. It was no longer sensible to renew old 8-ton wagons with new 8-ton wagons, such small wagons being outmoded. Better to replace them with 12-ton wagons, though those cost £17 each more to build. (the 8-ton wagons cost £62 each.) That £17 was charged to capital and the balance of £62 to the renewal account. Meanwhile, old 8-ton wagons were being sold to J.F. Wake of Doncaster, a wagon-dealer, for £17 each...

 

It's not understanding this that leads to such confusion about the 483 Class superheater 4-4-0s. They were not rebuilds of old engines, in the sense of taking apart and putting back together again differently, but renewals, replacement of a capital asset by a new one, to maintain the capital value.

Edited Wednesday at 20:02 by Compound2632

[jjb1970]

13 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

While I share the frustration at the shortage of RTR "ordinary" EMUs, the reasons why have been debated on RMWeb many times.  There are a number of reasons, including: 

1. Likely cost of a 3/4-car unit is more than most purchasers are prepared to spend on one item.
2. People will generally buy something that excites them, than something that is prototypical.
3. While many classes can look similar, there are often a huge number of variations between batches and classes so it isn't appropriate to produce one Class 305 and just sell versions of other classes with different numbers (the days of Triang producing one DMU to suit all, are long gone).  Tooling up for multiple variants would be completely uneconomic*.
4. A high proportion of Southern-set layouts are beyond the 3rd-rail area, as the commuter belt doesn't interest the builder (see #2 above).  Likewise few modellers want to model 25kV wires and so model main lines beyond the wires.
5. Unless modelling electrified branches, EMUs tend to couple into rakes to make long trains.  So you won't need one 4-car EMU, you'll need two, which brings us back to #1.

So you're probably best off tracking down a DC Kit (other mfrs are available) of the unit you want and building it yourself.  I've a Class 304 just like your photo waiting for me to build it (had it well over 20 years already) but it's well down my to-do list.

 

*The exception to this may be the later PEP-derived and Mk3 units, of which multiple classes use similar bodyshells.  That may be why in N, there is a class 313, which can be simply modified to be a 314 and potentially a 507/508.

 

It's quite a topical thing to think about given the seeming readiness of people to accept generic coach models. I've often wondered what the reception would be to something like an Electrostar offered in multiple liveries without replicating class/sub-class specific details. I'm quite open minded, if it was done well I think it could work well and it may be the only realistic way to get an RTR Electrostar. This is just a personal and very subjective preference but I'm more open to the idea of an accurate model offered in liveries to look like something else than a made up generic model.

[Dave Hunt]

15 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

It's not understanding this that leads to such confusion about the 483 Class superheater 4-4-0s. They were not rebuilds of old engines, in the sense of taking apart and putting back together again differently, but renewals, replacement of a capital asset by a new one, to maintain the capital value.

 

It is also worth noting that the Midland only categorised a locomotive as rebuilt if it received a new boiler, no matter how much else was altered.

 

Dave

[iL Dottore]

4 hours ago, Dave Hunt said:

 

It's the rarefied atmosphere up in the Alps and all those cow bells. It affects the higher functions of the brain you know.

 

Dave

That reminds me...

 

What's it like up in the stratosphere in a barely pressurised cockpit?

[Tony_S]

49 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

Likely cost of a 3/4-car unit is more than most purchasers are prepared to spend on one item.

Though won’t I have to buy two of the Rapido 483 model and double head them …

[AndyID]

7 minutes ago, iL Dottore said:

That reminds me...

 

What's it like up in the stratosphere in a barely pressurised cockpit?

 

I'm sure it's fine as long as you don't wind down a window.

[Hroth]

17 minutes ago, iL Dottore said:

That reminds me...

 

What's it like up in the stratosphere in a barely pressurised cockpit?

 

Breathtaking!

 

[iL Dottore]

53 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

While I share the frustration at the shortage of RTR "ordinary" EMUs, the reasons why have been debated on RMWeb many times.  There are a number of reasons, including: 

1. Likely cost of a 3/4-car unit is more than most purchasers are prepared to spend on one item.
2. People will generally buy something that excites them, than something that is prototypical.
3. While many classes can look similar, there are often a huge number of variations between batches and classes so it isn't appropriate to produce one Class 305 and just sell versions of other classes with different numbers (the days of Triang producing one DMU to suit all, are long gone).  Tooling up for multiple variants would be completely uneconomic*.
4. A high proportion of Southern-set layouts are beyond the 3rd-rail area, as the commuter belt doesn't interest the builder (see #2 above).  Likewise few modellers want to model 25kV wires and so model main lines beyond the wires.
5. Unless modelling electrified branches, EMUs tend to couple into rakes to make long trains.  So you won't need one 4-car EMU, you'll need two, which brings us back to #1.

So you're probably best off tracking down a DC Kit (other mfrs are available) of the unit you want and building it yourself.  I've a Class 304 just like your photo waiting for me to build it (had it well over 20 years already) but it's well down my to-do list.

 

*The exception to this may be the later PEP-derived and Mk3 units, of which multiple classes use similar bodyshells.  That may be why in N, there is a class 313, which can be simply modified to be a 314 and potentially a 507/508.

Your points are very valid, but I think that some of them mainly  apply to "standard" RTR manufacturing: injection moulding (with perhaps some photo etch) and creating a mould is incredibly expensive

 

But once again, Military Modellers are way ahead of us model railway types. I've seen quite a few recent YouTube product reviews and product announcements where some really obscure prototypes (like a Pzkw Mk 1 turret on a Pzkw Mk IV body) from medium sized manufacturers are created using a combination of injection-moulded, photo-etched, laser cut and resin 3D printed parts. Using a common starting point to multiple prototypes (like a chassis) - which is injection-moulded; specific variants are created by the addition of 3D printed parts and photo-etched - which are much, much cheaper to design and manufacture

 

So I think that by using multi media components producing a Class 203 (for example) in all its variants is very do-able at a customer friendly price point 

[Chris Snowdon]

43 minutes ago, jjb1970 said:

 

It's quite a topical thing to think about given the seeming readiness of people to accept generic coach models. I've often wondered what the reception would be to something like an Electrostar offered in multiple liveries without replicating class/sub-class specific details. I'm quite open minded, if it was done well I think it could work well and it may be the only realistic way to get an RTR Electrostar. This is just a personal and very subjective preference but I'm more open to the idea of an accurate model offered in liveries to look like something else than a made up generic model.

jjb1970 makes a good point, worth exploring:  The Turbostar/ Electrostar shell is in its own way generic, with minor differences between users.

 

So, rather than an expensive specific RTR version, an old-fashioned "generic" bodyline kit, to fit either scratchbuilt or adapted (spare) RTR chassis, should be a welcome thing for anyone modelling the scene over the past 25-30 years.  Basically visible anywhere on the network (other than secondary lines to the North, South and West of Newcastle Central...)

 

If following the kit possibility, then adding-in optional bits such as cab-fronts (whether to clip or glue) should be less-costly than licensing specific versions.  Also, the real things are covered in vinyl, so moulding in clear with livery to be applied by whole-side transfer, would actually be strangely close to prototype practice!

 

I've heard that some TOCs are a bit touchy about modellers replicating their liveries, particularly when displayed at exhibitions - the Turbostar and Electrostar are surely so widespread that if used in context, one could also argue that it is free advertising for them?  Otherwise, simply asking should be enough to begin licensing discussions.

 

regards

cs

[Dave Hunt]

14 minutes ago, iL Dottore said:

That reminds me...

 

What's it like up in the stratosphere in a barely pressurised cockpit?

 

The pressurisation in a fighter cockpit keeps the pressure at the equivalent of half the actual height plus 2,000 ft., i.e., at 30,000ft the cockpit pressure is effectively at 17,000ft. Above 10,000ft cockpit altitude the pilot is given gradually increasing oxygen enrichment until at 20,000ft cockpit - 36,000 ft actual - he is on 100% oxygen and then pressure breathing starts, the overpressure gradually increasing as further altitude is gained.  

 

Well, you did ask.

 

Dave

[Dave Hunt]

28 minutes ago, Tony_S said:

Though won’t I have to buy two of the Rapido 483 model and double head them …

 

Don't tell me, it's because the Midland had a small engine policy.

 

Sheeeesshhh....

 

Dave

[AndyID]

3 minutes ago, Dave Hunt said:

 

The pressurisation in a fighter cockpit keeps the pressure at the equivalent of half the actual height plus 2,000 ft., i.e., at 30,000ft the cockpit pressure is effectively at 17,000ft. Above 10,000ft cockpit altitude the pilot is given gradually increasing oxygen enrichment until at 20,000ft cockpit - 36,000 ft actual - he is on 100% oxygen and then pressure breathing starts, the overpressure gradually increasing as further altitude is gained.  

 

Well, you did ask.

 

Dave

 

So smoking might be not a great idea 😂

[PhilJ W]

5 hours ago, iL Dottore said:

Man,that's one fugly mutha 😁😱

 

This is an aesthetically better locomotive:

https://railsofsheffield.com/products/Bachmann-32-875a-lms-fairburn-tank-2245-lms-black-original?_pos=13&_sid=ac802bad1&_ss=r&_fid=0f4c12089

 

I also note that another obscure SR/BR EMU is being produced:

https://railsofsheffield.com/products/bulleid-class-4dd-double-decker-4002-4902-br-green-with-full-yellow-ends-dcc-fitted?_pos=9&_sid=b53772248&_ss=r&_fid=db8ecff0c

 

When are they going to produce something so commonly used it was unremarkable like this:

 

Or this:

 

or this:

 

Notice TOTAL absence of copper clad chimneys! (I can think beyond the GWR trope)

I would suggest the class 502/503 Merseyside units. Introduced by the LMS in 1938 and painted in full LMS passenger livery, after nationalisation two shades of green with various yellow panels and eventually in BR blue and blue/grey. 

For OHLE it's got to be a class 309.

[iL Dottore]

10 minutes ago, Chris Snowdon said:

are a bit touchy about modellers replicating their liveries, particularly when displayed at exhibitions -

I somewhat remember reading about a situation in the US whereby a major railroad company aggressively went after even little mom and pop outfits for using their logo (and savagely doing so as well: asking for telephone numbers "punitive damages").

 

It got to the point where it was near impossible for anyone to model that particular railroad. Sanity was eventually restored (but not, if I remember correctly, until some legal nastiness had taken place).

 

Perhaps our American correspondents can clue us in?

[AndyID]

6 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

I would suggest the class 502/503 Merseyside units. Introduced by the LMS in 1938 and painted in full LMS passenger livery, after nationalisation two shades of green with various yellow panels and eventually in BR blue and blue/grey. 

For OHLE it's got to be a class 309.

 

Of course there's always The Clockwork Orange (the original red version shown). Rumor has it they never actually painted one side because nobody ever saw it. The originals were a lot of fun to ride because you could see al the joints in the wooden frame flex in response to acceleration and braking.

 

[polybear]

18 minutes ago, Chris Snowdon said:

I've heard that some TOCs are a bit touchy about modellers replicating their liveries, particularly when displayed at exhibitions - the Turbostar and Electrostar are surely so widespread that if used in context, one could also argue that it is free advertising for them?  Otherwise, simply asking should be enough to begin licensing discussions.

 

regards

cs

 

I've heard they charge the RTR companies for the privilege of using their liveries....

[AndyID]

5 minutes ago, iL Dottore said:

I somewhat remember reading about a situation in the US whereby a major railroad company aggressively went after even little mom and pop outfits for using their logo (and savagely doing so as well: asking for telephone numbers "punitive damages").

 

It got to the point where it was near impossible for anyone to model that particular railroad. Sanity was eventually restored (but not, if I remember correctly, until some legal nastiness had taken place).

 

Perhaps our American correspondents can clue us in?

 

I'm not aware of that one. Do you know which railroad it was?

[Chris Snowdon]

8 minutes ago, Dave Hunt said:

 

The pressurisation in a fighter cockpit keeps the pressure at the equivalent of half the actual height plus 2,000 ft., i.e., at 30,000ft the cockpit pressure is effectively at 17,000ft. Above 10,000ft cockpit altitude the pilot is given gradually increasing oxygen enrichment until at 20,000ft cockpit - 36,000 ft actual - he is on 100% oxygen and then pressure breathing starts, the overpressure gradually increasing as further altitude is gained.  

 

Well, you did ask.

 

Dave

Hi Dave - I believe that a similar ratio applies in airliners -  "FL310 outside is FL180 inside" once popped-up in discussion (civilian FLs are barometric rather than radio).

If we really go stratospheric, a long time ago I once drafted an outline on the use of heavy stratospheric balloons.  I was really only bothered by the details of the ascent and descent stages:  Everything in between was between 12km and 20km altitude (rather than 20-40km) but I needed to check maximum operational altitudes of "normal" aircraft. as publically-declared.  IIRC, Concorde was operated at FL650, above which most FIRs weren't too bothered, but I also found that some fighters can/could exceed that, that someone once took a Canberra to >70k, and someone else took a Lightning to about 83k before the engine began to complain (the canopy remained attached).  The U2 and SR71 did not feature in that study.

I seem to recall, but may be wrong, that the minimum ICAO requirement for CAT is 8,000ft equivalent in the cabin, hence the need to dive if a depressurisation occurs.

 

regards

cs

[Chris Snowdon]

20 minutes ago, AndyID said:

 

So smoking might be not a great idea 😂

As Michael Collins said about Apollo 1 - "We were, in some respects, naive".

Some people thought that Douglas Bader was a bit odd for smoking a pipe as he flew home after a dog-fight.  And with a soldered-seam tank of Avgas just behind the dashboard, I agree...

[AndyID]

2 minutes ago, Chris Snowdon said:

As Michael Collins said about Apollo 1 - "We were, in some respects, naive".

Some people thought that Douglas Bader was a bit odd for smoking a pipe as he flew home after a dog-fight.  And with a soldered-seam tank of Avgas just behind the dashboard, I agree...

 

It's pretty amazing to find out what will burn if there is enough oxygen, and that includes steel.

(I did my Fireman Badge as a  Boy Scout 😂)

[wombatofludham]

1 hour ago, Northmoor said:

While I share the frustration at the shortage of RTR "ordinary" EMUs, the reasons why have been debated on RMWeb many times.  There are a number of reasons, including: 

1. Likely cost of a 3/4-car unit is more than most purchasers are prepared to spend on one item.
2. People will generally buy something that excites them, than something that is prototypical.
3. While many classes can look similar, there are often a huge number of variations between batches and classes so it isn't appropriate to produce one Class 305 and just sell versions of other classes with different numbers (the days of Triang producing one DMU to suit all, are long gone).  Tooling up for multiple variants would be completely uneconomic*.
4. A high proportion of Southern-set layouts are beyond the 3rd-rail area, as the commuter belt doesn't interest the builder (see #2 above).  Likewise few modellers want to model 25kV wires and so model main lines beyond the wires.
5. Unless modelling electrified branches, EMUs tend to couple into rakes to make long trains.  So you won't need one 4-car EMU, you'll need two, which brings us back to #1.

 

We hear these arguments regularly yet Revolution are working on an OO scale version of their N gauge Class 320/321/322 units and Dapol are about to move to cutting metal to produce a range of models of my "beloved" Class 323 so whilst a Bachmann Class 310 (which I once heard a rumour of) might be a divorce inducing price, some other companies have decided that overhead EMUs are worth some serious design and tooling money.

I gave up waiting for Bachmann to break cover with a 310 and got Britannia Pacific to hand build me one (along with the WMPTE yellow peril Class 312) which are lovely models.  At nearly £900 each they make Bachmann look like Railroad prices but they fill a gap.
 

2 hours ago, Happy Hippo said:

Dark Chocolate Ginger cookies are better.

 

You'd have turned them into drooling sycophants if you'd fed them Bara Brith.

I doubt the Americans would appreciate "Spotty Bread" unless it could be delivered in an aerosol can.  Personally I prefer to keep Bara Brith and Laverbread as our little secret...

[BSW01]

I’ve recently had some photos given to me by my half sister in Canada, that my dad took when we lived there, back in ‘68 or 69’. This one was amongst them, could anyone identify this building please?

7

[AndyID]

19 minutes ago, Chris Snowdon said:

 The U2 and SR71 did not feature in that study.

 

I can't imagine why not 😀