Hroth

Call me a heretic if you like, but the Ur Merchant Navies are the dullest and most uninteresting steam locos I've ever seen. The visual design is almost as bad as the Metrovic CO-BO and THAT is the pits..... Hat, coat, etc.

I've a bad snap taken from Lord Nelson Street when they were demolishing the old building. I'll try to find it and post it here for you!

I don't really want another blue 20, even with TTS - my bluebox 20 is sufficient for the blue fleet. I'm going to hang on until the soundchip is available separately, I've three green Lima 20s that would benefit from TTS (they've already been upgraded to DCC so it'll be just a drop-in exercise).

There's bits of the Leeds & Liverpool that go over (or under) very rugged terrain with no towpath at all. ie FOULRIDGE TUNNEL. http://www.penninewaterways.co.uk/ll/ll48.htm Then there's all the other users, walkers, bikers, a rude and unpleasant lot, even worse than the anglers.and even some boaters. Also consider the gradients at locks; (lots of those on the L&L) just one moderate lock lifts a boat 8 - 10ft over a distance of 70ft. For fun, google Bingley five rise locks... Thats why that was a non-starter, really. As for the Great Glen. It'll be interesting to see if it gets off the ground, as it were....

How about Chris Tarrant? Doing a runner.....

If they had any sense, they'd get 1000 yards of sl-100, or sl-700 if its still going to be O gauge, (and a few spares, I suppose), then pick it up after the train has passed and shuttle it down to the other end. It'd save track being left out for the Borrowers overnight and reduce power problems. According to Google, Fort William to Inverness is a matter of 65 miles by the main road. Even thrashed, a model loco would take over 24 hours to cover the distance and, being realistic, there would have to be frequent stops (say every 1000 yards???) for oiling and to allow the motor to cool or even be replaced. I hope they're not going to try and do it non-stop or run it as a race again! As an aside on the power problem, I'd be inclined to whack 24 volts into the track and feed power to the loco through a support coach which would take the power pickup from the loco wheels and regulate it down to 12v, controlled through a conventional R/C TX/RX and pass it back to the loco motor. Several sets of big lorry batteries should do the trick! Is that the time?????

Probably better than a Virgin Rail Replacement Bus...... At least the bit that fell onto the tracks wasn't the "proper" retaining wall, but the lighter "curtain wall" built on top of it. Looks like its going to be a ###### (or even a B****r) to get it stabilised even by the beginning of next week, those portakabin type things perched by the wall might be tricky to shift safely. Then there's the overhead wire structures to be fixed and the track swept clear and all the signalling wiring and communications cables checked for damage and repaired. At least in the late 40's a couple of wagons to shift the detritus and a few hours work by the signals gang and it'd be all ticketyboo! (tsk tsk, attacked by the hash fairies for using a naughty word!!! Sorry!)

I refer my esteemed colleagues to my post #3 and subsequent comments at the beginning of the thread. Fort William to Inverness? They're Bonkers! The Leeds-Liverpool proposal was bad enough and hadn't been fully thought through (cough Foulridge Tunnel cough). This scheme sounds just as bad, I'd like to see the proposed route! And I hope they're going to issue the participants with copious midge repellent......

No, they are the same models severely criticised earlier in this thread, with the creased firebox, pimply rivets and strangely shaped cab cut-outs, just to mention some of the problems raised. What I find disappointing is that they didn't confirm a more precise release date than "March-April 2017", especially as we're that close to March! It looks like they just grabbed some models to display without thinking. They need to Get A Grip!

I was wearing my positive head...... Unlike the originally proposed Leeds & Liverpool Canal route, all I know about the IFA is a recollection of the brief mention of it in "The West Highland Railway" by John Thomas. Going on that and the Wikipedia entry (eek!) I thought that there would be a better chance of success at that end rather than onwards along Loch Ness. I only ever saw the James May experiments on the telly, but I can appreciate the difficulties of running track along a fairly well manicured trackbed (like the canal route, too many bikes and people wandering about) and how difficult the journey into the heart of darkness along an overgrown trackbed would be. After this speculation about a possible route, we'll just have to see what the producers actually intend!

Provided they don't trivialise enthusiasm for model railway and don't get over difficult bits with a bit of magic handwaving, good luck to them! Of course, it all depends on definition of "The Great Glen" and how far they want to go. If they just take the bit between Gairlochy and Fort Augustus (along Lochs Lochy and Oich ), there's most of the trackbed of the Invergarry and Fort Augustus Railway (1903-1946) that might be exploited. Further east along Loch Ness to Inverness might be a bit more tricky. I'll follow with interest!

Update: I now have four, with no real reason to run them! 1. 3-rail Hornby Dublo Silver King with bendy coal. (will only run on Dublo 3-rail track) 2. GBL Mallard on Triang Hornby Flying Scotsman with glowing firebox chassis. (will only run without hurdling the points on Triang Super 4 track) 3. Hornby Mallard (Railroad, DCC fitted) 4, Hornby Gadwall (Railroad, TTS mainly used for whistling contests with DoG and Ketley Hall) Boring, eh?

I got my copy of the first issue bagged with Rail Express, but I've not seen later issues being made available. Its a pity you can't buy issues direct from the publisher for a nominal (ie P&P) charge. Might not keep it beyond a couple of reads, unless there was something of real interest, but it could be passed on to useful targets....

Trouble is, if the publisher has had their attention drawn to this thread, they can't help but notice that all everyone is interested in is the brakevan for £2.99 and the rest can go hang...... Given that, if it does go to general release I'll definitely be taking a few!

Its.... BIG! Just thinking, that front axle loading is approximately the same as a J15! (and with its tender, a J15 comes up to 67 tons...) No wonder the Americans prefer 3.5mm/foot. Imagine how big it would be in 4mm!

Go on, do Deformed Rabbit, thats my favourite!

That would be rather like Bunbury staircase on the Shroppie, where it drops under the Crewe-Chester line. Or even better, Chester Northgate locks which drop the canal under the Chester and Holyhead Railway...

Is that for the "Adults Only" version with the Noch figures? (Hat, coat, into the driving rain....)

I know that canals have been turned into railways but that bit of the design is a bit silly! Its a pity they didn't do the canal as a basin and put the bit where the tracks and water coincide into a tunnel. Then there'd then be less of a plot hole! All I can suggest is that they must have employed Moses as their surveyor......

Since the current issue features a magnificent OO gauge layout (though it IS finescale through and through), I thought I'd leave 'finescale standards' on the table for now...... As far as a cutting list for the mill layout is concerned, I think the main interest would be how two 8x4 sheets of plywood could be divided to be easy enough for a complete beginner to cope with. @PeckettChap: There's something called "Railroad in a Box" available in the US ( http://rrinabox.wixsite.com/rrinabox ) which provides the trackbed and scenic components, the purchaser buys the track, locos and other embellishments. A baseboard along those lines might be within the grasp of a partwork but (sadly) what you end up with is a bit of a rabbit warren layout!

For a "Lancashire Milltown" issue, the trial areas (the South and Scotland) seem a bit wayward......

Oh come ON! This is nowhere near the insanity of a MRJ thread (and I speak as one who inadvertently initiated one of the longest and inconsequential in living memory....) There's nothing about sausages, 1950s British films associated with a specific WHS location, Mrs Trellis, Mornington Crescent, complaints about issue publication dates or any other of the multifarious concerns of an MRJ thread! This thread (SO FAR) has been concerned with the existence of the partwork, a desire to get a number of cheap LMS brake vans, the suitability of the subject for beginners, the quality of the components, a discussion on the locomotive "offer" and where the work is currently being trialled. All perfectly sensible topics Naw read on't........ (Edits for emphasis and clarification)

The thing is, they can't. The first issue is an eye-catching loss leader, its actual cost is amortised over the subsequent run. With 120 issues to fill, some will be rather light on parts, say half a building at a time, some track only or a Dapol kit. This means that the value of the content for some issues will be far less than the regular cover price.

There was a suggestion somewhere that the publishers were "on top of the situation" regarding issue 101, but I think that proposed publication dates might be regarded as post-truth promises. Its a possibility that we're not supposed to discuss them anymore. We can live in hope....

I think we need to know where in the UK these are popping up. "County" level would do. For example, they don't seem to be being trialled on Merseyside at the moment! All I've seen locally are a couple of "new-agey" partworks in early issues and a National Geographic one about mathematics....