Miss Prism

Fabulous finish. Interesting to see you separated the smokebox from the boiler for the painting process.

And looking remarkably similar to a square-cornered Iron Mink.

Putting most of that lamphut on the platform ramp is very odd. Presumably a brick perimeter base.

I was banned from modelling the LNWR from a very early age.

Bachmann production samples now showing on't website. 9017 is described as "a preserved example", which I find odd given how keen Dennis Lovett was to stress it isn't 'as preserved'! The weathered 9022 has the riveted tender. Bachmann has done its homework well considering the variations in the class, but these two locos are unique in their respective 'feature sets' as far as I can tell, so be wary if considering renumbering. 9003's bogie probably isn't correct (I don't think bogies would have been swapped between locos), nor is its cabsheet handrail height, and the jury is still out on its livery. They're all a bit drop dead gorgeous, though.

The plan would certainly still work with a plain diamond. I suppose my previous message, had I expressed it better, was that cutting and shutting a broad gauge slip to standard gauge would have amounted to a complete rebuild anyway, and if the broad gauge layout had originally been a plain diamond, converting it into a slip would probably have meant a more modern construction. On the DN&S, plain diamonds were the norm until WWI-ish. Slips were put in only on the busier stations where the traffic density demanded it.

Apart from Richard Foster getting rather confused about cylinders and their position (4018 was not fitted with Castle cylinders) and a couple of other details, I thought his Star review in Model Rail was generally very fair and reasonable within the constraints of magazine space. Most of his ire seemed to be reserved, understandably, for Hornby's insipid green, described as "murky".

Looking forward to this, but I'm wondering whether by 1906 the single slip crossover might have been upgraded to a more modern transverse timbering?

As I understand it, the usual (G)WR arrangement was for the assisting engine to be 'inside', i.e. in this case Laira's 5148 is the assisting engine and 9023 is the train engine. 6th August is at the height of the summer season, where loco resources for trains to the west country were stretched, which is probably why a lowly Dukedog has been pressed into service on a Manchester to Penzance.

Froxfield2012 - reference your #268, 9017 has indeed had two tenders whilst at the Bluebell (not quite sure how, midnight raid at Didcot to get a newer riveted one?) and has had at least two rivet-styles of smokebox wrapper, for the sake of argument the '1962' and '2003' style. The '2003' style, which Bachmann has adopted, is aligned more to what the majority of Dukedogs were in the 1950s (including 9017, I think). Here's Cambriancoaster's 9017 pic from his Pwllheli thread:

Hmmm. Interesting. Thanks. I think there is a possible danger here of speculating about a possible Bluebell/Bachmann collaboration that maybe didn't come to fruition or suffered a change in goalposts. I have decided, on balance, not to change my name to Miss Informed, but it is a little odd that 9017's reference has been ascribed at this eleventh hour to its distinctly less-than-pristine August 1955 state. It's a 'dog eat 'dog world out there, y'know...

I've just checked the first few pages of the original (March 2011) RMweb announcement, and can find no reference by Bachmann that they planned to do 9017 as preserved. I did however stress to Dennis Lovett yesterday the somewhat misleading/ambiguous nature of "(Preserved)" on Bachmann's website.

Therein lies another little can of worms, because that 9022 picture is when the loco had a large top feed boiler. As I understand Bachmann's current intentions, its 9022 will be depicted with non-top-feed boiler, an undated picture of which at Oxford can be found in Stationmaster Mike's thread, where the tender style is somewhat indeterminate, but my perception is a riveted one. Btw, 9022 seems to show a different whistle shield height between these two states, and my guess is that the non-top-feed boiler state probably predates the top-feed boiler state.

Understood, but apart from buffed-up locos working RCTS and Festiniog AGM specials etc, the general appearance of Dukedogs in BR days was a distinctly grimy one. In that respect, Bachmann's 'pristine' 9017 is probably true only of its ex-works repaint condition into BR(W) black, the date of which is unknown to me.

The perils of assumption - I had previously thought Bachmann's 9017 was intended to be 'as preserved' (an impression reinforced by the description on the website), but I learn from Dennis Lovett that 9017 is modelled as working out of Machynlleth in 1955, when it was fitted with a flush-riveted tender. So I'm eating suitable humble pie at the moment. (Glad I stuck my neck out though in a way.) Tender swapping seems to be more rampant than I had thought!

Blimey, the Captain will be along soon swearing they worked the Pines Express double-headed...

With their rather special-spoked wheels, there will be no chance of P4-ing this. Might it be possible for the 00 wheel to be designed in such a way that its tyre can be knocked off without too much problem and a replacement P4-profile tyre substituted? And needless to say, no 2.14mm axles please... (Am just trying to think ahead for the likes of Brassmasters (no connection) who might fancy doing an easi-chass conversion.)

The Dukedog cabsheets were flared out towards their rear to match the width of the 3500g tender, in an effort to prevent excessive draughts in the cab. (I think they took the old Duke cabs and simply bent them out - these were no expense spared el cheapo Great Western!) The cab handrail was in line with the continuation of the curve of the flare, and it looks as though Bachmann has captured this very well.

9017, 9004 and 9022:

It certainly is, and I'm sure it will fly off the shelves. Bachmann's abandonment of a shirtbuttoned version caused a few unhappy faces, but shirtbuttoned things are allegedly not great sellers. Btw, the Dukedogs were never 'Cornish' engines, and Tre Pol and Pen looked rather different to the production batch in a number of aspects, so that commission is highly unlikely.

Thanks to Andy Y for the above pictures, because they're the first decent ones we've had since the EP pics a year ago. The EP situation was a bit strange, however, and since then some water has flowed under the bridge. The tapered chimney EP version, presumably intended for the as-then proposed 3203 in GWR guise, was coupled to a riveted tender. The other (parallel-chimney) EP was coupled to a flush-riveted tender. At that fluid EP stage, it was therefore a bit difficult to know how on which basis comment could be made. Tenders for the Dukedogs would not have been new build, and they were taken from the growing stock of spare Churchward 3500g tenders at the time. These came from a number of potential sources, including of course the original locos the Dukedogs were built from. (Most if not all Bulldogs having been fitted with 3500g by the mid-1930s.) Generally, there weren't that many flush-riveted 3500g Churchward tenders left by the late 1930s, and very rare by the 1950s. I'm not saying a few of the Dukedogs when originally built in 1936-39 didn't take a flush-riveted tender, and indeed it looks as though 3203 had one in 1937. But for the general Dukedog 'picture', particularly post-WWII, flush-riveted tenders are not correct. The preserved 9017 has a riveted tender. Why Bachmann didn't re-use the venerable but still excellent Mainline moulding (from the Mogul) isn't clear. I'm sending a little note to Dennis Lovett.

The following excellent Andy Y images of unweathered 9017 (Bachmann 31-086) are copied from the recent Bachmann & Farish news from Warley thread. Andy describes them "...of the first production items shipped over for inspection". It's not clear whether the 'inspection' means final inspection and clearance by Bachmann, or whether this is really what will be in the boxes. Edit: larger image urls used.

All P4 modellers dream of this - W-iron recesses on the rear of plastic solebars, with separate spigot-mounted W-iron mouldings and separate springs/axleboxes would be great, so that fitting and furnishing spring or rocking units becomes easy. Brakes separate from their vees, so that we can get them in line with wheels. Brake rods not attached in their middle, so that we can nudge the shoes tighter to the tyres. Inside solebar ends recessed to clear sprung buffer tails. Etc, etc. The problem is 95% of your potential market, on being faced with kits like that, will say "Huh? What is this complication all about?"

I take your point, Mike, but in this case I assume Armstrong440 merely wanted to recoup the mould-cutting and mould-running costs, i.e. was not significantly factoring the time taken in the design work, as would be the case of a normal commercial kit maker. In that context, a designer can put in as much 'quality' or 'fidelity' as he wishes - the plastic going into a cavity doesn't care whether the rivets are present or in the right place, or whether the basic shape is correct or how 'refined' the design is. (Subject of course to normal plastic constraints like thicknesses of section.) I too am slightly surprised the projected AA3 price was as low as £20, but it really does all come down to volumes that can be shifted, and the difference between shifting 500 and 1000 units can be the difference between making a substantial loss and breaking even. Shifting 2000 units can make a good profit. (I use those numbers loosely, not knowing the actual projected costs in this particular AA3 case, but you get my drift.) But how many people are desparate for an AA3 who haven't already cut and shut a far cheaper Ratio or splashed out £35 for a finger-singeing Southwark Bridge etch? And what model shops and distributors would be willing to engage in trade enquiries for such a product in such a price range? Nine out of ten shop punters will still go for that Ratio kit or the Bachmann or Hornby RTR AA19. Us few frothing GWR fanatics on RMweb giving Armstrong440 moral support aren't going to alter the numbers situation by much. Parkside's O11/O15 5-planker was a smart choice, and filled an obvious gap between Ratio's O29 and the early generation of Coopercrafts, but my guess is Parkside has probably looked at the GWR brake van situation and decided not to make a move. What any new plastic manufacturer is up against is the fact that the Coopercraft and Ratio moulds have been running for decades, and can thus continue to be run at low overheads. The cost of the initial tooling is the killer. My heart would like to think a new £15 Open could compete with a £6 Coopercraft, but my head says the market won't let it. (Resin bodies and bits from FUD masters are a more viable commercial proposition.) In 7mm, the market economics become rather different - just look at the prices commanded by JLTRT coaches!

For viable plastic moulding, it's a bit like this, isn't it?