DropTheTap

Right! A reproduction of something is either accurate or it isn't, the whole of which is measured in degrees by the beholder (or potential purchaser).

Nope. That's not the way it works at all. *Satisfaction with accuracy of reproduction* is in the eye of the beholder...

Why? The only valid comparison is with the prototype.

Thanks for the clarification! I'm always happy to support projects that fill gaps in the market, and are thoughtful and accurately applied.

Have these sold out? I was only given the option to pre-order (which I did!)

I received an email this morning with regards to these. The prices are... eye watering... for something that seems to have issues with its shape (IMHO)

The cab doors and front skirts are somewhat amiss, as discussed above. These wouldn't necessarily be a deal- breaker for me though. Aside from that, there's something jarring about the shape of the cab/ windows/ headcode box mount area, and it's more prominent to my eyes on the blue version. Unfortunately, I'm not sufficiently articulate to describe the issue, especially without examination of a model. I wonder how the overall width compares to the prototype? Silly question perhaps, but the model looks... narrow. However this could easily be an unfair comparison based on dissimilar photographic angles.

Surprised nobody's done this already: with my rudimentary skills I thought this pic might help to answer some of the cab questions. The model seems to compare much better than I thought (first look for me was "too flat" also), but it looks like the point between the two angles is a little too rounded perhaps?

There are, but most modellers don't have the ability to build and finish a kit (esp. etched brass) to a standard akin to RTR, or the finances to pay someone to do so.

- A quick google image search shows that the whole headcode portion at the top of the front end should be recessed, which lends this distinct appearance. Dapol appear to have represented the headcode as flush, but with a groove around the shape of it, which isn't accurate (unless some had this as a modification, which I am unable to confirm). - The front end below the windows should actually slope back towards the unit slightly: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/525c004ae4b077ec7f4c34cb/t/52dd1b7be4b0f48cdba6bbdd/1390222205995/gjm_078512.jpg?format=1500w - The side windows do not appear to be correct. See page 3 of this thread, where someone has provided a comprehensive illustration of this. - There are many fine 2mm RTR models whose windows manage a very nice "flush" appearance, despite this apparent "limitation of plastic": https://rails.azureedge.net/product-images.axd/IMG_2204JUL16.jpg?preset=large However one would think that there's still time for Dapol to modify the glazing. Thanks for sharing your pictures and thoughts, but I'm another who won't be opening my wallet for this model. As others have mentioned, it almost looks like a 141/ 142 hybrid...

I chuckled a little that he found it "...sobering to find that many book sellers cannot distinguish between principal and principle", yet elsewhere on the same page he states that "the book took 12 years for me and Clive to complete..."! I missed out on volume 1 but am looking forward to volume 2, which will doubtless prove very useful. Also, at first glance, I thought this thread pertained to the Harris book, which barely acknowledges the existence of Thompson!

I'd suggest that this didn't apply solely to the Western region. One of the quickest ways to close a branch in the "Beeching" era was to claim that the junction with the main line required expensive repairs or even replacement. I heard multiple stories of this happening when I worked on the Eastern, although admittedly these (mostly*) took place years before I started. It seems that too many rail staff of this era were too concerned with seeing how much track they could get closed, rather than keeping lines open. *There were a couple of notable examples which were more recent than Beeching. I'll leave you to guess at which.

Do you have a link pls?

From observation of the decorated samples on Dapol's website, it appears as though something considerable *may* have gone awry (although the fact that online images may not be truly representative of the finished model is duly noted). The front end screams "wrong shape" to me. There's too much "bulge" on the bottom angle below the cab windows, leading to a too- chubby front view appearance. On the bodysides, It *looks* as if the windows are either incorrectly sized, or located too high up (or both), as the bodyside below them seems too deep. This may be compounded by the fact that the tumblehome has a too long and shallow a curve. Additionally, the destination indicator box seems to be lacking the top ridge, which gives these units a distinct "peaked hat" appearance. It appears as though Dapol have tried to represent this as a groove, which doesn't look quite right to me. The underframe looks more passable (I'm assuming the footsteps will be in the box for the purchaser to fit), with some decent- looking relief to the components. The roof curvature to the bodyside seems to be a little too angular, perhaps also contributing to the deep look of the bodyside (much like a class 141 as someone else mentioned).The doorframes also look a little thick. These are just first glance observations and I appreciate that I'm commenting upon samples only, which is also why I have refrained from remarking upon the livery application and details thereof. Liveries may differ upon production application, however I highly doubt the shape will. Final judgement reserved until I see one in the flesh.

Wow Pete! I've been mostly off RMWeb for the best part of the year, return to my favourite layout thread and, wallop, it's no longer a layout!! Can I just say that your work provided much inspiration and entertainment, and your creativity will be sorely missed! All the best to you in your endeavours abroad, I know you won't regret it. Thanks again.

Went to a Def Leppard/ Poison concert last night... does that count?

This is great, thanks for sharing! But it's not PECO is it...??

Did these coaches ever find their way to the Eastern or North Eastern regions, perhaps in the '50s, mixed in with Gresley or Thompson non- corridor stock?

Versus someone who produces high quality, customized models for an individual consumer...

Except that Bachmann are in the business of mass production, so it's really somewhat of a false equivalence.

Three, if you count not buy one at all. (Make one, buy one, not buy one.)

No but if I could I would! And I wish *they* could!!

It's getting out of hand. Completely understand their reasons for starting these increases a few years ago (Chinese economy etc etc), but recent prices are very difficult to justify for me, sadly. Bachmann are now above and beyond the other manufacturers in terms of price in many areas (locos, coaches and wagons), and not just the new tool models either. Looking at the percentage increases over the past 5 years is quite shocking...

Just received 1154 (weathered grey) and very pleased at first glance. I need to make the weathering look a little "glossier" and add some general dirt (factory weathering can always be improved upon, I think) but the tank itself certainly conveys the right impression. My main gripe is with the packaging. Not having purchased a Heljan product for many years, the box seems overly large. That's okay if product protection is paramount, but then they leave a display hole in the front of the box and all that's left to protect the the bulk of the wagon is a flimsy piece of plastic! Thankfully, Rail's judicious use of packing filler avoided any unfortunate incident.