Keegs

Fair enough I guess, I’m just a bit annoyed with all the unnecessary duplication when there are other models that get seemingly forgotten about because there were more than 1 prototype ever built (which seems to be the current trend!) if we take GWR (only because that is what I model/am familiar with) there are no Saints, Duke’s, Bulldog’s or Aberdare’s and well overdue a retool (imo): 0-4-2 tank(has someone announced one of these maybe?), Star (no proper bearings), 2251 (old tooling) I guess I’ll just keep waiting! 😆

Ok let’s look at it from another angle which is the angle I was actually meaning in my initial reply to The Stationmaster. Which is not so much comparing the Bachmann 2-8-0 to a hypothetical “new” 2-8-0. But rather having releases of 2x 2-10-0s of which there would be a limited market(we’ve seen this recently with the Manor, Large Prairie, Lion, Class 37 to name a few) vs allowing KR models to salvage some of their hard work and create a slightly improved if you will 2-8-0 instead. Think of it not as “the Bachmann model is seriously out of date” more like a “would you rather see duplicate of a rather niche (IMO) locomotive or an “updated” 2-8-0 of which the prototype was seen all over England and in decent numbers and would likely sell well.🤷‍♂️

Sorry I didn't mean to offend you and I'm not saying the old one doesn't run well, I was merely offering up the idea that instead of having two newly tooled WD 2-10-0 models from different manufacturers one of them could be changed to the 2-8-0 (which would some of the parts are interchangeable with.) Regarding the Bachmann model I was merely comparing it to newer releases and the specifications that KR models were looking to apply to their 2-10-0. -Fair enough about pickups I suppose it has 8 driving wheels, but no excuse for no bearings except cutting corners. -Other nitpicks would be the moulded smokebox dart. -Cast bodies have been around since Hornby Dublo, not really a "Latest Innovation" and quite alot of locos would benefit from it although the Bachmann cast running board means their WD 2-8-0 is heavy enough. The 2-10-0 only had 150 examples built vs 935 of the 2-8-0 so it's assumed there would be alot more livery variations they could cover than what is currently available and they were redistributed all over England whereas it appears the majority of 2-10-0 were shipped to the Netherlands after the war. (Correct me if I'm wrong) I note that the Bachmann model doesn't cover this particular livery: Of course if KR wanted to shelve the entire design and do a completely different locomotive then that is an entirely different kettle of fish!

Agree 100%, KR would be better off changing to the 2-8-0(I think they share some parts?) which would be a huge improvement over the Bachmann version (no tender pickups, no proper bearings etc) especially if they go with the diecast boiler as originally intended!

Oh dear... seems it's offline again. Went to check prevalence of large logo BR Blue in early 1980s but received this message:

Yes def different number, wartime black lasted a few 57xx all the way until the 60s so would "fit" anything ww2 onwards (one of my layout ears is 1948-52 so br black is pushing it a bit for a lowly pannier & I have a few other locos in br so wartime black would make a nice contrast!)

I’m hoping for a wartime black variant Accurascale exclusive or in a future 2nd run! eg: 🤞😁

They could put it in a Beatles livery perhaps? 😏

Well, my wallet and my wife have both taken a collective sigh of relief, I'm thankful really. Rapido and Accurascale have more than made up in the past year and the year to come for us GWR modellers!

Ahh excellent, I spent many hours on that site and WarwickshireRailways.com so much information and detail, really makes researching alot less painless!

And another photo of a S & L Ore train: This is from a Key Model World article so apologies if it's paywalled: "With a heavy rake of wagons loaded with iron ore behind, GWR ‘Mogul’ 4329 passes Southam Road & Harbury in 1932. P.W. Robinson/Rail Archive Stephenson." Long may the treasure hunt continue (Even if it's just me still hunting!) Cheers, Kegan

Can anyone provide a reason (beyond speculation) why this Iron Ore train has got two brake vans? (one each end) https://www.rail-online.co.uk/p935128670/hf56bda1b#hf56bda1b Initial thought was to run around it however this is a tender loco so not sure that would have been the norm? Thanks, Kegan

Thanks Mark, that's excellent! Do you have any information on a diagram number or the Capacity? Struggling to find any more information the only one that turns up is the Diagram 161 that was built in 1949.

Sorry if this is reviving a dead thread but I didn't want to create another with the same subject. It seems we've lost alot of photos after "The Purge" so I can't be sure if these have been posted previously. At any rate these are some more photos I have dug up. This is of great interest to me because there were some heavy freight trains in the area I am going to model. This is an odd diagram Iron Ore Hopper from as picture dated "Shortly before the war" that I haven't been able to find any info on apart from this picture, it doesn't have any vertical surfaces on the side(From by "Paddington to the Mercy" by Hendry and Hendry): Lastly a rare colour shot pulled from the Transport library of Bulldog class "Kingfisher" in 1936:

You're not wrong, I actually prefer my original plan without the Junction for it's simplicity and overall "Flow" It is based heavily on Lavington(Signalling not yet added correctly): I'm not giving up on the Junction idea entirely but it definitely requires more research on my part. :)