Ventnor

February 3, 2021

3 hours ago, cornelius said:

Certainly wouldn't say no to one of these

https://thetransportlibrary.co.uk/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=100941

Or one of the L&LSR Hudswell Clarke 4-6-2 tanks..............and Tralee & Dingle locos with a whole set of rollingstock!! I'll stop now!!

Andy.

February 2, 2021

7 hours ago, Ribird said:

Brining this to light about the current CADs and now soon-to-be-released 16xx. Will the coal bunker be one piece or a separate piece like the 16xx has been produced with? The mould lines aren't the best and just looks off.

Images of the 15xx is from this thread, while the 16xx is off another RM, but using Model Rail's picture.

There also appears to be two handbrake recesses in the cab backsheet (bunker) of the 16xx i.e. one drivers side and one firemans side........unless 16xx's were fitted with water pick up apparatus ; ) !! I've not seen that picked up in the 16xx thread unless I've missed it (apologies if I have). Only just noticed it myself. I guess wait and see the models in the flesh.......which will be imminently.

Cheers

Andy.

October 21, 2020

4 minutes ago, Ventnor said:

Thanks Nick, that is pretty clearly black. It also shows the state the cab sheets got, looks pretty dirty thus justifying the black paint! It has also reminded me to look through my Ventnor West branch books!

Cheers

Andy.

Further to my previous post, I'd still like to see rear shots of W9, W13 & W14. As I've previously stated these were painted on the mainland before shipping over. W11 was already on the island pre-grouping and painted there when the SR took over. This is the livery the Isle Wight Steam Railway have applied to W11. Would be good to confirm any livery differences between mainland / island painting, if for no other reason than to do a bit more research. Another excuse for me to delve into my books!!

Andy.

October 21, 2020

5 hours ago, Nick C said:

That's an understatement! As far as I can tell from photos, by early BR days, all of the surviving terriers were different - varying combinations of chimneys, bunkers, A1/A1x boilers, sandbox positions, toolboxes, coal rails and lamp brackets.

There are very few clear photos of any SR tank locos, IOW or otherwise, clearly showing the cab backsheet.

The best I can find is This one on Getty, showing W11 at Ventnor West in early SR livery, clearly unlined and looks to be black.

Thanks Nick, that is pretty clearly black. It also shows the state the cab sheets got, looks pretty dirty thus justifying the black paint! It has also reminded me to look through my Ventnor West branch books!

Cheers

Andy.

October 21, 2020

9 hours ago, PaulRhB said:

Ok I think the A1X version for comparison is valid.

Now it took three attempts to get my RoS BR version that ran well but this SR one from Rails was ok out of the box but is noisier forwards than backwards. Rails sorted the BR one well but I still think the B4 is a better running loco from Dapol.

Detail wise the Hornby cab roof and splashers and smokebox front look better to me and it is quieter.
Rails boiler and inside motion is better.

I’m confused with the chimneys as both look right compared to some photos so are there two chimney styles or have alterations been made to match certain pictures?

The Hornby lining looks slightly better to my eye, it’s finer in places like round the nameplate.

Rails has painted the cab rear while Hornby’s is black, again I don’t know if these differences are correct. Hornby’s bufferbeam red looks less plastic but both appear to be painted.

Overall both are nice models to look at and the differences are only apparent in direct comparison like this, I struggle to tell on the layout. So overall I think your choice needs to be on personal preference and the extra detail on the front of the Rails model is slightly let down by the roof. Probably Hornby raised their game in response to the Rails announcement to make it so close.
I bought based on available liveries as I like the IoW versions and quite happy with both models so they’ll both stay in my fleet.

Thanks for the photo comparison Paul. I have RoS W9 on its way to me, together with Boxhill.

IOW Terriers are a minefield of detail differences probably no different to their mainland counterparts. Ex No.50 Whitechapel was shipped to the island in May 1930 by the Southern in A1X condition with extended bunker and became W9. It also carried a Marsh pattern chimney throughout its stay on the island as per the RoS model. It also had the 12 studs / bolts on the tank sides as per the RoS model. From what I can see from photographic evidence (and the two examples still on the island) the locos rebuilt to A1X condition on the island generally retained (and I say generally) the 8 tank side bolts / studs, they also generally retained their sandboxes above the running plate. Those shipped over from the mainland by the Southern in the late 1920s / early 30s had sandboxes below the runningplate i.e. W9, W13 & W14.

Ex No. 78 Knowle was shipped to the island in 1929 also in A1X condition with extended bunker, it was initially numbered W4 but was renumbered W14 as the numbers 1 - 4 were required for the E1s when they were shipped over. Terrier W3 becoming W13 at the same time. Yet another twist in their history. It appears that W14 initially also carried a Marsh pattern chimney but this was replaced by a Drummond pattern one sometime in the early 1930s, possibly 1932 (source "The Island Terriers" published by Kingfisher Railway Productions). This is the condition produced by Hornby.

All island Terriers were Westinghouse air brake fitted in Southern days, not vacuum or dual fitted, the Southern standardised on this braking system (on the island) as the larger pre-grouping companies on the island had adopted this system. The Freshwater, Yarmouth & Newport Railway had used vacuum brakes. The Hornby model is incorrect in carrying the vacuum ejector pipe along the top of the boiler and associated pipework below the running plate. They appear to have perpetuate this mistake on all of their IOW based Terriers. Of course, on return to the mainland vacuum brake equipment was fitted. What the RoS model does lack is lamp irons over each of the front buffers but that should be an easy fix and not obvious at first glance.

As for black painted cab backsheets vs green painted? The two preserved examples on the island today in Southern livery have black painted rear cab sheets (or at least they are in the photos and video I've seen). There are very few clear images of the rear of these locos in Southern Railway days to determine which livery detail is correct unless a painting specification exists. It could be that W9, W13 and W14 which were overhauled and painted at Brighton works prior to shipping to the island had green cab backsheets but those painted in Southern livery at Ryde or Newport works on the island had black rear cabsheets!! Or, the green was painted over black after operational experience with the green paintwork becoming ruined by coal and coal dust. So both could be correct. To be honest I have not done that research. If anyone else can confirm this detail that would be welcome.

Any other shortcomings of both of these manufacturers models has been done to death in previous posts e.g. cab roof, bunker rails (RoS), bullet holes in the cab front sheet (Hornby) etc, etc. I'm hoping that despite the apparent saturation of the market by Hornby with their IOW versions and other examples Rails are not put off in releasing further examples of theirs.

By the way, all of the above is accurate to the best of my knowledge and happy for any of my statements to be corrected!!

Kind regards

Andy.

September 11, 2020

5 hours ago, Oliver Rails said:

Thanks to everyone for their input and observations. I can acknowledge that each issue has been noted.

This was of course one of the reasons we publicised and indeed the purpose of the samples themselves.

Many of the issues had already been noted, however for reassurance I would just like to clarify the following;

The SR Olive Green is incorrect but will be corrected in the final model.

On the SECR, the bright red will be more of a darker red when produced. The crest quality will also be improved.

The BR handrails will be black. White lining will be on the tender

Thanks

Oliver @RailsOfSheffield

Thanks Oliver

Will you also include black handrails on the SOUTHERN wartime black version?

Kind regards

Andy.

September 10, 2020

21 hours ago, Rising Standards said:

I'd have thought those shiny handrails and smokebox door handles would be painted to match the smokebox/boiler from SR ownership onwards, and certainly on the black ones. Apologies if this is already on the change list! I can see these samples match the livery artwork that was available before pretty closely, and they were shown as polished on there too in fairness. I have the lined black loco on order with a view to representing it seeing out its final years in traffic on unglamorous stopping passenger work, whereas to my mind the sample for this loco in particular looks far more like it's been specially prepared for working an RCTS or SLS special.

Totally agree about the handrails on the black versions.

Kind regards

Andy.

May 27, 2020

10 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

The tank tops don't aline in your image.. compare one side to the other. The top blue Horizontal line. Neither do the vertical sides of the tanks...

Also; the ejector pipe is on a diagonal from the smokebox to the cab, it should lie flat along the boiler until it "dog legs" up if it is to reflect the prototype. It could be twisted back into position maybe? It might be worth asking Rails if they'd replace it given the number of potential issues with this particular model. It could also be left as is of course, sorry to flag it up.

Purchased Rails model:

Prototype 32655:

Kind regards

Andy.

May 19, 2020

13 hours ago, adb968008 said:

I disagree.

This is a review of the Dapol Rails Terrier.

The word “Hornby” is used 15 times, 4 times encouraged (retooling of future new Hornby model x2, generic reference to “Hornby standard” and 2x negatively (length, incorrect guard irons, buffers all placed in the same sentence).

The word “Rails ” is used just 4 times in context of the Retailer (excluding coal rails etc). Reading the article, I think it details the short comings quite consistently throughout the review, with the Rails model.

i feel informed of the Rails short comings, but not of its praises, additionally not Hornby's deficiencies (its either a perfect model or just not mentioned).

The review reveals inside information on Hornbys future plans for the tooling, which I dont feel is relevant in an impartial review of a competitors product, and neglects to mention one of the biggest differentiators of the two models (the firebox flickr).

my conclusion is, whilst informative, and definitely worth a read, but to find this not impartial.

I have however decided to not buy the current new Hornby terrier, beyond one I have planned, as its suggested theres another iteration to be tooled in the future, so imho its wiser to wait and see.

Good morning

I believe that Graham may not have been aware that Hornby have already retooled the front guard irons and tank top recess on their model (recess doesn't seem as obvious as the Rails model though). This has been discussed in the Hornby Terrier thread. The retooling is evident on the latest models of A1 "Leadenhall" and A1X No.10 "Cowes" so I don't think there's any further retooling to come. Graham's mention of the Rails model having firebox flicker in his review has already been highlighted in another post.

I will admit myself, it is quite difficult at times keeping up with manufacturers developments, updated information and related or relavent information contained in other threads / subjects. It all moves so fast even with COVID-19 restrictions in place!!

Kind regards

Andy.

May 18, 2020

11 hours ago, truffy said:

Fill yer boots:

https://grahammuz.com/2020/05/18/another-terrier-a1-a1x-class-takes-to-the-rails-of-sheffield/

Good morning everyone

I think Graham's review is honest, ballanced and objective, certainly when compared to some YouTube reviews that are either almost hostile or ignore any shortcomings completely.

If you read this, thanks Graham.

Kind regards

Andy.

May 15, 2020

12 hours ago, PJT said:

Andy,

If you make it over here again and you want to go back to the island, I'd be happy for you to pick my brain about what's changed and revisiting the island's former railways. Pam and I live on the mainland, but still conveniently close enough to take our bikes over on the car ferries (expensive crossing with cars, very cheap with bikes!) for day trips, often using the former railways that are now cycle paths. We also stay over there pretty frequently too. You might know you can now cycle right the way across the island from Cowes to Sandown, exclusively using railway cycle paths except for Newport town centre (and even that bit's on traffic-free paths now). Other shorter stretches of railway cycle path have been created in different parts of the island, too. We both love the scenery and the seafood, though I'll admit I get more out of the old railway infrastructure than Pam probably does.

Never explored the Callington branch, though again we do cycle large chunks of the rest of the Southern's Withered Arm, every time we holiday in Devon and Cornwall (cue wistful reminiscences, given the current epidemic restrictions here). I'll make a point of exploring what's left of the branch when we're next down there.

That's what it looks like to me, too. Thanks, but don't take up your time searching out other photos of ex-pull-push O2s retaining their doors just for my benefit - the job of removing the doors from my 30225 is struck off the 'To Do' list already!

Pete T.

Pete

Again, happy to help. Until the advent of COVID-19 we had planned a 5 week holiday to the UK in mid-June this year. My parents retired from London to Paignton so it was to be a stay in London to see the sights and museums (for the kids), some time spent in Paignton as a base to explore Devon and a week staying in Padstow as a base to explore North Cornwall. Return was via Bath and London again. we seem to have been able to re-book similar dates next year but pardon the pun; flights are still up in the air!! We've also still lost a bit of money on deposits etc.

Anyway; thanks for the offer re: the IoW, unfortunately we won't make it this trip (next year). If I happen to come across photos of the other ex-PP fitted 02s with doors I'll let you know but won't go looking for them; saying that I'm now curious myself!! As you're no doubt aware, mainland 02s and withdrawn G6s were cannibalised to keep the Island 02s serviceable. I seem to recall, I think in one of the Oakwood Press histories on the Island lines, that no new boilers, fireboxes, frames or cylinders had been made for the 02 class since 1936 (or some 1930s date anyway). If true, Just goes to show what efforts went into keeping the Island locomotives going that lasted into 1966 and the two that lasted into '67. Again, fascinating!!

Happy modelling!!

Andy.

May 14, 2020

19 minutes ago, Ian J. said:

My 32661 has arrived. No pictures at the moment as I'm 'at work' albeit at home.

It looks beautiful, just like a Terrier. Of the issues discussed only the coal rails really stand out, and 'in the flesh' actually don't look that bad.

Things to do then:

Replace coal rails;

Remove air brake pipe;

Add vacuum brake pipe (not in bits bag);

Add steam heat pipe (in bits bag);

Remove and reposition smokebox door number plate;

It would have been nice to have the brake pipes correct, and the smokebox door number positioned right but these aren't deal breakers. This is without a doubt the strongest starting point to get a 'perfect' Terrier to start from.

Well done Dapol and Rails. A little extra effort and I believe this could very well be a 'best of breed'.

Thanks Ian, I’ll get some vac pipes for my dual fitted locos on order.

Cheers

Andy.

May 14, 2020

3 hours ago, PJT said:

Morning Andy,

I read your post this morning with a big smile on my face; the vast knowledge available on RMweb and the ability of its members to successfully - and sometimes conclusively - debunk statements is a wonderful thing. Thank you for that. I'm sure Barry will appreciate it too. I've just flicked through the O2 chapter in Badley's book on the Adams locomotives and I can't see any mention of rules about cab door removal there; I've yet to look in several other books I have that detail the lives of the O2s. I wonder where the statement came from originally? Not that it matters too much since you've disproved it anyway, but I'd feel a bit better if I could show myself it had come from a trusted source! It's certainly something I've always understood to be true, one of the many little quirks of the class and I know I'm far from alone in believing and quoting it.

My apologies to Chris at Kernow, if he reads this thread, for incorrectly saying his model was incorrect!

Whatever, your photo proves yet again the necessity of having photos of the loco from the right period to hand when you're making a model, doesn't it? Do you know where your photo of 30225 was taken? It looks like it could be at Eastleigh, after she had returned from Plymouth.

I think I'll go back to making sweeping statements about Island O2s - I know I'm on safer ground there!

Pete T.

Pete

Glad to hear I was of help. Like you I am more comfortable with the Island O2s, you may of noticed my “avatar” name, not just a location but locomotive!! Don’t know why it’s a favourite. Always had a love of the Island lines since my first visit in the early 80s as a boy, many visits since to walk the closed lines and of course ride the remains of the Cowes line. I’m now in Australia, in fact one of the last holidays I had before leaving blighty was to the Island. My partner at the time is now my wife and is Aussie, what she must have thought I don’t know but she thoroughly enjoyed the “hiking” and me standing staring at abandoned bridges and repurposed station buildings!! My father made two visits in steam days as a young lad and took some photos in ‘64 and ‘65. Unfortunately I don’t have any here in Oz.

Anyway, the photo of 30225 was just from a quick web search after I saw your post. To me it looks like a scrap road at Eastleigh or a temporary “storage” road post withdrawal.

However; I have a number of books with shots of 30225 in BR days showing her with cab doors, I can dig through them and give you the title, author and page numbers if you like?

One of my favourite SR mainland branches is the Callington branch. As you probably know, 30225 was a regular before permanently replaced by Ivatt tanks. If you’ve never done it I can recommend a visit to this area, the views from the old station site at Chillsworthy are quite stunning on a clear day (or were in 2000).

After the Kernow / DJM model was announced I did a bit of research into the mainland 02s. It would appear that it wasn’t only 30225 that kept its cab doors after removal of PP equipment. Again I’d have to revisit my sources to give you the number(s) of the other locos. You are quite right saying that it appears that only PP fitted and Island 02s received doors. Island allocated Terriers in SR days also received them (caveat; ALL may not have). In short, I don’t believe any such rule existed regarding removing cab doors post PP removal!!

Kind regards

Andy.

May 14, 2020

On 11/05/2020 at 18:03, PJT said:

I've not tried to swap the gear from one loco to another, so I can't help with advice on that. However, there's a point of detail which, depending on how pedantic you want to be, might complicate your decision. On mainland O2s, the pull-push versions had cab doors while the non pull push ones didn't (whereas all Isle of Wight O2s had cab doors). This seemed to be a very rigid rule; for instance, when a mainland loco lost its pull push equipment, it also lost the cab doors.

I recently also took advantage of Kernow's offer to get a non-PP 30225 (which in real life lost its equipment and its doors in later SR days to a loco being prepared for shipping to the island for Ventnor West branch use). It's actually incorrect, as is your 30193, because it still has doors (all of the Kernow O2s have doors). It's not an error I'd write an enraged letter to the Daily Telegraph about and it's not high up on my 'to do' list either, but one day I shall remove the doors from my 30225, which will probably also involve making new cab doorway handrails since they're all part of the same moulding.

Please excuse me adding a further twist to your dilemna!

Pete T.

Hello PJT

30225 with cab doors in its later BR days. I don’t think the rule was ridged about removing cab doors when PP equipment was removed. Hopefully this will mean you won’t have to undertake any surgery on your model!!

Kind regards

Andy.

May 13, 2020

2 minutes ago, Pre Grouping fan said:

One thing to note with that, I'm not too sure that those are Vaccum pipes. I think they are either steam heat or a low mounted air pipes.

All terriers I've seen have them mounted above the buffer beam like the prefitted high mount air pipe, the only exception is Fenchurch in current mock A1 condition where its vac pipe is inline with the buffer beam.

Thanks, I was also unsure whether they were actually vac pipes so took Jenny’s word for it as it was hard to see them in the video. At the end of the day vac pipes can be fitted to the dual braked locos without having to remove the pre-fitted air brake pipes. My main concern was air pipes fitted to vacuum only locos and the removal of them (if you chose to). It may have been better to have all pipes optional extras.

I’ve made at least four post (or more) on this subject and feel I’ve said enough. It looks the bunker rails are becoming a burning issue however.

May 13, 2020

3 hours ago, Jenny Emily said:

My review of the Terrier:

Thanks Jenny and thanks for confirming the inclusion of vac pipes. You may have noticed this was a concern (obsession) of mine in recent posts!!

Andy.

May 12, 2020

3 minutes ago, Pre Grouping fan said:

Regarding the above with brake pipes, it will be interesting to hear from people who have them (perhaps Jenny Kirk in her review as she seems to have the first one to post images of a model delivered) whether there is a goody bag with bits like vac pipes to make the models suit the loco they represent.

To me the cab looks copied from the O gauge version with no parts for the vaccum brake control which Hornby included even in air brake only locos.

Agree, it will be interesting to see if there is a detailing / separate parts pack. My first model hasn't arrived yet and will probably take weeks or months as I'm in Oz and overseas mail is almost non-exsistent at the moment. Anyway, all is not lost, still a very good model by the looks of it.

Andy.

May 12, 2020

5 hours ago, BlueLightning said:

So now that these are out there, can I ask if the coal rails are really as small as they look in the photos?? They should come up to the cab edge, and the rear of the bunker flare, but in the photos from Rails they look way to small to me.

An odd and rather glaring error to make it though after the hate thrown at Hornby for the much less obvious lack of recess in the tank tops.

An cropped image of 2644 showing how the coal rails should look as reference for anyone that doesn't know what to compare the model to

Hello Gary

Yes, a shame, it is the location of the bunker top lamp iron on the Dapol model that prevents a correct representation of the bunker rails, maybe a tooling / cost compromise? Hornby have designed their bunker top lamp iron similar to the prototype and is "cranked out" where bunker rails are fitted.

Kind regards

Andy.

May 12, 2020

9 hours ago, Edwardian said:

A couple of observations.

It is good to see that Hornby now has one or more models that reflect how the Terrier backsheet was constructed. It may be a moot point, however, whether or not the prominent snap head rivets would be seen in early Brighton days. They are on the preserved Boxhill, but, as you say, there is a dearth of contemporary photographs showing this feature clearly.

Yes, the strip would have been rivetted, but it is entirely possible that they were countersunk or had the tops ground off in earlier days. See, for instance, how that seems to have been done to the buffer guide faces, as opposed to later, when the fixings protruded. Possibly we might never know, but I would not be too hasty to call this one out as an accuracy point.

Indeed, and I believe the Rails/Dapol models reflect this. Last time I saw any CAD on these (August 2018) both these were without Westinghouse pumps but did have both vac exhaust pipes and pipe vac stands.

Hello Edwardian

I agree that the rivets may not have been visible and flush in early LB&SCR days and some evidence points to this being the case. My main concern was the paint finish to the cab backsheet of 643, it appears to have a "mottled" glossy finish compared to the flat finish of the rest of the model. I accept lighting can change the appearance of colour but the mottled, metalic effect?

As for air / vacuum brake fittings; yes, the Rails models of 32655 and 32661 correctly do not have westinghouse air pumps as these were vacuum brake only locomotives in BR service. My point is that Rails / Dapol seem to have fitted a generic brake pipe to all BR versions (and other dual braked versions) that in appearance look very much like an air pipe:

32655 - BR in service condition and Dapol model:

32661 - BR in service condition and Dapol model:

"General" arrangement of dual braked locomotives in BR in service:

Hornby have done the opposite and appear to have fitted all models with a vacuum pipe and stand regardless of whether they were dual braked or air braked only (e.g. IOW locos).

Removal and replacement with correct brake pipes I assume would be relatively simple task but it looks like redundant holes would be left in buffer beam of 32661 if the existing pipe was removed and a vacuum pipe fitted on the correct side of the buffer beam...............alternatively, don't be so pedantic and live with it, which I probably will!!

Given all of the above, I still think that the Dapol model captures the look and character of the "Terrier" better than the Hornby model and I do not regret waiting for this version to appear.

Kind regards

Andy.

May 12, 2020

On 10/05/2020 at 00:44, Bluebell Model Railway said:

The pages, and photo's Rails have sent out recently show the newly delivered models and they have it.... also each model that had been delivered were updated I think with extra photos. It would be odd to update a page and show pre pro models and not the production ones.

If the photos on the Rails website are of the production models that are in stock I'm a little worried. Enlarging the photo of the rear cab sheet of LB&SCR 643 shows a very odd paint finish and no rivets on the cab seam. Compare this to the BR version of 32661 which has a consistent, smooth paint finish and correct rivetted cab seam.

Full payment has been taken for my 643, I am now having second thoughts after studying the photos more closely. It would appear that quality may be inconsistent across the model variations. As far as I can tell from these initial models there is now very little to choose between the Hornby rendition of this loco type and that of Rails; particularly now that Hornby have corrected some of the mistakes / omissions of the earlier releases.

I will caveat my observations of 643 by saying that there are very few photos of the rear of these locomotives in early LB&SCR days that clearly show the cab seam to be rivetted. Some of the class gained single piece rear cab sheets in later life (32655 Stepney for one). The fact remains that 643 has an odd paint finish in this area!!

Andy.

May 7, 2020

On 26/03/2019 at 08:32, Ventnor said:

Hello

I'd like to wade into this debate on detailing. I have already commented on A1X smokebox rivets but there is something else that has not (to my knowledge) been touched on. This is the arrangement of air brake pipes and vacuum brake pipes.

Very noticeable on the real thing, particularly the dual braked locos, is the arrangement of air brake pipes and vacuum pipes on the front and rear buffer beams. The dual fitted A1Xs tended to have the vacuum pipes on the right hand side of the front buffer beam (as you look head on) and the air brake pipe on the left hand side. The vacuum pipe being in a lower position than air brake pipe on the front buffer beam and the vacuum pipe higher than the air pipe on the rear. It is noticeable that the Hornby representation of these features show a vacuum pipe only on the left hand side of the front and rear buffer beams of both BR representations (to reduce costs no doubt). Rails model of 32661 also shows the vacuum pipe on the left hand side (head on) which is incorrect for this loco. Neither model show any representation of the pipework along / under the running plate that connect these pipes to either the vacuum ejector or the air pump. This is maybe due to the Rails model being a 1st EP(?) and the Hornby model to keep costs and price down.

However, and this is another detail minefield, 32670 (formally KESR Bodiam), is a vacuum only fitted loco and at some point (I guess when sold by the LBSCR) was vacuum fitted with a vacuum pipe on the left hand side of the buffer beam (as you look head on). 32655 (formally Stepney) which ended up as vacuum only fitted also appears to have this arrangement. It would also appear that post preservation, 32678 (formally Knowle), has had the brake pipe arrangement changed from that carried in SR / BR days. I'm sure that there are other variations of brake pipe arrangement and don't envy the manufacturers in getting every variation correct for their chosen prototypes. The fact remains (and this is my point) that there is a significant amount of pipework associated with the train brakes. This also makes the front and rear buffer beams look quite cluttered on the dual brake fitted locos.

Both the Hornby and Rails models have their merits and omissions but I do tend to be swayed towards purchasing Rails models. Even with the issues regarding cab spectacles and the chimney (which are to be addressed) I think it captures the essence or a Terrier better than the Hornby model. I wish them luck with their enterprise.

Regards

Andy.

I flagged up the potential pit falls of vacuum and air brake fittings (or lack of them) in a previous post back in March 2019. I suppose I should have directed an email direct to Dapol rather than assume they read every post on RMWeb. Anyway, we'll see if they get the brake pipe arrangements right on the versions just delivered. Quite a major compromise or mistake if they don't. However; I still have 6 versions on pre-order.

Andy.

May 7, 2020

5 hours ago, Pre Grouping fan said:

One thing I have noticed with the new pictures of the released models. Shouldn't the BR pair have vaccum ejectors in the cab and vaccum pipes at each end?

Les

Quite right, more so as 32655 and 32661 were vacuum fitted only so the air brake pipes / equipment should also be abscent.

Andy.

January 21, 2020

5 hours ago, RichardLong said:

Does this help?

Thanks Richard.

Andy.

January 19, 2020

8 hours ago, RodneyS said:

Regarding the tank tops Andy, I don't have any way of putting photos on here.

I wonder if Richard Long would be kind enough to oblige?

I don't model the Isle of Wight railways. I only bought the model because of the large bunker and the Drummond chimney.

My 'cunning plan' was to repaint it BR black as 32640 or pretend that 'Cowes' had never been scrapped and had been bought by my mythical light railway.

However, now I have it I'm not sure I can bring myself to paint over such a superbly applied livery.

Rodney

Rodney

Despite some detail anomalies or omissions they are still a lovely little model. I can understand why you're loathed to repaint!!

Cheers

Andy.

January 19, 2020

7 hours ago, RodneyS said:

I collected my model of 'Cowes' today from the Bluebell Railway shop.

Mine also ran well straight out of the box and the finish is superb.

In addition to that I notice that Hornby have now altered the tanks and there is a representation of the recess in the top.

It might not be as deep as it should be but at least it is there.

Well done Hornby for taking notice of all the comments.

Rodney

I can't comment on the tank recess as I've not seen any photos from above looking down. However, it seems that the guard irons have been altered and look more prototypical which is a big plus!!

The Isle of Wight Terriers in Southern Railway days were fitted for air brake only operation of fitted rollingstock. Unfortunately, as well as a Westinghouse air pump, the model representation of W10 Cowes has a vacuum ejector pipe fitted from the cab to smokebox and associated vacuum braking pipework below the running plate. This could be removed if required I guess.

Cheers

Andy.

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Gallery

Events

Exhibition Layout Details

Store

Posts posted by Ventnor