Pteremy

I have had to get a magnifying glass out to see whether my Erlestoke has gaps - and I am still not quite sure - could just be a join. So in my case not a visible issue. I think that at least some of the close up photographs may be exaggerating the gap, but maybe there is also some variation in assembly.

Given that McC has agreed with you it seems that further comment might be pointless. But i guess it depends on what there is to build on. The general view was that the body was fine, but the mechanism wasn't. And then there were issues about the design of how the body and mechanism were put together (that is removing the body was quite difficult without breaking bits). It could be that there is excellent research that could be reused but needing a completely different execution. A 'fresh start' does not necessarily require the junking of any 'IP' that is still fit for purpose (if you see what I mean).

Not suggesting that it should be the next steam locomotive, but is there scope for Accurascale 'rescuing' the Hattons 14xx, as they are doing with the Class 66??

Is anyone actually offering a sound decoder for the 10800??

Now showing as 'arriving soon' on Rails website

I can understand the desire for something that has not been done before but, on the evidence to date, I am not sure that quite fits the Accurascale MO as far as locomotives are concerned. For example, the Bulleid Pacifics are iconic, are extant on heritage lines and there are different versions to offer. Given that Hornby seem to have lost interest in updating its offerings I would have thought that they are an obvious target similar to the Manors.

If I have understood correctly a 57xx is on the Hornby list for future TT120 releases. If so there must be a strong possibility that they have been working on one in 00 as well, to maximise the value of the research etc.? The design challenges will be different, but that seems to be the logic behind their other future releases.

My 7812 arrived the morning and I am so disappointed. Nothing loose; nothing broken; nothing missing; nothing bent; to wait all this time and have nothing to moan about - it just isn't fair....

For anyone interested in the life of the LSWR vent vans after nationalisation so far I have come across: On page 53 of Larkin's Acquired Wagons Vol 4 a D1408 at Eastleigh in 1957 On page 30 of King's Southern Wagons Pictorial (plate 41) a D1408 in 1962 at Barnstaple Victoria, with fresh (1961) branding for Operating Dept use only (apparently one of 3 vans at that location since 1959) [On page 21 of Gamble's British Railway Vans Vol 2 (plate 34) a close relative D1409 in 1951]

Yes. Has there ever been, in the history of the hobby, such high expectation and excitement about a model release? Makes Bazball look like a game of bowls.....

So far as accuracy is concerned Bachmann did a good job with the LMS Portholes, not being put of by the different underframe lengths required or a completely different body style for the corridor composite. It is only by tackling such 'inconvenient' variations that it is possible to model accurate prototypical formations (kit building aside).

Since reading Harris many years ago I have always distinguished the 1936-37 corridor stock as 'Sunshine' and the subsequent 1938 stock as 'Yellow Disc' because, as you say, the latter were built to a narrower width to allow for more inter-regional use. (The GWR Coaches website simply calls them '1938 Standard Stock'.) And I assume that is also why the 'Yellow Disc' version was chosen by Mainline and perpetuated by Bachmann. In terms of numbers built they were broadly the same, although there are in effect two styles of 'Sunshine', a factor which might also have influenced the manufacturers choice.

And the Siphon G. Actually I don't have a problem with the current period of focus, even though it limits what I will be interested in. I rather like the more strategic focus on filling the gaps in what is available, together with the production of complementary locos/coaches/wagons. I am sure that more earlier stuff will appear sooner or later.

These wagons are brilliant. i have no use for them. But they example a hobby in transition. No longer limited to 'take it or leave it, this is what we make', instead an example of something tailored to a specific sphere of interest. More please, more, more, more.

I think this endless teasing is a mortal sin. Shame on you.

I have seen recommendations for 'latex caulk' (gap sealant) rather than PVA glue, on the basis that it waterproof and more easily removable. Have not tried it myself yet but I am planning on doing so.

A quick update on the roof issue. I ordered the BR Grey 'Worcester' version early this week (in addition to my original preorder). This one has a noticeably smoother fitting roof and as a result the bowing is much less obvious. One of those things you only notice when looking for it. As for the original Yeovil (P.M) no surgery yet, but I did put some black tack over the central side magnets to see if I could increase the grip. It doesn't fix the issue completely but the bow is now no worse than the 'Worcester' example. So worth trying as an alternative to gluing.

So - if I understand correctly - lucky you. If the issues are a function of particular versions then, for the record, mine is a BR 'Yeovil (P.M)'

Interesting. I didn't have that - but in jiggling the roof into place I wasn't sure whether the magnets were acting as such or whether I was feeling a frictional contact between them. Thing is the roof itself is not bowed, so surely the bow must arise from a stress being created along the length of the roof? In your case it seems that the central magnets were strong enough to overcome that stress. I think that i will try thinning the 'ribs' underneath each end of the roof.

Mine has arrived. As well as the roof I have a slightly wonky footboard, but I am sure that will fettle back straighter. As for the roof mine was on the wrong way round when it arrived. In fitting it correctly the slight bend manifested itself. But I don't know whether the retaining magnets are at fault. TBH in doing the fitting it felt as if the roof was just a little too tight a fit. No doubt it will fettle right - I would prefer that to gluing.

My service vehicle (as opposed to Titfield star) is in the post. I am hoping for an effect like Stonehenge and the Summer Solstice - look through a window at the right angle with the sun/light in the right position and the interior will be lit up as if by a host of angels....

Ah yes. The reference to AA23 is on page is on page 480 - I was looking for some reference to conversions generally, in the end section detailing changes made to Toads after building. With a bit more time I have had a look at Larkins Acquired Wagons Vol 1. There was a much earlier Diagram - AA11 - which was provided with vacuum brakes, some of which survived until the mid 1950s. Larkin also provides the vehicle numbers of Diagram AA19, AA20 and AA23 Toads which were vacuum fitted by BR. Finally, some 'AA23's were built by BR after Nationalisation as Diagram 1/502 and Larkin identifies 3 that were subsequently vacuum fitted 'after 1956'.

I like to spread my money around, to encourage anyone who is clearly making a real effort to improve the quality and range of what is available to us. But equally over the years I have tried to reduce Rule 1 purchases to the absolute minimum. So my 2 Manors will be pretending to be 73xx Moguls until such time as someone, presumably Dapol, plugs that gap. And after that they will appear on 'specials'.

A few pages back there was a discussion about end plates/gangway protectors, and a nice photo of the end of a siphon was posted. Did we ever get more info about the date/location of the picture?

From a quick look at Atkins, Baird & Tourett I can't see any reference to conversions. But there was a specific diagram - AA21 - under which 100 Vacuum fitted vehicles were built in 1939/40, financed by the government at the outset of WWII (AB&T p478)