WisTramwayMan

What's the latest on the DCC function chips for the 92s - last thing I read was that these were stuck in Customs, or have they now been potentially further delayed as a result of the ESU chip issues that Rapido seem to have with the OO Hunslet ?

Any further news on Bart ? It seems to be taking a fair while to arrive in Cornwall (possibly the lack of 3rd rail or OHL in those parts...)

Pity they couldn't be sent direct from Accurascale - they use DHL - below £250 Kernow normally use Royal Mail who from personal experience seem to be in a right mess currently - last tracked 48 parcel took almost 2 wks to arrive. Plus several still floating in the ether. Whereas DHL and DPD are currently OK.

Too many ifs and coulds there for me. Producing a model where several examples are still extant, has been replicated well elsewhere, plus where a huge quantity of images and first- hand knowledge exists will raise expectations and the level of scrutiny way above anything they have attempted so far, ie, of locomotives that are extinct.... (certainly those where the finished product has reached the public domain).

I think this one will get a miss. GT3 might have been OK but given their efforts with The Fell (accuracy/quality/finish) plus the fact you cannot see the end product before you pay) then I'll stick to my Bachmanns. Their financing / payment method might just work when theirs is the only option in town but here it's not - personally I think they've a lot to prove with Leader/Bellerophon/Big Bertha.

That's a real shame - a model of D15 with the end doors as an obvious feature, with body frames clear and obvious a la Bachmann (but like the end door apparently gone AWOL), and weathered, could have been a superb model. But this appears to be taking subtlety too far...

I must admit that the lack of body frame representation behind the large rectangular grille is what's putting me off these. I've looked at 10's of images on-line and in real life they appear to be more prominent than those on the lengthy side grilles, which is how I confess I remember them watching them go by on the Midland Main Line from Wicksteed Park's pitch and putt course. If they are indeed (virtually) missing, then for me big boo-boo, more so than the angle of curvature at the top of the doors being (slightly) incorrect. I was thinking about Kernow's Medusa, but again going by the images of the retailer's website the frames on the large grille appear to have gone AWOL. I have instead ordered two green versions from another retailer - for whatever reason on-line images (on multiple websites) suggest that with this livery the body frames have returned from leave and are present and correct.... My Bachmann ones do NOT have this issue.

I'm pretty sure that the likes of Hornby, Bachmann, Dapol etc wouldn't even entertain manufacturing a Fell. A one-off - subject to more than average modifications throughout its life - scrapped long ago - hardly the easiest subject to model. The larger, and more recent, a class of loco is, the more chance you have of getting pretty much all the minute details correct. Helped immensely if examples of that class are still extant, plus the quantity of digital images you have available at the push of a few buttons on your keyboard. My comments are this: Does it look like most buyers' perceptions of what the Fell should look like ? Is it well made and does it perform well ? Is it good value ? Re the price, they cost £150. A small shunter such as a Heljan 07 will cost you a discounted £170 new. New Bachmann class 47's over £200, discounted. So, given you only have the one loco to cover the tooling costs, I think that's pretty good. It may not be perfect. But given that having a kit built up and decorated would cost you multiples of £150 then for many people this will be perfectly good enough. And me ? I've got a black one and a green one....

Suspect that it's simply (sensibly) due to costings - if it says Genesis coach then they can use it for all the other coaches too- considerably cheaper than multiple designs and, at a guess, with only the label on the end giving the code and actual model details.

i think in reality the passenger service on the W&U ended long before BR days - late 20s I believe. To run GER and LNER passenger trains though looks perfectly legitimate, and yes, I've ordered the GER packs in addition to my LNER and BR J70s. Of note is that Rapido have also announced a project to produce a class 04. These took over from steam on the tramway until it's closure in the mid 60s - one would hope (please !) that Rapido are going to produce tramway versions with side skirts and cowcatchers (maybe even a figure of Charlie Rand for the cab !)

I was hoping for a couple more large logo 37/4s, 37403 Isle of Mull and/or 37426 Vale of Rheidol (produced many years ago as a Hereford Model Centre limited item). What's there doesn't desperately interest me, and as concerns Loch Lomond well, I'll leave my order with Accurascale's version; if nothing else it's appreciably cheaper than the Bachmann (DC) version even taking into account most retailers' 15% off......

thought they said Lincoln Central / Grantham on this morning's announcement.

Was it the GWR railcars a few years ago where the DCC Sound installation was done at Chirk and the workmanship was variable ? I hope for everyone's sake they make a better job of this. And regarding an earlier comment that they're doing the decent thing - no, it's the minimum they should be doing. That assumes a factory-standard level of workmanship - if they cannot or do not achieve that then it should be replacement shells. I note with interest that although Dapol now have a page on their website 'fessing up - it doesn't say a lot about their QC procedures (well, in a way it does...) given they're all affected (alternatively they realised it and decided to send them out anyway, which is worse). And what happens to all the stock at retailers ? (I haven't seen a retailer yet who has withdrawn the items from sale or put a note on their site saying they're cosmetically faulty) - does that stock go back to Dapol for rectification ? Or carry on selling it to customers ? It'll be interesting to see what happens when they start popping up on ebay, all listed "as new". Three level market. Those that haven't - those that have but botched - and those that have been done properly. Buyer beware.

I wonder if the errors "caused by a member of staff leaving" also potentially extend to the Manors and the Rails of Sheffield D1s ?

My thoughts entirely. Particularly when I look at it next to the other 3 or 4 I've got, all which are OK (and as per an earlier post run beautifully). A shame, because as well as Felix I was contemplating adding Vigilant to the DRS fleet, and admit that although I haven't checked rather suspect that this will be wrong as well. Another own goal.....

Debatable. Given the intricacy of the detail on the rest of the loco - all the very small individual transfers/tampo prints - it seems obvious to me what segment of the market this loco is aimed at and a cock-up of a fair magnitude that they appear to have used the wrong bodyshell. You'd miss two or three of those small prints less than you would what they've done - miss the handrails - off what is, after all, the face of the loco. If it had been on a par with, say, the Hornby Railroad Range then I'd agree acceptable, but it's not - it's supposed to be considerably better than that.

Looks like someone there hasn't done their homework or checking correctly.

Don't think there's any mounting holes drilled (?) for them. And given it looks like a cock-up by Dapol shouldn't they be the ones sorting it out ? (Not customers buying their own !)

68031 was only named Felix in early 2019,I believe, and photos of it in service very shortly after the naming clearly show the handrails there. And I haven't been able to find any photos of it without them. Looks like an error by Dapol.

Looking at my new model of 68031, Felix, has Dapol missed something on the latest batch ? They appear to have omitted the angled handrails from underneath the front screen. Intentional (cost cutting or otherwise ?) or a fundamental error ? They were certainly on 4D-022-014 Brutus, one of the previous TPE releases, and looking at actual pictures of the real 68031 they're on that.

Which therefore means that Hornby Magazine's review is misleading......

Perhaps Accurascale could confirm what is factory fitted and what is not, as regards to the nameplates / buffer beam detailing / couplings ?

It's correct that before it was stuffed it was down to one engine. As I understand it, the staff/volunteers at the NRM responsible for the loco were liaising with the DPS engineering staff to hopefully rectify the issues, but that a stop was then put on by the NRM on any further work being carried out.

Exact wording (P85 of the June issue): "One buffer beam is fully appointed with pipework and dummy screw link coupling on delivery (the other has a small tension lock coupling in a correctly set NEM pocket)". Personally, I'm happy with that. I'm assuming, that being correct, that a second NEM pocket / tension lock and second set of buffer beam pipework will be in the detail pack.