Locomotion & Rails of Sheffield announce SE&CR D Class

[Cofga]

I was installing the various extra bits today and found a big white glue smudge on the front of the cab between the portholes. I attacked it with IPA on a pointed cotton swab and after quite a bit of scrubbing got it all off. Fitting the plastic vacuum line was a pain until I noticed the parts that needed to go into the holes were (1) too big, and (2) too long. So I snipped them at an angle and that got them into the holes. The vaccum hose was also too big for the hole on the front of the buffer beam and had to be reamed out for a fit. The guard irons went in OK but had to be bent to a proper angle. I think I will paint the coupling hook black as the silver is just too plastic looking. Finally there was a plastic thing in the package that looks sort of like a stirrup but is not shown in the booklet. Anyone know what it is or where it goes? 

[No Decorum]

24 minutes ago, Cofga said:

I was installing the various extra bits today and found a big white glue smudge on the front of the cab between the portholes. I attacked it with IPA on a pointed cotton swab and after quite a bit of scrubbing got it all off. Fitting the plastic vacuum line was a pain until I noticed the parts that needed to go into the holes were (1) too big, and (2) too long. So I snipped them at an angle and that got them into the holes. The vaccum hose was also too big for the hole on the front of the buffer beam and had to be reamed out for a fit. The guard irons went in OK but had to be bent to a proper angle. I think I will paint the coupling hook black as the silver is just too plastic looking. Finally there was a plastic thing in the package that looks sort of like a stirrup but is not shown in the booklet. Anyone know what it is or where it goes? 

It’s the cross member to replace the NEM socket on the bogie front should you wish to do so. Since page ten of the booklet was written, the default has changed from fitting the cross member and supplying the NEM socket as an accessory to vice versa.

 

Here it is fitted and illuminated by flash. (The guardirons look a bit P4. )

 

 

[Cofga]

Thanks for the photo and the tip. I managed to get it installed after quite a bit of fiddling around with it. That slippery plastic sure does male it difficult to get the clips into the mounting hole. So I won’t be doing any push-pull operations with this one—pull only. Did yours come with the screw coupling or is that a replacement?

[No Decorum]

Fitting the cross member is one of those things which suddenly clips into place after a lot of fiddling, leaving me unaware of quite how I did it.

 

As I noted in my post at the top of the previous screen, the screw link is a Hornby R7200 cosmetic coupler. There isn’t one amongst the accessories.

[Wickham Green too]

13 minutes ago, No Decorum said:

.... There isn't one amongst the accessories.

Pity they couldn't follow Hatton's example and supply a proper Wainwright pattern* screw coupling - with three shackles ( Last fitted to the B.R. 9Fs ! )

 

* These MIGHT have originated on S.E.R. or L.C.D.R. but I've not seen any evidence of use before 1899.

[prtrainman]

On 10/07/2021 at 21:07, Robert John Davis said:

My SECR #448 arrived yesterday, well packed for its journey to the USA. Having read all the comments and watched a bunch of videos, I was pretty sure this would be a winner. 

 

I was right. 

 

Mine was flawless out of the box. No loose parts. Set her on the rails and she ran quite well. I like the "chuff" sound much better in person than I did on the Rails videos. And the two-speaker approach will (I hope) become the industry standard. 

 

Honestly, I have to put this up there with the best plastic RTR locomotive I have ever seen. And for its price point, it delivers well above expectation.

 

We can all nit pick any model (that seems to be a more common activity among modelers than actually running their trains), but I will say this: I would happily order another pre-grouping locomotive of this spec and price point.

 

I hope Dapol and Rails team up for something from the north next. 

 

Enjoy your toys, 

 

Rob

 

 

Rob,

 

Having received my BR lined version last week I must say that I agree 100% with everything you have said. So nice to see someone else taking a practical view of these excellent models. 

 

It would be a great shame if Dapol, Bachmann, Hornby etc. were to be put off future developments by the comments of some of the pedants in our hobby. 

 

Enjoy your D.

 

Philip 

 

Edited July 12, 2021 by prtrainman
spelling correction

[Edwardian]

On 10/07/2021 at 13:47, Nile said:

 

Period photos indicate that the two extra lamp irons were fitted from 1920. As for the back of the tender, it seems rather camera shy so I can't tell. Has the preserved loco got them?

That places the grey model in the early 20s, unless you remove those lamp irons to back date it to the war years.

 

On 10/07/2021 at 20:24, Steam here! said:

Thanks for the info Nile, something new I’ve learnt.

It may be possible to remove the two extra lamp irons, the next task would be how to hide the holes and how to blend it all in.

 

As for the loco, there’s a high chance I will run it with the other SE&CR green locos.

 

IIRC, the grey livery model was based on a picture taken in 1921.

 

Query whether the crew were as likely to have stripped back the brass beading during wartime.

 

EDIT: Said photograph, and it's October 1920

 

Edited July 12, 2021 by Edwardian

[wainwright1]

6 hours ago, Edwardian said:

 

 

IIRC, the grey livery model was based on a picture taken in 1921.

 

Query whether the crew were as likely to have stripped back the brass beading during wartime.

 

EDIT: Said photograph, and it's October 1920

 

Looking at that picture I think that my earlier comment that the numbers on the tender of the model looked compressed may be confirmed.

 

All the best

Ray

[Turbo_Tim]

Has anyone had trouble with poor running? Mine arrived on Friday and I got round to test running today.

 

Slow speed is particuarly bad (reminds me of something Lima made) - should i perseere with running in or should I simply return it (hopefully in exchange for another)?

 

 

Edited July 12, 2021 by Turbo_Tim
Making video work

[Wickham Green too]

I'd guess something's catching in the gear train ........ copy that video to Rails and see what they say.

[CC Booster]

          Yes I recieved my D last week, and after running-in, found it ran tolerably rather than impressively.  I fitted the Dapol Imperium decoder and have yet to experiment with the basic settings but find it runs too fast. It also reminded me of old Lima models. Wickham Green's suggestion is good, I hope you get some satisfaction from Rails. If anyone has any recommendations as to settings for the decoder I would be grateful.

             There is alot I like about the model, the close coupling to the tender, spare axel and detailing parts, and the swopping of the NEM socket for a blank on the front bogie.

             On the downside, I found a coupling hook detatched, two of the buffers fell off, and my huge fingers erased some of the fine lining off the running boards whilst handling it, fitting the decoder chip. I really didn't like the silvery handrails, coupling hook, or con-rods and the bright dayglow red of the bufferbeam & piston rod detail. Since last week I have blackened the silvery bits, re-numbered it, added 247 plates, real coal, crew and detailing pack, then lightly weathered with a mucky satin varnish to tone down the brightness and seal it the numbers & plates....so before and after........

[Jack P]

11 minutes ago, CC Booster said:

I have blackened the silvery bits, re-numbered it, added 247 plates, real coal, crew and detailing pack, then lightly weathered with a mucky satin varnish

 

And it looks much better for it! Really looking forward to mine arriving now.

[KymN]

My D-class arrived this morning.  Mine is the Locomotion fully sound fitted version.  I am blown away by its looks and detail - superb.  I connected the tender, put it on the track without changing any settings and applied the DCC throttle. It was a bit hesitant at first but once it was moving it ran beautifully, and quietly.  Unfortunately it was a bit too quiet - no sound.  Am I missing something?  Do I need to set something first?

 

Any suggestions would be very welcome.  Otherwise this is an exceptional model given the limited time that I have had with it.  

[No Decorum]

3 hours ago, KymN said:

My D-class arrived this morning.  Mine is the Locomotion fully sound fitted version.  I am blown away by its looks and detail - superb.  I connected the tender, put it on the track without changing any settings and applied the DCC throttle. It was a bit hesitant at first but once it was moving it ran beautifully, and quietly.  Unfortunately it was a bit too quiet - no sound.  Am I missing something?  Do I need to set something first?

 

Any suggestions would be very welcome.  Otherwise this is an exceptional model given the limited time that I have had with it.  

When F1 is pressed, the sound is a very quiet gurgling. F2 and F3 are very loud whistle sounds and when the loco starts, there is a lot of loud sound. Something must be wrong; not something someone, especially from Australia, wants to hear. It happened that I was sent a non-sound model by mistake – has the box a sticker on the end?

“TESTED: RC

SOUND FITTED:03” 

[rembrow]

I have been working on my BR liveried version to paint out the bright finish on handrails. When doing this with magnifying glasses, it seemed that the handrail knobs were left as grey flexible plastic and the rail left as nickel silver, so I felt that I had gone back to the 80s in painting the first Hornby handrail fitted locos. However for me the big problem is the misprint of the BR early logo on one side of the tender in the wrong direction. I've been in communication with Rails about whether any correction is planned, I was hoping for a replacement tender top. I drew their attention to a recent similar issue with a Bachmann model, the Class 20/3 in DRS early livery, where the DRS logo was printed in the wrong place on one side. Bachmann have decided to replace the loco body. In the Rails/Dapol D case, Rails advised that Dapol became aware after the model was shipped, but have decided that it will not be corrected. I pointed out this is a premium priced model and should have significant errors corrected, however they responded that the decision is Dapols and they are not going to change it. This to me is most telling, in Bachmann's recent case they publicly said this was not to the standard they expect and they need to correct it, however Dapol are not publicly acknowledging the error and are prepared to let it go as "it'll do". I also believe Rails can force the issue more with Dapol, but they are accepting the flaw.

I have replaced the BR crests, I had to do both sides as the Dapol crest was slightly larger than the Fox version, however the finish is not as good as the original.

I've advised Rails that I won't pre order any future commissions until I have seen the final version, particularly those from Dapol.

[cctransuk]

3 hours ago, rembrow said:

I've advised Rails that I won't pre order any future commissions until I have seen the final version, particularly those from Dapol.

 

I'm afraid that livery issues seem to be par-for-the-course with Dapol - 'near enough is good enough' seems to be their motto!

 

CJI.

[phil-b259]

3 hours ago, rembrow said:

In the Rails/Dapol D case, Rails advised that Dapol became aware after the model was shipped, but have decided that it will not be corrected. I pointed out this is a premium priced model and should have significant errors corrected, however they responded that the decision is Dapols and they are not going to change it. This to me is most telling, in Bachmann's recent case they publicly said this was not to the standard they expect and they need to correct it, however Dapol are not publicly acknowledging the error and are prepared to let it go as "it'll do". I also believe Rails can force the issue more with Dapol, but they are accepting the flaw.

I have replaced the BR crests, I had to do both sides as the Dapol crest was slightly larger than the Fox version, however the finish is not as good as the original.

I've advised Rails that I won't pre order any future commissions until I have seen the final version, particularly those from Dapol.

 

At the expense of What?

 

I think you need to stop and consider the relative size (and) turnover of the two organisations here (Dapol and Rails) then consider what the risks of making a huge fuss are.

 

Rails, although having a large turnover in model shop terms are not in the same terms as Dapol. If Dapol refuse to d anything about it then what you are demanding is Rails spend a significant chunk of their own cash correcting someone elses error with no possability of getting that cash back.

 

RTR model railways are NOT big money spinners - the profit margins are relatively small, and as mentioned Rails is relatively small in terms of business turnover compared to the likes of Dapol so Rails shelling out could have a disproportionate effect on their business.

 

Furthermore with the likes of Rails being squeezed by the 'big two' RTR manufacturers Rails business strategy relies on being able to be able to commission their own products - and demanding Dapol do X, Y and Z (or involving the legal profession trying to claim the costs back for fixing Dapols error) is a very good way of alienating a key facilitator of Rails commissioned models.

 

None of this should be taken to mean the errors are acceptable of course - but rather than sit there like some sort of King Canute figure you need to be realistic about whats going to happen in future. Rails and Dapol are exceedingly unlikely to avoid each other in future and equally duplication simply doesn't happen in the RTR world as its a proven loss maker for manufacturers whenever its been tried. Therefore if Rails decide to partner up with Dapol on another loco class you desire you have to come down off your high horse and be pragmatic. Yes you can wait and see - (but there is the danger, that as with the D class the loco sells out on pre-order) or decide that you simply don't want that loco class anymore, but the reality is should the class be one you desire then you will have to swallow your pride and buy from Rails / Dapol again in future.

[phil-b259]

40 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

I'm afraid that livery issues seem to be par-for-the-course with Dapol - 'near enough is good enough' seems to be their motto!

 

CJI.

 

Indeed

 

However given the economics of 'commissioning' model shops like Rails, getting Dapol to change their stance is difficult. Its all very well for foplk to sit there saying Rails should do X,Y and Z - but actions have consequences which ultimately may do more harm than good to the business.

 

RTR manufacturers / retailers are not Charities - they are in it to make money for their owners / shareholders at the end of the day and as such anything they decide to do / not do needs to be judged alongside its effect on the businesses cashflow  / profitability.

[rembrow]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

 

At the expense of What?

 

I think you need to stop and consider the relative size (and) turnover of the two organisations here (Dapol and Rails) then consider what the risks of making a huge fuss are.

 

Rails, although having a large turnover in model shop terms are not in the same terms as Dapol. If Dapol refuse to d anything about it then what you are demanding is Rails spend a significant chunk of their own cash correcting someone elses error with no possability of getting that cash back.

 

RTR model railways are NOT big money spinners - the profit margins are relatively small, and as mentioned Rails is relatively small in terms of business turnover compared to the likes of Dapol so Rails shelling out could have a disproportionate effect on their business.

 

Furthermore with the likes of Rails being squeezed by the 'big two' RTR manufacturers Rails business strategy relies on being able to be able to commission their own products - and demanding Dapol do X, Y and Z (or involving the legal profession trying to claim the costs back for fixing Dapols error) is a very good way of alienating a key facilitator of Rails commissioned models.

 

None of this should be taken to mean the errors are acceptable of course - but rather than sit there like some sort of King Canute figure you need to be realistic about whats going to happen in future. Rails and Dapol are exceedingly unlikely to avoid each other in future and equally duplication simply doesn't happen in the RTR world as its a proven loss maker for manufacturers whenever its been tried. Therefore if Rails decide to partner up with Dapol on another loco class you desire you have to come down off your high horse and be pragmatic. Yes you can wait and see - (but there is the danger, that as with the D class the loco sells out on pre-order) or decide that you simply don't want that loco class anymore, but the reality is should the class be one you desire then you will have to swallow your pride and buy from Rails / Dapol again in future.

What a crass response. Unlike a keyboard warrior I actually took the time to make contact with Rails to a)alert them to the issue and b) ask if there could be a solution. I only went back to Rails with my concern when they advised that nothing would be done.

As far as future models are concerned, I'm not prepared to accept poor quality because it comes from a retailer commission or from a smaller manufacturer, even if it's a model I desire. You may be prepared to accept inferior products, which is your choice. There is no 'high horse' behaviour from me, I will buy if the product is reasonable or good quality, no matter what the source. What I'm not prepared to do again is pay a premium price and then spend extra time and cost on fixing avoidable faults. You have to temper that with the extra price being asked. The BR  version came out at 1p short of £204 as Rails charged postage, which they don't on new Dapol/Bachmann/Hornby products. The announced Dapol Manor in BR lined black is being priced at sub £141 including postage, so there is a large premium on this model. 

As far as Dapol or Rails being too small to expect them to deal with the error - why not, they stand or fall by the quality of their products. Let's not forget that Footplate Models recently accepted that a commission they had from Dapol (pattern emerging here) of a Salmon BR engineers bogie rail wagon, had been produced with an incorrect length body. They alerted buyers, confirmed the buyers details and have arranged for replacement body to be made with the next version. Now that is customer service, from a much smaller retailer. If it was a manufacturing error, they can seek to get the manufacturer to supply replacements at no or reduced cost, however if it was an error at the livery sample stage, not so easy. 

Edited July 13, 2021 by rembrow
Correction

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, rembrow said:

Unlike a keyboard warrior I actually took the time to make contact with Rails to a)alert them to the issue and b) ask if there could be a solution. 

 

I never doubted that

 

1 hour ago, rembrow said:

I only went back to Rails with my concern when they advised that nothing would be done.

 

 

The point is what exactly did you expect to happen? Rails to turn a modest profit into a big loss by going and correcting all the livery errors* out of their own pocket or to ruin their relationship by turning to the legal profession to force action.

 

Any sane analysis would point to neither being a likely course of action  - yet you sounded incredulous that nothing would be done.

 

Yes a complaint was definitely worth making - but equally threatening not to buy Rail / Dapol products will make sods all difference in an environment where outright duplication is avoided is not going to trouble either party particularly when the model concerned is pretty much a sell out on pre-orders.

 

* Don't forget about the wrong font on the SR types

 

1 hour ago, rembrow said:

As far as Dapol or Rails being too small to expect them to deal with the error - why not, they stand or fall by the quality of their products. 

 

Despite all the fluffy PR to try and tell you otherwise, business exist to make cash for their owners. Keeping customers happy is a nice to have, but not essential if you can keep the cash rolling in because the product you sell is unique** or regarded as essential (as many banks,  Insurance and Utility companies have proved for years).  Its also a fact that the grater the imbalance between the size of the two organisations then its also  less likely it is a complaint by the smaller party will result in action (unless it risks becoming a big media issue or they get hauled before the small claims court).

 

Not saying its right - but its how the world works. The model railway world is no different - If Dapol have turned around and said to themselves "stuff the complaints we will just ride this one out" then thats what they will do and no action short of Rails dragging Dapol through the courts is going to change things.

 

** Note what I said earlier about duplication being distantly unprofitable in RTR

 

1 hour ago, rembrow said:

Let's not forget that Footplate Models recently accepted that a commission they had from Dapol (pattern emerging here) of a Salmon BR engineers bogie rail wagon, had been produced with an incorrect length body. They alerted buyers, confirmed the buyers details and have arranged for replacement body to be made with the next version. Now that is customer service, from a much smaller retailer. If it was a manufacturing error, they can seek to get the manufacturer to supply replacements at no or reduced cost, however if it was an error at the livery sample stage, not so easy. 

 

The critical thing is Dapols response.

 

Had Dapol turned round to Footplate Models and effectively said 'get lost' then no amount of complaining would have got any extra Salmon bodies would it! Footplate models would have then been faced with making a loss on the project getting replacement bodies made or alternatively having people like you telling us how crap they are.

 

The reality in the Footplate models case is either that Dapol realised the error was too significant  from a contractual / legal to be swept under the carpet or alternatively it may be a better business decision to take a hit because of the potential longer term revenues which could be gained from the Footplate Models partnership.

 

This is not unusual - just think how many companies offer great insurance or utility deals in year 1 but then want to milk you like a cash cow for subsequent years. Taking a hit profit wise in year 1 has produced substernal  dividends in years 2, 3, 4, etc. 

 

With the D class, Dapol have evidently decided they have nothing to lose finically by ignoring complaints  - and any rectification will have to be paid for by Rails. In such a situation its not surprising Rails are not going to spend their own cash fixing other peoples mistakes.

 

Edited July 13, 2021 by phil-b259

[cctransuk]

6 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

I never doubted that

 

 

The point is what exactly did you expect to happen? Rails to turn a modest profit into a big loss by going and correcting all the livery errors* out of their own pocket or to ruin their relationship by turning to the legal profession to force action.

 

Any sane analysis would point to neither being a likely course of action  - yet you sounded incredulous that nothing would be done.

 

Yes a complaint was definitely worth making - but equally threatening not to buy Rail / Dapol products will make sods all difference in an environment where outright duplication is avoided is not going to trouble either party particularly when the model concerned is pretty much a sell out on pre-orders.

 

* Don't forget about the wrong font on the SR types

 

 

Despite all the fluffy PR to try and tell you otherwise, business exist to make cash for their owners. Keeping customers happy is a nice to have, but not essential if you can keep the cash rolling in because the product you sell is unique** or regarded as essential (as many banks,  Insurance and Utility companies have proved for years).  Its also a fact that the grater the imbalance between the size of the two organisations then its also  less likely it is a complaint by the smaller party will result in action (unless it risks becoming a big media issue or they get hauled before the small claims court).

 

Not saying its right - but its how the world works. The model railway world is no different - If Dapol have turned around and said to themselves "stuff the complaints we will just ride this one out" then thats what they will do and no action short of Rails dragging Dapol through the courts is going to change things.

 

** Note what I said earlier about duplication being distantly unprofitable in RTR

 

 

The critical thing is Dapols response.

 

Had Dapol turned round to Footplate Models and effectively said 'get lost' then no amount of complaining would have got any extra Salmon bodies would it! Footplate models would have then been faced with making a loss on the project getting replacement bodies made or alternatively having people like you telling us how crap they are.

 

The reality in the Footplate models case is either that Dapol realised the error was too significant  from a contractual / legal to be swept under the carpet or alternatively it may be a better business decision to take a hit because of the potential longer term revenues which could be gained from the Footplate Models partnership.

 

This is not unusual - just think how many companies offer great insurance or utility deals in year 1 but then want to milk you like a cash cow for subsequent years. Taking a hit profit wise in year 1 has produced substernal  dividends in years 2, 3, 4, etc. 

 

With the D class, Dapol have evidently decided they have nothing to lose finically by ignoring complaints  - and any rectification will have to be paid for by Rails. In such a situation its not surprising Rails are not going to spend their own cash fixing other peoples mistakes.

 

 

The conclusion that I draw from all this back and forth, and from errors reported here and elsewhere over several years, is that any company partnering with Dapol to produced commissioned models : -

 

a] need their heads examined;

 

b] deserve all they get!

 

CJI.

[micklner]

Luckily I have zero Dapol models in my collection. I doubt very much if that ever will change.

 

Every model issued always to seem to have a catalogue of various problems, or in extreme cases  just simply look naff e.g the god awful old wagons "1980's"  mouldings they still try and sell.

 

Unless Rails etc, stop using Dapol for commisions, nothing will change , at that point they might then realise they need to up their game.

[Compound2632]

30 minutes ago, micklner said:

Unless Rails etc, stop using Dapol for commissions, 

 

It is noteworthy in this respect the Rails' latest pre-Grouping commission, the LNWR Precedent, is with Bachmann, as indeed is the Caledonian 812, whilst the NER petrol-electric railcar was with Heljan. So they've been spreading their bets.

[rembrow]

51 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

I never doubted that

 

 

The point is what exactly did you expect to happen? Rails to turn a modest profit into a big loss by going and correcting all the livery errors* out of their own pocket or to ruin their relationship by turning to the legal profession to force action.

 

Any sane analysis would point to neither being a likely course of action  - yet you sounded incredulous that nothing would be done.

 

Yes a complaint was definitely worth making - but equally threatening not to buy Rail / Dapol products will make sods all difference in an environment where outright duplication is avoided is not going to trouble either party particularly when the model concerned is pretty much a sell out on pre-orders.

 

* Don't forget about the wrong font on the SR types

 

 

Despite all the fluffy PR to try and tell you otherwise, business exist to make cash for their owners. Keeping customers happy is a nice to have, but not essential if you can keep the cash rolling in because the product you sell is unique** or regarded as essential (as many banks,  Insurance and Utility companies have proved for years).  Its also a fact that the grater the imbalance between the size of the two organisations then its also  less likely it is a complaint by the smaller party will result in action (unless it risks becoming a big media issue or they get hauled before the small claims court).

 

Not saying its right - but its how the world works. The model railway world is no different - If Dapol have turned around and said to themselves "stuff the complaints we will just ride this one out" then thats what they will do and no action short of Rails dragging Dapol through the courts is going to change things.

 

** Note what I said earlier about duplication being distantly unprofitable in RTR

 

 

The critical thing is Dapols response.

 

Had Dapol turned round to Footplate Models and effectively said 'get lost' then no amount of complaining would have got any extra Salmon bodies would it! Footplate models would have then been faced with making a loss on the project getting replacement bodies made or alternatively having people like you telling us how crap they are.

 

The reality in the Footplate models case is either that Dapol realised the error was too significant  from a contractual / legal to be swept under the carpet or alternatively it may be a better business decision to take a hit because of the potential longer term revenues which could be gained from the Footplate Models partnership.

 

This is not unusual - just think how many companies offer great insurance or utility deals in year 1 but then want to milk you like a cash cow for subsequent years. Taking a hit profit wise in year 1 has produced substernal  dividends in years 2, 3, 4, etc. 

 

With the D class, Dapol have evidently decided they have nothing to lose finically by ignoring complaints  - and any rectification will have to be paid for by Rails. In such a situation its not surprising Rails are not going to spend their own cash fixing other peoples mistakes.

 

I'm not surprised that Rails are not prepared to spend money to rectify the error, however they are the only conduit in which to make a complaint, which I believe is quite justified. The reason I've decided not to pre order in future, is that Rails charge a £30 non refundable deposit on their loco commissions, so if someone changes their mind, even due to the model having quality issues, they lose their deposit. I don't think it's unreasonable to say I'd rather wait for the model to hit the market before deciding to buy. In view of the recent experience and, due to the risk of losing the deposit, I will wait. I fully realise I risk the model not being available, but most are.

[Venator]

I believe myself to be fairly generous to manufacturers, I stood up for the Hornby 4VEP when it was taking a hammering from people on this forum for having a corridor a few mm out of scale. Here I echo some of the disappointment regarding some rather sloppy and avoidable errors, at £200 a loco one does expect liveries to be correct.

 

I suppose the thing we have to always bear in mind is that nobody is forcing you to buy the model. Quite simply if it doesn't meet your standards don't buy it and build your own. However, despite the niggles, I am delighted the SE&CR D is available in RTR form, and because I cant hope to build kits for myself (lack of skill and time) I have accepted these minor issues.

 

At a time when some manufacturers (Hornby) are becoming less and less adventurous and just retooling the same old celebrity 'big' locos Rails and Dapol should be commended for doing the D. I hope perhaps they might consider doing an E, especially if the bluebell project to build one advances.

Edited July 13, 2021 by Venator