Jump to content
 

a1 partwork Flying Scotsman


Recommended Posts

I was tempted Stan - but resisted! As you say, a bargain at the price.

 

I suppose registering as a subscriber for the remaining issues would eventually result in a full set. I see that individual issues are cropping up on e-bay, but not that many.

 

Phil

Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone is interested,When I started to run the motor (connected to the wheels) my controller wot I had purchased along with the motor ,it started to heat up after 15/20 min,and then cut out.It did so on subsequent run-ups,I there fore phoned Hatchette and they told me to send it back(with a pre-paid address) which I did.

6 weeks later a metre long package arrived(Saturday there) and lo and behold on opening the box there was a "length of track,1-motor and all the fixings for it,and (wait for it) YET ANOTHER CONTROLLER,WOT I had already sent back!!

The enclosed note saying that the Controller was only for the use on the "1-metre track"!!! :madclear: -----ROB

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stan - "the tooling cost must have run into the tens of thousands of pounds" - maybe thats why lots of the other parts are naff, 'robbing Peter to pay Paul'? rolleyes.gif

 

John

 

I'm not sure what parts you are refering to. Yes, the original backhead was wrong and the less said about the original crankpin nuts (cast whitemetal the better). I do see that some of the works plates have an incorrect number and I do not like the waterslide transfers (but that is probably just me). Any errors in the design indicate to me that the designer was not, perhaps, as knowledgeable as he/she ought to have been and the QA on some of the artwork should have picked up the errors. Having said that, however, the rest of the parts I've received have been pretty OK and well up to the standard of many kits I've built in the past. The magazine, on the other hand, is pretty much a complete waste of time and I think it would have been better for Hachette to cut down on the "three-wheeled goods wagons of the Lower Wittering in the Marsh Light Railway" and concentrated instead on prototype and skills-based instruction which would have been of far more use to many subscribers.

 

Hope your own build is progressing well

 

Regards, Stan Owen

Link to post
Share on other sites

And whilst I agree that the plastic boiler is an okay item, its not the same as having a cast metal boiler which is what DJH normally supply. All smacks of the Hachette model being dare I say it 'inferior'.

 

This model is not a DJH kit. If DJH use cast boilers then that is certainly not an industry standard and it is therefore incorrect to assume that a non-plastic boiler would be cast metal - either MAZAK or common or garden whitemetal.

 

If a boiler of a different material were supplied, I suggest that pre-rolled brass would be more likely. However, given the shape of the boiler, I suspect it would have to be supplied in at least 3 pieces - firebox, taper and parallel sided section. Which means the modeller has to join them together and accurately. And prolly spend a few days filling and filing any gaps at the firebox end. Plus modelling all the details on the firebox. Plus punching some rivets. Plus fixing the boiler bands.

 

Trust me on this as somebody who is mucking around with the 18 piece firebox/boiler/smokebox construction of an 0 gauge 4F ( http://www.jimmcgeow...s/LMS%204F.html ) that a plastic boiler is a very, very good idea and one that I wish other manufacturers would adopt. Oh like Martin Finney uses resin - http://website.lineo...0kit%20pics.htm - as does Just Like the Real Thing ( http://www.justliket...o.uk/steam.html ). Oh and Brassmasters ( http://www.brassmasters.co.uk/4F.htm ). These companies are definitely at the opposite end of inferior. Even allowing for the saving in work that follows from using a plastic boiler there are also the advantages of dimensional accuracy and stability over cast whitemetal. And don't even start thinking about the amount of fettling that nine inches of whitemetal boiler is going to need. Be thankful that Hatchette spent the money on the production of a plastic boiler.

 

As the Hatchette web site says "ABS parts for ease of construction and fine details".

 

 

6 weeks later a metre long package arrived(Saturday there) and lo and behold on opening the box there was a "length of track,1-motor and all the fixings for it,and (wait for it) YET ANOTHER CONTROLLER,WOT I had already sent back!! The enclosed note saying that the Controller was only for the use on the "1-metre track"!!! :madclear:

 

I'm sorry but what were you expecting? The model has always been intended as a static model with the possibility of conversion to a motorised model and the web site only shows the FS running light along a 3m track on a table/desk. No, don't tell me, I think I can work this one out - you already have an 0 Gauge layout and you've been waiting 30 years for this partworks to appear and for the deal on the controller to happen so that you can finally operate your accumulated rolling stock! No?

 

This partwork has always been aimed at the non-serious modeller and if you have any intention to take it further than intended then you should be prepared to accept some responsibility if the model or it's accessories don't fulfill all of your expectations.

 

 

Stan Owen's review is pretty much spot on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but what were you expecting? The model has always been intended as a static model with the possibility of conversion to a motorised model and the web site only shows the FS running light along a 3m track on a table/desk. No, don't tell me, I think I can work this one out - you already have an 0 Gauge layout and you've been waiting 30 years for this partworks to appear and for the deal on the controller to happen so that you can finally operate your accumulated rolling stock! No?

 

This partwork has always been aimed at the non-serious modeller and if you have any intention to take it further than intended then you should be prepared to accept some responsibility if the model or it's accessories don't fulfill all of your expectations.

 

 

Stan Owen's review is pretty much spot on.

 

 

Yes, you are correct, but only up to a point.

 

1: Firstly,I think what got up most of our noses was the fact that the disclaimer only came several issues into the series, and then as fine print buried in the usual "bumpf" at the bottom of the inside page. Obviously not meant to be seen.

 

2: Secondly, if you still have the DVD from issue one, watch the last chapter again - it states quite clearly that the model can be used to build an operating O guage layout.

 

3: The plastic, as you say is ok, but the tender could have easily been supplied in brass, and I would dare to say at less cost than the plastic tooling costs. Had I known that the tender sides and boiler,and cab roof were plastic, I would have given it a miss. So would a lot of others, as testified to by the fact that they are going to the trouble and expense of re-making these parts in brass!

 

The boiler could have been supplied pre-rolled and packed in a cardboard box for protection (like the plastic tender was!).

 

But at the end of the day it all becomes acedemic, as the way this partwork has been marketed has doubtless ensured that many of us will never entertain the thought again, no matter how well some of us complete our models.

 

The up side is that it has been a very interesting learning curve, I can say that I now have skills that I didnt have before, but the point remains that it could/should have been produced a lot differently (and better)!

 

Bushrat

Link to post
Share on other sites

This model is not a DJH kit. If DJH use cast boilers then that is certainly not an industry standard and it is therefore incorrect to assume that a non-plastic boiler would be cast metal - either MAZAK or common or garden whitemetal.

 

If a boiler of a different material were supplied, I suggest that pre-rolled brass would be more likely. However, given the shape of the boiler, I suspect it would have to be supplied in at least 3 pieces - firebox, taper and parallel sided section. Which means the modeller has to join them together and accurately. And prolly spend a few days filling and filing any gaps at the firebox end. Plus modelling all the details on the firebox. Plus punching some rivets. Plus fixing the boiler bands.

 

Trust me on this as somebody who is mucking around with the 18 piece firebox/boiler/smokebox construction of an 0 gauge 4F ( http://www.jimmcgeow...s/LMS%204F.html ) that a plastic boiler is a very, very good idea and one that I wish other manufacturers would adopt. Oh like Martin Finney uses resin - http://website.lineo...0kit%20pics.htm - as does Just Like the Real Thing ( http://www.justliket...o.uk/steam.html ). Oh and Brassmasters ( http://www.brassmasters.co.uk/4F.htm ). These companies are definitely at the opposite end of inferior. Even allowing for the saving in work that follows from using a plastic boiler there are also the advantages of dimensional accuracy and stability over cast whitemetal. And don't even start thinking about the amount of fettling that nine inches of whitemetal boiler is going to need. Be thankful that Hatchette spent the money on the production of a plastic boiler.

 

As the Hatchette web site says "ABS parts for ease of construction and fine details".

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry but what were you expecting? The model has always been intended as a static model with the possibility of conversion to a motorised model and the web site only shows the FS running light along a 3m track on a table/desk. No, don't tell me, I think I can work this one out - you already have an 0 Gauge layout and you've been waiting 30 years for this partworks to appear and for the deal on the controller to happen so that you can finally operate your accumulated rolling stock! No?

 

This partwork has always been aimed at the non-serious modeller and if you have any intention to take it further than intended then you should be prepared to accept some responsibility if the model or it's accessories don't fulfill all of your expectations.

 

 

Stan Owen's review is pretty much spot on.

 

 

 

Are you the bloke whos been mucking about with the super glue too, one post and you think you are god.. :O

 

 

Ted

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you the bloke whos been mucking about with the super glue too, one post and you think you are god.. ohmy.gif

 

 

Ted

 

 

Well put Ted, and I was trying so hard to be polite to him! tongue.gif

 

Bushrat

 

PS. Thats not a bad thought in your previous post, we could all rock up to the NRM workshops with our kits for a working bee, bloody long trip for me though.......................!

Link to post
Share on other sites

F.A.O:--Blev!,

Just to get things in their right prospective,

This is my FIRST attempt at any kind of model,and considering the pitfalls

thats came along with this model I think whats been done by the "TYRO'S"

IS DAMN BLOODY GOOD!

I would therefore,instead of bouncing out of the wood-work on a one horse

crusade,leave well alone and go back from whence you came. :angry: --ROB

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Stan Owen's view of the partwork, and consider his assessment correct. Perhaps the problem is deciding with what the kit should be compared. Against the typical model railway loco kit, this one has been reasonable. There have been problems, such as the mismatch between footplate and main frames, and some detail inaccuracies, but no worse than many of the railway kits I have seen. However, compared with plastic kits available covering a wide range of subjects the Hatchett/DJH type of kit requires much more "fettling" than many non railway modellers may expect. I think the boiler and the tender are much better for being plastic mouldings, and would be beyond the skill of many to have formed from etched brass.And I would have thought that any one who already had an O gauge layout large enough to put this loco to reasonable use would not only already have a suitable controller, but would also have enough experience to fit the loco with a suitable motor/gear box. At £20 a month this has been worthwhile and enjoyable, but I would not have been prepared to spend £700 in one go on the DJH kit.

I wonder if Hatchet will keep the moulds and reissue the kit as a partwork again some time in the future.IT seems to have been reasonably popular, and has certainly provided as much entertainment on the internet as it did in building it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: A1 Partwork

by Blue Peter » Tue Sep 22, 2009 5:21 pm

Thanks,Hudsonrobert49,

The only tools I used was a 4"-vice and a piece of round bar wot I bent over gently,with a plastic mallet,Thanks also 4472.---------------ROB

Blue Peter

MARK PAGE 92 ON THE OLD SITE

 

Thanks Ted, found it right after your post! I went scouting through the old thread and found it there...... Much appreciated :-)

 

Mark

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Stan Owen's view of the partwork, and consider his assessment correct. Perhaps the problem is deciding with what the kit should be compared. Against the typical model railway loco kit, this one has been reasonable. There have been problems, such as the mismatch between footplate and main frames, and some detail inaccuracies, but no worse than many of the railway kits I have seen. However, compared with plastic kits available covering a wide range of subjects the Hatchett/DJH type of kit requires much more "fettling" than many non railway modellers may expect. I think the boiler and the tender are much better for being plastic mouldings, and would be beyond the skill of many to have formed from etched brass.And I would have thought that any one who already had an O gauge layout large enough to put this loco to reasonable use would not only already have a suitable controller, but would also have enough experience to fit the loco with a suitable motor/gear box. At £20 a month this has been worthwhile and enjoyable, but I would not have been prepared to spend £700 in one go on the DJH kit.

I wonder if Hatchet will keep the moulds and reissue the kit as a partwork again some time in the future.IT seems to have been reasonably popular, and has certainly provided as much entertainment on the internet as it did in building it.

 

I'm not quite sure where you get the idea from that the boiler and tender sides and cab roof would have been formed from etched brass, in other kits maybe, but in DJH's case these items in their own kits are one piece cast metal mouldings, though I have to agree that the supplied plastic items are good mouldings which do not particularly detract from the build.

 

However, the novice builder would not have bought into this series expecting to have to 'fettle' and put right what are in essence design or production faults, having to chop frames was beyond belief!

Which makes me wonder how many novice's have been put off future metal loco kits or have given up the ghost because of this?

Whats worse is that DJH were suposedly building the model ahead of customers, which questions as to why aspects of the build had to be put right!

 

Using the cab as an example, what I don't get is why the series version has holes where it should have rivets, whilst in DJH's own offering the cab rivets are an integral part of the metal panels, another great idea of making the build simpler for the customer?

 

The series seems to have stumbled along from one set of parts to another and introduced parts such as sight glasses that were were not even on the 1928 FS, whilst not including items such as a tender number plate which was!

 

As for it being intended as a static model, customers stumbled across this little bute by way of a discreet disclaimer some 44 weeks into the build, at no point prior to this was there any suggestion of the model being primarily static display, it has nothing to do with who has an O-gauge layout to run it or not, it has more to do with not being told the truth at the outset.

 

And there was even a last laugh in the final issue re the works plate number being wrong, while funnily enough the series model does not even reflect the finish of the FS as it was seen in 1928 at its inaugural, which is what the series and model is all about!

 

At the end of the day we're all entitled to our own opinion.

 

Well said Blue Peter B)

Link to post
Share on other sites

it states quite clearly that the model can be used to build an operating O gauge layout.

To be honest, I can't be bothered to watch it again but I'll happily accept your point. Except, of course, it wasn't the locomotive that gave up the ghost, it was the controller - which raises the point that you appear to be agreeing that somebody, somewhere has an 0 Gauge layout that's just been waiting for the controller so that it could become operational. And, please, some consistency in your response would be appreciated - to decry one piece of advice because it was issued some way into the programme and then fail to mention that the DVD was supplied 4 postings into the same programme just isn't cricket.

 

but the tender could have easily been supplied in brass (snip) by the fact that they are going to the trouble and expense of re-making these parts in brass!

Unfortunately, you appear to have answered your own point in part.

 

The boiler could have been supplied pre-rolled and packed in a cardboard box for protection

 

Brass loco kits are generally produced by one man bands with very short production runs where some limited hand finishing doesn't add too much (if anything) to the final cost – there tends to be a hobby element retained by the kit supplier. When you come to the numbers involved in the partworks together with a more commercially minded company, reducing staff and handling costs and increasing throughput become important in costing.

 

So lets think about supplying a brass tender. Do you want the etch in 3 parts or a single piece? If 3 then we have problems of joining them accurately (the length of the tender side will accentuate any problems). There is also the problem of getting an accurate bend along the whole of the top edge of the sides. And without any soldering.

 

If supplied as a single piece with half etches to locate the corners, we've got problems posting it at about 410 mm long.

 

Or it could be supplied as a single piece box as the plastic unit was supplied. But that means people sitting in a factory snipping etches, filing brass, rolling bends and bending the corners. And all that is going to add to the cost big-time.

 

And the boiler couldn't have been supplied as a single piece as I've already described. And given that the kit is supposed to be constructed without soldering, I can see a huge pile of difficulty getting the boiler aligned and with all the detail problems involved.

 

And Ballymoss018 - when you get a clue feel free to join in with sensible comments. I've never made a DJH kit and therefore I *DID* check out their web site. But I didn't check every single locomotive kit which is why I said *if*. Have you checked every single 7mm locomotive kit that they sell to ensure that none are supplied with a brass boiler? No, I didn't think so.

 

DJH do infact supply cast pewter boilers in their kits

They supply whitemetal not pewter. Pewter is whitemetal but whitemetal isn't pewter.

 

Can you please point me to the 'industry standard' that you refer to

You're sitting at the greatest research tool ever invented and you can't be bothered to get off your digital arse and find out for yourself? Do some searching and find out what other kit manufacturers supply in their kits.

 

scare them off more why dont you

What? By supporting the concept of using ABS for complex parts instead of going with the brass, whitemetal and solder merchants who are suggesting, mistakenly I argue, that the kit is therefore inferior? I like soldering and stuff as much as anybody but I haven't lost sight of the fact that this kit was aimed at the non-serious modeller and therefore those without soldering skills.

 

Be nice if someone does thier homework before spouting off,

Be nice if somebody could understand the written word before spouting off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

- Blue Peter

 

This is my FIRST attempt at any kind of model,and considering the pitfalls thats came along with this model I think whats been done by the "TYRO'S" IS DAMN BLOODY GOOD!

 

And if the tyros can do good models, that's some indication that the model is OK too - so I'm glad that you agree with me then.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for it being intended as a static model, customers stumbled across this little bute by way of a discreet disclaimer some 44 weeks into the build, at no point prior to this was there any suggestion of the model being primarily static display,

Unfortunately, the original TV advert said exactly that. A copy of said advert is carried on the front page of the Hatchette FS web site.

 

Whoops - complete nonsense - the tv ad is carried on the second page where there's some text that describes mobilising the FS kit

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, now, children,lets not squabble at the end of the party. I was trying to suggest the plastic boiler and tender body was a good solution, because some seem to think that plastic is unacceptable on principle. The DJH solution of a cast boiler may be the best for their production numbers, but is not suitable for the partwork numbers. Also I just wanted to point out that if not plastic, and cast metal was too difficult to make given the numbers and too heavy for the post, that would have just left etched brass, which would have been too difficult for most builders. I personally think the plastic boiler is a better item than a whitemetal one. Some of the better kit makers now use the nearest they can get to moulded plastic, resin mouldings. Also we can be sure that because Hatchett made the choice of plastic it was the cheapest.

I agree there have been some very bad errors in the kit, and given that Hatchett are not railway experts but DJH are, and that was one of the reasons they were involved, it seems to me that they are as much to blame as Hatchett. It does seem that to get as large a sale of the partworks as possible Hatchett have tried to appeal to two or even three quite dissimilar markets. One the kit builders as a hobby, the people who tend to buy the accurately made plastic kits found in ModelZone and the like. Two the people who have never before made such a kit, but could be tempted to try by the fame of the Flying Scotsman, and third the railway modeller. They did this by basing their efforts on a kit originally aimed at the third group. The first two groups found difficulties and mistakes they were not expecting, and the third group were unhappy with the accuracy of the model, and the quality of some of the parts. It seems to me that Hatchett may be partwork experts but they did not understand the model railway market; they were used to the display market, and did not fully understand the implications of a working model. This partwork was not fully thought through, and DJH did not advise Hatchett as well as they might in my opinion. But as can be seen from some of the pictures of finished models we got there in the end, and I hope that can be some encouragement to those still building.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

They supply whitemetal not pewter. Pewter is whitemetal but whitemetal isn't pewter.

The DJH boiler is pewter. As are the boilers in the initial 2,000 test issues of the part work.

 

As mentioned, the plastic bits are there because of mass prodution and also to make the build easier. I think the only bits of brass in the whole kit that need a curve putting in them are the cab sides.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Blev -

 

http://www.buildtheflyingscotsman.co.uk/

 

Quotes from the site:

 

"complete the 1928 flying scotsman"

 

"Build this unique replica of the Flying Scotsman as it was in 1928"

 

Fact, what is presented does not reflect the 1928 Flying Scotsman as was seen in 1928, care to expand as to why not?

 

"The locomotive and tender will look fantastic as a static display model, but if you wish to run your model you will require a suitable electric motor",

 

Where exactly in the TV ad from the web site does it say or suggest that the model "is designed primarily for static display" which is what the disclaimer says?

"The locomotive and tender will look fantastic as a static display model, but if you wish to run your model you will require a suitable electric motor", this is a choice statement, whereas the disclaimer is a discreet way of saying that the model is not really intended for running because it has not been designed as such!

 

The exact same disclaimer should have been noted in the TV AD/DVD and within issue 1, not 44 weeks later which is the very point.

 

This aside, it would appear that there is reason behind your sudden appearance in an attempt to fight the corner of the series :O

Link to post
Share on other sites

The DJH boiler is pewter. As are the boilers in the initial 2,000 test issues of the part work.

 

As mentioned, the plastic bits are there because of mass prodution and also to make the build easier. I think the only bits of brass in the whole kit that need a curve putting in them are the cab sides.

 

 

So for the test issues it would appear that buyers were supplied with DJH parts!

How daft is that, testing a series with parts that differ in material from those supplied when the series was launched nationally, my its all coming out now!

 

Wonder how many who bought into the test were let down by the sight of plastic items when they thought they would be metal as per the test?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Blev:

 

Regardless of all this, there is still no escaping a couple of points:

 

1: The advertising on tv (here in Australia) and the DVD BOTH indicated that this could be motorised as an OPERATING MODEL suitable for use on an

O guage L A Y O U T! No mention was made about a 1 metre length of track, aside from it being test run on the DVD. One has to wonder why anybody with anything between the ears would invest this much time, effort and money into something to have it run up and down a 1 meter length of track!

 

2: The fact that in the DVD and issue one, the boiler, tender, cab roof were painted whilst the rest of the model shown was "raw" (ie. brass and castings) in my opinion was so that the plastic parts would not be shown as, er, plastic. Regardless of the fact that the finished (plastic) product is, as you say, more accurate, people should have been told. I have to disagree about the tender body though, it should have been brass, and it wouldnt have been too difficult to put the bends on the top if they used the same method as they employed for the cab.

 

3: To notify people at issue 44 or whatever it was, that it was only meant to be a static model, when they have committed to the build as it were, and almost at the half way point, should not have been done.

 

4: As these pages and the old site will attest, there are/were many faults that have had to be addressed, such as the clearance of the front splashers, having to remove parts already attached such as the inner cab windows etc.

 

5: The instructions for assembly therefore are not up to scratch, and that I think I can safely say is an opinion a good many of us share.

 

6: Many parts shown in the magazine and the DVD appear to be different from what we got in the kit, most notably, the front boiler support, which in the magazine appears to be cast metal (we got plastic) From this the reader is free to draw his own conclusions.

 

7: The instruction to use super glue for assembly, when it is quite clearly shown on the DVD from issue 1 that some of these parts are SOLDERED - probably by the same bod that put the back on cabwards. blink.gif

 

8: Lastly, I would mention my biggest personal gripe with this kit, that would be the infernal wobbling wheels, due to the undesized axle ends! AAARGH!

 

As I said before, apart from the problems, there are some really good kits being completed, and many of us have learned new skills. I just wish that the advertising and production had been a little differently.

 

By the way, Blev, are you building one? Have you had to do much fettling?

 

Fond Regards,

Bushrat wink.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sending out sets of the original kit make reasonable sense as a base line on which to evaluate whether the project was plausible. If non-modellers can't build the original, there is little point pursuing it further. There was room for improvement on their evaluation of subsequent deviations from this original design. Partworks in general have a poor reputation with this. I'd expect many buyers did a few few web searches on the various other models that have been done in the recent past (Bismark, radio controlled cars etc) and came to their own conclusions on what compromises would be in store by using a partwork format. It would be interesting to hear from anyone who has attempted both an original DJH and a partwork kit to see if there is any material difference in difficulty between the two.

 

In thinking about the relative merits of entirely etched brass construction, I remembered my early experience with etched brass kits. some years back when whitemetal kits fell from fashion in favour of 'modern' etched brass, some maufacturers seemed to go out of their way to make practically the entire kit from one material, regardless of cost or practicality. For the young teenager who is unsure what shape cylinders or buffers should be, it was a nightmare, especially in 4mm. My experience of poor etched brass kits with minimal instructions or diagrams put me off railway modelling for 10 years or so. Brass rolled boilers will always give the best results in the hands of a craftsman and allow more prototypical variations than plastic. However, for the novice this may be a battle to leave until a later kit. As has been said, after a layer of paint it will be forgotten.

 

I guess most DJH pacifics end up mantlepiece models most of the time. A layout that can let a loco of this size run for any period is enormous. A shed scene, diorama or similar is quite possible, but few can afford a tail chaser without putting it in the garden. At a model railway show, it's usually the largest club layout in the hall.

 

Simon

Link to post
Share on other sites

This aside, it would appear that there is reason behind your sudden appearance in an attempt to fight the corner of the series

May I suggest that you consult a professional if you have concerns about such public displays of your paranoia. I am not aware that there were any rules and regulations about when and where posters should post. I appreciate that many posters have been wittering away on this forum for what seems like decades but even they had to have a first post. But just in case it's not paranoia, there have been pages by the dozen on the various forums about this model which have been little more than whingefests about nothing in particular. There have even been cases where posters have declared themselves as no longer building the model and yet have continued to whinge about it for months after. Let's just say I get a bit snotty when such things seem to re-appear. I even had a go at one of the national railway modelling mags who reckoned it would be a waste of time, even before the partworks started! And I have only been challenging those views that I see as erroneus, I haven't thrown my own tuppence-worth into the whinging ring yet.

 

With regard to the specific condition of the 1928 FS, I have a cynical and pragmatic view about it :- If you are not a regular railway modeller then it would have been of little consequence (the ignorance is bliss is approach), if you are aware of the faults of the model when it comes to the specific details then the various approaches have been highlighted on this and other forums, including doing your own research from O S Nock and Vol. 1 of Yeadon's Register for example.

 

Which I would expect as part of the normal procedure in building any loco. And even then you've entered a world of doubt and misdirection where no single source can really be trusted or where if multiple sources exist, you can't be certain that they haven't simply copied errors from an earlier source. For example, there are many tales of frustration caused by modellers building from design drawings rather than as-constructed drawings or photographs with an established provenance. There is a current thread on the SEmG board trying to correct the errors in a book published in 1936!

 

I have a load of minor niggles about the accuracy of various parts of the model but they are no worse than many other loco kits claiming total accuracy. For example, there is a photo in Nock of the side of the cab of the FS allegedly ready for it's inaugural non-stop northbound run from which one can try and establish the detail of the cab windows. I am yet to be convinced that the model deals with this adequately. And any beading should be circular rather than flat. And so on ad nauseum.

 

I would challenge anybody who thinks that they have an accurate model of a locomotive to set it down on a table and invite comments from an assembled audience of people "familiar" with the class and date of the modelled loco. For example, have you checked the dimensional accuracy of the model?

 

Sorry, don't understand what you're getting at in the middle bit of your post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bushrat :-

 

1) But the model (except for the wheel problem) can be run on a layout. The problem was with the cheapo controller supplied - and to suggest that that prevented the model being run on a layout is just plain silly. Now I'll repeat that - the model can be run on a layout.

 

2) Well I checked on the web before becoming a credit card subscriber so it wasn't a surprise to me - what more can I say? The bendy top using pliers? - prolly end up with creases along the bend. I understand that having a plastic tender body might cause construction problems but I genuinely believe that the overall process became a lot easier.

 

3) OK, for the sake of getting my life back, I concede this point.

 

4) + 5) Yes, agreed, some of the instructions and the building procedure would indicate that a village somewhere was missing it's idiot. But then, said instructions have been above the level of many that I have attempted to use on other kits.

 

6) The only viewpoint I could offer is perhaps that this was the result of the construction review provided by DJH.

 

7) TBH, I hadn't noticed - what and how I joined it together was going to be my decision (whatever you do, don't ask me about the MAZAK).

 

8) Agreed, I ordered a motor, gearbox and a set of Slater's wheels yesterday (and not from Hatchette either).

 

By the way, Blev, are you building one? Have you had to do much fettling?

My various bits are currently held in 3 plastic boxes with the big bits in a box file. I have been patiently waiting for everybody else to make the mistakes the series to end so that that I can consider stuff. I am aware of the amount of fettling that will be required. I am also aware that that fettling is a hell of a lot less than the fettling I've had to do on other kits (particularly whitemetal 4mm kits). I do have one 7mm kit which has been permanently banished back into it's box simply because of the amount of fettling required - I shan't reveal it's maker but it's an Adam's radial tank with everything in whitemetal apart from some lost wax bits and a brass boiler tube.

Link to post
Share on other sites

May I suggest that you consult a professional if you have concerns about such public displays of your paranoia.

 

Following this inappropriate comment Blev will no longer be able to access this topic while logged in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...