RMweb Premium Daddyman Posted January 5 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 5 4 minutes ago, Wheatley said: The issue with the boiler joint is not so much that it's there, but that it's out by about 0.5mm. That isn't much but it's enough to create a stepped joint and catch the light. Zoom in on Mike's photo above and you'll see. Personally I'm ignoring it (thejoin not the loco) - it knocks the DJH kit into a cocked hat. The other perceived faults I can fix with a paintbrush. Agree on both points (though DJH is a fairly low bar!). It also makes conversion to P4 very difficult - you lose half the boiler when you chuck the chassis! But at least you get rid of the manky wheels. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Porcy Mane Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 31 minutes ago, jjnewitt said: It sticks out like a sore thumb to me "Once seen never hidden". Along with the other two horizontal tooling lines that Hornby gave us. Maybe they were freebies that Hornby decided to give us in compensation for the missing cladding join or possibly the inside cylinder wheel bosses? I'll see if that joint can be improved once the B'masters 2MT chassis turns up. P 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Daddyman Posted January 5 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 5 4 minutes ago, Porcy Mane said: Along with the other two horizontal tooling lines that Hornby gave us. Along with all their other steam models - I called the lines at 10, 2, 4 and 8 o'clock years before the model appeared, and the lines were visible from the first pre-prod shots. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold MikeParkin65 Posted January 5 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 5 7 minutes ago, Wheatley said: The issue with the boiler joint is not so much that it's there, but that it's out by about 0.5mm. That isn't much but it's enough to create a stepped joint and catch the light. Zoom in on Mike's photo above and you'll see. Personally I'm ignoring it (thejoin not the loco) - it knocks the DJH kit into a cocked hat. The other perceived faults I can fix with a paintbrush. I’m just pretending it’s another pipe run. Similar is visible on several Bachmann locos, all of their post war LNER Pacific’s and the new V2 for starters. Like you I am happy with what I can buy, will do some enhancement in due course (building the rest of the layout will take priority lol) and when all is said and done this is the only RTR Standard 2mt 2-6-0 on the market. 😎 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Fair Oak Junction Posted January 5 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 5 In recent years a few BR standards have grown on me, the 2MTs being one of them. These are beautiful models and I hope they sell well. I don't say it too often, but well done Hornby 👍 4 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver Sidelines Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 (edited) I would appear not to be alone in receiving a box with 'bits' loose in the bottom. The bits are mostly plastic and easily identifiable. Steps, Safety Valve, etc. However i and others have been faced with a tiny piece of broken metal. Maybe the vacuum packaging is a tight fit but it appears that the tiny guard irons at the front of the pony truck are prone to damage. I like a challenge and at £170.00 it is excellent play value to spend an afternoon with the super glue. I will add a couple of pictures showing my fettled model. You can just see that the guard iron on the right of the picture has been reattached and given a coat of new paint. Edited January 8 by Silver Sidelines 3 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Fair Oak Junction Posted January 8 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 8 6 minutes ago, Silver Sidelines said: Maybe the vacuum packaging is a tight fit Wouldn't be the first time.... *cough* W1 debacle *cough* 😉 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wheatley Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 The guard irons are .... erm ... Mazak 😬 Let's hope not ... 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold MikeParkin65 Posted January 8 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 8 33 minutes ago, Wheatley said: The guard irons are .... erm ... Mazak 😬 Let's hope not ... Mazak is easy to stress and snap when its good - no need to infer anything else from this. 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philsandy Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 Anyone managed to unplug the tender from the loco? I've got the extraction tool, but it wont budge! If I use anymore force something is going to break. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Ramrig Posted January 12 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 12 I have separated mine in the past fairly easily with the tool. Hopefully my replacement loco is arriving today. Excellent service as always from the team at Derails. If it arrives I can then run it in on the club layout later 👍👍👍 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pre Grouping fan Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 15 minutes ago, philsandy said: Anyone managed to unplug the tender from the loco? I've got the extraction tool, but it wont budge! If I use anymore force something is going to break. Mine was very tight to start with. Ended up using a small screwdriver on each side to wiggle it out. After a few times in/out to test with the body off it eased up. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold MikeParkin65 Posted January 12 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 12 46 minutes ago, philsandy said: Anyone managed to unplug the tender from the loco? I've got the extraction tool, but it wont budge! If I use anymore force something is going to break. Was very tight and was equally hard to get in again, in fact I ended up pushing the receiving socket back up into the tender on the first go. All fixed now, in fact have a second one which I will be fitting Locoman D&H sound to hopefully this weekend 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gopher Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 18 hours ago, Ricochet said: Noticed in Sam's review that his 2mt had serious torque issues. Is it just him, or is it a problem with this model? Not heard of anyone else having these issues... I have not seen Sam's review, so not sure what torque issues he refers to. All I can say is my model runs beautifully, but have not loaded it with heavy loads, by heavy I mean 10+ coaches or 30+ wagons. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Ian Hargrave Posted January 18 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 18 4 minutes ago, Gopher said: I have not seen Sam's review, so not sure what torque issues he refers to. All I can say is my model runs beautifully, but have not loaded it with heavy loads, by heavy I mean 10+ coaches or 30+ wagons. Precisely. It is a model that is designed to be accurate in prototypical haulage capacity.And it performs well. Sam’s knowledge of such locomotives isn’t great. He exists to supply excitement & entertainment to his followers. The 78XXX will be fine with up to 5 coaches in tow but leave it at that. They started out as replacements for e.g. the Dean Goods on the Cambrian WR lines. 7 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium cctransuk Posted January 18 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 18 10 minutes ago, Ian Hargrave said: Sam’s knowledge of such locomotives isn’t great. CJI. 2 1 7 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold gwrrob Posted January 18 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 18 14 minutes ago, Ian Hargrave said: The 78XXX will be fine with up to 5 coaches in tow but leave it at that. Apparently the Kernow railmotor can haul 10 mk 1s for comparison. 1 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wheatley Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 But how does it run out of the bath ? 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold MikeParkin65 Posted January 18 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 18 18 hours ago, Ricochet said: Noticed in Sam's review that his 2mt had serious torque issues. Is it just him, or is it a problem with this model? Not heard of anyone else having these issues... I'm not dead set against Sam in anyway, I think his reviews can be useful especially in showing how the model is constructed. That said I dont understand his measure of torque at all, it seems to rely primarily on the models reaction when he impedes its progress with his finger and whether or not it then slips. No issue with my example of the 2MT, it pulls an expected 6 coach load and I suspect that will improve as it beds in and the tyres get their initial manafacturing glaze worn off. 4 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Richy59 Posted January 18 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 18 (edited) I don’t usually ‘bash’ his reviews as I do find them informative and can be interesting especially when he takes them apart and goes into good mechanical details of locomotives, but I agree with the comments on his torque measurement. At the end he seems to measure the 2MT as being able to pull 20 coaches before its constantly wheel slipping, but sticking a finger in front of it and applying power means he knows it has low torque. It did seem to be geared for lower speeds at 50% power, and he shows it has decent speed at 100%. In the end it gets 4/5 stars across his ‘scores’ except one 3 star rating, and he gives it an overall score of ‘D’ which seems really low for a locomotive he was overall quite positive about. Edited January 18 by Richy59 1 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted January 19 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 19 15 hours ago, Ricochet said: Think the torque issue is probably fine, it does look like it runs extremely slowly as well, has this been an issue for some people? How might it compare running speed-wise to similar locos, for example a Hornby K1? Or a Hornby Rocket? It you c want something fast whixzzing round on your track on teh floor that's ne thing. Butif you want something which delivers to the modeller performance they can relate to the real thing that is something completely different. I get the firm impression, from the level of detail etc, that this model is aimed very much at the latter market so the real test is if it satisfies buyers in that market area and not those who run their trains on the floor or a fold-up baseboard etc. 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Ian Hargrave Posted January 19 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 19 15 hours ago, Ricochet said: Think the torque issue is probably fine, it does look like it runs extremely slowly as well, has this been an issue for some people? How might it compare running speed-wise to similar locos, for example a Hornby K1? I think it would be a useful exercise for you to spend time researching the locomotives that ran on BR in the 1950’s. You might then discover that the K1 ….yes it’s the same 2-6-0 configuration indeed as the Standard 2MT….is actually nearly ,in prototypical terms,twice as powerful and a totally meaningless comparison. Indeed ,comparisons in model rail terms necessarily are. Everyone’s layout is different and speed is only one of the factors involved.A preserved example of the K1 spent a period of time hauling The Jacobite between Fort William and Mallaig .It then had mainline certification. The 2MT I believe is and I think has been since withdrawal and preservation restricted to heritage lines as is 78022 on the KWVR where she is in regular use. Buy the little 2MT and judge its performance for yourself rather than dependence upon what you view on YouTube.Marking model trains performance using some arbitrary self-concocted parameters is absurd. That said,there are some decent enthusiasts ( some of them post on this forum) who video some decent stuff showing their models on well constructed layouts in non judgmental manner 9 2 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold NoggintheNog Posted January 19 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 19 Surely the important part about sams train review is not the silly finger in front of the engine, but that it visibly slowed down on 2nd radius curves when pullling a load. Most here probably have layouts that avoid that tight a curve where possible, but I think dismissing what was very clearly shown, because of who showed it, isn't helpful. 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted January 19 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 19 2 minutes ago, NoggintheNog said: Surely the important part about sams train review is not the silly finger in front of the engine, but that it visibly slowed down on 2nd radius curves when pullling a load. Most here probably have layouts that avoid that tight a curve where possible, but I think dismissing what was very clearly shown, because of who showed it, isn't helpful. Surely the relevant question is why did it slow down? Were the rails dirty, was the track joined correctly (that would have shown up with other models so not wholly relevant), was therea power supply issur e= dur=e to dirt in rail joiners, or was there some particular problem on the loco wheels or the stock? 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold MikeParkin65 Posted January 19 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 19 36 minutes ago, Ian Hargrave said: I think it would be a useful exercise for you to spend time researching the locomotives that ran on BR in the 1950’s. You might then discover that the K1 ….yes it’s the same 2-6-0 configuration indeed as the Standard 2MT….is actually nearly ,in prototypical terms,twice as powerful and a totally meaningless comparison. Indeed ,comparisons in model rail terms necessarily are. Everyone’s layout is different and speed is only one of the factors involved.A preserved example of the K1 spent a period of time hauling The Jacobite between Fort William and Mallaig .It then had mainline certification. The 2MT I believe is and I think has been since withdrawal and preservation restricted to heritage lines as is 78022 on the KWVR where she is in regular use. Buy the little 2MT and judge its performance for yourself rather than dependence upon what you view on YouTube.Marking model trains performance using some arbitrary self-concocted parameters is absurd. That said,there are some decent enthusiasts ( some of them post on this forum) who video some decent stuff showing their models on well constructed layouts in non judgmental manner 9 No Riddles 2MT has gone mainline since the end of steam but several of the very similar Ivatt versions - 46441, 46443 and 46521 have plus the tank version - 41312 have. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now