Wright writes.....

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, CF MRC said:

There have been some interesting and, dare I say it, fairly predictable comments on the RTR  vs. kit built conundrum  on WW.
 

On a big exhibition layout such as CF the availability of decent commercial models as a basis for conversion to 2mm FS is a godsend: e.g. the advent of the Farish Jinty’s was in the nick of time, just as our original Grafar conversions were beginning to wear out. Similarly our Dapol B17 is now on its second chassis with a decent motor fitted. Jolly useful engines (if somewhat lacking in the traction stakes) that will be the first ones to get out and start the layout running at a show -  and the range available will get better…
 

As to kit building, there aren’t that many kits that suit our particular theme, but shot down 4mm etches are a good starting place. My last loco was one of these, the GC 9P ‘Valour’. 

This was shot down from some excellent 4mm scale Nick Eason loco etches and a tender etch from Paul Craig artwork. The construction was fairly straightforward and the superb finish was from

the hand of Ian Rathbone. I normally paint my own engines, but at the time my eyesight wasn’t quite up to scratch (it is now) for such a complex livery. I enjoyed making the engine, and it looks super on CF at the head of an early Pullman train, but somehow it’s just a bit too far short of ‘all my own work’
 

However, my current project, the NER 4-6-2 class is in a different league. The tender again uses etches (from Steve Barnsfield original artwork) but the loco is nearly completely scratch-built apart from the driving wheels and gears. I am

enjoying this construction far more as I have complete control of how it is made: e.g. I can design it to make it easy to paint and use the ‘correct’ materials for the valve gear. 

So is there a right and wrong: I don’t think so. I have been scratch building locos for nearly 50 years, so some might say there’s an advantage - I have also invested in superb tools for the job over the years; so that’s another advantage. Importantly, it’s a matter of what gives you pleasure that counts. The ‘short cut’ conversion of an excellent commercial model gives me satisfaction when I know it will be useful on CF. But the real head turners are when a unique scratch built engine makes it’s way on the layout: that is what really gives me pleasure.
 

Tim

 

If there exists a sliding scale (from 1 to 10) of personal satisfaction, then opening a box and running a loco from a RTR firm as it comes would give me a 1.

 

Modifying it, involving converting it to my chosen EM would be a 2 or 3 depending on the amount of work done. Repainting it would be a 4.

 

Building a kit and having it painted by somebody else would be a 5. A scratchbuild painted by somebody else would be a 6.

 

A kit build and painted by me in a simple livery would be a 7 and a complex livery an 8. Scratchbuilding a loco and painting it with a fairly plain livery a 9 and something like your "Skittle Alley" is a 10 all the way!

 

If I ever pluck up the courage to try to turn a couple of my older kits into decent models, painted by me, I may need new numbers adding.

 

I hope everybody understands that these are my own personal satisfactions and I have no illusions that everybody else should feel the same way. I would be interested in different "scores" that others apply to their modelling, if anybody does. I have just invented my scale now, so it isn't serious or based on any in depth research!

 

As the years pass and my experience grows, items that score between 1 and 6 rarely feature as I have enough in the 7 to 10 range to keep me occupied and happy. In recent years, I have done a couple of scratchbuilds that went to Ian Rathbone for painting, which I have illustrated on here before. They were not for me and I don't use the same scale for models I build for others. For them, the quality of the finished model is more important than my personal satisfaction.  

[Willie Whizz]

3 hours ago, Steven B said:

The DJH/Wright/Rathbone combination might well be better than a RTR equivalent, but the DJH/Average Modeller/Average Painter probably won't. I'd also suggest that a fleet of RTR locos of a particular class is probably more consistent mechanically and visually than a kit put together by the average Joe Blogs.

 

Most of my loco fleet is RTR - of the 3 loco classes I've kit built all but one have since been released RTR allowing multiple purchases. Renumbering still happens, but the end result it a more representative fleet and time spent on what can't be bought RTR (wagon kits and semi-decent weathering!).

 

Steven B.

I don’t think any fair person would deny that what has in a recent post been called Tony W’s “privileged position in the hobby” has been well and deservedly earned.
 

However, I also agree with Steven B’s view above. The comparisons of RTR with kit-built models (sometimes with additional/ exchanged components), made by a vastly-experienced and former professional modeller and finished by another professional painter and liner, can be rather invidious sometimes, because they are not really representative of what a typical modeller - even a fairly experienced one - can usually hope to achieve. Nor afford, frankly; not in significant numbers anyway. 
 

I suspect many of us would say that if we could get to 70-75% of Tony’s standard we’d be rather pleased with ourselves … 

[LNER4479]

OK - so here's the results of my comparisons of the DJH 'Duchess' versus the RTR (Hornby) offerings. I'm trying to stay focussed on the quality of the kit, not the quality of the build(!)

 

From L-R: 'Sir's build from the DJH kit; earlier Chinese era Hornby offering, with a fair bit of detailing; current Chinese offering, with standard detailing added; current 'Hornby Dublo' offering, also with standard detailing added.

 

The all-important front end comparisons first. A noticeable difference is the relative width of the smokebox ring versus the diameter of the smokebox door itself. The ring on the DJH version seems a little too thick too me; 46256 looks too thin(!); 46252 looks about right(!?). Best way is to compare with the real thing (see below!). The early Chinese version suffers badly because the front chassis lugs are visible and the valve chest cover correspondingly too low. The DJH version scores highly in terms of thickness of smoke deflectors.

 

 

Talking of which ...

 

An interesting comparison of tenders. Again, the DJH version has the advantage of etched sides. Note that the early Chinese version didn't include coal pusher (although it did include the little box on the outside of the rear bulkhead!) The current versions have caught up with DJH in that respect.

 

And now each in turn, starting with the DJH version. Looks like a Duchess to me!

 

The early Chinese version - with a fair bit of detail / improvements to drag it up to some sort of acceptable standard. Major mod is the adding of fixed rear frames (see below), using part available from Peter's spares (oddly for the 1970s Margate version!). You can't see it, but the rear pony truck needs a lot of hacking to get it to swing sufficiently. Replacement front bogie wheels and quite a bit of other extra detailing included (still needs fall plate and cab doors). Valve gear reasonable but a bit deficient at the top of the combination lever; no guard irons on rear of tender; no front brake shoes (compare with DJH above for all three of these). Nice, subtle 'nearly clean' weathering job by Mr Oliver of this parish.

 

Here's one that's yet to have the treatment (sorry for slight fuzziness). Look at that awful rear pony truck! Remember, this was the prevailing Duchess RTR offering until only about five years ago.

 

Current RTR offering (1) Various welcome improvements (eg improved motion bracket), improving appearance of top of combination lever. BUT - it's now become a 4-6-0!! I guess that issue has been done to death elswhere

 

Current RTR offering (2) Die-cast body but that doesn't seem to have compromised the detail. The tender rear guard irons are visible here. Although it's the different version of the front end, this seems the closest comparison to the DJH version. One thing I've just noticed is a lot of fresh air between the bottom of the firebox and the rear frames on the DJH version - really needs a representation of the ashpan. 46252 looks more convincing in that respect ... but at the cost of it being a 4-6-0? And, although I didn't really want to comment on livery per se - the lower cab roof (eaves?) has gone green - should be black (as per earlier 46239 offering!) Issue not helped by the real 46233 running around with it painted green in the 2010s! 

 

Conclusion? For me the DJH version wins out, certainly prior to the latest Hornby version.

Edited March 29, 2023 by LNER4479

[Barry Ten]

17 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

 

 

The early Chinese version - with a fair bit of detail / improvements to drag it up to some sort of acceptable standard. Major mod is the adding of fixed rear frames (see below), using part available from Peter's spares (oddly for the 1970s Margate version!). 

 

 

 

 

 

Nice Duchesses. I'm sure you're aware, but for those that aren't, Comet do (or did) a detailing kit which included

the rear frame extensions. I've a couple which I've still to fit to my early Chinese Duchesses.

[30368]

22 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

It's more detailed than my DJH A2. 

 

I just think that they all look just great Tony, what a splendid family of Pacifics the LNER(BR) possessed. I, naturally include Mr. Thompson's efforts too. (Blast, have I said too much?)

 

Kind regards,

 

Richard B

[uax6]

On 28/03/2023 at 09:22, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Tony,

 

Your comments are very kind; thank you.

 

However, to illustrate my point about not being able to paint to a professional standard, may I offer the following images, please? (Probably seen before, but in a different context).

 

 

I scratch-built this K4 over 40 years ago, painting it all myself using sables, enamels and transfer lining (note that the wheels are not lined - beyond my capabilities).

 

 

As a 'layout loco', I suppose it's tolerable. 

 

In contrast...........

 

 

 

Ian Rathbone's rendition of LNER green on this ACE P2 I built for Mark Allatt. No transfer lining here (other than the boiler bands which are hand-lined on to transfer paper). Note how the wheels are lined. (The colour cast was caused by the NEC's odd lighting).

 

 

Geoff Haynes' rendition of LNER green on this DJH A2 I built for Jesse Sim. Again, all hand-lined (with transfer boiler bands hand-lined on to transfer paper). Wheels also lined.

 

 

It took a brave man to weather it!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

Funnily enough, I find lining wheels quite easy. Its all in the tools, and a decent bow-compass is all you need. I went through a stage of buying up old bowpen sets on ebay, and gained a couple of really good bowpens and bow-compasses. The bow compass follows the rim easily. But mind you I don't need to line around the crank boss...

 

Andy G

[Tony Wright]

More comparisons............

 

I'm trying not to make any judgements here, just making observations.................

 

 

A Bachmann RTR Austerity as supplied.

 

How it can be made more-realistic after the touch of a master weatherer............

 

 

 

The late Dave Shakespeare's work. 

 

I had a go at weathering a Bachmann Austerity............

 

 

 

Using dry-brush enamels (I don't own an airbrush). 

 

This example actually started off as VULCAN, and replicates the condition I saw her in, at Babworth, in mid-September 1958. We'd been for a family day out in Lincolnshire, and were returning over the Worksop Road Bridge leaving Retford. The Down pegs were off, so dad stopped the car at the end of the ramp. My brother and I rushed to the middle of the bridge to witness a brand new D207 dashing northwards on the afternoon 'Talisman'. A really grubby Austerity was waiting in the Down loop, and, after a short while, it was given the road after the EE Type 4. My brother and I danced for joy when it turned out to be the only namer of the lot! 

 

And, in comparison............

 

 

 

A DJH Austerity. Either Alan Hammet or Tony Geary built this (one of a pair), and it was Tony's property. He weathered it. 

 

I suppose the 'thin' metal edges to the coal space and cab are more-convincing than on the plastic RTR example, and this will certainly pull more. However, the RTR one looks OK on the layout. 

 

BR Standard Fives next..........

 

 

A Bachmann example, representing 73050 in preserved condition. I've fitted all the extra bits to this.

 

 

Contrary to my previous observation, the return crank leans the wrong way on the offside of this Bachmann model. 

 

Without making judgements, I much prefer this one below........

 

 

 

It was built originally by Roy Jackson (in OO) for a chap who subsequently disappeared (never to be heard of again). Roy had also built a 9F for the guy, and, after several years, gave them to me (I'd given him stuff in the past, some of which still runs on Retford). Geoff Kent had painted/weathered it, but its running wasn't very smooth (it had an open-framed motor and straight 40:1 gears). I fitted a DJH combo to give 'perfect' running, and it's a privilege to have it on Little Bytham (it also gets a run on Shap). I also fitted the correct type bogie wheels., It has much more of a 'story' to tell.

 

Why wouldn't I prefer this to an RTR equivalent? It has a real provenance

 

Some more comparisons later.

 

Anyone got any others? 

 

 

[melmoth]

21 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

More comparisons............

 

I'm trying not to make any judgements here, just making observations.................

 

 

A Bachmann RTR Austerity as supplied.

 

How it can be made more-realistic after the touch of a master weatherer............

 

 

 

The late Dave Shakespeare's work. 

 

I had a go at weathering a Bachmann Austerity............

 

 

 

Using dry-brush enamels (I don't own an airbrush). 

 

This example actually started off as VULCAN, and replicates the condition I saw her in, at Babworth, in mid-September 1958. We'd been for a family day out in Lincolnshire, and were returning over the Worksop Road Bridge leaving Retford. The Down pegs were off, so dad stopped the car at the end of the ramp. My brother and I rushed to the middle of the bridge to witness a brand new D207 dashing northwards on the afternoon 'Talisman'. A really grubby Austerity was waiting in the Down loop, and, after a short while, it was given the road after the EE Type 4. My brother and I danced for joy when it turned out to be the only namer of the lot! 

 

And, in comparison............

 

 

 

A DJH Austerity. Either Alan Hammet or Tony Geary built this (one of a pair), and it was Tony's property. He weathered it. 

 

I suppose the 'thin' metal edges to the coal space and cab are more-convincing than on the plastic RTR example, and this will certainly pull more. However, the RTR one looks OK on the layout. 

 

It might just be my uneducated eye, but the various pipe runs along the boiler on the RTR Austerity seem much finer than on the kit-built one. 

 

[Tony Wright]

17 minutes ago, melmoth said:

 

It might just be my uneducated eye, but the various pipe runs along the boiler on the RTR Austerity seem much finer than on the kit-built one. 

 

You might well be right Jon,

 

I did a bit more work on the pipework of this DJH Austerity I built/painted/weathered...................

 

 

Thinning some runs down and adding some.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[melmoth]

 

That one looks much better to me.

[robertcwp]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

More comparisons............

 

I'm trying not to make any judgements here, just making observations.................

 

 

A Bachmann RTR Austerity as supplied.

 

How it can be made more-realistic after the touch of a master weatherer............

 

 

 

The late Dave Shakespeare's work. 

 

I had a go at weathering a Bachmann Austerity............

 

 

 

Using dry-brush enamels (I don't own an airbrush). 

 

This example actually started off as VULCAN, and replicates the condition I saw her in, at Babworth, in mid-September 1958. We'd been for a family day out in Lincolnshire, and were returning over the Worksop Road Bridge leaving Retford. The Down pegs were off, so dad stopped the car at the end of the ramp. My brother and I rushed to the middle of the bridge to witness a brand new D207 dashing northwards on the afternoon 'Talisman'. A really grubby Austerity was waiting in the Down loop, and, after a short while, it was given the road after the EE Type 4. My brother and I danced for joy when it turned out to be the only namer of the lot! 

 

And, in comparison............

 

 

 

A DJH Austerity. Either Alan Hammet or Tony Geary built this (one of a pair), and it was Tony's property. He weathered it. 

 

I suppose the 'thin' metal edges to the coal space and cab are more-convincing than on the plastic RTR example, and this will certainly pull more. However, the RTR one looks OK on the layout. 

 

BR Standard Fives next..........

 

 

A Bachmann example, representing 73050 in preserved condition. I've fitted all the extra bits to this.

 

 

Contrary to my previous observation, the return crank leans the wrong way on the offside of this Bachmann model. 

 

Without making judgements, I much prefer this one below........

 

 

 

It was built originally by Roy Jackson (in OO) for a chap who subsequently disappeared (never to be heard of again). Roy had also built a 9F for the guy, and, after several years, gave them to me (I'd given him stuff in the past, some of which still runs on Retford). Geoff Kent had painted/weathered it, but its running wasn't very smooth (it had an open-framed motor and straight 40:1 gears). I fitted a DJH combo to give 'perfect' running, and it's a privilege to have it on Little Bytham (it also gets a run on Shap). I also fitted the correct type bogie wheels., It has much more of a 'story' to tell.

 

Why wouldn't I prefer this to an RTR equivalent? It has a real provenance

 

Some more comparisons later.

 

Anyone got any others? 

 

 

Does the Bachmann 73050 have the wrong engine cab/tender? It looks like the early arrangement which went only as far as 73049 if I recall correctly. 73050-64 had the later style with a proper fall plate and 1G/H tenders.

 

The real 73069 was unlucky not to make it into preservation as it survived until August 1968.

Edited March 29, 2023 by robertcwp
Add a bit.

[melmoth]

15 minutes ago, robertcwp said:

Does the Bachmann 73050 have the wrong engine cab/tender? It looks like the early arrangement which went only as far as 73049 if I recall correctly. 73050-64 had the later style with a proper fall plate and 1G/H tenders.

 

 

As Tony said the Bachmann model is of 73050 as preserved. For that matter, it didn't carry the City of Peterborough name under BR ownership.

[31A]

Re the Bachmann WD 2-8-0, a few easy improvements include adding the water feed pipes coming up from the running plate aft of the leading sandbox filler and disappearing behind the boiler cladding, rear steps on the tender buffer beam, and fire iron rack on the tender (etch from 247 Developments); weathering to suit:

 

 

[St Enodoc]

10 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

If there exists a sliding scale (from 1 to 10) of personal satisfaction, then opening a box and running a loco from a RTR firm as it comes would give me a 1.

 

Modifying it, involving converting it to my chosen EM would be a 2 or 3 depending on the amount of work done. Repainting it would be a 4.

 

Building a kit and having it painted by somebody else would be a 5. A scratchbuild painted by somebody else would be a 6.

 

A kit build and painted by me in a simple livery would be a 7 and a complex livery an 8. Scratchbuilding a loco and painting it with a fairly plain livery a 9 and something like your "Skittle Alley" is a 10 all the way!

 

If I ever pluck up the courage to try to turn a couple of my older kits into decent models, painted by me, I may need new numbers adding.

 

I hope everybody understands that these are my own personal satisfactions and I have no illusions that everybody else should feel the same way. I would be interested in different "scores" that others apply to their modelling, if anybody does. I have just invented my scale now, so it isn't serious or based on any in depth research!

 

As the years pass and my experience grows, items that score between 1 and 6 rarely feature as I have enough in the 7 to 10 range to keep me occupied and happy. In recent years, I have done a couple of scratchbuilds that went to Ian Rathbone for painting, which I have illustrated on here before. They were not for me and I don't use the same scale for models I build for others. For them, the quality of the finished model is more important than my personal satisfaction.  

Interesting, Tony. My work would come in at about 1.5 on your scale - adding crew, coal, renaming/numbering and toning down the bright parts on the side rods. I have to admit that I haven't yet reached that point with all my locos though!

[Tony Wright]

15 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

If there exists a sliding scale (from 1 to 10) of personal satisfaction, then opening a box and running a loco from a RTR firm as it comes would give me a 1.

 

Modifying it, involving converting it to my chosen EM would be a 2 or 3 depending on the amount of work done. Repainting it would be a 4.

 

Building a kit and having it painted by somebody else would be a 5. A scratchbuild painted by somebody else would be a 6.

 

A kit build and painted by me in a simple livery would be a 7 and a complex livery an 8. Scratchbuilding a loco and painting it with a fairly plain livery a 9 and something like your "Skittle Alley" is a 10 all the way!

 

If I ever pluck up the courage to try to turn a couple of my older kits into decent models, painted by me, I may need new numbers adding.

 

I hope everybody understands that these are my own personal satisfactions and I have no illusions that everybody else should feel the same way. I would be interested in different "scores" that others apply to their modelling, if anybody does. I have just invented my scale now, so it isn't serious or based on any in depth research!

 

As the years pass and my experience grows, items that score between 1 and 6 rarely feature as I have enough in the 7 to 10 range to keep me occupied and happy. In recent years, I have done a couple of scratchbuilds that went to Ian Rathbone for painting, which I have illustrated on here before. They were not for me and I don't use the same scale for models I build for others. For them, the quality of the finished model is more important than my personal satisfaction.  

Good morning Tony,

 

I think that's a quite splendid scale. 

 

It's interesting to note how, over time, any 'scores' might change. Years ago, opening a box and seeing a brand new RTR loco (as a Christmas present, say) would have scored up to ten on my 'scale' (dependent on whether it was a Jinty or a Brit), though that wouldn't have stopped my 'altering' it - I recall being chastised by my mother on one Boxing Day after I'd carved off the moulded handrails on my Christmas present Tri-ang loco (and bled!), being told that it was now worth less than she'd paid for it. I suppose my doing such an act of 'vandalism' took the delight up to 11, though I'm not really sure. 

 

For those who (for whatever reason) can't do what we do, then their list might be inverse to yours. I know when I used to build (and paint!) locos for a dear late friend of mine (who couldn't make things himself), his delight on seeing them would have rated 10; as would mine, on seeing the look on his face! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Bernard Lamb]

Good morning Tony,

You mention Vulcan a being the only namer among the Austerities. Well, that is not quite correct. One was named, unofficially while in WD service,78675. I wonder what happened to the name plate. The backing plate was present on return to the UK but I do not know when the name plate itself was removed.

 

In service in mainland Europe.

 

 

Back in the UK possibly at Stratford.

 

 

The name plate.

 

 

Bernard

[thegreenhowards]

I can relate to Tony’s scale, but I’ll never get to a 10 as the scratch building bits are beyond me and I rarely get a kit built mechanism to work as well as an RTR one. I find coach building more my level - it only has to be pulled smoothly!

 

There’s quite a gap between 1 and 5 where most of the detailing and weathering RTR which we’ve been talking about would presumably fit. I wonder where fitting a decoder comes on the scale!

 

Andy

[Tony Wright]

51 minutes ago, Bernard Lamb said:

Good morning Tony,

You mention Vulcan a being the only namer among the Austerities. Well, that is not quite correct. One was named, unofficially while in WD service,78675. I wonder what happened to the name plate. The backing plate was present on return to the UK but I do not know when the name plate itself was removed.

 

In service in mainland Europe.

 

 

Back in the UK possibly at Stratford.

 

 

The name plate.

 

 

Bernard

Good morning Bernard,

 

My comment was with reference to my Ian Allan abc Combined Volume, late-'57 where only 90732 is listed as having a name. By the way, wasn't one (or two?) of the 2-10-0s photographed carrying the name NORTH BRITISH, prominently on the boiler side?

 

It's a pity that THE SAPPER nameplate wasn't carried by that 2-8-0 into BR days. It's rather better fitted on the running plate than somewhat anonymously on the cabside. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[robertcwp]

11 hours ago, melmoth said:

 

As Tony said the Bachmann model is of 73050 as preserved. For that matter, it didn't carry the City of Peterborough name under BR ownership.

Did the cab and tender change in preservation?

[Tony Wright]

46 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

I can relate to Tony’s scale, but I’ll never get to a 10 as the scratch building bits are beyond me and I rarely get a kit built mechanism to work as well as an RTR one. I find coach building more my level - it only has to be pulled smoothly!

 

There’s quite a gap between 1 and 5 where most of the detailing and weathering RTR which we’ve been talking about would presumably fit. I wonder where fitting a decoder comes on the scale!

 

Andy

Good morning Andy,

 

Fitting a decoder? That's on a minus scale with me! It's obviously me, but I've lost count of the number of times I've built a perfectly-running loco under analogue, only to have been told it doesn't run so well when fitted with a decoder.

 

I know it's all been discussed before, but four locos I rebuilt for a customer (which he saw working perfectly on DC on Little Bytham) are now with a firm in Peterborough having their DCC problems sorted out. Once I'd got the wretched things going (as reported on here last year), they were handed over to those who can deal with such nightmarish stuff. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[thegreenhowards]

14 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Andy,

 

Fitting a decoder? That's on a minus scale with me! It's obviously me, but I've lost count of the number of times I've built a perfectly-running loco under analogue, only to have been told it doesn't run so well when fitted with a decoder.

 

I know it's all been discussed before, but four locos I rebuilt for a customer (which he saw working perfectly on DC on Little Bytham) are now with a firm in Peterborough having their DCC problems sorted out. Once I'd got the wretched things going (as reported on here last year), they were handed over to those who can deal with such nightmarish stuff. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

I thought you might give it a minus rating!
 

Despite being a DCC convert, I have to agree with you. A bad running loco, particularly one with dodgy pickups, will be worse/ unusable on DCC. Although this situation can be reversed with a good stayalive, such things shouldn’t be necessary. Generally new RTR stuff is a doddle and runs well straightaway on DCC. Kits are a different prospect and I tend to dread fitting a kit with DCC. Some work well first time and I’m getting better at anticipating problems, but some can be a right pain. Using a good decoder is a good start- I always use Zimo if I can (I.e. everything except 0 gauge Heljan diesels).
 

On the other hand, a loco which runs well tends to be improved at slow speed with DCC. 
 

Andy

[St Enodoc]

33 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Fitting a decoder? That's on a minus scale with me!

I excluded decoders - and new couplings - from my assessment as, for me, they are an essential part of even getting to 1. I would actually rate "straight out of the box" as 0.

[robertcwp]

Following up on the 73050 point, here is an image of the engine in preservation:

 

73050 by Duncan Harris, on Flickr

 

Note the absence of a handrail at the back of the cab and the presence of one on the front of the tender. This indicates the later cab/tender arrangement, with 73050 being the first to have this. The Bachmann model depicts the earlier arrangement where there was a full height handrail at the back of the cab and no full fall-plate. 

[BMacdermott]

39 minutes ago, robertcwp said:

Did the cab and tender change in preservation?

 

Hello Robert

 

Bachmann Press Release attached might help?

 

Brian

73050 Press Release.pdf

[melmoth]

1 hour ago, robertcwp said:

Did the cab and tender change in preservation?

 

I don't know, but it doesn't look like it according to this site: https://preservedbritishsteamlocomotives.com/73050-2/