Wright writes.....

[gr.king]

I can offer of a set of deeper superheater covers to go on the smokebox of the converted Bachmann A2 model if desired. In order to keep the work to a minimum, and to minimise risk of damage to the factory finish, I don't normally suggest them for the A2/3 conversion, but it is perfectly possible to substitute them for the under-nourished Bachmann examples with a little care. Another way to achieve the same end result is to shorten an A1/1 smokebox moulding, which again I can supply, complete with moulded-on thicker superheater covers, and fit that instead of the whole original Bachmann smokebox. The latter fairly easily snaps free of its glued attachment to the rest of the boiler barrel, so the new smokebox can even be painted black before it is joined to the boiler, avoiding risk to the lined first boiler band, but the A1/1 smokebox base doesn't mate to to the running plate extension as fitted to the A2/3 model without some careful work to adapt things. In the absence of any instructions to make it exotic, I kept this particular body "basic" to illustrate the "standard" result from use of the usual parts.

Edited June 4, 2014 by gr.king

[Tony Wright]

I can offer of a set of deeper superheater covers to go on the smokebox of the converted Bachmann A2 model if desired. In order to keep the work to a minimum, and to minimise risk of damage to the factory finish, I don't normally suggest them for the A2/3 conversion, but it is perfectly possible to substitute them for the under-nourished Bachmann examples with a little care. Another way to achieve the same end result is to shorten an A1/1 smokebox moulding, which again I can supply, complete with moulded-on thicker superheater covers, and fit that instead of the whole original Bachmann smokebox. The latter fairly easily snaps free of its glued attachment to the rest of the boiler barrel, so the new smokebox can even be painted black before it is joined to the boiler, avoiding risk to the lined first boiler band, but the A1/1 smokebox base doesn't mate to to the running plate extension as fitted to the A2/3 model without some careful work to adapt things. In the absence of any instructions to make it exotic, I kept this particular body "basic" to illustrate the "standard" result from use of the usual parts.

Many thanks Graeme....

 

                                    All the above is entirely relevant, but I think your point about the 'standard' result is the most important. In case you are alarmed with what's been posted by some others, I'm completely delighted with what you've produced for me in the form of the A2/3 conversion to make SUN STREAM. On the layout, she's entirely natural and fits in perfectly. It's a tribute to your skill and ingenuity, so many thanks again. 

 

Tony.

Edited June 4, 2014 by Tony Wright

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

This (Baby Deltic) is a splendid model by Heljan and depicts the loco brand new on its way to Kings Cross to 'fail'. It needs slight weathering to its frames, but it's very smart...

Possibly just one minor detail in the paint job before weathering to bring it up to your usual standard. My recollection (and all the photos I have to hand confirm it) is that the red buffer beam wrap around terminated at the top of the curved drop down. So the cream lower body side band was a long rectangle from the driver's door kickplate to the front.

 

And then it is all ready to fail...

[coachmann]

Thanks for the full spec variations of the A2'2's Tony. To me this kind of detailing is the food & drink of modelling. It is probable the locos that came in for painting were built with no one particular member of the class in mind. When given a free hand, I would try to obtain the nameplates for the loco that looked "closest" to the model making it about 85% accurate. Even scratchbuilt locos from the finest builders in the land were occasionally a minefield and I remember there were but two locos in a particular class and the 7mm scale model that came in for a paintjob was a combination of the two!  From my point of view as painter with a set price list, the more accurate and 'square' the model was in its construction, the longer it took me to paint, as I had to be on my toes with every line and curve. Therefore It was more profitable making a silk purse out of a sows ear!

 

Re the tender on the A2-2 I illustrated (and to a lesser extent your very nice model), it looks to ride too low, as the tender running plate is lower than that of the locomotive.

Edited June 4, 2014 by coachmann

[ScRSG]

Tony, it's Uddingston without the "e", can always remember seeing York EE class 4's on this train late in the evenings.

 

Does Graeme King have a web page, having difficulty tracking down any of his products.

 

Chas (of "Alloa" and other layouts)

[landscapes]

Have you got one of these Tony? I didn't normally photograph the jobs, but I was fond of the A2'2's at the time. At this distance in time i have no idea what kit is was or who built it. The Tender looks suspect.

WEB A2-2.jpg

Hi Coachman

 

Great model, regarding your tender I recently commisioned PDK to build me one of their A2/3 models No 60509 Waverley and the tender on that model does not Look the correct height either.

 

In fact a Bachmann A2 tender suits the model better.

Regards

 

David

Edited June 4, 2014 by landscapes

[Clive Mortimore]

Heljan Baby Deltic.jpg

 

Just as an aside to my various Thompson Pacific ramblings, here's something new on Little Bytham.

 

This is a splendid model by Heljan and depicts the loco brand new on its way to Kings Cross to 'fail'. It needs slight weathering to its frames, but it's very smart. There were a few issues - bits came off (including the fuel tank) when I took it from its box and every axle had to be (easily) altered to give the correct back-to-back. 

 

It runs beautifully, which is a bit unlike the prototype. To be entirely accurate (as far as my memory goes), I should take out the motor and buy enough to have the rest of the class. Then stick them all in a line, dead, on a model of a remote siding at 30A. 

Hi Tony

 

Sorry not that splendid, Heljan seem to have corrected a lot of the body side issues that beset the roller blind headcode models. They have not even attempted to correct the over curved "bonnet" top or the misshaped cab windies should one take a butchers at a photo to compare the model with the real thing. Put this model next to the latest Bachmann 37 or 40 or a Vi Trains Type 3, they all should have the same shaped cab. I will let you guess which one I think does not.

Edited June 4, 2014 by Clive Mortimore

[45609]

Does Graeme King have a web page, having difficulty tracking down any of his products.

 

No.  Look here along with the two following pages of the thread and you will find details.

[ScRSG]

No.  Look here along with the two following pages of the thread and you will find details.

Thanks for the info, much appreciated.

[Tony Wright]

Hi Coachman

 

Great model, regarding your tender I recently commisioned PDK to build me one of their A2/3 models No 60509 Waverley and the tender on that model does not Look the correct height either.

 

In fact a Bachmann A2 tender suits the model better.

Regards

 

David

David,

           Sorry to be pedantic, but WAVERLEY is an A2/1, not an A2/3. Smaller boiler, smaller firebox and full 'V'-fronted cab are the main differences. Also boiler handrails are a bit higher, resulting in their position on the large deflector plates being different. The vacuum ejector pipe is lower as well. 

 

With regard to the relationships between locos and tenders, for best visual appearance it's good if the footplate on the loco lines up with the sole plate on the tender. There are many examples where this doesn't happen. It could be that the tender is empty, or full, or there are new springs on either vehicle. Sometimes the eye is tricked because the footplate valance has no equivalent on the tender, so the loco looks a bit lower. This is especially true of A4s (apart from those towing tenders with the residual backing strip for the erstwhile stainless steel strip). 

 

With regard to the Bachmann A1 and A2 models this is definitely the case, with the loco footplate under the cab being appreciably lower than the sole plate on the tender. I raise the back end up of the loco by using washers.

 

I hope all this helps..........

[mark54]

Hi Tony

 

Sorry not that splendid, Heljan seem to have corrected a lot of the body side issues that beset the roller blind headcode models. They have not even attempted to correct the over curved "bonnet" top or the misshaped cab windies should one take a butchers at a photo to compare the model with the real thing. Put this model next to the latest Bachmann 37 or 40 or a Vi Trains Type 3, they all should have the same shaped cab. I will let you guess which one I think does not.

The Baby Deltic did not have the same cab shape as the 37 & 40. The roof profile was flatter and the 3-part front windows were consequently not quite so arched. Compared to photos, Heljan's representation of these seems reasonable to me.

 

Mark

[landscapes]

David,

Sorry to be pedantic, but WAVERLEY is an A2/1, not an A2/3. Smaller boiler, smaller firebox and full 'V'-fronted cab are the main differences. Also boiler handrails are a bit higher, resulting in their position on the large deflector plates being different. The vacuum ejector pipe is lower as well.

 

With regard to the relationships between locos and tenders, for best visual appearance it's good if the footplate on the loco lines up with the sole plate on the tender. There are many examples where this doesn't happen. It could be that the tender is empty, or full, or there are new springs on either vehicle. Sometimes the eye is tricked because the footplate valance has no equivalent on the tender, so the loco looks a bit lower. This is especially true of A4s (apart from those towing tenders with the residual backing strip for the erstwhile stainless steel strip).

 

With regard to the Bachmann A1 and A2 models this is definitely the case, with the loco footplate under the cab being appreciably lower than the sole plate on the tender. I raise the back end up of the loco by using washers.

 

I hope all this helps..........

Hi Tony

 

Many thanks for the helpful reply, my mistake of course Waverley was an A2/1 as you have pointed out.

 

I remember reading an article by yourself in one of the model railway journals where you carried out alterations on the Bachmann A2 60537 Bachelors Button where you straightened up the difference between the foot plate on the loco and the tender sole plate.

 

But on Waverley they do seem to be straight in line, I am no expert but it does seem as though the tender side panels are just not high enough.

 

With your permission I would like to put on your thread a side on photo of the loco and tender and your expert advice would be more than welcome.

 

Regards

 

David

Edited June 4, 2014 by landscapes

[jrg1]

The Baby Deltic did not have the same cab shape as the 37 & 40. The roof profile was flatter and the 3-part front windows were consequently not quite so arched. Compared to photos, Heljan's representation of these seems reasonable to me.

 

Mark

I always wondered why they were not re-engined with 8CSVTs to bring them into line with the class 20s, and save some expense when the 20s were selected to replace the dud class 17s.

[Tony Wright]

Hi Tony

 

Many thanks for the helpful reply, my mistake of course Waverley was an A2/1 as you have pointed out.

 

I remember reading an article by yourself in one of the model railway journals where you carried out alterations on the Bachmann A2 60537 Bachelors Button where you straightened up the difference between the foot plate on the loco and the tender sole plate.

 

But on Waverley they do seem to be straight in line, I am no expert but it does seem as though the tender side panels are just not high enough.

 

With your permission I would like to put on your thread a side on photo of the loco and tender and your expert advice would be more than welcome.

 

Regards

 

David

Good morning David,

 

According to the Isinglass drawing, the tender sides above the sole plate on the A2/1 (eight-wheeled tender) should be just a twitch under 30mm tall in 4mm scale - just a bit under 7' 6". This is to the tender side top - not the apex at the front, coal division plate or rear. I haven't measured the several PDK (ex-Crownline) tenders of this type I've built but I hadn't noticed a discrepancy previously. In previous recent posts I've shown a Crownline A2/2 and A2/3, so I'll scrutinise those again. 

 

With regard to the discrepancy between the footplate/sole plate heights of the Bachmann A1s and A2s, below is an A2 model as supplied by Bachmann.

 

 

The apparent difference in height is exacerbated by the presence of the lining on the footplate valance.

 

The following pictures come from the article you mentioned.

 

 

Here are the washers glued underneath the cab. I also always replace the Bachmann drawgear. It's either too long or too short, and is an absolute fag to couple/uncouple.

 

 

With the washers in place, the two elements are much nearer in height. It's not an absolute fix because there is a slight gap now between the footplate and the frames (invisible from 'layout-viewing' distances) and the two still don't absolutely line up. 

 

 

From this low view, can you make out the gap?

 

 

Here she is completed. Note the colour difference between the top of the tender and the sides. This is because Bachmann originally painted the BR green tender tops in LNER-style - black. All the other 'twiddly' additional pipes are in place, as are the replacement bogie wheels. 

 

 

John Houlden kindly air-brush weathered the loco for me, which took out the green discrepancy. In the end, because of a single-chimey A2's unlikely presence on Little Bytham, I gave it to Graeme King (who rebuilt it in his inimitable style for it to become another A2/3 - or was it an A2/2?). Anyway, 60537 in this guise no longer exists, but I have the pictures. From this angle the two elements appear to match exactly in height. And, I should have removed the AWS battery box!

 

Finally, and thanks for asking - how well-mannered in these times - you do not need my permission to post any picture on this thread. It is not my property, I don't have any priorities or privileges over anyone else and I didn't even set it up. I couldn't, being computer illiterate - Andy did. 

Edited June 5, 2014 by Tony Wright

[coachmann]

Tony Wright said : Here she is completed. Note the colour difference between the top of the tender and the sides. This is because Bachmann originally painted the BR green tender tops in LNER-style - black.  

 

 

The "experts" might believe you Tony. When I informed the forum that the black was incorrect in BR days, the usual suspects popped up to argue... 

[Guest 2750]

Depends if you are referring to 1928 tenders with beading.

 

If you are referring to my weathering thread then I and others were talking about the tender tops on the 1928 tenders (with beading) being black. As Tony says the non beaded side tenders should definitely not be black.

Edited June 5, 2014 by 2750

[Tony Wright]

The "experts" might believe you Tony. When I informed the forum that the black was incorrect in BR days, the usual suspects popped up to argue... 

This issue has popped up on several occasions as to whether the turned-in bit (is that the right description?) at the top of the LNER eight-wheeled tenders should be black, blue, or green. It's dependent on the tender-style, of course to some extent, but I've come to some (admittedly subjective) conclusions on this.

 

The GNR coal rail tenders were always black at the top.

 

The 1928 corridor tenders in LNER days were black at the top above the beading in LNER green and 'usually' black above the beading in blue. Peter Townend's colour softback on the A4s published by Ian Allan tends to confirm this. However, in preservation in LNER blue SIR NIGEL GRESLEY had the top bit blue, and some earlier B&W pictures tend to suggest the same, but only a few.  In BR green, the top bits were most commonly painted black. Again, consult the little book.

 

The new-type non-corridor tenders were black above the beading in LNER green and most commonly black in BR days. Derek Penney's hardback colour book from Ian Allan tends to support this conclusion. 

 

The 1935 streamlined corridor tenders were always the body colour right up to the top (unless some were ever painted in LNER green?) in LNER blue or BR green.

 

The 1937 streamlined non-corridor tenders were black at the top in LNER green and the main body colour in LNER blue and BR green. 

 

The later Pacific tenders (riveted or flush) were black at the top in LNER green but main body colour in BR days. 

 

I don't specifically mention BR blue or the experimental colours but the same principles tend to apply. 

 

Am I right?

[landscapes]

Good morning David,

 

According to the Isinglass drawing, the tender sides above the sole plate on the A2/1 (eight-wheeled tender) should be just a twitch under 30mm tall in 4mm scale - just a bit under 7' 6". This is to the tender side top - not the apex at the front, coal division plate or rear. I haven't measured the several PDK (ex-Crownline) tenders of this type I've built but I hadn't noticed a discrepancy previously. In previous recent posts I've shown a Crownline A2/2 and A2/3, so I'll scrutinise those again.

 

With regard to the discrepancy between the footplate/sole plate heights of the Bachmann A1s and A2s, below is an A2 model as supplied by Bachmann.

 

A2 01 Bachmann 60537.jpg

 

The apparent difference in height is exacerbated by the presence of the lining on the footplate valance.

 

The following pictures come from the article you mentioned.

 

A2 02 washers under cab and drawgear.jpg

 

Here are the washers glued underneath the cab. I also always replace the Bachmann drawgear. It's either too long or too short, and is an absolute fag to couple/uncouple.

 

A2 04 footplate and soleplate line up.jpg

 

With the washers in place, the two elements are much nearer in height. It's not an absolute fix because there is a slight gap now between the footplate and the frames (invisible from 'layout-viewing' distances) and the two still don't absolutely line up.

 

A2 05 conduits on firebox.jpg

 

From this low view, can you make out the gap?

 

A2 06 complete painted.jpg

 

Here she is completed. Note the colour difference between the top of the tender and the sides. This is because Bachmann originally painted the BR green tender tops in LNER-style - black. All the other 'twiddly' additional pipes are in place, as are the replacement bogie wheels.

 

Bachmann A2 modified.jpg

 

John Houlden kindly air-brush weathered the loco for me, which took out the green discrepancy. In the end, because of a single-chimey A2's unlikely presence on Little Bytham, I gave it to Graeme King (who rebuilt it in his inimitable style for it to become another A2/3 - or was it an A2/2?). Anyway, 60537 in this guise no longer exists, but I have the pictures. From this angle the two elements appear to match exactly in height. And, I should have removed the AWS battery box!

 

Finally, and thanks for asking - how well-mannered in these times - you do not need my permission to post any picture on this thread. It is not my property, I don't have any priorities or privileges over anyone else and I didn't even set it up. I couldn't, being computer illiterate - Andy did.

 

Hi Tony

 

Again thank you for taking the time to check your information and answer my query.

 

I have measured the hight of Waverley's tender and it's 28mm from the tender sole plate to the top of the curve on the tender sides, also looking at the model now it more detail it appears that apex of the tender and cab are not the same, and I am not sure in reality if they should have the same.

 

I enclose two photos I recently took of Waverley which may indicate what I am trying in my own way to explain.

 

Again thank you for your time and expert opinion, may I also say that any comments I have made about the model is in no way any criticism of PDK or Paul Hills workmanship which is superb.

 

I am very happy with the finished model but just wish that the tender/ cab height together could look just a little more like the real locomotive.

 

Regards

 

David

 

 

Good morning David,

 

According to the Isinglass drawing, the tender sides above the sole plate on the A2/1 (eight-wheeled tender) should be just a twitch under 30mm tall in 4mm scale - just a bit under 7' 6". This is to the tender side top - not the apex at the front, coal division plate or rear. I haven't measured the several PDK (ex-Crownline) tenders of this type I've built but I hadn't noticed a discrepancy previously. In previous recent posts I've shown a Crownline A2/2 and A2/3, so I'll scrutinise those again.

 

With regard to the discrepancy between the footplate/sole plate heights of the Bachmann A1s and A2s, below is an A2 model as supplied by Bachmann.

 

A2 01 Bachmann 60537.jpg

 

The apparent difference in height is exacerbated by the presence of the lining on the footplate valance.

 

The following pictures come from the article you mentioned.

 

A2 02 washers under cab and drawgear.jpg

 

Here are the washers glued underneath the cab. I also always replace the Bachmann drawgear. It's either too long or too short, and is an absolute fag to couple/uncouple.

 

A2 04 footplate and soleplate line up.jpg

 

With the washers in place, the two elements are much nearer in height. It's not an absolute fix because there is a slight gap now between the footplate and the frames (invisible from 'layout-viewing' distances) and the two still don't absolutely line up.

 

A2 05 conduits on firebox.jpg

 

From this low view, can you make out the gap?

 

A2 06 complete painted.jpg

 

Here she is completed. Note the colour difference between the top of the tender and the sides. This is because Bachmann originally painted the BR green tender tops in LNER-style - black. All the other 'twiddly' additional pipes are in place, as are the replacement bogie wheels.

 

Bachmann A2 modified.jpg

 

John Houlden kindly air-brush weathered the loco for me, which took out the green discrepancy. In the end, because of a single-chimey A2's unlikely presence on Little Bytham, I gave it to Graeme King (who rebuilt it in his inimitable style for it to become another A2/3 - or was it an A2/2?). Anyway, 60537 in this guise no longer exists, but I have the pictures. From this angle the two elements appear to match exactly in height. And, I should have removed the AWS battery box!

 

Finally, and thanks for asking - how well-mannered in these times - you do not need my permission to post any picture on this thread. It is not my property, I don't have any priorities or privileges over anyone else and I didn't even set it up. I couldn't, being computer illiterate - Andy did.

 

Hi Tony

 

Again thank you for taking the time to check your information and answer my query.

 

I have measured the hight of Waverley's tender and it's 28mm from the tender sole plate to the top of the curve on the tender sides, also looking at the model now it more detail it appears that apex of the tender and cab are not the same, and I am not sure in reality if they should have been the same.

 

I enclose two photos I recently took of Waverley which may indicate what I am trying in my own way to explain.

 

Again thank you for your time and expert opinion, may I also say that any comments I have made about the model is in no way any criticism of PDK or Paul Hills workmanship which is superb.

 

I am very happy with the finished model but just wish that the tender/ cab height together could look just a little more like the real locomotive.

 

Regards

 

David

 

 

Edited June 5, 2014 by landscapes

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

I always wondered why they (23s) were not re-engined with 8CSVTs to bring them into line with the class 20s, and save some expense when the 20s were selected to replace the dud class 17s.

Only 10 in class. For that the DO have to work up the conversion scheme to the new engine layout and fully cost it including all their own expenditure to that point, as against the cost of ten new build 20s, less the net value of the 23's bogies and any other gear that can be salvaged as spares and the scrap value of the remainder. My gut says not worth the effort, to end up with just ten non-standard variants of a class.

 

Start from a couple of hundred or more - say Brush type 2s - and it becomes worthwhile re-engining instead of simply building a replacement EE type 3 fleet.

[gr.king]

I've looked at those A2/1 pictures above. Descending, on one side of the family at least, from the V2 design, did the A2/1s actually have the additional sliding side vents on the cab roof, above the crew seats? That wasn't a feature of the V2 cab.

 

I wonder if the colour of tender side-sheet top turn-ins was on occasion due to patch painting following recent repairs and alterations, especially when the A4s were having alterations made to the extent of their top fairings in 1938-9. It would be pure mischief on my part of course to extend the debate to cover the matter of cab roofs below the gutter line. I think it was something of a Darlington habit pre WW2 to paint those areas green on green locos.....but don't feel it essential to re-run the whole discussion here.

[mark54]

I always wondered why they were not re-engined with 8CSVTs to bring them into line with the class 20s, and save some expense when the 20s were selected to replace the dud class 17s.

I think that to re-engine with an EE8SVT would have increased the overall weight too much (and given about 10% less power). In any case once they were re-furbished in 1964, the available evidence suggests that they were both reliable and useful locomotives.

 

However by the late 1960s and with a shrinking rail network post-Beeching, BR had too many small diesel locomotives. It was inevitable that the small and non-standard classes would be the first to go, even if they had been re-engined.

 

Mark

[micklner]

I've looked at those A2/1 pictures above. Descending, on one side of the family at least, from the V2 design, did the A2/1s actually have the additional sliding side vents on the cab roof, above the crew seats? That wasn't a feature of the V2 cab.

 

I wonder if the colour of tender side-sheet top turn-ins was on occasion due to patch painting following recent repairs and alterations, especially when the A4s were having alterations made to the extent of their top fairings in 1938-9. It would be pure mischief on my part of course to extend the debate to cover the matter of cab roofs below the gutter line. I think it was something of a Darlington habit pre WW2 to paint those areas green on green locos.....but don't feel it essential to re-run the whole discussion here.

Poor old Duke of Rothesay never had the extra roof vents

 

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/New_Southgate_locomotive_derailment_geograph-2261880-by-Ben-Brooksbank.jpg

[Tony Wright]

I've looked at those A2/1 pictures above. Descending, on one side of the family at least, from the V2 design, did the A2/1s actually have the additional sliding side vents on the cab roof, above the crew seats? That wasn't a feature of the V2 cab.

 

I wonder if the colour of tender side-sheet top turn-ins was on occasion due to patch painting following recent repairs and alterations, especially when the A4s were having alterations made to the extent of their top fairings in 1938-9. It would be pure mischief on my part of course to extend the debate to cover the matter of cab roofs below the gutter line. I think it was something of a Darlington habit pre WW2 to paint those areas green on green locos.....but don't feel it essential to re-run the whole discussion here.

The A2/1s did not have the extra ventilators over the crew's seats, at least not according to the Isinglass drawing. I cannot see any in the pictures I've scrutinised, either. 

 

With regard to the relative heights of the cab and tender apexes, when first equipped with eight-wheeled tenders (and 60507 inherited its from the blown-up A4) the height at the rear of the cab was 12' 10 and three sixteenths" (the height at the front was 13' 1" because of the ventilator) and the height at the front of the tender 12' 8 and seven eighths". By BR days this had been reduced to 12' 1". So, looking at the beautifully-finished model of 60509, I'd say the tender front is too low, but not by a huge amount. 

 

As for the painting of the tender top turn-over and the piece on the cab between the eaves and the horizontal rainstrip, might I offer the following photographic 'evidence', please? Granted, these locos are in preserved condition (apart from 60163 which is yet to be preserved) and are indicative of the condition they were in when I took the pictures. That said, particularly with regard to 60007's condition, I asked about the black-painting above the beading when I saw her at Pickering and was told that that was the BR official painting spec'. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 5, 2014 by Tony Wright

[micklner]

Looks like PDK  have made a bit of a boo boo as this is a A2/1 on their site

 

http://www.pdkmodels.co.uk/pic%2040.jpg

 

Edit

 

One more PDK A2/1 here

 

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/60827-haymarket-64b/page-6

 

I am wondering if the photo PDK is using is a old Crownline kit version , no idea if Crownline did a A2/1? 

 

I have built their A1/1 which had a number of "detail faults" as well.

Edited June 5, 2014 by micklner

[landscapes]

Looks like PDK  have made a bit of a boo boo as this is a A2/1 on their site

 

http://www.pdkmodels.co.uk/pic%2040.jpg

 

Hi Tony

 

Again many thanks for helping to solve my PDK model problem.

 

I am sorry to say but I think micklner is quite correct in that the example shown in a white metal and brass finish on PDK's own web-site has a higher tender and does not show the extra roof vents as well.

 

I will be taking this issue up with PDK to see what they have to say.

 

Great photos of Tornado and preserved LNER pacifics racing on the ECML.

 

Regards

 

David