A3 Book Law

[pom-pom]

Or perhaps a Hornby rep. in China who doesn't understand the subtle (and not so subtle) differences between the tooling options and how important to us modellers that they are correct?

 

That would be a likely explanation for lettering/numbers at wrong heights/positions re. this A3 and the recent LNER-liveried A4s and also for the mismatch of bucket seats and cab-cutouts. But how about the slap-dashery with assembly...?

[micklner]

You cant blame China for the livery faults .

 

Someone at Hornby must have passed them for production, and you presume someone in the UK/China checks the assembly quality on some if not all before sale ?. It does make you think?, they are so blasé that they will sell anyway so why worry ? If correct Hornby are trying to look a over a very deep hole without dropping in , hopefully I am wrong.

[John B]

Thanks, guys, for the appraisals. I've cancelled my pre-order on the basis of the poor QC / assembly issues, particularly the footplate. Sending it back is a non-trivial matter for me, and frankly (like others) I'd prefer to work from a decently-made starting point than pay GBP150 for a faulty one.

[G-BOAF]

I've said this numerous times before, but there's no point in investing in a range of tools to cater for details, only to use the wrong ones. Caerphilly castle and the (empty) lugs for the ATC conduit, when they have tools used in Tintangel castle for the non-lugged version. The range of tooling is priced into the model, the customer is not getting what they are paying for!

[DougN]

Dare I say I will wait a few months until they hit the bargain basement pricing before getting one!

[Legend]

Dare I say I will wait a few months until they hit the bargain basement pricing before getting one!

I agree with you. I quite fancy an A3 but not paying £150 . Regrettably, though, I suspect these will sell faults and all.

[pom-pom]

The image of 2599 at http://www.kernowmodelrailcentre.com/p/36291/R3132-Hornby-Class-A3-Steam-Locomotive-number-2599 is also showing the same footplate/running plate distortions as that at Rails of Sheffield.

 

But so far we have those two and mine... that's a sample size of exactly three! It could be... might be... that all the rest are actually okay. I detest this eternal optimist in me sometimes! Has anyone else got any to add?

[Bon Accord]

The image of 2599 at http://www.kernowmodelrailcentre.com/p/36291/R3132-Hornby-Class-A3-Steam-Locomotive-number-2599 is also showing the same footplate/running plate distortions as that at Rails of Sheffield.

 

But so far we have those two and mine... that's a sample size of exactly three! It could be... might be... that all the rest are actually okay. I detest this eternal optimist in me sometimes! Has anyone else got any to add?

 

A sample size of four - my model has the same distortions.

Is it too much to ask that we can at least expect that quality control is at least on a par with where Hornby was no less than 11 years ago? It's not as if this is a brand new model with consequent initial production niggles.

[pom-pom]

A sample size of four - my model has the same distortions.

Is it too much to ask that we can at least expect that quality control is at least on a par with where Hornby was no less than 11 years ago? It's not as if this is a brand new model with consequent initial production niggles.

 

A sample size of four is taking a nasty veer towards the conclusive. I feel your pain.

 

You may be pleased to know that the front running plate distortion is quite correctable if you're keeping your A3. But it does involve a certain amount of very careful and slight bending with the body off over a block of wood (good grief). There is also a nylon washer about 3/32" in thickness between the chassis and the brass threaded insert in the front of the body that can be removed (it's not as if the fixing is designed to move) which will allow you to bring the front down further... aim being to get a flat line across the top of the cylinders which I appear to have achieved.

 

And yes, I did fiddle, I did modify the distortion, cut the backs of the bucket seats off, swap the ash pan lever over, repaint the washout plugs, etc. and I know I really should've sent it back but by and large I am arriving at the A3 I was after. To those that may feel I've let the side down, I do hang my head in some shame at not venting my disappointment to the suppliers or indeed Hornby but I hope the photos uploaded will dissuade others who don't want the hassle and may highlight the poor assembly QC to Hornby themselves if they ever get to read in here.

 

My limited experience with Hornby is now "once bitten; twice shy"... exercise caution!

[micklner]

A sample size of four is taking a nasty veer towards the conclusive. I feel your pain.

 

You may be pleased to know that the front running plate distortion is quite correctable if you're keeping your A3. But it does involve a certain amount of very careful and slight bending with the body off over a block of wood (good grief). There is also a nylon washer about 3/32" in thickness between the chassis and the brass threaded insert in the front of the body that can be removed (it's not as if the fixing is designed to move) which will allow you to bring the front down further... aim being to get a flat line across the top of the cylinders which I appear to have achieved.

aausing a

And yes, I did fiddle, I did modify the distortion, cut the backs of the bucket seats off, swap the ash pan lever over, repaint the washout plugs, etc. and I know I really should've sent it back but by and large I am arriving at the A3 I was after. To those that may feel I've let the side down, I do hang my head in some shame at not venting my disappointment to the suppliers or indeed Hornby but I hope the photos uploaded will dissuade others who don't want the hassle and may highlight the poor assembly QC to Hornby themselves if they ever get to read in here.

 

My limited experience with Hornby is now "once bitten; twice shy"... exercise caution!

        It maybe the washer causing the footplate problem. Never seen one of all of my A1 A3 A4 chassis's, no idea why they have used one on this release, unless the chassis is new design?

 

       As to Pom Pom's model sadly that still leaves the Tender and Cab lettering and number faults . Looking at the photos the Tender body/footplate looks high when looking along the line to the Cab footplate ? If yes that might be the reason for the Tender Lettering being higher than the Cab.

      I wonder if they have made the Tender frames too higher or its wheels are to big ? Very strange if either are wrong . The Tender maybe a new moulding? One way of checking would put the buffers of the tender against the Locos Buffers  and see if they are higher as well ?

[Les1952]

OK- on liveries etc

 

The LNER lettering on the A1/A3 tender THEORETICALLY shuld line up with the cabside numbers- note the use of the word THEORETICALLY. This is not the case for A4s where the LNER was lower than the cabisde (usually).  In practice Doncaster didn't always get it right- look at the Yeadon Register for examples.  Having said that most of the misalignments on the A1/A3 prototype were due to the LNER on the tender being too low.  In the case of the model it appears the tender body is sitting a millimetre or so high which would account for the misalignment.

 

Wonky/out of line cab numbers- again plenty of published photos- a good example of a misaligned 5 is 2559's nearside cab in the mid-thirties.  When Dapol ordered 2750 in LNER green the Chinese factory looked on the web and found a pic of the loco in LNER green, complete with different-sized cab numbers, which is exactly what the model got.  They also gave 60045 a wonky cab number to match a photo they had found.  Who here would realise you need to tell the Chinese exactly how large and at what angle and spacing EVERY number and letter needs to be? 

 

We also appear NOT to have a definitive photo of Book Law for the period just after its 1935 General Overhaul- ie for the period when Doncaster seems to have been at its worst.  Don't assume that because the number LOOKS wrong that it is wrong.

 

Bucket seats- were first fitted to A3 cabs in June 1935.  Gresley give the order to alter the cabside cutouts in August 1935, so locos (4476 and 4474 amongst others) were outshopped with long cut-outs and bucket seats.  The cabside cutout on Book Law was amended in November 1935 at Doncaster during a General overhaul.  I suspect the bucket seats were fitted then.   The combination of seats and long cut-out is likely to be incorrect for this loco but NOT for all.  On a similar theme, how many know the fireman's seat was repositioned on all A1s and A3s overhauled in the previous year?

 

Note- it has taken me about three hours of research through several books to get this information together.  Do we add this amount of research time (and cost of buying said books- RCTS Green Guide, Yeadon register, OPC Power book, and all relevant "Book of" series, together with a series of colour albums- four by Keith Pirt amd several others) to the cost of setting up the model?

 

Les

Edited July 8, 2015 by Les1952

[Bon Accord]

OK- on liveries etc

 

The LNER lettering on the A1/A3 tender THEORETICALLY shuld line up with the cabside numbers- note the use of the word THEORETICALLY. This is not the case for A4s where the LNER was lower than the cabisde (usually).  In practice Doncaster didn't always get it right- look at the Yeadon Register for examples.  Having said that most of the misalignments on the A1/A3 prototype were due to the LNER on the tender being too low.  In the case of the model it appears the tender body is sitting a millimetre or so high which would account for the misalignment.

 

Wonky/out of line cab numbers- again plenty of published photos- a good example of a misaligned 5 is 2559's nearside cab in the mid-thirties.  When Dapol ordered 2750 in LNER green the Chinese factory looked on the web and found a pic of the loco in LNER green, complete with different-sized cab numbers, which is exactly what the model got.  They also gave 60045 a wonky cab number to match a photo they had found.  Who here would realise you need to tell the Chinese exactly how large and at what angle and spacing EVERY number and letter needs to be? 

 

We also appear NOT to have a definitive photo of Book Law for the period just after its 1935 General Overhaul- ie for the period when Doncaster seems to have been at its worst.  Don't assume that because the number LOOKS wrong that it is wrong.

 

Bucket seats- were first fitted to A3 cabs in June 1935.  Gresley give the order to alter the cabside cutouts in August 1935, so locos (4476 and 4474 amongst others) were outshopped with long cut-outs and bucket seats.  The cabside cutout on Book Law was amended in November 1935 at Doncaster during a General overhaul.  I suspect the bucket seats were fitted then.   The combination of seats and long cut-out is likely to be incorrect for this loco but NOT for all.  On a similar theme, how many know the fireman's seat was repositioned on all A1s and A3s overhauled in the previous year?

 

Note- it has taken me about three hours of research through several books to get this information together.  Do we add this amount of research time (and cost of buying said books- RCTS Green Guide, Yeadon register, OPC Power book, and all relevant "Book of" series, together with a series of colour albums- four by Keith Pirt amd several others) to the cost of setting up the model?

 

Les

 

I don't quite understand why these factories should be doing any of their own research at all, nor making any kind of unauthorised changes to the order spec.

Surely they are given a drawings, design spec and applicable artwork and told to "go forth and make this". They make a couple of samples, these are checked by the customer QA people, amendments made with more samples as required then when the customer design/QA chaps are satisfied an OK is given for full production.

If the product is off spec then no payment is forthcoming until it's sorted.

Or do model railway manufacturers do things differently to the rest of industry?

[shunny]

A sample size of four is taking a nasty veer towards the conclusive. I feel your pain.

 

You may be pleased to know that the front running plate distortion is quite correctable if you're keeping your A3. But it does involve a certain amount of very careful and slight bending with the body off over a block of wood (good grief). There is also a nylon washer about 3/32" in thickness between the chassis and the brass threaded insert in the front of the body that can be removed (it's not as if the fixing is designed to move) which will allow you to bring the front down further... aim being to get a flat line across the top of the cylinders which I appear to have achieved.

 

And yes, I did fiddle, I did modify the distortion, cut the backs of the bucket seats off, swap the ash pan lever over, repaint the washout plugs, etc. and I know I really should've sent it back but by and large I am arriving at the A3 I was after. To those that may feel I've let the side down, I do hang my head in some shame at not venting my disappointment to the suppliers or indeed Hornby but I hope the photos uploaded will dissuade others who don't want the hassle and may highlight the poor assembly QC to Hornby themselves if they ever get to read in here.

 

My limited experience with Hornby is now "once bitten; twice shy"... exercise caution!

 

I am not sure of any other purchase of an item for £150 where I would be expecting to take it to bits and bend over a piece of wood or to reposition the livery/logo.

You would not buy a ring from a jeweller and expect to have to hammer out a bend or buy phone and be happy that the apple logo was off centre but we as modellers are getting products that seem to be lacking in QC and attention to detail. I can see the point if the model is a cheaper price and is used as basis for a detail project but this item is top of the range model and the most expensive they have produced so far (the King is not out yet to compare). 

 

I am afraid like many other here I will be passing on this model as I did with last A4 which is a real pity as when done correctly it is a great model.

[micklner]

OK- on liveries etc

 

The LNER lettering on the A1/A3 tender THEORETICALLY shuld line up with the cabside numbers- note the use of the word THEORETICALLY. This is not the case for A4s where the LNER was lower than the cabisde (usually).  In practice Doncaster didn't always get it right- look at the Yeadon Register for examples.  Having said that most of the misalignments on the A1/A3 prototype were due to the LNER on the tender being too low.  In the case of the model it appears the tender body is sitting a millimetre or so high which would account for the misalignment.

 

Wonky/out of line cab numbers- again plenty of published photos- a good example of a misaligned 5 is 2559's nearside cab in the mid-thirties.  When Dapol ordered 2750 in LNER green the Chinese factory looked on the web and found a pic of the loco in LNER green, complete with different-sized cab numbers, which is exactly what the model got.  They also gave 60045 a wonky cab number to match a photo they had found.  Who here would realise you need to tell the Chinese exactly how large and at what angle and spacing EVERY number and letter needs to be? 

 

We also appear NOT to have a definitive photo of Book Law for the period just after its 1935 General Overhaul- ie for the period when Doncaster seems to have been at its worst.  Don't assume that because the number LOOKS wrong that it is wrong.

 

Bucket seats- were first fitted to A3 cabs in June 1935.  Gresley give the order to alter the cabside cutouts in August 1935, so locos (4476 and 4474 amongst others) were outshopped with long cut-outs and bucket seats.  The cabside cutout on Book Law was amended in November 1935 at Doncaster during a General overhaul.  I suspect the bucket seats were fitted then.   The combination of seats and long cut-out is likely to be incorrect for this loco but NOT for all.  On a similar theme, how many know the fireman's seat was repositioned on all A1s and A3s overhauled in the previous year?

 

Note- it has taken me about three hours of research through several books to get this information together.  Do we add this amount of research time (and cost of buying said books- RCTS Green Guide, Yeadon register, OPC Power book, and all relevant "Book of" series, together with a series of colour albums- four by Keith Pirt amd several others) to the cost of setting up the model?

 

Les

I have read RCTS Pt2a re Bucket seats and mine reads slightly different to above post.

 

4476 June 1935 and 4474 in July 1935 were the only Locos converted. In August 1935 Gresley authorised all the others to be converted to Bucket seats and Small cab cutouts at the same time in August 1935, therefore 2599 never ran, relating to the Cab as modelled by Hornby.

 

2599 was a shy lady and the only photo I can find is in RCTS 2a again , Fig 51 shows all lettering and numbers dead in line. The numbers appear to be too low on the model and the Tender is too high, there is something wrong with Tenders dimensions as in the photo the lettering is in the centre of the Tender sides. It appears to me that the Tender chassis is too high as mentioned by me earlier.

[Les1952]

With the Green Guide you have to read very carefully what it does NOT say- W.B.Yeadon in particular would have used the word "only" to describe 4474 and 4476 being fitted with bucket seats with long cutouts if and only if he was 100% certain there was not another one.   I am convinced that if another existed (and we have no evidence that it did) that loco was certainly NOT Book Law.

 

I agree the tender sits too high which causes the misalignment. 

 

2599 was shy- as it had a General overhaul just less than annually between 1935 and 1939 Doncaster had plenty of opportunity to misalign the cabside numbers- it happened to other locos- we don't know if it happened to 2599.  The evidence one way or the other appears not to exist.

 

As far as the Chinese interpreting data- if you miss any detail at all then assumptions are made at the factory- in the case of 2750 the factory used a picture they hadn't been sent.  I was on the receiving end of a panic email when the finished product appeared - were these different-sized numbers correct?  Fortunately they were.

 

Les

[pom-pom]

I have read RCTS Pt2a re Bucket seats and mine reads slightly different to above post.

 

4476 June 1935 and 4474 in July 1935 were the only Locos converted. In August 1935 Gresley authorised all the others to be converted to Bucket seats and Small cab cutouts at the same time in August 1935, therefore 2599 never ran, relating to the Cab as modelled by Hornby.

 

2599 was a shy lady and the only photo I can find is in RCTS 2a again , Fig 51 shows all lettering and numbers dead in line. The numbers appear to be too low on the model and the Tender is too high, there is something wrong with Tenders dimensions as in the photo the lettering is in the centre of the Tender sides. It appears to me that the Tender chassis is too high as mentioned by me earlier.

 

Here's a couple of photos of 2599 Mick, one at least pre 1935. I'll probably go to jail for posting them but the source website was Javascript driven and I couldn't get a direct link to the images. The website is http://transportsofdelight.smugmug.com/ so at least I've quoted reasonably well. These images are so old they must be out of copyright, if any existed. Moderators: if you feel I've made some major transgression please dispose of this particular post and I accept my apologies forthwith.

 

Actually, whilst I'm at it there's a very nice pic of 2746 Fairview which I had *hoped* to model based on another purchase of Book Law... this isn't going to happen until Hornby's QC Dept. pull up their breeches.

[pom-pom]

Here's a couple of photos of 2599 Mick, one at least pre 1935. I'll probably go to jail for posting them but the source website was Javascript driven and I couldn't get a direct link to the images. The website is http://transportsofdelight.smugmug.com/ so at least I've quoted reasonably well. These images are so old they must be out of copyright, if any existed. Moderators: if you feel I've made some major transgression please dispose of this particular post and I accept my apologies forthwith.

 

Actually, whilst I'm at it there's a very nice pic of 2746 Fairview which I had *hoped* to model based on another purchase of Book Law... this isn't going to happen until Hornby's QC Dept. pull up their breeches.

 

Amendment: only 2746 Fairway is pre 1935, re., cab cut-outs. In their prime...

[pom-pom]

        It maybe the washer causing the footplate problem. Never seen one of all of my A1 A3 A4 chassis's, no idea why they have used one on this release, unless the chassis is new design?

 

       As to Pom Pom's model sadly that still leaves the Tender and Cab lettering and number faults . Looking at the photos the Tender body/footplate looks high when looking along the line to the Cab footplate ? If yes that might be the reason for the Tender Lettering being higher than the Cab.

      I wonder if they have made the Tender frames too higher or its wheels are to big ? Very strange if either are wrong . The Tender maybe a new moulding? One way of checking would put the buffers of the tender against the Locos Buffers  and see if they are higher as well ?

 

I've been wondering about the tender too. It happens that when I returned to the hobby after a long time the first model that tempted me back in was Hornby's P2, the super-detailed one not the Railroad version. So we can do a comparison as from what I can see from the models the tenders are based on the very same prototype and have the same dimensions. The differences are: P2 has moulded handrails, spoked wheels and a higher simulated coal level. The A3's tender is a better detailed model but has disc wheels, possibly incorrect. It's coal is easily removable and the empty tender detail is rendered well. It doesn't run as well as the P2's tender as despite full dismantling, easing of the brake shoes with a needle file and general lubrication the third wheelset rotates easily but not on the track. Here's some photos showing the two side by side. I don't have the reference literature to which you all refer as yet so you will no doubt spot the errors/problems/good points!

[Dominion]

A sample size of four is taking a nasty veer towards the conclusive. I feel your pain.

 

You may be pleased to know that the front running plate distortion is quite correctable if you're keeping your A3. But it does involve a certain amount of very careful and slight bending with the body off over a block of wood (good grief). There is also a nylon washer about 3/32" in thickness between the chassis and the brass threaded insert in the front of the body that can be removed (it's not as if the fixing is designed to move) which will allow you to bring the front down further... aim being to get a flat line across the top of the cylinders which I appear to have achieved.

 

And yes, I did fiddle, I did modify the distortion, cut the backs of the bucket seats off, swap the ash pan lever over, repaint the washout plugs, etc. and I know I really should've sent it back but by and large I am arriving at the A3 I was after. To those that may feel I've let the side down, I do hang my head in some shame at not venting my disappointment to the suppliers or indeed Hornby but I hope the photos uploaded will dissuade others who don't want the hassle and may highlight the poor assembly QC to Hornby themselves if they ever get to read in here.

 

My limited experience with Hornby is now "once bitten; twice shy"... exercise caution!

Pom Pom, would you mind elaborating on how you straightened the front running plate? Did you place the wood just behind the steam pipes ? Any other guidance appreciated

Thanks, Tom

[micklner]

The P2 Tender body is lower than the A3 which is correct.

 

If you look at the Tenders in the back to back photo the A3 buffers are higher which indicates the chassis at fault perhaps 1mm hard to tell without measuring. That with the Cab numbers being slightly low exaggerates the poor line up of letters and numbers. The A3 Tender should have spoked wheels not discs. 

 

Very sadly the same photo,shows more poor build quality , there is slight gapping/distortion on the curve between the Firebox and the Footplate on the A3 as well.

Edited July 8, 2015 by micklner

[toboldlygo]

I've been wondering about the tender too. It happens that when I returned to the hobby after a long time the first model that tempted me back in was Hornby's P2, the super-detailed one not the Railroad version. So we can do a comparison as from what I can see from the models the tenders are based on the very same prototype and have the same dimensions. The differences are: P2 has moulded handrails, spoked wheels and a higher simulated coal level. The A3's tender is a better detailed model but has disc wheels, possibly incorrect. It's coal is easily removable and the empty tender detail is rendered well. It doesn't run as well as the P2's tender as despite full dismantling, easing of the brake shoes with a needle file and general lubrication the third wheelset rotates easily but not on the track. Here's some photos showing the two side by side. I don't have the reference literature to which you all refer as yet so you will no doubt spot the errors/problems/good points!

 

Might sound daft have you checked the diameter of the tender wheels in comparison to those of the P2, I think they maybe slightly larger.

[micklner]

With the Green Guide you have to read very carefully what it does NOT say- W.B.Yeadon in particular would have used the word "only" to describe 4474 and 4476 being fitted with bucket seats with long cutouts if and only if he was 100% certain there was not another one.   I am convinced that if another existed (and we have no evidence that it did) that loco was certainly NOT Book Law.

 

I agree the tender sits too high which causes the misalignment. 

 

2599 was shy- as it had a General overhaul just less than annually between 1935 and 1939 Doncaster had plenty of opportunity to misalign the cabside numbers- it happened to other locos- we don't know if it happened to 2599.  The evidence one way or the other appears not to exist.

 

As far as the Chinese interpreting data- if you miss any detail at all then assumptions are made at the factory- in the case of 2750 the factory used a picture they hadn't been sent.  I was on the receiving end of a panic email when the finished product appeared - were these different-sized numbers correct?  Fortunately they were.

 

Les

The RCTS inline photo of 2599 is dated 1937 .

[pom-pom]

I've been wondering about the tender too. It happens that when I returned to the hobby after a long time the first model that tempted me back in was Hornby's P2, the super-detailed one not the Railroad version. So we can do a comparison as from what I can see from the models the tenders are based on the very same prototype and have the same dimensions. The differences are: P2 has moulded handrails, spoked wheels and a higher simulated coal level. The A3's tender is a better detailed model but has disc wheels, possibly incorrect. It's coal is easily removable and the empty tender detail is rendered well. It doesn't run as well as the P2's tender as despite full dismantling, easing of the brake shoes with a needle file and general lubrication the third wheelset rotates easily but not on the track. Here's some photos showing the two side by side. I don't have the reference literature to which you all refer as yet so you will no doubt spot the errors/problems/good points!

 

Some more tender comparison photos. It's late and I've made a few errors re., Fairway spelt as Fairview and not fully diagnosing the tender differences between the P2/A3 which I had incorrectly thought were the same. Clearly the A3 tender is the taller. The tender partition is also sloped at an angle ascending from the front to the back on the A3. I presume the curved sheet-work behind this partition is a cover for a water scoop.

 

Rear view photo: A3 is on the left; P2 on the right.

[pom-pom]

Might sound daft have you checked the diameter of the tender wheels in comparison to those of the P2, I think they maybe slightly larger.

 

If this is causing a height problem and the wheels are of the wrong type I may try to get hold of a spare set of P2 spoked tender wheels. Hornby should give me some free for all this QC review work!!

[pom-pom]

Pom Pom, would you mind elaborating on how you straightened the front running plate? Did you place the wood just behind the steam pipes ? Any other guidance appreciated

Thanks, Tom

 

Sure Tom, no problem. The wood I used happened to be the edge of a sheet of 8'x4' MDF I'm temporarily using for a baseboard as I knew it wasn't going to move. I've uploaded a photo to show the fulcrum point which as you say is just behind the steam pipes. Note the small plastic lugs further backward - be very careful not to damage these. Note also the rendition of the front section of the main frames. This is acting as a strengthening gusset and I found it prudent to weaken this slightly to promote a bend rather than a snap. I did this by using a flat needle file to cut slots and I also took a little of the back edge of these frame pieces away as these butt up a little too hard against the chassis block. Once the body-shell retaining machine screw is in place the body isn't going to move anywhere easily.

 

The bending process - I found the best approach to this was to pour myself a large scotch and clear the room of any distractions. If you don't have a sense of the tensile properties of materials then it may not be advisable to proceed. Otherwise, I steadied the boiler with one hand and pushed down with two fingers on the top of the running plate/footplate just in front of the smokebox where you will find flat spots... gently does it. You may hear cracking noises and the black plastic cover sections on top of the running plate between that and the steam pipes may come adrift... the whiskey helped calm me with this part. Try the body back on the chassis - I had to do this many times before I was happy with the result. Once you are there glue on anything that came adrift and fix the body back on with the screw but minus the plastic washer. And note that there's a red wire attached to the motor on the left-hand side which can easily get trapped between the body and the chassis and in the rear driving wheel (should be taped up properly really).

 

And that's it basically... just use maximum caution. Photos of the result attached. As yet I have no idea what to do about the other frame distortion problem under the firebox!

 

Nick

 

Ps. despite what I said earlier about there being no detail pack there was.. it contains the flanged Cartazzi truck wheel and some cylinder drain cocks. Don't fit the latter before undertaking the modification above, they will seriously get in the way. I might remove mine - they don't look right compared to the photos of 2599 I've seen.