Miss Prism

For £124, I would have expected a parallel chimney and cylinders pointing in the right direction.

Is that enough? (I'm thinking of spring space, particularly if AG bushes, even the short ones, are used.)

In GWR times, where the name was short enough, the depot branding was usually placed in the penultimate panel at the verandah end. (If the name was long, like 'Severn Tunnel Junc', it was spread over the two middle panels.) 5th plank down for 25".

I can't find the old thread now, but there was a discussion a while ago regarding the colour of the front of the tanks, the debate focusing on the picture of 1366 new out of the works in February 1934. My own opinion is that, even if 1366 did appear with green-fronted tanks, it would have been spotted as a mistake, and would have been rectified, along with the painting of the rest of the class, either immediately or at the first repaint. The SDR is notorious for the inauthenticity of its liveries.

Swansea High Street can sometimes have 3 local trains on the same platform (1). The locals seem to know which one is going where.

LT always open doors on both sides where there are platform faces on both sides.

Reading has such an arrangement (platforms 5, 6, 7, 8, at least that's what they used to be when I knew it, on the 'middle aisle'). Numbering of platforms tends to be inherited, and it's only in modern-ish times that some stations have found it convenient to resort to platforms '1a', '1b', etc. Leeds, I think is an example. Places that used to have scissors crossovers in the middle of long platforms, Cambridge, Oxford etc, need legitimate ways of distinguishing where passengers need to go. Horses for courses, I guess. Modern corporate thinking can be very silly though - the original proposals for the redevelopment of Stratford was to number the new platforms as 10a, 10b, 10c, 10d and 10e or something like that. A couple of well-timed comments to the Department of Transport soon put a stop to such absurd thinking.

Guy - suggest have the nuts at slightly different angles, to give a bit of 'non-uniformity'. (Is non-uniformity a proper word? Oh well, brain not working yet today.)

Confirmation, albeit belatedly, that the 64xx chimney does disappear into a hole in the plate over the smokebox: I think this indicates the 1366 should be of the same style - I can't imagine Collett changing his mind mid-way through 1934.

I assumed the previous model pics were hastily-assembled preprods. It's anyone's guess as to what the final thing might look like.

The cylinder axis should align with the centre axle.

I can understand Peco reducing some things on this stuff by 15%, but the concoction is made even more bizarre by the monstrous chairbolts, which have increased in size dramatically.

I don't know which AA15s were fitted.

Upper step boards did vary in thickness. It's possible probable Didcot's 68684 is atypical, or has had a mod.

Different boxes, springs, buffers and wheels, and new side top rails with corner gussets. I'm not sure which of those you might regard as minor details.

The Swindon drawing office would have loved you, lofty.

The six lots of AA15 were produced over a longish timescale, and had differences. I would advise Hornby to choose their running numbers and brandings from the penultimate lot (lot 910, numbers 68601-700), because this is the only lot that had GW boxes and the angle footboard stanchions, which is what Hornby are depicting. Edit: Hmmm. Lot 888 might also be valid, depending on whether one believes the bible or the number in this Paul Bartlett collection: http://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/gwrbrakevan/h361af2fe#h15d8eabe On the matter of the 'bolted' L-section capping on the ends of the roof, I think that is a later 'modern' mod, but I can't put a date on it.

That's the motive power for HS2 sorted then.

Ah yes, the Wayback machine! I had forgotten about that. Many thanks. Incidentally, I found the image elsewhere - some of the tyseleylocoworks pics seem to have been, err, 'purloined', by the NRM.