Miss Prism

Nick (#534). Very nice!

Nice, and exactly the kind of clever thinking one could reasonably expect if considering parting with £180. Btw, if the front bogie wheel is still having problems clearing the cylinder front on sharp curves, that axle could be moved forward from its 'correct' position by say 1mm or so. No one will notice. Magazine reviewers don't sully themselves with rulers anymore. Edwardian locos require a bit of lateral Edwardian thinking. (Hat on...)

A quickie sketch seems to concur. Assuming RP25/110 wheels at 14.5mm back-to-back, an 8' footplate, 6'6" cylinder centres (yes I know the prototype was a tad under this, but it's easily dealt with at the model crosshead design), a generous 0.75mm thickness for the rods, and a 1.5mm thickness for the step, there would seem to be no need to joggle the conn rod. For R2 curves, I understand Bachmann is putting a little more wiggle room in the trailing truck. I suspect the current problem could be in allowing too much sideplay on the front driver, arising from a standard Bachmann chassis block dimension. The clever bit will be getting the bogie to work on curves, but it's only the front wheel of the bogie that needs appreciable yaw.

Yes, clearing the step is awkward, but in my opinion, there is little excuse for blatant lateral cranking of conn rods in OO. I think this could have been cleverer. (The full version of this image is or was I understand on Locomotion's Facebook page.)

Yes, I should have mentioned I flipped part of Mike's pic for the purposes of illustration only, and I have added a note to my #568 accordingly..

Btw, did the LNER add extra (or move) washout plugs on the firebox?

I recognise the genuinely straight section, and maybe I didn't express myself clearly enough earlier, but my point is that Bachmann's straight section appears to be a lot longer than the prototype's. I do not underestimate the trickiness in CAD and tooling to get these two moulding pieces to fit more snuggly, but this is an area that could and should be improved in my opinion. Moreover (sorry, Mike), I don't think this discrepancy will alter under a coat of paint. Edit: I have reversed the portion of Mike's model pic purely for comparative illustration purposes, and the drain cock position is therefore on the correct side on the model.

We have only the barest of photo shots to judge by (big thanks Mike), but it looks to my uneducated eye that Bachmann has got the splasher size correct, but has of necessity reduced the wheel diameter a touch because of 00 flanges. This is sensible in my view. (cf the 64xx, where Bachmann adopted the opposite strategy, with a somewhat unhappy result.) The GNR vertical clearance between flange and splasher was I believe a fairly generous one anyway. If I am correct in assuming the model splasher size is correct, then there would seem to be no need to get the shape of the splasher (the extended flat section next to the firebox) incorrect. I take S A C Martin's point about the generality of previous wheel offerings from manufacturers. I'm not going to be drawn into the price debate, but it seems to me the fawning and hype surrounding this model is not being matched by its actual engineering, so all I will say is that it will be up to you Doncaster afficionados to keep the pressure up to get premium realism for your premium-level cash. Bachmann is already well into the tooling development on this thing, and the sooner decent EP pics appear to comment on the better. I imagine some creative compromises have been necessary on the bogie - the prototype clearances to the cylinders are horrendously tight.

Perhaps it is just my disappointment over the outcome of "years of breathtakingly comprehensive detailed research".

I know little about Doncaster things, but there's something about the shape of the rear driver splasher and its interface to the front of the firebox that doesn't look quite right to me. (And should there be a vertical line of rivets at the front end of the firebox?) I like the skinny Doncaster spokes, but it would be nice to see Doncaster wheel bosses as well.

Mmmm - bolt-in lamps - ingenious!

The Hornby share price has been nose-diving for about two weeks.

Livery comments now with Bachmann's graphic design department.

Very nice - the boiler bands have turned out excellently. Handrails should be body colour though (green adjacent to green, black adjacent to black).

Excellent subdued colouring and atmosphere.

7320 c 1939. Tall safety valve (typical for pre-WWII Moguls), Collett taper buffers (also typical for many Moguls at this time), both smokebox rings are rivetted (and I think were from 7320's inception, unlike earlier Moguls, which picked them up in the late '20s/early '30s). Standard firebox plug positions*. Standard Churchward 3500g rivetted tender and underframe. * beware 6319's non-standard pattern (like the preserved 5322), but it probably would have the later pattern by BR days.

Why is the ringed arm a 4' one?

The shade of green seems disappointingly similar to Hornby's recent (42/52/72xx) insipid pastel, but that is why it would be good to have a second opinion from Andy Y's weekend lens before offering a more considered view. On the application areas of the colours themselves, in black should be: - tank supports - tank fronts - chimney top - the portion of the main handrail going across the front of the loco I do not know whether Bachmann is currently aware of some or any of the above, nor whether it chose not to have them applied to the painted sample (although that begs the question as to what its purpose was). I do not know if anyone is advising Bachmann on livery matters. Ian Hargrave implores us to be not to rush to judgement on the grounds that it will be "alright on the night", but at the moment it is entirely unclear what might be alright on the night and what might not be alright on the night. Given this vagueness, I will send the above comment to Dennis Lovett. P.S. The Swindon 1947 painting spec is somewhat ambiguous in respect of the colour of the rear of the cab, green being cited for "cabsides front and back (inside and outside)" but black for "bunker coal space". My interpretation of 'bunker coal space' is for locos without rear cab sheets, so I'm inclined to think green is appropriate for enclosed cab locos.

A bit surprised this wasn't in 0n2 or even Gn2, which might have found more resonance with the military diorama market.

Update: Bachmann's production versions are now showing on its website. The footplate-mounted lubricator has now disappeard, which is fine for 6412 and 6417, but not 6406. Bachmann's tank front steps are for 6410 onward, so are not right for 6406. Both the green versions have green tank fronts (yuk!) and the chimney tops are in brass (also yuk). The footplate handrail above the front step is still missing. Possibly Andy will return after the weekend with some of his nice pics.

Abermule was a complex sequence of events going wrong amongst a number of staff (arguably too many of them) not communicating with each other, and lax practices. It is possible the DN&S arrangements had a better interlocking between starting signals and the token machines, but I've no idea how (or even if) this was achieved. I take your point, though, and it's an interesting thought that the token machines might have been relocated prior to the WWII changes, but I would have thought the Karau book would have mentioned such a relocation. Maybe there was never enough staff on the DN&S to get confused! (When the northern section was double-tracked, I think all the intermediate stations became 'tokenless blocks'.) P.S. Julia - gotta be option 1...

http://www.nothefort.org.uk/images/stories/clipboard01.jpg

If both sets of apparatus were still at the northern end of the platforms when the loop was lengthened, then that's how it should be in my view. Bells and token instruments on the DN&S were originally all in the station buildings rather than in the boxes, but I assume this changed for the southern section when it was rebuilt with the new boxes. It could however explain why the lineside apparatus was retained at the north end of the station, albeit somewhat inconvenient to the signalman. Maybe the small number of trains crossing at Highclere never warranted a resiting of the lineside gear - walking distance for the signalman was not a great issue, things being very leisurely on the DN&S. (In the hectic weeks running up to D-day, no doubt extra staff were on hand to cope with the traffic.) I haven't got my Karau book with me, but it might be useful to peruse what the arrangements were on the other southern section stations were to see if there is any consistent rationale.

Mailcoach.