Miss Prism

Where is the Peco announcement abandoning IL-1?

That's a shame because Peco IL-1 was the nearest thing to 100lb/yard conductor rail. If Peco really is ceasing supply, there wouldn't seem to be much point in them doing their insulator supports either.

Ah yes, see what you mean - I misread the diagram and had forgotten about 25. Perhaps a more typical arrangement for the bay starter could have been a single arm with a route-indicator box. The arrangement of the bay home (40/28/36) is perhaps dictated by the post being on the right-hand side of the track - if the bracket had been overhanging the main, maybe there was a danger of 40 being misread as a signal for the up main. Having said that, I'm now confused as to what 40 and 28 and 36 relate to.

They're correct as drawn, Jon. A lower arm (on a bracket) usually indicates a divergence from the 'straight on' route. Hence 4 is straight on for the branch, but 7 diverges to the branch siding. Similarly, 8 is straight on for the branch, but 6 diverges to the main.

Now try a thin wash of browny-black.

No half-etches for bolections, or would they have made the overall etch too expensive?

As well as providing strength (to the buffers) from the side valancing, I assumed the recess was to reduce the degree of pipe-cranking necessary behind the drawbar (there being little room between the drawbar and the front of the bogie frame on a 4-4-0).

not to scale:

That is correct. You are not missing something.

It's not clear why Bachmann made the bufferbeam the wrong shape - I can't imagine a NEM pocket swinging round that far even on tight curves.

6407: Laira (first shed); Southall Aug 36; Laira Sep 36; St Blazey April 40; Southall Jan 47; Laira Jan 49; Exeter July 55. (withdrawn Aug 58) So you're just about in luck, Rob! (St Blazey is the interesting one - presumably working the Fowey branch?)

What was the function of the electric connector(s) mounted on each bufferbeam?

Well, at least it's nice to hear the kilowatts of lighting you use is on Bachmann's electricity meter. .

Truly awesome set of pics, Andy, and if my picky comments have promoted their appearance, I'm at least content in that respect. It should be mandatory for all manufacturers to send you EPs to photograph. I'm aware of the consequences of mould release angle. My point is simply that if the dome, topfeed casing (and of course the safety valve) are separate fittings, why spoil the piece by not also having the chimney as a separate fitting? It seems a churlish compromise on such an 'appearance-critical' item. Bachmann got their chimneys nicely parallel on the Dukedog and Jinty - I'm merely trying to keep Bachmann up to the high mark it has already established. I accept a degree of compromise is necessary on the splasher size because of RP25 flanges, but in my view a better balance could have been struck between wheel diameter and splasher radii (inside and outside) in this instance. I suspect the difference between those splasher radii could be reduced. I've got no problem in the model applying only to 6400-09, but if that is to be the case, the lubricator should be toward the smokebox end of the middle splasher rather than the bunker end. These lubricators had a strange fitting adjacent to it, between the footplate and the tank - impossible to mould properly, but it kinda begs the question as to why the awkward subset of 6400-09 was chosen in the first place. Bachmann's tankfronk step style (with the turned up ends) applies only for 6410 onward. Buffer flange-mounting plates were, curiously, of 'double thickness' on the 64xx (and on the 54xx), but reverted to standard single thickness on the 74xx. It would be nice to have some steam heat hoses, and yes there should be a steam lance cock on the smokebox front ring. Btw, those axles look awfully short - EMers hoping to spread those wheels could be in for a bit of a shock. Let's hope there's at least 23.5mm between inside splasher faces, but I bet there isn't! I'll shut up now (again). It's no wonder Dennis Lovett isn't speaking to me at the moment...

Not easy to spot from the CAD visuals, but the handrails on the roof should be adjacent to but not directly on top of the longitudinal seams. See the prototype pic in post 104, and the pics in posts 119 and 126. The bogie sideframes are still awful - I'm still not convinced of the need for 6mm wheels, but if these are considered to be commercially necessary, at least the axleboxes could be placed at the correct height. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Yes, floor planks are transverse. On my 4mm Slaters specimens, I scribed the planks at about 7" to 8" wide without thinking too much about the accuracy (I just copied what other 4mm wagon kits did typically).

The Bachmann EP is still a curate's egg, and they haven't made any changes in response to the comments made on the previous EP. In fact, it's not obvious why they made this announcement at this time, other than to announce what would seem to be catering for the 6430-39 bodystyle in future (as yet unannounced) versions. 1 The handrail is missing on the footplate above the front step. 2 It's not clear the vertical panel mouldline on each side of the tank front has been reduced to more of a prototypical sheet thickness, i.e. barely perceptible (the real thing is very subtle). 4 It's not possible to tell whether Bachmann has made changes to the fireiron loops on the bunker rear, and the height of the rear vacuum pipe. 5 Design clever is afflicting Bachmann as well, so there's no rivets on the top surface of the footplate, nor on the front step. The chimney, although slightly improved, is still an unfortunate inverse taper. 6 The worst feature is the splasher radius, which is too great for a 64xx, even with 00 wheel flanges, and makes the whole thing look like a 54xx. 7 The most bizarre feature is the inclusion of the footplate mounted lubricator. These were fitted only to 6400-09, and not all of these kept those lubricators in that position into BR days. In anycase, Bachmann has put the lubricator in the wrong position. Bachmann seems to be aiming at something generic between a 54xx and a 74xx.

Assuming you are referring to the rivets on the side of the smokebox, the Bachmann model does show the sloping set of rivets, which correspond to the cylinder inclination. The number of lines of these sloping rivets varied between prototypes, but there were usually three lines. A foot or so above the sloping set of rivets was, on some prototypes, another set of rivets, this set being horizontal. Bachmann has not incorporated this latter set of horizontal rivets because it is not present on 9017's smokebox in its current state of preservation. When withdrawn from BR, 9017 did have the horizontal set as well as the full set of sloping rivets.

Springs.

3207, Stratford upon Avon

Weren't the Bachmann Bulleid coaches the Fleischmann 3.8mm scale ones?

Pwllheli is definitely west of the Tamar.

Yes, and the cab roof has no overhanging lip on 6430-39.

The Bachmann body is not suitable for 6430-39.

The initial comment round on the EP closed a while ago. I guess the comments received have now been assessed, and decisions made accordingly, and the next stage will be the appearance of the production version. I hesitate to say anything about what might appear. We will now have to wait and see. A potential appearance date has yet to be announced.