adrianbs

Hi all The comparison with of a 40 year old kit with a recent RTR model is not a good one, I would suggest comparing with a recent Martin Finney kit with the option of working inside valvegear, full comp[ensation, OO EM or P4 options etc etc. I have no doubt you would agree that the L1 kit compared favourably to a 40 year old Hornby model. Sr-Dixon commented that if RTR was perfect there would be no kit manufacturers. What a strange comment, actually if there had been no kit manufacturers in say O gauge until the current RTR products arrived there would be NO RTR apart from a few short lived toys like Triang Big-Big. Indeed the selection of say RTR rolling stock in 4 or 7mm is still so sparse it is difficult to get anywhere near a realistic passenger or freight train to run behind many of the RTR locos that have been produced. Where is the LNWR, LSWR, MR etc rolling stock to run behind the various pregroup liveried locos presently available. It is almost entirely kit sourced as it has been for decades in the past, and to come, I venture to suggest. I would certainly not like to have to modify some of the current crop of freight and many passenger vehicles to make them accurate as readers of other foums will be aware but without them it can be difficult to run accurate trains. Many coach ranges do not include a sufficient variety of types to make any sort of mainline train apart from BR Mk 1 stock. If you want accurate locos to pull trains as opposed to sitting in boxes surely you would want accurate rolling stock with appropriate variety as well. To Chard I would say I DID distinguish between COLLECTORS and the builders and you said yourself they had BUILT their layout so they must categorise themselves as builders probably scratch builders in fact. I suppose some may have bought their layouts RTR but they must have been built by someone, mass produced RTR layouts are few and far between. At least we seem to have resolved the argument about large and small majorities and minorities. Regards all adrianbs

Hi All This is the real adrianbs.!! Judging by the comments of most contributors on other RTR sites I watch, it would appear the day of the builder as opposed to the buyer is coming to a sticky end. However, also judging by the standard of some recent and proposed RTR products, the extreme lengths we will have to go to in order to get half decent models is markedly on the rise. Many are so poor that "extreme lengths" may only result in a "Half" decent model even after significant additional cost and hours of work. At the moment the lists of forthcoming new steam locos, diesels and M,Us in their varied liveries and numbering, which are supposed to appear in the next year or so, is rapidly approaching the 200 mark. One range alone now lists close on 100 variants being produced under various labels yet has never sold a single model to date. Many of the companies appear to be running at a loss or on borrowed money and facing massive cost increases if their manufacturing base is China. Most have had major delays in production and consequent loss of turnover with products being years behind projected release dates. This has had an adverse effect on the retailers and with the rumoured changes to Hornby's trade discount level, may well see the demise of many of the remaining high street shops specialising in model railways. Although the most vociferous all seem to be RTR collectors there is, fortunately, a silent but large minority who still enjoy building either kits or from scratch They have no need to froth and make inane comments on the RTR forums as they get on with the hobby without the need of the RTR ranges to a large extent. Many would be glad if more attention was given to making 4mm locos easier to convert to EM or P4 or something in between, and would be happy to buy RTR rolling stock if only it were more accurate but as most RTR models are dupicates of existing kits they can ignore them in general. They may not spend fortunes on RTR but it is their layouts which we see at the model railway exhibitions, not the cupboards full of unopened RTR boxes. Yet another entrant to the OO market, with what appears to be more than just one new product in the pipeline, may well be the final straw for some companies if the British economy fails to maintain it's current but very fragile forward momentum. The rest of Europe is in trouble and "When Europe sneezes ----- " Regards all adrianbs

Hi All Looks suspiciously like a LSWR "Radial" to me although the smokebox looks a bit short. The frames are the wrong shape for a T3. We shall see adrianbs

Hi Stationmaster, You score 3 out of 17 ( I have found a few more since my quick look previously, sorreee !! ) One point is wrong as the restoration is not quite original to the "as built" and more standard appearance. The Eyebrow rainstrips do represent some vans although as built they had none and because they are a later addition do vary somewhat. Some are frowning and some are smiling so possibly better left off but they can be removed or replaced fairly easily. Seems to be a latish SR alteration if done at all! I am sure the laser scan file is correct for the van dealt with, but errors have crept in for various reasons during the processing of the information. I assume Kernow obtained a copy of the GA from Mike King although I have only seen one, so the slight changes in design over the period they were built do present minor problems. As it stands the version they are doing is not a hybrid fortunately but some of the numerous planned variants may not be this version. The upper footstep is NOT the worst problem and could be easily added anyway if it were not on the model. Glad to see you have had a go at least, I wonder if anyone else will try. Competition is only open to people not connected to Kernow/Dapol by the way. Regards adrianbs

Hi Stationmaster Hope you are going to join in the quiz, the more the merrier. I am afraid there is no prize apart from, perhaps? a more accurate model we can all enjoy Just try scrolling down a wee bit more below the CADs and all will be revealed.. I am afraid I doubt it is the Laser scanner unless it has some very unusual faults. It is I am sure, more likely to be poor interpretation backed up by inadequate or zero QC. I am sure Kernow will be delighted with your findings, as will I For those wanting to know latest dates in service ( Departmental) they may be around the mid 60s, Terry Gough shows one in his book in '67 but it may have been out of use.It is DS54538 and looks like one of the piped ones as it has a pipe into the cabin and instanters. There is a picture of one of the MSWJR ones in Mike Kings "Southern Wagons Pictorial" which is the one I had a copy of years ago I think, so that saves the search., I can see no sign of a vacuum cylinder which makes me think they may not have been fitted but only piped . I look forward to seeing your findings on the forum, as I am sure will Kernow, it will save them spending money on in-house checking and may speed up the process significantly. Regards adrianbs

Hi nhy581 I suggest you look at the CADs of the Road Van and compare with the photo below and see how many of the 13 errors I have already found that you can spot. It's a QUIZ posed by Kernow/DJM called "SPOT THE BALL" no sorry! its called "SPOT THE BALLS-UP" "The Country Needs You" or rather Kernow does to get them out of the, potential mess just as happened to some extent with the LSWR O2. Remember how it was pointed out by Joe Public that there was no stiffening rib on the roof, the Westinghouse pump was far too large, there should be a smaller pump on the Mainland locos, the safety valve base was completely the wrong shape, They did change all those, but are you sure that the critics who pointed out slightly less obvious mistakes were completely misguided in view of the fact that the initial CADs showed such large errors ?? I have a very simple agenda, which I am prepared to explain but I wonder if you can explain yours. I have tried to help manufacturers produce accurate models for over 45 years, from Martin Finney and Golden Age models down to individuals wanting just one component for themselves. When I have tried to help in the early stages with "certain ranges of models" I have been shouted down by contributors saying "why don't you wait, I am sure the model will be fine when you see it !" or "these are only preliminary CADs and there are many modifications yet to be done" If I wait until pre-production models appear, having seen no further CADs, I am then accused of deliberately waiting until it is too late to alter the model. Sorreee! you can't have it both ways. It matters little to me personally if very poor models are produced as I can afford to get around the problem but there are many who have been very disappinted, having waited two or three years for something only to find they would have been far better building a kit or buying a similar item on ebay or even getting someone to build them a model. I look forward to seeing how many errors you find on the Road Van, you might even find one or two I missed as I am not infallible. However, be aware, if you try and persuade members of these forums that there are errors, you may well find yourself barred, just as I have been !!!! I look forward to hearing from aussiebrfan on the forum about exactly what he disagreed with in post 44, have you any idea ?? Maybe he too has an agenda ! Regards adrianbs

Hi Aussiebrfan Perhaps you would care to elaborate as you clearly believe something I have said is incorrect adrianbs

Hi All The MSWJR had an almost identical design van but there is very little good info on it. One ended up with the side doors planked over and may have been used for a while by the GWR when the line passed into their ownership. I have a file on it and a photo somewhere. Maybe I will try to find it if no-one else volunteers. I was commissioned to built 2 from my 7mm kit about 20 years ago for an elderly MSW enthusiast and they only just arrived in time before he passed away I believe . As always there are traps for the unwary, especially regarding plank widths which are either very wide or quite narrow, normally all round,. Mike King gives the six fitted ( PIPED ??)vans as being used from Southampton docks in LSWR days but how long for he does not say. Not surprisingly at this stage, there are some possible errors noticeable in the CAD design which I am sure the design team are well aware of already. The brake gear will be particularly challenging as even in 7mm it is very fiddly and rather fragile. Regards all adrianbs

Hi all OK. So I will wait till later when the models are issued to comment on other faults that appear on prepros. Bye bye adrianbs

Hi All Well if everyone is satisfied with inaccurate models I see very little point in having a forum to discuss the progress of a model. I am sure the manufacturers would love everyone to heap praises on their forthcoming model and keep quiet about any faults they may perceive need mentioning. We have all seen where that leads. Whilst I agree with Adams442T's comments on the photo above, one swallow does not make a summer, especially if it is stuffed and mounted in a glass case in the middle of winter !! I have gone through various books and at the most there are only one or two holes which slightly impinge on the lining at any period from "as built" to early BR Malachite. I have a personal interest in getting it right as Kernow have £100 of my money and I expect, in this day and age, to get an excellent product with no obvious faults. Adam442T admits himself that lining would normally be arranged to avoid holes or rivets if at all possible and I doubt Calbourne is now an exact reproduction of the loco when originally in service in the chosen livery. Bluebell M R will, I am sure, admit that Normandy on the Bluebell Railway is far from a correct restoration of the loco at any period either in its current black or earlier green livery. Preserved locos are a minefield for the unwary and often catch out the wary as well.. Until we see actual measurements of both real and model O2 we cannot be sure how large the errors are, but as we have now been told no further tooling work is being contemplated we are, once again, faced with a "fait accompli" where customer participation is limited to buying or not buying. If we choose buying, we may be faced with complex alterations and partial repaints to get a model which satisfies, especially if we have ordered a Maunsell lined green loco. If it is no longer politically correct to comment on the accuracy of forthcoming models I feel that will have to be made clear to all in the forum rules, in the meantime silencing critics might be considered unjust. Regards all adrianbs

Hi All Well, I am afraid that I am still not convinced, I have done different scaling checks to G.BOAF using the available material on this forum and am still prepared to stick my neck out and agree with G.BOAF that I think the cab aperture is too low and the distance between the bottom of the roof and the bottom of the beading around the doorway is about 25% too great. I have also checked the ratio between width and height of the aperture and this gives a similar result. With reference to the ventilator holes, the images of the prepro models also seem to show that the holes are higher up on the cab back than the front which does not seem to be the case on the full size locos and I am very worried that when the livery of the SR lined green loco is being printed the lining will finish up either much too low, touching the spectacle window frame or going through the holes on the front spectacle plate. The alignment of cab front and cab side lining relative to the doorway may be the reason for the doorway height having been reduced but that may have arisen as a result of the vent holes being too low in the first place. The "Nut" showing on the second vent hole from the outside may well be some later addition as early photos appear to have a hole. The holes themselves seem to be the main problem as they appear to be far larger than scale, probably so that the pins are strong enough to withstand the moulding process and have a draught angle large enough to reach right through the cab front. I am not sure if the pins go through the front from the inside or the outside but if they go from the inside and the roof is integral with the front there may be no way of changing size or position. As it appears the tools are now finalised I assume there is no possibity of alteration so if these points are incorrect they will remain so. I have had 45 years designing and manufacturing models and using scaling from photos whenever there was no other option and I have never found serious errors have occurred when, in later year, more accurate information has been discovered. Indeed on one occasion only a gnats private parts were the error in spite of numerous "Official" GA drawings showing completely different dimensions and shapes. This was something of a relief as I had made patterns in OO, O and Gauge 3 from my calculations. Regards all adrianbs PS Have just read Petes post so measurements of Calbourne will be accurate and I look forward to knowing what they are in due course. I have also been using the official GA for comparative measurements A

Hi All I agree with G-BOAF and would dearly like Bluebell M R to supply a few of the dimensions mentioned above . Do we even know if Calbourne has had a cab rebuild ?? A number of preserved locos have had their cabs raised, notably the VOR engines and in any case some of those measurements would be useful for my 7mm Adams locos as I have never been able to get to see Calbourne to date. The engineer in me doesn't think photographic distortion could give rise to such a noticeable difference and I picked up the problem even before reading the forum or checking my library. Unfortunately there is no end elevation on the GA printed in the Bradley book but it gives a height between cab beadings of approx 8.9mm at the centre of the top to the horizontals either side of the door by scaling off the GA. That would be just under 2' 3" so the figure might well be 2' 3" as railway engineers did not mess about with silly fractions of an inch except when needed.. Incidentally not all the "vent" holes are holes as the second to outside has a nut over the hole in most pictures and is slightly off line as per the previous close-up !! B.4s are the same so Bluebell M R better check that out as well and tell us what is fitted there and if it was always there or a later fitting. I look forward to seeing some real dimensions of both the model and of Calbourne for comparison. Regards all adrianbs PS If G-BOAF's nom de plume is what I think it is, then I helped design and make a few bits, along with many thousands of others ! A

Hi nhy 581 I agree they may only be a tad too low and a tad to large in diameter but I do not have the advantage of being able to measure a prepro model. I suspect the real holes are less than 0.5" ie less than 0.2mm on a 4mm model. You may be able to confirm the size and this combined with a small lowering may well mean the lower edge of the hole may be significantly lower than scale which in terms of the proportions may well change the appearance when lining is applied. The lining will, I am sure, not be dead to scale and thus may well finish up either going right through the holes or having to be lowered further still. The bottom edge of the holes should be less than 1mm below the roof lower edge. The problem is, a gnats todger, when scaled up by 76, becomes quite large. If the lining goes through the vents it will look odd with a series of holes in it which does not occur on the full size. I would be willing to bet that the painting instructions specified that the lining was NOT to be interrupted by the holes. Even if the holes are in the correct position, the lining may have to be lowered to avoid them unless it is accurate scale width. I have come across similar problems with models which require lining and look very odd simply because the lining is not dead scale but the spaces available are. For scaling purposes the lining on Maunsell (and probably Bulleid ) locos was 0.25" wide ie less than 1/10 of a millimetre in 4mm, that is about the width of a hair !! Regards all adrianbs..

Hi G-BOAF All locos with cab front lining have the lining just touching the bottom of the vent holes or marginally below. BR Black lined locos have no spectacle lining but BR Malachite, Southern Malachite, SR Maunsell and Adams or Drummond lined locos all do have lined cab fronts. The intention is to do one of of these liveries in the first run and presumably additional runs will cover other lined livery variants. I am not sure if the vents holes have been lowered to clear the inevitable overscale roof thickness but if so I would rather they were blind and in the correct position than otherwise, especially as, being blind, they will cause far less mould release problems assuming the draught angle is from the outside face and they can also be made smaller.. Like you, I would far rather a further wait for any corrections but the way production slots in China dictate things unfortunately this and the finances decide if there is time available to alter a model. Hopefully the attitude at Kernow is rather different to another company and accuracy may prevail over expediency. They may also be more open to take on board comments, as I found, when I first contacted them about doing a Maunsell livery loco to go with the Gate stock after the O2 was originally announced. It seems many others were of the same mind and the new version was added to the first batch rather than letting Hornby sell lots of M7s to go with the coaches and thus miss out on significant possible sales ( That was the way I pushed it !! ) I'm glad that there will be rivets on the smokebox although that, of course, opens another can of worms !! Regards all adrianbs

Hi all Kernow have had my cash for a long time now, originally for the 7mm Well tank but transferred, hopefully, for a Maunsell liveried O2 in 4mm . I have only just seen the prepro pictures and the first thing that hit me was that the cab cutout looked too low at the top. I find this has already been picked up and is certainly something which needs looking into. It almost gives the impression that there has been some sort of mix up with the high roofed final series and the original series with low roofs even though all the planned models are the early batch. It is not clear on the samples what smokebox rivet patterns will be produced as they don't seem to show any rivets at the moment. I wonder if there is any hope of revisions being made as, from past experience, the model may well now be in it's finalised form. Delivery has clearly slipped somewhat but I certainly hope to have my model by the beginning of 2015. Another problem which I think will rear its ugly head soon is the spectacle plate ventilator holes, these appear too large and too low and as they are always above the lining they may either finish up below the lining if it is to scale which will look very odd or the lining will be much lower than it should be which will look equally odd. The latter may be what will be done and may also be why the cab cutout is too low to match the lining. Personally I would have preferred scale size holes in the correct position, even if they were only pin pricks, part way through to prevent moulding problems. The clarity of the pictures makes it difficult to assess some other points raised in the forum and enlarging the views has not made much difference. It looks as though this will be the first runner from the DJ stables so the standard set for this will be what future models will be judged by,. Regards all adrianbs

Hi 838rapid, Hope you find your N2 3 rail loco, presumably Hornby Dublo, but there is little else British outline 3 Rail in HO to run with it.as they don't much like Trix Twin track if I remember rightly but have fun anyway. Even British Trix in later years was about 1/82nd scale so it's a bit overscale and that would not do, I am sure, even on your railway ?? Regards adrianbs

Hi All I totally agree with Kathedron's last post and I cannot understand why Raymw disagress with my post 67. I am almost certain that Dapol have spent more on making these generic tankers than they would have if they had done a basic GWR version. They have clearly had to make more tooling than was necessary ( two cradle designs) they have also had to set up to produce a new wheel size when the existing brakevan design would have been correct and enabled a reduction in cost, not only in materials for the larger wheels but also due to the larger volume produced. They have left off the brake yokes and linkages which. had they done the GWR tanks, are virtually identical to the SR brake van and would have satisfied most rivet counters (Even Me !). In addition they have had to redesign the brakegear, presumably costing more than using the prototype design. This has resulted in a characature of the GWR design with one side completely misplaced and totally impossible to operate in real life and also preventing the fitting of a vacuum cylinder. ,They have had to leave off the solebar lettering due to quality control problems or have had to refinish the models to blank out the mispelt and mispositioned wording. They must have left some who have now read the review in MR with the feeling they have read these comments before somewhere. They have thus produced a model which will only satisfy some of the potential customers Unfortunately I feel the phrase "Water off a ducks back" may well apply to Dapol's reaction but I am pleased that on this occasion a review has made some attempt to inform the readers of the shortcomings of these wagons. Perhaps some Re-reviews would be appropriate. Regards adrianbs

Hi All They must have milk inside, they have been in the ship a long time and they smell a bit "Off" to me adrianbs

Hi all, I have no objection to modellers buying anything they want, whether it be mass produced RTR toy trains or scale models in tinplate, plastic or any other medium, nor to buying handmade cheap or expensive RTR in plastic, whitemetal or etched brass. It is not the modellers I have a problem with but a manufacturer who produces basically inaccurate models with little option to upgrade them to anything better without spending more time and money than buying or building another product. These are being sold in packaging which proudly proclaims "Authentic Scale Model" a claim which I find, at the very least, misleading.both in terms of "authentic" and "scale" in most cases. I appreciate that most modellers have limited knowledge about the prototypes represented by the models they buy. Many must assume that the models really do bear a close resemblance to the description. Dapol's public admission that the milk tanks are "generic" and the fatuous arguments they put forward should be ringing alarm bells in everyones ears, Generic means Inaccurate, and, Oh boy! is that a bit of an understatement. Many contributors to this forum seem to believe that either these models have so little wrong with them that it is only a minor problem that they, AND EVERYBODY ELSE has no reason to complain about or that for the price point it is impossible to produce anything more accurate. There are many modellers who have decided these are of such an inferior standard that they do not wish to purchase them, apart from myself. It is blatantly obvious that it is possible to produce models of a far better standard, either mass produced RTR or indeed handbuilt RTR from kits at only a marginally greater price and in some cases cheaper. Lionheart preceded Dapol in this field with models which are in a completely different league, somewhere at the lower end of the Premier league if a football analogy is used and as good as almost any professionally built kits. Dapol are languishing somewhere in the 3rd division or in the conference league by comparison. Heljan have now joined the wagon fray and although I am not an expert on their particular offerings they appear to be on a par with Lionheart. I stand to be corrected on this when I see a proper review although I would not take any notice of Magazine reviews which in general seem to be little more than additional free advertising. What will be crunch time for Dapol will be their first two locomotives. As we have seen from the howls of derision hurled at OO manufacturers who get even minor points wrong, most modellers seem to have a very different threshold of acceptance for locos than for wagons or coaches. At the moment the Terrier is showing a number of rather obvious faults even with the limited amount of information that has been shown and appears close to production. The other promissed Dapol wagons seem to have been placed on the back burner at the moment with no CADs or even descriptions for the majority. Regards all adrianbs

Hi all. Whilst DJM might disagree with comments in post 101 it has still not been revealed why so many errors occurred with all of the 7mm models and with others in different scales. Even when there was apparently plenty of time to alter the designs after questions had been posed, no significant changes appear to have resulted. I find it difficult to understand where Dapol have sourced their information in many cases and if the sources were reliable why the resultant product has been so poor . If these models were already finalised at the point where the first CADs were shown, modeller participation was clearly not feasible but if these were, as suggested, preliminary designs, why were they so wrong and, more importantly, why were they almost never changed. There seems to be a very significant advertising budget and perhaps if some of that had been diverted to research and design, models would have been so good that there would have been less need to advertise. My business would have foundered within months if I had made products relatively this poor, even 30 or 40 years ago. I was, however, fortunate in being able to call upon the help of acknowledged (and less well known) enthusiasts to assist me. I did not sit in an ivory tower designing models from my imagination and a couple of poor photos which is the way some Dapol models seem to have evolved. If the prototype existed I used a tape measure and photos to explore the less obvious details. My budget was miniscule but that was adequate to produce most items, surely Dapol are not that cash strapped that such small amounts are unaffordable. Standards have significantly improved in the last 40 years in the RTR field but many have fallen by the wayside, often in a fairly dramatic way. Going back to the standards of the 70s and 80s, comparable to those of the firms that no longer exist, seems very likely to end in tears. Many of the modellers I consulted years ago are no longer with us but some still are, just, and many more have stepped into their boots and published authoritative books on innumerable subjects which one never dreamed of 40 years ago. Not all published information is accurate but it can soon be checked against photos. Google, whilst not comprehensive, did not even exist when I started. Dapol seem unwilling to take advantage of these resources and the results clearly show this. They are not alone by any means but seem to be lagging well behind in this particular race to survive and we all know who takes the hindmost. Regards adrianbs

Hi Cantongoat, Yes it is easier BUT it might cost more and you will have to put up with the way it is whereas the satisfaction of designing and building your own to exactly your needs will always be more satisfying, I know 'cos I've done it !! ( Houses wise I mean ) adrianbs

Hi all It is very good of the previous contributor to confirm the buffer height is correct at 24.5mm but this means that the buffer height/wheel diameter relationship is only correct for the LMS tanks. Any attempt to modify them to GWR ought to entail moving the axle bearings down in the axleguards by 1.5mm before fitting the smaller wheels required as well as all the other alterations. Upgrading the model as an LMS tank is more complex as the floor needs altering and a new set of cradles will be needed as well as similar work on the brakegear and buffers mentioned earlier. Other work would be required on top of this to get anywhere near a well built Slaters kit. Regards all adrianbs

Hi Ian I applaud you for trying but be careful as the model is a can of worms. If you downsize the wheels the ride height MIGHT be wrong but, for sure, the brakeshoes will be a long way from the wheels which may make it look worse unless they can be removed and fitted closer. Changing the axleboxes may be easy but I don't know if they come off. Correct GWR style RCH oilboxes are available as are 20.5" 2 rib buffers. Going for GWR DC brakes is the easiest option as later GWR or LMS brakegear is not available unless Slaters supply the bits. Since they are on the etched sheet, that might get expensive unless you want to use all the other bits of brake rigging. At a certain point the economics start looking very shaky and buiding a kit with all over sludge livery and NO transfers may be little more work, cost less, and provide a far more accurate model. Just think before you leap. Regards adrianbs

Hi Ianwales I look forward to seeing the end result, it is a rather expensive option but it is indeed your railway. Also, as we do not yet know the buffer height this might NOT be the lesser of two evils. Alfsboy may be quite happy for personal commercial reasons if Dapol models are made to current standards as I assume he will benefit from more customers asking him to build models from accurate kits. I suppose I should also be very happy as I will also be able to continue to sell kits to people who decide these RTR models are not for them. This will not please me that much, however, as I am trying to reduce my workload. Dapol must be laughing all the way to the bank whilst they see ME being pilloried for pointing out THEIR errors, it will give them every incentive to carry on exactly as they have been Thanks Mod4 for deleting the duplicate picture, I use the edit button all the time to edit minor spelling or grammatical mistakes but I could not get rid of the picture. 838rapid's complete volte-face did surprise me but,of course, it is his railway and his money. I think the venom of his subsequent remarks was somewhat excessive however. I am sorry his Hymek has a droopy buffer beam, if that IS the problem. He is obviously happy with the buffer height of his milk tank but I just wondered whether one of the two might be innacurate. The complete mix up by Dapol of the GWR and LMS designs could very easily have led to this mistake unless someone at Dapol had realised what would happen. I am certainly NOT spending money on one of these, particularly as most modellers appear to be perfectly happy in blissful ignorance and get quite upset when they discover the truth. Regards all adrianbs

Hi All I was just rereading post 14, an interesting comment, perhaps 838rapid has forgotten what he wrote----------- Regards all adrianbs