JSpencer

Indeed that was my problem, the Bachmann 9017, does not have name plates nor red backed cab or running numbers. I was hard pressed to find a photo of her in this condition preserved (I.e not named and with black backed numbers). But found one in the end. The main reason I brought 9017 was because I,m a fan of the Bluebell. Western locomotives have a token appearance on my layout, albeit about 40 engines...

Interesting and thanks. When manufacturers do a preserved engine, I think it would be nice if they could state whether or not model represents it in preserved condition. Generally they do but in this case, I wonder if 9017 ran as such in preserved condition and if so, do we know when?

I think I can agree with others about chimney and dome both looking a tad too tall and thin. Though that may just be an optical illusion. I guess Bachmann will measures both to ensure they are correct. Agree on the bit of pipe work being missing. Other than that, nice looking model.

I wonder why Bluebell painted the back of the name plates and numbers red... And equally why Baxhmann,s 9017 does not include nameplates. I agree what a lovely model it is and another one from the Bluebell collection, I think we are 2/3 rgds df the way through the Bluebell loco collection in RTR now, very good.

That could be an option if I can find a kit easily enough with the correct tender. As for photoes I am ok there, as I took many of the sole preserved example plus have the Marx and Bradley books on former SECR locos. What worries me about the Golden Arrow version is that they may have added a scale foot to fit the Hornby Jinty chassis that looks nothing like an O1s.

Thanks for the advice, after checking the pictures and considering the price, I might not go for this one. With Falcon being not available, I just a need a review of the Golden Arrow version. If dimensionally it is accurate, I,d can add the missing details and weight.

There seems to be 3 SECR O1 kits out there: Golden arrow - resin kit recommended for use with a minty chassis ( the chassis is miles out for my liking so I would switch to. branchlines R1 chassis kit). I have no have close a scale representation this is (which is important) but is by far the cheapest and easiest to build. Branchlines own fully etched kit. Probably the most expensive but is it accurate? How hard to build etc Falcon brass - not available. Cheaper than branchlines but a lot of bending and forming needs to be done by the modeler. There seems to be no white metal one. Any opinions advise is welcome

That means I have a 1 in 5 chance of Hornby doing one which briefly touched Southern metals.

Well I,m convinced its a photo of an engineering prototype, to be made mostly from plastic unlike the 700 which is mostly die cast. If it was CG, you would normally either choose CAD (each part in a different colour) or you would go the whole hog and decorate it to show what the final item will exactly look like. The latter asks a lot of effort which would not be worth it. On the other hand the images may have been tidied up in photoshop, taking out unwanted glares, background clutter etc, so your eye is on the model. ( the model is the hero of the shot after all). I agree it looks more detailed than most railroad but clearly not up to Bachmanns 9F. Of course such an engine will have a very basic paint scheme unless they get their weathering act sorted out, but to date they have not been convincing here. I,d say this was a true mid range model, not strictly railroad nor main range. Perhaps they need to start splitting the range into 3 parts now... My decision to buy will be if one is numbered 92029, the only one to turn a wheel briefly on southern...

Got mine today, fine model. Not really Southern but hey how many 2-4-2s are out there?

Bargain centre ;-))

Indeed I wanted to 1s but half a bottle of red wine made me type yellow line instead! BTW I see train tech are doing cheap (battery powered with motion sensor) sound for these next year as well.

That,s it! I,m buying the blue/grey NSE one from someone's dump at £69 now!

There is no yellow line indicating 1st class on the NRM version. It is about as good as Bachmann 2 EPB detail wise but lacks internal lighting although it has sprung buffers. It should by noted that the 2 EPB has only internal lighting and white head code lighting (no read tail lighting unlike their MLV. Train tech are going to do an internal lighting and spark effect pack next year for these.

Indeed REx just mailed that theirs are still going ahead. I for one will not cancel my order. In any case it would be at least 2 years before they appear which is enough time for anyone with them on order to save up for them.

True and Bachmann just redid their class 40. In any case REs have sent a mail saying they still intend to do theirs despite Heljan,s announcement and provided a little extra info that the revised Heljan one did not meet ALL their requirements. I suppose it will be like 10000, with one making a very good model followed by another making a perfect one!

Is the market big enough for TWO corrected 33/0s? Probably not but I,ll have 2 of each anyway. I don,t doubt REx could out do the revamped Heljan model. But how marginal or much that will be? Only time will tell - if the REx one does not drop off the radar (here we can only hope those who placed orders for two packs, keep to there word to purchase them).

I have a Hornby Star, ok model rail review is spot on but from my perspective, I think it's a great model as is despite its various minor faults. my only real dislike being the short horizontal cab hand rails which look more like wings from most viewing angles.

It needs 4 ft even if I run the loco by itself! The middle 4 drivers had to have there flanges trimmed back so that they did not foul each other. The Ks kit came with Gibson (I think) wheels which were not solid enough and replaced by Romfords. Tender has the original kit wheels, which you can see have rusted a little after 20 years. Any RTR manufacturer wanting to fit pizza cutter wheels would have a hard job! Hornby has faced quite an engineering challenge with this model. After this kit, I did 2 simpler kits (Q1 and Q) before attacking the W1 which has certain challenges but not as many as the P2. On tenders I can only but agree.

There is a lot of bad press out there. One magazine gives the original 33/0 a 5/10 score for looks. That same mag gives the Hornby/Lima one also 5/10. However the 33/1 and 33/2 have a 8/10 score. I did not get a 33/1 until recently thinking it looked the same (nose and buffer parts exempt) as the 33/0. Indeed the similarity between the two is amazing. So maybe the 33/0 should had at least 7/10! The photos of the new 33/0 look far better than either but we won,t know how much until we have sat next to the original. Admittedly I grew up seeing cromptons so maybe I am more fussy with this. My memories of working 37s and 47s are Hornby models and I honest could not tell you which of the modern builds look better! Maybe it's all psychological and only when we have the new 33/0 will we be able to tell. I certainly won,t sell the 33/0 I have when it does arrive, they are great runners.

If Mons Meg follows, I would certainly buy one. As for the A4 style front version, I already have this from a K's kit I built almost 20 years ago (don't laugth it was my second kit built loco): My P2 won't go round anything less than 4ft radius (it used to run on the Chatham club layout). Likewise, despite being a big loco, the space for a motor is quite small (unless you want to drill a big hole under the boiler). Wheel slip is non existant. The DS10 motor is comparatively gutless in a big loco like this. Overall this model will either pull a train or burn its motor out trying. So anyone wishing to build and paint there own has quite a challenge. So I look forwards to Hornby's version and thank Tony for a detailed write up + video showing it in action.

Looks like I was wrong, the 33/1 has a slightly improved look compare to the 33/0. I took photos of both from the exact same position and distance from the camera and the subtile différences start to become clear (need my eyes tested!!): Am I happy with these? not enough to want to fit sound to them! I still think the photos of the revamped one look far better however and have order a BR Green one, and Dutch 33002 (which I actually saw 20 years or so ago). The latter I'll convert to sound I think.

Admitedly my Heljan 33/0 is from a later batch (BR blue 33004) while the 33/1 is the NSE Ashford 150. Roof grills are exactly the same, body exactly the same, everything is the same (except the obvious prototypical differences). So it seems that they did improve the 33/0 as well after the initial batch (which I think is what Chris is saying - although I cannot remember seeing anyone else say that later production runs of 33/0s were improved). I find the roof profiles on both exactly the same and flat to my taste (most obvious against the Lima version but that hardly serves as a comparison). But neither look anywhere as good as this new revised version which, looking at the photos, really capture the Crompton for the first time and looks far better than the 33/0 and 33/1 I own.

I think overall, Hornby have there strategy correct. Such a model is likly to be popular by all, so expect to see it in trainsets, railroad and mainstream. The only tweak I would add, is that for the premium version, they could have used the super detailed A3 tender. I am fairly certain that most people buying the premium version would have stretched the extra tenner for a fully detailed tender too (looking at the posts here). By doing this, when placing it next to a modern A1, A3 or A4, the differences in detail standards would be less obvious. I would not say we've returned to Triang days, otherwise we'll end up with a Britannia chassis stretched to hold an extra pair of wheels! But the tender body on this model matches the early 90's Hornby A3 (twin tender scotsman style), although its clearly a new tool. The loco body almost to the Merchant Navy standards (I'd say between the early 90s and MN standards). The same goes for the loco cab interior, but to be honest, you cannot really see inside the cab on this class when it is on a layout (something relatively open like the Star you can...). Below the running plate, running qualitys and detail quality surpass a 1990s model by a huge margin. They don,t match the detail of the A3 and A4 but they were developed when China was cheaper. Overall, the cost saving is certainly wise as China is raising prices by huges amounts each year. But giving the premium edition the super detailed A3 tender would have been the icing on the cake for me.

The pics of the new Heljan 33/0 look really great. Finally the model is looking like a Crompton, although I agree the chicken wire grills should be replaced. One question that springs to mind reading these posts, is why do people think the 33/1 has the correct (or maybe better) profile while the original 33/0 does not? I have both and there is not 1 iota of difference between the two bodies. The only differences are on the nose (handrails, various cables etc) and the buffer beams where you would expect there to be a difference. I have examined both side by side, looked at the corners of windows, everything, there is nothing to suggest that the 33/1 uses a different body tooling to the 33/0. So - for me - just like the prototypes, the two are the same bodies with differences only in nose fittings and buffer beam fittings. Therefore Heljan's 33/1 must also be the incorrect shape. I can only speculate that at some point, some reviewer stated at some point that the 33/1 was (more?) correct and this statement has been repeated since. I agree that 33/2 is more correct as it is clearly entirely body tooling for obvious reasons (being a simmer loco). Moving on - does it now mean that RE will be cancelling my sound fitted "Burma Star" (my dream loco as I saw it almost everyday on the way to school near Gillingham station)?