DavidH

Put away? Sorry, you've lost me there ... (More seriously - if I'm looking at the same models - these are kids' toys, they look like they have no/few additional parts so boxes aren't needed. They'll be used just like every other push along vehicle and toy that I've seen in friends' houses: played with, then cleared away - if at all - into a crate until the next play. They'll be durable enough to withstand bumping and bashes in the crate, and after a while it won't matter anyway. Thinking of that - my dad's Triang models and Dinky toys don't have boxes, and I guess didn't have them since about 1958.)

http://www.engineeringuk.com/About-us/ "Turnover of UK engineering enterprises is substantial, at £1.06 trillion in the year ending March 2011: that’s 23.9% of the turnover of all UK enterprises and over three times the size of the retail sector."

Or, cue people who know what they are talking about to help guide the manufacturer to better accuracy :-)

Advertising and networking must be at least part of the answer - a social media presence; word of mouth; stands at key exhibitions; flyers in shops; talking to and visiting clubs; articles in all the modelling press - or inserts. It isn't cheap or easy, though, but if you want to reach the widest number of people you can't be exclusive to one outlet and you must "press the flesh" at every opportunity. And IMO everything would direct the prospective customer towards your own website, which is the only place you can control "the message", rather than relying on the ups and downs of social media and forums. I tried helping out with a small music festival the last couple of years, but the people running it did not want to pay for - were not interested in - any marketing other than their own Facebook page (unless I paid for it, which I declined to do). The result was sales were down, and increasingly strident "buy tickets NOW" type messages to the Facebook page followers. That put people off as well.

One answer I am sure is that people are collecting them solely as "models", and they aren't interested in the accuracy. There's nothing that says people have to have 100% accuracy to like them as models/toys - think pre-war tinplate or old Tri-ang.

I see what you mean, but in this case I agree with Coachmann - if you want to renumber you'll have to fill in the recess first. Not to mention, introducing an area of possible mis-alignment (i.e. if the number plates are fractionally smaller than the hole, there will be a tiny gap where there doesn't need to be one).

Hi Dave - regarding the body lifting brackets (if that is what they are) queried above. Are they going to be a separate fitting? They are an obvious omission from the engineering prototype.

Are they attached to the body? It's a while since I saw the real loco, but the close up photo of the bogie in Modern Locomotives Illustrated No.215: DC Electric Locos, page 31, looks like they are bolted to a casing on the bogie - DJ's model has that bit. It's whether they are actually also connected to the body - or if they are just a very close fit - I can't see from the photos. They are pretty prominent, visually. I'm guessing they'll be an etched insert, as I assume they'll intefere with bogie rotation on trainset curves. I'm sure all will become clear in due course.

It sounds like it is able to rock very very slightly on the rear driving wheel, so that when a load is applied to the rear coupling, it drops the back end down a fraction, but enough to remove adhesion from the front driving wheel. Other than weight at the front end, it might be possible to stiffen or enhance the spring over the bogie so that the back end drop is removed/countered. Or both together.

I consider it more like missionary work ...

Agreed, they are partially missing. But as they seem (from photos) to be fixed to both body and bogie - the question is how should they be attached to the model and still allow the bogie to swing around model railway curves? (Or maybe they are separate fittings.)

I think you might be right - but it's fairly slight? However, I believe Dave has made changes on the EP over the CAD elsewhere, such as the cab roof and around the windows. We're better off at this stage comparing the model with photos of the real thing rather than the CAD.

Indeed you have, I remember that - and for that reason the few points I've made have been extended, or blended into the flexitrack, so the transition happens outside the point, but within the track component I've called "pointwork". So, the point (sic) was heeded ...

Definitely the arguments! No one seems to have had any problems with it. I've got a layout upstairs where the trains run perfectly well through the 16.2mm pointwork onto the SMP 16.5mm track. I'm waiting for the ceiling to fall in, or a plague of (Peco?) frogs, but nothing yet.

How is it a new idea? Pretty much everyone (me included) who has used 00-SF when building pointwork has transitioned the 16.2mm to 16.5mm during or at the end of the pointwork. It's been widely discussed, and until now, you've never stated quite so forcibly that it's a disaster in waiting. That I can think of, anyway. However ... doesn't it make it more confusing when every topic about this gauge, and the gauges sold by C&L ... are one name, and now Templot and the website use another? Isn't this more of a long-term potential disaster?

The former - the two engines exchanged identities in 1933 for "6100" to go to America, and never swapped back.

Three: 20001, 20002, 20003

Or, looking at the Concise Oxford, "exclamation: a strong sudden cry; exclamation mark: indicating an exclamation." Or Fowler's Modern English Usage notes that "A note of exclamation is used after words or sentences which express emotion", going on to say that its excessive use is largely one of style and the mark of (sorry JBM) an "unpractised author" (Fowler is quite harsh over things he doesn't like, but he was writing 100 years ago, so we indulge him). In any case, the humble exclamation mark is currently quite in vogue, as any scan of social media or advertising/press releases will reveal. I don't like it, but I just note it as a fact. It's not worth publicily chastising someone up for it, and, I humbly submit, poor form for the site owner to do so.

Growing up in north Leicester, we regularly used to walk into town and follow part of the old GC. In the 1970s and early 80s a steam line to Central would have made a pretty interesting journey, at least for me, as a lot of the old urban cityscape was still in place. Not really anymore, as the inevitable redevelopment has happened. Even if it were possible to rebuild all the viaducts and embankments, and relocate countless businesses from the trackbed. The chance of returning steam to Leiecester Central has long gone.

Don't you have electric light in your house, Martin? ;-)

I don't think they are, I think it's just the design.

So no set 372? I'll add a post-it corrigendum in the book ...

Sets 372-374 (source: Southern Coaches in Colour; photo of set 373 in green in 1960)

Very shortly the plaintive cry will be "but why did no one spot the error? The CADs were displayed for all to see". Don't be put off, Pannier Tank/David. In my book, a person with a sharp eye is worth more than a dozen "Looks gr8 m8".

I read this last week, and as luck would have it was travelling from Newcastle (East Coast mainline) to Loughborough (Midland main line) by train, via Newark (on the cross-country line to Nottingham). I looked out for bolt numbers and bar a couple of places where I noticed them on the main running lines (which is what I assume you mean by FB era trackwork), the only 6-bolt plates I saw were consistently at the toe end of turnouts, but even in turnout use most were 4-bolt plates. The overwhelming majority of joins away from turnouts, using FB rail (and bullhead in sidings and on the Great Central), were 4-bolt. (As everyone reading this already knows, I'm sure - but I wanted to check again for myself.) I like the product idea, but I reckon you're opening up a can of worms saying that most observers/users of the product will be ignorant that they're incorrect or won't notice the difference.