S.A.C Martin

I can hardly be expected to be responsible for other people's choices of likes/dislikes, surely Mickey?

I would say that Dave Jones helped create some successes as an employee of Dapol but to put all of Dapol's successes down to one man, singularly, is awfully insulting to an entire company. I have respect for the man and I hope (really hope given the prototypes chosen, for purely selfish LNER modelling needs) that he succeeds - I do not wish anyone to fail in this business. I am a realist and I hope that comes across as opposed to any nonsensical idea (as as been emailed to me earlier) that I actively want British industries to fail. Far from it. If the J94 comes out and is welcomed with open arms by reviewers, I like many modellers will no doubt take the opportunity to upgrade. At the same time, Dave Jones - singular - is an untried and untested commodity. He has not as yet produced any product to sell. That is a fact. It may be a difficult fact to swallow for many, but it is a fact nonetheless.

*DJ Models products are available to purchase.

By that logic Ian, so are Hornby in America, Bachmann in Germany and Kato in the UK. DJ Models has no products on the shelves and He;jan does. By the definition of "cottage industry" - poorly chosen words perhaps but nevertheless an accurate description so far as product and output are measured - how else would you describe DJ Models? My evidence to substantiate "my claim" is simple. Look in any catalogue from any of the major box shifters and tell me what Heljan products are available. Now tell me what DJ Model products. I cannot believe I am having to defend a point of view which states that Heljan are a model making company with product and DJ Models are not, as yet. The facts speak for themselves.

Sorry Ian, I am afraid you have completely misread and misrepresented my view. In no way was I describing Heljan as a cottage industry. In any event, I do not think my assertion (that Heljan have made lots of acclaimed models over the years and DJ models output is zero at present is something not substantiated by fact? Another forum member has put it to me by PM that Kernow's reputation precedes itself and I would happily agree on that point, with the caveat that it has previously worked alongside several large companies to produce their wares. (On a side note, I would hope it would be for the forum's moderators to decide if I were "skating on thin ice", thank you).

I know the tide of populist opinion is personally (and directly) against me, so I'll make this my last post in this topic. The discerning within the hobby will know where to direct their money? Yes, I would hope they would CK, but would you put your money behind a company as yet to produce an actual model, or one which releases new models to critical acclaim most of the time, year on year? Are you seriously suggesting that discerning, logically minded modellers wouldn't put their money behind tried and tested Heljan - the company with probably the best performing D&E models in the market place? Granted, currently untried with British outline steam (but then their forthcoming Gresley O2 is looking an absolute cracker in the pre-production stage). Call me a cynic but I equate success and reputation with success and reputation earned.

Could you please explain how the odds are currently in Kernows favour? Surely with development of an almost identical (mechanically anyway) locomotive class already on the drawing board, surely the odds are with Heljan? I am all for supporting our cottage industries and home grown talent but this appears to me to be pretty open and shut in favour of the Danes?

Why is it that Heljan - the larger model railway company - with a model sharing many components already in development - are assumed to be dropping their model…against the backdrop of a much, much smaller entity and a model railway shop announcing the same prototype? With the greatest of respect to DJ Models and Kernow, I cannot believe people actually believe Heljan would drop their plans on the basis of a DJ Models - or anyone else for that matter - announcement?

The relief is palpable. On my DoG, the rods were the first thing to be replaced. Its not so bad on the Railroad Scotsman, but I did wonder how they'd do it with the P2. My parcel arrived today…but it is at the sorting office. Drat and double drat! Still, what's one more evening. Looking forward to this model immensely. Already have everything in place for its conversion, too...

Looks very nice. Can't quite get over how nice it looks!

No problem - anyone who would like it, drop me a PM.

Exactly the same as me then! We are indeed poles apart I suspect. Nothing personal, may I add, for avoidance of doubt.

If you want one by the way Ivan, I still have one Black Five GBL - loco only, but entirely complete. Free to a good home if you pay for postage.

Unlikely Colin - like the Railroad 4472 I suspect the chassis has been designed to fit specifically that motor. The new Railroad A4s have 3-pole motors designed to fit that older chassis type as opposed standard 3-pole motors designed into a new chassis.

For what you're paying for it, the 4MT looks rather nice. P4 and EM modellers would surely prefer a cheap bodyshell to start with than an expensive Bachmann model? Just thinking out loud here.

Sorry Ian, I must disagree on that point, and I would suggest it is somewhat misleading to suggest the 3 pole and 5 pole motors are of equal quality. The 3-pole motor in the recent Mallard and Silver Fox Railroad models is in my experience awful. Nowhere near as smooth as the 5 pole motors previously used. The Railroad Scotsman uses the same 3-pole motor as DoG and is markedly smoother to both this and the two A4s, due in no small part to the combination of the brass bearings and the flywheel drive. My DoG is somewhat smoother on a rolling road than on a train set and again, it has a flywheel to counterbalance the somewhat variable quality of the motor. I will calmly await for my own P2 to compare but previous experience suggests that the overall motor/chassis combination may or may not be entirely suitable for the discerning modeller.

All the electrics are definitely in the loco, the tender follows on from the Railroad Scotsman and has the adjustable metal bar, no pickups. Tony Wrights review of the super detail model last year, interestingly, had the model without cab doors. I'm slightly impressed at the way this factory fitted addition has slipped under the radar along with lamp irons and cab glazing.

Cab glazing. Slightly astonished. Wasn't expecting that. Separate handrails on the boiler and smoke deflectors - good, just what we wanted. Not sure the vents are separate items - look similar to the Railroad Scotsmans moulded vents. Separately fitted lamp irons too it looks like. How sure are we that this models major differences to the main range one isn't the paint job? Curiouser and curiouser.

I don't think anyone has as yet had time to take them out of the box let alone test them. I'm now certain mine will arrive tomorrow - what's one more day now I know it's sctually been made! Very surprised at the improved spec - cab doors for one. Suddenly feeling quite positive about the P2.

I'm going for a different loco but agree, the possibilities are rather intriguing, particularly if Hornby would deign in the future to use their Railroad A1 and pair it with the P2 tender for a different member of the class A1/A10. If they had tooled up a version with a short chimney, 220lb boiler and short cut out cab, I'd have been in heaven. Alas, both no.2001 and 4472 in the Railroad range have the large cut outs in the cabs, and the latter has a short lived GNR height chimney.

What has perhaps made me feel a little happier is knowing that my Railroad P2 - which will be taken apart and put back together again as a streamlined P2 - will be able to donate its tender to one of my Railroad A1s. The plain almost Gill Sans lettering on the tender in yellow will suit a 1946 era Pacific rather nicely. Add in the lining out and It's virtually ready to roll. That tender will be replaced by a streamlined A4 type instead, intended for a Lord President conversion in wartime black with weathering.

Completely forgot I had ordered with Hattons. I have also ordered with Invicta and will honour all the orders I have placed! I had intended on purchasing multiple Railroad P2s anyway so I am a little ahead of my own game for a change. I look forward to seeing it tomorrow or Friday.

We do live, learn, and grow Ivan. Sometimes for the better, sometimes not. I'd like to think my posting today is of a higher quality than when I initially joined RMweb. Since I can see the odds stacking against me further, I will withdraw. I have no wish to comment further.

It it not so much the disagreement but the manner in which such disagreement is presented. I appear to have bought the brunt of much of the criticism on behalf of wishlisters (!) which given my own modelling credentials seems a trifle unwarranted. It was certainly not presented in a particularly respectful manner. I have always been happy to be corrected online and on RMweb most definitely but just once I would like to see criticism and debate presented in a constructive fashion by all sides and not just the least vocal side.

I have of course, PM'd my own views but I am disappointed at the manner and tone of the post. I shall think twice about offering up any view in future on the GBL thread.