olivegreen

No need to apologise - this is great stuff, Dave. many thanks again for sharing the information. Mike

I am not usually one who identifies errors in models but (unless I have missed something in the past 57 pages of discussion) has anyone else noticed that the tender for 21C3 is wrong? Looking very closely at this wonderful model today (now that the initial wow factor has worn off a bit - but only a bit!) and comparing it with the notes on pages 75 to 79 of the Irwell Book of the Merchant Navy Pacifics, the tender should not have the high back, as only the first two had that at build. It is correct, of course, that there are footsteps and no ladders as built, but the back is wrong for all of the first batch (= up to 21C10) except 21C1 and 21C2. For those like me looking at renumbering, yet trying to keep some degree of historical correctness (leaving aside the black/malachite issue before the front end was modified), note also that from 21C4 onwards, ladders were fitted. Just a thought!

Many thanks, Dave_Hooe, for the information. Just one point for those who would wish to follow Dave's information - none of the links works… from outside the UK, at least. Mike

OK - I'd agree with your bit in brackets!

Given the above, which seem to be reasonable assessments of the situation, ….. Isn't this a rather unnecessarily personal, even infantile comment?

Don't worry too much, Dave - those of us who are rather less sensational about such things are looking forward to the arrival of this stock.

Same here, albeit my teeth are perhaps just a little shorter!

Not forgetting to add 'At the sign of…' !

The postman has just delivered my 21C3 - absolutely stunning ! (The engine, not the postman, that is).

As Shakespeare said, 'much ado about nothing'. For anyone to get so worked up about photographs that (as was clearly stated) do not represent the finished product says rather more about the person than the product.

Just to support what you wrote, if I may, the HMRS issued an addendum to the livery register (not sure when - my copy of it doesn't seem to carry a date) in which, among many other things, it is stated that Paint sample 7 in Appendix 4 - the Malachite Green sample - is wrong on several counts… not least the colour itself! The explanation is a bit long to go into here (and would probably infringe their copyright anyway) but I'm sure the re-issued register will give better steers on the colour. Mike

For heaven's sake, drop it !

My 58xx arrived this morning, and I have to agree 100% with melmerby's comment. What a wonderful model. It worked perfectly out of the box and is now running-in. The lack of ashpan will take a few modelling minutes to rectify, and the other oddities of the model that have led to all the wailing here pale into insignificance alongside its overall look. How many of those who complain about the numberplate not protruding a fraction of a millimetre (as it should) or the wheels not being of exactly the right diameter actually take into account that most of them will be running the engine on track that is 2.33mm too narrow, rails (if Peco code 100 - still among the most used, I am led to believe) that are both flat-bottomed and over a scale 6" high and, moreover, running it with huge automatic couplings on at least one, if not both ends ? Let's keep things in perspective. I thank Hattons, DJ and all others involved in producing this model. Edit to add: If you're hesitating about buying one - don't: even with the slight errors it IS worth taking the plunge!

Quite right. Thunderbolts duly launched in Hroth's direction !

Yes you do. You know you do. Really, you do, you know. Come on, you KNOW you do !

This is good news as far as the not-too-distant arrival of these long-awaited coaches is concerned. …on the other hand... 14xx + MN + 71 + Taw + gate stock within a few months of each other is less good news financially …. I'm thinking of extending the mortgage now.

(Ref the bit in red) I am certainly one of those who in these threads has expressed a wish for a 4-COR (and for me, it would be the original, 1938-ish version). Those with better knowledge of the market than me might know differently, but I would tend to agree with you that the level of interest, based on region, the 3rd rail, type and, most of all, probable cost, will be somewhat limited, to say the least. Seems such a pity that plastic kit manufacturers (of the Ian Kirk type) have almost disappeared from the scene, as the 'serious' 4-COR market (in 4mm/foot) might have been satisfied by them, even if only by making the sides and ends, with other components to be sourced elsewhere. That said, painting and lining a Maunsell-liveried version would present a major challenge for many of us (well, me, at least!).

I rather think that Dave knows what he is doing for the greater good of all of us.

Thanks. The trouble is, I've already played that one to the limit with previous toys. Sorry that this was a bit off-topic, but I'm just looking forward, like so many others, to receiving these fine models.

I agree with you. However… I am desperately looking for ideas on how to avoid SWMBO finding out about my 58xx, Royal Mail, a 71 and a Manning Wardle, all of which will be arriving in the next few days or weeks and, more importantly, how to counter her probably slightly 'aggressive' opinion on how I can justify them (I refer to their cost, not the incoherence in era!). I have a distinct feeling that the argument that these products please me won't carry much weight. Help !

Inference or implication, if you prefer, in the context of association of magazine and product carrying the same name (my point), and editorial influence (your point) are not the same thing and I repeat that I never suggested they were. That is my clarification of the situation. End of discussion for me. (Edited to underline 'editorial' !)

Nowhere have I said that there was. Furthermore, I wrote of RETENTION of editorial freedom which means I presume that such always existed with the previous arrangement. Reading what I wrote before reacting would be a good idea.

I note what you say, and accept that the licensed name may have been the only legal connection, but 'commercial interest' in the sense I perceive it is far broader than that: advertising by inference, for example, is frequently a deliberate policy. Just look at the number of magazines on the shelves that are little other than 'advertorials' (ghastly word, but it transmits the idea!). Anyway, that is the past, and not worth pursuing, given the latest re-negotiation, as you say. Edit to add: The important point for the magazine's credibility - I repeat - is the retention of editorial freedom.

Avoids investment in another nameplate, perhaps? Pedant hat on : it's 'Holland-Afrika Line' (with the hyphen), as distinct from 'Holland America Line' (without). Pedant hat removed.

I agree and note also what Legend has said (above). It seems to me pretty clear that there has always been a commercial interest between the magazine and the manufacturer that goes beyond permission to use what I presume are copyrighted things such as name, logo, typeface and colouring. Anyone who believes the contrary is probably fooling himself. Such interest serves the (mostly) sales purposes of both parties, and there is nothing at all wrong with that - in any case, it happens all the time in other aspects of the publishing world. Does it matter who owns whom? For me - and I suspect many readers of the magazine - the important thing for the publisher to retain is editorial freedom which, in concrete terms here, means the freedom to offer negative criticism (as well as positive, of course) of Hornby models: to call a spade a spade. Let us hope that that principle continues.