Btourer

Rob, EM is worth a look! I have been an EMGS member for three years now, being convinced to have a go after speaking to Roy Jackson when he appeared at Model Rail Scotland giving demonstrations at the EMGS booth. He also introduced me to Model Railway Journal, what a find that was! Although I initially thought that EM was well beyond my skill levels, that has not been the case, and it certainly looks much better. Regards, Colin

Hi Mick, I agree with you regarding the difficulties of covering up the scar on the bodywork. I also suggested seperate handrails in a fit your own bag a few posts back and agree totally with you on that. My point in my above post is not one of pure cost alone. I detail all of my locomotives, re gauge to EM and weather. This does add cost. I have the Coronach model and i have replaced the smokebox door dart handles for example. My point was that when Design Clever was launched on RMweb and in the modelling press, it was promoted by Hornby as a way to offer locomotives at a lower price point. As I showed above, this is true. However, price paid and value for money are two completely different things. I was merely trying to show that by comparing features offered between 'Old premium' and 'Design Clever premium' models, and then looking at the cost of upgrading your Design Clever model to old premium standards, you are actually getting less for your money. In a statement, I don't believe Design Clever premium models offer the buyer the same value for money that one of the A3s, A4s, B1's, Bullied Pacifics, Britannias etc offer. Conversely, I believe that the Railroad model, at the price it is offered at, with the same chassis and mouldings offers outstanding value for money. Even after you add on the costs for upgrading it still will cost less than an old premium model.

Mike's post got me thinking on the cost versus value for money equation regarding old, premium, Hornby models and the new Design Clever Type, so I sat down this evening and had a look to see if I could come to a conclusion by comparing two models. I looked for both models on Hornby's online shop as it gives a direct comparison with the pricing direct from the manufacturer. The first, of course is R3207 Cock o' the North. My comparison, for the purposes of this, would have to be non limited edition and unweathered, and a large express passenger locomotive. I chose R3013 Coronach. First factor - price. R3207 CotN costs £122.99. R3013 Coronach costs £140.99. So Cock O' the North wins on price, costing £18 less than Coronach. I then wrote down a few things that Coronach has that CotN doesn't, and looked online at Markits where I often pick up items like this. Here's a list of parts and prices direct from Markits: LNER sprung loco buffers - £6.90 Smokebox door handle LNER - £4.16 Handrail knobs - £2.84 Brass handrail wire - £2.49 P&P (minimum) - £3.50 Total cost - £19.89 Paints for touch up/ cabside repaint and smokebox door repaint - all Railmatch paints, prices from Howes: LNER Doncaster green - £2.95 Black - £2.95 Silver - £2.95 Couldn't find P&P costs, so no figure for that. Total - £8.85 plus P&P Grand total £28.74 My point is that you get a lot of value out of the extra £18 paid for R3013! Especially when you consider the extra cab detail too!

Thank you Tom for the information. I am dissappointed that Hornby have made that decision. In the past few years Hornby have made some very fine handrail knobs, like the ones on the B1. They are close enough to scale for me and are more prototypically correct - the handrails on the prototype are not moulded on. I agree with DavidW that this is a retrograde step however you look at it, and I can't help but feel that the market that will be looking for the premium model - scale modellers and collectors - have been compromised in order to save money on tooling costs so that they can mould the railroad version from the same moulds. Following on from my point above, if the main difference between the premium and railroad versions is going to be the paint job and lining, but if you want to fit your own handrails you will have to get the exacto out and then repaint and re line what you spent some of the extra money on, then why would you buy the premium model over the railroad one which costs less?

Could anyone who has seen the model up close confirm that all of the cabside and the tenderside rails are seperately fitted or not? If they are, I believe that this is where Hornby's Design Clever compromise should sit. It looks fantastic and there will be no carving off of moulded handrails spoiling the beautiful finish. I still am not impressed with Duke of Gloucester compared to the Britannia and Clan though, in my opinion, too much exposed piping for the compromise to look right. I also eat my words regarding my skepticism of Hornby's choice of locomotive, it looks fantastic! I'm tempted to get one just for display even though it has nothing to do with the era I model.

Does anyone know of a photograph which shows the inside of Hawick engine shed? I have a really good photograph of the interior of Hawick goods shed, but at the time it was taken the locomotive shed had already been demolished, so there are none of it. Thank you for any help you can provide.

Thank you for sharing the photos of your beautiful models of the Pacifics and the V2. The history of the fish trains that you provided is very interesting.

I agree wholeheartedly that the route should be extended to Hawick, and I applaud those people who are putting effort into lobbying for this. The major problem with extending the railway though will be the bypass that is more or less right on the track bed to the east of Melrose station. Does anyone have an idea of how an extension from Tweedbank could realistically be routed in this area? It would have to cross the road at some point to reach the existing track bed to the south.

Yes, I am planning to. I still have a lot of research to do, but the idea is to build the station and goods yard with the locomotive shed first and then expand from there.

Thanks very much Duncan! These colour pictures are very helpful to me, particularly the one taken fron the roadside.

To me, this model looks a lot better than the Duke of Gloucester prototype. Far less exposed piping, which in the Duke's case does draw unfavourable comparison with the Hornby 'Britannia' and 'Clan'. I agree that it is easy enough for most modellers of average skill to replace the buffers with sprung items, replace the smokebox dart etc. Any paintwork damaged in these areas is easily repaired, a quick airbrushing of red or black respectively. I disagree that moulded handrails anywhere on the body, cab or tender are an acceptable compromise, especially on an LNER fully lined apple green locomotive. It will be impossible to remove the mouldings without damaging the paint, and to get a decent finish, at least the whole side of the cab would need to be repainted and relined in what is probably the most complicated lining of a British railway company. What I really don't understand is why Hornby didn't just decide to include hadrails in a seperate bag if this is an item that would take too much time to fit seperately at the factory? I believe (Please forgive me if I am wrong, I have never bought a locomotive from Vi Trains) Vi Trains have a detailing pack with their diesels that contains handrails for the modeller to fit in order to reduce the price point of the loco. It is so easy to fit handrails in a locomotive using a small drop of cyano from the opposite side of the hole, leaving a neat result. While I greatly enjoy kitbuilding, when I first started out painting was not the easiest part for me, and lining can still have me tearing my hair out as I aim to emulate Ian Rathbone's work, and fail to come close.

I love the J37s. I also love the J35s and 36s. There is something about the NBR 0-6-0 freight locos that really appeals to me. I only wish that a 37 and/or a 35 was preserved. My only experience of those classes are the pictures in books and the footage on DVD. Happily, I have been pulled by Maude on a few occasions at Bo'ness.

Not sure if anyone has seen this one - http://myrailwaystation.com/STEAM%20AROUND%20THE%20COUNTRY/images/64539%20pictured%20at%20Hawick%2020th%20May%201958_jpg.jpg - It shows a lot of the buildings located behind Hawick engine shed which are usually hidden behind loomotives in most images!

Hello Eric, I just want to say thank you for sharing your wonderful layout and models with us here on RMweb. I have been following this thread for a while and it has offered me countless hours of inspiration and tuition in making cab sheets for my A4s and making piping runs on my other pacifics. I love all of the Haymarket pacifics and I am attempting to model as many as possible for my future Hawick 1959 layout I am planning. I love the Canal A3s too, and have an example of each. Part of the reason I model June/July 1959 is the wonderful variety offered in the A3 class: single chimneys, kylchap chimneys, deflectors on Humorist, three different boiler types, three different tender types, ATC/AWS (But none on the Canal engines!). Seeing your pictures of your pacifics inspired me to go for variety and I haven't looked back since! I love the ex NBR designs too!