Zunnan

Now that the models are arriving, I'll finally answer that question... Not buying, it really is nowhere near good enough. I'll happily do without, and I don't think I'm alone in thinking that. I thought the 56 was disappointing (so much so that I've long since sold both of mine on), but this is in a whole new league...

Even though its not something I'd consider, I hope this does as well as certain previous manufacturers small/medium 0-6-0s have done, I know some have become shelf sitters in shops and bargain bins, but others have disappeared rapidly. The J27 fills a gaping hole in the market that has been there for a very long time. There are perhaps other locos from the Northeast area that some may feel more fitting, but I think OR have hit the right nail on the head with this one; so with a bit of luck it leads to many more in the future from OR as the affordable 0-6-0 is in danger of extinction in other stables.

There really does seem to be a bit of a theme building up with OR, pre-Grouping locomotives from each of the Big Four, with one notable exception. The GWR has the Dean Goods which saw service overseas in WW1 makes me wonder about the viability of the Kirtley 700 class. They're almost a perfect parallel to the Dean Goods being a class built in large numbers and which had a very similar life (albeit first built earlier and last withdrawn earlier) and also saw service overseas in WW1 and had examples end up in service with FS (380 class). They're a lovely quirky 0-6-0 with a massive lifespan and plenty of livery possibilities.

A couple more Compounds is good for me, though a shame not one in LMS Crimson. Also nice to note that the Sound fitted models also now have a non sound counterpart. That really irked me in the past when the only version I wanted came with double the price tag and a load of 'feature' I don't want. Even if it is possible to remove and sell it on, I'd rather not have that initial outlay to deal with in the first place. So a positive step for sure. A quiet year that some will undoubtedly whine about, but considering the massive backlog they have I'm not surprised in the slightest.

My raft of mermaids too! I have so much confidence in these appearing that I've reworked my NGS Sharks though...

If the W4 is anything to go by, the first batch may well be near sold out to pre orders by the time it arrives. It was really quite hard to buy the W4 without resorting to the Ebay extortion it turned into, I lucked out on picking up my Biscuit and had to wait for the second batch for a works green model as Dodo went the way of the bird rather rapidly. Not making the same mistake with the B2!

No, models like this shouldn't really reach the customer, and I'd venture to suggest that when a vendor receives a sale to an international customer that the model should be checked over before it is sent out so that the cause of any damage by the time it arrives with the customer can be identified, especially considering the cost of returns. If transit damage can be proven, then at least attempts can be made to recover those costs. And if a model is indeed missing parts from the manufacturer, that feedback can be made without the affected model ever reaching the customer. Faulty model or not, I have to question all of the bluster over a few missing handrails when you quite happily accepted a part destroyed Heljan 47xx.

The Bachmann model portrays what was effectively the first 'standard' brake van built by the LMS from 1923 without duckets and from 1926 with duckets, although based on a Midland design; a very brutalised simplification, but its the easiest way to sum up that model. This iteration as announced by Hornby is of the standard LMS brake van which originated in 1935, and is a very different vehicle. An LMS (or BR(M) for that matter) layout can happily utilise both models in multiple numbers.

I'll echo that taken for granted...I completely missed this when I first read through. Now I can finally think about putting those ancient Airfix and GMR vans out to pasture.

Off the top of my head, the X has larger wheels, longer wheelbase with a longer and higher pitched boiler which makes them look very different, plus the obvious difference in the cab design as the X was an earlier build. The B2 with its low and short boiler still looks like a diminutive locomotive, and although not particularly much larger the proportions of the X just looks a bit more beefy.

Given the lament I've experienced about the difference in livery and finish between the 2D, 2E and the blue box Mk2F, I'm not surprised by this one. At least those who've voiced concern at the 'inability' to run the various aircons together due to said differences now have a viable Mk2F option. Now all they have to do is fix the 2E chassis issue...

The highlight of Hornbys announcements, by a country mile!

Is 032 correct as depicted by this rendition? Photos I've seen of it earlier in its career, I can't find one with oval buffers past 1982 (It was still in all Blue in early '81 and painted B/G by December '81) or embellished with the Valleys dragon before 1985, and none show the number in the location depicted. Carrying the T132 number puts it firmly in its Tyseley days post 1986, I remember the unit as a regular on the Stourbridge Town turn from before we moved house in early '87. Every photo I have shows oleos and the 55032 number at the other end of the unit when viewed from the same side as the sample model. Its nothing that can't be fixed, but it is a little irksome when printing the number correctly and fitting the right parts comes down to an oversight or lack of research rather than a design compromise.

This is in no doubt, and I am quite fond of the Hornby 50ft BG effort. However, the rationale for not doing the CK was that tooling a third chassis would have been cost prohibitive. If tooling a third chassis really was the sticking point I'd have thought a CK and have to make do with a near 40 year old BG made far more financial sense than the current situation of no CK and two BGs. Would the Staniers have sold better with a CK in the range than a BG? I would say more than likely, yes. I know you can argue the LMS suburbans provide a composite to modern standards, which is entirely true and a viable option for a scratch set, but that isn't everyone's cup of tea (I tend to use Brakes for this rather than a compo). Thankfully the Portholes have been done and provide that vital CK now, but until those arrived I know that I'm not alone in holding back from buying Hornbys offerings, so you could say that the lack of a CK has cost sales for a number of years. You can't put a quantity on that as it is pure conjecture, but its still undeniably something to factor in. As it stands I have a sizeable pre-order for more Portholes that I'd rather cut down should a D1925 ever materialise; I'd be in for double figures... And its pretty much the same story with the Gresleys, where Bachmann have only recently come to the rescue with a range that covers a CK and BTK with the Thompsons...well documented body issues with the Gresleys aside. You can go to the non-corridors to fill the gaps for a scratch set, but again, I don't think many modellers would consider that a viable option. The vogue with modellers seems to be neatly matching sets.

Couldn't agree more. I'd love to see these two coaching stock ranges padded out to make the most of them. I still think they'd have been better off doing the 60ft chassis and producing a D1925 CK and perhaps the rarer D1850 BCK to make further use of the chassis, rather than doing the 50ft BG which was duplicated in the blue box anyway. As much as I like the BG it doesn't help form a prototypical (ex)LMS rake, and until the advent of the Bachmann Portholes you couldn't do that without either using a CK of older lineage than me or using a Mk1. The LMS crowd are still stuck with using 1970s tooled CKs of Mainline and Airfix origins or kitbuilds, and that can't have helped with sales over the years. It was only arrival of the Portholes which made me buy more Hornby Staniers, and I'd buy D1925s (as well as a fistful more BTKs) in droves if they were produced. I'd also like to see the Gresley range padded out with a BTK and CK, warts and all for what its worth nowdays. Kirk kits are getting harder to come by, they're becoming an investment rather than a viable building alternative with the prices they can fetch!

Poole made models should have a 4 digit item number, and the box will have no reference to Bachmann or made in China. Kader made models have the hyphenated serial number. Another thing to look out for, as there are plenty of re-boxed models out there, are the wheel profiles. Poole models as far as I recall only had a chrome finish to their pizza cutter flanges. Some of the very last models Poole made that I remember (like the class 31 and the Jinty) originally came with those chromed pizza cutters. Models made in China have always(?) had finer profile blackened wheelsets. I may be wrong and the blackened wheelsets appeared with Poole production (it will have been very late in the Poole production), but I don't remember seeing this.

Some panelled Midland coaches or outside frames vans to go with all of the other Midland origin locomotives we've had over the years would be nice, but at this stage I'd just like to see the 1532 arrive before it goes over £200.

That illustrates where the Peco slips aren't ideal. If only they'd lengthen the switch blades down towards the crossings so that the radius through the slip can be eased a bit, the basic geometry can remain essentially the same overall but you do have the issue with a double slip and the switch blade tips. I was waiting to see the slips before making a decision on what direction to take with the next layout, but I think I'll be waiting a bit longer to see if the EMGS expand the ready to plonk trackwork to include slips. I'm not sold on the 00 bullhead slips now that there is a 3D version to look at, it may just be the light material used for the timbers making it more obvious than with a darker moulded plastic, so I'll hold fire a bit longer until the production samples land before I jump in one direction or another.

I have a feeling the running plate on that EP may be metal, the sheen on its surface is different to the moulded plastic parts, but it is only a feeling and some of the bends towards the cab look more like moulded plastic. We'll find out when they arrive I suppose. Re the tender traction tyres, I have plenty of non tyred axles which is my initial plan. But yes, replacing tyres on a coupled wheelset is less straightforward than it is on a tender drive unit. I have to say I have come to loathe the 5MT, having to refit tyres and get them concentric so that the locomotive doesn't develop a pronounced wobble is a pain in the proverbial, to the point it became the deciding factor in buying a Duchess or not. The goal is 50 wagons, the WD I have manages 40-45, and a Black 5 I have that I tested without tyred wheelsets managed 20. As long as a non traction tyred 8F manages 30 then it'll be happy days, most will be happy with that level of performance and I know I'll be able to get what I need out of them. To be honest, if I went the traction tyred tender route I'd expect the hybrid I'm intending on creating to be able to take over 60 even if the base model has 4F levels of haulage. My main drive is the Revolution class B tankers, a train of 20 is a very draggy thing indeed, I tested it as equating to around 50 16t mineral wagons.

Now that's a pleasant sight, and no sign of a traction tyre yet, glad to see that. Hopefully the running board will be metal for a bit more weight, but I think I might pick up a spare tender drive or two just in case.

I'm hoping that the single motorised engine rather than both won't be too much a limitation on its hauling capacity, or at least common chassis parts are used front and rear so it is easier for the more determined of us to motorise both ends. I'm a little hemmed in to considering these being as this isn't a rule 1 model. I'm glad that they were light engine moves at the point where the layout saw them on the odd occasion though, I don't own nearly enough stock to load one up properly and be able to provide other locomotives with work!

I have the perfect number for my wants and needs...none!

The 08 really isn't too bad to get into, once you've followed the Bachmann DCC fitting instructions to get the body off you only need to gently pry the front corners of the cab out to the side a little (about 1mm each side) so the tabs clear into a deep slot in the body and it all slides off. The only problem that is beyond the expected which you might encounter is if any glue has made it into the join between the floor of the body and the cab sides, I've seen two like this out of maybe 20 I've taken apart over the years. Another solution may be (especially if you ever consider trying DCC) to contact a model shop to see if they're willing/able to disassemble it, or even visit a model railway club if there are any local to you, we've had a couple of new modellers through our doors with similar requests in the past. You have to get the body off to chip it anyway, and separating the cab is only one step further than fitting a DCC chip, so if there is a shop or person you can contact who does DCC fitting the odds are they'll have taken a fair few of these apart.

Its the same setup as used by the N Gauge Society and the 2mmSA as well as many other niche societies set up to assist their members. I don't see what the problem is to be honest, if you're that interested in the subject matter you'll be (or quickly become through a very quick bit of research) aware of the relevant societies. I'll be considering these when (if) a single slip is on the cards, I've been trying to order from C&L and had pretty much given up on the idea of going beyond the planning stage in EM and just going ahead in 00, so this news is more than welcome.

The maroon 50ft BR has been a long time in the waiting. I've made some real headway towards going grey since they first appeared and wished there was a maroon one! (No word of a lie there!) Glad to see them finally on the way...albeit at near enough double the price I paid for the first run.