Zunnan

I thought that was a given. 😅 Come to think of it, I can't remember if the interiors were much cop either. My gut tells me the compartment doors are about as accurate as the rest of the coach.

Because the Airfix model existed, and required considerably less work to do the same job. Plus the CK was the correct length. Generally speaking SE Finecast glazing did the job. Maybe a repaint. You could go to town on them with etched sides too as the ends were part of the body, whereas the Hornby bodies may as well be scrapped completely for all they were worth.

Absolutely! I preferred the Airfix and Mainline offerings even in my pre-teens. The gangway ends were a separate moulded part from black plastic which slotted into the carriage end, useful for substituting with Comet whitemetal bow ends on the GWR stock if I recall. They did appear in rather unfortunate Big Four guises. R423 was a rather obnoxious BSK masquerading as a LMS Brake First for instance. R623 was the Southern and R932 was the GWR equivalent. The LNER sort of escaped by having those Thompson(ish) coaches.

Aah, but which class? 😅 Common chassis with less common wheels and boilers! I would be very in for the 1873 class (M class) though, being the most numerous as well as winding up with the M&GN and the S&DJ. Still think I'd be more in for a Kirtley 700 mind you.

Perfect subject for Rapido to tackle...and I don't mean the 5 plank!

The LMS coaches are exquisite. I felt when these were first announced that Grouping liveries would make the most sense with these generics, and having them in my hands now I stand by that thought. I do like the LNWR ones I've had arrive, they're a nice antidote to the rather 'Caledonian' Hornby effort, but the LMS livery blows them away. Its a nice touch adding in the spare axle and mounting bracket with the 4w composites to revert them to 6w too. Out of the 14 that have arrived, just one has had a loose gas cylinder which showed very little sign of glue. No brake rigging hanging or twisted and no loose vents or lamps. Very impressed indeed, I can't wait to get these down to the club next week to see how they trackhold over some of the more challenging 00 modules. Looking at the profile of the single footboards, I'd say they will be no hinderance what so ever for 2nd radius.

I can't even remember what I ordered...and I'm trying very hard not to look so it comes as a surprise when I open the box tomorrow!

Thanks for posting this up, its set to save me a chunk of money. I'm not going to bemoan the price because it is what it is, and until I saw the above images I was happy to pay the price. I guess I'm going to refresh the tired running gear on my old high mileage 47436 instead of putting it out to pasture. There is a lot which just doesn't seem right. I don't think 'cabinet glazing' can be put forward as a reason for any of it looking off, because issues with the shape of the 7mm model are well established so its not really a surprise they are apparent here. I do realise that 450 is most likely a generic EP hand painted up, so loco specific details like the incorrect marker lights for the end shown and missing sliver of yellow paint above the cab windows are subject to change, and I'd assume the ETH will be provided in the bits bag. But, your assessment of the body looking too deep rings true...or are the cab windows too high? The engine room windows are too low in relation to the cab windows, so either the engine room or the cab windows are out. This will show up abundantly on Green, freight sector, parcels and Dutch liveries. The cabside looks questionable, but I can't put my finger on it; its not one thing but a combination which includes the step in the nose. Not only that, the buffer beam cowls look far too narrow and shallow in the head on shots. I really wanted to like this model as 450 is perfect for me copping it repeatedly at Bescot, Saltley and Mordor as well as weekend diversions past our house back in the 80s.

Nice! And it leaves room for the Cambrian kits I have stashed to be built with Morton brakes. I wonder if/when LMS vans will follow, those are a huge hole to fill too...😇

I don't have an issue with producing the more notorious locomotives, up to a certain point they were just normal everyday locomotives until events play out. For example, Hornby did the Black 5 (45274 (R4353)) which turned over at Sutton Coldfield, killing 17. But the locomotive itself carried on in service for 12 more years, and it is in post accident condition which Hornby has produced it. I consider subjects like this to be a historical record, certainly in no poorer taste than can be found in modelling military subjects which were used in anger. What I find in lesser taste is using such events to promote a product. I hope there lies a motive to give a donation to related charities, that would at least reduce the sour taste of using the GTR to promote their proposed model. After trying to converse with them over Big Bertha, I'm waiting for their obligatory 'can you provide evidence' retort regarding quite significant loco details. Being rather brutal about it, I wouldn't trust them to realise there is more than one nose end variant at this point.

My oldschool 236 'C' and Building Services diploma, plus years as an electrical tech says the wiring in your home does heat up. But your Masters hunch is right, its perfectly safe as long as the installation is in accordance with the regs. 😇 Once you insert DIY into the equation, all bets are off though! I've seen home brew security lighting installs which would make your toenails curl. Six...SIX 400W halogen lights in three twin banks on PIR detectors. Plus the 0.75mm(!!!) cable feeding that lot was buried through 5m of loft insulation. And they wondered why they had problems when just two sets of lights were triggered... I think the clue with the melted bogie is mention of the rake being heavy. Most likely friction from one or more of those shallow conical axle ends having a bearing face not on the pointy end but further outwards on the cone. But refracted light is certainly another possibility, we burned a hole in a washing up liquid bottle once with a water filled vase left to soak on the kitchen worktop which caught the sun.

Drainage holes were added more or less as per the prototype, and pilasters based roughly on the surviving examples on another abutment up at Dhustone. I’ve not quite decided on the level of disrepair…some bricks and capping stones are going to go for a tumble sooner or later. A light mortar wash really helps the brickwork, but it’s FAR too clean! So far it’s just red oxide primer with a flesh tone wash for the brickwork, with Plastikote Suede for the concrete. Much weathering down is yet needed. Just a very basic bit of paint and pilasters make a huge difference to the view from the fiddle yard! And from the layout side, even those PECO girders are starting to fit in. The modifications to them just about help lift them from being a complete cop-out! 😅

Of course, the PECO monstrosity needs to be tied in with a bit of Clee Hill flavour, so my photos of the “bridge to nowhere” have come in handy! My usual method of building a 1mm or 1.5mm plasticard sub-structure was employed. The now obligatory Wills brick then added to provide the masonry. Shuttered concrete wing walls as per the bridge to nowhere we’re added using a scale 18” (6mm) styrene. The joins between concrete layers was done as before by flooding the join with plastic magic and forcing the join together causing melted material to seep out. With a bit of primer liberally applied, it’s starting to look half presentable from some angles.

A bit of modelling time has occurred! I’ve been giving some thought to the conundrum of the scenic break to the right side of the layout and come to the realisation that nothing I can concoct will truly fit. So, I have resorted to one of my pet hates…PECO girders! Suitably modified with a layer or two of styrene and a pouncing wheel! To add to the oh so cliche PECO scenic break, I used another one of their oft used products to tie the plate girders together… …And made the monstrosity longer!

Because its NOT necessary. Fully flanged 0-10-0, nothing special about the chassis and comes with a minimum recommended radius of 415mm.

Yes, but they do come with the caveat that it is on the owner as to whether to fit them; rather than developing a model which will negotiate a trackmat without the need for flangeless. Its a good thing that they supply the spare axles as that at least gives you the choice, in the same way its a good thing that models like the 1P and Precedent come with optional axles for traction tyres. The main point though is on flangeless drivers, and on that I am in agreement with you 100%. If its prototypical (like the 9F and LNWR 0-8-0s) then flangeless is unavoidable. On something like Big Bertha? Really? Its been proven that fully flanged ten coupled can be done reliably. The Fleischmann BR94 being a nice one to start off with, or how about the BR50? Going flangeless on Big Bertha seems like a lot of a copout.

Fleischmann can produce fully flanged 2-10-0s which negotiate 420mm radius (16.5inch, which is under second radius), and have done for decades. Its more about giving tolerance in the coupling rods and side to side of the drivers, kind of along the lines of how much slop is in the Heljan class 14. Having said that, I have Hornby 8Fs which won't negotiate the inside road on curved setrack turnouts, to be honest I think the centre axle being flangeless is a red herring. Flangeless axles is a modern creature comfort in 00 apparently, just look at all the current Hornby pacifics, Hush Hush and Bachmanns V2... KR should do the leading axle as its hidden behind the whirly bits to shorten its footprint to effectively 0-8-0. (very tongue in cheek, please don't!!!)

Seems to be par for the course. It doesn't fill one with much confidence, as it also seems they're reliant on others doing research for them. In one post they asked for evidence that the right hand side of the locomotive changed at all. Though it did highlight that there is also a half height extension to the cab front as part of the mechanical reverser modification. Evidence has also been given for the safety valves. Whether they use that information to better the model on offer or not is the big question. I won't be rushing to put money forward until I see the reverser arrangement and the safety valves corrected, that'll decide whether to consider relegating my DJH example or not. I wouldn't mind having a Big Bertha that can run on some of the clubs modular stuff which uses setrack as my current kitbuild won't; I've got it to just about tolerate a bit below 30" but much past that and its riding up to derail. It's all well and good saying 'do some modelling' to fix an incorrect RTR model, but unfortunately I've expended my 'm' word on this subject already. If KR can manage to get at least one version correct, I'll take it. But at the moment the CAD isn't right for any version, and after the Fell I need more convincing that it is worth it before I put any money up.

Its good to see a bit of CAD for this one, though I'd like to see the other side too to see their intentions with the reverser. The safety valve situation could do with another look...If they're going to do Ramsbottoms across all versions there should be two, not one as shown.

I wonder if one is a production run (upper) and the other a pre-production livery sample (lower). I guess we'll find out when batch 2 start arriving on doorsteps which of the SECR 6w brake roofs we're going to get given there are two different photos to go by. They're just far enough out to trigger a bout of OCD, now it has been pointed out its harder to miss. I'm hoping the LMS ones escape this and line up!

Look back to the photos posted by Turbo_Tim, his SR Green 6w brake is certainly in good alignment against the compartments, and the photo could not be any clearer. Likewise on Hattons site, all appear aligned on the SR versions, including the engineers coaches. I've seen plenty of wonky fitted parts, which is a different matter. When it comes to roof furniture not lining up with the compartments beneath them the only photos I've noticed so far are on GWR and SECR 6w brakes. Thats not to say they're not out there, I just haven't seen any yet.

Far too much yellow in places no BR Blue loco had it, so it falls into "imaginary and implausible". If the cab doors and steps were blue, no yellow lining and the side grilles greyed out with the ends having a more normal yellow wrap around, it'd creep over to "imaginary but plausible". Counter and change my mind! 😆 Back to the coaches, the changed roof layout on the 6w brake 3rd is a bit quizzical given on the EPs the roof furniture lined up with the compartments as has been well shown already. Rather strangely, depending on which 6w brake 3rd coaches you're looking at on Hattons website some appear misaligned and others look to line up fine. The photo Turbo_Tim posted of a SR 4 set and various photos of the engineering liveries and LNER 6w brake throughout this topic certainly look like they line up. I wonder if it is limited to the white painted GWR roofs at this point, although the SECR 6w brakes on Hattons site looks misaligned too.

And another run of FFAs!

Thats one of the most visual variations covered which hopefully is borne out on the model, even if it is one of the more short lived versions. As the tender was cut in 1922 high sided is only really suited for Midland livery. I suppose we'll know more following Warley regarding their thoughts on the other more visual modifications such as the reversing gear, safety valves and washout plugs as this can be clarified directly from the horses mouth so to speak. I think they could do it with two boiler configurations and cover just about everything ~ Ramsbottoms with original washout plugs for boiler 1 or Ross pops with the second boilers washout plugs. That way there is a definite MR and BR condition provided, and the absence (pre-1938) or presence (post 1938) of mechanical reversing linkage on a BR boiler is pretty easy with an etching to date the locomotive in LMS condition.

Its a nice eclectic prototype, I do have a soft spot for these early electrics. In this day and age of having to think closely on what I 'can' and 'should' stretch to, I'll just say I'm glad to finally see these sorts of locomotives being the subject of rtr models. The level of intricate detail on show, especially around the chassis, shows you exactly where that price tag is going. It looks to be well worth the asking price IMHO.