sirwilliamfrs

P2 no. 2002 Earl Marischal was by all accounts a better locomotive than 2001 due to it's Walschaerts valve gear. The outer smoke deflectors were a feature for almost it's entire existence until rebuilding, Hornby would be missing a trick not to include this feature to make for a more distinctive locomotive instead of something too similar to 2001.

My reply regarding a 'Claughton' was inspired by the fact that it was the last and largest of the LNWR passenger locos and the fact that that one lasted into early BR days. Although it was not re-numbered, LMS 6004 was much sought after by enthusiasts in 1948. The Claughtons were also the basis of the first two Patriots which were officially rebuilt Claughtons, although the only parts used were minor, except for the driving wheels! With their many differences within the class, most notably boilers and smoke deflectors, they may well be the best-known LNWR locos and would seem to be a good subject for a model, if the Precedent sets a precedent for pre-grouping models! As a collector I welcome the model of 'Hardwicke' in particular as it's achievements in 1895 were nothing short of amazing, right up there with 6201 & 6234.

If the 'Precedent' takes off, prepare yourselves for a 'Claughton' !

Is this the one you're looking for? It is the best description I have seen and it works! https://www.tomstrains.co.uk/2020/fixing-the-axleboxes-on-a-hattons-class-66/

Thanks Truffy, I did & never noticed! (Fat Fingers!!!)

...............................................................

Totally agree, it needs to extend to the side windows. A black or white horn grille and headlamp surround would be good as well.

Do the latest batch still have the problem with the badly moulded inner bogie frame on each left (driver's) side which was causing the wobbling? https://www.tomstrains.co.uk/2020/fixing-the-axleboxes-on-a-hattons-class-66/

It seems the ESU loco in the video gets quite a bit of 'smoke oil' residue collecting on the roof. Now that would be ideal for a run-down Class 40 or 50!

Fran , thanks for clearing that up. There is a difference in the artwork on ROS website between D9008 & D9019, hence my question. I've now ordered one!

Rails of Sheffield have a limited edition version of D9019 listed in 1965 two-tone green condition. It is shown in profile on their website as having plated over front cabside windows. Is this a mistake in the drawing or was this loco an exception by having the modification before any other? In all the photos I can find from this period the window is shown as glazed.

Not experimental blue but a great looker! https://railsofsheffield.com/products/35924/Hornby-r3682-oo-gauge-br-blue-duchess-of-gloucester-princess-coronation-class-4-6-2-steam-locomotive-no-46225?gclid=Cj0KCQjw_ez2BRCyARIsAJfg-ks9WXPIThNQVfy-8xXzLrChDORkPEp0fHfFrghNOPTkIs-CK4Gr9LIaAk0sEALw_wcB

Time for a fact-check warning maybe, like Twitter did to Trump.

When watching the action of a pantograph is is easy to be deceived into thinking it is moving about a lot due to the "stagger" of the overhead wire, which is offset from the centre line in a shallow zig-zag to even out wear on the pan conductor. Having said that, a pan which would follow the up and down contours of the wire would look good but must be quite difficult to engineer due to large variations in the quality of modelling the OHLE.

Cutting through all the waffle, well done to Hattons for their excellent communication on this matter. At the moment the Covid-19 situation is uncertain and a sensible decision has been taken by the company. It must be remembered that the majority of transactions are likely to be unaffected, as business can continue by telephone and on-line. Wishing Hatton's staff a healthy and happy time during the affected period.

It's an obstacle deflector, officially. The thing on your namesake, 60001, Is quite rightly a snowplough!

I still find it odd that Hattons refer to the obstacle deflector as an air dam. If the loco was capable of 150 mph plus...then maybe....!

It's all in here and looks like a brilliant idea! http://images.hattons.co.uk/mediaimages/General instructions - pdf.pdf

I find the comments about sound variations interesting but at the same time amazing. No matter how many slight nuances there are to any individual members in a class of locos a model can never accurately sound like the real thing. The efforts of Legomanbiffo are to be applauded for attention to detail, the Hattons Class 66 video showing very comprehensive functions available. But it must be held in perspective that only a 1:1 locomotive has all the bass and resonances which a real locomotive can produce, so it is easy to be sidetracked into believing this or that sound makes it completely accurate. I say this from my experience of audio systems in a commercial application, both voice and music. I am a collector of models who does not run a DCC system however, so feel free to shoot down my observations! Over to you.

I 'm not sure if it has been mentioned before, but it is good to see the correct front footsteps and square-ended buffer beam fitted for 4472's 1924 condition.

I understand all the points made about the "ski-jump" footplates, which are, dependent on viewing angle, quite noticeable. But to me the most jarring feature of any A3 (and A4) model representing any time after about 1954 is the double set of front guard irons which plainly just look wrong. I am a collector who only displays models and have removed the front set of irons and the splash-plates on my A3s, re-working the front of the bogie to suit. Nit-picking maybe but it appeals to me. In the past I have also removed the large overhanging "blob" which many Hornby locos, particularly the previous model "Duchesses" have at the front of the bogie, producing a much better appearance. SWFRS

You're losing your marbles!

Is it unusual that Rails have the Class 90 in stock but Hattons are not showing it as yet? Update- Hattons have assured me by telephone today that the Class 90s will be in next week.

Considering the very short time that some early Class 90s ran without the aero fairings I would have thought that the best method of deletion would be a sharp modelling knife!

Certainly 90005 had these additions and most early photos of the class seem to show them fitted. Some early photos of class members, including 90001 during testing, show that the aerodynamic aids(?) were not fitted at first. https://www.tennentstrains.co.uk/images/detailed/2/32-610.jpg