Derekstuart

Dale It would really depend upon the wording of your "agreement", if there was one in writing. My feeling would be that Mr Petty, mindful of previous price increases, will have written that into the agreement to allow some "wiggle" room in case of supplier(s) increasing costs. Did you pay a deposit? If so, do you have the option to cancel it rather than go through at the previous price? If the answer is yes and then no to that then I would suggest they are in breach- other than that, it's impossible to say without the agreement to view. I use Sagepay and haven't been aware of this problem personally. But in fairness to Realtrack, they have produced probably the best RTR model in the history of model railways (certainly British outline) and have taken a huge financial risk to do so. If you choose to fight them for £10 then you might just find they say "sod it- we're not doing any more of this as it's too much hassle." Setting aside point of principle for the moment, Realtrack must be expected to make a financial return on their investment. At £110 is it not already a pretty good deal?

But then I have to replace the cab windows, grab rails, open the Serck louvres, replace the bogie springing with something that looks correct. That's a lot of work for £110 loco- plus how many years before it disintergrates?

I DID mean a Bachmann 57- no one else makes them. I could start listing the problems with the B47, but I don't want to put anyone off them.

If it hadn't been for my roundtuit TMD having too many future projects, I would buy one of those cheap 57s myself. I'd only need a couple of minor alterations: - Remove, dellner coupling, reinstate previous lighting units, return the Serck louvres, use a Shawplan etch to return the exhaust port back, remove the sanding boxes (or choose one of the previous 47's that had them- the original /6's), paint yellow and blue. Oh and install a sound chip with the Sulzer engine. Now THAT'S what to do with a 57.

If the bloke's got any sense, he'll hang on to it, put right the known Lima defects (the body, chassis, wheels, motor) and keep it running- at least the chassis is plastic.

Even if you do glue the bits back together, the expansion and cracking will still continue. Best action is once you see evidence of it, dismantle it quickly and that way you will save the body and running gear. I don't think it is a case of "brittle" in the normal sense, but instead impurities causing chemical reactions and degradation of the alloy, which means it expands and cracks.

Is it worth complaining to Heljan? It seems a pretty decent company, keen to improve its market share in Britain- and the Danes are well known for good customer care.

Sorry to see that Paul Howes models are the UK dealer for Heljan spares, although I don't believe the chassis is available as a spare. I have to say that I agree with Brian on the Lima alternative. Yes it is work, but at least you know the plastic isn't going to expand and explode. As for the body, I think you could salvage that. The grill might need a bit of work- or it might just close up again with only a fine crack (not unheard of on the real ones). The bit that will give a headache will be rebuildinging the cab side window frame- but you could use the Shawplan frame which is a very good etch. How is the green one? It is a shame especially as this loco starred in that iconic photo. Still one of the most realistic photos on the internet. Good luck.

Steve Although I wouldn't describe it as common, it was not all that rare either. When I was somewhat younger, I used to spend the summer holidays with Grandparents who had a house right by the Fife line as it diverged from the Glasgow line- the angle of the house meant that you couldn't see the DBSO normally, so these "unusual" workings with the set reversed were noteworthy. I would say once or twice per month was not unheard of (likely once a set was reversed it would stay reversed?) But each holiday would have seen such a working at least once.

I'm going the opposite extreme to you, Paul. All my planned locos are all 'celebrity' locos and as such they were always turned out immaculately. Though a layout comprised of such machines would just not look convincing. I suppose I will have to have some 'anonymous' locos to weather. Did you weather the blue 350 there? It looks like it has been weathered in a different style, with more oil and less dusty grime.

Very good Paul. Now... I think to thank you for all your advice and guidance, I am going to buy you a CARRIAGE AND LOCO WASHING PLANT. You are right about what does or does not come out in a picture- I took a photo of my mark 2 ground scatter, which I thought looked pretty reasonable- and in a photo (using a good quality camera as well) it all came out as one single shade of green. More contrast required! Joking aside, when you have the 350 sitting on its own it does look a little heavy weathering, but when you put it on the layout it seems to blend in better. I only have one 350 - "Liverpool St Pilot", which is un-weathered and spotless, as was the prototype for most of the time. But most 350's did become filthy.

One mistake some people make is to do that to ALL the handrails- the rest don't get much use (and the ladder is the same). How about a tiny amount of silver on the step edges where the paint has worn away? (Effing off and minding my own business now!!!)

Geoff, "OUCH!"

Mike, I know the 31 has sentimental value to you, so can I suggest the first course of action would be to get at least the body back? Once you have that safely in your custody then you can go on the warpath against Hornby. I would suggest that it is not reasonable to expect it to last only 7 years- especially when there's a clearly serious case of manufacturing defects. If this was a one-off I think you'd probably not have so much of a leg to stand on (in law you would be entitled to compensation to the value of a replacement LESS the use and enjoyment you have had thus far- and it would be for you to demonstrate that you have not had as much as is reasonably expected of it.) I will send you a PM with a couple of points if it helps. I know what I would do...

A suggestion if I may?? Clean the dirt away from the fuel gauge and the D running number. Especially the fuel gauge. Just like you've done with the hand rails- the fuel gauge is likely to have been wiped periodically so someone could check what it had in it. But then again, I've built a 6" plank that doesn't look right. You've built a big layout.... What do I know

Hi Mick Thanks- Shawplan used to do a interior kit (metal or resin). It is also Shawplan that does the grill- as you say, they are two different sizes, one for the Lima and one for the Hornby. These grills are from the old Shawplan range, and whilst still very good (better than A1 or Craftsman quality IMO) they aren't as good as the latest 'extreme' range from Shawplan, so I might well see if I can cannibalise an extreme etching to provide the grill and make the frame out of plastic. I can get the correct dimensions from the photos kindly supplied by Jo. As for the drive train- I have an idea for that (I am not an experienced modeller, but I did 'dabble' in precision engineering in a past life)- something that (on paper at least) should provide far more pulling power than a Bachmann 6 axle job... replicating the 60's reputation for power. But getting it off paper and into reality, now that'd be a challenge.

I'm not normally a fan of heavily weathered locos, but I do like the way you have the connecting rods all greased up- that looks good.

Thanks again Jo. I think that until I have found a way to install a central can motor in it, it's going to have to be a model of that highly elusive (on the basis that it doesn't actually exist) 60/9 that was fitted with extra radiators and charge coolers on the inside of the grills... thus hiding the motor. EDIT: I've just seen the 'home' page of your site. There's a hell of a lot of good photographs there. I shall be busy this evening...

Thanks Paul. You can see it clearly in the pictures when you look- perhaps that's one of the main reasons they look so realistic- most people won't be consciously aware of the cant, but subconscious they will be. When I did this bit of a cant, I've gone from full cant to nothing in about 3 inches. If that was real it would cause at the least, spilled coffee, and at the worst... well NR bosses wouldn't get their bonus.

Jo, Many thanks for that. Would it be OK if I was to download and print these out? For my OWN reference only of course. (I started modifying a Lima 60 (cheaper than a Hornby) for practice and it's coming out so well that I want to finish it off and get it 'right'- I can see from the photos that the L60 grills are the wrong size for starters... More work!) Thanks again. Derek

Does anyone have any good photos of the grills square on please? I've had a look through this thread and couldn't see any- but at 82 pages it would be easy to miss. I am trying to work out what the thickness of the structural beams- the vertical and diagonals- is. I suspect it is deeper than it is wide, but I haven't found a photo to confirm this. No 60's seem to come anywhere near me (unless at speed) and I can only measure another model, which is a no-no. If anyone knows the beam sizes, that would be helpful. I am of course mindful that this thread is for discussions and not questions. But it's probably the best collection of people knowledgeable about 60's anywhere on planet earth.

Hi Paul I've just been re-reading your thread. I see what you mean about the way you built the cant. It looks about 1.5mm high as a guess? Did you reduce that height in a transition zone or just quickly to flat? I've built quite a steep cant for my test "plank" which is a little excessive and I've not used a transition zone- it gives the "dramatic" affect for taking photos, but I don't think it would take powered stock too well. I think for the main layout (when I get that far) I will have to re-think that bit. Your weathering tutorial- both here and your advice in PM is bringing results. I found the problem thanks to your comments- I changed the variety of WS materials I used- I've included more coarse stuff now. It won't be that long before I have pictures to show.

But you aren't really comparing like for like. You would be better comparing your A4 to a 1983 Audi 100. Or your 83 Cav to a 2015 Insignia. But regardless, there's no disputing that in most cases, technological advancement is a GOOD thing. In MOST cases. But not all. If it was in ALL cases then this thread wouldn't have existed.

No offence, but I didn't read all that. 1984 Cavalier heating worked very well, ISTR. Perhaps checking the demister matrix isn't blocked with 30 years of mouldy leaves? As for the instrument illumination- if you can't see a 1984 dashboard properly at night, well you know the advert for Specsavers. Brakes: sorry chum, but the most common reasons for cars of that era having poor brakes is aged components- usually the seals in the master cylinder or the brake servo. A 1984 car is less sophisticated than a 2015 version, quite clearly. But these feigned indignation "and the way we peasants used to suffer" in the 1980's is a load of trot. I have a number of cars of various ages, makes and spec- from an elderly Rover to a early 90s Cavalier, via a few French imports to a 10 year old Jag and a 2 year old Jag. Clearly a 2013 XK is going to be a nicer drive than a 1990 Cavalier, but I do not recognise your description of them as effectively death traps on wheels.

I like Hattons and dealt with them several times before I took a 20 year break from all this lark. They do seem to have a "thing" for using yodel. I have not had a good experience with yodel- either personally or at work (at work I tell my suppliers that the first time they use yodel will be the last time I buy from them). I have to say that unless I could get a written/ email confirmation from Hattons that I just would not buy from them as there's always the risk I might have to speak to the local yodel depot again (bad for my blood pressure). I don't care about paying higher carriage charges- it's worth it to avoid that courier.