Edwardian

Thanks, Brian. No clarification required. I was just musing on the fact that at least one manufacturer has been known 'to boldly go' forward regardless of whether someone's else IP is being used without authority!

Which is more than our bloody dogs seem to be able to manage

Problem, what problem?

Let's hope so, otherwise, see you on the other side...

Yes, No.9in red with the garter surrounding the number 9 is my favourite. It may have only looked thus for 2-3 years, but it would be my choice. I suspect No.9 retained its wooden brake blocks at least until overhaul in 1911, by which time it would certainly be wearing the red livery with the ISLE OF WIGHT CENTRAL RAILWAY tank lettering. Another option is No.11 in A1 form, as pictured in the new black-lined "I.W.C." livery (c.1915?), but still with the original copper-capped chimney and un-extended bunker, and with blanked coal rails. All that is do-able with the Hornby tooling.

Islands represent the perfect excuse for a 'closed system'. My, I felt wryly humourous, take was to play on the various UK "Isle of..." place names and imagine a Fenland system:

Well, I long ago chose the MC&WCo designed and produced LSWR carriages as CA's branch carriages. I was aware through reading up on them that the IWC, inter alia, gained some second hand. Then I was sucked into advising on how Dapol might expand its tooling suite the better to represent the loco identities its marketing department had chosen (!) for the 4mil version of its 7mil Terrier. We very nearly had a red Island Terrier in the second batch of the Rails-Dapol Terrier at my suggestion. Rails bought in, but Dapol wanted to save money by recycling the 7mil artwork and they hadn't done a red IWC A1 in 7mil. But, it stayed with me, the possibility of a red-painted A1 with ex-LSWR carriages that I was anyway going to get made.

All credit to those who got in touch with Hornby over the IWC A1 No.10 Rolling Stones edition while I was still too paralysed with mirth to think of doing so. Also of potential interest - and this might also be communicated to Hornby - is the Lancing Works Terrier. This is essentially an A1 body, albeit it with later chimney, but it is the chassis that is of note. It has the iron brake shoes as fitted to the late-build Terriers, but is not just the unaltered A1X chassis, because the A1X condition under-valance sandboxes have been omitted. If this tooling combination has been seen before in the range, I apologise, but in general I do not keep an eye of the the Terrier range. This tooling combination allows later-built Terriers to be produced, in IEG onward, but, specifically, in the IWC context, would allow a red A1 condition IWC No.12 (ex No.84, Crowborough, the last Terrier built) to be produced at some point.

Well we should stop before you eat yourself to death then

Yes, "at this time" meant when the independent IWC was running its Terriers; the IWC only started fitting its locos with Westinghouse gear nine years before it acquired its, and the Island's, first Terrier. Thus, the Terrier era fell within the Westinghouse era, that's all I meant, so all IWC Terriers would remain Westinghouse fitted when new to IWC. I was not intending to comment on the Grouping era, which isn't really an interest, but reading back my post, I may have inadvertantly implied that Island Terriers were vac fitted on Grouping. I did not mean that. I meant that the vacuum fittings were only a feature of any Terriers post Grouping (save any exception in the form of those sold out of service, which would not necessarily resemble SR vac-fitted examples. e.g, the RVR's home-made ejector), so it's a Grouping era feature of Hornby tooling that needs to be left off models of Island Terriers. It is all the more confusing, then, that what looks like the SR era ejector pipe appears on a Hornby A1 in the picture of No.10.

Indeed, hence my carefully phrased "non-copper-capped chimney", because it looks indeed as if the Southern era Drummond chimney, for which the model is tooled, has been used, rather than a Wheeler & Hurst (of Newport IIRC?) chimney. Given the available tooling, I thought the best choice was made and I was happy to award a point for that. Also, I think the handrail on the tank front was something added at some point after Grouping, so may be on the preserved loco, but would not have been seen in service in this livery. There are no doubt several other minor detail inconsistencies - I have not checked - and, of course, the many solecisms endemic to the Hornby Terrier tooling (as an IOW extended bunker model, No.11 gets a 'win' by not featuring the late condition short toolbox that No.10 and the A1 models generally must suffer), but I still think "fair representation" of the 1918-1923 condition is a fair comment on No.11, not that I take you to be differing from that. It's an attractive model that does the job and the Hornby generic coaches are what they are and are no worse in this iteration. I'm not sure if the Grouping era vacuum ejector pipe has been left off - IIRC the IWC was a Westinghouse braked line at this time - but it looks to be present in the picture of No.10, yet I think that pales into insignificant next to it being the wrong colour.

In deference to Mr Parker, who clearly had a trying day yesterday, I will leave it at... [sigh]

It's a lovely ;ittle 14XX, though I suspect as a 4800 it would be a better fit. No steps on the cabside, which is encouraging, yet the cab roof grab rail for them is there! And the top feed is problematic. I will assume, however, that's the correct number of rivets! Hedging bets with both red and white bodied lamps!

I love that filum. It is splendid in every way, not least in the delivery of its dialogue. It is also a sober reminder that "there ar'unt any pwantomimes in Juin!"

I agree, and I would be surprised if someone didn't pick them up to manufacture at some point in the future; they were just too good and too popular not to. However, I'm well off topic now and at risk of speculating. It is a sad fact and a shame, nonetheless, that both the Oxford Terrier and the Almost-Stroudley coaches are nowhere near as good as Hornby could have made them, had they not been in a rush to spike other people's guns. I can only hope that nowadays Hornby has a less KCholeric disposition. There is no pre-Grouping loco or carriage in the offing from Hornby, but I do eagerly anticipate both Locomotion and its first model of an 1840s carriage! Let's hope Hornby's on best form for those.

Makes me mourn all the more for the demise of Hattons Genesis! I will stick to my ex-LSWR 1871 composite. I believe the IWC had four and they were often seen on Ventnor Town services behind one of the IWC Terriers:

Not a bad fist of the locomotive. Certainly a point for the non-copper-capped chimney. It is probably strictly as preserved, but can pretty well represent the 1918-1923 condition of this loco. As for the coaches, that weirdness in the eaves panels looks like an attempt to show the coloured glass toplights of the 1860 IWR Oldbury now preserved. Obviously it looks nothing like an Oldbury, and represents an entirely different railway company from the IWC. Ah duh! No.10 did carry this lettering (and in A1 condition as here) 1900-c.1915, but as Richard Long points out, this should not be in black but in crimson red! Careless, Hornby, careless.

Him: Forgive me? Her: Forgive you for what? Him: For everything. For meeting you, in the first place. For taking the piece of grit out of your eye. For loving you. For bringing you so much misery. Her: I'll forgive you if you'll forgive me. Cue the Rachmaninov and break out the Cleanex!

Following the announcement to that effect yesterday, I had an email today confirming that my pre-orders will no longer be honoured (save the exclusives, so hopefully the Genesis coaches are still bound for the WNR) and will be at some stage removed from my account. Last night was a profitable one for Rails.

I suspect that's the nub of it. Whether it would have been possible to make all parts of the motion work, and work as they should, at scale must be very doubtful indeed. This is largely why I'm pretty sanguine about the compromises, and have ordered two of the beasties. Also I'm not personally bothered about what KR have said, but that's only because I have dug a little deeper than the fluff and made sure I have understood the posts about this issue made by the Stationmaster and others, so I feel I make my purchase eyes wide open. It's the "don't look up!" mentalists that get on my t1ts!

I shall await PMs, then, knuckle duster in my pocket!

Sorry, but I'm not going to put up with this nonsense. I did not say I did not like it. I did not say I would not buy it. have said, repeatedly, that I am content to buy this - in fact, I have two on pre-order - including in the post you are responding to, so a good start is not to misrepesent what someone else has said. It's just manners, really. Further, I have been relatively generous in the past on the subject of KR's clear over-statements. Your evident gifts of divination do not, however, excuse KR from making claims that were objectively misleading and led many to expect more of this model then they will get. My point is simply this, we do at least now know what this model can and cannot deliver. It is important, I feel, that anyone exposed to the 'sales puff' who has not seen how the prototype actually moves, at least understands that the model will not deliver fully working Gooch valve gear despite what KR has suggested. The reality is that about half the motion works but not as the prototype, and the other half is static. Given the overstated claims by the manufacturer, it seemed important to me that these had facts set against them so that potential customers can make an informed choice. Why that should rattle anyone's cage is unclear. If you want to debate with me, preferably do it off the forum, but come at me with better.

Continental locomotives have ever been more realistically (therefore, higher) priced, no doubt for good reason. What I think you seem to object to, however, is the idea that KR might should be brought to task for not making fully working valve gear for the price point of £160, assuming KR was capable of doing so at any price. Yet I do not recall anyone here saying such a thing. What people have mainly said is that to advertise a loco as having fully working Gooch/Stephenson valve gear and then to produce one that hasn’t is problematic. A poor product that is not as described is not excused from being either of those things by its relative cheapness. The claim was that the valve gear would be fully working… …ah, but I see you’ve already thought of that! No, we really can't. It's quite clear what the natural and ordinary meaning of those words is. Indeed, and no one suggested that anything would once the EPs were out. But it's a strange thing to say; would you not, say, ever critique a film on the basis that, now it's been made, there's no point? And to come! But is that how you live your life, to judge each new thing by the standard of the least adequate thing you can find to compare it with. Indeed, if so, I weep for you. Oh your prophetic soul! Like saying "work event" when you meant "party". Easily done, though. So, it’s OK that you think it’s fine because it’s cheap and you always thought it would be a bit rubbish, but it’s also fine to point out that it could have been so much more! As I have said, I'll accept the compromise and buy the thing. Would I have been happier to pay more if the thing had been better, had in fact been as advertised? Yes, of course. But we do not have that option. Buy it, don't buy it, but don't let anyone tell you that what you're seeing as it chugs round your layout is the motion of Gooch valve gear. It's nothing like.

Well, Locomotion I will buy. Someone had to tackle it in time for the Bi-Centenary. Based on Rocket, I'm sure that Hornby can deliver here. I think this is the "as preserved" condition, but frankly that will do. It will be good to see the protoype restored to its rightful place in Darlington in due course. It would be a bit odd, though, if Locomotion appeared on its own, with no effort at S&DR stock. So, I wonder if for 2025 will see an announcement of the early S&D chaldrons (if not, there was once a whitemetal kit and they are simple enough scratch-builds, and drawings have been published) and a dandy cart, complete with horse! Also the crude covered passenger wagon and the horse-drawn stage coach. EDIT: Accurascale chaldrons are not the right period for 1825/Locomotion (see the style modelled below), so it would be a shame if Hornby used their existence as an excuse not to bother - mind you, when one reflects on what Hornby thinks L&M wagons looked like...! Darlington MRC, many moons ago, modelled the S&D for the North Road (Head of Steam) museum in Darlington: Given this year's planned release of a preseved 1840s carriage in the form of the 'Queen Adelaide' carriage, I cannot help wonder if Hornby will also be tempted by the two 1840s Stockton & Darlington composites? Anyway after the exciting announcement of Locomotion at the head of Andy's post, there was a depressing amount of the usual tat and retreads to scroll through, though as none of it is a period of interest, I don't really have any view. It is interesting to see the continuation of last year's neglect of the pre-Grouping scene (as opposed to the 'pioneering' era). Hornby really has left this whole market segment free for Rapido to move into and dominate. Bachmann does a little very slowly and Dapol keeps a steady flow, but Rapido is rapidly colonising this space with only Accurascale as a challenger here. Meanwhile, Hornby does nothng. Indeed, I cannot recall Hornby producing anything worth a pre-Grouper's notice since it introduced its superlative little Pecketts; what a false dawn that was. Back to the 2024 releases, and we're back to the Earlies. It is good to see L&MR loco and stock being sold separately for the first time, though the Tiger model remains a really odd interpretation of that prototype, or, indeed any 1840s loco of a similar ilk, and the 'coal wagon' remains a short length of old rope. Joy comes with some new-tooled early stock, and both the releases of the 'Queen Adelaide' carriage and the 'Second Class' coach look well worth investigating and I am very much interested in these. It is great to see a London & Birmingham Railway carriage (1842). I don't suppose Hornby will do anything but this solitary preserved vehicle for the L&B, but it is, nevertheless, good to see even one RTR example of such early stock.