Pteremy

Don't give them ideas like that!

The T is printed, together with 702 and the dividing lines for the boxes. The other letters are chalk writing - I make them 'S' in the left hand box, 'June' in the middle box and I would have said '3rd' in the right hand box - but the photo is dated 7th June. It will be pretty indistinct once shrunk to 4mm scale. Possibly other photos from around the same time and place will show something similar in other vehicles, to confirm the format??

Quite by chance I have just come across a picture of 10800 in the January 1951 Trains Illustrated (p30). There is a short article about a demonstration run on 14/11/50. The picture, a 3/4 view from the long bonnet end, shows the beading very clearly, on the side where it is missing on the model. But I agree that in the flesh the absence of the beading is not particularly noticeable, unless you go looking for it.

I see no one has commented on your post. I have not had the same issues although my second siphon had a couple of loose fittings out of the box. But the 'flaking paint' issue resonated with me because I have just experienced that with a Heljan 10800 when moving the white handrails back into position after fitting a decoder. As you say easily remedied - but doesn't suggest that the designers factored in 'normal use'. The reason for posting is that I do feel that that is a risk that usability is not being given sufficient weight when designing and implementing the fantastic level of detail now being offered. I don't mean roughy tumble train set usability. But I do think that it ought to be possible for a careful and experienced modeller to put a high spec model through a decent running session without being in fear of key parts pinging off onto the track (or worse).

And by the mis-translation '..in Zero' ??

Am I seeing things correctly - the triple packs A, B and C seem to have the same style of body and buffers so the only difference between the 9 wagons is the numbering?

Yes there are a lot of gimmicky ancillary sounds that never get used much, if at all. But for me the unexpected benefit of sound is that it completely transforms the experience of 'driving' a locomotive. It may not be highly realistic, but it is a a quantum leap better than just having the sound of wheels trundling over rails.

There are some better (i.e. larger) photos of the green version on the H***by Magazine Website (if I am allowed to mention that here). It is very curious - the beading stops just as it rounds the nose of the longer bonnet. Are the black ones the same, or has something happened in the alternative tooling for the 'late BR' version? It is disappointing, but I hope that I will forgive my one when it arrives from Kernow. It is a rule 1 loco for me so only destined to be an occasional performer. Heljan don't seem to have had the best of luck recently with this sort of issue.

I have had to get a magnifying glass out to see whether my Erlestoke has gaps - and I am still not quite sure - could just be a join. So in my case not a visible issue. I think that at least some of the close up photographs may be exaggerating the gap, but maybe there is also some variation in assembly.

Given that McC has agreed with you it seems that further comment might be pointless. But i guess it depends on what there is to build on. The general view was that the body was fine, but the mechanism wasn't. And then there were issues about the design of how the body and mechanism were put together (that is removing the body was quite difficult without breaking bits). It could be that there is excellent research that could be reused but needing a completely different execution. A 'fresh start' does not necessarily require the junking of any 'IP' that is still fit for purpose (if you see what I mean).

Not suggesting that it should be the next steam locomotive, but is there scope for Accurascale 'rescuing' the Hattons 14xx, as they are doing with the Class 66??

Is anyone actually offering a sound decoder for the 10800??

Now showing as 'arriving soon' on Rails website

I can understand the desire for something that has not been done before but, on the evidence to date, I am not sure that quite fits the Accurascale MO as far as locomotives are concerned. For example, the Bulleid Pacifics are iconic, are extant on heritage lines and there are different versions to offer. Given that Hornby seem to have lost interest in updating its offerings I would have thought that they are an obvious target similar to the Manors.

If I have understood correctly a 57xx is on the Hornby list for future TT120 releases. If so there must be a strong possibility that they have been working on one in 00 as well, to maximise the value of the research etc.? The design challenges will be different, but that seems to be the logic behind their other future releases.

My 7812 arrived the morning and I am so disappointed. Nothing loose; nothing broken; nothing missing; nothing bent; to wait all this time and have nothing to moan about - it just isn't fair....

For anyone interested in the life of the LSWR vent vans after nationalisation so far I have come across: On page 53 of Larkin's Acquired Wagons Vol 4 a D1408 at Eastleigh in 1957 On page 30 of King's Southern Wagons Pictorial (plate 41) a D1408 in 1962 at Barnstaple Victoria, with fresh (1961) branding for Operating Dept use only (apparently one of 3 vans at that location since 1959) [On page 21 of Gamble's British Railway Vans Vol 2 (plate 34) a close relative D1409 in 1951]

Yes. Has there ever been, in the history of the hobby, such high expectation and excitement about a model release? Makes Bazball look like a game of bowls.....

So far as accuracy is concerned Bachmann did a good job with the LMS Portholes, not being put of by the different underframe lengths required or a completely different body style for the corridor composite. It is only by tackling such 'inconvenient' variations that it is possible to model accurate prototypical formations (kit building aside).

Since reading Harris many years ago I have always distinguished the 1936-37 corridor stock as 'Sunshine' and the subsequent 1938 stock as 'Yellow Disc' because, as you say, the latter were built to a narrower width to allow for more inter-regional use. (The GWR Coaches website simply calls them '1938 Standard Stock'.) And I assume that is also why the 'Yellow Disc' version was chosen by Mainline and perpetuated by Bachmann. In terms of numbers built they were broadly the same, although there are in effect two styles of 'Sunshine', a factor which might also have influenced the manufacturers choice.

And the Siphon G. Actually I don't have a problem with the current period of focus, even though it limits what I will be interested in. I rather like the more strategic focus on filling the gaps in what is available, together with the production of complementary locos/coaches/wagons. I am sure that more earlier stuff will appear sooner or later.

These wagons are brilliant. i have no use for them. But they example a hobby in transition. No longer limited to 'take it or leave it, this is what we make', instead an example of something tailored to a specific sphere of interest. More please, more, more, more.

I think this endless teasing is a mortal sin. Shame on you.

I have seen recommendations for 'latex caulk' (gap sealant) rather than PVA glue, on the basis that it waterproof and more easily removable. Have not tried it myself yet but I am planning on doing so.

A quick update on the roof issue. I ordered the BR Grey 'Worcester' version early this week (in addition to my original preorder). This one has a noticeably smoother fitting roof and as a result the bowing is much less obvious. One of those things you only notice when looking for it. As for the original Yeovil (P.M) no surgery yet, but I did put some black tack over the central side magnets to see if I could increase the grip. It doesn't fix the issue completely but the bow is now no worse than the 'Worcester' example. So worth trying as an alternative to gluing.