Harlequin

It does after you've mapped the outputs appropriately, which is of course the first thing you would do. But you're right, that process can be difficult and it would help if manufacturers published the functions of their locos in a standardised format along with the "DCC Ready" moniker. BTW: If you're going to do anything more than driving, setting loco addresses and setting accel/deceleration values then using something like JMRI is highly recommended. Otherwise, setting CVs by number is like performing keyhole surgery in the dark.

That exactly illustrates the problem with built-in decoders - someone would always be unhappy with them.

Er, but everyone's definition of "good enough" is different. For me, "Good enough" means Zimo. Could you get a licence to fit Zimo decoders as standard? If some revolutionary new decoder came out that rapidly became the new minimum "good enough" standard then locos with built-in decoders could become albatrosses for their owners. (And any held in stock, too.) A sensible approach that would cover all bases would be to build in a simple decoder but also provide a socket and a means of switching the built-in one out of circuit.

Decoders are not yet at the stage where they're all "good enough" for the average user. Some brands are definitely better at certain tasks than others (and some are unfortunately still rubbish). There's also the question of the ability to change the decoder at home if it fails or if a newer better version is released. (For instance sound playback being upgraded from 8bit to 16bit.) Can't speak for others about the price difference but some would surely see it as another unwanted and annoying technological overhead.

We all have our preferred brands of decoder. How would you ensure that a model was fitted with the brand we want? That's what "DCC Ready" is for.

Is the black actually black this time? Sorry, I had to have a little dig. We will only know if these models are OK when we have them in our own hands.

Think about the railway in a scene, not just some track on a board. Double track around the outside of the baseboards leaves no room for any scenery outside the tracks so it's really difficult to make it look natural - you'll always see the "edge of the world". Leave room for roads and houses, fields, trees, rivers as well as the railway scenery like station buildings, water towers, signal boxes, etc... Facing points in main lines. They were avoided as far as possible on steam/early diesel railways. Complex junctions with diamond crossings connecting the outer circuit to your inner loop. Things like that probably happened in the real world but they would have been very unusual and wouldn't have looked anything like what Setrack forces you to do. (If you were using Streamline you'd have more options.) Wiggles. Try to keep it all as smoooth as possible especially on the main lines. Use the corner curves to start your crossovers, don't wait for the curve to straighten out and then have points that turn outwards again - that's classic trainset stuff. Platform length. Not long enough to look right and any train that’s three coaches or longer (I guess) won't fit without looking silly. Loop around the goods shed with short spur beyond. Fine for processing vans efficiently in the real world but the vans would have been moved by hand with pinch bars. Locos were usually not allowed to run through goods sheds (although it did happen). That makes a loop like that difficult to use realistically in a model. You also need to provide road vehicles access to the goods shed. That can actually be across the loop track at a push but it was most common to keep the road and rail vehicles separate for simplicity and safety.

Hi Dan, It's a classic trainset but it's not realistic. It's very hard for us to comment on trainsets because by definition they can be anything you like. So, if you like it, build it. If you want a more realistic model railway then I suggest you look at some model railway plans and read some books about designing model railways before continuing.

The A/S Manor smokebox has a matt finish which makes it look lighter. The Dapol Mogul's smokebox has the same satin finish as the rest of the black areas on that model and similar to the non-smokebox areas of the A/S Manor - and similar to 99% of GWR loco models we've ever seen. Dapol would be very foolish indeed to try to replicate the different surface finish of the A/S Manor smokebox by greying down their standard satin finish over the entire model - and I don't think that's what they've done. I think they've either chosen to use grey for some other reason that's difficult to understand or it's a factory mistake.

I just returned my grey mogul. I couldn't live with it and I couldn't face dismantling it, masking it up, buying an airbrush, learning to airbrush, etc., etc... to put it right. 😞

Yes, my previous suggestion was wrong. I think the two LED connectors are simple + and - across the internal LED and there's no internal connection to other parts of the switch. Sorry, the way the product is described on AliExpress is a bit confusing!

The internal LED (LEDs, plural?) is connected to one of the C common pins and the switch includes a resistor for the LED (that's what the voltage ratings on the side are about). So, assuming that the switch is rated 12V, I think that bridging from one of the NC or NO pins (i.e. to 0v or +12v) to one or both of the LED pins should do the job. If the LED comes on in the wrong sense, connect to the other C pin. Scrub that. It's wrong.

Great! I thought that a wiring diagram showing the actual back of the switch would help because it's an unconventional device. And thanks to @Jeremy Cumberland for pointing out my initial mistake.

Yes, you're right. This:

If you've got the 3-position version of the switch then the normal crossover wiring for a DPDT to reverse polarity is already built into the switch. So have you tried this: [Deleted incorrect diagram] The centre off position will connect both Tortoise power connections to either 0V or +12V, which is fine.

It's either weary acceptance, too early for most people to have formed their own opinions or not wanting have a go at a manufacturer that is making a decent effort to upgrade a model and provide new variations. But to get the colour black wrong is a bit of a howler...

I guess some issues are more time-consuming to solve than others. It's also possible that they might be trying to find a permanent fix for problems related to the motion rather than simply sending out replacements that might then develop the same problem again. I think we just have to be patient for a while longer.

The GWR Structure Colours book (1912-1947) says this for loco shed doors, in summary: Typically: Below 5ft (or below half height), either black or chocolate (Standard Tint No. 4) Above 5ft (or above half height), Standard Tint No. 2 for the vertical boarding. Frames and any visible ledges and bracing picked out in Standard Tint No.3. The same scheme applied inside and out. If there were fixed timber panels beside the doors the same scheme applied to them. All ironwork, black But there were local variations and sometimes doors would be painted Standard Tint No. 3 all over.

The black moulding is the valve stem and valve stem guide. It should be exactly horizontal (assuming the bogie is sitting on level track) and in the prototype the stem guide is fixed to the upper crosshead guide. It's interesting that it more frequently seems to be the model of No. 97 that shows these problems. Maybe that's just because that version is more popular than the others. Edit: Nope, You can actually see the part bending up and down in AY Mods' video of No. 61 on a rolling road:

In natural daylight: old mogul at the rear, new mogul at the front:

Well, as per your advice to me, you need to see one "in the flesh", if you can. But I would certainly suggest not judging it standalone - you need to have another loco of similar livery alongside. 🙂

I know BR didn't give its inherited steam locos much love but the GWR had pride in it's creations. It's not so easy to use a grime overcoat to hide painting errors on models from that era. Models are most commonly supplied in ex-works condition. That's why coach roofs are white and the copper and brass in the cab gleams. It's always been up to us to weather it down to the desired extent. So either Dapol have got the ex-works black wrong or they are telling us that black was really grey on this loco. Furthermore, I think we can legitimately expect our models not to violently change colour when we photograph them. Just look at @gwrrob's photos if you want a real shock! I'm not happy about this - not sure I can live with it or find a reasonable way to mitigate it.

No, this: https://www.abebooks.co.uk/book-search/isbn/9780907036098/

Yes, it's a comprehensive book (but at first glance it doesn't answer the steam heating question). I got a copy from Abebooks.co.uk and as I write this there are 6 copies available on that platform.

Yes, I agree. I can even see the gap in my first batch mogul 6336, but not quite as obvious. I think my "local" model shop is probably the same as CK's since the one in Exeter closed - but it's still a 45min drive away over Dartmoor!