GWR-fan

With today's demands for high quality, high fidelity models is it not time to ditch the old trainset rule of R2 compatible running? R2 is fine for bogie models but the demand for large express and longer wheelbase steam prototype makes R2 compatibility a retrograde visit to the past. Why do we compromise the model's running ability by designing the model to transit ridiculously tight curves? Yes, this would limit the potential market but can we have it both ways by demanding high quality engineered masterpieces and then compromise them by altering the design for R2 curves. Leave the trainset to the smaller locomotive market. Other than very expensive commissioned models LGB still, I believe, stick to the R1 rule (1200 mm diameter curves) because that is where the market is. Years ago, the likes of Bachmann "Spectrum", Aristocraft and USA Trains broke with this mould and designed high quality models to run on larger diameter curves, with 5 ft minimum diameter for diesel model prototypes and 8 ft minimum diameter for steam models. Sticking to the R1 philosophy severely compromised the larger models running ability making very expensive models look like kid's toys when running on small diameter curves, plus compromising running ability on straight sections due the increased sideplay on the drive axles. If we want 21st century models then we need to move into the 21st century.

Keith's character was well demonstrated in the Jenny Kirk You-tube interview where the Fell was being discussed.

In hindsight one is left wondering why the Fell fell short of the mark. After the relative success of the GT3 one would assume that the Fell would have been up to the quality of the GT3. Did the manufacturer choose another manufacturing facility or was the Fell specified to a lower level of standard? The Fell was developed and approved for production prior to the GT3 being released so why the lack of quality both in the development of the model and the quality of the received item? With both models being developed concurrently what went wrong? Was the Fell promised to a price point to which little to no profit could be realised and so the quality suffered at the expense of financial return? Lack of reliable power pickup is alas a feature of many manufacturer's products these days so I will not criticise the Fell in this regard. What is inexcusable though is rod mount bolts basically superglued to the cranks and yet the cranks are able to rotate on the drive wheels resulting in bent rods and subsequent damage to the drive mechanism, hence the inexcusable bent drive axles. Also below par is the toylike rendition of detail on the chassis sideframes. When Sam reviewed his model on You-Tube what was obvious was the wobble when the drive wheels rotated. In this day and age how is it that a manufacturer cannot even mount a drive wheel squarely on an axle? Aside from the body design aesthetics, the Fell will prove to be mechanically an unreliable runner and like the prototype more than likely find itself undergoing regular manintenance or modification. Ironically though, the model seems to have found favour with both the modelling press and consumers. Would the results have been different if the model had been fully capitalised by the manufacturer and not basically (although the manufacturer did not like the term) a crowd-funded venture. As the purchasers, who, in the main, pre-paid for the model, do they feel a sense of allegiance or loyalty perhaps and are unwilling to raise criticism.

If one was able to digest this entire thread it was obvious a very long time ago that what was promised was not what was received. Back in mid-2020 the company realised that all was not right and the tooling was incorrect as the body contained modifications the loco received over its lifetime and thus did not reflect the prototype at any point in its service life. The decision was made none the less to proceed with the project with little to no alteration to the tooling. The "storyline" was that since it was a one off prototype then the model represented the loco over its entire service life incorporating most modifications that it received. Has any other manufacturer followed this principle? It seems though that not enough information was researched and the person responsible for the task apparently did not review enough images initially and seeing images that showed the loco at various stages in its development apparently believed that the prototype was as viewed and the decision was made to commence tooling. Not long after tooling further images came to the fore showing that the model was very inaccurate, but was your money spent wisely to correct the manufacturer's mistake. Remember that the manufacturer promised an accurate model. Since mid-2020 no images have showed both sides of the model in the same livery. Engineering sample images showing both sides of an undecorated body were shown, but unfortunately I made the assumption that the undecorated images represented two separate models and not the same model. It appeared that the manufacturer had tooled the model perhaps using slides to be able to represent an example of both early and later service life modifications. How wrong I was. If the model was BR black early crest then only the side relevant to that livery was shown, usually with full length rods. If BR green late crest then only that relevant side was shown with the centre rod removed. Always only a single image of each livery. About twelve months ago an undecorated model with the centre rod removed appeared in a You-Tube video demonstrating the sound functions. Curiously the video showed only the side of the loco that represented the entering service model. It seems that right up until delivery (two years after realising that the tooling was inaccurate) the manufacturer did not "officially" reveal the true state of the model. This was your money funding this project. Last year, as soon as I realised what a concoction this model was, I cancelled my pre-order with Rails citing that the model was totally inaccurate, losing my GBP30.00 deposit in the process. I reasoned that the loss of GBP30.00 was small fry to the angst I would have endured if I was required to pay the full amount and receive the model as released. Add to that the tales of woe from unhappy consumers who have received lemons. I made comment several weeks ago of what appeared to be bent axles on a model that the purchaser had reported pickup issues. Add to that the disaster shown a couple of posts above and I really think that I dodged a bullet. If not simply a toy model then in the real world a complete recall should have been initiated, as Rapido has done with the dynamometer car due a third party component substitution. It was not Rapido's fault but they took it on the chin and issued a recall notice. Next time you are asked to fund the development and manufacture of a new project perhaps think back to what consumers received with the Fell. No doubt I will be criticised as a nitpicker or rivet counter because the model did not represent the prototype (at any point in its service life). Harken back a couple of years ago when a manufacturer with somewhat of a past history, left the employ of a major manufacturer and embarked on a new crowd funded venture to manucture high quality models. Well the crowd funded models did not quite live up to expectations nor the company motto.

It would have paid me to do a little research prior to my very recent purchase of "Gay Crusader", purchased pre-owned from a well known and reputable store. The loco was as new condition/unrun and basically without blemish, but for the elephant in the room, the ski jump. I was not aware that this loco suffered from this. While not as bad as seen on many examples of "Book Law", it is none the less present. The loco was purchased for a very good price so I think that I will turn a blind eye to its slightly raised footplate.

In no way a defense of the manufacturer as even the "big established" boys get it wrong, occasionally. The Fell was rushed into tooling with seemingly inadequate diligence as regards research and even when alerted to the faults the company made the decision to progress the project with little to no alteration. Covid slowdowns then took over the project timeline, however by then tooling was well underway with a tooled example on display mid-2020. Future consumer funded projects may not be so eagerly filled and perhaps the manufacturer will need to cough up some of his own capital and make sure the project is as promised and in future perhaps more attention will need to be paid as to the production process and not leaving it all up to the manufacturng facility. Perhaps finding an alternate manufacturer may be a good idea as it seems the GT3 and the Fell have links to a "well known" crowdfunder" manufacturer whose products were not as reliable as that company's motto would have suggested. Certainly more consumer scrutiny will be given to current and future projects, particularly if the consumer is being required to pay upfront for promises made (and hopefully delivered).

Posted in the wrong topic, refer Fell forum topic

I have had a few of these and like the old Tri-ang bogie drive motors if you find one that runs well then it will usually continue to run well, but if you have a "dog" then no matter how much attention you pay it will not run well. Also I have found the power pickup wire which snakes up through the chassis will abrade on the chassis giving a hard to find short circuit. The "Legends" "Nunney Castle" and "The Rougemont Castle" from the "Red Dragon" train pack come standard with a can drive motor.

I am surprised at the seeming low key interest in this train set, limited to a 1000 production run. Given the GBP140.00 (including VAT) price the set seemed too good to be true. Previous Dean single locomotives like "Lorna Doone" and "Duke of Edinburgh" still sell pre-owned at around GBP100.00, I had pre-ordered two sets a week or two ago not really expecting to get either due the limited run and Hattons seemed to get their stock later than other outlets, however, two sets were placed in my Trunk overnight and will soon be travelling downunder via DHL. The coaches in this set are far more attractive than previously issued with earlier "Lord of the Isles" releases.

Andrew, many thanks

Quote: "So for a model in Midland livery, the possibilities are: Dec 1919 - works grey Jan - Nov 1920 - standard Midland goods black Dec 1920 - July 1921 - as previous, with headlamp July / Aug 1921 - as previous, fitted for oil burning Sept 1921 - c. Aug 1925? - as Dec 1920 - July 1921 In or shortly after Aug 1925, the tender side sheets were cut down but evidently large numerals were remained on the tender, as the second LMS livery was still some years away. What seems to be unknown is whether or when the Midland coat of arms on the cab side sheets was replaced by the LMS cartouche." How are they going to get all these variations on the one model? Are we in for a "Big Berthastein"? The Fell and Big Bertha were two locomotives that were on my want list. We know what happened to the Fell. Let us hope that there is a little communication on this model and not a seeming media blackout as on the Fell.

Many thanks

Many thanks gentlemen.

I am replacing the plastic wheels on some older rolling stock and wondering what would indicate whether to fit either spoked or disc wheels? Was there a cut off date when spoked wheels were banned or did their use continue after nationalisation, please?

All my Southern livery coaches arrived today. When I opened the package which I believed to contain all Hattons Genesis coaches, there, like a sore thumb, was a Hornby package containing a Southern livery six-wheel first class coach. Then it dawned on me that when at the last minute I ordered additional coaches on top of all my pre-orders, I had seen a six-wheel first class coach listed not realising that it was a Hornby model. I should have looked closer. It was priced the same as the Hattons coaches so I assumed it was a Genesis. When compared side by side it is chalk and cheese. The Hornby model is put to shame and simply boring.

A recent very inexpensive pre-owned purchase from a well known store has me very surprised. The train pack was marked down due the DCC fitted loco being a "poor" runner and not stated in the description was that two Collett coaches had been replaced with Stannier coaches. What surprised me was that the loco, "Rougemont Castle", is actually can driven (like the Legends "Nunney Castle") and not the troublesome ex-Dapol ringfield motor. If the supplied decoder is OK then that saves me nearly $45.00 Aud in purchasing a replacement. I need to source an 8-pin blanking plate to verify the running of the model on analogue.

I suppose all is well that ends well. Miraculously all four incorrectly addressed packages found their way to me. I have nothing positive to say about Aramex service and their seeming complete disregard for my situation. They still have ignored the three customer support submissions entered on their website nearly a week ago explaining the delivery address was incorrect on the packages enroute. I can now understand why on a respected local review site that the company only has just over 100 five star reviews and over 3000 single star reviews out of 4000 reviews. Their rating out of five stars is 1.15. My recent experience reflects the reviews that others have left. Any future trunk deliveries will be by DHL.

Thankyou, the video does give an excellent size comparison to pieces of rolling stock.

Many thanks for responses.

I have the blue NCB loco on pre-order and am considering a black version as well, but unsure of the physical size of the model. Would it equate to say a J94 austerity or a B2 Peckett please?

I have kept the store informed and forwarded images that show that the store and Aramex UK correctly addressed the packages of those two packages received to date. The store and DPD and their international liaison team are apparently in talks with Aramex to investigate and hopefully resolve this issue to my satisfaction. This has been a totally frustrating experience not knowing that I will actually receive the remaining two packages. What is annoying is that the local Aramex distributor seems reluctant to believe that the packages were correctly addressed in the first instance (I have two packages that prove the boxes were correctly addressed until Aramex altered the final delivery address without my knowledge and caused all this confusion) and secondly, are seemingly reluctant to alter the delivery addresses to my correct address to ensure that I receive my packages. Perhaps doing so admits guilt.

The saga continues. I had thought that Aramex had done me a favour last week when advised of the incorrect delivery address and subcontracting the delivery of two packages with an Australia Post subsidiary, StarTrack. Unfortunately, Aramex simply onforwarded the packages to StarTrack with the incorrect delivery address, not correcting the address as I had requested. One package had been received mid-last week by shear good luck, but the second package found its way over the weekend to a suburb of Newcastle and a delivery attempt was made by Australia Post this morning even though the delivery address does not exist in that suburb. I believed that I had sorted this out with StarTrack last Friday, however, the package still was sent to the wrong sort facility near Newcastle, NSW. A further call to StarTrack this morning (Monday) has once again hopefully sorted out the problem and I am hoping the package will arrive mid-week. The fourth outstanding package I have not heard from since it arrived in Australia last week (also with the wrong delivery address). The last two packages have over $1000.00 value so I am somewhat concerned with the poor recent service received from Aramex. Aramex has still not actioned or responded to three customer service request submissions raised six days ago. Technically they should provide an update within 48 hours of raising a request. The customer service agent I have spoken to twice now still places the blame on the store even though informed that the packages have my correct delivery address both on the Hattons declaration of contents and on the Aramex UK shipping label. I now anxiously await the next few days, fingers crossed that all will be well. I am hopeful that future deliveries by selecting DHL will be less stressful.

Another gem which appeared on the pre-owned site mid-weekend was a three-car (2 X brake coach and a composite coach) Replica Railways WR 64' suburban set (#12497) in crimson livery with original box for the sum of GBP40.00 (GBP33.50 after VAT). I had never seen a set previously listed but considered it good value. They look to be nicely modelled coaches complete with metal wheels.

Firstly there is minimal clearance to fit a decoder under the body on all the DCC ready Dean single releases. Secondly, without the traction tyre the loco will barely move itself. Some versions came without the traction tyre. Thirdly, all Dean Single tenders came with the plastic wheels, even the premium releases. I would purchase inexpensive Mainline/Bachmann tender locomotives and use the metal wheelsets from the tender as it improves the appearance 100%. Fourthly, the undersize pilot truck/bogie wheels may be replaced with the "display" accessory flanged wheels usually supplied with Hornby Pacific class locomotives with the fixed Cartazzi trucks. This improves the look as it fills out the front of the model. Lastly, the shorty clerestory coaches never had an interior, but at least have metal wheels fitted. I have several DCC ready Dean singles and none of them could be called reliable runners with troublesome power pickup and poor traction. I also cut off the tender drawbar connection and glue a piece of tube vertically behind the front lateral beam on the tender chassis. The hook on the loco then fits behind the front of the tender chassis thus closing the gap between loco and tender.

I believe that I have now sorted out three packages (two now received). To date, the local Aramex distributor has not acted on my online requests submitted 72 hours ago to sort the situation and the main office merely transferred the delivery of the Mayfield packages to StarTrack (a subsidiary of Australia Post) without correcting the delivery address as I had requested. Ironically, the third package was actually less than five minutes drive from me 72 hours ago as the package had been initially sorted using the postcode (my correct postcode), but the delivery contractor saw the suburb "Mayfield" and put the package back into the system. It then travelled 60 klms north to Wollongong, but was then sent back to my postcode post office sort facility, just minutes away, only to be once again placed back into the system for delivery to Mayfield (Newcastle, NSW 350 klms north of me) today, Friday. The packages the store uses are not particularly sturdy and so usually arrive crushed. With all the additional travel incurred I hope that the box survives. Edit: after an hour on the phone with StarTrack I have hopefully had the third package delivery address correctly changed to my address but unfortunately it is currently intransit north to Newcastle, NSW and will have to return back to Sydney over the weekend before hopefully finding its way to me next week. I have just cleaned out most of my trunk at Hattons and have chosen DHL as my shipper. No more will I select DPD because of their association with Aramex. I just need to organise the shipping of all my Hattons Genesis Southern livery coaches.