brushman47544

Hi, Since MREMag has stated that the latest standard releases of Bachmann Class 47s are on their way, has anyone seen an air freighted review sample? In particular, does the two-tone green SYP version of D1572 (32-804) have the three fixed roof grills or the later twin Serck opening panels? And has the size of the SYP been corrected (it extended too far round the cab sides on the previous releases). I'm thinking of pre-ordering but want to be sure it's correct before doing so. Thanks.

I've just seen another new retailer commissioned Bachmann Class 47 on the Signal Box website. This time it's 47972 "The Royal Army Ordnance Corps" in Central Services livery (31-650W) - http://www.thesignalbox.co.uk/index_new.php?pg=3&p_cat_id=110&prod_id=14277. Presumably it will also be available from Modelzone. Not so cheap at £104.99, but it's certainly another attractive livery and I imagine it worked the odd passenger train in these colours?

I do sympathise, but I can understand if it applies to this model and not all Hornby locos. It is a "Special Edition" and has been produced in a limited number, so to preserve its limited status I'm sure Hornby doesn't want to have extra bodies out there that people can fit as replacements on the standard Railroad release and thereby misrepresenting what they have bought and compromising the "Special Edition" status of the legitimate models. So as long as Hornby has enough good bodies for the number being sold, I'm not surprised they don't have any more.

I've seen a photo of a Blue/Grey rake of Mk3s on The Clansman in one of the Vernon Anderson pictorial books (Diesels in Scotland or Scottish Railways?), but the caption said that it unusual so presumably a late stock change rather than being diagrammed. It seems that Mk3s weren't diagrammed to the train until most if not all were in IC Executive livery. Still a precedent if you want one.

I can't remember when the E-G push-pull services with Mk3s started, but it may have been after this photo was taken on 6/9/79. Interestingly the Chronicles of Napier website lists 55005 as working the 1E10 10:45 Edinburgh - York (extended to King's Cross) with a 7 coach load of Mk 2 & 3 stock a couple of days later on 10/09. Could this be the same rake and train a few days earlier, and a temporary substitute for the normal stock? I agree most of the Mk3a were hauled by WCML electrics. For a diesel, you're looking at The Clansman to/from Inverness (but were they still B/G when Mk3 were used?) and diversions via the S&C, plus perhaps North Wales coast services to Holyhead, or were these Mk2s? All were rostered for ETH Class 47s. I remember one Saturday the morning Wolves - Poole arrived at Reading with a scratch set including a Mk3 buffet. This was fitted with long swing-link bogies so had to be removed and reattached to the return working, only short swing-link bogied Mk3s being permitted to work on third rail lines. In this respect, I seem to recall that when the scheduled HST service(s) into Waterloo (to connect with Eurostar) started, the WR had to change some set formations to create enough all short swing-link bogie sets to cover the diagrams including those services. I've no idea if this is still an issue.

Looking at the photo, it is unlikely the Deltic was on the sleepers, at least not on your train from BNS. It looks like a terminal, rather than through, platform and preparing for departure.

Looking at the Hornby website, Taunton Castle in the Date with the Duchy set is early emblem, not late crest. The balence that really needs to be addressed is that both Late Crest standard releases are double chimney. For a single chimney you have the Swindon L/E only. Perhaps Hornby has agreed not to produce one for a certain period so as not to undermine the Swindon sales, but an ex-GWR (as opposed to BR built) Castle with late crest and single chimney would fill a gap.

I'm pretty sure this will be because the model is sold out. Don't forget that some of the batch were incorrectly fitted with the wrong smokebox door as for a BR version with front numberplate - wasn't Rails one of those affected. Presumably Hornby withdrew the incorrect models from the market. Perhaps they will have ordered replacement smokebox doors if the cost of manufacture and fitting is not too high, or maybe not. We've no idea how many models were wrong. I would expect Hornby to produce another Great Western version in future, but I can't see it appearing out of the blue - it would be announced and/or appear in the catalogue first. So not this year at least - we're still waiting for 7029 Clun Castle IIRC. Depending what the problem is, perhaps in view of the error Hornby will have a spare chassis or two to swop over. It can't do any harm to ask them.

So a Class 22 will be overtaken by a Western... Fairly protypical then But seriously, I'm happy to wait if it is as good as promised. But surely this slippage, taking up toolmakers time and later production slots, will mean a delay to Dapol's other OO locomotives too.

I agree these brake vans are great models, but TBH I was hoping for something that looked more like the picture on the Bachmann website 37-537C. I certainly won't be pre-ordering either the weathered maroon Mk1 BG or GUV. I want to see the weathering first, in case they aren't like Bachmann's website pictures. You can get away with this heavier weathering on wagons, but coaching stock was rarely this dirty. So a subtler approach is needed.

To me the latest CAD looks very promising. Just looking at the drawings rather than studying them in detail, these three items above appear to me to be the most noticeable to the eye. The most obvious being the right hand bodyside grill, for which there should be different (opening) variant as Etched Pixels and Bernard TPM say. But is there any more news on the locos (or body variants) to be produced in the first run, in view of the issues with those originally selected, such as the real D1029 not having headboard clips?

Lots of opportunities here: These boots are made for walking - Nancy Sinatra

Well I have to say I'm very happy with my Tintagel Castle. I can live with the minor errors mentioned, although it does look odd to say the least that there are rivets through the printed numberplates. As far as the smokebox numberplate error is concerned, even the boxshifters will check the individual model before sending if you ask them to - especially if you tell them it will be sent back (with a request to reimburse postage) if its wrong.

Whilst I haven't specially checked, when I took mine out of the box I certainly didn't notice a smokebox numberplate and I'm sure I would have done. I bought mine - DCC Fitted - from Hattons. So it probably is a mistake in the factory in China and only applies to some - but I wonder how many? - models. But if the factory produces smokebox doors to order, i.e. the quantity based on complete models being produced (plus spares?) will this mean that other Castles currently in production that should have a smokebox numberplate will not, I wonder???

Yup, well done Dave - you certainly got me. As I said in my posts I did wonder, but your post was low key, you picked something that was not too far fetched and could happen... All the best ingredients for success.

That's a bit unfair... B) . I've always thought of it as Hornby's way of encouraging us to develop our modelling skills rather than play trains... As you might guess, the answer to the original question is "No".

Of course it is. We replace plastic grills with etched parts and make changes to model specific locos with detail variations, but to me at least this is different. It's something that is easy to get right on the model from the outset by amending the CAD/CAM. It's not as if there are no other Westerns to refer to to get it right. If the problem is creating tooling to produce the model both with and without the aerials, then I expect most would prefer without. D1015 in preserved form is not even in the first productions runs. Dapol is effectively saying "We're producing a model, we know it's going to be wrong, but sorry it's not going to be corrected." Dapol has throughout the Class 22 project been saying how they want to get everything right and have delayed production to make adjustments. Surely Dapol can do the same for the Western. Unless it really is an April fool (after all, the aerial is NOT shown on the CAD/CAM in Andy first post in this thread).

I've just seen this from Dapol Dave on the Class 56 thread (my highlight): For what is being billed as the ultimate Western, this is frankly ridiculous. Why should I have to take a scalpel to a model as soon as it arrives? You may not see the cut in N, but you certainly will in OO. I presume this aerial is something to do with running on the UK network and applies only to D1015 in its current preserved state? If it's a problem there are other preserved Westerns to scan and get the CAD/CAM right. I would imagine that the vast majority of purchasers will want the model in original condition, but now you're going to make it correct for one loco in its current condition. We are patiently waiting for the Class 22 while you get the details right - please do the same for the Western. If not, as far as I am concerned it's three lost sales. If it's an April fool, it's not funny.

Sorry, but the RE webpage and its flyer say that they are Special Edition Models not limited editions. Also, limited editions are normally a predetermined number of models, whereas in this case the actual numbers made will be based on the number of pre-orders. And RE also say that the additional singletons will only be produced if there are enough expressions of interest. They don't say by when you have to express an interest, but I presume this will be the same date as for pre-orders of the twin packs so they can have one long production run of models, which are then decorated depending on the numbers of each that have been pre-ordered. Finally, I have seen nowhere, except in a comment by Lyddrail, that Heljan has no plans to release their own versions and RE's flyer only says that "reruns are unlikely for the forseeable future, if at all". Nowhere in the RE announcement have I seen a statement that Heljan will never resurrect the production line. All references carefully say only "these" models. As we know from other manufacturers, a different loco number or a minor livery tweak is enough to be a different model. Understandably, neither RE nor Heljan are going to tell us what the contractual arrangements are, so we will have to wait and see what happens. As far as the price is concerned, I think it's excellent value for two models considering what is being done.

I too would have throught RE will happily take a pre-order now with the old card details, which you can update when the new card arrives. If not you could always phone the card company now and say that the chip has stopped working on your card (so you do not have to go through the rigmarole of a lost or stolen card). They will then send a new one now. I know someone who did that (NOT me) to avoid a card expiring whilst they were on a long holiday abroad

I wasn't sure whether to come back on this, because I don't want to appear negative about the project. I think it is a great idea and hope it is a success. But I simply don't understand the statements that these will be the only models produced using the Rail Exclusive tooling. Making such a declaration now does not make economic sense unless it is to persuade us to buy now. There appear to be two scenarios (and I have no idea which is the case); either Heljan owns the tooling or RE does. If Heljan owns it, presumably they will agree not to produce any models using it for a certain period of time, after when standard releases can be produced. This is, as I understand it, the way it works for the Bachmann 37 tooling. Heljan may even decide not to produce any models using the old tooling during the "embargo" period to ensure the demand was there when the new models appeared. Why wouldn't Heljan take it on? They are likely to sell far more units of a better model than an inferior one unless the inferior one was very much cheaper. And Heljan doesn't have a track record in that direction. If RE owns it, then of course it can decide when or if further models are produced. But having paid for the tooling, would RE really "bin it" rather than seek to make money from it by producing further models in the future? Assuming the initial investment was recovered from the initial production runs, as I would expect them to plan, then it is only the production costs that need to be covered by sales of additional models. I would expect the amount RE would have to pay for the new tooling etc. to be less if Heljan retained an interest in it than if did not, because when discussing costs RE could legitimately say that Heljan would also benefit financially by producing models from it in the future. On that basis, why would RE pay more for ownership of the tooling if it had already decided not to use it again in the future. That does not make economic sense. This is a commercial project for RE - to deliver something we all want, for which they should be applauded. Why should RE care whether Heljan produces more models from the tooling in the future provided the project has already been a financial success for RE unless it plans to make more money for itself? Would RE want to take the risk involved, for a higher initial outlay?

I have received further info from Jamie Walsh which maybe of interest, in particular to those wanting to get different liveries: I'm pleased to hear that there has been a good response to the project announcement and the Facebook idea is an interesting idea to "help" with swops. But what if you arrange a swop, or sale for that matter, and then your find that your partner drops out and you are left with a model you don't want and perhaps can't afford to keep? No thanks. Her comment that "these particular items will never be repeated" is interesting. Lyddrail says much the same thing too: This I find astonishing. Unless Rail Exclusive will own the tooling, why on earth would Heljan NOT produce models using it some time in the future. Assuming Heljan wants to keep a Class 33/0 in its range, I can hardly see it using the current (inaccurate) tooling when it had better tooling available. It might also use it to update the 33/1. Jamie's comment about the green FYE version is interesting. If I was being cynical I would say it was not included in the list of possible future single models to vote for becuase it might detract from sales of the twin packs. I have no intention of trying to collect 500 names as she suggests, but it does suggest those wanting it should lobby Rail Exclusive. I'm in the phil gollin camp on this. I do hope the project is a success, but I don't want two of the same livery and unless Rail Exclusive changes its mind and sells a twin pack with the livery combination I want, I will pass.

That does seem to be the case and I can understand some people may have to go down that route for a Limited Edition of a pre-fixed number of pieces (e.g. 504 for Bachmann locos) that sells out quickly. But anyone who pays over the odds on ebay for Rail Exclusive special editions just after they are released really are gullible - or just so addicted to ebay they don't care. As for those people who are willing to pay over the odds on ebay for a L/E that hasn't yet sold out... . One benefit of the special edition format is the number ordered is always more than the number of pre-orders, so anyone who wants a particular special edition can get one provided they sign up in advance. And with Rail Exclusive's payment plan, fewer people should miss out because they cannot afford one lump sum. Still don't like that they expect you to buy two in the same livery and suggest you swop one to get a second version (or sell if you only want one). As special editions with a decision on the final numbers to be produced based on pre-orders, it would be nice if we could commit to buy two locos of our choice from all the liveries to be produced initially. Why should they care how many of each version are produced - surely they want to maximise overall numbers to ensure the project goes ahead and they make a profit at the end. Perhaps they've ruled it out as a logistical nightmare.

Oops....my apologies to her. And I've edited my post.