97xx

A Happy New Year to all reading this post. I've been looking on RMWeb and see some threads which contain content but they're either very old (with broken links to pictures) or don't seem to link with the newer site. I have some questions: Has anyone any pictures readily to hand of the chassis? Anyone built one in OO with compensation (which is what I want)? Plunger or other pickups used? Tractive effort - did it actually work well and on modest gradients with modest load? (I'd be interested to hear from anyone who built it compensated). Thanks (If there are posts already there which I've missed, please just redirect me, sorry...)

Is anyone expecting any H-D models to be announced on the 10th? Any informed guesses? Failing that, I suppose we could make it a wish list...!

Correct. So was it provided direct from Dapol?

But would it be fair to say that yours was directly from Dapol as a review sample so would have been pretty well run-in and/or sorted before you got it?

Like many, I watched the Sam's Trains review. It was looking very positive until I spotted the buffer glued in an an upwards angle and the things really went Pete Tong when he tried to run it, and it was frankly useless. Plus he did very fairly run it in each way for 30 mins which one might hope would ease any acceptable newness/tightness. But it still did not work in any way acceptably. Why didn't I hear him saying "it's going back". Am I missing something, or is there just a general acceptance of such grossly sub-standard products? If everyone accepts this low standard, then that is what we will get. I anticipate some won't like my use of the word 'grossly' ahead of substandard. But a loco that basically won't run seems to fail in the same way as a roof with a huge hole in it. However, if the balance of opinion here from those who have bought one is that it's excellent, then fair enough and I'd have to accept that QA allows the odd duff one through.

Whilst at Tondu, "The former... (3100) ...frequently worked the fast morning business train from Porthcawl to Cardiff" Another snippet, although too early for your modelling, "some confusion has been caused by a first official photograph with the group letter E painted on in error".

I've seen a photo of 8102 with the RA spot just slightly above handrail level but between h/r and cab opening, and 6125 even more oddly placed - at the top corner of the number plate. Not sure we're referring to same photo, but in one I can see dated 27Jul58 of 3101, 3100 and 3102 inside Swindon shed, the RA spot on 3100 is pretty surely where you have it, above the handrail, centre to the plate? Other details for 31xx I'm aware of are front lamp iron on smokebox door, and the 'three steps' (with grabirons) on fireman's side of bunker post 1954.

Really interesting build! Photos I have seen of 3100 show it with the 'large' early crest?

Impressive, and not too surprising as the HD models with their large ringfield motors draw twice the current of modern day models. Putting aside motor efficiencies, that's twice the torque to be deployed with a similar weight loco. Let's hope the new HD loco motors aren't short-lived!

I have to say that GSN appears to be a quite stunning model. The overall fit and finish appear flawless, and the satin on diecast, especially along the roof, is exceptional. Lining is reasonably good - fine-ness good but with a little bit of stutter evident on the orange lines. Running, admittedly straight out of the box, is quiet and smooth, with only a merest hint of wobble on the tender. A very significant flywheel inertia is evident. Detailing includes vacuum and steam pipes, cylinder cocks and front steps, although the instructions show a pair of steps for the buffer beam of the tender which are not in my pack. Anyone got them? Cab detail is rather well done. The only criticism being the driver's seat seems to be represented by a tab on the clear window glazing - just needs a touch of paint (only just visible in my pic below - that wasn't my intention to highlight it). Anyway, nit-picking.

Very good news, thank you. My fear was that it might be a very expensive wrapper on a poorly made chassis - mechs seem to be terribly hit or miss although Hornby do appear to be ahead.

Am I correct that these have 5-pole motor? Flywheel? To those who have got one, are these models of an acceptable mechanical quality?

Thanks re lights. Should have also asked - what additional details come in the box? I'm referring to the Hornby press photos that seem to show drain cocks/piping and front steps, for example. Thanks.

I assume that the lights are cosmetic only?

Any sign of the Dublo MNs yet?

I have a rather tired City of London I am considering tidying up. What have people done to correct the ride height when going to 26mm drivers from the HD 22mm?

That I don't know I'm afraid as I milled it up from my scrap box. If I were to guess based on where it all came from, possibly 6082. As I'm very much a hobbyist machinist, as opposed to a model engineer I don't usually need to worry about grade and tend towards most machinable grades. The only real exception being where I need to use silver steel.

Thank you, but no, all aluminium. Why? (a) Much easier to machine (major factor!) (b) More compatible - coefficient of expansion close to Mazak, versus steel which is only one third (a convenient answer!) (c) Rules out corrosion as my stock is stored, although if I had used steel, I would have chemically blackened it. Brass would have been another option. When I use that I do quite like it as for chassis work again I chemically blacken it which means no priming (and scratching through to it afterwards), no thickness of paint and a rather realistic 'metal' look - see the brass/nickel silver combination below - all blackened, not painted.

Under the Consumer Rights Act of 2015, the appearance of a defect is not related to whether it was incorporated knowingly or unknowingly - it is defined in simplest terms as goods that are of satisfactory quality, fit for the particular purpose intended, are as advertised/described and match any specifications shown or claimed. The wrinkle is that the Consumer Rights Act of 2015 gives you six years to make a claim for faulty goods, and within that "Any question as to what is a reasonable time or significant inconvenience is to be determined taking account of— (a) the nature of the goods, and (b) the purpose for which the goods were acquired" So, on the one hand if you have items less than 6 years old, you do have a right to repair or replacement (especially if you can demonstrate as many of you can that there has been no implicated wear and tear), but after that it would be more of a Goodwill conversation - but the public knowledge and scale of a particular issue may help you reach an amicable middle ground.

In respect of china, a number of years of experience of dealing with them. Which includes: (a) Goods contractually specified to one standard, but subsequently manufactured to a lower one; (b) Goods manufactured poorly and not picked up in agreed QA processes; (c) Intellectual property stolen to a very significant value (multiple millions). So, I'm sorry that you don't like my comment, but it is factual which is not racist. Yes, I do not have knowledge of Dapol's contract so perhaps they specified a duff material specification...

Just been servicing my one of the above. Looking to convert it to HD couplings - it has the Tri-ang tension lock, held to the bogies with a large-ish self-tapper with a plastic washer and the coupling sits on a plastic plate on the die-cast rectangular protrusion on the bogie. The 'conversion' appears simple - use a cranked H-D coupling and the plastic plate has a 'stop' to control (badly I might add) the movement of the H-D coupling and a very slight shoulder to locate it. It's almost clever in that it will work with tension lock or H-D couplings. What I've noticed is that the self-tapper sits so high that its head rubs on the buffer beam, irrespective of the coupling used. Anyone come across this? A solution would be to use a shouldered screw which would have less height. However, seems odd as this is as it left the factory with the by then standard tension lock couplings.

A bit late to the party, given you've ripped stuff up, but if I'm right in assuming that your generally centre-driven axle is rigid, and the fore and aft axles in hornblocks, would a possible solution be to make duplicate hornblocks with the axle bushes fitted from inside and then flush to the outside of the hornblocks to give you some play. You may need a very thin washer to ensure tyres don't touch frames, but just a thought.

Quite a transformation! And an unusual vehicle .

Are they going to be limited to 500 each? Curious as I did find a retailer who was still taking pre-orders - I wonder if that's just wishful thinking (and money for a few months!).

Does anyone have any news regarding possible appearance dates of the MN in the UK?