Porcy Mane

I understand and sympathise with some of your concenrns but think some of the faults on the current crop of RTR Locos are a consequence of us modelers demanding (and rightly too in my opinion) higher standards. Putting quality control issues to one side and bearing in mind you can return any item to a manufacture if faulty, I'm sure virtually all of us have damaged some small delicate part when unpacking or handling a product. Maybe this is one area were manufactures could improve things so that, like Heljan, manufactures would make smaller and easily damaged cosmetic spares such as as Lamp irons, lamps, etc available so that repairs that don't require return manufacturer can be done by the owner. Also no quibble returns and replacement from manufactured might be nice. Larger faults such as bent running plates are really inexcusable and should be engineered out during design or noticed during pre product testing. If it's an individual problem that should be noticed and corrected at Quality Control, I know of one smaller UK commissioner of railway models that has experienced major QA problems with items manufactured in China and has had to rely on friends to unox-rebox, check and repair every item before selling on. It may just be the photograph but the centre of the Hornby Q6 running plate does seem to have a slight bend in it in the cover on there new Handbook. Maybe it had been driven by a Tyne Docker and had dished out a few heavy shunts. Re Messrs Alexander and Bradwell. There were aware of an impending rtr Q6 so are able to adapt and there are always those of us who buy and build kits and RTR. P Edit to add missing words.

Erm, I sorry I don't think it has. To say that a newly introduced loco has a proven track record prior to It being available to the general public is premature and misleading. It appears that the loco has so far only been generally available to a small number of people having attended an invitation only launch. I have no reason to disbelieve the positive comments this loco has received but all of those comments up to date seem to have come from people that were invited to attend the launch. Although the purchase price of £160.00 has been mentioned a few times throughout this thread, I am so far not aware of any official price announcement so I am left wondering if those that have commented on the loco bought the loco at recommended retail price or discount. Perhaps you could confirm the expected cost? Also as too remove any hint of bias, perhaps you could tell us what input, if any and for how long you have had into the project. Having read through Mr Suttons communication I applaud his philosophy and ethos behind the Locos introduction and note his quoted comments about listening too and accepting constructive criticism so wonder why others have taken it upon themselves (particularly in other forums) to disapprove of such constructive comments? Once the folk that have bought the locomotive independently and I'm sure there will be many, have commented perhaps then will be the time to start talking about "Proven Track Record". (I'm sure you didn't need to pun) Re your point about three separate threads for different aspects of the model, why not just stick to one thread to discuss the SLW Sulzer two? That way there can be no confusion as to what specific manufacturer, specific DCC/DCC sound system, specific type of loco, specific version of loco, etc., etc. is being addressed. Finally let me say I just make the above comments/queries in the spirit of being constructive and wish the venture well. I'll have three please. P

Ron that pic sums up almost the entire glazing situation for RTR introduced over the last 20 some years. Hallelujah for Wet & Dry used with T cut and Lazerglaze. http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/94747-Hornby-lms-non-corridor-coaches-pre-production-samples/page-3&do=findComment&comment=1837760 P

Thanks for your sympathy. Fortunately it's not my finger. P

Hello, Nice to see some modelling going on in some parts of the forum. She's looking good Paul. P

Seems a little more than a simple repaint as it's got the MkII version of the hopper door control pipes fitted. Hi Ho. P

Oh dear. What an admission.

Class 25 grills were different to Class 24. Unless your converter used some of these. [awaiting arrival of snapograph] P (Trying to work out if this is a wind up) If not check out these grills. See the difference? Darlington North Road Works. by Keith Long, on Flickr

Thanks. My middle name is Finbar. You loose one point for failing to pick up on the term thick shank. P

Hijack alert. Justin, I don't know if you've seen Mr Franks LMS Oleo Diesel buffers. They really are quite good. Part No's LB012 and LB013. The website pics don't do the castings justice. Yes you can read the Oleo branding. http://www.lanarkshiremodels.com/lanarkshiremodelsandsupplieswebsite_109.htm They can be sprung using thick shank buffers available from wizard or sleeve up a standard buffer shank with polished aluminium tube. Some Class 25 Oleos yesterday. Unusual Discalimer: I know Mr Franks of LMS models quite well & think the sun shines out of his orifice. P Hijack over.

Just drop the https:// part of the interwebby address and all will be fine Typing www.sulzertype2.com in the address bar should be work fine. P

Re: the grills, despite being an acute 3/4 view, this image shows a good representation of the grills from one of the pilot scheme batch. (Apart from the split version before anyone pulls me up.) BR/Sulzer Type 2 diesels Nos D5009/D5005 by John Evans, on Flickr Hi res available on Flickr. To my eyes and as others have said, the small grills look fine but there is something that looks strange about the boiler room and radiator grills. It may just be to do with digital reproduction on digital screens. Any one up for counting the number of rivets slats. Although not perfect this image shows an the Darlo polished radiator grill of ex works D5103 quite well. Leeds, Neville Hill 55H. by Keith Long, on Flickr I guess it shows how far things have progressed when we are debating the accuracy of grills and glazing. P

Apologies Les, I'm probably missing something but you've lost me with your comment about a, "DJM tender missing from the list"? P

Yep, D5107 was one of the batch of Class 24 converted with additional compressors and pipework for operating the Consett/Tyne Dock iron ore hoppers but they had been fitted with boiler room blanking panels well before the conversions were carried out. Also unlike the early Derby built 24's non of them carried the two additional roof cut outs associated with the steam heat boiler at the number two end as shown in the photograph above, and by the time the conversions started, the trademark Darlington polished air intakes had oxidised back to a dark grey/black colour with just the odd hint of silver on the raised sections adjacent to the rubber seals. Just an observation but as no doubt this is a premium product for which a premium price will probably be asked, I'm sure the backers/promoters would like to get it correct. If it's a photograph of a pre-production version of a Consett/Tyne Dock Sulzer Two and producion runs will have this slips corrected then I apologise for sticking my neb in. Regardless it looks to be setting new RTR standards. P Ps. As an aside some class24/1and 25/1 were also converted to operate the Iron Ore hoppers.

I've no idea. The two images were published on yesterdays Hornby website and may not be representative. I just animated them to show differences. I have been told there are some decent images of all three versions of the Hornby Q6 display at Warley on facebook but as I don't do facebook I haven't seen them. As the display models would appear to be pre production samples I'd err on the side of caution as to what differences individual models will have until something official is announced. P

I'm sure Hornby will not me mind me using their images to try and display what some of the differences may be on the up & coming models. P

The tender was on it's second repaint and from memory (that's getting more hazy as time goes by) the lettering was from a variety of sources, with waterslide, Kings Cross rub on, methfix & free hand being used. I don't think anything is from an original mopok sheet. The reason I say that is I've got no recollection of the original mopok DBT kits being supplied with transfers. I should have some notes on what I used but where they are is anybodies guess. If I find anything I'll let you know. p

Ahem! Should that not read, "for a decent RTR NER model...its been like waiting for a bus." and a Gillet & Baker bus at that.

...and looking at other phots being bandied about the web, two different smokebox doors to be offered, at least two different chimney variations and different tenders. Just needs DJM to do a sandwich buffer beam and alternate boiler and the jobs a good-un. P

Oooh Thanks. Did the BB code not work for embedding? 25229 Elgin 24/07/1980 by Woolwinder, on Flickr P

Don't I know it. I'm currently building my Mk VI version. Here's the Mk. 1 version started some 25 years ago. Despite it's faults the ABS tender still looks to be setting the standard even though things have moved on immeasurably since then.. P Edit: Thinking about it, I'm probably up to about the Mk. IX version as I'd forgot about the original Mopok versions with the Vac. formed bodies I'd built way back in the seventies.

I'll let you know when it arrives. Will you be having one? P

Running the risk of sounding somewhat Adrianesque; I've had a look at the latest pics on the Hornby magazine website and compared them to some ex works transparencies I have for Dia 1/555 DBT's. Some observations, made, admittedly some quite pedantic are listed below. I've tried to keep comments to body only as I appreciate the many compromises needed to the bogies to accommodate different types of couplings and commercial 16.5mm track standards. Body cladding joints too prominent. Bolts for removable cladding panels (vacuum cylinder access) too prominent. Horizontal bolts along bottom of top VCA cladding plate missing. Horizontal bolts along top of side VCA cladding plate missing. Hand brake wheel has incorrect number of spokes for majority of Diag.1/555 DBT's as introduced. Side handrails should be level with horizontal cladding join. All handrails protrude from bodywork by excessive amount. Some 1/555 DBT's were built without the end handrails. Buffers including shanks look far too anaemic. Bogies should protrude beyond bottom of body side tumblehome by 0.6mm. Typeface too heavy and incorrect. Vacuum Release stars missing. Lift and paint dates missing from left hand end' BO date missing from Centre, date Oiled and Maintenance due date,( backed in red panels) missing from RH side. On-Off script missing from above brake wheels. Poor representation of vacuum release holes and placed too high. One Vacuum Release hole missing on one side. Poor representation of Label clip and positioned incorrectly in relation to vacuum release access hole. I've probably missed a few things. So having said all of the above I gone and ordered (at full price) from this page: https://shop.keypublishing.com/site/searchList ...one of the all green jobbies. Once it arrives it will be out with the tools to see if I can sort some of the discrepancies. Here's a decent pic to compare with those on the Hornby Mag website. Train 473 by Bruce Grime, on Flickr P