YesTor

Okay, well, it makes little difference to myself either way, but just to make you aware of what you have presented, as we can all only work with the info that you provide. And with all due respect, it appears that you've created and shared a video in order to create a public/social-media frenzy with what is apparently out-of-date information? (ie. the 300 or so viewers of your video are now under the false impression that returns are not possible?) I say this politely, but if you are going to attempt to pull-off this kind of thing then at the very least make sure that your information is bang up-to-date in every respect possible, otherwise that's when egg potentially starts appearing on faces and the rest of your case begins to lose credability. Anyway, I cannot determine either way whether your communication was polite, or otherwise - and to be fair it is not that much interest or relevance to me either way as it isn't my business under fire - all I am working from is the tone of voice in the video which quite frankly, does come across as bordering a little on self-entitlement, in that you had to "fight" to get axle-box covers and pretty much "demand that axle-box covers be removed from an existing model", because effectively "you expect them to come up with a resolution"... Doesn't sound overly polite to my ear.... https://youtu.be/80OCOXTjcec?t=2495 I'm only going out of my way to say all of this because having purchased model railway items from Hatton's for many, many years - and yes having occasionally returned items in the process too - I have never once been in a position where I have felt the need to demand anything, as I have at every turn always felt the level of customer service to be nothing less than totally obliging. Maybe I'm mistaken somewhere, but that's just my perception of all of this. At best just seems a bit of an OTT response, and at worst perhaps a little strange, that's all. Best Al

Interesting video, but just to maybe help on a couple of things, my own telephone conversation with Hattons' only yesterday afternoon raised two of your questions... "Hattons are not accepting returns at the moment..." FALSE - return request for two items requested yesterday, free return shipping labels to my inbox provided whilst I was on the telephone, advised that returns processed within 48 hours of receipt, package returned yesterday afternoon. "A bit of a fight with Hattons to get replacement axle-boxes..." Why "a fight"? I've requested these too and was informed that they are awaiting more axle-box covers to arrive with the next batch of models from China and that all requests were noted and would be shipped out as soon as they arrived. If the models were truly as bad as you highlight then why not simply return and replace for new? No offence intended, but often a polite conversation goes a lot further than what might be interpreted as edging upon a slightly rude and self-entitled rant? Just be polite, chap, good manners go far... Incidentally, a nice looking layout and otherwise interesting video. Hope you manage to resolve the issues. Al

The night mode headlights initially didn't work on my factory-fitted sound 66033, however it turned out to be that the inside switches had been set in the wrong position. I'm guessing though that this isn't what you mean? Al

I feel you have answered your own question in your last statement, in which case why not simply cancel your order and request a refund and then re-order when all things delivery-related are restored to a more 'normal' situation. Al

Okay, okay, I think a little context may be required here... I'm not even certain that this piece is necessarily supposed to be glued, all I am saying is that one piece appeared slightly loose and came out when pulled. If anything, it may even be preferable to have this section removable - if you've ever stripped bogies, wheelsets, motor and gearbox for a total stripped-down clean and re-assembly then you'll know that it is actually preferable to not have everything bunged up with Superglue. ie. bunged-up with glue does not always equate to being great... Just saying... What I will add, is that I now own 11 of these models and each and every one is covered in a wealth of separately-added detail - etched, plastic, grilles and otherwise - and overall I can recall one etched air-dam step being loose in the box on one model. So I think that, "Is anything on these models properly glued on" might be a tad OTT. The bottom line is that with an ever-increasing quantity of added-on parts per model it is surely inevitable that something will always likely be loose, whoever the manufacturer. If bits were dropping off left, right and centre then I'd complain, but to be fair, they aren't. Okay, the axlebox issue ain't so great, for sure, but I believe in credit where credit is due (without bias), and feel that with regard to detailing and general standard of assembly that Hatton's have done exceptionally well in this department. I hope that provides some context as to the thinking behind my comments re loose parts. Best Al

Just to follow up on my last post having removed all axlebox covers, and basically all that seems to be required is the use of a 3mm drill to gently enlarge the existing holes in the bogie sideframes: One of the internal section sideframes was loose on my model and I guess some may find it easier to work on this section if removed from the main bogie, however it really isn't necessary as we are only very gently enlarging the holes anyway, but just for reference: Clean up the axlebox caps as necessary, add a tiny dab of glue to the tip of the axle and insert and clip the cap back into place: I left the glue to harden overnight, and all looking neat and tidy in the axlebox department... A quick test shows the 'shed' now running as smooth-as-silk and not a wobble in sight... Joy! One beautiful model! cheers Al

Indeed, I had been wondering how Dapol have approached the rotating axlebox on their model... Al

On the models I've seen there's no problem with the outer bogie frames lining up with the gearbox assembly. The problem appears to be no more complex really than the axlebox covers being glued in skew-whiff. Yes, the gearbox bottom cover is indeed part of the same moulding as the outer bogie frame - standard configuration of a clip at each end . I know what you mean with regard to the Hornby 60, as that can result in the outer frame looking as though it's floating around out of alignment, so to speak, but the Hattons 66 isn't like that at all. I could be wrong, but part of your issue there might be that you have the centre axle non-supported while the two outer axles are carrying all of the weight of the loco... Best Al

Aside from the wobble issue the model is, in my eyes, absolutely stunning. And as you point out the sound package really is the icing on the cake. I just need to get my head around this axlebox conundrum and I've no doubt that I'll be buying a whole lot more in the future. Fair point, to be honest I personally don't see the axleboxes as a gimmick, as they are quite a feature of the prototype, and when they are absolutely central on the model they do very much add something. But still, they do indeed need to function correctly and not impair upon the otherwise largely faultless performance. Al

Agreed, for the most-part a marginally larger hole in the bogie frame would likely eradicate quite a few wobbling issues by itself. A stamped metal cover would also have a much finer appearance as well, so yeah that would indeed be good. Al

That may well be so. That said, we have to look at this kind of thing from all angles... it doesn't matter whether it's a model train, iPhone, or whatever, at the end of the day these workers are carrying out what, let's be honest, must be a totally mind-numbing job, likely being paid peanuts and are also likely of fairly low skill. If we want these things manufactured and assembled with aircraft engine precision then we need to pay a Rolls-Royce engineer to sit on the production line accordingly... and our locomotives will far exceed the current price tag. Speaking in general production terms and with all of the above in mind, as a designer you have to make everything that you submit for manufacture/assembly essentially 'idiot-proof' (awful terminology, sorry, but often the case), and very sadly I don't feel that this axlebox configuration quite meets that criteria. The plastic axlebox covers are on occasion moulded fairly crudely (bits of flash on the shank etc - which in itself will create a wobble), and furthermore are totally dependent on being inserted with an exact amount of glue in very precise alignment to the axle... and there are 12 of them on each model! It just seems a bit of a tall order to expect this kind of thing to be assembled perfectly, each and every time on each and every locomotive... Oh yeah, where is that Rolls-Royce engineer when you need him...? From my own past experience in manufacturing, a handful of 'approval samples' from any factory are generally presented in perfect state, as naturally the factory want to seal the order. Sadly, these early pre-production samples can quite often appear completely different to what is presented months down the line when there are hundreds/thousands to assemble from components manufactured at a different time, where it is often likely that materials, colour, competence of assembly will vary wildly from those original samples that you saw 12 months ago. None of this should be an excuse, because as a designer/head of production, you have to attempt to factor in all of these kind of potential eventualities when you design and approve a product, which isn't always easy, as there will always be something waiting to catch you unawares... And again, it's all very well myself/us sitting here casting these judgements at this point, but of course I/we now have the benefit of hindsight. Design, manufacture and production, or more precisely, errors in design, manufacture and production are a hugely expensive game and I'd imagine that Hattons' are very much aware of all of this. The key thing now is to work out a way forward by looking at resolving these issues... From my own perspective, I'm sitting here now with five models that do not run as expected. I'm pretty sure that if I return them that Hattons' will replace said models, although to be honest I'm not sure of the probability of receiving 'non-wobblers' if I do so. And the last thing I want to be doing is going to-and-fro with endless returns and replacements... On the other hand, I'm confident enough at removing the existing axleboxes from the models that I have. What I am not so confident of however, at this point, is the re-usability of some of the solvent-affected covers once they are removed. One of my questions really - and perhaps Dave could kindly advise at this point - is if it is possible to access spare axlebox covers, so I can correct the models I have here without the need to return...? Best Al

The axle box issue is certainly proving interesting. My order of seven Class 66s arrived on Thursday and out of seven locomotives sadly four have a profound wobble, whilst the fifth a further slight wobble. Initial feelings of dismay. Since arrival all models have been running in for anything up to six hours each and sorry to say with little (if any) improvement. Some axle covers appear reasonably central-mounted... Where as others perhaps less so... After some contemplation, the decision was taken to remove all axlebox covers from one of the affected models and, looking more closely at this axlebox configuration, it has to be said that I'm less than keen on what appears to be the general advice that to superglue the axle covers in place is in any way going to help. To my way of thinking at least, 'Superglue' and 'moving parts' rarely work in the same sentence, let alone when the parts concerned are in very close proximity to where said Superglue is to be applied. Removing the axlebox covers pretty much reinforces this train of thought… It's becoming easier to see why my 'sheds' aren't running as I'd hoped... In a couple of instances the axle box cover is actually glued to the bogie frame as well as the axle itself... The result of removing all axlebox covers? Well, in short, the locomotive now runs like a dream... no wobbles, no shuddering, and essentially glides along as smooth as silk... Result! It's pretty clear as to why even only one single misaligned cover could create running issues... With all of the above in mind it does appear as if the overall design might be a little flawed? Following this, I am now wondering if there might be a better option for the rotating axleboxes... As the design stands, on simple removal of the axlebox cover it can be clearly seen that the axle length protrudes slightly further out than a typical axle in order to accommodate the attachment of the cover... I'm wondering if a future design improvement might be to extend the axle length further still, thus eliminating the need for plastic parts to be glued into an already awkward space, and instead clip a moulded axlebox cover directly onto (or into) the end of the extended axle. I suppose it's possible that a small bush may be required in order to prevent wearing of the bogie frame, although the axles themselves seem sufficiently slender in order to likely avoid any friction... I guess the danger in any arrangement is in the whole bogie assembly becoming too much of a solid unit with little play between the individual axles which would again lead to issues. But perhaps with sufficient tolerances... Of course, the above idea is too late for existing models, and having now removed the axle covers my next move is likely to be drilling a tiny amount from around the edge of the holes before deciding on the best method of reattaching the axle covers. That will be a task for tomorrow... cheers Al

To be fair, I remember Dave informing me that all of the nameplates were going to be affixed using only a thin double-sided tape, which would enable the user to reposition any slightly out of alignment nameplate if necessary. I always think it's a bit of a tough call to expect every nameplate on every model to be fixed absolutely horizontally anyway, as it's quite a precise operation at the best of times, which is why I always prefer plates to be supplied separately in a bag. Additionally, this method also makes life easier for those who wish to renumber/rename any named loco without having to risk damaging paintwork by removing a superglued plate. I actually think what Hatton's have done here is a good compromise, especially for those who are not confident at affixing their own nameplates in the first place. Al

Look at it from a positive angle, at least this way all of the niggles should well and truly be ironed-out for when Hatton's announce 'Evening Star' and the London Transport twins in the second batch... Al

Agreed. I too am less than chuffed about the EWS text, so instead I opted for both of the EWS/Cargorail versions, which are absolutely marvellous both in terms of livery and also all the added gubbins that the Euro-adapted machines carry. Thoroughly splendid models. As others have said, I agree that the livery looks about right for a newly-outshopped machine - the red is definitely 'red', but not too bright and certainly not the 'dried-blood' appearance of the Bachmann shade. Similar on the EWS gold too - again not as dull/washed-out as the Bachmann shade and certainly not the highly questionable dayglo yellow that Hornby always seem to use for EWS gold!? To be fair, I always thought that Bachmann's EWS shades were very nice for a slightly worn/in service look, whereas Hattons do seem to have got it about right for a new machine without going too 'bling'. cheers Al

Excellent announcement! Apologies if this has been asked before, but will the sound units for all of the 37s be available separately? Reason - far too many examples that are of interest to me so far to purchase all with sound from the offset, so would be useful to know if I would be able to add sound to non-sound locos later on, as funds allow. cheers Al

Lighter? Darker? It's a Bl**dy 'Orrible Orange whichever way you look at it!

Agreed. Looking at various photos it can be seen that the top and bottom curvatures of the left and right windscreens run almost parallel until they reach virtually where the wiper pivot is situated... Whereas whichever angle viewed from, the model's outermost windscreens appear far too steep and there are seemingly no [virtually] parallel elements. Agreed on the corner curvatures being too sharp as well... From memory, the O gauge version suffers from a similar quirk also, with everything sloping downwards from the centre windscreen just that little bit too sharply giving the windscreens and roof curvature an unwelcome 'angular' kind of look. Best Al

Unfortunately I am unable to comment on haulage capacity, as at present my layout is still in track planning stage and basically consists of several individual boards awaiting assembly. All I have at present is a short run of track and rolling road for testing purposes. That said, it is an incredibly heavy model (something resembling a large brick, to be technical) ...and when run-in is indeed very smooth and quiet. Hopefully someone else can enlighten on actual haulage qualities. cheers Al

With regard to the handrails/steps, to be honest I cannot personally see how the design could be changed on future batches, as in fairness it does to me look as though these have been designed for maximum prototypical appearance, which from what I can see has been captured very well. It has to be considered that this detailing part needs to be fixed to both the body and the chassis, which on a design such as the Class 66 is always going to create a challenge, because as modellers we of course will need to separate body from chassis at some point. One option that occurred to me would be to perhaps carefully remove the step/rail assembly from the bodyshell and simply glue the exposed handrails into the handrail holes on the main chassis, so effectively the step assembly is no longer attached to the bodyshell at all. You might need to trim a very small slither of plastic from the top of the step moulding to achieve a neat alignment. Overall I can't imagine the appearance would be quite as good as the model is supplied, however it may make future disassembly sessions less traumatic. At the end of the day you sometimes have to look at a model and decide if and how you can change/improve things to suit. Anyway, when all is said and done I would simply say, go for it. Why not simply buy one model and see if you like it? What is the worst that can happen? Okay, you could potentially receive a model that you aren't satisfied with for any of the reasons mentioned previously, in which case simply return for a refund or exchange. You don't even have to pay for return postage, so what is there to lose...? cheers Al

Hello Danny, Based upon personal experience only: Two out of the original four models I purchased demonstrated distinct wobbling. With extensive running in the wobble rectified itself successfully on one of those models, whilst the second 'wobbler' unfortunately wasn't so lucky and was returned (with no quibbles from Hattons whatsoever incidentally) for replacement. Sadly, the replacement model also wobbles, which has improved slightly with prolonged running-in, however not completely, and as such Hattons have agreed to exchange this second 'wobbler' when replacement stock arrives. Yes, some of the axle box covers have worked loose over time, whilst others remain perfectly in place with no loosening whatsoever. The body is straightforward enough to remove from the chassis and the cab steps haven't fallen off, however: Problem: Extreme care is required when re-uniting the bodyshell with the chassis. The issue is that (by design) the handrails effectively protrude inwards and as such make for an extremely tight fit against the chassis-block on re-assembly. Effectively, if you aren't keeping your eyes on all eight handrails at the same time whilst re-assembling the body and chassis then it is very easy for some of those delicate rails to be inadvertently buckled/twisted/jammed between the bodyshell and chassis block. Not an impossible task, but incredibly delicate. After much profuse sweating during the exercise I decided that it wasn't going to be good practice to have to remove the bodyshell more than absolutely necessary from thereon. Solution: On further thought on this issue I am thinking that it might be possible to lightly affix a small section of very stiff paper or thin card between the handrails and chassis, thus shielding said steps/rails from buckling/twisting... although to be fair this is something I am yet to experiment with, as I have no desire to unassemble and re-assemble unless absolutely necessary. One thing I would say is that those steps/rails appear to be the most vulnerable detailing part on the model and I cannot imagine that many will stand the test of time. In view of this I would think it might be desirable if spares were included with future models. Just a thought. Yes, removal of the bodyshell is required. It is very easy to remove and swap over the bufferbeam/DAM section with the straightforward removal of two screws. There are clear instructions/diagrams included with the model. My own models have been okay in all other respects although naturally others may have different experiences. There are the documented issues regarding marker lights on the larger/bug-eyed headlight variety, see earlier posts if that concerns you. It's a fantastic model, no question - the detailing is absolutely superb, and for a model with so many separately added parts everything looks to have been assembled incredibly well - no excess glue marks, no crooked steps, no loose, buckled or crooked grilles; pipes, buffers etc all present and correct - and believe me, if anyone can be categorized as being OCD over such matters, then that's definitely me! Joking aside, there does come a point that as we demand more and more detail on our models that the potential for breakages/damaged/missing detailing etc inevitably increases - and that of course is annoying when it occurs, but realistically that's always going to be a possibility with any purchase of any model. Overall I'm very pleased with what looks to be (to my eye at least) a highly competent standard of assembly. Other positive points - it's a nice, super-heavy model, runs very smoothly and most importantly of all it looks like a 66. Maybe this is just a personal thing, but one thing I always look for particularly in a locomotive, is that the model has a realistic kind of stance/presence. After experiencing too many 66s from other manufacturers that slouch on their bogies straight out-of-the-box (and thus take on a bit of a 'limp' stature), I can happily say that this latest model pleases in all these respects and really looks the part. Lastly, I haven't (yet) fitted any of my models with a DCC decoder, as I am awaiting the arrival of the sound-fitted models... soon... hopefully... at which point I will then decide as to how my existing DC locos will be upgraded, ie. with sound, or otherwise. I hope this helps. cheers Al

Class 45 ... for those childhood memories of the ground-shaking effect they seemed to have rolling slowly into the platform with a rake of Mk I's in tow...

The problem Jack, is that even when errors are highlighted they are very often ignored/disregarded. A good example with the 66 being the logo on the EWS variants, which was highlighted by myself as being incorrect right at the first appearance of the very first painted sample, so it cannot be argued that there wasn't the time or means to implement a correction. Whilst it is appreciated that many errors, or indeed perceived errors, can boil down to individual perception/opinion, it was very clear from the offset that the logo was wrong... yet the incorrect text/font still made it onto the production batch on all EWS models, and is why I have avoided ordering any EWS liveried examples from this first batch. Whether other livery glitches (Colas etc) were highlighted early on I have no idea, but... Anyway, don't hear me wrong in all of the above - I'm not here on a Hattons-bashing spree - far from it - I have several models here from the pre-Christmas batch and hopefully more on the way, which when they are all correct and working as they should be are what I feel to be genuinely exceptional models, absolutely no question - (just no EWS examples, and now perhaps no 'bug-eyed' examples either - yet to be decided). Speaking from a layman's viewpoint, one cannot help but wonder - no matter how 'on form' anyone's QC team may or may not be - if attempting to release 37 variants, encompassing all liveries and all design variants and all of the inevitable livery and design idiosyncrasies within an entire locomotive class in one production hit, whilst very attractive on paper, was perhaps a little over-ambitious in reality? Let's hope that Hattons manage to resolve some of the problems for what at present sadly appear to be detracting from what is an otherwise stunning model. cheers Al

I do pretty much follow the principle, but am slightly confused by some of the wording, which depending upon how the wording is interpreted could have quite opposite meanings... cut the tracks that feed the headlights to isolate them from the markers join them together Join what together exactly? Join the tracks that feed the headlights? Sorry, I am not wishing to sound rude or pedantic, but the wording as it is doesn't seem to translate very clearly? A couple of photos would be far more useful perhaps? A picture speaks a thousand words etc... thank you kindly... Al

Interesting. Where is the circuit board actually mounted, inside the bodyshell, or on the actual chassis? Perhaps a photo or two of the inside of the loco would be possible which might assist in illustrating the modification to those of us not quite so savvy with such things? cheers Al