Daddyman

So... anyone want to swap an Accurascale Loch Eil BNIB (vanilla, no sound) for a Bachmann 37034 (2022 model)? PM me...

How are these going? I notice we've now slipped outside the original Q2 arrival date - which did seem a bit optimistic at the time.

Right, yes - I could match Railmatch's flint grey with their RF grey and rail grey, but couldn't match Bachmann's. But as you say, it's academic as Bachmann's grey isn't quite right anyway, or at least not right for 423 in the period I'm doing it. Hell of a job masking all the grilles and windows though...

Anyone planning to replace the sector logo say with Mainline or Transrail should be aware that Bachmann haven't painted the darker (flint grey) upper bodysides behind the sector logos - they've left it in the paler lower bodyside grey. This means it's not just a question of removing the sector logos (for which I used 1500 sandpaper with Microset as lubricant) and replacing with ML or T ones - the whole upper bodyside has to be repainted (or patch painted if you can get a match). I spent 30 minutes or so with combinations of all the Railmatch greys I own trying to get a match. But then I noticed that the grey on a faded Transrail loco (37406 or 37423) about 1996/97 doesn't look much like the flint grey anyway - the picture on p.47 of Scottish Class 37s Volume 3 (Nick Meskell) shows this well as do online photos (see below). After testing various combinations on a scrap body I've decided to go with two parts Railmatch or Precision LMS grey and one part Humbrol white (that is, to match photos of 423, not to match Bachmann's colour). https://www.jules-merlin27.com/Railways/Loco-hauled-on-the-West-Highland-Railway/i-dJ3Cfsx/A

Rude, no, though I admit it's quite annoying having my research, given to you freely, questioned and doubted. Anyway, one last try... J67s and J69s in Scotland could be fitted with three stovepipe types: (1) original Stratford, (2) Cowlairs repair of Stratford, (3) full Cowlairs replacement; the latter was standard and subject to no variation that I know of. The first photo here shows the standard "full" Cowlairs (as opposed to a Cowlairs repair on a Stratford) stovepipe, which was fitted to classes Y9, J72, J67, J69, and possibly others. As can be seen, the upper part of the chimney: (a) has flat beading; and (b) tapers into short length of a parallel-sided cylinder at the bottom, which is attached to a flat flange draped over the s.box top: Cowlairs used exactly this style on all the classes mentioned, and never varied it - though the cylindrical lower part could be more or less pronounced (it's very pronounced on the shot above, less so in the ones below); if a chimney has a flared base then it's a Cowlairs repair of a Stratford stovepipe, not a "full Cowlairs". Here is the "full Cowlairs" on a J72, fitted June 1949: The clearest shots of the design are on class Y9, and because the design never varied from class to class (apart from, possibly, dimensions), much can be learnt from these: From these photos, we can understand the type of chimney that was fitted to the loco chosen by Accurascale, 68535, which is seen in these photos: If you have evidence showing the flare at the base of 68535's stovepipe, I'd be interested to see it, but I suggest it would show the loco in earlier condition. But if you do have such a photo, then why show a shot of its "full Cowlairs" on p.6 of this thread? - that suggests you were looking to represent the loco in this condition.

Look at the picture you supplied earlier in the thread - Cowlairs is nothing like the rendering above shows. Stratford tapers into the s.box top like every other chimney - and like the rendering above; Cowlairs has a flat flange in the form of a disc "draped" on the top of the s.box, and the "lum" has no flare at the bottom. I don't have a drawing, no - I'm not a manufacturer. Have you tried approaching the NBRSG? Or looking on the the OPC list at the NRM?

It doesn't!

Thanks. Looks like the LNER-liveried one is a better base for Scottish locos then. Is it possible to change an order when I've chosen Partially?

Good to hear, thanks. I wonder if, at the same time, you could change the identity of the chosen model and do a 10-spoke shunter instead? 15-spoke locos were very rare in Scotland - so rare that I can't find another one (other than the Lauder ones, though they are of course different from the model in many respects - not least of which are the tenders!). There would therefore be no renumbering options and one would be stuck with a Dundee loco; surely some of the Edinburgh 10-spokers would have more appeal, and more renumbering options?

Well found! Cowlairs stovepipe in both cases, so from at least 1957 (Colour Rail 3418) onwards it had a different chimney from the model.

As others have said, it would be nice to know what the finescaling arrangements will be on this. Would be nice not to lose the boiler bottom when throwing the chassis away. One question on 68535: the only photo I know (Transport Library NS208442) shows it with BR crest (as modelled by A/S) but with a Cowlairs-style base to the stovepipe chimney, as opposed to the Stratford style modelled. The model may well be right (can A/S confirm?), but I'd say in general GE chimney bases were rare on Scottish J67s/J69s by the time of the cycling lion.

I did wonder if that was the case. However, both 423 an 425 are, I think, toughened, and neither looks any different in this area from a standard non-toughened 37: And here's 425 for good measure:

It looks like, as with the Deltic, fit of the windscreen etches (if that's what they are) is going to be hit-and-miss, depending on which particular worker in China fits the etch: the photo on the website today of Mainline, RR and DRS models, shows the windscreen area set back further on 423 than on 425. I remain sceptical.

Has anyone had the lid off 37034 and is able to confirm whether the bufferbeams on the chassis are full width behind the skirts? Wondering whether the model is suitable as a candidate for conversion to a loco without skirts. Thanks.

Very nice weathering job there - well observed. A pale blue wash? These locos didn't seem to get very dirty bonnet tops - was it the perfect shape for rain to run off?

Some adjustment needed on those ploughs, I think, Will. See what I mean about the centre one being the wrong shape on the PH etch? And I did question your sanity (😉) when you said the mounting bracket for the class 31 was right. Best thing I think is to separate each outer plough with the mounting bracket off from the others (i.e. snip up the mounting bracket), and attach the remains of the mounting brackets behind the buffer beam. That way you can fine-tune them at the right width relative to the body - head-on shots seem to show them at exactly nose width (note the wonky roof grille on this one too!): All the best! David.

My concern is that we will not see what A/S have done with the window frames until we have the models in our hands, or someone posts photos of their actual purchase on here - by which time it will be too late. The deltics looked fine on the website, but when mine arrived the windscreen etches had tabs left on them, and looked like they'd been stuck on by a first timer (the replacement was no better). So I'm all in for Bachmann (not words I use lightly) and have four 37s now. The nose seam is not ideal but only visible on LL models. The model needs replacement glazing and roof grille and re-seating of the fuel tanks at the correct height, but then the A/S model looks like it will need all those three jobs doing anyway - plus the windscreens, and I'm too old for that @#*&. I've had two A/S on order for years but I'll either lose my deposit on them or sell them on; I don't want a fleet of mixed parentage - I think it would look odd.

To be safe, yes. I recently chanced it and applied Fox transfers to satin. I then put the carriages in the sink to wash prior to a sealing varnish, went to take them out to dry, and found all the transfers in the bottom of the sink.... Second time round I sprayed a squirt of gloss from the airbrush on the relevant areas, applied the transfers, washed again without any disasters, and applied satin to even out the finishes.

That's almost correct, Corbs, but the tarpaulin in your photo (a view which I've never seen - I thought I had every picture of 68089 in existence; presumably that's Chathill goods shed in the background?) obscures the right hand side (as we look at it) of the cab back, which has been built up piecemeal with (I think) odd bits of wood rather than steel, and includes a window at top right, which changed shape in the loco's last years. (It also lost its centre lower lamp bracket at the front in the last month or so.) Re the LNER frames, yes, they were deeper at the front, presumably to act as a brace for the dumb buffers. I went to have another look at Rapido's artwork to see if they'd included the shunting-pole brackets on 68089, and while that's obscured in the blackness, I was impressed to see that they've included the notches in the vertical edges of the buffer beams on 68089, so with that attention to detail perhaps all will be well.

So have you tooled the different frame shapes for NER-built and LNER-built locos? What about the cab rear on 68089? Your artwork shows it with the standard open back, which is wrong. There were at least two iterations for its cab rear.

I wouldn't. Yeadon misses numerous details - LNER v. NER frames, LNER v. NER brake pulls, front steps, tank-front grabs, etc.

Hi. I'm increasingly thinking that every wagon had the logo in a unique position, varying by how much it straddled the right-hand seam by. So there's no error on your part there. Ditto Alcan logos and ladders - no error, and an easy fix, too, I expect.

One or two points on the dating and consists: I have photos of 37405 at Corrour on 13/10/2006 with 5 BDAs (or similar) and 10 (sic) PCAs. The PCAs appear to be in de-branded Alcan livery. Another set of photos I have are from 10/10/2006 and show 66110. I didn't photograph the whole consist but again there are BDAs at the front (FW) end (at least 4), followed by an unknown number of PCAs. However, what is interesting is that one shot showing the PCAs has three all in ex-works condition, with fresh Alcan logos. Visible numbers are 55555 and 55535; a third vehicle cannot be identified but is in the same condition. None have ladders. This seems to throw a spanner in the works in that (a) the painting out of logos (if that's what happened) does not follow a linear trajectory, (b) wagons went through a period of no ladders and Alcan logos (which doesn't seem to be an option offered by Revolution - though easy enough to remove the ladders I expect), and (c) it's possible to be a bit more precise than "mid 2000s" for the removal of the logos. Another interesting feature is that the Alcan logos are in different positions - and none quite matches the Revolution position. But I wonder if every wagon was different?

Thanks, Fran. Will send in a second. Oddly, barely three minutes after posting on here, the A/S customer service person has also been back in touch after two days of silence. And he's still offering me "scale" wheels!

This hasn't been my experience at all. I wrote to Accurascale a couple of days ago, pointing out a couple of concerns I had with the model. I've never done this with a manufacturer before, but I did it because I didn't want to embarrass A/S by making a manufacturing flaw public on a forum. I also thought an email was worth a try as I thought A/S took their models seriously. My first constructive criticism was the gap between the bogie tops and lower edge of the bodyside. I now understand that I'd been led to expect too much here - that a manufacturer can't make that gap prototypical if a model deltic is to go round trainset curves. Fair enough. I'd simply misunderstood that point, and thought that the choice of undersized wheels was supposed to allow a scale gap. However, what I got from A/S was denial: I was first told that the gap was "quite prototypical", until I showed a side-on view of the real thing, at which point A/S admitted the double compromise of undersized wheels and oversized gap. I was then offered "scale" wheels as a way of rectifying this - wheels which we now know are undersize by 1.8mm. My other complaint was that the windscreen surround etches have been fitted particularly badly to mine, with a visible gap around their upper edge on 3 out of 4 of them, and visible glue, and the tabs left on all the etches. The fact that only 3 out of 4 of mine have the gap problem suggest that this is an assembly flaw. The tabs are just visible on the pre-production samples, but not as noticeable, and none of those models have a gap. That mine has been badly assembled is also confirmed by other owners telling me that the fitting of the windscreen surrounds on theirs is "not too bad" (though I thought A/S were aiming for a little more than that). I sent photos to A/S but didn't even receive an acknowledgement - that part of my email was simply ignored. As said, I recognise that nothing can be done about the bogie-to-body gap (but resent the attempt to fob me off), but the windscreen issue is clearly an assembly error, and this body is a dud and needs replacing. Here are the offending windscreens - if I'd fitted after-sales etches this badly I would accept that they needed to be redone: