"Hornby King review"

This is a little different from the norm on this blog! Instead of locomotives from the Late and Never Early Railway (L.N.E.R.) we see one from the Gresley Was Right line, or as we really know it, the Great Western Railway. 

Hornby's King class model has been a few years in the making and replaces the older, tender drive era model of years past. Announced on Facebook (a first for the company?) a few years previously, I'm a little behind the curve with the production batches of Hornby's King, but when 6011 King James I became available in thislivery, I knew I needed to look into this model towards my own model railway.

For one King ran on the Eastern Region during the 1948 exchange trials, and the intention is to run one such model together with my model of the LNER's Dynamometer car.

I've borrowed a few books, drawings and looked at photographs closely for this review. I've really gone above and beyond for the research stage of this review, because there will be at some point two ready to run King models from two sources (Hornby and DJ Models/Hattons) and I want to be sure of any facts or figures before giving my personal view on which is better.

There's a lot of debate on the online forums about a number of the detail parts fitted, including and not limited to the superheater headers, questions about the livery including and not limited to the route indicator discs on the cabs. On this particular model I believe it should have the red discs on the cab sides, however I'll leave that to more knowledgeable people: though I have enjoyed very much trying to work out what I need to do for my chosen locomotive, King Henry VI.

So how much do I really need to do? The answer is: not a lot. I need to change the branding on the tender, primarily, add some wiring for the Dynamometer car to the rear, weather it, add appropriate lamps, real coal and so on and so forth.

Changing the nameplates and numbers is going to be a literal doddle compared with what I am used to! The superheater header appears to be on the correct side too which is a relief. I don't need to change the steam pipes either. So far, so good.

I've never been much of a Great Western fan before, but the King really does have a presence all its own. There's little things, like the coupling rods and slide bar brackets that are much better designed and much bulkier than older offerings (which not so long ago were plastic in the mid 90s, with the older tender drive derived King).

There are sprung buffers all around. The new arrangement for the front bogie is a significant improvement on models past. The front bogie itself is very nicely done and has both a weight and look that makes it look as heavy duty as the real thing, older models tending to look like they had skateboards attached at the front end.

The levers to the inside valve gear is modelled for the first time and is very convincing.

The overall face of the machine, and all major dimensions, seem spot on. The buffer beam detail is surprisingly fine and I did have to look twice at photographs of the real thing to compare. The cab detail is excellent. I cannot believe how good the water gauges are on this model.

I know it's a really rarely seen bit of any model, but on Great Western engines which tender to have more open cabs (like the City class) it is something you see quite clearly. I wouldn't call the King footplate "exposed" but with that tender design, unlike my LNER locomotives, the cab can be seen much more. It adds that extra layer of realism to the model and lifts it higher in my view.

The tender seems to match all of the various drawings and photographs I have amassed for my chosen locomotive. The livery application throughout is just exquisite. The lining out on the frames in particular are very fine. hough I am unsure at this stage of the colour of the dome. It looks a bit too...I don't know, lemon-y, as opposed to a shiny metallic colour.

That was one of the things I always admired on the older king models, the metalwork did look like the metal it was supposed to be (brass or copper). They are meant to shine, after all, and here the matt finish doesn't really look the part for me. This is a very minor point, I hasten to add.

There's just one other problem with the model, for me anyway, and again it's about the choice of the colours used. It's the shade of the colour green. I've taken photographs of the model in every light source imaginable, I've um'd, ah'd and procrastinated over it but the truth of the matter is that the Great Western Railway green used is wrong. It is far, far too light and lacking in the deepness of colour that the real thing has.

The truly odd thing is that this shade seems to match the same paint that Hornby were putting on their open cab Pannier Tank locomotives some ten years ago, and it looked odd back then too. It also matches that on the recent Hall and Star models, neither of which in their GWR liveries looked the part to me.

Is this a huge deal? No, it's not a deal breaker. Yes, it does offend my particular brand of obsessive compulsive perfectionism in railway models, and yes I do think my King could potentially benefit from either weathering or a complete strip and repaint. Is it so bad that you shouldn't buy the model if you need a King? I don't believe so. It annoys my eyes but not to the extent that I couldn't put up with it in some form.

Can Hornby do better with the colours? Undoubtedly, it just takes some of us to be constructive and polite when asking them to do better next time. The green needs to be better. That's pretty much the full extent of the problems with Hornby's Kings. That's not bad frankly and shows just how far Hornby have come with their models of the Kings.

And to be frank: I have managed to make one of my Hornby B17s in the BR dark green look more accurate with careful use of T-Cut and a cotton bud, and a coat of Johnson's Klear floor polish afterwards. So I don't believe it is beyond my scope to potentially improve my King model with a little modelling...

The King has the presence, the power and the detail to be a contender for one of Hornby's best models in their range. Put a better livery finish on it and it is elevated to one of the best models they've ever produced.

The running qualities were unbelievable when I ran it in at the Erith Model Railway Club. I cannot stress enough how impressed everyone was. It was quiet, smooth and powerful, taking on 13 Bachmann Mk1 coaches with ease, no mean feat. This wasn't on the level either so there's no doubting the performance.

If I had one criticism of the running quality, I felt the front bogie looked like it wiggled somewhat as it ran. I later discovered the back to backs on the wheels were out, and having sorted this I feel it runs more smoothly.

When the DJ Models/Hattons designed King emerges it'll be interesting to compare and contrast these releases. In my view I think Hornby has pretty much nailed the King, giving Great Western fans an express locomotive with the looks and performance they've missed out on for some time. We LNER fans have been pretty lucky with all of our ducks (ha ha) lined up in the form of the A4 and A3 for some time: and we are set to get another stunner next month in the form of Hornby's B12.

Truly a golden era for Hornby's research and development team, and a welcome recent announcement from Hornby about looking into how they interact with their retailers. A great development which I hope will result in a number of our most cherished model shops getting things back on track. All parties need a win in this difficult post Brexit economic climate and I am encouraged by the rumblings at Hornby.

"Oxford Rail LNER Cattle Wagon review"

I've been looking forward to the release of Oxford Rail's cattle wagon for some time, and had intended to write a review of it: however this blog also looks a little at why the Oxford Rail cattle wagon has taken a bit of a beating in the model railway press recently, and particularly on forums, and whether it is fair.

To caveat this I have to say that this is probably the first time in a long time that I have to switch allegiances in a debate and head over to the side of "are we modellers or not?" from my long standing consumer orientated part of the debate.

Normally if a model wasn't quite there in terms of accuracy I'd lament this - and there are indeed a couple of lamentable design choices on this model - but that does not in any way, shape or form, detract from what is in the main an excellent model of a very specific diagram wagon.

Oxford Rail's LNER liveried cattle wagon (1927 built version)

http://www.oxfordrail.com/76/OR76CAT.htm

It's so specific, you can find a photograph of it on page 291 of An Illustrated History of LNER Wagons. It's a diagram 39, 10 ton cattle wagon, built at Doncaster in 1927. It's the 9ft wheelbase version and there is an elevation drawing on page 293 of the same volume. For anyone so interested, on the same page is a a photograph of an unfitted version of the same diagram wagon.

Minor modifications to Oxford Rail's model, including removing the vacuum pipes will produce the unfitted wagon.

Oxford Rail's British Railways liveried cattle wagon (1949 applied livery)

In fact, one could argue quite reasonably that Oxford Rail have made a model which is somewhere between its fitted and unfitted variants! The main point of contention is the missing vacuum cylinder, which should be located where the Oxford Rail branding is on the underside of the chassis. A white metal replacement or some plastic tubing will effectively finish the model off if you want the fitted version, removing the brake pipes will make the unfitted version.

Looking closely at the photographs in this volume and elsewhere, I think on the balance of probability that Oxford Rail were actually intending to reproduce a very similar wagon to that seen on page 292 of this volume, particularly if you look at the sole bar and note that the "9ft wheelbase" is missing on the right hand side as you look at each side of the wagon.

It has one glaring error. It's effectively used the same CAD for both sides of the wagon. These wagons had adjustable partitions and as such the partition notches (noticeable in the planks on the left hand side of both sides of the wagon) should be mirrored left to right sides, not mirrored across the diagonal of the wagon, effectively!

I am in two minds about this inaccuracy. You can't see both sides of the wagon at the same time so this error is only obvious if you turn the wagon around in your hand. Secondly - no partitions have actually been fitted, so this would only cause a problem if you were going to put cattle in your cattle wagon and also fit additional detailing such as said partition. For weathering and putting to run on your layout, is this really as big a deal as people have made out?

And who says you can't fix it by adding the gap between the planks, and the notches, using a small dremel cutting tool and a scalpel, and then using plasticard and filler to fill in the offending end the other side?

So cards on the table time: this is a tooling with two big errors/omissions (vacuum cylinder, partition notches) which is otherwise very accurate for the 1927 built, diagram 39 fitted 9ft wheelbase LNER cattle wagon. Phew, what a mouthful! It's missing the vacuum cylinder and it has some issues with the sides, but other than that it is highly accurate in all major dimensions, details and overall livery application and is available for a whisker over £10.

Hornby's cattle wagon for comparison 

(their newly tooled Southern Region one is out later in the year)

Now I'm not being funny, but given I've deliberately included samples of two of the main competitors (Hornby's older cattle wagon isn't currently available, but an all new Southern diagram cattle wagon is due to join their range later in the year) to Oxford Rail's new cattle wagon in this review, and noted their prices, the clamour to condemn, berate and bemoan the Oxford Rail model in a number of locations on the internet is in my view a total disgrace.

Bachmann's Cattle Wagon for comparison

It's the cheapest of the three main cattle wagon models available, and it's the only one which is close to reproducing the diagram it purports to represent. Bachmann's model is derived from the short Mainline LMS cattle wagon, Dapol's GWR inspired one is over lumpy, with very coarse detailing and to be brutally honest, given the number of times both samples derailed on straight sections of track (never mind the curves or points!) possibly the worst running ready to run wagons I've ever come across. £10 for the Oxford Rail model is an absolute bargain.

Dapol's cattle wagon for comparison

Much of the criticism for the Oxford Rail model has come from the recognition that the BR liveried one is unlikely. Except it isn't, because on page 291 of the volume I'm referring to, low and behold there is a 9ft wheelbase LNER cattle wagon in the same livery as Oxford Rail's! Where the criticism is valid (and this is key) is that Oxford have only tooled up one version of the cattle wagon, and that is the one which represents the 1927 as built and probably pristine wagon, without any of the later additions such as the additional bracing and strapping applied to keep the wagons in good order that can be seen in photographs of BR or late LNER era wagons.

So they've only tooled it up for one period and applied different era liveries to it. Big deal! They're not the first to do this, nor I suspect will they be the last to do so. All of the model railway manufacturers who've produced wagons have done this and some extremely spurious liveries exist mostly centring on five or six plank open wagons...

I'm genuinely mystified by the response by normally well respected LNER modellers as well. There's one in particular who berated Hornby for not producing the LNER Q6 in pre-war livery who is now complaining because Oxford have produced their wagon in pre-war form and livery!

This model is the best LNER cattle wagon produced ready to run. It's also the first and only one to a specific and recognisable diagram, in a recognisable livery and with only minor modifications (as far as I am concerned!) to make it an excellent model.

I'd read people's views across a number of forums and I was pretty surprised at what I was reading. This was prior to doing any research. One contributor in particular had picked out "about 30 errors".

It's a pity that, on closer observation, his "30 errors" are limited to the British Railways liveried model - that number gets reduced to around two or three when you look specifically at the LNER liveried model and think of this model has having been designed in the context of the 1927 diagram 39 wagon.

Should Oxford have made the 10ft wheelbase cattle wagon instead? Probably, it would have given them greater coverage for liveries and it was the more numerous wagon. Does it make enough of a difference for an LNER modeller to not buy this model? Probably not either. What about other region modellers?

These cattle wagons, though comparatively rare throughout their years in comparison to either LMS or Southern and later BR variants, will look a good addition to a mixed goods train. Let's face it, the big four's wagons got around. Okay, it's unlikely to have made it to deepest, darkest Wales or Cornwall but up the Midlands and the North of England, to the east of England and Scotland? Possibly. It has potential.

I know I need the 10ft wheelbase as a post war LNER modeller. This 9ft wheelbase model is a great starting point for making that wagon type. There's a very enterprising modeller on one of the forums who, I am told, has converted Oxford Rail's model into one of these already. More power to his elbow. Excellent work.

For the rest of us who want a cattle wagon that looks the part and has the modelling potential, this is it. The release of the century for LNER modellers. A gift horse (or should that be cow?) we shouldn't be looking in the mouth, unless it's to improve its lot.

I'm all for criticism where it is due. I feel this model has had a lot of unnecessary criticism. But at that price point, with the very nicely moulded body, and options available to me to make it better and do some modelling, I'm not going to dismiss it out of hand. Especially not when it's the best model for my needs, and I suspect for the vast majority of LNER modellers up and down the country.

I leave you with a short video. You make up your mind as to which of the six wagons in the train you think looks the part. The emphasis is mainly on the Oxford Rail model of course, but compare the Bachmann and Dapol models and their prices to this one and have a think if ignoring the Oxford Rail model is really sensible consumerism as well as sensible LNER modelling.

"Hornby 2016"

Today saw the announcement of two very impressive new locomotives for the Hornby 2016 Range, and I think you can safely say that I am naturally thrilled at the inclusion of more London and North Eastern Railway locomotives and rolling stock.

I wrote to Hornby a few years ago and the Gresley J50 and Holden B12 were at the forefront of my comments. I fell vindicated in my choices and assuredly the new B12 really looks the part.

Some will say the B12/4 should have been the first choice variant, as they were longer lived and wider spread (several of the class making it to Scotland in fact) but in reality the variations between them probably render the B12/3 the easiest to tool up. With the existing Great Eastern tender behind the B17 and D16 already produced, a B12 was never going to be too far away in any event.

Then there's the Raven Q6, a stunning example of a well kept trade secret and one product that is going to make a lot of people very happy.

The times are changing and Hornby have improved on the production and delivery of their stock over the last few years. I personally feel both the J15 and the S15 have shown that Hornby are capable of producing some extremely high quality models, and the way they've communicated with their customers this year has been nothing short of superb.

I would add a caveat that I would like to see improvements in the relationship with their stockists, however, in the new year and would welcome any opportunity for both sides to get together and talk things more.

Otherwise, the future looks very bright for Hornby and rest assured, there'll be some space for some B12/3s made for on my layout...the Q6 is not one which would have visited my chosen part of the London and North Eastern Railway, but I doubt I'll pass up the chance to add one to my stock for something different.

If you want to read more on Hornby's new range of models, please visit their web page here. Better getting the news from the horse's mouth!

Until next time.

"BRWS Ltd Update #9: Thompson's only design memorial"

One of the things that I find wonderful about this hobby is the research. You can turn up many interesting combinations of locomotive name, number and form. 

A case in point: Thompson's B1s. Built by Darlington, Gorton and North British, they all had some detail differences including smokebox rivets, style of and placement of works plates and the smokebox door type.

Bachmann's latest, unnamed, apple green Thompson B1 no.1123 was the subject for my latest round of modelling. Having purchased a number of these at a knock down price, I went through my preferred books for research on the class. The Power of the B1s, Yeadon's Register and the RCTS' LNER volume 2B all featuring some interesting prototypes.

I had already made a model of class pioneer Springbok and two more of the deer namers caught my eye for different reasons. 

B1 no.1039 was featured in Yeadon's Register with an unusual difference to its classmates. The photograph in the book shows it coupled to one of the ex-Raven/Gresley Atlantic six wheel tenders. These tenders were a close, if not perfect match for a V2's group standard tender. Since I had a number of these spare, I took the opportunity to remove the shaded LNER lettering using some water and a glass fibre pen, and add Gill Sans plain lettering instead. The base model's tender will go to another Thompson related project in due course.

1039 had electric lighting, but the base model does not. I removed the lamp irons and used some bits from a spare Replica Railways B1 body shell that did have the electric lighting fitted. It's not a perfect match for the original style Thompson lighting system but it'll do in terms of representation. Some wire was added to the right hand side of the boiler and fitted next to the stones generator on the running plate, also taken from a spare Replica B1 body shell.

The original chimney was cut off, and the smokebox filed down, for a brass cast Gibson's B1 chimney with a much nicer profile to be fitted. Superglue of the semi-quick drying kind was used to allow some time to fiddle around and make sure it was fitted properly. Fox Transfers provided the nameplates and works plates for this model and these were duly added using the same process.

One modification I have made to all of my Bachmann B1s is to remove the original, large, plastic coupling bar from the tenders. I use Hornby's Railroad Scotsman metal drawbar, available as a spare online, and these are coupled through the tender's drawbar and through the locos to be screwed in. This closes up the gap nicely without making it impossible for the models to go round corners.

The other B1 being worked on, Addax, was also shown in the same book with a very nice combination of BR numbering and full LNER livery. I repeated the process for this model, with the one additional being the smokebox numberplate fixed in the normal position. This will need repainting as the brass numeral effect isn't accurate. 

The nameplates and numberplate for Addax came from Modelmasters and though I dislike the brass effect on the smokebox door am ultimately happy with the shape and style of both. The comparison between Fox Transfers and Modelmaster etched plates is interesting. I can't say that I have a particular preference but it'll be Fox from now on as they have a better selection of the B1 names available at present. 

So here then are two variations on the same theme made that look similar and have similar detailing but ultimately are different and individual. 

Springbok, Steinbok and Addax will be joined by a few more in due course no doubt. For the moment, an older split chassis apple green B1 Sir William Gray keeps them company, making a quartet of named apple green B1s for my work in progress layout.

When finished, the three deers will be weathered and coaled and with crews fitted, and will no doubt enjoy a mixed bag of work on the layout. I am already imagining a few different freight and passenger formations they could be seen on.

Ultimately for me, the LNER has always been about Thompson's plucky B1s. Although only an LNER liveried locomotive class for around 6 years, they epitomise the post-war LNER rather well and they are - one must admit - very handsome machines.

Many say it's Thompson's only design memorial, both in actuality and in quality. I don't believe the latter myself, but one cannot argue with the fact that it's the engine Thompson is best known for. 

And when all is said and done, it's the locomotive the LNER needed - and got.

"Empire of India"

I just thought I'd share a few pictures of a project I have been working on, the London & North Eastern Railway's no.11 Empire of India. I sold my original Empire of India a few years ago and really regretted it.

Of course, this one was made in a completely different fashion to my current A4s, and I've turned the clock back on the livery chosen for my model, which will have the 1946-48 LNER stainless steel lettering and numerals fitted instead.

At the end of this month there'll big the now usual big update regarding my modelling for the month, but I just wanted to share a few pictures to garner some feedback on the garter blue livery.

You will remember that I have been formulating my own paint and methods of painting my models. Well, I think I've finally cracked it with this model, which requires a Tamiya light blue being applied onto grey primer, followed by my latest reformulated (and a bit expensive now!) garter blue shade.

And yes - the tender is the wrong type (it should be a 1928 corridor tender) but rest assured, no.11's tender is in hand (and currently drying after painting. This tender will be going behind no.8 Dwight D Eisenhower).

I'll go through the full build in some detail on the 30 June 2015.

Until next time!

"Locomotion's new Ivatt Atlantic C1 model: a review"

This review was first published on MREmag on the 1st of May 2015.

When the Shildon outpost of the National Railway Museum (NRM) announced their latest National Collection model, I was overjoyed. For many years the large boiler C1 Ivatt Atlantics had held something of a fascination with me. So much so, that one of the first models I bought for my own model railway was a part built DJH kit of an Ivatt C1. Coincidentally, and as the picture below shows, I turned it into a model of 62822. 

That model is now long gone, and in its place is the recently arrived Bachmann made model, the model I ordered coming in exactly the same livery as my original! It is a model of 62822 with ‘British Railways’ on the tender (product number 31-766).  So, how does it shape up?

The Bachmann model is superior to the kit model in almost every way conceivable. The shape of the boiler, dome, chimney, cab cut out, the depth of and finesse of the running plate are all a spot on match for the Isinglass drawings of the C1 class and photographs of the class. 

The tender is a very accurate recreation of the one of the types the C1s pulled, and the level of detail on the footplate is astonishing.

Gauges, piping, levers, regulator...all picked out in appropriate colours. There is a fire shield for the fire hole door, and it works! The shield can be opened or closed. This is a mind boggling bit of detail. I cannot think of a time where I would actually pose it on mine but the fact it is there is impressive.

The turned whistle and safety valves are beautifully turned metal items, though the safety valves look microscopically taller than they should be. It's a very minor niggle.

The printing of the letters and numerals on the tender and cab are crisp in application, a nice accurate cream shade and also the correct font (Gill Sans). All are, however, perhaps a smidgen too large and again, thats a very minor criticism for what is otherwise a well applied and handsome livery.

The works plate is entirely legible and is a wonderfully printed version of the real thing. I do feel this should have a little more relief, but that's a very, very minor nitpick and to be frank isn't anything new from any of the model manufacturers in Britain (works plates, if they are included on models, are almost always printed).

At the front end, the motion is very fine, but the connecting rod to the rear driving wheels is cranked roughly halfway down its length. I had my C1 running back and forth, and I suspect if I had not been aware of the nature of the design choice, I would have been unlikely to spot it straight away. 

It does beg the question – given that the Great Central O4 model from the same stable has a similar set of outside motion and a step in the way too, as to why this was considered necessary? This bothered me for some time until I decided to inspect one of my Bachmann O4s to find out: and I was astonished to find that its connecting rod is also cranked in a similar way! Interestingly I think it is hidden better on the O4, which has the crank in its connecting rod further down, behind the step. This gives the illusion of there being no crank at all!

However, I do think of this as one of those potential solutions which might have worked as good as any other. The other solution would have been to make the steps thinner – and potentially more fragile) and push the motion out further to clear the crankpins on the leading driver (which is the source of the problem). Overall it just doesn't strike me as a big deal. Putting the locomotive through its paces, I am positive it's not actually discernible at a scale forty miles an hour.

It is interesting to note that, unlike my original DJH C1, the driving wheels on the Bachmann model are scale for the wheelbase but potentially a little under scale in actual diameter. It's as good a solution as any to the problem of modelling the wheelbase of a Great Northern built Atlantic, the gap between the driving wheels on the real thing being somewhat tight in itself! 

Again this is barely – if actually – discernible and I think Bachmann have done an excellent job in replicating the driving wheels of the real thing.

On the boiler, we find that the smokebox door even opens! This was a detail first featured on Bachmann's Standard 3MT locomotive, and on that I felt it was a gimmick of sorts, not really producing the effect needed by having the blast pipe arrangement too close to the inside of the door. 

On the Atlantic, it looks more realistic and that is is in no small part due to the fact the blast pipe arrangement is actually directly under the chimney. I question the need for it but there is no denying that it is well made and looks rather realistic. The door itself has a beautifully moulded dart and handles as well, which are all separate.It very much captures the shape of the GNR smokebox door.

There is a bag of additional details which include, in no particular order, three link couplings, brake gear, cab doors, fire irons for the tender, additional replacement parts for the tender (once the coal load has been removed), there are sight screens for the cab sides in clear plastic, a speaker mount and even a single white painted GNR style lamp.

Separately fitted handrails, lamp irons on loco and tender, all wheel pickup (except the front bogie) and the surprising number of detail differences between this 1948-50 era locomotive and its GNR and LNER versions all give this model an incredible presence. In reality, it's smaller than a Thompson B1, and yet gives off this wonderful air of being bigger than it really is.

There are, however, a few minor negative points which are worthy of mention, even if they don't necessarily ruin the model in a practical way.

The first concerns the brake blocks on the tender. These are moulded in line with the frames, and look very flat and awkward. Even if the model was to be converted to, say, EM or P4, by moulding them in this way it means the wheelsets will not ever be actually in line with them. From normal viewing distance, and probably with some weathering, it's not discernible but given this has been done very well on previous Bachmann models, it is a disappointment to see them here.

The buffers are not sprung. This had me scratching my head a little. I am almost positive that Bachmann already make suitable buffers (and if not 100% accurate, they are very, very close). That product is still available – 36-032 – and simply fitting a set of them at front and rear instantly improves the overall specification. 

Very few models these days don't have sprung buffers, save for the design clever era of Hornby Plc, so why Bachmann have decided to fit unsprung buffers here to a premium model is something of a mystery. Now, practically, we all know sprung buffers are actually of limited use and sometimes a bit of a hindrance if we're honest (where buffer lock occurs with sprung ones on locomotive and coaches, for instance) but for the price of the model and in comparison to similar specifications that Bachmann and other manufacturers have followed, having unsprung buffers seems retrograde.

The final negative point is another minor niggle, but for me it's actually a very avoidable error. I've checked photographs, Yeadon's Register, I've gone through a nunber of my Atlantic books, I've looked at British Railway Pictorials and almost every source I know that shows 62822 in its plain black livery, and in its final livery with the lined out tender. Every single photograph I've seen shows that 62822 should have had the cut out in the tender side sheets as per the cab. In other words, the same tender top fitted to the GNR liveried model and not this type.

Let's be fair about this. Renumbering the model to no.2877 in plain black livery would be correct, and yes for a modeller this is a simple enough job, including perhaps removing the smokebox numberplate. However, looking through my reference material, it's not correct for 62822 it is also not correct for 62825 in this time period either. 

Of course, I could be (and often have been) wrong, and for X amount of time in Y year, 62822 could have pulled this type of tender instead. If so, let me be the first to humbly apologise to both the NRM and Bachmann. It is as far as I can see currently, an error.

Is it a serious one? A learned LNER modeller of many years remarked to me a few weeks back that something along the lines of “a loop of wire and a drill will sort that”. He's absolutely right and as a modeller, it is something I am prepared to do but it seems a shame to tool up the correct tender body shell and then to not use it.

Do the negatives outweigh the positives? Absolutely not. I highly recommend this model for a number of reasons. 

Firstly, it's beautiful. Look at it. There is no better proportioned or elegant steam outline model being sold today. It's a wonderful scale model.

Secondly, after some running in, it's as smooth as a sewing machine, and actually has some guts despite its wheel arrangement (I have so far with my model of 62822 managed seven of Hornby's top range Gresley Teaks. The model is always a bit slow to start, but with careful driving round my test track, it hauled the train comfortably). 

Thirdly, you are not going to get an alternative to this model. If you model the London and North Eastern Railway in any way, shape or form (or Great Northern Railway, for that model) then you need one of these models. There isn't going to be an Ivatt C1 coming from Hornby, or Dapol, or Heljan, or Oxford Diecast, or anyone else credible. It's this model – and no alternatives.

Given they were ubiquitous on the Pullman and London-Scotland expresses before the Pacifics came along, and even when replaced en masse effectively by Gresley, Thompson and then Peppercorn machines on their original workloads; they soldiered on, through two world wars and just into the turn of the 1950s. Accepted, the Ivatt C1 is not going to be suitable for the smallest and lightest laid of branch line layouts but anything with a hint of a mainline set in the LNER period should probably have at least one or two knocking about.

So, am I happy with my purchases? Very. The negatives do not by any stretch of the imagination outweigh the positives of this model. If you're a serious modeller of the LNER, you need one. No kit will match the quality of this product, frankly, and I can say that having built and re-built one.

There is one thing I do want to address, separately from MREmag. There's been a lot of comparisons made between models over a number of years, not least because of the Model of the Year awards given out. A few people are clamouring for the Atlantic to be this year's model of the year.

It's a close run thing for me, but Hornby's J15 just edges it. There are less compromises in that model overall, with an equally beautiful level of finish, and the specification is higher for a model significantly lower in price. Yes, one is a "main range" and one is a "limited edition" but they're both new tooling and both from the main stables for our hobby. There are therefore certain expectations of both models.

If the Atlantic had come out last year, I'd have had no hesitation in labelling it model of the year. However, in a year with the release of Hornby's K1, J15 and D16/3 on the horizon, it really would have had to have had a higher specification overall to win.

That does not, however, mean it's not worth having and I thoroughly and wholeheartedly recommend this model to any modellers interested in the Ivatt Atlantics of the Great Northern Railway.

Until next time.

"Thompson Pacific fleet - another A2/3 on its way to completion"

So this update has been a long time coming! I bought a part completed conversion of a Bachmann Peppercorn A2. It was being turned into a Thompson A2/3.

I stripped the body shell of paint and sorted a few problems (such as a strange hole drilled in the firebox) and fitted several new bits sourced from Graeme King on the LNER forum.

These bits included a new front running plate section, new front frames (as evidenced above - unpainted resin), a new bracket for the cylinders (again, in unpainted resin above) and a new set of tender frames.

My own addition was a set of Bachmann V2 valve gear, carefully modified to fit the cylinders and then fitted straight onto the existing crank pin.

The result is the partially completed Sun Castle, which I am going to be lining out and then weathering over the coming weeks.

So happily, I have added another Thompson Pacific to my stud and also saved what could have been another scrap locomotive model from limbo, more or less. Sun Castle works well and the valve gear, though cruder than Graeme's excellent work on Edward Thompson, above, is now standard with my A2/2 and A2/1 builds and pretty much confirms that, as an easy way of going about a conversion, it works and works well.

Edward Thompson herself is waiting on the number "500" and an "E" before being described as completed. I am contemplating getting an LNER liveried tender to swap in though, all things considered. Watch this space...

Duke of Rothesay will be taken apart as I'm not satisfied the front is fitted on straight! Hopefully a straight forward job, we will see however...

Well, that's it for now. There's a mega review coming up and some more modelling on the 30th. Look out for a special review on MREmag too!

Until next time. I hope 2015 is treating you as well as it is treating me thus far!