"Hornby Raven Q6 review: a northern beauty"

It's with great pleasure that I present for the first time on this blog a locomotive class which isn't part of my overall modelling plans. I had no intention of buying a Hornby Raven Q6, and yet I now find myself besotted with the original and having ordered another, with both destined to become Tyne Dock examples in due course. So how did we get here?

That's one question. Perhaps a better one is why didn't we get here earlier? In the North of England there are many beautifully industrial railways with steam locomotives of various vintages that ran to the end of  steam. The Raven Q6 is one of those, and luckily for us, one is preserved and currently running on the North Yorkshire Moors Railways.

There were some people who wondered if we'd ever actually get here in modelling terms. A specifically North of England steam locomotive made by a major manufacturer for the mass market. It's all well and good throwing in the odd elderly Shire class, or a Scottish liveried Black Five, or a Robinson D11 with a slightly different chimney and cab roof, but it doesn't escape the fact that for the North of England, and specifically the North East of England, model railways have been severely lacking in products, excitement and general all round recognition that the region exists.

Hornby and Bachmann have produced some buildings in their Skaledale and Scenecraft ranges (including specifically North Eastern style sheds, water towers, signal boxes and even Goathland station).

It is made even more strange when you consider that the North Eastern Railway (NER) in particular was one of the major components of what has been Hornby's money maker for some years: the London & North Eastern Railway (LNER). Sir Vincent Raven's designs built for the NER varied hugely from humble tank engines, fast Atlantics to the somewhat unwieldy Pacifics and the beautifully rugged freight engines. It's in this bracket that we find Hornby's latest steam outline model, the Raven Q6, answering the prays of many people who've hankered for a steam locomotive with that North Eastern pedigree.

Of course, it could have all been very different. There was also a "crowd funded" model mooted by DJ Models a few years back. Happily for modellers there's been no duplication this time around, and the Hornby model was pushed ahead for release in 2016.

Let's face it, when it comes to steam locomotives and particularly ex-LNER steam locomotives, Hornby has a track record by far and away better than anyone else in the market. Bachmann has come very close with a few of its models, most recently the Ivatt Atlantic, but Hornby's Thompson L1, B1, Gresley B17 and most recently the Worsdell J15 and Gresley J50 are on another level to everything else. They led the way with revamped models of the Gresley A3 and A4, and the rest followed. Truly, if you follow the LNER, now is the time to be a 4mm scale modeller. You will never be able to have it as good as it is right now.

Heljan recently released a model of the Gresley O2 fright engine at an entirely comparable price to Hornby's Q6. It however doesn't measure up very well by comparison, I am afraid to say. If you need a Gresley O2, this is the only game in town. It has a number of features which I personally do not like, and objectively speaking its overall finish is not particularly fine when compared to many of its excellent diesel electric locomotives (I cite Falcon and Kestrel - both beautiful models).

Given the Hornby Q6 has a similar wheelbase, overall size and is being sold at a similar price point makes it in my opinion a reasonable comparison of models.

But there is no comparison. Objectively speaking there is an incredible gulf between the two models. In almost every way possible, the Hornby Q6 is the superior model, even accounting for some potential detail errors (lack of capuchon, mechanical lubricator, etc). The fit, finish and running qualities of the Q6 just by far out strip any other steam outline model out there.

For this review, I conducted some running in trials of the Q6 on 29 June 2016 and everyone at ERMS (Erith Model Railway Society) who examined the model was taken with it. But we were blown away by how incredibly quiet and competent the chassis is, without any modification. By contrast, my Heljan O2 runs extremely poorly and is much louder. I have previously been forwarded some screenshots of work done by others on the internet to improve their Gresley O2s and to me it's an excellent starting point for some modelling.

But the Hornby Q6 is better value for money. Less modifications need to be done, if any, to make it look like a proper LNER workhorse. It has a better motor and gearbox arrangement, separately fitted lamp irons, metal handrails and handrail knobs (Heljan's O2 has hideous plastic ones which look and feel cheap), sprung buffers and a plethora of other separately fitted details.

By comparison, Heljan's O2 has mismatching tender handrails, poorly designed outside valve gear, an incredibly misshapen chimney and a less than smooth drive in either forwards or reverse running. I feel like I could trust the quality control of Hornby implicitly with this release, which I can't say with Heljan's O2. The Hornby Q6 hasn't got the double fly wheel drive of the Worsdell J15, but it doesn't need it either.

Bear in mind, I have always previously praised Heljan for their excellent mechanisms and it is regrettable that such a high profile new release falls down in what is normally their strongest area (if we accept of course, some notable problem models such as the Clayton. Art imitating life more than we'd like!)

So does the Hornby Q6 measure up for accuracy to prototype? You bet it does. Surprisingly, this is a model which Hornby haven't laser scanned, preferring to climb all over the real thing and measure it up traditionally.  Which I approve of wholeheartedly as you may find things which you don't get from a laser scanning device (a useful tool undoubtedly - but not infallible).

This means that in real terms, the Hornby Q6 model compares very favourably to scale drawings and photographs of the real thing. This model - like all in the first batch - carries a diagram 50A boiler (the later type fitted by the LNER) and a chimney without a "windjabber" or "capuchon".

It also has the mechanical lubricator fitted to the right hand side, and does not have a sandwich buffer beam fitted. It is in late LNER livery, with the plain yellow Gill Sans lettering and numbering that Edward Thompson introduced when chief mechanical engineer of the LNER.

The detail in the cab is absolutely bonkers: the boiler back head is possibly the most realistic and detailed I have seen on any steam outline model. It is extremely fine, and really only needs some weathering and a crew to complete the look.

If I have one criticism of the design of the model, it is that the tender is very light and possibly prone to derailing as a result. I have not however in eight hours of running this model encountered a single time that the model's tender derailed. So this criticism may in fact be unfair. It is easily fixed by adding real coal or liquid lead when the moulded plastic coal is removed to add weight.

There's a few other nit picky details I need to get out of the way at this point. Bear in mind, I'm an LNER modeller and as such I, and others like me, are going to be looking closely at these models for modelling purposes, and we may find more fault than others because we know what we're looking for.

(But I caveat that with fully accepting the Q6 isn't my normal fare and I have relied on my friends who have looked after the real thing to point me in the right direction of prototype photographs and film online).

Firstly, I'm pretty sure looking at the photographs I've collated that this Q6 (3418) should have a capuchon on the chimney. However when I asked Hornby about this, they replied that on this particular locomotive, they had evidence the capuchon had been corroded away and had taken the decision not to model it as a result.

It's a fair response in my view. In my time rustling through books (RCTS, Yeadon's, a few books on the North of England railways and my late grandfather's photo collection) there's a few photographs to suggest that the capuchon was damaged regularly on Q6s. Whether that justifies not modelling the capuchon on this locomotive, when they have such a chimney tooled up on the British Railway liveried models, is up to you.

Secondly, the mechanical lubricator. The RCTS (Railway Correspondence and Travel Society) series of books indicates that the type fitted to this model was post 1949, which is British Railways days. I've looked at photographs and I believe it's not wrong for a 1946 era Q6 to have this type of lubricator. However whether it is correct for 3418 is another matter. I simply don't know - I haven't as yet found a photograph of 3418 herself.

Then there's the smokebox door. On some forums there's been doubt about whether it should have been this type of smokebox door or the larger, more bulbous later one as fitted to the British Railway versions. Happily I've found a large number of 1946-49 era Q6s in photographs fitted with this door, so I am content to say it's most likely accurate, if not for 3418 then at the very least for a classmate in this period.

The numbering and lettering on this version looks a smidgeon anaemic to me. However the colour and shape of them looks accurate. That is the most minor point possible.

The biggest criticism of this model I have seen is that as an LNER liveried model it doesn't represent the largest period possible as it has a diagram 50A boiler and not a diagram 50 boiler which has many different details including, but not limited to, washout plugs, safety valves, dome placement, and so on and so forth...

This is a fair criticism if what you expected was a pre-war Q6, but Hornby haven't sold it as such. It's definitely post war and its condition reflects that. In order for Hornby to model a fully pre-war Q6, it also requires tail rods to the cylinders, possibly a sandwich buffer beam, original NER buffers (and not the square based group standard ones fitted) amongst other minor details.

I asked Hornby if they were going to produce this type, and they stated a pre-war version with the 50A boiler type is definitely being on the cards. I suspect (and this is my view, not one Hornby have offered) that an LNER liveried Q6 was always going to be needed for the first batch, but to maximise the tooling available a post war one was easier to produce than a pre-war one. There's nothing wrong with that intrinsically, but if you model the LNER 1923-46 then this Q6 isn't accurate.

That takes nothing away from what is the model of the year, for me at any rate. I've never known a model to look so comfortable pulling a train or be so quiet and smooth when doing so. The chassis is a testament to Hornby's current design ethos, and the sharpness and accuracy of the body shell a testament to Hornby's tool makers.

For me, Hornby are at the top of their game once again. The excellence of the K1 and J15 last year have continued into 2016 with the superb Q6.

Of course this is all set against the current backdrop of Hornby as a company being in dire straits. The situation is grave. 

All I can do, as a railway modeller who understands the value of Hornby as a company, is encourage those closet North Eastern modellers to buy the Q6s and the 21 ton hoppers in spades. They are both excellent models, and no doubt this won't be the last Darlington built model to be released by Hornby in the future.

For the sake of the hobby, we need Hornby to survive. We can do this by helping them to understand when they get it wrong - and by supporting and praising them when they get it right, like any other manufacturer.

At the end of the day, I'm not paid to write these reviews and I have absolutely no interest in mincing my words. I've previously always been very forthcoming with constructive criticism where it was required - see Hornby's Great Western heavy tanks or their Duke of Gloucester models to name but two that felt the wrath of my keyboard - but equally we've got to praise and support them when they get it right, because it's to the advantage of all of us in the hobby that Hornby as an entity survive.

I don't normally give scores on this blog, but if I was to give a score out of ten, this would be a nine: not perfect, for like any model there are people like me and more knowledgable than me who will know a few details are wrong, here and there. But the overall quality of the product and its performance by far out strip any other steam outline model on sale today.

Well done Hornby, sincerely, and gratefully.

"Manufacturer Voting..."

In a change to the proceedings from this year, there will be two sets of "Model of the Year" awards, with a new set coming from the red corner with Model Rail, and a separate set coming as per previous years from BRM / RMweb / MREmag.

This year I decided to check the categories for which one could vote as the choices would ultimately influence whether I voted or not.

I think we can all agree that Kernow Model Rail Centre is in fact a manufacturer. They commissioned the Beattie Well Tanks and the Adams O2 models through Dapol and later DJ Models but both locomotives have appeared under the Kernow branding to date.

The latter, the Adams O2, has been included in the OO steam locomotive of the year poll and is described as being the "Kernow Model Rail Centre Adams 0-4-4T O2".

Yet Kernow was not included in the OO Manufacturer of the Year and was also not included in the overall Manufacturer of the Year award.

DJ Models, we know, has close relationships with two of the large shops (Kernow and Hattons) and works on their behalf for their commissioned models.

Yet DJ Models has no model in any of the categories this year. No OO model of a steam locomotive, diesel/electric locomotive, wagon or coach, and nothing in the other scales. DJ Models was included in the OO Manufacturer of the Year and the Overall Manufacturer of the Year awards, however!

We know of course that no DJ Models branded products have actually appeared on shelves yet, borne out by their absence in the other categories.

This inconsistency frankly baffles me. It's such an obvious inconsistency that one might call it cynical.

I've since written to MREmag's editor, hoping for my email to be included in tomorrow's edition with a suitable answer:

In the interests of openness and honesty, I include my letter here unedited:

Dear Sir,

Noting that the awards are now in the voting stage, I took the liberty of looking through the categories to see if I would be voting this year. One thing stuck out which leads me to ask: under what criteria can someone be called a manufacturer?

The thing which stuck out was the inclusion of DJ Models in the "Manufacturer of the Year" category for OO, despite having no products in any of the categories that preceded it in the same section (no steam or diesel/electric locomotives, no wagons and no coaches).

No DJ Models branded products have been produced or sold to date, and those products for which Dave Jones has I understand had partial responsibility, are under their respective commissioned brands of Hattons and Kernow.

Yet DJ Models is also included in the overall manufacturer of the year category.

Kernow on the other hand was not included in the overall manufacturer of the year award and yet they have actually sold Beattie Well Tanks and Isle of Wight O2s under their branding.

In the interests of fairness and transparency, would the panel who picked the categories and the nominees explain their reasoning for including DJ Models under two manufacturer of the year awards and not Kernow in the overall manufacturer of the year award? 

Best wishes

Simon A.C. Martin
Sidcup

My only interest - as an adjudicator who has to be impartial in his day job - is seeing some fairness and consistency applied across the board.

If Kernow have sold a product with their branding on it, then are they a manufacturer, and if so, should they not be included in the overall manufacturer of the year award?

In short, the above choice of nominees in those categories does not appear fair to me and I have written in only to get some fair and reasonable answers.

Until next time.

"Model trains and their reviews: time for a shake up?"

Now that Warley is almost over, and the big announcements of the year are out of the way, I feel I can post freely again on my own blog and ask a few questions of the hobby.

In the last week, you may have noticed an email published on MREmag. You can find that email here, but here's a full transcript of the email (which was published unedited).

Kernow 02

The stories and reports circulating around the Kernow commissioned O2 model are getting more and more curious. One video in particular has been circulated around and this is the one by Andy York from RMweb which was posted on YouTube showing a Kernow O2 running with a train of coaches.

 

The train of coaches are the older type of Hornby's Gresley LNER corridor coaches (most recently used by Hornby as part of the basis for their Railroad range, and still in production to date).

I can see that all of the coaches used in the video match the types I already have in my collection. Therefore it follows that the coaches I have should be reasonably identical to those the O2 pulled in the video, and therefore reasonably representative of the same train Mr York put together for the Kernow O2. These are all moulded plastic coaches, made in a small number of clip together parts, which originally came with plastic wheelsets (but for a time turned metal wheelsets before a return to plastic wheelsets for the Railroad range).

I have weighed my own coaches and they range from 90g to 100g (the former a composite and the latter a brake third). Therefore on the basis that we take the lowest possible coach weight, and the highest, we could make some reasonable assumptions of the train weight in the video.

If we extrapolate the information that Mr York has provided for the train lengths he put his sample O2 to work on, and assume that his test trains comprised these type of model coaches only (as shown in the short video), we get the following representative train weights:

• 6 coach train: low = 540g and high = 600g
• 7 coach train: low =650g and high = 700g
• 8 coach train: low =740g and high = 800g

I also have in my possession samples of Hornby's more modern Gresley teak coaches. These are far closer in weight and detail to the coaches a modeller would most likely run behind his Kernow O2 (the forthcoming Gate stock, for example, has little in common with the Railroad Teak coaches that we have seen the O2 pull). My sample coaches of this type weighed in at 120g and 125g for a composite and a brake third coach.

So, using some reasonable assumptions, based on the same assumptions above, we get these potential train weights for a more detailed and more likely sample train:

• 6 coach train: low = 720g and high = 750g
• 7 coach train: low = 840g and high = 965g
• 8 coach train: low = 960g and high = 1090g

You can see that even accounting for the lowest possible and highest possible sample weights, there is a huge discrepancy in the potential train weights between the older, much simpler and lighter construction LNER Gresley coaches and the newer, more modern and detailed, heavier equivalents. The 6 coach Railroad rake could be as low as 540g and as high as 600g, but a more likely, detailed rake could be as low as 720g (or to put it another way, another coach heavier) and as high as 750g. Taking into account the heavier coaches the weight differences get bigger.

Now, we all know that the vast majority of these O2s being bought are unlikely to be pulling trains of this length. That's a given, we all accept this. The longest trains on the Isle of Wight were around 6 coaches, I am reliably informed. So in the interests of balance, you could say that the train weights above are irrelevant, because they're not going to be pulling anywhere near the like on a daily basis. Fair enough, as long as we're all agreed on this.

However you will agree with me, I hope, that such a defence of a model's performance will have viewers asking why this was necessary. There are reports a plenty on the Internet regarding the performance of the O2 and Chris Leigh of Model Rail also raised this as an issue. Bearing that in mind, I have to question the validity of the video produced in regards to the performance of the O2 on that basis.

Pulling a train of these extremely light weight coaches is not proof of the potential performance of this sample model with more likely rolling stock. Furthermore, there's no video to show the locomotive starting the train and/or stopping it and then starting it again, so we have no frame of reference to the model's overall potential performance here either.

I would hope Chris Terise - who I know as a very reasonable chap - would be able to take any constructive criticism on the chin if it should arise for any of the products he markets. The O2 model looks lovely and has a wealth of detail. That is not in doubt. That it is being sold at a competitive price and comparable to other similarly sized and detail models is also not in doubt.

But is such a video as that shown above really in the best interests of Kernow? I remain sceptical. Muddying the waters further with such productions does not help the case of those defending the models' potential performances. It raises more questions than answers.

I would be interested in the thoughts of other readers to MREmag. What constitutes a reasonable test for the model railway media to show the performances or otherwise of a model locomotive? It could be suggested that across the board in the model railway media, there is no clear objective way of showing this as yet.

Simon A.C. Martin

I'd like to express at this point that there was, is, and will always remain the fair point here about consistency of message and what constitutes a fair and consistent test of model train haulage. That was my sole purpose for writing the email. Nothing more, nothing less. 

The response from the editor was interesting and goes as follows:

Editor: Perhaps I can clear this up a little since I was the one who set the train up and drove the loco, and presumably should also be in the same firing line for the attacks in this letter.

There have been many people saying that the 02 isn't the strongest loco in the world so as Andy was doing a photo shoot at the Leamington clubrooms, while we waited for the layout to be set up, the opportunity was taken to test Andy's own model with some coaches available on a continuous run layout.

The first set available were the old Hornby LNER set so that's what we used. I simply hooked the model to the entire set and gave it a run. The model pulled them perfectly well but stuggled a bit more when hanging more on the back.

You are correct that all it proves is that an O2 will haul 6 light coaches around a layout. That's all it was intended to show. It was not "necessary", the video was shot for fun. There are no extra questions, the video is what it is.

In no way was it intended to be the comprehensive test you are making it out to be, if it had been we'd have put some numbers of drawbar pull on the model and considered rolling resistance of the stock - far more relevant than the overall weight. We'd also have put more effort into the filming than simply pointing a mobile phone at the train.

Perhaps we all need to stop having fun. Perhaps all discussion should be passed through a committee of "the great and good" before it is allowed to be released to everyone else. Or perhaps if anyone else had shot this video, and I'm sure the are plenty of other films showing O2's running on the Internet, these comments wouldn't have been made.

I have said before, MREmag is not the place to come if you just want to take potshots at other forums, no matter how veiled. There are plenty of other sites for this, we'll stick to talking about railways.

I won't legitimise the viewpoint suggested that my email was in any way about taking potshots at other forums: because that would infer that I regard any other railway forums as fair and balanced places to discuss model trains, and that I in any way care for their way of doing things. No, I'm afraid that was quite far off the mark this time!

That video was originally posted - I am told - as a direct response to complaints about the haulage capacity of the Kernow O2. It was made to show that it performs on the track. I'm happy with that: it's a legitimate response but my point was that the model railway media can - and really should have done by now - some research into what constitutes a fair and reasonable test of a model's abilities.

There is no standard across the board in the model railway media in terms of reviewing model trains. There are no clear ways to define the ability of a model nor any clear way of defining how prototypically correct it is or whether its finish can be considered fine, heavy or whatever. There just isn't any clear guidance or thought into what consumers need to make informed decisions on their purchases.

I've tried before when making videos for YouTube. The following video is a little old now, certainly very dated, but it and the other review videos I made followed a format and they were fair and consistent across each video.

This to me is the fundamental issue. Consistency. If reviews in the model railway media were fair and consistent in their appraisal, then naturally you wouldn't get accusations of collusion every so often and complaints that they don't go into enough detail. If you had agreed tests for performance (such as a weight test for haulage, speed trap test to show a model's gearing) then you're not going to be pulled up for treating models from different manufacturers differently: it would be a level playing field for reviews, and you'd be more fair and impartial as a result.

For me, it's not good enough - as it seems to be the case elsewhere on the net - to be seen to be impartial. It's about actually being mature enough to know that you have to be impartial, because it's the right thing to do for all parties.

Chris Leigh recently wrote a review for the Kernow O2 for Model Rail Magazine and was pilloried for it across the internet. 

I have read the review and can't get my head around the response. 

It was one of the most fair, balanced and constructive reviews I've ever read. I can only conclude that because it was a commissioned product, and that many people seem to have had their hearts set on the model, that Chris' review was attacked because the truth is sometimes difficult to hear, or because there's something more sinister going on.

There's something of a cult of personality about the model railway media at the moment, and one wonders how long this will go on. Hornby took the unusual step this year to ramp up their own marketing and communication direct with their consumers. I have praised this previously, and will continue to do so because by opening up their lines of communication direct to their consumers, they're getting the actual story and not a potentially edited one. 

People can be - and are - more honest on Facebook, Twitter, and similar than on model railway forums because they only have to justify their view to Hornby and remain accountable to themselves.

 In my day job I am expected to take both sides of the story from two parties with a dispute, and make a decision based on the evidence available which is fair and reasonable to both parties. It's not enough for the decision to feel vaguely fair: it has to be fair. My test of fairness has been tested a lot over the last few years with model railways, and when all is said and done I have observed some woefully inaccurate and unfair commentary from those who are in positions of authority and should know better.

I couldn't care less what anyone thinks of me in terms of model railways: anyone who has met me knows what I am about and that I do not care for politics. I'm one man, acting alone, so you'll always know on this blog that what I am writing are my own views.

If you are reading this blog and feel that I've picked on you in the past - perhaps you're a manufacturer, or a reader, or someone somewhere who has taken offence to something I've said - maybe the question to ask on reflection is: did I make a good point - and was it fair and right to raise it?

If you can say yes, then I've done my job and I can rest easy. 

For my regular readers, a side note. I apologise for the lack of updates this year. I had no idea how 2015 was going to go. It's been both amazing and heartbreaking; terrifying and exciting. I love my chosen career and I am working hard to become the best adjudicator I can be. I take my role seriously because it lines up with my core values: hearing both sides of the story and bringing balance to a debate.

Thanks for reading today: there'll be a Christmas update on The British Railway Stories and a few modelling bits and pieces, but that's mostly it for 2015 now. Roll on 2016 when normal service can be resumed in earnest.

Particularly as the boards are finished for my model railway and the track is finally laid! I hope to be running test trains and starting the full scenic work in the new year.

Until next time,

Simon

"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.