John Isherwood

I'm not too worried about the colour - in the unlikely event that it's too far out, a repaint is always an option. I do, however, strongly dislike having to take a piercing saw to a brand new model, just to get a trailing truck which pivots and has flanged wheels as per the prototype. Regards, John Isherwood.

If we shouldn't pre-judge the model by the released photos - why release them? Any apparent deficiencies are bound to attract adverse comment; if the aim is to excite interest, it is often counter-productive. Regards, John Isherwood.

Hadn't noticed that - VERY disappointing !!! If I can do the necessary with Bulleid Pacifics and Duke of Gloucester, using nothing but basic workbench tools, then Hornby should be roundly condemned if they can't make a model of a prototype that actually had a separate trailing truck behave prototypically. I know - tight radii. Sorry, that won't wash ! Make the trailing truck as per prototype, but provide flangeless wheels and a locking / raising screw for those who use toy train curves. In other words, make the model work prototypically for serious modellers, and reserve the compromise for those who compromise on radii. It CAN be done at no additional cost - you just have to want to. Regards, John Isherwood.

As an ex-works / specially cleaned rendition of 46256, I agree with your interpretation. However, I have several photos of the locomotive in service, but still clean, and the crimson lake has certainly darkened - though perhaps not quite as dark as the Hornby version. Regards, John Isherwood.

To those who do such things, I'd have thought a tender body would be quite easy to produce via 3D printing ............. Regards, John Isherwood.

Not sure what you're asking. All you have to do is recess (or not) the bearings into the W-irons to suit the axle length that you are using. Shorter axles - no recess (or even add spacing washers made from thin styrene sheet); longer axles - counter-bore the back of the W-iron with a drill larger than the flange of the bearing, so that the bearings are far enough into the W-irons that they are not splayed-out and gripping the axle points. A little trial and error is all that is required. Regards, John Isherwood.

I suspect that George was being perfectly serious - it would be foolish to try and build one of those kits without having built a few less complex kits. By the time you were ready to build his kits, you wouldn't need much in the way of instructions. Better to be up front about whether a potential customer is likely to be capable of building a kit than to sell one to a novice, who might then put the word about that your kits are 'unbuildable'. Pragmatism at its best! Regards, John Isherwood.

Switch 'em all off - I will be doing so. Use model oil lamps in the same way that you would with a steam train - swap 'em around as dictated by prototype practice, or just imagine that they're there !! I can't for the life of me understand why some people get so worked up about operational lights - they're almost invariably way too bright, or displaying incorrectly. When I was lineside as a lad, if it was dark enough to notice the lights, it was too dark to read the loco number ! Regards, John Isherwood.

Can't remember if I've posted this before ...... The Oakington & Cottenham Light Railway was intended to be a roadside tramway, as per the Wisbech & Upwell, but narrow gauge. The proposal was made at the end of the 19th Century. It would have run from Oakington station, (on the Cambridge - St. Ives SG line), to Cottenham village. In Cottenham it would have run the length of the village in the main road and terminated at Cottenham Lode, near to the church and rectory; there was to have been a branch to the Cottenham brickworks. Road improvements ensured that it was not built, but the large-scale deposited plans, showing the nominal route and limits of deviation are with the Cambridgeshire Archive; I produced copies for my own use, years ago; http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/234b3d2c-df7f-4461-bbb3-c679c854d587 . Study of the contemporary loco and rolling stock manufacturers' catalogues for the relevant period suggests some interesting tram locos and stock may have been acquired if the railway had come to pass. My, ultimately uncompleted, efforts : http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/68396-unbuilt-railways/page-2 . Regards, John Isherwood.

Could it have had some attention courtesy of Precision Labels? Do I detect a tiny variation in the shade of cream between the name panel and the rest of the car? ..... or perhaps I need better specs' too? Regards, John Isherwood.

I entirely agree - my point was simply that the dealer takes the risk too - mostly, the modeller chooses not to do so. If the price did indeed go to £700+, there would still have been £300 profit for the dealer. If, however, the modeller had won the auction at £700+, it would depend upon what the value of the other surplus items were worth as to what price he ultimately paid for the items that he did want. At the end of the day, any item (or group of items) is worth what someone will pay for it. If the item(s) in a group that the modeller wants are the same ones that the dealer knows will sell for a high price, then those items are worth the high price. Bargains are usually the result of over-supply, the seller not realising what they have in the first place, or luck. Regards, John Isherwood.

If he netted £1000+ for a £250 investment, you could have done the same, kept the items you wanted, and sold on the rest. There was, with hindsight, plenty of room to bid him up further. The dealer takes a risk based on his past experience - we can all do the same if we have a little capital and can be bothered to make the effort required. Regards, John Isherwood.

"Ignorant"; in this context merely indicates that 'Joe Public' is unlikely to have a long-standing preconception of what the real No.1 should look like. I made it abundantly clear that the potential purchasers of this model who may now be deterred from doing so are those familiar with the prototype; I fully acknowledge that the vast majority of modellers will be happy with it. I do get the impression - amplified by the accusations that I am 'spoiling' the model for potential purchasers - that many of those who decry my opinions would prefer to be 'ignorant' of defects in the forthcoming model. Regards, John Isherwood. Advice accepted. Regards, John Isherwood.

Regards, John Isherwood.

I said "Still - Joe Public will buy it in ignorance, and thereby contribute to the NRM's coffers"; you highlighted ignorance as being criticism. I do not criticise anyone for intending to buy the model; I simply point out that those who have a long-standing image of what No.1 should look like may be deterred from buying it. The trouble with this forum, and this thread in particular, is that some posters are reading what is not there; ie. instead of reading literally what is posted, they are ascribing motives that reflect their own attitudes. Regards, John Isherwood.

That is excellent news, and I wish to be the first to say so. We have been told in this thread that, as the 2nd EP is metal and plastic, significant improvements to the cosmetic appearance cannot be expected. As a non-UK enthusiast, you may not have been fully aware of the truly iconic status of No.1 amongst those of us 'of a certain age'; we all have a mental picture of Stirling's masterpiece, and any 'tinkering' is going to be pretty obvious. If the aim is to sell a representation of No.1 to the general public who visit the NRM, then what you have so far produced will suffice. If, on the other hand, you aim to produce a model that will also find a home amongst the collections of those who have admired this loco for half a century or more, then a little more thought is needed. .... and if 'foil stickers' don't do it for you, try thin etched plates; formed and glued in place. More expensive, though - and very little more effective. Best wishes John Isherwood.

Whyever not? If the creators can learn something from the experience, they MAY produce models in the future that even more people, including me, want to buy. ..... and I think that you will find that I have nowhere criticised those who do (want to buy). Regards, John isherwood.

This is all about protecting businesses / enterprises, isn't it? Please expand upon "I cannot reconcile that statement or sentiment with the words you actually did use" - in a PM if you so choose. I have, throughout, been scrupulous in giving opinions which I truly believe and making statements based upon my own practical experience. I feel, in the light of recent information revealed in this thread, that Rapido have taken on more than they can chew. This is unfortunate, but it serves nobody to try and gloss over basic errors and pass them off as inevitable when modelling the subject prototype. We have recent evidence now of two examples of what can happen when newcomers dive into areas of production in which they are inexperienced. The mainstream players still don't get it right all of the time, but they are under no illusions about the need for extensive research and creative thinking in order to produce accurate models. Label me (and others) as being 'negative' if you will, but compromised products will never enhance a company's reputation, or that of the commissioners. ..... and yes - I would actively welcome criticism of my own product output; if it's wrong I want to know about it !! Regards, John Isherwood.

No - I was dead serious. The 'stick-backed tinfoil' to which you disparagingly refer is used for the computer identification barcode labels of the ink ribbon cartridges which I use for my Alps printers. It is impossible to tear, very flexible, extremely difficult remove from the cartridges and, above all, very thin. It would be simplicity itself to peel cover panels off a backing sheet and apply them to a matching recess in the upper surface of the running plate. This would cover the slot clearance needed for the connecting rod, and be virtually invisible. Anticipating the cry that such an arrangement would increase production costs, I suggested customer application. In reality, factory application would be dead easy compared to some of the intricate work that is now required to detail current RTR models. An accurate-looking RTR model of Stirling's No.1 IS possible, but perhaps not via conventional means. Regards, John Isherwood.

Choosing Stirling's No.1 as a first attempt at producing a steam locomotive - for the NRM? When asked by a 'newbie' for a suitable subject for a first attempt at kit-building / scratch-building, would you as editor of any model railway magazine have suggested this subject - no! You were wise to advise Rapido not to enter the UK market, especially the steam loco arena, given their total lack of experience; ................ angels fear to tread and all that. We consumers have no control over the business decisions of model commissioners and manufacturers, but we do have the right to comment on the wisdom of those decisions; not least through our wallets. Chris - to what extent have you been personally involved in this project? I know from reading your output over a number of years that you have strong connections with Canada. Regards, John Isherwood.

Andy, I am sorry that you were apparently motivated to write your most recent missive as a consequence of my postings, amongst others, on this subject. I was, in common with others it seems, genuinely shocked by the appearance of the second EP of this project. It in no way conveys the image that has been implanted in my mind over a lifetime of seeing images of the prototype. The lowered cylinders have necessitated the flattening of the curved plating between the smokebox and the cylinders, to the point where the loco front end is distinctly reminiscent of the LNWR Cornwall. No.1 is deservedly famous for the artistry of its lines and the sublime simplicity of its visible mechanical components; by lowering the cylinders and revealing the upper slidebars the iconic looks of the loco have been compromised. If these 'adjustments' have been made in order to provide a conventional arrangement of two slidebars below a cast mazak running plate, then I can only repeat that a practical alternative could have been used, as outlined by Miss Prism and myself. Over fifty years I have had more than sufficient experience of working with RTR models to know that such an arrangement could have been adopted in a form that could be mass produced, and used by the customer without difficulty. The alternative arrangements were suggested, not in the expectation that they might be adopted - the project is clearly too advance at this stage - rather, they were made in order to demonstrate that, contrary to the contention of several members, a more authentic depiction of No.1 is not impossible to mass-produce. My own motive in posting was to express my personal disappointment with this forthcoming model, and in the hope that I might in some small way encourage a little blue-sky thinking when manufacturers approach the more esoteric subjects now being tackled. It would be a shame if this welcome widening of the scope of RTR subjects were to be accompanied by a back-sliding in the standards of accuracy of the models produced. If you direct "... those whose most prominent modelling credential is their ability to snipe ..." at me; (it is posted under a quotation taken from me); I take severe exception to the accusation. You know me to be the producer of an extensive range of model railway transfers which are as authentic as I can possibly make them; and examples of my modelling have been posted here in photographic form. My rolling stock output over the years is counted in four figures, and I can claim to have more than a little practical modelling experience. I make no apology for posting constructive suggestions as to how commercial models could be improved; manufacturers are free to ignore them should they so choose. That I am not alone in believing that the standard of model railway products will be improved by informed and constructive comment is evident from the content of this thread. If all you want is comment along the lines of "I note that there are some divergences from the prototype in this forthcoming model - but I am confident that these would not have been made without good reason", then RMweb will loose much of its value, and will resemble the bland reviews in the modelling press which have, over the years, done such a disservice to the cause of improving the standard of RTR products. Regards, John Isherwood.

I have, as suggested, reread the post in question. I see no negativity - simply an honest statement of the author's position on the matter, and a realistic appraisal of the likely effects if this model is released in the form depicted in the EP. I am certainly revising my opinion of the standards adhered to by both Rapido and the NRM. In the latter case, we have a public body that refuses to restore major items in its care, because their authenticity cannot be compromised by replacing life-expired components. At the same time, it commissions a representation of an iconic artifact and, presumably, authorises 'compromises' which very materially affect its fidelity to the prototype. Still - Joe Public will buy it in ignorance, and thereby contribute to the NRM's coffers. Regards, John Isherwood.

I think that the suggestions put forward in this thread have been constructive, and capable of incorporation into the model had they been considered earlier. Impossible is a very definite statement, and not one that quite a few of us recognise in this context. Time to get real? Rather dismissive of the positive contributions made here. You'll be telling us next that we should be grateful for whatever the manufacturers choose to release !! Sorry Chris, that kind of attitude will never contribute to improvements in the fidelity of RTR models. Regards, John Isherwood.

That's fine, of course - it depends on how badly you wanted them in the first place. Regards, John Isherwood.

It depends on the foil thickness - that used for metallic product labels is remarkably resitant to removal and is not easily distorted. The problem with the low cylinders is that it completely throws out the transition from smokebox to cylinders. The curve is thus too 'flat' - trying to raise the cylinders will introduce a step which will then have to be filled and faired-in to something like the correct profile. I would MUCH sooner have everything where it should be, with the option of covering the clearance slot catered for. It's immaterial now, though - we have a metal and plastic EP, so the chances of substantial alteration are exceeding slim - appropriate, given the clearances on this prototype !! Regards, John Isherwood.