I promised to crawl out from under my stone to give an actual modelling update this weekend, so here we have it. I may also be able to add later a preview image of the finished W1 if the owner gives consent, but the full story is destined to appear first elsewhere.
Bachmann Butler Henderson
Although I hadn't done it when I took the following pictures, I've now given the add-on frame pieces on Butler Henderson a light trim to get flange clearances on curved track. It now runs beautifully so I can tackle the guard irons and other twiddly bits. I took these pictures to show how the Bachmann product compares with a slightly upgraded Little Engines D10 kit-build.
Seen from this angle there's not an awful lot to choose between the two classes. We can see that the cabs differ, and the front plates/tool boxes in the tenders.
Above, the differences really start to show up. My D10 is modelled with later, lower chimney and dome anyway (the later not being a brilliant casting!) but you can also see there's that difference in frame-top profile below the boiler, ahead of the splashers. Just as on the Bachmann O4/ROD tender, the coping plates start further back on the D10s "older standard" GC tender too. Butler Henderson's self-trimming tender is NOT inherited direct from the O4 model as has been wrongly implied in some magazine reviews.
On comparing the "faces", the detailed-up whitemetal kit job doesn't lose out too badly at all compared to the wonder of modern technology.
This view helps to emphasize the fact that the GC self trimming tender of the D11 doesn't just have different "innards" compared to the earlier type. It is WIDER. My tender has the true GC style fork at the front left corner to support the fire irons. I don't know why Butler-Henderson's tender has a "crucifix" in the same position. Bachmann's model clearly wins hands-down regarding backhead detailing, and I suspect it has the truer interpretation of the cab roof curvature too.
I've not yet dared to test B-H for ultimate load hauling ability. I doubt it will match the slogging ability of my heavy, compensated, Mashima powered D10 but it certainly kept its feet with eight Gresley corridors behind the tender, mainly modified RTR but including a brass full brake and a Hornby coach with new brass sides.
Hornby B17 Sandringham
At last I've given this a decent test run. It runs nicely at low speed, starts and stops as it ought, although I don't think it is quite as slick as the pacifics. Is it a good idea for Hornby to "downgrade" back to three-pole motors, albeit with flywheels? The same eight coaches that I used with Butler Henderson were certainly no problem for Sandringham, and it lapped my layout at a steady 70mph top speed with this load. More realistically restrained than Butler Henderson's blistering top speed?
I'm a bit less happy about the shade of "LNER" green on Sandringham, given that the BR green on the other B17s has been praised by some for its improved "warmth" and likeness to the real thing. Comparison with other locos shows that Sandringham's green is definitely darker thatn the colour on Flying Fox, which I thought to be an improvement on past Hornby renditions (lighter and warmer than it had been, even if still not like the versions in the Precision or Railmatch ranges or anything on Bachmann's LNER locos). Sandringham's darker, bluer green seems to hark back to the Margate versions of the eighties, as per the old tender-drive B17s, D49s and Gresley A1s. I imagine some weathering witha buff colour would help to tone it in, but that's no good if you want to keep the loco pristine.....
Speaking of the old tender drive model, here's how Sandringham compares with one that I detailed up, re-christened and treated to some more complete lining, but the paintwork is original save for weathering. I didn't think (and still don't think) that the original BODY was at all bad, even with its "archaic" and now apparently "unacceptable" moulded-on pipes and cab handrails. Are they really that hideous when a decent livery is applied? The old chassis and tender clearly don't measure up at all by modern standards. I have however been wondering about a cheap-ish chassis upgrade to keep "The Mighty Mariners" fit for use in modern traffic - say Comet frames, Hornby A1/A3 lined green wheels and valve gear from the same source? Nice proper 12 spoke bogie wheels on the new model...
The new chimney shape is miles better than the old. But what do we all reckon about the dome. I though the Margate D49/B17 dome was rather a good shape for many LNER applications - although it isn't seated quite as nicely as it ought to be on my older B17 model by the look of it.
The "piano fronts" are modelled slightly differently, and as Simon pointed out the Hornby price these days doesn't seem to cover buffer beam black/white edging.
The separate fittings on the new cab are lovely, but could the pedant argue that some of the fine details are inevitably a little over-scale, just as Hornby's older boiler handrails and knobs were in their day?
I'm not criticising the details on the new model, merely illustrating my resons for saying that the old one wasn't actually too bad.
Sorry if this post was originally displaying with baffling and pointless repetition of the same images of the B17s. If so I don't know if that was my error or one of the "wonders" of imageshack!
), I've been having a dabble with something else this evening.
