Not much activity because just not feeling it for model railways. Although the recent EFE Rail Class 144 in WYPTE Metro Train has sparked some renewed interest. 
 

So today I’ve looked at the frustrating Hornby Class 153. I say frustrating because it’s another Hornby “what might have been” model. I say this because well it’s could have been an excellent model had Hornby not selectively compressed the bodyshell, hence the flatten roof outline, odd drivers window at the converted cab, gangway connector which is 1.5mm approximate shorter than those found on the Bachmann Class 150 and 158 (2020 version) - see

Also the bogie frames somehow don’t quite capture the BREL BT38 / BP38 bogies compared to those produced by Bachmann for the Class 150 especially with the vertical reinforcements.  The bogies with exception of the Class 158/159 and 150/0 where a standard design, so you’d hope there wouldn’t be so much variation between manufacturers. 

The recent appearance of the Engineering Prototype for the Heljan 7mm Class 153, just shows the flaws of the Hornby model. I hope Heljan (or Accurascale?) produce a 4mm version.… 
 

Anyway one of my big bug bares with the Hornby model is how the underframe doesn’t fit properly at the converted drivers cab end. This is particularly on the first batch of releases. It seems to be cause by the thin moulding which distorts, pushing the cab interior moulding out of its slots in the glazing, causing the bodyshell to spring further apart, so the chassis doesn’t hold in the lugs. Hence an unsightly gap and the body not standing square when looked at cab front on. 
 

So attempt 1 was to modify the chassis so this stops the cab interior twisting, by adding some 80 thou plastic card to stop any twisting. 
 

However this didn’t work…

So, attempt 2, is more of a bodge. This is to use a dab of superglue, to secure the cab interior in its slot. This will stop the bodyshell springing apart, and the cab interior twisting. But at the issue of possible difficulty removing the cab interior.
 

Once secured, I then used a M1.7 x 8mm screw, which screws into the cab interior.

This hence pulls the underframe to body, removing the unsightly gap and cockeyed look when viewing cab front square on. 

Overall, if someone produces a proper accurate Class 153, all my Hornby examples will be rapidly heading to eBay and good riddance!

As an aside it still frustrates and baffles me how manufacturers get it wrong with Sprinters and Pacers. The outer gangway on the Sprinter fleet is of standard dimensions and height, so when working in multiple, the gangways line up. Same goes for the height of the BSI coupler. This applies right from Class 141/1, 142, 143, 144, 150/0, 150/1, 150/2, 151, 153, 155, 156, 158, 165, 166, 168, 170, 172!
 

Although the 165, 166, 168 and Chilterns 170s only mechanically couple, the electrical connection block has different pin outs. A legacy of BR sectorisation, because Network South East didn’t want the prospect of Provincial “borrowing” their new 165/166 fleet.

Personally I would have preferred only one manufacturer to have made Pacer and Sprinter models, then there might be some consistency. But I guess it depends on the consciousness of the designer of the model to have made through research of the prototype.