JDW

That looks fantastic, great work all round! I'm very tempted by some of the CMAC models, I keep eying them up on Ebay, they look like great models, though I'm still trying to decide what to do with my failed 323 from another supplier, it's put me off building anything at all for a while! The 185 is tempting, but the livery options are... complicated!

It drives me up the wall every time I get on a train (LNER, I'm looking at you in particular, but others are guilty as well) that says "welcome onboard" - or press releases, posters and the like that say "get onboard" and other such phrases. At least one bus company has it in big letters on the side of a double-decker. The fact that so many transport companies can't get a basic transport term correct is crazy. Onboard is a word, but not in the context of transport. It has an entirely different meaning. You get on board, you can be aboard. You can have on-board equipment. You can't get onboard.

So long as it doesn't obscure too much, I'd be tempted to try the sliced-through buildings idea, but not with open fronts (to do the whole row would be a huge task, but also might look a bit gimmicky I think), but rather just 'blanked off' as part of the facia, similar to the post above. However, I'd use matt black rather than white or a light colour, for the same reason it's used in theatres; to make it disappear. It would blend the unusual outline into the facia, and the eye would be drawn to the layout rather than to the odd shapes along the front.

They're very nice, there were some samples on display at Euro Bus Expo in Brussels last year. Hopefully the livery error on the megabus one will be corrected on the production models, though.

What about a pipe bridge? The kind where ground-level pipes rise up at 90 degrees then are supported on a lattice girder arrangement? Looking at the picture, maybe there wouldn't be enough space for them to run along the ground in front of the backscene, but it might be workable somehow. Just a thought.

Yep, I'd agree with that. Mixing them up will give a much better effect. I'd probably look at some basic weathering as well to reduce the variation in colour and give some harmony to the different shades. I have built up a set of Hornby and Lima ARC "PTA" wagons*, and the Lima shade is much more mustard than the bright yellow of the Hornby ones, but some weathering has made them look much more like a uniform set of wagons with variations in shade, colour, wear, etc from use, rather than a string of differently-coloured plastics. Even just a few coats of paint-on, wipe-off with some shades of dirty browny colours on all of them (and the wagons) would probably get rid of the start contrast. *Yes, I know they're not that accurate as PTAs, but for the very occasional run behind an ARC class 59, they're fine and make quite an impressive sight at much lower cost than a set of Accurascale ones!

Just to add another vote of satisfaction with the same supplier. I have a 4-car Lima 156 repowered with one of their motors and it runs fine.

Hmmmm... First off, forget trying to run it with the 121 at the other end, that's not going to help solve the problem and will just make trying to sort it harder by adding extra forces. Take away all the other vehicles. - Does the power car derail when running by itself at the same place(s) each time, or randomly? If it's always at the same place, it could be a track issue. If not, then it's a train issue. - Try turning it to face the opposite way. Does it still derail at the same places? - Does it derail when the power bogie is at leading or trailing, or both? - Does it derail at any speed, or just when running fast or slow? Can you get your eye to track level to try and observe the wheels and bogie closely? - Are the traction tyres properly seated in the groove all the way around? I've purchased replacement ones, and when I came to fit them found they were way too thick, so although they fitted the groove, they stood well above it and made those wheels sit much too high on the rail. The rubber tyre shouldn't (or barely) protrude above the metal part of the wheel face. Check around the full circumference of both wheels. - With the model held upside down in your hand, can you swivel the motor bogie easily and smoothly without applying force? - Are there any wires visible that might be snagging and causing it not to turn properly? If you can't see, try removing the body (undo the two screws towards the centre of the chassis, it should lift off easily) and checking that way. There shouldn't be, but if a previous owner has replaced a broken wire or installed a DCC decoder, something could be snagging somewhere and restricting the movement). - Possibly a blindingly obvious question (hands up who hasn't ever been so engrossed looking for a problem that they missed the obvious!) but is it properly coupled? I know it's only the big, floppy and fairly forgiving Lima tension lock couplings, but is one of them bent, for example, so that the arm gets stuck against the one on the opposite vehicle and restricts the bogie when it tries to turn? - I suspect it's unlikely given that you are using new track, but I used to find that some Lima stock would derail on old-style Hornby points when going through from the 'single' end onto the curved arm, at the point where the wheel passed over the V-shape in the middle. Most of my points are Peco, and I can't recall this happening on new-style Hornby ones but it might be worth checking if it's derailing on points. If you've checked all of that and are still no nearer to a solution, maybe there's an RMWeb member who is local to you who could help, or a local model railway club? Or could you maybe post a video of it?

The darker version looks more correct to me, and is the same colour as the train pack and extra coached I have. I wonder if the lighter model in your pictures was from a train pack, as it seems to have less detail on the ends. I'm going to guess, since the darker colour seems more common, that the lighter one was an earlier release in an incorrect shade (it's not just 2020s Hornby that gets colours wrong!). The darker one certainly looks closest to being correct. What the model numbers to look for or avoid I couldn't say, but it should be pretty easy to work out from decent pictures when buying online. The contrast between the blue and the black is much more pronounced.

...and if you're running it with the 121, probably best to couple the power bogie end of the 121 to the powered car of the 117, so there's less sideways drag on corners for better running. If they were both in blue/grey or Network SouthEast livery, then replacing the 117 power car with the 121 would be entirely prototypical! (See > http://www.hondawanderer.com/55022_L420_South_Stoke_1989.htm or > http://www.hondawanderer.com/55027_L408_Moreton-in-Marsh_1986.htm)

Interesting about the wheels - I presume that was the easiest option at whichever factory produced them. The slot in the bogie is vital, if I remember right, as the bogie frames are pretty stiff. Unlike, say, the ex-Lima 156 where there's enough flex to be able to easily pop the axles out. Re the noise, mine was doing that. Like a dull screeching kind of noise. I can't remember if I ever cured it, it's so long since I ran it, but I seem to remember pinpointing it to being that the motor output shaft was spinning but the small gear on it was slipping. Something else I found with mine, especially in the extreme temperatures of the loft, were that the bogies could become a bit stiff and not rotate freely. Unclipping them and a few light strokes of a file plus rubbing some graphite from a pencil on the contact surfaces seemed to sort it.

It's nice to see the 110 reappear, it might not be the best model out there but it still appeals to me. I have a white 3-car one, despite it being too old for my usual era. I haven't DCC fitted it as it usually lives on a shelf. One thing I found with the older model is that replacing all of the trailing wheelsets (metal rims on plastic wheels) with newer style Hornby coach wheels vastly improved the running (they run much more freely and are better quality. All of the wheels on the samples in Andy's pics look like the chunky and not-so-nice-looking power bogie type, rather than different ones for the trailing wheels. I found that slicing off the huge coupling mount with a razor saw made a big improvement to the front end - I keep meaning to add some basic buffer beam details, but never quite get around to it. The price point does seem just a tad high to me, I could see it being very popular at the psychologically-enticing sub-hundred pound price of £99 (whether that'd be viable or not is an entirely different question of course), and like a lot of the other Railroad stuff it's a very sound basis for modellers who either can't afford, don't need, or don't want ultra-high-fidelity models that cost twice as much, or for those wanting to do some basic detailing and weathering projects.

I agree. I've found in the past that the temperature can make that problem worse as well, which could be a factor if they layout's in a shed or loft at this time of the year.

On a more positive note, and definitely not level crossing stupidity, I came across this video on YouTube which shows how to do it right. Considering how often delivery drivers are shown as being rather poor drivers, I think it's worth highlighting one who knows what he's doing.

I'm sure I saw some 3d printed ones on offer somewhere, it was quite a while ago though, I can't remember where I'm afraid. I recall seeing a fairly basic conversion of some HO TGV trailers to Eurostar centre coaches as well on a French modelling site, though they were pretty obviously different to the correct coaches (a bit like painting Mk4s into First Great Western colours, removing the end skirts on the underframe and sticking them in an FGW HST set. They looked OK from a distance and if you didn't know any better). There's no TGV equivalent of the divisible centre coach pair though, so you'd only have the 3d print option for those. The OO Eurostar might be a better starting point for a full set (though personally I don't think it looks as good as the HO version), the centre coaches are available to give a 2+4 set, which is a start at least, and etched brass sides were/might still be available to produce something longer.

There was a thread on another forum with some quite divided opinions on this, lots of "get a sense of humour" type comments countered by others with concerns over accessibility. Personally, I get the desire to show some humanity and humour at certain times, but just can't understand the mindset that would think it is a good idea to replace the single most important, basic thing a passenger needs to know with a joke. A station name board with Brighton changed to Frighton and some suitably ghoulish imagery, fair enough, it's clear and obvious, and there's context. Great if you know the train goes to Brighton because you catch it every day, and you realise it's Halloween, but for anyone who doesn't know the network and/or doesn't have a good enough grasp of English to 'get it', ...would you board a train to somewhere that's just one letter different in the hope it was just a joke? For someone unfamiliar with UK geography, having places called Frighton and Brighton is just as likely as Clacton and Clapton.

Looks spot on to me too now. Enjoying watching, glad I'm not the one building though!

Not sure we need to resort to personal comments when discussing a model, it doesn't add anything. I can't be the only one to have read it in the dismissive sense you maybe hadn't intended, your second post is much clearer on what maybe you'd intended the first to mean. The point wasn't that I thought it sits too high (I don't think it does, it's pretty much the same as any other recent model) it was that I thought it was too tall overall (or possibly the Mk2s too low). I could be wrong, I haven't seen it in the flesh, but from what I can see in the pictures that was my impression I'm not sure the comparison with OO is really relevant, there are (as someone said above) compromises with all models to make them usable.

Not quite sure if smr's comment was aimed at me or not, I hadn't realised only TT modellers are allowed to look at TT models or to form an opinion, I'll try not to look at them in future. Not sure why we need comments like "go back to OO", it feels a bit childish and isn't remotely relevant to any of the discussion points. I chose a fairly side-on image with minimum effects of perspective to try and show that (to me) either the loco looks quite tall or the coaches quite low compared to the very similar roof line of the two in the image. I had a quick search around for pictures or videos of Hornby's OO version coupled to coaches and there didn't seem to be the same degree of difference there either (I know that not all stock is exactly the same height). I'm well aware of how models work, I have plenty of them, though thank you for taking the time to explain for anyone who doesn't that wheels might catch on the body if it were lower. That wasn't, incidentally, my point, I thought it looked too tall compared to the coaches, not that it sits too high on its bogies, but I'm sure we'll find out when reviewers take a closer look and ger the ruler out. Of course, it's great to see the range expanding so quickly, and with a locomotive class that is likely to be popular as well as with a long life-span. And it looks like a nice model which, to me, captures the essence of the real thing. But the significant height difference was almost the first thing I noticed when I looked at the picture of it coupled to the Mk2s. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe it's just the angle of the photo.

It looks nice, especially in GWR green, and I'm sure it will be well received by those starting out in TT, but it looks rather tall next to the Mk2s behind it doesn't it? Or are the coaches too low? Compared to an image such as this one http://www.hondawanderer.com/50002_Yarnton_1986.htm where the loco and stock are pretty much the same height.

Possibly a slightly random question but why pale blue and not the usual NR yellow? Or is the answer "just because..." ?

If you're not satisfied or if it's causing a problem and you can't solve it, then maybe returning it is the best option, but if you can't see it doing it once it's on the track and it's not running badly, then maybe it's not worth worrying any further about? If it were a diesel, I'd be asking if it has traction tyres and if they're seated properly in the groove, I'm going to guess that doesn't apply here though.

It seems like a good representation of councils' poor attitudes to bus infrastructure provision in general. They're sometimes known as 'bus boarders' and are often installed in places where, in times gone by, there was just a bus stop flag on the pavement but where parked cars prevented buses pulling up to the kerb. Where previously people would have to step down on to the road then back up the kerb, these allow the elderly, infirm, and especially wheelchair users to access the bus where previously either they couldn't or it was quite difficult. During the pandemic, lots of councils gave extra pavement space by closing a lane or part of a lane, and some installed 'temporary' ones of these for the same reason, so people could get on and off the bus without the hindrance of the kerb. I'd hazard a guess that these are a relic of that - they add nothing to the bus stop (there's nothing else that would stop the bus pulling up to the kerb), and although at first glance I thought they might have been to allow buses to pick up when the taxi rank was full of waiting taxis, that's completely impractical too as any queuing taxis wouldn't be able to move forwards along the rank. If I'd been the bus driver, though, I'd like to think I'd have made better use of the space and gotten the back end nicely tucked in out of the way.

Looks great to me. As far as 'why?' goes, I'd say it's probably a combination of cost and the fact that the 'railway' bits - the cab, chassis, wheels, and so on - already exist and are still capable of doing the job they were designed for. I don't know about rail, but a re-engineered bus or coach costs around half the price of a new one, so in the right circumstances can be a better option. I can see the value in a new-build electric or hydrogen shunter, but I can also see that with plenty of potentially available class 08s still around, repurposing existing vehicles makes a lot of sense. Probably even more so than a bus or coach, where retrofitting might extend the life but it's unlikely the body/chassis will last more than 25 years. In rail terms, something like an 08, or at least its basic structure, is a lot more durable and could potentially have a lot of life left if suitably refurbished, eliminating the environmental cost of new build. If the costs stack up and the base vehicles for conversion are already built and available, it seems a no-brainer to re-engineer 08s.

Looking at Chris' model, it seems like the EFE underframe/floor unit might be easier to modify than the Realtrack one, although I also suspect that Chris has made a better job of it than me - I ended up having to ream out a lot of metal from beneath the floor unit and drill a new hole for the wheel assembly mounting screw because of where I decided to cut the two floor sections. If I were doing another, the EFE one looks a better choice from that perspective. The couplings and re-wiring things was immensely fiddly (I'm not great at soldering, and so many small wires in such a small (and delicate) space is a recipe for disaster. What livery are you planning? I wouldn't mind one in the 'circles' red and grey but that would need a complete repaint for the three car version, you couldn't get away with just using the two car and adding the middle coach in for that one!