JDW

I look occasionally, and whilst I can see the appeal, as others have said they lack the kind of structure which I find makes them readable. Unless you've read or followed previous entries, they seem disjointed and lack context in many cases. I've noticed quite a few recently especially where a general thread would have been of more interest, more readable, and probably had more views. OK, it's not difficult per se to scroll back through blog entries, and I get the argument that they keep all comments on that entry together rather than spread through a thread, but it feels to me like a thread is more of a conversation, whereas a blog is just "here, look" and then done. There are some very interesting ones, and some very good work and ideas to be found there, some recent ones I've enjoyed include the 3d-printed Network Rail stock by @LMSfan72 , whilst @Ruston's run-down of the excellently modelled 'Charlie Strong' loco fleet makes an inventive and interesting way of showing off each item of stock, almost like a 'collectors card' for each one.

The door light weren't LEDs on the Realtrack ones. The Realtrack ones did have some very delicate springs on the blocks that the wheels are mounted in. Those blocks are secured from above by a single screw, if I remember correctly. Very easy to damage the springs when dismantling. On the Realtrack ones (which we seem to be assuming this one is closely related to) the body is quite a tight fit but pulling the lower sides outwards and lifting up is the way to remove the body if I remember rightly, starting at the inner end. There are clips along the lower edges. It might not lift straight up, but need tilting and joggling to get around some of the electronics and cab interior.

The pictures on page 1 show four of them fitted with tension lock couplings and one with dummy BSIs in place instead (as per the Realtrack one). Bit late to seeing this, having been away for a few weeks. It's certainly an interesting development and there is definitely a passing resemblance to the Realtrack model - although you'd hope there would be if they're trying to portray the same type of unit! Ignoring the origin, it's good to see some more DMUs in more liveries being produced, especially ones that haven't been done before. The Regional Railways and TWPTE ones are rather nice, though the weathering isn't the best (OK, it's basic, but I've seen better basic weathering). Despite what Charlie said about an improved version, the Realtrack 143/144 is already a great model, and it's a shame that there haven't been more variations over the years since it was launched - very understandable though, Realtrack being a small company with limited time and money to churn out ever more 143s/144s alongside developing the 156s and now the 142s, so from that perspective, it's nice to see the liveries on offer here. Both RR and TWPTE ones are very tempting, I have to admit, and the Valley Lines one is smart too.

I'd be inclined to agree that the thought of wiring them together is not the way to go. I have a fleet of DMUs, and find the Hornby 142s (wired together for reliable pick-up) and Bachmann 150s (which I leave coupled to avoid damaging the delicate coupling mechanism) a nuisance to put on or off the track. My Bachmann 158s were some of the first to get DCC many years ago, and have the same two-wire layout from pick-ups to lights on the non-powered car. It's an added cost, but much easier than trying to couple up tiny connections. I forget how it was done now, but I didn't even use a tow wire to three wire converter, just soldered the wires from the decoder to the relevant places. I'm not at home to check just now, or I'd post a picture.

I was just about to say the same thing! Very impressive platform.

60 hours isn't too bad I guess, it's a lot of entertainment for the level of outlay! I used to have a Hornby WYPTE one, and even just adding 'ploughs and a representation of the coupling made a huge difference. I think I added a bit more black around the lights too as even on a clean unit, that recess was generally dirty rather than yellow. But I sold it before I started the conversion of a pair of 153s, which might not be quite as good a shape but at least they run better, and for me they sit better alongside Hornby 153s. Whatever the faults, at least they are all consistent, I think a Dapol 155 and Hornby 153 would look odd side by side.

Excellent, shows what a bit of work can do in making a model that's not very well regarded into something that looks pretty good.

Unless the aim is to deliberately attract attention by doing it upside down, I genuinely can't understand something like this. Even if you know nothing about railways, it has windows and a door. They're obviously windows and a door. I can understand someone with no interest in or knowledge of railways not knowing how to put a train on the track or assemble a loco and tender (even if my own mechanical curiosity would make me actually look and figure it out, not everyone will). But how you can not realise that it's upside down when the door is at the top, I just don't understand. It must be a deliberate mistake to attract attention, right? No one is that blind to what they have in their hand, surely...?

Ah thanks for the info, I did wonder if the bottom of the body curving in so much might cause an issue. I've wondered about trying to use a floor-mounted motor and flywheel driving a bogie from something like a 158 or 166 which might be narrower with just the gear tower, but that's getting a bit complicated. I'm not sure about the High Level motor bogie, it looks a nice piece of kit but at £59 per unit, might be stretching my wallet further than I'd like for two, plus the fact I'm not convinced I'd be able to construct it accurately enough to run well.

I agree the price is barmy, the engine shed and other bits at least look well built though. He's finally reduced the price of his 153 converted form a Dapol 155 to £99 from £125 I see, still about double what it's going to be worth to anyone. Still can't understand his pricing, especially when stuff sits around for so long (he's had the 153 years and the value is only going to go down!), but other items seem to be about right, as some have pointed out on here a few times.

Great to see what can be done with a bit of imagination and effort

I thought the same about the size, but the metal it's wedged in appears to be torn upwards not struck from above

Also to add, I may have been incorrect about the length of the model in an earlier post. In hindsight I don't know if the measurement for the 158 I compared it with is over gangways or over the body. I measured over the body, if it's including gangways, the 323 is about 5mm longer with the cab front lined up with the rubbing plate of the cab-end gangway on the 158.

No problem @Swifty11. It's not actually difficult, and now I've gotten to grips with what needs doing, it's fairly straightforward and simple steps. It's more complex than anything I've built before but no particular step is hard, just needs a bit of patience and thought. Now I've realised what needs doing, the second one should be a lot easier and I think it'll build into a good looking model. I'm still debating whether to motorise them or not. If I do, I'll try and get away with a Hornby 153/156 power bogie, if there's enough room for it to swivel. But with nowhere to run them myself, I'm not altogether sure it's worth the hassle.

Just picking up on these two points, I think the need for DCC-ready is a consequence of the other factors, sound, lights, etc. Most people could easily solder in a DCC chip to a Lima 47 or Bachmann 158 a decade ago. Trying to make sure you get all the increasingly tiny fine wires into all the right places on a DCC sound model instead of a 21-pin socket on the other hand... I agree with the second bit and wonder if perhaps there's an argument for market differentiation, with the likes of Accurascale or SLW producing those super-fine models that will appeal to those with the knowledge and budget, and someone like Hornby catering to the slightly more basic design-clever side of things. It won't happen, of course, as everyone will want the kudos of the hi-spec range. I wouldn't suggest the likes of Accurascale would be failing by positioning themselves where they are, but at the same time I imagine that a lot of people at entry-level or who are more towards the 'train set' end of the hobby possibly wouldn't consider those models. It's great to set the bar high across the board, but if it's too high for new entrants to join the hobby and keep bringing new money, then where will we be in 20 years time?

I agree with both @darrel's premise and @Mike_Walker's comments. I've no doubt there's a place for the high-fidelity super-detailed end of the range, and some of the latest models are fantastic. But at the same time, they are definitely at the top end of the hobby in terms of their realism and their price. I said over on the Hornby thread that I don't think it's unreasonable to produce a range which is largely lo-fi rather than hi-fi models as per the diesel/electric range for 2023 - I think it's a separate argument to the one about how often models should be re-issued in new liveries and whether they're wrong not to have a (say) class 60 in the range for 2023 and whether that means another manufacturer should do a better one. Certainly for me, the cost is getting prohibitive. Could I afford to go and buy a new Bachmann 158 or three to replace some of my fleet of original ones? As it happens, I could. But would it represent good value to me, at over double the price? No, it wouldn't. And while the Lime/Hornby 156 will never live up to the same standard as the Realtrack one, the same applies. My detailed ones, at around half the cost, even with some remotored for smoother running, are good enough, and one at twice the cost wouldn't have twice the value to me, as good as it is. I think the Hornby 110 referred to in the first post is maybe a bit low-brow, it was good for it's time but maybe just a tad basic compared to the finesse of some newer but still basic models. Something along the lines of the Lima 101 or 60 though (and I mean level of detail, not level of accuracy/otherwise of those particular models) shouldn't be too hard, and could leave scope for improvements by those who want to do some modelling whilst satisfying a large chunk of modellers' needs. Something along the lines of the Bratchell Models EMUs would sell to many people, I imagine, and at RTR production volumes would hopefully be significantly cheaper than the £400+ for a ready-to-motorise Bratchell model (to be clear, that's an example not a criticism of Bratchell's prices, which are no doubt necessary due to the bespoke nature of their product, nor a suggestion that an RTR manufacturer should try and copy Bratchell's range, just an example of more basic and possibly niche models which people might accept as a compromise between it being available and viable or not) It seems that there's a constant climb to be at the top, but little left underneath for those at the lower end of the budget or detail range. For some, the detail's not needed or wanted, for others the cost isn't bearable, and between them it feels as if there's more and more of a barrier to entry to the hobby. WIthout knowing the cost of manufacture, it's hard to really judge, but as I said on the Hornby thread, I think something like the ex-Lima 101 has a place, and can see the Network Rail one being popular despite its basic nature, as well as the Strathclyde one, but think even for Railroad range models, the price point is pushing beyond what most purchasers might think is appropriate. In terms of sound, light, etc, it's a hard call as some will want, some wont, some will want one and not the other,... The cost of either adding electrical couplings to control it all or adding multiple decoders is also a factor. Would I buy a slightly more basic model without some of that? No interior lights or opening doors or sound effects? Yes, I probably would. A WYPTE 321/9 maybe, or a class 151, at around £50 per vehicle for an RTR model I'd be interested, but above that and again it becomes hard to justify. But what do you do, produce a basic model that satisfies some people, or a super-detail one that satisfies some others? I suspect the profit margins on the one you can sell for the higher price might be greater, despite the level of extra assembly needed.

It's a fair point that the road network hasn't changed much since the 1990s, but I'd say that by then, the motorail network was in decline. Go back half a century or more, it would have been hard to make long journeys by road, and taking a car by rail was a logical move. That developed into motorail, of course, and kept going alongside the development of both the road network and the motor car. By the 1980s and 1990s, cars were already much more capable of, and suitable for, long journeys by road, but at the same time motorail would have been a relatively well-known concept from previous decades, with many people having used it, so there's no surprise that people knew of it and were used to it kept using it, albeit in smaller numbers, as they had the mindset to use it. It feels more like it was there as a legacy to me. You could say that by the 1990s, the road network had reached its technical peak - good road surfaces, motorways on most major axes, etc - and although motorail still existed, roads were very much on the up, and at the same time once they reached that point, motorail had lost a lot of its advantage, with little room to go anywhere but down. Coupled with changing lifestyle patterns, there are probably fewer people now who would own a car for the convenience and then tie themselves to a train timetable, when the same journey could be done door to door by car, unless there's some other significant impediment en-route. Car trains from, say, northern England to France I could see being popular (that's not the same as technically or financially viable!), since users would have to board a train of ferry at some point anyway. But otherwise, for all but a relatively small number of people making a relatively small number of long journeys (and probably to diverse start and end points), as much as I love the train I can't think why I'd do that over driving myself. I think that's always going to be the problem. Partly on a railway operated by fixed or multiple-unit trains of the type we have adopted in the UK, there's a significant technical barrier to motorail. But even adding car carriers to a traditional train, I'd have to wonder at the economics. To my mind, and using some very over-simplified maths, if you're running a train that has, say, a 60-seat first class coach and each ticket costs £100, that coach, that volume of space on the train, that extra amount of weight for the loco to haul, could be worth £6000. More demand? Add another. But add a motorail car carrier that carries, what, 4 cars maybe? You couldn't charge £1500 per car, so the space on the train, the resources to maintain an extra vehicle, the energy cost to haul it, etc, will always give better value by adding more passenger accommodation - and that's without factors such as extra manpower needed to deal with loading and unloading. A quick look on nationalrail.co.uk suggests that a ticket for travel this week on a regular 6-hour journey I make would cost me about £175, over £50 more than the fuel cost and probably still more expensive even if I factor in insurance, maintenance, etc, and that's just for myself, and that without the ability to carry as much luggage as I like or passengers. I dread to think what it'd be if instead of a singe seat's worth of space, I wanted a quarter of a carriage for my car as well...

I think the UK 1/76 ranges do tend to be metal in the main, whereas European 1/87 ranges tend to favour plastic. I'm sure there are probably UK 1/76 plastic models out there, but nothing springs to mind immediately. I wondered if the ones offered by Atlas Editions might be plastic, but a very quick online search suggests that their buses are die-cast the same as the Corgi models they are based on. If it's the actual working with metal that you're worried about, I think many of them have plastic chassis and interiors, so could you avoid doing any work on the body and just modify the chassis? I don't know about lorries, but I'm sure most die-cast buses are like that.

Dunno, just thinking out loud! Green 47 - more interesting to the casual buyer than plain blue? Blue 20 - relevant to people wanting "modern" up to date stuff? Strathcyde orange - bright and colourful? (I'd actually be tempted with one, since I have a Strathclyde 156, for no other reason than I like the colour scheme. But then I'd need to build a small layout to run them on...) Of course, I could also be completely wrong!

I wonder if that's another point that we overlook too easily - especially when it comes to Railroad range models? Many of those who buy Railroad models might be wanting the latest, brightest and shiniest new trains for their train set or more 'fun' model railway, whereas those who want to model certain periods such as the BR blue era might be more likely to also be those who want the hi-fidelity models? In that case, it makes a lot of sense to focus the Railroad range more, though not solely, on new or bright or interesting liveries which are probably more in line with what a casual buyer rather than a "serious" modeller might want.

I was going to hit "like" but am now debating whether I should in case people think I'm being sympathetic, I wouldn't want people getting the wrong idea 😄

I think it's good that they recognise that, although still think that the Railroad models are a bit expensive for what they are. Whether they could realistically be cheaper, I've no idea of course. But reflecting on it and reading some of the comments about 'not enough this' and 'not enough that' I actually think they're right to go a bit lo-fi instead of churning out more and more hi-fidelity top-of-the-range stuff. It might not be for us, but I don't think there's anything wrong with focusing on the lower spec end of the market (no one else is, really). Yes, we can moan about no 60s or 56s or 31s, and the risk of who else will do them if Hornby goes for a year or two without making one, but I think there is a place for the range they're offering. Not everyone wants/needs the high-spec versions, and more basic models have a place, though I don't think that justifies obvious errors like those on the Loadhaul 37 highlighted previously. I'm also starting to think that models are heading the same way as preservation. There's a limited budget and a limited space for them. As the years go on, we get ever more models of ever more prototypes in ever more liveries. Great to have a choice, but it also has to slow down somewhere, otherwise we're heading towards a point where we're expecting models of every class of loco every year to try and cover every combination of liveries. And even that in itself is increasing exponentially - a couple of decades ago, there was much less variety, and models could be current for longer. Take the Lime 156 for example. How many years was that around in just Sprinter and Strathclyde liveries? Easy to cover all the bases. Try now, and where do you go? An EMR one? A Northern one? A Central Trains one? First Scotrail? Northern Spirit? All of which appeal to smaller groups of people, will sell less, and presumably cost more because of it. Or the Hornby 142, how long was that around in the same Provincial, GMPTE and 'Skipper' liveries? And it's the same with locos and coaches. With a fairly small range of staples, you could cover all the main bases, be it BR blue or sectorisation. It's great that we no longer have to rely on the same handful of BSO, TSO and FO coach types in the same couple of liveries as representations of the wider range of stock found in real life, but with an ever-growing range of types and an ever-increasing sub-set of livery and detail options to reflect the constantly changing scene, do we reach a point where we have to start winding back our expectations of "one of everything - and if not then another manufacturer might/should jump in and do them instead" ?

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/185679497575 Is it me or do some of the vinyl overlays on offer look a lot like the Hornby product images? Some of his offerings look like quite nice attempts to offer something a bit different for those wanting re-liveries and different coaches with a fairly basic level of detail, Younger or budget-starved modellers could probably do a lot with some of the sides designed for nice flat coaches like Mk1s using cheap second-hand older models, but some of the others (Cappagh 60, FGW Mk3s,...) look an awful lot like copy and paste jobs from catalogue images.

Interesting concept, even more interesting headlight... More Colas Rail Fright I'd say, though... https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/275615312097

Possibly not, I suppose it can't all be cheap. The blue hopper is pretty much the same as the one in the wagon releases, without the Cappagh branding, which no doubt makes it even more economical to produce and an 'easy' option on the production line. I agree something like TEA, OAA, SAA, VDA, CAR might be nice and also a better basis for building on. But I'm not the target market!