Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,207 Excellent

About Coryton

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

207 profile views
  1. Yes - I was afraid it was a licencing fee too... I have placed a pre-order at a shop that originally had the large logo one at the higher price - but when I queried it, the price came down. There still seem to be a few that have them at the higher price - I'm sure it's an error. I have just contacted two to point it out - a bit unreasonable for them to be losing out on orders because of a mistake by Hornby.
  2. OK I meant if it reverses unexpectedly. If a reversal is planned then it should not prevent reservations from being put in the right part of the train. No of course it's not as simple as labelling the front coach as A. Each coach in a 2x5 set can only have one of two letters. But there is something very, very, wrong if it's not possible to arrange for coach A to always be in the leading set heading away from London, and the rear set towards London, and put reservations into the appropriate set, thus making sure everyone can reach their reserved seat even if they might have to walk between carriages. What is needed is extremely simple. Where two units are run together, no matter which way round either unit is, the unit at the country end has coaches A-E. It might result in A being at the end or E being at the end, but it puts both of them in the same unit. In principle this should not be hard for software to achieve. If it's not, I would argue that something has gone very wrong, whether it was in specifying the software or implementing it. These things happen. But I hope that somebody is working on sorting it out. If GWR are giving an official response that customers should speak to Hitachi I would say that is utterly unacceptable - as you say the passenger has no contract with Hitachi. However, I can very much understand an exasperated staff member having to cope with irate passengers pointing out that Hitach is to blame.
  3. Given the lack of agreement on what it means (does it mean what's modern now, or what was modern when the term was first used and is now anything but?) I find it's better just not to use the phrase.
  4. That must be incredibly annoying. Unless I'm missing something, it should be fairly easy (for the operator - not the customer) to avoid. All that's necessary is to make sure that the unit at the country end is always the one with coach A. Since the coach letters are entirely electronic, this should be possible no matter which way either unit is facing (unless it reverses en-route, which is rare, or two units come together to form a train and arrive in the wrong order). However, for some reason, often the two units are lettered the wrong way round. Of course it's also necessary to make the reservations for the correct unit...and it seems that even that isn't happening which is even harder to explain.
  5. Perhaps...though people (myself included) have rather got used to the idea of there being a 'right way round'. And at the moment the descriptions still aren't good enough - "first class in coaches 1,2,9 and 10" doesn't obviously tell you where you reserved seat is. It would probably be more useful to give the coach letters in order, and have signs saying which coach letters are first class, or add it to the description. The last I looked they still had posters up saying which way round the trains should be - they could change those to make it clear that orientation is random or at the very least not to say there is a right way round.
  6. I suspect that people prepared to re-paint Hornby locomotives are such a small fraction of their market as to not be the ones to learn from.
  7. I'd agree...but I think there are people on here who wouldn't. I wonder if some of them also dismiss Railroad as cheap tat and yet - putting aside the issue of whether Hornby dropping a range that makes money is a good thing for any of their customers - I may not be the only person here who would consider repainting or modifying a cheap, robust model but wouldn't contemplate taking a paintbrush or razor saw to a delicate model that cost £150 and looks near-perfect as it is. And if it wasn't for the people who buy models and put them in a cabinet, never mind the ones who put them on the track and run them as they came out of the box, we'd be unlikely to have the models available for those who are so inclined to weather, respray or otherwise modify. And on China.... On a business trip a few years ago I was taken to see a big flood relief/irrigation scheme - very clever engineering involving among other things an artificial whirlpool to keep sediment out of the irrigation water, and cutting a new channel for the water through rock. It was built in the 3rd century. BC. Still in use now.
  8. Agrees with what I've seen. Correctly formed trains, facing in the right direction, seem to be in the minority at the moment. I'm sure it will all get sorted out in time but I'm not sure it helps the public image of the new trains....you don't get a second chance to make a first impression and all that... Or maybe I'm overestimating how much most people care about such niceties and how much it would help them even if trains were always the right way round.
  9. Insomuch as one can lump an entire country together, I think it depends on the type of engineering. In the area I currently work in, the Chinese are definitely behind - copying European/US ideas and making some of the same mistakes - and having to import components they can't make. What they do have is money....lots of it...so can afford to set up very impressive facilities. However I'm under no illusion that just because they are behind now means they will stay that way for very long.
  10. From what I recall, the different track voltage wasn't the only reason not to mix live steam and conventional electric powered stock. Aside from the lack of controllability, I think they tended to drip water (or oil?) on the track, and even having a track which could be switched from a live steam to conventional controller wasn't really practical.
  11. My recollection (could be false) is that it was developed by a third party who then managed to sell the idea to Hornby.
  12. Though to be fair the "cramped interiors" have some of the most generous leg-room in airline seats you'll find in the UK in standard class. (I.e. no need to find a table seat to use a regular sized laptop). The legroom in the table seats is, however, appalling. And they are being replaced with IETs which do have a fair number of tables and generous leg-room throughout (even more in airline seats than the Mk 3's, I think). Of course if passenger numbers continue to rise, we might see a change in seat layout in the IETs in due course.
  13. TO answer your rhetorical question, no, I wouldn't have thought so, but how many aircraft kits can run along rails?
  14. I could speculate on why you might do that but that's all it would be. On the other hand, from earlier in this thread: (Apologies for the cut-and-paste - I don't know how to use the quote function across pages): "Chief Operations Officer Tim Mulhall has sent over a few explanatory notes: Quote ... Plus, what makes people think tooling moved to China stayed there. I’m sat not 50 yards from tooling which was used in the last 12 months. That has almost certainly been happening throughout the period since 2000 when production moved to China. ..."
  15. Well indeed...but I think the seats were crammed in like that because of the need to act as commuter trains between London and Reading/Didcot. Maybe not.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.