DaveClass47

I have to agree regarding the sales potential for new DMU’s to be produced. Even adding a third coach to the Bachmann Class 101 would be a good move. If Bachmann do retool to ‘peak’ then it’s true to form with regard to their other retools in connection with the ‘Regional Sales Exclusives’ they churn out. They did these exclusives for the 20,37 and 47 and each of them were then retooled! They had a load of regional exclusives of the Peak’s a couple of years ago. A sure fire indication a new one is in the works!

Hi, Firstly thanks to the guys who watched my Bachmann Class 37 review and have mentioned it in this thread. If I may constructively and respectfully add my tuppence worth to this thread based on yesterday’s announcements. While I am very pleased that the 37 is here, I question why three of the four are Scottish based 37’s. Do Bachmann think us Scot’s have more money to throw at models 😆 This over Scottish bias leaves me with a choice. I know mates who live in other parts of the UK are scratching their heads as to why Bachmann have ignored larger parts of the Uk when selecting these locos for release. Personally, I am ruling out 043 (although a direct shoot off between Bach and AS might make a good video 😆), as many of you have said it’s a blatant duplication of a competitors model and wholly unnecessary when you have a class of loco where there are over 300 examples to choose from. I have the Accurascale one fully paid up and I’m not cancelling that for a significantly more expensive Bachmann one, with the awful snow plough fitting. Being a Scottish modeller, these ploughs are a must on most of my 37! Accurascale are doing a chassis and nem mounted plough option on their 37. Choice for the modeller. I really like Bachmann stuff. Big respect to them on their quality models. Their 20,24,47,158, mk2F and now 37…fantastic new models that will take us into the next 15-20+ years of the hobby. When Bachmann are on their game…not many can beat them. However this direct and deliberate duplication is not good for customers. I’ll shut up now 😆 Dave

Not crazy…. Just looney! Touch and cheek!! I think the chap who was getting rather irate when commenting to me about a missing slat needs to take a step back. Some people can take it too far. It’s an accurate model, but nothing is perfect. The Bachmann 47 looks to have trumped the forthcoming Heljan one is several areas. I can only hope that the Heljan OO gauge tooling has been changed from the samples as something about the proportions just don’t look right. The O gauge one seems to be a missed opportunity! We shall wait and see on all fronts.

I hope they give us the ‘new’ one :-) also, the Pullman is delayed….maybe they are updating that release too.

Here’s my take on it… for what it’s worth. The Hornby power cars are an excellent model. Yes, there are flaws in it, but what model doesn’t have minor flaws?! the mound line on the cab irritates some, as do those opening cab doors. And limiting 8 pin interface and constantly lit cab light. Plus, Someone I spoke to was spitting blood that the current one has the wrong number of horizontal slats on its side grille… I mean really?! … ding ding… all aboard the looney bus! I’ve a ‘few’ of Hornby HST. And I love them. Fantastic lookers and runners. I also have a ‘few more’ MK3… not fantastic. That TGS should be consigned to the bin! And how many times can Hornby balls up a buffet car?! So on hearing that Hornby were updating (doesn’t look by any stretch like a retool), I contacted the powers at Hornby and asked them not to forget the MK3 retool! As that’s the weak link in the HST set. Which might be a reason the rival brand is moving in! They see an opportunity! So, who’s doing it? Who knows. I know who isn’t. So let’s think; Bachmann: it would be brilliant. BUT newly tooled mk3, with lights… hitting £95-100 per coach (based on their MK2F). Power cars at £350-400. A total of £1100-1200 for a train. Unaffordable. The Hornby train at £500+ is bad enough. Heljan; unlikely! They don’t do coaches really! And would they really top Hornby’s one? Would they get the shape right? (Based on the apparently incorrectly shaped 25 and O gauge 47). Accurascale: wouldn’t it be good? but maybe they’re busy just now. Hi spec and affordable. Cavalex; who knows! But after the 91 thing maybe not. Dapol; would they? Their n gauge one is erm…. Well. Rapido; how long would that take to arrive?! anything but Rapid-o I’d suggest. My guess is that Hornby update theirs, use the mk3SD tooling as a basis for the new mk3 slam doors, tooling new bodies to suit. Adding a couple of £ to the retail price. A rival comes along, if it’s Bachmann it will be an elite product for those with £££, while the rest happily keep buying Hornby’s detailed power cars. WHOEVER does it and what ever Hornby release… PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE… no more awful greeny falcon grey, wonky cantrail stripes and wonky INTERCITY legends. We want lighter BR blue and flawless paint finishes through out. Fed up getting second rate D&E stuff from The red box brigade. New Mk3’s! Now. I’ll shut up now. ;-)

That numbering is off the level on examples. And the inter-city 125 was also Wonky on the examples I saw up close. The flawed line just says it all….no care and attention, no checking at the factory or distribution. A real shame as these coaches would have looked stunning next to the power cars…when ever they should arrive.

Sigh! and another longer Sigh. (and another sigh plopped in for good measure). This is just unfortunately typical Hornby of late. Giving us product that just isnt up to their usual standard. The Farewell MK3's (which thankfully I cancelled my pre order of a few months ago - phew!!) are riddled with errors and flaws and basic poor manufacturing quality. The glaring paint error that runs the length of these coaches is an obvious flaw. Don’t the factory have any care/pride in producing this stuff? Does anyone check it? Does anyone check it when it arrives in the UK?, or are they now too nervous to do that as there will probably be issues? They the wonky lettering on the TGS, the running number is off the level. The green door unlock...not sure if that was ever green, happy to be proved wrong. What the factories are churning out just isn’t good enough. The Hornby MK3 coach is a decent model and I like it. It captures the look and feel of the simple looking MK3 well and whilst its not got the added detail of the Oxford Model it does the job. It’s a robust, well tooled and has a decent coupler, not any of these useless body mounted pivots like the mk3SD and Oxford mk3. But manufacturing errors at the factory like the ones above are unforgiveable. I have read comments saying 'it isnt that noticeable' etc. Id reply; would you accept other products with flaws on it? Why do people think its ok to accept second rate stuff just because its 'only a model'? This isn’t a direct salvo at Hornby. But more the factories they are using. We’ve had a line of unacceptable stuff in red boxes this year! Bachmann, Accurascale, Cavalex all manage to produce stuff without glaring errors in their factories. So Why should Hornby production be any different? finally, I’m sure the top brass at Hornby will be frustrated by this latest livery cock up. If they aren’t, they should be.

It’s not the cost... both will be fairly well matched in terms of price. It’s the extra detail I go for. We have about a year to wait for these models to appear. Plenty of time to save up the extra few £’s (if required) for Champagne :-)

Some interesting points there and indeed in this whole thread. Different opinions and respectful debate are good for the hobby. I am also the author of the ‘who wants a new class 91’ thread on rmweb. So I’ve a passion for this project. I’ve banged the drum for years for someone to do a new 91/mk4 product. Back in 2016 Hornby said in a magazine interview that the class91 lost out to the class 87. They had ‘considered’ the 91, but decided that the 87 was a more viable option for them to develop. ‘Considered’ the 91.... that’s very different to starting developing a class 91. I spoke to a Hornby guy on their stand in 2017 at Model Rail Scotland were he said “the 91’s future is uncertain and with a limited fleet to model so we decided to go for the 87 instead”. I remember his words. He also highlighted the limited geographical route the 91’s were limited to as a reason for not doing the 91. He then said the 91 was the “unloved cousin of the AC family”. Hardly words of a company who had ambitions to do a new one? If they had done the R&D work at that time I would like to have thought that 4 years later they would have got further than a simple cad render and more recently a resin 3D printed shell. Again, if they had started their 91 so long ago, why have they not got the mk4 rolling stock to go with the 91? Im not disputing these apparent ‘facts’ that they did do some R&D on the 91 as far back as 2016. However I wonder if suddenly accelerating their design work, with visits to Bounds Green In the late summer was just sheer COINCIDENCE after Cavalex beat them to the announcement of a their laser scanning visit to Bounds Green??! One of the Hornby R&D/design team dropped an image on Twitter of him next to a LNER vehicle. Now I am not Hornby bashing. Hornby produce great models, their HST, 50, 57 and especially the 60 are among the best models EVER produced in OO gauge. I have a very good association with Hornby products, I have loads of them and I personally enjoy a good relationship with some at Hornby. If they want to do the 91, they are free to do so. Good luck to Hornby in their 100th year. I will never desert the Hornby brand in my modelling. Im sure Simon did not sit awake at night wondering if they could trample on Cavalex, but since ‘Terrier Gate’ we know how Hornby don’t like to have one of ‘their models’ taken by someone else. (They let Bachmann take the 90 though!) However, the team at Cavalex are onto something special, I truly believe that. Both 91’s will happen. I am putting my £ behind Cavalex. I want the champagne version, not the Presecco one!

I eventually went in to the ECoS and turned off the "M4 Protocol" which allowed me to address the decoders manually, as the ECoS wanted to autmatically pick up the decoders as two separate trains! With the directional thing I changed a CV in one car to switch the direction.

Hi, thanks for that. What is the development car? lol. I will get the catalogue and all will hopefully be explained.

Hi, Firstly, what an exciting line up for 2020 (and more than likely into 2021). I was very excited to see a Buffer fitted HST in my beloved Swallow livery. I am also extremely pleased to see a full rake of individually numbered/lettered MK3 in Swallow to match the powers. I spoke to Simon about the need for full rakes and he agreed with me that modellers want to have realistic rakes, so thank you Simon for listening. ;-) GREAT to see the MK3 DVT in Swallow return as well. That should knock the wind out of the second hand market which saw these changing hands for in excess of £100. I almost needed a lie down when I officially saw the APT-P announced, but in fact I already knew this was on the way. I may have my sources! lol. Like one of the earlier posts I am also very confused as the the addition coach packs for the APT-P, so would welcome some information on the make up of the train. I know that it ran in 14 car rakes, but that is it! I also want to know if they have the black window surrounds on the cab. It has to be this version to get my money! Finally, and with mixed feelings I see the 91 on the list. Those of you who follow me at Dean Park Station on youtube and through my well known "who wants a new Class 91" thread on rmweb know that this loco/train is close to my heart. I waited and pleaded for someone (Hornby) to make one to modern standards. Every year at shows I would pester someone to make it. Therefore when Cavalex contacted me and said they were doing the full 225 I was beyond excited. In my view, Cavalex have a awesome model in the making. It is truly a work of art that must now be realised, despite this latest Hornby announcement. If I am being honest I find the move by Hornby a bit 'terrier-ish', where the good people at Hornby have been reactive rather than pro active in getting this new 91 announcement out there. However I am bright enough to understand that its 'just business'! I feel that if Cavalex had not come along I would still be waiting for Hornby to give me the new 91. I am also a bit confused as to why they have not at least announced their intent to do the MK4 stock to run with it. I am sure this will come, as it would make NO SENSE at all to just do the loco. In this respect Cavalex have my respect for coming out and saying they would do the whole 225 train from the off. The 91 is like a bus....I have waited years for one to come along and now two have come almost at once! Hornby, I am sure your one will be great, but I have not plans what so ever to cancel my Pre orders with Cavalex. I backed the Cavalex project from DAY ONE. The model community have been kept fully in touch with the progress of the project and therefore my pre order for the Cavalex one will stand and more than likely increase in size! I just hope there is room for the Cavalex 91 (extremely high detail) and the Hornby 91, more of a mainstream Class 87 type of detail. If Hornby and Bachmann can both produce MK2f to two different specs then I am hopeful the same can be managed with the 225! I think new innovations and manufacturers are good for the hobby. Good for Hornby and Bachmann as well....as they are forced to improve their current offerings. Competition (when it is Fair) is healthy. So in summary, (if you are still reading this lol) I have to congratulate Hornby on a brilliant centenary catalogue. You have got me panicking on how I am going to pay for all of the great new announcements. However I also want to encourage and support Cavalex to maintain their progress on the 91/mk4/dvt project, which is set to be as impressive as the APT-P that Hornby are working on!

Right folks - HELP! please! lol I got a 156 from Charlie. Sound fitted. Firstly, what decoder is in them? I tested it on my mates track, it worked a treat. He uses the ECoS command station. I take it home to mine, I put it on the track and my identical ECoS command station to my mates behaved diferently! It started to display a small green bar with 'M4' written in it. It was like a battery icon, showing the charge. After two to three minutes the icon filled with green and TWO separate addresses for the loco appeared on the ECoS display screen. When I turned the dial to power the loco up one car worked, the other did nothing. I sent it back to charlie, who returned it this week saying there was nothing wrong. He set the address to 156 for me as requested. I then deleted the Addresses from the ECoS screen and restarted the ECoS. Upon restart there was no sign of the 'M4' icon. When I tried to work the loco using address 156 it did nothing. I then put the cars on the program track and it said it was CV1 = 3. I tried to operate it on address 3. There was no response from the loco. I am just back from my local hobby shop who kindly tested it on his dcc trst track. Both cars responded to address 3, both cars sounded good, etc. There is a slight issue as both cars display white lights (so pull against each other!), but at least they are working! So I sent it back to Charlie and he was right.....they both work, but they are not working on my ECoS! So to summarise....how can i alter the direction of the cars so that one displays red tail lights while the other has white head lights? And what do i do with this M4 protocol on my ECoS? What is going on? Cheers Dave

Perfect! Thanks Clive.

Hi Clive, sorry to ask another question, but that diagram had struts at the end shown in blue coming down to support the horizontal wire. What does that look like from the end elevation? Struggling to find an example of it. Do the struts come from each side of the portal lattice and meet in a type of inverted triangle design, where they connect to and support the wire? any photos of these guys greatly appreciated:-) Thanks Dave