frobisher

It might almost be easier to engineer a swap of the Mainline power bogie for the Hornby one as I think where the body parts company on the Mainline model is different than the Hornby/Lima model. A quick perusal of ebay seems to indicate that you don't save that much money by purchasing just a Mainline body over buying a body and underframe either Bachmann or Mainline (about £30 all in), so if you were attempting this that may be the better path.

The geometry wouldn't work then of course. Peco's R1 is the equivalent of R2 in 00 though so relatively speaking not that bad, and equivalent to Minitrix's R2 - their tightest pointwork is their R1!

I can understand how they are doing them (the difference between the two is pretty much the "underframe" equipment), but as you say, why? One or other would have been sufficient in the first wave and do the other later on. But doing them together uses up production slots that could have given greater variety on other coaches such as the MK1... But until the 47 appears, there's nothing in the range that prototypically hauled these.

I suspect that they have a quite substantial membership initially because it was "free", and are taking the pragmatic approach that they can retain and grow that membership if it remains "free to user" without allocating additional funds to support that free membership with physical things. Me, even though I've not actually purchased any of the range yet, would be severely tempted to take out a paid membership for the magazine and wotnot (club wagons would be nice...) but that's not to be (my loss). The Hornby collector's club sent out wagons and locos for your membership, so this isn't an unknown to Hornby. Maybe a paid premium club membership might come down the line. Whilst I'm not presently a member of either the Bachmann or Hornby Collectors Clubs, my impression was always that Hornby's "freebies" were more generous, but the Bachmann magazine was better for content. The TT magazines have somewhat redressed that in my mind.

In what way? It's pretty much the whole point of TT:120 is that it is same scale, same standards as the dominant European TT scale. The 120 suffix is there to distinguish it from the former TT:3 range which went its own distinctly Triang way whilst using the same gauge of track.

Codwar :)

I've probably already mentioned it up the thread, but the Bachmann NEM EZ-Mate couplings don't have the swivelly head (only in one length though :( ) and are compatible with Kadees which work a little better with some CCUs.

I somewhat think the whole point of the action was to get WCR to comply with the EXISTING restrictions...

A "reasonable man" may not have "common sense" but just think they do. [EDIT] A few seconds more thought... A "reasonable man" will follow most instructions provided, if they had "common sense" they'd have made many of those calls without needing the supplied instructions.

Because people are litigious, in particular those who haven't been told to not do a thing.

Obviously the Class 90 doesn't count...

Er, from the mid 80's onward you'd see a refurbished 4BEP in pretty much every fast train to Portsmouth being the only catering units left in service on the south western division.

The cabs in the driving trailers have their controls laid out the same as the 68s from what I understand, so were a defacto pairing, and the control jumpers are specific to the pairing too. It's not to say you couldn't adapt other locos to it of course.

I'm assuming it's something to do with the swing-head buckeye coupling..?

Well that's an easy fix, you "just" need a translation box for the multiple working to a different protocol or you fit the replacement locos with the correct multiple working equipment.

Pretty much either works. And the latter is what we've always done, as there's always never enough different numbers in the rolling stock available.

Not forgetting the godawful underframe...

Doubtful. We know (ex-employee testimony at AS...) that Hornby actively looked at repurposing the Oxford MK3s when they developed the sliding door HST carriages, and there were "issues" (beyond the shape and scale issues) so those ended up completely new tooling. As it stands, Hornby have a much better aligned for Railroading product in their 90's MK3 which will be a lot cheaper to produce.

The glazing is separate from the body moulding and the windows are the same size be they hopper or not, so that part isn't a significant change; The prototype hopper windows did in fact drop into the same space the old vent windows came out of, which leaves the possibility for the prototype, 7152/1500 to be modelled relatively easily.

That's nothing new. The 4CEP has been like that right from the start, BUT it also considerably improves DC operation.

Keep your fingers crossed for Heljan I'd say speculatively...

Because this allows them to get a minimum viable product to market more quickly AND cover that niche. As it stands, two new body toolings rather than 3/4... I'm almost wondering that this might let them tap another niche version sooner rather than later - 7152/1500... As I understand it they would "just" need to produce original style windows for the new tooling, reuse the body and windows from the TSK with a new interior (and roof?) that they'd need anyway. And 1500 was later reduced to 3 cars anyway :)

Maybe an 86, but ISTR they were vacuum braked until withdrawal and were only converted afterwards. But MK2 Pullmans would be awesome!

Though you should note the windows to prevent leaning out/over...

Indeed "We haven't killed anyone yet" is not a great H&S policy statement.