Rhydgaled

Err; Britain has quite a few 125mph capable locos actually (although none which are available for starting a new long-term operation) and only one of them (89001) is Co-Co. The 91s and 43s are of course Bo-Bo machines.

Not sure if this is a recent update or has been there for a while but Hornby now seem to have photos of actual models (rather than just side-on Photoshop graphics) on their website for both the EWS 'business train' train pack (with 67) and coach pack. Can those who are familiar with these things please let me know whether the coaches are the ones with fictional solebars (mark 2e?) or the more-accurate models (mark 2d/2f?)?

Chunky they may be but only the coach with the motor has short axles. The two unpowered coaches have longer axles with a point at the end which pokes into the bogie frame almost like on a normal Hornby coach. I say almost because on the Railroad Plus 110 the bogie frame actually has a slot in it so there is less/no need to push the bogie frames out sideways to remove the axle (can't remember the exact arrangement). I think all the wheels are metal though on all three coaches (the one I have is the green 3-car set) and they tend to derail in the same place on my temporary layout that the old Hornby Collett bow-enders (the ones that are now in the Railroad range though mine are all pre-Railroad) did when fitted with new Hornby metal wheels (but the older plastic wheels on those coaches seem fine so I suspect it is the track at fault). The motor on mine made an odd noise occasionally when running it on the track, but only in one direction. I later tried to get the body off to see if the motor needed some lubricant but couldn't get it off and couldn't reproduce the noise on my workbench so have given up for now. Isn't there something about printing details as well? Eg. no data panels, electrification warning flashes etc. on a Railroad model (and the Railroad version of Flying Scotsman in LNER green which looked very wrong to me with the lettering done in one colour without the signature drop shadows etc.). My Railroad Plus 110 has electrification warning flashes, C1 painted on the inner end of vehicles, no smoking and first stickers on the glazing etc. Don't Railroad coaches normally also have plastic wheels? Pretty sure my 110 has metal ones throughout. Only the motor car has pickups of course, since the trailers are only coupled with a tension lock. But yes, all eight wheels on the motor car seem to have pickups even though two of those wheels have traction tyres.

I've just dug up the original announcement of the order book opening for the 4mm models (https://revolutiontrains.com/class-175-and-180-in-oo-4mm-available-to-pre-order-now/) to confirm my recollection and I think I was right. Ie. they didn't have an EOI For 2mm but sales of the FNW livery weren't as good as expected so they thought they would check interest in OO with an EOI before committing to production.

If I recall correctly the class 166 and 165 units also have slightly wider bodies than most other 23m vehicles. Something to do with the Thames valley routes BR built them for having a slightly more generous loading gauge (ex-broad gauge perhaps?)

Hornby have done a ROG Railroad plus 47 in a similar livery also (R30046, loco number 47 812) as well as the Wales & West / Wessex Devon & Cornwall class 153 (with a colour photo on the side) the Model Rail exclusive Battle Of Britain 91 110 (sadly this was the old tooling and they have apparently botched the livery on the new tool versions of 91 110 and 91 111). The only one of those models I've seen in the flesh is the 153 (I own one and think the livery application is great) - I was considering 47 812 but decided to get a Dapol DRS class 68 body instead which has a similarly complex livery.

Are these DEFINITELY the diagrams represented by the relevant models; because I think I have seen the Bachmann one referred to with two diagram numbers separated by a slash (eg. A38/A43 although I cannot remember the exact numbers given) before now and the Hornby/Airfix one I think I've seen variously described as an A30, A27 and A28? With the Hornby one, is it the case that the model is of one of those types but the low-fi nature of the model (lack of flush glazing) makes it look similar to a different diagram? If I understand correctly, none of the above releases feature the late 1940s GREAT <> WESTERN chocolate & cream livery. Is this something that is likely to appear in future runs or did the diagram N trailers never carry this livery? Ah yes, I stand corrected. It's hard to see with the wheels being somewhat blackened, but I see it now - the tyre does indeed seem to be there. Has it actually been retooled twice this century? I described this model as Hornby's latest 14xx, but have no idea whether this is a modified tooling compared to their last run or whether it is simply another production run - possibly in a livery they haven't done so far since the tooling was last tweaked. I think the description says the couplings are in "non-NEM pockets" - since things like the Limby HST have had NEM pockets added when Hornby have tweaked the tooling recently it sounds like the 14xx hasn't even had a minor tooling update for a while. I'm not bothered by things like moulded handrails - I prefer not paying more for something more fragile that I'm more likely to break - so am quite partial to the better Railroad models (like the Limby HST) but I do want reliable running. Traction tyres on an 0-4-2 sounds like a recipe for poor running, so I'm out as far as the Hornby 14xx is concerned. Shame as the closest thing I have to a loco which was auto-fitted in reality is probably my Bachmann 45xx (number 4557, so not part of the 4575 subclass that contained a few auto-fitted examples, but was there any difference beyond the larger water tanks?)

Hornby now have photos of their latest 14xx on the website https://uk.Hornby.com/products/railroad-plus-gwr-14xx-0-4-2-1401-era-3-r30319 - I'm not sure but as far as I can tell there are no traction tyres so that's another thing Hornby may have changed. Can anyone confirm this (I guess it's too early to also ask whether it's now a decent runner although the shade of green looks a little on the desaturated/olive side)?

As an analogue user (OO gauge) I agree - the cost of chips is one of the reasons I haven't switched to DCC so I'd rather not be paying for components I can't make full use of, like lights and speakers, to be pre-fitted in my models. The Hornby 153 and Bachmann (old tool) 158s aren't too bad with just directional head and tail lights but the EFE class 143 with interior and destination blind lighting up just looked wrong to me and was a factor in my decision to return mine (along with the fragile coupling between the two vehicles - there was no way that was going to give me years of good service to justify the expense of the model - had it been half the price I may have kept it.) The Pacer did have some little switches accessible on the underside without taking it apart, which I'd say is the way to go if lights have to be fitted on DCC-ready models, but unlike the EFE Pacer the switch needs to turn off ALL the lights (if I recall correctly some of them continued to light up when the power was on even with the switch in the off position). If I'd kept it I'd probably have had to take it apart and physically disconnect the lights I really didn't want (interior and destination blind). Really annoying as I've wanted a Valley lines 143 for ages - now waiting and hoping spares will appear at reasonable prices to allow me to assemble one without lights at a lower price, possibly with the Realtrack chassis if the coupling on that is more robust.

It does load for me, eventually, but there is a message about only despatching orders on Fridays due to stock-take which seems to have been there for ages now.

Why exactly did the old Dapol wheels lead to poor running - in what way was the profile of them wrong? Well, let’s hope the new machine improves the situation, then, Mike; give them a chance! Nobody’s saying that the new lathe will be turning out wheels of the previous dire quality. Well, looking at the pictures,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Mike. As should be clear from the question above, I don't know what I'm looking for with regard to 'poor profile' but to my untrained eye the big pile of unasembled silvery parts do look a bit odd (eg. possibily some very deep flanges in the left-hand pic showing 3-hole wheels). However the final shots of the assembled, blackened, wheelsets don't look obviously wrong to me. If they are wrong, what is wrong about them? Assuming there was a problem with the profile before but the new lathe has resolved them, the next question is how do we tell, if purchasing packs of spare wheels, which are the good ones?

Do you have some sort of jig for ensuring correct height/alignment of PA34s? I have a pack I bought for my kit-built wagons but have yet to fit them as I'm worried I'd glue them in the wrong place. This is quite noticeable on the Model Rail / Rapido 16xx - I once downloaded Autodesk Fusion 360 and started trying to design a version of the tension lock which would fit directly into the NEM 363 / PA34 interface and avoid the NEM 362 pocket but it's yet another of those projects I've never managed to finish. Not sure how I'd get the couplings made either or what material would be best.

For many years I think I might well have missed that the chassis was totally wrong - probably because I'm not very familar with the real thing. I was however aware of it (probably from reading rmweb) before starting this thread - I forgot to mention the wrongness of the chassis because it was just the body of mine (a hand-me-down model which presumably once belonged my father or an uncle) that I was examining. Well, I learned something new there! The hole on the side is filled-in on the non-clockwork models though, so the tooling must have been modified slightly to acheive that? I hadn't noticed the 'skirt', thanks for pointing that out. I've now found a picture which shows a skirt-fitted 08 next to a normal one - the inside frames seem much less obvious with the skirts as well. I wonder if Tri-ang did that deliberately. Not exactly, the opening post was a question about whether any prototype 08, looked like the Tri-ang model, especially regarding the grill/radiator. Which to me, asks if the Tri-ang model was a model of a particular variant of the 08. Plenty of info so far on this thread that says, NO! It was made to suit their existing parts bin. You're both right to an extent. I think I must have started taking much more of an interest in shunters when Model Rail announced their class 11/12 project - I'm not even sure if I realised (or cared) that there was more than just the class 08s and 09s before that. Ignoring the shared 0-6-0 chassis, which we all argee is wrong, I was (as kevinlms correctly guessed) wondering whether the Tri-ang model was actually based on one of the more-obscure (ie. not the class 08) types. Even if the body couldn't be pinned down to model of a specific type, I also wondered whether it could be a generic mash-up created using elements (such as the different grill/radiator, the 'clockwork box' and the somewhat Bescot-like 'skirt') which all existed in reality but not all together on the same loco. A significantly-younger and more-naive me once bought a Hornby 61xx thinking the GWR only had two designs of Prairie tank ('small' (with straight-sided tanks) and 'large' (with angled tanks)) - I know better now but probably still have alot to learn). I thought perhaps a Tri-ang model designer could have made a similar mistake and incorporated elements of one loco into a model of something that was supposed to be something else.

'Gronks' span five TOPS classes (class 08 to class 12) and quite possibily several types that never made it into TOPS (such as the GWR loco renumbered by BR to 15100). A look at older topics suggests there are differences even between class 08s, most of which I don't seem to be able to spot. I have however managed to spot two ways that the Tri-ang model (https://www.hattons.co.uk/12868/tri_ang_r152_class_08_shunter_d3035_in_br_blue_green/stockdetail) differs from photos of a real class 08: the grill on the 'nose' of the model (which I believe would be a radiator on the real loco) is made up of a series of horizontal ridges, but all the photos I've found when I've been looking into this have mostly vertical 'ridges' the left hand side has an extra box on the side, covering one of four panels (I assume this to be for air brake system components, which only some locos had - however on photos I can only find examples where either this extra box is absent or it is larger, covering two of the four panels and leaving no gaps between the boxes on that side) So, my question is, are/were there any real locos within the wider 'gronk' family that had these features (and any other strange features of the Tri-ang model I've missed)?

Another vote for unbranded triple grey here - I've not yet decided whether I want one 60 with a modern motor or two preowned Lima ones (one of which would be in EWS livery, the other in triple grey). I thought a good compromise might be to get an unbranded triple grey one and get an EWS patch logo transfer to put on one side. That said, have there been any unbranded ones without nameplates (to make identity changes easier)? After a little web searching I found three photos of unbranded ones, but all three are named: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:60028_at_Althorpe.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:60068_"Charles_Darwin"_at_Peak_Forest_-_5467650909.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Empty_tanks_from_Longport_head_to_Fawley_at_St_denys_(48565021137).jpg Also, it maybe better as one for the a batch for general sale rather than an exclusive.

'Having a go' with transfers isn't the issue, at least for me. Repairing the damage if it goes wrong is - remembering that most RTR models are quite expensive and not exactly throw-away items if one messes it up. For models with painted numbers (unlike most (G)WR locomotives), the original number needs to be removed which runs the risk of damaging the base paintwork and, should that happen, there is then a (possibly very difficult) job of trying to colour-match extactly to patch the damage. As a result, I've never tried renumbering anything other than my 16xx. My 16xx was done using Railtec 3D transfers but this was relatively simple since I have an unweathered example and the transfers all just cover over the old printed numbers with no need to remove them. Even now I'm afraid that I could be in for trouble in future, since the instructions recommend a spray of acrylic varnish to seal the transfer after application but I won't dare do that for fear of ruining the finish of the model. There were some comments on the motor back in Jan/Feb 2021 - some claiming coreless and some claiming otherwise. I found them again today by searching this topic for the word 'coreless'. I must have been convinced that it was a conventional cored motor at the time because I bought one (only to find that my old Hornby train set controller was putting out over 21v - well above the recommended maximum in Rapido's booklet included with the 16xx model - so it hasn't been run much since).

I had the same problem with my ValleyLines one and showed it to my engineering-minded brother. He said that coupling was too fragile for regular use and that, even if I had got one which was straight and would couple as-per the instructions at first, it would soon break if I was taking the model on and off the layout. My mother agreed that this was a rather poor-quality item given the price and, combined with the fact that I couldn't turn some of the lights off (I use analogue control and either wanted no lights at all or ONLY the red/white head/tail lights as seen on my Hornby 153s and old-tool Bachmann 158s), I decided to return it for a refund. A real shame as a ValleyLines 143 has been on my wishlist for ages. Since returning this one I've been waiting in the hope that sufficient spare bodies, wheels and chassis units would become available to allow be to build my my own analogue one with no lights and sensible couplings at a more-reasonable price - so far not so much as a spare lightbulb has appeared.

I just noticed a e-mail from Hattons showing an early engineering sample supposedly of Hornby's Greater Anglia class 755 bi-mode FLIRT units. However, it doesn't look like a class 755 to me, so I went to the Hornby website to see if they had more/clearer images and found similar images on this Engine Shed post. However, it still doesn't appear to be a class 755. Have Hornby accidently let slip that the have a TfW class 756 FLIRT in the works? There is a pantograph, so it isn't an example of TfW's other FLIRTs (class 231) which are diesel-only at present. However, the driving vehicle Hornby have shown has two sets of passenger doors (as TfW have on their FLIRTs), rather than the one set on the Greater Anglia (GA) units. That said, how many exhausts are there on a class 756? The diesel module car on the sample Hornby have shown has four exhausts as far as I can tell, but I think the class 756s only have one diesel engine, while the GA FLIRTs have 2 engines (3-car units) or 4 engines (4-car units) in there. I suspect the class 231s also have 4 diesel engines.

Regarding the doors, surely both styles of power doors are completely different to the original 'slam doors' since those wrapped round the end of the coach body while both styles of power door have a new solid pillar built at the corner of the bodyshell, where the hinges used to be? As for the Oxford Rail models isn't it the case that, while Hornby and Lima made reasonably accurate HST mark 3s (but not a slam-door mark 3a, unless the new Hornby tooling has added the appropriate roof vent style), Oxford messed up the shape of the underframe so failed to accurately model any mark 3? (I've never seen the Oxford Rail model 'in the flesh' but it looks wrong in some of the photos I've found online).

I was thinking couldn't they just do a run of the slam-door mark 3s in Chiltern livery, but then I Googled up a pic of a Chiltern class 67 and saw it was running with the plug-door coaches so presumably the coaches had all been modernised before the 68s arrived. I suppose there's always the 'Banbury set', both in blue & grey and the later white with silver ends. Even then, to be strictly accurate we would need accurate mark 3a coaches - does the newly retooled slam-door range now include the mark 3a roof vents? I was thinking, with Hornby having the mark 3a roof vents on some of the XC slide-door mark 3s and the slide-doors being recessed rather than a nice flush finish, perhaps somebody could produce a 3D printed (or maybe some sort of resin) Chiltern-style plug door insert which would be a simple push-fit into the slide-door recess on the Hornby model. The GFW (Galley First Wheelchair) aka 'buffet' or 'business zone coach' would still be missing suppose, and the Chiltern mark 3 coaches retain some of the toilet windows (they are all gone on the slide-door ones due to the door sliding into where the window used to be) which could be an issue.

Are these price reductions, for the purpose of clearing warehouse stock, going to be limited to the Hornby website or will they also be selling some of their stock off to retailers (as in model shops like Hattons, TMC, Derails etc.) cheaper than previously - in which case we may see (more) special offers from retailers too? Or is it only the Play Trains range that they have surplus warehouse stock in anyway?

Good point regarding already having a non-powered chassis for the 156, but for the 153 couldn't they just put two unpowered bogies on? I just had a quick look at one of my 153s and the only detail difference I noticed between the two bogies is that the unpowered one has a set of cab steps attached to it - not sure if that's a seperate peice that could be left off at the other end (if used in place of the powered bogie) or not. I've also never had mine apart so perhaps the two bogies mount onto the chassis differently.

I think running a 'Highland Explorer' class 153 by itself, unless as an ECS (Empty Coaching Stock) move, might be stretching even Rule 1 a little. If I'm not mistaken, ScotRail have retained the original (non-wheelchair accessible) toilet and, unlike Transport for Wales' class 153/9 units, have not locked the toilet out of use. ScotRail are therefore legally prohibited from using the class 153s in passenger service (unless coupled to a unit with a wheelchair-accessible toilet) as this would be discrimination against disabled persons (since they would be providing a toilet for able-bodied passengers but not for wheelchair users). Depending on exactly how you apply Rule 1, you might not want to run one of these 153s on its own. Running it with a Bachmann 158 however wouldn't be too big a stretch of the imagination, as I think using 158s on the West Highland and adding a 153 to the 158s on the Far North and/or Kyle Line have both been proposed previously (and one or both of these may yet happen). Whether somebody would want more than one model of these very much depends on their layout and how they choose to run it. Somebody with a train-set oval probably doesn't want more than one of any DMU. Years back, I'm not sure I even cared very much if more than one coach in a train on my layout had the same running number. I certainly remember considering buying a 3-car Bachmann Regional Railways class 158 and sometimes running it without the middle coach to represent a 2-car unit, even though the running number would not be correct for a 2-car unit, so that I would be able to sometimes run a 3-car set without the cost of buying two seperate models (I didn't end up buying a 3-car one - apparently the motor is under the middle coach). However, if you are after a strictly accurate model of somewhere on the Oban-Glasgow line, set sometime around now, and go and sit yourself down at the real location for a day writing down the numbers of each unit you see, you will probably see multiple 153s over the course of the day. You're highly unlikey to have more than one in view at the same time, unless you choose one of the passing loops, but depending on the exact location you're probably also highly unlikely to see the same one on the next service. It was the same for me trainspotting along the route between Swansea and Pembroke Dock on summer Saturdays before the class 800s came in - once a given 'celebrity' HST power car had headed off to Paddington it was unlikely to be seen again in somewhere like Tenby or Whitland for a very long time. Of course, buying a model of every item of rolling stock in the real-life fleet would be prohibitively expensive, so a compromise is needed. How far you go depends on how you choose to do your railway modelling. For example, in my case, I have decided that I will try to make my HSTs appear different by having 6 or more power cars but only one or two rakes of coaching stock (swapping the locos in the fiddle yard). Technically, a train pack with a non-powered ScotRail 'Highland Explorer' 153 with a powered Saltire 156 would be more-accurate I think as the 156s can be used on their own - as noted above I believe the Highland 153s are limited to ECS if not coupled to anything else. I have one of those, and wouldn't mind a Wales & West (not in the later Arriva-branded guise) Heart Of Wales orange one to go with it, but... ... it sounds like Rainbow Railways is likely to do a better job than Hornby.

Thanks for the reply. I didn't realise tampo print variations were cheaper than paint mask changes (not surprising as I know next to nothing about how models are manufactured*) - do I take it that changing the paint colours but not the shape of mask (to switch from the First Group version of Barbie livery to the Serco-Abellio version) is also relatively cheap? Or would the model just be sprayed the base blue colour and all the swirly stuff (pink & white for First Group and purple and white for Serco-Abellio (Northern)) be tampo-printed? * tampo-printing for example is a process have zero understanding/knowledge of, other than have heard of it on this forum.

It's so obvious when you put it that way, but I completely overlooked that the models would almost certainly have to be individually packed for shipping to the UK. It's not that I actually want a 180*, but I'm still intrigued by the request for expressions of interest for a class 180 in "First Barbie (North Western (not shown) and Great Western)". Is 'North Western' an error and they mean 'Northern' as pictured above? And why don't they "need to know which variation at this stage" given the impracticality of ordering the two different specs as a single product from China? * I am rather tempted by a 3-car 175 at the 'early bird' price, but technically they are out-of-era for my collection so I probably won't end up getting one so haven't submitted an expression of interest.