How Far Has Hornby and other RTR 00 Come Since 2000?

[Nearholmer]

“Proto 2000 revolutionised US modelling, .....”

 

Didn’t accura-somebody get there even before that? I was into US H0 in the early 1990s, and had a New England exhibition layout, when Athearn was “good but basic”, and Atlas the “gold standard” for operational quality, then a really finely made loco came along, a GP of some sort in B&M blue IIRC. The parts were a bit ‘translucent plastic’ at that stage, but they were incredibly fine, and it had all the twiddly bits like lift rings.

 

I actually preferred the slightly less fragile Atlas models of the time ...... the very detailed one was vulnerable to damage when packing and unpacking for exhibitions.

[adb968008]

The Hornby Merchant Navy has been overshadowed by the release of their modified WC and BB models; in particular the "short" cylinders and that smokebox door, both of which are still present on the latest releases.

Very nice photo editing, by the way.

You can swap cylinders about, and wheels between Rebuilt Bulleids.

I’ve a 35027 Port Line running with a 34088 wheelset. My 34088 itself is running with Rebuilt MN cylinders following an earlier incident, which led to the said spare wheelset. A number of crank pins have been recycled in that time from wheelsets, those screws are a bit nimble to breaking in the thread usually the speedometer crank pin when adding/removing the body, but the centre wheelset has two of them you can reuse.

 

Not everything can be swapped and sometimes a bit of work is required.

Edited November 27, 2018 by adb968008

[trevor7598]

The ' Design Clever ' era by Hornby has once again been mentioned in this thread.

Indeed it is a shame that two iconic loco's were produced using design clever, namely Duke of Gloucester,

and Cock o' the North. But one very acceptable model did emerge at the time, the SR. 2HAL.

Considering that Hornby had nothing to measure or scan, their model is virtually spot on, indeed

I can only find one very small error on the body of the driving trailer.

 

In all the 2 HAL is a very fine model, at least I think so ( two purchased ).

[The Johnster]

i think there are still improvements that can be made in current RTR nearly 20 years after 2000, but they are relatively minor; we are not far off what can reasonably be achieved at the prices asked.  GW locos (and possibly others but I am not qualified to comment on them) are still sold with a sort of generic buffer housing, when by later GW and during BR days a heavy duty type (I think introduced by Collett) with a steel grille step on the top was used, and retrofitted to older locos at overhauls, and, again a GW matter, there seems little excuse for printed number and name plates at current price levels.  Cast whitemetal buffers are available as replacements, but why not get this right in the first place?

 

I would like to see easily removable cab roofs on tank engines and on diesel/electric outline models so that we can get crews in there, and please can we have empty bunkers; plastic coal looks awful and very few locos would be seen in service with coal visible in the bunkers from ground or platform level viewing points for very long after they'd left the shed for their day's work.  It was not unknown for long distance trains to arrive at termini with only dust left in the tender bunker.  We can put our own coal in, thank you, and some models are fiddly when it comes to removing the plastic abomination, and if you can't easily do this the only option is to put a level of proper coal on the top of it, making the bunker even more overloaded.  Getting back to roofs, some coaches are difficult to get inside of and removable coach roofs are another good idea IMHO.

 

Triang led the way with an opening smokebox door on the M7 (which I thought was a pretty brave choice for the time anyway) in the late 60s, and this idea could perhaps be revisited given the popularity of engine shed layouts.  It would not make any difference to me, and of course the drawback is the ease with which the door can be broken off and mislaid.  Back in Triang Hornby days I owned a Silver Seal Black 5 which came with alternative numbers and, IIRC, a named option; I think this could be expanded in the case of locos that had alternatives of top feed arrangements or other details that could be removed or fitted.  I like the idea of having a choice of prototypes and not being restricted to what the manufacturer sells me; I am a competent enough modeller to do this myself but it would not increase the unit cost much to include alternatives of this sort in the box.

Edited November 27, 2018 by The Johnster

[Steamport Southport]

The problem with the alternative name and numbers was nobody used them.

 

Just look at the second hand market and look at how many have had the name/number changed.

 

As an example the Hornby R053 LNER B17 was released as Manchester United with alternative names of Liverpool, Arsenal and Nottingham Forest. The R060 BR version was Leeds United, Everton, West Ham United and Leicester City.

 

You see Man United and Leeds with occasional Liverpool. You would think everyone would be changing them to their favourite team, but you hardly ever see any that have been renamed. Same goes for all the other models which had alternatives such as Spitfire. Loads of Spitfires, not many Hurricanes, Manstons or Fighter Pilots.

 

 

 

Jason

[piranha230]

The annoying thing over the last 20 years has been duplication of models from different manufacturers for example lots of class 37,47 and deltics, also lots of different mk1 coaches to name a few examples, they all could of done various 1st generation dmu's and emu's and 2nd generation ones, and also the early ac electric loco's such as the class 81,82,83,84, also 3rd rail units, I think they are all finally realising now that they have run the course with duplicating diesel loco's and now they might finally be looking at doing some ac electrics, now that we have the Hornby retooled class 87, the Bachmann class 90 and the Heljan retooled class 86.

[Steamport Southport]

The annoying thing over the last 20 years has been duplication of models from different manufacturers for example lots of class 37,47 and deltics, also lots of different mk1 coaches to name a few examples, they all could of done various 1st generation dmu's and emu's and 2nd generation ones, and also the early ac electric loco's such as the class 81,82,83,84, also 3rd rail units, I think they are all finally realising now that they have run the course with duplicating diesel loco's and now they might finally be looking at doing some ac electrics, now that we have the Hornby retooled class 87, the Bachmann class 90 and the Heljan retooled class 86.

 

Haven't there just been three "duplications" of diesels been announced?

 

Class 25, Class 66 and Deltic. I also believe that there is a different Class 86 scheduled for announcement if the rumours are correct.

 

So I think that duplication is going to be with us for some time.

 

 

 

Jason

[McC]

I'm not sure you can classify a new tooling / retooling as duplication though? (perhaps replacement)

[Dunsignalling]

Haven't there just been three "duplications" of diesels been announced?

 

Class 25, Class 66 and Deltic. I also believe that there is a different Class 86 scheduled for announcement if the rumours are correct.

 

So I think that duplication is going to be with us for some time.

 

 

 

Jason

In any comparison with steam designs, there are relatively few UK diesel and electric types to choose from.

 

It has also been the case that many models, whilst perhaps acceptable to many, have attracted (often disproportionate IMHO) opprobrium for "not quite capturing the exact shape/look" from keen followers of particular classes.

 

For as long as those developing new iterations consider theirs will capture the prototype even slightly better than what has gone before, and sell in sufficient volume to be viable, I expect to see "duplication" continue until they've all been done well enough to silence all the critics.

 

That'll be some time after hell freezes over, then.

 

John  

Edited November 28, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[micklner]

i think there are still improvements that can be made in current RTR nearly 20 years after 2000, but they are relatively minor; we are not far off what can reasonably be achieved at the prices asked.  GW locos (and possibly others but I am not qualified to comment on them) are still sold with a sort of generic buffer housing, when by later GW and during BR days a heavy duty type (I think introduced by Collett) with a steel grille step on the top was used, and retrofitted to older locos at overhauls, and, again a GW matter, there seems little excuse for printed number and name plates at current price levels.  Cast whitemetal buffers are available as replacements, but why not get this right in the first place?

 

I would like to see easily removable cab roofs on tank engines and on diesel/electric outline models so that we can get crews in there, and please can we have empty bunkers; plastic coal looks awful and very few locos would be seen in service with coal visible in the bunkers from ground or platform level viewing points for very long after they'd left the shed for their day's work.  It was not unknown for long distance trains to arrive at termini with only dust left in the tender bunker.  We can put our own coal in, thank you, and some models are fiddly when it comes to removing the plastic abomination, and if you can't easily do this the only option is to put a level of proper coal on the top of it, making the bunker even more overloaded.  Getting back to roofs, some coaches are difficult to get inside of and removable coach roofs are another good idea IMHO.

 

Triang led the way with an opening smokebox door on the M7 (which I thought was a pretty brave choice for the time anyway) in the late 60s, and this idea could perhaps be revisited given the popularity of engine shed layouts.  It would not make any difference to me, and of course the drawback is the ease with which the door can be broken off and mislaid.  Back in Triang Hornby days I owned a Silver Seal Black 5 which came with alternative numbers and, IIRC, a named option; I think this could be expanded in the case of locos that had alternatives of top feed arrangements or other details that could be removed or fitted.  I like the idea of having a choice of prototypes and not being restricted to what the manufacturer sells me; I am a competent enough modeller to do this myself but it would not increase the unit cost much to include alternatives of this sort in the box.

 

This again highlights the problem the makers have , are they making serious high level models or ones that can actually be played with by children etc.

 

Removable Coach Roofs, Cab roofs etc are perhaps handy for a small minority of people . The down side is most buyers wouldn't want them or need them why?. Anything like these suggestions are additional tooling etc which equals? price rises . Removable Coach roofs would also make them very fragile and useless to the majority of buyers, whose children or themselves would easily destroy them in seconds. Most current Coaches are fairly easily opened via clips on the bottom of the sides already.

Edited November 28, 2018 by micklner

[Right Away]

The ' Design Clever ' era by Hornby has once again been mentioned in this thread.

Indeed it is a shame that two iconic loco's were produced using design clever, namely Duke of Gloucester,

and Cock o' the North. But one very acceptable model did emerge at the time, the SR. 2HAL.

Considering that Hornby had nothing to measure or scan, their model is virtually spot on, indeed

I can only find one very small error on the body of the driving trailer.

 

In all the 2 HAL is a very fine model, at least I think so ( two purchased ).

Same here, excellent, useful models.

Just need to snip off the equipment fuse arc shute on the driving trailer.

 

Of consequence is the relative scarcity of BR green versions remaining; glad I grabbed my 2 units when I did.

Edited November 28, 2018 by Right Away

[Dunsignalling]

This again highlights the problem the makers have , are they making serious high level models or ones that can actually be played with by children etc.

 

 

Only one maker, I'd suggest.

 

Repeatedly failing to get a grip on that and provide a proper demarcation line between the two (the only thing that is clear is their insistence on trying to do both), began to blight our largest manufacturer almost as soon as they released their first "enthusiast quality" model getting on for two decades ago.

 

John

Edited November 28, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[adb968008]

Haven't there just been three "duplications" of diesels been announced?

 

Class 25, Class 66 and Deltic. I also believe that there is a different Class 86 scheduled for announcement if the rumours are correct.

 

So I think that duplication is going to be with us for some time.

 

 

 

Jason

Duplication is a fact of life In European railways.

 

One manufacturer making a duplication of the another’s chosen subject usually has no bearing on the production of the formers product, and the duplicates, triplicates, quadriplicates co-exist often for decades.

 

Indeed the duplication occasionally spurs on extra production of the former, as their tooling usually has dominant position and lower cost to produce.

 

I’ve been quietly stocking up on cheap Bachmann 66’s all in the sub£70 price as I don’t think that model will disappear, given the real fleet size of 450+ examples. A lot of people will sell their mass inventories, but many won’t, similarly I’m sure lots of new ones will sell, with the bulk of existing liveries already done by one company, those who don’t upgrade will have cheap pickings fed with the occasional new release from the former to maintain a unified design.

The same applies to other classes such as 20,31,37,47, as long as the tooling is ok and the liveries keep coming any competitor has a mountain to climb, regardless how good it is.

 

The opposite is true on the class 55 however, it’s a real fleet of only 22, and the current two toolings are 20 and 40 years old... a decent new class 55 need me to replace or buy around 5-6 max and still maintain uniformity.

Ive started with 2x 55’s already, I’ve not yet ordered the new 66 for exactly my reasons above... similarly I had over 60 Lima 47’s and it’s taken 20 years but I still don’t have that many Bachmann 47’s. But I did detach my fleet of Lima class 55’s back last century and have a fleet of Bachmann ones now a long while, yet Hornby still make that old class 55. My fleet of class 55’s will be fully upgraded long before my 66’s, and probably my Lima/Bachmann 47’s too.

Edited November 28, 2018 by adb968008

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

The annoying thing over the last 20 years has been duplication of models from different manufacturers for example lots of class 37,47 and deltics, also lots of different mk1 coaches to name a few examples, they all could of done various 1st generation dmu's and emu's and 2nd generation ones, and also the early ac electric loco's such as the class 81,82,83,84, also 3rd rail units, I think they are all finally realising now that they have run the course with duplicating diesel loco's and now they might finally be looking at doing some ac electrics, now that we have the Hornby retooled class 87, the Bachmann class 90 and the Heljan retooled class 86.

 And inhale. Charles Dickens would have been proud of that.  Here's a supply of full stops for any future posts.........

 

When is 'duplication', 'duplication' though? I would suggest that duplication begins when two or more models of equal all-around merit are available. Specific to the three diesel classes you identify I would see this as:

 

The Bachmann 37 duplicated nothing. Poor Hornby and weak Lima predecessor models which were significantly improved upon.

The ViTrains 37 was a duplicate - and disappeared.

 

The Heljan 47 duplcated nothing. Inferior Hornby and weak Lima predecessor models which were significantly improved upon.

The Bachmann 47 duplicated nothing. Inaccurate Heljan predecessor model which was significantly improved upon.

The ViTrains 47 was a duplicate - and disappeared.

 

The Bachmann 55 duplicated nothing. Awful Lima predecessor, not really a class 55 at all.

 

The annoyance over what it is contended has not been produced because of duplication, inspect the evidence. RTR OO now has more:

coverage of diesel classes;

coverage of MU's;

coverage of AC and DC electric traction;

than ever previously available.

 

And you have a problem with that?

[Joseph_Pestell]

We still lack quite a lot of current DMU/EMU variants.

 

The saddest unnecessary duplication here in the UK was the BR Standard 4. And then the Adams tank and the 71.

 

Agreed that not many diesel llocos left to do unless they represent a big improvement over previous offerings..

 

But why duplicate steam models when there are still many to do such as Caprotti 5?

[adb968008]

To me duplication, is anything I can go to a model shop (online or in person ), and have a choice of manufacturer to buy new.

 

Recent, Current or Planned duplications include:

08, 20,24/1, 25 (x3), 31 (both by the same manufacturer), 37, 40, 42, 47, 55 (x3), 59, 66 (x3 + 3 in HO), 71, 73, 86, 90, 121 (x3).

 

In steam we’ve had

J94, B1, 4MT, 9F, Radial, 14xx, Hall, A1, A4, LN, 3f, Dean goods, 4f

plus also locos like the Compound, B17, Black 5, A1 by the same manufacturer.

 

Price and quality are determined by the manufacturer, the decision to buy is the consumers.

 

There is 35 in that list, of those 35, 26 were incumbent Hornby models, 21 of which another party chose to duplicate, and 5 which Hornby chose to duplicate themselves.

Edited November 28, 2018 by adb968008

[Right Away]

You can swap cylinders about, and wheels between Rebuilt Bulleids.

I’ve a 35027 Port Line running with a 34088 wheelset. My 34088 itself is running with Rebuilt MN cylinders following an earlier incident, which led to the said spare wheelset. A number of crank pins have been recycled in that time from wheelsets, those screws are a bit nimble to breaking in the thread usually the speedometer crank pin when adding/removing the body, but the centre wheelset has two of them you can reuse.

Not everything can be swapped and sometimes a bit of work is required.

I take your point regarding the swapping of cylinders etc of the originally produced MN which at the time of its release was quite an exceptional model.

However it does raise the question: Should we have to resort to such measures on the currently produced versions which retain the original "faults" of note, yet are priced much the same as newer developed models.

 

Hornby, on the whole have catered extremely well for the discerning modeller with recent releases but they need to take a critical look when chosing to perpetuate an older locomotive.

 

When/if Hornby address these issues I will approach my Chief Civil Engineer apropos the raising of the axle load of my railway; meanwhile the Lightweights reign supreme on the heavier duties - where have we heard that before?

['CHARD]

To me duplication, is anything I can go to a model shop (online or in person ), and have a choice of manufacturer to buy new.

 

Recent, Current or Planned duplications include:

08, 20,24/1, 25 (x3), 31 (both by the same manufacturer), 37, 40, 42, 47, 55 (x3), 59, 66 (x3 + 3 in HO), 71, 73, 86, 90, 121 (x3).

 

 

Class 52?  Class 101.

[Dunsignalling]

I take your point regarding the swapping of cylinders etc of the originally produced MN which at the time of its release was quite an exceptional model.

However it does raise the question: Should we have to resort to such measures on the currently produced versions which retain the original "faults" of note, yet are priced much the same as newer developed models.

 

Hornby, on the whole have catered extremely well for the discerning modeller with recent releases but they need to take a critical look when chosing to perpetuate an older locomotive.

 

When/if Hornby address these issues I will approach my Chief Civil Engineer apropos the raising of the axle load of my railway; meanwhile the Lightweights reign supreme on the heavier duties - where have we heard that before?

Since the introduction of the rebuilt MN, Hornby, once all the LNs are out, will have covered all other large Southern passenger locos, so a retool is probably not too far off. 

 

Mind you, if the Light Pacific cylinders fit, it begs the question as to why Hornby don't do it themselves.... 

 

John

[Dunsignalling]

We still lack quite a lot of current DMU/EMU variants.

 

The saddest unnecessary duplication here in the UK was the BR Standard 4. And then the Adams tank and the 71.

 

Agreed that not many diesel llocos left to do unless they represent a big improvement over previous offerings..

 

But why duplicate steam models when there are still many to do such as Caprotti 5?

Hornby jumped on the BR4 (and the B1) because Bachmann had spent twenty years not improving theirs. Quite understandable but they timed it badly.

 

Pity they didn't go after the equally dated Ivatt tank instead, but the idea seems to be working rather better with the Lord Nelson...….

 

John

Edited November 28, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[Legend]

I find this thread interesting because I have been in contact with someone who has rejoined the hobby recently.

 

He is about 50 and has a 12 year old son. He still has a collection of locos from his youth as well as some more recent purchases.

 

In looking at his proposed "layout", I advised avoiding the Setrack/Hornby curved points. As others on here, I have found them a constant source of derailments. He said that he had not had a problem with them - and of course that is probably true. 40 years ago, the locos had much heavier flanges (and flangeless centre wheels). So the issue that we have is improved rolling stock running over the same old track. That incompatibility of wheel standards, old-fashioned track, and the "slop" that there has to be in the chassis all makes for unreliable running and, therefore, disappointment.

 

My friend is of high intellect as is his son. But he is not really interested in a high fidelity model. He wants a train set that runs well (like he had as a child). Hornby, by using just one brand, is causing confusion.

 

Also worth noting that my 50-year-old friend has no real interest in steam. His childhood trains were all diesel/electric. If I were Hornby, I would be focusing my entry-level brand entirely on diesel models and modern stock (current era).

 

A great post . Hope you don't mind me highlighting and underlining what to me is a key point, and I think a lot of people miss.

 

Yes compared to 2000 models have improved in detail and accuracy , no question.   There is a huge choice of things to run and buy . Who could possibly imagined an NER Diesel Railcar being available to run RTR.......I still cant quite believe that one.

However, this has come at a cost:-

 

Generally locos are less robust , with things falling off them in handling and behavior on the track , where they are less able to cope with inconsistent trackwork.(eg Hornby class 800. I have a Bachmann Voyager that doesn't like curved points) Can be frustrating .

The cost of models is now very much higher . In part that's because of increasing detail and spec, eg the need to have wired couplings for DCC multiple units here.

Batch production generally means you have to buy it when its released . There is no guarantee the model will be produced again , so while there's lots of choice you have to be in the right place at the right time and general availability has suffered. Not so good if the loco or coach you want was last produced 3 years ago.

 

So that person that wants a train set that runs well is being ignored in the clamour for ever increasing detail and escalating costs.  I wonder how many people had their interest aroused by The Great Model Railway Challenge  visited an exhibition with a trader or their model shop and came away dismissing the hobby as too expensive. I'm not talking trainset here, but to get a reasonable layout with operating potential is a substantial cost.

 

So definitely increased accuracy and cost, but improvements..........................

[Dunsignalling]

If my requirement was for robust trains that stayed on even dodgy track and I wasn't bothered about fine detail, I'd be buying almost exclusively second-hand.

 

There's plenty of good quality used stuff fulfilling those criteria to be had, for a fraction of today's new prices, at swapmeets or over the web.

 

John

 

PS. In my experience, hardly anything made to current standards, and with more than six wheels, likes curved 2nd radius points.

Edited November 28, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[The Johnster]

There has always been something of a dichotomy in the hobby between 'train set' (sharp curves, compromised models, robust) and 'scale' (larger radius curves, less compromise with the ultimate being scalefour, and models that require handling suitable for delicate objects).  Modern RTR attempts, not completely successfully or completely unsuccessfully either, to do both.  I would suggest that there is an argument for doing away with 1st and 2nd radius curves altogether, but this impinges on one of the hobby's and the trade's shibboleths; the 6'x4' table top oval.  

 

For a large number of newcomers to the hobby, this is what they think it is all about, and it is seductive in the minds of people who think that they can accommodate a model railway in the limited space of a modern home and pack it away out of sight at the end of every session.  I consider this a delusion, but it is very firmly entrenched in the public awareness and enshrined and validated in any and every RTR plans book 'how to develop your train set'.  The concept of what most of those of us who contribute to this forum recognise as the normal way of doing things, around the walls of the room not in the middle, a recognition that real railways are long and thin not round and fat (unlike me!).  The trade is and has for 50 years been reluctant to promote this version of things.

[Legend]

There has always been something of a dichotomy in the hobby between 'train set' (sharp curves, compromised models, robust) and 'scale' (larger radius curves, less compromise with the ultimate being scalefour, and models that require handling suitable for delicate objects).  Modern RTR attempts, not completely successfully or completely unsuccessfully either, to do both.  I would suggest that there is an argument for doing away with 1st and 2nd radius curves altogether, but this impinges on one of the hobby's and the trade's shibboleths; the 6'x4' table top oval.  

 

For a large number of newcomers to the hobby, this is what they think it is all about, and it is seductive in the minds of people who think that they can accommodate a model railway in the limited space of a modern home and pack it away out of sight at the end of every session.  I consider this a delusion, but it is very firmly entrenched in the public awareness and enshrined and validated in any and every RTR plans book 'how to develop your train set'.  The concept of what most of those of us who contribute to this forum recognise as the normal way of doing things, around the walls of the room not in the middle, a recognition that real railways are long and thin not round and fat (unlike me!).  The trade is and has for 50 years been reluctant to promote this version of things.

We also need to get away from this “trainset” and “high fidelity” extremes. The reality is that most of us are somewhere in the middle. I know you don’t mean it that way, but in some cases the term “trainset” is used in a disparaging manner. We all like different aspects of the hobby . For me it’s operation and reasonably accurate models . I like watching them go round and round . Frankly I can’t see the detail although I do appreciate good and consistent livery application.

 

Yes it’s true we can go second hand. There are some good deals out there, and that’s the route I’ve been going. My latest purchase is a Wrenn Castle , because as a boy I always wanted one, but why should people who want to model an IET or Electrostar be left out . There should be a reasonably priced starter set for them . That’s what the Railroad Range should be about.

[robmcg]

There has always been something of a dichotomy in the hobby between 'train set' (sharp curves, compromised models, robust) and 'scale' (larger radius curves, less compromise with the ultimate being scalefour, and models that require handling suitable for delicate objects).  Modern RTR attempts, not completely successfully or completely unsuccessfully either, to do both.  I would suggest that there is an argument for doing away with 1st and 2nd radius curves altogether, but this impinges on one of the hobby's and the trade's shibboleths; the 6'x4' table top oval.  

 

For a large number of newcomers to the hobby, this is what they think it is all about, and it is seductive in the minds of people who think that they can accommodate a model railway in the limited space of a modern home and pack it away out of sight at the end of every session.  I consider this a delusion, but it is very firmly entrenched in the public awareness and enshrined and validated in any and every RTR plans book 'how to develop your train set'.  The concept of what most of those of us who contribute to this forum recognise as the normal way of doing things, around the walls of the room not in the middle, a recognition that real railways are long and thin not round and fat (unlike me!).  The trade is and has for 50 years been reluctant to promote this version of things.

 

Ah, the old 6'x 4' round-and-around layout!  I tried that when I came back to model railways in 2004 aged 53, and it didn't last long....   I was immediately attracted to models like the 2004-tooling Hornby and Bachmann engines which were of quality I would have died-for when I did some kit-building in the late 60s.  That these post-2000 models can be run on 18" radius curves by children at high speed is really rather odd. 

 

I have nieces and nephews whose children like to run model trains but they tend to be upset when high-fidelity model malfunctions...  one 6-yr old great-nephew was in tears because a Hornby Grange locked its driving-wheel rods at quite ordinary and realistic speed and he thought he had broken it. I consoled him, but I think it wasn't a particularly great adventure. I had allowed him full control of the layout and had left the room, given that he had shown he could 'drive' trains on a 9' x 4' oval perfectly well.

 

For me at that age and up to mid-teens imagination was everything, and that 'suspension of disbelief' is still needed in modelling, even with the finest scale-4 layouts or Little Bytham.  Thus I think Hornby have it right with a sort of progressive range from starter sets to very high fidelity models. I  cannot see any other way for them short of diluting the brand name..