BBC Four - James May's Big Trouble in Model Britain

[Pacific231G]

Just now, Coryton said:

 

My recollection (could be false) is that it was developed by a third party who then managed to sell the idea to Hornby.

You recollection is not false. It was developed by a Richard Hallam who sold the idea to Hornby on a royalties basis (so it wouldn't have made him rich) More about this from the time here  https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2872506/Hornby-builds-head-of-steam-with-inventors-loco.html

 

I've been delving a bit further into the TMNR and, though it was never put into production, the 0-4-0 shunter was apparently going to be offered as a 12v batttery powered loco. (I think in my back garden I could just about fit a 10 1/4 inch Inglenook sidings - actually that could be a good gimmick for an exhibition - though thinking about the risk assessment with coupling and uncoupling maybe not)

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

5 minutes ago, Coryton said:

My recollection (could be false) is that it was developed by a third party who then managed to sell the idea to Hornby.

You are bob on. Impressively the prototype that was demonstrated to Hornby was a black 5.

 

24 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

I wonder if they could have had more success if they'd made it compatible with DCC...

I agree. Bad timing bringing live steam out just as DCC was beginning to gain real traction in the UK. Which to choose? The spend on a single loco operating system, or a full DCC system plus twenty decoders to get started in DCC?

 

DCC compatibility is clearly not impossible, though death to 1 amp DCC starter systems. You would require as near a 10A output as possible DCC system to run one live steam plus some regular DCC locos:  probably by purchase of a full 4 to 5A output DCC system, plus a 5A booster.

[Coryton]

20 minutes ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

DCC compatibility is clearly not impossible, though death to 1 amp DCC starter systems. You would require as near a 10A output as possible DCC system to run one live steam plus some regular DCC locos:  probably by purchase of a full 4 to 5A output DCC system, plus a 5A booster.

 

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.

[Prince Of Rails]

Great clips from the first show 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p072q911

Edited March 9, 2019 by Prince Of Rails

[Prince Of Rails]

Great clips from the first show 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p072q8rv

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Well it would spray oil and water about, but that's realism for you. Only needed a soot dispenser to be more realistic yet. So, no cardboard or similar construction on the layout.

 

The voltage and current requirement is no obstacle with a full DCC system (I run mine 'turned up' to a nominal 18V but still well below the maximum track voltage available, in order to have 15V at the motor terminals) which for Hornby live steam was 17V 5A if memory serves.

 

I saw some utube of a DCC converted Hornby live steam, and it was fully controllable. Now I don't know if the mechanism had been upgraded, but my recollection of the commentary was a claim that the steam admission control motor was reliably finely adjustable now that a DCC decoder was operating it.

[Jol Wilkinson]

6 hours ago, Roddy Angus said:

Sorry everyone, the point I was trying to make with my earlier postings was that all branches of modelling are important and we should never assume that one is better than the others.  I find more ways to improve my modelling skills by reading military modelling magazines than I do from model rail magazines.  A lot of the content in model rail magazines is focused on complete layouts, and there is nothing wrong with that, but the majority of the content in military modelling magazines are about how a model was built and the techniques used to make it.

 

Next time you are in Smith's, have a look at magazines about other branches of modelling and you might be amazed by what you can learn.

 

All branches of modelling involve different  techniques but there is nothing to stop us learning from them.

 

My point about Airfix was meant to be that if you compare the size of the market for plastic kits with that for model rail world wide, model rail is small in comparison.  That is why Airfix might be more important to Hornby than model rail.

 

Please don't see this as trying to start an argument, I just want to say that no aspect of modelling is better than another, they are just different.

 

Best wishes

 

Roddy

 

Ps. I should say my other hobby is R/C boats and there is only one magazine for that.  That is a far smaller hobby than model rail.

Increasingly, the protagonists of what might be called "mainstream model railways" rely on Ready To Use products. So, while there are many who have developed  skills and learned techniques to create their own models from kits or scratch and/or adapt and modify ready made items, the majority of modellers (especially in 4mm) prefer to buy their modelling items finished.

 

The main area of model "making" now concentrates around scenery and the area outside the railways' boundaries. There are many excellent example of such scenic modelling,  some sadly let down by much a less well modelled railway, because of the reliance on RTU models and the limitation they create.

 

As has already been mentioned, the construction of static models is a large part of military and other modelling genres. Railway modelling, as practised by the majority, is quite different and they don't wish to actually make their own locos, coaches, signals, etc. etc. Learning and developing those creative skills that are important to creating a well assembled and finished Airfix WW2 tank, Corel or Amati sailing ship, etc. simply doesn't apply.

 

And while no  aspect of modelling may be considered as better than another, some models and layouts are more inspirational and worthy of meritorious recognition than others. They are usually the ones where the creator(s) have built or adapted the models, rather than using what comes straight out of the box.

[blueeighties]

3 hours ago, Martin S-C said:

I agree. You describe yourself perfectly.

Martin, what exactly is your issue?

 

"There is no such thing as an analog or DCC point motor. There are just point motors."

 

Why are you insisting that that statement is correct? 

 

AnalogUE motors work with anologUE systems, DCC motors have built in DCC decoders designed to work, obviously, with DCC systems.  So there are indeed analogUE point motors, and DCC point motors.

 

Or is there something that you alone know, that every manufacturer of point motors hasn't been yet clever enough to discover?

 

Wanted to discuss this via pm, but you don't accept messages. Apologies for discussing a slightly off-topic post folks.

[Caledonian]

14 hours ago, south_tyne said:

 

I think the need to raise the standard of living, wages and quality of life for workers in emerging markets such as China is critical and if there is an increase in the cost of toys for the western markets then so be it. Improving lives and reducing inequality is far more important than the price of our trains. 

 

Interestingly enough I was watching young Mr May the other day in a quite different programme where he and two casual acquaintances went driving in China. It was, quite frankly, astonishing to see how technically advanced and at least outwardly prosperous the place is. Now it wasn't going into what goes on in the factories, but very clearly any impression that we're talking about cut-price sweat-shops staffed by the grateful poor is very wide of the mark

[The Johnster]

Well, there's modelling and there's modelling, and we all try to do the best we can within our budgets and abilities.  It is possible to make a very acceptable and realistic model railway out of RTR and RTP items, and to make an abomination of one out of scale build precision models.  

 

My aim is to create a reasonably believable (to my own standards) railway for my trains to run on, aided by my approach to operating and the 1955 Rule Book.  I have done this (mostly) to my own satisfaction and don't really give a wossnim about anyone else.  I use RTR items when they are suitable, but my location and period is not completely catered for by RTR/RTP.  So, I make some items from kits because this is the only way I can obtain them, and when I have exhausted the supply of kits and still want more items that are not available either RTR or from kits, I will kitbash or cut'n'shut or scratchbuild.

 

Am I a modeller or not?  I think I probably am, but the holistic concept of the entire railway, serving my imagined South Wales mining village in the Tondu hinterland in the 50s, is more important to me than exercising my modelling skills to prove to myself that I am capable of pulling it off.  A case in point is coaches; I am close to finishing a Comet Collett non-gangwayed C66/75 with which I am reasonably happy, but have just bought a pair of Hornby Collett suburbans in BR crimson livery.  The Comet has some open droplights, separate doorknobs and grab rails, and is of course 'mine'; I made it and am proud of it.  It is not superior to the RTR Hornbys though; the droplights should be at a different angle when they are open, and the trusses are thin and one dimensional.  

 

But the Hornbys have a superb finish, and despite the doorknobs and grab rails being moulded, they are picked out nicely in brass paint and pretty convincing at any distance beyond about an inch.  And they took no more effort than visiting a shop.

 

I think this is a fairly valid comparison, as the cost of each individual coach is in the same ball park. All look reasonably like the things they purport to represent, and all run superbly.  The reason I bought each of them is that I wanted them to satisfy the traffic requirements of my railway, and this is the reason I have and will acquire all my stock.

 

Yer pays yer money and yer takes yer choice; take my 16 ton steel minerals.  I could make these perfectly satisfactorily out of Dapol/Kitmaster kits for half of what I've paid for RTR ones, but the RTR ones have allowed me time to other things, and the finish is better than I can achieve.  Moreover, they all have different numbers, and applying transfers of that size neatly is at the very limit of my capability in my dotage.  Not only that but 4 slightly different diagrams are featured.  I'm happy with my RTR Bachmanns, but glad I bought them all before the price went up all the same!

[Jeff Smith]

Just to pick up on a couple of points here. 

 

Many plastic kit modellers site their models in dioramas.  Diorama skills definitely read across to railway modelling, including tools, materials and skills - see the sandbox challenge.

 

For some modellers operation is paramount so instant RTR stock is the way to go.  This may include bashing a RTR vehicle into an approximation of a vehicle not available RTR or just using a prototypically incorrect vehicle operated under Rule 1.

 

Personally my pleasure is building kits, scratch building or modifying RTR with associated research to get the models as correct as I can.  They must run but seldom see traffic as I am too busy getting on with the next.  My next is an old K's loco that is about to be released RTR, doesn't matter to me though.

 

Modelling is a flexible term.

[spamcan61]

6 hours ago, Jeff Smith said:

I don't think anyone has mentioned Hornby's OO live steam efforts.  A friend of mine in the US bought a set but we could never get it to run well.....either stationary or so fast it fell off on the curves!

They always seemed like a technological dead end to me, but they were a really impressive feat of production engineering; taking a hand crafted prototype and producing a product suitable for volume ( in a model railway context) production and meeting 21st century safety standards. Not sure how much of this work was carried out in Margate compared with China (or indeed a 3rd party somewhere else)

 

It would be somewhat interesting to know their impact on Hornby's bottom line at the time, for sure they generated a significant amount of mainstream media attention, which cost Hornby next to nowt and gave them plenty of exposure.

 

i'd have quite liked one to use on a garden railway, rather than a 'finescale' indoor  model railway, they seemed much more suitable for that to me, due to the previously mentioned dripping fluids etc.

[Pint of Adnams]

20 hours ago, jools1959 said:

 

Go onto the BBC iPlayer 

Already made abundantly clear in threads elsewhere that it is restricted to UK licence payers.

[Flyingscotsmanfan]

Having seen the banner incident preview for next weeks show I was surprised to receive an email for Rails today advertising that they now have the new tooling Hornby terrier in stock. Did have to have a chuckle at the irony. 

Edited March 9, 2019 by Flyingscotsmanfan

[jjb1970]

3 hours ago, Caledonian said:

 

Interestingly enough I was watching young Mr May the other day in a quite different programme where he and two casual acquaintances went driving in China. It was, quite frankly, astonishing to see how technically advanced and at least outwardly prosperous the place is. Now it wasn't going into what goes on in the factories, but very clearly any impression that we're talking about cut-price sweat-shops staffed by the grateful poor is very wide of the mark

 

Indeed, this has been the case for quite a number of years. The Chinese high speed railway service is superb and when I visit China I can't help asking myself which is the lesser developed part of the world. Obviously rural China is less developed, but that is true for just about all countries. Some of the civil engineering projects China has delivered are remarkable. When I still worked for a marine classification society I was working on some seriously innovative and advanced ship and power system design projects being developed in China. Unfortunately too many have a very dated idea of China. This is also true of doing business over there, it is not the lawless wild west of scam artists and light fingered companies that is sometimes portrayed.

[D9020 Nimbus]

With regard to alternatives to China, several German and Austrian manufacturers have moved manufacturing to Eastern Europe—Slovakia and Romania mostly. Don't know whether this includes powered models or just wagons and coaches.

[Jeff Smith]

9 minutes ago, jjb1970 said:

 

Indeed, this has been the case for quite a number of years. The Chinese high speed railway service is superb and when I visit China I can't help asking myself which is the lesser developed part of the world. Obviously rural China is less developed, but that is true for just about all countries. Some of the civil engineering projects China has delivered are remarkable. When I still worked for a marine classification society I was working on some seriously innovative and advanced ship and power system design projects being developed in China. Unfortunately too many have a very dated idea of China. This is also true of doing business over there, it is not the lawless wild west of scam artists and light fingered companies that is sometimes portrayed.

Unfortunately, although I don't share the politics of the current occupant of the White House, there is a real intellectual property rights problem with China.

 

Nevertheless if you have watched any Rapido factory visit videos you will have seen a factory that could be anywhere in the western world.

[D9001]

I found this programme very interesting and I enjoyed it and was entertained by it far more than the Great Model Railway Challenge. 

 

(Can I say that?) 

Edited March 9, 2019 by D9001

[Captain Kernow]

On 08/03/2019 at 16:12, Roddy Angus said:

 

If you want to play one upmanship

 

Sorry, but if you have taken the impression that I am 'playing at one upmanship', then you are mistaken and I don't know how you arrived at this conclusion.

 

I appreciate that you don't know me, but I don't 'do' one upmanship.

 

On 08/03/2019 at 16:12, Roddy Angus said:

The use of brass etches, particularly in military modelling far outstrips its use in model rail.

 

I don't quite understand how this can be true, if the statement is intended in a qualitative meaning (as opposed to quantitative).

 

In my ignorance of military modelling matters, I am happy to accept that their equivalent products match the quality of a Finney, Mitchell or High Level kit, but in railway terms these kits can (in the hands of modellers far, far more accomplished than me) produce models that appear completely and utterly life-like and convincing. As such, I don't think that anything else could 'out-strip' a medium that already accomplishes the ultimate goal of 100% realism.

 

It's been mentioned before, but the one dimension that most military modellers don't have to contend with, is making their models move in a realistic manner (apart from those radio-controlled models). As such, any railway modeller who is building a loco kit or scratchbuilding or even having to modify/dismantle/repair a ready-to-run loco needs an additional level of skill that military modellers don't need (although I am happy to accept that many of them would be able to find such skills easily enough).

 

 

Edited March 9, 2019 by Captain Kernow

[Captain Kernow]

3 hours ago, Flyingscotsmanfan said:

Having seen the banner incident preview for next weeks show I was surprised to receive an email for Rails today advertising that they now have the new tooling Hornby terrier in stock. Did have to have a chuckle at the irony. 

Am I wrong here, in terms of some of the posts on this thread, but has there been a slight flavour of mockery on the part of a small number of posters towards Simon Kohler, with regards to his reactions to the 'banner issue?'

 

Or is it a case of 'all mates together' and I'm just misinterpreting it?

 

[Coryton]

1 hour ago, jjb1970 said:

 

Indeed, this has been the case for quite a number of years. The Chinese high speed railway service is superb and when I visit China I can't help asking myself which is the lesser developed part of the world. Obviously rural China is less developed, but that is true for just about all countries. Some of the civil engineering projects China has delivered are remarkable. When I still worked for a marine classification society I was working on some seriously innovative and advanced ship and power system design projects being developed in China. Unfortunately too many have a very dated idea of China. This is also true of doing business over there, it is not the lawless wild west of scam artists and light fingered companies that is sometimes portrayed.

 

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. 

 

 

[Mike Storey]

7 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

 

The OO live steam set - which is electrically incompatible with any other OO system  - wasn't the only time that Hornby and its predecessors had dipped their toes into live steam and other non-mainstream model railway products. I woder if they could have had more success if they'd made it compatible with DCC (though probably with a more than usually powerful power supply) .

 

In 1976-78 they produced the live steam 3.5" gauge Rocket. I had one though many years later . It was ingenious and the cylinders had valve gear rather than the oscillating cylinder that Mamod etc. offered but it had major flaws. The plastic track had far higher rolling resistance than steel track so  the already marginal performance from a necessarily low pressure boiler meant it could barely shift itself on anything but a dead flat surface let alone pull a couple of the L&M coaches they later produced. More seriously, to charge the plastic gas tank you had to unscrew it, then fill it from a lighter refill cylinder before refitting it. The trouble was that the process of filling invariably froze the O rings so the gas escaped (I think quite seriously that If the right person at NASA had owned one these things the  Challenger disaster ten years later might have been averted) In the end I bought an after-market gas tank which improved things but it ended up as a shelf ornament. 

 

A decade earlier the Margate company had come up with a 10¼” gauge railway, The “Tri-ang Minic Narrowgauge Railway (TMNR) manufactured between 1963-1965. As a youngster I remember being fascinated by the adverts in RM for this but it would definitely have been a rich kid's toy, A complete set with 35V 20amp transformer, electric loco, two "pullman" coaches and an oval of track (for which with 18ft diameter curves you'd need a space of at least 112ft x 40 ft) would have set you back £292 3s 6p (about £5- 6000 in today's money)  so I don't know what they thought the market for this was. In the end they only made about 80 locos and I think most of what they made went to showmen and Butlins holiday camps (for this market produced a more powerful loco with two motors)  rather than to private customers.  They did advertise a rather cheaper "shunting loco"  for £79  or as a complete set with a smaller 48ft x 24ft oval for £128 but I don't think this ever saw the light of day.

The track was sectional with folded galvanised steel rail on wooden speepers. Word is that about 20 of the locos still survive though most seem to have been converted to internal battery power and there is a TMNR club. 

 

A nail has been hit on the head here.

 

In very many ways, Hornby (Tri-ang Hornby) was ahead of its time now and again, but its problem was that it did not stick with it, to make it something more viable.

 

In the case of the TMNR, this should have been a far better prospect in the days when more houses had reasonable sized gardens, and reputedly failed because (apart from a significant price increase), once the initial product had been purchased, they had little else to sell on to owners. These days, firms like MaxiTrak are making a fairly decent living from such equipment, albeit at 5.25 inch gauge normally, and normally on-board battery powered rather than mains track powered. Even live steam and/or internal combustion versions are available but these are truly a rich man's arena, at that size, unless possessing significant engineering prowess to kit build or scratch build. But there is a market there, and has been since the 1990's.

 

Likewise, with live steam in a smaller scale. When Hornby experimented with their Rocket and then with the 00 live steam system, folk such as Merlin and Mamod were struggling to make 16mm/ft live steam a viable proposition. But the latter persevered, and live steam in the size of Hornby's Rocket is now commonplace, highly controllable and very powerful, and more to the point, very commercial. 00 steam was always pushing it, but new technology makes it less of a challenge (although I struggle to see the market for this personally).

 

So, if Hornby continue to develop new ideas, as they have more recently been doing, with DCC controllers and TTS, and not drop them at the first sign of trouble, then I have more optimism in their progress. The Giraffe Car must have a future shurely??

 

[jjb1970]

3 minutes ago, Coryton said:

 

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. 

 

 

 

I agree, in any country/economy there will be variation. I am a marine engineer and work in shipping, in the world of shipping the big three Asian ship builders (China, South Korea & Japan) are so far ahead of the rest of the world in just about every way it isn't funny. Many still associate the Chinese yards, design houses and equipment suppliers with cheap knock offs and low end tat when that is certainly not the case. And it is increasingly obvious that for example Europe is steadily losing competence, particularly maritime administrations. I suspect that the China MSA takes some sort of wicked pleasure in submitting highly technical submissions to international regulatory forums as they know that unless other administrations ask a class society or consultant to tell them what it means that probably only the Chinese, Japanese and Korean's understand it all.

[Andy Hayter]

1 hour ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

With regard to alternatives to China, several German and Austrian manufacturers have moved manufacturing to Eastern Europe—Slovakia and Romania mostly. Don't know whether this includes powered models or just wagons and coaches.

 

 

It has been covered before - several times - but to repeat, if you want to pay €500 (ca £430) for a pacific locomotive then E Europe is where you want to go.  Today we still have posters deploring having broken the £150 barrier.  I know it is not a true like for like comparison given external pipework on may continental models, but it is indicative.

 

It is certainly true that China is closing the gap with the West, but in doing so it has opened up the differences between the middle class and the lower working classes.  The wage increases are probably going to influence the middle lower classes more than most.  This will improve their lot but leave the lowest in continued and probably widened poverty.  

[rockershovel]

13 minutes ago, jjb1970 said:

 

I agree, in any country/economy there will be variation. I am a marine engineer and work in shipping, in the world of shipping the big three Asian ship builders (China, South Korea & Japan) are so far ahead of the rest of the world in just about every way it isn't funny. Many still associate the Chinese yards, design houses and equipment suppliers with cheap knock offs and low end tat when that is certainly not the case. And it is increasingly obvious that for example Europe is steadily losing competence, particularly maritime administrations. I suspect that the China MSA takes some sort of wicked pleasure in submitting highly technical submissions to international regulatory forums as they know that unless other administrations ask a class society or consultant to tell them what it means that probably only the Chinese, Japanese and Korean's understand it all.

 

Why would you be surprised? Trash the infrastructure, abandon the activity, stop training the people and hey presto! Competence is lost. Who knew?