Hornby announce TT:120

[Dunsignalling]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

Its rivals already have come up with their 'different ideas' by going in for narrow gauge (Bachmann and Peco) or 0 Gauge (various) or even adding a totally new brand and range (Bachmann with EFE).  Hornby was the one that was being left behind and not innovating to create its own niche area having done so originally with its industrials but then finding many others jumping on that bandwagon.

 

Its TT development has been some time coming, and has arrived later than I'd originally expected it to be announced, but it's now here/arriving shortly with customers.   In many ways a logical step for Hornby especially as it's a move to a very open goal with any potential competition only likely to emerge slowly in view of the investment involved.  Thus Hornby should be able to get itself well established and build the new market to its advantage provided its selling and, particularly,  product support matches the hype and publicity.

 

Hardly a lifeboat for a company which dominates the British outline model railway market in 00 but it is, I think, that essential new niche that Hornby need to create a new market where competition is likely to be limited and which will in time become essential to their bottom line as their 00 market is increasingly squeezed by the competition.

Perhaps the word lifeboat is a bit strong as things currently stand, but who knows how things might look in future. Hornby seems to have increasing difficulty dealing with competition in the established OO field, with a market share that has been gradually declining and may be expected to continue doing so. For whatever reasons, Hornby seems able to compete with the newer entrants on quality or price, but they seem incapable of doing so on both.   

 

As you say, others have also diversified from OO, but always into existing scales/gauges with a known UK following. With TT:120, Hornby is attempting to sidestep their OO competitors and avoid moving into areas where others are already established.

 

Fair enough but does that suggests that they consider their competitive vulnerability in OO might be replicated in O, N, or OO9 and that being the only fish in the pool is what they need to succeed.

 

The problem with that is that if TT:120 flops or merely bumbles along as a minor niche, the others will breathe a collective sigh of relief that they had nothing to do with it. Conversely, if it eventually becomes a threat to overall volumes in OO, those who have troubled them there will know they can jump into TT:120 and rival Hornby on better-than-level terms in that sector, too.

 

As I see it, Hornby seems to be attempting to circumvent their declining competitiveness in OO. Unless they can reverse that, it might eventually follow them wherever they go, however virgin the territory. 

 

John   

Edited October 27, 2022 by Dunsignalling

[Legend]

17 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Snipped to highlight one part.

 

The only time I remember a whole range just appearing was Mainline*.

 

Here is the pricelist for Mainline's launch in 1976.

 

http://www.mainlinerailways.org.uk/PriceList.htm

 

Notice the similarities?

 

Three locomotives, two coaches and a handful of wagons in various liveries. Full range of track and accessories. With all those packaged up into half a dozen train sets.

 

Worked for Mainline.

 

 

*Lima drip fed a few Continental models in British liveries and Airfix was already established.

 

 

Jason

I always thought Mainline was one of the best new range introductions . As you say quite a comprehensive range announced. However it didn’t all arrive at the same time . I think it was announced in 76 . I remember seeing the J72 and wagons around Easter 77. But the  45 definitely didn’t arrive until January 78 . I remember because it missed both Christmas and my Birthday !  Fortunately enough Birthday money received to afford it when it came out £9.95 I Think ! 
 

The  tank wagons certainly appeared around March/April 77 . The fine printing on them was superb and made them stand out . I remember buying 2 of them , United Molasses and Royal Daylight  from Argyle Models then the same day buying a Lima LMS Restaurant Car (actually a BR Mk1 in maroon) from McKay Models in Paisley . No model shops like either of these exist now in West Central Scotland  . Aside from a Wrenn R1 , they my first ever non Tri-ang or Hornby purchases .

 

So although announced together things did take a while to arrive , in much the same way as Hornby TT:120 phases . It wasn’t a Big Bang with everything from day 1 

Edited October 27, 2022 by Legend

[009 micro modeller]

11 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

their competitive vulnerability in OO might be replicated in O, N, or OO9

I know you just used it as an example of how other manufacturers have diversified but it has made me think of another point. Somehow, I can’t quite see Hornby getting into NG RTR (although I think, as per another thread on RMWeb they did once propose a kind of large scale Snowdon Mountain loco using 16.5mm gauge, and I understand their group of companies did eventually end up owning some of the original Eggerbahn moulds following a convoluted series of company takeovers, but they didn’t use them). 009 continues to be popular, probably still the most popular UK NG scale, but even with Hornby looking for a niche I wonder if 009 would be considered a bit too niche, due to the prototypes involved.

[MarkSG]

46 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

Here is the pricelist for Mainline's launch in 1976.

 

http://www.mainlinerailways.org.uk/PriceList.htm

 

£6.75 for a BR livery J72. That's the equivalent of £40.75 today, according to the Bank of England's inflation calculator. You wouldn't get a newly tooled loco for that money these days. And yes, I know that they were, by today's standards, pretty crude (although Mainline were a distinct advance on what Hornby were offering at the time). But, still. I do wonder sometimes if our desire for ever greater detail isn't counterproductive. I bought a J72 as a teenager, the first loco I ever bought with my own money (carefully saved up!). I can't imagine many kids having enough of their own money for a typical new release 0-6-0 these days. Maybe that's more of a long term problem for Hornby than competition from new entrants.

Edited October 27, 2022 by MarkSG

[Jeff Smith]

In terms of sustained pleasure from a purchase model railways should have the edge - you buy it ready made but then get the 'endless' pleasure of running it.  The plastic kit market is different, and luckily Hornby has Airfix, you buy it, have pleasure building and finishing it, then it's done and sits on a shelf waiting for the next purchase.  LEGO has a similar marketing strategy with the dedicated models - my grandson will take maybe a day to put together a one or two hundred dollar set and then just display it......  I remember the early days of LEGO with some dedicated sets but mostly boxes of assorted bricks or wheels.  I spent hours making things then breaking them down.....

[Steamport Southport]

1 hour ago, Legend said:

I always thought Mainline was one of the best new range introductions . As you say quite a comprehensive range announced. However it didn’t all arrive at the same time . I think it was announced in 76 . I remember seeing the J72 and wagons around Easter 77. But the  45 definitely didn’t arrive until January 78 . I remember because it missed both Christmas and my Birthday !  Fortunately enough Birthday money received to afford it when it came out £9.95 I Think ! 
 

The  tank wagons certainly appeared around March/April 77 . The fine printing on them was superb and made them stand out . I remember buying 2 of them , United Molasses and Royal Daylight  from Argyle Models then the same day buying a Lima LMS Restaurant Car (actually a BR Mk1 in maroon) from McKay Models in Paisley . No model shops like either of these exist now in West Central Scotland  . Aside from a Wrenn R1 , they my first ever non Tri-ang or Hornby purchases .

 

So although announced together things did take a while to arrive , in much the same way as Hornby TT:120 phases . It wasn’t a Big Bang with everything from day 1 

 

I know. 

 

But we are talking approximately a year. That's sudden when you consider we wait five years or more for some models to appear.

 

 

Jason

[Hobby]

2 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

Fair enough but does that suggests that they consider their competitive vulnerability in OO might be replicated in O, N, or OO9 and that being the only fish in the pool is what they need to succeed.

 

Substitute first for only and I'd agree with you but as it stands I don't. I suspect they see looking for a better return than they would in the other three, which, if it does succeed,  they will get.

[D9020 Nimbus]

Airfix were new to RTR and most of the items they announced made sense — 14xx and auto-trailer, (large) Prairie and B-set, and so on. They did intend to produce a balanced range, although some of their proposals never came to be — the Schools and a proposed Compound cancelled when Hornby announced the same items, the latter emerging after Mainline took over the range, but an Airfix design.

 

It's 009 that is really Bachmann's niche. EFE Rail was announced, I think, partly because Bachmann wanted something for retailers to sell at a time when there was a shortage of their own models coming through, and partly because Kernow were working on some ex-DJM projects which were probably not so suited to doing themselves. And because of the 1938 stock, of course. It doesn't really get round the problem of what they too appear to think is an over-crowded marketplace in OO and even in N. Apart from narrow gauge they have only produced one model which wasn't already in the range in some form or other in the past — the "Dance Hall" brake van — among announcements made since they changed to the current policy. (The "N" 319 was announced before the change.)

[Dunsignalling]

1 hour ago, Hobby said:

 

Substitute first for only and I'd agree with you but as it stands I don't. I suspect they see looking for a better return than they would in the other three, which, if it does succeed,  they will get.

All that will be entirely dependent on how big the market for TT:120 gets, and how quickly. I can't see anybody else getting involved before Hornby prove it viable, why would they? Factors that motivated Hornby into doing this will not be influencing others to join in any time soon.

 

I feel that one reason for Hornby taking this course, is simply that the OO scene is getting too hot for them. The newer guys can match Hornby's best quality at significantly lower prices and are soon likely to demonstrate they can better it without exceeding them.

 

I consider it highly unlikely that any of them will jump into TT:120 during the first four phases Hornby has announced, and probably not for a few years beyond that. I suspect they have outline programmes in OO that will take them past the middle of this decade anyway. That aside, they will want to thoroughly understand where Hornby is positioning TT:120 in terms of quality/detail/price before assessing whether it's (also) for them.

 

Unless Hornby can be more competitive on both price and quality against any further entrants in TT:120 than they are in OO, any commitment to the new scale by the likes of AS or Rapido would just see Hornby up against the very problems that they are trying to escape from. 

 

I think Hornby really do need the new scale more-or-less to themselves for at least 3-5 years.

 

John

Edited October 27, 2022 by Dunsignalling

[Steamport Southport]

8 minutes ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

Airfix were new to RTR and most of the items they announced made sense — 14xx and auto-trailer, (large) Prairie and B-set, and so on. They did intend to produce a balanced range, although some of their proposals never came to be — the Schools and a proposed Compound cancelled when Hornby announced the same items, the latter emerging after Mainline took over the range, but an Airfix design.

 

It's 009 that is really Bachmann's niche. EFE Rail was announced, I think, partly because Bachmann wanted something for retailers to sell at a time when there was a shortage of their own models coming through, and partly because Kernow were working on some ex-DJM projects which were probably not so suited to doing themselves. And because of the 1938 stock, of course. It doesn't really get round the problem of what they too appear to think is an over-crowded marketplace in OO and even in N. Apart from narrow gauge they have only produced one model which wasn't already in the range in some form or other in the past — the "Dance Hall" brake van — among announcements made since they changed to the current policy. (The "N" 319 was announced before the change.)

 

The Airfix RTR range appeared a bit piecemeal though and was originally aimed at "play value" for kids rather than modellers, which they aimed for soon after.

 

Starting with H0 Wild West sets made by Bachmann and then that bizarre DR X train set. I think they expected people to be playing with them and their figure sets/military vehicles.

 

http://www.airfixrailways.co.uk/ARSysB.htm

 

http://www.airfixrailways.co.uk/ARSyscat1.htm

 

 

Worth noting one of the wagons Hornby is doing is the Hale Fuels wagon which Airfix did. So a bit of a nod to the Airfix past there I expect.

 

http://www.airfixrailways.co.uk/WagonsG.htm

 

 

Jason

[Dunsignalling]

3 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

The Airfix RTR range appeared a bit piecemeal though and was originally aimed at "play value" for kids rather than modellers, which they aimed for soon after.

 

Starting with H0 Wild West sets made by Bachmann and then that bizarre DR X train set. I think they expected people to be playing with them and their figure sets/military vehicles.

 

http://www.airfixrailways.co.uk/ARSysB.htm

 

http://www.airfixrailways.co.uk/ARSyscat1.htm

 

 

Worth noting one of the wagons Hornby is doing is the Hale Fuels wagon which Airfix did. So a bit of a nod to the Airfix past there I expect.

 

http://www.airfixrailways.co.uk/WagonsG.htm

 

 

Jason

 

Let's hope the "nod" doesn't include the imaginary 10' wheelbase.

 

[Hobby]

1 hour ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

Airfix were new to RTR and most of the items they announced made sense — 14xx and auto-trailer, (large) Prairie and B-set, and so on. 

 

It does if they are launching into a scale which already has rtr, but Hornby aren't, are they! Those choices would be certain death if they were launched at the outset as models in a new scale. Look at what Hornby has announced and it makes perfect sense if you are aiming at creating a new scale with new modellers.

 

1 hour ago, Dunsignalling said:

 

I think Hornby really do need the new scale more-or-less to themselves for at least 3-5 years

 

Judging by the way Heljan and GM have dropped the scale there's no reason not to expect that! ;)

[Flying Pig]

 

2 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

 

Let's hope the "nod" doesn't include the imaginary 10' wheelbase.

 

 

Judging by the photos of the Kings Cross layout (page 63 of this thread) it does. 

[Arun Sharma]

18 hours ago, ixionmodels said:

As a manufacturer of RTR locomotives in N, On30, O and HO scales  (I co-own Ixion Model Railways) can I scotch this theory once and for all. Arun says: "Whilst rescaling isn't quite as straightforward as using a simple 3D CAD software 'scale' command, it isn't difficult or especially time consuming."

Unfortunately, yes it is.

 

I'm guessing the 7mm kits Arun has designed are not for locomotives that he also sells as RTR items. It is not possible to simply "scale down" (or scale up) the CAD of an existing locomotive. [I'm talking mostly about 'scaling down' here in this post, as this is a TT:120 thread and the most common expectation seems to involve the downsizing of 4mm scale models; but my answer is equally relevant to 'upscaling' to O or S as well.]

Everything in the locomotive has been drawn for a particular scale and to match the existing standards for the scale, and for existing components like motors, gearboxes, printed circuit boards, LEDs, wire, wheels standards and gauge, etc. The scale and gauge determines the thickness of the wheels front to back, size of flange, axle diameter, etc. This in turn affects clearances for cylinders and rods on steam locos, bogie sides and cab steps and brake shoe alignment on diesels. Couplers are different in every different scale, and are fixed in different places with different methods. Shrinking a 4mm loco CAD (with its incorrect gauge) to TT with a correct gauge would make some moulded components too thin for safe handling; some boiler and backhead fittings too fine; the chassis would need a complete redesign, clearances for the chassis to fit inside the body would need redesigning, as would every part that has to fit into or over or alongside another. Electrical pickup would need a redesign for available components. Clearances that provide a 'snug fit' for mating 4mm components like boiler-into-smokebox would result in them jamming in TT, or being unacceptably loose and ill-fitting in 7mm. Some rivets may even need redrawing to make them big enough to be seen in TT (this is a real thing, as any experienced model railway CAD designer can confirm) or made finer and more 'scale' in 7mm. With every part needing to be redrawn, it's faster and cheaper to draw the loco in the new scale from scratch. How do I know? We have in the past looked at rescaling both our 7mm Hudswell Clarke to OO and N, and our On30 'Coffee Pot' steam rail motor to HOn30 and G scales.

 

Don't forget that a RTR manufacturer also has to provide a 'repair or replace' warranty for their model. This is an expensive exercise where that model is a motorised locomotive with hundreds of parts, and where the manufacturer has absolutely no control over how carefully the purchaser handles the model, or where it runs (eg, on carpet). If Arun designs and sells 7mm kits under his own brand then he may have some experience with returns & customer complaints; if he supplies his designs assembled, painted and RTR in appropriate protective packaging then he'll know he can multiply the consumer complaints by 10 for items of rolling stock; and multiply them by 100 for any RTR locomotive. So designing RTR models has to be a compromise between fineness of detail and robust construction to survive variable handling by customers (and very variable handling in their packaging by post and courier services).

 

Where money is saved is in the preparatory areas: all the research has already been done, and the prototype dimensions have been obtained and 2D drawings done using those. The existing CADS can be used as reference for where components go, and how they relate to the parts around them.

 

Wagons are a simpler proposition, but issues of side thickness, proportions of brake components, coupler fixings etc still apply. Coaches are in the middle, and still present challenges that may make "down- or up-scaling" uneconomic: fitting details, removable roof vs removable body, chassis and lighting design, bogie and coupler placement and fixing, part thickness, window 'glass' thickness and fixing method, separate roof, separate or moulded-on underfloor and end detail parts...

 

I hope this helps to clarify the challenges manufacturers face when considering producing an existing model in a different scale, and goes some way to dispelling the commonly held modeller belief that it "isn't difficult or especially time consuming" to rescale an existing  RTR model.

Cheers,

Lindsay O'Reilly

Director,

Ixion Model Railways Australia Pty Ltd.

Lindsay - I fear you are mistaken. I design from scratch [using 2D and 3D CAD and sometimes with the aid of 3D scanning equipment] kits for road and rail vehicles [mainly 7mm scale] that include lorries, buses, steam locomotives, rail wagons, electric and diesel locomotives/multiple units as well as conversion kits and single/multiple bespoke components for other kit producers. 

I am regularly tasked with producing 4mm [and other scales] versions of these models. Class 70 20003 in 2mm, 4mm and 7mm would be an example.

Using my own CAD data, it takes time but is eminently do-able. Indeed, part of the design work involves keeping a weather eye open just in case someone might want a different scale version one day. Sample examples of this would include reducing the 7mm L&Y 1200V DC EMU kits down to 4mm scale or enlarging my 4mm Lancaster/Heysham EMUs to 7mm scale.

 

I hear what you say regarding wall/window thicknesses and needing different motorising systems and I would not disagree with that in principle. But, I repeat my view that for any major model manufacturer who has produced and owns CAD files of 4mm railway rolling stock should not find it especially onerous to produce different scale models from those files. 

Similarly, I repeat my view that short runs in less common scales need not be done by going down the production route that would be used for runs of 10000+ units. 

Agreed, painting and finishing of such shorter runs [in the UK] may be problematic if selling models as RTR but I don't - I produce kits and components and am not aware of any that have been returned by buyers as unbuildable. There are several examples in the various threads of RMWeb should you care to delve deeper.

Edited October 27, 2022 by Arun Sharma
addnl info

[Grovenor]

39 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

Judging by the photos of the Kings Cross layout (page 63 of this thread) it does. 

IMHO you are extrapolating a lot from that photo to have any confidence in the wagon wheelbase. 🙂

[Steamport Southport]

20 minutes ago, Grovenor said:

IMHO you are extrapolating a lot from that photo to have any confidence in the wagon wheelbase. 🙂

 

 

Yes. Aren't the newer PO wagons correct? 

 

If they are going to shrink anything it would be the newer versions that probably already have the CADs available rather than something 45 years old.

 

 

Jason

[definate maybe]

For me, TT120 can only really work for the everyday layout builder once another manufacturer of a ‘decent’ size enters the ring.

Browsing the classifieds in RM in my teenage years when planning on moving on from my generic N gauge layout (mid 90’s) there was lots of variety in OO from the likes of Hornby, Lima, Replica and early Bachmann. The N gauge options were limited in both variety and accuracy. For many years I tried to fit an OO gauge plan into an N gauge space due to these limitations.

 

N really became a more viable option once Dapol added their variety of models and has since been largely enhanced by newer entrants like Revolution.

 

Both OO and N have moved on massively in the 25 years since. OO still massively in front based on variety but N now allowing many realistic scenarios to be modelled from a RTR perspective.

 

I can see potential from Hornbys TT120 range so far and the scale does seems to have positives however given what is available either side of the scale it would be a giant leap of faith to make the change in the hope that 1 brand can offer everything you need.

 

Take care/ stay safe

Mark.

 

 

[Flying Pig]

1 hour ago, Grovenor said:

IMHO you are extrapolating a lot from that photo to have any confidence in the wagon wheelbase. 🙂

 

Sorry, I was thinking of this post which shows the wagons much better.  The red open certainly seems to have the same wheelbase as the van next to it.  

[Grovenor]

13 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Sorry, I was thinking of this post which shows the wagons much better.  The red open certainly seems to have the same wheelbase as the van next to it.  

Always a possibility with Hornby certainly. If they do do it wrong that gives a good opportunity to Peco!

[ixionmodels]

4 hours ago, Arun Sharma said:

Lindsay - I fear you are mistaken. I design from scratch [using 2D and 3D CAD and sometimes with the aid of 3D scanning equipment] kits for road and rail vehicles [mainly 7mm scale] that include lorries, buses, steam locomotives, rail wagons, electric and diesel locomotives/multiple units as well as conversion kits and single/multiple bespoke components for other kit producers. 

Arun, I stand corrected. I do think perhaps we're talking about somewhat different things though. You mention above designing steam locomotives kits; there's a notable difference between designing a kit for a modeller to build at home, and a RTR loco, and that is that everything for the RTR loco MUST fit, first time, every time. Our minimum run is 1500 locos, built on a production line by skilled workers, in an environment where time is money. There can be absolutely no fettling, no trial-and-error fitting, no leaving it and coming back to it if a particular assembly is challenging. That's why manufacturers use expensive spark-eroders to create the tooling - the tolerances are incredibly fine. And those finished locos have to be robust and 'fit for purpose', or consumer law protections can be enacted on the manufacturer. Changing the scale of a loco where every component has been designed from scratch for that scale - commercially, for a factory build - we know it's cheaper to start from scratch than to adjust every component, not just to the new size but also a different set of tolerances.

 

That said, I completely agree with you that there is now a 'middle ground' of alternatives to overseas factory manufacturing for short-run models - those you mentioned of 3D printed tooling, resin casting and 3D printed components are perfect examples. The problem arises when considering how to make them as RTR items "here" (whether 'here' be the UK or Australia). The biggest cost is labour. All RTR models are just kits that someone else has put together and finished!  Building kits is time-consuming and thus expensive; but it's also difficult in 'bulk' to replicate the finish of Chinese factories, which use incredibly complex and accurate painting masks and very expensive silicon pad printers to get the incredibly fine multicolour lettering and lining that we now expect. This is something that you acknowledged in the post above, and it's probably the insurmountable obstacle. Producing the components 'here' can now be done at a reasonable cost (a Chinese-made RTR loco costs around 200,000 to 300,000 US dollars to make); turning that into a RTR, consistent-quality saleable model that you can proudly sell under your own brand and offer a warranty on is the challenge. It can of course be done, but from our research only at a price that would kill the model as a commercial proposition at this point in time. For example, for a simple inside-cylindered steam loco in a no-lining livery we calculated a 250% price premium for an Australian-built loco; and 350% for a complex outside-cylindered Walschaerts valve geared loco in a fully lined livery. If these kinds of increases are the same in the UK it would mean a Chinese-made £180 loco could be as much as £500-600 for a home-country built version.

 

However, a lower-detail, simple livery loco would be a lot less - Union Mills in N gauge for example are in this market and making a success of it; and Dapol and Peco have sophisticated pad printers in the UK and are doing beautiful work in their own factories. I feel that we're both right, in our own areas areas of expertise. No-one would be more delighted than the RTR manufacturers to see home-country production become viable again: we'd be freed from the shackles of paying everything in $US, and from the challenges of manufacturing in an increasingly totalitarian country with a growing antipathy to the West. But those Chinese factories we use are run by ordinary Chinese people who are also now our friends (and often fellow modellers), and they take tremendous pride in their work, and we like working with them. Western modellers indeed are indebted to them for the investments they've made in plant, technology and manufacturing systems, to bring us the models we have.

 

If there are entrepreneur modellers in the UK prepared to invest in that "middle ground" of lower-detail, low-number production runs of RTR models, it is a market segment that could flourish and provide all those 'special interest' models that are not viable to make in the thousands. As well as OO N and O, TT:120 perhaps offers just such an opportunity; what do you think? Is anyone out there prepared to investigate (and invest in) that market segment in the current climate?

Edited October 27, 2022 by ixionmodels
Grammar correction.

[Les1952]

On 26/10/2022 at 18:41, Mike Harvey said:

The companion road vehicles from Oxford Diecast are now being delivered.  I made a comparison of size of the Bedford OB Duple coach across 3 scales using an Oxford model for 1/148 scale and a Corgi Original Omnibus model for 1/76. The TT:120 one is not all that much larger than the N scale one.

 

 

 

Looking at that picture sent me off to look up the chassis list for the Bedford OB published by the PSV Circle.  Checking some thirteen thousand entries for registration and first owner British Railways didn't buy a single one of these new- though it had a pair of Bedford OLAZ with BUS bodies by Allweather.   Not having found a photo of a real one in BR livery- is it a ficticious livery, a preserved one in a "wouldn't that be nice" livery or did BR buy some Bedford Vistas secondhand?

 

Les

 

Edited October 28, 2022 by Les1952
typos...

[Robin Brasher]

Perhaps the numberplate on the model will reveal the prototype but it seems strange that Corgi and Oxford could independently produce a model of a prototype that does not exist.

 

Turning to Hornby's website 7 items of track are currently available but there is no means of buying them.  I tried to buy the track for the starter oval. Then I rang up Hornby and they said that they are not selling the track, although they have it in stock, as they have not produced any locomotives to run on it yet. They also said that there was a problem with their website and told me to try again in a few days time.

 

It was a lot easier when I could just walk into my shop and buy my track over the counter

[boxbrownie]

13 hours ago, Grovenor said:

IMHO you are extrapolating a lot from that photo to have any confidence in the wagon wheelbase. 🙂

You could probably make it out more or less from the sleeper spacing, if the track is a known quantity.

 

Someone will 😁

[boxbrownie]

12 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Sorry, I was thinking of this post which shows the wagons much better.  The red open certainly seems to have the same wheelbase as the van next to it.  

What is amazing is how Hornby managed to get the couplings so close, I’d buy in if that was genuine……annoys me.

[JohnR]

55 minutes ago, Robin Brasher said:

Perhaps the numberplate on the model will reveal the prototype but it seems strange that Corgi and Oxford could independently produce a model of a prototype that does not exist.

 

 

 

I dont think the issue is that they never existed. We only have information that British Railways were not the first owners of these vehicles. Its well known that such vehicles were transferred frequently between constituent parts of the British Transport Commission, mostly between various operators but also with British Railways taking on stock.