2023 Overall Feeling

[eldomtom2]

2 hours ago, Ravenser said:

Compression from 12 cars to 8 cars will be necessary - I'm not advocating full length formations , but if you are modelling a commuter railway of any significance in the South East , I'm afraid you have to go to 8 cars to look sensible

That is a matter of personal taste. I would hesitate to make sweeping statements about the maximum degree of compression permitted.

[Geep7]

Going slightly off topic. On my Southern Region layout, I set my maximum length of train at 6 cars, so either a 4 car + 2 car or 3 x 2 car emu's, plus I could run a loco + 5 Mk1 passenger (Prototypical for a Bristol/Cardiff to Pompey cross-country service). I counted myself lucky at the time, as I had a full 16ft length of wall, plus 4ft width at the fiddleyard end to add a curved fiddle yard to take 6 coach trains. Unfortunately this space is now unavailable so I have had to compromise with a small shunting layout that will just about take a 2-car EMU and a loco + half a dozen 4-wheel wagons.

 

Coming back on topic for the Hornby 2023 releases, I have my feet in 2 camps..... I was rather taken by surprise by the announcement of a newly tooled TTA, seeing as Bachmann already do them. It would be nice if they were doing them in Black, as bitumen or heating oil tanks, but I could easily do a repaint, as I have already done with some Railroad TTA tanks. I also model Spanish HO (I may have mentioned it on here once or twice), and there are a couple of newly tooled locomotives and coaches and some re-liveries of freight stock in the Electrotren announcement, but not at much as previous years. Again, as with the British Outline, we are still waiting on items that were in the Electrotren 2022 and 2021 announcements.

[Steamport Southport]

Nice watching the video on this page with the Spamcan pulling 23 coaches.....

 

 

 

 

Jason

 

 

 

[SD85]

Not retooling the 8F is a huge open goal missed TBH.

Edited January 19, 2023 by SD85

[Pteremy]

Is anyone else surprised that the TT120 Class 08 has been deemed too small for a sound decoder? (See the Bluetooth etc thread.) I had assumed that the push behind TT120 was, in effect, to provide for 21st century table top train sets - small, but to scale and with all the technical whizzbangs that DCC can provide. I can see why that would be a very attractive proposition. But if small TT120 locos are not so whizzbang how do you achieve anything approaching prototypical accuracy - unless you primarily focus on the railway as it is now, in 2023?

[Neil]

1 minute ago, Pteremy said:

Is anyone else surprised that the TT120 Class 08 has been deemed too small for a sound decoder? (See the Bluetooth etc thread.) I had assumed that the push behind TT120 was, in effect, to provide for 21st century table top train sets - small, but to scale and with all the technical whizzbangs that DCC can provide. I can see why that would be a very attractive proposition. But if small TT120 locos are not so whizzbang how do you achieve anything approaching prototypical accuracy - unless you primarily focus on the railway as it is now, in 2023?

 

I'm not convinced by DCC sound in whatever sized loco the noisy parts have been bolted into; it sounds tinny in even the best set ups. I think that there's a valid argument to be made that DCC sound does not confer prototypical accuracy to a model but that it's a gadget, a novelty item or a feature which may add to the 'play value'  but might actually detract from 'prototypical accuracy' in the same way that a clumsy paint job or over scale handrails does. 

[HExpressD]

1 hour ago, Pteremy said:

Is anyone else surprised that the TT120 Class 08 has been deemed too small for a sound decoder? (See the Bluetooth etc thread.) I had assumed that the push behind TT120 was, in effect, to provide for 21st century table top train sets - small, but to scale and with all the technical whizzbangs that DCC can provide. I can see why that would be a very attractive proposition. But if small TT120 locos are not so whizzbang how do you achieve anything approaching prototypical accuracy - unless you primarily focus on the railway as it is now, in 2023?

 

Probably not too small for DCC sound as confirmed by sound fitted N and 009 models, but perhaps too small to easily and cheaply mass fit with DCC sound in a factory. 

[Michael Hodgson]

On 17/01/2023 at 19:12, Ravenser said:

 

Compression from 12 cars to 8 cars will be necessary - I'm not advocating full length formations , but if you are modelling a commuter railway of any significance in the South East , I'm afraid you have to go to 8 cars to look sensible

Until relatively recently the commuter service round here (out of Kings Cross) was 8 car max (you can't get 12 into the Suburban Station - the few 12 coach trains had to use the main line platforms) and 4 cars on many off-peak trains.  That's the outer Suburbans. 

We also had the class 313 inner subrbans serving Moorgate & Kings Cross, 6 car in the rush hour, sometimes only a single 3-car set off-peak.

 

When I started commuting, the wires ran only as far as Royston and Peterborough.  Royston-Cambridge and local trains Hitchin-Huntingdon were a mere 2-car DMU.

 

Of course, you may well consider north of the river as not being in the South East.

[phil gollin]

On 18/01/2023 at 16:04, Steamport Southport said:

Nice watching the video on this page with the Spamcan pulling 23 coaches.....

 

Jason

 

.

 

Complete with prototypical slipping trying to start the load.

 

Fun and excellent.

 

.

[Pteremy]

14 hours ago, Neil said:

 

I think that there's a valid argument to be made that DCC sound does not confer prototypical accuracy to a model but that it's a gadget, a novelty item or a feature which may add to the 'play value'  but might actually detract from 'prototypical accuracy' in the same way that a clumsy paint job or over scale handrails does. 

 

It may not confer 'prototypical accuracy' but it can increase the enjoyment of running a loco in any setting, whatever compromises your layout makes to being prototypically accurate - so including a table top train set. It is just another context in which the acceptability or otherwise of a particular compromise is in the eyes - or ears - of the modeller.

[Dunsignalling]

25 minutes ago, Pteremy said:

 

It may not confer 'prototypical accuracy' but it can increase the enjoyment of running a loco in any setting, whatever compromises your layout makes to being prototypically accurate - so including a table top train set. It is just another context in which the acceptability or otherwise of a particular compromise is in the eyes - or ears - of the modeller.

 

Best definition of "play value" I've seen in quite a while.... 🙂

 

[Ravenser]

19 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Until relatively recently the commuter service round here (out of Kings Cross) was 8 car max (you can't get 12 into the Suburban Station - the few 12 coach trains had to use the main line platforms) and 4 cars on many off-peak trains.  That's the outer Suburbans. 

We also had the class 313 inner subrbans serving Moorgate & Kings Cross, 6 car in the rush hour, sometimes only a single 3-car set off-peak.

 

When I started commuting, the wires ran only as far as Royston and Peterborough.  Royston-Cambridge and local trains Hitchin-Huntingdon were a mere 2-car DMU.

 

Of course, you may well consider north of the river as not being in the South East.

 

 

The GN suburban may be a little easier to do than anywhere else. But even if 8 cars/6 cars is prototypical max you then have to allow for an ECML express, so you aren't actually any better off .

 

Unless perhaps you model Royston, where there would be some operational interest with 2 trains turning back in differnt directions. Whether that would be enough to sustain the layout I'm not sure 

 

You could model Royston on a day when the ECML is diverted via Cambridge . VBut then you are straight back in the bind , cos the FY has to take full length HSTs,  Deltic/47 +8 , in squadron service. Again you are looking at 20' length  or more in OO to ensure the storage sidings can handle the trains

 

(That , BTW, is one reason why the abortive club project needed to find a conurbation outside London where there were electric services away from mainlines . Needing to accommodate full length ECML/WCML services in the fiddle yard would have been just as much of a killer. We did have to contend with a senior member of the club who made it abundantly clear that he would ensure the Committee vetoed any scheme that did not accomodate a scale length HST . We dealt with that by having a 2+7 HST (scale length for Cross Country) shuttle up and back to one road in the FY. But then that's your longest FY road taken ...)

[Michael Hodgson]

22 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

Unless perhaps you model Royston, where there would be some operational interest with 2 trains turning back in differnt directions. Whether that would be enough to sustain the layout I'm not sure 

 

Royston when first electrified was interesting, though quite a long layout to model. 

Overnight two 8-car sets each were stabled in both platforms, closing the running lines to overnight through traffic.

Presumably they would have moved them elsewhere as ECS if ECML overnight diversions were planned.

Edited January 20, 2023 by Michael Hodgson

[D9020 Nimbus]

It clearly should be possible to do a sound fitted 08 in TT—there is a sound-fitted 08 in the Farish range in N. However, Farish use a Zimo decoder which may be more compact than anything Hornby would use. Whether it is a good idea to fit sound to an 0-6-0 if there isn't room for a stay-alive is another matter altogether…

 

In some contexts at least sound can increase prototypical accuracy. For example, the guard's departure whistle, the driver's acknowledgment and so on. And in the USA, the use of the bell and horn signals. There are also horn signals used in German practice, especially on branch lines operated under the Zugleitbetrieb (a simplified way of operating quiet branch lines with fewer staff).

[vikingsmb]

I've noticed that their railroad plus 47 has the same gears as a lima 47, and the warship has, I really do hope they are going back to serviceable motors again, if so I will gladly part my money for 1 x green 47 and 1 warship, also some blue GUV's as well 

[frobisher]

44 minutes ago, vikingsmb said:

I've noticed that their railroad plus 47 has the same gears as a lima 47, and the warship has, I really do hope they are going back to serviceable motors again, if so I will gladly part my money for 1 x green 47 and 1 warship, also some blue GUV's as well 

 

Those are photoshoped images and don't reflect the actual models.  The service sheets for these items show that they all use the Hornby Limby motor bogies.  The Lima ringfield motors can't be made anymore due to the relative toxicity of some of the materials in them, at least that was the explanation nearly 20 years ago.

[Ravenser]

17 minutes ago, frobisher said:

 

Those are photoshoped images and don't reflect the actual models.  The service sheets for these items show that they all use the Hornby Limby motor bogies.  The Lima ringfield motors can't be made anymore due to the relative toxicity of some of the materials in them, at least that was the explanation nearly 20 years ago.

 

 

I thought there was also some suggestion that there was a suppression issue with the old Ringfields?

[Ighten]

I started off quite excited by the new BT DCC but I'm already a bit concerned by the fact one sound model is sold out before we even have reached a release.

 

I'll explain why.. this product in my mind is a great idea to make DCC affordable and easy even for the new user. But and it's a big but.. it is very in house only orientated and if the house itself doesn't seem (already ) to be capable of matching demand with production I see problems. I hope I'm wrong as I have pre ordered a few and look forward to trying it. But this isn't a ltd loco run.. this should be a fluid limitless production that at least matches the number of "x" pin locos in the market.

[vikingsmb]

37 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

 

 

I thought there was also some suggestion that there was a suppression issue with the old Ringfields?

they may have got around that issue, we dont know, when it comes out i will look at my local model shop

[scottrains29]

The odd thing now is that Hornby have re-engineered the Railroad ex-Lima 67 again, but this time they've actually removed the smooth dual flywheel, twin bogie drive mechanism and replaced it with the rubbish Railroad motor bogie. This was the best feature of this model!!

 

The Lima 67 was one of their best models mainly due to the mechanism. Hornby then spent time and money improving the mech using their own smooth 5 pole motor and adding nem sockets to the bogies. Seems a very backward step to then remove this improved mech and spending money redesigning the bogie to now take a Railroad bogie instead. The cost saving can't be that great. I wonder if it is to differentiate the model with their slightly better one. I'll certainly not be buying the Railroad one now.

 

It always seems like Hornby actively try to make their models worse, year after year! From removing features (rotating fans, opening doors etc) to designing worse and worse models. Their more recently designed models (67, 87, 91 etc) greatly lack features, with next to no cab interior detail.

The 91 is the worst one yet, with very basic moulded cab interior, basic overall detail etc. The model doesn't even run on the average layout due to the poorly designed bogies completely lacking any lateral movement. They then have the cheek to charge significantly more for it than the vastly superior Bachmann 90 and Accurascale 92. If anything the 91 should be cheaper as you're then stuck buying Hornby mk4s to run with it. The new mk4s are very lacklustre too, just compare the mk4 DVT to the older, better yet cheaper mk3 DVT.

 

Hornby really need to start looking at their better older models (08,50,56,60 etc) and the current competition, then trying to improve on this. I actually wonder if Hornby have given up competing in modern oo, hence why they're trying to go into tt big style.

 

[Ighten]

The only other thing that caught my eye was the pricing on Cl73 battle of Britain.. 

 

What baffles me is that if this does contain the new sound BT chip and that Hornby will move over to 21pin regardless of the model,(as seen in the ,"should be railroad" cl66)  by spring 2024 the chip is worth nearly more than a dc class 73 anyway making this quite cheap. No doubt the price is wrong or the description flawed or I'm just confused by wine.

Edited February 18, 2023 by Ighten

[vikingsmb]

49 minutes ago, scottrains29 said:

The odd thing now is that Hornby have re-engineered the Railroad ex-Lima 67 again, but this time they've actually removed the smooth dual flywheel, twin bogie drive mechanism and replaced it with the rubbish Railroad motor bogie. This was the best feature of this model!!

 

The Lima 67 was one of their best models mainly due to the mechanism. Hornby then spent time and money improving the mech using their own smooth 5 pole motor and adding nem sockets to the bogies. Seems a very backward step to then remove this improved mech and spending money redesigning the bogie to now take a Railroad bogie instead. The cost saving can't be that great. I wonder if it is to differentiate the model with their slightly better one. I'll certainly not be buying the Railroad one now.

 

It always seems like Hornby actively try to make their models worse, year after year! From removing features (rotating fans, opening doors etc) to designing worse and worse models. Their more recently designed models (67, 87, 91 etc) greatly lack features, with next to no cab interior detail.

The 91 is the worst one yet, with very basic moulded cab interior, basic overall detail etc. The model doesn't even run on the average layout due to the poorly designed bogies completely lacking any lateral movement. They then have the cheek to charge significantly more for it than the vastly superior Bachmann 90 and Accurascale 92. If anything the 91 should be cheaper as you're then stuck buying Hornby mk4s to run with it. The new mk4s are very lacklustre too, just compare the mk4 DVT to the older, better yet cheaper mk3 DVT.

 

Hornby really need to start looking at their better older models (08,50,56,60 etc) and the current competition, then trying to improve on this. I actually wonder if Hornby have given up competing in modern oo, hence why they're trying to go into tt big style.

 

having said that scott, they need to start producing models with serviceable motors esp with the current cost of living crisis and the availability of parts etc, having said that, they are bringing out a brand new 4F tender loco with tender drive, and i've checked the service sheet and it has replaceable brushes

Edited February 18, 2023 by vikingsmb

[Hroth]

11 minutes ago, scottrains29 said:

The odd thing now is that Hornby have re-engineered the Railroad ex-Lima 67 again, but this time they've actually removed the smooth dual flywheel, twin bogie drive mechanism and replaced it with the rubbish Railroad motor bogie. This was the best feature of this model!!

 

The Lima 67 was one of their best models mainly due to the mechanism. Hornby then spent time and money improving the mech using their own smooth 5 pole motor and adding nem sockets to the bogies. Seems a very backward step to then remove this improved mech and spending money redesigning the bogie to now take a Railroad bogie instead. The cost saving can't be that great. I wonder if it is to differentiate the model with their slightly better one. I'll certainly not be buying the Railroad one now.

 

It always seems like Hornby actively try to make their models worse, year after year! From removing features (rotating fans, opening doors etc) to designing worse and worse models. Their more recently designed models (67, 87, 91 etc) greatly lack features, with next to no cab interior detail.

The 91 is the worst one yet, with very basic moulded cab interior, basic overall detail etc. The model doesn't even run on the average layout due to the poorly designed bogies completely lacking any lateral movement. They then have the cheek to charge significantly more for it than the vastly superior Bachmann 90 and Accurascale 92. If anything the 91 should be cheaper as you're then stuck buying Hornby mk4s to run with it. The new mk4s are very lacklustre too, just compare the mk4 DVT to the older, better yet cheaper mk3 DVT.

 

Hornby really need to start looking at their better older models (08,50,56,60 etc) and the current competition, then trying to improve on this. I actually wonder if Hornby have given up competing in modern oo, hence why they're trying to go into tt big style.

 

 

I think it's a retrograde version for Railroad and trainset use , there will still be a full fat option with all mod cons.

 

[frobisher]

2 hours ago, vikingsmb said:

having said that scott, they need to start producing models with serviceable motors esp with the current cost of living crisis and the availability of parts etc, having said that, they are bringing out a brand new 4F tender loco with tender drive, and i've checked the service sheet and it has replaceable brushes

 

Are you absolutely sure about that, as both the 4F and 2P seem to have been updated to loco drive in 2011?

 

HSS378 Class 4F Service Sheet.eps (Hornby.com)

2P Class Service Sheet.eps (Hornby.com)

 

I think you're confusing it with these older service sheets...

 

SS 225B.indd (Hornby.com) (2005)

ss_245c_class_4f.pdf (Hornby.com) (2006)

[Dunsignalling]

6 hours ago, frobisher said:

 

Are you absolutely sure about that, as both the 4F and 2P seem to have been updated to loco drive in 2011?

 

HSS378 Class 4F Service Sheet.eps (Hornby.com)

2P Class Service Sheet.eps (Hornby.com)

 

I think you're confusing it with these older service sheets...

 

SS 225B.indd (Hornby.com) (2005)

ss_245c_class_4f.pdf (Hornby.com) (2006)

AIUI, Hornby had no choice about replacing the tender drives and the similar pancake motors in diesel models (including their own Ringfield ones). The regulations for RF interference were tightened, and none of them were compliant with the revised standards.

 

TBF, though, counting my own collection and those locos I service for the "big layout", I've only had to replace one (out of getting on for 100 in total) fitted with Hornby's sealed motors since they were introduced, and that was on a ten-year-old example, bought second-hand, that seemed to have partially seized up from disuse and terminally overheated when we did run it!

 

Modern motors don't arc like their older counterparts so don't  "eat" brushes in the same way.

 

John

Edited February 19, 2023 by Dunsignalling