S.A.C Martin Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 Halfway down the page here Simon for a start http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/portal/ two clearly different (in many respects) shells for the DoG. and not my imagination Bob - the top one is for the Britannia, as it clearly states: This is particularly important in the case of the amount of external detail fitted to the Britannia compared to the moulded-on detail of the forthcoming Duke of Gloucester. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 Come now James. If the problem is a moulded deflector handrail on a moulded deflector, then a deflector with separately fitted handrails which plugs into the same locating plugs as that one solves that issue. And moulded pipework and roof details? I think James, he's challenging you to a duel on the common at dawn. A bit severe I know, but I am willing to act as second should you accept, believe me I am am a damn good shot sir! I think I'd prefer a man's sport in the form of fencing. A sabre each, and I can assure you sir, I will not need my own second. You however, may need a third... Cricket is a man's game! White clothing, but not quite as tight! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Reid Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 Bob - the top one is for the Britannia, as it clearly states: Simon, the second CAD image is of the DoG, it is clearly all moulded and is clearly not made up of separate stuck on "moulded" details as you were alluding to however if you want to see something else well so be it. The reason for the use of the Britannia in the first image is only to illustrate the difference (there clearly being no DoG Cad's for the main range model yet) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wombatofludham Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 I can't help thinking that the speculation that Hornby is "backsliding" on detail is just that - speculation - until we have seen in the plastic what the new items actually look like. However, if the reduction in seperately fitted parts and increase in moulded details does compromise the overall fidelity and quality of the product - which to my mind isn't certain - then presumably Hornby must have undertaken some sort of research which identifies that it will be worth their while taking the backlash and possible loss of sales from those who want near exhibition quality models who will find the new items less appealing. I do wonder if they have research findings that found that there are a large number of modellers for whom the loss of some more debateable items like sprung buffers and working rooflights, and the use of some moulded detail in areas, doesn't cause a problem if it means the price is more reasonable. If by the same token Hornby can strip off the seperately fitted items they have retained and produce a birthday present priced loco at the same time that will survive being thrown against a wall by a six year old in a temper tantrum, then they are probably keeping a substantial element of their market happy and saving a lot of money in the process, which probably will outweigh the loss of sales from the ultra-detail market. The UK model rail market has always had a reputation for being price sensitive compared to the Continental market so perhaps Hornby have done market research and are optimising their production to satisfy their core market as they see it. I personally though will wait and see what the new items look like before passing judgement as to whether it is a retrograde step - after all I don't have to buy a Duke, I would quite like one as preserved because I had probably my best ever railtour performance behind the loco but if it looks too toy like I'll give it a miss. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Downendian Posted December 29, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 29, 2012 By the same token I decided to learn more about 71000 "DoG," which I now understand wasn't just some tarted up Britannia GTi as I'd casually dismissed it up to now. Quote of the thread for me so far Neil Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJS1977 Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Hi all Looking at the Titfield Thunderbolt set it looks a little wrong , the coach on the low flat was only used in the film with the loco lion and not the 1400, if Hornby was going to do this right they should have done the 1400 with the stock that it did pull at the beginning of the film . It just seem to me that Hornby have just had a look round at what they have and put this little lot together and sell it as a Ltd set. Even the coach on the low flat is just the old 4 wheeler they have been selling for years, you could make this train up for half the price they are selling it for ,if you just brought the bits to make it. Darren I meant to make a similar post some time ago but i think it got lost in the "software upgrade"... I can't help thinking Hornby have missed a trick here. If they brought out a model of the W&U coach that was used in the pre-crash sequences with the 14XX, that could in turn pave the way for a scale model of the Y6/"Toby the Tram Engine" rather than the out-of-scale model used currently in the Thomas range. [Though the 14XX (or rather, one of them - two were used in filming to save turning it round for shots where the train was facing the "other way") was used for fly-shunting "Lion"/"Thunderbolt" and its train up to speed for the later sequences - its smoke can be seen at one point in the film!] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluebottle Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 ... If the problem is a moulded deflector handrail on a moulded deflector, then a deflector with separately fitted handrails which plugs into the same locating plugs as that one solves that issue. In short, one bodyshell for which the key components which make the difference can be changed. ... If we are saying a Railroad P2 and a main range P2 can survive side by side (by Hornby's own admission in their range announcements) then it stands to reason that the model could be designed around the common chassis and a common bodyshell if they are willing to. I am sure the modeller would accept certain moulded compromises if it meant that certain separate details could be kept. As the deflectors on the first two P2s in original form were forward extensions of the "air smoothed" casing and not separate as on the DoG, with single handrails all the way from the cab to the front of the running plate, presumably separately fitted handrails would not be among those details which could be kept? Gordon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
298 Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Y If we are saying a Railroad P2 and a main range P2 can survive side by side (by Hornby's own admission in their range announcements) then it stands to reason that the model could be designed around the common chassis and a common bodyshell if they are willing to. I am sure the modeller would accept certain moulded compromises if it meant that certain separate details could be kept. Does that mean we'll be getting a Railroad model, and a "not Railroad, but not quite the quality of models in our existing range" type model...? You cant ignore the fact that a certain element are prepared to pay a hefty price for a quality model (not only in correct separately applied details but numerous separate printing processes as seen on their Teak coaches). Ignoring your previous benchmark standard can't be a good thing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
45568 Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 With regard to the Trout hopper, hopefully these photos, although not the greatest quality, will illustrate the positioning, colour and "return to" instructions. Resprayed from an LNER liveried example, and later BR examples, and lettered with Cambridge transfers sheet BL117. They await weathering, as daytime temperatures of 40degC for six days running,(so far), do not encourage shed activities ! Cheers, Peter C. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.A.C Martin Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Simon, the second CAD image is of the DoG, it is clearly all moulded and is clearly not made up of separate stuck on "moulded" details as you were alluding to however if you want to see something else well so be it. The reason for the use of the Britannia in the first image is only to illustrate the difference (there clearly being no DoG Cad's for the main range model yet) That's interesting Bob because I took that to mean there was only one bodyshell type but with additional glazing units and etched nameplates. If someone would clarify, DoG could perhaps be put to bed? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Ian J. Posted December 30, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 30, 2012 I agree with Simon, we could really do with some clarification on the DoG moulding after Bob's mucking about. However, my understanding to date, and I've seen nothing to suggest otherwise, is that there will be one main moulding for DoG with pipework and the like moulded on. There will be no extra details and a cheaper paint finish for the Railroad version, and a few extra fitted details and a better paint finish for the Main version. Of course S.K. has said a reason for Design Clever is to allow variation in modellers' wishes to be taken into account alongside its main purpose of making cost savings, so there's no reason that different smoke deflectors with separate handrails for the Main version couldn't be done, but as of the moment, we don't know which way that could go. If, however, there was a way to do both moulded and separate pipework within the same basic body tooling, then that would be a different matter entirely. I certainly doubt that Hornby would want to do two separate body tools bearing in mind their desire to keep costs down, even though that would be the way I'd like it done. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigherb Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 That's interesting Bob because I took that to mean there was only one bodyshell type but with additional glazing units and etched nameplates. If someone would clarify, DoG could perhaps be put to bed? That what it seamed to suggest. "This approach allows Hornby to adopt a two-tier approach to the models and the detail. Using the Duke of Gloucester as an example there will be a Railroad product and a main range product. The Railroad product will have cut-down livery detail and no separate parts supplied with an RRP of £82.99 (R3168) whereas the main range product will have fitted glazing, etched nameplates and an additional detail pack with an RRP of £119.99 (R3191). This approach should satisfy the spectrum of modellers from those who want robust value and those who want finer detail at a slightly higher price. It also allows Hornby to satisfy distinctly different market sectors with fundamentally the same product; an approach which was successfully begun with their Tornado model". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmrspaul Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 SAM_0576.JPG SAM_0575.JPG SAM_0572.JPG With regard to the Trout hopper, hopefully these photos, although not the greatest quality, will illustrate the positioning, colour and "return to" instructions. Resprayed from an LNER liveried example, and later BR examples, and lettered with Cambridge transfers sheet BL117. They await weathering, as daytime temperatures of 40degC for six days running,(so far), do not encourage shed activities ! Cheers, Peter C. A word of caution. I am fully aware that John makes considerable effort to get his transfers correct. However, the one I mentioned earlier in the Met Camm book is not like this, although it is a Lackenby example. The positioning is different, the words are different, there is no box around the branding (I do find this an unusual feature pre 1963) and there is no TROUT lettering. I accept it is always dangerous to work from official photos as there is a tendency for them to be taken before the writing or plating is complete. However, a quick look at a few other departmental wagons in the very earliest days of BR does suggest they may not have had the aquatic names written. The little GWR style 10Ton open ballast "Starfish" never seem to have received their names. Paul Bartlett Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Y Posted December 30, 2012 Author Share Posted December 30, 2012 However, my understanding to date, and I've seen nothing to suggest otherwise, is that there will be one main moulding for DoG with pipework and the like moulded on. There will be no extra details and a cheaper paint finish for the Railroad version, and a few extra fitted details and a better paint finish for the Main version. Correct with the addition of glazing and etched nameplates on the main range model. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Reid Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Mucking about with what? - Is it any wonder there's confusion when everyone's guessing here with little fact involved? I agree with Simon, we could really do with some clarification on the DoG moulding after Bob's mucking about. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.A.C Martin Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 So - in short - my original interpretation was correct? At least that's cleared up. It is up to the DoG purchasers as to whether addition of glazing and etched plates make a "main range model". I feel strongly that in the case of the P2, that if it was handled in a similar manner to that described, I would seriously reconsider my purchase of a main range model. It would make little sense to me to buy that grade of model if the intention (as it would be with me) was to carve off moulded details left, right and centre to bring it up to a similar standard set by the excellent Hornby L1, B1, B17 and O1 models recently released. I'd plump for the Railroad only and make modifications that way. A pity as a top of the range P2 is unlikely to be a slow mover, given its prominence in the wishlists for nearly ten years and counting...! I feel the points I made earlier in the thread still stand. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jim s-w Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 This approach should satisfy the spectrum of modellers from those who want robust value and those who want finer detail at a slightly higher price. . Slightly higher price is not nearly half again for a couple of nameplates, some windows and a detailing pack. I cant see there being a huge market for that TBH Cheers Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.A.C Martin Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Mucking about with what? - Is it any wonder there's confusion when everyone's guessing here with little fact involved? It seems to me that rather than a "lack of facts", it's the "lack of clarity" which has led to this roundabout discussion and much wringing of hands. Now we do know how DoG's two models will proceed - with the information to hand and confirmation by Andy Y above - the question remains, who on here would purchase the main range model as opposed to buying the Railroad one and detailing it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Reid Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Which is where it all falls apart Simon. £37 for a pack of details that other manufacturers throw in for free (save for some glazing). I'm not convinced. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Downendian Posted December 30, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 30, 2012 Mucking about with what? - Is it any wonder there's confusion when everyone's guessing here with little fact involved? Bob certainly hasn't been mucking about. His points are completely valid, and there hasn't been a clear steer on what Hornbyesque design clever means. I'm sure Hornby will clarify for us to reduce the electron activity around this topic, which has got rather warm for some reason. Neil Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.A.C Martin Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Which is where it all falls apart Simon. £37 for a pack of details that other manufacturers throw in for free (save for some glazing). I'm not convinced. I concur with you entirely Bob, however then there is the question of livery to factor in. I have to ask - how much more lining out is going to be ommitted, really, on a main range DoG compared to a Railroad one? BR Green isn't exactly the most complicated of liveries, and I note the Duke's own livery is a simplified version of that on the Brit 7MTs in any event. I suppose looking at the current Railroad Evening Star model would give a good indication of what would be missing/simplified in terms of livery application to the Railroad DoG. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Max Stafford Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Heid scratching continues apace! Dave. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
'CHARD Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Bob certainly hasn't been mucking about. His points are completely valid, and there hasn't been a clear steer on what Hornbyesque design clever means. I'm sure Hornby will clarify for us to reduce the electron activity around this topic, which has got rather warm for some reason. Neil Aha! But look how I became a self-taught DoG -vs- GTi exponent over the course of the last 445 pages Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Reid Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Of course some of the £37 extra could be going towards the badly throttled blastpipe and inefficient (DCC controlled) Triang Synchrosmoke unit... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Max Stafford Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 DCC sound's still mince! Dave. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.