wombatofludham

Actually I was thinking more along the lines of the original Provincial light blue for the 143 and Metro train red and cream for the 144, which would require some tooling mods and a new seat unit. I remember riding the 143s in Tyne and Wear and pale blue liveries on Railrover holidays in the early 90s and a red and cream WYPTE Class 144 about the same time so I'd probably buy one of each as a nostalgic indulgence (I could always pretend they were on test running along the WCML between Stafford and Crewe!).

Ssssh, don't mention the 80 or it's previous life as a Kerosene Castle - Heljan might decide to make it.

I suspect that won't be a problem for those who model current Northern operations, looking at the photos I expect they will sell like freshly baked cakes. Even I'm thinking of getting one of the ATW Class 143 even though they have never to my knowledge worked the Crewe to Stafford area, on the pretext one might just have replaced a faulty 158 on a Holyhead circuit!

Looking very nice. Did you say that at some stage in the future you might be doing a "backdated" variant with earlier livery styles?

I've come down off the summit of High Dudgeon since I reacted to the news - clearly Heljan are satisfying some sort of need, those that want one will be happy and it will save me some money as I doubt any of them ever reached north of Stafford, well, other than as a line of condemned stock. However, I do have a gut feeling Heljan might not be very interested in 64ft long DMUs, I don't know why, but from their point of view a DPU is virtually a loco in terms of concept and unit pricing, and railbuses are self contained vehicles. Apart from the Bubble Cars and the Class 114 two car sets, most common 64ft underframe DMU classes need three or more vehicles and I can't help thinking that at typical Heljan prices, which do seem to be higher than their competitors, it might be a bit steep for many, something I'm sure Heljan will be weighing up in deciding whether to branch out. That said, we are getting used to three-figure multiple units, so perhaps it's less of an issue than it once was.

Seeing as the Class 16 is just the latest in a raft of announcements of slightly obscure, quirky North British built locos (D600 Warship and Class 22), can we now have another quirky, unsuccessful, limited field of operation, NBL built type - the AL4? At least one of them made it to the NRM!

Reading what others have posted I can see the logic in making a 16 if they share the same underpinnings, as the body moulding must be a smaller proportion of the overall cost of the loco, plus I seem to recall reading somewhere that most models tend to make their money in the first one or two releases, which might explain why Heljan are making a play for niche items - presumably they work on a basis that 100% of a small premium market is better than 50% of a mass market competing with another manufacturer by taking on a more widespread prototype which might at first seem a longer term bet. I'm still not completely convinced though and I'm amazed they lasted ten years. By the way, I'm sure I've seen some video footage of one of these oddities, can't remember if it was on a Huntley compilation or possibly an East Anglian Film Archive video. I'm sure it was on one of the Suffolk branches and it was something filmed either for the BBC or Anglia TV, not a BTF. Good excuse to have a rummage through the video collection if nothing else.

No, not sour grapes at all, Heljan clearly have found a niche market doing one-off freak diesels and there are people who will enjoy them, and good luck to them. However, comparisons with the Class 22 and 23 are not really comparing like with like, although both classes had limited lifespans, they were arguably slightly more successful than the Classes 15 and 16. The Class 22 in particular had a relatively long-ish lifespan for a Hydraulic and apart from the discussed elsewhere issue of a "Warship" was probably one of the gaping holes in RTR for transition era and later Western modellers. The Class 23 has the all important King's Cross kudos which will guarantee sales, plus one of them lasted until quite late with Derby RTC, which is the only one I ever saw in real life, so again, if you want to model something off the wall it makes some sense. It just seems to me that in a period of much talked about austerity for Heljan to invest in such an esoteric locomotive of limited use is decidedly odd. I know dmus leave some "cold" but they were a fact of life, and anyone modelling BR from the mid fifties onwards will almost certainly require at least one no matter how much they may prefer steam as there were very few areas of the country which didn't see them. Given the widespread use of say the Swindon cross-country units from 1957 until 1987 (ish) on Western, Midland, Eastern and Scottish regions, and occasionally even onto third rail territory on specials, it has to stand to reason that a larger number of modellers would probably like at least one, whereas the Class 16? I'm sure those that want one will love it (hopefully, based on recent models from Heljan) and as the prototype never went anywhere near my areas of interest, it saves me some money, so definately no sour grapes there. I just think it seems odd and I'll be honest, I don't understand the obsession with wierd and unsuccessful pilot scheme types that even BR didn't see fit to develop further. Each to their own.

Seriously underwhelmed by yet another model of a useless pilot scheme mobile scrapheap. You can't help but wonder at the commercial case for such a limited interest model when there remain a fleet of potentially wider interest dmus which haven't been modelled yet - the Swindon Cross Country units, for example, which ran pretty much all over the country, and the Derby Suburban units which ran on the Western, Eastern and Midland regions and which ran in a range of liveries would I'm sure become good steady sellers, and help bankroll other esoterica. Very odd choice although well within the Danes seeming obsessive compulsive desire to model British freak diesels.

Comparing the photos of the Heljan model and the real thing, it really does look like the headcode box is quite a bit shallower than it should be, but also the nose appears to have slightly more radiussed corners. However, to me it looks like it's the headcode box which is causing the model to look slightly off. I wonder if a non-headcode version will look better?

Possible but not really very good practice. The company would get far better PR if they came out and said we are aware there are some quality issues, bare with us while we find a solution. By keeping schtumm they are potentially losing a lot of goodwill and some sales. I know I was looking at the all blue 4-VEP as I have always liked the units (despite not being a third rail modeller - more penalty points on the modellers licence!) but will wait and see what happens on the reports of bad running and whether Hornby acknowledge the issue. I know when I did media training when in work I was told that if you've got bad news, best to come clean and say how you intend to positively deal with it, and turn it into positive, not hide it or dodge the issue.

You mis-understand my post. I'm not talking about re-tooling the body, which I said: I'm saying the silence on the running issues is puzzling when Bachmann were prepared to own up to and initiate a costly fix to a relatively minor cosmetic issue. Coming off the rails, traction tyres perishing and noisy/inconsistent running are a far more serious issue than wrong running numbers, and to an extent, some of the moulding deficiencies in the VEP. If a number of people are saying the unit cannot even run consistently on their layouts, it makes the unit unuseable. The horns, bogies and front gangway are more issues of what individual modellers feel is acceptable at the cost charged. I was comparing Bachmann's seeming willingness to correct even relatively minor printing issues, let alone their willingness to retool mouldings which get a panning, with Hornby's silence on a fundamental issue of fitness for purpose. There again if Tetsudofan's retailer is correct and the Hornby rep was not aware of running issues you do wonder what on earth is going on.

Having been following this thread for a while, and not being a Southern modeller at present (but may be interested in the future, hence my reading of this thread) it seems there are two sets of issues - the appearance and body mouldings, and running qualities affecting it seems quite a few, but not all of the production. Trying to be objective, I think the variability in running must be something that Hornby could issue a response to quickly even if a fix may take time. If they could put up their hands and say "We are aware there are deficiencies in some models and we are working on ways to fix it" I'm sure it would go some way to helping the situation. There is obviously a problem given the number of people on here reporting derailing and slow running, and I think it's safe to assume that, given not all modellers know of this site, there are others out there who are experiencing problems but not posting about it on this forum. On the other hand, the "visual" aspects, whilst disappointing, probably are unlikely to be rectified any time soon. I can't think of a new model Hornby have reworked to overcome criticism about their appearance, unlike Bachmann, so I suspect that is off the agenda. Personally I find the silence from Hornby about the operating problems a little odd when you compare it to Bachmann putting up their hands within days of a cosmetic faux-pas on the Blue HAP and offering to do something about it. Putting the wrong numbers on the wrong coaches is relatively minor to derailing, uncommanded variation in speed, disintegrating traction tyres and the other running issues.

Well, it took 25 years for a decent Class 150 sprinter to be made (sorry Dapol but...), and nigh on 40 years for a decent RTR Derby Class 108 to be made, so I suppose 5-6 years for a 350 is pretty quick by comparison!

Ooh, the "Blue Pullman" Dessie arriving just in time for my birthday - that's timing.

The 350 is a pretty canny choice by Bachmann for a dip into the market. They are contemporary, and should appeal to a similar market to their own Voyager and the Hornby Pendolino (the "moving onwards from the trainset" market Hornby targeted with the Pendolino) so I suspect it could do quite well. It also just overlaps into the last days of loco-hauled trains on the West Coast, and although liveries are slightly restricted to two, assuming they do the logical thing and make a 450 you do have the option of a third. There again, the 4-CEP only has green, all-over blue and blue/grey and a similarly limited operating range, so it seems having a wide geographical reach and dozens of liveries to choose from doesn't seem to be as important as some of us perhaps thought. Can't help thinking the "Dessie" could well become a must-have model for people prepared to risk penalty points on their modeller's licence if the pictures of the test mouldings, and the reaction to them, are anything to go by.

A 321 would have wider interest as the similar bodyshells were used on LM, GER, WYPTE, Stansted Express, and as 3 car units in Scotland. OK, there were bodyside window differences between the first batch of GE Class 321s and the later LM based versions, but I'm sure Bachmann would be able to work something out. They might even be able to work out a way to use the same mouldings with different front ends for a 319. The livery options would be enormous and ought to generate quite a bit of interest and sales I would have thought.

I must admit I'm amazed at the solid corridor partitions in the side compartment area, whilst not completely unfixable it shouldn't be happening in what is effectively a mid-range priced model (not an el cheapo Railroad model where compromises can be expected), and I can't help thinking the motor bogie is a step backwards, particularly as they've stuck it in plain view. If Hornby insist on sticking in a self-contained motor bogie and not a motor arrangement like Bachmann which does intrude into the seating area, they could have stuck it in the guards area and let the refurbished model suffer the motor intrusion in the relatively insignificant "snug" area. Even if the "default" design chosen was the refurbished condition because the possible post-privatisation liveries they carried outnumber the pre-refurbishment liveries, it still makes sense that the smaller passenger compartment fitted post refurbishment would hide the bogie better, and the DCC dock could be better accomodated elsewhere (under the roof or even under the floor) without intruding into the main passenger compartment. I still quite fancy having a Southern plank to plank even though I live well north of third rail land, with a CEP, EPB and VEP as the banger blue VEP looks the part to me, but these detail own-goals are frustrating given the progress they have made elsewhere.

I'm pleased to see the Arriva Trenau Cymru 143 will be a reasonably early release, I should be able to justify one of those on my layout without getting too many penalty points on my modellers licence! Can't wait to find out what the next dmu project is, I'm hoping something one might have found on a Holyhead to Birmingham service in 2006....

Sadly, I suspect that will be a very long and ultimately fruitless wait, we might just get a dual voltage Electrostar as that has third rail possibilities, but anything else, probably not. I look forward to hearing more about the next dmu project...there's quite a few out there both heritage and contemporary that would be just as popular as the 143/144 I'm sure.

Congratulations on the interest so far although the response and success is well deserved, the effort going into the model makes the response justified I think. Still working on getting penalty points on my modeller's licence to justify one on a West Coast Main Line North Staffs layout though! If only someone could do a Class 323 to the same standards (subtle as a housebrick, me...)

Mmm, I think I'll have to incure some penalty points on my modellers licence to find a way to get one of these for my layout which is well out of their operating sphere! Can you be persuaded to do an EMU?

I was going to suggest the same thing for a possible future expansion of the range! Really looking forward to the OO OHLE which should be just arriving nicely to co-incide with the erection of my brand new model railway shed and new layout...