Gerald Henriksen

I think the windows in general are a problem - the frames stick out from the body far too much in my opinion. Looking at some pictures I found on Flickr, the real Mk3s have frames that just barely stick out from the body. In contrast, the Oxford model the frames, while not as bad as the older Jouef model, still have quite a prominent "height" to them. https://www.flickr.com/photos/richa2002/25887833862 https://www.flickr.com/photos/93223521@N04/15257182442/

The Hornby Hall is a result of their (fortunately brief) "design clever" period (around 2013) where they thought they could design models that would serve both the main range and the railroad range. In the end the benefits of the main range models often weren't that different, though one area was in the paint finish - the railroad version didn't have the fancier lining or other complicated finish items. On the other hand, it also is very unfair to compare an expensive model at full price and then the cheaper version at a really cheap clearance price. It distorts the comparison. Rood Ashton Hall listed at £123, and the railroad model listed originally at £83 (your model, from a successive run, lists at £95) difference. So the real price difference is not £65 but £40 (or maybe was, it will be interesting to see if Hornby does any more releases in the main range of this model).

In your original reply you included the following quote: scan of the prototype is a 3D scan. Now it is possible that the person you were quoting is incorrect. My point though is that adding details that don't exist on a prototype is a step further into the amateur category then steps, which while not apparently perfectly in place are at least close.

Sorry, but given that Oxford was using a 3D scan, and Kernow / DJM weren't, it means Oxford still gets to hold that distinction (well, that and the fact that adding non-existant rivets can't exactly be justified on the grounds that it is needed to allow the model to operate). Besides, unless someone comes out and admits it was a mistake, there is certainly ample evidence that the splasher issue is likely a matter of compromise to allow the model to sit at the correct height (unlike the Heljan version), and not an "amateurish mistake".

Newsletter #88 (*) says the designer Rapido have working on the Royal Hudson (Mr. Fu) has 30 years experience designing steam locomotives. It also mentions a deadline, I wonder if Bill was able to provide the complete running samples on time ... Newsletter #92 (**), which mentions the decision to go with an all main axles driven, also mentions the reasons why the decision was made (specifically to avoid uneven starts and lurching). I would hesitate to make comparisons between the models of another manufacturer and what Rapido will deliver, as well as trying to compare a British model to a North American model - North American HO model trains tend to be both longer and heavier than British OO trains which might lead to different stresses on the mechanism. For anybody on the fence, remember that a working sample of the Royal Hudson will be available prior to the order deadline (it will have a (currently estimated) cross-Canada hobby shop tour in January/February 2018 with the order deadline after the tour, and I am sure video will be provided in the usual Rapido manner to allow people to judge for themselves how the model performs. * http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Rapido-News-Vol--88---Loads-of-Project-Updates.html?soid=1101318906379&aid=EB_w9n2ql2c#a9 ** http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Rapido-News-Vol--92---New-Videos--deadlines-and-factory-updates-.html?soid=1101318906379&aid=lAXRjGa-Dq0#a5

And I never indicated that it was a conspiracy of complaint, merely was pointing out given that new tooling is frequently discussed on this thread that in the case of this particular model what you see is what you get given it is existing tooling.

Then I am confused, because you seemed (to me) to be joining in a complaint about the model, and saying thus you hope they are a pre-production sample (thus I assume hoping corrections to come), and when I indicate that likely isn't true then you say you know that?

It is a boxcar, an all-door boxcar. Some photos and info can be seen at: http://www.trainweb.org/mccloudrails/Equipment/AllDoorBoxcars.html

The 2 strokes are an niche product at this point (almost custom built), so I don't see the CAT plants wanting to deal with them. The "future" is a 4 stroke engine (EMD 12-1010) with the change to 4 stroke apparently needed to meet tier-4 exhaust standards (the 1010 being a further development of the engine designed for the SD90's). As for "future", since 2015 it has been the EMD SD70ACe-T4 vs the (2012 released) GE ET44AC (and variants). GE - 819 (BNSF, CN, CSX, NS, UP) EMD - 100 (UP, with BNSF testing 2 of the UP order)

This is a list that has been compiled of Sanborn Fire Maps for Tennesse, some of the areas your interest travelled through might be available: http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/EART/sanbul_TN.html Unfortunately while some of the Sanborn maps are available online a lot still remain in library/museum type collections and require a physical visit which is problematic when your not local. Also, a word of advise about Sanborn maps in general - yes, they can be a good source of info but they are not like traditional maps. Due to their purpose (fire insurance) they focused on buildings, more often when close to each other, so a map for town / city A won't necessarily cover all of A but rather they maps may appear "chopped up" as they only cover parts of A. Thus a map of A can sometimes actually totally omit the railway if the railway was on the outskirts of town or otherwise didn't have a bunch of buildings close to each other. In other words, for anyone researching Sanborn maps, it can be worth checking to see if they actually cover what you are interested in before investing a lot of time/money into looking at them. [Edit] They are also quite big, hence even a smaller city can be covered by multiple maps. This is because being interested in buildings they were big enough so details of the buildings could be noted - type of construction, etc. which would influence insurance costs.

But remember retail is a two way street - what Hornby may want can only be part of the issue if the retailer in question doesn't want to stock Hornby and/or model trains. Just to point out we don't know what has happened, and before jumping on Hornby at least acknowledge while Hornby may be the issue it is also possible the issue is Hobbycraft.

Stores outside of the US and Canada are not part of the bankrupcty process, which is mainly a way to try and deal with the excessive debt created by the leveraged buy out orchestrated 10 or so years ago. Not related to Hornby at all, but for those interested an article on why the big toy companies (Mattel, Hasbro) won't / can't allow Toys'R'Us to go under: https://www.thespec.com/news-story/7570734-toys-r-us-lives-on-because-mattel-can-t-let-it-die/

They are final approval samples, basically for approving the paint and livery before going into production. But, and its a big but, they are another run of existing tooling, NOT new tooling, and as such they are what already exists.

Sorry, but I have to comment on this because you could not be more wrong. I have followed Rapido Trains (for those not closely following the company making the model for Rails of Sheffield) from the beginning, more specifically following Jason Shron (the founder of Rapido) since prior to the company existing in its current form and he was still working on his postgraduate degree in Birmingham. The one thing that has been consistent throughout that time is that Jason, and thus by extension Rapido and all of its employees, constantly strive to improve the realism of the models - and Jason has taken a lot of flak publicly over the years about his attention to detail and what a part of the hobby view as frivolous extras. If it physically can be done to improve the accuracy of the model, Rapido is the company that will do it. The esteem Rapido is held in the hobby for the quality of the products was demonstrated today by a post on a different website, where someone is looking for a "Rapido Quality" model: http://atlasrescueforum.proboards.com/thread/5743/rapido-quality-caboose Thus, even though we haven't seen the finished thing, I feel confident that the end model will be the best possible model given the current state of manufacturing ability. In fact, I personally would go further and state that Rapido is the only company that I would unconditionally pre-order any model from sight unseen if I had a need/wanted said model.

Part of the problem is question was rather vague considering the size of the US and what exactly you were looking for. As mentioned by others the Sanborn Fire Insurance maps can be a good source, while some are online they can also be found in University library collections, local museums, and other various places. You can also check out the historical society for the railroad you are interested in (if it exists), or the archives if the railroad still exists. With more specific info there may even be books to be recommended, though you may need a different forum to get that sort of info. Facebook can also be a good source, there are a lot of groups on Facebook dedicated to certain railroads, or certain areas of the country. Failing all of that, joining a general oriented group on Facebook (like say Model Rail Radio) where a wide variety of model railroaders follow things and asking there might be more conductive to an answer.

And soon from Kernow - review samples have arrived with the rest expected 6-8 weeks: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/89145-kernow-model-rail-centre-to-produce-gwr-1361-0-6-0-saddle-tank/?p=2859765

Two North American products for you to ponder, and then consider how lucky you are (both from Rapido): 1) New Haven Parlor coach - $100 or £74 (or £88.80 with vat) 2) VIA Rail Budd Dome coach - $110 or £81.40 (£97.68 with vat) The "cheap" alternative (Walthers) are in the $80 range.

I wasn't making fun of your suggestions, but rather just pointing out (as Bill did so well) that the compromises inherent in a small scale model (and by that I mean anything G or smaller) mean that a lot of stuff just doesn't work. As for the comment regarding the video, I would argue it is not what Europeans are currently getting. I just went through the Roco 2017 catalogs and none of the passenger coaches list opening doors as a feature, and none of the electric locos list operating pantographs, though they do all list flywheels and lighting, something that even many/most British models have. So it appears to have been a one off model that while maybe popular, wasn't popular enough to justify expanding it (unless the catalogs are misleading and simply chose not to mention a major set of features). As for the opening doors in particular, take a look at the door at the 1:12 mark of the video and look at that huge gap at the top of the door. It wrecks the look of what otherwise looks like a reasonable model. At about 1/2 mm that works out to 4.5 cm / 1.77" in the real life, and no real coach would go around with that sort of gap. There is a line between increasing the realism of a model, and turning the model into a toy, and clearly that model crossed into the toy side. Look, I get where you are coming from, and I agree their are issues with what people are willing to accept. I have argued a few times on this forum about this sort of thing, most recently with a (to me) disappointing steam announcement that looks more toy like than a cheaper competitor (albeit different prototype). But there is also a big question of whether something is a genuine improvement in a model, or just a gimmick. To me part of the bar that a new feature needs to pass is that it doesn't make the model "worse" in the visual department.

False, at least in the US. https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits

Look at the side view of the model images posted, and look at all the detail around the extra wheel. How do you have that detail deal with a wheel that will be twisting around - while the bottom of the wheel heads under the coach to follow the rail that means the top of the wheel must rotate outwards. Then there would be the problem of actually keeping on the rail given that the wheel will inherently be raising up as the wheel swings, thus leaving the track, risking derailing the coach as it catches on something when it drops back down onto something (and even if they put a spring mechanism to lower the assembly you still would have the issue of the flange no longer being lined up with the rail). I just don't see how an eggcup axle could solve the problem. It is unique. You may think is belongs with Mallard, but consider: 1) Mallard itself had the cost advantage that the tooling was just an A4, thus spread across all the other A4 models sold (thus Mallard itself is not a "unique" model) 2) Many people with a model of Mallard won't be interested in running it with a Dynamometer car, rather it will just be an A4 in passenger service. 3) auto-coach, while more niche, is hardly unique. A layout could have more than 1 auto-coach train, and even a single train could have 2 auto-coaches on it. It can also be a memory for people who may have ridden on one on several of the heritage railways. 4) as for some of the other models, yes it may be only 1 per layout, but they are selling to a larger market - not to people who already have a model of 1 specific steam locomotive.

The unofficial, often repeated, amount to tool up a new model is £100,000, thought that will change based on how many molds are required, how many variations to allow for, and how difficult the prototype is. There may be ways to cut costs for smaller production runs, but I would guess it would still be expensive. For fun you may want to check out this video posted today by Rapido, which in addition to showing how models are assembled (painting, printing, adding details, prepping parts for future products) also has a 90 second segment on the tooling for an upcoming steam model where you can see both how involved it is to make the molds, but also just how many molds are required for a model(*) - the segment starts at the 2:51 point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka7LC1jia64 * the model in question is a CPR Royal Hudson, if interested pictures of the prototype can be seen here to see what the molds will make: https://rapidotrains.com/hudson-master-class/

Toys "R" Us in the US has filed for Chapter 11 (bankruptcy protection that allows it to restructure under the protection of the courts - going out of business would be Chapter 7), with the Canadian operation to follow suite. Relevant to our Hornby discussion are a couple of things. First, one of its big problems is the level of debt incurred when 3 private equity companies took it private in 2005. So far this doesn't apply with Hornby. Second, in addition to the debt they are also facing issues of a changing marketplace (shift to cheaper retailers by consumers) and this interesting quote from an analyst: I understand the desire to have a full line of "cheap" trains for kids to play with, but as the above shows this is more nostalgia for our childhoods than what most kids today want. Source: https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/us-business/toys-r-us-files-for-bankruptcy-protection-in-us-to-follow-suit-in-canada/article36295886/

Jason has posted a video from the Rapido LRC factory, included is a short segment showing the tooling progressing on the Royal Hudson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka7LC1jia64

Shows various stages of different North American models and gives a very good idea of just how much time and effort is involved in building a Rapido calibre model. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka7LC1jia64

Tooling up a new model is very expensive - while we the public don't have accurate numbers it is generally considered to be at least £100,000 and for a model like this with extra tooling required, and the extra assembly costs for additional parts, your cost to produce it are substantial (yes, China is "cheap", but it is relative - it is still expensive, just not out of this world expensive). At the same time, the market is very limited. While there maybe someone out there to prove me wrong, they aren't going to sell multiple models to a given modeler, let alone many multiples (just consider the recent announcements by another retailer, where there are people talking of ordering 5 or more models. In other words, this isn't a Mk2f where you can expect to sell 5 or 10 models to an average modeler, and continue selling through additional production runs for the next 10+ years. And while it is true the tooling would allow for additional runs, given the uniqueness of the model if I was commissioning it and budgeting I wouldn't assume that a) it would happen and b) it would happen quickly. Thus the tooling costs need to be covered by the initial run of models.