jjb1970

My mistake on Railtrack. There are plenty of examples of projects that have derailed early on and then been brought back under control if a suitable project recovery plan is put in place.

The problem with the idea of serious modelling is that it is a very relative concept. To a fine scale scratch builder a kit builder may seem lightweight, kit builders may see those who convert and detail RTR as not really serious whilst detailers may write others of as box openers without considering that some box openers are wonderful scenic modellers or operate complex layouts with a degree of precision and fidelity to prototypical practice that entitles them to be considered serious modellers. And ultimately I find the idea of serious modelling odd as to me it is supposed to be fun. I have a whale of a time playing with the train set me and the boy have been building up since last Christmas, it is a toy set up for play value but it is great fun. I think passionate modeller is a better term.

I suspect this will not be a popular opinion but following the last couple of issues of Modern Railways I do not believe that GWML electrification should have been unpaused until a proper project recovery plan was in place. I admit we have to be careful about being too believing of what we read, but people like Roger Ford and Ian Walmsley are not technically illiterate half wits who just regurgitate any old guff. Even if we apply an adjustment to offset possible exaggeration it still feels like it has been a monumentally badly managed program that has dropped a few major klangers on basic stuff. The costs are becoming ridiculous and it is just not tenable to continue with over spends and delays of this magnitude unless there is confidence that a recovery plan will bring things back down. I do not hold the current Railtrack CEO responsible for the initial foul ups, what I am unimpressed with is the seeming acceptance that things are what they are. This is yet another example of the lesson we need to learn over and over again that money spent up front long before a shovel goes anywhere near the ground is not money wasted but an investment. NR should have been aware of some of the project risks from the outset and it does appear that some of the failings were just down to not being able to do the basics.

The model looks very good and is to be welcomed. However, the letter linked by MGR Hooper seems to be rather petulant and arrogant, my advice to the proprietor of this company would be to take a lead from the good grace of Dave Jones in his response to the Hornby Q6.

This is a great announcement from Locomotion and it is terrific to see them go for the prototype HST, well done them!! I wish Locomotion the very best, is it really necessary for people to belittle the efforts of other manufacturers and resort to pejorative expressions such as snotty? What is a serious modeller? Are people suggesting that models such as the Hornby S15, Brighton Belle, Q6, 56, 60 and the various full spec coach lines modelled by Hornby are not worthy of serious modellers?

I'd kind of abandoned all hope of ever seeing the 29, but it does look like Dapol are getting on top of their production program and we're seeing good progress on other long delayed models like the O gauge 08 so hopefully we will see signs of life in their class 29 soon too.

At times I'd written this one off as being unlikely ever to turn up but it is fantastic to see the model making real progress and looking good. Models like this and their Terrier could really open O Gauge up to a whole new audience.

Nice to see progress being made with these. Amongst the higher profile releases these tend to get forgotten about but this and the 1361 are two of the more interesting new items I'm awaiting.

Looks very promising, a Hornby OO model with a good looking pantograph!!

I tend to agree that Richard Webster of Lionheart has probably been instrumental in this development, but also worth noting that Dapol hired the services of the head of DCC supplies at the same time. With Richard Webster's background in high quality models and an interest in DCC functionality and a link with DCC supplies this new range looks like a logical extension of their previous efforts. I think Dapol made the classic and fundamental error of becoming overly reliant on an individual and when that individual left they were left sinking and desperate for a life buoy, it has taken the new team a while to get things back under control and impose their own stamp on things but it does seem that things are now headed in the right direction for them. Which can only be good news for the hobby.

These were imposing and good looking locomotives and the Hornby model looks like a cracker. I am sorely tempted but will probably give it a miss as I went down the road of buying stuff I liked before and ended up with a fleet of model trains that whilst full of lovely models which I loved might have been described as scatter brained and devoid of any sort of common thread. I probably will go for the B12 as I have fond memories of the old Triang Hornby model as a child and they were a very elegant machine but I think it'll stop there. Great news for NE fans though. On the 3 pole vs. 5 pole motor, that is a non issue for me and there are enough 3 pole motored models that run as well as well as 5 pole versions that it makes no difference to my buying choice (I've never seen this used to beat Bachmann up and their models generally run extremely well). On the duplication stuff, it is difficult to know either if somebody has copied somebody else and if they did who copied who. There seems to be a readiness in some quarters to jump to conclusions about Hornby but I think it is less a case of nefarious and sharp practice than unfortunate co-incidence and a quite correct absence of market collusion. I'd prefer there wasn't duplication as it'd free up development slots for more stuff not done elsewhere but the market is what it is.

This is a brave and bold move by Dapol and is to be applauded. I've felt that the development of UK outline levelled off in the mid-00's. I'm not saying models haven't continued to improve since then but the improvements have been of a modest evolutionary nature and fundamentally in most cases if a manufacturer was to tool up a new release of models already made since that time it is unlikely that they'd be noticeably better unless the first release had dropped a bit of a klanger. That is not because of any failings, more that in terms of fidelity to prototype and running qualities the model suppliers reached a point that probably took the OO RTR model to pretty much as far as it could be developed a decade ago. Where there is a big leap to be made is in exploiting DCC functionality. UK outline tends to use DCC for train control, even DCC sound is a minority interest. This range from Dapol is the next big step forward to bring UK OO into line with the rest of Europe in really exploiting DCC to its full extent. And for one of the smaller players like Dapol to make this move given the well known price sensitivity of the UK market and after a period which has been rather troubled for them in many ways is something to really applaud. We see a lot of claims about moving the hobby forward and setting new standards but it is basically just marketing hype (no offence to the other companies) but in this case such a claim would be fully deserved. Hopefully there will be enough takers to demonstrate that there is a sufficient market to support such products. Going forward we could then see models split broadly into three tiers, Railroad type entry level models for the low cost segment and residual train set market, what are now considered full spec models as a new intermediate level without all the DCC functionality but with full levels of physical detail and this new top tier full on DCC level.

It's nice to see a more positive situation at Dapol and tobe excited about what they're doing. After Dave Jones left they went through a troubled time and for a while they seemed almost moribund but with the 73 about to hit the shops and looking very good and signs of progress with models like the 68 and GWR railcar and now this initiative there is a lot to beexcited about at Dapol. Well done them, long may it continue!

I think that the manufacturers are in a difficult position. The UK is an extremely cost sensitive market and despite British OO being very competitively priced to HO models from other European countries, North America and Japan many consumers still consider prices to be too high and are loathe to accept rises. In terms of fidelity to prototype, finish and running qualities I think British OO is now competitive with models produced for any other market which is an immense turn around from the position 20 years ago when we were so far behind it wasn't funny. We do still lag in digital functionality and coupling (although to balance things out a little, it amazes me how some European models which are beautifully modelled are ruined by pizza cutter wheels) and I think the main reason is that manufacturers have decided the UK market just won't pay for such features. And they're probably correct on the whole.

I'm not usually a fan of LNER types but these were very elegant locomotives and may tempt a relaxation of my normal SR/GWR approach to steam models.

Good to see the 68 making progress, so far it all looks very good. Nice to see more contemporary model trains being released.

This is looking very good indeed, I can't wait. On the dimples, they are probably the result of laser scanning picking up a damage to the roof. Then either Dapol might not have been aware of the dimples or alternatively taken a decision that the distortion is typical of 73's in service and therefore kept the dimples for the model. Either way it looks like a cracking model to me and really captures the look of the 73.

I watched the BBC Panorama on the VW emissions debacle last night but found it very disappointing. The program made the same mistake as most of the media coverage in conflating two distinct and separate issues - the illegal act of fitting a defeat device and the efficacy of emissions tests in relation to real world emissions - with the result it all feels a bit confused and ill informed. And at the risk of sounding cynical I find it hard to take serious an approval engineer feigning ignorance on the fact that the emissions test is not very representative of real world driving.

http://www.offshorewind.biz/2015/11/23/developing-economies-take-lead-in-clean-energy-investments/ For those who think we are the only country investing in renewables.

The model looks pretty decent to me. I'll wait until Hornby release theirs before deciding which one to buy. The Hornby one may end up being the better model but the Oxford one is noticeably cheaper. Whether the Hornby is worth the extra is a personal decision, I tend to think it will be based on what I've seen so far however I also think the Oxford model is a nice model that were it not for the Hornby option would be well received. I suspect Oxford have miscalculated in terms of expectation management but it is nevertheless good to see them bring this model to the market. I can't help but feel that their biggest problem is not any issues with this model but is rather the renaissance of Hornby and the fact that Bachmann seem to be getting over their factory gremlins. A year ago many had written Hornby off as a busted flush and Bachmann were being slated for their price increases and production issues. Now Hornby are right back in the game with an exciting release program and recovering quality whilst the market is adjusting to Bachmann's revised pricing and they're getting models to the market. These factors must impact on the market space that Oxford were eye balling.

Here's hoping that they're out for Christmas, be a nice festive present if Dapol get them into the shops. Despite the delays, judging from the photographs floating around the wait will be worth it.

The reason I think there is more to this case than meets the eye is exactly because it appears to be so cut and dried according to the reports that have been linked. If it is that simple then the CPS are truly incompetent. However, as has been pointed out to prosecute the CPS have to be able to demonstrate certain criteria, the fact that they have decided that the criteria are satisfied indicates that the case is not as simple as it appears on the surface. Whilst the CPS are certainly not infallible and get things wrong, to pursue the case if there is a complete absence of any reason to believe they can secure a conviction and that it would be in the public interest then clearly they will have serious questions to answer down the line. Which leads meto stick by my feeling that we should leave it to the courts to decide the merits or otherwise of the case.

At the risk of introducing prejudice of my own, I've seen a lot of cases over the years that seemed very simple when presented by the media but which were far from being so simple if studied in any detail. Equally I have seen people prosecuted in circumstances that were frankly unjust in my opinion. At the moment I do not see that there is enough in the public domain to really comment on whether this case is in the former or latter category. I must admit the question David Hill asks about Merseyrail is the one that I've asked myself. Given the previous sad incident which was not so long ago then what changes to their procedures and risk assessments were made (clearly, any fatal injury should trigger a review of risk assessments and procedures to establish if they remain suitable in the light of experience).

I think the law will take its course. I do not know the details of this case but the CPS do not normally bring vexatious cases to court and if the court finds it is a silly case then it'll be dealt with appropriately. One thing to keep in mind is that generally legal cases are less interested in right and wrong than whether or not there is grounds for believing acts were contrary to the law. I think it is very easy to see cases like this and call the law an ass and lose sight of the fact that if somebody is hurt as a result of negligent behaviour then it is correct that there should be a legal process. If the guard acted correctly then he will be acquitted, if his actions were not in accordance with rules and procedures then it is not the law that is an ass. My feeling is we should let the court hear the evidence and arrive at an informed decision.

The issue with CCGT construction is not time to manufacture and build. They are modular constructs and go together on site quickly and easily, even big ones. The time is in the business case and finance, preparation and consent stages. If the political will is there to expedite the pre-construction phases you could get the required capacity from a range of technologies (CCGT, biomass, wind etc) within ten years.