jjb1970

The sad thing is that Bachmann are the company that figured out how to make DCC fitting simple with their 350, why can't they make that their standard arrangement? OK for older tooling it is not practical but for newly tooled models it should be dooable for many types. Obviously that may mean compromises with the bottom of the model, but how often does anybody look at the underside of a model when it is on a layout? On the 47 it is a cracking model, foibles over dismantling aside. I used to think that the ViTrains 47 was the best 47 available but after the last round of tweaks by Bachmann I'd rate theirs as the best effort now.

The London Transport Museum produce some excellent merchandise. They once published a book called "Designed for London - 150 Years of Transport Design" which is a terrific book and well worth getting. I bought it many years ago in their Covent Garden shop and it is a fascinating look at design.

When I was but young most rail enthusiasts dismissed multiple unit trains as buggies and not real trains and few took much interest in them. There were still plenty of enthusiasts who thought the real train died when steam ended and there were even first generation diesel enthusiasts who thought that real locomotives were limited to types like the Deltic and Western. Now there are generations of rail enthusiasts for whom the multiple unit train is pretty much all they've known for passenger services and I think EMU/DMU types are just as interesting to younger enthusiasts as diesel hydraulics and steamers were to older generations. I was a bit of an odd one out as even back in the 70's and 80's I liked multiple units but I was in a minority of one in the local train spotting and modelling community. So I can see that a release like this may find much more acceptance than it would have in my youth. I think it is a splendid release.

Couldn't agree more. This is a train which carries huge numbers of passengers on one of the worlds most important metro railways. They run over ground much of the time and there is scope for adding a stretch of LU track to run parallel to a regular track, or as I suspect most will do, just run it on your existing layout and enjoy it. The LU system maybe a niche but how much of that is a chicken and egg scenario that since most modellers want at least some degree of RTR and very little is available. Greater London is the UK's greatest population centre (by a large margin) and there are plenty of places where LU trains can be seen alongside Network Rail lines. On price, it is true this is significantly more expensive than the APT-E but I'm guessing part of that is because LT Museum are producing this as a regular release, yes it is exclusive to LT Museum but they have funded all costs, it will be delivered to their retail outlets and put on sale, not limited to pre-orders and deposits required up front etc. This is just my personal opinion but I'd rather accept the higher price and have the opportunity to buy in my own time after having seen the model.

Bravo to the LT Museum and Bachmann!! LTM have commissioned a fascinating model, the London underground/overground system is a major railway system in its own right and it is nice to see a good RTR model (not forgetting Heljan with the bo-bo locomotive). I like the fact they've chosen the S Stock, maybe it is because I regularly use the Metropolitan/Circle/H&C lines but I think these are very good trains and the Metropolitan surface line goes a long way out of central London. And good on Bachmann for developing a low height mechanism, the model looks good too. Personally, I think the way this has been announced is perfect, develop the model and announce it when it near to be delivered. However I also think we have to recognise that there was no risk of being gazumped with this release, I suspect that if it was a train which had application outside of TfL and which may have been subject to another supplier doing then LT Museum would have announced their initiative a lot earlier. Bravo to LT Museum as well for just commissioning the model then selling it and refraining from the pre-order concept. I hope it sells well and that it is successful enough for them to do more model train commissions.

Another example would be postage, how would people outside large population centres react if the Royal Mail said universal delivery doesn't benefit most of our customers and our customers in the big conurbations have told us they don't see why they should subsidise mail services for others so we're abandoning it. The whole idea of taxation being spent for the benefit of those paying the taxes or of companies basing prices on what it costs to deliver a service to us is a good example that people should be careful of what they wish for I think.

The budgets required to develop a new automotive platform are biblical in size, the resources thrown at such an effort is immense and the manufacturing chain is of a similar scale. To compare automotive manufacture with model trains is a bit like me comparing ship building with model train manufacture, it is a good way to have a joke about timings but not much else as you just can't compare the two industries. Kader and Hornby may be big fish in the world of model trains, in corporate terms they are pretty much cottage industries.

I sometimes like to joke that the Korean ship yards can build the biggest container ships ever built in just over a year from cutting steel to delivery which seems to be what it takes to make a 3D test print of a model train. Clearly that is a silly thing to say as it is comparing apples with a multi-billion dollar industry but it does sound good. On catalogues, it strikes me that the answer is to have a separate section for longer range items and for the main catalogue to be for items that the supplier plans to release within the period of validity of the catalogue. On model schedules, really you just have to accept that the situation is what it is. There isn't anything you can do and getting angry doesn't help. And I'm guessing that the sales and marketing departmentsof Hornby and Bachmann or proprietors like Dave are just as frustrated by the delays as we are. Remember, for us the delay is just frustration, for shareholders or owners of companies spending money (DJM, Kernow etc) it is not just frustration, it is a question of cash flow and business survival to get their products to market and make a return on their investment.

Major transport schemes will generally be aimed at large population centres and connecting large population centres for the simple and obvious reason that this is where there is greatest demand and need. On the other hand it is also true that many of the more rural areas have benefitted from effective subsidies in terms of infrastructure development given that much rural electrification, telecoms, potable water and sewage and road infrastructure would not be affordable or viable if it had to be paid for only be local people and not funded from general taxation and funding. I grew up in a rural part of England where it is common to hear complaints that the big cities get everything and what do we get whilst ignoring the fact that the utilities infrastructure and many other things had been effectively paid for by the rest of the UK for our benefit.

The problem with this is that since HS2 is subject to political decision making it is hard to discuss it without impinging upon politics. However we should try and avoid them and us divisiveness, from both sides. As Oakydoke says the argument that "our taxes will fund it and we won't benefit" breaks down as it is applicable to all government spending and all parts of the UK. Taxation is not a savings account, you pay in and the money is spent where our political masters deem it to be needed.

Something that I never really appreciated until working in London was that the stations which are considered to be major stations in London are not the stations I thought were important when I lived in Cumbria. I always thought Euston, St. Pancras, Kings Cross and Paddington were the major stations of London because they were the main long distance inter-city termini. However Waterloo, Liverpool Street and Victoria are way busier than any of them. And perhaps the one that completely ignored by people in the North is London Bridge which tends to slip below many radars yet is a major station, ditto Charing Cross. I think this whole question hangs on whether HS2 is being justified on the basis of economics and railway requirements, or as a political project to connect the UK. One answer will probably say HS2 will not got to Scotland (or Newcastle), the other will say it will.

I think this is one of those questions where it all depends on perspective. From the Scottish perspective the economic benefits of taking HS2 to Scotland are unquestionable I think. From a business perspective then if you look at the demographics then it probably is true that there is no business case for taking it to Scotland and taking the view that accelerating Anglo-Scottish services on HS2 up to Leeds then reverting to the classic network makes more sense. However, in a project like this you cannot remove political considerations and the political imperatives may (may) support taking the line to Scotland, business case or no business case. Unfortunately I think this will get very messy and mired in acrimony and the causes will be neither economic nor rail related.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/snp-fury-as-hs2-finds-no-business-case-for-taking-fast-train-service-to-scotland-10272342.html

That's good news for Hornby then.

Fantastic news from Hornby!! We are pretty desperate for good GWR RTR coaches to modern standards, I know Hornby did their excellent Hawksworth stock but they entered service too late for GWR modellers and were BR Western Region coaches in reality. We have a wide range of wonderful GWR locomotives which have been crying out for passenger stock of an equivalent standard, so well done Hornby!! As well, given the seemingly increasingly locomotive centric nature of new tooling projects it is great to see that coaches are still on the menu.

I understand frustration but a few things are worth keeping in mind: Kernow has not entered into any contractual relationship and committed to a delivery date with their customers They do not take payment in full nor a deposit Therefore no customers have lost anything financially and Kernow have not failed to honour any contract with their customers. Therefore whilst frustrating Kernow have done nothing wrong, the product announcements are no more than an advisory to potential customers of Kernow's intention to produce these models. I really do think the frustration needs to be tempered by a recognition that Kernow do not have the resources (either financial or product development) available to model suppliers such as Hornby and Bachmann. These models must be a significant financial risk to Kernow, and unlike bigger suppliers I suspect that this financial risk is a very personal one and that the proprietor of Kernow is staking an awful lot personally on these models (that is supposition and I'll retract if it is shown to be incorrect). They do not have to make these models and I have seen no evidence of anybody else wanting to make the D6xx or Bulleid diesels. Given the sort of delays we see from some of the big manufacturers (this is currently the subject of a hot thread in the Bachmann section) then I think it a bit unfair to criticise a model shop trying to offer niche products and when they have not committed to any delivery nor taken payment. Personally I'd rather models were announced shortly before being ready for shipping, however if the commercial risk of being gazumped by another manufacturer is high for a manufacturer like Bachmannor Hornby then I suspect it could be catastrophic to a supplier like Kernow hence I do understand why they need to let the market know they are doing these. That does not stop anybody else doing the models but I like to think none of the big boys would try and stamp on a shop taking on challenging niche projects like these.

The door arrangement is pretty much the standard arrangement on the Shinkansen trains and has a reputation as a simple, effective and extremely reliable arrangement. That said Hitachi are softening to plug doors.

I do hope it is true though, the photograpghs I've seen look terrific and I think this will do an awful lot to lift Dapol up after a rather lacklustre couple of years. I'm very excited about this particular new item.

I pretty much just leave mine as all on now, with a bit of blue tack to hold them securely whilst still leaving the door open to remove them. At first I played around with them a lot but then decided just to leave them in place. I do love the overall shape and look of the model though.

As far as Kader are concerned the UK market is just another source of potential profit or loss and they have no emotional or nationalistic reasons to consider that the UK market must remain a part of their operations. I am always amazed when people sometimes get mad about Bachmann and lose sight of the fact that to Kader the average UK modellers means no more than the average Chinese factory worker does to UK modellers. A business relationship, just as we buy Bachmann models based on them being a good product at a fair price so Kader make those models on the basis they can turn a profit. Just as we would not buy a model if it fell down on quality or was over priced by our own value criteria so Bachmann will not stay in the UK market if it is not worth their effort to do so.

As an aside, how do people set up the valances? Making these with the valances as separate parts was an innovative idea and it was wellexecuted but I can't help feeling it is another example of answering a question that nobody had ever asked. In this case I do think there is more call forit than outright gimmicks such as opening doors as the real things were often seen with some of the valances off but I'm really not sure whether this particular feature was worth the effort.

Did Dapol ever do it in blue with small yellow ends? This is one of my favourites, it is not perfect as has been pointed out and the paint could be improved but overall it captures the look of the prototype well and since the real NBL Type 2's are a huge favourite of mine it is a model that is very close to my heart.

The main difference is a simple contractual one. If you build a ship you sign a contract, there are phased payments and the builder is contractually obligated to meet a delivery date. With models the supplier tells you they plan to make something but we do not pay up front (well, not normally) and there is no contractual obligation on the supplier to actually make what is announced. If they were to take payment up front, either in part or in full then it would be a completely different scenario.

I think if we only had one company with a narrow range then the delays would be more frustrating but given the number of manufacturers and the diversity of the models those manufacturers offer there is usually a pretty steady tempo of new releases to drool over so it is not like there are no models to buy. Bachmann's main competitor did go through a period where they were struggling to deliver much of anything but over the last year or so the tap seems to have opened up quite a bit and shops seem to be getting reasonable allocations of new stock again. In these circumstances the delays are what they are I think. They may be frustrating, it may not be a sign of particularly efficient supply chains etc but it is one of those scenarios where it is not so much wrong as it is what it is. I find it is easier to just shrug it off and accept that release schedules are pretty meaningless in the real world.

Manufacturers are in a bit of a catch 22 scenario. If they announce models very early in the development cycle then they risk being pilloried for delays. If they leave until late then somebody else may announce the model first then they get pilloried for copying somebody else. Personally I would prefer them to announce things when the models are close to being ready but understand why companies avoid that.