Rob F

31 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

 

Well go and buy one and stop moaning.

Is it really necessary to be so rude?

In C21739 we see concrete sleepers, flat bottomed rail and pandrol clips but jointed, not CWR. How common was this?

7 minutes ago, Downer said:

This is all getting too confrontational. There is certainly a significant problem with the body shape, and the only really question is whether Heljan are willing and/or able to fix it at this stage of the process. 

This is the million dollar question, I think. Ability to look at early CAD drawings is a move from manufacturers that I appreciate but it is not the only research resource that they will use. So long as criticism is offered in a constructive manner it can only be for the good of all concerned, we get better models and the manufacturer sells more of them because they are of higher quality, win win.

Personally, the number one thing that matters about a model is its basic shape. If that is wrong, the finest detail in the world cannot retrieve the situation, so I really hope it is not too late to do something about this as coming from Nottingham the class 45 is THE railway image of my childhood.

Rob

1 minute ago, Accurascale Fran said:

 

Hi Rob,

 

We have indeed taken option B as it is the only workable solution to keep the body shape prototypical and allow the navigation of 2nd radius curves minimum. Prototype sized wheels can be fitted but you are looking at being limited to 4th radius curves at the very least. Unfortunately there isnt enough layouts out there with such generous curvature to launch a mass market model and have it succeed from a sales POV, so we had to offer a workable compromise. Since so much of the wheel is behind the bodywork on the real things however it's barely noticeable on the model, but can be changed if you have generous curves and the desire to of course!

 

Cheers!

 

Fran

Fran

I think you have made the right choice. Compromises are inevitable at times so it is a case of finding the best one. Looking forward to owning one of these.

Rob

Model is looking fantastic in my opinion.

Did we get to the bottom of how it will get around corners? I seem to remember (BICBW) that there were three choices:

• Distort the nose shape like the Heljan DP2. What I can see of the images this has not been done.
• Use undersize wheels. Is this what was done with the Bachmann prototype Deltic?
• Increase the ride height. Is this what Bachmann did with the production Deltics?

Of the three, I think the Bachmann prototype solution looks the best but I would be very interested to know how Accurascale have tackled it.

On 13/01/2020 at 15:41, Phil Parker said:

 

I'm sure that if you throw enough money at something it would be possible. I'm imagining some sort of electronic actuators operated by an on-board computer that takes into account the curvature of the train, speed and phase of the moon.

 

Adding this would multiple the cost of the set many times, but if you really want it, I'm sure Hornby could oblige for a price. The rest of us will just enjoy the tilting train as it comes, no matter if it's not perfect. Let's face it, most APT's will run without overhead and there's only one prototypical example of that.

I am not sure the slightly confrontational and defensive tone to this reply was really required. I simply asked a question and the way it was phrased implied that I believed it to be too difficult to implement. 
 

I will almost certainly buy an APT as I have wanted one since I was a child and I will definitely enjoy it, just like the ‘rest’ of you. However, full tilt at a scale 5mph is definitely not prototypical and I cannot understand why it is a problem to mention it.

Would it be true to say that any sort of speed related tilt system would be just about impossible in OO?

I assume the Rapido APT tilts to the same degree no matter how fast it is going, is that correct?

2 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

 

 

So you want well-researched and in-depth reviews, but won't pay for them. To do justice to a model takes at least a day. To get the sort of depth that you want I suspect would take several. Who pays for this?

 

There's also the little issue of page space. If I am interested in a Class 50 (for example) I'd happily wade through half a dozen pages or more critique of a model, but if i don't like diesels, that is wasted space. Any mag has to balance up the needs of different readers both on topics and level of detail. Reviews normally satisfy the "average" enthusiast but can't keep someone who have lived for a specific class for many year happy. Once you get to a certain level of detail, there are also disagreements. To take the Class 50, you'll find on here people castigating the Hornby model for working louvres AND praising them because they can be set at different angles - which one is correct?

 

And of course what people really want is a review that slags off the model and the manufacturer. Everyone claims they want fair, what they want is controversy.

I'm afraid you are wide of the mark with regard to my own preferences and motives. Much more detail about the accuracy or otherwise  of any model comes out as a result of friendly discussions between people who I believe can rightly be called experts, on forums such as this or several others, blogs etc. No magazine review could ever match the in-depth knowledge that is available from a disparate group of well informed people who are willing to share it due to simple interest in the subject matter.

Your second paragraph is a pretty good summation of why I have stopped taking magazines although I suspect you didn't mean it to be!

Your last point doesn't have much merit, in my opinion. All I want in a review is something that tells me what is good but is also able to tell me what is not so good. I am interested if a window is slightly the wrong shape or even if there are not enough rivets (!) but I don't think truthful comments about fidelity should ever be described as 'slagging off'. Just because a model has inaccuracies does not mean I won't buy it but I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to know about them.

It is all about personal preference and ,as I said before, I have no desire to see magazines fail. I also have absolutely no desire to try and convince people that they should do what I have done. If you still enjoy them, buy them. Simple. 

6 hours ago, AY Mod said:

 

You're wrong, people don't get censured for being critical or overly critical; that gets addressed if it's not based upon fact. People get censured for being unpleasant.

I suspect we will have to agree to disagree!

I have no desire to see the end of print, but I do not necessarily think it is a binary choice between print and digital subscriptions. As I said, I have stopped all but one of my magazine subscriptions but I have not felt the need to replace them with digital versions. I still have an avid 'thirst' for information but find it can be slaked by other means.

A prime area of dissatisfaction for me is with magazine reviews, which I find are often overly kind to the manufacturers. A similar trend is visible here where critical comments often get censured by the mods and others accuse people of 'rivet counting' and the like. I am INTERESTED to know how accurate a model is. I accept that all models are a compromise and will have inaccuracies but I still like to know what they are. It does not mean I won't buy it but I like feel that I am informed on the matter. We have lost contributors to this forum who had a vast of amount of knowledge because people objected to their 'tone', which usually translates as being overcritical. I think that is a shame.

Had a ride on a 144 from Leeds to Castleford and back yesterday and a I can honestly say it was a better experience than being on a 150. The engine noise was less obtrusive and the view out of the window was far superior. Even the ride was acceptable on what I assume was well maintained track.

I am (or was) a self-confessed magazine junkie. I had subscriptions to:

• Model Rail
• Rail
• Railway Magazine
• Modern Railways

I stopped taking Railway Modellor nearly  20 years ago and apart from that the only magazine I have ever stopped taking was BRM.

However, I have come to realise that I was actually reading them less and less. My house is filling up with back issues and my head finally overtook my heart over the Christmas break and I cancelled them all, apart from Modern Railways. It was a sad but also a strangely liberating experience. I just get my information fix online these days. It maybe that in the future my resolve will leave me and I will have a relapse but at the moment I am quite happy with my choice.

I would be interested to know if others habits have changed over the years or maybe I was just an odd case in the first place!

Interesting, thanks. So other than the above restrictions it would have been all 75mph between Honeybourne and Cheltenham.

What do you think the limit would be today, if maintained to modern standards?

Sorry to resurrect an old thread but a recent visit to the GWSR prompted this question.

What was the linespeed of the Honeybourne line in BR days, before becoming freight only?

Maybe it should have been a 1Co-Co1. Said only partly in jest.

On 20/09/2019 at 09:30, jonny777 said:

This is a poor quality photograph, leading me to wonder if the photographer was taken by surprise when the power car loomed into view. Given the shiny bogie paintwork, could this be one of the first outings for the (as then) new GWR livery back in about 1997?

 

It would certainly make an interesting variation on a late 1990s model of the Newton Abbot area. 

 

 

 

 

 

I also thought it was good livery, only spoiled by the stripe around the light clusters for me. Excuse the terrible image editing but I thought it would have been better if the green stripe around the lights had been blended into the green on the body, something like the below:

On 09/09/2019 at 21:55, Phil Bullock said:

Proper  whisky? That'll be Auchentoshan then.....

Very good, but I’ll raise you Bunnahabhain!

On 17/08/2019 at 21:47, DavidLong said:

Not a great weekend for my teams with four points from a possible fifteen. Arsenal managed to bundle their way past Burnley with the usual whinges from Mr Dyche afterwards.

 

David

Mr Dyche, in my opinion, is an honest man who doesn't like cheating. If there were more like him in football the game would be in a better place.

15 hours ago, Hilux5972 said:

Don’t have tight layout corners then

Thank you, very useful. When I move into my stately home I am sure I will follow your advice.

A real shame I just can’t live with fixed trailing truck. The model looks great but that fixed truck with flangeless wheels looks daft going round tight layout corners. Just a foible of mine I suppose......

11 hours ago, Commoner said:

 

 

I have rechecked my original notes from 20/09/81 and the transcription I made later, and unfortunately I can't resolve the anomaly.  48106 is clearly recorded which must be incorrect as this was a DVT which wouldn't have been marshalled in the middle of the train's consist.  Like you I have now searched for other observations from the web along with photographs without success.  I wonder if you had thought about requesting for a list of stock from the OD on this and other other forums.  I am sure somebody out there will have noted the full formation.  Apologies again for my error.  Hope the missing bit of detail turns up.

DTS rather than DVT.

C13941 is good as it has Swallow, Executive and Blue/Grey all in the same train.

Is it just lighting or camera angle, but on those pictures the Hornby model looks wider than the DJM one?

On 30/05/2019 at 06:10, MGR Hooper! said:

 What the owners of SLW very easily forgot that Hornby is a much bigger company that SLW, staff wise Hornby has hundreds whereas SLW probably has less than 20 at the most. Hornby has to pay it's staff which comes from the models they make. Hornby models will always be more expensive.

I have seen this argument more than once and I still can't get my head around it. Surely this is not how capitalism works?

Companies get larger and can exploit economies of scale to lower prices, thus selling more, becoming more successful, making more profit and growing again. 

If the overheads of large companies inevitably lead to higher prices there would be no large companies as they would automatically lose out in a competitive market to smaller companies. I may be completely wrong here (it has been known, more than once!) but using the size of a company (be it Hornby or anybody else) as a justification for higher prices just seems completely wrong headed.

Let's hope July 83 wasn't a scorcher as those aircons are going to get quite hot behind a 45/0.....