fezza

Presumably the market research has been done but I think for a £9,99 shelf price it's going to struggle. It puts it at a higher price point that the glossy and more substantial motoring magazines. And then there's the balance of content.  Steam fans won't be interested in the diesel content and a lot of Traction fans aren't really that interested in models - and especially not models of kettles.

There might just be a market for a Model railway magazine that focuses on post-68 and has an extensive prototype section relevant to modelling. But it would need to be at a lower price point or be exceptional in content and presentation to stand out on the news stands. Modern Railway Modelling ran for a few years, but that folded over a decade ago and I don't think the very competitive magazine market has got any easier since then.

But maybe I'm not the best judge - I buy few modelling magazines nowadays as they all seem to regurgitate similar content with lots of pictures but fewer and fewer substantial articles. How I miss authors like Iain Rice and his old MRJ colleagues...

I do like the use of the Exmoor backdrop / curtain. That's something I must look into. I got quoted for something similar a few months ago but it was rather expensive!

Almost all would be plain blue with yellow ends.

A few might still be green with yellow ends, but these would be very rare by the mid 70s (mainly a few 25s, 40s and 47s).

1 hour ago, Railpassion said:

After being enthusiastic about TT120 as a concept, and having had a TT continental layout for a time, yesterday I finally saw the Hornby range at Monk Bar Models in York. 

 

My first impression was that it's too small. It was quite a shock to see the scale close up, Flying Scotsman, the 08, and HST.  I was strangely disconcerted and underwhelmed, it simply did not work artistically. I never expected to say it, but I think that 3mm 100 is a much more satisfying size and scale. 

I saw the 3mm 100 diesels at the York Show and felt the were immediately attractive in shape and size. 

 

There is something psychological about scale, and it's no coincidence that 1:100 is architect's scale. 

 

 

 

 

 

It's worth saying that a lot of old TT100 is available at shows and is often very cheap. You can also buy modern 3d printed bodies to put on old model chassis. Get yourself a feedback controller and they will run well too. That's the way I'd go if I decide to go down the TT route. 

I've often wondered if a return to the 'big four' wouldn't be a bad thing. Companies would then control their infrastructure, giving them the choice where to invest and allowing them to raise investment for long term planning.  This would also allow for a modicum of competition, at least on long distance routes.

Nationalisation sounds good in theory but we all know the NHS and defence will always be ahead in the public investment queue. People also forget that last time the state ran the railways, it shut half of it! And even in my lifetime state investment always came with strings - route rationalisations, service reductions and some very poor decision to scale back modernisation plans (Pacers etc).

When did railway logos as intellectual property become a thing? Did Triang Hornby really pay BR to use their crest or Shell to use their image on tanker wagons in the 1960s? I suspect this was all quite recent. 1990s maybe?

2 hours ago, ruggedpeak said:

Yet Hornby have an extensive range of modern image locos including Class 67, 08, HST, 87, 153, 88DS, 48DS, 91, 4-VEP etc. No one does any of those except for the forthcoming Cav 60. Many of those are highly regarded, and Hornby are certainly getting money out of the tooling for them.

 

 

A better 08 is done by Bachmann and the HST, 153 and 67 are crude by modern standards. The 91 is slightly better but fairly basic. All could easily be picked off by other manufacturers who wanted to produce a modern spec model, just as they have with the 31, 37, 47, 50 etc. 

The core problem is that at the premium end of the market others do it better. The only active modern image Hornby locos I have are a 31 and a 50 - and these have now been superceded by better models from other manufacturers.

At the train set end their products are often little more than expensive rehashes of 1980s editions - and as there are so many of those originals on the second hand market, why would you bother? (especially as the 1980s versions are often better made and more robust). 

Hornby stagger on and will continue to stagger on because of their name and brand recognition. But they need some serious new thinking to rescue their railway offer.

It is odd how there's not been more commentary and publicity for this show. I was intending to go but am seriously wondering if £38 (ticket and parking) is worth it for a show half the size of Warley and with only a third of the railway content. Perhaps they'll be a bit more of a "buzz" to it over the next week?

11 minutes ago, Sitham Yard said:

The reason for pooling was to make more efficient use of the wagons. For example, if a wagon was owned by a colliery, then it had to be returned empty to that colliery which might involve remarshalling a number of times. An empty pooled wagon could be sent to wherever it was needed which could nowhere near its previous loading point.

Andrew   

I've read a bit about pooling but am not 100  per cent clear about the implications. Was this an entirely national process so a coal private owner wagon from Somerset could end up in Norfolk? Or would wagons still broadly stay in the same geographical region? For example, should a model of a  Norfolk branch line mainly have former Eastern coal private owners or were they completely mixed up by 1950? I'm struggling to find detailed reference photos of rakes where the original PO identity can be discerned.

I've always assumed BR repainted private owner wagons very quickly as few photographs post 1948 seem to show large numbers in private owner liveries.  Were some repainted plain grey when they were pooled and repaired during the war? There seems to be little data/photographs of wagons during the war - but that's not surprising I suppose!

2 hours ago, moawkwrd said:

What a ridiculous statement.

 

Are you seriously asserting that Hornby shouldn’t have bothered with a new scale UNLESS they could’ve released every item available in other scales from the get go? You realise how absurd that would be? How on earth would that have helped competition either? 

 

No I didn't say that at all. Try reading carefully.

12 minutes ago, HExpressD said:

How long do you think it takes to design, tool, check, modify, approve, produce, ship and market a single product, let alone multiple out of interest?

Maybe Hornby should have thought of that and got a properly thought out and logical range of good quality products ready before launch?

If the answer is they don't have sufficient capacity for a  viable TT range, why launch a TT range? The fact they have driven other potential TT suppliers out of the market without being able to offer products of their own is crazy and does nothing to encourage growth of the scale.

4 hours ago, Railpassion said:

Is it me, or is the choice of models utterly chaotic?

 

 

We are desperate for a J50 said noone ever.

Yet we still have no DMUs (either first or second generation), no Standard 5s, Standard tanks or 4Fs - you know stuff that would actually be useful to a wide range of people who want to run a railway realistic and appropriate stock.

There was an April Fools joke on the internet stating that Hornby had abandoned TT. Perhaps the bigger joke is that is continuing with an utterly random range of models. If I was a shareholder I would be very worried.

43 minutes ago, Northmoor MPD said:

I’m looking forward to adding the Scottish variant to my collection!

Although judging from the fact that we haven’t seen decorated samples yet I’d imagine that Q2 is more likely going to be Q4.

Yes, I was wondering about that. I guess my J72 is going to remain in service for the Summer timetable (well, it was good enough for Iain Rice...)

I'm running a Gaugemaster Combi (non feedback) which should be ok for coreless?

3 hours ago, NHY 581 said:

 

Just out of interest, check the inside of the skirts. I've seen a few which run poorly and it's down to the skirts making contact with the connecting rods as they rotate. The skirts are easily squeezed in when handling these little chaps. 

 

Easy to identify if this is the issue as you will, on turning little chap upside down, see a circular or semi circular mark on the insude of the skirt,  consistent with the rotatoon of the eccentric return crank  joint thingy on the connecting rod. 

 

Rob

Actually that does seem to have improved running. Thanks! It's not perfect, but certainly better. I suppose that's the problem with assessing running issues - there are sometimes several issues that you have to diagnose. It makes me a bit more comfortable with buying locos with coreless motors though.

1 minute ago, NHY 581 said:

 

Totally agree. It's a good time to be modelling things Great Eastern . 

As an aside, your J70 should be creepy crawly on DC. All three of mine were before I fitted decoders. 

 

Is yours skirted or unskirted ? 

 

Rob

Both mine were skirted BR versions. I sold one as I got frustrated with fiddling with it! The other runs better but after lots of running in it is a bit sticky at a crawl in one direction and occasionally stalls on gradients or with heavyish loads. Compared to my ancient but sweet running Mainline J72, the J70 doesn't seem to represent 40 years of progress. Of course, that's not to say the Buckjumper will be the same, bit it is a worry given some review comments on coreless issues.

Well it's Q2 so we can count down the days... greatly looking forward to what looks like being a GE masterpiece!

My only slight worry is the coreless motor. My only other loco with a coreless motor is my Rapido J70 which was disappointing when slow running on conventional DC (and being coreless couldn't of course be helped by my usual tactic of a feedback controller). Coreless motors have also been noted as a problem in other loco reviews. What is the reason for using a coreless motor and if It isn't great are there easy ways of fitting an alternative? (Genuine technical question - not criticising that choice if it works!)

I don't want to get obsessive about this but when you are running light railways you need something that can really crawl. Why 00 gauge shunting locos and light railway engines are sometimes geared for a scale 80mph is beyond me...

Around 1988/9 Barnstaple had Speedlink services, loco hauled substitute services (50s and 47s on two coach trains!) and just about any DMU the Western region could get hold of. And Barnstaple wasn't a seaside location... There is no reason why you can't invent a plausible modern image scenario around a major holiday resort. 

In 2024 cross country services to Padstow wouldn't be impossible. Minehead has seen through HSTs in the preserved era, so Castles or 67 excursions wouldn't be unreasonable either.

On 23/10/2023 at 11:15, Andy Vincent said:

This photo (aside from showing that my pre-show vacuum was not as thorough as it could have been!) highlights an interesting aspect of Butley Mills' history. 

 

The sign in the foreground - as was also pointed out to me by a visitor - indicates that you are approaching a gated level crossing and gates are visible in some of the original photographs. The holes for the gate posts were also evident when I rebuilt the crossing. However, the gates have gone by the time later photographs were taken. My best guess is that Iain found manually operating that gates tedious (aside from the 'hand of god' intervention required) so he removed them. Interestingly, the gate across the goods yard entrance appears to be identical to the original crossing gates so I suspect it was repurposed.

 

I have the gate that was used for the yard but it wasn't refitted for Uckfield because it is now very brittle and I want to copy it before any further harm comes to it. I plan to reinstate the level crossing gates given that they were originally present and that servos make such features easier to automate now.

 

PS: the missing fuel tanks will also be refitted to the top of the wall above the pump before the next appearance of the layout. Also on the list (aside from very many other items) is consideration of what to do about the 'enamel' signs. These should look tired and faded but at the moment are too evidently faded and curled photos and so tend to jar, although some more than others.

Iain's article in MRJ 9 shows a crossing gate across the 'main' line.  It looks to be of a Great Eastern pattern, although the picture isn't very clear.  There is also a gate contained in the plan of the same issue so it was definitely there.  There was also a short  fence or a gate at the end of the path that leads down from the old chapel to the track.  That seems to have been removed too.

I'd be interested to know what stock you use.  Iain used a modified Mainline J72 and a 4F at one stage. That stuck in my mind as I had both as a youngster and loved them both.  My ancient Mainline J72 is still running on my (under construction) GE light railway - like Iain, I found you could get a great crawl out of this loco on a good controller.  They did get to East Anglia, but were mainly to be found in Ipswich I believe?  Later a kitbuilt Buckjumper seemed to be the mainstay on Butley Mills.  Today we are so lucky with high-quality RTR J15s, J70s and, soon, an RTR Buckjumper.

Are there any new plans to attend exhibitions?  I'd love to see this legendary layout in the flesh.

1 minute ago, BoD said:

Mine too - and some of the ‘closer’ to scale couplings and smaller hooks are ‘flippin’ hard if not impossible to use.  If you can use the second link without causing derailments then it is down to you to decide if the hanging third link is something worth putting up with to facilitate closer coupling.  
 

As an aside, I have started to move to using 3 links mostly in fixed rakes - but that is down mostly to age and eyesight rather than personal choice. 

Yes, the hanging third link is not too noticeable really and is better I feel than having coupled stock too far apart. I've not had any buffer locking yet. I don't think I'm brave enough to go with anything finer scale - the frustration of coupling would probably ruin any pleasure I got from the improved appearance. 

9 minutes ago, BoD said:

Remember that everything in 00 modelling - even fine scale - is a compromise.  Smiths couplings are, if I understand it correctly, deliberately overscale to accommodate this.  You could try some other makes or reducing the size of the links. Whether or not these would work on your railway would depend on lots of factors including your minimum radii, actual fidelity of the rolling stock buffers and buffer beams, and how you have attached the couplings.

 

Yes, the coupling distance is greater than prototypical when using many 3 links, not just Smith’s, but is often necessary to accommodate the compressions/compromises of railway modelling in anything but the strictest of standards.

I hadn't appreciated just how overscale they were. My eyes are getting old!

Yes, it seems in this case using the middle (seconds) three link to couple is the sensible compromise. You get scale distance but with one link "spare". It's not ideal  but it means the coupling are easy (or easier) to use.

I've recently started a small Finescale 00 project and equipped my four wheel vans with Smiths 3 link couplings. However if I couple them together correctly using the third coupling loop the wagons are coupled far too far apart. I have to use the second link to get a scale distance between the vehicles. That leaves the third dangling.  Am I doing something wrong or is this normal? It looks odd to me... 

The big positive about this show was it was packed even though it might have lacked "superstar" layouts this year. There seemed to be more families there and newcomers/returners too. I think reports of the hobby's death are greatly exaggerated.

In terms of retail there was stuff for every pocket. I picked up two Lima locos for less than £30 each. Back home and half an hour's service later and they are very sweet runners on my retro layout. Good to see an exhibition where retailers aren't just trying to shift "premium" stuff but are catering for all - very much the right ethos for an exhibition in "the people's palace."

29 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

The show is excellent and if you are in Watford then the train is going to be the most cost effective means to get there.

 

I really enjoy the show, I go on the Friday as the trains are quieter without weekend travellers and you see stuff you won't normally see south of the border.

I was quoted £147 return Bham to Glasgow and there didn't seem to be cheaper options so I swerved it. And that's the problem... when die-hard enthusiasts are driving to events, the railways have an affordability problem. Car shares often end up a lot cheaper.