No Decorum

I wouldn’t say that I’m surprised; Hornby seems more concerned to compete with other manufacturers than to supplement their ranges. However, I am disappointed that no-one has had a go at producing Chiltern Mk IIIs. The appearance of Accurascale’s TPE coaches has been of great benefit to Dapol, perhaps Chiltern coaches would do likewise.

A nice job. I accept that a properly weathered loco is more realistic but I prefer pristine. I can tolerate the lining but I do wish Hornby would get to grips with the paint. Heaven knows, they’ve been knocking out poor finishes for years now and improvement is slow. I’d also like Hornby to sort out the trailing wheels, Bachmann V2 style. With SK gone, perhaps our chance of an A2/1 has gone.

For what it’s worth, my layout is in the roof space. Cold in winter, hot in summer. It’s Peco laid to 6' radius with long electrofrog points. It has stood up to time well but it isn’t convenient and often uncomfortable up there. I got hold of a Bachmann Thomas set with E-Z track for grandchildren. Having tried it myself, I found it fiddly to put together. I then got a basic set of Kato N track to run 009 on. It looks wrong, of course, but it works. On the strength of that, I have recently acquired a basic set of Kato H0 track to test and run stuff in more conveniently than in the roof space. It’s grand. it’s very easy to put together and put away again. I have a couple of reservations. First, it doesn’t look as realistic as Peco track when the latter is properly ballasted. Second, whislt the basic track set comes with a very nice DC controller, DCC is more of a problem. My NCE controller plugs into a unit screwed to a baseboard. I shall have to get hold of spare sets of connectors for the Kato track (the N and H0 track have different connectors) and try to find a spare NCE connector so that I can cut and join wires.

If Hornby produces that lot, a new catalogue will need to be issued three or four times in 2024! 🤣

It’s had my vote already, although I’m not convinced that it is exactly quirky. Different, certainly, but I’m inclined to think that it got minds working in British railway circles and is therefore historically significant.

Agreed. Everyone’s track is different, so a general recommendation won’t suit everyone.

I ordered these like a shot when they were announced and I’m now wondering if I’ll regret it. Hornby did a good job on the Coronation Scot train, which reassured me. There are problems producing models of the Cornonation coaches, though. Hornby has managed articulated coaches before, so that’s not a major worry. However, the fairings between the coaches do concern me. As far as I can see from the photographs posted earlier, the fairings look like fat gangways, which isn’t right at all. They should cover the ends of the coaches. Granted, it would be difficult to model but it is a very prominent feature – one likely to be observable from 3'.

BR found that the vee-form engines were less reliable than the twin bank ones.

“a locomotive type used where restricted headroom is available due to bridges and other structures…” If you fancy a compact, multi-level layout, you won’t need such a long incline to clear the tunnel at the lower level. The blue does look lovely. There’s a chance as well to affix nameplates bearing the name of a female one needs to impress (assuming she isn’t Judy). Add to all that, Modelu will produce a suitably hunched crew for the little machine. Sound too. All good.

So far, GT3 and the Fell have appeared from KR. Both models have been re-run with improvements (whether those improvements have been adequate is a different matter). It seems sensible to me to wait for the second run. Perhaps a Leader without rivets and improved wheels will appear. Perhaps not.

I was struck by the writing style as well. Completely different and refreshingly free of error. I wonder if the model will be likewise an improvement. I note from the thread about the Leader that the wheels appear to be wrong and, as far as I can see, it’s still covered in rivets.

If I were to ignore everything I fancy and everything I think would be a good idea (obviously I’m no better qualified than anyone else on here) and pick just one steam model that is the most glaring omission RTR, it would be the Southern U. Up periscope! Diesel/electric? Probably the 81.

I do. That’s why I model 00, although it takes up a lot of space, and 0 is very tempting (thanks largely to Dapol). Mind, when I close my eyes, 7¼" drifts across the back of my eyelids.

The sheets not being removed even when the wagons were empty is interesting. It could be a solution to the perpetual problem of loads or no loads in open wagons. Bachmann’s sheeted loads are a brave try but not totally convincing as they don’t cover the wagon sides. Likewise, the woven tarps aren’t convincing as the texture is too coarse. Accurascale has had more success with moulded plastic tarps. The problem here is that the tarps will need to be roped in place. The coupling sockets look as if they will be easily removable, which is a plus, but the couplings look rather like Hornby’s oversized versions. If they were to be based on Bachmann’s short straight couplings, it would be a small but welcome improvement. Tasty looking wagons.

Could you convince yourself that rust has got hold under the paint and caused it to bubble up? It’s very disappointing to have this happen after so much trouble and such a good job otherwise. My little one runs impeccably without the match truck over large radius Code 100 Electrofrog points. A superb job by Hornby.

I do. I have a Midland loco and brake van and I hope someone will produce Midland wagons to form the filling in the sandwich.* I have renewed hope that some will appear a some stage. I have a couple of Chiltern 68s to top and tail a train of coaches which don’t exist yet RTR; hope is fading. Looked at the other way around, I bought two sets of SECR birdcages and was eventually rewarded with a superb loco to haul them. Joined up thinking from manufacturers would be very welcome but, until it happens, I would rather have a loco with nothing appropriate to pull than see rolling stock appear and think, “I wish I’d bought that loco (whichever it might be) whilst it was available.” As for generic coaches from Hatton’s and Hornby, no thanks. I don’t think they are “correct rolling stock”. I made an exception for Hornby LBSC coaches because they are at least a poor representation of the correct coaches for my long-idle E4 to pull, that is, except for the overly long specimen. What worried me is that these generic coaches will deter a manufacturer from making accurate models. Would Dapol have produced the 0 gauge LBSC coaches in 00 were it not for these cluttering the market? * I know trains were formed from a variety of wagons from all over the place but there should be at least some Midland in the mix.

I’ll disable the lights so there won’t be any need for it. Once it’s been removed, there’ll be no worry about it degrading and perhaps I’ll be able to fit the front footsteps.

If a clunky Hornby decoder can fit, an ordinary sound decoder should fit too. Did you need to remove anything from the loco?

I should have looked before I leapt. I don’t know what got into Hornby when the 71s and 87s were produced.

I’ve done that (though not using Word). It’s hard work. Easier for us if Accurascale were to use a programme which saves to PDF.

Amazing sound in something so small. I love the “Whoa!” Very handy for when a model loco pushes supposedly hand-braked wagons along when coupling. 🤣

I’d love a Gresley K2. Attractive liveries and some carried names. Such things tend to sell well. I know that there were detail differences between the Gresley K1 and K2 apart from the smaller boiler on the K1. I wonder if it would be possible to tool for both. A K4 would be welcome too. Classes of big LNER locos built in small numbers seem to have gone down well. Why wouldn’t a cute K4?

Fran, Accurascale puts lots of useful guides on its website. Would you consider putting them in PDF please? Websites come and go and get updated and in the process things get lost. In addition, it’s helpful to be able to print a guide and take it to the workbench or even keep it with the relevant model.

One of the worst features of KR Models so far are the lights. Neither on GT3 nor the Fell do they seem to understand how the lights were supposed to work. The WD won’t have any, so that’s one pitfall likely to be avoided. GT3 is a good runner. It seems that the KR will have a conventional motor whereas the rival will have a coreless, which in my view is a plus. Naturally, I’ll have to wait to see how both models turn out.

Absolutely. New entrants to the manufacture of RTR models often neglect to make models easy to get into*. I have some very old models which have been transformed with some careful internal lubrication. Such models are long out of guarantee. With new models, naturally we take the risk of invalidating the guarantee if we mess things up. That’s our fault. A case in point is the Stirling Single. It won’t start as smoothly as I’d like. I’d like to try removing the gear between the driving and trailing axles to see if that helps and if that compromises haulage capacity. Close up, the driving spokes flickering past the slots in the splashers is a stunning effect but rather spoilt by two bright red wires where there should be solid boiler. If I could get inside, I could at least paint them black or substitiute black wires. We are given dire warnings not to attempt to get into the innards. As a result, I am rather less enchanted than most owners seem to be. On the other hand, I do understand Rapido’s point of view. It must be frustrating to receive for repair a model which has been half wrecked by someone ham-fisted. In such cases, Rapido would be quite right to charge heftily for a repair. *In fairness, not only new entrants but it seems more common with them.