Hobby

Has it ever really been any different? However there is still a large market for long distance travel in certain jobs that require it, and there will be a decent leisure travel market as well, so a requirement for decent battery capacity shouldn't be ignored just because of that. No, they fly! But again that's been the case for the last 50+ years.

Don't think so in the 60s, look at the slipstreaming that took place.

Wow, that's ultra defensive!! I appreciate he's towing, but even towing I didn't have to stop so often. It's about mindsets and the current technology, whilst you find it acceptable I don't see why the rest of us should have to accept it just because you do. Hence my comments about PHEVs, I am prepared to accept the compromise, you aren't, be happy!

I used to get 50+ mpg towing a much less aerodynamic 15' caravan ... Maestro Clubman D (non turbo) with an Eccles Amythyst, and I didn't drive slowly with it to get that mpg either! Regards distance, I do have stops, but they aren't enforced stops which are much more often than I would do with an EV and I don't have to worry about having to find a charging point that's either working or free. I think it's all about getting into a different mindset, but I think it's a backward step that we are asking people to accept limitations and then playing them down.

Completely agree, if the tyres need changing then they can be done after the restart.

Well at least it's honest, I've driven from Birmingham to southern Germany many times and I'm afraid that video shows just why long journeys aren't, currently, the forte of EVs. Some people might find it acceptable to spend stops every hour or so to top up but that's not my idea of a good long journey. For example, from Kiddy we drive straight down to the tunnel in one go (3 to 4hrs dependent on the M25), then use the tunnel, have a break at the tunnel's waiting area, fill up at the cheap garage the other side and 1.5 hours to Belgium for an o/n and wander round some nice town. Onwards next morning for 2.5/3.5hrs to somewhere in Germany and stop for lunch. The same in the afternoon and o/n somewhere like Heidleburg (sp!), fill up at night and same next day. Relaxing 3 day trip to south of Munich. In the old days I could do that lot in 1.5 days! OK, not towing a caravan so with a car wit a real range of around 3hrs it would be possible, but I only have to fill up twice and don't have to worry about finding chargers. His description of the journey really worries me if people feel that that is the acceptable face of future long distance motoring. Yes it can be done, but I wouldn't regard it as the relaxing time I have at the moment of long journeys, EV's days will come but they still have some way to go, hybrids for me for the time being.

Looking at the bottom of the rear wing it's lucky they didn't put "No Rust"!

Could any of the Triang chassis be used for 1:120 locos and stock? I know we've discussed the possibilities of Continental TT being used as doner chassis, but not Triang. Probably not, too wide I'd expect.

Just think how many more he'd have got if he'd tried a bit harder, though! Yes i suppose I could have chosen better but I don't feel that his level of wages were justified (other than for the amount of merchandising income he brought in), other forwards on a lot less gave much better value for money.

I posted a YouTube link of someone that had done it, to save having to look on that thread here it is:

An interesting thought, why don't you ask the others who keep repeating the same flawed comments over and over to stop as well, FP? We all know that its not possible to make a finescale model of some prototypes in 1:120, but an RTR model isn't finescale and has compromises! All I ask is that we wait and see rather than keep repeating the same stuff over and over on various threads. ;)

I just don't get this, yet again we are just given speculation by finescale modellers as reasons that TT1:120 won't happen for British models whilst they continue to ignore that the manufacturers will just compromise when building them, like they always have done, and for some prototypes that compromise will be more noticeable than on others. Great, chaps, you've made your point, numerous (and I'd say far too many) times, so much so it's getting very, very, boring now. But none of your so called facts prove anything until an actual British prototype RTR loco is produced in TT1:120 and we can see what the outcome is. From what you keep on saying the only conclusion I can take from your continued speculating is that you want it to fail, despite you denying it, otherwise you'd give it a break and wait and see like the rest of us. Prove me wrong and just give it a break, eh!

Even with all the figures it'll still be speculation, Ravenser. Whatever we think might happen the chances are the manufacturers will use the same standards as already used by Tillig, Piko, etc., are already using and for what the Peco points have been designed for!! For some British locos there will be some compromises, all except a small group have accepted that already. There's your answer.

I still think that results orientated pay would make many players try a lot harder. If you've got quarter of a million quid or more coming in every week regardless of what you do what incentive is there... Ask CR7! ;)

I think you over estimate the influence of this forum. The majority of railway modellers aren't members of it and even then its only a small percentage of members that will get involved in any such discussion. I think if you look at the world beyond this forum that most modellers work on the "if it looks OK, it is OK" principle. I appreciate that finescale modellers will not understand this but that's how the world works outside the finescale modelling circles where therest of us inhabit. Manufacturers will try to get things as accurate as they can, certainly compared with the 50s and 60s, but they also know that the majority of modellers will accept some compromises to have a viable model that they can plonk on the track and run. So if its a mm or so out to allow that the majority will accept it without question and we'll enjoy using it and ignore the protestations of a small minority.

I do wish we'd stop giving the opposition a head start... Are Bournemouth the whipping boys this season, conceded 16 already? What's happening at Leicester?

Things have moved on from his time... I don't know why you (and some others) have to keep banging on about it, they'll do some sort of compromise, just like RTR manufacturers have always done, and 99% of modellers will accept it. Finescale modellers won't, but to be quite frank I couldn't care less what they think as I'm not a finescale modellers and never intend to be. But I really wish they'd give it a rest and just wait and see.

It's never stopped them in the past, Jeff! ;)

Wait for the "locos with splashers" posts to come along, @mdvle!

Well that's jinxed them hasn't it!

Not if he hits someone whilst driving and causes them life threatening injuries, it's the cheap option then... So do we let him carry on hoping that he won't hit someone, or...

Yet more guesswork. Its as if some people don't want it to succeed and are talking it down at every opportunity.

That's my final decider. I put together a list of suitable cars from the motability list, list the advance payments (none of the cars we need have nil APs!) and then look at fuel costs (electric, diesel or petrol) and whichever is cheapest when adding fuel and AP together gets chosen!

Won't it decide which order they start at the back?

Interesting... Have they crash tested it yet and if so was the damage repairable compared with other, conventional, cars? He went on and on about insurance companies not wanting to repair modern cars but I wonder with its construction if it's more susceptible to getting written off then the equivalent car from other manufacturers... Or is it just another way to get people to buy more!