Pteremy

Off topic? Informatively so!

Yes, the new shop looks fab. I don't think that I will be leaping on a train from London for a day trip, but if I was nearby I would certainly make a detour. (The high level track circuits made me think of Hamleys, although its been a long time since I shopped there!)

I also recently discovered that I can see all my orders/preorders online. Don't know if this is new, or if i only just discovered something that has been there for a while. But it is helpful to see that I have inadvertently duplicated an order, perhaps not surprising given the time that some models take to appear!

I agree, but with an important caveat - most customers have unrealistic expectations about how quickly they will get a response to an email. More generally I have always found Rails to be good at communication. So my advice would be not to write them off on the basis of just the one experience. 

Yes. Interesting to note that in the welsh photos all the whiskers are essentially horizontally for a short distance before they reach the sides of the vehicle - whereas the whiskers in the photo at Newton Abbot have a continuous curve.

I have a P4 conversion pack for the Bachmann 08 Diesel Shunter that I would like to swap for the EM equivalent. South West London (Croydon-Sutton) exchange ideal.

I have an order outstanding from mid-November. Has anyone done better than that?

There is an often reprinted picture of a 3 car Class 120 set at Tiverton, on the 12.50pm Exeter to Dulverton (and return) in summer 1963 (22nd June to be precise). I thought i had read somewhere that this was a 'Class 120 turn' that summer, all services on the Exe Valley otherwise remaining steam hauled. But recently I have also come across photographic evidence of a 3 car Class 116 set on that turn - in one photo at Thorverton, the other at Dulverton (with the 2.10pm ex Barnstaple Junction, although the set itself was not due to depart back to Exeter until 3.15pm). The date for later photo is 6th July. No vehicle numbers are visible but the set has a small yellow panel front (unlike the Class 120). I don't have the relevant WTT to know whether the set had other duties either side of this trip.

I'm wondering if all this about new models is wide of the mark.Monday May the 8th is a Bank Holiday so what better date to drop a new story about Hornby s Finances and or ownership?

Remember Hornby s Finances are needing sorting out and a Bank Holiday means delayed reactions in the financial markets.

Just an idea

Anything is possible. But the original 'exiting news' Facebook post suggests that whatever is said is expected to create a positive reaction.

There is a photo of a green 'whiskers' 116 at Ebbw Vale on eBay currently. Doubt it is a rare one though.

'Now the biting makes sense....'

The curve to the right in this view? 

https://britainfromabove.org.uk/image/wpw041792

I don't think so - the rule seems to hold up in the vast majority of photographs I have looked at - more likely that for some reason just the first few built are different? (Perhaps they built them with 116 cabs before the instruction that a different style was needed?) 

The same photo (that is the one with head code 0B00) appears on page 76 of Kevin Robertson's 'First generation DMUs' where the leading vehicle is identified as W51332. The head code box clearly does have a dome. The caption says 'the date is likely to be at the end of 1959 when this, the first of the TOPS class 117 units, was delivered. 

Interestingly the photo below that is W51374 at Southampton on 8/5/61. It too has a clearly domed box attached by rivets.

The third picture on the page, alas with no number, and two on page 77, are of 117s with straight topped boxes (one of which is W51349). 

And the headcode box is clearly riveted on - maybe I have just failed to observe that before - or does it signify a particular build lot?

Sub standard product is sub standard product. It should be for the the manufacturer to identify where in the design-manufacturing-supply chain the problems are arising, and to provide a remedy. This ought to be a red line for this community. 

It is important to distinguish between imperfections that reflect design compromise or research failings, with the result that the product is inaccurate compared to the prototype, and imperfections that mean that the product is incomplete/damaged and/or does not function as intended. This thread records both, but it is the latter than concern me. Yes, an experienced modeller can correct some of the faults in the second category - it's sort of what we do. But test it this way. What if you had bought one of the faulty models for a sons/daughters birthday. Surely the minimum we expect from a product that is fit for purpose, that is, you can take it out of the box, plonk on the track and away it goes. 

It doesn't matter whether the failure rate is 10%, 30% or 50% - the second category failures recorded in this thread are shocking, and we need to call that out.

If this model were a motor car surely it would have been recalled by the manufacturers by now? I am not in favour of manufacturer bashing, and indeed - as with others - have some excellent Heljan diesels in my 'fleet'. But I think that (?) UK retailers ought to act together on this. Some combination of design fault, sloppy manufacturing and lack of quality control appears to have resulted in a product that is just not fit for purpose.

Its a bit of a leap to contemplate hacking the cabs off the 117 to transplant 108 small box cabs...and opening out the smoking compartment windows in the TCL to produce a 127 TSL! That'd get close almost exactly the unit I wanted...but for the price its not something I'll do. If a 116 were also on the horizon I'd be able to cobble up a half reasonable 4 car hybrid and only need to hack up one coach for the TSL, which I'd quite happily do!

 

The 117 as things stand for me is a one off purchase, they were never common as a complete set on the route I am developing a model of and want to be able to bring into the '80s. If a 116 were in the offing I'd be in for a small fleet of both. Losing trailers to 4 car units just lets me go down the all driving end 3 car oddball route, but lav and non-lav trailers is the key; and I don't desperately need to convert 127 TSLs (though it would be nice). I don't begrudge Bachmann for doing the just 117 as its the one with the greatest livery variations, it also saves tooling up a fourth vehicle and additional slides for the cab differences. I can see the sense and logic in it and don't dispute that. The only problem is it gets my hopes up for something else to come, and that makes me want to hold off from buying the 117. I wouldn't want Dapol (or anyone else) to go near the 116, I need hybrids, and with the 117 having conductive couplings I'd much prefer any potential future unit to use the same system. Hopefully Kernow commission the 116 from Bachmann once the 117 surfaces; if Bachmann aren't interested themselves.

'Leap' as in commissioning the alternatives.

By coincidence I am currently trying to modify a couple of bloaters to post WWII 'refurbished' condition - but for continued use in fish traffic rather than parcels. I have chosen to model vehicles that retained their original doors (presumably because they were never loaned/converted for parcels use). But my particular grief is filling the louvres/vents. For a refurbished s8 this requires quite a lot of filling (the lower louvres mainly). I am also going for an S10 which had fewer louvres to begin with. I have tried a variety of fillers but none I have tried yet gives the crisp finish I am looking for when scored for the replacement planking. I am hoping that practice makes perfect!

I feel happier about the gas piping I am adding to the roof! One reason for persisting with getting the filling right.

The sides of a Fruit D would give you what you want - but with (different) louvres to fill. I may yet have a go at that - but only if I can get the 'filling' technique right. 

Actually the Kernow updates of 5/9/15 about stepping back following the Bachmann announcements end with 'We have not forgotten about the Class 116 and Class 118 and further news about these will be added to this web page when it becomes available.' (see their website). That may not count for much given the time that has elapsed since (and without further news). But it is still the case that the 118's essentially only require a revised cab, and the 116's revised cab and trailer body/ies. So not a huge leap to contemplate.

The comments with the second photo include 'Unit L360 comprised W50083 and driving trailer W56285, the latter being non-gangwayed and locked out of use'

True - but when standing back for Bachmann Kernow said something to the effect that they had not forgotten the 116 or 118.

But whatever, there was a degree of standardisation in the 116/117/118 (and related units) which presents a possible cash cow opportunity, along the lines of the Bachmann Mk1. For someone to exploit.

In similar vein 

- different cab ends will give you a 3 car class 118 (because otherwise bodies/layouts/underframes identical)

- different cab ends + revised body(ies) to trailer car(s) will give you a 3/4 car class 116 (because otherwise identical)

- merging a revised 116 or 117 cab body to trailer underframe will give you a class 149 or 150 Driving Trailer Second (to go with 121/122 singles).

If so then plenty of scope for some 'special editions'.

LMS Grain wagon - the one with lots of rivet detail

I can't comment on your choice of prototype, but there is an obvious hierarchy that your proposal could deliver to, which would also mirror all the varying modelling capabilities and inclinations recorded in this thread:

- detailing kit for commercial product

- body kit to fit commercial chassis

- body kit to fit EM/P4 converted commercial chassis

- complete body and chassis kit (OO/EM/P4)

A different sort of design clever.