cs233

Early days but personally I am disappointed by the join line and it really ditracts from the prototype and it's long and clean lines. Shame it could not have been tooled without it and a two part flexible interior used to workaround the challenges. Perhaps when the livery is applied it will hide it. Let's see.....

During a rare trip from the South to Leeds back in 2019 did observe Class 156 units on a number of long runs out of Leeds. They were seen operating Leeds-Southport and Leeds-Chester. Both services routed via the long and slow Calder Valley.

I know Charlie mentioned originally Colne to Victoria but I cannot ever see such a service running between 1986 and 1992. Have the BR all route timetables for these years and there are lots of Victoria to Blackburn as well as Rochdale to Blackburn via Victoria (long before the current Clitheroe service started) but cannot find a Colne service. Maybe it was a relief working? Having spent much time at Manchester Victoria in the late 80's I recall the destination blinds simply read on some if not all units of that era 'Man Vic'

Have bumped in to Charlie many times at various exhibitions over the years and has always been nice to speak to. However the experience in dealing with Realtrack Models in my opinion has been negative. Nothing to do with delays of the product e.g. Class 156 but when my debit card was replaced by the bank due to it having a fault and it did not work when Charlie attempted payment there was no communication simply the order was not delivered and until I contacted Charlie no action was taken. Even after full payment was made with the new card it was a four week delay before the item was even shipped. Still not the end of the world but there is more: The Class 156 when it finally arrived had a fault, this was due to the factory missing adding a component during assembly, sent it back to Charlie and it was returned with the part installed, when I asked for return of the postage costs for essentially making a warranty claim there was no reply. Despite significant time going past still no response from Realtrack Models. Despite all the research outcomes suggesting the seller should pay for postage when making a genuine warranty claim that they have admitted in writing is a factory production fault still messages are simply not answered and basically ignored. When the Class 142 comes out I may purchase but it would not be via Realtrack directly but would use one of the retailers such as Hattons, Rails or Kernow as dealing directly has proved to be a poor overall experience. Also the principal of not responding to messages that ask for return of postage costs due to the product being supplied with a very noticeable missing part are quite frankly unexpected from any professional organisation. Also the issue that Charlie has now deleted his comment regarding negative remarks for the Hornby 142 stating and I quote 'the model is crap and inaccurate' does raise some unfortunate issues.

Hardly a fair comparison for a model that dates from summer 1989. Clearly by the current standards it is way off the pace. However in 2050 maybe people will think the same for yet to be released Realtrack version? For 1989 standards they did a reasonable job of hiding most of the motor area. I have a model purchased in August 1989 (new) in GMPTE Orange for £24, it still runs to this day despite having been run fairly regular for many hundreds of hours. Yes not of current standards but when judged on the market and general standards of the day clearly not 'crap'.

Bachmman site states 'Front end details appropriate to prototype' unless they modify the cowling on the tool Class 150115 in Provincial will be incorrect as it had its original cowling design when painted in Centro livery: https://www.flickr.com/photos/dwbphotos/35380357173/in/photolist-VUrzya-LFiFdW-YX7v54-nw6Mae-2e1tc9g-Bm7gdU-8QGG9j-Xg9pqd-ku3tFa-25JNuga-26t2sq9-qyptg1-GyH9pa-fwUhUQ-bDVo4w-TeKTe9-qMkBSY-qP8n3i-qBfyam-2h5f7Gf-GyHa2H-2dnTcUZ-D2frp9-tmXNvS-rPwB2G-qAkx1J-zMnEBU-CeixVY-rZHCd6-A5LfRR-qSTWeT-YEGJMc-28B2Foh-28MME9L-AQ6ryj-pfkKny-LR3Y2H-pW7GVa-qQmpYU-BCD4aE-2hgYdH2-qxY3WF-qPtyyR-pUy98g-VM3uCr-GcHjee-2hY89FH-qQmyQb-qBNiFX-pSmjwZ For a unit to carry the original Provincial livery in a modified cowling condition they should switch the running number to 135 or 137 as this would be accurate and date the model around 1991\1992.

Very common after examining a number of RR units in my friendly sympathetic local store had to pass on the first two due to various defects, there were issues with the lighter blue stripe that had marks and had not been applied consistently. The glazing on one also had a mark that did not seem rub off. Settled on the third unit which still had some broken livery application especially with the door frame being picked out but it was the best of the bunch, have since touched this up with a black marker. The QC process does have issues considering the price but this is the same for all makers really. With the price rises in recent years I see no improvement in the QC process. As an example I purchased in 2004 the older Bachmann 158 31-500A which was old new stock at the time for £45 this also had various QC issues, some things will never change especially for mass produced disposable items.

Having been playing with the sound fitted RR unit for a few days it is superb. This is the best DMU available today for the UK scene. The lighting is indeed exactly as the units were originally much better than the Realtrack Provincial 156 in that respect. The only two faults are the cab join which has already been discussed in detail this remains incorrect although it is not really an issue as the RR livery hides it well. The sounds are clearly the Cummins engine recording although 158849 as built had the different sounding Perkins engine but realistically how many people will notice? Despite the two issues raised this is the benchmark and the best DMU available today.

Happy to be corrected but according to an old Platform 5 publication Norwich Crown Point based this unit was under RR, so would have worked Norwich\Ipswich\Cambridge-Birmingham and Norwich\Ipswich\Cambridge-Liverpool\Blackpool services. Some images also suggest it did operate out of Cardiff on occasions, due to the efficiency and intensive diagramming of the 158's in the early years they could show up well outside of the traditional diagrams.

From the line at Derby later units did get RR branding but there are multiple versions. RR branding appeared on the units built approx mid to late 1991. The Bachmann offering shows simply RR some of the units such as 757 for example amongst others left the factory with both Express and RR branding, the RR was present towards the rear of the lower stripes. Scotrail units also had such branding applied to the rear again and typically had a first class section. Of the Provincial\RR Express livery there are at least 4 differing versions of this. From 158815 and later builds of 158\0 units I believe it was just RR branding provided from the Derby line.

Indeed the most stylish of liveries in my humble opinion and nothing has come close since. Also the Class 158 as a product has done very well over the last 30 years and still rides smoother than any DMU I have been on in this country that was built since, rides way better than very recent stock e.g. Class 195 and on bullhead rail puts DMU's like the Class 170 to shame. Perhaps the 175 units are the only ones that come close to ride quality, what a shame the T4 bogie series was not used on more units. Will be picking up this model despite its flaws within the next few days for sure.

Not sure I can concur with the coupler being a non-issue, it does provide a feature that is often not as seamless as it should be especially with units. As an example of the Realtrack 156 release, after purchasing one of the Provincial variants and being very happy with the unit I have since purchased two other running numbers so in total three DMU's in the same livery. Can you quote this history in which releases one after the other have not sold? Just interested, when it comes to high quality models people will always find the money.

Realtrack seems to be doing well with the 156 in various running numbers in the same livery. Not sure on the logic a new coupler to attract multiple working and then nothing of the same era to run it with?! All artwork can be used again simply change the numbers.

Quick wins that make commercial sense would be more 158 liveries. Another Regional Railways one with differing running number as anyone that purchases the first release would likely go for a second running number especially considering the new coupler. Class 101 releases would be welcome and allow them to sweat the assets from existing tooling.

Fantastic news, I am sure the bogie and body gap will be better than on the Bachmann offering! Looks like a great spec that is proposed. This despite the significant tooling costs should be an outstanding commercial success.

Clearly looking good but how do people feel comparing to images of the prototype in the area of the gap between the body and bogies? The model seems to have a gap too large in my opinion? It would be interesting for other opinions?

PM sent via the site.

Have messaged three times over the last number of weeks. No final payment taken despite getting a receipt. No reply to messages and no Class 156

The problems are very deep with the franchise and the wider subject as to how the entire network is run it would take a very lengthy post to cover in full but there are serious issues in the foundations of the system. The Sprinter fleet were only intended for a 30 year life and yet we still have them. Class 158 units in some cases have even been sagging around the doors they are so worn out. Whilst the 156 units had a solid build they are really towards the end of their useful life. On another note it is interesting the cutting back of the route to Nottingham as it will be a useful East West link gone. At a time the government are trying to open another East West route e.g. Cambridge to Oxford! When you travel on networks abroad and compare it is such a strategic mess the UK network.

It is a fair point although Lima never released the early units that wore just 'Sprinter' branding. They only ever released 'Super Sprinter' later branded units. When or if they end up the discounted section I think they offer reasonable value especially for people that are not very up on the details of the prototype. The Lima moulded body was way ahead of its time back in 1989. The main body is still quite good but the underframe is awful of course.

I think the pictures by surfsup cover it well, it is above the snowplough\cowling where it joins the body, and also at the side of the lower body (again above the cowling) it does not have the sharper edges as per the prototype it is more curved on the model. It needs a closer look but to me there is something wrong in this area it just does not seem as per the prototype.

I agree apart from the side issue of the cab join as covered there is something not right with the front of the unit. The functional coupler looks nothing like a BSI but there is something else in addition to that. Something at the front is not right....

The 195 units also have technical problems which as far as I know still do not have a resolution plan. The bar coupler issue is the most serious plus other niggles. The fleet has not got off to a convincing start.

Personally I think the comments aimed at DJM are very cynical and surprised they have been allowed to continue in this thread. Really seem cheap shots and almost the type of comments I hear in a school playground. Having met Dave he is a very nice person that seems to have attracted a very negative cloud attached to his company by many in this forum. Back on the Class 90 very happy with the Intercity release and thinking of purchasing a second for a renumber.

Very interesting the Class 156 Provincial release. The body of the Lima offering is still quite good and captures the look very well. Clearly the interior and everything under the body is not ideal at all. Cannot help thinking they should have produced two running numbers as customers would potentially have bought more than a single variant.