mdvle

Hattons are now dealing directly with a factory in China and are not relying on commissions. It's difficult to say where exactly the problem is but Bachmann's troubles started with some reorganization/changes with parent Kader. Despite the issues with the delivery of models that rely on new tooling Bachmann is generally able to get reruns of older models done and into shops, which is something Hornby couldn't do when they had their struggles earlier this decade if I recall correctly. The good news is that the new tooling items that have made it to sample stage - Class 90, crane, Mk2f, Class 117 - all look to be very good models which offers a lot to look forward to as Bachmann works to catch up on their backlog.

https://twitter.com/RapidoTrains/status/999633034134605824

New HO manufacturer, first announcement coming soon. Blaine Hadfield left Exactrail last year. https://arrowheadmodels.com/blogs/news/introducing-arrowhead-models

Bachmann is going through a tough time at the moment, and I doubt Bachmann is any happier than the customers than it has gone on for as long as it has. Certainly if you go back a little further many will remember that Hornby went through a similar period where they were unable to follow through with their plans in a timely manner but Hornby did eventually get things back under control. Bachmann will to at some point. As for prices, it is a no win. Bachmann have in fact stopped announcing prices on many items - if you go to the Bachmann website you will see many items that are listed as TBA - but the problem is that there is at least one, if not more, retailers who proceed to give an "estimated" price which the consumer who doesn't pay attention likely assumes is a price coming from Bachmann.

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/134355-the-latest-rapido-news/?p=3172792

A quick update on the project in the latest newsletter that Jason has posted http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/134355-the-latest-rapido-news/?p=3172792

Jason has posted a link to the latest newsletter which has a brief update on the tanker http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/134355-the-latest-rapido-news/?p=3172792

And Jason has now posted a link to it http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/134355-the-latest-rapido-news/?p=3172792

For those unaware the update posted above is from the latest Rapido UK newsletter (number 16) which was sent out on Friday. It should appear on http://www.rapidouk.com/ soon I would think.

This article, if correct, covers some of the issues complained about. The key points seem to be extending station dwell times from 30 seconds to 1 minute to more accurately reflect the time required given current passenger volumes (which will increase scheduled times, but allow trains to hopefully actually keep to the schedule), and side effects from late arrival of new trains, delayed finishing of electrification, and DfT not specifying enough drivers in the franchise bid documents. https://www.londonreconnections.com/2018/the-cicadas-take-flight-explaining-the-may-timetable-changes/ Good news is that refinements are planned as new equipment arrives, drivers hired and trained, etc.

The message he was responding to stated that restoring the old SR route was the only viable long term option, which would indeed not only abandon Dawlish/Teignmouth but also Torbay and Newton Abbot while keeping service to Plymouth and Cornwall. The problem of course is that means cutting 200,000 people off the rail network which likely isn't politically acceptable. What they should be doing is two projects, one as proposed if deemed the best current option, and secondly planning the inland Exeter to Newton Abbot route so that the land can be protected if currently undeveloped, those in the path know what may be coming, and you can get things arranged so if it becomes necessary it will be less work.

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/uk-trains-digital-signalling-railways-delays-times-speed-journeys-a8344616.html

Many DCC chips will also operate on DC, so no removal is necessary although some feel the performance under DC is less optimal. To convert a DCC loco to DC only usually involves removing the DCC chip and putting a "blank" into the DCC socket. This of course assumes the loco has a socket and hasn't been directly wired by someone in the past. At the retail level there is little interest for DCC locos, the divide is either DCC with Sound or DC only. There is little further economy of scale to reduce DCC Sound prices so I wouldn't expect going all DCC Sound to help that. I am not familiar with what Hornby or Bachmann currently do, but in America it is DCC Sound or DCC capable (so a blank fitted to the DCC socket). There is no cost saving to removing the DCC socket in production. Not sure that DCC noise will ever dominate the non-loco part of the market as the expense doesn't justify the complexity or cost either to the manufacturer or the consumer. Consumers are far more likely if anything to invest into LCC which can control signals, turnouts, etc. https://dccwiki.com/Layout_Command_Control Running chassis have 2 problems for a Bachmann/Hornby/etc perspective. First, they are another item to stock/handle and use tie up valuable capital in. Secondly, the biggest cost in developing a new model is everything but the chassis and thus anything that discourages the purchase of the new model ends up costing them money. In other words, the little income they would get from selling the chassis separately is more than offset by the costs in lost sales of a new model.

According to https://www.londonreconnections.com/2018/third-ryde-tube-transfer-troublesome/ the tunnel has a current max height of 3.3m (prior to electrification it apparently was 3.56m) at its centre. The DLR trains are about 3.49m from the drawing referenced here http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/133528-Hornby-announcement-8th-may/?p=3141830 Can't find anything about the class 230, but the D78 is 3.62m according to wikipedia, the 1938 stock is 2.9m If the figures are correct then a) The D78 doesn't fit, which means the class 230 doesn't fit unless they have lowered it. edit - according to http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Interviews/they-dont-make-trains-like-this-anymore they have raised the class 230 by 73mm, making them3.69m. On the plus side the newish bogies are apparently good on "indifferent track" b) while the DLR fits in the centre if the return the track to its original level, the DLR units are very square topped and likely would be too tall on the sides.

Just for completeness, Island Line is available for a limited number of OAP passes, specifically those issued for a disability. It can be found in the FAQ here https://www.iwight.com/Residents/Transport-Parking-and-Streets/English-National-Concessionary-Bus-Fare-Scheme/Faqs

Don't need Facebook, pictures are also on Twitter https://twitter.com/RapidoTrains/status/997080650577534976 Also per the above tweet

Surprise everyone with this https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Torquay,_Torbay_Road_-_Bayline_526_C526FFJ.jpg

Airlines are a very bad example given the extreme regulations that both they and aircraft manufacturers operate under. Otherwise you are correct, in theory the infrastructure could be privatized although it would just mean a different method would have to be found for the government to subsidize the losses. The problem is a question of how well it would work in the real world given the pressure to meet quarterly stock market expectations.

O is interesting, and will be a question for the new boss. The market has gotten more crowded with Dapol, Minerva, Little Loco, following Heljan into the market. But the failure of JLTRT may indicate that the market has reached its limit thus making future items more risky.

Difficult to say. The franchises bring a lot of problems but it can also be argued validly that the private sector involvement forced the government's hand into paying the increased subsidies and capital expenditures. It would be one thing to tell BR no money this year, it is another thing entirely to tell the bankers/lawyers/etc particularly when they have an ability to fight back that BR didn't. Given the other issues the only real question is how much of the increase is due to the franchises and how much is the external factors and that would take a lot of research and even then would likely only be a guess.

The graph is in some ways problematic. A large part of the decline will be in the rise of the car, both as it became more affordable and as the road system was improved and motorways were built. This was in a way a double hit because not only did it hurt daily commuting but it make a big decline in the summer saturday phenomena. But if you look at the graph carefully you see that passengers numbers had a significant increase in the 80s as BR became more responsive and the government funded capital improvements. The decline in the early 90s can be attributed to the economic decline that occured then, and while it is no shown clearly you can see that passengers numbers were back to climbing again prior to privatization. And of course privatization has benefited from investments in the railway that BR could only dream of as well as other external factors including the boom of London that has resulted in the massive increase in commuting brought about both by the job increases, property prices dramatically increasing, and the inability to increase the road system to handle the new demand thus to a certain extent forcing people onto the trains.

Once you start down that road though the DafT would just be creating opportunities for losing bidders to challenge the decision in the courts, which we have already seen. It is also worth considering that whether you agree with the franchise system or not few of the franchises run into this sort of trouble.

Hate to say this, but in fairness to the DafT it is not their responsibility to protect the private sector from submitting impossible bids. If a bid is submitted and meets all the requirements set out in the terms then it should be the case that the bid that returns the greatest amount to the government is the one awarded the franchise.

Somewhere back in this thread the conclusion was a significant part of the ridership on the Island Line left the Island, this thus be responsible for the fact that the line had a quite low average revenue per passenger. If correct then the idea of adding another transfer into trips by using different stock for different parts of the line is not going to happen. The arched roofs on the dual bore sections of tunnel is a good indication that the dividing wall is load carrying so removing the dividing wall is likely to be very expensive. Whatever gets decided an important goal should be to make sure any future service improvements aren't prohibited by decisions made now. If in 10 years it becomes feasible to have self driving trains a single car long run on a 5 or 10 minute interval then make sure the infrastructure is either still there or at least still possible.

First test shot https://twitter.com/RapidoTrains/status/995730956374900741