wappinghigh

^The real locomotive looks a Nice example of a preserved Black5. 2011 tooling? 8 pin DCC. Part of West Coast railways pullman?? What will be the specific differences between the 2011 and this new 2023 tooling?

Sure. If there is no progress on loconet or some way to interface Digitrax/JMRI, I'll switch to some other DCC control like the Lenz LZV100 (once someone here on RMWweb or youtube proves to me it all works). Not a major biggie - swap costs less than a couple bluetooth controllers. Cheers and Thanks for comments and help. 😀

Your a large commercial company in the Hobby... The BOD and management team have been planning the release of a new DCC bluetooth control platform for months.. ...who knows years..? The development team presents their ideas - which includes the concept of "a dongle" that will interface with "legacy DCC controllers" Are we to assume there was no discussion (early on) why it would be crucial for the platforms uptake? That this is suddenly a surprise to Hornby management? That management wouldn't have realised this early on and (if they really wanted this to happen) said to the development teams "go make sure it works with other manufactures?" I mean call me naive.. but I just don't believe that they didn't know this problem very early (and therefore never planned it to work with other manufactures DCC controllers all along! ) Just MO!!!

^So which is it? 1/ They know all about this already..(which I suspect is true) or 2/ They had no idea until everyone now realises it (and will rush to bring out new dongles, to rectify the situation)?

^ Either that (they are so out of touch), or they do realise it (and have no intention of expanding the platform to control other DCC bus protocols ie an entire layout) at all and 1/ they are so arrogant they think everyone will miraculously ditch their current equipment and move to Hornby control (only) or 2/ all this talk about their bluetooth platform controlling an entire layout is total pie in the sky! (nonsense) Just MO!

What is wrong with Hornby (as a commercial organisation) that the development teams/management, wouldn't have realised this, like years ago already!

These different bus protocols have been around for years.. I 100% agree with your statement - it absolutely would be commercially useful to Hornby... That is entirely my point! So where are these dongles!?

^Yep. (Another reason backing up what I have previously posted...) Has the HM7040 been tested with NCE? Or Gaugemaster? If not why not? Aren't they the two biggest players in DCC control?

That dongle is the key to the uptake of the entire HM7000 platform...

So I think Hornby has made a major mistake not making that dongle more "open source"... It should have been open source and all the connection issues nailed down - either via multi-interface or even wifi (as someone eluded to) ..deals done with other manufacturers (if required) etc ..certainly tested with other manufacturers gear before the launch of the entire platform... Bluetooth has been around for decades. They have had plenty of time to do all this... Is what is implied - nobody at Hornby uses JMRI? That Hornby doesn't know about devices like the Digikeijs DR5000? They couldn't have got one and tested it? Even bought out the IP/tech/company (has it gone bust)? By not designing, testing prior and launching this dongle properly, it is likely they have missed a huge opportunity to become the dominant platform in Bluetooth layout control That is very disappointing - as I am huge fan of Hornby. And in general love their approach and support of the hobby. And have lots of their models and other equipment. (Just MO)

Sure. I have a lot of DCC chips I don't want to swap out (they have some really unique sound tracks for example ) But I am also continuing to buy newer models ...lots of them Hornby, without chips (ie DC only) as I can see this move to bluetooth may well be a gamechanger. And I want to wait see how it all unfolds.. But I'm not going to suddenly buy dozens of Hornby DCC bluetooth chips, until they sort these type of issues out.. The longer they take, the more likely chance some other large chip manufacturer in the same space is going to come along and steal their bluetooth layout control.. That is one of the points I am making.. They should have nailed this down before the launch, made the dongle (or equivalent interface) more open source - so they had the chance to become a major (or even the major player) in DCC computer (now phone) layout control... The longer they take to sort these issues out, the greater the chance it all ends up like Railmaster... something I'd take as a guess ended up with very little market share of "DCC computer control.." Just MO

^What's yr point 47? We all know this, that's not the point of the thread. Of course nobody is "forcing anybody to do anything" and of course it's well known there are other decoder manufacturers BTW railmaster is Hornby's very own legacy system (last I checked) and it was their last attempt to "control the DCC space". The point of the thread is the HM7040 is not all cracked up to be what they initially implied it was (a dongle to control non bluetooth DCC chips using the app via legacy DCC controllers) and the fact that it is xpressnet (only) was buried in all the marketing hype - which is going to exclude alot of peoples DCC controllers. Particularly people likely to have large layouts and lots of locomotives. The very people who may well be interested in more of a spend upgrading their DCC chips to bluetooth to make things like CV control easier, or control it all (as well) from the Hornby app.. The point of the thread is, can there be a workaround to get it all working with JMRI and loconet, or do I have to ditch my Digitrax system and get some other DCC controller, if I buy a whole lot of HM7000 chips... Cheers

This hobby can get way too serious and what better than to poke a bit of fun at the myriad of different Black5's and the current preserved railways "attempts" at an iconic version. So might lighten up a bit with "Glasgow Highlander"45147 aka 45407 and run it as both - 2 locos in one. I won't be able to do much about the firebox (artistic license required) but needs a dome running (in disguise) currently. Can't afford several model variations of Hornby Black5's right now... Heck with inflation running at 10% who knows what the prices will be in 2025! If I cave in to Hornby and eventually get a second (and who knows when it might become available!) I'll get a 5025 in LMS livery with riveted tender. 😀

I couldn't get access to the illusive Hornby Black5 new tooling "TV programme". Has anybody got a youtube link to it? Thanks

Lol I know about fox transfers anybody supply laser printed 00 scale black 5 steam domes?! And two sets of different tenders?

And should be modelled domeless?

^ Ok cool I must have been looking at the wrong photo.. the old Hornby Railroad model then is wrong but that's no surprise. Thanks for all the help. Very appreciative Cheers

^ Right. So the Steam dome is riveted on..(and hole made in the top of the boiler to form the bubble) ...and would have been done like that if any locos were modified during BR days.. So when the steam dome is removed (like they have with 5025) from the top of the boiler...that top there is all smooth... So how have they actually done that (to withstand the huge pressure) The whole boiler would have been replaced... (Or that circular ring at least for that section)...surely?

Lol ok now I get it!!! @Flying Pig So in the archives are pictures of 45025 with a top feed and a steam dome... that is two "humps" on top of the boiler. These pictures are supposedly from around the mid 60's ie at end of steam. Now the new LMS livered 5025 that has just been recertified, has the larger domed area removed from the boiler and is stated to be in a more "original state" ie as it was produced straight out of the Vulcan foundry. Does what you say, mean the actual boiler itself has been boiler "remade" throughout the years.. That they foundered the upward extension of the boiler at some stage towards the end of BR days into that large steam dome, then somewhere along since 1960's one of the preserved owners has removed it? How do they actually do that? (given it's an actual "bubble" extension as it were of the whole boiler.) Wouldn't all this weaken the entire boiler re pressure? Or has the whole boiler been replaced over the years on at least two occasions?

So I think if Hornby can model accurate versions of 5025 or 45212 as they look now - I'd be pretty happy as I think they are superb examples of Iconic Black 5's 😀

^Sure. Well we have the owners attempting to set the period and details of things like livery, running number etc of locomotives in preservation as much as the modeller manufacturers themselves! (so I get what you are saying) The key is to pick a locomotive where everyone seems to agree on what really is the "iconic look" of a particular classic steam locomotive of that particular class. Case in point The new look 5025 as well as Ian Riley "versions" of Black5's like 45212 where I think all owners involved have "got the look" particularly right (accurate) for any given period vs situations where everyone continually seems to have "botched it up" in disagreement over the years. (Like Scotsman!) Heck even those involved with Caledonian railways or Southern locomotive "preservation" through the decades since the 60's, when we lost so many fantastic iconic pieces of engineering to the scrapyard... (just my opinion) 😀 Cheers

It's not as as simple as they can't release them "as preserved" models due to naming or numbering rights? (Held by the owners of the current locomotives)?

So I would be happy with 5025 and/or 45212 as they exist right now Why Hornby just wouldn't start with "as preserved" loco's in a new tooled release like this puzzles me to be honest..

I'm now totally confused. Looking forward to a Hornby Model that is "as preserved" that is exactly the same as an existing mainline certified Black5 That way it is what it is (at this point in time) 😀

Ok so you are both calling out Hornby for false/misleading advertising here?