TomScrut

Battered EWS doesn't look that clever!

Unlike on the 66 I think this looks rather good TBH

Or Accurascale do it as they seem to do a lot of CAD sharing with Revolution? I would expect 4mm CAD to be the better starting position though unless they have a "master" full size model with details which are then removed when scaling down from the real thing. I don't know where they start with CADs, whether they model the prototype in as much detail as they can and then remove stuff which cannot be done at the size of the model or whether they start at the model size so don't put it in to begin with.

I'd probably be able to find an excuse to buy some YMAs or YKAs

Another couple of things I'd be interested in. GBRF wagons, IIAs with the covers and HOAs (especially in Cemex livery) would be good. Although I think Revolution are doing a 2mm HOA so it wouldn't surprise me if that's on Accurascales to do list?

I'd say the Aventura would be a good one to do (although may be a large undertaking) as they will be a fairly common site across a few regions, bang up to date so good life in the model and plenty of classes to go at although I aren't sure about the compatibility of tooling between classes Another one could be the 195 and 331, if they are going to be reasonably prolific in the Northern area it should have widespread appeal and there are some similar going to Wales? Could then lead to a 397 if there is anything in common? I'd be keen on a 195 and possibly a 397. I'd also probably have an 88 if one existed but there is a discussion thread in the Dapol section about that if you want to read it!

I'm sorry I should have written it differently so it didn't sound like statement of fact, it wasn't meant to sound that way. I aren't sure why you quoted me when all I was doing was going off what somebody said a few posts up. Regardless of what I have said, what you put on your website or whatever I am pretty certain most people have their idea, rightly or wrongly as to why this has happened so misinformation or not I can't see it making any difference. I will shut my (figurative) mouth and say nothing else on the matter other than I hope your next project doesn't encounter the same circumstances!

It's up near York I am interested in but yes, definitely an excuse for a 92!

Yeah 30 years is a long time I suppose compared to some other classes, or should I say "par for the course". I suppose also the 91 runs on the same route as the 55 did, and so far for 50% more time! I'd also argue the 58, 59, 87, and 92 are all of similar timescale and probably interest level yet they all have decent-ish tooling or tooling on the way. So I have just proved myself wrong I think! And to be honest I'd like to see it modeled. It was probably my favorite contemporary loco when I was a kid. I wasn't going to buy one as they are being phased out and I model (or intend to when I get everything I am waiting for) present day ECML but would have been good to see nonetheless

I know, a rarity but it happens! I have a FL 90 too which hardly ever get on there so I am open to slight variations anyway. It's just space and money at the moment!

Despite modelling ECML I do like the idea of some sleepers and a GBRF 92. But I am having an expensive year already with pre orders!

The other thing we haven't discussed is, given Cavalex didn't get enough interest in a year, is the market big enough to justify anybody doing it? Whilst Cavalex not getting the interest could be to do with their brand, the 91 is a bit niche really, only 30 years running up and down one particular line.

I think the concern is whilst they have the issue at the moment of announcing stuff too early, giving only 3 months notice isn't ideal either (is this what they have said or speculation?). If it was a year or so I don't think anyone would complain, long enough to save up and plan without it being lost in the ether. And that's also how most of the other manufacturers work too as far as I am aware? It's when it's 4 or 5 years where people don't know where they stand that's the issue I think?

Yes that's the point of the discussion! Simply put the discussion was the suitability of the new IC Swallow HSTs from Hornby to work with the 91. Whilst Flickr proves that there was a mix of executive and swallow liveries they all seemed to have the full yellow front when running as DVTs. The point being the search needs to include DVT or you end up with loads of stuff that's irrelevant (i.e. not running as a DVT with a 91) even if you add buffers to the search. So whilst the swallow livery is relevant, the lack of a yellow front in Hornby's pack mean they aren't 100% suitable for the proposed pre mk4 hybrid train. One of the two (rather than both) is named too which complicates things furthermore.

Hi all, Sorry to reopen an old thread but my work tonight may be useful to somebody. I have a 68 with a Lokpilot V4 in it. The best I could get with the default mappings for "independent lighting" was directional at end one using F0, and then manually controlling end 2 using F1 and F2. I have remapped the controller to have the following: Directional headlights Directional halos Parking lights (red) (doesn't work with either of above active) Parking lights (halos) (doesn't work with any of the above active) End 1 switch off (overrules all the above) End 2 switch off (likewise) I aren't sure how prototypical this behaviour is, but if it's helpful I'll write the figures up nicely and put them on here. I may be doing the same thing in a few days with a factory sound one. I found this thread whilst trying to find some mappings for the V4 but sat down and worked it out with a pencil.

If you search Flickr for class 43 DVT most of the results are Swallow rather than executive, although as you say with the yellow going up and over onto the cab roof. So the naming isn't the only issue.

I don't know if I am more or less confused after reading your post TBH!

Most were swallow, only a couple were executive I think (this was covered a week or two ago in another thread, I think the Hornby 2020 one). The issue with the cars this year is that they are both named and as far as I am aware neither would be when running with 91s.

I wouldn't say controlling the market but let's just look at the 91. Probably not a big enough market for two players of similar price/quality. Hornby could probably afford to do this at a loss alongside Cavalex's model just to try and run them down. The fact is, reputations aside, is that Hornby are probably in a position where they could put their cards down on this and see what Cavalex would do, and even if they lost would still be ok. Cavalex folded as (I think) as they couldn't afford to lose. Basically using their size and ability to absorb loss as a way of removing competition. Normal business practices really it's just it's a bit more personal when people are keen for a newcomer (who has presence on here) to do well and the Hornby model stinks of "me too, don't forget we can make this model (despite leaving as is for 30 years)"

Speculation it could have been but it was sensible speculation based on things we know.

I think a 43 would be a good one to do, for what little I know about it. Anywhere in the country pretty much for the last 40 years can work with one. 2 models for every sale out of the tooling so a faster payback. Only thing is the Hornby one is quite good and they would no doubt be very cutthroat about it.

Double post deleted

Whilst I wasn't in the market for a 91, it is disappointing news. Regardless of whether Hornby's action was reactive or not they have got what they want and will just encourage them to do it again. But I mentioned on another thread earlier about not thinking the marketplace was big enough for two good 91s (and it would seem Cavalex agree). I am just hazarding a guess one of the companies involved could potentially afford to run the project as a loss to cut the nose of a company who probably couldn't if both went ahead.

And that has just been demonstrated now, Cavalex have put the 4mm project on stop as a result of Hornby. Which is a shame as it will have given Hornby the desired result and will almost certainly mean they'll do it again (if it was done as a reaction to Cavalex)

Yes I agree, it is more that if a company says they are doing a product there is a situation where another company looking at the same product has a decision to make. Do they a) continue and beat the other one to the market b) continue and not beat the other one to the market or c) cut their losses and pull out. I'd be interested to know which is more common! I would imagine it depends on the companies involved.