andyman7

12 minutes ago, Halvarras said:

Another very decent MTK find - looking at all those door shutline transfers I think a new word for "tedious" is required (I thought applying these to my Class 119 unit back in 1975 was bad enough) but hey, someone else has done all that for you, what's not to like?!

With a motor bogie at each end how does the whole unit run? Those old Tri-ang MBs could (and still can) be remarkably smooth-running. I reckon the steel axles and brass gears* gave them the edge over the diesels which used one-piece nylon gear/axles - any inaccuracy in the moulding could make the motor bogie run with a surging motion, so there was an element of luck involved.

 

*I know later versions had nylon gears but at least mounting them on steel axles gave them a head start over the one-piece things.

It's a dummy bogie at one end (the dummy one as used on the R157 DMU but a late version that takes pinpoint axles). The motor bogie is great - it has smooth wheels and these when in good nick are bulletproof. I might at some point add some extra pickups to the trailing bogie. 

Just now, Darius43 said:

Nice work Andy.

 

Phoenix Precision supply etched cab side widows for both SR and BR EPB units.

 

Cheers

 

Darius

I might add those at some point - I've a few units that would benefit

I've completed another MTK project. A couple of years ago I bought a number of kit built EMUs at auction. They were well built but in many cases missing finishing details such as numbering. I traded on a few that were not from my core period but one I did put aside was a BR Class 416 4-EPB.  The motor bogie was loose and the model had no numbering but really appealed - unlike @Darius43 's (very lovely) detailed approach, these models were built with the aluminium coach bases, the door shut lines applied by transfer, Triang coach bogies and Triang DMU motor bogies with collector shoes added. The models were gloss varnished and very much echo the feel of Hornby Dublo 'super detail' era models.
We all know that Colin Massingham's castings could be rather variable but in this case the cab ends were really spot on and captured the classis 'Eastleigh' BR cab end.
I numbered the unit up, added door handle detail using a silver pen, picked the shoe beams out as per an ex-works unit and added the shoe fuses. Some colour correction was carried out at each end where the pipes were not quite correctly finished. The aim was very much to capture the spirit of these units with a period model and I'm very pleased with the result.

An interesting discussion that once again highlights that no matter how dedicated one is to fidelity, once you get down to 4mm scale there have to be compromises. One of the massive benefits of kinematic couplings in my opinion is their ability to allow buffer-to-buffer or corridor-to-corridor coupling when correctly configured. For me, this vastly outweighs the trade-off of the NEM box. For others, the appearance is more important. At the end of the day you have to make a choice!

1 hour ago, RBE said:

If I'm honest I still don't know what the nail does. 🤷

1 hour ago, BR Blue said:

You are not alone. I cannot see what it does apart from being able to say "I nailed it" if it does work.

As far as I can see, the nail is arranged to nudge the pocket over when the bogie rotates rather than relying on the force exerted from the vehicle it is coupled to - but presumably only in one direction, so I assume the model has to be the right way round. A number of kinematic mounting arrangements on coaches are arranged so that the rotation of the bogie nudges the pocket in the direction of the curve but as long as the pocket is free-moving it's not a requirement, and on the Cavalex 56 the rather nifty NEM mounting for the dummy screw coupling is reliant on the pocket not moving by itself on curves.

34 minutes ago, RBE said:

That's odd. I thought the card was in all of them, maybe not. It is in the booklet for all of them certainly.

26 minutes ago, The Fatadder said:

No ref card in my (non sound) 074, just the details in the manual 

15 minutes ago, Wayne 56089 said:

No cards in any of my 4 DC ones just the booklet.

Yep definitely no card in the DC ones. Maybe it can be included as part of the DCC sound upgrade pack when available

5 minutes ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

Contra, put the Bachmann WD 2-8-0 (1999 release) alongside the 8F and see what the available benchmark in best RTR OO steam model was back then. That was the first RTR OO model that I felt was worth showing to my HO modelling continental cousins.

 

(Same comparison applies to Hornby's Fowler 2-6-4T vs Bach's BR std 2-6-4T.)

 

Hornby were trailing badly, and didn't achieve parity with Bachmann until the introduction of the Britannia in 2006. They might have got on sooner with replacement of key classes is my feeling.

That's a subjective view - in 1999 the rebuilt Merchant Navy upped the game compared to Bachmann; as for D & E models, there was a period from 2003 - 2008 when Hornby were outshining Bachmann. Nowadays for D & E Hornby is towards the back of the pack, but for steam, Bachmann doesn't seem too bothered to run head-to head with Hornby these days.

20 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Older models cost more to make. No idea why, they just do, or so we are told!

 

And despite comments to the contrary both the 8F and Fowler 4P date from the 1970s and 1980s respectfully. They've just had a few "dustings over" since. Slight updates each time. 

 

They all really need completely new tooling starting from scratch to 21st Century standards. Whether that comes from Hornby or elsewhere isn't for me to say.

 

 

 

Jason

15 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

Don’t pedal lies!

 

Both the 8F and the Fowler 4P got completely new tooling for both bodies and their chassis (at the same time I hasten to add) between the years 2000 and 2010

 

They owe NOTHING to their 1980s predessors!

 

At the time of release they were a world away from the 1980s versions they replaced and stod up well to other models being produced at the time.

 

Naturally 15-20 years on they are showing their age as manufacturers have increased detail and features during that time - much like a Ford Focus from 2005 is pretty dated by todays standards yet was the bees knees when first released.

Even the old tool 8F was originally released in 1988 so that's not a 1970s model

14 hours ago, spamcan61 said:

There's no firm evidence that the dart on the latest release is moulded on, just done assumptions.

Furthermore, even if it is it won't be the tool from the 'old' 8F because that won't exist. If it is a different smokebox moulding the most likely explanation will be that the previous one was broken or missing and a new one has had to me tooled up. The manufacture of models for Hornby is undertaken by a number of suppliers. Many of the older Chinese tools were originally used to produce models at the Sanda Kan facility and when that closed there was not an orderly transfer of tools - some may recall the threads from a decade back relating to the rather difficult situation that Hornby found themselves in.

I'm not going to comment on the pricing of this model but it is worth laying to rest the impression that models from old tools are always cheap to knock out. There may not be the origination cost of cutting the tools but finding them, testing them, making sure all the ancillary bits (glazing, smokebox door, detail parts) are accounted for is a considerable piece of work. and the assembly costs a lot more than it used to when most detail was moulded on (smokebox door handle or not...) now that Chinese labour costs have risen. 

On 12/02/2024 at 07:35, Paul_sterling said:

(@40002, thank you for reminding me to post this)

 

This thread talked a lot about the front of the Heljan 25, so much so i didn't buy one. This was partly because I preordered an SLW 25. 

 

However I managed to get a second hand Heljan for a very reasonable price, and was impressed by it. The cab curvature is quite good, but even before the SLW arrived, the thing that I was drawn to, that makes the cab front look flat is the grab rail. The Heljan 25 grab rail goes quite straight across the cab, rather than following the contour. 

 

Otherwise it runs beautifully, and is done to a very good standard. It holds its own alongside the SLW, and the paint finish is okay barring the overly pale front end. 

 

Sticking my old Bachmann alongside both wasn't a good idea, and really exposed the shape of the cab roof on the Bachmann. Making me think about devising a print design to try and correct it. 

thanks

Paul. 

On 17/11/2023 at 22:27, andyman7 said:

I picked up one of the new batch of Heljan Class 25s today. I've an SLW one on order but what can I say? I like Class 25s. I haven't had the lid off yet so can't comment on the 21 pin interface or revised electrics but the example I bought (25301) already has the boiler grille plates applied (they were supplied loose on all the first batch ones, regardless of whether the modelled version had them fitted). There is also a bit less bufferbeam detail ready fitted, I suspect because on the first batch it was not possible to fit couplings without having to cut off or remove details.
Other than that the first batch and the new batch sit side by side without any obvious jarring difference. And whilst I know the SLW is expected to be the 'gold standard' the Heljan ones are very good. The 'new' one is on the left below

One of the variations between Heljan v1 and Heljan v2 is the attachment of cab front handrail. Those two 'pips' you can see of the v2 (left hand) loco in my own photo of the two side by side represent the centre handrail securing bars on the real loco. On V1 version the handrail hugs these giving the rather flat effect notes by @Paul_sterling but on the V2 the curve is more rounded because for whatever reason the factory assembling these second run models haven't attached the handrail in the same way and it doesn't press hard against the 'pips'.  

2 hours ago, GoingUnderground said:

 

And the name Triang wasn't dropped, it was sold on by the Receiver of Lines Bros to a company other than DCM, DCM having bought Rovex, which owned the Hornby name, from the Receiver. So it could no longer be used by Rovex/DCM as they didn't own it.

 

I would take issue with the statement that the body was "..not Triang in any sense...". Rovex was very much alive and well and successful in the 1970s designing and producing models in the Margate factory which were being sold under the Hornby Railways brand. It was a Margate product and the models produced in the 1970s were Rovex products, just read the packaging from that era. The only connection that any of the models of the Hornby Railways era had with Hornby and Hornby Dublo was the Hornby name. As a proud owner of Triang Railways models from 1959 it really hurt to see Rovex products called Hornby, it felt like a betrayal. I still get annoyed even today with the way that the company seems to be slightly ashamed of its Rovex origins.

 

So, to be truly accurate, the coach body was never a Triang Railways nor a Triang Hornby branded item as it was only produced after the name change to Hornby Railways.

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Your passion has my sympathy but I do think your last sentence confirms my point! I will concede, if you like, that it was designed in the Triang tradition, though even there I would be cautious as new Hornby Railways products in the mid-late 70s to my mind were at the nadir of RTR, before the revival of standards initiated by Mainline and Airfix. 

Probably easiest to agree that they are all Rovex products, as that was the underlying company that made the all the model railways models marketed under the Triang, Triang-Hornby and Hornby Railways banners. In 1981 following (yet another) receivership process Rovex became Hornby Hobbies Ltd.

30 minutes ago, Halvarras said:

 

Entirely agree - I'd overlooked just how bad it got until just recently when I found a picture of a SWB wagon chassis from that period in that 'orrible flexible plastic with the brake levers facing the wrong way. It wasn't just the massive moulded-on t/l couplers that were ludicrous......that Mainline/Airfix shake-up couldn't come soon enough.

I agree, although the whole of the 70s is a bit of a dark age - first with bright luminous red buildings and gloss varnished self-coloured plastic engines and then later on with a waxy-looking matt lacquer to the engines and everything designed down to clip fit assembly. 

On 10/02/2024 at 15:28, Ajax50046 said:

And don’t forget also the exorbitant listing and selling fees. You’ll need to sell them for significantly more than your purchase price to break even. I wish you all the best though, it sounds like you’re going through a rough time. 

Making use of the listing promotions ebay is the best value way to retain most of the value of anything you sell. Even at full fees you'll keep a lot more on ebay than you ever will through a conventional auction house or sale to a dealer. As for the 'exorbitant' listing fees, they're zero for private sellers.

14 minutes ago, Cwmtwrch said:

PIKO are a [formerly East] German firm, and the track gauge indicates that the stock is HO, which is 1:87 scale, so slightly smaller than OO [1:76] but uses the same track gauge. The problem here is that PIKO make both DC and AC motored locos. They do have a website [in English] at https://www.piko-shop.de/en/warengruppe/h0-scale-20.html, and Gaugemaster https://www.gaugemasterretail.com/model-railways/piko-brand5.html sell their trains in the UK [there may be others , I don't know], either of which will give you an indication of their power supply equipment. As for finding out whether the locos are AC or DC, I don't know. If you aren't sure, and you have a local model railway club they may be willing to help.

Piko AC models are centre stud contact for use with Marklin. The train set is definitely going to be 2 rail 12v DC. I'm very much inclined to think it's Piko.

1 hour ago, Tomslink said:

As I said, my parents bought it for me when I was young. I’m sure they didn’t research all the different manufacturers and for anybody not in the know, Hornby is a well known name so easy to assume it might have been that. Especially after nearly 30 years. 

Of course, it genuinely just made me smile, reminding me of my own family 🙂

I just love the 'its a train set, I think it's Hornby'. I'm sure if the next question had been 'what other make do you think it might be?' the answer might well have been 'are their other people that make train sets?'

It's very much a 1970s/80s era H0 train set, not Marklin, it doesn't look like Trix or Fleischmann, maybe Lima? Mehano? Piko?

4 minutes ago, Barclay said:

I'm pleased with how this turned out, but a strange thing when I was re-assembling it - the tyres are now very loose on the wheels. Does this mean the Dettol has shrunk them or very slightly dissolved them? Easily fixed in this case with a thin wrap of masking tape.

 

 

If they're the hard plastic Matchbox tyres they all end up loose, even in the 70s the secondhand 60s Matchbox models all had loose tyres. Nothing to do with the stripping, it seems it's a property of the material the tyres are made of vs the hubs.

1 hour ago, SteveyDee68 said:

As someone whose second ever loco was a Triang Hornby Class 31, I welcome both these new entrants into the market as I simply daren’t risk investing in a Hornby model given its reputation as suffering from Mazak Rot to replace my childhood loco!
 

Then again, I have lots of pre-ordered shunting locos to fund … 

 

Where did I put that credit card?

 

Steve S

The first three releases suffered from it and the rest don't. I had a first release one that had the problem and another one from the second batch released in 2006 which is fine after 18 years, most of the versions made are unaffected.

The Triang ones can suffer from 'plastic rot' where liberal application of 3-in-1 when oiling has resulted in the inner body and roof getting coated and slowly degrading until they crumble - quite a few have met their deaths that way. 

12 hours ago, 298 said:

Unfortunately leaving it to individuals would increase costs because the organiser wouldn't get a discount on their regular block booking or use their local knowledge to choose the best places to stay. It'd also be at the mercy of mis-interpreted expenses instructions should there be any last minute changes or unforeseen costs.

 

When it was just me and Mrs298 exhibiting a layout we had some nice weekends away, but with a family now I really don't like staying away and will only do so for special events- I'll also be having to travel more for work now and honestly hate the idea. I also sometimes feel guilty about claiming lots of expenses and often try not to- what if someone fed back that it was "Foreign rubbish" (see other thread) or had a derailment or some other unforseen issue? 

In the old days this was true, but nowadays modern 'yield managed' bookings will give the best prices by booking a room far in advance. If you try and book a group of rooms...

12 hours ago, Chris M said:

Last time I tried to book a number of rooms the price went up because the hotel was so busy. It was only busy because I was about to book a lot of rooms. I thought a block booking would make it cheaper rather than more expensive. Haven’t used that hotel again.

...the algorithms in the pricing structure will put the prices up rather than give you an 'good deal'.
 

It's actually a sober reminder that the original Heljan Class 47 - the very first 'newly tooled' D&E model of the super detail era - came out nearly a quarter of a century ago, in other words before quite a few of todays proper grown up adults were born.

A good comparison for me in relativity is, for example, when Hornby introduced the 'Morning Star' Britannia into its range in 1981. This had a newly-tooled body (featuring 'separate wire handrails' and a proper representation of the boiler section beneath the running plate). It replaced the original Triang Britannia body tooling introduced in 1959, i.e. 22 years earlier. To my teenage self, that earlier Britannia might as well have been introduced in 1659, the 1950s being utterly ancient history to my perspective then. 

1 hour ago, Dorset33 said:

Maybe, but the crappy Hornby one lines up better 

That's the ex-Mainline/Dapol version. Really pretty good for it's time. I reckon the Class 56 is unique in British RTR in that every model made was amongst the best in class at the time - Mainline in 1983, Hornby circa 2008 and now Cavalex. A much better record than some - Hornby Dublo Deltic anyone? 

14 hours ago, G-BOAF said:

I really don't understand the price of these coaches. The core tooling costs are long paid off. When released in 1999 these were around £21 I believe (give or take). With inflation, this should be around £38.50 today. Instead the RRP is 59.99, reprasenting a 'Bachflation' of 55% above real inflation accounted price. If we allow for a 15% retailer discount, that still gives a 32% 'Bachflation'.

Now I'm normally critical of those whinging on about price rises (e.g. S** T***** on Youtube) as they seldom account for real Bank of England Inflation in their assessment. However my calculations do account for this. Yes there are increased costs in China and some raw materials, but a good chunk of that that will already be factored in to the assessment of Bank of England inflation (allowing for the fact that total UK inflation is a mix of internal and external factors, while Bachmann's costs are primarily external). I would expect to see some skew above real inflation, but by 55%????!!!!!

13 hours ago, AY Mod said:

 

They weren't taken over but the apocalypse to which you refer was around 11/12 years ago now when the Chinese government mandated businesses to increase their labour rates (akin to minimum wage in the RoW) which involved a reassessment within Kader of the labour apportioned to each division and products as, evidentially, Bachmann Europe as a subsidiary weren't being charged for all of the elements involved in the cost make-up leading to what was perceived as significant increases. As an example, some products from before that time such as the autoballasters then became unviable to accurately price given the retail distribution model.

Other examples were the Ransomes & Rapier Crane and the Porthole coaches which caught a number of dealers out with 'price guaranteed' pre -orders where the gap between announcement and release meant that the actual trade price exceeded the promised pre-order sale prices. It was because of this that pre-order price guarantees were dropped for any item that did not have a firm price set by the manufacturer.

I know that prices are a constant source of debate but however difficult it can be to swallow my view is that the quality and specification of many of these models equal or exceed the quality of professional or kitbuilt items that cost substantially more in real terms 30 or 40  years ago.

Re the choice of 44 007 'Ingleborough' for the latest release Class 44, this was one of the last three survivors into 1980. Photos of it from its final couple of years are quite plentiful as it was a celebrity by then; however, the Bachmann model is shown with nameplates and ex-works which would position the time period to mid 70s. Even then it's a bit problematical - it had numbers in all four corners in its final years although a '4' was missing from one corner by 1979 so it read 4 007. More notable it had very obvious main grille damage from the mid 70s onwards. Earlier photos show a bent and distorted area of slats, but by 1979 some sheet metal had been crudely welded over the holes.

I did a project 44 007 a couple of years back on a spare Bachmann body that I mated to a Mainline chassis which had surgery to correct various issues. The weathering/modification made use of the plentiful photos to replicate the actual streaks, damage and rust spots on the loco in 1979/80. I'm still very pleased with it. 

On 07/02/2024 at 14:46, adb968008 said:

And 46045 the first round of Bachmann class 46’s too… cat no 31-076.. sold for £29.95 after discount.

 

I've dug out my own original Bachmann 46045 - bought for £29.95 in 1995, quite scary how long ago. It still works well and has directional lights which were omitted from later Bachmann 'Peaks' until the model got a 21 Pin chassis upgrade. I'd also forgotten that it came with a Limited Lifetime Guarantee - free repair for one year and then $10 US. I didn't send the tear-off card to Barwell but I wonder if anyone has tried to claim under the Warranty after all this time 🙂

As the apertures are small, an alternative would be glue'n'glaze which would be my first choice to make a lovely flush glazing panel

53 minutes ago, locoholic said:

Bachmann are clearly incapable of resisting the urge to slap small yellow panels on the cabs of every single green Class 44 they produce! Bizarre.

Quite right too 🙂

23 minutes ago, Gilbert said:

Please do....I just need to decide if an 08 sound project will pass muster for an 11 - does anyone know if the prime movers are the same..?

ChrisH

The engine, main generator and traction motors in the Class 11 are identical to the Class 08 so an 08 sound project looks like it would work