Mel_H

For all of those wondering about the detail differences between the different locomotives, the latest issue of Model Rail magazine has an article by Ben Jones, explaining it all. Unlike the simplified versions of their history published elsewhere, and referred to by previous posters, the variations were many and modifications were plenty throughout their lives. This includes things like the pipes at the front to top up the radiator header tank (not overflow pipes as it is sometimes thought) and the various changes to lighting arrangements and so on. It’s a good read…

On 04/12/2023 at 19:21, The Johnster said:

 

I believe this was mostly done on permissive block sections, though I'm sure there must have been exceptions.

 

 

Experience in 1976, when Canton dmus were dropping like flies from coolant failures, was that it was possible, but touch & go, to get from Queen Street to Caerphilly with two engines on a 116, but the stops at Heath and Llanishen were omitted, passengers carried through and sent back from Caerphilly; the trick was to get up as much momentum as you could between Queen Street and Crwys Road bridge, because you'd had all the chance you were going to get by that point, but of course hammering warm engines was sometimes counterproductive.  The load book went out the window, as did the timetable some evenings, we just did the best we could, everybody got home sooner or later, but mostly later and not on the train they started out on.  The last rush hour Rhymney passengers were getting in going on for 21.00 some evenings, but, and I'd claim it was to everybody's credit, they were getting in!  No use trying the bus, they were rammed til about 21.00. You could get away from Heath or Llanishen with three engines, but not Cefn Onn unless it was a strong set, and you'd be in first gear all the way to Wernddu.  You needed three engines in good condition to even think about passing Bargoed.  Coolant problems affected the transmissions as well.

 

The cool of Caerphilly Tunnel and easier running on the return journey usually resuscitated an engine or two and you might even return the set to depot in better condition they'd given you it!  The weaker sets were allocated to the Rhymney route to avoid Abercynon bank and because the footfall was lighter beyond Caerphilly than it was beyond Pontypridd in the evening rush hour; in fact, you'd take on a goodish number of passengers going up-valley at Ponty.  Penarth was another failure 'hot spot', and services often had to be terminated at Dingle despite attempting to run through to Penarth. 

 

A poor set, two or three engines, would lose time and if the next up the valley was a strong 'un it would be closing on you by the time you struggled into Bargoed, so you'd be put in the layover siding to cool off and the following train would take your passengers.  I've taken a set with two engines up the bank on a Coryton, to have an engine cut out at Heath Jc; we spent the rest of the day shuttling between Heath Low and Coryton with Heath High used for connections.  1976 was a bit unsusual, the previous summer had been hot but had caused nothing like these problems.  It was a perfect storm of sets in deteriorating condition with age (they'd been in service for nearly 20 years), water shortage, and bay blocking at Canton dmu; the fitters performed miracles but were overwhelmed by the sheer number of failures.  A set would struggle back on shed with one remaining engine after the morning rush hour, when it was merely sweltering as opposed to furnace-like, and be patched up to be sent off to Rhymney with 'two definite and a third possible'; you were down to two before you'd got to P6, and the result was often being caped a Caerphilly, or rather Aber as there was no trailing xover at Caerphilly back then.  The best sets were sent to Merthyr, because of Abercynon bank, two miles at 1 in 38, the next priority was Treherbert, then Rhymney, the highest above sea level of the service and the roughest sets... 

 

On the main line, the 120s and 119s were struggling as well, and 3 engines leaving the shed for a Bristol was common.  One engine would probably drop out at Pilning, and it would be a struggle to Filton, coming from Bristol was easier because the sets were cool leaving the Marsh and once you'd made it to Filton it was downhill to Tunnel Bottom and cool air for the climb out, then more or less level the rest of the way.  Time was lost, though, and I remember one weak 3-engine 120 run to Cheltenham on a Sunday (when you'd have hoped there might be better sets available when we failed to run at over 45mph and the poor driver was up and down the box like playing the Mighty Wurlitzer at Tower Ballroom, the only mighty thing about that set.  Diagram was to lay over at Lansdowne Road, work to Worcester, then home via Hereford; only two engines lit up after the layover and we failed the set at Shrub Hill, who gave us a 119 that went ok but they were not happy about it!

 

Desperate times, and my introducton to the passenger links.  When autumn came and the weather broke, and you could keep time to Rhymney with all four engines and transmissions lit up, it all felt so boring, where's the fun in that!!!

From all the tales, I’ve heard, clearly the Welsh valleys had it worst with the DMUs, but they weren’t alone. Travelling from Leamington Spa to Birmingham Moor Street in the 1980s, similar things happened. After the station call at Warwick, at the foot of Hatton Bank, you’d often start off well and then see (on the control panel) the engines drop out during the climb.

Once you’d got onto the level bit and things had sorted themselves out a little, occasionally they could be encouraged to restart. After a layover at Moor Street it was downhill most of the way back to Leamington Spa, and so it went on all day. 

In the West Midlands, the line from Stourbridge Junction up through Old Hill was a big test for DMUs, as was the standing start from Bromsgrove station to climb the Lickey.

 It may well be that Tyseley depot selected its better sets for these routes, although as far as I can recall, we largely tended to see the same sets day in day out at Leamington Spa.

It all happened without any fuss, and the drivers just got on with the job, and we always got there in the end.  Total failures were very rare indeed 

On 08/12/2023 at 12:08, Vanfit said:

Need to touch up the paintwork when renumbering, any old blue will do.

Curious that. Seems unlikely just to be part of renumbering;, I wonder if it was to deal with some missing paint, perhaps caused by a small fire on the bogie? The bodyside does seem to be quite rippled considering the era of the photograph.

1 hour ago, Gilbert said:

This may be of use...

 

 

Regarding Lance's problem with Hattons, the Sale of Goods Act still applies. And, whatever Hattons writes in its T&Cs, the Sale of Goods Act trumps anything they might say/claim (for retail customers). Hattons have 'form' shall we say, including the recent issue where they oversold their allocation (of Pannier tanks) and then told at least one customer on 6-12-23 that Accurascale had 'revised' Hattons' allocation and delivered short. Accurascale Fran pitched in pretty quickly and Hattons was forced to apologise... for its 'error' Customers have a choice from where they buy from, of course. The customer is King!

On 22/12/2023 at 22:29, Fishoutofwater said:

did you miss a "not" there?

To clarify, the Swanage DMUs are fitted with CDL

56 minutes ago, rapidoandy said:

I have to disagree - no tricks have been missed.

 

The smaller size of the I / K would have increased the design issues. The L is small enough but a few extra mm here and here are useful.

 

The I / K has already been done in kit form. Anyone who really wanted one will have built or had the kit built for them. The L has never been made in 00 in kit for RTR form and that will increase the sales potential.

 

Preserved locos - particularly operational ones help sales - the L wins in this regard.

 

The I / K had a huge amount of variations within it. The L also does but to a slightly lesser extent.

 

Maybe we should just do a SECR version for the hell of it…

 

 

I'm sure the L will be popular!

It would be amazing if Rapido figured out a way of making the cab sheet from etched brass, rather than plastic, so it's nearer to scale. Of course, the problem would be glazing the spectacle plates.

But, as they are so small, would it matter if they were omitted? I wonder whether people would prefer an etched brass cab sheet with no glazing, or glazed thicker plastic. Or, maybe no-one cares...

This video has been posted, although it's hard to make out what's happening with the valve gear, a rolling road would have been better. KR Models has put out a newsletter which says: "During the design process, we had to make -- the infamous Stevenson-Gooch Valve Gear work in miniature. 

"This valve gear they threw at us, the Stevenson-Gooch valve gear, is known as the most complex valve contraption ever seen in the model railway world. 

"Through hours upon hours of solid graft, research, and unflappable dedication, we absolutely smashed it! It runs very smooth, with the motion just mesmerizing. 

"We have brought Bellerophon to life, complete with the mind-blowing Stevenson-Gooch valve gear. 

"Want to see the results? 

"Take a look at the newest sample our factory has developed... 

"We are so pleased just how good it has turned out." It is still taking orders (from £133.33 upwards) here https://krmodels.net/product/bellerophon-oo/

2 hours ago, craneman said:

 

Probably the finest ready-to-run British outline model in either 3.5mm/ft or 4mm/ft yet produced, and it is unlikely that the Marklin/Trix version could approach it in terms of quality. The brochure photos make the new model look disappointingly crude, and the wheels are shocking! What a shame.

 

I can't remember what I paid for my PSM model, and I am not sure I want to.

 

It would be rather pleasing if Marklin/Trix went on to produce a wider range of HO British outline, and much more sensible endeavour than Hornby's inexplicable TT programme in my opinion.

Some would say that, at the price, it should be. Still it lends weight to the arguments of those who want true perfection to 'European' standards, and are reminded that they come with a 'European' price tag. Comparisons with TT:120 could be seen as a tad unfair, given that it is aimed at a different, and clearly more price-conscious market. I've no doubt that the [iconic] Flying Scotsman [the world's most famous loco] will sell rather well in the 'just because' HO market. It's interesting that Hornby sells more Rivarossi 'Big Boy' models in the UK than in the USA - here it's reasonably priced for what it is. In the USA there are better-detailed more modern (and therefore much more expensive) 'Big Boys'.

Anyway, is it me, or does the chimney look rather tall?

Pictures flipped to enable easier comparison (I know that some details - not the chimney - are 'side specific')

On 01/02/2023 at 13:34, Edwardian said:

 

 

Looking at the sample, I cannot help but wonder if KR started out with the intention of producing working Gooch gear, but found they could not make it work and decided, somewhat rashly, to pass off what they had as "fully working valve gear".

 

If so, that strikes me as odd and unwise in equal measure, but I cannot otherwise understand why KR has produced various rods with holes to attach the missing central crank, as if it was intended to be there as a working part, rather than produce some cosmetic representation of the missing part.

 

Of course my hope is that the valve gear we've seen is simply unfinished and will be completed in working form, but against this we have KR itself, insisting both on its Youtube channel and more than once on its Facebook page that it has produced valve gear that all works for all to see on its sample. 

 

 

 

Well, yes, the Gooch valve gear is such a signature feature of the prototype and looks so obviously wrong when static or not moving correctly on the sample when running, that one would assume a model would reproduce it as a working feature and it's a significantly less attractive model if the valve gear does not work fully or propoerly.

 

The other point is I think the more serious as it goes beyond lost sales to the discerning buyer but to whether KR is making misleading claims. If, in the context of this prototype, known for its elaborate valve gear, a claim is made that "all" the "valve gear" is "fully working" when it's not, I think that is highly misleading. Only by watching how the valve gear moves on the prototype is it clear that the claims are inaccurate, whereas KR is inviting customers to take them on trust when KR claims that the Youtube and Facetube videos shows all the gear fully working, which is absolutely not the case. 

 

As to what KR means by the working valve gear, here is another version of the claim:

 

 

No one could sensibly take the reference to "the very complex working valve gear" to refer simply to the the motion of a connecting rod to piston on a model of an outside cylinder locomotive as this is common to models of all such protoypes and cannot be considered complex by the standards of this hobby.

 

Surely it can only refer to the Gooch valve gear, of which the video clip shows only a part of it partially working, and producing the wrong motion, and most of it entirely static. 

 

 

While I'm all for Great Western design, I don't model the LMS, so I'd have to give any Black Five a miss!

 

 

It seems pretty clear from the CAD that KRM posted, and is still on its website, that not all rods were designed to be operational. Detail attached.
Sadly, KRM’s communications are not the best, to its detriment. I know that help has been offered on more than one occasion, but it hasn’t even been acknowledged.
Some other manufacturers are good at communications, some are outstanding, while some others occupy the same space as KRM. 

3 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

So long as Hornby's TXS chips fit other makes (which, it appears, they do) the only effect will be to tether customers to their H&M control system, which probably suits their purpose nicely.

 

John

 

Probably thread drift, but my understanding is that you'll need a (free) App on a phone or tablet to run the decoder, but it can go in any loco, and the app is free.

The main plus points seem to be:

1. It gives access to DCC without need to buy a 'throttle' - it's just £35 for a chip

2. Then all you need to do is connect the power to the track, chuck in a stay alive and you don't need to worry about dirty pick-ups interrupting sound or digital instructions via the rails. 

3. You can use your DCC loco on a friend's DCC layout, even if they are running trains using their own controller at the same time (such as Lenz etc)

4. You don't need to understand anything about CV programming as any settings changes are made in the app, so you don't have to work out bit settings etc

5. You can upload different sounds or re-programme the chip (some sound chips from some manufacturers can't be re-blown and for most people, you need to be at a high-level to re-blow your own chips.

I think it's an exciting, logical step. Question is, is the next step to do away with the power to the rails, and have inbuilt re-chargeable batteries, so the loco works on its own. We already have 'mag light' wands and button batteries for coaches. This day can't be too far away, surely?

On 12/01/2023 at 16:11, MyRule1 said:

Could easily have been edited out, only someone like @AY Mod who saw the original would-be able to tell us and he has probably got better things to spend his time on than site through it again.

 

His summary at in the first post is spot on and how the howler at the end got OK'd by Hornby amazed me. That if the one I saw is the same the Andy refers to.

The 'skidding Scotsman' is one - the 'howler' is Clan Line on the 'turntable' - the tender's back to front (it's happened before, in an advert (not by a manufacturer) IIRC

10 hours ago, Michanglais said:

 

You can get proper buffer-to-buffer close-coupling if you swap-out for Fleischmann Profis or any of their Continental equivalents (or things like the UK's Hunt magnetic couplings). It really does make a difference. I run Continental HO and N, which have been fitted with proper close-coupling systems for decades and I won't accept anything less than buffer-to-buffer/corridor-connection to corridor-connection running. 

 

It was one of the first things I asked Hornby when they announced their TT:120 range - would all vehicles be fitted with kinematic close-coupling systems. There's no excuse for bogie-mounted couplings nowadays. Even locos now come with Kinematic close-coupling systems on more recent Continental stock. I've seen the trend spreading slowly on UK stock over the past few years but Hornby seemed to be slow catching on. While introducing a completely new range, they really had no excuse.

 

 

They appear to be kinematic couplings to me, but only had a quick look today when it was delivered. Overall, my first impression was ‘wow’!

Unless my 'puter is broken, it's curiously quiet here in the three hours since Andy posted the news (insert tumbleweed emoji!). Perhaps it's just OO modellers making all the noise?

Anyway, this is a welcome announcement, although, like the OO version I do wonder if the cab windscreens should be a shade deeper (i.e. a little more square-than-rectangle). Don't have a front-on view yet to compare, so I offer this out of interest (I appreciate that the angle of view between the two pictures is not identical). Probably too much of my mis-spent youth looking at the things, must get out more! Obviously, it's too late to make any changes (other than to decoration) now.  I'm sure it will sell well in any case. I'll get my coat...

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

Well it should inevitably sell well if they're only selling 500😇.    They clearly know their (captive) market for sales via this route and will therefore adjust the size of their order from the factory to suit and price it according to the return they need to get from a limited number of models.

 

There might well be some people on RMweb who will buy it but equally there will be some who don't - and we don't know how many of the former there are on RMweb.  But judging by the size of RMweb's membership statistically there might well be a recognisable percentage of the sales to RMweb members but neither you nor I know how many there will be.  Equally statistically it is blindingly obvious that the vast majority of RMweb members will not buy it for the very simple reason that Hornby are not offering umpteen thousand of these for general sale but a restricted number to a specific market.

It seems that on RMweb no-one is allowed to say anything positive about Hornby these days, which is why those who will be buying are wisely keeping their heads down...

31 minutes ago, Torbay Express said:

Duplicates, well very little has not been done before.  The Accurascale duplicates are arguably to a better spec than has gone before and better value!  So ultimately its about progress, especially with current prices.  I would say that Accurascale have been rather restrained by only announcing 6 versions - may be to do with current economic climate?

 

Cost of living - the ones Hornby are producing at this years RRP is £220.Buy a better Accurascale version to save money.   Likewise you have RMWeb gold, so your not on the bread line! Based with the choice of money in the bank earning nothing and all the uncertainty in the world it is nice to have something to remind you of the good old days.  It may even help someone's mental health by giving them a getaway from their problems of today, and back to their carefree childhood of the 80's and 90's!  I could lecture on the current issues facing a great many people, but unfortunately it would not make a difference, because politics is firmly based on the pretty, glossy 20% of the ice berg that sits above the water, not the nasty 80% that sits below, which causes the grief and misery to oothers. 

 

Class 37's that, like everything is down to choice.  Personally I wouldn't have a new Bachmann either - don't give any wow factor over their earlier editions in my view.  

 

 

Couple of small observations; while I've never been overly keen with the Hornby's interpretation of the Class 50 windscreens/front, don't forget that the model first came out almost 20 years ago in pre-CAD era (for Hornby) I believe, and at the time set new standards that modellers had long called for.

On pricing, while Accurascale's is cheaper on RRP, you won't find any discounts, while Hornby's higher RRP is frequently discounted (c£200 for 2022's releases; stocks of previous new models seem to be sold out in most places).

Anyway, good luck to Accurascale; it's a popular class so duplicates are to be expected; surely a Class 40 can't be far away :)? I suspect the market for less popular locos (Class 67 anyone?) isn't going to support super-dooper versions of them...

It's a free market, competition is good for the customer, and all manufacturers take a huge financial risk when they commit to a project (even the small ones without bigger overheads). So, a third alternative for ardent '50' fans is welcome.

2 hours ago, Hobby said:

 

I feel you over-estimate the forum's influence, especially in this scenario. As Paul rightly says we are not the target for sales of TT, though I'm sure they will welcome any sales that they do make to forum members!

 

 

I'd never have guessed(!), so if no interest why all the negativity, why not just leave it alone rather than keep repeating the same old stuff over and over (and before I get accused of doing just that I'd suggest that people look in their mirror before saying it). At least I'm interested in TT, have modelled in the scale and have made a purchase. Whatever I feel about Hornby I still feel that it's important to support them in their efforts to kick start a new scale, not just knock it.

 

I do agree that sales is likely to be around N scale size, but that's no bad thing and would certainly be sufficient to keep Hornby going.

I agree about all the negativity; please leave those alone who are interested. Clearly people are buying, as all the track that was available online at Hornby's site has now been sold - at least one person (probably more) is buying!  And, it's interesting to see the way pre-orders for locos is changing (I'm assuming that when you filter by 'popularity' it's displaying the ones with the most orders.

Jolly nice, shame there isn't a Fischer-Modell supplier in the UK

4 hours ago, jonnyuk said:

given who now works for AS, surely he must of known about this. this is not something you dream up and get to market in 12 months, this is long planned.........

Anyone who has watched various video interviews with Simon Kohler over the years, will have seen that he's made a number of references to TT - especially in answer to the 'what would you really like to do but haven't' question.  

3 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

My issue with Hornby's relationship with dealers is that they should either work with their dealers and stand behind them, or go direct sales. I can't help feeling that Hornby want the shop front presence of retailers while also wanting the cream for themselves in selling direct. Given my own circumstances I have little choice but to shop on-line for British outline, and if shopping on-line direct sales are a perfectly reasonable option. I don't know how representative I am but if you are an on-line shopper with no local dealers then it is somewhat moot whether you buy direct or from a dealer. I do think the trend is to online retail, the question is of timing. It's notable that many'shopping' malls here are now basically food and beverage malls and with most of the shops being supermarkets or jewellery shops. For some reason most retail seems to have migrated to online platforms but jewellery still seems very much physical shop based.

Hornby have said they will continue to supply OO to the trade and continue to develop it. Having a clean-sheet approach with TT:120 means that customers can have lower prices than if they were sold through the trade (there's the mark-up for the shops, plus the cost of reps, invoicing/credit control, sending the items out, dealing with trade enquiries - all something that ultimately the customer ends up paying for, whether it's Hornby or Bachmann.

That's one reason why smaller, leaner organisations, often run by people as a 'hobby' (no offence intended) can produce OO stuff for lower prices. They don't have the overheads, or need to apply the mark ups when they are dealing with only a relatively small number of model shops, or not at all.

I'm all for model shops, but how many have a massive range of 'O' gauge? Not many, from the ones I've visited over the last couple of years. It's only the handful of 'big' players, which given the cost of stock isn't surprising.

Hornby's made a business decision that's not too dissimilar to the 'newcomers' in 'OO' which get praise (quite rightly) on this forum.

12 minutes ago, MyRule1 said:

Although I read the first few pages of this thread, I must admit I have not read the next eight in any detail.

 

I have no qualms about Hornby going down the direct sales route but do have two issues. As I said in my only other post on this topic, I am very tempted to pre-order but:

 

1) Why no pre-Tops 08? This could act as a station pilot for the BR era steam loco's. As it is they stand alone, fine if you are modelling the ECML or WCML but the Pacific's would be your only loco's. There are other similar issues in the initial issues.

2) By taking the direct sales route, Hornby have not opened up any route for part-exchange. I will be looking to sell my N gauge collection to fund a move to TT, but would be willing to sell for a lesser price if I could get a discount on TT over the 15% you get from the free club membership.

I suspect you will get a pre-TOPS 08, in due course, but it appears Hornby have (sensibly) gone for the better-selling examples first which does make sense. Don't forget, while many people on here sneer at Railroad, it's a market in which Hornby is a player of only one, which gives it market information that other manufacturers don't have. I'm sure they've taken this into account...

4 minutes ago, Pmorgancym said:

A few thoughts....

Surprised they didn't didn't revive the Triang name.

Why is the 66 so cheap?? 

Guess they're determined to drive a massive wedge between themselves and the retailers.

They've certainly tried to dominate this new scale but what if their products turn out to be crap, could take the whole project down with them.

Are we looking at genuine models or mock ups using 00 locos.

 

Hornby is a strong brand, Tri-ang is long dead, sadly.

Cheap Class 66 - well, I'm sure someone else will do an expensive one!

4 minutes ago, meatloaf said:

One thing i didnt see mentioned is about the track. Im assuming its going to be code 55 like the peco pointwork?

Yes, it is. Seen it mentioned somewhere that it is, and will be compatible with Peco's TT:120

59 minutes ago, PaulRhB said:

Well it’d be rather daft to pay when there’s no actual product to get the discount on 😆 

Will be interesting to see when it’s (actually) going to turn up . . . .

I suspect that there's a container either on its way, or already stuck in customs (bit of an issue at the moment, and not just for model railways). You'd expect that the Christmas market is a key hit?

6 minutes ago, DavidLong said:

Make tension locks look almost respectable . . .

They are the same as the standard in Europe, which opens a market (4472 and 4468 are popular there...). And, why invent a new coupling that's not going to be compatible? Certainly better than the 'hook and pin' type of earlier TT couplings.

2 minutes ago, Legend said:

 

If they were smart they would sign up Sams Trains 

Yes, I'm sure the range would benefit from potential customers being told how shocking and dreadful the models are. :)