phil-b259

(1) Triangles still exist at one (West Ealing) if not both ends of the Greenford branch so there is still the ability to turn GWR sets from North Pole depot / Paddington even if it’s not as convient as before. (2) GWRs depot has swapped to the other side of the tracks from Old Oak Common and even if the connection to the NNML towards Greenford was still there or is reinstated after the HS2 works there is no easy way of accessing it. (3) The one day a week Chiltern to / from West Ealing was withdrawn over a year ago and the duty is now covered by a hired in bus (4) Offical closure only comes when a journey is no longer possible between two stations - there is nothing in the legislation which says it has to be a direct train. That was why there was no issue diverting the Chiltern train to West Ealing because that service connected with another National rail service which took you to / from the original starting point of Paddington. When the Chiltern train was withdrawn there was no way of completing the journey by National Rail services (the existence of other connecting services like the Underground’s central line doesn’t count in legislative terms) so a bus was put on instead to maintain the National Rail service.

But would the body still be good enough for Acurascale? Yes the DJM J94 might have had a retooled chassis but that has done noting to redeem the body deficiencies, which are many But to return to the 14/48XX, IIRC although the body for the Hattons release was a lot better than the then competing Hornby model, even at time of release it wasn't perfect. Since then we have also seen further enhancements to locos like firebox lighting and pre-fitted speakers becoming standard so I can easily see Acurascale taking the view that the body needs retooling too!

I would You forget that as ex DJM tooling it has quite a few issues* and is simply not in the same league as Acrascales usual output in terms of accuracy. Things like the P tank which were developed after Hattons had ditched DJM are considerably better in accuracy and design. As such its more likely that any 48/14XX which eminated from Acurascale would be a newly tooled example and not simply the ex Hattons one in a new box, * Issues include missing Ashpan from the chassis, a poor and overly complicated drivetrain / mechanism (which means the coupling rods flop about at odd angles) etc. The body is better but the way the number plates are represented was a issue for some when it came out too.

But is rails really their ‘home’ so to speak? As far as I can tell Rails involvement is simply to distribute the second batch of coaches which are currently under production. That’s not the same thing as Rails acquiring the tooling for the Genesis coaches….. When you couple that to the fact that Acurascale are hinting they have acquired more than just the Ps, Barclays and Warwell from Hattons then it’s by no means certain that the tooling for the Genesis coaches could also be heading that way once the 2nd batch has been produced. And before anyone says “why split the forthcoming models between two companies then” then it’s worth considering logistics It could simply be that the sheer volume of coaches due to arrive meant it was simply too much to dump everything on one suitor so the distributors of in production models was split between two of them. But whatever happens, the most important thing is it looks like the Genesis coaches have a future with someone….

Accurate or not the basic truth is that the Genesis coaches been an absolute success with most of the first batch selling out on pre-orders and the second batch going the same way even before Hattons said they were closing. If you are a business (and that’s what Accurascale are) then such strong sales are not something to turn your nose up. Besides Hattons were very clear from the outset that the Genesis range was an ‘inspired by’ set of models and they were not meant to represent any specific carriage design. That contrasts with other models over the years which manufacturers have claimed are faithful recreations of a specific vehicle and where you could justifiably quote ‘accuracy’ in terms of how your approach to models is better than the compition….

You may think it’s rubbish but you need to take off your railway modeller specs and look at things from a uniformed business accountants point of view! It’s very easy to claim a particular model or series of models would sell really well if you don’t have to carry the can financially should they not do as well as you think. Every single model which RTR manufacturers make goes ahead based on an analysis of expected revenue it brings in - not on whether it happens to fill a perceived gap in what is available. That analysis of revenue will also take into account what other products are out there and has to consider the possibility that customers may have already bought said rivals products and consider them adequate for their needs. So I repeat, with plenty of GWR stock already having been tooled up by Hornby and in the process of being tooled up by Dapol, were I at Bachmann I would be thinking long and hard before jumping into that market segment….

You are missing the point - Bicester Village enjoys direct services to a London terminal. In that respect it scores well against road transport which thanks to the A40 / M40 corridor makes Bicester Village easy to reach from London Any station on the EWR serving the proposed theme park by contrast will allways require people to change trains when heading there from London (or anywhere on the MML / ECML / WCML) which is always a turn off even if connections are good. However, like Bicester village, road links to the proposed theme park site from London (or elsewhere) are good which means that a lack of direct train services is a disincentive when people are considering transport modes. Finally you also need to consider the demographics- Bicester village (being a upmarket destination consisting of high end retail outlets and eateries) tends to attract single people and couples who are not hugely worried about the cost of getting there. A large proportion of the visitors to theme parks are groups and once you round up the cost of train tickets for a family or a bunch of teenagers then travelling by car will always come out significantly cheaper.

My apologies - but there are lots of myths about Kernows products and EFE rail circulating which need to be firmly stamped on. Had your comment been couched in terms of “I believe…..” I would have been less forthright with my response.

But Collett Sundhine stock is still Collett rolling stock! Yes you might y the difference but to a lot of people they are not sufficiently different to what Hornby already make and as such their sales potential is not as good as something ‘completely different’ Consider Manusell vs Bulleid, Greasley vs Thompson or even early LMS versus period 3 stuff, each family is radically different from each other - which from a manufactures point of vireo helps drive sales. Tbats why I said it’s a shame Hornby did the Hawksworth stock - stock which is very different from Collett designs in the way that the ‘Sunshine’ vs Hornbys current Collett offering isn’t.

WRONG! Bachmanns only involvement with Kernows models* is that in recent times Bachmann have distributed some of Kernows models through the EFE brand**. Kernow have never had anything made any of their own designs made for them by Heljan either. * According to Bachmann own PR they have 'invested' in the SR Booster locomotives but whether that is in terms of actually helping finance the product or merely in terms of distributing it through the EFE brand is unknown ** EFE models are NOT made by Bachmann! The whole point is EFE models originate in factories outside of the Kadder organisation (Bachmanns owners) and thus cannot be released as Bachmnann products.

Who says they have? Given Bachmanns lengthy development cycles they could easily have several steam projects underway - the only thing is you won't hear about them till the completed models are on their way to the UK Have you ever considered the possibility Hornby are already working on a newly tooled model - because if you haven't I bet Bachmann have! You need to re calibrate your expectations, the days of Bachmann or indeed Hornby announcing things several seasons or even years before they hit the shelves is ending whilst 5 years ago it might have been reasonable to assume anything not publicly announced wasn't happening, that is manifestly no longer the case.

A very safe bet - but that belies the fact you should be recognising that the most popular (and thus profitable) types of GWR stock has already been covered by others. Hornby have a good selection of Hawksworth* and Collect vehicles in their tooling while Dapol are also entering the frey with Toplights. That means there are already two manufacturers fighting for a share of the GWR coaching stock market and I severely doubt there is room for a 4th to share in the spoils. If you are looking for a gap in the roiling stock market for Bachmanmn to exploit then actually the best prospect in terms of sales is the early LMS designed stuff, particularly as Hornbys efforts with the Period III stock seem to have ground to a halt once they exhausted the common 57ft types * Had Hornby not snaffled these then the Hawksworths would have been a pretty good fit for Bachmann and complement their other efforts to cater for the last Big 4 designs (Thompson, Bullied and LMS Porthole designs)

Its complicated, but in essence it basically was down to Hattons developing their own product (class 66) in direct competition with Bachmann (who already had a reasonable class 66 in their range) and thus costing Bachmann sales. Bachmann therefore refused to supply Hattons. Although Hattons is the only retailer to have suffered in this way despite other retailers like Kernow commissioning their own products, its important to note that none of the products Kernow chose to develop could be seen to be directly competing with a Bachmann product and as such Bachmann will have not felt threatened by such developments.

Given the increasingly severe weather the UK is experiencing as a result of climate change, 'cheap and nasty' simply doesn't cut it anymore, however efficiently you deliver it.

As supplied from Bachmann the DCC decoders fitted to the model (one in each driving car) are configured so that you can operate the train from a bog standard 12V DC controller. In other words the train will work quite happily on both systems so there are no issues if you only have a traditional DC powered layout.

If we are agreeing why did you start by saying TORR is hazardous? Its not a hazardous concept in itself and it’s entirely reasonable for the interlocking designers to assume that train drivers will do what they are supposed to do - namely fully complete any signalled move in it entirety.

Point of order - the ORR have not suspended the entire WCR operation - all they have done at present is ban WCR from using coaching stock which hasn’t got central door locking fitted. The ORR would probably only get involved if it could bd shown that WCRs procedures and processes are faulty because at the end of the day even the best trained person can make a mistake - and that in itself is not particularly noteworthy. The questions that will be asked is effectively is the incident at Preston a ‘one off’ or does it point to wider and more systemic failings within the company as a whole.

No it’s not - because all routes are not the same as far as the interlocking is concerned! It should NEVER be the case that trains only traverses ‘half’ a set route then reverse direction mid way through the route! This is why at busy locations shunt class routes are provided which do not extend as far as the routes covered by main aspect signals. Trains still MUST adhere to the ‘must traverse the entire route’ principle but because the shunt routes are shorter than those associated with main signal aspects the reversing can take place closer to the starting position than would be the situation with a main class route. Shunt routes can of course be set one after the other - what may look like a single route in terms of a given train movement may actually be 2 or 3 routes bolted end to end as far as the interlocking and signaller are concerned.

It’s not odd as you put it - the whole point of TORR (or sectional route release if the releasing is done by the signaller manually cancelling the route behind the train) is that the interlocking only releases the route when it believes the train has occupied and cleared a particular track circuit and it is therefore available to be used by other movements. If follows there can never be any conflict - if there was then the route would remain set until danger was no longer present. Moreover there has never been any restriction on signalmen moving points once they have verified a train has passed the points in question, particularly in areas of intensive services.

Given the nature of the layout at somewhere like Preston a route from signal ‘A’ to signal ‘D’ will pass through a lot of different track circuits. Each track circuit will have a route locking relay and when a route is set all these route locking relays will lock all points and prevent conflicting routes etc. However if we wait until the train has fully completed its route before we release these route locking relays you tie up the layout for quite a while - and on a busy area this is undesirable as it constrains train throughput. So what most modern signalling installations (particularly those covering complicated / large layouts) will have is something called ‘Train Opperated Route Releasing’ - know as TORR for short. With TORR, the interlocking does not have to wait until a movement is fully completed before it can release those route locking relays. Instead the interlocking looks for the sequential occupation and clearing of track circuits to effectively monitor the train as it moves through the route. Assuming the track circuits operate and clear in the correct manor then they will trigger the release of the route locking relays behind the train. This means that the train can still be passing through the last few track circuits / points at the end of its route but the track circuits at the start of its route are clear and free of route locking so the points under them may be swung and new routes set across them.

Train Opperated Route Release, if fitted, will release a route in sections behind a movement. Thus it’s entirely possible to set a second opposing route as it were which uses those same points thus speeding up train throughput. As such I can well imagine a situation where the section of route through pointwork has released behind the incident loco (allowing points to be swung and routes set over them) even if the loco hasn’t fully completed its signalled move from one signal to another. Without knowledge of the actual layout or the control tables for the interlocking, nor any actual replay of what the interlocking saw it is rather difficult to rule anything out though - and I suspect the incident won’t be seen as one the RAIB will need to get involved in so we are unlikely to get the complete story. All that has come out is (1) the loco didn’t go far enough along the route and failed to stop behind the signal they should have done plus (2) Upon changing ends the driver saw a signal showing a proceed and assumed it applied to his line rather than an adjacent one. The driver then set of and ran through a set of points which were not set correctly due to the signaller not having set a route for that movement.

To be fair if you are told you are going to be made redundant then I wouldn’t want to hang around and simply trust my luck on the labour market once Hattons had finished with me and would be looking for a new job as soon as Hatton said it was closing. As such I can well believe that more than a few staff will have already gone and the capacity of the business to process orders is much reduced.

I seem to recall Hornby have had issues with a number of their motors rapidly deteriorating (overheating, going slower, less torque etc) including the H and B12 classes. Owners have reported changing the motors cures the issues so it’s quite possible the same is repeating itself here.

If the decision was after the run through then it would most likely have been because a new driver was required, plus the loco would have needed checking / replacing and then there is the whole matter of actually finding a time slot to extricate the train from where it was sat with the available infrastructure much reduced as a result of the run thru damage.

But there is most likely enough people from Devon. Short of having train interiors which reconfigure themselves on route or adopting a London suburban attitude to 1st class (I.e. where it’s no different to standard) then you will end up carrying surplus first class accommodation into Cornwall anyway.