frobisher

BUT the tooling for the mechanism is bespoke to each model, so you don't have a working mechanism until you manufacture it... Do Heljan have existing CAD components for drive systems they could repurpose for TT:120? Almost certainly.

Certainly nothing in the current 00 range... So if there is any it's from a standing start OR an aborted project. But if the J94 had been aborted because of the DJM model, I'd have expected that to have reared it's head again much sooner than this, and in 00...

Though you'd also need MK3 sleepers (in fact MK3's full stop) without CDL as well which aren't in the Dapol range...

It's maybe a little cycnical, but to manage to pre-announce all three of Heljan's targets as well AFTER Heljan had announced their intentions, and only showing any development evidence of one of those... That said, the 08 was always a poorer choice for Heljan - It's required for trainsets, Hornby were going to make one as a matter of priority. The 31 was a good even bet, especially as Hornby hadn't been showing any particular attention to their 00 model. The Austerity though is a model that Hornby don't currently have modern CAD/research for, and previously seen no intention of updating in 00. THAT'S the suspicious response. But Heljan had announced their price point for the 31, and it's likely they would have been trying to compete with a premium model verses what ever Hornby was producing. If I were Heljan I would be sitting back and sees what happens with Hornby before taking another stab. They'll know damn fine what stage of development Hornby was at (at range launch) with the 31 compared to theirs when the Hornby one finally hits the market. At that point they'll know when they can safely announce product should they wish to. Heljan were at a reasonably advanced CAD stage with the 31, and as has been pointed out repeatedly (mostly by Hornby), you can't just translate CAD between the scales automagically but existing CAD can form a starting point. Heljan had sunk costs in what they had done, and weren't wanting to throw good money after bad in an emerging market. Your suggestion was that they should sink similar costs into trying to produce a LOWER priced product than the one Hornby had pre-announced, when they had previously been working towards a HIGHER price point than Hornby was aiming at... At this point in the game, we really don't need competition on models you need to grow the range of what is available. I can see Heljan coming back for another bite at things, just not for a while, along with other potentially interested parties who are looking to see what Hornby actually delivers and how quickly. You don't have working mechanisms until you manufacture them... And for modern manufacturing these are bespoke to each model...

On the upside, it's a potential area for improvement in the field (and N gauge simultaneously...). If Microtrains could be tempted to produce an NEM version of theirs it would be nice to have some competition for the Dapol Easi-Shunts, but another, "pretty" shuntable NEM coupling for TT/N would be very welcome if some manufacturer would take up the challenge.

That's a little unfair; They'd certainly put a significant amount of R&D cost into the exercise given what they'd shown. But they were gazundered significantly by Hornby. The Hornby price points are likley 2/3 or less of that aimed at by Heljan (which probably indicated a difference of the "finesse" of the Heljan vs Hornby approach), and you'd be a fool to announce any speculative products until it is clear how quickly Hornby are shipping theirs if it could suddenly be another thing that "they were working on".

Ironically, none of the A4's shown in the comparison have front couplings or mounts for them, which is a common failing with Hornby (cf MK4 DVT, MK3 DVT, HST (buffer fitted)); but if he'd managed to secure a Dapol N A4 that has a front coupling...

Mind you the MK2s to go with the MK3 sleepers should be aircons so D's E's and F's. All welcome of course :)

So this is the loco to rake connection that's going rather than between the carriages? Tension locks may just give you different problems... Which loco is causing the issues?

The Minitrix A4 is somewhat porky though (not their worst), and their MK1 somewhat malnourished, and neither of those are from the same era of modelling as the 00 models shown.

It clearly isn't though when you put them side by side. That all comes down to a Kohlerism unfortunately.

Also the A4 used for comparison in N gauge was a Minitrix one, plus their MK1, both of which have their own scaling issues.

I think the issue there is that the expectation of what a trainset should be without actually referring to what trainsets have been; Both TT sets so far have been a step change for what Hornby have been doing at the "cheaper end". This is a good thing. But of course they are starting with a fresh slate in TT:120, so easier to embrace. Probably the biggest issue he did identify is that the supplied third radius track isn't particularly well made and doesn't sit flat without assistance, and combined with issues with the supplied MK1s is not a good thing.

Soooo does that now mean, between Bachmann, Hornby and Accurascale that we have all types of MK2 tooled up to Modern (ish - the 2E could probably do with a proper going over) standards apart from the 2D and Pullmans... Not hinting or wishlisting or anything...

Purely speculative, but I'm wondering if this might be a cost/production cutting measure for the train sets? We knew the Pullmans weren't coming with the lights of the main range ones in the Scotsman set, are they weighted or not? I suppose we'll only know when we see the MK1s appear separately. Will they be weighted? Will they be "lighting ready" i.e. with the pickups in place?

Quite possibly, but I've got this nagging feeling about bogie replacements occurring early on with some Phase 1 units... Ah, yup - looks like the MK4 bogies under the restaurant car were replaced with Commonwealth bogies 1960ish in the prototype and Phase 1 units. But apart from that, you should be fine. Blood and Custard - 4 BEP & 4 CEP

You should be fine; the flange depth available is pretty much identical to Code 80 on the Peco Code 55 track.

That would certainly be an opportunity for Heljan (given the recently updated 00 model). The problem is of course that Hornby can also jump in with the 87 almost at any time, and there's a hell of a lot of commonality between the 87 and the 86 which could expedite the latter for Hornby if developed in tandem.

Replica's bogies are what you want as they are pop-in replacements for these; http://www.replicarailways.co.uk/ and go to Spares and Accessories.

There are indeed proper standards, it's just the UK industry has been very inconsistent on applying the NEM standards, at least in the past hence this mess we have with short, long and cranked tension lock couplers.

Oh :( I might revise my opinion then to "I surely hope they don't".

First you need to build the infrastructure... Whilst the West of Orkney Windfarm is plumbed in on the mainland side of the firth in the main part, capacity going south is needing greater development. Orkney itself is currently limited to a 40MW link, and on most days has an excess of local generation needs. What has put a halt on the increase in domestic wind power schemes here is the inability to sell power back to the grid due to lack of export capacity - if that was addressed, there would be plenty of farms etc. who'd be more than happy to add another string or two to their income bow. Hello to one of those niches! The local council is currently looking to replace the internal (diesel) ferry fleet and it is likely that the replacements will be fuelled by locally generated hydrogen.. eventually (councils move at a glacial rate...).

Fairly high I would say (the 74 less so as that never got close to tooling). The drive chain and electrics were the weak points of the DJM model as I understand it, and that seems to be the bit that gets attention from the EFE commissions.

Hence the solar furnace at the heart of it. In our neck of the world, slightly less viable, but then what if you had a 2.6GW wind farm that is going to be set up divert excess power for hydrogen production at what is currently an oil terminal..? (West of Orkney Windfarm) Connecting those dots is really very simple. Apart from nuclear fission and (hopefully) fusion. Our Sun isn't responsible for any of the elements involved.

You don't need a nuclear reactor for that at all... There's a Swiss facility that is currently putting some industrial scale solar/atmospheric plants through trials. Results are really good, and the various hydro carbons don't have the contaminants the nature ones have (sulphates in particular). These are by definition almost entirely carbon neutral. Found the link! Pull jet fuel from thin air? We can do that, say scientists • The Register