frobisher

1 hour ago, natterjack said:

That only really applies to wheelbase and not the all important gear trains- and as Tillig have demonstrated a flexible system is easily designed to work very well. Then again, my O gauge experience with Heljan has been somewhat mixed (plenty of spare gears in the stash).

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.

38 minutes ago, Haymarket47 said:

Interested to know how you know that Hornby don’t have any CAD/research for the Austerity🤷🏻‍♂️

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...

6 minutes ago, The Pilotman said:

Not necessarily…

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

1 minute ago, Haymarket47 said:

I could be wrong.but I’m sure Hornby have had this project in the pipeline for a number of years. With this in mind I think it’s unlikely that they  attempted to gazump Heljan in this regard - despite their recent efforts 🤦‍♂️Duplication is a much discussed topic but recent examples include Bachmann 55s and also Class 37’s compared to Accurascale. Punters make the choice at the end of the day. Maybe Heljan could have done an Accurascale and produced a cracking model at a reasonable price and given Hornby some competition? Just a thought…

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.

10 minutes ago, natterjack said:

Sorry again but this holds no water. Had Heljan development proceeded to any form of working mechanisms they would be able to translate one of their numerous CAD archives to TT120 product and the obvious one for them would be the Class 47 which would have equally 'gazundered' Hornby. If they do have working mechanisms then why not market those alone to the welcoming arms of kit bashers and scratch modellers?

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... 

1 hour ago, Ravenser said:

Again - how do the three couplings in the 3 different scales compare? Which couples best? What about uncoupling? Which is smallest and neatest? How about close coupling? (The Arnold coupler in N  is poor enough that most suggest it militates against shunting successfully. The tension lock in OO is a pig to uncouple, ugly and obtrusive. Come to that the N gauge coupler is pretty chunky. The Tillig -type looks like the best of the three, albeit against pretty weak competitors)

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.

Just now, natterjack said:

Heljan offerings appear to have been no more than a fishing expedition.

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".

3 hours ago, Ravenser said:

He could have done a meaningful comparison between the 3 models of an A4 in different scales - he had them there. Instead a good deal of time was devoted to displaying pictures of Pacifics running backwards on preserved railways (and looking pretty ungainly doing it)

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...

8 hours ago, Padishar Creel said:

similar to MK2B and MK2C from Accurascale but in N?

I would love to see MK2C produced

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 :)

1 hour ago, Graham108 said:

Finally got to run my Aberdeen pack of 6 - and I can't get round a corner (4th radius) without the engine running off on its own. Is there a working solution, or do I just remove the magnetic things and replace with standard tension lock couplings? 

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?

51 minutes ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

Showing the 3 A4's side by side was quite clearly for the purpose of comparing the relative sizes of each model.

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.

7 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

Given the claims that the track's been made by the factory responsible for Tillig track, and is simply Tillig with a different logo stamped on the bottom, it was a bit surprising. I even wondered if he had somehow included the bit of 6th radius included to return the siding to straight

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

Just now, Ravenser said:

There was little meaningful comparison between the 3 different scales (OO, TT, N) - how long is a Mk1 in each? how long is an A4? what footprint for a layout?

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

1 hour ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

I can't find any fault with that comment.

Of course we should expect that standard, at the very least.

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

6 minutes ago, AndyB said:

Does modern OO-9 stock work on code 55?

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

1 hour ago, britishcolumbian said:

'd expect the 86 to be one of the first British subjects to be produced by a Continental manufacturer in TT since a couple dozen are in service in Hungary, which is a fairly significant TT scale market; 86 is also in Bulgaria (as is the 87) but that's a much smaller model railway market (though I do have a couple of Bulgarian coaches for international trains).

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.

57 minutes ago, Vecchio said:

There is obviously no proper standard for coupling length (or NEM pocket position...)

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.

3 minutes ago, JSpencer said:

Overall, by far the worst diesel or electric RTR loco in my collection produced since 2000 by some margin (and I own a Fell!)!

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

26 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

That extra electricity will be needed as we ramp down gas.

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.

29 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

Hydrogen is a niche fuel. Time will tell.

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...).

7 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

I wonder if we will see a Class 71 (or maybe a 74) appear in an EFE box ?

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.

4 hours ago, APOLLO said:

When natural gas (or any fuel) is burned it combines chemically with oxygen and gives out heat (and other chemicals like CO2 & H2O etc). To reverse this process the energy has to be put back in the equation. Possible but energy expensive. Unless you have vast amounts of cheap energy (which we don't) then the process is not viable. 

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.

4 hours ago, APOLLO said:

ALL energy on our planet is derived from our Sun, albeit with fossil fuels from millions of years ago.

Apart from nuclear fission and (hopefully) fusion. Our Sun isn't responsible for any of the elements involved.

1 hour ago, billbedford said:

And of course, liquid hydro-carbon fuels, which the world is short of, can be made from carbon dioxide and water. All that is needed is some high-temperature nuclear reactors - and a big enough research grant. 

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