frobisher

Or just run with no hard shoulder under that section which seems to be the normal solution.

Well blow me, isn't autocorrect rather than "always correct" such a problem... I shall remain humbled...

Right there as above...

But you were rather deliberately oblique there trying to imply it was Hornby by using "they" to refer to me so don't sit at the back there looking all blameless. Anyway, the assumption of a single palate was from up the thread somewhere and early morning arithmetic is not a strength (probably 3 plates...), but the ratio of the two consignment quantities looks to be around roughly the ratio between airfreight palate heights and container palate heights which was the point I was trying to make.

We know that the consignment of 828 were airfreight likely a single palate, the next consignment of 1102 would probably been a taller palate that would be possible in a seagoing ISO container arriving more slowly.

The thinking is more that new tooling in TT might be mirrored in matching tooling in 00 based off the same research/CAD. We've already seen this the other way around as it's the only way to account for the promise of MK2E and F in TT... It was widely reported that Hornby were developing the MK2F when Bachmann announced their much further ahead project, and Hornby pivoted to produce the MK2E initially (which has "issues") and followed up with the better F a year or so later. This was all happening around the start of the TT development cycle... Clearly the modified CAD that produced the E from the F was flexible enough to still produce the F and looks like this capability was inherited by the TT version as well "for free". It seems somewhat excessive to do two identicalish MK2 aircon types in an introductory range.

It's almost as if there might be some bias in filtering criteria for the grading... nah, can't possibly be that...

At the core of this criticism though are the very avoidable mistakes that simple due diligence would have put in check. With actual extant examples that could have been measured up etc (even if the resources weren't there to 3D scan them) this is even more unforgiveable. But it looks like KR are building up a track record of working like this... :(

The one they haven't rerun since they made the 153 pretty much? The leap to a 155 from the current 153 may not be too great. If the 153 body wasn't set up with the provision for the necessary slides to make a 155 from it, then they will have the CAD that could be modified accordingly to produce the new body tooling required. Adding lighting etc is a different matter, but could be coordinated with an upgrade to the 153.

The former doesn't necessarily prove the latter though as Dapol definitely continued to have stock of spares for a lot of the stuff that Hornby did buy the tooling of for quite a while after. But as the Stanier coaches show, not all the tooling from Arfix/Mainline at Dapol went to Hornby, for whatever reason(s).

The Limby 67 has the advantage of being a tooling that was relatively new (and pretty damn good for Lima) when Hornby got it, and relatively lightly used after they did as their new tooling came very quickly thereafter.

I wouldn't worry about that one as it will have been tooled up several times already as it will have been done in a more modern manner (i.e. a set of tooling for each associated model).

Given that they would still need to modify the underframe regardless of which they put underneath they might as well modify that for that right wrong bogie if they did so, and we'd then have an un-refurbished Class 50 RTR... oh wait :(

Actually, we can. Those 828 boxes will be the same or someone is grossly incompetent in stock handling... There's at least a second batch been produced/shipped as well, so first batch has been at least pre-sold. More than that, no.

The only thing you can say for sure is that is circa £152k of turnover for Hornby through the books, likely double that. So a good start, but not close to recovering tooling costs yet.

Design Clever was never about "two versions", it was about pulling in the production costs by not going all out for detail where moulded detail would be appropriate.

Everything points to a Design Clever approach being used for TT and probably for the best.

And some nice 2Ds including the special Irish variants would be very complimentary ;)

And has done sterling service... But the opportunity is there to piggyback development off of their forthcoming TT model. It is interesting to note that Hornby have announced a whole bunch of locos in TT they don't have modern tooling for in 00, and on the diesel front they're ex-Lima items currently in the Railroad range...

Depends on which of the two batches of 73/9 as well; which really only have the donor class in common. The GBRf ones are operated as Diesel-electric in the main part but are still very much electro-diesels (even if their shoe gear has been removed) but the NR ones have lost that capability (fairly certain of that) and have two prime movers... I think both batches have AAR MW capability, and the GBRf ones have retained the SR EMU system as well (but not the high level brake pipes).

That's timed to coincide with next year's anniversary of the "Titfield Thunderbolt" and was always going to be. It was announced way earlier than they would likely want to have done so because some other company got putsie when they found out Rapido had secured the exclusive license that they were depending upon just falling into their lap. The fact that Hornby were further ahead in developing a Lion is neither here nor there in this case. Any "bandwagon" would be due diligence, and in this case Hornby were never on it.

I'd expect a 66 first to be honest as that is the furthest forward of the diesels that Hornby are tooling in TT. There's an inevitability of a 37, 47 and 73 to follow of course. Hornby could do well with each of those at the correct price point.

It'll be more like the Minitrix N gauge track. Their 3rd and 4th radii were not based on a track centre progression from r1 and r2, but keyed to their larger radius points. Hornby already have something like this in 00, R628 "large radius" curve that's the return curve for the Y point and Express points (in conjunction with an R610 quarter straight), they just didn't assign a "Radius" to it but it was relatively speaking a late addition to the geometry.

They might be looking to do a 5th radius curve down the line of 597mm radius possibly? That might give them some options for large radius curved points perhaps?

The Hall, A1/3, P2, Crosti 9F, Peppercorn A1 were tooled specifically for Railroad... Plus all the legacy stuff. So about on a par with the D&E stuff really. [edit] Also, none of the D&E stuff was specifically tooled for Railroad, just re-motored.