frobisher

31 minutes ago, Ian Hargrave said:

The Avanti Voyagers are 221 5car units and the EMR Meridian are 222 ,now also5 car and apparently differ from their Avanti cousins in some material respects .

Their MU capabilities are incompatible (deliberately so).

It might almost be easier to engineer a swap of the Mainline power bogie for the Hornby one as I think where the body parts company on the Mainline model is different than the Hornby/Lima model.

A quick perusal of ebay seems to indicate that you don't save that much money by purchasing just a Mainline body over buying a body and underframe either Bachmann or Mainline (about £30 all in), so if you were attempting this that may be the better path.

9 minutes ago, Kris said:

As to radius 2 being the minimum, radius 1 is a historic thing that should be phased out just like it almost has been in OO. Trying to get Peco to change their set track points to radius 2 however would be nigh on impossible. 

The geometry wouldn't work then of course.  Peco's R1 is the equivalent of R2 in 00 though so relatively speaking not that bad, and equivalent to Minitrix's R2 - their tightest pointwork is their R1!

3 hours ago, Legend said:

Mk2e and Mk2f .....why? Surely one would do , and that really makes the need for a 47 all the more pressing .

I can understand how they are doing them (the difference between the two is pretty much the "underframe" equipment), but as you say, why? One or other would have been sufficient in the first wave and do the other later on.  But doing them together uses up production slots that could have given greater variety on other coaches such as the MK1... But until the 47 appears, there's nothing in the range that prototypically hauled these.

13 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

If the range was bigger they could have done. They could easily add a "free" Exclusive wagon like they do with the Airfix Club members getting a free kit.

 

Don't get many complaints that Bachmann have a N Gauge Collectors Club, or even now 009, as well as the 00 version. All with free wagons.

I suspect that they have a quite substantial membership initially because it was "free", and are taking the pragmatic approach that they can retain and grow that membership if it remains "free to user" without allocating additional funds to support that free membership with physical things.  Me, even though I've not actually purchased any of the range yet, would be severely tempted to take out a paid membership for the magazine and wotnot (club wagons would be nice...) but that's not to be (my loss).

13 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

Maybe that would seem to be too similar to Bachmann though. I can hear the "They're just copying Bachmann" moans already....

The Hornby collector's club sent out wagons and locos for your membership, so this isn't an unknown to Hornby.  Maybe a paid premium club membership might come down the line.

Whilst I'm not presently a member of either the Bachmann or Hornby Collectors Clubs, my impression was always that Hornby's "freebies" were more generous, but the Bachmann magazine was better for content.  The TT magazines have somewhat redressed that in my mind.

1 minute ago, The Meerkat said:

i heard its not compatible ??

In what way?  It's pretty much the whole point of TT:120 is that it is same scale, same standards as the dominant European TT scale.  The 120 suffix is there to distinguish it from the former TT:3 range which went its own distinctly Triang way whilst using the same gauge of track.

17 hours ago, Legend said:

I suppose we could send him further north but what has Iceland done to upset  us ?

Codwar :)

20 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

The cheapest solution (by far) is to fit the original Keen Systems overlapping "blades" or their buckeye-style lift-off heads, but they have to be glued into the pockets and you don't get the "push-together" convenience offered by Rocos or magnetics.

I've probably already mentioned it up the thread, but the Bachmann NEM EZ-Mate couplings don't have the swivelly head (only in one length though :( ) and are compatible with Kadees which work a little better with some CCUs.

On 06/09/2023 at 18:52, cctransuk said:

The bottom line, though, is that if you don't have the resources to enforce; what is the point of any new restrictions?

I somewhat think the whole point of the action was to get WCR to comply with the EXISTING restrictions...

29 minutes ago, SZ said:

 

Are you sure? The concept of the 'reasonable man' appears frequently in UK law, isn't that just another term for common sense?

A "reasonable man" may not have "common sense" but just think they do.

[EDIT] A few seconds more thought...

A "reasonable man" will follow most instructions provided, if they had "common sense" they'd have made many of those calls without needing the supplied instructions.

2 minutes ago, Reorte said:

Why should it be up to legislation to save people from themselves?

Because people are litigious, in particular those who haven't been told to not do a thing. 

2 hours ago, Hal Nail said:

Eg when Bachmann did the 85 a lot of people said, See! told you people wanted overheads. But they haven't done a follow up.

Obviously the Class 90 doesn't count...

18 minutes ago, Charnwood said:

4-CEP/BEP – but these latter units for much of their lives were geographically restricted – you’d rarely catch one in Waterloo for instance

Er, from the mid 80's onward you'd see a refurbished 4BEP in pretty much every fast train to Portsmouth being the only catering units left in service on the south western division.

9 hours ago, Gatesheadgeek said:

 

Do 68s have to haul them? They’re readily available but are there alternatives? I lose track

The cabs in the driving trailers have their controls laid out the same as the 68s from what I understand, so were a defacto pairing, and the control jumpers are specific to the pairing too.  It's not to say you couldn't adapt other locos to it of course.

I'm assuming it's something to do with the swing-head buckeye coupling..?

3 hours ago, ruggedpeak said:

So in theory the 68's could go back to DRS for redeployment, but if I've understood it correctly the Mk.5's are the proverbial chocolate teapot without a 68 on the end. So all that needs unpicking if there is no alternative use for the Novas.

Well that's an easy fix, you "just" need a translation box for the multiple working to a different protocol or you fit the replacement locos with the correct multiple working equipment.

2 hours ago, Jeff Smith said:

So, do rtr modellers who want to run a rake of more wagons than there are different serial numbers available, put up with duplicates or change serial numbers?

Pretty much either works. And the latter is what we've always done, as there's always never enough different numbers in the rolling stock available.

15 hours ago, adb968008 said:

The major issue with the mk3 was assembly (stepboards, couplings) and the shade of light grey used on exec/scotrail.

Not forgetting the godawful underframe...

9 hours ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

If the OR mk3 offer a lower cost than the Hornby tooling, may find a slot in Railroad?

Doubtful.  We know (ex-employee testimony at AS...) that Hornby actively looked at repurposing the Oxford MK3s when they developed the sliding door HST carriages, and there were "issues" (beyond the shape and scale issues) so those ended up completely new tooling.  As  it stands, Hornby have a much better aligned for Railroading product in their 90's MK3 which will be a lot cheaper to produce.

6 hours ago, Southernman46 said:

Also every window was converted to hopper style from standard quarter lights so the mould changes have been significant

The glazing is separate from the body moulding and the windows are the same size be they hopper or not, so that part isn't a significant change; The prototype hopper windows did in fact drop into the same space the old vent windows came out of, which leaves the possibility for the prototype, 7152/1500 to be modelled relatively easily.

8 minutes ago, Legend said:

The other thing I’d point out is DCC is making this more expensive for everybody , DCC and analogue because now the units have to be through wired to accommodate just one decoder

That's nothing new.  The 4CEP has been like that right from the start, BUT it also considerably improves DC operation.

58 minutes ago, Hobby said:

 

I'd rather have an early 25 than a 37 or 31!

Keep your fingers crossed for Heljan I'd say speculatively...

4 hours ago, Mr chapman said:

The CEP/TEP is madness. That you are going to tool up a refurbished unit and not actually release a 4CEP people have been asking for for years is crazy to me. Here's almost want you want... That will be £550 please! Jaffa cake 4CEP? Why yes sir! Coming in 2025 sir, for a mere £700.

Because this allows them to get a minimum viable product to market more quickly AND cover that niche.  As it stands, two new body toolings rather than 3/4...

I'm almost wondering that this might let them tap another niche version sooner rather than later - 7152/1500... As I understand it they would "just" need to produce original style windows for the new tooling, reuse the body and windows from the TSK with a new interior (and roof?) that they'd need anyway.  And 1500 was later reduced to 3 cars anyway :)

1 hour ago, Steven B said:

If we're looking at train packs and new models, then the Mk2 Pullmans would be something a little different to have behind a 86 or 87.

Maybe an 86, but ISTR they were vacuum braked until withdrawal and were only converted afterwards.

But MK2 Pullmans would be awesome!

2 hours ago, DavidBird said:

 

Whilst not wishing to challenge any of the points you're making Phil, but they DO allow this - and it runs on the route of "The Harry Potter Train"

 

 

Though you should note the windows to prevent leaning out/over...