frobisher

Blue Grey I'd have thought.

They're okay - not massively exciting, but okay. They have a very restricted decoder number range (1-9) but for some peeps that's probably sufficient. If you have one of the Bachmann trainset DC controllers, you can plug that into it to control loco 10 (actually 0... the single non-DCC equipped DC loco) independently but obviously not 100% recommended you do that as it's better to stuff a chip in it). The companion controller (and I think you can have two plugged in) works almost exactly like the main controller. More aimed at someone who wants to be able to run two or three trains together at once rather than go the whole DCC hog. A gentle introduction to DCC, but you'll likely replace it with something bigger and better down the line.

Or (with modeller's licence on the catering vehicles and ignoring the CDL bumps) early Blue Grey BR pre TGSes...

Probably nothing beyond it's what people are expecting; but whatever length you choose the assembly jig ends up at that size regardless of whether the track bed is moulded in one piece or (more sensibly) made of smaller modular sections.

No, it's to provide a visually appealing UK style point at an acceptable cost. Er, yes that's exactly what we're talking about here. Your lowest possible denominator is NOT the person happy to sort out the point wiring for themselves. Pertinent question, how often do microswitches fail? Is it down to the quality of microswitch, if so put a better one in surely? Thing is, polarity switching still needs to be performed by the point at some level if you want a power routing point (regardless of the frog polarity switching), as I thought the one great no-no of pointwork was relying on physical contact of the rail components to route power anywhere, and the various tags etc Hornby and Peco employ was the single biggest point of failure for the devices. There's no reason why this shouldn't be if properly designed.

In that instance you just don't install the base if you want to flex The reason most people are using supplementary switches is because such capability isn't intrinsic to most pointwork IMO. Taking the polarity switching off of a secondary system to the point itself increases the risk of failure to my mind. The appeal to me of a point that could (after perhaps at most a minute's work with making a couple of links on a PCB with either solder or simple clips/screws) be truly ready to lay from an electrical perspective is immense. From what I've seen on the forums here, there is a significant portion of folk petrified of doing the wiring needed for a live frog point (or in fact most wiring...) so stick with dead frogs. You want an easily capturable market, there it is. That said, as with the PCB, all you need is the provision for the switch to be inserted, and sell the base version of the point without it (and the PCB for that matter - if you're comfortable with wiring up the polarity switching externally, you really don't need the PCB).

One thing to consider is what the necessary (structural) thickness of the sleepers need be, and what the actual thickness of the sleepers could be, and would, in effect a point carried (in certain portions) on a plain flat card be acceptable? i.e. could a thin PCB be used to do the power routing to and from components. This wouldn't necessarily be a component always installed for those who'd rather do this the "old fashioned way" and I suspect very few would actually notice the void under he point, especially when ballasted. I would say that a discrete microwsitch built in at the tiebar end would be an essential regardless (wiring it may be an exercise for the end user).

In the realms of 10's of millions of dollars for tooling you're talking automotive manufacturing tooling costs, so with all due respect you're talking small spherical objects about data retrieved from your lower gastrointestinal tract. EDIT: And obviously Peco have done the impossible in O gauge already producing RTL BH points, crossings and double slips, all tooled for a market that is way smaller than the potential one we're talking about here.

Hornby manufacture their set track in China. They used to use Roco in Austria, but had new tooling made (that they then owned) when they moved production. Bachmann UK's current set track is made for them by Roco using the former Hornby tooling as I understand it.

Or take the time honoured route of most companies growing a track range, get Roco to make it for you.

No, not really. It would be a considerably better form of set track though, but at the moment, for the UK market there is no competing product. An awful lot of people do lay flexitrack to what is effectively standardised radii, dictated by commercial track laying aids, so why not go one stage further and sell pre curved track to those radii? The underside of the sleeper base could be marked out at interval angles to allow easy cutting and sub division of the track.

Cheers for that Mike. Still not convinced the Crosti isn't a physical model (but as I said, until we have some definitive evidence this remains a difference of opinion), but clearly it shows that Hornby do now have plenty of in house (or outsourced) capability in the area of pre-visualisation. The Airfix models are more clearly CG certainly (the glazing is the biggest give away). The clear thing is that there is now a house style for this form of presentation (and the most definitely physical model of the 700 (I think, the new 0-6-0 tender loco in any case) is presented this way too).

As someone who works professionally in the medium of CG imagery on a routine basis, I'll let that condescending remark slip with almost no notice... Check the brass safety valves - you'll notice that they aren't both in focus. That's what tips me towards this being a physical model. EPs are produced in a variety of colours, they aren't always grey... You'll note that the 700 EP is also in black... The coal load could just be exactly what it appears to be in the material it was produced in - coal just never looks right unless it is black The environment and lighting is a saturated white, therefore reflective surfaces being whitish is no great surprise. In a plain white environment it's very hard to definitively say whether said tender wheels are actually floating or not, or whether the shadows there are not as expected. Your observations are not definitive evidence regardless of whether they are correct or not (to be clear we have a difference of opinion here and let's leave it at that for now). What would be definitive evidence one way or another would be a note concerning the provenance of the images. Er, no it's a particularly poorly edited CG image given some of the faults you list which should then be trivial to have got right given the relative effort and care undertaken with other aspects.

Until we have real evidence to the contrary, I disagree. If it is CG, then it is beyond Hornby's previously demonstrated ability in this area. About the only thing that is clear is that the images have taken a pass through Photoshop (or equivalent) with some mixed results.

Sure looks like an EP to me... http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_12_2013/post-1-0-98317600-1387185748.jpg Certainly that's not a CAD image or a CG rendering.

Given there was a picture of the EP in the announcement thread, you can pretty much judge most of this apart from the finish. The only Railroad feature of that is the Railroad loco chassis to my eyes (no more former ringfield tender )

Which is odd as you do seem to like shooting at them...

It's a gauge/scale combo strictly speaking...

I'm not sure that Hornby would have much interest to be honest. They've rationalised the Hornby International track range to be the Hornby UK set track range now, down from the 3-4 legacy ones inherited from the Lima group and 00 track would be very wrong for the H0 market. Whilst Bachmann has a relatively recently produced set track range that not entirely coincidently mirrors the Hornby one, they might have the appetite to try something different. Hornby are the biggest supplier of track in the UK market, with Peco a relatively distant (but significant) second as I understand it. There are a surprising number (to me) of members' layouts that feature Hornby or Peco set track when you look here, yet the same members are quite obsessive about the detailing etc of their locos etc. (this is not in any way a denigration - model to the challenges you want to address, after all it's a hobby).

Not really, not completely. It would allow them to compete for that segment of the market that have decided they can get a better 00 solution (or better compromise) elsewhere. They wouldn't be entirely cannibalising their current UK market, because some people will remain unfussed but this is a market that Peco have put next to no real investment into - other markets are what drove the track range in the first place. That said, I'd agree it's not going to be Peco leading the charge, they have little incentive (plus the infamous Peco inertia).

The 319s have a reduced profile compared to the other MK3 units - presumably not sufficient for the Merseyrail tunnel sections? If so the obvious solution would be the 313s if they could be prised out of Southern hands, or (with a small amount of engineering) a swap of TSOs from the 507 & 508s for 313 PTSOs that are currently not getting used. (to clarify - the pantographs of which aren't currently getting used...)

I could be wrong, but my understanding is that the IEP design is an evolution or related to that of the Class 395 in any case.

The abundance of competing Class 47 and 37 models would indicate probably yes. Because the 33 was an early Lima model, I think it's more heavily lodged in the modelling psyche than perhaps it should be based on historical geographical distribution.

The biggest problem I can see is that the Hornby wouldn't want to produce a new track range that was aimed solely at the UK market. Their set track range has supplanted all of those of the inherited European ranges now so a "streamline" range would likely still only make sense as H0 track

It's one of the reasons why Kato is very DCC compatible. This I would see as a small exposed piece of PCB underneath the point at a convenient position. Links/clips could be supplied, but it would also give solder points to allow more traditional wiring operation of the point. If I get time today, I'll try and do a diagram of what I have in my mind for this.