frobisher

As others have said, it doesn't use the Lima pancake motor - Hornby haven't reused that on any of their re-released Lima models but all of those have new 5 pole motors which are often referred to as the Limby motor bogie. The problem with the 4VEP and this motor bogie seems to be there is insufficent weight applied over it, which coupled with the drag of the inside bearing bogies in a 4 car unit meant that they could be a bit gutless. Some improvement in performance could be got by a rearrangement of the traction tyres, and the second batch seemed to perform better based upon comments hereabouts. However, the same motor boigie was used in the 5BEL without traction tyres but with a substantial metal housing over it and performance is reported to be good. I'd suspect that that regime was continued onto the 2BIL.

Dunno, but checking at Rails that code isn't listed at all (they're also all priced at £16.50 there as well BTW...).<br /><br />The product code (NC054C) looks wrong for a MK3 Buffet though as they are all NC216x at Rails, so it code be a cock up in data entry at Hattons has caused this anomoly

Doh! Mr Thicky has now twigged (not 100% au fait with the P2...).

Tornado's tender (body at least) will be incorrect as it is unique to the new build Tornado. Turning that on its head however is that if thy tool up for 2007 with the correct tender, then suddenly the Tornado tooling has a suitable tender to allow better representation of a cross section of the production A1s.

The easy solution is to plonk it down on the track...

There's a note in Dave's post So probably to follow at some point then

Erm, it's not about reducing design time but manufacturing/assembly time. Very different things.

Oh and a BFO as well please The sleepers however would be a better bet, still in service (and goes with the 67 too...) with a reasonable selection of liveries. Though it would be nice to have MK3s without the central locking indicators as well please.

So are the bi-mode IEPs getting some form of exemption (unlikely) or is it just that it's a more expensive solution than mechanical/hydraulic transmission?

I'd suspect that the operators will have the same right to be billed by whichever electricty supplier they elect to, just like you do in the home, just as most business already do.

And watch the train get gapped... There's a reason for shoes over multiple coaches on 3rd rail.

To be fair, Hornby have definately learnt a lesson or two from the 4VEP. The Brighton Belle whilst having nominally the same motor bogie, has no traction tyres and manages the 5 coach rake quite happily due to being weighted properly (and not having inside bearings on the unpowered bogies).

I can see the addition of pantograph cars in the Meridians' future if that programme kicks off for the Voyagers. HSTs will probably get redeployed in time.

I would say that part of this was because Heljan got it wrong, Bachmann were very aware of keeping their eye on the ball with this. But Heljan do appear to slip up to varying degrees on locos almost as a matter of course - probably bad luck with references coupled with engineering necessities.

I'd have thought that because they have sold out so quickly will mean that there is a rapid second run of these, but with different numbers because that's the way they work these days. Might be a larger batch though because the first lot sold so quickly.

Oooh Just had a quick check of the dimensions listed on therailwaycentre.com (which may or may not be correct). An 81 looks like an obvious next step if you want to reuse the drive mechanism. Are the bogies themselves actually the same on the two classes? Are they shared with the AL6 as well..? Happy hunting ground for Bachmann if that's the case.

They're also not obviously lit...

I don't think Bachmann have produced the Modofied Hall in about 10 years (in the Branchline range), so I doubt there's that many split chassis ones in the retailer sector at the moment (unless they're bright red and calling themselves Hogwarts Hall...). The Hall class that's on sale from the last few years doesn't have a split chassis and is hence also DCC ready.

I seem to recall that they were only fitted where there was an opportunity to ascend to within dangerous proximity to the overhead (you'll notoce that the the Mk1 behind the 85 in the last poicture has a warning flash, whereas the 85 itself of course doesn't have handrails etc that will get you in the danger zone). Not sure when the practice changed (80's onwards perhaps?) but the AC electrics were mostly devoid in the 70's and any diesel that might go under the wires would be so adorned but it was common for a lot of units to not be so indicated (third rail EMUs weren't generally marked).

I'd have thought the motor bogies would have been pretty much the same (though the Belle dispenses with traction tyres..?). The difference really comes down to the solid chunk of metal weighting down the Belle's motor bogie. Something they could have done for the 4VEP if they'd stuck it at the guard's end of the MBSO rather than on full display...

So what you're wanting are the vacuum pipe couplers? If so these are available as spares from Bachmann (36-060, Branchline Coach Pipe Coupling (x4), RRP £ 2.95). The Hornby/Roco style ones can however be uncoupled with the coaches still on the track.

Also, the body and bogies of the model are wrong for a as built AL6...

Cool So potentially something Bachmann could tool up reasonably easily if they wanted to, or at the least reasonably easy to convert and bodge.

Is that a converted GUV?

There are more than two political parties within the UK you know (and I'm really not wanting to drag this into politics any further than that...). If people read manifestos in somewhat more depth, perhaps there wouldn't be so froth and rage after the event when they do deliver on them. Whilst this is a "Big Deal" and £32B (over what, 10 years?) seems like a ginormous amount of money, it's less than the annual defense budget BEFORE the Iraq/Afghan over runs, and under a third of the annual NHS budget. The VAT dodged by Vodaphone would have paid for nearly 20% of this by itself.