frobisher

I hate to break it to you, you already have. That's what general elections are for. We as a country voted in a government that was committed to the scheme. And I'll leave the politics there.

I think the French authorities have a slightly more robust attitude in regards compulsary purchase orders... The population density of the UK is a lot higher than France, so hence the number of landowners per square mile you have to deal with is higher in he UK as well, all of which slows the process down.

Because it's en route to the north..? Er, Scotland already has devolved government you know - the SNP is pushing for independence. But never let facts get in the way of a rant. Surely decent transport connections to your neighbours is a good thing..?

Excuse me? 125mph running is JUST possible with the reengineered Victorian infrastructure that we have. Speaking as someone up in Scotland, 200mph running to get me down to London would be incredibly worthwhile; as it stands, why can we justify air services from London to Manchester at the moment for instance, you could surely walk that distance?

That's a little presumptious isn't it? With all due respect, what did you expect Hornby were going to do? The drive system that was going into the VEP hadn't been anything close to a suprise since late 2010 when the first pictures surfaced. There's a Hornby way of doing some things, and the VEP was done the Hornby way (take a look at the 153 for instance). And as Venator has stated, his runs fine, as probably do most of the units shipped. What is undeniable is that there were huge QC issues with some of the initial batches and the disappointment that raised has perhaps focussed a lot more attention on the other faults and compromises within the model perhaps more so than normally happens. In fact doing so exposed some compromises that had been made on the 4CEP if you look back over this thread...

There I have to correct you. It's the same motor assembly as used on the Bachmann 108 before it and the 105, Derby Lightweight, 2EPB and 350 afterwards. Standard does not mean "sub standard" remember The Limby motor bogie is actually fine and smooth, just Hornby don't seem to have got the hang of applying weight to it correctly and hence why the later applied traction tyres to it. Bachmann's solution to make a 3 pole motor run as smoothly as a 5 pole one (which is one area they save costs in manufacture) is to put a flywheel on it, which is why the Bachmann motor bogie (somewhat more intrusive than the Limby one) is designed the way it is. It's a somewhat better compromise to be sure. That's what Hornby have to sell at compared to what Bachmann have to sell at. Simple as that. It's been "a given" for years that Bachmann produce equivalent products chepaer than Hornby, just as in N gauge Dapol products cost more than equivalent Farish products. There is a difference in the cost base for the various manufacturers, and it might be that as a wholey owned subsidary of Kader that Bachmann gets something of a more benficial rate with regards to manufacture and tooling than an external client such as Hornby or Dapol do/would. I'd not necessarily look to Bachmann or Hornby on that one - there's an open goal there, and if I were Dapol that's where I'd punt the ball. Hornby have just had a mauling on the VEP making n 00 CIG very unlikey from them. On past practice, Dapol look to Hornby's range to find the "safe bets" to model in N (Class 121, 67, 56, 92, 390 (if somewhat delayed), 156, HST, DVT etc). Now, there's a significant amount of shared components between the VEP and the CIG (and indeed all the 1963 design MK1 SR EMUs), and if you're tooling up one, large chunks of the basic CAD work so you might as well make provision for a CIG at the same time. I'd expect to see the CIG done in 00 as well as N, but there's just too much risk to go that way with a rival VEP in 00 (at this time). Get the first one out the gate right in 00, and the world's your (SR EMU) oyster.

They could equally well have modelled the refurbished version with a visible motor bogie sitting there in plain sight (which is apparently acceptable). As it stands, they actually made more work for themselves as they require two different interiors for that end of the coach whereas with compromising the area with a motor bogie, you'd just not need to bother.

Mind you hasn't there been a lot of debate about the real existence of "Electric Blue" and that in fact it was actually "Rail Blue" in almost all cases, which would appear to be what Bachmann have aimed at here?

That's a little spurious really. The Bachmann 08 was introduced first by a few years, and was a revelation compared to what had passed for the prototype before. Of course the Hornby one would be better, being produced afterwards in the full knowledge of the Bachmann one being on the market. The 4MT was more of a straight race, and on balance there's really not that much to chose between them. With the B1, Bachmann were merely looking to upgrade a very serviceable model based on it's major "fault" for the modern market (lack of DCC Readiness) rather than "one up" Hornby. Hornby's B1 was aimed at an "open goal", a prototype that could share some model engineering with another product they had in the pipeline plus against an existing model that Bachmann were "comfortable" with. As to an "upped" game, try looking at pretty much anything that is new Bachmann rather than older products. The 4CEP vs the 4VEP really doesn't help your argument though does it?

Though of course they'd have to absorb the cost of acquiring said factory into their costs, yup, that works... An orange is also heavier than a lighter apple... The motor is pure, 100% Hornby. It was first applied to ex-Lima products as an upgrade, but that's the extent of it. Or, perhaps they actually developed this motor bogie specifically for these kind of applications (just as Bachmann developed their MU motor bogie)? Apart from the initial traction tyre less versions, the VEP is the first model on which this motor bogie appears to have failed badly.

We don't, but I'd say the suspicion is that the VEP came out of one of the alternatives and this might explain a lot of the issues with it being a "first product" and a rather ambitious one at that.

You don't know the costs of the two companies involved (and to be clear I don't either). I suspect that Bachmann's manufacturer costs are lower than Hornby's due to the simple fact that they will probably get a preferential rate for certain aspects of production/tooling being owned by Kader. The whole point of owning your own manufacturing plant is to reduce your unit costs, and reduce dependency on external parties. Hornby are "merely" a client in relation to the factories they use.

Not so sure. Traction package won't need changing (314 203 runs with a DMSO that used to be part of 507 022) and I suspect that structurally the TSOs of the PEP derived units would be pretty much the same as the PTSOs coming off of the same jigs and all - so it would be a matter of adding the equipment. ...But probably dead right.

Remember that VAT is added at 20% to the base cost, so to deduct VAT at the current rate you subtract nearly 17% from the retail price (100/120 = 0.8333).

"All" you have to do is swap the TSOs with the PTSOs from 8 458's and then fit those out as designed - sorted!

It hasn't been in the catalogue for about 7 years however.

I'd certainly have thought that the 155 had "EXTREMELY HIGH RISK" written all over it and I think Charlie has vocalised concern over what are much lower risk suggestions based on what other manufacturers are likely to do. Hornby are 90% of the way there already, or 100% for the units that are about to get reformed out of the 153s. REALTRACK's drive mechanisim would doubtless be a lot nicer to have in the unit though.

More likely I would say is that Venator's is behaving as intended and would be one of the models for which the production process worked as it was meant to. If it was from an improved batch, then that would imply that Hornby had noted the issue, and had taken steps to rectify it without recalling the defective batch that was to go out on the same container ship to Europe, or acknowleding the problem. I'm much more prepared to believe that the QC process on the production line for the 4VEP has been shocking and that Hornby weren't aware of the magnitude of that problem until the product shipped to retailers and hence to customers.

It is looking rather good - may be very tempted by the N gauge version despite it breaking every rule I normally stick to (too modern, not nearby, not nearby where I grew up) apart from "It's my railway". I'll look dead good next to the 4CEP

That'll be one of the earlier production runs as they later upgraded the tooling to NEM coupling pockets. If it's one of the first production run without traction tyres then that would completely explain the deficency (I have one of those ones and it lives in fear of rice puddings in traction contests...).

I think i know what you mean here, but I suspect if Hornby had gone for pin point bearing pick up arrangement (a la Bachmann) then the problem would have solved itself with the wheels being retained by strips of brass. Do we have "shakes fist" smiley, 'cos I think I need one here to direct at Hornby with a "Damn you!" attached to it

Wasn't there one of the Stanier Corridor variants that Hornby haven't made? If Dapol still have those, I think they'd go great guns at around this price point.

It's a Western - if it's significantly better than what has gone before it will fly off the shelves. It's not like a £95 RRP is that dissimilar to the RRPs of the existing Farish range... 371-601A Class 42 Warship D827 'Kelly' BR Blue Full Yellow Ends £ 99.95 Was cut'n'paste directly from Farish's website...

This is a good catch - it appears that it's another quality control (rather than a design) issue amongst the others that have been reported. I think Hornby need to pay very close attention to the line these models are coming off of because this is doing them no favours at all.

The MK4 (I think?) bogies on the CEP are quite a bit chunkier than the B5 bogies so can hide a lot more behind them, especially with a shoebeam on the side of it. Unfortunately the shoebeam on the VEP is a lot more lightweight than the CEP so that fig leaf is probably going to be nowhere near enough.