frobisher

Replica's B5's would possibly be a better starting point.

Go for it I say A simple paragraph along the lines that the solid compartment walls were a disappointment but were apparently for production reasons, and then offer up a way to improve things should go down well (he said with obvious bias...).

Yup Just a thought, and probably in the realms of an "easy fix" for Hornby on the non window compartments issue. They're already doing a printing operation on that component to put the partition colour on it, so why not just mould the whole thing clear, and print the windows and colour the seats? New printing masks have to be cheaper than a retool/new tooling - okay would probably stick the price up a little, but certainly not to the extent that mucking about with the moulds would? They could then put the interior signage on the compartment windows...

The trailing bogies are also B5s, and I'd put good money that they shared CAD work with the non-shoefitted bogies. Someone dropped the ball here, no two ways about it though.

As I understand it, Dapol managed to scan several different potential models in the the same short time period, most of which didn't have good works drawings. It kind of made sense to do it that way. The 4VEP is not something that you should need to scan however as there are plenty of good drawings out there. The "problems" arose at the point the CAD was put together and at least one of them (the position of the gangway door) was clearly a tooling choice that had been made inadvisably and would have happened even if you'd scanned the beastie in all probability. It's unlikely that a full scan would have been done of all bogies - you would however do thorough scans of representative bogies which requires the feet on the ground to know that there may be an issue here. The handedness should have been picked up by checking reference photos though. Laser scanning isn't a magical panacea all by itself - just look at the steps Dapol are going through with their Western (including for corrections of errors put in by the CAD artists when interpreting the raw scan data...). The CAD they have is just as applicable to modification to produce a CIG as a scanned one would be in any case, and would require separate tooling so perhaps if they did they could sort out the issues at that point.

Except the 91/DVT and MK4s are not "spot on". Try and tell me that the valances attached to the bogies don't jump out and grab you by the throat? The 225 looks toylike. Yes, it has a profile that suits moulded detail like the Pendalino and the 395, but those two aren't anything like as heavily compromised and are produced to a much higher standard (even in the Railroad 395...) than the 225. Because laser scanning isn't cheap and is really only ncessary where you don't have good works drawings in the first place or a notoriously difficult prototype (Western...). At the end of the day you still need an experience CAD artist to interpret and refine the captured data. Oh, and the bogie issue would still have bit them on the bum (it's a common component throughout the train for which you'd not be making indivdual mouldings - the handedness has caught manufacturers out several times already).

So seem to be the 4VEP reviews...

What you're saying there is a little misleading. The Pendalino is not a 10 year old model, it's, what 3 years old at most. I'd argue that maybe it is a prototype that does not have the familiarity and following of the 4VEP and as such it might (and I'm not saying ot does) have defiecencies that are below the threshold of staring people in the face the way they do on the 4VEP. Do what? Apart from the fact the 225 is most definately not an EMU, this really isn't a valid comparison.

I though that the only coach with pickups was the MBS?

I think what it says is that the way the Chinese toolmakers did it is not the same as the way the Triang toolmakers did. At a very rough guess, the VEP tooling is more "jelly mould" like (to reduce visible mould lines on seats and the like) whereas the Triang tooling has two halves that meet either side of the partition. The solution probably should have been for the VEP part to be a multi part rather than a single part moulding.

I think you're possibly wrong on the point of attachment there - the coupling slot seems too small to allow anything near trainset curves to be traversed (24" minimum I'd have thought) so I suspect it's on a cam arrangement like th Hornby 50 et al.

That bit should actually be okay as the motor bogie won't be using the non-standard axles but rather what's under most Limby units - indeed those under the Class 73 should be a direct match. Having one of the original production batches of Limby 73, I'd not be in a rush tto remove the traction tyres from the VEP as my "Royal Alex" sometimes had issues getting itself around R2 corners let alone any tail load...

Not Quality Control but Quality Assurance. QC is about making sure things are as they should be during manufacture (and design is meant to have solid partitions) QA is about making sure things are as they should be during pre-production (QA should have raised the issue of the solid partitions - it may have of course been flagged as "acceptable").

There's also the very practical consideration that Hattons have to commision a certain number, which divided among the various livery varaiations gives you a limited edition almost by definition. These are the only ones that Hattons are commiting to doing after all. If they give the impression that they are an unlimited resource then there is a risk of sitting with more unsold stock. If you can sell the lot before even having manufactured one you're on to a winner

I'd say fairly unlikely - this has to be right at the top of the pile of very high risk projects for OO. Best of luck to Hattons and Heljan on this one, they are going to need it.

It's al to do with how compressed or otherwise the gangway connection is - if you look 3417's is a bit squiffy (being more ot at the top) and 1399's is actually very compressed. But that's the whole point of them, the are a "bit floaty" to have some give in them and provide a bit of articulation whilst staying flush withone another when coupled up It looks like the door doesn't float (dunno - just suposition...) hence the variation.

I'm presuming it's not the current USA Tour version? It's probably down to where assembly took place and what the parts were. For Tornado, I'd suspect that batch was made for each, everything assembled and boxed out in China and at best only the common parts between the three (valve gear, chassis etc) had a supply of spares made and shipped to the UK which would be needed for this and future production support. When Hornby were manufacturing and packing in Margate obtaining spares of almost anything would have been considerably easier. [edit: Just checked back - it was a Margate one... The spare you'd have got back wouldn't have necessarily been specific to the limited edition, and I suspect that Hornby could have previously been able to supply you with the painted body shell back then as well because the LE body shell wouldn't have been any different from a production Scotsman in lining out etc.]

If a 47/7 could, then a 55 could as both were "after sale" refits done by BR. It's just a matter of making sure the load is within limits there (and the indices of the 55 and 44/7 are both 66).

That's a rather literal interpretation and not actually the intention as I understand it which was meant to be the next (approximately) 18 months for arrival.

I'd think so - certainly the "New Build" steam projects would do well to liase with Hornby et al early on as there's a certain synergy to be exploited, and I'm pretty sure the A1 Trust were happy to have Bachmann onboard helping with fundraising/publicity efforts during construction. I'd put even money on a P2 coming from one or both of Hornby and Bachmann in OO once the project gains momentum.

Fair enough, the Farish V2 still predates it by a good few years though

First one in OO anyway - Farish did this with the V2 quite a while back.

I'd have thought that it's multiple working facilities would be at the very least quite similar. The major problem would be in the ETH provision, as the prototype power cars had convential ETH (as one scenario was to use the power cars on sleeper trains and the like at night...) and not that used by the production HST sets. The picture on the website has it attached to a loco-hauled MK3 if you look at the carriage number (11xxx range). The biggest issue in the short to medium term would be finding a spare HST power car to match up with 41001...

Certainly would be nice As I understand it, she's pretty much a standard ETH locomotive in many regards and probably wouldn't be expected to go over the ton in a preserved state. I wonder how big an effort it would be to refit her with TDM multiple working so that she could be used witha short rake of loco hauled MK3s and a MK3 DVT..?

That's the point though.- if she can't do the journey out of Great Britain by rail and has to use a boat, you might as well load her on a boat nearer to where she's starting in the UK as that's a whole bunch less route miles you need to negotiate/cost for on the network plust the other boat may land her somewhere more convenient than Calais for her onward journey on the continent..