Ceptic

Venator, What's the slowest speed that your unit will traverse a crossover ?. At anything approaching a scale speed, mine will stall. That's if l can get it to run smoothly at anything like a slowish, scale speed !! If l up the speed, mine has the tendancy to de-rail, not always tho'. Cheers.

Many Thanks S.A.C. Martin, and Others, for your support / observations / input, into this topic Going back to the original observations that, possibly, kicked Hornby's VEP into touch, here's some comparitive photos showing MJT's front end, up against Hornby's. Both have their faults . Hornby's width. MJT's... Note that it represents three flat panels. Not a continuous curve, as it should be. A close-up. To match Hornby's detail, this would need a lot of work. Hornby's gangway / corridor connection. Note the sides' distortion. MJT's. Much nearer the mark, although the headcode window is larger than Hornby's. A vertical comparison. And a horizontal one. Taking into account all the other drawbacks / faults found with this model, l can only recommend a complete rebuild, using only the vehicles' sides.(cab-side windows excepted) and underframes . The thing is, where. do l, or anyone else, looking for a fair representative. start ??

Which begs the question, 'Are Hornby listening ?' How many times did Bachmann Europe go back to the drawing board / toolroom ?, after many observational comments / complaints, before they were perceived, by the majority of their Cl.37 customers, to have got the thing right. Was it two or three times?. l would imagine this improvement boosted the sales of said model considerably. Somehow, l don't see Hornby doing this. From a personal point of view, their company motto is coming across as 'Etiam vel massa id' : translates to 'Like it or lump it'. P.S. l rather like being mistaken for a professional, quite a compliment. But did Venator really think that l got paid for posting on here ???

Present day Hornby could have, at least, taken a leaf out of the Hornby Dublo's motor bogie set-up. Mine will still haul itself, and eleven, or more, other coaches, quite happily, without all these current issues afflicting the VEP. l always use this as a comparison with latter day performances. (Mind you, it does use traction tyres)

A very well worded letter Martin. . How do you propose to send it ?. l fear an e-mail will be simply tossed onto the back burner, or into the bin. I'm on the point of writing a second letter of complaint. This time sent by Royal Mail, Recorded delivery, addressed FAO Simon Kohler. l hope you won't mind if l include some of the criticisms raised by you, and other contributers, including a re-inforcement of my own... Regards

The Hornby promo video is here on youtube. The opening stills show the ad, which appeared in the various modelling mags. There was a further / later ad,, which I have in front of me, showing two NSE driving ends side by side. This time without the 'Black cap', but still with Black gangways and window outlines. The Red cant-rail is also shown. Regards.

As pointed out in the Southern Electric Group's review, li's the width of Hornby's corridor / gangway connection that mucks up the whole frontal appearance (face). lt should be, being a "Pullman" type gangway connection, approx.16mm. (a scale 4') wide... (measure those of the Maunsells and Pullmans). Those on Hornby's VEP are 14.5 mm. (3'-7 1/2") wide. Added to this, are the undersized cab windows and cable recesses, which, in my view, are totally out of proportion. l just hope, that some Hornby employee has taken time out to read, at least some of these posts, and reported back that..'All is not well, within the camp' Regards.

No need to apologise for anything, at all, S.A.C Martin... Many thanks for keeping us posted. As Bill notes, in post # 691, very rarely, do you get an apology from the manufacturer. l e-mailed Hornby's Customer Care some 13 days ago, stating my complaint, and my adverse review of their 4-VEP, linking it to the Southern Electric Group's independent review,... and to this RMweb thread. A couple of days later, 26/9, l received the standard response (no apology included)*. Eleven days ago, 28/9, l received a further e-mail from Hornby, which reads, quote "Thank you for your e-mail and your links, l shall (not will)* be passing your comments onto the development team. Kind regards, Matt Jordan, Customer Care." (still with no apology)* *My bracketed comment. During this time, my all Blue 4-VEP has deteriorated somewhat. When first out of the box, the smooth running, at normal speeds over 4'-6" rad. curves and straights, was pretty good. At low speed it was noisy, tho' not as much as paulin's, and still is, reluctant to crossover a large (Peco) radius crossover, without stalling, or de-railing, at a higher speed. The most recent trial, is to ask it to climb a 1 in 50 gradient. lt accompilished this in the earliest out of the box attempts, but not in the last day, or so. Regrettably. lve no video facilities to film, or confirm, that this Hornby product is 'Not fit for purpose' l'm still awaiting a satisfying answer, (and, maybe ?, an apology) Regards.

The trackside, raised wooden trunking was another feature of SR/BR(S) 3rd. rail electrification, up to, about, 10 years ago, until being gradually replaced by the concrete troughing. (There was a stretch of this still in place, between Farlington and Bedhampton, as recently as 6 years ago) Although not seen, very often, in model form, an excellent example of this, is seen modelled here, on Peter Goss's superb 4mm. /1ft. 'Rowlands Castle'. http://www.freewebs.com/rowlandscastlemodelrailway/apps/photos/photo?photoid=25190438 Maybe The Scalefour Society, Peco, Ratio or Wills, might be tempted to add this to their list to do's ?, now that interest in 3rd. rail modelling is gaining ground. Regards.

l've just given the Heljan 33/1's wheels a going over with the vernier. The tread dia. reads 14.4mm. (a scale 3'-7"+) to 14.8mm. at the apex to the flange. The R.S.Carter / MRC Planbook states that the prototype dia. is 3'-7", so, Heljan are, more or less, right on the button. The Cl.73 ED, the Cl.430 / 4-REP, and the Cl.423 / 4-VEP, used the same (basic) design motor bogie, all using 3'-4" dia. wheels (AFAIK) The Hornby VEP's motor bogie wheels, mid tread, measure 13.4mm. (a scale 3'-4"+), so, by replacing the driving wheels with Heljan's 33's, you might gain a little height, at the expense of a slight inaccuracy / higher gearing. Regards, Rivet Counters PLC.

l wouldn't give up on Hornby, altogether. As others have said, lt does take them a little time to tweak, decades in some cases. The major re-working of Stanier pacifics, Cl. 5, A4, A3, Castle, Schools, the N15 (what a beauty), the tender variations, motors in locos, etc.,.. spring to mind. Even the MN has had some minor work done. (l do wish they'd improve the shape of that firebox and the tenders' tumblehome, though. The BoB's and WC's tenders' being 'spot on'). With such a large range of products to keep their eye on, Hornby drop themselves, and the ball, 'in it',... from time to time. Maybe the guys doing the measuring / scanning, QC, QA, FI, etc,,..are the same fellas who worked on the Gresley corridors ?. Maybe, they should have gone to 'Specsavers' ?. Or, maybe, the VEP was another mundane Friday afternoon 'Rush job' ?. lf everything in life were perfect,..Wouldn't life be....well... boring ?. Here's to another ten years. Cheers

May l also add my thanks, Red Fox, for your link to the Southern Electric Group's review, and for your lastest set of photos, S.A.C Martin, showing the bogie anomalies. Going back to the initial, first impression of 'the VEP's face', expressed by myself, and other members, both here, and on the Hornby site. The SEG's review concludes with comparitive, front end, pictures of a prototype 4-VEP, against that of Hornby's version. What aren't included, are comparitive measurements. Back in the 80's, l took some measurements of the 2nd generation BR(S) EMUs.. (To assist an 'O' Guage kit producer). l'm reluctant to say this, but, Hornby's front end measurements / laser scans, or whatever they used ?, are nowhere near, and have resulted in what we see here. Regards.

Ah Hharrr !....Did l catch yerr,... a little unawharres, like ?...This a'bein' me las' port a' call...like,.. afore me, and me hearties set sail fer sunnierr climes.,.. lt be beyond o' thee equaterrr,... an',.. if luck, an'a fair wind be with us.. the edge o' t' wurrrlld. At four bells last, on our voyage South, we's looked in on them, a'keepin' theees' faith at them buck'neers' outpost of Poole. See sum o' them rascals yurrre...if l know 'em better, them that be villains, are a keepin' therre mushes well 'id http://www.piratesof...ory/History.htm Now.. it bein' a second sober day, a Tuesday, as l recall,.. there happen' to be 'nother bunch of renegades, this time, saddle bound,.. a crowdin' roun' therre shiney steeds, upon the water's edge... "Well,... well l never, what awesome beasts to behold ?" (l muttered, to meself, into me facial growth). Ag'in,..seee theese motlee crew yurr. Roun'n'roun, in cirrrculs... gettin' sumplace, ..or,..nowurrr ?...Well, tha's how them seeemed to me a'buzzzin' 'ed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrSzOj9tJlI With no apologies at all, to either Robert Louis Stevenson, or Robert Newton, for starting the whole thing off. Leggo fo'ard, leggo aft

An observation (not an experiment) Comparing the trailer cars' free-wheeling abilities, with those of the Bachmann CEP, even on a 1% gradient, the CEP trailers just 'ran away', leaving the VEP's stuck. The latest (lit) Hornby Pullmans did do better, but their Maunsells were as good as the Bachmann CEP trailers.

Rrrite, gatherr roun' ye scurrvee dogs, an' keep a watch on yon magic lanterrn. Take heed, an' you mite jus' learrn sump'in. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jzrjTkpYmw&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_PSfxJqVkg&feature=related An' rreememberr, tis overboarrrd for them that hides therrre eyes., lest they be guilty of a little nerrvous disposition.

"Whurr's yer buccaneeers, Laarng Jaarn ?" "Each side o' me buccin' ed,.. an less o' yer lip"

l've dug out this '80's photo, showing the differing, maybe somewhat faded ?, colours of the two NSE liveries. Note how bulbous the vents are on the VEP (nearest), unlike Hornby's 'Split peas on a drum'. Bye the way, the model's motor coach's wheel treads pan out at 13.3mm. tapering to 13.5mm. at the apex with the flange, So, again, some things are ok, others are ?....well...hmmmm ?. Regards.

Thanks for the link KJ. l had seen ihe ad, earlier in the thread, but it seems to show the cab front with an angular bow, i.e., with three flat panels. That's what led to me asking, lf so, they'll need some filing, to round the angles off. l'll order a pair anyway, and see what i can do, coupled with some Replica glazing. Cheers, CF.

Many thanks Jon. Might just send away for a pair. Cheers.

Great modelling Kitbury Jon l have to admit, the MJT unit looks the best of three, including the lifting (sunshine ?) roof. Can you tell me, though ? Are the MJT front ends cast with three,vertical, flat panels, Aka CEP ?, or, do they feature a continuous curve, with a flat in the area of the gangway connection ?. Cheers

Or even Hornby, as a whole.

l'm left wondering if Hornby have fired their entire QC team ?, or, even if they had one, in the first place ?

lt's just occuured to me, and l would like to add, that, wheel tread diameters need to be looked at. as do the official ref. specs.. Both model Motor Coaches, and Trailers, as did the prototypes, are equipped wtih different bogie types, each with differing wheel diameters. What a nightmare...Even for the R.T.R 'Big Boys' Hopefully, l'll get back to you on this. Unless, some one has the info. to hand Regards.

Right,...I must admit to being diverted onto other things, the last couple of days. After all, it was me Mum's 93rd. Birthday yesterday...Pheeww..What a Rave-up...l'm glad for the sit down. l have looked in on this thread regularly, and the post #342 by Brian Kirby is of interest. Granted, there is lens distortion of my photos, (done in a hurry, with no correction) which gives the impression of them being taken on a curved track. l can assure you, the track was straight, and level. What really stands out, when comparing these models, is the difference in body heights. According to my calculations, the prototype height dimensions of the Mk.1 body, works out as :- 6' - 4.5" from the body base, to the top of the gutter. Whiich in 4mm. scale, equals 25.5mm. The height to the top of the roof, from the base is 8' - 4" on the real thing. On the model, it should be 33.3mm. Now,..This may come as a bit of a surprise to some of you, as it did to me. l've just given the VEP, CEP and EPB another quick going over with the vernier. What l discovered was that the VEP's height, from the body-side base. at sole-bar level, to the top of the roof's gutter, is approximately correct, at 25.3mm. Whereas, the same measurement taken from the EPB and CEP averages out at 26. 5mm.!!, as these pics. show. 4-VEP 4-CEP 2-EPB All l need now, is two extra, shake-free, pairs of hands, to measure and photograph the cab windows. Regards.

A Bump and an appeal. As you can see there are still quite a few areas on the layout where the Group are short of historical details. There is an on-going search of the Dorset County Council's Archives, but as some of us can recall, the County's borders were changed during 1974. Prior to this, Bournemouth was a Hampshire town. So the search may have to be extended, hence this appeal for any extra info. Particularly, related to these buildings outlined in Red. Cheers and Thanks. Ceptic. Acting for Edited with thanks to themajorsbatman's fresh information, post # 33.