Trevellan

Very atmospheric! The hamster in the 170 was clearly enjoying itself .

The VEP actually looks quite good with the CEP. Good grief, what am I saying?

I had a quick chat to Emma Brett, but only about the excellent Gresley suburbans (apparently due before Christmas) and the full brake. I think it would have been slightly churlish to start a debate about the VEP in such a busy environment, with others trying to view the stand.

I know this is important to a lot of people, but I'd prefer to see the matter dealt with through the current correspondence and perhaps an annoucement through the modelling press.

...this now tiresomely repetitive thread...

I've been thinking much the same over the last few days. Solutions, fixes etc, yes - really helpful, but not these circular arguments from different camps.

Morning all. A slightly earlier start today as I have a few things to do before heading over to Wycombe. Really looking forward to the show - if not the journey - and hope to meet several of you there later. Have a good day everyone, especially those at various exhibitions around the country.

Kenton makes a fair point. For several years now I have been a judge for one of the major national transport awards and the variation in marking by individual judges on each panel can be quite pronounced at times. However, this occurs consistently and therefore evens itself out.

I've voted this morning and have tried to be as objective as possible, reflecting the fact that people have clearly put a lot of effort into this, even if I'm not that keen on the subject matter. Well done to all those who took the trouble to enter.

If there's a category for most persistent offender entrant, there's no question as to who that should be .

I am wondering at what point I should chase up a response to my letter. Tomorrow will be three weeks since they were sent first class recorded post to their respective locations; they must have arrived by now, surely?

 

I only asked for receipt of the letter and a "we're looking into it", after all.

28 days would seem a reasonable limit. Any commercial organisation worth its PR salt should respond within that time.

 

Wonder if we're going to have a re-run of the BWT expired credit card challenge.

If the model is delayed your suggestion could become an Olympic event.

I pre-ordered one from Hattons and it is....yes, D6332, described as green, SYP and split headcode. Of all the ones I had to pick...

Interesting to see this developing Gordon. I think your baseboards should have been on the Turner Prize shortlist this year, especially the late lamented traverser (I'm still having counselling for this loss ). Functional and aesthetically pleasing - a true work of art!

The gable ends look unusual to my eyes. Almost like breeze blocks instead of matchboarding.

So, concentrating on the running of the 4VEP, if Hornby had used a different type of connector, set a bit higher, point to point bearing bogies should have been perfectly possible (and it is on the Bachmann 4CEP, though I recall there's some debate over the couplings on that model too?)

Crikey, you'll be up for an OBE the way you're going .

I found two issues of contention with the Bachmann CEP coupling. First, even the shorter of the two versions is too long for my purposes (tested on 2nd radius sectional track - bags of clearance). I'm therefore considering the Nigel Burkin mod, i.e. fit Kadees and lose the interior lighting. The second is that the unit really needs to be laid on its side for coupling and uncoupling. Not an ideal situation, but these issues are, for me, far less worrisome than those found on the VEP and which you have so meticulously documented.

I've had the same e-mail Rod. I am assuming that Amazon's use of "cancelled" could mean the publisher has deferred plans for the foreseeable future. However, I have no intention of starting a frothfest on here!

There's a letter in this month's Hornby mag urging all you 4-VEP fans to stop picking fault with the model - in case it puts Hornby off from doing other EMUs such as a 4-CIG etc

 

That's fine. I'd like Bachmann to produce the 4CIG, TC etc.

BBs might be one answer, but from what I've read here the trailer bogies are part of the problem too.

You might need a few more locos to fill up a large depot space Dave .

Nice work Dave. I have family in March so I know the two boxes there quite well. However, I'm not sure about Saxmundham and that lean-to extension...

The comment about the Lanc looking 'dated' next to a Fort is possibly down to to the finish?

No, for me it's the look of the aircraft. The B17's fuselage, wing form and tailplane still look relatively modern to my eyes, the giveaway being the piston radials. The Lanc's fuselage and tailplane just look more dated to me, but they did their job and that's what counts.

My late Father was in a Squadron of Lancasters (115?) that had rotary engines - anyone post a photo of one?

 

Not all Lancs had Merlins.

Well I never Pete. I've learned something today. I assumed all Lancs had the Rolls Royce engines, but according to Wikipedia (usual disclaimers) 300 were built with Bristol Hercules engines due to a shortage of Merlins.

Mind you, I doubt that they would have sounded as good as four Merlins at take-off power!

Edit: Damn I got beat due to treacle in the wires...

Terrific stuff. The B17 air-to-air stuff is excellent. I've always found it hard to believe that these were contemporaries of the Lancaster as the latter looked very dated in comparison. Makes me wonder what a B17 would have been like with four Merlins.

A 4-VEP I feel was a poor choice of subject, it appeared in less liveries - loathed by passengers thanks to its hard benchlike seating, cold & draughty. (Brrr)

I disagree Gary. On that score I believe Hornby got it absolutely right. The sheer ubiquity of the VEPs make them suitable for almost any SR layout from 1967 to 2004. In terms of liveries I think of at least five and there are opportunities to issue different number variations and weathered options. It could have become a solid core product for Hornby for many years. I only hope that it's Bachmann who will eventually produce HAPs, CIGs and TCs to the standard of their CEPs and EPBs.

As to the real-life customer dimension, I found the VEPs, CEPs and CIGs to be as comfortable as their Mk3-based counterparts and in their final years I actively sought them out if there was a choice. Still, each to their own!

The Mk3s look really nice Dave. You must be a real whizz now with this laser-cut glazing!

In terms of couplings, I have an article by Nigel Burkin on replacing the large and ugly tension locks on Mk3s with Kadees. Even if you don't like them for "fleet" use, they might be a good solution for you as an inter-vehicle coupling and you can always cut the "tail" off.

Having been procrastinating on this ever since the first ones appeared I have finally decided to cancel my orders. Yes, the model captures the essence of the prototype but there is simply too much remedial work to do on a model of that price. Sorry Hornby, I'd love to support you on this one but you're asking too much of me.

What was the difference between a VEP and a CIG anyway?

Sacrilege! Heresy!

As others will no doubt point out, the VEPs had high density seating and doors to virtually every bay, whereas the lovely CIGs were effectively Mk1 SOs etc in an EMU.

In terms of the debate around price and quality of the Hornby model, I don't recall seeing any comparisons with products such as those produced by Bratchell Models. Having seen the latter in the flesh at Ally Pally last year I was quite impressed with the finished products on display, but they carry a hefty price tag (obviously due to numbers produced) and, as pretty as they were, there seemed to be something not quite right about them either. Or is it just me?

im so tempted to make my train announcements in a pirate voice now!!

And make fare dodgers walk the plank? Or better still keel-haul them...

Thanks chaps. Decisions, decisions...