The Black Hat

Personally I think this is a very strategic and sensible range from Hornby this year. The choices of models and the levels in the range point to a balanced range to cater for a lot of interest and where it is popular. Locomotion No. 1 surely must have been expected in the run into 2025 and after the success of Rocket. Better it should be here now, rather than Hornby's often repeated performance of arriving after the event. I do like that this ticks a box as a proper S&D engine, although I've often pushed for more NER/NE Region machines that came afterwards. As always, there are a few of the Hornby range that crop up soon after release. The P2 with deflectors was to have been done before and the A4 dublo range appears to be the predicted A4 retool is disguise. There are a number of other choices that tie in with releases - the L1 tanks are back and the various railroad items pitch the accuracy and price point to an area that serves that part of the market. Some of the full tooled items are shooting up in price - which is only to increase again next year. Still the choices should get the sales in. Mayflower should prove to be popular while the class 67 in Royal livery should be an instant hit. Yes theres a lot more diesel and electric in the range as Hornby seek to counter the new arrivals from competitors but the range still hits areas that should see them do well. Its a sign that such choices are whats needed, as steam overall looses its once dominant position. Of interest is the release of the GNER HST. It will be interesting to see what the spec of these is fully and if the stock is based on the Oxford Rail Mk.3 range that was supposed to have been designed with HST in mind. Also interesting will be if another HST brakes cover as I suspect it will... So - overall a decent range and one that those who bemoan its lack of some areas must forget that Hornby will have served them well to this point. A balance, a catch up and a chance to hit back on liveries in Hornby's range that are strengths.

There's still 5 Southern region models on the list of forthcoming items to be released and many others still available at the moment. Perhaps its just that the area has had loads in previous years or perhaps people that don't buy models for an area don't generate sales and so Hornby won't be producing any... I've heard that before somewhere...

Innovations is one thing that Richard has always been looking to push forwards. I have been very grateful for the time and support shown to be when we have had the chances to meet up and chat. The market right now is volatile, but Hattons with Richard have looked for ways to bring more people onboard or help spread the wealth of knowledge needed to take part the hobby. The Hattons directory is a treasure trove of information on the prototype but also the models that have followed. It will be a crying shame to loose it and the effort that has gone into it. I wonder if part of that could be lifted and hosted elsewhere - but soon we will also learn what a loss this truely is when we look in the mags and the ads are gone, we look for the price a good engine would be and the Hattons benchmark is gone. Really feel for the staff but know Richard will be doing what he thinks is right and proper for all and for that he has my deepest respect and lasting friendship.

Stunned that this has happened. Hattons has been a great company that has been able to serve the market brilliantly over the years. There surely has to be a lot more to it, but the wording and phrasing of the statement speaks for itself. Clearly there are trends identified and there has to have been a way that this decision has been reached. But thoughts to Richard and the team at the shop now. I hope they all manage the next chapter that comes and that things work out for all. Thanks to Hattons for all they have done for me.

Total rubbish. K1 was hanging around as Hornby flooded the market with the release. It then was followed straight away the next year with another batch, including some where the weathering looked as if it was thrown at the model. Hornby have a habit of following up a release that is announced at the start of the year, then comes towards the end with another batch soon arriving in the second year. Its happened time and time again with Castles, P2's, Q6, West Countries, HST, 67, 60 etc....

Cheers - thats a super way of explaining it. I was trying to do a rough rule of thumb but better to get it right.

The low emission variant has plenty of examples with the standard horn in use on the engine. The horn difference has a lot to do with where the engine was originally ordered for, rather than engine type or gearing for haulage.

Half of the reason for the name would be that it would be recognised as a racehorse for those wanting the new build. There was quite a few people thinking that the new build A1 Tornado should have been called Red Rum. I was thinking of that name too, but wanted to avoid Shergar for the sad end that horse faced in its life. Hence it was more a case of finding a famous racer that people would know as much as finding something that would have been as true to character as others. Tiger Roll was just a decent name and am sure raced elsewhere however, Im now leaning towards Frankel - which did race in the 2000 guineas and that did have other LNE engines named after winners.

Not all of them were named after racers at Doncaster. Other winners also were included. I think some from Newmarket and the Derby. As she is "new build" the idea was to name it after a more famous racehorse. So it opened up the options. The other possibility is Frankel - which never lost a race, but did race at Newmarket where other engines were named after winners.

Say hello to 60401 which will become "Tiger Roll". Will try to get some better pics as these were taken in the dark...

The business case for Duke of Gloucester just isn't there. Demand has been in part satisfied. You hit on the reasons why and give away the answer. Your concentrating on looks. The older A3 and A4 tooling look fine and are ok overall. They still stand up as a good model. But they don't have the functions that a digital will want and now has as standard. A model released now as a one part of the range needs to have digital and that includes sound options too. The A4 and A3 are well overdue a tooling and chassis that provides this and have been part of the Hornby stable for years. If they dont do it - someone else will. Hornby are doing the P2, based on the fact that the new build will be soon made for real and getting in on the action to make that. The 9F while a good move, needs to have the use made of it, but Bachmann still take a swipe of this market, especially when there's does have sound as part of the range - underlining my point that its needed. Despite all this, your still ignoring the price hikes, inflation that will soon bite and the fact that Hornby flooded the market with them already (when it comes to the Dukes). So as much as you think the demand is there, theres more factors undermining it and more in favour of A3 or A4. It really is that simple.

At it again....

Sorry but I cant see how a full-fat Duke of Gloucester would be a good idea at all. Hornby churned out the model with so many variations of the same one that they will have stopped this idea in its tracks. The model is of a prototype, so most people will only want one. A lot of people now already have 1 and wont need another. With such price increases yet to feed into the Model train market - inflation busting increases will soon see people happy to keep the model that they have. So that diminishes the potential of the model to generate sales. Same with the Crosti-9F - why go for that when you want to do it as a suite that does the whole class and now Bachmann have updated the 9F... why run the risk of competition of sales. Far better to go for engines that need DCC upgrades before the competition does it. Hence A3, A4... Or better still find engines not yet done. Outside, left of field choice? As Hornby are ticking off industrials - how about the Bagnall trio - Valiant, Victor, Vulcan...

Personally I think Hornby would be stupid not to be doing a new A3 or A4. Even both. The current ones are ok, but need the DCC systems that are now standard installing, such as sound and possibly some lights. The previous ones don't have this as fitted and versions of Dublo versions was just a daft vanity project when you need a standard model to be made and get the volume and repeat sales in. Others for Hornby in the post Simon world - HST and stock retooled and done, 8F, Class 165/166, Class 86...

Mine have become; 71001 Duke of Wellington (BR Black) 71002 Duke of York (BR Passenger Blue) 71003 Duke of Richmond (Darlington Green in BR Style)

I've been saying for years Aerolite should be done...

Express livery for me...

Tangmere?

Sign me up...

I bet Warley has a familiar ring to it: Are you doing them in GBRf? When are you releaseing them in GBRf? Can you do 50014 in GBRf? Will they come as a pair in GBRf? Why aren't they already here in GBRf?

I did say a few pages ago about an A4... There are a few early super detail engines that are now coming round to needing to be retooled. Naturally the popular choices then that were done first have now become the ones that people want upgraded to digital. So A4 comes round again, although there are still some others like B16 that could be done.

B16? A4? 8F? I actually am thinking - A3...

Thanks guys for the information. I was thinking about placing two signals into the section for the line going to the branch but think I will be sticking with the original idea of just signalling before the branch point facing the station and junction - and then use the signals in the station. That way I can signal everything and still have things more or less right. It means a large block section for using the branch but this can add some movements onto the layout while mean that nothing it sitting in areas further away from where some operators will be. The knowledge and discussions have been really useful. I will be sure to include it in the Briganton layout thread.

Would there be a need for a signal protecting the point for the branch heading off the layout? I am wondering as this could block the route off the layout depending on how big the next section would be off scene. Otherwise the train would be detected past the signal at the junction facing the station and occupying that section, so allow the section between the station and the branch junction to show as clear.

Hello all, Having read the discussion I am now sure that this will be a permissive working situation - all under the control of the one box on the layout at the other end of the station. To help explain ideas the photos requested are being shown below: The station is off to the top right of the photograph. This shows the lines on approach. Going south (Up) is to the right here and into the station. The Up line has one line through the platform and a centre road through the station. The down line to the right just has one line through the platform and then comes round the corner. All lines here have access to each other given the track layout. Three signals shown top right all protect the junction and the start of this signalling section. To access the branch its proposed that the UP line, seen where the coach is, will be bi-directional. This photo shows the north station junction area before then going on around towards the town scene and off to the 'north'. 'Eleventh Earl of Mar' is shown facing towards the branch on what some might think is the wrong line - but it shouldn't be. The whole purpose of this track layout is to show a feel for the fact that the track has been rationalised. This photo shows the next board where the track will start to go past the town scene. The point shown here is purely for illustration purposes. It will have to be about half way down the next board but this then makes it possible for a section to be installed. I was thinking that it would have a signal for the junction point facing the station - and other on the up at the station junction near where the P2 is. But given the distance I am tempted to leave it as one larger section and given operators could be more on the other side of the layout it means theres less likely a chances of stock standing there and getting lifted.... Still, to complete the exercise it would be helpful to get advice on this given I now think its a signalled permissive working issue.