Rhydgaled

7 hours ago, The Johnster said:

TTBOMK the only accurate 4mm RTR cattle van is the Hornby Southern Railway model.

1 hour ago, RCP said:

Looks like I’m waiting for a coopercraft kit to come back into production and/or rapido to take up the challenge.

I don't think Johnster was saying anything about kits (see the bold I've added above) so there may be other accurate options if you are also interested in kits. For example, I think Peco/Ratio/Parkside have some 4mm scale cattle wagon kits, though not sure on accuracy or whether they offer a GWR one (other than the larger 'Beetle' type for prize cattle).

On 23/04/2024 at 09:10, TyBryn said:

Because of ventilation concerns in my small modelling room, I would prefer to use acrylic paint in my airbrush. 

I am new to all of this

I'm (still) new to respraying models, years after stripping the paint off my first loco body shell (if I recall correctly a combination of IPA (which worked wonders on the decals but wouldn't shift the paint) and Phoenix Superstrip (not really much better but somehow I did get rid of the paint eventually, but I'm not sure if the body may be slightly warped now)). Grey primer applied outdoors using a rattle can, and that has how the bodyshell has stayed because the colours for the top coat only seem to be available in enamel with warnings about lead-based paint on the side of the tin. By the way this is a Hornby Railroad HST powercar (was in BR blue & grey and target livery is GWT green and ivory).

On 23/04/2024 at 12:34, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

Start with the cheapest bodyshell (or two)  you can find  typical of  classes you want to repaint from whatever are your target brands, and practice until confident of your technique delivering a result you like.

Since I'm stalled on the HST, I've been trying to practice airbrushing on a Peco/Parkside wagon kit and the interior moulding from some cheap pre-owned coaches. Having some trouble with the airbrush (probably just down to my inexperience) on these so probably a good thing I've not been able to try the HST powercar.

On 17/08/2023 at 09:06, NHY 581 said:

I agree.

 

I'm interested in a few examples of both Class 11 and Class 12 but I'm not commiting to any until I know they run well and have been assembled properly, something which has proved tricky for Heljan to accomplish with the PWMs. 

 

Rob. 

So, have the running issues with the PWMs been repeated with the class 11s; or are these latest models good, reliable, runners?

On 09/04/2024 at 19:51, TrainsRule88 said:

We haven’t seen any more Bachman class 150 DMU’s in new liveries in a while now. I suspect that this is because they have only tooled the interior for the 3+2 seating which means they are limited as to what units they can produce. 
 

Perhaps it’s time for a tooling upgrade for this model. I don’t think it needs a complete new retool from the ground up, just a few tweaks to bring it up to the standard of the new class 158. For example they could tool up a new interior for the 2+2 seating that is most common on these units today and perhaps a new low-profile motor like the class 158 has. This will enable an improved interior and lighting features. 
 

150 DMU’s I have used and traveled on all of my life. They are the main units that operate around me so would like to see more liveries produced. 
 

Perhaps the following liveries:

 

Transport for Wales

 

Wessex Trains Maroon with local decals

 

GWR green 3 car 150/1

 

I think those are the main missing ones. Feel free to add any others I have missed. 

I think they only have done one run (just a single running number) of the later Regional Railways livery too, and that used the original tooling with all the windows in one car blacked out to hide the motor. Would like to see one with a retooled chassis to hide the motor under the floor, allowing a full interior in both cars and all the windows to be clear glazing, but fear it should have been done a good few years ago - a retooling now is likely to be unaffordable.

10 hours ago, TrainsRule88 said:

My personal favourite are the Wessex trains colours. 
 

If I recall, they had 4 different colours. One black in Devon & Cornwall railways, one red in the heart of Wessex line, one blue in the st Ives bay line, and an orange one but can’t remember what that one was promoting. I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong.

The orange ones had Heart Of Wales line branding. I'm not 100% sure but I think the red, black and orange units actually existed before Wessex Trains (ie. those are 'Wales & West' liveries rather than 'Wessex Trains') although I've never actually seen either TOC name actually written on the units. The only TOC logo I can remember noticing on any of them is the Arriva one that ATW put on the orange units they inherited.

Again I'm not sure, but I think there were only two of the blue units (one with St Ives Bay branding as you say, but the other branded 'Looe Valley Explorer') and these were actually done by Wessex Trains.

On 08/03/2024 at 21:05, XChris said:

unfortunately we don’t have any 125+mph capable locos, probably because we don’t make Co-Co locos anymore.

Err; Britain has quite a few 125mph capable locos actually (although none which are available for starting a new long-term operation) and only one of them (89001) is Co-Co. The 91s and 43s are of course Bo-Bo machines.

Not sure if this is a recent update or has been there for a while but Hornby now seem to have photos of actual models (rather than just side-on Photoshop graphics) on their website for both the EWS 'business train' train pack (with 67) and coach pack. Can those who are familiar with these things please let me know whether the coaches are the ones with fictional solebars (mark 2e?) or the more-accurate models (mark 2d/2f?)?

16 hours ago, JDW said:

All of the wheels on the samples in Andy's pics look like the chunky and not-so-nice-looking power bogie type, rather than different ones for the trailing wheels.

Chunky they may be but only the coach with the motor has short axles. The two unpowered coaches have longer axles with a point at the end which pokes into the bogie frame almost like on a normal Hornby coach. I say almost because on the Railroad Plus 110 the bogie frame actually has a slot in it so there is less/no need to push the bogie frames out sideways to remove the axle (can't remember the exact arrangement). I think all the wheels are metal though on all three coaches (the one I have is the green 3-car set) and they tend to derail in the same place on my temporary layout that the old Hornby Collett bow-enders (the ones that are now in the Railroad range though mine are all pre-Railroad) did when fitted with new Hornby metal wheels (but the older plastic wheels on those coaches seem fine so I suspect it is the track at fault).

16 hours ago, JDW said:

 

The motor on mine made an odd noise occasionally when running it on the track, but only in one direction. I later tried to get the body off to see if the motor needed some lubricant but couldn't get it off and couldn't reproduce the noise on my workbench so have given up for now.

14 hours ago, PeterStiles said:

From what I read, all "plus" means is they paint it in more colours, normal Railroad products having a limit of, I think I read, three colours...

Isn't there something about printing details as well? Eg. no data panels, electrification warning flashes etc. on a Railroad model (and the Railroad version of Flying Scotsman in LNER green which looked very wrong to me with the lettering done in one colour without the signature drop shadows etc.). My Railroad Plus 110 has electrification warning flashes, C1 painted on the inner end of vehicles, no smoking and first stickers on the glazing etc. Don't Railroad coaches normally also have plastic wheels? Pretty sure my 110 has metal ones throughout.

21 hours ago, frobisher said:

I suspect the biggest improvement would be in the number of pickups (the original will have the one rail on one bogie and the other rail on the other setup of Hornby's whereas the new one will have all wheel pick up (including from the traction tyred wheels))

Only the motor car has pickups of course, since the trailers are only coupled with a tension lock. But yes, all eight wheels on the motor car seem to have pickups even though two of those wheels have traction tyres.

11 hours ago, nickb4141 said:

Because you could only be ‘not interested’ if you actually saw the ‘expressions of interest’ in the first place! Revolution seem to have a very low profile compared to for example, Accurascale. At the end of the day, all manufacturers are selling their products to the same 00 gauge market, but I can’t imagine Accurascale only offering 2 liveries on an 00 DMU (if they ever produce one,) and Dapol are able to offer 7 liveries on an arguably more restricted EMU prototype, than the 175 and 180 DMU’s? So why is the 00 market so different to Revolution’s eyes? 

I've just dug up the original announcement of the order book opening for the 4mm models (https://revolutiontrains.com/class-175-and-180-in-oo-4mm-available-to-pre-order-now/) to confirm my recollection and I think I was right. Ie. they didn't have an EOI For 2mm but sales of the FNW livery weren't as good as expected so they thought they would check interest in OO with an EOI before committing to production.

18 hours ago, Oldddudders said:

Not really. All over the railway network, the increase in vehicle length from 20 m to 23m required considerable examination and often expensive remedial works to enable their use.  Increased end-throw and side-throw within the kinematic envelope was a significant consideration before any route could be cleared.. 

If I recall correctly the class 166 and 165 units also have slightly wider bodies than most other 23m vehicles. Something to do with the Thames valley routes BR built them for having a slightly more generous loading gauge (ex-broad gauge perhaps?)

On 10/12/2023 at 14:26, WCML100 said:

Bachmann have done that livery on their 47 and I think if the accura release or 37609 is anything to go by I am pretty sure they have the skills to do it!

Hornby have done a ROG Railroad plus 47 in a similar livery also (R30046, loco number 47 812) as well as the Wales & West / Wessex Devon & Cornwall class 153 (with a colour photo on the side) the Model Rail exclusive Battle Of Britain 91 110 (sadly this was the old tooling and they have apparently botched the livery on the new tool versions of 91 110 and 91 111). The only one of those models I've seen in the flesh is the 153 (I own one and think the livery application is great) - I was considering 47 812 but decided to get a Dapol DRS class 68 body instead which has a similarly complex livery.

On 19/03/2023 at 17:54, The Johnster said:

Airfix A30 

 

Bachmann A38

Are these DEFINITELY the diagrams represented by the relevant models; because I think I have seen the Bachmann one referred to with two diagram numbers separated by a slash (eg. A38/A43 although I cannot remember the exact numbers given) before now and the Hornby/Airfix one I think I've seen variously described as an A30, A27 and A28? With the Hornby one, is it the case that the model is of one of those types but the low-fi nature of the model (lack of flush glazing) makes it look similar to a different diagram?

On 14/04/2023 at 21:22, Hal Nail said:

This is off Dapols website:

 

Proposed Liveries

4P-004-001   -   Autocoach GWR 37 Lined Crimson Lake 

4P-004-002   -   Autocoach GWR 40 Lined Chocolate & Cream 

4P-004-003   -   Autocoach GWR Twin Cities Crest 41 Chocolate & Cream 

4P-004-004   -   Autocoach GWR Shirt Button 39 Chocolate & Cream 

4P-004-005   -   Autocoach BR W37W Carmine & Cream 

4P-004-006   -   Autocaoch BR W36 Crimson 

4P-004-007   -   Autocoach BR W38 Maroon   

 

Same terminology used for the existing 7mm ones so you can see what they look like.

If I understand correctly, none of the above releases feature the late 1940s GREAT <> WESTERN chocolate & cream livery. Is this something that is likely to appear in future runs or did the diagram N trailers never carry this livery?

On 29/11/2023 at 09:00, rovex said:

Yup, defo traction tyres

Ah yes, I stand corrected. It's hard to see with the wheels being somewhat blackened, but I see it now - the tyre does indeed seem to be there.

On 29/11/2023 at 20:49, The Johnster said:

Traction tyres, on a 21st century tooling, unbelievable!  I don't know how many toolings this chassis has been through, but at least two this century, yet the satanic expectorant remains.

Has it actually been retooled twice this century? I described this model as Hornby's latest 14xx, but have no idea whether this is a modified tooling compared to their last run or whether it is simply another production run - possibly in a livery they haven't done so far since the tooling was last tweaked. I think the description says the couplings are in "non-NEM pockets" - since things like the Limby HST have had NEM pockets added when Hornby have tweaked the tooling recently it sounds like the 14xx hasn't even had a minor tooling update for a while. I'm not bothered by things like moulded handrails - I prefer not paying more for something more fragile that I'm more likely to break - so am quite partial to the better Railroad models (like the Limby HST) but I do want reliable running. Traction tyres on an 0-4-2 sounds like a recipe for poor running, so I'm out as far as the Hornby 14xx is concerned. Shame as the closest thing I have to a loco which was auto-fitted in reality is probably my Bachmann 45xx (number 4557, so not part of the 4575 subclass that contained a few auto-fitted examples, but was there any difference beyond the larger water tanks?)

On 28/11/2023 at 02:48, Dunsignalling said:

I have a 14xx from Dapol days, from which the current Hornby one is descended. It was Dapol who added wiper pickups and a smaller motor that doesn't fill the cab. Hornby may use a different motor, but I don't think they changed anything else.

 

It came with a ludicrously strong spring on the trailing wheelset which made it look like a drag race "Funny Car" and made for slightly odd, but not drastically horrible, running. Rather than mess about trying to lower it, I taped coins to the back of the loco until it sat right. That sorted out the running too, so I weighed the coins and stuffed the bunker with the equivalent in lead flashing. I also substituted the traction-tyred wheelset with the plain pair from the dead Airfix one it replaced.

Hornby now have photos of their latest 14xx on the website https://uk.Hornby.com/products/railroad-plus-gwr-14xx-0-4-2-1401-era-3-r30319 - I'm not sure but as far as I can tell there are no traction tyres so that's another thing Hornby may have changed. Can anyone confirm this (I guess it's too early to also ask whether it's now a decent runner although the shade of green looks a little on the desaturated/olive side)?

On 01/10/2023 at 10:04, Steven B said:

So which option is better for DC modellers:

1. Lights that are on/off based on a switch which you may need to take the roof off to access?

2. Lights that are on whenever there's power with no way of turning them off?

3. Lights that are on whenever there's power but can be turned off by waving a magnet over them?

4. No lights fitted - let DCC modellers buy them as an option like Dapol do.

 

SB

On 01/10/2023 at 11:20, njee20 said:

4 for me. I’m not a huge fan of interior lighting (tail lights are nice though) and I’d have sooner saved a couple of quid on the price of a coach.

As an analogue user (OO gauge) I agree - the cost of chips is one of the reasons I haven't switched to DCC so I'd rather not be paying for components I can't make full use of, like lights and speakers, to be pre-fitted in my models. The Hornby 153 and Bachmann (old tool) 158s aren't too bad with just directional head and tail lights but the EFE class 143 with interior and destination blind lighting up just looked wrong to me and was a factor in my decision to return mine (along with the fragile coupling between the two vehicles - there was no way that was going to give me years of good service to justify the expense of the model - had it been half the price I may have kept it.) The Pacer did have some little switches accessible on the underside without taking it apart, which I'd say is the way to go if lights have to be fitted on DCC-ready models, but unlike the EFE Pacer the switch needs to turn off ALL the lights (if I recall correctly some of them continued to light up when the power was on even with the switch in the off position). If I'd kept it I'd probably have had to take it apart and physically disconnect the lights I really didn't want (interior and destination blind). Really annoying as I've wanted a Valley lines 143 for ages - now waiting and hoping spares will appear at reasonable prices to allow me to assemble one without lights at a lower price, possibly with the Realtrack chassis if the coupling on that is more robust.

14 hours ago, nickb4141 said:

The Bachmann Spares website is still very slow and refuses to load - shame as trying to buy a few bits! Hopefully it will sort itself out!

It does load for me, eventually, but there is a message about only despatching orders on Fridays due to stock-take which seems to have been there for ages now.

23 hours ago, The Johnster said:

I destroy mine, and the couplings, with extreme prejudice to prevent any accidental usage, but Dap have redesigned the droopy couplings and with any luck the new lathe will make decent wheesets.

16 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Good grief; and I thought I was impoverished!  Wheels are becoming an expensive comestible, but not enough to persuade me that the older profile of Dapol’s roundyroundyrollies lead to anything but poor running.  And if your layout runs poorly, what’s the point?  Unless the new lathe changes things, they are not much good for 00, either, lippy. 

Why exactly did the old Dapol wheels lead to poor running - in what way was the profile of them wrong?

9 hours ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

10 hours ago, The Johnster said:

12 hours ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

Spending all that money on a whizz bang machine and still turning out sh!t wheels of indeterminate profiles and a shocking face lacking the subtlety of the real thing.

It obviously seemed a good idea to somebody, an opportunity lost IMHO.

 

Mike.

Well, let’s hope the new machine improves the situation, then, Mike; give them a chance!  Nobody’s saying that the new lathe will be turning out wheels of the previous dire quality.

 

Well, looking at the pictures,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

Mike.

As should be clear from the question above, I don't know what I'm looking for with regard to 'poor profile' but to my untrained eye the big pile of unasembled silvery parts do look a bit odd (eg. possibily some very deep flanges in the left-hand pic showing 3-hole wheels). However the final shots of the assembled, blackened, wheelsets don't look obviously wrong to me. If they are wrong, what is wrong about them?

Assuming there was a problem with the profile before but the new lathe has resolved them, the next question is how do we tell, if purchasing packs of spare wheels, which are the good ones?

On 17/10/2023 at 21:16, The Johnster said:

the compatibility adjustment would catered for by the use of something like Parkside PA34 dovetail mounts if the model's pocket was not in a position conducive to the best performance.  PA34s can be trimmed or packed (never had to pack one yet) to achieve the correct height and there is some positioning leeway for glueing the mount to the wagon floor in order to achieve the best distance that the coupling hook is allowed to protrude beyond the buffer heads; this will be the minimum distance that will allow reliable operation on your sharpest curves.

Do you have some sort of jig for ensuring correct height/alignment of PA34s? I have a pack I bought for my kit-built wagons but have yet to fit them as I'm worried I'd glue them in the wrong place.

On 17/10/2023 at 23:13, Flying Pig said:

The de facto 00 implementation of the NEM standard is bonkers anyway.  Why does it combine NEM 362 and something like to NEM 363 (documents here) in the same mounting when they were intended to be alternatives?  Two interfaces where only one is needed is always going to be more bulky and obtrusive.  Also we lose the benefit of NEM 363 where space is tight and end up with couplings that stick out too far.

This is quite noticeable on the Model Rail / Rapido 16xx - I once downloaded Autodesk Fusion 360 and started trying to design a version of the tension lock which would fit directly into the NEM 363 / PA34 interface and avoid the NEM 362 pocket but it's yet another of those projects I've never managed to finish. Not sure how I'd get the couplings made either or what material would be best.

On 15/10/2023 at 10:32, bécasse said:

You have missed the most obvious difference, the "standard" 350hp shunters had outside frames, that Tri-ang model, being mounted on their "Jinty" chassis had inside ones! What is more remarkable is that I am not convinced that the much later Hornby (and perhaps Bachmann) models match precise prototypes although their "generic" appearance is good.

For many years I think I might well have missed that the chassis was totally wrong - probably because I'm not very familar with the real thing. I was however aware of it (probably from reading rmweb) before starting this thread - I forgot to mention the wrongness of the chassis because it was just the body of mine (a hand-me-down model which presumably once belonged my father or an uncle) that I was examining.

On 15/10/2023 at 02:57, kevinlms said:

Here's a photo as to why the extra box is on the side. It's never been removed, even though the clockwork version was discontinued many years ago.

 

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/204463120089?hash=item2f9af39ed9:g:erQAAOSwKExlBEMX

Well, I learned something new there! The hole on the side is filled-in on the non-clockwork models though, so the tooling must have been modified slightly to acheive that?

On 15/10/2023 at 19:58, F-UnitMad said:

A few Bescot Gronks had side skirts a bit like on that Triang one, except they were stiff canvas or rubber, to help prevent water ingress from Oxley carraige wash.

I hadn't noticed the 'skirt', thanks for pointing that out. I've now found a picture which shows a skirt-fitted 08 next to a normal one - the inside frames seem much less obvious with the skirts as well. I wonder if Tri-ang did that deliberately.

On 17/10/2023 at 03:16, kevinlms said:

On 17/10/2023 at 01:19, The Johnster said:

The purpose of this thread was to investigate if there is any mileage to be had out of using older RTR as a basis for current modelling to a tolerable standard.  'Tolerable standard' is a moveable feast dependent on your own individual standards and perceptions, but the Triang 08 is very definitely not such a model...

Not exactly, the opening post was a question about whether any prototype 08, looked like the Tri-ang model, especially regarding the grill/radiator. Which to me, asks if the Tri-ang model was a model of a particular variant of the 08. Plenty of info so far on this thread that says, NO!

It was made to suit their existing parts bin.

You're both right to an extent. I think I must have started taking much more of an interest in shunters when Model Rail announced their class 11/12 project - I'm not even sure if I realised (or cared) that there was more than just the class 08s and 09s before that. Ignoring the shared 0-6-0 chassis, which we all argee is wrong, I was (as kevinlms correctly guessed) wondering whether the Tri-ang model was actually based on one of the more-obscure (ie. not the class 08) types. Even if the body couldn't be pinned down to model of a specific type, I also wondered whether it could be a generic mash-up created using elements (such as the different grill/radiator, the 'clockwork box' and the somewhat Bescot-like 'skirt') which all existed in reality but not all together on the same loco. A significantly-younger and more-naive me once bought a Hornby 61xx thinking the GWR only had two designs of Prairie tank ('small' (with straight-sided tanks) and 'large' (with angled tanks)) - I know better now but probably still have alot to learn). I thought perhaps a Tri-ang model designer could have made a similar mistake and incorporated elements of one loco into a model of something that was supposed to be something else.

'Gronks' span five TOPS classes (class 08 to class 12) and quite possibily several types that never made it into TOPS (such as the GWR loco renumbered by BR to 15100). A look at older topics suggests there are differences even between class 08s, most of which I don't seem to be able to spot. I have however managed to spot two ways that the Tri-ang model (https://www.hattons.co.uk/12868/tri_ang_r152_class_08_shunter_d3035_in_br_blue_green/stockdetail) differs from photos of a real class 08:

1. the grill on the 'nose' of the model (which I believe would be a radiator on the real loco) is made up of a series of horizontal ridges, but all the photos I've found when I've been looking into this have mostly vertical 'ridges'
2. the left hand side has an extra box on the side, covering one of four panels (I assume this to be for air brake system components, which only some locos had - however on photos I can only find examples where either this extra box is absent or it is larger, covering two of the four panels and leaving no gaps between the boxes on that side)

So, my question is, are/were there any real locos within the wider 'gronk' family that had these features (and any other strange features of the Tri-ang model I've missed)?

On 03/10/2023 at 13:57, The Fatadder said:

Cavelex have yet to announce anything in Transrail.

 

Though my vote would be for an unbranded triple grey, given as well as being suitable for the released loco it would also be perfect for renumbering for anyone looking for a different sector / Transrail / Mainline / Loadhaul / Large Logo EWS triple grey loco (likewise for the 56)  So should hopefully appeal to multiple purchasers 

Another vote for unbranded triple grey here - I've not yet decided whether I want one 60 with a modern motor or two preowned Lima ones (one of which would be in EWS livery, the other in triple grey). I thought a good compromise might be to get an unbranded triple grey one and get an EWS patch logo transfer to put on one side.

That said, have there been any unbranded ones without nameplates (to make identity changes easier)? After a little web searching I found three photos of unbranded ones, but all three are named:

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:60028_at_Althorpe.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:60068_"Charles_Darwin"_at_Peak_Forest_-_5467650909.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Empty_tanks_from_Longport_head_to_Fawley_at_St_denys_(48565021137).jpg

Also, it maybe better as one for the a batch for general sale rather than an exclusive.

On 24/09/2023 at 10:28, Captain Kernow said:

We even see this trend expressed (on this very forum) by some folk saying that they wish a certain loco would be produced with their favoured number on the side. What's wrong with having a go with a sheet of transfers??!!

'Having a go' with transfers isn't the issue, at least for me. Repairing the damage if it goes wrong is - remembering that most RTR models are quite expensive and not exactly throw-away items if one messes it up. For models with painted numbers (unlike most (G)WR locomotives), the original number needs to be removed which runs the risk of damaging the base paintwork and, should that happen, there is then a (possibly very difficult) job of trying to colour-match extactly to patch the damage. As a result, I've never tried renumbering anything other than my 16xx.

My 16xx was done using Railtec 3D transfers but this was relatively simple since I have an unweathered example and the transfers all just cover over the old printed numbers with no need to remove them. Even now I'm afraid that I could be in for trouble in future, since the instructions recommend a spray of acrylic varnish to seal the transfer after application but I won't dare do that for fear of ruining the finish of the model.

On 26/09/2023 at 09:56, Captain Kernow said:

That's most interesting, Ian, re the 16XX being a conventional cored motor. I was previously 100% certain it was a coreless one, based on previous statements by others. As such, I will have to rescind my advice to Re6/6, not to use his P4 converted 16XX with any of my feedback controllers on Marsh Sidings...

 

There were some comments on the motor back in Jan/Feb 2021 - some claiming coreless and some claiming otherwise. I found them again today by searching this topic for the word 'coreless'. I must have been convinced that it was a conventional cored motor at the time because I bought one (only to find that my old Hornby train set controller was putting out over 21v - well above the recommended maximum in Rapido's booklet included with the 16xx model - so it hasn't been run much since).

16 hours ago, andyman7 said:

I've just taken delivery of a BR-era one and can't get it to couple. It's one of those infernal multi-pin couplings but unlike the instructions which just say to place on the track and offer each coach up to each other, the pin plug on mine is massively out of alignment. Before it goes back, any suggestions?

 

 

I had the same problem with my ValleyLines one and showed it to my engineering-minded brother. He said that coupling was too fragile for regular use and that, even if I had got one which was straight and would couple as-per the instructions at first, it would soon break if I was taking the model on and off the layout. My mother agreed that this was a rather poor-quality item given the price and, combined with the fact that I couldn't turn some of the lights off (I use analogue control and either wanted no lights at all or ONLY the red/white head/tail lights as seen on my Hornby 153s and old-tool Bachmann 158s), I decided to return it for a refund.

A real shame as a ValleyLines 143 has been on my wishlist for ages. Since returning this one I've been waiting in the hope that sufficient spare bodies, wheels and chassis units would become available to allow be to build my my own analogue one with no lights and sensible couplings at a more-reasonable price - so far not so much as a spare lightbulb has appeared.

I just noticed a e-mail from Hattons showing an early engineering sample supposedly of Hornby's Greater Anglia class 755 bi-mode FLIRT units. However, it doesn't look like a class 755 to me, so I went to the Hornby website to see if they had more/clearer images and found similar images on this Engine Shed post. However, it still doesn't appear to be a class 755. Have Hornby accidently let slip that the have a TfW class 756 FLIRT in the works?

There is a pantograph, so it isn't an example of TfW's other FLIRTs (class 231) which are diesel-only at present. However, the driving vehicle Hornby have shown has two sets of passenger doors (as TfW have on their FLIRTs), rather than the one set on the Greater Anglia (GA) units. That said, how many exhausts are there on a class 756? The diesel module car on the sample Hornby have shown has four exhausts as far as I can tell, but I think the class 756s only have one diesel engine, while the GA FLIRTs have 2 engines (3-car units) or 4 engines (4-car units) in there. I suspect the class 231s also have 4 diesel engines.

On 02/08/2023 at 19:10, WCML100 said:

the issue is the chiltern mk3 sliding doors are a completely different shape and size in comparison to the door they replaced, unlike the HST sliding door which still ‘fit’ in roughly the same space.
 

you can model the banbury set with livery mods to the oxford mk3a’s if thats helpful. 

Regarding the doors, surely both styles of power doors are completely different to the original 'slam doors' since those wrapped round the end of the coach body while both styles of power door have a new solid pillar built at the corner of the bodyshell, where the hinges used to be?

As for the Oxford Rail models isn't it the case that, while Hornby and Lima made reasonably accurate HST mark 3s (but not a slam-door mark 3a, unless the new Hornby tooling has added the appropriate roof vent style), Oxford messed up the shape of the underframe so failed to accurately model any mark 3? (I've never seen the Oxford Rail model 'in the flesh' but it looks wrong in some of the photos I've found online).

On 19/05/2023 at 08:25, Roy Langridge said:

 

Need somebody to make them, the Hornby slide-door Mk3 is no good for Chiltern and would need a complete body retool.

 

Roy

I was thinking couldn't they just do a run of the slam-door mark 3s in Chiltern livery, but then I Googled up a pic of a Chiltern class 67 and saw it was running with the plug-door coaches so presumably the coaches had all been modernised before the 68s arrived. I suppose there's always the 'Banbury set', both in blue & grey and the later white with silver ends. Even then, to be strictly accurate we would need accurate mark 3a coaches - does the newly retooled slam-door range now include the mark 3a roof vents?

On 19/05/2023 at 09:47, Adam1701D said:

The problem is that the tooling costs for a small batch of coaches would make them prohibitively expensive, given the limited appeal. Perhaps one of the 3D modellers out there could produce a new end/door section to graft onto an existing Mk3?

I was thinking, with Hornby having the mark 3a roof vents on some of the XC slide-door mark 3s and the slide-doors being recessed rather than a nice flush finish, perhaps somebody could produce a 3D printed (or maybe some sort of resin) Chiltern-style plug door insert which would be a simple push-fit into the slide-door recess on the Hornby model. The GFW (Galley First Wheelchair) aka 'buffet' or 'business zone coach' would still be missing suppose, and the Chiltern mark 3 coaches retain some of the toilet windows (they are all gone on the slide-door ones due to the door sliding into where the window used to be) which could be an issue.