Ravenser

That has all the credibility of a 4 coach Flying Scotsman... (You could get away with a 4 coach Bradford portion of something hauled by a 2-6-4T...) Ignoring the fundamental characteristics of a prototype is a bad start if you want a layout to look credible - it certainly used to be the case than no serious exhibition layout would run a visibly short HST or Pendolino... Compression from 12 cars to 8 cars will be necessary - I'm not advocating full length formations , but if you are modelling a commuter railway of any significance in the South East , I'm afraid you have to go to 8 cars to look sensible

Everything in the sets can run together, and did on the 1950s ECML . It's a little awkward if the Stanier Pacifics are delayed and the Stanier coaches are out 6 months before them, but LMS Period 3 coaches + Mark1s is what WCML passenger trains in the 1950s were formed of There is an IFA container wagon in the Arnold TT releases this year - apparently some of them have seen service in Britain To be pedantic - the company is Hornby, not as spelt. "This is Hornsby. This is Hornsby . All out, all change. This train terminates in the car sheds" Hornsby NSW, looking south, late 1979. Terminating N Shore line service on the left - which is probably what I'd arrived on

The 4-VEP has had it's "issues" sorted out and is re-released as part of the current range. We should surely judge the model on how it is now and what a purchaser will get today, rather than by what was said about it a decade ago . The Triang Southern EMU was "vaguely like a 3SUB" but no modern model from anyone is anything other than a scale model of a particular prototype , even if a few have "issues". Even those are more accurate than anything Lima managed. 3rd rail modellers will have 4-VEPs from Hornby to buy, and this is a widespread general service unit. I'm not sure when Bachmann last released their EMUs. (Indeed Bachmann have rather backed away from multiple units where 10-15 years ago they had a very strong product range) . There were real hopes and aspirations for 3rd rail modelling a decade or more ago - they seem to have fallen by the wayside a bit. And if we are talking about models with "issues", then what do we make about the situation with 101s? Bachmann has re-released their 101 at an RRP of £285 for a 2 car unit. Bachmann Autumn 2022 incl 101 It's widely felt to have significant errors in the bodyside. Hornby are releasing the ex Lima 101 as a Strathclyde PTE unit Hornby D+E incl Strathclyde 101 at an RRP of £135. This model also has bodyshell issues even if it has long been felt it looks very much like a 101. Mechanically both are DCC ready with pickup from both bogies and modern drives. I can see no difference in performance between my Hornby 101 and my Bachmann 108 - both run beautifully and have done over many years. Lights are essentially irrelevant: units of that era had only a dim yellow glow from low wattage bulbs, visible only when pitch black. It's a hell of a price difference. I suspect this one comes down to livery , but I can't see many people impulse purchasing a £285 DMU

St Botolphs might work, if there is a legitimate reason for a loco to appear on a bit of freight from time to time. Pep up the operation with a 2 unit train dividing /joining to serve both Clacton and Walton, and a reasonable variety of EMUS (eg 312/321/360 ) and you have a reasonable basis for a layout . Especially if trains have in effect to cross there because of conflicting movements at a junction outside But your killer is that need for an 8' long station to take 2 x 4 car units , and a fiddle yard that does the same Go to a provincial conurbation, and you can potentially drop back to 2 x 3 car units, and only 6' is required. at each end . This starts to make the whole thing more practical , especially as the railway is much more likely to run as single unit trains off-peak . Coupling up units for the peak, and dropping back to single units off peak adds to the operation. This is why the aborted club project was set in West Yorkshire - potentially 4 types of unit, and max 6 car formations The spread of electrification in the NW may open up possibilities there - I'm sure many of the lines now electrified don't run 8 car trains through the day and some might be 4 car trains even in the peak . And the Southern 3rd rail network has the advantage that it's close to a network electrification, and a lot of lesser lines that don't have to run 8 and 12 car trains are in fact electrified. So 2 x 4VEP (or 4CEP) need only be one part of the scene - other trains may be shorter. So only one or two platforms and one or two fiddle yard roads need be that long. Hornby's provision of a 2 HAL and 2BIL is clever - you can run a train of units that's under 4' long . Run a 5 BEL , and you still have a main line looking layout that doesn't need platforms and fiddle yard roads much longer than 5' But I still think that if you want to model a multiple unit railway that habitually runs units in multiple you are probably best going to a small scale like N

I had a hazy memory that Southern Pride had done something, but that it was the 310 (if the kit covers both classes that would explain my recollection) I'm not clear whether and how far Southern Pride are still with us - I recall looking at their website where most stuff seemed to be out of production. For a period my regular train home was the 18:02 from Liverpool St , which was the last stand of the 312s on the GE .To model that accurately would require 3 x 312, and a 12' station platform to take it. More realistically 2x 312 would give an 8' train length. Space and cost then become issues . Chelmsford is at first blush a very interesting simple prototype with lots of action possible. But you would need a minimum 18' to 20' length to attempt it as a continuous circuit even compressed to take only 8 car formations. And the time and cost implications of building up a fleet of at least half a dozen 8 car trains with a fiddleyard to take them are fairly serious But if you don't do that, it won't be credible as a model of the GE suburban network. A layout based on two or three 4 car EMUs buzzing around on their own doesn't really cut the mustard. It's easy for someone not working in 4mm to say "just do some modelling" but quite a lot of this stuff has never been made as a kit, and many of the kits that have been produced in the past are no longer available . The space implications alone make me think that this kind of subject is not really practical for most people in 4mm, and perhaps it is best attempted in a much smaller scale, which at the moment would have to be N There are reasons why my main home layout is limited to 2 and 3 car DMUs (But clambering back on topic , 3rd rail modellers now have a 4VEP to play with. And they don't need to solder up OHLE)

The Dakota Dibben show is back on the road: Dakota Dibben exhibition - Witham Essex

Unfortunately the kits are not readily available... DC Kits having decided that particular game ain't worth the candle and left all trhe stuff in a storage container Ciontemplate the idea of scratchbuilding 2 x Class 333 units to a decent standard, and swallow , hard. Don't even know where you'd source the drawings. (Some joker will now assure us that all you need to do is rush around Shipley station with a tape measure and notebook for an hour or two ... Simples) To the best of my knowledge no 4mm kits for the Clacton units AM9, or the 306s in any condition , or Class 312 have ever been produced . Or the 313/314/315 series. It's just about possible to do the job for the WCML north of Watford and bits of Strathcydle , but elsewhere there are severe challenges. I know of at least one group of brave souls intending to hack one or more 360s out of Bachmann 350s, but I've not heard of anyone having actually done so A certain unmentionable outfit are pretty well your only resource if you require InterCity high soeed units

The standard we are looking for is : - accurate (dimensionally, and the things in the right places ) - runs well - good factory finish. In the case of coaches, flush-glazing is essential The first means that Lima's "artist's impressions" miss the mark , and "black boxes" on the underframe are a serious issue. The second point has been achieved by virtually everything tooled up since 1999 (and a few things tooled earlier) . It was a big issue before 2000. The ex Lima models have been kept going because they have been given 21st century mechanisms that run nicely, DCC Ready, with plentiful pickup and decent wheels. (I'm aware the motor bogies used lack guts and they will be struggling to shift much beyond 4 cars. But that is entirely adequete for 1 , 2, 3 and even 4 car multiple units. The 4 car Javelins ran fine) The third point is pretty well standard now on nearly everything Where I have a real issue is when the same subject is being retooled again and again. In principle, everything newly tooled from 1999 onward should meet all these standards , unless someone seriously cocked up. There are a small number of examples of that In practice we have had 6 different OO Class 37s developed and tooled in 20 years, and 5 different OO Class 47s developed and tooled in 25 years . About 2 of those models had significant "issues" and all ran very nicely. We've now seen 3 versions of the Rats, where similar comments apply Meanwhile the Bachmann 101 was acknowledged to have its issues but slumbers unquestioned . The Bachmann BR cattle wagon passes unchallenged despite being the wrong length . A range of popular strongly-selling post-privatisation DMUs with no obvious shape or performance issues were withdrawn "for complete retooling" in order to add DCC sockets. One has finally reappeared after a decade , at about 3x the price. The others (Turbostar, 165, Voyagers) are still missing in action Realtrack are about the only "new boys" who have tooled up new multiple units, as some are calling for , and those are only 2 car (Nor are they that cheap) . They are either new subjects or replace models that were tooled to 20th century compromised standards RevolutionBen notes Given that in most cases we already have "good enough" models available in OO , I really question whether all the current investment is being well-spent. We don't yet know how successful all these projects will be commercially but the money sunk into them will have to be recovered somehow from the customer, at a time when funds are being squeezed and costs in China have risen steeply and will continue to do so And here's the nub (RevolutionBen again): This is shooting ourselves in the foot, possibly with both barrels . Tooling suits have limited life , because people online keep baying for everything to be duplicated and replaced and therefore retooled long long before the tooling actually wears out. Tools with 30-50 year lives are being used for a decade or so. Here is a pile of cost that is being loaded onto our models on questionable grounds Unfortunately some people are trying to make OO models more expensive, by demanding everything (or at least all 20th century locomotives) be retooled to higher and higher standards of detail every decade. I've even seen postings calling for someone to tool up a new TTA to challenge the new Hornby TTA , which itself challenges the Bachmann high spec TTA of a decade ago (Hint - a TTA chemical tanker might be a better idea if someone really feels obliged to develop yet another model.. Bring something extra to the table) We can do without fripperies like working fans , opening doors , firebox glow, and the rest, whicjh only add cost. And I personally doubt the justification for full-blown son et luminere spectacular capabilities on anything built before 1985 But it is the clamour for endless retooling of existing accurate models that run well, for a marginal gain, which is going to pile on the costs in the future

It's not just Hornby who would be affected by people saying "thanks I'll pass" or buying second hand. It's everyone in RTR OO Hornby, uniquely, are attempting to offer budget/mid range "affordable" models . Some of this is from old tooling, some of it is from new tooling done to a less than "all bells and whistles" standard. Call it Design Clever, call it Railroad Plus , there's quite a bit of it in their tooling bank - Pendolino , 395 Javelin, Tornado, Crosti 9F, Maunsell EMUs , Railroad Mk1s... Others are pressing on with the "premium model at a premium price" strategy . But unless they are offering something that's never been done before - which is increasingly getting quite difficult with locos and coaches - they depend on people replacing their existing models , or adding extra models to their fleets . The "upgrade cycle" has largely been switched off, as the gains from "better" versions are getting quite modest now and prices are starting to get a little prohibitive for many people. At these sorts of prices the scope for impulse purchases and "I can't resist another one " is also restricted. There is certainly a market for very expensive model trains (The cynic in me mutters "it's called Gauge O" ... ) How big that market is and how far it can sustain the RTR manufacturers, is another matter There is a risk of a "buyer's strike" setting in - it seems to have happened in Continental HO a few years back. But that would be across the board . Hornby are not in fact the highest-priced range around, and they are the only player making a serious attempt at offering an "affordable" range as an alternative. Over the next few years it will be interesting to watch the commercial success or otherwise of current projects from all the manufacturers, as well as their new project announcements. I don't quite see OO RTR as a golden opportunity for anyone to make money over the next 5 years

I've just been poking around on Hornby's website , and the 2023 Continental product ranges are: HO: Electrotren: 40 items for 2023 Jouef : 87 items for 2023 Rivarossi 160 items for 2023 Lima : 3 items for 2023 Smaller Scales: Arnold N 166 items for 2023 Arnold TT 29 items for 2023 The Arnold range - which covers France, Spain and Italy as well as Germany - isn't that much smaller than the combined total for the HO ranges . Someone said somewhere that a lot of this year's new tooling seemed to be going into Arnold, rather than HO models Back on topic: This might help explain one answer to this How long do we reckon the old Mainline tooling will carry on? Another reason is that others won't be developing a rival model . And a third reason for going for bogie steel carriers is that development and tooling costs probably don't reduce that much for a small 4 wheel wagon - but the retail price for a bogie vehicle will certainly be higher

I presume the container wagons are these: Arnold container flat They seem to be new, and they look like 60' flats. Other containers are available in TT , so a change of boxes ouyght to be possible Someone suggested that some of these wagons are in use in Britain, so perhaps we can lay to rest the "there's nothing for the 66 to pull!" canard... The Vossloh loco is here Vossloh 18 in TT and is available in several liveries. Hornby seem to be doing these in several scales. There's quite a strong Arnold TT programme this year by the look of it

A little 1980s NSW inspiration for you . Cowan has a lot of potential for a model - 3 points, one platform but intensive action (turnback of an hourly passenger service, and dropping off bank pilots into the siding No idea where the other building is, but it's adjacent in the camera sequence to some shots taken at the Rail museum at Thirlmere Two places wildly unlike each other.....

That might explain it. I just can't think of anyone who would sell a OO B2B that sets at 14.2mm : they all should be 14.4mm or 14.5mm . Hence me suspecting the measurements. I've seen something similar - in my case some years ago it was 7 x Hornby Mk3 coaches , and one vehicle taking exception to one handbuilt point (to BRMSB /OO Intermediate standard) on a continuous circuit layout. Push the offending coach through the offending point by hand and it was fine. Stick it in a train and it came off at that spot every time We hastily sourced a DOGA OO Intermediate B2B gauge . Every wheelset in the rake needed slight easing , and once that was done the problem went away. There are hints that Peco are quietly tightening the flangeway clearances in Streamline as they retool individual points (without mentioning it to anyone : Peco prefer not to discuss such matters) . That might explain the one point involved. Or it may just be that it's all right on the edge and one fractionally tighter wheelset (by a few hundredths of a mm!) on one slightly dodgy point pushes the wheel /track interface over the edge into derailment. Lets us know if easing the B2B has sorted it

I'd check your calipers, or your measurement process A back to back gauge should be setting the B2B to 14.4mm or 14.5mm. (I'm not sure whose gauge could result in a 14.2mm value) Hornby rolling stock wheels are frequently set at 14.1mm The fact that your calipers are reading a value 0.2mm less in both cases suggests they are somehow reading low by that amount. No matter , you've added 0.3mm onto the B2B , which was definitely too low for comfort. I hope that should resolve it.

The Rapido Jones Goods is £220 upwards: Rapido Jones Goods . That won't be discounted in the way Hornby is routinely discounted, because you are asked to order direct from Rapido No criticism of the project is meant, but the real thing was only sighted south of Perth on 1950s railtours, and I don't think it's ever been south of either Berwick or Carlisle . I won't be getting one because it's simply not relevant to anything I'm doing , and I suspect quite a bit of the production will sit in glass cases as "trophy models" (I can justify 10001 and Hardwicke on the layout, with a very slight stretch; 10800 and a skirtless J70 or a Sonic A5 would need no real stretch at all) As far as the Pug is concerned, it is about as cheap as any scale loco on the market. It's only slightly more expensive than a newly tooled Bachmann coach! Nearly 2 years ago I paid £84 as a bargain clearance price (not RRP) for a Hattons Barclay . That was a not-strictly necessary impulse purchase. A J70 would be similar but it's 50% dearer . I saw J70s at a show before the pandemic , thought "nice but.. maybe" and walked on. I'm still in that frame of mind. It's just a bit expensive as an impulse purchase, and I've even less need for it having bought a Barclay Calling the cheapest scale loco on the market grotesquely overpriced, while singing the praises of the value for money represented by a £220 loco seems misplaced. There are folk who can run to £100 and might just go to £150 - but at £200 for a purchase they are out Even £220 looks like a bargain when compared to Australian HO . I don't think the Aussies are being ripped off - that's what a high spec low volume loco costs when you get it from a Chinese factory. And it will get worse and worse each year Keep chasing the premium model at premium price philosophy and a large part of the hobby will be out of the new 4mm RTR market in a few years- though not out of the hobby, by any means. An arms race in retooling things over and over again every few years will only make things worse. Someone claimed the new Bachmann 47 had cost a 7 figure sum to tool ( I suspect that's a misunderstanding, but he was claiming the market would support tooling investment without limit) And it's prudent not to count your chickens before they hatch in terms of model quality. I'm sure Heljan Garretts were awesome until they arrived ....

The old Hornby TTA tooling from the late 60s seems to have worn out , and is finally being replaced. The old Mk1 tooling from 1961-2 wore out a few years back and was replaced by the current Railroad range of Mk1s. (Although at least one tool for the carcase of the coach is still usable - they are rerunning the 1963 fake Grampians this year, though the bodyside tooling will not have seen a lot of use) . The GW clerestories from 1961 are still knocking about , too This is how much use you can get out of "hard" tools...... The Heljan Hymek tools haven't had anything like that kind of intensive year-in year-out use, so it's not surprising they are still ok . The 47 tools seem to have finally been replaced , but they are earlier and have been used more. Is the extra expense of "hard" tooling actually worth it now? (And you raise a very relevant point about expectations of a stunning model not always being fulfilled. ... A lot of folk are confidently asserting that models we haven't seen yet or haven't been able to examine close up will "blow away" Hornby. KR Fell anyone???)

It works out at GBP 510 for most variants of a n inside cylinder 0-6-0. It needs to look good at that price. The context is me speculating about a possible NSW shunting plank Sydney harbourside shunting plank Possible motive power candidates 73 class diesel shunter (way too late) , a C30 (Baltic tank for shunting ... 😵) or a Z19 . The real things were used as shunters at Darling Harbour Goods until 1971 But at over 500 quid for a shunting engine for a possible side project I'm passing... If you really want a Z19 , that's the price, and this may be your only chance. You can't buy a model of one of those on the second hand market. Other shunters are not in current production However if we are talking about 4Fs, 25s, 31, 37, 47, Jinties, Q1s, J39s etc - other options would be available (in fairness Eureka seem to be more modestly priced Eureka NSWGR 40 class and Eureka 50 class . But there's something odd about the state of their site - some of the pages are quoting 2012-14 prices and the blog posts comprise Loram ipsum.. Still, it's 388 quid for a 2-8-0. I'm seeing people on here posting that they won't pay above £180 for a loco, and someone saying that £85 RRP for a Pug is a grotesque ripoff ... )

This is a holding announcement after much of the 2022 programme was not delivered in 2022. We were told that.That announcement will provide a substantial part of the Hornby product available in the shops in 2023 Normal announcements will resume in Jan 2024 Hornby are not going into an arms race on premium models , pouring in development and tooling resources to re-do every model every decade or less at a higher and higher specification and a higher and higher price/cost . That will not please those who want "the definitive Class XYZ" and see SLW as what the future of OO RTR looks like (That kind of future looks rather like this: NSWGR Z19 ) Hornby are aiming for an affordable midrange position as the hobby becomes inevitably more and more costly. That involves re-running a lot of existing tools. (It seems to be an approach that is working for Dapol in N) But as existing elderly tooling wears out they will replace it - see the Railroad Mk1s and this year the TTA. That's late 60s tools being replaced... We will see how it all works out . But I'm a lot more optimistic about the future of the hobby and of 4mm than I am about the future of OO RTR manufacturing. After 25 years of an astonishing boom in ever more detailed models driven by low costs in China I think OO RTR manufacturers are starting to run out of road This post from the Hornby 2MT thread is also the shape of the future for 4mm modelling : The number of folk who are looking at the latest releases and saying "thanks , I'll pass. At that money , I'm perfectly happy sticking with my Helbachby one , its still a good model" is becoming a serious issue if you want to sell people new RTR at ever increasing prices. Each year the amount of pretty decent stuff out there second hand will rise. Increasingly new RTR must compete with the last 25 years' production available second-hand We are not there yet, but the view ahead in the distance is getting a little ominous At this point the Croaking Raven of Doom will fly off, cawing ominously....

The last D11/1s were Sheffield Darnell engines , so I'd keep it, assuming it runs ok. But they were black by that stage I think D11 Sheffield Vic 1959 The D11/1s seem to have been finally withdrawn at the end of 1960, so it would be more or less in period. Dig it out for a seaside excursion train - Sheffield Exchange to Cleethorpes maybe. Or a 6 coach anglers' train to the Witham or the Trent (Angling was very strong in Sheffield then - about that time my Dad was earning extra money from the Sheffield newspaper as well as the Hull Daily Mail for a match fishing reports column. Special trains ran to places like Stixwould or Tattershall and Dogdyke for anglers , and some of them definitely originated in Sheffield) It's an LNER Southern Area loco based in Sheffield , and Sheffield Exchange is ex LNER Southern Area. Given the number of ex GC A5s and N5s and J11s that turned up in Lincolnshire on ex GN lines I can't see an issue. (Immingham had a couple in 1945 apparently - Ivatt 4-4-0s were being used on E Lincs locals in the late 40s and Immingham might have sent out a D11 occasionally , though I've not seen a photo)

I'm thinking more First Great Eastern, Central Trains, EMT, NSE toothpaste...

It is also a livery you can do for yourself with a spray can and some transfers. I don't class myself as red-hot at resprays and I don't own an airbrush. But even I fancy my chances with BR Blue I wouldn't dream of attempting complex modern liveries

Most DCC systems can deliver 3A up to 5A per power district, at 16V AC. One or two US systems can deliver up to 10A on a power district. And the widely used NCE PowerCab is rated for 1.8A maximum , but the US wall transformer supplied may only deliver 1.1A. But currents drawn by individual locos are the same on DCC as on DC , unless sound chips are involved, so down around 0.2-0.3A for non-sound locos. Very few mazak rot victims were DCC Sound fitted

For quite a while Hornby were doing replacements on mazak rot 31s. The problem manifested itself within a couple of years on many examples. Ditto Bachmann and the footplate on the N moguls. The limited number of models affected are fairly well known, and apart from T9 motor mounts there has been little or nothing in the way of mazak rot reported in models made in the last 14-15 years. If the problem was ongoing we'd have found out by now

There seem to have been just four models reported with mazak rot since June last year. Some of the models being reported are HO , and some are vintage Triang dating back to the late 50s, where only one batch in a long production run will be implicated

Bachmann could (in theory) respond quickly to Hornby's announcement by pumping out a run of their own MACAW, a tactic Hornby have not been averse to over the years . But they are short of capacity at Kadar, would have to sacrifice something more valuable to free up the slot, and they can't side step that by using EFE (While Hornby clearly have their own issues in getting sufficient product out of the factories - witness SK's apologies for non-appearance of most of the 2022 announcements, they have more capacity, and deal with multiple factories. If slots are freed up because new models slip they could reuse those slots to run a "spoiler " The recent Drax Biomass wagon, very sharply priced , might well have benefited from slippage of the 2022 range. ) Hornby are widely seen as a joint sitting ready for carving. Bachmann are not, even though their Deltic and 37 have been targetted (But when was the Bachmann Deltic last released, anyway?) Therefore it was, and is, very much less likely that a third company was also working on a new MACAW, given that one has been in the Bachmann tool bank /range for many years (unless you have inside knowledge that someone out there was planning one. Even then that manufacturer would be able to offer a different diagram) Arguably the MACAW and Salmon are safer options than (say) an LMS steel 12T van, given that the potential rivals to the Hornby models are already sitting out there in plain sight. Rapido have overwhelmingly tooled up wagons that no-one has ever done before. And in the case of the two modern image wagons they have tooled up to replace items in the Hornby range (OAA and VIX) those Hornby models are old tooling (very old tooling indeed in the case of the VIX,) and have major underframe issues, sitting too high on radial trucks But I notice Hornby have chosen to rerun their own OAA this year as an affordable wagon in Railroad . Bachmann don't do that sort of thing I don't have inside knowledge of anyone's plans . But to an outsider it seems logical that the "new boys" would pick a wagon that had never been done before , or target a Hornby model , rather than tool up somrthing already in Bachmann's tool bank. That would be in line with pretty well everything we've seen from them so far. Outside the politics of a few diesel loco classes, Bachmann are not normally seen as vulnerable. Hornby are widely seen as sitting ducks waiting to be picked off by anyone and everyone And having chosen to tool a rival to a Bachmann product Hornby can be reasonably confident that Bachmann won't meet fire with fire and release the ex Mainline model at a budget price against them. Bachmann don't do "affordable/budget" ranges - they are "full fat" or nothing (I do think Hornby in their policy towards OO are being very much guided by what they have seen in the Continental HO market. On the Continent the race to premium models at premium prices on short runs - the so-called "museum quality model" - ended in a disastrous collapse in sales as prices and costs became prohibitive, and most manufacturers went bust or were bought out at least once. Hornby International has always positioned itself as an affordable mid-range brand in that market . We tend to assume Hornby's non-British interests are a minor detail in their business. I personally suspect 30-35% of their model railways sales may be overseas ranges under Hornby International) EFE is another string to Bachmann's bow, and the relationship with Kernow is interesting. They are going in a very different commercial direction with their own tooling from Rails and hattons. The LSWR coach set release is an interesting development. Apparently they share some tooling with Kernow's gate stock and I recall a suggestion that a Kernow logo was somewhere on the box, though it's not mentioned in either the thread here or Graham Muspratt's review. But these are very much premium priced, at £75 per coach, and some questions have been raised about their accuracy. Meanwhile Hornby are knocking out Mk3s at £45 RRP for 2023 Hornby are plainly going for the "affordable mid range" slot, and the premium-priced stuff is aimed fair and square at the collectors (Prototype Deltic). Bachmann are chasing the top end, as they have historically done How being an affordable midrange brand sits with new tooling at today's tooling cost is an interesting question. Bachmann's pricing of coaches suggests that new tooling /development costs put £20 on the retail price of a coach ....