Ravenser

The MRC's London exhibition at Easter was certainly in existance by 1931 and probably several years earlier than that. A small exhibition by the fledgling Wimbledon club in December 1924 is reported in the first Model Railway News in Jan 1925. That may well have been the first club exhibition ever, as at that point the MRC and Wimbledon were the only known clubs. MMRS was founded late the same year, and I think I remember comment in a Railway Modeller article (early 1976 I think) on a Gauge O layout from Manchester which began in the late 1930s , was from MMRS members, exhibitable and might possibly have been exhibited pre war York was founded by Mike Cook and his band - late 1960s? In the mid 1970s there were basically 5 big shows : London , York and Bristol at Easter, Manchester before Christmas and Glasgow in Feb. In the mid 1960s RM's monthly exhibitions listing was still pretty small. It had grown substantially by the mid 70s , and continued growing relentlessly up to about 5 years ago. Now we see a reaction My impression is that the "typical" show started in the late 1960s in a church hall, arranged by a recently founded club, grew rapidly in the early years, was 2 day by the mid 1970s, moved out into a leisure centre by 1990 . The current show manager has been doing the job for 30 years, and joined the organising club during the first decade of the exhibition.... So large exhibitions started with the MRC in London in the 1930s. Manchester may have started in the late 30s or late 40s - was it a major event by the early 50s? No idea about Glasgow or Bristol - the latter fell by the wayside in the 1980s

As a total outsider - this concept does seem to tick a lot of boxes and include potential for shorter trains . Seems like something to run with and see how far you get. The worst case scenario is a half built layout - the best case is a completed that really satisfies your aspirations. It seems more positive than acquiring different bitsfor different possibilities that don't quit gel, with nothing being built....

Hornby's tiny Ruston is another fine slow runner, though it may not be good for more than a couple of wagons

The manufacturer's notes and the markings on the case suggest these motors can also be powered by low voltage AC, without giving details So: 1. Is this correct? Is the nominal 16V AC output from the Gaugemaster within spec? 2. If this is indeed an option, then how is it wired?

Plus £3 postage, and wiring a whole new bus to the layout (which in fact the inter-board connector won't accomodate) The 16V AC supply is already there. The notes speak of an AC option... Hence my interest. Adding extra transformers, cables, power sockets etc etc is not a benefit...

The Continental TT market is probably a fair bit bigger than the HOm market. Peco already do HOm 12mm gauge track - developing a TT range of 12mm gauge track would make some sense... Discovering Hornby were going for it probably tipped a marginal project into a Must Do

May be worth trying at the weekend

The trouble with that one is that on a DC layout , the traction supply from the controller is highly variable . The polarity reverses depending which way you set the controller , and the voltage fluctuates according to where you turn the knob. Not being able to change the points without turning the controller up is not workable = it in effect means you can't change the points unless a train is running , or that you have to turn up the controller full whack to set up,a route, because otherwise on a shunting layout you might not be supplying more than 7-8V to the track anyway. (The context is an N gauge layout - I believe N gauge locos are designed to run on no more than 9-10V . One video suggested these MTB motors were starting to get a bit marginal if the voltage is down to 9V..) And the instructions are quite clear that the positive DC supply is to be connected to the Common terminal . Of course positive and negative flip on the traction supply every time you change direction on the controller. A point that moves in a different direction when you flip the switch depending which way the controller is set seems a very unhelpful way to wire points... Not to mention the issue of whether you will damage the MP1 if you supply DC positive through the negative terminals and vice versa. I did consider tapping the traction supply on the layout, but after 5 minutes thought I concluded it was an unworkable bad idea. Who uses 16V AC on a layout these days? Anyone using solenoid motors... The context of this is a small N gauge project reusing two existing boards that were built with 2x 1 framing. Consequently Tortoises and Cobalts won't fit. So I used solenoids . Can't go wrong using Peco motors on Peco points as designed can you? Well actually you can.... One of the Peco points broke up at the tiebar and had to be replaced Broken point replaced I then spoke to a well-known N gauge modeller who told me this was a well-known issue, and if I kept using solenoid motors there would be more failures of this kind. He suggested servos, I spoke to Coastal DCC who pointed out that special driver boards would also be needed to use servos, and suggested the MTB motors as a slim-line alternative. Hence we arrive at the present situation . I do not have a stable 12V DC supply with a fixed polarity on the board (I have a highly variable traction supply) . I do have a 16V AC supply on both boards. A 16V AC to 12V DC regulated converter costs around £10 a pop, plus postage : with one being required for each board , that's about £25, which is not "pennies" and there is the trouble and delay of sourcing one (or rather, two). Being able to wire them up immediately off the 16V AC supply is potentially an attractive cheap option. Anyone else contemplating using these motors as a direct replacement for solenoids would be in the same position

Which begs the question - how much more? I'm not trying to be difficult. It's just that - allegedly - you can run these off AC . There is some sort of marking on the casing , indicating both DC and AC supply (I think) . There is a terse cryptic reference in the brief notes I just can't find anyone who has actually done it, or described how it was wired up . That starts to ring alarm bells. I recall that the Digitrax DS74 accessory decoder can allegedly be powered by 16V AC , but the concensus seems to be that anyone who has actually tried powering it off 16V AC has blown the thing up and you had better not do it. Stick to 12V DC and purchase a regulated power supply to generate the DC... So - why has nobody chosen this option with the MP1??

So if I ran an MP1 off the 16V AC supply from an analogue DC controller (Gaugemaster 100M) - what would that do?

My understanding from the documentation is that for 12V DC there is a positive common , and negative to each side of the motor/switch. So you need to wire the positive side of the DC supply to Common. That would seem to rule out using the traction supply But , again - what is the situation for 16V AC (where there is no polarity) ? Does it work, and does anyone have any experience of it? The deafening silence everywhere I look about wiring these for AC is striking - and ringing alarm bells

Sine we are talking about non-DCC control of these motors - does anyone have any experience of driving them off 16V AC ?? The documentation suggests it is possible, but all the discussion and videos I've located about these talks about control via 12V DC , o9r from a DCC decoder, or by a Digikijs black box. Nothing anywhere about a 16V AC supply option

Does anyone have experience driving these MP1 point motors using 16V AC ? Apparently they cater for this , but there is nothing much said in the notes supplied, and all the videos I can find/everything in this thread discuss using a 12V DC supply or connecting them to an accessory decoder , or some high end Digikeijs black box. But never AC The intended application is an N gauge layout which is DC analogue. 16V AC supply is available, but the only 12V DC supply is the traction power (and connecting up to something that changes polarity and is turned up and down seems like a bad idea...)

The current issue of the Railway Modeller contains a rather startling review of this model, with the deadpan statement that they were unable to test it because one of the wheels fell off the review sample and they couldn't reattach it: I am startled that a model with such an obvious defect managed to get through the development process, and even more startled and bewildered that a manufacturer believes that the market can be made to swallow it. And this is the Mk2 improved M7.....

Actually the key for Southern England is in the Irish Sea. (Having spent a 5 minutes wondering why the N Sea key cuts off at the Jurassic before h5 , which is plainly the chalk....)

Not quite - the mainlines out of Waterloo were still steam-worked until the late summer of 1967. But that meant Bulleid Pacifics. Smaller locos were there, but not in great numbers

Just a thought , but was the bright idea behind the raised ends to provide a form of wind protection when running, the shelter preventing the passengers' hats being blown off? (That the feature did not become common suggests it was an idea that didn't work.) The original 3rd class coaches would have given a view forward . Those with raised ends wouldn't. We take it for granted that you can only see out of the side of a railway coach. Early passengers may have had a different expectation - are we seeing some daring passengers kneeling on the seat to get a view of the approaching tunnel over the top of the end , such as passengers in the other open coaches would get anyway?

Many ways . Some scrub them out with a fibreglass pencil. Some use IPA or other solvent. T-Cut is possible. A touch of paint over then apply new . Fox and others sell obliteration patches. And if you are applying BR details on a black panel you might not even need to remove them. The black background becomes an inherent obliteration patch

The one hard bit of info seems to be that the LMS Stanier coaches in LMS and BR liveries are pretty imminent - 2 months away, so presumably already being made and getting ready to go in a container. The surprise might indeed be the Duchess , or an HST set The pessimistic view "nothing more till mid 2024" seems to be unfounded

So they've gone with an 08 instead of a steam tank engine. The J94 and 57xx are announced and have apparently been in tooling since early this year They are making Mk1s and short wheelbase wagons. The HAAs will be in the next tranche of wagons, over the next few months. The Cls 37 + 47 have just been confirmed as going ahead in Phase 3. Really all this amounts to is dropping the Duchess in favour of 37+47 ....

A matter of weeks ago , in one of the Hornby threads , someone pointed us to Oxford Bundles. This commercial nether hell is where Margate is desperately trying to off-load the real dregs of the unsaleable stock (Note : dregs in commercial terms. Many of the Hornby models - like the J15 - are actually pretty decent models . But no-one wants to buy them) Oxford Bundles - incl J15 You might have to remove the lettering and renumber to get a BR black one. But unlined black is a do-able livery And this bit of desperation flags some of the real unsaleable stuff : desperate loco disposal These quotes from Hornby's Financial Report seem very relevant to the developments with Oxford promised products: To me the last paragraph is why the Oxford Rail J26 will not go ahead. There is a military maxim " never reinforce failure" - and they are disposing of Oxford Rail J27s in bundles. Not enough TT:120 sets , too many black 0-6-0s...

That brings us back to where we started... Hornby have sent out an email to those ordering the future models via the Hornby website , saying their orders have been cancelled. And, yes, I do believe that signals that those models are going to be cancelled, and will never appear. I cannot imagine the new regime at Margate signing off production of a J26 when they have J27s they can't shift stuck in the warehouse. Not when they have signalled that they intend to make what sells, not what doesn't. Reallocate those production slots to TT:120.... I can also imagine a conversation at Margate "So why do you want to make this 35T tanker? We're already doing the TTA in OO. We've got the Oxford 10T . Why do we need this???" "Oh, we used to do it in Airfix? Then re-run that as a Classic. Oh, we sold the moulds cos it was limited production/low sales...?" That might be misplaced thinking, but I can certainly imagine that's how a new "sales-driven" regime looking at this project might think. The Oxford Rail 10T tank wagon has been given the thumbs up - they've duplicated it in TT:120 . That might have a future in the main Hornby range, as might the open wagon What we do not know is how the pre-orders are split between the Hornby and Oxford websites . If most of them are through the Hornby site - and that must have a far greater market reach - cancelling the Hornby site pre-orders might go a long way to terminating the project I don't doubt that an awful lot of the Hornby inventory bulge is not Oxford Rail (Some of it is LMS suburbans, J15s and D16/3s... all Hornby models). But I reckon Oxford has been a noticeable part of the problem , so closing down the Rail side of Oxford makes sense

Given that the W&M railbuses were Anglicisations of the DB's railbuses that isn't surprising

This is not specifically an Oxford Rail matter (and this is an Oxford Rail thread) but... Having looked at the linked piece , this bit leapt out and hit me: Those comments will have many members of this community choking on their coffee, because it is recieved wisdom in much of the hobby that direct sales by Hornby are intolerable and immoral , and the target sales volume over the internet should be "as near zero as possible. " Indeed that small third party distributors are the only legitimate sales channel for Hornby... The fight against Hornby concession outlets, deals with boxshifters, and above all the website, within the hobby has been ferocious, over many years. However that plainly isn't how outside observers see the situation. For better or worse. I still stand by my basic point. Oxford Rail models haven't sold - as evidenced by the desperate measures being taken to shift remaining stocks of models released many years ago. That amounts to commercial failure for Oxford Rail. The QC issue is perhaps explained by the reflection that diecast doesn't have to work. Hence Oxford Rail were on fairly safe ground with wagons - but apparently got into quite a lot of trouble with locomotives.

One piece of hard information: 8 years after release the Oxford Rail Radials have not "sold through". Nor have the Dean Goods roughly 5 years after release. By any normal standard these models have been serious commercial failures The Oxford Rail Mk3s were irredeemably flawed (the tooling couldn't be rectified and has no future) There have evidently been a significant level of non-working returns. The only other case where I can remember non-working examples of a RTR loco being sold off by the manufacturer is the Hattons Class 66. There certainly must have been a large stock of dud returns for such a sell-off to be practical. While many on here may have liked the models as a budget range at attractive price, the price clearly did not shift the products. That amounts to commercial failure Far from Oxford Rail being a great success snuffed out when they fell under the Dark Shadow of Margate , it seems to me that Lynton Davies managed to sell the company on before the problems became apparent, and I suspect Hornby Hobbies bought a pup. Nobody would dare to point that out while he was CEO at Hornby . Now he has moved on - I suspect the new regime's view is that Oxford Rail produced models that didn't sell and created an inventory problem, as well as being unreliable product. If the locos didn't sell, and many of the ones that did came back as returns because they didn't work, it is unlikely that the product turned a profit, especially when sold at a lower price point to begin with. On top of that, there is the question of brand coherence and where they fit A small subsiduary that makes products that don't sell, and frequently don't work, at a loss; and which doesn't really sit anywhere in a mess of branding is an obvious target for a new broom. "Why are we doing this?" is the obvious question for the new CEO to ask when he trips over a pile of Oxford Rail stock in the warehouse - and it's rather difficult to come up with a convincing answer. The seperate company and the retail website will no doubt be maintained to the end of the current (new) financial year. Apart from anything else they need to offload the stuff sitting in the warehouse before shutting down the Oxford website: no doubt there will be an Oxford Rail clearance stand at Warley again this year. There may be a minority interest somewhere that stops integration Many of the wagons could be integrated in the Hornby range (they've already shrunk the Oxford Rail tank wagon for TT120, which is a pointer) .A few of the locos might be re-run in some years time by Hornby. But basically I think Oxford Rail is being closed down. Oxford Diecast may have to remain in legal existance if there is a minority interest, but Hornby do not need to produce any further models (or runs of models) under the Oxford brand. It may make sense for the tooling of any wagons of interest to be transferred to Hornby - it would be a backdoor way of reducing a loss at Oxford Diecast, and anyone who goes to the new regime at Margate to pitch a OO wagon project might well face the argument "but we could just buy some Oxford tools for X - so why should we sink money into this?"