Phil Parker

There used to be a whitemetal kit (Springside?) and the thin bars made it very flimsy. It wasn't very heavy either so would make virtuality no difference in weight, trouble is there just isn't much body. Also, I think you'll find commercial casting lie this is normally done in a pewter based alloy which is less poisonous but lighter. Bachmann will have suitable plastic figures in their range soon. Again, whitemetal people will add very little weight, perhaps a few grammes. Not enough to make an appreciable difference to running.

No, it's been contracted to an independant so you shouldn't have lots of recycled articles, although I'd expect it to take an issue or two to get into it's stride.

Humbrol track colour enamel - 173. Thinned and airbrushed over a coat of Halfords red oxide primer before ballasting. I only spray as it's quicker than hand painting but either works. For Ally Pally, I weathered the yard trackwork, will post something on this later in the week.

I'm looking forward to my APT-E because it was "The Future" when I was a child. Drawings and photos of it fired my imagination. Trying to work out how to build a model has occupied my time occasionally. Etched sides rolled around a soldered up framework seemed the best option, but I'm happy to not have to ponder that any more. Sadly, all my layouts are too short to accomodate it so I'm thinking it should reside on a cushion, but which colour? Seriously though, I've enjoyed following developments. Getting to know Kit, Jason and Bill has been fantastic although some of them seem to leave me for dust in the "knowing about sci-fi" stakes!

Three words: Battlespace Turbo Car. :-)

OK, the APT-E is on the way. Time to support a new tilting model train project. A Lego APT-P: https://ideas.lego.com/projects/102706 Admit it. You want one. Yes you do.

The big firms don't usually want standard items back, after all, they have been poked, prodded and taken to bits so what would they do with them? Limited editions tend to be different and do get returned. Review models tend to become material for future projects so the supplier gets a second appearance for the sample. When I built a Class 13 for HM years ago, I used a pair of Hornby 08s from the review pile and people assumed that's what you'd use. If I did it again, the base models would be Bachmann.

From reading reaction to changes within the hobby, I'd suggest you are a very untypical modeller, at least on-line. Very few seem to be buying just for a layout, most are grabbing everything that comes out. I recall reading when the Bachmann price rises occured someone saying they bought 5-6 locos a month and now could only buy 3-4. Was there a massive layout awaiting these? Almost certainly not - you'd need a pretty big room to build anything that needs 60 locos a year. My guess is a big cupboard. While this might be an extreem example, the poster isn't alone. Buy just for the sort of branch line most have space to build and you probably need less than 6 locos and those, as you say, will be smaller 0-6-0 types. Manufacturers need to sell product so they make the sort of big locos that excite the buyers. Nothing wrong with that.

Looking really good. Metcalfe station building? It really suits the model.

I'd disagree about the bus. Lots of people will travel on a train who wouldn't contemplate getting on a bus. Around here, trains to Birmingham are busy, even off peak. Busses, less so. Around the country, it seems people will use tram systems who won't use a bus on the same route. Busses have a real image problem - our local ones have leather seats and USB charging points but you don't see the middle classes aboard often.

And watch the Internet melt down as all the people who can't/won't plug in a handrail have an attack of the vapours st the idea of having to so some modelling...

I'd agree. Interesting to see that the author has looked at forums to see what people are talking about too. The point about adult colouring books harking back to simpler hobbies is well made and something we could think about when trying to entice people into model railways. While I don't think the average etched kit falls into the "simpler" category how about card buildings? I still enjoy assembling just for the fun of it them and wonder how many others feel like this?

Do you have a reliable source for this? I'm curious as the range has expanded considerably over recent years and retailers report it selling. Assuming they aren't losing money on every kit, it seems odd that even an inept managment would keep throwing money in the hole.

What's stopping them now? If there is a demand then why not produce them? If a lot of people want them then they will buy them - Hornby or not.

On Sunday morning, I borrowed one end of the APT-E from Charlie to see what it would look like on Ruston Quays. He did mention it wasn't a runner and I replied, "I know. I saw the mention on RMweb". The full train would be too long for the layout so I wasn't worried, it just made a nice picture. Anyway, looking good. I was surprised how heavy the model is. Even on this pre-production version, it feels really solid and well made. I'm keenly awaiting non-sound number 3!

A couple of years ago, I went to a talk by a recently retired senior Airfix designer. He said that the high-end kits were the most profitable for the company. That seems to be proven by the fact thay keep releasing them. My local Airfix retailer has no problem selling kits at a profit too. So how do you work out that they don't make any money?

1) I did wonder about replacing the engine shed with a goods shed. I felt it may look better opposite the passenger area and avoid passengers getting coal dust all over them.. On Edgeworth I wouldn't have been able to squeeze a goods shed in here, there's only just enough space for the engine shed. More to the point, a goods shed should be in the yard. (And I know someone will come up with a prototype to prove me wrong!) I'm not sure railway companies were all that fussed about the passengers getting covered in coal dust either. Remember, the world of the steam train was far, far, dirtier than today. Everything you touched would be covered in muck. The shed would be empty most of the time that passengers were around in any numbers so it wouldn't give off any dirt. 2) Put a kick back off what were the goods lines, i.e. the two sidings at the front, running toward the signal box. put some rudimentary loco servicing facilities on this siding - e.g. coal staithe, water, maybe ash disposal. Not sure about an engine shed. You could do but that turns valuable siding space into a headshunt for the shed. If you want a kick back, I'd be more inclined to run it into a factory with a couple of sidings in front of the fiddleyard. 3) Use a 3-way asymmetric point at the start of the scenic section instead of left and right hand points. It seems to save quite a bit of room and allows a bit more breathing space. That will work but 3-way points weren't very common on the prototype, although I'm sure there were some in just this sort of location. However, it would save space and that can be just as important. I'm not sure this point was in the Code 75 range when I built Edgeworth so I didn't have the choice. 4) On looking at the layout from the front, the station building is facing away. What the onlooker sees is the rear. Is it worth re-arranging things so that the front of the station building is seen? Possibly. I quite like the idea that we see the same view as a passenger arriving at the station on Edgeworth. The train moving out of sight appeals to me too. The easiest way to do this would be to flip the plan around so the fiddle yard is at the other end, or put the yard at the back and engine shed at the front. It's all down to the modellers choice – that's the great thing about this hobby. You could build the same plan and end up with a very different layout, I think that's fantastic and I'd love to see it. 5) One thing missing is how to wire up live-frog points. Was this deliberate? That's because there isn't any wiring required. The points will work straight from the box. If you wish to switch the frog using a polarity switch on the point motor, not a bad idea for reliability, then the details are on the instructions with the point. I was trying to keep things simple as I know electricity scares people. Glad you have enjoyed the project and look forward to seeing how you get on.

They would have to work fast too. This isn't a 3D print Oxford are showing, it's a fully working model made from real tools. If you wanted to produce a spolier, it would need both loco and tender chassis tooling created from scratch and nowadays we expect more from these than the wheels being in roughly the right place. Then what do you have? An old model with a new chassis. Would it be better than the Oxford one? No. Would it be cheaper? Probably not. So why would anyone other than obsesive red box fans buy it? I can't see Hornby wanting to bother, the Oxford Radial is currently soaking up sales of that loco (I know some are waiting for the Hornby version but the OR one does seems to be shifting) and there are plenty of other prototypes out there demanding attention. If there is anyone looking at Oxford, they will be planning more models that can be produced in a million liveries. The Sentinel and Peckett will do a lot for the cash flow.

When I took the photo above for MREmag, I thought the light really highlighted the quality of the mouldings of all the new wagons. They really are crisp and best of all these are shots from the real tools, not 3D renderings. While I was there, I took a side and underneath view for BRM - this has been passed over to Andy for use later. Didn't get the chance to measure the wheelbase though.

The model shown is a single example that only just made it to the show from China - timing was so tight there wasn't even a pre-announcement to the press. The footplate is a single casting and it's reasonable to assume there willl be several other moulds offering different buffer beams. Assuming this is the case, they just clip a different one on to the body and plonk it on the chassis. No need to worry yet. The model isn't due until later in the year, by which time there will be more information available.

Revelling started it in the 1980s with their fantastic 'Visible V8' kit. Always wanted to build one of those.

I didn't get a shot of the box end - we were more interested in trying to pin someone down for an interview at the time. However, streatching the photo I do have: We were told the model is about the workings NOT the outside so I wouldn't get too excited about prototype perfection. Mind you, the box was empty so we will have to wait until October to judge the results. There are other items in the range: and the jet engine. I've built this and filmed the results for YouTube. The comments will give you an idea how easy it is to make and also that the thing runs backwards! (Not my fault, that's how it's designed)

It looks very similar to the Marklin My World range I reviewed on our Chrismas DVD. As there wasn't any product to be seen, I couldn't confirm anything but it's 1:87, battery powered and made of plastic.

Not Marigolds, R2D2 oven gloves! Less tacky than what's in that box...

The magazine licences the name "Hornby" from the company and does seem to have better relations with them than most. However, they are a separate entity, owned by Key Publications, and so can used non-Hornby products. In the past, Hornby (the company) has employed Model Rail to produce publications so it's not an exclusive deal either way. I must admit the Drax wagon review was a surprise to me. They didn't even have them on the Warley stand. Interesting that Hornby are doing commissions now too.