Electrostar

Just to add to that, perhaps potential buyers like me should write to Hormby telling of my anticipation, disappointment with the cosmetic issues but more importantly fear of buying such a reportedly poor runner.

As much as I'd love Hornby to recall and reissue the 4-Veps I fear they're going to be quietly dropped. They'll look at the bottom line and if indications from here are correct, say few were sold and move on. They may even use the sales figures as reason for not introducing further EMUs (Belle excepted). As we know, the reality is these highly-anticipated models would have been bought in their droves by modellers (though not necessarily the father-kids train set crowd) if they'd been up to scratch. I saw the two units in Modelzone yesterday and felt so tempted to buy. I could live with the cosmetic errors but I can't take a chance on the motors and running issues.

I'd say more than have overhead wires! I'm sure plenty of people invested in 86s, 87s, 90s, 91s and 390s without having OHLE.

I think Bachmann should be commended for producing both the slam-door EMUs and the more modern Desiros, and I hope it's the start of a bigger expansion to include both classic and contemporary overhead units and third-rail stock. I'm keeping my fingers crossed the model will be critically-acclaimed and of the same standard as the 4CEP or higher. How do we think sales will compare between the blue-grey and London Midland liveries? I personally found the Silverlink-Central "shared user" blue-grey livery bland, and much prefer the detail of London Midland. However, I realise that by producing the blue-grey version first Bachmann are appealing to modellers who might also own Central units, Virgin Pendolinos and 87s etc.

Cosmetic issues aside, I would be highly surprised if Hornby isn't now aware of the problems with faulty motors and VEPs not handling curves. If a model isn't fit for purpose then it needs to be recalled and replaced. Are we to assume Hornby won't do anything until Trading Standards or TV's Watchdog gets involved? Many who own model railways want to run a product they can take straight out of the box; we cannot be expected to do all manor of modifications. Like I say, this is nothing to do with cosmetic errors - we can see those and choose whether to buy or not to buy. But if you have chosen to buy then you expect it to work. No ifs, not buts. Hornby needs to put its hands up and take responsibility.

I've also been following this thread with interest. Like many I had such high hopes for this model. There's a difference between a product being dimensionsally wrong or lacking in detail, and a product not doing the job it's designed for. If an appliance maker manufactured an ugly washing machine then it's up to the consumer to decide if they want to splash their cash. But if it produced a batch of washing machines that didn't spin clothes they would be recalled and replaced. The same should happen here. We can choose to buy a product knowing it looks slightly odd or has a solid partition but we shouldn't be expected to accept a model that move properly. And what about the model railway press? They must be aware of these issues and have a duty to follow up adequate reviews a few issues later with investigations into what's gone wrong. Journalists shouldn't be afraid to answer awkward questions of manufacturers.

In addition to the comments about the gangways, I looked at the photos in Model Rail and Hornby Magazine and thought the yellow front ends of the VEP looked chunky compared to the Bachman CEP. I couldn't quite put my finger on it until I looked at the pictures of prototypical VEPs on daily service in both mags and I realised it's the cleanliness of the pipe recesses on the model that are perhaps deceiving the eye. I know the pictures posted earlier in this thread show units with very clean recesses but my memories are of grubby units. Those modelers confident enough to weather (ie most of you guys on here, but not myself) will probably end up with a product that very much resembles what so many of us saw in daily service, where the dark cab windows are almost reflected in the darkness of the recesses below them. Saying, that many of the units on Wikipedia also look very clean, so I'm happy to see my theory shot down! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_423

From an untrained eye it's looking good. The cab fronts look a little odd but I think that's due to the lack of a headcode. Do we know if Hornby are offering alternative headcodes for customers to fix on the model as Bachmann do with the Cep?

I've yet to see the BRM calendar but this month's Hornby magazine features a couple of shots of the 4-Vep at Warley. It's unliveried but shows great promise with close couplings between the carriages. 25 years ago as a kid I'd look longingly at the kit-built third-rail EMUs that occasionaly featured in Railway Modeller. Finally with the 4-Cep, and forthcoming 4-Vep and 2-EPB we're there!

According to Hornby's December releases document issued earlier this week, the 4-Vep is due in April but I'll be happy with February!

If it's not in Bachmann's long-term plans then perhaps a third-party retailer like Modelzone might commission the conversion to the 450.