It's back! One year after the first Layout of the Year competition, Hornby Magazine is proud to present the second annual readers' vote to find the best model railway featured in this magazine. This year it's bigger and better and with a new catagory. The first is for club layouts, and the second is for individuals' layouts.
The prize draw
Every reader that votes for their favourite layout, by post or online, will be entered into a free prize draw for £500 of model railway equipment. The prizes, allocated to the first three entries drawn after the closing date will be:
* First prize: Maunsell 'King Arthur' 751 Etarre plus six Maunsell carriages and a 'Van C' in Southern Railway livery.
* Second prize: GNER Class 43 HST power cars plus five Mk 3 carriages in GNER colours.
* Third prize: BR Railfreight grey Class 20 plus a six Railfreight van
Another good issue. Have voted for my best layouts - note that there is the wrong illustration for Crawford Bridge which is a bit of a shame.
Nice skaledale signal box offer - may take you up on that.
Like the comprehensive reviews page - and the honesty in referring to traction problems on one of the T9s reviewed. Really would like more in depth reviews as to running qualities of these new models T9 and Schools. It says the Schools managed 6 Bachmann Mk1s but later on mentions ViTrains 47 managed a large rake of Mk1s and pullmans. Does this mean the Schools would only pull 6 coaches?
Only other point I'd make is that there does seem to be rather a lot of BR (SR)layouts appearing. This is probably down to the rash of SR locos we have at the moment - but nevertheless each layout is beginning to look a bit samey . Just a small criticism on an otherwise great mag.
A brilliant mag this month, as it is every month-I will pay paticular attention to the ballasting tips for my N-Gauge layout, so it doesn't looks as bad as my 00-Gauge layout. There is one small thing I disagree with-in the editorial. It is stated that the desinger we steam fans owe most to is George Stephenson-not for me. The man we should hail as the greatest steam locomotive desinger of all time is Richard Trevithick.
Think about it-if it hadn't been for his road steam loco in 1801, and his first railway locomotive in 1804, Stephenson wouldn't have built engines like The Rocket, and we'd have NO passenger railways, no brilliant designs like the Saints, the Black 5's, the Castles, and the A4s-in fact, we'd have nothing.
My subscription copy arrived today & as usual, first class , now to read it in detail BUT quickly scanning it, I found the review of the Lima 20 now back as Hornby, with a new motor, NEM pockets, ready for DCC, etc but no mention if the dreaded traction tyres have been fitted.
The Hornby site does not mention anything about these on http://www.hornby.com/locomotives-89/r2760/, only by going to the Service sheets, do they get mentioned.
Is it possible that for new models or re-vamped earlier models, details such as this can be included in the review?
To me, this is important as I may order it via the Internet & when it gets here, find that tyres are fitted & that to me is a backward step & would not be very happy.
If my modelling friends who follow USA outline can have small diesels without tyres & they pull 20 bogies wagons easily, I cannot see why UK diesels need them - but that is another story.
I got mine yesterday too. I found it interesting that they chose to atribute the air pump inclusion to ESU in their Duchess review rather than Hornby who would have supplied the sounds and specified what they wanted on the decoder .
Seemed a bit too much padding in it - surely to enter layout of the year you would need to have actually seen the full articles so why have 7 pages dedicated to it while Hornby 2009 accounts for another 7 pages, and the Hornby Schools 3 pages (were all those photos neccessary?). On the other hand the improving the Limby 101 article could have done with larger pictures - the ones on the page look too much like a web page, click on to see enlarged, and why is the Editor so obsessed with BR 1948-1968 that Romsey is ruined by out of the box RTR stock rather than the SR stock that belongs on it.
I saw a copy yesterday that a friend gets sent out from the UK. The magazine still stands up very well when compared to its peers. However, there is one thing that needs attention and this happens in the other magazines as well. That is, the reviewing of models.
The review of the class 20 from Hornby, a lot of words but. no mention of traction tyres or if it picks up on all wheels. The reviewer even said that he had an old Lima model with him so he could compare the two. Far too often we get reviews that are all gloss and no substance. Not a lot of help if you live 12,000 miles away from a hobby shop that stocks the model, so you can look for yourself before ordering.
The review of the school was looking good until the mention of traction tyres being fitted to one set of driving wheels. Bad luck Hornby, you just lost another sale, same as with the T9. Some modellers were having trouble fitting decoders to finely detailed new models, wait till they have to pull valve gear apart to change traction tyres.
This is my first post, not always this negative, but lack of relevant information in reviews is a real pet hate.
I've long been of the opinion we need a magazine that has interests of consumers/ modellers at heart and gives full and frank reviews. Rail Express Modeller comers close to this, but of course only relates to "modern image"
It will be interesting to see what becomes of Hornby Mags comments on the lack of traction on one of the Hornby T9s they reviewed. If you look at internet groups this is a hot topic with no comment yet from Hornby. The Hornby strategy appears to be one of keeping its head down and the problem will go away. It will be interesting to see if Hornby Mag gets any further with this - it had apparently asked Hornby to investigate. I doubt any of the other mags will bother as they are very manufacturer centric.
Yes, I agree too Manfred. The mags have a tendency to go too easy on the subject matter of their reviews. There may be a conflict of interest with keeping advertisments from the manufacturer which restrains them from saying it like it is.
In my opinion, reviews should give not only the obvious concerning the appearance of the item being reviewed but all technical apects as well, such as for locos; how many axles are driven by gears, pickups, type of motor, couplings/pockets, wheel dimensions, etc together with any obvious failings like the recent debacle with T9 locos.
To me, this info is not in the paper or on-line catalogues ( & they should ).
Or am I being too picky?
A forum community dedicated to Model train and railway owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about collections, displays, models, styles, scales, motors, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!