Hornby's new HST

I understand both the "traditional" HST with Paxman Valentias and the units re-engined with MTU engines are being covered - there are different roof arrangements involved. They are also going to cover the power cars that were given buffers when they were used as improvised DVTs on the ECML at the start of electrification - the 91s were avauilable for traffic some time before the Mk4 DVTs appeared . Grand Central have some of these I believe.

Of course the other big improvement is that they will have a decent modern mechanism, with a centrally mounted motor driving both bogies and all wheel pick up - in other words it should now shift a scale length train reliably out of the box

Having a modern Bo-Bo drive might open up a few more possibilities for Hornby - could we finally see a new 86? Or a new generation 25 - the Bachmann one is not considered perfect and hornby used to have a 25 in their range

I expect we will get some power cars for the club project , so long as a suitable livery is available

This photo is off the REx website and has been linked before, but it's a shot of preproduction tooling from an angle not one of Hornby's digital coloured images

HST power car

The pictures look realy good.
However one question sprang to mind, Hornby are doing the class 43 as a power and dummy twin pack right, if the powered car has a working fan arrangement one would think it will follow the established route to achieve this, ie a rubber band off of one of the drive shafts. How are they going to power the fans in the dummy car?
The only other slight negative I can see is the lack of a CCM, but when you think about the problems some have had with the CCMs on some other Hornby diesels and the lack of CCM on their current mk3 stock this isn't an issue.
Anyway they look great and it almost makes me wish for a layout to run them on. Hold on an excuse is coming, I've seen a photo of an HST set on a special going through an industrial location, will have to try and remember where I saw it and have a look see exactly what it was all about.

Andii

QUOTE (5696Arethusa @ 19 Jun 2008, 21:46) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>The only other slight negative I can see is the lack of a CCM, but when you think about the problems some have had with the CCMs on some other Hornby diesels and the lack of CCM on their current mk3 stock this isn't an issue.
But ironically, this is the first new tooling diesel on which the CCM would have been not only most appropriate, but also much less likely to cause a problem. As Hornby have belatedly realised, their CCM really needs a rigid bar coupler; and they now supply a pair of their R8220 couplers with their CCM fitted coaches. (Have they started putting a pair of R8220 in with their CCM fitted diesels?) Fingers firmly crossed that Hornby get decent sales on the power cars, and realise that the mk3's need a matching upgrade, to include CCM on all HST vehicles. The longer the coach, the greater the need for CCM.

And hopefully that and other lessons will have been fully digested when the IC225 comes up for renewal, and it will have CCM, working corridor connectors, auto electric couplers throughout so one decoder can control all the interior and exterior lighting...

QUOTE (34C @ 20 Jun 2008, 09:15) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>As Hornby have belatedly realised, their CCM really needs a rigid bar coupler; and they now supply a pair of their R8220 couplers with their CCM fitted coaches. (

And hopefully that and other lessons will have been fully digested when the IC225 comes up for renewal, and it will have CCM, working corridor connectors, auto electric couplers throughout so one decoder can control all the interior and exterior lighting...
So why cannot Hornby (according to some people) get CCM/KKK to work properly without rigid bars ? - after all FLM, Roco, MarTrix, Piko et all can do it, so it's not exactly rocket science is it ?

It would be nice to think that newly tooled MU's will be produced with features (such as conductive couplings) that have been used by the "continentals" for many years or is it still important to save a few pennies here & there - and people say that the UK has caught up.................

Hornby's only new multiple unit is the 153 not yet released , and as a single car unit , connective couplings are not going to be an issue.

Bachmann's modern generation DMUs (158, 166, 170) precede DCC becoming common in the UK so conductive couplings were not an issue at that stage (they aren't DCC ready - and the 158 is now 12 years old)

With the 108 , their first DCC Ready MU, they opted for a decoder in each car. At Showcase they were displaying the body for the 150/2 [or so I gather] but the underframe isn't tooled. The Cravens is for next year , maybe

DMUs have long been something of a poor relation in the UK scene and in the Lima era , underframes were represented simply by a black box (Lima were the main producer of DMUs - Hornby have tooled up just 3 themselves in their entire history - Triang 101, Hornby 110 and 142 , and the Pacer did have underframe detail and conductive couplings , albeit for other reasons)

I agree conductive couplings are definitely the way to go for 2 car DMUs but as we've had just one newly tooled DMU since DCC became mainstream its not entirely surprising the manufacturers are still getting their heads round what needs to be done.

Someone has mentioned conductive couplers in a spec for a forthcoming model- can't remember if it was Bachmann or Daopol for their Thumper

As for retooled ECML electric stock - don't hold your breath. We don't have a modern 86 yet though perhaps the new HST mechanism opens the way, and the decade old Mk3s aren't being retooled to match the HST , at least at present. 91s and Mk4s have got to be some way behind those in the queue.

Put another way , exactly how many 4mm 25kV ECML layouts are there on the exhibition circuit??

QUOTE (Brian Considine @ 20 Jun 2008, 10:40) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>So why cannot Hornby (according to some people) get CCM/KKK to work properly without rigid bars ? - after all FLM, Roco, MarTrix, Piko et all can do it, so it's not exactly rocket science is it ?

It would be nice to think that newly tooled MU's will be produced with features (such as conductive couplings) that have been used by the "continentals" for many years or is it still important to save a few pennies here & there - and people say that the UK has caught up.................
My opinion is that it is a detail design thing on the Hornby CCM, combined with the legacy coupler. Just not quite enough centering force, particularly once more than about four coaches are used, even if the mechanism is carefully lubricated to be as free acting as possible. And the tension lock coupler provides no recentering assistance; quite the reverse, it can exacerbate the tendency for the CCM to stay off centre. Substitute something like a Kadee and the Hornby CCM works noticeably better - no derailments - but for the full benefit it does need a rigid bar.

Bachmann have made mention of potential future use of conductive couplings for MU models. That will be a welcome development, particularly as more MU and fixed formation train models are likely to emerge in the nest decade. As for the 'catching up' thing, I am firmly in the 'yet more required' camp. But I remain glad of the movement away from 'next to no change' that dominated UK RTR for so long

QUOTE (Ravenser @ 20 Jun 2008, 10:26) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Hornby's only new multiple unit is the 153 not yet released , and as a single car unit , connective couplings are not going to be an issue.
Bachmann's modern generation DMUs (158, 166, 170) precede DCC becoming common in the UK so conductive couplings were not an issue at that stage (they aren't DCC ready - and the 158 is now 12 years old)
1972 (36 years ago) Rowa produced a 3-car EMU (DB ET420) unit, fully lit, directional lights, underfloor flywheel drive, using conductive couplings well before DCC, so there still is no excuse. The later versions as produced by Roco are of course DCC ready.

QUOTE (Ravenser @ 20 Jun 2008, 10:26) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>but as we've had just one newly tooled DMU since DCC became mainstream its not entirely surprising the manufacturers are still getting their heads round what needs to be done.
Why does it take producers of UK models so, so long to "get their heads round what needs to be done" ?

QUOTE (Ravenser @ 20 Jun 2008, 10:26) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Put another way , exactly how many 4mm 25kV ECML layouts are there on the exhibition circuit??
Don't know, but surely there would be more if decent models were available ?

All down to penny pinching ?

Bachmann's 158 and 170 work fine as they come, on DC. Its only when DCC comes into the picture that conductive couplers are an issue - and both models came out before DCC was mainstream in the UK or indeed used by more than a handful

As I said, the only 4mm DMU tooled up since DCC started to become widespread relied on 2 decoders (one in each coach) rather than a conductive coupler . I'm not sure I would really class not adopting your preferred solution on the very first model to face the issue as "taking so long" .

And whatever the reason that British D+E modellers seem to have a Type 5 freight diesel fetish and an aversion to electric traction and passenger trains , I really don't think the lack of 25kV layouts, either on the exhibition circuit or elsewhere , has anything whatsoever to do with penny pinching .

The fact that every Type 5 diesel class ever built bar the 59s (all 6 of em!) has been released in a modern generation OO model with full centre drive, DCC ready, lights etc in the last 7 years, and all the Type 4s have been covered as well, while no new electric locomotive has appeared in 16 years and precisely 1 EMU has been released RTR in any scale in the last 30 years (Hornby's decade old networker) , has nothing to do with penny-pinching by British modellers. We can debate why Heljan thought Falcon and Kestral were viable propositions and a class 86 wasn't , but I wouldn't really call the two prototype locos cheap, and I don't think the market is focussing on freight diesels to save money

Bachmann have said that their Farish electric locos are the worst selling in their entire range and they haven't yet sold out the first Chinese production run of them. I'm not aware they are inferior to the rest of the inherited Farish range. DC Kits report their 25kV kits are the slowest selling part of their range.

The only ECML electric layout I can think of , in any scale, is E. Neuk MRC's Drem in N (which I didn't see in the flesh cos I didn't get to DEMU Showcase at Burton). I can think of just two layouts based on GE electrics though the wires have been up from Liverpool St since 1949 and the GE electrified system must be pushing 350 route miles . In fact there are about 3 times as many MSW Woodhead route layouts around as there are Eastern 25kV layouts

Yes there are rather more WCML 25kV layouts - but we've still no 86 - so I wouldn't be holding my breath waiting for a new 91 and retooled Mk4s