[butler-henderson]

Most current locos are designed for a mimium radius of 438mm (UK 2nd radius) but even then issues can arise and supplied detail add ons are usually not fittable or need significanyt trimming.

 

[Graham Plowman]

Most current locos are designed for a mimium radius of 438mm (UK 2nd radius) but even then issues can arise and supplied detail add ons are usually not fittable or need significanyt trimming.

I agree - models end up being so compromised that it makes me wonder what the point is. I really don't understand the obsession with R1 and R2 - they should be scrapped as far as I'm concerned as they don't encourage good, realistic practice.

 

[kristopher1805]

Graham it's all very well scrapping R1 but there are a lot of modellers who would give up including dare I say it - those terrorised into minimum space constraints by the house gremlin - who simply have minimum space and Hornby Railroad models will make the R1 even if they never use this on the Hornby TV programme. R2 is the standard for settrack points

Now just think all those people buying this R1/R2 railway are in fact keeping the larger product we buy alive because it is all turnover of funds with a well worked out product, bit silly looking at a P2 tackling R1 but hey if that's all you can do I'll take it well in fact in OO9.

So good luck to them and consider how fortunate we really are.

 

[34C]

It's the retail trade that are the 'gatekeepers' of minimum radius capability, as the customers of the RTR Brands. In OO, R2 is 'locked in' by the all pervasive set track point, thought to be present on 80% of UK layouts; the retailers want to make sales to that sector.

I'd like to see one of the 'aiming higher' outfits go for a better minimum radius standard; and was quite recently disappointed to see Accurascale adopt the tired old fudge of visibly underscale wheel diameter for their class 55. But, I have to accept that they will have made this decision to build in an inaccuracy, for the better sales potential of the resulting visually compromised but R2 capable model.

The next question would be 'what new minimum radius standard'?. In OO I believe that circa 30" / 750mm radius 'does the job' in the sense that models of the largest subjects can be externally correct, with a 24" / 600mm radius allowing the majority of UK subjects to run. Will any outfit punting its money on RTR OO ever be brave enough?

 

[kristopher1805]

Hey 34c you know that Heljan have bucked the trend, R1 will not work for the OO9 Lynton Manning Wardles, and as for the O2 well that needs a minimum of R4 on a few of them anyway.
So R3 is 505, R2 is 432 so the step is 73 thus R4 is 578 and R5 is 651, R6 is 724 but as above it is down to how much space you have!

 

[Graham Plowman]

Graham it's all very well scrapping R1 but there are a lot of modellers who would give up including dare I say it - those terrorised into minimum space constraints by the house gremlin - who simply have minimum space and Hornby Railroad models will make the R1 even if they never use this on the Hornby TV programme. R2 is the standard for settrack points

Now just think all those people buying this R1/R2 railway are in fact keeping the larger product we buy alive because it is all turnover of funds with a well worked out product, bit silly looking at a P2 tackling R1 but hey if that's all you can do I'll take it well in fact in OO9.

So good luck to them and consider how fortunate we really are.

Kris, this is what 'Railroad' is for. If people want to use R1 and R2, that's fine, they just need to accept that if they make that choice, then it comes with all the compromises inherent in a Railroad models designed to accomodate such curves.

I think the problem we have is that manufacturers are trying to make 'one size fits all' models which appeal to 'serious modellers' while at the same time, can be used on R1 and R2 by 'trainset players'. The problem with that approach is that models end up with eye-sore compromises (eg Hornby fixed pony trucks on 4-6-2 locos) which serious modellers object to. Likewise Deltic wheels sizes mentioned by 34C above.

The reality is one of commercial dynamics. Serious modellers are less than 10% of the overall market from what I have been told by a number of industry sources. Some even thought it was less than that. Be that as it may, the 90%+ 'non serious' modellers are the ones keeping the hobby financially afloat.

Regards the L&B locos not being suitable for R1, that doesn't surprise me at all. Right back to the early 70's when people modelled these locos in 009, they were normally modelled incorrectly with inside frames for exactly this reason. Personally, I'm of the view that if you want the model to be correct and the result is that it won't handle R1, then so be it. Time people need to realise that their demands on basic physics have reached their limits!

As for P2's on R1 and R2, I personally don't have any expectations of it negotiating such radii as it would look rediculous. Exhibition 'walkaway material' for me.

My thinking is that there must be a better way forward. Taking Hornby's fixed pony trucks as an example, why can they not be made as separate parts which can be locked into position with a flangeless wheel as now ? That same part should be able to be unlocked (maybe a screw) such that it can move prototypically while having a proper flanged wheel fitted.

 

[kristopher1805]

No I meant the Railroad P2 not myself tested it on R1 as I have none (except used asa tram track but I expect it will maybe work on this?

 

[butler-henderson]

Not according to Hornby, the Railroad P2 is specified as 438mm minimum radius - in fact of the Railroad range its only the tank engines and 0-4-0 diesels that are indicated as suitable for a 371mm radius curve although I would have thought most of the bogied diesels and MU would go round and the Dean Single given the age of the tooling unless the side play on teh wheels is now more limited than it use to be.

 

[PAPPA.B]

I Have a couple of Bachmann split chassis 43xx one of which has the wobble i was waiting (hoping) that Bachmann would replaced these they have not so far but Dapol have produced some so now i got one. My aim is to have as many different types of GWR loco's around the thirties forties so I get them from were ever I can. Most of mine are Hornby and they vary it seems the smoothest running are the Castle, King, also three LMS Duchesses (Hornby) and the Hall class (Bachmann) The smaller loco's seem to be a little more noisy in general my point is there is not much between them it will be interesting once the layout is running to see just how they run and last. Jim

 

[kristopher1805]

I. have a Hornby Grange and it is a very nice runner a really good all rounder.

 

[Graham Plowman]

I. have a Hornby Grange and it is a very nice runner a really good all rounder.

+1

 

[34C]

...The smaller loco's seem to be a little more noisy...

Are the smaller loco models older designs? Hornby have perpetuated their Dean goods, pannier and 0-4-2T with very dated mechanisms; should all have been at least brought up to the standard of Bachmann's current 56xx and 57xx, which are knocking 25 years since introduction. Hornby so like to squeeze every drop out of the old stuff...

...in general my point is there is not much between them it will be interesting once the layout is running to see just how they run and last...

You shouldn't have much trouble with the 'newly tooled for Chinese production' models; owners with GW models can doubtless point out any weaknesses to look out for.

I have used the current style Bachmann mechanisms (of GW locos, from the 56xx and 57xx mentioned above) to repower white metal kits with long ago clapped out mechanisms. Despite now typically having far more weight to move around than they did originally with plastic bodies, they all still run sweetly fifteen years and more since installation. Plastics compatible grease on the drive line and axles, regular dabs of oil on the crankpins, done.

 

[PAPPA.B]

Yes they are the older type I have both one open cabbed Hornby and two Bachmann Panniers . The Hornby pulls really well if a bit noisier than the other two. I also have three 2-4-0 t's two Hornby one Airfix which is a non runner. The two Hornbys are quite noisy, with the exception of the Airfix all the others were built in China . Jim

 

[kristopher1805]

I think as per 34c that Hornby knowing better still keep older locos going far too long when really they need an upgrade now they can do a nice job as they prove with B1, Grange, Black 5, Royal Scot, Patriot and many others even if some of these could be somewhat better they still hold their own, the design resource to upgrade is probably limited as we see in the Hornby prog and I wonder if Hornby is rethinking it's 'made in China' policy, nothing political about a train set but China is trying hard to wreck their own economy and it's working, unemployment (aka Flexible working) is sweeping through China, the cost advantages of yesteryear are gone so I wonder if Hornby will join the exodus anytime soon.which will introduce upset and changes plus the need to setup elsewhere.
If I were Kohler I would stay with China for existing product but more newer models elsewhere, probably India but I do see this as the coming distraction, everyone else is leaving China as thousands of factories shut down, will Hornby be the last to go?

 

[PAPPA.B]

I agree but cost are going up everwhere as you say not keeping your eggs in one basket may be the way to go

 

[Graham Plowman]

I seem to recall that Roco (or Piko ?) is making some of its models in Vietnam.

The golden days of stuff being made in China are long over.

The present pandemic should be a 'wakeup call' to all executives that manufacturing overseas comes with huge supply chain risks. Perhaps there should be a re-evaluation of what we should make at home and what we shouldn't and that maybe, profit isn't everything ?

 

[kristopher1805]

Profit allows you to fund the next product but the other issue is transport costs getting product around the world isn't cheap and a shortage of containers doesn't help either, so getting to market matters and this has never been too well done by our suppliers

 

[PAPPA.B]

I afraid profit is most important with out which there is no future on the other hand excessive profit can also be damaging . Bringing some manufacturing back is possible better tech less transportation against high wage bills . Where ever you take your production there always be hurdles to over come and mistakes to be made. Also I would not write China off just yet if companies are leaving for other countries then they may take some steps to help change there minds

 

[dwb]

Roco (or Piko ?) is making some of its models in Vietnam.

Roco have a site in a Vietnam. They publish a full list on their website - Roco Modelleisenbahn About us Roco sites: Bergheim / Salzburg, Gloggnitz, Banská Bystrica, Arad, Ho Chi Minh

Piko list Germany and China
PIKO Spielwaren GmbH - Company

Jason Shron of Rapido Trains presented a case study for 'ACME Model Trains' in Rapido Newsletter 141 (July 2021) where he sets out how cash flow can impact a model railway business. Rapido News 141 - Project Update and All-New Hopper!

David

 

[Julian2011]

There is no doubt that profit is the driving force, why else would people invest. But, as Graham said, there is a re-evaluation of what was cheap production/profit compared to what was reliable production/profit. Investors are moving as a result of hiccups in the china systems which have less than positive effects on the process. It's clear that other countries are now in a position to offer products without the problems which China delivers.

For my investment, I would take a 25%, certain, profit against a 45% risk profit, every time. The reason is simple, that a more certain [lesser % profit can be re-invested to make further profit] whereas a higher margin / greater risk failure, simply can't be re-invested. Looking at China investments, I am not the only one to think that way.