Henley's Big Expansion

[Bigmet]

...What I see is a mishmash approach where really Hornby are aiming for adult collectors which is a different market than the people who want to daily run their trains...

I don't think Hornby's aim is that good, 'mishmash' (a term I last heard from my late mother!) is on the money. Hard to know what you are going to get when a model is announced. Sometimes it will be really good in all respects: dimensions, appearance, mechanism performance; and happily I have a good number of these running really well on the layout.

But then there is the recent persistent BR green livery error which is a bind, and a tendency to cut corners like the clumsy mounting of the flangeless trailing truck wheelsets on pacifics, very poor; and Hornby are going to demonstrate yet another way to foul up on the new 9F. This last could have been a knockout model, but re-using the existing mechanism layout with compromised wheel spacing makes a muck of the appearance: one of those 'once seen, cannot be ignored' faults.

... Fun!

Happily, there's enough good stuff from Hornby, other brands, kits etc. that this remains a very enjoyable hobby.

[Bufferstop]

You would have thought that correcting the position of a presumably non driven axle's hole would be relatively low cost to changing the dies for a detailed body, or does this mean that somewhere there's a chassis mountain that they'd rather make use of. It amazed me that H-D when recommencing production in the 40's were happy to make changes to every chassis to incorporate Peco style couplers which I doubt generated much in additional sales Yet couldn't introduce the plastic bushes needed to go 2 Rail. A gift to Triang (Lines Bros) and look where that led.

[Bigmet]

You would have thought that correcting the position of a presumably non driven axle's hole would be relatively low cost to changing the dies for a detailed body, or does this mean that somewhere there's a chassis mountain that they'd rather make use of...

My suspicion is that this model requires a lot of new tooling - and the chassis block has to be new tooling to enable the top of the frame plates to be represented - so there was probably some pressure to use existing design already in CAD where possible. So despite necessarily tooling for a new chassis block, the 'vari-spacing' of the coupled axle centres has been retained: in reality the coupled axles of the 9F are equally spaced.

The existing competitor model has a rather more intelligent compromise in coupled wheelbase, sufficiently subtle that no-one has ever complained. (If Bachmann want to, they can cast a new chassis block for their model, make some adjustments to its recognised bodywork weaknesses, and they'll have the model to beat...)

[Chops]

More testing. It is found that some of the vintage pizza cutters don't like the crossings, but as things progress I am leaning more and more towards the new things out there by Hornby and Bachmann that get positive reviews on Sam's Trains Review.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qabPAUrlnWc

[Chops]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCICYBzEYZE

More testing. Some of the pizza cutter wagons stumble over the diamonds, but maintain.

[Chops]

A Soviet Era video. Nothing really changes over time is the theme. Similarities to current events is merely coincidental.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUQDH8SQaLwY

[CPL57]

This layout comes along nicely. Congrats. I have many Jouef coaches like yours.

[Chops]

Merci, CPL! Show us your Jouef. I enjoy that make.

[Chops]

A large specimen of trilobite is being excavated in Henley.

[Chops]

Nessie watching continues whilst the Southern Railway does a brisk business in parcels. Some things, however, never change.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0NIib7Hjnc&t=4s

[Chops]

The diminutive Hornby Peckett runs like a jewel, and the older, more vintage Hornby High Wheeler set is fairly reliable throughout it all. Care has to be taken to not collide at crossings. Slowly, things are taking shape.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmWw_n5LJLg

[Bufferstop]

That crossing is begging to be signalled before there's an almighty smash. Even if they are only dummy signals it would at least look safe. I believe there's a feature in DCC called "stop on DC" which would be a way of protecting the crossing. You could then have some lovely semaphore signals that do something.

[Chops]

Thank you, Bufferstop, I have two semaphores that I sprinkled around, not knowing what to do with them. As for stopping in time, it keeps me quite alert, as I have advanced to some of the better, more expensive models that will not tolerate a beating. Two trains can take some minutes to traverse the entire circuit, but sooner or later they are destined to eclipse on another, and for that I must avoid distraction. I was contemplating an auto reversing length of point to point track, bisecting the mains, but I am beginning to think that is asking for trouble, and might not fit at all, anyways. I take it they would be proper to be on the left of oncoming traffic.

[Chops]

The Oxford Rails Dean Goods and the Horby Terrier perform flawlessly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lt5IH8LdAMU

[Bufferstop]

Re signals-

I take it they would be proper to be on the left of oncoming traffic.

That would be the preferred location particularly on double track, but it's not absolute. The arms of semaphores have distinctive face and reverse markings so they can be placed on the right of the track, on single lines or where the two tracks are separated such as an island platform and a cutting wall or such prevents a left hand siting. The laxity of this rule leads to the need for a driver to "Know the road" before being allowed out on his own. The siting of the aspect for the notorious S109 was deemed to be a major factor in the Ladbrook Grove disaster where a newly qualified driver of a DMU overran and ploughed into the side of an oncoming HST.

[Edit] I was taken to task by a friend who's well versed in the design of railway junctions who said surely the joining line would have been protected by a trap point and or overrun spur. Yeah that's the theory and you'll see it used all over the place. Because of the speeds involved S109 should have been followed by a full switch and escape trap terminating in a sand drag. BR in it's wisdom elected not to in order to get in extra tracks. There wasn't even a derailing catch point because at the speeds involved a derailed train would have been a loose cannon.