Hobby11

Considering the coaches they've released so far and due very soon a late 86 or an 87 or possibly a 76 or 77 would be the easiest options. Though personally none, I'd rather they get the stuff they've already announced out first!

Some of the Minitrix range of steamers had traction tyres, their ten coupled locos did, for instance. TBH they were a pain on the one I had and if I hadn't sold it on I was going to replace the axle with a non-tyred version. I'm in the "they aren't needed" camp!

I doubt we'll see that. Too much to go wrong, they'd spend all their time sorting out when things have gone wrong when changing them! You might be able to do it but the majority of new modellers will just name a mess. It'll also add to the cost. Same reason as ckd kits won't reappear.

I'd suggest that a DB407/8 would be an Arnold model, not Hornby, with a UK Eurostar version. Though I suspect that Tillig may be the obvious manufacturer with a view to dipping their toe into the UK market with a Eurostar version.

At least the magazine was only a couple of days late! 🤣

It worked fine for me last night.

Auhagen do TT tunnel mouths, I use them on my H0e layouts as H0e locos are about the same size as TT ones!

You youngsters! If you'd have started in the 60s like me it would have all been imperial!! Though we did get told what metric was, just didn't use it! 🤣

Just be aware, as NTP says, that they are for the "Continental" loading gauge, not British, which would be slightly smaller on all but a few British railways. Though if you do use them there'll be plenty of space! Incidentally for clearances on curves the old "taped pencil" method is the simplest and best: "For an outside curve tape the pencil to the inside corner of the coach, for an inside curve to the centre of the coach." Use one of your Mk3s for that as they will have the biggest overhang.

Short answer is No there isn't anything. It's trial by error I'm afraid! If you have a Mk3 coach I suspect that anything else will fit if you use that for clearances. The Mk3 has a BR loading gauge classification of C3, other than tilting trains (C4) the rest are mainly C1, so, at the moment, a Mk3 is big as it gets. If you do get something bigger (such as a Continental coach!) then there's always the "sharp knife" solution!!

Roughly 10.5ft by just over 4ft. I was brought up on Imperial as well, and still find it easier to think in that way, especially with board and room sizes. In fact the Real Railway actually still gives both measurements in regard to safety aspects such as how far to stand when keeping a safe distance from a passing train. Metric measurements only became standard in schools from 1974 onwards, and I left in '75 so never came across them when at school (none of my A level subjects included the need for measurements before anyone asks!). On a model railway front ever wondered about that strange 1200x600mm board size that's often quoted on baseboard manufacturer websites? Well it comes from the good old 4x2ft board so beloved by modellers back in the day, supposedly as an "easy to carry" board when making layouts that can be transported around! Some even quote it as 1220x610!

Yes, the infamous "duplicate post", sorry about that! I didn't get the joke element in your first post, hence my initial reply and I clarified why in my second (the third, as I've just said was down to the delay in they forum posting and shouldn't be there!). I'm sorry that you feel I took your post so seriously, Happy, it wasn't intended that way but simply as clarification for those who are less well up on how models are produced than you and I, and yes they are around! (Not sure why you addressed it to Peachy and not me, he's not a moderator as far as I know, just tell me straight if you feel I'm over-reacting, I can take it! In fact I'll take it on the chin now!! BTW the name's Hobby, those darn numbers came with the last forum update and I can't get rid of them, despite trying!) 😉

You obviously see a different Hornby to me, then! I've seen many faulty models from Heljan, Bachmann and even Kato but they don't attract the same level of criticism. To me it seems people like to make Hornby the whipping boys rather than any real difference in quality. As for Rolls Royce, they just use a well known name, I don't see them saying their products are better.

My issue with many of the track plan books produced by manufacturers is they tend to place having lots of points and track above what can be operated. Look at Pod 1, the sidings on the top left are pretty much unworkable. Yes it fits the criteria of lots of track in a small space but trying to operate it would be a nightmare! What would be better is to take some of the old CJ Freezer plans and adapt them for the Hornby TT track.

Or a small but vocal minority blow things out of proportion?