> The 66 is still listed as November, two months behind the 40, and the
> 57 doesn't have a date yet, see
> <http://www.bachmann.co.uk/prod1.php4?prod_selected=branchline&prod=2>
That may be the case, and that date may stand, but the point is that
Bachmann have competition with the 66 and 57, so they will put their
energies into getting that out ASAP.
I'm not necessarily saying that the 66 & 57 will appear before the 40, but
work on the 40 won't be allowed to delay them. The 40 has after all been in
development for over a year, and the pre-prod models were at Warley. We've
seen nothing of the 66 or 57, but I'll bet they will be out this year.
Adrian
John Turner - 29 Jun 2004 13:14 GMT
> I'm not necessarily saying that the 66 & 57 will appear before the 40, but
> work on the 40 won't be allowed to delay them. The 40 has after all been in
> development for over a year, and the pre-prod models were at Warley. We've
> seen nothing of the 66 or 57, but I'll bet they will be out this year.
Try reading my post earlier in this thread. It is being reported that
Bachmann have dropped the 57 and Heljan are not proceeding with the 66.
Common sense prevailing at last???
John.
Adrian - 29 Jun 2004 14:15 GMT
> Try reading my post earlier in this thread. It is being reported that
> Bachmann have dropped the 57 and Heljan are not proceeding with the 66.
>
> Common sense prevailing at last???
Sorry - missed that.
Interesting. Where did youe hear that? I was never convinced that Heljan
could develope the Western, 66 and 57 in any reasonable period of time. Add
to that talk of a 33 and 26/27s and that would be a lot of development work
for Hornby or Bachmann, let alone Heljan.
Adrian
John Turner - 29 Jun 2004 15:03 GMT
> Interesting. Where did youe hear that? I was never convinced that Heljan
> could develope the Western, 66 and 57 in any reasonable period of time.
It was reported on one of the internet email groups which has members
connected with the model railway press.
John.
KimPateman - 29 Jun 2004 20:40 GMT
Adrian wrote:-
>> Try reading my post earlier in this thread. It is being reported that
>> Bachmann have dropped the 57 and Heljan are not proceeding with the 66.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>Interesting. Where did youe hear that?
It has been reported that Heljan has dropped all mention of the 66 from their
website. This is possibly a result of legal intervention.
(kim)
Nick Gurney - 29 Jun 2004 21:41 GMT
>It has been reported that Heljan has dropped all mention of the 66 from their
>website. This is possibly a result of legal intervention.
Rubbish
Nick
http://www.dyserth-road.co.uk
KimPateman - 29 Jun 2004 20:36 GMT
John Turner wrote:-
>Try reading my post earlier in this thread. It is being reported that
>Bachmann have dropped the 57 and Heljan are not proceeding with the 66.
>
>Common sense prevailing at last???
GM licensing arrangements prevailing at last?
Some people will always prefer a Heljan version of the 66 so why shouldn't we
have a choice?
(kim)
Rich Mackin - 29 Jun 2004 20:59 GMT
> John Turner wrote:-
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> GM licensing arrangements prevailing at last?
Did Lima have to pursue a licence for their 66?
--
*** http://www.railwayscene.co.uk/ ***
Updating regularly throughout 2004
Rich Mackin (rich-at-richmackin-co-uk)
MSN Messenger: richmackin-at-hotmail-dot-com
Ian Bartlett - 29 Jun 2004 21:06 GMT
By cunningly disguising it to not look like a 66, they didn't need to...
:)
> Did Lima have to pursue a licence for their 66?
Rich Mackin - 29 Jun 2004 21:39 GMT
> By cunningly disguising it to not look like a 66, they didn't need to...
> :)
Hehe, they could just argue that it was a 59 in a Hornby-Virgin-DVT-styleeee
:)
--
*** http://www.railwayscene.co.uk/ ***
Updating regularly throughout 2004
Rich Mackin (rich-at-richmackin-co-uk)
MSN Messenger: richmackin-at-hotmail-dot-com
John Turner - 30 Jun 2004 01:06 GMT
> Hehe, they could just argue that it was a 59 in a Hornby-Virgin-DVT-styleeee
> :)
At least Hornby got the colour right - more than Lima EVER managed with
their attempt(s) at EWS red.
John.
John Turner - 30 Jun 2004 01:05 GMT
> By cunningly disguising it to not look like a 66, they didn't need to...
> :)
LOL - funny but a reassuringly accurate assessment of the Lima (lack of)
effort.
John.
Ben - 30 Jun 2004 22:35 GMT
>> Did Lima have to pursue a licence for their 66?
>
>By cunningly disguising it to not look like a 66, they didn't need to...
>:)
LOL!! :o)