New Hornby 14xx

[The Johnster]

Tractive effort seems to be a bit of an issue on many modern locos, especially small ones.  My childhood Triang Jinty could pull my entire stock, about half a dozen coaches and a dozen or so wagons I suppose, round 13" radius curves, and do it slowly and controllably at that.  It had a solid mazak chassis block that filled most of the space inside the locomotive; there was no cab detail and the boiler, where it was exposed, had plastic skirts to hide the motor.  It did not have a traction tyre.

 

But a modern model cannot be built like this, even for the Railroad range.  Cab detail is essential, the wheels are much finer with narrower tyres, and daylight must be visible wherever it should be beneath the boiler.  So the loco has a smaller chassis block, even if it is mazak and not plastic (plastic has the advantage of being an insulating material), which is lighter, and a smaller motor which is inevitably less powerful than the old Triang XO4 (looks crude nowadays but actually a lovely little piece of engineering for something mass produced), even if the rpm is ramped up to increase the oomph.  In this case, there is a trade off in that the gearing ratios must be higher to keep a cap on the speed, which means more costly or more space consuming drive trains, which must be highly efficient to avoid spoiling the slow running with their friction.

 

Then DCC must be considered; space that could otherwise be used for ballast inside the loco body must be made for the chip, and loudspeakers, and other associated gubbins, which do not weigh much if they are used.  Everything conspires to make the model lighter and lighter, when weight is a desirable commodity for traction purposes.  One can hardly blame H for using traction tyres, of which my view has been stated several times on various threads, to enable the loco to pull anything, whatever my opinion of it!

 

One begins to see that chassis design is a compromise, a balance, where one or other desirable or undesirable trait is traded against another.  If costs are a defining issue, as they are likely to be with a Railroad model (and the price of this one is very low), some of the compromises may be unwise.  I would always prefer a metal chassis having only just come out of 30 years of therapy after having encountered Lima's plastic abominations, but my opinion is that H's 14xx is based on a loco which was underweight to start with, the Airfix version, and has been made even lighter to accommodate modern requirements.  Sadly this already compromised design is apparently designed down to a cost imperative, and QC has suffered.  The good news is that the fix is not too difficult, a filing of the rearmost axle channel until all wheels sit properly on the track, followed in my opinion (other opinions are available and may be better) by the removal of Satan's snot, the traction tyres, and packing as much dead weight into the body as can be achieved, easier for me than for anyone using DCC.

 

But this, while easy enough for an experienced modeller, sounds like something that will be well outside the comfort zone of many of the model's purchasers.  My advice is to have a go, maybe practicing on an old or non running surplus loco first to get the feel of dismantling, taking the plastic keeper plate off, removing the wheels, and then re-assembling them.  If you don't have such a loco, a few quid on eBay or a local junk shop will sort it.  This will give you the confidence to tackle your new model; it is designed to come apart like this and you will not invalidate any warranties.  Use a modelling file, any model shop or Hobbycraft will sell these in a little plastic case, and file off a little mazak at a time, then re-assemble the chassis to see how the wheels are sitting on the track.  When you are satisfied with it, clean and dress the filed surface to a smooth shininess and very lightly lubricate it; the same place you bought the files will sell you a lubrication kit consisting of some fine machine oil and a hypo syringe to apply it to inaccessible areas.  Keep this syringe religiously separate from any others you have in your home for medical or any other purposes!  A manual sheet should be supplies with the loco, but if you don't have one you can download a copy from H's website; it consists of an 'exploded' diagram showing what fits where.

 

Keep small screws and other such ephemera in a lump of blu tac or similar, so they don't ping off to another dimension; the little b*%%@rs will make a bid for freedom if you don't!

 

Whether you think the effort is worth it on a loco that should be running properly in the first place is your own choice, of course.  If I wanted a cheap 14xx, I might consider this route, but I don't want one, not badly anyway, and there are other priorities on my layout, at the moment it's buying mineral wagons for a train of empties for the colliery!

[peteskitchen]

 If you're going to do away with the traction tyres and fit plain wheels there a few simple mods you need to do to improve traction to an acceptable level. If you have the older Hornby or Dapol chassis, you need to get at the spring underneath the trailing wheelset, and cut it in half and then stretch it just a little. This will still keep the axle on the track and keep the loco stable, but it means that most of the loco's weight will be on the drivers. My 2004 vintage Hornby one will easily cope with three Mk1s or a mixed bag of 10 four wheeled wagons. Its a bit more tricky with the new square axled version. You can carefully slot our the trailing axle slot, but if you go too far the loco will rock on its center axle. Even if you do get it right, changes in gradient will cause problems unless they are very gentle. Bit like the first issue of the Oxford Adams radial tanks.

[tomparryharry]

In some places, the mere rumour of a second coach was enough to have a pannier on the job.

 

Ian.

[The Johnster]

I tend to agree, tp, but we are South Walians and tend to think of 64xx for 2 trailers and 4575 for more.  Less hilly parts of the world featured 14xx with 2 trailers, though I suspect 3 was pushing it in many cases, no matter what the official loadings were.  Experienced, preferably passed out driver, firemen were preferred for auto work because of the potential issues resulting from the driver being away from the loco for approximately half the duty, and loading the loco to or closer to it's limit would have had an even more potential deleterious effect on performance.

 

The 54xx and 64xx series of panniers for auto work were a response to increasing loads beyond the practicably day to day working capacity of 4-coupled locos, 517/Metro/48xx/14xx, and by the 50s South Wales work for the new regular interval timetables on steep inclines demanded auto fitting of 4575 small prairies.  The story seems to be of a mode of operation that was successful (as were the railmotors that preceded it) and generated an increasing traffic that still required the simplicity of operation of an auto service without having to run around at termini.  By the 50s it was possible to run day to day operations with 3 trailer trains on the Coryton branch, involving a 1 in 60 gradient and tight timings, with 4575s that might have been pushing it with 0-6-0s and beyond the sensible capacity of 4-coupled locos.  These were eventually replaced by dmus, 3 car on services replacing auto work and 6 car (2x3 car) on the formerly 5 coach loco hauled runs.

[PanzerJohn]

Took a gnats doo dah off the front axle slot and the little loco is as good as gold.

[peteskitchen]

I tend to agree, tp, but we are South Walians and tend to think of 64xx for 2 trailers and 4575 for more.  Less hilly parts of the world featured 14xx with 2 trailers, though I suspect 3 was pushing it in many cases, no matter what the official loadings were.  Experienced, preferably passed out driver, firemen were preferred for auto work because of the potential issues resulting from the driver being away from the loco for approximately half the duty, and loading the loco to or closer to it's limit would have had an even more potential deleterious effect on performance.

 

 

 

  Do you remember the Dawlish donkey from the 1998? I was totally stunned how quick 1450 was with 4 Mk1s on, I thought it was going to be a joke. In fact that engine made me appreciate GWR locos a whole lot more. Happy days!

Edited December 8, 2017 by peteskitchen

[tomparryharry]

  Do you remember the Dawlish donkey from the 1998? I was totally stunned how quick 1450 was with 4 Mk1s on, I thought it was going to be a joke. In fact that engine made me appreciate GWR locos a whole lot more. Happy days!

The 14xx (and, for that matter, the metro's) were well acknowledged for their fleet of foot. One minor issue is their brake force and adhesion capability. A load of 4 Mk1's comes in at about 140 tons deadweight. Taking that uphill on a rough rail is not entirely satisfactory, especially from the operating point of view. Panniers, with the extra weight, and adhesion, were a better bet, both from operability, and safety.

 

Hope this helps,

 

Ian.

Edited December 8, 2017 by tomparryharry

[Miss Prism]

The Metros were indeed powerful. I wonder how many tons this entourage was.

 

 

Sorry, offtopic.

 

 

[tomparryharry]

The Metros were indeed powerful. I wonder how many tons this entourage was.

 

1411-metro-reduced.jpg

 

Sorry, offtopic.

 Sorry, still off topic. However, I'd guess that's Old Oak. The coal stage buttress gives it away.

 

Now, with the moderators permission, I will return to the topic.

 

Ian.

[The Johnster]

  Do you remember the Dawlish donkey from the 1998? I was totally stunned how quick 1450 was with 4 Mk1s on, I thought it was going to be a joke. In fact that engine made me appreciate GWR locos a whole lot more. Happy days!

 

1450 with 3 mk1s was a good little performer on the Dean Forest as well, and there are gradients on that line!  And remember while you are appreciating 'our' engines that it was merely a development of the 517 class from the 1860s with modern components and a proper cab, and a reboilered 517 with Belpaire burnybox was just as good as a 48/14xx.  The difference in auto work is that the driver is away from the loco, sometimes 150 feet away, for about half of the duty (at least that's what the rules say, so it must have always been the case, right?), and this has an effect on crew performance which must be taken into account in loading and timing of services.

[adb968008]

Finally had time to investigate the issues with this little beast tonight.

 

lets start by comparing it to it’s peers...

 

1. Airfix, 1970’s 1466, which the Hornby model is derived:

Poor runner, if the pickups aren’t clean, draws a whopping 0.25amps and sounds like your starting an industrial generator.

The front most wheel does the driving on this early model.

 

2. Hornby 1432 (r2173 train pack), running at 0.12amps

 

 

This model runs better, thanks to replacing the spring pickups with regular spears, picking up on all 6 wheels, including those with tyres. The geared wheel has now moved to the rear driving wheel, and the motor is a smaller square motor replacing Arkwright patent generating device in the Airfix one.

 

3. Hornby 1450 (r3578 Limited edition of 250 for Warley Exhibition)

 

I’ll focus on the two Hornby ones from this point, Both models actually have the same chassis as R2173,

same motor and pickup arrangement, however there are two differences. Unlike R2173 the chassis is insulated, with both wires running down to the pickups, both wires being of thinner gauge than R2173, and R3578 has two influencing events..

 

Comparing both dismantled chassis side by side, the spring that holds the trailing wheel on R2173 is missing, and the boxes for the axles on the new release are square and 1mm smaller.

 

 

When placing the loco on the track, the rear driving wheel lifts approx .25mm off the rail.

 

Now onto the testing, first observation is how “square” are these wheels anyway... look at the hammer blow of the geared wheel...

https://youtu.be/_TWnbdXBrnM

 

I first fitted the spring from R2173 into R3578,but i’ll Show the results in correct order..

 

Without the spring fitted, look at the wheel spin as this 1450 attempts to take the relatively light weight Kernow Gate stock coaches up a 5cm in 2m gradient and fails..

 

https://youtu.be/ZVFEYK1kKaU

 

Next, with the pickup spears Unmodified look how they hit the points, but crucially, with the spring from r2173 fitted, it makes it rather unglamourously until a stall on the curve, where those spear pickups now separate from the wheels on the curve...

 

https://youtu.be/4uBebkZCB1Q

 

Finally, a look what you could have won, had you chose the other box.. the DJ14xx walks away with the train..

https://youtu.be/WcO5MjUGjbM

 

So the solution, I found is two fold...

 

1.. fold inwards the pickups, at the bend, so they retain hold of the trailing wheel (I didn’t need to do this with the driving wheels),this avoids the hard bounce on the points, and additionally solves the loss of contact on the curves.

2. Buy yourself a Hornby X8064 spring from Peters spares for £1.43 direct, or £1.52 on ebay...

No filing necessary, despite the 1mm difference gap, but whilst it will triple the performance, it’s just not the DJ version.

 

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Hornby-X8064-0-4-2-Class-14xx-Class-Trailing-Axle-Spring/311585918081

http://www.petersspares.com/Hornby-x8064-042-class-14xx-class-trailing-axle-spring.ir

 

It looks like Hornby tried to save money by removing the spring, betting on a 1mm less axlebox hole doing the job of the spring, without considering the weight distribution of this model is uneven and additionally reducing the gauge of the wire to the pickups (I think this is here nor there on impact), but now toeing out the pickups on the trailing wheels does mean a loss of contact on curves, and the spear hitting the points...

Edited December 12, 2017 by adb968008

[Coryton]

Finally had time to investigate the issues with this little beast tonight.

 

lets start by comparing it to it’s peers...

 

1. Airfix, 1970’s 1466, which the Hornby model is derived:

Poor runner, if the pickups aren’t clean, draws a whopping 0.25amps and sounds like your starting an industrial generator.FDC1665C-7A6C-404F-9BD6-D4DAF830CC0A.jpeg

The front most wheel does the driving on this early model.

 

2. Hornby 1432 (r2173 train pack), running at 0.12amps

 

141D463F-919E-4A10-BC29-F9ED60986350.jpeg

 

This model runs better, thanks to replacing the spring pickups with regular spears, picking up on all 6 wheels, including those with tyres. The geared wheel has now moved to the rear driving wheel, and the motor is a smaller square motor replacing Arkwright patent generating device in the Airfix one.

 

3. Hornby 1450 (r3578 Limited edition of 250 for Warley Exhibition)

C44BA834-BA13-4893-BD15-D0C39925485E.jpeg

 

I’ll focus on the two Hornby ones from this point, Both models actually have the same chassis as R2173,

5250EC40-9338-4FB5-BB3D-1E0E55CF4ED5.jpeg2383236D-2BA9-4705-98A9-9B89841AC837.jpeg

same motor and pickup arrangement, however there are two differences. Unlike R2173 the chassis is insulated, with both wires running down to the pickups, both wires being of thinner gauge than R2173, and R3578 has two influencing events..

 

63D1D842-7FC1-4539-A6BC-2CDE53C8EB2C.jpeg

Comparing both dismantled chassis side by side, the spring that holds the trailing wheel on R2173 is missing, and the boxes for the axles on the new release are square and 1mm smaller.

 

CC8C522F-DE8E-48D5-91D8-C8ED930768BC.jpeg

9BD73E49-66B1-4E95-841C-873A2E9D9ED0.jpeg

 

When placing the loco on the track, the rear driving wheel lifts approx .25mm off the rail.4B57B55E-1A18-4663-B075-81195AA6264C.jpeg

 

Now onto the testing, first observation is how “square” are these wheels anyway... look at the hammer blow of the geared wheel...

 

I first fitted the spring from R2173 into R3578,but i’ll Show the results in correct order..

 

Without the spring fitted, look at the wheel spin as this 1450 attempts to take the relatively light weight Kernow Gate stock coaches up a 5cm in 2m gradient and fails..

 

 

Next, with the pickup spears Unmodified look how they hit the points, but crucially, with the spring from r2173 fitted, it makes it rather unglamourously until a stall on the curve, where those spear pickups now separate from the wheels on the curve...

 

 

Finally, a look what you could have won, had you chose the other box.. the DJ14xx walks away with the train..

 

So the solution, I found is two fold...

 

1.. fold inwards the pickups, at the bend, so they retain hold of the trailing wheel (I didn’t need to do this with the driving wheels),this avoids the hard bounce on the points, and additionally solves the loss of contact on the curves.

2. Buy yourself a Hornby X8064 spring from Peters spares for £1.43 direct, or £1.52 on ebay...

No filing necessary, despite the 1mm difference gap, but whilst it will triple the performance, it’s just not the DJ version.

 

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Hornby-X8064-0-4-2-Class-14xx-Class-Trailing-Axle-Spring/311585918081

http://www.petersspares.com/Hornby-x8064-042-class-14xx-class-trailing-axle-spring.ir

 

Very useful.

 

Thanks.

 

One possibility that occurs is that the springs were meant to be used in this model but were left out...I suppose the service sheet might show this (although the service sheets don't always seem to keep up with changes...)

[The Johnster]

Very useful.

 

Thanks.

 

One possibility that occurs is that the springs were meant to be used in this model but were left out...I suppose the service sheet might show this (although the service sheets don't always seem to keep up with changes...)

 

 

Finally had time to investigate the issues with this little beast tonight.

 

lets start by comparing it to it’s peers...

 

1. Airfix, 1970’s 1466, which the Hornby model is derived:

Poor runner, if the pickups aren’t clean, draws a whopping 0.25amps and sounds like your starting an industrial generator.FDC1665C-7A6C-404F-9BD6-D4DAF830CC0A.jpeg

The front most wheel does the driving on this early model.

 

2. Hornby 1432 (r2173 train pack), running at 0.12amps

 

141D463F-919E-4A10-BC29-F9ED60986350.jpeg

 

This model runs better, thanks to replacing the spring pickups with regular spears, picking up on all 6 wheels, including those with tyres. The geared wheel has now moved to the rear driving wheel, and the motor is a smaller square motor replacing Arkwright patent generating device in the Airfix one.

 

3. Hornby 1450 (r3578 Limited edition of 250 for Warley Exhibition)

C44BA834-BA13-4893-BD15-D0C39925485E.jpeg

 

I’ll focus on the two Hornby ones from this point, Both models actually have the same chassis as R2173,

5250EC40-9338-4FB5-BB3D-1E0E55CF4ED5.jpeg2383236D-2BA9-4705-98A9-9B89841AC837.jpeg

same motor and pickup arrangement, however there are two differences. Unlike R2173 the chassis is insulated, with both wires running down to the pickups, both wires being of thinner gauge than R2173, and R3578 has two influencing events..

 

63D1D842-7FC1-4539-A6BC-2CDE53C8EB2C.jpeg

Comparing both dismantled chassis side by side, the spring that holds the trailing wheel on R2173 is missing, and the boxes for the axles on the new release are square and 1mm smaller.

 

CC8C522F-DE8E-48D5-91D8-C8ED930768BC.jpeg

9BD73E49-66B1-4E95-841C-873A2E9D9ED0.jpeg

 

When placing the loco on the track, the rear driving wheel lifts approx .25mm off the rail.4B57B55E-1A18-4663-B075-81195AA6264C.jpeg

 

Now onto the testing, first observation is how “square” are these wheels anyway... look at the hammer blow of the geared wheel...

 

I first fitted the spring from R2173 into R3578,but i’ll Show the results in correct order..

 

Without the spring fitted, look at the wheel spin as this 1450 attempts to take the relatively light weight Kernow Gate stock coaches up a 5cm in 2m gradient and fails..

 

 

Next, with the pickup spears Unmodified look how they hit the points, but crucially, with the spring from r2173 fitted, it makes it rather unglamourously until a stall on the curve, where those spear pickups now separate from the wheels on the curve...

 

 

Finally, a look what you could have won, had you chose the other box.. the DJ14xx walks away with the train..

 

So the solution, I found is two fold...

 

1.. fold inwards the pickups, at the bend, so they retain hold of the trailing wheel (I didn’t need to do this with the driving wheels),this avoids the hard bounce on the points, and additionally solves the loss of contact on the curves.

2. Buy yourself a Hornby X8064 spring from Peters spares for £1.43 direct, or £1.52 on ebay...

No filing necessary, despite the 1mm difference gap, but whilst it will triple the performance, it’s just not the DJ version.

 

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Hornby-X8064-0-4-2-Class-14xx-Class-Trailing-Axle-Spring/311585918081

http://www.petersspares.com/Hornby-x8064-042-class-14xx-class-trailing-axle-spring.ir

 

It looks like Hornby tried to save money by removing the spring, betting on a 1mm less axlebox hole doing the job of the spring, without considering the weight distribution of this model is uneven and additionally reducing the gauge of the wire to the pickups (I think this is here nor there on impact), but now toeing out the pickups on the trailing wheels does mean a loss of contact on curves, and the spear hitting the points...

 

Thank you, adb; this is about as comprehensive a description of the 'works' of this model as can be expected, and shows another possible solution to it's running issues.  

[Miss Prism]

Now onto the testing, first observation is how “square” are these wheels anyway... look at the hammer blow of the geared wheel...

 

No 0-4-2T is going to run well with chassis alignments that bad.

 

[BWsTrains]

Finally had time to investigate the issues with this little beast tonight.

 

lets start by comparing it to it’s peers...

 

1. Airfix, 1970’s 1466, which the Hornby model is derived:

Poor runner, if the pickups aren’t clean, draws a whopping 0.25amps and sounds like your starting an industrial generator.FDC1665C-7A6C-404F-9BD6-D4DAF830CC0A.jpeg

The front most wheel does the driving on this early model.

Hi,

 

Great post, most informative and helped me a lot in my hunt for a viable 48xx option.

 

Regarding the current draw of the Airfix, "a whopping 0.25amps" at what speed was that? Have you any idea of maximum current demand at a sensible running speed for this loco in normal use (i.e Branchline autocoach) with no incline.

 

I'm interesting in running one, as much for an historical snapshot of how model locos were back then

 

Colin

[railroadbill]

Brilliant in-depth analysis by adb968008.

I'm now down to my Airfix 14xx (which actually is fairly quiet but has been run a lot more now).  With the latest version, which I returned, one problem was that there was some horizontal play with the driving wheels.  I think the current thinner and square  holes in the chassis have too much clearance already. Up and down vertically would be fine, but the fore and aft "wobble" made it feel it already had too much wear. 

[The Johnster]

An Airfix 14xx is as good a model as any to illustrate the state of play in the late 70s, a time when an increasing take up of new modellers were demanding better quality RTR models than the toylike Triang Hornby or overpriced and inaccurate crudely finished Wrenn, ex Hornby Dublo.  Airfix went for well detailed body mouldings and separate handrails of reasonably scale appearance over the overscale crude Wrenns.  Lima and Palitoy Mainline were also upping the game.  Airfix went for 'traditional' chassis; a solid mazak block and open frame type motor with conventional pickups, but the 14xx was an interesting development and a brave, though ultimately unsuccessful, attempt to significantly on it, with the sprung plunger pickups and universal joint drive shaft delivering the power to the front wheels.  It was still not possible, even on the concurrent large prairie, to incorporate cab detail, as the motors were too big.

 

The essentials for a good magazine review were as many separate details as possible, scale handrails, and daylight visible in the appropriate places beneath the boiler.  Airfix and Mainline incorporated detail at a hitherto unprecedented level on the chassis as well.  

 

Lima and Mainline both went for 'ring field' motors, perhaps capitalising on Hornby Dublo's excellent reputation in this regard, but Lima chassis were all plastic and every bit as dreadful as that sounds.  Mainline also involved themselves in a brave but doomed experiment with split pick up, IMHO a very good concept but perhaps requiring better material and manufacturing quality control than was easily obtainable in those days.

 

They were certainly interesting times.  Standards were nowhere near as high as they are now, but the new boys made RTR that was much less toylike than Triang Hornby, effectively the only previous player.  Hornby, as they now are, took some time to up their game, even when Lima dropped out of the market and the other two began to suffer with reliability problems, the result of the doomed chassis experiments that looked like a good idea at the time.  Airfix's sprung plungers seized up and Mainline's split chassis fell apart, or the wheels went out of quarter on the stub axles.  They could never manage a decent payload anyway.

 

But these models were highly influential, and very much the forerunners of current RTR practice.  This has reverted to 'can' motors, the direct descendants of open frame, and worm/cog drivetrains with conventional pickups.

 

If you wanted to capture that moment, I'd say you need a Mainline J72 as well as the Airfix 14xx.  The J72 was a very significant point of change in RTR; highly detailed (except for the motor filled cab), a good runner, and superbly finished, a new benchmark that Hornby took 3 decades to emulate.

[BWsTrains]

An Airfix 14xx is as good a model as any to illustrate the state of play in the late 70s, a time when an increasing take up of new modellers were demanding better quality RTR models than the toylike Triang Hornby or overpriced and inaccurate crudely finished Wrenn, ex Hornby Dublo .

 

If you wanted to capture that moment, I'd say you need a Mainline J72 as well as the Airfix 14xx.  The J72 was a very significant point of change in RTR; highly detailed (except for the motor filled cab), a good runner, and superbly finished, a new benchmark that Hornby took 3 decades to emulate.

 

Thanks Johnster,

 

interesting idea I might explore, looks like a lovely model.

I have a 1988 Amstrad 1640 under the stairs that awaits it's 30th anniversary outing. Last time I booted it up at 25yrs it grunted but ran (helped that it had AAs as the local power so no hardwired battery to fail). Grandchildren brought up on iPads marvel at these ancient technologies

 

Edit to correct date.

 

Colin

Edited January 11, 2018 by BWsTrains

[railroadbill]

The Airfix then Dapol then Hornby14xx has actually been in production on and off for must be nearly 40 years now (with chassis changes over the years but same body moulding)  therefore worth having as an example of a long lived r-t-r model.  What is the longest running r-t-r model, I wonder, something like Hornby Dublo N2 that was still being made by Wrenn until they closed, perhaps (ok, 2 rail chassis then rather than 3 rail chassis).

 

Agree about the Mainline J72. Bought mine in Guy Norris (long long gone) in Covent garden when they first came out . Great finish and detail, but really couldn't get it to run properly. I got a replacement chassis when they came out which had a worm drive rather than the original pancake motor, but still the split frame chassis . That ran very well and was my test loco when I started laying track in the loft. It still comes out for a run from time to time. Fitted it with screw couplings and coal in bunker. Bit of a blast from the past like the 14xx which is where we came in.

Edited January 12, 2018 by railroadbill

[papagolfjuliet]

The Airfix then Dapol then Hornby14xx has actually been in production on and off for must be nearly 40 years now (with chassis changes over the years but same body moulding)  therefore worth having as an example of a long lived r-t-r model.  What is the longest running r-t-r model, I wonder, something like Hornby Dublo N2 that was still being made by Wrenn until they closed, perhaps (ok, 2 rail chassis then rather than 3 rail chassis).

 

I think I'm right in saying that the oldest RTR model currently in production is the Bachman (previously Trix/Liliput) whisky grain hopper. The Hornby 'James' is technically even older, being in essence the Tri-ang 3F, but the tooling has been so heavily modified that it probably doesn't count. Overall the longest running model is probably the original Tri-ang 08, which first appeared in the early Fifties and hung on as 'Diesel' in the Thomas range until a couple of years ago.

[adb968008]

The Airfix then Dapol then Hornby14xx has actually been in production on and off for must be nearly 40 years now (with chassis changes over the years but same body moulding) therefore worth having as an example of a long lived r-t-r model. What is the longest running r-t-r model, I wonder, something like Hornby Dublo N2 that was still being made by Wrenn until they closed, perhaps (ok, 2 rail chassis then rather than 3 rail chassis).

 

Agree about the Mainline J72. Bought mine in Guy Norris (long long gone) in Covent garden when they first came out . Great finish and detail, but really couldn't get it to run properly. I got a replacement chassis when they came out which had a worm drive rather than the original pancake motor, but still the split frame chassis . That ran very well and was my test loco when I started laying track in the loft. It still comes out for a run from time to time. Fitted it with screw couplings and coal in bunker. Bit of a blast from the past like the 14xx which is where we came in.

Longest rtr Loco still in production, i’d Imagine Bachmanns A4 is a contender, since 1963 ? tooling originally made by Trix ? Edited January 12, 2018 by adb968008

[PanzerJohn]

I emailed Hornby about this issue and they replied that they are awaiting new, presumably thicker, traction tyres.

[The Johnster]

I think I'm right in saying that the oldest RTR model currently in production is the Bachman (previously Trix/Liliput) whisky grain hopper. The Hornby 'James' is technically even older, being in essence the Tri-ang 3F, but the tooling has been so heavily modified that it probably doesn't count. Overall the longest running model is probably the original Tri-ang 08, which first appeared in the early Fifties and hung on as 'Diesel' in the Thomas range until a couple of years ago.

 

I have an idea that the old Jinty chassis 08 (1956 vintage I think) is still being sold, though probably not produced any more, as part of a military based train set.  Some of the ex-Hornby Dublo/Wrenn wagons that Dapol are knocking out are pretty old as well.

[JSpencer]

I have an idea that the old Jinty chassis 08 (1956 vintage I think) is still being sold, though probably not produced any more, as part of a military based train set.  Some of the ex-Hornby Dublo/Wrenn wagons that Dapol are knocking out are pretty old as well.

The railroad 08 is late 70s tooling, replaced both the chassis and body of the previous Triang shunter, The then new shunter shared the same chassis as the then new Jinty at the time. That chassis was in turn replaced around 1990.

 

The Triang shunter body was used as the body for Diesel in the Thomas range.

[The Johnster]

I stand corrected, and sit down again straight away because I'm a lazy bu**er.