Hornby K1

[toboldlygo]

Even the awful factory weathered version has a straight running plate.

 

Fresh from the paint shop and decidedly dirtier and renumbered of course.

 

 

Edit to add better picture 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 16, 2016 by toboldlygo

[Hroth]

Even the awful factory weathered version has a straight running plate.

 

Fresh from the paint shop and decidedly dirtier and renumbered of course.

 

k1inworks2.jpg

 

Edit to add better picture 

Very "nice" - and looks a lot better than the factory weathering which, now I look at it more closely, gives the impression that the loco has been driven full-tilt through a cowshed... (ewww)

 

As for the renumbering, why?  You can barely see it under all that dirt! 

[toboldlygo]

Very "nice" - and looks a lot better than the factory weathering which, now I look at it more closely, gives the impression that the loco has been driven full-tilt through a cowshed... (ewww)

 

As for the renumbering, why?  You can barely see it under all that dirt! 

 

I renumber for practise  and also to see which of the factories (that Hornby use) numbers come off easiest - definitely not TEC who produce this and the B17, they take a fair bit of elbow grease to remove.

 

Edited February 16, 2016 by toboldlygo

[Theakerr]

It has been said that Hornby had got their "mojo" back with the K1.  I beg to differ.  I am in the process of getting my horribly weathered model stripped down so that I can weather it.  This is what I have found so far:

 

1) two of the wheel pick-up wipers were on the outside of the driving wheel, i.e on the tread - corrected

2) holes for the brake rodding and cylinder drain cocks filled in with paint - drilled out 

3) the coal tender coal backplate is loose having no glues on the sides and only a spot or two on the bottom - will be fixed

4) one side of the tender separated at the top showing daylight between it and the tender bulkhead/front - will be corrected but see 5

5) the imitation coal load is too wide so that it pushes the tender side out - will be corrected

6) rough brush weathering marks that were actually raised above the surface on one of the cylinders - corrected

7) the imitation reversing rod on one side not on its "pin" - corrected

8} the metal parts of the wheels and the valve gear were not properly degreased such that the paint is peeling.  Don't quiet know what to do here.  I have removed some paint with a simple stiff brush but there is still a lot of paint left on.  So the question is, do I remove all the valve gear and clean off all the paint or do I take the gamble that when I spray on my weathering I will not see a transition.  

Rant:

I don't want to turn this into a Hornby bash.  I for one do not mind paying a premium, but when I do I expect to get a quality product.   I am not seeing this with Hornby (there have been other recent issues) and based on this forum there seems to be no point in contacting Hornby since they will not reply.  Perhaps Dapol have hit onto something by producing a quality product  (hopefully) at a premium price.  My first reaction when I read about their new line was "you have to be joking", but if one doesn't have to go through all this faff I am willing to pay.  I do know that I am becoming increasingly reluctant to buy Hornby product, especially since I live in the GWN

Edited February 27, 2016 by Theakerr

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

The weak assembly aspect, consistent with experience of my K1. The manufacturing shop used (TEC05) perhaps has a 'Sanda Kan' attitude to cement application, that business was long noted for being a bit sparing with the adhesive! One tender side frame and the rear coal plate very lightly attached on mine. (That said I see this as a fault on the right side, preferable to glued together to a 'never come apart ever again' standard; very easy to add a dab of cement if something is too weakly attached.)

 

There was inept design on the loco to tender link in my opinion: using the closer position was impossible as supplied for a running result, as the drawbar fouled the wires of the plug in link and would have sawn its way through the insulation in very little time. Easy enough to revise for a workable result.

 

But on the 'mojo' question, I would give Hornby near 100% for good intentions. the K1 looks and measures right, the detail fit is to a good standard, sound mechanical design, the running excellent (sensible gear ratio choice) and easy decoder fitting. (Since this release, my Hornby purchases of the J15, D16/3, J50 and QoS K type Pullman cars have been uniformly most satisfying, no assembly issues at all, just the loco to tender drawbar arrangements to revise on the two tender locos.)

[Black 5 Bear]

The K1 is a lovely model without doubt, however it is pot luck whether or not you get a good one or a lemon. Having purchased the latest late crest version, I can say that this is a major improvement minus the bent running plate and excess blue marks of the 2015 releases.

Very pleased with mine.

Edited February 27, 2016 by Black 5 Bear

[Theakerr]

Re my previous post, I decided to remove all the valve gear to clean it up.  Was actually relatively easy to take it apart and worth it since I could actually see a thin film of grease on the back of a couple of pieces.  It was also of interest to see that for the most part they had not used blackened bits.  Anyway, if the weather person gets it right and it snows tomorrow the predicted amount, I will probably start the remaining and weathering process.

[G-BOAF]

Was about to order a K1 from the current Hornby sales to renumber as 62005 (having held off before...). It then occurred to me that Hornby have modelled a flush buffer beam, whereas 62005 as now and as in service has a riveted buffer beam. There's a pic of 62058 on post #325 with a riveted buffer beam, so its not a unique feature.

Rivets were modelled on the prototype shots from Hornby (see below), but not since; were they 'corrected' to flush?

What is the view on this feature appearing on future Hornby models? i.e. should I wait

 

Hornby test shots (from earlier on this thread)

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_12_2014/post-7929-0-57629200-1418938068.jpg

[Ian Hargrave]

Was about to order a K1 from the current Hornby sales to renumber as 62005 (having held off before...). It then occurred to me that Hornby have modelled a flush buffer beam, whereas 62005 as now and as in service has a riveted buffer beam. There's a pic of 62058 on post #325 with a riveted buffer beam, so its not a unique feature.

Rivets were modelled on the prototype shots from Hornby (see below), but not since; were they 'corrected' to flush?

What is the view on this feature appearing on future Hornby models? i.e. should I wait

 

Hornby test shots (from earlier on this thread)

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_12_2014/post-7929-0-57629200-1418938068.jpg

As there is (obviously ) no guarantee on 'future Hornby models' ,my advice would be catch them while you can....especially at current bargain prices.

[G-BOAF]

OK, so 62065 is here, complete with riveted front buffer beam. Aside from rivets around the front edge of the smokebox, it is correct for 62005, certainly until its 2000s overhaul (looking at pre-production samples, Hornby do have the smokebox rivets in their tooling, but do I want to wait another year?).

 

I'm going to try to get to a model shop, but in the mean time, anyone care to comment on the running plate of this release. Are the distortions well and truly behind us?

 

Sorry for being in stuck record model. If I'm gong to spend £120 and then another £50 on a TMC renumber job, I want to get the best I can...

[Hilux5972]

It may well be that 62005 has been reserved by NELPG as a special edition to be released at some point. Pure speculation of course but that's my thinking.

[Ed-farms]

It may well be that 62005 has been reserved by NELPG as a special edition to be released at some point. Pure speculation of course but that's my thinking.

 

I can't see NELPG doing a limited edition model somehow, they don't seem like the sort of group who have a large cash reserve to tie up in 500+ models. I could be wrong and these are just my opinions of course. Hopefully someone will do 2005 in LNER green one day

[Butler Henderson]

I can't see NELPG doing a limited edition model somehow, they don't seem like the sort of group who have a large cash reserve to tie up in 500+ models. I could be wrong and these are just my opinions of course. Hopefully someone will do 2005 in LNER green one day

I would have thought it was a dead cert. Afterall it one of preservations iconic locos, bit like the red Ivatt which Bachmann had no trouble shifting as a Club item.

[73080]

OK, so 62065 is here, complete with riveted front buffer beam. Aside from rivets around the front edge of the smokebox, it is correct for 62005, certainly until its 2000s overhaul (looking at pre-production samples, Hornby do have the smokebox rivets in their tooling, but do I want to wait another year?).

 

I'm going to try to get to a model shop, but in the mean time, anyone care to comment on the running plate of this release. Are the distortions well and truly behind us?

 

Sorry for being in stuck record model. If I'm gong to spend £120 and then another £50 on a TMC renumber job, I want to get the best I can...

 

I write as some-one who declined to purchase the first two versions of the K1 due to distorted running plates, but I have now purchased 62065.

 

All the first and second issue K1 models that I have inspected, have had running plates that were noticeably not straight when viewed side-on.  The second issue models were distinctly better than the first, but the running plates still looked bent at normal viewing distances.

 

I carefully inspected a model of 62065 before purchase, and because it was satisfactory my comments are based on a sample of one, so I cannot state whether my comments apply to all third issue models.

 

Side on, both running plates of 62065 looked straight at first examination.  I then placed a ruler about 1mm below each running plate and they still looked straight.  However, when the running plates were viewed from the cab at a very oblique angle, it was possible to see a very slight distortion, slightly upwards on one side and slightly downwards on the other.  That said, normal viewing of the model gives the impression of perfectly straight running plates.

 

Personally, I have preferred to pay more for a slightly discounted third issue 62065 from a shop where it could be inspected and found to be satisfactory, rather than take a gamble on a heavily discounted second issue 62064 by mail order.

[Guest chris.trebble]

With the full knowledge of the many warnings in this thread regarding running plates, I could not refuse the current special offers from Hattons and decided to take a chance. Result? A very attractive 62032 with straight plates and perfect running straight out of the box!

[G-BOAF]

Another G-BOAF cry for help/advice

Drunk chassis problems...

 

Just purchased K1 62065 (at a very good price), having found an example with virtually straight running plates (they bow a little off the chassis, things mostly line up when screwed on ... looks a damn handsome beast, and a good satin finish to renumber as 62005).

 

But head on, something didn't look quite right. Out with the ruler, and the whole loco is leaning by about 0.5mm, as measured on both the front buffer beam and cab roof. It erks me. With body removed, placing a straight edge on the chassis top, there was a lean noticeable, so it IS the chassis, and not any wires or gunk causing the body to lean.

 

I have checked the driving wheels, everything seems to be home (although the middle drivers are lifting a little, and axles are actually 0.1mm deeper in the chassis block than front and rear axles). Anyone able to offer advice? I can't seem to force the front/rear wheels home any more, however I guess it is possible there are alignment issues, although the calipers did not show one side of the axle being higher in the block than the other.

Or is there distortion in the chassis block casting, leading to a slope on the top edge?

I suspect a full strip down to mazak will be needed to check dimensions from the bottom edge on a flat surface... but wanted to ask on here first.

Sending to Hornby will doubtless result in a 'within manufacturing tolerances' reply....

 

Shame as it really is a wonderful model.

Or I'm just to fussy in wanting a model that sits true...

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

It would jab me in the eye too, once noticed.

 

Pragmatically, if it runs as it should, I'd pack where the body seats on the mechanism around the screw locations to get the bodywork level.

[G-BOAF]

It would jab me in the eye too, once noticed.

 

Pragmatically, if it runs as it should, I'd pack where the body seats on the mechanism around the screw locations to get the bodywork level.

This is solution of last resort, but likely cures the symptom not the cause.... However I'm keen to get to the bottom of it. What is interesting is that the motion brackets and cylinders are similarly askew, so logic would dictate the chassis isn't square on the wheels (which thus far does not seem to be the case), or that the bottom edge of the chassis block isn't parallel with the top.... but if that latter hypothesis were the case, I would expect the cylinders to be parallel, given they are mounted on the bottom of the chassis block.... mystery.

Given that the middle wheelset is slightly off the track (and for that reason, middle bearings may need to be packed), I'm inclined to think that there is something with the mounting of the front/rear wheels, but measurements don't suggest this at present.

Me thinks that a complete removal of wheels, motion and cylinders, and examination on a dead flat surface may be needed to eliminate some possibilities (askew casting).... and then reassembly piece by piece with callipers (to establish at what point the lean appears)….

Unless someone has a better idea for a Sunday afternoon…

[G-BOAF]

Well, just spent a chunk of today trying to make a presentable locomotive from the Hornby K1.

The wavy running plate is just one of the issues with the quality of this model. The loco I have 60065 is probably as good as it gets in this area, and is almost straight.

The more fundamental problem is the leaning chassis, which I mentioned above.

Very difficult to get the head round but an hour with the callipers later and it appears there are shrinkage or tooling alignment issues with the mazak chassis block.

Basically assuming the bottom of the block with the wheel axle recesses is a horizontal datum, the right hand side of the chassis is marginally taller than the left. I reckon there is a  0.1mm deficit between the two sides (chassis block is around 11mm wide), however when magnified by the width of the loco body, this is about 0.4mm and noticeable head on. It also seems that the deficit varies depending on the 'height' of different parts of the chassis block, which makes me think it is miscalculations on shrinkage.

 

Anyway, my solution, which seems to have trued everything up is a small slither (about 3mm wide) of 3m 'magic' scotch tape (about 0.06mm thick), placed to the left of the main rear body screw hole on the top rear of the chassis. This provides just enough height to straighten up the rear end. Tighten fully. Then push down the front end, and make front screw finger tight. If you overtighten the front screw, a lean with reappear at the front, such is the general twistability of the bodyshell. I tried to shim up the front chassis blocks, but cannot work out where the body touches the chassis (beyond the actual screw lug, which is too narrow to pack accurately). The running plate section behind the buffer beam is flexy at the best of times, so will distort if there is any uneven pressure on from the chassis block

I might try something with milliput and paper covering to 'flatten' the top of the front of the chassis... Pics to follow

 

I really think the K1 could be an excellent model, but the running plate plus the odd chassis really lets this down. I actually bought two (very discounted) models form different batches (to get the best of both). Both chassis (one from 2015, one from 2016) have the same leaning issues. Once I am happy with my mod, the worst of both models will be sent off to be ‘sold as seen’. Hopefully I will end up with one 'good loco' for £160 (minus whatever I flog the spare for!)

[Mark Saunders]

I fear we begin to drift way off topic...

 

and why not... for here, freshly removed from one of the display cabinets in the British Museum of Railway Ballast is a piece of slag ballast. It seems since the last security check someone has stolen the highly sought after Shap Pink ballast, so for now, a poor quality pic of only slag ballast will have to suffice.

mSlag-ballast-01-EditSM.jpg

 

Porcy

 

The recently moved/relaid points in Middlesbrough Goods are in Slag Ballast !

 

Mark Saunders