Hornby's Best Ever Models

[Bill Radford]

Class 153 DMU - the only Hornby I have not had to adjust something!

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Wait a second, is this a positive thread on Hornby! Must be seeing things

The reason you are viewing unfavourable postings about Hornby is that they have had a sudden and catastrophic fall from grace...

... but maybe have just as suddenly fully recovered, with the B17 recently produced? If they still have capability to make the earlier much liked product to the same standard, then hopefully this episode may prove to be only a passing shower, that hopefully will not reach the dry side...

[Jon Fitness]

Purely on appearance, it's the Stanier 2-6-4t for me...I have one in a display case. It's never been run as I model 7mm but I just like the look of them!

JF

[toboldlygo]

and I eat humble pie to acknowledge that traction tyres on the T9 have not caused me a problem

The T9 succeeded where the Patriot failed - remember the PLANET killer on my old thread on the previous of RMWEB?

[robmcg]

HERE'S a cat amongst the pigeons....

 

This is what a Duke might look like if built to similar standard to the Britannia, so it is only a 'what if' photo from a main range model.. with edited weathering along the lines of usual prototype Britannia or Duke 1960s appearance.

 

All of the detailing here is the same as what Hornby have done on previous models; Britannias, and so on, so presumably they could do it again. The supplied detail pack is very good, steps, hoses, brakerods etc., and the nameplates supplied are I think plastic but mine look fine to the naked eye.

 

I wonder if the upcoming 1960s version will have less plumbing on the firebox side, as here?

 

As ever I think it looks alright, well, superb really, good price, and mine seems to run very well.

 

Edited March 5, 2014 by robmcg

[S.A.C Martin]

Yet it's not a depiction of the Hornby model as bought nor is it a depiction of your model, as I understand it. So what point does that picture above illustrate other than your photoshopping talents?

 

Whereas this...

 

 

 

 

…has been renumbered and rebranded, and not much more other than a T Cut rub down to bring out the green more. In my opinion the B17 was definitely a contender for the best, but some bizarre errors (no lamp irons on the rear of the tender, no lining out on the bubberbeam on the LNER version) makes it just that little bit less "perfect" compared to the L1 and O1 I adore.

 

Hornby have been previously capable of some incredibly fine machines. I believe they can be again but they have to be forward thinking and not penny pinching to the detriment of every area of this business. Their design team did a good job on the DoG's body shell I feel but plastic buffers, strangely shaped axle boxes without brass bearings and other issues means 71000 isn't in the same league as the above - in fact it's not playing the same sport frankly.

[Horsetan]

....71000 isn't in the same league as the above - in fact it's not playing the same sport frankly.

It's doing about as well as Charlton in the Championship.

[robmcg]

Yet it's not a depiction of the Hornby model as bought nor is it a depiction of your model, as I understand it. So what point does that picture above illustrate other than your photoshopping talents?

 

...

 

Hornby have been previously capable of some incredibly fine machines. I believe they can be again but they have to be forward thinking and not penny pinching to the detriment of every area of this business. Their design team did a good job on the DoG's body shell I feel but plastic buffers, strangely shaped axle boxes without brass bearings and other issues means 71000 isn't in the same league as the above - in fact it's not playing the same sport frankly.

It is a picture of my just-received main range Duke, illustrated also in the Duke thread in un-edited condition.

 

Clearly, and as stated, my picture is of what Hornby COULD do with a Duke of Gloucester, such as the upcoming 1960s version, if built to the same standard as previous models like the Britannia. Thus my picture, of my R3191 main range model, received three days ago from Topslotsntrains. I think it is good value, and the three Duke versions I have access to run well, although only one has been run on a layout for any time, a RR version like the previous version I illustrated some time ago, (and it is quiet, smooth and adequately powerful on type 2/3 curves).

 

The relevance to 'best' is in the way the Duke could be made and can be made to look. Is that a sufficient 'point'? ... apart from my own pleasure in owning the models and photographing them?

 

Is there a difference I agree in modifying a model and changing or editing a photo of one. I do not have the dexterity to do much in the way of detailing or modification to my RTR models, and am pleased to get them out of the packaging without damaging them. If a modified model, different from actual Hornby production is a required test in this thread then many people's models will be disqualified. I wouldn't want that. The thread is about Hornby's best models, and that leads to discussion of shortcomings in models too.

 

I disagree that the DoG 'is not playing the same sport'. It looks and runs very well and cost about 2/3rds (or a little more) the likely price of a new large model express loco made to top industry standard.

Edited March 5, 2014 by robmcg

[S.A.C Martin]

Rob, you're arguing that a model which doesn't actually exist could be Hornby's best model. It may be your artwork, nice as it is, but it's not depicting an RTR model that exists aside from Larry Goddard's personal handiwork and your photoshopping.

 

Effectively moving the goalposts for the debate where you originally asked what Hornby's best model is.

 

I'm stating that the specification of a model is key to deciding the "best". DoG's specification is significantly lower than anything else mentioned in this thread. Price and value for money are a matter of personal interpretation to a large degree, but the specifications are fact.

 

A 3 pole motor with flywheel but with fixed coupling rods, squared off axle boxes, no brass bearings and no more moulded on detail is a lower specification than any of the 5 pole models mentioned in this thread and that's a fact.

 

So perhaps you would like to clarify for us by what measure we should be deciding on "best" before we go further.

 

It's doing about as well as Charlton in the Championship.

 

Funny man.

[robmcg]

Well, I think the Duke is perhaps not best but COULD be if Hornby applied Britannia standards to the upcoming 1960s version.

 

So in short, "could be, but probably won't be, rather wish it was."

 

I do not have a list of objective criteria for 'best' model. The Duke could certainly be a contender if it was built like a Brit.

 

Value for money, fitness for purpose, attractiveness? My existing Dukes score highly on these.

 

After all, the question is about RTR 00 models with rather coarse tractor-like wheel profiles and the wrong gauge. Some QC issues may affect buyers' experiences. So appearances and subjectivity are a major part of the measure. I personally don't care greatly about axle design so long as it works for many hours of use, but that's just me.

 

Rob

[puck]

Thomas the tank engine. Just ask my daughter!

[robmcg]

.....

 

 

I'm stating that the specification of a model is key to deciding the "best". DoG's specification is significantly lower than anything else mentioned in this thread. Price and value for money are a matter of personal interpretation to a large degree, but the specifications are fact.

 

A 3 pole motor with flywheel but with fixed coupling rods, squared off axle boxes, no brass bearings and no more moulded on detail is a lower specification than any of the 5 pole models mentioned in this thread and that's a fact.

 

So perhaps you would like to clarify for us by what measure we should be deciding on "best" before we go further.

 

....

Today, for me, I will state that the Duke is best, on looks, and value for money. Tomorrow, well, there's a Garratt from Hattons in the mail and all Hornby will then be irrelevant.

 

To require high spec for the price of a Duke could be construed as requiring Jaguar features for Morris Minor money, but I wouldn't go quite that far, I admire Coachmann's modifications to his version, excellent stuff in the modifying RTR model section.

 

I really do think the DoG is a neat model, and has had a bit of an unfair rap here since my experience of 3 is 3 good models, and as always I am relieved and pleased when Hornby RTR 00 steam models turn up in the shops, AND they can be made to look as stunning as in my photo (which isn't much different from what Hornby or others could do... Coachmann being exceptionally good at actual modifications.)

 

However you seek definition of criteria as to which is BEST and if this includes value for money, the Duke is right up there. In my opinion, especially when I look at the beautifully made accessories like cylinder drain pipe assemblies. If it has plain Mazak bearings and still gives adequate or long service, I respectfully ask, does it matter if it is of what you describe as inferior specification? Same with a 3-pole motor and flywheel.

 

If it runs, as my illustrated model does in fact run straight from the box, smoothly and quietly, I can I think quite reasonably call the Duke an excellent model. As in my earlier post, it would be better with Britannia specification smokebox handles and sanding pipes, and Bulleid light Pacific style deflector stays. Best from Hornby? Nearer than you think, your criteria apparently being different.

 

Rob

Edited March 5, 2014 by robmcg

[S.A.C Martin]

Funny what you miss on your own models. No bent whistles when I checked it this morning so perhaps this was rectified at the time.

 

Honestly thought this was a serious, decent debate about the best of Hornby, and yet again it's an excuse for some pot shots at differing opinions on the quality or lack of, on DoG.

 

Shame because I was enjoying reading the objective viewpoints on other models I don't own.

[toboldlygo]

Funny what you miss on your own models. No bent whistles when I checked it this morning so perhaps this was rectified at the time.

 

Honestly thought this was a serious, decent debate about the best of Hornby, and yet again it's an excuse for some pot shots at differing opinions on the quality or lack of, on DoG.

 

Shame because I was enjoying reading the objective viewpoints on other models I don't own.

 

Rob posted it as a bit of fun and unfortunately it was taken far too seriously in some quarters. 

 

I should point Simon that you took the first 'Pot shots'

 

So please can we put the thread back on topic?

[ThaneofFife]

Well as far as D&E era goes, I always thought the Hornby Class 47 in two tone green "Mammoth" was at the time a real beauty and it had an illuminated 4 digit headcode too which I remember was brilliant when you drew the curtains and turned the lights off.

 

 

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=V4xjbbNIxEJC6M&tbnid=-S6ZSDmfoWr5kM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.co.uk%2Fitm%2FHORNBY-OO-R073-CLASS-47-MAMMOTH-BR-GREEN-LOCO-D1670-%2F190883524500&ei=pOcWU7-4C4WthQee74DgBw&bvm=bv.62286460,d.ZG4&psig=AFQjCNGzzqay6YtlD4qLIB2oYhWTyNT5Uw&ust=1394096415041595

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...the B17 was definitely a contender for the best, but some bizarre errors ..makes it just that little bit less "perfect" compared to the L1 and O1 ...

 

You bought the wrong version! Yet again in Hornby renewing a former tender drive model from their range, the tender was in some respects the greatest beneficiary. The small GER pattern tender model is a jewel, and nicely differentiates the locos that had it from the other standard LNER classes.

 

(I would like to persuade Heljan that their O2 is likely to sell faster if they equip the first releases with a GNR pattern - essentially Ivatt design - tender. LNER standard tenders we are awash with in RTR, let's have more of the pre-group types.)

 

... the bubberbeam  ...

 

 Yours came with a bubberbeam? It didn't have Bill Clinton anywhere near it did it?

[toboldlygo]

You bought the wrong version! Yet again in Hornby renewing a former tender drive model from their range, the tender was in some respects the greatest beneficiary. The small GER pattern tender model is a jewel, and nicely differentiates the locos that had it from the other standard LNER classes.

 

Definitely...

 

[Legend]

Thomas the tank engine. Just ask my daughter!

I know you've got tongue firmly in cheek but I think you'll find the Bachmann ones better ,with rolling eyes.  Also Hornby are charging top Dollar for this  for a model that dated from 1979, remodelled as Thomas in 1980s . Think of the return they've made on this one!

 

Returning to the theme I'd vote the original super detailed Merchant Navy. It was the one the upped the standards in one go and reverted to motor in loco body. It predates some of the more fragile detail items and was a smooth and powerful performer right from the off.  For me its the model where Hornby got the balance right.

Edited March 5, 2014 by Legend

[Dunsignalling]

 

Returning to the theme I'd vote the original super detailed Merchant Navy. It was the one the upped the standards in one go and reverted to motor in loco body. It predates some of the more fragile detail items and was a smooth and powerful performer right from the off.  For me its the model where Hornby got the balance right.

 

The Merchant Navy was a real game changer for Hornby and gave notice of what they could do if they put their minds to it.

 

However, they didn't rest on their laurels and continued to introduce further improvements with later models.

 

So; not the best, but quite possibly the most important influence on the OO r-t-r market since the Airfix and Mainline introductions of the late 1970s.

 

John

[toboldlygo]

When I returned to railway modelling, it coincided with the start of the super-detailed era. The first super-detailed loco I brought was the Merchant Navy and it was quite frankly amazing compared with what came before.

 

However the one that truly got me hooked was a rather austere (or ugly) looking brute of a 0-6-0 tender engine, I am of course referring to the Q1. Yes I know some of the finer detailing is fragile, but boy do they look the part when they've been weathered and detailed up.

 

Edited March 5, 2014 by toboldlygo

[Ian Abel]

Have to agree re: the N15 and Q1.

 

Mine, shown below, haven't had "anything" done to them, and I think both are remarkable, excellent smooth, slow, quiet running.

The same quality of looks and performance are what'd I'd hope for in all the locos I'd wish to buy.

 

 

Edited March 5, 2014 by Ian Abel

[robmcg]

When I returned to railway modelling, it coincided with the start of the super-detailed era. The first super-detailed loco I brought was the Merchant Navy and it was quite frankly amazing compared with what came before.

 

However the one that truly got me hooked was a rather austere (or ugly) looking brute of a 0-6-0 tender engine, I am of course referring to the Q1. Yes I know some of the finer detailing is fragile, but boy do they look the part when they've been weathered and detailed up.

I had a similar experience when I came back to model railways in 2004 and bought a Hornby Duchess, 'City of Glasgow' in lined LMS black, and was simply amazed by the detail AND the silent running qualities.

 

I think for manufacturers the buyers have become rather more discerning these days because digital cameras show up what the eye does not.. actually I bought a digital camera at around the same time..

 

Here is an outstanding Hornby model which scores very highly in my book, the Schools, main fault is fragility, if that can be counted, and not too great for tight curves when detailed.. the carriages behind are good, too, even the ex-LMS Staniers not-very-well shown , clearly some Midlands excursion stock..

 

Edited March 5, 2014 by robmcg

[micklner]

Hi All,

 

Which of Hornby's RTR 00 models is best?

 

I intend to photograph several of what I consider their better efforts, usually with UK commercial aftermarket weathering, and my own photo editing, in a style which is a bit reminiscent of the cigarette cards of the first half of the C20th.

 

To start, the recent Thompson O1 2-8-0. A definite contender. This has very little editing, just a bit around the pony truck front. A couple of small parts fell of when handling this model but I cannot see where they should go.

 

Thompson_O1_2a_r1200.jpg

take a picture maybe able to i.d them

[micklner]

None of these would have happended (+ others)  without the superb Hornby base Loco.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 5, 2014 by micklner

[JSpencer]

The layout would be rather dull with just one type of loco.

 

The N15 does it for me. Very accurate. Excellent running, cab options, tender options, right amount of fitted detail. Maid of all work, the SR standard 5 although biased towards passenger work.

 

I,ve 3 of them (4 when I include the original Triang based 70s version), brought in the days before the 4 pin plug came out.

 

The clan and rebuilt West Country are a very close second followed by the A4 and A1.