Hornby announce the ex SECR / SR / BR(s) Wainwright H Class 0-4-4 tank as part of their 2017 range

[Pre Grouping fan]

Some reports of flywheels rubbing inside of the body on flash that hasnt been removed from the moulding (bearing in mind its new tooling it should have barely any flash on) may be worth checking it or running without the body to confirm if it is an interference issue.

[mikesndbs]

Some reports of flywheels rubbing inside of the body on flash that hasnt been removed from the moulding (bearing in mind its new tooling it should have barely any flash on) may be worth checking it or running without the body to confirm if it is an interference issue.

 

 

Just checked that thanks and all ok, mechanism is running very freely in fact, must just be the motor.

Glad I have a few spares to hand!

[Nile]

OK, well my H class BR black that came with push pull set 602 might have a problem.

 

Yeah I know surprising for a Hornby model.

 

She smells carbony, motor brush carbon that is and runs quite warm.

 

Smooth as you like and not drawing too much current but I am very worried as this was a gift and it could be embarrassing if is goes fut.

 

Hope you will tell me this is normal, but I doubt you will as the SECR H class I have does not do this.

 

Thoughts?

 

You are not alone, see here:

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/139290-Hornby-h-class-woes/

[mikesndbs]

I have been running my SECR H on the gate stock set lately, and found that the running was slightly erratic and inconsistent at times. Investigating this, I noted that the balance over the rear driving wheel is slightly biased to the rear (not good). While the rear bogie takes the weight and keeps the front driving wheels on the track, there is room for them to lift very slightly when running. 

 

"Simple", I said to myself, "I'll just add a small lump of lead ahead of the motor in the smokebox". Nope! Upon lifting the body, I found that the motor housing and flywheel occupy every bit of the available space in the front part of the boiler and smokebox. However, I noted the gear tower cover behind the motor was lower, and had the capacitor sitting occupying some of the air space. It is just over the rear driving axle, so doesn't offer much scope for rebalancing the loco, but  I felt there was nothing to lose by trying, so I removed the capacitor, then glued two thin strips of lead (tapered slightly towards the top) so that they occupied the space between the gear tower and the boiler. I biased the strips towards the front of the loco, pushing them hard against the motor housing. 

 

The balance is still slightly "iffy", but is better than it was, and the running has become far more consistent. I hasten to add that the actual motor and mechanism were always perfectly smooth running, it was merely the weight transfer that was causing it to hesitate or slow slightly once in a while.

 

Having the same issue with limited traction on my new H class, especially true if the rear pickups actually rub the backs of the trailing bogie, I am about to fit a strip of lead in between the frames of the bottom plate, covering the screws, as far forward as possible.

I have painted it black so it won't show, will fix temporarily to see how it does.

Should there be any kind of spring in the bogie wheel pivot?

[mikesndbs]

So you know when you just don't understand a problem? Well, my BR push pull set H class was fine when it arrived, was able to push and pull its two coaches without issue, could even pull four coaches no problem.

Same performance as my SECR H class so all was well?

Apart from the smell of motor brush carbon and heating.

So yes I opened her to check inside, no issues, so reassembled no problem.

 

However, now she slips with her two coach train.

 

So I have thoroughly checked the rear bogie, made sure the wheels are free to spin, added light oil, checked that the bogie pickups don't actually rub on the wheels (as built) and all is well.

Added the strip of lead under the base plate, so she should now have more traction than the other H class, but no, still slips Rice puddings need have no fear.

 

What am I missing here?

 

Can it be the way i have reassembled it?

[Chuffed 1]

I notice that Hornby are releasing 31177 as R3731 during 2019. This appears as per 31518 (small front, large rear buffers) but with the early emblem.

 

Why did they choose this particular loco, I wonder, as it was withdrawn in October 1961, and had the shorter, fatter chimney not yet modelled by Hornby by 1955 at least?

Whereas they could have chosen 31543 which not only lasted until July 1963 (and wasn't scrapped till the following year) and carried the taller, thinner chimney as per Hornby during the early sixties. The early emblem AFAIK, lasted until withdrawal.

 

As I previously mentioned, most of the class had the wider shorter chimney by 1960 (and at least two had the even shorter type), as did 31263 when first preserved, though the present chimney (as per Hornby) was fitted around 1979.

 

It may seem petty, but the chimney shape does alter the look of a loco.

[cctransuk]

I notice that Hornby are releasing 31177 as R3731 during 2019. This appears as per 31518 (small front, large rear buffers) but with the early emblem.

 

Why did they choose this particular loco, I wonder, as it was withdrawn in October 1961, and had the shorter, fatter chimney not yet modelled by Hornby by 1955 at least?

Whereas they could have chosen 31543 which not only lasted until July 1963 (and wasn't scrapped till the following year) and carried the taller, thinner chimney as per Hornby during the early sixties. The early emblem AFAIK, lasted until withdrawal.

 

As I previously mentioned, most of the class had the wider shorter chimney by 1960 (and at least two had the even shorter type), as did 31263 when first preserved, though the present chimney (as per Hornby) was fitted around 1979.

 

It may seem petty, but the chimney shape does alter the look of a loco.

 

Then perhaps your post should have been directed to Hornby?

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[75B]

I notice that Hornby are releasing 31177 as R3731 during 2019. This appears as per 31518 (small front, large rear buffers) but with the early emblem.

 

Why did they choose this particular loco, I wonder, as it was withdrawn in October 1961, and had the shorter, fatter chimney not yet modelled by Hornby by 1955 at least?

Whereas they could have chosen 31543 which not only lasted until July 1963 (and wasn't scrapped till the following year) and carried the taller, thinner chimney as per Hornby during the early sixties. The early emblem AFAIK, lasted until withdrawal.

 

As I previously mentioned, most of the class had the wider shorter chimney by 1960 (and at least two had the even shorter type), as did 31263 when first preserved, though the present chimney (as per Hornby) was fitted around 1979.

 

It may seem petty, but the chimney shape does alter the look of a loco.

Please note that 31177 is not a push-pull fitted variant.

 

Keith

[prtrainman]

Please note that 31177 is not a push-pull fitted variant.

 

Keith

 

According to Bradley 31177 was motor-fitted in May 1953 and this seems to be confirmed by Hornby's picture.

 

Philip

[Chuffed 1]

Then perhaps your post should have been directed to Hornby?

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

I rather think it's a bit late for that. I raised the chimney point with them when I saw the first finished samplesof 31518 in October 2017. I received an acknowledgement of my e-mail, and that was that.

[RFS]

Please note that 31177 is not a push-pull fitted variant.

 

Keith

 

 

According to Bradley 31177 was motor-fitted in May 1953 and this seems to be confirmed by Hornby's picture.

 

Philip

 

Here's a picture of 31177 at Goudhurst and it's clearly push-pull fitted as it's actually pushing here ...

 

https://railphotoprints.uk/p769364556/e3497c0e1

Edited January 8, 2019 by RFS

[Chuffed 1]

Please note that 31177 is not a push-pull fitted variant.

 

Keith

Is that right, Keith? Just looking at 31177 on the 1955 RCTS 'Wealdsman Limited' on National Preservation, and it would appear to have a Westinghouse air pump and P-P control pipes on the rear buffer-beam?

 

Of course, I could be mistaken.

[RFS]

Is that right, Keith? Just looking at 31177 on the 1955 RCTS 'Wealdsman Limited' on National Preservation, and it would appear to have a Westinghouse air pump and P-P control pipes on the rear buffer-beam?

 

Of course, I could be mistaken.

 

Please do see my previous post ...

[Chuffed 1]

Please do see my previous post ...

I did - after I posted! Incidentally, 31177 received the Late Emblem before withdrawal, my guess would be May 1961,but again, I may well be mistaken.

 

The more I look at H class photos, the more I see some of the chimneys looking suspiciously like 'Cut-And-Shut' victims. Several locos had chimneys that looked 'butchered'.

 

Of course, even before the grouping there were at least two types of chimney on the class. It wouldbe interesting to know whether Ashford operated a 'spare boiler' (and firebox/smokebox) policy, with locos in for a general or needing major boiler work being fitted with whatever spare boiler was available. As locos were withdrawn it may be that preferred chimneys were cannibalised and gradually the taller, thinner type becoming ever rarer. I believe that 31005 was the last loco to carry one.

 

One way to spot the type is to draw a line from the chimney top to the nut on the dome and beyond. If the line thentouches the cab roof, it's the tall type, if it grazes the top of the whistle it's the shorter, fatter type.

 

I really must get out more....

 

Edit: for unfortunate transposition!

Edited January 8, 2019 by Chuffed 1

[Jack P]

So you know when you just don't understand a problem? Well, my BR push pull set H class was fine when it arrived, was able to push and pull its two coaches without issue, could even pull four coaches no problem.

Same performance as my SECR H class so all was well?

Apart from the smell of motor brush carbon and heating.

So yes I opened her to check inside, no issues, so reassembled no problem.

 

However, now she slips with her two coach train.

 

So I have thoroughly checked the rear bogie, made sure the wheels are free to spin, added light oil, checked that the bogie pickups don't actually rub on the wheels (as built) and all is well.

Added the strip of lead under the base plate, so she should now have more traction than the other H class, but no, still slips Rice puddings need have no fear.

 

What am I missing here?

 

Can it be the way i have reassembled it?

 

I repainted mine and had it apart many times, took the driving wheels out etc, etc, and must've done something similar when I did. 

 

I found that in the bogie area there is a washer. That washer had somehow moved, and was holding the rear driving wheels just off the track, which meant that it would hardly move itself, let alone anything behind it. After removing that it hauls fantastically, although it does wiggle around a lot 

[Wickham Green]

.............................. It wouldbe interesting to know whether Ashford operated a 'spare boiler' (and firebox/smokebox) policy, ............................

The 'H' class boiler was standard with classes O1, R1, R, R1, Q1 ( have I missed any ? )  -  while I can't say that locos never emerge from Ashford with the same boiler they arrived with, I doubt if it was general practise.

[G-BOAF]

Well there were 'spare boilers' in existance, as at least one H class boiler was used a works stationary boiler. The bluebell has it, now fitted to the O1 I believe.

[Chuffed 1]

Well there were 'spare boilers' in existance, as at least one H class boiler was used a works stationary boiler. The bluebell has it, now fitted to the O1 I believe.

I never knew that, though I suspected it might be the case. That explains a lot, thanks.

[Venator]

The 'H' class boiler was standard with classes O1, R1, R, R1, Q1 ( have I missed any ? )  -  while I can't say that locos never emerge from Ashford with the same boiler they arrived with, I doubt if it was general practise.

Which makes the claim peddled by some authors that it was Maunsell who introduced standardisation to Ashofrd laughable. Wainwright and his team were better engineers than many give them credit for. 

[Compound2632]

Which makes the claim peddled by some authors that it was Maunsell who introduced standardisation to Ashofrd laughable. Wainwright and his team were better engineers than many give them credit for. 

 

Ashford standardisation well pre-dates Wainwright. By the end of Stirling's 20-year tenure, over three-quarters of the SER's locomotive stock was comprised of just three standard classes, O, F, and Q. I don't believe any other pre-Grouping company achieved such simplicity.

[greatcoleswoodhalt]

On 10/05/2018 at 00:13, Paul.Uni said:

Dates from the Hornby website:

• 263 has been pushed back to January 2019.

 

The Winter 2019 edition of The Collector now gives March for R3648 (No 263) though the Hornby website still says February.

 

R3631 (No 31265) is also still February, per the website.

Edited December 16, 2020 by jafcreasey

[greatcoleswoodhalt]

The Winter 2019 edition of The Collector now gives March for R3648 (263) though the Hornby website still says February.

 

...four days later (15th) and the Hornby website now says April; take your pick!

[Venator]

Ashford standardisation well pre-dates Wainwright. By the end of Stirling's 20-year tenure, over three-quarters of the SER's locomotive stock was comprised of just three standard classes, O, F, and Q. I don't believe any other pre-Grouping company achieved such simplicity.

Good point! Shame plans to preserve an F1 fell through........ 

[rembrow]

BR early H class, R3631, is showing in the 'expected soon' list from Hornby, which they explain as in shipment to UK. 

[wainwright1]

Hi All.

Received my Hornby Collector Club H Class yesterday. Looked very nice and was well finished. The two headboards enclosed are a nice touch.

 

Took it down to the club to give it a test run. It ran a bit, stuttered and started, stalled and then I noticed it smoking. Took it off and brought it home.

Checked it this morning and noticed that the area behind the dome had started to melt. Also noticed that one of the front sand pipes was half broken off.

It seems that Hornby still have a problem with these motors.

 

Spoke to the repair section this morning and will have it collected for replacement.

The very helpful lady on the phone said that she had only one other faulty one reported, although they have only been sending them out the last couple of days.

 

RB