Hornby announce Class 800 IEP

[rob D2]

Looks very nice, there is a lot on YouTube about the inability to couple two as the fixings are fixed and they pull each other off the track.

Solution seems to be a paperclip !

[Western Dave]

Looks very nice, there is a lot on YouTube about the inability to couple two as the fixings are fixed and they pull each other off the track.

Solution seems to be a paperclip !

Not tried to couple 2 units together yet. Have test run both 5 car units I got and both are the same

[Coryton]

Looks very nice, there is a lot on YouTube about the inability to couple two as the fixings are fixed and they pull each other off the track.

Solution seems to be a paperclip !

 

Nice to know that in these sophisticated times some things don't change...

[DJMR]

Looks very nice, there is a lot on YouTube about the inability to couple two as the fixings are fixed and they pull each other off the track.

Solution seems to be a paperclip !

 

Yes I would have thought that would happen with the Hornby style couplings, but I think with Kadee it wouldn't be much of a problem and people believe Kadee #20 would suffice. 

 

My layout is out of action at the moment, so unable to test yet. 

[SteveC32]

So yesterday my 2 IETs arrived and I was impressed by how they looked and apprehensive about how they would run given all the comments on this thread. I ran them in and chipped them last night on my rolling road, all OK.

 

Tonight was the night for trying them out on my layout.

 

What a stressful evening. Only managed to try out one IET. Going clockwise on carriage 813xxx one of the bogies jumps off the track due to bogie catching on the body and the interior lights don't work. Going anti-clockwise the interior lights work on 813xxx but 814xxx jumps off the track due to stiff bogie and the lights on the unpowered driving vehicle go off when cornering due to loss of power to the chip presumably because of bad pickup contacts. Not the sort of quality you'd expect from a model that retails at £395 from Hornby!!! Someone at Hornby needs to be held accountable for this poor quality control.

 

I haven’t got high hopes for the testing of the 2nd one tomorrow night

Edited February 27, 2018 by SteveC32

[Darius43]

I wonder how long it will take Hornby to respond to this issue. Or will they just ignore it having got the sales anyway.

 

Darius

[SteveC32]

I wonder how long it will take Hornby to respond to this issue. Or will they just ignore it having got the sales anyway.

Darius

I really hope they don’t ignore it. In fact they can’t as Trading Standards could be used if they do because the problems that so many people have experienced could be used as evidence that the IETs “are not of merchantable quality”. This is an ideal time for the ’new Man at the top’ to show us how Hornby is changing and becoming more customer focussed Edited February 28, 2018 by SteveC32

[SteveC32]

So yesterday my 2 IETs arrived and I was impressed by how they looked and apprehensive about how they would run given all the comments on this thread. I ran them in and chipped them last night on my rolling road, all OK.

Tonight was the night for trying them out on my layout.

What a stressful evening. Only managed to try out one IET. Going clockwise on carriage 813xxx one of the bogies jumps off the track due to bogie catching on the body and the interior lights don't work. Going anti-clockwise the interior lights work on 813xxx but 814xxx jumps off the track due to stiff bogie and the lights on the unpowered driving vehicle go off when cornering due to loss of power to the chip presumably because of bad pickup contacts. Not the sort of quality you'd expect from a model that retails at £395 from Hornby!!! Someone at Hornby needs to be held accountable for this poor quality control.

I haven’t got high hopes for the testing of the 2nd one tomorrow night

So the ‘testing’ continued tonight on the 2nd of the IETs I’ve bought. Power car - wiper blade loose in the box, carriage 814xxx - both bogies derail in both a clockwise and anti-clockwise direction and one bogie derails going over straight track joints (when I looked at it closely I saw the the motored power car was twisting the carriage off and on the rail causing the bogie to derail, I took the power car off and pulled the rest of the train over the join and all carriages stayed firmly on the track), carriage 812xxx - one bogie derails in a clockwise direction.

 

I’ve observed the bogies catching on the body shell as discussed by several people on the thread, but I also think the carriages are too light to cope with the ‘whipping action’ of the coupling mechanism.

 

So right now I have 2 expensive display models as I certainly can’t run them. We rightly expect a train we buy brand new to stay on the track and run reliably, everything else that I’ve got, including Hornby products, does.

 

I really hope these issues can be resolved successfully for all of us who have these faulty IET’s, but if they can’t they can have mine back and give me a full refund and I’ll wait for the next batch when hopefully they’ll have fully investigated and resolved the design/build issues.

[Legend]

So the ‘testing’ continued tonight on the 2nd of the IETs I’ve bought. Power car - wiper blade loose in the box, carriage 814xxx - both bogies derail in both a clockwise and anti-clockwise direction and one bogie derails going over straight track joints (when I looked at it closely I saw the the motored power car was twisting the carriage off and on the rail causing the bogie to derail, I took the power car off and pulled the rest of the train over the join and all carriages stayed firmly on the track), carriage 812xxx - one bogie derails in a clockwise direction.

I’ve observed the bogies catching on the body shell as discussed by several people on the thread, but I also think the carriages are too light to cope with the ‘whipping action’ of the coupling mechanism.

So right now I have 2 expensive display models as I certainly can’t run them. We rightly expect a train we buy brand new to stay on the track and run reliably, everything else that I’ve got, including Hornby products, does.

I really hope these issues can be resolved successfully for all of us who have these faulty IET’s, but if they can’t they can have mine back and give me a full refund and I’ll wait for the next batch when hopefully they’ll have fully investigated and resolved the design/build issues.

I think there needs to be some statement from Hornby on this, after all this is a £395 model, although I’d be equally the same on a £50 one. It is unfortunate and what they really don’t need. The fact that it’s patchy suggests to me the issue might be assembly rather than a design issue with model itself.However, it must be very frustrating if you’ve got one and it derails. If there is no statement in a reasonable time (end of week maybe) I’d be packing my models up and taking them back to retailer for refund. Also unfortunate for retailer having to deal with this, so they need a bit of understanding, but I think if there is no reaction from Hornby then returning all defective units is the only way to get their attention.

[SteveC32]

I think there needs to be some statement from Hornby on this, after all this is a £395 model, although I’d be equally the same on a £50 one. It is unfortunate and what they really don’t need. The fact that it’s patchy suggests to me the issue might be assembly rather than a design issue with model itself.However, it must be very frustrating if you’ve got one and it derails. If there is no statement in a reasonable time (end of week maybe) I’d be packing my models up and taking them back to retailer for refund. Also unfortunate for retailer having to deal with this, so they need a bit of understanding, but I think if there is no reaction from Hornby then returning all defective units is the only way to get their attention.

Yep my retailer is really good and I’ve made it clear to him that it’s not his fault, it’s just very inconvenient for him and me. I was hoping that at least one of the 2 that I’ve got would have been OK. I’ve updated him tonight and we’re going to have a chat tomorrow about how we get Hornby to sort out the issues.

 

My nephew also has issues with his as well, he can only run it clockwise as running anti-clockwise it derails.

[dibber25]

The problem seems to be due to the fact that, on the real thing, the yaw-damper on the bogie is connected to the body in order to function. On the model, this can't be, so Hornby has made the bogie detail and the body detail come together as close as possible so that there isn't an obvious gap. However, the model bogie has to turn much further than the real thing and if the bogie turns and tips at the same time (due to the slightest change of track level) that provides the opportunity for the bogie part of the damper arm to get caught inside the lower edge of the body. Try doing deliberately by turning and tipping the bogie by hand and if you hold the body just above the bogie you'll feel the side pushed outwards as you turn the bogie. Right way up, on the layout, this results in derailment. It's a safe bet that it will happen at the same point on the layout each time. The answer seems to be some careful fettling of the track and if this doesn't work, some slight trimming back of the inner edge of the bodyside as seen in the pictures further back in this thread. Ironically, the problem seems to stem from Hornby trying to make this aspect of the detail look really good while accommodating the modeller's need for sharper-than-scale curves. (CJL)

[SteveC32]

The problem seems to be due to the fact that, on the real thing, the yaw-damper on the bogie is connected to the body in order to function. On the model, this can't be, so Hornby has made the bogie detail and the body detail come together as close as possible so that there isn't an obvious gap. However, the model bogie has to turn much further than the real thing and if the bogie turns and tips at the same time (due to the slightest change of track level) that provides the opportunity for the bogie part of the damper arm to get caught inside the lower edge of the body. Try doing deliberately by turning and tipping the bogie by hand and if you hold the body just above the bogie you'll feel the side pushed outwards as you turn the bogie. Right way up, on the layout, this results in derailment. It's a safe bet that it will happen at the same point on the layout each time. The answer seems to be some careful fettling of the track and if this doesn't work, some slight trimming back of the inner edge of the bodyside as seen in the pictures further back in this thread. Ironically, the problem seems to stem from Hornby trying to make this aspect of the detail look really good while accommodating the modeller's need for sharper-than-scale curves. (CJL)

Yep that’s what I’ve observed as well. As my layout is an exhibition layout I’ve been really focused to ensure the track has been laid ’properly’ so I’m happy it’s not a track issue (and everything else runs OK) so currently my focus is on Hornby resolving the issue for all of us who have been unfortunate enough to have the ‘dodgy ones’ from the batch.

[rob D2]

The problem seems to be due to the fact that, on the real thing, the yaw-damper on the bogie is connected to the body in order to function. On the model, this can't be, so Hornby has made the bogie detail and the body detail come together as close as possible so that there isn't an obvious gap. However, the model bogie has to turn much further than the real thing and if the bogie turns and tips at the same time (due to the slightest change of track level) that provides the opportunity for the bogie part of the damper arm to get caught inside the lower edge of the body. Try doing deliberately by turning and tipping the bogie by hand and if you hold the body just above the bogie you'll feel the side pushed outwards as you turn the bogie. Right way up, on the layout, this results in derailment. It's a safe bet that it will happen at the same point on the layout each time. The answer seems to be some careful fettling of the track and if this doesn't work, some slight trimming back of the inner edge of the bodyside as seen in the pictures further back in this thread. Ironically, the problem seems to stem from Hornby trying to make this aspect of the detail look really good while accommodating the modeller's need for sharper-than-scale curves. (CJL)

 

But surely they’d be extensive testing on a variety of track config before they put these out ? A lot of people can’t fettle their track as it’s laid and that’s it. And I’m sure they do t want to be trimming bodysides on a £400 toy !

[DJMR]

I have sent a long email to Hornby with my dismay about the issues on the Class 800 and I was going to chase up today but with the Snow it has meant their lines are closed (according to their website). 

 

It does raise a big concern on how Hornby, and other companies, are able to adequately test and validate the suitability, capability and quality of the Models. I understand they have a test track as shown on their videos but this does not depict your typical enthusiasts layout; where they may be inclines, declines, curved track by hand, unavoidable bumps/dips (for whatever reason) and much more, surely they should have a layout that encompasses most of what the many could and are in the Model Railway community. Weirdly enough if I remember rightly they actually produce this stuff that majority of us use on our layouts?!?! 

 

I hope they respond, already starting to take too long, I did get a response from their Twitter stating "If anybody is experiencing a problem with their Class 800 (or any Hornby model) please contact our Customer Services team and they'll be able to help: https://www.Hornby.com/uk-en/contact . We have seen the discussion online and the team is poised to help." and I have asked for a Statement to be released regarding the issue so people can be better aware of what Hornby are doing to find a solution but no reply to that. 

 

Time will tell. 

[dibber25]

I have sent a long email to Hornby with my dismay about the issues on the Class 800 and I was going to chase up today but with the Snow it has meant their lines are closed (according to their website). 

 

It does raise a big concern on how Hornby, and other companies, are able to adequately test and validate the suitability, capability and quality of the Models. I understand they have a test track as shown on their videos but this does not depict your typical enthusiasts layout; where they may be inclines, declines, curved track by hand, unavoidable bumps/dips (for whatever reason) and much more, surely they should have a layout that encompasses most of what the many could and are in the Model Railway community. Weirdly enough if I remember rightly they actually produce this stuff that majority of us use on our layouts?!?! 

 

I hope they respond, already starting to take too long, I did get a response from their Twitter stating "If anybody is experiencing a problem with their Class 800 (or any Hornby model) please contact our Customer Services team and they'll be able to help: https://www.Hornby.com/uk-en/contact . We have seen the discussion online and the team is poised to help." and I have asked for a Statement to be released regarding the issue so people can be better aware of what Hornby are doing to find a solution but no reply to that. 

 

Time will tell. 

 

In the past, Hornby's new models were designed to operate over their incline pier system with all the sudden changes of gradient that involved, and of course, round first radius curves. The Class 800 is a pretty exceptional train - it's 26m coaches are 3m longer than a Mk3 and measure over 13inches in OO. It's not so long ago we were bemoaning the huge cut-outs at the front of locos in order to operate over Hornby's inclines, and the shorty nature of things like the first Mk3s in order to better negotiate first radius curves. We need to think carefully before we ask Hornby to turn back the clock, because that may well be the easiest way to comply with the concept that every model should operate over the most severe of the company's train-set accessories. The problem here looks to have been, with best intentions, to make coaches which are as near 'perfect' in appearance as possible. It may just be that those who have found derailment issues around the yaw damper detail need do no more than take a few file strokes to the offending part. Otherwise, to eliminate the upper part of the yaw damper arm will probably require a new bogie tool, and that cure may be many months away. (CJL)

[DJMR]

In the past, Hornby's new models were designed to operate over their incline pier system with all the sudden changes of gradient that involved, and of course, round first radius curves. The Class 800 is a pretty exceptional train - it's 26m coaches are 3m longer than a Mk3 and measure over 13inches in OO. It's not so long ago we were bemoaning the huge cut-outs at the front of locos in order to operate over Hornby's inclines, and the shorty nature of things like the first Mk3s in order to better negotiate first radius curves. We need to think carefully before we ask Hornby to turn back the clock, because that may well be the easiest way to comply with the concept that every model should operate over the most severe of the company's train-set accessories. The problem here looks to have been, with best intentions, to make coaches which are as near 'perfect' in appearance as possible. It may just be that those who have found derailment issues around the yaw damper detail need do no more than take a few file strokes to the offending part. Otherwise, to eliminate the upper part of the yaw damper arm will probably require a new bogie tool, and that cure may be many months away. (CJL)

 

Past, now or the future, Hornby should produce models that actually work without fault and should undertake the appropriate tests that are indicative of Model Railways with standard elements, i.e. inclines, declines, majority of the curves, etc.

 

It is also best not to make any modifications to the models which could affect warranty or repair until this issue has been resolved. I rather not be complaisant over something that has cost me a considerable amount of money whereas with any other faulty goods I have reported are usually resolved in days or at least some sort of solution in the meantime.

 

It does alarm me that some people seem to be happy with this and yet be out of pocket for a faulty model but of course that is their choice.

 

As mentioned I will await Hornby's response and take it from there. 

[Coryton]

The Class 800 is a pretty exceptional train - it's 26m coaches are 3m longer than a Mk3 and measure over 13inches in OO. I

 

On the other hand, in real life they go down lines that handled Mk 3 coaches (with maybe some minimal alterations - some platform alterations required?)

[Legend]

In the past, Hornby's new models were designed to operate over their incline pier system with all the sudden changes of gradient that involved, and of course, round first radius curves. The Class 800 is a pretty exceptional train - it's 26m coaches are 3m longer than a Mk3 and measure over 13inches in OO. It's not so long ago we were bemoaning the huge cut-outs at the front of locos in order to operate over Hornby's inclines, and the shorty nature of things like the first Mk3s in order to better negotiate first radius curves. We need to think carefully before we ask Hornby to turn back the clock, because that may well be the easiest way to comply with the concept that every model should operate over the most severe of the company's train-set accessories. The problem here looks to have been, with best intentions, to make coaches which are as near 'perfect' in appearance as possible. It may just be that those who have found derailment issues around the yaw damper detail need do no more than take a few file strokes to the offending part. Otherwise, to eliminate the upper part of the yaw damper arm will probably require a new bogie tool, and that cure may be many months away. (CJL)

Well we might be asking Hornby to turn the clock back to when they had good quality control and trains ran with certainty out of the box.

 

This isn't about shortie Mk3s or the need to make the transition to a 1 in 36 incline. We are not going back to the days of ducking giraffes. Its about a train that fails to take curves properly and as such to me is not fit for the purpose intended. If you look at the Hornby Catalogue it quite clearly states "Curved Track Hornby 2nd Radius+/438mm". Now we may think the train will look stupid going round that, but that's what it says and so people have reasonable expectations it will do just that. I'm not even sure that's the case here I think people have reported coming off on large radius curves . Whatever, this is a Hornby Train and it needs to go round curves. There is no way I would take a file to a £395 model. I can just imagine it now if there's a further issue in the future. Oh we cant touch it because you've modified it. That's what Hornby expect you to do, shrug your shoulders say that's life and some how bodge it so it will run, if that's possible.

 

Unfortunately Hornby do have a track record of this . I'm mindful of the 14XX with the faulty chassis . No official statement or rectification on that . So my advice is for everyone with derailing 800s is to return them. Its the only way Hornby will get the message you are not prepared to put up with this.

Edited March 1, 2018 by Legend

[SteveC32]

In the past, Hornby's new models were designed to operate over their incline pier system with all the sudden changes of gradient that involved, and of course, round first radius curves. The Class 800 is a pretty exceptional train - it's 26m coaches are 3m longer than a Mk3 and measure over 13inches in OO. It's not so long ago we were bemoaning the huge cut-outs at the front of locos in order to operate over Hornby's inclines, and the shorty nature of things like the first Mk3s in order to better negotiate first radius curves. We need to think carefully before we ask Hornby to turn back the clock, because that may well be the easiest way to comply with the concept that every model should operate over the most severe of the company's train-set accessories. The problem here looks to have been, with best intentions, to make coaches which are as near 'perfect' in appearance as possible. It may just be that those who have found derailment issues around the yaw damper detail need do no more than take a few file strokes to the offending part. Otherwise, to eliminate the upper part of the yaw damper arm will probably require a new bogie tool, and that cure may be many months away. (CJL)

For a bit of context, the first of my 2 IETs that I tested negotiates the tighter radius curves that I have into and out of my fiddle yard without issue but it derails on a 4’ radius curve in the viewing area of the layout, whereas the 2nd one derails into and out of the fiddle yard (on the same lines), so for me I’ve ruled out track as the issue and am certain it’s poor build quality of the models and given the issues being experienced by other ‘owners’ think that’s a fair assessment. Hornby should now be judged on how well and how quickly they resolve the issue.

 

As I mentioned in a previous post it is not unreasonable to expect a brand new ‘out of the box’ Train to stay on the track when running it.

[cheesysmith]

Hornby need to reintroduced these to the UK.

 

 

HC8040. Working `burg couplings. These form a rigid link between coaches, so the nose coupling would need vertical and horizontal movement to allow these to be used.

[dibber25]

I'm not disputing that anyone should expect a £300 model to run properly out of the box. I watched the Hornby IET running on their layout at the Warley show and it was fine. Anyone who is happy that their track is within reasonable tolerances and that the model should be able to negotiate it and doesn't, should return it to the seller.

For those who are less patient and want to tackle it themselves, I'm happy to tell my experiences and what I've just spent an afternoon doing. 

Firstly, after three initial derailments (same car, same place on the layout) I did nothing to the model. I drove it more carefully, assumed it was my track that was at fault and had no further problems.

I then took it to work and ran it on the Model Rail test track which is laid with a mix of Hornby and Peco Set Track. It ran fine on the 2nd radius circuit and - not surprisingly - failed to negotiate the complexes of sharp radius pointwork.

I carried out a second test run at home this morning and had all manner of derailment issues that hadn't been present before. The only thing I'd done in the meantime was the test run at Model Rail and to take a couple of the coach bodies off to look at the interiors. 

I decided to devote this afternoon to sorting it out. I took the body off the car that persistently derailed and ran it in the formation without the body. It still derailed, thus proving that the yaw damper fouling the body wasn't the problem. 

With the body off it was easy to see that, where there's a slight sag in my baseboard, the errant coach was effectively hanging, suspended by the coupling either end. The couplings were taking its weight and allowing the trailing bogie to derail. These rigid coupling bars have no vertical play to speak of and effectively create a rigid train 5ft 8in long. 

I decided to slacken the coupling bars so I undid the mounting screw by one turn. At one end of the car you need to remove the silver-coloured box (two deeply-recessed cross-head screws).

I then worked my way through the train, test-running it each time I slackened a coupling screw, first as a two-car unit, then three and so on until I had slackened all the couplings and test-run each one. On one car I did find that that the yaw-damper was prone to catch. I gave the top of the bogie part of the damper three or four file strokes and it cured the problem. 

I've since had the five-car set with all bodies back on, running at varied speeds without any derailments.

In short, it's an assembly issue. The coupling screws are done up too tight and here and there, there's a smidgin of plastic 'burr' on the interface between the yaw damper arm on the bogie and the bracket on the coach body. Finally, check that the body-chassis clips are fully 'home' as this affects the position of the body edge on the chassis and can leave a few thou on which for the bogie to catch. (CJL)

[SteveC32]

I rarely feel the need to write to a company’s CEO but tonight I did. My e-mail has been sent to Lyndon Davies detailing the issues I’ve been experiencing with my IETs and pointing out that others are experiencing similar issues, with some detailing them on RMWeb. I look forward to hearing how Hornby is going to solve all our problems.

[keybuk]

I know we're all figuring out how to get these around corners, but has anyone had any luck getting a DCC Decoder into one of these?

 

They don't seem to have put much space in that nice box on the bottom; a LokSound V4.0 is too thick.

 

[HillsideDepot]

In short, it's an assembly issue. The coupling screws are done up too tight and here and there, there's a smidgin of plastic 'burr' on the interface between the yaw damper arm on the bogie and the bracket on the coach body. Finally, check that the body-chassis clips are fully 'home' as this affects the position of the body edge on the chassis and can leave a few thou on which for the bogie to catch. (CJL)

At last, someone coolly and calmly investigating the issue and sorting the matter! Thank you Chris for sharing your findings. Let's be honest it was most likely to be something as simple as the screws done up too tightly and not a design fault. 

 

Sure, it shouldn't happen, but then neither should water have poured out of the air-con on the day the real ones entered service. Because it is an assembly issue, it might be difficult for Hornby to trace. If two people assembled the couplings, and all of the batch assembled by the one who over tightened the screws happened to be on the pallets Hornby distributed first, then all those still in the warehouse, and available for immediate testing, could be fine. I'm guessing here, but it could be the case. I'm not defending Hornby, and I do understand its frustrating for those with models which don't perform as expected, but a it more patience would be in order. 

 

Meanwhile, my model, which I admit is likely to forever remain in a showcase, is yet to arrive, and given today's Red Weather Warning I don't expect to see it this week.

[SteveC32]

I know we're all figuring out how to get these around corners, but has anyone had any luck getting a DCC Decoder into one of these?

 

They don't seem to have put much space in that nice box on the bottom; a LokSound V4.0 is too thick.

 

I’ve only fitted non sound chips (as Bif hasn’t done a Loksound sound yet ) and the standard chip fits in the ‘tray’. Looks like you’ve found the next issue with this ‘sound ready’ model!