Jump to content
 

Hornby announce Class 800 IEP


Andy Y
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold
9 hours ago, Mack1979 said:

I'm having trouble with couplings on a change in gradient. There is no slack in the couplings like you'd get with bogie-attached ones. I tried a couple of disastrous experiments with weights on top to try to hold the carriages on the track. Anyone had similar issues and got a reliable solution? (Other then re-laying the track)

 
This is an issue which I’m afraid is inherent in Hornby’s 800 design.Thus if you have a slight height discrepancy in you track on a baseboard join for instance ( as indeed I have ) the unit is prone to derailment.Discussed this with Simon K at Warley Show 2018.Thought something might be tweaked to rectify the problem but it appears not.Beautiful model but one which would stay in the display cabinet AFAIK and one expensive mistake.Horses for courses but not mine.

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ian Hargrave said:

 
This is an issue which I’m afraid is inherent in Hornby’s 800 design.Thus if you have a slight height discrepancy in you track on a baseboard join for instance ( as indeed I have ) the unit is prone to derailment.Discussed this with Simon K at Warley Show 2018.Thought something might be tweaked to rectify the problem but it appears not.Beautiful model but one which would stay in the display cabinet AFAIK and one expensive mistake.Horses for courses but not mine.

Ouch. I was worried someone would say that. My layout is over 3 levels, so has several gradients. The coupling (the ones which come with it as Tom suggested) have good lateral movement for tight curves, but zero height capability. It manages the infinitesmal start of the gradient using the Woodland scenics risers, but it can't cope with the end or any flatter sections for bridges within the rise as it simply lifts the middle carriages right off their wheels. It will basically never go around my layout, however much I soften the gradient entries I think.

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, Ian Hargrave said:

 
This is an issue which I’m afraid is inherent in Hornby’s 800 design.Thus if you have a slight height discrepancy in you track on a baseboard join for instance ( as indeed I have ) the unit is prone to derailment.Discussed this with Simon K at Warley Show 2018.Thought something might be tweaked to rectify the problem but it appears not.Beautiful model but one which would stay in the display cabinet AFAIK and one expensive mistake.Horses for courses but not mine.

 

This is interesting . I am pondering an LNER Azuma . Really fancy one . There are no gradients as such on my layout , but in the 25 years its been up the boards have become warped and sagging , a bit like me in fact, and so its not billiard table flat . That said everything else runs ok and I don't have a huge amount of derailing .  Every thing from the new Rocket to Scotrail HSTs run fine, along with Bachmann, Dapol, Heljan  etc . Id hate to buy an Azuma and part with £355 of readies only to find it frustratingly derails all the time .  I knew there was an issue with the first GWR ones but thought this had been cured , something to do with plastic shims and that the next batch didn't have any issues .

 

So is anyone running the 800 over setrack , down to second radius in some places and maybe over uneven track, not the Himalayas but not billiard table smooth? Would be interesting to hear experiences .

Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, atom3624 said:

I'm still waiting for a TPE AZUMA!!

 

Come on Hornby - it'll be a best seller!!

 

Al.

 

I think the 802 will be announced as I have said on another thread. It was mentioned in some writing in the catalogue.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
36 minutes ago, Legend said:

 

This is interesting . I am pondering an LNER Azuma . Really fancy one . There are no gradients as such on my layout , but in the 25 years its been up the boards have become warped and sagging , a bit like me in fact, and so its not billiard table flat . That said everything else runs ok and I don't have a huge amount of derailing .  Every thing from the new Rocket to Scotrail HSTs run fine, along with Bachmann, Dapol, Heljan  etc . Id hate to buy an Azuma and part with £355 of readies only to find it frustratingly derails all the time .  I knew there was an issue with the first GWR ones but thought this had been cured , something to do with plastic shims and that the next batch didn't have any issues .

 

So is anyone running the 800 over setrack , down to second radius in some places and maybe over uneven track, not the Himalayas but not billiard table smooth? Would be interesting to hear experiences .

The plastic shims were to cure a problem with the tops of the bogies catching on the bodywork on curves and derailing - subsequent batches seem much better in this regard. 

 

However, there is definitely a lack of vertical movement in the coupling, which does result in issues with changes in gradients.  I find this isn't catastrophic on straight portions of track, but can cause derailments if you have gradient changes on a curve.  On my layout I do have some board warpage under curved track, and get some derailment of my GWR IETs on the outermost track (approx. 28.5" radius).  The inner tracks (down to 24" radius, or approximately 4th Radius set track) are less warped and don't cause an issue....  Nothing else has an issue, just the IET.  I can cope with it by declaring that area to be under a TSR, but it means that I can't safely leave the IET going "roundy round" on the outer circuit...

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Legend said:

So is anyone running the 800 over setrack , down to second radius

 

I was keen to know if they would clear each other at 67mm spacings. I had to make a rough cad model to verify it as it would seem nobody had tried it on here or Facebook.

 

When I get my pair (or 3 if TPE 802 is announced) I'll be wanting to run them down to 2nd radius although I think my track is very flat if I may say so myself!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Legend said:

 

This is interesting . I am pondering an LNER Azuma . Really fancy one . There are no gradients as such on my layout , but in the 25 years its been up the boards have become warped and sagging , a bit like me in fact, and so its not billiard table flat . That said everything else runs ok and I don't have a huge amount of derailing .  Every thing from the new Rocket to Scotrail HSTs run fine, along with Bachmann, Dapol, Heljan  etc . Id hate to buy an Azuma and part with £355 of readies only to find it frustratingly derails all the time .  I knew there was an issue with the first GWR ones but thought this had been cured , something to do with plastic shims and that the next batch didn't have any issues .

 

So is anyone running the 800 over setrack , down to second radius in some places and maybe over uneven track, not the Himalayas but not billiard table smooth? Would be interesting to hear experiences .

I use flexitrack, but they're fine down to second radius, but it's right on the limit. I had one curve slightly too tight and they kept de-railing. I have had to rip up and re-lay. 

 

I've tried the Hornby Pendolino which has a similar coupling but has more vertical "give" and this is surviving the gradient changes better, but seems to de-rail on some of my curves where the IET didn't, weirdly. I'll try lubricating it a little, as it seems to be ok sometimes, so maybe just a little tight.

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Legend said:

 

This is interesting . I am pondering an LNER Azuma . Really fancy one . There are no gradients as such on my layout , but in the 25 years its been up the boards have become warped and sagging , a bit like me in fact, and so its not billiard table flat . That said everything else runs ok and I don't have a huge amount of derailing .  Every thing from the new Rocket to Scotrail HSTs run fine, along with Bachmann, Dapol, Heljan  etc . Id hate to buy an Azuma and part with £355 of readies only to find it frustratingly derails all the time .  I knew there was an issue with the first GWR ones but thought this had been cured , something to do with plastic shims and that the next batch didn't have any issues .

 

So is anyone running the 800 over setrack , down to second radius in some places and maybe over uneven track, not the Himalayas but not billiard table smooth? Would be interesting to hear experiences .

Like you, I think that the LNER Azuma is very fanciable; it’s very much nicer than the GWR livery I have. For what it’s worth, I thought that the “flowing silk” livery was a bit of a disaster because it didn’t harmonise with the shape of the train. My experience with it is of limited usefulness because I have laid my track to 6' radius. However, my layout and I are like you in that they sag a bit. As suggested earlier in this thread, I slackened off the bogie screws and have had no trouble with it since. Being an early model, it has no shims but works fine for me. The running is exemplary – despite being very fast flat out, it starts and stops smoothly on both DC and DCC. I wish all new MUs and locos were as good.

  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, No Decorum said:

I wish all new MUs and locos were as good.

 

And I do think the 800s are good value for money given what £200+ gets you from Bachmann. Not that I think they are a rip off but maybe a bit good for their own good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive been hanging out at New Barnet station a lot these last few weeks(even made it as far as Welwyn North yesterday while waiting to collect my Sister-in -law from a job-what a great station that is!)and Ive noticed a awful lot of 5-car running on the sets,or two 5-car units coupled together.The Azumas really making its mark on the East Coast mainline now and is a beautiful train.

Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, TomScrut said:

 

And I do think the 800s are good value for money given what £200+ gets you from Bachmann. Not that I think they are a rip off but maybe a bit good for their own good.

Bachmann does seem to be going for broke in details and features. Whether the strategy works remains to be seen. Certainly, in my opinion, the latest Bachmann models are mouth-watering. Hornby economises. In the 800s, I can live with coach lighting powered directly from the track but cab lights wired with the headlights is awful. I love cab lights but I’d sooner have none at all than ones which are on all the time.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, No Decorum said:

cab lights wired with the headlights is awful. I love cab lights but I’d sooner have none at all than ones which are on all the time.

 

I agree. The thing is silly stuff like that doesn't really cost much to implement. Even if it was a switch on the bottom it is literally the cost of a switch and fitting it. The circuit board is under there anyway AFAIK!

 

Ideally I'd like them to embrace 21/22 pin and have proper DCC features but that doesn't seem to be on the cards.

 

When I get my 800s I might rewire them. I probably will at least remove the functionality of the cab light

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, TomScrut said:

 

I agree. The thing is silly stuff like that doesn't really cost much to implement. Even if it was a switch on the bottom it is literally the cost of a switch and fitting it. The circuit board is under there anyway AFAIK!

 

Ideally I'd like them to embrace 21/22 pin and have proper DCC features but that doesn't seem to be on the cards.

 

When I get my 800s I might rewire them. I probably will at least remove the functionality of the cab light

Yes, I too wish that Hornby would move to 21/22 (or 18) pin, at least for diesels & electrics with all their lighting functions. On some models, I’ve just stuck some low-tech tape over the cab light contact, if I can find it. I wonder what we’d pay. Bachmann, in spite of all the criticism about costs, has produced a highly-specified 90 for very little more than Hornby’s DCC-primitive 87.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, No Decorum said:

has produced a highly-specified 90 for very little more than Hornby’s DCC-primitive 87.

 

And about the same cost as the 91 which doesn't look any more advanced than the 87.

 

The LEDs, switches etc are not vastly expensive or labour intensive if designed properly IMO. As in yes it would eat a bit of margin but nothing consequential, or they could increase RRP by £2 to cover it off! I'd pay the extra for the features.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is with significant regret I am yet to own either a suitable GWR or LNER 800 from Hornby. I have the Test Train 2, simply as I applied rule 1 (and I was at the press release up in Newton Aycliffe). But I sent GWR 800004 back to the shop (livery errors, poor pantograph and bad ride quality), owned 800010 for a few weeks until a Paddington Bear collector at the P'lodge charmed me to part with it for a very healthy sum and I have cancelled both LNER versions. Why? Well, a minor point that I like to focus on the Westcountry and as such I am waiting for a GWR class 802... but mainly because....

 

For a RRP £394.99 model I take issue with: 

 

1. 8 pin DCC

2. No working pantograph (or at least a decent diecast one which doesn't snap soon as you touch it).

3. Lack of attention to livery details. Both 800003 & 004 have been incorrect or with little care for the detail of the livery. They do not represent their Test Train 3 & 4 days, early service or now uniform service liveries. 

4. Lack of added features that Bachmann etc have done. Working CDL lights would have been neat!

5. Lack of separately fitted detail. I would have really liked for the engine radiator grills to have been etched to allow more detail. Think the side of Dapol class 68! 

6. The LNER releases are bonkers! Why oh why release a model based on a 800/1 when you do not either have the tooling or released the tooling to model a 9-car (not that I have space for a 9-car). The genius of the Hitachi AT300 series is most all operators have 5-car units and thus, why didn't Hornby release both a 800/2 and 801/1 as correct 5-car models in LNER. I would have bought both! 

 

If I was paying railroad prices, I really could not care about plastic pantographs, lack of detail or interest in the liveries and non-prototypical formations. But when I am forking out 'premium' prices I look at what Bachmann, Dapol and Accurascale are doing and go...oh. 

 

No doubt I shall buy a couple GWR 802s if ever released. But I won't be pre-ordering and Ill hover around until I find a good discount. And no doubt eventually we shall see correct 5-car LNER examples (seeing as both liveries shall be around for another 3+ years). But come on Hornby! You could of so easily sold me 800003, 004, 104 & 10. That thousands of pounds you could have had from me if you just cared about the details! I find it so frustrating!!

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, 159220 said:

8 pin DCC

 

I don't like this either but the LNER 800s are pretty much a definite purchase for me given the era and region. I won't be buying the 91 on the protest of this point as it's not "must have" for me. If I want something enough I'll have it and live with it or rework it, but not what I'd call "nice to haves"

 

24 minutes ago, 159220 said:

No working pantograph

 

As above.

 

24 minutes ago, 159220 said:

Lack of added features that Bachmann etc have done. Working CDL lights would have been neat!

 

Yeah I'd have liked better DCC functionality given electronics don't tend to add much to cost either.

 

24 minutes ago, 159220 said:

Lack of separately fitted detail.

 

They are significantly cheaper per car than the Bachmann models though aren't they?

 

24 minutes ago, 159220 said:

LNER releases are bonkers

 

Yes and no. The limited edition one yes, could have been 5 car. Celebrating Scotland is the only named one and only one with any unique sort of livery so I can see why they picked that.

 

24 minutes ago, 159220 said:

That thousands of pounds you could have had from me if you just cared about the details! I find it so frustrating!!

 

I do agree with your sentiments, the stuff we are talking about isn't stuff that's going to put them into Bachmann Pullman money either. It's minor things that in a lot of cases would be cheap ish to sort.

 

If they do a TPE 802 I couldn't give them my money quick enough either TBH. I can't really have my area of interest as 2020 ECML Yorkshire - Scotland without Azumas or Novas being complusory purchases can I?

Edited by TomScrut
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
41 minutes ago, 159220 said:

3. Lack of attention to livery details. Both 800003 & 004 have been incorrect or with little care for the detail of the livery. They do not represent their Test Train 3 & 4 days, early service or now uniform service liveries. 

 

 

To me, this is the biggest bugbear.  Being fair to Hornby, they suffered from livery detail changes to the real thing subsequent to signing off the livery for the first release model, but having then got it right for the "Paddington Bear" release they reverted to the error on the next "standard" GWR liveried release... 

 

Watching the GWR Class 80x regularly pass by my lounge window here in Didcot, the only thing that breaks up the rather dull green sides is the bright, white "1st Class" sign.  It would be so easy to slap a transfer over the existing black signs on the models if only I could source something appropriate...

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I had hopes for 800003 being right! But even if you can talk Rail-tec into the decals (not only 1st class white but you have bike, 'traincrew only' and wheelchair space signs missing), you are stuck with the doors being incorrect silver! I can live with 8 pin DCC (and the associated lacking in wow tech associated with more pins) if the livery application is spot on awesome (and I pay way less than RRP). 

 

Mr Hopwood was saying publicly at the 'IET' launch (800003/004) the livery/amount of signs was going to be revised before they were in service from Oct 2017. 

 

(For info...800003 was de-named last year when its nose vinyl was replaced). 

  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just wondering when Hornby do release a TPE 802/2, whether they'll get the vinyls correct. When they were first delivered some were delivered with missing 1st branding, some were fitted with the white hoop (denotes which end is first class on the top white light on the train front) at the wrong end, or indeed not at all.

 

Who knows :lol:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JackB95 said:

I'm just wondering when Hornby do release a TPE 802/2, whether they'll get the vinyls correct. When they were first delivered some were delivered with missing 1st branding, some were fitted with the white hoop (denotes which end is first class on the top white light on the train front) at the wrong end, or indeed not at all.

 

Who knows :lol:

 

So could it depend on what and when the prototype they pick is/was?

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
On ‎01‎/‎07‎/‎2020 at 18:23, 159220 said:

It is with significant regret I am yet to own either a suitable GWR or LNER 800 from Hornby. I have the Test Train 2, simply as I applied rule 1 (and I was at the press release up in Newton Aycliffe). But I sent GWR 800004 back to the shop (livery errors, poor pantograph and bad ride quality), owned 800010 for a few weeks until a Paddington Bear collector at the P'lodge charmed me to part with it for a very healthy sum and I have cancelled both LNER versions. Why? Well, a minor point that I like to focus on the Westcountry and as such I am waiting for a GWR class 802... but mainly because....

 

For a RRP £394.99 model I take issue with: 

 

1. 8 pin DCC

2. No working pantograph (or at least a decent diecast one which doesn't snap soon as you touch it).

3. Lack of attention to livery details. Both 800003 & 004 have been incorrect or with little care for the detail of the livery. They do not represent their Test Train 3 & 4 days, early service or now uniform service liveries. 

4. Lack of added features that Bachmann etc have done. Working CDL lights would have been neat!

5. Lack of separately fitted detail. I would have really liked for the engine radiator grills to have been etched to allow more detail. Think the side of Dapol class 68! 

6. The LNER releases are bonkers! Why oh why release a model based on a 800/1 when you do not either have the tooling or released the tooling to model a 9-car (not that I have space for a 9-car). The genius of the Hitachi AT300 series is most all operators have 5-car units and thus, why didn't Hornby release both a 800/2 and 801/1 as correct 5-car models in LNER. I would have bought both! 

 

If I was paying railroad prices, I really could not care about plastic pantographs, lack of detail or interest in the liveries and non-prototypical formations. But when I am forking out 'premium' prices I look at what Bachmann, Dapol and Accurascale are doing and go...oh. 

 

No doubt I shall buy a couple GWR 802s if ever released. But I won't be pre-ordering and Ill hover around until I find a good discount. And no doubt eventually we shall see correct 5-car LNER examples (seeing as both liveries shall be around for another 3+ years). But come on Hornby! You could of so easily sold me 800003, 004, 104 & 10. That thousands of pounds you could have had from me if you just cared about the details! I find it so frustrating!!

 

I think you are right on the value for money aspect , this one is a bit lacking . Trouble is Hornby are the only show intown for an OO IET and its a bit like their HST , which I also regard as being over priced, as being one of their cash cows . Really there is no alternative

 

Being a committed DC luddite I'm not at all bothered by 8 Pin , lights etc  I'm also not really bothered by the pantograph as I have no OHLE.  Also really not bothered by it being an 800/1 , I think that's the Scottish set, as I've not got room for the full 9 cars in the same way as I don't run full length HSTs (except for the Scotrail one!)

 

But what I do want is good mechanism, good running  and as low a price as possible!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

I have just got a Paddington 800 and from my brief experience with it it seems to be an excellent model, a good compromise between detail and cost I think. Lighting functionality could be better but I know what I am getting with Hornby in this regard! Only criticism is the pantographs are a bit naff.

 

And to answer a question I asked a while ago but never got a definite answer on the carriages seem to pass each other at 67mm spacing.

 

I also have 2 LNER ones on order, so I am super excited about these now, the GWR one isn't suitable region wise but the appeal was because it had Paddington on the side for my son's benefit, rule 1 and all that! Makes me want a TPE and HT 802 even more now!

 

Once I find my pre order list isn't as long as my arm I think I will want to put sound in them.

Edited by TomScrut
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...