Hornby Princess Coronation Class (Duchess)

[MikeParkin65]

31 minutes ago, robmcg said:

 

Not sure if the economics of the industry allow for such luxuries any more. 

 

I think the white wheel rims and hubs a bit strong but they are what people see at York, and I think happened once or twice on some engines when new? It's still an impressive model.

They’re not white on 6229 at York Rob, they are polished metal so silver would be more appropriate. 

[brushman47544]

On 15/02/2019 at 09:30, Robin Brasher said:

 

 

Where’s the soup dragon?

[RAF96]

22 hours ago, Hilux5972 said:

Do Hornby even know what spares are anymore?

 

I see on a Bachmann forum folk are asking much the same question and getting the same answer. Provisioning of support runs of spares in a world of production run batch buying of models from China, etc is no longer viable.

 

Manufacturers are relying on returned or damaged models as a source of spares.

[JSpencer]

Out of curioisty, has anyone compared the new streamliner to the previous loco driven version?

 

From photos, I can see some slight differences but nothing immediately major.

 

[Tarnish1]

The early Hornby "bathtubs" were not scale length. Had this been corrected by the time that City of Bristol came out please?

 

A crass error by Hornby as even I knew that the "preserved" Duchess of Hamilton has a doubly chimney! Can this be rectified in future models? Oh and furthermore, as I recall matters the crimson bathtubs did not possess chromium lower edging.

[brushman47544]

4 minutes ago, Tarnish1 said:

A crass error by Hornby as even I knew that the "preserved" Duchess of Hamilton has a doubly chimney! Can this be rectified in future models? 

 

I'm sure Hornby knows 6229 has a double chimney as preserved, and also that it doesn't have the two metal rings on the front. It probably comes down to cost. Would the extra cost of tooling for these differences be offset by increased sales? Since 6229 as preserved is unique, I expect not.

[Pete the Elaner]

46 minutes ago, brushman47544 said:

 

I'm sure Hornby knows 6229 has a double chimney as preserved, and also that it doesn't have the two metal rings on the front.

I am sure they do too. I can only assume they therefore intended this to represent it as it was in late 1938.

Maybe this is to allow a future NRM special of it as preserved?

[Pete the Elaner]

9 minutes ago, jf2682 said:

It looks to me as though the cylinder fairing is correctly represented for 6225 onwards.  The first 5 streamliners had the cut-outs for the cylinder drain cocks which the following engines did not.  My 6225 of 2002 is in red of course but has the cut-outs for the drain cocks, which is an error.

 

JF.

If that is annoying, you could renumber it to 6221, the only 1 of the first 5 to carry red. It got its double chimney before going red though.

I got the numbers off from my 6220 quite easily but I can't remember how. It seems like they had a standard size for nameplates.

[JSpencer]

3 hours ago, Tarnish1 said:

The early Hornby "bathtubs" were not scale length. Had this been corrected by the time that City of Bristol came out please?

 

A crass error by Hornby as even I knew that the "preserved" Duchess of Hamilton has a doubly chimney! Can this be rectified in future models? Oh and furthermore, as I recall matters the crimson bathtubs did not possess chromium lower edging.

 

The scale length was still wrong even on the later 1990s Coronation. It was corrected until post 2000 when the previous all new tooling came out. (My question would be to put both sets of later tooling next to each other as I cannot easily spot the improvements).

[Robin Brasher]

5 hours ago, Tarnish1 said:

The early Hornby "bathtubs" were not scale length. Had this been corrected by the time that City of Bristol came out please

 

In 1983 Hornby made a scale length pre-production model of 'Duchess of Gloucester' in LMS crimson lake livery.  Hornby abandoned the attempt as the model could not manage first radius curves and 'City of Bristol' was about 1cm too short.  Pat Hammond describes the first attempt at a scale length streamlined Coronation class locomotive on pare 150 of 'The Story of Rovex Volume 3 1972-1996.'

[Robin Brasher]

18 hours ago, Tarnish1 said:

 

 

A crass error by Hornby as even I knew that the "preserved" Duchess of Hamilton has a doubly chimney! Can this be rectified in future models? Oh and furthermore, as I recall matters the crimson bathtubs did not possess chromium lower edging.

 

In the Hornby 2019 catalogue Hornby describes 'Duchess of Hamilton' as era 3 which is in the Grouping period between 1923 and 1947.  Hattons are still advertising the model 'as preserved' but other retailers have removed that from their advertising.  I like to run models as preserved but as ''Duchess of Hamilton' is a static exhibit I prefer to run it as built with a rake of Coronation Scot coaches.

[Islesy]

2 hours ago, Robin Brasher said:

 

In the Hornby 2019 catalogue Hornby describes 'Duchess of Hamilton' as era 3 which is in the Grouping period between 1923 and 1947.  Hattons are still advertising the model 'as preserved' but other retailers have removed that from their advertising.  I like to run models as preserved but as ''Duchess of Hamilton' is a static exhibit I prefer to run it as built with a rake of Coronation Scot coaches.

 

That is quite correct Robin, Duchess of Hamilton is modelled in its 1938 condition, and not 'as preserved', due to the modifications that have occurred in 're-streamlining'.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

18 hours ago, JSpencer said:

 

...My question would be to put both sets of later tooling next to each other as I cannot easily spot the improvements...

Hornby's newly tooled 2001 release loco drive model of the streamlined Duchess was pretty good in body form (and definitely superior in accuracy to the unstreamlined Duchess version) in the opinion of the two LMS fans among my friends. Also liked, the choice of bogies, the option of an underscale wheel diameter bogie enabling the model to get around set track without the bogies wheels fouling the shroud. The major weaknesses were on the driving wheels and side rods, the wheel forms lacking bevelled rims, the centre driver visibly differently dimensioned to the outer drivers and poor representation of the slide bars the worst disfigurements. (There were some detail deficiencies then typical of RTR OO, such as no cab fallplate and doors, with the tender trailing half a mile behind: the kind of thing modellers were then happy to fix for themselves, given the unaccustomed quality on offer elsewhere.)

 

The exterior appearance of the running gear is clearly much improved on the new model. It would be interesting to put the bodies side by side. I suspect a comparison outcome  of 'relatively little in it'. The glazing might particularly advantage the new model, Hornby's current technique is definitely superior.

[atom3624]

Sam's Trains does a YT review of the new retooled streamlined Coronation, and alongside the 'noughties' one for comparison - good effort Sam.

 

I was a little displeased as well that the safety valves in front of the cab are no longer separate brass inserts, simply moulded plastic, 'brass colour' painted.

 

Just ordered a DoH off an auction site - so will finally receive one within a week.

Still looking forwards to it.

 

I've read some are having problems with the valvegear alignment?

 

Al.

[atom3624]

Just FINALLY received my 6229 DoH

 

Model is perfect, yet ... it isn't!!

 

Paintwork has a couple of issues - see below.

 

Shop purchased from has done nothing wrong - it's obviously a Hornby QC issue. There's a 'run' in one of the finer gold lines, above the valvegear, and the front buffer coating is blistered - basically not cleaned / dried before paint.

 

Got to say I like it, but ... these are things which we shouldn't see nowadays ...

 

Al.

[atom3624]

A few 'group photos' of my Streamliners .....

 

Al.

[atom3624]

Don't know how it happened, but like them all!!

 

3.

 

City of Liverpool

City of Chester

Duchess of Sutherland

 

Just noticed Coronation's front vac pipe's missing - I'll sort it out tonight!!

 

Agreed - got a bit carried away - some say I should be!!

 

Al.

[Robin Brasher]

Just received 'British Railways Titled Trains Formations 1950 - 1965' poster from Hattons. One illustration shows a model of the 'Royal Scot' at Beattock in 1956. It consists of a green 'Princess Coronation' 4-6-2 with an early crest and ten crimson and cream Mk1s including three restaurant cars, one tourist open second and a full brake. The other coaches are corridor coaches. Although compressed it is an impressive train and something worth running on a model railway.

Edited April 19, 2019 by Robin Brasher
spelling

[sandwich station]

The restaurant cars will not be Mk1's.

[Robin Brasher]

They have substituted carriages not currently available. Were the Mk1 restaurant cars built after 1956? Perhaps we could use some R4188D 68' dining/restaurant cars instead but I think we need to make some compromises if we are using ready to run coaches.

 

[Steamport Southport]

It would still be a LMS RK and RFO. The rest of the dining part would be TOs/FOs/COs as necessary. Some labelled as Dining or Restaurant Cars, those with a R added so RTO/RFO/RCO.

 

Most of them will still be twelve wheelers which were the LMS equivalent of Pullmans and lasted until the mid 1960s.

 

The LMS/LMR was less likely to run fixed sets. Virtually anything suitable went into the formation as long as it was the correct type of carriage. So in the 1950s you could see carriages of all three LMS Periods, Portholes, BR Mark One and even some pre grouping survivors in the same train.

 

Although they did try to put the newer carriages in the prestige trains it didn't always happen.

 

 

Jason

[markw]

1 hour ago, Steamport Southport said:

It would still be a LMS RK and RFO. The rest of the dining part would be TOs/FOs/COs as necessary. Some labelled as Dining or Restaurant Cars, those with a R added so RTO/RFO/RCO.

 

Most of them will still be twelve wheelers which were the LMS equivalent of Pullmans and lasted until the mid 1960s.

 

The LMS/LMR was less likely to run fixed sets. Virtually anything suitable went into the formation as long as it was the correct type of carriage. So in the 1950s you could see carriages of all three LMS Periods, Portholes, BR Mark One and even some pre grouping survivors in the same train.

 

Although they did try to put the newer carriages in the prestige trains it didn't always happen.

 

 

Jason

The Royal scot received a full set of Mk1 coaches in 1951, including RFO RK RSO dining set. The kitchen car soon reverted to an LMS type but the rest of the set remained Mk1 from then on.

[robmcg]

On 02/01/2019 at 09:51, Steamport Southport said:

I agree with the idea that they should all be perfect. Doesn't matter how expensive they are.

 

I would guess that I've bought approximately 30 or 40 new RTR locomotives over the last couple of years and they've all been perfect. Maybe I've been lucky or I might be part of the silent majority that hasn't had a bad one.

 

After all. If you have a bad meal you tell everyone not to go to that restaurant and post online. If your meal is fine you tend not to say anything....

 

 

 

 

Jason

 

Hi Jason, I agree that most new Hornby models are brilliant and satisfied buyers tend not to have any reason to be 'visible', but having had two Hornby 6221 R3623 'Queen Elizabeth' models with missing front top handrails, and one also missing a bonnet latch,  different suppliers, I gave up and thought maybe sometime in the future I might have another go,   or maybe the price would drop. Both were bought on-line and air-freighted to me in NZ, usually 6-10 days.

 

That was late last year, and prices have dropped a little, so although they are not at the level of the Nelsons, I thought I'd have another go.

Well, my brother bought one, and it too had a missing front top driver's side handrail, which more by good luck than anything else was found sticking by surface tension to the plastic sheet which covers the engine in the packaging.  This is tiny, and he has attempted to superglue it into the correct position, there are no holes into which in can locate, apart from the rather crude arrangement on these later models. He has better fingers and tweezers than me!   We are thinking it might just work, with the tiniest amount of superglue.

 

I had unpacked my two purchases from December last year with extreme care and grid searched all surfaces and found no handrails. 

 

So that's three out of three purchases by us of this model  all with missing or detached handrails.  Possibly air-travel?  Some other models have parts detached  or not been fitted in the first place?  Who would know.  Being myself unable to concoct satisfactory top handrails and a bonnet latch I eventually returned both my December 2018 purchases and got full refunds.

 

Anyway, out of desire to have one of these models I have ordered another one for myself, and keep telling myself that most would presumably be ok from the factory, and that FOUR purchases with missing handrails would be be very, um, odd.  Or unlucky.  In all cases the engines have been sent in paper-wrapped stout boxes, with bubble-wrap, then the Hornby box.  Most but not all engines survive the air freight.

 

Never a dull moment in this hobby! 

 

 

 

this is better than betting on horses!     

Edited July 2, 2019 by robmcg

[MikeParkin65]

Just to add some positive vibes to this thread I have just purchased a TTS fitted 46235 City of Birmingham from Rails. Ostensibly 2nd hand but with no obvious signs of use and complete with all of the Hornby packaging. I am happy to say this has survived the post with nothing but a stout cardboard box and a layer of shredded paper for protection.

 

Given that I had to return my original new 46256 to Rails as broken on delivery I had some trepidation about this purchase but the 'Buy It Now' price was too tempting and they accepted my 'Make an offer' bid so very happy with my purchase and faith restored. 

[atom3624]

Rails is a great shop to deal with - no reasonable offer not considered!!

 

Al.