Hornby - New tooling - Large Prairie

[Miss Prism]

I've just noticed that the tank top oiling reservoir is either missing, or not included, depending on year,build, or era. Would anyone please set me straight?

 

Most 51xx had lubricators, some did not. 41xx did not have them. Most 61xx had them. Of those that were present, many were subsequently removed.

[Budgie]

I'd find it hard to resist a Collett 31xx; 3100 was at Tondu for the Porthcawl-Cardiff commuter job.

My Hornby Collectors' Club magzine arrived this morning. On page 6, third column, it says

This will be a completely new model and will not only feature both '5101' and '61XX' variants, but the tooling suite will allow for the earlier Churchward '31XX' series too.

It doesn't say when they are going to produce one, however.

[The Stationmaster]

AFAIK there was no visual difference to indicate that a higher pressed 61xx boiler had been fitted to a 5101, but presumably the pressure gauge was a give away once you were inside the cab.  This would also presumably have increased the T. E. of such locomotives to 61xx equivalent.  Wonder if it happened the other way around, lower pressed no.2 boilers on 61xx, or how about 61xx boilers on 56xx; probably not, the mountings would have been different wouldn't they.  

 

Just thinking aloud, if you can think aloud in print format...

 

Easy enough between prairies but that would be about it.  The question tho' is what would the safety valves be set at presumably the ex-wroks Boiler Inspector saw to that and presumably (dangerous to presume of course) he knew what a particular number boiler could be pressed to.  No problem running a 61XX boiler at lower pressure, in fact a benefit in all likelihood but putting a 41XX boiler on a tanner-oner might have caused problems.  Hence I suspect that what probably happened was that 61XX boilers went into the wider pool as the class gradually shrank, but you never know?.

[The Johnster]

My Hornby Collectors' Club magzine arrived this morning. On page 6, third column, it says

It doesn't say when they are going to produce one, however.

 

Sadly this will not allow for the Collett 31xx that I was referring to (if you want to choose a subject to study that will provide the maximum possible opportunity for confusion, GW large prairies tick most of the boxes).  This 1938 introduced design, rebuilds of Churchward 3150s originally for use as Severn Tunnel bankers, had a no.4 boiler and 5'3" driving wheels that made it look even bigger and pitched the boiler and raised portion of the running plate lower; the Hornby tooling cannot be expected to cope with this sort of thing!  The Churchward 31xx is a different beast, with a no.2 boiler and 5'8" drivers, the progenitor of the 5101 to be modelled by Hornby.

 

I have long had a vague plan on the backburner to kitbash Tondu's 3100, the shed's sole example of the class, from Dapol CoT and 61xx kits and an RTR mech; it is probable that the backburner is the best place for this.  

Edited January 10, 2019 by The Johnster

[Miss Prism]

I'm unclear as to whether Hornby is for or against comments in the public domain, but I'll press on.

 

Kudos to Hornby, their CAD at the front end is in many respects better than Martin Finney's drawing. But there is still something not quite right, and it concerns the lack of clearance between the front of the cylinder and the pony wheel (even after the cylinder axis is raised 2.5" as it should be). The longitudinal pony truck position checks out ok, so my suspicion is about the over-covers length of the cylinder itself. (Should it be 3'9" or 3'10"?)

 

In any event, if I were Hornby, I think I would be tempted to move the pony about 1.5mm forward, to lessen/ease how much stuff needs to be cut out in the recess of the rear of the cylinder front. Currently, the rear of the tension lock riser also seems uncomfortably close to the front of the bufferbeam. I don't think anyone would spot moving the pony wheel axis forward a bit.

 

Btw, for comparison with the 'opposition', the Dapol design underwent some easing of clearances about 6 months ago, although Dapol's cylinders look a bit skimpy compared to Hornby's wonderfully huge ones. Translating Churchward front ends into 00 will always be problematic. I look forward to seeing the cross-section.

 

In the following pic, the Brian Daniels' extract is not at the right angle to give a good comparison, but it's about the closest I could find (and I had to nab it to use it here because flickr wasn''t working properly this morning).

 

 

 

[Islesy]

 

I'm unclear as to whether Hornby is for or against comments in the public domain, but I'll press on.

 

Signatures no longer seem to pop up when posting, but as mine did explain, I'd prefer that these discussions could be played out in private to prevent misinformation and undue confusion among forum members. I believe that to be the 'proper' way of doing things Miss Prism.

 

Hornby Researcher

Constructive comments regarding newly announced Hornby items are most welcome, but correspondence should be via the messaging facility please and any responses should remain private.

​Unless indicated otherwise, any opinions expressed are entirely my own and do not necessarily reflect current Hornby policy.

[Denbridge]

Check out the latest edition of Hornbys 'Engine Shed' blog. It lists the tooling variations for this and the other new toolings. Should answer many of the questions raised on here.

[gwrrob]

"Our tooling will allow for changes featuring the water pick up apparatus, water filler types, journal lubricators, tank front step types, bunker recess differences, sliding cab-side shutters, bunker steps and handrails, fall plates, boiler handrails, steam pipes, rear sanding boxes, extended valve spindle guides, ATC fitment, different chimney types, whistle shields, lamp iron positions, tank balancing pipes, short and tall safety bonnets, inside and outside brake rodding, washout plug positions and stopcock covers."

[The Stationmaster]

"Our tooling will allow for changes featuring the water pick up apparatus, water filler types, journal lubricators, tank front step types, bunker recess differences, sliding cab-side shutters, bunker steps and handrails, fall plates, boiler handrails, steam pipes, rear sanding boxes, extended valve spindle guides, ATC fitment, different chimney types, whistle shields, lamp iron positions, tank balancing pipes, short and tall safety bonnets, inside and outside brake rodding, washout plug positions and stopcock covers."

 

Can't get much better than that surely?

[gwrrob]

Can't get much better than that surely?

 

Who are you calling me Shirley.

Edited January 11, 2019 by gwrrob

[mdvle]

I'm unclear as to whether Hornby is for or against comments in the public domain, but I'll press on.

I don't know if there is a "right" answer to this.

 

I fully agree that pointing this out in a private message, and then keeping any replies private, is a reasonable part of the decision.  While a manufacturer certainly could attempt to follow the various threads depending on what gets posted it is very easy to miss a key point/post.  I will, with regards to Hornby, give them full credit for having an appropriate person on RMweb so that the process is as simple as doing a private message and doesn't involve joining yet another website.

 

In an ideal world that would be enough, and at the end of the day we would end up with a model that has as few compromises as necessary and is the best that can be.

 

The problem, of course, is that we don't live in such a world.

 

In the case of the Large Prairie, like quite a few models at the present, we the modeller/consumer are being presented with competing options for our limited hobby budget and the nature of our hobby is such that we can't always wait until both models are in shops and can be viewed to make a decision as to which to purchase.  The need for pre-orders to ensure getting the number/livery/variation wanted means decisions will often need to be made during the development process which means, as imperfect as it may be, that we need to evaluate the drawings and sample as presented instead of waiting for a finished product.  The other alternative is to wildly pre-order everything and then make lots of cancellations later in the process, and I don't think that serves anybody well.

 

To that end I do appreciate any comments experts like Miss Prism do make publicly, as it is the only way for me to be an informed consumer so that I can make an informed decision, though I am willing to consider any better options.

[Nile]

Not only, but also:

"They were built between 1903 and 1950 and such was the longevity and success of the design a total of 306 different locomotives were produced across the classes. While not every variant can be modelled, there is a huge pool of locomotives to choose from with a multitude of variations."

My interest in this model has suddenly increased.

[Ian Hargrave]

I don't know if there is a "right" answer to this.

 

I fully agree that pointing this out in a private message, and then keeping any replies private, is a reasonable part of the decision.  While a manufacturer certainly could attempt to follow the various threads depending on what gets posted it is very easy to miss a key point/post.  I will, with regards to Hornby, give them full credit for having an appropriate person on RMweb so that the process is as simple as doing a private message and doesn't involve joining yet another website.

 

In an ideal world that would be enough, and at the end of the day we would end up with a model that has as few compromises as necessary and is the best that can be.

 

The problem, of course, is that we don't live in such a world.

 

 

In the case of the Large Prairie, like quite a few models at the present, we the modeller/consumer are being presented with competing options for our limited hobby budget and the nature of our hobby is such that we can't always wait until both models are in shops and can be viewed to make a decision as to which to purchase.  The need for pre-orders to ensure getting the number/livery/variation wanted means decisions will often need to be made during the development process which means, as imperfect as it may be, that we need to evaluate the drawings and sample as presented instead of waiting for a finished product.  The other alternative is to wildly pre-order everything and then make lots of cancellations later in the process, and I don't think that serves anybody well.

 

To that end I do appreciate any comments experts like Miss Prism do make publicly, as it is the only way for me to be an informed consumer so that I can make an informed decision, though I am willing to consider any better options.

You probably then are not aware that the “competition “...I.e.Dapol took a conscious decision a couple of years ago NOT to continue with a presence on this forum due to a certain amount of unpleasantness caused by a number of injudicious posts made...to the extent that a threat of legal action by Dapol was issued.Hence I believe Miss P communicates with them directly or through their own private

forum.He May choose to repeat them on this forum .

 

Paul Isles has good reasons for making this stipulation . I suggest that this is respected. If you personally wish for information,the channel of communication is open to you.

[Hal Nail]

I contacted a manufacturer privately about a much discussed model and he was good enough to reply to the effect that the trouble with forums is they tend to draw out completely contradictory views on many things, so aren’t always that much help!

 

I can sympathise to some extent tho I’m sure someone will disagree shortly

Edited January 11, 2019 by Hal Nail

[Miss Prism]

I'd prefer that these discussions could be played out in private to prevent misinformation and undue confusion among forum members. I believe that to be the 'proper' way of doing things Miss Prism.

 

Ok, no problem.

[toboldlygo]

Who are you calling me Shirley.

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixljWVyPby0

[railroadbill]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixljWVyPby0

Thank you.

 

There's an actual model railways gag from the wonderful Leslie Nielsen in one of the police squad shows. His character Detective Frank Drebin is posing as a night club comedian. He asks a member of the audience:

"And what do you do, sir?"

He replies "I'm an engineer"

Leslie Nielsen:  "HO or Lionel?"

 

(This only really works in the US, I suppose).

[toboldlygo]

Thank you.

 

There's an actual model railways gag from the wonderful Leslie Nielsen in one of the police squad shows. His character Detective Frank Drebin is posing as a night club comedian. He asks a member of the audience:

"And what do you do, sir?"

He replies "I'm an engineer"

Leslie Nielsen:  "HO or Lionel?"

 

(This only really works in the US, I suppose).

 

Got the whole series on DVD and I missed that one lol

[railroadbill]

Got the whole series on DVD and I missed that one lol

Mine's on video.

[toboldlygo]

Mine's on video.

 

Betamax or VHS     

[railroadbill]

I'd like to say it's Philips 2000 but actually VHS. I suppose I'll have to watch all 6 episodes just to find that gag now.

 

I kept my VHS recorder because I've got a lot of old tapes of railway films - some of which undoubtedly  contain videos of large prairie tanks.

[tomparryharry]

 

I'm unclear as to whether Hornby is for or against comments in the public domain, but I'll press on.

 

Kudos to Hornby, their CAD at the front end is in many respects better than Martin Finney's drawing. But there is still something not quite right, and it concerns the lack of clearance between the front of the cylinder and the pony wheel (even after the cylinder axis is raised 2.5" as it should be). The longitudinal pony truck position checks out ok, so my suspicion is about the over-covers length of the cylinder itself. (Should it be 3'9" or 3'10"?)

 

In any event, if I were Hornby, I think I would be tempted to move the pony about 1.5mm forward, to lessen/ease how much stuff needs to be cut out in the recess of the rear of the cylinder front. Currently, the rear of the tension lock riser also seems uncomfortably close to the front of the bufferbeam. I don't think anyone would spot moving the pony wheel axis forward a bit.

 

Btw, for comparison with the 'opposition', the Dapol design underwent some easing of clearances about 6 months ago, although Dapol's cylinders look a bit skimpy compared to Hornby's wonderfully huge ones. Translating Churchward front ends into 00 will always be problematic. I look forward to seeing the cross-section.

 

In the following pic, the Brian Daniels' extract is not at the right angle to give a good comparison, but it's about the closest I could find (and I had to nab it to use it here because flickr wasn''t working properly this morning).

 

Hornby-prairie-front-comparison1.jpg

 

Those wheelbarrows are the wrong shade of green....

 

Ian.

[gwrrob]

I can heartily recommend the book The Prairie Papers No.1 from Irwell Press on this class.

[The Johnster]

Those wheelbarrows are the wrong shade of green....

 

Ian.

 

They're not wheelbarrows, they are prototype experimental per way trolleys for the Listowel and Ballybunion...

[mdvle]

You probably then are not aware that the “competition “...I.e.Dapol took a conscious decision a couple of years ago NOT to continue with a presence on this forum due to a certain amount of unpleasantness caused by a number of injudicious posts made

I suspect there is no one on RMweb who is unaware of the episode given the virtual pitchforks that come out anytime someone posts anything critical about a model to remind everyone that we shouldn't risk offending a manufacturer.

 

While I suspect I didn't get to see the issue, going to the opposite extreme and effectively banning any critique of a model diminishes the usefulness of what is supposed to be a discussion forum where experts can share their knowledge with those of us who are trying to learn.