Jump to content

Hornby - New tooling - Large Prairie


Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, Hilux5972 said:

Every single one?

 

Yup. If it doesn't perform as it should it gets sent back down to the appropriate part of the line to be rectified. Of course issues may arise later through shipping and distribution but it's massively cut their returns over the last couple of years or so.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

 

Yup. If it doesn't perform as it should it gets sent back down to the appropriate part of the line to be rectified. Of course issues may arise later through shipping and distribution but it's massively cut their returns over the last couple of years or so.

Which suggests the overall QC isn't working properly.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Which suggests the overall QC isn't working properly.

 

Not sure how you can arrive at that assumption to be honest. It's a test process and if a part/person/process is identified as an issue it enables it to be corrected. Anyway, you're not there, I'm not there and so we can only go on what is stated.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

 

Not sure how you can arrive at that assumption to be honest. It's a test process and if a part/person/process is identified as an issue it enables it to be corrected. Anyway, you're not there, I'm not there and so we can only go on what is stated.

Easy. That's what a quality control system is for.

If the quality control system is working correctly, there should be only a very small chance of faulty item leaving the factory.

If it is high enough to need manual intervention, it is not doing it's job.

  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, AY Mod said:

 

I happen to know that every Bachmann and Farish loco is inspected and bench tested before being packed.

 


Good to know . You certainly don’t seem to see as many issues with Bachmann . The class 90 is maybe the exception recently . I haven’t bought Bachmann in 5 years , so I wouldn’t know .
 

The Large Prairie is , of course, a Hornby loco  . It would be interesting to find out what QC they use . Of course they have different factories producing  models but I’d expect QC standard to be the same for the brand .  I suspect they are using Systems  Melmerby outlined, which is pretty much standard these days . 

 

 

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

Sorry folks, it's a Hornby thread; neither Bachmann or Farish. QC is there to maintain a set standard, as we know. The system falls down when you don't actually know what the standards are meant to be. 

 

I feel sorry for the person who has to interpret over the video conference, where there is a breakdown of knowledge. You can perform a 100% inspection, but if the correct standard isn't set, you are into the mire.  

 

Don't blame the Chinese; they can produce anything to exacting fine tolerances. But, it's down to the client to set out the standard. You can't manage a QC operation from 10,000 miles away. Perhaps it's a management policy to accept a percentage pass rate. I wouldn't know what percentage; that's a commercial secret. But, when you're shipping 100% of the product, with a known percentage failure rate, then disappointment will ensue. 

 

Cheers,

Ian.

 

 

  • Like 6
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/09/2020 at 02:56, St Enodoc said:

It might also be altering the forces on the front pony pivot, which is a known trouble spot.

I think that’s extremely unlikely. It would need to be flexing the chassis casting. The body mount being forward of the pony pivot point and not physically connected to it via the keeper plate or similar. 

  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting back to my original post and 4160 photo from last Tuesday, I repeat that the loco had just been removed from it's red box and plastic goldfish bowl, for the very first time, the wheel was dangling, as I was about to test it. This is the first RTR i've ever bought with a driving wheel off, and in my modest experience, I can't remember seeing similar elsewhere? How did this happen?

    I doubt it was damaged in the mail order shop, although I did once see a Trix DMU get dropped head first on a concrete floor, by a rather clumsy member of staff, it was a right mess. I doubt the wheel popped off in transit, the pick-ups are never strong enough to push the wheel off through vibration, it can't be a design fault, or else other customers would be reporting similar faults? 

      I think it's a factory assembly hiccup, they must be testing chassis for rollerability after quartering, and checking for wobbles, hence so many are good smooth runners. Maybe it was about to corrected, and ended up in a box by mistake? It hasn't put me off buying more, this is just one dud out of thousands of good ones. Luckily i'm well versed in quartering, five days after my DIY repair, it's still running nicely.

       Cheers, Brian.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ordered mine on Sunday evening, arrived Tuesday morning. Excellent service from Kernow, though a shame my local no longer stocks Hornby!

 

Brilliant runner right away and I've not noted any QC issues. I was pleased with the colour on opening but agree it is a little flat compared to Bachmann's interpretation.

 

Plates to re-number to 4117 already in my possession!

 

20200920_132354.jpg.7d3653a781d28c7d3919cd079600205c.jpg

20200920_132331.jpg.10fdb3632d93fff95f836b0833408cc3.jpg

20200920_132311.jpg.20b91c738f1005175df66ee2e1f50eb5.jpg

  • Like 3
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
36 minutes ago, Kirby Uncoupler said:

Getting back to my original post and 4160 photo from last Tuesday, I repeat that the loco had just been removed from it's red box and plastic goldfish bowl, for the very first time, the wheel was dangling, as I was about to test it. This is the first RTR i've ever bought with a driving wheel off, and in my modest experience, I can't remember seeing similar elsewhere? How did this happen?

    I doubt it was damaged in the mail order shop, although I did once see a Trix DMU get dropped head first on a concrete floor, by a rather clumsy member of staff, it was a right mess. I doubt the wheel popped off in transit, the pick-ups are never strong enough to push the wheel off through vibration, it can't be a design fault, or else other customers would be reporting similar faults? 

      I think it's a factory assembly hiccup, they must be testing chassis for rollerability after quartering, and checking for wobbles, hence so many are good smooth runners. Maybe it was about to corrected, and ended up in a box by mistake? It hasn't put me off buying more, this is just one dud out of thousands of good ones. Luckily i'm well versed in quartering, five days after my DIY repair, it's still running nicely.

       Cheers, Brian.

Agree this is unusual - in umpteen new loco purchases I have never had a wheel off on delivery. In fact with Hornby I have only ever rejected twice and both of those were recent LMS pacifics - 46256 with a broken body mount and an obviously wobbly axle and 46207 with damaged valve gear.

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
16 hours ago, melmerby said:

Easy. That's what a quality control system is for.

If the quality control system is working correctly, there should be only a very small chance of faulty item leaving the factory.

If it is high enough to need manual intervention, it is not doing it's job.

Let's try and put this to bed once and for all.  And it might shock a few people.

 

Firstly 'quality' is whatever you happen to define it as when you establish a QC system - it can vary from 'perfection' right down to what could be defined as 'an acceptable (to the customer, e.g.Hornby) level of shortcomings' or what the customer specifies as an acceptable level of shortcomings.  In the case of a model railway item while we as end customers might well want 'perfection' that might not necessarily be what the commissioner (e.g Hornby) has specified to the factory as the acceptable level of 'quality'.  The acceptable level of quality can of course seriously impact on the price - if you want 'perfection' it will cost more, various acceptable levels of quality will come at different levels of price.

 

Secondly 'quality control' is a meaningless phrase unless you know two things  - the level of quality in the specification,  and then the frequency and extent of checks which are made to measure achievement of that level of quality.  For example a check can simply be visual, or visual with measured checks of dimensions, or physical with tests of various operational functions to accurately measured levels of performance using test gear which itself has regular calibration checks.    Similarly the frequency of testing could extend from 100% of the items manufactured right down to 1% or maybe even fewer.   It doesn't matter which it is, or how extensive it is, or at what frequency of items it is applied - it is still 'quality control', same name for whatever might be done.  and different levels of 'quality' and checking compliance can apply at different parts of a manufacturing process.

 

And of course 'quality control' can be non-existent and still technically in a contract be 'quality control' - the contractee having accepted that there will be no superimposed checks of compliance.  Equally all of these different levels can be functioning at 100% of the contracted level of 'quality control' but unless that level is based on testing 100% of appearance & functionally of what is being manufactured it means that the contractee has accepted that there might be shortcomings in meeting 100% full compliance with specification on 100% of the items manufactured.

 

Apart from what AY has posted (and it's about Bachmann/Graham Farish anyway) we don't have the faintest idea what level of 'quality control' Hornby has contracted with the various factories which manufacture for it nor do we know what level of 'quality control' (in terms of checks on arrival of product in the UK) is carried out at its warehouse contractor's premises.  In fact it has in the past been said by one representative of the company that they judge things by the number of returns they receive and for all we know that might be their 'quality control'?  And it would actually be perfectly valid as a form of 'quality control' if that is how they have specified it in their processes and have generally found it to be a satisfactory and cost effective way of monitoring the extent to which their products comply with whatever quality standards they have set.

  • Agree 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Right I know all that, I did it for long enough.

Manual inspections of finished product are expensive, hence why they are avoided unless specifically required e.g. safety items..

No "manufacturer" in their right mind would want to rely on factory gate inspection to get an acceptable product.

It is much more cost effective to have a system in place to produce an acceptable (and cost effective product) rather than weeding out faulty items for rework later on.

If that's how Bachmann are doing it they are not using their resources properly.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, melmerby said:

If that's how Bachmann are doing it they are not using their resources properly

 

And how do you know they don't have gates to pass through before the final bench test? You don't.

 

In addition to that there are tests in the UK of samples from the completed production run sent in advance of the production batch leaving China.

 

My previous post was to address an erroneous generalisation and state what happens at that point rather than to debate what a QC system is. Next time I'll probably just not bother to inform.

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, melmerby said:

 

No "manufacturer" in their right mind would want to rely on factory gate inspection to get an acceptable product.

It is much more cost effective to have a system in place to produce an acceptable (and cost effective product) rather than weeding out faulty items for rework later on.

If that's how Bachmann are doing it they are not using their resources properly.

 

Depends totally on the manufacturing process, with a crapload of tricky hand assembly in the manufacturing process I would imagine that inspection of the finished product is the least worst option - speaking as a certified ISO9001 auditor trained in lean manufacturing techniques. There's also the small volume single batch production to consider,  making a 'quality' workflow harder to establish.

When you're making a million smartphones a month a totally different kettle of fish.

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, AY Mod said:

 

And how do you know they don't have gates to pass through before the final bench test? You don't.

 

In addition to that there are tests in the UK of samples from the completed production run sent in advance of the production batch leaving China.

 

My previous post was to address an erroneous generalisation and state what happens at that point rather than to debate what a QC system is. Next time I'll probably just not bother to inform.

Hi Andy

Samples yes, that's normal but IMHO they should not need to do 100% in the UK after the initial approval .

As I said before it is cheaper to intervene at the production stage, where any problem is, rather than weed out the faulty ones by 100% inspection at the end.

As such I find it hard to belive that Bachmann have decided that that is their normal course of action.

 

1 hour ago, spamcan61 said:

Depends totally on the manufacturing process, with a crapload of tricky hand assembly in the manufacturing process I would imagine that inspection of the finished product is the least worst option - speaking as a certified ISO9001 auditor trained in lean manufacturing techniques. There's also the small volume single batch production to consider,  making a 'quality' workflow harder to establish.

When you're making a million smartphones a month a totally different kettle of fish.

Agreed. I doubt whether there is much human involvement at all.

Certainly with models there is the relatively small batch quantities and the hand assembly but how about some intervention earlier in the process?

It just seems so wasteful and costly shipping faulty items half way around the world.

It certainly wouldn't have happened when I was doing it.

Edited by melmerby
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Hi Andy

Samples yes, that's normal but IMHO they should not need to do 100% in the UK after the initial approval .

As I said before it is cheaper to intervene at the production stage, where any problem is, rather than weed out the faulty ones by 100% inspection at the end.

As such I find it hard to belive that Bachmann have decided that that is their normal course of action.

 

I previously stated that the bench test was before packaging and despatch from the factory. There could be stages before that.

 

Then there's advance samples sent to the UK before the whole production is despatched.

 

I have not said at any point that it was a 100% check in the UK.

 

I must be using the right words in the wrong order this weekend.

  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

My 4160 got its first run this morning with a few laps of Bournemouth Central.

 

Our first Sunday morning working party since lockdown. Fortunately, at 50' x 18' with only the three of us present, social distancing presented no challenges.

 

The Prairie was a bit stiff to begin with but soon loosened up. However, she needed a little oiling round to the crankpins etc. before the slow running reached expectations. So far, she runs slightly better bunker first but I hope that'll even out. Handsome looking model, though.

 

Rounded off the morning by replacing the idler gear in yet another Rebuilt West Country. That's six of the bu***rs (so far) and I noticed our stock of spares was down to two new sets, so ordered some more when I got home, another half-dozen for 71B and a couple for my own fleet....

 

John

 

   

 

 

  • Friendly/supportive 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dunsignalling said:

Rounded off the morning by replacing the idler gear in yet another Rebuilt West Country. That's six of the bu***rs (so far) and I noticed our stock of spares was down to two new sets, so ordered some more when I got home, another half-dozen for 71B and a couple for my own fleet....

 

John

 

   

 

 

By coincidence, I too have a Hornby rebuilt Bulleid light pacific, with the same affliction of a cracked gear, are all the blinking rebuilt BLP models affected? To make matters worse, they use a completely different pair of final drive gears to MNs and unrebuilts, but with the same part number of X8849, as the other pair on the service sheet. To be fair, both are available (from time to time), you can buy X8849 or X8849/21, someone has now added the /21 suffix, I bought two of each just to make sure I had the right ones. 

    Getting back to the new Prairies, one of the many exquisite fittings, is the very delicate and scale sliding cab roof vent, which opens and closes. Did anyone miss that?   BK 

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

To drift OT a little (moi?  li'l ole moi? Jamais!), I've spent out this month on a W4 Peckett and a 3D Cordon as the 94xx has been put back a few weeks by the look of things, Baccy said Nov., and are now saying Nov/Dec.  I will not be buying a Hornby 5101 yet which does not mean I don't want one.  My plan is to wait to see what the Dapol one is like, which probably means I won't like it and will have to wait for the next run of Hornby 5101s.  In the meantime, I have been kindly donated a working Airfix  61xx chassis and have spent the afternoon rebuilding it, including replacing the grooved wheelset, cleaning everything, and running it in.  This evening, I dug an old Airfix body out of the scrap box and have begun to fettle it for service, warts and all.  A respray in matt black acrylic was the first job and next was replacement buffers and new couplings.  I do not have any unicycling lions in stock; she's going to be 4144 in plain black, xfer in to Tondu in September 1958 and thus just within my period.  

 

I can work her up as and when; handrails, smokebox dart, coal in the bunker, she's already got lamp irons and cab glazing.  Not going to attempt cab detail.  She'll 'do for now', very much a layout loco, but a smooth if noisy runner, until the 94xx spend has been recovered from.  

 

Getting back to Hornby current 5101s, can I ask if the number plates are printed, moulded, or etched? I've got a sliding cab roof vent on a Baccy Standard 3MT tank; good, aren't they, but I'd rather have sliding cab window vents on a 5101 (or a small prairie, or a 56xx, or a 42xx).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

 

Secondly 'quality control' is a meaningless phrase unless you know two things  - the level of quality in the specification,  and then the frequency and extent of checks which are made to measure achievement of that level of quality.

Yes, exactly, and it is also none of our business; the level and method involved is a commercially sensitive matter in a competitive environment.  Our only concern is that we get models which are value for money and to the expected standard of finish, scale, and performance; how they get to us in that state is someone else's problem.  A wheel hanging off a brand new loco is pretty grim, though; if I'd had one I'd have shown photos on the thread as well!  

 

I find the 'quality' of Hornby models to be inferior to that of Bachmann'.  I have had only the most minor problems with the Bachmann locos that make up the majority of my 'stud' (nothing to do with brand loyalty, it's just that Bachmann make more of the small GW tank locos I need for my layout than Hornby).  Bits fall off my Hornby locos and I would suggest that any new ones should be very thoroughly checked over and anything loose glued in place before it makes a break for the border.  A brand new 42xx dropped the rear coupling on it's first test run and has since shed a buffer, front steps, and a smokebox stay.  I bought a W4 Peckett, also brand new, last week and have already had to secure the injectors to the dome.  My opinion, other opinions are available and may well be founded in better knowledge of the situation, is that Hornby would benefit from better quality control, but I have no idea what level of quality control they have at present or how and even if it should be improved.  Maybe I've been lucky with my Bachmanns and unlucky with my Hornbys, but on the evidence, I'd say H have a problem and they need to do something about it. 

 

Interestingly, I have two Hornby NPCCS vans from the 'design clever' era, I mean error.  One, a Southern BY van, is a delight, a first class model that is a joy to own, has a very good level of detail, an excellent finish, and runs perfectly.  The other, an LNER 'long' CCT is a complete disaster, and seems impossible to do anything about.  It looks fine, but the running is appalling (B2Bs have been checked), the wheels cannot be replaced because of the daft inside bearings, the thing buffer locks if you look at it funny, and I have never managed to get the coupling bars the correct height.  I have taken it out of service pending purchase of a Parkside kit.

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kirby Uncoupler said:

Getting back to the new Prairies, one of the many exquisite fittings, is the very delicate and scale sliding cab roof vent, which opens and closes. Did anyone miss that? 

Yes I did! I wonder if it's big enough to poke the crew through?

 

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

Getting back to Hornby current 5101s, can I ask if the number plates are printed, moulded, or etched?

Printed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AY Mod said:

 

I previously stated that the bench test was before packaging and despatch from the factory. There could be stages before that.

 

Then there's advance samples sent to the UK before the whole production is despatched.

 

I have not said at any point that it was a 100% check in the UK.

 

I must be using the right words in the wrong order this weekend.

Sorry, Andy.

I misread your original comment and assumed it was all done in the UK.

If it's done at the factory where they are produced, it makes a lot of difference to costs.

 

It still seems odd to me. When I was doing QA, 100% inspections at completion of goods were becoming unknown except for safety items, even for limited runs of products.

The emphasis was on getting the manufacturing system itself working properly, whereas previously it was checking the items that the system had produced.

I was of course seeing it only from a customer point of view but auditing of companies & their QC system was part of it.

 

However this is well removed from Hornby's Prairie tank so I'm going to let it drop as it seems Bachmann/Kader have asystem that suits their needs.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

 In the meantime, I have been kindly donated a working Airfix  61xx chassis and have spent the afternoon rebuilding it, including replacing the grooved wheelset, cleaning everything, and running it in.  This evening, I dug an old Airfix body out of the scrap box and have begun to fettle it for service, warts and all.  A respray in matt black acrylic was the first job and next was replacement buffers and new couplings.  I do not have any unicycling lions in stock; she's going to be 4144 in plain black, xfer in to Tondu in September 1958 and thus just within my period.  

 

I can work her up as and when; handrails, smokebox dart, coal in the bunker, she's already got lamp irons and cab glazing.  Not going to attempt cab detail.  She'll 'do for now', very much a layout loco, but a smooth if noisy runner, until the 94xx spend has been recovered from.  

 

 

I've got two of the previous Hornby variety (early and late) and they are IMHO far more sure footed than the new version. (More than 100g heavier to start)

The front and rear trucks stay on the track always, which is more than can be said for the new one which will find the slightest imperfection in track and jump off.

Unfortunately the trucks on the previous Hornby model are as the Airfix original, a bit generic, just something with wheels to attach a coupling to.

The new model looks way better with decent wheels and level of detail but I am becoming a little disappointed with it, even though nothing has broken (yet) or fallen off.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, St Enodoc said:

Printed.

Thanks, your divinity (not sure what the correct term of address is for a Saint.  Holiness is no use, that's the pope).  This is fine as it means that I don't have to cut off a moulded plate to attach my own etched plates,

 

1 hour ago, melmerby said:

I've got two of the previous Hornby variety (early and late) and they are IMHO far more sure footed than the new version. (More than 100g heavier to start)

The donated chassis is a good runner, and in very good condition for it's age, and will be more than sufficiently adequately (and adequately sufficiently) powerful and sure footed for Cwmdimbath, even with the traction tyre wheel replaced.  But the pony and radial wheels will be replaced and the model is definitely not up to scratch by modern standards.  Moulded handrails are something that can be addressed, as are the solid wheels, but the rather undernourished smokebox door never looked right on the these old stagers.  It was always to my view the most bothersome thing about the loco; the face is very important, and the combination of the small smokebox door, wide flange, and the handrail too far out from the boiler and smokebox combining to spoil the look.  

 

I've seen Hornby versions of this loco with much better pony and radial wheelsets, and a much better finish all round, not something I'd normally be praising on a Hornby loco and the original Airfix finish wasn't bad.  The plain black Hornby livery was excellent I thought, as good in terms of finish as the new model.  But I'll stick with this one for now, as a gap filler until I can a) afford one, and b) decided which one out of Hornby or Dapol to get.  It is possible that the chassis of the current loco and some of it's parts might form the basis of Tondu's 1938 Collett 3100; I've had vague plans for years to have a go at this loco, the ultimate prairie, with 5'3" wheels and a no.4 boiler (probably from a CoT plastic kit).  It'll never be a scale model but if it captures the brutal 'large prairie on steroids' character of the prototype I'll be happy; good old fashioned knockabout kitbashing fun!

 

With no unicycling lions to relieve the black, even this loco has a somewhat menacing air, with the low flat cab roof making it look a bit hunkered down and 'gangster'.  Mean, moody, and magnificent...

  • 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
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.