Hornby - New tooling - LMS Princess class

[Dunsignalling]

1. Surely, if one the has room to run ten-coach trains without them being on different bends at either end, one should also have room for better-than-train-set curves....

 

2. Most of the continental and US steam-outline models I've encountered (not a huge number admittedly) employ either tender drive, traction tyres or both. Speaking personally, I wouldn't want Hornby to go there.

 

3. As for a global market, expats apart, does a significant one really exist for UK-outline OO?

 

John 

Edited August 18, 2019 by Dunsignalling

[1BCamden]

20 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

The rebuilt WCs are impressive haulers, only bested (in steam outline) by well-run-in Bachmann 9Fs in my experience, I haven't yet used one of the new Duchesses (or the new air-smoothed MN or Lord Nelson which may well be contenders) so don't know their abilities. In common with most larger Hornby locos, the WC's motor sits above the rear drivers with its rear end in the firebox area - I presume the Staniers are similar.

 

However, normal Hornby practice (including current versions of all the various Bulleids) these days places decoder and speaker provision in the tender, maximising available space for weight in the loco. LMS Pacifics are significantly longer than a WC, so should have room for more. The effect of the larger wheels can be counteracted by lowering the gearing.

 

All-in-all, I'd expect at least near-parity to be achievable.

 

John  

Hi John,

Thanks, interestingly, there appears to be additional driving wheel weights fitted on non decoder models, althoughI might be reading the service sheet wrong. Anyway, I hope you are right.

[1BCamden]

8 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

1. Surely, if one the has room to run ten-coach trains without them being on different bends at either end, one should also have room for better-than-train-set curves....

 

2. Most of the continental and US steam-outline models I've encountered (not a huge number admittedly) employ either tender drive, traction tyres or both. Speaking personally, I wouldn't want Hornby to go there.

 

3. As for a global market, expats apart, does a significant one really exist for UK-outline OO?

 

John 

Hi John,

Absolutely, it’s a specification issue only, Hornby don’t provide a carriage number or weight, just a minimum curve, which it should be able to negotiate with a reasonable load, in this case, nominally 6-10 for the consumer, 8-12 for the enthusiast. These forums continually criticise Hornby and its steam haulage capability. The Rebuilt WC design does not featured among this general opinion.

Traction tyres had crossed my mind, Hornby have been there, but I know Bachmann Spectrum don’t employ either, and they are very impressive.

Do not underestimate the Japan,US, and Canada.

 

 

[Steamport Southport]

8 hours ago, 1BCamden said:

Hi Jason, thanks for taking the time to consider the points raised,

 

The current model (assuming you mean the Duchess as they haven't even made this model yet and the previous version is over 20 years old) - no I mean the Princess Class, I’m not discussing the Princess Coronation Class, so we can park that one for another time.

 

This includes the fixed coal load, and your Comet/BSL stock weight (lucky you) 

 

NEM sockets, we are talking about the model as being produced, not individual preferences.

 

The drawbar, is not calibrated, and is outdated compared to industry standard, 

 

Bogie wheels again, we are talking about the model as being produced, not individual preferences.

 

Fixed trailing truck? No big deal just replace the wheel with a flanged one, I didn’t dispute this point, as it looks prototypical, but again, we are talking about the model as being produced, not individual preferences.

 

If it's then not good enough then Brassmasters make a kit which is probably the ultimate. They even sell a 1936 tender. But all together that's going to be over £400 before you even build it when you include wheels and a decent motor, and again, we are talking about the model as being produced, not individual preferences.

 

Summary, how good is the model “out of the box” how good is it, for the enthusiast, you and I, the consumer, and importantly for Hornby. Will it deliver on life cycle investment.

 

 

 

Erm. Have you got one of these yet then? Or are you Mystic Meg?

 

It's not even made and I'm going by the standards of the other models Hornby have released over the last ten years. I have over forty of them....

 

Hornby models don't have fixed coal loads. They are removable. Try putting a sharp, thin knife blade between the coal and the tender side. Or even turn it upside down.

 

NEM pockets are removable. Drawbars are usually adjustable. Just loosen the screw and push/pull and tighten it again.

 

 

You are complaining about things that Hornby haven't done with a top range model for twenty years. When was the last time you bought a new one?

 

 

 

Jason

 

 

[1BCamden]

“twenty years” that’s priceless.

Edited August 18, 2019 by 1BCamden

[robmcg]

14 hours ago, 1BCamden said:

Hi John,

The rebuilt west country, is quite different externally and under the skin, than the Coronation and probable Princess type.

The driving wheels are larger again then those of the Coronation type, plus the nearly solid Bulleid style wheels would be weight plus over the traditional wheels. Under the skin the additional weight block under the decoder, together with the motor positioned well back would all certainly add to improved traction.

Interesting to weigh off both, my guess the west country balance and overall weight would top the Coronation type.

 

 

Ah, I thought someone might mention it, the Bulleid Pacifics (and RIddles Standards FWIW) have 6'2" drivers, LMS Princesses have 6'6" drivers, and Duchesses 6'9"...   the weight of the wheels has nothing much to do with it. Axle loading, wheel diameter, piston stroke, boiler pressure,  all relevant for prototypes, I suppose for 00 models it would be weight on drivers and gearing, also texture of metal on rail and wheel, mostly, at a guess.

 

I have and do own many versions of all these models, and ran a 9'  4 ' layout with type 2 and 3 set track, and most Hornby engines could handle 6 or seven Hornby or Bachmann carriages with ease, some (a Britannia among them) could do 9 lighted Pullmans including 12-wheelers but there was some slipping in places...  

 

 

 

Cheers 

Edited August 18, 2019 by robmcg

[atom3624]

Nice cinematography Rob.

 

I seem to like Britannias as well .... !!

I have 3 - Brit, Ollie and Thomas Hardy.

 

Very smooth runners - later models (with the roof vent thing).

 

Al.

[Steamport Southport]

21 hours ago, 1BCamden said:

“twenty years” that’s priceless.

 

The previous Hornby Princess came out in the 2001. So nearly 20 years.

 

Do research before moaning please.

 

 

 

Jason

Edited August 19, 2019 by Steamport Southport

[Dunsignalling]

1 hour ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

The previous Hornby Princess came out in the 2001. So nearly 20 years.

 

Do research before moaning please.

 

 

 

Jason

The Hornby Princess Royal followed fairly hard on the heels of the first Rebuilt MNs, IIRC, and both reflect the company's then-new specification. So, yes, getting on for 20 years, and we should expect to see substantial advances in the new one.

 

The much newer Rebuilt WC models show considerably improved haulage (and, IMHO, appearance) over the Rebuilt MN though the latter has received some minor updates (tender coupling, NEM pockets, DCC readiness etc.) that have also been applied to recent releases across the range.

 

To get a real idea of how much of an advance over the old Princess Royal that the new one should represent, I'd suggest finding a pal who is into Southern Region modelling and comparing the two generations of Bulleids. 

 

I think that would leave 1B rather more optimistic about the forthcoming model than the tone of his earlier posts suggest he is currently.

 

John

Edited August 19, 2019 by Dunsignalling

[JSpencer]

1 minute ago, Dunsignalling said:

The Hornby Princess Royal followed fairly hard on the heels of the first Rebuilt MNs, IIRC, and both reflect the company's then-new specification.

 

The much newer Rebuilt WC models show considerably improved haulage (and, IMHO, appearance) over the Rebuilt MN though the latter has received some minor updates (tender coupling, NEM pockets, DCC readiness etc.) that have also been applied to recent releases across the range.

 

To get a real idea of how much of an advance over the old Princess Royal that the new one should represent, I'd suggest finding a pal who is into Southern Region modelling and comparing the two generations of Bulleids. 

 

I think that would leave 1B rather more optimistic about the forthcoming model than the tone of his earlier posts suggest he is currently.

 

John

 

Although the rebuilt West Country is a whole jump above the rebuilt Merchant Navy, in terms of detail (all that extra cab detail for example) and haulage power (15 coaches being no problem even on light gradients), I feel the recent original merchant navy  (and all new Duchess/princess coronation) are just a little short of the perfection obtained with the rebuilt West Country, Clan and Britannia.

They are still better than Hornbys Rebuilt Merchant Navy and Coronation produced in the early 2000s, only they don't quite have the weight and haulage power of the West Country and Clan! What is more, the weight isn't quite centred over the middle axles either but more to the rear (at least on the original merchant navy).

[robmcg]

In view of the upcoming tour de force otherwise known as the newly-tooled Princess, I wonder how many of the old c1952 plunger pickup black plastic Tring Princess models are still about...?    (am looking on Ebay for fun... I've seen them on local NZ auction sites for pennies but they are always bent/warped).

 

Meanwhile I enjoy the 2001 tooling versions ...

 

 

photo edited  will remove if it offends

[Hroth]

33 minutes ago, robmcg said:

black plastic Tring Princess models

 

Is that where 46207 is supposed to be passing? 

 

Saunters off, whistling nonchalantly....

 

 

[robmcg]

8 minutes ago, Hroth said:

 

Is that where 46207 is supposed to be passing? 

 

Saunters off, whistling nonchalantly....

 

 

 

Ah.  You may well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

 

I'll offer this and raise you one groat...

 

 

The early tender does offer a certain je ne sais quois, n'est pas? 

[robmcg]

Actually I have been a bit out of step with people who comment on the 2001-current Hornby Princess tooling. I have always liked the model...  large gaps around front wheels and split rear pony assembly notwithstanding.

 

This is  TMC version for sale at a well known Ebay site,

 

 

and if you prefer green, here is one I sold a couple of years ago...

 

 

cheers

 

 

 

  

 

 

[Pete the Elaner]

7 hours ago, robmcg said:

 

Ah.  You may well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

 

I'll offer this and raise you one groat...

 

 

The early tender does offer a certain je ne sais quois, n'est pas? 

I like that condition but it does look dated compared to the current Coronation. It is pink, the wheels look overly shiny & the tyre profiles are wrong, the pony & bogie both look like they have had an argument with the chassis, the steam pipes are a funny shape.

These all make me look forward to the new tooling.

(6200 also had black shaded numerals when it ran run with that type of tender & round front buffers. Red shaded dates it to 1938 & later.)

[Hroth]

10 hours ago, robmcg said:

The early tender does offer a certain je ne sais quois, n'est pas? 

 

Say what you like, but the early tender, like that on the Bear, looks completely out of proportion to the rest of the loco!

 

9 hours ago, robmcg said:

Actually I have been a bit out of step with people who comment on the 2001-current Hornby Princess tooling. I have always liked the model...  large gaps around front wheels and split rear pony assembly notwithstanding.

 

The gaps, and the swinging pony do look rather odd, now we've become used to the fixed truck and the fact that a Pacific is essentially a 4-6-0 when the flangeless pony wheel is in situ.  However, the finer motion, flanges and blackened wheelsets on 46208 and 46211 go a long way to improving the appearance of the loco below the running boards. 

 

 

[Pete the Elaner]

2 hours ago, Hroth said:

 

Say what you like, but the early tender, like that on the Bear, looks completely out of proportion to the rest of the loco!

 

You've made me wonder if the larger tender was an afterthought?

Or maybe the design team thought like you & hastily designed something to look more suitable behind it?

[Hroth]

6 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

You've made me wonder if the larger tender was an afterthought?

Or maybe the design team thought like you & hastily designed something to look more suitable behind it?

Afterthought..... 

 

Isn't that what tenders are?

 

The use of the early tenders was probably a stopgap.  A large loco, hauling heavy loads at speed would require a fair amount of coal and water to get from A to B in a sensible time and that small tender, even with a Ringfield motor sized heap of coal in it, would be drinking at every set of troughs it crossed.  Pity the poor fireman!

 

I'd be betting that a larger tender was in the works, but the prototypes went out with the smaller tenders to get running data without being delayed.

 

[MikeParkin65]

I was all set to start a detailing project on my own 46207 before Hornby made this announcement. In fact if Hornby had announced any BR Maroon model other than 46207 I probably still would! For the trailing bogie my provisional was to use either the later Duchess fixed molding, smoothed and filled to remove to suit the Princess frames, fill some of the gap above the front bogie, fit AWS parts (not present on my donor model, the the usual etched plates, reduce the tender gap, real coal etc. I think the result would be a decent 'layout loco'. 

 

I echo previous comments about the potential running properties of the the new model - the old one is silky smooth like the old Duchesses, the new Duchess isnt as smooth and I think Hornby need ot be careful not to start cutting costs/corners in the mechanism department. A good running model allows me to forgive a whole host of detail compromises 

[G-BOAF]

Something of a tail chaser, but here is a Bachmann Tornado with 13 coaches, a mix of Bachmann Mk1, Mk2, Mk1 Pullman and one Hornby Pullman (with Gresley bogies)

It is not unrealistic to expect a modern pacific model to be able to handle 12-13 modern coaches with ease. My Hornby MN (with sprung axle) can also happily handle 13 coaches as well. I have not tried anything else with such a load, although doubtless a Bachmann 9F could with much ease. With its weight, I assume the new Hornby Duchess can, and don't see why the princess would be any different

 

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

Edited August 20, 2019 by G-BOAF

[Dunsignalling]

1 hour ago, G-BOAF said:

Something of a tail chaser, but here is a Bachmann Tornado with 13 coaches, a mix of Bachmann Mk1, Mk2, Mk1 Pullman and one Hornby Pullman (with Gresley bogies)

It is not unrealistic to expect a modern pacific model to be able to handle 12-13 modern coaches with ease. My Hornby MN (with sprung axle) can also happily handle 13 coaches as well. I have not tried anything else with such a load, although doubtless a Bachmann 9F could with much ease. With its weight, I assume the new Hornby Duchess can, and don't see why the princess would be any different

 

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

Best result from my highest-mileage (i.e. most-thoroughly-run-in) Bachmann 9F was starting 46 r-t-r and kit-built vans, with the loco and about half of them sitting on a 1-in-48 slope and the rest on a 3' radius curve at the bottom. A new one just about managed 24 with a struggle but 22 was probably "it" really.

 

The layout no longer exists so I unfortunately cannot set up a direct comparison with any other loco.

 

John

[Buhar]

4 hours ago, Hroth said:

The use of the early tenders was probably a stopgap.  A large loco, hauling heavy loads at speed would require a fair amount of coal and water to get from A to B in a sensible time and that small tender, even with a Ringfield motor sized heap of coal in it, would be drinking at every set of troughs it crossed.  Pity the poor fireman!

 

I'd be betting that a larger tender was in the works, but the prototypes went out with the smaller tenders to get running data without being delayed.

 

The two tenders first fitted to 6200 and 6201 were not the same as the then standard ones running behind Scots, Patriots or Moguls, they were built for the Pacifics.  They had 4000 gal capacity as opposed to 3,500.  I can't find the coal capacity (I'm guessing 9 tons as the light test train to Glasgow used just over 18,000lbs). Water capacity wasn't an issue until the border was crossed as the LNWR couldn't see the point of using heavy water carts and paying to haul them around and so installed plenty of troughs.

 

That said the tenders were clearly part of the development process with the Pacifics as 6202 never got its flat-sided tender and the rest of the class got the 9 ton Stanier curved top and then, later, the 10 ton version.  In respect of superheating and other elements of boiler performance the first two were prototypes and much was learned.

Alan

Edited August 20, 2019 by Buhar
Spelling

[robmcg]

O S Nock wrote a lot about the early Princess performance, his writing career beginning at about the same time as the introduction of the class.  He wrote of the considerable difficulties even the best crews had with the original spec boilers and so on, where a lot of coal was used, I will look up the chapter and book...   memorable stuff, the driver taking over firing at times to give the fireman a break, and a danger of actually running out of coal.

 

It is mentioned on pp103-5 of 'British Locomotives from the Footplate'  Ian Allan 1950,  chapter on LMS Pacifics from Spring 1934 with 6200 'The Prrincess Royal'  and 15 total, 500 tons gross, all recorded from Symington to London,, the first crew were unfamiliar with the engine, they kept  time to Carlisle. After this Laurie Earl was the driver, Lubnow the fireman,   the latter had to climb back and bring coal forward, as well as constantly feed the fire, and it was early days, when firemen tended to fire evenly across the grate, when in later years they tended to just thow it in behind the door and it would work down of its own accord. 

 

By 1936-7 the Princesses were handling 570 ton trains unassisted with accelerated timetables so they can't have been bad!

Edited August 20, 2019 by robmcg
typo

[Buhar]

Thanks for that Rob.  Changing to proper superheating made a difference to coal consumption and the new style of tender trimmed itself better, but the fireman earned his shilling (5p for younger readers) on a non-stop run. On the test run with 6201 they had two firemen. 

 

The LMS had installed a trough at Strawfrank near Carstairs but I don't know if one was put in on the flat bit between Carlisle and Gretna Junction. If there wasn't, then the pick up at Dillicar needed to see you over both Shap and Beattock. 

 

Previous "non-stops" with Scots had actually changed engines at Carlisle, although not in the station. 

Alan 

[robmcg]

I'm curious. Did Hornby say they were producing three styles of tender for the new Princess models, and if so was one of them the original 1933 flat-sided one?

 

I see 6201 will have vacuum pump on cross-head, lovely, and there are two styles of firebox in the EP photos...   I presume the 1934-5 changes to boiler and superheater etc would have some external evidence?

 

I look forward to this model...