Jump to content
 

Hornby - New tooling - LMS Princess class


Andy Y
 Share

Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, sandwich station said:

 

I've said this before that the streamliners look ok with the swinging truck, whereas the non streamliners and Princes's look better with the fixed truck.

 

Both models would look much better with the alternate front bogie with the correct diameter wheels. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The fixed rear frames certainly look better on all versions (new and previous) of the Princess Coronation and on straight or reasonably gentle curves you can’t tell the wheel lacks a flange - especially if you paint the steel edge of the tyres black. The swinging pony truck looks so unlike the prototype I am surprised anyone would prefer it. 

  • Agree 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
On 19/02/2020 at 08:06, Pete the Elaner said:

It is not something I have ever shopped for, but you can buy chimneys & domes so why not a vac pump?

If nobody already makes one, then it sounds ideal for a 3d print.

 

The model shows 6201 as she was from about 1938, with a large tender and the later style of serif lettering in chrome yellow, blocked vermillion.  She quite possibly didn't have a vacuum pump by that time - anyone know for sure when it was removed? 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 minute ago, atom3624 said:

 

They could maintain the fixed cartazzi pony truck, and have a floating wheelset underneath.

 

With some this could still be restrictive - 3rd radius?

 

Al.

 My gut feeling is yes, whilst an internal floating wheelest or hidden truck would give some movement it would not get close to providing R2 compatibility which is essential for Hornby's core market. They would have to include an alternative method of either fixing the internal swing or a completely different arrangement for those who had to use the flangeless wheels to get down to R2. 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be interested to compare it to the older model.

 

Maybe my previous generation ones are due for a conversion to Turbomotives :D although I would need to check things like dome & top feed.

Since this ran in LMS red without deflectors & with the smaller reverse turbine, then got the larger reverse turbine & deflectors at the same time, then ran in 1946 black in this condition, I may "need" all 3 versions.

The extra components should be a good candidate for 3d printing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, RedgateModels said:

My gut feeling is yes, whilst an internal floating wheelest or hidden truck would give some movement it would not get close to providing R2 compatibility which is essential for Hornby's core market

 

As I recall, in earlier iterations of this very well-worn discussion, @34theletterbetweenB&D estimated that about 30" radius would be possible with such an arrangement.  Clearly Hornby don't consider the extra cost worthwhile for the relatively small number of customers it would benefit.

 

When Chris Pendlenton built A1 Hal o'the Wynd in P4 from a DJH kit, he devised an arrangement whereby the truck and outside frames were separately articulated.  On gentle curves the truck would swing between the frames, which were retained in the prototypical alignment by a spring.  On tighter curves, the truck would push the frames aside against the spring pressure.  The whole thing was of course very finely engineered and there were no visible gaps with the frames in their straight position.  If anyone is looking for the Rolls Royce solution, this is it, but it would probably be  expensive to produce RTR to worthwhile tolerances and it would still look odd when running on tight model curves.

 

 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, atom3624 said:

I still think they missed the Bachmann trick - not copyrighted is it?

 

They could maintain the fixed cartazzi pony truck, and have a floating wheelset underneath...

The designer has to make the call on the solution to adopt.

 

Bachmann have in the past* gone for fixed rear frames cast in fairly thin metal, with the traversing slide to take a sprung flanged wheelset, which is R2 capable. The compromise on pacifics is that the frame plates representation is over width, and detail that protrudes from the frame plates such as the axlebox, springs and steps are shallower than they should be, so that the extreme width of the model is to scale, while more space has been created inside for the flanged wheelset to traverse.

 

*The announced Bachmann V2 has fixed frames of correct external appearance and an unflanged wheelset. Wait and see on how the wheelset is mounted and what is possible by DIY with a flanged wheelset. (An OO V2 with cartazzi frames made from thin metal sheet correctly positioned, can have a flanged wheelset in a swinging truck within, and definitely works down to 30" radius, and probably a little smaller.)

 

Hornby have since about 2004 introduced fixed moulded and cast frames representations, correct in external dimensions and appearance, with a very crudely mounted unflanged wheelset inside. Much internal alteration on the A3/A4 and BR 7MT allows them to go around a 30" radius with the flanged alternative wheelset installed.

 

1 hour ago, atom3624 said:

...With some this could still be restrictive - 3rd radius?...

Not a chance. Geometry is unforgiving like that! With really careful internal design, the smaller wide firebox types like the V2 and BR 7MT might get down to somewhere in the range of 27 to 28" radius. That would be radius 6, if the UK set track system offered such a thing. Larger pacifics, mikados, 30" minimum, radius 7...

 

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

  • RMweb Gold
3 hours ago, jacko said:

 

Both models would look much better with the alternate front bogie with the correct diameter wheels. 

Both would look better with the correct style and size  front bogie wheels. The two sets supplied are firstly too small as factory fitted but too large when the alternative is fitted. Duchess and Princess front wheels are actually relatively small at 3' diameter compared to other Stanier classes.  The Hornby wheels really need the distinctive bevel to match the new and very good drivers as well. Gibson make the correct 3 foot 9 spoke beveled wheel - a quick and easy upgrade for any version of the Hornby model.

  • Agree 2
  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
11 minutes ago, maico said:

On the forthcoming Hornby W1 the rear pony wheel will likely need to be flanged and spinning because it's fully on view!

 

But this thread is about the Princess Royals and there's plenty to say about them.  Perhaps you could discuss the W1 on the thread that already exists for it.

 

Frankly I'm becoming rather tired of the discussion of every new Hornby pacific becoming dominated by this issue. It isn't a new feature, Hornby show no signs of changing their approach, and the constraints within which they are working have been gone over on these threads ad nauseam.  Please give it a rest.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

 

Frankly I'm becoming rather tired of the discussion of every new Hornby pacific becoming dominated by this issue. It isn't a new feature, Hornby show no signs of changing their approach, and the constraints within which they are working have been gone over on these threads ad nauseam.  Please give it a rest.

 

On the other hand I didn't know about the Gibson wheels until 3 posts ago so I for one am glad this subject has come up again.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have also just found out a little mode from somebody who knows more than I do about the Princess class.

 

The real one now has a standard Princess boiler. 6200-6201 originally had slightly different boilers from the others with slightly shorter fireboxes giving a longer boiler.

This combined with the shed plate & domed boiler combination dates the model from October 1940 to February 1945.

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

  • RMweb Gold

Here’s some photo’s I’ve taken of 6201. I hope they might be of some interest. Please note that the front fixing for the body to the chassis is by a screw and not the lug arrangement on the Princess Coronation. Hopefully it will not break away like it sometimes did on that model.

 

A04DBAB6-8801-40D1-966B-C72EB64C3445.jpeg.16f1cb475451c58c8e621aeb6ee259e8.jpeg
 

4FC1A6F4-8F9B-44AC-BD17-127DDCDC2107.jpeg.ff3ae08b1df3b6f2c8062627ea170e32.jpeg


The front bogie is fitted with a spring.

06179457-A9EC-4A0F-9ED5-773C035FEA28.jpeg.657c007bab4cd5964461c2ed06ad5a0e.jpeg

 

945AFD20-A07F-4B60-AEB3-39DDD5104FA6.jpeg.99f667ad3772b4ebeb5b8158769edcc9.jpeg
 

724AF450-495E-4F75-869A-DCB3D2BA6A74.jpeg.7abeee933927745413bca686a46b67ef.jpeg
 

28D67C3B-2EEE-4A6F-8AC7-799987593DFE.jpeg.538e2c999b31dca5f16f3a5b3f720627.jpeg

 

Best regards,

 

 Rob.

 

P.S. It is a heavy model, and should pull a full length train.

 

Edited by Market65
To insert a word.
  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have seen the Hattons review as well and it looks like it is an excellent model.  My problem is what to do with my tender driven 'Princess Elizabeth' which I think is ok.  The gears are still engaging in the tender and the locomotive wheels have not seized up so it is a good runner.  If it breaks down I will not be able to get it repaired and there is not enough room in my flat for what I have got let alone two 'Princess Elizabeths' . It would also not be prototypical to have two locomotives with the same name running at the same time on my layout.  The one thing I do not like on the new model is the fixed pony truck with non flanged wheels whereas the tender driven model has a swivelling pony truck with flanged wheels.

 

Should I offer the old 'Princess Elizabeth' in part exchange to Hattons for a new one or keep the old one and save over £100?  I have not had much luck with toy fairs or auctions where I live and often the costs of hiring a table exceed anything I try to sell.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

The model shows 6201 as she was from about 1938, with a large tender and the later style of serif lettering in chrome yellow, blocked vermillion.  She quite possibly didn't have a vacuum pump by that time - anyone know for sure when it was removed? 

 

Loco Profile #37 'LMS Pacifics' says the pumps were removed from the class  "... from 1938 onwards". (Doesn't really help, does it? :no2:)

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

  • RMweb Premium
5 hours ago, Pete the Elaner said:

I have also just found out a little mode from somebody who knows more than I do about the Princess class.

 

The real one now has a standard Princess boiler. 6200-6201 originally had slightly different boilers from the others with slightly shorter fireboxes giving a longer boiler.

This combined with the shed plate & domed boiler combination dates the model from October 1940 to February 1945.

 

1 hour ago, pH said:

 

Loco Profile #37 'LMS Pacifics' says the pumps were removed from the class  "... from 1938 onwards". (Doesn't really help, does it? :no2:)

 

I've now dug up through what limited info I have* and it seems that having carried a domeless boiler from 1937, 6201 got a domed boiler in 1940 and kept it until 1945.  Removal of vacuum pumps was authorised in March 1938 at the next shopping, so 6201 probably had hers removed in 1940 when she also had a boiler change.

 

 

*The LMS Pacifics by JWP Rowledge (David and Charles); LMS Locomotive Design and Construction (RCTS)

 

 

  • Like 3
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...