Hornby - New tooling - Ruston 48DS 0-4-0

[PaulRhB]

Perfect on Rob’s Mutton

 

[NHY 581]

Cheers Paul. 

 

A tweaked version of the above and one of mine...

[NHY 581]

[NHY 581]

Can I take the opportunity to thank Paul for allowing me to add another loco to the 'must have' category........

 

My wallet is eternally in your debt. 

 

Rob. 

[adb968008]

On 25/10/2019 at 07:52, Pre Grouping fan said:As has been stated before a van wouldnt have been seen pernamently coupled to these for visibility reasons. 

I’m yet to see a Ruston “permanently coupled” to anything, as it defeats the whole point of a shunting engine being small enough to turn on the same wheel base and restricted locations as the wagons it shunts.

 

They weren't routinely “permanently coupled”... they were shunting engines.

 

I think you are confusing it with class 03’s which were routinely coupled (but not permanently) to shunters match trucks, because their small size didn't always indicate to signallers their presence through track circuits.

 

i’m sure isolated exceptions apply, but if Ruston's catalog said every 48DS MUST be permanently coupled to a con-flat, their sales would have suffered.

 

Hornby have stated offering a conflat with pickups improves performance of the 48DS, which is why they did it. My logic was more around saving money, by inventing a conflat to support the pickups they added a cost that was avoidable by using another equally realistic wagon that it would have been seen to shunt with, that they already had tooled, and offered potential of a rtr DCC sound scenario too.

 

its nebulous anyway as they've spent it and done it, but it wasn't done because the real ones were “permanently coupled”.

Edited October 26, 2019 by adb968008

[rue_d_etropal]

Might have to get one of the army ones as well. Had not spotted the differences.

[Johann Marsbar]

On 25/10/2019 at 16:58, Steamport Southport said:

That's another biggun though.

 

If you get two and glue them together you might be able to make one. 

 

 

 

Jason

 

I checked up this morning and Ransomes, Sims & Jefferies did have two different R&H shunters during the time that their Nacton Works in Ipswich was served by rail traffic.

 

RH 252825 was purchased new in 1947 and was used up until 1962, when it was sold to Kings of Norwich. Depending on the age of the combine film, this is presumably the one featured briefly in that.

 

RH 466629 (the yellow one) was purchased new in 1962 and remained in service until 1984 when it was sold to the North Norfolk Railway.

 

From the works number, is the 1947 one likely to be a "small" (48DS) one?

[Porcy Mane]

7 minutes ago, Johann Marsbar said:

From the works number, is the 1947 one likely to be a "small" (48DS) one?

 

 I don't have Rustons pamphlet to hand at the moment but in the video that Paul posted, going of the size of the windows in the cab backsheet it's definitely a 48DS.

[pauliebanger]

17 hours ago, adb968008 said:

I’m yet to see a Ruston “permanently coupled” to anything, as it defeats the whole point of a shunting engine being small enough to turn on the same wheel base and restricted locations as the wagons it shunts.

 

They weren't routinely “permanently coupled”... they were shunting engines.

 

I think you are confusing it with class 03’s which were routinely coupled (but not permanently) to shunters match trucks, because their small size didn't always indicate to signallers their presence through track circuits.

 

i’m sure isolated exceptions apply, but if Ruston's catalog said every 48DS MUST be permanently coupled to a con-flat, their sales would have suffered.

 

Hornby have stated offering a conflat with pickups improves performance of the 48DS, which is why they did it. My logic was more around saving money, by inventing a conflat to support the pickups they added a cost that was avoidable by using another equally realistic wagon that it would have been seen to shunt with, that they already had tooled, and offered potential of a rtr DCC sound scenario too.

 

its nebulous anyway as they've spent it and done it, but it wasn't done because the real ones were “permanently coupled”.

 

I'm not convinced by the connivance of the match truck either.

 

Especially as there is no need when the model can perform like this:

 

 

[Porcy Mane]

24 minutes ago, pauliebanger said:

Especially as there is no need when the model can perform like this:

 

Wot! no working lights.  

[pauliebanger]

No, and the brake blocks don't move either.

[Porcy Mane]

 

Just now, pauliebanger said:

and the brake blocks don't move either.

 

Amateur.   

[pauliebanger]

Oui, c'est vrai.

[Porcy Mane]

22 minutes ago, pauliebanger said:

Oui, c'est vrai.

 

mendax etiam praeparata.  

[PhilJ W]

Just a thought, instead of a match truck anyone considered a 'master and slave' using two locomotives wired together back to back with one cab (and motor?) removed?

[Neil]

I doubt that the match truck is really required in most circumstances. I tested my Ruston straight out of the box but without the match truck, over a Peco dead frog diamond crossing; it glided across at slow speed with no hesitation.

Edited October 27, 2019 by Neil

[Ruston]

15 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

Just a thought, instead of a match truck anyone considered a 'master and slave' using two locomotives wired together back to back with one cab (and motor?) removed?

What would be the point in that?

 

I really cannot understand why so many people are getting so bothered about this damned match truck and having extra pickups. It's utterly pointless, from both a model and prototype perspective. In reality, these locomotives did not run around permanently coupled to match trucks.

 

The model, even out of the box and without the benefit of DCC, runs perfectly well without it. This model, being so tiny, may come as a shock to a lot of people, who are more used to main line locomotives, where a Jinty, or a class 03 are considered to be small, but to those of us who have been modelling industrial railways and locomotives it's nothing new.

 

The majority of my OO locomotives are small 4-wheel types and they all run on DC. None of them have, or need, match trucks for extra pick up and the same goes for this Hornby model.

[Phil Parker]

17 minutes ago, Ruston said:

What would be the point in that?

 

I really cannot understand why so many people are getting so bothered about this damned match truck and having extra pickups. It's utterly pointless, from both a model and prototype perspective. In reality, these locomotives did not run around permanently coupled to match trucks.

 

The model, even out of the box and without the benefit of DCC, runs perfectly well without it. This model, being so tiny, may come as a shock to a lot of people, who are more used to main line locomotives, where a Jinty, or a class 03 are considered to be small, but to those of us who have been modelling industrial railways and locomotives it's nothing new.

 

The majority of my OO locomotives are small 4-wheel types and they all run on DC. None of them have, or need, match trucks for extra pick up and the same goes for this Hornby model.

 

Hornby obviously decided to play it safe. Your models may be fine, but this is a mass-market model that is going to end up on layouts with all sorts of track horrors. As Oxford discovered with their first edition Radial, people will be quick to condemn a model if it doesn't glide over the track they fixed down with a nail gun (I exaggerate, but you get the point). These was much talk about models being fit for "average layouts" with no consensus as to what an average layout actually is.  My guess is that it's really a lot poorer than we might like to belive.

 

No-one is forced to use the match truck if they don't need it. For those who do, it's in the box. Leaning it out would be unlikely to make much difference to the price but you can be sure those who do, will be grumpy and keen to let everyone know. 

[Roy Langridge]

10 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

 

Hornby obviously decided to play it safe. Your models may be fine, but this is a mass-market model that is going to end up on layouts with all sorts of track horrors. As Oxford discovered with their first edition Radial, people will be quick to condemn a model if it doesn't glide over the track they fixed down with a nail gun (I exaggerate, but you get the point). These was much talk about models being fit for "average layouts" with no consensus as to what an average layout actually is.  My guess is that it's really a lot poorer than we might like to belive.

 

No-one is forced to use the match truck if they don't need it. For those who do, it's in the box. Leaning it out would be unlikely to make much difference to the price but you can be sure those who do, will be grumpy and keen to let everyone know. 

 

Not sure that Ruston was being that critical, just puzzled by the amount of time being expended discussing something that for most people on this forum is not needed.

 

I think the size of the 48DS actually helps performance, its wheel base is so short that it does not suffer common problems of larger models such as having its drivers lifting on dips in the track when pony trucks / bogies take the load. Having seen some of the videos posted and how mine performs I think that "track horrors" that cause problems should probably be rated 18+ ;-)

 

All in all it is a cracking model and Hornby should be proud of it.

 

Roy

[The Johnster]

The consensus seems to be that the loco performs perfectly on dead frog setrack, which is what it is principally designed to do, and that the ‘match truck’ conflat isn’t needed.  I’ve already commented on the shortcomings of the conflat, and someone mentioned the buffers.  

 

Seems a shame to me that H have bothered with the conflat.  In most places where these little engines worked they were not permanently coupled to anything, and if the pickup performance of the loco is adequate, which it apparently is, the only reason for extra pickup will be on layouts where Peco Streamline turnouts with long dead insulfrogs, the curved and larger radius turnouts, are used.  I’d venture to suggest that few of such layouts’ owners will be using the loco on their main lines; it belongs in private sidings where the curvature is probably sharper and the frogs smaller anyway.  

 

That said, a common error that I see on otherwise superb exhibition layouts is industrial locos of various types apparently allowed to roam free on the national main line network, employed as station or yard pilots.  7mm finescale layouts seem especially prone to this for some reason.  You might occasionally see industrials at main line sheds, with wheel lathes for example, but they are hauled dead to and from these places in freight trains. 

 

There are some exceptions, notably involving NCB locos and stock (including passenger stock) in parts of Northeast England, but by and large your industrials should stay inside the factory gate!

[truffy]

To my untrained (if not untrainable) eye, the only problem with the match truck is the use of the coupling forcing a huge distance between the engine and truck.

 

Since the electrical coupling is not conducive to remote decoupling, why not use a more aesthetically pleasing close-coupling?

 

Otherwise, it certainly wins on the 'cute' factor. It's just a pity that there are other more compelling engines for me to waive the rule book at.

[Steamport Southport]

22 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

The consensus seems to be that the loco performs perfectly on dead frog setrack, which is what it is principally designed to do, and that the ‘match truck’ conflat isn’t needed.  I’ve already commented on the shortcomings of the conflat, and someone mentioned the buffers.  

 

Seems a shame to me that H have bothered with the conflat.  In most places where these little engines worked they were not permanently coupled to anything, and if the pickup performance of the loco is adequate, which it apparently is, the only reason for extra pickup will be on layouts where Peco Streamline turnouts with long dead insulfrogs, the curved and larger radius turnouts, are used.  I’d venture to suggest that few of such layouts’ owners will be using the loco on their main lines; it belongs in private sidings where the curvature is probably sharper and the frogs smaller anyway.  

 

That said, a common error that I see on otherwise superb exhibition layouts is industrial locos of various types apparently allowed to roam free on the national main line network, employed as station or yard pilots.  7mm finescale layouts seem especially prone to this for some reason.  You might occasionally see industrials at main line sheds, with wheel lathes for example, but they are hauled dead to and from these places in freight trains. 

 

There are some exceptions, notably involving NCB locos and stock (including passenger stock) in parts of Northeast England, but by and large your industrials should stay inside the factory gate!

 

How many are going to be sold to youngsters as Christmas presents to be used on the carpet or their first proper layout? I would say quite a few. That's where the conflat is needed. Just look at the other forums. It's full of people lauding this model, most of whom will be beginners. The same with the Pecketts.

 

Better the belt and braces approach than having loads of people complaining on Boxing Day that their train doesn't work.

 

 

 

 

Jason

[truffy]

2 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

How many are going to be sold to youngsters as Christmas presents to be used on the carpet or their first proper layout? I would say quite a few.

 

While it's not the most expensive locomotive, at 72 of your Great British drinking tokens (from Rails, YMMV) I'd say that there are more likely contenders. Especially since youngsters are more likely to be impressed with one or more of powerful/modern/pretty.

[NickC]

It is worth pointing out that the wheelbase of the Rushton is shorter than the length of the dead section of Hornby’s express points and curved points thus on its own it simply cannot cross these points. Adding the ‘match truck’ resolves this problem. (Now before someone says something I know none of us on here use Hornby express or curved points, but some People do)

[The Johnster]

Which brings us back to the point (sorry) that a loco best suited to industrial sidings is unlikely to encounter ‘express’ turnouts.  I take the point (sorry) that Hornby need to provide a model that can run on their own trackwork, though.  

 

It’s just that I think the pickup wagon would be better as a separately sold item, and that that might bring the asking price in at less than 72 beer tokens.  Truffy’s right, the xmas tree circle is more likely to feature Smokey Joe!