Hornby - New Tooling - Terrier

[Ian J.]

Looking at the pictures of the parts on the Engine Shed blog, I notice that one of the tank mouldings has the water filler position mounted forward of the centre of tank top alongside the dome position. I'm presuming Hornby have researched it, so can someone enlighten me as to which Terrier(s) had that arrangment? I'm not aware of any, but my knowledge isn't that complete despite my love for the little locos.

 

Edit: Looking back through my copy of Portrait of the Terriers (Kardas), I also notice that the bunker for 32670 hasn't been tooled, despite it being a preserved example, and the dome position for Waddon in SECR condition isn't covered. Both of those are 'edge' cases, but they are somewhat well known. Hopefully the Rails/Dapol tooling will cover them both.

Edited February 24, 2019 by Ian J.

[Right Away]

Should we be grateful for so much information that abounds today that enables such critical comparison of our models to the real thing?

 

My many memories of these little locomotives which always seemed to be so busy in our area appears to be well vindicated in this version by Hornby. Granted, there is always room for improvement but at what cost? Today's 4mm models when seen through my 1940s eyes at what might be considered "normal" viewing distances are generally most acceptable.

Deviations/omissions of detail in this scale have to be glaringly obvious to warrant criticism to the point of which I would hesitate to purchase. However, the coupling rod pins do stand out badly, appearing to be from an earlier generation of model building and their use is inexcusable. Having said that, I feel certain their appearance can be toned down with weathering and I would not reject the model on these grounds. 

 

For those of us who do not utilise scale couplings and freely run with the alternatives, it might not be too difficult to accept the minor compromises when it comes to very minute detail.

 

 

 

 

[Edwardian]

1 hour ago, Right Away said:

Should we be grateful for so much information that abounds today that enables such critical comparison of our models to the real thing?

 

My many memories of these little locomotives which always seemed to be so busy in our area appears to be well vindicated in this version by Hornby. Granted, there is always room for improvement but at what cost? Today's 4mm models when seen through my 1940s eyes at what might be considered "normal" viewing distances are generally most acceptable.

Deviations/omissions of detail in this scale have to be glaringly obvious to warrant criticism to the point of which I would hesitate to purchase. However, the coupling rod pins do stand out badly, appearing to be from an earlier generation of model building and their use is inexcusable. Having said that, I feel certain their appearance can be toned down with weathering and I would not reject the model on these grounds. 

 

For those of us who do not utilise scale couplings and freely run with the alternatives, it might not be too difficult to accept the minor compromises when it comes to very minute detail.

 

 

 

 

 

The perennial question. Ever greater fidelity and accuracy versus a more relaxed approach.

 

Frankly I see both sides. Anecdotal evidence suggests that many people will run anything and will be happy with a good approximation. Naturally such good folk can be sensitive to finescale snobbery, of which I feel there is a good deal.  I'm a novice RTR bodger and basher myself, so I'm certainly not proud.

 

And it's all too easy to criticise.  I have more of an insight than I used to into just how difficult and expensive it is to produce a RTR locomotive.  There will be compromises, both technical and because the cost of the umpteen tooling slides necessary to cater for all the desired variations is prohibitive.  A particularly thankless series of decisions in relation to the Terrier, I should think.

 

So, we should not expect miracles.  That said, I think it is legitimate to assess, objectively and without fuss, how well a model represents the prototype it purports to represent, and anyone who is interested in such content can at least take an informed view as to whether such and such a detail bothers them.  Here, we will in due course have the chance to evaluate how two different manufacturers approach the same subject and judge the effect of the decisions each has made.

 

One point of yours that I think I would like to qualify is the notion that so much information abounds today.  Well, yes and no.  In terms of secondary sources, I should think that just about everything I've ever read concerning Terriers is in an out of print book of some vintage.  The knowledge has always been out there, and, perhaps, is becoming harder to come by in some areas of the prototype. What is new is that the internet allows this old knowledge to be circulated.  Absent a large and expensive library, in Olden Times, the Average Enthusiast might be dependent upon a magazine review.  These, I recall, were traditionally blandly uncritical to the point of being misleading.  They are better these days, but this is still a hobby with a relative lack of independent and objective product critique.  There is always the Youtube box-opening video, but this is not generally the place to compare model with prototype; If you want to know more, you do have read a book occasionally.   

 

 

 

[Edwardian]

Well, I had a good shufty at the latest Terrier pictures on the Engine Shed page: Engine Shed

 

This is a picture of the EP, copyright Hornby, because it's easier to see on this than on the decorated examples.  It seems pretty clear that there is no recess and the tank top is flush:

 

 

It's a subtle detail, but as has been mentioned, there was cladding bolted to the tank and the tank sides and fronts are a little higher than the tank tops as a result.  Here is an example of the Dapol 7mm Terrier in an RMWeb topic:  Link.  You can see that Dapol have understood the tank cladding issue and accurately portrayed the recess.  

 

 

 

 

[adb968008]

Was that well to selected examples ?

 

ive never noticed it before.

noted their preserved ones, but I would have thought Boxhill was relatively ex-BR and doesn’t display this..

https://www.terriertrust.org.uk/other-terriers/206-boxhill-flying-the-flag-at-the-national-railway-museum

 

nor is 32678..

 

Or these..

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/31890193@N08/10226171406/

Edited February 26, 2019 by adb968008

[DavidH]

I can see the lip/recessed tank top on all those photos - except Boxhill, where I'm not sure.

 

Look at the base of the tank filler, for example. You can see the skirt/lip at the bottom of it, and fixing bolts at the front, but not on the edge that coincides with the tank side - because it is below the top edge. Same with the circular plate bolted onto the tank top at the front of each - it has an obvious thickness front on but appears flush with the tank side.

 

And with the preserved 32678, the tank side cladding (renewed?) has a longer overlap onto the tank tops, so much so that the filler cap has had to be be rebated into it. You can see the curve with its line of bolts.

Edited February 26, 2019 by DavidH

[Pre Grouping fan]

All terriers had cladding sheets on the tanks so should have the lip/ recess. Remember the Hornby samples both the exploded view and assembled/decorated models shown in the engine shed are from early samples so there will be errors.

[Edwardian]

1 hour ago, adb968008 said:

Was that well to selected examples ?

 

ive never noticed it before.

noted their preserved ones, but I would have thought Boxhill was relatively ex-BR and doesn’t display this..

https://www.terriertrust.org.uk/other-terriers/206-boxhill-flying-the-flag-at-the-national-railway-museum

 

nor is 32678..

 

Or these..

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/31890193@N08/10226171406/

 

Not sure whether you are saying these examples have cladding proud of the tank top or whether you are arguing that these pictures show flush tank tops; because they don't.  I think you are posing a genuine question as to whether this is a universal feature, which is entirely fair, as it's a hard-to-see feature on a varied class.

 

I agree with DavidH, these pictures show that the cladding is proud of the tank tops, creating the effect of a recessed tank top.  I'm not being selective, that's how they were, and the feature is there, whether you, or I, or, for that matter, Hornby, can see it in any given image!

 

I did say it was subtle.  It's hard to spot from the angles at which the real thing is generally seen. It's more obvious from the angle at which models are often seen, of course.  Which is why it's a problem.

 

The raised tank front meets the curve of the side cladding and effectively masks the fact that there is a drop down to the tank-top beyond the curve of the side cladding.  One visual clue is that a little semi-circular cut-out is necessary to accommodate the tank filler.  If the tank top were level with the top of the cladding, you wouldn't need this.  To take one of your pictures to illustrate this: 

 

 

However, if you look carefully, you can spot this cut-out on all of your pictures.

 

You will also see, again, how the A1Xs have 5 cladding nuts along the tops and bottoms of the tank-sides.  Hornby have 3. 

 

25 minutes ago, Pre Grouping fan said:

All terriers had cladding sheets on the tanks so should have the lip/ recess. Remember the Hornby samples both the exploded view and assembled/decorated models shown in the engine shed are from early samples so there will be errors.

 

I agree, these are errors.  You may be right that there will be corrections, but I'm guessing the tooling is already cut; the injection moulding equivalent of set in stone. May is just around the corner, so we shall see.

 

Edited February 26, 2019 by Edwardian

[JSpencer]

Interesting, for 32678 preserved, there does not appear to be any cladding nuts at all!

[Edwardian]

2 minutes ago, JSpencer said:

Interesting, for 32678 preserved, there does not appear to be any cladding nuts at all!

 

I wondered if I was seeing things, it is very strange. 

 

If you look closely, you can see some fixings, counter-sunk into the cladding, inboard of the lining.  Must be an "as preserved" variation! 

 

[Nick C]

The lip seen in the photos is barely visible on the real thing - I'd put it at around half an inch at most. That's 0.16mm in 4mm/ft. I wouldn't be surprised if that's less than Hornby's tooling can cope with - and it certainly wouldn't be visible once painted...

[Edwardian]

1 minute ago, Nick C said:

The lip seen in the photos is barely visible on the real thing - I'd put it at around half an inch at most. That's 0.16mm in 4mm/ft. I wouldn't be surprised if that's less than Hornby's tooling can cope with - and it certainly wouldn't be visible once painted...

 

I 'd say it was pretty obvious on the real thing, it's just that, unlike the model, the real thing is rarely viewed from above!

 

The fact that Dapol bothered to include it on their 7mm models suggests that Dapol may also get this detail right on the Rails/Dapol 4mm model.  If they do, I'd bet on it being discernible to the naked eye, whereas on the Hornby model there is nothing at all to suggest the lip of the curved heat-cladding.  

 

Different people get put off by different things and we all have different tolerances.  For me, though, this is one of the more disappointing drawbacks; to interpret the tank as a single smooth unit, rather than reflect the visible evidence of separate cladding suggests a certain illiteracy concerning the prototype that would bother me. Each to his own, of course. 

[Big James]

When it comes to engines as small as a terrier it must come down to whether the general audience would’ve noticed the recessed edge or not as to include it by the looks of it would’ve most likely added to the price point and wouldn’t have been noticed by 90% of the people out there. Tbh I’ve spent a lot of time pouring over books of SR branch lines Which are normally filled with terriers till someone pointed out the recessed edge I had never noticed so I probably wouldn’t have noticed on a 4mm model. 

 

Big James 

[MGR Hooper!]

23 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

I 'd say it was pretty obvious on the real thing, it's just that, unlike the model, the real thing is rarely viewed from above!

 

The fact that Dapol bothered to include it on their 7mm models suggests that Dapol may also get this detail right on the Rails/Dapol 4mm model.  If they do, I'd bet on it being discernible to the naked eye, whereas on the Hornby model there is nothing at all to suggest the lip of the curved heat-cladding.  

 

Different people get put off by different things and we all have different tolerances.  For me, though, this is one of the more disappointing drawbacks; to interpret the tank as a single smooth unit, rather than reflect the visible evidence of separate cladding suggests a certain illiteracy concerning the prototype that would bother me. Each to his own, of course. 

Have you contact someone at Hornby and shared your concerns with the evidence to back it up?? You've got 3 extremely passionate people in the form of Paul Isles @Islesy, Simon Kohler and Lyndon Davies.

 

I think sharing your concerns with them directly will give you some positive feedback and scope for improvement. Discussing it here will sheldom produce any results apart from some agreeing with your findings and some disagreeing with it because it's going to be something that very few people know exists. And by few I literally mean less that 50 people in the whole wide world.

Edited February 26, 2019 by MGR Hooper!

[Edwardian]

1 hour ago, Big James said:

When it comes to engines as small as a terrier it must come down to whether the general audience would’ve noticed the recessed edge or not as to include it by the looks of it would’ve most likely added to the price point and wouldn’t have been noticed by 90% of the people out there. Tbh I’ve spent a lot of time pouring over books of SR branch lines Which are normally filled with terriers till someone pointed out the recessed edge I had never noticed so I probably wouldn’t have noticed on a 4mm model. 

 

Big James 

 

Well, again, that's because you wouldn't necessarily see it from the normal viewing angle of the prototype.  The model is different; upper surfaces are more easily and often seen.

 

As I say, it's subtle. If the omission doesn't bother you, or, indeed, 90% of people out there, that must be fair enough; I am not interested in influencing people.  I am interested in how a given model stacks up against a given prototype.  How much detail to expect is very much an individual and subjective choice. 

 

To put it into context, neither the original Dapol/Hornby model nor the old Keysers whitemetal kit capture this detail either. 

 

It will be interesting to see if Dapol go the extra mile to replicate this feature.  If I may re-post part of adb968008's shot of the sample Dapol shown at Warley, although it is pretty hard to make out, I think one can see a defined lip to the cladding. If so, I daresay it will show through the paint in due course.

 

 

1 hour ago, MGR Hooper! said:

Have you contact someone at Hornby and shared your concerns with the evidence to back it up?? You've got 3 extremely passionate people in the form of Paul Isles @Islesy, Simon Kohler and Lyndon Davies.

 

I think sharing your concerns with them directly will give you some positive feedback and scope for improvement. Discussing it here will sheldom produce any results apart from some agreeing with your findings and some disagreeing with it because it's going to be something that very few people know exists. And by few I literally mean less that 50 people in the whole wide world.

 

It's certainly a feature of the prototype, whether anyone else knows, cares or admits this is so!  

 

It's an issue that has only become apparent, to me, since I studied these latest pictures yesterday, so, no, I have not yet raised it directly. Always a good idea, though, I agree, though whether they'd be willing or able to change anything at this stage remains to be seen.

 

It's not so crucial if they don't because we have the high-spec Rails/Dapol model to look forward to.  

 

 

Edited February 26, 2019 by Edwardian
spelling!

[Ian J.]

As Edwardian says, we have the Rails/Dapol model yet to come that seems to be in line with being a high fidelity product aimed at a more enthusiast buyer, so some of the detail shortcomings of the Hornby model are of less concern. H are aiming their model at a mass market which is less concerned with details as long as the model looks close to prototype, something that arguably could not be said of the old tooling. As for me, I feel I am more in the enthusiast group and am more likely to prefer the Rails model.

[Fireline]

3 hours ago, Ian J. said:

As Edwardian says, we have the Rails/Dapol model yet to come that seems to be in line with being a high fidelity product aimed at a more enthusiast buyer, so some of the detail shortcomings of the Hornby model are of less concern. H are aiming their model at a mass market which is less concerned with details as long as the model looks close to prototype, something that arguably could not be said of the old tooling. As for me, I feel I am more in the enthusiast group and am more likely to prefer the Rails model.

 

Whereas I consider myself an enthusiast, but the Hornby model will do just fine for me. I am not concerned with such an anal level of attention to detail, because once it's running round a large layout at a decent speed, I am unlikely to be able to see the tiny "imperfections" anyway! I think there is another level of enthusiast, above the standard one, to whom anything short of perfection is unacceptable. 

[Edwardian]

55 minutes ago, Fireline said:

 

Whereas I consider myself an enthusiast, but the Hornby model will do just fine for me. I am not concerned with such an anal level of attention to detail, because once it's running round a large layout at a decent speed, I am unlikely to be able to see the tiny "imperfections" anyway! I think there is another level of enthusiast, above the standard one, to whom anything short of perfection is unacceptable. 

 

No one has argued for perfection.  Certainly, if you had read my posts with any attention you'd see that due allowance for cost and compromise is always accepted.  

 

If, and this remains to be seen, the Rails/Dapol model is more refined and captures more detail and variation than Hornby's tooling, it would hardly be fair to think of Rails, Dapol, NRM, their designers, curators and their happy customers as "anal" just because they went the extra mile in development or happened to choose this model as well as, or instead of, Hornby's, as the case may be.  I don't think you need resort to terms of abuse when sharing your preferences with us. 

 

There is, or should be, room in the hobby for a variety of "levels" or enthusiasts; perhaps even for one under the "standard".

[MGR Hooper!]

1 hour ago, Fireline said:

 

Whereas I consider myself an enthusiast, but the Hornby model will do just fine for me. I am not concerned with such an anal level of attention to detail, because once it's running round a large layout at a decent speed, I am unlikely to be able to see the tiny "imperfections" anyway! I think there is another level of enthusiast, above the standard one, to whom anything short of perfection is unacceptable. 

Quite agree, and the price difference is quite big IMHO, big enough for such a tiny model, so those tiny errors will not bother me. Never even knew such a minute detail existed until Edwardian pointed it out. Overall, not a detail that can make or break it, I do support both Dapol and Hornby as much as I can, right now I am going for the cheaper option. It's all down to cost. Afterall I do need every last penny for the better and more expensive Class 92 from Accurascale. Otherwise it's the Hornby Class 92 for me and a lot of money developing a detail kit for it.

 

Personally though Dapol have been in a state where they can make an amazing model (Class 68) and then show us CADs and EPs of others that leave modellers puzzled (Class 21/29, GWR Prairie and GWR Mogul). So I do think that Dapol will make some error, they've shown us a half EP, not shown any CAD work at all and simply stated that it will be as detailed and accurate as their O gauge and N gauge examples which I have heard A LOT of people say was full or detailing errors and inaccuracies.

Edited February 26, 2019 by MGR Hooper!

[Big James]

Also I find it’s a price point with the Hornby model. When I lived with my parents I could by models at will with cost being an after thought. But now I find I live with my partner I have to save long and hard for models. Which I think is what the Hornby model for me has going for it. I would

love the rails version but right now I can’t afford it and as I’ve seen both Stepney and Fenchurch in the flesh on the bluebell although not in BR form I’ll go for the Hornby model. Once my incomes more stable I might go for a rails verions, but for now Hornby is where my monies going. 

 

Big James

[JSpencer]

4 hours ago, Big James said:

Also I find it’s a price point with the Hornby model. When I lived with my parents I could by models at will with cost being an after thought. But now I find I live with my partner I have to save long and hard for models. Which I think is what the Hornby model for me has going for it. I would

love the rails version but right now I can’t afford it and as I’ve seen both Stepney and Fenchurch in the flesh on the bluebell although not in BR form I’ll go for the Hornby model. Once my incomes more stable I might go for a rails verions, but for now Hornby is where my monies going. 

 

Big James

 

Don,t worry Big James, I brought maybe too much when I lived with my parents. Then the hard years came by of living with my girlfriend whom is now my wife. Back Then I could only afford a couple of locos a year.  One year it was just Bodiam!

But once my income was correct, I played catch up. I am thinking of getting 5 terriers this year, 2 Hornby, 3 Rails. Then later Fenchurch in A1 preserved and the IOW version, if and when they are produced.

 

[Willie Whizz]

In principle I'm all for accuracy, so long as the consequence for the price of the model doesn't take us into the realms of 'silly money'.

 

In that context, though, while I've heard of the unsatisfied demands of the proverbial 'rivet counter' over the years, a quick read through this thread today has suggested we may now be entering the era of the 'nut counter' ...

[RodneyS]

The Terriers are probably my favourite locos so I will admit to being a 'Terrier nut'.

 

Bachmann managed to correctly represent the recessed tank tops on their E4  and that wasn't a particularly expensive model.

I can't see that a very small recess would add much to the cost of a mould.

Rodney

[GreenGiraffe22]

Re: buying lots while living with parents: yep I'm there now, I doubt my spending will be quite so much when I'm post-mortgage hopefully later on this year, fortunately there have been far less Southern items announced recently that I desire compared to previous years. 

 

Re: Recess on the tank tops: yeah, until it was pointed out in this thread with super zoomed in photos, I didn't think they were there at all. I won't mind if they're absent from the model =) 

[Ian J.]

We all probably have different bars for what we consider unacceptable in the price/detail/accuracy balance. We also all probably have some particular favourite classes of loco/coach/wagon that we would like to see done to the best possible standard, and as such might be more inclined to pick up on inaccuracies. The Terriers (along with the class 33s and 4TCs) are my particular favourites, and so any significant general and detail issues are of concern. Most other stock I wouldn't pick up on because I don't know them well enough, or, even, care enough.

 

What I still feel, though, is that in these days of CAD and the internet, the research and design phases of production should be capturing errors and correcting them when it's easiest and cheapest to do so. Once tooling is being cut it's basically too late and the internet has an abundance of people who will eventually see the errors and point them out. Once seen, most of these mistakes can't be unseen, and the internet is very unforgiving. This leads to fewer sales, or lots of mark downs to try and shift the error-strewn items (Hornby's Mark 2E being a recent and very visible example). But a good model, well done (like the Hornby Peckett) flies off the shelves and remains a favourite for years to come. Hornby particularly seem to suffer from multiple personality disorder, with some models being positively magnificent (M7), while others seem to be dogs breakfasts (4VEP).

 

Edit: for balance, I think it's worth saying that I feel all the 'manufacturers' suffer from these problems to some degree or other.

Edited February 26, 2019 by Ian J.