Hornby - New Tooling - Terrier

[Edwardian]

8 minutes ago, JSpencer said:

 

The old are indeed rugged even compared to the Hattons P or Dapol B4, however both of the latter newer models will run slower and quiter than the old terrier (and I got my old ones to run pretty slow and quiet). The old had a big 3 pole open frame motor, even in Dapol days, which was exactly the same motor that replaced the X.03/X.04s in the Jinty based chassis locos that Hornby did from the mid 80s onwards. Only the old terrier had a 50/1 gear ratio and sprung centre axle (removed on the last Hornby batches of these models).

Now I am surprised to see you say the new cannot run as slow as the old - though maybe it is early days and the new is not run in yet. It is a safe bet that the Rails version will use the same design of drive as the Dapol B4 was is almost unbeatable for slowness. 

 

It surprises me too that the older model has better slow running capability than the older version.

 

The Rails/Dapol with the 5-pole ought to have more power and better controlability at low speeds than the new Hornby, but that the old model should be netter in this respect is odd.

 

  

[Right Away]

On 07/03/2019 at 19:31, woodenhead said:

Don't you just want to scoop him up and give him a cuddle

Our A1X is very cuddly ..... and chilled!

 

[90rob]

9 minutes ago, JSpencer said:

 

The old are indeed rugged even compared to the Hattons P or Dapol B4, however both of the latter newer models will run slower and quiter than the old terrier (and I got my old ones to run pretty slow and quiet). The old had a big 3 pole open frame motor, even in Dapol days, which was exactly the same motor that replaced the X.03/X.04s in the Jinty based chassis locos that Hornby did from the mid 80s onwards. Only the old terrier had a 50/1 gear ratio and sprung centre axle (removed on the last Hornby batches of these models).

Now I am surprised to see you say the new cannot run as slow as the old - though maybe it is early days and the new is not run in yet. It is a safe bet that the Rails version will use the same design of drive as the Dapol B4 was is almost unbeatable for slowness. 

 

Yes point taken - my half dozen terriers are all quite old and a bit noisy, and indeed I have replaced the motors in two of them. They run very well if you constantly maintain them. The new unit is a little beauty though  and does run very smoothly if a little faster than I was expecting  -  if anything it may be time for me to upgrade  my controller and (gulp!) switch to DCC. ..

[Steamport Southport]

The old version still looks better than the Dapol O Gauge version that I saw in Ian Allan a couple of weeks ago.

 

Basic doesn't even come close. just look at that chimney for example.

 

https://www.hattons.co.uk/150291/Dapol_7S_010_010_Class_A1X_Terrier_0_6_0T_W9_Fishbourne_in_Southern_Railway_green/StockDetail.aspx

 

I think I'll wait and see as I think people expecting the Dapol one to be vastly better are in for disappointment...

 

 

Jason

[90rob]

4 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

The old version still looks better than the Dapol O Gauge version that I saw in Ian Allan a couple of weeks ago.

 

Basic doesn't even come close. just look at that chimney for example.

 

https://www.hattons.co.uk/150291/Dapol_7S_010_010_Class_A1X_Terrier_0_6_0T_W9_Fishbourne_in_Southern_Railway_green/StockDetail.aspx

 

I think I'll wait and see as I think people expecting the Dapol one to be vastly better are in for disappointment...

 

 

Jason

 

Surely Hattons could have found a better example to photograph - or are they all like that?

 

[Edwardian]

22 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

The old version still looks better than the Dapol O Gauge version that I saw in Ian Allan a couple of weeks ago.

 

Basic doesn't even come close. just look at that chimney for example.

 

https://www.hattons.co.uk/150291/Dapol_7S_010_010_Class_A1X_Terrier_0_6_0T_W9_Fishbourne_in_Southern_Railway_green/StockDetail.aspx

 

I think I'll wait and see as I think people expecting the Dapol one to be vastly better are in for disappointment...

 

 

Jason

 

I think that's spectacularly unfair.  The chimney is clearly an assembly issue. If you want to trade quality control pictures from retail sites, look at those below.

 

The 7mm Terrier is far more refined and accurate than the old OO version. It's more accurate in some respects than the new Hornby OO model - recessed tank tops, for instance.

 

The weakness of the Dapol O Gauge model lies in the limited tooling variations, for instance, SR-era tank front lubricators on all versions; that would irritate me - but it's a far finer and more accurate model than the crude hybrid OO gauge version, for all the latter's old-school rustic charm!

 

Also, I think that you will be proved quite wrong in the belief that the Rails/Dapol OO gauge version will prove a disappointment; even the fragment produced at Warley last year suggests a better model is on the way.  

More retailer pictures have emerged of the new Hornby Terrier in the state it's arriving in store:

 

 

Note cab handrails, detached vacuum exhaust pipe, dome Salter valves (Link) (copyright Rails of Sheffield)

 

 

Note the finger print/apparent glue smear to the rear (Link)  (copyright Rails of Sheffield).

 

 

 

  

 

 

Edited March 11, 2019 by Edwardian

[Steamport Southport]

1 minute ago, Edwardian said:

 

I think that's spectacularly unfair.  The chimney is clearly an assembly issue.

 

The 7mm Terrier is far more refined and accurate than the old OO version. It's more accurate in some respects than the new Hornby OO model - recessed tank tops, for instance.

 

The weakness of the Dapol O Gauge model lies in the limited tooling variations, for instance, SR-era tank front lubricators on all versions; that would irritate me - but it's a far finer and more accurate model than the crude hybrid OO gauge version, for all the latter's old-school rustic charm!

 

Also, I think that you will be proved quite wrong in the belief that the Rails/Dapol OO gauge version will prove a disappointment; even the fragment produced at Warley last year demonstrates a better model is on the way.  

 

 

 

 

I saw them in the flesh. Assembly issue? It's supposed to be a top of the range model in an adult scale costing £300.  Whereas in reality it's Railroad standard at best. I wouldn't even pay the discount of £150 that was being asked.

 

However if you think I'm being unfair then I would look through the hatchet job you are doing to the Hornby model in this very thread and consider whether you are being fair.

 

 

 

Jason

[Hroth]

24 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

I think that's spectacularly unfair.  The chimney is clearly an assembly issue. If you want to trade quality control pictures from retail sites, look at those below.

 

The 7mm Terrier is far more refined and accurate than the old OO version. It's more accurate in some respects than the new Hornby OO model - recessed tank tops, for instance.

 

The weakness of the Dapol O Gauge model lies in the limited tooling variations, for instance, SR-era tank front lubricators on all versions; that would irritate me - but it's a far finer and more accurate model than the crude hybrid OO gauge version, for all the latter's old-school rustic charm!

 

Also, I think that you will be proved quite wrong in the belief that the Rails/Dapol OO gauge version will prove a disappointment; even the fragment produced at Warley last year suggests a better model is on the way.  

More retailer pictures have emerged of the new Hornby Terrier in the state it's arriving in store:

 

 

Note cab handrails, detached vacuum exhaust pipe, dome Salter valves (Link) (copyright Rails of Sheffield)

 

 

Note the finger print/apparent glue smear to the rear (Link)  (copyright Rails of Sheffield).

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

QC should be able to track down the assembler for that example!

 

Its interesting that Rails should use a loco with such glaring assembly faults as their photo model, or is that one of the stock decorated sample images?

 

[Edwardian]

Jason,

 

You are again unfair. I have tried to be entirely objective about this release, including stressing the various positives and acknowledging the strengths, based upon knowledge of the prototype.  To attempt to dismiss this as a "hatchet job" is misjudged to say the least.

 

In contrast, attempting to compare the Dapol O Gauge model unfavourably with the old Dapol/Hornby OO Gauge model was improbable and untenable.  The OO gauge model was always relatively crude and an A1/A1X hybrid and really did need to find its place as a Railroad item.  I seem to recall that the Dapol O gauge Terrier won awards and was an important step in O gauge RTR, inspired not a few O gauge layouts, I suspect. How, when you slag off a model in such terms, you can complain about how I have described the Hornby model is quite beyond me.         

 

Please see my edited post if you want to see a model in a far worse state. And please calm down. 

 

James 

Edited March 11, 2019 by Edwardian

[90rob]

1 hour ago, JSpencer said:

 

The old are indeed rugged even compared to the Hattons P or Dapol B4, however both of the latter newer models will run slower and quiter than the old terrier (and I got my old ones to run pretty slow and quiet). The old had a big 3 pole open frame motor, even in Dapol days, which was exactly the same motor that replaced the X.03/X.04s in the Jinty based chassis locos that Hornby did from the mid 80s onwards. Only the old terrier had a 50/1 gear ratio and sprung centre axle (removed on the last Hornby batches of these models).

Now I am surprised to see you say the new cannot run as slow as the old - though maybe it is early days and the new is not run in yet. It is a safe bet that the Rails version will use the same design of drive as the Dapol B4 was is almost unbeatable for slowness. 

 

OK I think I need to clarify my earlier post a bit. I've been out in the shed and compared the new terrier with my Dapol B4, and the B4 is certainly more controllable at lower speed (DC). There is absolutely nothing wrong with the terriers general running  but on my setup the terrier seems a bit overeager, and to control it at the very slowest shunting speeds you need to make very fine movements of the control knob and there is a slight tendency to stall. I'll give it an hours run, and see how it does with a coach or two.

[Colin]

It says a lot to me that of the three (32636, late BR crest) locos that arrived in the shop this morning, two sold within minutes of my having completed testing them.  All locos ran very well straight from the box (slow running was impressive) and there was no evidence of detached/distorted parts. As a not too fussy modeller, I’m happy to attempt improvements to detail if I think it necessary and it’s within my capabilities; perhaps I’ll take a look at those buffers one day but real coal, crew and other details will definitely come first.

[90rob]

How appropriate that the April Railway Modeller should have a picture of Gordon and Maggie Gravett's superb O gauge '32636' on the equally superb 'Arun Quay' on the front cover!

[Edwardian]

And very nice, too, I shall look out for it.

 

Here it is featured previously on RMWeb: Link

[Right Away]

On 09/03/2019 at 06:41, 45568 said:

Can anyone say when the 'diesel font' numbering was applied to 32636? I have an idea it was quite late in the piece which may rule out this variant for me.

 thanks in advance from Oz,

Peter C.

Hi Peter

I have attached a scanned photo from one of Michael Welch's excellent books (hope there's no copyright issue), which shows No32636 on a railtour on the old KESR metals carrying the later BR emblem. Scrutiny of the caption reads a day in 1958.

Note that at this time she was a St Leonards (74E) engine.

 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

21 hours ago, 90rob said:

... The new unit is a little beauty though  and does run very smoothly if a little faster than I was expecting  -  if anything it may be time for me to upgrade  my controller and (gulp!) switch to DCC. ..

Quick and dirty test. Put another loco on track with the new one. Will your new loco now run more slowly?  If so that suggests the controller's minimum output is too great for this mechanism. The specific tuning to mechanism that DCC offers is just one of its assets.

[andyram]

My supplies arrived today. Despite being sceptical I was pleasantly surprised. The pipework on top of the boiler is a big improvement on the previous incarnation. The cab is very impressive with lots of separately fitted detail. 

 On test, the loco had a slight stiff spot but it eased off after a short running in session. It then ran very smoothly and quietly in both directions and comfortably handled a four coach train on the club's layout that features a severe and lengthy gradient.

 This is definitely a big improvement on the previous tooling.

[MGR Hooper!]

On 11/03/2019 at 15:38, 90rob said:

Arrived this morning, and pleased to say it is a smooth runner straight from the box. The overall proportions are good - much less bulky than the old model. A few cruel closeups:

What a beauty! I cannot wait for mine to turn up.

[Edwardian]

For those interested in 32636, I notice that the Bluebell has a selection of photographs online: Bluebell Terrier Pictures.

 

Copyright appears to be Robin H. Tunstall's. 

 

 

I cannot discern the prominent double horizontal lines of rivets depicted by Hornby from the photograph of the prototype, albeit the picture dates from 1952.  

 

What is noticeable is the central vertical rivetted strip on the rear of the cab-sheet, a common, possibly universal feature, which Hornby omits. But, if you look at this picture showing 32636 in the condition closer to that Hornby depicts, you see that this vertical strip has gone, so a nicely observed change by Hornby.  There is also a colour version online. I still don't see the horizontal rivets, however. 

 

Also clearly shown on all these pictures are the rear window grills, also missing from the Hornby model.  Picture of model copyright Rails of Sheffield.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 13, 2019 by Edwardian

[PMP]

It is possible, particularly with cab sheeting that over the years modifications and replacements give ‘non standard’ patterns of riveting and straps.

https://www.terriertrust.org.uk/other-terriers/212-fenchurch-saved-by-the-bluebell-railway-1964

This image shows the above locomotive in 1964 with no vertical strap, so Hornby have that correct, mismatched glazing bars, and no horizontal rivet lines at bunker height.

 

For those so inclined replacing/adding strapping and rivets can be quite simple modelling tasks, it’s when key dimensions and shapes are wrong that the character is lost. I saw and handled all the examples at the toy fair, and was impressed overall with the quality of them.

 

[chuffinghell]

On 09/03/2019 at 01:48, MGR Hooper! said:

 

Superb little model! I'm waiting for Stepney....

 

I'm hoping for a GWR Portishead if they decide to do one that is..........I don't need one but I'd like one

Edited March 13, 2019 by chuffinghell

[Edwardian]

3 minutes ago, PMP said:

It is possible, particularly with cab sheeting that over the years modifications and replacements give ‘non standard’ patterns of riveting and straps.

https://www.terriertrust.org.uk/other-terriers/212-fenchurch-saved-by-the-bluebell-railway-1964

This image shows the above locomotive in 1964 with no vertical strap, so Hornby have that correct, mismatched glazing bars, and no horizontal rivet lines at bunker height.

 

For those so inclined replacing/adding strapping and rivets can be quite simple modelling tasks, it’s when key dimensions and shapes are wrong that the character is lost. I saw and handled all the examples at the toy fair, and was impressed overall with the quality of them.

 

 

Indeed, just as I said.

 

As ex-Fenchurch, 32636 is non-standard in several respects, it was always going to be a tough subject to tool for an exact match, leaving some customisation by the owner as inevitably the way to go.   

 

Presumably the lack of inset buffers can also be remedied quite easily.  You could even move the tank-front lubricators to the correct place.

 

The major problem would be amending the unrecessed tank tops.

 

And that's the thing; I question whether anyone in the market for a mid-range Terrier like Hornby's is likely to be someone who wants to use it to produce the ultimate personalised Terrier.  Such a person is, I suspect, likely to give himself a better starting point with the rival product, should that prove closer to the chosen prototype. 

 

Most people will clearly not bother.  Which is fair enough!

[PMP]

6 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

Indeed, just as I said.

 

 

Not prior to your edited post it wasn’t.

[Edwardian]

Looks like our posts crossed. No matter.

 

Yes, you have to be so careful with these Terriers. Having seen the Bluebell pictures I thought to myself that 1952 condition could be very different from that a decade later, so i'd better keep digging, with the happy result that Hornby has correctly omitted the vertical strap.

 

I still don't understand the horizontal rivets, which do not appear in any of the pictures of 32636, and I wonder if they are an attempt to represent the rivets applied to overlapping plates seen on many locos, including Boxhill?

 

I'd post a picture if RMWeb was not grindingly slow.

 

Maybe I'll edit later. 

 

Edited March 13, 2019 by Edwardian
Picture!

[Bernard Lamb]

Going by the program discussed over on the other thread Hornby employee graduates as designers.

Any second year engineering apprentice that came through the QC department where I worked was able to read a drawing. A skill beyond the scope of Hornby designers it would seem. Come to that any sheet metal worker would have picked up that the tanks have a separate sheet of cladding applied to them. A point missed at all stages of production at Hornby. Any of these sheet metal workers would also have been able to work out the development including the correct bend allowance if asked to built the real thing. So much for modern education.

Checking with the Kennel Club they Know nowt about a Margate Terrier. They do recognize several breeds that hail from Yorkshire.

Corned beef? From what I see yes. Can we look forward to fillet steak from the other lot? I hope so.

Bernard

[The Stationmaster]

On 13/03/2019 at 18:53, Edwardian said:

Looks like our posts crossed. No matter.

 

Yes, you have to be so careful with these Terriers. Having seen the Bluebell pictures I thought to myself that 1952 condition could be very different from that a decade later, so i'd better keep digging, with the happy result that Hornby has correctly omitted the vertical strap.

 

I still don't understand the horizontal rivets, which do not appear in any of the pictures of 32636, and I wonder if they are an attempt to represent the rivets applied to overlapping plates seen on many locos, including Boxhill?

 

I'd post a picture if RMWeb was not grindingly slow.

 

Maybe I'll edit later. 

 

 

Assuming the photo (below) was correctly dated the vertical strap on the cab backsheet of 32636 was still there in November 1961.  According to information on the BR loco database the loco had been in works at Eastleigh in February of that year so if the two sources are showing correct dates it had not been modified or had the cab backsheet replated during that works visit.  Again using that source both it and the SLS (raw data) allocation informations shows the engine as moving from Brighton to Eastleigh in May 1963 (the SLS info does not include the March 1960 reallocation to Brighton) and then withdrawn in November of that year (first week of November if the SLS information is correct).

 

It is obviously possible that the engine might have undergone work at Brighton or after transfer (in 1963) to Eastleigh and equally any rotten platework might well have been replaced in connection with the sale of the engine to the Bluebell Railway (maybe even on an 'old pals' basis/'allowed for' in the sale price.  However as it stands the Hornby model - in that particular detail - does not represent the engine as running in BR ownership in 1961 if not a little later.

 

Click on the photo to see it on the Flickr site where it can be enlarged to give a much clearer view of the backsheet

 

 

Edited March 15, 2019 by The Stationmaster