Jump to content
 

Hornby - New Tooling - Terrier


Andy Y
 Share

Recommended Posts

A bit of a blow to my modelling projects, since I was part-way through doing an IOWR conversion of the old Hornby Terrier. In fact, I just needed paint and decals to finish the blasted thing! I had tried lowering the body 1mm to correct the height issue, but the motor fouls in the body (this is the OLD Hornby TERRIER) 

This new Terrier looks pretty good to me, and with the NEM pockets for the couplers, I can much more easily fit Kadee couplers.

  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I’ve tried to cut back on the impulse buys, but can foresee having a small collection of these locos before too long, and a bigger collection soon after that. Price is reasonable by today’s standards for such a lovely little model.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

My advice, wait to see what Rails come up with,

 

£220 for two of theirs might well be money better spent than £270 for three of Hornby's. 

 

Price isn't everything. It would be a shame to spend your hard-earned on something that might almost immediately be shown up as a poor second. 

 

So far I have seen no reason to cancel my Rails pre-orders, and no reason to pre-order Hornby's. But, I'm going to reserve judgment until I've seen both alternatives. It's not like either will disappear from the catalogues any time soon. 

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

17 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

My advice, wait to see what Rails come up with,

 

£220 for two of theirs might well be money better spent than £270 for three of Hornby's. 

 

Price isn't everything. It would be a shame to spend your hard-earned on something that might almost immediately be shown up as a poor second. 

 

So far I have seen no reason to cancel my Rails pre-orders, and no reason to pre-order Hornby's. But, I'm going to reserve judgment until I've seen both alternatives. It's not like either will disappear from the catalogues any time soon. 


I think you've made your point about the shortfalls of the Hornby one and the plus points of the Dapol one.

  • Agree 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, MGR Hooper! said:


I think you've made your point about the shortfalls of the Hornby one and the plus points of the Dapol one.

 

I have made a number of points. Whether there are further points to come depends upon what we see next. 

 

As for the plus points of the Rails/Dapol version, we only have the announcements and the briefest glimpse of sample components to go on, that, and, I now see, John at Rails' prediction that his product will get better reviews!  We shall see. I will take an equally detailled look at the Rails version if and when samples or product break cover. 

 

In the meantime, it's up to you how you spend your money, just as it's up to me how I spend mine! 

 

If you think I am incorrect in anything I have said, please say so.  My knowledge of the subject is hardly complete and there are many who know far more than I do. In such a case I would ask if you can say anything factually equivalent to my posts that shows the Hornby model to be correct in any of the areas I have examined. 

 

Please, when you exhibit shortness of temper like this, remember it's hardly my fault that Hornby has not taken full advantage of the opportunity of the re-tool to do a better job than it has!  And, if you like the product as it is, please buy it, but if you do, be confident in your choice.  If you are confident in your choice, surely can just ignore my analysis without feeling the need to object to my comment. '

 

Each to his own and live and let live, I should have thought. 

  • Like 2
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MGR Hooper! said:


I think you've made your point about the shortfalls of the Hornby one and the plus points of the Dapol one.

 

Do you have list of points that you feel have been made well enough for them not to be raised again?

 

If you could share it, we could then avoid disturbing you. Or not.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point about the lack of inset buffers has been made - in fact not raised by me - so, when another version comes out, it should suffice to check it against the particular prototype and note whether an erroneous feature has been maintained.

 

Likewise the tank-top recess. Even I'm getting bored of that.  Again, I'm not sure i was the first to raise this.  It went on, to be fair, because there was some debate as to whether the omission was noticeable (yes, I would say it is), and even whether it was capable of reproduction at scale (yes, Bachmann did it).  This prolonged matters and I can see how this trod upon low boredom thresholds of anyone who simply didn't care whether the model was right or wrong in this respect because it still looks like a Terrier.  It is, of course, open to those people not to read contributions that do not interest them.

 

Also, the problem that apparently affects all A1Xs, the incorrect number of cladding nuts, has been mentioned. 

 

Individual loco identities will inevitably throw up fresh points.  The cab rear sheet on 32636 threw up some interesting research, for example (yes, I know how that sentence reads back - but, attention to detail is important.  What was the point of Ed and Simon obsessing over the angle of the dome when they were evidently blithely unaware of mistakes at least equally as bad?  Such a shame they didn't pick up on some of the other issues).

 

By the way, how successful was this dome in the end? I think it bears some examination around the base. 

 

Hard to be sure without a loco to hand, but do we think that the splashers are too large? I think we may find this more noticeable on the A1, because it throws out the proportions of the sandbox and the lining, much in the way the hugely overscale splashers on the Oxford Dean Goods threw out the cab-side proportions and lining.   

Edited by Edwardian
spelling!
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

OO incorporates various compromises in order to be workable in the hands of customers with a broad range of dexterity (or lack thereof).

 

I think the issue of splasher size is a can of worms perhaps best left unopened at this juncture. The alternative (in OO) even if they are made from thin sheet metal, is to make the wheels undersized over the treads to allow for the inevitably overscale flanges.  

 

That's a matter of personal preference, but as a "less-obviously-wrong" way of doing things, with the added virtue of keeping all the errors in one place, it is the choice I would make.

 

John

Edited by Dunsignalling
tidying up
  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

To be honest the price difference is the biggest attraction. I think it’s 50/50 on who trod on who’s toes ;) To me the errors are so slight I may well mix both to get more in one livery. Certainly the Dapol B4 is one of the sweetest running mechs I have and the Pecketts equally so. 

So where I would only have bought one I may buy two so neither is likely to lose out from me but I suspect many will vote with the wallet. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

OO incorporates various compromises in order to be workable in the hands of customers with a broad range of dexterity (or lack thereof).

 

I think issues of splasher size is a can of worms perhaps best left unopened at this juncture. The alternative (in OO) even if they are made from thin sheet metal, is to make the wheels undersized over the treads to allow for the inevitably overscale flanges.  

 

That's a matter of personal preference, but as a "less-obviously-wrong" way of doing things, with the added virtue of keeping all the errors in one place, is the choice I would make.

 

John

 

Fair points, and we shall have to see where we are on splashers with both manufacturers in due course.

 

The Oxford splashers were unnecessarily overscale, however - Mainline's were smaller and customers have successfully cut down the Oxford splashers considerably.

 

And 2-3" wear on a prototype driving wheel gives some wriggle room, assuming that's necessary.  

 

It will be interesting to see if there are different splasher sizes between the two Terrier models as there was in the case of the Dean. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

Each to his own and live and let live, I should have thought. 

 

I read threads out of general interest - not necessarily, as in this case, because I have any interest in buying the model.

 

So, as impartially as possible, I have to say your recent postings on the subject have unconsciously brought to mind the words 'partisan' and 'obsessive'.

 

It is perfectly possible to discuss the relative merits of two competing products without conveying these impressions.

 

Just my two penn'orth.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

I read threads out of general interest - not necessarily, as in this case, because I have any interest in buying the model.

 

So, as impartially as possible, I have to say your recent postings on the subject have unconsciously brought to mind the words 'partisan' and 'obsessive'.

 

It is perfectly possible to discuss the relative merits of two competing products without conveying these impressions.

 

Just my two penn'orth.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

Try to give examples where I have said anything not based on fact, or suitably qualified, before you 'have a go'.

 

However, I will not be drawn into grumpy or subjective 'debates'.  You have a consistent record of being tendentious and have made RMWeb a 'hostile environment' in the past.  I will not engage with that any further, but will keep to a measured, fact-base, assessment in my post.  

 

But, hey, thanks for thinking of me!

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

  • RMweb Gold
17 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

So, as impartially as possible, I have to say your recent postings on the subject have unconsciously brought to mind the words 'partisan' and 'obsessive'.

 

 

Wow, there's irony for you.

 

Darius

  • Agree 2
  • Funny 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I can't work out whether it's the supposed merits of toy trains or something important people are banging on about. Must be something important I suppose from the amount of opinion it has generated... 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is important to realise that tooling costs and the complexity of tooling means that sometimes individual details peculiar to only one or two members of a class cannot be incorporated without a completely separate set of tools, as there are only so many slides that you can incorporate into a tool. Separate tooling is unlikely to be a viable option merely in order to represent one or two examples as they existed at one particular time. Regardless of the manufacturer, I think that we have to accept that choices are made. "Do we do that particular livery/number even though the tooling does not represent it in every detail?" I've been involved, more than once, in making such judgements. Sometimes the customers agree. Sometimes they don't. They do, however, have the choice. (CJL)

  • Like 3
  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 minutes ago, dibber25 said:

It is important to realise that tooling costs and the complexity of tooling means that sometimes individual details peculiar to only one or two members of a class cannot be incorporated without a completely separate set of tools, as there are only so many slides that you can incorporate into a tool. Separate tooling is unlikely to be a viable option merely in order to represent one or two examples as they existed at one particular time. Regardless of the manufacturer, I think that we have to accept that choices are made. "Do we do that particular livery/number even though the tooling does not represent it in every detail?" I've been involved, more than once, in making such judgements. Sometimes the customers agree. Sometimes they don't. They do, however, have the choice. (CJL)

 

Agreed, but.

 

Most of the details with issues we've been discussing here aren't the ones specific to individual locomotives, they're the ones common across the class.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ian J. said:

 

Agreed, but.

 

Most of the details with issues we've been discussing here aren't the ones specific to individual locomotives, they're the ones common across the class.

Absolutely. I wasn't suggesting otherwise, but without wading through pages to quote chapter and verse, I noted some comments regarding a repair strip on the cab rear of one locomotive at one particular period. (CJL)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
9 minutes ago, dibber25 said:

Absolutely. I wasn't suggesting otherwise, but without wading through pages to quote chapter and verse, I noted some comments regarding a repair strip on the cab rear of one locomotive at one particular period. (CJL)

 

Good point. That is, I think, one of the one or two loco specific details that has come up here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
16 minutes ago, dibber25 said:

Absolutely. I wasn't suggesting otherwise, but without wading through pages to quote chapter and verse, I noted some comments regarding a repair strip on the cab rear of one locomotive at one particular period. (CJL)

I'm not so sure that it is a 'repair strip' as it appears on photos of engines in original Stroudley livery and on a variety of engines including one that went to the K&ESR and one that finished up in GWR hands via the WC&PR.   In fact it is far harder to find a photo of an engine on which it doesn't appear.  I wonder if it was actually there to either strengthen the back sheet or possibly to reinforce a joint between two plates in the back sheet?

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

One community member recently contacted me to inform me that I was "tedious" (no, it wasn't Simon Kohler), and, as I have no wish to be that, I will take the hint, however, I think the main points have already been made and do not require repetition in any case.

 

Before I return to the shadows, I will just respond to Chris Leigh, and say that I, for one, would be the first to recognise that it would be uneconomic and insane for any manufacturer to tool for every difference in such a varied class, with some details unique to a particular locomotive in a particular condition. Take an example; both manufacturer have announced a blue K&ESR Terrier. I would say if either manufacturer tooled a whole new bunker just to represent the four rivets the K&ESR used to fix its coal rails, they would need their heads examining. No one expects the Nth variation in expensively tooled RTR. Please don't fall into the trap laid by some who like to characterise the noting of any issues as an unreasonable counsel of perfection.  It isn't.   

 

Of course, I cannot be sure what Chris referred to when he talked of a repair strip, but, as Mike the Stationmaster has just pointed out, a rivetted butting plate running vertically between the rear spectacle plates was a universal feature. I guess that, where it is absent on some late condition examples, this is because the cab rear sheet was replaced by a single sheet, so didn't need the rivetted strip.  My only comment on this was to note that, in this respect, Hornby's 32636 was correct!   

 

Otherwise I will only say that I gratefully adopt the submission of my learned friend, Ian J, when he said that we might expect details common across the class to be executed correctly.  Unless I can assist your Lordships further, that concludes the case for the defence.

  • Like 4
  • Friendly/supportive 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Silver coupling rods!  

We're back to the 1970s.

 

Has anyone ever seen a silver coupling rod?

Newly milled? Polished for a museum?  Stewarts Lane couldn't make them look silver.

They didn't even chrome plate a set for 45552.

Why?

 

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...