Jump to content

Andy Y

Hornby - New Tooling - Terrier

Recommended Posts

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.:D

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

Bernard

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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from Brighton to Eastleigh in May 1963 (the SLS info does not include the March 1960 reallocation to Brighton) and then withdrawn in November of that year (first week of November if the SLS information is correct).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

 

A1X 32636 at Brighton, Nov 1961

 

Edited by The Stationmaster
  • Informative/Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

News from Hornby this morning! R3767 in BR Early livery should be arriving early next week...

Edited by Derails Models
  • Informative/Useful 2

Share this post


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

Share this post


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

Share this post


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


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. 

Share this post


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

Share this post


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

tendentious

 

ooh! new word for me. Every day is a school day :)

  • Agree 1
  • Funny 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked the section when Simon showed Hattons & Rails Of Sheffield the very same version he had Hornby produce Hatton & Rails where a picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hornby now showing additional liveries available.

Share this post


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...