Edwardian Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 (edited) 8 hours ago, dibber25 said: I seem to recall checking this out in the past when I was putting together Locomotives Illustrated No. 48. We had access to a lot of LPC glass plates - and there were a lot of Brighton 'Terriers' in pre-Grouping condition. I'm not in a position to check now, but if I recall correctly there were instances of the rods being on either way round. (CJL) That may well be so, and if I ever succeed in spotting one, I'll let you know! It must, at the very least, be a rare variation, if not altogether mythical. But I daresay someone may find an example eventually. Any how, the 'prototype for everything' argument gets no one off the hook here, first because the picture of Rolvenden in the condition depicted by the model shows the rods the conventional way around and, second, there is no explaining away the fact that the rod is wrongly cranked toward the wheel, rather than away from it. It's, to my mind, just easier and more credible to accept this as an assembly error, which it undoubtedly is, and be on the look out to ensure one's own purchase is not affected. EDIT: Found one! No.46 Newington in post 1894 condition! That is one out of 117 photographs I was able to check in the Middlemass volume. So, not altogether mythical! One lives and learns! Edited March 28, 2019 by Edwardian Further information 3 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold chuffinghell Posted March 28, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 28, 2019 22 hours ago, Edwardian said: Came across This on the Rails thread. Somewhat bravely, Rails has allowed its EP sample to go head to head with Hornby's production model in a first review by Jenny Emily of this parish. Well spotted! thanks for sharing After watching Jenny's review its clear that Rails are trying to go that extra mile with their Terrier, with each loco side by side I have to say I'm impressed with both but for me even though its only a pre-production loco the Rails version just looks better (personal opinion) Despite being one of my favorite locos I'm not currently in the market for a terrier unless a A1X GWR Portishead comes along I'm looking for to seeing Rail's final production version 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSpencer Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 1 hour ago, Edwardian said: It's, to my mind, just easier and more credible to accept this as an assembly error, which it undoubtedly is, and be on the look out to ensure one's own purchase is not affected. This should be easy to sort out. Undo the nuts and swap the rods around. I'll try it when I get mine. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dibber25 Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Edwardian said: That may well be so, and if I ever succeed in spotting one, I'll let you know! It must, at the very least, be a rare variation, if not altogether mythical. But I daresay someone may find an example eventually. Any how, the 'prototype for everything' argument gets no one off the hook here, first because the picture of Rolvenden in the condition depicted by the model shows the rods the conventional way around and, second, there is no explaining away the fact that the rod is wrongly cranked toward the wheel, rather than away from it. It's, to my mind, just easier and more credible to accept this as an assembly error, which it undoubtedly is, and be on the look out to ensure one's own purchase is not affected. EDIT: Found one! No.46 Newington in post 1894 condition! That is one out of 117 photographs I was able to check in the Middlemass volume. So, not altogether mythical! One lives and learns! I wish I could remember how I first stumbled upon this issue. If it was in connection with LI48 it would have been over 30 years ago, so that may be why I can't remember. It could also have been in connection with the old Dapol 'Terrier' as, around that time, I converted one into the KESR example that had the enlarged bunker and malachite green livery. So I'm now wondering if the Dapol example had the rods the 'wrong' way round. Anyway, I'm pretty certain that, among that collection of LPC glass plates there was at least one example of rods the 'wrong' way round. It reminds me of the old engineering adage that if it's possible to fit something the wrong way round, sooner or later someone will do it. I guess that applies equally to the model as well as the real thing. I'm guessing that those massive crankpins would not be difficult to undo in order to swap the rods over (assuming the handed pair have both been put on the wrong way). (CJL) Edited March 28, 2019 by dibber25 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 (edited) 51 minutes ago, JSpencer said: This should be easy to sort out. Undo the nuts and swap the rods around. I'll try it when I get mine. It would be surprised if it is not as you say - just a point to look out for. A QC issue that's fixable. 48 minutes ago, dibber25 said: I wish I could remember how I first stumbled upon this issue. If it was in connection with LI48 it would have been over 30 years ago, so that may be why I can't remember. It could also have been in connection with the old Dapol 'Terrier' as, around that time, I converted on into the KESR example that had the enlarged bunker and malachite green livery. So I'm now wondering if the Dapol example had the rod the 'wrong' way round. Anyway, I'm pretty certain that, among that collection of LPC glass plates there was at least one example of rods the 'wrong' way round. It reminds me of the old engineering adage that if it's possible to fit something the wrong way round, sooner or later someone will do it. I guess that applies equally to the model as well as the real thing. I'm guessing that those massive crankpins would not be difficult to undo in order to swap the rods over (assuming the handed pair have both been put on the wrong way. (CJL) And it is fascinating to find an example of the rods the other way around. Given I am, so far, aware of a sole example, I'm tempted to wonder whether this was a mistake made on the prototype! EDIT: Here we are, one for CJL: An 1877 loco, seen here after removal of condensing pipes (assumed 1894) and placing on the duplicate list in Apri l 1902, to free No. 46 for the new Billinton B4, Prince of Wales. She was sold in March the following year to the LSWR. A photograph of her in her new identity as SW No. 734 shows the rods fitted the right way round! Interesting to note also is how high the coal is piled (without either rails or window grills, the poor state of much of the paint work and the earlier condition Westinghouse pump, mounted lower than later and with distinct brass fittings. Judging from what we have seen to date, neither Hornby nor Dapol have tooled for this. Edited March 28, 2019 by Edwardian Picture 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PaulRhB Posted March 28, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 28, 2019 (edited) Interesting, Dapol certainly don’t have it all the same way round with the O gauge ones! As said above you’d have to check individual photos and brief the assembly line specifically too, edit: which I doubt will work reliably Edited March 28, 2019 by PaulRhB 2 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaron3820 Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 (edited) G'day all, The first of my two pre-ordered Terriers arrived the other day in sunny Australia after a very quick 5 day trip from the Hattons. I must say they do look to be a fantastic model given the price point, level of detail present, running qualities and paint finish. Not perfect as I'm sure some will agree but certainly they look the part and for me personally I'm very happy with the product Hornby has turned out for us. It certainly makes for an nteresting contrast to a typical Australian model of a NSW HO scale steam loco in which one with the same amount of detail can cost hundreds of $$$ more! Anywho, off to play trains so that I can afford these models! Edited March 28, 2019 by aaron3820 Correct spelling. 5 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 41 minutes ago, aaron3820 said: G'day all, ... It certainly makes for an nteresting contrast to a typical Australian model of a NSW HO scale steam loco in which one with the same amount of detail can cost hundreds of $$$ more! Anywho, off to play trains so that I can afford these models! Cheaper from the sound of things to model NSW railways in OO, given that a Class N-67 effectively is a Terrier! 2 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Captain Kernow Posted March 28, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 28, 2019 8 hours ago, Edwardian said: Any how, the 'prototype for everything' argument gets no one off the hook here This is why I am now modelling my second outrageously improbable light railway, where an ancient 'Terrier' tank loco has soldiered on for years, having been 'fixed' who knows how many times by the highly competent local fitter. 6 hours ago, Edwardian said: It would be surprised if it is not as you say - just a point to look out for. A QC issue that's fixable. So I assume that the wheel centres are identical to permit this? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 14 minutes ago, Captain Kernow said: This is why I am now modelling my second outrageously improbable light railway, where an ancient 'Terrier' tank loco has soldiered on for years, having been 'fixed' who knows how many times by the highly competent local fitter. So I assume that the wheel centres are identical to permit this? Look forward to seeing it! Yes, the wheelbase is equal. If you did have a model with the rods fitted the wrong way round, it seems to me that you could probably easily change them round, provided the errant assembler has given you a pair, left and right-handed! 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sem34090 Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 It has just become very apparent to me why my ill-fated attempt to do CAD for a scale body to fit the old Dapol chassis was so fruitless! 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craigw Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 4 hours ago, Edwardian said: Cheaper from the sound of things to model NSW railways in OO, given that a Class N-67 effectively is a Terrier! My first foray into P4 modelling was early NSWGR and the 67 class (the N is a post 1890 designation) did indeed seem like an idea way to get something started. There were really two groups of 4 locos which had differences in them. I purchased a Westward terrier kit and found that by the time I had built a new bunker, new cab, enlarged side tanks and new smokebox there was actually precious little left of the terrier kit! One of these with a short train of 4 wheel coaches and a 4 wheel hearse at the end of the train is still something that makes me weak at the knees, Regards Craig W 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-BOAF Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 5 hours ago, aaron3820 said: G'day all, The first of my two pre-ordered Terriers arrived the other day in sunny Australia after a very quick 5 day trip from the Hattons. I must say they do look to be a fantastic model given the price point, level of detail present, running qualities and paint finish. Not perfect as I'm sure some will agree but certainly they look the part and for me personally I'm very happy with the product Hornby has turned out for us. It certainly makes for an nteresting contrast to a typical Australian model of a NSW HO scale steam loco in which one with the same amount of detail can cost hundreds of $$$ more! Anywho, off to play trains so that I can afford these models! Wow the Dapol model looks crude. I had always had it down as a very good model when I got my (Stepney) in 1996, certainly compared to the crude models Hornby was producing. Now it just looks very dated compared to the Hornby model. How far we've come in a couple of decades. 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sem34090 Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 (edited) I've just had my one (2662) alongside one of my old-tooling IEG ones and goodness the difference is extremely marked - I think a lot of us had the old model down as "Not great but just about passable" but now it just looks terrible! Edited March 28, 2019 by sem34090 And it has the rods the right way round! 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium melmerby Posted March 28, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 28, 2019 I notice all the in stock Hornby ones on Hatton's website have the rods with the joint forwards. AFAIK these are in house photos and not Hornby promotional ones. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenway Park Posted March 29, 2019 Share Posted March 29, 2019 Avdoiding Rod Gate I purchased “Rolvenden” from my favourite retailer and will post to my best friend and fellow KESR enthusiast. Little Dan was superb helping find a surprise for Glenn who I have known for over 55 years. 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rising Standards Posted March 29, 2019 Share Posted March 29, 2019 I don't know whether it's one that left the factory right or your own modification, Aaron, but your photos of 32655 with the smokebox handrail at the right length reinforce my determination to shorten the overly long and non-symmetrical rail on mine, which otherwise seems to be a good example. Has anyone got any better ideas than a very small set of side cutters for doing this? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted March 29, 2019 Share Posted March 29, 2019 Let's not make too much of a 'thing' about a single example wrongly assembled. It's just a point to look out for, but will probably be fixable if you have a L&R pair. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium brushman47544 Posted March 29, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 29, 2019 On 22/03/2019 at 19:26, atom3624 said: Could it have been a rough sea crossing? I know Porsche are making some more 911 GT2 RS's as several 'were lost' at sea recently - been on the news somewhere - so there must have been some really heavy seas. Al. Not heavy seas, more likely misdeclared cargo. They were on board the Grande America which caught fire and sank in the Bay of Biscay earlier this month. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sem34090 Posted March 29, 2019 Share Posted March 29, 2019 Regarding the smokebox handrail, mine had a much shorter one than the sample picture showed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaron3820 Posted March 29, 2019 Share Posted March 29, 2019 (edited) G'day all, I forgot to mention it in my original post but I did cut down the over length handrail over the smokebox door. If you look at the photos shown on the Hattons website it'll show what length it originally was. I just used a decent pair of cutters then ran some thinned semi gloss paint over the handrail to cover the exposed metallic ends. Edited March 29, 2019 by aaron3820 Correct spelling and add extra information. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted March 29, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 29, 2019 2 hours ago, Edwardian said: Let's not make too much of a 'thing' about a single example wrongly assembled. It's just a point to look out for, but will probably be fixable if you have a L&R pair. As a matter of interest does anyone know which factory it is coming from? Is it a different factory code from other Hornby models?> 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sem34090 Posted March 29, 2019 Share Posted March 29, 2019 (edited) Some photos for you all! Edited March 29, 2019 by sem34090 17 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigherb Posted March 29, 2019 Share Posted March 29, 2019 1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said: As a matter of interest does anyone know which factory it is coming from? Is it a different factory code from other Hornby models?> No, TEC05 they have used often. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Ian J. Posted March 30, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 30, 2019 On 27/03/2019 at 23:43, dibber25 said: I seem to recall checking this out in the past when I was putting together Locomotives Illustrated No. 48. We had access to a lot of LPC glass plates - and there were a lot of Brighton 'Terriers' in pre-Grouping condition. I'm not in a position to check now, but if I recall correctly there were instances of the rods being on either way round. (CJL) I was just able to find my copy of said publication. It makes me glad I'm no longer in storage There's a picture of 60 'Ewell' in A1 condition with the right hand rod the wrong way round. I can't make out any others. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now