Hornby - New Tooling - Terrier

[Ian Hargrave]

On 02/04/2019 at 19:13, Captain Kernow said:

I gave mine blue one a run on the new layout last night and it's lovely and smooth running, straight out of the box. It really is a little gem of a thing.

 

One thing, though, which I will be looking into further, but I think the Hornby flanges are catching on the inside of the chairs on my C&L track, something that some Bachmann RTR locos have done in the past.

 

 

This doesn’t surprise.The flange sizes are ....at least to my eyes.... oversize and unappealing.Just my taste,that’s all.

[Big James]

My 32636 arrived this morning, she looks gorgeous but I can’t wait to run her in tomorrow before work. 

 

Big James

[Edwardian]

Well, I've got one on approval. 

 

 

 

It is a very attractive model.  

 

First, the things that impressed me:

 

- The finish. One of Hornby's strengths is its painting and printing.  Many an old stager has been made to look better than it is!

 

- The brake rigging. This appears to be metal. It's very fine, yet feels quite robust. 

 

- I like the roof profile.  Though barely discernible, I think I can see the reverse curve near the base of the roof dome. 

 

- The boiler handrails are nice and fine and terminate in the correct smoke-box fittings.

 

- The wheels are nicely done with the shapes and profiles of the balance weights and spokes looking good. The spokes should turn up to meet the weights, and they do.

 

- The coupling rods (correctly assembled in this case!) have  an nice oiled steel finish and the characteristic bowed shape, though I feel that it has been exaggerated here. 

 

- Good to see the bolts attaching the chimney represented.

 

On the other hand ... from front to rear:

 

The buffers have a nice thick metal shank, but there are 3 defects with the buffer guides and its mounting:

 

- There should not be a thick base proud of the face of the buffer beam, as much of this thickness is in fact the the raised portion of the beam

- There should not be bolts to the face

- There should be a rim or lip at the end, here absent

 

 

The buffer beam has a thickening plate around the coupling hook.  This is a late condition/A1X anachronism.  It should not be present.

 

 

The front guard irons are crudely thick and over-scale, and the wrong shape. I guess they're straight out of Hornby's parts bin, where they should have stayed.

 

The wing plate is clearly an injection moulded component and is rather thick and very much over-scale.  The lamp irons are too short/mounted too low. 

 

It will also be noted that the smoke-box door hinge straps are entirely wrong.  Wrong for Rolvenden and wrong for the A1s generally.

 

The top lamp iron is missing from the smoke-box.

 

 

Under the footplate, the large hex nuts still grieve me.

 

 

Returning to above the valance, Hornby's splasher-sandbox unit has always looked wrong to me.  I have guessed that the splasher might be over-scale, distorting the shape.

 

 

 

Measuring the model and the Binnie drawing suggests that this is so; the sandbox is the correct height, but the splasher is over-size.  It looks to me that the diameter might be about 1mm out. This is enough to upset the relationship with the sand-box and the lining scheme.  

 

This may be necessary to disguise the wheel flanges, which do not sit under the splasher, but can be seen behind it when viewed from above. 

 

The boiler barrel is split for structural reasons.  Many, I know, don't mind this, but I find it an obvious visual tick. It is also visible from a slightly elevated angle, which I had not expected. It is also clear that there is no representation of the motion.  The motion is there and clearly visible on the Rails model, judging from Jenny Kirk's video.

 

 

The failure of Hornby to recess the tank top has been commented upon extensively, and I won't repeat that.  Handling this model shows how Hornby have dealt with the fact that there is no raised curved lip and navigated around the fact that the tank fillers will overlap the boiler cladding, rather than be accommodated by the prototypical crescent-shaped cut-out.

 

To try to make this clear, Hornby have represented the base of the tank fillers over the curve of the tank-side, rather than below and behind it.  Hornby's treatment of this area is sheer fantasy. 

 

 

For the balance levers on the Salter valves, Hornby gives us little gold sticks.  These are too spindly and make no effort to capture the shape of the prototype fittings.

 

 

Aft of the dome we find some moulded wash-out plugs.  I suspect that these represent a further late-condition anachronism.  They should not be present on an early-condition A1 like this. 

 

 

 

The picture above shows all the spare holes and rivets mentioned just below, and also the anachronistic wash-out plugs and the lack to the rivetted strip between the boiler/tanks and the cab sheet. Compare with Boxhill in the picture above it.

 

The cab has a really nice shape to the roof dome, though the rivet detail is a little heavy.

 

It looks to me as if Hornby have skimped on the tooling suite and produced just the one cab.

 

One consequence is that we have to put up with a front sheet full of holes for all the pipes that the other versions need,and rivets down the outer edges that such an A1 would have lacked. 

 

Another consequence is that the cab back is a very modern one - it is a flush rear sheet, which I have only seen on BR versions late in the day. It should have a vertical rivetted strop between the spectacles, and it should not have window grills, notwithstanding the fact that Rolvenden had coal rails fitted. 

 

 

Regarding the coal rails, while it is commendable that Hornby have sought to include open coal rails to suit this prototype,their construction has not been understood. The vertical supports should be behind the horizontal rails, not in front, as Hornby has them. 

 

The buffers are wrong on the rear, of course, too, as is the coupling hook plate. 

 

I understand that there were at least 3 types of tool box fitted to the rear of the bunker.  All Hornby's seem to have a single short type.  As I don't think the shorter type was introduced until after the buffers were raised on motor train fitted examples (1905-12) Rolvenden must logically have a long box in this early condition, as fitted when withdrawn. The length was such that it overlapped the buffer base about half way across. 

 

The cab interior features lots of bling, which seems to please some people, but here are many anachronistic fittings and the whole is anyway marred for me by the clumsy glazing strips.

 

Finally, a word on quality control. 

 

The pictures of the model have been taken straight out of the box, and it will be seen that the model is quite dusty. I also noted the following:

 

- white paint chip to running plate on the RH side by the bunker.

 

- paint bleed from the copper chimney top (RH side)

 

These I could correct.  More serious is the fact that the chimney is wonky.

 

 

Conclusion?

 

Too many mistakes and compromises affecting accuracy.  Add to that the relative lack of refinement compared with the Rails sample (and I again refer to the Jenny Kirk video on this point) and the iffy QC and, I'm afraid, it has failed to convince. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 6, 2019 by Edwardian
spelling!

[chuffinghell]

 The chimney is very obvious out of square even with my poor eyesight 

[Hilux5972]

Is the funnel a separate fitting? 

[melmerby]

I wonder how other current models would fair under such intense scrutiny?

How about the veteran Bachmann 57XX which is £35 more (MRP)?

 

IMHO for the money Hornby haven't done a bad job, this needs bearing in mind when comparing with other models, production versions of which as yet not available.

Again IMHO on a limited budget and small increase in price they have successfully re-vamped an oldie.

Yes, they could have spent more and done more research and ended up head to head with the other one price wise, but I don't think that was on Hornby's agenda.

They wanted to have an updated model which really isn't much more price wise than a Railroad loco but better overall than the Railroad range.

They could then recoup some cash from those that want something that looks good and runs well even if not as accurate as could be possible.

 

QC is a separate problem, which if some of the poor assembly shown is typical, needs addressing.

 

 

[Edwardian]

1 minute ago, melmerby said:

I wonder how other current models would fair under such intense scrutiny?

How about the veteran Bachmann 57XX which is £35 more (MRP)?

 

IMHO for the money Hornby haven't done a bad job, this needs bearing in mind when comparing with other models, production versions of which as yet not available.

Again IMHO on a limited budget and small increase in price they have successfully re-vamped an oldie.

Yes, they could have spent more and done more research and ended up head to head with the other one price wise, but I don't think that was on Hornby's agenda.

They wanted to have an updated model which really isn't much more price wise than a Railroad loco but better overall than the Railroad range.

They could then recoup some cash from those that want something that looks good and runs well even if not as accurate as could be possible.

 

QC is a separate problem, which if some of the poor assembly shown is typical, needs addressing.

 

 

 

The price point is probably the saving grace of this model.  I would be the first to say that it's a good mid-range product at a reasonable price. Indeed, I have said that. Several times. 

 

However, I don't find the comparison with the Bachmann 5700 particularly persuasive; you may find the Pannier comparatively over-priced, but the Bachmann verteran is not a brand new 2019 main-catalogue release going head to head with another such, so would not be judged to the same standard as a new model. 

 

This was the first chance I have had to see one of the Hornby Terriers in the flesh and to see how it stacked up against the prototype it represents. The Jenny Kirk video was very helpful - I spotted a lot on both models not apparent to me before - but there is no substitute for seeing the real thing. As I say, there are good points.  I take joy in the curve of the cab roof and the wheels, for instance. 

 

I liked it. It's hard not to. Even by my picky standards it's not so bad that I would not buy it if it were the only Terrier option.  First impressions are good.  Nothing shouts "wrong!" very loudly, but I know that If I were to buy this I'd run it, cherish it and stare lovingly at it as it pootled back and forth, all the points spotted over the course of the first few minutes of its contemplation this morning would bug me. Some could be fixed. Several could not. 

 

I wish I could like it more. I wish I felt that it would, in due course, be able to hold its own in the company of the Rails/Dapol Bodiam, giving me the Kentish pair.  I conclude, with genuine regret, that, in my eyes at least, it won't. 

 

But that's me. I don't want an A1 Terrier with A1X features and a degree of designer illiteracy in representing certain prototype features.  These things would bother me, and did as I contemplated ownership of this model.  But, if you are not bothered by these points, it is certainly an attractive and good value little model.

 

27 minutes ago, Hilux5972 said:

Is the funnel a separate fitting? 

 

Well I can't tug it off!

 

I suspect not, but it seems firmly glued on.

 

The information sheet has no exploded diagram showing the body components, and, if I were to pull this one apart, I'd have to buy it, which I am sad to say I've not been persuaded to do so. 

 

Besides,  He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom!

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, melmerby said:

I wonder how other current models would fair under such intense scrutiny?

How about the veteran Bachmann 57XX which is £35 more (MRP)?

 

IMHO for the money Hornby haven't done a bad job, this needs bearing in mind when comparing with other models, production versions of which as yet not available.

Again IMHO on a limited budget and small increase in price they have successfully re-vamped an oldie.

Yes, they could have spent more and done more research and ended up head to head with the other one price wise, but I don't think that was on Hornby's agenda.

They wanted to have an updated model which really isn't much more price wise than a Railroad loco but better overall than the Railroad range.

They could then recoup some cash from those that want something that looks good and runs well even if not as accurate as could be possible.

 

QC is a separate problem, which if some of the poor assembly shown is typical, needs addressing.

 

 

I do not doubt that as forensically as deep an examination of the appearance of many r-t-r models as that posted above by 'Edwardian' could well reveal similar flaws and shortcomings but that is not exactly the point.  And comparison with a body moulding and designer's efforts of well over a decade or more past is definitely not the point either.  Nor I suspect is a pricing comparison in a day and age when any pricing above break-even on production cost/distribution cost can owe as much or more to short term marketing intentions (or hopes?) than it can to the aspirations of a company's accountants.

 

Interestingly I wrote this earlier today on the thread concerning the new Hornby GW large prairie and I think it is apposite to quote it here - 

 

 

Putting it another way it is about seeing where a product sits within the market and the sort of area where the manufacturer is aiming their product and what they see it as.  In the Terrier we have a  Hornby model 'developed' to production in a far shorter time than has been the case with recent Hornby 'hi-fi' models (something LCD mentioned previously - shortening the development and production cycle).  And in this case it seems equally obvious - whatever might be said - that hasty development was the aim in order to beat the Rails/Dapol model to the marketplace.  Whether anyone considers that the result is less hi-fi than recent Hornby models is partly subjective but also very objective if the result is addressed in the way in which Edwardian has reviewed the visual aspects and accuracy of a particular version of the Terrier.

 

To me the Hornby Terrier comes over as showing a lack of research in depth and almost a 'don't care - they'll still buy it'  view of the customer which is not, I think, where Hornby have been in recent years even if the Terrier's pricing suits that sort of marketing.  What we can already see of the large prairie and what we can definitely see in the new GW non-gangwayed coaches and the 'Lord Nelson' to quote but a few examples (or even the Peckett to quote a probably more directly comparable example) is not what we are seeing with the Terrier.  And if this is an example of 'future Hornby' it could be rather worrying although I  tend thus far to dismiss it as no more than an under-researched rush job bashed out quickly in order to steal a march on the forthcoming Rails/Dapol model.  Maybe not wholly 'Oxfordesque' but as far as I'm concerned some worrying hints are there.  And to be honest I seriously wonder if it really will compete with what Rails are going to be offering - will it actually take away any sales from Rails or Locomotion?  I doubt it.

 

Edited April 6, 2019 by The Stationmaster

[RodneyS]

The chimney looks to be separate moulding with a thick base let into a recess in the smokebox.

 

I couldn't resist a 'Rolvenden' and the chimney on mine leant backwards.

I decided I couldn't live with that so,  in an effort to 'kill or cure' , I bent it forwards with a thumb and finger.

There was an alarming 'crack' and the chimney is now vertical.  Rather surprisingly it is still attached to the loco.

 

I expect the chimney is glued on and the amount of glue used may vary from model to model.

I therefore accept no responsibility for Terriers with rather stubby stovepipe chimneys !

 

I now realise I nearly left Edwardian's path of wisdom.

 

With regard to QC , my local shop sent back a lot of their BR black models.  This was mainly for loose or broken parts, the worst case being 3 buffers loose  and 1 footstep broken on one loco.  When I told them my 32636 ran very badly they sent that one back and gave me a much better example. 

In the end they checked all their stock and found that all the blue locos were fine.  Probably a different production line.

Rodney

 

 

 

[jjb1970]

What the Station Master said. I do worry that the Terrier is a portent of the future Oford Rail-isation of Hornby, knocking out "probably good enough" models at low prices which are not quite right.

 

I'm the first to advocate that there is definitely a space for lower cost models, losing some of the finery of full fat models, but a basic no frills model done well can still be accurate and it is more about clever design. Hornby has a world class design team that can work to the highest standards. I'm not sure following the Oxford Rail path is the right way to go as it leaves them neither in an odd no-mans land between hi-end and Railroad.

 

When I look at the Terrier it has all the hallmarks of Oxford Rail to the point that I honestly wonder if there isn't a story about it's development behind the one we've been told.

[melmerby]

58 minutes ago, jjb1970 said:

What the Station Master said. I do worry that the Terrier is a portent of the future Oford Rail-isation of Hornby, knocking out "probably good enough" models at low prices which are not quite right.

 

 

I'm worried that when Hornby do make a good'un (LN) and it sits at the right price point, it doesn't seem to sell too well.

That is the impression I have got since "Sir Francis Drake" is already on 30% off MRP and has hardly been on sale very long.

Same with the LMS Bathtubs, lovely looking locos but soon on discount.

Unless Hornby have found a way to increase their margin on initial offerings it can't be good for their bottom line.

If people don't buy the top notch models they are asking for Hornby certainly will IMHO go Oxford and start cost cutting again (Design Clever anyone?) and produce more mid point "terriers".

[Ian J.]

It's enough to make one wonder if Hornby passed their Terrier development to the Oxford team and left it to them, rather than keep it 'at home'. Which, if so, then sits rather heavily on Mr. Kohler's statements in the BBC programme about it being 'their' model, only for them to have 'outsourced' it.

 

I too think it's not a bad model and will do for those who are less concerned with detail accuracy but wanted something better than the original Dapol tooling. I think I said something to that effect fairly early on after its announcement.

[Pteremy]

Surely wonky chimneys are a QA issue at the factory end of the process? Quite distinct from design errors. Oxford is a red herring.  I don't need or want a Terrier. I could almost buy one because of South (West)  London connections,  not because it would fit my modelling preferences. Just a bit of fun. But i do not think that i will.

[Edwardian]

2 minutes ago, Pteremy said:

Surely wonky chimneys are a QA issue at the factory end of the process? Quite distinct from design errors. Oxford is a red herring.  I don't need or want a Terrier. I could almost buy one because of South (West)  London connections,  not because it would fit my modelling preferences. Just a bit of fun. But i do not think that i will.

 

Yes, if I'd liked the model well enough to buy it, I'd be seeking a replacement, rather than declining to buy one.  But, it is worth mentioning QC because the majority of examples I have seen so far have exhibited QC issues.  It seems sufficiently widespread among Hornby Terriers to be a factor to note. I would certainly be nervous about ordering one blind. 

 

I tend to Mike the Stationmaster's view, which I hope I summarise adequately, that the Terrier, though a bit Oxfordy and not up to Hornby's current high standards, probably suffers from the perceived need to rush to market in the face of the Rails announcement and, therefore, does not provide a reliable indication that Hornby is abandoning its high standards in favour of cheap and cheerful future products. 

 

I am mightily impressed with the Lord Nelson, the LMS streamlined Pacifics and the Collett non-corridors.  Unfortunately, none of these fit with my modelling needs, so I will admire them from afar.  It is a shame the Terrier has not reached these high standards.  I trust to the Peckett for comfort that the highest standards are not reserved for top-link locomotives alone.  That funny little diesel looks like another high quality small loco.  Alas, again not of any use to me, but I suspect to be celebrated when it comes. They are all worth getting right and producing to the standards of which we know Hornby is capable. 

[Edwardian]

18 minutes ago, Ian J. said:

It's enough to make one wonder if Hornby passed their Terrier development to the Oxford team and left it to them, rather than keep it 'at home'. Which, if so, then sits rather heavily on Mr. Kohler's statements in the BBC programme about it being 'their' model, only for them to have 'outsourced' it.

 

I too think it's not a bad model and will do for those who are less concerned with detail accuracy but wanted something better than the original Dapol tooling. I think I said something to that effect fairly early on after its announcement.

 

So, a Oxford update of an old Dapol model produced so that Hornby can sell it to rival a new Dapol model?

 

I'm confused!

 

But, Simon, keep telling yourself it's always been, and always will be, a Hornby model! 

[Hilux5972]

43 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

So, a Oxford update of an old Dapol model produced so that Hornby can sell it to rival a new Dapol model?

 

I'm confused!

 

But, Simon, keep telling yourself it's always been, and always will be, a Hornby model! 

Come on guys there is no proof whatsoever to say this has been designed by Oxford. 

[Edwardian]

3 minutes ago, Hilux5972 said:

Come on guys there is no proof whatsoever to say this has been designed by Oxford. 

 

I agree; I was only joking; sorry if that was not apparent.

 

I don't, as it happens, think the Terrier is to old Oxford standards. For all its faults it's still better than that.

 

I think this has been properly researched, but one too many tooling compromises and a couple of design bloopers, probably due to costs and speed pressures, have sold short what could otherwise have been a much better model.

 

What is right is very right.  The dimensions, the roof shape etc attest to proper research. It's an inconsistent effort, though.  How can the same model have, for instance, those carefully rendered wheels and that lovely brake rigging but also those awful hex nuts and guard irons?

 

It's like they stopped trying half way through and just fudged the rest.  A real shame.   

 

Overall, IMHO, the result is distinctly mid-range, but there are flashes of brilliance in the Hornby Terrier, nonetheless. 

[melmerby]

6 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

It's like they stopped trying half way through and just fudged the rest.  A real shame.   

 

They did say in the James May programme that it was made to a fixed budget and presumably the allocated money had all been spent before it was finalised, leaving some details below par.

I assume the top link models also have a certain budget but probably a bit more flexible when something found wanting needs to be addressed.

[Edwardian]

1 minute ago, melmerby said:

They did say in the James May programme that it was made to a fixed budget and presumably the allocated money had all been spent before it was finalised, leaving some details below par.

I assume the top link models also have a certain budget but probably a bit more flexible when something found wanting needs to be addressed.

 

That may well be. I also accept that a manufacturer might not be as sensitive to critical acclaim/opprobrium as some of us might like.  I am even prepared to accept, though I find this hard to believe, that the counsels of the Great are not troubled by half a dozen blokes on RMWeb.

 

But, I think of the Hornby Terrier like this; until yesterday Hornby had been happily flogging a 1989-tooled Terrier. Now they have a new one. Assuming that Hornby stays the course, it'll want still to be selling that new Terrier in 30 years time. As Mr K said, its the product that keeps on giving. 

 

Given how many they'd expect to sell over the next 30 years, and given the need for it to stay the course in the face of a rival product, I'd have made a bit more of a bloody effort to get it right.

 

But, hey, that's just me. 

 

 

[GreenGiraffe22]

Watching 2662 double headed with 2517 is extremely therapeutic for me tonight

 

 

 

[phil-b259]

2 hours ago, melmerby said:

I'm worried that when Hornby do make a good'un (LN) and it sits at the right price point, it doesn't seem to sell too well.

That is the impression I have got since "Sir Francis Drake" is already on 30% off MRP and has hardly been on sale very long.

Same with the LMS Bathtubs, lovely looking locos but soon on discount.

Unless Hornby have found a way to increase their margin on initial offerings it can't be good for their bottom line.

If people don't buy the top notch models they are asking for Hornby certainly will IMHO go Oxford and start cost cutting again (Design Clever anyone?) and produce more mid point "terriers".

 

One of the problems with locos like the LN or the LMS Bathtubs is they are very much 'top link' locos and thus really need large mainline based layouts to do them justice.

 

On the other hand something like the terrier can be used on anything from a Light Railway right through to being a pilot / shunting engine on said big / mainline layout and thus will appeal to a large number of market segments because of its versatility.

 

Thus the likes of the LN are more in the category of 'slow but steady sellers' (assuming reasonable prices) - unfortunately given Hornby's financial situation its the one thing they don't need right now.

 

 

[friscopete]

No one has to buy it .Its a toy /model /useless facsimile /never be good as its the wrong  back to back, and /or flange  profile  .Like Tiger tanks ,we all have an opinion whilst none have ever operated one in war .The Terrier is there and has made  many people happy ,a few miserable ,even fewer very miserable ,one or two absurdly miserable and most  probably indifferent.The Rails will be better/worse ,more expensive/ and you wont buy one at your local shop /outlet/ heritage railway shoppe .EMgauge and P somethings  are missed out and so is S gauge .Through all this mine   trundles its way through insulfrog points  pulling old Farish coaches .My plastic residents of downtown industrial  LA gasp at its cute beauty while a few others sneer as only plastic Americans can sneer at the fact its buffers ....BUFFERS !!!!!  ...yes buffers ...are not quite as they should be .

[Edwardian]

I'll have what he's having ...

[truffy]

7 hours ago, Edwardian said:

The lamp irons are too short/mounted too low. 

 

 

For the balance levers on the Salter valves, Hornby gives us little gold sticks.  These are too spindly and make no effort to capture the shape of the prototype fittings.

 

 

 

 

 

Additional observations:

 

Lamp irons not only too short and too low, but offset to the centre.

Decidedly shonky lining around the portholes.

 

On the plus side, the balance levers may be too fine, but they err on the better side that the previous incarnation!

Edited April 6, 2019 by truffy
Edit: I have no idea what happened to the images. They show in preview.

[truffy]

5 hours ago, melmerby said:

Again IMHO on a limited budget and small increase in price they have successfully re-vamped an oldie.

 

They have not "revamped an oldie" (which, IMO, did not deserve revamping!)

This was completely new tooling. It just seems rushed to market as a spoiler on the Rails/Dapol/NRM version, which is both sad and pathetic for a company supposedly aiming for the more discerning modeller/collector/whatever.