Jump to content
 

Hornby 2020 range "reveal date" = 6th Jan


phil gollin
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, phil gollin said:

.

 

You mentioned the Southern, but "forgot" to mention the Class 455's (505 coaches, plus 43 from the class 508's).  Long lasting and with many modifications and liveries.

 

.

 

I didn't forget them, honest. I just thought they had enough differences to need a different tooling to produce such as the roof profile and ends.

 

 

 

Jason

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 18/11/2019 at 14:00, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

 

I don't think we resent traction tyres and tender drive, we just don't require them. Plenty of good OO steam models now that have the well proven mechanism technique from HO development, and that run and pull as they should on all metal wheels with a loco drive.

With that statement, can I guess you dont own any recent (last 2-3 years) European HO steam ?

its in a league that nothing steam in OO competes with, in regards to Traction, Gearing, Weight, Slow Speed, Responsiveness, Glide, Ride quality, paint quality, running stability and power consumption.... i have a huge collection of OO/HO, and feel confident to make that claim by owning a layout to run it all on that would make many modellers cringe...

HO does out perform OO, its engineered to a higher standard... i’m not belittling OO, but you are paying a definite higher price for that standard in European HO, though Piko somehow manages at a lower price point.

My opinion, the best quality based on the criteria I listed above in OO is probably the Dapol Western (which looks set to have some challengers coming to market soon). Whilst in steam Heljans 04 is very underated by OO modellers, its engineering performance is very good.. the Peckett W4 also excels, . but quality is measured in consistency..and European HO maintains it across several manufacturers.

Show me something in OO that takes 21 minutes to traverse 35cm of dirty track

 

 

 

Edited by adb968008
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi ADB,

I agree but expect howls of derision for your post!!!

The typical 00er seems to expect H0 quality at 00 prices and is blissfully unaware of how well properly engineered model trains should run.

However, I understand the recent Hornby Ruston shunter does actually give most H0 a darn fine run for its money.

Cheers,

John.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, adb968008 said:

With that statement, can I guess you dont own any recent (last 2-3 years) European HO steam ?

its in a league that nothing steam in OO competes with, in regards to Traction, Gearing, Weight, Slow Speed, Responsiveness, Glide, Ride quality, paint quality, running stability and power consumption...

 

What with having family just over the North Sea and more widely distributed around HO world - with several model railway enthusiasts among us - I see what's available in HO very regularly. Indeed it is fantastic, (and so is the price!). Years of competitive development surely show in respect of the qualities you describe, available across a very broad range of choice.

 

Happily the technique developed for HO is still 'leaking' into OO: closest match among the 'indigenous' RTR OO steam models I have, Hornby's B12/3. Gives nothing away to the two HO-est OO steam productions I have on the layout, the Heljan O2 you mention, and the Stirling Single from Rapido for the NRM. Fortunately there are good DCC decoders to compensate for those models that are not quite so mechanically gifted...

 

I simply don't trust the OO producers with traction tyres and tender drive, based on past track record. And there is something in having all metal wheels and the traction coming from where it should. With the coaches all close coupled (yet another good borrowing from HO) so that the loco has to start a heavy train as a piece, neat 'half turn' wheelslip is naturally generated on starting, which looks very fine.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 18/11/2019 at 22:50, peterfgf said:

The obvious model missing is the Class 104 DMU.  300 or so carriages built, in service all over the place (but especially Buxton-Manchester), long-lived and in lots of liveries.  I would have thought it was a no-brainer.  Hornby should have a go at one because Bachmann will take 10 or more years to deliver a model and I'll be facing the consequences of too much Laphroaig by then.

Peterfgf

 

This is the biggest open goal in the multiple unit field at the moment, and can run as 2-, 3-, or 4-car sets, suitable for Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester, Newcastle and York areas.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
8 hours ago, adb968008 said:

Show me something in OO that takes 21 minutes to traverse 35cm of dirty track

 

 

 

 

I was on a train hauled by one of those c. 1993. I can vouch for the realism of the slow crawl...

 

We did also on that journey get up some speed - nearly kept up with a hare for several fields.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
4 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I was on a train hauled by one of those c. 1993. I can vouch for the realism of the slow crawl...

 

We did also on that journey get up some speed - nearly kept up with a hare for several fields.

Oh they can move too, I was in a fatal head on collision behind one of these, and was thrown from my seat in the ensuing emergency stop.

The driver, had given me a cab ride in it from the depot to the station at Bialystok too earlier that afternoon.

 

 

 

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

On 19/11/2019 at 14:42, raetiamann said:

It's to be hoped Hornsby isn't planning to include a 37/6 in their schedule.

My guess is that Hornby will produce 10 Limby class 37s next year.

I think even Hornby are surprised at how well the limby 66s have flown off the shelves.

Poor old Bachmann get stuck in the middle again!

  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, scottrains29 said:

My guess is that Hornby will produce 10 Limby class 37s next year.

I think even Hornby are surprised at how well the limby 66s have flown off the shelves.

Poor old Bachmann get stuck in the middle again!

 

Will they do anything with the mould to improve the ront windows or will Shawplan still be producing etches?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
3 hours ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

simply don't trust the OO producers with traction tyres and tender drive, based on past track record. And there is something in having all metal wheels and the traction coming from where it should. With the coaches all close coupled (yet another good borrowing from HO) so that the loco has to start a heavy train as a piece, neat 'half turn' wheelslip is naturally generated on starting, which looks very fine.

 

I have, in the past (which is of course a different country as much as those where H0 models are built are), owned several 00 models with tender drive, Airfix Castle and Dean Goods, and Hornby 'Silver Seal' Black 5.  I have several objections to tender drive, but two of them would be removed from the list if the loco has the motor in the tender and drives by shaft and flexible coupling to the loco's driving wheels (which of course mitigates somewhat against it being tender drive...).  This would overcome the visual problem of the tender moving before the loco when starting from rest, because the drive shaft is effectively a solid coupling with no play between loco and tender, and enable the drive to be provided by the correct wheels; traction could be improved if necessary with ballast above the driven wheels.  The downside is that the loco and tender need to be picked up as a single unit.

 

But I'm not convinced it's good engineering.  The flexible drive shaft is bound to induce friction and a point of wear, and the concept is reminiscent of Harrison's 'Hurricane', an attempt which did not end well.  And one of my objections remains; the motor housed in the tender has to be be covered with plastic coal and one cannot model the tender in an empty or half empty state.  The Dean Goods had an insanely high pile of plastic coal to hide it's motor.  It is one of my soap boxes that RTR tenders and bunkers should be modelled empty so we can put our own coal in.

 

Traction tyres are Satan's Expectorant, dreadful things used to compensate for the feebleness of pancake motors.  Thankfully modern motors, driving through worm and cog gearing, are powerful enough to pull decent size trains of modern free-running stock without the need for high rpms and plastic spur gears. 

 

The reason that 00 locos cannot match the slow running and smooth starting of some H0 is that the gearing is too high, and always has been.  It is not as bad as it was when Hornby Dublo and Rovex/Triang used 20:1 and top scale speeds of Shinkansen figures, but I would contend that final drive reduction needs to be of the order of 40:1 for express passenger locos, 50:1 for mixed traffic, and 60:1 for mineral or shunting work.  Current RTR can be made to run very well but needs a very restrained hand on the knob (I would always recommend restraint with your hand on the knob...).  

 

I use DC control and accept that matters might be different with DCC, but really perfectly smooth starting and stopping is not quite achievable yet, and should be.  It is a big ask, as of course it needs to be most effective at very low voltages, so big flywheels and DC stayalives will not be much good.  Wiper pickups are effectively brakes rubbing on the wheels, and a compromise.

 

My views are on how matters can be improved are unfashionable.  The Chris Pemberton   1970s method of split chassis pickup combined with very slow running motors enabled him to produce some superb running locos, but did not translate into reliable mechanisms in RTR practice.  Palitoy Mainline employed split chassis which gained a poisonous reputation due to poor choices of material for the stub axles and, with pancakes, plastic spurs, and traction tyres were never going to be as good as they should have been.  Airfix tried with ball bearing pickup on the 14xx, a brave effort but the plunger housings brought them down.

 

I think that a modern UK outline steam loco with a split chassis current collection and worm/cog drive from a cheap can motor with the correct materials and axle/wheel interface and the gear ratios I have suggested can be produced at no more cost than current models, and the only friction preventing perfect smooth starts would be very small amounts in the final drive and the motor brushes.  I believe that wiper pickups introduce an un-necessary drag to the driving wheels; it's minimal but enough to affect perfect starting.  

 

Airfix 14xx type ball bearing pickups would overcome this, but introduce their own problems, as they need lubricating for the plungers to work which in itself attracts plunger jamming crud and gets on to the bearing surface, which leads to another issue I have with wiper pickups; they need to be kept clean and can only crudely be adjusted so that they bear on the wheel backs throughout the range of whatever sideplay that axle has.  Maybe screw adjustable to get the perfect compromise of securest contact with least friction... but no compromise can be perfect, and we are trying to get as close to perfection as we can here; I want to be unable to pinpoint the exact microsecond that the loco starts to move, or at least find it difficult.

 

And too many RTR models still do not take the opportunity of picking up on every possible wheelset, both sides, because the middle set is left out or because of Satan's Snot, the traction tyre.  Too many do not make the best possible use of ballast over the driven wheels.  Too many have sprung axles to improve pickup which are poorly designed and sprung too strongly or weakly.  And far too many have final reduction drive ratios that make them too fast and difficult to control.

 

But there is a lot of market resistance to split chassis construction, and issues with Hatton's 14xx have not improved matters.  I understand fully why manufacturers are reluctant to go down the road that I would prefer, and it's not as if wiper pickup on current RTR locos is particularly bad.  I just think it could and should be improved.  I believe the 'next big thing' will be rechargeable power supply aboard the loco with NFC control, dispensing with pickups and layout wiring altogether, but not in my lifetime, and DCC is beyond my pocket and I've got to live with the current situation.  

 

There have been no developments in DC control tech for 40 years, and it's not impossible that there may yet be some improvement available here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
7 hours ago, scottrains29 said:

My guess is that Hornby will produce 10 Limby class 37s next year.

I think even Hornby are surprised at how well the limby 66s have flown off the shelves.

Poor old Bachmann get stuck in the middle again!

There’s logic in it, but dont forget Hornby were making a statement by closely shadowing the newer liveries of 66 most of which hadn’t previously been done.

 

The 37 isn’t quite the same As the 66, most liveries have been done, most modern celebrities have been done. 

There could be mileage in sets though..

a DRS set with mk2fs which is an easy choice, in which case something like 37419, 37423..  

Doing a 37418 in a bundle of mk2fs as a Valleys set could have mileage,

In which case they could do a ROG 37/8 and a DRS 37/4 too as add ons to those sets. 

 

But once it comes to changing body toolings (37/0 or 37/3 etc) or duplicating liveries that have been excessively done in the past it’s not so attractive... for example recent celebs like 401,418,421,423,424 have been all done, done done.

That said has anyone done a 97/3 Cambrian 37 ?

 

So I think it would be brave to do 10 x 37’s but they could certainly churn out a few.

Edited by adb968008
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

So whilst Rocket is a bit of an obvious choice, Celebrating a Hornby’s history is a bit like celebrating the history of railways from old to new...

 

I’d not put it past Hornby to turn out a Loco from 1920, as well as a new loco from 2020...  in which case a Rocket, a pregrouping Loco from c1920, plus a class 88/93 would be my guess.


Whilst the 88/93 might seem a wild one.. to those of us who remember Hornby’s class 58.. it too was a wild one, and I was playing with my model before BR was playing with theirs iirc... It used to be Hornby’s form to be first to market on new classes (58/90/91/92) this is chance to put them back, and a tri-mode electric has considerable future potential than just ROGs 10, and DRS’s bi-mode

 

Edited by adb968008
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Just over 6 weeks until the announcement, when there will be cries of “nothing for me again this year” or of course “why are they going to produce ‘X’ when they should have done You etc.”

 

 

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

16 hours ago, The Johnster said:

...I think that a modern UK outline steam loco with a split chassis current collection and worm/cog drive from a cheap can motor with the correct materials and axle/wheel interface and the gear ratios I have suggested can be produced at no more cost than current models...

There's a little more cost in the driven wheelset construction and the chassis assembly, to have split chassis pick up on a steam model while maintaining the integrity of the present steel axle wheelset with wiper pick up arrangement. (You will have to trust my production engineering background for that statement.) It's the poor mechanical integrity of the past split axle designs  used for cranked wheelsets that was a contributor to their downfall. Better is perfectly possible in commercial construction, but there is a cost.

 

16 hours ago, The Johnster said:

... I believe that wiper pickups introduce an un-necessary drag to the driving wheels; it's minimal but enough to affect perfect starting...

Away with belief, this is fully testable. Take your best running loco, remove the wiper pick ups, and temporarily wire flying leads to the motor. Does the starting improve? (It won't, the low efficiency of the worm drive swamps the small drag from wipers.)

 

I can make the direct comparison, albeit on RTR designs for D+E models from Bachmann. The same generic design of drive line is used in both their locos with wiper pick up, and the MU's which employ very efficient split axle technique for pick up (which is much cheaper to implement with sufficient robustness in the absence of cranks with coupling rods). They are equivalently smooth in starting. The effect of the low efficiency of the worm is readily visible in the split axle pick up Hornby mechanism used for their Brush 2 (class 30/31). Given just enough power to start the motor turning the body can be made to tilt without the model moving along the track. (Neither Bachmann or Hornby draw attention to the very efficient split axle pick up in those of their models with this welcome feature, so poor is the reputation it has earned from past poor implementations.)

 

A step forward in mechanism smoothness shortly looked for in OO is the helical gearing that Accurascale have announced for their class 55, 92 and 37 models).

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, adb968008 said:


Whilst the 88/93 might seem a wild one.. 

 

 

Wild indeed sir! The class 93 is nothing more than an aspiration of ROG (I could have been more accurate and say a pipe dream, but I thought to be polite). 

 

Have patience, and eventually Dapol shall get around to topping their class 68 (come on Hornby would have never made the 68 to the level of detail Dapol have gone - even the one or three bolt handle bars are accurately modelled!).

 

The class 93, though based on the Euro Light UK body shell and running gear, shall have different spacings to body side grills (increased engine size) and different chassis bits (larger fuel tank). 

 

But really, is ROG a popular and sort after livery? Their locos are charged with hauling around MUs which are not generally modelled in OO...

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Looking forward to it .  They surprised me last year with the range of introductions and the aggressive approach (66 and Terriers) while recognising people do have price points (66s,2fs and mk3s, although looks like these are delayed).  Hopefully we will get more of the same . And as someone who was brought up on Tri-ang Hornby  hopefully a bit of a nostalgia fest!  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
35 minutes ago, 159220 said:

 

Wild indeed sir! The class 93 is nothing more than an aspiration of ROG (I could have been more accurate and say a pipe dream, but I thought to be polite). 

 

Have patience, and eventually Dapol shall get around to topping their class 68 (come on Hornby would have never made the 68 to the level of detail Dapol have gone - even the one or three bolt handle bars are accurately modelled!).

 

The class 93, though based on the Euro Light UK body shell and running gear, shall have different spacings to body side grills (increased engine size) and different chassis bits (larger fuel tank). 

 

But really, is ROG a popular and sort after livery? Their locos are charged with hauling around MUs which are not generally modelled in OO...


my Hypothesis is based on a company seen to be forward looking...

with a model from the 1820’s, Rocket is a certain winner, 1920’s reflects Hornby’s origins, and 2020’s represents looking to the future in its hundredth years..

 

I may just be wishful thinking...

 

back in 2018, I was expecting a bit of hype of 50 years since the 1968 end of steam event, with some previously unreleased August 1968 locos instead we got those 60 years end of the big 4.  We could always get a celebration of Hornby best sellers, in which case it might be an oversized 0-4-0 shunter, HST and another Scotsman.

 

That said no ones announced an LNWR project yet, and theres at least two sets of rumours circulating in that zone, why LNWR... because Hornbys first trainset was an LNWR loco..., Binns road being in the LNWR heartland.

https://www.brightontoymuseum.co.uk/index/The_Hornby_Clockwork_Train_(Hornby,_1920).. if I could be so bold, an LNWR Precedent would be nice, 790 is preserved, and Ive seen it running on the mainline.. so it wouldnt look out of place on mk1’s besides a class 40 either !..

 

we have to wait and see.

 

http://advertisingcliche.blogspot.com/2015/03/Hornby-clockwork-train-december-1920-uk.html

 

 

Edited by adb968008
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
5 minutes ago, JSpencer said:

except the rocket appeared in 1829.

can you suggest an alternative, more famous steam locomotive from the 1820’s ?

 

or even the year 1820 exactly that would outsell Rocket ?

 

Edited by adb968008
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
33 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Locomotion

Why ?

 

Theres at least 3 replicas of Rocket in the US, 3 in the UK. Umpteen stamps, wooden models , live gauge models etc of Rocket... Theres a lot of global potential in Rocket... the working UK Replica Rocket has been overseas too.

 

As for Locomotion, apart from it still existing, I dont think its more widely appreciated than Lancashire Witch of 1828... or Novelty, Sans Peril or Cycloped for that matter, at least with Lancashire Witch they could do 3 models of the same name... The BLR original, a Scot and a class 86.. which would cover the years nicely....

 

no.. I remain convinced Rocket is a more famous one, Lion could be quite marketable too, its much newer, but reckon it would sell well.

Edited by adb968008
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

@adb968008, I'll agree that Rocket is more famous but I think Locomotion is better known to the general public than the others you mention, given its role in the opening day of the Stockton & Darlington. It has a museum named after it, which none of the others do, even Rocket!

 

(What are the odds on us now getting posts drawing our attention to non-railway Rocket, Lancashire Witch, Novelty... museums?)

Edited by Compound2632
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...