Jump to content
 

60015 Hornby have done it again


owentherail
 Share

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, dj_crisp said:

I don't understand why anyone should accept something as flawed as this.... it's not a debatable mistake (i.e. shade of colour) as it's incorrectly positioned and I think it's poor that it got this far to market. Hornby should not have accepted this batch. End of

 

Totally agree with comments from YesTor. As a diesel sectorisation modeller it's the equivalent of putting a nameplate on a chimney to me so has to be moved. Not something thats easy to do or should have to do on an model like this. 

 

I don't recall any outrage nor even much comment when Rails commissioned a limited run of Duchess of Hamilton 4-6-2s in lined black  LMS with 1949  BR number 46229, and the LMS on the side of the tender was far too low,  certainly not good, and very hard to fix. Disappointing indeed. The model is now rare, expensive and collectable.

 

It's not excusable but it is understandable at these prices for manufacture... much of the price being tax and overheads like R&D  tooling, transport, handling, marketing and hopefully some profit for those who have taken the risk to develop and market a model.

 

That said, I don't think the misplaced panel is in any way comparable to a nameplate on a chimney (that would be easier to fix).  Modern ? logos and paint schemes change with weather, I would never have noticed. it, being a steam age 'nut'. In BR days the real things had numbers of different types and position, and I do observe a degree of fastidiousness about what is/was 'correct' or not. I find it all rather amusing to be honest, being a bit out-of-step with so-called serious modellers.

 

I suspect SK will find a way to provide correctly painted 60s with the bodies replaced upon request. 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, robmcg said:

In BR days the real things had numbers of different types and position, and I do observe a degree of fastidiousness about what is/was 'correct' or not.

 

I think that the real issue here is that the box artwork is correct, while the model is not. Therefore, it's simply not a case of using a genuine "different" prototype as the basis for design (which might be excusable for the one prototype), but one of sloppy oversight/QC at the factory.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent news that something may be done to remedy the situation. It should never have got to this though. Hornby knows only too well that factory errors have occurred time and time again. Why QC hasn’t been tightened up as a result of past mistakes is a mystery to me. Two pre orders that spring to mind that I cancelled over the last few years were HAA’s that should have been full fat yellow frame coal sectors being delivered as railroad. And Blue and Grey Mk 2D TSO delivered with a FO body. Both ridiculous. Investigations into how past errors have happened and answers of how they could be prevented should have been put in place. But mistakes still occur. Like has been said previously, it’s time someone that knows what they are doing are put in place to over see QC. 
66738
 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, AY Mod said:

I had a chat with SK about this today. He is aware of the issue and investigating remedies at the mo. 

 

In all seriousness, while Hornby potentially look at the misaligned logo issue it would surely be as good a time as any to look closely at the shades that they consistently and incorrectly use for Railfreight triple-grey.  The roofs never look anything like Executive Dark Grey, the upper Flint Grey body band is always way too dark, and ever since 'Quinag' even the lower body Rail Grey hasn't looked right.  Logo issues aside the triple-grey livery itself that Hornby use is a right old hash.  :( 

 

It would be nice (and surely good for their sales) if they sorted it once and for all...  

 

Here's hoping...

 

 

Edited by YesTor
  • Like 2
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember the Heljan 47321 with black roof rather than grey ? That was an issuing of new bodies ,

 

TBH I’d expect the same with this, although how many are already sold is questionable as access to these sort of internet reviews means people can see cock ups way earlier .

 

Im glad my EWS and loadhaul ones look ok !

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, rob D2 said:

TBH I’d expect the same with this, although how many are already sold is questionable as access to these sort of internet reviews means people can see cock ups way earlier .

 

Im glad my EWS and loadhaul ones look ok !

 

The Loadhaul livery is very nice on a 60, one of the best liveries IMHO.  That said, the Hornby model (60007) does have the bodyside logos positioned slightly too low on the bodyside, as they should in fact meet the absolute roof line instead of there being a gap between the roof and the top of the logo. 

 

Another issue with some of the Loadhaul models is that the orange paint has a tendency to crack and flake away from the cabside over time.  As I've now experienced three Loadhaul bodyshells all fall victim to flaking orange paint it's clear it must have been a production glitch whereby the paint hasn't adhered adequately to the surface.  It doesn't seem to happen with all models, but it is something to be aware of if attempting to renumber a Loadhaul 60 at any time.

 

 

Edited by YesTor
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I too was looking forward to getting this model as I am very fond of the triple grey livery on the Class 60. But upon checking the e-mail notification from both Hattons and Rails and seeing the photos. I was sadly disappointed that the logo on the model was in the wrong position because the 60090 and 60062 models that was Coal and Petroleum liveries had the logos in the correct position. As a loyal Hornby customer (NOT "consumer" as we cannot eat a model train! :jester: ) I expected the logo to be in the same position as it is on the packaging and in the catalogue and even so on Hornby's website. It is very sad to say that via observations of the past two models and now this one that has recently joined us. Hornby appears to struggle on getting the triple grey livery in any form right. Some experienced modellers may have the skills to "patch" a brand new model that is a fresh release to "make it right" but some of us cannot do this due to lack of experience and even if we could. It is the responsibility of Hornby to get it right and if the model was a Railroad cheap end model with basic detailing and stuff then I wouldn't say anything. But this is a premium model that is over £160 and things like this should NOT be happening and Hornby needs to get on top of this issue. 

 

Perhaps Hornby could do a recall and "patch" the models with the correctly positioned logos and then perhaps they would get more customers that would buy this Class 60. Northcord Model Company did this with one of their model buses when they saw that the logo positioning was wrong and the "patched" models sold fine which was the Reading Buses Alexander-Dennis Enviro 400 MMC model. So if a small company like Northcord can do this then the question that begs to be asked is "Why can't Hornby?" :)

 

Peace.

Edited by BritishRail60062
typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Good to know Hornby is looking into this.

The incident isnt entirely without precedent, this did happen to a Lima loco once (time forgets which but it may have been a 60 or a 47).

 

They sprayed light grey over the logo area, then applied a new sector logo on top of it... I recall this as I recall using a fibre glass pen to remove the sector logo and uncovered the other logo underneath... i double checked my madness by looking at other locos of the same type on the shop shelf and saw the same shadow of a logo underneath.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The logo is correct in that it <nearly> aligns at the top with the cant rail stripe so I think the issue is the main blue part of the logo is too shallow, it should be at least twice as deep as it is which would put everything else in alignment.

Edited by royaloak
Added <nearly>
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, royaloak said:

The logo is correct in that it aligns at the top with the cant rail stripe so I think the issue is the main blue part of the logo is too shallow, it should be at least twice as deep as it is which would put everything else in alignment.

You are right. The logo is too small. It appears to be about 2/3 of the height of the loco side when it should be about 3/4. Hopefully the correct size of logo will be applied if Hornby are able to sort out.

 

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
5 hours ago, royaloak said:

The logo is correct in that it aligns at the top with the cant rail stripe so I think the issue is the main blue part of the logo is too shallow, it should be at least twice as deep as it is which would put everything else in alignment.

Nothing to do with the size of the logo. It’s the positioning of it. There should be a gap between the blue of the logo and the orange cantrail strip. See the attached close up of 60016. The lower edge of the blue should be level with the edge of the 2 grey sections.

 

37741DAF-963E-4F6B-A05F-FA146F2EA1FA.jpeg

Edited by Hilux5972
Corrected image
  • Agree 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
6 hours ago, royaloak said:

The logo is correct in that it aligns at the top with the cant rail stripe so I think the issue is the main blue part of the logo is too shallow, it should be at least twice as deep as it is which would put everything else in alignment.

The logo is not supposed to align to the cantrail stripe.

(i supplied both BRB Design drawings and photographs to show this a few pages back).

Outer part of the logo represents an “F” for “Freight” as part of the logo, with a symbol to represent type of Freight.

 

In this case the “F” is represented as a blue square for aggregate, but like all alphabet letters, when writing its supposed to sit on the line... (the demarcation of light & dark grey bands), which means the square blocks of the central part of this particular logo should be half way across the demarcation, not flush to it.

 

The tricky part isn't just being too high up, but in covering the squares of the main logo so the incorrectly positioned coloured blue squares dont show through under the revised position of the new logo on top... blue will show through under yellow transfer on top (ive tried in the past).

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

I thought as much as the logo looked a wee bit undersized to me from observations. But I am not a professional and I am glad that Hornby are going to look into that and hopefully when they do fix the logo issue. I bet that this model will fly off the shelves and perhaps it would be a good motivator for Hornby to swiftly tackle this as then when people get their Christmas spending money. That would probably pay off via increased sales of this model. Optimistic thinking? Aye I would think so because if I was a Hornby retailer, I would be on the phone to them proposing this solution to them right now. But I am nothing more than just a private customer, so I don't have that leverage unfortunately ;).

 

I will just keep my fingers crossed that something good will prevail from this issue.

Edited by BritishRail60062
typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Such a shame, this could well have been my first Hornby class 60 in the fleet following a re-number.

 

I won't be buying it now sorry, this is an error that should have been spotted at quality control when the first painted sample was done. I don't think it could be corrected without a full repaint, but I'm not doing that considering the cost of the model.

 

Cheers

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 28/11/2019 at 10:51, Wayne 37901 said:

Such a shame, this could well have been my first Hornby class 60 in the fleet following a re-number.

 

I won't be buying it now sorry, this is an error that should have been spotted at quality control when the first painted sample was done. I don't think it could be corrected without a full repaint, but I'm not doing that considering the cost of the model.

 

Cheers

If I was to make a suggestion. It might be worth holding back like I am just in case Hornby decide to fix the models? I think if they designed the "fix" to make it cover the botched logo without leaving a trace. That could encourage more people to buy it like me for starters. Meanwhile I will just keep to the DB Class 60's.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, G-BOAF said:

someone spoke to someone who spoke to Simon K.... and concluded that it looks like they are doing new bodies...

I'd await an official announcement before making any assumptions!

Where does it say (from Hornby) they are doing new bodies?

It says they are looking into it and it is an assumption on the posters part they will be doing new bodies!

 

I am not saying they wont just that nothing has been posted other than peoples opinion.

Edited by royaloak
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 30/11/2019 at 10:56, Hilux5972 said:

429EC17E-099F-4313-800E-2CB151A94E44.png

 

1 minute ago, royaloak said:

Where does it say they are doing new bodies?

I havent read that anywhere, only that they are looking into it!

See quoted above (why can't I find post numbers anymore???)

Someone quoting Colletts Models suggested that they are doing new bodies. I was therefore being tongue in cheek over this assumption.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, G-BOAF said:

 

See quoted above (why can't I find post numbers anymore???)

Someone quoting Colletts Models suggested that they are doing new bodies. I was therefore being tongue in cheek over this assumption.

 

Here you go-

 

Quote

23 November at 11:05

Leigh Collett have spoke to Simon Kohler at Warley, he’s is aware of the issue with 60015 and will make an announcement shortly, looks like they will be doing new bodies for it

33

9 comments

That reads to me that the poster is assuming they are doing bodies otherwise it would say "he said they will be doing new bodies", as it doesnt say that I will take it as an assumption on the posters part.

Edited by royaloak
  • Agree 1
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...