Older Hornby Models, Were They So Bad?

[robmcg]

8 minutes ago, russ p said:

 

So they made a one off tender just for this? 

 

Ah, no, I stand corrected...  

 

here are the two...

 

 

[Butler Henderson]

They also used the Fowler tank valve gear (and wheels IIRC) on the Princess Royal- the model mags at the time where less than impressed given the relative accuracy of models than had preceded it.

[russ p]

I've seen pictures of princesses with Fowler tenders but that model doesn't look right for some reason 

[robmcg]

The real engines in 1933 has uniquely Princess flat-side tenders unlike the usual Fowler ones, 9 tons coal and roller bearings for a start. They had slightly taller sides than the model.

[Ian Kirk]

Everything is "of it's time" .  WE should also remember that initially some of these were aimed at the "train set" market and when many of these things were introduced the "real grown up railway modellers" were scratch  or kit building . The degree of accuracy and detail achieved in RTR today could only be dreamed about at one time. The whole market has changed and is now aimed at the serious adult. Fewer and fewer kids want train sets these days so robust cheap "toys" are not needed so much.  Over the years the lower quality and limited variety of the RTR available at the time gave me and others the chance to make a living producing kits. In 1970 there were no British outline wagons in N gauge so I started to make plastic kits. In the mid 70sthere were only a handful of RTR wagon types so I started a range of 00 wagon kits (which eventually became Parkside)   In the 80s the only RTR  LNER coaches from Hornby were too short which gave me the chance to produce a range of coach kits. I produced brass patterns for several manufacturers of white metal loco kits at a time when there was little variety in RTR  loco types.  So I can't complain the shortfalls in RTR ranges gave me a lifetimes work.

In fact some of my favourite locos are old Triang or Hornby that I scale wheeled and detailed in my youth. Not very good in comparison with todays super models but I would not change them for the world.

best wishes,

 

Ian

[John M Upton]

It has to be said whilst the detailing of many 1980's Hornby was not exactly top notch, the motors, particularly the Ringfield Type 5 was with maintenance pretty much bomb proof and could actually haul stuff unlike some of the models of today.

 

There was also a decent range of (often slightly dubious authenticity) private owner four wheel open wagons for pocket money prices which I used to enjoy although into the 1990's was when Hornby went through that strange phase of fitting everything with those diabolical plastic wheel sets with the white walls.  What the heck was that all about?!?

[railroadbill]

4 hours ago, Robin Brasher said:

I ran my 30 year old R866 Fighter Pilot last Thursday for half an hour on the Wimborne Railway Society test track with three new Hornby 'Golden Arrow' coaches plus a Pullman brake and a luggage van. It had a locomotive mounted X04 motor and the contacts did not need cleaning. I oiled it lightly and put it on my H & M rolling road for about ten minutes before taking it to the club meeting. It was a bit sluggish for the first five minutes but then it loosened up and ran very well. It seemed quieter than the original 'Winston Churchill' and was worth £34 I had paid for it new, reduced from £39.

 

Your "Fighter Pilot" looks pretty good, actually.  Here's mine that I bought in about 1984. Can't remember what name it originally was but I repainted it into BR green, cut down the tender, fitted etched plates and smoke box door handles and  it became "Salisbury". Not as accurate as the later Hornby model of course (basically tri-ang) but having done all those changes, I don't want to get rid of it and it comes out once in a while for a run. X04 motor runs fine, but gears a bit noisy.

However the later (and current) Hornby chassis do have the edge on the older stuff, but if the train is just cruising round the layout then older still works ok.

Edited December 14, 2019 by railroadbill

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

Have you sampled the Hornby B12/3? That has a near H-D quantity of metal in the loco body; the cab is moulded plastic. I hope we might see more of this from Hornby. The detail on the wholly diecast boiler is as good as that achieved by injection moulding, none of the old H-D or Wrenn 'blobbiness'.

Many recent Hornby locos contain die-cast boilers.

I imagine the small tanks - Peckets etc. will have them.

It's certain come a long way from HD standards!

[The Johnster]

45 minutes ago, John M Upton said:

It has to be said whilst the detailing of many 1980's Hornby was not exactly top notch, the motors, particularly the Ringfield Type 5 was with maintenance pretty much bomb proof and could actually haul stuff unlike some of the models of today.

 

There was also a decent range of (often slightly dubious authenticity) private owner four wheel open wagons for pocket money prices which I used to enjoy although into the 1990's was when Hornby went through that strange phase of fitting everything with those diabolical plastic wheel sets with the white walls.  What the heck was that all about?!?

Are you serious?   The Ringfields were no better or worse than anyone else’s pancakes at the time, i.e. hopeless at any speed below about a scale 20mph or so.  They were massive, demanding tender drive with the spur gears visible on the tender frames, and despite the size, still needed traction tyres to pull anything.  These of course further compromised already flaky pick up performance.  

 

And, despite the motor being in the tender, you could still buy a Black 5 in an incorrect LMS red livery chosen presumably to show off those lovely realistic boiler skirts.  And it was all 2mm too high.  

 

1980s Hornby when you could get Airfix, Bachmann, or even Lima that ran as well or better, and had more detail and a much better finish?  No thanks!  Cheap and nasty toys...

[TravisM]

As many have pointed out, Hornby or Triang-Hornby catered for the masses and model railways were seen as toys rather than fine scale models.  I remember modelling in the 70’s and if you wanted a decent model of something, kits were the only way forward.  I wonder how many of us bought a Hornby loco, throw the body away, keep the chassis so you could fit a K’s, Wills or other white metal body kit.

[melmerby]

6 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

Are you serious?   The Ringfields were no better or worse than anyone else’s pancakes at the time, i.e. hopeless at any speed below about a scale 20mph or so.  They were massive, demanding tender drive with the spur gears visible on the tender frames, and despite the size, still needed traction tyres to pull anything.  These of course further compromised already flaky pick up performance.  

 

And, despite the motor being in the tender, you could still buy a Black 5 in an incorrect LMS red livery chosen presumably to show off those lovely realistic boiler skirts.  And it was all 2mm too high.  

 

1980s Hornby when you could get Airfix, Bachmann, or even Lima that ran as well or better, and had more detail and a much better finish?  No thanks!  Cheap and nasty toys...

Just like Airfix then

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

9 hours ago, melmerby said:

Many recent Hornby locos contain die-cast boilers.

I imagine the small tanks - Peckets etc. will have them.

It's certain come a long way from HD standards!

I was aware of the J15 (small 0-6-0) and D16/3 (4-4-0) having this feature, where it was a good way of getting sufficient mass in the right place for traction, and neatly done too. But it came as a surprise (to me anyway!) on the B12/3, which is 'roomy enough' for cast ballast within to supply the mass, and the usual injection moulded exterior. A very welcome surprise indeed, and I hope Hornby continue with this technique generally for both new introductions and 'retoolings' in their steam traction range.

[Vanguard 5374]

Some of the items, granted for their time, aren't too bad. Even if some weren't the scale length, or had dimensional errors in other areas, you know what they are representing for the most part.

 

Unless, of course, you were an Irish modeller or an Australian modeller...

 

http://www.hornbyguide.com/item_year_details.asp?itemyearid=11408

 

http://www.hornbyguide.com/item_details.asp?itemid=55

 

[BernardTPM]

Thy did do a more accurate Australian diesel, very briefly in the late 1970s: VR S Class / Commonwealth Railways GM class

Just missed getting one of the S Class circa 1990.

[The Johnster]

15 hours ago, melmerby said:

Just like Airfix then

In terms of mechs, yes; transverse mounted pancake motors in tenders and traction tyres seem to have been the only game in town in those days.  But Airfix, along with Mainline, were way better than Hornby in terms of scale, detail, and finish, and even Lima were pretty good (for the time) were pretty good above the running plate.  I have a 94xx with a Lima body that will 'do' until the Baccy turns up.  And the driving wheels were all the same size, and the buffers were the correct height above the railhead.  Airfix and Mainline both tried to do their best about the size of the tension lock couplings; Hornby and Lima were oversized and held the vehicles far too far apart.  Lima's mk1s were no better than Triang's in terms of scale and detail, but the finish was much better, and so was Mainline's

 

To give Triang and Triang Hornby due credit, they proved in the late 50s and early 60s that they were masters of plastic injection moulding.  The Brush Type 2 was a superb model for it's time, ran well, and was not far off scale, and they introduced the first RTR scale length mk1 coaches (Kitmaster had beaten them to the punch with kits which were very good and simple enough for a hamfisted 10 year old Johnster to build, and they ran around 13" radius curves; cheaper than RTR as well).  The advance between this and the original Rovex Black Princess and shorty coaches of only a decade previous was impressive. 

 

But if the Brush Type 2 was Triang's high point, the Airfix version (when it was introduced) was far better, with properly modelled bogie frames and less deepset windows.  There was a new game in town and Hornby were slow to react to it.  They may have had a point in business terms; Airfix, Mainline, and Lima all failed ultimately while Hornby survived (just).  The xmas train set market was still flourishing and the Hornby name, even if it was slightly mendaciously applied to genetically Triang models, carried an enormous amount of brand loyalty with it.  How many people, I wonder, bought xmas train sets thinking they were made by Hornby Dublo?

[melmerby]

The only Lima loco I had was a 45XX bought new and on close inspection, compared to Airfix & Mainline steam loco models it was IMHO poor, the wheels were rubbish and it just didn't look right.

I sold it without using it.

I bought several Airfix coaches and three four* Mainline locos because they were better looking than Hornby offerings and I still have them.

* I sold one.

Edited December 15, 2019 by melmerby

[Colin]

I thought Hornby Dublo failed in the main because less people were buying their products, I remember reading about the fiasco surrounding the then-new 2 rail system in the early ‘60s which was far too complex for most newcomers because the points didn’t self isolate, and it was necessary to incorporate isolating tracks and extra wiring so as to avoid short circuits on anything more than a basic train set oval - a potential recipe for disaster on Christmas morning! By the time their Simplex (dead frog, self isolating) points had been introduced a year or two later, the damage had been done. HD was also significantly more expensive than Triang, another important consideration. Also, to be fair to Triang, they were very keen to advertise the “merger” with HD in the mid-60s, I remember seeing full page adverts in various mags.

With regard to the 70s era Lima Mk1 stock, I well remember some pretty dreadful liveries - some of the first Southern Region stock was a horrid pale green and some coaches also sported a yellow line just below the windows; various other Mk1s appeared in pseudo LMS and GWR schemes. One of their coaches even had the same running number as the corresponding vehicle in the Hornby range! Like Hornby, they sat too high (wheels were particularly ghastly, bright metal and the famous pizza-cutter flanges) but the big improvement for me was that they lacked the prominent horizontal mould lines that disfigured the Hornby stock and which presumably provided guides for the lining process. Cut and shut conversions were, however, a complete non starter for me due to the single body moulding. They got much better after a few years with some very good liveries, blackened wheels and a more comprehensive Mk1 range, possibly in the early ‘80s?

[Philou]

Ay, still got a number of assorted Airfix/Mainline locos and coaches. I keep them for their sentimental value - bought when money wasn't so readily available - and the coaches don't look too bad despite their age. They will do as placemarkers when I get that layout started. Unfortunately, most of the Hornby stuff bought during the same time period will have to remain 'in the box' unseen and unloved .

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

[Philou]

........... and to show what I mean, here is a comparison picture between Lima's offering of a DMU and that of Hornby on sale at about the same time. I wonder if you can guess which one is which (a little clue, the Hornby one has the knurled tractor wheels)?

 

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

Edited December 15, 2019 by Philou
Modem glitch while typing

[Colin]

Granted that Hornby’s class 101 was very underscale, IMHO it was otherwise a pretty good effort, given that it first appeared around 1960/61 from memory. At least Hornby bothered to tool for two different coaches, unlike Lima - although both manufacturers later produced a centre trailer (TC or TS?) presumablyin response to requests.

[BritishRail60062]

I think they were good in their day. They were basic and robust and had a basic motor but they kept me happy for hours in my childhood days. I tend to have both the basic and the super detailed models although I just get great enjoyment from see model trains running in any form. That's just me .

[russ p]

The Hornby DMU is based on the metcamm 79xxx and not the 101 it was updated with an illuminated headcode and optional centre car both completely fictional 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

3 hours ago, The Johnster said:

To give Triang and Triang Hornby due credit, they proved in the late 50s and early 60s that they were masters of plastic injection moulding.

The pieces that I still have in use that really well illustrate this are two of the bogie wagons, the Brick and Trestrol. Yes the bogie and mounting is to the crude standard then prevailing, but the body mouldings are good enough to make it worth a little effort to fit new running gear.

 

I still find it strange that such bogie wagons were to this high standard for their time, while the four wheel wagons were largely trash, crude representations that were useless for modelling purposes.

[BernardTPM]

16 hours ago, Colin said:

Granted that Hornby’s class 101 was very underscale, IMHO it was otherwise a pretty good effort, given that it first appeared around 1960/61 from memory.

1958; it's very old and technically wern't actually Class 101s but the earlier 1955 version of the Met.Camm. design, hence the odd little lumps on the front (M.U. sockets, but not the normal 'Blue Circle Square' type).

Edited December 16, 2019 by BernardTPM

[GWR-fan]

My early experiences with Tri-ang/Hornby were in the early 1960's.  I did have a tinplate clockwork set my brother and I each received  (0-4-0 passenger and 0-4-0 goods sets) in the late 1950's for Christmas but my fascination with clockwork did not survive very long.    My OO Tri-ang/Hornby were totally unreliable.   I would lust over each catalogue dreaming of the day I would buy a big express loco or a Rocket but alas my pocket money did not extend that far.  I did have a couple of early diesels from Australian manufacture and those required constant maintenance to keep running.    I purchased a new N.S.W.G.R.  two car suburban set for 49 shillings.  It took me months of saving my pocket money to save for it.  It never ran well at all and twice was returned for attention by the store.  In the end I gave up on it.  I think that my railway involved more maintenance than a real railway.

 

Maybe many have memories when Hornby-Dublo and Wrenn were regarded as quality.  Well, my experiences were with Rovex and to me the Hornby of the 1980's/1990's is more Rovex quality that H-D.    Built to undercut H-D on price,  the quality suffered.