Older Hornby Models, Were They So Bad?

[John M Upton]

6 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

anyone care to put an age on this tooling in 2019’s range ?

 

 

I’m pretty sure its older than me, I recall getting it with Kelloggs on the side in the late 1970’s.

 

The chassis is in fact the TTA tank wagon chassis which I think was about 1977ish.  The body came from something else hence why it doesnt actually fit the length of the chassis.  An absolute dogs dinner of a wagon if there ever was one.

[adb968008]

26 minutes ago, 25901 said:

Did they do it in tin plate lol

They stopped making models out of stone when I was born... i just about remember the last dinosaur retiring, and Northern’s fleet of woolly mammoths were sent for warm storage for having non-complaint tusks... though they were long in the tooth and a bit thread bare as I recall...

Northerns new fleet of donkeys were a poor substitute as I .. delays, overcrowding... they drafted in a camel from East Anglia but a straw broke its back...

 

Ok i’ll shut up

 

 

Edited December 18, 2019 by adb968008

[BernardTPM]

34 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

anyone care to put an age on this tooling in 2019’s range ?

 

I’m pretty sure its older than me, I recall getting it with Kelloggs on the side in the late 1970’s.

1974, the first version being in 'Cadbury's' colours. It is the chassis used under the TTA (1973), but first made for the (post Trix collaboration) Grain wagons circa 1969. The reason it is shorter is so that the clips that hold it on face outwards, making it a less complicated (therefore cheaper) tool. It was always a 'train set' type thing, not a serious model. If you're generous you could regard it as a long shock van I suppose.

Edited December 18, 2019 by BernardTPM

[GWR-fan]

16 hours ago, andyman7 said:

The main problems with old Triang mechanisms were lack of weight and lack of sufficient pickups to ensure reliable running. Whilst the odd dud mechanism that hadn't been machined right made it through, in most cases the Triang Motor Bogies or X.04 motors once run in and properly lubricated were very good indeed for the time. Unfortunately for the avergae youthful user without access to the skills or help to appreciate these issues, if the loco didn't work properly then that was the end of it.

 

After rebuilding over a dozen Tri-ang/Hornby Blue Pullman motor blocks and SR EMU sets in recent years I came to the conclusion that if it was worn or ran erratically then no matter how many new parts you fitted it still ran badly.  However, find a good running bogie and it would continue to perform exceptionally well.  I found that critical clearances were essential as if the magnet extension arms were not correctly spaced from the armature (usually due wear in the bogie) or the brushes were not exactly correct then performance would be drastically impacted.  I tried neo magnets but found no improvement.  I tried scale wheels but no improvement.  I then gave up and sold anything from that era.   Personally,  I prefer the Sanda Kan period,  although the power pickups from that period could need some attention.

[rockershovel]

It’s a bit depressing really, that the philosophy of “if you cut hard enough, profits will appear” has been so central to Hornby thinking, for so long. 

 

It would be interesting to know sales figures for the assorted “train set” 0-4-0 types and their related rolling stock. The Lionel 4-4-2 makes Smoky Joe look like the Hornby Peckett, but it still sells, not least because it’s a nice runner and the die-cast body appeals to the nostalgia market. Same with that wagon; Lionel still list 8” and 10” tank cars which are little changed from the 1980s and in some cases, long before that, and they sell..

 

[F-UnitMad]

20 hours ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

But what 'time' is that, needs a date stamp? I'd suggest 1955 at the latest. By 1960 the refinement of HO mechanisms was leaving the best of H-D, let alone Triang, for dead. This was the problem with UK RTR OO, stuck in a time warp. My cousins had locos like the fabulous Swiss Krokodil articulated rod coupled electric running on their HO layouts. Quiet, smooth, traction aplenty, a country mile ahead of any RTR OO loco mechanism until Bachmann's Peak of circa 1991.

 

12 hours ago, andyman7 said:

Yes, but at a price. Until Bachmann really started the revolution in mechanisms in the 1990s, the received wisdom was that the UK market would not pay continental prices. 

Which is why some of us looked across The Pond instead. American Athearn diesels of the 1980s had can motors, flywheels, all-axle pick-up & all-axle drive, and RP25 wheels that looked so much better than Hornby diesel wheels or Lima pizza-cutters, so had 'Continental' performance or better, but cost half the price of a Hornby or Lima pancake motored, two-axle drive, rubber-tyred abomination. I won't even start on Lima 'Volvo bumper' tension-lock couplers!!

It took a long while for the UK market to catch up; I believe the Bachmann Peak made use of drive components from a US diesel to start with. In the meantime as the £ fell against the $, prices have risen for US stuff in the UK, so I get the feeling that US outline modelling in the UK has declined somewhat in recent years - also partly because there is no longer a need to look elsewhere just to get decent-running locomotives.

Just my 2p......

[Wheatley]

On ‎14‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 14:45, The Johnster said:

 No wonder Mainline, Airfix, and even Lima ran rings around them.

 

Whilst these undoubtedly produced some very good looking models which still hold their own today (Airfix 2P for example), they also gave us such engineering marvels as the all-plastic Ringfield motor (same 2P), the infamous Lima Looks-A-Bit-Like-A-Crab-If-You-Squint with its polythene chassis and the Mainline split chassis with the disintegrating stub axles. The Hornby stuff, for all its compromises, worked straight out of the box and generally, 30-odd years later, still works.  I've had three 80s models on the bench recently handed to me by a friend as non-runners - the Mainline Scot is a write off (sheared plastic driving axle) but the Compound just needed a good clean. The Jinty worked a lot better once the coupling rods were back on the right way up. 

 

Parts bin engineering is not confined to Hornby - the Mk1 Discovery used Range Rover doors and Maestro tail lights. 

Edited December 19, 2019 by Wheatley

[rockershovel]

....nothing wrong with modular construction if the basics are correct. The car industry pretty much runs that way, and has long done so. 

 

A loud raspberry for plastic chassis. The Lionel 0-8-0 I recently had for a while had one, and no traction tyres, and it was a slippery beast despite its die-cast upper boiler section. 

[rockershovel]

I've lately been involved in cleaning and refurbishing a selection of 3-rail Hornby Dublo stock and locos and I'm pleasantly surprised by the quality. The tinplate stuff is, at least, cleanly and accurately printed and the die-cast loco bodies are really rather nice; and they are quite easy to get going, although a couple have required minor soldering to wire joints. 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

1 hour ago, F-UnitMad said:

Which is why some of us looked across The Pond instead. American Athearn diesels of the 1980s had can motors, flywheels, all-axle pick-up & all-axle drive, and RP25 wheels that looked so much better than Hornby diesel wheels or Lima pizza-cutters, so had 'Continental' performance or better, but cost half the price of a Hornby or Lima pancake motored, two-axle drive, rubber-tyred abomination. I won't even start on Lima 'Volvo bumper' tension-lock couplers!!

It took a long while for the UK market to catch up; I believe the Bachmann Peak made use of drive components from a US diesel to start with...

That Athearn drive: the joyful discovery that the PA1 mechanism was a near perfect fit for the Airfix Brush type 2 body - even the bogie frames were of decently similar appearance - and that was my champion outdoor line loco, with all the virtues that we have come to like of centre motor mechanisms.

 

The Bachmann Peak (and all the twin bogie drives that followed after) it's the same generic components and layout as a couple of Spectrum mechanisms that I have had the chance to look at.

[The Johnster]

I was unimpressed with Silver Seal, or at any rate my SS Black 5.  Boiler skirts which were pointless because the motor was in the tender, poor low speed performance, bl**dy traction tyres, and stickyback labels for the cabside lining and numbers.  Triang did some decent stuff in their day for their day, like the X04 Jinty and the Brush Type 2, but seem to have started to go down the tubes once they became Triang Hornby.  

 

Their best stuff could certainly hold it’s own against HD for detail and running.  The HD ringfield was a marvellous lump of ‘proper’, British dammit Carruthers, capital E Engineering, and could start/stop a loco very smoothly, but you couldn’t achieve decent sub-10mph slow control with it like you could with a Jinty or Brush Type 2.  I had a Winston Churchill that was a very good performer as well, basically the already old at the time Rovex Black Princess mech. 

[eldomtom2]

7 hours ago, rockershovel said:

The Lionel 4-4-2 makes Smoky Joe look like the Hornby Peckett, but it still sells, not least because it’s a nice runner and the die-cast body appeals to the nostalgia market. Same with that wagon; Lionel still list 8” and 10” tank cars which are little changed from the 1980s and in some cases, long before that, and they sell..

 

American O gauge is odd to say the least - even models in the thousands of dollars that are clearly not intended for the train set market are still produced with three-rail versions as a matter of course!

[The Johnster]

Much of it does seem to be marketed to a concept of the table top railway, as promoted by Sheldon on Big Bang and Rev Lovejoy on Simpsons, though, very much rooted in the coarse scale 0 gauge Lionel culture.  Operators wear engineer's hats and wave flags, and the layout is very much an aid to a fantasy world of the imagination rather than an attempt to create a scale representation of reality.  All our layouts are like this to an extent, of course, but the train set demonstrates this to the highest degree.

[rockershovel]

That’s an interesting thought, I hadn’t looked at it that way. 

[Hroth]

5 hours ago, Neverwood said:

In the early fifties, I had an Athern Santa Fe F 7 - a central can motor and drive on both bogies - transmitted by elastic band - I jest NOT. Regarding the Fleischmann style ring field motor referred to above, IIRC past of the problem involved patent issues, or so I was told at the time

 

 

The same system as employed (copied?) by Lone Star in their OOO-lectric EE Type 2 and Sulzer Type 2 locos.

[GWR-fan]

6 hours ago, Neverwood said:

In the early fifties, I had an Athearn Santa Fe F 7 - a central can motor and drive on both bogies - transmitted by elastic band - I jest NOT. ..............................

 

 

 

Depending which way you twisted the rubber band resulted in either both bogies rotating in the opposite direction or the loco running backwards when compared to other models.  The bands did set up a distinct elongated shape if not used regularly and would slip.  The RDC diesel cars also had this drive.  I believe it may have been termed "hi-fi" drive.  Simple rubber bands from the newsagent sufficed as replacements.

[railroadbill]

15 hours ago, GWR-fan said:

 

Depending which way you twisted the rubber band resulted in either both bogies rotating in the opposite direction or the loco running backwards when compared to other models.  The bands did set up a distinct elongated shape if not used regularly and would slip.  The RDC diesel cars also had this drive.  I believe it may have been termed "hi-fi" drive.  Simple rubber bands from the newsagent sufficed as replacements.

I bought an Ahern RDC in the 90s which still had this arrangement, however I was also sold a kit for a geared bogie which fitted into one of the bogie frames and was driven from one end of the motor shaft via a universal joint.  This worked quite well, one advantage being that the rdc picked up on all wheels by a split axle arrangement.  The Ahern RDC was the only game in town for a very long time and it took me ages to get one (in the days when you had to get one from an actual model shop.

 

[Max Legroom]

On 19/12/2019 at 09:01, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

That Athearn drive: the joyful discovery that the PA1 mechanism was a near perfect fit for the Airfix Brush type 2 body - even the bogie frames were of decently similar appearance - and that was my champion outdoor line loco, with all the virtues that we have come to like of centre motor mechanisms.

 

The Bachmann Peak (and all the twin bogie drives that followed after) it's the same generic components and layout as a couple of Spectrum mechanisms that I have had the chance to look at.

The Bachmann Peak was a huge leap forward in terms of running quality. I remember enquiring at a model shop if they had one in stock and being told by the owner (backed up by a couple of his other customers) that Hornby was far superior in terms of build quality. I started to argue that well-made rubbish was still rubbish but quickly realised that I was wasting my time. Both the shop and the pancake motor are now history.

[Talltim]

And Hornby don’t make a Peak...

[GWR-fan]

The venerable Athearn mechs with the plastic bogie sideframes were the mainstay of my N.S.W.G.R.  and Victorian (Australian) prototype modelling back in the 1970's/1980's.  I was not partial to the earlier metal sideframe models.  Apart from very expensive and unreliable brass models,  Lima locomotives were our only choice.   The SD9 mechanism was perfect for re-motoring the GM class 42,  Victorian "B" series and "S" series and GM class South Australian model locomotives,  requiring just a slight slimming down of the chassis and replacement white metal bogie sideframes.  They were easily modified to accept decoders if later required.  It does seem rather odd that it was almost thirty years later after a switch of production to China that Hornby adopted a centre motor mount bogie drive chassis.  The Athearn mechanism was rugged, reliable and relatively cheap and yet a generation ahead of Hornby in both performance and quality.   From memory I used the PA1 chassis modified for my class "44"  N.S.W.G.R. diesels.  

[Mr chapman]

I always thought the original Hornby schools was good. Looks like the class it was supposed to be and the proportions were correct. The railroad version is even better now the motor has been moved up front. It has a few niceties like tender wheels from the full fat model and removable couplings. Dover in the RR range is the sweet spot before they started cutting back on the paint jobs for RR models

[Lyonshall Castle]

Did anyone run Trix stuff in the early 60s?  I still have a die cast Britannia that could haul 14 HD tin plate sided Mk1s without effort.   Ok it was HO not OO but as a working model it was superb for its time and outperformed my HD Castle.  And to my eyes it was the most accurate model of a Britannia in terms of cab shape etc. for nearly 50 years until the most recent Hornby iterations.  I also bought a number of the Trix plastic self-assembly Mk1s (again made to HO scale) which included a BCK, unavailable from any other manufacturer, and commonwealth bogies.  They were easy to cut’n’shut to make other types unavailable at the time such as an SK.  Given that everything RTR then was not 100% accurate in terms of scale, size or dimensions, the difference between Trix HO and the OO of the rest was easily overlooked.

[BernardTPM]

British Trix's 'H0' was 1:80, so not that far from 4mm scale (3.8mm per foot IIRC). The AL1 had started with Lilliput and was 4mm scale as were a few of the plastic wagons where the nominally 17' 6" underframe in 3.8mm scale worked out at 16' 6" in 4mm scale (e.g. Pig Iron & 16t Mineral).

[Lyonshall Castle]

1 hour ago, BernardTPM said:

British Trix's 'H0' was 1:80, so not that far from 4mm scale (3.8mm per foot IIRC). The AL1 had started with Lilliput and was 4mm scale as were a few of the plastic wagons where the nominally 17' 6" underframe in 3.8mm scale worked out at 16' 6" in 4mm scale (e.g. Pig Iron & 16t Mineral).

Thanks Bernard.  That explains why the difference in scale wasn’t too noticeable.   

[Robin Brasher]

We ran a Hornby Hymech and two Caledonian coaches on my Corfe Castle layout last Sunday.  Tri-ang Hornby produced the Hymech in 1967, after they took over from Hornby Dublo. I think it was a reasonably accurate model but it could not pull much on nickel silver track until it was upgraded with a ringfield motor. This one must be over 20 years old and ran very well. Tri-ang Hornby were enterprising in producing the Caledonian coaches although the maroon part of the livery was too light. I think that both models are good value for money.