Hornby 2020 range announcements

[tomparryharry]

6 hours ago, The Johnster said:

More realistic valve gear, with DCC enabled forward or reverse settings and movement of the reversing lever and linkage, is one of the few areas where there is room for significant improvement left; another is between-frames valve gear and motion detail.  I can't think of much more that volume manufacturers can reasonably be expected to provide; compensated chassis, perhaps.  The biggie is realistic and realistically moving and dispersing scale steam and smoke effects, environmentally acceptable in a living room layout setting; I doubt this one will ever be cracked!

 

If we are in 4mm, then I can't really see it. That is, I can see it, but could you operate it? How about a working exhaust injector, and gauge glasses? It is indeed, a nice thought, but it won't advance the majority of modellers. Why have this sort of thing on a pannier, and leave the sanding rods off?

[The Johnster]

Servos, and there’s no reason the sanding rods can't be included, perhaps working, on panniers.  Injectors might be a bit much; they were never reliable in 12”/1’ scale, but gauge glasses might be do-able at a push!  I’d agree that we’re probably pretty close to what can be done with RTR at current price levels, though.  
 

Not so long ago that cab window glazing and brake detail was considered the preserve of finescale scratchbuilders.  Things will appear if there’s demand for them and the cost can be made acceptable to the market.  
 

Probably not, and almost certainly not in my lifetime, but you never know; digital design aids, new materials, and mass produced micro servos might bring relative costs down and overcome practical difficulties.  I wouldn’t have believed anyone 50 years ago who told me I’d be doing this on a pocket size wireless phone in a pub, but here I am all the same...

[Dunsignalling]

19 hours ago, The Johnster said:

More realistic valve gear, with DCC enabled forward or reverse settings and movement of the reversing lever and linkage, is one of the few areas where there is room for significant improvement left; another is between-frames valve gear and motion detail.  I can't think of much more that volume manufacturers can reasonably be expected to provide; compensated chassis, perhaps.  The biggie is realistic and realistically moving and dispersing scale steam and smoke effects, environmentally acceptable in a living room layout setting; I doubt this one will ever be cracked!

Scale size valve gear might be a good idea before we get into that territory, the weedy coupling and connecting rods on r-t-r locos are one of the few things that are consistently made "under-weight".

 

Working inside motion, requiring kit-style chassis to make room for it, might (just) be achievable in r-t-r 4mm, but would be very complex (and therefore expensive) to mass produce. There is also the issue that it's difficult enough to accommodate in hand-built P4 mechanisms, let alone between frames that will be closer together and inevitably need to be more robust in a "consumer level" OO product. So we'd be back to making it skinny to get it in.

 

The really clever trick, though, would be making it robust enough to survive regular layout use in the hands of owners who aren't watchmakers.

 

A working reversing mechanism for (outside) Walschaerts valve gear is probably more "do-able" but I'd suggest the proportion of buyers willing to pay for it would roughly equal the proportion who would notice the difference.  

 

Either way, I think the technology would have to be proved sufficiently dependable to become fairly commonplace in O Gauge before we'd see anyone transferring such ideas to OO. 

 

John

Edited March 11, 2020 by Dunsignalling

[maico]

I don't own any Hornby but some of ones I've seen on Ebay have the upper cylinder timing rod fixed in position. Do Hornby understand how Walschaerts valve gear works?

Even my old Wrenn City Class as an overscale version that works and the likes of Roco-Fleischmann do in smaller Ho scale

 

 

 

Edited March 11, 2020 by maico

[dibber25]

On 10/03/2020 at 18:14, adb968008 said:

Ah but uniquely, an A4 is one of the few locos you can accurately put a key in and windup... to lift the smokebox streamlining and gain access to the smokebox door.

I did that once - on 60007 - while my (taller) colleagues went off to lunch. "Have it open by the time we get back" was the instruction. It's like a glorified starting handle and it's set so high that I had to jump to get it over the top of the stroke! So no need to ask me why I'm not a big fan of Gresley! (CJL)

[Pylon King]

A few interesting pieces of promotional material obtained the other week.

[Flying Pig]

On 11/03/2020 at 12:18, maico said:

I don't own any Hornby but some of ones I've seen on Ebay have the upper cylinder timing rod fixed in position. Do Hornby understand how Walschaerts valve gear works?

Even my old Wrenn City Class as an overscale version that works and the likes of Roco-Fleischmann do in smaller Ho scale

 

I think it's more likely that the valve spindle and associated supports are included as a non-working part of the cylinder moulding on UK outline steamers (not just Hornby) as a compromise to achieve a scale appearance at an acceptable price point.

 

The valve spindle assembly on the Roco 012 looks very fine and it's good to see it moving, but I note that the radius rod is fixed in mid gear. Perhaps Roco don't know how Walschaerts gear works either, or more likely they have compromised too. Also the Roco model is priced about 50% higher than  recent Hornby equivalents which are already regarded as expensive by many in the UK market. Manufacturers have to make these choices.

[Crewlisle]

How many modellers would want to faff around with the correct valve gear settings in 00 gauge before any model moved?.  I would think it would be o.ooooo1 per cent.  The vast number of  modellers would not even notice it, except wondering why nothing was moving!.

 

In 1 gauge or larger the serious modellers would expect it, but 00 gauge, forget it.  I would not expect Hornby or Bachmann to waste money on the suggestion or even think about it.  The rivet counters have gone too far this time.

 

Peter

[The Johnster]

I wouldn't mind it, but I'm happy with the compromise of not having it.  We demand constantly improving realism from our RTR models and have been unstintingly given it for the last 40+ years, admittedly starting from a not very advanced point.  We are, I believe, close to what can reasonably be expected from volume produced items, but there are possible improvements still to be made if the balance between cost and demand is conducive.  I'm not a rivet counter, and remember when you were lucky if all the driving wheels had flanges or were even the same size!

[3rd Rail Exile]

I could see the DCC aficionados playing around with it (if you can have servo-operated pantographs then why not valve gear?) but to the average DC user (of which I suspect there are still many) it would be just another expense-increasing feature that they can't use. 

[Denbridge]

When i suggested better valve gear, I wasn't suggesting it could be able to notch up or reverse. I would like it to be more realistic than the current 2D offerings which fail to portray the sheer bulk of the prototype. The current offerings, stamped from thin sheet material are totally inadequate. Full size rods are bulky heavy components. Even a lot of kit valve gears are woefully inadequate in this regard.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

On ‎11‎/‎03‎/‎2020 at 08:32, Dunsignalling said:

Scale size valve gear might be a good idea before we get into that territory, the weedy coupling and connecting rods on r-t-r locos are one of the few things that are consistently made "under-weight".

...A working reversing mechanism for (outside) Walschaerts valve gear is probably more "do-able" but I'd suggest the proportion of buyers willing to pay for it would roughly equal the proportion who would notice the difference.  

When the Bachmann Pepp A1 emerged in 2000, I was pleased to find that it had moving valve rods. General market reaction  = no great interest. Following releases had this feature, and the K3 in particular is sufficiently well arranged that it could be made into a working representation of the reverser action, with the addition of a DIY bridle rod with a memory metal actuator to raise and lower the lifting link as appropriate to direction of travel. We had a thread on ur-RMWeb discussing this prospect. General market reaction  = no great interest.

 

Unsurprisingly, more recent introductions have a simpler representation and the valve rod is immobile. There's not the mechanical appreciation in the OO market to tackle this and the other evident deficits, such as the commonly incorrect eccentric rod crank angle, and failure to have three cylinder simples with their cranks thirded.

[TomScrut]

Does anybody have any idea as to whether R3865 Oliver Cromwell is going to be any different to the one included in R3607?

 

R3607's loco looks like it has painted hubs on the rear bogie and tender but I'd have thought the standalone loco would be a straight rerun of the pack loco?

 

The loco looks like it's £180 on pre order but the pack can be had for £220 (maybe less) making the coaches good value if the locos are the same?

Edited March 22, 2020 by TomScrut

[The Johnster]

I think you mean the axlebox covers; they aren't quite the same as hubs!  These should be painted yellow to represent the loco as it appeared hauling the 15 guinea special in August '68, which I believe this train pack commemorates.  Oliver's axlebox covers weren't always yellow, and black ones are correct for it's earlier career.

 

Also, while I've got my revolting pedant hat on, the rear 'bogie' is actually called a pony truck, not a bogie.  

Edited March 22, 2020 by The Johnster

[TomScrut]

15 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

I think you mean the axlebox covers; they aren't quite the same as hubs!  These should be painted yellow to represent the loco as it appeared hauling the 15 guinea special in August '68, which I believe this train pack commemorates.  Oliver's axlebox covers weren't always yellow, and black ones are correct for it's earlier career.

 

Also, while I've got my revolting pedant hat on, the rear 'bogie' is actually called a pony truck, not a bogie.  

 

Yes, that's what I meant! Cheers!

 

OK so the other release may have the covers in black from a few years before? The models are the same era but that leaves a lot of leeway in the actual spec of the loco! 

[The Johnster]

Oliver became a frequent performer on railtours in the final couple of years of steam, as the last steam loco overhauled at Crewe and given fully lined passenger livery.  I think he may have acquired the yellow accoutrements at this time.  But the practice of painting roller bearing axleboxes yellow dates from 1963 or 4, and it may simply be that frequent railtour duty meant that the axleboxes were regularly cleaned, as was the whole loco.  I doubt if Oliver has ever really been dirty since the final Crewe outshopping.

[3rd Rail Exile]

It was mentioned at the time, but the model of Oliver Cromwell in the R3607 pack was accidentally supplied without sanding pipes fitted.  Hornby acknowledged this minor omission and were able to supply the items for fitting.  Now I've got more time on my hands I might actually get around to fitting them!

[Tallpaul69]

On ‎20‎/‎03‎/‎2020 at 13:09, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

When the Bachmann Pepp A1 emerged in 2000, I was pleased to find that it had moving valve rods. General market reaction  = no great interest. Following releases had this feature, and the K3 in particular is sufficiently well arranged that it could be made into a working representation of the reverser action, with the addition of a DIY bridle rod with a memory metal actuator to raise and lower the lifting link as appropriate to direction of travel. We had a thread on ur-RMWeb discussing this prospect. General market reaction  = no great interest.

 

Unsurprisingly, more recent introductions have a simpler representation and the valve rod is immobile. There's not the mechanical appreciation in the OO market to tackle this and the other evident deficits, such as the commonly incorrect eccentric rod crank angle, and failure to have three cylinder simples with their cranks thirded.

Unfortunately, with the number of modellers who can remember and therefore appreciate the details of operation, the improvements mentioned above, decreasing due to passing time, it is unlikely that there will be the stomach in the market for the inevitable increases in cost that will follow.

 

If anything the market will need the cost of steam locos to decrease and therefore the level of detail may have to reduce. Hornby's "Design Clever" concept was a move in the right direction but perhaps too early to be taken up by the market.

 

I suggest that moves to improve the performance and reduce the cost of Sound and Smoke are more likely to be taken up by the market, but only if the cost can be reduced.

For one, I would live with reduced rivet count if all steam could be offered in sound or non sound versions, and the cost differential reduced.

 

Best regards

Paul

[truffy]

14 hours ago, Tallpaul69 said:

Hornby's "Design Clever" concept was a move in the right direction but perhaps too early to be taken up by the market.

I, for one, hope that Hornby doesn’t take that to heart. I value fidelity over gimmicks. 

[Godfrey Glyn]

In my opinion Hornby’s mistake with ‘design clever’ was to mention it at all. If you look at Bachmann’s Thumper that they produced for Kernow’s it has the same features that Hornby used to save money with their 2Bil around the same time. I bought several of both and am very happy with them. Personally I am very happy not to have glowing fireboxes in modeI steam locos as I  was under the impression that in  the real world of steam engines  the firebox door remains closed for most of the time. 
I could be tempted into sound in O gauge but then I want realistic smoke and steam and nobody has achieved that, and if they ever do will I want the smell around the house! I suspect the rest of the family wouldn’t.

We all have our own compromises which is what makes the hobby so interested for such a lot of people.

stay safe!
all the best

Godfrey

[The Johnster]

Not sure H would have 'got away' with 'design clever' by simply not mentioning it, and they didn't ever really need to, but if it had resulted in poor performance and a inability to maintain models, which it did apparently (I was out of the game at the time and not party to all that happened), they'd have been rumbled soon enough!  The only item I have from this period is an LNER long CCT, with those enclosed axle mountings and no pinpoints, so that the axleboxes are completely cosmetic.  It's dreadful, a consistent derailer and buffer locker on 2' radius curves, and an inveterate splitter of Peco Streamline turnouts, and I can't rewheel it without drilling holes for bearings into the back of the cosmetic axleboxes, which I can't do because I can't get the drill square to the axleboxes on the solidly assembled chassis.  Wouldn't have bought it if I'd known, caveat empor and all that, it's banned from running and there's no room for it as a siding lurker.  It's completely useless.

 

An RTR manufacturer (actually, they're not, they commission models from manufacturers in China, but they do design them) must not only make the model realistic and well-performing enough to satisfy us, within the specifications of their own trackwork and wheel profile/buffer/coupling standards, but also to make it capable of being cost effectively volume produced.  Design Clever, as I understand it, was an attempt to introduce production design, an aspect of making volume produced items I know very little about and can't really comment on, that would increase the cost effectiveness of this stage of the process.  It seems to have been a step too far in that direction and the models, while looking the part did not run well in the case of some steam locos and could not be easily improved by the majority of RTR customers, and a plan to reduce H's costs which sounded sensible enough when it was announced and did reduce production costs, but also reduced sales,and made the situation worse, is that right?

 

If my LNER CCT is anything to go by, I'm glad they've seen sense!

 

Wasn't aware of Baccy's excursions into similar territory, but AFAIK they never applied it to rolling stock or steam outline locos, which may be why they got away with it...

 

I agree in general about gimmicks, which date back to Triang's synchrosmoke and the M7's firebox glow.  They are often unrealistic, and take space which can be used for better purposes, in particular deze daze DCC, which can control firebox glow to when the loco would be being fired, and provide sounds as well.  Remember the sandpaper chuff chuffs emitting from the tender when the loco was slowing down; no thanks!

Edited March 27, 2020 by The Johnster

[Dunsignalling]

5 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

Not sure H would have 'got away' with 'design clever' by simply not mentioning it, and they didn't ever really need to, but if it had resulted in poor performance and a inability to maintain models, which it did apparently (I was out of the game at the time and not party to all that happened), they'd have been rumbled soon enough!  The only item I have from this period is an LNER long CCT, with those enclosed axle mountings and no pinpoints, so that the axleboxes are completely cosmetic.  It's dreadful, a consistent derailer and buffer locker on 2' radius curves, and an inveterate splitter of Peco Streamline turnouts, and I can't rewheel it without drilling holes for bearings into the back of the cosmetic axleboxes, which I can't do because I can't get the drill square to the axleboxes on the solidly assembled chassis.  Wouldn't have bought it if I'd known, caveat empor and all that, it's banned from running and there's no room for it as a siding lurker.  It's completely useless.

 

If my LNER CCT is anything to go by, I'm glad they've seen sense!

 

 

The LNER CCT and the SR BY vans have the same arrangement and the latter wasn't part of Design Clever AFAIK.

 

In my case, one of each was trouble-free and only the second BY had issues. Either I was lucky or it's not a fundamental design flaw.

 

The practical way to fit bearings in correct alignment to one another is to drill from outside. I only did one end, leaving the other alone - the wheelbase is such that a certain amount of flop on one axle is probably desirable.

 

Fit flanged bearings from inside, fit a wheelset and check the axle is square and level. Excessive side-play can be eradicated by adding one or more of the smaller size of Peco fibre washer behind the flanges.  Once satisfied, a drop of superglue will hold everything in place. Test run extensively, then file the faces of the axle-boxes flat and reinstate any lost detail using thin plasticard/microstrip. Etched covers would be ideal, but I couldn't find anything suitable.

 

John

[Dunsignalling]

36 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

Not sure H would have 'got away' with 'design clever' by simply not mentioning it, and they didn't ever really need to, but if it had resulted in poor performance and a inability to maintain models, which it did apparently (I was out of the game at the time and not party to all that happened), they'd have been rumbled soon enough!  The only item I have from this period is an LNER long CCT, with those enclosed axle mountings and no pinpoints, so that the axleboxes are completely cosmetic.  It's dreadful, a consistent derailer and buffer locker on 2' radius curves, and an inveterate splitter of Peco Streamline turnouts, and I can't rewheel it without drilling holes for bearings into the back of the cosmetic axleboxes, which I can't do because I can't get the drill square to the axleboxes on the solidly assembled chassis.  Wouldn't have bought it if I'd known, caveat empor and all that, it's banned from running and there's no room for it as a siding lurker.  It's completely useless.

 

If my LNER CCT is anything to go by, I'm glad they've seen sense!

 

 

The LNER CCT and the SR BY vans have the same arrangement and the latter wasn't part of Design Clever AFAIK.

 

In my case, one of each was trouble-free and only the second BY had issues. Either I was lucky or it's not a fundamental design flaw.

 

The practical way to fit bearings in correct alignment to one another is to drill from outside. I only did one end, leaving the other alone - the wheelbase is such that a certain amount of flop on one axle is probably desirable.

 

Fit flanged bearings from inside, fit a wheelset and check the axle is square and level. Excessive side-play can be eradicated by adding one or more of the smaller size of Peco fibre washer behind the flanges.  Once satisfied, a drop of superglue will hold everything in place. Test run extensively, then file the faces of the axle-boxes flat and reinstate any lost detail using thin plasticard/microstrip. Etched covers would be ideal, but I couldn't find anything suitable.

 

John

[Oldddudders]

I have several Hornby BY/Van Cs, and they run well enough. No sign of them picking Peco Code 75 or 83 points. Their design means they are just a little more reluctant to roll than the free-running Maunsells, and that suits me. If I have to split sets in the platform (FP Padstow, RP Bude) the attached van will stop the uncoupled set from rolling anywhere. 

[The Johnster]

You are of course correct, John; my trouble free and excellent Maunsell BY has the same arrangement as the LNER CCT.  I've now got a project to keep me going in isolation when I’ve finished the next on the list, Parkside Fruit D; my gratitude, sir!
 

Good point about free running, Udds; it is a highly desirable feature but can be a nuisance.  My layout is as level as my woodworking will permit, but my Hornby Collett suburbans and anything with Stafford Road/Shapeways bogies are capable of running about when I want them to stay where they are.  On a layout like mine, a BLT with short, light, trains, haulage is not the prime concern, and a light braking action from a plastic strip bearing gently and unobtrusively on an axle can be indulged in.  I do this on goods brake vans to keep couplings tight as well; it avoids the constant snatching on trains running slowly into the loop. 
 

I know (from experience) that this is not an entirely unprototypical behaviour, but the overscale distance between buffers necessitates keeping it in check. 

Edited March 27, 2020 by The Johnster