Jump to content

Hornby R2815 School Renumbering


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold
35 minutes ago, Fredo said:

Hi,

Does anyone know if the production model of 30924 is suitable to be renumbered as 30919 as we are not sure if 30919 carried  BR black when it was withdrawn in 1961.

Thanks Fred

 

30919 was one of those members of the class which never received green livery and was black to the end. 

Edited by RFS
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold

According to "Locomotives in Detail: The Schools Class" by Peter Swift, the only 4 were 30900, 30914, 30919 and 30932. Well worth obtaining a copy. 

 

When considering renumbering you need to bear in mind the first 10 had noticeable differences from the remainder, in particular the position of the cab side windows which Hornby have faithfully reproduced. Also original vs. Lemaitre chimneys. 

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

I intend to renumber one of my Schools Class as 917 Ardingly. Of the possible donors, 902 Wellington seems to be closest. I have consulted the Peter Swift book and it looks to be a simple renumbering and new name plate from Fox. 
But this class seems to be a minefield so I thought I would see if the knowledgeable folk on this site know something I have missed. You can be brutal because I am a complete novice at name changes!

E313017B-F0B1-49A6-8428-0EF8CB952837.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
10 minutes ago, barrymx5 said:

I intend to renumber one of my Schools Class as 917 Ardingly. Of the possible donors, 902 Wellington seems to be closest. I have consulted the Peter Swift book and it looks to be a simple renumbering and new name plate from Fox. 
But this class seems to be a minefield so I thought I would see if the knowledgeable folk on this site know something I have missed. You can be brutal because I am a complete novice at name changes!

 

 

See my post above regarding cabside windows. These were lower on 900-909 so will be wrong if you renumber 902 as 917. But then it depends on how closely you look at the model!

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, barrymx5 said:

I intend to renumber one of my Schools Class as 917 Ardingly. Of the possible donors, 902 Wellington seems to be closest. I have consulted the Peter Swift book and it looks to be a simple renumbering and new name plate from Fox. 
But this class seems to be a minefield so I thought I would see if the knowledgeable folk on this site know something I have missed. You can be brutal because I am a complete novice at name changes!

 

 Two more points to go with the cab windows comment above:

 

1. Ardingly was certainly one of the Schools to get a Lemaitre multiple blastpipe and chimney, but I don't know when the conversion was carried out.

2. It had the later style tender, with curved backing-plate steps that echoed those on the loco and toolboxes that ran across the tender rather than being sited longitudinally on each side, as in your photo of Wellington.  Hornby certainly make the later type tender, and they've done it in the Malachite livery if that's what you're after.  Unfortunately, the model Hornby made featuring that tender in that livery was the NRM 925 Cheltenham, which has the original chimney and is one of those models that had problems with Mazak rot (badly deformed running boards on models so afflicted).

 

The Mazak rot problem with Cheltenham might throw up a later type tender in Malachite, looking for an undamaged loco to run with, if you ask around the secondhand traders.

 

Pete T.

Edited by PJT
Added suggestion about finding a tender
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PJT said:

 

 Two more points to go with the cab windows comment above:

 

1. Ardingly was certainly one of the Schools to get a Lemaitre multiple blastpipe and chimney, but I don't know when the conversion was carried out.

2. It had the later style tender, with curved backing-plate steps that echoed those on the loco and toolboxes that ran across the tender rather than being sited longitudinally on each side, as in your photo of Wellington.  Hornby certainly make the later type tender, and they've done it in the Malachite livery if that's what you're after.  Unfortunately, the model Hornby made featuring that tender in that livery was the NRM 925 Cheltenham, which has the original chimney and is one of those models that had problems with Mazak rot (badly deformed running boards on models so afflicted).

 

The Mazak rot problem with Cheltenham might throw up a later type tender in Malachite, looking for an undamaged loco to run with, if you ask around the secondhand traders.

 

Pete T.

Thanks Pete

 

1 Peter Swift shows the Lemaitre as fitted 5/40. 
2. I think I will just have to live with early tender. If I come across a S/h later tender at an exhibition when things get back to normal, so much the better.

I had 3 of my 4 Greyhounds with Mazak rot and don't wish to increase my risk. Interestingly I managed to repair 1 Greyhound with spare parts from Peters Spares and Hornby repaired the other 2 free of charge. 
 

I appreciate your advicePete.   My reason for the switch of School is that my daughters attended Ardingly and one is about to be featured in the Old Ardinian magazine  highlighting her role in frontline fighting Covid. I thought it would be a nice touch to rename a loco too. 
regards

Barry. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, barrymx5 said:

2. I think I will just have to live with early tender. If I come across a S/h later tender at an exhibition when things get back to normal, so much the better.

 

That was my first thought, but without knowing the  timescale of exhibitions getting going again, nor knowing whether or not you had a time limit on recreating Ardingly, I wasn't going to mention it.

 

7 hours ago, barrymx5 said:

Interestingly I managed to repair 1 Greyhound with spare parts from Peters Spares and Hornby repaired the other 2 free of charge. 

 

Funnily enough, my T9 rebuild statistics are the same as yours.

 

7 hours ago, barrymx5 said:

My reason for the switch of School is that my daughters attended Ardingly and one is about to be featured in the Old Ardinian magazine  highlighting her role in frontline fighting Covid. I thought it would be a nice touch to rename a loco too.

 

That's a lovely sentiment.  And a good excuse for a bit of legitimate modelling time!

 

If I come across a later tender in Malachite, would you like me to PM you, just in case?

 

Pete T.

 

P.S. - Just thought about the Lemaitre chimney.  Dave Ellis at SE Finecast will sell individual parts from his kits and may well be able to sort you out a chimney, if you ask him?  Unfortunately a Hornby Lemaitre moulding from a gash secondhand body won't work on your loco, because Hornby Schools with the Lemaitre chimney have a socket in the smokebox into which the chimney fits, plus the smokebox has the mounting flange of the chimney moulded into it, separate from the chimney moulding itself - it'd be way too complicated to be worthwhile trying to adapt it for your use. 

 

Edited by PJT
Added P.S.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just after I ordered the Ardingly name plate from Fox Transfers this afternoon, I decided to give Wellington a quick run. After 2 minutes it threw a rubber traction tyre. I removed the body and put the tyre back on the wheel but was not feeling confident because there was no elasticity in the rubber. After another 5 minutes running Wellington threw both tyres. Although complete, both tyres seemed to be perished. So I cut them off. 
Interestingly Wellington had no difficulty with 7 Maunsells on the flat even without traction tyres. But the second radius bend on my 1:50 incline defeated it with anything more than 2 Maunsells. So it looks as if the new Ardingly, when renamed, will largely be avoiding my S&D line with its prototypical 1:50 gradient. No great problem in that the only Schools Class I have photographic evidence of on the S&D was Blundells, and my Hornby model of this loco still has its traction tyres in place.  Blundells managed my 1:50 with ease with 5 Maunsells behind. 
Anyone else have experience of running Schools without traction tyres or of changing them ? Sorry if I have strayed a little from renumbering. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/08/2020 at 23:06, PJT said:

 

....... Unfortunately, the model Hornby made featuring that tender in that livery was the NRM 925 Cheltenham, which has the original chimney and is one of those models that had problems with Mazak rot (badly deformed running boards on models so afflicted). .......

Not totally relevant to this thread but the running plate deformation on Cheltenham isn't DIRECTLY caused by Mazak rot as they're plastic ......... it's the main chassis block - on mine at least - which is expanding and forcing front and rear ends of the loco apart ..................................... unfortunately not the same problem as the T9  so Peter's Spares motor mounts aren't of any help !

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, barrymx5 said:

Anyone else have experience of running Schools without traction tyres or of changing them ? Sorry if I have strayed a little from renumbering. 

 

Me again!

 

My model of Blundells (coincidentally) shed its traction tyres about 18 months ago.  Unfortunately traction tyres are not listed on the Hornby Schools service sheet, but a quick Google revealed several recommendations to use the Castle traction tyres, which are Hornby part no. X9763.  I ordered some on line; they were called 'X9763 Castle and Schools Class' tyres by the shop selling them. When they arrived I was a bit disappointed to find they were appreciably narrower than the originals from my loco but were, if not exactly the right diameter, very close to it.  As a result I decided to see if they would fit anyway.  They did in diameter but, as expected, not in width.  In fact, they were so narrow I was sure the loco wouldn't run smoothly, but it did.  I haven't done anything further about it since then other than run the loco, and 18 months later it's still a smooth runner and the traction tyres still work ok... I just don't turn it upside down and look at the driving wheels too closely.

 

Pete T.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
16 minutes ago, PJT said:

 

Me again!

 

My model of Blundells (coincidentally) shed its traction tyres about 18 months ago.  Unfortunately traction tyres are not listed on the Hornby Schools service sheet, but a quick Google revealed several recommendations to use the Castle traction tyres, which are Hornby part no. X9763.  I ordered some on line; they were called 'X9763 Castle and Schools Class' tyres by the shop selling them. When they arrived I was a bit disappointed to find they were appreciably narrower than the originals from my loco but were, if not exactly the right diameter, very close to it.  As a result I decided to see if they would fit anyway.  They did in diameter but, as expected, not in width.  In fact, they were so narrow I was sure the loco wouldn't run smoothly, but it did.  I haven't done anything further about it since then other than run the loco, and 18 months later it's still a smooth runner and the traction tyres still work ok... I just don't turn it upside down and look at the driving wheels too closely.

 

Pete T.

 

 

I understand the correct part number is X6451 which is actually a pack of 10 tyres, although there are Ebay sellers who will sell you a pair for less money, eg this one

Edited by RFS
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

Not totally relevant to this thread but the running plate deformation on Cheltenham isn't DIRECTLY caused by Mazak rot as they're plastic ......... it's the main chassis block - on mine at least - which is expanding and forcing front and rear ends of the loco apart ..................................... unfortunately not the same problem as the T9  so Peter's Spares motor mounts aren't of any help !

 

Yes, you're absolutely right, I should have been clearer.  What I should have said (and what I meant) was that the deformed running plate is the most obvious symptom of the chassis block's expansion. 

 

Mine was horrendous to look at - it was a bit like The Incredible Hulk bursting out of his clothes at either end to look at - very dramatic.  I ended up buying a very cheap, badly cared for, non-runner Schools to donate its chassis to my Cheltenham.  The parts of the body that had been distorted by the chassis expansion from within took a long time and a lot of intricate, careful persuasion to straighten out again - the running plate in particular had really set hard in its distorted shape.  I managed to get it all straight again and I'm very happy with it, but I daren't tot up the hours I spent doing it.  Written off the time to experience, as they say.

 

Pete T.

   

  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RFS said:

I understand the correct part number is X6451 which is actually a pack of 10 tyres, although there are Ebay sellers who will sell you a pair for less money, eg this one

 

Thank you, Robert, I've just looked at them and ordered a pair.  By the description in the eBay listing, the Schools they fit are the Railroad ones - R3158 Dover and R3172 Cheltenham - whereas my Blundells (and that of Barrymx5, above) is the super detail issue Schools, R2744.  But, hey, they've got to be the right sort of diameter and looking at the photo on eBay they certainly look wider than the ones I bought before, so they're worth a try for £1.99 plus p+p.  Thanks again - when they arrive I'll try them and post the results here.

 

Pete T.

 

Edited by PJT
Got confused which of my Schools I was talking about - well, it is late!
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, PJT said:

 

Thank you, Robert, I've just looked at them and ordered a pair.  By the description in the eBay listing, the Schools they fit are the Railroad ones - R3158 Dover and R3172 Cheltenham - whereas my Cheltenham (and that of Wickham Green, above) is the super detail NRM issue Schools, R2827.  But, hey, they've got to be the right sort of diameter and looking at the photo on eBay they certainly look wider than the ones I bought before, so they're worth a try for £1.99 plus p+p.  Thanks again - when they arrive I'll try them and post the results here.

 

Pete T.

 

Thanks for all this helpful info Robert and Pete. I too will order from EBay. 

A very basic question- how do you remove the connecting rods to fit the new traction tyres? Is it a Hexagonal nut ?

 

regards Barry 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, barrymx5 said:

A very basic question- how do you remove the connecting rods to fit the new traction tyres? Is it a Hexagonal nut ?

 

Yes, it's hex head screws, Barry. 

 

Actually, Hornby do a rather neat nut spanner or 'runner' (Part no. R913, usually £4.00-5.00 or so) with the two most common sizes for valve gear/con rod/coupling rod screws at either end.  Saves chewing screw heads up with something that's not quite the right size and does the job in seconds.  It's a bit expensive for what you get when we're all used to seeing so many tuppenny-ha'penny Far Eastern tools these days, but it's absolutely the right tool for the job and it fits most Hornby and Bachmann locos in my experience, so for me it was a good investment.  And no, I don't work for Hornby Sales...

 

Pete T.

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, PJT said:

 

Yes, you're absolutely right, I should have been clearer.  What I should have said (and what I meant) was that the deformed running plate is the most obvious symptom of the chassis block's expansion. 

 

Mine was horrendous to look at - it was a bit like The Incredible Hulk bursting out of his clothes at either end to look at - very dramatic.  I ended up buying a very cheap, badly cared for, non-runner Schools to donate its chassis to my Cheltenham.  The parts of the body that had been distorted by the chassis expansion from within took a long time and a lot of intricate, careful persuasion to straighten out again - the running plate in particular had really set hard in its distorted shape.  I managed to get it all straight again and I'm very happy with it, but I daren't tot up the hours I spent doing it.  Written off the time to experience, as they say.

 

Pete T.

   

Mine - "As New" from a well known retailer - wasn't quite that bad but the front frame extension snapped as I levered it out of the body ................... the decent bits will get incorporated in a pair of Comet frames in due course.

  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

Mine - "As New" from a well known retailer - wasn't quite that bad but the front frame extension snapped as I levered it out of the body ................... the decent bits will get incorporated in a pair of Comet frames in due course.

 

What really shocked me about mine was the speed at which the Mazak rot manifested itself.  In the space of absolutely no more than 2 months it went from an outwardly fine looking model to something that looked like it had been repeatedly dropped to the floor, on either end (a lot worse at the front).  It's a salutory lesson to check more often in your model railway collection the locos that are publicly known to be Mazak rot suspects.   

 

I've always worked in car and car parts manufacturing and I'm well used to seeing wrecked pressure die cast impure Mazak car badges and bright trim from 'the bad old days' (we used to call Mazak 'pig metal', which is a little unfair because when made and used correctly it's a remarkably useful material), but they usually self destructed over a period of years from the point where the cracks first appeared.  I spotted cracks (crazing in the paintwork) on the chassis of my Cheltenham and put it to one side to investigate; next time I looked at it, it had exploded. 

 

It was certainly a challenge to sort it out but very satisfying to get it back to how it should have been.  However I won't spend that sort of time again, rebuilding another Mazak rot stricken loco as bad as that one was.

 

Pete T.

    

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25/08/2020 at 20:53, barrymx5 said:

Anyone else have experience of running Schools without traction tyres or of changing them ? Sorry if I have strayed a little from renumbering. 

 

On 25/08/2020 at 22:29, RFS said:

I understand the correct part number is X6451 which is actually a pack of 10 tyres, although there are Ebay sellers who will sell you a pair for less money, eg this one

 

On 25/08/2020 at 22:58, PJT said:

Thank you, Robert, I've just looked at them and ordered a pair.  By the description in the eBay listing, the Schools they fit are the Railroad ones - R3158 Dover and R3172 Cheltenham - whereas my Blundells (and that of Barrymx5, above) is the super detail issue Schools, R2744.  But, hey, they've got to be the right sort of diameter and looking at the photo on eBay they certainly look wider than the ones I bought before, so they're worth a try for £1.99 plus p+p.  Thanks again - when they arrive I'll try them and post the results here.

 

Well, the replacement traction tyres - described on eBay as Railroad ones - arrived this morning.  I took them out of the envelope and thought 'Shame, they look too narrow, just like the ones I got before.'  However, I've just fitted them this evening to my Blundells and they fit just like the originals - not quite filling the width of the grooves on the driving wheels, but a whole lot better than the sloppy, under-width 'Castle/Schools' replacements I got 18 months ago.  The loco runs perfectly with them fitted too.

 

So, success.  Thank you again, Robert.  I'm not sure I'd have given traction tyres described as being for the Railroad Hunt/Schools/D49/County models a second glance if you hadn't pointed them out.  I now know that X6451 traction tyres definitely fit the super detail Schools as well.

 

Pete T.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well thank you for all this splendid information. 
I have now ordered the R913 tool from Peters Spares and the tyres from eBay with delivery next month.    So should be able to get the new tyres on shortly. In the meantime it performs fine on the flat. 
 

On the original subject of renumbering, the Ardingly nameplate and transfers arrived yesterday from Fox Transfers. Very speedy and efficient. I fixed the nameplates this afternoon and the numbers 1 and 7 in place of the 02. The 9  of 902 matches. I will clean up the area with IPA tomorrow when the transfers are well fixed and apply some clear varnish.  Then it is just renumbering the buffer beam and job done.  Goodbye Wellington hello Ardingly!

Edited by barrymx5
Typo
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Renumbering and renaming now completed. I was not happy with my original plan above to keep the original 9 in the number and eventually replaced all 3 numbers. A small amount of adhesive is stubborn and still to be removed (water seems better than IPA which seems to leave a cloudy residue). But generally happy with result. 

DE7E07B6-71F0-4573-9F31-FD645865DF5D.jpeg

D9CEB16E-3AEF-4B15-9FAC-CDB7B0F025EC.jpeg

1C2032A8-FBCC-4583-8B3C-E091A49E499A.jpeg

  • Like 3
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
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.