Hornby 2021 - Wagons

[Compound2632]

2 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Mind you my dad worked in an industry where specifying something in "lead paint" finish was red lead!

 

Presumably it was metal objects that were being painted.

[Steamport Southport]

1 hour ago, Flying Pig said:

 

 

Interestingly, carriages attract more attention and have been extensively renewed over the years, but even so I think one could argue that they are intended to drive loco sales.  The ongoing absence of an LMS driving trailer is a case in point - several suitable locos exist to attract buyers for one, but they aren't in the Hornby range.

 

Not made by Hornby though. That's the main problem. All the suitable P/P fitted locomotives are made by Bachmann.

 

Maybe Hornby are thinking that Bachmann will do one so it's not worth bothering? They did the Inspection Saloons and Portholes so LMS coaches are in their range.

 

If people ask Bachmann for one, maybe they will see the light....

 

 

Jason

[Flying Pig]

14 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

Not made by Hornby though. That's the main problem. All the suitable P/P fitted locomotives are made by Bachmann.

 

 

Precisely my suggestion - the absence of a driving trailer illustrates the unwillingness of Hornby to tool rolling stock that will not lead to loco purchases from their own range.  I am guessing this is because Hornby believe the return on stock alone doesn't justify the investment.

 

The particular vehicle was just an example with which to speculate about Hornby policy, but as it would be in most respects identical to the Hornby PIII brake third (from which most of the prototype were converted) it seems an unlikely subject for Bachmann.  (And yes it's an easy conversion for the modeller too, but that isn't the point here.)

[melmerby]

6 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Presumably it was metal objects that were being painted.

Yup

Core drying ovens and associated metalwork, pretty well all made from steel.

[gwrrob]

I see the R 6641B BR liveried CCT van in crimson is shewing as arriving with stockists.

[Robin Brasher]

On 05/01/2021 at 12:47, Ruffnut Thorston said:

I’m loving the Tri-ang Toys container and Conflat!

 

I must get one of these, to go with my Tri-ang  Railways examples...

 

 

You will be pleased to see that the R60032 BR, Conflat A, Tri-ang has now appeared and is widely available.  I pre-ordered mine with my local model shop, which is in tier 2, so I hope I will get one eventually.  The model is authentic and I have seen a picture of the prototype hauled by a BR 2-6-4T in a railway book. Meanwhile I enclose a picture of my Tri-ang R561 black version whereas the new version is dark blue.

[Ruffnut Thorston]

Thanks for the heads up. 🙂

 

I have also posted on the Collectable/ Vintage pages. 

 

 

 

Edited April 27, 2022 by Ruffnut Thorston
Typo

[AY Mod]

12 hours ago, Robin Brasher said:

Meanwhile I enclose a picture of my Tri-ang R561 black version whereas the new version is dark blue.

 

It's dark blue, rather than black. The new version's colour doesn't gel with me after all the years.

[Steamport Southport]

Might pick one of those up myself. Even if just for the container as the wagon is getting a bit tired now, but does scrub up reasonably well. Like many of us, it is getting on a bit after all. 😐

 

Here's a real one.

 

https://PaulBartlett.zenfolio.com/bcontainer/e6c7f14db

 

 

Jason

[Robin Brasher]

11 hours ago, AY Mod said:

 

It's dark blue, rather than black. The new version's colour doesn't gel with me after all the years.

My Tri-ang Pedigree container has come out a lighter shade in the photograph than it is in reality. I agree that my version is blue-black but Tri-ang also produced another BK8900 in black. The new R60032 Pedigree container appears to be in a lighter shade of blue than the Tri-ang version.  I have not seen a colour picture of the prototype but it looks like two of the three colours used by Tri-ang and Hornby are wrong.

 

There is a discussion about this model in 'Collectable Vintage- Tri-ang Conflat L'.  It looks like the prototype had plywood sides as modelled by Tri-ang rather than planked sides as modelled by Hornby.

 

The Tri-ang model may be more accurate than the Hornby model both in its colour and its details.

 

Although the Hornby model is widely available at Hattons, Cheltenham Models and many other outlets the model that I ordered from my local model shop in January 2021 has not yet appeared.  If, or when, it does appear I wonder if the staff will discuss the merits of the model's livery and whether it should have plywood sides over a cup of tea as a reward for remaining loyal to my local model shop.

[Robin Brasher]

You will be pleased to see that my R60032 BR Conflat and Container 'Tri-ang and Pedigree' has now arrived at my local model shop. Unfortunately the box has been damaged somewhere either in the post from Hornby to the model shop or in the shop. For a purchaser the condition of the box is sometimes as important as the condition of the model. There has been no damage to the model.

 

I don't recall the boxes being damaged in my postal purchases from shops like Rails, Hattons or Kernow and I thought that the items purchased directly from a model shop would be less likely to be damaged.

[The Johnster]

On 05/01/2021 at 13:39, 57xx said:

 

Looks like quite a few Airfix re-hashes there, the Conflat and Lowmac both look like the old Airfix items.

 

Agreed, and a problem with Hornby's broadside on photos of their models is that it does not make it clear that the handbrake levers are not moulded in to the chassis tooling Airfix style.  At least Airfix used to get their brake blocks in line with the wheels IIRC.  I remember my Airfix Lowmac with the box load fixed permanently to it, which was a bit of a pain because it was not a load that was a suitable size for a Lowmac; there was no reason it could not have been craned into a normal open or lashed down on a dropside.  Hornby seem to be reproducing this anomaly, a tooling in it's 6th decade that really doesn't cut the current mustard if this is the case.

 

I'm disappointed in the shocvan as well, a standard van painted in a shocvan livery ignoring the shorter body and the springs visible on the sides of the chassis, as well as the shocvan buffers.  Bachmann's version is much better; shame on you Hornby!

 

You will be relieved to hear I have no problems with the conflat and Triang Pedigree container, so long as the chassis is up to current scratch, by which I mean brake blocks in line with wheels (actually out of scale because of the narrower compromised 00 gauge), separate handbrake levers, and proper underframe detail. 

[The Johnster]

On 05/01/2021 at 14:42, Steamport Southport said:

 

Look at the junk in the Triang and Hornby catalogues in the 1960s. Collectors lap them up. Some of us wouldn't bother the bin with them.

 

By and large, but there are some surprises.  None of the Triang or Triang Hornby stuff is acceptable as it is because of the wheel profiles and the ride height, but some of these bargain bin cheap'n'cheerful/nastys may have parts to play on modern layouts.  The Hull and Barnsley/L&Y van body tooling is not dreadful and can be part of an acceptable model with the underframe and running gear replaced and the raised planking lines replaced with scribed gaps, and the Murgatroyd's Chrlorine bogie tanker, vital for anyone modelling the Brecon and Merthyr, is basically not too bad and can be worked up with better ladders and new bogies.  

 

The old Triang shorty clerestories are the basis of many a cut'n'shut, and stand comparison with any panelled coach body detail that has been produced in the 7 decades they've been on the scene; Rovex Triang were well on top of their game when it came to plastic tooling.  Even the original 1949 Rovex Black Princess had cab backhead detail.

 

Hornby Dublo 'superdetail' SD series 10' wheelbase plastic opens from the 60s are pretty good above the solebar as well; I run a Mica B with a Parkside chassis.

[The Johnster]

On 06/01/2021 at 01:18, The Johnster said:

On 05/01/2021 at 13:55, Neil Phillips said:

LNER extra-long CCT when the previous one is still available.

Does the new one still have the 'design clever' chassis?  I had a lot of trouble with mine and eventually replaced it with a Parkside kit, but my Southern BY, which has a similarly designed chassis has never given any bother at all!

 

An exact parallel of my experience with 'design clever' NPCCS, Southern BY in BR crimson livery is a delight, LNER extra-long CCT a constant buffer locker, derailer, stiff runner and general PITA cured with a Parkside underframe and running gear (too lazy to bother with the body, painting, transfers &c).  In fact, I took the BY out of it's box, weathered it up a bit, put it into traffic, and never looked underneath until some time had passed; didn't even realise it was 'design clever' until some time last year!

[The Johnster]

On 07/01/2021 at 13:45, Compound2632 said:

Bachmann's 37-xxx series of RCH 1923 mineral wagons remain among the very best steam-era RTR wagons around. It's a shame they can't bring themselves to be a little more self-disciplined in regard to choice of liveries!

What he said!

 

Hornby still can't bring themselves to produce a steel bodied 16ton mineral with the correct underframe or body length, or the correct wheelbase, and this as much as anything illustrate's their dismissive attitude to 'mere wagons' and those of us who bother about this sort of thing; 'it's only a toy train set'.  Baccy's minerals, planked and steel, on the correct 9' wheelbase, may run into cloud cuckoo land with the liveries a bit but at least they get the basics right and we can always repaint or weather.  A Hornby mineral is as much use on my layout as an ice cube on the Titanic.

 

By and large happy with my Oxford minerals as well.

[The Johnster]

On 07/01/2021 at 14:00, melmerby said:

 

 

I think both Bachmann and Hornby milk their old toolings far too much, such that the price/quality ratio is too high.

Apart from better wheels and couplings the ex-Mainline stuff hasn't had much updating, meanwhile the oldest Hornby stuff hasn't even benefitted to new couplings in many cases.

 

Agreed, but you have to see it from the manufacturers pov to some extent, albeit a limited one.  Older toolings may have been designed by production engineers half a century or so ago and not as able to take advantage of modern tool efficiency in the same way as recent designs, accounting for the fairly high prices being asked for older tooled items.  We assume that because these models are cruder and have less discrete components they are cheaper to produce, but, like the song says, it ain' ness'arly so'. 

 

We are not party to the economics of RTR production except in general terms, so that for instance I find it easy to understand that discrete components increase labour costs because humans have to put it all together, but the costs of actual tooling of components are a mystery to me beyond an understanding that it is the function of the production engineer to devise a way of producing the model that is going to turn a profit for the company and still satisfy the demands of a minority of the customer base (and make no mistake, modellers who bother about detail even in the lackadaisical way that I do it are very much in a minority, something 'we'* don't always fully appreciate because we sort of live in our own little bubble of exhibitions, this website, and the few people we know).  It doesn't matter (much, anyway) how bad we consider a model to be if the company is able to produce and sell it profitably, or how good we consider the model to be if it can't; we don't count (much, anyway) in the company's reckoning, and this is right and proper because catering just to us is a fast track to bankruptcy.

 

 

*'we' in this case intended to signify 'serious modellers', but I have no real idea of what the definition of one of those is when it's at home.  I don't feel comfortable with some of the definitions I come up with for this, they come across as a bit arrogant and 'superior', but as a general definiton the closest I can manage is that 'we' are those who use RMweb, and who make the best effort we can to get our railways to be built and operated to scale and using the correct protoypical methods, whatever our actual standard of modelling to scale.  I would not build a layout to most of the plans in the Hornby track plan book because they are difficult to operate to the 1955 rule book, my basic operating premies, but I have no issue with the modelling standards implied by the building of such a layout.

 

 

[Robin Brasher]

I don't regard myself as a serious modeller but when I am paying £23.49 for a Hornby Conflat and Tri-ang Container I think I am being reasonable in expecting an accurate model in terms of detail and livery.  In real terms £23.49 is more than the cost of a Hornby Dublo Restaurant Car in 1958 and about the price of three of the Hornby Dublo SD6 wagons.

 

In this instance it looks like Hornby have taken an old Airfix container and simply painted it in an incorrect Pedigree Prams livery.

 

If you look at the photograph of the prototype on page 264 of 'The Story of Rovex Volume 1 1950 - 1965 by Pat Hammond' you will see that the prototype had plywood sides whereas the model has planked sides.  The black and white photograph also suggests a darker shade than Hornby's model.

 

I may be wrong and perhaps Hornby are working from a colour photograph of a real container with planked sides. 

 

I am not confident about Hornby's research based on their past performance with the LSWR brake van that was originally produced in the incorrect shade of brown and the LSWR engineering department wagon that they painted brown when it should have been red oxide.

[Ruffnut Thorston]

On 01/05/2022 at 18:15, The Johnster said:

>Snipped.

 

  I remember my Airfix Lowmac with the box load fixed permanently to it, which was a bit of a pain because it was not a load that was a suitable size for a Lowmac; there was no reason it could not have been craned into a normal open or lashed down on a dropside.  Hornby seem to be reproducing this anomaly, a tooling in it's 6th decade that really doesn't cut the current mustard if this is the case.

>/Snipped

 

I agree about that darned crate load...

 

We have one, the deck has a few scars from where we carved away the well attached crate!

 

I did hear that more recent Hornby versions come with a plastic mounting bracket, that the crate clips onto.

Apparently the bracket is supplied fitted I to the crate, but not fixed to the Lowmac deck. Instead, a double sided adhesive pad is supplied, for the user to attach the bracket to the Lowmac deck if required.

 

I haven't actually seen one of these though, it would need checking...

 

 

 

On 01/05/2022 at 18:15, The Johnster said:

 

 

[Ruffnut Thorston]

On 04/05/2022 at 17:08, Robin Brasher said:

>Snipped

 

In this instance it looks like Hornby have taken an old Airfix container and simply painted it in an incorrect Pedigree Prams livery.

 

If you look at the photograph of the prototype on page 264 of 'The Story of Rovex Volume 1 1950 - 1965 by Pat Hammond' you will see that the prototype had plywood sides whereas the model has planked sides.  The black and white photograph also suggests a darker shade than Hornby's model.

 

I may be wrong and perhaps Hornby are working from a colour photograph of a real container with planked sides. 

 

>/Snipped

 

 

As the new Hornby model has the container number BK8900B, the same number as the original 1963 Tri-ang Railways model, it should be the same type of container as in the photo in Pat Hammond's book.

 

 

The photo shews one Conflat A loaded with a Tri-ang container, but also, to the left of the photo, the door end of another Tri-ang container. This is actually BK8900B, as the real containers had the container number painted on the door end, as well as the side.

The non door end is not shewn.

 

So, the door end decoration on the Hornby container is wrong, for the period of the prototype photo, whatever the actual construction of the container.

 

 

This leads me to suspect the veracity of the decoration of the non door end...

 

 

At least the actual model has a more correct container number than the original Hornby pre release artwork.

This shews a BD container number, and BD type containers had side doors, as well as doors in one end!

 

The Conflat actually supplied also differs from that artwork. Lots of small details in the lettering are different.

 

The Conflat is fitted with the original type of Airfix Railway System clip in coupling mounts.

Not NEM pockets.

 

Hornby R8099 Coupling Assembly couplings fit these mountings, and the head is of the now current Narrow tension lock coupling size.

A good upgrade.

 

 

https://uk.Hornby.com/products/coupling-assemblies-pack-10-r8099

 

A shame that they don't come as standard by now, they have been available for years now! 

 

Pre Release Artwork.

 

Model as supplied. (Not the best lighting.🤷‍♀️)

 

 

EDIT:

 

Coincidence...The Bachmann Times (Bachmann Collectors Club Magazine) Summer 2022 issue,

 received today, has a feature on Conflats and Containers...

The article has a photo of a Tri-ang BK Container! 🙂

 

 

 

Edited May 9, 2022 by Ruffnut Thorston
New photo added.

[Flittersnoop]

I was thinking of getting one of these. The planking means I won't bother. Hornby seem to have become very cynical about what they expect us to buy. I know it's only a toy; no big deal, just disappointing.

[Steamport Southport]

Great model when it came out. Far better than anything Hornby/Triang/etc had made at that point.

 

One of the first "proper" models I bought.

 

http://www.airfixrailways.co.uk/WagonsJ.htm

 

But that was nearly 45 years ago. Should be slung in the Railroad range now and priced to match. 

 

 

Jason

[The Johnster]

It seems to be fairly easy to idientify the older tooling that Hornby are still producing and marketing as if they were recently tooled 'hi-fi' full fat models; they don't have NEM pockets.  Such Hornby models that do have NEM pockets tend to be pretty reliably to scale and carry correct liveries, but some of the others...

 

This is exactly what you would have thought was the purpose of the Railroad range, older toolings whose toolings have long been paid for, that can be sold at a lower price to customers who are not as bothered with fine detail and scale measurements for whatever reason.  Sounded like a good idea when it was first introduced, but as we've discussed mnay times seems to have lost it's way a bit, both in terms of which models are included in it and in terms of pricing.  This is to my mind confusing and counterproductive, and sometimes leads to what I consider to have been lost opportunities. 

 

For example, the 2020 re-introduction of LOTI and the shorty clerestories (brilliant name for a a band...),  These are not much altered from the original 1961 products, though the shorties now have plug-in rather than rivetted bogies.  They still have the old separate plastic underframe detail moulding, clip-in roofs, and B1 generic bogies, and of course are still at least an inch too short to represent any prototype.  The loco still looks indecently bare beneath the running plate, and still has the prominent boiler skirts, something that has been less than acceptable on an RTR steam outline model since the late 70s.  A revamp with better underframe detail and bogies, and an interior, would have possible, admittedly pushing the price up, or a completely new tooling to current standards, but as this was neve done I suspect Hornby's attitude to anynone who asks for a Dean era non-gangwayed bogie clerestory is 'fine, buy some of these, and we'll sell you a single to pull 'em as well', and they will never be improved on now!

 

Few RTR companies do not have at least a smattering of these older and faulted toolings in their ranges, inevitable when new releases are to constantly improving standards of scale ane detail, but they really should be retired IMHO.  But the persistence in knocking them out to customers who are not bothered or able to do their own research as 'authentic scale models' when they are not, or are in incorrect or even imaginary liveries, is, I would say, mendacious at best.  If the model is the wrong size, or the wrong livery, fine, but say so on the box and stop doing business by the 'one born every minute' principle.

[Robin Brasher]

Thank you for your recent posts.  Unless the customer has a photograph of the prototype or has seen a review in a magazine or in 'You Tube' the customer would not be aware if the model was not authentic.

 

I have seen photographs of the prototype Hornby R60032 BR Conflat A. Tri-ang in books but it was not until Ruffnet Thornston jogged my memory that I found it in 'The Story of Rovex Volume 1' I have still not found the other photograph which shows a BR 4MT hauling a Tri-ang container wagon.

 

As the container wagon is for Tri-ang products I would have expected Hornby to have the resources to produce an authentic model and at the time I ordered it in January 1961 I just assumed it would be an accurate model that would be passed as authentic by the Hornby manager.

 

I wonder if any of the model railway magazines will notice the errors in the model.

 

 

 

[Ruffnut Thorston]

I wonder if any of the magazines will even review a wagon.

 

Most of the reviews seem to be Locomotive models...🤔

 

It may well be a generalisation...but it does sometimes seem that a lot of people are Locomotive focused. 🤷🏼‍♀️

 

Wagons are not as "fashionable" as locomotives, coaching stock comes next, lowly wagons....🤷🏼‍♀️

 

🙂

 

 

 

[The Johnster]

I would describe that as 'a truth, generally to be acknowledged', and I don't quote Jane Austen much as a rule...  Many of us have as many locomotives as passenger coaches, and almost all of us have locomotives we don't use, despite the cost of these big ticket items.  I don't think of myself as particularly lococentric, and I'm just as interested in all forms of rolling stock, and the signallling and building styles that help to create the impression of, in my case, a South Wales colliery branch in the Tondu Valleys in the 1950s.  I have 14 WR locomotives, and 12 passenger coaches, but I can justify this to some extent.

 

Tondu in the 1950s had an allocation of about 50 locomotives, all tank engines of various types, to cover 4 branches and some main line work.  Each branch had at least 2 diagrams covering passenger work, some more, and several colliery clearances, then the pickups, and any other goods work.  The locos, once coaled for their day's diagram, did a full day's work with 2 crews over 2 shifts, with relief about lunchtime, and one might expect to see 5 or 6 different locos at each branch terminus over the course of a day, and my layout represents one of these termini, albeit one that never existed in reality; the geographical location is real, though!  But not all locos can do all the work; auto services clearly need auto-fitted locos, 4575s, the colliery trains are a bit heavy for anything smaller than a 56xx, for some reason Tondu regarded 5101 and 94xx as passenger engines only, and a 42xx is not efficient use of motive power on a pickup.  Each turn needs to have a suitable loco available, the Tremains workmans is not considered suitable for a pannier because of the distance travelled, and locos are taken out of service every 10 working days for boiler washouts which last 48 hours.  On top of this one of them will probably be away at Caerphilly or Swindon for overhaul.  14 locos don't seem so excessive if I am to run a credible timetable, now, do they? 

 

OTOH, 2 coach loco hauled or auto sets, strengthened to 3 on Saturdays for the shoppers and day trippers (actual Tondu practice), are quite likely to be the same sets for several days at a time, so I can equally credibly 'get away' with 3 sets of loco hauled, 2 sets of auto, and Saturday  strengtheners, hence the apparently lococentric provision of locos and coaches.  Mineral wagons number 22 at the moment, close to the maximum the fy and the colliery can handle and the limit of the run-around loop, and there are about 30 general merchandise goods, 10 of which are 'specialist' wagons (shocvans, inuslated, and such), some of which do not appear very often.  The overall numbers of general merchandise wagons are arguably less important than the ratio of van to opens, and of fitted to unfitted; this was something that was changing rapidly in 50s, away from unfitted and opens. 

 

I have all the rolling stock I need to run a credible timetable with a degree of day-to-day change.