Jump to content
 

Hornby 2021 - 4 & 6 wheel period coaches


AY Mod
 Share

Recommended Posts

I got 5 from Derails as soon as they came out.

 

I like them. But the light bleed on my examples is terrible especially the 6 wheel brake. I shall probably take them apart and paint them.

 

In fact I was about to do this when I realised that R40127 and R40130 did not have any gas cylinders on the base.

Anyone else missing gas cylinders?

No sign of them in the detail pack either 

 

I shall probably contact derails later today about it. 

 

Cheerho all

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

 

For instance, by the time the GWR had a body panel style close to that of the generics, it (a) built them with end turn-unders (my earlier point), (b) built them with elliptical roof profiles and (c) had stopped building 6-wheelers.* 

 

Six wheeled coaches were banned from several GWR tertiary lines on which 4 wheelers were permitted.

  • Informative/Useful 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hornby have posted this video of the coaches on their YouTube channel 

 

 

Can't help but notice the colour of the lbsc livery coaches looks odd to me, compared to the prototype 1st 661 from the bluebell. Kernow also have a couple of then in stock and their photos also show the odd colour.

Perhaps it's the thickness of the lining? Or the need for a coat of varnish maybe as all the others look great. 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

 

To add to what m' Learned Friend has just said, the LB&SCR would be another arc-roof 4 and 6-wheel coach builder.  As to the LSWR, we can place that company fully in the arc-roof camp so far as 4 and 6-wheel carriages are concerned; when bogie carriages were introduced by the SW in the '80s, they too were arc-roofed.  The SW elliptical roofs didn't come in until about 1893, IIRC, on bogie carriages.  


Not quite right I'm afraid - there were definitely elliptical-roofed LSWR 6-wheelers, including the 30' passenger brake van (Fig. 4.17 in Weddell book 1) and the 24' 4-wheel luggage van of 1894. The 1900/01 6-wheel block trains also had elliptical roofs, as did (and I'm aware this is an obscure one!) the hearse vans used on the Necropolis trains.

Edited by Skinnylinny
  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Skinnylinny said:


Not quite right - there were definitely elliptical-roofed LSWR 6-wheelers, including the 30' passenger brake van (Fig. 4.17 in Weddell book 1) and the 24' 4-wheel luggage van of 1894. The 1900/01 6-wheel block trains also had elliptical roofs, as did (and I'm aware this is an obscure one!) the hearse vans used on the Necropolis trains.

 

Fair enough, I had overlooked the 20th century! 

  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
34 minutes ago, mi-go-a-go-go said:

In fact I was about to do this when I realised that R40127 and R40130 did not have any gas cylinders on the base.

Anyone else missing gas cylinders?

Those coaches have oil lamps on the roof, so no need for gas tanks. It looks like the sample photos have them fitted by mistake.

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes thats correct they do indeed have the oil lamp fittings in the roof. 

 

So that makes sense. Hornby need to update their product pictures. 

 

The bottom looks very errrrr naked though. Mys eyes keep being drawn to its bareness.......lol

 

Cheers for that Nile

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mi-go-a-go-go said:

I got 5 from Derails as soon as they came out.

 

I like them. But the light bleed on my examples is terrible especially the 6 wheel brake. I shall probably take them apart and paint them.

 

In fact I was about to do this when I realised that R40127 and R40130 did not have any gas cylinders on the base.

Anyone else missing gas cylinders?

No sign of them in the detail pack either 

 

I shall probably contact derails later today about it. 

 

Cheerho all

 

Has anyone tried fitting a resistor to reduce the LED output, given that oil lamps were presumably not very bright in real life (never seen a 1:1 in action)? 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, mi-go-a-go-go said:

The bottom looks very errrrr naked though. Mys eyes keep being drawn to its bareness.......lol

Agreed, the 6-wheelers don't even have an air-brake cylinder to relieve the openness.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

My missing Brake Third arrived yesterday to complete my BT-F-T-BT 4-set. Light bleed through the body side paintwork is definitely an issue in total darkness but not too noticeable in the lowest light I operate under. With a terminus to fiddle yard setup I find shunting three link fitted wagons too difficult in the dark! I may investigate reducing the brightness in a few days time but for now I'm having too much fun running them in my temporally challenged world!

 

DSCF5109crop.jpg.6aec17bd3e008b974902cc345a30ed5e.jpg

 

DSCF5086crop.jpg.4363c7f1f74f95d99ddd36a4fc36b173.jpg   

Edited by SR Chris
Added another picture because I could!
  • Like 18
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to be contrarian, but do lights really add that much? You can't really see them in the day and they wouldn't be on anyway. So unless you're running your layout exclusively at night or have a night themed. I struggle to see the exact benefit. Though please tell me if I'm wrong. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
9 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

As a work of acknowledged fiction those are smart and attractive vehicles. Only the knowledgeable would recognise their implausibility. 

I've always favoured plausibilty.....certainly lowers the stress levels...

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 minutes ago, scots region said:

Not to be contrarian, but do lights really add that much? You can't really see them in the day and they wouldn't be on anyway. So unless you're running your layout exclusively at night or have a night themed. I struggle to see the exact benefit. Though please tell me if I'm wrong. 

 

I find there's something quite enjoyable about seeing the lights of a train travelling through the "night".

 

I've seen people object that you ought to have headlights for all the road vehicles that are supposed to be moving etc., but I reckon that if I can imagine a stationary car is actually moving I can also live with the lack of lights.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
12 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

As a work of acknowledged fiction those are smart and attractive vehicles. Only the knowledgeable would recognise their implausibility. 

 

Ah, but isn't it a good thing for more people to become more knowledgeable?

 

Those footboards...

  • Like 2
  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 minute ago, Gilbert said:

I've always favoured plausibilty.....certainly lowers the stress levels...

 

I don't mind much if it's not obvious to me.

 

Errors in - say - a Mk 3 sleeper stand out to me because I've spent so many nights on one.

 

But something that I'd have to look up to find was wrong doesn't bother me very much.

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
Just now, Coryton said:

 

I don't mind much if it's not obvious to me.

 

Errors in - say - a Mk 3 sleeper stand out to me because I've spent so many nights on one.

 

But something that I'd have to look up to find was wrong doesn't bother me very much.

 

Well, I suppose I'm in the opposite position: I'd have to have the faults in a Mk 3 sleeper pointed out to me. 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 3
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Well, I suppose I'm in the opposite position: I'd have to have the faults in a Mk 3 sleeper pointed out to me. 

 

Yes, but if I wanted to model the era in which a 'Mark 3 Sleeper'* existed - whatever one of those is - I'd care enough for it to be right.

 

But, given that pre-Grouping is a burgeoning interest, with 1,000s of unfamiliar prototypes, something generic, yet representative, is not a bad place to start. 

 

 

* Is this one?

 

sleeper5.jpg.347f77800b303ccb776dc2e96f361219.jpg

 

 

 

  • Like 4
  • Agree 1
  • Funny 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
11 hours ago, Edwardian said:

Fair enough, I had overlooked the 20th century! 

Two World wars, disasters, epedemics ('Spanish' Flu' killed more than the World War that preceeded it), death camps, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity, mad dictators, poisonous ideals, repeated genocide, totalitarianism, terrorism; if you're going to overlook a century, this is probably the best one to overlook...

  • Like 2
  • Agree 3
  • Funny 2
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...