Hornby Announce L&MR 0-4-2 "Lion"?

[Dunsignalling]

35 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

Haulage should not be an issue for Lion on its four coupled wheels. The problem is there is no sign Hornby is willing to improve its 0-4-2 chassis game. Decent suspension is simply not something that bothers Hornby's mindset. It's because Hornby won't spend £2.50 on a good gearbox and a couple of simple springs. It expects you to pay top dollar though for the same old stuff, because it knows you mugs will pay. Money spent on the chassis is not cost-effective for the collectors' market.

 

I don't know how bad Hornby's 14xx is, as I don't own one. However, I have worked-over a Dapol one, the chassis of which I presume to be the basis of Hornby's version.

 

Having replaced the unnecessary traction-tyred wheels with a plain pair from a dead Airfix 14xx, there remained a strange stance and bouncy gait resulting from a coil spring on the carrying axle that would look more at home in a Macpherson strut on a Cortina!

 

I didn't have anything more suitable to hand so gradually built a pile of coins upon the bunker until it settled down. After weighing the coins, I added an equal mass of lead inside of the bunker and now own a quite well-behaved little loco that rides with both sets of buffers at the same height.

 

John

[Compound2632]

Well, if Hornby (or whoever) can make a 0-4-2 mechanism small enough to fit Lion, perhaps they could carry this over to the 48xx and do a 517 too?

[JSpencer]

On 02/04/2021 at 10:41, Nick C said:

It's always a problem when trying to work out when to announce a model- if you announce it early on, as Bachmann often do, then people wail about how long it takes. On the other hand if you tend to wait until it's nearly ready, you run the risk that someone else will also announce the same thing, and you then get accused of copying. 

 

We will never know how much work Hornby did on this before finding out that another party were interested, but as others have said, they have shareholders to please and can't just drop things unless there's a good commercial reason to do so, and they can't make deals with other manufacturers, as that'd be illegal. 

 

I have a theory that roughly 18 months is a good compromise between "why is this taking so long????" and "how do they expect me to save up for it so quickly????".

[The Johnster]

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Well, if Hornby (or whoever) can make a 0-4-2 mechanism small enough to fit Lion, perhaps they could carry this over to the 48xx and do a 517 too?

 

Assuming it runs well, yes, and if they can turn it around there's potential for a Metro as well.  Both good choices for the 4/6 wheeler generics and shorty clerestories.

 

3 hours ago, JSpencer said:

 

I have a theory that roughly 18 months is a good compromise between "why is this taking so long????" and "how do they expect me to save up for it so quickly????".

That sounds about right, JS.  The Bachmann 94x, which I was determined to have and was the first item I ever pre-ordered and the most expensive single railway item I ever bought, at Rails' price of £106.99, took far too long and because it's arrival could not be relied on, it prevented me from having cash to spend on other items for a long time as I was aware that some had to be held back in the 94xx fund, making budgeting difficult for a poor pensioner (cue tragic violins).  The marketing people at RTR companies seem to be of the opinion that we are a demographic that has a good level of disposable income, and they seem by and large to be right, but some of us have to budget carefully.  This is after all a hobby, and essentials must be paid for first; rent/mortgage, bills, food. 

 

It is not reasonable to expect marketing to cater to poor old pensioners (more tragic violin, please), as this would be business suicide, so I do not complain about this, but the constant delay and reshceduling that afflicted the 94xx (I'm very happy with it now I've got it) made it an issue for me.  I don't complain about prices either, it costs what it costs and Chinese workers are as entitled to nice things and holidays as anyone else.  But I do get angsty when delivery dates are constantly and repeatedly put back.  Ok, Baccy had issues with the 94xx, including a factory fire and the loss of a booked production slot, and international trade by sea from the Far East is vulnerable to events outside the control of the RTR companies, as we have recently seen, but I would have preferred them to say that they didn't know when the loco would turn up until they were reasonably able to say.  It went right down to the wire with the delivery being put back a month as recently as last November.

 

Announcing is a problem for companies; too soon and you are vulnerable to the 94xx syndrome and open the possibility of someone gazumping you, too late and some of your market for the first batch will be lost because they haven't saved up or had chance to put money aside for it.  This means that the sales of the first batch are depressed, which in itself mitigates against further batches, and those who missed the boat wait for an uncertain second batch who knows how far down the line, a point that needs to be taken into consideration as we are by and large an ageing bunch and the Grim Reaper may turn up before the next batch.  Having an idea when it might be produced (announcing second or other further batches is less important to the companies) might allow some of us to divert limited resources and enjoy something else in our twilight years, but this is not good marketing....  To be fair, the companies usually genuinely don't know when the next batch is due, or anything much beyond a very few years into the future, not having crystal balls.

 

 

[Hroth]

10 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Well, if Hornby (or whoever) can make a 0-4-2 mechanism small enough to fit Lion, perhaps they could carry this over to the 48xx and do a 517 too?

 

6 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Assuming it runs well, yes, and if they can turn it around there's potential for a Metro as well.  Both good choices for the 4/6 wheeler generics and shorty clerestories.

 

If we're fantasising about developments of a decent 2-4-0/0-4-2 wheel arrangement, then Hornby could look at a GER/LNER E4. Again, something that would go well with the 4/6 wheelers and the short clerestories, perhaps with some interior details...

 

[Dunsignalling]

Interesting you mention interior details for the short clerestories.

 

AFAIK none have ever come with seats included, certainly none that have passed through my hands. However, I do remember there being separate interiors for them in old Tri-ang catalogues.

 

I wonder what happened to the moulds....

 

John

[Hroth]

1 hour ago, Dunsignalling said:

I wonder what happened to the moulds....

 

Trashed in the Great Clear Out when Hornby left Margate for Sandwich?

[Dunsignalling]

56 minutes ago, Hroth said:

 

Trashed in the Great Clear Out when Hornby left Margate for Sandwich?

If not long before. I doubt many were ever sold because you can't really see much through the windows of non-corridor coaches in 4mm scale anyway.

 

John

[The Johnster]

I have built interiors for mine, and I think someone does 3D printed ones through Shapeways.  I agree the visibility is not the same as in later coaches with big windows but I think the effort is worth it.  There should IMHO at the very least be compartment dividers to prevent light being visible from adjacent compartments at an angle. 

[BernardTPM]

7 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

Interesting you mention interior details for the short clerestories.

AFAIK none have ever come with seats included, certainly none that have passed through my hands. However, I do remember there being separate interiors for them in old Tri-ang catalogues.

I wonder what happened to the moulds....

John

No seat units were ever produced for the clerestories. The interiors listed in the early 1960s catalogues were:

R.270 T.C. coach seating

R.271 Diesel power car

R.272 Diesel Trailer car

R.273 Suburban Composite

R.274 Suburban Brake 2nd

R.275 Main Line Composite (9" series)

R.276 Main Line Brake 2nd (9" series)

R.277 S.R. Suburban Motor

 

Edited April 4, 2021 by BernardTPM

[The Johnster]

The suburban seating would have been designed to fit the compartment spacing of those coaches, which was far too generous, presumably because of the structural rigidity needed from the thick pillars between compartment windows.  Using them in the clerestories, which have different compartment spacings anyway between the brake and the 'composite', actually a full 2nd I believe, would have led to the seating compartments being out of alignment with the compartments on the clerestories.

 

The Pullmans and mk1 9" restaurant car came with seating installed anyway.  I have to say I only have the vaguest memory of these seating units, but do remember wondering why they weren't factory fitted in their apporopriate coaches since someone had gone to the trouble of making them.  The emu units were, AFAIR, the same thing as the suburban brake units, and the mk1s would have been superceded by the new 'scale length' 10 inchers (very good models for their day, probably the best RTR coaches anywhere until the Lima and Mainline ones were availabel), and these had full interiors.  I painted these, and was immensely proud of my undoubted prowess as a fine scale modeller...

 

ISTR that the 9 inch mk1s lasted in the catalogue alongside the scale length ones for a while, presumably while stocks declined.  The suburban were a reasonable length for a generic suburban anyway, and the Southern GLV Utility Van was pretty much to scale, only let down by the bogies.  Triang seemed to have a blind spot when it came to bogies; having developed a tolerably good scale B1, they sort of went back to sleep, and as well as putting it correctly beneath both 9 and 10 inch mk1s, it was used under everything else as well; GLV, emu/dmu/Blue Pullman, suburbans, Pullmans, TC. shorty clerestories.  The multiple units and  Blue Pullman were powered by a power bogie developed for the emu originally, a resonable cast representation of the Southern Electric bogie with a cast representation of the pickup shoe, but it looked odd next to the B1s on the rest of the unit, and was completely wrong of course for the Metrocammell dmu and the Blue Pullman. 

 

It later appeared on more coaches it should not have been anywhere near, including the first GW Colletts and the faux Southern Maunsells that these were generics of; various iterations of the shorty clerestories, Midland, LNER, etc had it, as did the initial Thompsons and IIRC the initial Staniers with the silver roofs and ventilators printed on the glazing as well.  It is still on the current issue of shorty clerestories, but the tooling has been altered to dispense with the brass rivet fitting; it has been a plug in for many years now.

 

For the shorty clerestories, the correct Dean 8'6" bogies are available from Stafford Road Works as 3D prints through Shapeways, plug in and with NEM pockets.  The B1s can be worked up into something better and a little less 'unDeanlike' by cutting out the tie bars and superglueing the footboards on.  Mine are cut from coffee stirrers, with cutouts for the  axleboxes to aid adhesion, but when I eventually come into posession of a round tuit, I wlll be replacing these ersatz Deans with Stafford Road prints, which I have used different types of on other coaches and which I can recommend; no connection happy customer.  But even the ersatz workup of the B1s transforms the model.

 

Cut'n'shut to correct length, interiors, better underframe details (the coaches still have the crude Triang underframe plastic moulding from the 8" Staniers of the mid 50s), glazing for the clerestory, decent buffers, proper handrails on the step ends, and the model comes to life.  Gilding the lily with separate doorknobs and grab handles is probably worth the effort, but in my case also dependent on the arrival of the round tuit; I've picked them out in brass paint which I'm happy enough with.

 

Plain brown livery for a miner's workman's coach, and heavy weathering, a nod to the Glyncorrwg Miner's train which featured the last of these coaches in revenue service, a far cry from the glory of fully lined out Dean livery, which I always thought would have increased sales of these coaches had Triang attempted it.  It would have looked much better with LoTI, which was what they were originally meant to run with and still are from Hornby's marketing pov; the B1s and plain 1930s livery are still there, though...

[Compound2632]

2 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

the 'composite', actually a full 2nd I believe,

 

Not really - not corresponding to any actual diagram - simply compartments equispaced to suit the length. At 185 mm long over the body, they're just 3" under 46'6" which was a moderately common length for clerestories with this panelling and roof profile, but none with seven compartments equally spaced. The brake-ended vehicle doesn't correspond to any real diagram either.

[Miss Prism]

I don't think there was much talk about prototype fidelity in 1961, let alone 'diagrams'.

[Gilwell Park]

Nevertheless they were/still are incredibly useful for the coach bodger. I have cut them up, lengthened them & replaced the rooves to produce LSWR 3 coach sets and GER semi corridor lavatory composites plus some short 6 wheelers using Bachmann Emily coach chassis. My remaining two unmodified coaches run behind Thomas.

[Compound2632]

I was merely trying to say that calling it a full second is straining the relationship between model and prototype.

[The Johnster]

'quote Ms Prism'

 

'I don't think there was much talk about prototype fidelity in 1961, let alone diagrams'

 

 

Quite, though open ended imprecise marketing terms like 'authentic' and 'realistic' were common.  Triang described their products on the boxes as 'precision scale engineering', avoiding the term modelling, and you might have argued that the engineering aspect of the range was pretty good; everything ran and did it with everything else, so the interfaces between track, wheels, buffers, and couplings had been dealt with well enough.  One might or might not have considered the milling of the chassis blocks, or the valve gear, to have been precision engineering; I would certainly have and did regard the motors and gears as very well made to fine tolerances.  I remember being much impressed when I got my first Black Princess train set in 1956, when I was 4, with the small glass bottle supplied with it of Shell 'fine machine grade whale liver oil' that you applied to the oiling points on a pin head (how precision is that to a 4 year old!), and which was clearly a very precious substance.  In my head this was the amount you got from rendering an entire whale, so it was rare and wonderful to me,

 

The 10 inch mk1s were described as 'scale length', which was fair enough, the first that Triang or anyone had produced for RTR.  Triang must have been aware of what was permissible in such a claim, as they were never described as scale in any other dimension; like all Rovex Triang and Triang Hornby products, they rode about 2mm too high.  They were a big advance on the opposition, Hornby Dublo's 'super detail' printed tinplate sided 9 inch mk1s.

 

This was all very well in 1961, but some current models are hung over from those days and still being churned out.  We have discussed the shorty clerestories, but Hornby have still to produce a steel or 7 plank mineral on a correct 9' wheelbase, and so have Dapol, with roots in the old Hornby Dublo toolings.  The Dapol Fruit D is out in pretty much every dimension, and an inferior model IMHO to the old Triang Utility Van, which you can at least do something about. 

 

A model that is to scale in it's size and dimensions, not matter how crude, can be done something with, but RTR from those days rarely was.  Some goods vehicles from both Triang and Hornby Dublo passed muster and could be re-chassised, but few locos and much else, were workable as scale models; you were better off with the nascent kit industry for both locos and stock.  I have 2 Keyser whitemetal A31 auto trailers, not highly detailed items and nowhere near acceptable to modern or even 1970s standards but ok as layout coaches (if you can get an auto fitted loco to pull them!).  I've worked them both up a bit with interiors and a floor (that's right, back in those days floors were considered super detail), and could with a bit of effort (remember that round tuit I mentioned earlier) presumably make better detailed models of them, but they'll always be t*rds to polish rather than lilies to gild with their scale 9 inch thick bodysides and ends.  They have no long term future at Cwmdimbath anyway.

 

Then there were locos that were so out of scale and unrealistic that IMHO they should never really have been produced in that form at all.  There was an excuse for the Rovex Black Princess and the Hornby Dublo A4 and Duchess, but I find it hard to fathom what was in the minds of those responsible for the Triang diesel shunter on a JInty chassis or the equally pointless HD 'Deltic/DP2/whatever it was supposed to be'.  The Triang Jinty/3F is sort of understandable, as there was some sense in standardising on a version of the Princess mech, for the 3MT as well, and later used less ridiculously in 'Winston Churchill' and 'Britannia'. 

 

But the Jinty chassis/mect became the go to generic 6 coupled mech for many years, and was retooled to better standards while retaining it's incorrect for anything axle spacing.  It appeared again and again, under 2721s, J52s, J86s, and of course upgraded Jinties, all of which are near impossible to work up to an acceptable standard (hasn't stopped me putting a Bachmann 57xx chassis with incorrect coupling rods and replacing the chimney and safety valve cover on mine, but I have to live with the misalignment of wheels and splashers).  It annoys me when manufacturers get things wrong in this way, when they could spend just as much time and effort getting it right.  Details can be sorted, fundamental discrepancies can't.

 

But the trouble is that, once such a model is established in the range, it becomes very hard to shift.  2721s and the Jinty 08 have been in production for train sets quite recently, probably as old stock to be disposed of as profitably as possible, despite Hornby having produced a decent 08.  I keep hoping for a similarly decent 2721; my current model would be in the bin as soon as the red box arrived in the post!  In the meantime I keep an occasional eye on 'Bay for Bachmann JInty/1F chassis for it, as I need one with fluted coupling rods.  The Baccy chassis currently under it has a 57xx body to keep the rain off if a Baccy Jinty chassis donor can be found.

 

And that'll do for this Sunday avo's off topic meander.  Happy rest of your Easter, everyone!

Edited April 4, 2021 by The Johnster

[Dunsignalling]

Not confined to old stuff.

 

All Bachmann GWR/WR vans have the bodies made over-wide so the corner strapping will fit outside the buffer beams of their standard chassis. Sticks out like a sore thumb when seen next to one built from a Ratio kit.

 

No doubt there are other examples that come in different coloured boxes.

 

John 

Edited April 4, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[The Johnster]

The Baccy LMS/generic cattle wagon is a bit of a dog's dinner as well. and I don't think anybody has ever made an accurate GW open other than china clay hoods in RTR.  Luckily I have no kit GW vans other than a Fruit D, so can get away with it a bit without anything drawing it to everyone's attention.  The Hornby Dublo/Wrenn/still in production Dapol Fruit D is too wide, and, having built a Parky replacement, I cut it down to Fruit C running on an old 21ton mineral chassis.  This is ok as a layout van, but of course it looks wrong if I marshall it next to the Parky D.

 

Private owner wagons, especially 7 plankers, are a complete minefield and beyond my ability to sort out.  I just cross my fingers behind my back that my RTR BR liveried ones are correct, and my (favourite) weathered Baccy MOY with coke rails, and have obscured any PO liveries with filth, which is at least prototypical.  I also take it on trust that RTR has brake details correct on wagons, which is probably an excess of faith in human nature as applied to a competitive capitalist marked situation. 

 

When RTR gets it right (Baccy 94xx, LNER vanfit, or Hornby Collett 57' suburbans) it is wonderful.  I accept that getting the plethora of XPOs right is never going to take precedence over turning out RCH generics, but one would hope for railway company built prototypes, where drawings and information are not hard to come by, are ok.  Bachmann LMS cattle van makes  me suspicious of their other stuff though; isn't there a question mark over the LMS ventilated van?   My just built Cambrian steel bodied D1828/9 is a tad taller and narrower than the Baccy LMS ventilated, which has me a little concerned...

[BernardTPM]

The Bachmann LMS van is derived from the old Mainline model, though without the clumsy working door* so yes, it is too low in the body. The Airfix BR (LMS design) van is the kind of size and proportions it should be, though its nice body was mounted on a very poor underframe. Luckily Dapol sell the bodies separately and you can mount it on a more accurate and appropriate Parkside underframe.

 

* actually Trix did a much better job of working doors on a very similar van in the early 1960s but in 1:80 scale

Edited April 4, 2021 by BernardTPM

[The Johnster]

This means that my steel bodied Cambrian is right, and I need to be looking at my Mainline and Bachmann LMS vans.  Why o why do manufacturers get this stuff wrong; it must be just as easy to produce the model to the correct scale dimensions.  I can understand the fiduciary need to use generic underframes that are not always correct, much as I don't condone it, but for pete's sake get the bodies right!

[Dunsignalling]

10 hours ago, The Johnster said:

This means that my steel bodied Cambrian is right, and I need to be looking at my Mainline and Bachmann LMS vans.  Why o why do manufacturers get this stuff wrong; it must be just as easy to produce the model to the correct scale dimensions.  I can understand the fiduciary need to use generic underframes that are not always correct, much as I don't condone it, but for pete's sake get the bodies right!

If the "standard" underframe has full length buffer beams to suit vans on which the corner strapping doesn't extend below the body, past makers (from Hornby Dublo onwards) see three options for those where they do. All picked the same one. 

 

1: Make two underframes, thereby incurring additional cost.

2: Make underframe fit the body in which case it becomes wrong for other models.

3: Make the body wrong to fit the chassis. That's it!

 

There is actually a fourth, which would solve the dimensional dilemmas without increasing costs; but it has to be adopted at the outset; make the buffer beams part of the body and the underframes shorter so as to fit between them. 

 

Unfortunately, the offending Bachmann WR wagons (Mink/Fruit/Mogo) are all derived from old Mainline tooling, so the decision had already been made. Back then, most r-t-r buyers regarded anything other than locos as mere moving scenery to hitch on behind them. They didn't care and many others didn't know. Unfortunately, both attitudes are far from extinct even now, so the incorrect models still sell. 

 

I knew and did care, but was so pleased by their overall appearance that I've put up with it; Mea culpa.

 

I've recently begun replacing the Minks and Mogos using kits and have cut the sides out of a Fruit van to cross-kit into something narrower using bits from a Railway Modeller freebie grounded body. It looks like being quite a job, and I think the result will still be a tad over-long, though not glaringly so, and much less noticeable than the width being out.

 

As for Bachmann's current (alleged) LMS van, the distorted proportions and clunky roof offended my eyes so much that the body went in the recycling and the chassis has replaced the very basic moulding under a Hornby BR meat van body. The Mink and Mogo underframes will likely go under some Dapol vans that others don't produce. My Airfix vans long ago received Parkside underpinnings.

 

John

 

EDIT: SORRY, just spotted the title of the thread I'm replying to, so very much 

Hopefully, none of the Lion/Thunderbolt stuff (from either manufacturer) will be similarly flawed.

 

 

Edited April 5, 2021 by Dunsignalling
Confession

[The Johnster]

Yes, even I think we’re drifting a bit here, and I’m one of the principal offenders. 

[Edwardian]

17 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

I was merely trying to say that calling it a full second is straining the relationship between model and prototype.

 

The compartment spacing is, I seem to recall, pretty good for GWR second class clerestories of the period, so there are one or two reasonable matches.  Not that I particularly aspire to a full second.

 

Another issue with there is some of the better GWR matches will not necessarily be the same width.  IIRC, the Triangs scale to 8' wide bodies, whereas some of the GW prototypes are 8'6''. I am not so bothered about this as I should be, because I use the 'narrow gauge' of OO, so the narrower bodies probably aid the deception! 

 

[Compound2632]

15 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

The compartment spacing is, I seem to recall, pretty good for GWR second class clerestories of the period, so there are one or two reasonable matches.  Not that I particularly aspire to a full second.

 

I couldn't find a match on @Penrhos1920's website. But he doesn't distinguish second class compartments - I suppose the diagram book he's used is post-1912?

[Edwardian]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I couldn't find a match on @Penrhos1920's website. But he doesn't distinguish second class compartments - I suppose the diagram book he's used is post-1912?

 

I recall placing the Triang against the 4mm scale drawings in Part I of Russell.

 

However, rather than dig out one of these coach bodies and repeating the exercise, here is a path already beaten Triang Clerestories