New Hornby 28xx / 38xx

[7013]

Interesting review in Model Rail today, generally very positive but with some reservations, Cylinders do not stick out beyond frame enough, problem with pony truck, the gearbox housing and most worrying poor traction, the latter points to needing a little more weight in the loco as it was shown up by a (heavier) King Arthur, they did not mention the cutaway cylinders. they did however have a late pre-production model which queers the pitch somewhat. My most enduring memory to date regarding the 28XX is the Pendon model with a huge train of 70+ wagons on, the operator told me that it had easily pulled 140! That loco has a motor in the tender and a shaft to the drivers. Be interesting to see what the Hornby 28XX will shift when weighted properly.

[The Stationmaster]

Interesting review in Model Rail today, generally very positive but with some reservations, Cylinders do not stick out beyond frame enough, problem with pony truck, the gearbox housing and most worrying poor traction, the latter points to needing a little more weight in the loco as it was shown up by a (heavier) King Arthur, they did not mention the cutaway cylinders. they did however have a late pre-production model which queers the pitch somewhat. My most enduring memory to date regarding the 28XX is the Pendon model with a huge train of 70+ wagons on, the operator told me that it had easily pulled 140! That loco has a motor in the tender and a shaft to the drivers. Be interesting to see what the Hornby 28XX will shift when weighted properly.

 

I don't know what it has now but the Pendon 28XX had a large Pittman motor (?DC70?)in the tender and was very well weighted so would indeed pull just about anything.

 

I was also a bit puzzled to read in the MR review that the prototype was restricted thus - 'The official limit was 60 wagons but they were regularly loaded up to 100 wagons.' That was not the case - they were authorised, provided it was published, to take 100 between Swindon and Acton although the normal limit was 80 and they could load to 100x No.3s (=1,000 tons in theory) on a number of other sections of routes although the normal limit on number of wagons permitted on a train was lower - and oddly a limit of 60 seems to be much less frequent than any other number be it higher or lower than that. It would be interesting to know where MR got the figure of 60? I wonder what the longest any layout is likely to achieve will be?

[Coppercap]

I handled one of these on the weekend and was interested in the way Hornby have done the pony truck to try and get it to extend outward on curves. It will also extend when running backwards putting a train via the coupling in the pony truck. Mind you I doubt many will run the engine backwards in any case!

 

It's exactly the same set-up as with the old tender-drive 28xx. The pony truck is a new casting, but the way it works is the same as before.

[coachmann]

Wouldnt the length of train be limited by the length of lay-by loops on any given route?

[craigwelsh]

It's exactly the same set-up as with the old tender-drive 28xx. The pony truck is a new casting, but the way it works is the same as before.

Oh is it, never touched the old one so I had no idea, had assumed it just had smaller wheels or something!

 

Unassisted gradients as well as the laybys would restrict train length i'd assume. The 4 track South Wales mainline allowed trains to consist to over a 100 wagons but i'm not sure what the limit was for a single 28xx over that length, will have to see if its written somewhere.

[Barry Ten]

Wouldnt the length of train be limited by the length of lay-by loops on any given route?

 

That was one of the problems with the P1 2-8-2s, was it not, in that loop length prohibited the locos working to their full capacity?

[The Stationmaster]

Wouldnt the length of train be limited by the length of lay-by loops on any given route?

 

Yes - that is what the figures I gave above were based on Larry. There were only a couple of places between Swindon and Acton where 100 wagon (or longer) freights could be recessed. Hence the normal limit for that section in 1938 was 80 wagons but trains could be authorised to load up to 100 when, presumably, a path existed which enabled to get between the longer recessing locations.

 

The maximum permitted trailing load for a 28XX over that section (and indeed in a number of places elsewhere on the GWR) in terms of the tonnage it could shift was 100 wagons in load class Number 3. Under the GWR loading system a Number 3 wagon, the lightest group, equalled 10 tons hence 100 of 'em amounted to 1,000 tons trailing load. I don't doubt the locos could actually shift more than that but the couplings of the time (and wagon drawbars) would have been under too much stress to allow anything much heavier.

 

Interesting to reflect that from the 1970s onwards we were loading up to =120 slus (Sandard Length Units) between Westbury and Acton via Newbury and Reading with virtually no intermediate loops capable of holding anything more than =70/80 although we got some longer loops under the Berks & Hants resignalling. Again, albeit in a slightly different way, it was basically authoirising individual trains to go over the normal length limit by finding a through path for them. Oh, and by then with a stone train of that length the trailing load was c.4,500 tons

 

To answer Graig's question the 'number of wagons' limits (i.e basically the length limits) in 1938 were as follows -

Swindon - A.D. Jcn, Newport (Via Gloucester) 70

A.D Jcn - Cardiff 70 on the Main Lines, 100 on the Relief Lines

Cardiff - Bridgend 70

Bridgend - Pyle 65

Pyle - Carmarthen 70

Carmarthen - Fishguard 60

 

On a number of these sections 28XX were allowed =100xNo.3s in terms of tonnage. And of course with No1.s (coal and coke) the number of wagons was reduced in any case because the wagons were heavier.

[7013]

IIRC the 28xx hauled the heaviest steam hauled train on British tracks at a little over 2000 tons a record which it held until preserved 2-10-0 ' Black Prince' started 2170 tons in 1982

[robmcg]

As well as length of trains, the gradients and braking power were very relevant, also signalling section lengths.

 

For some trains, usually occasional expresses and perhaps off-peak times, 'double blocking' of signalling might have allowed exceptional loads on goods trains, but I haven't read of this being a normal practice. Many secondary lines and some main lines had sigalling boxes which were 'switched-in' as required, so the maximum length of trains would among all the above considerations rarely exceed the nominal 'normal' power length and braking guidelines.

 

As mentioned, the couplings on loaded trains of 70+ would have been a limtiting factor, too. It wouldn't do to have a line stranded of loaded wagons impeding the Cheltenham Flyer!

 

Taking the slack out of couplings on an unbraked or part-fitted goods in a dip before a major junction on a freezing night was, um, skilled work!

 

Rob

[Andy G]

Looks like you'll be wanting the comet chassis LCP19. Come complete with cylinders and the option of where to hid the motor and gearbox.

Not yet - my understanding is that the current Comet 28xx chassis is designed to fit the old model which has an incorrect wheelbase and therefore splasher positions. I have heard that Geoff drew up a new chassis to the current standards a while back before finding the above fault, so hopefully he won't have much work to bring out a revised version.

 

Andy

[7013]

Anyone had one working long enough to write a mini review? Would be interesting to know about haulage capability and if weight can be added in the front (boiler) if needed. I am guessing that the boiler may be a closed unit, in which case could one drill out the chimmney and pour 'liquid lead' in?

[The Stationmaster]

As well as length of trains, the gradients and braking power were very relevant, also signalling section lengths.

 

For some trains, usually occasional expresses and perhaps off-peak times, 'double blocking' of signalling might have allowed exceptional loads on goods trains, but I haven't read of this being a normal practice. Many secondary lines and some main lines had sigalling boxes which were 'switched-in' as required, so the maximum length of trains would among all the above considerations rarely exceed the nominal 'normal' power length and braking guidelines.

 

As mentioned, the couplings on loaded trains of 70+ would have been a limtiting factor, too. It wouldn't do to have a line stranded of loaded wagons impeding the Cheltenham Flyer!

 

Taking the slack out of couplings on an unbraked or part-fitted goods in a dip before a major junction on a freezing night was, um, skilled work!

 

Rob

 

Gradients and, to a much lesser extent, brake power were taken into account when setting the trailing load tonnages (on the GWR, and probably elsewhere, brake power really only became relevant on trains with fitted head or were otherwise permitted to run at a higher speed and the load tables for the two classes of train affected by this took it into account).

 

The length of signalling block sections wasn't really a constraint, indeed the (= length) limit of 80 wagons, let alone 100, between Swindon and Acton was longer than around 20 of the block sections on that stretch. But what was very important was the position of any catch points in relation to, mainly, Home Signals but sometimes to other stop signals as that could lead to derailments (I even came across an example of such a derailment in the 1970s). But the main constraint on length has always been recessing capacity.

 

Coupling breakages were, alas, a common feature of British freight train operations - especially with private owner wagons - but were usually down to material deficiencies rather than trains being overloaded. The GWR only suffered one serious example with a passenger train colliding with the rear of a divided freight and that was, by coincidence, on the route of 'The Cheltenham Flyer'.

[robmcg]

Thankyou for that explanation Mike, it is especially true for 28XX working. I hadn't quite grasped the role of layby and catch-point considerations.

 

Rob

[LH&JC]

Having seen the model in MR today (all pages present & correct!) I've become more convinced that the chimney isn't quite right, the rim doesn't seem sharp enough compared to the real thing. Is the chimney easily removed?

[Prometheus]

'...Anyone had one working long enough to write a mini review? Would be interesting to know about haulage capability...'

 

I have at last an opportunity to run the new 2800 on the club layout. Straight from the box, it performed smoothly and extremely responsively. Low speed performance was particularly impressive and completely silent, and could only get even better after running-in.

 

Haulage capacity was excellent also. On the flat, it was able to lift over 40 fully-loaded Coopercraft, Ratio, Slaters and Parkside wagons, with a few r-t-r thrown in. I did not investigate the absolute maximum, it would have been beyond the capabilities of the layout. On the incline, it managed 25 without slipping, but did need driving up at max. power to get to the top, not a problem however.

 

I have not investigated the innards to check for adding ballast.

 

I'm left with just one concern however and I'm sure that Hornby will take action on the feedback that they are sure to get on this. The wire connection between the loco and the tender is horribly fragile, difficult to fit and sure to cause problems in the longer term. This has been mentioned earlier in this topic.

 

I suppose the solution is to keep the model permanently coupled and stored on level track. If not, the small plastic four pin connection can only be attached and removed with tweezers, and removal is particularly difficult. There is no room for fingers. The plastic is also very fragile and will not tolerate much mishandling. Further, the wires exit the locomotive directly adjacent to the coupling pin. Every time I have coupled the tender to the loco, the bar has jammed against and pinched the wires. Separation has always required tweezers or a small screwdriver : far from ideal, so be very, very careful when you attempt this.

 

Does this detract from the model overall ? Well no, of course not - at least not for me. But you must remember to manage this area with extreme care.

[Coppercap]

Having seen the model in MR today (all pages present & correct!) I've become more convinced that the chimney isn't quite right, the rim doesn't seem sharp enough compared to the real thing. Is the chimney easily removed?

 

The chimney on mine was not glued in properly (there was a larger 'step' at the front of the base where it fitted onto the smokebox, compared with the rear of the chimney). Gripped the chimmey firmly and it pulled off easily. A scraping-away of the superglue used, and it was stuck back on (squarely and securely) shortly after.

[7013]

Thanks Prometheus, your test certainly seems at odds to the Model Rail test which as they stated was done on a pre-production model (why did they not get a production model?). I know one swallow etc. but MR is read by a lot of people and to be fair they should follow their original test up with a production model if for nothing else to show that the problems they encountered have really been solved.. From your test it would appear that no weight would be required in the front for the average layout and that the loco performed admirably. Cany wait for the black BR models which is going to get some serious dirt.

[craigwelsh]

Thanks Prometheus, your test certainly seems at odds to the Model Rail test which as they stated was done on a pre-production model (why did they not get a production model?). I know one swallow etc. but MR is read by a lot of people and to be fair they should follow their original test up with a production model if for nothing else to show that the problems they encountered have really been solved..

Presumably Hornby didn't air freight in any ahead of the main batch so MR had to settle for the pre-production or do a review that would be out of date by the time of publishing.. They have followed up before so no doubt they will here if they get a production one to compare.

 

Steve Flint at Manchester remarked on photographing the new Bachmann stuff that 'no doubt these pictures will be on the web long before we publish them' so it is difficult for the mags these days to stay ahead. There are some without a computer it will help though but only if the models are still available in shops when they read it!

 

Haulage sounds good as I hadn't seen one running, no doubt lead can be substituted into the boiler to up the weight a little if needed.

[Horsetan]

.....Taking the slack out of couplings on an unbraked or part-fitted goods in a dip before a major junction on a freezing night was, um, skilled work!....

 

A very good demonstration in model form can be seen at Pendon, on the Dartmoor Scene, using a 28xx as it happens.....

[robmcg]

Could not find a dedicated thread for these.

 

Just had a retailer newsletter showing the first one now released.

Hornby R2915 Churchward 28xx Class 2-8-0 Locomotive, 2818 'Great Western' green (NRM) special edition.

 

Here is my version of this lovely new loco, of course in 1934 it would have been in black and white!

 

Apologies for repeats of this scene... a Robinson 7F was seen here yesterday...

 

Rob

 

[The Stationmaster]

Very nice Rob - I can't even get one of the transit brackets off the one I bought on Saturday - someone in China has a mighty powerful wrist or an interesting torque setting on his (her?) electric screwdriver

 

So I'll now be searching my toolboxes for the best fitting screwdriver I can find before I take the head off the screw.

 

The main reason for buying it is the hope that the BR black 28XX (due early November I understand, along with the final two Hawksworths) will be as catalogue and have outside steam pipes. Thus a green 2818 will be turned into a block 28XX with no outside steam pipes and drop frame front end - the version Hornby aren't doing (yet, probably be in next year's catalogue for all I know )

[Rugd1022]

Very nice Rob - I can't even get one of the transit brackets off the one I bought on Saturday - someone in China has a mighty powerful wrist or an interesting torque setting on his (her?) electric screwdriver

 

So I'll now be searching my toolboxes for the best fitting screwdriver I can find before I take the head off the screw.

 

The main reason for buying it is the hope that the BR black 28XX (due early November I understand, along with the final two Hawksworths) will be as catalogue and have outside steam pipes. Thus a green 2818 will be turned into a block 28XX with no outside steam pipes and drop frame front end - the version Hornby aren't doing (yet, probably be in next year's catalogue for all I know )

 

Just a quick heads up Mike before I disappear into the book cupboard for the relevant tome - I spotted a photo of 2874 sans outside steam pipes the other day in BR black with late crest, dated 1958 I think, I'll dig the book out and confirm as soon as

 

Nidge

 

Edit : found it...! 2874 heading south at Stroud in black / late crest with curved framing and no outside steam pipes, dated March 1961, in Darren Page's 'Western Steam Farewell' from Ian Allan.

[The Stationmaster]

Just a quick heads up Mike before I disappear into the book cupboard for the relevant tome - I spotted a photo of 2874 sans outside steam pipes the other day in BR black with late crest, dated 1958 I think, I'll dig the book out and confirm as soon as

 

Nidge

 

Edit : found it...! 2874 heading south at Stroud in black / late crest with curved framing and no outside steam pipes, dated March 1961, in Darren Page's 'Western Steam Farewell' from Ian Allan.

 

Thanks Nidge - I haven't even looked at any lists for available plates yet so the choice remains open(ish), I might even go for 2818 as it was an early 1960s withdrawal.

[robmcg]

Just a quick heads up Mike before I disappear into the book cupboard for the relevant tome - I spotted a photo of 2874 sans outside steam pipes the other day in BR black with late crest, dated 1958 I think, I'll dig the book out and confirm as soon as

 

Nidge

 

Edit : found it...! 2874 heading south at Stroud in black / late crest with curved framing and no outside steam pipes, dated March 1961, in Darren Page's 'Western Steam Farewell' from Ian Allan.

 

The various permutations of frames and steam pipes is a very engaging thing. Shades of V2s and V3s. And speaking of digging out books, can I find my OPC tome on GWR locos...?

 

Ah well, I added a few details to the 28XX picture anyway; .. coal and cylinder drainpipes and signal rodding, none essential, but it keeps me off the streets...

 

 

Rob

[gwrrob]

The various permutations of frames and steam pipes is a very engaging thing. Shades of V2s and V3s. And speaking of digging out books, can I find my OPC tome on GWR locos...?

 

Rob

 

I say its a nightmare all the different permatations.Thats a cracking shot Rob.I'm waiting for the shirtbutton version.