Hornby B1

[davidw]

The more i look at the Bachmann version the more to me it seems that there's going to be little between these two...

[davidw]

Yeah I hear what you say but that's a comparitively easy fix. The photo' s are telling a better story, the details on the Hornby model are crisper. Oh I'd love to see these in the flesh - not long now though.

Edited December 2, 2011 by davidw

[Guest Tom F]

Not sure if this pre-production model photo of the Hornby loco helps at all.

 

 

That does look mighty fine to me, the interior tender detail looks nice......very tasty thanks for posting Richard!

[Daddyman]

Oh I dunno. The old body moulding looks okay to me. Maybe I'm not fussy enough....?

You'd have to be the judge of that ...

[S.A.C Martin]

Looking at the Hattons pics of the Bachmann B1, first thought is that the valve gear looks nice and chunky, all metal.

 

Second thought is that handrail knobs are the same as previous (not as fine as the real thing or Hornbys).

 

Third thought is that the smoke box door is still wrong, but a replacement fixes that problem easily. From there, replacement chimney/dome if you really can't stand the proportions of the old Bachmann one.

 

Overall I remain to be convinced that this isn't a repeat of the 4MT situation again. It pretty much is going the same way. One class, one updated model, one all new model, different prices and no doubt debate over acceptability of one over the other.

[45568]

When someone finally gets their hands on a new Bachmann B1, could they possibly find out whether the chassis is a straight transplant into the older Bachmann, and more importantly, Replica bodies please?

cheers, Peter C.

[Guest Belgian]

Thrown up off the leading bogie wheels one presumes. That return crank is in a dodgy position. Hornby's past weakness has been chimneys, so keeping my fingers crossed.

To my eye at least, you've every reason to worry about the Hornby chimney Larry. Looking at the photos in postings 157/8/72 above the prototype has a very distinct lip below the flare, which is present on the Bachmann model (if a little exaggerated) whilst the Hornby one is plain. However, as a Southern modeller* I'm no expert on B1s and other members of the class may have plain chimneys and I'd need to see the Hornby one from a lower perspective to be sure.

 

JE

 

*All the same, they have an attraction to us Southerners as a number of them were allocated to the Southern in 1953 and there are many instances of them running through to the Southern in later years.

Edited December 3, 2011 by Belgian

[D605Eagle]

Not sure if this pre-production model photo of the Hornby loco helps at all.

 

Oooh! It looks like a Bachmann B1 with rubbish wheels!

[Jamie]

Oooh! It looks like a Bachmann B1 with rubbish wheels!

From a distance maybe. There's always going to be a difference in opinion when it comes to these models. Have to say though, if the big H don't drop a major dimensional boll*ck along the way, they'll get my vote.

 

On grounds that a better starting point will give a better result given the same effort.

The moulding finesse of the two models shows at a glance which was tooled up in the 80s, and which is contemporary.

Edited December 3, 2011 by Jamie

[Daddyman]

I don't even think that the Bachmann model has an advantage in the wheels/valve gear area. Far from it. The valve gear has that silly screw in the middle of the crank, plus usually a screw on the crosshead. Regarding the wheels, the tyres are too shallow, which makes them look totally unconvincing, and the tyres have a weird curved profile on their surface, as if they've been flooded with too much paint. This means that while with a Hornby model only the bogie wheels need changing and the driving wheels painting, with a Bachmann model by contrast (LNER at least) the driving wheels have to be changed too - thus negating the price advantage. Not that there is much of a price advantage anyway - there's no need to pay more than £92 for a Hornby B1.

 

To plagiarise a rather witty post from the Bachmann camp above, the Bachmann model looks like a Hornby one ... but with rubbish everything.

Edited December 4, 2011 by Daddyman

[Guest Max Stafford]

"... the Bachmann model looks like a Hornby one ... but with rubbish everything..."

 

Made me laugh like a heavy duty culvert, that one. Won't stop me buying a Bachmann one though.

 

 

 

For research purposes, you understand...

 

Dave.

[Physicsman]

Does it really matter which version you buy as long as you are happy with it?

 

Personally, I prefer Bachmann locos. But I've got a Bachy 31-716 and a Hornby R3000 on order and I shall enjoy "playing" (am I allowed to make a statement of such gravitas in esteemed company?) with both when they arrive!

 

Jeff

['CHARD]

No great urgency here. As my boiling-water rollback isn't scheduled for at least twelve months, by the time I'm acquiring sixteen-wheelers in anger, this debate will have long reached its natural equilibrium.

 

However, I'd also invoke NVD* and other laws, plus in my case I'll have no choice in '66/67 but to go down the heavily weathered and unloved route which, I think, will detract from whatever the respective offering's perceived shortcomings are.

 

* normal viewing distance

[Bill]

Not sure if this pre-production model photo of the Hornby loco helps at all.

 

 

Thank you - it looks to be a lovely model of a B1

[Pete Piszczek]

Pick-ups in the tender- Bachmann, No?, Hornby, yes?

 

That's worth paying extra for...

['CHARD]

I'll happily do what others seem to be doing, which is have one of each.

 

With the Hornby loco numbered as one of the 150 NBL-built examples, and the Barwell as a Main Works-constructed specimen, or vice-versa.

 

Someone, somewhere will attest that there was some characteristic or other which distinguished the two, and weathered to disguise the key glossy bits, that will suit me just fine. They can have different running qualities too, as I'm confident the real thing would have had.

 

Also posted on the Bachmann B1 thread.

[Daddyman]

When I saw the posting from 08:47 this morning I hoped it was somebody saying theirs had arrived .... but no!

So that's the 5th come if not gone and my hat more or less safe from being consumed... only a few more hours and it can stop trembling

['CHARD]

When I saw the posting from 08:47 this morning I hoped it was somebody saying theirs had arrived .... but no!

So that's the 5th come if not gone and my hat more or less safe from being consumed... only a few more hours and it can stop trembling

Stay cool there, daddy! I'm a horrid imposter on the steam topics, not even having ordered either B1 yet.

 

Sorry for the false call!

[S.A.C Martin]

I'll happily do what others seem to be doing, which is have one of each.

 

With the Hornby loco numbered as one of the 150 NBL-built examples, and the Barwell as a Main Works-constructed specimen, or vice-versa.

 

Someone, somewhere will attest that there was some characteristic or other which distinguished the two, and weathered to disguise the key glossy bits, that will suit me just fine. They can have different running qualities too, as I'm confident the real thing would have had.

 

Also posted on the Bachmann B1 thread.

 

Now there's an interesting point of view which may change my position somewhat. I think I am right in saying the Hornby one has the flush riveted bufferbeam, the Bachmann has the riveted one (one of the differences between the manufacturers). Ergo, it does seem to be logical to pick up one of each, unless Hornby are doing both variants of riveted and non riveted. They did, after all, do both versions of the L1 in terms of the front running plate.

 

Here's a point that is bothering me rather badly. I have studied over the weekend as many photographs and books which feature or are on Thompson B1s to try and find a match for the Hornby chimney. The Bachmann one is over exaggerated and will need replacing along with the dome for me, but the Hornby one seems to irk me more but way of being much more subtle than the prototype photographs suggest below the lip of the chimney.

 

So the suggestion is that the Hornby may need the chimney, and not the dome replacing, and possibly both on the Bachmann one along with the smokebox door.

 

However I'm also fairly certain I am about to enter a minefield when I start to factor in whether or not the numbers I could have at 37B/56C had electric lighting or not...!

[coachmann]

Pick-ups in the tender- Bachmann, No?, Hornby, yes?

In general yes, but Bachmann fitted tender pick ups to the NRM Compound. Shame it isnt standard. Already someone has said their 3F is stalling on Insulfrogs. I mentioned the 8' x 8' 6" wheelbase in the past as being just the length to sit on both insulated frogs on a diamong crossing and if the middle wheels don't drop then there is no electrical pickup. I found this with my Hornby 2-6-4T's but at least the 3F can have pick ups fitted on the tender.

 

Anyone got good pictures of their new revised Bachmann B1 they can post? EDIT : Oooops, wrong B1 thread again!

[Tim Hale]

Oh, how I dream of a similar debate over duplicated versions of a Southern loco - a 'Goods Arthur' from Bachmann AND Hornby.

 

Are the pigs being checked for flight?

 

Tim

[Horsetan]

Oh, how I dream of a similar debate over duplicated versions of a Southern loco - a 'Goods Arthur' from Bachmann AND Hornby.

 

Are the pigs being checked for flight?

 

Flight S15 cleared for take-off.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Pick-ups in the tender- Bachmann, No?, Hornby, yes?

 

That's worth paying extra for...

Don't think so. All my Bachmann run perfectly well without, and Hornby's tender pick ups usually go draggy with wear after a years running and end up being removed. Now if either or both would go for split axle with no incremental drag pick up from pinpoints, I wouldn't object...

[Daddyman]

Oh, how I dream of a similar debate over duplicated versions of a Southern loco - a 'Goods Arthur' from Bachmann AND Hornby.

 

Are the pigs being checked for flight?

 

Tim

 

Great idea! Hornby could bring back their Sir Dinadan: it had S15-size wheels and I'm sure given the support for the Bachmann B1 it'd find a market! Think about it - the cabsides are nice and thick, the tender's inaccurate and has no coal space, and anyone who's offended by scale handrails would have no problem - they're moulded! Plus, the wheels are metal!

 

 

By the way, it seems to have passed shop-closing time on the 5th of December.

Edited December 5, 2011 by Daddyman

[S.A.C Martin]

 

Great idea! Hornby could bring back their Sir Dinadan: it had S15-size wheels and I'm sure given the support for the Bachmann B1 it'd find a market! Think about it - the cabsides are nice and thick, the tender's inaccurate and has no coal space, and anyone who's offended by scale handrails would have no problem - they're moulded! Plus, the wheels are metal!

 

I really am starting to tire of the above. I've been patient up to now, mainly because for me I can forgo the obviously more finely moulded Hornby model in favour of something which is both cheaper and still acceptable for my needs. I'm not advocating a return to the models of yesteryear, I am simply working to a budget. I have made that point clear and a few others agree with me. I'd like it if you could come up with a few points backed up with some evidence that doesn't have unnecessary needling in it, clearly aimed at a selection of posters with a different opinion, thank you.