Wright writes.....

[micklner]

This a view posted for education purposes only.

 

 

 One obvious thing is the extra Inspection flap on the Smokebox, no idea when that was added to the Loco. As it has the Streamlining on the Tender it is probably wrong, however a very minor fault.

Much worse is the Truck set up, which could have been much better designed , even a swivelling rear truck would have been better. 

Edit

The Truck wheels in the above photo are riding very high, perhaps jammed ? , the ones on my original W1 version hang much lower, still not good enough.

 

Hornby need to make their mind up with what they are doing with their locos , high detail models or models for Radius 2 curves they cannot make them both to suit both standards .

 

 

 

Edited January 21, 2022 by AY Mod
Copyright image removed

[t-b-g]

9 minutes ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

Well, they look different. The skirt looks lower on the SEF model and the firebox details near the cab are in different positions. The cab side profile is also different or at least appears so. Which is correct a poor pre-group modeller can't say, but I am sure someone better informed will be able to provide some a more informed view.

 

I was thinking along similar lines Jol. I look at the two and see differences but in many respects, I wouldn't know which was right or wrong.

 

I don't think the cylinder cover on either is correct. They should have a graceful curve at the bottom edge, with the centre of the radius being based on the piston rod centre. Anything like a model of an A4 or the W1 with a slab sided cover like those just looks wrong to me. The cover should curve around the cylinder front, not carry on downwards.

 

The union link sloping up at that alarming angle on the Hornby model bothers me too. Are they all like that or have some been badly assembled?

 

The curved fillet where the remains of the valance were left right at the front end looks wrong too. There just looks to be too much material there. The remaining fillet on the real thing was quite small compared to both models. It wasn't just left at the original join line, extra material was cut away too. The real thing had a little "double bend" there which shows well in prototype photos but isn't on either model.

 

As for the pimples all along the footplate/valance edge on the Hornby model, they look nothing like anything I can see on the real thing.

 

Did BR really put lining on the handle for the inspection hatch on the smokebox side? The lining on the kit version is well clear of it.

 

Neither model portrays that the smokebox cladding was not flush with the boiler cladding. On the prototype, the smokebox was slightly proud of the front boilerband. Just the thickness of a sheet of metal but enough to make a tiny step.

 

Maybe such things have been picked up on review or on the relevant thread, which I haven't read as a W1 is way off my radar. Far too modern, in either version!

 

 

 

 

[polybear]

43 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Jol,

 

I think it's more likely, given the age difference in the two products, that the Hornby W1 is more-accurate, particularly at the front end.

 

I suppose in consolation, all I'd say is that I made mine, I've had it since the end of the last century, it's much more personal, is unique and it'll pull more. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

I've no idea which is the most accurate, but I do know which of the two I'd far prefer (clue: it's not the shiny one....)

[cctransuk]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

Is the BR green one better than the South Eastern Finecast one I built all those years ago?

 

 

Considering the rear truck appearance alone - definitely not.

 

Sorry - you only need to mess around with one feature of a model and it becomes a toy; your 60700 is exerting its full (not inconsiderable) weight on the track; Hornby's version is floating around like a balloon on a string!

 

John Isherwood.

[Compound2632]

To get a fair comparison, you should let Ian Rathbone loose on the Hornby model. Then one could start to make some comparison as to how realistic both models look.

 

Of course not everyone can have their model Rathboned...

[micklner]

 

Regarding the BR W1 version.

 

It is impossible to make a one piece body with different shaped Cylinder covers, as the body would then jam underneath the cylinders if removal was attempted. The kit version suffers from a very obvious gap at the same place where it joins the Footplate.

Kit poorly defined wash out plugs on side of Firebox bottom sides .

Access panels on sides look too high.

Tender , the front top section  looks like it goes back too far in the photo.

Front looks chopped off not enough curve between buffers

 

Hornby Front of Tender Green ? I would have thought Black ?

Edited January 21, 2022 by micklner

[PupCam]

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I've just started photographing/testing/assessing both of Hornby's latest rebuilt W1..........

 

 

 

Every now and then, along comes a model (or, in this case, models) with that WOW factor! This is one of those occasions.

 

They really are superb (and, yes, I know about the floating flanges wheels of the Cartazzi/Bissel truck), and both run brilliantly.

 

Is the BR green one better than the South Eastern Finecast one I built all those years ago?

 

 

 

 

I feel the general outline and shape of the Hornby model is superior and particularly the transition from the "buffer beam" to the bottom of the Cod's mouth actually looks completely wrong on the SE Finecast model.  

 

Specifically, looking at photographs of the original, the Hornby model does seem to capture the sleek nose of the original just above the buffers much better.  The older model's nose looks like it has been pushed back and up in comparison - it's almost blunt!   I also think the cab windows are closer (but still not right) on the Hornby offering.      What does look ridiculous on the Hornby model are the rear carrying wheels and that valve gear link.   I don't think the valve gear has been assembled incorrectly, the geometry of the parts just looks plain wrong.

 

But what do I know!

 

Alan

[Tony Wright]

Thanks for all the comments on the W1s.

 

I'll consider them in preparing my review, though I won't be mentioning mine. 

 

I think it's fair to say that any streamlined loco, with all those compound curves (is there any completely horizontal or vertical panel on an A4, W1 or streamlined B17, other than parts of the cab?) is going to be very difficult to capture accurately in model form. I'm sure the Hornby W1 captures those subtleties in curvature, though not perfectly, better than the SEF W1; but one is 30 years (at least) newer than the other and is a product of much more advanced technologies. 

 

I agree the arrangement of the flangeless wheels underneath the rear end isn't fantastic, but what should the likes of Hornby do? Flanged wheels are provided as substitutes for appearance's sake, but then the thing won't go round train set curves. Though I haven't yet fitted them, I'd say a minimum radius of 3' will be needed. I'll test them tomorrow, but not everyone has the 'luxury' of a layout like LB where the minimum radius on the main lines is 3'. 

 

On my W1, I've arranged the back end as an internal bogie, free to move within the rear frames, but it won't go round anything less than 3'. Any RTR manufacturer has no way of knowing (or legislating) what type of trackwork their products will have to negotiate (doesn't one 'influencer' run his trains on track laid on the floor?), so they're 'damned if they do and they're damned if they don't'. 

 

As for any price differential between what's new and what I've made? At least £100.00 I'd say, in favour of what's new. I wonder what folk expect at times.

 

By the way, I have not assisted Hornby in any way during the the three manifestations of the W1's development. 

[Headstock]

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I've just started photographing/testing/assessing both of Hornby's latest rebuilt W1..........

 

 

 

Every now and then, along comes a model (or, in this case, models) with that WOW factor! This is one of those occasions.

 

They really are superb (and, yes, I know about the floating flanges wheels of the Cartazzi/Bissel truck), and both run brilliantly.

 

Is the BR green one better than the South Eastern Finecast one I built all those years ago?

 

 

I think one would have to be myopic to not answer 'yes', even though this one has Ian Rathbone's beautifully-natural painting. 

 

My full reviews will feature in BRM before long.

 

Good evening Tony,

 

60700 is not as good as the Hush hush model in my opinion. The valve gear is inferior to  that produced for 10000 and your rendition of 60700, it may be identical to the old RTR A4 I suppose. I'm not keen on the cab decoration and the spectacle plate looks oddly flush without the window frame. I'm pretty shore that the BR green model of 60700 has the wrong type of valve spindle guide. The front end looks very good but I'm still not completely convinced by the cylinder arrangement, though it is better than the comical version on the A4.

 

Have you noticed the black eves to the cab roof? The Hornby spies must be reading Wright writes.

Edited January 21, 2022 by Headstock
clarify a point

[31A]

Well, I was so pleased with my new W1 until I came on here!

 

I do think the 'bulge' in the cylinder covers, due to the cylinders being bigger than an A4's, is accurate and can be seen in pictures of the real thing.

 

The main adverse comment that I can think of (and it's pretty trivial) is that the 'bits bag' includes an 'underslung' vacuum pipe for the tender buffer beam.  This would be appropriate for a Corridor Tender but in BR days 60700 was coupled to a Streamlined Non Corridor tender (exchanged with A4 60004 in 1948) and as far as I know all of these tenders had 'upright' vacuum pipe standards.  So I have made one, and also fitted new lamp irons to the tender from nickel silver strip, mainly so that I can hang lamps onto them as required.

 

 

Otherwise I think it is a very good model.  As Tony has mentioned, the valve gear is slightly simplified in comparison with the Thompson Pacific models, but better than the Hornby A3 and A4 models.  Other details are also better; for example the ashpan linkage (?) below the cab on the fireman's side is much better than the 'stamped out' bits of metal on the earlier Pacific models. Of interest (possibly) the down turn of the boiler side handrail on the smokebox side has a sharper curve than on th A4 model, which seems to be correct for the W1.

 

As regards the lack of 'turn under' of the cylinder covers, this is the aspect of the Hornby A4 that I like least and as @micklnerhas mentioned it is difficult to do this properly on a model and still have the chassis removable.  However I have modified one of mine to improve this, by making new cylinder covers from brass and Aralditing them to the 'cylinders' that are part of the chassis, so that the join between the cylinder covers and the body becomes at point where the top of the cylinder covers lies alongside the running plates.  I have two more A4s to do when I get a round tuit; whether I'd do the same with the W1 I'm not sure as I think it looks less bad anyway, due to the aforementioned 'bulge' in the cylinder covers.

 

Anyhow, this is what I did to an A4; I think it makes a big improvement:

 

 

 

 

 

[31A]

6 minutes ago, Headstock said:

I'm not keen on the cab decoration and the spectacle plate looks oddly flush without the window frame. I'm pretty shore that the BR green model of 60700 has the wrong type of valve spindle guide.

 

The picture in RCTS 6C of it in BR livery in 1955 shows that it had the 'early' type of valve spindle guide at that date.  There is also a picture of it on "Death Row" in 1959 which possibly shows that it had acquired the later pattern by then - it isn't clear in that picture.  There are probably clearer pictures in other books!

 

[31A]

2 minutes ago, 313201 said:

I had a thought with regards to the hush hush loco both in original and rebuilt format.

 

Given that the rear wheels under the cab ar fixed in place,  Is it not possible to use a piece like  that which holds the front bogie on Gresley pacific locomotives with a actual bogie attached to it just like at the front so that the loco would have all its wheels on the rails instead of looking like a dogs back legs when she runs backwards.

 

The piece which allows the bogie to swing would have to be flattened in order to fit under the cab otherwise the rear bogie would lift the loco up at the cab end.

 

Just a thought but I think it would greatly improve the look of the loco seeing all wheels on the rails instead of flangeless wheels doing nothing.

 

The above modification would be the 1st thing I would do with the loco no matter which version I purchased but with its stupidly ridiculous high price I think its likely to be way beyond my reach.

 

I thought something similar before I got it, but when you look at the model you realise there's a huge chunk of cast metal where a bogie would go, that holds the flangeless wheel sets in place which would have to be sawn off somehow...  And even then, it might not work!  I think I'll have to leave mine as it comes unless or until someone else is brave enough to have a go??

[PaulaDoesTrains]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

I agree the arrangement of the flangeless wheels underneath the rear end isn't fantastic, but what should the likes of Hornby do? Flanged wheels are provided as substitutes for appearance's sake, but then the thing won't go round train set curves.

Back in the mists of time, when Hornby/Triang was an actual manufacturer as opposed to a bunch of badge-engineering sales droids, they used to make Pacifics which went around train set curves. They've pulled the same stunt with the current Duchesses - removed the rear pony truck and had the rear wheels floating unconvincingly above the track.

[Andy Hayter]

They also had flangeless centre driving wheels

[Jamiel]

Having seen a few DMUs on here over the last few months. I thought I would post work in progress of a build I have been doing of a Class124 Transpennine.

 

Worsley Works etches sides, DC Kits Class 303 EMU ends (with a lot of work), Replica Railways MK1 coach bodies, roofs and back ends, Comet chassis, MTK bogie frames, Trix bogie outsides, brass strip.

 

Craftsman DMU detailing kits for the buffer beam details, they are a bit thick, or oversize, but can be soldered on so are quite solid, so I can live with that.
 

Detailing from Comet, A1, MTK, Extreme Etches, Dapol spares (mostly cast off in resin), Evergreen strip, plasticard, a host of plastic and brass sprue/offcuts and whatever is in the box of bits.

 

I think that means it is a mongrel, and not a thoroughbred.

 

I have painted the front ends as I plan to fit the cab windows before adding the cab roofs (cast from a Trix kit, now sold on). The curved cab glass has been cut from Barbie doll packaging (courtesy of my daughter). I feel that the cabs are the ‘face’ of the model and are the most important part to get looking at their best. There will obviously be repainting of the cab when the body is done, but the window edges masked off. The join on the headcode glass needs filling too.

 

Although DMUs are basically coaches with cabs, they do have what I find one of the most fun things to build, DMU underframe and engine details. Some of this is a best guess, but I have put together a lot of photos as reference. Still some bits are always too shadowed to be sure.

 

 

I have posted lots of details of the build on my Ellerby thread, which I think started four almost four years ago with the cabs, then shelved for several years until I got the Worsley etches. I hope the remainder of the build will be a bit faster, but I am not the fastest modeller and do get side-tracked by work and my university studies at times (lecturer and research study, no spring chicken).

 

Hopefully more to post on this as it progresses, five more cars to do. I am absolutely sure that once I finally finish it, a RTR one will appear within a few months.

 

Jamie

Edited January 22, 2022 by Jamiel

[Headstock]

2 hours ago, 31A said:

 

The picture in RCTS 6C of it in BR livery in 1955 shows that it had the 'early' type of valve spindle guide at that date.  There is also a picture of it on "Death Row" in 1959 which possibly shows that it had acquired the later pattern by then - it isn't clear in that picture.  There are probably clearer pictures in other books!

 

 

Thanks

 

it's not a loco that is high on my build before you die list, or should that be die before you buy list? Its pre BR performance on the P2 diagrams in Scotland was quite a watershed moment but the loco would indicate that the proposed reboilering of the A4's would have dulled their sparkle. I was given a large print of 60700 in BR green with early crest, the valve spindle guide is the later type in the photograph. I wonder when it was changed? As you can probably tell, I'm too lazy to look in the green book.

[Tony Wright]

7 hours ago, Andy Hayter said:

They also had flangeless centre driving wheels

Thanks Andy,

 

And the whole Cartazzi truck just swung from side to side with a gap between it and the base of the cab. It also had a peg to connect to the tender.

 

Thank goodness we've moved on from then. 

 

As I stated earlier, the flangeless wheels on these new W1s riding above the rails are not convincing (but still more-convincing than the earlier alternative). What I'll be doing later (when I video the pair running on Little Bytham) is to fit the flanged wheels to one of them, and see how it goes. With a minimum of 3' to negotiate (which is on the Up slow, which my W1 never runs on) there shouldn't be a problem. But, we'll see. 

 

Having had a chance to photograph these models more, I have to say (given the inevitable compromises) I think they're excellent overall. 

 

A 'stupidly' high price has been cited by someone else (what do these cost, around £200.00+? I've yet to check). As I stated earlier, to buy all the bits for a South Eastern Finecast equivalent would be £100.00 more at least (Markits wheels/DJH drive). It then has to be built (which, to me, is much more-satisfying than just buying something ready-made) and then painted (which, as you know, I farm out, though I did paint the first W1 I made from a much-modified Wills A4 and scratch; it appeared in the model press on at least two occasions, but many years ago). 

 

And, in 'real' terms, £200.00 is probably less than what a top-end Hornby Dublo Pacific would have cost 60-odd years ago, complete with flangeless centre drivers and floppy rear truck! I visited my oldest friend a couple of days ago and he recalls paying £5-19-6 for a three-rail BARNSTAPLE. What's that 61 years later I wonder? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[PMP]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

! I visited my oldest friend a couple of days ago and he recalls paying £5-19-6 for a three-rail BARNSTAPLE. What's that 61 years later I wonder? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Roughly £136.00 today. UK 2021 average wage £25k, so roughly £500/week, roughly 1/4 of the average mans weekly wage.

 

Lots of ‘rough’ in there..

Edited January 22, 2022 by PMP

[Chamby]

Re: the W1’s flangeless wheels, there is an interesting comparison in the new Bachmann V2.  Bachmann have also gone the fitted flangeless trailing wheels route, and have also supplied flanged replacement ones.  However Bachmann have given these much more side-play than usual, allowing the loco to negotiate third radius curves when the flanged wheels are fitted.

 

Admittedly, the greater length of the W1 will mean that any side play will likely not be sufficient for to allow negotiation of R3 curves but it would undoubtedly improve things.

 

I do wonder why Bachmann bothered with the flangeless V2 wheels?  There can’t be many folk who will be forking out £200 for a V2, but are restricted to using R2 trainset curves.  

 

Another difference is that the Bachmann flangeless wheels actually sit and roll on the rail head, rather than just hang limply in the air.  Whilst this looks much better, it can cause shorting issues when the trailing wheels swing out of gauge when running over some RTR turnouts.  Which is probably why Hornby do it the way they do...

 

 

 

Edited January 22, 2022 by Chamby
Clarification

[t-b-g]

11 hours ago, 31A said:

Well, I was so pleased with my new W1 until I came on here!

 

I do think the 'bulge' in the cylinder covers, due to the cylinders being bigger than an A4's, is accurate and can be seen in pictures of the real thing.

 

The main adverse comment that I can think of (and it's pretty trivial) is that the 'bits bag' includes an 'underslung' vacuum pipe for the tender buffer beam.  This would be appropriate for a Corridor Tender but in BR days 60700 was coupled to a Streamlined Non Corridor tender (exchanged with A4 60004 in 1948) and as far as I know all of these tenders had 'upright' vacuum pipe standards.  So I have made one, and also fitted new lamp irons to the tender from nickel silver strip, mainly so that I can hang lamps onto them as required.

 

 

Otherwise I think it is a very good model.  As Tony has mentioned, the valve gear is slightly simplified in comparison with the Thompson Pacific models, but better than the Hornby A3 and A4 models.  Other details are also better; for example the ashpan linkage (?) below the cab on the fireman's side is much better than the 'stamped out' bits of metal on the earlier Pacific models. Of interest (possibly) the down turn of the boiler side handrail on the smokebox side has a sharper curve than on th A4 model, which seems to be correct for the W1.

 

As regards the lack of 'turn under' of the cylinder covers, this is the aspect of the Hornby A4 that I like least and as @micklnerhas mentioned it is difficult to do this properly on a model and still have the chassis removable.  However I have modified one of mine to improve this, by making new cylinder covers from brass and Aralditing them to the 'cylinders' that are part of the chassis, so that the join between the cylinder covers and the body becomes at point where the top of the cylinder covers lies alongside the running plates.  I have two more A4s to do when I get a round tuit; whether I'd do the same with the W1 I'm not sure as I think it looks less bad anyway, due to the aforementioned 'bulge' in the cylinder covers.

 

Anyhow, this is what I did to an A4; I think it makes a big improvement:

 

 

 

 

 

 

That looks so much better. If you can manage it, why can't Hornby?

[MarkC]

1 hour ago, PMP said:

Lots of ‘rough’ in there..

Some apparently like a bit of rough... 

[Brit70053]

1 hour ago, PMP said:

! I visited my oldest friend a couple of days ago and he recalls paying £5-19-6 for a three-rail BARNSTAPLE. What's that 61 years later I wonder? 

 

 

1 hour ago, PMP said:

Roughly £136.00 today. UK 2021 average wage £25k, so roughly £500/week, roughly 1/4 of the average mans weekly wage.

 

My first Weekly wage in 1968 was £5-17-00, so 2/6d less than the price quoted for a Hornby Dublo West Country roughly eight years before I started work. No wonder my attention was subtly diverted to the Tri-Ang Britannia as an alternative Christmas gift when I was 12, and then it was realised the tender had to be bought separately.

 

Regards, 

John

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, PMP said:

Roughly £136.00 today. UK 2021 average wage £25k, so roughly £500/week, roughly 1/4 of the average mans weekly wage.

 

Lots of ‘rough’ in there..

Thanks Paul,

 

Not as much I thought, then?

 

However, can you imagine a current RTR manufacturer producing an equivalent model, the like of which Hornby Dublo did over 60 years ago and asking £136.00 for it? Lots of inaccuracies, flangeless centre drivers, floppy trucks, too small wheels all round and no brakes! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[30368]

On 21/01/2022 at 21:31, micklner said:

It is impossible to make a one piece body with different shaped Cylinder covers, as the body would then jam underneath the cylinders if removal was attempted. The kit version suffers from a very obvious gap at the same place where it joins the Footplate.

 

HI Mick,

 

I take your point re cylinder cover profiles. I have tackled this on my two Hornby Models as follows:

 

1. A4 (Miles Beevor) I gently curved the bottom of the body moulding covering the cylinders to create a curve. Secondly I fitted a brass front cylinder cover that is slightly proud of the body. It does improve the look.

 

Have now found a picture or two of Miles B - Plastic body around cylinders re-profiled and brass cylinder cover in place.

 

Fairly heavy weathering!

 

2. W1 I thought that the body moulding over the cylinders was not too bad however the cylinder end cover, very prominent on the prototype, is too small and hidden away. In order to add a brass cylinder end cover it was necessary to add a sleeve (washers) to the end of the plastic cylinder so that when the brass cover is glued on there is clearance between it and the body. Bit fiddly but worth the effort.

 

Could not find my pictures of the A4 but W1 looks like this.

 

 

 

Kind regards,

 

Richard B

Edited January 23, 2022 by 30368
Details of A4 added

[Northmoor]

31 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Paul,

 

Not as much I thought, then?

 

However, can you imagine a current RTR manufacturer producing an equivalent model, the like of which Hornby Dublo did over 60 years ago and asking £136.00 for it? Lots of inaccuracies, flangeless centre drivers, floppy trucks, too small wheels all round and no brakes! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Agreed, although whether that 1960s HD Duchess was the "cutting edge of mass production" at the time, I don't know.

 

What is certainly a factor now, quite apart from recovering the costs of the time taken to apply the additional detail and better finish, is the much smaller volumes produced.  In the 60s, Tri-ang might have had not much more than half a dozen locos in their range at a time and probably expected to sell 10,000 Britannias (there are still comedians on eBay who advertise their Tri-ang Princesses as "RARE"!).  Hornby are not going to sell 10,000 of no.10000, so they are writing off the (substantial) moulding and jig costs over perhaps only 500 units.

 

Today, it's only when the manufacturers produce something common to a high proportion of British layouts, like a GWR Pannier tank or a Class 08 diesel shunter, that they can really take advantage of the economies of scale.