Railroad Crosti 9F

[Unknown Warrior]

As I have just received my "up market" version of Duke of Gloucester and am pleased with it, I turned my attention to the promised Crosti 9F. I think this is another intelligent choice and I might be tempted once I have seen it in the flesh!

 

As far as I can make out Hornby is to produce the two variations which ran while they were still running as Crostis: with and without smoke deflector on the side chimney. I hope that they will produce the final version, after they were converted to normal operation, in due course. They ran In their final form for over half theirs operational careers (bearing in mind that some of them spent up to 2 years in store before conversion) and that the majority of the class lasted into the last 12 months of BR steam, before they were withdrawn more or less en bloc in Oct/Nov 1967. The final version would therefore be an excellent choice for the 60's steam period! I hope that Hornby will be allowing for the final variation at the design stag.

 

Quite why the converted locos lasted so long is an interesting question, as they outlived around half of their conventional class mates, especially as they were really only 8Fs in their final form and there were plenty of LMS and WD 8Fs sill around.

 

Sorry if all this has been said before in the general discussion of the Hornby 2014 range, but I think a topic devoted to the Crostis in their own right might throw up some interesting points.

 

I will be publishing my thoughts on the DoG in the appropriate topic later.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

The de-Crostied 9F, and thus rated an 8F 2-10-0, possesses advantage in adhesion over an eight coupled 8F, simply by that extra driven wheelset. It might also have some small but significant axle load reduction over the rest of the 9F class as the boiler is the single heaviest component. That's suggestive that they may have been found useful somewhere on the network that required low axleloads, but often had poor rail conditions and/or presented loads near the limit of an 8F 2-8-0 capacity. Sometimes a little bit less can add up to a lot more...

[RedgateModels]

Best bet for a rebuilt crosti is to buy a normal RR 9f and then apply a Golden Arrow resin body kit, the blower tunnel is in place so should be a relatively simple project. Would give Chris some revenue too as Hornby have taken another of his kits for their own .....

[Legend]

I thought according to Model Rail that they were doing the crosti version then the later version with the gubbins removed . R3273 is described as Crosti 9f and R3274 as rebuilt Crosti. It does say in their narrative that it will be supplied with "conventional blast pipe"just adding to the total confusion in the Hornby range it further goes onto state that the model is completely new , meaning new chassis as well. But why then would it be in "Railroad" range. I thought the whole reason it was in there was because it used existing 9f chassis which was felt not to be up to modern standards. So now we have a Railroad model priced at normal range prices £117 . Why? What a farce in marketing or has somebody got it wrong?

Edited December 29, 2013 by Legend

[RedgateModels]

Would need to do a new chassis to;

 

1/ have the very prominent chassis mounted sandboxes

2/ lose the ringfield tender chassis and possibly use the existing Brit one. As it stands at the moment the "long" drawbar option on the Brit tender would foul the loco to chassis mounting under the cab - I filed it off on my latest Crosti build

 

Just because its Railroad doesn't mean that they won't retool for the future - full fat version later with brakes etc?

 

They do need to work on that front end though going from the CADs .....

[gismorail]

I thought according to Model Rail that they were doing the crosti version then the later version with the gubbins removed . R3273 is described as Crosti 9f and R3274 as rebuilt Crosti. It does say in their narrative that it will be supplied with "conventional blast pipe"just adding to the total confusion in the Hornby range it further goes onto state that the model is completely new , meaning new chassis as well. But why then would it be in "Railroad" range. I thought the whole reason it was in there was because it used existing 9f chassis which was felt not to be up to modern standards. So now we have a Railroad model priced at normal range prices £117 . Why? What a farce in marketing or has somebody got it wrong?

I think that this is a prime example of Hornby's muddled thinking ...... you do really have to wonder as to which direction this company is heading, and who is making these decisions currently. Mind do which year it will appear in we wait with bated breath.

 

I did pose the question in the Hornby 2014 thread about ' why is this model in the Railroad Range' In my mind the actual prototype is very specialist locomotive to be in the 'play range'

Personally I am made up with the news whatever the final finish is to be as it will more than likely require added detail depending which number one chooses to model. It has to be a better start then purchasing a kit version, If the chassis is the old one then I might have to think twice though, as a comet chassis would be the possible solution. (Hope someone at Comet reads this )

[andyman7]

I thought according to Model Rail that they were doing the crosti version then the later version with the gubbins removed . R3273 is described as Crosti 9f and R3274 as rebuilt Crosti. It does say in their narrative that it will be supplied with "conventional blast pipe"just adding to the total confusion in the Hornby range it further goes onto state that the model is completely new , meaning new chassis as well. But why then would it be in "Railroad" range. I thought the whole reason it was in there was because it used existing 9f chassis which was felt not to be up to modern standards. So now we have a Railroad model priced at normal range prices £117 . Why? What a farce in marketing or has somebody got it wrong?

I think you're being somewhat harsh - Hornby have stated that the 'Railroad' range is designed for those that don't want incredibly fiddly details falling off every five minutes and are more price conscious.  It doesn't mean it's some sort of play range for kids only, and as we have seen from the very heated debates in other threads, there is very much a divide between those that want to retain the ultra-super-detail ready made models at any cost and those that are saying that circa £100 is pretty much their limit for a loco and that they would rather forgo some super detailing to keep within that limit. (There are others that want both super detail and cheap prices, but I'm sticking with the realms of reality here  ).

In addition, what started out as a range for warmed over older Hornby tooling is rapidly becoming a home for brand new models, e.g. P2, BR 8P etc.So where is the rule that says that this completely new model must be in the super detail range? £117 most certainly does not any longer represent normal range price - that is now £150+ for new 'full fat' models.

 

Steve Jones in his blog was very articulate in stating that the most important thing in tooling a model is to get the basic shape right. If they do that with the Crosti, then anyone who wants to ensure that the Fireman's underpants are painted the correct colours for 7 July 1957 can do so, and many others will run it 'as is' quite happily. 

Edited December 29, 2013 by andyman7

[Legend]

Maybe abit harsh but not unwarranted. So what are we getting with this model, will it be like the DoG and if so which one , the considerably cheaperRailroad one or the main range "design clever" one. Will it have moulded handrails like the main range "star" , comes in at about same price I think. The catalogue needs to be specific, but I somehow doubt it

[Unknown Warrior]

Best bet for a rebuilt crosti is to buy a normal RR 9f and then apply a Golden Arrow resin body kit, the blower tunnel is in place so should be a relatively simple project. Would give Chris some revenue too as Hornby have taken another of his kits for their own .....

 

Good point. We tend to forget that the race into more obscure models by Bachmann and Hornby must be hurting the smaller manufactures of kits and RTR. At least 00 Works already have my money for the Midland 2Fs and the L&Y 0-6-0ST!

 

Golden Arrow have already lost an order from me following Bachmann's announcing the Stanier Mogul. I had already acquired a Bachmann Fowler tender for it. It would however have cost me rather more than the Bachmann Model, as I intended to use a Comet chassis kit. There in lies the rub!

 

As far as the Crosti is concerned I have too many other projects awaiting my time including a pair of Craftsman Midland 0-4-4Ts, not to mention a Patriot at 12" to the foot and helping to run the other complete Midland Branch Line! A RTR Crosti in final condition would however be an attractive proposition.

[frobisher]

Maybe abit harsh but not unwarranted. So what are we getting with this model, will it be like the DoG and if so which one , the considerably cheaperRailroad one or the main range "design clever" one. Will it have moulded handrails like the main range "star" , comes in at about same price I think. The catalogue needs to be specific, but I somehow doubt it

Given there was a picture of the EP in the announcement thread, you can pretty much judge most of this apart from the finish. The only Railroad feature of that is the Railroad loco chassis to my eyes (no more former ringfield tender )

[Dreadnought05]

I will be publishing my thoughts on the DoG in the appropriate topic later.

 

And photos too, I hope?

[RedgateModels]

Given there was a picture of the EP

EP is way off on the Crosti, all Hornby have published is a (hopefully) very early CAD image.....

[frobisher]

EP is way off on the Crosti, all Hornby have published is a (hopefully) very early CAD image.....

Sure looks like an EP to me...

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_12_2013/post-1-0-98317600-1387185748.jpg

 

Certainly that's not a CAD image or a CG rendering.

Edited December 30, 2013 by frobisher

[Multiple identity account 2]

Sure looks like an EP to me...

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_12_2013/post-1-0-98317600-1387185748.jpg

 

Certainly that's not a CAD image or a CG rendering.

It is a CAD image. Not an EP sample I have explained it.

Edited December 30, 2013 by HornbyFAN

[Multiple identity account 2]

Maybe a bit harsh but not unwarranted. So what are we getting with this model, will it be like the DoG and if so which one , the considerably cheaper Railroad one or the main range "design clever" one. Will it have moulded handrails like the main range "star" , comes in at about same price I think. The catalogue needs to be specific, but I somehow doubt it

The CAD images shown on RMWeb and on Hornby's website was clear enough for me to understand this models features.

 

- It is a RailRoad model. (I hope the livery is applied well though)

- Most of the model has wire handrails except the handrail on the cabside.

- The chassis is completely new tooling as I heard from Hornby and I think Graham Muz has also said the same.

 

 

@Frobisher

Here is the image of the CAD and someproof that it is indeed a CAD image and not an EP sample.

 

The image also shows where exactly are the wire handrails and where is the moulded one.

 

Hope this helps

Edited December 30, 2013 by HornbyFAN

[bike2steam]

Ah good, that means I can retire my 30 year old Crownline conversion, now running on a more recent 'Railroad' chassis.

[coachmann]

A bit early to judge maybe, but if the driving and pony wheels are not bevell rim, the Hornby Crosti will merely be a characature like their Stanier 2-6-4T. One way round it would be the put the Hornby body on a Bachmann chassis.

[sandwich station]

the Hornby Crosti will merely be a characature like their Stanier 2-6-4T.

What's wrong with the 2-6-4 Stanier tank?

[jjb1970]

Originally I thought Railroad was a cheap range of models for the train set market and good for those wanting cheap models for kit bashing, super detailing etc using old Lima and pre-China Hornby tooling but the range does now seem to be developing quite differently and now covers a wide spectrum from cheap(-ish) toys up to models using new tooling that are acceptable to many enthusiasts. The Mk.1 coach is much, much better than a toy, as is the DoG in both versions. I must admit I'm a little confused by it all but if the Railroad range is developing as a de-spec version of the full price range then I can see a lot of merit in the idea. On the idea of design clever, that is still finding its feet and is a bit erratic, I thought it worked remarkably well on the 2BIL, was a failure on the GWR tanks, and appears to be finding its feet with the Star and DoG. Whilst it is probably never going to be universally accepted I do believe that if done well it can work. I also believe that others including Bachmann will be following suit to some degree whether or not they announce it loudly like Hornby did. On the Crosti 9F that was a bold and commendable choice of subject by Hornby, I'll certainly be getting one.

[Multiple identity account 2]

Originally I thought Railroad was a cheap range of models for the train set market and good for those wanting cheap models for kit bashing, super detailing etc using old Lima and pre-China Hornby tooling but the range does now seem to be developing quite differently and now covers a wide spectrum from cheap(-ish) toys up to models using new tooling that are acceptable to many enthusiasts. The Mk.1 coach is much, much better than a toy, as is the DoG in both versions. I must admit I'm a little confused by it all but if the Railroad range is developing as a de-spec version of the full price range then I can see a lot of merit in the idea. On the idea of design clever, that is still finding its feet and is a bit erratic, I thought it worked remarkably well on the 2BIL, was a failure on the GWR tanks, and appears to be finding its feet with the Star and DoG. Whilst it is probably never going to be universally accepted I do believe that if done well it can work. I also believe that others including Bachmann will be following suit to some degree whether or not they announce it loudly like Hornby did. On the Crosti 9F that was a bold and commendable choice of subject by Hornby, I'll certainly be getting one.

Hornby had stated that the RailRoad range is going to witness a big change in the coming years. I think after ther re-branding in Feb we shall get to know.

[Poor Old Bruce]

Quite why the converted locos lasted so long is an interesting question, as they outlived around half of their conventional class mates, especially as they were really only 8Fs in their final form and there were plenty of LMS and WD 8Fs sill around.

 

As you say John we have been probably been round this particular thing before but we don't seem to have much more than hearsay to suggest that the rebuilt Crostis were "really only 8F in their final form". AFAIK all the rebuilds were marked as "9F" above the cabside numbers and they seemed to work turn and turn about with the other 9Fs e.g. I have seen photos of them on the Long Meg to Widnes anhydrite trains (how often did an 8F or WD show up on those trains - Tin hat ready!). The 1964 LM-W Freight Trains Loads Book just shows the 9F category to cover the "B.R. Std 92,000 series", there are no exclusions and there is no separate mention of the rebuilt Crostis - that's good enough for me - unless anyone can tell us differently.

Edited December 30, 2013 by Poor Old Bruce

[frobisher]

It is a CAD image. Not an EP sample.

Until we have real evidence to the contrary, I disagree. If it is CG, then it is beyond Hornby's previously demonstrated ability in this area. About the only thing that is clear is that the images have taken a pass through Photoshop (or equivalent) with some mixed results.

[asmay2002]

Quite why the converted locos lasted so long is an interesting question, as they outlived around half of their conventional class mates, especially as they were really only 8Fs in their final form and there were plenty of LMS and WD 8Fs sill around.

 

The last Crosti conversion didn't happen until 1962 and most were after the last 9F's were built.  Many of the standard 9Fs never got a change of boiler let alone the full general overhaul unlike the Crostis  so no surprise that the rebuilt Crostis lasted longer than many of the conventional ones at a time when locos were worked until they failed and then written off.  They were always rated 9F. The BR diagram shows them as 9F.  The "F" calculation only involves Tractive effort and adhesion weight.  The Crostis were slightly lighter but not enough to drop them anywhere near the 8F clasification.

[Multiple identity account 2]

Until we have real evidence to the contrary, I disagree. If it is CG, then it is beyond Hornby's previously demonstrated ability in this area. About the only thing that is clear is that the images have taken a pass through Photoshop (or equivalent) with some mixed results.

It really isn't rocket science to judge by the looks of the images that it is a CG image. To add to that the simulated coal load, extremely whitesh connecting rods & wheels and the tender wheels hanging in the air are a complete give-away - There lies your evidence. If it was indeed a EP sample there would have been better images and the colour of the shell will be completely different. It is a well edited CG image.

 

You can disagree to this but I am sure by the images that it isn't a EP sample. To me the colour, coal load, connecting rods etc are a give-away and seem to be like a CG image.

 

If the model was like this (see image below) I would have been a little confused. If it were an EP sample it would have looked like the model below.

Edited December 30, 2013 by HornbyFAN

[coachmann]

What's wrong with the 2-6-4 Stanier tank?

For the reason I stated concerning the Crosti 2-10-0....Hornby used the chassis from the Fowler 2-6-4T with minor alterations, but the Stanier 2-6-4T should have bevel rim wheels just as BR standard locos have.  I'm grateful for the Stanier but Hornby does tend to spoil the ship for a ha'porth of tar.....Hopefully not the spaceship though.