Railroad Crosti 9F

[Black 5 Bear]

Is there a replacement set of wheels available which would just drop in?

Sorry about the duff info, the replacement bogie unit for a Hornby Class 4MT 460 is X9987. It is available directly from Hornby for the princely sum of £1.99 + P+P.

Edited September 5, 2015 by Black 5 Bear

[Jamiel]

Maybe a partial answer, but here's my old Margate-era 9F with added brake gear from various bits of plastic card. It doesn't stand really

close scrutiny but its OK for normal viewing distance, and there's still plenty of lateral movement to get around curves.

 

I think that looks great, just adds in enough to make it feel right. How are they held in place, my concern is that they could rotate around and foul the wheels. I was thinking of L shaped brass wires to hold them upright, but am open to suggestions.

 

I picked up one of the late crest models this afternoon at the lovely little Selby model rail show (just right for an afternoon out with the family, without overtaxing our little one). There are a few tiny little details I am thinking of adding, but the basic model is really nice for £111, it is just I like adding a little bit of something to make it feel like a particular photo.

 

Jamie

Edited September 5, 2015 by Jamiel

[Brian Kirby]

Hi Everyone,

  As promised, here are pics of my DIY brakegear effort, using brass rod and black plasticard. I've used black plasticard in case any flanges rub on them, and they will remain black, although a splodge of matt or satin black will go on the outside faces. The brass rod is about 1mm, cut to 17.5mm length, these are superglued centrally on the chassis. The front wheel brake blocks require a different method, being suspended on cranked lengths of 0.4mm brass wire. I haven't bothered to add any longitudinal brake pull rods, these could be added on top of the transverse rod, but would require tricky soldering, bearing-in-mind that the latter are glued to the plastic chassis bottom, plus they're not that obvious from the side, and this is not intended as a "showcase model", but we'll see. The black plasticard is cut up into appropriate size triangles and the longest side is filed to a curve, a hole is drilled near the square corner and the block is then superglued to the brass rod.

 

No, this is not a dead Crosti.

 

 

Brass rod added.

 

 

Plasticard blocks are applied.

 

 

I'm quite pleased with the initial effort, although a bit of fine fettling might be required. My next target is to add drain cocks/pipes below the cylinders, plus maybe those 'L'-shaped lubricator cranks, that aren't often modelled, not even on DJH kits, although to their credit, Bachmann put them on.

 

                                                       Cheers, Brian.

Edited September 5, 2015 by Brian Kirby

[toboldlygo]

Oops, I broke a gear or two...

[Metr0Land]

Oops, I broke a gear or two...

 

Given your normal penchant for heavy weathering it probably won't show

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/gallery/image/66950-92043/

[Sweeps]

For those of us with sharper curves is there any merit in filing down the little tender buffers to get a little more movement on the close tender/loco coupling?

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Well worth trying. I would far rather have loco and tender coupled at or close to scale separation, so that if the fall plate is also present it covers the gap between cab floor and tender step. A fall plate also conceals removed intermediate buffers - these typically have to go to enable the loco and tender to get round curves - but look out for other features like the high front of the 9F tenders fouling the corners of the cab roof.

 

From memory, a Bach 9F I fiddled with for a set track layout needed the loco to tender spacing to be set 1mm greater than scale - and that still looks good - and the intermediate buffer mouldings filed flush, and then could 'go anywhere' including R2 curves and standard set track points. I should think the same is possible for the Hornby.

[bluebottle]

I think that this thread's going to embolden a lot of us to make a start in performing minor surgery and other procedures on our RTR stock. Thanks to all who've offered practical advice and encouragement!

[Barry Ten]

I think that looks great, just adds in enough to make it feel right. How are they held in place, my concern is that they could rotate around and foul the wheels. I was thinking of L shaped brass wires to hold them upright, but am open to suggestions.

 

 

 

I think Brian's method is better, but mine are just spaced off the chassis with plastic pieces rather than any attempt at modelling the actual hangers themselves. However, in practise they've proven robust enough.

 

This isn't a very good image - I took it a while ago to show the new pickups - but might give enough of an idea. However, if I were doing it again, I'd try Brian's idea which is a lot neater!

 

[Jamiel]

I agree with Bluebottle, thank you to Brain Kirby and now Barry Ten for showing us their improvements. I do think the Hornby model is lovely, but I also think for those who want to have a play with it, there are a few changes that can be made to personalize the loco for those tempted.

I have found a photo which shows a few details that I would like to play with, so am ordering a few parts tomorrow to have a go later in the week.

No problem to those who want to run it straight from the box, I sat mine on my layout like that and it just looks great. The front end is very imposing. I must get building those tankers to sit behind it too, it deserves a good rake of heavy wagons to fit the imposing bulk of the loco up front.

Thank you for the details and inspiration of the posts in this thread.

Jamie

Edited September 6, 2015 by Jamiel

[The Blue Streak]

I think that this thread's going to embolden a lot of us to make a start in performing minor surgery and other procedures on our RTR stock. Thanks to all who've offered practical advice and encouragement!

 

I completely agree, I think there are more people inclined to take the "hammer and chisels" to a model labelled as Railroad than a "High End" (and proportionally priced) model and the little mods shown here in this thread are within a lot a peoples capabilities who may not normally have the confidence to perform surgery on their newly acquired stock. Perhaps leading to bigger and more challenging things.

So Yes thanks from Me as well.

[Brian Kirby]

Hi Everyone,

   Thank you for the kind comments, i've been adding a few more details to my Crosti. These first three pics show where i've added diagonal struts to the inside of the front steps, a thin wire bar front coupling in the shortened NEM box, and cylinder drain cocks under the cylinders, the latter is a tricky job, you must avoid drilling into the piston rod, i recommend drilling at an angle inwards to avoid these. I still need to turn down the flanges on that front bogie wheel, or else replace it completely.

 

 

I've also added an impression of the lubricator lever linkage on both sides, the lower connection needs to be below the centre of the crank cover, again avoiding drilling to far into the plastic, to avoid jamming the crank behind. The upper connection is more difficult, as we have to drill dead centre into the mazak cover, which is much harder work, but it only needs to a 1mm. or 2mm. deep, just a little spot of superglue to hold things in place, there's always the danger of the glue jamming the lower crank if too much is used. 

 

 

Turning to the front end, things look a bit bare, so i've added grab handles for the steps using 0.4 brass wire, and lamp brackets using office staples (where would i be without my office staples!). I noticed in photos that original Crostis had their outer brackets set inside of the grab handles, whereas usual 9F practice is for them to be on the outside of the handles, the pics of rebuilt Crostis i've seen show the lamps moved out to the usual position, all very peculiar? I decided the Hornby front steps were just too large and stuck out too far, so i cut them back using a beefy pair of side-cutters, if i tackle another Crosti, i think in hindsight it would be easier to replace the front steps completely. You can also see that i've removed the incorrect left-hand handrail by the chimney, but haven't plugged the holes yet, plus all these mods need a splash of black paint and some dirt, although the drain cocks would be coppery when new, but rather cruddy later on.

                                                    Cheers, Brian.

 

[coachmann]

I am almost tempted by these brutes and these mods are slowly winding up my wallet.... I even have front step etchings .

[toboldlygo]

Hi Everyone,

   Thank you for the kind comments, i've been adding a few more details to my Crosti. These first three pics show where i've added diagonal struts to the inside of the front steps, a thin wire bar front coupling in the shortened NEM box, and cylinder drain cocks under the cylinders, the latter is a tricky job, you must avoid drilling into the piston rod, i recommend drilling at an angle inwards to avoid these. I still need to turn down the flanges on that front bogie wheel, or else replace it completely.

 

CIMG4932 - Copy.JPG

CIMG4933 - Copy.JPG

CIMG4934 - Copy.JPG

 

I've also added an impression of the lubricator lever linkage on both sides, the lower connection needs to be below the centre of the crank cover, again avoiding drilling to far into the plastic, to avoid jamming the crank behind. The upper connection is more difficult, as we have to drill dead centre into the mazak cover, which is much harder work, but it only needs to a 1mm. or 2mm. deep, just a little spot of superglue to hold things in place, there's always the danger of the glue jamming the lower crank if too much is used. 

 

CIMG4939 - Copy.JPG

CIMG4938 - Copy.JPG

CIMG4942 - Copy.JPG

 

Turning to the front end, things look a bit bare, so i've added grab handles for the steps using 0.4 brass wire, and lamp brackets using office staples (where would i be without my office staples!). I noticed in photos that original Crostis had their outer brackets set inside of the grab handles, whereas usual 9F practice is for them to be on the outside of the handles, the pics of rebuilt Crostis i've seen show the lamps moved out to the usual position, all very peculiar? I decided the Hornby front steps were just too large and stuck out too far, so i cut them back using a beefy pair of side-cutters, if i tackle another Crosti, i think in hindsight it would be easier to replace the front steps completely. You can also see that i've removed the incorrect left-hand handrail by the chimney, but haven't plugged the holes yet, plus all these mods need a splash of black paint and some dirt, although the drain cocks would be coppery when new, but rather cruddy later on.

                                                    Cheers, Brian.

 

CIMG4937 - Copy.JPG

CIMG4936 - Copy.JPG

 

Fantastic work there Brian, I just hope you don't want to get the body off in hurry as the lower part of the lubricator lever is attached to the body and the top to the chassis.

[JSpencer]

Putting aside the lack of break shoes which seems to be challenge on this model. The cylinders look noticeably under scale compared to both prototype photos and Bachmann's version though the rodding looks marginally better on this model. I feel the cylinders at least were copied from the railroad 9F.

 

Mine is a very smooth runner, better than those in videos so far. Not sure I wood give Hornby 10 out of 10 personally. Despite being new tooling, they copied existed railroad 9F characteristics. The pony is no better than my old tender drive Evening Star. They could have left the steps for the user to fit like they fund for the P2 and the Duke. Like those models, the lamp irons would have been welcome, however I feel as the railroad 9F model does not have these, they left them off. However it's buffers are better (although non sprung metal would have been suffice) and all the handrails are separately fitted.

 

I don,t feel that the moulded on pipe work and cab details unlike Bachmann's separately fitted pipe work and details, let's the model down in anyway, although it probably saves only £30 having moulded instead of fitted detail. The difference is not enough to put me off from buying a more detailed model, but £50 more probably would have been.

 

Hornby will get a mixed message from this, do they stay the super detailed way or produce these odd prototypes to Railroad standards?

[Legend]

Putting aside the lack of break shoes which seems to be challenge on this model. The cylinders look noticeably under scale compared to both prototype photos and Bachmann's version though the rodding looks marginally better on this model. I feel the cylinders at least were copied from the railroad 9F.

 

Mine is a very smooth runner, better than those in videos so far. Not sure I wood give Hornby 10 out of 10 personally. Despite being new tooling, they copied existed railroad 9F characteristics. The pony is no better than my old tender drive Evening Star. They could have left the steps for the user to fit like they fund for the P2 and the Duke. Like those models, the lamp irons would have been welcome, however I feel as the railroad 9F model does not have these, they left them off. However it's buffers are better (although non sprung metal would have been suffice) and all the handrails are separately fitted.

 

I don,t feel that the moulded on pipe work and cab details unlike Bachmann's separately fitted pipe work and details, let's the model down in anyway, although it probably saves only £30 having moulded instead of fitted detail. The difference is not enough to put me off from buying a more detailed model, but £50 more probably would have been.

 

Hornby will get a mixed message from this, do they stay the super detailed way or produce these odd prototypes to Railroad standards?

 

Yes , your last point is my fear, but I Suspect I'm coming in the opposite direction.  I think most would agree that this model is a strange mix of Railroad and Standard and is priced as such at about £117 I think.   My fear is that Hornby will think they can get away with charging £120 for Railroad items which were coming in at £80 mark ( eg P2) while I think your fear is that items that could be super detailed will end up in Railroad range.

 

I think more than ever it again emphasizes the need for range distinctions. Again what motor is in this one is it 5 pole or 3 pole ? In their defence this is probably one of the last locos from the Kohler era where loco standards from one release to another were very mixed.

[melmerby]

Yes , your last point is my fear, but I Suspect I'm coming in the opposite direction.  I think most would agree that this model is a strange mix of Railroad and Standard and is priced as such at about £117 I think.   My fear is that Hornby will think they can get away with charging £120 for Railroad items which were coming in at £80 mark ( eg P2) while I think your fear is that items that could be super detailed will end up in Railroad range.

 

I think more than ever it again emphasizes the need for range distinctions. Again what motor is in this one is it 5 pole or 3 pole ? In their defence this is probably one of the last locos from the Kohler era where loco standards from one release to another were very mixed.

But the P2 was available as an enhanced version for more money which was really still only a "bulled -up" Railroad Model, it was never a fully detailed top notch version.

 

Keith

 

EDIT I would agree Hornby really do need to decide where the distinction between the full detailed and Railroad versions lie, currently it is extremely blurred!

Edited September 8, 2015 by melmerby

[Pandora]

According to Simon K, in the Simon Says forum,  Railroad was devised as  a recession smoothing strategy for Hornby products. Aimed at smoothing the gap between the highs and lows of consumer spending. since we are on a "high" right now Hornby can push out models such as the Crosti at the upper end of the Railroad price bracket,  that  upper point price bracket being less  than the price  of the premium models.

 

Called into Ian Allam Waterloo this morning,  they wre unpacking a delivery of a batch of 10 Crostis in addition to the ones in the showcase, Hornby supplies must be on the up!

[melmerby]

 

 

Called into Ian Allam Waterloo this morning,  they wre unpacking a delivery of a batch of 10 Crostis in addition to the ones in the showcase, Hornby supplies must be on the up!

According to what I have heard IA don't buy direct from Hornby any more as Hornby won't deal with them, instead they have to go through a third party to get supplies, therefore reducing their margins and their ability to compete price wise.

Conversely they do get their supplies of Bachmann direct and have a good rapport with them! (which allows them to price competitively)

 

Keith

Edited September 8, 2015 by melmerby

[Brian Kirby]

I agree, the distinction between Hornby "Railroad" and "Standard/finescale" is rather vague and confusing, we don't even know what to exactly expect next. As someone mentioned earlier, i'd too would like to see the return of the then popular (Tri-ang/Hornby style) CKD (Complete Knock Down) locos from the 1960s. This would be possible in either range, allowing the modeller to buy the loco at a cheaper cost and then put the pre-painted main parts together and add the details themselves. This will save Hornby the high cost of adding fine details, the retailers would have another sales option, also giving the retailer the third option of putting a few CKDs together themselves, if they run out of RTR stock, it's a win-win situation for everybody. I've no idea how much cheaper they would be, but we're probably talking of 60%-75% of RTR cost, does anyone remember how much cheaper CKD were in the 1960s? It wouldn't do Hornby any harm to put a toe in the water and try this, after all this is a construction hobby, maybe something universally useful like their 08 diesel shunter or their BR Class 4 75xxx for a start? (or even these Crostis, once the RTR sales calm down.)

   CKD would appeal to a wide range of modellers, people with tighter budgets, EM and P4 modellers who'd probably fit a kit chassis anyway, people who just like to build something not too taxing, the loco conversion types, and even the collectors would acquire them for their collection (but never make them of course). If Hornby don't try it again, why don't other manufacturers have a go, i've always thought the original style Bachmann Mk1s with their screw assembly would be perfect for CKD (I know they are slowly changing the assembly method now) and what about those expensive Polybulk wagons, supply the main parts and let the modellers put all those fiddly parts on (and thus save a fortune), they'd sell a lot more Polybulks.

   Consider people coming into the hobby, Mum/Dad buys Son/Daughter a train set, straight out of the box, runs it a few times, gets bored. Alternatively, here you are son/daughter this is a CKD, build it and test it yourself, child would be far more satisfied and would enjoy showing it off to everyone ("I built this!").        

                                                                Cheers, Brian.

[JSpencer]

According to what I have heard IA don't buy direct from Hornby any more as Hornby won't deal with them, instead they have to go through a third party to get supplies, therefore reducing their margins and their ability to compete price wise.

Conversely they do get their supplies of Bachmann direct and have a good rapport with them! (which allows them to price competitively)

 

Keith

That is a surprise considering they produce the Hornby magazine.

[melmerby]

That is a surprise considering they produce the Hornby magazine.

Which is nothing to do with Hornby!

 

Keith

[JSpencer]

I agree, the distinction between Hornby "Railroad" and "Standard/finescale" is rather vague and confusing, we don't even know what to exactly expect next. As someone mentioned earlier, i'd too would like to see the return of the then popular (Tri-ang/Hornby style) CKD (Complete Knock Down) locos from the 1960s. This would be possible in either range, allowing the modeller to buy the loco at a cheaper cost and then put the pre-painted main parts together and add the details themselves. This will save Hornby the high cost of adding fine details, the retailers would have another sales option, also giving the retailer the third option of putting a few CKDs together themselves, if they run out of RTR stock, it's a win-win situation for everybody. I've no idea how much cheaper they would be, but we're probably talking of 60%-75% of RTR cost, does anyone remember how much cheaper CKD were in the 1960s? It wouldn't do Hornby any harm to put a toe in the water and try this, after all this is a construction hobby, maybe something universally useful like their 08 diesel shunter or their BR Class 4 75xxx for a start? (or even these Crostis, once the RTR sales calm down.)

   CKD would appeal to a wide range of modellers, people with tighter budgets, EM and P4 modellers who'd probably fit a kit chassis anyway, people who just like to build something not too taxing, the loco conversion types, and even the collectors would acquire them for their collection (but never make them of course). If Hornby don't try it again, why don't other manufacturers have a go, i've always thought the original style Bachmann Mk1s with their screw assembly would be perfect for CKD (I know they are slowly changing the assembly method now) and what about those expensive Polybulk wagons, supply the main parts and let the modellers put all those fiddly parts on (and thus save a fortune), they'd sell a lot more Polybulks.

   Consider people coming into the hobby, Mum/Dad buys Son/Daughter a train set, straight out of the box, runs it a few times, gets bored. Alternatively, here you are son/daughter this is a CKD, build it and test it yourself, child would be far more satisfied and would enjoy showing it off to everyone ("I built this!").        

                                                                Cheers, Brian.

To give an idea of what CKD today would mean, Dapol do some former Airfix LMS coaches as such. These have about 50 parts. Not all of them preprinted, for example the roof and roof vents need to be assembled before painting and you need to buy paint (or leave them in grey plastic).

 

Now a loco is 300 parts or more. The difference in price between that and a CKD kit is probably about 20% less (the bits still need to bagged up, checked they are their etc). The price difference would not be enough to persuade someone to opt for CKD instead of RTR, only those intending serious modifications or just like assembling locos will buy them. How much of the market that represents is anyone's guess. So would make a nice experimen.

[coachmann]

Consider people coming into the hobby, Mum/Dad buys Son/Daughter a train set, straight out of the box, runs it a few times, gets bored. Alternatively, here you are son/daughter this is a CKD, build it and test it yourself, child would be far more satisfied and would enjoy showing it off to everyone ("I built this!").        

 

 

The days of CKD are long gone. Surely I dont need to remind anyone that in those Triang days and indeed for many years after in the Hornby period, locos were a one piece moulding sitting on a very undetailed chassis block. Today's locos assembled in China are as far from that way of manufacturing as it gets. So what should these workers leave off a loco to a lower specification? Fit the handrails but not what? Each model is tooled up to take its own parts and it would actually be more expensive to change the spec. At my age I am cynical about manufacturers being encouraged to take a course of action to "encourage more people into the hobby", as it usually means "I really want cheaper models".

Edited September 8, 2015 by coachmann

[Dunsignalling]

To give an idea of what CKD today would mean, Dapol do some former Airfix LMS coaches as such. These have about 50 parts. Not all of them preprinted, for example the roof and roof vents need to be assembled before painting and you need to buy paint (or leave them in grey plastic).

 

Now a loco is 300 parts or more. The difference in price between that and a CKD kit is probably about 20% less (the bits still need to bagged up, checked they are their etc). The price difference would not be enough to persuade someone to opt for CKD instead of RTR, only those intending serious modifications or just like assembling locos will buy them. How much of the market that represents is anyone's guess. So would make a nice experimen.

Comparing CKD to a kit is somewhat misleading. CKD was basically a Purchase Tax avoidance dodge.

 

Most of the Princess I put together was already in fairly substantial sub-assemblies and "building" the thing was done with a small screwdriver (provided IIRC) and easily accomplished by a 12-year old in under an hour.

 

I always suspected making the special packaging, putting all the bits in and (more important) checking they were all there, cost Tri-ang at least as much as producing a finished loco.

 

CKD was cheaper because of the tax advantage, nothing else. VAT works differently and you wouldn't get that edge nowadays.

 

John