Hornby K1

[43078shildoncountydurham]

Hi all,

 

Could live with this

[RBAGE]

It would be very interesting to know how you deal with this - soak in hot water perhaps and then straighten?

 

Thanks,   John.

Hello John,

The glass transition temperature of polystyrene is about 107 centigrade (when it goes from brittle to rubbery). So you'd have to use boiling water to have any chance of making a permanent change to the shape.

The problem would be maintaining the desired (flat) shape whilst applying boiling water. The softened and fixed shape component would then have to be chilled so that the polystyrene becomes brittle once again.

I would not attempt this and would not recommend that anyone else attempts it.

The results could be disastrous, both for the model and your health.

 

The problem has probably arisen, as I've said earlier, when the moulding is removed from the tool before it is fully chilled. This will have been done to reduce cycle time and save energy (don't let the tool get too cold so that you don't have to put so much heat back in for the next cycle).

 

I have experienced a similar situation where the solution applied was to use a post process setting jig to maintain the required shape. Not ideal but gave acceptable results with the required savings.

 

Hornby take note.

 

Bob 

[JaymzHatstand]

Mine arrived on Tuesday, and yesterday morning made it's first outing to Whitborough with a fish train. I'm still to fit the detailing parts and am in two minds as to whether the number will be getting changed but those things can wait! The running plate issue doesn't appear to be too pronounced on my example and as such it can stay as is for now. It'll be getting chipped eventually, so I'll investigate the straightening methods already outlined in this thread when it's in bits!

 

A couple of photos of the excursion...

 

 

I'm very much looking forward to enjoying more of the smooth running of this beautiful loco. It's one I've been wanting for years!

 

Cheers

 

J

Edited December 19, 2014 by JaymzHatstand

[The Black Hat]

Glad I hadn't ordered one of these; will certainly be waiting for batch 2 in 2016 or whenver (along with suitable tooling mix for 62005 without boiler top pannel and with AWS etc).

 

62005 for the transition period would be almost fine as the model comes at the moment, but theres rivits needed on the front of the smokebox and on the drawbar (see below and thanks to Procy for pointing this out). The boiler top pannel seems to have been replaced in around 1990 ish, but I have not investigated much. If you want 62005 in its form today the model is not entirely accurate, but that is the only reason why. On 62024 the panel is not as profound as you might think, hence Ive numbered mine to 62005 and detailed it accordingly. The next releases by Hornby all feature said panel, including the weathered one announced in the catalogue. As a result, it could be 2 years plus to wait for a conversion, or a while at least until its announced that a run with 62005/2005 has been comissioned.

 

You might have a long wait, if you want the present day one, or you can renumber one now for it and then like me, renumber it again when a more accurate version is made.

 

EDIT: change for accuracy.

Edited December 19, 2014 by The Black Hat

[mkwolf1877]

Chuffed to bits I've just picked mine up from AGR Model Railways in Leighton Buzzard, only downside, it now has to go under the Cheistmas Tree ;-)

[silverlink]

Well I'm not a happy bunny,

After fixing the wonky footplate on one of the three I purchased the other day I now find that one tender has half fallen apart! the front part of the tender where the coal hole is was not glued at all and just fell out, on one of the others the tender side frame which has the axle boxes and spring detail on also fell off also due to not been glued.  Worse still part of the valve gear at one side has dropped off and I can't see any way of repairing it forcing me to contact the retailer I purchased them from (Rails of Sheffield). They have been very helpful and sent me a free returns label so I can return it. They're going to have a look at it themselves and if nothing can be done they are sending it back to Hornby so it could be a while before I see any return. They did say they would let me have a replacement but they have totally sold out. I'll keep you posted.

Ian

[Porcy Mane]

62005 for the transition period would be fine as the model comes at the moment.

Don't think so...

62005 had rivets at each end of the smokebox and also had the quite distinctive riveted draw beam. No apologies from me for mentioning the rivet word.

Luckily it looks as though Hornby have tooled up for this version at some point according to a pre production picture posted by Andy Y here:

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/82160-Hornby-k1/page-3&do=findComment&comment=1480642

 

There was a full set of pre production pics of this version posted somewhere on the forum some time ago.

 

These prototype pics illustrate what I'm talking about and the Flickr contributor has also made the pics available in Hi res.

In the last pic a rear view of the tender shows a few bit missing from the model but quite easy to add with plasticard.

 

Class K1 62005 Filey (Butlins Camp) SLS/MLS Special 6 March 1965 by ricsrailpics, on Flickr

 

Class K1 no. 62005. Butlins (Filey) Holiday Camp. SLS/MLS special. 6 March 1965 by ricsrailpics, on Flickr

 

Class K1 no.62005. York. 30 August 1963 by ricsrailpics, on Flickr

 

Class K1 62005. Filey (Butlins Camp). 6 March 1965 by ricsrailpics, on Flickr

 

Hth,

P

 

Edit: I wonder if someone may ever request this livery version?

http://www.davidheyscollection.com/userimages/00001-d-salmon-62005-TD-9-9-67.jpg

 

and get rid of some silly wording.

Edited December 19, 2014 by Porcy Mane

[Porcy Mane]

 I now find that one tender has half fallen apart! the front part of the tender where the coal hole is was not glued at all and just fell out, on one of the others the tender side frame which has the axle boxes and spring detail on also fell off also due to not been glued. 

Sorry to hear about your problems but you weren't alone with a lack of glue on the tender. Mine fell apart with handling but I looked on this as a positive as I wanted to pull it apart to see how easy it would be to thin the side plates.

It seems as though the lack of glue on my tender was compensated for by using an excess on the loco. I'm probably the only bloke who would like to see some RTR models made available as fully knocked down kits?

 

P

[Raised On Steam]

you're not alone - I'd go for knocked down versions if they were available.

[The Black Hat]

Don't think so...

 

62005 had rivets at each end of the smokebox and also had the quite distinctive riveted draw beam. No apologies from me for mentioning up the rivet word.

 

Hth,

P

 

How true. To be honest I had not looked into that much detail. Probably owing to wanting to get my model running as 62005. For me, right now its close enough to stay as it is as really Im wanting it running as it does now, or better still in LNER green as 2005.

[Porcy Mane]

It would be very interesting to know how you deal with this - soak in hot water perhaps and then straighten?

 

given that Porcy Mane says he's 'warming to it', maybe he can tell us if this solves the problem :-p

Here's one I did earlier.

 

Actually I've done nothing to this at all. For the photo the running plate is mounted to the chassis at the front and rear using no more than the smallest slivers of double sided tape. (About 2.5mm square) This was enough to hold the RP against the chassis and overcome its natural tendency to spring upwards. Without the RP being fixed to the boiler, the curve, although not completely eradicated has improved immensely. As can be seen, the rear of the RP still rises up by the thickness of the rivets at the cab end but with a little work I think this could be bettered.

I'll thin the reversing lever bracket as outlined  by an earlier poster to see if that gets rid of the remaining slight rise in the centre and then remove the excess glue (by scraping?) which was pushing the running plate down from the bottom of the firebox. You should be able to see this ringed in the second photograph. Also ringed is the areas on the RP and smokebox were I've already removed splodges of glue;

Final pic shows some tampo printing.

 

 

 

P

(Hoping I may not have to resort to heat.)

[robmcg]

So is the footplate bent at manufacture (moulding) or is it being bent at assembly? I've not yet had a proper look at mine, it's footplate has a minor deflection, similar to that in tbg's earlier post, something I'll attend to.

 

I hope that this foolplate issue doesn't come to define this otherwise top notch model. If not quite there yet because of it, it certainly shows the direction in which Hornby are, hopefully, heading.

Curiously, the O1 and some other models like recent Castles and A3s I have bought have all had wavy running plates, and I was surprised that few here on RMweb had mentioned it when they were first for sale, perhaps the error was rare, and the lining on the K1 certainly exacerbates any errors. In the past it might have been sensible to ask a shop to open a model for inspection, but my feeling is that most purchases are now online and it is a simple gamble to buy an acceptable one.

 

My Wellington Castle and an A3 weathered Flying Scotsman had moulding errors and distortion to the running plate, both are REF manufacture, same I think as the K1. I kept the Castle because none are available to replace it, but returned the A3 to Hornby who after a LOT of Emails and polite pressure over a couple of months finally replaced it with a good one. They never actually said they wouldn't replace it, just that they said they had to wait for new stock, while they had them for sale 'add to basket' at same the time.

 

With the K1 I will just buy one and hope it is good. If not I will choose between repair by me, weathering/painting by me, or replacement. It's a very attractive model, the detail is excellent.

 

Actually it reminds me how good the Bachmann Flying Pig, K3 and Std 76000 class are!

[toboldlygo]

Curiously, the O1 and some other models like recent Castles and A3s I have bought have all had wavy running plates, and I was surprised that few here on RMweb had mentioned it when they were first for sale, perhaps the error was rare, and the lining on the K1 certainly exacerbates any errors. In the past it might have been sensible to ask a shop to open a model for inspection, but my feeling is that most purchases are now online and it is a simple gamble to buy an acceptable one.

 

My Wellington Castle and an A3 weathered Flying Scotsman had moulding errors and distortion to the running plate, both are REF manufacture, same I think as the K1. I kept the Castle because none are available to replace it, but returned the A3 to Hornby who after a LOT of Emails and polite pressure over a couple of months finally replaced it with a good one. They never actually said they wouldn't replace it, just that they said they had to wait for new stock, while they had them for sale 'add to basket' at same the time.

 

With the K1 I will just buy one and hope it is good. If not I will choose between repair by me, weathering/painting by me, or replacement. It's a very attractive model, the detail is excellent.

 

Actually it reminds me how good the Bachmann Flying Pig, K3 and Std 76000 class are!

 

Code on the K1's box is TEC

[robmcg]

Code on the K1's box is TEC

Ah, thankyou. Hornby do have several factories making locomotives now. REF, CHL, and TEC at least.

 

I have just bought a 62024 from Hattons, if only to enjoy the moment of discovering whether the running plate is acceptable!

[43078shildoncountydurham]

Code on the K1's box is TEC

Hi all

 

Tec05 on my box..

 

Regards

 

Craig

[31A]

Don't think so...

62005 had rivets at each end of the smokebox and also had the quite distinctive riveted draw beam. No apologies from me for mentioning the rivet word.

Luckily it looks as though Hornby have tooled up for this version at some point according to a pre production picture posted by Andy Y here:

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/82160-Hornby-k1/page-3&do=findComment&comment=1480642

 

There was a full set of pre production pics of this version posted somewhere on the forum some time ago.

 

These prototype pics illustrate what I'm talking about and the Flickr contributor has also made the pics available in Hi res.

In the last pic a rear view of the tender shows a few bit missing from the model but quite easy to add with plasticard.

 

Class K1 62005 Filey (Butlins Camp) SLS/MLS Special 6 March 1965 by ricsrailpics, on Flickr

 

Class K1 no. 62005. Butlins (Filey) Holiday Camp. SLS/MLS special. 6 March 1965 by ricsrailpics, on Flickr

 

Class K1 no.62005. York. 30 August 1963 by ricsrailpics, on Flickr

 

Class K1 62005. Filey (Butlins Camp). 6 March 1965 by ricsrailpics, on Flickr

 

Hth,

P

 

Edit: I wonder if someone may ever request this livery version?

http://www.davidheyscollection.com/userimages/00001-d-salmon-62005-TD-9-9-67.jpg

 

and get rid of some silly wording.

Interesting post - thanks.  By 'missing bits' on the tender I presume you mean the angle iron strengtheners up the back of the rear coal plate, which were only present on the coal plates in the later forward position?  If so the same applies to the tender provided with the recently released B1 61270 and I considered adding these (as you say, would have been easy enough with some plasticard or even Plastruct T-section), but then I found an image which appeared to show a B1's tender which didn't have them so I decided to give the benefit of the doubt and leave well alone!  Admittedly it was a shot on a DVD and not in the best of light but I wondered whether not all tenders had these strengtheners fitted.

[Porcy Mane]

By 'missing bits' on the tender I presume you mean the angle iron strengtheners up the back of the rear coal plate, which were only present on the coal plates in the later forward position?  

 Thats it.

To my eyes the dome also appears significantly larger to that which Hornby has modelled and there was also the ribs on the coping plates. If any body wanted to model the rear lifting shackles in the raised position as in the photo, Dave Alexander does a set of lost wax tender shackles also Wizard Models and Ambis do various etched shackles.

On the Hornby tender, there's no detail on the rear of the front division plate. I'd Imagine there should be re-enforcing plates around the lift eyes, a few panel lines and the inevitable rivet or bolt heads.

This is what 62005 is like as preserved:

 Mallaig Scotland 10th September 2012 by loose_grip_99, on Flickr

but who's to say that is what and when it was like under BR ownership?

I guess it's just more proof of the rule that you need a photo of the chosen prototype at the time modelled to be absolutely certain.

P

[Hilux5972]

Has anyone done a running video yet?

[toboldlygo]

 Thats it.

To my eyes the dome also appears significantly larger to that which Hornby has modelled and there was also the ribs on the coping plates. If any body wanted to model the rear lifting shackles in the raised position as in the photo, Dave Alexander does a set of lost wax tender shackles also Wizard Models and Ambis do various etched shackles.

On the Hornby tender, there's no detail on the rear of the front division plate. I'd Imagine there should be re-enforcing plates around the lift eyes, a few panel lines and the inevitable rivet or bolt heads.

This is what 62005 is like as preserved:

 Mallaig Scotland 10th September 2012 by loose_grip_99, on Flickr

but who's to say that is what and when it was like under BR ownership?

I guess it's just more proof of the rule that you need a photo of the chosen prototype at the time modelled to be absolutely certain.

P

 

As Hornby tend to work from the engineering drawings rather than scanning existing examples (I know that's changed with the Radial, etc.), some of this differences could be down modifications carried out on 'Shed' and not officially recorded. 

[coachmann]

I am intrigued by the photo of the Tender coal space by Porky Mane. What appears to be a passageway, but obviously isnt, must be there to increase water capacity  yeh?  This is just the kind of detail that makes all the difference to keen modellers, although one could of course cop-out and fill the space with coal.  Also of interest to me is the reddish colour ballast. Is this from a local quarry and which part of the country is it?

[mow]

I am intrigued by the photo of the Tender coal space by Porky Mane. What appears to be a passageway, but obviously isnt, must be there to increase water capacity  yeh?  This is just the kind of detail that makes all the difference to keen modellers, although one could of course cop-out and fill the space with coal.  Also of interest to me is the reddish colour ballast. Is this from a local quarry and which part of the country is it?

 

 

I think it might at Mallaig. The building on the right also appears in this photograph. 

 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=mallaig+station&espv=2&biw=1242&bih=585&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=Ak-VVLuME8P8UOTIgqAL&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAg#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=07bZjnuPkbfhAM%253A%3B_O6q1rv4B3DrsM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fi65.photobucket.com%252Falbums%252Fh206%252FBillCRC%252FAbdnBeach81%252FMallaig2008%252F156496AtMallaigStationc14thApril08.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Ftheatreorgans.com%252Fhammond%252Fkeng%252Fkenhtml%252FMallaigVisitApril2008%252FMallaigVisitApril2008.htm%3B736%3B491

Edited December 20, 2014 by mow

[JaymzHatstand]

The 'passageway' could well be the fire iron tunnel, they were often enclosed in such a fashion on LNER standard tenders.

 

Hope this helps

 

Cheers

 

J

[toboldlygo]

I am intrigued by the photo of the Tender coal space by Porky Mane. What appears to be a passageway, but obviously isnt, must be there to increase water capacity  yeh?  This is just the kind of detail that makes all the difference to keen modellers, although one could of course cop-out and fill the space with coal.  Also of interest to me is the reddish colour ballast. Is this from a local quarry and which part of the country is it?

 

Looking at the model, it is the fire iron tunnel.

[31A]

 Thats it.

To my eyes the dome also appears significantly larger to that which Hornby has modelled and there was also the ribs on the coping plates. If any body wanted to model the rear lifting shackles in the raised position as in the photo, Dave Alexander does a set of lost wax tender shackles also Wizard Models and Ambis do various etched shackles.

On the Hornby tender, there's no detail on the rear of the front division plate. I'd Imagine there should be re-enforcing plates around the lift eyes, a few panel lines and the inevitable rivet or bolt heads.

This is what 62005 is like as preserved:

 Mallaig Scotland 10th September 2012 by loose_grip_99, on Flickr

but who's to say that is what and when it was like under BR ownership?

I guess it's just more proof of the rule that you need a photo of the chosen prototype at the time modelled to be absolutely certain.

P

Nice picture of the inside of a tender; a challenge to try painting a model to look like that!

[sp1]

I think it might at Mallaig. The building on the right also appears in this photograph. 

 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=mallaig+station&espv=2&biw=1242&bih=585&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=Ak-VVLuME8P8UOTIgqAL&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAg#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=07bZjnuPkbfhAM%3A%3B_O6q1rv4B3DrsM%3Bhttp%3A%2F%2Fi65.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fh206%2FBillCRC%2FAbdnBeach81%2FMallaig2008%2F156496AtMallaigStationc14thApril08.jpg%3Bhttp%3A%2F%2Ftheatreorgans.com%2Fhammond%2Fkeng%2Fkenhtml%2FMallaigVisitApril2008%2FMallaigVisitApril2008.htm%3B736%3B491

The caption accompanying the photo might be a bit of a giveaway as to the location.....