Hornby K1

[toboldlygo]

With many and various recent Hornby models with wavy running plate issues I think there is a clear problem with some stage of the design-manufacture-assembly process. Possibly the 'pouring' of the plastic at improper temperatures, I don't know.

 

It does vary in degree, and a small amount of distortion may be inevitable, but can it be that designers think that plastic manufacture and multiple-parts-assembly is always optimal?

 

Of course if the models aren't returned, Hornby won't know about it apart from reading here. And with web-sales increasing, retailers reducing their presence, and importantly, couriers being so difficult, the chances of returns being a significant factor in Hornby's general trading would hard to measure.

 

I returned a poorly-assembled weathered A3 60103 and eventually got a return, it cost me £14 air freight post to send it back from NZ and yesterday, two months after the initial sale, a I received a cheque for £14... to cover the postage, thankyou Hornby ! Two hand-written signatures on it, the bank will charge I think about £5 to change it into my NZ currency. The initial purchase was by credit card, it appears they haven't heard of crediting a card?

 

Again, I think Hornby's management are possibly a bit new to retailing, and being 'streamlined', i.e. fewer employees than necessary, or untrained employees, the result has been, um, mixed.

 

Have taken the bull by the proverbial horns and actually contacted Hornby about the running plate issue, would suggest a few more did too

[MikeParkin65]

Got my K1 today, it was a pleasant surprise considering I wasn't expecting it until early next year. The left hand running plate is a little wobbly but the right is straight. For it's size it's the most powerful loco I own and I'm impressed with its slow running and turn of speed. I absolutely love it and if it wasn't for the vast number of dodgy running plates it would get my vote for model of the year.

We don't know there are 'vast number of dodgy running plates' - all we know is that there are several reported on this thread. 

[robmcg]

Have taken the bull by the proverbial horns and actually contacted Hornby about the running plate issue, would suggest a few more did too

I look forward to receiving my K1. Of course we don't know how many models are sold with wavy running plates, and whether or not a small amount, no, 'certain degree' of error is acceptable. Hornby are aware of the issue if they read RMweb, as well as any returns to them from buyers or retailers. I returned my A3 for replacement. Retailers would be the best judge of the proportion of faulty products, given that they must be returning a number. Simon Kohler has said or implied that there aren't many returns to the factory, in general, but I forget where he said it, or whether it was in a general context.

 

Similarly with Hattons/Heljan Beyer Garratts, only they know what proportion are returned.

 

Of course nobody is forced to buy, and consumer law gives money back if faulty. It's very hard to judge the likelihood of faults from RMweb posts.

[coachmann]

I imagine assembler No.1 does his bit before passing it to the next assembler and so-on, then assembler No.6 puts in the chassis and notices it stresses the running plate slightly. Does he blame No.5 assembler for using too much glue and risk getting a chop suey smack, or does he stop the belt and shout, hey, someone inform Hornby in the UK. Yay!  I imagine that once a loco is passed for production it runs its course until the numbers are met. Even in the event of an Inspector on the line or a quality-control missy, when production slots and finances are tight, I might just be a case of make 'em, pack 'em and despatch 'em. When supplies short, man buy rather than face bad depression. 

 

Seriously though, the K1 looks a fine model and by all accounts runs well, so a not exactly true thin plastic footplate should be an easy fix.

Edited December 23, 2014 by coachmann

[RBAGE]

I imagine assembler No.1 does his bit before passing it to the next assembler and so-on, then assembler No.6 puts in the chassis and notices it stresses the running plate slightly. Does he blame No.5 assembler for using too much glue and risk getting a chop suey smack, or does he stop the belt and shout, hey, someone inform Hornby in the UK. Yay!  I imagine that once a loco is passed for production it runs its course until the numbers are met. Even in the event of an Inspector on the line or a quality-control missy, when production slots and finances are tight, I should think it is a case of make 'em, pack 'em and despatch 'em. When supplies short, man buy rather than face bad depression. 

 

Seriously though, the K1 looks a fine model and by all accounts runs well, so a not exactly true thin plastic footplate should be an easy fix.

Inappropriate in a number of ways.

[trw1089]

While a K1 doesn't fit into my rollingstock roster, I am completely dismayed at all the nay-sayers on this forum who expect perfection when paying peanuts. When you start paying what the going prices are for continental or US RTR steam then I think you would have something to complain about. Yes Hornby and others are there to make money, that's what being in business is all about, but for goodness sake be thankful that they are even considering such diverse models as they are. If all they were about was making money, they would be producing heaps more Railroad Flying Scotsmans, Eurostars and Javelins. That's where the cash is, not making small runs of esoteric prototypes. I for one hope the latter continues and look forward to their 2015 models, and am happy to fix small problems.

 

That's what this hobby has always been about, doing things rather than buying and whining!

 

Cheers

Tony

[Mad McCann]

I'll be frank here; RTR shouldn't produce these issues. However  it does and I take the view that any new RTR is going to require some remedial action, regardless of how good or not it might be. I accept this because I am going to modify the gauge and other features in any case to suit my specific needs. I view a new piece of RTR as an item of raw material, much as I would with a kit. The only difference to me is the amount of work I need to do to tailor the item to my requirements. 

[45568]

Mine arrived here in Oz two hours ago, thank you Rails! Issues? Slight waviness in the LH footplate, body off, sandbox pin protruding, smoothed off with a couple of file strokes,sits down nicely! Run in on rolling road, details added. A beautiful quiet runner, superb slow speed control over pointwork, all pick-ups working. Pony truck seems to do what it should, all in all, a very nice Chrissy prezzie!

 

Looking forward to D16/ J15 to this standard!

cheers from Oz,

Peter C.

[WD0-6-0]

We don't know there are 'vast number of dodgy running plates' - all we know is that there are several reported on this thread.

 

A decent number reported among the relatively small group here, if I were a scientist I'd say we aren't just the anomalies in the test, the chances are there are a lot more. Edited December 24, 2014 by WD0-6-0

[JaymzHatstand]

A decent number reported among the relatively small group here, if I were a scientist I'd say we aren't just the anomalies in the test, the chances are there are a lot more.

Very true, but there may be a number of people who have one who just haven't noticed it. If that's the case they wouldn't think of questioning it.

 

That's before we get to those who know it's askew and either don't mind or fix it themselves.

 

The big test chokes when press reviews start to appear, will their sales be affected? I know some magazines get them direct from a shop's allocation, so well be completely random in selection so that negates the conspiracy of Hornby sending out a 'perfect' one to the press before anyone tilts at that particular windmill!

 

Maybe one or two of the owners on here who have had the worst issues could contact the modelling press (as well as Hornby) to highlight the issue to a wider spectrum. I'm pretty sure the big H would hear about it then, whether there is any resultant action is however a completely different matter!

 

Cheers

 

J

[G-BOAF]

certainly appears that 45568's model above is better than many others seen on here, so there does seem to be some variation. Obviously a failure of QC, first for there to be any distortion, and then for the distortion to be so hit and mis. Hardly fair for persons A and B to purchase the same model for nominally the same price, and one to get a straight one and the other a distorted one.

 

If they were being sold as seconds this would be a different matter. They are not.

[Raised On Steam]

If anyone in Newcastle is still looking for 62027 Fenwick's department store had two on their shelves today. Both have bent running plates alas.

Edited December 24, 2014 by Raised On Steam

[stock_2007]

Its a funny time of year just to see what I could find I put a search for 'BR coal wagons' into e-bay and TMC's K1 came up as its fitted with...real coal.

[Bernard Lamb]

Some thing was bugging me and I couldn't put my finger on it.

Then the penny dropped when I had a look at a Hornby B1.

Same tender, at least to my eyes.

I only have photographs and the Green Book rather than any official drawings. I know only too well that drawings can be wrong so it might actually be a better source of information.

Going by these the step backing plates on late B1s under the cab are straight edged and the end of the tender frames are also straight to match. The rear end of the tender frames is also straight. This means that the rear steps are in line one above the other and not staggered as on earlier curved frame machines.

The last batches of B1s and all K1s should I reckon from my reading of things have this version of tender framing rather than the curves depicted by Hornby.

Any LNER tender experts care to comment?

Bernard

[stock_2007]

Please, please don't take this the wrong way Bernard, but why do you seem so happy to have found something wrong with a loco I really like ?

[Bernard Lamb]

Please, please don't take this the wrong way Bernard, but why do you seem so happy to have found something wrong with a loco I really like ?

Who said I am happy.

As a former Quality Engineer I am used to checking items against drawings and specifications.

I have upset people by being quite blunt about faults on models.

I tried to be polite this time.

I caused quite a stir with a magazine reviewer over the Heljan 26/27 so do not want to go there again.

I found a couple of faults that they had not noticed. Experts agreed that I was correct in my comments.

Not the only time that I have been the first to point out an error.

Have they fouled up with the tender or not?

Simple question.

I think that they have, so would like the experts to let me know if I am right.

I used to charge people a small fortune to find errors such as this.

These days you and Hornby, can have my comments for free.

Bernard

[JSpencer]

Hornby have used thin plastic running plates for years. In fact when I brought the schools class, I had a field day trying to removed the two metal retaining brackets (that stop the loco from moving in the packaging) which had been screwed on tighter than an petrol engine retaining bolt, due to the fact that could not hold and twist the loco as the foot plate would flex.

 

Another time, it was an A1 which did not have the cab glued in place, the top of cab sprung off as I picked the model up by the running plate and flexed under the weight of the chassis.

 

If you accept the potential problem of distortion, you can reach finer and more realistic sections for running plates, which on the real items, needed to be light as possible.

 

Bachmann use die cast running plates. This looses a little accuracy but buys the loco weight and is more solid. This too has not been without problems, my N class suffered Mazak rot which distorted it out of all proportion although did provide a replacement part free of charge.

 

In all cases the reparation was done by myself.

[coachmann]

With the number of conversionists on here, I wonder who will be first to 'create' the prototype K1. In fact I wonder if it is possible to back-engineer to a K4?

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...Going by these the step backing plates on late B1s under the cab are straight edged and the end of the tender frames are also straight to match. The rear end of the tender frames is also straight. This means that the rear steps are in line one above the other and not staggered as on earlier curved frame machines.

The last batches of B1s and all K1s should I reckon from my reading of things have this version of tender framing rather than the curves depicted by Hornby...

 

I am no expert, but believe you are right on the strength of the few pictures I have available that show this detail clearly. So often the crucial area is out of sight in shadow or behind water vapour, when there is enough of a side elevation view to be useful! Given the way tenders were exchanged, it wouldn't surprise me if the straight ended frame tenders became dispersed among the B1s as time passed from original build date.

 

The late John Edgson in his series of Isinglass drawings no. 4/350 of the Peppercorn K1, draws the loco and tender steps and framing as you describe, vertical ends to the frames with no scalloped cut out, steps vertically superimposed. By contrast the K1/1 also on this drawing (loco only) has the small acallop at the rear of the cab step backing.

[Flying Pig]

A 2005 photo 0f 62005 shows straight framing:

 

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LNER-K1_62005_Lord_of_the_Isles-01.jpg

 

So does this of 62006 in service in 1965:

 

http://www.semaphoresandsteam.com/p319064844/h3E773BD2#h3e773bd2

 

I'm not so sure about the rear of the tender frames in this picture of 62028 (undated but "early crest"):

 

http://shedbashuk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/darlington-1951-1953.html

 

but this later photo of the same loco is clearer:

 

http://www.modelmasterdecals.com/LNER/058-LNER%20K1%202-6-0%20No.62028.jpg

[Porcy Mane]

Have they fouled up with the tender or not?

 

I'm with you on this Bernard. Having just had a look through my K1 prints and not so many B1 prints; straight on K1, Scalloped on B1.

In service I'm sure there would have been examples of visa versa but I haven't found any so far.

 

Also further to my earlier comment, I haven't come across any phots of 4200 gallon tenders with the division plate repositioned to the further forward location not having the vertical "strengtheners". I'd read somewhere on this forum that Hornby considers themselves one of the premier model manufacturers in the UK market  (or words to that effect). For even a percentage of that to be true they should perhaps be trying a little bit harder.

62024, 62027 and 62015 as modelled by Hornby all are straight as is 62005.

 

If the Hornby tender chassis was a one piece moulding I could understand the financial reasons why they would compromise and use the B1 tender tooling but as the tender sideframes are a separate clip on moulding I can't see why they didn't tool up a new one. Surely it can't be as simple as Hornby not realising there is a difference?

 

As model makers it should be easy enough to cut new sideframes to the correct profile. There are a couple of suppliers out there that can supply separate spring/hanger/axlebox mouldings. Doing this would allow anyone the model the bolts/rivets that Hornby have missed but as has been said previously, why should it be necessary.

 

Here's a Pic of a lamp-less B1 tender with a flat top dome to mull over.

 

61036 by Gricerman, on Flickr

 

P

 

Edit: To add the picture... Bu**er!

Edited December 29, 2014 by Porcy Mane

[micklner]

I totally agree re perfection , but this a mass produced item and for once I think Hornby could be given a bit of slack. The footplate problem is poor and they shouldn't have been sold when "bent'.

 

As to experts on LNER Tenders what we really need is a decent book on the subject. 

[coachmann]

Hornby has provided a basic mass-produced K1 for a price well below any alternative route, plus it gives everyone the opportunity to own a K1. It is a long-standing tradition that "railway modellers" make any modifications themselves according to the particular engine they are wanting. I for one am grateful to those who point out detail differences.

Edited December 29, 2014 by coachmann

[45568]

Some thing was bugging me and I couldn't put my finger on it.

Then the penny dropped when I had a look at a Hornby B1.

Same tender, at least to my eyes.

I only have photographs and the Green Book rather than any official drawings. I know only too well that drawings can be wrong so it might actually be a better source of information.

Going by these the step backing plates on late B1s under the cab are straight edged and the end of the tender frames are also straight to match. The rear end of the tender frames is also straight. This means that the rear steps are in line one above the other and not staggered as on earlier curved frame machines.

The last batches of B1s and all K1s should I reckon from my reading of things have this version of tender framing rather than the curves depicted by Hornby.

Any LNER tender experts care to comment?

Bernard

Well thanks for that Bernard, I hadn't noticed, I was quite happy with 62024, but no more! It has now been battered to bits with a shovel, I have fetched out of the bin two used dogfood tins, ( a bit whiffy it has been 37C here today), I will flatten them, draw the outlines from a GA drawing, warm up the tinsnips and soldering iron on the gas hob, ( still 29C as we speak), out with the Baker's fluid and solder stick and I'll build my own, by God, those steps'll be straight!

 Have you actually looked at one in the plastic, or studied on-line lmages?  Have you purchased one?

 The day you can bring me a totally fault-free K1 with the finish of 62024, with straight tender steps, for 100 quid, then I'll nominate you for sainthood!

  We already have someone quibbling with Hornby's descriptive text somewhere else, try something new and down come the naysayers! Hornby, next time,  just put on the box, "J15", et 'em pick holes in that!

 You seem to wonder why Simon Kohler gave it all away?....look no further than the way this thread has gone!

 Warmly yours, (28C outside), Peter C.

Edited December 29, 2014 by 45568

[Arthur]

Steady on Peter. I've been critical of some of those pointing out errors on RTR models when they've become repetitive, been just negative or slagged off the individuals or companies who've made the models.

 

However, Bernard here has been factual and balanced in his observations, and has asked others to comment on his findings. I fully understand that we'll never have perfection for a hundred quid but I still value those who then provide me with information which helps me evaluate the model and then, if I choose, to attend to those 'errors and imperfections' in a constructive manner.

 

I haven't (certainly yet) found this to be an overly critical nor negative thread on Hornby or the K1. Yes, a few problems have been noted but they've been constructive and helpful.