Hornby K1

[Ian Hargrave]

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.

Best to bite your tongue....or your fingers.This is all part of RMWeb.

[great central]

I'm amazed by all the negativity surrounding RTR stuff nowadays. 

 

I'll repeat again my 'knowledge' of QC of Chinese manufactured toys, for that is really what our models are. They're not top end, high-spec, high cost, mass market electronics or consumer goods, they're specialist items for a limited market. 

 

Some years ago I was working at a large toy companies' warehouse when a 40' container arrived. The QC staff sampled 3 boxes of 12 items each. The items were about the size of a OO wagon, so who knows how many toys there were in that container! Each box was deemed satisfactory, whether that was 'absolutely perfect' I can't say but the entire container load was passed as OK for sale

Apparently there were no QC people in the factory and a return ratio of anything up to 10% was deemed as satisfactory, anything more and it became a cause for investigation, whether that led to any kind of remedial action I can't say, but having QC people on the shop floor was deemed too costly. As has been said above highly skilled and knowledgeable QC people cost a lot of money, that cost has to come from somewhere, ie added to the manufacturing costs. 

 

In the clothing trade, many manufacturers moved their factories offshore, one in particular I know of moved their manufacture to Portugal.

Put a lot of skilled people out of work here who produced goods with a very low reject rate as problems could be dealt with quickly. 

Turned their factory into a massive warehouse, with a small number of skilled people here to inspect and, more often than not, repair badly manufactured goods.

This was an up market company so faults couldn't be tolerated, the price reflected this. Items that still couldn't be sold at full price ended up in the factory shop, the shop became overloaded with stock, much of it still at £100+.

That company is no longer trading.

 

What i'm getting at is if people expect everything to be perfect, it's gonna cost a whole lot more than it does now.

 

As for the K1, will I be buying one? Afraid not, the price of RTR has already left me behind, I have two kit built ones which I'm quite happy with, having built them for myself and even then I have limited use for them.

[31A]

OK I wasn't going to get involved in this, as the very slight differences in the frame ends between the B1 tenders modelled by Hornby, and those attached to K1s, don't change my opinion that I am very grateful for all the high quality LNER / ER locos that Hornby have produced in recent years, including several which I never dreamt would be available RTR and with more to come, and won't deter me from buying a K1 when the version I want arrives in due course.

 

However out of curiosity I dug out the relevant RCTS volumes.

 

Part 2B includes the B1s, and gives details of their tenders - basically, tenders numbered 4030-4329 (originally coupled to locos 61040-61399) had curved frame ends and the others (numbered 4330-4399) had straight frame ends.  Of the latter, 4340-9 had riveted rather than welded tanks.

 

Part 6A covers the Peppercorn K1s, and says that 'ordinary B1 tenders, amongst which were the type with riveted tanks, were also noted attached to K1s from time to time, including:-

 

Tender no. 4036 - loco 62066 1/53-wdl., tender no. 4067 - loco no. 62020 5/52-wdl., tender no. 4085 - loco no. 62045 4/61-11/63, loco no. 62046 11/63-wdl., tender no. 4248 - loco no. 62063 1/63-wdl., tender no. 4366 - loco no. 62007 8/63-wdl.'

 

Of these, the first four would have had curved frame ends.

Edited December 29, 2014 by 31A

[Les1952]

OK I wasn't going to get involved in this, as the very slight differences in the frame ends between the B1 tenders modelled by Hornby, and those attached to K1s, don't change my opinion that I am very grateful for all the high quality LNER / ER locos that Hornby have produced in recent years, including several which I never dreamt would be available RTR and with more to come, and won't deter me from buying a K1 when the version I want arrives in due course.

 

However out of curiosity I dug out the relevant RCTS volumes.

 

Part 2B includes the B1s, and gives details of their tenders - basically, tenders numbered 4030-4329 (originally coupled to locos 61040-61399) had curved frame ends and the others (numbered 4330-4399) had straight frame ends.  Of the latter, 4340-9 had riveted rather than welded tanks.

 

Part 6A covers the Peppercorn K1s, and says that 'ordinary B1 tenders, amongst which were the type with riveted tanks, were also noted attached to K1s from time to time, including:-

 

Tender no. 4036 - loco 62066 1/53-wdl., tender no. 4067 - loco no. 62050 5/52-wdl., tender no. 4085 - loco no. 62045 4/61-11/63, loco no. 62046 11/63-wdl., tender no. 4248 - loco no. 62063 1/63-wdl., tender no. 4366 - loco no. 62007 8/63-wdl.'

 

Of these, the first four would have had curved frame ends.

 

I've just been answering a question about Q6 tenders so this might be relevant.  63395 ran with three differently shaped tanders between 1950 and 1967- sufficiently different as to be very obvious in a photo.  It may also have had changes involving outwardly very similar tenders of different types.

 

How does this bear on our K1?   Darlington works repaired Q6s and K1s.  Doncaster works employed similar practices and repaired K1s.  I'm not sure about practices at Cowlairs.

 

At these works if the loco was to have more than a Casual Light repair it was separated from its tender.  Locos and tenders took different amounts of time to go through works.  On completion the loco would be attached to an overhauled tender of the correct type- in the case of a K1 a group standard 4200-gallon tender.   These would be in a siding (certainly at Darlington) and someone would have to extract that tender.   If the tender the loco came in with was at the far end of the row and another of the same type at the near end guess which one will be attached to the loco.....

 

Just because you can find one pic of (say) 62024 with a 4200 gallon tender with a high front plate and straight ends to the frame carrying an early crest doesn't mean that a photo doesn't exist with it coupled to a 4200 gallon tender with low front plate and scalloped frame ends, and carrying an early crest.  Each K1 had at least one major overhaul that involved a repaint but no change of tender crest.

 

To be absolutely correct you need a CLEAR picture of each loco following EVERY works visit.  Can the model's critics say they have these?

 

All the very best

Les

[Porcy Mane]

 

Tender no. 4036 - loco 62066 1/53-wdl., tender no. 4067 - loco no. 62050 5/52-wdl., tender no. 4085 - loco no. 62045 4/61-11/63, loco no. 62046 11/63-wdl., tender no. 4248 - loco no. 62063 1/63-wdl., tender no. 4366 - loco no. 62007 8/63-wdl.'

 

 Crikey!!! You gave me palpitations with that post, having just researched out 62050 and sorted out some tender sideframes with straight ends for which it was fitted in the 1960's.

But think I've sussed it now. I suspect you might of typo'd. Should 62050 not be 62020? I think it should.

 

Porcy (Who's off for a lie down to recover)

[31A]

Hi Porcy, and apologies (and to everybody else); yes, a typo on my part I'm afraid - the Green Book does say 62020 with tender 4067 5/52-wdl.

[31A]

Just been watching the 'Power of East Coast Steam' dvd (Transport Video Publishing) which gives a clear view at 10mins 20 secs of the rear of B1 61203's tender, shunting in King's Cross Passenger Loco.  The rear coal plate is in the later 'forward' position (as per Hornby's B1 61270, and K1 models so far released), and very clearly no reinforcing angle irons on it either, i.e. as per Hornby's model of these tenders.

[stock_2007]

This is my last word on my K1 I know its far from perfect but its as close to perfect as I'm going to get, as my last loco kit is still half done and is back in its box.

 

Odd thing is I'm trying to keep my shed set in the North East (I live here) so I was looking at a B1 next

Happy New Year Everyone.

Edited December 30, 2014 by stock_2007

[45568]

Gentlemen, and others,

                                      Lest anyone think that I have taken frothing to 'rabid'  proportions in my previous reply, I think most people understood the basic irony in the post! 62024 is still in one piece, and the dog food cans have been sent to the local tip today thanks to our local shire Council! ( the reference to food cans came from ABC Model Railways, Ca 1959 I think!!).

 Mind you., it has been 40+C, so I could flare up. like the local bushfires, again!

 Seriously, to Bernard and Porcy, apologies if it caused any upset, I'm usually one of the first on the ball for this kind of thing, but totally missed this one, I'll claim barleys as they were not common in my neck of the woods, and the preserved one is elusive when it I'm back in UK.

 The K4, which is a natural for next year, isn't it, will pose even more problems if my green bible readings are correct?

All the very best for 2015 from WA Oz,

Yes,  it is very hot,

Cheers,

Peter C.

[MikeParkin65]

There was a K1 in the display cabinet in the Cheltenham emporium yesterday. I was sorely tempted but put off by asking my wife whether she could tell the running plate was curved to which she replied with an emphatic 'Yes'.

[RBAGE]

There was a K1 in the display cabinet in the Cheltenham emporium yesterday. I was sorely tempted but put off by asking my wife whether she could tell the running plate was curved to which she replied with an emphatic 'Yes'.

At last. A judgement which nobody dares question.

[coachmann]

Phoned yesterday @ noon, arrived today @ noon.....Great service Arcadia, Oldham. The K1 is pictured after renumbering to a Gorton based engine (1949-50) and given an early totem.  Removed items were the ATS cylinder and battery box, then the Hornby fitting added. Smokbox, cylinders and Tender frames given a blow over with matt black.....

 

 

Edited December 30, 2014 by coachmann

[it's-er]

Coachamn's post 466 photo - is that the real thing or a model? Wow - hard to tell - wonderful! John

[newbryford]

Coachamn's post 466 photo - is that the real thing or a model? Wow - hard to tell - wonderful! John

 

I think the coupling gives it away.............

 

Cheers,

Mick

Edited December 30, 2014 by newbryford

[RBAGE]

I think the coupling gives it away.............

 

Cheers,

Mick

And the wonky running plate.

[robmcg]

Here is my 62024, just arrived from Hattons,  straight out of the box...   lovely.

 

 

a bit wonky perhaps but body-off might allow an improvement,

 

 

 

 

Edited December 30, 2014 by robmcg

[coachmann]

And the wonky running plate.

It is easy to say the running plate isn't straight, but repeated contributions such as this reminds me of people who never made anything and never made mistakes! Taken all round, the Hornby K1 is better than any K1 RMweb members could produce. Even the driving wheels are an accurate representation of the real wheel with its extra large boss....... Are such wheels available elsewhere for kit and scratchbuilders? As for the finish, which is my domain, even professional painters cannot match printed lining.

 

Saying that the K1 isn't worth the money because it isn't absolutely perfect is sad. This loco is at the opposite end of the bar from the controversy surrounding 'Design Clever' of a year ago and I feel the company is to be congratulated on an excellent model.

Edited December 31, 2014 by coachmann

[RANGERS]

I fear no matter how good bad or indifferent a model is, manufacturers these days are on a hiding to nothing.

 

I've seen this model, not bought one yet but only a matter of time I fear, at 110 quid, what's the alternative? I could spend as much cash and endless amounts of time I don't have building from an etched kit, which won't be any better. I could spend a lot more of the cash I don't have on commissioning someone to build it for me, probably wouldn't be much better and would cost circa four times as much. The answer is pretty simple to me, buy one if you want one, if not go away and do something better....

[Legend]

I think the problem is that these aren't the £60-£70 models of only 2 or 3 years back that we would have accepted and corrected ourselves (I've never believed that was the correct course of action as it encourages complacency from manufacturers) .I was in Harburn Hobbies ,Edinburgh , yesterday. This loco was for sale at £129.95. For that I would expect issues such as wavy running plates to be sorted. I accept the point about not being able to make one to that standard myself , but it's irrelevant, this is not a hand produced model , it's a mass produced (as much as anything mass produced these days) that I would expect QC to have been applied to.

[MarkC]

This is so tricky, as a K1 was on my wish list for a project. I picked up a NuCast kit a while ago - not too much money either as the chassis was missing, but I would have discarded that & made one of my own in any case. So now, what to do? I doubt I would even recoup the money I paid, now that this lovely RTR model is out, but I enjoy construction, & I've probably got all I need in boxes anyway, so all we're talking about is my time to do the job. No problem there. The only thing that will be upsetting will, inevitably, be when someone sees the completed model & asks if it's Hornby... It's happened a couple of times now; the last one was when I'd completed a Dapol 4MT with a Perseverence chassis - a couple of weeks later, out came Bachmann's RTR model...

[Porcy Mane]

The only thing that will be upsetting will, inevitably, be when someone sees the completed model & asks if it's Hornby... 

Two ways of looking at it. What If someone asks if your Hornby is a Bradwell?

Just so happen to have one of them sat next to my Hornby jobby on my bench at the moment...

 

P

 

Appy New Year to all and Sundry...

Edited December 31, 2014 by Porcy Mane

[RBAGE]

The first train set I had was the Big Big Train and I loved it. It was a reasonable representation of a Hymek but when I look at the same model now it was as rough as a badgers ......

 

That was in the 1960's and I was a child. The fact that there were sink marks and distorted mouldings didn't matter to me because I was a child. It didn't matter to my parents because it was cheap.

 

In those days, model railways were the preserve of children who would generally have a small tail chaser because money was tight or wealthy men who would have something far more grand.

 

Nowadays, working class people have more disposable income so that adult men are prepared to spend more money then in previous generation on items such as model railways.

 

Expectations have changed and the likes of Hornby are catering more for the adult collector or modeller, because that's where the money is.

 

The new modeller (or should I say changed modeller) now expects something akin to a scale model (track gauge issues aside) and advances in technology makes this possible.

 

I am not a modeller of the last 13 years and have build many models myself and also have 2 Bradwell K1s, which are certainly not for the faint hearted. I have a Nu-Cast K1 to build and now have 2 Hornby K1s.

 

Very few, if any of my RTR locos will run in the condition that they came out of the box. Whether it be one of 3 Bachmann 9F's converted for Consett iron ore working, a Hornby Thompson 01 converted for the same workings (with wonky running plate), fire iron brackets on a WD or simple weathering.

 

To make these modifications is my choice. However, nobody should be expected to rectify mistakes or manufacturing faults.

 

The fact that it is a repeated fault in Hornby A3's, O1's and K1's is unforgivable. This is something that Hornby should have resolved a very long time ago.

 

And yes, it is easy to make comment about the condition of the K1 running plate. That's because it is wrong.

 

All that said, I do have 2 of these and a third on order. I will remedy any of the faults which offend me but my thoughts about this vehicle for raising such issues was to share experience so that others can benefit and, hopefully, bring the issues to the attention of the manufacturers so that they can be dealt with at source.

 

Bob 

[davidw]

Well I've had mine since Monday. All I can say is that there's not  a hint of a wobbly running plate on mine. I realize that doesn't help with those who've had this problem. But does imply that an examination before purchase would be advised, though not all would be able to do this.

[MarkC]

Two ways of looking at it. What If someone asks if your Hornby is a Bradwell?

Just so happen to have one of them sat next to my Hornby jobby on my bench at the moment...

 

P

 

Appy New Year to all and Sundry...

True...

[peterfgf]

Received my K1 today from Liverpool.  No, or negligible sign of, distortion of running plate. Rather nice model altogether, although I have yet to run it.

Best wishes to everybody on RMWeb for the New Year.

Peterfgf.