Hornby Castle - Pre-production clips

[Andy Y]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDrISZ1SLq0

[iL Dottore]

At last, a state of the art Castle. I placed an order for two, sight unseen, and I am glad that I did. Whilst the later (BR) variants hold little interest for me, it's good to note that it would appear that the base model construction allows for multiple variations. Perhaps even a streamlined Manorbier Castle? Looks like Hornby will be boosting their Christmas sales with this one!

 

F

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

At last, a state of the art Castle. I placed an order for two, sight unseen, and I am glad that I did. Whilst the later (BR) variants hold little interest for me, it's good to note that it would appear that the base model construction allows for multiple variations. Perhaps even a streamlined Manorbier Castle? Looks like Hornby will be boosting their Christmas sales with this one!

F

 

Thanks for moving it over Andy - the video looks better here than it did previously for some reason although I still have some concern about Hornby managing to get the right mix of details on various individual models notwithstanding the design clearly allowing most key items to be fitted separately. As I said on the last RMWeb Simon Kohler seemed well aware of the detail situation when I spoke to him at Swindon so Hornby is obviously getting there. But it's a bit worrying when the very first sample isn't quite right - but then it is only a sample of course.

 

But it's still a smashing job with the overall shape and 'feel' well captured and no doubt if Hornby don't quite get some individual locos right (and I sincerely hope that they do of course) the necessary bits & bobs will soon be available.

 

I will be quite happy with the later number locos (although a certain 40XX series one has some sentimental appeal) and I do wonder if the inside cylinder cover is a separate moulding, we'll see no doubt.

[The Stationmaster]

Should anyone be interested yesterday when ordering the Swindon 'STEAM' Museum limited edition of 7037 I was told by the girl taking my order that 'we've got orders for over 200 so far'. I'm not at all sure if that is accurate as at the exhibition they claimed they were selling like hot cakes - but that might only have been sales talk of course?

 

Anyway the key message is that at present the Swindon 'special' is still available - delivery expected January/February - at ??129.99 (assuming they hold the currently advertised price of course).

[Neal Ball]

Looks stunning - can't wait, the DCC version will be great on the new layout - If it's built for January that is!

[autocoach]

I have Tintagel Castle on order as it is the first out in GWR livery. Does not fit my current or planned layout but will definitely look good hauling a train of all those Bachmann Colletts and old Airfix Centenery stock. That is until Hornby releases rumored new GWR passenger stock.

 

I am getting mine DCC ready as I now do with all Hornby engines. A TCS 2P2X-UK drops right in. Goes on the programming track and a minute later is steaming up and down the 10 foot or track I have available on my old Brixham prototype that never was realized.

[BR(W)]

 

I think that the sample captures the 'general' character of the prototype very well indeed - especially the devilishly shapely firebox (look at Hornby's current effort if you want a good laugh). But the absence of the large motion bracket which supports the open end of the slidebars is a glaring error, and even the model seems to need this feature; one thing you can guarantee about any GWR standard design, of course, is that in side elevation, the slidebars are parallel with the rail, and the cylinder centre lines coincide with that of the coupled axles.

 

I have, however, been trying to work out the prototype, and have concluded that in 'detail' character the sample represents none, at any point in the life of GWR or BR Castles (don't worry, I shan't bore you with those details!).

 

So, does anyone know if Hornby are aware of all the detail shortcomings? If they aren't (and why would they release a 'bitza' sample for critical judgement if they are?), should we let them know? Should we compile a list of anomalies? I feel that if the details are correct, the model will be transformed from merely impressive to truly stunning.

[Miss Prism]

one thing you can guarantee about any GWR standard design, of course, is that .... the cylinder centre lines coincide with that of the coupled axles.

If you'd said modern standard design, then true. Twas not always so before Collett!

 

As I pointed out on the thread in the old place, I think the major deficiency for Tintagel Castle would be the inside valve cover, which is of the later type on the Hornby model. Not sure whether Hornby will cater for the earlier style in their insert design.

 

Looks like the Hornby has the earlier (and I would say more attractive) higher chimney.

 

(don't worry, I shan't bore you with those details!).

Why not? Even if Hornby is going to do what Hornby is going to do, there's no harm in having an awareness of the potential pitfalls in the prototype variations and choices.

[Blackthorn]

Looks good. Can't wait to see the finished item, might even break down and buy one!

[Barry Ten]

I think that the sample captures the 'general' character of the prototype very well indeed - especially the devilishly shapely firebox (look at Hornby's current effort if you want a good laugh). But the absence of the large motion bracket which supports the open end of the slidebars is a glaring error, and even the model seems to need this feature; one thing you can guarantee about any GWR standard design, of course, is that in side elevation, the slidebars are parallel with the rail, and the cylinder centre lines coincide with that of the coupled axles.

 

Clearances are very tight here, though - even the Comet Castle chassis doesn't have a support bracket at the end of the slidebars, whereas their King does. Not saying it can't be done, but with 00 flanges and tolerances, it may have been difficult (not to mention making assembly/disassembly more complicated).

 

I agree that Hornby do need to tighten up their slidebar angles.

[The Stationmaster]

If you look at a real 'Castle'the support bracket at the end of the slidebars isn't particularly prominent - in fact on many photos of the Class it barely shows until you start looking for it. And as Barry Ten has already said fitting that in could prove far from easy, especially on a mass production model.

 

As far as detail is concerned I pointed out on the old RMWeb when we first saw the video that certain modelled features do not go together on the sample loco we have seen - the oil pipe covers are the wrong length for a loco with a mechanical lubricator, the later pattern of rear sandbox is not present although the rear sandpipe is at the correct angle, and so on. And if I really wanted to be pernickety the cab detail is for a loco with mechanical lubrication - but when you get to criticising that on an r-t-r model the only choice left is to go to a bespoke builder and pay 10 times as much! Oh, and looking at it 'in the plastic' on Hornby's stand at High Wycombe today the cover over the inside cylinders is the wrong pattern to go with certain other features. But we are looking at a pre-production loco and Simon Kohler today seemed well aware of the detail difference situation - well enough aware to reassure me that my two existing orders are going to produce correctly detailed locos.

 

The important thing is that the basic shape looks right - the rest of it is making sure production specifications and standards are right, and that should be the easy bit (I hope). Seeing the loco today was a step forward from the video and it appears that the centre cylinder cover is also a separate part.

 

So the time to judge the detail and assembly quality is when we get a proper production standard model in our hands - not when we are looking at something put together to make sure the bits fitted in the right places.

[BR(W)]

If you'd said modern standard design, then true. Twas not always so before Collett!

 

As I pointed out on the thread in the old place, I think the major deficiency for Tintagel Castle would be the inside valve cover, which is of the later type on the Hornby model. Not sure whether Hornby will cater for the earlier style in their insert design.

 

Looks like the Hornby has the earlier (and I would say more attractive) higher chimney.

 

 

Why not? Even if Hornby is going to do what Hornby is going to do, there's no harm in having an awareness of the potential pitfalls in the prototype variations and choices.

 

Hello, Miss Prism. Thanks for your comments. I must, I'm afraid, contradict you about Mr. Collett.

 

Sorry, but the Standard designs for locomotives with piston valves (ie not six-wheelers) were mooted by Mr. Churchward in 1901 (before he became LC&WS/CME), and first saw the light of day in 1903 (as did his [and Joe Armstrong's] Standard vacuum brake - running at the amazing value of 25 in.hg!). The culmination of his pioneering standardisation policy, after the Standard 4-cylinder 4000 "Star" class, and Standard No.3 superheater, was the Standard, modern renumbering scheme in 1912. Mr. Churchward also proposed a standard, "Castle"-type design of the 4000 chassis with Standard No.7 boiler (from the 4700 class). The civil engineers objected, and Mr. Collett took over the design upon Mr. Churchward's retirement, and developed a new, lighter boiler, the Standard No.8, to produce the 4073 "Castles". He later went on to produce the non-standard 5600 class (with even non-standard, 4' 7.5" wheels), and, some would say, the 6000 class, for entirely justifiable reasons. Add to this the influx of pre-Grouping designs from the absorbed lines, and the "modern" picture at Swindon during Mr. Collett's tenure could be seen as anything but standard.

 

As to the "pre-production" model, I really don't want to comment on the detail (other than, from main body detail, it must be a new-build in the 5023-5097 range, in the BR era), as I now believe that Hornby know all about the detail non-sequiturs. But how can they release for public acclaim, a straight-frame body on a narrow-frame chassis?

 

Regards to you and Canon Chasuble,

 

BR(W).

[Miss Prism]

Thanks, BR(W). I have to qualify my (admittedly rather abrubt and inadequate) intervention in message #8 regarding cylinder centre lines coinciding with that of the coupled axles. Some early Churchward designs were non-coincident, and later lowered in developments of the same loco. Whilst most Collett era designs had coincident cylinder and driver axes, I was surprised to see quite a few remained non-coincident. In effect, I think we can both agree that Swindon 'standardisation' was far less simplistic than is often portrayed.

[The Stationmaster]

Thanks, BR(W). I have to qualify my (admittedly rather abrubt and inadequate) intervention in message #8 regarding cylinder centre lines coinciding with that of the coupled axles. Some early Churchward designs were non-coincident, and later lowered in developments of the same loco. Whilst most Collett era designs had coincident cylinder and driver axes, I was surprised to see quite a few remained non-coincident. In effect, I think we can both agree that Swindon 'standardisation' was far less simplistic than is often portrayed.

 

'Standardisation' is an oft misused term in the enthusiast world I find as people miss (or don't know about) what it actually meant at depot level. Boilers and driving wheels sizes are almost an irrelevance outside main works except for consumable spares although they can impact on works turnround times if there are only a small number with few spares in stock. What standardisation meant at a running shed was having the minimum variety of parts on the shelf/in the inventory. Go to many an Eastern shed and look at what they had to hold in stock for injectors alone - then go to a Western shed and reel in shock as the sheer simplicity of the spares holding. And the same goes for things as mundane as nuts & bolts or firebars or brake blocks or whatever - a simple structure of spares with minimal number of different items needed for even a quite mixed fleet of locos at most Western sheds. Very simple example but for all sight feed lubricator fitted locos there was one standard size of indicator glass - no mucking about getting something for a particular loco, this component was exactly the same on anything from a 57XX to a 'King'.

 

The downside is of course that things might be a bit slower to change in order to not have to alter some basic spare part but that didn't really seem to inhibit the GW all that much over the years.

[westonman]

Hope these new Castles are not fitted with traction tyres as is Bristol Castle model.

[bertiedog]

?© Image contains material which is copyright of Hornby PLC video, combined with lapsed copyright GWR photo.

 

Nice one here, only the minor details for particular years and versions seem to be a small issue, but the slide bars, and oversized crosshead, are a little odd, I am sure the fall off is due only to the sample, and the size is for practical reasons as a model.

 

The cab seems a bit odd at the front, but this may have varied from the original, and certainly was different on the last built batch, and re-builds.

 

The middle splasher seems a bit wide, but I assume is needed to give clearances for the OO scale wheel sideways movement. The whole front bogie is a great improvement, as is the clearance, or lack of it under the smokebox above the bogie.

 

I would add my vote for no rubber tyres, waste of time and leads to trouble later on with heavily used locos. There is more than enough space for weight on the main wheels to give traction. Maybe it should be an option.

 

I assume the nameplate come away to leave the splasher surface complete with beading, so that adding other plates to the top will be possible without problems, although I assume the independent plate etchers should be able to deliver other plates complete with the splasher surface detail as needed.

 

Awaiting delivery with interest ...P4 conversion I hope.

 

Stephen.

[Mighty]

I saw this pre-production sample at Wycrail, and have posted these photos elsewhere, but I thought they might be helpful here.

 

 

 

I'm afraid that the light was terrible, but it was nice to see it in the flesh.

 

It looks fairly hefty, and I doubt that Hornby will put traction tyres on any of the driving wheels. They only put them on the T9 due to the lack of pulling power, and that was a late decision and un-planned I believe.

[coachmann]

It's luvly! Didnt get chance to see Hornby YouTube when it appeared on the previous website as my PC was in need of a rebuild, so I'm glad it is repeated here. When I was young I thought the modern square inside cylinder cover and Hawksworth tender were the bees knees..... Not today though.

[iL Dottore]

Another photo of the pre-production Castle in silver, this time from the Warley show:

I do have one or two more snaps that may be an improvement on this photo - I'll post them when they've been tidied up

 

F