DJMR Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 Sadly, you are wrong. Coach B does not have any toilets. GWR Layout: IET Seat Map 5 Car Photo: https://www.flickr.com/photos/iephst2/35341182981/sizes/l Coach B has bike space and a trolly park instead of the toilet. Yes that is the case, unfortunately Hornby decided to publish photos showing different which were probably corrected after their release, in all the promotional videos and Hornby Magazine it shows as per the real train. Cheers 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
159220 Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 Latest update on the problem. The guy from Hornby phoned me earlier today, as he said he would, and asked me a couple more questions regarding the derailments and confirmed that the guys at Hornby are on the job and hope to get this sorted as soon as possible. They are as much concerned as we are. Keith Thank you for updating. I too shall add, I admire how Hornby are responding with this issue and I am sure it shall be fixed. Additionally, I mentioned I had an issue with the pantograph before. Again, this is being looked at and lets hope it shall be re-engineered to be metal. As I was shocked I broke it in less than 10 minutes. Though did not help in that both Pantographs were lose/unattached. I am very impressed with the new management at Hornby. Very professional and good for them to be keen to address. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium HillsideDepot Posted February 22, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 22, 2018 May I ask, did anyone get the optional "Etched GWR Logo"? Not even GWR got them, at least if they did they've chosen not to put them on the real class 800s. I think we need to give Hornby some credit here, the model does seem to represent how the real trains have arrived in service, rather than the computer generated images which they first used. I know which way I'd prefer them to have been produced. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJMR Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 Glad they did not do this, as the prototype does not have metal plates. Just vinyl. As you shall see from my photo above, they have even captured the detail of the gWr logo. My favourite part of the model! Very true, they are vinyl, but again stands by my earlier comments an inconsistent release of information. Thank you for pointing that one out! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
159220 Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 Yes that is the case, unfortunately Hornby decided to publish photos showing different which were probably corrected after their release, in all the promotional videos and Hornby Magazine it shows as per the real train. Cheers Sadly, their computer generated images on their site are often incorrect. Look at the GWR 153. I hope we all can suggest to Hornby they move away from computer generated images and start doing as Bachmann do, hand painted examples if there is no factory livery sample. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJMR Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 Not even GWR got them, at least if they did they've chosen not to put them on the real class 800s. I think we need to give Hornby some credit here, the model does seem to represent how the real trains have arrived in service, rather than the computer generated images which they first used. I know which way I'd prefer them to have been produced. Totally agree, but when you have inconsistent information from a company selling a product it does cause confusion and initial frustration. I am happier knowing this is closer to the real thing but equally unhappy with the misinformation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
159220 Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 Not even GWR got them, at least if they did they've chosen not to put them on the real class 800s. I was hoping that the class 802s, as being privately financed via Eversholt rather than through the IEP/Agility would have metal gWr plates as per the HSTs. But sadly, 800003/004 were rolled out with vinyl branding. I am told the metal plates on the HSTs & 57/6s were awfully expensive. Hence why more recent HST class 43s which have green livery also have vinyl gWr branding. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJMR Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 Sadly, their computer generated images on their site are often incorrect. Look at the GWR 153. I hope we all can suggest to Hornby they move away from computer generated images and start doing as Bachmann do, hand painted examples if there is no factory livery sample. Fully agree, or at least update them when things change or are corrected, far better task than a myriad of calls complaining. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dibber25 Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 Sadly, their computer generated images on their site are often incorrect. Look at the GWR 153. I hope we all can suggest to Hornby they move away from computer generated images and start doing as Bachmann do, hand painted examples if there is no factory livery sample. It would not make any difference. The model painter will work from the artwork provided by the TOC just the same as the guy who generates the computer artwork. These jobs have to be done far in advance of the real thing appearing and they are done from the concept artwork. In the meantime, someone, somewhere changes their mind and the real thing comes out different from the original artwork or the hand-painted model. (CJL) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
159220 Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 It would not make any difference. The model painter will work from the artwork provided by the TOC just the same as the guy who generates the computer artwork. These jobs have to be done far in advance of the real thing appearing and they are done from the concept artwork. In the meantime, someone, somewhere changes their mind and the real thing comes out different from the original artwork or the hand-painted model. (CJL) Sorry we shall have to strongly disagree here in regard to the GWR 153. This computer generated image is far removed from the TOC spec artwork. Decided upon by the TOC well before application in Feb 2017. Bachmann did a fine job with the GWR 150/2 hand painted sample.... But, in specific terms to the 800/0. Yes it is unfortunate that a few details changed. Mainly '1st Class' from black to white background. This is unavoidable, but seeing as 800004 does not even wear the 'in service' GWR livery let. All is rather bizarre. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wandering blue Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 Are you 100% sure that the 812004 coach should have them? Watching this video very slowly (about 3:19-3:20) suggests to me that the 8120xx coach doesn't have them... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuA2bHLDbpw While I understand that this doesn't mean it's correct looking at the pics of the 5 car pack on rails website there seems to be one car that has no silver box on it. https://railsofsheffield.com/products/32298/Hornby-r3514-oo-gauge-hitachi-iep-bi-mode-class-800-0-gwr-5-car-train-pack Good spotting, very true, the actual train doesn't have a box on one of the coaches, but this is the promotion photos from Hornby... But then their promotional video of the IEP shows without as per prototypical... Very inconsistent! 3514-GWR-hitachi-Power-Car-side---To-supply.jpg I think the photos are a bad representation and misleading, which I will be letting Hornby know about this when I call tomorrow, in the Hornby Magazine review it also depicts the prototypical and not whats in the photographs. I suspect the photographs were taken before they were corrected. https://youtu.be/6gbIstfJKSI?t=43s Think that's they way they come. Look at the box design and you will see that some of the coaches come without the equipment boxes.Keith Sadly, you are wrong. Coach B does not have any toilets. GWR Layout: IET Seat Map 5 Car Photo: https://www.flickr.com/photos/iephst2/35341182981/sizes/l Coach B has bike space and a trolly park instead of the toilet. Lets me frank, the level of attention to the design is superb. Even the floor heights between the DTPF(S) and M©S has been modelled. Thanks everyone, I was working off the Hornby shots, not the real machine, sorry! It is indeed a superbly detailed model! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Y Posted February 23, 2018 Author Share Posted February 23, 2018 Latest update on the problem. The guy from Hornby phoned me earlier today, as he said he would, and asked me a couple more questions regarding the derailments and confirmed that the guys at Hornby are on the job and hope to get this sorted as soon as possible. They are as much concerned as we are. Keith I didn't have chance to post on Wednesday but the sample I had here exhibited the same problem and I had a chat with Paul Isles on what I could see of the problem. The design guys are indeed looking into it, they were struggling to replicate the problem with samples they had there but they do recognise that it needs looking further into. With the coach body removed there was no catching although it was apparent there was distortion in the seating component and it wasn't possible to see what could have been catching. Put the body back on and the bogies caught again, I'm sure it's something to do with the bogie pin and the proximity of part of the seating. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold ruggedpeak Posted February 23, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 23, 2018 (edited) As an aside SWMBO went to Wales yesterday and travelled out by IEP and back by HST. She loved the interior of the new IEP's and said how much better it was than the coaches we have on AGA (e.g. Mk3's and Renatus). As she works whilst travelling little things like the power socket being between the seats not on the wall (so can be used by either seat) and some sort of fold out laptop tray were very helpful. Apparently they are very smooth too. I did have to use pics from the reviews of the Hornby IEP to confirm what sort of train she'd been on!! Edited February 23, 2018 by ruggedpeak Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dibber25 Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 Mine arrived this morning and initially exhibited the same issue. The trailing truck of the centre car derailed on plain track on a curve of 3ftplus radius. It happened three times in succession, always at the same spot and at very moderate speed. Since then, it's been fine and had no problem even on the reverse curve into Platform 3 over Peco code 75 turnouts. At this stage, I would suspect a minor assembly issue. I would add that I've yet to try it 'propelling' with powered car at the rear. Now to see if it can be left to run itself in.....(CJL) 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
classy52 Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 If you're thinking of coupling 2 sets together via the nose cones to run a 10 car set you may need to watch this YT video, another issue that will need to be addressed by Hornby. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VavDDVHfTx8 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJMR Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 If you're thinking of coupling 2 sets together via the nose cones to run a 10 car set you may need to watch this YT video, another issue that will need to be addressed by Hornby. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VavDDVHfTx8 Yes I would have thought that would happen with the Hornby style couplings, but I think with Kadee it wouldn't be much of a problem, although yet to test with mine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
classy52 Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 Yes I would have thought that would happen with the Hornby style couplings, but I think with Kadee it wouldn't be much of a problem, although yet to test with mine. Apparently Kadee 20's may work but as yet to be tested, just go with the paper clip Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dibber25 Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 Sorry we shall have to strongly disagree here in regard to the GWR 153. This computer generated image is far removed from the TOC spec artwork. Decided upon by the TOC well before application in Feb 2017. Bachmann did a fine job with the GWR 150/2 hand painted sample.... But, in specific terms to the 800/0. Yes it is unfortunate that a few details changed. Mainly '1st Class' from black to white background. This is unavoidable, but seeing as 800004 does not even wear the 'in service' GWR livery let. All is rather bizarre. Presumably, that means that the computer-generated image for the catalogue had to be generated before any artwork was available from GWR and was a 'best guess' at the time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveC32 Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 My nephew tried to run the 2 driving vehicles coupled with hinged Kadees but unfortunately as they entered into the curve the trailing vehicle flipped off the track onto its side. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickC Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 (edited) My tightest curves are R4 and I'm happy to say mine copes with them at any speed without derailing. Flat out around a R4 curve does look a bit scary, but no derailment occurs. The problem I have is with inclines causing derailments. I have a 2 degree incline and as the coaches transit onto it on the decent they derail. This appears to be because one coach bogie is lifted off the track because the coupling to the next coach has almost no flexibility and is thus holding the coach up. [edit] I have now discovered that although it will cope with R4 curves, it won't cope with R4+ reverse curves, the middle coach always derails. It also won't cope with a 3 track crossover consisting of 4 Peco Streamline medium radius points. Edited March 4, 2018 by NickC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Coryton Posted February 23, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 23, 2018 My tightest curves are R4 and I'm happy to say mine copes with them at any speed without derailing. Flat out around a R4 curve does look a bit scary, but no derailment occurs. The problem I have is with inclines causing derailments. I have a 2 degree incline and as the coaches transit onto it on the decent they derail. This appears to be because one coach bogie is lifted off the track because the coupling to the next coach has almost no flexibility and is thus holding the coach up. WP_20180223_13_14_04_Pro.jpg WP_20180223_13_13_08_Pro.jpg No doubt with tension lock couplers and a generous amount of daylight between the coaches, this wouldn't be a problem... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Budgie Posted February 23, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 23, 2018 The problem I have is with inclines causing derailments. I have a 2 degree incline and as the coaches transit onto it on the decent they derail. This appears to be because one coach bogie is lifted off the track because the coupling to the next coach has almost no flexibility and is thus holding the coach up. Looking at your pictures, it seems to me that your change of gradient is an angle, whereas what you really want is a gentle curve. I've noticed the same thing happening with other locomotives and rolling stock, in particular the DJ models E5000 and the Hornby H class 0-4-4T. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
royaloak Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 (edited) That incline doesnt seem to have much graduation, it is level and then it goes straight into the incline, that could be part of the problem. The best way is to have one length of track going from the level onto the incline so it can transition, then support the track as it naturally eases into the incline, you have a rail joint there so it is more of an angle. Edit- Budgie beat me by a few seconds, I need faster fingers! Edited February 23, 2018 by royaloak Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Phil Mc Posted February 23, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 23, 2018 (edited) Tried mine this afternoon, on my Dad's far from perfect track laying. (his eye's aren't as good as they used to be !!) After a couple of derailments on its initial laps, it settled down to an hour of fault-free running, half an hour hauling, half an hour propelling. All this on level (ish!!) track. There is also an incline on the layout, which starts to rise on a curve, and climbs approx. 4" over an 8' length. Quite steep I know, but its only used for DMU storage up there ! Thee 800 had no issues getting onto the incline, but once the entire thing was on the slope, it just spun the wheels of the powered car without moving. Not an issue for us, as the unit will never go up the slope in normal use, but I was just interested to see what would happen. An 8 coach HST set will climb up no bother !! Cheers, Phil. Edited February 23, 2018 by Phil Mc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Darius43 Posted February 23, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 23, 2018 (edited) Just received my Class 800 IEP and immediately checked the coach bogie operation. I have a theory as to what the issue may be, which goes as follows:- (1) The coach body rests on the bogie through contact between the white plastic thingy (possibly the body lifting point) on the body and the bracket thingy (possibly the damper) on the bogie as illustrated below. (2) On straight track or with shallow curves (I tried mine on R3 and it was fine being pushed by hand) the white plastic surface and the bogie surface still "mate" (overlap in contact) and so all is fine. (3) With sharper curves the bogie pivots so that the mating surfaces do not overlap and, when pivoting back to straight, the bogie surface may catch on the inside edge of the white coach body surface - especially if the track is a mite out of level - such as is an inevitable occurrence in the real world. A possible solution might be to fix a plasticard packer (single or multiple layers) to the coach chassis undersurface to bring it level with the white coach body surface so that the bogie suface is always resting on the same "level" of surface and cannot catch on the inside edge of the white surface when the coach goes around sharper curves than R3 - as illustrated below:- Note - I have just placed the packer for this photo - it is not glued in place. Cheers Darius Edited February 23, 2018 by Darius43 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now