Hornby Princess Coronation Class (Duchess)

[Black 5 Bear]

Yes I was a bit surprised to see that. Clearly old stock that someone somewhere has found, and decided to offload in Liverpool! I do wonder how many orders they will get from people thinking it is the new model (and not looking at the picture or R number!).

Looking at the old model, the biggest things that really stick out to me are the cab front windows, bogie/body gap and the general character/detail of the chassis. And then the tender chassi shelf! So basically the model forward of the cab and above the running plate is really quite good even by 2018 standards!

Somewhat expensive at £134, considering last November I purchased both City of Liverpool and City of Bradford, both were brand new from Wicor models for £150 including free p+p. Absolute bargain!

Edited March 2, 2018 by Black 5 Bear

[robmcg]

Yes I was a bit surprised to see that. Clearly old stock that someone somewhere has found, and decided to offload in Liverpool! I do wonder how many orders they will get from people thinking it is the new model (and not looking at the picture or R number!).

Looking at the old model, the biggest things that really stick out to me are the cab front windows, bogie/body gap and the general character/detail of the chassis. And then the tender chassi shelf! So basically the model forward of the cab and above the running plate is really quite good even by 2018 standards!

 

It will be interesting to see whether under the new CEO at Hornby this is the end of cut-price releases or remaindered stock, the new models of such as a Duchess will stay at £170 or so, with a rrp of over £200..  

 

I see that Hattons are asking around £130 for s/h older versions, sometimes not even 'like new' as they term it.

[Black 5 Bear]

Thinking about what the new CEO said last year about models having a 12 month shelf life.

As City of Liverpool is at least 3yrs on since release, this probably means that Hattons will be responsible for any defects/repairs for that period rather than Hornby.

Edited March 2, 2018 by Black 5 Bear

[locoman462]

Those of you who read my Blog will know that my Sir William had a tendency to leave the track at one particular location.  After standing the model on a glass plate I decided that one of the slots for the axle bearings was too deep - I added some packing.

 

Duchess of Hamilton

 

I have now had chance to examine Duchess of Hamilton. My model jumps the track in exactly the same location as Sir William.

 

Back to the glass plate and I can slip a piece of paper beneath the same left front driving wheel as Sir William.  Ian Hargreaves in the 'other thread' suggests bending the bogie support to give more downward pressure. I will be applying some tape beneath the axle bearing as detailed in my Blog.

 

I don't know whether the bearing slots are machined or formed by casting, either way I am inclined to think that there is a basic dimensional error present.  I should add that the behaviour only occurs at low to moderate speed, not high speed.

 

Ray

Having experienced the same problems with my 46256 i.e. consistent front end de-railing at the same point, I carried out the 'paper under the driving wheels' test and realised that my loco had the same issue.

Having disconnected the front wheel coupling rods, dismantling the bottom end to access the driving wheels was much easier than on earlier Princess Coronations. I used a small strip of very thin aluminium foil instead of insulating tape in the bearing housing and reassembled the chassis. The piece of paper would not now pass under the font driving wheel.

 

I tested Sir William at my club tonight over the same tracks that it had problems on previously and completed over 100 circuits of the layout without any problems whatsoever. 

 

Many thanks Silver Sidelines for identifying and resolving a problem that should just not happen on a £160+ locomotive.

 

Hopefully Hornby will accept that there is a manufacturing problem with this chassis and correct same on future releases.

[Silver Sidelines]

Thank you Locoman

H... I used a small strip of very thin aluminium foil instead of insulating tape in the bearing housing and reassembled the chassis..

I like the idea of aluminium foil - I will keep it in mind.

 

I have another issue tonight - again a +£100 Hornby model.  This time it is the motor in a Q6 getting unbearably hot after hardly any use (DC analogue).

 

Hornby use a lot of similar motors in various different guises so possibly a quality control issue rather than design.

 

I am getting very wary of Hornby.

 

Regards

 

Ray

Edited March 5, 2018 by Silver Sidelines

[Charles]

Thanks Rob,

 

That was a really good suggestion.

 

I don't what the fuss is about, you can buy one new from a retailer in NZ

 

https://www.hobbycity.nz/collections/locomotives/products/br-coronation-cl-sir-william

 

about £185, plus delivery   but that price is quite normal local retail for we antipodeans,  who have the advantage of VAT off for web purchases from UK retailer (not Ebay)

 

the above may even qualify for NZ goods and services tax off for export,  12.5% off   but I don't know Hobby City's system... only that they are good retailers here. (no connection)

 

FWIW I bought two SWS models from UK sellers, one was faulty , front locating lug broken, valve gear badly made/bent, , paint, mostly fixable but refunded in full after return to Rails, the other was fine.

 

So I had a look around, and I found one - https://www.mightyape.com.au - sitting at an internet retailer whose business model is utterly unclear to me.

 

AUD 390.00 which equates to about GBP 219.00 today seems to be a reasonable price for a model 'landed' in Australia, and a quick look around the site

confirms this is what they charge for a 'Pacific' locomotive (although there was a very questionable 'Flying Scotsman').   I know nothing about these people

at all, but I have have no concern about their legitimacy in making 'card' transactions.

 

So I arranged to transfer funds to my debit card so as to make the purchase.

 

Whilst awaiting the funds to arrive in my debit card account, I took the opportunity to review this thread, and what do I find ??

 

Absolutely shocking behaviour on the part of Hornby.   

 

Selling clearly defective models, which should have been subject to IMMEDIATE recall.

 

Are Hornby 'hell bent' to trying to destroy the hobby ??

 

I haven't even attempted to calculate the number of defective models they may have sold on to the market, but it seems perfectly

clear that the number of reports of defective models from RMWeb people must represent a very small percentage of the sales, and

Hornby's apparent behaviour can have nothing but a deeply negative influence upon the Hobby.

 

Maybe I don't sign in to RMWeb often enough, and maybe I should contribute more, but it does seem to me Hornby should be 

making some very fast representations to the appropriate authorities before someone calls them to task, before Law.

 

The model should work without destroying itself, and creating a PROBLEM for the purchaser.

 

How many potential railway modellers would RMWeb correspondents think this exercise has turned to 'not being bothered again'

with model railways ?.   

 

I have chosen not to proceed with my purchase.

 

Kind regards to all at RMWeb.

 

Cheers,

Charles

[JSpencer]

 

Absolutely shocking behaviour on the part of Hornby.   

 

Selling clearly defective models, which should have been subject to IMMEDIATE recall.

 

Well mine was fine and I suspect most are fine. If it is was not, my life was not in danger.

 

I tried the paper test and found locos across all ages having this issue. The only aspect is that the modern duchess and merchant navies have weight centred towards the rear, previousl models were more centered towards the middle. This can cause issue if undulations are too great in the track work (I sorted the track out in my case to the benefit of other locos).

 

If it had been faulty, I would have sent mine back.

[Tarnish1]

A request to Hornby - please correct the locomotive/tender drawbar system on the reissued SWS which due to "fouling" on other parts under the tender cannot be used for close coupling without surgery to this drawbar.

[cctransuk]

Thanks Rob,

 

That was a really good suggestion.

 

 

So I had a look around, and I found one - https://www.mightyape.com.au - sitting at an internet retailer whose business model is utterly unclear to me.

 

AUD 390.00 which equates to about GBP 219.00 today seems to be a reasonable price for a model 'landed' in Australia, and a quick look around the site

confirms this is what they charge for a 'Pacific' locomotive (although there was a very questionable 'Flying Scotsman').   I know nothing about these people

at all, but I have have no concern about their legitimacy in making 'card' transactions.

 

So I arranged to transfer funds to my debit card so as to make the purchase.

 

Whilst awaiting the funds to arrive in my debit card account, I took the opportunity to review this thread, and what do I find ??

 

Absolutely shocking behaviour on the part of Hornby.   

 

Selling clearly defective models, which should have been subject to IMMEDIATE recall.

 

Are Hornby 'hell bent' to trying to destroy the hobby ??

 

I haven't even attempted to calculate the number of defective models they may have sold on to the market, but it seems perfectly

clear that the number of reports of defective models from RMWeb people must represent a very small percentage of the sales, and

Hornby's apparent behaviour can have nothing but a deeply negative influence upon the Hobby.

 

Maybe I don't sign in to RMWeb often enough, and maybe I should contribute more, but it does seem to me Hornby should be 

making some very fast representations to the appropriate authorities before someone calls them to task, before Law.

 

The model should work without destroying itself, and creating a PROBLEM for the purchaser.

 

How many potential railway modellers would RMWeb correspondents think this exercise has turned to 'not being bothered again'

with model railways ?.   

 

I have chosen not to proceed with my purchase.

 

Kind regards to all at RMWeb.

 

Cheers,

Charles

 

Your loss - it's a superb model.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Charles]

Thanks, JS.

 

Well mine was fine and I suspect most are fine. If it is was not, my life was not in danger.

 

I tried the paper test and found locos across all ages having this issue. The only aspect is that the modern duchess and merchant navies have weight centred towards the rear, previousl models were more centered towards the middle. This can cause issue if undulations are too great in the track work (I sorted the track out in my case to the benefit of other locos).

 

If it had been faulty, I would have sent mine back.

 

I think my fair point clearly was that since RMWeb correspondents represent such a small percentage of the total market, and such a large proportion of RMWeb correspondents reported a defective product, This points directly to a defective product being sold on the market in a large scale, to the detriment of the hobby.

 

It is somewhat disingenuous to suggest your life was not in danger, we'll need to wait for the reports to come in, won't we ?

 

If you are happy to see a GBP 200.00 product sold on to the market, when that product seems to be clearly defective, as reported by our peers, so be it.

 

I'm happy for you that you are 'flush' enough to put 200 quid out for your young fellow's Christmas present and still bring him a happy Christmas.

 

But I think if I had bought a similar present and the valve gear destroyed itself as the wheels first turned, I'd be pretty annoyed, and the recipient of the present

would be pretty disappointed, particularly so when I subsequently learned that the problem was clearly known before I made the purchase.

 

I respect your apparent point of view, and I do not know how 'consumer laws' may operate in the UK, but I reckon if someone takes GBP 200.00 from me, fully

knowing that they are selling me a defective product, there ought to be some remedy available to me which might discourage any repeat of such behaviour.

 

Best regards

Charles

[Steamport Southport]

Consumer law in the UK is probably amongst the most stringent in the world. The problem is hardly anyone bothers to complain when something does go wrong. Always think of the three "Rs" - Replacement, Repair or Refund.

 

There's also the fact that the vast majority of retailers would fall over themselves backwards to help with a problem. That also applies to the manufacturers. Don't forget a happy customer will return and unhappy one will go elsewhere.

 

 

Jason

[JSpencer]

Thanks, JS.

 

 

 

I think my fair point clearly was that since RMWeb correspondents represent such a small percentage of the total market, and such a large proportion of RMWeb correspondents reported a defective product, This points directly to a defective product being sold on the market in a large scale, to the detriment of the hobby.

 

It is somewhat disingenuous to suggest your life was not in danger, we'll need to wait for the reports to come in, won't we ?

 

If you are happy to see a GBP 200.00 product sold on to the market, when that product seems to be clearly defective, as reported by our peers, so be it.

 

I'm happy for you that you are 'flush' enough to put 200 quid out for your young fellow's Christmas present and still bring him a happy Christmas.

 

But I think if I had bought a similar present and the valve gear destroyed itself as the wheels first turned, I'd be pretty annoyed, and the recipient of the present

would be pretty disappointed, particularly so when I subsequently learned that the problem was clearly known before I made the purchase.

 

I respect your apparent point of view, and I do not know how 'consumer laws' may operate in the UK, but I reckon if someone takes GBP 200.00 from me, fully

knowing that they are selling me a defective product, there ought to be some remedy available to me which might discourage any repeat of such behaviour.

 

Best regards

Charles

I understand yours and the consumer point of view. There is a raise in expectation with the price. However the process which makes them has not changed only the workforce wants better wages (if some what government imposed over there). The model is made to a standard which - for me - is about the same as before. My schools brought in the cheap old days arrived in bits for example, and I can think of plenty of cases. Some were easy enough to put right, others were returned/replaced (I nearly gave up on Heljan's 23 and 28 after a few attempts on trying to get a good one). It is annoying returning stuff, but I certainly agree that I do not like having money in a faulty model so back it goes in those cases.

 

We don,t know what the rate of rejects/returns for these locos are unless a model shop comes here saying what percentage they returned. We do know people are more likely to share their bad experiences in places like here where as positive experiences are less likely (other than the first 5 posts following release). If 10% were returned (a big figure for returns), should Hornby request a recall? On what grounds are they going to make the recall? And if you had a perfect one (like me), why should I send it back?

 

One could also argue that Hornby did not make enough to meet demand and the next batch will be more expensive. But Hornby has over produced many items the previous year leading to deep discounting to shift them (at Hornby's loss - they loosing money). Even then we are still saturated with deep discounted items!

 

I sympathise with those who had issues and wish them well to getting them sorted out. I know its a lot of money too, admittedly I would not have brought mine at £200 (3/4 of that is my limit), but I will say mine is perfect, very happy with it and I assume many others must have liked theirs for it to have got around a 1000 votes for model of the year (and I voted the H class here too!).

[Charles]

Thank you for your courteous response, JS.

 

I understand yours and the consumer point of view. There is a raise in expectation with the price. However the process which makes them has not changed only the workforce wants better wages (if some what government imposed over there). The model is made to a standard which - for me - is about the same as before. My schools brought in the cheap old days arrived in bits for example, and I can think of plenty of cases. Some were easy enough to put right, others were returned/replaced (I nearly gave up on Heljan's 23 and 28 after a few attempts on trying to get a good one). It is annoying returning stuff, but I certainly agree that I do not like having money in a faulty model so back it goes in those cases.

We don,t know what the rate of rejects/returns for these locos are unless a model shop comes here saying what percentage they returned. We do know people are more likely to share their bad experiences in places like here where as positive experiences are less likely (other than the first 5 posts following release). If 10% were returned (a big figure for returns), should Hornby request a recall? On what grounds are they going to make the recall? And if you had a perfect one (like me), why should I send it back?

One could also argue that Hornby did not make enough to meet demand and the next batch will be more expensive. But Hornby has over produced many items the previous year leading to deep discounting to shift them (at Hornby's loss - they loosing money). Even then we are still saturated with deep discounted items!

I sympathise with those who had issues and wish them well to getting them sorted out. I know its a lot of money too, admittedly I would not have brought mine at £200 (3/4 of that is my limit), but I will say mine is perfect, very happy with it and I assume many others must have liked theirs for it to have got around a 1000 votes for model of the year (and I voted the H class here too!).

 

You raise a number of issues which, I think, should be considered.

 

Leaving Hornby aside for a moment.   What would happen if everyone took my 'recipe for Hornby' to heart and started issuing proceedings against anyone who, however unintentionally,

let forth into the market a model which was fundamentally flawed, that is to say 'destroyed itself', when power was first applied.

 

Sorry, some fundamental issues just arose and must attend.

 

Best regards

Charles.

 

PS. I took John Isherwoods advice, and ordered it anyway.

[Charles]

Hi JS.

 

Did post a reply, foreshortened through things needing immediate attention.

 

The reply seems to be gone.

 

However when I did attempt to get back to you I found a PM from someone calling

themself 'The Great Bear' or the like, talking about Passchendaele (I'm sure you need

no clarification).

 

I tried to deal with that, and must now off to bed.

 

Amongst other things, I did say that I went ahead with the purchase of the model, courtesy

J.Isherwood's  fair comment.

 

I'll let you know about what arrives.

 

I would also like to continue 'consumer expectation' aspect of our exchange.   Perhaps it should

fall under another heading ?.

 

In the interim, whilst I have deeply held sincere views about the Great War, as my PM was

talking about, at first glance it seems RMWeb has a bit of a problem with PM's coming in from

unexpected angles..

 

Sorry, must go, 700 km journey in the morning.

 

Best  regards

Charles 

[JSpencer]

Thank you for your courteous response, JS.

 

 

You raise a number of issues which, I think, should be considered.

 

Leaving Hornby aside for a moment.   What would happen if everyone took my 'recipe for Hornby' to heart and started issuing proceedings against anyone who, however unintentionally,

let forth into the market a model which was fundamentally flawed, that is to say 'destroyed itself', when power was first applied.

 

Sorry, some fundamental issues just arose and must attend.

 

Best regards

Charles.

 

PS. I took John Isherwoods advice, and ordered it anyway.

 

I actually have an judicial insurance and used it once when a hotel suddenly increased the price after I booked it and they would not let me un-book or credit back the difference it. They even reposted the same offer a few days later. However I'm not sure if I would attempt it here.

 

Legally I am not trained not, nor an expert in the domain, I could ask my brother who is lawyer but he'll probably charge me for advice and would reply just as quickly as the judicial process does in the real world. I asked him, how he was doing and if he received his Christmas present 3 years ago and I'm still waiting but I have had a reply for 2014.

 

Consumer expectation:

1/ it must function

2/ it must be robust enough to last several years

3/ it must be detailed enough so it actually looks like the real thing

4/ it must be packaged well enough so it arrives intact

5/ it must run on un prototypical track laid in very odd circumstances

6/ it must be affordable by X number of customers (2000 in the case of SWS)

7/ Each model must be fully checked by an expert to ensure it meets all the above

 

The trouble is there is a balancing act in all of this. Greater detail means less robustness. Higher QC increases costs, but cost is a prime factor. 

 

There are things we can ask Hornby to do. What we call best design practices.

• Chassis holding lugs should be metal and located at one end only, the other end will use screws to hold it in place.
• Weight will be perfectly centred over the driving wheels.
• If sound ready, it must be able to hold a typical sound chip for the plug provided.
• The speaker space should fit a known specified speaker dimension.

And so on...

For the last 2, the duchess is very good, probably because they are doing a TTS version. But the class 71, IEP800, despite having a designated speaker space are somewhat more complex to convert.

 

So "what would happen if everyone took my 'recipe for Hornby' to heart and started issuing proceedings against anyone who, however unintentionally,

let forth into the market a model which was fundamentally flawed, that is to say 'destroyed itself', when power was first applied."

 

Taking my Hotel experience, I had to provide a lot of proof, not only of the transaction, but details of contacting the offending party to try and resolve the problem through there normal customer services. The party did give me the possibility of a small compensation but it was a fraction of over billing I had experienced. Once that failed and I had gathered all the proof, only then could I actually launch legal proceedings. Once my judiciare contacted theirs, it was resolved quickly, no need for courts, all over within 6 weeks from the error happening and me being refunded the difference.

 

I assume if you received a model not up to expectations, then you would have to go through the service dept/refund routes first. In model trains, my experience is that nearly all these cases are resolved at worst by a refund (inc. postage). Things get a little more complex once outside the warranty period though, sometimes they are resolved, sometimes not. My Bachmann N class brought in 1997 shredded its running plate from Mazak rot, Bachmann replaced it in 2012 for free well outside the warranty period (and even the proposed EU 5 year period on electrical goods - which is about time too because having a fridge or washing machine break down every couple of years is really annoying!).

 

IF we could legally attack them or any maker for just doing faulty models (despite having refund process etc in place) , this will lead to increased QC, having expert eyes checking each and every model, signing them off one by one like aircraft parts. That leads to increased prices. Maybe ROCO do actually do this, but they are thrice the price and - I personally - would not buy one.

[Chamby]

...(stuff)...

 

IF we could legally attack them or any maker for just doing faulty models (despite having refund process etc in place) , this will lead to increased QC, having expert eyes checking each and every model, signing them off one by one like aircraft parts. That leads to increased prices. Maybe ROCO do actually do this, but they are thrice the price and - I personally - would not buy one.

Errr, no. ROCO stuff is not thrice the price, that is an unfair exaggeration. Yes it is more expensive than UK stuff but it is better designed, better built, runs beautifully, usually has more features such as working lights and I have never ever had any problems with them. If UK products were built to the same standard, at the same price, I would most certainly buy them.

[andyman7]

I actually have an judicial insurance and used it once when a hotel suddenly increased the price after I booked it and they would not let me un-book or credit back the difference it. They even reposted the same offer a few days later. However I'm not sure if I would attempt it here.

 

Legally I am not trained not, nor an expert in the domain, I could ask my brother who is lawyer but he'll probably charge me for advice and would reply just as quickly as the judicial process does in the real world. I asked him, how he was doing and if he received his Christmas present 3 years ago and I'm still waiting but I have had a reply for 2014.

 

Consumer expectation:

1/ it must function

2/ it must be robust enough to last several years

3/ it must be detailed enough so it actually looks like the real thing

4/ it must be packaged well enough so it arrives intact

5/ it must run on un prototypical track laid in very odd circumstances

6/ it must be affordable by X number of customers (2000 in the case of SWS)

7/ Each model must be fully checked by an expert to ensure it meets all the above

 

The trouble is there is a balancing act in all of this. Greater detail means less robustness. Higher QC increases costs, but cost is a prime factor. 

 

There are things we can ask Hornby to do. What we call best design practices.

• Chassis holding lugs should be metal and located at one end only, the other end will use screws to hold it in place.
• Weight will be perfectly centred over the driving wheels.
• If sound ready, it must be able to hold a typical sound chip for the plug provided.
• The speaker space should fit a known specified speaker dimension.

And so on...

For the last 2, the duchess is very good, probably because they are doing a TTS version. But the class 71, IEP800, despite having a designated speaker space are somewhat more complex to convert.

 

So "what would happen if everyone took my 'recipe for Hornby' to heart and started issuing proceedings against anyone who, however unintentionally,

let forth into the market a model which was fundamentally flawed, that is to say 'destroyed itself', when power was first applied."

 

Taking my Hotel experience, I had to provide a lot of proof, not only of the transaction, but details of contacting the offending party to try and resolve the problem through there normal customer services. The party did give me the possibility of a small compensation but it was a fraction of over billing I had experienced. Once that failed and I had gathered all the proof, only then could I actually launch legal proceedings. Once my judiciare contacted theirs, it was resolved quickly, no need for courts, all over within 6 weeks from the error happening and me being refunded the difference.

 

I assume if you received a model not up to expectations, then you would have to go through the service dept/refund routes first. In model trains, my experience is that nearly all these cases are resolved at worst by a refund (inc. postage). Things get a little more complex once outside the warranty period though, sometimes they are resolved, sometimes not. My Bachmann N class brought in 1997 shredded its running plate from Mazak rot, Bachmann replaced it in 2012 for free well outside the warranty period (and even the proposed EU 5 year period on electrical goods - which is about time too because having a fridge or washing machine break down every couple of years is really annoying!).

 

IF we could legally attack them or any maker for just doing faulty models (despite having refund process etc in place) , this will lead to increased QC, having expert eyes checking each and every model, signing them off one by one like aircraft parts. That leads to increased prices. Maybe ROCO do actually do this, but they are thrice the price and - I personally - would not buy one.

Your list of requirements is analogous to UK consumer law in that an item must be of merchantable quality and fit for the intended purpose. The same law requires the retailer to replace or refund if this is not the case. In legal terms you would only issue proceedings against the retailer if they did not comply with the law and you chose to pursue them in court. There is no remedy in any law that wilI compel Hornby to make you the product to the standard you want!

 

In the end, you pay your money and take your choice. Personally, I am satisfied with the general quality given the price - they are not perfect, but the models we get now have a huge amount of detail and hand assembly and the price is considerably less than a kit built model. 

[Robin Brasher]

Part of the problem is that Hornby seems to be catering for the collector and the rivet counter rather than for people who like to operate model railways.

 

The front bogie of my 'Duchess of Athol' derails a couple of times every half hour which I do not think warrants sending it back whereas my H class stays on the track.

 

I have returned my 'Royal Mail' and SE&CR H class to Hornby and Hornby has replaced the motor on both models and refunded my postage. If a model is faulty Hornby do repair them free of charge.

 

For any mass produced model it would make sense for a manufacturer to retain 10 out a batch of 1,000 for spares as there are bound to be some faulty models.

 

The mint and boxed brigade would probably never find out if their model is faulty because the moment they test it the model would cease to be mint and boxed.

[G-BOAF]

 

The front bogie of my 'Duchess of Athol' derails a couple of times every half hour which I do not think warrants sending it back whereas my H class stays on the track.

 

 

 

Wow, if I had a loco that derailed every 15 minutes for no clear reason I'd certainly investigate it, if not send it back. Given that during running in, I normally leave the models semi-unattended for around 75% of the time (once ascertained that everything is running true). A loco should not regularly derail. Seems like something is out of tollerence at one particular point of the wheel revolution, which every certain number of cycles interfaces with a particular spot on your track. At very least I'd be checking back to backs and tyre/wheel fittings, and maybe asking Hornby for a replacement bogie.

[Robin Brasher]

I had a similar problem with a Hornby 'Princess Arthur of Connaught': a funny name for a princess. I gave up running it for five years until I bought a back to back gauge and a friend adjusted the front bogie spring. It now runs very well and has a new lease of life. I adjusted the wheels of 'Duchess of Athol' with the back to back gauge but I am not clever enough to adjust the bogie spring. Before using the back to back gauge the Duchess derailed on every circuit.

 

One problem is that now you only have to get a track joint 1/2mm out and you get derailments with modern model engines. Our layout is in a barn and the huge variations in temperature do not help.

 

In the happy days of Tri-ang super 4 track I could run my Tri-ang Princess Elizabeth and my Hornby Dublo Barnstaple with their rakes of coaches all evening without any derailments and the Barnstaple is still running now after 54 years. I bought it for £5. 15s 6d which was a lot of money then but it owes me nothing. It wouldn't satisfy the rivet counters but it is a good runner.

[Free At Last]

I have three of the previous version of the Princess locos, all of them had to have the b2bs adjusted, they were so far out the bogie wheels on one fell between the tracks. I remember the driving wheels being 13.2mm on one loco. After adjusting them all to 14.5mm there was so much slop I had to put plasticard overlays on the frames.

[JSpencer]

Your list of requirements is analogous to UK consumer law in that an item must be of merchantable quality and fit for the intended purpose. The same law requires the retailer to replace or refund if this is not the case. In legal terms you would only issue proceedings against the retailer if they did not comply with the law and you chose to pursue them in court. There is no remedy in any law that wilI compel Hornby to make you the product to the standard you want!

 

In the end, you pay your money and take your choice. Personally, I am satisfied with the general quality given the price - they are not perfect, but the models we get now have a huge amount of detail and hand assembly and the price is considerably less than a kit built model.

 

This was exactly the point of my post. Thanks for making it clearer.

[JSpencer]

Errr, no. ROCO stuff is not thrice the price, that is an unfair exaggeration. Yes it is more expensive than UK stuff but it is better designed, better built, runs beautifully, usually has more features such as working lights and I have never ever had any problems with them. If UK products were built to the same standard, at the same price, I would most certainly buy them.

Well it was thrice last time I checked 10 years ago! But yes, greater quality = increased cost. For certain locos I would pay that if it really fits in with what I model, others I would do without.

[adb968008]

Wow, if I had a loco that derailed every 15 minutes for no clear reason I'd certainly investigate it, if not send it back. Given that during running in, I normally leave the models semi-unattended for around 75% of the time (once ascertained that everything is running true). A loco should not regularly derail. Seems like something is out of tollerence at one particular point of the wheel revolution, which every certain number of cycles interfaces with a particular spot on your track. At very least I'd be checking back to backs and tyre/wheel fittings, and maybe asking Hornby for a replacement bogie.

I read this and memories of Mainline peaks comes rushing back to haunt me from 25 years ago.

You fix a wheel, another one goes off., and there 8 of them under each Peak, and I had 8 of them....

 

I’ll not sleep tonight now.

Edited March 7, 2018 by adb968008

[adb968008]

All this stuff about legal challenges keeps raising it’s pointless head.

 

Legal challenges aren’t cheap, and if the defendant decides to defend themselves all the way it gets very expensive if it ends in high court.

Of course there’s no guarantees your going to win either, both sides are entitled to a defence it’s not a one way attack and slam dunk.

You as plaintiff needs to demonstrate not just your case but your ability to afford to lose too, before it is accepted...

 

Going to war over a £150 model to prove it’s not fit for purpose isn’t as easy as you make out.... what is it’s purpose?

You might think it’s to run around your layout, The other party could argue it’s made to look like a scale model for collectors...

Similarly factory conditions it is tested for could be argued is what a suitable scale model is intended to be used on, and your layout may not be to the same standard,..

And who’s to say your use of non-same vendors track isn’t in violation of warranty anyway,.. after all it’s not their supplied track it’s running on.

 

Remember the judge may know nothing about model railways, and the vendor could have hundreds of documents, reports, tests, videos etc showing their technical research, past performance and testimony to their suitability.. whilst you, and your budget could be somewhat parse of counter proof.

 

Take the IEP.. it’s hard to argue it’s not fit for purpose after it was demonstrated to the 10k’s of attendees at Warley running laps round the test track endlessly for 2 very long days without incident... that’s a pretty good defence to try to find a counter argument against...

 

At the end of the day it’s a model.

If your not happy with it.. put it back in the box and take it back for refund.. that’s your right and the best message to the vendor that there’s an issue when they are surrounded by returns.

Edited March 7, 2018 by adb968008