Hornby Princess Coronation Class (Duchess)

[ScRSG]

On the swinging truck issue, perversely the non swinging truck actually looks perfectly ok on straight or with decent radii bends, but will look faintly ridiculous on first or second radius curves (yuck). I have converted virtually all of my swinging truck duchesses to the fixed truck arrangement and I am lucky enough to have a minimum 3ft. radius, and even larger on the viewing sections. The fixed truck arrangements on these, the Standard and LNER pacifics is by far the best solution.

[Trev52A]

This must have been discussed before (but perhaps not on this thread), so apologies for raising it again, but didn't Bachmann get over the problem of the rear truck years ago? Their A1 and A2 4-6-2s have fixed framework under the cab as per prototype (so no gap when viewed from the side) yet the flanged wheel still has enough side play to negotiate 2nd radius curves, and points, (most of the time, anyway!) In other words, an acceptable Cartazzi truck as per the original locos, to all intents and purposes. Why did Hornby feel the need to reinvent the wheel (pun intended!) on their A3 and A4 models?  Have I missed something? 

(I know this argument doesn't apply to Stanier Pacifics, which had pivoting trailing trucks in real life, but worth mentioning, as we now seem to be discussing rear trucks in general.)

 

Trevor

[MatthewCarty]

This must have been discussed before (but perhaps not on this thread), so apologies for raising it again, but didn't Bachmann get over the problem of the rear truck years ago? Their A1 and A2 4-6-2s have fixed framework under the cab as per prototype (so no gap when viewed from the side) yet the flanged wheel still has enough side play to negotiate 2nd radius curves, and points, (most of the time, anyway!) In other words, an acceptable Cartazzi truck as per the original locos, to all intents and purposes. Why did Hornby feel the need to reinvent the wheel (pun intended!) on their A3 and A4 models?  Have I missed something? 

(I know this argument doesn't apply to Stanier Pacifics, which had pivoting trailing trucks in real life, but worth mentioning, as we now seem to be discussing rear trucks in general.)

 

Trevor

I've never been able to get the Bachmann pacifics to go through set track pointwork consistently with their truck arrangement (I'd say may track is quite well laid as many other large locos don't have a problem). I've therefore ended up taking the wheel set out completely, so I'd much prefer the fixed Hornby arrangement.

[bigherb]

This must have been discussed before (but perhaps not on this thread), so apologies for raising it again, but didn't Bachmann get over the problem of the rear truck years ago? Their A1 and A2 4-6-2s have fixed framework under the cab as per prototype (so no gap when viewed from the side) yet the flanged wheel still has enough side play to negotiate 2nd radius curves, and points, (most of the time, anyway!) In other words, an acceptable Cartazzi truck as per the original locos, to all intents and purposes. Why did Hornby feel the need to reinvent the wheel (pun intended!) on their A3 and A4 models?  Have I missed something? 

(I know this argument doesn't apply to Stanier Pacifics, which had pivoting trailing trucks in real life, but worth mentioning, as we now seem to be discussing rear trucks in general.)

 

Trevor

They did by making the framework over wide, just makes the loco look like it has got a fat ars*.

[No Decorum]

They did by making the framework over wide, just makes the loco look like it has got a fat ars*.

Yes, that’s the Bachmann solution. I prefer it. Others prefer the Hornby. I think that if one of the manufacturers were to have a good think about it, it would be possible to produce something better than either. (From my point of view, better than the Bachmann and much better than the Hornby.)

[Trev52A]

I can't see there will ever be a perfect solution to suit everyone, due to the inherent problem of trying to run a large (4-6-2 in particular) loco around 'normal' model railway curves - i.e. the overhang at the cab end. (There is also an overhang at the front, or course, but this does not seem to cause so much gnashing of teeth.) We can't stop the overhang, it's what happens to the rear wheelset where opinions seem to differ.

 

As far as I can see there have been three options tried by Bachmann and Hornby between them:

 

Bachmann: a fixed rear chassis with a flanged wheel. Pros: 1) As this manufacturer only makes ex-LNER examples (A1,A2 and latest A4) it is prototypical as a cartazzi truck. 2) In most cases the rear wheels stay on the track. (In my case I had to swap the wheels on one of my temperamental A1s for another set from a donor wagon!) Cons: As has been pointed out, to accommodate the extra sideplay needed, the frame under the cab is overwide.

 

Hornby (original versions): a pivoting truck with a flanged wheel. Pros: 1) Apart from the ex-LNER models this looks prototypical. 2) the wheel follows the track. Cons: There is a gap above the wheel which is noticeable when viewed from the side. 

 

Hornby (latest versions): a fixed rear chassis with a flangeless wheel. Pros: 1) Looks prototypical for the LNER locos only. 2) Lots of detail (e.g. pipework) can be included under the cab, as nothing has to swing out of the way. (I thought this was the main reason given by Hornby for this new style of fixed chassis, but I may be wrong.) 3) No gap visible below the cab. Cons: 1) Doesn't look 'right' for non-LNER locos (i.e. BR Standard Pacifics, Bulleid Pacifics and of course Stanier Pacifics. 2) The rear wheel has no flange and is overwide compared with the others. 3) The rear wheel hovers above the track and is particularly noticeable when traversing curves and points, although those modellers with more generous curves on their layouts are more forgiving in this respect.

 

I think I am being objective on the matter, but can anyone add to the Pros and Cons of the above? Perhaps there is no 'right' solution, but until one is found those of us with 'normal' trackwork will have to make the best of it or perhaps modify what the manufacturers give us, as many experienced modellers on this site have done.

 

I would have loved to have a model of a maroon 46257 'City of Salford', complete with cabside yellow stripe as I remember it (sadly the only modified 'Coronation' I saw) but the fixed rear wheel is a bit of a put off for me, anyway. (I know the yellow stripe is regarded as sacrilege by many, but for me it's a nostalgia thing!)

 

Trevor

Edited August 23, 2017 by Trev52A

[Pete the Elaner]

I agree. There is no 1 solution which will please everybody.

Sacrilege for me is a 5 digit number starting with a 4    but I would let you get away with City of Salford since it was the only one of the class not in service during LMS days.

[coachmann]

I would have loved to have a model of a maroon 46257 'City of Salford', complete with cabside yellow stripe as I remember it (sadly the only modified 'Coronation' I saw) but the fixed rear wheel is a bit of a put off for me, anyway. (I know the yellow stripe is regarded as sacrilege by many, but for me it's a nostalgia thing!)

Before you do that or worry about the trailing truck,  you need to reflect on the fact that this loco was never maroon! 

[rembrow]

To me, the Hornby method is the better solution rather than having a swinging rear truck with compromises to the detailing of the ashpan and excessive gaps visible from the side. I have the new Unrebuilt Merchant Navy, which has the fixed truck, as opposed to the Rebuilt version and the Battle of Britain/West Countrys which have swinging rear trucks. In the Southern examples with the moving trucks, the aspan sides are almost two dimensional end sides, in order to give the clearance that the side movement of the truck needs and have an unsightly gap between the ashpan and firebox sides, to allow vertical movement of the truck. On the recent Unrebuilt Merchant Navy, the ashpan and firebox sides are now fully detailed and have depth, with no unsightly gaps. The rear truck on the Unrebuilt MN is very detailed and has see through gaps above the connecting frame and the rear of the truck, this is achieved by making the truck frame as a separate moulding. It is held in place by a locating pip at the place where it would pivot and a screw in the frame section before the axleboxes. By removing the screw the whole frame drops off and you could file off the locating sections of the tooling and fit a self tapping screw at the place where the rear locating pip is. You would need to create a sleeve for the wheelset. This would give some side to side movement, but would be limited due to the depth that Hornby have tooled in for the lower firebox and ashpan.

 

We mustn't forget that Hornby while creating detailed models, are trying to cater for a wide range of uses of their models, so that this model can be used by those with more generous curves, as well as those with trainset curves. They have to pitch their products to a wider market, although I suspect that the old Stanier Coronation tooling will be used in future trainsets, rather than this model.

 

So yes there are as far as I can see, two compromises, flangeless rear wheels on the rear truck and a rear truck that doesn't move from side to side. For me, I cannot see the lack of a wheel flange, as the wheel is in shadow from the sideframe of the truck, and most of my viewing on the layout is from above. The lack of side to side movement is a compromise that is worth the benefit achieved of the extra detail. The sideways movement in reality, was limited, so this option avoids the excessive swing visible on layouts with tight curves.

[Trev52A]

@ coachmann

 

Before you do that or worry about the trailing truck,  you need to reflect on the fact that this loco was never maroon! 

 

Well spotted, sir! - my mistake. Nostalgia isn't what it used to be. You got in before I realised the error. (In fact the only maroon one I saw was 46244 'King George VI')

 

(Of course, I could invoke 'Rule 1', but I don't think I'd get away with that!)

 

Trevor

Edited August 23, 2017 by Trev52A

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...I think I am being objective on the matter, but can anyone add to the Pros and Cons of the above? Perhaps there is no 'right' solution, but until one is found those of us with 'normal' trackwork will have to make the best of it or perhaps modify what the manufacturers give us, as many experienced modellers on this site have done...

Without a flanged wheel at the rear, there is no potential for any side control at the rear, which can lead to a long loco either yawing - usually pivoting centred in the coupled wheelbase - or crabbing along at an angle to the rails. This is very noticeable if you are of the 'belt them along school' as I am. (Why else have a stretch of 90mph ECML where high speed running is de rigueur? I don't see the elements of the layout where it leaves the race track for the 36" curves more appropriate to the DLR!)

 

The only long RTR OO steamer that comes fully equipped in this respect is the 9F. With the pick up wipers appropriately set to make firm contact, most of the wheelbase is self centering, to very good effect. All the other long RTR steam has to be altered; usually by making the rear truck wheelset do most of the work. It is more difficult to make the leading bogie positively recentre when it needs so much lateral flexibility for the below scale curves. This is all a damn sight easier than building the whole mechanism from a kit, so it is a compromise I can happily live with.

 

Our cousins on the left hand side of the Atlantic don't seem to care about this overhang issue.  Mallets in particular, and 4-axle trailing trucks on straight locomotives.  If you have tight curves, you get overhang; if you have sweeping curves you don't.  No need for any reuse such as fixed pivots and flangeless wheels....

But then again, some of their preserved big jobs I have crawled over, the bottom of the ashpan is clear above the wheel tops of the trailing truck beneath, and there's all the daylight in the world as a result! Even if an ash hopper drops into the truck space, between trucks with bar frames and holes through plate frames, there's still often quite a lot of daylight. It's the compactness of our very restricted loading gauge that leads to these difficulties with UK models.

[Steamport Southport]

As they've tooled the "Ivatt" version then I would expect City Of Salford to appear at some point. Either in green or 1946 style black with BRITISH RAILWAYS on the tender. Hornby seem to like the early BR liveries, there are quite a few in the current range.

 

 

 

Jason

[cctransuk]

The rear truck on the Unrebuilt MN is very detailed and has see through gaps above the connecting frame and the rear of the truck, this is achieved by making the truck frame as a separate moulding. It is held in place by a locating pip at the place where it would pivot and a screw in the frame section before the axleboxes. By removing the screw the whole frame drops off and you could file off the locating sections of the tooling and fit a self tapping screw at the place where the rear locating pip is. You would need to create a sleeve for the wheelset. This would give some side to side movement, but would be limited due to the depth that Hornby have tooled in for the lower firebox and ashpan.as limited, so this option avoids the excessive swing visible on layouts with tight curves.

 

EXACTLY !! I think he's got it ! ..... and this is precisely what I did, and it works.

 

Even better, if Hornby put a pivot screw where the locating pip is, and another screw to lock the separate truck frame rigid - complete with unflanged wheels. Identical appearance to an integral, rigid rear truck as currently provided by Hornby - those with tight curves are happy.

 

For those of us who have more generous radii, we swap the unflanged wheels for flanged ones, and remove the locking screw. Result - a pivotting rear truck with limited side play; I, and many others who have agreed with my suggestion, are happy.

 

Everyone happy !!

 

Now, I know this is not the first time that I've suggested this - far from it. BUT, no-one has yet explained why this would not satisfy everyone. Plenty have said that it's not necessary; that rigid rear trucks are better; etc., etc. - but no-one has given a reason why it wouldn't satisfy everyone.

 

...... and yes, please do regard that as a challenge!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[No Decorum]

Instead, perhaps we could try putting flanged wheels on the trailing truck and make the bogie fixed with flangeless wheels. No? Why not? It would look awful. Back to John Isherwood’s idea.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...no-one has given a reason why it wouldn't satisfy everyone....... and yes, please do regard that as a challenge!

I will venture it, based on a conversation witnessed at a trade stand at a major show..

 

Customer making complaint of inability of model to run around his set track layout with all the supplied detail fit in place.

 

RTR manufacturer representative replies that the detail fit is optional, and either for static display or with very large radius curves should the owner have such a layout

 

Customer riposte: it is advertised as suitable for 2nd radius track therefore it should run on my layout, built from your track, with all the parts supplied fitted.

 

And so on.

 

I near lost the will to live from this customer's dogged insistence that he was so entitled; and was mightily impressed that the other party didn't tell him to take a running jump.

 

From a manufacturer's position, wholly side stepping such issues is a good method, unless they can find a way of only selling to a set of customers with a good understanding of the applicable limitations when running models on well below scale curve radii. Or, there's the cunning solution, and the quoted post gives me hope:

 

...The rear truck on the Unrebuilt MN is very detailed and has see through gaps above the connecting frame and the rear of the truck, this is achieved by making the truck frame as a separate moulding. It is held in place by a locating pip at the place where it would pivot and a screw in the frame section before the axleboxes. By removing the screw the whole frame drops off and you could file off the locating sections of the tooling and fit a self tapping screw at the place where the rear locating pip is. You would need to create a sleeve for the wheelset. This would give some side to side movement, but would be limited due to the depth that Hornby have tooled in for the lower firebox and ashpan...

Construct the model in such a way that the conversion to a pivoting truck is obvious to a customer inclined to modify their models, but don't indicate in any way that this is possible. If something of that sort also appears on the Duchess, that will be the best of both worlds.

[cctransuk]

 

Construct the model in such a way that the conversion to a pivoting truck is obvious to a customer inclined to modify their models, but don't indicate in any way that this is possible. If something of that sort also appears on the Duchess, that will be the best of both worlds.

 

Hooray !!

 

That's what I suggested to Hornby, along with getting rid of the tender 'valance', when they first announced the forthcoming Princess Coronation.

 

It seems the valance may have gone - lets hope that the 'convertible' rear truck also makes it into production.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[MikeParkin65]

Without a flanged wheel at the rear, there is no potential for any side control at the rear, which can lead to a long loco either yawing - usually pivoting centred in the coupled wheelbase - or crabbing along at an angle to the rails. This is very noticeable if you are of the 'belt them along school' as I am. (Why else have a stretch of 90mph ECML where high speed running is de rigueur? I don't see the elements of the layout where it leaves the race track for the 36" curves more appropriate to the DLR!)

 

 

If you close couple the tender of the Brits, the Clan and the Class 8 by the simple expedient of removing the cab end tender buffers they will negotiate 30 inch curves with the standard Hornby engine-tender coupling whilst remaining realistically in line because the tender prevents the cab swinging unnecessarily wide.

[MikeParkin65]

 

 

Hornby (latest versions): a fixed rear chassis with a flangeless wheel. . Cons: 1) Doesn't look 'right' for non-LNER locos (i.e. BR Standard Pacifics, Bulleid Pacifics and of course Stanier Pacifics. 2) The rear wheel has no flange and is overwide compared with the others. 3) The rear wheel hovers above the track and is particularly noticeable when traversing curves and points, although those modellers with more generous curves on their layouts are more forgiving in this respect.

 

I think I am being objective on the matter, but can anyone add to the Pros and Cons of the above? Perhaps there is no 'right' solution, but until one is found those of us with 'normal' trackwork will have to make the best of it or perhaps modify what the manufacturers give us, as many experienced modellers on this site have done.

 

 

Trevor

Number 1) of the 'cons' is entirely subjective. No Pacific looks right going around the sorts of curve we are talking about here however, ALL Pacifics look better on straight track with the fixed truck than they do with the swinging truck and associated aesthetic compromises. No 2 doesn't match my experience  - the flangeless wheel touches the track and rotates except where my dodgy tracklaying and baseboard building skills have created undulations which can rock the uncompensated chassis causing the rear to momentarily lift off the track. 

[tractionman]

On livery colour, the latest Engine Shed blog has some new comments here

 

https://www.Hornby.com/uk-en/news/the-engine-shed/the-right-maroon-plus-etched-crests-for-our-gwr-hst/

 

cheers,

 

Keith

[G-BOAF]

Latest engine shed blog also has pictures of LMS Crimson duchess OUTSIDE in sunlight, along with original LMS paint samples. Not only does it look close to the livery samples (allowing for different finish and material), but the model looks a much better shade than the studio photos in the last issue.

https://www.Hornby.com/media/wysiwyg/Hornby/Pages/EngineShed/25-08-2017/R3553_sun-3-web.jpg

Edited August 25, 2017 by G-BOAF

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

If you close couple the tender of the Brits, the Clan and the Class 8 by the simple expedient of removing the cab end tender buffers they will negotiate 30 inch curves with the standard Hornby engine-tender coupling whilst remaining realistically in line because the tender prevents the cab swinging unnecessarily wide.

I had to go look at my 2 Brits to remind myself what I did in detail, as this all happened ten years ago. Ground two notches in the rear of the truck frame castings to enable full side to side movement of the flanged wheelset within the trailing truck's cast frames, and reduced the intermediate buffer mouldings exactly as described to allow coupling on the closer hole of the *excellent drawbar arrangement. That will work down to the 30" radius required in one of my loco yards. (Amusingly one of the locos had completely lost a wire connection (2 pin plug version, decoder in loco) presumably it will be found somewhere in the detritus of an off scene area of the layout...) Indeed it doesn't waggle about. Still rate this as Hornby's best 'big engine' model all around, although I haven't had a new airsmoothed MN to look at yet.

 

* I don't believe Hornby have since used the elegant drawbar arrangement first seen on the Brit mechanism (I don't count the Clan as a separate product since it took the same mechanism) with the drawbar both correctly positioned going through the dragbox locations, and with provision of a usable scale spacing option that only required those intermediate buffer mouldings to be filed down.

[Unknown Warrior]

On livery colour, the latest Engine Shed blog has some new comments here

 

https://www.Hornby.com/uk-en/news/the-engine-shed/the-right-maroon-plus-etched-crests-for-our-gwr-hst/

 

cheers,

 

Keith

We will not know for certain until we see the finished model. I just hope that it is better than Hornby's previous efforts at Crimson Lake/Midland Red. At least this time around they do seem to be making an effort to get it somewhere near right for which they should be commended.

[JSpencer]

The colour in the latest Engine Shed looks better and redder than the previous Engine Shed (which headed close to Brown) on my screens (iPad, which is not always the same as my HP PCs).

 

Looking forwards to my Ivatt...

[Hilux5972]

Going back to the name discussion recently, the tv show Victoria may bring some conclusion. They pronounce Buccleuch as Bucluu.

[Ian Hargrave]

Going back to the name discussion recently, the tv show Victoria may bring some conclusion. They pronounce Buccleuch as Bucluu.

 

"Received pronounciation" on a tv script ? You wish...These days even BBC News readers seem to be challenged