Hornby Princess Coronation Class (Duchess)

[sandwich station]

So are the frames the same for a Princess and a Coronation then?

[pH]

Not a Duchess double header but a Pacific double header. In one of the R. Preston Hendry albums, (The Colour of Steam IIRC), there’s a photograph of a Britannia double heading a red Duchess on a heavy parcels train at Rugby.

 

.

 

This one? (apologies for the low quality - I can't remember where I first found it) - http://www.6g.nwrail.org.uk/70046jp0001.jpg

[farren]

close enough but remember Anne was not a full princess Royal anyway. There is/was a web site all about the crash with interviews detailed report papper cuttings of the time Etc. But I lost the bookmark when I lost my hard drive years ago.

[pH]

Perhaps off topic, but still about Duchesses.  I wonder why the LMR didn't double head Duchesses (i.e. two Duchesses) and only rarely had them piloted, whereas Scots were double headed quite frequently.  Super power for sure, equivalent to at least two class 50s, so performance over the section between Preston and Glasgow would have been quite transformational.

 

I'm sure I've read somewhere that Duchesses were not allowed to be piloted over the Clyde bridge into Glasgow Central.  

[sandwich station]

close enough but remember Anne was not a full princess Royal anyway. There is/was a web site all about the crash with interviews detailed report papper cuttings of the time Etc. But I lost the bookmark when I lost my hard drive years ago.

But I suspect the frames would be the same or close to the other Royal's.

[sirwilliamfrs]

The frames of 46202 were different in several ways to Coronation Class frames, the most noticeable being the unequally spaced driving wheelbase as per the Princess Royal Class. 46242's frames were repaired and sections were replaced as necessary. It has been reported that a Crewe Works fitter recalled that the front part of 46202's frames were used in the repair, but there is no firm evidence of this.

As regards double heading, the rule was that Duchesses were forbidden from being leading engine, but photos exist of 46249 and 46256, both leading Black 5s!

Edited November 6, 2017 by sirwilliamfrs

[vitalspark]

Mine has been unpacked, placed on a yard (not a metre) of track, and gently run on DC. It looks good, runs well and appears to be intact. Thank you to Derails. Now to think about DCC options - including sound? - and some very subtle weathering - anyone got any real loco reference shots? ( I am out of my comfort zone on this one!)

SWS 1.JPG

 

24 hrs after it was received.

 

 

Light weathering.. tools in the tender tunnel and open out the firing plate and most importantly real coal and showing the coal pusher.

Weathering apart nothing difficult that the average modeller could not undertake and even the weathering is not that difficult.

If its your first attempt use powders and just add a little black dust to areas like the running plate and smokebox area plus some soot over the boiler top.

Mix a little brown with black to obtain brake dust colour and apply to inner bits behind bogie and rear truck and ashpan.

Also little lighter sand colour round the sand box fillers. If you are feeling brave a little glossy weathering fluid round the lubricators and on the tender around the water filler. 

If its wrong?..a wet cloth and its gone so have a go.

I use a combination of light airbrush as a base plus weathering fluids and powders but if you start with powders only you wont have the feeling you are about to blow your £200 model!

 

Probably the single biggest improvement is coal in the tender and dead easy to do.

Coal is the one thing that scales down so take a lump and crush in a bag with pliers or the like and keep doing so until you have the right size lumps..remember its 4mm/foot.

Remove the plastic load and no its not fiddly use the edge off a craft knife or a pin and it pops out.

Then fill with coal and mix some pva glue with water 50/50 or thereabouts until its like milk then using a squeeze applicator like a pippette or an eye dropper apply droplets all over very generously and leave to sit overnight.

Don't forget to sit it on a tray with some kitchen roll under it as the excess leaks out.

I always open the firing plate and add coal there too and if you pop the tender at say 30 deg angle the excess pva happily runs out of same space and can be wiped away.

Small bits of coal and the dust residue can be scattered on the back of the tender top around the tank filler and again a bit of pva to fix.

You will now have a loco which actually looks like a loco and not a toy.

 

Finally I cannot believe the criticism I have read regarding the rear truck and how it looks when negotiating trainset curves..this is a scale model and a very good one and Hornby should be commended for their efforts.

The problem in the past was that Hornby was trying to please all modellers with their locos meaning both trainsets and the more scale club layouts whereas now they are producing locos for both..and the Duchess is quite clearly aimed at the latter and at £200 I would have thought that was clear.

This is not to say small layouts with tight curves don't deserve decent quality locos but if you scale the thing up it would be like sending a Duchess down the dock sidings!..

The answer is to buy locos that are suitable for your layout and things will then look fine.

 

 Finally on cheap and easy detailing don't forget the little things like headlamps..Lanarkshire Modelling Supplies manufacture scale LMS lamps that are high quality and drill easily allowing them to be easily fitted over the lamp irons.

 

 

 

Dave.

Edited November 6, 2017 by vitalspark

[cctransuk]

Finally I cannot believe the criticism I have read regarding the rear truck and how it looks when negotiating trainset curves.

 

Lovely weathering - congratulations.

 

On the subject of fixed rear trucks, my postings at least have referred to the lack of movement of the truck on radii far greater than trainset curves.

 

If, as I did, you saw Stanier Pacifics negotiating pointwork within station confines, you will KNOW that the trailing trucks moved very noticeably away from the straight-and-narrow. They had to - or they would have derailed; that's why they had a pivot !

 

Defenders of fixed trailing trucks can protest all they like - the real thing had a pivot for a very good reason, and its movement was definitely noticeable ON PROTOTYPICAL TRACK - not trainset curves.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Arthur]

 

That would be a nice pic!  Probably copyright protected from sharing here I think?

  

 

Sadly, yes.

 

This one? (apologies for the low quality - I can't remember where I first found it) - http://www.6g.nwrail.org.uk/70046jp0001.jpg

No, different photo. Colour, taken at a low angle and within the station environment. Different working too, obvious parcels vehicles in the consist and I’m pretty sure the Brit had one of the inset top tenders. I’ll check it out.

 

Still, that’s more evidence of double headed Pacific’s.

 

.

[vitalspark]

Lovely weathering - congratulations.

 

On the subject of fixed rear trucks, my postings at least have referred to the lack of movement of the truck on radii far greater than trainset curves.

 

If, as I did, you saw Stanier Pacifics negotiating pointwork within station confines, you will KNOW that the trailing trucks moved very noticeably away from the straight-and-narrow. They had to - or they would have derailed; that's why they had a pivot !

 

Defenders of fixed trailing trucks can protest all they like - the real thing had a pivot for a very good reason, and its movement was definitely noticeable ON PROTOTYPICAL TRACK - not trainset curves.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

 

Interesting reply John and thanks for the kind weathering comments but my quote.. which you have shortened a bit.. relates to horses for courses and was specifically aimed at the topic on post 855.

 

On a layout as depicted yes a pivoting truck would be needed but in a layout with curves this sharp I think a 4-4-0 would be a better choice if the appearance offends.

 

I would prefer a pivoting truck for realism but on other Duchesses we have..and we have around 50 with one guy who shall remain nameless having all 38!..the advantage of realism allowing the truck to move so minimally that it is not that noticeable is traded off for the inevitable daylight where daylight should not be.

Our well built and detailed DJH examples including Stanier and Salford I have to say now look inferior to this later Hornby offering and one of the most noticeable things is the lack of daylight and extra detail like rocking grate levers around the fixed truck. 

 

I am of an age that I do remember Duchesses and was in and about them at Polmadie shed from 1960 onwards and even had the privilege of a footplate trip and a seat on the left with my hand on the regulator..on '57 deputising for a failed 40..so yes you are talking to someone who does have experience of the class and I am very aware of them moving around the shed yard and over yard points with the accompanying truck pivoting but depicting the loco on the main line as the image suggested ..no..there would be no discernible movement.

We are currently constructing a new layout with the track work being to scale and prototypical with the Templot drawings scaled from o/s maps by one of our skilled track builders so the curves and point radii would be what they would be so to speak and guess what..none are less than 3ft with 4ft the norm and this includes bay platforms crossovers up to down and into yards etc. which I would suggest is typical of mainline locations that had route availability to support Pacifics.

I suspect many of the complaints are coming from either true finescale modellers.. which is valid.. or layouts that shouldn't really be running locos this size anyway unless they are happy to overlook such things.

 

Anyway I thank you for your comments and its good to engage in hopefully meaningful discussion which is what a forum is about.

 

Cheers

 

Dave.

[resin001]

Has anyone else had an issue with the front bogie wheels on their loco ?  In my case Sir William A Stanier FRS 

 

I use C&L Finescale 00 gauge track and noticed that the bogie wheels run on top of the rail chairs resulting in an unwanted clicking noise and a nodding donkey effect at the front of the loco !

I have never had this issue with any other Hornby loco including the LMS version of Duchess of Montrose and BR City of Leicester or City of Leeds 

 

I have replaced these with Gibson wheels and cured the problem and as such am very pleased .  I checked the outer rim diameter of the wheels - they are 14.15mm compared with recent Hornby Duchess wheels at 13.92mm and Gibson wheels which are 13.14mm. 

[vitalspark]

Has anyone else had an issue with the front bogie wheels on their loco ?  In my case Sir William A Stanier FRS 

 

I use C&L Finescale 00 gauge track and noticed that the bogie wheels run on top of the rail chairs resulting in an unwanted clicking noise and a nodding donkey effect at the front of the loco !

I have never had this issue with any other Hornby loco including the LMS version of Duchess of Montrose and BR City of Leicester or City of Leeds 

 

I have replaced these with Gibson wheels and cured the problem and as such am very pleased .  I checked the outer rim diameter of the wheels - they are 14.15mm compared with recent Hornby Duchess wheels at 13.92mm and Gibson wheels which are 13.14mm. 

 

 

We fit Gibsons to Hornby bogies as a matter of course and the Duchess will receive the same treatment.

 

Its usually done for appearance though as they look so much better but the originals seemed to run ok on our SMP.

 

Its interesting that the dimensions are different from previous Hornby wheels I can only take it this is to improve running on non finescale track with the thinking being that anyone who runs C&L would likely fit Gibsons anyway.

 

Have you close coupled the tender beyond the limits off the existing bar?

 

I would be interested to know as I intend to close up a bit more with either a new bar or a loop and pin coupling.

 

We are fortunate that it will run on prototypical radius track so no need for gaps as wide as even the tightest on the existing bar.

 

Dave. 

[RCAR6015]

Not a happy bunny! Took my R3555 SWS to the Solihull Model Railway Club to test run this evening.

Item received on Tuesday but not inspected until now.

Hornby quality control can only be described as " dire ". A pity that major suppliers do not have time to check for major faults prior to dispatch.

Faults include: loco chassis loose from body above the cylinders. Able to get clear daylight between both - front securing lug appears to have snapped off - a similar problem having already reported on this site just a few days ago.

Incorrectly fitted bar between loco and tender - possibly fitted the wrong way round - bar retaining screw to loco loose. Unable to get tender to sit level when on the track. The interaction between loco and tender can best be described as a " see-saw" motion.

Near side drivers door broken.

Off side cab window wind shield missing.

Battery box off running plate loose in tray.

Inner tray has two broken loose pieces above the cab, with part of the top edge of the tray just to the front of the cab being completly broken off also. However the outer polystyrene sleeve and cardboard outer show no signs of any damage.

The outer cardboard box used for despatch also shows no sign of damage, I am confident to state that that the damage was not caused during transit by the UK carrier.

I will be on the phone to the supplier at 9:30 promptly in the morning in the hope of a positive solution.

i.e. Even if they are out of stock - I need a replacement item.

I also intend to email Hornby to voice my concerns. Having paid RRP less £10.00 I should not have to receive crap!

Up date Tuesday 07/11/2017.

Have received very polite email from supplier Friday pm 03/11.

They attempted to contact the Hornby rep for S.W England on Friday but could not make contact with him, in an attempt to source a possible replacement - not heard any update since.

The retailer has requested I return the item to them asap.

Many thanks to the many members that posted their support to me over the last few days!

 

I have never attempted to post photographs on the site before, but here goes ( pictures are better than a thousand words )

 

Sorry most of the photos appear to have been taken in Australia!

[RCAR6015]

Re post 972.

Please note loco to tender drawbar has a perfect " dog leg " to it - should in not be flat?

Boxed locomotive was received as a loose/floating fit in the DPD outer poly bag.

[resin001]

We fit Gibsons to Hornby bogies as a matter of course and the Duchess will receive the same treatment.

 

Its usually done for appearance though as they look so much better but the originals seemed to run ok on our SMP.

 

Its interesting that the dimensions are different from previous Hornby wheels I can only take it this is to improve running on non finescale track with the thinking being that anyone who runs C&L would likely fit Gibsons anyway.

 

Have you close coupled the tender beyond the limits off the existing bar?

 

I would be interested to know as I intend to close up a bit more with either a new bar or a loop and pin coupling.

 

We are fortunate that it will run on prototypical radius track so no need for gaps as wide as even the tightest on the existing bar.

 

Dave. 

 

Hi Dave 

 

I intend to fit a new tender coupling bar as the gap is to wide for my liking , I will fabricate my own from metal strip - I did attempt to close the gap using the Hornby bar but it snagged against the tender power socket ! 

[cctransuk]

I would prefer a pivoting truck for realism but on other Duchesses we have..and we have around 50 with one guy who shall remain nameless having all 38!..the advantage of realism allowing the truck to move so minimally that it is not that noticeable is traded off for the inevitable daylight where daylight should not be.

 

Our well built and detailed DJH examples including Stanier and Salford I have to say now look inferior to this later Hornby offering and one of the most noticeable things is the lack of daylight and extra detail like rocking grate levers around the fixed truck. 

 

I have now, finally, had chance to examine my 'Sir William A. Stanier F.R.S' and I have to say that, IMHO, the design that Hornby have used for the trailing truck achieves exactly the opposite of what the prototype looked like. There was daylight between the ashpan and the truck - there had to be to allow the latter to move. What the Hornby model has is a darned great chunk of mazak; (to carry the fixed trailing axle); where there should be fresh air.

 

The design is pretty much the same as Hornby use on their Bulleid Pacifics except that, in this case, the separate trailing truck is moulded in plastic / nylon. With the cosmetic trailing truck removed, the loco looks reminiscent of a Raven Pacific, with frames continuing to the back of the cab. In reality, there should be nothing below the ashpan other than the rocking grate levers.

 

The plastic / nylon trailing truck is fixed to the cast chassis block with a single crew, through a square lug that fits into a recesses, thus preventing rotation. It will be easy to round-off this lug to permit the truck to pivot.

 

The space between the inside faces of the trailing truck frames is 27mm.; thus there is plenty space to fit spacers behind the frames, with holes drilled for top-hat bearings to take a pinpoint axle. The roller bearings of the trailing truck are separate mouldings, glued in place. Hopefully, it will be possible to remove these temporarily to allow the work to the truck to be undertaken more easily.

 

The inner reinforcing rim inside the truck moulding is too large to allow the supplied flanged wheels to rotate; a touch or two with a rat-tailed file will remedy this.

 

The hardest, and most stressful, job will be to take a piercing saw to the fictional area of cast frames below the ashpan - but I've done it successfully with my Bulleid Pacifics. I will probably retain a chunk of the piece cut off, where it will be hidden by the truck frames, and fix it in place as a ballast weight for the pivoting truck.

 

So - all this talk about Hornby being 'forced' to use this form of fixed rear truck in order to accommodate lower frame detail and avoid daylight where it shouldn't be is, frankly, tosh; (I was thinking of a more direct description)! What it actually produces is solid metal where it should NOT be.

 

My suggestion to Hornby, at the earliest design stage of this model, of a pivotting trailing truck with a second locking / raising screw, and alternative flanged and unflanged wheels remains valid. It would have been easier to produce, and would have offered either prototypical pivotting flanged wheels for those with suitable curves, or fixed unflanged wheels for those who are 'radially-challenged'.

 

Fortunately, Hornby listened to my other suggestion, and the Stanier tender 'valance' is no more; shame they didn't go the extra mile with the trailing truck!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Robin Brasher]

At the Godlingston trials I compared he performance of my Wrenn 'City of Liverpool' with my Hornby' Duchess of Atholl'. The Wrenn locomotive weighed about 676 grammes compared with 437 grammes for the Hornby Duchess. They both comfortably managed a 14 coach train of ten wooden bodied period 1 and four period 3 Stanier coaches. I am having difficulty finding Hornby Stanier coaches although the Railroad versions seem to be in plentiful supply. It is easy to get Palitoy, Replica and Bachmann period 1 coaches.

 

The 'Duchess of Atholl' started at 40% on my Gaugemaster controller and I ran it at 60%. Unfortunately the front bogie derailed on each circuit. There was no obvious reason but I think one of the track pins was protruding. None of the coaches derailed so it looks like the Duchess will only run on perfect track. I will have to get out the track gang. It ran on less power than my Hornby H class.

 

The 'City of Liverpool' needed a prod to start and I ran it at full power. It ran very well and started at 70% power the second time. There were no derailments and I could have left it running while I made a cup of tea.

 

The Hornby box is much more attractive than the Wrenn box. A replica Hornby Dublo 3-rail box had an attractive illustration of their 'City of Liverpool' which is where Hornby Dublo made their models.

[Francis deWeck]

Lovely weathering - congratulations.

 

On the subject of fixed rear trucks, my postings at least have referred to the lack of movement of the truck on radii far greater than trainset curves.

 

If, as I did, you saw Stanier Pacifics negotiating pointwork within station confines, you will KNOW that the trailing trucks moved very noticeably away from the straight-and-narrow. They had to - or they would have derailed; that's why they had a pivot !

 

Defenders of fixed trailing trucks can protest all they like - the real thing had a pivot for a very good reason, and its movement was definitely noticeable ON PROTOTYPICAL TRACK - not trainset curves.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Would that SK view this, he is impervious to my opinions. I looked into the frames of the Princess at Swanwick within their shed and it was obvious that the trailing truck would pivot, you have just confirmed my view.

[Flying Pig]

I have now, finally, had chance to examine my 'Sir William A. Stanier F.R.S' and I have to say that, IMHO, the design that Hornby have used for the trailing truck achieves exactly the opposite of what the prototype looked like. There was daylight between the ashpan and the truck - there had to be to allow the latter to move. What the Hornby model has is a darned great chunk of mazak; (to carry the fixed trailing axle); where there should be fresh air.

 

The design is pretty much the same as Hornby use on their Bulleid Pacifics except that, in this case, the separate trailing truck is moulded in plastic / nylon. With the cosmetic trailing truck removed, the loco looks reminiscent of a Raven Pacific, with frames continuing to the back of the cab. In reality, there should be nothing below the ashpan other than the rocking grate levers.

 

There was very little daylight when viewed from the side - look at this illustration - and there were cast inside frames below the ashpan. There is too much inside frame on the Hornby model, to provide inside bearings for the wheels, but that part is hidden by the truck anyway. It could be removed if you decide to make your truck swing, but please don't cut right up to the ashpan.

[cctransuk]

There was very little daylight when viewed from the side - look at this illustration - and there were cast inside frames below the ashpan. There is too much inside frame on the Hornby model, to provide inside bearings for the wheels, but that part is hidden by the truck anyway. It could be removed if you decide to make your truck swing, but please don't cut right up to the ashpan.

 

Can anyone point me to a drawing that shows the profile of the rear cast frames of 46256, please?

 

Thanks in anticipation,

John Isherwood.

[coachmann]

There is barely any daylight to be seen around the rear truck because the ashpan is below the level of the truck's casting. In order to allow said truck to swing on a model, it should be patently obvious that a whopping arc would have to be cut in the ashpan and grate to accommodate the wheels and spring hangers if a swinging truck is to suit all buyers. It wasn't necessary on real locos and some might feel it unbelievable that Hornbys workaround has come in for criticism... ......Nothing is going to change!

Edited November 7, 2017 by coachmann

[Guest Midland Mole]

Perhaps Hornby should rebrand their Railroad range "Trainset Range" and anything with compromise goes into it, and the more accurate models go into the  "Adult Scale Modeller Range" for those who can appreciate the finer things in life...Discuss.

 

*offers jf2682 his tin helmet and a place in his foxhole* ....incoming!

 

Alex

Edited November 7, 2017 by Midland Mole

[railroadbill]

Can anyone point me to a drawing that shows the profile of the rear cast frames of 46256, please?

 

Thanks in anticipation,

John Isherwood.

John,

I've got  F J Roche  oo drawings of  SWS, #ML11 and also a Duchess, #ML14 dated Jan 1948 and April 1948 respectively. Don't know how totally accurate they are but they do  show the different trailing truck arrangement for each version.

 

 

PM'd you.

Edited November 7, 2017 by railroadbill

[railroadbill]

Small part of each drawing, don't think this will infringe copyright but I'll delete post if mod requests.

Hope this shows the under cab trailing wheel arrangements ok and may be of some help.

 

 

SWS

 

 

 

 

Duchess

[cctransuk]

There is barely any daylight to be seen around the rear truck because the ashpan is below the level of the truck's casting. In order to allow said truck to swing on a model, it should be patently obvious that a whopping arc would have to be cut in the ashpan and grate to accommodate the wheels and spring hangers if a swinging truck is to suit all buyers. It wasn't necessary on real locos and some might feel it unbelievable that Hornbys workaround has come in for criticism... ......Nothing is going to change!

 

Coach,

 

At no point have I ever suggested that a pivotting rear truck will "suit all buyers" - in fact, I have (repeatedly) pointed out that alternative fixed / flangeless and pivotting / flanged arrangements can be incorporated into the SAME design. I have described this design (repeatedly) here, and to Hornby themselves.

 

With prototypical frames / ashpan / grate, the rotation of the trailing truck would be restricted, of course; but I remain to be convinced that any "whopping arc would have to be cut in the ashpan and grate to accommodate the wheels and spring hangers if a swinging truck" is provided.

 

Anyway, we'll see, as I fully intend to try the conversion - hence my request for the rear frame profile. If I am incorrect, I will gladly admit the fact.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Edited November 8, 2017 by cctransuk