OO gauge GWR Mogul and Prairie

[boxbrownie]

2 hours ago, melmerby said:

Mabuchi were making decent can motors in the '60s, so i can't see why we were still wedded to large open frame motors similar to X04s let alone replacing them with crap pancakes.

I suppose it was the "British is Best" attitude even when better things were avaiable elsewhere.

Probably literally down to pence versus pounds.

[The Johnster]

The pancakes were cheap (and nasty), and there was no culture of good slow performance in RTR; the view was that they were good enough for the sort of people that bought RTR, and if you wanted something better you built kits.  My modelling life has been a long war with poor running RTR that has eventually been won with the help of my allies, the Chinese, and their cheap as chips but seriously good can motors and two stage cog drives, but constant vigilance must be maintained against backsliding...

 

Pancakes are for eating, with lemon and a little sugar, or melted cheese and ham, not for powering little electric trains.  They weren't called pancakes at the time, they were 'ringfield' in an attempt to capitalise on the 'British dammit Carruthers traditional engineering' of Hornby Dublo, still fresh in peoples' minds, and their much vaunted ringfield motor.  Actually, the HD ringfield wasn't that good, but the sheer size of it and the weight of the models enabled smooth starting and stopping.  Slow controlled running was another matter; not much would beat a well set up Rovex Jinty for that! 

 

Edited January 2, 2022 by The Johnster

[melmerby]

43 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

 

 

Pancakes are for eating, with lemon and a little sugar, or melted cheese and ham, not for powering little electric trains.  They weren't called pancakes at the time, they were 'ringfield' in an attempt to capitalise on the 'British dammit Carruthers traditional engineering' of Hornby Dublo, still fresh in peoples' minds, and their much vaunted ringfield motor. 

 

Two distinct motor types

Pancakes had a pair of (rather small) magnets set either side of the (equally small) armature, in the same manner as can motors but were a very flattened shape and were popular with Mainline.

Ringfield motors contain, as it says, a ring magnet completely around the armature and are generally more powerful, if still a bit rough and slow to respond.

Hornby Dublo ringfields were normally vertical or nearly horizontal, in line, using a worm wheel to change the direction of drive, Hornby and others had their Ringfields side on in the same way as Mainline's motors, with a train of normal gear wheels to the wheels.

[DCB]

On 02/01/2022 at 15:33, melmerby said:

Two distinct motor types

Pancakes had a pair of (rather small) magnets set either side of the (equally small) armature, in the same manner as can motors but were a very flattened shape and were popular with Mainline.

Ringfield motors contain, as it says, a ring magnet completely around the armature and are generally more powerful, if still a bit rough and slow to respond.

Hornby Dublo ringfields were normally vertical or nearly horizontal, in line, using a worm wheel to change the direction of drive, Hornby and others had their Ringfields side on in the same way as Mainline's motors, with a train of normal gear wheels to the wheels.

 

All the ringfields had very high geared and /or coarse gear trains while the coreless have low geared free running often two stage gear trains.  It's not a fair comparison.  I had a Wrenn 8F Ringfield motor on 60:1 Romford gears in a GWR 42XX which ran happily at 20rpm relentlessly and pointless down a siding one evening.   That's a scale 1/4 MPH.   It was completely useless as it broke coupling rods and wouldn't go round corners.  The coreless motors would struggle to equal it for slow running without  a flywheel.    By contrast RTR Coreless don't seem to be big enough to run decent length trains at reasonable speed.   Think I'll stick to putting 5 pole armatures and super neo magnets in X04s.

[melmerby]

12 hours ago, DCB said:

 

All the ringfields had very high geared and /or coarse gear trains while the coreless have low geared free running often two stage gear trains.  It's not a fair comparison. 

So you bring in something I never mentioned (coreless) and then say it's not a fair comparison.

Unbelievable.

[Guest]

On 02/01/2022 at 14:35, The Johnster said:

My modelling life has been a long war with poor running RTR that has eventually been won with the help of my allies, the Chinese, .......

..... Slow controlled running was another matter; not much would beat a well set up Rovex Jinty for that! 

Ha ha, I had a Jinty from 1964 till about 6 years ago when it spectacularly caught fire.  Was well built and still have since I was 3 yrs old (now 64) a @1958 Triang Transcontinental blue/yellow diesel that still works and has original headlight that still works works!  And also a  Princess Elizabeth from same time.  These locos have had more use than any post 2000 engines they seem bullet proof. 

 

Anyway back to Dapol talking to some others on my walks to local clubhouse, this Dapol prairie seems full of issues not just the rear pony.  I think I will get a Baccy 4575 small one instead, some still around new.

[JST]

3 hours ago, confused said:

Anyway back to Dapol talking to some others on my walks to local clubhouse, this Dapol prairie seems full of issues not just the rear pony.  I think I will get a Baccy 4575 small one instead, some still around new.

 I have a Bachmann 4575 which I love dearly but I have had issues with it. I had to modify the coupling height, sort out a pony truck issue but the main problem was erratic running. In the end it went back to Bachmann who fitted new wheels and pickups but still the problem persisted. I solved it by fitting a stay alive and now it runs perfectly (Zimo chip). The point of the story seems to be that all manufacturers are having issues not just Dapol.

[Guest]

On 04/01/2022 at 14:04, JST said:

 I have a Bachmann 4575 which I love dearly but I have had issues with it. I had to modify the coupling height, sort out a pony truck issue but the main problem was erratic running. In the end it went back to Bachmann who fitted new wheels and pickups but still the problem persisted. I solved it by fitting a stay alive and now it runs perfectly (Zimo chip). The point of the story seems to be that all manufacturers are having issues not just Dapol.

That's a shame, coupling height is a problem with all Baccy locos but at least its not major.  I run DC only, however I've probably been lucky my 4 Baccy's all run perfectly, but Dapol just seem to have more issues than the others, I really wanted a Mogul as a Manor is a bit larger than I want, but gave up when my local shop returned most of theirs and then waited months to get refund from Dapol.  They have stopped doing Dapol altogether now, and so has my other nearest shop, one is not doing Hornby anymore from this new year just Bachmann.

 

Be interesting to see how Accura fair.  so may have to get the Manor.

 

EDIT: 6 Baccys, forgot 121 bubble car and 3 car DMU.

Edited January 5, 2022 by Guest
Added info.

[JST]

I have an Accuracies Manor on order and hope it will be fine.

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, JST said:

 I have a Bachmann 4575 which I love dearly but I have had issues with it. I had to modify the coupling height, sort out a pony truck issue but the main problem was erratic running. In the end it went back to Bachmann who fitted new wheels and pickups but still the problem persisted. I solved it by fitting a stay alive and now it runs perfectly (Zimo chip). The point of the story seems to be that all manufacturers are having issues not just Dapol.

I've got 4 of them, three 45XX & one 4575 and never had a problem with any of them.

All fitted with Lenz Standard +, two wired in (pre-socket) and two using the 8 pin socket.

Edited January 4, 2022 by melmerby

[The Johnster]

No manufacturer has a perfect record when it comes to QC, as we live in the real world and not some magical place where 100% perfection is possible.  But a consistent high rate of successful QC should be achieveable from companies using the same 'system' of manufacture and assembly by Chinese subcontractors.  Without naming names, however, some are better than others, we know who!  My own experience of the two main players is that one is significantly better than the other in this respect, their locos run more consistently and need less cleaning and pickup-tweaking in general.

 

It is rational to assume that there is a reason for this, and it is I believe (this is a subjective view and I have no facts to back it up beyond my own experience) connected to the fact that one of these two charges about 20-25% more for otherwise comparable models.  You get the level of QC that you pay the Chinese subcontractors for, no more no less. 

 

How this relates to Dapol is not within my experience to comment on, but I have a general  suspicion of them having had numerous issues with their rolling stock, which is more trouble than it is worth until the couplings and wheels are replaced, which I factor in to any purchase I make of them.  The nearest I have to a Dapol loco is a secondhand Hornby J94, which is not to Hornby's usual design.  It can give excellent performance and slow running, but is hypersensitive to railhead dirt; I reckon the chassis is too rigid and, as I've said, could do with some vertical play in the centre axle.  I have improved it quite a bit by ballasting.

 

It is undeniable that different mechs have different running characteristics, and once you have 'learned' them, which you can only do by frequent running in operating sessions, you can develop control techniques that will assist them to give of their best.  I am a DC Luddite, but chipping and DCC setup will, I am sure, help with this, at the cost of introducing a further level of complication and potential problems to sort out. 

 

Gear ratios, expressed as motor rpm to driving wheel rpm, are significant in providing good slow running performance, and the 60:1 8F mentioned in the previous post is a good example.  I have thought for many years that the gear ratios of RTR steam outline models are far too high, and the aforementioned Jinty was normal for those says at 20:1 or so, which gave ridiculous top speeds, but in those days it was much easier to swap out the wheels and worm/cog gears to increase the ratio.  This was a balancing act, the higher the ratio the slower your loco ran and more power was put down on to the rail, but at the cost of top speed and possible difficult/excessive wear.  For 60:1 or higher ratios, meshing was critical and difficult to achieve until the days of precision gearboxes, part of the 1970s/80s Portescap revolution. 

 

I found 40:1 adequate for most of my needs, but put it in a Westward 64xx which was actually a little slow for it's work.  Current RTR is acceptable at around the30:1 level, but could benefit by being a little higher from my pov.  My Hornby J94 has quite a high ratio and low top speed, but a shunting loco does not need to run fast.  My Hornby W4 Peckett is a little overgeared for it's work but is capable of good very low speed performance, and it would be difficult to put a final drive gear with more teeth in such a tiny mech.  I cannot expect RTR designers to gear locos for my needs on a small BLT where any capability over a scale 40mph tops, and where the mineral trains struggle to get much above a scale 20mph; they have to consider customers who want to run expresses at scale 90 or more, and despite the gearing effect of the size of the driving wheel diameters, 40:1 will struggle to achieve this, especially as the load will reduce the motor rpm. 

 

Those like me who are concerned with very slow, controllable, smooth running on DC are asking a lot of the volume production engineering in our RTR locos.  The loco must be capable of responding accurately to changes in very low voltage, the very situation where track or pickup dirt, mechanical resistance, and poor lubrication have their maximum effect.  Setting up the model to minimise these effects can provide significant improvements; for example my J94 is very sensitive to the precisely correct torque being applied to the motor and keeper plate retaining screws, and this specification can alter with ambient temperature and humidity.  This is a matter of knowing your model and how to get the best out of her.  My Baccy locos just plug on regardless, but each mech needs a slightly different driving technique and has a different 'feel' on the controller.

 

The use of Portescap motors with very high quality integran gearboxes was very influential to the current RTR method of can motor and 2-stage worm/cog drive.  With split chassis pickup removing the braking effect of pickups, and coreless motors, the model can be made very free-running, a pre-requisite for the best slow running performance, and the only limit to this is the gearbox, which can be made very efficient, but this can only be achieved at the cost of an increase in, well, cost.  Previous split chassis RTR from the 80s and 90s has a poor reputation caused by the use of poor materials, inefficient spur gear trains, and poor design, and making gearboxes that exploit the free running a well made split chassis, axles, wheels, and motion can potentially provide is very expensive high precision engineering unsuited to volume production.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

My Baccy locos just plug on regardless......

As do mine, dead or alive points no stalling with driving wheel pickup only.

[Les1952]

6 hours ago, The Johnster said:

  The nearest I have to a Dapol loco is a secondhand Hornby J94, which is not to Hornby's usual design.  It can give excellent performance and slow running, but is hypersensitive to railhead dirt; I reckon the chassis is too rigid and, as I've said, could do with some vertical play in the centre axle.  I have improved it quite a bit by ballasting.

 

 

Not a representative sample of Dapol's locos- my Dapol J94s are coming up to 40 years old - still all capable of a full day of exhibition running and all DCC fitted by me then one upgraded to sound by Digitrains.  The Hornby ones, while having a better motor inside them and some general tidying up are still basically a 40-year old design.   These run perfectly WITHOUT the tank weights (easier than cutting the weight to give room for the chip and speaker) but don't have issues with track dirt and still can haul eight heavy kitbuilt coaches on the level.  The sound-fitted one has stay alive, the others not.

 

Surely a reasonable comparison is  with a 40-year old "Bachmann" (Mainline at that time) J72?  As we all know the current Bachmann J72 is one of the best locos on the market, though mine has an issue with a point on the club layout that fails to defeat any other steam loco that runs over it......

 

Les

[JST]

20 hours ago, The Johnster said:

No manufacturer has a perfect record when it comes to QC, as we live in the real world and not some magical place where 100% perfection is possible.  But a consistent high rate of successful QC should be achieveable from companies using the same 'system' of manufacture and assembly by Chinese subcontractors.  Without naming names, however, some are better than others, we know who!  My own experience of the two main players is that one is significantly better than the other in this respect, their locos run more consistently and need less cleaning and pickup-tweaking in general.

 

It is rational to assume that there is a reason for this, and it is I believe (this is a subjective view and I have no facts to back it up beyond my own experience) connected to the fact that one of these two charges about 20-25% more for otherwise comparable models.  You get the level of QC that you pay the Chinese subcontractors for, no more no less. 

 

How this relates to Dapol is not within my experience to comment on, but I have a general  suspicion of them having had numerous issues with their rolling stock, which is more trouble than it is worth until the couplings and wheels are replaced, which I factor in to any purchase I make of them.  The nearest I have to a Dapol loco is a secondhand Hornby J94, which is not to Hornby's usual design.  It can give excellent performance and slow running, but is hypersensitive to railhead dirt; I reckon the chassis is too rigid and, as I've said, could do with some vertical play in the centre axle.  I have improved it quite a bit by ballasting.

 

It is undeniable that different mechs have different running characteristics, and once you have 'learned' them, which you can only do by frequent running in operating sessions, you can develop control techniques that will assist them to give of their best.  I am a DC Luddite, but chipping and DCC setup will, I am sure, help with this, at the cost of introducing a further level of complication and potential problems to sort out. 

 

Gear ratios, expressed as motor rpm to driving wheel rpm, are significant in providing good slow running performance, and the 60:1 8F mentioned in the previous post is a good example.  I have thought for many years that the gear ratios of RTR steam outline models are far too high, and the aforementioned Jinty was normal for those says at 20:1 or so, which gave ridiculous top speeds, but in those days it was much easier to swap out the wheels and worm/cog gears to increase the ratio.  This was a balancing act, the higher the ratio the slower your loco ran and more power was put down on to the rail, but at the cost of top speed and possible difficult/excessive wear.  For 60:1 or higher ratios, meshing was critical and difficult to achieve until the days of precision gearboxes, part of the 1970s/80s Portescap revolution. 

 

I found 40:1 adequate for most of my needs, but put it in a Westward 64xx which was actually a little slow for it's work.  Current RTR is acceptable at around the30:1 level, but could benefit by being a little higher from my pov.  My Hornby J94 has quite a high ratio and low top speed, but a shunting loco does not need to run fast.  My Hornby W4 Peckett is a little overgeared for it's work but is capable of good very low speed performance, and it would be difficult to put a final drive gear with more teeth in such a tiny mech.  I cannot expect RTR designers to gear locos for my needs on a small BLT where any capability over a scale 40mph tops, and where the mineral trains struggle to get much above a scale 20mph; they have to consider customers who want to run expresses at scale 90 or more, and despite the gearing effect of the size of the driving wheel diameters, 40:1 will struggle to achieve this, especially as the load will reduce the motor rpm. 

 

Those like me who are concerned with very slow, controllable, smooth running on DC are asking a lot of the volume production engineering in our RTR locos.  The loco must be capable of responding accurately to changes in very low voltage, the very situation where track or pickup dirt, mechanical resistance, and poor lubrication have their maximum effect.  Setting up the model to minimise these effects can provide significant improvements; for example my J94 is very sensitive to the precisely correct torque being applied to the motor and keeper plate retaining screws, and this specification can alter with ambient temperature and humidity.  This is a matter of knowing your model and how to get the best out of her.  My Baccy locos just plug on regardless, but each mech needs a slightly different driving technique and has a different 'feel' on the controller.

 

The use of Portescap motors with very high quality integran gearboxes was very influential to the current RTR method of can motor and 2-stage worm/cog drive.  With split chassis pickup removing the braking effect of pickups, and coreless motors, the model can be made very free-running, a pre-requisite for the best slow running performance, and the only limit to this is the gearbox, which can be made very efficient, but this can only be achieved at the cost of an increase in, well, cost.  Previous split chassis RTR from the 80s and 90s has a poor reputation caused by the use of poor materials, inefficient spur gear trains, and poor design, and making gearboxes that exploit the free running a well made split chassis, axles, wheels, and motion can potentially provide is very expensive high precision engineering unsuited to volume production.

 An interesting read thank you and I can't disagree with the principle of anything you said. I have bought a lot of new RTR locos over the past few years (don't tell my wife) and can only reflect on my own experiences. Oddly, given some of the comments in this thread, the best performer straight out of the box has been my factory sound fitted Dapol Mogul. It runs superbly in all respects and I cannot think of any improvement I would want to make. There have been views that the gearing is too high on this model but you would not think that seeing mine run. The other end of the scale were my Bachmann Prairie, 64xx Pannier and "Evening Star" 9F all of which had running issues. The prairie and 64xx have now been sorted and the 9F is gradually getting better (stiff point on gearing which I guess is "running in"). My Hornby locos are not as good as the Mogul but fine. Hey ho.... you pays yer money................

[melmerby]

51 minutes ago, JST said:

 An interesting read thank you and I can't disagree with the principle of anything you said. I have bought a lot of new RTR locos over the past few years (don't tell my wife) and can only reflect on my own experiences. Oddly, given some of the comments in this thread, the best performer straight out of the box has been my factory sound fitted Dapol Mogul. It runs superbly in all respects and I cannot think of any improvement I would want to make. There have been views that the gearing is too high on this model but you would not think that seeing mine run. The other end of the scale were my Bachmann Prairie, 64xx Pannier and "Evening Star" 9F all of which had running issues. The prairie and 64xx have now been sorted and the 9F is gradually getting better (stiff point on gearing which I guess is "running in"). My Hornby locos are not as good as the Mogul but fine. Hey ho.... you pays yer money................

If as we understand it, the decoders are fitted by Dapol in the UK, how much fettling gets done to make it a good runner before despatch?

As received, the overhigh gearing means it has to be "throttled back" in the decoder, else it runs way too fast. A sign of a poor choice of gear ratio.

The best locos I have are the ones that run at near to typical speed out of the box.

That means it's easy to speed profile the loco properly without resorting to weird values to tame it, as with the Mogul.

 

[The Johnster]

I have 3 Baccy small prairies, a 45xx and 2 4575s, all of which run superbly well and reliably.  The 4575s are used on auto work, so smooth stops and starts are probably more important to me than slow running, but the 45xx does an occasional turn on the pickup, which requires slow speed control of a high standard; the locos are all capable of all of this.  I also have 2 Baccy 56xx, 2 57xx, 2 8750s, a Hornby 2721 with a Baccy 57xx chassis, and a 94xx, all of which perform faultlessly.  These locos are the core of the fleet.  In addition, a Baccy BR Standard 3MT tank puts in an occasional appearance.  It has become well behaved, but took a good while to completely bed in for good smooth slow running.  There is also a secondhand Ivatt 4MT that is to be butchered as the basis of a mech for a Collett 1938 31xx, another excellent runner.  These locomotives are a delight to own and as good as it is reasonable to expect from volume produced items.  Happy customer no connection to Bachmann, speaking as I find from experience on a small BLT where loads are not an issue but where running in can take a long time even with my frequent, almost daily, operating sessions.  Incidentally, I am of the subjective view that frequent operation is a major factor in good running...

 

Now, to the Hornbys.  The best of these by a handsome margin is the Peckett W4, a colliery shunter, which ought to be the worst given it's size, pickup limitations (I use Peco insulfrog medium turnouts), and inevitable high gearing, but it trancends all of that and gives near-perfect running.  But was a bit hesitant at first, and took a long time to fully run in.  It also gave some problems with the motion jamming, solved by taking it down and re-assembling it. 

 

Then there is a 42xx, the later one not the 'design clever' version.  This is superb in main line running, plodding along just like a 42xx, but a bit stiff for precision shunting, and has given trouble with the right hand piston coming out of the cylinder, and loosening of the big end crankpin bolt (these may be related).  I've got around the problem by cheating; the loco always faces up the valley as a South Wales engine should and the right side is not visible, so I've simple removed the piston/xhead/conrod assembly.  This loco has also given trouble with bits falling off, a frequent Hornby complaint if comments here are anything to go by, and I have replaced the buffers with retrofit sprung ones after losing two of them.  The rear NEM coupler came out of it's box on the first run, probably not pushed home properly in assembly.

 

Large Prairie; looks amazing, but needed a lot of extra ballasting to run smoothly, and still not the best at low speeds.  It seems unpredictable, sometimes feeling stiff on the controller and then running off a double the speed in a completely unexpected and unprovoked manner.  It has also given the same right hand piston problem as the 42xx, but only once so far and I'm hoping it doesn't repeat.  I have to keep an eye on the rh big end crankpin bolt, which works loose and occasionally has to have a seeing to from Mr Nutspinner.

 

J94 Austerity; As has been pointed out, this is not a pure Hornby model but one they inherited from 'old' Dapol.  It's a pretty old tooling and one might not expect it to be up to the mark for current good quality RTR, but it is nonetheless capable of very good slow running, with the proviso that it is track- and dirt-sesnitive.  It needs a good bit of fettling to give it's best, and by modern standards is quite noisy, not that this bothers me much having been brought up in the days Rovex Princesses and the eldritch tormented soul howling of the Triang/Rovex Southern emu's power bogie...

 

I do not use DCC and the continual 12v supply with the use of stayalives might improve matters with the 42xx and 5101.  I might have been better off waiting for the Dapol large prairie, but I was up for a bit of retail therapy when i bought the Hornby just before xmas 2019, and Bure Valley Models offered 6145 in BR unicycling black, the livery I wanted, for a very good new price, and impatience/the 'Bright Shiny New Thing Make It All Better' syndrome got the better of me.  I cannot really justify another 5101 now.

 

It would be far too simplistic to take from this post the concept 'Bachman good, Hornby bad'.  I am of the view, though, that Hornby need to get a grip on their QC and that Bachmann have a grip on their QC, and that this might be reflected in the prices, but if the new Hornby 9F, more expensive than the very good Baccy loco, gains a reputation for bits shedding, it will not reflect well on H.

 

I have no particular brand loyalty, and my locomotives (and rolling stock) are bought to reflect as well as I can practice at Tondu in the 1948-58 period.  I buy Bachmann and Hornby locomotives, and not Heljan, Accurascale, Hattons', Dapol, EFE etc. because B and H make the locomotives I need, most of them anyway (44xx and Collett 1938 31xx missing), and the others don't, but of course now there is the Dap 5101 and EFE Austerity Hunlset for the colliery to chip away at the B and H monopoly, as well as Hat's Andrew Barclay and other upcoming industrials.  The future may well contain new (to me) manufacturers, new delights, and new problems; I can see a situation where I have almost as many NCB locos as BR!  I'd be happier in general not to rely on Hornby, though, as I do not fully trust their QC any more.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, The Johnster said:

1/ Incidentally, I am of the subjective view that frequent operation is a major factor in good running...

 

2/ ......I am of the view, though, that Hornby need to get a grip on their QC and that Bachmann have a grip on their QC, and that this might be reflected in the prices, but if the new Hornby 9F, more expensive than the very good Baccy loco, gains a reputation for bits shedding, it will not reflect well on H.

 

3/  I'd be happier in general not to rely on Hornby, though, as I do not fully trust their QC any more.

1/  I have a session most days have a continuous loop branch layout that helps with running in, and often just sit watching them go by with a few beers.

 

2/  For sure, I've never had to fettle my 4 Baccys. just general lube when required, never had keeper plate off so no Idea if they have bearings (Sam's trains bugbear with Bman.) and my 8750 and SR N class are my most used locos after my two 1950's ones. 

 

3/ To compare on my BR WR/SR withered arm transition period, my SpamCan 'Winston Churchill' (waiting renumbering) Xmas present this Xmas is a superb runner, but last yrs (2020) Xmas prezzy. King Rich III is dire when stopping/starting despite pulling apart to no avail and can't manage more than 5 coaches. (would have gone back if not a gift and did not have heart to ask for receipt).  Rebuilt WC from 2012 gone through 6 gear sets, two M7's one sold for spares on Ebay, both Oaky for first 14 mths then just seemed to not move, gave up on trying to sort one and ended up on brick wall 10ft away, say no more.  Hornby's coaches are good though.

 

EDIT: 6 Baccys, forgot 121 bubble car and 3 car DMU. and Hby class 08 which lost one set of coupling rods, snapped off when running!  Stills runs just turned loco other way.

Edited January 5, 2022 by Guest
Added info.

[Harlequin]

Thinks: All manufacturers should be forced to make GWR Large Prairies, and release new versions every 5 years. Then we'd have a decent baseline comparison!

 

Edited January 5, 2022 by Harlequin

[The Johnster]

No, 2721 panniers. 

[GRUNFOS]

Hi folks, don't know  much about about model steamers but my son likes the look of the prairie, simple question, is it worth buying as a general layout loco?

[Miss Prism]

43 minutes ago, GRUNFOS said:

Hi folks, don't know  much about about model steamers but my son likes the look of the prairie, simple question, is it worth buying as a general layout loco?

 

The Prairie is a good general layout loco.

 

[The Johnster]

Good general purpose engine, local passenger, freight, mostly mainline but commuter branches as well, anytime late 20s-1965 in the form Dap are producing ‘em, all over GWR and WR territory.  Almost the definition of ‘worth buying as a general layout loco’.  

[Ian Hargrave]

On 15/01/2022 at 11:06, The Johnster said:

Good general purpose engine, local passenger, freight, mostly mainline but commuter branches as well, anytime late 20s-1965 in the form Dap are producing ‘em, all over GWR and WR territory.  Almost the definition of ‘worth buying as a general layout loco’.  

And include express passenger in that list,if you consider workings on Paddington services between Gloucester and Cheltenham and on Cardiff/Swansea portions on North to West services to&from Pontypool Road.

[The Johnster]

Absolutely, yes, why not.  You'd see 56xx on Cardiff-Pontypool Road jobs as well, banging along gamely over the Marshfield levels or blasting up through Llantarnam or past Panteg with restaurant car expresses. anything up to 12 bogies on.  94xx were used on the Gloucester-Cheltenham part of their Paddington services.

[latestarter]

On 03/12/2021 at 13:17, Ian Hargrave said:

And imply is enough to land him in serious trouble. That tirade should not have happened. And the assumption that the Hornby model was done in response to Dapol’s,as we both know,is a complete fiction ( I could have used a stronger word ) 

 

Firstly, my disclaimer: I know next to nothing about model railways and only started my first layout only a few months ago (aged 66). I also know very little about prototypical locos, although my father worked as (and drove) a shunter for 40 years. However, due to my background in healthcare and academia, I do know something about empirical research; and forming conclusions that are objective and based on evidence.

I also know that subjective, personal and very biased views can be dangerous at worst and unhelpful at the very least. As a part of my huge learning curve in railway modelling, I have been watching a lot of YouTube videos (in addition to subscribing to magazines, including BRM, and purchasing several books). I subscribed to 'Sam's Trains' as he seemed very knowledgeable and well-informed on model locos.

 

Unfortunately,  as my own understanding has grown, I have come to see him as someone with a negative bias to Hornby in general, and this appears to have pervaded many of the reviews he makes on their products and even on announcements that Hornby make about future products, which he has had no opportunity to review. As a result, I have unsubscribed from his channel and even left my own comment on one of his videos in relation to what I regarded as his regular Hornby-bashing.

My main concern is that he does seem to have a large contingent of acolytes who will take whatever he says as gospel, and this may be having a consequence in relation to the purchase (or otherwise) of what may be perfectly acceptable Hornby products.

Incidentally, DHL are due to arrive at my house today with my Large Prairie, from Hattons. It's the Dapol model (not the Hornby) and my choice was made after reading two well written and objective-sounding reviews in BRM and Railway Modeller magazines.

Edited January 18, 2022 by latestarter