Hornby new wagons

[Mark Saunders]

Both Hornby and Dapol really need to update their RCH 21’ 6” oh 12’ wb as the current offering goes back to Airfix rtr so that makes it about 1980 as its introduction!

 

Mark Saunders

[Fat Controller]

Both Hornby and Dapol really need to update their RCH 21’ 6” oh 12’ wb as the current offering goes back to Airfix rtr so that makes it about 1980 as its introduction!

 

Mark Saunders

Hornby could try and find the very-nicely moulded 12' wb underframe, obviously designed to take a 21t Minfit body, but curiously released under the guise of a 'Conflat B' with a Freightliner container.

[Dunsignalling]

You will be familiar with my comments about 'standardisation' of tension lock couplers from the other thread dealing with this over in 'questions'; the idea of a range of t/ls for NEM pockets is a splendid one, and sort of exists in the variety of long/short/stepped/straing versions available from H and B, themselves a negation of the principle of standardisation.

 

At the Bristol show there were a couple of layouts using what I call buckeyes, Hornby Dublo style, which worked effectively on them (better than one N layout which was having trouble with the 2mm version on one train).  Maybe it is time for a rethink of this coupling; as long as coupling up is reliable, uncoupling can easily be achieved with a pole from above, except for gangwayed stock.  I know Kaydee fans will point to their coupling, but a reworked HD type would potentially be cheaper and easier to mount.  So long as standards were observed; manufacturers are unable to do this with t/ls so why should I believe that they can do it with any other sort of coupler.

The Peco / Hornby Dublo coupler isn't any easier to mount than a Kadee, and it's length means making a version to fit in an NEM pocket is out of the question if one wants it to be compatible with the original. I think Peco have already attempted to develop an NEM Simplex without success.  

 

Making a new (smaller) coupler based on the design is possible but Peco hold the patent and would presumably only go to the trouble if there were a decent chance of it being almost universally adopted, i.e. by Hornby, Bachmann et al, so NEM compliant to make it a plug-and-play swap. That's unlikely because of the known pocket issue on so many existing models, and they'd have to either make it height-adjustable or in several versions to suit.

 

In any case, Kadees already do everything any revised HD coupler could, and probably more. They also look no more out-of-place than the metal HD coupler and much less so than the plastic version.

 

They are a known quantity, they work, and the multiplicity of lengths, heights and mountings mean they can be fitted to almost anything with relative ease.

 

Check out the layout pics in the magazines and just see what a presence they have established in the UK market. They seem to be at least on a par with the Sprat & Winkle as Britain's favourite aftermarket coupler nowadays.

 

There's also the question of why anyone would devote a load of time and money to producing a coupler with the aim of selling it cheaply unless it was so good that it would sell in the quantities necessary for him to make a good living from it. If it were that good, it wouldn't need to be cheap, and he could make an even better living........

 

Think about it, Kadee or Sprat & Winkle sales might double if they halved the prices, but what would be the point?

 

I'd think that those who are really concerned about cost just keep the couplers that come "free" with their r-t-r trains, and I can't see that changing.

 

John

 

PS. The owner/builder of at least one of the exhibits you mention uses Kadees on his newer layouts.........

Edited May 25, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[The Johnster]

You make a good point well, John; I have 'reverted' to tension locks as my eyesight and steadiness of hand are not up to scale couplings, the only thing I regard as visually acceptable, and at least a part of that reluctant decision was 'informed' by the idea that the couplings that come free with new RTR stock are reliable and don't look any worse, to my view, than anything else that isn't scale.  I might have made a different decision if I'd known how much of a faff retrofitting t/ls to older stock was going to be, never mind the trouble some of my more recent ones have caused me (Hornby 42xx with different heights at each end, Bachmann auto trailer rear end kept falling out and had to be glued in, and almost as many differences in height as I have vehicles; my layout is pretty flat, by the way).

[Ronny]

Today i received the 3 plank SECR wagon, well worth every penny, wonderfull model, the double spoked wheels are even finer than Bachmann ones.

Undercarriage very fine detailed and as Jenny Kirk says in here review in this topic the 3 plank is definitely worth 9,5 out of 10.

Eagerly awaiting for the 4 plank and 6 plank ones, I will leave the 5 and 7 plank aside because the wrong wheelbase of the undercarriage.

If Hornby is gonig to make more of this older type of wagons in this detailed form, Bachmann will get it very difficult to sell theirs for the high prices they are asking.

 

I thoroughly agree. Just received my SECR 3 planker and it really is a beauty. Already sold out at Hattons so we're not the only ones that thinks that.

[flyingsignalman]

A wagon that would be nice to see reintroduced with a new chassis.

Seen here with a Slaters 9' wooden chassis before a repaint into my light railrailway livery.

The original chassis to the left.

[JSpencer]

Today i received the 3 plank SECR wagon, well worth every penny, wonderfull model, the double spoked wheels are even finer than Bachmann ones.

Undercarriage very fine detailed and as Jenny Kirk says in here review in this topic the 3 plank is definitely worth 9,5 out of 10.

Eagerly awaiting for the 4 plank and 6 plank ones, I will leave the 5 and 7 plank aside because the wrong wheelbase of the undercarriage.

If Hornby is gonig to make more of this older type of wagons in this detailed form, Bachmann will get it very difficult to sell theirs for the high prices they are asking.

 

The wagon itself is not that new. Hornby tooled up a new series of wagons in the mid to late 90s. They have, however refined the underneath since.

 

Here is my new SECR 3 plank (which is lovely) next to a Chatham Dockyard one from an original batch in the 90s.

 

[HonestTom]

A wagon that would be nice to see reintroduced with a new chassis.

20180515_202509.jpg

Seen here with a Slaters 9' wooden chassis before a repaint into my light railrailway livery.

The original chassis to the left.

 

It would - especially if they produced it in H&BR livery. Hornby did a couple of variants with the later chassis - the Van Houtens Cocoa and Thomas vans are worth looking out for.

[Invicta]

The wagon itself is not that new. Hornby tooled up a new series of wagons in the mid to late 90s. They have, however refined the underneath since.

 

Here is my new SECR 3 plank (which is lovely) next to a Chatham Dockyard one from an original batch in the 90s.

 

IMG_6185.JPG

 

I've always liked Hornby's little 3 & 4-plank wagons, despite the crude toy chassis, and I've accumulated quite a number over the years, especially as they did a couple of local quarry liveries on them. That side-by-side comparison with the 90's version really does show how much of an improvement the new chassis makes- Combined with Hornby's present-day printing standards, it really doesn't look out-of-place alongside the more recent 'state-of-the-art' RTR wagons available.

[Compound2632]

I've always liked Hornby's little 3 & 4-plank wagons, despite the crude toy chassis, and I've accumulated quite a number over the years, especially as they did a couple of local quarry liveries on them. That side-by-side comparison with the 90's version really does show how much of an improvement the new chassis makes- Combined with Hornby's present-day printing standards, it really doesn't look out-of-place alongside the more recent 'state-of-the-art' RTR wagons available.

 

And the 6-plankers that use the same underframe. I've not seen the new version in the flesh but the old one was rather good as an exercise in trompe l'oeil - round bottomed grease axleboxes etc., though it would have been better (and easier to improve) with single-sided brakes.

[cctransuk]

The Peco / Hornby Dublo coupler isn't any easier to mount than a Kadee, and it's length means making a version to fit in an NEM pocket is out of the question if one wants it to be compatible with the original.

 

I'm afraid that that is nonesense. All of my many hundreds of locos and rolling are fitted with Peco couplings, and RTR acquisitions in recent years have been fitted with Peco R2 couplings adapted to fit in NEM pockets.

 

Suffice to say that the Peco coupling head is soldered to a length of rectangular brass strip, which is in turn pivotted in the pocket via a length of 0.5mm. brass wire in a hole drilled centrally through the pocket.

 

By simply pulling out the 0.5mm. brass wire - which is held in place by friction - and withdrawing the Peco coupling, the NEM pocket can be fitted with any NEM-compatible coupling.

 

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Edited May 26, 2018 by cctransuk

[Dunsignalling]

I'm afraid that that is nonesense. All of my many hundreds of locos and rolling are fitted with Peco couplings, and RTR acquisitions in recent years have been fitted with Peco R2 couplings adapted to fit in NEM pockets.

 

Suffice to say that the Peco coupling head is soldered to a length of rectangular brass strip, which is in turn pivotted in the pocket via a length of 0.5mm. brass wire in a hole drilled centrally through the pocket.

 

By simply pulling out the 0.5mm. brass wire - which is held in place by friction - and withdrawing the Peco coupling, the NEM pocket can be fitted with any NEM-compatible coupling.

 

IMG_4502.JPG

 

IMG_4495.JPG

 

IMG_4486.JPG

 

 

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Ingenious, but to be able to claim NEM 362 compatibility for a commercially produced version, it would need to be a straight plug-in to an unmodified pocket.

 

Has the dovetail enough flexibility to allow that, or is your additional pivot essential to the coupler functioning, rather than just for interchangeability?

 

I can only view the first of your three images, and presume the other two might answer that.

 

Regards

 

John

Edited May 26, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[cctransuk]

Ingenious, but to be able to claim NEM 362 compatibility for a commercially produced version, it would need to be a straight plug-in to an unmodified pocket.

 

Has the dovetail enough flexibility to allow that, or is your additional pivot essential to the coupler functioning, rather than just for interchangeability?

 

I can only view the first of your three images, and presume the other two might answer that.

 

Regards

 

John

 

 

John,

 

I at no point proposed a commercially available version, nor did I claim NEM compatibility. (However, I did provide Peco - at their request - details of how THEY could produce a NEM compatible version of the R2 coupling).

 

Yes - the wire does act at a pivot, at around the same distance from the coupler head as the Peco R2 pivot pin. The brass strip used for the coupler shaft is narrower than the slot in the NEM pocket, so controlled side-to-side movement is provided.

 

The coupler shaft is simply a length of brass strip, bend into an L shape. The shorter leg of the L is vertical, and can be varied in length to allow for errors in the mounting height of the NEM pocket.

 

The R2 coupling is cut back with tin-slips so that all that remains is the head and dropper tail; the shorter leg of the L strip is soldered to the underside, immediately behind the propelling face.

 

I decided to only attach the photo of the Hornby Clan Pacific in the end, as we were discussing RTR products; below are photos of a modified R2 coupling.

 

 

 

 

 

I also attach the other two photos, which depict the modified R2 coupling fitted to recent kit-built stock.

 

 

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Edited May 30, 2018 by cctransuk

[bigherb]

A couple of SECR 3 planners arrived yesterday. As others have said they seem to have sold well, something I would normally pick up in a shop seems to have sold out at the ones I normally use, only Rails had some left.

 

And very nice they are too the new chassis and fine wheels make a difference.

[Jenny Emily]

These have sold out at Hornby, and it seems that more were ordered than were made. This has meant that some shops have had their orders either curtailed or not filled at all. However, some orders have been allocated to shops but not yet shipped to them so some of the smaller model shops may not have stock currently but will get stock soon as their allocation is shipped.

[Compound2632]

Can someone explain to me what the two pieces of ironwork attached to the solebar either side of the V hanger (and picked out in black on the SECR-liveried wagon*) are intended to represent? They can't be door-stops, since they're inside the line of the brake lever.

 

*Choosing my words with care.

[cctransuk]

Can someone explain to me what the two pieces of ironwork attached to the solebar either side of the V hanger (and picked out in black on the SECR-liveried wagon*) are intended to represent? They can't be door-stops, since they're inside the line of the brake lever.

 

*Choosing my words with care.

 

You may well ask - perhaps someone from Hornby might care to comment?

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Steamport Southport]

Bangers*

 

Easily replaced if it's something that bothers you on a RTR wagon with a generic chassis that has it's wheels too close together. I think ABS make/made them. 

 

 

 

*Technical term. 

 

 

 

 

Jason

[tomparryharry]

The two pieces of black iron are brake push rod hangers. They keep the brake force 'on station' and works in concert with the brake hanger, to bear against the rim of the wagon wheel. Also, it works as a safety device, and keeps the brake push rod from dropping on the floor.

 

Hope this helps,

 

Ian.

[Steamport Southport]

The two pieces of black iron are brake push rod hangers. They keep the brake force 'on station' and works in concert with the brake hanger, to bear against the rim of the wagon wheel. Also, it works as a safety device, and keeps the brake push rod from dropping on the floor.

 

Hope this helps,

 

Ian.

 

Not those. The things directly next to the V hanger that drops down about 2 mm below the solebar in post #64. Click for a bigger image.

 

They're just poor representations of door springs/blocks.

 

EDIT:

 

You can see them better on this image, just hover the pointer over the image for a close up.

 

https://www.Hornby.com/uk-en/shop/new-arrivals/3-plank-wagon-se-cr-era-2.html

 

 

 

Jason

Edited May 29, 2018 by Steamport Southport

[Dunsignalling]

John,

 

I at no point proposed a commercially available version, nor did I claim NEM compatibility. (However, I did provide Peco - at their request - details of how THEY could produce a NEM compatible version of the R2 coupling).

 

Yes - the wire does act at a pivot, at around the same distance from the coupler head as the Peco R2 pivot pin. The brass strip used for the coupler shaft is narrower than the slot in the NEM pocket, so controlled side-to-side movement is provided.

 

The coupler shaft is simply a length of brass strip, bend into an L shape. The shorter leg of the L is vertical, and can be varied in length to allow for errors in the mounting height of the NEM pocket.

 

The R2 coupling is cut back with tin-slips so that all that remains is the head and dropper tail; the shorter leg of the L strip is soldered to the underside, emmediately behind the propelling face.

 

I decided to only attach the photo of the Hornby Clan Pacific in the end, as we were discussing RTR products; below are photos of a modified R2 coupling.

 

IMG_4516.JPG  IMG_4517.JPG

 

IMG_4520.JPG  IMG_4523.JPG

 

I also attach the other two photos, whicg depict the modified R2 coupling fitted to recent kit-built stock.

 

IMG_4486.JPG  IMG_4495.JPG

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Thanks John,

 

Very neat solution, very well described.  

 

I couldn't work out how to rate that post as it qualifies for all the ratings other than "Funny" so I settled for "Useful/Informative".

 

Regards

 

John

[Compound2632]

You may well ask - perhaps someone from Hornby might care to comment?

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

 

Bangers*

 

Easily replaced if it's something that bothers you on a RTR wagon with a generic chassis that has it's wheels too close together. I think ABS make/made them. 

 

 

 

*Technical term. 

 

 

 

 

Jason

 

 

The two pieces of black iron are brake push rod hangers. They keep the brake force 'on station' and works in concert with the brake hanger, to bear against the rim of the wagon wheel. Also, it works as a safety device, and keeps the brake push rod from dropping on the floor.

 

Hope this helps,

 

Ian.

 

 

Not those. The things directly next to the V hanger that drops down about 2 mm below the solebar in post #64. Click for a bigger image.

 

They're just poor representations of door springs/blocks.

 

EDIT:

 

You can see them better on this image, just hover the pointer over the image for a close up.

 

https://www.Hornby.com/uk-en/shop/new-arrivals/3-plank-wagon-se-cr-era-2.html

 

 

 

Jason

 

As Jason detected, my question was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. My point is, apart from the finer representation of the brake levers, the new underframe makes some retrograde moves compared to the previous version. These include:

 

Oil axleboxes - a wagon of this vintage (it's more-or-less pre-RCH 1907 specification) would be unlikely to have lost its grease axleboxes until very late on, if at all. Certainly not while wearing some of the liveries produced. (Where these are accurate anyway - I thought it had been established that the SECR didn't have any 9' wheelbase, 15' over headstocks 3-plank dropside wagons?)

 

Morton brake lever on the off-side - where a wagon of this vintage did eventually gain both-side brakes (again late on), it's likely to have been independent brakes on each side rather than the more elaborate arrangement with a cross-shaft.

 

Both undeframes have both-side brakes which is inappropriate anyway for the reasons given above.

 

In the condition of the model with new underframe, I think the only likely livery is post-war/early nationalisation livery: worn and unpainted wood.

 

Sorry to be such a curmudgeon but it irritates me when folk settle for inaccuracies in a wagon that they would be up in arms about in a coach, let alone a locomotive! After all, the 4-wheel, 9ft-wheelbase, wood-framed wagon was the basic revenue-earning unit of the railways for over a hundred years.

[Wickham Green]

 

....... the 4-wheel, 9ft-wheelbase, wood-framed wagon was the basic revenue-earning unit of the railways for over a hundred years.

Well, for a long time anyway ! : it would be difficult to put an exact date on 9' becoming the "standard" wheelbase ( post 1887 ? ) and the timber underframe was well on its way out by the time of Nationalisation ........... but, yeah - a long time !

[Compound2632]

Well, for a long time anyway ! : it would be difficult to put an exact date on 9' becoming the "standard" wheelbase ( post 1887 ? ) and the timber underframe was well on its way out by the time of Nationalisation ........... but, yeah - a long time !

 

Both the LNWR and Midland were building 9ft wheelbase wagons as standard from at least the early 1870s. The private wagon builders were building shorter wheelbase wagons up to the agreements that resulted in the RCH 1887 standard. 

 

Wooden underframes were obsolete for new construction by the 1930s but it wasn't really until the mass-production of standard 16 ton steel mineral wagons in the 1950s that they started to disappear from the scene. 

 

So 80 years, at least!

[cctransuk]

 

 

Discuss !!

 

Even if one accepts that Hornby are trying to represent the wagon later in life, the principal features that the model and the prototype have in common are the lettering and number. The fact that the prototype was a wagon with a central drop door, and the model has full drop sides, is apparently immaterial.

 

The odd thing is that the Hornby model bears more than a passing resemblance to the SECR 8 / 10T 3 plank ballast wagon to SR Diagram 1743. Moreover, these ballst wagon were commonly seen in long rakes, so the potential for multiple sales must be far greater than for a non-existent dropside traffic wagon.

 

The thinking of Hornby when it comes to wagons has always been odd, but this latest example defies logic !!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.