Class 31 chassis rot

[newbryford]

These replacement parts were ordered pretty much as soon as the models were released - Hornby are arranging to make some new tender bodies for one of the most recent Bulleid pacifics due to decoration errors too.

 

It is also important to note that in all the cases you highlight the defects were apparent within the one year warranty period model railway manufacturers give - so under law the manufacturers didn't have the option of ignoring them anyway.

 

The replacement chassis blocks Hornby ordered by contrast came along several years after the last of the models were sold and the warranty had expired - plus the reason was to correct what might be termed a material failure (as the chemical failure of the mazak) not decoration errors. Similarly the extra footplate part required to correct the mazak rot experienced by a certain Bachmann N class happened several years after the actual model had been released.

 

Good point about the "well after release date" for the 31 chassis

As you say, my examples were pretty quickly noticed.

[phil-b259]

But you purchased this bit of kit knowing it had a life expectancy, when I purchased the class 31 I certainly expected it to last longer and not rot, especially as it has been stored with no use in the last 10 years. Instead when I purchased it I would have expected it to last until it wore out with usage, so I don't agree with the point you are trying to make, sorry.

 

Steve

 

Ah but this is the nub of the issue.

 

You personally believed your model should have lasted many decades (exactly how many you haven't revealed).

 

Please show me where exactly Hornby / Bachmann / Heljan / etc state that their models should last XX years!

 

You can't because the manufacturers do not provide this information - unlike that Nikon have done with Chaz's camera equipment.

 

(Note just as with some of the terms food manufacturers put on their products, words like 'super detailed' have absolutely no legal meaning and cannot be considered to indicate anything specific about the product*)

 

Just because there is no 'best before / use by' type date does not mean you can come up with your own arbitrary figure (or even an educated guess) and expect it to be respected by manufacturers! (or indeed trading standards).

 

Such beliefs sadly show that you need to recalibrate your expectations - rather than expect manufacturers to bow to yours. I will say in your defence though that I can see the logic behind that belief as basic physics tells us that lumps of metal shouldn't self destruct for many decades (as opposed to plastics going brittle or solder joints failing after 12 years say)

 

As I said before a good yardstick is to examine the length of manufacturers warranty offered plus consider the wider retail environment. Whatever you may personally think, it has been established over time by the courts / trading standards that the average life expectancy of most consumer goods (and don't kid yourself here - a model locomotive is no more special to those why make the rules than a washing machine, a gaming console or a HD TV) then 6 years is the average life expectancy - after which the manufacturer has zero liability (other than perhaps where a defect might cause it to catch fire and kill you).

 

Ultimately judged against that sort of reality / evidence based approach, Hornby have gone significantly above and beyond what any reputable company is expected to do by those whose business it is to protect consumers. The fact that your personal beliefs / expectations with regard to model locos longevity are so different is not Hornby's problem to solve.

 

 

 

*https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/jun/14/making-an-honest-crust-consumers-routinely-conned-by-food-labels

Edited August 31, 2018 by phil-b259

[adb968008]

I haven`t seen anything on this for a while so thought I`d ask if anyone has any updates. I have just this week discovered the dreaded "cracked end" on my

R2420. I rang customer service at Hornby and in a nutshell the guy said "Scrap it". I`m not happy with that response so I have made a formal complaint via the web form on the basis that as Hornby accept this is a fault in manufacture Hornby have supplied goods that are not fit for purpose or "not of merchantable quality" We shall see how they respond, if they respond at all.

Any evidence that matters of improved since the change in personnel at Hornby ? Is Simon Kohler still back on board ?

A

Even a £50.00 voucher towards a Hornby product - would have gone some way to being reasonable in softening the blow, or they should have advertised widely a cut off date for complaints of a serious problem with their in-house quality ...

 

Stick it on ebay, the drive mechanism may fetch £50 for someone who will strip it from the body and stick it in a Lima 31.

 

Given inflation, the class 31 has gone from £66 to £169 in 2018 since R2421 was released, so your not much out of pocket even with a knacker...

It could be worse you could have bought Hornby shares back then.. that way you really would be out of pocket.

 

I’m even in the market for a Hornby Wrecked 31 for that exact purpose.

Edited September 16, 2018 by adb968008

[phil-b259]

There may be some real hope there IMO. The Hornby body shell is significantly inaccurate in shape for both class 30 and 31. But now all numerous diesel loco classes that saw long service have models, so there's no prospect for new diesel model introductions by competitors unless duplication is risked. Bach duplicated the 47 as long ago as 2007, then Dapol the class 52, SLW the 24 and here come Hattons with a 66. All of these were specifically taken on because the manufacturer could see room for significant improvement over the existing models on offer. On which basis Hornby's Brush 2 with its incorrectly positioned cabside windows must be moving toward the top of the 'target' list - hopefully.

 

 

Indeed - but such actions are not true 'duplications' as each model has significantly improved over the previous offering allowing both manufacturers to secure a segment of the market should they wish.

 

The problem comes when both models are virtually the same in details, specifications, and so on - as happened when both Hornby and Bachmann went head to head with a super detailed BR Standard 4MT 4-6-0. Here all duplication did is split the market segment into two - and that segment of the market who couldn't afford to buy the super detailed version were not catered for.

 

With the 9F on the other hand we have a 'budget' railroad version from Hornby and a more expensive super detailed one from Bachmann. All segments of the market are now covered and as a result more profit is made by both even though you could say the 9F is 'duplicated'

 

It will be interesting to see what happens with the 66s as you now potentially have 3 different levels of detail to chose from (Hornby / ex Lima at the budget end of the market, Bachmann in the middle and Hattons covering the top end). Will Bachmann's current model find a niche and still sell in reasonable quantities or will it be squeezed out by the other two?

Edited August 31, 2018 by phil-b259

[RedgateModels]

The Hornby body shell is significantly inaccurate in shape for both class 30 and 31.

 

This was a dirty trick sir! My brain went "class30?" and after a quick google and a trip to Wikipedia I not only know that the first 20 had MIrrlees engines but that they were built in '57 so one could run on Summat Colliery. I am now looking to see how to get a 12 cylinder supercharged sound file! 

 

I don't even like class 31's

[thaddeus]

This was a dirty trick sir! My brain went "class30?" and after a quick google and a trip to Wikipedia I not only know that the first 20 had MIrrlees engines but that they were built in '57 so one could run on Summat Colliery. I am now looking to see how to get a 12 cylinder supercharged sound file! 

 

I don't even like class 31's

Brush built the Rhodesian Railways DE4 Class with the same engine (ish) I think one might have been preserved. Think they were all out of service by mid 90s but there maybe youtube videos with sound available... maybe

Edited August 31, 2018 by thaddeus

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...The Hornby body shell is significantly inaccurate in shape for both class 30 and 31. ..

This was a dirty trick sir! My brain went "class30?" ...

 Not my dirty trick though, but an incidental by-product of the D+E obsession with mapping TOPS codes into a period before they were ever deployed. All Brush type 2 were built as what was later classified TOPS class 30, but this is 'submerged' and largely forgotten by the entire class having been re-engined to create TOPS class 31.

 

I am antiTOPSing from henceforward. Everything that went before that affliction shall be named by its proper historically appropriate title.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Indeed - but such actions are not true 'duplications' as each model has significantly improved over the previous offering allowing both manufacturers to secure a segment of the market should they wish...

 You could argue this until the cows come home concerning what is a duplicate offering, and what consitutes enough improvement not to be regarded as a duplicate.

 

But this doesn't change the argument in the case of the Brush 2, the current Hornby model is signifcantly deficient in a key aspect of appearance. I saw them roll into platform day after day, and the Hornby seen from any front on view is not a good representation of the cab shape, and that kills it for me on the first criterion of 'is it a model?'. No it isn't, because the cab shape suggests the BRCW type 2 design, rather than the distinctively inset upper cab side and step out to full body width behind the cab door, so characteristic of the Brush type 2. All the other excellences go for nothing, a superb forgery of a £19 note is always a wrongun!

 

Hornby could very well tool a new cheaper to manufacture accurate body shell (no silly doodads like movable doors and fans) put it on the perfectly sound existing mechanism design, and clean up. (Except they would then face the risk of a torrent of  demand from those wanting the new accurate body shells to go on old mechanisms...)

[JSpencer]

Indeed - but such actions are not true 'duplications' as each model has significantly improved over the previous offering allowing both manufacturers to secure a segment of the market should they wish.

 

The problem comes when both models are virtually the same in details, specifications, and so on - as happened when both Hornby and Bachmann went head to head with a super detailed BR Standard 4MT 4-6-0. Here all duplication did is split the market segment into two - and that segment of the market who couldn't afford to buy the super detailed version were not catered for.

 

It will be interesting to see what happens with the 66s as you now potentially have 3 different levels of detail to chose from (Hornby / ex Lima at the budget end of the market, Bachmann in the middle and Hattons covering the top end). Will Bachmann's current model find a niche and still sell in reasonable quantities or will it be squeezed out by the other two?

 

Indeed, post 2000 tooling was leaps and bounds over pre 2000 models. Before 2000 manufacturers were generally scared to replace older tools with new ones. Lima used the same class 33 tooling from the start of its OO gauge range right up until its demise nearly 3 decades later. Today, if a modern tooling is felt to have too many errors, we see manufacturers replacing it by themselves (Bachmann with their class 40) or someone else jumping in (Dapol with an all new 52 to better Heljan's effort). This is easy to do when there are too many issues which concerns an existing model.

 

Others must be getting to diminishing returns. Hornby's new Duchess improves on the old for sure, but it is not a quantum leap that the previous version had over the tender drive model it replaced, nor even big leap. The two models can sit side by side and the only thing which jumps out immediately is the position of the whistle. Obviously there are lots of little changes when you look closely (the cab is far better but you have to move the tender out of the light to see it). Conversely Heljans last class 33 is really noticeably improved compare to the previous incarnation as you have the shape, roof fan, extra bogie details in colour, seperate grills (which cause debate), full bogie relief, front running steps etc. All of which stands out. The new Duchess does not seem to sell fast, except the Ivatt version which was never done before, most people supplement exiting Duchesses with the new model. The new 33 sells easily with most buying the new to replace the previous version.

 

With the 66, it will probably be an ironic case. While Hattons should be the better of the two, it will probably be cheaper too. Being a modern big class, the market will probably support both and doubtless certain liveries will be exclusive to one or the other. If Bachmann could have done their's cheaper, they would already do so. If it starts to sell poorly, it probably won't be made anymore. It will be interesting to see if the differences leap out or need to be detected by looking closely.

Edited August 31, 2018 by JSpencer

[cheesysmith]

The object in question was made by a factory that no longer exists. The tooling has moved to another factory. Hornby did well doing replacements long after the demise of the first factory. It is not like they can go back either. They kept the service open for a long time.

 

I discovered my N class had a rotting running plate. Bachmann had run off replacement parts are sent me a new one. It was up to me to stripe down the old and refit the parts (a few hours work). But I guess at a certain time, those parts will run out. In my case, if it could not have been fixed then it would have become parts for a W1 tank loco.

A few years back, someone did an article upgrading a lima class 31 with Hornby class 31 parts from a loco that suffered mazak rot.

 

try this

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/19369-brush-type-2-re-birth-judgement-day/?view=getlastpost

 

Done it myself. Easy, just need some 60 thou and a drill.

[Clive Mortimore]

 Not my dirty trick though, but an incidental by-product of the D+E obsession with mapping TOPS codes into a period before they were ever deployed. All Brush type 2 were built as what was later classified TOPS class 30, but this is 'submerged' and largely forgotten by the entire class having been re-engined to create TOPS class 31.

 

I am antiTOPSing from henceforward. Everything that went before that affliction shall be named by its proper historically appropriate title.

My 13/2 has developed a tick at mid speed. Could be a gear wheel catching on something inside. It is Ok going backwards. The Brush 2 body is quite hard to get right. It has all sorts of oddities. Most classes the cab tappers from the cab door in a straight line, not the D55xxs they have a very gentle curve coupled with the tumbleholm starting at the mid height body band. I found this out while building mine, which at the moment is running around my layout. It is great seeing it run as being a depot modeller before it only went backwards and then the right way.

Edited August 31, 2018 by Clive Mortimore

[JSpencer]

try this

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/19369-brush-type-2-re-birth-judgement-day/?view=getlastpost

 

Done it myself. Easy, just need some 60 thou and a drill.

 

Voila - a solution for those with a mazak rotted 31 wanting also the better shape of Lima with the running quality of Hornby. Thanks for sharing.

[Pint of Adnams]

 Not my dirty trick though, but an incidental by-product of the D+E obsession with mapping TOPS codes into a period before they were ever deployed. All Brush type 2 were built as what was later classified TOPS class 30, but this is 'submerged' and largely forgotten by the entire class having been re-engined to create TOPS class 31.

 

I am antiTOPSing from henceforward. Everything that went before that affliction shall be named by its proper historically appropriate title.

Clive Mortimore - read the above and please avoid making any more inane alternative suggestions as in http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/136166-on-shed-part-three-eastern-region-southern-section/?p=3283168

[adb968008]

You could argue this until the cows come home concerning what is a duplicate offering, and what consitutes enough improvement not to be regarded as a duplicate.

 

But this doesn't change the argument in the case of the Brush 2, the current Hornby model is signifcantly deficient in a key aspect of appearance. I saw them roll into platform day after day, and the Hornby seen from any front on view is not a good representation of the cab shape, and that kills it for me on the first criterion of 'is it a model?'. No it isn't, because the cab shape suggests the BRCW type 2 design, rather than the distinctively inset upper cab side and step out to full body width behind the cab door, so characteristic of the Brush type 2. All the other excellences go for nothing, a superb forgery of a £19 note is always a wrongun!

 

Hornby could very well tool a new cheaper to manufacture accurate body shell (no silly doodads like movable doors and fans) put it on the perfectly sound existing mechanism design, and clean up. (Except they would then face the risk of a torrent of demand from those wanting the new accurate body shells to go on old mechanisms...)

Hornby owns a lot of clas 31 toolings... Airfix (via Dapol), Triang, Lima and it’s own 21st century version.

I’d say after 4 attempts it’s unlikely Hornby will do a 5th version in the short term.

 

I think there is demand out there for class 31’s, especially the 1990’s era.. Dutch, Blue, Railfreight etc, however the factor is price. Even if the super detail was too high, they could fall back on better quality paint jobs in the Lima one.

 

I can’t see a retool on the horizon, if they can sell small batches at £180into the future, which seems to be modus operandi.

 

I could see someone like a Hattons having a go though.

Edited August 31, 2018 by adb968008

[Clive Mortimore]

Clive Mortimore - read the above and please avoid making any more inane alternative suggestions as in http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/136166-on-shed-part-three-eastern-region-southern-section/?p=3283168

Pint- If you read my post, I posted about my own scratchbuilt Brush Type 2 and what a difficult shape it is to make. But I suppose you know that when you made your class 30.

Edited August 31, 2018 by Clive Mortimore

[Mallard60022]

Clive Mortimore - read the above and please avoid making any more inane alternative suggestions as in http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/136166-on-shed-part-three-eastern-region-southern-section/?p=3283168

That's a little harsh! Morty might be bonkers but never makes inane comments except in December.

Phil

[Clive Mortimore]

Serious head on for a moment

 

I was given a Hornby Class 31, its chassis had started to expand, it has broken all but one of the body mounting captive nut thingies. I applied a bit of logic, if something expands it takes the route of least resistance. To start with I was going to just cut of the ends of the chassis . The buffer beams for some reason screw on to the ends of the chassis. Put an expansion gap in each end was my next thought. Pity I didn't photograph which bits I cut off . Between the ends and the main body there are some thin bits, I cut them away. I superglued the chassis ends under the cabs. I have not measured any thing to see if it is still getting bigger but so far no body damage. 

 

 

 

Here it is with my homemade loco (still wanting its hand rails and bogies modified) and a Tri-ang D5572.

 

D5572 ran with a six coach train smoothly at various speed settings. When shunting the coaches back into the sidings it was let down by the couplings between a Bachmann coach and a Railroad one.

Edited September 1, 2018 by Clive Mortimore

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

With my serious head on (metrology indoctrination, what cannot be measured isn't worth discussion) I looked for a good index on the mechanism castings and settled on the dimension between the inside of the locators for the body securing screws, which are prominent upstands on the top of the cast block and conveniently near the maximum range of my caliper.

 

I have been able to measure three unaffected mechanisms from early in the production of this model (two R2571, one unidentified). All measured at circa 20C, lengths in the range of 135.20 to 135.25, on all three castings identical both sides. Small sample obviously but let's hope it is representative.

 

On the worst of the four mazak rotted mechanisms I have in terms of visible evidence - cracking up around the motor mounting - the same dimension stands at 136.75mm, same both sides, which is the largest expansion I have measured on my four, so consistent with the visible evidence of deterioration.

 

So that's probably 1.5mm expansion from as cast, or 1.1% growth (The overall wheelbase is going to be increased in due proportion, but it doesn't show in my opinion.)

[Romsey Les]

With my serious head on (metrology indoctrination, what cannot be measured isn't worth discussion) I looked for a good index on the mechanism castings and settled on the dimension between the inside of the locators for the body securing screws, which are prominent upstands on the top of the cast block and conveniently near the maximum range of my caliper.

 

I have been able to measure three unaffected mechanisms from early in the production of this model (two R2571, one unidentified). All measured at circa 20C, lengths in the range of 135.20 to 135.25, on all three castings identical both sides. Small sample obviously but let's hope it is representative.

 

On the worst of the four mazak rotted mechanisms I have in terms of visible evidence - cracking up around the motor mounting - the same dimension stands at 136.75mm, same both sides, which is the largest expansion I have measured on my four, so consistent with the visible evidence of deterioration.

 

So that's probably 1.5mm expansion from as cast, or 1.1% growth (The overall wheelbase is going to be increased in due proportion, but it doesn't show in my opinion.)

 

Interesting.  My damaged one measures 136.12mm. Attached shows the only obvious damage to the plate under the cab insert, one end only.  The opposite end is the one that`s cracked.  I`m not at all confident of a positive response from Hornby or indeed any response at all.  It`s possible my son might want to do the Lima conversion job. If not the whole shooting match (box /body/chassis) will probably go on ebay.

[37114]

I did the same mods as Clive (albeit in a Lima rather than Hornby shell) which has been fine for a few years but the block is still breaking up and eventually I will redo it by putting the mechanism in a Lima chassis. My latest 31 uses the Hornby motor bogies in a Lima shell. When I removed the motor from the Hornby mazac block it literally shattered! The only long term solution is to buy a non affected chassis or put the motor in a Lima chassis.

[Clive Mortimore]

I did the same mods as Clive (albeit in a Lima rather than Hornby shell) which has been fine for a few years but the block is still breaking up and eventually I will redo it by putting the mechanism in a Lima chassis. My latest 31 uses the Hornby motor bogies in a Lima shell. When I removed the motor from the Hornby mazac block it literally shattered! The only long term solution is to buy a non affected chassis or put the motor in a Lima chassis.

Hi Rob

 

Oh Er better check mine for cracks around the motor.

 

My problem is I couldn't go to Hornby and say, "this here loco that my mate gave to me knowing it was falling apart is well falling apart so I would like me £100". Therefore I had to come up with a solution. If it last as long as I do then I am a winner if not then all the years I have and run it and it is OK then I am a winner.

 

Les,

 

Let me know if it goes on E Bay.

[Ragtag]

I could see someone like a Hattons having a go though.

Looks like it'll be Bachmann, perhaps somewhat surprisingly.

[D9020 Nimbus]

Well, they have done a new N gauge one quite recently...

[37114]

Hi Rob

 

Oh Er better check mine for cracks around the motor.

 

My problem is I couldn't go to Hornby and say, "this here loco that my mate gave to me knowing it was falling apart is well falling apart so I would like me £100". Therefore I had to come up with a solution. If it last as long as I do then I am a winner if not then all the years I have and run it and it is OK then I am a winner.

 

Les,

 

Let me know if it goes on E Bay.

 

Further to my earlier post, below are some pics of the conversion I have done for the Lima chassis as well as the shattered chassis block:

 

Raw materials:

 

 

Hornby bits required:

 

Shattered block. This happened removing the motor:

 

Modified Lima chassis

 

Motor bogie mount

 

 

Complete chassis

 

Test run

 

It is about 3 hours work tops.

[Clive Mortimore]

Hi Rob

 

A quick question, how is the motor mounted, what holds it in place?

 

And as for the chassis "Oh (not a RMweb word)" !!!!!!