Hornby - New tooling - Large Prairie

[Guardian]

4 hours ago, tomparryharry said:

 

It's just an observation on my part, but perhaps, just perhaps, Hornby are moving towards leaving things like numberplates separate to the model. I'd surmise that a great many modellers will want 'their' locomotive on 'their' shed. Possibly more damage is done to the hapless model, by people trying to scrub off the shedcode plate.

 

As mentioned by Stationmaster, you can obtain fine etched number plates and transfers of shedcodes on the second market. IMHO, before Hornby do such things, they should use metal rather than plastic wheels at least on passenger steam engines and equip their new models with articulated NEM couplers!

 

Best

Mark

[Guardian]

On 26/07/2020 at 13:31, Harlequin said:

She can just haul 12 but there is definite wheelslip and she slows down when there are coaches fully around the curve and in the parallel straights on either side.

 

 

Hm. On plain ground. But in a 3 % incline?

[Ian Hargrave]

52 minutes ago, Guardian said:

 

Hm. On plain ground. But in a 3 % incline?

 
That’s pretty good for an rtr model of such modest weight.Question is 12 of which coaching stock as they are of varying bulk and free running characteristics ?

 

[Harlequin]

1 hour ago, Guardian said:

 

Hm. On plain ground. But in a 3 % incline?

 

57 minutes ago, Ian Hargrave said:

 
That’s pretty good for an rtr model of such modest weight.Question is 12 of which coaching stock as they are of varying bulk and free running characteristics ?

 

 

As I said, it wasn't a scientific test, just to put some quick test results on record and back up what Neal said.

 

Only tested on the level. 12 very similar coaches - all Hornby 57ft or 60ft stock with metal wheels and poinpoint axles in plastic bogies. (See the video for 10 of the 12.)

 

Edited July 29, 2020 by Harlequin

[Markn]

I popped into my local model shop on the way back from watching Alberta pass through the dales, and ended up with amongst other things, a GWR Prairie. Ran like a treat in the shop on dc and looks great. Will get some pics up soon so people can debate the colour 

[tomparryharry]

In all honesty, if you're putting on 12 in the real world, get a bigger locomotive. It's pretty flat from Paddington, but if it's going uphill, bring in a Hall, or something of similar haulage. 

 

In all fairness to both of you, I haven't bought one yet. I'd be expecting to see a haulage of 6-8 suburbans, and that's about it. 

 

Sorry if I've put a damper on your observations.

 

Cheers,

Ian. 

[Markn]

Here's GWR 4154 in the late afternoon sun

[Ian Hargrave]

Thank you. Wonder what it’s like in shade . 

[Markn]

1 hour ago, Ian Hargrave said:

Thank you. Wonder what it’s like in shade . 

A quick one, but Is this any good?

 

The shade is pretty much the same as an older Bachmann Prairie and not far off two Bachmann Panniers I've got in GWR green (they are a little darker). 

Edited July 29, 2020 by Markn

[Ian Hargrave]

Now that is a really useful post. Very many thanks.Shows it in a much more favourable light  for me.

[County of Yorkshire]

My 4154 has arrived... A much richer lustrous shade then GWR Hornby models of old. Front steps are wonky though; talk about splayed! 
 

 

Cheers, 

 

CoY

[Ian Hargrave]

17 minutes ago, County of Yorkshire said:

My 4154 has arrived... A much richer lustrous shade then GWR Hornby models of old. Front steps are wonky though; talk about splayed! 
 

 

Cheers, 

 

CoY

A particularly useful pair of images.Still unconvinced by the paint finish though .

 

 

[St Enodoc]

6 hours ago, tomparryharry said:

In all honesty, if you're putting on 12 in the real world, get a bigger locomotive. It's pretty flat from Paddington, but if it's going uphill, bring in a Hall, or something of similar haulage. 

 

In all fairness to both of you, I haven't bought one yet. I'd be expecting to see a haulage of 6-8 suburbans, and that's about it. 

 

Sorry if I've put a damper on your observations.

 

Cheers,

Ian. 

Big Prairie = 52t 13cwt adhesive weight. Hall = 54t 18cwt. Both power group D. Not too much difference really.

[meatloaf]

Ive just watched sams trains review on this and he thought his model might be faulty as it slows right down for no apparent reason.

 

 

[Hilux5972]

Hopefully that’s an isolated example and Sam has just been unlucky. 

[tomparryharry]

Sam's Trains is a  You Tube channel, and fair play to the guy, he gets to review quite a lot of models. But! Carpet? Really? 

 

" For best results, try to keep the models off the carpet" so sayeth the oft-repeated quote.... I have no intention of belittling Sam, or his successful channel (which it is), but reviewing a model outside of its ideal operating scenario is, to my mind, a bit unfair. 

 

Cheers,

Ian.

[Markn]

I stopped watching his videos a while ago as his anti Heljan rants were getting too much. I might watch this one though, to see if there's anything to look out for with this new tooling.

[Harlequin]

His main point is that when put under load it stalls instead of losing traction and spinning it's wheels. He infers from this that it has very little "torque".

 

Obviously, Sam's test is just one loco in very particular conditions. We need to do the same test on different locos in different conditions to assess if it's a general problem.

 

If my loco wasn't in bits to have sound fitted I would go and try that now (er, but it did wheelspin in my quick haulage test a few days ago).

 

Edited July 30, 2020 by Harlequin

[Markn]

Mines just had a lenz standard fitted and is on the rolling road. Will load it up shortly and see what it's like. 

[DKGL]

On 26/07/2020 at 21:30, MG 7305 said:

Am I the only one to be amazed by how gawdy Hornby models have become over recent years?  In the case of the GWR 61xx I record, a not exhaustive list:

 

1.  The all brass cylinder relief valve mechanism.  Most of this is steel and should be black and no one was polishing the cocks and exhaust pipes on a 61xx.

2.  Injectors and associated pipework.  These  was/is black, refer to recent repaint of 6106.  A 61xx was not a King, assuming Kings were so polished.

3.  Injector feed pipes on top of tanks to clack valves.  No one was polishing these, assuming they were copper in the first place.

4.  Hand brake handle, fireman's side in cab.  No, it was not red, it was black.  See 6106 again.

5.  Unpainted and polished brass pipes to the whistles.

 

Some of these, serials 1 and 2 for example, are also evident on the 42/52/72xx classes and 28xx/2884 classes amongst others, 

 

Not so gawdy but should be correctly presented:

 

1.  Reversing lever handle and reversing lever releasing handle, drivers side.  The tops of these should be polished steel, not red.

 

Other issues on request.

 

On the plus side correcting these issues on my railway increase sales of Humbrol paints!

 

Best regards

 

Julian

 

I've repainted some of the items (pipes etc) referred to here. Also, added screw couplings, and "Goalpost" ones as well as I use S&W couplings on most of the stock. Does look less "Gaudy".

One issue I did have was with the front pony truck. This seemed to be running too high, and not touching the track. Also, the screw holding this, when tightened, stopped the truck from moving, and when left loose, could have unscrewed completely and come adrift. What I did was to put a thin washer between the truck and the body, which seems to have addressed the height issue, and put a very small bit of Blue Tack on to the screw, before replacing, leaving it loose enough for the truck to move.

 

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, DKGL said:

 

 

 

One issue I did have was with the front pony truck. This seemed to be running too high, and not touching the track. Also, the screw holding this, when tightened, stopped the truck from moving, and when left loose, could have unscrewed completely and come adrift. What I did was to put a thin washer between the truck and the body, which seems to have addressed the height issue, and put a very small bit of Blue Tack on to the screw, before replacing, leaving it loose enough for the truck to move.

 

If you go back a few posts I told how I got round this problem.

I put a single turn of thin wire around the fixing screw, which can then be properly tightened on to the mounting post, whilst allowing more up/down movement in the pony truck.

 

I still find the pony truck will derail fairly readily where other locos with leading trucks don't (e.g. the previous Hornby version)

I am currently experimenting with light springing to keep it on the track, the final form of which is still being worked on.

 

Likewise the rear truck has too much side play, so I am also working on a centring spring for that.

 

It's a pity about the trucks as it is otherwise a very good model but currently the previous version is a much more surefooted runner.

[maico]

3 hours ago, Markn said:

I stopped watching his videos a while ago as his anti Heljan rants were getting too much. I might watch this one though, to see if there's anything to look out for with this new tooling.

 

What about the running board, should it bend down forward of the water tank?

[The Stationmaster]

13 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Big Prairie = 52t 13cwt adhesive weight. Hall = 54t 18cwt. Both power group D. Not too much difference really.

Both allowed 420 tons trailing on the fairly level bits such as paddington - Reading but the large prairie was basically one coach less (23 - 36 tons to be precise, depending on location) on the hilly bits so a prairie was only allowed 252 tons trailing from Newton to Brent against 275 for a 'Hall'  (all figures are in respect of passenger train loads).   420 tons seems to have been the maximum permitted load for a large prairie and no Milk Train loads were quoted for them in 1963 when all the surviving GW 4-6-0s plus the 47XX were permitted to take heavier maximum loads when working Milk Trains.

 

Possibly of greater interest a 'Hall' or 'Grange' was allowed 380/385 (385 for the 68XX) between Plymouth and Penzance while a large prairie was allowed 350 tons, similar loads in both directions.  The large prairie load was the same as that for a mogul and a 'Manor'.

 

All of the above are from the 1963 Loads Book but while some loads changed over the years the original 1927 GWR Passenger Train Loads Book gave exactly the same loads between Plymouth and Penzance for a large prairie although a 'Saint' was also limited to 350 tons and only a 'Star' was allowed the heavier load equal to that quoted later for a 'Hall'.

[DKGL]

12 minutes ago, melmerby said:

If you go back a few posts I told how I got round this problem.

I put a single turn of thin wire around the fixing screw, which can then be properly tightened on to the mounting post, whilst allowing more up/down movement in the pony truck.

 

I still find the pony truck will derail fairly readily where other locos with leading trucks don't (e.g. the previous Hornby version)

I am currently experimenting with light springing to keep it on the track, the final form of which is still being worked on.

 

Likewise the rear truck has too much side play, so I am also working on a centring spring for that.

 

It's a pity about the trucks as it is otherwise a very good model but currently the previous version is a much more surefooted runner.

 

Thanks, found your post. I'll check this out later.

[St Enodoc]

21 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Both allowed 420 tons trailing on the fairly level bits such as paddington - Reading but the large prairie was basically one coach less (23 - 36 tons to be precise, depending on location) on the hilly bits so a prairie was only allowed 252 tons trailing from Newton to Brent against 275 for a 'Hall'  (all figures are in respect of passenger train loads).   420 tons seems to have been the maximum permitted load for a large prairie and no Milk Train loads were quoted for them in 1963 when all the surviving GW 4-6-0s plus the 47XX were permitted to take heavier maximum loads when working Milk Trains.

 

Possibly of greater interest a 'Hall' or 'Grange' was allowed 380/385 (385 for the 68XX) between Plymouth and Penzance while a large prairie was allowed 350 tons, similar loads in both directions.  The large prairie load was the same as that for a mogul and a 'Manor'.

 

All of the above are from the 1963 Loads Book but while some loads changed over the years the original 1927 GWR Passenger Train Loads Book gave exactly the same loads between Plymouth and Penzance for a large prairie although a 'Saint' was also limited to 350 tons and only a 'Star' was allowed the heavier load equal to that quoted later for a 'Hall'.

Thanks Mike. As you probably realised I was, of course, being slightly mischievous to make a point. The power groups were very broad and the nominal tractive effort/BP give a better clue:

 

5101 = 24,300lb, 200psi

43xx = 25,670lb, 200psi

61xx = 27,340lb, 225psi

Manor = 27,340lb, 225psi

Hall = 27,275lb, 225psi

Grange = 28,875lb, 225psi

 

The Grange had more TE (not power) than the Hall because of the smaller driving wheels - one reason why they were preferred in Cornwall where speed wasn't an issue. On gradients the Hall would have the edge over a 5101, which had lower boiler pressure than the 61xx and hence less TE. Timing might also come into it, as a smaller-boilered Manor probably wouldn't be able to keep the same time over the banks as a Grange or Hall.

 

Loads and timing, as you know, were (are) a bit of a black art.

Edited July 30, 2020 by St Enodoc