Hornby - New Tooling - Terrier

[Edwardian]

7 hours ago, Rising Standards said:

 

The second photo on this page shows the style of lining carried by the Hornby model. I won't personally be particularly troubled by exactly when it carried this style, but it's nice to know it did at some stage while in early crest form.

 

On seeing the photo you found and this one, the length of the smokebox handrail is a bit disappointing, but it is as per the render shown at the time of announcement. I'll see how much it bothers me when I actually get the model.

 

That is interesting.  The picture I posted was dated 1950, and the text in Middlemass states that 32655 was the first Terrier to go into BR lined black.  It seems to follow that only after this did BR standardise its splasher lining for the class, adopting the style depicted by Hornby.  It would, therefore, be good to have a date for the picture your linked, as there was evidently a repaint at some stage during the early-crest period. 

 

I suppose one could clip off the drooping smoke-box handrails.   

[Right Away]

8 hours ago, Les1952 said:

 

Yes I have put a decoder in mine- and it ain't easy, though removing the body is one of the easier steps, certainly a lot less painful than Hattons Barclay for instance..

 

I picked up a black Terrier at Nottingham show - price on the box £81.  As I don't have the facility to run in a loco analogue I checked its function on the half-yard of track I can make analogue then looked at the instructions for chipping.

 

Firstly - the body is held on by two screws that are of slightly different sizes- the one at the smokebox end is VERY short and a little swine to reseat on reassembly.  Take care not to try to put them in the wrong apertures - from personal experience it is a nightmare to get them out again.....

 

Next- the sand pipes are vulnerable when removing the body - but you are warned about this in the instructions - makes it a good idea to read them first.  

 

The interface is in the smokebox with not a lot of room beyond it.  The blanking plug is on the short side.   The Hornby recommended decoder is one with a 6 pin plug and a set of wires to the decoder - ie a six-pin version of the 4-pin one in the Sentinel and Peckett.  I had a lot of trouble with both of these getting the wires tucked away tidily in order to get the body back on.  In any case Hornby's decoder isn't available yet.  

 

I decided to use a Gaugemaster decoder as my preferred Zimo one was far too long.  Indeed the Gaugemaster is also too long but CAN be made to fit as follows (invalidating the warranty no doubt).

 

The decoder needs about 2 millimetres taking off the length of its pins.  Once this is done the chip is short enough but is prevented from sitting fully into the socket by a protrubing plastic lip below the row of six holes.  This needs to be cut away for the chip to sit in place (bye-bye warranty).  Once this is done it exposes two blobs of solder - probably the reason the lip is there in the first place.  A small piece of Kapton or insulting tape is needed to cover this.  The decoder now protrubes beyond the front of the chassis by just less than a millimetre, but there is enough clearance to get the body back on.

 

Proof of the pud is that it works and has done about 40 laps of the club layout to run it in.  It is a nice silent performer.  As to rivets and tank lips- I can live with any small discrepancies here as I'm not sufficiently familiar with the prototype- the model has the overall look of a Terrier in a way the old one didn't, and it feels like a terrier, which is enough.  I may get an LSWR liveried one from Dapol, but maybe not.  I don't actually need the one I have.

 

I am concerned about the long lamp irons, which seem to be easily distorted.  Perhaps they could have been metal rather than softish plastic.  I suspect these will end up going the way of the Peckett whistles (ie coming apart and being replaced by brass) but only time will tell.

 

I hope this lot is useful to someone.....

 

Les

 

 

Thanks for that Les; forwarned is forearmed.

 

I had been hoping that a Zimo 6 pin "direct" decoder could have been fitted (MX617N or similar).

 

When we still have to resort to hacking bits out and shortening pins etc on new release models, giving associated warantee issues, we might as well go the whole distance and hard wire decoders. At the very least, a potential fault point is then eliminated!

 

By comparison, the "P" class is a dream to work on.

Edited March 20, 2019 by Right Away
Finger trouble!

[JohnR]

I'd argue that its not "DCC Ready" if you have to do surgery to either the model or the decoder to make it fit. 

[Al51]

9 hours ago, Les1952 said:

 

  In any case Hornby's decoder isn't available yet.  

 

 

Hornby's R7150 6 pin decoder is available, I've got one fitted to my 32636. The wires are shorter than other 6 pin decoders I've fitted,  which makes it an easy and snug fit.

Derails have it here .

 

Al

 

[Right Away]

40 minutes ago, JohnR said:

I'd argue that its not "DCC Ready" if you have to do surgery to either the model or the decoder to make it fit. 

My sentiments to a tee!

 

By virtue of necessity many of us have become extremely proficient with the trickier installations, however there is always concern over the likelihood of damage as a result.

Not so long ago, DCC was often quoted as "the way forward" or words to that effect. This is somewhat "off topic" and might be better discussed elsewhere but for those who wish to instal  decoders themselves .... remember the advert slogan " it does what it says on the (tin) box."

 

 

[truffy]

1 hour ago, JohnR said:

I'd argue that its not "DCC Ready" if you have to do surgery to either the model or the decoder to make it fit. 

 

I agree. But, as is the nature of all marketing, it comes down to how you define "ready".

 

Some might argue, quite reasonably, that it simply requires the insertion of a decoder in the supplied slot.

 

Others might argue, just as reasonably albeit fast-and-loose, that it means supplying a slot and all the regulatory electrical gubbins other than the decoder ("YMMV guv'!").

 

Disclaimer: I have yet to decide which DCC option I will go with, so all but one loco in my collection is DCC-ready. I have yet to fit a decoder. The fun that awaits!

Edited March 20, 2019 by truffy
DCC disclaimer

[AY Mod]

Howard Smith has done an initial review for our World of Railways site.

 

https://www.world-of-railways.co.uk/brm/reviews/hornby/news-hornby-terrier-first-look?fbclid=IwAR065LaLEVteU1OQmnnrwPssZleInPTdxsTM28BDWYKcxu8bwCKUnYdveiI

[clarkeeboy56]

My Terrier arrived yesterday. I'm happy enough with the detail and finish, however............a trial run up and down the line at Swanhurst seemed okay at first, but problems occurred on points, where she stalled. Now, all my points are Electrofrog, so this really shouldn't happen. So I had a look at the pick ups. They are incredibly thin copper and the centre pair were out of shape, no where near the wheels. I just about managed to bend them into shape and ran it again. It was ok for a while and then the same thing happened. The friction/movement of the wheels seemed to have bent the pick ups back to where they were. I tried to amend one of the centre wheel pick ups  but it snapped off!  I'm not a happy bunny! Has anyone else had this problem? Apart from sending it back, any thoughts? Any solutions? 

Edited March 20, 2019 by clarkeeboy56
Spelling

[The Stationmaster]

3 hours ago, Edwardian said:

 

That is interesting.  The picture I posted was dated 1950, and the text in Middlemass states that 32655 was the first Terrier to go into BR lined black.  It seems to follow that only after this did BR standardise its splasher lining for the class, adopting the style depicted by Hornby.  It would, therefore, be good to have a date for the picture your linked, as there was evidently a repaint at some stage during the early-crest period. 

 

I suppose one could clip off the drooping smoke-box handrails.   

Photos would suggest otherwise.  There is at least one published photo of a Terrier with the late BR emblem (in BR service) with the grey/cream lining running along the bottom of the splasher as well as round its radius.  So there is yet another potential Terrier minefield opening up.  And the only answer - as so often - is reliably dated photos but, in this particular case, of clean engines taken from an angle where the grey/cream lining at the bottom of the splasher would be visible,

 

As always one needs to exercise care taking livery details from engines repainted in preservation as mistakes are not unknown and if the NRM can tolerate something wrong, painting wise, on 'City of Truro' one needs to know just who can be trusted.

[RodneyS]

Wainwright1 (Ray) asked why the buffers on 32655 and the K&ESR model are different.

 

The Terriers were built with a buffer height of 3' 3 3/4'' which was probably standard at the time.  Over the years buffer heights increased.

When the Terriers were adapted for push pull working it was obviously decided that low buffers were unsuitable.

The buffers were raised by about 2'' bringing them even higher over the top of the footplate.  This was achieved with a casting which fitted over the existing buffer  beam and extended over the footplate.  There was a similar casting underneath the footplate.

At the same time the rear coupling was also raised, something which Dapol missed on their 0 gauge model.

Stepney is now the only example of this.

 

When long bunkers were fitted to the Terriers taken to the Isle of Wight the buffers and couplings were lowered again.

 

32662 was the same as Stepney but when a long bunker was fitted in late BR days it seems to have been fitted with a new rear buffer beam without the brackets and with the rear coupling lowered.

 

Like most things on Terriers, buffers are not straightforward.  Bizarre might be a good description.

 

The buffers are bolted to the buffer beam and the footplate, which extends over the buffer beam by about 1'', is notched around them.

This does make it look as if the buffers are recessed.

As the footplate is only 1/4'' thick, I think it would be impossible to represent this on a commercial model without it being rather over scale.

Rodney

[Edwardian]

10 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Photos would suggest otherwise.  There is at least one published photo of a Terrier with the late BR emblem (in BR service) with the grey/cream lining running along the bottom of the splasher as well as round its radius.  So there is yet another potential Terrier minefield opening up.  And the only answer - as so often - is reliably dated photos but, in this particular case, of clean engines taken from an angle where the grey/cream lining at the bottom of the splasher would be visible,

 

As always one needs to exercise care taking livery details from engines repainted in preservation as mistakes are not unknown and if the NRM can tolerate something wrong, painting wise, on 'City of Truro' one needs to know just who can be trusted.

 

Again, interesting. 

 

In this particular case, the aspect that fascinates me is that, even within the early-crested era, the same locomotive ran with 2 entirely different styles of splasher lining.  As a humble pre-Grouper, I find this all very confusing!

 

This is why it is important never to state more than one knows.  Better to say, e.g. "there is a picture that shows X", rather than insist that "Y is wrong!".  As it turns out, there might be another picture one hasn't seen, showing Y! 

[Edwardian]

1 hour ago, RodneyS said:

Wainwright1 (Ray) asked why the buffers on 32655 and the K&ESR model are different.

 

The Terriers were built with a buffer height of 3' 3 3/4'' which was probably standard at the time.  Over the years buffer heights increased.

When the Terriers were adapted for push pull working it was obviously decided that low buffers were unsuitable.

The buffers were raised by about 2'' bringing them even higher over the top of the footplate.  This was achieved with a casting which fitted over the existing buffer  beam and extended over the footplate.  There was a similar casting underneath the footplate.

At the same time the rear coupling was also raised, something which Dapol missed on their 0 gauge model.

Stepney is now the only example of this.

 

When long bunkers were fitted to the Terriers taken to the Isle of Wight the buffers and couplings were lowered again.

 

32662 was the same as Stepney but when a long bunker was fitted in late BR days it seems to have been fitted with a new rear buffer beam without the brackets and with the rear coupling lowered.

 

Like most things on Terriers, buffers are not straightforward.  Bizarre might be a good description.

 

The buffers are bolted to the buffer beam and the footplate, which extends over the buffer beam by about 1'', is notched around them.

This does make it look as if the buffers are recessed.

As the footplate is only 1/4'' thick, I think it would be impossible to represent this on a commercial model without it being rather over scale.

Rodney

 

Yes, the effect, not the reality of construction, is recessed.  As I understand it, the actual buffer guide casting is proud of the buffer beam, though inset slightly inasmuch as the front lip of the footplate is cut out to accept it.    

 

I believe that , as built, the buffer beams themselves extended upward to form the semi-circular backing to the buffers, giving that inset appearance, the footplate cut out to accommodate.  On the Hornby A1s, it looks like the whole depth of this arrangement, including the part that should be formed by the buffer beam, is forward of the buffer beam.  In any case, there is nothing aft of the buffer to represent the curved parts of the buffer beam. 

 

That leaves the Hornby buffers looking oddly tacked on to the front of the buffer beam, especially in the A1, where there is no lamp iron bracket on the front buffers, so nothing behind the buffer, which floats most oddly as a result.  

Edited March 20, 2019 by Edwardian

[truffy]

51 minutes ago, clarkeeboy56 said:

Apart from sending it back, any thoughts? Any solutions? 

 

There was a similar problem posted on the Hattons SE&CR P Class (part deux) thread, with a couple of work-arounds. perhaps worth looking at that?

 

start here: https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/126142-secr-p-class-0-6-0t-in-oo-gauge-2nd-batch-now-in-stock/&do=findComment&comment=3496788

Edited March 20, 2019 by truffy
added linkage

[rembrow]

Having received the BR late emblem version, I've examined the buffer and buffer plate representation made by Hornby, under magnification. Hornby have made the buffer plate in a manner that has it extending over the buffer beam on to the footplate. They have done this by moulding the plate at the rear of the buffer, with a step which when fitted, extends slightly over the footplate. The buffer plate is still too thick, however it looks like the buffer shank and rear plate are fixings that could be removed, if so the moulded step can be made deeper. I suspect the reason why H have used this method, is that the footplate and buffer beams are 

produced in metal, presumably for weight. It could be more complicated to produce an accurate recess in the buffer beams.

Edited March 20, 2019 by rembrow
Add clarification

[woodenhead]

16 minutes ago, rembrow said:

Having received the BR late emblem version, I've examined the buffer and buffer plate representation made by Hornby, under magnification. Hornby have made the buffer plate in a manner that has it extending over the buffer beam on to the footplate. They have done this by moulding the plate at the rear of the buffer, with a step which when fitted, extends slightly over the footplate. The buffer plate is still too thick, however it looks like the buffer shank and rear plate are fixings that could be removed, if so the moulded step can be made deeper. I suspect the reason why H have used this method, is that the footplate and buffer beams are 

produced in metal, presumably for weight. It could be more complicated to produce an accurate recess in the buffer beams.

But presumably said plate being made of metal will have been cast in a mould too, they won't have cut it from a single sheet of metal, in which case a recess could have been cast into the plate.

[clarkeeboy56]

2 hours ago, truffy said:

 

There was a similar problem posted on the Hattons SE&CR P Class (part deux) thread, with a couple of work-arounds. perhaps worth looking at that?

 

start here: https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/126142-secr-p-class-0-6-0t-in-oo-gauge-2nd-batch-now-in-stock/&do=findComment&comment=3496788

Thanks Truffy,  If I'm looking at the posts you suggest, these point to tweaking  the pick-ups. Was that right, or did I miss the post you were referring to. I tried tweaking them, buy , they just bent back out of shape, and One has snapped off.  

 

[rembrow]

2 hours ago, woodenhead said:

But presumably said plate being made of metal will have been cast in a mould too, they won't have cut it from a single sheet of metal, in which case a recess could have been cast into the plate.

I don't think it would have been possible. The buffer beam is commendably thin, so to mould a recess could have made the outer edge of the buffer beam casting too susceptible to damage. Based on what member RodneyS has posted a few above, Hornby seem to have tried to replicate the prototype, if the buffers were not recessed into the beam but had a lip at the top extending over the footplate. 

[truffy]

41 minutes ago, clarkeeboy56 said:

Thanks Truffy,  If I'm looking at the posts you suggest, these point to tweaking  the pick-ups. Was that right, or did I miss the post you were referring to. I tried tweaking them, buy , they just bent back out of shape, and One has snapped off.  

 

That was correct. And just above that post was also a suggestion by 34theletterbetweenBa&D to work harden them if they're soft. Can't say I've ever needed to try that though.

 

Given that a contact is broken though, I don't know what the warranty situation would be should you decide to return it.

[Edwardian]

2 minutes ago, rembrow said:

I don't think it would have been possible. The buffer beam is commendably thin, so to mould a recess could have made the outer edge of the buffer beam casting too susceptible to damage. Based on what member RodneyS has posted a few above, Hornby seem to have tried to replicate the prototype, if the buffers were not recessed into the beam but had a lip at the top extending over the footplate. 

 

There is no representation that I can see on the Hornby A1s of the raised curved section of the buffer beam that sits behind the buffer casting and flange and for which the footplate has a cut out.

 

I was wrong on one point about Rolvendon - it has come out with rear window grills, which the prototype does not seem to have had in this condition, despite the coal rails.

 

 

Further, the cab rear on Hornby's model shows the flush single part cab plates that seem to have been fitted to A1Xs late in the day when the originals had perished. Picture is copyright of Rails of Sheffield and taken from its website.

 

 

As built, and for much of their careers, the cab rear sheet would have had a vertical but-plate down the centre, as per the Boxhill picture attached.   As Rolvendon was withdrawn in A1 condition and had no major alterations at the time the model represents, its cab rear ought to look like the Boxhill picture. 

 

 

 

[Georgeconna]

Interesting to Compare the two models now that rails have put up thier Samples. I'll let you experts dwell over whats what, but despite looking there is little between the 2 models. The Rails Chimney cap join gap would put me off that model when compared to the Hornby one. The other one is the connecting rods are more fish bellied than the Rails one. Over to you chaps.

 

 

[Edwardian]

53 minutes ago, Georgeconna said:

Interesting to Compare the two models now that rails have put up thier Samples. I'll let you experts dwell over whats what, but despite looking there is little between the 2 models. The Rails Chimney cap join gap would put me off that model when compared to the Hornby one. The other one is the connecting rods are more fish bellied than the Rails one. Over to you chaps.

 

 

 

Seriously, you can't tell the difference?!?

 

Pictures

[Georgeconna]

15 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

Seriously, you can't tell the difference?!?

 

Pictures

TBH the Rails ones are engineering samples so personally no point in going ott on those samples but when compared the Black BR ones not much in it tbh. 

 

The Lining on Box Hill is nice but it has the same plastic wheels and off shade colour on the wheels. nothing a bit of weathering will cure.

 

I'm not much of a rivet counter Mr Edwardian and dont loose to much sleep about these things but enjoy reading the huff and puff about such things 

 

 

[PaulRhB]

32 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

Seriously, you can't tell the difference?!?

 

Pictures

Some people aren’t focused so much on the detail but the overall shape. My father is still perfectly happy with 80’s and 90’s Hornby as he just runs trains. He will be perfectly happy with the Hornby one because it saves him £30 odd quid. 

Just be glad there are two price options and buy the one you prefer  

[Edwardian]

 

Not making accuracy the determining factor in a purchase is something I understand.  There are other priorities, such as price.  That's not how I make my decisions, but I understand it.

 

Claiming that you can't actually tell the difference is, however, baffling. 

[PaulRhB]

11 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

Claiming that you can't actually tell the difference is, however, baffling. 

Simply because we all look at things differently. There are for example loads of people happy with early Bachmann 37’s yet others are in virtual apolexy over the ‘wrong shape’. It’s perception and we see things differently because of what we look at. Many people can’t tell a Jinty from a Terrier, it’s just a little tank engine. 

Just relax and accept it, the posts on the details and faults are informative but they just aren’t enough to matter to many. 

Personally I’m still waiting for an Olive Hornby SR Radial because I prefer their versions detail but that’s my choice to do without for now and I have no issue with others choosing the cheaper Oxford version. 

Edited March 20, 2019 by PaulRhB