Is Hornby Class 153 the correct height?

[NSE Mule]

I recently got my hands on a second-hand regional railways Class 153, the idea is to purchase another to convert back into a 155 as the original Hornby (I think originally Dapol?) 155 does not look right at all. This is the first time I have seen a Hornby 153 and whilst it looks stunning it seems to sit a bit low? or is a bit squished height wise? Which is ironic as the original Hornby 155 body looks way too tall? Anyone else think this?

[JDW]

I'm not at home right now so can't post a direct nose to nose comparison picture with a 150/156/158 but I can't say as I've ever thought it is too low.  I believe there was a discussion about the roof shape not being quite right, but it is a world away from the very poor Hornby (ex-Dapol) 155.  If you're comparing it to that, then the latter will look taller as it has no black solebar, and the bodyside colour goes right down to the bottom - see Jim S-W's P4 New Street web pages for a good comparison of a Dapol 155 out of the box and after a lot of work to correct the errors.  

 

These two are stood on their flanges, which will obviously affect the look (Conversion by me, paint by Andi Walshaw/Cairns Road Works).  Please post some pics as you get on with the conversion.  Will it be a West Yorks or Sprinter liveried version?

 

 

 

 

[newbryford]

Or is the 156 high on it's deep flanges?

 

I wonder how the Hornby 153 compares to a Bachmann 150 or a Realtrack 156?

 

(I have all 3, but not to hand.....)

[JDW]

I can't say as I've ever noticed a real difference - certainly not in the same way that something like a Hornby 142 looks too high next to a 144/150/153/156/158.  

[Butler Henderson]

IIRC the cab roof is not 100% correctly shaped which might make the model look a bit low head on in terms of the cab face.

[DCB]

Its a difficult one. I have a real "Thing" about relative heights.   Without any buffers as a reference point its very difficult to work out what is too high or too low. The trouble is 1mm discrepancy 1/13th  in height is probably more noticeable than 10mm  1/7th in length. 

Sitting both on the track is essential but its up to you whether  you line up the cant rails, as I tend to do, or the bottoms of the doors which will be standard, or some other feature where the two types are the same.  It may even be necessary to change the roof on one before you are really happy.   You could always make sure they are never seen together....

 

[newbryford]

4 minutes ago, DavidCBroad said:

Its a difficult one. I have a real "Thing" about relative heights.   Without any buffers as a reference point its very difficult to work out what is too high or too low. The trouble is 1mm discrepancy 1/13th  in height is probably more noticeable than 10mm  1/7th in length. 

Sitting both on the track is essential but its up to you whether  you line up the cant rails, as I tend to do, or the bottoms of the doors which will be standard, or some other feature where the two types are the same.  It may even be necessary to change the roof on one before you are really happy.   You could always make sure they are never seen together....

 

 

In the absence of buffers, the 150, 153 and 156 all have dummy BSI couplers - they should match up.....

[NSE Mule]

On 09/03/2019 at 23:59, JDW said:

I'm not at home right now so can't post a direct nose to nose comparison picture with a 150/156/158 but I can't say as I've ever thought it is too low.  I believe there was a discussion about the roof shape not being quite right, but it is a world away from the very poor Hornby (ex-Dapol) 155.  If you're comparing it to that, then the latter will look taller as it has no black solebar, and the bodyside colour goes right down to the bottom - see Jim S-W's P4 New Street web pages for a good comparison of a Dapol 155 out of the box and after a lot of work to correct the errors.  

 

These two are stood on their flanges, which will obviously affect the look (Conversion by me, paint by Andi Walshaw/Cairns Road Works).  Please post some pics as you get on with the conversion.  Will it be a West Yorks or Sprinter liveried version?

 

 

 

 

Thanks for your response. I have very limited stock to compare it too, but just felt it looked a bit squat when I took it out of the box the first time. I do have the Hornby/Dapol 155 but I know comparing them together is wrong for starters, especially as the older model is far too long in the body. The things I have compared it too (which I thought would be the nearest thing) is a Bachmann 4TC and a Bachmann Mk2. The door end connections on the 4TC are massive compared to the 153 and the roof height does look much bigger. Against the Mk2 whilst there appears to be a height difference it's not as noticeable. I've tried to add attachments to show examples but the site won't let me. I am going with the original sprinter livery as I am planning (no idea when it will happen!!) model Salisbury station in 1990-92 where the 155s were used on the Weymouth services. How did you find converting the 153s? 

[NSE Mule]

On 10/03/2019 at 11:46, DavidCBroad said:

Its a difficult one. I have a real "Thing" about relative heights.   Without any buffers as a reference point its very difficult to work out what is too high or too low. The trouble is 1mm discrepancy 1/13th  in height is probably more noticeable than 10mm  1/7th in length. 

Sitting both on the track is essential but its up to you whether  you line up the cant rails, as I tend to do, or the bottoms of the doors which will be standard, or some other feature where the two types are the same.  It may even be necessary to change the roof on one before you are really happy.   You could always make sure they are never seen together....

 

Yes, I have no other second-generation DMUs to compare with. It's funny that I thought it felt squat even before I placed it on some track.

[NSE Mule]

On 10/03/2019 at 00:03, newbryford said:

Or is the 156 high on it's deep flanges?

 

I wonder how the Hornby 153 compares to a Bachmann 150 or a Realtrack 156?

 

(I have all 3, but not to hand.....)

That would be an interesting comparison. 

[JDW]

1 hour ago, Stretchdj said:

Thanks for your response. I have very limited stock to compare it too, but just felt it looked a bit squat when I took it out of the box the first time. I do have the Hornby/Dapol 155 but I know comparing them together is wrong for starters, especially as the older model is far too long in the body. The things I have compared it too (which I thought would be the nearest thing) is a Bachmann 4TC and a Bachmann Mk2. The door end connections on the 4TC are massive compared to the 153 and the roof height does look much bigger. Against the Mk2 whilst there appears to be a height difference it's not as noticeable. I've tried to add attachments to show examples but the site won't let me. I am going with the original sprinter livery as I am planning (no idea when it will happen!!) model Salisbury station in 1990-92 where the 155s were used on the Weymouth services. How did you find converting the 153s? 

 

The conversion itself was easy, I was following someone else on here who had posted step by step details, I can't remember off the top of my head who it was though.  In a nutshell, it involved filling the "new" end cab side windows, cutting out the old cab front and replacing it with a piece of plasticard, and re-attaching the gangway.  Then removing the NRN radio pod on the (ex-)cab roof with a flat piece of plasticard (it just unclips), and opening the additional side windows and glazing them (from memory I think I bought a spare glazed shell to donate the extra glazing, whereas the person who I was "copying" had made his own.  You might even get away without a full repaint if you start with the RR liveried version.  

[NSE Mule]

Yes, I know of the post with the step by step conversion, it's really handy. This will be my first ever attempt at modifying any of my rolling stock so quite nervous with the thought of attacking a very good model with a blade and filler  Just looking for an appropriate priced second 153 before I start. As for the livery, I think it will need a full repaint (another first for me!!) as I actually think it will be easier looking at photos and the original Hornby 155 (as a rough reference).

 

[Ravenser]

At the risk of saying something deeply heretical, what we need here is a scale drawing (preferably  with leading dimensions shown)......

[JDW]

So, your highness.  First up, Hornby 153 and Hornby (ex-Lima) 156:

 

 

Then with a Bachmann 158:

 

 

...and a Bachmann 150/2:

 

 

And finally with a Hornby 142 which looks like a giant...  though to be fair, the 142 looks too tall alongside most other stock.  

 

 

I didn't have a Realtrack 144 or Bachmann 170 to hand I'm afraid, but you get the idea, I'm sure. 

 

Edit to add that here is a picture of a 155+156 for comparison, showing that the 155 does have a flatter, lower roof than the 156: 

http://www.hondawanderer.com/155320_Marshfield_1989.htm

Edited March 13, 2019 by JDW

[DCB]

Looks like you need a template so you can adjust the corridor connections to a consistent height for 153 and 156 and it might be easier to model the GWR than try to make the rest look compatible.

[lyneux]

Just found this thread. You are right in your original post, the Hornby 153 body is way too squat (as also evidenced from almost all of the photos that JDW posted)!

 

I am busy doing a 155 in EM from a mix of Dapol 155 and Hornby 153 bits that I am documenting over on the DEMU forum.

 

Whilst the chassis is a no-brainer (use the Hornby 153 one), I spent quite a bit of time trying to decide whether the Dapol 155 or the the Hornby 153 bodies were a better starting point. I have settled on the Dapol 155 as I think the Hornby 153 body is way too 'squat' (something like 2-3mm vertical compression compared to the prototype). The Hornby 153 also rides about a mill too high. This could be because it is using 12.2mm wheels in place of 10.5mm wheels. When the wheels are converted to the correct size, this then brings the frame down to the correct height (about a mill).

 

Below are some comparison photos with the different wheels so that you can see the height difference (lined up next to a Bachmann 150 which is correct). In addition, the Hornby gangway is about 3mm too squat (presumably to fit the too-squat 153 body shell). Below are some comparison photos of the Bachmann 150 gangway against the Hornby one. I will be using a resin cast copy of the Bachmann one on my 155.

 

Edit: Note that in the pictures the Dapol 155 has had 3mm trimmed from the bottom edge of the body (as per Jim Smith-Wright's approach over on his P4 New Street blog). This is because Dapol modelled the sole bar as a lower extension of the body shell whilst Hornby have retained it on the chassis.

 

Guy

 

On the original Hornby 153 wheels (12.2mm diameter):

 

On Keen-Maygib 10.5mm wheels (note cantrail stripe, bottom of door and top of roof are now at the same height as the 150).

 

Hornby on the left, Bachmann on the right.

 

Edited April 12, 2020 by lyneux

[cheesysmith]

This raises a different question, does anybody have a Hornby ex lima 156 to measure the wheels on that model? Did Hornby use the same too big wheels on that?

[chris251]

Only just seen this question,  I bought a Hornby (ex Lima) class 156 spare motor bogie a few months ago, the wheels are 11.5mm diameter.  (measured with vernier gauge)

[richierich]

The other factor to bear in mind is the outer gangway connector on all Sprinters should be the same size.  It there is 3mm difference between the Hornby 153 and a Bachmann 158 (new tooling). 
 

I struggle with how manufacturers get such details wrong.