RMweb Gold NoggintheNog Posted January 19 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 19 19 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said: Surely the relevant question is why did it slow down? Were the rails dirty, was the track joined correctly (that would have shown up with other models so not wholly relevant), was therea power supply issur e= dur=e to dirt in rail joiners, or was there some particular problem on the loco wheels or the stock? He had an old airfix or mainline 2mt running on the same track with no problems. It was the model. 1 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Ian Hargrave Posted January 19 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 19 19 minutes ago, NoggintheNog said: He had an old airfix or mainline 2mt running on the same track with no problems. It was the model. So would this older model be loco or tender driven ? Because if it’s the latter that would make a huge difference to adhesion. & consequent performance. AFAIK,no current OO steam image model is thus powered. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wheatley Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 (edited) Agreed, traction tires will win every time for haulage, even with the Christmas cracker Airfix motor in the tender. The later Hornby loco drive re-issue of the Airfix/Mainline Fowler 2P has traction tyres too, just on different wheels. The old Hornby Ivatt 2MT was tender drive (Edit - oh no it wasn't !) (and dreadful), a fair comparison would be with the Bachmann Ivatt 2MT. Edited January 19 by Wheatley 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hodgson Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 19 hours ago, gwrrob said: Apparently the Kernow railmotor can haul 10 mk 1s for comparison. Perhaps we could roster one to haul a relief for the Cornish Riveria express 1 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium cctransuk Posted January 19 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 19 1 hour ago, Wheatley said: The old Hornby Ivatt 2MT was tender drive .... Are you sure - all the ones that I came across were X04 (et seq) loco drive? CJI. 8 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coppercap Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 (edited) 49 minutes ago, cctransuk said: Are you sure - all the ones that I came across were X04 (et seq) loco drive? CJI. Correct, and if anything like mine (the first type with wide-tread wheels and no flanges on the centre drivers), unable to pull much when not on steel track - it slipped terribly. A very disappointing model IMO. Edited January 19 by Coppercap 1 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Ian Hargrave Posted January 19 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 19 2 hours ago, Ian Hargrave said: So would this older model be loco or tender driven ? Because if it’s the latter that would make a huge difference to adhesion. & consequent performance. AFAIK,no current OO steam image model is thus powered. Well apparently ,we are reliably informed that it is in fact XO4 driven loco drive.,so I’ve removed my further post.Opinions on its capabilities can be found above. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wheatley Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 1 hour ago, cctransuk said: Are you sure - all the ones that I came across were X04 (et seq) loco drive? CJI. Oops. Yes you're quite right, I had two and I'd completely forgotten that. Only because they a) couldn't get the wretched Ringfield motor in there and b) already had the old loco-drive six-coupled chassis which had the right number of wheels and was therefore near enough. They were still dreadful. 2 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium cctransuk Posted January 19 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 19 (edited) 2 hours ago, Wheatley said: Oops. Yes you're quite right, I had two and I'd completely forgotten that. Only because they a) couldn't get the wretched Ringfield motor in there and b) already had the old loco-drive six-coupled chassis which had the right number of wheels and was therefore near enough. They were still dreadful. It wasn't a case of they couldn't get the Ringfield into the tender - the Ringfield hadn't been invented when the 2MT was released. CJI. Edited January 19 by cctransuk 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold gwrrob Posted January 19 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 19 @AY Mod BRM review has been released in the March issue today. The running of the model superb, smooth and silent. Capable of handling half a dozen Mk 1 coaches. 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
5Dublo2 Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 8 minutes ago, cctransuk said: It wasn't a case of they couldn't get the Ringfield into the tender - the Ringfield hadn't been invented when the 2MT was released. CJI. That depends on your definition of a Ringfield motor - I have a boxed 1957 3 Rail Hornby Dublo Castle where the box proclaims that it is "FITTED WITH RING FIELD PEAK-POWER MOTOR" 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coppercap Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 48 minutes ago, cctransuk said: It wasn't a case of they couldn't get the Ringfield into the tender - the Ringfield hadn't been invented when the 2MT was released. CJI. Erm, the Tri-ang Hornby Evening Star, with the new tender drive Ringfield motor, was introduced in 1971. Hornby Railways introduced the Ivatt 2MT in1974.... 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium cctransuk Posted January 19 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 19 59 minutes ago, 5Dublo2 said: That depends on your definition of a Ringfield motor - I have a boxed 1957 3 Rail Hornby Dublo Castle where the box proclaims that it is "FITTED WITH RING FIELD PEAK-POWER MOTOR" ..... and I had an HD 8F with a Ringfield motor - which never ran well. However, HD's interpretation of 'Ringfield' was very different from Tri-ang-Hornby's - which was cloned from a certain well-known European manufacturer. CJI. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium cctransuk Posted January 19 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 19 27 minutes ago, Coppercap said: Erm, the Tri-ang Hornby Evening Star, with the new tender drive Ringfield motor, was introduced in 1971. Hornby Railways introduced the Ivatt 2MT in1974.... I bow to my learned friend's superior knowledge, M'lud. Nonetheless, the lineage of the Tri-ang Jinty was by no means so easily erased! (With acknowledgements to 'Rumpole of the Bailey'). CJI. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butler Henderson Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 2 hours ago, Coppercap said: Hornby Railways introduced the Ivatt 2MT in1974.... It was catalogued for 1974 but did not actually appear until early 1975 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coppercap Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 23 minutes ago, cctransuk said: I bow to my learned friend's superior knowledge, M'lud. Nonetheless, the lineage of the Tri-ang Jinty was by no means so easily erased! (With acknowledgements to 'Rumpole of the Bailey'). CJI. Well, I did have (and still have) both! Actually, mine was a new early Hornby Evening Star, just post-Tri-ang, made before they started cheapening the tender drive. When the Ivatt 2MT appeared in the catalogue, I saved up for it and got one soon after it was released. It was something of a let-down after the fantastic Evening Star! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coppercap Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Butler Henderson said: It was catalogued for 1974 but did not actually appear until early 1975 Well, whichever, I remember I got mine new, soon after it appeared in the shops...and I do remember having to wait a while for it. Edited January 19 by Coppercap 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewartingram Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 It was a 'bitsa' loco cobbled together from stock parts 'off the shelf', with an absolute minimum number of new parts. Even the tender chassis (with obviously a new body) was an already produced chassis (I can't remember what model) and is too long for a scale model. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butler Henderson Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 2 minutes ago, stewartingram said: It was a 'bitsa' loco cobbled together from stock parts 'off the shelf', with an absolute minimum number of new parts. Even the tender chassis (with obviously a new body) was an already produced chassis (I can't remember what model) and is too long for a scale model. Pat Hammond doesn't mention which model the tender came from in Vol 3 of The Story of Rovex other than it was an existing 14ft wheelbase chassis. It was notable in being the first steam loco model to have glazed cab windows but those hardly mitigated its short comings. Pat noting the front bogie wheel was 2mm too small and a spoke too many, the driving wheels were not accurately spaced and had three spokes too many, loco body too long, cylinders too deep, no daylight under boiler, front bogies set back too far, tender c 2ft too long, and a chimney unlike the prototype. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wheatley Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 15 minutes ago, Butler Henderson said: ...front bogie wheel was 2mm too small and a spoke too many, the driving wheels were not accurately spaced and had three spokes too many, loco body too long, cylinders too deep, no daylight under boiler, front bogies set back too far, tender c 2ft too long, and a chimney unlike the prototype. But apart from that ... 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium spamcan61 Posted January 19 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 19 1 minute ago, Wheatley said: But apart from that ... OK from normal viewing distance. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 On 05/01/2024 at 17:07, jjnewitt said: It sticks out like a sore thumb to me On 05/01/2024 at 17:52, Porcy Mane said: "Once seen never hidden". This same 'fault line' was visible on the J15, which was my first encounter with Hornby's diecast loco body technique. It's possible the cure I applied to that model will work on this one. Took the body off and it was clear that the body casting sat on two 'landings' on the chassis block. I carefully scribed on horizontal guide lines on the side of these 'landings' and filed them down, with test fittings until the 'fault line' disappeared. (Haven't seen this problem on my subsequent diecast body purchases - D16/3, B12/3, J36 - so was rather hoping Hornby had improved technique in this respect.) 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steamport Southport Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 1 hour ago, stewartingram said: It was a 'bitsa' loco cobbled together from stock parts 'off the shelf', with an absolute minimum number of new parts. Even the tender chassis (with obviously a new body) was an already produced chassis (I can't remember what model) and is too long for a scale model. Similar technique they used for Sir Dinadan. I don't know what it was supposed to be, but was a bit like a King Arthur. Eventually they put photos of it in the dark in the catalogue hoping nobody would notice it.... http://www.hornbyguide.com/item_details.asp?itemid=15 Jason 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steamport Southport Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 On 18/01/2024 at 17:38, gwrrob said: Apparently the Kernow railmotor can haul 10 mk 1s for comparison. Might be handy if you need to move a Nucast or K's white metal auto trailer! My Airfix 14XX couldn't even move my one but the K's version could with ease. With the Airfix auto trailer it would whizz about quite happily. Jason 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butler Henderson Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 12 hours ago, Steamport Southport said: Similar technique they used for Sir Dinadan. I don't know what it was supposed to be, but was a bit like a King Arthur. Eventually they put photos of it in the dark in the catalogue hoping nobody would notice it.... http://www.hornbyguide.com/item_details.asp?itemid=15 34,500 made apparently 1976-1978 according to Pat Hammonds book, "the wrong quality for the time". The one Hornby loco that I thought was even worse was the 1984 Princess Royal 4-6-2; Pat notes the incorrect wheelbase, use of the A1/A3 pony truck, Fowler tank valve gear coupled to Black 5 cylinders and slide bar, plus the isssues with the tenders including those with the tender body off the Duchess being fitted atop the 9F tender chassis. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now