Hornby 2021 - Ruston & Hornsby 88DS

[PhilJ W]

[Butler Henderson]

21 hours ago, Ruston said:

IAs far as I know, BR never had a D2959 and if they did, it would have followed on from D2957 and D2958, which were Ruston 165s.

Preserved loco masquerading. https://www.flickr.com/photos/andy_hoare/26030119625

[cctransuk]

43 minutes ago, Butler Henderson said:

Preserved loco masquerading. https://www.flickr.com/photos/andy_hoare/26030119625

 

I've never quite understood the thinking behind this preservation practice - unless it is to try and give themselves a (false) aura of a mainline railway.

 

Ultimately, it's down to the vehicle owner(s), but authentic restoration to an original livery would seem to be more appropriate.

 

John Isherwood.

[Ruston]

1 hour ago, Butler Henderson said:

Preserved loco masquerading. https://www.flickr.com/photos/andy_hoare/26030119625

Well, yes, but that's a 165, not an 88, so still doesn't explain it.

 

1 hour ago, cctransuk said:

I've never quite understood the thinking behind this preservation practice - unless it is to try and give themselves a (false) aura of a mainline railway.

 

Ultimately, it's down to the vehicle owner(s), but authentic restoration to an original livery would seem to be more appropriate.

I don't understand it either. It's as if these things don't have a history of their own and that an invented one that involves having been owned by BR is somehow more interesting to their owners. Or that their owners think it makes the engine more interesting to visitors to whatever railway the engine is based at.

[Mystic Dave predicts the next posts in response will be be either someone saying that the livery doesn't matter because at least they've been saved and not scrapped, or someone saying that if we want them in an authentic livery then we should buy the paint and do the work...]

Edited January 10 by Ruston

[cctransuk]

2 minutes ago, Ruston said:

Well, yes, but that's a 165, not an 88, so still doesn't explain it.

 

I don't understand it either. It's as if these things don't have a history of their own and that an invented one that involves having been owned by BR is somehow more interesting to their owners. Or that their owners think it makes the engine more interesting to visitors to whatever railway the engine is based at.

[Mystic Dave predicts the next posts in response will be be either someone saying that the livery doesn't matter because at least they've en saved and not scrapped, or someone saying that if we wa in anthentic livery theork...]

 

On reflection, it must amount to a statement that 'I really wanted an ex-BR loco, but couldn't afford one / one wasn't available'.

 

CJI.

[Halvarras]

OK..........so Hornby are applying a fictitious livery to the wrong Ruston. Were there not enough genuine liveries for the 88DS to have to resort to this so soon? (Meanwhile we're still waiting for the 48DS to appear as DS1169........)

[steve1]

16 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

I've never quite understood the thinking behind this preservation practice - unless it is to try and give themselves a (false) aura of a mainline railway.

 

Ultimately, it's down to the vehicle owner(s), but authentic restoration to an original livery would seem to be more appropriate.

 

John Isherwood.

 

Put simply, Rule 1 John.

 

steve

[Butler Henderson]

18 hours ago, Ruston said:

Well, yes, but that's a 165, not an 88, so still doesn't explain it. livery doesn't matter because at least they've been saved and not scrapped, or someone saying that if we want them in an authentic livery then we should buy the paint and do the work...]

Sorry, wrong link https://www.flickr.com/photos/40011/6489013625/

[Ruston]

3 hours ago, Butler Henderson said:

Sorry, wrong link https://www.flickr.com/photos/40011/6489013625/

I see... As that isn't a historic livery, and the loco wasn't owned by BR, Hornby need to change the "Era 4" to whatever it ought to be, whatever era applies to the time it was given that spurious livery. The same applies to whatever modern fake livery the GWR one is based on.

 

I've had a look on Flickr and Google but can't find an 88DS in GWR livery, so what are they basing that one on?

[Butler Henderson]

22 minutes ago, Ruston said:

I see... As that isn't a historic livery, and the loco wasn't owned by BR, Hornby need to change the "Era 4" to whatever it ought to be, whatever era applies to the time it was given that spurious livery. The same applies to whatever modern fake livery the GWR one is based on.

 

I've had a look on Flickr and Google but can't find an 88DS in GWR livery, so what are they basing that one on?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/65480188@N07/18867434693

Found by a search on Flickr for 88DS - Didcot ?

[Butler Henderson]

"D2959" is now in blue with yellow lining at Telford as VL6 Hector (RH 382824)

Struggling to find what the one painted as GW D1 is. 

[Ruston]

3 minutes ago, Butler Henderson said:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/65480188@N07/18867434693

Found by a search on Flickr for 88DS - Didcot ?

That would be W/n 224353. It was built for the Derby & Notts. Electric Power Company and at some point in its life was at Bulmers, in Hereford. It didn't go to Didcot until 1971 so at the very least Hornby have got their "Era" wrong. It shouldn't be Era 3, which implies it was owned by the GWR and carried their livery back when the GWR was still in existence. The loco was scrapped at some point, but I don't know when. Not listed by the IRS as being at Didcot by 1979, so perhaps scrapped there?

 

If that is the one then a pseudo-GWR livery, carried by a loco for just a few years during the 1970s is a very odd choice. It's also either poor research or a deliberate attempt to mislead would be buyers. We can do whatever we want with our models, and have them in any livery we please, so if you like the idea of a GWR Ruston then fair enough but I do think that the manufacturers ought to be straight with people as to what these liveries represent.

 

It is interesting that it has the open style of cab, so if it is the "GWR" one then it would mean that Hornby are doing the open cab. I mentioned this after seeing an unpainted sample on their website however long ago.

 

 

[Fair Oak Junction]

4 minutes ago, Ruston said:

It's also either poor research or a deliberate attempt to mislead would be buyers.

 

It's just another example of how the "Era" system is in no way fit for purpose, and a date based system would be far better.

I don't know how anyone can argue that buyers find "Era 3" easier to understand than say "1945-1948" (using a random post war malachite Lord Nelson for example).

[Steamport Southport]

On 10/01/2024 at 13:40, cctransuk said:

 

I've never quite understood the thinking behind this preservation practice - unless it is to try and give themselves a (false) aura of a mainline railway.

 

Ultimately, it's down to the vehicle owner(s), but authentic restoration to an original livery would seem to be more appropriate.

 

John Isherwood.

 

More the public than owners.

 

I'm afraid when I was involved in preservation they didn't want to see industrials and certainly not diesels. Industrial diesels stood no chance!

 

Most were just seen as plant and would be scrapped when something went wrong that cost money to repair.

 

 

 

Jason

[JShow]

6 hours ago, Ruston said:

It is interesting that it has the open style of cab, so if it is the "GWR" one then it would mean that Hornby are doing the open cab. I mentioned this after seeing an unpainted sample on their website however long ago.

I've been waiting for an open cab version to appear ever since you mentioned it. 

[No Decorum]

21 hours ago, Fair Oak Junction said:

 

It's just another example of how the "Era" system is in no way fit for purpose, and a date based system would be far better.

I don't know how anyone can argue that buyers find "Era 3" easier to understand than say "1945-1948" (using a random post war malachite Lord Nelson for example).

The era system is a bit of a blunt instrument. Era 3, for example, ignores major livery changes which took place in 1936. Dates are much more useful. I like to date a model from when the first livery was applied to when the livery style was changed, followed by a + to indicate that the older livery persisted for some years. For all that, I think the era system used to be handy for people new to the hobby. Now there are two era systems in use, it has lost such usefulness as it had. It’s akin to offering a figure without specifying the units (such as feet or metres) which the figure represents.

[90733]

It would seem like an 'open cab' version is very much on the cards.

[Butler Henderson]

Extract proves what a load of rubbish the catalogue is, mid 1947 the cab design changed but above entered service circa 1950s. And no mention of it being modelled as preserved in the 1970s?

[Ruston]

5 minutes ago, Butler Henderson said:

Extract proves what a load of rubbish the catalogue is, mid 1947 the cab design changed but above entered service circa 1950s. And no mention of it being modelled as preserved in the 1970s?

224353 was built in 1945, so that would be what? Era 3? I don't know, I don't know what years exactly the era things apply to and from.  The catalogue contradicts what the 2024 announcement says, as far as the Era goes, too. Catalogue says 4, announcement says 3.

 

 

 

 

[Fair Oak Junction]

5 minutes ago, Ruston said:

224353 was built in 1945, so that would be what? Era 3? I don't know, I don't know what years exactly the era things apply to and from.  The catalogue contradicts what the 2024 announcement says, as far as the Era goes, too. Catalogue says 4, announcement says 3.

 

Even Hornby apparently can't keep up with the messy nonsense of the "Era" system! 😄

Please manufacturers, just give us dates and info about the specific loco/livery. Even the most casual new member of the hobby can understand things like that!

[Butler Henderson]

50 minutes ago, Ruston said:

224353 was built in 1945, so that would be what? Era 3? I don't know, I don't know what years exactly the era things apply to and from.  The catalogue contradicts what the 2024 announcement says, as far as the Era goes, too. Catalogue says 4, announcement says 3.

But the applied livery is a 1970s preservation one so should be Era 7 (1971-1986) or quite simply they drop the stupid thing and list instead c.1974 or whatever.

Edited January 12 by Butler Henderson

[JSpencer]

This is one of those models that Hornby would do really well on but are limited to just a handful of choices.

[Butler Henderson]

After it use at Didcot 224353 returned to industrial use via Resco Railways and was scrapped in 1989

https://www.flickr.com/photos/12a_kingmoor_klickr/50254497437

1 minute ago, JSpencer said:

This is one of those models that Hornby would do really well on but are limited to just a handful of choices.

Plenty of liveries to go at I would have thought, 224353 before being GWised for instance

https://www.flickr.com/photos/dave58282/50905496826

 

[JSpencer]

1 minute ago, Butler Henderson said:

After it use at Didcot 224353 returned to industrial use via Resco Railways and was scrapped in 1989

https://www.flickr.com/photos/12a_kingmoor_klickr/50254497437

Plenty of liveries to go at I would have thought, 224353 before being GWised for instance

https://www.flickr.com/photos/dave58282/50905496826

 

 

Exactly and plenty preserved too. Hornby could have had 10 types out on the first run! 

[Ruston]

15 hours ago, Butler Henderson said:

After it use at Didcot 224353 returned to industrial use via Resco Railways and was scrapped in 1989

https://www.flickr.com/photos/12a_kingmoor_klickr/50254497437

Plenty of liveries to go at I would have thought, 224353 before being GWised for instance

https://www.flickr.com/photos/dave58282/50905496826

 

And of course the model is wrong for both the time it carried the mock GWR livery and after as the cab has had doors and widows added.

 

There is evidence that wartime builds of 48DS and 88DS were outshopped without lining, so a plain green with RUSTON painted across the front would likely be correct for a 1945 build and that's what they ought to be doing as a first release of the open cab type, especially if they're saying it's "Era 3".

 

I'm sure there are people reading this and thinking 'so what?' but imagine the reaction if they tried this sort of nonsense with something like an LNER A3, with the wrong type of dome or chimney.

 

Having said that, it's not going to stop me from buying one. I'll just take the GWR stuff off the cab and have it in an anonymous plain green livery. It's just a shame that I'll have to get someone to make a transfer for the front.