Hornby 2021 - SR Bogie Luggage van

[Dunsignalling]

I don't see how Hornby's trailing truck policy can be a cost-cutting measure, as the parts almost exactly correspond to those used in a pivoted truck. In fact, in at least some cases, some movement of the fixed truck can be achieved without too much difficulty. Not enough to get them round No.2 curves with flanges in, but quite possibly 2ft radius ones. I've fiddled with one but haven't been able to test it enough to be specific.

 

Without modification, they have no difficulty going round 3ft radius curves with flanged wheels added, and Pacifics look daft going round train-set curves with either kind of truck IMO. None of the layouts I have access to go tighter than 3ft, hence my earlier disclaimer.

 

Fact is that a high proportion of Hornby locos never turn a wheel in anger, and for those who buy them to go in display cabinets, the improved appearance will outweigh the loss of some practicality.

 

John

 

 

Edited May 18, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[Dunsignalling]

6 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Don't many of their injection moulded bodies live on in the Dapol range but with new chassis?

There don't seem to be as many as there were; presumably some of the moulds finally wore out!

 

In the case of the 10' wheelbase types, the ex-HD bodies sit on underframes derived from Airfix ones....

 

John 

[cctransuk]

16 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Don't many of their injection moulded bodies live on in the Dapol range but with new chassis?

 

I believe so - though they may have had the injection moulding tools 'cloned'.

 

John Isherwood.

[Porcy Mane]

2 hours ago, cctransuk said:

I too am increasingly annoyed at the regular posting of 'fake news'

 

Even worse on Youtube. The crap that is pedalled by some of  those that would probably class themselves as "model railway influencers" can be stupefying.

[Porcy Mane]

Dunno why. Duplicate posting?

Edited May 18, 2021 by Porcy Mane
Delete duplicate posting.

[cctransuk]

4 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

I don't see how Hornby's trailing truck policy can be a cost-cutting measure, as the parts almost exactly correspond to those used in a pivoted truck. In fact, in at least some cases, some movement of the fixed truck can be achieved without too much difficulty. Not enough to get them round No.2 curves with flanges in, but quite possibly 2ft radius ones. I've fiddled with one but haven't been able to test it enough to be specific.

 

Without modification, they have no difficulty going round 3ft radius curves with flanged wheels added, and Pacifics look daft going round train-set curves with either kind of truck IMO. None of the layouts I have access to go tighter than 3ft, hence my earlier disclaimer.

 

Fact is that a high proportion of Hornby locos never turn a wheel in anger, and for those who buy them to go in display cabinets, the improved appearance will outweigh the loss of some practicality.

 

John

 

 

 

Is this a justification for not bothering to fit a motor in Hornby locos?

 

 I hope not!

 

CJI (John Isherwood).

[Steamport Southport]

They won't be any cheaper though. The unmotorised Heljan Class 25s aren't.

 

 

 

Jason

[hmrspaul]

6 hours ago, steam69 said:

Johnster

Hornby Dublo never produced models with raised joint lines, it was a cheaper way of producing a tool something HD never did, and their body mouldings compare with the latest produced now. Not the first time you have written something before checking your facts.

 

Richard

Aren't HD plastic bodied models several years younger than this Tri-ang model? It must be one of the earliest, if not the earliest, attempt by Tri-ang to make a model based on a prototype with reasonable dimensions. Their coaches at the time were dreadful and the Princess pacific totally forgettable. 

 

What I don't understand is why so many quite recent models have horribly wide planking whereas the very finest line is all that is needed to represent planking in 4mm. 

 

Paul

[The Johnster]

2 hours ago, hmrspaul said:

Their coaches at the time were dreadful and the Princess pacific totally forgettable. 

 

The concurrent HD coaches, tinplate toys with painted windows, were not much to write home about either, and the much malingned Princess had cab detail, which no HD model ever attempted,  Both produced locos and coaches that were drasitcallyunderscale in length to get around 13" radius curves, and HD were yet to introduce 2 rail models.  I'd say that Triang's plastic goods stock was a good bit better than HD's tinplate attempts, though the printing was excellent on the tinplate.  Triang had produced a Restaurant Car with interior detail.  The Triang 9" mk1s were better detailed than the later tinplate sided HD versions, which were the same length.

 

Triang were more on the ball with diesels as well, with the admittedly awful Jinty chassised 08 and a MetroCammel dmu that was not too bad for those days.  HD IIRC did not enter the diesel fray for another two years, and their first attempt, the Deltic, was appalling.  They never made a dmu, though there was a later attempt at a generic emu.

 

HD's quality improved considerably after 1960, but the new ringfield motors filled the cabs of the Castles, 8Fs, and WCs. 

 

[cctransuk]

10 hours ago, The Johnster said:

 

The concurrent HD coaches, tinplate toys with painted windows, were not much to write home about either, and the much malingned Princess had cab detail, which no HD model ever attempted,  Both produced locos and coaches that were drasitcallyunderscale in length to get around 13" radius curves, and HD were yet to introduce 2 rail models.  I'd say that Triang's plastic goods stock was a good bit better than HD's tinplate attempts, though the printing was excellent on the tinplate.  Triang had produced a Restaurant Car with interior detail.  The Triang 9" mk1s were better detailed than the later tinplate sided HD versions, which were the same length.

 

Triang were more on the ball with diesels as well, with the admittedly awful Jinty chassised 08 and a MetroCammel dmu that was not too bad for those days.  HD IIRC did not enter the diesel fray for another two years, and their first attempt, the Deltic, was appalling.  They never made a dmu, though there was a later attempt at a generic emu.

 

HD's quality improved considerably after 1960, but the new ringfield motors filled the cabs of the Castles, 8Fs, and WCs. 

 

 

None of this distracts us from the fact that you made a grossly incorrect statement concerning Hornby Dublo SD plastic bodied wagons; (concerning which I have not noted a retraction).

 

No-one has suggested that, in all things, HD was superior to Tri-ang; this arose because I pointed out - for those who had never handled one - that the Tri-ang bogie utility van had raised 'plank grooves'; (to which statement you presumably took umbrage; given your erroneous claims re Hornby Dublo plastic bodied models).

 

John Isherwood.

[Porcy Mane]

Whilst we all like to think ourselves correct, I feel there is a bit of willy waving developing.

 

https://tenor.com/view/wow-smash-stick-man-gif-14677940

Edited May 19, 2021 by Porcy Mane

[The Johnster]

I stand duly corrected on the subject of plank joins on HD plastic bodied wagons.  I have not taken umbrage at anything; I think I would have noticed if I had...  I made a statement about HD wagons in good faith that turned out to be incorrect; whether it was grossly so is a matter of opinion.  I then pointed out that the concept that Hornby Dublo were producing better quality models than Triang in 1958 is largely a fallacy, but accept that their motion and valve gear was much better than Triangs and as good as most well made kit or scratch built models of the day.

 

I do not see any point in my continuing this discussion and am therefore withdrawing from it.  Please accept my apologies for not retracting my erroneous statement sooner.

[Oldddudders]

55 minutes ago, Porcy Mane said:

Whilst we all like to think ourselves correct, I feel there is a bit of willy waving developing.

 

On RMweb? Ridiculous assertion. 

[Steamport Southport]

I think people are forgetting this is a forum. Not a scholarly debating society.

 

If you want every single post to be accurate and peer reviewed with three sources of first party evidence, maybe a forum is not the place.

 

 

Jason

 

[Bernard Lamb]

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

I stand duly corrected on the subject of plank joins on HD plastic bodied wagons.  I have not taken umbrage at anything; I think I would have noticed if I had...  I made a statement about HD wagons in good faith that turned out to be incorrect; whether it was grossly so is a matter of opinion.  I then pointed out that the concept that Hornby Dublo were producing better quality models than Triang in 1958 is largely a fallacy, but accept that their motion and valve gear was much better than Triangs and as good as most well made kit or scratch built models of the day.

 

I do not see any point in my continuing this discussion and am therefore withdrawing from it.  Please accept my apologies for not retracting my erroneous statement sooner.

A pity, as I was enjoying it.

I have tended to view the subject of a persons model train company of choice as a bit of a class thing.

Those from council estates had cheap and nasty plastic Triang.

Those from owner occupied homes went for well engineered Hornby Dublo.

There is of course a certain amount of overlap for many reasons and then there is the status of HD LMS being superior to HD LNER.

At my school there were those who owned rather more exotic makes.

Toy trains, a study in English economic and social history. Somebody must have done a PhD on the subject.

 

As for the new van, one arrived yesterday and in general I find it a nice model and good value giver the current state of things. Just the usual problem of which combination of close couplings to fit to run in my parcels train with corridor connectors touching but not jamming.

Bernard

[Porcy Mane]

1 hour ago, Oldddudders said:

Ridiculous assertion. 

 

 How dare yoo!  Wrong on so many levels.  Harrumph!

 

  (Thought I better add a smiley as somebody will take it seriously)

[melmerby]

16 hours ago, hmrspaul said:

Aren't HD plastic bodied models several years younger than this Tri-ang model? It must be one of the earliest, if not the earliest, attempt by Tri-ang to make a model based on a prototype with reasonable dimensions. Their coaches at the time were dreadful and the Princess pacific totally forgettable. 

 

What I don't understand is why so many quite recent models have horribly wide planking whereas the very finest line is all that is needed to represent planking in 4mm. 

 

Paul

According to the Hornby Guide it first appeared in 1958 as R226 in SR green

 

HD started their injection moulded "Super Detail" stock also in 1958*

HD started their upgraded coaches with interiors in 1960. Only the sides were now tinplate* (except the Pullman cars which were all plastic bodies)

 

*Last two from "Official Hornby History" book

[Silver Sidelines]

17 minutes ago, melmerby said:

According to the Hornby Guide it first appeared in 1958 as R226 in SR green

 

Seems about right although I would have put it a year earlier.  I have already posted a picture of my R227  - the red one which must have been issued at the same time. 

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/160561-Hornby-2021-sr-bogie-luggage-van/&do=findComment&comment=4423641

 

I do remember that when new the model had the old fashioned Rovex coupling with a lifting hook and half bar all held together with a single horizontal rivet.   Sixty plus years ago.

 

Cheers Ray

Edited May 19, 2021 by Silver Sidelines

[Robin Brasher]

Both the R226 green and R227 red Tri-ang utility vans appeared in February 1958.  At the time I thought it was a wonderful model and I bought one shortly later.  It was my first Southern Region model as Hornby Dublo seemed to almost totally ignore Southern Region enthusiasts and Tri-ang were not much better. The models had the old style coupling hooks and coarse scale wheels and a weight on the chassis which enabled it to run well on my imperfectly laid track.  Unfortunately I ruined my model by replacing the bogies with versions with finer scale wheels and repainted it in Southern malachite green. I have lost this model but I bought the model in the picture at a toy sale.  Hornby Dublo's 4 wheel utility van came a couple of years later but their green shade was a yellowy green which looked totally wrong to me.  Dapol subsequently reintroduced them in the correct colour.  Despite the criticism here the model received an excellent review in Model Railway News and owes me nothing for an outlay of 9 shillings and eleven pence 63 years ago.  The pictures show how the old and new versions compare and how models have improved over the last 63 years.

 

[phil-b259]

2 hours ago, Bernard Lamb said:

 

As for the new van, one arrived yesterday and in general I find it a nice model and good value giver the current state of things. Just the usual problem of which combination of close couplings to fit to run in my parcels train with corridor connectors touching but not jamming.

 

 

I would suggest shortening the NEM coupling pocket sufficiently (snip a bit off the end with some side cutters) so that a Roco coupler will do the job. A dab of PVA adhesive round the tails of the coupler should hold it in place in the shortened pocket yet allow it to be swapped out for something else if needed.

 

Back to back Roco couplers are ideal for a pair of Maunsell stock and although the GBL has 'British Standard' gangways which stick out further than the 'Pullman' type on the Maunsells / Bulleid / Mk1 stock, the placement of the NEM pocket on the GBL is so far forward that using a Roco coupler still leaves a gap. Hence the need to shorten the pocket so the coupler can be pushed further back...

[The Johnster]

3 hours ago, Bernard Lamb said:

Those from council estates had cheap and nasty plastic Triang

And some of us in owner-occupied houses whose dads were too stingy to buy HD.  I never regretted my Rovex Triang upbringing, although I was in awe of the sewing machine perfection of my mate's 3-rail HD Duchess.  I reckoned my 'Standard' track was way better than his wierd colour tinplate 3-rail; it had the right number of rails and was sort of the right colour.  My first train set was a 1956 Black Princess with the shorty LMS coaches, and even at 4 years old I was aware that the coaches were too short and the curves too sharp, and that real trains did not have open ended axleboxes; I was also aware that they weren't made of printed tinplate!  They wern't made of plastic either, but I preferred Triangs moulded rather than printed detail.  That first set contained in the box a cutout with a small glass bottle of 'Shell Premium Grade Whale Liver Fine Machine Oil', which gave a suitable precision engineering feel to things.  The cap had a pin attached to get into those important little places.

 

The next stage was more track for an outer circuit with an inner figure 8, with a trailing crossover shunt, a brilliant kids arrangement that had trains racing or passing each other alternatively, and a Southern (ish) Jinty chassis Saddle Tank, which turned up the following xmas with a dropside steel open, cattle wagon, and LNER brake van.  The freight vehicles were pretty good for those days.  It was many years before I bought my first secondhand Utility Van at a show, fulfulling a 'long held want'. 

 

I suppose it was inevitable that a Margate based company might have more interest in Southern.  The saddle tank was based on a Southern loco, there was a generic emu with Maunsell cabs, and the 8" Stanier coaches were produced in malachite green.  HD eventually retaliated with the R1 and green suburbans, and then the rebuilt WC, but Triang had already brought out the L1 and Winston Churchill.  HD's emu was not unlike a 2-HAP but was actually IIRC based on a Euston-Watford/North London set.

 

The region that Triang ignored was the Western, though the TT range included a Castle and a 61xx.   It was some years into the 60s before the Hall and Hymek arrived, and I think the 8750 was into the 70s, but there was a toad brake van long before any of this.

[Bernard Lamb]

4 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

I would suggest shortening the NEM coupling pocket sufficiently (snip a bit off the end with some side cutters) so that a Roco coupler will do the job. A dab of PVA adhesive round the tails of the coupler should hold it in place in the shortened pocket yet allow it to be swapped out for something else if needed.

 

Back to back Roco couplers are ideal for a pair of Maunsell stock and although the GBL has 'British Standard' gangways which stick out further than the 'Pullman' type on the Maunsells / Bulleid / Mk1 stock, the placement of the NEM pocket on the GBL is so far forward that using a Roco coupler still leaves a gap. Hence the need to shorten the pocket so the coupler can be pushed further back...

I use a short concertina type piece between coaches and usually manage to find a combination that works. Often one Hornby and one Roco. I prefer a slightly long gap but blocked to prevent daylight showing through. This and a Hawksworth BG look as though they need the treatment you describe.

Bernard

[melmerby]

4 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

I would suggest shortening the NEM coupling pocket sufficiently (snip a bit off the end with some side cutters) so that a Roco coupler will do the job. A dab of PVA adhesive round the tails of the coupler should hold it in place in the shortened pocket yet allow it to be swapped out for something else if needed.

 

Back to back Roco couplers are ideal for a pair of Maunsell stock and although the GBL has 'British Standard' gangways which stick out further than the 'Pullman' type on the Maunsells / Bulleid / Mk1 stock, the placement of the NEM pocket on the GBL is so far forward that using a Roco coupler still leaves a gap. Hence the need to shorten the pocket so the coupler can be pushed further back...

If you do that you will probably find that you get buffer locking when pushing back through reverse curves (Peco Streamline 3' points).

 

 

[phil-b259]

1 minute ago, melmerby said:

If you do that you will probably find that you get buffer locking when pushing back through reverse curves (Peco Streamline 3' points).

 

 

 

I have to use 2nd radius setrack curves in places and certainly there is no buffer lock when using back to back Roco couplers with my Maunsells. They can be a bit tricky to engage as they are probably a tiny bit too short (by fractions of a mm that is) but the slop in the close coupling mechanism is enough to compensate.

 

As Bernard says though, models featuring 'British Standard' Gangways such as Staniers, Colletts and Hawksworths need a bit more distance - again one Roco and one Hornby does the job over 2nd radius curves.

 

 

[Jack P]

I use #18 Kadees on my Maunsell stock, and the corridor connectors touch on straight track, but i've not had any issues with buffer locking. The club's test track is probably slightly wider than R4 on the curves though. 

 

Will use #17's on the GBL's as #18's make them sit too far away.

Edited May 20, 2021 by Jack P