Hornby 2021 - Mk 4 coaching stock with DVTs

[Pmorgancym]

18 hours ago, andyman7 said:

 

Personally, I'm not bothered by an interior that is barely visible through tinted windows. These coaches are around £40 which is a third less than full fat blue box coaches. 
On the subject of the NEM pockets and Kinematic couplings, I've always used tweezers to 'pinch' the coupling tails when extracting them from any coach of any manufacture when extracting from the pocket - just relaying on giving the coupling a good tug always seems to be asking for trouble. It shouldn't be so but pragmatism rules

Trouble with that is you have to upend the whole rake on it's side to uncouple it.

[andyman7]

Indeed, which is why I find any form of fixed bar coupling unhelpful. Hornby are apparently including their own magnetic coupling going forward but it hasn't made the Mk4 rakes; however, that does seem the way to go to match rigid bar couplings with easy separation when required

[sanspareil]

I've just noticed that West Hill now do a 2022 specific coupling pack for the MK4 sets. Anyone tried this? West Hill stuff in my view seems decent enough normally.

 

I was just surprised to see them use intermediates for the coaches, I thought that would be too long but in the pics on their site they look pretty close.

[scouse889]

51 minutes ago, sanspareil said:

I've just noticed that West Hill now do a 2022 specific coupling pack for the MK4 sets. Anyone tried this? West Hill stuff in my view seems decent enough normally.

 

I was just surprised to see them use intermediates for the coaches, I thought that would be too long but in the pics on their site they look pretty close.

I bought some at the weekend for my TfW set and they seem ok, certainly close coupling. The DVT ones are the same length as ultra close, the Mk4 ones the same length as close, and the 91 the same as intermediate, which I think are 7, 9.5 and 11.5 mm if memory serves….

[adamvb]

On 01/11/2022 at 18:12, sanspareil said:

I've just noticed that West Hill now do a 2022 specific coupling pack for the MK4 sets. Anyone tried this? West Hill stuff in my view seems decent enough normally.

 

I was just surprised to see them use intermediates for the coaches, I thought that would be too long but in the pics on their site they look pretty close.

 

I posted about them on the previous page (on October 11).

 

I've struggled to get replies from Hunt Couplings (as has been the case previously) for weeks on end (I had one reply a fortnight ago saying they were leaving for a show, but since then nothing on email or via Facebook even though posts keep being made publicly). After further testing today the design of the 'feet' on the coupling seems to have changed from the original hunt couplings and they are now much wider and this seems to mean they are impossible to remove/swap without the legs snapping off. The originals were 3.8mm wide at the widest point when 'relaxed' and 2.5mm compressed, these are 4.0mm and 2.95mm - which makes the difference - the new ones are also more roughly finished. If you are never going to swap/remove them then they may be OK, but at the moment they are not up to scratch for me - hopefully they will come back to me with a solution soon (although given its 4 weeks since initial report I'm not too confident!)

Edited November 10, 2022 by adamvb
Image added

[Pmorgancym]

On 10/11/2022 at 16:51, adamvb said:

 

I posted about them on the previous page (on October 11).

 

I've struggled to get replies from Hunt Couplings (as has been the case previously) for weeks on end (I had one reply a fortnight ago saying they were leaving for a show, but since then nothing on email or via Facebook even though posts keep being made publicly). After further testing today the design of the 'feet' on the coupling seems to have changed from the original hunt couplings and they are now much wider and this seems to mean they are impossible to remove/swap without the legs snapping off. The originals were 3.8mm wide at the widest point when 'relaxed' and 2.5mm compressed, these are 4.0mm and 2.95mm - which makes the difference - the new ones are also more roughly finished. If you are never going to swap/remove them then they may be OK, but at the moment they are not up to scratch for me - hopefully they will come back to me with a solution soon (although given its 4 weeks since initial report I'm not too confident!)

I found them too thick to push in fresh out of the box but a little filling here and there and they fit fine.  To be honest once they're in for me they'll be staying in.

[Melton Works]

On 24/08/2022 at 16:49, Wild Boar Fell said:

My pair turned up today (DVTs 26 & 29), I must say they do look smart and fortunately doesn't seem to have and QC issues that I can see.

But the first thing that strikes me (not assisted by the underframe colour being grey admittedly) is just how toy like the chassis is, it just doesn't look 'sharp'. I am not trying to have a go at the manufacturer, just expected the model to be comparible to the very good Mk3 DVT. 

I've put in some shots for comparison (I know the underframes are different, but just to compare the approaches), fastening detail, printed detail, even the BIS is a separate part on the Mk3, not so on the Mk4 which has is molded in neither the on or off position on the Non-Drivers Side. Also worth noting that the Mk3 DVT has wire handrails and opening doors.

All in all, more than a little disappointed to be honest. The Mk3 DVTs were up there with the Class 60, this feels like Railroad Range. 

But that's just my opinion.

I honestly think there isn't alot of difference between my 30 year old "rework" and the new tooling?.... repaint, adding bufferbeam detail, directional lights, wifi pod and etched wipers.

[JackB95]

Decided to check out why my TfW DVT kept flickering its lights. Turns out it was down to the copper pick ups not pushing up against the wheels properly thus cutting out the lights frequently. Sure, simple fix. I've done it before... But this is Hornby!

I bent the copper carefully outwards like I've done in the past with plyers. Pushing the copper back to allow the wheels to drop back in, it then bent back, sometimes going a bit wonky! Would appear they've used very thin metal and there's very little rigidity in them. What a load of shat.

Looks like it might be worth putting DCC Concepts axle-mounted pick ups on instead...

[phil-b259]

On 28/10/2022 at 13:52, andyman7 said:

Indeed, which is why I find any form of fixed bar coupling unhelpful. Hornby are apparently including their own magnetic coupling going forward but it hasn't made the Mk4 rakes; however, that does seem the way to go to match rigid bar couplings with easy separation when required

 

Which is why the Roco or Hornby close couplers are ideal. Rigid couplings but which don't need the entire rake to be upended to disengaged (though it might well be necessary to  lift the coaches up and push the uncoupling tail from below by hand to separate).

Edited December 9, 2022 by phil-b259

[Pete the Elaner]

On 18/11/2022 at 21:49, Melton Works said:

I honestly think there isn't alot of difference between my 30 year old "rework" and the new tooling?.... repaint, adding bufferbeam detail, directional lights, wifi pod and etched wipers.

 

The old tooling was good. Shape & body detail were correct, which make a good base for detailing.

New wheels, bufferbeam detailing, lighting kit etc improves it no end. The biggest problem on the old Mk4s was the broken valance fitted to the bogie instead of the body. That can be fixed though.

[RyanN91]

Hi apologies if it has already been mentioned here already but were there only ever 8 of the Hornby BR MK4 coaches that were produced R40191, R40156, R40159, R40156B, R40160, R40152, R40154 and R40156A I know there was originally a ninth MK4 coach which appeared to be cancelled? Was it actually pulled from production? As it is rather disappointing not to have a the full 11 car train with the 9 car rake of BR MK4 carriages sandwiched between my Durham Cathedral Class 91 and my MK4 DVT.

 

 

[scouse889]

13 hours ago, RyanN91 said:

Hi apologies if it has already been mentioned here already but were there only ever 8 of the Hornby BR MK4 coaches that were produced R40191, R40156, R40159, R40156B, R40160, R40152, R40154 and R40156A I know there was originally a ninth MK4 coach which appeared to be cancelled? Was it actually pulled from production? As it is rather disappointing not to have a the full 11 car train with the 9 car rake of BR MK4 carriages sandwiched between my Durham Cathedral Class 91 and my MK4 DVT.

 

I'm not sure I know the full ins and out of this, but from memory when the Mk 4s were introduced there were various different formations planned (there were more buffet cars than there were DVTs or 91s, for example, so some rakes could have more than one buffet vehicle) and the standard formation early on was 8+2-car (analogous to the HSTs and WCML formations) with 2xTFO, 1xRFM, 4xTSO and 1xTSOE, plus 91 and DVT. There were some Pullman formations IIRC with 3 TFOs (to make nine cars) or one fewer TSO to give eight cars again. It was only some time later on (in either late IC or early GNER operation - not sure) that the nine-car formation became common to all train sets (certainly the case after Mallard conversion, when the buffet cars were turned round and accommodation became standard rather than first class in these vehicles).

Hope this at least partially helps - so certainly an 8 car rake as eventually modeled by Hornby (as they changed their minds a fair bit) is correct as the 'normal' rake for at least some period of the IC operations, possibly all.

Perhaps someone else can correct the gaps (or errors) in my knowledge here?

 

[RyanN91]

Thank you yes the various formations of Class 90 91s with MK3 MK4 coaches and Class 43 HST DVT and MK3 and MK4 DVTs Apologies I assumed I mentioned I was referring to Intercity 225 train sets.

 

The three out of the three BR MK4 First Class coaches in original BR INTERCITY swallow livery that was cancelled from production was "Hornby R40153 Mk4 FO first open (accessible toilet) in Intercity Swallow 'Coach L'."

 

I would love it if Hornby would eventually produce this coach. 

 

[scouse889]

19 hours ago, RyanN91 said:

 Apologies I assumed I mentioned I was referring to Intercity 225 train sets.

Yes, so was I. Sorry if not clear. IC 225 formations analogous to IC125 and “IC175” formations when the 225 train sets were introduced.

 

19 hours ago, RyanN91 said:

The three out of the three BR MK4 First Class coaches in original BR INTERCITY swallow livery that was cancelled from production was "Hornby R40153 Mk4 FO first open (accessible toilet) in Intercity Swallow 'Coach L'."

 

I would love it if Hornby would eventually produce this coach.

With the correct roof mouldings!

 

I am sure they will do another run of the IC liveried train, hopefully correcting all the various issues with this initial release of the train.

[RyanN91]

Apologies yes I know you were referring to Intercity 225 trains I just mentioned it for readers who are new to the hobby etc...

 

Yes Hornby's track record for using the correct toolings in particular the MK3 buffet cars which been atrious in the past!  The roofing was the most noticeable no roof vents! On first inspection but then the underframe which had wrong battery boxes etc. As they used the tooling for the MK3 first and 2nd Class therfore it was missing alot of detail. For some reason this fault / error only just seemed to affect the BR  INTERCITY swallow and BR Intercity Executive livery MK3 restaurant buffet cars.

 

All other Hornby MK3 buffet cars such as the FGW Purple original BR Blue Grey Intercity 125 used the correct toolings.

 

Hopefully this will be now rectified on the new forthcoming Intercity Executive MK3 buffet using the correct new 2022 MK3 buffet coch toolings! 

[RyanN91]

I have emailed Hornby to express my disappointment. I have explained that that they've ballsed up the BR MK4 INTERCITY first Class coaches.

 

My subject heading in the email

 

R40152 BR, Mk4 Open First, Coach G, 11213 - Era 8 R40154 BR, Mk4 Open First, Coach H, 11212 - Era 8 roofs incorrect tooling used. 

 

Mentioning that they did not have any roof vents during the ERA 8 (BR Sectorisation) 1982-1997 period.

 

Continuing that the BR first class MK4s were modified to have roof vents at much later date. I have also very kindly asked, if they could rectify this huge mistake at some time in future.

 

Finally I have added if they can please produce, R40153 Mk4 FO first open (accessible toilet) in Intercity Swallow 'Coach L' again with the correct roof toolings, as mentioned above without the ventilation.  

 

[Rhydgaled]

On 18/04/2023 at 12:57, scouse889 said:

I'm not sure I know the full ins and out of this, but from memory when the Mk 4s were introduced there were various different formations planned (there were more buffet cars than there were DVTs or 91s, for example, so some rakes could have more than one buffet vehicle) and the standard formation early on was 8+2-car (analogous to the HSTs and WCML formations) with 2xTFO, 1xRFM, 4xTSO and 1xTSOE, plus 91 and DVT.

 

I have a .jpg file downloaded from the internet (can't remember where I got it from, so not sure if I should post it due to copywrite) which shows diagrams of interior layout for the mark 4 TO (Tourist Open), TOD (Tourist Open Disabled), PO (Pullman Open) and SV (Service Vehicle) coaches.

 

Interesting that there was a TOD (standard class with wheelchair space) but no POD (first class with wheelchair space).

 

On 18/04/2023 at 12:57, scouse889 said:

There were some Pullman formations IIRC with 3 TFOs (to make nine cars) or one fewer TSO to give eight cars again.

 

The same JPEG also shows the formations for 8-coach sets:

• The standard formation (29 sets) would have been: TOE, 3x TO, TOD, SV, 2x PO
• The Pullman formation (2 sets) would have been: TOE, TO, TOD, SV, 2x PO, SV, PO

So, not only would the Pullman formations have had an extra PO (for a total of three), they also would have had an extra SV, meaning they would have had just 3 standard class vehicles (1 each of TOE, TO and TOD) and five first class vehicles (3 Pullman Opens and 2 Buffets).

On 18/04/2023 at 12:57, scouse889 said:

It was only some time later on (in either late IC or early GNER operation - not sure) that the nine-car formation became common to all train sets (certainly the case after Mallard conversion, when the buffet cars were turned round and accommodation became standard rather than first class in these vehicles).

 

Where would the 31 extra coaches needed to increase the rakes to 9 coaches have come from if it was a late change? I had always assumed the image was showing the initial plans but BR later increased the order (before all coaches had been delivered) to allow all the sets to be lengthened to nine coaches soon after introduction (if not sooner). However, that could easily be an incorrect assumption.

[scouse889]

On 07/05/2023 at 18:15, Rhydgaled said:

 

I have a .jpg file downloaded from the internet (can't remember where I got it from, so not sure if I should post it due to copywrite) which shows diagrams of interior layout for the mark 4 TO (Tourist Open), TOD (Tourist Open Disabled), PO (Pullman Open) and SV (Service Vehicle) coaches.

 

Interesting that there was a TOD (standard class with wheelchair space) but no POD (first class with wheelchair space).

 

 

The same JPEG also shows the formations for 8-coach sets:

• The standard formation (29 sets) would have been: TOE, 3x TO, TOD, SV, 2x PO
• The Pullman formation (2 sets) would have been: TOE, TO, TOD, SV, 2x PO, SV, PO

So, not only would the Pullman formations have had an extra PO (for a total of three), they also would have had an extra SV, meaning they would have had just 3 standard class vehicles (1 each of TOE, TO and TOD) and five first class vehicles (3 Pullman Opens and 2 Buffets).

 

Where would the 31 extra coaches needed to increase the rakes to 9 coaches have come from if it was a late change? I had always assumed the image was showing the initial plans but BR later increased the order (before all coaches had been delivered) to allow all the sets to be lengthened to nine coaches soon after introduction (if not sooner). However, that could easily be an incorrect assumption.

 

I believe there were 314 of the things built, no idea how many trainsets they planned originally and in what formation, and no idea if they were built in two lots. They must have come from somewhere though, if your jpeg for the 31 8 car sets is accurate..... only accounts for 248 coaches. Then again, 31 9 car sets only account for 279 vehicles.... lots spare!

[InterCity80s]

On 07/05/2023 at 18:15, Rhydgaled said:

 

I have a .jpg file downloaded from the internet (can't remember where I got it from, so not sure if I should post it due to copywrite) which shows diagrams of interior layout for the mark 4 TO (Tourist Open), TOD (Tourist Open Disabled), PO (Pullman Open) and SV (Service Vehicle) coaches.

 

Is it the one here: http://www.traintesting.com/MK4_DVT.htm ?

[scouse889]

2 hours ago, InterCity80s said:

 

Is it the one here: http://www.traintesting.com/MK4_DVT.htm ?

 

Been doing some further research, looks like the 314 includes 32 DVTs that were constructed:

This is quite useful, shows that some vehicle types were converted into others.

https://225group.org.uk/docs/Intercity-225-Fleet-List-Mark-4-Coaches-and-DVTs.pdf

31 x 9 car trains is 279 coaches, which fits with the 282 built (with 3 spare).

Plus 32 DVTs is the 314 referred to on some websites.

[Rhydgaled]

5 hours ago, InterCity80s said:

Is it the one here: http://www.traintesting.com/MK4_DVT.htm ?

Yes, that looks like it, specifically this one (single image from the page you linked).

[RyanN91]

My reply from Hornby about the incorrect tooling used on BR MK4 First Class coaches.

 

Dear Ryan, 

 

Thank you for your email and apologies for the delay in responding to you, I have been trying to get to the bottom of the issue. Speaking to the development team it would appear that the incorrect tooling insert has been used on the two affected coaches, something that was not picked up on prior to production. Now recognised, this will not be repeated on future versions of the Mark 4 coach. 

 

Kind Regards,

Sam Coventon

Quality Control & Technical Support Assistant

www.hornbyhobbies.co.uk

 

 

[nightstar.train]

I bought a TfW rake of these over the weekend and have been fiddling with the DVT. It's good having the day and night lights as options, but very disappointing that they're not switchable under DCC. For a model at this price point they really should be. So I've added them myself. Using the excellent wiring diagram provided by @SForrest10 a few pages back I've made the following modification.

 

 

I've removed the switch in the bottom of the DVT. Then added wires from the switch terminals to the pins on the 21MTC connector. Aux 1 to the day light and Aux 2 to the night. Adding the wires from the switch terminals preserves the resistors etc that are wired to the LEDs. Chucked a chip in to test and it works! DVT with just the marker lights on:

 

 

And with all the lights on:

 

 

I'm going to order a Lokpilot 5 FX chip I think. Ideally I want it setup as F0 day lights on, and F1 (with F0) switches to nights mode. F2 cab lights and F3 just marker lights. This is a bit advanced for the Rails Connect chip I was using to test, so a Lokpilot will be ordered. 

[scouse889]

I wonder if anyone who has the TfW sets has found an issue when pushing the coaches and DVT with a Class 67 at the rear? I am using the Hunt Couplings designed for the DVTs and MkIV coaches and am finding that  they are not rigid enough to hold the coaches apart properly on even third radius curves, resulting in the coach gangways coming together and/or the 67 buffer locking with the TSOE and then derailing the train. Has anyone else had issues and found a better solution?

[Bryn_Bach_Railway]

1 hour ago, scouse889 said:

I wonder if anyone who has the TfW sets has found an issue when pushing the coaches and DVT with a Class 67 at the rear? I am using the Hunt Couplings designed for the DVTs and MkIV coaches and am finding that  they are not rigid enough to hold the coaches apart properly on even third radius curves, resulting in the coach gangways coming together and/or the 67 buffer locking with the TSOE and then derailing the train. Has anyone else had issues and found a better solution?

Haven’t tried the hunt couplings but had the same issue with the Hornby magnetic knuckle couplings. I just resorted to using the fixed bar couplings as they are a touch longer, and so give a little more room. Worked for me as I don’t shuffle the coaches around on track and once they’re on they stay on for a while. Understand it’s not ideal for those who take their stock on and off a lot tho