Hornby Announce L&MR 0-4-2 "Lion"?

[PaulRhB]

Well here’s something I didn’t expect, as I had a basic Zimo Next18 chip in the drawer I tried it. It makes a huge difference!

The loud buzz is gone, it will start much much better and it’s quieter again than with the Combi. 
I’ve never had a loco that runs better with a chip than on dc!?! Well at least it’s now a good loco but very very odd. The motor or pcb appear to be extremely sensitive to the controller output. I wouldn’t call it silky smooth but it’s good enough. 
 

 

Edited March 13, 2023 by PaulRhB

[Flying Pig]

12 hours ago, PaulRhB said:

Well here’s something I didn’t expect, as I had a basic Zimo Next18 chip in the drawer I tried it. It makes a huge difference!

The loud buzz is gone, it will start much much better and it’s quieter again than with the Combi. 
I’ve never had a loco that runs better with a chip than on dc!?! Well at least it’s now a good loco but very very odd. The motor or pcb appear to be extremely sensitive to the controller output. I wouldn’t call it silky smooth but it’s good enough. 
 

 

 

I am definitely not a DCC expert, but the lack of hum will be because the chip is not feeding the motor with 50Hz full wave derived from the mains.  It is probably using feedback control with high frequency pulses which would explain both why it can tame the motor and why you can't hear it.  It does seem like a poor choice of motor in this model, at least for DC.

 

The transmission is still quite noisy though :(

[Ruston]

I said, yesterday, that mine had gone back for a replacement, but I have been offered replacement or refund and so decided to take the refund. It is so disappointing that I feel cheated by Hornby, especially as both the BRM and RM reviews said "quiet and smooth" and "a silky-smooth runner" respectively. I haven't found anyone who has one, or a video of one that lives up to these descriptions. It wouldn't surprise me if Hornby hadn't hand-picked and tweaked the samples sent out for review because these noisy and jerky runners aren't uncommon.

 

For the price of these engines (the rest is packaging and three useless vehicles that pretend to be wagons that don't even have buffers!) they ought to run like a Swiss watch.

[PhilJ W]

I notice that the Rapido ad for 'their' Lion (Titfield Thunderbolt) is at the top of this page.

[The Stationmaster]

14 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

I notice that the Rapido ad for 'their' Lion (Titfield Thunderbolt) is at the top of this page.

And judging by some recent comments in this thread it might even be ideally placed!

[PaulRhB]

If only they’d announced Tiger too but there wasn’t a response when I asked if the tooling allowed the alternative firebox. 

[Michael Hodgson]

On 13/03/2023 at 15:46, Compound2632 said:

 

I do wonder how much shunting an engine of the late 1830s would do. With the lightweight rolling stock of the day, I suspect that a lot of stock was moved around by hand, as we see in some of the L&M lithographs.  

That certainly sounds correct from a financial point of view.  When I first started working as a programmer, a computer was a massive machine with special environmental needs and it was such a big capital investment that we had to schedule its operation 24 hours a day to justify its purchase.  We had to optmise code so that it was used efficiently.  The economics rapidly changed and the cost of a scarce skilled workforce became much more of a consideration.  I rather think the early steam loco would have been seen in a similar light - you used it to move whole trains, but manual labour was cheap and a railway wagon was similar to a horse-drawn cart that any Tom Dick or Harry (or of course, a horse) could move one or two coaches a short distance as and when necessary.

[Michael Hodgson]

On 13/03/2023 at 22:39, PaulRhB said:

Well here’s something I didn’t expect, as I had a basic Zimo Next18 chip in the drawer I tried it. It makes a huge difference!

The loud buzz is gone, it will start much much better and it’s quieter again than with the Combi. 
I’ve never had a loco that runs better with a chip than on dc!?! Well at least it’s now a good loco but very very odd. The motor or pcb appear to be extremely sensitive to the controller output. I wouldn’t call it silky smooth but it’s good enough. 
 

 

I think I would have wanted stop blocks on that test track, especially given the way that loco runs. 

Looks like its top speed is unprototypically fast and would be better with higher gearing.

Let's hope the Rapido version performs better

[PaulRhB]

I sent this to Hornby Customer Services 

 

“Hello

I purchased a Tiger set and returned it as poor running and too noisy, unfortunately the shop had no more so I spent a little more and got a replacement locally. 

I tried it on a Kato and Bachmann controller and it was very noisy as this first video on YouTube where I compared it to your IWC Terrier. ”

 

Their response was, it’s normal and you shouldn’t compare different locos only Lion to Tiger!

 

So do the silky smooth Lions make this noise? I find that rather disappointing as a reply in comparison to the reaction I got from the other faulty models from Bachmann & Sonic/Rails. 

Basically not interested at all, it’s a good job AC Models were more pro active in looking to solve it and making helpful suggestions. 
Shop 10/10

Hornby 4/10 and they only get that for a nicely made model and replying fairly fast. 

[Schooner]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Let's hope the Rapido version performs better

For an EP, this is much more on the money I reckon...

 

 

 

Fingers x'd for either Rapido to do a plausible pre-rebuild, for one of our resident 3D printing wizards to design an alternative firebox and/or boiler...

[PaulRhB]

Fortunately I have the Rapido one ordered! I hope they do Tiger too now. 

[Ruston]

1 hour ago, PaulRhB said:

Fortunately I have the Rapido one ordered! I hope they do Tiger too now. 

Do you mean with the appearance of the proper Tiger or their own version of Hornby's nonsense Tiger?

Edited March 15, 2023 by Ruston

[PaulRhB]

1 hour ago, Ruston said:

Do you mean with the appearance of the proper Tiger or their own version of Hornby's nonsense Tiger?

The ‘nonsense’ Tiger is up for endless debate 😉 We know Lion / Tiger whatever it is had that style boiler from the 1860’s as that’s how it came out of the docks so it is authentic for a certain period. We know Lion was rebuilt extensively after 3 years, 1841,  with the new boiler and frames so was it then identical to Tiger, or was Tiger a copy of the rebuilt Lion? I’ve not seen any definitive drawings or contemporary reports, just a lot of assumptions on what probably was what. When someone states it was like this I like to see appendices showing or quoting the source and so far not one I’ve seen has provided a technical specification to prove the theories. 
 

Source

http://www.lionlocomotive.co.uk/Rescue.html

Edited March 15, 2023 by PaulRhB

[Ruston]

2 hours ago, PaulRhB said:

The ‘nonsense’ Tiger is up for endless debate 😉 We know Lion / Tiger whatever it is had that style boiler from the 1860’s as that’s how it came out of the docks so it is authentic for a certain period. We know Lion was rebuilt extensively after 3 years, 1841,  with the new boiler and frames so was it then identical to Tiger, or was Tiger a copy of the rebuilt Lion? I’ve not seen any definitive drawings or contemporary reports, just a lot of assumptions on what probably was what. When someone states it was like this I like to see appendices showing or quoting the source and so far not one I’ve seen has provided a technical specification to prove the theories. 
 

Source

http://www.lionlocomotive.co.uk/Rescue.html

According to Anthony Dawson, who is something of an expert on early locomotives, No drawing exists of Lion but there is one of Tiger and the drawing of Tiger does NOT have a boiler of the appearance in the above photo.

 

The boiler in the above photo of Lion, after it was removed from the pump house, was most likely built in 1865, which is after Lion was sold to the MD&HB but before it became a pumping engine. Under the brass cover of Lion as we see it today, is that boiler.

 

Therefore, as the current boiler was fitted to Lion long after it ceased to operate on, or be owned by, the L&M, there is nothing whatsoever to suggest that Tiger ever received such a boiler because it was never owned by the MD&HB and so Hornby's model of Tiger is pure fiction. Hornby's model could however represent how Lion may have looked in service with the MD&HB, which is why I wanted that particular model.

 

I don't know exactly which f the Large Samson class this is but I found it on the internet, uncredited. Both Lion and Tiger would have looked something like this and Lion wouldn't have had the Manning Wardle/Leeds-type high firebox that it has now.

If Rapido do model Tiger, I'm sure that they will model it as it would have actually looked, not how Hornby's poor research and desperation to do something more with their tooling has left theirs.

 

 

Edited March 15, 2023 by Ruston

[PaulRhB]

1 hour ago, Ruston said:

According to Anthony Dawson, who is something of an expert on early locomotives, No drawing exists of Lion but there is one of Tiger and the drawing of Tiger does NOT have a boiler of the appearance in the above photo.

 

The boiler in the above photo of Lion, after it was removed from the pump house, was most likely built in 1865, which is after Lion was sold to the MD&HB but before it became a pumping engine. Under the brass cover of Lion as we see it today, is that boiler.

 

Therefore, as the current boiler was fitted to Lion long after it ceased to operate on, or be owned by, the L&M, there is nothing whatsoever to suggest that Tiger ever received such a boiler because it was never owned by the MD&HB and so Hornby's model of Tiger is pure fiction. Hornby's model could however represent how Lion may have looked in service with the MD&HB, which is why I wanted that particular model.

 

I don't know exactly which f the Large Samson class this is but I found it on the internet, uncredited. Both Lion and Tiger would have looked something like this and wouldn't have had the Manning Wardle/Leeds-type high firebox.

If Rapido do model Tiger, I'm sure that they will model it as it would have actually looked, not how Hornby's poor research and desperation to do something more with their tooling has left theirs.

 

 

It was inevitable it would be done as a reuse of the Lion tooling as much as they could and about as much as I was hoping for was a lower firebox, much like you I’m interested in the industrial use. I can’t see anything else being viable to be honest for Rapido either as it looks from the test shots that more of the 30’s hunchback is cast as part of the chassis. I’m still in two minds as if I get one for me it would be to use with the industrials  

so the 1860’s firebox is great 😉

It would look good on the Miners train . .

 

 

[Ruston]

12 minutes ago, PaulRhB said:

I can’t see anything else being viable to be honest for Rapido either as it looks from the test shots that more of the 30’s hunchback is cast as part of the chassis.

You are correct about the firebox top on the Rapido model being cast, but I suppose this offers hope that they could produce an original version. The Hornby firebox is fully occupied by the Next 18 PCB and so needs to be as tall as it is, but if the Rapido one can be lowered without affecting any mechanism or decoder interface then there's no technical reason why they couldn't produce a version with the original low firebox. We'll just have to wait and see...

 

I took this screenshot from the Hornby TV programme and it shows what looks to be the same N20-type motor as they use in the Pecketts. It's a good motor in those, so the poor starting characteristics of these models may be down to the gearing, or poor assembly.

Is anyone brave enough to open theirs up and find out how the motor is fixed in and if it can be adjusted? It could be that the jerky start is down to the worm pressing down on the first gear so that by the time the motor gets enough voltage to overcome the resistance the loco then shoots off.

[PaulRhB]

4 minutes ago, Ruston said:

but if the Rapido one can be lowered without affecting any mechanism or decoder interface then there's no technical reason why they couldn't produce a version with the original low firebox. We'll just have to wait and see...

Unfortunately I can’t see that being viable to retool anytime soon it if they can’t make something like the O J70 viable at present. I think the most likely solution would be to rip out the N18 gubbins and put in a smaller decoder like the mx616 direct to the motor and 3D print a replacement firebox for the 1842-1860’s style. I am tempted to take it apart  . . .

[PaulRhB]

I have permission to play and the other thing my Father finds difficult is seeing the fixed chains. So I bought some Accurascale chain couplings and removed the Hornby coupling pins, some fell out.

Two were too far apart but then I fixed one at one end and just the steel screw at the other. Now they couple easily and any spare chain can be flicked onto the screw so it doesn’t drag. They need to be the same way round but it works. 
I just tied one chain to Tiger’s rear coupling with cotton thread. No butchery necessary on the loco. 
I might put a small foam pad by the rear axle to provide light friction to stop them bouncing around. 
 

 

The Chaldron mixes well too. I think I might put a full chain on the rear of the tender so a steel pin glued under the front bufferbeam on the loco would do to attach the chains if pulling tender first. 

 

I might dig further into the loco next week, if the motor is the same as the Peckett as Dave thinks this will definitely run quieter  😉

[PaulRhB]

Hornby have now offered to look at it after I expressed surprise that they weren’t interested in a potential problem on common controllers. 
As I’ve tamed it with a chip I think it may be a moot point now as it’s unlikely to run without a chip installed ever again. 
I will think over returning it over the weekend at Ally Pally as now I’ve modified the wagons it may be better to investigate it myself to see if it’s over tight mesh or something else causing the remaining noise and feed that back. 

[jonnyuk]

my tiger arrived yesterday, off the bay for an incredible price (£150), brand new. have to say its a gorgeous loco, only put a 9v battery on the wheels to ensure they turn but it is noisy, hopefully with a chip and running it quieten downs. I prefer the loco to Lion to be honest, less in your face, less bling. Putting it along side the flying Scotsman shows how far and how quickly steam loco's progressed in not too many years. 

[Nile]

I've now gotten round to stripping my Lion down to find the problem and the culprit is - the motor. Hornby seem to fitted a completely crap one to this model. It's a standard sized 10x15 motor with a 1mm shaft. I replaced it with a cheap one off ebay and the performance was transformed.

[Bucoops]

Maybe the budget for it was a bit low after the lawyers? 🙃

[Flying Pig]

Anthony Dawson on Tiger.

 

 

[Edwardian]

I have found the pseudo-historical Hornby range for the L&M to be both fun and charismatic and have acquired most of what has been released so far, so I am a supporter, not a detractor, of this range. With this comes quite a lot of leeway in my approach to these models. Nevertheless, I feel that with Hornby's Lion, and especially this new and rather poor Tiger train pack, Hornby have exceeded the limits of what was useful and meritorious in the range.

 

There is simply no point to the Hornby Lion. IMHO it is a moral certainty that Rapido's model will be superior, and, so, if I want a model of a reconstructed loco (that might not even be L&M's Lion!), that's the better choice, and one which comes with the option of the 1980s pierced tender frames with spring detail; Hornby evidently only tooled for the 1930/Titfield condition tender.

 

Below is the image on the Rapido website:

 

 

There is a line where top and bottom sections of the boiler joins on the Rapido model that I am not thrilled about, but Hornby's overall less refined offering has it's own nastiness where the boiler and splasher join (see below).

 

Close ups seen on video reviews reveal that Hornby's Lion and Tiger are no more than what I'd call 'average Hornby' in quality and finesse of appearance. For instance, I cordially dislike the way Hornby has, quite unprototypically, extended the splashers into the boiler barrel, leaving 'panel gaps' at the interface that even British Leyland would have been ashamed of.  

 

The images below are stills taken from the Sam's Trains review of the Tiger train pack:

 

 

 

Sam's Trains Review

 

That said, for a Tiger version with a more realistically shaped firebox, and the chance to add some L&M goods stock ... well, I was seriously interested.  Until, that is, I took a look at this train pack, 

 

So, what would have made me buy Tiger?

 

Well, in the context of this range and the fact that it's mainly derived from reconstructions/replicas, I'm not going to mind a level of historical 'uncertainty', and I freely accept the limitations set by having a model of the reconstructed loco as the starting point. Nevertheless, I was looking for something that at least captured the in-service look of an 1830s L&M loco based on what we know of them.  

 

 

Hornby could have done that. Based on the picture of the innards that Ruston posted above, the mechanism does not require the freakishly high firebox chosen for the Tiger model, so we could have had something resembling the picture seen above or in the thumbnail to the Anthony Dawson video posted above. 

 

Thus the obvious flaw is that, while we have a much more likely shaped firebox, it is far higher above the boiler than we see in illustrations of the Samson-Lion/Tiger or Planet-Patentee lines of Stephenson types of the period, It's just not credible for an 1830s loco of this type. Unless the apparent 1840s rebuild, which is what I understand Hornby is purporting to be representing, resulted in adding such a firebox, then it's just a weird and unhelpful choice. 

 

Hornby could have painted the boiler green, retained the perfectly reasonable flared chimney and substituted a lower firebox of the same shape and we would have had something that both distinguished the L&M in-service Tiger from the reconstructed Lion and was a credible representation of something built and running in the 1830s. I would have bought that.

 

Instead Hornby decided to back-date Tiger to the condition of Lion as a pumping engine, with both the chimney and the firebox clearly inspired by the later additions to Lion seen at the time of its rescue for preservation. That makes no sense and means the model really has nothing to offer me. 

 

 

That said, I would not be either squeamish or sentimental about laying into the Hornby model and replacing the chimney and firebox. If I were going to do this, perhaps the Lion model, with its rather more sensible flared chimney would be the better starting point, coming, as it does, in a better value (relatively) train pack with more usable stock. If I'm going to do all that, I might as well substitute a 3D-printed Planet tender and give myself the joy of dealing with Hornby's sub-optimal tender connections to boot! 

 

But given the high cost of these models and their indifferent quality, would this really be a worthwhile exercise?

 

As for the train pack's L&M 'coal wagons', I'll leave it to Sam's Trains to comment:

 

"Possibly one of the most lazy and contemptible things I've seen Hornby do in quite a long time, and that's saying something"

 

Hard pass from me!

 

Other views are available.

 

 

[5Dublo2]

While the tall firebox on Hornby's Tiger might not be historically accurate it does mean Hornby's HM7000 TXS decoder will fit (which would not be the case if the firebox was shorter)