Hornby 2022 Black 5 new tooling

[Quadrille]

6 minutes ago, Black 5 Bear said:

IMHO, the Bachmann close coupling clip is far superior to that of the Hornby offering and certainly more robust.

Don't shoot the messenger but I was informed, by several retailers, a few months ago that Hornby DO intend producing new or revised couplings...I wonder if they could do that competently!

[melmerby]

16 hours ago, zr2498 said:

I did have a look at those 8 pin USBs, but then I wondered about the current ratings?

Surprisingly high, more than a model loco will ever need.

USB- C is 24 pin

[MikeParkin65]

14 minutes ago, Black 5 Bear said:

IMHO, the Bachmann close coupling clip is far superior to that of the Hornby offering and certainly more robust.

Agree more robust (and commensurately chunky)  but still unfortunately leaved too large a gap between loco and tender and it is a fixed distance. My layout is no 'Little Bytham' but I take care to keep curves as gentle as possible. With a minimum 36 inch (curve of a Peco medium radius point) I find I can couple most tenders much closer than the supplied 'standard' coupling - especially if things like inner tender buffers are removed (for the Hornby Brit for example this means they will operate reliably on the 'display' setting ).

 

Accurascale and Dapol have both shown how to properly take advantage of cam coupling for the tender so Hornby really have no excuse for what they are doing with the A£, A4 and now the Black Five. Better proven solutions already on the market and deployed by their competitors.

 

Removing the cam from the Bachmann V2 is on my current 'to do' list - I waited for prices to drop before buying that model, will be the same with the Black Five

[Legend]

1 hour ago, Sjcm said:

Yep, the problem is no-one knows exactly what the problem is. Is it a mechanical problem where the tender connectors on this batch are not making proper contact when they click in. Is is an electrical problem somewhere in the loco or tender (faulty/corroded contacts). On the one hand Sam's trains got his working with contact cleaner which hints at electrical problems. On the other hand that didn't work with first one. Maybe it's a combination of both and the main difference between the P2 and the black 5 is QC or cost cutting.

could it be manufacturing tolerances eg on loco the connector sitting very fractionally lower than it should or vice versa .  We don’t know , of course , but that’s a few defects we’ve seen now . Hope those that have a BR one on order benefit from the experience being picked up on the initial LMS one . Maybe there will be more testing or will Hornby send them out regardless for customers and retailers to do their QC . I know which one I think will happen 

Edited April 29 by Legend

[cctransuk]

10 minutes ago, MikeParkin65 said:

Agree more robust (and commensurately chunky)  but still unfortunately leaved too large a gap between loco and tender and it is a fixed distance. My layout is no 'Little Bytham' but I take care to keep curves as gentle as possible. With a minimum 36 inch (curve of a Peco medium radius point) I find I can couple most tenders much closer than the supplied 'standard' coupling - especially if things like inner tender buffers are removed (for the Hornby Brit for example this means they will operate reliably on the 'display' setting ).

 

Accurascale and Dapol have both shown how to properly take advantage of cam coupling for the tender so Hornby really have no excuse for what they are doing with the A£, A4 and now the Black Five. Better proven solutions already on the market and deployed by their competitors.

 

Removing the cam from the Bachmann V2 is on my current 'to do' list - I waited for prices to drop before buying that model, will be the same with the Black Five

 

To my mind, the adjustable length Bachmann tender coupling bar is the extent of technology required for this application.

 

If multi-channel electronic connections are dictated by DCC, keep them separate from the physical coupling, so that we Luddites can rip them out!

 

CJI.

[adb968008]

24 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

If multi-channel electronic connections are dictated by DCC, keep them separate from the physical coupling, so that we Luddites can rip them out!

 

Shhhh protect the future.

 

When DCC models are all dead on ebay, DCites like us will have a cheap source of models to feast off and no qualms of ripping bits back to the minimum “2 wires” thats all thats needed for DC approach.

 

 

 

Edited April 29 by adb968008

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

13 hours ago, GrumpyPenguin said:

Why would you need/want to adjust a properly engineered close coupling mechanism ?

Because as fitted between loco and tender on RTR OO, none of them come even vaguely close to 'better things' already long available in RTR OO!

 

For optimum appearance on any OO layout, the mechanical link should accomplish five things, all of which have been frequently demonstrated by Bachmann, and at least once by Hornby.

A simple rigid metal drawbar of near scale appearance mounted through the dragboxes.

Spacing adjustment provided from scale to sufficient for specified minimum radius curvature.

No appreciable slack between loco and tender.

Cab and tender front always correctly aligned, no skewing on straight track.

Any model 'tackle' to enable this fully concealed, all you see is the drawbar between loco and tender dragboxes in a side on view.

 

Per a response above, Bachmann have  triumphed since circa 2010 with the  drawbar in the right location combined with an adjustable screw locked spacing slide concealed behind the tender frames, perfection. Hornby just once TTBoMK, on the 2006 Britannia/Clan, with just two fixed spacings, and easily rpelaced with a DIY replacement to adjust spacing if the owner requires (caveat,  I haven't looked at all their product.)

 

And finally, there is no general need for camming connections on UK steam models: few real monster steam loco prototypes, and short tenders. A RTR OO 9F as an example can go round 24" radius with a simple scale spacing metal link, give it slightly overscale spacing and it's good for R2; the BR standards and other late grouping steam designs really benefit in appearance by using a  simple drawbar, because so much is on view.

 

KISS.

 

 

As for electrical connections, a small plug on thin wires engaging in a concealed socket, as the wires can be dressed to look like the hose connections dangling beneath the drawbar. (I would be quite happy to 'prune out' any excess over the four which is the maximum I require should the  decoder be best placed in tender, the wires make this an easy owner option.

 

KISS.

 

 

[MikeParkin65]

11 minutes ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

Because as fitted between loco and tender on RTR OO, none of them come even vaguely close to 'better things' already long available in RTR OO!

 

For optimum appearance on any OO layout, the mechanical link should accomplish five things, all of which have been frequently demonstrated by Bachmann, and at least once by Hornby.

A simple rigid metal drawbar of near scale appearance mounted through the dragboxes.

Spacing adjustment provided from scale to sufficient for specified minimum radius curvature.

No appreciable slack between loco and tender.

Cab and tender front always correctly aligned, no skewing on straight track.

Any model 'tackle' to enable this fully concealed, all you see is the drawbar between loco and tender dragboxes in a side on view.

 

Per a response above, Bachmann have  triumphed since circa 2010 with the  drawbar in the right location combined with an adjustable screw locked spacing slide concealed behind the tender frames, perfection. Hornby just once TTBoMK, on the 2006 Britannia/Clan, with just two fixed spacings, and easily rpelaced with a DIY replacement to adjust spacing if the owner requires (caveat,  I haven't looked at all their product.)

 

And finally, there is no general need for camming connections on UK steam models: few real monster steam loco prototypes, and short tenders. A RTR OO 9F as an example can go round 24" radius with a simple scale spacing metal link, give it slightly overscale spacing and it's good for R2; the BR standards and other late grouping steam designs really benefit in appearance by using a  simple drawbar, because so much is on view.

 

KISS.

 

 

As for electrical connections, a small plug on thin wires engaging in a concealed socket, as the wires can be dressed to look like the hose connections dangling beneath the drawbar. (I would be quite happy to 'prune out' any excess over the four which is the maximum I require should the  decoder be best placed in tender, the wires make this an easy owner option.

 

KISS.

 

 

Accurascale Manor accomplishes scale coupling, the advantages of the cam on curves, no slop and electrical connection with aplomb.  

The latest Bachmann 9f has the adjustable bar coupling and a separate plug for the electrical connection which works equally as well (although I have made my own closer coupling bar using a yoghurt pot lid and a Lidl hole punch!) as the Bachmann bar leaves a huge gap even on the closest setting. 

[cctransuk]

40 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Shhhh protect the future.

 

When DCC models are all dead on ebay, DCites like us will have a cheap source of models to feast off and no qualms of ripping bits back to the minimum “2 wires” thats all thats needed for DC approach.

 

 

 

 

Funny, that - wasn't 'just two wires' how DCC was marketed?

 

Would it have taken off if they'd said 'a mare's nest of wires between loco and tender'?

 

CJI.

[adb968008]

Its funny how some are harking back for the return of what some used to call “satans cable”.. the jst from tender to loco.

 

Whilst the past has a habit of becoming nostalgic.. the ability for 1 wire to unhinge from that jst, making it useless and needed extensive dismantling and soldering, or the jst male pulling out the female off the circuit board and becoming ugly with it has not diminished over time.

 

i suspect why the jst has gone isnt Hornby benevolence, but that the number of wires needed has exceeded what a jst is practical for.. I count a minimum of 8… 2 each for track feed, leds, smoke and motor… the Bachmann 9f above only needs 4.. Track Feed and Motor… it was only a decade ago we needed just 2.. track feed as everything else was under the boiler.

 

 

Edited April 29 by adb968008

[MikeParkin65]

2 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Its funny how some are harking back for the return of what some used to call “satans cable”.. the jst from tender to loco.

 

Whilst the past has a habit of becoming nostalgic.. the ability for 1 wire to unhinge from that jst, making it useless and needed extensive dismantling and soldering, or the jst male pulling out the female off the circuit board and becoming ugly with it has not diminished over time.

 

i suspect why the jst has gone isnt Hornby benevolence, but that the number of wires needed has exceeded what a jst is practical for.. I count a minimum of 8… 2 each for track feed, leds, smoke and motor… the Bachmann 9f above only needs 4.. Track Feed and Motor… it was only a decade ago we needed just 2.. track feed as everything else was under the boiler.

 

 

I've no idea how many of my locos have 'satans cable' arrangements but its well into double figures. I've only had one failure of it and that was a Hornby Brit 'dead on arrival'. And an easy fix with a soldering iron. Hornby have refined the fitting of the tender connection in recent years by having a screw fixing in the tender rather than glued in - this makes any required repair even easier. 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

4 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

Would it (DCC) have taken off if they'd said 'a mare's nest of wires between loco and tender'?

Ho ho ho. DCC took off when the option for most with a model railway was soldering in wired decoders to convert their existing locos. As far as the UK was concerned, the modeller with experience of a club or private layout wired up with cab controlled sections, running kit or scratch built locos, was fully equipped for this task; and having begun on it was a rapid convert to the many resulting benefits.

 

The commercial imperatives that have led to where we are now, have to be accepted. On a positive note Mr Ripitout has thus far had no serious trouble altering RTR OO models to conform to his (wholly correct) ideas of best practise.

[Ian Hargrave]

1 hour ago, Legend said:

could it be manufacturing tolerances eg on loco the connector sitting very fractionally lower than it should or vice versa .  We don’t know , of course , but that’s a few defects we’ve seen now . Hope those that have a BR one on order benefit from the experience being picked up on the initial LMS one . Maybe there will be more testing or will Hornby send them out regardless for customers and retailers to do their QC . I know which one I think will happen 

And the mood music from the Hornby stand on my Saturday NEC visit suggests to me that they have done the Pontus Pilate act with this if the matter of the glued in lamps is any guide.It is in any case likely that the BR version is already on the boat.So any action prior to retail would necessitate halting distribution and applying remedial measures as necessary. That stretches credibility..

Although IIRC,such a measure was in fact taken by Bachmann when a batch of Class 40 models arrived from China with a grease applied to the gears which effectively stopped traction. Barwell took on extra help to clean them up.However,if there is as there appears to be an issue with the design/manufacture of the conductive plug in socket,then unless H has a human resource of electronic wizardry then the choice is either to return the whole lot to the factory or distribute the lot to retail after maybe a cursory QC sample exercise. The former is expensively inconvenient and the latter will be the financially easier. The storm if it occurs will be weathered no doubt.

[melmerby]

16 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Its funny how some are harking back for the return of what some used to call “satans cable”.. the jst from tender to loco.

I used the JST to provide pickups and decoder space in the tender so that the loco can have more lead in the boiler in several of mine.

Can't see what's wrong with it.

 

I posted a thread on doing this to a Bachmann 2251.

 

[MikeParkin65]

15 minutes ago, Ian Hargrave said:

 

Although IIRC,such a measure was in fact taken by Bachmann when a batch of Class 40 models arrived from China with a grease applied to the gears which effectively stopped traction. 

Affected electrical continuity rather than traction - the factory had used a non conductive grease and Bachmann had changed from their usual (and reliable) wiper pick up arrangement to a set up using contacts to the bearing which was in turn picking up from the axle. The home fix involved a clean out with IPA and soldering in proper wiper pickups (and a hard wire to the circuit board for good measure.  

[The Stationmaster]

18 hours ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

Strictly, that is an invalid statement. No one has the data to support it, because this is a relatively new alloy.

 

On the evidence to date it appears to be stable for the upper end of a human lifetime, (which to my mind is good enough for the classes of goods made using it) but that's no guarantee of permanently free from degradation.

Maybe I should dig out my HD 'Duchess of Atholl' to see how it's doing - it was made when our previous King was still on the throne.

[phil-b259]

50 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

Funny, that - wasn't 'just two wires' how DCC was marketed?

 

Would it have taken off if they'd said 'a mare's nest of wires between loco and tender'?

 

CJI.

Yes - because that ‘nest of wires’ is installed by the loco manufacturer and not the user.

 

The ‘2 wires’ claim related to trackwork (I.e. the lack of the need for isolating switches or switched feeds).

 

The features DCC offers in terms of controllable sound and lighting is something straight DC can never equal.

[Peter Kazmierczak]

My final thoughts...

Pros:
1. The model looks excellent. Maybe a few glue marks but weathering would remedy that.

2. The bowed running plate. Obviously the straighter the better, but it doesn't look THAT bad. On looking at photos of Stanier locos, they are not always perfectly straight anyway.

3. Running (when you can get it to) appears smooth, controllable, and with reasonable gearing.

 

Cons:
1. Those lamps. I think that's been fully discussed.

2. Loco/tender connection. Clearly not fit for purpose. Easy enough to ditch the present arrangement (especially if you're not bothered about the lamps)  and hard wire between the two. The prototype have hose connections between loco and tender, so wires no big deal.  Also making a new (closer) drawbar shouldn't be that difficult.

3. Price.

 

As I model the Midland Division of the LMS/LMR then a Class 5 is an essential element.

Would I buy this one at £200+?

Not as it stands.

Which is a shame, as Hornby could've had a real winner here.

 

[adb968008]

2 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Maybe I should dig out my HD 'Duchess of Atholl' to see how it's doing - it was made when our previous King was still on the throne.

My late fathers, from c1948/9.

 

Well used, I recall trying to melt some chocolate on the cab and eating in the late 1970’s… strange child I was… motor still turns, not bad for c75 years old.

I reckon fitting this with DCC is easier than converting it from 3 rail to 2 rail back in the 1970’s.

 

I also reckon it’ll pull more than either 9f above or the new Black 5.

Edited April 29 by adb968008

[cctransuk]

40 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

The features DCC offers in terms of controllable sound and lighting is something straight DC can never equal.

 

Fortunately, that constitutes a benefit IMHO.

 

CJI.

[maico]

2 hours ago, adb968008 said:

Shhhh protect the future.

 

When DCC models are all dead on ebay, DCites like us will have a cheap source of models to feast off and no qualms of ripping bits back to the minimum “2 wires” thats all thats needed for DC approach.

 

 

 

 

You might have a long wait! My oldest DCC loco a Brawa BR216 diesel was made in 1998 and the main board, a simple design, was made in China like the metal bodied loco. All still work fine.

 

I recently treated it to a new 8 pin ESU Lokpilot V5 basic decoder circa £20

 

 

Edited April 29 by maico

[zr2498]

Just read the review of the Black 5 in this months Hornby magazine.

It's not a review.

[MikeParkin65]

Reviewed in this months Hornby Mag. None of the concerns we have voiced mentioned at all. Only hint of a criticism is haulage where it would only haul 6 Bachmann Mk1 'due to their rolling resistance', it did however haul 12 Hornby Mk1s and 12 Accurascale Mk2's for comparison.

[maico]

27 minutes ago, MikeParkin65 said:

Reviewed in this months Hornby Mag. None of the concerns we have voiced mentioned at all. Only hint of a criticism is haulage where it would only haul 6 Bachmann Mk1 'due to their rolling resistance', it did however haul 12 Hornby Mk1s and 12 Accurascale Mk2's for comparison.

 

It's called a straight through review, no knocking copy. So, 'a wealth of detail, runs fine on our layout', and other hackneyed Cliché.

Our intrepid reviewers then decamp to the pub basking in the glow of a job well done...🍺

 

Edited April 29 by maico

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

Maybe I should dig out my HD 'Duchess of Atholl' to see how it's doing - it was made when our previous King was still on the throne.

I have briefly had a RN dirk that was most likely produced when George V was on the throne, (inherited, I'm not that old!)  given that the great uncle concerned passed out of Dartmouth in 1929, and the top of the hilt has a hairline crack. It's in the 'mazak/zamac' alloy family (I had access to two tons of laboratory XRD when it came into my possession) and isn't lead contaminated, nor is there evidence of impact damage. But there it is, with a crack, cause unknown. (It's in Oz now, with the cousin named for its original owner, as that seemed right when we had the 'great family memorabilia sort out'.)

 

The RN dirk my FiL passed on to his daughter (reader, I married her) probably circa 1940 manufacture, is lead contaminated and the hilt has split full length, but still in one piece. So even the Senior Service didn't always get it right...

 

Having spent a significant part of my career in novel and exotic materials work, I am perhaps sensitised to claims for longevity of such things, for which there can as yet be no reliable data. I have been regularly surprised at how many people are concerned that novel materials arising from invention to deliver current technologies, may not keep on working indefinitely.