Hornby Class 423 4-VEP

[Xerces Fobe2]

Whilst acknowledging that there are undoubtedly some issues with the Hornby 4VEP I think a little perspective is required. Over the years I have had issues albeit accuracy or the model, quality or poor design from all the main manufactures (I am sure that I am not alone here). If you look at other industries such as the car industry over a period of time all the main manufactures have had issues with some well publicised recalls etc.

 

My point is that, yes we do need to raise the issues and feed it back to the manufacturer, which from experience in nearly every case results in positive action being taken. The way that Hornby dealt with the Class 31 issues is an example and was excellent response to a valid issue.

 

I am sure that Simon Kholer of Hornby will now be aware of these issues and hopefully will give a response in due course; maybe Andy could contact him if he has not done so already.

Nigel.

Edited September 25, 2011 by Xerces Fobe2

[S.A.C Martin]

Whilst acknowledging that there are undoubtedly some issues with the Hornby 4VEP I think a little perspective is required. Over the years I have had issues albeit accuracy or the model, quality or poor design from all the main manufactures (I am sure that I am not alone here). If you look at other industries such as the car industry over a period of time all the main manufactures have had issues with some well publicised recalls etc.

 

My point is that, yes we do need to raise the issues and feed it back to the manufacturer, which from experience in nearly every case results in positive action being taken. The way that Hornby dealt with the Class 31 issues is an example and was excellent response to a valid issue.

 

I am sure that Simon Kholer of Hornby will now be aware of these issues and hopefully will give a response in due course; maybe Andy could contact him if he has not done so already.

Nigel.

 

I don't disagree with any of that Nigel. However, I think the better example is the blue EPB numbering problem, surely? Bachmann immediately advising of replacement bodyshells to be sent out to all those affected. That was stunning customer service.

Edited September 25, 2011 by S.A.C Martin

[Welly]

I can measure them but I don't think they're very accurate to be honest. I had a Bachmann SK interior but as the compartments are too small (as they are 2nd class). If you tell me exactly what you need to know though I can get my ruler out though it won't be the most accurate!

 

That's kind of you Jon, thanks but Ken gave some dimensions here to start off with. And he described how he did it.

 

 

On my Bachmann BCK interior, the windows and doors of both 1st and 2nd class compartments are the same width, all that differs is the width of the solid wall between them. The windows beside the seats appear to be 4.6mm wide, with the window in the door nearer 4mm wide. The dimension across the outer edges of the windows is about 20mm.

 

On the VEP DTC, the compartments are spaced at 28mm intervals (interestingly, the mid-compartment door on the corridor side doesn't exactly align with the compartment). I cut apertures 20mm wide by 18mm deep, then put on a piece of 10 thou styrene, cut as a string of 'T's - i.e. a 4mm deep band at the top, with verticals for the sides of the door. Mine are pretty rough and ready, but I really don't think anyone will be able to notice when the body is back together.

 

NB the seats were slightly 'distressed' by my razor saw when I cut the apertures.

 

ĸen

 

What I did was to take Ken's measurements and made up a template on my Turbocad software to stick on the partition with the intention of using a piercing saw or such blade in a pin vice to cut out the partition. I don't care about absolute fidelity of the partition window dimensions as long as they appear to be right places but it is very close! Anyway here is the first draft just propped against the partition.

 

 

I started to wonder whether the base of the door window goes below the seat so I did some searching and found the first class interior shot of a class 207 DEMU which answers my question!

 

http://www.flickr.co...@N02/3627264396

 

I'll have some more later!

Edited September 25, 2011 by Welly

[Pennine MC]

My point is that, yes we do need to raise the issues and feed it back to the manufacturer, which from experience in nearly every case results in positive action being taken. The way that Hornby dealt with the Class 31 issues is an example and was excellent response to a valid issue.

 

 

Hmmm. Curious what sort of response you'd think appropriate in the case of the VEP, Nigel? The 31 chassis problem is clearly a manufacturing defect; these things do happen and as with the Heljan Clayton motors, it's a 'single issue' complaint that's fairly easily remedied by replacement of the affected parts. Now do tell me if I'm losing perspective here, but with the catalogue of problems with the VEP, it seems to me it's a case of 'um, where do we start'. The majority of the complaints seem to come down to assorted aspects of poor design, things that could surely have been avoided but would only really be curable by retooling from the ground up

Edited September 25, 2011 by Pennine MC

[kintbury jon]

The only derailing problems i've had is with the outer bogies. The problem was not with the bogie but with the coupling. A small amount of oil on the coupling unit has sorted out the problem and I have not had any derailments since.

[Red Fox]

The majority of the complaints seem to come down to assorted aspects of poor design, things that could surely have been avoided but would only really be curable by retooling from the ground up

 

It wouldn't be the first time a manufacturer has had to do it, what version of the Bachmann 37 are we on now????

 

IMHO I think people would look on the 4-VEP more favourably if they did rework the driving car with a more accurate cab face, beefier horns, windows on the compartment bulkheads and sorting the bogie issue. I can live with the Limby motor and the roof vents but it's mainly the driving car I have problems with. I had a chat with the owners of my local model shop and they have had potential buyers put off by all the problems

 

I can see Hornby doing one of three things 1. nothing. 2. attempt to make the above modifications 3. give up with Southern EMU's.

[John M Upton]

Unfortunately my money is on Option 3 which is a pity as the VEP (suitably rectified of course) is the perfect base for a CIG/BIG.

 

Meanwhile as I am doing things to my bogies, something blatantly obvious occurs to me. Somewhere in the world at least one magazine review said there were pick ups on the non powered cars for the lights - there aren't!! So which reviewer was being lazy and not paying any attention to the product in front of him/her?

 

 

Further experimentation - I have run the three unpowered cars together (a 3-VEP I suppose!) with a 33 shoving it. The drag that the motor coach is causing is extremely noticeable now as these three are running with little problems.

 

I have now found that one wheel set was a tad too wide, easily fixed. A second problem is with the couplings (Thanks Kintbury Jon for giving me the idea!) as the end and inner ones are just fouling the bogies frames when turning corners.

 

Therefore I have removed the outer end NEM pocket/arm and have trimmed a little section of the bogie frame away on the inner ends to allow better clearance, turning the unpowered bogies through 180 degrees as I was about it.

 

Further testing will resume later!!

Edited September 25, 2011 by John M Upton

[kintbury jon]

I assume one couldn't add pick ups to any of the other bogies as the through wiring is for the lighting and therefore a lower voltage?

[S.A.C Martin]

Unfortunately my money is on Option 3 which is a pity as the VEP (suitably rectified of course) is the perfect base for a CIG/BIG.

 

This is the frustrating thing: there's nothing wrong with the actual model in a finishing sense, it's very well finished (aside from the QC issue I had), but if it's wrong, it's wrong. A spade is a spade. Guard irons on the wrong end of a bogie shouldn't happen.

 

Meanwhile as I am doing things to my bogies, something blatantly obvious occurs to me. Somewhere in the world at least one magazine review said there were pick ups on the non powered cars for the lights - there aren't!! So which reviewer was being lazy and not paying any attention to the product in front of him/her?

 

Yes, I noticed that too, today while weathering! The wires go from coach to coach but there's no pickups on anything but the powered vehicle.

Edited September 25, 2011 by S.A.C Martin

[Gwiwer]

(a 3-VEP I suppose!)

 

3Vop . Although those usually had a DMBS rather than a TSO as the middle car.

[59205]

I've just had a look in my local modelzone to see one 'in the flesh'. Sadly they didn't have either version in stock. Think i'll go for the NSE one in any event!

[Welly]

Progress with my 4VEP partition openings from this morning. I have finalised on my Turbocad the corridor partition aperture outlines, I assumed the corner radius of the seat windows is 1mm which looks approximately right and did not bother putting the top edge of the door above the seat windows as it won't show on the outside. The final template has been stuck to the partition using Pritt stick.

 

 

Initial drilling of the aperture corners - no trauma to the seats!! I checked very carefully with trial printings of the templates by using something straight and making sure it didn't touch the seats at the extreme edges of the window apertures.

 

 

 

First cutting, using my piercing saw, such an awkward tool to set up but makes great edges if used carefully!

 

 

No marks on my 1st class seats!

 

 

If anyone would like a pair of paper templates ( 80gsm reused copier paper ) for the cost of a stamped addressed envelope - please PM me.

[S.A.C Martin]

 

Weathering in stages - bogies, followed by the chassis. Light weathering to make it look used but not decrepit. The next coach used for comparison.

[zarniwhoop]

Since Team GB put some effort in today and made me proud to be British, I thought I'd better put some effort in with my photos. No pics of what it looks like when reassembled, I've not done the corridor handrails yet (first coat of paint on the styrene microstrip was still tacky). I suppose the mods will object if I start another thread in the 'RTR' section, so here's the pics of my work in progress. Sorry about the grass colour, my olympus doesn't seem to like green in model shots.

 

After looking at these, you'll notice the standard is well below that of most people here, but once it's assembled I think it will be adequate.

 

Compartments, before painting

 

corridor side, showing my "quick and dirty" 'T' overlay.

 

and after painting (rail grey)

 

compartment side.

 

The purple for the first-class seats is probably too dark (railmatch crimson and rail blue, next time I'll use faded rail blue), but I doubt anyone will ever be able to see this. The walls above the seats are in the original blue - photo seems to have picked up reflections. Still haven't worked out what (if anything) to do for mirrors in the compartments - I certainly won't be adding luggage racks!

 

The white microstrip in the bottom of the last pic is to extend the footboards (is that the right name for them?) - the Hornby version looks ok for mid-1980s onwards, but originally some of them were a bit more longer (see pics in e.g. First Generation Southern EMUs).

 

ĸen

[Welly]

Simon, the weathering shows just how well Hornby have moulded the B5 SR bogie! I'll get my bogies the right way round when I convert mine to P4 eventually ( or even when I re-wheel in OO should I abandon P4! ) It strikes me that weathering can sometimes show up poor mouldings!

 

Ken, your way certainly gives some relief to the partition side like the real thing but I wasn't confident enough of making such long cuts neatly enough but again, thanks for giving the dimensions for me to start off with!

 

Should I post in a blog any future progress or continue on this thread?

[zarniwhoop]

 

Ken, your way certainly gives some relief to the partition side like the real thing but I wasn't confident enough of making such long cuts neatly enough but again, thanks for giving the dimensions for me to start off with!

 

Should I post in a blog any future progress or continue on this thread?

 

 

That gives me a lol moment - I wasn't confident of cutting a series of rectangular apertures (i.e. windows) to look at all rectangular. But I agree, guidance from the mods would be helpful!

 

*edit* - after reading another thread where the 'report' button was mentioned, I nearly reported myself - but then when I read the blurb there it is only for "objectionable" comment.

Edited September 25, 2011 by zarniwhoop

[Xerces Fobe2]

Hmmm. Curious what sort of response you'd think appropriate in the case of the VEP, Nigel? The 31 chassis problem is clearly a manufacturing defect; these things do happen and as with the Heljan Clayton motors, it's a 'single issue' complaint that's fairly easily remedied by replacement of the affected parts. Now do tell me if I'm losing perspective here, but with the catalogue of problems with the VEP, it seems to me it's a case of 'um, where do we start'. The majority of the complaints seem to come down to assorted aspects of poor design, things that could surely have been avoided but would only really be curable by retooling from the ground up

 

The reported multiple issues appear to fall into 2 distinct categories.

1. Inaccuracies related to the bodies and in particular the driving cars.

2. Running problems in relation to the motor bogie and derailments of the non-powered bogies.

The first category relates to, arguably some of the issues could have been spotted prior to a potential customer deciding to purchase the 4VEP, such as cab/corridor connection which just did not look right when you first looked at the unit. Some of the other more detailed complaints focus on areas that might not bother a lot of modellers and could be due to Hornby making, what some might regard as reasonable compromises for the ease of, or to reduce the cost of production

The second category IMO are far more serious and do warrant more attention as the prospective customer would not be aware of these issues unless they had read this thread (or anything similar threads or articles at other places on the web). These potential errors are affecting the model are what is essentially a critical features of the model i.e. be able to run on track without derailing and the power bogie should fit for purpose. The derailments of the non-powered bogies does most likely warrant some investigation by Hornby however the power bogie whilst not liked by some (as it is fitted with traction tyres) could easily be claimed as fit for purpose by Hornby. Just because Hornby fit a different variation of this motor bogie to other models in their range where have they stated that the bogie for the 4VEP would be the same?

I am sure there will be some that will not agree with my opinion, however we still have a model of an EMU that most most of us could have only dreamed about a few years ago. I fear that to much critisism about minute details could potentially deter a manufacturers from being so enterprising with new models in the future.

Nigel.

[S.A.C Martin]

Sorry Nigel, the current form of the 4VEP isn't one I would have dreamed of a few years ago. Even five years ago, there were models on the shelves with much superior accuracy compared to prototype, and there was a model of a similarly sized unit in the form of Hornby's Pendolino.

 

With that particular trainset, today, you get the two trailers, the power car and a buffet car, track for a circuit and siding, and a controller for about £140.

 

I can accept it lacks the interior detail of the 4VEP, but you wouldn't say the Pendolino was in a lower league to the 4VEP, would you? Yes, the 4VEP has all lit coaches, and it's nicely done, but like the Pendolino the exterior detail is an all moulded affair.

 

Both are DCC ready and both have traction tyres, both are EMU types which come with four vehicles. However one gets the look and accuracy of its exterior absolutely spot on. I don't recall anyone complaining that the bogies on the Pendolino were designed the wrong way round, or that the unit was too thin for its corridors, or...and so on and so forth.

 

The 4VEP isn't entirely different to the 1990s Intercity 225 sets either in its spec - accepted one is DCC ready or fitted now, and the other isn't, but again, both have traction tyres and both have all moulded exterior detail.

 

A lot of people seem to be making the case that the more negative of us are complaining for the sake of it, and that we should be grateful for the 4VEP whatever form it comes in. I personally don't accept that - I do feel Hornby are capable of making a terrific model, and a quick glance at my Thompson L1 sitting on the third road of my shed confirms this.

 

They have gone backwards in the thinking behind the 4VEP's design, and (whether this is as a result of the R&D and design stage or its material cost is irrelevant), it has a retail price which you would not have paid, for a similar unit of ten years ago. In fact you still don't when you consider how similar in spec the newest Javelin, Pendolino and 225 sets are, and what you get with them for a similar price.

 

EDITED - To correct mistakes, with my apologies for being unintentionally misleading.

Edited September 26, 2011 by S.A.C Martin

[Bill]

 

 

I am sure there will be some that will not agree with my opinion, however we still have a model of an EMU that most most of us could have only dreamed about a few years ago. I fear that to much critisism about minute details could potentially deter a manufacturers from being so enterprising with new models in the future.

Nigel.

 

I sincerely hope that this does deter Hornby from making any more EMU's that way others might take up the slack and do it properly..

[frobisher]

Sorry Nigel, the current form of the 4VEP isn't one I would have dreamed of a few years ago. Even ten years ago, there were models on the shelves with much superior accuracy compared to prototype, and there was a model of a similarly sized unit in the form of Hornby's Pendolino.

 

What you're saying there is a little misleading. The Pendalino is not a 10 year old model, it's, what 3 years old at most.

 

With that particular trainset, today, you get the two trailers, the power car and a buffet car, track for a circuit and siding, and a controller for about £140.

 

I can accept it lacks the interior detail of the 4VEP, but you wouldn't say the Pendolino was in a lower league to the 4VEP, would you? Yes, the 4VEP has all lit coaches, and it's nicely done, but like the Pendolino the exterior detail is an all moulded affair.

 

Both are DCC ready and both have traction tyres, both are EMU types which come with four vehicles. However one gets the look and accuracy of its exterior absolutely spot on. I don't recall anyone complaining that the bogies on the Pendolino were designed the wrong way round, or that the unit was too thin for its corridors, or...and so on and so forth.

 

I'd argue that maybe it is a prototype that does not have the familiarity and following of the 4VEP and as such it might (and I'm not saying ot does) have defiecencies that are below the threshold of staring people in the face the way they do on the 4VEP.

 

The 4VEP isn't entirely different to the 1980s Intercity 225 sets either in its spec - accepted one is DCC ready or fitted now, and the other isn't, but again, both have traction tyres, both have all moulded exterior detail, and both are EMUs in various forms.

 

Do what? Apart from the fact the 225 is most definately not an EMU, this really isn't a valid comparison.

[Matloughe]

I thin what SAC was getting at is that if they managed to get the 225's looking spot on now whenever they made them 10-20 years ago, I had a class 91 when I was about five so that's nearly 20 years ago. Then why on earth have they managed to made a number of mistakes on the 4-VEP? Especially with the ability to laser 'scan' the bodywork and build a 3D model on a computer - if they were using works drawings then that's different. But I seriously wonder why they didn't just ask SWT to borrow 'Gordon Pettit' and scan that?

 

That would have given them every accurate detail for the 4-VEP after rebuilding in a computer based 3D model. Now I made a decision years ago to by any Southern RTR EMU that came out - my way of helping to proving there is a market for SR EMU's, I can assure you however the 4-VEP is last on my list to buy unless there is an improved 'Phase 2' version of the unit. I don't mind cutting up compartment walls but when it comes to bogie modification just to get things looking right and a front end that looks more & more off each time I look at it.

I'm sorry but I hope Mr Bachmann does the 4-BIG/CIG/REP & TC fleet.

 

I will by a 4-VEP just not in the near future.

 

Cheers,

~ Gary

Edited September 26, 2011 by Matloughe

[Trains4U]

 

What you're saying there is a little misleading. The Pendalino is not a 10 year old model, it's, what 3 years old at most.

 

 

 

Add 50% to that. It's now 4.5 years old (Released March 2007)

 

Time flies when you're having fun...

[Enterprisingwestern]

You shouldn't have to take a scalpel to a model to correct mistakes like this - you take a scalpel to the model to fit "better" detail, not correct it.

 

Hear hear.

[S.A.C Martin]

 

What you're saying there is a little misleading. The Pendalino is not a 10 year old model, it's, what 3 years old at most.

 

 

My apologies Frobisher, my original argument centered on the HST but I edited it to the Pendolino and plum forgot about the dates!

 

I'd argue that maybe it is a prototype that does not have the familiarity and following of the 4VEP and as such it might (and I'm not saying ot does) have defiecencies that are below the threshold of staring people in the face the way they do on the 4VEP.

 

I have the Model Rail and Railway Modeller reviews of the Pendolino in front of me from my back catalogue, and they are extremely positive reviews.

 

Do what? Apart from the fact the 225 is most definately not an EMU, this really isn't a valid comparison.

 

Again, an editing mistake on my part. I might add...

 

I think what SAC was getting at is that if they managed to get the 225's looking spot on now whenever they made them 10-20 years ago, I had a class 91 when I was about five so that's nearly 20 years ago.

 

Gets my point entirely. Particularly when you consider both are all moulded plastic affairs with little separately fitted detail. So why the reversion?

Edited September 26, 2011 by S.A.C Martin

[frobisher]

I have the Model Rail and Railway Modeller reviews of the Pendolino in front of me from my back catalogue, and they are extremely positive reviews.

 

So seem to be the 4VEP reviews...