Hornby Class 423 4-VEP

[A Murphy]

And the positioning of the cab windows on the front face?

[spamcan61]

 

I wasn't sure myself, as I didn't want to effectively step on anyone's toes in this thread who have solved that problem, or even effectively nick the superb suggestion of printing it clear.

 

Well, you've give them enough to think about anyway IMHO; personally I'd focus on the build quality and running issues which is pretty much what you've done.

 

...Then there's the seemingly random fitting of DCC chips to DCC fitted models, but not all of them, and sometimes with an incorrect slip of paper....but there's a limit to how much energy I'd spend flogging a dead horse.

Edited October 11, 2011 by spamcan61

['CHARD]

Rolling resistance from use of non pinpoint trailing axles?

[spamcan61]

Rolling resistance from use of non pinpoint trailing axles?

 

Why did they do that, for pity's sake!

 

Might be worth mentioning them on the end of the sentence "....and finds it difficult to pull its own weight"

 

This could end up more of a short story than a letter :-/

[frobisher]

I wasn't sure myself, as I didn't want to effectively step on anyone's toes in this thread who have solved that problem, or even effectively nick the superb suggestion of printing it clear.

 

Go for it I say A simple paragraph along the lines that the solid compartment walls were a disappointment but were apparently for production reasons, and then offer up a way to improve things should go down well (he said with obvious bias...).

[metadyneman]

It's a very good letter indeed and points out most of the gripes that people have had with this unit. The drawback with it is the fact that yours is only one VEP and one letter. What is needed is for us all to write to Hornby with our similar complaints so that they can identify a trend in the unsatisfactory bits we have discovered with this product. Like I said in my post above.. I can live with the cosmetic problems but the poor motor and running quality is totally unforgiveable!

[Oldddudders]

Based upon the apparent success of other pressure groups, is there a facebook Hornby 4-VEP page about to emerge?

[Matabiau]

I have recently taken delivery of the NSE DCC fitted version of the Hornby 4VEP. Having read all of your concerns, both aesthetic and mechanic, I opened the box with some anxiety. The train went together very well, the coaches were packed in the box in the correct orientation so that it worked first time. Having read various comments about the tractive performance of the train I was not too surprised that the coaches do not roll freely on the track in the absence of the motor car. Although not surprised I am still disappointed I should add, especially considering that these coaches have no electrical pick-ups on the wheels, normally the source of such friction. I suspect it is this lack of free-wheeling that is the primary reason for the poor mechanical performance of the train driving the requirement for traction tyres.

The train moved forward (motor coach towards the front of the train) at low speed with no problem until the first curve. At low speed the train slows on the curves, even stalling at very low speed. There was no such problem at medium speed or faster.

I tried the train in reverse (with the motor coach towards the rear of the train) only to find it derailed on the curves and the points. Under closer inspection it seems that the torque on the driving axles causes the leading end of the motor bogie to lift doing a sort of wheeley! As the train enters a curve the bogie fails to follow the bend and the leading wheels leave the track causing the derailment.

I can therefore only agree with my fellow members of the forum that there is a design issue with the VEP's undercarriage, both motor bogies and trailing bogies that render the train unfit for purpose.

[Pennine MC]

Rolling resistance from use of non pinpoint trailing axles?

 

I would agree that that is a very significant issue. It exemplifies the poor engineering inherent in the assorted running issues, and hence is very relevant to the 'fitness for purpose' angle

[S.A.C Martin]

And the positioning of the cab windows on the front face?

 

Aye, that's a good idea. I will add that in too.

 

 

Go for it I say A simple paragraph along the lines that the solid compartment walls were a disappointment but were apparently for production reasons, and then offer up a way to improve things should go down well (he said with obvious bias...).

 

In which case I will add it into my email. Thanks for your blessing!

 

 

I would agree that that is a very significant issue. It exemplifies the poor engineering inherent in the assorted running issues, and hence is very relevant to the 'fitness for purpose' angle

 

I agree - I will add that point too.

 

Overall the 4VEP just hasn't been engineered very well. I'm racking my brains trying to remember the last time I saw a design for wheels like this, where it didn't have point to point bearings, and the only one which comes to my mind is on something like my exceedingly old Trix A2 Pacific tender wheels. That was a horrible runner too, actually, on its own...

[pauln]

Let's see how this reads:

 

 

 

Any and all criticism gratefully received towards the completion of this letter.

 

I think the letter is fine. Calm and considered listing all of the issues you have found.

 

I too have written to Hornby regarding my experience highlighted earlier in the thread. I have focused only on the running qualities and enclosed the links to the two videos I posted.

 

I wrote an email too to the editor at Model Rail who, to his credit as I am sure he is busy, responded very quickly. I won't repeat the exact wording without permission but he noted that the examples they had seen did not have this problem but he has forwarded my note to Simon Kolher at Hornby and asked them to investigate.

 

I'd agree that more people need to write if they are unhappy but let's hope they follow your measured example rather than a distracting rant.

[Ceptic]

And the positioning of the cab windows on the front face?

 

As pointed out in the Southern Electric Group's review, li's the width of Hornby's corridor / gangway connection that mucks up the whole frontal appearance (face).

lt should be, being a "Pullman" type gangway connection, approx.16mm. (a scale 4') wide... (measure those of the Maunsells and Pullmans). Those on Hornby's VEP are 14.5 mm. (3'-7 1/2") wide.

Added to this, are the undersized cab windows and cable recesses, which, in my view, are totally out of proportion.

 

l just hope, that some Hornby employee has taken time out to read, at least some of these posts, and reported back that..'All is not well, within the camp'

 

Regards.

[Uk_Steve]

on reflection of this i do a letter as well i think and send it out tomorrow

 

i do mine in simple terms ie purchased put on track it kept derailing on my corners

 

however my other Hornby and Bachmann trains run fine with no problems

sorry to say i had to sent back to dealer for a refund because i was seeing other issues being metioned

online so i didnt want a replacement at this stage

 

however i would re buy once i know there is a full working 4vep in the future once issues have been rectified

by yourselfs

[Natalie]

Something else maybe to add Simon, along the lines that as a long standing and satisfied customer of Hornby, this product has severely altered your confidence in the company's ability to produce a satisfactory multiple unit/model in future and has put your intended purchase of the forthcoming 'Brighton Belle' and other products in severe jeopardy.

[Natalie]

Something else maybe to add Simon, along the lines that as a long standing and satisfied customer of Hornby, this product has severely altered your confidence in the company's ability to produce a satisfactory multiple unit/model in future and has put your intended purchase of the forthcoming 'Brighton Belle' and other products in severe jeopardy.

[dave flint]

A SR EMU is nothing of interest to me, but beig aware of the Bachmann 411 and the great reception that it got - together with a disappointment about other Hornby models, I have been following this thread with interest.

 

Let me see if I understand this fully. They've not got the looks correct ("face", gangway, vent details, bogie orientation), and the basics of making it run have been missed as well, with a penny pinching measure of putting a pancake motor in it ?

 

Bachmann have released a 411 that hits the mark in looks, has a quality bespoke chassis, and only has a "problem" of needing to be coupled together correctly so that the internal lights work ?

 

It seems to sum up a view I've eld for a while, in that Hornby seem to have given up on serious modern image models, leaving the field open for Bachmann.

 

Tell me, what do the 411 and 423 retail at ? I bet its similar money, yet the 423 seems distincly "Railroad" for non railroad money.

[S.A.C Martin]

Okay, the suggested edits have been made - see what you think, ladies and gentlemen (thanks to everyone for your input, greatly appreciated).

 

Simon Martin,

Imaginary Road,

Copley Hill,

Leeds,

CH60 114

11/10/11

 

 

Dear Sir,

 

I write to you with regards a current product of yours, the Hornby 4VEP (the R number is R2947).

 

I bought mine from Hattons Model Railways around a month ago, and have encountered several issues with the model, some of which I have solved myself, but one issue is beyond my expertise. I am aware that by modifying my model in the way that I have, its warranty is invalidated, but I write to suggest solutions for any batches of the 4VEP which may appear in the future.

 

On opening the box I found that what should have been the power coach was in fact unpowered. It turned out that the coach body 62467 had been fitted to the unpowered chassis of what should have been coach 71146. Sadly I did not take photographs at the time, however the 71146 body was poorly fitted onto the 62467 chassis and was bowing out towards the centre as the fit was incorrect.

 

Swapping them over so that the bodies matched their chassis solved this first issue.

 

The second issue is a design one. As manufactured, the guard irons on the trailing bogies at either end are fitted the wrong way. This also causes a problem with the placement of the steps and 3rd rail shoes on each bogie, as seen here in this photograph:

 

 

 

 

The solution I used in order to make this bogie accurate to its prototype, was to remove the guard rails, and remount them at the opposite end of the bogie. By doing this, you also need to move the steps from end to the other, and swap the 3rd rail shoes so that they are fitted on the opposite side to their original position. As seen in this photograph:

 

 

 

 

On my sample, all of the inner bogies, bar those on the power car, were attached facing the wrong way. The damper should face towards the centre of the coach, as seen in my attached photographed of one end of the coach 76923:

 

 

 

This can be easily solved by turning the bogies around, although in order to do so they must be unclipped from the chassis and turned.

 

The next issue regards the livery of the unit. After much debate on the RMweb forum, there is some consensus that the orange cantrail stripe along the whole of the unit should not be orange, but red, when coupled with the black painted cab at each cab end. I am not by any means an expert in these matters, but close examination of a variety of photographs of NSE 4VEPs on the net seems to bear this out. If of course this is correct as depicted, for a specific date in the unit's life, then please accept my apologies on this point.

 

Another issue emerges regarding the size of both the roof horns and the roof vents - neither of which are as prominent as they are on an actual 4VEP, both rather undersized. On my 4VEP, these are being replaced with components sourced from various cottage industries to improve the look of the unit.

 

The solid compartment walls were a disappointment upon first inspection, but reading back through the development of this model were apparently for production reasons. An extremely good suggestion which has emerged on the RMweb forum which might appease both consumer and manufacturer, would be to use the same component, but mould it in clear plastic, then print onto the clear plastic the doorways. This would improve the look of the unit immensely in terms of its interior decoration.

 

Finally, with regards the aesthetics of the model, the end gangway connection has two major problems: firstly, being modelled in the extended position, makes the unit look distinctly odd when run as a single four car set. secondly, the door is not far enough forward in the gangway, making the gap look rather more pronounced than it should between the door and the edge of the gangway.

 

The final overall issue with the model regards the actual running of the unit. The traction tyred bogie has been a poor runner from out of the box. It finds it difficult to run on second radius curves on a simple oval of track. Much worse, the traction tyres on my particular unit appear to be disintegrating, as shown in the photograph below:

 

 

 

 

I have explored all the options, including whether or not my cleaning solution for the track was to blame, or that the track was laid poorly, causing damage, but none of these bear out when it is considered that the oval also plays host to similarly set up Hornby Eurostar and HST units from time to time, using similar traction tyres. Neither of these show this particular characteristic.

 

Further, the motor bogie has derailed consistently and randomly. The traction tyres appear to make the bogie "climb" the rails, causing derailments. It also starts, and stutters, on level, straight track, and finds it difficult to pull its own weight, due to the design of the bogies.

 

There is so much friction in the wheelsets as a result of the clip in arrangement, as opposed point to point bearings, that the motor - already faced with the problems of the traction tyres, is overcome by the rolling resistances of the rest of the train.

 

I must add that I have been a purchaser of Hornby products for some years, and have been delighted with my last few purchases - one of the superb Thompson L1 locomotives, the Hornby Railroad and Special Edition Tornados and the Flying Scotsman USA Train Pack - all superb products which worked out of the box, first time, and have proved both reliable and accurate to their respective prototypes.

 

Therefore I am sure you will appreciate, given my previous positive experiences with your products, that the 4VEP has come as an immense disappointment to me. It does not continue in the vein of the most recent Hornby products in terms of its accuracy to prototype, and its quality control in my personal experience leaves something to be desired. The design decisions regarding its motor arrangement are equally disappointing.

 

I feel that the model is not fit for purpose to that end. I will not, however, be returning my model to Hattons for return as I have modified it beyond its original specifications towards producing a satisfactory 4VEP for my own requirements. This will require a rebuilding of the power unit, most likely disposing of the motor bogie supplied altogether.

 

I feel that some degree of investigation of this model, its quality control, and its design ethos would be beneficial to all parties concerned, manufacturer, retailer and consumer. If a remotored 4VEP with all other issues outstanding were to be released in the future, and its running qualities were satisfactory and reliable, I would not hesitate in purchasing a second Hornby 4VEP.

 

However, I cannot in all good conscience at this time recommend the model in question to anyone in my immediate circle, simply on the basis that the amount of modification required to get the model accurate to its prototype (particularly with regards the bogies) is unacceptable.

 

Further, the performance of the unit on a simple train set oval is also unacceptable. For its total cost to purchase, and given there are other similarly sized models in both your own range and others, the 4VEP falls very short of "ready to run", particularly given its inadequate traction.

 

It is a terrific shame as what should be a roaring success for Hornby - a proper electric multiple unit workhorse, which should sell in droves, is simply not good enough.

 

I have no wish to go elsewhere for my purchases, but the 4VEP experience has severely altered my confidence in the company's ability to produce a satisfactory multiple unit/model in future, and has put my intended purchase of the forthcoming 'Brighton Belle' and other products in severe jeopardy.

 

I feel Hornby could go some way towards satisfying the situation which is steadily emerging online if they could investigate the cause of these problems, and perhaps go part way towards solving the problems which have emerged with their eagerly anticipated product.

 

For my own part, I would simply appreciate acknowledgement of this letter, and a positive response that the company will be looking into my concerns.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

Simon A.C. Martin

Edited October 12, 2011 by S.A.C Martin

[John M Upton]

Tell me, what do the 411 and 423 retail at ? I bet its similar money, yet the 423 seems distincly "Railroad" for non railroad money.

 

A VEP retails at £120+ for the DCC ready version, £134+ for the DCC Fitted version

 

A Bachmann CEP retails for approx £110 (DCC ready only) but at the moment can be picked up for £89!! So anything up to fifty quid less, more accurate, runs straight out of the box and virtually no hassle or major corrective surgery required!!

[dave flint]

 

A VEP retails at £120+ for the DCC ready version, £134+ for the DCC Fitted version

 

A Bachmann CEP retails for approx £110 (DCC ready only) but at the moment can be picked up for £89!! So anything up to fifty quid less, more accurate, runs straight out of the box and virtually no hassle or major corrective surgery required!!

 

Thought so. Very poor show then.

[Gwiwer]

Whilst not wishing to add significantly to the text of an already rather constructive letter perhaps the issue of why the side corridor panels are solid in a Vep compared with having window cut-outs in all the comparable Hornby Mk1 coaches can be taken up by someone else.

 

That won't be me as I have no intention of spending so much money on something reported by a significant number of modellers to have such fundamental flaws.

[metadyneman]

As a slight aside I was very interested to see John Upton's use of the Heljan Class 33 wheels. Did the motor coach actually run with them in or was it very juddery?

[RCAR6015]

I would be inclined to send the letter marked fao of a senior member of the management team at Hornby - perhaps the CEO with a copy also to the Marketing Manager - otherwise the letter many not progress very far up the chain of command?.

[Legend]

They probably wouldn't read it or Mr Martin would dismiss it as one of the chuffer nutters. My suggestion is send it to Simon Kohler and await response. If none then Olddudders has the right idea about the facebook page

 

I would also be inclined to major on the running qualities as it is this that makes it unfit for purpose. The aesthetics while still important could be regarded as an interpretation . To me the show stopper is it fails to run round curves.

 

Just a suggestion. I applaud you for taking this up.

[John M Upton]

As a slight aside I was very interested to see John Upton's use of the Heljan Class 33 wheels. Did the motor coach actually run with them in or was it very juddery?

 

It was a bit juddery to be honest, would need more experimentation and also I think it would be better if the centre plastic cogs were swapped over which I did not do. Mainly because it became impossible to get them off the Hornby wheelset to put them onto the Heljan one.

[davyjcrow]

Simon,

 

That's a really well written and balanced letter. Just my personal perspective, but I would alter the wording at the start about requesting a solution for future batches - I would really like to see Hornby propose a resolution (especially on the drive train) for us suckers who have already bitten the bullet, not just for future versions. And in my view, once you've modded the front as Gareth did, it really does improve the look, and I don't see why that should invalidate the drive train warranty as long as that's not been messed with. I actually like the model in many ways, I am really loathed to send it back unless I have to.

 

Still keeping my fingers crossed for that die cast chassis - sent Hornby my own letter of complaint today.