kintbury jon Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Though the mechanism is also the same as in the 153 which is a 'new' Hornby product. Compared to the VEP though the 153 is different in that all it has to haul is itself, maybe that's what Hornby forgot to check, whether their motors could haul more than themselves! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Moss Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 I own a few of Hornby's Limby models with the new motor bogie fitted and whilst they are noisy and stutter on DCC, they perform faultlessly on DC. I don't have a 4VEP and with the current issues, I won't for a long time but I keep seeing posts from people stating the motor isn't powerful enough. These little motors are far from it. What these people are experiencing is a powerful motor not being able to apply its full potential to the rail head due to a sloppy arrangement of weight distribution, lack of pin point axles and traction tyres causing it to wheel slip. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 I've kept quiet about VEPs for a few weeks now, i thought i should "see one in the flesh", before making further comment. The other day, whilst buying some other Hornby coaches in my local model shop, i asked if i could see a VEP, since none were on display. There was a minor grumble, since to remove the tissue-wrapped coaches from the box, involves breaking the sellotape seals to open the white card cover, thus despoiling and violating the packaging for the next potential customer. ( Memo to Hornby: How is a shop to display this model or a customer to view it, without damaging the packaging? ) Apart from that, the product is beautifully presented with top notch artwork on the box and the Blue Veppy is very nicely painted, the sides and reversed bogies do look attractive. However, having prior knowledge of the faults, the body immediately looks squat and the cab fronts just don't do it for me. I so wanted to buy two or three of these, plus blue-grey ones, i even figured that if the bodies were wrong, it could be a useful 4 x chassis and roof to rebuild with MJT ends and sides. This idea was kicked into touch, when all the reports of bad running emerged. The shop staff were probably hoping that with the seals broken, i'd feel obliged to buy it, but i politely declined. I think this model falls between two stools, it's probably not going to work properly on a kid's train set and it doesn't look right to old fusspots like me. BTW, If you want free running trailer bogies, why not chop off the nice sideframes and re-mount them on Southern Pride nylon pin-point bogie frames + new wheels? Cheers, Brian. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium zarniwhoop Posted October 20, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 20, 2011 (edited) I own a few of Hornby's Limby models with the new motor bogie fitted and whilst they are noisy and stutter on DCC, they perform faultlessly on DC. I don't have a 4VEP and with the current issues, I won't for a long time but I keep seeing posts from people stating the motor isn't powerful enough. These little motors are far from it. What these people are experiencing is a powerful motor not being able to apply its full potential to the rail head due to a sloppy arrangement of weight distribution, lack of pin point axles and traction tyres causing it to wheel slip. *edit* - I managed to paste the quote twice : bad mouse! For mine, it runs adequately when the motor has only a DTC ahead of it (now that I've sorted the bogie rotation problems for my tight curves). The running problem is most noticeable when it goes the other direction, and the motor has to push two and a half coaches. As I said earlier, oiling the plain bearings helped a little (i.e. it can run flat-out without slowing (although it still slows at all lower speeds) and now no longer derails because of lack of leading bogie rotation). I'm intending to move to Replica B4s when I have enough of them (I've got enough Bachmann B4s, but they would foul the underframe). NB as I might have said, the Replicas are also "reversed". Still ambivalent about the couplings - can't see any way to get one of mine to reconnect the juice for the moment, and I haven't found any alternatives (preferably, 2-pin) that are short enough to fit at one end of a coach (I'm already in the process of fitting Keen corridor connectors, so can't wire through the corridor, and anyway that probably won't work on tight curves at the end of straights). I like the lights (except for the lack of interior at the motor) - and particularly when the corridor side is fixed, the end view (in isolation) looks ok to me, everything else is fixable - but the poor running out-of-the-box has dissuaded me from shelling out for a 5-BEL or anything else from Hornby (except, possibly, 6-compartment green Maunsell BTKs if those ever get re-released). ĸen Edited October 20, 2011 by zarniwhoop Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Oldddudders Posted October 20, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 20, 2011 (except, possibly, 6-compartment green Maunsell BTKs if those ever get re-released). Hopelessly O/T but! Ken The 6-compt BTKs already released in olive are still available from time to time on ebay & elsewhere. Point is, Hornby made 4 of them - 4048-4051 - and that was all there were! There simply were no other low-window 6-compt brake thirds in Restriction 4. What Hornby haven't yet done is BTKs in high-window config in olive. They do have this bodystyle, and have sold it in other liveries. Southern had about 90 of these, although some had a single toilet vent, some a double. I believe Hornby have sold both styles. Apologies to all for going back about 40 years! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.A.C Martin Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 (edited) BTW, If you want free running trailer bogies, why not chop off the nice sideframes and re-mount them on Southern Pride nylon pin-point bogie frames + new wheels? It is increasingly looking like all I will have left of the original Hornby 4VEP are the coach bodies, underframe and bogie sides at the minute...! The gangway itself isn't separately moulded it seems, which is really rather aggravating as a simple replacement for one which isn't in the extended position could fix some of the look at the front end. The windows are a different proposition altogether, it doesn't look right and I don't know how on earth to fix it. Unless I creat some sort of window etch overlay and change the position of the windows...? A simple but telling fact, thank you Metadyne. This really does indicate, as others have intimated, that the product has been designed down to the lowest common denominator and priced as high as the market would bear as opposed to designing in what a product actually needs or should have and applying an appropriate margin. Succinctly put, and pretty much sums up my feelings on the model, all in all. EDIT: Hallo. New development. I was wrong, you can remove the door because it is a separate component! So I can remove the gangway - does anyone make a better, more recessed gangway? I think that might actually solve the first problem with the look, the gangway plus the door. Suddenly it looks like it has more potential to look better at the front end, with air horns, piping and a new gangway door. Just the windows to sort now...! What do we reckon - fit a new gangway and see if it improves the look? Where do I find one is the next question...! Edited October 20, 2011 by S.A.C Martin 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spenc Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 hi when you do all your upgrades on the 4vep it would be nice to know all the parts/cost/hours to get the vep looking good.so we know how much extra it will be steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.A.C Martin Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 So far - £120 for the unit itself and at least a dozen hours of modifying bogies, weathering and various other bits and bobs. I'll keep a record of it from this point on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spenc Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 hi thanks it will nice to know if its worth buying one steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium zarniwhoop Posted October 21, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 21, 2011 Hopelessly O/T but! Ken The 6-compt BTKs already released in olive are still available from time to time on ebay & elsewhere. ... Apologies to all for going back about 40 years! I meant those in BR(S) green (so, guess I should have said BSK - my bad) - I got a composite when I came back to the hobby, but the brakes were long gone. Would look nice for a set to about '62 (that's nearer 50 years!) for the Steyning line with an Ivatt 2-6-2T, but technically two or three years earlier than I really care about. Returning you now to the VEP thread, this infomercial brought to you by "the colour is green" :-) ĸen 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium zarniwhoop Posted October 21, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 21, 2011 (edited) The gangway itself isn't separately moulded it seems, which is really rather aggravating as a simple replacement for one which isn't in the extended position could fix some of the look at the front end. The windows are a different proposition altogether, it doesn't look right and I don't know how on earth to fix it. Unless I creat some sort of window etch overlay and change the position of the windows...? EDIT: Hallo. New development. I was wrong, you can remove the door because it is a separate component! So I can remove the gangway - does anyone make a better, more recessed gangway? I think that might actually solve the first problem with the look, the gangway plus the door. What do we reckon - fit a new gangway and see if it improves the look? Where do I find one is the next question...! I've already taken a razor saw and file to one of mine (after seeing the excellent hacksaw job at the beginning of the thread). Kept quiet about it because it didn't look wonderful (took a bit too much out of the front part, so needed some filler, then filed the rear and eventually found it would no longer clip in, plus it wasn't straight. Now in place, with filler and a lot of touch-up paint, and to me it looks better but not "best". Oh, also had to replace on bottom "flap" (dunno what the right name is) - it broke off, so take care if you are tempted to modify it. That's why I've said that this first one is a prototype (like all the EMUs I'm hoping to build at the moment: I need 2, 4, or more of each). I was going to say "no pics at the mom2nt" because I've been diverted to other things I've been diverted to other things (e.g. laying a conductor rail) and I would really like to find my bag of vents before taking more photos, but there's at the end to be going on with. [ is it just me, or is attaching photos *into the text* really hard now ? ] For the cab windows, I still think that it looks ok unless something with the correct windows (MJT, or prototype end-on photo) is nearby. So, at the moment I'm not intending to fit MJT ends (the painting of the side after filling it scares me to death) but I did buy some at the Uckfield show "just in case". Of course, if you fit an MJT end, the gangway is sorted. I did look at fitting just the MJT gangway, but the window (for headcodes) would look weird with an LED some distance behind it, and fitting would anyway be difficult (the offset Hornby windows, plus the rails). Also, the extra weight from whitemetal isn't going to help the motor. ĸen PS - further pics will be in my blog, when I get back to it. Edited October 21, 2011 by zarniwhoop 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium brushman47544 Posted October 21, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 21, 2011 Though the mechanism is also the same as in the 153 which is a 'new' Hornby product. Compared to the VEP though the 153 is different in that all it has to haul is itself, maybe that's what Hornby forgot to check, whether their motors could haul more than themselves! We've got both a Class 153 and a Class 121 with the "new" motor and both work very well on their own on DCC with Hornby R8249 decoders. The 121 will even pull a couple a wagons but we've never tried with coaches, which of course are heavier. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.A.C Martin Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Been doing a little experimentation today with different bogies. The ones from Hornby's old Mk2 coaches are the same type for everything but those on the power car, and the trailing bogies, but have point to point bearings instead of the clip in "solution". This has led me to realize why Hornby designed these bogies as they are. In order to utilize that connection type between coaches, the bogie has to have space in its frames to allow it to go round corners. You couldn't do this with point to point bogies because the frame at one end would be compromised by the shape it has to be. I'll put up pics a little later on to show what I mean. So, concentrating on the running of the 4VEP, if Hornby had used a different type of connector, set a bit higher, point to point bearing bogies should have been perfectly possible (and it is on the Bachmann 4CEP, though I recall there's some debate over the couplings on that model too?) So there's two solutions, possibly, to sorting out the bogies. The first involves repositioning the couplings a little higher so a proper set of point to point bogies can be fitted, which will reduce the rolling resistance of the unit as a whole, and possibly stop the vast amount of derailments. The second part to that, the motor bogie can be rewheeled sans the traction tyres thereafter, and a smoother running unit is possible (if the motor is up to it - a few people here have said it is, so I'm inclined to try this method). The other solution is to ditch the chassis of the power coach altogether and go for my original suggestion which was utilizing a Replica Railways diecast chassis, and completely rewiring the model to fit around it, also replacing all of the bogies for point to point bearings. I think I'll try the former first, and the latter if the former doesn't work...! The thought occurs that by using the MJT corridor connecter, but by cutting out the door, the MJT gangway may look more presentable than the Hornby one, HOWEVER I have a feeling the MJT end is wider than the Hornby end, which will require the windows to definitely be moved, otherwise the unit wil look cross eyed...! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Trevellan Posted October 21, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 21, 2011 So, concentrating on the running of the 4VEP, if Hornby had used a different type of connector, set a bit higher, point to point bearing bogies should have been perfectly possible (and it is on the Bachmann 4CEP, though I recall there's some debate over the couplings on that model too?) Crikey, you'll be up for an OBE the way you're going . I found two issues of contention with the Bachmann CEP coupling. First, even the shorter of the two versions is too long for my purposes (tested on 2nd radius sectional track - bags of clearance). I'm therefore considering the Nigel Burkin mod, i.e. fit Kadees and lose the interior lighting. The second is that the unit really needs to be laid on its side for coupling and uncoupling. Not an ideal situation, but these issues are, for me, far less worrisome than those found on the VEP and which you have so meticulously documented. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium zarniwhoop Posted October 21, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 21, 2011 Been doing a little experimentation today with different bogies. The ones from Hornby's old Mk2 coaches are the same type for everything but those on the power car, and the trailing bogies, but have point to point bearings instead of the clip in "solution". This has led me to realize why Hornby designed these bogies as they are. In order to utilize that connection type between coaches, the bogie has to have space in its frames to allow it to go round corners. You couldn't do this with point to point bogies because the frame at one end would be compromised by the shape it has to be. I'll put up pics a little later on to show what I mean. [...] The thought occurs that by using the MJT corridor connecter, but by cutting out the door, the MJT gangway may look more presentable than the Hornby one, HOWEVER I have a feeling the MJT end is wider than the Hornby end, which will require the windows to definitely be moved, otherwise the unit wil look cross eyed...! Useful, but unwelcome, news about the bogies. Thanks. For the MJT corridor - as I thought I'd tried to say earlier, yes it is wider than the Hornby corridor. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
metadyneman Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 (edited) Zarniwhoop.. that looks 10 times better in my book.. ok I'm not a rivet counter but what you have done there has transformed it into something which looks far more like the VEP should look like than it does out of the box. < Jules looks in toolbox for his razor saw> PS I've just noticed we live in the same place too! Edited October 21, 2011 by metadyneman Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.A.C Martin Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 For the MJT corridor - as I thought I'd tried to say earlier, yes it is wider than the Hornby corridor. Damn. That puts me in a bit of a pickle. The gap between window and corridor connection will be too small either side then. The only solution is to somehow move the windows across abit... Worst case scenario is I refit the original gangway connection, which isn't too battered. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevelewis Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Must admit to only being an occasional browser of this section, But I have read some of rthe posts re the Hornby VEP, reason for my reply is that I today received one from a well know supplier which was intended as a present for a friend who is an avid EMU fan, on giving it a quick test on delivery I found the performance to be quite disappointing to say the least, ( I am comparing performance with that of Bachmanns 4 car emus), the unit was noisy and jerky ( Acknowledging here it probably needed running in), It stalled on a 1 in 30 gradient on which the Bachmann emus have no problems, and most worryingly it derailed for no apparent reason on a number of occasions ( everything was visually checked re couplings and wheel set being ok) So it was a quick word with the retailer, and the Hornby unit is now heading back to them and an alternative present in the form of a Bachmann 4 CEP should in theory be delivered here tomorrow!! I wonder how we will fare with Horby's 5-BEL?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
59205 Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 I picked A NSE unit up today at last. Have to say i'm really pleased with it. My unit is a great runner, the lights are fantastic and the livery application is top class. Tucks in nicely next to my NSE 2EPB and i for one am a happy customer. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
metadyneman Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 I picked A NSE unit up today at last. Have to say i'm really pleased with it. My unit is a great runner, the lights are fantastic and the livery application is top class. Tucks in nicely next to my NSE 2EPB and i for one am a happy customer. Give it a couple of days running and I bet you change your mind! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.A.C Martin Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Give it a couple of days running and I bet you change your mind! Let's not do this...invariably ones in a batch are going to be better than others. If he's happy, full credit to him. I must say that yes, the livery application is excellent. Excellent, but incorrect for the unit in terms of the cantrail, peak and numbering. Otherwise yes, it is very crisply applied and the colours are very good too. 6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frobisher Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Been doing a little experimentation today with different bogies. The ones from Hornby's old Mk2 coaches are the same type for everything but those on the power car, and the trailing bogies, but have point to point bearings instead of the clip in "solution". This has led me to realize why Hornby designed these bogies as they are. In order to utilize that connection type between coaches, the bogie has to have space in its frames to allow it to go round corners. You couldn't do this with point to point bogies because the frame at one end would be compromised by the shape it has to be. I'll put up pics a little later on to show what I mean. I think i know what you mean here, but I suspect if Hornby had gone for pin point bearing pick up arrangement (a la Bachmann) then the problem would have solved itself with the wheels being retained by strips of brass. Do we have "shakes fist" smiley, 'cos I think I need one here to direct at Hornby with a "Damn you!" attached to it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Gwiwer Posted October 22, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 22, 2011 We've got both a Class 153 and a Class 121 with the "new" motor and both work very well on their own on DCC with Hornby R8249 decoders. The 121 will even pull a couple a wagons but we've never tried with coaches, which of course are heavier. Out of academic interest I tried a little test today. A 153 was coupled with a pair of Lima BG vans in front and a third behind which represents the nearest I can manage to three Hornby Mk1 / Vep coaches. The formation ran perfectly well in terms of power around my layout which includes some challenging gradients and sinuous (though not sharp) curves. There was a derailment which I was able to attribute to the different couplers and nothing else. I repeated this with a 121 which has Limby-type hooks and found that there was a noticeable reluctance to shift the train up steeper hills but otherwise it ran nearly as well. If the Vep has the same power unit as those two and cannot shove two coaches while towing a third at an adequate speed and without derailing then it may not be not the motor alone at fault based upon this rather less than scientific test run. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frobisher Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 I repeated this with a 121 which has Limby-type hooks and found that there was a noticeable reluctance to shift the train up steeper hills but otherwise it ran nearly as well. That'll be one of the earlier production runs as they later upgraded the tooling to NEM coupling pockets. If it's one of the first production run without traction tyres then that would completely explain the deficency (I have one of those ones and it lives in fear of rice puddings in traction contests...). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
metadyneman Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Let's not do this...invariably ones in a batch are going to be better than others. If he's happy, full credit to him. I must say that yes, the livery application is excellent. Excellent, but incorrect for the unit in terms of the cantrail, peak and numbering. Otherwise yes, it is very crisply applied and the colours are very good too. It was my sorry excuse to inject a little synical humour into the thread hence the emoticon at the end of my sentence. please forgive me 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now