Hornby Class 423 4-VEP

[kintbury jon]

S.A.C. Martin - Looks like a nice bit of work you've done to get the MJT end on with what looks like a really smooth finish. It will be interesting to see how it compares once painted. I do feel the biggest gripe (for me) is the incorrect position of the double white blanks as they should be at the lower end of the windows, unfortunately the Hornby stickers are incorrect and I think it affects the 'face'.

 

Good luck with the other coach!

[metadyneman]

 

 

So please chaps, let's keep it sensible. If you are happy with your 4VEPs, please continue to be happy with them. However, let's not try and debate the facts of the matter. There are some things which cannot be changed, not matter how many times an opinion is thrown around.

 

 

I didn't think my post was particularly un-sensible and as this is a discussion forum I was merely discussing my point of view on how i saw things and to be honest i was not "throwing my opinion round". I don't believe there is anything in a model that cannot be changed and the opinions which have been expressed on here about the 4-VEP are mostly valid and could influence Hornby to do something about it. The point I was making was I think we expect too much from manufacturers sometimes and in a very short space of time too. Some [manufacturers] react quicker than others and that will always be the case. Heljan for instance have made many errors with their locos and have attempted in most cases to put things right, but we still have a western with a "nun's whimple" so sometimes we have to accept that manufacturers have already weighed up the costs of making adjustments and not bothered doing them on cost grounds alone. This could well be the case with the VEP but we will just have to be a bit more patient I feel in waiting to see what happens.

 

If we all thought the same way and sang from the same hymn sheet this forum would be a very boring quiet cold place with no one discussing things from different perspectives about anything... i.e. no forum discussion! As Pat Hammond's motto on MREmag says... "live and let live!"

 

PS that's a nice bit of work you have done to your VEP by the way S A C Martin

Edited November 5, 2011 by metadyneman

[Ravenser]

One thing we can reasonably expect from the manufacturers is that their models run and stay on the tracks. I'm quite willing to argue that we're better off with three RTR 3rd EMUs than two , so long as the model actually runs . In this case it seems quite a few examples don't , and replacing the mechanism to get something that doesn't derail is not acceptable. The Replica MLV chassis costs £65 - it's very nice , but you shouldn't need to spend that sort of money on aftermarket equipment to get a "Ready to Run" model to run

 

When the motors burnt out on Bachmann A1s, or Heljan class 17s, we didn't argue that we were expecting too much from the manufacturers

Edited November 5, 2011 by Ravenser

[Pennine MC]

. Let's give time for Hornby to respond.. and by that I don't mean 4 weeks.. I mean possibly 4 to 6 months.

 

I think there's some confusion here between 'response' and 'action'.

 

If Hornby acknowledge that something is awry with this model (or at least with a significant proportion of the batch) and decide to re-engineer it, then that would be action. It would be an undertaking that would obviously take time (although if they do acknowledge there's a problem, it's obviously in their own interests to get on with it, before the current interest in DC EMUs goes off the boil).

 

What Simon and various interested observers are wanting at this time, in terms of 'response', is (at the minimum) a simple acknowledgement from Hornby. As I've already said in this now tiresomely repetitive thread, this could be non-committal and issued without prejudice, siimply worded to the effect that they are aware that some customers have concerns about the VEP, and that those concerns will be looked into in due course. It's not exactly cutting edge in terms of customer service, it occurs routinely in other fields of commerce. We know from another thread that Mr Kohler reads RMweb, if Simon goes beyond that month without some sort of contact, then that IMHO will have been a major PR blunder on their part.

[Welly]

Gentlemen - the murder (or facelift per say) is out. See what you think, and you tell me which you think looks more like a 4VEP:

What a brave step to take! The wider gangway is more obvious on the MJT end but to be honest, I'm not sure which end captures the character of the prototype best... a lot of dirt in the brake pipe recesses should disguise the rather shallow ones in the MJT end.

[Trevellan]

...this now tiresomely repetitive thread...

I've been thinking much the same over the last few days. Solutions, fixes etc, yes - really helpful, but not these circular arguments from different camps.

[wombatofludham]

Having been following this thread for a while, and not being a Southern modeller at present (but may be interested in the future, hence my reading of this thread) it seems there are two sets of issues - the appearance and body mouldings, and running qualities affecting it seems quite a few, but not all of the production. Trying to be objective, I think the variability in running must be something that Hornby could issue a response to quickly even if a fix may take time. If they could put up their hands and say "We are aware there are deficiencies in some models and we are working on ways to fix it" I'm sure it would go some way to helping the situation. There is obviously a problem given the number of people on here reporting derailing and slow running, and I think it's safe to assume that, given not all modellers know of this site, there are others out there who are experiencing problems but not posting about it on this forum. On the other hand, the "visual" aspects, whilst disappointing, probably are unlikely to be rectified any time soon. I can't think of a new model Hornby have reworked to overcome criticism about their appearance, unlike Bachmann, so I suspect that is off the agenda.

 

Personally I find the silence from Hornby about the operating problems a little odd when you compare it to Bachmann putting up their hands within days of a cosmetic faux-pas on the Blue HAP and offering to do something about it. Putting the wrong numbers on the wrong coaches is relatively minor to derailing, uncommanded variation in speed, disintegrating traction tyres and the other running issues.

[Roy P]

AndrewC's post (#329) in the Hornby's Future Is Cheap Toys ...thread is possibly the most telling yet on this subject. We can hope that Hornby will now be aware of the problems that they can face. I remain fairly optimistic regarding Hornby's future offerings but fear that only limited remedial work will be done to the 4-VEP model and it will remain a model that doesn't compare favourably with the 'equivalent' Bachmann product.

For the record, my has son has a pair of Hornby VEP (1 blue & 1 NSE plus Bachmann CEPs and EPBs for comparison) and the Hornby units haven't as yet had the opportunity to show any running issues (This is due to the nature of our shared layout that has to be broken down to provide living space). Whether or not he has been lucky or the horrors await must remain to be seen.

My own observations during brief running sessions is that the motor/installation was not a satisfactory design choice. It does at best need to be driven carefully. In this regard it performs much like a Bratchell 4-car unit fitted with a single Black Beetle. Comparing a Hornby product to a Bratchell one is of course missing the point other than putting both in the take it or leave bracket and this is unfortunate. I, like many others, await Hornby's response with interest. In the meantime I appreciate and applaud the efforts of those modellers prepared to take matters further on our behalf.

RP.

Edited November 5, 2011 by Roy P

[zarniwhoop]

 

Only trying it at one end for the moment. MJT end, suitably modified (the three separate panels malarky filed out and smoothed), with the MJT coupling fitted too, compared to the standard Hornby end.

 

Your thoughts, as always, appreciated.

 

I like it, but I'm still ambivalent - I think the MJT buckeye is the most important part of the change :-)

[S.A.C Martin]

Just to add my apologies chaps - I fear I have been like a dog with a bone with the 4VEP, so on the subject of said letters, the quality of the model and so on and so forth, I'll retire, but if I may, I will continue to post my updates on the modelling as it may be of benefit to other modellers (and myself, for the knowledge and opinions therein).

 

I'm finding myself more drawn to the MJT front end when the "three separate panels" effect is dispensed with. I plan on fitting the roof vents, air horns (but not the MJT buffers - the Hornby ones are exquisite).

 

I'm going to touch up the paint on the sides and paint the front all over warning panel yellow, then fit the glazing as and when I get round to it between my shifts.

[Welly]

I've been thinking much the same over the last few days. Solutions, fixes etc, yes - really helpful, but not these circular arguments from different camps.

Here is one thread about fixing the 4VEP: http://www.rmweb.co....__fromsearch__1

If anyone knows of more blogs or threads - post the links please!

Edited November 6, 2011 by Welly

[Uk_Steve]

Just to add my apologies chaps - I fear I have been like a dog with a bone with the 4VEP, so on the subject of said letters, the quality of the model and so on and so forth, I'll retire,

 

No need to explain yourself Martin i think you been pretty sane under the circumstances IMO

[Ian J.]

Gentlemen - the murder (or facelift per say) is out. See what you think, and you tell me which you think looks more like a 4VEP:

I still think both front ends both look and are wrong, albeit in different ways. The gap between cab window and corridor connection on the MJT stands out as particularly wrong to me, while, perversely, it looks right on the Hornby one. But on the Hornby one the gap between side edges and cab windows looks wrong. I honestly couldn't choose one over the other, I'd rather not have either

[tetsudofan]

Couple of weeks ago I got my dcc-fitted VEPs and have been attempting to run-in the motor coaches. They seem ok at speed but both motor coaches growled (and worse so going in reverse) and shuddered at low speed.

 

I mentioned the "growling" problem to my retailer who, the following day, was meeting the Hornby Rep. My retailer reports that the Rep said he knows nothing about any other VEPs with noisy running issues. He obviously has not read this thread.

 

Last night I assembled both rakes of VEPs for the first time and whilst the sets operated ok in the forward direction (apart from the growling at low speed) problems arose going reverse with the units shuddering as soon as they hit the curves. At low speed one of the units stalled. When the blue VEP started derailing when being pushed I decided that that was enough. Both units are going back for refund.

 

Soon after this disappointment I located my Cl.395 Hitachi set (which had not been run since purchase) and plonked it on the track. It ran perfectly, was smooth, was quiet and did not rerail (even at quite high speed). Decoders were then installed in both ends of the Cl.395 and it operated perfectly.

 

 

Why can't the VEPs run like the Cl.395?........ Such a shame......

 

Keith

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Did anyone ask at the Hornby stand about the apparent 4-VEP problems at the Wycrail Show yesterday?

 

Peter

[Trevellan]

I had a quick chat to Emma Brett, but only about the excellent Gresley suburbans (apparently due before Christmas) and the full brake. I think it would have been slightly churlish to start a debate about the VEP in such a busy environment, with others trying to view the stand.

 

I know this is important to a lot of people, but I'd prefer to see the matter dealt with through the current correspondence and perhaps an annoucement through the modelling press.

[Matloughe]

No need to apologise Martin; you've encountered the pitfalls of this model and overcome them wonderfully doing some real railway modelling in the process - I fear I would not have been so steadfast in my own convictions if my (theoretical) 4-VEP ran okay enough on my layout It would stay as it is if it had shown derailing or tractions issues it would have gone back - I applaud your efforts in persevering with this model. In particular the weathering you have applied on the Hornby end is incredibly effective at masking the short falling of the 'face' of the unit - that is until I looked at the MJT end which looks great and I suspect even more like a VEP when it has been painted as you've said.

 

If/when I get my own 4-VEP I shall certainly be referring here to the excellent techniques and photographs you have shown here.

Cheers,

~ Gary

[S.A.C Martin]

 

I still think both front ends both look and are wrong, albeit in different ways. The gap between cab window and corridor connection on the MJT stands out as particularly wrong to me, while, perversely, it looks right on the Hornby one. But on the Hornby one the gap between side edges and cab windows looks wrong. I honestly couldn't choose one over the other, I'd rather not have either

 

I know what you mean Ian, but the more I look at the two, the more I'm confident the MJT end can be modified to be better represent the prototype than the Hornby one. The wider gangway which is also shallower, with the door better sunk into the gangway, makes quite a difference in my eyes. But as you say, both are indeed, flawed at a basic level. The quality of the casting is a factor in my deciding to eventually do this to both ends.

[phil-b259]

Personally I find the silence from Hornby about the operating problems a little odd when you compare it to Bachmann putting up their hands within days of a cosmetic faux-pas on the Blue HAP and offering to do something about it. Putting the wrong numbers on the wrong coaches is relatively minor to derailing, uncommanded variation in speed, disintegrating traction tyres and the other running issues.

 

I don't think its that strange. With Bachmann, correcting the EPB error only required the manufacture of new bodyshells a relativley cheap process. Also all the mis-printed bodies can in theory be reycyled by sending them back to be stripped and re-painted for use in further batches. With Hornby and the VEP, the changes required require the tooling to be altered which is a far more expensive process. Also if Hornby said they were going to alter the tooling, judging from the responses so far, many people would defer / return their VEP purchase leaving Hornby with large quantaties of VEPs stuck on the shelves. Thus it may well be the case that Hornby internally acknowledge the problem but will not say or comit themselves to anything untill the current batch of VEP units have all been sold

[Legend]

I congratulate SAC Martin on the way he has objectively pursued this. Having said that, I have some doubts that he will receive any feedback from Hornby whose PR seem to be good promoting new goods but are less conspicuous when there is an issue. Sorry but three weeks and several pages on this thread I think should at least have resulted in some acknowledgement of the issue at least along the lines of "we are working through the issues you raised" . The issue is not just with Hornby. I note you say you haven't had a reply from 2 model railway mag editors (was it Ben Jones that forwarded your concerns to Hornby). Maybe we will see an update in the forthcoming Britains Model Trains which brings "ready to run models together in one place AND compares and rates them" It mentions specifically the models launched in 2011. I look forward with interest to how they've got on with the 4VEP although I do note that in the original Model Rail review it did only score 76%, which is pretty low for a new model. This score did seem to reflect the solid corridor positions and positioning of the motor bogie as it went onto say"it looks the part and runs well". Surely ,given the design defects highlighted by SAC Martin , there will be some comment

[wombatofludham]

 

I don't think its that strange. With Bachmann, correcting the EPB error only required the manufacture of new bodyshells a relativley cheap process. Also all the mis-printed bodies can in theory be reycyled by sending them back to be stripped and re-painted for use in further batches. With Hornby and the VEP, the changes required require the tooling to be altered which is a far more expensive process. Also if Hornby said they were going to alter the tooling, judging from the responses so far, many people would defer / return their VEP purchase leaving Hornby with large quantaties of VEPs stuck on the shelves. Thus it may well be the case that Hornby internally acknowledge the problem but will not say or comit themselves to anything untill the current batch of VEP units have all been sold

You mis-understand my post. I'm not talking about re-tooling the body, which I said:

 

On the other hand, the "visual" aspects, whilst disappointing, probably are unlikely to be rectified any time soon. I can't think of a new model Hornby have reworked to overcome criticism about their appearance, unlike Bachmann, so I suspect that is off the agenda.

 

 

I'm saying the silence on the running issues is puzzling when Bachmann were prepared to own up to and initiate a costly fix to a relatively minor cosmetic issue. Coming off the rails, traction tyres perishing and noisy/inconsistent running are a far more serious issue than wrong running numbers, and to an extent, some of the moulding deficiencies in the VEP. If a number of people are saying the unit cannot even run consistently on their layouts, it makes the unit unuseable. The horns, bogies and front gangway are more issues of what individual modellers feel is acceptable at the cost charged. I was comparing Bachmann's seeming willingness to correct even relatively minor printing issues, let alone their willingness to retool mouldings which get a panning, with Hornby's silence on a fundamental issue of fitness for purpose.

 

There again if Tetsudofan's retailer is correct and the Hornby rep was not aware of running issues you do wonder what on earth is going on.

[petee19]

Could it be that the Hornby rep is well aware of the problems but has been told by his company to keep quiet for the time being whilst the problems are looked at.

 

Pete.

[wombatofludham]

Could it be that the Hornby rep is well aware of the problems but has been told by his company to keep quiet for the time being whilst the problems are looked at.

 

Pete.

 

Possible but not really very good practice. The company would get far better PR if they came out and said we are aware there are some quality issues, bare with us while we find a solution. By keeping schtumm they are potentially losing a lot of goodwill and some sales. I know I was looking at the all blue 4-VEP as I have always liked the units (despite not being a third rail modeller - more penalty points on the modellers licence!) but will wait and see what happens on the reports of bad running and whether Hornby acknowledge the issue.

 

I know when I did media training when in work I was told that if you've got bad news, best to come clean and say how you intend to positively deal with it, and turn it into positive, not hide it or dodge the issue.

[S.A.C Martin]

Last time I will ask for a little while chaps - MJT/Hornby hybrid or the full Hornby experience?

 

 

MJT ends, air horns and roof vents fitted onto a Hornby bodyshell, alongside the original Hornby bodyshell.

 

Personally speaking, I think the MJT end, though not perfect, can be made more acceptable than the Hornby bodyshell, simply on account of the windows and gangway (though I think Gareth of Trains4U's modifications are equally viable and acceptable).

[Pugsley]

Can I vote for none of the above?

 

I think I actually prefer the Hornby end. I know it's wrong, but it looks a better shape that the MJT one, despite the various features being in the wrong place. I guess what we need is an enterprising supplier to provide a new resin end for the Hornby model.