Hornby Railways 1972 - 1996

[Scrapman]

In response to the question as to which Hornby locos used the  B12 chassis block.

The only others I can think of are the Saint 4-6-0 and Ivatt 2-6-0.

 

As for the demise of the ring field type tender drive a new type tender drive appears on the Service Sheets for 3 of the THOMAS Range tender locomotives.

SS 423 JAMES

SS 424 GORDON

SS 425 EDWARD 

HENRY changed to locomotive drive by using the Railroad range Black 5 chassis (SS375B).

All of these Service Sheet are dated June 2016

 

Ray

 

[cypherman]

Hi all,

2 more engines have just joined my stable. Got them at a good price and am very happy with them. They needed a clean and a service, but both now run well. I have shown a picture of the front footplate of these engines because they are different to each other. Can anyone tell me when this changed happened in the real world. Or have Hornby made an error.

[pH]

50 minutes ago, cypherman said:

Hi all,2 more engines have just joined my stable. Got them at a good price and am very happy with them. They needed a clean and a service, but both now run well. I have shown a picture of the front footplate of these engines because they are different to each other. Can anyone tell me when this changed happened in the real world. Or have Hornby made an error.

See my reply in your “2 more Hornby 8XP's join the stable” topic.

[Legend]

15 hours ago, cypherman said:

Hi all,

2 more engines have just joined my stable. Got them at a good price and am very happy with them. They needed a clean and a service, but both now run well. I have shown a picture of the front footplate of these engines because they are different to each other. Can anyone tell me when this changed happened in the real world. Or have Hornby made an error.

No it’s correct . The black one is an ex streamlined loco while the red one was never streamlined . They have slightly different running plates at front 

[Il Grifone]

I have a feeling that in LMS black livery a ex-streamlined Coronation should have a sloping smokebox, but the class history is rather complicated:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LMS_Coronation_Class#Table_of_Locomotives

Edited November 13, 2022 by Il Grifone

[andyman7]

If we are talking collectable/vintage then we can expect lots of compromises; the Princess Coronation class had many detail differences between locos as built and/or subsequently modified which the latest generation superdetail models try and reflect; in the world of Wrenn etc it's simpler just to use one casting and paint/number it as required.

Basic distinction as built - four significant variations:

 

1)  Streamlined

2)  Unstreamlined with continuous running plate stepped down to bufferbeam (first five unstreamlined; this was the pattern for the original DUblo 3 rail model and the Hornby Railways 1977 Duchess

3) Later unstreamlined (gap in the running plate where it steps down to the bufferbeam); this was the patter for the later Dublo and Wrenn models, whilst the Hornby Railways tooling was modified in 1993 to cater for this variation

4) Final two Ivatt-pattern, different cabside/rear pony; only properly modelled in RTR very recently with the Hornby super detail issue

 

As the Streamlined ones had the fairing removed they looked like (3) except that the front smokebox had a dip in it making it semi-circular (semi...geddit?) but as they had their boilers replaced this variation disappeared.

 

 

[Steamport Southport]

9 minutes ago, andyman7 said:

As the Streamlined ones had the fairing removed they looked like (3) except that the front smokebox had a dip in it making it semi-circular (semi...geddit?) but as they had their boilers replaced this variation disappeared.

 

 

 

Not quite.  They just added a bit of cladding on the smokebox and a new smokebox ring to make it circular. I believe they mostly kept the same boilers and tenders throughout their lives.

 

Inside City Of Birmingham's smokebox it is still semi circular, as was Duchess Of Hamilton's before it was converted back.

 

There was an article about it in one of the magazines when 6229 was re-streamlined. They checked 46235 and it was the same.

 

 

Jason

[Scrapman]

As soon as I saw the post about the these tow Duchesses I dug outmy very dog eared "Profile of the Duchesses" by David Jenkinson. I too was convinced that City of St Albans was an ex-streamliner and that the model was wrong in having a cylindrical smoke box.

According  to Mr Jenkinson City of St Albans was never streamlined and had the Austerity footplate and cylindrical smoke box from new.

However, it did not have a rivvetted  tender fron new.

That, I think,was Hornby doing what Hornby did best. Use an existing moulding that looked about right had hope the customer didn't know any better.

They did something similar with the Ivatt 2-6-0. Made a new body moulding for the the tender but stretched it to fit on the existing Duchess / Black 5 chassis moulding.

[Il Grifone]

Shows what I know (see below). When she was built (1946 - I thought earlier - should have checked better) they had dropped the streamlining, so 'City of St. Albans' missed out.

Edited November 13, 2022 by Il Grifone

[Steamport Southport]

1 hour ago, Scrapman said:

As soon as I saw the post about the these tow Duchesses I dug outmy very dog eared "Profile of the Duchesses" by David Jenkinson. I too was convinced that City of St Albans was an ex-streamliner and that the model was wrong in having a cylindrical smoke box.

According  to Mr Jenkinson City of St Albans was never streamlined and had the Austerity footplate and cylindrical smoke box from new.

However, it did not have a rivvetted  tender fron new.

That, I think,was Hornby doing what Hornby did best. Use an existing moulding that looked about right had hope the customer didn't know any better.

They did something similar with the Ivatt 2-6-0. Made a new body moulding for the the tender but stretched it to fit on the existing Duchess / Black 5 chassis moulding.

 

Had an Ivatt C1* part welded tender for much of its existence.

 

https://www.wizardmodels.ltd/shop/locomotive/tk11/

 

The third design, by George Ivatt, initially was Type 'C1' and it was paired with the three locomotives Nos. 6253–6255. It was partially riveted and resembled a Type 'A' at its front end and a Type 'B' at the rear.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LMS_Coronation_Class#Tenders

 

 

*Not that type of Ivatt C1

 

Jason

[railroadbill]

 

Back to Bulleid pacifics.  Right is Wilton, a newish Hornby one, this has the pivoting pony truck and is pre DCC.  Left is Salisbury that started off as Spitfire, the 1980s Hornby version.  For a model that first came out in 1961,  it isn't too far off but the later one is obviously more accurate  (looking at the cowl over the smokebox for instance). 

The newer one runs very well indeed, however the older type isn't too bad, now that it's had a bit of an overhaul.  Which resulted  in a strange discovery about older Hornby WC/BoB locos.

More next.....

 

 

[railroadbill]

The strange case of R.374....

 

So what happened?  Well I oiled R.374 previously Spitfire but modified to 34002 Salisbury.  Sometime later I gave it a run and after a while it slowed to a halt with smoke pouring out of it.  Very realistic for a WC/BoB of course as they had cases of the lagging under the casing catching fire.  It looked like the pick ups had oil on them, couldn't get it clean so took the body off. The 1980's ones have a keeper plate under the chassis block so you can take the driving wheel set out.

I usually use a length of old coping saw blade to transfer a drop of oil to wheel bearings and other oiling points like valve gear. This time I'd used a squeezy oil bottle with a very thin nozzle directly onto the  axles behind the wheels and had squirted a lot of oil without realising it, because oil had found it's way to where it shouldn't be.

Anyway I cleaned it all up, also cleaned the motor commutator and the slots while I was at it. Then I started to put it back together (and it's a pretty simple device, no valve gear etc)  - but couldn't get the driving wheels with connecting rods fitted, to fit back into the chassis, no matter how I tried. 

 

 

As the service sheet says, make sure the insulated bushed wheels are to the right. Ok, so as we know, the connecting rods should point to the front of the loco, and the representations of oil boxes on both connecting and coupling rods should of course face upwards.  Did all that, but the wheel sets just wouldn't go in with the insulated wheels to the right.

Because- I naturally assumed that the dummy articulated joint that's part of the stamped connecting rod would go behind the central driving wheel  as on the full sized Bulleid pacifics.

However...on the service sheet it's shown the wrong way round with the joint ahead of the central driving wheel. (Parts x.515 and x.516).  

As the connecting and coupling rods are screw fitted to the central drivers the insulated wheels  won't then fit the right way round.

I looked at a lot of pictures and drawings of original Bulleid pacifics, wondering if some had actually had the rods fitted the other way round with  the articulated joint leading, but found no evidence at all of that.

 

The answer was obviously to unscrew the rods, swap the coupling rods over while leaving the connecting rods the same side as they were, then screw them back on. The leading/trailing drivers have the usual pin on the rod fitting into a hole in the crank. 

 

This worked.  It all went back together!  Of course this only worked because the Hornby loco has the same distance between front and centre, and centre and rear driving axles.  The full size Bulleid pacific has 7' 6" front and 7' 3" rear coupling rods.

 

The current type of WC/BoBs that Hornby make do have the rods the right way round, and the articulated joint is riveted so it functions.

 

 

There it is with the rods the "correct" way round.

It took several goes to make sure the bearings were seated properly in the cast chassis and held firmly in place by the plastic keeper plate, but it now moves very freely when pushed up and down the track, rather like testing a kit built chassis.  This payed off as the reassembled loco now runs quieter and smoother than it did before.

 

Curiously, the same era Hornby Hall also has the rods the wrong way round with the articulated joint ahead of the central drivers. Don't know  about other locos but was this just a Hornby quirk, perhaps going back to Triang?

 

 

Edited November 20, 2022 by railroadbill

[Il Grifone]

Tri-ang ( later Hornby) seemed to be under the impression that the knuckle in the connecting rods should be between leading and centre axle, whereas actually it's usually behind. So much so, that on their Southern E2 tank, which does have the knuckle in front, they put it behind!

 

The very earliest Tri-ang locomotives had plain rods without knuckles, but, when they upgraded to fluted rods, they immediately messed up with the knuckle position, but when they get somethings as basic as the buffer height and the return crank angle messed up (the latter still today from what I've seen!) you can't expect much.

[railroadbill]

On 19/11/2022 at 21:51, railroadbill said:

 

Back to Bulleid pacifics.  Right is Wilton, a newish Hornby one, this has the pivoting pony truck and is pre DCC.  Left is Salisbury that started off as Spitfire, the 1980s Hornby version. 

 

 

 

Yup, the buffer height on the older ones, especially the locos and stock that started out as Triang, does stand out, as the buffer beam itself is higher and the front of the loco has been squashed  up to accommodate this.

 

 

On the other hand, one advantage of the older models is that they are ruggedly built, the brass bearings here are pretty chunky`so it'll keep going. The XO3 motor is another long life advantage. The main snag was only having 2 pickups a side, wipers one side and live chassis through 2 wheels the other. Adding more pickups should help. The great thing about H-D  3 rail was that there were 2 sliding contacts on the third rail and all the wheels provided the return.

 

 

 

[Il Grifone]

It is really a sound workmanlike job and with care will last for ever (or at least as long as any of us requires!).

Tri-ang wheels are actually conductive through the coupling rods. The joints tend to be on the sloppy side so contact is not 100% but every little helps. The pickup is rather on the crude side, but does work as long as it's not dirty and/or clogged up with fluff and the fragile paxolin base isn't broken,

The Dublo attempt at a 2 rail pickup is rather rubbish on the hand. Being made of a plastic that is subject to destruction by oil wasn't really a good idea and the wire spring isn't very good either. I find a strip  of phosphor-bronze (for the actual contacts) soldered to a base of PCB works beautifully.

It's also a fine solution for Tri-ang to avoid the collector's prices charged for spares. The insulator is the special paper uses in transformer windings. Ordinary paper or card is OK as a replacement I find.

Edited November 21, 2022 by Il Grifone
Hit 'Save' by mistake

[railroadbill]

Interesting about Tri-ang coupling rods being conductive, thus electrically bonding the driving wheels together, a crafty idea!  

Better pickups using phosphor bronze strip or wire works well, easy to retrofit - having more wheels (tender etc) with pick ups does give more reliable running - avoids the big hand from the sky giving a push over points.

 

Also with "collectors item spares" I've found some locos don't have all the screws, bolts etc. but it's easier to use a bolt of the right diameter and thread as a replacement rather than try and hunt down an original one. (Some of the Triang/Hornby ones seem to be shouldered etc.)

 

I remember with Hornby Dublo 3 rail that they sold packets of  "insulating tabs" which were paper or card squares that fitted under the central tabs on rails if you wanted to insulate a length of track.  However, just cutting a square of paper just bigger than the tabs would have worked just as well!   You got 12 insulating tabs for 7d (1958) and it was the same price in 1961. (Code 3747).  So with an old postcard and some scissors you could have saved 7d!

 

 

Edited November 22, 2022 by railroadbill

[cypherman]

On 13/11/2022 at 18:23, Steamport Southport said:

 

Had an Ivatt C1* part welded tender for much of its existence.

 

https://www.wizardmodels.ltd/shop/locomotive/tk11/

 

The third design, by George Ivatt, initially was Type 'C1' and it was paired with the three locomotives Nos. 6253–6255. It was partially riveted and resembled a Type 'A' at its front end and a Type 'B' at the rear.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LMS_Coronation_Class#Tenders

 

 

*Not that type of Ivatt C1

 

Jason

Hi Southport,

On reading the blurb about the TK11 tender, it mentions that some of the earlier members of this class still ran with the streamlined TK9 tender for a while. Did they mean that they ran with this tender after the streamlining had been removed from the loco

[Steamport Southport]

30 minutes ago, cypherman said:

Hi Southport,

On reading the blurb about the TK11 tender, it mentions that some of the earlier members of this class still ran with the streamlined TK9 tender for a while. Did they mean that they ran with this tender after the streamlining had been removed from the loco

 

Yes. It took a while for them to remove the streamlining from the tenders. I don't think they thought it was a priority.

 

Some of the later builds got streamlined tenders from new even though they weren't streamlined.

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/141498010@N05/27404223823

 

Good excuse if you've got a spare streamlined tender.

 

 

Jason

[cypherman]

Hi Southport,

It is funny that you should say that. I do have a spare Hornby streamlined Coronation tender body. Should just swap over easily. Now where's that airbrush....... 😄

I notice that the picture of the City of Lichfield loco you have linked was not one of the streamlined engines, Going by the shape of its footplate. Yet it has the streamlined tender.

Edited November 22, 2022 by cypherman

[Steamport Southport]

12 minutes ago, cypherman said:

Hi Southport,

It is funny that you should say that. I do have a spare Hornby streamlined Coronation tender body. Should just swap over easily. Now where's that airbrush....... 😄

I notice that the picture of the City of Lichfield loco you have linked was not one of the streamlined engines, Going by the shape of its footplate. Yet it has the streamlined tender.

 

Ordered as a streamliner. But by the time it was built they had decided to remove the streamlining from them anyway.

 

I assume the tender was already finished.

 

 

Jason

[Il Grifone]

I think the rear 'wings were cut off fairly quickly (they would have been a pain...), but the ladders on the rear of the tender remained. The first Tri-ang/Hornby models used the (Dublo) 8F tender chassis which is incorrect in having visible (very) rivets and rear steps. (Why not the City chassis?)

 

The tenders for the last batch of streamliners were built first, but the decision was made during constuction of the locomotives to not continue with the streamlining (there was a war on!), so they were released to traffic as a mixture. Duchess of Atholl' was allocated one and the new locomotive got a 'used' tender