Britannia.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Within discussion of KR Models WD 2-10-0 there was a little side conversation on BR standard locomotive models in which the current OO Hornby Brit was mentioned: 'Even the Britannia is getting on a few years'.

 

Seventeen years I make it, since available in 2006, so pretty much at end of the prototype BR service life!

Nothing whatsoever to complain of in the performance of the three I purchased within months of introduction.

 

In my opinion, this was the steam model where Hornby caught up with Bachmann by elimination of all the Margate legacy mechanism technique, and other improvements. The rock solid motor mount, pick up fully isolated from the chassis block, plug in tender pick up connection, a correctly positioned loco to tender drawbar with a scale spacing setting, motor and gearing set up to little over scale maximum speed, ample loco weight for traction, were the stand out improvements. The bag of coal for the bunker was a neat touch.

 

There were four 'flubs': the optional flanged rear truck wheelset simply wouldn't fit within the otherwise good truck frame casting, no spring on the bogie, (despite it being shown on the diagram) poor provision for decoder location inside the loco body, chimney flange a 'blunt instrument' rather than tapered to an edge. All these readily fixable, and possibly Hornby have corrected all these since?

 

Altogether good news because it really captures the appearance well and performs as it should; an all around fine layout loco.

 

A competitor is bound to emerge, thanks to this popular class still working on the main line; whoever has a go will have a job on their hands, because lights, smoke and sound go for nought if the item doesn't match what's otherwise already available.

 

 

[jjb1970]

The Hornby Britannia is still an excellent model.

 

I think it sums up an aspect of OO RTR which is great or bad whichever way people want to look at it. Manufacturers are going to find it increasingly difficult to avoid duplication of major types, especially for diesel and electric locomotives, and many of the existing models are extremely good with limited scope to be improved in terms of appearance. Trick DCC features are different but I'm not interested in those.

 

The happy result is I really see no need to replace most of my existing models, and for those on a budget they may find as new releases come out there are excellent lower price alternatives on the S/H market as those who want to have the current thing swap out older models for the latest version. For manufacturers, it is getting more and more difficult to make a model that really moves things on.

 

The latest Bachmann 47 is outstanding, but the previous Bachmann model was also superb. The new Bachmann and Accurascale 37's are outstanding but the last Bachmann version remains a very good model. 

[45568]

2 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

 

I think it sums up an aspect of OO RTR which is great or bad whichever way people want to look at it. Manufacturers are going to find it increasingly difficult to avoid duplication of major types, especially for diesel and electric locomotives, and many of the existing models are extremely good with limited scope to be improved in terms of appearance. Trick DCC features are different but I'm not interested in those.

 

The happy result is I really see no need to replace most of my existing models, and for those on a budget they may find as new releases come out there are excellent lower price alternatives on the S/H market as those who want to have the current thing swap out older models for the latest version. For manufacturers, it is getting more and more difficult to make a model that really moves things on.

 Summed up in a nutshell! There does seem to be an increasingly vocal demand for 'new' versions of relatively recent releases, duplicating an existing model, whereas other quite numerous types have yet to be modelled.

 In the past quite major improvements have been made with updating, the Bachmann original Patriot was light years ahead of the existing Hornby model, and I had no hesitation in replacing examples in my fleet. The Bachmann 9F was totally different from the Hornby example and again purchases were made. However, with, for example, the new Hornby Black Five. Other than the Caprotti variant is it significantly better than detailed models from the new tooling? I have the Caprotti on order, but my existing examples are safe! The 78xxx was very welcome and purchases have been/will be made. If Hornby had offered an updated Ivatt LMS Class 2 mogul, the boxes would still be on the dealer shelves, I'm happy with Bachmann.

I cannot think of any steam outline models released since, say, 2002, that I feel could be improved upon sufficiently to make me retire my existing models. I realise the Accurascale 57xx pannier releases come into this category?, but with the variants they are releasing they really can be classified as new different prototypes.

Not wishing to start a wishlist please, but a new previously unmodelled prototype steam loco is more likely to get my interest and order in than an "all new" Stanier 8F. Think County 4.6.0., SR K class 2.6.0, Fowler/Stanier 3P tank, Raven B16, Standard 77xxx (to be all things to everyone!), rather than another rebuilt Scot, or G.W. Hall. 

Please note I have confined my thoughts on this matter to Steam outline models only, other forms of traction different parameters seem to apply.

Cheers from WestOz,

Peter C.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

2 hours ago, 45568 said:

I cannot think of any steam outline models released since, say, 2002, that I feel could be improved upon sufficiently to make me retire my existing models.

The two major exceptions are Hornby's 8F (think of all the fuss about the Oxford Radial tank's visible drive line, the 8F has something four times the size with a chromed gear shaft end on view each side just to make sure you don't miss it, and poor traction to boot) and the Bachmann BRStd 5MT (poor traction, poor  gear ratio choice and a cab shape error).

 

Then there are front coupled locos of 0-4- 2 or 4T type which look good but have poor traction. Bachmann have demonstrated a construction layout which overcomes this without need for traction tyres on their Midland and NER 0-4-4T, revisions to the likes of the M7 and 14xx might be popular?

 

I have been enthusiastically buying the smaller black stuff of LNER origin and hope for many more.😎

[Karl]

I think the problem now for manufacturers in upgrading models like the Britainnia's or any model made since the early 2000s is simply how good the models are. When introduced they were much better models than what there was so say the old tooling had been £60 and the (then) new was £110 modellers views were that the new ones were £50 better than the old so bought them. We're now at a stage where new tooled model are pushing £230/£240 and any new tooled next year are likely to breach £250 so modellers will be thinking the 2000s tooling you can pick up for say £150 (or less, last week I got a Hornby standard 4 for £85) is the new one going to be £100 better...probably not. So may not buy it, its a question of value. More of the as yet never done models may be necessary for companies to look at simply to get enough of us parting with our cash.

[davidw]

Interesting discussion. I've two Brits. I really like them.  Early super detail models begging for upgrades must include the peppercorn A1. The Bachmann model is good but for me an overscale cartazzi spoils it a bit. If it were upgraded a crisper model  would result.

But as has been said to replace dozen or so A1s in my stable would break the the bank. But I'd consider doing it.

Back to the Brit, a far better model at the outset and we'll all draw lines  in different places. 

I think what this discussion does show is how difficult it is for manufacturers to produce more miniature wonders to an increasingly expensive and crowded market. 

There are gaps, within regions and times. Smaller for locos but huge  for coaching and rolling stock.

[Bulleidboy100]

It's a nice loco - despite being a few years old. I note from my records that Oliver Cromwell joined the fleet in 2006, William Shakespeare in 2012 and Britannia as recently as 2021 - I had been after a "good" one for sometime, and this one popped up on Ebay.

 

 

Edited December 17, 2023 by Bulleidboy100

[Standards_in_OO]

I think it is a perfectly fine model and is not in any real need of an update anytime soon. I have Oliver Cromwell from the 15 Guinea train pack and is one of my favourite models. It’s well weighted and a great runner. I am hoping to add Britannia itself or one with a Western Region name to my collection should they be released in the future. 

[Steamport Southport]

It is starting to get a bit dated and will need an update at some point. Maybe some are happy with the current model, but I certainly wouldn't be paying full whack for one when there is better value elsewhere, even in the Hornby range. It also doesn't have all the gimmicks that the market seems to want.

 

How long do you leave it considering it would probably take three years or so from start of manufacture to appearing in the shops? Another five years and someone else will have it.

 

Especially with all these new boys looking for a stake in the market. I'm afraid a dated model is an open goal. You just need to look at Hornby themselves pouncing on the Bachmann 9F. All those other manufacturers seeing that Bachmann hadn't done much with the diesels for a while. Accurascale taking the Class 31 and Class 50 from Hornby.

 

As the old saying goes You Snooze, You Lose!

 

Hopefully the fact they haven't made one for quite a considerable time might be good news. Also worth remembering that a TT version has been announced so they will be working on 7MTs. Might as well look at the 00 version at the same time.

 

BTW I'm not advocating a full retool, just a revamp to current standards.

 

 

Jason

[davidw]

1 hour ago, Steamport Southport said:

It is starting to get a bit dated and will need an update at some point. Maybe some are happy with the current model, but I certainly wouldn't be paying full whack for one when there is better value elsewhere, even in the Hornby range. It also doesn't have all the gimmicks that the market seems to want.

 

How long do you leave it considering it would probably take three years or so from start of manufacture to appearing in the shops? Another five years and someone else will have it.

 

Especially with all these new boys looking for a stake in the market. I'm afraid a dated model is an open goal. You just need to look at Hornby themselves pouncing on the Bachmann 9F. All those other manufacturers seeing that Bachmann hadn't done much with the diesels for a while. Accurascale taking the Class 31 and Class 50 from Hornby.

 

As the old saying goes You Snooze, You Lose!

 

Hopefully the fact they haven't made one for quite a considerable time might be good news. Also worth remembering that a TT version has been announced so they will be working on 7MTs. Might as well look at the 00 version at the same time.

 

BTW I'm not advocating a full retool, just a revamp to current standards.

 

 

Jason

Hi Jason, what would qualify to improve the model? Thanks 

[Tony Wright]

11 hours ago, davidw said:

Hi Jason, what would qualify to improve the model? Thanks 

Good morning David,

 

I'm not sure just which 'improvements' to Hornby's current RTR 'Britannia' would be commercially-viable at source. 

 

When the most-recent loco-drive one was released some years ago, I 'fiddled' with one to see how it could be 'improved'.

 

 

Though not an actual 'improvement', I chose to renumber/rename it (in doing so, I think the tender filler 'dome' should be higher). It was then weathered (by elder son, Tom), which improved on the rather garish green. 

 

What else? Certainly, replacement bogie wheels (Markits) and a few more 'wiggly' pipes added, also closer loco-to-tender coupling. What else should I have done? The chimney is poor and really should have been replaced, and I should have altered the 'lean' to the eccentric crank on this side - it should lean forwards at bottom dead centre, not backwards, as here. It profoundly alters the look of the motion in motion in this position, making it look more like a rebuilt Bulleid Pacific; quite wrong for a 'Brit'.

 

Other than that, is it acceptable as a 'layout loco'? I think so.

 

However, what of the alternatives?

 

 

A DJH 'Brit' I built, which Geoff Haynes painted/weathered. 

 

Certainly a better chimney and 'thinner' smoke deflectors (being turned and etched brass respectively); also, the correct 'lean' to the return crank this side (both sides - Hornby's is right on the nearside). A few more pipe runs as well. It also runs on a complete set of Markits 'Britannia' wheels (not the 'generic' ones supplied in the kit). 

 

What is the biggest difference? The relative price-point. I built 70010 for myself, but were I to build it for a customer (with a pro-paint job) it would probable be five times the price of a Hornby RTR one! It's certainly not five times better; in fact, it could be argued that, apart from detail differences, it's no better - other than the kit build's much greater capacity for hauling really heavy trains. There is, of course, the 'satisfaction' of my having made it. But, what of those who can't make a 'Brit' to the same standard as Hornby's (or any standard) or who can't afford for anyone to make/paint one for them? That being the case, I think Hornby's current 'Britannia' is more than acceptable, and I can't personally see a commercial case for the firm to retool it. But then, what do I know?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[G-BOAF]

It is telling that the much praised new H 9f has so much in common with the Brit in terms of design. Proof that ver little needs to change/can be imrproved except for chimney, deflectors and maybe bogie wheels as mentioned above.

The tender to loco connection is prototypically positioned througj the dragbox and at its closest is almosy scale.

One of the best models Hornby have made and not much they or others could add to it

[stewartingram]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning David,

 

I'm not sure just which 'improvements' to Hornby's current RTR 'Britannia' would be commercially-viable at source. 

 

When the most-recent loco-drive one was released some years ago, I 'fiddled' with one to see how it could be 'improved'.

 

 

Though not an actual 'improvement', I chose to renumber/rename it (in doing so, I think the tender filler 'dome' should be higher). It was then weathered (by elder son, Tom), which improved on the rather garish green. 

 

What else? Certainly, replacement bogie wheels (Markits) and a few more 'wiggly' pipes added, also closer loco-to-tender coupling. What else should I have done? The chimney is poor and really should have been replaced, and I should have altered the 'lean' to the eccentric crank on this side - it should lean forwards at bottom dead centre, not backwards, as here. It profoundly alters the look of the motion in motion in this position, making it look more like a rebuilt Bulleid Pacific; quite wrong for a 'Brit'.

 

Other than that, is it acceptable as a 'layout loco'? I think so.

 

However, what of the alternatives?

 

 

A DJH 'Brit' I built, which Geoff Haynes painted/weathered. 

 

Certainly a better chimney and 'thinner' smoke deflectors (being turned and etched brass respectively); also, the correct 'lean' to the return crank this side (both sides - Hornby's is right on the nearside). A few more pipe runs as well. It also runs on a complete set of Markits 'Britannia' wheels (not the 'generic' ones supplied in the kit). 

 

What is the biggest difference? The relative price-point. I built 70010 for myself, but were I to build it for a customer (with a pro-paint job) it would probable be five times the price of a Hornby RTR one! It's certainly not five times better; in fact, it could be argued that, apart from detail differences, it's no better - other than the kit build's much greater capacity for hauling really heavy trains. There is, of course, the 'satisfaction' of my having made it. But, what of those who can't make a 'Brit' to the same standard as Hornby's (or any standard) or who can't afford for anyone to make/paint one for them? That being the case, I think Hornby's current 'Britannia' is more than acceptable, and I can't personally see a commercial case for the firm to retool it. But then, what do I know?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

And that is 2 points covered. The mention that GIMMICKS are required! And also if you want a Britannia, you would go for it -there are no better value alternatives for it. The point that (and it is a personal opinion for everybody) that a "better value" model (which is not a Brit) is irrelevant.

[sjp23480]

1 hour ago, G-BOAF said:

It is telling that the much praised new H 9f has so much in common with the Brit in terms of design. Proof that ver little needs to change/can be imrproved except for chimney, deflectors and maybe bogie wheels as mentioned above.

The tender to loco connection is prototypically positioned througj the dragbox and at its closest is almosy scale.

One of the best models Hornby have made and not much they or others could add to it

 

Is it feasible for Hornby to make a tweak to the tooling to refine the chimney or is it a separate fitting?  They changed the chimney on the Royal Scot following criticism of the original issue.  Was this part of Hornby's design clever initiative.

 

Other manufacturers make changes based on response to customer feedback (Accurascale's Deltic for example).

 

I think a good analogy might be car manufacturing, where new, enhanced models appear almost every year.  The basic shape remains the same, but things are refined, new technology added and customer feedback addressed.

 

With so many popular classes now available RTR, perhaps manufacturers need to look to a programme of renewal and continuous improvement to drive future sales?

 

Stephen

 

[G-BOAF]

2 hours ago, sjp23480 said:

 

Is it feasible for Hornby to make a tweak to the tooling to refine the chimney or is it a separate fitting?  They changed the chimney on the Royal Scot following criticism of the original issue.  Was this part of Hornby's design clever initiative.

 

Other manufacturers make changes based on response to customer feedback (Accurascale's Deltic for example).

 

I think a good analogy might be car manufacturing, where new, enhanced models appear almost every year.  The basic shape remains the same, but things are refined, new technology added and customer feedback addressed.

 

With so many popular classes now available RTR, perhaps manufacturers need to look to a programme of renewal and continuous improvement to drive future sales?

 

Stephen

 

Thats whats been done on the metal running plate a3 releases which include kinematic loco tender couplings and slightly improved wheels. The core tooling and dimensions are little changed

 

The chinney could be tweaked; the cap is a seperste part. Im surprised there isnt a resin or white metal sfter market replacement available after all these years at least

Edited December 17, 2023 by G-BOAF

[sjp23480]

53 minutes ago, G-BOAF said:

Thats whats been done on the metal running plate a3 releases which include kinematic loco tender couplings and slightly improved wheels. The core tooling and dimensions are little changed

 

The chinney could be tweaked; the cap is a seperste part. Im surprised there isnt a resin or white metal sfter market replacement available after all these years at least

I have a Jackson Evans replacement chimney for a Brit.  I think it was from a whole range of parts they produced to improve the original tender drive version. May have to see if I can fit it. 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

23 hours ago, G-BOAF said:

The tender to loco connection is prototypically positioned through the dragbox and at its closest is almost scale.

I had to go and check that, because my recollection was that the closer spacing option was 'true scale', as assessed by measuring the overall wheelbase; which I was very pleased to find at the time. And it is on my three, all from early production and the same lot, 233mm, which matches the 58'3" wheelbase which is universally quoted. Have Hornby slightly revised the spacing at some time in the seventeen years elapsed since those first releases?

 

(There was some benefit in doing this, as one specimen had near a millimetre of slack, worn quite a notch in the pin which the drawbar engages.  Another twenty years running and it might have replicated the trick of 70012 which left its tender behind, what with mine not having the electrical connection to the tender in use. Now in the hands of the fitter for rectification.)

[G-BOAF]

14 minutes ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

I had to go and check that, because my recollection was that the closer spacing option was 'true scale', as assessed by measuring the overall wheelbase; which I was very pleased to find at the time. And it is on my three, all from early production and the same lot, 233mm, which matches the 58'3" wheelbase which is universally quoted. Have Hornby slightly revised the spacing at some time in the seventeen years elapsed since those first releases?

 

(There was some benefit in doing this, as one specimen had near a millimetre of slack, worn quite a notch in the pin which the drawbar engages.  Another twenty years running and it might have replicated the trick of 70012 which left its tender behind, what with mine not having the electrical connection to the tender in use. Now in the hands of the fitter for rectification.)

Maybe it is true scale, I didn't want to make absolute statements on something I wasn't sure of. I was very impressed with the look of with mine on a display shelf (where it was at the closest setting).

Since then it has had a chassis swap with a later production run (DCC sound fitted) with a screw-fitted drawbar, so is not as easy to adjust from running to display.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

On 16/12/2023 at 11:44, davidw said:

Early super detail models begging for upgrades must include the Peppercorn A1. The Bachmann model is good but for me an overscale cartazzi spoils it a bit

I wouldn't say no to this model and the Pepp A2 getting the superior scale  Cartazzi truck arrangement that Bachmann have employed on the new V2. Just so long as they stick to their conventional drawbar with an adjustable slide under the tender, which enables setting the loco to tender spacing as required for the owner's layout minimum radius requirement. (Away with the camming device seen on the V2 which simply doesn't work.)