Mix and Matching models from different manufacturers

[Damo666]

When I first had a model railway back in the late 70s I had a few Hornby, couple of Lima and one Airfix loco. Then it all got abandoned as college, work, girls, family took precedence.

 

Fast forward to 6 years ago when I rediscovered my interest and the world had moved on.

 

My old locos would just about work after a good servicing, but the wheels and track was causing severe problems. DCC and better looking models on the market, I made an easy decision to get some new stock.

 

Familiarity and loyalty resulted in a Hornby impulse buy as I started to understand the new modelling landscape.

 

So to my question, which is on mixing manufacturers of the same model.

 

I have a few small rakes of wagons which I’d like to expand.

I have Accurrascale HAAs and MHAs, as well as the RevolutioN TEAs and would like to get more, but am unsure how they would all look if I got some from the other manufacturers. Are there noticeable difference in the physical model and the artwork?

 

Maybe I’m being unfair to Hornby, but the impression I’m getting is that they have fallen behind the other new players, perhaps playing on their laurels, and haven’t really updated their models to the newer standards. There seemed to be a lax attitude to models in the 80s and of course laser 3D scans weren’t around then.

 

Hornby (1970), Bachmann (2007) and Cavalex all produce TEA wagons. I’m guessing that the 1970 Hornby just wouldn’t cut the mustard against the newer models, although they have clearly produced runs with later branding (EWS, VTG). Is this on new tooling or the original?

Cavalex (2022) and RevolutioN (2018) are both very new, so should work well together, is this a fair comment?

 

Hornby have the MHA from a 2005 release, compared to Accurascale’s 2022 model. Too far apart or still a good model?

 

And the last one of interest to me is the HAA.

Both Accurascale and Cavalex have a 2022 model, again guessing that these will stand up well together (paint colour may differ?). But Hornby’s versions are from a 1980 and 2003 tooling. Would there be noticeable differences if the Hornby was added to the rake?

 

Appreciate the experiences of others.

[cypherman]

Hi Damo,

I hate to say this. But I think you are really over thinking the issue. It is your railway. Run what you like.

[Steven B]

I generally don't mix different era's of production within the same train (I model in N), but it comes down to personal preference. A 1980s era model running next to a model to current standard can stand out, particularly if they're of the same wagon type. Running past each other in different trains is less of an issue to my eyes.

 

Of your examples, I'd avoid the 1970s tooled Hornby TEA. The Bachmann, Cavalex and Revolution versions should look OK next to each other, but they are models of different prototypes that may not have run together prototypically (another can of worms!).

 

I'd avoid the 1980 Hornby HAA, the 2003 may look OK mixed in with Cavalex and Accurascale versions, but again it's personal preference.

 

More relevant, you may find in running models from multiple manufacturers produced across 40+ years might not be as compatible as you'd like - couplings have been refined over the years and so you might discover that some combinations don't couple (or stay coupled) as well as others.

 

Steven B 

[Dungrange]

5 hours ago, Damo666 said:

Hornby have the MHA from a 2005 release, compared to Accurascale’s 2022 model. Too far apart or still a good model?

 

Again, they represent different wagons.  The Hornby model represents the first 400 MHA to be constructed.  The Accurascale model represents the most recent 600+ wagons.  There are some fairly obvious differences between the two bodies if you look at the real wagons and a rake would generally comprise both types (often with some other types as well, which will vary depending on your time period).  However, the underframe detail is better on the Accurascale model and they may in time tool up to produce the earlier MHA wagons currently produced by Hornby.

 

As @Steven B has highlighted, there are numerous different types of TEA tank wagon built over a 50+ year period.  Which ones are most suitable for the time period you want to portray?  The prototype for the Bachmann model is the batch built from the late 1960s.  The Cavalex ones represent a TEA built in, I think, the 1980s, whilst the Revolution Trains model represents a prototype that was introduced in 2006.  There is no point in buying the Revolution Trains model if you want to represent the year 2000 (and you wouldn't want the Accurascale MHA either).  If you're looking to model current day operations, then you're probably not looking at the Bachmann TEA model.  The TEAs modelled by Bachmann were still in use out of Grangemouth circa 2010, but by circa 2015, I think they've been exclusively the type of TEA modelled by Revolution Trains.  I'm not sure that there are any of the prototype modelled by Bachmann left on the network, but I'm not an expert on the differences between the dozens of different types of TEA.

[MartynJPearson]

The Hornby TEAs are considerably higher than their Bachmann counterparts, which makes them stand out when run with Bachmann TEAs. Or Bachmann locos for that matter.

[Steamport Southport]

4 hours ago, cypherman said:

Hi Damo,

I hate to say this. But I think you are really over thinking the issue. It is your railway. Run what you like.

 

Pretty much.

 

But I do tend to keep older RTR apart from the newer stuff.

 

I've still got some of the 1970s Hornby such as the KitKat and Weetabix vans and wagons that I give a run occasionally behind locomotives from that era such as the GWR 101. I know they aren't up to modern standards, but they have sentimental value so wouldn't part with them.

 

Funnily enough I was thinking of getting some more modern wagons. When I modelled "modern" in the 1980s there wasn't an awful lot of it about. I was fine with locos and coaches, but wagons were very few and mostly still things left over from the steam era such as 16 ton mineral wagons.

 

 

Jason

['CHARD]

I've assembled a sizeable fleet to fulfil a Working Timetable for a secondary mainline set in an 18 month window. This is around the end of steam and defined by the Transition Era. 

 

This requires many BR standard types, especially coaches and wagons.  Hornby Railroad MkIs feature in approximately equal numbers to their Bachmann counterparts. Generally they stick to rakes comprising one or other manufacturer (more for the purposes of reliable running than anything else). As such there's little or no discernible clash or visual disjointedness. This is helped by the fact that mixed rakes of maroon and blue & grey are common. I also take the view that real MkIs were produced to common designs by both BR works and outside private builders. Thus there are subtle, generally imperceptible differences between batches of the same vehicle type.  I'm not an LHCS rivet-counter, nor was I an active enthusiast in 1968, so this arrangement suits my appetite.

 

Ventilated vans are mainly Bachmann, except where their attempt at a prototype falls short (undernourished 12T MR/ LMS van, I'm looking at you). For consistent running, to represent the types where Bachmann is absent, I marry another maker's body to spare Bachmann chassis. This includes Dapol LMS vans, and some Parkside kits likewise. This gives the best of both worlds - roughly accurate bodies and uniform underframes. 

Edited January 4 by 'CHARD

[The Johnster]

There is also the question of compatibility in general.  Modern stock from all the UK companies comes with small tension lock couplings for NEM pockets, and are in theory compatible with each  other; in practice I have found that to be a bit 'aspirational' and have standardised as far as possible on one make, Bachmann, not because of brand loyalty but because Bachmann have supplied the biggest part of my locos and stock.  Even standardising on one make has        not guaranteed a standardised coupling bar height, essential for propelling movements, shunting and auto trains.  I have had brand new locos out of the box with differently set couplngs on either end; this is one of my soapboxes.  Some companies seem to think that all we want to do is haul trains around circles, but some of us want to shunt...

 

Attempting to mix coupling profiles and wheel standards from 1970s and earlier stock will lead to problems for sure.  Many older items have underscale buffers, which does not help with any buffer-locking issues, and a further problem with pre-1990s Triang, Triang Hornby, and Hornby stuff is that the ride height at the buffers is 2mm too high off the railhead.  This dates back to the original Rovex Black Princess which was set too high in order for front bogie clearance under the front of the chassis block when the loco entered a gradient using the proprietary piers on a curve, but was not rectified for many years. 

 

Then there is the question of 'standards'.  Current production and toolings since the turn of the century, by and large those designed to take NEM pockets, are very well detailed and to scale.  Older models may or may not be to scale, and are lacking in finer detail.  1970-80s steam models, especially from Hornby and Lima, were pretty basic below the running plates, with no brake or piping detail, rolling stock brake blocks were not in line with the wheels, clawing uselessly at fresh air, and handbrake levers were moulded to the chassis.  Separate lamp irons, were still in the future, but some progress had been made with handrails.  The standard in those days was for pancake motors driving through plastic spur gears, either in the firebox or the tender on steam, with the spur gears visibile and not hidden properly; traction tyres were common as well, which did nothing to improve pickup performance or smooth slow running.

 

The moving of production to outsourced subcontracted manufacture in China was a sea-change in quality and running.  The Chinese business model, where subcontractor manufacture part which are brought together in an assembly/packing plant in a 'just in time' operation, and which would b a disaster of missed deadlines and budget overruns if the stuff was produced here, works very well there until there's a pandemic (and these will remain a serious risk until the practice of buying live meat in unregulated markets ends, so no time soon, then), and delays in delivery are usually down to shipping problems (Suez Canal blockages, Houthis, Somali pirates, containers lost overboard).  The move to China meant the use of can motors, increasingly coreless recently, driving through worm and idler wheel cog to the final drive cog, which gives a very much better performance than the pancakes. 

 

This means that current (sorry) electronic controllers may not be entirely suitable for older locomotives, which draw higher amounts of amperage through them, and conversely older controllers do not allow current mechs to give their best performances. 

With  all that in mind, running 1970s stuff can be done on modern track so long as you avoid code 75, but is better with compatible period locos and stock rather than mixed, and better with period controllers, but check that they are electrically safe!  Those firms that were around in the 70s and 80s that are still in the game have some dogs in their ranges that are rooted in that era and really need retooling; examples are Hornby's A30 auto-trailer, the old Airfix model that has passed through several hands before H took it on, but is very dated now, or Dapol's out-of-scale minerals, Fruit Ds, and cattle wagons which actually hark back to Wrenn and Hornby Dublo days.  Hornby and Dapol are still churning out 16ton minerals on incorrect geeric wheelbase chassis a scale foot too long.  This is perhaps excusable in Hornby's 'Railroad' range, but this is inconsistently marketed and is not always particularly cheap.  Even Bachmann, generally a safe pair of hands, are producing overwide and wrong length LMS vans and cattle wagons inherited from Mainline. 

 

EBay will turn up plenty of 2h examples of models that are seriously outdated, like Hornby's 'shorty' mk3 coaches and the high-running stuff.  Best avoided IMHO, but I do appreciate the appeal of older stuff that has personal memory value.  Thing is, once you have got used to modern standards, older stuff that doesn't cut it stands out horribly, and adversely affects you enjoyment of your layout.  It looks wrong, runs badly, and in the case of Hornby the finishes are appallingly bright and toylike, and stand out a mile.  We have moved on.

 

You should, as a general rule, have no trouble mixing locos and stock from any current manufacturer that has provision for NEM pockets, but watch out for those coupling bar heights...

[DCB]

No experience of HAA's and the like but ....   One "Different" wagon or coach in a set can ruin the appearance of a uniform set..  That may be prototypical, Mk1 Buffets and Full Brakes on Mk2 coach sets, or horrible a Mainline Mk1 in a set of Hornby or Lima, a Lima in a set of Hornby.
If the buffer heights are correct / uniform that is half the battle visually,  Hornby can't even manage that across their own range , almost everything I own Hornby has been lowered to match Bachmann and Hornby Dublo,  and if the coupling heights match that's a miracle (most of mine use Peco)     If starting again I would would try to buy complete rakes from the same batch from the same manufacturer,  Different batches can vary quite dramatically en they are produced at different factories in the far east from different materials to different specifications.

[Damo666]

 

On 04/01/2024 at 16:26, Dungrange said:

 

Again, they represent different wagons.  The Hornby model represents the first 400 MHA to be constructed.  The Accurascale model represents the most recent 600+ wagons.  There are some fairly obvious differences between the two bodies if you look at the real wagons and a rake would generally comprise both types (often with some other types as well, which will vary depending on your time period).

 

Thank you for all the replies.

 

@Dungrange That is really useful information to know, which I didn’t. Since my OP I got a few Hornby MHA wagons and was immediately disappointed when I placed them against the Accurascale model, the colour difference was probably the least of my concerns, but the yellow top edge was considerable different and the number of ribs down the side differed too. I would have been particularly disappointed with my purchase if I hadn’t realised the there were two different versions of the real thing.

 

Although I didn’t know this at the time, this is exactly the type of info I was hoping to learn from RMWeb, some form of logical explanation.

 

 

[Damo666]

On 04/01/2024 at 13:20, Steven B said:

I generally don't mix different era's of production within the same train (I model in N), but it comes down to personal preference. A 1980s era model running next to a model to current standard can stand out, particularly if they're of the same wagon type. Running past each other in different trains is less of an issue to my eyes.

 

Of your examples, I'd avoid the 1970s tooled Hornby TEA. The Bachmann, Cavalex and Revolution versions should look OK next to each other, but they are models of different prototypes that may not have run together prototypically (another can of worms!).

 

I'd avoid the 1980 Hornby HAA, the 2003 may look OK mixed in with Cavalex and Accurascale versions, but again it's personal preference.

 

More relevant, you may find in running models from multiple manufacturers produced across 40+ years might not be as compatible as you'd like - couplings have been refined over the years and so you might discover that some combinations don't couple (or stay coupled) as well as others.

 

Steven B 

 

Noted your comments on early Hornby TEA and HAA etc. I think my general view here is to avoid any of the older Hornby stock (the stuff I typically had as a teenager in the 70s), and be wary of the more recent offerings if it’s a reissue with a new livery applied.

 

I think my concern here with Hornby is their recent attempts to grab market share by reissuing / repainting old tooling when they learn that another manufacturer is about to launch a new product, (thinking of the Hatton’s Class 66 and the sudden glut of Hornby 66s in new liveries, many not totally true to the class of 66.)

 

This is not a bash against Hornby, as I said in my OP, I was very loyal to Hornby in my early days and were the first company I bought from when I got back into the hobby recently, but I’m also aware that others have upped the stakes considerably.

[Damo666]

On 04/01/2024 at 22:59, DCB said:

No experience of HAA's and the like but ....   One "Different" wagon or coach in a set can ruin the appearance of a uniform set..  That may be prototypical, Mk1 Buffets and Full Brakes on Mk2 coach sets, or horrible a Mainline Mk1 in a set of Hornby or Lima, a Lima in a set of Hornby.
If the buffer heights are correct / uniform that is half the battle visually,  Hornby can't even manage that across their own range , almost everything I own Hornby has been lowered to match Bachmann and Hornby Dublo,  and if the coupling heights match that's a miracle (most of mine use Peco)     If starting again I would would try to buy complete rakes from the same batch from the same manufacturer,  Different batches can vary quite dramatically en they are produced at different factories in the far east from different materials to different specifications.

 

You have reminded me of the time in my early teens I had a Lima BR coach beside a Hornby BR coach, and I couldn't understand why the Lima was lower and shorter.

 

Not understanding the difference between HO and OO at the time, it was many years before I got the answer.

[DCB]

4 hours ago, Damo666 said:

 

 

Thank you for all the replies.

 

@Dungrange That is really useful information to know, which I didn’t. Since my OP I got a few Hornby MHA wagons and was immediately disappointed when I placed them against the Accurascale model, the colour difference was probably the least of my concerns, but the yellow top edge was considerable different and the number of ribs down the side differed too. I would have been particularly disappointed with my purchase if I hadn’t realised the there were two different versions of the real thing.

 

Although I didn’t know this at the time, this is exactly the type of info I was hoping to learn from RMWeb, some form of logical explanation.

 

 

From my  rather skewed viewpoint  I feel the  wagons would need substantial weathering to fit in, I think the different yellows is the bigger deal than the body colour.     Is the brake gear different on the protptypes because that jumps out at me

[Steven B]

The brake levers aren't symetrical:

(Corin Paul on Flickr)

 

The difference in maroon & yellow would soon disappear under some weathering 

 

I'm not sure if the different buffers are prototypical.

 

 

[Fat Controller]

2 hours ago, DCB said:

From my  rather skewed viewpoint  I feel the  wagons would need substantial weathering to fit in, I think the different yellows is the bigger deal than the body colour.     Is the brake gear different on the protptypes because that jumps out at me

The build differences may well be prototypical; in the case of the opens rebuilt from TTAs, there were in excess of twenty different Diagrams issued. I can imagine the ex-MGR wagons presented similar issues.