New Hornby 28xx / 38xx

[craigwelsh]

The 28xx / 2884 models are not being manufactured at Sanda Kan in China. Hornby have opened a second source for railway manufacturing. Personally I don't know if this is in China or India or elsewhere. I do believe that Hornby's subsidiary Airfix has manufacturing in India.

 

Does anyone know for a fact that the 28xx / 2883 (aka 38xx by Hornby) are being manufactured in India? Does anyone know the name of the company?

Does it say 'Made in China' or 'India' on the bottom of them? That should be written accurately.

[robmcg]

The first 28XX sold, R2915 GWR 2818 says 'Made in China' on the box. I may have been wrong about it coming from India.

 

Rob

[Guest dilbert]

Does it say 'Made in China' or 'India' on the bottom of them? That should be written accurately.

I have just received R2918, n° 3803 from the 38xx class. The box states 'made in China'.

 

I hope that Hornby review the design for packaging - upon opening the box, the loco nearly hit the floor. I would rather that the packaging was simplified rather than adding 'combination locks' for further protection... dilbert

[robmcg]

I observe that Hattons no longer list a black R2919X 38xx No.2891 late BR with steam pipes, and wonder how many of the other December releases might arrive before Christmas?

 

They have a few 2916X (GWR roundel and no steam pipes) and more than 10 R2918 (GWR lettering and outside pipes), so the keen amongst us may perhaps find a project. Pleased to say I was lucky to order and have despatched to me a late BR black 38xx. I presume 38xx locos all had steam pipes, and all 28xxs eventually had them?

 

I made this video of my Hornby early GWR version No.2818 today...

 

 

Rob

[The Stationmaster]

I observe that Hattons no longer list a black R2919X 38xx No.2891 late BR with steam pipes, and wonder how many of the other December releases might arrive before Christmas?

 

They have a few 2916X (GWR roundel and no steam pipes) and more than 10 R2918 (GWR lettering and outside pipes), so the keen amongst us may perhaps find a project. Pleased to say I was lucky to order and have despatched to me a late BR black 38xx. I presume 38xx locos all had steam pipes, and all 28xxs eventually had them?

 

Rob

 

Already got one of those projects Rob - 2818 without steam pipes and with original front footplate drop is not catalogued (this year) in BR livery so is underway here as a suitable case for repaint etc.

 

 

 

[gwrrob]

Well I treated myself to an early Christmas present and bought the 38xx.The cab detail is very nice and the red inside frames are a lovely touch.Does anyone think they would have been very dirty in GW days ?

 

Its a shame someone at Hornby couldn't research the box info detail properly.Who is the designer G J Churchwood ?

[The Stationmaster]

Well I treated myself to an early Christmas present and bought the 38xx.The cab detail is very nice and the red inside frames are a lovely touch.Does anyone think they would have been very dirty in GW days ?

 

Its a shame someone at Hornby couldn't research the box info detail properly.Who is the designer G J Churchwood ?

 

 

 

All the pics I have got of 28s/38s in pre-war (WWII that is) times show them as well 'work stained' unless they happen to be on something very special. Post 1945 'downright filthy' is nearer the mark. But remember this - someone had to go 'in between' to oil the motion so they wouldn't have been too keen to come out looking like a roustabout walking away from a well blowout so there must have been a bit of 'wiping over', if not serious cleaning, going on at least prior to 1939.

 

[robmcg]

Already got one of those projects Rob - 2818 without steam pipes and with original front footplate drop is not catalogued (this year) in BR livery so is underway here as a suitable case for repaint etc.

 

That would make an excellent model. I know it's really a matter of taste but I have always liked to see engines in 'early' condition especially if they were long lasting and useful like the 28xx.

 

I wonder if the outside steam pipes actually made the locos steam better or it was a Swindon production consideration after boilers and smokebox internals wore out? The fire-tool container over the rear drivers was little-used in real life, according to books I have read (cannot remember the exact source) ... the firemen preferring to old top-of-coal location for the long tools. Possibly the steam pipes in the front frame area was another consideratio as the locos aged?

 

I hope the black BR 28xx you describe eventuates.

 

Rob

[Dinmore Manor]

The cylinders were changed as and when required to an outside steam pipe pattern cylinder block at heavy overhaul. Little if any difference was made to the steaming of the locos but it did make for far easier arrangements of pipework within the smokebox, easier casting process for the cylinders and only two steampipe joints within the smokebox that could be a source of leaks rather than four. It will be interesting to see how we get on when we come to restore 2874 in due course and have to make new steampipes to suit!

 

Mike

[The Stationmaster]

That would make an excellent model. I know it's really a matter of taste but I have always liked to see engines in 'early' condition especially if they were long lasting and useful like the 28xx.

 

I wonder if the outside steam pipes actually made the locos steam better or it was a Swindon production consideration after boilers and smokebox internals wore out? The fire-tool container over the rear drivers was little-used in real life, according to books I have read (cannot remember the exact source) ... the firemen preferring to old top-of-coal location for the long tools. Possibly the steam pipes in the front frame area was another consideratio as the locos aged?

 

I hope the black BR 28xx you describe eventuates.

 

Rob

 

Well one side of the tender has so far been cleaned (almost) of its GW markings but then I needed a glassfibre stick (not brush) to finish it - that's now to hand but not yet engaged. The rest it is basically paint, new tender markings, and a set of numberplates etc followed by whatever degree of weathering appeals.

 

The main reason for outside steam pipes was basically renewal of the front end of the loco, most likely usually due to cylinder wear rather than anything else but probably sometimes due to a casting being damaged for other reasons. Then it was simply a case of using what was currently available - i.e. the outside steam pipe pattern. Presumably some locos either had very low rates of cylinder wear or had them replaced when there were still older castings available (and possibly needing to be used up to clear the stock? - although I doubt with something that expensive there ever many held as stock items?).

The stock Hornby equivalent will no doubt be in the catalogue next year or the year after

 

 

[Hilux5972]

Well I treated myself to an early Christmas present and bought the 38xx.The cab detail is very nice and the red inside frames are a lovely touch.Does anyone think they would have been very dirty in GW days ?

 

Its a shame someone at Hornby couldn't research the box info detail properly.Who is the designer G J Churchwood ?

 

Haha thats a good one GWRROB. Surely you would know that G J Churchwood designed the 28xx class. Collett only modified it for the 38xx so Hornby have the info correct.

[buffalo]

...Little if any difference was made to the steaming of the locos but it did make for far easier arrangements of pipework within the smokebox, easier casting process for the cylinders and only two steampipe joints within the smokebox that could be a source of leaks rather than four...

 

Yes, the point is made in the booklet by Veal and Goodman. "Heavy Freight: 28XX and 38XX Consolidations of the Great Western", published by the GWS, that the newer casting was less complex and cheaper to produce, and that only the low pressure exhaust joints remained within the casting. The high pressure joints, more susceptible to leaks, were now accessible from outside without splitting the smokebox saddle.

 

Nick

[robmcg]

... only the low pressure exhaust joints remained within the casting. The high pressure joints, more susceptible to leaks, were now accessible from outside without splitting the smokebox saddle.

 

Nick

 

 

Ah, I suspected something like that. Without wishing to compare Swindon with a workshop of sorts based in the northeast, Thompson would have approved...

 

Rob

[robmcg]

Well one side of the tender has so far been cleaned (almost) of its GW markings but then I needed a glassfibre stick (not brush) to finish it - that's now to hand but not yet engaged. The rest it is basically paint, new tender markings, and a set of numberplates etc followed by whatever degree of weathering appeals.

 

The main reason for outside steam pipes was basically renewal of the front end of the loco, most likely usually due to cylinder wear rather than anything else but probably sometimes due to a casting being damaged for other reasons. Then it was simply a case of using what was currently available - i.e. the outside steam pipe pattern. Presumably some locos either had very low rates of cylinder wear or had them replaced when there were still older castings available (and possibly needing to be used up to clear the stock? - although I doubt with something that expensive there ever many held as stock items?).

 

Can you or anyone else give me an idea of which (all?) and when earlier 28xx versions without steam pipes received the later style of breathing?

 

I daresay such issues are relevant to production of a Star from Castle tools, too, although the smokeboxes would not be interchangeable.

 

All the best for your BR black version.

 

Rob

[buffalo]

Can you or anyone else give me an idea of which (all?) and when earlier 28xx versions without steam pipes received the later style of breathing? ...

 

Rob,

 

The following is all from the RCTS "Locomotives of the Great Western Railway", part 9.

 

Almost all 28XX received outside steam pipes eventually. When they acquired it, the NRM's 2818 was the only survivor of the square step variety (2800-2830) without them. 2820 was the first to be converted to outside pipes in 1934, but the process continued right up to the late 1950s.

 

2805, 2815, 2825, 2863 and 2868 were scrapped without getting them.

 

2871-4, 2879 and 2883 appear to have still been running without them when the RCTS volume was witten.

 

2877, 2880-1 had been scrapped, but it appears uncertain whether they had them or not (I suspect probably not).

 

Nick

[gwrrob]

Haha thats a good one GWRROB. Surely you would know that G J Churchwood designed the 28xx class. Collett only modified it for the 38xx so Hornby have the info correct.

 

I don't think so as they were designed by Churchward.

[The Stationmaster]

Rob,

 

 

 

2871-4, 2879 and 2883 appear to have still been running without them when the RCTS volume was written.

 

Nick

 

As was 2818 of course (I've an idea that it wasn't withdrawn until 1962?)

 

 

 

[Coach bogie]

Not sure where this designer issue is going but the larger cab 2884 class did not appear until 1938, five years after Churchard's death. Considering Churchward retired in 1922 the 2884 design will have been signed off by Charles Collett.

 

The revised front end design is pure Collett. Churchward's designs were all designed with inside steam pipes and minimal cabs. Collett's approach to everything was to reduce maintenance and building costs, hence outside steam pipes, simplified/stronger cylinder design, fire iron tunnel etc. He applied the same priciples to most Churchard designs significantly extending the operational lives of many locomotives. The 28xx design was significantly altered as the 2884 class. I for one would give Collett well deserved credit for the class.

 

MW

 

I don't think so as they were designed by Churchward.

[buffalo]

As was 2818 of course (I've an idea that it wasn't withdrawn until 1962?)

 

Yes, indeed. Veal and Goodman list it as withdrawn in 10/63.

 

Edit: the Hornby box also says October 31st, 1963.

 

Not sure where this designer issue is going...

 

I wondered, too However, I think the point being made was the mis-spelling of Churchward as Churchwood, presumably on the Hornby box? They didn't make that mistake on the 2818 box, instead, although they spelled it correctly once, they did manage 'Churward' later

 

Nick

[The Stationmaster]

This 'designer thing' is getting stupid - GWRRob asked a very clear question (possibly with his tongue very firmly in his cheek) 'who is this designer G.J. Churchwood?'

 

It was a logical question and the answer was of course remarkably easy - 'churchwood' was in reality 'Churchward' (presumably it had been spelt phonetically, a relative of his - with whom I worked at one time - certainly pronounced his own surname more as 'churchwood' than 'churchward'). We are not talking about, nor did anyone originally query, which variant was designed under Collett and which was designed by Chuchward; this all started from somebody querying a spelling, not who did what, and that was perfectly clear - to me at any rate.

[Coach bogie]

Maybe I need to develop my sense of humour as I didn't pick up the tongue in cheek sentiment. Sorry all.

 

MW

[coachmann]

But remember this - someone had to go 'in between' to oil the motion so they wouldn't have been too keen to come out looking like a roustabout walking away from a well blowout so there must have been a bit of 'wiping over', if not serious cleaning, going on at least prior to 1939.

Here's the inside motion on a 38XX, which even in preservation gets slightly oily....

[robmcg]

Maybe I need to develop my sense of humour as I didn't pick up the tongue in cheek sentiment. Sorry all.

 

MW

 

No apology needed. And we can easily accept that the original design was by Churchward and the later engines were modified versions overseen by Collett, or if you prefer, designed by Collett.

 

Lovely underrated engines, too.

 

Rob

[robmcg]

Rob,

 

The following is all from the RCTS "Locomotives of the Great Western Railway", part 9.

 

Almost all 28XX received outside steam pipes eventually. When they acquired it, the NRM's 2818 was the only survivor of the square step variety (2800-2830) without them. 2820 was the first to be converted to outside pipes in 1934, but the process continued right up to the late 1950s.

 

2805, 2815, 2825, 2863 and 2868 were scrapped without getting them.

 

2871-4, 2879 and 2883 appear to have still been running without them when the RCTS volume was witten.

 

2877, 2880-1 had been scrapped, but it appears uncertain whether they had them or not (I suspect probably not).

 

Nick

 

Thankyou Nick,

 

At risk of asking too many questions, would it be fair to say that pre-1911 28xx locos 2800-2830 had stepped running plates, and 1911-1919 2831-2883 had curved running plates?

 

Did the running plates always change to curved after the later smokebox-cylinder arrangements were fitted?

 

As I understand it the boiler was, after the first few, a D4 ... and I wonder how similar this might be to any other Swindon designs, especially in the light of the 28xx antecedent No.97 similar to the Saint class, and the 28XX with D4 boiler being outwardly similar to my eye to the predecesors of the Star class. I sure there are many pitfalls in making comparisons!

 

Rob

[Ozexpatriate]

Its a shame someone at Hornby couldn't research the box info detail properly.Who is the designer G J Churchwood ?

Now that we've all sorted out gwrrob's pun, I'll make the observation that this sort of thing is endemic at Hornby these days.

 

Yes, we are a picky lot but that is very much the nature of this hobby and I think we can reasonably expect that the people who sell to us, need to keep our desire for accuracy in mind.

 

I've noticed a lot of mistakes in Hornby's promotional copy in the last couple of years. It feels like they have some junior staff in the marketing (or whichever) department that is responsible for things like the catalogue, on-line descriptions and (as gwrrob pointed out) the packaging, and no one senior is proofing the copy before it is published.

 

Off the top of my head I can't point to definite illustrations of these gaffes, but I seem to recall things like a catalogue description of a 14xx with the shirtbutton listed as suitable for the 1950s and other recommendations to use pre-nationalization liveried locomotives with post-nationalization liveried coaches or vice-versa. If you look closely, you will find lots of examples.

 

My biggest frustration was with the new Schools when they were first announced. There were three different livery descriptions in each of:

• the new release announcement at Christmas/New Years',
  
• the online catalogue and
  
• the printed catalogue.

It took months for Hornby to sort it out, and caused a lot of back and forth with my mail-order provider to make sure I got a Southern liveried version.

 

Plus I'd like to see a bit more specificity in a livery description than "GWR green" or "Southern green".

 

I waited a year to order Tintagel Castle until I believed that it would be in an early Collett livery with "GREAT crest WESTERN" on the tender. (It turns out that I needn't have 'hurried' so much! ) I had previously preordered and purchased the King Arthur Pendragon sight unseen, as advertised being in "Southern green". I was thinking Maunsell olive because it was made available around the time the Maunsell coaches were rampant. But unlike Excalibur in Maunsell olive, Pendragon was issued in a Bulleid green variant that is close to malachite they used on the West Country/BoBs. It's pretty and I like it, but not what I was expecting, largely because of sloppy descriptions in Hornby's promotional copy.

 

The old saw that a picture is worth a thousand words is of inestimable value. The number of black and white photographs being used in announcements/catalogues where the photograph demonstrates a different livery that that described is quite high.

 

Even today, the on-line reference for No. 5011 Tintagel Castle shows a B&W photgraph of what is quite clearly No. 7034 Ince Castle with a right-facing cycling lion. No. 5011 is listed as being in "GWR green" suitable for a period of 1924-1960! This reference has been the same since Tintagel Castle was announced, two years ago. I think Hornby should be capable of doing much better. Listing "G J Churchwood" is the same kind of thing. It's just sloppy and unprofessional.