Are these Hornby coaches accurate for the period ?

[brian777999]

Hornby have produced a number of train packs (some still to be released ) which contain some beautifully lined GWR coaches :

 

R2956 GWR 175 train pack

 

R2706 Flying Dutchman train pack

 

R3061 County class train pack

 

Are these coaches accurate for the period ? They seem to be coaches from the 1930's rather than the 1900/1910 period. I am not an expert and my GWR book on coaches has not arrived yet.

[BernardTPM]

They are the Dean corridor clerestory stock, dating from the 1890s and certainly in period for 1900-1910. They were still in use in the 1930s, though generally relegated to secondary express services by then and being repainted into a plainer version of the chocolate and cream livery.

[Adrian Wintle]

The coaches in the Flying Dutchman pack are in pre-1906 third-class livery, while the coaches in the GWR 175 pack are in the post-1906 livery. In the FD case the all-third should probably be labelled as a 2nd/3rd composite (as the old releases of these coaches were). The prototype of this coach was built as a second/third composite, and relegated to being an all-third when second class was discontinued (IIRC the pair of toilets between the two sections were rebuilt into a compartment).

 

The ones in the R2980 pack with the County appear to be the same livery as in the GWR 175 pack.

 

Note that, other than the ones in the FD pack, these could also be used as post-1923 coaches (when repainted out of lake), as that livery was very similar. The livery would not have lasted very long, though, as the full lining out was no longer being done by about 1928.

 

As mentioned, these are 1890s-built prototypes, latterly diagrammed as a C15 all-third and a D29* brake third.

 

Adrian

 

*Edit - see my post #15 below

[Il Grifone]

The lining is indeed well done. It is a pity that the mouldings that should carry the lining are not present.

(This omission cost Hornby several sales. I had decided to buy some, when they first appeared, but the plain sides changed my mind! )

 

The 1920s version of this livery had black ends (easy enough to alter).

 

I must check. I thought they were a 1st/2nd (later !st/3rd, later still all 3rd) and a Brake/3rd.

 

Following the practice of plating over rotted panels, you could possibly use one as a coach that had been totally plated over, but it would probably be all over brown by the time it reached this condition.

[Barry Ten]

The lining on the recent issues (as opposed to the original ones, when they first came out in the early 80s) seems to have a bit of 3-d depth to it; not enough to fully replicate panelling but enough to look pretty good, judging by the examples I've seen in the local shop. I'd be very tempted if they made the lined ones available separately.

[Adrian Wintle]

The 1920s version of this livery had black ends (easy enough to alter) and different emblems.

 

I was pretty sure it was still the garter crest and separate shields as on the GWR 175 coaches. The lettering on the luggage compartment doors would be slightly different. The coaches from the Flying Dutchmann set are not appropriate for the 1920s, as they have the twin old-style monograms.

 

From watching distance, I find that the lack of moulded panelling is not apparent. The livery on these is far better than I can manage on panelled coaches, so I can live with the flat sides.

 

Adrian

[Il Grifone]

Garter crest and twin emblems indeed. which is why I edited the earlier post.

 

I would agree that the latest lined out coaches are well done and was almost convinced myself. The moulding should be only 5 thou. but this is rather more than a coat of paint. Probably OK on a moving train however.

[Adrian Wintle]

The livery in the early 1900s seems to have been in a state of flux and a bit of a minefield. The GWR 175 coaches maybe should have a large old-style GWR monogram rather than the garter crest, but the various sources I have don't all agree on what happened when. Slinn and Harris are both less than definitive about the changes around 1906. Regardless of this, the coaches are probably the best RTR we are going to see for that period.

 

The composite was a 2nd/3rd (as the original Hornby livery). The compartment with double windows and no corridor-side door was a pair of toilets when the coach was a compo (and so should have hammered glass windows), but was converted to a compartment when the coach became an all third.

 

Adrian

[brian777999]

The livery in the early 1900s seems to have been in a state of flux and a bit of a minefield. Adrian

 

Yes, the period 1900-1910 can be a tricky one to model. Exact dates are hard to pin down sometimes. As another example : When did they start painting brake van hand rails white ? Nobody has an exact date but the general consensus here on RMWEB seems to be that they were not painted white during this period. When I build my AA3 brake vans the handrails will remain unpainted.

 

Hornby have done a good job with these coaches. It is a pity they did not do something about the front bogie on the Dean single locomotives !

[Coppercap]

Hornby have done a good job with these coaches. It is a pity they did not do something about the front bogie on the Dean single locomotives !

 

The coaches haven't been re-tooled, and neither has the locomotive. But the Dean's front bogie has been improved, as it is beautifully lined, has metal wheels and pickups!

[Adrian Wintle]

But the Dean's front bogie has been improved, as it is beautifully lined, has metal wheels and pickups!

 

Even better, they use 2mm axles, so wheels of a more prototypical size* are a drop-in replacement.

 

*Proto is 4'1" IIRC, Gibson 3'8" wheels drop in with no mods (except tweaking the pickups), while 3'11" wheels require a modification of the bogie mounting.

 

Adrian

[brian777999]

Even better, they use 2mm axles, so wheels of a more prototypical size* are a drop-in replacement.

 

*Proto is 4'1" IIRC, Gibson 3'8" wheels drop in with no mods (except tweaking the pickups), while 3'11" wheels require a modification of the bogie mounting.

 

Adrian

 

I will soon be placing an order for some Alan Gibson wheels. Should these 3'8" bogie wheels be 10 spoke or 12 spoke ? Are they just gently pulled or levered out from the plastic guides ? They do not seem to be running in any bearings on the bogie itself.

What exactly did you do to "tweak" the pickups ?

[Adrian Wintle]

I will soon be placing an order for some Alan Gibson wheels. Should these 3'8" bogie wheels be 10 spoke or 12 spoke ? Are they just gently pulled or levered out from the plastic guides ? They do not seem to be running in any bearings on the bogie itself.

What exactly did you do to "tweak" the pickups ?

 

I believe they are 10-spoke. I'm not sure that some of the locos didn't have 12-spoke wheels, though (it's a while since I counted spokes on the photos in Russell). They just pop out of the plastic guides. By tweaking the pickups I mean adjusting them so that they bear on the wheel rim and don't catch the spokes (which is a possibility with the larger wheels).

 

This one has 3'11" bogie wheels and Gibson tender wheels (the tender axles are 2mm as well, so the wheels can be pressed onto them.

 

Adrian

[brian777999]

I believe they are 10-spoke. I'm not sure that some of the locos didn't have 12-spoke wheels, though (it's a while since I counted spokes on the photos in Russell). They just pop out of the plastic guides. By tweaking the pickups I mean adjusting them so that they bear on the wheel rim and don't catch the spokes (which is a possibility with the larger wheels).

 

This one has 3'11" bogie wheels and Gibson tender wheels (the tender axles are 2mm as well, so the wheels can be pressed onto them.

 

Adrian

 

I have had a look at some photos and I think that the wheels are 12 spoke. To fit the 3'11" wheels did you have to modify the bogies by filing away some plastic ? Why did you replace the tender wheels as well ?

[Adrian Wintle]

I have had a look at some photos and I think that the wheels are 12 spoke. To fit the 3'11" wheels did you have to modify the bogies by filing away some plastic ? Why did you replace the tender wheels as well ?

 

I had to adjust the bogie mounting arm (actualy I fabricated a new one) to get the bogie to ride higher so that it wasn't lifting the driving wheel off the rails.

 

I replaced the tender wheels because the existing ones were those free-sliding half-axle plastic things.

 

Regarding the coaches, the compo is pretty definitely diagam C15. It doesn't match C21, the only other gangwayed second/third diagram, and it does match the Bettabitz/247 C15 sides (not necessarily acurate, I know). I can't actually find a diagram for C15, though. There were 20 C15s built, 10 in Lot 867 (1898) numbered 945-954 (later 6945-6954), and 10 in Lot 940 (1900) numbered 601-610 (later 7601-7610)*. They were modified to all thirds, as I mentioned above, probably around 1910.

 

The brake third is not a D29, since it doesn't have offset duckets (the Bettabitz/249 D29 sides do, and match the diagram in Russell). It might be a D25, since that is what the original Hornby one is numbered as (again, not a definitive tell). I can't find a diagram or photo of a D25 to confirm, though - also there only seem to have been 10 of them built in Lot 870 (1898) numbered 3371-3380*. If it doesn't match D25 then some of the layout is probably fictional - this might be the case since offset duckets seem to have been the norm for 1896-1902 when these coaches were built. There were something like 50 D29s built in multiple lots.

 

*details from Harris

 

Adrian

[brian777999]

I had to adjust the bogie mounting arm (actualy I fabricated a new one) to get the bogie to ride higher so that it wasn't lifting the driving wheel off the rails.

 

I replaced the tender wheels because the existing ones were those free-sliding half-axle plastic things.

 

Adrian

 

Did you have much trouble installing the tender wheels ? The axle boxes on the tenders seem quite stiff and there is not much play there when trying to spread them. I thought I would ask before having a proper go at it.

 

I have not bought any bogie/tender wheels from Alan Gibson, only wagon and coach wheels. The bogie/tender wheels seem to come with axles for both inside and outside bearings. Do you just press the wheels onto the axles or is loctite required ?

 

I am glad the Hornby coaches are reasonably correct. As has been pointed out previously, they are the best RTR coaches we are likely to see for this period.

[Il Grifone]

The Dean Single front bogie should have splashers over the wheels (omitted to allow her to go around Tri-ang 13½" radius curves!). Fitting them with improve the front end drastically, as would setting the body at the right height.

 

The tender frames are quite resilient (or at least they are with Tri-ang plastic - I can't speak for today's Chinese stuff). Gentle levering with a screwdriver or similar will soon have the wheels out. An internal bearing chassis will allow the new wheels to drop in and correct the ride height and permit equalisation and possibly allow the tender to bear on the rear or the locomotive to aid adhesion and balance. Both are lacking in the Tri-ang original and, seeing only minor modifications have been made, presumably in the Chinese version.

 

The coaches are still a bit of a mystery. A visit to the local Modelzone yesterday provided the running numbers of the 1906 (black frame) set (3377 and 949) and also of a 1934 version (3242) - labelled "composite" on the box* . This must be where I got my erroneous idea that it is a 1st/2nd (later 1st/3rd) - I naturally assumed Hornby would want 1st class accomodation in their train and this description suggested a 1st/2nd (I have a model of one of these from a CCW kit). The lack of mouldings stopped me bothering to check further.

 

* Should be "third" of course.

 

The problem here here is that 949 (on the Brake/3rd) is the pre 1907 number of a 2nd/3rd and the other two are numbers of Brake/3rds!

 

(Data from 'Harris')

 

EDIT 3242 is actually a C17 full 3rd with a smoker's saloon. (I looked up the wrong no.) and very different from the Hornby model.

[Adrian Wintle]

The tender frames are quite resilient (or at least they are with Tri-ang plastic - I can't speak for today's Chinese stuff). Gentle levering with a screwdriver or similar will soon have the wheels out.

 

I did this, and then just pressed the Gibson wheels onto the inner (metal) axles. No Loctite or other adhesive.

 

The coaches are still a bit of a mystery. A visit to the local Modelzone yesterday provided the running numbers of the 1906 (black frame) set (3377 and 949) and also of a 1934 version (3242) - labelled "composite" on the box* . This must be where I got my erroneous idea that it is a 1st/2nd (later 1st/3rd) - I naturally assumed Hornby would want 1st class accomodation in their train and this description suggested a 1st/2nd (I have a model of one of these from a CCW kit). The lack of mouldings stopped me bothering to check further.

 

* Should be "third" of course.

 

The problem here here is that 949 (on the Brake/3rd) is the pre 1907 number of a 2nd/3rd and the other two are numbers of Brake/3rds!

 

(Data from 'Harris')

 

The various coaches I have are a bit random in their numbering:

 

R122 (2nd/3rd compo in pre-1906 livery) - 1602, which I think is a pre-1907 number for a C15 (2nd/3rd, later 3rd) from Lot 940 of 1900

R123 (brake third in pre-1906 livery) - 3371, which is a D25 from Lot 870 of 1898

 

Flying Dutchman set:

Brake third (pre-1906 livery) - 2085, unknown

Third (pre-1906 livery) - 1895, unknown

Third (pre-1906 livery) - 1896, unknown

 

GWR 175 set:

Brake third (post-1906 livery, but with some pre-1906 details) - 3377, which is a D25 from Lot 870 of 1898

Third (post-1906 livery) - 949, which is a pre-1907 number for a C15 from lot 867 of 1898

 

R4119C (third in 1920s livery) - 948, which is a pre-1907 number for a C15 from lot 867 of 1898

R4119D (third in 1920s livery) - 954, which is a pre-1907 number for a C15 from lot 867 of 1898

R4198 (third in 1920s livery) - 3162, unknown

R436 (brake third in 1920s livery) - 3371, which is a D25 from Lot 870 of 1898

R4120C (brake third in 1920s livery) - 3371, which is a D25 from Lot 870 of 1898

R4199 (brake third in 1920s livery) - 3321, unknown

 

Adrian

[Coppercap]

An internal bearing chassis will allow the new wheels to drop in and correct the ride height and permit equalisation and possibly allow the tender to bear on the rear or the locomotive to aid adhesion and balance. Both are lacking in the Tri-ang original and, seeing only minor modifications have been made, presumably in the Chinese version.

 

Actually, the newer Deans fitted with traction tyres are really good haulers, far more than anyone would expect of a single-wheeler, or even much larger locos, for that matter. Mine have equalled my Bachmann 9F, until I ran out of wagons, and space!

The non-tyres ones are fairly feeble in their hauling capacity though.

[Il Grifone]

Actually, the newer Deans fitted with traction tyres are really good haulers, far more than anyone would expect of a single-wheeler, or even much larger locos, for that matter. Mine have equalled my Bachmann 9F, until I ran out of wagons, and space!

The non-tyres ones are fairly feeble in their hauling capacity though.

 

I think the Tri-ang 'Magnadhesion' feature considerably aided their haulage. Not being able to abide steel rail, I don't know the actual improvement. It also solved the balance problem. Does this still exist, as traction tyres won't help here? Originally they came with two or three Tri-ang clerestories (the ones with mouldings*). This was about theit limit.

 

*That's what makes the later version so annoying. Hornby couldn't do in the '80s what they did (quite well - there are a few defects) in the '60s!

 

Re the coaches. Maybe I remembered the numbers wrongly. It took two visits to recall what they were correctly. (old age ) It's not impossible I mixed them up.

[Adrian Wintle]

I think the Tri-ang 'Magnadhesion' feature considerably aided their haulage. Not being able to abide steel rail, I don't know the actual improvement. It also solved the balance problem. Does this still exist, as traction tyres won't help here?

 

The new chassis was completely re-engineered. I haven't seen any balance problems except when I induced them while I was fettling the front bogie mount to handle the larger wheels. The traction tires do make a huge difference in haulage, though.

 

Originally they came with two or three Tri-ang clerestories (the ones with mouldings*). This was about theit limit.

 

The non-traction tire versions are very light-footed - the short clerestories that came with the recent Lord of the Isles set were lighter than the original Triang ones (lighter glazing, no bogie rivet, etc). On the flat, with wide curves, LOTI could just about handle six of them without too much slipping.

 

*That's what makes the later version so annoying. Hornby couldn't do in the '80s what they did (quite well - there are a few defects) in the '60s!

 

I'm guessing that they made them flat sided to facilitate machine printing of the panelled scheme. The Triang clerestories were, until recently*, only released in single or two-colour schemes (which could be sprayed) with minimal printing.

 

*The Thomas 'Old Slow Coach' is a recent exception.

 

Adrian

[Coppercap]

I think the Tri-ang 'Magnadhesion' feature considerably aided their haulage. Not being able to abide steel rail, I don't know the actual improvement. It also solved the balance problem. Does this still exist, as traction tyres won't help here? Originally they came with two or three Tri-ang clerestories (the ones with mouldings*). This was about theit limit.

 

*That's what makes the later version so annoying. Hornby couldn't do in the '80s what they did (quite well - there are a few defects) in the '60s!

 

I don't think theres a 'balance' problem any more (not that I knew what the old magnadhesion-fitted model's were like).

They've been re-motored anyway, so the chassis is probably a different weight, and balance. They do actually run really well, at least, mine do.

 

I gather that when the new 'long' clerestories were released, the model railway market was in a bit of a slump, so costs were cut. Hence the non-panelled, 'panelled' coaches.

[Barry Ten]

I gather that when the new 'long' clerestories were released, the model railway market was in a bit of a slump, so costs were cut. Hence the non-panelled, 'panelled' coaches.

 

They were disappointing at the time because the pre-production images clearly showed moulded panel detail, which for one reason or another got dumped by the time the models were released.

[Il Grifone]

The new chassis was completely re-engineered. I haven't seen any balance problems except when I induced them while I was fettling the front bogie mount to handle the larger wheels. The traction tires do make a huge difference in haulage, though.

 

 

 

The non-traction tire versions are very light-footed - the short clerestories that came with the recent Lord of the Isles set were lighter than the original Triang ones (lighter glazing, no bogie rivet, etc). On the flat, with wide curves, LOTI could just about handle six of them without too much slipping.

 

 

 

I'm guessing that they made them flat sided to facilitate machine printing of the panelled scheme. The Triang clerestories were, until recently*, only released in single or two-colour schemes (which could be sprayed) with minimal printing.

 

*The Thomas 'Old Slow Coach' is a recent exception.

 

Adrian

 

I assume later versions of the coaches had pinpoint bearings, which would help considerably compared to Tri-ang's plain bearings.

 

('Old Slow Coach' is rather an insult. 'City of Truro' would have been hauling coaches of this type in 1904!* They were reputed to ride extremely well. It's rather useful reissue - a selection of GWR thirds can be made from these - pity about the face on the end!)

 

Perhaps the 'modelling slump was due to penny pinching like this and not the other way round? I'm sure I'm not alone in not buying them, because of the lack of mouldings. ( I did acquire a spare body later on with the intention of updating my ancient CCW 1st/3rd (ex 1st/2nd). Still on the 'to do' list.

 

 

*mail vans actually

[Adrian Wintle]

Perhaps the 'modelling slump was due to penny pinching like this and not the other way round? I'm sure I'm not alone in not buying them, because of the lack of mouldings.

 

You can use them as a basis for the 247 Developments (ex-Bettabitz) etched sides, but that does require painting.

 

Adrian