42xx Hornby 42xx& 72xx - first glimpses

[The Stationmaster]

I've got one each of the 4200 & 5205 batches on order and just hope they match up to all the hype!

 

They'll arrive when then ready.

 

Keith

I don't know about the running but visually I think both of them are pretty good as I've said before - they look good in pics and they look good examined 'in the plastic' at close quarters - so I'm quite happy to have them pre-ordered (and they were very common in the South Wales Valleys if you get my drift ).

[Happy Hippo]

I eagerly await my 4266, but I fear that she will have to be joined quite quickly by a sister of the 5205 variety.

 

However, I have read, perhaps in the Hornby 2013 News thread, that they were going to be produced with unsprung buffers:

 

Visiting the Hornby website yesterday, the blurb on these locos does categorically state that they are fitted with sprung buffers!

 

My next purchase is going to have to be a very large quantity of mineral wagons.

 

Regards

 

Richard

 

Edit: It was Mike The Stationmaster who alluded to unsprung buffers in this thread on 18 Jan (#339).

[ed 66 plant]

Referring back to the point made earlier about incorrect 72XX detail--in particular the incorrect combination of the smaller Collett motion bar with straight drop over the cylinders.

The Hornby web site shows R3128/7229 with large Churchward motion bar + straight drop and R3127/7202 with small Collett motion bar  + curved drop.

I believe both are correct--I this so??

Can we also confirm that sprung buffers are fitted.

Thanks in advance,

Ed

[250BOB]

Referring back to the point made earlier about incorrect 72XX detail--in particular the incorrect combination of the smaller Collett motion bar with straight drop over the cylinders.

The Hornby web site shows R3128/7229 with large Churchward motion bar + straight drop and R3127/7202 with small Collett motion bar  + curved drop.

I believe both are correct--I this so??

Can we also confirm that sprung buffers are fitted.

Thanks in advance,

Ed

 

Sprung Buffers or No Sprung Buffers....that is the question!!!!!

 

I new I had read something about it on here.

 

Bob

[250BOB]

I eagerly await my 4266, but I fear that she will have to be joined quite quickly by a sister of the 5205 variety.

 

However, I have read, perhaps in the Hornby 2013 News thread, that they were going to be produced with unsprung buffers:

 

Visiting the Hornby website yesterday, the blurb on these locos does categorically state that they are fitted with sprung buffers!

 

My next purchase is going to have to be a very large quantity of mineral wagons.

 

Regards

 

Richard

 

Edit: It was Mike The Stationmaster who alluded to unsprung buffers in this thread on 18 Jan (#339).

That'll be post #399 and not #339

[The Stationmaster]

Referring back to the point made earlier about incorrect 72XX detail--in particular the incorrect combination of the smaller Collett motion bar with straight drop over the cylinders.

The Hornby web site shows R3128/7229 with large Churchward motion bar + straight drop and R3127/7202 with small Collett motion bar  + curved drop.

I believe both are correct--I this so??

Can we also confirm that sprung buffers are fitted.

Thanks in advance,

Ed

Well hopefully they have taken notice then - although I always take Hornby catalogue illustrations with about half of the underground part of the area not so far from Crewe  The only 7229 sample which has thus far been seen in public is definitely not correct - for any of the three variants of the class - as can be seen in this picture which was taken at Hornby's trade day last month and is posted on Kernow's Farcebook page

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=485006801540872&set=pb.207521425956079.-2207520000.1361128394&type=3&theater

 

For comparison here's pic of 7229 in GWR days

http://www.flickr.com/photos/64518788@N05/7991004889/sizes/l/

 

Similarly the trade samples which were about at the end of last year - and which could be seen and handled at various model railway exhibitions - also included an inaccurate 7229 and had fixed buffers, not sprung.

 

So maybe the 'further delay' isn't just down to the 'drop test' issue but also for tooling alterations on the BR 72XX, 7229 (which interestingly is the only one of the 8 coupled tanks seemingly not listed in the 2013 printed catalogue and Mr Kohler's assistant was a bit concerned when I pointed out to her at Wycrail that it was incorrect) - must say if that is the case then it's taken an awful long time for the information I sent to Hornby back in April to filter through to positive action on tooling.  Similarly are sprung buffers another late addition or a difference between the decorated samples - and earlier words of Hornby - and what will finally be delivered to us?  (and more importantly did I cancel my order for 7229 in vain??)

 

Anyway not to worry because in a month or so we might find out (and if the delay is a bit longer I'm not too worried as it will enable my wallet an opportunity to revive from the imminent onslaught from Dapol and Heljan (if the latter deliver the Gloucester parcels car as scheduled).

[Mike at C&M]

A quick update from the Hornby trade website as to expected dates 'into Margate'

 

R3123     GWR 42XX    week beginning 4th March

R3124     BR 42XX                                  25th March

R3125     GWR 52XX                              25th March

R3126     BR 52XX                                  25th March

R3127     GWR 72XX                              6th May

R3128     BR 72XX                                  25th March

[gwrrob]

A quick update from the Hornby trade website as to expected dates 'into Margate'

 

R3123     GWR 42XX    week beginning 4th March

R3124     BR 42XX                                  25th March

R3125     GWR 52XX                              25th March

R3126     BR 52XX                                  25th March

R3127     GWR 72XX                              6th May

R3128     BR 72XX                                  25th March

 

Any idea why the GWR liveried 72xx delivery date is 6 weeks later than the others.

[tomparryharry]

Any idea why the GWR liveried 72xx delivery date is 6 weeks later than the others.

Heavy General.....

 

Ian

[Mike at C&M]

Any idea why the GWR liveried 72xx delivery date is 6 weeks later than the others.

I could make a comment about them being "on a slow boat from China". (For those of a certain age, feel free to sing along... and yes I know it is a "Slow boat to China")

 

No obvious reason to my knowledge, but this is the time of year when the Chinese New Year can create production delays.

[ed 66 plant]

 Personally I would be very upset if the model I ordered did not turn up as per all the promotional literature/specification communicated by Hornby.

I decided after all to purchase the model based somewhat on the specification quoted. The supplier would be out of order to change this spec and then not communicate the change.

Bear in mind this was way before any move to "clever design" by Hornby.

I am also concerned  as to whether my ordered R3128/7202 is  going to appear with the incorrect small motion bracket--I sincerely hope not .

Is it possible to get to the bottom of this with Hornby?

If Hornby were to fail on either or both counts I would likely cancel my order.

This is not a case of " rivet counting" or in any way being anti Hornby--most of my locos are Hornby for a good reasons.

[The Stationmaster]

In view of what I posted above (No.415) I could see a possible reason for the BR 2-8-2 running later than the others but not t'other way about.  We'll just have to bide our time and see what turns up I think (7202 will in any case be welcome as far as I'm concerned as it will have to be renumbered, and that also means repainting so my only concern with 7229 is if they end up doing it correctly or use a lower running number and put BR livery on the other body in order to get it right.

 

And the bl**dy things are just as likely to be 'track sensitive' as the originals although Mr K says they aren't - again I shall wait and see).

[Andy Y]

They're not duty bound to announce a reason on these pages above any other 81C, such a combative stance is unlikely to coax anything out.

 

Anyway, more importantly there's good news that the 42s are getting closer as I've had a review sample running in this afternoon after a spell on the photo bench.

 

 

The full review will appear in BRM April.

 

 

[Hilux5972]

Looking at the service sheets on the Hornby website, The 42xx, 52xx, & 72xx locos will NOT have sprung buffers. Slightly Disappointing.

[gwrrob]

They're not duty bound to announce a reason on these pages above any other 81C, such a combative stance is unlikely to coax anything out.

 

Anyway, more importantly there's good news that the 42s are getting closer as I've had a review sample running in this afternoon after a spell on the photo bench.

 

21s.jpg

 

The full review will appear in BRM April.

 

Any chance of borrowing it for an afternoon Andy.Haulage test etc.

[The Fatadder]

Have Hornby continued from the 28xx with a representation of the frames / inside motion?

[Andy Y]

The 42xx, 52xx, & 72xx locos will NOT have sprung buffers. Slightly Disappointing.

 

Correct, but I would question the concern unless you operate using 3 links or similar - most of the customers will run as is with tension locks and then it wouldn't matter if they were lubricated with Bollinger, let alone sprung.

 

Any chance of borrowing it for an afternoon Andy.Haulage test etc.

 

I shall make sure it's in the car in 3 weeks.

 

Have Hornby continued from the 28xx with a representation of the frames / inside motion?

 

There's a cavity but no representation. It's certainly not as clearly visible on these due to the side tanks.

[Horsetan]

Looking at the service sheets on the Hornby website, The 42xx, 52xx, & 72xx locos will NOT have sprung buffers. Slightly Disappointing.

 

I wouldn't worry. You can substitute the set from the 28xx; these are available as spares.

[Miss Prism]

The cab porthole windows would have been plated over by 1924/5.

Edit: The above is not correct. 1924 was probably the date when porthole plating began. On the 42xx, the bulk of porthole plating probably took place in the late '20s, although a couple of locos are reported to still have them in 1936.

[buffalo]

Andy's photo makes the 42XX look quite promising, though the wiggly footplate makes it look like it's been in a collision. I've a feeling someone else noticed that with an earlier pre-production sample. A few minor niggles, though:

• The moulded smokebox door handles will have to go but, like the buffers, will be easy to replace for those who wish to.
• There's no sign of the round front of the valve chests where they should be visible on the square step.
• It looks like there are some superfluous lamp irons on the right hand side of the smokebox saddle, these should only be  on the left hand side.
• More disappointing is the short safety valve bonnet. Not impossible, but unlikely on a mid-thirties engine.
• The cab side shutters are again something that will limit the possible date range, making it difficult to backdate beyond the early thirties.
• Not sure of the date when the portholes were plated over, but most likely in the twenties, so these will be wrong for every model Hornby have said they will produce.
• I think that some, at least, had an oil reservoir or something of similar shape on the front of the smokebox saddle.

At least the top lamp iron is in the right place...

 

Nick

[iL Dottore]

Andy's photo makes the 42XX look quite promising, though the wiggly footplate makes it look like it's been in a collision. I've a feeling someone else noticed that with an earlier pre-production sample. A few minor niggles, though:

• The moulded smokebox door handles will have to go but, like the buffers, will be easy to replace for those who wish to.
  
• There's no sign of the round front of the valve chests where they should be visible on the square step.
  
• It looks like there are some superfluous lamp irons on the right hand side of the smokebox saddle, these should only be  on the left hand side.
  
• More disappointing is the short safety valve bonnet. Not impossible, but unlikely on a mid-thirties engine.
  
• The cab side shutters are again something that will limit the possible date range, making it difficult to backdate beyond the early thirties.
  
• Not sure of the date when the portholes were plated over, but most likely in the twenties, so these will be wrong for every model Hornby have said they will produce.
  
• I think that some, at least, had an oil reservoir or something of similar shape on the front of the smokebox saddle.
  

At least the top lamp iron is in the right place...

 

Nick

All very well and good, and something for the modeller to correct if he/she so desires, but IF you were to be completely honest, these "errors" will not be noticed (or cared about) by the majority of modellers. Quite frankly, given my age and eye-sight (fairly typical of the modelling fraternity, I'd say), from 3ft away on a layout, I wouldn't notice these things, and I do try and get things 100% correct.

 

Yes, for those in the know, the sample pictured will require some modification to suit certain periods, but come on guys, if you are that attentive to fine detail, wouldn't you also have the skills to correct things (otherwise - I'm sorry to say - aren't you just another type of "armchair modeller"?)

 

I confess to being a bit impatient with those who expect perfection straight out of the box.... to my mind if you are a railway modeller what comes out of the box is just the basis for what finally ends up on the layout.

[Ozexpatriate]

... most of the customers will run as is with tension locks and then it wouldn't matter if they were lubricated with Bollinger, let alone sprung.

No indeed, even considering the inestimable pleasures of being lubricated with Bollinger (or anyone's favourite appellation for that matter).

[Guest Belgian]

All very well and good, and something for the modeller to correct if he/she so desires, but IF you were to be completely honest, these "errors" will not be noticed (or cared about) by the majority of modellers. Quite frankly, given my age and eye-sight (fairly typical of the modelling fraternity, I'd say), from 3ft away on a layout, I wouldn't notice these things, and I do try and get things 100% correct.

 

Yes, for those in the know, the sample pictured will require some modification to suit certain periods, but come on guys, if you are that attentive to fine detail, wouldn't you also have the skills to correct things (otherwise - I'm sorry to say - aren't you just another type of "armchair modeller"?)

 

I confess to being a bit impatient with those who expect perfection straight out of the box.... to my mind if you are a railway modeller what comes out of the box is just the basis for what finally ends up on the layout.

I think you're being a bit unfair on Nick. He's merely pointing out certain characteristics of the model which could be a nuisance to some people, excluding you. I think the point is that when a manufacturer goes so far in making a model 'correct' the tiny little details which get omitted or are plain wrong become far more irritating as they could so easily have been correct from the ground up.

 

And 'Armchair modellers' are just as entitled to an opinion and the right to express it as anyone else, without being sneered at.

 

JE

[iL Dottore]

I didn't (and don't) mean to disparage Nick, he makes very valid points and certainly, as I certainly do aim to get things as accurate as possible, I agree that such minor errors are regrettable and it would be nice to have minimal or no revision of such an otherwise good model.

 

However, the point I wanted to make (and did so rather inelegantly) is that if you are knowledgable enough to know about such things I believe it should go hand in hand with a willingness and readiness to correct the errors found (as far as is humanly possible). Otherwise, I think what we have is something other than railway modelling (perhaps railway history or documentation?).

 

My other point, also made inelegantly, is that the majority of Hornby's market will accept a model with minor imperfections, if the overall look is right. And I would argue that a majority of these neither know or care about the detail differences ("A 72XX is a 72XX is a 72XX" as Gertrude Stein might have said).

 

Putting my money where my mouth is, I for one will be addressing most of the shortcomings (with, perhaps, maybe, the exception of the short safety bonnet [not sure yet]), even though I still won't be able to see the difference from 3ft as it whizzes by me...

[Siberian Snooper]

Even the PDK kit for the 42xx, you get lumbered with the cab side shutters as there is no etched detail where they locate, just a plain area for you to solder the shutters ,the runners are etched on the cab sides.

 

So it looks as if you want to model the pre shutter period it's back to scratch building or at the very least manufacturing cab and tank sides.

 

SS