42xx Hornby 42xx& 72xx - first glimpses

[7013]

One of my friends told me last night that the first 2-8-0T is due for release beginning of March along with a Star, drat! just when I thought it was safe to put my wallet away

[Guest Phil]

Very enticing shot Andy Y, thanks for sharing.

 

What is it with Hornby's obsession with shiny silver buffers ? Spangly silver belongs on Christmas trees, and if they are not sprung, some correct shape black plastic ones would be perfectly adequate. My preference would however be black sprung.

[melmerby]

Very enticing shot Andy Y, thanks for sharing.

 

What is it with Hornby's obsession with shiny silver buffers ? Spangly silver belongs on Christmas trees, and if they are not sprung, some correct shape black plastic ones would be perfectly adequate. My preference would however be black sprung.

If the loco is in shiny ex-works condition (as most RTR models are) the buffers would be shiny.  Most of such photos in Russell's volumes are like that.

 

Keith

[Sidecar Racer]

So if a class of 25 locos had a life of 40 years and during workshop maintainance had 30 differents modifications

on only some of these but others had 20 different modifications , just how many different variations are

 ( insert manufacter of choice ) supposed  to produce to keep every modeller happy ?

 

I'm sorry but I'm looking at the wider picture and I agree with iL Dottore , some people seem to expect a little

bit to much from the makers .

[OnTheBranchline]

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.

Glorious...

[buffalo]

Funny how pointing out minor errors in a model almost inevitably leads to this type of reaction.

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...

I hope you are not implying that I was being dishonest, or even economical with the truth. My post did not mention and was not about what the majority perceive. If folk are happy with it, that's fine by me.

...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 really don't see your point here. Did I say that I wasn't able to correct it? As to your recourse to that tired term of abuse, "armchair modeller", I prefer to call it research. After all, I can't start hacking the model before it arrives.

...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.

Did I say I wanted perfection straight out of the box? No, my view is just the same as yours, so why try to suggest otherwise? My list of issues was intended solely as a starting point for those who might wish to improve the 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?)...

Isn't this just repeating the same allegation which is entirely from your imagination and not backed by anything in my post?

 

...Putting my money where my mouth is, I for one will be addressing most of the shortcomings...

No doubt when you do, you will be grateful to those who have done the research and told you about them. Or, perhaps, you intend to indulge in a little armchair modelling?

 

So if a class of 25 locos had a life of 40 years and during workshop maintainance had 30 differents modifications

on only some of these but others had 20 different modifications , just how many different variations are

 ( insert manufacter of choice ) supposed  to produce to keep every modeller happy ?

 

I'm sorry but I'm looking at the wider picture and I agree with iL Dottore , some people seem to expect a little

bit to much from the makers .

Exaggerated imaginary figures add nothing to the credibility of your response. Again, did I say that I expected Hornby to correct these? No, but I think it is reasonable to expect them to include features that were on all prototypes and not to add those that were on none. However, it's probably too late now so it's down to what we as modellers can do.

 

Nick

[Matabiau]

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.

 

 

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

 

 

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

I can think of better things to lubricate with Bollinger, I shall be cracking open a bottle when my 42xx arrives! Come to think of it a bottle may be opened when my 2-BIL arrives too. 

[Sidecar Racer]

 What is imaginary about my scenario , the numbers might be wrong but the fact is over the years there

were modifications , and to different loco's at different times , so I feel it's safe to say that apart from when

they came out of the shops there were always going to be differences .

 

 

 

 

• 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.

 

 

 

 So If I read these few items correctly Hornby would still have to produce multiple models

to cover every variation made  to cover a time scale of many years , no portholes or shutters

for early versions but with for laterones , same with bunker backs , straight or with recess , lamp

protector or not ,some with something on the smokebox saddle , thats before we get to curved or

staight drop frames , type of rear frame extension and probably loads of other things too .

 

 So I polietly ask, just which spec should Hornby produce to keep everyone happy ??

 

 Answer is , they cant , so surely it is better to have the models we are getting than no models

at all .

 

 I'm at the age where I have'nt got the time or the inclination to worry about the last little

detail on things , if it looks okay from viewing distance than that works for me , I want to get my

layout finished and run some trains , not spend another 10 years worrying if I have it just as it

was on whatever day , week . month or year . I will be running locos that were no longer in existance

beside my Castles Halls and Kings in a 1930's setting .

 

 I  know some modellers will call me a heratic for this attitude , but then I dont have any problem with those

that do want to be more accurate and precise .

 

Further edit , photo 8 in post one of this thread , nice close up of the front of the 52xx . Should allay some

of your worries .

[robmcg]

While it's fine to want to run models and modify if desired, there is nothing wrong with wanting to get details right in initial production.

 

Hopefully most of the detail points raised in this thread will be addressed in production, where there are clear disparities between numbers chosen and exact configuration.   And such as lamp irons in the wrong place ought to be fixed, not sure if it would be so easy to remove porthole windows.

 

I wouldn't want to be a production planner!

 

Rob

[buffalo]

 What is imaginary about my scenario...

Quite frankly, most of it.

 

 So I polietly ask, just which spec should Hornby produce to keep everyone happy ??...

Why not read what I wrote rather than arguing against straw men? I've not suggested that they need to produce more variations. Those of us who care and have the ability will happily do that. Hornby seem to have done quite well, but there are some real errors. As I said they are mostly minor niggles. Some, though, are more serious than others, such as the combination of short bonnet, shutters and portholes. As far as I can tell, this combination would never have been seen together (at least until someone finds a photo). We have to accept that if you want a model of a particular engine at a particular time then some modelling aided by dated photos is probably required.

 

...Answer is , they cant , so surely it is better to have the models we are getting than no models

at all ...

Another straw man. Where does "have...no models at all" come from? As far as I can tell, Hornby do intend to release the models.

... I'm at the age where I have'nt got the time or the inclination to worry about the last little

detail on things , if it looks okay from viewing distance than that works for me , I want to get my

layout finished and run some trains , not spend another 10 years worrying if I have it just as it

was on whatever day , week . month or year . I will be running locos that were no longer in existance

beside my Castles Halls and Kings in a 1930's setting .

 

 I  know some modellers will call me a heratic for this attitude...

Fine, that is your prerogative and I'm not trying to convince you otherwise, or call you anything.

...but then I dont have any problem with those

that do want to be more accurate and precise ...

What then are you arguing about?

 

Further edit , photo 8 in post one of this thread , nice close up of the front of the 52xx . Should allay some of your worries .

I hope so, but it is a much earlier sample than that in Andy's recent photo.

 

Nick

[The Stationmaster]

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

I have the advantage of having seen rather more pics of it than you have Nick so taking your list (mine will appear at a later date)

1. The moulded smokebox door handles look awful but they should be fairly easy to remove and replace with something decent.

2. The rounded fronts of the top of the valve chests are there and don't look too bad

3. There do appear to be two incorrect spare lamp irons on one side - application of knife needed there again I think.

4. Safety valve cover definitely wrong for that loco in that condition (there is a published pic of 4283 in that livery, in colour!!)

5. No comment re cab shutters

6. I think Miss P is correct replating over (as a general process) but certainly I think it would have been done on this loco by 1931 (n.b the loco is definitely in post 1931 bodywork condition as it has a recessed bunker let alone the livery detail).

7. Not sure about the front without doing a lot of pic checking - certainly not one which has leapt out at me so far.

 

I do agree with you entirely about the peculiar mix of periods regarding detail - by the late 1930s (one or two features apart) the basic non-renewed 42XX had settled to a relatively stable condition appearance wise.  Bunker recesses were about but not universal, the upper lamp iron would be a later alteration as would bunker fenders (for those which got one, a real minefield), and changes of safety valve cover.  That period might not suit every GW modeller but it would still cover some of the locos for the rest of their working lives and be suitable for some in BR livery.

 

Most of the 'problems which have come to light so far are reasonably straightforward to sort - some of the few yet to come are in that category too although one will require a more creative approach .

[OnTheBranchline]

Is the spacing of "Great Western" on the 52xx accurate-ish?

[Hilux5972]

Any chance of a couple more pics Andy?

[The Stationmaster]

Is the spacing of "Great Western" on the 52xx accurate-ish?

I have somewhere a photo of, probably, 7202 not too long after arrival at Didcot GWS and when not too much had been done to it apart from the application of what I resume was paint stripper on one of the side tanks.  The stripper, or whatever, had removed or softened various layers of paint and in so doing had revealed the outline and position of the various emblems the loco had carried during its life - including different BR emblems in two different places - in other words not even the prototype was absolutely consistent notwithstanding painting instructions etc (and, of course, several different works applying their own standards in painting varying from Swindon's cheap-jack approach to the care lavished at Caerphilly - which actually still had a paint shop).

[buffalo]

Is the spacing of "Great Western" on the 52xx accurate-ish?

I can see why you are asking, the photo on Hornby's site does make it look rather too widely spaced (at least to my taste). Bear in mind Mike's point that they did vary and someone may well find a photo that corresponds with the model. That said, most of the clear photo's I've seen of 42XX, 5205 and 72XX in this livery have the words a little closer together. Typically, on the left hand side, the EAT is between the second and third columns of rivets, so a few inches further to the right than Hornby's version. The WEST is then between the fifth and sixth columns (which are more widely spaced), with the N before the seventh. Again, a few inches to the left of Hornby's version. This is from half a dozen different photos, so there's still plenty of scope for variation across the rest of the classes.

 

On the left hand side, the 'normal' arrangement appears to be:

. GR.EAT. . .WEST.ERN .  where '.' represents a column of rivets.

On the right it is:

. GR.EAT. .  W.EST.ERN.

 

My impression is that they usually avoided putting letters on lines of rivets so, in that respect, the Hornby photo looks wrong to me

 

Nick

 

edit: minor typo

[ed 66 plant]

Gentlemen,

                  It may be of some interest for you to see the conclusion I have come to reference my earlier inputs on the big tank thread.

Admittedly it reflects my selfish interests but hopefully it is relayed minus emotion and any malice.

I have a growing collection of predominantly Hornby exhibition standard models which generally look and run very well.

However I have just cancelled my preorder for R3128/7229 for the following reasons.

The specification originally communicated has changed it seems--

 

# no sprung buffers

 

# 3 pole and not the standard 5 pole motor

 

# moulded on detail like the smokebox door handle--this model conceived/promoted before the age of clever design has been caught up in the same.

 

Additionally it is possible that my chosen model may turn up with an incorrect motion bar bracket--as per recent pics circulated----I await a response on this matter from Hornby.

 

My requirement is for a heavy coal puller to operate between S.Wales and Salisbury  with the loco finished to the standard I have become accustomed to.

 

I have therefore switched my order to a 38xx tender loco and saved myself £25 in the process.

 

I readily agree that Hornby and others face an impossible task in trying to satisfy everbody in this.diverse market.

 

However they need to be clear and transparent on these matters---not forgetting of course that the ever revised delivery date has yet to be met.

 

It may be a hobby--my hobby ---but it is big business and it needs to be conducted professionally.

 

ps     I would be quite amenable to the idea of putting a realistic deposit up front in order to secure the development I needed.

I am also prepared to pay realistic money for the finish I need--being somewhat minus dexterous fingures.

 

Also minus any flannel--what a vast reservoir of knowledge --freely available on the Rmweb--what an interchange siding for use by supplier and customer base.

 

regards,

Ed 

[ed 66 plant]

sorry --fingers!!!!!

[Penrhos1920]

Any chance of a couple more pics Andy?

 

There used to be a time when Andy would have answered yes and the photos would have appeared.......

 

..but Andy has already answered this question in his earlier post.

[melmerby]

It's amazing how this thread has gone from "Amazing", "Awesome" and such praise to outright ridicule since the engineering samples Andy posted to start with, which look pretty well the same as the recent piccy of the production sample Andy posted recently!

 

You just can't please some people.

 

Keith

[melmerby]

 

 

I have therefore switched my order to a 38xx tender loco and saved myself £25 in the process.

 

 

The 38XX is hardly even in the same league as the 4200/5205/7200 tanks. It's an updated version of an old model put into the Railroad range and has even more flaws than the big tanks.

 

Keith

[Andy Y]

There used to be a time when Andy would have answered yes and the photos would have appeared.......

 

..but Andy has already answered this question in his earlier post.

 

In due course when we've selected which images are going in the printed version.

[The Stationmaster]

It's amazing how this thread has gone from "Amazing", "Awesome" and such praise to outright ridicule since the engineering samples Andy posted to start with, which look pretty well the same as the recent piccy of the production sample Andy posted recently!

 

You just can't please some people.

 

Keith

I think it is often the situation when it comes down to the wire Keith.  Overall I think it captures the shape well and looks like what it is meant to look like but it has one or two irritations and some downright silly errors which could have been corrected with a little bit of research (or even reading all the information I sent to Hornby - the 72XX will be the acid test on their interest in that!).  

 

But when we look at it at this end of the process and our hard won cash is about to be spent on the things the 'what's wrong' tends to get increased attention and we naturally tend to compare it with other recent steam loco models from the same brand (but maybe not the same factory, so what - that isn't our concern in most respects).  And when we see some top notch crystal clear pics we feast our eyes on them and are bound to be critical of what they contain if there is anything to be critical of - that's human nature I'm afraid.

 

Oh and despite my views I have not rung round cancelling any of the shed's worth I have on order - they'll be the best GW 8 coupled tanks we've got, especially for the money.

[gwrrob]

 

 

Oh and despite my views I have not rung round cancelling any of the shed's worth I have on order - they'll be the best GW 8 coupled tanks we've got, especially for the money.

 

I really hope so Mike and I'll blame Hornby totally if they're not because I said months ago they should have taken you on board in some capacity with these.

[ed 66 plant]

Keith,

         I respectfully point out that the 38xx I refer to is a complete new tooling introduced by Hornby in 2010--i.e far superior to the old tender drive version--and of course complete with all refinements prior to any clever design moves.

Ed

[melmerby]

Keith,

         I respectfully point out that the 38xx I refer to is a complete new tooling introduced by Hornby in 2010--i.e far superior to the old tender drive version--and of course complete with all refinements prior to any clever design moves.

Ed

Ed

I was teasing a bit.

 

Being pedantic, I respectfully point out that the 38XX is an old design and I assume you mean the 2800/2884 series of models. (whatever Hornby choose to mislabel them!)

 

AFAIK The only 3800 that the GWR ever had was the 4-4-0 (now in the Railroad range), the 2-8-0 was always a 2800 or sometimes a 2884 if needing to differentiated between the later Collett version and earlier Churchward ones.

 

Keith