RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted October 30, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 30, 2012 Judging by a picture of a liveried sample in the December issue of 'Model Rail' Hornby might have walked into one of the detail traps on their 72XX by producing a combination of features that wasn't seen on the real things. Nice illustration of 7229 in later emblem BR black livery and with a straight footplating over the cylinders/ a square drop end so quite correct for a loco from the second batch but with a the later pattern pattern of motion bar cross frame which is not correct for the second batch of locos; they retained the original Churchward pattern frame. I wonder how easy it will be to modify it or was this just an aberration in the sample I wonder? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold gwrrob Posted October 30, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 30, 2012 Judging by a picture of a liveried sample in the December issue of 'Model Rail' Hornby might have walked into one of the detail traps on their 72XX by producing a combination of features that wasn't seen on the real things. Nice illustration of 7229 in later emblem BR black livery and with a straight footplating over the cylinders/ a square drop end so quite correct for a loco from the second batch but with a the later pattern pattern of motion bar cross frame which is not correct for the second batch of locos; they retained the original Churchward pattern frame. I wonder how easy it will be to modify it or was this just an aberration in the sample I wonder? Mike .Is this the loco you mean ? http://albionyard.wordpress.com/2012/10/16/albion-yard-on-the-telly/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted October 30, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 30, 2012 Mike .Is this the loco you mean ? http://albionyard.wo...d-on-the-telly/ The very same Robin - and regrettably the erroneous cross frame is all rather obvious from that angle just as it is in a front three-quarter view. The problem is that this error can't be solved by renumbering, it is definitely a minor (I hope) surgical job. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iL Dottore Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 ... Nice illustration of 7229 in later emblem BR black livery and with a straight footplating over the cylinders/ a square drop end so quite correct for a loco from the second batch but with a the later pattern pattern of motion bar cross frame which is not correct for the second batch of locos; they retained the original Churchward pattern frame. I wonder how easy it will be to modify it or was this just an aberration in the sample I wonder? Looking at the Hornby website photos using their magnifying thingy, it would appear that the motion bar cross frame is a separate part that fits into a locating hole in the body, so it should be easy enough to replace. Presumably either by an after market etched part or by a suitable Hornby part from one of their other GWR locos. As much as we would wish to have it 100% accurate, a model that is about 100% accurate for most of its' variations and about 90 - 95 % accurate for the remainder, I think is certainly very acceptable. Especially if you consider that to get every variation 100% accurate would require an investment in manufacturing that Hornby may not be able to recoup or justify. It is likely that the majority of purchasers will not note the discrepancy (I certainly didn't until I read your informative posts, Mike) and - if I may be so bold - perhaps if you are an informed enough modeller to notice such discrepancies, you are an expert enough modeller to correct them. Furthermore, given the contrary nature of many railway modellers, if a manufacturer would issue a model of locomotive X that is a 100% accurate representation of the locomotive as seen at Paignton on July 14th 1957 at 14:50, I'm sure that there'd be people saying ".... well it's not accurate for September 23rd 1957, because.... ) I for one can live with this discrepancy and I certainly won't be hacking away at mine (although I'm modelling GWR era - so these discrepancies may not be relevant). Besides at my age and with my eyesight, as it goes whizzing 'round my layout I wouldn't able to see difference... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold gwrrob Posted October 31, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 31, 2012 My retailer today reckons these will just hit the shops in time for Christmas . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted October 31, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 31, 2012 Looking at the Hornby website photos using their magnifying thingy, it would appear that the motion bar cross frame is a separate part that fits into a locating hole in the body, so it should be easy enough to replace. Presumably either by an after market etched part or by a suitable Hornby part from one of their other GWR locos. On the Service Sheet it is shown as part of the body (which is not a spare part nor are any of the sub-mouldings which go to make it except the buffers). So I don't know if that route would work but a plasticard version might be ok if the other one can be cutaway cleanly enough. As much as we would wish to have it 100% accurate, a model that is about 100% accurate for most of its' variations and about 90 - 95 % accurate for the remainder, I think is certainly very acceptable. Especially if you consider that to get every variation 100% accurate would require an investment in manufacturing that Hornby may not be able to recoup or justify. It is likely that the majority of purchasers will not note the discrepancy (I certainly didn't until I read your informative posts, Mike) and - if I may be so bold - perhaps if you are an informed enough modeller to notice such discrepancies, you are an expert enough modeller to correct them. Furthermore, given the contrary nature of many railway modellers, if a manufacturer would issue a model of locomotive X that is a 100% accurate representation of the locomotive as seen at Paignton on July 14th 1957 at 14:50, I'm sure that there'd be people saying ".... well it's not accurate for September 23rd 1957, because.... ) Apart from what might have happened with chimneys and safety valve casings (??) the 42XX and the 5205 look to be very good, they've even got the correct rear bufferbeam difference on the 5205. And the other 72XX (the first series version) also looks good - and happens to be the one I need to create a specific loco which I saw on a particular day 50 years and one month ago (not that I've got the exact date but I managed to take a pic of it so I know just what it looked liked at that time-ish ). I don't honestly know if I've got the skill needed to make an unnoticeable job of correcting what looks like it might appear in the shops as Hornby's error (and it was a pre-prod so it might not come onto the market in that state?) on the other 2-8-2T but it might not matter as I am in any case far more interested in 2-8-0Ts in multiple than I am in the 2-8-2T. My point really is that it looks to me as if a very presentable 'ship' might be spoiled for a ha'porth of tar, which seems to me to be a pity rather than some sort of grave transgression. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold gwrrob Posted October 31, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 31, 2012 My point really is that it looks to me as if a very presentable 'ship' might be spoiled for a ha'porth of tar, which seems to me to be a pity rather than some sort of grave transgression. I blame Hornby totally for not taking you on board in the development of these classes of locos.I bet you've forgot more than they know on this subject Mike. What number is your specific loco then ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted October 31, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 31, 2012 I blame Hornby totally for not taking you on board in the development of these classes of locos.I bet you've forgot more than they know on this subject Mike. What number is your specific loco then ? I know your game Robin - anything for a pic of a GW engine So here it is - at Severn Tunnel Jcn shed in early September and in store although very recently ex-works and nice shiny paintwork - 7212 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted October 31, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 31, 2012 And whilst I'm passing the scanner here's 4265 at Newport with a Llanwern iron ore train from Newport Docks - one 2-8-0T on the front and another on the back. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold gwrrob Posted October 31, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 31, 2012 Cabside plates available here sir. http://www.modelmast...P_7000_7999.php Fox do them but are dearer and I know you like to watch the pennies. A nice colour photo of 7212 here too. http://www.colour-rail.com/Preview.aspx?ImgRef=71623 and a b/w one here http://www.colour-rail.com/Preview.aspx?ImgRef=4783 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iL Dottore Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 My point really is that it looks to me as if a very presentable 'ship' might be spoiled for a ha'porth of tar, which seems to me to be a pity rather than some sort of grave transgression. I think that's a bit harsh Mike, 100% perfect she may not be, but hardly spoiled (and to be brutally frank, I think that the OO gauging of the wheel sets is far more an egregious transgression, but generally goes unremarked), although I do know how annoying it can be when you know how something should be, but it is isn't done quite right... not badly, but not correctly either (like using gruyere for a Welsh Rabbit...) As for real "slap it together and flog it to the gullible punters" models, try collecting model ambulances (as I once did). With the honourable exception of Dinky and Corgi (and one or two others) most model car manufacturers took most anything from their range with 4 wheels, sprayed it white, slapped on a few red crosses and called the result an "ambulance", in comparison an anachronistic motion bar cross frame is a minor niggle indeed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Metr0Land Posted November 3, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 3, 2012 A mobile phone pic of 7229 at Wycrail today. Other 72xx and 42xx's on display which I didn't snap. To someone like me who doesn't really know all the detail differences between individual class members it looks pretty good. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffalo Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 Given that Hornby have clearly put a lot of effort into getting the details correct, I'm surprised that they have made such a basic error. The differences at the front of the three groups of 72XX are well documented in the usual reference works and just a couple of minutes with Google will find examples of all three types. The differences and the reasons behind them have been described here and elsewhere but can be summarised by reference to a few photos. Here is a picture of 7229, one of the second group (7220-39). Hornby have managed to get the straight running plate with the square drop at the front end correct, but the part of the motion bracket above the running plate is wrong. This is the plate immediately in front of the tanks that provides a support for the boiler. On the prototype it is a flat plate with a curved outer edge reaching about half the height of the tanks. On the model it is much lower and has a prominent flange on the top. Mike's picture in #213 above shows 7212 and this page shows many photos of the restoration of 7202. Both of these are from the first group (7200-19). These have the motion bracket as on the model, but the running plate is swept up over the cylinders with a curved drop in front and behind. This photo of 7248, one of the third group (7240-53), shows a mix of the two styles, curved running plate with flat motion plate. Clearly Hornby have all the right parts, they appear to have the correct motion bracket on the 42XX models, but they just need to put them together in the right way. Nick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 I blame Hornby totally for not taking you on board in the development of these classes of locos.I bet you've forgot more than they know on this subject Mike. The late Albert Goodall described a similar problem of interpretation when Hornby were developing the rebuilt "MN" and original Light Pacifics, and I think they had consulted him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold gwrrob Posted November 3, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 3, 2012 I see these loco's today one thing that struck me was how light they were and could not see them pulling too many wagons, I hope this issue is addressed with the production version or it's a ballasting job to be done internally when purchased. Regards 81C That would be disappointing as my similar Bachmann 56xx is a good hauler. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Bigcheeseplant Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 looking at the models at Wycombe today none of versions have sprung buffers, Simon K said this would put £10 on the price David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 ... - at Severn Tunnel Jcn shed in early September and in store although very recently ex-works and nice shiny paintwork - 7212 Interesting the way the top feed and safety valve cover has not only been removed, but then left balanced on the suitcase handle. Could that be to stop water collecting in it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Metr0Land Posted November 3, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 3, 2012 looking at the models at Wycombe today none of versions have sprung buffers, Simon K said this would put £10 on the price David I don't understand that. I had 2 of the lovely Thompson coaches arrive this week which are sprung buffered. Pre-order price from hattons was £28 + p/p. Is it so much more expensive to put them on locos? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted November 3, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 3, 2012 I remain impressed with these locos and SK explained today that they are geared down to run at scale speed (whatever that might be?) with very good haulage capabilities - we will no doubt see what that means in practice once they reach us but it sounds very encouraging. I expressed my disappointment with the problem on 7229 to SK's assistant and she said that some detail changes remain to be made but didn't know if that was one of them - bit galling really as not only are differences relatively easily researched as Nick (Buffalo) has said above but months ago I sent SK a copy of the thread I had started on here looking at the differences in detail and he replied to say it had been passed on to the design team. As far as I'm concerned lack of sprung buffers is not the end of the earth and might not be too difficult to deal with; I suspect that in some respects Hornby have worked to what they think is a marketable price level and as the locos are sell out (from Hornby to retailers) before they've even landed he might have a point? Overall the locos look pretty good and seem to have captured the prototypes quite well notwithstanding the error (at this stage) on 7229. They are hopeful that the 2-8-0Ts will arrive before Christmas but seem to think it likely that the 2-8-2Ts will be a bit later. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted November 3, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 3, 2012 Interesting the way the top feed and safety valve cover has not only been removed, but then left balanced on the suitcase handle. Could that be to stop water collecting in it? More likely I reckon that someone forgot to put it back after doing some work on the safety valves - the covers were not always a very tight fit so I doubt water would collect in them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Nevard Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 Some of the engines at Wycrail were pre-release dummies. If they're the same ones that were at Model Rail LIve in September, a couple of them didn't even have motors in them (only the black 72xx did if I recall correctly, and that's the one Mr PMP was luckly for borrow for a while) and were a little bashed about from handling - hence the light weight. Hornby know what they're doing I'm sure, and will do their best not to disappoint. I can just see a 72xx and a 42xx trundling along Cement Quay in its new pre-68 guise. Proper judgement must be reserved for the production models when they arrive. Can't wait personally! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.A.C Martin Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 looking at the models at Wycombe today none of versions have sprung buffers, Simon K said this would put £10 on the price David Spares for the Hornby B1's bufferbeam and tender buffers - which are a separate plug in item, including the sprung buffer and the shank it sits in - regularly exchange hands on eBay for around £2. Hornby went to great lengths to tool up these buffer types instead of their usual design fare (where the buffer shanks are moulded into the bufferbeam, like on the A3, A4, where the shanks are integral to the moulding of the bufferbeam and streamlined casing) so that they could be used on the L1, B1 and seemingly the O1, but have elected to not do this for the 72xx/42xx where the buffer is, I thought, standard GW fare and therefore could use the tooling available from the 28xx? The model looks absolutely excellent, and I am sure is not just going to be a sell-out, but in high demand beyond that of any GW models we've seen for years, but that particular design choice mystifies me. It's not "bad" - just not something I understand. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iL Dottore Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 looking at the models at Wycombe today none of versions have sprung buffers, Simon K said this would put £10 on the price David I wonder how easy it would be to adding springs to the buffers? A minor modification involving removing the buffer head and drilling out the shank, or something more extensive (up to and including fitting new buffers) On the other hand, if your rolling stock has sprung buffers, then wouldn't that be sufficient? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted November 5, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 5, 2012 Alan Gibson does self-contained sprung buffers for a fiver for a set of 4 - assuming the Hornby heads/shanks can fairly easily be pulled out then it should be a simple-ish cut, shave to level, assemble and fit job if you want/need sprung buffers. And in reality you only need them if you are using screw/3 link couplings - so whilst you're doing those you might just as well do the buffers too perhaps? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Happy Hippo Posted November 5, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 5, 2012 Would everyone on this thread please stop trying to convince me that I should have a 72xx, as well as the 42xx I already have on order. I can feel myself wilting under the pressure, but really cannot justify a 72xx. If I could afford it, the choice from a modelling point of view would have to be another 42xx or a 5205. It's not fair! Every time I look at that pic of 7229, I start dribbling (from the mouth). Regards Richard Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.