S.A.C Martin Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 I don't think anyone is suggesting Hornby puts all of its eggs in one basket. Far from it - the Railroad range is absolutely necessary for the survival of the company and the hobby I feel. But if something is going in the "main range" of Hornby, then the expectations of the modelling world are that it will match the trend set by Hornby of the last two decades. Good quality mechanism, excellent and accurate detail, and a well applied livery. Nobody here is decrying "design clever" particularly. The concern is that certain aspects of design clever may prove more difficult to rectify to modellers than it otherwise needs to be. When so many folk say they cannot do this or that, I wonder how many will be able to fit handrails to Hornby or etched brass smoke deflectors. It is not the simplest of tasks. I've done both: fitting handrails and also adding etched brass smoke deflectors, and I've also added pipework to replace moulded detail. The devil is in the finishing, and particularly if it's something like removing oversize boiler bands or moulded handrails. It's not easy and it never seems to get easier for me in anything but developing something of a routine for doing it. Same tools, fillers, wet'n'dry pads etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluebottle Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 The P2 - eyecatching to look at, and I expect most of them will end up in cabinets. Nothing wrong with that, but I'd have preferred something with a wider applicability. A number of us who had been wishing for a P2 in original form postulated that any design problems had been solved without the need for the bugatti style streamlining, that more had been built for use south of the border and that they hadn't been Thompsonised. This would excuse the appearance of P2s from Aberdeen to London, in different BR liveries. After all, those who insist on fidelity to reality would no doubt sniff at the four-coach trains which are all I have room for, so my grasp on reality is compromised in any case, and I've no intention of letting the mighty machine languish in a cabinet. Now, have I got time to master the airbrush? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold 57xx Posted December 19, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 19, 2012 And here lies the big question , this in the livery I'd prefer , or £108 + p&p from a well know shop for one in a livery that I'm not quite so keen on ? Brings us right back to how much are we prepared to pay for a model that meets all our needs as opposed to one that is 'almost ' there . I had the same dilemma In a rare moment I ignored my usual bargain hunting instinct and I opted to support the Steam Museum and ordered Lode Star. One thing I've not seen specifically mentioned is that as well as being a Steam Exclusive, it's a limited edition run of 1000, mine being #11. Geoff Davies at Steam was extremely happy to have already sold 10 in the first day (yesterday)! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WRMSOliverM Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 I'm really glad Hornby are producing alot of new Railroad models this year. Hornby can really become the brand for all ages from Thomas to Tornado is they try. I hope to see that range grow even more ofver the next few years. A large tank engine, like a BR standard,a radial tank or a SR W or a Balatic, would be great for people who are beggining in the hobby beacuse it gives them a realidtic steapping stone into the hobby and provides the modeller a chance to build up wheel araangements they remembert traveling behind. The range, I feel, aslo needs medium sized coaches to a complement a large tank engine as well as to get rid of the 'top link' feel of the current railroad coaching stock. Coaches such as suburbans or SE&CR bogie coaches. I think a DMU would provide a much needed addition to the Railroad range too. I t could be a 110 class because Hornby already have the toolings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 I didn't find handrails too difficult (but my eyes and hands were a lot younger back then) but the critical thing is the matter of paintwork. The latter was no problem on the pannier tanks I titivated (in pre Mainline/Bachmann days) but green liveried locos with lining were a different kettle of fish. I mentioned it because of all the places to fit handrails, smoke deflectors ain't the easiest (paintwork is the least of the problems). The wire handrails have to be bent in two directions, downwards and inwards to match the curve of the deflectors. Then there is the small matter of drilling holes without them being cock-eyed. The backs of the handrail knobs need to be filed off too. Poorly modelled handrails can so easily detract from the look of a model and I suspect people will learn to live with moulded handrails on smoke deflectors rather than take risks. It was one area I was glad Bachmann and Hornby factory fitted them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Belgian Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 I mentioned it because of all the places to fit handrails, smoke deflectors ain't the easiest (paintwork is the least of the problems). The wire handrails have to be bent in two directions, downwards and inwards to match the curve of the deflectors. Then there is the small matter of drilling holes without them being cock-eyed. The backs of the handrail knobs need to be filed off too. Poorly modelled handrails can so easily detract from the look of a model and I rather suspect people will learn to live with moulded handrails on smoke deflectors than will chose to replace them. It's nice for us Southern modellers, as neither Maunsell nor Bulleid put handrails on the deflectors*: if we ever get an S15 there won't be a problem there! JE *The Rebuilt Bulleids weren't Bulleid's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OFFTHE RAILS Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 There were actually two styles of outside steam pipes, the difference depending on which of two different saddles were used when cylinders were replaced. Both the Knight and the Abbey have the correct 'elbow' type that curves inwards to the inner cylinders. Other engines of the class had pipes like those on the Castle class that go to the outside cylinders. So, not only a choice, but some traps for the unwary if you choose to rename/renunumber them. Nick I thought that the steam pipes represented on the Hornby Star choices were those fitted when the inside cylinders were replaced with a more modern type. The "Castle" type steam pipes were fitted when the outside cylinders were replaced with more modern versions. Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robmcg Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 With highly detailed models being built with less labour input at the factory, but optionally more by a buyer, this might mean that the 2001-2012 RTR 00 era might been seen as a particularly good one for models which abound in separately fitted-details, at low cost? I am not talking of a 'night and day' type of change here, but a general trend whereby keeping models at an acceptable price level there will be a move like that envisaged by the P2 and DoG. Optional detail packs for the buyer of detailed version. This is fine so long as the base model is of a high standard. This is in my view where 'intelligent design' has meaning. Hats off to Hornby. I want super-detail add-ons to replicate the inside cylinders above the front wheels/bogies of Castles and Stars please. Or make my own... Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium 2ManySpams Posted December 19, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 19, 2012 Good point, and for a moment I thought too that maybe Hornby were producing Braunton in "as preserved" condition. But Braunton currently has a tender borrowed from Merchant Navy 35027 Port Line, which is much longer, and certainly isn't the cut down WC 4500 gallon tender shown on Hornby's web site picture. Also, the Braunton team are building the correct 5250 gallon rebodied tender which it ran with in BR days. (or should this be a 5500 gallon, there seems to be some confusion here). Edit : I've just seen photos of the real Braunton dated November 2012, and it now has the correct rebodied tender. Just had a look at the Hornby PDF linked in the OP. 34046 is certainly pictured attached to a 4500gal cut down tender. Just had a look at my Bulleid tender notes (Derry / Albert Goodall etc) and as far as I can work out this loco had a raved 4500gal tender until rebuilt in Feb 1959, after which it's original tender was rebodied with larger 5250gal capacity tanks. On this basis it doesn't look like the Hornby model represents a pre-preservation condition. Did the preserved 34046 have a 4500gal cut down tender at any stage? Now if Hornby did do this loco with the, as yet, un-produced 5250gal tender I'm sure it would be a very popular alternative for renumbering and tender swaps. Food for thought Simon? And for those wondering what the fuss is about... this link shows how the 5250gal tender looks (It's a Wrenn metal version). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffalo Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 I thought that the steam pipes represented on the Hornby Star choices were those fitted when the inside cylinders were replaced with a more modern type. The "Castle" type steam pipes were fitted when the outside cylinders were replaced with more modern versions. Ian That's right, my wording wasn't too clear. The inside 'elbow' type were fitted when either the saddle or the inside cylinders, or both, were replaced but the old outside cylinders were retained. Those built before 1910 had a different saddle with a different exhaust arrangement. What I haven't been able to work out is whether many of these had their saddles replaced together with the inside cylinders. The Castle type pipes were fitted when the outside cylinders were replaced. The odd thing is that only two engines appear to have seen both changes, it was one or the other, or none. Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Captain Kernow Posted December 19, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 19, 2012 And each department and area has their own name and terms for things too! You should have seen the look on the area's Operation Manager when described various items using my familiar p-way terms! There's nothing wrong in encouraging the 'correct' terminology, James, of course there isn't. But in fairness, there's a time and a place for everything, eh? PS. I've seen a few what you might term 'model railway terms' being used by professional railwaymen, so it works both ways! (PPS. I think they may be secret modellers - don't tell anybody!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Prism Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 To illustrate Nick's point, 'Castle' steam pipes required Castle cylinder sets (with their raised casings), as on 4040, as early as 1932, but elbow steam pipes used mid-period Star cylinder sets with their traditional lower casing, as on 4018 c 1938. The choice of Lode Star from Steam Swindon is understandable, but Hornby's choice of 4018 is surprising, since the Hornby front end inside cylinder casting is not correct for either of them. Churchward buffers would probably have been a better choice for the whole range. The flush-riveted 3500g tender is a nice new feature though, even with the wrong buffers. Note the 4018 pic above has a short safety valve and is running with a riveted tender in 1932, but I presume Hornby has a photograph proving its version. Prototype choice can be a bit of a minefield, the Princesses having special fluted rods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
APOLLO Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 Yes I know things like the BP have sold out at the factory, and maybe things like the Heljan Beyer-Garrett will do, but in this climate I don’t think a volume player like Hornby would be right to keep all its eggs in high-price high-fidelity. MetrOland above raises some good points, especially the above. All the major manufacturers have large ranges, and thus batch produce models. Some will be re-run (like the Railroad Black 5 now again availiable) - and some won't, and some may-be but who knows if / when. Will the BP (Blue Pullman) have a re-run ? A case in point - I intend to make a small Cromford & High Peak layout in a while. Hattons had the Hornby J94 on offer at £40 a while ago. I got two, as they are also a suitable loco for my current layout. Once they are gone it may be a long wait, and certainly they won't be the £40 bargain anymore. The Hornby O1 seems to be selling fast. limited stocks at Hattons allready on the one version I desire. I am saving for one. Will they be getting more in soon ?. Shall I get one now or will they still have some in February ?. Are they getting any more once they are gone ? If so when ? Will they be the same price ? Now I know such questions cannot easilly be answered, laws of supply & demand etc, but us modellers are a funny lot. Not like shopping for sausages & socks. No alternatives will do if what you want is a O1, J94, DOG, P2, 2BIL etc, in a specific livery etc. Yes, there are currently somesome good offers also on stock that has not sold well, Heljan 47's and Bachman MK 2 coaches in Maroon & Green etc (Hattons). Get em while you can as these slow sellers will never be repeated, especially at these prices. I intend to pre order a Railroad P2 & DOG in the new year as I think they will both be a sell out, in both ranges too. By the way I think Hornby has lost the plot price wise with their diesel locos, as nice as they are. Brit15 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold gwrrob Posted December 19, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 19, 2012 To illustrate Nick's point, 'Castle' steam pipes required Castle cylinder sets (with their raised casings), as on 4040, as early as 1932, but elbow steam pipes used mid-period Star cylinder sets with their traditional lower casing, as on 4018 c 1938. The choice of Lode Star from Steam Swindon is understandable, but Hornby's choice of 4018 is surprising, since the Hornby front end inside cylinder casting is not correct for either of them. Churchward buffers would probably have been a better choice for the whole range. The flush-riveted 3500g tender is a nice new feature though, even with the wrong buffers. Note the 4018 pic above has a short safety valve and is running with a riveted tender in 1932, but I presume Hornby has a photograph proving its version. Prototype choice can be a bit of a minefield, the Princesses having special fluted rods. Thats a cracking photo find there Miss P.Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 PS. I've seen a few what you might term 'model railway terms' being used by professional railwaymen, so it works both ways! An interetsing example used to be at Scunny Steelworks - two types of common crossings, cast and fabricated. The fabricated were called 'built up corssings' and the cast, due to their American origins, were called 'frogs'! Even that annoyed me! But who am I to tell a six foot, twnety stone plate layer?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exet1095 Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 For details on Stars and their cylinder changes look at the relevant RCTS volume. The images shown are mock-ups, and I suspect the finished models will have been well-researched and matched to photographs. Anyway, I am sure that they will be better than my Crownline Airfix conversion, or the Hogwarts Castle/Grange boiler/County cab one that I am slowly converting. Maybe I will give it a Hawksworth tender as paired with Glastonbury Abbey (or was it Malmesbury?) not long before withdrawal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium New Haven Neil Posted December 19, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 19, 2012 But, but... Simon Kohler is real, isn't he? I mean, I've seen him at shows, standing at his special stall, attended to by his little helpers, and... Oh God. I see where I've been going wrong. Well, someone wrote a nicely judged reply to my email: it was certainly personalised and showed the content of my email had been read. How nice was that? Whoever did it! Paul I had the same experience, whoever replied was knowledgeable about the products, and took up on comments I had made, including asking for an expansion on one. So, Simon, or whoever, I was impressed and you have my respect. I tried dealing with FIAT UK this autumn over an issue with a VERY expensiv evehicle, and had a rather opposite response, so Hornby's response is refreshing IMHO. No connection etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Jackson Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 Well I voted for a P2 so it would be rude not to order one, but railroad or full fat version? BR Blue tornado looks promising. I'd like the large logo class 56 but it seems a lot of cash so maybe wait to see what discounts come from the box shifters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozzyo Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 If you rebuild it as per the prototype, there's an obvious opportunity to replace the offending handrails. I'm not sure what your saying here James as the prototype had a one piece handrail. As seen below. The second one of the class had separate smoke deflectors and a separate handrail on them. But when the first two were rebuilt this is how they looked, with a one piece handrail, just like an A4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roy P Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 Both please! RP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Delamar Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 to help improve the steaming issues for a time the duke was fitted with 4 square chimney pots.. 71000 'Duke of Gloucester' at CREWE WORKS 12 JUNE 66 by Railway Dave, on Flickr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.A.C Martin Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 So that is what a "P2" looks like Good or bad thoughts Mickey? They're one of the most elegant and well proportioned locomotive designs ever produced in my view. Of course looking at their record objectively, it's a somewhat disappointing tale with an unhappy ending, but in no.2007...well, I've said too much already. I suspect the choice of a P2 was not entirely a decision based on the wishlists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRAILRAGE Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Same motor bogie that's in the 5BEL remember... The lesson Hornby learnt from the 4VEP is that you should properly weight the motor bogie if it's going to be hauling more than a single carriage around. I must have been a lucky one when it came to the 4-VEP as mine works excellent fro a nice slow crawl to decent top speed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozzyo Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Maybe I will give it a Hawksworth tender as paired with Glastonbury Abbey (or was it Malmesbury?) not long before withdrawal. I've not seen a photo of a Star with a Hawksworth tender. But some of them that were rebuilt as Castles had them. When they were rebuilt some of them kept the joggled frames and some had new straight frames fitted. OzzyO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluebottle Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 ... The second one of the class had separate smoke deflectors and a separate handrail on them... The second P2, 2002 Earl Marischal did indeed have separate smoke deflectors, in addition to and outboard from the original deflectors. These were added because the piston valves fitted to this engine meant a relatively soft blast when working at short cut-offs, so the original deflectors were insufficient. However, the illustration at http://railphotoprin...279BD#h3f0279bd, at least, shows them without outer handrails. 2001, by the way, had poppet valves and a sharper blast. Don't think I have ever seen on before and the stream-lined version took a little getting used to..... The non streamliner is rather a handsome locomotive though Not quite accurate to describe 2001 as a “non-streamliner”. The outer casing of the boiler was ”air smoothed”, hiding the taper and the “banjo dome”. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.