Hornby's 2013 Announcements

[Dunsignalling]

 

If only more people got this!!!

 

By your user name, an ex-signaller?

Yes indeed

[The Black Hat]

 

Can you really say only a J72 really represents the entire region? Plenty of other North Eastern Region based and indiginous (sp?) types are available. As it comes the Mainline/Bachmann J72 only represents the very last few North Eastern Railway built locos - it needs a surprising amount doing to it to back date it! I'm sure a J21 has some mileage in it - it'll score well in the 'pretty stakes'. Though I think the J26/7 would be a better choice.

 

The North Eastern Railway isn't well represented by RTR but then again, the same applies to most pre-grouping companies. This is only changing now and then seems to be driven by what's preserved.

The answer is yes. Easily. Apart from the J72, there is nothing indigenous for an entire British Railways Region. As Hornby are known to look at areas in a scope its obvious that this area is crying out for development and that it would result in a great many areas of operation that would spur interest and further sales of engines of a broader spectrum. Yes you can buy an A4, A3, B1 and O1 from Hornby but these are region wide machines and would suit anywhere - most are made for somewhere else thats targeted while it happens some served up north. The tell-tale sign is the amount of region wide machines ever released with a North Eastern shedcode. Those are few and far between, although Hornby might buck the trend with L1 67777 which was a Darlington machine for years.

 

Theres nothing special to make the north east stand out. Hornby would do well to go for the K1 that many predicted and really want, while following it up with a G5 as it ties in with their idea of building the new build projects and it would really suit all those coaches. Somehow I see the J21 and Q6 coming from the blue box company as they seek out another pregrouping 0-6-0 and a heavy freight machine. That gives you a mixed traffic engine and freight for both comapnies and examples that suit their range. The J27 I would think would follow afterwards, but thats assuming the North East doesnt remain forgotten.

[Michael Delamar]

Front cover of the 2013 Hornby catalogue.

  

 

 

[Graham_Muz]

Mike

 

Check the pictures on the 71000 trust's site here http://www.71000trust.com/history.html and you will find that the model is correct to the prototype and that the steps were indeed at an angle.

[The Stationmaster]

 

 

 

I often think how much fun it would be now to have an 'anything goes' kind of layout again...

 

As I seem to have noticed an a layout 'which need not be named' at an exhibition when passing trains included one hauled by a blue tank engine with the number 1 on its side and bearing a remarkable resemblance to an engine which appeared in a series of books aimed at younger readers.   

[Michael Delamar]

you where quick Graham I checked that and edited it

[newbryford]

Front cover of the 2013 Hornby catalogue.

  

 Hornby cat.JPG

 

 

Despite reading through most of this thread - I may have missed it - but what era is DoG aimed at? As built, as rebuilt/preserved? Which tender? Modified (as preserved) tender - at least twice IIRC?

I ask this as I notice the yellow air reservoir pipe on the buffer beam.

 

Cheers,

Mick

[The Stationmaster]

Despite reading through most of this thread - I may have missed it - but what era is DoG aimed at? As built, as rebuilt/preserved? Which tender? Modified (as preserved) tender - at least twice IIRC?

I ask this as I notice the yellow air reservoir pipe on the buffer beam.

 

Cheers,

Mick

 

As currently preserved - I've seen that somewhere but can't recall where.

[Michael Delamar]

Excellent bit of archive footage from 1985 on the Duke website of the first time it was steamed in preservation..

 

 

[edcayton]

I re-awoke my Dad's interest by buying him a train set (a Grafar set with a standard 4 tank and three blood and custards) for his 66th birthday. He increased it with a pannier and some goods stock and got a lot of fun out of it. One of my better moves

 

Ed

[byron]

I have enjoyed reading this topic, some very good points raised, but I have noticed huge gaps! It is all well and good to discuss "design clever" and wibble on about seperate or molded fittings, but why bother when there are such great gaps between loco & tender and between each item of rolling stock.

Now that loco and tender are one unit, there is no excuse for the massive gap. My Fleischmann class 50 has close coupling between loco & tender and still negotiates Fleischmann radius 1 curves (much tighter than is the UK norm). So why do Hornby - as this is their thread - not make the effort. Puts moulded or seperate handrails in the same league as discussing which jam is prefered while starving to death.

Close coupling NEM sockets are not rocket science and have been standard in Europe for decades, so why not here?

 

Hornby should be poked with a sharp stick every four hours until they introduce the end of the gap.

 

Mike

[Oldddudders]

Hornby should be poked with a sharp stick every four hours until they introduce the end of the gap.

Nice to see the warmth of Xmas Spirit pervading this thread!

[buffalo]

Surely, shortening the draw bar and fitting alternative couplings takes far less time than sharpening a stick?

 

Nick

[Ian J.]

I think the point is that there are close coupling mechanisms in existence that allow for opening up when going around curves, and yet none of those mechanisms has ever been used on UK tender locomotives in RTR.

 

Edit: Not used for the loco - tender connection, that is.

[James]

Puts moulded or seperate handrails in the same league as discussing which jam is prefered while starving to death. 

 

It's not really like that is it?

 

The drawbar is more like giving a man who's been in the desert for days without water, a bottle of water and saying "But you'll have to open it youurself."

[bigherb]

I think the point is that there are close coupling mechanisms in existence that allow for opening up when going around curves, and yet none of those mechanisms has ever been used on UK tender locomotives in RTR.

 

Edit: Not used for the loco - tender connection, that is.

They might if they could sell them at Fleischmann prices.

[Guest jim s-w]

That method? MY method!

 

Nope http://http://www.rmweb.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=47505

 

Either way, you transferred components to the lima chassis i used the Hornby one as is. the methods were vastly different.

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[James]

Either way, you transferred components to the lima chassis i used the Hornby one as is.

 

You just used a short cut! But if you worked at my pace New Street would be still just a good intention!

[Guest jim s-w]

Whos saying its not that now!

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Front cover of the 2013 Hornby catalogue.

  

 

 Hornby cat.JPG

Oh dear., oh dear.

Not wishing to be overly critical but those moulded handrails on the smoke deflectors and that smokebox door. Ouch!

 

Just doesn't have that Standard Class pacific "feel" from that viewpoint at the moment.

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Hopefully this illustrates some of the front-end issues, as compared to the image on Hornby's catalogue.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...Hornby should be poked with a sharp stick every four hours until they introduce the end of the gap...

 What is the demand for this feature in the UK? Hornby fit a close coupling mechanism on all the coaches newly tooled since the move to China, and have installed it on a few diesels too, so in terms of number of models so equipped are almost certainly UK leader on this one. The level of interest among customers seems limited.

 

Bachmann tried a close coupling mech on their N class steam model with poor results reported, and have dropped this, latterly introducing a neat adjustable slide for user setting of the loco to tender spacing. Hornby have shown us a 'two hole'  fixed drawbar, with the closer setting to scale on at least one model. Since a fixed drawbar will do the job on the vast majority of UK loco designs ( loco rear driver close to dragbox, short wheelbase tender) and still enable the loco to go round UK set track curves at near scale separation, anything more elaborate seems unnecessary; especially given the general lack of demand.

 

Relatively unsophisticated RTR market compared to both continental Europe and North America in my opinion: I have model railway enthusiast family both sides of the relevant waters, so get an all around view. The 'technically interested' pursuing model railway in the UK were never much interested in RTR, and blazed the trail of true scale modelling. Such people laugh at unrealistic compromises like close coupling mechanisms: if you are serious about realism, build to true scale and that includes the minimum radius of curvature used.

[ThaneofFife]

 if you are serious about realism, build to true scale and that includes the minimum radius of curvature used.

 

i dare say you see a hell of a lot more of these true scale layouts that are end to end with no real curves to speak of and so coupling mechs become less of an issue.  with many modellers liking to have a continuous run (thus requiring less than satisfactory radius curves- at least on hidden sections) and many layouts being limited to the confines of an average spare room, the introduction of the CCM in the UK has been a boon for folk like myself trying to aim for a higher standard.  I cannot possibly see how using CCMs equates to a lack of realism or seriousness about modelling - any evidence to the contrary would be interesting to see. 

[Edge]

Am over the moon about the P2, I shall have to get one. Suspect that Hornby might b covering off the possibility of the 2007 project (is that what it is called, the P2 rebuild, anyway) succeeding/getting off the ground.

 

Now, I just need to justify its presence next to my Ribble Cement Clayton and my NCB pannier...

 

The rest of it leaves me a little underwhelmed, unfortunately, but hey ho. It's not as if there isn't enough to spend my money on already

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

i dare say you see a hell of a lot more of these true scale layouts that are end to end with no real curves to speak of and so coupling mechs become less of an issue.  with many modellers liking to have a continuous run (thus requiring less than satisfactory radius curves- at least on hidden sections) and many layouts being limited to the confines of an average spare room, the introduction of the CCM in the UK has been a boon for folk like myself trying to aim for a higher standard.  I cannot possibly see how using CCMs equates to a lack of realism or seriousness about modelling - any evidence to the contrary would be interesting to see. 

 

Don't get me wrong: I am an enthusiastic user of CCM on my OO layout to enable close coupled stock to go around the 30 inch minimum radius I need for my return curves on a nice big roundy roundy; this gives the splendid appearance on straight or near straight track of all the Pullman gangway faceplates in contact.

 

Parted company with the 'true scalers' 30 odd years ago, realising life was too short for the level of perfection required, for one who wants to operate large numbers of full size trains at a scale 90mph, all day long. (The reason I am not doing that now is that I am grounded by an inner ear infection causing the falling over onto the ground, with the pain and the hurting!) Having seen modellers way more expert than myself have Walschaerts gear on a 4mm pacific tie itself in knots at modest speed on a five foot radius curve 'I knows my limits'. But those are the technically demanding folk in the UK hobby: basically not looking to RTR, and trust me I have heard some choice opinions expressed from this party about those who do...