Hornby 2 BIL

[dibber25]

It was more a question of cost rather than the units not running together,as surely a pair of unpowered would be little more than a pair of coaches in cost.

 

4,6,and 8 car sets then become a possibility.

 

Can't help feeling we've had this one many times before - including when Model Rail interviewed Graham Hubbard at Bachmann. The gist of the argument is that you can't just leave out the motor, and once you've made a new underframe etc to suit an unpowered car, there's no saving in cost. However, Dapol have managed to do dummy versions of their N gauge locos. I have a dummy version of the old Tri-ang EMU, so you never can tell, and it would be a way to get more mileage out of the 2BIL tooling.

CHRIS LEIGH

[BernardTPM]

Can't help feeling we've had this one many times before - including when Model Rail interviewed Graham Hubbard at Bachmann. The gist of the argument is that you can't just leave out the motor, and once you've made a new underframe etc to suit an unpowered car, there's no saving in cost.

All you need is something that fits in the hole left by the motor bogie, perhaps even secured in the same way with a suitable mounting at the bottom for a bogie. You don't need to retool the whole underframe for these motor bogie jobs.

However, Dapol have managed to do dummy versions of their N gauge locos. I have a dummy version of the old Tri-ang EMU, so you never can tell, and it would be a way to get more mileage out of the 2BIL tooling.

Exactly - What's lacking is the will to design it in from the start. If they could do it in the 1950s...

[Xerces Fobe2]

Black Beetle make unpowered versions of their power bogies and Mainline(Palitoy) did the same with their original 4mm Warship - what is the problem?

 

XF

Edited December 21, 2012 by Xerces Fobe2

[TRAILRAGE]

Hi

I thought it might be of interest to some to give a brief note about the 2Bil liveries carried. If more detail is required- ie dates- then shout up and I'll be happy to supply it.

 

GFYE- Those listed in bold italics feature the yellow ends wrapping back as far as the cab door but not including it. The others feature an application of the full yellow end where the yellow is only partially wrapped round as far as the cab/body join line. 2090 in preservation carried 'partial wrapround' full yellow ends. They can be seen here: http://upload.wikime...ks_open_day.jpg

 

2003/05/09/10/11/21/26/28/38/48/50/52/53/55/56/57/58/60/65/74/78/79/83/89/90/93/96

2113/116/121/130/137/141/146/147/150/151

 

BFYE- the full yellow end was also only partially wrapped round as far as the cab/body join line rather than extend as far as the cab doors as on some of the GFYE examples noted above:

 

2016/21/22/24/25/32-34/36/43/52/58/62/64/67/72/75/80/86/90/98/99

2101/103/104/111/112/123/132/133-135/137/139-141/147/149

 

The following all retained GSYP on withdrawal:

2001/02/04/06-08/12-15/17-20/23/27/29-31/35/37/39-42/44-47/49/51/54/59/61/63/66/68-71/73/76/77/81/82/84/85/87/88/91/92/94/95/97

2100/102/105-110/114/115/117-120/122/124-129/131/136/138/142-145/148/152

 

As far as I am aware no 2Bil carried BSYP.

 

I trust the above is useful.

AGAIN YOU COME TO THE RESCUE!!!!

[phil gollin]

.

 

Re. any possible "Dummy" units, I seem to remember reading that the motor coach has a metal chassis, so a simple re-use may be both more weighty and more expensive than necessary.

 

.

[Bertone]

Pre-ordered my 2 BIL from Rails today

 

XF

 

Hi,

Were you able to obtain a price from Rails as their website yesterday still indicates TBA?

[FourSUB]

The shoebeam looks to be of the correct shape if a little too deep for the early units. NRM photo of unit 1897 on page 23 in Michael Baker's 'The Southern Electric Story' shows this style, unpainted and showing the wood grain. Page 24 has a NRM photo of 2152 with the later style, both units being new. Study of photos shows the early style remained in use and was also fitted to Brighton line express units including the BEL though the other way up with the straight side at the top. I never realised how varied the shoebeams on Southern Railway units were.

 

Used to see the BILs regularly on the Waterloo-Reading services non stop through my local when I were a lad. Travel to Reading meant a change at Staines from the Windsor/Weybridge EPB splitter into the BIL/HAL and make sure you got in the right half if you didn't want to go to Guildford! The coupe was the compartment of choice and I don't remember droopy horns but do recall ex works units with sliver(aluminium?) painted roof.

 

Sorry for the silly question but is the prototype 2-BIL a 2 car unit or did it have more coaches? If it did then what coaches go along with it??

There was a 7 coach unit. 2006 with 5 ex SUB trailers became 7-TC unit 701 in 1967 for Oxted line services usually powered by a Birmingham Type 3.

Edited December 21, 2012 by FourSUB

[dibber25]

But what would be the cost saving to Hornby of omitting the motor, pick ups and gears, compared to having to pack and label two variants of the same model? .... and would this translate into a significant saving to the purchaser?

 

I doubt it.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

Quite right, John. Plus, with Hornby the inevitability of the less knowledgeable - 'toy end' customers not realising they are buying a dummy. Bachmann have always said that cost is the issue - I suspect it would be the same for Hornby. A dummy 2-BIL is a nice idea but I suspect it is not a viable one.

CHRIS LEIGH

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

... Bachmann have always said that cost is the issue - I suspect it would be the same for Hornby...

As one who has had more experience of manufacturing management than was really enjoyable; people from outside this sector would be stunned at the minute level of detail in cost containment with the objectives of delivering a product meeting the customer requirement while delivering maximum profit. Everything has a price, and it only happens if it supports those objectives. Mantras that particularly apply to mechanisms revolve around simplicity: the minimum necessary number of parts, one near standard as possible assembly process - don't forget these are batch made so each different product type carries a training burden, a variant form immediately doubles the associated training - and design for as near possible 'fool proof' assembly (and in my not so humble opinion this last is one area they could do with giving a little more attention).

[Xerces Fobe2]

Hi,

Were you able to obtain a price from Rails as their website yesterday still indicates TBA?

 

I took a small gamble however Rails and Hattons are always competive and the Rails Christmas mail yesterday stated "Have a look on our website in the Forthcoming Releases section, our usual competitive prices will be added soon!" I basically wanted to get my name on the list as I think this could well be one of the best selling Hornby models.

 

XF

[Armchair Modeller]

Hi Chris,

 

If cost is genuinely an issue then so be it. But perhaps you are being a little patronising to the 'toy-end' customers in the point you make about accidentally purchasing 'dummy' units. They will have to cope with differentiating between 'DCC Fitted' and 'DCC Ready' versions of the 2 BIL. Would it just be one choice too many for them then?!

 

All the best,

 

Colin

 

Unpowered versions eventually appear through a process called "Natural Selection"

[Xerces Fobe2]

Quite right, John. Plus, with Hornby the inevitability of the less knowledgeable - 'toy end' customers not realising they are buying a dummy. Bachmann have always said that cost is the issue - I suspect it would be the same for Hornby. A dummy 2-BIL is a nice idea but I suspect it is not a viable one.

CHRIS LEIGH

 

Chris really! -most people are not that stupid - Hornby sell DVT's that a 'toy end customers' could mistake as a locomotive. Remember the original Triang Railways R156/R225 Southern EMU powered and dummy driving cars the desciption dummy or non-powered on the box does ensure mistakes are minimised

 

There are lots of examples of dummy locotives both British and Overseas models; maybe I should start a thread for RMwebbers' to list them!

 

XF

[Flying Pig]

Simplicity is more the issue: only one motor to control. I might be wrong, but on DC operation the units could only be run in multiple one way around i.e. all corridors on one side of the train or vice-versa - unless there is some easy way of reversing the polarity on the morors without re-wiring.

I think you are wrong, Colin. On DC all correctly wired trains move in the same direction. If you turn the train round the current is reversed but so is the train and it continues to move in the same direction as all the others.

[RFS]

Even on an unpowered 2-BIL I assume you'd still want the internal lighting and illuminated headcodes. So you'd still need pickups and a decoder (for DCC), although that could be a cheaper lighting decoder. I'd certainly buy one or two if they were produced.

Edited December 21, 2012 by RFS

[Gwiwer]

I can take or leave internal lighting. It generally can't be seen in the daylight / room light anyway unless you have something lit up like Blackpool Illuminations and probably over-bright as a result. The same is too often true of headcode panels albeit the Bachmann Cep / MLV have the intensity almost at a respectable level. Remember a Bil only had a few incandescent bulbs behind the glass plate so the light would never show up by day (if they were even switched on at all) and was only dim cream-coloured glow by night - just enough to be seen. Here's hoping we don't get a Bil with dazzling white LEDs inside otherwise I can see some disconnections taking place

[Oldddudders]

I think the point about running 2 x 2-BIL is that you can ape the prototype and split and join en-route. Ascot, Gatwick, Redhill etc all saw regular such activity, adding to the operational breadth of the layout. Yes, it's easier with DCC, but clever sectioning in the platform can make it effective on DC, too.

[DaveF]

Chris really! -most people are not that stupid - Hornby sell DVT's that a 'toy end customers' could mistake as a locomotive. Remember the original Triang Railways R156/R225 Southern EMU powered and dummy driving cars the desciption dummy or non-powered on the box does ensure mistakes are minimised

 

There are lots of examples of dummy locotives both British and Overseas models; maybe I should start a thread for RMwebbers' to list them!

 

XF

 

From time to time I help a friend with his trade stand at exhibitions.

 

Several times a day one of us has to persuade a potential purchaser that some American locos are dummies. Some people actually haven't believed me until I have taken the loco to a layout to prove it doesn't work!

 

So I think there could be a problem with British outline, especially as people who are not really interested in railways don't often purchase American outline models.

 

My apologies to Xerxes for choosing his post as the one to quote, it was the one I read first on this theme.

 

David

[metadyneman]

I know I'm being picky but I hope Hornby correct the downward slope of the air horns. They were always true horizontal and never sloped down with the roof dome. The pictre of the real one by BR(S) shows this quite clearly.

 

PS.. and please, please... no traction tyres this time eh?

Edited December 21, 2012 by metadyneman

[Fenman]

I know I'm being picky but I hope Hornby correct the downward slope of the air horns. They were always true horizontal and never sloped down with the roof dome. The pictre of the real one by BR(S) shows this quite clearly.

 

If you look at the photos of the Hornby boxes (see post #87 above), all the horns are correctly horizontal. I imagine the samples may have been well played-with.

 

Paul

[frobisher]

Cost reduction wasn't my motive for suggesting this variant. Simplicity is more the issue: only one motor to control. I might be wrong, but on DC operation the units could only be run in multiple one way around i.e. all corridors on one side of the train or vice-versa - unless there is some easy way of reversing the polarity on the morors without re-wiring.

 

The easy solution is to plonk it down on the track...

[stewartingram]

Hi John,

 

Cost reduction wasn't my motive for suggesting this variant. Simplicity is more the issue: only one motor to control. I might be wrong, but on DC operation the units could only be run in multiple one way around i.e. all corridors on one side of the train or vice-versa - unless there is some easy way of reversing the polarity on the morors without re-wiring. For those of us using DCC, there would be no need for consisting. (Decoders do cost money too, so there is potentially a small saving to be had.)

 

As for packaging, Hornby have managed to release 'DCC Ready' & 'DCC Fitted versions of exactly the same thing. A label stating: 'Un-Motorised' couldn't be beyand them could it?!

 

I must admit though, if a de-motorised 2 BIL chassis is too heavy to be pulled a motorised version, all the above is academic anyway.

 

All the best,

 

Colin

 

As seperate motorised items, the units could individually be either way round on DC. Try it with a couple of steam locos! And as for any perceived difference in performance of motors, that is a myth, I've never experienced that since I stated playing trains in the 50s. Certainly with 2 'identical' locos (ie same item) there would be minimal difference in performance. Even with totalling different locos (small/large wheels, different gearing, different motors, etc) I've never experienced any problems.

 

Stewart

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...Perhaps you could think of it like this: The model is self-propelling just like a steam loco, what could we also sell the customer for it to pull?...

Another powered unit is the simple answer. Customers who really want unpowered can take the motor out themselves.

 

There will be no cost saving in a factory made unpowered variant. Consider that the base unit has to be the powered version. What percentage of powered version sales are you going to get of unpowered? Maybe 5 percent at best; then all the variation costs go in against the saving on the motor and drive train. Probably the same end price. Better to make them all powered, simpler all around for the manufacturing, retailer and the large majority of customers.

[wombatofludham]

Given the frequency with which individual chassis turn up on Ebay for other MU types I would imagine you could be bidding on a trailer chassis to make a dummy unit before too long. I've got a "dummy" Class 150 and a Met Cam 101 made up of spare bodies and chassis purchased off eBay. That said I can't really see what other projects people could use the 2-BIL bodies for, unlike dmu or for that matter 4-CEP and 2-EPB units from which I've also seen motor and trailer chassis sold on the 'net. Unless people are going to resort to buying a BIL to use the motor bogie components to repower a VEP and sell off the rest to fund the conversion!

[Xerces Fobe2]

This is really good only a few days ago not many of us were not expecting a RTR 2-BIL and now we are planning how we will use then and adapt them etc!

 

I hope Simon K is feeling somewhat heartened that Hornby is now getting good press again and potentially good sales as well; let's hope that the supply chain is robust now.

 

XF

Edited December 21, 2012 by Xerces Fobe2

[Guest maxthemapman]

Presumably, when Hornby make the 4-COR unit, they will have motorised and unmotorised motor coach chassis, then the development work will be done.

 

Surely, there might then be scope for a 4-coach 2x2BIL train pack. This gets rid of all the ambiguity, it will work when placed on electrified track, and presumably would sell for less than the RRP for 2x2BIL motorised units, a not inconsiderable sum.