Hornby P2

[melmerby]

Still waiting on mine from Model Railways Direct. I called them yesterday and they said they aren't expecting theirs 'til November and I know i'nd fairly high up on the preorder list but if Ian Allen only got 1 of the 6 they ordered I wonder if I'll get mine :-(

You'll be one further up as I cancelled mine.

 

R3207 available at one of the traders at Redditch MRC show today.

The one I noticed was £99 - not too bad!

 

Hereford had none as all their allocation went to pre-orders.

 

Keith

[Mike70]

Anyone got there hands on a TTS DoG yet.

 

Just curious if it's got tender pick ups or not. That might be a good indication if the P2 TTS has.

 

My R3207 has not arrived yet and I'm thinking of switching to the TTS version.

[will5210]

Earl Marischal update:

 

After endless scraping, sanding & filling the P2 body is getting there. The dodgy bit at the bottom of the 'wings' will be well hidden by the extra deflectors with their internal sloping wind deflecting plate. I've also removed the moulded smokebox handle.

 

Will

[melmerby]

Flangeless, they have to be above railhead, because if not they will cheerfully derail the loco on any curve transition to straight where the track is not perfectly level. The moment the tyre is off the rail as happens on curves, if it drops below railhead height as the loco straightens up it binds on the railside.

 

All my Hornby A3, A4 and Britannias have the supplied flanged wheelset installed. This has required quite a lot of hacking away material inside the mounting to allow two things: first the wheelset treads to rest on the rail, and secondly to  supply enough side to side movement for curves. Getting these locos to manage the 30" minimum I require is easy enough. I don't have a P2 so don't know if the Cartazzi frames representation is much as the moulding used on A3 and A4: cutting through the rear bar of the moulding allows the frames to flex outwards slightly. Or if it is a casting as on the Britannia, you may have to cut clearance for the flanges to avoid an instant short circuit: the wheelsets wouldn't even go in on my examples due to the flanges fouling the rear inside of the casting.

The flangeless wheels on the P2 are much wider gauge than the flanged wheels on the rest of the loco.

Is that the same on previous Hornby locos with this arrangement?

 

There doesn't seem to be any flanged replacements supplied, although I'm not surprised as the R3207 P2 is supposedly a "super" version of the R3171 Railroad loco rather than true Main Range.

 

Keith

[gr.king]

While I won't have time to get on with this "in full" for a while, I decided to "suck it and see" with a few cautious, fully reversible changes to the chassis as a first tactic. Voila, one P2 chassis ready for Walschaerts valve gear thanks to a modified "M. Gilbert / Yours Truly" A2/2 motion bracket and some resin cylinders on a rough plastikard stretcher, purely to establish correct dimensions before I consider making one in metal. I'll probably reveal the hidden elements of the anatomy in my own workbench thread in the model railways section of "another website" later on tomorrow.

 

Secret link......http://www.lner.info/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2443&start=3495 (Don't tell the management  )

Edited September 21, 2014 by gr.king

[railroadbill]

gr.king said in post  #1651:  <Nice round-topped axle ways and 3mm axles by the look of it (EM rapid conversionist Pete Hill confirms that) and no working valve gear to get all knotted up (especially if the gauge is widened) - save for the return cranks and crossheads which have miles more clearance than you'd ever want for running around realistic curves in OO at any rate.>

 

Thanks gr.king for excellent review with lots of useful points. As I haven't taken my railroad version to pieces, I was  very pleased to see your comment that the axles run in half round holes unlike DoG and 2-8-0Ts, which should help longevity of the loco. My one ran very smoothly straight out of the box, although I did oil it first in places mentioned in the instructions.   Can run very slowly as well. It's run over 15 hrs now with nothing going wrong. 

 

Etched nameplates on order and I've dug out transfer sheets of shaded LNER lettering and also lining so a bit of upgrading is next.

[Hroth]

Apropos of nothing much, I was looking at the Wikipedia entry for the P2 locos and noticed a link to an article in "The Engineer" (June 1934).  Its a freely downloadable PDF.

 

Its got rather nice B/W images of CoTN, key dimensions (feet and inches...), some good general arrangement drawings and more detailed drawings of internals.  Well worth having a look at!

 

 

btw, as the pdf contains part of a bound volume of the journal, there's lots of other articles about engineering technology of the era. One that caught my eye was a description of a "Large Butt Welding Machine", possibly of current interest to our American cousins??? 

 

Oops! Forgot the direct link so you don't have to dive into WIkipedia:    http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/The_Engineer_1934/06/01

Edited September 21, 2014 by Hroth

[melmerby]

Had my R3207 running with a load for the first time today.

8 coaches (6 Hornby Staniers and 2 Lima Siphons - Sorry folks the teaks weren't on the layout!)

Runs at a scale 80mph all out on DCC and gradients up to 1:100 don't seem to bother it.

It pulls more than my other locos apart from a Bachmann CL 47 diesel.

Front drivers occasionally jump the track on a curved, uneven, lift up section but re-rail at the first opportunity!

All in all a good chassis those 8 wheels and plenty of weight really show.

 

Just need some flanged trailing wheels and some decent nameplates, the other discrepancies I can live with, especially considering the price it is sold at.

 

Keith

[gr.king]

With the outside frames at the rear being of more-or-less scale width externally (not widened as Bachmann's are) and being of thick cast-metal construction on this model rather than thinner separate plastic mouldings as on the Gresley Pacifics from Hornby, I think anybody who fancies flanged Cartazzi wheels is going to need VERY easy curves, or an appetite for some very extensive modification to the chassis, or a willingness to turn a blind eye to some awful running.

 

I'm not surprised to hear of leading coupled wheels jumping the rails at imperfect rail joints (especially on curves I presume). My P2 behaves well (so far) on my track, but owing to its irregularities I found that even my 3 foot minimum radii caused problems with a 2-8-2 of similar dimensions that I built from scratch. In that case I had to partly compensate the 8-coupled portion and deliberately load the leading coupled wheels to overcome any wayward tendencies......

Edited September 22, 2014 by gr.king

[melmerby]

With the outside frames at the rear being of more-or-less scale width externally (not widened as Bachmann's are) and being of thick cast-metal construction on this model rather than thinner separate plastic mouldings as on the Gresley Pacifics from Hornby, I think anybody who fancies flanged Cartazzi wheels is going to need VERY easy curves, or an appetite for some very extensive modification to the chassis, or a willingness to turn a blind eye to some awful running.

 

I'm not surprise to hear of leading coupled wheels jumping the rails at imperfect rail joints (especially on curves I presume). My P2 behaves well (so far) on my track, but owing to its irregularities I found that even my 3 foot minimum radii caused problems with a 2-8-2 of similar dimensions that I built from scratch. In that case I had to partly compensate the 8-coupled portion and deliberately load the leading coupled wheels to overcome any wayward tendencies......

The casting looks wide enough and as the flangeless wheels are set wide I would hope properly gauged wheels would be OK.

 

The only place there is a problem (and not every time or at a particular speed) is over one joint in a lifting section which in a 36" curve.

It sails through the other trackwork , (including some other lifting joints on curves) which is all Peco code 75.

 

Another though Re: tender wiring:

Is the tender derived from other Hornby models or is it new tooling?

If it is from another model, why design a loco chassis to take an 8 pin decoder when the tender would already have the provision, especially as the TTS version needs the tender wiring?

(Also with TTS, there has to be an 8 pin socket in the tender for the decoder just as there is with DoG TTS version)

 

The same applies if they have designed it anew!

 

Keith

Edited September 22, 2014 by melmerby

[MPR]

I'm not surprised to hear of leading coupled wheels jumping the rails at imperfect rail joints (especially on curves I presume). 

 

Glad to see that Hornby P2's are so realistic!

See the link below for an explanation of how a very different kind of modelling is being used to solve exactly the same issue at 1:1.

http://www.p2steam.com/building-no-2007/design

 

Martin

[JSpencer]

With the outside frames at the rear being of more-or-less scale width externally (not widened as Bachmann's are) and being of thick cast-metal construction on this model rather than thinner separate plastic mouldings as on the Gresley Pacifics from Hornby, I think anybody who fancies flanged Cartazzi wheels is going to need VERY easy curves, or an appetite for some very extensive modification to the chassis, or a willingness to turn a blind eye to some awful running.

 

I'm not surprise to hear of leading coupled wheels jumping the rails at imperfect rail joints (especially on curves I presume). My P2 behaves well (so far) on my track, but owing to its irregularities I found that even my 3 foot minimum radii caused problems with a 2-8-2 of similar dimensions that I built from scratch. In that case I had to partly compensate the 8-coupled portion and deliberately load the leading coupled wheels to overcome any wayward tendencies......

For comparison, my K's P2 with Romford wheels needs 4ft radius.

[Bernard Lamb]

Just had a play with swopping the trailing wheels.

I found a pair from an A3 and they are a drop in fit and allow plenty of side play.

The problem arises that they are 16.5mm across the flanges and when you tighten the screw holding the small keeper plate, the flanges touch the cab floor and bind solid.

It only requires a fraction smaller wheel, probably 0.2mm less would do the trick but I could not find any thing suitable from my stock of Gibson wheels.

I might try a shim of 10 thou plastic to see if that will do the trick as an alternative method.

 

Bernard.

 

Found a Gibson wheel of the same diameter as the Hornby wheels.

Due to the shallower flanges it fits and loco runs through my point work without  any problems.

I do have track with rather large radii so not the answer for all.

Confession time.

I painted the wheels, even though they are almost invisible. But I could only find a tin of Darlington green.

Oh heresy.

Bernard

Edited September 22, 2014 by Bernard Lamb

[melmerby]

Re-jigged the track a bit and the P2 doesn't lift it's front drivers now.

 

Tried adding a bit more load with a 12 Wheel restauarant car making 9 vehicles in all and it still storms up the gradients

Then I added 6 more coaches and took off the siphons making 13. It did slow down a bit but would still start it on the gradient.

The problem then was that the Hornby Staniers at the front of the rake started randomly de-railing, it appears at first glance that the pull on the couplings (close couple mechanisms) was dragging the coaches off centre.

Having them as the trailing load instead seemed to be all right.

I wonder why they behave like that?

 

Keith

[Dunsignalling]

Re-jigged the track a bit and the P2 doesn't lift it's front drivers now.

 

Tried adding a bit more load with a 12 Wheel restauarant car making 9 vehicles in all and it still storms up the gradients

Then I added 6 more coaches and took off the siphons making 13. It did slow down a bit but would still start it on the gradient.

The problem then was that the Hornby Staniers at the front of the rake started randomly de-railing, it appears at first glance that the pull on the couplings (close couple mechanisms) was dragging the coaches off centre.

Having them as the trailing load instead seemed to be all right.

I wonder why they behave like that?

 

Keith

I presume you are using tension lock couplers? If so, you will get all sorts of random misbehaviour from the close coupler units under heavy load. There is just too much slop in tension lock couplers and, as you have found out, CCUs near the front of heavy trains don't centralise when they are supposed to.  

 

Try fitting Hornby's alternative Roco-style couplers (or the real thing which gives properly close coupling). They are designed to lock the linkages together, making the cams on adjacent coaches work equally and centre correctly when coming out of curves. The whole train will look better and run better because each coach will help stabilise its neighbour rather than behaving like a loose coupled wagon running at excessive speed.  

 

The whole idea behind close coupler mechanisms is to permit coaches to actually buffer up (or have the corridors touching) on straight track, space themselves out as they enter curves and shorten again as they leave them. Unfortunately, they don't behave predictably when fitted with the basic British r-t-r coupler and, unlike their continental counterparts, UK manufacturers have yet to educate their customers how to get the benefit of them.

 

John  

Edited September 22, 2014 by Dunsignalling

[Flyingscotsmanfan]

Took my premium range one to the club this evening to much aplume. Everybody who was there was impressed by it even the most hardy of the Southern Region modellers. Well done Hornby you have done yourself proud and long may this run of good fortune run. The only thing I will be changing for now is the moulded smoke box handles

[robmcg]

A couple of manipulated images of my RR CotN and toboldlygo's weathered RR version, my main range models sit forlornly as if to say 'what about us?" as I set up a photo of Wellington Castle in post-war GW guise with a couple of GW Hawksworths... ah the cruelties!

 

But wouldn't it have been great to see such an engine thundering past..

 

 

 

Cheers,

 

Rob

 

 

Edited September 22, 2014 by robmcg

[melmerby]

I presume you are using tension lock couplers? If so, you will get all sorts of random misbehaviour from the close coupler units under heavy load. There is just too much slop in tension lock couplers and, as you have found out, CCUs near the front of heavy trains don't centralise when they are supposed to.  

 

Try fitting Hornby's alternative Roco-style couplers (or the real thing which gives properly close coupling). They are designed to lock the linkages together, making the cams on adjacent coaches work equally and centre correctly when coming out of curves. The whole train will look better and run better because each coach will help stabilise its neighbour rather than behaving like a loose coupled wagon running at excessive speed.  

 

The whole idea behind close coupler mechanisms is to permit coaches to actually buffer up (or have the corridors touching) on straight track, space themselves out as they enter curves and shorten again as they leave them. Unfortunately, they don't behave predictably when fitted with the basic British r-t-r coupler and, unlike their continental counterparts, UK manufacturers have yet to educate their customers how to get the benefit of them.

 

John  

They are mostly tension locks, although one pair has Hornby/Roco couplers which do keep them more under control

 

Keith

 

EDIT:

How about these

http://www.fleischmann.de/en/product/15111-6515-0-0-0-0-0-003005/products.html

 

They seem to be well liked

Edited September 22, 2014 by melmerby

[Andy Y]

ah the cruelties!

... of having to say the same thing again after only a couple of days?

 

Rob, I'm getting more complaints about this than everything else on the whole forum put together at the moment.

 

If you want to do it please set up your own dedicated topic or gallery.

[Dominion]

Has anyone modified the front pony truck to have a single pivot point yet ?

Mine runs fine but I would rather eliminate the visible skew and back and forth movement.

Any thoughts on a good way to do it welcome.

( I remember seeing a solution on the L1 but can't find it)

[Dominion]

I just tried an easily reversible fix to reduce the pony movement. I trimmed some 3/32 inch plastic tube to make two little plugs and press fitted them into the back of each slot on the pony truck. The press fit plus the keeper plate keep them in place, and they reduce the unwanted movement in the pony. I trimmed a little off the front face of each plug so that the pony could still swivel enough to negotiate 30 inch curves happily.

A single pivot point would probably be better but this avoided any metal drilling for now.

[WD0-6-0]

Has anyone modified the front pony truck to have a single pivot point yet ?

Mine runs fine but I would rather eliminate the visible skew and back and forth movement.

Any thoughts on a good way to do it welcome.

( I remember seeing a solution on the L1 but can't find it)

Here are a few solutions for the L1 but not knowing where any screw holes are on the P2 I don't know if the one I mention will be viable without drilling.

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/87326-Hornby-l1/

Rhys

[Dunsignalling]

They are mostly tension locks, although one pair has Hornby/Roco couplers which do keep them more under control

 

Keith

 

EDIT:

How about these

http://www.fleischmann.de/en/product/15111-6515-0-0-0-0-0-003005/products.html

 

They seem to be well liked

I've tried a pair the past but didn't think they were significantly better than the Roco ones I was already using.

 

An easy tip which might improve things in your case is to lubricate the CCU where it runs in the coach underframe. DON'T use oil EVER, what you need is graphite, either powdered (Kadee Greas'em or similar) or, as I do, giving the moving parts a good rub over with a soft pencil where they come into contact - I find a 6B ideal but 4B is soft enough and may be easier to get.

 

Graphite helps overcome any tendency for the link to stick slightly then release with a jerk. That may not sound like it would cause much trouble but it's basically a miniature replication of how earthquakes work! 

 

John

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...How about these

http://www.fleischmann.de/en/product/15111-6515-0-0-0-0-0-003005/products.html

 

They seem to be well liked

Way better than a tension lock or a Kadee for operating close coupling mechs. But of all that I have yet tried in autocouplers it is the Roco pattern that is best in my opinion, mechanically similar in operation but has a longer contact face which means it is more efficient in forming a rigid link between the coupler pockets to work the mechanism optimally.

 

This Roco pattern coupler is the one that Hornby use for their R8220, supplied with many of their coaches. But they put it on a much longer shank than the Roco original so that the coach gangways are not closed up on the straight! But by happy chance this Honby coupler is almost perfect length for Bachmann mk1s where the pocket is out of position, while the Hornby coaches take the Roco original and then work as they should, gangway faceplates in contact on straight track. I concur with what 'Dunsignalling' has posted earlier in the thread, baffled that neither Bach or Hornby actually market their product properly in this respect.

[gr.king]

Whilst the appropriate location for it may be a contentious matter, I must say that the second of robmcg's latest images does look impressive.