Jump to content
 

Hornby P2


Dick Turpin
 Share

Recommended Posts

It might be because they have mistyped the Hornby code, R2307 is a modern DMU, R3207 is the P2 (main range).

 

It would be a good buy for anyone still looking for the main range version, thanks for giving the link.

 

Jamie

Opps, that maybe why then!  :jester: Will tell them next time I pop in.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

IIRC I have seen a photo of COTN as an A2/2 still bearing the number 2001.

They didn't receive the 500s until 1946 (and should have been in the 990s in the 1943 system)

 

IMHO If the P2s survived they could have been anywhere in the low number series reserved for top link engines (60)200, 300, 400 etc.

 

Keith

Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC I have seen a photo of COTN as an A2/2 still bearing the number 2001.

They didn't receive the 500s until 1946 (and should have been in the 990s in the 1943 system)

 

IMHO If the P2s survived they could have been anywhere in the low number series reserved for top link engines (60)200, 300, 400 etc.

 

Keith

 

Fair enough, but this would not have taken into account that Eastern region engines went off power classification, or something similar. Thus I reckon P2 would be 606xx between A2 being the last pacifics using the number scheme at 605xx and the W1 and 607xx.

 

Quite why more classes were not devided up into 600xx, 601xx, with vacent spaces used will forever remain a mystery I guess.

Link to post
Share on other sites

G'day Gents

 

Seeing that the P2's had a smaller wheel diameter, would they have been classified Mixed Traffic by BR and painted Black, like the V2, could have looked nice in black, fully lined out.

 

manna

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

G'day Gents

 

Seeing that the P2's had a smaller wheel diameter, would they have been classified Mixed Traffic by BR and painted Black, like the V2, could have looked nice in black, fully lined out.

 

manna

The Merchant Navies had 6' 2" wheels and were always classed as passenger locos. (First 7P then 8P in 1951)

Wikipedia lists A2s as 8P7F although the books I have show them as 7MT!

 

Keith

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

As regard the position of a numberplate if they had survived to BR.

 

Maybe no number plate? Think ex LNWR locos! Even in LMS days they weren't universally numberplated.

 

Keith

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Had a nice surprise Thursday this week when my replacement P2 with tts sound was delivered from Hornby by uk mail (the original order delivered in January having been sent back as it has a large crack in body) . Hornby had indicated a replacement wouldn't be available until September. No update from Hornby since but uk mail started messaging me on the Thursday saying they would be delivering that day. Anyway, have now had a chance to give it a good run and am delighted with it. I was initially put off by volume with sound clearly coming from tender and juddering running, but, having run in and played with acceleration and deceleration settings, plus reduced accelerating/coasting sounds to setting 2, I think it is a great model. It isn't as good as my legomanbiffo class 67s or the 37 I purchased from Paul C, but for the price it is really good. I do run my trains for enjoyment (play value) rather than worrying too much about accuracy, but if you wondering about getting one, I would say go for it. Thanks Hornby.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Having bought the excellent model of Cock O' The North in detailed form, I wonder if Hornby have any plans to produce Earl Marischal in as -built form? I always thought this one looked the more imposing of the 2 originals, with Walschaerts valvegear. Is Hornby still pursuing the "Design Clever" avenue, or have they gone back to producing "full-spec" super-detailed models?

 

Rick Roper.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Having bought the excellent model of Cock O' The North in detailed form, I wonder if Hornby have any plans to produce Earl Marischal in as -built form? I always thought this one looked the more imposing of the 2 originals, with Walschaerts valvegear. Is Hornby still pursuing the "Design Clever" avenue, or have they gone back to producing "full-spec" super-detailed models?

 

Rick Roper.

C ot N really is only a "Railroad" level model but available in two levels of finish.

It does muddy the water somewhat, sitting between true "Railroad" locos and the proper top spec range.

 

IMHO it's a pity they didn't do a "full fat" version as well.

 

Keith

Edited by melmerby
Link to post
Share on other sites

...IMHO it's a pity they didn't do a "full fat" version as well...

Then again, some of us feel that the 'full fat' version should be of the so very sexy production form. Very clever to have garnered all the sales possible on 'early thoughts' first, because most folks would never have looked at that given the free choice between the two forms. IMCUO, YMMV.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello folks, going back to the motor replacement issue. I notice that the 5 pole motor option is one way of improving the stickiness at move off with the P2. However, I was wondering if anyone has replaced the motor with a non Hornby motor? Eg a really nice high spec smooth motor? I admit I haven't read through the whole 93 pages of the topic, so please forgive me if this has already been covered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Or, to put it another way, does anyone have dimensions of the Hornby x6644 motor, in order to find a suitable Mashima replacement? Looks like I could incorporate the flywheel on the rear of a Mashima too, to give this loco the smoothness it deserves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Then again, some of us feel that the 'full fat' version should be of the so very sexy production form. Very clever to have garnered all the sales possible on 'early thoughts' first, because most folks would never have looked at that given the free choice between the two forms. IMCUO, YMMV.

And some of us might say "What? Another Mallard clone. :jester:

 

Personally I prefer the original front (and the original W1)

Keith

Link to post
Share on other sites

The service sheets give good clues as to other possible variants. (It's certainly designed to produce more than what we have seen, and looking closely I even think another wheel arrangement could appear).

Design clever I don't know, but it's a clever design.

Is it possible for you to show us (those who don't have a P2) a picture of the service sheet? Or are you referring to the ones online?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just been looking at the Hornby website, which shows a re-issue of the Railroad version of the P2 scheduled for 23rd June.

 

Obviously this is now passed, and I wonder if anyone has a feel for when or if this might occur.

 

My own interest is spurred by the BR resprays seen earlier in this thread, for which the cheaper Railroad item is ideally suited.

 

Many thanks,

 

John.

Edited by John Tomlinson
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Hello folks, going back to the motor replacement issue. I notice that the 5 pole motor option is one way of improving the stickiness at move off with the P2. However, I was wondering if anyone has replaced the motor with a non Hornby motor? Eg a really nice high spec smooth motor? I admit I haven't read through the whole 93 pages of the topic, so please forgive me if this has already been covered.

Only some of the 3 pole flywheel motors are sticky. Once I got hold of a good one I think it runs as well as the chassis in which I had installed the Hornby 5 pole motor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Never looked back since putting the 5 pole Hornby motor in as shown in my video.

Its far better than the horrid original offering and the loco runs perfectly.

No need for the capacitors really! I have found they make only the slightest difference.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • RMweb Premium

No need for the capacitors really! I have found they make only the slightest difference.

The capacitors are only for radio/tv interference suppression, they should not affect the running of the loco.

If you are using a decoder it probably doesn't matter whether they are in or out.

Different decoder manufacturers have varying advice on whether to remove or not!

 

Keith.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...