Hornby Schools Class

[No Decorum]

1. Sound systems cannot replicate the real sound of a locomotive. Firstly because the small size of the speaker is too small, and cannot replicate the Bass well. Also in the case of steam locos sound is idiotic, as the pulsation of exhaust cannot keep time with the rotation of the locos wheels and cylinders.

 

I think it would be a lot better, if the manufacturers did "DCC fitted" and "No DCC" models.

 

71000  

I concede that the small speakers found in many sound-ready locomotives cannot replicate bass well. However, things are improving all the time. Bear in mind that, whilst a sound system cannot reproduce the bass sounds of steam or diesel as well as, for example, a video, it is a representation of the real thing, just as the valve gear of a steam locomotive is a representation of the real thing but does not move as the real thing would. However, apart from Hornby’s TTS system, pulsations of the exhaust do keep time with the rotation of the wheels. They are either set that way by the supplier or can be programmed.

 

However, if you don’t like sound, fair enough. You don’t have to like it and I can sympathise with your having to pay for features which you don’t want and which cause trouble on your set up.

 

I’m against having “DCC fitted” and “No DCC” models. It would entail discarding a decoder when fitting a sound decoder. In addition, it would probably increase costs by adding an additional variable to production.

[truffy]

*Spelt that way for comic effect.

Well played, sir!

[adb968008]

The last few posts demonstrate why DCC needs to be replaced.

 

It’s antiquainted technology, and sound chips are well over priced.

 

It’s time to consider a cpu with memory, Wi-fi on a chip (think an enhanced USB stick with speakers).

Run it dead rail (think rechargeable batteries as used on remote control helicopters or cars)

Then add in a charging mat, and wireless charging (think like your tooth brush or increasingly your mobile phone).

 

All is current technology.

 

Then the cpu turns the wheels in sync with the sound, and even smoke.

Unlimited sounds, and in multiple

Wiring the track becomes redundant, as does the controller.

Trains are controlled by household Wi-fi, via your phone, tablet, laptop etc.

You could even go down the road of cab cameras, managed schedules, timetables, setting points etc.

Edited January 28, 2018 by adb968008

[Oldddudders]

The fact that DCC is - at least in your opinion - out of date technology, pales into insignificance compared to its common standards. It matters not from whom or where I buy a DCC decoder - it will be set at Address 3, and have certain basic Configuration Variables that my system can immediately access. In that respect it is like 16.5 mm track.

 

By all means design a system fit for the present decade - but you may have an uphill struggle establishing it as an internatuional standard.

[adb968008]

The fact that DCC is - at least in your opinion - out of date technology, pales into insignificance compared to its common standards. It matters not from whom or where I buy a DCC decoder - it will be set at Address 3, and have certain basic Configuration Variables that my system can immediately access. In that respect it is like 16.5 mm track.

By all means design a system fit for the present decade - but you may have an uphill struggle establishing it as an internatuional standard.

Present decade ? Wi-fi, CPU and mini rechargeable batteries on this scale are 20 years old.

I agree promoting an international standard will be an agenda driven by China., designing and offering it to the market.

 

But everything has a lifespan, DCC isn’t infinite.

Edited January 29, 2018 by adb968008

[JSpencer]

The last few posts demonstrate why DCC needs to be replaced.

 

It’s antiquainted technology, and sound chips are well over priced.

 

It’s time to consider a cpu with memory, Wi-fi on a chip (think an enhanced USB stick with speakers).

Run it dead rail (think rechargeable batteries as used on remote control helicopters or cars)

Then add in a charging mat, and wireless charging (think like your tooth brush or increasingly your mobile phone).

 

All is current technology.

 

Then the cpu turns the wheels in sync with the sound, and even smoke.

Unlimited sounds, and in multiple

Wiring the track becomes redundant, as does the controller.

Trains are controlled by household Wi-fi, via your phone, tablet, laptop etc.

You could even go down the road of cab cameras, managed schedules, timetables, setting points etc.

 

DCC is succesful because it is compatible with DC (to an extent). So a user moving from DC to DCC won't find themselves having to convert all existing rolling stock right away. In my personal case, 80%+ of my locos are still DC, with the remainder on mostly DCC sound (there are a couple of plain DCC fitted).

 

The control board of my home layout (which pre-dates my entry into DCC), can  have any controler run any part of the track so when I run DCC, i select certain sections for the DCC controler to use (point work and things still remain under DC control). I can do this anywhere on the layout except the loco depot (because that will be holding an awful lot of DC locos, not practical). This layout has around 200 metres of wiring. Its built in modules, and those nearest the control panel have 4 x 21 pin plug connectors. An awful lot of soldering.

 

I then built a small shunting plank, that is primary DCC but can be run on DC in order to experiment with some DCC parts. This was a test bed for DCC and proved we did not need so much wiring. Indeed one pair of wires covers track, point motors and layout lights. A massive saving (and my DC layout has no working lights despite its 200 metres of cabling). Being a plank, we had additional wires to switches in order to render sections live or dead when used in DC mode - but these were local switches not running to a master control board.

 

The next layout will be purely DCC.

 

Any new tech, in order to be successful, will need to be compatible (i;e can work at the same time as) a DC or DCC layout. Now while your proposal says we do not need wires for the track (under DCC just two BTW unless its a big layout then boosters will be needed), you still need wires for point motors, layout lighting and signals, not to mention train detection units that are possible in DCC. Ok technically you can have battery powered self contained wifi units for these too but personally, I don't like the idea of having to change batteries all over the place under a layout.

 

Next issue, the wifi links will work ok at home, but probably not at shows.  The charging stations are not very efficient, require a coil loop in the loco etc and  the loco must be placed directly on it. The idea for phones is already a bit pointless on the account that while it charges up at these stations, I cannot handle the phone (it must rest on that spot), where-as with a wire, I can still hold the thing up to my ear and call someone.

Of all electrical items, batteries must have the shortest life even rechargeable ones. My son has 2 mini radio controlled helicopters that can no longer be recharged to a sufficient level in order to get them into flight, this after just one year of use. Once in flight, the life of these things is measured in minutes. With a loco, we could recharge from the track but that negates having a battery in the first place. There are already digital control systems out there which allows the connectivity you quote but still use a live power feed from rails. This is compatible with DCC, but the price tag is not yet cheaper.

 

Personally I think the ideal scale for trains would be 1/100 scale. It sames space but carries almost as much detail as 00 without becoming too small. However if someone did UK outline in this tomorrow, I cannot see myself abandoning 00 gauge simply because it is too established in my home.  And the same would apply to any new control system that requires the end user to abandon everything they have now and start again.

Edited January 29, 2018 by JSpencer

[JSpencer]

A man after my own heart. 

 

2. "Interior lighting" is a real hazard. The electrical items fitted in the latest Hornby Pullmans and certain other new models. Now have to include expensive electrical items that can distinguish between 16v AC (DCC) and 12v DC in the rails. Some of these items seriously interfere with my wiring system. Particularly my track circuits which as in real life operate my signalling. So I am forced to dismantle the vehicles and remove these hazardous electrical items, which I have no desire to have to pay for.   

 

As these increasingly complex and expensive electrical accessories are appearing in more and more models, I am increasingly reluctant to pay the massively (in some cases) increased price. In particular is a new 4 car Southern EMU model of the 1967-91 era. The price of which is astronomical in my opinion. Due mainly it seems to the cost of the expensive interior lighting solid state plates, and the elaborate power transmitting, but grossly overscale couplings. All of which I would have no choice but too remove and dump in the bin. As it will interfere with my track circuits. But the model is otherwise very suited to my layout, and realistically I need three of them. 

I think it would be a lot better, if the manufacturers did "DCC fitted" and "No DCC" models.

 

71000  

 

I am not sure why lights would cause an issue with the signalling system of your layout. It sounds like it must read electrical juice being picked up at each section to determine whether or a not a train is there and then set signals accordingly. I assume there must be some form of computer involved or a really sophisticated cab control.

 

What is not clear is "The electrical items fitted in the latest Hornby Pullmans". Were the previous lighted Pullmans ok? The only difference is - in general - the inclusion of a capacitor on the latest versions which avoids flicker (not that mine flickered anyway as I keep the track clean).

For EMUs, the story is more complex.

Hornby 4-VEP has pick ups only on the driving coach, all lighting is passed through each coach via special connectors. You have to be careful which way they are connected in order to function, but lighting is no different to the older pullmans.

Bachmann EMUs use pickups across the entire train. Lighting is no different to older lighted coaches. 

 

I'm not sure these items add much to the cost, comparing Hornby's EMUs without to Bachmann's with, the gap was not huge. A modern loco has some 300 parts of which say 15 are just for DCC board and wires. Pricing seems to be quote based rather than bit by bit on the assembly line. Two locos of similar size but one with 200 parts vs 300 seem both to cost the same. Only when things get down to Railroad (less than 100), do prices actually come down and even then it seems to be a third.

That said Bachmann's Mk2Fs do show a big jump over non light fitted versions, but these are controllable under DCC, a first for UK RTR plain rolling stock all others are not except the EMUs. But here they offer non lighted versions.

Edited January 29, 2018 by JSpencer

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

DCC is succesful because it is compatible with DC (to an extent)...

 Or even, DCC was nothing more than an overlay on the long established 12V DC two rail system. Nothing had to be discarded = cheap entry. Vital in a market where existing customers produce 80% of the revenue. (A guess, Pareto principle)

 

... promoting an international standard will be an agenda driven by China., designing and offering it to the market...

 

 Which will only happen if a business can see real money to be made. China is big enough that if a large middle class emerges wanting such a product then it is quite possible. But of course it will be Chinese maglev that they produce, because who nowadays is interested in wheel's go round on rails? Very antiquated.

 

Then the Hornby forum can be full of annual disgruntlement that yet again Hornby have failed to produce a model of the UK's new maglev M1 national circuit system in Stagefloat, Borisbridge and Hovarriva liveries, while still introducing new models of kettles (RS long boiler 0-6-0, Paget's 2-6-2, S&D Locomotion 0-4-0, and the as running in later service L&M Rocket developed from the Rainhill trials Rocket of the previous year. Still no LMS 3P 2-6-2 T )

[railroadbill]

Actually a Paget 262 would make an interesting model.

 

I think it's Virgin who are seriously interested in developing a "maglev in a tube" system in uk. Trials of technology taking place in US, early days but you never know, could happen some years in future.

 

"Borisbridge livery" made me laugh out loud.

[71000]

I concede that the small speakers found in many sound-ready locomotives cannot replicate bass well. However, things are improving all the time. Bear in mind that, whilst a sound system cannot reproduce the bass sounds of steam or diesel as well as, for example, a video, it is a representation of the real thing, just as the valve gear of a steam locomotive is a representation of the real thing but does not move as the real thing would. However, apart from Hornby’s TTS system, pulsations of the exhaust do keep time with the rotation of the wheels. They are either set that way by the supplier or can be programmed.

 

However, if you don’t like sound, fair enough. You don’t have to like it and I can sympathise with your having to pay for features which you don’t want and which cause trouble on your set up.

 

I’m against having “DCC fitted” and “No DCC” models. It would entail discarding a decoder when fitting a sound decoder. In addition, it would probably increase costs by adding an additional variable to production.

Okay, so you are thinking about the cost of possibly loosing a chip here and there, if there are "DCC fitted" and "No DCC" options.

 

What about the cost to all those people who do not use or want DCC because they know how to wire a layout in a way that is realistic. How do you think they feel, having to pay more for every model loco and now certain carriages, because it has expensive DCC electrical items included. Whether they like it or not?

 

You see as I am both a qualified railwayman, and a professional modeller, I rather begrudge having an unrealistic electrical system that cannot hope to operate a model railway in a real life manner, being shoved down my throat. I use something much more sophisticated I call "TCC", as it copies the real railway with the addition of track circuits in the rails. Which just as in real life control my signals in exactly the same way as the real life railway. It even as on the real railway, stops sleepy operators from crashing signals and my overpriced "DCC ready" model locos......... 

 

And as for "sound systems" I have already walked out of two model railway exhibitions in Germany (within just a few minutes) because too many layouts, had too many sound fitted locos. And the overall result, was that there was just a constant background "Buzzing" from all directions. The result was like being in a bar with background music. Everyone just begins to talk louder. So the barman turns up the volume, and before you know it, everyone is nearly shouting. Sound fitted locos are in my opinion the thin edge of the wedge, and eventually I can see them detering potential customers from even attending shows. As is already happening in Germany, as I wasn't the only one to leave either show, due to the incesant background buzzing !

 

 

71000   

[Wickham Green]

 Or even, DCC was nothing more than an overlay on the long established 12V DC two rail system. Nothing had to be discarded = cheap entry. Vital in a market where existing customers produce 80% of the revenue. (A guess, Pareto principle)

 

 Which will only happen if a business can see real money to be made. China is big enough that if a large middle class emerges wanting such a product then it is quite possible. But of course it will be Chinese maglev that they produce, because who nowadays is interested in wheel's go round on rails? Very antiquated.

 

Then the Hornby forum can be full of annual disgruntlement that yet again Hornby have failed to produce a model of the UK's new maglev M1 national circuit system in Stagefloat, Borisbridge and Hovarriva liveries, while still introducing new models of kettles (RS long boiler 0-6-0, Paget's 2-6-2, S&D Locomotion 0-4-0, and the as running in later service L&M Rocket developed from the Rainhill trials Rocket of the previous year. Still no LMS 3P 2-6-2 T )

Having ridden the Shanghai Maglev, I would NOT wish that to replace wheeled transport ( I think I'm STILL shaking ).............. and as for putting it in a sealed vacuum tube*, Mr.Branston, no thanks ! : http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/hyperloop-one-richard-branson-virgin-investment-london-scotland-transport-travel-fast-a7998106.html

 

* with no obvious means of escape if there's a power cut !

[truffy]

Mr.Branston, no thanks ! 

 

He should stick to making pickle. 

[Wickham Green]

He should stick to making pickle. 

yep ! ....... seems to be what he's good at ..........

[WisTramwayMan]

So, although you've explained Hornby's production problems etc. you can't actually answer what I asked which was: what has changed with the Hornby Schools 4-4-0 bogie......

 

Regarding the connections between the locomotive and tender, I have a R3311 Westminster which regarding the drawbar has a screw mounting on the locomotive and a peg arrangement on the tender. The electrical connector comes unconnected to the tender, as the packaging appears to preclude that possibility, and the drawbar therefore has to inserted over the peg and the electrical connector physically plugged into the tender. I'd be interested in knowing if this arrangement persists on R3458 Shrewsbury; someone told me that the arrangement is now standard Hornby, drawbar screwed to both loco and tender and the electrical connector already in the tender socket, the packaging having been amended to make this possible. 

Edited January 9, 2019 by WisTramwayMan

[The Black Hat]

The last few posts demonstrate why DCC needs to be replaced.

 

It’s antiquainted technology, and sound chips are well over priced.

 

It’s time to consider a cpu with memory, Wi-fi on a chip (think an enhanced USB stick with speakers).

Run it dead rail (think rechargeable batteries as used on remote control helicopters or cars)

Then add in a charging mat, and wireless charging (think like your tooth brush or increasingly your mobile phone).

 

All is current technology.

 

Then the cpu turns the wheels in sync with the sound, and even smoke.

Unlimited sounds, and in multiple

Wiring the track becomes redundant, as does the controller.

Trains are controlled by household Wi-fi, via your phone, tablet, laptop etc.

You could even go down the road of cab cameras, managed schedules, timetables, setting points etc.

 

And how much will all that cost?!

 

Where as the current technology is available and should be getting easier and cheaper to make, meaning prices come down. Also the tech can evolve to a better and higher standard if your wanting to maintain prices.

 

 

[The Black Hat]

Okay, so you are thinking about the cost of possibly loosing a chip here and there, if there are "DCC fitted" and "No DCC" options.

 

What about the cost to all those people who do not use or want DCC because they know how to wire a layout in a way that is realistic. How do you think they feel, having to pay more for every model loco and now certain carriages, because it has expensive DCC electrical items included. Whether they like it or not?

 

You see as I am both a qualified railwayman, and a professional modeller, I rather begrudge having an unrealistic electrical system that cannot hope to operate a model railway in a real life manner, being shoved down my throat. I use something much more sophisticated I call "TCC", as it copies the real railway with the addition of track circuits in the rails. Which just as in real life control my signals in exactly the same way as the real life railway. It even as on the real railway, stops sleepy operators from crashing signals and my overpriced "DCC ready" model locos......... 

 

And as for "sound systems" I have already walked out of two model railway exhibitions in Germany (within just a few minutes) because too many layouts, had too many sound fitted locos. And the overall result, was that there was just a constant background "Buzzing" from all directions. The result was like being in a bar with background music. Everyone just begins to talk louder. So the barman turns up the volume, and before you know it, everyone is nearly shouting. Sound fitted locos are in my opinion the thin edge of the wedge, and eventually I can see them detering potential customers from even attending shows. As is already happening in Germany, as I wasn't the only one to leave either show, due to the incesant background buzzing !

 

 

71000   

 

  Massively off topic from Schools class.

 

This is fast going back to many previous discussions about how you can operate a digital railway. The problem is that just how far down this road are people, in that they want to add on the various aspects of control onto the layout. First you need a decent controller, that can manage all the various engines and store their numbers and settings, as well as have an effective means of switching between locomotive and accessory control to change points, signals, lights in buildings etc. Even I don't have everything digitally set up. Yard, building lights and lampposts are all on, constantly, just meaning ease of wiring but then can enhance the layout. Point control and track power is via my control system - ECoS - expensive but easily value for money.

 

That means that wiring is just to tracks and to accessory decoders, with power to these from separate sources as required. It means my railway can also operate much more prototypically by parking and stoping engines where I want, with functions and controls to them that I want to select. Others might want it otherwise, but digital control has enhanced prototypical operation massively, rather than one engine moving from place to place and always having to stop in the same place each time. Adding sound also brings an element of enjoyment as now more senses are stimulated, being sight and sound of the engine making noise and then moving. Lots of people viewing the exhibition take note of this, and many also enjoy this element. Children in particular.

 

You can get chips that match the wheel revolution to sound exhaust. Howes in Oxford done by Bryan, I still think are the best at this. I didn't think DCC smoke would ever be an option before I then saw a German engine on a youtube clip and was finally taken in that eventually it could be a way forward, rather than the wisp that doesn't match the correct look of exhaust.

 

If you decide that its not for you then fine, many others like it and I would still put forward that operation is much more accurate. But like King Canute, the tide is coming in. You cant stop it.

[phil-b259]

Regarding the connections between the locomotive and tender, I have a R3311 Westminster which regarding the drawbar has a screw mounting on the locomotive and a peg arrangement on the tender. The electrical connector comes unconnected to the tender, as the packaging appears to preclude that possibility, and the drawbar therefore has to inserted over the peg and the electrical connector physically plugged into the tender. I'd be interested in knowing if this arrangement persists on R3458 Shrewsbury; someone told me that the arrangement is now standard Hornby, drawbar screwed to both loco and tender and the electrical connector already in the tender socket, the packaging having been amended to make this possible. 

 

Following much criticism of the difficulties of coupling locos and tenders fitted with the plug and socket setup* Hornby have now decided they will do the mating process in the factory and ship the coupled loco + tender in suitable packaging.

 

This has been the norm for at least the past two years on ALL Hornby tender locos regardless of when they were first released.

 

* The worst aspect on some models like the initial batches of schools locos were (i) the possibility of damaging the fine detail while you put them upside down or on their side to get the plug into the socket, and (ii) the way the tender coupling arm could easily slide off the 'peg' under the loco putting extra strain on the wires and causing them to come out of the plug (which is not intended to be used as a towing rope)

[adb968008]

And how much will all that cost?!

 

Where as the current technology is available and should be getting easier and cheaper to make, meaning prices come down. Also the tech can evolve to a better and higher standard if your wanting to maintain prices.

 

A few pence off a Chinese production line at source.

Even if I sourced from ebay the relevant bits at 1 each time as a consumer I could assume it all for under £30... from ebay tonight,,

 

1. Wi-fi pcb is £1.44

1. RAM chip 1gb 99p

1. CPU Qualcomm £12

1. HD Camera (with tf card) and 100 minute rechargeable battery and USB connector £4.95 (I just bought one).

 

All the above components are smaller than 1” square, and under 5mm thick.

 

You can buy a raspberry pi with more features than this out of the box for £35

Much of my suggestion would be mobile phone technology, and largely out of date versions will suffice.

 

It’s putting it together and making it work that gets the big bucks.

 

It can be done, and In consumer scale quite cheaply, what makes you think an DCC sound chip at £100 costs more to make than a USB stick which has infinitely more technology in it? - they are both similar... a memory device with a unique identifier, consisting of a ROM and a RAM element, part to control, part configured for the user, both using byte arrays of data... imagine the amount of data 1 USB stick could manage for a steam loco...

 

My suggestion is to use current tech, rather than creating bespoke tech, which is why it’s cheap, standard and uses protocols well understood (TCP/IP etc).

 

I’d be surprised if the manufacturing cost of an ESU chip is more than a £1, but it’s older tech than Wi-fi, USB and all that other technology mentioned..it’s just old... 1999 old from the days of 56k modems and floppy disks.

Edited January 9, 2019 by adb968008

[WisTramwayMan]

Following much criticism of the difficulties of coupling locos and tenders fitted with the plug and socket setup* Hornby have now decided they will do the mating process in the factory and ship the coupled loco + tender in suitable packaging.

 

This has been the norm for at least the past two years on ALL Hornby tender locos regardless of when they were first released.

 

* The worst aspect on some models like the initial batches of schools locos were (i) the possibility of damaging the fine detail while you put them upside down or on their side to get the plug into the socket, and (ii) the way the tender coupling arm could easily slide off the 'peg' under the loco putting extra strain on the wires and causing them to come out of the plug (which is not intended to be used as a towing rope)

 

Based on the above I ordered one of these, and I can tell you 100% it's NOT permanently coupled, at least not on "Shrewsbury", and is exactly the same arrangement as on the earlier "Westminster". The model, however, also arrived with several bits fallen off and rattling around in the packaging, plus one part broken off (and NOT in the packaging) so it's going back.....the latter sounds very reminiscent of another RMweb user's post. Unfortunately. With a user-friendly coupling arrangement plus decent build/packing quality then this would be a good model.

Edited January 17, 2019 by WisTramwayMan

[phil-b259]

Based on the above I ordered one of these, and I can tell you 100% it's NOT permanently coupled, at least not on "Shrewsbury", and is exactly the same arrangement as on the earlier "Westminster". The model, however, also arrived with several bits fallen off and rattling around in the packaging, plus one part broken off (and NOT in the packaging) so it's going back.....the latter sounds very reminiscent of another RMweb user's post. Unfortunately. With a user-friendly coupling arrangement plus decent build/packing quality then this would be a good model.

 

What year was Shrewsbury released by Hornby? - it may have been hanging round on retailers shelves for a while.

 

If you are able to examine the packing in the shop then if it is the yellow polystyrene it will not be coupled - more recent model releases feature the 'ice cube' style packing.

 

See here (note it appears to be already coupled in the box) https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ebayimg.com%2F00%2Fs%2FNzY4WDEwMjQ%3D%2Fz%2F45kAAOSw0UZa0Pxu%2F%24_86.JPG&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gumtree.com%2Fp%2Fhobbies-collectibles%2Fhornby-schools-class-brighton-train-brand-new%2F1294795242&docid=h-TdsL8YWye_aM&tbnid=lhBxQNLEEYclEM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwirst6C8YPgAhXysHEKHeRuAcEQMwh4KCswKw..i&w=1024&h=768&itg=1&client=firefox-b&bih=966&biw=1920&q=Hornby%20schools&ved=0ahUKEwirst6C8YPgAhXysHEKHeRuAcEQMwh4KCswKw&iact=mrc&uact=8

 

Have a look at this N15 release which now comes coupled and with the plug / socket setup https://www.google.com/search?q=Hornby+771&client=firefox-b&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjesNu_8IPgAhWwRBUIHe3GC-AQ_AUIECgD&biw=1920&bih=966#imgrc=teTSmbuM24sGeM:

 

Personally I simply hacked the polystyrene in my earlier schools boxes about to fit the coupled loco and tender in and wound a small nut onto the end of the plastic peg (the peg is soft plastic so the nut cuts a thread for itself) that the tender drawbar hooks over - voila you have a coupled loco + tender that fits in the box.

Edited January 23, 2019 by phil-b259

[G-BOAF]

Short Question - how does one remove a schools smokebox from the boiler?

 

Background:

 

I've just spent the evening relatively carefully dismantling a Hornby Westminster, to try to remove the smokebox to fit to a Hornby Brighton (to create Stowe - i.e. BR late crest with later (high) cab side window profile - a variation never offered by Hornby).

 

From pictures of various stripped or broken models, it is clear that the plastic smokebox glues onto the front of the boiler casting,

e.g.  here https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/186131742993?var=0&mkevt=1&mkcid=1&mkrid=710-53481-19255-0&campid=5338749367&toolid=20006&customid=GB_1_186131742993.143190969535~1873891031901-g_CjwKCAjw7oeqBhBwEiwALyHLMxGa3TnFFfBN6WohAlfUdshNCxsim_DFuPIey0soSTgE8ta5zhZNIRoCy-EQAvD_BwE

 

However try as i might I cannot get it to shift. I've resorted to removing the entire boiler/smokebox from the cab/running plate to get better purchase.  I'm hoping that not so gently tapping out the weight inside the boiler (yes as well as being cast, there is a separate weight inside it might either shift the smokebox, or at very least shift the door such that I can then get a blade inside the smokebox. Its very strange. 

My challenge is removing Westminster's smokebox intact. For Brighton I'm resigned to cutting up the smokebox rather than take the boiler off the running plate.

 

At this stage ordinarily I would be tempted just to swap the boiler/smokebox (as one unit) with the cab/running plate, BUT the colour match between Sanda Kan and the subsequent manufacturer is not that great, and would really stick out.

 

So I'm left with the challenge of trying to remove the smokebox which is very very well glued.

[G-BOAF]

In reply to my own post, the internal weight (lead???!!!) in the boiler is tapered to fit into the boiler casting. There is a small hole in the boiler barrel inside into which a lug on the weight fits. Tapping it releases the weight so it can drop into the smokebox. Continuing (rather hard) to hit the weight (via a screwdriver placed through the hole) will eventually break off the paint on the boiler casting onto which the smokebox is glued!

I now have one free and intact Maunsell chimney Smokebox.

 

Now the hard part, to do it on Brighton without so much dismantling. I might very well cut the smokebox on that one.