New Hornby 28xx / 38xx

[Dean525]

My BR 38xx turned up yesterday, so this morning ive been running it in on my dining room table. Its a superb model, it runs beautifully and im really happy with it but I had 2 small problems with mine.

 

When I plugged the link wire between the tender and the engine it was causing the tender body to sit at an angle to the chassis, so it looked as though the tender was crabbing down the track. A bit of a messing about with the wires and it seems to be ok now. It doesnt really seem to be the best of designs to me.

 

The other problem ive got is one of the front buffers is locked solid. All the others work fine but I cant get any movement from the stuck one, Im guessing a bit of glue or something has found its way in there. Anyone else had this problem??

[Neal Ball]

Have spent the day running my new 28xx which was received for a Christmas present, whilst the body is moulded exquisitly, I am not particularly happy with it:

 

1. Damaged cross head on one side. (Might be able to straighten, will try tomorrow.) It is of course not damaged. Having checked through my reference books, there was a peice of motion that appears to go up. Had not seen this before on any GWR loco, so thought it was damaged. - Apologies for the slurr

2. Slide bars on other side were not connected to the cross head.

 

Both lead to very poor running (obviously), having corrected No.2 it now runs better.

 

3. Spent several hours running it in, having run very poor to start with, it is not so erratic now.

4. The packing screws / new packaging arrangement - what a faff - The front packing screw will not tighten correctly on the underside of the loco, meaning:

5. The bottom of the loco remains loose, with the leading brake hangers being too low and occasionaly hitting the track, plus:

6. Because the base is loose, the pony truck has too much play and constantly derails when leading.

 

The loco came from hattons and if I can't get No. 1 sorted out, it will be going back on Wednesday. - Partner not happy as he bought it.

 

The body is great, although there is not enough room to easily fit a guagemaster DCC20 chip into the tender (not going to mention the electrical connector!), although I am not sure how long the upright wet weather supports will last.

 

Very disapointed as I also received a Hattons rail cleaner, which is also broken. - details on the railcleaner page! - Thankfully I also got another Sketty Hall, so all is not lost - it works fine!

[gwrrob]

Have spent the day running my new 28xx which was received for a Christmas present, whilst the body is moulded exquisitly, I am not particularly happy with it:

 

1. Damaged cross head on one side. (Might be able to straighten, will try tomorrow.)

2. Slide bars on other side were not connected to the cross head.

 

Both lead to very poor running (obviously), having corrected No.2 it now runs better.

 

3. Spent several hours running it in, having run very poor to start with, it is not so erratic now.

4. The packing screws / new packaging arrangement - what a faff - The front packing screw will not tighten correctly on the underside of the loco, meaning:

5. The bottom of the loco remains loose, with the leading brake hangers being too low and occasionaly hitting the track, plus:

6. Because the base is loose, the pony truck has too much play and constantly derails when leading.

 

The loco came from hattons and if I can't get No. 1 sorted out, it will be going back on Wednesday. - Partner not happy as he bought it.

 

The body is great, although there is not enough room to easily fit a guagemaster DCC20 chip into the tender (not going to mention the electrical connector!), although I am not sure how long the upright wet weather supports will last.

 

 

 

I wouldn't mess around with it Neal.Send it back pronto ! Can't you buy one locally so you can see it before purchase.My 38xx handrail was bent and missing a handrail knob. I fixed it but I won't do another.

[Dan Hamblin]

Interesting you should mention the front packing screw - while I was trying to sort out the derailing issue with my 3803 I noticed there were two thin (clear) plastic washers between the chassis block and the plastic keeper plate for the wheelsets. This pushes the keeper plate down somewhat at the front end (no derailments attributable to it though). I did test it without the washers but found there was virtually no vertical movement in the leading truck as the keeper plate clamped it up.

 

Regards,

 

Dan

[Neal Ball]

Interesting you should mention the front packing screw - while I was trying to sort out the derailing issue with my 3803 I noticed there were two thin (clear) plastic washers between the chassis block and the plastic keeper plate for the wheelsets. This pushes the keeper plate down somewhat at the front end (no derailments attributable to it though). I did test it without the washers but found there was virtually no vertical movement in the leading truck as the keeper plate clamped it up.

 

Regards,

 

Dan

 

Excellent Dan thank you.

 

However, the packing screws were also different sizes, I have therefore used the slightly shorter one from the rear as well as the washers on the outer side of the keeper plate and this has now secured the front end into its correct plane. Without the washers, the screw was too long to screw home. - clearly my packer had run out of the correct screws and just used anything to hand.

 

Thanks again Dan.

[westerner]

Sad to hear of your troubles. My 38xx ran well straight out of the box backwards and pretty well forwards (there was just a slight, almost imperceptible, jerkiness forward). However a good half hours running in, running light and then with 20 loaded opens it smoothed itself out.

[pacer lover]

hi all

i love the 38xx i n my mum got my dad for xmas

 

here a pic of it

[Chris Chewter]

My nice new shiny 28xx arrived just before Christmas, but with all the family visits et al, I only just managed to find the time to unpack it earlier today. I thought people might like to see the comparison between the older and newer versions of the same model. But first, has anyone else noticed the spelling mistake in the blurb on the back of the packet? I've circled it on the first photo to make it easier to spot! Guess Hornby were too busy getting the packet out to print rather than checking the spelling!

 

I'm no expert in the 28xx loco, so I cannot tell you which is right and which is wrong. However, aside the obvious improvements with the cab interiors which are pretty exposed, the first thing that is apparent is the difference in length, with the older version being considerably longer. The handrails are also very much improved, together with the removal of that dreadful Ringfield tender motor hidden under that large lump of plastic coal.

 

So we have a better motor, more detail, we've binned those jumbo couplings, and got rid of the smoke generator gimmicks. (Although that smoke generator made it pretty appealing as a kid flicking through the Hornby catalogue!)

 

However it doesn't all go in the favor of the newer model. That pesky 4 pin connector is a pain in the buttocks, which requires careful easing with a flat blade to release! The older version has raised pins which are far easier to connect (Although I will admit I have one Hornby model fitted with this fail when the pin folded flat!)

 

Also the newer loco doesn't have the smaller portholes above the cab backhead that the older version has.

 

To me the newer model is vast improvement on the old model. but on the tender there are two raised grabrails that I've never seen on the prototype. How odd! I'm sure Hornby did their research, but I cannot find any image showing such a tender with grab rails on top of the tender!

 

So what shall I do with the older model. I could Ebay it, but its been hard wired for DCC. I guess I've found a contender for some detailing and weathering!

 

 

[buffalo]

...But first, has anyone else noticed the spelling mistake in the blurb on the back of the packet?...

Looks like Hornby are including a deliberate mistake in the blurb on each model As I mentioned earlier, they managed to spell 'Churchward' in two different ways on the 2818 packaging. Perhaps more alarming here is the "Originally numbered as class '97'..." (my italics).

 

...Also the newer loco doesn't have the smaller portholes above the cab backhead that the older version has...

 

Thanks for reminding me about these, I'll add this to my notes on backdating the 28XX. These were a feature of Churchward-era cabs and were present on most, probably all, 28XXs, but not on the 2884s. They were later removed and plated over , although I don't have any written or photographic evidence that makes it clear when. I'd guess it was done at overhauls during the 1930s, as most seem to have gone by the 1940s. Does anyone have any further evidence?

 

...To me the newer model is vast improvement on the old model. but on the tender there are two raised grabrails that I've never seen on the prototype. How odd! I'm sure Hornby did their research, but I cannot find any image showing such a tender with grab rails on top of the tender!...

 

I think you are referring to the weather sheet brackets. In bad weather the sheet could be attached between the cab roof and these supports. However, I always though they were removable and wouldn't usually be seen unless the sheet was erected. The arrangement can be seen in this post by 46444.

 

Nick

[Chris Chewter]

Thanks Nick - Weather sheet brackets to the tender would explain it. Just seemed odd given that my photos don't show them. Then again I only hold photos of preserved examples, and I guess they are removable in reality.

 

Given the previous mis-spelling for Churchward, I thought I'd check the the back of the box for 2810. 6 paragraph spells it as "Churward". Good job Hornby!

 

 

 

[Stevelewis]

Thanks CaptainAlbino for the post re the comprisons etc......................

 

One thing I notice on the pic of the carton the price 151.05 I hope that you did not pay that much! As it is available for around £100.00 or less!!

[Chris Chewter]

Thanks CaptainAlbino for the post re the comprisons etc......................

 

One thing I notice on the pic of the carton the price 151.05 I hope that you did not pay that much! As it is available for around £100.00 or less!!

 

 

Fear not. The bottom box is the older version and was a Rails of Sheffield eBay bargain. Rest assured, £151.05 it was not!

 

I think you can pick up the older version for £30 these days from eBay!

[Stevelewis]

Fear not. The bottom box is the older version and was a Rails of Sheffield eBay bargain. Rest assured, £151.05 it was not!

 

Phew.................... thats a relief!!

[Miss Prism]

Thanks for reminding me about these, I'll add this to my notes on backdating the 28XX. These were a feature of Churchward-era cabs and were present on most, probably all, 28XXs, but not on the 2884s. They were later removed and plated over , although I don't have any written or photographic evidence that makes it clear when. I'd guess it was done at overhauls during the 1930s, as most seem to have gone by the 1940s. Does anyone have any further evidence?

I can't be specific about the 28xxs, but plating over of cabfront portholes commenced at Swindon c 1924.

[rprodgers]

There is also a similar issue with the early 45xx tanks they also originally had these small additional "port holes" at the front of the cabs....which did not appear on later versions.

 

I believe that like the "square drop " frames, taper buffer shanks these are all distinguishing features of the early Churchward locos.

 

Still not convinced by how far the safety valves protude above the s/v cover on my 28xx looking at different photos including those in the Russell books.

 

Has the preserved 2818 a non standard ie shorter s/v cover that make the safety valves protude above the cover more than normal....has anyone a photo of the real 2818 in the NRM?

 

If no mentioned earlier a useful reference for loco allocations are the two booklets issued by Wild Swan Great Western Railway Locomotive Allocations for 1934.

 

The other I think was for 1947 but cannot place that one at the moment

 

R

[Dan Hamblin]

Has the preserved 2818 a non standard ie shorter s/v cover that make the safety valves protude above the cover more than normal....has anyone a photo of the real 2818 in the NRM?

Is this any good?

 

http://daniel-hambli.../p67508016.html

 

EDIT: Sorry! Screwed up the link...

 

Regards,

 

Dan

[rorz101uk]

Why doesn't Hornby fitted a 21 pin it to the tender, not sure how i'm going to be able to get a sound chip in there, its good to see the speaker will fit?

[Bill]

The other problem ive got is one of the front buffers is locked solid. All the others work fine but I cant get any movement from the stuck one, Im guessing a bit of glue or something has found its way in there. Anyone else had this problem??

 

This problem is pretty standard on many new Hornby locos - the most recent, Winchester arrived with a stuck front right buffer.

I have others with buffers in a similar state.

It does not seem worth the trouble to get them fixed since in normal running the fault is not evident...

Perhaps Hornby could in future include spare buffers with its newer models:) ?

But they are rather fiddly to remove and fix, and with my eyesight a potential disaster...

[buffalo]

...

Still not convinced by how far the safety valves protude above the s/v cover on my 28xx looking at different photos including those in the Russell books.

 

Has the preserved 2818 a non standard ie shorter s/v cover that make the safety valves protude above the cover more than normal....has anyone a photo of the real 2818 in the NRM? ...

 

2818 appears to have the normal shorter bonnet fitted to 2884s and used as a later modification to 28XXs. Many photos show that the retaining nuts on the valves do extend above this type of bonnet, though perhaps not as far as on the Hornby model. Drawings on page 241 of Russell's volume 2 show two heights of bonnet, one at 1' 6" and the other at 1' 2¹/₈" (measured at the rear). The Hornby representation is quite close to the second of these. Remember, though, that they were individually hand made.

 

Is this any good?...

 

Thanks for the photo, Dan

 

Nick

[bike2steam]

Thank you 'captainalbino' for the comparison photos between new and old, the incredible number of subtle detail differences show what time, effort, and improvements Hornby have devoted to this excellent loco. But one comment on this thread made me laugh, the fact that a sprung buffer didn't work, when most rely on that horrible coupling coming into contact, and not the buffers - so why bother with sprung buffers?

[big jim]

i should have a video of a howes sound fitted 28xx up on youtube later, bryan fitted his own one up yesterday and bought it round to my flat to video earlier today.

 

I will post a link once its up

[Dean525]

This problem is pretty standard on many new Hornby locos - the most recent, Winchester arrived with a stuck front right buffer.

I have others with buffers in a similar state.

It does not seem worth the trouble to get them fixed since in normal running the fault is not evident...

Perhaps Hornby could in future include spare buffers with its newer models:) ?

But they are rather fiddly to remove and fix, and with my eyesight a potential disaster...

 

Im glad to hear im not the only one to have had this problem. At the moment I still use tension lock couplings, so like you said the fault isnt noticable in normal running.

[Dinmore Manor]

Hadn't noticed until just now having studied the cab photo above a little closer that the model has been detailed with a steam heat gauge and 5 glass lubricator rather than a 3 glass. Maybe paid a little too much attention to a preserved example?

[big jim]

he is a howes sound chipped 28xx:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZ1nHht-Y1M

[Captain Kernow]

aside the obvious improvements with the cab interiors which are pretty exposed, the first thing that is apparent is the difference in length, with the older version being considerably longer

Working on the assumption that the new model is the correct length, was the fact that the older version was longer than it should have been a well-known fact? What of those who may have used the older body with a replacement chassis etc.?