1BCamden

10 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

But really, the only think that leaps out at me is the thicker-than-scale flange of the dome and safety valve casings. Am I missing something else?

 

check out the buffers, Talavera was withdrawn in December 1932, would they have changed the buffers over between March and December that year, maybe....

Fortunately Bachmann are on the ball regarding this matter, the model comes supplied with Webb and Cook style buffers.

circa 1922

again photo credits WarwickshireRailways.com, much thanks

notice the difference between the model and the prototype, an easy fixable problem, photo dated 26th March 1932 just before withdrawal.

photo credits to WarwickshireRailways.com

Just love the look of these and the balance of the LNWR Precursor Family.

Hi Iain,

The finish is perfect, the P3’s are amazing

On 06/07/2018 at 19:17, westernviscount said:

Templefield will be there this weekend. Looking forward to it. Hope she behaves in the heat!!!

 

Ken, bring a spare CDU and seep pm4 or two just in case ;-)

congratulations on the Templefield article in MRJ273, such a great layout considering the constraints. The large surfaces are so well executed.

Now I’d be interested in knowing too.

“twenty years” that’s priceless.

8 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

1. Surely, if one the has room to run ten-coach trains without them being on different bends at either end, one should also have room for better-than-train-set curves....

 

2. Most of the continental and US steam-outline models I've encountered (not a huge number admittedly) employ either tender drive, traction tyres or both. Speaking personally, I wouldn't want Hornby to go there.

 

3. As for a global market, expats apart, does a significant one really exist for UK-outline OO?

 

John 

Hi John,

Absolutely, it’s a specification issue only, Hornby don’t provide a carriage number or weight, just a minimum curve, which it should be able to negotiate with a reasonable load, in this case, nominally 6-10 for the consumer, 8-12 for the enthusiast. These forums continually criticise Hornby and its steam haulage capability. The Rebuilt WC design does not featured among this general opinion.

Traction tyres had crossed my mind, Hornby have been there, but I know Bachmann Spectrum don’t employ either, and they are very impressive.

Do not underestimate the Japan,US, and Canada.

20 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

The rebuilt WCs are impressive haulers, only bested (in steam outline) by well-run-in Bachmann 9Fs in my experience, I haven't yet used one of the new Duchesses (or the new air-smoothed MN or Lord Nelson which may well be contenders) so don't know their abilities. In common with most larger Hornby locos, the WC's motor sits above the rear drivers with its rear end in the firebox area - I presume the Staniers are similar.

 

However, normal Hornby practice (including current versions of all the various Bulleids) these days places decoder and speaker provision in the tender, maximising available space for weight in the loco. LMS Pacifics are significantly longer than a WC, so should have room for more. The effect of the larger wheels can be counteracted by lowering the gearing.

 

All-in-all, I'd expect at least near-parity to be achievable.

 

John  

Hi John,

Thanks, interestingly, there appears to be additional driving wheel weights fitted on non decoder models, althoughI might be reading the service sheet wrong. Anyway, I hope you are right.

6 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

As for haulage issues, Hornby rebuilt West Countries (once properly run-in) don't display even slight discomfort with less than twelve on. The new Princess Royal shouldn't be any different if Hornby stick with the design principles established on that model. Practical experience also indicates that they negotiate 36" radius curves comfortably with flanged wheelsets in place and I have a second-hand one that's been got at (not by me) to give some side-play and will go round 24" ones. At some point, I'll have to take it and a standard one apart to work out how its done.

 

John 

Hi John,

The rebuilt west country, is quite different externally and under the skin, than the Coronation and probable Princess type.

The driving wheels are larger again then those of the Coronation type, plus the nearly solid Bulleid style wheels would be weight plus over the traditional wheels. Under the skin the additional weight block under the decoder, together with the motor positioned well back would all certainly add to improved traction.

Interesting to weigh off both, my guess the west country balance and overall weight would top the Coronation type.

4 hours ago, robmcg said:

 

 

I am a bit bemused.

 

You want to criticise a model for its defects, 'probably'... BEFORE it has been produced?  

 

But "the package doesn't weigh enough, and the motor isn't powerful enough to  comfortably handed a load at least ten (10) LMS P3 carriages around a standard third radius layout" 

 

Who runs 10 coach trains on 3rd radius ... ?  It tends to look a bit silly but can be done, certainly.  Imagination is part of 00 RTR modelling,  Six coaches looks pretty good. It certainly isn't scale radius.  Nor gauge, nor wheel profile.  Nor sound,   in fact many current Hornby express engine WILL haul ten carriages on type three radius ovals, I've done it to make videos of trains passing.

 

As to the marketing suggestions, why not simply write to SK or Paul Isles or the Hornby board?  They are working extremely hard to save a much loved company which has very nearly gone under and is by no means out of the woods yet.

 

Cheers

 

another nice edited 'old tooling' Princess to be going on with, will remove if asked

 

apologies if you've seen this before, but they are great engines! 

 

Hi Robmcg,

Criticise, no, but fact is these are the probable issues based on the Hornby journey to date, when hoping that the Princess Class out of the box will live up to current consumer and enthusiast expectations.

Both you and Jason commented within the thread - Hornby Princess Coronation Class (Duchess) 

Being over 90 pages, and with no sign of slowing, which well describes the positives and negatives of this similar pacific type. I don’t need labour the point regarding weight tending to not being centred correctly, build quality, and the ever popular pony truck discussion to name a couple of points.

So when the Hornby Coronation type is compared to the soon to be Princess type, we have to acknowledge the smaller boiler casing (narrower) and the smaller driving wheels on the Princess will not help weight installation and traction, unless Hornby move away from prototypical specification.

Weight=traction, motor=capacity,  3rd radius, of course not, but that’s one size up from Hornby pacific types are cataloged. So we get Hornby to revise their spec and catalog as 4th radius, it’s still a challenge. Much has been written within these forums, all acknowledge some form of modification is required. While ROCO FLEISCHMANN, TILLIG and near every american company (including their Bachmann) do not, and up to 2% grades to boot out of the box.

Again, I know they are at it, and I know they will read this, and justify why “what is, is” and throw in the “budget” word to close it out.

Hornby is in our blood, and we must succeed in a global market, not just a the local hobby shoppe, where modifying is common place and expected.

Fingers crossed, this model will cement Hornby as a global supplier of quality model railways.

4 hours ago, robmcg said:

 

5 hours ago, robmcg said:

 

....

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the advice and photos.

 

I have a feeling that Paul Isles and others are doing all they can to accommodate the two or three tender types already planned.

 

So far the EP photos show variations in all sorts of places so they are being very thorough.  I don't expect to see human figures in the accessory pack though. These are so easy to buy,  but not to my taste.  but then I don't really want sound either....   

 

Speaking for myself, I am very grateful that Hornby are still trading at all, given how close they came to liquidation.  To rebuild their business after the demise of Sanda Kan is amazing, and their quality is generally very very good.  I see any model as complex and  demanding as the Princess class as a great achievement, if made to the standard of other current models.

 

In fact I can't wait to see these iconic models. 

 

here is an enhanced edited pic of their earlier version, will remove if asked

 

Hi Robmcg,

Yes, the tenders, it’s problematic, but important, and I suspect not originally a budget driver.

Couldn’t help the footplate crew thing, but for pre war and immediate post war versions they are perfect, as good as modelu3d is, the figures contained in the super detailing pack when viewed closely are great, body weight, cap, and importantly no bib and brace.

Sound, well it needs to be considered in the build, and weight distribution over the main driving wheels will be critical.

I guess like you, I know they are on it, but not to succeed based on their recent history will not be good, product review can be unkind to the bottom line. Agreed, it not impossible, with the on hand tech, and with other companies to reflect on, things such as prototypical drawbar systems as achievable, even if they have to go under licence.

nice jpeg.

11 hours ago, Hroth said:

 

I'd venture to push that back a few more years.

 

The original body originated with the set that Rovex produced in 1950/52 for Marks and Spencer.

http://www.tri-ang.co.uk/origset.html

 

It became a "proper" Triang locomotive from 1952 onwards with an improved mechanism but an identical bodyshell.

http://www.tri-ang.co.uk/RO Set.html

 

The main visible difference between the R.O example above and the Rovex/early Triang Princesses is that the earlier ones had plunger/roller pickups behind the driving wheels!

 

 

Somewhere, I've a photo I took of my trio of Princesses alongside each other; the Black Princess Elizabeth from my R.O set*, a late 50s green Princess Elizabeth with the "improved" valvegear, and R2225. If I can find it, I'll add it here, I hope the new tooling will result in a  step change thats at least as dramatic as that between the green Lizzy and R2225!

 

* As of the beginning of this year, my 6" coaches haven't developed significant banana tendancies as the ones in the R.O set in the link above!  I'll have to check...

 

 

Hi Hroth,

Yes, quite correct, but I thought sixty year was enough to make my point.

Don’t you just love those spring loaded pick ups, now there is something lost, which could be of benefit.

Step change, absolutely, hence all the banging on about this that and the other.

I know this is going to sound crazy, but I never leave the carriages sitting on their bogies for long periods, seems to have worked, I guess time will tell.

16 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

A few misnomers and assumptions there. Most of them very outdated. I'll highlight a few.

 

The current model (assuming you mean the Duchess as they haven't even made this model yet and the previous version is over 20 years old) doesn't have a fixed coal load and I doubt any model made over the last ten years has. They are removable. The Duchess even has the coal pusher modelled beneath the coal.

 

Weight. It's a decent weight and my SWS can easily pull a train of over 10 metal Comet coaches. (All my LMS mainline coaches are Comet or BSL). Could probably pull much more. It would run away with plastic ones.

 

NEM sockets. They go in the bin as I don't use tension lock, The drawbar is easily altered (some are actually adjustable so they are at a prototypical distance.

 

Bogie wheels are easily changed for Gibsons which just drop in.

 

Fixed trailing truck? No big deal just replace the wheel with a flanged one. They don't really sway around like a scalded cat in reality and only move a few inches. It's a far better solution than having vast amount of daylight where it shouldn't be.

 

If it's then not good enough then Brassmasters make a kit which is probably the ultimate. They even sell a 1936 tender. But all together that's going to be over £400 before you even build it when you include wheels and a decent motor.

 

http://www.brassmasters.co.uk/princess.htm

 

 

 

Jason

Hi Jason, thanks for taking the time to consider the points raised,

The current model (assuming you mean the Duchess as they haven't even made this model yet and the previous version is over 20 years old) - no I mean the Princess Class, I’m not discussing the Princess Coronation Class, so we can park that one for another time.

This includes the fixed coal load, and your Comet/BSL stock weight (lucky you) 

NEM sockets, we are talking about the model as being produced, not individual preferences.

The drawbar, is not calibrated, and is outdated compared to industry standard, 

Bogie wheels again, we are talking about the model as being produced, not individual preferences.

Fixed trailing truck? No big deal just replace the wheel with a flanged one, I didn’t dispute this point, as it looks prototypical, but again, we are talking about the model as being produced, not individual preferences.

If it's then not good enough then Brassmasters make a kit which is probably the ultimate. They even sell a 1936 tender. But all together that's going to be over £400 before you even build it when you include wheels and a decent motor, and again, we are talking about the model as being produced, not individual preferences.

Summary, how good is the model “out of the box” how good is it, for the enthusiast, you and I, the consumer, and importantly for Hornby. Will it deliver on life cycle investment.

Hornby, don't forget the tender types,

As outlined below, and while obviously a much shorter timeframe, the Stanier styled nine ton, curved sided tender were attached to all members of the class, including 6202.

Noting: (a) none of the class entered traffic with Stanier styled ten ton, curved sided tenders, and (b) the tender frames were essentially the same.

This said, Hornby have a couple of options,

1. do nothing.
2. offer retrofit kits, which contain the actual tender body types, minus the frame. 
3. build out the class over time, liveries, modifications,  tender types, and possibly 6202.

General tender summary;

1932 - mid 1935: Derby styled nine ton, straight sided tender:

(9000/1)

1935 - late 1936: Stanier styled nine ton, curved sided tender: (9065/66,9124/25/26/27/28/29/30/31/32/33)

mid 1936 onwards: Stanier styled ten ton, curved sided tender:

(9344/45/53/54/59/60/61/72/73/74/75/76)

1936: Stanier styled ten ton (coal pusher) curved sided tender:

(9359) 

1947: Coronation styled ten ton (coal pusher) curved sided tender:

(9816) 

Recommendation;

Continue as per schedule and current budget, but review/revise budget to (a) offer retrofit kits, which contain the actual tender body types, minus the frame, within twelve (12) months of initial release date, while (b)  continuing to build out the class over time, incorporating liveries, modifications,  tender types, and possibly 6202 in later releases.

Hornby, don't forget the consumer,

Hornby is the emotional "go to" model railway company in our lives. The Hornby Princess Class was first realised in 1955, and except for a period in the seventies, has been cataloged through to 2011 (about sixty years), in many different variants.

As a boy, if their was a drop of LMS blood in your veins, or your family, you either dreamed, wanted or had at least one example. Unfortunately, in retrospect every example lacked detail, quality and affordability when compared to the RTR industry standard then and now.

But given all that, we still want them to succeed, and Simon and the gang are back, and now with this watershed make or brake consumer informed challenge, the long awaited Hornby Princess Class retooling.

Today all the reference documentation, technology, real life cloud point examples, global manufacturing capability, are available to succeed.

So, whats the problem, please don't say (a) budget, or (b) consumer sales forecasting.

This is one of the great iconic faces of Hornby Model Railways, Simon needs to do what ever he need to do to get it right, we can wait, we will never forgive him if he gets it (millimetre, colour, detail) wrong.

Budget, increase it now, 50% address what is currently not right with the new model, and 50% to advertising, its that important.

What is currently wrong with the new model, probably;

1. train capacity, the package doesn't weigh enough, and the motor isn't powerful enough to  corfortably handed a load at least ten (10) LMS P3 carriages around a standard third radius layout 
2. the tender has a fixed coal load modelled into it, should be modelled void of coal.
3. the package is not prototypical between the engine and tender, and the solid beam is supplied not graduated or scaled.
4. no power pick ups on the tender
5. the NEM pockets are to low and too prominent
6. the package super detailing pack, does not include figures and footplate tools.
7. the package super detailing pack, does not include all numbering and nameplates to cover the specific variant type.
8. the package colour (livery) does not match the more recent LMS and BR livery P3 carriages.
9. the bogie attachment system is outdated, and demands to much main frame clearance, adopt integrated or sprung attachment method.
10. the decoder and sound speaker are mounted in the tender, both should be mounted in the smoke box.

Advertising,

1. get the Hornby marketing team to address the dismal coverage on facebook, instagram, and on the Hornby web site and YouTube channel, or get somebody in who can.
2. retail budgets are driven by forecasting consumer interest, forecast are driven by advertising take up, and pre order activity reflecting consumer interest.
3. Hornby, rethink current hard copy publication strategy, to web based real time investment 25-75 ratio.
4. Story, were is the story.
5. No television, even free to air investment, rethink the YouTube coverage for global exposure, facebook and instagram for local, and partly international coverage.
6. Sort out the Hornby YouTube channel, again really wanting, only 18K subscribers (176videos). Everard Junction 54K subscribers, (205 videos) one enthusiast, with a family, a day career and a mortgage, what are you thinking.

Modelling railway is a complex genre, demanding a lifetime investment, in both time, and money, constantly suffering from internal and external criticism. As is Bonsai to the Japanese, nothing short of perfection will do.

I want Hornby to succeed with the Princess Class more than I care to admit, so we can get on to the overdue Postal Express vans (haha)

I’d be interested to hear about your laser cutter experiences, and the brickwork

What a fantastic layout, prototypes are the best.

You are probably correct, my recollection of a British winter was November-December, but I guess January-February is still winter, and a February 2020 release is far better than December 2020. Better start getting those pre orders in. Thanks for the correction for those out in the colonies, we rely on you guys so much.

Hornby.com has slipped the release date to Q4 (winter) 2020.

Which in my mind is no big deal, we have waited this long.  Just hoping Simon gets it right, and of course he will, we are counting on it.

Hi Iain,

Still thinking about arranging this into the space available ?

Well after my last effort (not good) please consider - "how would a fiddle yard under the scenic section" work;

sorry about the picture quality. The problem has been bugging me since December, and I know I said (among others) no gradients, but this would be <0.5%.

I've not considered compacting it or curve radius and I've only looked at the down fast line, with the arrows showing red to green - down under scenic area. The fiddle yard would be "at the front", directly under the shed.

Just a thought.

On 26/08/2018 at 18:43, Michael Delamar said:

The grass has been growing thanks to Chris.

 

 

 

Hi  Mike, 

really admire your attention to detail with regard to the prototype, a very nice and possibly overlooked touch, was that you have pulled in Tue Brook into the scenic area, great little cameo. Ha, my mistake, it’s the subway !! perfect. Good thing I checked again.

Not wanting to sound negative, but the standout item which time stamps each class member is the tender type.

As previously highlighted, this class as built, and throughout its life experienced numerous alterations, and yes the boiler is important, but doesn’t come close to the tender as instantly providing the date, which hopefully Hornby will provide a map, so we all don’t rush out and buy the 10t tender, only later to find that a 9t example is coming next year.

You won't get the older ones up to the standard of the new ones no matter what you do. The loco body on the ones released on the early 2000s is a fair way off in terms of accuracy/shape etc.

I got rid of my ones ages ago awaiting this annoucement. I model about a decade or so after you and am getting 6201 and 46206 to make them in to 1947 versions....

Speaking of 46206, will the coal pusher be modelled i wonder?

And, there is ebay to recover some of the original outlay.

Coal pusher, and the multitude of variations over the years, could be an interesting opportunity for Hornby.

Thank you Hornby for considering and listening to enthusiasts and forums such as rmweb, and retooling this legacy model.

While I have five still in the box Hornby princess class (R.2313) waiting to be modified and renamed to suit my layout date, which just happened to be while the whole class still had 9t Stanier tenders.

I did however hold off getting a 6200 and 6201 donor models hoping this retool would eventuate.

My challenge now, and that of a few others within this forum I think, and with some excitement, will be to bring my existing pretooling class examples up to this new tooling standard.

Thankfully suppliers such as brassmasters are already on the journey regarding these requirements and will further improve this great class type. Hopefully my NRM copy of LMS Locomotive Profile #4, The Princess Royal Pacifics, by David Hunt, Bob Essery, and Fred James will be off the shelf a little more often.