Crichel Down

I have a couple of Parkside Dundas kits for a Diagram W7 Beetle C (originally Beetle B), one of each variant. I have always intended to complete the earlier model in early 1920s livery, and naturally assumed that it would have been reclassified as NPCS (a ‘Brown Vehicle’), repainted in the Brown livery and re-numbered in the ‘Vans’ series by the time of the First World War. Not so. Reading Atkins’ wagon ‘bible’, I discovered that this first Lot of Diagram W7 Beetles continued to be classed, numbered and painted Grey as goods wagons until 1927. They presumably became ‘Brown Vehicles’ when the second Lot of W7s were built, which were classed, numbered and painted as Brown Vehicles from new in 1927. This is only one of the numerous livery traps waiting for the unwary. I have painted my Y2 fruit van (also running in the early 1920s) in Brown livery, although there is a possibility that between 1912 and 1922 these vehicles might have been painted Crimson Lake like the coaches. I hedged my bets by assuming a coincidental re-paint of my model in 1922, with 16-inch “ G W ”to avoid having to decide which colour it would/might have been painted before 1922. Sorry, I can’t contribute anything to the ‘red oxide’ wagon livery discussion. My chosen period is safely beyond that period, but I sympathise with those model-makers who are frustrated by the paucity of reliable information on that topic.

These are all from what may be termed 'the main production series'. The examples selected are the most representative of the streamlined AEC railcars (No.s 5 to 16). No.17 (parcels car) was builtt o the same profile. [No.1 to No.4 were not to this design]. No.18 was a a one-off design for a branch railcar (but very attractive). [The 'angular' version (modelled by Lima/Hornby) were the cars from No.19 upwards, and went into service in 1941. They included another parcels car - No.34, and a couple of twin units.]

Is there any update on expected delivery date? 'Mid-2016' was the lastest information I can recall seeing.

The GWR steam railmotors were probably the most succesful pre-WW1 design for this type of vehicle (I am not qualifed to comment on the inter-war Sentinel vehicles built for the LNER). The GWR railmotors did have plenty of power; it was those built by other companies (such as the LSWR) that proved to be distinctly under-powered. That said, the GWR railmotors were not so lively when called upon to haul a trailer. There were other issues, besides this, that led the GWR to prefer an auto-fitted tank and autotrailer combination. However, the company was in no great hurry to eliminate the railmotors, and whilst there was a steady programme of conversions to autotrailers, the last railmotor was not withdrawn until 1935.

So don't buy on eBay. Things can bought for more sensible prices elsewhere. I noted this design point affecting the Blacksmith R Railmotor when I had the kit, but the friend who bought the kit from me seems to have been able to overcome it. I sold the kit for a lot less than £150, but was perfectly happy to accept a more sensible price.

With the greatest respect, the A28/A30 autotrailers would be totally unsuitiable for retro-conversion to steam railmotors. They had 'modern' (Collett period) flush-sided bodies, with an outer skin of galvanised steel sheet. The old K's kit for the A31 trailer was capable (with considerable effort) of being converted to a Diagram Q railmotor, because that was what the A31 trailers had been before they were converted to autotrailers in the early 1930s. However, there would be no point in doing so now, as one could build a Diagram Q railmotor from a Mallard/Blacksmith etched brass kit (which, if you don't already have one, or can't buy the kit from the current manufacturer, is no doubt available second-hand if you look around). I am unconcerned about the wait for the RTR Diagram R railmotor from Kernow. If it is another 5 years, that is no problem at all, and if it never appears then we will all just have to do without it. I did have a Blacksmith etched beass kit for the Diagram R Raimotor, but sold it because I was never likely to get around to building it. I am glad that I did so, as the purchaser promptly turned it into a very nice model, whereas it would still be languishing unbuilt in my kit cupboard if I had not sold it. Unlike some correspondents on RM web, I really don't care whether RTR manufacturers produce particular models or not. If they do, then I will consider buying them. If not, I will either build a kit or do without that particular model. It hardly matters one way or the other.

Purely out of curiosity (not impatience) I was wondering if Kernow have any rough estimate of a proposed/expected delivery date for the GWR Railmotor. (Is this dependent on demand / orders received? Or is it just a question of taking its turn in their production progamme?)

Before the champagne corks start popping, maybe we should read between the lines of the corporate 'spin'. Barclays have only let Hornby off the hook (temporarily) by effectively waiving the breach of their banking covenant which would otherwise have occurred this month. It seems that the company is still in a 'cap in hand' relationship with Barclays, and will remain dependent on the bank's continuing forbearance for the time being. Whether the bank's patience will be extended further will depend on the progress Hornby is able to make in showing that its financial position is beginning to recover. No doubt Barclays will be watching the position closely, and the price of their continuing support may be the realisation of some assets (certain brands, one or two product ranges, etc.) and other necesary 'adjustments'. What the year end figures will show when they are published in June is anybody's guess. In the meantime, Hornby's well-wishers will have to keep their fingers tightly crossed.

At last! Someone actually on-thread, instead of all the irrelevant waffling that has gone on this past few weeks. There is only one question we need answered. Have Hornby breached (or are they about to breach) their banking covenant with Barclays? It was feared that they were going to do so this month, and they would not necessarily have to wait to their year end before they and Barclays would know if this has happened. If the banking covenenant is breached, the next question is - What are Barclays going to do about it? Basically it comes down to either re-scheduling the debt (with all sorts of strings attached, which might include selling off some brands or other assets, further management changes, etc.), or deciding that the time has finally come to pull the plug on the whole sorry mess, in which case Barclays will then have to take steps to protect and (so far as practicable) realise their security, which would probably involve receivership and a more fundamental splitting up and sale of the company's assets. There's just over a week left to the end of March, so there may possibly be some news soon. However, if not, then the old saying that 'no news is good news' could suggest that Hornby may finally have managed to draw back from the brink (at least for the time being). Meanwhile the uncertainty continues, and none of the irrelevant waffle that has been posted on this thread over recent weeks will make a blind bit of difference to what actually happens.

I vaguely recall that this thread began several millennia ago as a discussion of Hornby's financial position. Maybe everyone has given up hope of that company, or are they just getting bored waiting for further news later this month as to whether they have negotiated some sort of bail-out with Barclays, or whether the bank will finally have had enough, and will decide to pull the plug? Discussion of other topics may well be fascinating to the particpants, but is totally irrelevant to the question in hand. Will they? Won't they. Maybe we have only a few more weeks to wait for the answer.

This thread is about the commmercial future of Hornby in light of their recent 'shock' profits warning, but there has understandably been some speculation about the broader future of the model railway market, and (by extension) the future of the hobby generally. I may well find that I am in a minority of one, but I have absolutely no concern about the future of the hobby. Those who agonise over ways in which a younger generation might somehow be persuaded to take an interest in model railways are just chasing moonbeams. It ain't gonna happen, and any effort expended on trying to make it happen will just be a waste of time. In the words of Private Fraser, "We're all doomed! Doomed, d'ye hear?" But that doesn't bother me at all. If/when the hobby shrinks, companies like Hormby may well go out of business, and a good few other manufacturers may follow them into oblivion sooner or later. However, those of us who have been model-making for 50 years or more can well remember a time when there was far less available, and certainly very little in the way of RTR models of an acceptable standard. It didn't deter us from pursuing our hobby. If the whole of the model railway trade (and the model railway press) shut up shop tomorrow, I would just carry on making models regardless (and I expect the same goes for most serious enthusiasts). As Chris Leigh has pointed out, there is already a healthy second-hand trade in all sorts of models, kits and bits, and most of us have more than enough of these things to keep us going for the rest of our lives already (!). If in future a particular model is not available RTR, we will simply have to do what we have always done - (1) substitute something similar, (2) adapt a different model, (3) build a kit, (4) scratch-build it or (5) just make do without it. I shall go on model-making for as long as I am physically and mentally capable of doing so, irrespective of the state of the model railway trade. If an RTR model is available which meets my requirements, I may buy it (although it will get re-wheeled, and generally messed about with), but if such models are no longer available in future then - "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn."

Sorry to tread on some people's toes, but all this waffle about Hornby's putative market (present or future), the choice of products available, (etc. etc.) is all totally irrelevant. There are only two questions (neither of which can be answered in advance with any certainty) : 1. Will Hornby breach their banking covenants next month? 2. If so, will Barclays agree to refinancing, or will they 'pull the plug'? If Barclays stay on board, some corporate re-organisation may still be required (including the possible sale of certain brands). If the Bank decides it's had enough, then administration or receivership will follow, and this will involve a more extensive sale of assets, and a probable splitting up of the company. What will then emerge cannot be predicted, but it's a fair bet that the model railway range will still be produced in the future by someone (although by whom remains an open question), and it's a reasonable guess that the 'Hornby' brand name will also survive in one form or another. We shall just have to wait and see what happens next month.

My recollection (which could be incorrect) was that Wrenn were an independent company, but financed their purchase of the Hornby-Dublo tooling by issuing shares to Lines Bros, thus becoming a part-owned associate of the Lines Bros group. In return, they were able to use the "Tri-ang" branding to market the former HD models as "Tri-ang-Wrenn". I believe the approach came from Wrenn, after Lines Bros had closed down the Binns Road factory. I am not sure what proportion of the Wrenn shares was acquired by Lines Bros, but I don't think it was a majority shareholding. Lines Bros presumably disposed of their Wrenn shares at a later date, when the marketing of the former HD models under the "Tri-ang-Wrenn" label came to an end. Lines Bros was later taken over by predatory asset strippers, and the whole group later went bust. It was acquired by Dunbee Combex Marx who, in turn, went spectacularly belly up. I think it was at that stage that there was a management buy-out of the former Rovex company (now called simply "Hornby"or "Hornby Hobbies"), but there may have been one or more stages in the saga both before and after that event that I have missed. In summary, the "Hornby" story really starts with the formation of Rovex Plastics Ltd in 1946 (and their venture into toy trains in 1949). The history of the original "Hornby" company (Meccano Limited) came to a full stop in 1964. In the past 50 years, there have been repeated alarums and excursions, changes of ownership, etc. (starting with the 'distress' sale of Meccano Limited to Lines Bros in 1964, whence the acquisition of the old "Hornby" brand name). The current crisis in the company's affairs is only the latest in a whole series of such incidents over the years.

Actually, this company has nothing at all to do with Frank Hornby and his family firm (Meccano Limited). They were bought out by the Lines Brothers group in 1964 (when Meccano Limited was already in terminal decline). It transpired that Lines Brothers really only wanted the "Hornby" brand name, and closed down the prodcution of Hornby-Dublo toy trains in Liverpool fairly promptly after the takeover. The vicissitudes that "Hornby" has been through in the past 50 years would take too long to recount here, but they include several insolvencies and buy-outs. The current company actually traces its ancestry back to Rovex Plastics Limited (originally based in Richmomd, Surrey) - a toy company set up just after the Second World War that had the bright idea in about 1949 of producing toy trainsets in plastic (cellulose acetate in those days). Lacking the capital to develop their product range, Rovex arranged a friendly takeover of their company by Lines Bros, who then developed and marketed the Rovex product range under their "Tri-ang" trademark (as "Tri-ang Railways"). Much later, after one of the periodic blodbaths in the toy industry, the "Tri-ang" trade mark got sold off elsewhere, since when the products of the former Rovex company have been sold under the "Hornby" brand name.

By a strange coincidence, while on a visit to Cardiff Castle this weekend just past, I came across a reference to the Marquess of Bute's wine-making venture. As Mikkkel suggests, the wine (made at Castell Coch, a few miles to the north of Cardiff) had the reputation of being awful!

I have never had much patience with people who bemoan the fact that such and such a manufacturer hasn’t chosen to portray this loco or that one, or that they’ve done a version that isn’t the one that they personally want, but here I am about to go and do precisely that. Because what I really want is a 74XX. They ran on the line on which my layout is based, whereas the 54XX and 64XX classes (both auto-fitted) did not. I had hoped that I might be able to convert the Bachmann 64XX body to a 74XX, but that would involve taking a saw or file to the curved joint between the cab and bunker, as the 74XX (as well as the last 10 of the 64XX class) had a right angled join here – I am just not confident that I could make a neat job of it and make good the beading. It seems that Bachmann could very easily do a 54XX from the same tooling; they seem to have produced 54XX splashers on their model already (!!) to fit its larger wheels, but will they amend the tooling and do a 74XX in due course? Should I wait and see, or take my courage in my hands and hack a 64XX to convert it to a 74? I certainly wouldn’t blame Bachmann if they decide that it would not be commercially viable to produce the revised tooling for a 74XX, but it remains on my wish list. The top feed issue is one that has been exercising my own mind recently, not only in relation to this class but also in relation to the 14XX (formerly 48XX) 0-4-2Ts. The RCTS history of GW locos seems to imply that nearly all these engines received top feed post-war, but photographic evidence suggests that quite a few did not get top feed until quite late in the ’fifties, and some never did. As another commentator said, one might prefer that the top feed should be left off, with the option of fitting one or not as appropriate. Don’t get me wrong. The Bachmann 64XX looks splendid. It’s just that I really can’t justify one on my layout. I have hacked RTR models about before, quite successfully; for example you can cut/file the top feed off an Airfix/Hornby 48XX (14XX) and make good with fine wet and dry paper without leaving any trace of it, but doing the same to the Mainline (and also Bachmann?) 57XX leaves a hole in the boiler that then has to be filled. Maybe cutting/filing the curved cab/bunker joint on the 64XX would not be too big a problem after all. I shall have to give it some further thought.

For many years I was under the impression that GWR service stock (cranes, tool vans, etc.) was painted black, but it turns out that this was a BR practice, and that the GWR had painted these vehicles the same colour as their revenue-earning goods wagons - i.e. freight stock Grey.

Someone (I think it may have been Miss Prism) mentioned, en passant, the painting of service vehicles (e.g. cranes, loco coal wagons, etc.) in black livery. I certainly used to think that such vehicles were painted black, but I have come round to the view that this was only done by BR(WR), and that in GWR says they were Freight Stock Grey. (I won

What a beautiful model. I hope that some of us might get to see this wee beastie in the flesh in the near future.

Sorry. That should have read "See my reply to Gilwell Park."

See my reply to David (above)

There is the need to restore the beading. Cabside steps would also be a problem, etc. etc. I have assembled cast and etched kits and done some scratch-building over the years, so am not averse to modelmaking as such. It's just that if I am going to buy an RTR model, then I want an RTR model, and really don't want to risk messing up the moulded detail. Otherwise, I shall just do without it. A 74XX would be useful, but not essential. (However, for many modllers a 74XX would certainly be more useful than a 64XX.)

If, as I understand is now the case, Bachmann intend only to produce the version of the 64XX with the curved join between the cab and bunker, this will considerably restrict the appeal of this model. They originally announced in March that both cab/bunker variants would be produced. (The introduction of steps on the side of the bunker coincided with the change to the right-angled join between cab and bunker, starting with No.6430.) Photographs show that later, several earlier members of the class, originally built with the curved join between the cab and bunker had this changed to the right-angled arrangement, so in the BR era the latter may have been the more common. Bachmann seem to have made a wrong call in choosing only to produce the version of the 64XX with the curved join between the cab and bunker, as this rules out all those members of the class that had the right-angled join between cab and bunker, not to mention the whole of the geographically more widespread 74XX class (which is what I had been hoping to reproduce, using the Bachmann model), which also had the right-angled join between cab and bunker. Frankly, if the version with the right-angled join between cab and bunker is not made, then I will not be buying one of these models. I don't need a 64XX (they were not widespread in their distribution) whereas I do need a 74XX, which were more widely distributed around the system. A 54XX (all of which had the curved join between the cab and bunker) might be a future option, but only if you are modelling main-line autotrain services; the 54XX class were not branch-line engines.

A belated comment about the date. 28 June 1914 came to be recognised as a momentous date in European history, after which nothing would ever be the same again. But the significance of the events of that day in a remote province of the Hapsburg Empire took a little while to sink in. Station Master Woodcourt would still have been occupied only with his purely local concerns on 29 and 30 June, and for several weeks afterwards. It was only towards the end of July that the true impact of what had happened in Sarajevo on 28 June would finally impinge of everyone's conscience in this sea-girt isle. In fact, it wasn't until the first week of August that it finally became clear that we really were 'in for it'.

I have several Portescap motor/gearbox units (1219, 1616 and1624), one or two of which have been fitted in locos, and the remainder arestill in their original boxes. I bought them new some 20 or more years ago, and recall thatthey were said by the manufacturer to be ‘lubricated for life’. Even the motors which were fitted in locos have not turned acog for many a long year, and when I looked recently at a loco-fitted example,I found that the gearbox had almost completely seized up. The final drive pinion could only be turnedby hand with great difficulty. I brieflyapplied power, but the motor was unable to move the gears, and I switched offquickly to avoid risking burning out the brushes. Close examination of the gearbox does not reveal any sign ofthe original lubricant (a pink-coloured grease of some kind, as I recall), andI concluded that the lubricant had entirely dried out, although why this shouldhave the effect of causing the gearbox to seize up solid is a mystery to me, asthe grease seems to have evaporated completely, leaving no residue behind. I am sure I am not the only person to have experienced thisproblem, so my question is (a) What needs to be done to ‘flush out’ anydried-up lubricant grease from the gearbox (bearing in mind that the use ofnylon bevel gears as the first stage in the gear chain would presumably be aconstraint in the choice of solvent)? and (What lubricant should be used tore-lubricate the gearbox, again bearing in mind the presence of the nylonbevels?