zr2498

9 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

U have to wonder why models arent using usb-c connectors…

 

its an industry standard, cheap as cheaps, easily understood and of course an EU standard.

 

its not charging anything but its still more pins than a model will need and robust and smaller than the current solution too.

I did have a look at those 8 pin USBs, but then I wondered about the current ratings?

1 minute ago, GrumpyPenguin said:

Absolutly no excuse for substandard couplings/connectors or close coupling (apart from maybe the "Thanet Disease").

Image shows how it can be done - close coupled & 8-pole.

Looks a much better design, except for loco / tender there is not gap adjustment. Personally I would prefer two 4 pin JST style plug sockets either side of an adjustable draw bar. The 4 wires to each keeps the stiffness reduced rather than an 8 pin assembly.

Not sure why Hornby need the 8 pins as the firebox glow is on constant and fed from the loco pick ups I assume. However 8 pin would be better for those that want to have DCC control of firebox glow

Surely faulty products, if sent to the retailer, are then sent on to the manufacturer unless to is a very easy repair. But then, if repaired it is not 'new', and the retailer would lose out.

I seem to recall Accurascale have sometimes encouraged bypassing the retailer on returns (as long as they are informed).

20 minutes ago, Sjcm said:

just seen it. Same problems and its fallen apart 😂

Same here. Big mistake! He should be sending that one back as well.

It might be too late to correct the next models, but surely Hornby needs to put a halt on factory production until some redesign is done, and build quality is improved.

Do Hornby actually sample test a number of production models? I would say these all should be on recall, or heavily discounted as not fit for purpose.

50 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Seems to be correct according to @zr2498's photos above as this is of course a model of the loco in preserved condition.  Rods and smokebox door will probably look like 5200 on the actual model.

Just checked video footage, and this is the best snap shot view I currently have. Certainly shiny (ish) rods and valve gear, but more of a polished metal than silver paint appearance. Nothing a little weathering couldn't sort out.

As for the front:

Hopefully the final rendition by Hornby will better match the preserved 5428.

But I doubt the lights will be replicated. This Black 5 is fitted out for main line working as well as the preserved NYMR.

12 minutes ago, Rick_Skateboard said:

Interesting that the computer render doesn't have any lamps on it. EDIT - there might be one in the middle of the bufferbeam actually.

 

Rick

Yep! Light engine. But at least one not fixed to the smokebox door.

31 minutes ago, MikeParkin65 said:

According to the blurb for the just announced Rails Ltd edition of 5428 as preserved the model has a flywheel. Anybody taken the loco body off yet and able to confirm? https://railsofsheffield.com/search?q=R30387 black 5&_kx=nTbDlYO2tIJF0g9_RHJfhaYIH4IEvjBwUEE9OGmQgKbqnSFePN1n7xZw98DdvMB7.RXkVMS&utm_campaign=Exclusive Railway Icons Hornby Black 5 Announcement&utm_id=01HWCTPR051J0D68J9Z228C817&utm_medium=campaign&utm_source=Klaviyo

Oh dear! One of my favourite locos, as I often see it at the NYMR. It was in the workshop on Thursday last. Now I am tempted, but then I could get an Ellis Clark O gauge version with the correct size lamps, however it my derail on my OO gauge track.

Hornby often put stuff into the specification which is not fact. If there is provision for a steam generator, then the flywheel is probably missing.

Having just watched this video:

The risk of getting a dud seems much too high. If not initially, then could be soon after purchase.

Couple that with all of the other issues notes in this thread. Time to cancel the 2 preorders I have.

Perhaps, the returns and feedback will prompt some design changes, and only then, (perhaps) I would order future models.

3 hours ago, adb968008 said:

Everything rots with age… the motor wears out, parts become brittle, mazak can rot, gear teeth wear out… thats not really an excuse.

I know. I get a lot more backache nowadays!

32 minutes ago, sulzer71 said:

If it's anything like the 24 then the best way to remove the body from the chassis is leave it attached to the plinth I've found

Or even use the mounting screws as described in the manual which I downloaded from @adb968008 link.

52 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Definitely not a hoax…

 

ive got one !!!

 

But it's still in the packaging? Hope it's seen a layout.

As a matter of interest, is this a sound fitted model?

20 minutes ago, MikeParkin65 said:

 

Info above corrected - thanks

10 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

 

Its becoming normalised for steam locos to have firebox door glows always on…

 

yet how often was a loco running with the firebox doors always open ?

 

 

 

That is why (when converting to DCC sound), I have modified the firebox glow to be only on when coal shovelling. Extra wires and modification needed, but as Hornby mostly put the decoder in the tender, the track feed from the loco pick ups to the firebox LED is an easy is option for them.

50% of the promised waiting time (as specified at York show) gone 🙂

Only 3 weeks to go - soooooo excited. Yes, I am behaving like an impetulant child and proud of it!

Might get a 6 To 4 while I'm waiting for a 25.

Clue: Chicago

21 minutes ago, ColinB said:

If we ignore all the criticism, there were some very interesting facts he uncovered for a start there seems to be very little weight in the loco, the area where they are going to put the steam generator would normally have a hefty weight. it didn't. It is a shame he didn't take the tender apart to see if they had dispensed with the tender weight, seeing as it supposedly has a die cast base.

I watch Sam's Trains, and although it is mainly 'for a bit of fun', he does take the trouble to do a detailed examination. 

Some of his thinking is not always logical, for example extra weight does not mean extra quality, and should not be equated to the cost.

But he brought to light a number of points with this new Black 5 to consider:

a) It is virtually impossible to remove the lamps without causing damage, and probably would need some remedial work. Easier if they were not included in the first place. For a 'basic' version (see below), It would have been better for Hornby to provide non-working correct size lamps in the detailing pack. Much the same as the crew. Adding oversize lamps is moving away from finescale, whereas extra detail is moving towards it. The directions are conflicting.

b) The tender connection is non adjustable for the gap, and the design is vulnerable. Not robust enough. Clearly he had a damaged connection 'out of the box', so one has to wonder how long before others have the same issue.

c) The glue marks appeared quite bad. It is no good having a 'finescale' loco with extra detailing if it is not carefully assembled.

d) No flywheel. Sacrificed for the steam generator. Not needed for DCC, but it is a move away from what was becoming a common standard.

I guess it is difficut for the likes of Hornby. They need to sell more locos, and the lamps / steam will attract many customers, but this could have an adverse response from modellers who were looking forward to a newly tooled, potentially more detailed loco until it is seen that the play value additions compromise the detailing and peformance.

I think this was mentioned up thread. Perhaps there needs to be different versions so that the play value additions are at added purchase price. And don't add new tech ideas for the sake of it. For example, the older models had adjustable connections between loco and tender for a reason.

8 hours ago, Brocp said:

Come on Accurascale, annouce a proper gimmickless Black 5.

Or Ellis Clark Trains with a OO, to follow the very fine O gauge.

I am considering getting one of these fantastic models but a bit late to the party. The one I was after with sound is sold out, so wondering if the sound system (decoder / speaker) is available separately and how easy to fit?

Just watched Sams Trains review.

Oh dear!

Considering cancelling the two I have on order.

Having fitted sound, stay alives and firebox flicker to 3 of the 'old' Hornby models, I see little point in the expenditure.

The old design enables a large 55 X 20 X 10mm Rail Exclusive speaker to be fitted in the tender. Not possible with the new design. Lamps are too large, tender to loco gap is too large (and not adjustable), steam is just a gimmick, so out with the Brassmasters detailing kits to finish the ones I already have.

Sam maybe has a point, that it is no good adding gimmicks or supposed upgrades if it comes at the expense of the fundamentals.

Don't forget to kiss the side of your Deltic 😍

On 13/04/2024 at 02:02, LMSfan72 said:

 

Well, on the positive side, that could open up the opportunity for small, specialist/cottage industry suppliers to fill a void which imo helps the continuation of the hobby. Is the base model good enough for lots of people or not, and if not, can the hobbyist base make it better? I can't remember the last model I purchased that I didn't do something to, but, I did have to start from something

We really need DCC Concepts to bring back the lamps that they once produced. I did speak to them late last year, and it was being considered. I hope this inclusion by Hornby does not put them off.

Unfortunately I could not get the correct lamps, but at least a correct size. They still need to be dimmed with some amber tint on the A3 as below. Comparison of Hornby and DCC Concepts.

10 hours ago, Suzy Sulzer said:

 

I,ve got my own SLW 25.

 

 

 

Congratulations 👍 Was that a sound fitted?

Just had this reminder from Accurascale.

I've been waiting for a sound demo before making a decision. Is there one out there?

19 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

The advertised price wasn't £485, so how come 10% of one of these comes to £48.50? 

Have you cancelled another order at the same time?

 

I accept that claiming a refund you're entitled to may be stressful, but surely it must be at least worth a strongly worded letter?

 

The Terms & Conditions listed on KR's web site are described as an End User Licence Agreement, and seem to relate to downloading software from them as is usual with EULAs.  I'm not clear what relevance this could conceivably have to buying models from them.   I don't see your warranty/return policy, but perhaps you're dealing with a retailer rather than direct with KR.

Sorry Michael, I should have better explained. This was the amount based on two other cancellations combined.

And I did order from KRM directly, but unfortunately my knowledge re UK Law on this subject was lacking, otherwise I would have not accepted these terms at the time.

The Clayton DHP1 could well be my last order with them as I am unwilling to pay full price up front anymore for models with such large slips to timescales . I also need to get off the lazy RTR bandwagon, when I have a DJH 'Big Bertha' kit on the shelf waiting to be built.

I also have all of the kits and parts to build a GT3, after lots of research and collecting, but then the RTR model was anounced and put the brakes on the kit build.

Thanks for your help and advice.

13 minutes ago, Graham_Muz said:

The UK distance selling regulations are quite clear that for any orders placed online the purchaser has the right to cancel including and up to 7 days after the item has been received (and if received returned undamaged) for a FULL refund.
This includes any deposit (or whatever the seller might decide to try and call it) and as it clearly states a FULL refund no "admin" or any other charge can be taken. 
These regulations trump any sellers own "terms". 

Thanks. Looks as though they are contravening UK Law and owe me £48.50. When they replied to me about the refund, no mention of the admin charge. It was only when I looked at the refund value, I went into the terms and conditions and noticed the minus 10%.

Come to think of it. It was cancelled - not even returned.

Now I have to balance the 10% claim versus the stress this is likely to incurred.