Trainmaster64

I do own one A4 - this being Hornby's fantastic No.60010 'Dominion of Canada' issued in 2010. A very fine locomotive and my personal favourite of them all; I love to run it time and time again. My only concern is what will happen when and if the motor finally goes... for now though I am happy to keep her in steam and in full operation.

I also used to own a RailRoad A4; Mallard No.60022 with the DCC chip. A decent locomotive, but sadly had issues with the decoder chip that made her inoperable. The locomotive moved about a foot, then produced a magnificent steam effect. Only did it once though...

Here's an interesting point to bring up; not sure if anyone's discussed this or not but this seems the appropriate place to ask about this:

I own three 'Railroad'-style 0-4-0 locomotives in my fleet; a Railroad Caledonian 'Pug' No.272, A GWR175 Holden Class 101, and a Pullman Class 06 for the 2008 Club Loco. The Pullman 06 has an SK code on its box; however the GWR175 101 has an REF code on it, and my Caledonian 'Pug', bought in 2012, has an REF code as well. This would indicate that Hornby started to use Refined before 2010 for production of some locos and possibly other items.

The questions are, when did Refined start for Hornby, with what items, and how long has this been going on? If anyone has any products from Hornby from this time period (not just locos, but maybe trucks, coaches, buildings, etc.), let's check the codes on the boxes and try to put together dates and times. Be sure to indicate the loco and possibly product numbers if possible, so we can determine a timeline of sorts.

To start, what are the codes on the other two GWR175 products? The Castle, I would assume was a SK product - but perhaps not? And what of the Achilles Train Pack?

Quick question to anyone who owns one of these engines - the bearings in the chassis of Hornby's Tornado. Are they round or round brass bearings, or are they the square-cut bearings as found on the 42/72xx, P2, Duke, etc.?

Fair enough, coachmann; I was not suggesting that you are not entitled to your own opinions as well, and I do apologize if it seemed as if I was. We are both entitled to our own opinions and have the right to share them. My comment was that you seemed to be somewhat more cheeky, as you put it, and not much else to it. If you were to spend time and effort compiling your thoughts and opinions like that, and posted them in a general thread for the thing in question to share with others, would you want to have such a comment about them afterwards?

In fairness, I do agree that my model is older - perhaps if my review was a more general one on the 'Castles' it would have gone over better. As it is I feel that a lot of what I said in the review and in my comments accompanying it are valid still, and can be applied to the 'Castles' produced even today, particularly in regards to the drawbar/four-pin connector arrangement on them. As they have not been upgraded since 'Earl Cairns' I feel that the comments are still valid even today.

I'm willing to let bygones be bygones, as it were - no hard feelings? Let's simply move on from here, and enjoy the 'Castles' for what they are - I think we can agree that, whether it's 'Earl Cairns' or 'Clun Castle,' these engines are fine examples of Hornby on their A-game.

31110, 270 iffy. 268 ok, newly produced ones ok

Thank you very much; I will definitely consider that when thinking about buying a 31. I don't want to have to go for a Railroad one but if I can't find any of the newer ones it may be the solution for me.

Thank you very much, Adam, for your quick response - I do appreciate it highly. It seems as if I will be going for the Tarmac livery then; arguably the nicest looking one of them all. Granted, that's personal opinion there! It will be interesting to see how it performs as Hornby's first new four-wheeler since the 'Railroad'-style 0-4-0 locomotives and chasses.

A few points, I will raise on your comment, coachmann:

My comments, I think, can and do pertain to the Hornby Castles in general, which can be applied to all of them - not only 'Earl Cairns'. If I am mistaken here, please let me know, but I am fairly certain that all the 'Castles' since this one share the same build and design, with minor cosmetic differences to distinguish between individual engines (double chimnies and so on). Though this is one engine in particular that is being reviewed it is not a unique build and unlike anything since - Hornby have produced 'Castles' since then, in single-chimney form and in BR Early Crest livery. Most of what I had said in my review can be applied to every 'Castle' that has been built from the redesign a few years back to now, particularly that of the tender-locomotive connection employed these days.

I appreciate that the model hails from 2009 and it is now 2013; however, my thoughts on it are still valid, I think. If I am mistaken in this, and if my opinions on it are not to be shared here, please tell me now so that I know better for next time. Your response seemed fairly rude and unnecessary, to be frank - the sarcasm is noted and not appreciated in the slightest. All I was doing was stating my thoughts on my own particular 'Castle,' as well as the Hornby 'Castles' in general; nothing more. Presuming Hornby's build quality is up to snuff still I would not hesitate to buy another for my line, and would recommend it highly for all Western modellers in any livery and identity, since they have not changed from 'Earl Cairns' to now.

Again, if I have done anything wrong by stating my opinion on my locomotive and commenting on the 'Castles' in general I do apologize for it - I will be very careful about doing so in future, I think.

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blog/1084/entry-8969-br-castle-class-4073-no5053-earl-cairns-a-profile/

A profile on my own 'Castle', No.5053 'Earl Cairns.' I got it a couple of years back, at a decent discount - today I still consider it one of the smartest buys I ever made for the line. Lots of detail, but not so much that it becomes a hazard to simply hold in one's hands; a strong and smooth powertrain to move it along; excellent quality and stunning looks... this is one of the best that Hornby have done, and though there are newer and more detailed engines out there this is still one of the best I can see. Every GWR/BR(W) fan should own at least one, even if it's a smaller line that is being run. The benefits of this engine are far better than the consequences.

The only two faults I would have to mention are in the coupling of the engine to its tender - the four-pin plug doesn't work for me at all as it is less stable and solid than the previous-generation Hornby tender coupling. If the tiny wires become unsoldered or disconnected, the whole unit is worthless. Also, the drawbar is very small as well, and couples differently than other tenders - having a permanent connection on the tender rather than the locomotive. Using the previous-style of coupler between locomotive and tender would, in my mind, have made this a near-perfect machine; as it is, it's a stunner still and well worth purchasing.

I am really liking the looks of these engines - I may be interested in obtaining at least one for my line, provided the price is right (it seems to be) and that the identities are okay. By that, I mean that I cannot use an engine which survives today and has been preserved. Does anyone thus know if all of these engines' liveries are of preserved examples, or is there at least one that is of an engine not preserved? I know that Cattewater (Esso) has been preserved; are the other two as well?

Absolutely; that's the key. If you can find them for a good enough price, I feel they can still have their merits - for that low price I paid, I got a four-car EMU with reasonable looks and performance, full lighting throughout and directional headcodes, and DCC-ready capabilities. There are still flaws; that's a given - but they're much more bearable at a lower price.

That seems to be a decent question - if the price on these units can be had for low enough, are they worth buying regardless of their faults? I paid 63% of the RRP; for comparable or lower cost, are they possibly worth investing into to buy and tinker with to get up to snuff? My decision has been made already; does anyone else feel the same? Or are the faults simply too much, no matter the cost or tinker value?

Sadly, the Lima 31 isn't as readily available or accessible where I live. Otherwise I see what you mean; I would if I could. As it is, it seems like I would simply have to buy a Railroad '31' if I am interested in a 31 at this rate - less detail, but less chance of a chassis failure!

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blog/1084/entry-10964-br-class-423-4-vep-a-profile/

I took the plunge a while back, myself, and bought a 4-VEP for myself, warts and all. A new blog entry covers this, linked above. Admittedly, it was at a massive discount of 63% the RRP for these units normally (the seller lost money on it, I believe; it was a show special), but it still works out well. The faults mentioned before are all there; the body isn't as good as hoped for in terms of looks, and the motor bogie is a bit noisier than other units out there. My traction tires seem to be holding up well, though, and even if I need to replace them I will be all right; both tires are on one axle. Despite its faults I still enjoy running it, myself; I acknowledge the faults found in this engine but at the price I got it for I would be all right with ignoring some of them, if not all. The unit serves its purpose as a basic multiple unit, something the line has sorely needed for years, and even has lighting inside and lit, directional headcode boxes.

I'm satisfied with it; I think they could have done better, like everyone else, but I feel that I got a fairly decent unit for the price I paid. I would never pay full price for it, but at that lower cost it may be worth considering in some ways...

Considering buying a Class 31 at some point as a medium-strength diesel unit for my line; however after reading this I'm very wary of the thought now. My preferences seem now to lean towards buying an older Class 37, poor detailing and all... at least it would run properly, without fear of disintegration within five years!

That said, exactly which Hornby product numbers have been affected by this? I mean which RXXXX items have been tormented with these issues? That way I know and will be able to stay clear of them for future. If someone could supply a list of them I would appreciate it.

Hello all,

While at a book sale a short while ago, I came across an interesting book - "The Hornby Book of Trains 1954-1979," edited by S.W. Stevens-Stratten and published by Rovex Limited. This book essentially covers some of the history of Hornby's then 25 years, as well as a look at the future for them from that timeframe, and is quite a good read and a nice look into the past for Hornby fans.

However, near the end of the book there were a few things I saw that really surprised me - cancelled, prototype locomotives and rolling stock that never made it into full production. For instance, part of a carriage had been built with opening doors, which would open at stations and close when the train started to move. Also included were the Canadian National 'Turbotrain,' a TEE Diesel locomotive, and a very interesting looking mountain engine and carriage that appear to be directly based off of that found at the Snowdon Mountain Railway.

Because I am unsure if I would be breaking copyright laws if I were to post said images here, I won't do so for the moment - however, I am curious if anyone else knows about some other cancelled projects that Hornby had done in the past (the page stating that these were merely some examples of discarded projects). Anyone have any thoughts on this?

A very nice locomotive indeed, and one I would definitely buy if I could - there's only one problem I have with it. I can't verify it for myself, but I am fairly sure that No.103/503 does not have a knuckle coupler on its tender in reality - this only being applied to No.60010 and No.60018 in preservation (the two extant A4s). Otherwise a fine and well-done model, that would look stunning in any collection - as I have said and firmly believe, every British layout, no matter what it is, must have a model of No.4472 and/or No.4468 in the collection - the Scotsman's just too historic and important to leave out of a collection.

Very nice indeed.