lochlongside

Good day Andy, was there no mention of the 94XX ??.....

I would not hold your breath !! - I thought I had got away with the mazak problem on my 2nd 31 ( Hornby v kindly repaired no 1 for free way back when) but had to go back to Hornby in October 2016 with a similar problem with my green 31. I was extremely polite and given the time lapse I actually offered to pay for a new chassis parts for my 2nd rotten (and No I didn't say that to them! ) Class 31 - I even enclosed a copy of the service sheet in question showing the parts required only to be advised That .... Dear xxxxn, Thank you for your email, we have no stock left of the replacement parts and are now unable to fix these loco's any more as the Scheme has also been closed due to the amount of time passed. Kind Regards, xxxxxxx - Customer Care Advisor It does raise the question of the value of producing a service sheet for a product with known long-term issues w/o spares to back it up but thats another subject !! - I then considered a bodge job using either brass or plastikard and araldite/plastic padding as the motor/gears/electronics are just fine - but as I have several other faulty locos to repair all suffering from manufacturers' built-in obsolescence I must admit that w/o readily available spares it has slipped way way down to the bottom of my to do list.

not to mention the cost increase - beats anything BacHby have done in the same timescale even in percentage terms and all homegrown - no going to China for this one !!

Ok - many thanks - that appears to align with the photos I have found - Hornby instruction was probably just geared up to first in class

Merchant Navy Footsteps query - would appreciate some advice. It was out of my self-imposed timescale but then I found a penultimate R3436 BR Clan line at under £150 to partner my rebuilt version and I too cracked. It runs very nicely indeed but I do have a query on footsteps. Included in the box are two glue-on footstep sets which I initially assumed needed attaching to the front buffer housings. However on opening instructions - at picture 2 - it shows (facing forward) one on left front buffer, none on right front buffer and one on tender rear !! under right side buffer. Picture on box shows a set of steps on each of the front buffer housings and none on tender. Generic class photos tend to confirm this latter setup -needless to say I could not find this particular loco in this guise and the only original MN tender rear view I found had no buffer beam steps - which is right?

Sugar... you took Einstein's quote out of my mouth !! We have had not so good UK-made Hornby toy trains, cheaply made media toys, Olympic toys, and “Design clever”. None have proved to be a magic instant money spinner. Hornby have now over the last two years produced a range of high grade locos and coaches, and a few excellent wagons, cleaned up the majority of the 00 awards, and along the way drastically reduced their losses (from around £7M to £1M). That cannot be coincidence. New Pistoia if I remember correctly significantly increased their holding of Hornby shares to 20% when the price crashed about a year ago, and they (and Mr Ruffer 3rd largest holding around 11% and I believe a 4th person [Downing?] with around 6%) have now put Mr Anton in as consultant to review the situation with a view to improving the value of their holdings i.e. boost the share price and the overall shareholder return (which currently is zero.). Given the timescale of their investment it looks like, unlike Phoenix, that they are not long-haul investors. It is not clear why they selected Mr Anton (his history IMHO is not what I would have looked for (just google Victoria carpets and Anton – you will find online references juxtaposing his name with ousting directors, break-ups, director incentivisation schemes, boardroom bustups etc – and that was only one report in the Independent 2 Oct 2012), His ground breaking (!!) finding that Hornby should place more emphasis on the toy market to attract in younger customers and then retain them as a pipeline for the future (costs are such that younger enthusiasts must find it difficult) is motherhood and apple-pie, and it is not clear what he really means to do. I would assume from the remarks reported in the Daily Telegraph 11 Apr 2017 that he considers the hobbyist market as aging and that by his comments about toys, he could mean fewer Pecketts, and more Nellies; and possibly more contentiously for the future of Hornby, that he is the person to lead this novel approach. (I could also be slightly witty at Mr Anton’s expense about not running ones trains in close contact with the carpet in case they get clogged up and stop working altogether but I won't ....oh b***** said it anyway !!). If Hornby's fortunes really are turning round as the current Chairman/CEO believe then this move could be construed opportunism by Mr Anton; and if he is successful his quoted "toy market" comment would not fill me with optimism for the continuation of the higher grade products we have been recently getting, even if he does improve the share price in the short run. I cannot see in his history the sort of passion for the business (dreadful phrase but....) that would continue the current improvements. In response to your comment it is probably not Hornby's corporate structure that is unfit but the current dominance of a small number of powerful shareholders. Methinks like Dibber25 that it is time buy while I can, and jack up the credit card limit now to make sure I get it all before the next car crash!!

I am inclined to agree. I have just placed a ruler across the end of a Large Rad point and I assume it is their way of making the point directly compatible with existing points geometry and within the same footprint - after all if they kept the sleepers straight throught the main line of the point it wouldn't be a simple like for like replacement, as the rail ends would not line up as they do now. Assuming there will be a track upgrade going on at the same time, I am not sure how many potential buyers of these points will leave a crossover half and half which on my first thought is probably the only place where it is really critical . With the original/current points you can at least remove the angled sleeper if it offends, with this design straightening the ends up is going to be a bit more challenging !!.

oh dear - walked into that didn't I - If I answer knowledgeably my children would laugh in my face and accuse me of internet plagiarism - it wasnt even known as such in my day (Deep Purple/Black Sabbath/LedZ etc) now I guess I'm just an old fogie!!

Some fun above at Hornby Magazine's expense !! but in the interests of fairness/truth (what's that got to do with it !!) they actually had 2 recommendations in their track review. For FB track - yes agreed Peco HO Code 100 & 75 for a number of reasons - incl robustness, range, price etc But their bullhead recommendation was actually the new Peco Code 75 BH. Buried in the detail of the comparisons was some of that useful info that you might not otherwise find - like the variations in height of the different makes of nominally similar track, flexibility, and the impact on joining the different makes together as well as the normal price comparisons you might expect in such an article. Finally at the risk of being serious or classed as closet HM fanatic (I am actually only a P4 and 00 modeller) it is no more a box shifters magazine than some of the others; the DCC installation articles are generally more frequent, and way ahead of the other 3 popular magazines in ambition, and some of the painting and weathering articles are also v good. Just thought I would restore some balance before it gets OTT - I buy all 4 popular mags and each serves a (slightly) different market. .

Livery - No-one else so far answered this so in with both feet here to encourage cognoscenti - Inclined to agree (but well open to correction) - doing an online search found photos by David Hey of 10201/2 in green no YP (late emblem?) implied date Feb 57and 10203 in green no yp late logo in May 57 in website Warwickshire railways. Further found photo of 10201 double-heading at Carlisle 17/01/57 (Marsden-Fenn-BR mainline Diesel locos p43) looks to be in green poss'y late emblem but and with a relatively clean roof (i.e. definitely light paint not 100% filthy black - does this indicate recent repaint??)). Correlate this to repainting of 10000 and 10001 - (online sources of how I originally put that info together now misplaced !!) the LMS locos both appear to have gone into green o/bl/o lining around Aug/Sep 1956. According to GrahamMuz the Bulleids 10201/2 went to LMR in Apr 55 and 10203 in July 55 when they got twin airhorns so until someone finds some better photo it would appear reasonable to assume they were repainted shortly after the ex-LMS ones. (My assumption!!). Referring back to doors in Marsden-Fenn book – 10202 did not have them when painted in black on 17 June 1954 at Herne Hill. Double-headed 10201? did have them whilst in green on Royal Scot on 17/01/57 It currently looks like for an indeterminate period around later 55/early 56 it might have been possible to see all 5 diesels in black on the LMR but no evidence for this (Just wishful thinking ---OMG not rule 1 again sooo tedious the number of times already invoked it!!)and g_d knows when doors were added!! I look forward to corrections/additions with interest (and humility naturally !!) as I too am wrestling with which combinations (of locos !!) to buy, and hearing that yet more variations are due makes the purchase choice even worse!

No-one else commented so also noted off Hornby website R3382TTS - Holland Afrika Line has now slipped out to Summer 2017 as a matter of interest I noted the following changes noted on dates indicated for delivery for un-rebuilt MN 4/3/16HbySays30/9/16 11/3/16HbySays27/11/16 7/5/16HbySays2017Q1 21/1/17HbySays19Feb17 12/02/17-HbySays summer17 Currently Hattons say on or after 19 Feb 2017 and MRD say Apr 2017

Good day Dave, thanks very much - financial timescale /stages of payment explanation etc make sense and fine with me -apologies I hadn't picked up on the checking bit of the process I got the paypal request about 90 mins ago - (so I am another happy customer and will respond shortly) Going on the above info and subject to the massive caveat for all projects if everything goes reasonably to plan - and allowing for collection of monies then we could be talking about delivery somewhere between Oct and Dec this year - which sounds good to me. Being a pessimist for a moment if a number drop out and as a result project becomes marginal would there be an option for the remaining "buyers" to take up the slack to keep to project going ??. I would certainly be prepared to consider it if that situation occurred even though I have set myself an initial limit.

Good day Dave, Been thro this topic and would appreciate some clarification of order process and current estimated timescales please - . I went onto your website a few days ago following the link in your post 455 of 26 Nov 2016 and " expressed an interest ..." for two x Class 92 and filled in the contact details including Email address I got an on-screen acknowledgement of the interest and piecing together what others have said in previous posts I expected shortly after to get either an automated or manual response Email saying your reference will be "xxxxxx" pay something like £30 per model towards the development process to date to a specific "paypal? account". Hopefully I was not the only one to do this in the last few days, so even more hopefully this means you are overwhelmed by the demand and the project is a flyer but I haven't actually been asked for any money as yet - should I (and presumably others (?) who have recently registered) be worried that my (our) participation has really been registered/accepted? Finally do you yet have a feel for for the stage payment proportions and their timescales (in indicative terms only - non-contractual, non-binding and for planning purposes only ............. would I be miles out if I assumed the initial £30/model would get project to end of cad queries, 50% of balance in say around mid-2017 for start of tooling and a final one for say start of production towards end 2017 [or early/mid 2018 !!] etc) . Regards

and probably no longer at this price for much longer anywhere - I have just received a notification that my reservation has increased from £68.50 to £78.50 - my guess this is now a race between Hornby production and the rate of fall of the pound !!

Good day Dave, Not sure I have picked up when's the actual cutoff date for joining crowdfunding for this loco - still in a state of indecision here - I need the discipline of a deadline please !!

Got my first two today - Can I echo PhilH's comment - very well done to ModelRail for honouring the price. To be honest I only half expected you to keep it - so congratulations. Quality-wise I am really glad I increased my order. A very nice model - goodness knows what the little variations did to the cost of production !! In terms of performancewise fully up to my requirements (at least Adams tank standard ) of 15 coaches on my test track but better than the Adams as they do it with no slipping at all on around 4.3v backwards or forwards and no hesitation thro inner radii of Peco curved points in doing so.

Going to be a trifle two faced ( balanced !?) about this – having supported CJL in saying the track sensitivity of the 0415 is less than to BMX standard, I must add I am delighted with both my 0415s. They run beautifully over 20+ year old Code 100 badly worn streamline curved electro-frog points and through both their radii; (interestingly old code 100 streamline appears to be to a coarser standard than modern code 75 ?) and over the 8 baseboard joints of my rather dubious test track. CJL’s testing is probably a lot more rigorous (and rightly so as he has a wider audience to satisfy) but I do not think I would see it as a major issue more a comment/reflection on the demands of the test track. (Tin hat retire to spend time with family !!) Incidentally I did some further measurements and if both the rear drivers are around 0.62-0.7mm approx higher than the front drivers then the rear pony pin could drop below the slot if the pony truck is pulled backwards (e.g. under load). The coupled wheelbase is 35mm approx, the pin is a further 40mm further back so it can be seen there is a magnifying (x2 approx) effect. WRT the longer pin – in theory yes it would resolve the issue. The pony itself will stop the pin’s upward movement so there is a built in upper stop, but on looking carefully into the slot there are some lovely shiny solder connections just waiting for a metal bogie pivot to short them out so that is a pin length constraint. I guess someone with really ropy track may have the incentive to pull their loco apart to determine the max length of this pin - but not me! Adding to CJL’s latest comment and from looking only at the service sheet -I would be careful about removing the pin. The rear pony appears to be pivoted by two side by side screws in elongated holes so you get an off-centre twist at the virtual pivot point – hence the slot is straight rather than curved to allow the pony to pivot non-radially with the pin in the slot taking the drawbar pull throughout. Mechanically this would appear to pull the outside back of the loco into the curve particularly on sharper curves which would improve the appearance and under load is possibly more stable than a single pivot on the pony alone – however on straight track when the loco is going forwards the rear pony can then slide back by the length of the oval screw slots but is limited from going too far by the pin+slot and the pin continues to take the drawbar load. If you take the loco off the track you can actually feel this back and forth oval-hole slop, and if you pivot the pony off the track you can see the effective distance from pivot to buffer beam changing. (Incidentally from memory didn’t Hornby do something similarly peculiar with the L1 front pony – I vaguely remember some comments at the time ??.) Again as per CJL - the slots feel slightly rough possibly because they are painted but they do not interfere with the performance on my locos. The key finding from my own perspective however is that whilst mildly disconcerting first time round, I can more than live with it for the pleasure of owning them and it certainly will not stop me buying a 3rd one when the monthly pay cheque comes through.

Sorry Dibber25 but with respect I'm with CJL on this one - there are in fact 3 positions for the rear truck - the correct one i.e. pin in slot!! - one where rear truck slips under buffer beam and I agree it looks like a dragster - it is so obvious I didn't bother measuring it and an intermediate position where the rear pin rests on chassis behind buffer beam - and this is not so obvious to see particularly if one's track/baseboard skills are dubious (like mine!) - I have just measured my two locos (30582 and 488) and from a common datum I get a variation of +1.22mm and +1.35mm for the incorrect intermediate position when compared to the correct position - that is enough to spoil adhesion but still allow the loco to work; and over the odd baseboard joint particularly on a test track I could see it happening at lesser variation than that if there is a load hanging off the rear.

Same problem as you - as part of running in I found that it was possible to place the loco on the track with the rear buffer beam resting on the rear truck – first time I did not notice and performance was pitiful. The play in the rear bogie (double?) pivot allows the block of the pony truck to rest under the buffer beam by around 0.5mm on easy curves/straights – once spotted easily avoided from then on- and all a permanent solution will probably require is a few passes with a file possibly getting rear truck off to do it will be worst part. Looking at Service Sheet it would appear there are two pins through oval holes side by side holding rear truck in position presumably to improve appearance on sharp curves. It is the play in the holes that allows the pony truck to extend under the buffer beam. I then tried a test run – 30582 did slip a small amount on starting (but not to Bulleid standards !! ) with 15 Hornby coaches (6xsteel-wheeled R/R Mk1s+4xLSWR maroon+5xCollets) but quickly was able to work the load up to a very respectable scale 65mph on a continuous nominal 4foot curve that included the inner curves of 3x Streamline curved points. – My test track has a slight, inadvertent, unmeasured but noticeable gradient in one area (around the points !) which does slow it up a bit but I would guess it still out-performs the prototype! It drew the line on pushing 15 coaches up hill through the Streamline curved points though! Testing with more coaches will have to wait on ferreting in wardrobe for suitable stock

Given you are in NZ It is a fine balance for you as to whether you send it back – I had similar sound symptoms with a T9 which I had previously only test run (satisfactorily). When I finally had a continuous run for it after about an hour of running-in it developed a chrrrrring noise then subsequently a running stutter and despite oiling all round the noise got worse as did the stutter. On opening up I found the gear wheel driven by the worm was so badly chewed up I had to replace it - cost for motor and gear was £26. I have also had an intermittent slipping gear wheel on another loco leading to running stutter- however this did not have the chrrrring noise - so it would appear that gear meshing is possibly more likely. If I were you I would email your supplier now so it is on record, and in parallel run the loco with a heavy load into the deck over the next week and if it gets much worse then email your supplier a follow up video clip of the problem and agree with them that you can open it up. If you do decide to open it up, photograph any issues as you go and make sure that the various mounting plates for the motor and gear box mate properly. Unless the screws themselves are loose that gap indicates that the two surfaces are not mating smoothly. Check also the rear mounting plate - I note that according to service sheet that also held in place by 2 screws. Hope that is of some help.

Hi GB – Ref model 4s-018-003 I think you may well be right – I only remember these in black and that is what I have ordered (from Rails) but I was sure I had seen it advertised in green. On double-checking Hattons supply the B4 your black lined in green livery – but MRD and Rails are (still?) advertising this in SR green so possibly it was changed by Dapol at some stage!!. ...Oh well in a spirit of pursuing knowledge I go to Dapol site ‘cos they will know – complete waste of time – once I found the search button (disguised under their Digest logo) it wouldn’t recognise loco number, any B4 name or ref nos, and disliked B4 totally. – those who have slated the Hornby site would have field day with this site!! But I tend to agree with you – Hattons probably has it right!! WRT the real loco livery I am no expert and am going only by the Cooper monograph (Graham Muspratt may be able to comment on how authoritative it is ) but on rereading- at page 18 it says ……. “ On taking ownership of engines in 1923 the Southern Railway painted the non-docks ‘B4s’ in its standard good livery of black , with a single line …… …. In 1935 this was replaced by plain unlined black. The Docks engines , however were treated as a special case. . Receiving attention only in the Docks in the 1920s, their lined green (essentially LSWR) livery appears to have given way to an unlined dark green; perhaps this followed local repaints in the Docks, where there may not have been the means to perform elaborate lining jobs. ……. But in 1933 Eastleigh began to look after them again, and as they emerged from general overhauls there in the mid and late 1930s they received a unique livery of dark chocolate brown , with a single red line; the dark brown, however, invariably appeared black within a very few weeks.” At this point I hand over to the experts .....What with stovepipe chimneys, Drummond and Adams boilers spark arrestors, linseed filtrators, two styles of cab and homemade wooden cab side-sheets spread across a mere 25 locos in the interwar years I am really glad I like post-war BR black!!

Only just returned to this subject to see what is happening - if anything - as no-one appears to have come back to you in the absence of other info I can recommend a monograph by Peter Cooper on the B4s (Kingfisher Railway Productions - ISBN 0 946184 38 0 was £4.95) that not only details the locations including those sold out to industry but also buried in the text are references to SR black with green lining (up to 1935 approx), NCB colours and taylor woodrow green, as well as Harbour docks Brown, and a photo of No 90 in "a LSWR" livery. I put inverted commas as it looks very pale indeed !!. There does not appear to be a reference to them being painted in SR Green but no doubt someone else will confirm this one way or the other as it appears to be one of the options (4S-018-003) offered by Dapol.

Definitely be buying some of these - Pleasing to see how Hornby wagon chassis & brake gear has improved over last few years compared with how it used to be. I am Intrigued that as per prototype pictures the Dia 1529 Cattle correctly has tiebars and 8 shoe braking whilst Dia 1530 correctly has 8 shoe and no tiebars - I am no expert (getting excuses in early !!) In my ignorance I had thought that tiebars were generally limited to 4 shoe wagons, how common is it for 8 shoe wagons to have tiebars - is there an imbalance in the braking forces that necessitates tiebars for 8 shoe braking on Dia 1529 or was it a just in case ?

I hate to intrude on this (but will ) ...I think perhaps in general we should be judging Hornby by what they are doing now (or in last 4-5 years at any rate) and not what was happening 30 years ago when they were under different management - Having said that you do actually have a valid point about matching coaches and locos - my Hornby bete noire is HSTs where you often have to hunt around to complete sets in the uncertainty of not knowing if you will ever find that missing Bke/comp/TRUB whatever.......... however the industry is at fault not just Hornby. I am not sure Oxford Rail are producing too many suitable coaches even their Mk3s aren't here yet and not sure they are a suitable match for Adams or proposed Dean goods even on a preserved line (Irony!!) whilst to be even handed certain Bachmann locos also seem to aimed at goods only lines and Dapol are the same. Not sure how many coaches DJM is producing off their own bat (if any) to match their loco, and even Kernow hasn't quite mastered it with their O2 and gatestock but they are trying. In their defence I would say that at least Hornby are actually producing excellent quality prenationalisation coaches; rather than just cataloguing them. However even though they are(relatively) reasonably priced to be honest some of us do prefer coach deliveries to be staggered so the the payments also can be staggered for complete sets (a train of 8 can quite easily top £250-£300). It is the not knowing that they will eventually be available that is probably the most irritating aspect. However to be helpful (I hope) in your specific case can I suggest that Kernow appear to be currently flogging SR Maunsells broken out of the Dunkirk packs - and as they have more than 10 sets avail at 3 for £100 approx perhaps they might meet your requirements and if you buy them now then you will also have a breathing space before you pay for the engine :-)

I agree - I foolishly thought 4 car prototype equals 4 car order why reproduce a non-prototype rake - which goes to prove you can get hung up on this "prototype" approach, I subsequently contacted Shildon to see if there were any cancelled orders for trailer cars (there weren't all us old codgers - me included had hung on until delivery !!) - the 4 car unit is grossly over powered and is screaming out for several trailer cars to be hung onto it to pull it down to a reasonable speed - I think I could run to a 2 or 4 car addition and I am not sure but I do not think the trailer cars were sold as limited editions possibly a further run of those may be possible if enough of us were prepared to pay up front to Shildon?