pom-pom

Hi Tony, sorry about that, my name is Nick. Ah, well that's a relief about the smokebox length, thank you. And thanks for the tip on replacement bogie wheels, I'll look into this I think. I must say your A3 looks great - I particularly like your attention to detail with the 5Amp fusewire. Nick

I would be interested in hearing your perspective in more perspective Ian! Do you imply that this A3 sold out as most people were really not as bothered about the assembly/livery issues as us? Surely a sell-out initiates a production re-run? Sorry if I'm being naive, I'm not that aware of the business logic of the big manufacturers.

Here's another for you... the tip of the red arrow marks the front-top corner of the smokebox saddle. On the real 2599 this is almost up to the very front edge of the smokebox whereas on the Hornby model the smokebox extends beyond this point... If someone kindly measures the smokebox length on a 4mm scale drawing then I'll measure the model. Were smokeboxes of different lengths based on the boiler fitted? Can we date the model 2599 exactly by this?

Yes, I noticed that too but I thought I'd let it go. Not sure what the moulded pipework was but it could have been another feature that was on the loco at one point and not other times. It's appearance could be responsible for the makers plate relocation?

I hate to say it but that smokebox on the Hornby model looks to be longer than that of the real No. 2599... in front of the chimney. Could be the angle. I think I'm going to stop looking at real photos, it's clearly not good for you...

I'm probably being over-critical now but notice in the two photos above that the makers plate on the smokebox is in the wrong position. And also Mick's assertion that the cylinder cover should be lined in red is certainly true. The black and white photo is 2599.

Sorry Les, I should clarify what I meant by "too far back" as it wasn't the clearest of descriptions. If you check the attached photo, although the real 2599 is at a different angle it seems clear to me that the footsteps front-most edge is immediately behind the front bufferbeam. On the Hornby model you can see that there's quite a gap. Not only that but the footsteps are glued in place higher up - the lower step should be below the centre point of the leading bogie wheel. And upon yet closer scrutiny the vertical distance between the two steps differs... these steps may not have been designed for this model. Isinglass drawing anyone? From the side view of the steps and the front view posted earlier it's fairly evident that anything under '4th radius' curves are going to pose problems primarily because of the incorrect step positioning. Simple solution - cut them off and reattach. I've noticed from photos that some A3s had the steps and others didn't, possibly at different times. Nick

I think we're still in the error list collation stage as yet! In no way can I return mine as I'm way into somewhat foolhardy perhaps corrections and modifications. One thing I should note is that I'm very pleased with the way it runs and it can handle a fairly heavy train. Latest on mine: (1.) I have found out why the loco will not round curves less than the standard '4th radius' curve. The front footsteps are the collision area with the leading wheels of the front bogie. The reason why is that the factory have glued the steps on way too far back from the bufferbeam. This is not evident on the Railroad version of Flying Scotsman currently available. (2.) Replacement of the tender wheels with P2 spoked green wheels has made the tender look far better if these are the wheelsets that were predominantly used. However, in motion spoked wheels illustrate well how the third wheelset does not rotate whatsoever and the first wheelset only partially. In other words the tender is running on the second and fourth wheelsets only. I believe this problem has nothing to do with the wheelsets themselves... more investigation needed as to why this is occurring.

Yes, let's hope so. Talking of spotting faults or not, it should be borne in mind that camera lense shortfalls and the element of zoom are factors in how we perceive details. For example, the lining, black band inside white, looks good to me on the model but my camera clearly couldn't cope too well. The front buffer beam rightly looks a mess as Mick mentioned - it looks off on one side. But in reality you have to struggle and get down real close to observe this, I would never say it sticks out in any sense as the way the front footplate kicks up at the front and dips below the firebox. Likewise the '5' numeral being at a slightly different height is not something I notice or jars as we now know that various locos had that feature if only temporarily. But we all have our own standards. I would hazard a guess at the poor assembly and distortion of the footplate/running plate being a show-stopper for many. Or it might be after purchase as it will glare back! For those crazy people like me looking for potential fixes to the assembly errors in the distortion of the footplate/running plate under the cab, I have noticed that on the right-hand side of the loco the running plate as it curves up and traverses the driving wheels is not flat in this plane above the latter. It's not parallel with the rails. In other words, if two vertical measurements are taken through the axis of the front and rear driving wheel from running plate down to rail, the measurement is not the same (about a millimeter difference). This is all part of the same distortion that creates the gap under the firebox but on the right-hand side it starts earlier front to back. The scalpel under the cab idea sounds best so far if anyone's feeling brave!

I can well believe what you're saying Les. Well... as my A3 is now firmly rooted pre 1935 and No. 2599 probably having been built with spoked wheels in 1930... in that short space it couldn't surely have lost all four spoked wheels or at least would be very unlucky. I may give her three spoked wheelsets and one disc for good measure then..!

Not having a Vernier caliper to hand I've taken a wheel off each, the A3 and the P2 and photographed them alongside a rule... an approximation I'm afraid but to me the wheelsets look of the same diameter. I understand that both the A3 and the P2 had tender wheels of 4'2" diameter which corresponds approximately with the 16.5mm I can see. So if the tender sits too high it must surely be the frame at some location. Did all A3s have spoked wheels or was this mentioned earlier regarding 2599 only and in a particular timeframe? It's good to see that we can just pop in the green spoked P2 wheelsets... but not so good to see that they cost 12 quid when Hornby could easily have put the P2 ones in. I guess the disc wheels are the self-same ones that are in the A4s?

I should add that the second photo from last containing two photos is a "before and after" picture!

Sure Tom, no problem. The wood I used happened to be the edge of a sheet of 8'x4' MDF I'm temporarily using for a baseboard as I knew it wasn't going to move. I've uploaded a photo to show the fulcrum point which as you say is just behind the steam pipes. Note the small plastic lugs further backward - be very careful not to damage these. Note also the rendition of the front section of the main frames. This is acting as a strengthening gusset and I found it prudent to weaken this slightly to promote a bend rather than a snap. I did this by using a flat needle file to cut slots and I also took a little of the back edge of these frame pieces away as these butt up a little too hard against the chassis block. Once the body-shell retaining machine screw is in place the body isn't going to move anywhere easily. The bending process - I found the best approach to this was to pour myself a large scotch and clear the room of any distractions. If you don't have a sense of the tensile properties of materials then it may not be advisable to proceed. Otherwise, I steadied the boiler with one hand and pushed down with two fingers on the top of the running plate/footplate just in front of the smokebox where you will find flat spots... gently does it. You may hear cracking noises and the black plastic cover sections on top of the running plate between that and the steam pipes may come adrift... the whiskey helped calm me with this part. Try the body back on the chassis - I had to do this many times before I was happy with the result. Once you are there glue on anything that came adrift and fix the body back on with the screw but minus the plastic washer. And note that there's a red wire attached to the motor on the left-hand side which can easily get trapped between the body and the chassis and in the rear driving wheel (should be taped up properly really). And that's it basically... just use maximum caution. Photos of the result attached. As yet I have no idea what to do about the other frame distortion problem under the firebox! Nick Ps. despite what I said earlier about there being no detail pack there was.. it contains the flanged Cartazzi truck wheel and some cylinder drain cocks. Don't fit the latter before undertaking the modification above, they will seriously get in the way. I might remove mine - they don't look right compared to the photos of 2599 I've seen.

If this is causing a height problem and the wheels are of the wrong type I may try to get hold of a spare set of P2 spoked tender wheels. Hornby should give me some free for all this QC review work!!

Some more tender comparison photos. It's late and I've made a few errors re., Fairway spelt as Fairview and not fully diagnosing the tender differences between the P2/A3 which I had incorrectly thought were the same. Clearly the A3 tender is the taller. The tender partition is also sloped at an angle ascending from the front to the back on the A3. I presume the curved sheet-work behind this partition is a cover for a water scoop. Rear view photo: A3 is on the left; P2 on the right.

I've been wondering about the tender too. It happens that when I returned to the hobby after a long time the first model that tempted me back in was Hornby's P2, the super-detailed one not the Railroad version. So we can do a comparison as from what I can see from the models the tenders are based on the very same prototype and have the same dimensions. The differences are: P2 has moulded handrails, spoked wheels and a higher simulated coal level. The A3's tender is a better detailed model but has disc wheels, possibly incorrect. It's coal is easily removable and the empty tender detail is rendered well. It doesn't run as well as the P2's tender as despite full dismantling, easing of the brake shoes with a needle file and general lubrication the third wheelset rotates easily but not on the track. Here's some photos showing the two side by side. I don't have the reference literature to which you all refer as yet so you will no doubt spot the errors/problems/good points!

Amendment: only 2746 Fairway is pre 1935, re., cab cut-outs. In their prime...

Here's a couple of photos of 2599 Mick, one at least pre 1935. I'll probably go to jail for posting them but the source website was Javascript driven and I couldn't get a direct link to the images. The website is http://transportsofdelight.smugmug.com/ so at least I've quoted reasonably well. These images are so old they must be out of copyright, if any existed. Moderators: if you feel I've made some major transgression please dispose of this particular post and I accept my apologies forthwith. Actually, whilst I'm at it there's a very nice pic of 2746 Fairview which I had *hoped* to model based on another purchase of Book Law... this isn't going to happen until Hornby's QC Dept. pull up their breeches.

A sample size of four is taking a nasty veer towards the conclusive. I feel your pain. You may be pleased to know that the front running plate distortion is quite correctable if you're keeping your A3. But it does involve a certain amount of very careful and slight bending with the body off over a block of wood (good grief). There is also a nylon washer about 3/32" in thickness between the chassis and the brass threaded insert in the front of the body that can be removed (it's not as if the fixing is designed to move) which will allow you to bring the front down further... aim being to get a flat line across the top of the cylinders which I appear to have achieved. And yes, I did fiddle, I did modify the distortion, cut the backs of the bucket seats off, swap the ash pan lever over, repaint the washout plugs, etc. and I know I really should've sent it back but by and large I am arriving at the A3 I was after. To those that may feel I've let the side down, I do hang my head in some shame at not venting my disappointment to the suppliers or indeed Hornby but I hope the photos uploaded will dissuade others who don't want the hassle and may highlight the poor assembly QC to Hornby themselves if they ever get to read in here. My limited experience with Hornby is now "once bitten; twice shy"... exercise caution!

The image of 2599 at http://www.kernowmodelrailcentre.com/p/36291/R3132-Hornby-Class-A3-Steam-Locomotive-number-2599 is also showing the same footplate/running plate distortions as that at Rails of Sheffield. But so far we have those two and mine... that's a sample size of exactly three! It could be... might be... that all the rest are actually okay. I detest this eternal optimist in me sometimes! Has anyone else got any to add?

That would be a likely explanation for lettering/numbers at wrong heights/positions re. this A3 and the recent LNER-liveried A4s and also for the mismatch of bucket seats and cab-cutouts. But how about the slap-dashery with assembly...?

Err... the mangled front lamp iron... do you mean the bent one? Can't blame Hornby for that as I did it trying to gently coerce the front running plate/footplate back into the correct alignment! It has now been corrected. In fact now... four hours later I have almost completely straightened the front end out, moved the ash pan lever to the correct side, fixed the snapped vacuum pipe, completely dismantled the tender in order to get the third wheel to rotate (I didn't mention that error as I hadn't discovered it yet) and repainted the washout plugs to green... all things that Hornby should have got right the first time. Still debating cab seats/cab-cutouts and lettering/numbering. I don't know about the original Chinese A3s but I bought one of Hornby's older A4s (Mallard) which was one of the first Chinese models - compared with the mess that is Great Snipe it is a joy! So it seems things are sliding downhill alas...

I think the red lining on the footplate exacerbates the way it is distorted at the cab and over the cylinders. It's interesting what you say about missing red lining on the latter. What is your opinion of the 'O' gauge A1/A3s available from http://loveless.co.uk/class_a1_a3/index.html as these also have this lining missing? Was it only applied in specific periods perhaps? I agree with you re., the footplate, it's a mess although I have corrected it somewhat. But having to dislocate, re-glue and also glue bits on that were broken is a disgrace. I knew it was wrong before I had it out of the box but like many modellers the temptation to fiddle was irresistible. Price: it is available for an appreciable amount less than Hornby's retail price elsewhere but again I have to agree... steep considering the quality control problems. Plus points: it's a lovely runner and has a proper 5-pole motor unlike that pitiful whiny thing they put in the P2. Hornby... get your act together, you're SO near yet so far..!!

Thanks. Somewhat ironic that the factory has such a name! Possibly the workers are given to think these models are mere toys and haven't been aware of our refined tastes and critical eyes.

Here's a few more photos, on the rails and after a little more gentle bending of forward running plates.. arrgh. The issues highlighted do however diminish at speed! Note the front view illustrating the footstep clearance on 4th radius standard track (I know, I know.. I must build a proper layout). These footsteps were glued on at the factory. I doubt the loco would make it round a 3rd radius curve. Nick