Jump to content
 

Hornby Princess Coronation Class (Duchess)


Dick Turpin
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

and it looks as though there were fittings for the speedometer on both the front bogie and rear driving wheel?

Is that really a speedometer attached to the cable in front of the cylinder? The lump on the end of the cable seems to be well out from the bogie wheel as visible outside the front footstep. I have never seen any such bogie fitted speedos before on steam locos. Does anyone have chapter and verse?

If a speedometer is bolted to a bogie wheel a torque arm is needed to stop the body rotating which all seems a lot of effort when the rear driver speedo was an established design. If this was some sort of experiment it would appear to have been unsuccessful.

Regards

Very nice pictures by the way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, when in BR Blue 6256 had a speedo connected to the bogie. That didn't last long (along with the extended draincocks). She had two speedos, one in the normal rear driving wheel position, the other on the front bogie was an experiment to improve indications at low speeds. It didn't work and was disconnected (but not removed) shortly after

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Duly pre-ordered !

 

HOWEVER - could someone at Warley (Andy?) please pin down the Hornby reps. as to :-

 

a) will the non-existent tender chassis 'shelf' not be present on the production models;

 

b) will the rear pony truck on the Ivatt versions be prototypically pivotted with flanged wheels, not fixed and with flangeless wheels?

 

Thank you in anticipation.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

I am wondering this as well, the photos of that area suggest (b) will be continued with, though I hope not. If this is the case, no sale! GET THE MESSAGE Hornby!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am wondering this as well, the photos of that area suggest (b) will be continued with, though I hope not. If this is the case, no sale! GET THE MESSAGE Hornby!

 

Indications are that the pony truck will indeed be fixed.

 

Reason - (this is pure speculation) - all the other Stanier 8Ps will have outside rear frames, which Hornby use as an excuse to make the pony wheels fixed with flangless wheels. They won't want to have a pivoting arrangement on the chassis just for use in the Ivatt variants.

 

Precedent - all the recent Pacifics from Hornby have fixed rear pony trucks with flangeless wheels, despite the prototypes having pivoting ponytrucks - WC / BOB, 71000, etc., etc.

 

Shame - out with the piercing saw !!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I am wondering this as well, the photos of that area suggest (b) will be continued with, though I hope not. If this is the case, no sale! GET THE MESSAGE Hornby!

Paul Isles of Hornby Development Team has just posted in the thread "Warley" that if anyone has information on the 2017 range then they should PM him outside the glare of normal internet. Seems eminently sensible to me and another welcome sign that Hornby are communicating directly with their customers. So might be an idea to contact him there , maybe without the GET THE MESSAGE bit

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul Isles of Hornby Development Team has just posted in the thread "Warley" that if anyone has information on the 2017 range then they should PM him outside the glare of normal internet. Seems eminently sensible to me and another welcome sign that Hornby are communicating directly with their customers. So might be an idea to contact him there , maybe without the GET THE MESSAGE bit

 

Great minds ..... - already done!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Great minds ..... - already done!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Cheers John . It was just that "Warley" wasn't an obvious title for people wanting to contribute to 2017 range. I think it's great if those who are very familiar with prototype can contribute

Link to post
Share on other sites

a) whether the non-existent tender chassis 'shelf' will be absent on the production models;

 

b) whether the rear pony truck on the Ivatt versions will be prototypically pivotted with flanged wheels, not fixed and with flangeless wheels?

 Sounds like we have a good method for communicating politely to Hornby concerning these two points.

 

Getting the tender right by deleting the 'shelf' or spurious valance under the footplate should be a no brainer. (If Hornby have scanned the prototype, it will be an element that had to be added, because it really isn't there!)

 

As for the rear truck, it truly will need a flanged wheelset to look well in Ivatt form. Design cleverly to take a pin point axle wheelset and secured by two screws, the forward one in the pivot position, the aft screw holding the truck wheelset just clear of the rail when in place, but removeable to allow limited pivotting action. On the models as sold, truck fixed in place with a flangeless wheelset installed, with a flanged pinpoint wheelset included in the box for display purposes: leave the modeller to make the compromises required for operation with a flanged wheelset on their layout's minimum curve.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Indications are that the pony truck will indeed be fixed.

 

Reason - (this is pure speculation) - all the other Stanier 8Ps will have outside rear frames, which Hornby use as an excuse to make the pony wheels fixed with flangless wheels. They won't want to have a pivoting arrangement on the chassis just for use in the Ivatt variants.

 

Precedent - all the recent Pacifics from Hornby have fixed rear pony trucks with flangeless wheels, despite the prototypes having pivoting ponytrucks - WC / BOB, 71000, etc., etc.

 

Shame - out with the piercing saw !!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood

Question is which compromise do we prefer - fixed pony but convincing relationship between cab and rear frames or moving pony but non prototypical gaps twixt cab, firebox and rear drivers. I have been experimenting with my current late model (fixed frame) Duchess fitting a flanged Alan Gibson wheel. It works well going forwards but is trickier in reverse, especially negotiating points and cross overs. There is I think enough clearance to make this a working solution though with the announcement of the new model it is more likely to have the flangeless wheel refitted and be heading for ebay!  The worst possible solution to the 'pacific problem' is Bachmanns on the A1 and A2 - it looks awful from most angles.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

As for the rear truck, it truly will need a flanged wheelset to look well in Ivatt form. Design cleverly to take a pin point axle wheelset and secured by two screws, the forward one in the pivot position, the aft screw holding the truck wheelset just clear of the rail when in place, but removeable to allow limited pivotting action. On the models as sold, truck fixed in place with a flangeless wheelset installed, with a flanged pinpoint wheelset included in the box for display purposes: leave the modeller to make the compromises required for operation with a flanged wheelset on their layout's minimum curve.

You'll still need compromise on the model because the fixed slab rear frames of 6256 sit very close behind the trailing wheels and the hopper ashpan projects between them. The best illustration I can find is this profile, but the Hornby CAD also shows the tight clearances involved and it wouldn't surprise me if they have had to narrow the frames to fit even a fixed 00 wheelset. The truck on the real thing was pivoted but the range of movement was very limited and nowhere near enough to accommodate model railway radii. Edited by Flying Pig
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

You'll still need compromise on the model because the fixed slab rear frames of 6256 sit very close behind the trailing wheels and the hopper ashpan projects between them. The best illustration I can find is this profile, but the Hornby CAD also shows the tight clearances involved and it wouldn't surprise me if they have had to narrow the frames to fit even a fixed 00 wheelset. The truck on the real thing was pivoted but the range of movement was very limited and nowhere near enough to accommodate model railway radii.

The Comet conversion to 6256\57 for the current model seems to manage a flange and a pivoting truck so where there is a will there is a way :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

The Comet conversion to 6256\57 for the current model seems to manage a flange and a pivoting truck so where there is a will there is a way :)

This was indeed what I had applied to the following: Britannia 70030, Clan 72008, Duchess 46245, and a couple of other Pacifics. However, this did stop me buying other class members from these classes, which is a shame.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Paul Isles of Hornby Development Team has just posted in the thread "Warley" that if anyone has information on the 2017 range then they should PM him outside the glare of normal internet. Seems eminently sensible to me and another welcome sign that Hornby are communicating directly with their customers. So might be an idea to contact him there , maybe without the GET THE MESSAGE bit

Thank you, I had it in mind to contact Richard Venner, but to have this information is very useful. The 'GET THE MESSAGE' bit was rather an unusual aberration from the norm.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You'll still need compromise on the model because the fixed slab rear frames of 6256 sit very close behind the trailing wheels and the hopper ashpan projects between them. The best illustration I can find is this profile, but the Hornby CAD also shows the tight clearances involved and it wouldn't surprise me if they have had to narrow the frames to fit even a fixed 00 wheelset. The truck on the real thing was pivoted but the range of movement was very limited and nowhere near enough to accommodate model railway radii.

 That's completely correct.

 

I believe there is a good compromise solution for the model however. In summary, make it possible for a functioning flanged wheelset to be substituted for the flangeless wheelset for better appearance as a display model; with the truck having the option of a functioning pivot by removal of one securing screw, even though very constrained in movement by the other hardware present. Leave it to the owner to make his or her own compromises on appearance, by cutting clearance for the truck and wheelset to swing as required, sufficient to get the model around the owner's layout curves. Having the truck with a functioning pivot option simplifies this possibility.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Duly pre-ordered !

 

HOWEVER - could someone at Warley (Andy?) please pin down the Hornby reps. as to :-

 

a) whether the non-existent tender chassis 'shelf' will be absent on the production models;

 

b) whether the rear pony truck on the Ivatt versions will be prototypically pivotted with flanged wheels, not fixed and with flangeless wheels?

 

Thank you in anticipation.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

Great news from Paul at Hornby - the Stanier tender 'shelf' will NOT be perpetuated !!!!!!

 

..... and pivoting pony trucks have not been ruled out - though there is no commitment to them either.

 

Well done Hornby - listening, and acting on what we tell them, at last !!!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope there is a good mix of metal in the construction.  To be a good hauler the engine alone needs to weigh around 20 ounces.  This is the one thing that would persuade me to buy the DJH model.

 

JF.

If it is like their Clan and Britannia, that won,go be a problem. Agree the last version was rather light.

Edited by JSpencer
Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks a model with loads of potential to be excellent, and a prototype that was at Camden a great deal, so definitely of interest to me.  I've made a Comet conversion to 46256 from a Hornby China 46238, which is on the first post of my motive power thread below.  However, I dropped it when taking it out of the display cabinet which wasn't all that clever.  Buying a DJH version to replace it, along with Markits wheels, Comet box, conversion kit, steps and injectors, and Mashima 1628 was exactly the sort of magic spell to ensure Hornby would release it. 

 

Anyway, with luck the Hornby version will be weighty enough to solve the haulage problem (a significant reason for me to try the modified DJH route).  Other things that I hope might be sorted out whether it is new tooling or an all-new model are:

 

tender ledge, front bogie, rear tender frame steps as other posters have said - good to read John's post above.

brake shoes on the front drivers as well as the rear and centre; tender vents (the 3D print in the photos seems to have the Stanier round ones, not the flat Ivatt ones)

 

Looks as if the relationship between front bogie and frames is much better.  Can't quite tell from the photos whether the part welded tender body is accurate but it looks like a completely new 3D print with the coal pusher.  The thickness of the edges has always allowed scope for some paring back on Hornby Stanier tenders.  I hope it is an accurate model, because at very least the body is likely to be better than I could manage by any method, and the painting and lining will be way beyond my ability. 

 

Iain

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope there is a good mix of metal in the construction.  To be a good hauler the engine alone needs to weigh around 20 ounces.  This is the one thing that would persuade me to buy the DJH model.

 

JF.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "good hauler".  My own (very) basic layout can accommodate a maximum train length equivalent to seven Mk1 coaches and has a minimum radius of 3ft.  It is all on the level and the Hornby Britannia, recent King and Castle can all manage such a load,  So, I will be happy if this new model can achieve the same.  However, I have one reservation over my pre-order for a "Duchess".  Whilst I can excuse the train length on my BR(W) mainline trains on the basis that The Bristolian was only a little longer than my maximum, I really associate the Stanier pacifics with trains of fourteen or fifteen up. I remember, as a child, watching The Bristolian fly through Reading in the company of an ex-Camden top link driver.  As the train approached just ticking along at about 80mph, Harry whistled softly and remarked, "That's the way to run 'em".  Then, as the train passed, he went, "two, four, six, eight.....Blimey, it's only half a train"! 

 In my mind, a "Duchess" running round with four or so coaches looks faintly ridiculous, although I realise that many large locos are found on small layouts.  This is another of those scale compromise issues (like the OO gauge itself) which I sometimes think actually dwarf all the arguments we get into over the detail in each RTR locomotive model.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "good hauler".  My own (very) basic layout can accommodate a maximum train length equivalent to seven Mk1 coaches and has a minimum radius of 3ft.  It is all on the level and the Hornby Britannia, recent King and Castle can all manage such a load,  So, I will be happy if this new model can achieve the same.  However, I have one reservation over my pre-order for a "Duchess".  Whilst I can excuse the train length on my BR(W) mainline trains on the basis that The Bristolian was only a little longer than my maximum, I really associate the Stanier pacifics with trains of fourteen or fifteen up. I remember, as a child, watching The Bristolian fly through Reading in the company of an ex-Camden top link driver.  As the train approached just ticking along at about 80mph, Harry whistled softly and remarked, "That's the way to run 'em".  Then, as the train passed, he went, "two, four, six, eight.....Blimey, it's only half a train"! 

 In my mind, a "Duchess" running round with four or so coaches looks faintly ridiculous, although I realise that many large locos are found on small layouts.  This is another of those scale compromise issues (like the OO gauge itself) which I sometimes think actually dwarf all the arguments we get into over the detail in each RTR locomotive model.

 

I have quite a large layout with 1 in 50 grades (rather steeper than Beattock, but less than the Lickey!) and also 3 foot curves.  It is in P4, so the rolling stock has pin-point bearings and runs very freely.  I have two very long steam-era trains under construction, the August 1951 Royal Scot (13 cars) and the 1962 Euston-Perth sleeper (15 cars)  Tests with diesel power (2 x class 50) show that at least 20 ounces adhesion weight is required!

 

JF

Wasn't the (1957) 'Caledonian' limited to eight coaches? (To achieve a six hour and forty minute journey time from Euston to Glasgow.)

 

In a similar vain to the afore mentioned 'Bristolian'.

 

Therefore a 'scaled down' representation could be say five or six coaches.

Edited by jonathan452
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't the (1957) 'Caledonian' limited to eight coaches? (To achieve a six hour and forty minute journey time from Euston to Glasgow.)

 

In a similar vain to the afore mentioned 'Bristolian'.

 

Therefore a 'scaled down' representation could be say five or six coaches.

Yes, of course, you're right.  However, The Caledonian (as a named train with that schedule) was, I think, only introduced in 1957.  I should perhaps have specified that the Bristolian incident in question took place earlier than that and the driver in question had by then been off the footplate for a few years.  Nevertheless, it is comforting that I can run my 7 coaches with a relatively clear conscience behind Sir William Stanier, which will be in its later, red, incarnation.  Not that I have any photographic proof of 46256 being so rostered.  The "It's my railway...." theory will have to apply!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Yes, of course, you're right.  However, The Caledonian (as a named train with that schedule) was, I think, only introduced in 1957.  I should perhaps have specified that the Bristolian incident in question took place earlier than that and the driver in question had by then been off the footplate for a few years.  Nevertheless, it is comforting that I can run my 7 coaches with a relatively clear conscience behind Sir William Stanier, which will be in its later, red, incarnation.  Not that I have any photographic proof of 46256 being so rostered.  The "It's my railway...." theory will have to apply!

Short train ? When running in ex-works from Crewe ,they could be seen trundling along on 3 coach non corridor stoppers between Crewe and Shrewsbury.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

There are some lovely shots taken by Eric Treacy of Duchesses pulling 15 and 16 car trains, my favourite being Buccleuch (or was it Atholl?) restarting 16 cars unaided on Shap after a signal stop.

That would have been something special to see and hear.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't remember seeing either of the Ivatt  Pacifics ' in the flesh ', but was once hauled by ' City of London '.

and saw several others.

One magazine photo feature that still haunts me, was of colour views of 46256 complete with yellow stripe,

in almost museum condition, hauling it's last ever train, a rail tour.

After this tour it joined the other condemned class mates at Upperby, where the fire was dropped.

 

It would be nice if Hornby could, as a livery option, pay tribute to Sir William, by including the yellow stripe,

depicting the loco in those final weeks.

 

PS. I think the photo feature was in Backtrack.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...