Hornby T9 and Schools Class
41 - 60 of 76 Posts
Joined
·
9,983 Posts
*** I noted this comment on another e-list a moment ago and wonder if it is true or not, as I am certainly not an expert on this loco (which frankly to all intent and purposes looked OK to me in all the images I saw).
Quote:
Those of us who have purchased the new T9 from Hornby appear to have bought a bit of a pig in a poke! With the tender frames glued on the wrong sides and seemingly the injector etc pipework also on the wrong sides it says a lot for Chinese Quality control. Or were they given the wrong instructions!!
Apparently Simon Kohler has been informed of this latest fiasco so I will await his comments with interest.
I bought one with a view to converting it to EM but the clearances within the tender frames and the splashers are very tight.
<Snip>
Regards
Richard
EndQuote
Quote:
Those of us who have purchased the new T9 from Hornby appear to have bought a bit of a pig in a poke! With the tender frames glued on the wrong sides and seemingly the injector etc pipework also on the wrong sides it says a lot for Chinese Quality control. Or were they given the wrong instructions!!
Apparently Simon Kohler has been informed of this latest fiasco so I will await his comments with interest.
I bought one with a view to converting it to EM but the clearances within the tender frames and the splashers are very tight.
<Snip>
Regards
Richard
EndQuote
Joined
·
531 Posts
Swapped my duff (dead) 30310 for a new one at local model shop. Mine was their first faulty T9 but they had quit a number of electrics and diesels to go back to Hornby and expressed some concern about lowered quality. Glad it has watercart tender and therefore avoids 6 wheel tender side frame error.
Replacement runs fine on DCC test/programing track. A little jerky in reverse on Club's DC track but fine forward. Possibly dirty track (although club DC stalwarts Black 5 and 9F OK) but any other thoughts welcome.
![]()
Replacement runs fine on DCC test/programing track. A little jerky in reverse on Club's DC track but fine forward. Possibly dirty track (although club DC stalwarts Black 5 and 9F OK) but any other thoughts welcome.
Joined
·
2 Posts
6-wheel tender has left and right frames swapped over,resulting in guard irons at the front instead of rear of the tender.I managed to remove them using superglue de-bonder,then reaffixed correctly using MEK.
QUOTE (Fireline @ 19 Dec 2008, 15:31) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Does anyone know whether the T9's survived into BR service with the original 6 wheel tender? I want one in BR Black, but I don't like the water carrier tender, and I am hoping that they do a release with the 6 wheeler. Any ideas?
I have two photos of 30726 (narrow cab), one from 1949 in lined black, no crest and 1957 late crest and a photo of 30301 (wide cab) lined black with early crest all with 6 wheel tenders, so there are two to start with!
I have two photos of 30726 (narrow cab), one from 1949 in lined black, no crest and 1957 late crest and a photo of 30301 (wide cab) lined black with early crest all with 6 wheel tenders, so there are two to start with!
Joined
·
1,293 Posts
Like so many classes the T9s had a huge number of variants - even a standardised class such as the Jubilees threw up a bewildering number of different types. The only safe route is to find a photo taken in the era you model and follow that prototype.
![]()
60134
60134
Joined
·
2 Posts
With all the discussion on 6-wh tenders,be aware that there are two different wheelbases,13 ft as done by hornby for use on the eastern and central sections where short turntables were prevalent,and 14 ft in the west.
QUOTE (60134 @ 21 Dec 2008, 22:31) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Like so many classes the T9s had a huge number of variants - even a standardised class such as the Jubilees threw up a bewildering number of different types. The only safe route is to find a photo taken in the era you model and follow that prototype.
![]()
60134
Totally agree 60134. Always try to get several photos (preferably dated) of the loco you want to represent, especially if you are renumbering.
60134
Totally agree 60134. Always try to get several photos (preferably dated) of the loco you want to represent, especially if you are renumbering.
QUOTE (Fireline @ 22 Dec 2008, 16:10) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Does anyone know whether Hornby are going to be putting the errors in the tender frames right before the release of the next 6 wheel variant?
Do Hornby make mistakes? I thought they could do no wrong!
![]()
![]()
Do Hornby make mistakes? I thought they could do no wrong!
![](http://www.modelrailforum.com/forums/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/dry.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="<_<)
Fireline,
With the 2 sightings from John H-T from above, I decided to have a quick squizz at a few magazines for you, with the following results:
Between me and John H-T, we've seen 15 different T9s in BR times.
Of these, 5 have 6-wheel tenders : 30301 (wide cab, J H-T); 30304 (wide cab, SD 4/93); 30313 (wide cab, SD 1/95); 30726 (narrow cab, J H-T); 30729 (narrow cab, 1957 CV).
SD = Steam Days, CV combined volume.
You cannot make further asssumptions with this data, e.g. well if 30301, 30304 and 30313 had 6-wheel tenders, 30310 must have too - wrong, 30310 had 8- wheel tender in SD 11/91 !
Photos of locos with 8-wheelers include 30117
, 30120, 30310(w), 30338(w), 30708, 30709 (n, 2), 30712, 30715, 30717, 30719.
For which type of 6-wheeler, see comment above, I'd see if anyone can come up with a mid-50's locoshed book and check the allocations for a start.
Excuse me, I will now remove my anorak....
![]()
6991
With the 2 sightings from John H-T from above, I decided to have a quick squizz at a few magazines for you, with the following results:
Between me and John H-T, we've seen 15 different T9s in BR times.
Of these, 5 have 6-wheel tenders : 30301 (wide cab, J H-T); 30304 (wide cab, SD 4/93); 30313 (wide cab, SD 1/95); 30726 (narrow cab, J H-T); 30729 (narrow cab, 1957 CV).
SD = Steam Days, CV combined volume.
You cannot make further asssumptions with this data, e.g. well if 30301, 30304 and 30313 had 6-wheel tenders, 30310 must have too - wrong, 30310 had 8- wheel tender in SD 11/91 !
Photos of locos with 8-wheelers include 30117
, 30120, 30310(w), 30338(w), 30708, 30709 (n, 2), 30712, 30715, 30717, 30719.For which type of 6-wheeler, see comment above, I'd see if anyone can come up with a mid-50's locoshed book and check the allocations for a start.
Excuse me, I will now remove my anorak....
6991
OK 6991 Hold on tight to your Anorak.
Here is a bench mark to start from, according to Hugh Longworth in "British Railway Steam Locomotives 1948-1968, here is his list of T9s with six wheel tenders on the 1st January 1948. Tenders can of course be swapped and not all of them may have recieved BR liveries. All the locos listed were apparently renumbered. I also don't know which 6 wheel tender was fitted so after this you need photos.
So here goes:
Narrow Cab: 30281-2; 30704 / 30726 / 30729.
Wide Cab: 30300-01 / 30304 / 30307 / 30310-13 / 30336.
Therefore 30310 must have gained an 8 wheel tender in BR days or Hugh Longworth is wrong! This all goes to show how difficult all this is and that your best guide is to try and find a photo.
There is a photo of 30300 with 6 wheel tender and early crest in 1955 in Hornby Magazine for December in the T9 Feature.
Incidentally all 66 T9s were taken into BR stock in 1948 but the locos converted to oil burning (13) were scrapped soon afterwards, they all had 8 wheel tenders.
Best wishes,
John H-T.
Here is a bench mark to start from, according to Hugh Longworth in "British Railway Steam Locomotives 1948-1968, here is his list of T9s with six wheel tenders on the 1st January 1948. Tenders can of course be swapped and not all of them may have recieved BR liveries. All the locos listed were apparently renumbered. I also don't know which 6 wheel tender was fitted so after this you need photos.
So here goes:
Narrow Cab: 30281-2; 30704 / 30726 / 30729.
Wide Cab: 30300-01 / 30304 / 30307 / 30310-13 / 30336.
Therefore 30310 must have gained an 8 wheel tender in BR days or Hugh Longworth is wrong! This all goes to show how difficult all this is and that your best guide is to try and find a photo.
There is a photo of 30300 with 6 wheel tender and early crest in 1955 in Hornby Magazine for December in the T9 Feature.
Incidentally all 66 T9s were taken into BR stock in 1948 but the locos converted to oil burning (13) were scrapped soon afterwards, they all had 8 wheel tenders.
Best wishes,
John H-T.
Hi John H-T (...Anorak back on)
The list you give of engines with 6-wheel tenders on 1/1/48 is an exact match to mine, probably came from my source too, so no problems there mate.
The photo of 30310 trundling through Eastleigh in May 1958 in Steam Days merely indicates that a swap has occurred somewhere.
All these engines (both wide/narrow cab) would have picked up their 6-wheelers in SR days, when operational requirements necessitated - see the above post on 6-wheel tender lengths.
All 15 of the 30300 series engines (wide cab) were actually delivered new with 8-wheel bogie tenders, from December 1900 to October 1901. All the other 51 locos were delivered with 6-wheel tenders. However, when taken into Southern Railway stock at the grouping in 1923, all 66 had bogie tenders by this time. So it makes sense that swaps occurred when taken into SR stock and the class found itself transferred away from home and on the Central or Eastern sections or indeed onto the LMSR, where a few were transferred during the war.
Geez, it's a minefield out there!!
6991
Sorry mate, had to google Hugh Longworth ! My source is 'LSWR Locomotives 1872 - 1923' by F Burtt, published by Ian Allen in around 1950 - cost 6s 6d! I'm reading it now
![]()
.
The list you give of engines with 6-wheel tenders on 1/1/48 is an exact match to mine, probably came from my source too, so no problems there mate.
The photo of 30310 trundling through Eastleigh in May 1958 in Steam Days merely indicates that a swap has occurred somewhere.
All these engines (both wide/narrow cab) would have picked up their 6-wheelers in SR days, when operational requirements necessitated - see the above post on 6-wheel tender lengths.
All 15 of the 30300 series engines (wide cab) were actually delivered new with 8-wheel bogie tenders, from December 1900 to October 1901. All the other 51 locos were delivered with 6-wheel tenders. However, when taken into Southern Railway stock at the grouping in 1923, all 66 had bogie tenders by this time. So it makes sense that swaps occurred when taken into SR stock and the class found itself transferred away from home and on the Central or Eastern sections or indeed onto the LMSR, where a few were transferred during the war.
Geez, it's a minefield out there!!
6991
Sorry mate, had to google Hugh Longworth ! My source is 'LSWR Locomotives 1872 - 1923' by F Burtt, published by Ian Allen in around 1950 - cost 6s 6d! I'm reading it now
Joined
·
118 Posts
Received my Hornby T9 recently. Impressed by the very good detail, especially in the cab, and the lining on the boiler bands is very fine indeed. The driving wheels are well done as well, with the spokes curving up to the hub and the short throw of the coupling rods. Looks like a T9 should. (I've got a non-DCC BR livery with 8 wheel tender).
On the downside I agree with other posts that the tender fouls the loco when on the shortest coupling setting and, yes, the injector pipe-work is pointing the wrong way. This can be sorted out.
My question is that on my loco there is a gap between the top of the chassis and the bottom of the footplate underneath the smokebox saddle and backwards. I can't decide if this is as designed or if the round post that the securing screw fits into is fouling the wires coming back from the bogie pickups. Do others with this loco have the same gap - not sure if this is a fault or not. Grateful for advice.
Bill
On the downside I agree with other posts that the tender fouls the loco when on the shortest coupling setting and, yes, the injector pipe-work is pointing the wrong way. This can be sorted out.
My question is that on my loco there is a gap between the top of the chassis and the bottom of the footplate underneath the smokebox saddle and backwards. I can't decide if this is as designed or if the round post that the securing screw fits into is fouling the wires coming back from the bogie pickups. Do others with this loco have the same gap - not sure if this is a fault or not. Grateful for advice.
Bill
I received my Hornby T9 today.
I was impressed by the general level of detail. I was disappointed to note that when I placed the locomotive on the track it "stuttered" when the connecting rods reached their full upright position. The problem was more attenuated at moderate speeds rather than slow or fast speeds -- in short, the speeds at which one would ideally operate this locomotive. It was worse in forward and reverse. My Gaugemaster rolling testbed confirmed the problem -- the ampmeter fluctuated significantly at moderate speeds. The locomotive came with a DCC Hornby decoder fitted (I intend to replace it with a loksound ESU decoder from DCC Concepts when Richard Johnson produces the T9 sound file which I understand will happen -- I use the old decoder for light and other accessory purposes) and the hesitation was not as pronounced when operated using my Digitrax DCC controller -- perhaps there is EMF feedback through the decoder which ameliorates the problem.
Has anyone else experienced this difficulty? Is there any quick fix solution? Is it perhaps linked in some way to the use of the traction tyre (a retrogressive step on the part of Hornby -- I hope that they will not use the same system on the forthcoming School class locomotive and a replacement tyres and non-tyred wheels will be made available) is there a problem with Hornby's quality control?
If I cannot find a solution I will have to return it to Hattons. As I live in South Africa this is not a simple option.
Please let me know if this is an isolated problem or whether anyone else is experiencing this difficulty.
Brian Patterson
I was impressed by the general level of detail. I was disappointed to note that when I placed the locomotive on the track it "stuttered" when the connecting rods reached their full upright position. The problem was more attenuated at moderate speeds rather than slow or fast speeds -- in short, the speeds at which one would ideally operate this locomotive. It was worse in forward and reverse. My Gaugemaster rolling testbed confirmed the problem -- the ampmeter fluctuated significantly at moderate speeds. The locomotive came with a DCC Hornby decoder fitted (I intend to replace it with a loksound ESU decoder from DCC Concepts when Richard Johnson produces the T9 sound file which I understand will happen -- I use the old decoder for light and other accessory purposes) and the hesitation was not as pronounced when operated using my Digitrax DCC controller -- perhaps there is EMF feedback through the decoder which ameliorates the problem.
Has anyone else experienced this difficulty? Is there any quick fix solution? Is it perhaps linked in some way to the use of the traction tyre (a retrogressive step on the part of Hornby -- I hope that they will not use the same system on the forthcoming School class locomotive and a replacement tyres and non-tyred wheels will be made available) is there a problem with Hornby's quality control?
If I cannot find a solution I will have to return it to Hattons. As I live in South Africa this is not a simple option.
Please let me know if this is an isolated problem or whether anyone else is experiencing this difficulty.
Brian Patterson
Joined
·
118 Posts
Hi, Off work today with flu virusy thing. It is a well known fact that the best way to deal with illness is to go up into loft and sit in front of fan heater running trains.
![]()
So - first run of T9.
1. the front of the chassis has a slot into which a tongue molded under the footplate fits. This fits right in in my loco so the chassis/body must be aligned ok.
2. The loco does run around the layout with the tender coupling on the short setting. I radiused the edges of the fall plate as suggested elsewhere because part of the problem is that it catches against the front of the tender. I've now taken the fall plate right off (glue is very weak) to carry out a suggestion of a hinged, moving plate. (Done this ok with kit built locos some years ago).
3. Firstly, only the rear tender wheels rotated. After playing with the other wheels (I just pushed them to and fro across the chassis, seemed to do the trick with the pick ups) all undriven wheels rotated ok.
4. Have to say, it really looks the part running, especially with the inside bearing tender wheels. I got out my "Railway Roundabout" 1960 video which has some film of T9s around Tavistock.
5. The video shows T9s hauling 2 coach sets, 2x 2coach sets, 3 coach sets and up to 4 vehicles including, say, a full brake. The model will haul 4 free-running coaches but more than this and it starts slipping in places. However, 4 coaches will do for my layout (as shown in various books on West Country lines.).
Wouldn't have imagined some years ago that such a well detailed model of an obscure type would be readily available.
All I have left to do is keep going up into loft and running loco, fitting fall plate and deciding on whether to apply a tender crest or not.
Cheers,
Bill
1. the front of the chassis has a slot into which a tongue molded under the footplate fits. This fits right in in my loco so the chassis/body must be aligned ok.
2. The loco does run around the layout with the tender coupling on the short setting. I radiused the edges of the fall plate as suggested elsewhere because part of the problem is that it catches against the front of the tender. I've now taken the fall plate right off (glue is very weak) to carry out a suggestion of a hinged, moving plate. (Done this ok with kit built locos some years ago).
3. Firstly, only the rear tender wheels rotated. After playing with the other wheels (I just pushed them to and fro across the chassis, seemed to do the trick with the pick ups) all undriven wheels rotated ok.
4. Have to say, it really looks the part running, especially with the inside bearing tender wheels. I got out my "Railway Roundabout" 1960 video which has some film of T9s around Tavistock.
5. The video shows T9s hauling 2 coach sets, 2x 2coach sets, 3 coach sets and up to 4 vehicles including, say, a full brake. The model will haul 4 free-running coaches but more than this and it starts slipping in places. However, 4 coaches will do for my layout (as shown in various books on West Country lines.).
Wouldn't have imagined some years ago that such a well detailed model of an obscure type would be readily available.
All I have left to do is keep going up into loft and running loco, fitting fall plate and deciding on whether to apply a tender crest or not.
Cheers,
Bill
Joined
·
179 Posts
HI
Looks like the new schools will have tyres on one set of driving wheels.
Darren
Looks like the new schools will have tyres on one set of driving wheels.
Darren
I wonder how difficult it's going to be to replace these tyres when they wear down, as they will eventually do. The procedure will require the coupling rod to be removed.
As regards pictures of the locos in service, there is an excellent free web-site www.southern-images.co.uk that has many pictures of both T9s and Schools locos at various times in the careers.
As regards pictures of the locos in service, there is an excellent free web-site www.southern-images.co.uk that has many pictures of both T9s and Schools locos at various times in the careers.
Joined
·
3 Posts
Does anyone know when the Schools will be available in shops?
Peter.
Peter.
41 - 60 of 76 Posts
Join the discussion
