Aw well each to his own. I have since buying the Britannia and rebuilt West country modified the trailing truck to allow a slight swing in the trailing truck wheels. I understand Hornby's thinking in employing this method as you can't have a near scale model that will run succesfully on 15" radius curves so some sort of comprimise is reached and flangeless wheels were deemed to be the answer. On any loco fitted with a trailing truck beneath the firebox/cab area very little daylight is seen and on the Brit and West country Hornby have captured this well.
Ozzie21
QUOTE (Hugh Williams @ 21 Feb 2007, 08:17)
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>"I notice on Model Railway Express - which frequently reads like Hornby's in-house bible - that in response to a recent complaint on this subject, we are treated like school children " with a reply that Hornby couldn't have bettered themselves. Apparently its all our fault for wanting so much detail and Hornby must have got it right because the models are selling well!"" (Thanks to dwilson9)
Hi,
I have ripped the above quote from the post, as that is pretty well what I got in response to my query on the subject. For good measure I was told that because it looks good, it is good. Needless to say, I haven't finished my correspondence with Hornby, firstly, because I have been holding conversations with Hornby for quite some time, and, secondly, I am waiting for the conversion job on the Brit to be done. I have observed that the Bachmann A1 was the best possible treatment for the Cartazzi and should have been applied to the A1/3.
Below is an abstract from my letter to Hornby:
'I have recently bought this loco model, as a result of looking at the detail that had been provided in its design. However, I didn't realise that the design had a fatal flaw, which renders the model essentially a 'toy': The trailing bogie is fixed. When reversing the loco the rear of the loco and the wheels leave the track gauge, presenting an awkward and unbelievable view. The result is, most unfortunately, an article that is not fit for purpose. I am most sorry to have to draw this conclusion, and, likewise most sorry that I can't take the loco back to the shop proprietor, because it works well mechanically.
After some consideration, which also explains the length of time that it has taken to write to you, I believe that Hornby ought to recall the loco, accepting the design fault. To an extent, I think there is a precedent for a recall, insofar as Bachmann recalled the A1 when they found that there was a motor problem. I appreciate that a recall of this nature requires a re-working of the chassis block and an insertion of something like the leading pony truck on this locomotive to allow transverse movement in a restricted area. Once again, I refer you to the Bachmann A1, and, to an extent, your A1/A3 locomotive. As such the locomotive has been sidelined.'
I haven't informed Hornby that the loco has gone for mods, as I have explained here that I am awaiting the results. Personally, I am of the opinion that Hornby don't like the inclusion of any reference to Bachmann in correspondence, but that is their main competitor in this field.
I hope this post hasn't been too long winded, but it is there as something of a more fully rounded explanation of my views than initially posted, as well as an insight of the views as forwarded to Hornby.
What does come as a surprise with these models is that there has been mute criticism by the Railway Model Press, I can't explain that, any more can I see the reason for the design flaw being put in place in the first instance!
This little event has brought me to the conclusion that wish lists are for me something of the past and an improvements in design concepts should be what the modeller should strive for, ie focusing on ideas to improve current designs, because the models will come from surveys at shows, etc.
Regards,
Hugh
