Model Railway Forum banner
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
55 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Has anyone here bought one of Hornby's new rebuilt BoB Class locos?

If so, what are your impressions with regards to how it runs etc, and the detailing compared to the older Hornby model of the rebuilt Merchant Navy?

I've been waiting to get 'Sir Keith Park' ever since I saw the first pre-production images, which looked great. But ive just had a look on the Hatton's site - and from their own shots, it appears to look no better than the original Merchant Navy?

Is this the case, or have Hattons just taken some poor photos?

Thanks!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
133 Posts
Hi,

I have seen one close up and personal! They are beautiful reproductions, but they are a flawed beauty! They have a fixed trailing bogie, which rather annoys me, as it is a reproduction of the fault found in the new Brit. The model makers have ignored the fact that these had pivoted trailing bogies.

I have made my views known to Hornby, but I have not concluded my correspondence with them yet. It is a shame that just when Hornby were going well with their designs they should fail on such a pivotal matter in this and the Britannia class models.

I have entrusted my Britannia to a modeller to modify the trailing bogie to make it more prototypical; when this completed and proven to be workable and look ok I will then buy the rebuilt WC/BoB's. I hope within a short while Hornby will change their position and modify the Brits and the Rebuilt WC/BoB's, particularly when the next editions are released.

These views are personal and I don't want to appear to be running a campaign, but some folks seem to think that Hornby are right to have a fixed trailing bogie. I have to disagree heartily, and, although compromise has to be accepted, there is no way that a complete goof up of the model for which £100+ can be paid is acceptable.

Regards,

Hugh Williams.

PS This doesn't take the fun out of running the railway, and, I am not a rivet counter.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
9,845 Posts
>They have a fixed trailing bogie
Is the bogie "welded" to the chassis or is there scope for an "entrepreneur" to produce a replacement trailing bogie and wheel set which could be a "drop in" replacement. (I'm not volunteering!).

David
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
99 Posts
I'm a fan of Hornby's new models (and buy may of them) but find the fixed pony truck to be the one thing that pushes them towards the category of "toy". I fear that the implementation of this new policy on the Gresley pacifics went unnoticed - the point being that their prototypes had fixed trucks anyway. The very first release of new Brits didn't even have a flanged wheel option and when Hornby eventually sent me one it didn't even fit (the axle diameter was too big for the chassis slot)!

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!

The fixed, flangeless, pony trucks look ridiculous on anything other than the gentlest of curves - and how many layouts have them? We'll be reading fatuous arguments next year about how Hornby felt it would be better if the front pony trucks on their latest model was fixed with flangeless wheels so they could add full pipework to cylinders, springing detail, etc. If a fixed outer frame was considered essential, why not use a small internal truck within the frames to allow a flanged wheel to traverse curves? Back to flangeless centre drivers next?
 

·
No Longer Active.
Joined
·
13,319 Posts
QUOTE (dwilson9 @ 20 Feb 2007, 08:49) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Back to flangeless centre drivers next?

The flangless drivers on RTR models was one of my main reasons for leaving OO & going "over" to HO in the mid 70's.

Having said that at the B of B is one of my favourite locomotives I had considered buying one, until I was made aware of the fixed/flangless issue - so at the moment - no way will I buy one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
461 Posts
The Old BoB the one preceding this one (92 Squadron etc) was allot better and a much nicer model.

and didnt have the flying axcel.

Pete
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
982 Posts
Have I missed something? Didn't Hornby come up with the correct solution on Clan Line and the Merchant Navies. Is the pipe work on a WC any diffirent? If not why did they not just follow the MN?.I don't recall howls of protest at the lack of detail on the trailing truck on the MN.

Or could it be that after the Gresleys were accepted without much protest that they decided it was less expensive (more margin) just to fit fixed bogies?

Looks like another shot in the foot for Hornby.

I also did not like the somewhat patronising view on MREmag. There is no evidence up here in Scotland that WCs are flying off the shelves and that therefor Hornby have got it right! Never mind the Hornby magazine, we may already have it in everything but name in the MREmag!

Looking forward to Model Rail Scotland to see if Simon Kohler has any WCs or Britannias on their demonstration layout with its tight curves. I'll bet not.

Russell
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
133 Posts
"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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,275 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
74 Posts
i've nine hornby A4's, six hornby A3's. I like the fixed cartazzi on these. The loco's are stable and seem to shift anythingI hang on the back of them. For these loco's a fixed trailing truck works well.

I've 4 brits of various vintages. Two are chinese 5 pole tender drive models not at all bad models. But I can't help feeling that although the new brit looks good, that the fixed railing truck is a bad idea. So bad that I won't be getting any.

I hope hornby reverse this decision. Hugh I'd appreciate knowing who/ what mods have been made.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
436 Posts
I hope Hornby stick with the idea and I'm going to write to them telling them so.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
133 Posts
QUOTE (davidw @ 21 Feb 2007, 11:45) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>i've nine hornby A4's, six hornby A3's. I like the fixed cartazzi on these. The loco's are stable and seem to shift anythingI hang on the back of them. For these loco's a fixed trailing truck works well.

I've 4 brits of various vintages. Two are chinese 5 pole tender drive models not at all bad models. But I can't help feeling that although the new brit looks good, that the fixed railing truck is a bad idea. So bad that I won't be getting any.

I hope hornby reverse this decision. Hugh I'd appreciate knowing who/ what mods have been made.

David,

I will let you know soon as I have the Brit sorted. There is a posting on this side detailing the changes needed to make the trailing bogie work and I have mentioned it to the good person who has taken on the challenge. He also knows that I will want the same doing to the WC/BoB's, of which I want several (that goes for the Brits as well). I will check out if the modeller would take on more commissions.

Hugh
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
133 Posts
QUOTE (Ozzie21 @ 21 Feb 2007, 08:40) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>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

You have done precisely what I am commissioning somebody else to do. Your posting (it was yours I think) gave me inspiration to go and ask for it to be done. Well done that fellow! Incidentally, my radii are 30", excluding the point work, which is second/express radius, for the locations where these locos would be required to work on. I have 24" min radius for shunting and light loco (yellow circle WR), so the gain from the working trailing bogie will be worth it. Besides, since when did Brits and WC/BoB's have Cartazzi? Does Hornby know that, never mind the financial gain from employing the same production techniques on different locos. (Am I going on a bit?)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,275 Posts
Hugh,This is what I did to the Britannia "Firth of Tay". Firstly remove the trailing truck frame which is just a dummy and doesn't carry the wheelset.

As you can see the wheelset is carried in a block that is part of the chassis. I increased the back to back distance to allow the wheels to go through code 75 points and I increased the depth of the slot to allow the wheelset to float more. I then cut some slots in the rear of the bogie frame as the flanges rub against the frame at this point
.
Then reassemble the lot and the wheelset should turn freely amd move up and down slightly.


Last thing I did was add a Kadee coupler to the tender, a Kadee 19, but that's not something every body will want to have.


Hope these help a bit better.

Ozzie21

QUOTE (Hugh Williams @ 22 Feb 2007, 06:21) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>You have done precisely what I am commissioning somebody else to do. Your posting (it was yours I think) gave me inspiration to go and ask for it to be done. Well done that fellow! Incidentally, my radii are 30", excluding the point work, which is second/express radius, for the locations where these locos would be required to work on. I have 24" min radius for shunting and light loco (yellow circle WR), so the gain from the working trailing bogie will be worth it. Besides, since when did Brits and WC/BoB's have Cartazzi? Does Hornby know that, never mind the financial gain from employing the same production techniques on different locos. (Am I going on a bit?)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
763 Posts
Back on the BoB's they still have the same unsightly boiler seam as the earlier Merchant Navies, more noticeable on some than others and possibly differing from individual model to model depending on how well they've been stuck together. The model I have of 17 squadron seems less noticeable than the west country ones I saw (probably down to the crests above the name hiding it a bit).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
461 Posts
The only reason that Hornby have done this with there latest batch of Steam Locos if purely financial and not for greater accuracy, the chassis tooling design for all of the latest in its present form is about 30 to 40% cheaper that the older type tooling and that's why do we have such a none prototypical models which frankly are a very poor excuse for an accurate model produced with today's technology.

Pete
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top