New photos of the Composite and Brake Caledonian coaches

QUOTE (Dan Hamblin @ 4 Oct 2007, 10:33) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I don't know what the X04 looks like, but the Hornby service sheet shows the motor:

http://static.hornby.com/files/ss-295-gwr-dean-4-2-2-303.pdf

Regards,

Dan

The XO4 is open frame & similar construction to that in the link but longer - this one looks more like an N gauge one.

The "new" loco will probably get a can motor costing about fourpence.

The tooling for these models dates from the early 1960s - 1963 I think.

QUOTE Hornby RTR is not good enough for me - that's why I model things from across the water.

AFAIK Hornby are big boys & should be able to take reasonable critisism without having to be defended.
Almost 45 years ago standards were rather different , and these things are of their age. This is a limited volume re-run of a vintage model for the collectors market. To base any comments about the standard of Hornby RTR on this release is plain daft - a fair basis would be the new Maunsell stock , and equally the B12 - of a similar ancient vintage but a regular in the catalogue and surely long overdue for retooling, noting that the range is a curates egg at present

As for retooling the Caley single, its a hopeless case. I've sat through a presentation by Dennis Lovatt of Bachmann at a model railway event - almost certainly his stock Bachmann presentation - and there's a bit where he says "What are we making in future? I can't tell you that, but I can tell you what we're not going to make ..." And up on the scene comes a photo of a HR Castle in LMS livery

The case against the HR Castle, according to Dennis Lovatt, is that there were only 20, they'd all gone by 1930 , and they never got south of Perth. Hence this is a non-starter for a RTR model.

Now compare the Caley Single - only one , only worked in a limited part of Scotland, gone by 1930. It's a much worse RTR prospect , economically , than the HR Castle. The only plus it has is railtour use in the 50s and preservation in a museum

The only reason Triang did it was they'd developed the Dean Single and wanted a second bodyshell to fit on the chassis , to make the economics look a bit better. As a result the loco boiler is the wrong length and the bogie isn't right either. To give it something to pull they developed a couple of CR coach sides which could be fitted to their modular Mk1s in place of the usual Mk1 sides . Hence the wrong bogies etc. The whole thing is and always was a marginal cost exercise to get a passible novelty item re-using as much existing tooling as possible to make it economic.

I don't think the figures stack up for a new RTR model of any Single . If you want a 4-2-2, you may find a kit - otherwise be prepared to scratchbuild . The only real candidates with sensible number built and a reasonable working life are the GN Stirling single (1870-1908) the MR Johnson Spinners (perhaps the most beautiful locomotives ever built - most of the other candidates being late 19th century 4-2-2s) - late 1880s to 1928 , with a fairly widespread range and scores built. There's an old K's whitemetal kit, but powering it has always been an issue - I believe early versions were supposed to be built tender drive, and the Dean Single (40 or 50 built and a working life of over 20 years)

Not promising . The Caley Single doesn't really stand a chance - apart from the accident of this low cost compromised exercise half a lifetime ago. I'm not exactly holding my breath for a RTR model of Aerolite or one of the other three 2-2-4Ts the NER built for inspection saloon duties. One class had all of 2 locos (!) and they lasted until the late 30s , so with Aerolite at the NRM they've got to be much stonger candidates for RTR than a new model of 123....... Don't think so somehow..

If you asked GW fans which they would prefer : a new state of the art GW 2-8-0 or 0-6-0 from Hornby , or a retooled Dean Single , it wouldn't be the Single. There are plenty of other locos in the Hornby range which could do with replacing with new tooling , it'll take time to get through the lot , and the Dean Single must be a very low priority indeed

The same goes for EM2. Just 6 or 7 locos built (can't remember which) , British service life 14 years (1954-68) geographical range a single line , 42 miles long from Sheffield Victoria to Manchester London Rd. Hopeless . One of those melancholy cases where a manufacturer tools up a model of a new design to invest in the future, then the future in question gets cancelled (Hornby's APT and Dublo's Co-Bo come to mind). And then there's the question of how to power it. Somehow I don't think sticking a 6 wheel motor bogie in there is going to please people jugding by the reaction to the ex Lima 66, and even that would require develkopment costs.

There's a perfectly good Victorian Railways B class to modern standards just been released (Auscision isn't it?) so reviving Transcontinental from the 50s seems beside the point

QUOTE (Ravenser @ 4 Oct 2007, 13:26) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>The tooling for these models dates from the early 1960s - 1963 I think.
Almost 45 years ago standards were rather different , and these things are of their age. This is a limited volume re-run of a vintage model for the collectors market. To base any comments about the standard of Hornby RTR on this release is plain daft - a fair basis would be the new Maunsell stock , and equally the B12 - of a similar ancient vintage but a regular in the catalogue and surely long overdue for retooling, noting that the range is a curates egg at present

For starters if anyone quotes me, please give me the courtesy I give others by leaving my name in the quote.

I agree, standards were very different 45 years ago - the point I (& others) have been making is that it should have been more clearly marked as a heritage model on the box - whilst most of us here know exactly what, here & when it came from not everyone does - in fact (& this is no disrespect to the member) one of our number has asked what an X04 motor looks like - just the example I was trying to emphasise. In spite of the impression some people seem to have got I fully support Hornby re-issuing the older stuff, provided that they are marketed as heritage or whatever. To be honest, I'm looking forward to seeing the battle space range again - oh to have the thing with the spike & the chance to really destroy the exploding boxcar again.

Over 30years ago when I went "over the water" the gap in standards between Hornby & Fleischmann was very noticable - take the Brittania & the DB01, very similar locomotives, both 4-6-2's with tenders - the FLM had fully flanged drivers, brake blocks, plug in smoke generator, working lights & masses of detail. With the exception of the flanges & the motion being heavier by today's standards it still looks good & mine runs better now (it's been DCC'ed) that it did when I bought it in around 1975. What did the "Brit" offer over the DB01 as a model, apart from being 1/3 of the price ?

The gap is much smaller now, as is the price, but RTR UK outline it's still not good enough for me - just take a look at the mechanism in the new Trix BR218 - that, apart from the "narrow gauge" of OO/16.5mm track. Yes, I could build etched kits but I don't have the time - I certainly admire people who do & appreciate the modelling skills of the people who do

I agree with dbClass on the issue of Hornby being up front that this is a heritage/reissue range and what that consists of. I was about to order Lord of the Isles from Hattons earlier this year. I thought it looked great in the catalogue and assumed it was a new release from all the hoo hah about it. I just happened to spot it on a visit to a model shop and was really taken aback by how basic and crude it looked in comparsion to the catalogue pictures. The tender looked very lightweight, crude and plasticky, and the coaches looked similar. I was really disappointed. I could easily have thought the same initially about the caledonian from seeing it on this press release.
Hornby should really make it clear that these are just reissues of the original releases. I for one was not aware of these things, since I have only recently got into the hobby again, and am not old enough to remember any of it first time around. I just get sucked in by the glitzy catalogue every year and the limited production run on this particular model.

You said " regardless of what the rivet counters think!"

***Gary, if its the original Triang moulds the rivet counters will think nothing - there will be no rivets to count

Actually, The relevance of rivet counting is very little, given the huge overall inaccuracy of the model, but thats not really the point.

Whilst I'd not touch it with a 50 foot pole, its a classic model and there will be many who will welcome it... and thats fine with me, each should enjoy the hobby in their own way.

I'd rather Hornby kept the tooling money for that outside frame 0-6-0 Kirtley anyway... a classic that was made in the hundreds and lasted from pre-grouping thru to BR....

and after thet, the 2f, 3f, 4f midland tender loco's, and the 2p and 4p compound......

Richard

QUOTE For starters if anyone quotes me, please give me the courtesy I give others by leaving my name in the quote.

How do you do that?

Not many members are aware that this feature exists.

QUOTE I agree with dbClass on the issue of Hornby being up front that this is a heritage/reissue range and what that consists of. I was about to order Lord of the Isles from Hattons earlier this year. I thought it looked great in the catalogue and assumed it was a new release from all the hoo hah about it.

QUOTE I agree, standards were very different 45 years ago - the point I (& others) have been making is that it should have been more clearly marked as a heritage model on the box - whilst most of us here know exactly what, here & when it came from not everyone does - in fact (& this is no disrespect to the member) one of our number has asked what an X04 motor looks like - just the example I was trying to emphasise. In spite of the impression some people seem to have got I fully support Hornby re-issuing the older stuff, provided that they are marketed as heritage or whatever. To be honest, I'm looking forward to seeing the battle space range again - oh to have the thing with the spike & the chance to really destroy the exploding boxcar again.

If you check out the 2007 catalogue Hornby make it very clear what the provenance of the model is and state that the only changes that they have made to the original model are to the chassis and motor to bring that up to modern standards (ie not Super 4 Track standards). They even mention "Tri-ang" in the catalogue in connection with the coaches which first appeared in 1963 and last appeared in 1973!

No doubt similar info will appear on the packaging.

And as Richard says, there are no rivets to count!

And whilst they may have upgraded the chassis I trust that it will run on Super 4 Track!

Happy modelling
Gary

PS in terms of "Heritage" marking virtually all model locomotives fall into this catagory! It would cause as much confusion as "DCC Ready", etc.

Now if Hornby put the word "Tri-ang" on the box...

And Hornby do own the "Hornby Dublo" trademarks (not "Tri-ang" unfortuneately).

QUOTE (alastairq @ 5 Oct 2007, 04:21) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>why so?

I refer to the targetting of those who prefer to air an opposing view.

Which seems to be given equal prominence to the provision of positive critiscm of proprietary products??
Your comment insinuates that we should just accept what we are given and accept it gratefully, or should we choose not to accept, it to suddenly acquire a completely new series of skills and take up the new hobby of brass kit building and to give up on ready to run. Ready to run has gradually improved through feedback to the manufacturer, your post implies that should not occur and that Chairman Hornby knows best. Hornby are quite receptive of customer feedback and would probably prefer to listen than to encourage people to take up other hobbies if they are not satisfied with what is on offer.

In this case they have improved the coaches from the ones in the original set so why not the loco? I think there is a fair chance they may well do that.

QUOTE (Dennis David)What the heck I'll throw my own two cents in as an outsider. Hornby might have been better advised to place this locomotive in a new series of retro models. Making it plain that this was basically a re-issue with some minor upgrading. Then I think I would agree with Gary and others that this set still has much appeal for those that may not have been around when the earlier models were available. There's nothing wrong with more what we would call now "toy" like trains. I like them on their own level. Given the small market this may be all that can be expected from Hornby.

Here Here.

I do like the model despite its extremply dubious accuracy (created for obvious economic and at the time engineering reasons) but i do object to being charged full whack for it. the railroad range is exactly the place for this loco.

Also people on this thread seem to have written off the rivit counters. they seem to have ignored the fact that many rivit counters would be extreamly interested in this loco. they can relativly easily slap a decent body onto the RTR chassis and they will have quite a nice loco. (disposing of the origional body over a convenient shoulder!!)

Peter

QUOTE (Gary @ 5 Oct 2007, 09:07) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>To be honest Brian the real issue is that you have a commercial interest in continental models and therefore we should be asking ourselves whether your comments, when made, are without prejudice.

Would that be a fair question?

Happy modelling
Gary

Yes it is a fair question & we do sell a fair amount of european HO rolling stock - however, most of our sales go to OO (& other scales) modellers, scenery, electricals, couplings, Faller Roadways (most converted to 4mm buses & trucks), road vehicles & so on.

My comments regarding UK/Euro are made generally as a private individual - at least I am completely honest & up front about who I am (including my full name) & my commercial interests - how many other people here have connections of some sort with the trade ? - even if it's only a part time job in the local model shop or they are very goods friends of the owner of a model shop ?

As I have said, I welcome comments regarding quality or other aspects of "euroland" models - I'll start off with a few critical remarks myself ;

Flanges - yes, a lot are overscale, even these days & I would prefer them to be more pleasing to the eye - however, in the case of St.Laurent we inherited the trackwork which has suffered in bit in the past from transit damage & not very easy to retain/replace due to to hand soldered catenery, so to me thay are acceptable, in the same manner that OO modellers accept the scale/gauge ratio.

I have had a few Fleischmann locomotives to repair with soldered wiring coming adrift. At the moment I have a FLN BR145 that corrupts decoders - the Lenz ones can be reset, the ESU ones have to go back to ESU !

I have had both FLM & Roco OHE/Diesel locomotives that have had shaft drive problems - a couple of shafts popped out & a couple where the joint goes onto the motor shaft being put on too far/not far enough - these were brought in for repair so they may have been like it from new or may have been fiddled with - don't know for sure.

If you look at my other posts you will see that I have been critical of the new Trix BR218 - as a model it's excellent in detail, looks & peformance, but I'm not impressed with the sound unit - the FLM sound unit is better IMHO.

So, I do not view euroland products with rose-tinted specs - I would very much like to try on St.Laurent (& stock) Hornby International but are unable to due to the commercial desision by Hornby to require an initial order of considerable cost & their recommended wholesalers vagueness in what is & is not available.

Regarding the issue of what is avaiable to stir the interests of UK modellers there are already a fair amount of reviews already posted on what is available.

As posted elesware I am off to Croydon for the weekend with St.Laurent so I may not be able to reply till next week - in the meantime Dave is off to Folkstone with the trade stand.

QUOTE (Gary @ 5 Oct 2007, 09:07) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>To be honest Brian the real issue is that you have a commercial interest in continental models and therefore we should be asking ourselves whether your comments, when made, are without prejudice.

Would that be a fair question?
As to commercial interests i have been watching this very carefully to see if any commercial interests come out on the forum and i have to say i dont think they ever have.

The staff at euroscale have only ever said basically the same thing that all the other continental modellers have- that they run better and have better detail and are totally indesctuctable (even in the event of nuclear war!).
On the rare occasions when the companies some of us are connected with are mentioned it is usually because it has been requested and because of their business they are in a position to provide the answer.

I think a good example of that was the thread on Hornby intl. i have been pretty annoyed about the availability and price of the models in the intl range but to hear from a retailer some of the many difficulties they have had when trying to deal with hornby was very interesting. we couldnt hear the other side of the story but we could get the view from the piggy in the middle.

another good example was where a thread developed into a discussion of low cost continental stock and they were able to provide a much better explanation of what was available than anyone else could have.

I think having the name of the business in the signature is pushing their luck though! i dont mind it but i am supprised they got away with it!
I think its worthy of a discussion in itself. but a word of warning before you start that thread Gary- people might think that you were not the right person to write a review of the Hornby select. and you might come in for alot more flack than the people with commercial interests.

As for criticism of euro models, i really have none but i would say that i find the reported indestructability of the models to be a bit of a myth. they break in exactly the same places that the brittish models do!

Peter

Back tracking a little:

dbclass50:
QUOTE For starters if anyone quotes me, please give me the courtesy I give others by leaving my name in the quote.

As it happens I don't know how to generate the header line in a quotation, so I have to add it manually above, as here. Same applies on the other forum on which I post. On the occasion in question, I forgot.

dbclass50:
QUOTE Over 30 years ago when I went "over the water" the gap in standards between Hornby & Fleischmann was very noticable - .....when I bought it in around 1975. What did the "Brit" offer over the DB01 as a model, apart from being 1/3 of the price ?

The thing is, that was over 30 years ago , when I'd just got my first trainset from Santa as a young lad. I'd argue that the only meaningful discussion now is a discussion about where we are today. And that for me means focusing on what Bachmann and Hornby have tooled up in the last 5-10 years, rather than benchmarking British outline RTR on something made from vintage tooling someone has found in the back of their tooling store

I'm a bit shocked MRF ran to 10 pages on the Hornby 66 - a marginal rerelease of an aging model originated by someone else (as it happens a Continental manufacturer) , which has been totally outclassed by a modern generation model from Bachmann. Meanwhile Bachmann's brand new 47 - representing the most common BR mainline diesel , with a 45 year service life - attracted just 10 posts in 2 threads. It will be very interesting to see how many pages we get on the brand new state of the art Hornby 56 when that appears in a few weeks

And here we go again - a collectors limited edition rerun of a model from more than half a lifetime ago , representing a singleton pregrouping loco has run to 3 pages of discussion. Total MRF discussion of Hornby's state of the art rebuilt Royal Scot , released a few weeks back , is under 20 posts. The Hornby Maunsell coaches have been out a week , and we are busy discussing release of some 45 year old toy "representations" of CR coaches in preference

I'd argue we need to move on and focus on today

dbclass50:QUOTE The gap is much smaller now, as is the price, but RTR UK outline it's still not good enough for me - just take a look at the mechanism in the new Trix BR218 - that, apart from the "narrow gauge" of OO/16.5mm track

Here we're into a fundamental issue for me. I'm interested in modelling certain prototypes - British ones as it happens- and I don't have any real interest in modelling railways I know nothing about and which therefore mean nothing to me. I would strongly dispute the idea that current generation OO models are of a standard so low as to create an obstacle to modelling British railways, or that they don't work properly so that a reliable British layout can't be built.

I'm not "product driven" - for me its not " what country has the tastiest RTR models ? I'll model that country then"

I don't think any Continental HO modeller would wish to claim that Piko or Mehano locos were "not fit for purpose" although there may be more detailed and sophisticated models of the same types available from others at much greater prices (And although I personally wouldn't have the Piko Corails if they were handing them out for free at the station - when all the windows are square not rectangular , it's not good enough for me). I can't imagine anyone saying that there's no point modelling something if you have to use Piko and Mehano as part of the layout. All I am arging is that Bachmann and Hornby are at least as good as those , if not better , and that's quite good enough for anyone to build a decent British layout if they wish.

If the Trix 218 is to be taken as a benchmark - lets put it head to head , like with like with the forthcoming Hornby 56 (or the Hornby 60), and see how they stack up, shape issues and mechanically . Lets put the Bachmann 66 head to head with the Mehano 66 and see how they stack up. Compare the Hornby Scot and Bachmann Ivatt 2MT with suitable Continental equivalents

How do the new Maunsells compare with bread and butter Trix/Maerklin HO coaches?

Neil S Wood
QUOTE In this case they have improved the coaches from the ones in the original set so why not the loco? I think there is a fair chance they may well do that

The sole improvement is a decent rendering of Caley livery using Sadakan's superb tampo printing. The tooling's untouched . To improve the loco would require retooling. And I think the only Single for which any case could ever be made economically is the Johnson Spinners. But they are way down the list of priorities

Richard Johnson:
QUOTE I'd rather Hornby kept the tooling money for that outside frame 0-6-0 Kirtley anyway... a classic that was made in the hundreds and lasted from pre-grouping thru to BR....

and after thet, the 2f, 3f, 4f midland tender loco's, and the 2p and 4p compound......

I'd agree Hornby need a MR 4-4-0 and 0-6-0 in the range from modern tooling. They've done the Compound before , and with the chassis from the M7 , 4-4-0s should be back on the agenda. They've not tooled any middlesize steam in recent years bar the 2-6-4Ts , and a return to the "4-4-0 from each group" , which was done by Meccano/Hornby in Gauge O in the 30s and by Hornby in the 80s /90s, makes sense. In both cases the LMS representative was the Compound - with a life of 60 odd years . I'd do the Compound again. The current 4F looks pretty but its a 25 year old tender drive ex Airfix. Do you retool the 4F , or go for one of the others? Do you do 2 0-6-0s , perhaps using a common chassis. Personally I'd go for the 4F and Johnson 2F over Deeley and Kirtley 0-6-0s . And I agree all of them are well ahead of a Spinner . You don't need the 4-2-2 till you have the Compound it's piloting

But the 4F is a medium term job - the B12 is far worse, and the lack of a decent LNER 0-6-0T from anyone is crying . Buckjumper, ROD and B12 please someone!

QUOTE (Ravenser @ 5 Oct 2007, 13:28) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>If the Trix 218 is to be taken as a benchmark - lets put it head to head , like with like with the forthcoming Hornby 56 (or the Hornby 60), and see how they stack up, shape issues and mechanically . Lets put the Bachmann 66 head to head with the Mehano 66 and see how they stack up. Compare the Hornby Scot and Bachmann Ivatt 2MT with suitable Continental equivalents

How do the new Maunsells compare with bread and butter Trix/Maerklin HO coaches?

Ravenser (sorry - don't know your first name) - all you have to do is leave the top line completely intact.

Be interesting to compare as you suggest - I would be prepared to bring along my Trix 218 & (when I have managed to obtain the right one) a Mehano 66 & maybe a FLM/Roco equivelent of the Scott/Ivatt, if a suitable venue can be found & agreed upon. Same goes for some coaching stock as well.

Who knows, it may even happen !