Re-engineering Wishlist

[JeremiahBunyan]

In 2016 Hornby announced the re-engineered LNER B17, quite frankly I think these kind of updates to a model are excellent. It's been done in the past by others and Hornby all the time. I think there's quite a few things in the Hornby range that could do with a re-tool, my list will obviously be more D&E but others should put in some steam era models.

 

- LMS Streamlined Princess Coronation Class

I seriously think the model is fine but ofcourse the chassis needs to be updated. The leading bogie needs to be refined, something that makes the current model look to-like. The cab could also benefit from better detailing and painting. So a new chassis with better defined wheels and a cab could be done?

 

- Southern A1/A1X Terrier

I think the Terrier will benefit greatly from an updated chassis with better wheels, NEM couplings and DCC.

 

- LNER J83

The LNER J83 could do with a better chassis and NEM couplings.

 

- Class 55 (Deltic)

If I am not mistaken Hornby us the ex-Lima tooling, which I think has many issues, a better body, better bogies and proper glazing will do wonders and will bring an iconic locomotive to the RailRoad range.

 

- Class 90

The Class 90 would look a lot more realistic if Hornby modified the tooling to incorporate the aerodynamic covering just beding the cab on the roof, I think the loco would benefit greatly in the front was re-done, the lighting and horn cluster is wrong on the model and needs to be re-done and the valance can be re-tooled to a more realistic level by having a full valance which can be interchangable with a valance that includes a slot for the coupling just like the Class 60.

 

- 4/5/6 and 7-plank wagons

I think Hornby lose their way when they get confused between their own products, the superdetailed range was meant to be for superdetailed models, these wagons still sit in the main range and just having a pair of metal wheels isn't always a luxury. I think the chassis (which I assume is a common one) can be updated with NEM couplings.

[Postman Prat]

 In addition to the chassis and couplings, the J83 could do with a new body. It wasn't particularly good, even at the time of it's original release.

The Deltic, as produced by Lima/Hornby, is too short. No matter what you do to make it look better it will always be TOO SHORT

[walkingthedog]

I'd leave the Deltic to Bachmann.

[The Doc]

I'm surprised Hornby didn't produced a loco-drive Dean Goods a few years ago when they revamped the 2P and 4F (former tender drive locos with the same Airfix heritage).  However, Oxford Rail have beaten them to it now, so maybe it's less likely to happen.

The Railroad ex-Lima diesels (class 31, 37, 42, 47, 73 and GWR railcar) have all (I think) been re-engineered in a similar way to the B17, in that they now have a five pole motor rather than a ringfield motor.  The class 55 may be too short, but I don't think that's too much of a problem so long as it remains an affordable Railroad item with a price well below the Bachmann version.

I think JB is spot on regarding the Hornby open wagon range - a real motley crew of ex-Airfix models with very fine brake gear (that still look good even if the mouldings are 30 years old), some ex-Mainline models, contrasting with crude Hornby offerings from the 1980s.  Some of these wagons have similar retail prices to Bachmann versions that are far more accurate replicas of what they are meant to represent (and include NEM pockets for those who want them).

As for the Railroad open wagons, they are pretty deadful.  Why give them the same underframe as the 4 wheel coaches/brake vans with footboards the whole length?  They should be binned completely, and the older wagons in the main range should be relegated to Railroad status.

My own personal re-engineering wish would be to build a proper scale J70 Tram loco body to sit on top of the Toby tram chassis (Toby is too wide and high to be an easy conversion project).

[LCDR]

 The J70 had got to be a 'no-brainer' especially with Hornby's track record with GER types!  The present Toby is OK for kids but does not allow itself to be used by serious modellers. How many Wisbech & Upwell model layouts might appear if a proper RTR J70 were available.

 

Now that all the previous Lima steam types have been re-engineered or released as new models (Crab & 94xx by the Blue Box people) and all the diesel and electrics  too, there is probably much more scope for brand new models instead.

 

Really there ought to be a Caledonian 0-6-0 (shades of Donald & Douglas) and a North Eastern 0-6-0 and 0-4-4T, because these are the most noticable gaps. The ex GER N7 and J69 are perhaps others that might be very popular.

 

Hornby seem to be happy to leave the 'bread & butter' freight stock to Bachmann and simply bring out some special and unusual types instead. What is perhaps more necessary are some matching pre-Grouping guards freight brake vans to marry up to the delightful pre-Grouping locomotives and colourful trader's coal wagons. Great Eastern & London & South Western for starters.

[Cat Whisperer]

The 0-6-0 generic Railroad chassis could be easily converted to a DCC ready chassis.  There is a train set DCC version of the 0-6-0 which would take the Sentinel blanking plug.  There are now two factories producing the generic 0-6-0 chassis, both the same.

 

The generic 0-4-0 chassis would also benefit from being made DCC ready, having converted many of these locos, it is a job I really do not like doing.  As these are used on so many entry level models, the less difficult they are for converting, the better.

 

If Dapol can make their ex-Airfix generic wagon chassis NEM, Hornby could also modify their ex-Airfix generic wagon chassis (and fit small loop couplings).  Would it add that much to the production cost, at the moment, fit coupling hook to coupling bar, fit coupling retainer then push in coupling, Dapol would be screw coupling pocket to chassis, fit coupling hook to coupling bar then push coupling in.  A plastic pin would work instead of a screw.  Not expensive.

 

Definately ditch those ugly, stupid Troublesome Trucks from Railroad, train sets and the rest of it.  Arguably Hornby's worst product.  They spoil train sets, especially things like eLink sets which are aimed at adults (I suppose).  They look particularly rubbish for Thomas in any case.

[Rup1]

 Am I allowed to ask for some de-engineering?

Can Hornby ditch the tender-loco fixed coupling on the Bulleid pacifics, its just a pain (or if they don't can they at least redesign the box so it doesn;t remove bits from the front of the loco or the tender if you choose to put discs on the locos).

Something that would be great re-engineered would be a County Class - seems to be naturally next in line.

[Carltonf]

The one ex-Lima model I don't believe Hornby have ever re-released, is the Class 27.  It really wasn't a bad model, but with a new motor and better glazing, this would be a great model for Railroad range.  In Blue, post-TOPS with a scottie dog motif please!!

[Rup1]

 Something that would only require a subtle tweak would be the current Britannia model to replicate the examples of the class that were Western allocated. Seems to be a gap in that range - also given some of those ones had the best names it seems a shame.

I know Morning Star was released a few years ago as a railroad model, but given it was tender drive and all it wasn't as good as it could have been especially with the super-detail fitted to to most of the full range products.

[81F]

 Theyve done the Horse Boxes and Six wheeled milk tanker, how about the the old LIMA GWR Siphon G

[LCDR]

 Agree about the Syphon.

 

The Lima BR CCT could also do with a 'makeover', it has appeared as part of the TTTE range with silly lettering,  but it wasn't a bad model in its heyday and a new BR livery paint job and better wheels would do it proud. , Same for their GUV.

 

Lima had quite a nice range of wagons and NPCCS vehicles.

[The son of Triangman]

Re-engineering, hmmm mixed views on it. I see the point of updating a toy(model?) but on the other side of the coin OO is an inaccurate scale and has an inaccurate narrow track gauge, masses of fine detail isn't really relevant as the Toys(models) have to have compromises to fit. It doesn't matter how much detailing and how close in 0.000000000001 mm to the right position a rivet is, the model will still be a compromise Toy (model), wrong track gauge, off the shelf track with HO sleepering and spacing, locos the wrong height from railhead to allow a motor to be put in or wrong length, driving wheels slightly too small etc.  They are toys and not models so does all that fine fally off detailing really matter?

[LNER_maniac_13]

Re-engineering, hmmm mixed views on it. I see the point of updating a toy(model?) but on the other side of the coin OO is an inaccurate scale and has an inaccurate narrow track gauge, masses of fine detail isn't really relevant as the Toys(models) have to have compromises to fit. It doesn't matter how much detailing and how close in 0.000000000001 mm to the right position a rivet is, the model will still be a compromise Toy (model), wrong track gauge, off the shelf track with HO sleepering and spacing, locos the wrong height from railhead to allow a motor to be put in or wrong length, driving wheels slightly too small etc.  They are toys and not models so does all that fine fally off detailing really matter?

The reality is the track gauge issue is hardly likely to be sorted any time in the near future. Even EM and P4 modellers can't make up their mind as to which is better (I say this as someone who has done a small amount in P4). As far as track goes, Peco and DCC Concepts (as mainstream, well-known manufacturers, I am well aware of companies such as C&L that have done this for a while) are in the process of introducing much more accurate bullhead track with 4mm scale sleeper spacing. For set-track, there is very little point doing this, as the majority of people who use it don't mind about the scale/gauge inaccuracies.

The point about upgrading the models, in some cases e.g. Class 55, is to fix issues such as locos being too short/long/small/tall. A perfect example of how Hornby have done this is the B12/3. The original Triang model, kept in the Hornby range for a number of years, was too short (among other issues), however the re-released model has been praised by most, for it's detail and accuracy. Therefore it seems reasonable that the more popular models might benefit from the same treatment - e.g. the standard 4 wheel wagons. Whilst the new wagons being released are being fitted with NEM coupler pockets, I know that many people (myself included) have on occasion gone for Bachmann or Dapol products rather than Hornby, simply to enable the couplers to be changed more easily. Whilst many modellers still use the large tension locks (I use Kadees personally), having NEM pockets allows them to be switched around far more easily.

I do however agree with the statement that as far as locos go, the extra cost of remaking ones already available from other manufacturers does somewhat decrease the value in upgrading them. Whilst it may be cost effective to upgrade/remake items such as the J83, which aren't available from any other R-T-R manufacturer, items such as the Deltic, Class 25 and 14xx, which are already in production from the likes of Bachmann, Heljan etc, all it would do is saturate the market. In these instances it is in fact better to leave them as entry-level models, with minimal detail however with the option for the buyer to detail them themselves. Thus even a basic upgrade such as fitting DCC sockets and NEM pockets would be of benefit. Certainly my reason for not going DCC far earlier than I have is that I have a number of models which belong/ed to my father, which are not DCC ready, and I wasn't willing to take the risk of potentially ruining the model in an attempt to DCC fit them. 

In the end, it really comes down to a model-by-model basis, as some would benefit from having a complete retool as per the B12, but others would be better with a basic upgrade (NEM pocket and DCC socket). Of course, the cost and time required for this would have to be taken into account, thus such a project of upgrading models would take a number of years. 

Just my thoughts on the subject.

[walkingthedog]

What you need to realise Dalek is that SoT would have us all running models from the 50/60's. He is a real expert with these models and has a great passion for them. His knowledge on here is indispensable. His idea of fine detail is having the correct number of wheels, isn't that right SoT?   😆 😆 😆

[LCDR]

 The hobby caters for such a broad range of interests there will never be one right answer. If you compare the detail and the operating features that are possible today with what was available when I started out there is a world of difference. There is always going to be a heap of nostalgia for the toys of our childhood, but this should not be permitted to hold the hobby back.

 

Detail and accuracy should not be confused with fragility, nor should it be an excuse for poor quality control.

[The son of Triangman]

Right number of wheels certainly helps WTD. I model in P4, proper-ish scale as well as OO so can see how bad OO is.  OO items are toys rather than models no matter how much detail is thrown at them. You can still get proper servicable motors for P4 locos as well unlike OO models of today with their disposable non-servicable motors. There's no real solution alas, OO for toys, P4 for tru-ish scale both have their place.

 

Deepfat, Bachmann and Hornby track will still be wrong alas with it's HO scale sleepering and incorrect track gauge.  I guess it's making best use of the incorrect scale OO toy scale we all use. 

 

LC&DR raises a good point about fragility and poor quality control by the makers. I agree level of detail and accuracy should not be confused with level of build quality. Sadly the magazines that lead the market by the nose often get carried away by making the classic mistake of confusing level of detail with build quality.

 

We are at the mercy of mistakes made in the early days of railway modelling by the likes of Hornby-Dublo and others.

 

There is no real solution to the inaccuracies of toy scale OO or model scale P4, both are compromise scales as full scale curves for instance would take massive amounts of room.

[The son of Triangman]

Interestingly on the issue of track. Tri-ang did address some of the track issues with it's Super 4 track system which had close to scale sleepering, but had to maintain the old deep rail profile for backwards compatibility.  If it had gone with code 75 finescale rails it would have been a great track system for OO.

[LCDR]

 The question of scale and gauge is also further confused by the need to cram a full sized main line railway on to a baseboard  8 feet by 4 feet. The curves which are necessary that have to be negotiated by a Pacific hauling corridor carriages at speed are far sharper than any ever found in a dockyard or factory where a tiny 0-4-0 creeps about with short wheelbase trucks!

 

Interestingly I have ready to run models of SR Battle of Britain Pacific and Schools classes which are to 7mm scale but which will, at a pinch, negotiate 2 foot radius curves. This is achieved by adopting coarse scale Gauge O which uses wide tread wheels, side play and closer back-to-back flanges.

 

I have also to express my agreement about the undue influence of the model railway press who do not appear to recognise the realities of private individuals having to make massive compromises to enjoy their hobby. The layouts usually featured are huge club built edifices, or the work of one of those lucky individuals who has a 30 foot barn.

 

Us poor mortals who if we want to model in scale are confined to a branch line terminus to fiddle yard, for which an A4 Pacific or a Beyer Garratt will be completely inappropriate.

 

At one time publications like the Railway Modeller under Cyril Freezer concentrated on how to get the best from a small space (remember Minories?) but today you haven't arrived untill you have Ribblehead in your front room!