Turbomotive.

[Kim-344602]

It has always been a loco that I have wanted and was very interested when Hornby announced they were going to produce one. The are only a few that would argue the fact that Turbomotive was probably the most successful of all the experimental locos and it ran for a good period of time in revenue service often used on some of the prestigious Liverpool expresses. It is just a shame that Hornby have chosen to neglect that and produced 2 models, one of which only ran in service for about 16 weeks and the other for not that much longer.

She entered service on 29 June 1935. There were some initial teething problems which resulted in 5 works visit. On the 5th one which commenced 14 July 1926, she was fitted with a 40 superheater element domed boiler. The original 32 element one going to the later Princesses. Between 29 June 1935 and 14 July 1936, she was only out of the works for 16 weeks.

So by the time the first of the Coronations and many of the Stanier locos entered service, she had the domed boiler. It is similar with the coaching stock. Whilst running domeless, it would have been with mostly pre Stanier coaches which would have been fully lined. Few are available (Only the rather poor Mainline ones and the Dapoll/Hornby 12 wheel diner all of which are in the later simple livery)

I do feel it is a real shame that Hornby have chosen the model such an iconic locomotive not in the condition that she ran in for most of her time and which does not fit in with so many of the the other models that both Hornby and the other manufacturers produce.

If it had the domed boiler, I would have bought one but will have to revert to the original plan of kit building one.

[81F]

I wonder if it would be easier to get the BR version and remove the later fittings and repaint rather than kit building? Alternatively convert the domeless boiler.

On the subject of the DAPOL 12 wheeled dining car, they did do one in the fully lined LMS livery with a two tone grey roof. I only wish someone would make other coaches in the same livery as it looks decidedlu odd among coaches with the simplified livery.

[AndyMac1707817969]

Considering so much of the rest is the same I am pretty sure Hornby will produce this loco in all its guises to maximize the investment they have made in it. Doubt the models currently announced will be the only ones. Quite sensibly they are not attempting to produce everything in one go when they can have several releases over a number of years.

[Kim-344602]

I wonder if it would be easier to get the BR version and remove the later fittings and repaint rather than kit building? Alternatively convert the domeless boiler.

On the subject of the DAPOL 12 wheeled dining car, they did do one in the fully lined LMS livery with a two tone grey roof. I only wish someone would make other coaches in the same livery as it looks decidedlu odd among coaches with the simplified livery.

 

 

To answer both of your points. There are "other" problems with the LMS model. The reverse turbine was enlarged on the second works visit in September 1935 so it only ran with the small one as depicted by Hornby for about 9 weeks in service. However, the rain gutters on the cab roof were not added until after the Domed boiler was fitted. I have a set of the Turbomotive castings from a K's kit together with a K's Princess kit. There is probably as much work involved in building that as modifying and repainting the BR model.

 

 

As to the coaches, the livery change happened in 1934. Indeed some of the early Stanier period III coaches were fully lined when built. Generally, there was about 5 years between major overhauls and so the ratio of lined to unlined coaches would gradually change up to around 1939. The LMS did not run coaches in "sets" apart from a few exception like the Coronation Scot. So in real life most of the trains in the mid to late 30's would have been a mix of all 3 periods and indeed lining styles.

[Topcat1707821625]

I've been looking at the photos of Turbomotive on the Hornby website. In the photo second from the right in the set, which shows the right-hand side of the loco and the reverse turbine housing, it appears that the rear of the turbine housing is impinging on the flange of the bogie wheel.

In the first photo in the set, which shows the left-hand side of the loco, there appears to be a lot of space between the forward turbine housing and the bogie wheels.

In the right-hand photo the loco is shown on a track, whereas in the left-hand photo it is not. The bogie appears to be hanging on its pivot and canted slightly downwards at the front. The rim of the rear bogie wheel appears to be higher than that of the front bogie wheel and the driving wheels. Curious!

[LTSR_NSE]

Just the angle photo is taken from - since the chimney funnels are visible, it is obviously slightly from above.

[Fazy]

If you’ve spent a lot of money designing a model, knowing people will want one which would you produce first. Me I’d go with the shortest period possible knowing people will buy because they want one now. Then followed up with version that was longer lasting. That way you sell more. I fully expect the domed version out either next year or the year after.

[Kim-344602]

If you’ve spent a lot of money designing a model, knowing people will want one which would you produce first. Me I’d go with the shortest period possible knowing people will buy because they want one now. Then followed up with version that was longer lasting. That way you sell more. I fully expect the domed version out either next year or the year after.

 

 

I wonder if that is the principle behind the Princess's. I'm not sure even one of them is accurate. Mostly they are all the same but with different names and all very inaccurate. lol

[Fazy]

Princess Royals are all accurate for certain periods. What’s not accurate is the steam pusher in the coal bunker! Only one had it. And a second was fitted to the same tender for about a year months give or take before returning to the original engine.

[Kim-344602]

Princess Royals are all accurate for certain periods. What’s not accurate is the steam pusher in the coal bunker! Only one had it. And a second was fitted to the same tender for about a year months give or take before returning to the original engine.

 

 

Not so. You are right about the tender but many other things as well. The tender went to 6207 for 11 months between Nov 46 and Oct 47. In 62, it went to a Coronation. 6205 was the only one with the pipework to operate it.

They might be right for a given period but not in the livery they are in. Unfortunately, especially true of the red ones.

;)

[ColinB]

This one was highlighted on the Hornby program on the Yesterday channel. The guy that designed it was looking up the details from a old loco book, I mean he couldn't go and look at a real one. So perhaps the books he had were wrong, it wouldn't be the first time. Seeing as he was designing it from scratch that was probably all the information he had. Obviously Simon didn't know either as he would have pulled him up on it for fear of all those negative reviews on RM.

[Fazy]

What’s wrong? Because I went through the LMS princess royals loco profiles. All seemed correct. The boilers did get switched around abit which dose shorten the time period. 6205 is also correct for the beginning of her life, but wrong for its majority.

[Bulleidboy]

I recall the Hornby Turbomotive was produced from drawings supplied by the NRM - so probably fairly accurate from the drawings produced. I don't doubt there are other drawings that may differ from those produced.

I cannot wait for you all to hear the sound - this forum will go into apoplexy about how it does not sound correct. So we need a member on here who remembers seeing it in action and can recall accurately what it sounded likejoy

[Kim-344602]

I recall the Hornby Turbomotive was produced from drawings supplied by the NRM - so probably fairly accurate from the drawings produced. I don't doubt there are other drawings that may differ from those produced.

I cannot wait for you all to hear the sound - this forum will go into apoplexy about how it does not sound correct. So we need a member on here who remembers seeing it in action and can recall accurately what it sounded likejoy

 

 

It may well have been produced from drawings from the NRM. That wasn't my point. It is modeled in "as built" condition. It only ran like that for a very few weeks before the problems with the reverse turbine meant that a larger one was fitted (as per the BR model) and in an attempt to improve performance the domed 40 element boiler was fitted.

So it is a very nice "display" model but hard to use on a period layout because of the very short time span and lack of other stock which ran in those few weeks. ;)

[96RAF]

To add to the sacrilege of Hornby getting this Turbomotive wrong, I have decided to drag out an old shed-queen Pacific for which I cannot get new valve gear, etc and I will rip out all that fragile stuff and convert it into a Pretenda-Turbomotive, by sticking on a couple of turbine cover lumps, painting it in a fictitious livery and enjoying the low flying aircraft noise.

[Going Spare]

Presumably, then, the Pretenda will not be under DC or any of the versions of DCC control, rather ATC?

[96RAF]

🛫🌈🚦⛈️🛬

[atom3624]

Is this another sign of Hornby's falling standards - lack of attention to (real) detail?

Bit of a pity - I was waiting for this one, as Turbomotive has fascinated me since childhood - always wanted a model and this in principle appeared great ... on paper, apart from the bottom line ..

Al.

[Fazy]

Falling standards? the model isn’t even out yet.

model wrong? How so it did run like that. or are you going to take up the point about the Rocket never ran on the M&LR in yellow?

[Kim-344602]

Falling standards? the model isn’t even out yet.

model wrong? How so it did run like that. or are you going to take up the point about the Rocket never ran on the M&LR in yellow?

 

 

The model is already for sale though only the DC version so far. (Speculation but maybe the sound ones may be delayed because they will need a special profile rather than a generic steam one ;) )

 

 

 

 

[Kim-344602]

This one was highlighted on the Hornby program on the Yesterday channel. The guy that designed it was looking up the details from a old loco book, I mean he couldn't go and look at a real one. So perhaps the books he had were wrong, it wouldn't be the first time. Seeing as he was designing it from scratch that was probably all the information he had. Obviously Simon didn't know either as he would have pulled him up on it for fear of all those negative reviews on RM.

 

 

I never "accused" Hornby of falling standards. I think they are improving. However, I do feel there is still a long way to go and they are still behind most of the other manufacturers. I have no wish to upset anyone but I do get the feel (which was strengthened by that series of programs on TV) that there is still a closed mindset mentality. They may take 3D scans of the prototype and get works drawings etc. From those they can and do produce some very accurate models. But there is a huge amount of readily accessible data about the "life" of any particular loco. More so in this case as there are any number of volumes about Turbomotive. It is accurate as a model of the loco "as built". However after a few trials and some mishaps during those, she was very quickly modified and although the collectors may want one for their shelves, a version that represents how she ran for most of her time in red would be more appealing to those that wish to model a particular railway. The research should not be solely on how it was built but should also include how it was used.

[LTSR_NSE]

This thread appears to be generating confusion due to unrelated questions & answers being misinterpreted.

@kim - You appear to be not suggesting that either of the currently (being) produced Turbomotive models is actually wrong - only that you would like Hornby to produce (the/a) different guise that appeared between the current models. Is this correct?

As others have stated, Hornby will likely have deliberately chosen which versions to produce first, & therefore others may (or may not) appear in the range in the future.

Secondly @kim - You have however stated that there are faults with the Princess Royal models (in addition to already mentioned tender) would you care to elaborate these faults?

[SteveM6]

If I have read this thread correctly, Hornby have produced a model with details that match a particular period in time and have matched the sound accordingly but some still find reason to grumble.

🙄

[ColinB]

Look for once I will stick up for Hornby, to do all that people suggest would mean he would still be designing it, he has to work to timescales like most people so perhaps it is slightly wrong but to most people that buy this model it doesn't matter, they will never see one. It is nice to know the differences and as someone said perhaps later versions will add the extra bits as they are doing with the Hush, Hush. Personally I just hope they have got the bogie design right.

[SteveM6]

Look for once I will stick up for Hornby, to do all that people suggest would mean he would still be designing it, he has to work to timescales like most people so perhaps it is slightly wrong but to most people that buy this model it doesn't matter, they will never see one. It is nice to know the differences and as someone said perhaps later versions will add the extra bits as they are doing with the Hush, Hush. Personally I just hope they have got the bogie design right.

 

 

👍🏻