What could do with a re-tool or an upgrade?

[SkyCube]

As far as I know practically all the UK mainline diesel types are produced by at least one of the 00 manufacturers, so if Hornby don't make it another company probably does. Some locos like the class 47s are made by several.

[mortehoe]

Jeremiah said:

Guess we'll have to wait and see then...! I feel Hornby neglects the modern era!! Would like to see some nice modern stock

I for one think that Hornby have neglected Pre-Grouping stock.
Pre-Grouping stock lasted for

many years, well into the 1950's, and even beyound.

[mortehoe]

I think that LC&DR had the idea of placing some of the older Triang items into the Rail Road range. How about if the moulds are up to it release one or two a year as " Club Loco's ".

[SkyCube]

It always seems to have been assumed pre-grouping stock wouldn't sell as well, but the B-team's success with the C class and GW Cities would seem to show otherwise. Hopefully Hornby will give older stock some more thought in the future.

 

 

[Postman Prat]

 

Hi Skycube

 

Not only have the B team done the SE&CR class C and the GW City but they've had a major attack at Great Central types.The class O4, D11 'Butler Henderson' and a J11 still to come shows a major commitment to, at least, the GCR. It's

 

a pity appropriate stock for these to haul hasn't been forthcoming (a familiar cry)

 

Hopefully this commitment will bring it's rewards and both companies will see that pre-grouping can be popular. That may increase the chances of me getting some of my

 

'wants' from the NER

 

[LCDR]

As I have said before, I believe, there is a great deal more scope modelling pre-grouping locomotives and rolling stock, and Hornby can get much more mileage from pre-grouping models because they can be produced in a variety of liveries and thus get more

 

out of them by appealing to a greater interest group. The problem has been in the past that they haven't chosen the right prototypes. Ages ago I suggested the Wainwright 'C' to Hornby, but they ignored it. Now the blue box team are reaping the rewards.

 

All

 

is not lost of course. The North Eastern and Great Eastern are two railways that would certainly drum up a lot of new sales. There is a lot of interest in these two lines. The Caledonian too would create a good deal of interest especially in the bright blue

 

livery.

 

Certainly there needs to be matching rolling stock, although for pre-grouping lines the minimum would be a matching brake van, the large range of colourful private owner mineral wagons being useful in making up appropriate trains. Stock was

 

exchanged between companies so it would not be necessary to make one of everything for each of the many pre-grouping companies.

 

 

 

Postman Prat said:

 

 

Hi Skycube

 

Not only have the B team done the SE&CR class C and the GW

 

City but they've had a major attack at Great Central types.The class O4, D11 'Butler Henderson' and a J11 still to come shows a major commitment to, at least, the GCR. It's a pity appropriate stock for these to haul hasn't been forthcoming (a familiar cry)

 

Hopefully

 

this commitment will bring it's rewards and both companies will see that pre-grouping can be popular. That may increase the chances of me getting some of my 'wants' from the NER

[rayarpino]

Weyhaye Postman Prat wi bin waitin' hower long for NER engines, steam n'electric! Hornby please divven't wait or the blue box will get onto them.

This having been said, I would also like to see a completely new model of the GWR single, with a new drive

 

train, perhaps with a good, modern tender drive to have some real traction, though I don't generally like this system, or power through the driving and trailing wheels (another company as you well know have fitted this to a toy Stirling single and it works

 

better). And then why not have a (much) cheaper old version the Railroad range.

[Postman Prat]

 

Hadaway, man. Divent chunter aboot thu GWR.

 

We've enough to do for the NER without giving time to the "God, What Rubbish!"

 

[Awaite]

It is high time that the Wrenn R1 was upgraded.

 

I think that Harry Wainwright's R1 in SECR green, or any of the other liveries that these locomotives carried, would be a superb addition to the Hornby range.

 

[The son of Triangman]

The R1 was made in SECR Green by Wre.n.

 

Hornby don't own the mould for it so I doubt if Hornby would upgrade it.

[The son of Triangman]

A "cardean" 903 class in Caley Blue would be nice, I remember a G.m kit of te model that used the B12 loco chassis. It could be done as a railroad model and main range model using the new smart tooling method.

[LCDR]

Wasn't the tooling lost in the fire?

 

Actually rather than the R1 Hornby ought to consider making the 'H' 0-4-4T. Otherwise I strongly predict Barwell will beat them to it. The 'H' was very similar in appearance to the Hornby Dublo modelled 'R1'

 

with the same flared bunker and 'Pagoda' cab. There were 66 of them, and 64 entered BR stock. They operated all over the South of England, and one (31263) is preserved in Sussex as SE&CR 263.

 

The 'R1' were rebuilds of the SER 'R' class (not to be confused

 

with the LC&DR 'R' & 'R1' 0-4-4T) of which 25 were originally built by Stirling with round topped cabs and domeless boilers, and 13 subsequently rebuilt by Wainwright using the 'H' type cab (for some) and the 'O1' type domed boiler. All the non-rebuilt locos

 

were scrapped or sold by the SR. Every one of the 'R1' rebuilds were different. Some had sandboxes attached to the smoke box wing plates like the HD model, but others had them under the running plate. Some retained the Stirling round cabs, and were fitted

 

with short stove pipe chimneys and cut down domes for working the Canterbury and Whitstable line. Others had the round cab and low dome, but the tall chimney was retained.

 

The son of Triangman said:

 

The R1 was made in SECR Green by Wre.n.

 

Hornby

 

don't own the mould for it so I doubt if Hornby would upgrade it.

[LCDR]

The NER like the GWR was a total monopoly over a wide area, the biggest difference being they had to depend upon the GER to get their passengers from London. I know from personal acquaintances that there are considerable numbers of adherents in the north

 

of England.

 

As such it cries out for attention by the Model Railway industry. Even kits are few and far between. That is despite the excellent efforts by the NERA in recording and publishing details of everything they had.

 

The G5 replica project

 

may give impetus to attention by one of the big manufacturers, but my money is NOT on it being Hornby. Despite the success of their T9 and M7 Hornby don't seem to have grasped that small engines are much more useful than large ones to serious modellers.

 

 

Postman

 

Prat said:

 

 

Hadaway, man. Divent chunter aboot thu GWR.

 

We've enough to do for the NER without giving time to the "God, What Rubbish!"

[LCDR]

Sorry, Freudian slip - for GER please read GNR

[Tracksy]

I wouldn't say modern era is neglected all together because we definitely can see some superb Diesel locos (67 anyone?) and DMUs. What is neglected are the EMUs and AC locos in particular. There are barely any EMUs (blue box 350 is stunning however) and

 

exactly zero properly tooled and motored AC locos from any manufacturer (blue box 85 does not count since those locos are withdrawn in real life) in 00 scale. There is a rumor Hornby are to retool the Class 92 in 2014 but don't

 

get your hopes up just yet.

[LCDR]

Not being a modern traction enthusiast myself as such I am not that familiar with the present selection of electric locomotive models, however we did have a 'corporate blue' era layout many years ago, and we had a Hornby 86 and Lima 87 on it and apart

 

from the pantographs I thought these were reasonable representations of the real thing and fully in keeping with the 'design clever' philosophy, that will see handrails, jumper cables and the like as moulded and not separately applied detail in future.

 

So

 

what would you like to see done to improve these models - specifically? I can see that a more detailed and scale pantograph. However for a working toy it has to be reasonably robust, and one made to scale would not survive normal use on a layout. Are Hornby's

 

models dimensionally inaccurate? To my untutored eye they looked reasonably close to scale.

 

I don't disagree that electric multiple units both AC and DC have been grossly neglected, and would rather hope that Hornby will find space in their production

 

for an AC EMU at some point, perhaps choosing a second generation one perhaps from the 313, or 317 families. A 1950s inner suburban DC unit and a DC straight electric third rail locomotive too would not go amiss, together with a re-introduction of the 466.

 

 

'

 

 

Tracksy said:

 

I wouldn't say modern era is neglected all together because we definitely can see some superb Diesel locos (67 anyone?) and DMUs. What is neglected are the EMUs and AC locos in particular. There are barely any EMUs (blue box

 

350 is stunning however) and exactly zero properly tooled and motored AC locos from any manufacturer (blue box 85 does not count since those locos are withdrawn in real life) in 00 scale. There is a rumor Hornby are to retool the Class 92 in 2014 but don't

 

get your hopes up just yet.

[SkyCube]

I've often suspected that a problem with overhead electric is that serious modellers are less keen on them as they don't want to have to put up fiddly overhead wires everywhere. Might be wrong on that though.

[walkingthedog]

I agree SkyCube, you can just about get away with having a SR layout without a third rail, but how much better it looks with one, however, running locos with pantographs without the overhead wires looks very odd.

[The son of Triangman]

I thought the mould was destroyed too LC&DR, but there must have been a second tooling for the R1. A tiny company trades as Wre.n and makes new R1 bodies if you have deep pockets.

[LCDR]

The son of Triangman said:

I thought the mould was destroyed too LC&DR, but there must have been a second tooling for the R1. A tiny company trades as Wre.n and makes new R1 bodies if you have deep pockets.

With about four

complete ones, including a genuine HD boxed one, plus about half a dozen bodies in various stages of conversion to 'H's using amongst other things Airfix 0-4-2T mechanisms I am unlikely to shell out for any more.

They still turn up second hand fairly

regularly as they were one of Hornby Dublo's big sellers, so I am surprised they have much of a market for them.

[Tracksy]

LC&DR said:
So what would you like to see done to improve these models - specifically?

Well... everything to be honest. Lets take for example the class 90. There are major mistakes on it such us the completely wrong face or the

inappropriately proportioned grills. The class 92 has its Channel Tunnel logos missing (they are just painted), the body sits too high on the bogies, the third rail shoes are missing, the front windows are wrongly etched, there are black circles around the

lights that are missing as well and so on...
We need to have all electric locos fitted with proper central body motors (!), metal handrails installed (!), working lights installed (only 92 has them!), cabin lights, sprung buffers installed (!) and buffer

details included (!). Some inaccuracies should be fixed as well and all locos need new pantographs (!). The class 86, 87 and 92 models seem to me to be the closest to the real locos so those will be the easiest to do. Class 90 is the worst (accuracy wise)

and needs the most attention and the class 91 looks more like a toy than a model.

[SkyCube]

LC&DR said:
So what would you like to see done to improve these models - specifically? I can see that a more detailed and scale pantograph. However for a working toy it has to be reasonably robust, and one made to scale would not survive normal

use on a layout.

I dunno, the pantographs on the B-mann class 85 look pretty good to me, as do pantographs on many euro models. If Hornby retool their electrics I'd hope they do them that way.

[LCDR]

Ah well, I fear you may be disappointed. Hornby with their 'Design Clever' policy seems to be going down the route of simplification. You might get the proportions of the class 90 sorted out, although, if it requires a completely new body the chances get

 

slimmer, but I think the days of separately applied metal handrails are fast disappearing. Things like smoke-box darts and deflector handrails are now moulded rather than applied separate items on steam locomotives, so things like cab handrails and jumper

 

cables, low relief logos (for instance the cast BR symbol or Swallow logo) on diesels and electrics may be printed on in future. It is a return to the 1980s. I have Lima models of that era, and a class 52 Western had all these features as either moulded or

 

printed detail, and at 'normal viewing distance' is hardly noticeable.

 

Others on this forum have been calling for more robustness, and this can only be achieved at minimum cost by simplification of detail, and a certain amount of liberty taking.

 

There

 

is of course scope for putting some of these things right yourself. Adding handrails, replacing missing paintwork, etc. You won't be able to overcome a body that is out of proportion, but it is amazing what can be done to transform a 'toy' into a model.

 

I

 

am reminded of a series of articles to convert a 'Big Big Train' diesel into (a) a class 35, and (b) a class 81, many years ago. The basic thing is a crude battery operated toy, but by rubbing down extraneous moulding, filling in holes, glazing, adding detail

 

such as hand rails, a really good paint job it suddenly became a good 'O' gauge model of an actual class 35 type.

 

The 81 conversion was exceptional, so much so that I copied it in OO with a Hornby class 35, and made a 81 to run on the family layout.

 

The pantograph had to be scratch built as did all the roof 'furniture' but the cab conversion was elegant, turning the lower half upside down to get the characteristic sloped front.

 

It does take a certain amount of courage to take a razor saw to one

 

of your precious models, but usually, if you are careful, the end result is worthwhile.

 

 

 

Tracksy said:

 

Well... everything to be honest. Lets take for example the class 90. There are major mistakes on it such us the completely wrong

 

face or the inappropriately proportioned grills. The class 92 has its Channel Tunnel logos missing (they are just painted), the body sits too high on the bogies, the third rail shoes are missing, the front windows are wrongly etched, there are black circles

 

around the lights that are missing as well and so on...

We need to have all electric locos fitted with proper central body motors (!), metal handrails installed (!), working lights installed (only 92 has them!), cabin lights, sprung buffers installed (!)

 

and buffer details included (!). Some inaccuracies should be fixed as well and all locos need new pantographs (!). The class 86, 87 and 92 models seem to me to be the closest to the real locos so those will be the easiest to do. Class 90 is the worst (accuracy

 

wise) and needs the most attention and the class 91 looks more like a toy than a model.

[walkingthedog]

The 'design clever' pipework on the Duke of Gloucester I looked at at Ally Pally looked really good. You have to look very closely to see that they are not separate items.

[walkingthedog]

I add wire handrails etc. if I think a loco needs them.