John Nuttall said the following on 29/09/2006 13:08:
Nope, but you can be sure that if it's anything like the current RTR
from Hornby, it is going to be bloody good for the pittance that these
things sell for.
"Ian J." wrote
In reality the amount of movement of such a bogie on the prototype would be
minimal, and as a result it's not an unreasonable compromise which Hornby
have made with the Britannia (and with their recently released models of the
ex-LNER A3 & A4 models). The fact that the pony truck wheel is flangeless
is not visible when the loco is in use on a layout.
The ridiculous loco to tender draw bar on the A3 & A4 is a much greater
issue for me (not actually seen a Britannia yet, but assume that's the
Ah, but the Merchant Navy has a 'proper' pony truck, and it works fine, so
why did Hornby choose such an obviously wrong arrangement for the Brit? Even
on 32 inch curves ( much more than the minimum 438 mm stated for the Brit),
the pony truck wheels just aren't in contact with the track properly, so
sometimes the wheels aren't even turning... I'm puzzled why the model's been
designed this way...
Because that was the Triang way of doing things, and obviously Hornby feel a
strong need to return to their heritage.
Next they will be doing a revamp of the Evening Star on an 0-4-0 chassis
with a push-along friction motor... keeps the costs down, makes it more
accessible to the disabled by making it easier to re-rail (in accordance
with the DDA), and gives us something to talk about on this newsgroup.
Because - whilst the truck under the MN probably follows the track
OK, it doesn't half look ridiculous, with the huge air gap under
The model of the Duchess is ruined in the same way, of course:
Horrible. Just horrible.
The A1/A3. OTOH, use the fixed truck with (as standard) flangless
trailing wheels (IIRC an alternate set of wheels with thin flanges
are available for suitably gentle curves):
and looks much the better for it. No vast yawning air gap where
the firebed ought to be.
The new Britannia looks like it's done the same way. The absence
of (over-scale :) flanges on the trailing wheels in the new 'un
seems a great advance on the pivotting truck and huge 'orrible
air gap of the old 'un:
Um. The Tri-ang Princesses had a pivotting rear truck (and 'uge, 'orrible
air gap), so you could say they're finally breaking away from that.
Well, the curves on most model layouts would be strictly for short-
wheelbase engines, if translated to 12"/' practice. Your main goods
engine would probably have to be something like:
- although I find it hard to see a down-side to that :)
To be honest, I so rarely look at a model at such a direct side-on view that
I'd never noticed, and certainly therefore never been bothered by, the
gap... Bearing in mind I've not heard or read any complaints about it
before, I wonder is it such an issue amongst modellers that it isn't right?
Or is this the result of the collector community that rarely runs but
frequently looks at locomotives starting to influence model design?
"Ian J." wrote
Having seen some of the junk which is collected I can't believe that market
is a factor, but I have to say that I much prefer the A3 & A4 models with
the fixed Cartazzi truck, and am happy to sacrifice the flanges on the
associated wheelsets for something which looks significantly more
Just a thought - I'm neither into OO nor the LNER, but does the
combination of outside frame/bearing for the real thing's rear truck,
and the narrower gauge leave room for hiding a cheat behind? Like an
actual pony truck with limited travel behind cosmetic outside
There is no need for the vast gaps Tri-ang Rovex left between truck frame
and mainframe on a _model_ locomotive. They made allowance for minimum
radius track traversing floor rugs, books and the like. With reasonably laid
track there is no need for more than about a millimeter of upward movement
of the truck.
If the model is designed as an 0-4-0 or 0-6-0 (with attached wagons
masquerading as bogies) then considerable sideways movement of the truck is
required as the entire loco will swing a long way, but if the bogies and
trucks are properly designed to guide the loco then very little sideplay is
required, particularly if that sideplay is divided amongst all the relevant
As a verification, measure your loco wheelbase from the center of the front
bogie to the rear truck axle. Place your rule along a section of snap track
with the "0" and wheelbase length against one rail and then with a second
rule measure the offset of the rail at the maximum. Half that measurement is
the greatest sideplay required of the truck. (in each of both directions)
I bet it's a much smaller distance than you imagine!