Hornby Railroad Black 5

The Hornby Railroad Black 5 seems to be available now. Has anyone seen
it? I understand that it's loco drive and the pictures on Rails' website
suggest that it's not using an ex tender drive tender if that makes sense
:)
Reply to
Gerald H
Loading thread data ...
"Gerald H" wrote
We got them in stock yesterday and they are definitely loco dive, although I think the tender is a demotorised former tender drive jobbie.
Why on earth they've re-used the number 5112 is anyone's guess; that was the number used on many of the tender drive versions. It must reduce potential sales.
The loco still looks an abortion, but at least it runs nicely - far better than the old tender drive models.
John.
Reply to
John Turner
The A1 and A4 use the old tender chassis, with a dummy Ringfield motor. The locos have the fixed rear bogie, but the Super-detailed Princess Coronation doesn't.
Reply to
MartinS
I bought a Bachmann 9F when they came out - for almost twice the price. Looks nice and runs well, but is finicky about some (but not others) of my second radius points.
Reply to
MartinS
Pedantry and semantics demand that I tell you that 'two wheels do not a bogie make' - this two wheeled trailing supporter of many a firebox is called a 'pony truck'. We may have to come up with a revised name now that it doesn't actually swivel. Suggestions?
I was not much enthused by this innovation by Hornby till I saw what an improvement in appearance was possible, and on my curves (4ft 6in and bigger) it makes not a whit of difference. Pity it took so long for this penny to drop- both for me and Hornby.
Alistair
Reply to
Alistair Wright
: : >
: >> The latest Princess Coronations appear to have the fixed rear bogie. : >> : >> John. : > Pedantry and semantics demand that I tell you that 'two wheels do not a : > bogie make' - this two wheeled trailing supporter of many a firebox is : > called a 'pony truck'. We may have to come up with a revised name now : > that : > it doesn't actually swivel. Suggestions? : : It's a "fixed carrying axle". :
Surely that would make the loco a "4-6-2-0", think about it...
What Hornby are doing with their models is some what similar to how Gresely engineered his Pacific's - allowing an element of *axle* side movement via the axlebox or horn-guides design, rather than the axle moving with the bogie frame - and it's simply known as a "trailing truck".
Reply to
Jerry
"Alistair Wright" wrote
What pees me off by it, is the fact that Bachmann have got around the problem with their Peppercorn A1 without having to resort to a fixed rear pony (actually a Bissell) truck & flangeless wheelset.
John.
Reply to
John Turner
"Jerry" wrote
Not absolutely sure on this, but think 4-6-2-0 would imply that both the '6 & 2' were powered.
There's one odd-ball example which contradicts that. It's the Gresley W1 which is generally referred to as a 4-6-4, but some learned scholars say it's really a 4-6-2-2 as the four carrying wheels under the cab are not connected in a conventional bogie.
John.
Reply to
John Turner
Yes, as in 4-8-8-4, it implies a duplex or articulated loco, albeit an unusual arrangement for such a loco.
MBQ
Reply to
manatbandq
Yes, as in 4-8-8-4, it implies a duplex or articulated loco, albeit an unusual arrangement for such a loco.
MBQ
Should check but thought you could have a 4-2-2-2 where the middle 2's are fixed carrying wheels of same size but not coupled. Think there were some on either LNWR or Midland which then had these 2nd pair coupled to give a 4-4-2 ?
Cheers, Simon
Reply to
simon
: : >
: > : : > : : > : >
: > : >> The latest Princess Coronations appear to have the fixed : > rear bogie. : > : >> : > : >> John. : > : > Pedantry and semantics demand that I tell you that 'two : > wheels do not a : > : > bogie make' - this two wheeled trailing supporter of many a : > firebox is : > : > called a 'pony truck'. We may have to come up with a revised : > name now : > : > that : > : > it doesn't actually swivel. Suggestions? : > : : > : It's a "fixed carrying axle". : > : : > : > Surely that would make the loco a "4-6-2-0", think about it... : > : : No.
Yes, as the loco in question needs a trailing truck of some description and not just a fixed axle (thus is would be missing it and would behave like a poorly designed 4-8-0), you obviously don't understand what a trailing truck does, it's not just a weight carrying axle - take away the suggestion of the axle being *fixed* and you are half way to a suitable name...
Reply to
Jerry
: > Surely that would make the loco a "4-6-2-0", think about it... : : Not absolutely sure on this, but think 4-6-2-0 would imply that both the '6 : & 2' were powered.
Well it could indicate that, as in the LSWR Drummond 4-2-2-0's were the two driving axles were powered by their own sets of cylinders but there were no coupling rods between the drivers, or it could just indicate a simple *rigid* [1] load carrying non driving axle.
[1] as in not having side control springs etc. the class that springs to mind is the LNER E4's.
: : There's one odd-ball example which contradicts that. It's the Gresley W1 : which is generally referred to as a 4-6-4, but some learned scholars say : it's really a 4-6-2-2 as the four carrying wheels under the cab are not : connected in a conventional bogie. :
W1 *was* a 4-6-4 and always was, the rear truck did the same job as done on the A3's and 4's etc. but had to carry a lot greater weight due to the larger boiler carried, at varying times in it's history the loco was fitted with a booster on the rear trailing truck, which is were some of the confusion probably occurs.
Reply to
Jerry
: Yes, as in 4-8-8-4, it implies a duplex or articulated : loco, albeit an unusual arrangement for such a loco.
WRONG again MBQ, you obviously have never heard of the 4-2-2-0 Drummonds of the LSWR have you...
What usually indicates an articulated locomotive is either class, maker (designer) or nickname, NOT wheel arrangement.
Reply to
Jerry
Compared to European 4-6-2s, British 4-6-2s did act like poorly designed 4-8-0s (without the rear axle being powered) because the trailing axle was not equalized and would therefore take more than it's share of weight available for traction in situations such as on the vertical curve into a gradient.
If a x-x-2 loco has the trailing axleboxes mounted on the rigid mainframe(sprung obviously) then the axle is _not_ on a truck. I could be wrong, but I understand the term for that is a rigid or fixed axle.
If the Gresly etc trailing axles were allowed free sideplay, then they were simple carrying axles with no other function.
Greg.P.
Reply to
Greg.Procter
Looking around the world there are numerous locos that refuse to fit into the normal notation. - Powered tenders conuse the issue. - The Bavarians built an Atlantic with a booster axle built into the leading bogie. The booster axle was normally held clear of the rails by upward operating springs but was pressed down by small steam cylinders when powered. Wheel arrangement 4-4-2 or (2-2-2)-4-2 depending on location.
Reply to
Greg.Procter

Site Timeline

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.